The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated standardized testing procedures while proctoring the SAT-9 Test for her first grade class, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 467712, covering the area of Elementary Education. Her certificate is valid through June 30, 2007. Respondent has been a public school teacher in Florida for 21 years. During that time, she has worked as a classroom teacher in fifth and first grades at four different schools. At all times material here, Respondent was a first grade teacher at Niblack Elementary School (Niblack) in Columbia County, Florida. Respondent was the curriculum resource teacher at Niblack for the 2000/2001 school term, the first year Niblack was established. She helped organize the new school, selecting textbooks and other school materials. She assisted in the development of school improvement plans and the creation of the Parent Teacher Organization. Respondent worked long hours beyond the normal school hours to ensure the success of Niblack as a neighborhood school. She had good report with the parents and the community. After her first year at Niblack, Respondent returned to the classroom as a first grade teacher because she missed being with the children. Prior to the incident at issue here, Respondent has never been the subject of any disciplinary action. She has always received positive teacher evaluations. For the school years 1999/2000, 2000/2001, and 2001/2002, Respondent's evaluations reflect that she met or exceeded expectations. When school began in the Fall of 2001, Nikki Crawford was the paraprofessional assigned to work with the first grade students at Niblack. In the first week of classes, a conflict arose between Ms. Crawford and some of the first grade teachers, including Respondent. The initial conflict involved the scheduling of Ms. Crawford's time in each of the first grade classrooms. Eventually, Mark Crutcher, Niblack's Principal, and personnel at the school district level had to intervene in order to resolve the conflict. The purpose of the intervention was to clarify that the teachers and not Ms. Crawford were in control of the classrooms. The SAT-9 is a standardized test that is used to evaluate student performance. The staff at Niblack uses the test results as a guide to determine what the students learned over the past year, how they compared to other students nationally, and where the students should be placed the following school year. The test results do not benefit an individual teacher personally or professionally. The school does not receive a grade or funding based on the test results. The administration of the SAT-9 in the first grade is the first time that students at Niblack experience a standardized test. For the 2001/2002 school year, the test was administered in April 2002. The SAT-9 is a secure test that requires teachers and proctors to undergo training on test procedures. Amber Todd, Niblack's guidance counselor and testing coordinator, provided that training for the 2001/2002 school term. During the training, Ms. Todd gave Respondent a copy of the state statutes governing testing procedures. On or about April 5, 2002, Respondent signed a document indicating that she had received a copy of the test security requirements for the 2001/2002 administration of the SAT-9. Ms. Todd gave Respondent a document outlining the general testing procedures at Niblack. The document explained the mechanics of distributing and returning the tests to the guidance counselor's office. In regard to test preparation, the document listed spatial seating as one of several topics. The topics relating to procedures during testing included, but were not limited to, cheating and disruptive behavior. The document did not reference appropriate or inappropriate communication between teachers and students during the test. Ms. Todd gave Respondent a photocopy of the test security page out of the test manual but did not give her a copy of the test manual. However, Ms. Todd informed Respondent that she could review the manual in Ms. Todd's office. Respondent had prior experience in administering the SAT-9. She did not take advantage of the opportunity to review the test manual in Ms. Todd's office prior to the test in April 2002. Ms. Todd informed Respondent that the desks in the classroom needed to be separated. Ms. Todd and the test manual directed Respondent to read the script in the manual verbatim and to strictly follow the time allowed for each test section. Finally, Ms. Todd told Respondent and Ms. Crawford that they had discretion to redirect students but not to coach them. Respondent and Ms. Crawford could tell students to stay in their seats, to stop talking, and to pay attention. Teachers and proctors were allowed to tell students they were working in the wrong section, to erase the answers in the wrong section, and to go back to the correct section. Ms. Crawford was assigned to proctor the SAT-9 in Respondent's class in April 2002. When the test began, Respondent had not separated all of the students' desks. With the exception of a couple of desks that had been moved to one side, the desks were arranged in the normal classroom configuration with desks touching in groups of threes. The only other change in the classroom was that the seating location of some students had been rearranged. Respondent did not separate the desks because she wanted room to walk between the students during the test. The classroom was small and crowded with 18 desks. However, the most persuasive evidence is that Respondent did not make an effort to separate the desks to the extent possible. When Respondent began the first section of the test, she read the script of the instructions to her students. She read the sample question, which was in a story format, and the multiple choice answers as required. Pursuant to the test instructions, Respondent had to direct some of the students to erase their answers to the sample question and to mark the correct answers. Respondent then deviated from the script by reading aloud the first part of the first test question and telling the students to put their finger where the question began. She did not read the answers to the first question. Respondent did not improperly read any other portion of the test. Respondent was responsible for timing each section of the test. At one point during the test, Ms. Crawford asked Respondent how long the students had to finish a test section. Respondent replied that they had until 9:20 a.m. Ms. Crawford's testimony that Respondent began the timed test at 8:54, allowing the students an extra 6 minutes to complete the section is not persuasive. Students are not allowed to work on test sections that are not being timed. In other words, if a student begins to work in section 2 while section 1 is being timed, the teacher and the proctor should tell the student to erase his or her answers in section 2 and go back to work on section 1. During the test, Ms. Crawford informed Respondent that a student named Tyler was working in the wrong section. Respondent then told Tyler to go back to the section she should have been working on. Respondent's communication with Tyler was not improper according to the training provided by Ms. Todd. Ms. Crawford also had to redirect a couple of Respondent's students to erase their answers in the wrong section of the test and to begin working in the correct test section. A second student named Latrice put her head on her desk and closed her booklet within five minutes after a timed test began. Respondent did not believe Latrice could not have finished the test so quickly. Respondent picked up and opened Latrice's booklet. Respondent told Latrice that she could not possibly be finished and needed to go back and check her answers. Respondent also told Latrice she must have some of the answers wrong. Respondent made this statement to Latrice without actually checking to see if any of her answers were wrong. Even so, Respondent's communication with Latrice was inappropriate. If Latrice had finished the test and closed her booklet, Respondent should have taken the booklet without telling Latrice that she needed to keep working because she must have some of the answers wrong. After the test, Ms. Crawford informed Ms. Todd that Respondent had violated the reading portion of the SAT-9 test procedures by failing to separate the desks, by failing to properly time the test on one section, by failing to follow the script, and by improperly coaching two students. Ms. Todd then informed Mr. Crutcher about the allegations of improper test procedures. The Columbia County School District decided to invalidate the reading portion of the SAT-9 test for Respondent's first grade class. They did not invalidate the math portion of the test. The school district then administered a substitute reading test to the students. The Columbia County School District subsequently suspended Respondent without pay from May 21, 2002, through May 28, 2002. Respondent transferred to another Columbia County school for the 2002/2003 school term. As of the date of the hearing, Respondent continued to be employed by the Columbia County School District.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the EPC enter a final order, placing Respondent’s teaching certificate on probation for a period of five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 20th day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty N. Goggins 1291 East Camp Street Lake City, Florida 32025 William B. Graham, Esquire Ginger L. Barry, Esquire McFarlain & Cassedy 305 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224E 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 in this case is whether just cause exists for Petitioner, Hernando County School Board (the “School Board” or “Board”), to terminate the employment of Respondent, Renee Koulouris.1/
Findings Of Fact The School Board is responsible for hiring, supervising, and firing all employees within the Hernando County School System. This responsibility includes taking administrative action when an employee violates any rule or policy of the Board. Mrs. Koulouris was hired by the School Board approximately 15 years ago as a fourth grade teacher. At the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year, she was transferred to a fifth grade class in order to provide assistance to a struggling team. Her principal, Mr. Piesik, described Mrs. Koulouris as a very strong teacher with very high standards. Mr. Piesik said Mrs. Koulouris ran her classroom like “a well-oiled machine.” Mrs. Koulouris has had no disciplinary actions prior to the incident at issue in the present proceeding. One of the duties of a fifth grade teacher is to administer the Florida Standards Assessment (“FSA”) tests in four different subject areas: Language Arts; Math; Writing; and Science. The tests are an integral part of a student’s education and are used to determine placement in the next grade level, i.e., which classes the student will be eligible for upon advancement to middle school. It is imperative that FSA tests are administered correctly and securely. Extra measures are taken to ensure that all students take the tests independently, without assistance from anyone. Protocols are put in place to monitor students who are taking the tests. Mrs. Koulouris attended all of the required training prior to administering the tests. She also signed the Test Administration and Security Agreement, and the Test Administrator Prohibited Activities Agreement, acknowledging her understanding of the test protocols. Some of the FSA tests are administered in the classroom; some are done in the computer lab. In either case, the teacher administering the tests must diligently follow all rules and procedures. Fairness and honesty is paramount. The Board recommends the presence of a proctor in addition to the teacher when tests are given to certain sized classes. No proctor was present when the tests at issue herein were administered. Mrs. Koulouris is accused of inappropriately assisting students during the FSA tests she administered in the 2016-2017 school year. Those tests were taken over a period of three months: The writing test was administered on February 20, 2017; the English test was given on April 19 and 22, 2017; the Science tests were given on May 1 and 2, 2017; and the Math test was done on May 5 and 9, 2017. During this same time frame, Mrs. Koulouris’ classes took a number of practice FSA tests (as well as regular tests in various subjects). Mrs. Koulouris is alleged to have assisted students by signaling them during the FSA tests to indicate that their answer to a particular question might be wrong. This was allegedly done by tapping a student or making a particular face at them. Any student so notified would then be expected to change their answer. It is also alleged that Mrs. Koulouris would stand behind students for long periods of time, tapping or nudging them if they wrote or entered an incorrect answer. If the allegations are true, Mrs. Koulouris would be in violation of the test protocols and policies. Mrs. Koulouris adamantly and credibly denied any such behavior. She describes her “assistance” to the students as follows: She explains the test-taking process. She stresses the need to concentrate and stay on track. She tells them that if they do not know an answer, to move on and come back to that question later. She reminds them to be thorough and to take their time, thinking about each question carefully. She instructs the students to go back over their work when they finish, time allowing. In order not to disturb the students while they are testing, she prefers to remain at her desk rather than walking around the room. However, she does move around the room on rare occasions, or when she sees a student who is off task, e.g., sleeping or gazing out the window. She would sometimes tap a student’s desk to get them back on track or, in some instances, to wake them up. The testimony of the two students who appeared at final hearing in this matter supports Mrs. Koulouris’ description of her normal process for administering an FSA test. In the weeks leading up to the FSA tests, Mrs. Koulouris would give a number of practice exams so that the students would become accustomed to the test format. She does help students during the practice tests, but generally for the purpose of keeping them focused, not to correct their answers. She uses facial expressions and eye contact to provide that assistance. Mrs. Koulouris’ demeanor at final hearing gave credence to her testimony. She seemed very sincere concerning her actions and her entire testimony was credible. The allegations concerning Mrs. Koulouris’ actions during the 2016-2017 FSA testing cycle came about towards the end of that school year. As she described it: Fifth grade “graduation” occurred on May 18, 2017, a Thursday, at which time awards were handed out to students based on their performance. The following day, Friday, Mrs. Koulouris was in a multipurpose room tending children who would be picked up by their parents. Other adults were present in the room. Mr. F., a fellow Suncoast teacher whose son was a student in Mrs. Koulouris’ class, approached Mrs. Koulouris. Mr. F. angrily asked why his son had not received a “gold award” at the graduation ceremony held the day before. Mrs. Koulouris explained that the child had not achieved the necessary grade point average to receive a gold award. Mr. F. told her he was very “pissed off” and that if he found out that Mrs. Koulouris did something “on purpose” to hurt his son, he would be extremely angry at her. Mrs. Koulouris felt very intimidated by Mr. F.’s demeanor and his language. She was also very surprised, as she thought she had a good relationship with the student and had been fair with him. Mrs. Koulouris reported the incident with Mr. F. to her team leader and then to the principal, Mr. Piesik. Mr. Piesik reprimanded Mr. F. for his behavior and told Mr. F. not to have any further contact with Mrs. Koulouris unless an administrator was present. On the following Monday, Mr. F. went to Mr. Piesik and reported that-–according to statements made by Mr. F.’s son over the weekend-–Mrs. Koulouris had improperly assisted her students during the FSA tests. The timing of Mr. F.’s allegation against Mrs. Koulouris is extremely suspect. The principal immediately undertook an investigation to determine whether the allegation had any merit. He prepared a list of questions to be posed to Mrs. Koulouris’ students. Mr. Piesik went to the classroom on May 23, 2017, and talked individually with several randomly selected students, asking them the questions he had prepared in advance. (Mr. F.’s son was intentionally excluded from the group of students to be questioned.) Some of the questions were very innocuous, i.e., Mr. Piesik asked about the school year and about the FSA testing in general. He then pointedly asked, “During the FSA testing, did your teacher do anything to help students get the right answers?” A few of the students apparently indicated that Mrs. Koulouris had said something about making a face or nudging them if they were off task, gave a wrong answer, or were making mistakes. Others said that no such comments were made by Mrs. Koulouris. Mr. Piesik compiled the students’ answers to his queries and contacted two school district administrators: Matthew Goldrick, supervisor for professional standards; and Linda Pierce, supervisor of assessment and accountability. The administrators suggested Mr. Piesik continue his investigation of the matter. Next, Mr. Piesik drafted a form containing three statements and one question. The singular question on the form was, “Did Mrs. Koulouris instruct you before FSA test [sic] that if she tapped you or gave you a strange look it meant your answer was incorrect and you needed to change it?” He placed “Yes” and “No” lines beneath the question to record the students’ responses. The three statements drafted for inclusion on the form were: (1) “Yes I knew Mrs. Koulouris was helping students on the test.” (2) “Mrs. Koulouris did NOT help me on the test.” (3) “Mrs. Koulouris helped me on the test by giving a tap or a look so I knew I needed to change my answers.” Beneath the question and statements were these words: “Please indicate which test she helped you on. Math – Reading - Science.” On the following day, May 24, 2017, Mr. Piesik interviewed all 22 of the students who had undergone FSA testing with Mrs. Koulouris, including Mr. F.’s son. This time, the principal used his newly created form containing the one question and three statements. If the student agreed with a statement when it was read to him or her, Mr. Piesik would place a check next to the statement. He would circle either yes or no after asking the question, depending on the student’s answer. The principal testified that “all 22 students” answered “Yes” to the question of whether Mrs. Koulouris said she would tap them if their answer was wrong. Of those students, 12 said Mrs. Koulouris was “helping students” during the test, seven indicated they had been helped, and 13 said Mrs. Koulouris did not help them. However, some of the same students who said their teacher was helping students when asked on May 24, 2017, had said just the opposite on May 23, 2017. The discrepancy in their answers leads to the conclusion that the questions, as posed, were either unclear to the students or were unintentionally leading in nature. By way of example, student C.M.F., who had presumably answered “Yes” to the question posed on May 24, 2014, as to whether Mrs. Koulouris had helped students during the FSA testing (since all students had responded that way), said in her deposition that she misunderstood the question Mr. Piesik had asked her, that it was “all a misunderstanding.” She maturely opined that, “So, it is very commonly known that people cannot understand something because it was worded a way that they thought it would mean something else. And I thought what the principal, Mr. Piesik, said, he had asked me if she had helped with the – if Mrs. Koulouris had helped with the test, but he didn’t say the specific FSA so I thought he was talking about tests in general. And sometimes she would explain, like rephrase stuff and explain it to us for the normal tests, but never for the FSA.” This sort of equivocation renders the students’ statements virtually uncredible. Two of the students testified at final hearing. Their testimony was insufficient to adequately corroborate the hearsay evidence found in the written forms. Student A.S. said at final hearing that “before tests” Mrs. Koulouris would tell us she would tap students on the shoulder if they were “way off track” and you “needed to get back in the game.” However, she did not remember any student being touched during the FSA tests. A.S.’s testimony was too equivocal to establish whether or not Mrs. Koulouris had assisted any students during the FSA tests. It is notable that the School Board did not cite to any of A.S.’s testimony from final hearing, but instead relied upon the less certain and unclear statements made by students in their depositions, which are both hearsay in nature and less credible than live testimony. Student A.W.’s memory of the events was even more clouded. She believes she remembers one student messing up the order of his responses (i.e., answering up and down rather than side to side on the answer sheet) and Mrs. Koulouris helped him get realigned, but does not believe Mrs. Koulouris otherwise assisted anyone during the tests. When confronted with her response to the principal’s form questions, A.W. simply could not remember being asked the questions or how she responded. On May 23, 2017, Mr. Piesik had asked her the question from his form, “During the FSA testing, did your teacher do anything to help students get the right answers?” She responded, “No.” On May 24, 2017, she answered “Yes” to the question, “Did Mrs. Koulouris instruct you before FSA test [sic] that if she tapped you or gave you a strange look it meant your answer was incorrect and you needed to change it?” At final hearing, A.W. answered “No” to the question, “Did you see or hear Mrs. Koulouris make the statement, ‘If I look at you funny or strange or if I give you a tap on the shoulder, that means you need to change your answers’?” Again, the testimony was inconsistent and was not sufficient support to corroborate or affirm the information found in the forms.2/ The truth of whether Mrs. Koulouris helped students on the FSA tests cannot be established by Petitioner’s evidence, the supposed student responses as tallied by Mr. Piesik, due to their hearsay nature and various discrepancies. When considering how the allegation against Mrs. Koulouris first arose, i.e., after her confrontation with her fellow teacher, Mr. F., and the equivocal testimony of the students, there is insufficient basis to support the allegations against her. Findings of Ultimate Fact Under Florida law, whether charged conduct constitutes a deviation from a standard of conduct established by rule or statute is a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact, considering the testimony and evidence in the context of the alleged violation. Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Accordingly, whether conduct alleged in an administrative complaint violates the laws, rules and policies set forth in the charging document is a factual, not legal, determination. The Board has not met its burden in this case of proving that Mrs. Koulouris engaged in the conduct for which she was charged. Although Mr. Piesik testified as to his conclusion based on interviews with students, that conclusion was not corroborated by the students’ testimony. The double hearsay nature of the students’ responses to Mr. Piesik’s questions, coupled with the vague recollections of students actually testifying, is wholly insufficient to satisfy the Board’s burden of proof. It is clear Mrs. Koulouris gave her students instructions about how to take the FSA tests, administered practice test at which the strict FSA rules were not applicable, monitored the tests and redirected students who were sleeping or otherwise distracted, and sometimes walked around the classroom. But the evidence is woefully short of proving wrongdoing or improper assistance to students. Notably, the deposition transcripts offered into evidence jointly by the parties were not helpful to the finder of fact. The students’ responses to questions were vague and disjointed. Each of the parties interpreted the students’ statements differently, each seeming to think the statements supported their position in this matter. Besides the obvious hearsay nature of the evidence, the statements were nebulous, and lacking clarity or persuasiveness. The students contradicted each other, some could not even remember where they were sitting during testing, and their memories seemed, at best, confused.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Hernando County School Board, finding no cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Renee Koulouris, as there is insufficient evidence that she violated statutes, rules or policies regarding the administration of FSA tests. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent's proposed decision to award a contract to Florida Youth Academy, Inc., pursuant to Request for Proposals No. F4G01, is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules, or policies or the proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact On June 19, 2001, the Department issued and advertised RFP No. F4G01 for the design, implementation, and operation of a moderate risk residential program with a daily capacity of 30 youthful female offenders who have been committed to the Department after having been assessed and classified as a medium risk to public safety. This was an on-going program, and PEMHS was the incumbent contractor. PEMHS and FYA submitted proposals, which were opened on July 24, 2001. Three qualified agency employees, Mary Mills, Nicholas Lefrancois, and Jennifer Gallman, were given the assignment of evaluating the proposals in accordance with the requirements of the RFP and an evaluation score sheet providing evaluation and scoring criteria. The evaluators worked separately and returned their completed score sheets to Genanne Wilson, the contract administrator who developed the RFP. Ms. Wilson tabulated the scores. On August 31, 2001, the Department posted the tabulations for the RFP, recommending the contract be awarded to FYA. FYA received 328 points, and PEMHS received 288 points. FYA's score was corrected to 303 points when it was discovered that Ms. Wilson had applied an incorrect weighting factor to the points awarded FYA for CMBE participation. The correction did not affect the outcome of the process. PEMHS filed a formal written protest on September 14, 2001, and an amended formal written protest on October 19, 2001. Section L of the RFP set forth the proposal award criteria. Subsection L.1 described the RFP's sole "Fatal Item" as follows: Fatal Item A proposal with a "no" response to the following question shall be rejected without further consideration. Did the Offeror submit an original, signed State of Florida, Request for Proposal, Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form (PUR 7033)? _____ Yes No If the above item is marked "NO" the evaluation of this proposal will STOP! The referenced Form PUR 7033 is prescribed by the Department of Management Services, Division of Purchasing, for inclusion in all agency RFPs. Rule 60A-1.002(7)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The form lists 17 separate General Conditions applicable to all contracts, provides potential vendors with information as to posting of proposal tabulations, and, most importantly, provides space for a manual signature by an authorized representative of the prospective vendor, stating the vendor's assent to the following statement: I certify that this Proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any corporation, firm, or person submitting a Proposal for the same services, supplies or equipment and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. I agree to abide by all conditions of this Proposal and certify that I am authorized to sign this Proposal for the Proposer and that the Proposer is in compliance with all requirements of the Request for Proposal, including but not limited to, certification requirements. In submitting a Proposal to an agency for the State of Florida, the Proposer offers and agrees that if the Proposal is accepted, the Proposer will convey, sell, assign or transfer to the State of Florida, all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may now or hereafter acquire under the Antitrust Laws of the United States and the State of Florida for the price fixing relating to the particular commodities or services purchased or acquired by the State of Florida. At the State's discretion, such assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the purchasing agency tenders final payment to the Proposer. The vendor's manual signature on Form PUR 7033 binds the vendor to the terms of its proposal, should it prevail at the end of the evaluation process. The RFP was made available to vendors via download from the Department's Internet web page. The web page allowed the downloading of the Form PUR 7033, but also allowed the downloading of a form similar but not identical to Form PUR 7033. This second form included the language quoted above binding the vendor to its proposal and the space for the manual signature assenting to those terms, but did not include the 17 General Conditions found on the Form PUR 7033. The proposal submitted by FYA employed the second form, not the Form PUR 7033. It included the manual signature of Dr. Devyani Desai, the president and chief executive officer of FYA, indisputably a person authorized to bind FYA to its proposal. PEMHS' protest contends that, given the strict language of the "Fatal Item" RFP term, FYA's proposal should have been rejected out of hand for failure to include the mandatory Form PUR 7033. Genanne Wilson, the contract administrator, was the person charged with deciding whether the FYA proposal should be rejected. She consulted a Department attorney, who advised her that the second form was acceptable and met the criterion for submission of a Form PUR 7033. Based on that advice, Ms. Wilson distributed the FYA proposal to the three evaluators for scoring. The evaluators' score sheets contained a space calling for them to confirm the presence of the Form PUR 7033, but the testimony at the hearing established that the evaluators relied on Ms. Wilson for that information. Mr. Lefrancois testified that he assumed he would not have received the proposals for evaluation at all had they not contained the Form PUR 7033. The seventeen General Conditions set forth on Form PUR 7033 are commonly referred to as the "boilerplate" language included in any contract issued pursuant to an RFP. They include the terms of submission and opening of proposals, bid protest procedures, terms of invoicing and payment, conflict of interest notices, public records requirements, and contractual restrictions regarding assignment, default, advertising, liability, and cancellation. All of the substantive areas of the General Conditions were set forth in substance, if not precisely the same form, within the RFP itself. While pressing its claim that the literal language of the RFP should apply to disqualify FYA's proposal, PEMHS offered no evidence that FYA gained any competitive advantage by submitting the alternative form that it downloaded from the Department's own web site. No party contended that the submission of the alternative form would release FYA from any of the General Conditions. The Department has modified Form PUR 7033 to include blank signature spaces to be signed in the event the bidder enters into a contract with the Department. PEMHS argued that FYA's failure to include the modified Form PUR 7033 meant that FYA and the Department would be unable to finalize the contract by signature. PEMHS offered no statutory or rule citation that would require the contract to be executed on the modified Form PUR 7033, or that would prohibit the Department from drafting a separate document for the parties to sign in execution of their contract. Greg Chown, the Department's director of contracts, testified that the lack of a signature page in the bid documents would not prevent the Department from subsequently entering into a contract with a successful bidder. In summary, FYA filled out and submitted a form provided by the Department. The form bound FYA to its proposal just as the Form PUR 7033 bound PEMHS to its proposal. FYA gained no competitive advantage by submitting the alternative form. The RFP labeled submission of the Form PUR 7033 a "Fatal Item," but the clear intent of this requirement was to ensure a firm commitment by the vendor, not to trap an unwary bidder who inadvertently downloaded the alternative form from the Department's own web page. The alternative form signed by FYA's president complied with the substance of the "Fatal Item" requirement. In view of all the evidence, FYA's failure to submit a Form PUR 7033 was at most a minor irregularity, properly waived by the Department in the interest of preserving competition in a situation in which only two proposals were received. Section K.3.3 of the RFP provided that the bidder must present "a letter of intent to enter into local interagency agreements required in program objectives: submit cooperative agreement(s) or contract(s) with local school districts describing the manner in which education services shall be provided in performance of this contract." PEMHS contended that one evaluator, Mr. Lefrancois, awarded FYA a "satisfactory" score of three points for this item despite the fact that FYA did not submit the required cooperative agreement or contract.1 In response to Section K.3.3, FYA submitted a letter from Frank Potjunas, the supervisor of dropout prevention services for Pinellas County Schools. The letter, addressed to FYA's president, stated: It has come to my attention that you are applying to the Department of Juvenile Justice to provide a 30 bed residential program for moderate risk girls at your Largo facility. As a Pinellas County School administrator and a member of Florida Youth Academy's Advisory Council, I have spent many days at your program. I have worked closely with the FYA administration and staff and I am aware of the services and care you provide to at-risk youth. I support your application, and if I can be of any further help please let me know. PEMHS contended that the above letter did not constitute either a letter of intent or an actual contract as contemplated by Section K.3.3 of the RFP, and that Mr. Lefrancois therefore erred in awarding FYA three points for this item. PEMHS also pointed out that evaluator Mary Mills agreed that the FYA response was inadequate and that she awarded FYA only two points for this item. The third evaluator, Jennifer Gallman, also awarded FYA three points for this item. She testified that a cooperative agreement signed by all parties would be an ideal submission, but that only the incumbent bidder can realistically be expected to have such an agreement in place. A bidder who does not enjoy the advantage of incumbency should demonstrate that it has made contacts within the community and enlisted support for its prospective program. Ms. Gallman was satisfied that the letter quoted above satisfied Section K.3.3 when read in conjunction with its accompanying text in the FYA proposal: Florida Youth Academy intends to modify existing cooperative agreement [sic] with the Pinellas County School Board to provide onsite dropout prevention programming for these additional beds. There will be one classroom for every 19 youth. A letter of intent from Pinellas County School System is included in this submittal. In summary, the issue raised by PEMHS regarding Section K.3.3 amounts to no more than a minor difference of opinion among the evaluators. Two of the evaluators found FYA's response "adequate" and awarded three points. One of the evaluators found FYA's response "poor" and awarded two points. Either opinion is rational and defensible. Nothing in the FYA response to Section K.3.3 or in the evaluators' scoring thereof merits a finding that the agency's actions were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, capricious, or in contravention of the applicable rules, statutes, or the requirements of the RFP. Section K.4 of the RFP, entitled "Organizational Capability," required the bidder to submit seven items: An organization chart identifying relationships between dedicated program staff and corporate staff, along with a narrative detailing the capacity of program staff to accomplish program objectives. A synopsis of corporate qualifications indicating ability to manage and meet performance objectives of the proposed program, including copies of corporate documents. A plan to illustrate adequate internal administrative review and monitoring services to assure performance for the program. A resume for each professional staff member to include name, position titles, certifications and qualifications of those providing service. A staffing plan to include name, position titles, and weekly hours allocated to ensure quality service delivery. Narrative description that outlines the arrangements that will be in existence at the time of contract award to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment or other resources required to perform the contract. Narrative outlining the Offeror's ability to perform the contractual services taking into consideration any existing contracts with the Department, other state agencies or any other agency in which the Offeror has entered into a contractual relationship.2 PEMHS contended that FYA's proposal did not address items 3 and 5 of Section K.4, but that two of the evaluators nonetheless awarded FYA an "adequate" score of three points for this section, while the third evaluator awarded a "poor" score of two points. While FYA's proposal did not separately set out the "plans" referenced in items 3 and 5, a fair reading of the proposal as a whole could lead a rational evaluator to conclude that FYA addressed the substance of those items. As with the dispute over the scoring of Section K.3.3, this issue involves a minor difference of opinion among the evaluators as to the adequacy of FYA's response. Two of the evaluators, judging the proposal in its entirety, determined that FYA adequately addressed the requirements of Section K.4. One evaluator disagreed, finding the response "poor." Either opinion is rational and defensible. Nothing in the FYA response to Section K.4 or in the evaluators' scoring thereof merits a finding that the agency's actions were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, capricious, or in contravention of the applicable rules, statutes, or the requirements of the RFP. PEMHS complained that evaluator Mary Mills changed her score for two items in her evaluation of PEMHS' proposal. The evidence established that in one instance, Ms. Mills lowered the score from three points to two. In the other instance, Ms. Mills raised the score from two points to three. The evidence further established that Ms. Mills made these changes on her own, prior to submitting her completed evaluation to Ms. Wilson. In each instance, her completed review of the entire PEMHS proposal caused Ms. Mills to reconsider the score she had preliminarily awarded. PEMHS failed to establish that Ms. Mills did anything inconsistent with the duties of a conscientious evaluator. Finally, PEMHS alleged that FYA submitted false information concerning its past performance. Section K.4.1 of the RFP set forth the requirement for documentation of past performance: The Offeror shall submit documentation to support the following: An established history of program implementation within the fiscal constraints of any previous contracts. Achieved measurable results in educational achievements by participants. Satisfactory or higher ratings in a similar program Quality Assurance Evaluation. Involvement by the community in which the program is located indicating the community's support for the continuation of the program, such as local boards, volunteers, local financial or in-kind support, and support by local governmental organizations. Any documentation to support the program's recidivism rates for clients served. The corresponding section of the score sheet provided a possible five points for each of the five aspects of past performance listed in Section K.4, for a possible total of 25 points. Each of the evaluators awarded FYA an "adequate" score of three points for each of the items, except for the item corresponding to "satisfactory or higher ratings in a similar program Quality Assurance Evaluation." For this item, Mr. Lefrancois and Ms. Gallman awarded FYA a "very good" score of four points. Each of them noted that the superior rating on this item was based on FYA's having operated other programs that had achieved "deemed" status, the highest rating available under Quality Assurance Evaluations conducted by the Department. PEMHS alleged that the experience claimed by FYA in its proposal is actually that of another company, Florida Health Facilities, L.P., the assets of which FYA acquired in 2000. PEMHS claims that it was misleading, if not actually false, for FYA to claim credit for accomplishments achieved prior to 2000, and that the evaluators' crediting FYA with those accomplishments fatally undermined the integrity of the procurement process. Contrary to PEMHS' implication, FYA's proposal made no effort to disguise the facts. It stated, in pertinent part: Dr. Devyani N. Desai is the President & CEO of Florida Youth Academy, Inc., which was formed in September 2000 to acquire Florida Health Facilities' business and property. (p. 36) * * * Florida Youth Academy operates 132 beds at the Largo facility, which has received deemed status every year since 1998. It also leases Wilson Youth Academy facility at Land O'Lakes of 32 moderate risk beds. This facility has also received deemed status since 1999. Through the change of ownership FYA has retained all the key management personnel. (p. 37) * * * As noted in the Organizational Capability section of this proposal, FYA programs formerly owned and operated by Florida Health Facilities, L.P., has been [sic] a proven provider of female and female [sic] services for the State, and also the Circuit 6 service area. Along with general program implementation, Florida Youth Academy has also been successful in maintaining financial stability and utilizing the per diem dollars within the constraints of the contract. The formalized report of the audit for year 2000 will be made available upon request. Examples of FYA's ability to provide quality program [sic] is outlined below: FYA currently operates four treatment programs, with varying levels of care. The programs consist of 96 High Risk, 18 Moderate Risk, 18 Low Risk and additional 32 Moderate Risk program [sic] located in another county. Three of the four residential commitment programs have received excellent quality Assurance rating with deemed status results for a consecutive two-year period. (p. 37-38) * * * The facilities have received five year's [sic] of Quality Assurance surveying. Each year ongoing improvements have been evident through increasing scores and achievement of deemed status ratings. Since program development, all levels of care have been proven to be effective at implementing which [sic] meet and exceed QA standards. In the most recent survey of 2000, all the programs achieved and/or maintained deemed status reporting . . . . (p. 38) * * * The current programs at the facility of Florida Youth Academy were previously owned and operated by Florida Health Facilities, L.P. The programs have been operated consistently through change of ownership. The recidivism rate at FYA is below average for comparable programs. The most recent experience is 28% and 30% for High Risk and Moderate Risk programs respectively. (p. 38) PEMHS' implication that FYA submitted false information is unfounded. As the quoted examples from its proposal indicate, FYA directly stated that it had acquired the assets of Florida Health Facilities in 2000, and emphasized that it had made strong efforts to maintain continuity of personnel and services during the transition. PEMHS offered no evidence to document that FYA has failed to maintain the documented quality of the "deemed" facilities it now owns. It was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition for the evaluators to accept FYA's representations as to the historical and continuing quality of the programs it acquired, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered awarding the contract for a moderate risk residential program in Pinellas County for 30 female offenders, pursuant to RFP No. F4G01, to Florida Youth Academy, Inc., and dismissing the protest of Personal Enrichment Through Medical Services, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 29th day of November, 2001.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent’s certification as a teacher in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner was the state official responsible for the licensing and certification of teachers in Florida and for the regulation of the teaching profession in this state. Respondent was certified under Florida Educator’s Certificate Number 517092, covering the areas of Early Childhood Education and Elementary Education, with an English Speakers of Other Languages endorsement, through June 30, 1999. On or about April 4, 1995, Respondent was employed as a second-grade teacher at Tuttle Elementary School in Sarasota County, Florida. She was assigned homeroom number R5, which was contiguous to room R6, assigned to Ms. Frosch, also a second- grade teacher. Room R5 was the end room of four rooms in a row. Room D7 was assigned to Ms. Davenport, and Room D8 was assigned to Ms. Wajda. Respondent taught a self-contained second grade class made up of students, some of whom were learning disabled, some emotionally handicapped, and some who spoke English as a second language. These students took their special classes, (music, art, etc.), at a time other than when the continuous progress students took them. Tuttle Elementary School was scheduled to administer the National Achievement Test on April 4 - 18, 1995. Prior to April 4, Ms. Kurtin, an Assistant Principal at Tuttle, had scheduled a series of meetings in advance of the testing to brief the teachers and advise them of the ground rules for the testing process. Second grade teachers were scheduled to meet at 1:45 p.m. on Tuesday, March 22, 1995, and English Speakers of Other Language (ESOL) teachers were scheduled to meet at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 23, 1995. Respondent attended at least one of those meetings. At the meetings, the teachers were briefed on, among other matters, how to maintain security of the test booklets. Included was an injunction not to teach the students directly from the booklets in advance of testing. The test materials for the students were given to the individual teachers the day before the testing was to begin. The teachers had received their test manuals earlier and were instructed to safeguard them to insure the integrity of the test process. Testing for the second grade was to last between 25 to 40 minutes per day over a period of 6 to 7 days. Students in grades 1 through 3 were to place their answers directly into the test booklets. Students in grades 4 and 5 were provided answer sheets on which to place their answers. After each test session, the teachers were to collect the test booklets and, prior to turning them in for grading, go through them to erase or otherwise remove extraneous marks on the pages which might confuse the machine grading of the students’ test answers. After cleaning, the test booklets were to be secured until the next testing session or the end of the testing. One day during the testing period in the spring of 1995, Ms. Frosch was alone in her classroom while her students were at specials after the morning testing session. At approximately 10:15 a.m. she went outside her room for a break. When she went back inside, she heard Respondent talking with her class in the Respondent’s classroom. Though there is what appears to be a brick wall between Ms. Frosch’s room and that of the Respondent, Ms. Frosch contends she was able to hear what Respondent was saying, and it became clear to her that Respondent was reading exactly from the test booklet. In fact, Ms. Frosch took out her own booklet and was able to follow along with the Respondent. She heard Respondent read question 7, and heard the students give the answer. If a child gave the wrong answer, Respondent corrected the answer. Ms. Frosch, feeling that someone else should verify what was happening, went through the door which separated her room from that of Ms. Davenport, her team teacher. The desks of Ms. Frosch and Ms. Davenport were both near the doorway which joined their rooms. Frosch had Davenport come into her room and listen at the wall. Ms. Davenport heard Respondent reading word-for- word from the test booklet. By this time, Respondent was at question 12, and Ms. Davenport was able to follow along in Frosch’s test booklet. Though she only stayed to listen a short while, Davenport was shocked to hear what was going on because the material being discussed was on the test scheduled to be administered the next day. Ms. Frosch also got Ms. Wajda, from the next room down, and her aide, Ms. Salazar, to come to the room to listen also. Both Wajda and Salazar also heard Respondent reading the test questions aloud, word-for-word, to her students. By this time, Respondent was on page 11 of the booklet at questions 34 and 35. They heard Respondent read a question and the four possible answers, and then respond if the child selected the correct answer. Rather than use the in-room call button, Ms. Wajda went to get Ms. Kurtin, the Assistant Principal, at her office. She did this because in her opinion, it was inappropriate for Respondent to be doing what she was doing. Ms. Kurtin believed she was being taken to the Respondent’s room for a student discipline problem. She had no idea of the nature of the situation until she got there. When Ms. Kurtin reached Respondent’s room, she observed Respondent seated at her desk reading from what appeared to be a test booklet. Kurtin could not say that Respondent was reading from it verbatim. When questioned by Kurtin, Respondent said she was practice testing, but was changing the words in the questions. Ms. Kurtin advised respondent that it was inappropriate to use the real test booklets to practice from and to please put them away. Respondent did as Ms. Kurtin asked, but Kurtin felt nonetheless that she had to report the matter, which she did. Respondent has been a teacher since graduation from college in 1981. She started teaching at Tuttle at the second- grade level during the 1990-1991 school year. During the 1994- 1995 school year, the year in issue, she was a regular classroom teacher with 25 students of varying cultures and abilities. Only 6 of her students were regular students. The others were learning disabled, emotionally handicapped, or ESOL students. Respondent had worked with Ms. Frosch and some of the other teachers on teams for five years. She claims to be a soft- spoken individual and does not believe she could have been heard through the brick wall which separated her room from that of Ms. Frosch. She claims that as an African-American, she did not fully fit in with the other teachers, and her opinions and ideas were not given the same deference and consideration as those of the others. Notwithstanding that all of the other witnesses claimed to have experienced a congenial working, if not social, relationship with Respondent, she asserts that Frosh and Davenport would comment about her classroom discipline skills to the Principal who would, in turn, report the comments to her. Ms. Chester has administered the NAT many times before and knows the requirements for test security. On April 4, 1995, the day in issue, she arrived at school at the normal time. Because it was a test day and students normally pulled out were not taken, she had all her students with her in the room. For some reason not fully disclosed, her students were not to be tested until the next day. To spend the time productively, without following the regular lesson plan while the students were still coming in, she took her teacher’s manual, not, she claims, the actual test booklet, and started working with the children. She is adamant that she was not reading from the actual test manual. Though not made clear by the evidence at trial, it is most likely that she was reading from the teachers’ test booklet which, while not given to the students, contains the same materials and questions. Respondent is puzzled by several matters. She does not accept that the complaining teachers could have heard her as they claim, because she speaks so softly. There is, however, a door on either side of the room which joins it to the outside and to the adjoining room. She does not understand how she could have progressed from question 7 or 10, where she was first heard, to questions 34 or 35, where she was reading when Ms. Kurtin came in. It is not clear how much time passed from Frosch’s initial alert until the arrival of Ms. Kurtin. Finally, she does not know why the in-room call button was not used to summon Ms. Kurtin instead of Ms. Wajda going to get her in person. None of these questions has any material impact on the ultimate determination of the issue of whether Respondent was reading from the test manual. None of the teachers who testified on behalf of the Petitioner was of the opinion that the Respondent’s action in reading to her students from the test booklet was harmful to their mental health or physical safety. By the same token, no one opined that her actions exposed the students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. No independent evidence was introduced by the Petitioner to support such allegations. It was accepted, however, and it is found, that Respondent’s use of the test booklet to practice with the children, regardless of her belief that the students would not remember enough to do them any good, was not professionally honest. It is irrelevant that no benefit to the Respondent could have resulted from the possibility that her students might have scored higher on the tests than they might have had she not read the questions to them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commissioner of Education enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of exposing her students to conditions harmful to learning and of failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings. It is further recommended that her certification as a teacher be placed on probation for one year, that she be reprimanded, and that she be required to take at least six hours of continuing education in the area of teacher ethics and testing procedures. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara J. Staros, Esquire 215 South Monroe Street Second Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stanley Marable, Esquire 677 North Washington Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34236 Kathleen M. Richards Executive Director Educational Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Iris Anderson, Program Specialist Procedural Safeguard Department of Education Bureau of Education for Exceptional Students 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 614 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Harriett S. Parets, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, and dated July 27, 2004, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner filed his Administrative Complaint on July 27, 2004, alleging certain material allegations and Statutory and Rule violations and seeking an appropriate penalty pursuant to the authority provided to the Education Practices Commission in Sections 1012.795(1) and 1012.796(7), Florida Statutes. Respondent filed her Election of Rights and requested a formal hearing on August 23, 2004. The parties’ previous attempt at resolving this matter met without success, and a formal hearing was requested which was scheduled for March 1 and 2, 2006. 2. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Harriett Parets, was employed as an elementary school teacher in the Broward County School District. 3. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate Number 592721. Her certificate covers the areas of elementary education and English for Speakers of Other Languages. It is valid through June 30, 2008. 4. Prior to the incidents complained of in this cause, Respondent taught in the Broward County School District without discipline for six years. Respondent was in her seventh year with the system when the allegations of this case arose. 5. Respondent had no prior disciplinary concerns. 6. Respondent had received satisfactory evaluations every year. 7. Respondent had administered the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) on five prior occasions without incident. 8. During the 2002 school year Respondent was assigned to teach fourth grade at McNab Elementary School (McNab). Her class was scheduled to take the FCAT on March 11 through 13, 2003. 9. Prior to the dates of testing, teachers at McNab were instructed to view a resource video. The video instructed and directed the teachers in the administration of the FCAT. It included information not previously addressed by the video. 10. Additionally, teachers at McNab were provided testing procedures to guide the administration of the FCAT. Teachers were to follow specifically worded texts in the directions provided to their students. A verbatim reading of the text was required by the FCAT testing protocols. Additional comments outside the text were prohibited. 11. Teachers at McNab were advised on the importance of the FCAT results, the requirement of adhering to the testing protocols, and the opportunities available to the school should McNab students perform well on the FCAT. 12. In fact, as McNab had received an “A” rating in the past (following good FCAT results), the school had received special funding tied to that performance. 13. In connection with the FCAT testing at issue herein, McNab administrators took precautions to provide test administrators with the schedule of the exam dates, the materials needed to administer the test, and training in the proper administration of the FCAT. Testing protocols were reviewed. 14. Proctors also received training regarding the administration of the exam. Each class was assigned a proctor along with the teacher who was primarily responsible for the test administration. 15. In this case, the proctor and several students verified comments from Respondent that deviated from the scripted instructions. 16. Contrary to the scripted instructions Respondent looked at the students’ test booklets, told more than one student to re-examine their work for errors, and pointed out a wrong answer. Respondent announced to the class as a whole that she was “seeing a lot of wrong answers.” 17. The Respondent was not authorized to make comments during the administration of the test. More important, the Respondent was not permitted to assist by any means the students who were taking the FCAT. 18. Respondent admitted that she did not watch the FCAT training video (known in this record as the BECON video). Respondent knew or should have known that she had been directed to watch the video. 19. Respondent admitted that she made comments to students that were beyond the scripted instructions provided in the teacher’s testing manual. 20. The issues of Respondent’s comments to the class and the level of assistance she had provided to students came to light when a student told her mother of Respondent’s conduct. The mother then contacted a school administrator to make the alleged improprieties known. 21. After determining that Respondent had assisted students in her class, administrators invalidated the test results from Respondent’s class. 22. As a result of the invalidation, the school did not have a sufficient number of test results to qualify as an “A” performing school under the state guidelines. Had the results from Respondent’s class been included, the school might have qualified and received recognition as it had in the past. 23. Following a formal hearing on the identical facts, the school district suspended Respondent for thirty (30) days. 24. Respondent has proctored the FCAT every year since the incident, including this year, without problem. 25. The District found that a 30-day suspension plus training was sufficient discipline.
Conclusions Stipulated Conclusions. 26. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. 27. Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this case to establish the allegations in the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner has met that burden. 28. Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, governs FCAT security and prohibits anyone from coaching students or assisting them in any manner in the administration of the exam. 29. Additionally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.042 prohibits interfering “in any way” with persons who are taking the FCAT in order to assist their performance. Clearly, Respondent inappropriately assisted students in her classroom. Had she watched the BECON video or more closely read the FCAT manual, she would have known that the comments and actions she made were inappropriate. The importance of test security was well known to all teachers. 30. By deciding to only suspend Respondent (as opposed to dismissal), Petitioner has recognized her past contribution to the school district. That Respondent blames others for her violation of testing protocols is regrettable. Petitioner has established that Respondent violated testing protocols and should be disciplined. 31. Respondent has violated the statutory rule violations alleged in Counts 1 through 4 of the Administrative Complaint. Other Conclusions. 32. Section 1012.795(1), Florida Statutes, gives the Education Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “EPC”) the power to suspend or revoke the teaching certificate of any person, either for a set period of time or permanently, or to impose any penalty provided by law, if he or she is guilty of certain acts specified in the statute. 33. The Commissioner has alleged in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes; in Count 2, that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(10(f), Florida Statutes; and in Count 3, that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes. 34. Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that a teacher may be disciplined if he or she "[h]as been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude." 35. Section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes, provides that a teacher may be disciplined if he or she “has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that person’s effectiveness as an employee of the district school board.” 36. Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes, provides that a teacher may be disciplined if he or she “[h]as violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules.” The Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Principles") are set out in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 6B-1.006. Having failed to reference any particular part of the Principles, it is assumed that the allegations of Count 4 are intended to refer to the actual portion of the Principles Respondent violated. Count 4 charges that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), which requires that teachers “make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety.” 37. Given the parties’ stipulation that “Respondent has violated the statutory rule violations alleged in Counts 1 through 4 of the Administrative Complaint,” the only issue which remains to be decided in this case is the appropriate penalty. In recommending a penalty, however, the extent to which the facts stipulated to by the parties actually supports their stipulation as to the statutory and rule violations must be considered. In particular, the Commission should take into account that the facts actually do not support the conclusion that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, the basis for the alleged violation in Count 1. 38. The terms "gross immorality" and "an act involving moral turpitude" are not defined in Chapter 1012, Florida Statutes. See Sherburne v. School Board of Suwannee County, 455 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009, which applies to dismissal actions initiated by school boards against instructional personnel, does, however, provide guidance as to the meaning of the terms as they are used in Section 1012.795, Florida Statutes. See Castor v. Lawless, 1992 WL 880829 *10 (EPC Final Order 1992). 39. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2) defines "immorality" as follows: Immorality is defined as conduct that is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. It is conduct sufficiently notorious to bring the individual concerned or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impair the individual's service in the community. 40. "Gross immorality" has been defined by the courts as misconduct that is more egregious than mere "immorality": The term "gross" in conjunction with "immorality" has heretofore been found to mean "immorality which involves an act of misconduct that is serious, rather than minor in nature, and which constitutes a flagrant disregard of proper moral standards." Education Practices Commission v. Knox, 3 FALR 1373-A (Department of Education 1981). Frank T. Brogan v. Eston Mansfield, DOAH Case No. 96-0286 (EPC Final Order 1996). 41. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(6) defines "moral turpitude" as follows: Moral turpitude is a crime that is evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties, which, according to the accepted standards of the time a man owes to his or her fellow man or to society in general, and the doing of the act itself and not its prohibition by statute fixes the moral turpitude. 42. The court in State ex rel. Tullidge v. Hollingsworth, 146 So. 660, 661 (1933), observed that moral turpitude: involves the idea of inherent baseness or depravity in the private social relations or duties owed by man to man or by man to society. . . . It has also been defined as anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals, though it often involves the question of intent as when unintentionally committed through error of judgment when wrong was not contemplated. 43. In determining whether any teacher is guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, it must be remembered that "[b]y virtue of their leadership capacity, teachers are traditionally held to a high moral standard in a community." Adams v. Professional Practices Council, 406 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). 44. The acts committed by Respondent in this case were not sufficiently egregious to constitute gross immorality or acts involving moral turpitude. Respondent’s conduct, while inconsistent with the conduct expected of a teacher administering the FCAT, does not constitute an act ". . . which constitutes a flagrant disregard of proper moral standards" or an act of "inherent baseness or depravity in the private social relations or duties owed by man to man or by man to society." 45. As for the violation of Section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes, while the parties have stipulated that Respondent's conduct reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the School Board, the facts show that the School Board has considered Respondent's effectiveness as an employee adequate to continue her in its employment and to continue allowing her to administer the FCAT. 46. While clearly inappropriate conduct on the part of the Respondent, her conduct barely constitutes a violation of the other statutory violation alleged in Count 3. Recommended Penalty. 47. Section 1012.795(1), Florida Statutes, gives the EPC the following disciplinary authority: The Education Practices Commission may suspend the educator certificate of any person as defined in s. 1012.01(2) or (3) for a period of time not to exceed 5 years, thereby denying that person the right to teach or otherwise be employed by a district school board or public school in any capacity requiring direct contact with students for that period of time, after which the holder may return to teaching as provided in subsection (4); may revoke the educator certificate of any person, thereby denying that person the right to teach or otherwise be employed by a district school board or public school in any capacity requiring direct contact with students for a period of time not to exceed 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions of subsection (4); may revoke permanently the educator certificate of any person thereby denying that person the right to teach or otherwise be employed by a district school board or public school in any capacity requiring direct contact with students; may suspend the educator certificate, upon order of the court, of any person found to have a delinquent child support obligation; or may impose any other penalty provided by law, . . . provided it can be shown that the person [violated one of the subsections that follow]. 48. In its Proposed Recommended Order for Appropriate Penalty, Petitioner has requested that it be recommended that Respondent’s certificate be permanently revoked and that she be permanently barred from re-application. Respondent has requested that it be recommended that Respondent’s 30-day suspension by the Broward County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the “School Board”) serve as her penalty in this case. In the alternative, Respondent has suggested that a one- year period of probation be added to the already served suspension. 49. In deciding the appropriate penalty to recommend in this case, consideration has been given to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-11.007(3), which provides aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be considered in determining the appropriate penalty in a case such as this: (3) Based upon consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors present in an individual case, the Commission may deviate from the penalties recommended in subsection (2). The Commission may consider the following as aggravating or mitigating factors: The severity of the offense; The danger to the public; The number of repetitions of offenses; The length of time since the violation; The number of times the educator has been previously disciplined by the Commission. The length of time the educator has practiced and the contribution as an educator; The actual damage, physical or otherwise, caused by the violation; The deterrent effect of the penalty imposed; The effect of the penalty upon the educator’s livelihood; Any effort of rehabilitation by the educator; The actual knowledge of the educator pertaining to the violation; Employment status; Attempts by the educator to correct or stop the violation or refusal by the licensee to correct or stop the violation; Related violations against the educator in another state including findings of guilt or innocence, penalties imposed and penalties served; Actual negligence of the educator pertaining to any violation; Penalties imposed for related offenses under subsection (2) above; Pecuniary benefit or self-gain inuring to the educator; Degree of physical and mental harm to a student or a child; Present status of physical and/or mental condition contributing to the violation including recovery from addiction; Any other relevant mitigating or aggravating factors under the circumstances. 50. Based upon the facts stipulated to by the parties, the following mitigating circumstances exist: the offense in this case is a single, isolated one; the actual danger to the public in this incident was minimal; it has been three years since the violation occurred (and in the interim, Respondent has continued to monitor the FCAT without incident); and Respondent has not been previously disciplined by the EPC. 51. The following aggravating circumstances have been shown to exist: Respondent actions deprived students of the educational process, likely resulting in the loss of school funding and hindering the school’s ratings; and a harsh penalty will send the message that Respondent’s conduct will not be tolerated. 52. Petitioner has argued that an additional aggravating circumstance is the failure of any evidence that Respondent has been rehabilitated. In particular, Petitioner has suggested that Respondent lacks any rehabilitation because she has “consistently accused other individuals, including the FCAT’s administrators and supervisors, for her misdeeds rather than accepting the blame.” Petitioner’s argument on this point must be rejected. First, there is no stipulated fact or any evidence that has been offered in this case to support Petitioner’s position. Secondly, Petitioner has failed to consider the fact that Respondent has agreed to the stipulated facts and law which form the basis of this Recommended Order. 53. Ultimately, in recommending a penalty in this case, the most important considerations in this matter should be the extent to which Respondent actually violated the provision alleged in the Administrative Complaint, which has been addressed, supra, and the action taken by Respondent’s employer, the School Board. 54. The extent to which Respondent actually violated the provisions alleged in the Administrative Complaint has been discussed, supra. 55. Just as significantly, the School Board, which, along with the parents and children it serves, suffered the actual harm of Respondent’s conduct, concluded that Respondent was adequately punished by a 30-day suspension rather than termination of her employment. The School Board, therefore, has indicated a willingness to continue to employ Respondent, something it will no longer be able to do if Petitioner’s recommended penalty is carried out. Nor will the School Board be able to continue Respondent’s employment if Petitioner were to suspend Respondent’s certificate for any period of time. 56. Given the School Board’s decision to continue to employ Respondent, any discipline taken by Petitioner should be limited to discipline which will not thwart the local government’s decision to continue to employ Respondent. A suspension of 30 days, considered already served at the time she served her School Board imposed suspension; five years probation; and a requirement that Respondent attend, at her own expense, any seminars or courses the EPC deems appropriate is an appropriate penalty in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing the following penalty: (1) suspending her teaching certificate for 30 days, such suspension to be considered already served; (2) placing her on probation for five years subject to any conditions deemed appropriate by the EPC; and (3) requiring her to attend, at her own expense, any seminars or courses the EPC deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this day 4th day April of, 2006, 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 4th day of April, 2006.
