Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a classroom teacher on an annual contract basis. Respondent first began working for Petitioner in February 1987, as an elementary teacher at Westview Elementary School. She taught at Westview Elementary School from February 1987 to the end of the 1986-87 school year and at Miami Park Elementary School during the 1987-88 school year. Both Westview Elementary School and Miami Park Elementary School are public school in the Dade County School District. For the 1988-89 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach a first grade class at Westview Elementary School. At the time of the final hearing, Respondent was 29 years of age. Respondent had received training as to Petitioner's disciplinary policies. She was aware of Petitioner's general disciplinary policies and the specific disciplinary procedures in place for Westview Elementary. During the 1988-89 school year there was in place at Westview Elementary an assertive discipline policy which was designed to discipline students without the use of physical punishment and which prohibited the use of physical force by teachers in the discipline of students. Teachers were instructed to remove disruptive students from the classroom by referring them to the administration office. If a student would not willingly go to the administration office, the teachers were to summon an administrator to the classroom to take charge of the disruptive student. In Respondent's classroom at Westview Elementary there was a coat closet that had hooks and shelves for storage. This closet was left without light when the two doors to this closet were closed. S.W., D.C., and D.W. were, during the 1988-89 school year, first grade students in Respondent's class at Westview Elementary. From the beginning of the 1988-89 school year, Respondent disciplined S.W., D.C., and D.W., individually, by placing each of them at various times in the coat closet and by then closing the two doors to the closet. On each occasion, the respective student was left in darkness. Respondent administered this punishment to S.W., a student Respondent characterized as having emotional problems, on seven separate occasions. Respondent administered this punishment to D.C. on at least one occasion and to D.W. on more than one occasion. Respondent knew, or should have known, that this form of discipline was inconsistent with Petitioner's disciplinary policies. During the 1988-89 school year, D.N. and S.M. were first grade students at Westview Elementary School who were assigned to Ms. Ortega's class. On February 14, 1989, Respondent observed D.N. and S.M. fighting while returning to their class from lunch. Ms. Holt, a substitute teacher temporarily assigned to that class while Ms. Ortega was on maternity leave, was the teacher in charge of D.N. and S.M. Respondent did not think that Ms. Holt could manage D.N. and S.M. Instead of referring the two students to the administration office, Respondent, with the permission of Ms. Holt, took D.N. and S.M. to Respondent's classroom to discipline the two students. Respondent had not been asked to assist Ms. Holt in this fashion. Respondent placed D.N. and S.M. in separate corners of the room and instructed them to be quiet. While Respondent attempted to teach her class, D.N. and S.M. continued to misbehave. D.N. began playing with a fire extinguisher and S.M. began writing and drawing on a chalkboard. To discipline D.N., Respondent tied his hands behind his back with a red hair ribbon. While he was still tied, Respondent placed the end of a broom handle under D.N.'s chin, where it remained propped until it fell to the floor. Respondent then placed the fire-extinguisher into D.N.'s tied hands to show him that the heavy fire extinguisher could harm him if it fell on him. These actions took place in Respondent's classroom in the presence of Respondent's class. Respondent frightened D.N. and almost caused him to cry in front of his fellow students. Respondent exposed D.N. to embarrassment and subjected him to ridicule from his fellow students. Respondent knew, or should have known, that this form of discipline was inconsistent with Petitioner's disciplinary policies. To discipline S.M., Respondent placed him in the coat closet. Respondent closed one of the doors and threatened to close the other door if S.M. did not remain still and quiet. After S.M. did not obey her instructions, Respondent closed the other door of the closet which left the closet without light. While S.M. was in the coat closet, Respondent remained stationed by the second door and continued instructing her class. After a brief period of time, Respondent let S.M. out of the dark closet. Respondent knew, or should have known, that this form of discipline was inconsistent with Petitioner's disciplinary policies. D.N. and S.M. remained in Respondent's class until a student sent by Ms. Holt summoned them to the library to participate with the rest of their class in vision and hearing testing. D.N. had to walk from Respondent's class to the library with his hands tied behind his back. This exposed D.N. to further embarrassment and ridicule. Ms. Holt untied D.N.'s hands in the library in the presence of other students. The ribbon which Respondent had used to bind D.N.'s hands behind his back left red marks on D.N.'s wrists. Ms. Holt immediately reported the incident to the principal. During the course of its investigation into the incidents involving D.N. and S.M., Petitioner learned of the prior incidents during which S.W., D.C., and D.W. were punished by being placed in the closet. Following the investigation of the Respondent's disciplinary methods, Petitioner suspended her without pay on May 17, 1989, and instituted proceedings to terminate her annual contract. Respondent timely demanded a formal hearing of the matter and this proceeding followed. The progressive discipline approach used by Petitioner in some cases involving teachers who violate disciplinary procedures usually requires that a reprimand be imposed for the first offense. Subsequent violations by the teacher would result in the imposition of progressively severe sanctions, culminating in dismissal. The progressive discipline approach is not used in a case involving a serious breach of policy such as where an established pattern of violations is established. Respondent's repeated practice of placing students in a darkened closet, which began at the beginning of the school year and continued into February when the incident involving D.N. and S.M. occurred, established a patterned breach of disciplinary procedure. Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the school became impaired because of her repeated breaches of discipline policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a final order which finds Katherine R. Santos guilty of misconduct, which affirms her suspension without pay, and which terminates her annual contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3064 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Recommended Order. The students, who are identified by initials, are described as being first grade students rather than as being a specific age. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in part by paragraphs 5 and 9 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact relating to Respondent's having struck a student with a ruler and having twisted the ears and arms of other students are rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted in material part by paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are adopted in material part by paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in material part by paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 16 and 17 are rejected as being the recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings made. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed finding that the ribbon was tied loosely is rejected because of the marks left on the student's wrists. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being the recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being conclusions and as not being findings of fact. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are rejected. A finding that none of the students were struck or hit is rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. A finding that none of the students were abused is rejected as being a conclusion that is unnecessary to the results reached and as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The greater weight of the evidence is that Respondent had been advised as to Petitioner's disciplinary policies and that she knew or should have known that the forms of punishment she was using violated those policies. The proposed finding of fact in paragraph 10 that the discipline inflicted on these students does not amount to corporal punishment is rejected as being a conclusion that is unnecessary to the results reached and as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The remaining proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in material part. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Office of Professional Standards 1444 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 215 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, Alfreda Grady, should be terminated from her employment as an instructional employee with the Broward County school system.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, post-hearing memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. By its six count Petition for Dismissal, Petitioner, through the person of its Superintendent of Schools, William T. McFatter, seeks to uphold its recommendation that Respondent, Alfreda Grady, be dismissed from employment in the Broward County school system. Respondent, Alfreda Grady, was an instructional employee at the School Board of Broward County until she was suspended with pay from her duties at the close of the workday on January 27, 1983. Respondent holds a continuing contract of employment and holds teaching certificates in both guidance and elementary education. During the course of the 1982-83 school year, Respondent was assigned to the position of guidance counselor at Attucks Middle School. This assignment was made by Mr. Thomas Wilson, Assistant to the south area Superintendent of the Broward County School Board. Ms. Grady was later assigned to teach sixth grade orientation and social studies. On January 27, 1983, Respondent was placed on emergency suspension and a PETITION FOR DISMISSAL from the Broward County school system was filed based on charges of incompetency, misconduct in office, immorality and gross insubordination. A request was made for a formal evidentiary hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The matter was thereafter assigned to the undersigned hearing officer to conduct the instant hearing. On August 19, 1982, Respondent was assigned the position of guidance counselor at Attucks Middle School. Prior to this assignment, the position of guidance counselor had been assigned to Ms. Ricci Mandell, a teacher previously employed at Attucks. This assignment was made by Taft Green, principal at Attucks Middle School. Both Ms. Grady and Ms. Mandell were retained in the Guidance Department. Approximately two weeks into the school year, Respondent was assigned to teach one sixth grade orientation class. It is not unusual for a teacher to be assigned teaching duties in more than one subject area. (TR Volume 1, p. 193) By letter dated September 1, 1982, Mr. Green informed Respondent that she would begin teaching the orientation class on September 7, 1982. Respondent was also informed by Mr. Green that Ms. Friedman, a reading teacher at Attucks, would supply the necessary material and a course syllabus. Ms. Friedman had previously taught the orientation course during the 1981-82 school year. Respondent was advised that principal Green and the other instructional employees were available to assist her, as needed. Although Respondent never contacted Ms. Friedman for either assistance or to obtain the material, Ms. Friedman supplied the Respondent with a variety of materials to be used in teaching the orientation course including the course guide for middle school orientation and two instructional television books. (TR Volume 1, p. 166) Respondent refused to teach the orientation course. The class was used as either a study hall or the students watched programs such as "The Today Show" and "Good Morning America." On September 15, 1982, Respondent was assigned to teach two sixth grade social studies classes. A memo reflecting this assignment was sent both to Respondent and Ms. Mandell, dividing the guidance position between them and assigning them each three classes. (Petitioner's Exhibit P) Mr. Green divided the counselor duties between Respondent and Ms. Mandell based on budgetary considerations. That is, Attucks could not afford three guidance counselors and instead of terminating one instructional employee, the guidance counselor assignments were divided. (TP Volume 1, pp. 204 - 205) On November 3, 1982, Mr. Green began, via a memo, to change Respondent from a guidance position to a teaching position reciting in the memo that the change was based on a report from Rod Sasse, an educational guidance specialist for the Petitioner. Mr. Sasse conducted a study of the Attucks Guidance Department and determined that the Department needed to be restructured. He determined that two full-time counselors were more effective than one full-time and two part- time guidance counselors. Thus, Respondent was assigned a teaching position without any counseling duties. Respondent has refused to perform her assigned duties by Mr. Taft Green citing, inter alia, that the course materials provided her were inadequate or incomplete; that she was not educationally trained and therefore unqualified to teach the assigned duties; that she received no help or assistance from other instructional employees at Attucks and that she was not interested in taking the needed steps to either become qualified or otherwise competent to teach the assigned social studies and orientation classes. Prior to her November 10, 1982 assignment by principal Taft Green, Respondent was afforded one (1) week to prepare for the assigned classes. Additionally, she was given two TDA's (temporary duty assignments) to prepare for the social studies classes. Additionally, Respondent received a course syllabus and other material from other faculty and staff and offers of help from supervisory employees. (Testimony of Green; Carole Fischer, Social Studies Department Head; Mark Thomas, author of the course guide for middle school orientation and Dr. Benjamin Stephenson, Associate Superintendent for Personnel) Respondent made repeated statements, oral and written, to students, other instructional employees, supervisors, principal Green and the press evidencing her lack of interest in performing the assigned duties of teaching social studies and/or orientation. Respondent also cited as one of the reasons of her inability to teach the assigned classes was due to the fact that her students were not functioning at the same level of achievement and therefore it was impossible for her to teach students who are functioning at different progress levels. It is hereby found that it is indeed normal for students to function at varying progress levels and that teachers who are at all interested in performing the duties of an instructional employee, readily adjust to the varying progress levels of students and welcome the challenge of such an adjustment. As stated, Respondent repeatedly refused to perform her assigned duties as an instructional employee for the orientation and social studies classes. Based on this refusal to teach, Respondent assigned 148 out of 150 students a grade of incomplete or "I." Respondent was repeatedly directed to provide grades for her students by principal Green including written demands on January 19, 20, 21 and 25, 1983. On the last two demands on January 21 and 25, 1983, Respondent was further advised that her failure to assign grades to students would be regarded as gross insubordination. Respondent would not and, in fact, refused to teach her students any of the subject areas to which she was assigned by principal Taft Green. A typical day spent in the Respondent's classroom consisted primarily of the students either performing independent work which usually was in the form of preparing for other classes or doing homework which was assigned by other instructional staff or in the case of the orientation class, students would watch programs such as "Good Morning America" and "The Today Show." Respondent performed some minimal teaching including map and globe assignments. However, in the normal day, Respondent would permit students to perform either independent work or repeatedly view film strips. As a result of such repetition, students became bored. A number of Respondent's students expressed a desire to learn skills in the social studies classes which they were attending. It is also found that the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been severely damaged due to the wide notoriety that this case has received, the public statements and/or admissions by the Respondent denoting her lack of interest in teaching the assigned classes and the expressed concern of other staff and parents concerned about entrusting their children to Respondent's class in view of her admitted lack of care and disregard for the educational and social welfare of the students in her class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, School Board of Broward County, enter a Final Order dismissing the Respondent, Alfreda Grady, from employment with the Broward County school system. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1983.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment based on determinations by two licensed psychologists that Respondent was not fit to perform her duties as a classroom teacher.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida. A superintendent of schools has the statutory responsibility and obligation to recommend the placement of school personnel and to require compliance and observance by all personnel of all laws, policies, and directives of the school board, the State of Florida, and the federal government. In this proceeding, the Superintendent of Schools for the Broward County School District has recommended to the School Board that Respondent's employment be terminated because she is not fit to perform her duties as a classroom teacher. Respondent is a classroom teacher with approximately ten years of teaching experience. For the 2008-09 school year, Respondent taught at Seminole Middle School. Respondent received a satisfactory evaluation for that school year. Respondent was assigned to teach a second grade class at Everglades for the 2009-10 school year pursuant to a professional service contract. The School Board has adopted Policy 4004, which provides for mandatory physical and/or psychological examinations for employees, as follows: AT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT WHEN IT SHALL BE DEEMED ADVISABLE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT/DESIGNEE, AN EMPLOYEE MAY BE REQUIRED TO TAKE A PHYSICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION. RULES The Board authorizes the Superintendent to establish procedures to carry out the intent of this policy. The affected employee shall select the name of a medical doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist from a list maintained by the Division of Personnel, Policies, Government and Community Relations. Where the employee is found to be unable to function satisfactorily, the Division of Personnel, Policies, Government and Community Relations shall take appropriate action. On October 14, 2009, Eliot Tillinger, principal of Everglades, sent the following memo to Craig Kowalski, who was serving as the Acting Executive Director of SIU: As per the above the above referenced policy [Policy 4004], a "fit for duty" evaluation is being requested for Donna Lichi. Attached please find her job description as well as supporting documentation. Multiple concerns regarding the safety and welfare of the students have arisen from staff and parents in the school community. As reflected in the memo, Mr. Tillinger attached documentation supporting his request. This documentation was prepared by Mr. Tillinger (or by his staff at his direction), and documented his personal observations plus complaints he had received from parents and school staff. Mr. Tillinger did not formally observe Respondent, nor did he conduct a formal evaluation of her performance. His observations were from his customary "walk-throughs," which entailed unscheduled visits to classrooms and observations of approximately five minutes a visit. Of particular concern to Mr. Tillinger were reports that on at least two occasions, Respondent left children who were supposed to be under her supervision without supervision. One child was observed urinating on a bush while on the playground. Instead of supervising her class, Respondent talked on her cell phone. On another occasion, Respondent permitted two children to walk unsupervised through an area that parents were driving through to pick up their children after school. The children were returning from a park adjacent to the school. The children had gone to the park to retrieve an object one of them had left during recess. Respondent exposed those two children to danger by allowing them to go to the park unsupervised. No formal disciplinary action was taken against Respondent following either incident. Mr. Tillinger received a report from parents of children in Respondent's class that Respondent's interaction with them was unusual. One parent told Mr. Tillinger that Respondent was self-absorbed at the "meet your teacher" conducted just before school started and at the "open house" conducted shortly after school started. On these occasions, Respondent bragged about what good a teacher she was and boasted of her personal achievements and accolades. That parent opined to Mr. Tillinger (and testified at the formal hearing) that he did not think Respondent was aware of what was happening in her classroom because at a parent-teacher conference she did not know that his daughter could not log onto the classroom computer for several days. That parent also complained to Mr. Tillinger that Respondent required her students to wear shirts of a certain color on different days of the week, a practice that was not sanctioned by the school administration. The parent also reported that Respondent refused to complete a questionnaire a psychologist had asked Respondent (as the child's teacher) to complete as part of an evaluation of the student. Another parent reported to Mr. Tillinger that Respondent's behavior during a parent-teacher conference was bizarre. This parent reported that Respondent had "almost a catatonic stare" during the conference. The parent also reported that in a subsequent telephone conference, Respondent abruptly hung up on the parent during the middle of the conversation. Mr. Tillinger characterized the number of complaints and the nature of the complaints as being "unusual." Martha Machado was the grade chair for the second grade at Everglades. Ms. Machado met with the other second grade teachers on a weekly basis to discuss any concerns or issues. Although she attended these meetings, Respondent was never engaged in these meetings by asking questions or contributing comments. Ms. Machado met with Respondent prior to the beginning of school to help her settle into her classroom. During that first meeting, Respondent removed from her classroom all chairs that were not colored blue and replaced them with blue chairs taken from other second grade classrooms. Respondent thereafter decorated the walls of her room completely in blue. Ms. Machado considered this behavior to be unusual. Ms. Machado gave Respondent detailed lesson plans at the beginning of school and provided Respondent with copies of lesson plans Ms. Machado used for her own class. Ms. Machado offered to assist Respondent and was available to answer any questions. Until October, Respondent did not ask any questions as to the lesson plans. The lesson plans were provided to assist Respondent. Ms. Machado told Respondent to use them, modify them, or do whatever else she wanted with them. In October, Respondent admitted to Ms. Machado that she did not understand her lesson plans. Respondent also stated that she had not received copies of the lesson plans.1 Respondent had no explanation for why she did not tell Ms. Machado sooner that she did not understand the lesson plans. When a student was transferred from one classroom to another classroom, the student was to take his or her books and workbook to the new classroom. After a student was transferred from Respondent's classroom to another second grade classroom, the new teacher sent the student to Respondent's classroom to get the student's books and workbook. After the student retrieved the books and the workbook, the student returned to the new classroom. Soon thereafter, Respondent entered the new classroom, took the workbook from the student, and returned to her classroom. When informed of the incident, Ms. Machado told Respondent to return the workbook to the student. Ms. Machado observed that Respondent was overly complimentary to her, copied her hairstyle, and purchased a purse identical to Ms. Machado's purse. Ms. Machado found this behavior to be strange. Ms. Machado discussed her concerns about Respondent with Mr. Tillinger. Mr. Tillinger also received reports that on more than one occasion, Respondent dismissed her class 15 minutes prior to the end of the school day and had her class wait in the stairwell, singing songs and playing games until the final bell rang. In response to his observations, the reports he heard as to Respondent's behavior, and his concerns as to student safety, Mr. Tillinger assigned Melissa Renedo, an intern teacher, to Respondent's classroom. Ms. Renedo was instructed to assist Respondent, and to let Ms. Machado know if anything in Respondent's class made her uncomfortable with respect to the students' safety, welfare, or academics. Respondent's classroom was disorganized. She had no reading groups, she had no lesson plans (other than those given to her by Ms. Machado), and she would interrupt lessons to permit students to go to the "treasure box" to get a trinket as a reward for wearing a certain colored shirt. Ms. Renedo witnessed Respondent pick up a student in the middle of a lesson, comment on how he smelled, and asked him about his cologne. During a reading lesson, Respondent called the parent of the student with the cologne to see if she could go to the parent's house for dinner. Ms. Renedo observed that Respondent frequently stopped during a lesson to wipe down door handles, computers, and desks with Lysol. One morning two students who said they were fifth grade students came to Respondent's classroom at her request to assist her with setting up a bulletin board. When it was time for lunch, Respondent took her class to lunch, leaving the two fifth grade students unsupervised in the classroom. When Ms. Renedo questioned Respondent about leaving the students unsupervised, Respondent replied that it would be okay and that they were there to help out. Ms. Renedo's observations and concerns were conveyed to both Ms. Machado and Mr. Tillinger. Mr. Tillinger had sufficient justification for requesting the fit for duty evaluation on Respondent dated October 14, 2009.2 The documentation submitted with the request was sufficient justification for SIU to deem it "advisable" to require Respondent to submit to a psychological evaluation. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Superintendent of Schools had in effect the following Policy 4004 procedures relating to fitness for duty determinations: Fit for Duty Determination Procedures The Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit (SIU) receives request from a Principal/Administrator (includes District Administrators) or Superintendent/Designee. SIU notifies employee via certified mail that he/she must undergo a physical and/or psychological examination. A reassignment letter is prepared directing employee to remain at home or at an alternate site with pay, depending on circumstances (i.e. active case file/investigation). The affected employee shall select the name of a medical doctor psychologist or psychiatrist from a list maintained by the Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit, within 24 hours. SIU Administrator schedules within ten working days a medical appointment and follows-up in writing to the doctor's office and to the employee of appointment confirmation. Letter is sent to the doctor explaining billing instructions, and 'Fit for Duty Evaluation' report of findings. The doctor as delineated in the policy will conduct Pre [sic] evaluation at District expense. Note: a 2nd Opinion will be at the employee's expense if requested, with the employee selecting from the School Board approved list as delineated in the policy. A third evaluation will be mandated if previous two (Pre & 2nd Opinion) are contradicting and will be at District expense and will be binding by [sic] all parties. Doctor determines if employee is 'Fit for Duty' or [is] not [fit] for duty. Where the employee is found 'unfit for duty' the Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit shall take appropriate action per the recommendation of the doctor, subjecting employee to a Post-evaluation by the same doctor making the initial evaluation. The Post-evaluation ought to occur within 90 days of the initial evaluation. If a doctor determines that the employee is 'Unfit for Duty', an administrative reassignment letter is prepared changing the employee's pay status to 'at home without pay (PLV)'. The employee is given information to call the Leave Department to apply for any paid leave accrued, and/or any other leave types per SBBC Policies that they are eligible for. Also, a Formal Referral to EAP is prepared for follow-up. Based on the progress and/or compliance with EAP's recommendations, a Post Evaluation is scheduled within the 90- day reassessment period. If employee is unfit to return to work in the Post Evaluation, then the employee is recommended for termination (School Board Agenda is prepared for the next Board Meeting). Note: 2nd Opinions on the Post evaluation will be at the employee's expense, if requested. Third evaluation, if required will be at District expense and will be binding by [sic] all parties. Employee and school/work site are notified of doctor's fit for duty status via certified mail. (Note: Confidential Doctor's report will only be distributed to the employee). The immediate supervisor is notified as well. However if the doctor has follow-up recommendations, then a Formal Referral to Employee Assistant Program (EAP) is prepared by SIU (i.e. mental health follow-up or other referrals as appropriate. If employee is found Fit for Duty, a certified letter is sent to the employee with instructions to return to work. The immediate supervisor is notified as well. Richard Mijon delivered a letter to Respondent on October 16, 2009, informing her that she would be required to submit to a fit-for-duty evaluation. Respondent chose Dr. Rick Harris to conduct the initial evaluation. Dr. Harris found Respondent not to be fit for duty. Because of that finding, Dr. Harris also performed a re-evaluation. Prior to the evaluations, Mr. Mijon provided Dr. Harris with the documentation attached to Mr. Tillinger's request and the results of other investigations by SIU of Respondent's behavior that occurred before she was transferred to Everglades. As part of the initial evaluation, Dr. Harris examined Respondent on November 2 and December 15, 2009, and on January 6, 2010. His report, dated January 22, 2010, is part of School Board's Exhibit 4. After discussing the results of the tests he administered and his clinical interview, Dr. Harris' report summarized his findings and explained his reasons for those findings. His testimony at the formal hearing was consistent with his report. Dr. Harris found that Respondent was not fit for duty. On June 7, 2010, Dr. Harris conducted his re- evaluation of Respondent. His report, dated August 12, 2010, is also part of School Board's Exhibit 4. After discussing the results of the tests he administered during the re-evaluation, and his clinical interview, Dr. Harris' report summarized his findings and explained his reasons for those findings. His testimony at the formal hearing was consistent with his report. Dr. Harris found that Respondent continued to be unfit for duty. The undersigned finds Dr. Harris' testimony to be clear, professional, and persuasive. Petitioner proved that Respondent was not fit for duty on the initial evaluation and re-evaluation by Dr. Harris. Pursuant to the School Board's Policy 4004, Respondent was entitled to seek a second opinion by being evaluated by a separate School Board approved psychologist of her choosing, but at Respondent's expense. Respondent chose Dr. Grace Sidberry, a licensed psychologist. Dr. Sidberry evaluated Respondent on September 8 and 14, 2010. Her report dated September 14, 2010, is contained in School Board's Exhibit 9. After discussing the results of the tests she administered during the re-evaluation, and her clinical interview, Dr. Sidberry's report summarized her findings and explained her reasons for those findings. Her testimony at the formal hearing was consistent with her report. Dr. Sidberry found that Respondent was unfit for duty. The undersigned finds Dr. Sidberry's testimony to be clear, professional, and persuasive. Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent was not fit for duty as a classroom teacher as of September 14, 2010. Drs. Harris and Sidberry opined that Respondent's fitness for duty may be restored following appropriate treatment for the conditions that render her unfit for duty. Respondent would not benefit from a performance development plan before her fitness for duty is restored. The School Board followed its applicable rules in processing the "fit for duty" request submitted by Mr. Tillinger.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 20th day of July, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists for the suspension and termination of the employment of Respondent, Curtis Sherrod, for failing to correct teaching deficiencies sufficient to warrant a satisfactory performance evaluation.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Palm Beach County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"), is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) and support facilities within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Palm Beach County School District (hereinafter referred to as the "School District"). Respondent, Curtis Sherrod, at all relevant times, was licensed by the State of Florida to teach Social Studies for grades five through 12. Mr. Sherrod's certification authorized him to teach political science, economics, psychology, U.S. history, cultures, world geography, and contemporary history. Mr. Sherrod received a Bachelor of Arts degree, with a major in history and a minor in education, from Winston-Salem State University, formerly known as Winston-Salem State Teacher's College. At all relevant times, Mr. Sherrod was employed as a classroom teacher by the School Board. He was employed initially by the School Board from 1980 to 1983. He returned to employment with the School Board in January 1993 and received a Professional Services contract in August 1996. Mr. Sherrod's Employment at Olympic Heights High School. Beginning with the 1995-1996 school year, Mr. Sherrod was employed by the School Board at Olympic Heights High School (hereinafter referred to as "Olympic Heights"). Francis P. Giblin served as principal of Olympic Heights during the times relevant to this case. Until his last evaluation for the 2001-2002 school year, Mr. Sherrod received overall satisfactory performance evaluations. For the 1999-2000, 1996-1997, and the 1995-1996, school years, Mr. Sherrod, while receiving overall satisfactory ratings, had a few "areas of concern" noted. The deficiencies in those noted areas of concern were, until the 2001-2002 school year, corrected by Mr. Sherrod. During the 2001-2002 school year, Mr. Sherrod taught a world history class. After the school year began, several letters were received by Mr. Giblin from parents expressing concern over the content of the material being taught in Mr. Sherrod's world history class and documents which Mr. Sherrod had sent home to parents.1 Mr. Giblin requested that Dr. Christine Hall, an assistant principal at Olympic Heights look into the parental complaints concerning Mr. Sherrod's class. Dr. Hall was responsible for the Social Studies department, of which Mr. Sherrod was a teacher, at Olympic Heights. Dr. Hall spoke with Mr. Sherrod about the complaints. Dr. Hall met with Mr. Sherrod on September 4, 2001, and summarized their conversation in a memorandum of the same date. See Petitioner's Exhibit 27. The complaints, however, continued, with some parents requesting a class change for their children. Dr. Hall again discussed the matter with Mr. Sherrod, but the complaints continued. In approximately October 2001 Dr. Hall began to make informal observations of Mr. Sherrod's class in a further effort to resolve the problem. Toward that end, on October 10, 2001, Mr. Giblin visited Mr. Sherrod's class.2 Dr. Hall also observed a class during which Mr. Sherrod gave a standardized examination.3 At the conclusion of the test, Dr. Hall collected the "Scantrons" and determined the grade each student should have received. These grades were then compared to the final grades given the students by Mr. Sherrod. Due to a significant number of discrepancies in the grades given by Mr. Sherrod and the grades which they should have received based upon the Scantrons, Mr. Sherrod was asked to produce the Scantrons for his other classes. Mr. Sherrod was unable to produce the requested Scantrons because he had, contrary to School Board policy, disposed of them. As a result of his failure to produce the Scantrons Mr. Giblin became even more concerned about Mr. Sherrod's performance and ordered further observations of his classes.4 On November 27, 2001, Dr. Hall informed Mr. Sherrod in writing that she intended to conduct an observation of his class sometime during the "week of December 3-7." Mr. Sherrod wrote back to Dr. Hall and indicated that any day that week was fine, except for December 3 because "I will be collecting homework that day." Dr. Hall conducted observations on December 3 and 5, 2001. She conducted the observation on December 3rd despite Mr. Sherrod's suggestion because she did not believe it would take the entire class for Mr. Sherrod to collect homework. By memorandum dated December 11, 2001, Dr. Hall provided Mr. Sherrod with a discussion of her observations and suggested improvement strategies. Dr. Hall found deficiencies in the areas of management of student conduct; presentation of subject matter; human development and learning; learning environment; communication; and planning.5 On December 18, 2001, Mr. Giblin, Dr. Hall, Mr. Sherrod, Jerilyn McCall, Jeanne Burdsall, and Diane Curcio- Greaves participated in an "investigative meeting" to "discuss concerns regarding failure to perform professional duties, insubordination and unprofessional behavior." That meeting was summarized in a Meeting Summary provided to Mr. Sherrod. See Petitioner's Exhibit 32. On January 7, 2002, Mr. Giblin, Dr. Hall, Mr. Sherrod, Ms. Burdsall, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, Esther Bulger, Margaret Newton, and Debra Raing met "to provide information on benchmarks, curriculum and to insure [sic] students are prepared with information to take the district exam." A Meeting Summary was provided to Mr. Sherrod. On April 30, 2002, Mr. Giblin again observed Mr. Sherrod's class. Mr. Giblin's written observations are contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 34. Mr. Giblin found concerns in the areas of presentation of subject matter, communication, and learning environment. A summary of his concerns and recommendations for improvement were provided in writing to Mr. Sherrod on or about May 15, 2002.6 On May 16, 2002, Mr. Sherrod was given an overall unsatisfactory performance evaluation. Seven areas of concern were noted. Under Section A, Teaching and Learning, the following areas of concern were noted: presentation of subject matter; communication; learning environment; and planning. Under Section B, Professional Responsibilities, the following areas of concern were noted: record keeping; working relationships with coworkers; and policies/procedure/ethics. Mr. Giblin did not specifically review the grades of students in Mr. Sherrod's classes before giving Mr. Sherrod his final evaluation. On May 29, 2002, Mr. Sherrod was provided with a School Site Assistance Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "SAP"), "to be initiated August 7, 2002." The SAP was scheduled by agreement to begin at the beginning of the next school year (2002-2003), because the 2001-2002 school year was about to end. Mr. Sherrod was also provided at the same time that he was given the SAP with "workbooks" by Dr. Hall which she indicated were "to be used for fulfilling your plan's suggested activities." During the 2001-2002 school year, Mr. Sherrod was adequately advised of his areas of concern and, despite being given sufficient time to do so, failed to remedy them. Olympic Heights administrators complied with all procedural requirements for the issuance of the SAP. Mr. Sherrod's Employment at Suncoast High School. Prior to the end of the 2001-2002 school year, as the result of meeting with School District Assistant Superintendents, Mr. Sherrod was transferred from Olympic Heights to Suncoast High School (hereinafter referred to as "Suncoast"), on September 23, 2002. For the school year 2002-2003, Kay Carnes was the principal of Suncoast. Kathleen Orloff served as an assistant principal. Upon his transfer to Suncoast, Mr. Sherrod was provided with a two-week orientation period before being assigned teaching responsibilities. Following this orientation period, classes, including some honors classes, were assigned to Mr. Sherrod. On September 30, 2002, a meeting was conducted "to discuss the status of Curtis Sherrod's Assistance Plan." The meeting was attended by, among others, Ms. Carnes and Ms. Orloff. While the Conference Notes of the meeting indicate that Ms. Orloff was to "create a school-site assistance plan" the evidence failed to prove that a "new" SAP was developed.7 On October 21, 2002, the SAP developed at Olympic Heights was modified primarily to reflect that the SAP would be administered at Suncoast (hereinafter referred to as the "Suncoast SAP"). The dates of the SAP were modified to reflect that it had been agreed to in October 2002 with the names of relevant individuals modified. Finally, the improvement strategies of videotaping and audio-taping a lesson were eliminated.8 The Suncoast SAP was provided to Mr. Sherrod during a School-Site Assistance Plan Meeting. During the meeting, which was memorialized in Petitioner's Exhibit 1, additional assistance review days (October 31, November 12, and November 22, 2002) were agreed upon. The second School-Site Assistance Plan Meeting was held on October 31, 2002.9 Mr. Sherrod was informed that Ms. Orloff would observe his class on November 5, 2002, at 1:00 p.m., and that Ms. Carnes would observe him on November 13, 2002. That meeting was memorialized in a Meeting Summary, Petitioner's Exhibit 38. Ms. Orloff, who was primarily responsible for implementing the Suncoast SAP, had been conducting informal observations of Mr. Sherrod's class before scheduling formal observations. The next School-Site Assistance Plan Meeting was held on November 12, 2002. The meeting was memorialized. Mr. Sherrod was informed that planning, presentation of subject matter, communication, learning environment, record keeping, and polices/procedures/ethics were still areas of concern. He was also told that working relations with co-workers was no longer an area of concern. Ms. Orloff conducted observations of Mr. Sherrod on November 5, 2002, and on November 7, 2002. Her observations were summarized in a memorandum to Mr. Sherrod dated November 12, 2002. She noted concerns in the areas of presentation of subject matter, communication, planning, and learning environment. Recommended actions to be taken with regard to each area of concern were also suggested. Although the Suncoast SAP was only required to last for a minimum of 30 days, the plan was continued until February 2003. School-Site Assistance Plan Meetings were held on November 22, 2002, January 7, 2003, and January 16, 2003. Observations of Mr. Sherrod's classes were also conducted by Ms. Orloff and summaries of her findings were provided to him along with suggestions on how to improve. Observations were conducted on November 19, 2002, January 15, 2003, January 27, 2003, and February 6, 2003. From the moment the Suncoast SAP was initiated, Suncoast personnel, including Ms. Carnes and Ms. Orloff, evaluated Mr. Sherrod and attempted to assist him to improve in the areas of concern they noted. Mr. Sherrod was allowed to observe other teachers, the chair of his department worked with him on planning, a teacher who also taught American History worked with him, he was allowed to attend workshops, he was provided the assistance of a peer assistance and review, or "PAR," teacher, and he was provided with documentation as to what was expected of teachers at Suncoast. He was also allowed to teach Contemporary History in substitution for American History. The curriculum of the teacher who had previously taught the class was provided to Mr. Sherrod for his use. At no time did Mr. Sherrod complain to anyone involved in the implementation of the Suncoast SAP that the assistance he was being provided was inadequate or that he desired any additional help. Nor did Mr. Sherrod or his union representative suggest at any time that the procedures required to be followed up to that point were not being adhered to. While a SAP is required to last 30 days, the Suncoast SAP began October 21, 2002, and did not end until February 6, 2003. During this time, he was observed on six different occasions. Additionally, after beginning to teach at Suncoast, Mr. Sherrod was informally observed until the Suncoast SAP began. While Mr. Sherrod corrected the concern over his interaction with co-workers which had been noted at Olympic Heights, Ms. Carnes found through her observations that he continued to be deficient in the areas of presentation of subject matter, communication, learning environment, planning, record keeping, and policies/procedures/ethics. Therefore, on February 6, 2003, Ms. Carnes gave Mr. Sherrod an overall unsatisfactory Classroom Teacher Assessment System (CTAS) evaluation noting these areas of concern. Ms. Carnes informed Arthur C. Johnson, Ph.D., the Superintendent of the School District, of the remaining areas of concern and concluded that "a sufficient number of these deficiencies still exist to warrant an unsatisfactory evaluation." She requested, therefore, by letter dated February 6, 2003, that Mr. Sherrod be placed on Performance Probation for 90 calendar days (hereinafter referred to as the "90-Day Plan"). Mr. Sherrod was provided with a copy of the letter. The basis for the unsatisfactory evaluation and the continuing deficiencies in the areas of concern noted are accurately summarized in the various School-Site Plan Meeting Summaries and the memoranda summarizing observations conducted during the 2002-2003 school year. Some of the most significant problems involved Mr. Sherrod's excessive and inappropriate use of R-rated videos, his failure to timely post student grades,10 and his failure to provide instruction in a manner which was consistent with time-lines suggested for teachers to complete instruction on all materials that were supposed to be covered. By letter dated February 10, 2003, Superintendent Johnson notified Mr. Sherrod in writing that he was being placed on a 90-Day Plan and that it would begin February 20, 2003, and conclude on June 4, 2003. Assistance reviews were scheduled to be held on March 31, May 5, and June 4, 2003, the last day of the 90-Day Plan. Dr. Johnson's letter was provided to Mr. Sherrod on February 19, 2003, at a School-Site Assistance Plan Meeting. The first observation to be conducted pursuant to the 90-Day Plan was to be conducted the week of February 24-28, 2003, by Diane Curcio-Greaves, Instructional Specialist, Professional Standards. This observation was made by Ms. Curcio-Greaves on February 27, 2003. A summary of the observation was provided by Ms. Curcio-Greaves to Mr. Sherrod on March 7, 2003. Ms. Curcio- Greaves noted deficiencies and recommended improvement strategies in the areas of presentation of subject matter, communication, learning environment, and planning. The second observation to be conducted pursuant to the 90-Day Plan was to be conducted the week of March 10-14, 2003, by Wanda Hagan, Area 5 Coordinator. This observation was made by Ms. Hagan on March 13, 2003. A summary of the observation, dated March 25, 2003, was provided by Ms. Hagan to Mr. Sherrod on March 28, 2003. Ms. Hagan noted deficiencies and recommended improvement strategies in the areas of presentation of subject matter, communication, planning, policies/procedures/ethics, and record keeping. She commended him in the area of learning environment. Mr. Sherrod did not attend, due to illness, the first Assistance Review meeting which had been scheduled as part of his 90-Day Plan for March 31, 2003. The remaining scheduled observations did not take place either. On April 14, 2003, Mr. Sherrod broke his knee cap. As a consequence, he did not return to Suncoast High for the remainder of the 2002-2003 school year. By memorandum dated April 30, 2003, he informed Ms. Carnes that he would not be returning to Suncoast that school year and requested a transfer to a school closer to his home. Mr. Sherrod, for the first time, also raised a number of concerns he had not previously expressed about his perceived lack of assistance and fair treatment at Suncoast. While the evidence proved that Mr. Sherrod may have had a genuine belief that he was not being provided effective assistance, the evidence failed to support his perception. Mr. Sherrod's Employment at Roosevelt Middle School. Mr. Sherrod was reassigned to Roosevelt Middle School (hereinafter referred to as "Roosevelt") effective October 3, 2003, after Marcia Andrews spoke with Gloria Crutchfield, principal of Roosevelt, about the availability of a position for him.11 Mr. Sherrod was assigned to teach 7th grade social studies classes, a couple of which were honors classes. On November 3, 2003, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, from Professional Standards, reviewed the 90-Day Plan with Ms. Crutchfield. Ms. Crutchfield did not, however, immediately institute the Plan. Rather, because Mr. Sherrod had begun teaching in mid-term and was new to Roosevelt, Ms. Crutchfield gave him additional time to become familiar with the new school before reinstating the remainder of the 90-Day Plan. A District Assistance Plan Meeting, which Mr. Sherrod attended, was held on December 2, 2003, to discuss reinstatement of the 90-Day Plan. It was necessary to revise the Plan to reflect Mr. Sherrod's unavailability to complete the Plan at Suncoast. It was agreed by all in attendance at the meeting, including Mr. Sherrod, that Mr. Sherrod had 44 more days to complete the 90-Day Plan, and that the Plan would be restarted December 3, 2003. The "evaluation from February 6, 2003, the assistance plan, the original calendar of 90 days, the revised calendar, and the 90-day timeline" were distributed during the December 2, 2003, meeting. The 90-Day Plan, as revised (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Plan), provided that the "1st Assistance Review" would be held on December 2 and 5, 2003,12 the "2nd Assistance Review" would be held on January 6, 2004, and the "3rd Assistance Review" and "Final Evaluation Conference" would be held on the 90th day, February 6, 2004. Having had two formal observations under the 90-Day Plan, additional formal evaluations were scheduled for the week of December 8-12, 2003, and January 12-16, 2004. The first evaluation under the Revised Plan was conducted on December 12, 2003, by Frank Rodriguez, Assistant Principal, Forest Hill Community High School. His observation notes and suggested strategies were provided to Ms. Crutchfield and Mr. Sherrod by Memorandum dated December 15, 2003. Mr. Rodriguez noted deficiencies in the areas of presentation of subject matter, classroom management, planning, and assessment. Mr. Sherrod submitted a written rebuttal to Mr. Rodriguez's Memorandum. The next scheduled formal evaluation was conducted on January 21, 2004, by Dr. Mary Gray. Ms. Gray's written observations were provided to Mr. Sherrod on or about January 29, 2004. Dr. Gray noted deficiencies in the areas of presentation of subject matter, learning environment, and planning. Mr. Sherrod provided a verbal rebuttal to Dr. Gray. The "2nd Assistance Review" meeting, which had been scheduled to be held on January 6, 2004, was held on January 29, 2004. The meeting was held late because Mr. Sherrod had been absent between January 6 and 12, 2004 (four school days), due to the passing of his mother. It was not held until January 29th out of respect for his loss. The meeting was memorialized in a Meeting Summary, Petitioner's Exhibit 56. During the January 29, 2004, meeting, Ms. Crutchfield suggested to Mr. Sherrod and his representative that he agree to an extension of the Revised Plan to February 10, 2004,13 due to Mr. Sherrod's absence. Mr. Sherrod agreed. The evidence failed to prove whether Ms. Crutchfield had the authority to grant this extension. The next and final evaluation conference was scheduled for February 10, 2004. The same day the "2nd Assistance Review" meeting was held, January 29, 2004, Ms. Crutchfield informed Mr. Sherrod verbally and in writing that she would conduct a formal and final evaluation during the week of February 2-6, 2004. This observation had been scheduled originally for the week beginning January 27, 2004, but was moved back due to Mr. Sherrod's absence during January and Ms. Crutchfield's absence. When informed verbally of the observation, Mr. Sherrod indicated that it was likely that he would be going out on leave in the near future and asked if Ms. Crutchfield could specify the exact date of his evaluation. Ms. Crutchfield indicated she could not. Petitioner's Exhibit 56. By letter dated February 20, 2004, Ms. Curcio-Greaves informed Mr. Sherrod by letter that the final evaluation conference scheduled for February 10, 2004, was being rescheduled to February 16, 2004. Although Ms. Crutchfield had indicated that she would wait until February 10, 2004, to complete the Revised Plan, Mr. Sherrod, as he had advised, left Roosevelt on leave before that date and before Ms. Crutchfield was able to conduct a formal evaluation of him. Based upon her informal evaluations of Mr. Sherrod conducted during the 2003-2004 school year and the formal observations conducted by others during the 90-Day Plan and the Revised Plan, she issued a final evaluation of Mr. Sherrod on February 9, 2004. This reduced the amount of time that Mr. Sherrod had been given to improve his noted deficiencies from approximately 94 days to 93 days: 44 under the 90-Day Plan at Suncoast; 46 under the Revised Plan at Roosevelt; and an additional three days from February 6 to February 9, 2004, at Roosevelt. Ms. Crutchfield found in her final evaluation of Mr. Sherrod that he still had the following areas of concern: presentation of subject matter; communication; learning environment; planning; record keeping; and policies/procedures/ethics. Four of the areas of concern were in "Teaching and Learning" and two were in "Professional Responsibilities." Three concerns in Teaching and Learning alone is sufficient for an overall evaluation of unsatisfactory. Mr. Sherrod's overall evaluation was unsatisfactory. Ms. Crutchfield provided her evaluation of Mr. Sherrod to Dr. Johnson and recommended that his employment be terminated. By letter dated February 25, 2004, Dr. Johnson informed Mr. Sherrod that he would be recommending to the School Board that Mr. Sherrod's employment be terminated. A copy of Ms. Crutchfield's letter of recommendation and Mr. Sherrod's final evaluation were provided to Mr. Sherrod with Dr. Johnson's letter. Mr. Sherrod was also informed of his right to request an administrative hearing, which he exercised. Mr. Sherrod's Performance was Unsatisfactory. Beginning with the 2001-2002 school year and ending with his final evaluation on February 9, 2004, Mr. Sherrod was formally evaluated by nine different School District employees, all of whom were professionally trained to conduct evaluations of teaching personnel on behalf of the School Board. All of those evaluators, while finding Mr. Sherrod deficient in a number of areas, attempted to offer assistance to him which, if followed, could have corrected his deficiencies. During the three school years for which Mr. Sherrod was found to be deficient, all required assistance was provided to Mr. Sherrod to assist him in correcting his deficiencies. Indeed, more assistance than was required was provided to Mr. Sherrod. Mr. Giblin concluded that Mr. Sherrod, for his final evaluation, had evidenced four areas of concern under Teaching and Learning: presentation of subject matter; communication; learning environment; and planning. Except for planning, Dr. Hall found the same areas of concern. Mr. Giblin also concluded that Mr. Sherrod evidenced the following areas of concern under Professional Responsibilities: record keeping; working relationships with coworkers; and policies/procedures/ethics. At the conclusion of the SAP, Ms. Carnes concluded that Mr. Sherrod, for his final evaluation, had evidenced the same areas of concern under Teaching and Learning found by Mr. Giblin: presentation of subject matter; communication; learning environment; and planning. Ms. Orloof had found the same areas of concern during two prior evaluations. Ms. Carnes also concluded that Mr. Sherrod evidenced two of the same areas of concern under Professional Responsibilities found by Mr. Giblin: record keeping; and policies/procedures/ethics. At the conclusion of the 90-Day Plan, Ms. Crutchfield concluded that Mr. Sherrod, for his final evaluation, had evidenced the same areas of concern under Teaching and Learning found by Mr. Giblin and Ms. Carnes: presentation of subject matter; communication; learning environment; and planning. Ms. Crutchfield also concluded that Mr. Sherrod had evidenced the same areas of concern under Professional Responsibilities found by Mr. Giblin and Ms. Carnes: record keeping and policies/procedures/ethics. Ms. Crutchfield, while performing informal evaluations of Mr. Sherrod, did not perform a formal final evaluation of Mr. Sherrod. Instead, she relied heavily upon her informal evaluations and the evaluations of Ms. Curcio-Greaves, Ms. Hagan, Mr. Rodriguez, and Ms. Gray. Those evaluators, while all finding that presentation of subject matter and planning were areas of concern, were not consistent in their findings concerning the areas of communication and knowledge of subject matter. Ms. Hagan commended Mr. Sherrod in the area of knowledge of subject matter and Mr. Rodriguez failed to note the area of knowledge of subject matter as an item of concern. Ms. Gray and Mr. Rodriguez, the last two individuals to formally evaluate Mr. Sherrod before Ms. Crutchfield's evaluation failed to conclude that communication was an area of concern. It is, therefore, found that Ms. Crutchfield's conclusion that Mr. Sherrod had not corrected his deficiencies with regard to the areas of communication and knowledge of subject matter was arbitrary and not supported by the weight of the evidence. Despite the foregoing finding, Ms. Crutchfield's overall evaluation that Mr. Sherrod's performance was unsatisfactory was reasonable and supported by the weight of the evidence. Mr. Sherrod continued since the 2001-2002 school year and, more importantly, throughout the 90-Day Plan to evidence concerns in the areas of presentation of subject matter, planning, record keeping and policies/procedures/ethics. Thus, he evidenced two areas of concern in Teaching and Learning and two areas of concern in Professional Responsibilities, which were not corrected during the 90-Day Plan, despite efforts to assist him to improve. Ms. Crutchfield's final evaluation, with the exceptions noted, accurately reflected Mr. Sherrod's areas of concern and his unsatisfactory performance at the end of the Revised Plan despite the reasonable assistance provided to him. Those areas of concern were consistently found by nine evaluators over three school years and at three different schools. No credible evidence was presented to counter the conclusions reached by the individuals who evaluated Mr. Sherrod or to prove that their conclusions were based upon anything other than their professional judgments concerning Mr. Sherrod's performance. Failure to Prove Bias on the Part of the School Board. While at Olympic Heights, Mr. Sherrod wrote to Dr. Johnson once, the chairman of the School Board twice, and filed a "petition" with the School Board. The subject of the correspondence was Mr. Sherrod's perception of his treatment by officials at Olympic Heights. He believed that he was being harassed and discriminated against. It has been suggested that Mr. Sherrod's correspondence accurately reflects why his performance was found unsatisfactory at Olympic Heights and evidences a bias toward him on the part of all those who evaluated him. This suggestion is not supported by the evidence. At best, Mr. Sherrod's correspondence evidences the poor working relationship between Mr. Sherrod and some of his coworkers. This poor working relationship was noted as an area of concern on his final evaluation by Mr. Giblin. It is not necessary to decide who was the cause of the poor relationship between Mr. Sherrod and others at Olympic Heights. First, the area of concern, to the extent it was Mr. Sherrod's fault, was corrected by Mr. Sherrod and formed no basis in the ultimate finding that Mr. Sherrod's performance, uncorrected by the 90-Day Plan and the Revised Plan, was unsatisfactory. Additionally, the evidence failed to prove that anything which occurred while Mr. Sherrod was teaching at Olympic Heights had any influence on the conclusions concerning his performance at the two schools to which he transferred for the two school years after he sent the correspondence to Dr. Johnson and the School Board. Indeed, the fact that he did not send any further correspondence after the 2001-2002 school year further supports this conclusion. Dr. Dunn's Conclusions. Dr. Dunn opined at the final hearing that Mr. Sherrod did not over-infuse African-American history into his course materials. Dr. Dunn's opinions, however, are entitled to little weight. Most importantly, Dr. Dunn, unlike the nine individuals who evaluated Mr. Sherrod, did not actually observe Mr. Sherrod teaching during the times relevant to this case. In fact, Dr. Dunn has never observed Mr. Sherrod. Additionally, the content of Mr. Sherrod's classes, while the catalysts of the greater scrutiny afforded Mr. Sherrod's classes, was not the basis for the conclusion of those who evaluated Mr. Sherrod that his performance was unsatisfactory. The School District's Appraisal System. The School District's Instructional Performance Appraisal System was approved the then-Commissioner of Education in 1999. The Appraisal System has not been further reviewed since 1999.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered ratifying Mr. Sherrod's suspension and discharging him from further employment in the Palm Beach County Public Schools. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 8th day of July, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether the Education Practices Commission should impose a penalty or sanctions against Respondent’s teaching certificate pursuant to Sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006, based upon the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 602255, which encompasses Elementary Education and English to Speakers of Other Languages, which is valid through June 30, 2003. After beginning her teaching career working in its Reading Lab, Respondent began teaching a fourth-grade class at Ft. Pierce Elementary School. After a year in that position, she taught for approximately nine years at Bayshore Elementary School, also teaching fourth grade, then transferred to St. Lucie Elementary School, where she also taught a fourth-grade class her first year. St. Lucie Elementary School was a new school, which had opened in August, 1996. Respondent taught third grade during the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years at St. Lucie Elementary School after being reassigned from her fourth-grade class. Dr. Jane Hartman is, and was, at all material times, principal of the school. Among her many duties, Dr. Hartman evaluates the instructional staff and attempts to be in the various classrooms frequently. Dr. Hartman provides feedback and support to her teachers in a variety of ways, including staff development days, written suggestions to teachers, and grade chair meetings. Teachers at St. Lucie Elementary School are given a copy of the school handbook, which is discussed at the beginning of each year. In the event Dr. Hartman receives a parent complaint, she first contacts the staff member to discuss the issues. Thereafter, Dr. Hartman arranges a face-to-face conference with the parent, administration, and the teacher, to ensure that everyone is “comfortable that the relationship has mended” so they can “move forward.” During Respondent’s first year at St. Lucie Elementary School, 1997-1998, Dr. Hartman received some complaints from parents concerning Respondent’s dealings with the parents of her students and with various classroom management issues. Dr. Hartman engaged in informal counseling with Respondent concerning these complaints, and observed some changes on Respondent’s part, although not enough. Dr. Hartman and other members of her administration frequently sent notes to Respondent concerning recommendations and criticisms about her classroom performance. Dr. Hartman reassigned Respondent to a third-grade class at the end of her first year teaching at St. Lucie Elementary School, believing that Respondent would have more success with a smaller number of students who, being younger, might be easier to teach. The average age of a fourth-grade student is nine years old. During her career as an educator, Dr. Hartman has both taught fourth graders and had the opportunity to observe fourth graders in the classroom. Fourth graders are normally at that age where they love their teacher; are able to read and write; are creative; and are ready to learn about their world. Dr. Hartman believed Respondent’s class to be an average class of students, a “sweet class in that they not only cared what was said to them personally,” but also, “what was said to their friend, what was said to someone who wasn’t as strong academically.” Respondent referred to many of the students in the class as having behavior problems. Ms. Drew, a music teacher at St. Lucie Elementary School, taught many of Respondent’s students the year they were in her class. Ms. Drew found these students not to be “bad,” but to be “children who had some bad experiences.” Ms. Drew “felt bad” for many of the students who were in Respondent’s class and agreed to teach a fifth-grade class the next year to help many of Respondent’s former fourth graders. Petitioner’s witnesses at hearing consisted primarily of students from Respondent’s fourth-grade class and their parents. The students complained that Respondent had belittled them in her class and made their fourth-grade year a miserable experience. The former students related comments having been made that they were “slow,” “stupid,” “babies,” “stupid idiots,” and that Respondent was “smarter and had more education than all your parents put together.” The students testified that Respondent yelled at them, “was mean,” told them to “shut up,” embarrassed them in front of the other students, and threatened to tape record them so that their parents could hear how much they misbehaved in class. One student was embarrassed in front of the class when Respondent insisted she call her mother on a speakerphone to address why she had not returned her paperwork and money for a candy sale. Another student reported to his mother that Respondent, an African-American herself, told him he was “acting like a stupid nigger.” Many of the students testified that, while they had previously enjoyed school, after being in Respondent’s class, their self-esteem had been shattered by Respondent’s behavior in class. St. Lucie Elementary School followed “Loving Discipline A to Z,” a guide for teachers to follow regarding discipline. Respondent failed to follow these guidelines. Respondent would punish the entire class for the actions of a few students by making them write sentences that, in some cases, were grammatically incorrect. Respondent would also punish the entire class for the actions of a few students by not allowing them to have recess or go to music or art classes outside the regular classroom. Respondent, for another form of punishment, would not choose “Lynx Leaders,” an award given to students who performed well. Respondent enforced inconsistent policies concerning use of the restroom. Although she testified that students could use the restroom whenever they needed as long as it was vacant, at times she refused to allow students to use the restroom, resulting in at least one student wetting his pants in class on more than one occasion and being ridiculed by other students in the class. The allegations by the students against Respondent were made at the time the students were in her class, both verbally to their parents and in writing to their parents and school officials, as well as in testimony at hearing, six years after they had been in Respondent’s fourth-grade class. Respondent’s disciplinary measures were too harsh for fourth graders. Assistant Principal Linda Applebee testified that Respondent had problems following directions. Respondent failed to participate in a bus evacuation drill in February of 1998, and failed to perform a required book check at the end of a nine-weeks' period, which resulted in the school not billing parents for missing books and therefore having to pay for books that were not returned. Dr. Hartman testified that “chaos” reigned in Respondent’s classroom, and that there had never been a teacher, either before or after Respondent, who had such difficulty maintaining classroom management. Dr. Hartman suggested that Respondent observe other classrooms where her students experienced physical education, art, or music, and did not experience the same disciplinary problems. Respondent never took Dr. Hartman’s suggestion. Respondent admitted to some chaos in her classroom when she described one day when a student was simulating a sex act on the floor while another one scribbled on her desk with a marker. Respondent blamed these problems on “poor parenting skills” rather than on her inability to control the classroom. Respondent had a policy of calling a student’s parents when a student refused to follow a warning to behave, but she failed to follow her own procedure. Dr. Hartman believed that Respondent did not follow school procedures and had difficulties with classroom management. Dr. Hartman repeatedly gave Respondent advice and support, but Respondent failed to change her behavior. For example, Dr. Hartman met with Respondent on September 7, 1998, to discuss the resources available at the school for dealing with classroom management. Dr. Hartman informed Respondent that 1) Level I infractions should be handled by the individual staff member involved, rather than immediately calling the front office, which Respondent often did; 2) Discussions about a student should not be held in front of the student or the class; 3) Students should be given supplies needed to participate in class; 4) Students need to be told what to do; 5) Students should be praised for doing what is expected; 6) Students should not be placed in the planning room for time out; and 7) Respondent should point out only positive behaviors of the students. Dr. Hartman explained that violations of these items as set forth in her letter dated September 7, 1998, would have a negative effect on her competence to perform as a teacher. Respondent refused to attend monthly faculty meetings on a regular basis. Further, when she did attend, Respondent often had to be called and reminded to attend, then arrived late and refused to sit with her team members, sometimes even typing at a computer during the meeting. Faculty meetings are important because they help the administration achieve its goals of having a school act with consistency and a common vision and purpose. Respondent sometimes failed to cooperate with parents and the administration in the scheduling and conducting of parent-teacher conferences. At least one family had to involve both Dr. Hartman and the School Board in order to hold a meeting with Respondent. Often, the meetings proceeded badly with Respondent taking little or no responsibility for the issues expressed by the parents. In January of 1998, an incident occurred involving Respondent at a basketball game in St. Lucie County between Lincoln Park Academy and its cross-town rival. Respondent’s daughter, along with one of her friends, was arrested at the game because they refused to listen to law enforcement officers who attempted to remove them from a confrontation with other students who had congregated outside the over-filled gym where the game was taking place. When Respondent arrived at the rowdy scene outside the basketball game, she began to argue with the two law enforcement officers who were arresting Respondent’s daughter and her friend. Respondent used racial epithets directed at the two officers and engaged in disorderly conduct. She called Officer Terry Miller, an African-American, an “Uncle Tom” which he took to mean an African-American person who takes the side of white people rather than people of his own color. She called Lieutenant David Trimm, who is white, a “cracker,” a racial slur used to describe a white person who is prejudiced against African-Americans. In addition to the racial epithets, Respondent attempted to incite the crowd by yelling about the Ku Klux Klan getting away with whatever they want, and that no arrests would have been made had the crowd been predominately white rather than African-American. Based upon Respondent’s actions, both Officer Miller and Lieutenant Trimm feared for their safety. Both officers had dealt with arrests of minors in the past and with their parents who become upset when they see their sons or daughters in handcuffs, but Respondent’s behavior was “totally different” from what they had experienced in the past. Officer Miller “was shocked” at Respondent’s behavior, especially in light of the fact that she was a teacher, and Lieutenant Trimm would have arrested her had he known at the time she was a teacher. Respondent’s behavior at the basketball game was unprofessional and so racially charged that a riot could have resulted from her actions. Dr. Hartman did not reprimand Respondent at the time of the incidents giving rise to this hearing because she believed Respondent could actually improve and change her behavior. After Respondent failed to take Dr. Hartman’s and Ms. Applebee’s advice, Dr. Hartman decided to change Respondent’s position so that she taught third-grade students, in hopes that “a little bit younger would soften her a bit.” Dr. Hartman’s reassignment of Respondent to a third- grade class for the following school year necessitated that her classroom be moved. Some of Respondent’s classroom items had been moved at the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, and Respondent attempted to take compensatory leave at the start of the year, but failed to follow the proper procedures which included seeking prior permission from Dr. Hartman. Dr. Hartman called Respondent into her office to discuss Respondent’s failure to follow school policies concerning attendance and attitude at faculty meetings and unauthorized use of compensatory time. Respondent did not respond to Dr. Hartman’s questions, but handed her a letter of resignation, accompanied by an anonymous letter criticizing her teaching abilities that had been left in Respondent’s school mail slot. Respondent claims to have written the resignation letter the night before in response to the anonymous letter that she considered to be “harassment.” The substance of the letter, purportedly from a “very concerned parent,” was that Respondent “will always be remembered as a miserable, nasty, uncaring, cruel teacher that does not deserve to teach anyone, especially children.” Respondent further claims that she wrote the letter of resignation in an attempt to be transferred from St. Lucie Elementary to another school. Respondent is aware that, in order to be considered for a transfer to another school, she must first interview with that school and be offered a position. No other school had offered Respondent a position at the time she handed her resignation letter to Dr. Hartman. Therefore, Dr. Hartman could not have considered her request for a transfer. Initially, Dr. Hartman only read the first part of the resignation letter since, once she realized she was going to be without a teacher on the first day of school, she acted quickly to inform her assistant, Ms. Applebee, so that she could immediately seek a substitute to start the next morning. Once Ms. Applebee read the letter, she perceived it to be a threat to the safety of the students and faculty of St. Lucie Elementary School. Dr. Hartman did not read the entire letter until 6:00 p.m., on August 19, 1999, the first day of school because she was busy with all of the special challenges the first day of school presents every year. Once she read the letter, however, Dr. Hartman had “extreme concerns” about the following paragraph: After considering my remaining options, I decided to depart from this position because of YOU and the lack of professionalism displayed on your behalf. I have been subjective [sic] to an extraordinary amount of harassment every [sic] since I’ve been under your supervision. This included lack of administrative support, extreme and undue stress, your trifling and vindictive ways, and last but not least, your prejudice and racist attitude toward students, minorities, and me. These are conditions in [sic] which no one should be subjective [sic] in the workplace. In fact, it seems to almost define going postal. (Emphasis added) Dr. Hartman believed the “going postal” language meant that Respondent might come in and shoot people. Assistant Principal Applebee was concerned for their safety, after she read the letter. Ms. Jane Grinstead, Executive Director of School Operations for Zone 2, St. Lucie County School District, thought the letter constituted a threat. Even Respondent admitted that her husband warned her that “somebody might take your letter offensively,” yet she still gave it to Dr. Hartman. The letter came to Dr. Hartman at a time that was close to the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. Dr. Hartman was trained to be on alert for the type of traits that might be exhibited by a person who would do violence at a school. Those traits include antisocial behavior and failure to follow procedures, two traits exhibited by Respondent during her tenure at St. Lucie Elementary School. Further concern arose because this was a time when some United States Postal workers had assaulted, shot and killed their supervisors and some innocent bystanders. As a result of her concerns, Dr. Hartman contacted Ms. Grinstead who put her in touch with Dave Morris, head of security for the St. Lucie County School District. Mr. Morris arranged for a school resource officer to follow Dr. Hartman around the next school day, August 20, 1999. At the end of the day, Assistant School Superintendent, Russell Anderson, spoke with Respondent and informed her that if she wanted to resign, she must leave the school premises, and the resignation would be accepted at the next School Board meeting. During the meeting with Respondent, Mr. Anderson discussed her claims of harassment with her and offered her the chance to file a formal complaint for harassment against Dr. Hartman. Also, Respondent’s union representative, Ms. Clara Cook, informed her that she could file a formal complaint, yet Respondent declined to do so. Based upon his safety concerns, Mr. Anderson asked the school resource officer, Mr. McGee, to escort Respondent off campus. He then drafted a Notice of Temporary Duty Assignment which informed Respondent that she is “further prohibited from being on any school district property.” Respondent requested to rescind her resignation on August 23, 1999. On August 24, 1999, Respondent’s letter of resignation was rescinded and she was suspended without pay by the St. Lucie County School District. On October 6, 1999, Respondent was suspended without pay and notified that the St. Lucie County School District would recommend that she be terminated at the next School Board meeting based on her violation of School Board policies. After a hearing, Respondent was terminated by the St. Lucie County School District as a result of the contents of the resignation letter. As a result of the incidents culminating in her dismissal, Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been called seriously into question. Dr. Hartman explained that an effective teacher is one who “cares about children, cares about their learning, knows how to communicate, [is] open to learning themselves at all times, [is] very caring, compassionate, willing to work with others, realizing the accountability and responsibility that we hold each day, celebrating. You have to be very intelligent because you’re constantly thinking on your feet, planning and preparing and organizing.” Assistant Principal Applebee believes that Respondent did not like the children she taught because she noticed Respondent was not always nice to them; she complained about them; and the children believed they had no one in the classroom who cared about them. Ms. Grinstead, a school district administrator with 35 years of experience, believes that an effective teacher is one who is 1) sensitive; 2) caring toward children; 3) communicates well with peers; 4) communicates well with parents and students; and 5) can give suggestions on ways the parents and the school can work together for the children. Other teachers at St. Lucie Elementary School “rallied to assist” Respondent’s class. Ms. Drew decided to teach fifth grade so she could teach the same students who had been in Respondent’s fourth-grade class. Dr. Hartman would not reemploy Respondent. Assistant Superintendent Anderson would not recommend Respondent for re-employment in the St. Lucie County School District based on the seriousness of the charges. Assistant Principal Applebee would never re-employ Respondent because she did not believe Respondent to be an effective teacher. Officer Miller believes that Respondent should not be reemployed as a teacher by the St. Lucie County School District. Each of Respondent’s former students and their parents does not believe that Respondent should be employed as a teacher anywhere. Respondent takes no responsibility for any of the allegations made against her. She believes that she did nothing wrong, but that the problems complained of by the administrative staff, law enforcement personnel, her former students, and their parents are the result of either discrimination, harassment, or manipulative children and their parents who refuse to take responsibility for their children’s behavior. Despite all the complaints lodged against Respondent by her former students and their parents, her former principal, assistant principal, school district administrators, and law enforcement officers, Respondent received satisfactory evaluations from Dr. Hartman for the period in question in this case. Respondent currently works for the Head Start program, caring for three- and four-year-old children. Before the Administrative Complaint was filed in this case, a substantially similar Administrative Complaint (the same except for the statutory citations which were renumbered by the Florida Legislature) was filed and scheduled for hearing before DOAH. The case proceeded to hearing and the prior Administrative Law Judge opened the record. Petitioner then attempted to amend the Administrative Complaint to correct statutory citations that had been renumbered by the Legislature. Respondent objected to Petitioner’s ore tenus motion to amend. When the Administrative Law Judge announced that he would not rule on the motion to amend at the hearing, Petitioner announced that it was voluntarily dismissing the Administrative Complaint without prejudice and would thereafter file a new complaint with the revised statute numbers. Respondent asserted at that time that she believed Petitioner’s voluntary dismissal would be dispositive of the claims and allegations in it; that she did not agree to a voluntary dismissal; and that she was prepared to proceed. Nonetheless, Petitioner voluntarily dismissed the Administrative Complaint, and DOAH entered an Order Closing File.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s teaching certificate be revoked for a period of 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions of Subsection 1012.795(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly B. Holbrook, Esquire Broad and Cassel 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500 Post Office Box 3310 Tampa, Florida 33602-3310 Mark F. Kelly, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated School Board Policies, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times to this matter, Respondent was employed as a science teacher in the Pinellas County School District and currently holds a professional service contract. She was hired as a teacher in September 1995, and worked at Lakewood High School for one school year. During the bulk of her career with the school district--August 1996 through December 2012--she worked at Largo Middle School teaching science. At the semester break, she was transferred to Countryside High School to finish out the 2012-2013 school year. She was assigned to teach anatomy and biology at Largo High School for the 2013-2014 school year and then transferred to Bay Point Middle School beginning with the 2014-2015 school year until she was placed on paid administrative leave on April 25, 2016. From at least 2011 forward, administrators, parents, and colleagues at three different schools, voiced repeated concerns regarding Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher, including her failure to appropriately plan and deliver instruction; the lack of rigorous academic assignments; poorly organized lessons; failure to align learning targets and goals with activities and tasks; failure to differentiate instruction; failure to explain content; and failure to engage students. Complaints persisted regarding her failure or refusal to regularly grade student work and enter the grades into the student information system known as FOCUS; administer assessments; and otherwise properly manage the students in her classroom. Specific examples of her performance deficiencies, as well as repeated efforts to remediate her deficiencies through mentoring opportunities and professional development, were described in great detail at the two-day hearing and are summarized herein. Performance Issues While Teaching at Largo Middle School During the latter part of her time at Largo Middle School, administrators met with Snow to address performance concerns that existed regarding her instructional delivery, grading policies, and classroom management. Specifically, she met with administrators on October 25 and 31, 2011, to revise a “success plan,” and to discuss concerns from parents that grades were not being entered in a timely manner, mid-term progress reports not being sent home, failure to allow make-up assignments, and the issue of not enough grades being entered each marking period. They discussed developing a positive relationship with students and discontinuing the use of sarcasm during class, use of the Gradual Release Model for instructional delivery, the development of rubrics for grading student projects, and developing clear criteria for how grades would be earned. These concerns and expectations were memorialized in a disciplinary memorandum dated November 7, 2011, known as a “conference summary.” Another meeting was scheduled at Largo Middle School on April 6, 2012, to discuss “on-going issues that occurred last year and continue to occur in the 2011-2012 school year.” This meeting resulted in a letter of reprimand dated April 10, 2012, for insubordination because Respondent ignored directives to send home progress reports for students with a D or F grade; to enter student grades bi-weekly; and to allow students to make up assignments. The letter stated, in part: [D]ue to your act of insubordination in disregarding an administrative directive you are receiving this letter of reprimand. Also, by this letter of reprimand I am directing you to enter grades into the computer weekly or bi-weekly, send out progress reports at least three weeks before the end of a six week grading period and make every reasonable effort to support all students to achieve educational success. Failure to follow this directive will result in further disciplinary action. The Same Performance Standards Continue at Largo High School Following the disciplinary conferences noted above, Respondent spent a few more months at Largo Middle School, then served one semester at Countryside High School with no noted issues. Some of the same issues that plagued her at Largo Middle School, however, continued at her new school--Largo High School. For example, just four weeks into the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent was told by her supervising assistant principal, John Marina, that he was “getting feedback from parents that they don’t know what’s going on in [her] class.” He explained that parents need to see the grades so they can appropriately address their children at home. Another assistant principle notified her by e-mail that her seventh-period class had no grades entered, and two of her other classes only had two grades entered. The assistant principle reminded her of the expectation “that grades are posted weekly in FOCUS to assist students with tracking their progress, as well as parents being able to track what their students are doing.” A few days later, a parent’s complaint to the principal came to Marina’s attention. The parent advocated for her daughter’s “rights to be educated by a teacher that knows how to TEACH. . . . She is a junior, and the last two years are the most important. She deserves no less than a teacher that can provide her with the knowledge she seeks.” At the hearing, Marina recalled the meeting between the parent and Respondent. He testified that the student aspired to attend medical school and was frustrated that there was no rigor in Respondent’s anatomy class. He described the relationship between the student and Snow as “contentious” after the student said, “Hey, when are you going to teach, Mrs. Snow.” Ultimately, the parent obtained a doctor’s note authorizing the student to be removed from Respondent’s class. Even her colleagues complained to administrators. One teacher stated that Respondent “is either a really good actress, or she is inept completely.” The teacher described Respondent struggling to attach a copy of an exam to an e-mail so the teacher could print it for Snow. She said that Respondent had originally planned to have the anatomy students simply answer questions at the back of the book, but was urged by her colleague to create an exam. This caused Respondent to skip her assigned cafeteria duties to perform the task. Her colleague complained to the school administrators, stating, “I have observed that she has extremely poor planning and forethought and I believe she exists on campus for the purpose of seeking out possible excuses for her inability to perform her job duties. The more I interact with her, the more appalled that I am.” Marina developed a detailed success plan and both he and the principal met with Respondent to discuss their expectations regarding improved classroom management, use of formative assessments to differentiate instruction for students at various levels, use of standards-based benchmarks to drive instruction and measure student understanding of the curriculum, and entering grades into FOCUS. Basically, the success plan addressed the same deficiencies that were identified at Largo Middle School. Snow was offered support from experienced educators and took advantage of coaching provided by an instructional staff developer to help her with classroom management processes. According to Marina, Snow never accepted that her performance required improvement. Rather, “there was always an excuse,” and she routinely maintained that she was “an exceptional science teacher.” On April 30, 2014, Marina completed an annual appraisal of Respondent’s performance. The appraisal instrument for the 2013-2014 school year was described by Louis Cerreta (“Cerreta”), the district’s Director of Professional Development, as a “hybrid model,” because it consisted of behavior indicators from the Charlotte Danielson evaluation system and the Dr. Robert Marzano evaluation system, as well as a few indicators recommended by an appraisal advisory committee consisting of principals, assistant principals, union representatives, district administrators, and classroom teachers. The appraisal system was approved by the Pinellas County School Board, submitted to and approved by FLDOE for use as the instructional appraisal instrument, and Marina was appropriately trained to conduct the appraisal. The evaluation instrument consists of three components: the administrative review or “instructional practice” component; the deliberate practice, also called the “professional development” piece; and the student achievement component. Marina completed the Summative Evaluation (consisting of the first two components, but excluding student achievement data) on April 30, 2014, which resulted in a scaled score of 1 out of 4 available points on the administrative review and zero points for professional development. The student achievement score was based on the scores of students taking the biology EOC (student achievement) and resulted in Respondent receiving a score of 3 on a 4-point scale. Snow’s final evaluation resulted in a score of 1.685 or “needs improvement” under the statutory rating system. The administrative review incorporated and summarized observations made by Marina during visits to Snow’s classroom from January through April 2014. During these visits, Marina completed a “science implementation rubric” for each of the seven observations. He explained that each of the indicators on the rubric correlated to an indicator on the evaluation instrument, and he would either mark the indicator as “evident” or “not evident” depending on what he observed in the classroom. The Administrative Review reflected many of the same concerns addressed in Respondent’s success plans at Largo High School, as well as from her former school, Largo Middle School. For example, she received “unsatisfactory” ratings on each of the five indicators under “ability to assess instructional needs.” Marina commented: “This has been an ongoing issue this entire year. I mediated several parent meetings over the concern of accurate and up to date grades.” Under the section entitled “Plans and Delivers Instruction,” she received less than effective ratings on seven of the nine indicators. Here, Marina commented that her “lesson plans are more of a to-do list,” and while she had opportunities to “go into higher order thinking and increase the rigor of her classes,” she failed to do so. He also noted that she failed to abide by the directive to send tests and quizzes to the administration for review. Under the category entitled “Maintains a Student Centered Learning Environment,” Respondent scored less than effective on ten of the 11 indicators. Marina noted: “rules and procedures tend to fall into chaos on a daily basis, as administrators are frequently called to your room. Many times it is loud and there is a back and forth between teacher and student(s).” Marina testified that he gave Respondent a zero on the professional development section of the evaluation because she submitted the same form that she had submitted when she worked at Largo Middle School indicating that she taught comprehensive science to seventh graders when in fact her professional development goals should have accurately reflected the courses she taught at Largo High School. Marina stated: “not only was it the wrong [professional development form], but it was [delivered] in March” when they are due at the beginning of the school year. Professional Performance Deficiencies Continue at Bay Point Middle School Respondent was involuntarily transferred out of Largo High School at the conclusion of the 2013-2014 school year and resumed teaching middle school for the start of the 2014-2015 school year. The principal at Bay Point Middle School (“Bay Point”), Dr. Jason Shedrick (“Shedrick”), learned during the summer of 2014 that Respondent would be his new sixth-grade science teacher. He immediately reached out several times on the telephone to introduce himself. She proved to be unreceptive to his overtures and combative at every turn. When she did not return his calls, he contacted her former school, Largo High School, to gain some insights into her background and discovered she was on a success plan. He sent Respondent an e-mail to schedule a formal meeting to discuss his expectations, as well as the climate at Bay Point so that she could become successful at her new school. At an impromptu meeting, she told him she was not happy with her schedule because she only wanted to teach biology and advanced classes. He reminded her that middle schools do not have biology classes. She insisted she was a high school teacher and that any further meetings would have to include her union representative. They met again on August 15, 2014, and developed a sixteen-paragraph detailed success plan that addressed classroom management, instructional planning and delivery, grading and tracking student progress, notification to parents through contact logs and progress reports, and attendance and professional development. Shedrick testified that there was no ambiguity as to what he expected from Respondent. He said they spent three full hours working on the success plan because they hammered out each and every issue: We went through every single item on this plan. Ms. Snow went through every item on this plan. Her Union representative went through every item on this plan. We changed it several times to accommodate Ms. Snow for Professional Development, her doctors’ appointments before school, after school, whatever it entailed. Everything was laid out so there would be no misunderstanding about the plan. For the next two years, until she was placed on paid administrative leave on April 25, 2016, Respondent proved to be both unwilling and incapable of following directions and performing the most basic duties of a classroom teacher and fulfilling the expectations of her success plan. 2014-2015 Bay Point Lesson Plans Appropriately completing lesson plans and submitting them timely was a recurring problem for Respondent at Bay Point as it had been for her while assigned to previous schools. She had been provided the Bay Point template for lesson plans in her “first day packet” and the expectation for their submission had been reviewed as part of their marathon meeting on August 15, 2014, in connection with the success plan. Nevertheless, Respondent returned her first submission on handwritten notebook paper claiming that she was unable to save an attachment on her computer. Shortly thereafter, Respondent met with Dr. Elizabeth Tisdale (now “Chiles”), the sixth-grade assistant principal responsible for supervising Snow during the 2014-2015 school year. Chiles scheduled the meeting to review school-wide rules and processes with Respondent because she had missed a couple of days during pre-school when administrators typically review these expectations. Her lesson plans were late, so Chiles specifically reviewed this expectation again. Respondent’s excuse for not submitting them varied but included: no internet at home, computer malfunction, wrong lesson plan template, and an uncertainty as to required content. Throughout Respondent’s two-year tenure at Bay Point, Shedrick had to regularly remind her to correct her lesson plans and to submit them timely. Parent Contact and Progress Reports Respondent was expected to contact parents anytime a student was in jeopardy of receiving a grade less than a C. This was another expectation in her success plan, as was the expectation that parents receive a progress report in such cases. She fell short on this expectation and, in fact, expressed early on that she had no intention of calling parents, as required. Specifically, Chiles met with her on September 2, 2014, to discuss, among other matters, a parent’s concern that her straight-A student was receiving an F in Snow’s class. Chiles reminded Respondent that parents need to be contacted if their child has an F. Respondent outright refused, stating that “she would not call every parent.” On September 15, 2014, Shedrick asked Respondent to produce the progress reports that she had sent home for students receiving a D or F in her class. In response, Snow sent him copies of the computer gradebook that she had sent home to parents requesting that they sign and return. Shedrick was incensed that she had no concept of confidentiality and would send each parent a printout describing the grades of every other student in the class. Moreover, the gradebook printouts were not the progress reports he had requested. He explained: I didn’t receive the progress reports the way that I wanted. . . . I want to know what students were doing, what the assignment was, what the point value was, when it was due, when it was turned in. I wanted to see it before it went home because, then again, I have to answer to these parents at this time why was there not enough grades in the computer, why did my kid have an F, why did my kid have a D. So what I received from Ms. Snow wasn’t what I asked for. Several months later on February 12, 2015, Shedrick notified Respondent by e-mail that he wanted to see the progress reports for all students with a D or F in her class by February 18, 2015. On that date, Chiles spoke with Snow and followed up with a an e-mail requesting that she submit the progress reports no later than 4:00 p.m., that afternoon. At 4:19 p.m., Snow sent Shedrick an e-mail telling him that the progress reports would not be completed by 4:00 p.m. The excuses given included her usual claim that there was a computer problem, this time the internet was slow, but also that students were absent and, therefore, were still taking the test. Failure to Provide Weekly Academic Assessments and Assignments Respondent was expected to grade at least two academic- based assignments each week and record the grades in FOCUS so parents and students could monitor their progress. She blatantly refused to do so and claimed that she was not contractually required. According to Snow, she was only required to record one grade weekly. During a conversation in early September, Chiles reiterated that the expectation was two graded assignments, not one, but even if only one assignment were required, Snow missed the mark because it was the third week of school and she only had two grades recorded. By September 15, 2014, several weeks into the first grading period, Snow had recorded only four grades and one was for a review of the student code of conduct, not an academic- based grade. The walk-through feedback forms completed by Chiles noted this deficiency. On January 13, 2015, Chiles noted “currently zero (0) grades posted-starting new quarter (should have at least 2-4)”; on January 20, 2015, she noted again that zero grades had been posted and on February 23, 2015, she noted that four grades were posted and there should have been 18. Shedrick testified that it was “unacceptable” that by March 23, 2015, eight weeks into a nine-week grading period, after which students were supposed to receive their report cards, Snow had posted only four grades. Respondent also was expected, and repeatedly directed, to give the students a test which would enable her to measure the students’ progress and tailor her instruction accordingly. She gave her first and only test in February 2015, and that was only after several people in administration coaxed, prodded, and essentially wrote the assessment for her. Lack of Classroom Structure, Organization, and Management Several people noted that Respondent’s students were not engaged during class and that she needed help with classroom management. For example, during walk-throughs on September 8 and 15, 2014, Chiles told her she needed more engaging lessons and to circulate the classroom rather than sitting at her desk. Again, on January 13, 2015, Chiles noted lack of engagement, students not paying attention, “no flow of the lesson-transition nonexistent, unorganized structure,” and students not understanding the lesson. On January 20, 2015, Chiles and Michele Stewart (“Stewart”), an instructional staff developer, observed her classroom together and again noted lack of engagement, rigor, and understanding by the students. Chiles had a meeting with Snow on January 21, 2015, to review these issues. Snow did not respond to her suggestions for improvement, except to say that her planning period should not be interrupted and that the students do not understand the class “because of their levels.” Excessive referrals, sending students out of class into the hallway without assistance, and not addressing student needs were regular issues for Snow. In one instance, she assigned a student to the back of the room in a time-out chair and did not excuse him to use the restroom. The student wet himself causing him to be embarrassed and ridiculed by his peers. Snow told Chiles that she saw the boy’s hand slightly raised, but thought he was playing with the blinds. Shedrick testified that the boy’s parent called and came to the school to take the student home and that he “had to explain [to the parent] why the student sat in the back of the classroom and the teacher would not let him go to the bathroom.” Another time, Respondent left campus in the middle of the day without telling anyone. Her class of 22 students was left alone, unsupervised. Shedrick said he arrived in her room, and she was not there. Another teacher had to cover her class. He said he called her on the phone and was informed that she was sick or had a doctor’s appointment. As a result of this incident, coupled with the other recurring performance deficiencies, the superintendent suspended Snow for three days. Support, Training, and Professional Development at Bay Point Snow had multiple opportunities to correct her performance and improve her deficiencies through a variety of training opportunities and support provided to her. On most occasions, she refused to attend or otherwise participate. Many examples were given by the witnesses testifying on behalf of the school district. At the very beginning of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent was expected to attend District Wide Training (“DWT”) for middle school science teachers. The DWT is the “big kick- off” for the upcoming school year, and the sessions consist of practices and initiatives that the science department expects to be implemented in the schools. Despite being specifically told that she needed to attend the middle school sessions to learn about revisions to the middle school curriculum, she instead chose to attend the high school science sessions. When asked why she did not attend these (which would have been relevant to her assignment as a middle school teacher), she told the principal that in her mind she was a high school science teacher. As is the case with all teachers new to the school, Respondent had a mentor assigned. Lara McElveen (“McElveen”) was the lead mentor at Bay Point and testified that she was a resource and was always available to help teachers navigate issues ranging from curriculum questions to technology. She held regular monthly meetings to discuss what was working for the teachers and what was not. While most teachers came to her when they needed help with the type of problems Snow experienced (lesson planning, progress reports, assignments, test preparation, FOCUS, etc.), Snow only sought her help occasionally and only for minor issues such as printing or copying assignments. McElveen testified that she tried to set up meetings to help with more substantive matters, but Snow complained that she had “too many meetings and that it was outside her contractual hours.” Four specific trainings were identified in the Success Plan negotiated between the principal, Respondent, and her union representative during their three-hour meeting on August 15, 2014. Specifically, she agreed to attend the following training sessions: Just in Time Unpacking & 5E Collaborative Planning on September 2, 2014; Content Enhancement Part 1 Unit Organizer on September 23, 2014; Data Driven Instruction & Analysis Gap Check In in January 2015; and Just in Time Boot Camp on February 3, 2015. Shedrick went out of his way to remove any barrier to her attendance. He made sure she was paid to attend the trainings by giving her a “TDE” (Temporary Duty Elsewhere). He personally coordinated the timing of the trainings with other appointments on her calendar, including her doctor’s appointments, and also sought out convenient locations for the different trainings so that she did not have to travel far. He set the first training scheduled for September 2, 2014, at a school located only five minutes away. She did not attend this training. Given the efforts that he went through to personally set up the trainings and personally reach out to the people conducting them, Shedrick testified that he was beyond disappointed and annoyed that she did not bother to attend. As a result, he wrote her a reprimand dated September 5, 2014, and directed her to follow the expectations in the success plan-- including attendance at the other trainings--in order to avoid future discipline. Despite her agreement as part of the success plan and the directive in the reprimand, she did not attend any of the four trainings. She never offered the principal an explanation for not attending, but simply told him that she did not attend. In early October 2014, administrators visiting Respondent’s classroom noted that she was two-to-three weeks behind in the pacing calendar establishing the dates by which certain subjects should be covered in her classroom. Shedrick worked with the middle school science specialist, Tom Doughty, to provide Snow assistance and get her back on pace. They assigned Stewart the task of working with Respondent. Stewart observed her class on October 8, 2014; met with her briefly to discuss a remediation plan; and scheduled another meeting the following week to follow through. At the scheduled meeting, Stewart brought the additional materials Snow had requested, but was unable to work personally with her because there was a collaborative planning session scheduled with all teachers. Stewart attended this training with Respondent. Afterward, she asked Snow to meet with her individually as planned, but Snow told her no, she was not contractually required to meet. Over the next couple of weeks, Stewart was at the school for five more days conducting trainings and available to assist the science teachers. Respondent appeared for one group-training on November 12, 2014, but no more. On one of the days (October 20, 2014), all of the science teachers came to meet with Stewart, except Snow. On another day (November 20, 2014), administrators asked Snow to meet with Stewart, but she never showed up and on the other two days, she called in sick. In addition to Snow falling behind in pacing, Doughty and others observed during classroom visits that Snow had “instructional pedagogy issues.” Shedrick again asked Doughty and his team to come in and provide direct support to Snow. Doughty observed her classroom on four occasions between January 13 and January 16, 2015, to see “what instructional strategies were used or lack thereof, what could have been used and were not employed or were not employed correctly.” The plan was to work in tandem with Stewart to provide professional development geared toward the specific areas where Snow struggled. Following the observations, he met with Snow, Shedrick, and Chiles to “debrief,” but Snow was openly resistant to his observations and suggestions. He said he tried to point out areas where her classroom management and practices needed to be refined, but she “cut me off at various points to argue with my observations.” For example, he suggested that a classic and fun activity for kids to learn the concept of balanced and unbalanced forces was a simple game of tug-of-war where they can experience what happens with forces on either side of a rope. Snow’s method for teaching this concept was to refer the kids to a picture of a satellite in their textbooks. Doughty told her that pointing the kids to a picture in a textbook “is not helping a student put an abstract concept to a concrete example.” In response, Snow “defensively interrupted [him] saying that she would never do that with her students and would stick with the picture of a satellite in a book.” He concluded that overall “Snow was very defensive and seemed not willing to accept feedback in order to improve her practice.” Snow was told repeatedly that assessments are necessary to measure a student’s understanding of the content taught. Also, Shedrick wanted to see any test she planned to give the kids. Despite these directives, Snow had not tested her students nor had she tried to create a test. Finally, on January 20, 2015, Snow sent Shedrick two documents for his approval which she presumably believed to be appropriate for testing her students. Noting that they appeared to be three-year-old worksheets, Shedrick forwarded the proposed assessments to Doughty for his review. Doughty first questioned why Snow would be testing certain subjects in late January--homeostasis and cells--when the pacing calendar called for the topic to be covered in the first week of October. He also noted that the sheet was straight out of the textbook. He observed that the second document was apparently pulled by Snow from a bank of questions designed several years earlier and was not appropriate to be given as a test to students. He also reminded Shedrick that Snow would benefit from attending a session at an upcoming DWT focused on proper classroom assessment design. As already noted, she did not attend the trainings which could have helped her do her job and, in particular, a training specifically designed to help her create a test. Next, Shedrick notified Snow that she was not to give the test she had proposed. In desperation, he asked Doughty and his science team to again work with Snow on creating a test. He testified that he had to ask for their help because Snow had not tested her students all year: I had to because we’re in December, January and the students haven’t been assessed. So how do you know what deficiencies they have? How do you know what standards to remediate? How do you know what they’re lacking? How do you know where to fill in the gaps? How do you know what to do as a teacher if you haven’t given a five-question quiz? How do you know what to do? When Shedrick informed Snow that the county science department would be setting up individualized training at Bay Point because she missed the professional development planned for all teachers (a DWT), she responded that “she did not have time for training because [she] was so busy.” He asked if it would be possible to set them up in the morning before school, during her planning period or after school, and she repeated that she was too busy and would never attend a training during her planning period. Finally, Snow agreed to attend a side-by•side training with Stewart so that Stewart could teach Snow, a veteran teacher with upwards of 23 years’ experience, how to write a test. Stewart and the district’s test bank did the bulk of the work, and eventually a test was created. Snow’s students were administered their first and only test on February 10, 2015. 2014-2015 Annual Evaluation at Bay Point On April 17, 2015, Chiles completed an annual appraisal of Snow’s performance. The appraisal instrument for this year was the “hybrid model” incorporating indicators from the Charlotte Danielson evaluation system and the Dr. Robert Marzano evaluation. Chiles completed a two-day training on the evaluation system. She passed a test on its use prior to evaluating teachers. The instructional practice portion of the evaluation, completed by Chiles, comprised 40 percent of the total score. Snow scored 1.364 points achieving an “unsatisfactory” rating. Snow did not score “effective” on any of the indicators. Chiles noted in the formal observation that: Ms. Snow demonstrates deficiencies in the area of delivery of instruction . . . she also struggles with time management in delivering instruction which causes students to be unclear on instruction and assignments. Many students are unable to articulate the learning goal or relate the learning goal to the lesson. Furthermore, many parts of the Gradual Release Model are not applied or observed. With regard to the assessment of instructional needs, Chiles noted that “little progress has been made.” “Tracking and monitoring data has not been exhibited, as well as using multiple assessments to assess the instructional needs of all students.” The student achievement portion of the evaluation counted for 50 percent of the overall score. Snow achieved 3.0 points for this portion. The remaining ten percent was based on professional development and Snow was given three out of ten available points. Respondent received only three points because she submitted a plan that did not match her duties. Again, she submitted an old form from the previous year when she worked at a high school. The form stated she was a biology teacher at Largo High School rather than a sixth-grade science teacher at Bay Point. Three points on a ten-point score was converted to a 1.2 on a four-point scale. Overall, Snow’s evaluation reflected a “needs improvement” rating with a final score of 2.166. 2015-2016 School Year at Bay Point Despite Snow’s poor performance, lack of cooperation and outright defiance the preceding year, Shedrick was optimistic that the 2015-2016 school year would be different. He testified that he was excited that Snow may have “turned a corner.” He testified that he was hopeful because over the summer Snow had shown some initiative and “went to a training without me asking her to.” Moreover, she actually approached him and shared the information, which was rare. He then scheduled a meeting with Snow to scale down her success plan and work on what was necessary to make her a successful science teacher. Shedrick’s optimism was misplaced and quickly faded. Snow was contentious and not receptive to the scaled-down success plan which contained many of the same expectations as the earlier one, i.e., two grades per week in FOCUS; at least one approved assessment each grading period; follow pacing guides; provide progress reports to students with D’s and F’s; contact parents; submit lesson plans; and attend classroom management training. She immediately objected to the expectation that she attend classroom management training stating that she already went to a training in July: “I’ve already been to that training and I am not going to any more training.” He tried to explain to her that the trainings are not all the same at which point it occurred to him that the only reason she attended training in the summer was probably to get a “trade day,” which amounted to a paid day off during the school year. He said, “I hope she didn’t go to that training just for the trade day. I hope she went to that training for students. Conclusion, trade day, because she would not go anymore [to additional trainings].” Not only did her performance and attitude fail to improve, it went downhill quickly from that point forward. Throughout the first semester of 2015, Shedrick and other administrators conducted numerous visits to Snow’s classroom and repeatedly notified her that she was behind the curriculum; her instruction was very low-level textbook work; she had not given the students a single assessment or even a quiz; she was not entering academic grades into FOCUS; she was not engaging the students or managing her classroom; and she had no plan to remediate the students who were falling behind. Shedrick testified that by December 2015, he was “at wits end.” He tried to schedule a conference with her prior to her formal observation but she would not meet with him. He tried repeatedly to re-schedule a meeting. Snow responded with a variety of excuses and objections and once marched into his office at the scheduled time simply stating, “I’m not meeting for your pre-conference,” and walked out. She did not complete the required pre•observation form, so Shedrick asked someone from the professional development department to go into the iObservation database and prepare the form for her. She never completed the form and never appeared for a pre-conference before the formal evaluation. Shedrick experienced the same difficulty with Snow in scheduling a formal observation. She objected that he did not give her enough notice; she did not have enough time; she had to test ESE and ESOL students; and other teachers do not have a formal observation mid-year. At one point he went to her classroom to discuss the observation (because she did not respond to his e-mails) and discovered that the kids were working on crossword puzzles. He said that if she was going to ignore his e-mails, “at least let me walk into [her] class and see [her] students highly engaged in some specification [sic] of some science labs, some dissection, and some hands-on lab learning for science. Imagine my dismay to walk in and see students working on crossword puzzles.” He conducted the formal observation on December 16, 2015, and for 55 minutes of the class period, the students worked on defining terms. He said this was typical of Snow’s lessons. “Bell work was defining terms. Classwork was defining terms . . . students would sit there and actually copy word for word verbatim or she would have them in the science consumer workbooks underline or she would regurgitate to them as to what to write next to whatever they underlined right next to it.” On the formal observation, Shedrick notes under “Establishing Classroom Routines”: [A]s I walked into the classroom you were moving around students from seat to seat and one student asked what are we doing and you replied “just wait.” You instructed the class to sharpen their pencil one by one and seven students ran to the pencil sharpener. Now students are sitting and waiting for you to begin the lesson. Two students are passing out books. Four minutes are gone and students are still waiting. Two students in the front row are passing out sheets of paper, now you have several students up doing various things at this time. Female students in the back are talking about the movies from the weekend. Ten minutes has gone before you address the class. You are trying to inform students of the Scale you created. Under the category entitled “Identifying Critical Content,” he wrote: Teacher reading terms that she asked students to define (define three terms) and students ask you to repeat and what page? No collaboration for this assignment . . . students are just defining terms out of the book and writing on paper . . . . At the beginning of the second semester, Shedrick’s frustration with Snow was palpable. He requested help from OPS, as well as the area superintendent, Robert Path, asking: How much longer must we continue with Snow? Anytime I request a meeting, she does not respond and doesn’t attend. This is defiant and disrespectful to start. How will I continue to run my campus as teachers hear she doesn’t attend my requested meetings, why should they. All this with no action which allows her to continue her behavior. On January 15, 2016, Shedrick sent Snow a letter telling her that she was on very thin ice but he was going to try once again to remediate her numerous deficiencies. After summarizing all of his efforts to meet with her to conduct a formal observation, as well as her responses, he stated: I have grave concerns over whether the very marginal instructional improvement that you made last year is sustained. You have never assessed your students so I have no information on that score, refused to show me the work that your students are performing so I do not have that information to review, refused to meet with me to finish a formal observation and have called in sick for several days avoiding this discussion. For that reason, I asked Mr. Doughty, the Middle School Science Specialist to observe your classroom, on Thursday, January 14th and this morning. I am very concerned about numerous things including the lack of science instruction taking place in your classroom, your classroom management and your conduct and attitude every time that I try to discuss these issues with you. Your continued refusal to do what I ask has seriously impeded the education of our students and they deserve better. I remain willing to work with you and sincerely hope that you choose to work with me toward preparing our students to meet the goals set for 6th grade science. I plan to meet with you to discuss all of these issues. Doughty again observed Snow’s class on January 14 and 15, 2016, and used his observations as a basis to develop yet another remediation plan. He observed that the activities were “low rigor-no connection made to learning target”; the pace of the lesson was not appropriate; there was “minimal student engagement” with students “off task” and “compliant” [sic, the context supports “non-compliant”]; and classroom management and discipline was not evident. Doughty helped design yet another remediation plan that was presented to Snow on January 20, 2016. He said: [W]e wanted to provide as much support and help to try to help her be the best teacher we could make her to be. So one of the things I suggested to Dr. Shedrick was, for example, Letter G [of the remediation plan] was stop using movies as a time filler, having appropriate topics and rigorous assignments that tied to it. Aware that much of what he had observed in the past was “textbook, textbook, textbook, writing in the textbook and . . . not a lot of hands-on engaging things,” he suggested Letter H of the plan, “performing labs that tied into the unit to bring on hands-on activities to give students ownership into their learning.” Doughty and Stewart spent several sessions with Snow during January and February 2016. On February 19, 2016, following an observation of her class, Doughty wrote to Snow commenting that the students were generally confused because the learning goal or the content she intended to teach, did not align to the task: The strategies used weren’t implemented correctly and did not achieve the desired effect. . . . Through my last two visits I have not seen effective implementation of the professional development Michele has provided on an individual basis. It is apparent we will need to revisit the topics from the previous 2 PO [personal observation] sessions. . . . At this point, Doughty felt his team’s efforts could be better utilized elsewhere, rather than continuing to work with Snow who was not cooperating. He contacted a number of people to tell them that “we’re not getting anywhere.” In an e-mail dated February 23, 2016, Doughty noted that “overall it is not going well” and “Michelle is very frustrated that her efforts are not yielding any results.” Insubordination, Incompetence, Performance Deficiencies, Willful Neglect of Duty Respondent is either incapable of performing the duties of a classroom teacher or simply unwilling to do so. Based upon the record, it is both. At times it seems that she is not willing to try because she does not have the skills necessary to perform her duties and, at other times, she is outright defiant claiming that she is not required to do what is asked of her. For two years at Bay Point, she has been directed to enter at least two academic standards-based grades per week in FOCUS and administer an assessment to the students. The assignments that she gave to students in no way could be construed as academic- based. The workbooks produced at hearing from students T.J. and M.T. contain pages with a few definitions, questions and answers copied out of the textbook, and “reflections” consisting of one to two sentences of what the student learned. One assignment is a “foldable” that the student cut out and pasted in the book, with definitions of cell parts written under the flap. In another assignment, the student cut out pictures of body parts and pasted them in the book partially labelling them. With all of the emphasis placed by the educators and administrators on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) and rigorous science instruction, Shedrick was appalled that Snow was teaching and assigning her students what he described as “baby work.” From the record and Snow’s testimony, there is little explanation as to when or how she graded these assignments. The students testified that they did not know the purpose of the assignments or how they were graded. Their parents did not know how she arrived at the grades and, when asked, she was not able to explain the grades to them. In addition to the low-level nature of the assignments in FOCUS, Shedrick objected to Snow giving a grade for a parent’s signature, bell work, notebook checks, reflections, and review of the code of student conduct. These were not academic grades, in his opinion. Parents also complained that they never knew where their child stood in the class because of the irregularity of Snow’s grading. Shedrick testified that parent complaints came in “fast and furious” because of Snow’s habit of “dumping” grades at the end of the marking period. John Frank (“Frank”), the OPS administrator, conducted an audit trail in FOCUS which enabled him to determine the dates that grades were entered and found that grades due earlier in the grading period were added a day or two before the end of the marking period, often drastically affecting a student’s grade with no warning or opportunity for the student to improve. For example, on March 14, 2016, FOCUS indicated Snow had entered six grades. Three days later she had entered four more grades for assignments that should have been added weeks prior. It is nearly inconceivable that entering two grades weekly could have been so difficult, especially for an experienced science teacher. For Snow, however, it was a constant uphill climb. When she met with Shedrick and, at times, with Valencia Walker, and later Frank, each told her “just put in two grades a week.” She said she did not have to. At the hearing, she claimed that she was “confused” when she was told the school district wanted two grades. She “preferred” to enter only one grade and reasoned that her assignments were so “intense” that one grade for her was really the equivalent of two grades for another teacher. Her lessons and assignments could in no way be deemed “intense.” At one point, she said she tried to put in two grades, but did not have time. Later, she said “my goal was to put in two grades a week. The reason why I wasn’t able to put in two grades a week at the end was because of the testing schedule and the pacing guide.” This explanation is almost nonsensical. As evident from her belief that her assignments were “intense,” Snow appears to have no insight into the lack of academic rigor in her classroom. At the hearing, she tried to explain the complexity involved for students to answer two questions in their textbooks on cells. She defended her extensive use of the textbook and instructional strategy of having the students read aloud from it on the basis that she had a lot of “special learners” who needed to learn to read. The record does not support her contention that her students needed “special” treatment due to learning disabilities or other special needs. Snow blames many of her deficiencies on the students’ misbehavior in her class. Testimony confirms that at times the class was loud and the students sometimes disrespectful. This is not uncommon when teaching middle school students. A parent called by Snow to testify characterized her observation as a class “out of control.” Snow, however, fails to recognize that her inability to deliver meaningful instruction caused, or at least substantially contributed to, the student behavioral issues. If the students were more engaged and assigned to more meaningful tasks, classroom decorum would have improved. Doughty summarized the correlation well when he testified, “The more low- rigor, the more textbook work . . . the more misbehavior I see happening. The more I see classrooms that engage students in fun, interactive . . . cool science, engaging science, the less misbehavior I see.” Snow attributes the misbehavior to the students, not her teaching methods or poor classroom management skills. She claimed that she was assigned “more than three fourths of the 6th grade SE/ESOL and 504 population . . . in addition, I have the majority of the lower level 6th graders.” Shedrick and the sixth-grade assistant principle, Jason Helbling, testified that the population of students in Snow’s class was no different than any other sixth-grade class. In fact, Helbling pulled the grades of the students Snow complained were nonperforming and found they received A’s, B’s, and C’s in their other classes. Snow’s testimony on this point is not credited. Helbling testified that he was called to Snow’s room much more frequently than any other teacher’s classroom in the school; in his words, as much as ten times more frequently. She had no interventions set up to redirect the students, but would instead call administrators to have those misbehaving or rowdy removed from class. She complained to Helbling that the students were terrible and not teachable. He counseled her to call home to the parent and “try to do other things than throw the student out of class and having them miss content.” Snow claimed she contacted parents but when Helbling called them himself, he learned that there had been no follow-up by Snow in the form of telephone calls. Helbling found that the students characterized by Snow as “rough,” “terrible,” and “not teachable” did not have the same problems in other teachers’ classes. He visited other classrooms to observe these students’ interaction with the teachers. The difference was that the other teachers had classroom management strategies and reached out to the students. Inexplicably, Snow did not even know the names of her students, something Helbling found inexcusable after several months of school. He testified, “If [by end of January] we don’t even know the names of our students, we have a problem, and a lot of that is linked to classroom management. How can you manage a classroom if you don’t know who your students are?” During a classroom visit on January 29, 2016, Helbling walked into a classroom in disarray. A chair was sitting on top of a desk; most of the students were talking; bell work took 21 minutes with no student actually working on bell work (“bell work” are brief assignments given at the start of class to warm up the students, settle them down, and prepare them for the day’s substantive lessons); five kids were lined up at the pencil sharpener; and Snow “sat at her desk the entire time that the observation took place.” Annual Evaluation at Bay Point for 2015-2016 School Year When the time came for the annual evaluation for the 2015-2016 school year, the district had fully integrated the Marzano appraisal system for use in all schools, which as noted above, is designed to grow a teacher’s practice. The comprehensive instrument is comprised of three components: the instructional practice, the deliberate practice, and the student growth score. The Instructional Practice portion counts for 56.67 percent of the evaluation and consists of four domains. Domain 1 is “Classroom Strategies and Behaviors” consisting of 41 instructional categories that happen in the classroom. Administrators conducted seven informal and two formal observations (mid-point and final) for completion of Domain 1. Domain 2 is “Planning and Preparing.” Domain 3 is “Reflecting on Teaching” and Domain 4 is “Collegiality and Professionalism.” Administrators also conducted nine walk-throughs which contributed to Domains 2-4. In each of the four domains, a teacher is rated based on a scale with the lowest being “not using” and the highest being “innovating.” The scores are tallied in the iObservation database. Snow received a score of 1 which is an “unsatisfactory” rating for the instructional practice portion. Her weaknesses in classroom management, instructional delivery and planning, and failure to cooperate were noted in many instances by her evaluator. The Deliberate Practice portion of the instrument counts for ten percent of the overall score. The rubric dictates that a teacher may receive a score of 1, 3, or 10. Teachers receive points, either 1, 3, or 10, depending on whether they submitted a professional development plan and then whether they implemented it. Snow received three out of ten points because she submitted a deliberate practice plan, but did not attend the required professional development. On a four-point scale, this translated into a score of 1.2. The Student Growth score is worth 33.3 percent of the overall score. Snow received a score of 3.0 on this section resulting in a final score on her evaluation of 1.69 or “needs improvement.” Cerreta testified that Snow is the only teacher in the district, out of more than seven thousand teachers, ever to have received three consecutive ratings of “needs improvement.” Cerreta confirmed that each of the evaluators for the 2013-2014 through 2015-2016 school years received training and were certified by the district to conduct an evaluation using the respective evaluation instruments. The administrators properly administered each of the evaluation instruments and Snow never challenged, through a grievance, the process followed by the administrators in conducting the evaluation. Cerreta’s office is responsible for submitting the appraisal systems to FLDOE for approval each year and confirmed that each of the respective systems described for the three-year period were submitted and approved by FLDOE. It bears noting and a brief discussion as to the integrity and character of Principal Shedrick and the other administrators who patiently worked with Respondent throughout her tenure with the Pinellas County School District and, especially, at Bay Point. It is rare to see a principal and district administrators who not only give a teacher the benefit of the doubt when it comes to her shortcomings, but go well above the call of duty to counsel; offer guidance at many levels; and utilize so many already overworked district personnel in an attempt to make one teacher not only a better educator, but successful in every way relating to her classroom and her students. Shedrick, his fellow administrators, and other teachers at Bay Point spent an inordinate amount of time working with one teacher, Snow, who not only rebuffed their efforts to make her successful, but seemed to resent their attempts to make her a more effective teacher. Only after constant failures by Snow in the classroom, and her apparent inability or lack of desire to improve or learn from all the advice and instruction given, did Shedrick reach his breaking point and move forward with the steps leading to Snow’s proposed termination. Less dedicated individuals would have pulled the plug far sooner, and Shedrick, along with all the administrators involved, should be commended for their patience and desire to make an experienced science teacher, a valuable commodity in the district, successful to the point where she could better further her students’ education in such a vital academic subject in today’s world. Based upon the extensive evidence and testimony, all these efforts were unappreciated and, ultimately, made in vain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Laurie A. Dart, Esquire Office of General Counsel Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Dr. Michael A. Grego, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent had good cause to reject the then Lake County Schools’ Superintendent’s nomination of Petitioner, Dennis Teasley, to be Assistant Principal I of Eustis High School for the 2008-2009 School year.
Findings Of Fact From 1987 until 2006, Dennis Teasley was employed by the Broward County School System. During those years, he served the school system in a number of capacities, including: dropout prevention teacher from 1987-1988; middle school science teacher from 1988-1999; Assistant Principal of Pines Lakes Elementary from 1999-2004; Intern Principal from 2002-2004; and Principal of Pines Lakes Elementary from 2004-2006. The Intern Principal title was used by Broward County School System to designate an assistant principal as a “principle-in-training.” The designation provided an assistant principal with additional opportunities to become involved on a larger scale with the administrative responsibilities of the school. Mr. Teasley’s performance appraisals from Broward County consistently rated him as “Effective” or “Highly Effective” in all the criteria assessed. Additionally, Mr. Teasley received or was nominated for numerous awards based on his performance or the performance of the schools under his charge. For the school year 2003-2004, when Mr. Teasley served as assistant and intern principal, Pines Lakes Elementary earned an “A” rating. For the school years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, when Mr. Teasley was principal of Pines Lakes Elementary in Broward County, the school earned grades of “B” and “A,” respectively, and achieved AYP each year. “AYP” refers to Adequate Yearly Progress under the No Child Left Behind Act. To achieve AYP, a certain percentage of students from each population demographic represented at the school must achieve a Level 3 or higher in reading and mathematics, as measured by Florida’s “A-Plus” program. Sometime during the summer of 2006, Mr. Teasley either relocated or intended to relocate to the Lake County area. He applied for a position with the Lake County school system. Eventually, he was hired as a principal by Lake County Schools sometime in July, 2006, just prior to the beginning of the 2006- 2007 school year. Mr. Teasley was assigned to Beverly Shores Elementary School. Beverly Shores has a large population of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, as well as a large population of students requiring Exceptional Student Education (ESE). The ESE population includes students designated as Emotionally Handicapped (EH), and Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH). Indeed, 68 percent of the students at Beverly Shores in 2006- 2007 came from economically disadvantaged homes and 11 percent of the students were classified as ESE. The environment of the school was described by most of the witnesses as being a tough environment with a variety of discipline problems. Prior to Mr. Teasley’s appointment as principal, 447 students were suspended from Beverly Shores during the 2005-2006 school year, with 422 students suspended out-of-school (OSS) and 25 students given in-school suspensions (ISS). Eighty of the students given OSS were kindergartners. The principal for that year was described by the Superintendent as being burned-out and needing a respite from such a tough environment. Mr. Teasley entered this environment with insufficient time to familiarize himself with staff and/or review procedures and policies that were in place. He had one Assistant Principal (AP) to support him. Mr. Teasley’s two goals for the 2006-2007 school year were: 1) improving the academic standing of the school, by raising FCAT scores in mathematics and in the lowest performing quartile of students, all without a reduction in the scores for reading and writing; and 2) reducing the rate of serious discipline incidents by 50 percent. Mr. Teasley wanted to redraft the prior year’s disciplinary policy. There was some lack of communication on the status of the redrafted policy between teachers and Mr. Teasley and lack of activity by the committee responsible for the redraft. Eventually, some teachers felt that Mr. Teasley did not support them when it came to disciplinary matters and that Mr. Teasley allowed the students to get out of control. In September or October of 2006, a first-grade student brought a cellophane baggie containing a white powder to school. The police were called to confirm that the substance was cocaine. After confirmation, the child was removed from the custody of his mother, and immediately suspended from school. There was no evidence to suggest that the discipline imposed for this incident was inappropriate. In early September, Mr. Teasley placed an ESE/EH student in a non-ESE class. The student in question had been “retained” (or “held-back”) twice. As a consequence, the student was a seventh-grade-age student in a classroom of third- grade-age children. Mr. Teasley thought that the student’s development would be better met in middle school with similarly aged peers. He, therefore, hoped to have the student reassigned to middle school. While waiting to hear if the reassignment would happen, Mr. Teasley placed him/her in a non-ESE fifth- grade class under the supervision of a teacher with whom he had a good rapport. The decision to place the student in the non- ESE classroom was predicated on a number of factors, including Mr. Teasley’s desire to put the child in an environment where he/she could be successful, as well as, safety concerns regarding significantly younger ESE students being in the same class as the ESE student. Unfortunately, the student was not reassigned to the middle school and Mr. Teasley transferred him back to his original class. After the ESE/EH student was returned to his/her original class, the student “jumped” another student after school was dismissed, breaking the other student’s wrist. The ESE student was immediately given an out-of-school suspension (OSS). However, because the child was an EH student, he/she could only be suspended for a cumulative maximum of ten days, without convening a special ESE disciplinary staffing. Since the student had already been suspended for five days earlier in the year, his/her suspension was limited to five days. After this incident, the student’s parent consented to placement in an alternative school and the student was transferred to the Lifestream school. Again, there was no evidence that Mr. Teasley’s method of handling this student’s behavior problems was inappropriate given the fact that this student was a special education student and special disciplinary procedures applied to such students. Additionally, during the first semester, there was an on-going concern with a second-grade EH student who was “stalking” a female student. Mr. Teasley attempted to have the EH student assigned to the alternative school. However, the student’s mother was “dead-set” against the assignment and the student remained at Beverly Shores. At the same time, Mr. Teasley immediately informed the mother of the child being stalked of what was going on, as well as the steps that were being taken for the girl’s safety. Mr. Teasley assigned an adult to escort the EH student everywhere he/she went on campus. He also rearranged the lunch schedule for the student’s entire class to ensure that the student was not in the cafeteria at the same time as the girl. Again, there was no evidence that demonstrated the steps taken by Mr. Teasley in regard to this EH student were inappropriate given the fact that the student’s mother refused alternative placement and the student was an EH student. Ms. Jule Hand, a kindergarten teacher at Beverly Shores, provided the only direct testimony regarding Mr. Teasley’s perceived lack of support for the faculty. Specifically, she recounted incidents in which she personally sent referrals to the administration and was disappointed when a referral was not addressed on the same day it was written, or when the consequences were not, in her opinion, suitable for the incident. Ms. Hand testified regarding one incident where a student, with a history of significant disciplinary problems and multiple suspensions, pushed two students in her classroom and then threw down all the chairs around the classroom. In the process of throwing chairs, the child hit her and was physically and verbally abusive to her senior volunteer. Ms. Hand called the office for assistance in removing the child from the classroom. The child was removed and received a verbal reprimand with a warning to discontinue the behavior or harsher consequences would follow. To Ms. Hand’s dismay, the student was returned to the classroom. Ms. Hand went on to detail further incidents of misbehavior by this particular child, such as hitting the physical education teacher, spitting in another child’s face, throwing food, grabbing a child from behind, verbal defiance, swinging a metal pipe, and hitting another student with his/her shoulder hard enough to almost knock her over. During this time, the student’s parent was contacted on numerous occasions by both faculty and administrative personnel. Additionally, the student had been suspended twice during the course of these incidents. However, even with these suspensions, the student continued to have disciplinary problems. Mr. Teasley did not want to expel the student and recommended that Ms. Hand contact a social worker and counselor so that the student could be referred to ITOS, a behavioral- intervention study. Eventually, the student left Beverly Shores to attend the study. However, the year following Mr. Teasley’s term as principal, the student returned to Beverly Shores and continued to have behavioral problems. Again, the evidence did not demonstrate that Mr. Teasley’s handling of this matter was inappropriate, given Mr. Teasley’s desire not to expel the student. Ms. Karen Seltzer also testified at hearing about her impressions of the discipline problems at Beverly Shores under Mr. Teasley. Some of her testimony involved the EH student referenced above who again began stalking during the second half of the school year. Ms. Seltzer’s testimony was quite confusing and based on hearsay she had gathered from discussions with other teachers who did not testify at hearing. Furthermore, she also testified that she was unaware of the actions taken by Mr. Teasley in response to the incidents she related. The Assistant Superintendent, Mr. Cunningham, observed the students and environment of Beverly Shores during his visits in the first semester of the school year. The visits were prompted by complaints he or the Superintendent had received about the lack of discipline at Beverly Shores. During his visits to Beverly Shores, Mr. Cunningham observed behaviors that he reported to Mr. Teasley as situations that should be addressed from a discipline and control standpoint. He witnessed students traveling about the campus unsupervised by adults, as well as various unsafe behaviors such as running and jumping. There was some testimony from staff that indicated Mr. Cunningham’s observations regarding unsupervised students were not isolated incidents. Mr. Cunningham also saw classrooms that were cut-off from casual observation (e.g., the blinds were drawn). He also testified that at the beginning and the end of the day, when the entire student body was on the move, he observed that teachers were not “on duty” supervising the movement of students. He instructed Mr. Teasley that during those times it was especially important that teachers be in “supervisory mode.” Mr. Cunningham did not return to Beverly Shores until just before the end of the school year. At some point around March 2007, a parent named Ms. Burry contacted Mr. Teasley about obtaining a Sheriff’s Resource Officer (SRO) for Beverly Shores. Ms. Burry thought a uniformed officer on campus would help with student discipline. Even though a SRO is not involved with student discipline, Mr. Teasley felt that a uniformed officer on campus would serve as a positive role model at Beverly Shores. In support of Ms. Burry, Mr. Teasley attended a March 12, 2007, Leesburg City Commission meeting in which parents and teachers sought funding for an SRO at Beverly Shores. He spoke in favor of the idea. The City Commission referred the request back to the Board. At that point, Mr. Teasley felt that the SRO issue was “out of his hands.” Ms. Burry began to contact the Board and Superintendent about her desire for an SRO on campus and the need for greater discipline in the school. Around March or April 2007, Mr. Cunningham was again contacted by parents who were concerned about safety at Beverly Shores. At about the same time, a representative from the teacher’s union had come to him with concerns about the administration at Beverly Shores and “suggested pretty strongly that they might file a grievance” regarding Mr. Teasley’s performance. Mr. Cunningham did not identify which or how many parents voiced concerns to him. Likewise, he did not identify which or how many teacher complaints created the impetus for the union to consider filing a grievance. None of the parents testified at the hearing. On April 30, 2007, Mr. Teasley sent a letter to Assistant Superintendent Cunningham requesting that an additional assistant principal be assigned to Beverly Shores. As indicated earlier, Beverly Shores operated with one AP in 2006-2007. The letter, in part recognized there was a significant disciplinary problem at Beverly Shores and that the school did not have adequate administrative staff to handle the number of disciplinary referrals. Mr. Teasley made the request based on the approximately 1,200 disciplinary referrals the administration had processed through April 19th of the school year and the amount of time spent on processing those referrals. Mr. Teasley stated that the time spent processing those referrals reduced the time administrators were able to spend in classrooms or on campus. The number of disciplinary referrals was due, in part, to Mr. Teasley’s philosophy of using OSS as a disciplinary tool of last resort. In his view, a child cannot be educated if they are not in school. At some point, the Superintendent became aware of the complaints and problems at Beverly Shores and decided to meet with the staff and faculty to assess the situation at the school. In May of 2007, the Superintendent held two meetings with some teachers and staff of Beverly Shores. Ms. Rhonda Lynn attended those meetings. Her interpretation of the tone of the first meeting was that some members of the faculty and staff were frustrated and searching for leadership and that such leadership should have been provided by the principal and his administration. Some teachers and staff in attendance voiced complaints about Mr. Teasley’s lack of discipline and control of the student population. The Superintendent indicated such complaints would remain confidential. At the second meeting with the Superintendent, Mr. Teasley was present and either various complaints were mentioned by the Superintendent in Mr. Teasley’s presence or he was clearly aware of the complaints that had been made in the first meeting. Ms. Lynn’s interpretation of the tone of the second meeting was that the Superintendent had breached the confidentiality promised the staff in the first meeting regarding complaints about Mr. Teasley and that the staff was very upset over that breach. Ms. Lynn admitted that she could not speak for how every teacher at Beverly Shores felt about Mr. Teasley. Ms. Lynn stated that she never had any discussions with Mr. Teasley regarding an explicit philosophy for dealing with students who had received multiple referrals. She also testified that she had no responsibilities for the processing of disciplinary referrals. Throughout the time period outlined above, Mr. Teasley was formally evaluated by the School District. Originally, Mr. Cunningham would have been assigned to perform Mr. Teasley’s evaluation. However, at the time he would have performed the evaluation, Mr. Cunningham was assigned other duties within the District. Therefore, Ms. Pat Nave, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, K-12, completed Mr. Teasley’s evaluation. In the course of performing her evaluation of Mr. Teasley, Ms. Nave made four separate visits to the Beverly Shores’ campus. During those visits, Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley would discuss a number of different topics regarding the operation of the school. Specifically, Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley discussed his policies for monitoring faculty and student conduct. One such tool for monitoring the campus was a structured system for scheduling the weekly classroom walk-through assignments by members of the school’s leadership team. Based on the reports Mr. Teasley would receive as a result of these walkthroughs, Mr. Teasley would follow up with individual teachers regarding their performance. Additionally, during the evaluation visits, Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley would discuss the goals that Mr. Teasley had established at the beginning of the year to gauge the school’s progress in the areas he had identified as needing improvement. As noted earlier, those goals were: 1) improving the academic standing of the school, by raising FCAT scores in mathematics and in the lowest performing quartile of students, all without a reduction in the scores for reading and writing; and 2) reducing the rate of serious discipline incidents by 50 percent. Ms. Nave concluded that all of the strategies that had been outlined for reaching those two goals had been, or were being, implemented. With regards to discipline, she specifically noted that referrals had decreased. Indeed, the evidence demonstrated that out-of-school suspensions decreased from 422 the previous year to 221 for the current year and that on-going concerns were being addressed through the safety and discipline committee Mr. Teasley had established, even though the evidence at the hearing showed that this committee was not very active. Additionally, there was some suggestion at the hearing that disciplinary referrals may have been down because Mr. Teasley was not processing such referrals. There was no competent evidence to support such a conclusion. Evidence did demonstrate that Mr. Teasley preferred ISS to OSS. Toward that end, the ISS procedure was altered from the way it had been operated in the years prior to his tenure at Beverly Shores. During the course of the 2006-2007 school year, Mr. Teasley hired a teacher to monitor the ISS room and provide instruction when necessary, eliminated the practice of sending children to the ISS room as a “time-out” by requiring administrator approval, and required teachers to supply the child’s lessons for the periods that the child was in ISS so that the student could keep up with his or her classes. Finally, Ms. Nave discussed the School Advisory Council’s (SAC) performance rating of Mr. Teasley. SAC had given Mr. Teasley a mixed satisfaction rating at one of its meetings. At that meeting, eight members of SAC were present. Four of those members voted that Mr. Teasley was doing a satisfactory job. Four voted that Mr. Teasley was doing an unsatisfactory job. Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley, nonetheless, discussed the issue of the need to foster a productive working relationship with SAC. After the discussion, Ms. Nave was satisfied that Mr. Teasley was taking appropriate actions to continue working with SAC members to implement changes at Beverly Shores. As a result of this performance review, Mr. Teasley received the maximum amount of points on his evaluation and met the performance criteria of that evaluation. After the evaluation and three weeks before the end of the school year, a fifth-grade student at Beverly Shores wrapped the leather portion of his belt around his hand and began to swing the belt, striking students and adults with the metal buckle. Mr. Teasley and AP Jeff Williams were called to the classroom to assist with restraining and removing the student. Once they got the student to the office, Mr. Teasley immediately notified the police that a battery had occurred, suspended the student for the ten-day maximum suspension period, and began the expulsion process. The student did not return to school that year. No suggestion was made that Mr. Teasley’s response to this event was inappropriate. The belt incident garnered media attention. Shortly after the incident, the Superintendent went to the Beverly Shores campus, but could not locate Mr. Teasley in his office or on campus. She, therefore, sent Mr. Cunningham to the school. Eventually, she assigned Mr. Cunningham, along with Messrs. Mitchell and Habring, to Beverly Shores for the remainder of the school year. The Board also authorized the placement of an SRO at Beverly Shores. Mr. Cunningham testified that within a few days of the assignment of the extra personnel, the discipline situation began to improve and the school began to operate in an orderly way. Mr. Cunningham stated that he started to do the things that he had told Mr. Teasley needed to be done earlier in the year. The actions of Mr. Cunningham included administrative staff becoming more visible on campus while students were in transit from one place to another and dealing with each and every referral on the day in which it was written. Importantly, these actions were accomplished with a significant increase in administrative personnel. From an academic standpoint, there can be no question that Beverly Shores made significant improvements under Mr. Teasley’s direction. Evidence admitted at hearing showed that the school grades from the Department of Education (DOE) based on the students’ FCAT performance for Beverly Shores for the six school years prior to Mr. Teasley’s tenure (i.e., 2000- 2001 through 2005-2006) were “C”, “B”, “B”, “B”, “C” and “C”, respectively. During Mr. Teasley’s time as principal, Beverly Shores earned a grade of “A.” Beverly Shores also achieved AYP. Additionally, Beverly Shores had increases in the percentage of students meeting high standards in mathematics, as well as an increase in the percentage of students in the lower-quartile who made learning gains. The school’s grades did not decrease in the areas of reading and writing. These improvements show that the school was successful in achieving the academic goals that Mr. Teasley had identified at the beginning of the year. It should also be noted that such improvements were also due to the efforts of teachers and other staff at the school. Due to this achievement, Mr. Teasley was one of only 92 principals in the state to receive recognition as a “Turn- Around” Principal in 2006-2007. The “Turn-Around” award recognizes the principal of a school which improves by at least two letter-grades in one academic year. In 2007-2008, the year after Mr. Teasley’s tenure, Beverly Shores’ grade fell back to a “C” and the school failed to make AYP. The evidence did not demonstrate that Mr. Teasley had more discipline problems at his school than in prior years. There was some evidence to demonstrate that there may have been some student control problems related to monitoring the passageways of the school. Those problems were in part due to a lack of sufficient administrative staff to patrol the school. There was also some evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Teasley had lost the support of some of the faculty because he would return students to the teacher’s classroom or not assess a harsher penalty for misbehavior. However, there was only one teacher who testified to support that conclusion. Other staff testimony regarding lack of support and lack of discipline was based on hearsay. Just as Beverly Shore’s grade was not dependent on one person, Beverly Shores alleged discipline and student control problems cannot be attributed to one person. One teacher’s testimony coupled with hearsay and vague testimony is insufficient evidence to conclude that Mr. Teasley was no longer professionally qualified to perform in some capacity within the School District. At a May 21, 2007 Board meeting, Mr. Cunningham gave a report of the actions that had been taken at Beverly Shores to deal with discipline during the time he was assigned there. He also made suggestions for improving the discipline situation at the school going forward. Some of the suggestions involved actions previously sought by Mr. Teasley. At about the same time, the 2006-2007 school year came to a close. The Superintendent began to finalize the academic teams she would recommend to the Board for the 2007-2008 school year. In fact, for the next year, 2007-2008, the Superintendent and the Board recognized the need for additional supervisory staff at Beverly Shores and appointed two APs and a behavioral specialist to the school. The Superintendent was mindful of the events at Beverly Shores and the fact that some of the faculty and staff had lost confidence in Mr. Teasley’s ability to lead the school as principal. She decided not to recommend Mr. Teasley for principal at Beverly Shores. However, she did not want to lose Mr. Teasley’s skills as an administrator and recommended him for a district level administrative position for the 2007-2008 school year. The Superintendent’s recommendation was accepted by the Board and Mr. Teasley fulfilled the duties of that position during the 2007-2008 school year. At the close of the 2007-2008 school year, the Superintendent again created staffing recommendations for the 2008-2009 school year. Toward that end, the Superintendent created staffing recommendations to the Board that considered many factors. The most important factor was the creation of administrative teams for each school that would serve as that school’s “instructional leaders.” Similarly, it was very important that at least one member of an administrative team be well-versed in making learning-gains, raising student achievement and school grades. Mr. Teasley was clearly well- versed and well-qualified in such areas. The Superintendent recognized that since the 1998-1999 school year, Eustis High School had earned a grade of “C”, except for the year 2006-2007, when the school’s grade was “D.” Because of the high school’s performance, the Superintendent intended to make changes at Eustis High School to attempt to address the academic problems and raise the school’s academic performance. Additionally, the school was not known for having any extraordinary disciplinary issues. Mr. Larry was the principal of Eustis High School. He had been appointed the principal of the school because of his success in implementing advanced programs as a principal at the middle-school level. Mr. Larry was also very strong on discipline, had 4 other APs and did not require additional help in the area of discipline. Therefore, the Superintendent was not worried about discipline-related issues at Eustis High School. In putting together an educational team for the school, the Superintendent wanted to place a person who had demonstrated their ability to raise a school’s academic achievement and performance. As indicated, the Superintendent did not want to place Mr. Teasley back at Beverly Shores because that educational team had not been successful. However, Mr. Teasley had skills in school improvement that were very useful to the District. She recommended Mr. Teasley for appointment as one of Eustis High School’s five APs. Her recommendation was based on Mr. Teasley’s proven ability in achieving AYP, his ability to analyze the raw performance data for AYP and to work with teachers to raise the test scores which form the basis of a school’s grade. Indeed, the Superintendent felt that Mr. Teasley was one of the strongest individuals she could recommend to Eustis High School to work with the current administration and to help improve the school’s academic performance. Mr. Larry indicated to the Superintendent that he could work with Mr. Teasley. There was no direct testimony given at the hearing of how Mr. Larry wanted to use Mr. Teasley at Eustis High School, although there was some hearsay testimony that Mr. Teasley would be placed at the Curtright Center, a separate ninth grade center that is approximately 1.5 miles from the main high school campus. The Superintendent recommended Mr. Teasley for the position of AP-1 at Eustis High School. Ultimately, the Board rejected the Superintendent’s recommendation. The testimony at hearing and the evidence admitted shows that the primary reason that the Board rejected the Superintendent’s nomination was because of the Board’s lack of confidence in Mr. Teasley’s ability to maintain discipline and control at Eustis High School. Mr. Cunningham, Assistant Superintendent for Administration and Safety, testified that he did not believe that Mr. Teasley was qualified to serve as an AP-1 at Eustis High School. He based that opinion on his observations at Beverly Shores during the 2006-2007 school year and his opinion that if one loses his administrative authority at an elementary school, that person has “no business” as an administrator of a high school. Mr. Cunningham did not offer an opinion on the academic-improvement functions the Superintendent intended Mr. Teasley perform in the academic team to which she assigned him. In addition, the individual members of the Board testified regarding their reasons for rejecting the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Strong testified that his basis for rejecting the Superintendent’s recommendation related to the situation at Beverly Shores during the 2006-2007 school year; particularly, the perceived lack of administrative discipline that created a disorderly educational environment, and the Board’s decision in May of 2007 to place an SRO at the school. He also stated that his vote was influenced by the public input of Ms. Pam Burtnett, president of the Lake County Education Association (“LCEA”), received by the Board at the June 23, 2008 meeting, and by his conversations in the spring of 2007 with one parent and one teacher from Beverly Shores, Ms. Denise Burry and Ms. Bordenkircher, respectively. Ms. Burtnett was not a teacher at Beverly Shores. Neither Ms. Burry nor Ms. Bordenkircher testified at hearing. However, Mr. Strong also testified that prior to the School Board meeting on May 7, 2007, no one had previously raised the issue of discipline at Beverly Shores at any previous Board meeting, and that he never personally witnessed any discipline problems at Beverly Shores. Ms. Kyleen Fischer testified that she had visited the Beverly Shores campus while it was under the direction of Mr. Teasley. Specifically, she testified that she observed that Beverly Shores’ students were not under control and that they were disrespectful. Based on her observations, she felt that the appointment of Mr. Teasley to Eustis High School would create a safety issue. Ms. Cindy Barrow testified that she did not believe Mr. Teasley possessed the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities to serve as a high school AP-1. She based her belief on information gathered from many different sources, including reports such as the 2006-2007 climate survey, conversations with Mr. Cunningham and Ms. Burry, reports given orally to the Board at the May 21, 2007 and June 23, 2008, Board meetings, and the fact that 22 teachers and one guidance counselor left the school during or after the 2006-2007 school year. However, she did not speak to any of the departing personnel regarding their reasons for leaving, nor did she testify as to any of the specifics regarding the above. Ms. Barrow’s belief was that Mr. Teasley had not been able to maintain order or deal with behavioral problems at Beverly Shores and, therefore, he would not be successful at dealing with behavioral problems at Eustis High School. However, Ms. Barrow admitted that she had never been to Beverly Shores. She believes that a primary duty of any high school AP-1 is to handle disciplinary issues. However, she also testified that she had no specific conversations with Mr. Larry or the Superintendent about how either planned to use Mr. Teasley as AP-1 at Eustis High School. Mr. Metz, who testified that he had never visited Beverly Shores during its hours of operation prior to May of 2007, stated that his decision to vote against the Superintendent’s recommendation was based on the situation at Beverly Shores in the Spring of 2007, his written and verbal communications with concerned parties, and Ms. Burtnett’s presentation to the Board in June of 2008. The Board re-reviewed the issues the Superintendent had already considered in creating her educational teams at the various schools and in making her recommendations to the Board. The Board concluded that Mr. Teasley was not qualified to serve as an AP-1 at Eustis High School based on very broad generalizations about appropriate discipline. The Board’s action was not based on any knowledge regarding the role Mr. Teasley would play in the Eustis administration. As indicated, the Superintendent, as is her authority, considered all of the issues surrounding Mr. Teasley’s tenure at Beverly Shores. She also recognized the successes in academic improvement achieved during Mr. Teasley’s tenure and that those skills were needed at Eustis High School. The Superintendent assembled an administrative team after discussing the team members with the principal of the High School and assuring as much as possible that Mr. Teasley could function within that team. The evidence did not demonstrate that the Board’s assessment should trump the Superintendent’s recommendation regarding Mr. Teasley, especially given the fact that Mr. Teasley had many years of good performance evaluations as an AP in Broward County and a good performance evaluation in Lake County. As a consequence, the Board has failed to carry its burden of showing “good cause” to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation and the Superintendent’s recommendation should be accepted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: that the Board enter a Final Order reversing its earlier decision and accepting the nomination of the Superintendent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 6th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan E. Moxley, Ed.D. Superintendent School District of Lake County, Florida 201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares, Florida 32778 Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire McLin & Burnsed Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357 Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Petitioner, Osceola County School Board (School Board or Petitioner), has just cause to terminate Respondents Mona Sagar and Kristie Gilmore from their employment contracts.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is duly constituted and charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Osceola County, Florida. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; ch. 1012, Fla. Stat. The School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Sagar and Ms. Gilmore were employed by the School District. Ms. Sagar has been in the education field for years. She attended “teachers college” in Trinidad and taught school there for ten years. She was hired as a paraprofessional (para) by the School District in 2011. Ms. Sagar was assigned to an autistic classroom at Discovery Intermediate School (Discovery) and later switched to an “intellectually disabled mild” (InD mild) classroom. She has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. At the start of the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Sagar was the para assigned to the “intellectually disabled severe” (InD severe) class. The InD severe class had a teacher and two paras,7/ and was composed of children who were mainly confined to wheelchairs or who needed special assistance to walk. Ms. Sagar completed the crisis prevention intervention (CPI) class, a class that instructs personnel on how to physically and verbally restrain, redirect, and prompt a child who is misbehaving. Ms. Gilmore became a para in exceptional student education (ESE) in 2005. She arrived at Discovery in August 2005. Ms. Gilmore worked with students with varying educational needs including: emotional behavior disorder (EBD); autism; InD mild; intellectually disabled moderate (InD moderate); intellectually disabled profound (InD profound); and regular educational students.8/ Ms. Gilmore had completed the CPI training twice before, but she was not re-certified at the start of the 2013-2014 school year. She has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. Discovery had six self-contained ESE classrooms for the 2013-2014 school year. There were two autistic classrooms, one InD mild classroom, one InD moderate classroom, one InD severe classroom, and one EBD classroom. All six classrooms are located on the first floor of one of Discovery’s buildings, in close proximity to the office of the dean of students. Student safety is of paramount concern for School District employees. As such, every EBD classroom has a land-line telephone and a walkie-talkie for use to request assistance, to notify the appropriate office of a student’s unscheduled exit from the classroom and to provide other information. The telephone is primarily a school-based phone that has its own five-digit internal extension number.9/ In the event a walkie-talkie is not available, a teacher or para may use the telephone to communicate with other school personnel. The walkie-talkies are limited to the self-contained classrooms, guidance counselors, deans, school resource officer, administrators, principal’s secretary, academic coaches, athletic coaches, and maintenance staff. The walkie-talkies are on one channel or frequency, and when used, everyone who has a walkie- talkie can hear the conversation. Discipline referrals may be written by any adult at Discovery for any infraction in the student code of conduct. The referral form reflects the student’s name, identification number, the classroom, school, grade level, date of birth, race, sex, homeroom teacher, incident date and time, location of the incident, the problem or explanation of the problem, the action taken by the adult prior to the referral, the signature of the referring adult, and the date signed. The bottom of the referral form was for “administrative use only,” and reflects what if any action was taken. Ms. Gilmore, as the para in the EBD self- contained classroom, authored numerous discipline referrals for student J.G. During the 2013 summer, Ms. Chowdhary was notified that she would be re-assigned to Discovery’s EBD self-contained classroom for the 2013-2014 school year. Ms. Chowdhary did not want this assignment; however, Ms. Chowdhary contacted Ms. Gilmore and asked if she (Ms. Gilmore) would consent to be Ms. Chowdhary’s para in her EBD self-contained classroom. This request was based on their positive working relationship during the 2012-2013 school year in an autistic classroom. Ms. Gilmore agreed, the school administration concurred, and Ms. Gilmore was assigned to Ms. Chowdhary’s EBD self-contained classroom. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year there were ten male students in Ms. Chowdhary’s EBD self-contained classroom. This classroom had a walkie-talkie and telephone. Each student had an individual educational plan (IEP), a different EBD, and a medical condition. On the first day of school, each student was given a welcome packet that contained an emergency contact sheet and a health care report form. The parents are requested (but not required) to complete as much of the information as they wish, and return it to the classroom. Ms. Gilmore read the responses “thoroughly” regarding the medical conditions of students J.G. and J.C., as provided by their respective parents or guardians. In early December 2013, Ms. Gilmore was re-assigned to an InD moderate classroom as an accommodation for her pregnancy. Ms. Chowdhary requested a male para to replace Ms. Gilmore. Based on the support staff already engaged by Discovery, Ms. Sagar was transferred to work in Ms. Chowdhary’s self- contained classroom. Ms. Sagar observed and worked with Ms. Gilmore on two separate days for several hours prior to the actual transfer in mid-December. Approximately two weeks before the Christmas break, a female student, J.T., arrived in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. was taller and heavier than either Ms. Chowdhary or Ms. Sagar. J.T.’s language was loud and predominantly profanity-laced. J.T. did not complete her classroom assignments, and she did not follow the classroom rules regarding the use of her cellphone.10/ On January 9, 2014, Ms. Gilmore learned that Ms. Chowdhary was absent from school. Ms. Gilmore volunteered to be the substitute teacher in Ms. Chowdhary’s classroom.11/ In the early afternoon of January 9, two male students engaged in a physical altercation (Altercation No. 1) in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. took out her cellphone and recorded Altercation No. 1 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 6, Respondents’ Exhibit 21). That recording showed one student, J.G., standing over and taunting another student, J.C. J.G. called J.C. a “taco.” J.C. responded that J.G. should call J.C. “Taco Bell,” and added that J.G. was the dark meat in his taco. J.G. took J.C.’s remark to be a racist comment. J.C.12/ was crumpled on the floor behind a desk where J.G. grabbed J.C. by his warm-up jacket collar/shirt. J.G. pulled J.C. up by the collar/shirt and pushed J.C. into a chair at a computer cubby and small space near a wall. J.G. kept one hand on J.C. while pinning J.C. to the small space. J.G. continued to taunt J.C. and is heard to say: Next comment I’m gonna stomp on your [J.C.’s] heart, and I know you got a condition to where I stomp on it, you dead, and I don’t give a f . So you can’t keep making a racist joke. Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were both present and observed Altercation No. 1. Ms. Gilmore was sitting at the teacher’s desk in the front of the room when Altercation No. 1 started. When J.G. “dumped [J.C.] out of the chair,” [to start the altercation], [Ms. Gilmore] told J.G. to “knock it off,” and when J.G. had J.C. on the floor, she [Ms. Gilmore] “told him to quit.” Ms. Gilmore testified that she didn’t call for help because “It was over.” Her testimony is not credible because the recording shows that J.G. then pulled J.C. up to a standing position, and continued to taunt him. Further, Respondents’ Exhibit 16 is a discipline referral that Ms. Gilmore authored on January 9, the day of the altercations. Ms. Gilmore documented in this discipline referral the following “PROBLEM – EXPLAIN:” During Science class, 5th period, [J.G.] was talking about how he fights and got into an altercation with another student. Words were exchanged and [J.G.] didn’t like what the student [J.C.] said so he [J.G.] flipped him [J.C.] out of his chair, kicked him [J.C.] a couple times and threatened to kill the other student [J.C.] by stomping on his [J.C.’s] heart. Ms. Sagar was seated at a desk assisting another student, J.M., when Altercation No. 1 started. Ms. Sagar did not hear any loud shouting or threats at the beginning of Altercation No. 1, but it escalated to the point where she was “alarmed.” Ms. Sagar admitted that she got up to leave the room, then decided not to do so, telling herself: “I shouldn’t leave the class at this time.” The reason she did not leave the classroom was because the altercation “wasn’t settled like down, down, down. It still had like the talking and everybody, so I turned around and came back to my seat.” Ms. Sagar did not move to intervene or call for help. Neither Ms. Gilmore nor Ms. Sagar moved to intervene in Altercation No. 1, and neither used the walkie-talkie or the telephone to call for assistance or to alert the administration of the volatile situation. A few minutes later another altercation (Altercation No. 2) took place in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. also recorded Altercation No. 2 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 8) on her cellphone. J.G. was again taunting J.C. J.G. dared J.C. to “take a swing” at J.G. J.C. did not swing at J.G. J.G. proceeded to talk to the class about J.C. and other classmates. J.C. then expressed his desire to die because his life “sucks,” his father was dead, and his step-father didn’t love him. J.C. violently kicked/pushed a chair several feet away from himself, began to cry, stated that he’d be “happy if you [J.G.] kill me,” violently overturned a desk, and walked out of the EBD self- contained classroom. Again, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were present in the EBD self-contained classroom, and observed Altercation No. 2. During Altercation No. 2, Ms. Gilmore was at the front of the class at the teacher’s desk. Ms. Gilmore confirmed that J.C. “flipped a desk and walked out of class.” Ms. Gilmore testified she “opened the door, . . . and put myself at the doorway to get the rest of the kids out of the class if I had to get them out.” Ms. Gilmore is briefly partially seen in the recording, and she is heard asking J.C. to pick up the desk before he left the classroom. J.C. did not pick up the desk. The recording shows Ms. Sagar seated at a work table with J.M. At one point Ms. Sagar rises from her seat, walks to a counter with a microwave, stays at the counter for a short time, returns to her seat, and then eats something while Altercation No. 2 is on-going. Neither Ms. Gilmore nor Ms. Sagar used the walkie- talkie or telephone to obtain assistance or alert the administration of the continuing volatile situation. J.C. went to the dean of students (Ms. Rice’s) office after he walked out of the EBD self-contained classroom. Once there, he screamed at Ms. Rice about the events that had just taken place in his classroom. Ms. Rice observed J.C. to be distraught and angry. Based on J.C.’s comments, Ms. Rice understood that a recording of the classroom events was made. Ms. Rice requested the principal to obtain the recording. Between when J.C. left the EBD self-contained classroom and when the principal arrived at the EBD self-contained classroom to retrieve the recording, yet another altercation, Altercation No. 3, occurred. J.T. started recording Altercation No. 3 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 10) on her cellphone. Student W.F. held a chair over his head and threatened to throw it at another student, D.S. The other students in the classroom can be heard urging W.F. to throw it, but W.F. did not. J.G. can be seen standing behind D.S., and heard to say he’ll “make sure it hit[s] you [D.S.].” When it became apparent that W.F. was not going to throw the chair, J.T. handed her phone to W.F., who continued to record the action, and J.T. threw the chair. J.T. testified that she did not intend to hurt D.S., but she was not “play acting.” Ms. Gilmore testified she did not remember much of Altercation No. 3. She thought she might have been writing a referral at her desk, and did not call for help because the altercation was over so quickly. Again, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were present in the classroom, observed Altercation No. 3, and did nothing to radio or call for assistance or alert the administration of the volatile situation. There is no credible evidence that any of the altercations were pretend fights, or that they were staged for the benefit of the other students. Ms. Gilmore’s contention, that the altercations were staged, is not credible. This EBD self-contained classroom is a challenging class, one that should be closely monitored and adequately staffed to ensure learning can occur, and safety maintained. Respondents never attempted to gain control of the classroom or students. They never called for help or removed the other students from the area. Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner has just cause to terminate the employment of Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Osceola County School Board, enter a final order finding that just cause exists for terminating the employment of Ms. Sagar and Ms. Gilmore. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, the Lake County School Board, has just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, teacher Deborah Harkleroad.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Deborah Harkleroad has been employed by the School Board as a teacher for ten years. She is a member of the Lake County Education Association, the collective bargaining unit for teaching personnel. She is covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Lake County Education Association (the "CBA"), and holds a professional service contract with the School Board pursuant to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes.1/ During the first two years of her employment, the 2001- 2002 and 2002-2003 school years, Ms. Harkleroad was assigned to Tavares Middle School. At the start of her third year in the fall of 2003, she transferred to Fruitland Park as that school's first elementary literacy coach. During the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Harkleroad transitioned into teaching a regular third-grade class at Fruitland Park. She remained in that position during the 2009- 2010 school year. The School Board employs a performance evaluation methodology called "Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System" or "IPPAS." The standards for evaluation, the methodology to be used by evaluators, and the documents used in the evaluation of instructional personnel are set forth in the IPPAS Handbook. Article XI of the CBA acknowledges that the IPPAS is the vehicle for the evaluation and assessment of teachers employed by the School Board. Section 7 of Article XI of the CBA provides that an IPPAS Joint Committee composed of an equal number of representatives of the School Board and the Lake County Education Association will coordinate and monitor the development and implementation of the assessment process. Section 12 of Article XI of the CBA states that any teacher in danger of dismissal because of poor performance will be afforded the procedure set forth in section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. This procedure is given the colloquial acronym "NEAT," which stands for: N-- Notice of alleged deficiencies which, if not corrected, would lead to dismissal; E-- Explanation to the teacher of alleged deficiencies and suggestions for correction; A-- Assistance rendered by the administration to correct alleged deficiencies; and T-- Time for alleged deficiencies to be corrected. In accordance with the CBA and the IPPAS Handbook, the School Board evaluates teacher performance using an "Observation/Assessment of Professional Performance Standards" form in a procedure called an "Appraisal I." The Appraisal I is the standard evaluation for teachers employed by the School Board. The Observation/Assessment form contains 6 sections and subsections. The subsections are further divided into sub- subsections. The evaluator gives the teacher a score of "acceptable" or "unacceptable" in each sub-subsection. The overall evaluation is graded on a 12-point scale, one point for each of the 12 subsections. If the teacher's performance is graded unacceptable in even one sub-subsection, then the teacher receives an unacceptable score for the overall subsection. The only acceptable overall score on the Observation/Assessment form is a perfect 12. If a teacher does not receive an acceptable score in each of the 12 subsections, then the teacher's overall performance is deemed deficient. A deficient Appraisal I triggers the NEAT procedure and further evaluations. The IPPAS provides a voluntary alternative evaluation for experienced teachers who have received scores of 12 on the Appraisal I for the two immediately preceding years and have a professional service contract with the School Board. This alternative is called "PG-13," and allows the teacher to select a “professional growth” objective for the school year, work with an administrator in devising a strategy for attaining the objective, and demonstrate the attainment of the objective. Finally, the IPPAS contains an evaluation instrument called a "Professional/Personal Action Report Relating to Work Experience," or "Appraisal II." The Appraisal II is used to document individual instances of deficiency in a teacher's work performance that have been identified outside of the formal evaluation process. In order to become eligible for the voluntary PG-13, a teacher must have received no Appraisal II reports during the two years immediately preceding entry into PG-13. In order to remain eligible for the PG-13, a participating teacher must continue to meet the standard competency level for teaching performance, which includes receiving no Appraisal II reports. Since the 2004-2005 school year, Ms. Harkleroad had participated in the PG-13 evaluation process every year except 2007-2008, when she had back surgery and was unable to complete her PG-13 project. For the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Harkleroad received an Appraisal I score of 12. On March 19, 2009, Ms. Harkleroad received an Appraisal II report from the principal of Fruitland Park, Melissa DeJarlais. The "Area of Concern" listed on the Appraisal II form was "Personal Characteristics and Professional Responsibilities." Dr. DeJarlais wrote the following explanation of Ms. Harkleroad's deficient performance: On 3-5-09, teachers required to administer the FCAT assessment were mandated to attend the annual FCAT administration training. Mrs. Harkleroad was observed nodding off and/or sleeping during this training. She later explained that she did not feel well and it was possible that her prescribed medication was causing her to be overly sedated. As a precautionary measure, Mrs. Harkleroad's testing responsibilities were changed to that of a proctor thus requiring us to assign another instructional person to her classroom for the express intention of administering the FCAT. Mrs. Harkleroad did not perform her proctoring duties and instead spent time working on school related activities not germane to FCAT testing. These activities included printing her substitute or lesson plans while students were actively taking the FCAT assessment thus compromising the testing environment. At the time she received the Appraisal II, Ms. Harkleroad wrote the following response: In response to the Professional/Personal Action Report dated 3-19-09, I was running a temperature of 102.6 and my blood pressure was dipping dangerously low due to being sick on 3-5-09. I should have taken a sick day on this date, but I didn't due to the diminishing amount of teaching time left before the FCAT. I did fully perform my duties as a proctor for the math FCAT testing, and I did not at any time perform the activities alleged. During the time when I was printing my students' cloze practice reading assignments, no students were actively taking the test. At the hearing, Dr. DeJarlais offered no first hand testimony regarding the allegation that Ms. Harkleroad did not perform her proctoring duties and printed documents in the classroom while the FCAT was being administered. She testified that she relied on the reports of the test administrator and the testing coordinator in issuing the Appraisal II to Ms. Harkleroad. Ms. Harkleroad testified that, unlike the previous principals she had worked for at Fruitland Park, Dr. DeJarlais had never liked her or appreciated the extra work she did in compiling data that tracked student performance on the FCAT and other standardized tests. Ms. Harkleroad testified that she had always received "rave reviews" for the extra work she did in creating and maintaining the school wide data bank for tracking standardized test scores. She resented the fact that Dr. DeJarlais neglected to rave over the data notebooks when Ms. Harkleroad presented them to her. Ms. Harkleroad felt personally snubbed and concluded that Dr. DeJarlais did not like her. As to the events of March 5, 2009, Ms. Harkleroad surmised that the test administrator was trying to make "brownie points" with Dr. DeJarlais by maliciously reporting falsehoods about Ms. Harkleroad's actions in the classroom. Ms. Harkleroad asserted that the administrator was a friend of Dr. DeJarlais, and that the principal simply took the administrator's word for what happened without conducting any further investigation. Ms. Harkleroad disputed the incident to Dr. DeJarlais to the point of crying, and she was so upset she had to leave school early that day. She testified that at the time she was unaware that the CBA allowed her to file a union grievance over the Appraisal II. Neither party called the test administrator, Kimberly Belcher, to testify. Based on the testimony, the undersigned is not inclined to second-guess Dr. DeJarlais' decision to take the word of Ms. Belcher as to what occurred in the classroom on March 5, 2009. Ms. Harkleroad offered only speculation as to any motive Ms. Belcher had to concoct a story about Ms. Harkleroad's actions during the FCAT. To accept Ms. Harkleroad's version of events, it is necessary to believe not only that Dr. DeJarlais was out to get Ms. Harkleroad, but that Dr. DeJarlais' vendetta against Ms. Harkleroad was such common knowledge that Ms. Belcher knew she could win "brownie points" by lying about the teacher to the principal. The evidence does not support such a chain of inferences. Ms. Harkleroad testified that during the meeting about the Appraisal II, Dr. DeJarlais emphasized that she would no longer be eligible for the PG-13 evaluations and would have to revert to the Appraisal I evaluation. Ms. Harkleroad stated, "I knew then, when she told me that, that she was out to destroy my career." This extraordinary statement was premised on Ms. Harkleroad's assertion that she has a severe panic disorder that renders her unable to withstand the situation presented by an Appraisal I, in which she must teach while an evaluator sits in the room and judges her performance. Ms. Harkleroad asserted that Dr. DeJarlais was aware of this condition, and purposely contrived to force Ms. Harkleroad back into the Appraisal I process in order to get rid of her. At this point, it is useful to digress from the main narrative to provide a brief history of Ms. Harkleroad's medical travails. She testified that she has a severe form of stress or panic disorder that makes her paranoid and unable to function in situations in which she thinks people are judging her. Earlier in her career, she was able to control the panic attacks with a prescribed medication, Xanax (alprazolam), and was able to perform well in Appraisal I situations. At some unspecified time prior to the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Harkleroad underwent spinal fusion surgery. During the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Harkleroad was involved in an incident requiring her to restrain a kindergarten student who was throwing wooden chairs in the library. Ms. Harkleroad's back was injured. Ms. Harkleroad alleged that the School Board's contract workers' compensation physician misdiagnosed the injury and sent her back to work. Two years later, another physician examined Ms. Harkleroad's MRI from the incident and determined that her fusion had been shattered. During the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Harkleroad had major back surgery that kept her away from school for 12 weeks. When she returned to work during the spring semester of 2008, she was in a body cast, followed by approximately five months in a brace. Ms. Harkleroad testified that the damage to her back was so severe that it could not be completely repaired. She was subject to muscle spasms due to pressure on her sciatic nerve. The pain became so severe that in February 2009 she began seeing a physician for pain management. The physician prescribed what Ms. Harkleroad called "pretty heavy duty" medications such as Oxycontin (oxycodone). Ms. Harkleroad's physicians advised her that Xanax cannot be taken with Oxycontin. Therefore, she was forced to forego her panic disorder medication after February 2009. Dr. DeJarlais came to Fruitland Park at the start of the 2008-2009 school year. Ms. Harkleroad was unsure how much Dr. DeJarlais knew about her medical history, though she specifically recalled telling Dr. DeJarlais that she was the teacher who had back surgery and came back in a body cast. Ms. Harkleroad also recalled that, in her first conversation with the new principal, she told Dr. DeJarlais about her panic disorder. Dr. DeJarlais testified that she was unaware that Ms. Harkleroad claimed any disabilities. She knew that Ms. Harkleroad took pain medications for her back, but knew no specifics about them. Ms. Harkleroad testified that at the time of the FCAT administration meeting on March 5, 2009, she was sick and had just started on the pain management medications. She had taken Nyquil for a cold on top of the Oxycontin, and the combination caused her to fall asleep at the meeting. As noted above, she absolutely denied the other statements in the Appraisal II. Shortly after receiving the Appraisal II, Ms. Harkleroad was involved in an automobile accident that kept her out of work for the remainder of the 2008-2009 school year. She had further surgical procedures on her back and remained on pain medications as the 2009-2010 school year began. Patricia Nave, a veteran administrator, arrived at Fruitland Park as assistant principal at the start of the 2009- 2010 school year. Dr. DeJarlais assigned Ms. Nave to conduct the Appraisal I performance evaluations of Ms. Harkleroad. Ms. Nave did not know Ms. Harkleroad before August 2009, and testified she was not aware that Ms. Harkleroad had anxiety issues. On February 18, 2010, from 12:45 p.m. until 1:45 p.m., Ms. Nave observed Ms. Harkleroad and scored her on the Appraisal I form. Ms. Nave gave Ms. Harkleroad a score of 10 on the appraisal, rating her unsatisfactory in two of the 12 subsections. Under the section "Teaching Procedures," Ms. Harkleroad was rated unsatisfactory in the sub-subsection titled "Gives clear and explicit directions" within the subsection titled "Displays skills in making assignments." Under the section "Classroom Management," Ms. Harkleroad was rated unsatisfactory in the sub-subsections titled "Applies the established rules and standards for behaviors consistently and equitably" and "Provides conscious modeling to modify attitudes and behaviors" within the subsection titled "Creates and maintains positive environments in which students are actively engaged in learning." In the area of Teaching Procedures, Ms. Nave testified that in making an assignment, the teacher is expected to use appropriate vocabulary. The teacher tells the students what the assignment is and when it is due, then checks with the students to ensure they comprehend the assignment before releasing them to do the work. Ms. Harkleroad did not make a comprehension check. She simply told the students what to do. In the area of Classroom Management, Ms. Nave had "many, many concerns" regarding Ms. Harkleroad's "conscious modeling to modify attitudes and behaviors." Ms. Harkleroad made unacceptable comments to students throughout the lesson, such as: "I don't understand what you're not getting, probably because you're not paying attention," "Your rudeness scale is going up," and "You are all just counting, not paying attention to what you are counting." Ms. Nave found that Ms. Harkleroad was not setting a proper example to the students. The teacher is expected to be respectful and to set an example by being fair. Ms. Harkleroad was neither consistent nor fair. At times, she would scold the students for calling out without raising their hands, but at other times she would allow them to call out. Some children were walking around the room when they should have been sitting down for the lesson. Ms. Harkleroad admonished some of the students for walking around but allowed others to do it. She allowed the students to engage in off-task behavior. Ms. Harkleroad testified that in her experience, evaluations last for about 35 minutes. She testified that she was doing fine for the first 35 minutes of Ms. Nave's evaluation. However, when Ms. Nave stayed beyond the 35-minute mark, Ms. Harkleroad began to panic, believing that Ms. Nave intended to stay until she could find something wrong. Her performance fell apart in the latter part of the hour. Ms. Harkleroad stated that she told Ms. Nave about her panic disorder after the evaluation. Ms. Nave noted no dramatic change in Ms. Harkleroad's performance from the first half to the second half of her one- hour observation. Ms. Nave also had no recollection of Ms. Harkleroad discussing her panic disorder at any time, before or after the evaluation. When a teacher receives a deficient Appraisal I, the NEAT procedures require that the teacher also receive a Prescription/Assistance form to outline areas for improvement, recommendations on how to accomplish those improvements, and a time period for a follow-up observation. Ms. Nave met with Ms. Harkleroad on February 22, 2010 to go over the Prescription/Assistance form. Ms. Nave noted the areas of deficient performance and recommended that Ms. Harkleroad review sections of the IPPAS manual that prescribe methods for the areas in which she had been found deficient and watch certain DVDs on effective teaching methods. Ms. Nave gave Ms. Harkleroad four weeks, rather than the usual three weeks, to correct the deficiencies and undergo another observation. To further lessen the pressure on Ms. Harkleroad, Ms. Nave exercised her prerogative to use the February 18, 2010, Appraisal I as an "observation" rather than a formal appraisal that would be counted against Ms. Harkleroad. School Board records indicated that Ms. Harkleroad checked out the recommended DVDs from the Fruitland Park library. Ms. Harkleroad testified that she watched the DVDs. Ms. Nave performed a second Appraisal I on Ms. Harkleroad on March 26, 2010. This appraisal also resulted in a total score of 10. On this appraisal, deficiencies were found under the sections titled "Classroom Management" and "Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter." As to Classroom Management, Ms. Harkleroad was rated unsatisfactory in the same sub-subsections as on the February 18, 2010, appraisal: "Applies the established rules and standards for behaviors consistently and equitably" and "Provides conscious modeling to modify attitudes and behaviors" within the subsection titled "Creates and maintains positive environments in which students are actively engaged in learning." As to Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter, Ms. Harkleroad's performance was found unsatisfactory in the sub-subsection titled "Uses questioning techniques" under the subsection titled "Communicates and presents subject matter in a manner that enables students to learn." Ms. Nave testified that in the area of questioning techniques, the preferred technique is to ask a question, wait for the students to process the question, and then call on one student to answer the question. Ms. Harkleroad was asking "multiple questions," meaning that she would ask a question, then ask another question or ask the same question in a different way, before the students had a chance to respond. Ms. Nave stated that teachers are counseled not to ask multiple questions because it confuses the children. Ms. Nave stated that Ms. Harkleroad failed to exhibit another aspect of proper questioning. A teacher should ask a question, and then call the name of a student to answer the question. Asking the question before calling on a student ensures that the whole class pays attention to the question. If the teacher calls on one student, then asks the question, the other children are off the hook and feel free to pay less attention. Ms. Harkleroad frequently called on students before asking a question. Ms. Harkleroad agreed that her performance during this evaluation was "awful." Ms. Nave had come in to the classroom a day or two before and stayed for about 25 minutes. According to Ms. Harkleroad, "Everything went great. I thought that was my evaluation. A couple days later, here she comes in again. And immediately that's like, 'Okay, what are they doing? They couldn't find anything wrong that time, so they're coming in to find something wrong this time?'" She had a panic attack, and knew that the evaluation was "horrible." Again, Ms. Nave made no note of the dichotomy claimed by Ms. Harkleroad. Her observations were consistent over time. Ms. Nave saw no "great" lessons taught by Ms. Harkleroad. Nonetheless, Ms. Nave continued to encourage Ms. Harkleroad to improve her performance and genuinely believed that "she could get it together" with hard work and a sincere commitment to the recommendations she was receiving. On March 29, 2010, Ms. Nave completed a Prescription/Assistance form and reviewed it with Ms. Harkleroad. Ms. Nave again stated the areas of deficient performance and listed sections of the IPPAS manual that addressed Ms. Harkleroad's deficiencies. Ms. Nave also obtained the assignment of Linda Bradley, a School Board employee who works as a mentor to beginning teachers, to visit Ms. Harkleroad's class every week to observe and assist her with her ongoing remediation strategies. The Prescription/Assistance form provided that Ms. Harkleroad would correct her deficiencies by the end of the school year, June 9, 2010. Ms. Harkleroad would then go through a 90-day performance probation period during the upcoming school year. Also on March 29, 2010, Dr. DeJarlais issued a memorandum to Ms. Harkleroad titled "Performance Probation" that read as follows: Pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statutes 1012.34, I am writing to inform you that you have performance deficiencies in the areas of Classroom Management and Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter. Based on the deficiencies, I am placing you on performance probation for 90 calendar days beginning on 8-23-2010. The 90 calendar days will end on November 23, 2010. By letter dated March 31, 2010, Superintendent of Schools Susan Moxley warned Ms. Harkleroad of the consequences of failure to correct her performance deficiencies: Pursuant to Florida Statutes 1012.33, I am writing to inform you that performance deficiencies have been identified by your principal. I understand that your principal has already met with you and made recommendations for improvement. Your principal will provide assistance to help you correct the performance deficiencies during the subsequent school year. Please be advised that your contract with the Lake County Schools District may be terminated without correction of these performance deficiencies. Pursuant to s. 1012.33, you may request to meet with the Superintendent or her designee for an informal review of the determination of unsatisfactory performance. You may also request to be considered for a transfer to another appropriate position under a different supervising administrator for the subsequent school year. Such transfer, however, does not reverse this year's identification of performance deficiencies. Both Ms. Nave and Dr. DeJarlais testified as to other problems with Ms. Harkleroad's performance in the classroom. The parents of two children in Ms. Harkleroad's class complained that their children were receiving too many disciplinary referrals to the office. Upon investigation, the administrators agreed with the parents and Ms. Harkleroad was counseled on the issue. As an alternative to referring minor disciplinary cases to the office, teachers at Fruitland Park are allowed to send students to another teacher's classroom for a time. Placed in a strange class with students who do not know him, the recalcitrant student usually will calm down and quietly do his work. Ms. Harkleroad's grade level peers complained to Ms. Nave that Ms. Harkleroad took excessive advantage of this option, sending children to their classrooms more frequently than should have been necessary. Ms. Nave's major problem with Ms. Harkleroad was her classroom management, her "with-itness," in Ms. Nave's terminology. Ms. Harkleroad too often appeared unaware of the things she was saying to the children, and unaware of what the children were doing in the classroom. She would not notice that children were up and walking around the classroom during lessons. Ms. Nave stated that during her observations, as many as 12 out of 22 children in Ms. Harkleroad's classroom would not be focused on the lesson, and Ms. Harkleroad did nothing to put them back on task. Dr. DeJarlais noted that some parents had complained about Ms. Harkleroad's odd behavior at a student assembly. Her speech was slurred, she called out the same student's name more than once, and she seemed disoriented. Dr. DeJarlais witnessed the assembly, and agreed with the parents that there was a problem. She spoke to Ms. Harkleroad about maintaining a sense of awareness on stage.2/ Dr. DeJarlais mentioned several other minor incidents. In the spring of 2010, Ms. Harkleroad did not fill out her report cards correctly. She once walked into the wrong grade level meeting and had to be directed to the right one. There was an incident in which she placed a child on the floor during a disciplinary timeout, and Dr. DeJarlais counseled her to use a desk. During a walkthrough, Dr. DeJarlais saw Ms. Harkleroad teaching the wrong subject. In each of these instances, Dr. DeJarlais counseled Ms. Harkleroad rather than giving her an official disciplinary or performance write-up. Ms. Harkleroad was convinced that Dr. DeJarlais was intentionally using her panic disorder to get rid of her. This was based partly on a conversation Ms. Harkleroad claimed to have overheard in which Dr. DeJarlais referred to Ms. Harkleroad as a "liability" because of her use of pain medications. Ms. Harkleroad believed that Dr. DeJarlais thought of her as a drug addict. She testified that Dr. DeJarlais made frequent comments that insinuated that she was an addict, asking whether she had a "problem" or needed "counseling." Ms. Harkleroad believed these insinuations were intended to add to the pressure she felt at school and therefore increase the anxiety and panic she would feel during her evaluations. Dr. DeJarlais denied ever calling Ms. Harkleroad an addict or even suggesting such a thing. She did recall that she and Ms. Nave had conversations with Ms. Harkleroad about her nodding off in front of the class, and that Ms. Harkleroad mentioned that she might need to adjust her medications. Dr. DeJarlais did not pry into the kinds of medications Ms. Harkleroad was taking. Ms. Harkleroad spoke to her several times in general terms about seeking help for medical conditions such as back pain. Dr. DeJarlais' only suggestion regarding counseling came when Ms. Harkleroad told her that she feared she was having a nervous breakdown. Dr. DeJarlais credibly denied doing anything to intimidate or humiliate Ms. Harkleroad. Ms. Nave confirmed that she had seen Ms. Harkleroad appear to be sleeping or nodding off while standing in front of the class. At the time, Ms. Nave was unaware that Ms. Harkleroad took prescribed pain medications. Ms. Nave stated that Ms. Harkleroad was unaware that she was nodding off and denied it until Dr. DeJarlais confirmed that two other persons had reported seeing Ms. Harkleroad nod off. At that point, Ms. Harkleroad stated she would go see a physician. Ms. Harkleroad testified that her physician assured her that she could not have been falling asleep on her feet. The physician stated that one of her medications may have been causing mini seizures that resembled nodding off. Ms. Harkleroad testified that she passed this information on to both Dr. DeJarlais and Ms. Nave, though neither of the administrators recalled such a conversation. Given her feelings about Dr. DeJarlais, it was not surprising that Ms. Harkleroad chose the option of transferring to another school for the 2010-2011 school year. Ms. Harkleroad testified that she chose a transfer only after Dr. DeJarlais made it clear that she would prefer for Ms. Harkleroad to move on to another school. Dr. DeJarlais denied expressing such a preference. Ms. Nave recalled that she and Dr. DeJarlais met with Ms. Harkleroad to discuss her options for the 2010-2011 school year, which included transferring to another school or trying to work through the probationary process at Fruitland Park. Ms. Nave testified that when the discussion turned to the 90-day probationary period, Ms. Harkleroad mentioned that she might be having a nervous breakdown. This conversation occurred near the end of the school year, and was the first mention of any mental problems that Ms. Nave could recall. Ms. Harkleroad testified that the "nervous breakdown" conversation was more complicated than Dr. DeJarlais and Ms. Nave indicated. Ms. Harkleroad stated that she told the administrators that she was having multiple anxiety attacks, one after the other, and that she would have a nervous breakdown "if they kept on pushing me and pushing me." Though she had requested assignment to a middle school, Ms. Harkleroad was transferred to Beverly Shores Elementary School ("Beverly Shores") for the 2010-2011 school year and assigned to a third-grade classroom. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, the School Board notified Jeffrey Williams, the principal at Beverly Shores, that Ms. Harkleroad would be joining his staff in August 2010. The notice informed Mr. Williams that Ms. Harkleroad was on performance probation, and that her issues were classroom management and presentation of subject matter. Mr. Williams also received a phone call from Dr. DeJarlais to discuss the transfer. Dr. DeJarlais did not go into the details surrounding Ms. Harkleroad's probation aside from stating that she believed the move would be good for Ms. Harkleroad. Mr. Williams contacted Ms. Harkleroad and suggested they meet to discuss her transition to Beverly Shores. Ms. Harkleroad met with Mr. Williams at his office. Ms. Harkleroad told Mr. Williams that she had received a deficiency in her IPPAS evaluation and had requested a transfer, though Beverly Shores was not really where she wanted to be. Ms. Harkleroad mentioned that she had a back problem. Mr. Williams did not recall anything in the conversation concerning panic attacks, an anxiety disorder, or any other condition that would hinder Ms. Harkleroad's ability to pass an Appraisal I evaluation. Ms. Harkleroad denied telling Mr. Williams that she did not want to be at Beverly Shores, though she conceded that she told him she would rather be in a middle school because her back problems made it difficult to keep up with younger children. Ms. Harkleroad testified that she told Mr. Williams about her panic disorder, and further told him that she could not take medication for it because of the medication she took for her back pain. She requested that Mr. Williams use the PG- evaluation tool, or record her class, anything other than having people come into her classroom to judge her. She said that Mr. Williams replied that the rules required the use of the Appraisal I. Mr. Williams did not see Ms. Harkleroad again until school started in August 2010. He assigned assistant principal Tanya Rogers to be the supervising administrator handling all issues related to Ms. Harkleroad's job performance. During the first 90 days of the 2010-2011 school year, Mr. Williams limited his involvement to walkthroughs of Ms. Harkleroad's classroom. Ms. Rogers is an experienced assistant principal who has performed many teacher evaluations under the provisions of the IPPAS and the CBA. Ms. Rogers knew that Ms. Harkleroad was on performance probation, and saw to it that her Prescription/Assistance form from Fruitland Park was implemented at Beverly Shores. Linda Bradley was retained as Ms. Harkleroad's instructional coach, and Ms. Harkleroad was offered classes through the school's learning resource center. Ms. Rogers conducted frequent classroom walkthroughs and met with Ms. Harkleroad to assist her in preparing for her evaluation. Upon her arrival at Beverly Shores in August, Ms. Harkleroad discovered that her classroom was "filthy. There were mouse droppings all over. It took four of us six hours to get the room just clean enough that I'd bring my stuff in there. No air conditioning. . . It was almost six weeks before that air conditioning was fixed." Mr. Williams testified that the classroom was clean when Ms. Harkleroad arrived at the school in August 2010. Ms. Harkleroad estimated that the air conditioning was not repaired until September 27, and testified that the temperature reached 100 degrees in the afternoons. She had complained to Ms. Rogers but nothing was done until the date of the second observation by Ms. Rogers, when Ms. Harkleroad repeatedly noted how hot it was in the classroom and how difficult for the students to concentrate on their lessons. Ms. Harkleroad also testified that there was a "horrible" burning smell in the classroom. She complained to Mr. Williams about it. Eventually, on December 9, 2010, the Lake County Health Department came to the school to investigate the source of the smell. Ms. Harkleroad denied having called the Health Department. Ms. Rogers agreed that Ms. Harkleroad complained about the air conditioning in September. However, Ms. Rogers testified that she entered a work order and that the air conditioning was repaired on September 7. Ms. Rogers recalled no complaints about a smell in the classroom, though she did acknowledge that the Health Department was at the school on December 9, and that it found everything in Ms. Harkleroad's classroom to be in satisfactory condition. Mr. Williams recalled that Ms. Harkleroad complained about an odor in her classroom. Mr. Williams was convinced that Ms. Harkleroad had called the Health Department for the simple reason that the inspectors went straight to her classroom when they arrived at the school. However, Mr. Williams had no firm evidence that Ms. Harkleroad made the call and no way of knowing whether a concerned parent had made the call. In the absence of any stronger evidence, Ms. Harkleroad's denial is credited. There was no indication that either Ms. Rogers or Mr. Williams took retaliatory action against Ms. Harkleroad for her various complaints about conditions in her classroom, or that the performance appraisals Ms. Harkleroad received at Beverly Shores were based on anything other than her performance in the classroom. As part of her efforts to help Ms. Harkleroad prepare for her Appraisal I, Ms. Rogers conducted two classroom observations using the "Screening/Summative Observation Instrument" of the Florida Performance Measurement System ("FPMS"). This form was developed by the Florida Department of Education to enable an observer to calculate the frequency of effective and ineffective teaching techniques. In the first observation, conducted on September 7, 2010, Ms. Rogers found performance deficiencies in the areas of classroom management and presentation and knowledge of subject matter. In the second observation, conducted on September 27, 2010, Ms. Rogers found performance deficiencies in the same two areas, particularly in the area of managing student conduct. Ms. Rogers testified that she saw a great deal of choral reading and review of prior knowledge taking place in the classroom but observed no teaching of new content. She also noted that Ms. Harkleroad had a punitive approach to classroom management, and took a sarcastic tone with the children that tended to escalate discipline problems rather than calm them. Based on her observations, Ms. Rogers wrote a Prescription/Assistance form on September 29, 2010, and met with Ms. Harkleroad to go over the needed improvements. Ms. Rogers recommended weekly visits by Ms. Bradley, who would conduct FPMS observations in the problem areas and provide specific feedback to Ms. Harkleroad. Ms. Rogers also recommended specific classes offered at the School Board's staff development training facility: "Increasing Student Engagement," "Motivating Students," and "Classroom Management for Elementary Teachers." Ms. Rogers wrote that Ms. Harkleroad "will correct these behaviors by October 25, 2010, two weeks after staff development opportunity." Ms. Harkleroad testified that she attended one of the recommended classes, but found that it was unrelated to anything occurring in her classroom. She declined to attend the other classes. As the end Ms. Harkleroad's 90-day performance probation approached, Ms. Rogers notified Ms. Harkleroad of her intent to perform the Appraisal I. Ms. Harkleroad requested a conference with Ms. Rogers prior to the evaluation. At the conference, Ms. Harkleroad requested that Mr. Williams perform the Appraisal I evaluation. Ms. Rogers testified that Ms. Harkleroad told her that she found it difficult to respect women in positions of authority. Ms. Harkleroad believed that women should be at home taking care of their children, and that society's problems could be traced to women working outside the home. Ms. Rogers found this logic confusing because Ms. Harkleroad was herself a woman working outside the home. When Ms. Rogers pointed this out, Ms. Harkleroad responded that she did not have children. Ms. Rogers responded that her own children were grown and not living with her. Ms. Harkleroad asked Ms. Rogers whether her daughter stayed home with her children. Ms. Rogers replied that her daughter worked. Ms. Harkleroad said, "See, that's what I'm talking about. That's what's wrong with society." At the hearing, Ms. Harkleroad testified that her request had nothing to do with any general complaint about women in the workplace.3/ Her problem was with Ms. Rogers, whom she found to be unreasonably critical. Ms. Rogers conducted her first observation before Ms. Harkleroad even had a chance to learn the names of the children in her classroom, then told Ms. Harkleroad that she was an incompetent teacher, which caused Ms. Harkleroad to lose all respect for her. Thus, she told Ms. Rogers that she preferred to have Mr. Williams perform her Appraisal I. Ms. Rogers' version of the conference with Ms. Harkleroad is credited. Mr. Williams testified that Ms. Rogers came to him and told him that Ms. Harkleroad did not respect women in authority. Ms. Harkleroad did not think she could get a fair evaluation from Ms. Rogers and requested that Mr. Williams perform the appraisal. Without delving too deeply into the reasons for Ms. Harkleroad's request, Mr. Williams agreed to perform the Appraisal I. Ms. Rogers and Mr. Williams agreed that he declined to take the file that Ms. Rogers had developed on Ms. Harkleroad. He wanted a clean slate, and did not want to be influenced by the prior observations of Ms. Rogers. He wanted to evaluate what was happening in the classroom without preconceptions. Mr. Williams intended to evaluate Ms. Harkleroad as he would any other teacher. He entered Ms. Harkleroad's classroom several times during the week before the evaluation and performed a lengthy walkthrough to assess the overall learning environment. Mr. Williams conducted the Appraisal I on or about November 22, 2010.4/ He gave Ms. Harkleroad a score of 11. Mr. Williams found a deficiency in the section titled "Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter." Ms. Harkleroad was rated unsatisfactory in the subsection titled, "Communicates and presents subject matter in a manner that enables students to learn." This subsection contains seven sub-subsections, and Mr. Williams graded Ms. Harkleroad unsatisfactory in six of them: "Treats concepts/cause and effect/or states and applies rules;" "Teacher directed/guided practice is provided;" "Uses questioning techniques;" "Directs lesson;" "Provides periodic review;" and "Poses problems, dilemmas, and questions to promote critical thinking." Mr. Williams found these deficiencies because there was no direct instruction taking place in the classroom that would satisfy those areas of observation. Shortly after the evaluation, Ms. Harkleroad told him that she "just didn't have it today" and that she knew her performance had not been good. Ms. Harkleroad testified as to her problems with Mr. Williams' evaluation. These problems were related to her panic disorder and to an illness she claimed she had on the day of the evaluation. When Mr. Williams did his preparatory walkthrough of her classroom on the Friday before the evaluation, Ms. Harkleroad mistakenly believed that he was conducting the Appraisal I. As she had with Ms. Nave's earlier pre-evaluation classroom visit, Ms. Harkleroad claimed that the lesson went very well. She was jubilant that she had passed the evaluation. Mr. Williams noted no variance between what he observed on his walkthroughs of Ms. Harkleroad's classroom and what he observed during the November 22, 2010, Appraisal I. On the following Monday morning, Ms. Harkleroad was at an IEP meeting when she started pouring sweat and finding it difficult to breathe. The problem became worse as the day went by. She told Mr. Williams how sick she felt and that she might have to go home. Less than 30 minutes later, Mr. Williams appeared in her classroom to conduct the Appraisal I. Ms. Harkleroad stated that Mr. Williams' arrival "just blew it." She knew then that "all they wanted to do was fire me. They didn't care how they did it." After the evaluation, Ms. Harkleroad's husband picked her up from school because she was too ill to drive. Ms. Harkleroad testified that she was diagnosed with bacterial pneumonia. She did not return to school until the Monday after Thanksgiving, November 29, at which time Mr. Williams met with her to review her evaluation. Mr. Williams testified that Ms. Harkleroad said nothing to him about being sick and that he would have rescheduled the evaluation had he known. Before and during the evaluation, she showed no signs of illness. It was only after the evaluation, when they were discussing her poor performance, that Ms. Harkleroad appeared to become ill. Mr. Williams called the school nurse and Ms. Harkleroad's husband. Ms. Harkleroad later told him she had been hospitalized, but Mr. Williams had no firsthand knowledge of her medical treatment. On November 29, 2010, Mr. Williams conducted a post- evaluation conference with Ms. Harkleroad. He presented her options, which at that point were limited to resigning her position or facing formal termination procedures by the School Board. To Mr. Williams' surprise, Ms. Harkleroad chose termination. He was surprised because termination would likely end Ms. Harkleroad's teaching career. When Mr. Williams inquired further, Ms. Harkleroad told him that she chose termination in order to preserve her unemployment benefits. At the hearing, Ms. Harkleroad testified that she chose termination because resigning would have constituted an admission she had done something wrong. As to aspects of Ms. Harkleroad's performance outside the formal evaluation, Mr. Williams stated that there had been a couple of parent complaints. One child was moved out of her classroom due to what the parent termed "poor communication" with Ms. Harkleroad. Mr. Williams had to tell Ms. Harkleroad to stop asking the child why he had moved from her class. In a memorandum to Dr. Moxley dated December 9, 2010, and titled "Recommendation of Termination," Mr. Williams wrote as follows, in relevant part: Pursuant to Florida Statutes 1012.34, I am writing to inform you that Mrs. Deborah Harkleroad has completed his/her 90-calendar day performance probation and has failed to correct his/her performance deficiencies. I do not believe that Mrs. Harkleroad can correct said deficiencies and his/her employment should be terminated. I have complied with all applicable provisions of Florida Statutes 1012.34.... On the morning of December 13, 2010, Ms. Harkleroad wrote the following email to Dr. Moxley: Before a final decision is made on my employment status, I would like the opportunity to meet with you in order to discuss my current situation. It is my contention that I was performing my duties as a teacher in a manner that supported Literacy First guidelines on the date and time my evaluation was conducted. If I had been doing any type of activity other than something similar to what I was doing, I would not have been in compliance with established guidelines. Literacy First is a research-based, data-driven, comprehensive program designed to accelerate reading achievement. Beverly Shores implements the Literacy First program,5/ which includes explicit directives as to what should take place in whole group and small group instruction. Ms. Harkleroad did not raise Literacy First concerns with Mr. Williams at the time of the evaluation or even at the November 29 conference. After the fact, however, she contended that during the hour in which Mr. Williams conducted the evaluation, the Literacy First schedule called for her to perform whole group activities, which do not include "instruction." The children were building fluency by engaging in group reading practice. Had Mr. Williams stayed through the next hour, he would have seen explicit instruction when the class was broken into small groups. Ms. Harkleroad's argument that Literacy First mandated that she not teach the class is not credited. As early as her first observation on September 2, 2010, Ms. Rogers had noted that Ms. Harkleroad's whole group method appeared limited to "echo reading" rather than any of the other various strategies called for by the Literacy First program. Ms. Rogers did not formalize this observation in writing because echo reading is a legitimate Literacy First strategy, and she wanted to give Ms. Harkleroad the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Williams understood Ms. Harkleroad's class schedule, and as principal of Beverly Shores he understood the Literacy First guidelines. When he conducted his evaluation, he knew that Ms. Harkleroad's class was involved in whole group reading. It was in this context, with a full understanding of what should have been happening under Literacy First, that Mr. Williams concluded that no instruction took place during his observation. Ms. Harkleroad was not leading the class. Dr. Moxley did not meet with Ms. Harkleroad. By letter dated December 13, 2010, Dr. Moxley informed Ms. Harkleroad that, pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, Ms. Harkleroad had failed to correct performance deficiencies identified by her principal and Dr. Moxley intended to recommend to the School Board that Ms. Harkleroad's employment be terminated as of January 10, 2011. At the hearing, Ms. Harkleroad contended that she had placed the School Board on notice of her panic disorder before the 2009-2010 school year, and that she specifically requested that school administrators use the PG-13 evaluation process as an accommodation to her disability. Ms. Nave recalled Ms. Harkleroad requesting that she be allowed to use the PG-13 evaluation. Ms. Nave stated that Ms. Harkleroad gave no reason for the request, other than an assertion that she had earned the right not to go through the Appraisal I process. Ms. Harkleroad testified that she also pleaded with Mr. Williams to allow her to use the PG-13 evaluation because of her panic disorder. Mr. Williams flatly and credibly denied that any such conversation occurred.6 Dr. DeJarlais had no recollection of Ms. Harkleroad asking for the PG-13 evaluation. She testified that Ms. Harkleroad made no complaints about the Appraisal I procedure until after the evaluation had been completed. The testimony of the four administrators permits the inference that, far from being open with her superiors about her mental and physical problems, Ms. Harkleroad tended to downplay them because of the intense scrutiny she felt she was receiving regarding her job performance. On several occasions, Ms. DeJarlais and Ms. Nave made tentative inquiries into Ms. Harkleroad's emotional well being only to have Ms. Harkleroad sidestep their questions with vague assurances that she was seeing a doctor.7/ Out of respect for her privacy, the administrators left it at that and focused on her classroom performance. The first duty of the school administrators is to ensure that the children in their charge receive adequate instruction from a qualified, competent teacher. If Ms. Harkleroad's panic disorder required an accommodation, it was her responsibility to come forward and request it. The evidence established that she did not do so. It was not the duty of her superiors to tease the information out of her. As Mr. Williams pointed out, he is responsible for 55 teachers at Beverly Shores. He does not have the time to delve into all their personal lives and medical conditions, and tries to respect their privacy. Under all the circumstances, his focus was properly on the classroom. Aside from alleging a conspiracy of sorts to get rid of her,8/ Ms. Harkleroad could not explain why four experienced school administrators would lie about having no recollection of talking with her about her panic disorder, though they all testified that they knew about her back problems and had at least some knowledge that she took pain medications. Ms. Harkleroad testified that two previous principals at Fruitland Park, Joan Denson and Charles McDaniel, had been aware of and made accommodations for her panic disorder. She called neither of these former principals as witnesses to corroborate her version of events. The failure to corroborate her testimony was a theme of Ms. Harkleroad's overall presentation. She offered no documentary evidence regarding her medical condition. None of her physicians were called to testify. No fellow employees, friends or neighbors were called to testify that Ms. Harkleroad had discussed her panic disorder with them. Ms. Harkleroad testified that her students and their parents loved her as a teacher, but she called none of them to testify. Ms. Harkleroad's only supportive witness, teacher Norma Jean Miller, had not worked with Ms. Harkleroad for several years and only knew her as a literacy coach, not a classroom teacher. Ms. Miller knew of Ms. Harkleroad's back problems, but said nothing about a panic disorder. In the absence of corroborating evidence, it strains credulity beyond all reason to accept the sole word of Ms. Harkleroad that Dr. DeJarlais decided to get rid of her because of her drug use, realized that Ms. Harkleroad's panic disorder was a means to insure that she failed her evaluations, then apparently recruited the administration of another school to complete the process.9/ Because there is no evidence beyond Ms. Harkleroad's less than credible testimony to establish that the evaluation process was conducted in bad faith, it is found that the administrators at Fruitland Park and Beverly Shore judged Ms. Harkleroad on the merits of her teaching performance and graded that performance accordingly. Ms. Harkleroad complains that the criteria used in the evaluations were vague to the point of opacity, and did not take into account that different teachers may have different approaches to their work. She believes that some of the standard rules for classroom instruction are "ridiculous." When Ms. Rogers told her that she should make the children raise their hands and be called on before speaking in class, she airily dismissed the criticism as a "philosophical difference." Though the specific problems with Ms. Harkleroad's classroom performance were eminently correctible, her obstinacy and/or obtuseness in rejecting pointed advice from her superiors made it clear that she was highly unlikely ever to correct her performance deficiencies. The evidence established that the process followed by School Board personnel in evaluating Ms. Harkleroad's performance before and during her probationary period followed the letter of the IPPAS and the CBA, including the NEAT procedure set forth in Section 12 of Article XI of the CBA. The criteria and forms used to evaluate her performance were taken directly from the IPPAS Handbook. However, even though all procedures were correctly followed in the evaluation process, the School Board failed to establish grounds for terminating Ms. Harkleroad's employment pursuant to Section 1012.34(3), Florida Statutes, because it failed to offer evidence, apart from the anecdotal reports of the evaluators, that Ms. Harkleroad's teaching performance adversely affected the academic performance of the students assigned to her classroom.10/ The assessment procedure is to be "primarily based on the performance of students," and the absence of data such as FCAT scores or other objective comparators renders the School Board's case insufficient under section 1012.34, Florida Statutes.11/ The issue then becomes whether the School Board has established sufficient grounds for "just cause" termination pursuant to section 1012.33(1), Florida Statutes. On the sole statutory ground available under the evidence of this case, incompetency, the School Board has met its burden and justified its decision to terminate Respondent's employment. The evidence produced at the hearing demonstrated that the School Board had just cause to terminate the employment of Ms. Harkleroad for incompetency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's professional service contract and dismissing Respondent on the ground of incompetency. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 24th day of June, 2011.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Marion County School Board, had just cause to terminate Respondent, Richard Collins.
Findings Of Fact Marion County School Board (the Board or Petitioner), is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Marion County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is authorized to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Respondent, Richard Collins, has been employed under a professional services contract with the Board for approximately 20 years. During the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent taught fourth grade at Greenway Elementary School (Greenway) in Ocala, Florida. B.A., S.C., B.R., E.F., S.R., and A.D. were all students in Respondent’s classroom. The children were each nine years of age. October 2, 2017 Incident On October 2, 2017, Respondent’s class was engaged in reading and language arts assignments in small groups throughout the classroom. Some students worked at the computer center, while others sat together at work tables. Respondent was working directly with one small group of students at a table in the front of the classroom. By all accounts, the classroom was noisy. Some of the students were playing loudly, rather than working on their assignments. Student B.A. was at a table in the back of the room with students S.C. and A.D. Rather than attending to their assignments, the students were playing around on top of the table. The students had pillows on top of the table and were taking turns sitting on the pillows and attempting to pull each other off the table by their ankles. Respondent noticed students B.A. and S.C. on the table, and instructed them to sit down. Respondent did not get up from his table at the front of the classroom to correct the children. The record does not reflect that the students heard Respondent tell them to sit down. The students did not sit down. S.C. pulled B.A. off the table by her ankles and B.A.’s head hit the hard tile floor. She began crying. Respondent neither saw B.A. fall nor heard her crying. A third student reported to Respondent that B.A. was crying. Respondent also “overheard” a student say that B.A. could not see, or was having trouble seeing, out of one eye. Rather than seek out B.A. immediately and inquire about her injury, Respondent instructed everyone in the class to return to their seats. After the students returned to their seats, Respondent asked B.A. what had happened and if she was hurt. B.A. reported that she fell and, when Respondent inquired about any injury B.A. sustained, B.A. pointed to the side of her face. B.A. had a red mark on her face by her temple.2/ Respondent saw the mark. Respondent knew B.A. had been on top of the table, had fallen, and had sustained an injury to her head at the temple area. Respondent knew that the classroom floor was hard tile. Respondent had overheard another student say B.A. was complaining of difficulty with her vision. Shortly after the incident, Respondent’s class was scheduled to leave for recess. Respondent did not call for another teacher to take his class to recess so he could accompany B.A. to the clinic. Respondent did not ask another student to accompany B.A. to the clinic while he took the students to recess. Instead, Respondent asked B.A. if she wanted to go to the clinic or to recess. B.A.’s response to this question was a disputed issue. B.A. testified that she probably told Respondent she was fine. However, B.A.’s memory of that day is not reliable. Respondent testified B.A. stated she wanted to go to recess. Shortly thereafter, Respondent sent his class, including B.A., out to recess. The recess area is located just outside Respondent’s classroom. Respondent followed the students out and kept an eye on them free-playing in the open grassy field used for recess. B.A. approached Respondent shortly before recess ended, reported that she was not feeling well, and asked if she could return to the classroom and put her head down. Respondent allowed her to do so. Respondent did not ask any other student to accompany B.A. to the classroom or remain with her there. Instead, Respondent stood in the classroom doorway, where he divided his attention between B.A., with her head down at her desk, and his remaining students playing outside at recess. Respondent called the remaining students in a few minutes early from recess. As the students were coming in, B.A. began vomiting. Respondent gave B.A. a cloth to clean up with, and instructed another student, S.C., to accompany B.A. to the clinic. Shortly thereafter, Respondent contacted B.A.’s grandmother, Ms. Franklin,3/ who was substitute teaching at Greenway that day. Respondent informed Ms. Franklin that he had sent B.A. to the clinic. B.A. was treated briefly at the clinic, then transported to the hospital by emergency vehicle. B.A. was diagnosed with a concussion and was out of school the following day. Under doctor’s orders, B.A. was not allowed to engage in any physical activity for 20 days. School Board Investigation After B.A. was transported to the hospital, Assistant Principal Leona Hunt identified the students in Respondent’s classroom who had witnessed the incident. Ms. Hunt had each student write his or her own account of the incident. Ms. Hunt also instructed Respondent to complete an accident report regarding the incident. In the accident report, Respondent described the type of injury as “Hit her head,” and listed “sit quietly” as the corrective action taken toward the student. Respondent gave the following written description of the incident: Student [sic] were playing around in reading center while I was working with other students in guided reading. Another student said [B.A.] fell. I had all student [sic] go to their desk. I spoke with them all about playing around. Then we went outside for recess and I asked [B.A.] if she was ok and she said she was fine. Then she felt sick and came into [sic] lay down. Before I sent her to the clinic she started throwing up. Based on her investigation, Ms. Hunt referred the matter to Jaycee Oliver, Petitioner’s Director of Employee Relations. Ms. Oliver handles all employee disciplinary matters. Based on the information received from Ms. Hunt, Ms. Oliver identified Respondent’s actions as “egregious,” and referred the matter to Petitioner’s Chief Investigator, Rose Cohen, for a more thorough investigation. Ms. Cohen conducted a full investigation into the matter. Ms. Cohen interviewed Respondent, the students, the health clinic assistant, and paraprofessionals at Greenway. When asked to recount the incident during his interview with Ms. Cohen, Respondent deferred to his written statement in the accident report. Respondent was asked, but refused, to give a written statement detailing the incident during the investigation. Ms. Cohen issued an investigative report dated October 10, 2017. The report found that Respondent “failed students in the most egregious way when he failed to provide adequate supervision to students in his care.” Based on her finding, Ms. Cohen recommended Respondent’s termination. Ms. Oliver agreed with Ms. Cohen’s recommendation, which was also agreed to by the School District Superintendent Heidi Maier. The Board approved Respondent’s termination, which was signed by Dr. Maier and served on Respondent on October 17, 2017. Prior Disciplinary History Following a history of misconduct at other schools, which resulted in disciplinary action, the Board reassigned Respondent to Greenway for the 2017-2018 school year to “give Respondent a fresh start.” In May 2011, Respondent was reprimanded for insubordination and disrespect to his administrator in the presence of other staff and students. In March 2016, Respondent received a written reprimand for making inappropriate verbal remarks of a sexual nature to a colleague. In March 2017, Respondent was reprimanded for leaving his prescription medication on an open shelf in his classroom in plain view of his students. Respondent was warned to be “cognizant of the safety and health of students at all times.” In May 2017, Respondent was suspended for five days without pay for inappropriate interactions with students. Just weeks before the incident at issue in this proceeding, Respondent was disciplined for gross insubordination after allowing two students to go to his classroom unattended and use his keys to access his desk. Respondent had previously been instructed not to send students to his classroom unattended. Administrative Charges The Board first charges Respondent with failure to provide adequate supervision to students in his care, in violation of Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession (Principles) 6A-10.081. Respondent failed to stop students from “playing around on the table” during reading centers on October 2, 2017. Respondent was aware the students were engaged in “horseplay” on top of the table. While Respondent may have asked the students to sit down, he did not ensure that they obeyed, and they were allowed to continue engaging in risky behavior that proved to be dangerous. By all accounts, the classroom atmosphere on October 2, 2017, was loud and chaotic. Nicholas Carey is an instructional coach assigned to assist Respondent with classroom management. Mr. Carey observed Respondent’s classroom before the incident and worked with a small group of students. Mr. Carey testified, credibly, that the classroom was so loud on the day of the incident that he could not hear the students he was working with at a small table in the back of the room. Student E.F. testified that the classroom was so loud on the day of the incident that she could not focus on her work. While some students testified that they heard Respondent tell B.A. and her friends to get off the table and sit down, the record does not support a finding that the students at B.A.’s table in the back of the room heard Respondent’s instruction. The students were so loud that Respondent did not hear B.A. crying after her fall, and had to be informed by another student that B.A. fell and was crying. Respondent failed to maintain order in the classroom and create an environment conducive to learning. The Board next charges Respondent with failing to protect students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s health and safety. The most significant fact supporting this charge is that Respondent sent B.A. out to recess after her fall, rather than sending her for medical attention at the clinic. Respondent knew B.A. had fallen, most likely from the table top where she was playing; had suffered an injury to her head; and had at least overheard a student state that B.A. was complaining about difficulty with her vision. Yet, Respondent took a nine-year-old’s word that she was “fine” and wanted to go to recess. What child would choose the clinic over recess with her friends? Respondent was responsible for B.A.’s safety, not for satisfying her desire to play with her friends. Insubordination Lastly, the Board charges Respondent with insubordination and falsifying a document in connection with his accident report and his refusal to make a further written statement during the Board’s investigation of the incident.4/ The charging document reads, as follows: Respondent was asked to provide a written statement. His written statement stated that the student was playing around, and failed to disclose that the injury was the result of horseplay by students. Although Respondent seemed to later acknowledge the statement provided was not truthful, or at least misrepresented the true facts, Respondent was asked to provide a subsequent statement correcting the information and he refused to do so. Petitioner stated in its Proposed Recommended Order, It is undisputed that Respondent’s written statement was not completely truthful, or at least misrepresented the true facts of the incident. Respondent, however, refused to provide a subsequent statement correcting the information. (citations omitted). On the contrary, whether the statements in the accident report were true and complete was an issue in dispute. The only evidence that Respondent was concerned that his accident report was not accurate was contained in Ms. Cohen’s investigative report. However, the statements contained in the report are hearsay which was not corroborated by any non-hearsay evidence. At the final hearing, Respondent stood by his accident report stating, “I wrote exactly what happened.” As to Petitioner’s allegation that Respondent was insubordinate in refusing to make another statement during Ms. Cohen’s investigation, the record shows Respondent relied upon the advice of his union representative to defer to his accident report. Petitioner established no facts on which to base a finding that Respondent’s refusal to provide a further statement during the investigation constituted insubordination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Marion County School Board enter a final order upholding its termination of Respondent, Richard Collins, from his written contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 8th day of January, 2019.
