The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent from her teaching position, without pay, for seven days.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools within the School District of Palm Beach County ("District"), pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2013).2/ At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a teacher at Atlantic High School ("Atlantic") in Delray Beach, Florida. During the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent was assigned to supervise the credit lab at Atlantic. Respondent has been employed by Petitioner since 2006 and has not previously been disciplined. Administrative Charges On December 9, 2014, Petitioner filed its Petition, which constitutes the administrative charging document in this proceeding. The Petition alleges that Respondent slapped a male student in the face, and that this conduct violates the following: School Board Policies 0.01(2)(c) and (d) 1.013(1), 3.02(4)(a) and (d), 3.02(5)(a)(i), (ii), and (vii), and 3.27; Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056, 6A-10.080(2) and (3), and 6A- 10.081(3)(a) and (e); and the Collective Bargain Agreement Between the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida, and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association ("CBA"), Article II, Section M. The Petition further alleges that these violations constitute just cause, pursuant to section 1012.33, to suspend Respondent from her teaching position, without pay, for seven days. Notably, the Petition does not allege that Respondent grabbed the student's face and does not seek to impose discipline on that basis. The Petition also does not allege that Respondent was charged with a crime or seek to impose discipline on that basis. Evidence Adduced at the Hearing The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on or about Thursday, March 6, 2014, the date on which the District celebrated "Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day." Respondent took her minor son to work with her at Atlantic that day. Respondent's son left her classroom briefly to use the restroom. When he returned to the classroom, he told Respondent that a male student had called him a "[racial slur]". He was able to identify the student, by the clothing he was wearing, as Rodney Michel. Respondent did not write a disciplinary referral on Michel for the alleged incident. At or around 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of Monday, March 10, 2014, as Respondent was leaving school, she went to the credit lab classroom to confront Michel regarding the racial slur that her son claimed Michel had called him. According to Respondent, when she entered the classroom, Michel was standing on a chair and behaving aggressively, and when she confronted him, "he jumped down in my face." Respondent testified that she grabbed Michel's face to make him listen to what she had to say, and that she told him he was wrong to have called her son the racial slur. She then left the classroom. Shirley Starling Teague was the credit lab teacher that afternoon, and she was in the classroom when Respondent entered. She saw Respondent walk to a particular area of the classroom. Thereafter, she heard a sound. When asked on direct examination "what did you think that sound was that you heard?", she answered, "[i]t sounded like a slap." Teague did not see Respondent slap Michel or grab his face because her view of them was blocked by a partition around a computer table. Teague testified that she had not seen Michel standing in a chair. She believed she would have seen him if he had done so because the partitions were not high enough to have blocked her view of a student standing in a chair. Teague testified that as Respondent exited the classroom, she told Teague, "he called my son a [racial slur]." The students in the credit lab had become unruly, so Teague investigated. At some point, students told Teague that Respondent had slapped Michel's face. On direct examination, the following testimony was elicited from Teague: Q: And did any child say what happened? A: Yes. Q: What did they say happened? A: They said that Ms. Grant slapped Mr. Michel. The following testimony also was elicited on the direct examination of Teague regarding a statement by student D.L.: Q: Okay. And do you know if she observed what happened that day? A: To my knowledge, yes. Q: And did she say anything to you about what she had observed? A: Yes. Q: And what did the student D.L. state? A: She said that Rodney had gotten slapped and it wasn't right, that we were going to let it go. She felt that we were going to let it go. Teague testified that Michel never told her that Respondent had slapped him.3/ She examined Michel's face but was unable to determine whether there was any swelling. On cross-examination, Teague acknowledged that the only information she had regarding whether Respondent had slapped Michel had been relayed to her by students. As part of the School Police Department investigation, students provided statements that they had seen Respondent slap Michel. Some statements were made on "Witness Statement" forms and were dated March 10, 2014. These statements were not sworn or affirmed and the time at which each statement was made was not recorded on the form. Other statements were made on "Sworn/Affirmed" forms. Of these statements, some were made on March 10, 2014, at "1930" (7:30 p.m.), and others were made on March 11, 2014, at "0900" (9:00 a.m.). None of the statements contained a witness signature or otherwise indicated they had been sworn. Mary Powers, the assistant principal in charge of night school and adult education at Atlantic, testified that after the incident, Michel was brought to her office by others who had been outside the credit lab classroom at the time of the incident. Michel told Powers that Respondent had slapped him in the face. Powers examined Michel's left cheek, and testified that it appeared swollen. Kia Allen, assistant principal at Atlantic, also saw Michel's face after the incident, and testified that his jaw appeared swollen. Petitioner presented the testimony and written statements of school personnel that they saw Michel shortly after the incident, that he appeared upset, and that they were told that Respondent had slapped him. Petitioner did not present any witness who testified that he or she saw Respondent slap Michel.4/ Respondent herself was the only witness who testified at the hearing who actually saw the entire interaction between Michel and herself on March 10, 2014. As previously stated, Respondent denied having slapped Michel, but testified that she had grabbed his face. As a result of the incident, Respondent was charged with battery, pursuant to section 784.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes.5/ This statute states that "[t]he offense of battery occurs when a person: 1. [a]ctually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or 2. [i]ntentionally causes bodily harm to another person." There is conflicting evidence as to whether Respondent pled "no contest" or "guilty" to the battery charge.6/ Findings of Ultimate Fact Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Petitioner did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent slapped Michel as alleged in the Petition. Reduced to its essence, the competent evidence in the record regarding the incident between Respondent and Michel consists of the following: Respondent's testimony that she entered the credit lab classroom, confronted Michel and grabbed his face, and that she did not slap Michel's face. As noted above, Respondent was the only witness testifying at the final hearing who was actually present and saw the entire incident between herself and Michel.7/ Testimony by Mary Powers, Kia Allen, and other school personnel who observed Michel's face after the incident, and who testified that Michel's cheek or jaw appeared swollen and that he was upset. Testimony by Teague, who said she heard a sound that she characterized as sounding like a slap. This evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent slapped Michel. The testimony by Powers, Allen, Teague, and others to the effect that Michel and other students told them that Respondent slapped Michel is hearsay. Additionally, all of the students' statements, verbal and written, that they saw Respondent slap Michel are hearsay. This hearsay does not merely "supplement" or explain"8/ the competent evidence in the record; it constitutes the only evidence in the record9/ that definitively would establish the material fact at issue in this proceeding——that is, whether Respondent slapped Michel. Stated another way, the competent substantial evidence in the record does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent slapped Michel. In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner posits that the students' written statements and their verbal statements to Teague, Powers, Allen, and others fall within various exceptions to the hearsay rule. For the reasons discussed below, it is determined that these statements, verbal and written, do not fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. Accordingly, they do not constitute competent evidence on which a finding that Respondent slapped Michel may solely be based. Although there is other competent substantial evidence in the record that suggests that Respondent slapped Michel, that evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that material fact. Thus, it is determined that Petitioner did not meet its burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent slapped a student in the face, as alleged in the Petition. As such, Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated the rules and policies cited in the Petition as the basis for its proposed discipline. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated just cause to suspend Respondent from her teaching position, without pay, for seven days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 2016.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Tovelah Susson Hirsch (Respondent or Ms. Hirsch), failed to properly supervise and protect the welfare of her students, aggressively pushed and pulled students by their hair and arms, used disparaging language toward her students, or allowed uncertified volunteers who had not been cleared by the school in her classroom, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2011), and implementing rules,1/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what sanction is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting misconduct allegations against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Ms. Hirsch holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 956306, which is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times pertinent hereto, Ms. Hirsch was employed as either a Library Media Specialist or teacher at Highland Oaks in the Miami-Dade County School District (District). During the 2011/2012 school year, Ms. Hirsch was a Library Media Specialist. As part of her duties, she supervised the fifth-grade students who helped conduct the morning announcements from the Highland Oaks media center. Several of these students submitted statements that Ms. Hirsch pushed and pulled students to get them into their correct positions for the television broadcasts. Some of the student statements were dated April 9, 2012; others were dated the following September. The investigative report based upon the student statements indicated that the incident occurred on April 5, 2012. However, some of the student statements indicated that Ms. Hirsch “always” or “sometimes” did this. The Administrative Complaint stated only that Ms. Hirsch aggressively pushed and pulled students “during the 2011/2012 school year.” Several witnesses testified that they were often present in the media center during the preparation time for morning announcements and never saw Ms. Hirsch grab a student or pull a student’s hair. None of the witnesses testified specifically that they were present on April 5, 2012, or otherwise indicated the specific dates of their observations. Ms. Rubin prepared school documents based upon the students’ written statements and their conversations with her, but she did not personally ever see Ms. Hirsch pull the hair of a student or grab or push any of the students. Ms. Hirsch testified that she never grabbed students before or during morning announcements and never pulled a student’s hair before or during morning announcements. The following school year, Ms. Hirsch was moved from the media center to a classroom teacher position. Ms. Rubin testified that one day she was walking around the school building and saw Ms. Hirsch’s class “running all over the place.” There was a turnabout2/ present, but Ms. Rubin testified, “she wasn’t really supervising because they were running all over the–-all over the school and climbing on the waterfall.” Ms. Rubin testified that turnabouts are not supposed to be escorting students or supervising them. Ms. Rubin rounded the students up and took them back to Ms. Hirsch’s classroom. She found Ms. Hirsch sitting in her room by herself. At hearing, Ms. Hirsch testified that she had been assigned a turnabout for her second-grade class. She went on: So I sent her to pick up the students from P.E. and I was accustomed to seeing turnabouts bring students in groups to the library the whole year and I was very accustomed to turnabouts having students and bringing them in and bringing them back, especially – especially younger grades. * * * So although I sent her to pick up the students, he [the P.E. teacher] had to have released them to her. And if that was not a policy, then I couldn’t imagine that he wouldn’t have released her – them to her. So although I had no idea that it was incorrect – it was not clear about the policy of sending a turnabout to pick up the students – he obviously released the students to her because the students don’t get up and run away from P.E. They have to have a teacher pick them up. Mr. Mauricio Cardet, a physical education teacher at Highland Oaks, said he was familiar with turnabouts, and he did have turnabouts come to pick up students after his physical education class to take them back to a teacher’s classroom. He said this occurred “very infrequently, but it has happened.” If there was a specific policy forbidding the use of seventh or eighth grade student “turnabouts” to escort groups of students from and to class at Highland Oaks, it was not placed into evidence. However, as Ms. Rubin testified, it is “not acceptable” to have an eighth-grade student picking up an entire class of second graders outside of a classroom setting in the absence of the teacher. In giving such a child that responsibility, Ms. Hirsch failed to make reasonable effort to protect the younger students from conditions harmful to their physical health or safety. The fact that, in this instance, no harm befell the students does not refute that conclusion. The credible testimony that turnabouts were also improperly used by other teachers at Highland Oaks upon occasion does not exonerate Ms. Hirsch, though her knowledge that this occurred and the lack of clear guidance may be considered as mitigating factors. Ms. Rubin also testified that on February 21, 2013, one of Ms. Hirsch’s students came to her and told her that some students were locked out of Ms. Hirsch’s classroom in the rain. Ms. Rubin testified that the doors on Ms. Hirsch’s portable classroom lock automatically when they close. Ms. Rubin testified that the student told her that they had begged Ms. Hirsch to let them come in and were banging on the door, but that Ms. Hirsch would not open the door. Ms. Rubin testified that she went back to the classroom with the student and that when they arrived all of the students were inside. Some of the students prepared written statements that said it was drizzling and Ms. Hirsch would not let them come into her classroom when they returned from lunch. The statements said that the students began to cry because they thought Ms. Hirsch was mad at them, and they thought that she was going to call their parents. The statements said that Ms. Hirsch let the students in when it began to rain harder. The statements also said that Ms. Hirsch told one student not to come back to school because he gave her “attitude,” and told that student to “shut the hell up.” No students testified. Ms. Hirsch prepared a written response for submission to the Conference for the Record conducted on this incident.3/ It stated in relevant part: I hurried the class along to get them all inside before it began to downpour. I supervise the students entering the portable but a few run and hide behind a large oak tree. They try to stay outside to see if I notice they are missing. * * * I do not ever lock students out of class. The door does stay locked when the students are in the classroom. There is a very big difference. I am the only one who opens or gives permission to open the classroom door. At hearing, Ms. Hirsch testified that she almost immediately realized from silently counting her students that some had not come in, right before she heard banging on the door. She went to open the door to let them in. She said one student was at the door under the awning, but the others were behind a tree or behind the side of the building. She testified that she called to them and they all came in except for one, who got very wet before he would come inside. Ms. Hirsch denied that she ever told a student to “shut the hell up” or not to return to school because of his attitude. Ms. Rubin also testified that on three occasions she found unapproved people acting as volunteers in Ms. Hirsch’s classroom. Specifically, Ms. Rubin testified that she once found a neighbor, and on two occasions, Mr. Hirsch’s husband, in Ms. Hirsch’s classroom without required authorization from “downtown.” Ms. Hirsch admitted that her husband, a licensed principal in New York, and a neighbor did assist her as volunteers, but insisted that they had been approved at the front office of the school and that this was all that was necessary. Neither party presented corroborating testimony or copies of school or district policies confirming exactly what the vetting process for volunteers entailed, either as direct evidence or in rebuttal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent Tovelah Susson Hirsch in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, issuing her a Letter of Reprimand, and placing her on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 January, 2017.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, St. Lucie County School Board (Petitioner or School Board) has just cause to discipline Wendy Portillo's employment based on the conduct alleged in the “Statement of Charges and Petition for One Year Suspension Without Pay and Return to Annual Contract” and the appropriate penalties, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in St. Lucie County, Florida. Petitioner has entered into individual contracts and collective bargaining agreements with the teachers it employs and has adopted rules and policies that control the activities of its teaching professionals. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional services contract and assigned to teach kindergarten at Morningside. On May 21, 2008, Respondent was teaching kindergarten in her classroom at Morningside. The door to Respondent’s classroom is across a hall from the door of the school office. Typically, kindergarten students are five or six years old. Student 1, a male, was one of 17 students in Respondent’s class on May 21, 2008. Student 1 was assigned to Respondent’s class in January 2008. Shortly after his placement in her class, Respondent asked Mr. Graff to help her with Student 1 because of Student 1’s behavior. Mr. Graff works in Morningside’s fourth grade alpha class. The alpha program is designed to identify and assist at-risk third grade students who are having difficulties at home or at school. Mr. Graff has the assistance of a full- time counselor and a full-time paraprofessional. Mr. Graff agreed to help with Student 1 as needed. Student 1 came to Mr. Graff’s classroom on approximately 12 occasions between January and May 21, 2008. In mid-February 2008, Respondent requested a Child Study Team for Student 1, which is the first step in determining whether a student meets the eligibility requirements for services from Petitioner’s Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. This development is part of an on-going process.3 The Child Study Team, of which Respondent was a member, developed strategies designed to redirect Student 1’s behavior. One of the strategies was a reward system utilizing tokens. On May 21, 2008, Respondent’s kindergarten class began at 8:20 a.m. At 9:00 a.m. Respondent’s kindergarten class, including Student 1, went to a performance by the fifth grade that ended at approximately 9:45 a.m. The students returned to Respondent’s classroom at approximately 10:00 a.m. At approximately 10:30 a.m., while she was teaching her class, Respondent observed that Student 1 was off-task and was being disruptive to the other students by flipping crayons at his classmates and crawling under a table. Student 1 pushed up on the table, where other students were trying to work. Respondent attempted to redirect Student 1, but she could not do so. Respondent summoned Officer Black (the school resource officer) to come to her room. Officer Black assisted in getting Student 1 out from under a table and took him to the office. After Officer Black had escorted Student 1 to the school office, Ms. Gascoigne (the assistant principal) counseled Student 1 as to appropriate versus inappropriate behavior. Student 1 told Ms. Gascoigne that he realized what he had done was wrong and that he wanted to say to Respondent that he was sorry. After keeping Student 1 in the office for approximately 15 minutes, Ms. Gascoigne sent Student 1 back to Respondent’s classroom. There was a dispute in the record as to whether Respondent sent a written referral to the office when Officer Black escorted Student 1 to the office at approximately 10:30 a.m. The office did receive a written referral from Respondent on May 21, 2008, pertaining to Student 1’s misbehavior. The inference was that pursuant to School Board Policy 5.33, which pertains to removal of students from a classroom as opposed to a disciplinary referral of a student for misbehaving in class, the office personnel should have detained Student 1 for a longer period of time than 15 minutes if Respondent had sent a written referral with him. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that School Board Policy 5.33 is inapplicable due to Student 1’s level of disruption. Moreover, the greater weight of the evidence established that Ms. Gasciogne did not receive the written referral until the afternoon of May 21, 2008, after the occurrence of the events at issue in this proceeding. When she had Officer Black take Student 1 to the office at approximately 10:30 a.m. on May 21, 2008, Respondent did not ask Ms. Gascoigne or anyone else in the office to detain Student 1 for a particular length of time. When Student 1 returned to her classroom, Respondent was in a meeting area where the students were gathered for group instruction. Respondent asked Student 1 why he had returned to the classroom. Student 1 responded to the effect that Ms. Gascoigne had sent him back. Referring to herself and to the other students in her class, Respondent responded to the effect that, “I don’t know if we are ready to have you back at this time.” After making that statement, Respondent directed Student 1 to join her in front of his classmates. Respondent asked Student 1 why he had done the things he had done earlier that morning. Student 1 shrugged his shoulders. Respondent told Student 1 that shrugging his shoulders was not an answer and that he should use his words. Three or four students began saying things about how Student 1 had behaved. Respondent asked Student 1 to listen to his classmates and asked him how what they were saying made him feel. Referring to herself and to the other students, Respondent stated that she did not think we are ready for you to come back at this time. Respondent then announced that she was going to poll the class as to whether Student 1 could rejoin them. Respondent explained to the class that a poll was like taking a vote. Respondent asked each of Student 1’s classmates to verbally vote yes or no whether Student 1 should remain in the classroom and gave each student the opportunity to explain his or her vote. Respondent tallied the votes on the chalk board. The final vote was 14 for removing Student 1 and two for allowing him to remain.4 Respondent thereafter sent Student 1 back to the office. Respondent made the ultimate decision to exclude Student 1 from her classroom, but in making that decision she considered the votes that had been cast by Student 1’s classmates. The reward system utilizing tokens was in place for Student 1 on May 21, 2008. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent utilized the reward system or any other strategy, including the use of Mr. Graff’s class, that had been developed for Student 1 before sending him to the office on the first occasion or before removing him from her class after the classmates had cast their votes and made statements about his behavior. When Student 1’s mother came to pick Student 1 up from school on the evening of May 21, 2008, she told Respondent that she had embarrassed her son and that he was disabled and autistic. Respondent apologized to Student 1’s mother. Student 1 was with his mother when she made the quoted statement to Respondent and when Respondent apologized. When asked by his mother how he felt, Student 1 said he felt sad. Except for her conduct on the May 21, 2008, incident described above, Respondent has had a positive 12-year career as a teacher at Morningside. Respondent testified that at no time did she intend to harm, embarrass, or do anything negative to the student. Respondent further testified that she did not, at the time think she was hurting anyone. She believed that she could show all of her students that there are consequences to actions and to show that actions may affect others. Respondent testified, credibly, that early childhood education is her “passion” (as she termed it at Transcript, Volume III, page 275, beginning on line 11). Petitioner’s investigative report reflects (beginning on page 13 of Petitioner’s Exhibit B) the following: There is no evidence that Ms. Portillo’s conduct was malicious or intended to cause harm or embarrassment to Student 1. However, there is a question as to whether Ms. Portillo exercised the best professional judgment during the incident under investigation. . . . Immediately following the incident of May 21, 2008, Petitioner prohibited Respondent from returning to Morningside. Petitioner assigned Respondent to the School Board office with pay while Petitioner investigated the matter. On November 14, 2008, Mr. Lannon made his recommendation to the School Board. The recommendation was that Petitioner suspend Respondent for a period of one year dating from the School Board’s final order and that her contract be changed from a Professional Services Contract to an Annual Contract. At its meeting of November 14, 2008, the School Board suspended without pay Respondent’s employment for a period of one year and voted to change her contract from a Professional Services Contract to an Annual Contract should she return to employment with the School Board.5 The greater weight of the credible evidence overwhelmingly established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, described above is properly characterized as misconduct as that term is generally understood. As will be discussed below, Petitioner established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, violated the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, thereby violating the provisions of subsection (xxix) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b), as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition. Petitioner established that Respondent’s misconduct on May 21, 2008, violated subsection (xxxi) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b) as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition by exposing Student 1 and the other students in her class to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Petitioner established that Respondent utilized an inappropriate method of discipline in removing Student 1 from her class after the class vote, thereby violating subsection (xxxvii) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b), as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent was abusive or discourteous in violation of subsection (ix) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b) as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition. Mr. Lannon, Ms. Ranew, Ms. Gascoigne, and Ms. Cully are experienced educators with supervisory responsibilities. Each opined that Respondent had violated the Code of Conduct for the Education Profession and explained the reasons for those opinions. Petitioner established that Respondent failed to exercise the best professional judgment on May 21, 2008, as alleged in paragraph 19a of the Petition. The alleged violation set forth in paragraph 19b will be discussed below. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent’s misconduct was unethical and, consequently, failed to establish the violation alleged in paragraph 19c of the Petition. Petitioner established that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect Student 1 from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety as alleged in paragraph 19d of the Petition. Petitioner established that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect Student 1 from harassment as alleged in paragraph 19(e) of the Petition. Petitioner has charged Respondent with “misconduct in office.” There is a difference between the generally used term “misconduct” and the term “misconduct in office.” The State Board has defined the term “misconduct in office” by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(3), as follows: (3) Misconduct in office is defined as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to impair the individual’s effectiveness in the school system. While there can be no meaningful debate as to whether Respondent's conduct should be characterized as “misconduct,” there was a dispute as to whether Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system had been impaired, thereby establishing that Respondent was guilty of “misconduct in office” as alleged in the Petition. This incident received extensive coverage by the local, national, and international press. Locally, Petitioner received a high volume of written communications and telephone calls in response to Respondent’s conduct. Some communications supported Respondent’s conduct while others condoned Respondent’s conduct. The communications condoning Respondent’s conduct far outweighed the responses supporting her conduct.6 Petitioner received requests from parents that Respondent not be allowed to teach their students should she return to class. In addition to the negative publicity and negative communications generated by her conduct, Respondent’s principal has lost confidence in her. Ms. McCully testified as follows in response to questions from Petitioner’s counsel (Transcript, Volume III, beginning at page 371, line 17): Q. After the May 21, 2008, incident involving Ms. Portillo, would you recommend that she be hired as a teacher in your school? A. No, I would not. Q. Why is that? A. Personally, I feel that I would not have that rapport, trust, with her and be able to work with her after this. Dr. Lannon testified as follows in response to questions from Petitioner’s counsel (Transcript, Volume I, beginning at page 106, line1): Q. In your opinion, has Ms. Portillo’s actions on May 21, 2008, resulted in a loss of her effectiveness. A. I believe so. Q. How do you reconcile that with your recommendation that she can go back to work after a one-year suspension without pay? A. I came to that with great pain. I believe that the actions that Ms. Portillo undertook actually rose to the issue of termination. But also, in a sense of fairness, Ms. Portillo is a twelve-year employee who has contributed to the lives and the well-being of children in St. Lucie County. My sense on this was that while there is a price to pay – and I believe that the action of not protecting children is literally the most serious thing we can do in a negative way – that her past career would warrant a second chance, but not in the environment in which she had willfully created these series of steps leading to the involvement of a particular child in what I believe to be an embarrassing and disparaging way and the involvement of the class in a way that we may never know. Q. Did you consider terminating Ms. Portillo? A. I did. Q. And is it my understanding that you’re saying the fact that she had twelve positive years mitigated that decision. A. Yes. That’s exactly correct. Q. And that led you to the recommendation that’s at issue? A. That’s exactly right. On cross-examination, Mr. Lannon testified in response to questions by Respondent’s counsel (Transcript, Volume II, beginning on page 149, line 25): Q: And you’re of the opinion as you sit here today, Mr. Lannon, under no circumstances . . . that you would allow [Respondent] to teach elementary school children in St. Lucie County. I would not put her in pre-K through fifth grade. That’s the definition. So that would be correct. In his testimony at the formal hearing and in his letter of November 3, 2008, Mr. Lannon described the mitigating circumstances he considered in contemplating his recommendation to the School Board. The following, taken from Mr. Lannon’s letter, succinctly states those considerations: I have also considered mitigating circumstances. You have had a long (12 years) and positive career in St. Lucie County Public Schools. Your annual evaluations, conducted by five Principals over 12 years are positive. Behavior of young students, in groups such as classrooms, is often difficult and professionally demanding. The official investigation states “there is NO evidence that Ms. Portillo’s conduct was malicious or intended to cause harm or embarrassment . . . “ [Emphasis in the original.] Except for the conduct at issue in this proceeding, Respondent has been an excellent, dedicated teacher during her 12-year tenure at Morningside. She has spent a considerable amount of her personal time working on an extra-curricular activity named Odyssey of the Mind. Many of the employees at Morningside and parents of former students are supportive of Respondent. As to those employees and parents, Respondent’s reputation remains intact despite the negative publicity regarding the conduct at issue.7 The greater weight of the credible evidence clearly established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, has impaired her effectiveness in the system. Petitioner established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, constitutes “misconduct in office” within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009 and, consequently, constitutes grounds for the suspension of her employment pursuant to Section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides, in relevant part, that the employment of a teacher with a professional services contract can be terminated or suspended for just cause, which is defined to include “misconduct in office” as defined by State Board rules. Section 1012.33(4)(b), Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant part, as follows: (b) Any . . . member of the instructional staff . . . may be returned to annual contract status for another 3 years in the discretion of the district school board, at the end of the school year, when a recommendation to that effect is submitted in writing to the district school board on or before April 1 of any school year, giving good and sufficient reasons therefore . . .. In explaining the rationale for his recommendations, Mr. Lannon testified as follows in response to questions from counsel for Respondent as to his recommended disposition of this matter (beginning at Transcript, Volume II, page 133, line 15): Q. What would happen in the one year that would allow her, from the year that you’re recommending that she be suspended to the year that she, if your recommendation is accepted, that she would come back to work for the School Board, what would happen in that year that would change the alleged loss of respect and confidence in her colleagues first? A. It might not. Q. Your same answer would be as it relates to students? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the parents. A. That’s correct. I have no knowledge of how they would feel. Q. So in essence, you’re allowing, you’re recommending that a person that you’re not sure would be respectful [sic] or confident [sic] by teachers, students, parents, and members of the community, you’re recommending that that person still work for the St. Lucie County School Board. A. I’m allowing that the 12 years prior to May 21, 2008, mitigated my thinking that said this person is deserving of another chance at some point in time. Q. And this chance that you’re talking about is not a chance of great risk or harm if I follow your logical conclusion; is that correct. A. If you look at it more fully, you’ll see that I would not allow her to teach at that grade level in an elementary school again. And there is a difference in the ability of students to be able to discern the words of adults as they age. And I’m going to bank on the fact that the quality that Ms. Portillo had previously shown, absent her actions on that day, which I believe to be premeditated and well thought out, even though they were quick, would not occur again. There can be little doubt that Respondent has been traumatized by the negative reactions to her misconduct.8 Respondent and her family have suffered economically as a result of her suspension. Respondent apologized to Student 1’s mother and testified that she is remorseful.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner 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 uphold the suspension of Respondent’s employment for a period of one year from November 18, 2008, and provide for the change of her contract status from a Professional Services Contract to an Annual Contract, contingent upon the availability of a position for which Respondent is qualified and certified. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 31st day of March, 2009.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, a determination of the appropriate penalty for such violations.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation of the public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to the facts of this case, the Respondent was a teacher employed by the School Board and was assigned to a public school within the district, Hialeah Senior High School (Hialeah High). The Respondent has been a teacher employed by the School Board for years. Respondent possesses a professional service contract pursuant to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is a business education teacher. Prior to the incident giving rise to this case, the Respondent had not been the subject of any disciplinary action by his employer. Prior to teaching at Hialeah High, the Respondent had been teaching adult students at another school. The adult students were highly motivated to learn and provided little in the way of classroom discipline problems. In December of 2003, the Respondent was assigned to teach English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) classes to high school age students at Hialeah High. At Hialeah High the Respondent's classes were populated primarily by students who had very limited proficiency in the English language and who, for the most part, had very limited experience in an American classroom setting. Many of the students had only recently arrived from a variety of Spanish-speaking countries, including Mexico and many Central and South American countries. These students, both because of their limited English language skills and their limited exposure to an American classroom, presented more than the usual discipline challenges. At the time of the incident giving rise to this case, the Respondent had been teaching the ESOL classes at Hialeah High for only a few weeks. A frequently recurring problem in the Respondent's classroom was that some of the students would use the classroom computers to play music CDs and would interrupt the rest of the class by turning up the volume through the external speakers on the computers. This problem apparently came to a head on January 27, 2004, when an honor student asked the Respondent if it was necessary for the class to be interrupted by the students who were playing music CDs on the classroom computers. After school on January 27, 2004, the Respondent decided to solve the music problem by cutting the audio wires that ran from the monitor to the external speakers on each of the classroom computers. The Respondent chose to cut the audio wires because the wires were hardwired into the computer monitors and could not readily be unplugged. He cut the speaker wires on at least 25 of the computers in his classroom. The Respondent's conduct in this regard was not for the purpose of damaging school equipment, but was a misguided and poorly thought out effort to prevent further music playing by the misbehaving students. The cutting of the speaker wires was an inappropriate way in which to address student misconduct in the classroom. More appropriate ways to have prevented such misconduct or to have addressed such misconduct after it occurred would have been to take such measures as implementing and enforcing classroom rules when he first began teaching the ESOL classes, making disciplinary referrals, seeking assistance from the school administration, or assigning misbehaving students to indoor suspension. Although the computers are operable, they have no external speakers and, therefore, cannot make loud sounds. The inability to make loud sounds compromises the extent to which the computers can be used for certain applications. The Respondent's acts of cutting the speaker wires were intentional acts that damaged the computers. Damage to the computers caused by intentional acts is not covered by the warranties on the computers. A representative of the Dell computer company examined the damage to the computers and stated that Dell did not make repairs to that type of damage. The best solution the Dell representative could propose was to replace all of the monitors with cut speaker wires with new monitors that had new external speakers attached. The Dell representative stated that such replacement would cost $129.00 per computer. The damage caused by the Respondent's cutting of the computer wires can be readily and inexpensively repaired. The parts necessary to repair the computers cost about $2.00 for each computer. The time necessary to repair the damaged computers is approximately five minutes per computer. The Respondent has already purchased with his own funds the parts necessary to repair all of the computers in his classroom, and he has delivered those parts to the principal at Hialeah High. The Respondent volunteered on several occasions to perform the work necessary to repair the computers he damaged. The Respondent's offers to perform the repair work were declined. For reasons not adequately explained in the record in this case, the computer technicians at Hialeah High have not yet repaired the subject computers. It would take approximately two hours of technician time to repair all of the computers in the Respondent's classroom. The damage to the computers caused by the Respondent could have been repaired within a very few days of the date on which the damage occurred. When asked about the damage to the computer wires, the Respondent readily admitted what he had done and readily acknowledged that it was a foolish and inappropriate thing for him to have done. He did not hesitate to accept responsibility for the consequences of his conduct and, as mentioned above, bought the necessary parts and offered to do the necessary repair work. Respondent’s intentional destruction of School Board property failed to reflect credit upon himself and on the school system, and showed a lack of professional judgment. On September 21, 2004, the Respondent’s principal and the assistant superintendent who had authority over Hialeah High recommended a 30-work day suspension without pay. The School Board, at its regularly scheduled meeting of December 15, 2004, took action to suspend the Respondent without pay for 30 workdays.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case suspending the Respondent without pay for one week and requiring the Respondent to pay for the cost of the repairs made necessary by his foolish conduct. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause for Palm Beach County School Board to suspend Deborah Stark for 10 days without pay based upon the allegations made in its Administrative Complaint filed on November 8, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the Palm Beach County Public School System. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Stark was hired by the School Board in 2005. She is employed pursuant to a professional services contract with Petitioner. At all relevant times to this case, Stark was a teacher at Diamond View. She taught second grade. One of Stark's teaching responsibilities was to provide student information to the School Based Team ("SBT") such as conference/staffing notes,1 to assist the SBT in determining how best to support students who were having challenges or difficulties with reading. During Stark's last several school years with the School Board, Stark engaged in a pattern of misconduct. On June 1, 2015, Stark received, by hand delivery, her first written reprimand. She was disciplined for falsifying three memos by inappropriately using the School Board's letterhead and creating misleading and false documents under co-workers' names without permission. One problem area Respondent had was that she failed to keep her classroom organized and neat. Because of the disorganized book area and unkempt cluttered classroom, Respondent's classroom failed to be an environment conducive to learning and impacted the students' morale negatively. On September 30, 2015, Principal Seal, by memorandum, addressed two of Stark's work deficiencies. Seal pointed out to Stark that her classroom management did not correspond with the School Wide Positive Behavior Support Plan and that Stark's 2014-2015 Reading Running Records ("RRR")2 were not accurately and properly administered. Seal instructed Stark to sign up for a classroom management course through eLearning within a week and notify Seal of the enrollment. Seal even specifically suggested a two- day course that started on October 6, 2015, at the Pew Center. Seal also outlined Stark's RRR inaccuracies and deficiencies in the September memo, which included Stark's failure to provide an accurate report on September 25th for a student during a scheduled SBT meeting, improper use of school materials as a benchmark, and writing in the teacher materials with student's information inappropriately. As a result of Stark's RRR shortcomings, Seal directed Stark to sign up for the next RRR training available on either October 13, 14, 23, or 24, 2015, through eLearning and instructed Stark to verify the RRR training enrollment. The memo ended with the following: "Failure to comply with these directives will be considered insubordination and may result [in] disciplinary action to include up to suspension or termination of employment." On November 10, 2015, Seal specifically directed Stark to clean up her classroom and update her students' progress on the class bulletin board. Stark was provided a deadline of on or before November 24, 2015, to correct the performance deficiencies. Stark did not do so. In December 2015, Stark still had student work posted from August and her classroom was not up to date. On December 18, 2015, a pre-disciplinary meeting was held. In that meeting, Stark informed Seal that she went to training, but admitted that she did not provide the required documentation of attendance. Stark's performance with RRR had not improved. By February 2016, Respondent had failed to comply with Seal's directives of November 10, 2015. Stark's classroom was unacceptable and had not been cleaned up, updated, organized as directed. The closet was cluttered from the floor to the ceiling with boxes, papers, and books. Additionally, Stark's student work bulletin board still was not changed and up to date. On February 12, 2016, Seal met with Stark to address the issues and gave Stark a verbal reprimand with written notation. The verbal reprimand with written notation memo stated that Respondent was insubordinate for fail[ing] to comply with "directives given to her in the memorandums dated September 30, 2015, and November 10, 2015." On May 24, 2016, a pre-determination meeting was held with Stark and she acknowledged that she had fallen behind in the RRR and math/reading assessments but planned to catch up by the end of the year. On June 2, 2016, Seal held another disciplinary conference with Stark. Seal provided Stark a written reprimand by memo detailing that Stark exhibited: poor judgement, lack of follow up, inappropriate supervision of students, excessive absence without pay, failure to properly and accurately administer and record Reading Running Records as well as Math and Reading assessments, during the school year 2015/2016 with fidelity and insubordination. Seal also instructed Stark in the memo: Effective immediately, you are directed to provide the appropriate level of supervision to your students, follow your academic schedule, meet deadlines with respect to inputting reading and math date into EDW, accurately complete Running Reading Records, cease from taking unpaid time and follow all School Board Policies and State Statutes. Finally, pursuant to the CTA contract, I am directing you to provide a doctor's note for any absences going forward. This requirement will be in effect until December 22, 2016. Respondent failed to follow the leave directive of the written reprimand of June 2, 2016. Stark's duty day started at 7:50 a.m. On October 14, 2016, Stark notified Diamond View at 8:26 a.m. that she would not report to work because she had a ride to an appointment. On November 29, 2016, Stark notified the school at 7:40 a.m. by stating, "I have a meeting boo," as she took the full day off. On December 16, 2016, she notified the school at 6:24 a.m. that her husband requested a shopping day and family activities for the day. On February 10, 2017, Stark notified the school at 7:38 a.m., "I am going to a friend's house today to help them." On March 2, 2017, she notified the school at 7:14 a.m. that "I am finalizing a college class today." On March 7, 2017, Stark notified the school at 6:18 a.m. that Nationals verses Boston were at the new park and she would not be in to work. On April 5, 2017, Stark notified the school at 7:34 a.m. that she had a meeting and missed half the school day. Stark's absences of September 21, September 23, October 14, November 29, and December 16, 2016, were unauthorized leave and her leave of March 2, March 7, April 5, and February 10, 2017, were days without pay. Stark's excessive absenteeism disrupted the learning environment for her students and caused Respondent to miss out on valuable School Board resources she needed to perform her job duties and correct her work performance deficiencies. By missing work, Stark was neither able to obtain the needed available professional development nor obtain support from the Literacy Staff Developer. Stark's ineptness continued throughout the 2016-2017 school year. Stark failed to provide requested student information needed to assist in creating report cards for several former students, which adversely impacted the school and the students because, among other things, the school was not able to provide the students' new teachers with accurate data for placement. Stark was offered coaching services to improve her work performance through Peer Assistance Review ("PAR"). Stark failed to show up and meet with the trainers assigned to provide her support on January 20, February 1, and March 7, 2017. Stark failed to submit the required SBT documentation for five students timely. Stark's duties included meeting with the parents of each student to communicate the students' academic concerns. Stark did not meet with the parents. Instead, Stark submitted five untimely falsified student records indicating parent meetings that did not take place. She also forged translator Torres-Vega signature like she was present at the meetings, when Torres-Vega had not participated. On or about April 24, 2017, an investigation report was completed detailing Stark's misconduct for the 2016-2017 school year. The investigative summary concluded Stark failed to comply with numerous directives given by the principal and vice principal. Stark failed to complete and submit SBT documentation for five students who could have benefited from additional supportive services. Respondent falsified student records indicating she contacted and conferenced with the parents for each student. She also falsified that a translator had participated in the parent conferences. At the same time, Stark sent last minute notification emails to the principal as to why she would not be reporting to work, failed to notify Seal in a timely manner when she would not be reporting to work, and did not prepare substitute lesson plans. Stark's unexcused absences totaled approximately 40 hours without pay within a five month period and did not adhere to the 24 hour advanced notice requirement of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Respondent's absences from work also caused her to miss valuable School Board training and support. Ultimate Findings of Fact Stark failed to fulfill the responsibilities of a teacher by not preparing and submitting the documents to the SBT so that the students could qualify for the support and services after multiple follow-ups and reminders by her supervisors. Stark's actions of falsifying the five students' records with Torres-Vega's signature and indicating that she met with the parents when she did not was ethical misconduct, failure to exercise best professional judgment, failure to provide for accurate or timely record keeping, and falsifying records. Stark misused her time and attendance when she had exhausted her paid time, but continued to use leave without pay when her work was not up to date and after she had been reprimanded and warned regarding absences by Seal. Stark's explanation of her absences failed to fall in the category for extenuating circumstances and her absences disrupted the learning environment. Stark was insubordinate and also failed to follow procedures, policies, and directives of the Diamond View principal and vice principal. Stark never cleaned up her classroom and failed to protect the learning environment. She also did not update her RRRs as instructed by Seal. On February 1, 2017, Vice Principal Diaz had also instructed Stark to always follow and adhere to an academic schedule with the students in order to provide structured learning. Instead, Stark continued to constantly allow the students to walk around the classroom, draw and eat snacks, without an academic schedule. By letter dated September 19, 2017, Respondent was notified that the School Board was recommending she receive a 10 day suspension without pay because of her misconduct. On or about October 4, 2017, the School Board took action by voting to suspend Respondent for 10 days without pay. Petitioner ultimately filed charges against Stark by Administrative Complaint dated November 8, 2018, that alleged Stark violated the following School Board policies: Failure to Fulfil the Responsibilities of a Teacher pursuant to School Board Policy 1.013(4), Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff; School Board Policy 2.34, Records and Reports; Collective Bargaining Agreement with CTA, Article II, Section U, Lesson Plans Failure to Protect the Learning Environment pursuant to School Board Policy 0.01(2)(3), Commitment to the Student, Principle I-(formally 0.01(2)(c); 6A- 10.081(2)(a)(1), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession Misuse of Time/Attendance pursuant to School Board Policies 3.80(2)(c), Leave of Absence; Collective Bargaining Agreement with CTA, Article V, Leaves, Section B Ethical Misconduct pursuant to School Board Policy 3.02(4)(b), (4)(d), (4)(f), (4)(h), and (4)(j), Code of Ethics; School Board Policy 3.02(5)(c)(iii), Code of Ethics; 6A-10.081(1)(c) and (2)(c)(1), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida Failure to Exercise Best Professional Judgment pursuant to School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), Code of Ethics; 6A-10-081(1)(b), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida Insubordination: Failure to Follow Policy, Rules, Directive, or Statute pursuant to School Board Policy 3.10(6), Conditions of Employment with the District; School Board Policy 1.013(1), Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff. Respondent contested the reasons for suspension.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order: Finding Deborah Stark in violation of all six violations in the Administrative Complaint; and Upholding Deborah Stark's 10-day suspension without pay for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 25th day of July, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offense(s) charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, whether the two-day unpaid suspension imposed by Petitioner should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Petitioner is the duly-constituted school board of Broward County, Florida. It is charged with the duty to provide a public education to the students of Broward County and to establish policies and programs consistent with state law and rules, necessary for the efficient operation and general improvement of the Broward County district school system. Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a physical education teacher at West Broward High School during the 2014- 2015 school year. March 19, 2015, Incident On March 19, 2015, Respondent was teaching a ninth-grade health and physical fitness class known as HOPE, during the seventh period of the school day. March 19, 2015, was the day before the students were going to be released for Spring Break. As was the common practice, many of the students in his class opted to attend a "pep rally" being conducted on campus, which began shortly after his HOPE class started. After the students departed for the "pep rally," approximately 12 students remained in the class under Respondent's supervision. The class remained in session, and Respondent showed the remaining class students an educational video. As the video played, the lights were dimmed. Respondent was at the front of the class sitting behind his desk in a chair that reclined. During the video, one of the students, J.R., observed Respondent leaning back, reclined in his chair with his eyes fully closed. Respondent's chair was turned partially away from the class. J.R.'s desk was approximately 15 to 20 feet from Respondent's desk. J.R. observed Respondent in this posture for close to ten minutes. At some point, J.R. got up from his desk and approached Respondent to hand in some paperwork. While standing directly in front of Respondent's desk, he took a photograph of Respondent in this posture. See Pet. Ex. 5. When J.R. approached Respondent's desk and stood in front of it, Respondent did not wake up, stir, or acknowledge J.R.'s presence or take the papers from him. Notably, J.R. heard Respondent lightly snoring during the time he was asleep.1/ J.R. shared this photograph with several friends on a social media site. One of his friends, J.L., who was also attending the same class, saved the photograph by taking a screen shot of it.2/ While all of this occurred, J.L. was sitting in close proximity to J.R. J.L. also noticed that Respondent was sleeping and reclined in his chair with his eyes closed. During the period of time that Respondent was in this posture and slumber, he was not properly attending to his duties as a teacher and was not properly supervising the students in his class. While it is not necessary to recount in detail, the record reflects that Respondent had been counseled, written up, or warned about not properly supervising or monitoring students in other classes during the years preceding this incident. These various memos and written or verbal warnings constituted sufficient directives or orders by supervisors, the violation(s) of which constituted insubordination. See generally Pet. Ex. 18, composed of multiple subparts and pages. Based on the persuasive and credible evidence, it should have been obvious to Respondent on March 19, 2015, that this type of conduct was strictly prohibited, in violation of School Board rules and regulations, and exposed him to progressively stricter discipline. Sometime later, J.L. met with the assistant principal, Richard Gonzalez, to complain about his grades in Respondent's class. It was during this meeting that Gonzalez was shown the picture that J.R. had taken on March 19, 2015. After conducting an investigation, Gonzalez and the principal, Teresa Hall, met with Respondent and his union representative during a pre-determination meeting to discuss the incident and provide Respondent with an opportunity to respond. Initially, and before being shown the picture, Respondent denied that he had been sleeping in the HOPE class. However, after being shown the picture, Petitioner's Exhibit 5, he asserted that the picture was not in a classroom. He went on to add that it "would not be like me to do that." He lamented that he was going through marital problems and was on medication. He told Hall and Gonzalez that he was embarrassed. Respondent cried during the meeting. He also told Hall and Gonzalez that he had never done this before and could not believe that it happened. He appeared very embarrassed. He told both of them, as he handed back the photograph, "I can't believe this happened." The undersigned concludes that despite the lack of a direct or forthright admission that he had been caught sleeping, Respondent acknowledged through his verbal and physical responses, demeanor, and body language that he had been inattentive, sleeping, and caught in this posture in violation of School Board rules and policies. Further, it is clear that Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6 alone show Respondent fully asleep and/or in a very deep state of slumber and clearly inattentive to his duties as a supervising teacher for the HOPE class on March 19, 2015. During the hearing, Respondent was questioned by his attorney about the picture that appeared to show that he was sleeping. He denied closing his eyes. He acknowledged that the picture was of him, but asserted, "I'm not sleeping." Rather, he deflected the point of the inquiry and stated "I've never slept, especially with students in class." Inexplicably, he left it at that and offered no credible explanation concerning what the picture showed or depicted. At some point after this incident, Respondent approached the school resource officer, John Sammarco. They discussed the photo of Respondent taken by J.R. which purportedly showed him sleeping. He asked the officer to talk to the student and have J.R. retract the photograph from the internet and write a statement saying that Respondent was not sleeping. Needless to say, Sammarco refused to assist Respondent in this manner and, instead, immediately reported this meeting to Hall and Gonzalez. Shortly thereafter, Respondent came back to the officer and apologized to him for "putting him [sic] in that position." March 30, 2015, Incident The school principal, Hall, was conducting a routine walk-through of the West Broward High School campus with her assistant principal, Gonzalez. As they passed Respondent's classroom, they noticed that the lights were dimmed. Interested to know what was happening, they entered the class room by using the back door. The classroom was dimly lit and full of students. They walked up the right side of the classroom along the wall from the rear of the classroom. Respondent was seated at his desk, turned away from the class, and facing more in the direction of the video screen that was located at the front of the class. Respondent was leaning back in a relaxed posture and had his cell phone in his hand. He was not facing the class or watching the students. From her vantage point, several feet behind and to the right of Respondent, Hall could see that Respondent was looking at pictures of females on his cell phone and scrolling through them with his finger. He would occasionally glance up at the video being shown on the screen and then glance back down at his cell phone. Hall stood quietly behind Respondent observing this activity for approximately one to two minutes. Respondent never acknowledged her presence, nor did he turn and notice that the school principal was in the room with Gonzalez. Gonzalez was slightly behind Hall. He could also tell that Respondent had his cell phone in his hand, but was not able to see what he was looking at. Nonetheless, Gonzalez confirmed that Respondent did not acknowledge their presence or even appear to know that they were in the classroom.3/ When asked during the administrative hearing about this particular incident, Respondent testified that he knew they were there but that he was not required to acknowledge their presence. He said he did look at his cell phone but does not recall what pictures he was looking at. The pictures may have been from Facebook or some other social media. When asked if it is appropriate to look at social media in a classroom of students, with the school's principal present, he stated that "I did it, but I didn't think nothing of it." Based on the more credible and persuasive evidence, the undersigned finds that Respondent was not aware that Hall and Gonzalez were in the room observing his actions, nor was he properly supervising his students during Hall's visit. Further, these separate incidents on March 19 and 30, 2015, constituted: (1) a lack of proper supervision of his classes; (2) willful neglect of his duties as a teacher; and (3) insubordination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order imposing its intended penalty of a two-day, unpaid suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 6th day of December, 2016.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher, for alleged violations of various School Board rules and policies, as outlined in the Superintendent’s letter to Respondent, dated June 15, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the School Board of Sarasota County, the entity responsible for operating, monitoring, staffing, and maintaining the public schools within Sarasota County, in accordance with Part II, Chapter 1001, Florida Statutes (2009). The School is a middle school operated by Petitioner. Petitioner employed Respondent, Brian Berry, as a teacher at the School for several years. Respondent taught students with ESE designation. Respondent is an “instructional employee” under the Instructional Bargaining Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association (“Union”), and Petitioner (July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2009, for the 2008-2009 year)(the “Collective Bargaining Agreement”). Article XXV of the Collective Bargaining Agreement governs disciplinary actions against teachers, including Respondent. The Collective Bargaining Agreement requires there to be just cause for any discipline. Normally, the following progressive discipline steps are administered: (1) verbal reprimand; (2) written reprimand; (3) suspension and, (4) termination. Following progressive discipline is not required “in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the district or other flagrant violations.” During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent’s classroom was one of four classrooms arranged in a quadrant fashion around a center internal office that connects the four classrooms to each other. Respondent’s room was in the southwest quadrant. Holmes had the room in the northwest quadrant. Brooks had the room in the southeast quadrant. Like Respondent, Holmes and Brooks taught ESE students. Brooks and Respondent shared a paraprofessional, Collins. Bazenas became the School’s principal in April 2006, and has been its principal since that time. Before resorting to the progressive discipline system, School administration routinely counsel employees on an informal basis when there is a concern. Generally, the counseling occurs as a conversation between the administrator and instructor. This informal counseling is non-punitive. Administrators also use Memorandums of Instruction to clarify expectations. A Memorandum of Instruction is also non-punitive in nature; however, failing to abide by the expectation contained in a Memorandum of Instruction could warrant discipline. Respondent’s prior disciplinary history includes: Verbal Reprimand, dated December 17, 2007, for failing to monitor students. Verbal Reprimand, dated January 19, 2009, for failing to submit student attendance on 39 occasions during the 2008- 2009 school year through January 6, 2009. Written Reprimand, dated January 20, 2009, for failing to follow three separate Memorandums of Instruction concerning posting student attendance and for failing to report student attendance on January 7, 2009. Individual Education Plans During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was the case manager responsible for drafting Individual Education Plans (“IEPs”) for several of his students. Under federal law, IEPs must be updated at least once each year. Failing to update an IEP by the time the prior IEP becomes out of date means such IEP is out of compliance. This jeopardizes ESE funding, which comes from state and federal sources. During the 2008-2009 school year, there was an ESE liaison (Cindy Lowery) at the School who routinely and timely reminded case managers, including Respondent, of their IEP responsibilities, important deadlines, and steps necessary to be taken by the case manager. At the beginning of the school year, Lowery explained the procedures to case managers, including Respondent. Respondent received numerous reminders prior to the expiration of each IEP for which he was responsible. The expectations relating to IEP completion were clear and known to case managers, including Respondent, at all relevant times. At all times during the 2008-2009 school year prior to his being placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009, Respondent had the ability to complete in a timely manner each IEP for which he was responsible. He also had access to all materials and assistance necessary to timely complete each of the IEPs. During school year 2008-2009, Respondent was the case manager and responsible for the IEPs of students A.M. (due 11/27/08; completed 12/1/08); J.G. (due 1/17/09; completed 2/25/09); U.S. (due 1/17/09; completed 2/25/09); J.C. (due 2/20/09; completed 2/25/09); N.C. (due 3/3/09; not completed prior to date Respondent was placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009); B.B. (due 3/11/09; not completed prior to date Respondent was placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009). Reporting Attendance Teachers are required to take classroom attendance each period and timely post that attendance into the School’s computer program that tracks attendance. This expectation is contained in the School’s staff handbook, which is developed and reviewed annually by a shared-decision making team, composed of administrators, teachers, and community members. Reporting attendance each period is a safety and security matter. Reporting attendance also assists with accountability for funding purposes. During the 2008-2009 school year prior to being placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009, Respondent failed to report attendance in at least one period on: August 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29; September 3, 4, 9 - 12, 15, 16, 22, 26, 30; October 1, 3, 7 - 9, 15, 16, 22, 23, 28, 29; November 6, 7, 12, 18, 20, 21, 25; December 4, 5, 10; January 6, 7; February 19, 24; and March 3, 4, 10, 13, and 16. In all but six of those dates, Respondent failed to report attendance for multiple periods. On October 20, 2008, November 24, 2008, and January 7, 2009, administrators at the School provided Respondent with Memorandums of Instruction reminding Respondent of the need to submit attendance electronically each period. FCAT Proctoring On March 10 and 11, 2009, the FCAT was administered at the School. Respondent was assigned to proctor students who were permitted testing accommodations. Some permitted accommodations included extended testing time and having proctors read questions. Testing of these students occurred in the School’s media center. Another ESE teacher, Aisha Holmes, was also assigned to proctor similar students. Proctors were instructed that they needed to sign-in and sign-out upon entering and leaving the media center; that they could not engage in personal reading; and that they needed to actively supervise the students at all times. A preponderance of evidence supports the finding that Respondent engaged in the following activities contrary to his duties as proctor: Over the two-day proctoring session, Respondent failed to sign-in and sign-out every time that he took a break. Respondent engaged in personal reading and other non-proctoring activities when he was required to be actively proctoring the FCAT. Respondent stood over student S.L.’s shoulder for a time period exceeding two minutes. While Respondent contends that he was trying to determine if S.L. had finished, S.L. had not finished. Respondent’s actions were intimidating to S.L. On the second testing day, Respondent fell asleep on a couch in the media center for a period of time when he should have been actively proctoring. Respondent snored, causing a disturbance to the students engaged in testing activities. While the length of time Respondent slept was in dispute, the evidence demonstrates that it was considerably longer than a brief moment as advanced by Respondent. On the second day of testing, a student spilled juice on that student’s reference sheet. Respondent placed the reference sheet in the microwave but did not monitor the drying process. The microwave scorched the reference sheet, resulting in a burnt smell invading the testing area and causing another disturbance to the students engaged in testing activities. Use of Video with No Learning Objective in Place In February 2009, Respondent showed the movie “Happy Feet” to his class. He concedes that he had no learning objective in mind in showing this video. Although Respondent explained that in his opinion, no learning could be accomplished that day due to the death of a co-teacher’s fiancé, Respondent conceded that he requested no assistance in addressing this situation despite such assistance being available to him. Lesson Plans Teachers are required to prepare lesson plans at least one week in advance. Teachers are also required to have the lesson plan on their desk and available for review. The lesson plan expectations are contained in the School’s staff handbook. The lesson plans are the guiding document for instruction, which requires teachers to give forethought as to the content of their lessons. It is used by teachers to focus their lessons, by administrators to ensure content aligns with teaching objectives, and by substitutes in the absence of the teacher. It is undisputed that the School’s administration repeatedly counseled Respondent to create and have lesson plans available. Respondent failed to have lesson plans completed and available for the week of October 6, November 17, and December 15, 2008, and January 5, January 20 and February 2, 2009. February 3, 2009 Weingarten Hearing On February 3, 2009, Bazenas and Respondent met in a formal, noticed meeting to discuss Respondent’s failure to complete IEPs for Students J.G. and U.S. That meeting also addressed Respondent’s continued failure to comply with school policy on maintaining lesson plans. It is undisputed that Respondent failed to timely complete the IEPs for students J.G. and U.S., and that he failed to comply with the lesson plan requirement. March 16, 2009 Weingarten Hearing On the afternoon of Monday, March 16, 2009, Bazenas and Respondent and others met in a formal, noticed meeting to discuss: (1) Respondent’s failure to complete IEPs for students N.C. and B.B. prior to their IEPs becoming out of compliance; (2) the FCAT proctoring matters; (3) use of the video “Happy Feet” with no learning objective; (4) continued failure to comply with the lesson plan expectation; (5) tardiness on March 9, and March 10, 2009; and (6) use of the girls’ restroom.1 It is undisputed that Respondent failed to complete the IEPs for students N.C. and B.B. in a timely manner, and that he used the video “Happy Feet” with no learning objective in place. During the meeting, Bazenas presented Respondent with the summary of Holmes’ observations of Respondent’s conduct while proctoring the FCAT. Respondent conceded that he was inattentive at times during FCAT proctoring and did fall asleep for some period of time during the FCAT, although he disputes it was for 45 minutes. March 17, 2009, Confrontation On the morning of Tuesday, March 17, 2009, Respondent entered Holmes’ classroom to “discuss” Holmes’ summary of her observations of Respondent during the FCAT. A student, whom Holmes was tutoring, was present in Holmes’ room at the time. Holmes was uncomfortable with Respondent’s insistence on discussing the FCAT matter at that time in front of the student. Holmes advised Respondent that she would talk to him later. Respondent, however, persisted in continuing his challenge to Holmes’ FCAT proctoring observations in front of the student. At that point, Bazenas entered Holmes’s room. Bazenas observed that the situation was “tense” and that Holmes was backed into a corner of the room. Bazenas also observed that the student that was present looked very uncomfortable. At that point, Bazenas, in a reasonable voice, requested that Respondent return to his own classroom to supervise his students. Respondent immediately became upset and began yelling at Bazenas, telling Bazenas not to interrupt him. Respondent approached him and pointed his finger in Bazenas’ face. At that time, Collins was in Brooks’ room. Collins heard shouting coming from the direction of Holmes’ room. Collins proceeded into the center office of the quad. She observed Respondent shouting at Bazenas that he was a “liar” and that Respondent would see Bazenas “in court.” Collins did not hear Bazenas raise his voice. Collins was fearful of Respondent; she had never seen Respondent act in that way. She also testified that Bazenas looked fearful of Respondent. Respondent then proceeded into his classroom and Bazenas followed Respondent into the classroom. He put himself between Respondent and his students, permitting Collins to remove the students from Respondent’s classroom, taking them into Brooks’ classroom. Respondent continued with his emotional outburst during this time. When Bazenas requested that Respondent leave campus immediately, Respondent threatened Bazenas. Bazenas subjectively believed that Respondent’s agitated behavior and his statement to be a threat of violence. Respondent also directed inappropriate comments to his students about Bazenas during his outburst. As Collins brought Respondent’s students into Brooks’ classroom, Collins was shaking and looked very fearful. After all of Respondent’s students were in Brooks’ classroom, Brooks locked the doors. Locking the doors is an unusual occurrence; however, Respondent did leave campus voluntarily. Respondent was immediately placed on administrative leave. Shortly thereafter, a police officer went to Respondent’s house to advise Respondent to stay away from campus. Respondent complied with the request. Respondent’s outburst on March 17, 2009, constituted a real and immediate threat to the School administration, teachers and students and was a flagrant violation of school policies and the State Principles of Professional Conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Sarasota County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent from the date Respondent was placed on unpaid leave of absence. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 27th day of January, 2010.
The Issue The issue presented herein concerns an appeal of the Respondent, School Board of Dade County, Florida's assignment of Respondent, Carlos Alberto Estevez, to the Youth Opportunity School-South, an alternative school placement.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: Carlos Alberto Estevez, Lereia Carlos or Respondent, date of birth December 18, 1968, was assigned to the W. R. Thomas Jr. High School (Thomas) as a seventh grader during the 1982-83 school year. By letter dated February 1, 1983, Respondent's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Angel Estevez, were advised that their son, Carlos, was being administratively assigned to Youth Opportunity School- South based on his disruption of the educational process in the regular school program at Thomas. Throughout the 82-83 school year, Carlos was the subject of numerous indoor suspensions based on defiant and disruptive behavior which has resulted in a disruption of his classes at Thomas. As example, during November, 1982, Respondent was given a five (5) day in-school suspension due to his outbursts of abusive and profane language to an instructor at Thomas. Petitioner was also the subject of other suspensions due to physical and verbal threats and harassment of other students. Carlos was truant on numerous occasions during the 1982-83 school year. Carlos' parents were kept advised of his suspensions, both in school and out of school (testimony of Donald Helip, Assistant Principal, W. R. Thomas Jr. High School). Respondent's father contends that the school board is discriminating against Carlos for making the recommendation to as sign him to the Opportunity School Program. No evidence was offered in support of that contention.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner enter a Final Order assigning the Respondent, Carlos Alberto Estevez, to an alternative school placement. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of October, 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 4th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr. and Mark Valentine, Esquires 300 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33137 Jorge L. Tabares, Esquire Intercontinental Bank Building Suite 210 3899 N.W. 7th Street Miami, Florida 33126
