The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds, and at all relevant times, held a valid Florida Educator’s Certificate. Respondent is and, at all relevant times, was a fifth- grade teacher at Avon Park Elementary School in Highlands County. Respondent has been an elementary school teacher for 19 years. She taught fourth and fifth grade at Zolfo Springs Elementary School in Hardee County from 1986 through the end of the 2000-01 school year. She started teaching at Avon Park Elementary School at the beginning of the 2001-02 school year. Respondent is currently on a year-to-year contract. Her contract was renewed for the 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years notwithstanding the allegations in this case, which occurred during the 2002-03 school year. Respondent has not had any disciplinary problems over the course of her career, and other than the allegations in this case, she has never been accused of any unethical or unprofessional conduct. Respondent has always received good annual performance evaluations. Respondent’s most recent performance evaluations - - for the 2002-03 and 2003-04 school years –- state that she “meets or exceeds expectations” in all categories, including the category that assesses whether Respondent “act[s] in a professional and ethical manner and adhere[s] to the Code and Principles of Professional Conduct.” Consistent with the information in Respondent’s annual performance evaluations, the principal at Avon Park Elementary School, who is Respondent’s current supervisor, testified that Respondent “does a good job” as a teacher and that she values Respondent quite highly as a teacher; the former principal at Zolfo Springs Elementary School, who was Respondent’s supervisor for approximately five of the years that Respondent taught at that school, testified that Respondent’s reputation for complying with the code of ethics is “excellent” and that Respondent always “monitored and cherished” her professionalism; one of Respondent’s co-workers at Avon Park Elementary School testified that Respondent is “a very effective and professional teacher”; and the students who testified at the hearing characterized Respondent as a good teacher. Respondent has administered the FCAT to her students since the test’s inception in the 1990s, and as a result, she is very familiar with what teachers can and cannot do when administering the test. Respondent and other teachers at Avon Park Elementary School received training on the administration of the 2003 FCAT, and as part of the training, Respondent received a copy of the Test Administration Manual for the 2003 FCAT. The Test Administration Manual is published by the state Department of Education (Department) and is distributed to teachers by the testing coordinators at each school. The school-level testing coordinators report to a testing coordinator at the school district level, who is ultimately responsible for the administration of the FCAT to the district’s students. The Test Administration Manual summarizes the “dos and don’ts” of test administration for the FCAT. It also includes a copy of the statute and rule governing test security, which for the 2003 FCAT were Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.042. On the issue of test security, the Test Administration Manual explains that: it is not appropriate to talk with [students] about any test item or to help them answer any test item. For example, if students finish the test before the allotted time for the session has elapsed, or have not attempted to complete a question, it would be appropriate to encourage them to go back and check their work. It is not acceptable to provide the students with any information that would allow them to infer the correct answer, such as suggesting that they might want to check their work on a specific question. (Emphasis in original). The FCAT is required by state law to be administered annually to public school students in the third through tenth grades to measure the students’ proficiency in reading, writing, science, and math. The FCAT measures the students’ performance against state standards. The Norm Referenced Test (NRT), which is administered in conjunction with the FCAT, measures the students’ performance in math and reading against national standards. The FCAT is an important test, both to students and the schools. The student’s promotion to the next grade and/or class placement is affected to some degree by his or her performance on the FCAT. The school’s grade, which has an impact on the funding that the school district receives from the state, is also affected to some degree by the students’ performance on the FCAT. The math and reading portions of the 2003 FCAT were administered to fifth graders on Monday through Wednesday, March 3-5, 2003. The science portion of the FCAT and the NRT were administered the following week, on Monday through Wednesday, March 10-12, 2003. Throughout the 2002-03 school year, Respondent “taught the FCAT” and gave her class practice FCAT questions. She used the questions as teaching tools and to help prepare her students for the actual FCAT. Respondent would sometimes explain the wording of the practice questions to her students and, as needed, she would provide the students other assistance, both individually and as a class, while they were working on the practice questions. On Friday, February 28, 2003, Respondent administered two practice tests to her students in which she tried to simulate the environment in which the students would be taking the actual FCAT the following week. For example, the tests were timed and Respondent walked around the room as she proctored the tests. Respondent helped the students during the practice tests as she had done with the practice questions administered throughout the year. At one point, she stopped the test and reviewed a math problem on the board with the class because she observed a number of students having problems with a particular question. Respondent administered the math and reading portions of the actual FCAT to 18 students in her homeroom class on March 3-5, 2003. None of those students were exceptional education students who were entitled to special accommodations. Respondent did a 15 to 20 minute “mini-review” each morning that the students were taking the actual FCAT during which she went over terminology and concepts that the students might see on the test that day. Respondent started the administration of the actual FCAT by reading the directions verbatim from the “scripts” in the Test Administration Manual. Once the students began taking the test, she monitored them from her desk and she also walked around the room on a periodic basis. Respondent also went to students’ desks when they raised their hands. The Test Administration Manual contemplates that students might raise their hands and ask questions during the test; indeed, the “scripts” that the teacher is required to read verbatim state more than once, “Please raise your hand if you have any questions.” Respondent denied giving the students any assistance in answering the test questions on the actual FCAT. According to Respondent, when a student asked her about a particular test question, she told the student that “I can’t help you,” “go back and re-read the directions,” “do the best you can,” or other words to that effect. The Department’s testing coordinator, Victoria Ash, testified that responses such as those are acceptable. Respondent also made a general statement to the class during the test reminding the students to go back and check their work if they finished the test before the allotted time expired. Ms. Ash testified that a general reminder such as that is “absolutely acceptable.” Respondent’s testimony was corroborated by student J.M., who credibly testified that he recalled more than once hearing Respondent tell other students that she could not help them during the actual FCAT. Several students testified that Respondent helped them during the actual FCAT by explaining words that they did not understand, explaining how to solve math problems, and/or by suggesting that they check their work on particular problems. That testimony was not persuasive because it lacked specificity and precision, and other than A.P., B.B. (boy), and K.J., the students testified that they were not certain that the help they remembered receiving was on the actual FCAT rather than on the practice tests that they were given by Respondent. With respect to B.B. (boy), the undersigned did not find his testimony persuasive because he also testified that Respondent helped the entire class with a math problem during the actual test, which contradicted the statements given by the other students and which suggests that he was recalling events from the practice test during which Respondent gave such help to the entire class. With respect to A.P. and K.J., the undersigned did not find them to be particularly credible witnesses based upon their demeanors while testifying. There were other inconsistencies in the students’ accounts of Respondent’s administration of the FCAT that make their testimony generally unpersuasive. For example, B.B. (girl) testified that Respondent played classical music during the actual test, which was not corroborated by any other student in the class and was contradicted by Respondent’s credible testimony that she played music during the practice tests to relax the students but that she and the other fifth-grade teachers at Avon Park Elementary School made a conscious decision not to play music during the actual FCAT. As a result of the students’ apparent confusion regarding events occurring during practice tests rather than the actual FCAT, the inconsistencies in the students’ accounts of the events during the administration of the test, the general lack of specificity and precision in the students’ accounts of the events, and Respondent’s credible denial of any wrongdoing, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish the truth of the allegations against Respondent. In making the foregoing finding, due consideration was given to the investigation undertaken by the district-level testing coordinator, Rebecca Fleck, at the time of the allegations against Respondent, and the materials generated through that investigation. The reason for the investigation was a phone call that Ms. Fleck received on Wednesday, March 5, 2003, from a Department employee who told Ms. Fleck that the Department had received an anonymous complaint about Respondent’s administration of the FCAT. Ms. Fleck went to Avon Park Elementary School on Friday, March 7, 2003, to investigate the complaint. On that date, she met with the school’s assistant principal and interviewed several of the students in Respondent’s class. She also spoke briefly with Respondent to “get her side of the story,” which consistent with her testimony at the hearing, was an unequivocal denial of any wrongdoing. Ms. Fleck decided, based upon the student interviews, that Respondent should not administer the science portion of the FCAT or the NRT the following week. As a result, Respondent was assigned to work at the school district office on March 10-12, 2003, while her students were taking the tests on those dates. Ms. Fleck also decided to interview and get statements from all of the students in Respondent’s class, which she did on the following Monday and Tuesday, March 10 and 11, 2003. On those days, the students were called to the principal’s office in groups of two or three and they were asked to fill out a questionnaire developed by Ms. Fleck. Pam Burnaham, the principal of Avon Park Elementary School, and Ms. Fleck supervised the students while they filled out the questionnaires. The students were not told that Ms. Fleck was investigating alleged wrongdoing by Respondent; they were told that the purpose of the questionnaire was to find out about their “FCAT experience.” Ms. Fleck testified that she was confident that the students understood that the questionnaire related only to the actual FCAT and not any of the practice tests administered by Respondent; however, Ms. Burnaham testified that she did not place any emphasis on the distinction, and as noted above, the students’ testimony at the hearing indicates that they may have been confused on this issue. Ms. Fleck concluded based upon the students’ responses on the questionnaires that Respondent “coached” the students during the administration of the actual FCAT. As a result, she invalidated the tests of all 18 students in Respondent’s class. Ms. Fleck’s decision to invalidate the students’ tests was not unreasonable based upon what she was told by the students, which she believed to be true; however, the invalidation of the tests is not sufficient in and of itself to impose discipline on Respondent because, as discussed above, the truth of the students’ allegations was not clearly and convincingly proven at the hearing. Several of the students gave written statements to a Department investigator in late May 2003 regarding the help that they recalled being given by Respondent on the FCAT. No weight is given to those statements because no credible evidence was presented regarding the circumstances under which the statements were made, the statements were made several months after the events described in the statements, and as was the case with the questionnaires the students filled out for Ms. Fleck, the undersigned is not persuaded that the students understood at the time they were giving the statements that they were describing events that occurred during the actual FCAT rather than the practice tests that they were given by Respondent. There is no persuasive evidence that any of the students in Respondent’s class whose tests were invalidated suffered any adverse educational consequences. Even though the school administrators did not have the benefit of the students’ FCAT scores for purposes of placement and/or developing a remediation plan, they had other information on which they could make those decisions, including the students’ scores on the NRT, which was administered the week after the FCAT and was not invalidated. Other than being reassigned to the school district office during the administration of the NRT, Respondent did not suffer any adverse employment consequences from the school district as a result of the students’ allegations and/or the invalidation of the students’ tests. To the contrary, Respondent continued to get good performance reviews and her contract has been renewed twice since the administration of the 2003 FCAT. Respondent did not administer the 2004 FCAT because this case was still pending. She was given other duties at Avon Park Elementary School while her students were taking the 2004 FCAT.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issues in this matter are as follows: (a) whether Petitioner followed all procedural requirements before deciding to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher; and whether Petitioner properly determined that Respondent's employment as a teacher should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact In 1985, Respondent received her Florida Teacher Certification, qualifying her to teach elementary education, Grades 1-6. She continues to hold that certification. Respondent worked as a substitute teacher in Petitioner's elementary, middle, and high schools for 13 years before she was hired as a full-time teacher in 1998. Thereafter, Respondent taught the following classes at the following schools: (a) from 1999–2003, “literacy” and language arts to sixth and seventh graders at Paxon Middle School; from 2003-2004, third graders at John E. Ford Elementary; from 2004-2006, first graders at Lake Lucina Elementary (Lake Lucina); (d) from 2006-2007, first graders at Arlington Heights Elementary (Arlington Heights); and (e) from 2007-2008, fourth graders at Sabal Palm Elementary (Sabal Palm). Throughout her tenure as a full-time teacher, school principals evaluated Respondent's performance on an annual basis. During school years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, Petitioner used the Teacher Assessment System (“TAS”) as the primary method to evaluate Respondent's teaching ability. The TAS measures teaching performance based on nine different “Competencies.” These Competencies, listed in the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 versions of the TAS include the following: (a) Promotes student growth and performance; (b) Evaluates instructional needs of students; (c) Plans and delivers effective instruction; (d) Shows knowledge of subject matter; (e) Utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; (f) Shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment; (g) Communicates with parents; (h) Pursues professional growth; and (i) Demonstrates professional behaviors. Under the TAS, a school administrator (usually the principal) evaluates teachers based on three scheduled classroom observations. During the observations, the principal uses the Teacher Assessment Instrument (“TAI”) to collect data and identify “indicators” associated with each Competency. In evaluating a teacher’s overall performance, principals may also consider informal, unannounced observations. The Classroom Observation Instrument (“COI”) is an earlier version of the TAI. The COI contains the same Competencies as the TAI, though they appear in different order. The “Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher” is a summative evaluation form used during the final annual evaluation conference. The form reflects the teacher’s final rating as to each Competency and the principal’s overall performance rating for the school year. The TAS procedures provide as follows in pertinent part: TAS Procedures-Principal/Supervisor PLEASE NOTE: One purpose of the TAS is to assist the employee to improve performance. Performance problems are best addressed early. If an informal observation or classroom visit indicates possible performance problems then the principal should immediately arrange to initiate a formal classroom observation using the TAI. Conduct an initial orientation for all instructional employees to be evaluated by the TAS. This should occur during pre- planning and include at minimum, 1) an overview of the forms and procedures, 2) a description of the competencies and their indicators, and 3) your schedule for observation activities. Pre-arrange with the employee at least one instructional session to be formally observed. Conduct a pre-observation conference with the employee. Discuss with the employee information regarding the lesson plan, targeted students and methodology. A pre-observation conference must occur. Conduct the observation using the TAI. All competency indicators that are observed during this observation will be checked on the TAI. Complete the TAI for all competencies/indicators not completed during the classroom observation. After the instrument has been completed, review and rate the data, and prepare the report to share with the employee. Within five (5) working days, schedule and conduct a post-observation conference with the employee to provide feedback. During the post-observation conference, review the TAI with the employee. Identify any problematic areas. At this time, schedule a conference to develop a success plan for employees who potentially may receive an overall unsatisfactory evaluation. This action must take place within two (2) weeks of the post conference but prior to February 1. During this time, a letter of Potential Unsatisfactory Evaluation must be given to the employee. Close the conference by signing all appropriate documents and securing the employee's signature of receipt. Follow the time line provided in the manual to ensure compliance with the reappointment process and to ensure due process for the employee. If a teacher demonstrates deficient performance under any Competency, a "Success Plan" is written in collaboration with the teacher. The Success Plan identifies areas of weakness by Competency, sets out objectives, and provides timelines to meet the objectives. A Success Plan Team includes the teacher, school administrators, colleagues that have expertise in the relevant subject matter, “resource” teachers or “coaches,” and, at times, a teachers’ union representative. According to the TAS, personnel decisions will be appropriate if the timeline and the following steps are followed: Notify the employee in clear and simple written communication(s) regarding your specific performance expectation as identified by the competency indicators on the TAI. Explain to the employee in oral and written detail the deficiency(ies) from the previously stated expectation(s). (Be specific by noting the time factors, place, circumstances, principal observations). Arrange with and/or for the employee to receive appropriate training or other assistance as needed in order to improve the deficiency(ies) noted on the TAS Success Plan. Record in writing any offers of help. Time any communication(s) to the employee so there is sufficient opportunity for the employee to correct deficiencies. The Success Plan Team (including the identified employee) must meet frequently to review the status of the implementation of the plan and the employee’s progress. While teaching first graders at Lake Lucina, Respondent elected to transfer to Arlington Heights in school year 2006-2007. Robert L. Snyder was, and still is, the principal of Arlington Heights. Upon meeting Respondent, Mr. Snyder considered Respondent as a pleasant and likeable person. However, because Respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation the prior year, Mr. Snyder arranged for the development of a Success Plan for Respondent. With Respondent's input, the Success Plan Team drafted a Success Plan to be implemented at Arlington Heights. The Success Plan outlined areas of weakness, objectives toward improvement in those areas, and timelines. It was finalized and signed by Ms. Hunt in October 2006. The Success Plan Team included experienced teaching coaches. The coaches modeled instruction in Respondent's class on several occasions. Mr. Snyder conducted three formal observations and observed Respondent’s teaching performance informally on several occasions. During his visits to the classroom, Mr. Snyder would see students doing worksheets amounting to “busy work” which had no apparent connection to instruction or evaluation. Mr. Snyder kept personal notes documenting Respondent's tardiness to school on several occasions. He also noted her tardiness to workshops and in-service programs, including an in-service program focused on a reading assessment system for first graders known as Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). On or about January 30, 2008, Mr. Snyder intended to deliver a letter to Respondent, advising her that she was at risk to receive an unsatisfactory evaluation for the year. When he went to Respondent's classroom, Mr. Snyder discovered that Petitioner was absent and had left no plans for the substitute teacher. The school policy required teachers to have three days of substitute plans in case of an unexpected absence. While Mr. Snyder assisted in the development of plans for the substitute teacher, he observed incomplete and blank DRA data collection forms. The forms did not indicate the students' levels of reading ability or the strategies put in place to enhance areas of weakness. Mr. Snyder also observed the teaching assistant doing work which should have been done by Respondent, such as grading papers. When Respondent submitted her lesson plans to Mr. Snyder, he observed that Respondent was not actually teaching the lesson plans to her class. Mr. Snyder also noted a lack of grades in Respondent's grade book. Mr. Snyder brought these concerns to Respondent's attention verbally and in writing. Throughout the school year, Respondent had a full-time paraprofessional/teacher’s assistant (“TA”) in her classroom. Mr. Snyder observed tensions between Respondent and her TA, as well as a second TA. The working relationship between Respondent and her TA deteriorated through the year. On one occasion, Respondent left her class of first graders completely unattended by an adult for twenty minutes. Mr. Snyder knew Respondent was in the office working on the computer when he saw Respondent's unsupervised students. On another occasion, Mr. Snyder saw Respondent who appeared to be videotaping students in a common hallway. The school did not have parental permission to videotape some of the students in another teacher's class. Mr. Snyder retrieved the videotape and discarded it. Respondent did not attend certain conferences with Mr. Snyder (including at least one formal pre-observation conference). Additionally, it was difficult to conduct meetings with the Success Plan Team because Respondent always insisted that an outside union representative instead of the building representative attend the meetings with her. Scheduled meetings with Respondent were delayed or cancelled on a number of occasions because an outside union representative was not available. Mr. Snyder formally observed Respondent and completed TIAs on December 15, 2006, February 6, 2007 and March 14, 2007. Mr. Snyder had a conference with Respondent before and after each formal observation to discuss the TIAs. Respondent signed each TIA. Respondent’s Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher was issued on March 15, 2007. Reflecting the findings on the TIAs, the annual evaluation showed unsatisfactory performance in the following Competencies: Promoting Student Growth and Performance; Planning and Delivering Effective Instruction; and Demonstrates Professional Behaviors. The evaluation also showed a “Needs Improvement” rating in the following Competencies: Evaluates Instructional Needs of Students; Utilizes Appropriate Classroom Management; and Parent Communications. Respondent received and signed the annual evaluation. In school year 2007-2008, Respondent elected to transfer to Sabal Palm. At the new school, Respondent taught reading, writing and science to a fourth-grade class. Respondent's co-teacher, Kim Stancil, taught math and social studies. There were approximately 26 students in the class. The principal at Sabal Palm was, and still is, Mary Mickel. Because Respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation the prior year, Ms. Mickel initiated a Success Plan for Respondent. Respondent signed a final copy of the plan on December 11, 2007. The Success Plan outlined areas of weakness, objectives toward improvement in those areas, and timelines. The Success Plan Team consisted of Ms. Mickel, other teachers, a “standards coach," and a “reading coach.” Ms. Stancil retired on October 29, 2007. A new co- teacher, Christie Callison, began teaching in January 2008. Ms. Mickel became concerned when Respondent failed to attend grade-level meetings. After receiving encouragement from Ms. Mickel, Respondent began attending the meetings but did not actively participate. Ms. Mickel had several parents call to complain about how Respondent treated their children or how their children were doing in Respondent's class. Ms. Mickel participated in at least one parent/teacher conference to resolve a parent's concerns. Ms. Mickel visited Respondent's classroom from time to time throughout the school year. Ms. Mickel conducted four formal evaluations of Respondent's performance. The formal observations took place on the following dates: September 13, 2007; November 19, 2007; January 28, 2008; and March 5, 2008. Ms. Mickel provided Respondent with advanced notice of the formal observations. Ms. Mickel had a conference with Ms. Hunt before and after the observations. During the formal observations, Ms. Mickel used the COI instrument to document indicators of performance under the nine Competencies. Respondent does not challenge Ms. Mickel's use of the COIs versus the TIAs. Ms. Mickel observed Respondent using materials and teaching subjects that were not age-appropriate for fourth graders. For instance, Respondent based a lesson on a book typically used with 1st graders. Ms. Mickel discussed this with Respondent and commented on the subject in the COIs. As time passed, Ms. Mickel observed Respondent's continued failure to properly assess student performance and failure to tailor instruction to student needs. Respondent had opportunities to participate in grade- level training on a weekly basis. She was allowed to observe other teachers in her school without having to take personal time. Respondent's coaches came into her class, prepared a lesson plan with her, and modeled the instruction. According to Ms. Callison, Respondent refused to collaborate with planning and instruction. Respondent did not want, give or receive assistance from her co-teacher. Respondent typically did not provide direct instruction to the students. Instead, Respondent gave the students “busy work” via worksheets that had nothing to do with the required curriculum. Respondent openly classified students by ability, using terms such as “middle group” and “low group.” Respondent would then have students grade each others’ papers and report the grades out loud to Respondent in class. Respondent’s Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher was issued on March 14, 2008. Reflecting the findings on the COIs, the annual evaluation showed unsatisfactory performance under the following Competencies: Evaluates Instructional Needs of Students and Plans and Delivers Effective Instruction. Respondent obtained a “Needs Improvement” rating in the following Competencies: Promotes Student Growth and Performance; Communicates with Parents; and Demonstrates Professional Behaviors. Respondent received and signed the annual evaluation. Respondent testified that teaching fourth grade is particularly challenging compared to teaching other grade levels. According to Respondent, fourth-grade is difficult to teach because students must take the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) in math, reading and writing. Although Respondent was without a co-teacher for a portion of the 2007-2008 school term, she is certified to teach all fourth-grade subjects. More importantly, Respondent has had experience teaching reading and writing to sixth and seventh- grade students, some of whom were working at the fourth-grade level. Respondent worked with and was evaluated by seven different principals throughout the last eight years of her employment. During those eight years, Respondent's summative evaluations showed her performance as follows: (a) eight consecutive years with unsatisfactory performance in the Parent Communication Competency; (b) five consecutive years with unsatisfactory performance in the Student Growth and Performance Competency; (c) five consecutive years with unsatisfactory performance in the Planning and Delivery of Instruction Competency; (d) four consecutive years with unsatisfactory performance in the Evaluation of Student Needs Competency.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018), as charged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.1 1 Respondent’s alleged conduct occurred in September 2018. The 2018 version of chapter 1012, and related statutes, was in effect at the time of the alleged conduct, and, therefore, applies to this proceeding. See Orasan v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 668 So. 2d
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, the Commissioner of Education, is responsible for determining whether there is probable cause to warrant disciplinary action against an educator’s certificate and, if probable cause is found, for filing and prosecuting an administrative complaint pursuant to chapter 120. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 1124072. Respondent’s certificate is valid through June 30, 2024, and covers the areas of educational leadership, elementary education, English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), and reading. During the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent was employed as a reading teacher at Dr. Phillips High School (DPHS) in the Orange County School District (OCSD). Respondent has been a licensed educator since 1995 and admits to understanding that she is a “mandatory reporter” in instances where a child has been abused or where abuse is suspected. Section 1012.795(1)(b) authorizes the Education Practices Commission to discipline an educator “for knowingly failing to report actual or suspected child abuse as required in s. 1006.061 or report alleged misconduct by instructional personnel or school administrators which affects the health, safety, or welfare of a student as required in s. 1012.796.” Section 39.201, Florida Statutes (2018), requires any person who knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is abused by a person responsible for the child’s welfare to immediately report the knowledge or suspicion to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Abuse Hotline. Several OCSD policies also mandate that a teacher immediately report any suspected child abuse to the DCF Abuse Hotline. The Complaint The Complaint alleges that “[o]n or about September 11, 2018, A.C., an eleventh[-]grade female student, reported to Respondent that [she] was being physically abused by her mother, [and that] Respondent failed to timely report the suspected abuse to [DCF] as required by law.” As a result of this alleged conduct, the Complaint charges Respondent with having violated section 1012.795(1)(b). Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing Respondent first met A.C. at or near the beginning of the 2018-19 school year, which commenced sometime around the latter part of August 2018. As to her initial encounter with A.C., Respondent testified as follows: Q. And when did you first meet A.C.? A. I believe she may have been absent the first few days of school, but upon her first day of entry to my classroom she asked me, when we were greeting each other at the door, do you know who I am? And I said, A.C. And she goes, well, do you know about me? And I said, no, A.C. Hi, nice to meet you. She goes, well don’t you know about my history, don’t you know anything about me? I know your son and I’m in ROTC and, well, DCF used to be here all the time in ninth and tenth grade, don’t you know anything about me? I thought you would know all about me. And I mentioned to her that I knew nothing about her except her name and her grades and welcome to my class. And I said, let me show you where you’re sitting this year. And I showed her her seat. Q. When she said, DCF used to come to school all the time, what was she talking about? A. I have no idea. I think she was telling me about her personal history. Her behavior was a little flamboyant and very attention seeking and it was very extroverted, wanting to get to know me on a personal basis. And I -- it was just a little different from what I’m used to. And but she definitely did stand out in my vision as somebody that was seeking attention. (Tr. pp. 103-104). Within seconds of meeting A.C., Respondent, by her own admission, thought of A.C. as an extreme extrovert who was prone to engage in flamboyant and attention-seeking behavior. On the morning of September 6, 2018, Ms. Shuster included Respondent on an email that was sent to several individuals regarding A.C. The email informed recipients of the need to schedule “a team meeting … in reference to [A.C.’s] sporadic attendance.” Respondent, in response to the email from Ms. Shuster, stated the following with respect to A.C.: She is extremely bright and multi-lingual. She mentioned the school had to call DCF (A4) on her several times last year because her mom is really mean. The last few absences she had ROTC commitments. I would check with them to verify. 8/24 was the ROTC field day, 9/5 was the Club Fair. She probably shouldn’t be in reading; however, she fell asleep on the FSA last year. The question may be why isn’t she getting enough sleep? I hope this helps. Although A.C. had only briefly mentioned to Respondent during their initial interaction that she had encounters with DCF during the previous school year, it is obvious that A.C.’s reference to DCF resonated with Respondent given that several days later Respondent thought the information was of such significance that it needed to be included in Respondent’s reply to the email from Ms. Shuster. As of September 6, 2018, Respondent knew that A.C.’s school attendance was sporadic; that something in A.C.’s life was causing her to not get enough sleep; and that A.C. reported having a “really mean mom” whose purported conducted resulted in several visits from DCF during the previous school year. September 11, 2018 According to Respondent, prior to the commencement of her fifth period class on September 11, 2018, she was greeting students at the doorway of her classroom when A.C. arrived. Because A.C. had recently been absent from Respondent’s class, Respondent asked A.C. “where you been.” In response to her question, A.C., according to Respondent, stated that she “got arrested and I can tell you all about it.” Respondent testified that she then told A.C. to go to her seat and “we can talk about that later.” Respondent testified that she then instructed A.C. to sit down, but A.C. continued talking and said to Respondent “I can show you pictures.” Respondent then instructed A.C. to “put [her] phone away and sit down.” A.C. complied with Respondent’s directive, but before doing so persisted in trying to show Respondent the pictures on her phone. Respondent said that she was about 20 feet from A.C. when A.C. attempted to show her the pictures. Because of the distance between her and A.C., Respondent testified that she was unable to discern what was reflected in the pictures, but she recalled that A.C. said “I can show you pictures, I can show you, you know, these bite marks.” (Pet. Ex. 18, pp. 22-23). Respondent testified that at the conclusion of the fifth period class, she told A.C. to remain in the classroom. According to Respondent, as reflected in Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, pages 18 and 19, the following events then transpired over a period of about 10 to 15 minutes: Q. Okay. So now you and A.C. are in the room. A. Yes. Q. And you say to A.C. or she says to you, what? A. I said, hey, A.C., you said you were arrested. Can you tell me about that? What’s going on? She goes, well, if you really want to know, I wanted to get it on with my boyfriend and so my mom didn’t like it, we got into it and I called the police on her and they arrested me. And I said, oh wow, A.C. I was like, why did they take you. And she goes, well, the cops said that they were calling DCF and that they found me -- that I was the one not listening to my mom. And I said, well, A.C., I can tell you this. I have a teenage daughter. She graduated from here a few years ago and, I said, I’m going to talk to you as a teacher and I’m going to talk to you as a mom. I said, as a mom, maybe try to put your foot in the other shoe. Maybe your mom doesn’t want a little A.C. running around in nine months. Did you ever think about that perspective? And she goes, no. She goes, oh I don’t want to have kids. She goes -- I said, well, are you planning on going to the military and she said no, I don’t want to do that either. And she goes, I want to do something in art, graphic arts. Create -- I’m very creative. And I said okay. Then we spoke about, you know, what else did we speak about? We spoke about, you know, trying to follow house rules so that she doesn’t get in this situation again, whatever. And she goes, yeah, yeah, I know. She goes, I’m over it. And I said, well, you know, lunch is about to end, you better hurry on. And so, then she left for lunch and then when she left I called Ms. Graves and I called Ms. Shuster. I did not get Ms. Shuster. I didn’t leave a message. Ms. Graves, I left a message. Ms. Graves called me back sixth period and when I told her, hey, A.C. reported that she got arrested, what’s going on, she goes, oh, every teacher has told me already. We know. And I said, okay, great, thanks. In addition to the above, Respondent testified that the following events also occurred during her 10 to 15-minute discussion with A.C: Q. During that period, did A.C. show you any photos? A. I don’t recall having any photo opportunities except the time that she -- when she was walking into the room trying to show me the phone from across the room. Q. Okay. So, while she is having the conversation with you during the lunch period, she didn’t try to show you the photos that she had previously tried to show you; is that correct? A. I don’t believe so. I remember I asked her about the photos and stuff like that. She goes, I can show you photos and I was like, no, I don’t want to see your photos. Because I just didn’t. A.C. testified that on September 11, 2018, she reported to Respondent’s class and informed Respondent that she had been abused by her mother. According to A.C., she showed Respondent several pictures of bruising and bite marks on her body, which A.C. attributed to having resulted from the conduct of her mother. A.C. testified that the images reflected in Petitioner’s Exhibit 4 are copies of the pictures that she showed Respondent on September 11, 2018. Bates stamped page 9 of Petitioner’s Exhibit 4 is an image that clearly shows bite marks on A.C.’s hand. A.C. testified that the bite marks reflected in this exhibit were still visible on her hand when she met with Respondent on September 11, 2018, and that she showed her injured hand to Respondent. A.C. could not recall if she showed the pictures to Respondent upon entering Respondent’s classroom or immediately following Respondent’s fifth period class. While A.C. was uncertain as to when she discussed the details of her situation with Respondent, her testimony regarding her interaction with Respondent on September 11, 2018, was without equivocation or hesitancy, she recounted the events in question with precision, and her testimony was not otherwise impeached by Respondent. A.C. was a credible witness, and her testimony is appropriately credited. September 13, 2018 Thursday, September 13, 2018, was open-house day at DPHS, and teachers were required to remain at school until 8:00 p.m. At approximately 4:30 p.m., Respondent and her colleague, Ms. Rosa Martinez-Rodriguez, were conversing in Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez’s classroom when the administrative dean, Ms. Tamie Shuster, appeared in the doorway of the classroom. According to Ms. Shuster, she needed to speak with Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez about ESOL-related matters. Ms. Shuster finished her conversation with Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez, and before exiting the classroom, she was hailed by Respondent who informed her that student A.C. reported to Respondent that she had been bitten by her mom, and that A.C. had shown her cellphone pictures of the bite marks. When asked by Ms. Shuster if she had told anyone else about A.C.’s complaint, Respondent indicated that she had not. Ms. Shuster informed Respondent that the incident involving A.C. had to be reported, and after meeting with Respondent, Ms. Shuster promptly reported the incident involving A.C. to the DCF Abuse Hotline. In the narrative section of the reporting form completed by Ms. Shuster on September 13, 2018, she noted the following: “The student [A.C.] reported to her teacher Ms. Camacho Szeto that her mother got mad at her [and] left bite marks on her.” As a follow up, Ms. Shuster, on September 14, 2018, prepared a written statement outlining the events of the previous day. In all material respects, Ms. Shuster’s written statement on September 14, 2018, is consistent with her testimony and the information that she included in the narrative section of the abuse reporting form that she prepared on September 13, 2018. Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez was in earshot of the conversation between Respondent and Ms. Shuster and testified to the following: Q. Okay. And then what did you hear during that conversation between Ms. Szeto and Ms. Shuster? A. So they were talking about, as I said, a student that they both seemed to know about. The student seemed to have a lot of absences. And I heard Ms. Szeto tell Ms. Shuster that the student had said that her parent bit her and had shown her some pictures on the phone, but that she hadn’t reported anything because she had not observed bite marks on the student in person, on her person. And she wasn’t sure, also, if it was true as -- because there was a question about whether the pictures were of the student. To my understanding. Q. Okay. So, it’s your testimony that Mrs. Szeto told Ms. Shuster that she didn’t report it to DCF because she wasn’t sure if the student was telling the truth; is that correct? A. I’m not sure who she was referring to as not reporting it. I’m not sure if it was DCF or administration. That was unclear to me. But, yes, it was clear that she said that she wasn’t sure if it was true. Q. Ms. Camacho saying she wasn’t sure if it was true. If what was true? A. What the student was alleging that her parent had bit her and that the marks were actually the student’s. (Tr. pp. 60-61) Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez, approximately two weeks after witnessing the conversation between Respondent and Ms. Shuster, prepared a “witness statement,” which reads as follows: On September 13, 2018, Ms. Camacho-Szeto visited my office. She remained here for about an hour. It was Open House day, so we had to be in school until 8 p.m. We were having a conversation about personal matters. At some point during the visit, Ms. Tamie Shuster stopped by the door. Ms. Camacho-Szeto informed her that one of her students was stating that her mom bit her and the student had shown her pictures of the bite marks on her phone. I do not recall the name of the student, nor if it was an ESOL student. Ms. Camacho-Szeto stated that she had not reported anything because she wasn’t sure if the student was saying the truth as she never saw the bite marks on the student, only pictures on her phone and she didn’t know if they were really pictures of her. Ms. Tamie Shuster said she would investigate and left. Ms. Camacho-Szeto left to get her meal before Open House began. Respondent, when recalling her conversation with Ms. Shuster on September 13, 2018, testified as follows: Q. What did you say to Ms. Shuster? A. I said, hey, Ms. Shuster, last week you sent an email about A.C. and regarding the attendance child -- that you were spearing up the Child Study Team and I needed to talk to you. I called you the other day, but you weren’t at your desk. I said, I have this girl, A.C., she’s a little bit, you know, she’s a handful, I said, but I need to tell you, she told me she was arrested and she said these things. She’s trying to show me a phone from across the room and she mentioned some bite marks. I see no evidence of bite marks. I see nothing but the behaviors that’s exhibited tell me this child needs some type of counseling or whatever… . She goes, oh, gee, thanks. Now I have to call it in. And I said, well, I don’t know, Tamie, I’m not -- I don’t see any signs of abuse here whatsoever, she just said she was arrested, but I don’t have her history. You have her history, you’re starting the Child Study Team. I said, if I call in a report to DCF, I have nothing to show except that she was arrested and they’re not going to take the report … . * * * Q. Okay. Now you said you mentioned to Ms. Shuster that A.C. said something about bite marks. A. Yes. Q. But what did you tell Ms. Shuster about what A.C. said about bite marks? A. I said, she was trying to show me a cellphone from across the room of a -- looked like an x-ray with bite mark -- not bite marks, sorry. Teeth -- like x-ray teeth. And I said, and I see no evidence here of any bite marks or anything on this child. But I was just trying to calm her down and to start my class and I’ve not spoken to her about it anymore. And I said, could you follow up with her? (Pet. Ex. 18, pp. 38-41). Ms. Shuster and Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez both testified that Respondent, when speaking with Ms. Shuster on September 11, 2018, stated that A.C. had been bitten by her mother and had shown Respondent pictures of the bite marks. Neither Ms. Shuster nor Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez testified, nor did they note in their written statements, that Respondent stated that A.C. was “trying to show Respondent pictures from across the room.” Furthermore, neither Ms. Shuster nor Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez testified that Respondent mentioned “x-ray like pictures of teeth” when discussing A.C. with Ms. Shuster. In addition to the above, Respondent’s purported statement to Ms. Shuster that she had “not spoken to her (A.C.) about it anymore,” when read in context, is in direct conflict with other testimony where Respondent states that she met with A.C. for 10 to 15 minutes after class to discuss with A.C. the situation involving A.C. and her mother. It is not entirely clear from the evidence why Respondent would not disclose to Ms. Shuster that she had met with A.C. for 10 to 15 minutes, and thus mislead Ms. Shuster about the extent of her interaction with A.C. on September 11, 2018. Also, Respondent’s testimony that she did not have an opportunity to review the pictures on A.C.’s phone during her after-class meeting with A.C. is problematic, and not worthy of belief. While it may have been reasonable under the circumstances for Respondent to forestall A.C.’s attempts to show Respondent the pictures at the beginning of the class period, it defies logic and reason that Respondent would meet with A.C. for 10 to 15 minutes after class, ask A.C. about the pictures, and then refuse to view them when given the opportunity to do so. Respondent’s evasive, misleading, and inconsistent testimony undermines her credibility to the point to where her version of the events in question cannot be believed. Dr. Knight is the principal at DPHS and testified that it is not required that an employee have actual knowledge that a child has been abused. According to Dr. Knight, employees are trained that, when dealing with issues of suspected child abuse or neglect, “it’s not your job to determine if you think it’s factual or not. You call it in and then DCF is the organization that determines whether it’s factual or not. Your job is to just report it and they take it from there.” Dr. Knight’s testimony accurately states Respondent’s obligation as a “mandatory reporter.” Findings of Ultimate Fact On September 11, 2018, A.C., who was then an eleventh-grade student, reported to Respondent that she had been physically abused by her mother. A.C., when discussing the events with Respondent, presented pictures of her injuries and also showed Respondent bite marks that were then present on A.C.’s hand. The fact that A.C. verbally informed Respondent that she was abused by her mother was, in itself, sufficient to trigger Respondent’s reporting obligation to DCF. The fact that A.C. showed Respondent pictures of injuries to her body was, in itself, sufficient to trigger Respondent’s reporting obligation to DCF. Although Respondent understood her obligation to report known or suspected child abuse to DCF, she failed to do so with respect to A.C.’s allegations of abuse. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order that: 1) suspends Respondent’s educator’s certificate for a period of two days; 2) places her educator’s certificate on probation for a period of two years from the date of the final order, with conditions determined by the Education Practices Commission; 3) requires Respondent, during her period of probation, to attend and successfully complete, at her expense, training related to her reporting obligations under section 1012.795(1)(b); and, 4) pay a fine in the amount of $480.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association Suite 109 1516 East Hillcrest Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the offenses charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against individuals who hold a Florida educator’s certificate and who are alleged to have violated one or more provisions in section 1012.795 and implementing rules. Respondent holds Florida educator’s certificate 777352, covering the area of social science, which is valid through June 30, 2020. Prior to becoming a teacher, Respondent was in the military for 21 years, serving as a soldier and non-commissioned officer in the U.S. Army. Respondent describes himself as a “great leader,” a skill he believes he developed in the Army. Respondent was employed as a teacher for the Lee County School District (School District) beginning in 1998 or 1999.6/ He taught social science classes at Bonita Springs Middle School until 2009. A former student who attended that school between 2002 and 2004 spoke highly of Respondent as her teacher. That student has not been in a classroom with Respondent since 2004. Beginning in early 2005, Respondent’s record as a teacher at Bonita Springs Middle School became spotted with disciplinary measures being regularly taken against him. The matters for which Respondent was disciplined were similar, evidencing a pattern of inappropriate physical contact with students, angry outbursts, conflicts with principals, and inappropriate classroom conduct, including ridiculing, embarrassing, and yelling at students. In February 2005, at the request of the Bonita Springs Middle School principal, Respondent attended an in-service training on Anger Management and De-Escalation Training. Despite that training, between 2005 and 2009, Respondent received six letters of reprimand from three different principals and two different directors of the School District’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity (DPSE). The letters of reprimand were for incidents described as: pushing a student (letter of reprimand, March 2, 2005); inappropriate physical contact--putting his hands in the pants of a female student (letter of reprimand, September 27, 2005); shoving two students out of the classroom (letter of reprimand, March 2, 2006); shouting at students in the hallway in a very harsh and loud tone (letter of reprimand, September 22, 2006); exposing students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement (letter of reprimand, August 6, 2009); and kicking three students out of class, and yelling at the remaining students in the classroom, “You all are a bunch of idiots” (letter of reprimand, October 26, 2009). On December 8, 2009, Respondent was involved in another incident with a student, E.C., who was a seventh-grade female. Respondent had sent E.C. to a neighboring classroom, connected to his classroom by a vacant office. When E.C. tried to return to Respondent’s classroom through the vacant office to retrieve her things, Respondent stopped her and told her to return to the other classroom. E.C. was determined to get her things and disobeyed Respondent. When she tried to go around him to go back into his classroom, Respondent put his hand on her shoulder in an attempt to stop her. E.C. told him: “Don’t touch me.” She retrieved her things from Respondent’s classroom and then returned to the other classroom where Respondent had sent her. At that point, Respondent called the office for assistance. The District’s DPSE immediately began an investigation. Respondent was suspended from teaching with pay and benefits as of December 9, 2009, pending completion of the investigation. Following the investigation and a predetermination conference, the School District’s superintendent filed a Petition for Termination, alleging that Respondent was guilty of misconduct and other violations in connection with the incident on December 8, 2009. Respondent, represented by counsel, requested an administrative hearing to contest the proposed termination. Beginning March 9, 2010, the terms of Respondent’s suspension were changed to without pay pending resolution of the administrative proceeding. A DOAH evidentiary hearing was held on July 14, 2010. The resulting Recommended Order found Respondent guilty of misconduct and some of the other charged violations. The recommended penalty was suspension without pay from March 9, 2010, through January 1, 2011. The Recommended Order’s findings of facts, conclusions of law, and recommended penalty were adopted in a Lee County School Board Final Order rendered November 2, 2010. Lee County School Board v. Joseph Cofield, Case No. 10-1654 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 24, 2010; Lee Cnty. Sch. Bd. Nov. 2, 2010) (2010 Suspension Order). Detailed findings of fact were made in the 2010 Suspension Order regarding the history of disciplinary action taken against Respondent from 2005 through 2009, which went uncontested by Respondent through the grievance process available to dispute disciplinary action. See 2010 Suspension Order, RO at 3-7. The findings also describe the repeated warnings given to Respondent in the numerous letters of reprimand, which went unheeded; Respondent continued to engage in the same types of inappropriate behavior, despite the discipline and the warnings. Findings were also made in the 2010 Suspension Order regarding Respondent’s positive contributions as a teacher during the same time span as his patterned inappropriate behavior. These included: being honored in 2005 as Wal-Mart Teacher of the Year; being honored by Florida Gulf Coast University as College Reachout Program Coordinator of the Year; participating in a conference in January 2009 to discuss the Troops to Teachers Program; coordinating a computer give-away program in conjunction with a community organization that presented computers to Bonita Spring Middle School; and achieving success in Cadet and College Reachout Programs. See 2010 Suspension Order, RO at 11-12. The 2010 Suspension Order concluded as follows: The School Board did establish that Mr. Cofield placed his hand on a student’s shoulder without the permission of the student. Mr. Cofield has been warned and disciplined in the past for placing his hands on students without the student’s permission. Mr. Cofield chose not to heed those warnings. Mr. Cofield argues that placing his hand on E.C. was reasonable force needed to control his classroom. This argument is without merit. Mr. Cofield did not need to put his hand on E.C.; he could call the office for assistance. The School Board has established that Mr. Cofield’s conduct constitutes misconduct[.] * * * Mr. Cofield has performed outstanding work with the various programs designed to assist students, such as the computer give-away program, the Cadet program, and the College Reachout Program. This work mitigates against termination. However, placing a hand on a student without justification warrants a serious disciplinary action. 2010 Suspension Order, RO at 14-15. Respondent did not appeal the 2010 Suspension Order. Its findings, officially recognized herein, establish the backdrop of Respondent’s significant track record of discipline, and of the repeated warnings given in connection with disciplinary measures, from 2005 through 2009. No contrary evidence was offered. In October 2010, just before the School Board rendered the 2010 Suspension Order, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent (2010 Complaint), seeking to take disciplinary action against Respondent’s educator’s certificate. The 2010 Complaint set forth Respondent’s “history of discipline related to conduct with students,” listing in summary fashion much of the same disciplinary history detailed in the 2010 Suspension Order. Respondent’s disciplinary history set forth in the 2010 Complaint was as follows: On or about March 2, 2005, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal related to pushing [a] student. On or about September 27, 2005, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal resulting from allegations that Respondent put [his] hand into [a] student’s front pocket. On or about September 25, 2006, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal for yelling at Cadets in a loud and harsh manner. On or about October 9, 2009, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal for, among other things, Respondent’s confrontational behavior towards [the] principal. On or about October 28, 2009, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal relating to conduct with students. On or about December 9, 2009, Respondent received a Letter of Suspension from [the] principal related to allegations of [a] physical assault on a student. 2010 Complaint at 1-2 (Pet. Exh. 1). The 2010 Complaint added allegations of other incidents of inappropriate conduct by Respondent during the 2008-2009 school year, including the following: Respondent called students embarrassing names such as “knucklehead” and “fruitcake.” Respondent looked at female students in a manner that made the students feel uncomfortable and self conscious. Respondent threatened students telling them, “I will cut your fingers off,” or “I’ll smash your head into a wall,” or words to that effect. 2010 Complaint at 2 (Pet. Exh. 1). Respondent, represented by counsel, entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the charges in the 2010 Complaint, rather than contest them in an administrative hearing. Respondent signed the agreement on April 28, 2011. Pertinent terms of the settlement agreement were: Respondent neither admits nor denies, but elects not to contest the allegations set forth in Petitioner’s Administrative Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. Respondent agrees to accept a letter of reprimand, a copy of which shall be placed in his certificate file with the Department of Education and a copy of which shall be placed in his personnel file with the employing school district. Respondent agrees that he shall be placed on probation for a period of two (2) employment years. . . . As conditions of probation, Respondent: * * * shall, within the first year of probation, take a 3-credit hour college level course in the area of Classroom Management. . . . shall violate no law and fully comply with all district school board regulations, school rules, and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006 [transferred to rule 10A-1.081 in January 2013; see endnote 2]; and shall satisfactorily perform his duties in a competent, professional manner. * * * In the event Respondent fails to comply with each condition set forth herein, he agrees that the Petitioner shall be authorized to file an Administrative Complaint based upon the violation of the terms of this Settlement Agreement. Settlement Agreement at 1-2 (Pet. Exh. 1). By Final Order rendered on August 9, 2011, attaching and incorporating the 2010 Complaint and settlement agreement, the EPC accepted the settlement agreement and ordered Respondent to comply with its terms. Respondent did not appeal. Respondent was on probation, and subject to the specific probation conditions imposed by the EPC Final Order, for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years. Meanwhile, Respondent completed the term of his suspension from teaching without pay imposed by the School Board’s 2010 Suspension Order on January 1, 2011; he was allowed to return to work on January 3, 2011. Respondent was not asked to return to teach at his former school, Bonita Springs Middle School. Instead, he was offered a teaching position at the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). The ALC principal, Ken Burns, was told to make a spot for Respondent to teach there, and he did. Respondent accepted the teaching position at ALC. He taught eighth grade social studies. ALC is an alternative school. Students are sent to ALC because they are having problems at other schools. Principal Burns describes the ALC students as kids who made bad decisions, but who are not bad kids. These students can present challenges for teachers and administrators. In classrooms, sometimes these students do not act properly. They can be disruptive. The teachers are responsible for managing their classrooms properly, in accordance with standards set by Florida law and regulations, and School District policies. Principal Burns described some of the methods used at ALC to deal with problems in the classroom. One tool in place is called Team Time Out. Specific teachers are scheduled to be in charge of Team Time Out for a period of time. If a student is getting unruly in a classroom, the teacher can send the student to the designated teacher in charge of Team Time Out. The student is allowed to cool down before returning to class. Another tool used is a regular Time-Out Room. If a student is disrupting a class, the teacher might send the student to the Time-Out Room, where the student can work on assignments. Regardless of the student problem being confronted, each teacher is expected to abide by the code of conduct established for the education profession. Rather than violate those conduct standards, if the teacher cannot otherwise handle a student problem, the teacher is expected to call administration or security for assistance. On November 30, 2012, while on his EPC-imposed probation, Respondent received a letter of warning, which is a form of disciplinary action, from the ALC principal. As described in the warning letter, a student reported that Respondent pushed the student out the door during a fire drill, and that the push nearly caused the student to fall. The incident described in the letter of warning is similar to the long list of prior incidents for which Respondent was disciplined and about which Respondent was repeatedly warned, including the incident for which Respondent had recently served a suspension without pay for nearly ten months. The November 30, 2012, letter of warning ended with a yet another reminder “to assist in correcting this conduct,” providing as follows: “From this point forward, please remember at no point should a student be physically touched. If you are having an issue with a student please notify the administration or security for immediate assistance.” Very shortly after that incident, the ALC principal received other complaints about Respondent’s behavior with students and his classroom temperament. The complaints came not just from students, but also from a paraprofessional (teacher’s aide) who was concerned about Respondent’s behavior that she had observed when she was in his classroom. The ALC principal consulted with the School District’s DPSE, collected statements from the paraprofessional and students, and passed on the information to the DPSE. By letter dated January 11, 2013, Respondent was informed that the DPSE was conducting an investigation into allegations of misconduct. Because the allegations involved issues of student safety, the notification letter informed Respondent that he was suspended from teaching with pay during the investigation. Andrew Brown, then-investigator for the DPSE, conducted the investigation of alleged incidents involving Respondent in December 2012 and January 2013, and prepared an investigative report. The complaints that were investigated were summarized in the report as follows: On or about December 20, 2012 (just before Winter Break), Mr. Cofield allegedly slammed a student’s fingers between the student’s desk and a binder the student was holding. In a separate incident [on] December 19, 2012, Mr. Cofield allegedly threatened a student by grabbing and holding a keyboard in a threatening manner. He allegedly slammed a door behind the same student as the student was leaving the room, making contact with the student’s arm. In a third incident [on] 1/8/12 [sic: 2013], Mr. Cofield allegedly embarrassed students by asking each one to sit separately on a stool at the front of the room and answer the question, “Do you have a teacher’s license?” before sending the same students out of the class. The investigative report noted that Respondent was “on probation” with the EPC “for similar allegations and conduct.” A predetermination conference was held on January 30, 2013, to allow Respondent to respond to the investigation findings and add any information he would want considered. Respondent was represented by union counsel at that conference. By letter dated February 5, 2013, Respondent was informed that the School District found probable cause for disciplinary action based on the allegations of misconduct investigated, and would be recommending termination of his employment.7/ As was done in 2009, the terms of Respondent’s suspension were changed to without pay, as of February 6, 2013. Before the School District could proceed with a Petition for Termination, Respondent submitted a letter of resignation on March 12, 2013. Respondent has disputed Petitioner’s contention that the resignation was in lieu of termination. When Respondent was deposed, he testified that he wrote his resignation letter to explain that this was a stressful situation for him. However, the letter makes no mention of a stressful situation. It simply reports that Respondent was taking the time for pursuit of higher education, to complete a master of arts degree and then seek a doctorate degree, and that Respondent had concluded: “I feel that it is time to resign in my career as a classroom teacher. I will peruse other opportunities that will be open to me as a result of obtaining my new graduate education.” Respondent testified that he did not think he had already been suspended from teaching when he resigned, and he thought he was still being paid. Contrary to Respondent’s recollection, he had not been teaching for nearly two months, having been suspended on January 14, 2013. He resigned six weeks after being confronted with the details of the DPSE’s investigation in a predetermination conference, and five weeks after he received a letter informing him that probable cause had been found and the recommendation would be made to terminate his employment. He had not been paid for five weeks when he submitted his letter of resignation. A fair inference from the timing is that he chose to resign when he did to avoid being terminated from employment and/or having to contest the charges in another administrative hearing. Pursuant to section 1012.796(1)(d), Florida Statutes, even though Respondent had resigned, the School District was required to report the alleged misconduct to the Department of Education, which then conducted its own investigation. Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent on March 9, 2015, and an Amended Administrative Complaint on December 3, 2015. The specific incidents alleged in both versions of the complaint, are as follows: On or about December 19, 2012, Respondent grabbed a keyboard from a computer being used by R.T., a fourteen year old, male student. Respondent held the keyboard over the head while glaring at R.T. and in a manner that made the student believe Respondent was about to hit him with the keyboard. On or about December 20, 2012, Respondent became angered when C.G., a thirteen year old, male student, tapped on his binder repeatedly. Respondent slammed C.G.’s binder with force, bringing the binder down on C.G.’s fingers causing pain to C.G. Respondent then threw C.G.’s binder in the trash. On or about January 7, 2013, Respondent called students in his class to the front of the room and individually asked them, in front of the class, if they had a license to teach. Respondent disputed the first allegation of a keyboard incident; Respondent admitted parts of the second allegation of a binder incident, while denying part of the allegation; and Respondent admitted the third allegation. No non-hearsay evidence was presented to prove the allegations regarding a computer keyboard incident on December 19, 2012. The student, R.T., did not testify; no other students or other eyewitnesses testified; and Respondent denied the allegations. R.T. provided a written statement about the incident, which is in evidence, but that statement is hearsay and cannot be used as the sole basis for a finding of fact. Petitioner did not argue that R.T.’s statement would be admissible over objection in a civil action, and the statement does not supplement or explain any non-hearsay evidence. Respondent admitted parts of the allegations regarding a binder incident on December 20, 2012. Respondent acknowledged that a student in his classroom, C.G., was tapping on, flipping, or otherwise playing with a notebook or binder when the class was supposed to be taking a test. Respondent admitted that he took the binder out of the student’s hands, and threw the binder across the room into the garbage can. As he testified: A: If there is a kid sitting in my classroom after I’ve given instructions of what to do and they still banging on a desk, yes, I have the right to go remove this noise away from these students that are trying to get ahead. If there is something wrong with that I don’t need to be in a classroom. Q: And throw this in the trash can? A: Sir, when I took -- as my statement says, I took the binder away from the child and I threw it across the classroom. If it went in the garbage can, sir, it went in the garbage can. I don’t -- I didn’t pay attention to where it went at. I stopped the negative behavior going on in my classroom. Q: So now your testimony is you took it and threw it across the classroom? A: Sir, I took the instrument away from the student and it went in the garbage can. Q: . . . [T]ell us what you told them at your predetermination conference. Didn’t you say you put it in the garbage? A: No, I put the binder in the garbage, that’s what it states. But we clearly know that that’s not . . . [t]here’s nothing false about that. What it means is the binder left the student’s desk and wound up in the garbage can. Q: It didn’t wind up there, you put it there, right? A: Yes sir, I put it there. (Tr. 131-132). In his deposition testimony, Respondent more clearly acknowledged that he intended to throw the student’s binder in the garbage can; he did not equivocate as he did at hearing: Q: Then you didn’t walk over to the trash can and, in a Frisbee-type manner, throw the binder into the trash can? A: Oh, I most definitely put it in the garbage can, sir. Q: You did? A: Yes sir, I did. Q: All right. Why did you do that? A: Because the student was disrupting – or, I mean, was interrupting a test environment. Q: Okay. A: and that – and that instrument was the thing that was causing all of that disturbment [sic]. (Pet. Exh. 11 at 39-40). The facts regarding this binder incident that were admitted by Respondent were supplemented and explained by a number of written witness statements by students who were present, including C.G. These statements confirm that Respondent got angry because of C.G.’s toying with his binder, and that Respondent snatched the binder out of C.G.’s hands, and then either went across the room and then tossed it Frisbee-style into the garbage can or tossed the binder Frisbee-style across the room where it landed in the garbage can. While Respondent may have had good reason to stop C.G. from disrupting the classroom, the manner in which he went about it was inappropriate and contrary to the repeated warnings he had been given over the prior seven years by no less than four different principals (including, most recently, the ALC principal) to avoid any physical contact with students. See 2010 Suspension Order (detailing past disciplinary warnings and identifying principals issuing them). Respondent did not admit to having smashed the binder down on C.G.’s hand before snatching it away from C.G., and there was no independent non-hearsay evidence to prove that aspect of the allegation. Nonetheless, Respondent’s admissions establish that he took C.G.’s binder away while C.G. was tapping on it, flipping the cover, or otherwise playing with it, as the means Respondent chose to stop C.G. from playing with his binder. The only reasonable inference is that Respondent forcibly removed the binder while at least one of C.G.’s hands was on, in, or under the binder--an inappropriate physical contact. Respondent’s explanation that he did this because the binder was the instrument being used to cause disruption is insufficient to justify the inappropriate physical contact that had to occur to remove the binder from C.G. while he was playing with it. Respondent’s additional acts of tossing C.G.’s binder like it was a Frisbee and throwing the binder in the garbage can were inappropriate responses that went well beyond the claimed objective of stopping the disturbance. These actions can only be explained as displays of anger, presumably because C.G. did not listen to Respondent’s instructions to stop playing with the binder. If Respondent were genuinely concerned only with stopping the disruptive behavior, he would not have reacted by causing an even greater disturbance by tossing the binder like a Frisbee into the garbage can. Instead, he would have, and should have, dealt appropriately with C.G. Moreover, it was irresponsible for Respondent to throw the binder in the garbage can, after he had wrested the binder away from C.G. The binder could have contained important schoolwork for Respondent’s class or another class. Despite being on probation for a string of similar incidents, despite having been suspended from teaching for nearly ten months for a similar incident, and despite having just received a letter of warning three weeks earlier, Respondent failed to heed the repeated warnings that if he had an issue with a student, he should contact security or administration for immediate assistance rather than inappropriately attempting to “control” the situation by making contact with the student. The evidence was clear and convincing that in this binder incident, Respondent did not act with the calm, professional demeanor expected of a teacher who is able to deal appropriately with a student disrupting the classroom by playing with a binder. Instead, Respondent acted inappropriately with a temper that made an all-too-regular appearance in the classroom. The ALC principal described Respondent as having a temper that would turn on and off like a switch. His testimony was credible and is credited. Ms. Lewis, the paraprofessional who spent time working in Respondent’s classroom during the 2012-2013 school year, observed the same thing: Respondent had a temper that greatly affected his classroom conduct. Set off by minor incidents of students talking or not listening, Respondent would get angry, yell at the students, use profanity (not the “f” word, but somewhat milder words),8/ and act in volatile ways, such as tossing text books so that they would slide on a table and stop just before they hit students. Respondent’s unpredictable outbursts caused concern for the students’ safety; sometimes when Respondent got angry, he would clench and shake his fists, trembling as if he was about to strike out. Respondent’s classroom temperament was unlike anything the paraprofessional observed from any other teacher in the other ALC classrooms where she also worked. While Respondent’s temper and classroom temperament, as described by the ALC principal and paraprofessional, were not set forth as the subjects of separate charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint, they tend to support the findings above that Respondent’s admitted conduct on December 20, 2012, was inappropriate, just as they undermine Respondent’s claimed justification. Respondent’s temper and lack of control also were on display on several occasions during the course of the hearing, adding even more credence to the findings. He raised his voice and got agitated while giving his sworn statement. He also accused the undersigned of having “belittled” him, without explanation as to why he said that. (Tr. 105). Respondent also admitted the third allegation describing his classroom conduct on January 7, 2013: Q: Did you do that on January -- on or about January 7, 2013, did you bring students up to the front of the class and ask them, “Do you have a license to teach?” A: I most – yes I did, sir. Q: All right. Good. So that, you admit? A: I clearly admit that, yes. Q: All right, good. A: And I –- and I will challenge anybody that -- that's in my classroom that’s trying to disrupt the class that don’t have a teaching license. (Pet. Exh. 11, p. 46). Respondent acknowledged to having engaged in that conduct on other occasions--indeed, as a matter of course: “I can guarantee you that I have asked all of my students over many periods of time do they have a license, because I’m the only person in that classroom with a teacher’s license.” (Pet. Exh. 11, p. 45). The paraprofessional working in Respondent’s classroom was an eyewitness to this conduct, which she described as very demeaning and embarrassing for the students. Respondent’s admissions and the paraprofessional’s eyewitness observations are corroborated by numerous written statements by students subjected to this conduct. Respondent sought to justify his conduct as legitimate teaching strategy. As he tried to explain it: It’s effective classroom management. If you have a bunch of students that do not have the ability to stop stopping their behavior, you have to ask them before you take them away from the classroom do they know what they’re doing. If the answer is yes, I know what I’m doing, then you need to send them out. If the person says no, I have no idea what I’m doing you need to work with that student until that student understands what is wrong with that behavior that you want to correct. (Tr. 129-130). Respondent’s explanation for his conduct does not square with his actual conduct. He is not being accused of asking unruly students whether they know what they are doing and then working with those students to correct their misbehavior. Instead, he is accused of demeaning these young teenaged students by isolating them one at a time at the front of the room, and requiring them to face their peers and announce that they are not licensed to teach, so that Respondent can remind them that he is superior. This has nothing to do with addressing unruly or disruptive behavior, questioning that behavior, or attempting to correct that behavior. Instead, Respondent dealt with disruptive students by belittling them, embarrassing them, and reminding them that he is better than them. As the ALC principal confirmed, there is no reasonable explanation for Respondent’s conduct as any form of legitimate teaching strategy. Instead, this is inappropriate conduct for a teacher. Respondent offered little by way of specific evidence in his defense. Instead, at times he claimed to not recall anything about his disciplinary track record, or about the incidents alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint.9/ He repeatedly challenged Petitioner to produce video evidence of the incidents, but never proved that any video evidence existed. If there had been video evidence, it would have been in the possession of the School District, but no video is identified in the investigative report as would be expected if it existed. Respondent could have taken steps to compel the production of any such evidence by the School District, but he did not. Respondent’s other defense was to attempt to challenge the credibility of Petitioner’s witnesses. These efforts were ineffective. Respondent made general sweeping statements that he was “shocked” by the testimony of Petitioner’s witnesses, which he repeatedly characterized as filled with lies, without proof of that characterization. Other than those broad generalizations, no specifics came to light as to why the testimony of Petitioner’s witnesses should not be believed. Respondent argued in his opening statement that the ALC principal “has seemed to have an axe to grind and has been on the greatest witch hunt to railroad a great educator.” (Tr. 17). That charge was wholly unsubstantiated. Instead, the ALC principal recognized the same pattern of behavior evident since 2005 when Respondent was first required to take anger management training by a former Bonita Springs Middle School principal. Respondent proclaimed himself a great leader while offering his view that with one exception, none of the principals he worked for in Lee County were good leaders. It is worth noting that according to the 2010 Suspension Order, the “one great principal” Respondent identified (Tr. 113) was the principal who had Respondent undergo anger management training in early 2005, and who issued Respondent’s first letter of reprimand for pushing a student. To the extent Respondent attempted to blame his disciplinary history and the allegations he is now facing on his principals, rather than excusing or explaining the conduct for which he was disciplined and for which he is subject to discipline in this proceeding, the impression given is that Respondent has had difficulty accepting the subordinate role of teacher vis-à-vis principal. Indeed, Respondent admitted that he “did tell the principal the one that write down these false things against me, I could do your job just as well as you can do it. And maybe that offend some people. . . .” (Tr. 115). Respondent also attempted to discount the significance of the EPC Final Order by alluding to various medical problems he was experiencing that caused him to enter into a settlement agreement, even though he claimed the charges were not true. Respondent offered no evidence to substantiate his claims, but stated generally that he “had just got over having a kidney removed” and that he “had prostate cancer.” He also said that he had taken his wife’s money to fight the allegations, and agreed to the settlement so he could get back to work. (Tr. 111). Notwithstanding Respondent’s testimony, the EPC Final Order cannot be collaterally attacked in this proceeding. Respondent accepted the terms of that Final Order, and knew full well that he was required to comply with the probation conditions or face more discipline for violating the terms of his probation. Respondent also claimed that he was set up for failure by being assigned to ALC, which was more than one hour away from his home instead of the ten-minute commute he enjoyed when teaching at the school where he earned a lengthy suspension, after a string of six letters of reprimand. Respondent did not contest the assignment, but accepted the teaching position at ALC. Respondent’s school assignment may have been a matter he could have raised in a grievance proceeding, but it is not a matter that explains his inappropriate conduct while teaching there, especially knowing he was on probation. Finally, in a seeming admission that his temper was erratic and his behavior volatile while he was teaching at ALC, Respondent testified that he was undergoing radiation treatment for prostate cancer, and that anybody undergoing that treatment “would have such mood swings some times.” Yet in the next breath, he said: “But it never affected my effectiveness in my classroom.” (Tr. 112). In his predetermination conference in which Respondent was informed of the investigation findings and allowed to respond to the allegations of misconduct, Respondent did not mention that he had been undergoing treatment that may have affected his behavior or his classroom conduct. If this was a legitimate reason that might explain or excuse, even in part, Respondent’s conduct in December 2012 and January 2013 that was the subject of the School District’s investigation, surely Respondent would have shared information about his treatment and how it might have affected him in a conference to determine if there was probable cause to proceed to terminate his employment. Without more to substantiate the relevance of any medical conditions, treatment, or other external factors alluded to by Respondent, including specifics as to the timing of such matters, they cannot excuse or explain Respondent’s improper conduct as found above. As in the administrative hearing that resulted in the 2010 Suspension Order, Respondent offered evidence of his positive contributions as a teacher, as mitigating evidence to consider in imposing discipline. However, most of Respondent’s evidence is old, pre-dating Respondent’s suspension, and in fact, duplicating the evidence of Respondent’s contributions, honors, and achievements considered and addressed in the 2010 Suspension Order. Respondent’s contributions and achievements in 2009 and earlier years were expressly credited as mitigating against a harsher result in the 2010 Suspension Order for his misconduct committed during the same timeframe as the contributions. Having already enjoyed the mitigating benefit of his pre-2010 achievements, honors, and contributions to lessen the consequences of his pre-2010 misconduct, Respondent’s older achievements are not considered again in this proceeding in mitigation of the appropriate penalty for Respondent’s post- suspension improper conduct. Respondent presented evidence that after he returned to teaching when his suspension was completed, he continued his participation in the computer give-away program, working with a community computer club sponsoring free laptop computers for selected students who wrote an essay explaining how they would benefit from a laptop. Respondent provided one such essay submitted by an ALC student. Respondent’s continued involvement in the computer give-away program while at ALC was a positive contribution for at least one ALC student who participated. The other post-suspension evidence offered by Respondent shows that he is bettering himself by pursuing higher education, obtaining an additional degree and a certificate, as he stated he would do in his March 2013 resignation letter when he stopped teaching. These are positive contributions by Respondent, but cannot be considered contributions by Respondent as an educator to mitigate the penalty imposed for Respondent’s improper conduct as an educator. Respondent has not worked as a teacher since he submitted his resignation letter to the School District in March 2013, but he has been pursuing the higher education described in that letter. It is unclear whether Respondent would otherwise be seeking work as a classroom teacher pursuant to his educator’s certificate. Petitioner’s witness for the School District testified that he could not imagine that the School District would consider hiring Respondent back to teach there. The ALC principal echoed that sentiment. The principal would be concerned because it is his job to make sure the school is safe for all students. He would not want Respondent back in a teaching role at his school because of his track record.
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 guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(j) and (1)(l), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 10A-1.081(3)(a), (3)(e), and (5)(p); Finding Respondent not guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(g); and Revoking Respondent’s educator’s certificate no. 777352 for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 1st day of August, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent is a teacher certified in English, which he has taught while employed by Petitioner. He was first employed by Petitioner during the 1984-85 school year. In 1987, he was awarded a professional service contract. He has six years' teaching experience outside Highlands County. Principals or assistant principals routinely conduct annual teacher evaluations. The evaluation form contains two sections. Section 1 contains 14 categories that are marked based on one or more classroom observations. Section 2 contains 15 categories that are marked based on classroom observations and experience with the teacher. The back of the evaluation form explains the marks as follows: Mark Description Commendable (C) Indicates exceptional performance of the identified behavior(s). Satisfactory (S) Indicates satisfactory performance of the identified behavior(s) Needs Improvement (NI) Indicates a need for the employee to strengthen/improve performance of the identified behavior(s). Must Improve (MI) Indicates a need for the employee to remediate deficient behavior(s). If the deficiency is not corrected, the employee's contract status could be affected. The back of the evaluation form explains the "NEAT Procedure/Due Process": When an employee is evaluated as Must Improve, remediation procedures must be implemented as follows: Notice--The employee has the right to receive full written notification of the identified deficient behaviors. Explanation--The employee has the right to receive a full explanation for the reason behaviors are considered deficient. Assistance--The employee has the right to receive assistance in remediating the deficient behavior. Time--The employee has the right to a reasonable amount of time to achieve remediation. Various documents exist to normalize the evaluations of teachers. However, a degree of subjectivity necessarily remains in the evaluation process. Petitioner has prepared a booklet entitled, "Performance Appraisal System for Instructional Personnel" (Appraisal Booklet). The Appraisal Booklet introduced into evidence is dated October 5, 1992, but, judging from the cover letter from the superintendent, was in effect for the entire 1992-93 school year. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 12, a section describing the assessment process. The booklet states in part: When a competency or behavior is marked "NI-Needs Improvement," the appraiser shall provide counseling and/or resources whereby improvement may occur. For each competency or behavior which is marked "MI--Must Improve," a remediation procedure must be designed and implemented. The procedures will be described in a Professional Development Plan, as called for in the NEAT procedures. Each deficient item shall be addressed in a separate [Professional Development Plan]. The plan shall include the following: Area to be improved: specify the identified problem. Specific desired improvement: write as a measurable goal or objective. Action to be taken: describe action the involved parties will complete to achieve desired improvement. Assistance plan: List and describe who will provide assistance, showing role of each participant. Time line: specify dates for each activity to be completed and evaluated. Evaluation: describe how and when evaluation of progress or success will occur. Consequences: specify consequences if improvement is not achieved satisfactorily. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 15, a section entitled, "Use of Assessment Data for Personnel Decisions." This section requires written comments for every C, NI, or MI. Under a subsection entitled, "Unsatisfactory Ratings," the Appraisal Booklet states in its entirety: For every MI assigned, the assessor will conduct a follow-up of the Professional Development Plan to determine if the appraisee accomplished the required improvement and/or when that competency will be reassessed. Failure to improve within the expected time may be grounds for returning to annual contract for an employee holding a Professional Service Contract or a Continuing Contract. If the deficiency is not corrected during the second year, it may be grounds for non-renewal. (See NEAT) If the appraisee receives two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, the superintendent shall notify the Department of Education as required by statute. On [the evaluation form] three or more ratings of MI . . . will constitute an "unsatisfactory annual evaluation" for purposes of reporting to the DOE. The Appraisal Booklet discusses C's. Nothing in this section of the booklet explicitly addresses NI's except, as noted above, that comments must accompany each NI. The contract between Petitioner and the teachers discusses evaluations, but not in such detail as to address the meaning of NI's and MI's. Concerning remediation, the contract states: Where deficiencies are brought to the teacher's attention by his/her supervisor, the teacher shall be responsible for taking the necessary steps for improving his/her skills to an acceptable level as determined by the principal. Assistance shall be offered the employee and such assistance for improvement shall be noted in writing and a signed copy be retained by the appropriate supervisor and the employee. Following remediation, reassessment shall be accorded the employee in compliance with the procedures of Article XI. If the final assessment report fails to note specific deficiency, it shall be interpreted to mean adequate improvement has taken place. The professional judgment of the evaluator shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. The contract acknowledges that it shall not be interpreted to abridge or in any way usurp the authority or power of [Petitioner] as established by constitutional provisions or state Board of Education regulations or statutes existing at the time of the [contract]. And further, [Petitioner] shall be relieved of compliance with any term or condition of this [contract] if such compliance is contrary to any constitutional provision or state Board of Education regulation or statute in effect or enacted subsequent to the signing of this [contract]. Petitioner has no clear written or unwritten policy regarding whether a performance deficiency evidenced by an MI is corrected by an NI, rather than a C or an S. The determination whether a teacher has corrected performance deficiencies depends on the circumstances. The Lake Placid Teacher Handbook for the 1992-93 school year, a copy of which was given to Respondent at the beginning of the year, notes that teachers are to administer their assertive discipline plan and enforce all school rules. Regarding student control, "teachers must not argue with students, use profanity or sarcasm, and must keep hands off students." Petitioner's Code of Student Conduct for the 1992-93 school year describes the teacher's role in the maintenance of discipline as starting with the preparation of a classroom assertive discipline plan, which outlines a series of increasing consequences for disciplinary problems. Under the first step, the teacher will follow his or her plan, which may contain consequences such as withholding a privilege, isolation, counseling, detention, extra work, task assignment, or a parent conference. Under the second step, if the misconduct is repeated, the teacher shall try to contact the parent and record the result. Under the third step, the teacher will refer the matter to the social worker, school nurse, Guidance Committee, or School Attendance Review Committee for positive intervention. Under the fourth step, if the problem persists or the misconduct becomes a major disruption, the teacher will complete a student disciplinary referral form and a school administrator will determine the appropriate punishment. Evaluations Prior to 1991-92 School Year Respondent's evaluation dated November 13, 1985, contains all S's with the exception of an NI for circulating and assisting students. The evaluation was prepared by Donn Goodwin, an assistant principal at Sebring High School where Respondent was then teaching. Respondent's evaluation dated March 5, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating friendly, positive attitude toward all students; maintaining academic focus; using effective questioning techniques; providing for practice; dependability; and punctuality/attendance. The evaluation contains one NI for parent/community relations. The comment accompanying the NI is obscured, but suggests that Respondent did not schedule enough parent conferences, although he did a good job with those that he conducted. The evaluation was prepared by James Bible, the principal of Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated September 4, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, presenting subject matter effectively, maintaining academic focus, arranging physical features of the classroom for a safe learning environment, dependability, work attitude, and commitment. A note at the bottom of the evaluation states that Respondent maintained an "excellent class." The evaluation was prepared by Michael Agner, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 25, 1987, contains all S's except for C's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control and an NI in using specific academic praise. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated April 6, 1988, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, having materials ready, maintaining academic focus, using effective questioning techniques, punctuality/attendance, quantity/quality of work, commitment, and professional behavior/ethics. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated February 28, 1989, contains all S's. A comment under parent/community relations notes: "Need to continue working in this area. Parental support helps your teaching." A comment under student/staff relations adds: "Need to be mindful of backing students in corners with no alternatives." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated October 17, 1989, was obscured in the copying process. It appears to contain all S's with some C's in Section 1. The evaluation was prepared by Thomas Knowles, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated October 3, 1990, contains all S's. The evaluation was prepared by Ruth Hatfield, then an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 20, 1991, contains all S's except for C's in having materials ready and circulating and assisting students and NI's in punctuality/attendance, student/staff relations, personal appearance, and receptiveness. Among the comments under Section 1 is that the observer did not see Respondent's assertive discipline rules posted. Section 2 comments are that Respondent was often late and "very defensive--refuses criticism." Under student/staff relations, the comment is: "Alienates students. Backs up kids in corners. Need to be aware of this." Another comment suggests a need to dress more professionally. The final comment states: "Need to work on areas that deal with students and parents." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. A letter dated May 13, 1991, memorializes a conference that took place on May 9, 1991, between Respondent and Rebecca Clark, another assistant principal at Sebring High School. The letter states that Ms. Clark had noticed Respondent leaving his class while two guest speakers were making a presentation. Upon questioning, Respondent said that he had to run a quick errand and would be right back. Ms. Clark remained in the classroom until the end of the period, at which time Respondent returned. The letter warns Respondent that he must remain with his class and may not leave campus without prior authorization from an administrator. Evaluations During 1991-92 School Year A new principal, Calvin Smith, replaced Mr. Bible at Sebring High School for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Smith conducted Respondent's next evaluation, which was dated December 2, 1991. Based on an observation taking place during a 50- minute period on November 26, 1991, Respondent received all S's in Section 1 except for a C in presenting the subject matter effectively and an NI in using specific academic praise. In Section 2, Respondent received S's in only five categories: keeping accurate records, punctuality and attendance, initiative, student evaluation, and professional growth. Receiving no C's in Section 2, Respondent received three NI's in personal appearance, receptiveness, and commitment and seven MI's in dependability, work attitude, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, quantity/quality of work, planning, and professional behavior/ethics. The comments for the NI's are brief and in handwriting. Under receptiveness, the comment is: "seem[s] to be afraid of dealing with a problem. I am only trying to make you a better teacher." The comment under commitment states: "dedicate yourself to your job. You have too much talent to waste." Each MI is treated in a separate Professional Development Plan. The Professional Development Plans, which are attached to the December 2 evaluation, consist of several parts: "area to be improved," "desired improvement," "action to be taken," "who will provide assistance," "time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement," "evaluation process to determine improvement," and "consequences if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "When dealing with parents you must exhibit an air of professionalism but be understanding." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over with the situation." Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Should show he is able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Submit lesson plans on time. Supply I[n] S[chool] S[uspension] students with work when requested. Meet with parents without being directed to do so. Learn to deal with students as an adult rather than getting into shouting matches, etc." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Show you understand students by working with them in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Don't get in students['] faces and yell at them. Don't allow things to go on and then establish a rule of the next one goes to the office. Learn to deal with student problems rather than expecting the office to handle the problem." Under work attitude, the desired improvement is: "Show that you like what you do. Turn students on to your subject. Work on faculty relations." The action to be taken is: "Be cooperative in dealing with parents, students, and faculty members. Present an atmosphere of enthusiasm that is contagious and infectious to those around you." Each Professional Development Plan states that assistance or training would be provided if requested by Respondent. For student/staff relations, the plan states: "Inservice will be provided by administrators as requested and a workshop may be recommended." Similar language is contained in the plan for work attitude. Under time line for achieving objectives/goal, improvement, each Professional Development Plan states: "Should show some immediate improvement but enough improvement must be shown prior to evaluation in 92/93 school year to remove the MI." Each Professional Development Plan describes the evaluation process to determine improvement as: "List kept of ineffective behaviors. [Respondent] will be given a copy of each item placed in folder." Each Professional Development Plan warns that, "if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved," there will be a "recommendation to place [Respondent] back on annual contract." By letter dated December 16, 1991, Mr. Smith refers to the evaluation and the evaluation conference that took place on December 5, 1991. The letter notes that one of the Professional Development Plans required Respondent to supply in-school suspension students with work when requested. The letter acknowledges that Respondent had said at the conference that he would take care of all of the MI's. The December 16 letter notes that Respondent had already failed to provide make-up work for five named students who had been sent to in-school suspension. Students punished by in-school suspension are prohibited from attending their classes, but are sent to another part of the school. It is important for their teachers to provide their assignments, so the students can study the same materials that the teacher is presenting to their classes. The December 16 letter concludes: "Repeated cases of this problem will lead to my recommendation to the superintendent that you be suspended without pay for five (5) days for gross insubordination." Respondent received a second evaluation from Mr. Smith during the 1991-92 school year. Dated March 3, 1992, the second evaluation is slightly worse than the first. Section 1 contains the same C for the presentation of the subject matter and NI for using specific academic praise. A new NI appears in Section 1 for demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, and a new MI appears for maintaining effective classroom control. The new MI rating appears to be based in part on Respondent's allowing several students to have food and drink in the classroom after telling one student to dispose of his food or drink. In Section 2, Respondent received five S's, as he did in the first evaluation, as planning went from MI to S and punctuality/attendance went from S to NI. Work attitude improved from MI to NI, but personal appearance and receptiveness went from NI to MI. A written comment states that dependability improved some, but not enough to remove the MI. The MI's on the March 3 evaluation are again the subject of attached Professional Development Plans. Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Show you are able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with students without being sarcastic or getting into shouting matches. Student and parent complaints are numerous." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "Exhibit an air of professionalism in meetings with parents." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over. Show parents you care about their child." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Work with students in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with student problems. Be more friendly. Be consistent in your discipline but be fair." Under receptiveness, the desired improvement is: "Be able to listen to constructive criticism and follow suggestions made by administration." the action to be taken is: "Follow rules and regulations established for personnel and students at Sebring High School rather than defying directions given by an administrator." Each of the Professional Development Plans states that the administration will provide assistance or training if requested to do so by Respondent. The time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement is now "immediate" for the cited areas. There is no longer any mention of the removal of MI's, except that the Professional Development Plan for student/staff relations requires: "Immediate improvement--MI must be removed prior to October 92 visitation." The consequence of Respondent's failure to remove the MI's remains returning him to annual contract. The March 3 evaluation is followed by a letter dated March 9, 1992, from Mr. Smith to the superintendent. Mr. Smith writes that Respondent has not improved since the December 2 evaluation and recommends that Respondent be placed on annual contract for the following school year. The Grievance Process On March 13, 1992, Respondent filed a grievance seeking a list of specific remedies for each MI in the March 3 evaluation, adherence to the NEAT procedure, a reconfirmation of the deadline stated in the December 2 evaluation of 1992-93 "for remediation," withdrawal of the recommendation that Respondent be returned to annual contract, and transfer of Respondent to another position where he could be evaluated by someone not part of the current Sebring High School administration. Mr. Smith responded to the grievance with two documents, both dated April 7, 1992. In a three-page memorandum, Mr. Smith recounted the December 2 evaluation, noting that Respondent's "statement to all of this (as he signed the assessment and the PDP's) was, 'You mean all I have to do is correct these and I will get satisfactories?'" The April 7 memorandum notes that the March 3 evaluation was worse than the December 2 evaluation. Despite the fact that, with one exception, the March 3 evaluation did not equate correction with the removal of MI's, the April 7 memorandum states: "[Respondent] still has until the 1992-93 assessment to remove the MI's from his assessment. However, if he does not, he will be notified of non-renewal of a contract for 1993-94." Attached to the April 7 memorandum are "Specific Remedies for Must Improve." These remedies track the areas receiving MI's in the evaluations and discussion in the Professional Development Plans. Under maintaining effective classroom control, the April 7 attachment informs Respondent that he is to ensure that his students follow the rules. Under dependability, the April 7 attachment gives 12 examples of assignments that Respondent must perform. These include timely providing grades for meetings of the School Attendance Review Committee, remaining current with printed attendance sheets, submitting in-school suspension assignments when requested, arriving and leaving on time, not leaving the classroom unattended, and not allowing the students to break the rules. Under parent/community relations, the April 7 attachment states that Respondent should meet with parents at his initiative rather than waiting until irate parents demand a conference after hearing their child's complaints. Also, the attachment advises Respondent to be "gentle" with parents and not be negative. The attachment suggests that Respondent return parents' telephone calls. Under student/staff relations, the April 7 attachment warns Respondent not to back students into a corner. The attachment notes that many reports indicate that Respondent uses sarcasm with students and then disciplines them when they reciprocate with sarcasm. The attachment recommends, "Work on your personality to be more accepting and understanding of students." Under quantity/quality of work, the April 7 attachment suggests that Respondent spend more time on grammar rather than literature alone. The attachment suggests that Respondent should become involved with students' activities so that they know that he cares about them, as well as about what they learn. Under receptiveness, the April 7 attachment notes a lack of desire by Respondent to change his attitude about the providing in-school suspension assignments. Under professional behavior/ethics, the April 7 attachment recommends that Respondent not retaliate against students. It is unclear exactly what Mr. Smith means by "retaliate"; it may mean confront the students in class or respond to the students' sarcasm with sarcasm. By letter dated May 13, 1992, Deputy Superintendent John Martin decided the grievance by determining that Petitioner would grant Respondent a subsequent year of employment, under a subsequent year or annual contract, to correct the indicated deficiencies, and, if Respondent "corrects the indicated deficiencies," he would be given a new professional service contract. The May 13 letter also states that Respondent would be transferred, as he had requested. Respondent chose not to pursue additional grievance procedures available to him, so the grievance was resolved at this point. On May 15, 1992, Petitioner informed Respondent that he had been appointed for a "subsequent year of employment . . . on annual contract pursuant to Florida Statute 231.26(3)(e)." On June 23, 1992, Petitioner and Respondent executed a contract for a "'subsequent year of employment,' as that term is used in 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes . . .," for the 1992-93 school year. The 1991-92 School Year During the 1991-92 school year at Sebring High School, Respondent experienced problems in his relationship with the students and parents and in his inability to fulfill certain important responsibilities imposed on each teacher. With students, Respondent was often sarcastic. When the students returned in like kind, Respondent took offense and disciplined them, often with a disciplinary referral to the office. Mr. Smith witnessed a half dozen confrontations between Respondent and students in the main office where Respondent made derogatory remarks to the students. With parents, Respondent often failed to behave professionally in parent/teacher conferences. He walked out on one conference involving a parent who was also a teacher at Sebring High School. He often responded negatively to parents and sometimes failed to follow through on conferences or even return parents' telephone calls. Respondent was often late in fulfilling his duties. He was frequently late in getting his grades or attendance sheets to the Student Attendance Review Committee, which consisted of a guidance counsellor, an administrator, student's teachers, and student's parents who met periodically to discuss a student's attendance problems. Respondent consistently failed to submit assignments for students who had been assigned to in-school suspension. Each of the deficiencies described in the preceding paragraph interfered materially with Respondent's performance as a teacher. With respect to each of these deficiencies, Respondent was materially worse than his fellow teachers at Sebring High School. The resulting evaluations were the worst ever given by Mr. Smith, who describes himself as a hard evaluator. Evaluations During the 1992-93 School Year As Respondent demanded in the grievance, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Lake Placid High School for the 1992- 93 school year. He was assigned to teach English to all of the ninth grade students except those in honors and dropout prevention. On November 3, 1992, Respondent received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. He received all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, and student evaluations and NI's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control. The evaluation was prepared by David Robinson, who was an assistant principal. On February 25, 1993, Respondent received a second evaluation for the 1992-93 school year. This evaluation, which was prepared by the principal, Roger Goddard, was worse than the first. There were no C's, and there were NI's in demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, maintaining academic focus, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, receptiveness, and professional behavior/ethics. Under the comments in Section 1 of the February 25 evaluation, a note reads: "Needs skills in [knowing] when to use in-class discipline or office referral." The handwritten comments under Section 2 note that Respondent "had difficulty dealing with parents in conferences an/or returning phone calls" and "lack[s] rapport with students, staff, and administration." The handwritten comments state that Respondent is "many times defensive during conferences with administrators" and "needs a better procedure with make-up work utilizing school policy." By letter dated March 19, 1993, Dr. Goddard informed Respondent that he would be unable to reappoint Respondent for employment at Lake Placid High School for the following school year. Respondent asked Dr. Goddard to perform another evaluation, and Dr. Goddard did so on April 23, 1993. There were fewer NI's than in the February 25 evaluation, but the evaluation was not much better. Under Section 1, Respondent received all S's except for an NI in demonstrating a friendly attitude toward all students. An anecdotal comment adds: "There have been over 70 referrals for discipline during the year. This is as many as 20 other teachers combined." Under Section 2, Respondent received all S's except for three NI's in parent/community relations, student/staff relations, and receptiveness. Accompanying handwritten notes state that Respondent "still shows difficulty in dealing with parent conferences," "still lacks understanding of role of assistant principal [and] staff," and "many times still defensive regarding suggestions from administration." By letter dated April 26, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised Respondent that he could not change his original recommendation given on March 19. The letter states that the recommendation is based on the need for a change in the ability to handle discipline effectively within the classroom, handle parent conferences without conflict, and be receptive to administrative suggestions without a defensive attitude. By letter dated April 30, 1993, to Dr. Goddard, Respondent states, in part: . . . Some administrators are possessed by a sort of spectral indifference, and look at their fellow beings as ghosts. For them, teachers and other staff members are often merely vague shadowy forms, hardly distinct from the nebulous background of such a life, and easily blended with the invisible. But you, Dr. Goddard, are an honorable man and I believe, from our conversations, that you really care about the parents, staff, and students of our school. . . . Respondent's letter to Dr. Goddard discusses the preceding evaluation and asks for an opportunity to continue teaching. By letter dated May 25, 1993, Superintendent Richard Farmer states that Dr. Goddard had informed Mr. Farmer that Respondent had not successfully removed all deficiencies from his evaluation. The letter advises Respondent that his annual contract was expiring, Dr. Goddard had decided not to issue Respondent another annual contract, and, according to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner would not issue him a new professional service contract. By notice to the Florida Department of Education dated June 2, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised that, after two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was being terminated or not renewed. The 1992-93 School Year Despite the absence of MI's on the 1992-93 evaluations, the problems Respondent had experienced with students, parents, and administrators in 1991-92 worsened in 1992-93. With respect to relations with students, the basic problem is that Respondent reverted to sarcasm at Lake Placid High School, and his students reciprocated, just as his students at Sebring High School had done the prior year. Sarcasm bred sarcasm, which bred disciplinary referrals--125 of them in fact. Respondent outdistanced his nearest competitor in disciplinary referrals by 2.5 times. On two separate days, Respondent submitted more than 10 disciplinary referrals--more than most teachers submitted all year. As Dr. Goddard's comment notes, Respondent issued more disciplinary referrals than a score of his colleagues. The huge number of disciplinary referrals did not mean that Respondent was maintaining firm control of his classes. To the contrary, he was not able to maintain firm control of his classes, partly due to the atmosphere of mutual disrespect that his sarcasm engendered. The number of disciplinary referrals indicated that Respondent had lost control of the situation and tried to shift to the administrators the job of regaining control of his classroom. A major part of the problem, in addition to Respondent's sarcasm, was his inability to adhere to his own assertive discipline plan. Respondent's assertive discipline plan, which was duly posted in his classroom, contains the following consequences in increasing order of severity: warning, contact parents, detention, and office referral. Sometime during the school year, Respondent switched the second and third consequences, so that he would place a student on detention before he would contact the parents. This change was duly posted in the classroom. Respondent's assertive discipline plan is satisfactory, but he never adhered to it. Sometimes he gave detentions, but then failed to appear at the location where the students were to serve the detentions. Sometimes Respondent simply placed the offending students in the hall where they remained, unsupervised, in violation of school rules. Sometimes Respondent gave warnings, and often he gave disciplinary referrals. But he displayed an aversion to parent/teacher conferences by almost invariably omitting the step that required him to contact a parent. Nearly all disciplinary referrals were made prior to this step taking place, and many were made prior to giving the student a detention. Respondent clung doggedly to his sarcasm despite all efforts to free him from this habitual behavior. Dr. Goddard intervened at one point during a parent/teacher conference and prevailed upon Respondent to stop using sarcasm against the student who was the subject of the conference. Respondent's response was to post a sign in his room indicating a "moratorium" in the use of sarcasm--intentionally implying that the cessation in sarcasm would be temporary. At times, Respondent lashed out at students with hurtful remarks lacking even the thin veneer of humor. He told one student that he would be a serial killer. He told another student that he would never be rich and successful. He repeatedly referred publicly to one student as a witch and asked if she had taken her Midol. In front of another student's mother, as well as other teachers and Mr. Robinson during a parent/teacher conference, Respondent referred to a girl as "bitchy." Respondent refused to accommodate valid student needs, such as the unusual demands placed on one child by a disabled brother. The regressive effect on students of Respondent's embittered and embittering classroom presence was unwittingly reflected in another student's class journal. His early entries demonstrated an emotional vulnerability as he depicted his simple, rural lifestyle; his later entries were defiantly copied out of textbooks, magazines, or encyclopedias. As a result of Respondent's poor relations with students, more than one student quit Respondent's class, even if it meant taking English in summer school or another school or dropping out of high school altogether. One parent checked her son out of school just long enough that he would not have to attend Respondent's class. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, morale among Respondent's students and their parents was a very serious problem. Respondent's relationship with parents was, if possible, even worse than his relationship with students, although his contact with parents was less frequent. During one meeting with a father in the main office, the parent and Respondent had a heated exchange. Mr. Robinson intervened and diplomatically tried to end the conference. After the parent had started to walk away, Respondent restarted the argument and approached the parent until their noses were touching. Mr. Robinson again broke up what had transformed from a conference into a confrontation, and again Respondent reinitiated the engagement. Again, Mr. Robinson had to break up the argument. Mr. Robinson attended another parent/teacher conference in which the mother, according to Respondent, looked at him with "eyes . . . like daggers." (Tr 541) The mother observed that her daughter had no problems in any other classes but Respondent's class. The parent charged that Respondent's class was out of control. Respondent saw that Mr. Robinson was not "going to fulfil his role as mediator," so Respondent got up, announced that "I'm not going to take this damn stuff anymore," and walked out of the conference. (Tr 542) At first glance, Respondent's relationship with the administrators seems better than his relationships with the students and parents, but this is due to the professionalism of Dr. Goddard, inexperience of Mr. Robertson, and uninvolvement of Ms. Hatfield. For different reasons, each administrator at the school responded differently to Respondent's increasingly bizarre behavior and in no case did any administrator at the school ever lose his or her composure in dealing with Respondent. Respondent believes that he has been unfairly treated by every administrator at Lake Placid High School, and at least two at Sebring High School. Interestingly, Ms. Hatfield had given Respondent his last evaluation-- in October, 1990--without an NI or MI. However, without any evident provocation, Respondent demanded that the other assistant principal, Mr. Robinson, handle Respondent's evaluations and disciplinary referrals. Respondent was apprehensive that Ms. Hatfield might be biased due to her past service at Sebring High School. In November, 1992, Ms. Hatfield had a conference with Respondent and cautioned him that she was receiving a number of student complaints about his use of sarcasm. Respondent's reaction was to request that he be evaluated by Mr. Robinson, who was in his first year of service as an assistant principal. In retrospect, Respondent's demand proved unwise. As evidenced by his treatment of another teacher, Mr. Robinson displayed a heightened sensitivity toward humor directed at students, even if the humor did not seem sarcastic at all. Thus, Mr. Robinson's concern about Respondent's sarcasm was not due to bias against Respondent, but was due to Mr. Robinson's concern that students be treated with dignity and respect. But, as noted above, even without Mr. Robinson's heightened concern about humor, Respondent's sarcasm exceeded the wildest imaginable limits. Dr. Goddard intervened after the first evaluation. Respondent's concern about bias defies reason and logic when applied to Dr. Goddard, who counselled Respondent and gave him an opportunity to discover for himself the shortcomings of his defensive style of dealing with students, parents, and administrators. To imply that Dr. Goddard's evaluations were orchestrated by individuals at Sebring High School or the district office is to ignore reality. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the very lack of coordination presents legal problems that could have easily been avoided with the smallest amount of coordination. Respondent had trouble with nearly every administrator. And Respondent consistently found himself the blameless target of unwarranted persecution. His paranoia interfered with his ability to do his job. This fact is best illustrated by the time that Dr. Goddard instructed the teachers to clean up their rooms in preparation for a visit that night by the school board. Respondent wrote the following on his chalkboard to be read by the school board members: "The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you." In addition to problems with students, parents, and administrators, Respondent continued to display an inability to fulfill his important responsibilities. He failed to appear at ninth grade orientation at the beginning of the school year, despite the fact that he was a new teacher at the school and taught most of the ninth graders. Respondent routinely failed to supply grades to students for whom guidance counsellors were trying to prepare weekly progress reports in order to monitor the students' progress more closely than is possible with report cards. Respondent was routinely resistant to assigning make- up work. Students would have to pursue him for days to get assignments, until finally Respondent decided to write these up on the chalkboard. On more than one occasion, Respondent's solution--when pushed by parents or administrators--was to avoid the extra work imposed upon him by grading additional materials; rather than assign make-up work or tests, Respondent would simply not penalize the student for the missed assignment, such as by doubling the weight of the next grade. There is no evidence that the administration at Lake Placid High School learned of Respondent's 1991-92 evaluations at Sebring High School until Respondent mentioned them when he received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. There is no evidence that the actions taken by the administration at Lake Placid High School were influenced by anything except the Respondent's performance during the 1992-93 school year. Respondent was warned about his problems in evaluations going as far back as the 1980's when Respondent was evaluated by Mr. Bible. The March, 1986 evaluation identifies Respondent's reluctance to deal with parents. The February, 1989 evaluation suggests that Respondent lacked the support of parents and was placing students on the defensive. In the February, 1991 evaluation, Mr. Bible warned Respondent that he needed to improve in several areas, including student/staff relations and receptiveness to criticism from administrators. Again, Mr. Bible pointed out that Respondent was alienating students. Respondent's problems, which culminated in the exceptionally bad evaluations during the 1991-92 school year, largely represented a continuation of problems that had been identified in one manner or another for the preceding five years. But instead of correcting the problems, Respondent had allowed them to get worse. These problems were described in greater detail in the 1991-92 and 1992-93 evaluations due to the deterioration of Respondent's behavior. Petitioner provided Respondent with reasonable assistance in remediating his performance deficiencies. Dr. Goddard made numerous additional visits to Respondent's classroom, and he and other administrators routinely talked to Respondent. After the first evaluation in November, 1992, Mr. Robinson twice recommended to Respondent that he rely on his assertive discipline plan because he was referring too many students to the office. After discovering how poorly Respondent handled parent conferences, administrators ensured that appropriate persons participated in Respondent's conferences to model suitable behavior. In early February, 1993, Mr. Robinson gave Respondent a set of assertive discipline tapes to view to assist in imposing proper discipline in his class. This intervention preceded the February 25 evaluation by almost three weeks. About one week prior to the February 25 evaluation, Mr. Robinson suggested that Respondent attend a workshop on parent/teacher conferences. Respondent attended the workshop. Evidently arranged prior to the February 25 evaluation, Respondent went to a high school in another district to observe a ninth-grade English teacher. The practical effect of this assistance is attenuated by the fact that the February 25 evaluation preceded the visit, although the visit preceded the March 19 non-appointment letter, April 23 follow-up evaluation, and April 26 follow-up letter. The extent of the assistance effectively offered Respondent must be evaluated in the context of Respondent's problems. He was not an ineffective teacher due to an inadequate grasp of the course material or inability to present material imaginatively. To the contrary, Respondent is a highly intelligent, literate individual who is intellectual capable of being an outstanding teacher. If his problems were in his understanding of the material or an inability to find the methods to convey the material to his students, a program of assistance and inservice workshops probably could be designed to provide meaningful help. Instead, Respondent needed to stop disparaging students. He needed to stop confronting parents. He needed to stop ignoring administrators who were trying to stop Respondent from disparaging students and confronting parents. But Respondent simply refused to change his ways, and no amount of videotapes, inservice workshops, school visits, evaluation follow-ups, and informal discussions were going to help. Respondent was given a second chance when he was transferred to Lake Placid High School. But instead of addressing the source of the problem-- himself--he attacked students, parents, and administrators. He avoided performing rigorously all of his teaching duties, such as enforcing his assertive disciplinary plan and its graduated response to misbehavior, promptly providing make-up work, and sending interim grades when needed. Instead, he inexplicably continued to bicker with the students, provoke the parents, and defy the legitimate demands of the administrators.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Highlands County enter a final order not issuing Respondent a new professional service contract. ENTERED on January 13, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 13, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8: rejected as irrelevant. 9-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as irrelevant. 20-35: adopted or adopted in substance. 36: rejected as irrelevant. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 40: rejected as irrelevant. Nothing requires that Petitioner make "every effort" to help Respondent through the means cited. 41: adopted or adopted in substance. 42: rejected as subordinate. 43-44: adopted or adopted in substance. 45: rejected as irrelevant. 46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-48 (first three sentences): rejected as irrelevant. 48 (last sentence)-53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54-56: rejected as irrelevant. 57-59: adopted or adopted in substance. 60-61: rejected as irrelevant. 62: adopted or adopted in substance. 63: rejected as irrelevant. 64-65: adopted or adopted in substance. 66: rejected as subordinate. 67-69: adopted or adopted in substance. 70: rejected as subordinate. 71-74: adopted or adopted in substance. 75-76: rejected as subordinate. 77-78: adopted or adopted in substance. 79: rejected as hearsay. 80-85: adopted or adopted in substance. 86: rejected as irrelevant. 87-92: adopted or adopted in substance. 93: rejected as subordinate. 94: rejected as irrelevant. 95-100: adopted or adopted in substance. 101: rejected as irrelevant. In fact, to permit either student to leave the classroom would violate Paragraph 11 of the Classroom Management section of the Teacher Handbook. 102: rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Smith wore sunglasses indoors during part of the hearing. 103-04: rejected as irrelevant. 105: rejected as subordinate. 106-17 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 117 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 118: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 119: rejected as hearsay. 120-34: adopted or adopted in substance. 135-37: rejected as irrelevant. 138: adopted or adopted in substance. 139: rejected as irrelevant. 140: adopted or adopted in substance. 141: rejected as irrelevant. 142-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 144: rejected as subordinate. 145-46: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-10: rejected as irrelevant. 11-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15-17 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 18-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-22: rejected as subordinate. 23-24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25-26: rejected as subordinate. 27-28 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 28 (second sentence)-29: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 30: adopted or adopted in substance. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as subordinate. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. This provision governs only when Petitioner must refer matters to the Department of Education. 35: rejected as subordinate. 36: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance except as to meaningful follow-up conferences. 40-41: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Richard Farmer Highlands County School District 426 School St. Sebring, FL 33870-4048 Commissioner Doug Jamerson Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 James F. McCollum James F. McCollum, P.A. 129 S. Commerce Ave. Sebring, FL 33870-3698 Anthony D. Demma Meyer and Brooks, P.A. P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue Whether or not Respondent should be assigned to J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Anya Cooper and Aaron Brumm and had admitted Exhibits P-1 (two pages of subpoena), P-2 (case management form 676566), P-3 (composite of Student Observation 1/12/87), P-4 (Composite Student Case Management Referral Forms), P-5 (Second Report for School Year 1986-1987), P-6 (Composite of Student Academic and Behavioral Reports), and P-7 (Individualized Education Program, IEP). Respondent presented the oral testimony of Fred Sage and had admitted R-1 (Computer printout), R-2 (Computer printout), R-3 (Child Study Team Conference Notes), and R-4 (composite of report card with progress notes of Grace Baptist Academy). Joint Exhibit A (Multi- Disciplinary Team Report) was also admitted. Due to the failure of Bonnie Edison to respond to a validly served subpoena, the parties stipulated to the taking and filing of her deposition by Petitioner subsequent to July 21, 1987. Respondent's father's August 22, 1987, letter has been treated as a Motion to Strike or Amend the Edison deposition, and the Edison deposition with attached exhibits has been admitted as amended by the Order of September 10, 1987. Petitioner filed a "Memorandum of Law on Jurisdiction, Substantial Interest, and Case or Controversy," and Respondent filed a letter styled, "Request for Ruling." These documents are addressed the Appendix to this Recommended Order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's parents were notified by a letter dated January 30, 1987, that Respondent had been administratively assigned to the Dade County School Board's alternative education program at J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. Being previously aware that the recommendation for administrative assignment had been made, Respondent's parents had formally withdrawn Respondent from the public school effective January 29, 1987, and timely petitioned for formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent's parents are currently complying with State law by continuing their son in a private educational facility, however Respondent's substantial interest entitling him to a formal hearing continues to exist in that the parents desire their son to be enrolled in the regular program of the Dade County public school system and in that they propose to re-enroll him in that system if they prevail in these proceedings. At all times prior to his withdrawal from public school, Respondent was enrolled at Cutler Ridge Junior High School, located in Dade County, Florida. He attended summer school in the summer of 1986, and was 13 years old and in the seventh grade for the regular 1986-1987 school year. During the regular 1986-1987 school year, Anya Cooper was Respondent's mathematics teacher. In her class, Respondent performed his basic skill work below grade level. She described his conduct in her class as very "fidgety, constantly moving around, bothering other students, and talking and kicking purses." However, she also described the foregoing behavior as all done "in fun" and described Respondent's usual responses to admonishment as being, "Okay, Okay." Apparently she interpreted these responses to her correction as being in the nature of back-talk but admitted that following a smart retort, Respondent usually would not say more beyond "Okay" and often complied with her requests. Beginning September 22, 1986, Ms. Cooper kept a daily record of negative behaviors of Respondent. That day, Respondent was extremely talkative and refused to participate in boardwork. He also lied, saying a paper without a name on it which had received a grade of "B" was his own paper when, in fact, it had been submitted by someone else. When confronted with his lie, Respondent admitted the lie immediately. On September 24, he was too talkative and changed his seat. On September 26, he talked during a test and refused twice to take the test before actually taking it. On September 30, he chewed gum and was required to remove it. On an occasion in early October, he talked back to Ms. Cooper and was instructed not to talk in class anymore. On October 22, he threw a piece of staple which hit another student. Ms. Cooper counselled with Respondent about the danger of throwing staples, but Respondent interrupted her and refused to work. On October 23, Respondent kicked a female student, and on October 28, he put his foot on her arm. Ms. Cooper put him out of her class. There is no evidence that any student was ever injured. On October 27, Respondent refused to work and talked during the entire class period. Later that month, he threw a pen into the trash can, creating a loud noise and distraction. Nonetheless, despite the number of these incidents, Ms. Cooper only referred Respondent for discipline by the school administration one time. During summer school the previous summer, the Respondent had been referred by the coach to Assistant Principal Brumm for running around the cafeteria. Respondent was reprimanded and warned without being assigned to indoor or outdoor suspension. On July 22, 1986, also during summer school, Respondent had been referred to the office for disruptive and non-attentive behavior in one class. Assistant Principal Brumm sent Respondent home for one-half day as a disciplinary measure. By October 6, 1986, Respondent was in the Student-At-Risk-Program (SARP). This program assembles a special group of teachers within the school who are able to deal particularly effectively with disciplinary problems. The student members of the program are assigned their own counsellor and attend classes of much smaller size than do those students in the academic mainstream. The target goal of SARP is to identify students at risk for dropping out of school and modify their behavior so as to retain them in the school system. The testimony of Bonnie Edison, Respondent's seventh grade SARP life science teacher for the regular 1986-1987 school year, was submitted by after- filed deposition. Ms. Edison did not routinely refer Respondent to the administration for his discipline problems, nor did she involve the SARP counsellor. She addressed Respondent's disruptive behavior solely with SARP behavior modification techniques. In Ms. Edison's class, Respondent was "off task" and disruptive seventy to eighty percent of the time unless Ms. Edison addressed him on a one-to-one basis, or unless she included him in a group of no more than three students. Despite measurably high ability, Respondent's work effort was below standard ninety percent of the time. He consistently failed to bring proper materials to class but admitted he should do so. Ms. Edison counselled with Respondent a few minutes daily and occasionally for longer periods, sometimes with temporary success, but never with lasting success. Her greatest concern was that Respondent's need for one-on-one attention deprived her of teaching time and limited her time for other students. She also was concerned because, in their conversations, Respondent could name no rewards or goals she could integrate into her program at school. Nonetheless, noting that Respondent related better to plants than to people, and recognizing his very superior ability with horticulture, Ms. Edison involved him in independent study with plants as a reward. She also devised a reward system based upon Respondent's interest in wrestling as a contact sport, and upon his affection and respect for the wrestling coach who had previously referred Respondent for discipline. This coach helped Respondent study for his second grading period exam in Ms. Edison's class, and Respondent earned an "A" on this final exam. Between September 1986 and the end of January 1987, Respondent had a total of seven referrals to the school administration, although some referrals covered several incidents. The constant theme of the referrals of Respondent to the administration was that Respondent had the ability to learn, but insufficient self-discipline to allow him to learn. Respondent had been assigned to six days of CSI (indoor suspension) and one day of outdoor suspension. In the first grading period of the regular 1986-1987 school year, Respondent earned two F's, one D, two C's and one B. By January 29, 1987, in the second grading period, Respondent had earned two F's, two D's and two C's. In the second grading period, he had only been absent 2 or 3 times in each class except for math, in which he had 8 absences. There is no evidence that any teacher or administrator viewed these absences as excessive. On January 20, 1987, a teacher referred Respondent for disrupting other students in CSI by making squeaking sounds. Thereafter, a Child Study Team was convened. Each of Respondent' a teachers participated in a conference with Respondent's mother on January 28, 1987. The consensus of the team and teachers was that Respondent needed extremely close supervision. Each teacher consulted with Respondent's mother on this occasion. Although there is evidence of some parental contact due to previous disciplinary problems, it appears that January 28, 1987, when the alternative education program was being actively explored, was the first time the parents were made aware of the serious penalties attendant upon Respondent's grades, behavior, and absences. The probable explanation for the lack of prior communication is that Respondent never gave contact slips/reports to his parents, but it is also clear that there was little or no administrative follow-up on the written material sent home and that the parents also resented and reacted hostilely to two oral contacts by the administration. Mr. Brumm opined that all disciplinary and counselling techniques at his disposal had been tried but had proven ineffectual. It was Respondent's parents' position that the school had failed to adequately communicate with them concerning their son's disinterested and disruptive behavior; had failed to involve them early enough in disciplinary and academic correction of their son; and had failed to use corporal punishment to discipline Respondent. To buttress their assertion that the school had failed to adequately communicate with them, the parents asserted that since certain disciplinary reports/referrals had not been committed to writing or consigned to the computer prior to the administrative school assignment (January 30, 1987) or prior to the formal withdrawal of their son from the Dade County School System (January 29, 1987), there was little or no credibility in any of the disciplinary reports/referrals admitted in evidence and particularly no credibility in those reports/referrals dated February 6, 1987, and later. The failure of teachers and administrators to timely commit to writing the reports does not diminish the credibility of the oral testimony on the same facts by the teachers and Mr. Brumm. It does, however, render less credible the administration's assertion that adequate communication was made with the parents simultaneously with the alleged disciplinary actions. The parents' assertion that the school failed to use corporal punishment as an accepted disciplinary technique is ill-founded. The administration's failure to employ corporal punishment was consistent with established policy, and not demonstrated to be unreasonable. Respondent's exhibits of report cards and progress reports from the private school which he entered subsequent to withdrawal from the Dade County Public School System are irrelevant to the statutory issues discussed in the conclusions of law. They are also virtually unintelligible without any "key" by which they may be interpreted.
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether the Petitioner Duval County School Board should dismiss the Respondent for professional incompetence pursuant to the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Laws of Florida, Chapter 21197 (1941) as amended.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the Duval County School Board. The Respondent, Bobby Palmore, has been an employee of the Petitioner since the 1992-93 school year. The Respondent is a tenured teacher assigned as a guidance counselor. During the 1997-98 school year, the Respondent was a guidance counselor at North Shore Elementary School. The Principal at the school in 1997-98 was Larry Davis. Concerns regarding the Respondent’s work performance at North Shore were raised early in the school year regarding his participation with Intervention Teams. An Intervention Team is formed to assist a guidance counselor with a particular student. The team meets when requested by the guidance counselor. Notwithstanding that the Intervention Team convened at the Respondent’s request, he missed the meeting scheduled for September 29, 1997. His erratic attendance at other Intervention Team meetings was of concern to the Assistant Principal, Martha Johnson, and the Principal. Ms. Johnson spoke with the Respondent about this, and Mr. Davis wrote the Respondent about his attendance at these meetings. Respondent’s attendance did not improve. The Respondent’s erratic attendance at Intervention Team Meetings was unsatisfactory performance of his duties and showed a lack of understanding of the subject matter. The Respondent repeatedly interrupted classroom teachers with unannounced and unscheduled calls and visits to their classrooms. This disrupted their classes, and they complained to administrators about Respondent’s conduct. These interruptions were frequently to obtain information regarding students who were being staffed for one reason or another, an activity coordinated by the guidance counselor. The Respondent was officially counseled about these interruptions by Ms. Johnson, but continued to interrupt classes and cause disruptions. This was unsatisfactory job performance and showed the Respondent’s failure to follow directions, plan his activities effectively, and manage his time well. These are considerations in Competency 2 of the Evaluation criteria. The Respondent was asked by Ms. Johnson to make a sign to direct parents and others to a December 12, 1997, Child Study Team (CST) meeting. He did not do so. This also showed the Respondent’s inability to follow direction. On January 13, 1998, the Respondent told Deborah Nurse, an employee of the school, in a rude and loud voice, that she was not to use the copying machine that was outside his office. Mr. Davis counseled the Respondent in writing regarding his behavior on January 16, 1998. On January 14, 1998, at a CST meeting, Ms. Slaughter asked the Respondent for a cumulative folder on a student. The Respondent had been asked to the meeting because of his lack of cooperation regarding the folder. The Respondent accused Ms. Slaughter of not respecting him in the meeting, and insisted that she ask him again for the folder. The Respondent’s actions were embarrassing to the professionals present at the meeting and showed a lack of professionalism on the part of the Respondent. He was counseled in writing by Ms. Johnson about his conduct. On January 15, 1998, a meeting was held to discuss a student between Ms. Johnson, Mrs. Shabazz, and the Respondent. Mrs. Shabazz indicated that a pertinent document was missing from the student’s folder that could effect his educational program and result in a loss of funding for the school. It was Respondent’s responsibility to maintain the student’s records in the guidance office. Ms. Johnson counseled the Respondent about his responsibilities in maintaining records and their importance to the school. She offered to assist the Respondent in reviewing the cumulative folders prior to their processing. The Respondent was responsible for preparation of materials for and participation in CST meetings on students. The Respondent placed students on the CST agenda without completing the data in their folder. This failure interfered with the proper and timely placement of students, and evidenced an unsatisfactory performance of a basic part of the Respondent’s job. As a result of the complaints about the Respondent’s work and conduct, a Success Plan was developed. This plan outlined areas in which the Respondent was not performing satisfactorily, identified objectives for improving his performance, and strategies to meet the objectives. A team was created to assist the Respondent including Mr. Davis, Ms. Johnson, the Respondent’s supervisor in guidance services, and the professional development facilitator. The Intervention Team had decided that team members should receive a response from the Respondent within three days. This time limit was incorporated in the Respondent’s Success Plan; however, the Respondent did not submit the CST packets within the time limits. In addition, the Respondent’s tone in speaking with the teachers was such that they complained to Ms. Johnson about the Respondent. Ms. Johnson counseled the Respondent about the lateness of his submittals and his interactions which the teachers. The Respondent did not improve his conduct that directly resulted in student’s needs not being met. The Respondent continued to be late to or to miss meetings and scheduled classroom visits. On February 4, 1998, he was late to a classroom visit. He cancelled a classroom visit he had scheduled. He did not follow the weekly calendar of guidance activities as required in his Success Plan. On February 4, 1998, Mr. Davis met with the Respondent to discuss the proper procedures for conducting a CST meeting as a means of assisting the Respondent. On February 6, 1998, Mr. Davis counseled the Respondent about his continued interruption of classes, and the Respondent forgot about a scheduled guidance session and did not attend, until reminded by Ms. Dennis. On February 6, 1998, Ms. Anderson met with the Respondent to discuss the guidance program and to offer assistance to him. She suggested that he use a weekly, hour-by- hour calendar to plan his time and activities. She also counseled with him about using a lesson plan for a small group session to provide a clearly defined objective for the session. Ms. Anderson directed the Respondent to follow-up with her in a week. The Respondent did not follow-up with Ms. Anderson or follow any of her advice. On February 9, 1998, Mr. Davis observed the Respondent conduct a meeting with staff regarding the Florida Writes Test. The Respondent’s conduct of the meeting was unsatisfactory. Issues were left unresolved and staff members were confused about the presentation. Some of the material presented was inconsistent with the information in the manual. Mr. Davis wrote the Respondent about these matters, and referred the Respondent to his Success Plan. On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to provide proper parental notification of a CST meeting pursuant to district guidelines. On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to provide proper parental notification of a CST meeting pursuant to district guidelines. On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to make to two-scheduled classroom visitations. On February 10, 1998, the Respondent missed a scheduled classroom visitation. The Respondent was not following a weekly calendar of activities, and his performance was unsatisfactory and contrary to the Success Plan. On February 10, 1998, the Respondent attempted to counsel the wrong child about the death of the child’s mother, and was prevented from doing so by the teacher. This reflected poorly on the Respondent’s attention to his duties, and his professionalism. On February 10, 1998, the Respondent was provided a list of counselors at other schools who had agreed to let the Respondent attend classroom guidance or CST meetings at their schools. The Respondent was late and showed a lack of interest while attending a classroom guidance session at Lake Forrest. On February 11, 1998, Mr. Davis observed a CST meeting at North Shore. It was evident that the parents had not received the required seven days' notice of the meeting. The Respondent had not conducted the pre-conferences, and had not coordinated the scheduling with the teachers. The Respondent did not have the proper forms in the cumulative folders, and had not conducted any classroom observations in preparation for the CST meeting. In sum, the Respondent’s performance showed a complete lack of competence and knowledge of his duties as a guidance counselor. On February 11, 1998, the Respondent missed his scheduled classroom guidance visit. On February 12, 1998, the Respondent missed his scheduled classroom guidance visit because he was late in arriving. On February 12, 1998, The Respondent discovered a coding error on the Florida Writes Test. He reported the error to Mr. Davis and accused the teacher of coding the test incorrectly. Davis directed the Respondent to correct the mistake and notify the testing department regarding the possible problem. The Respondent did not correct the test as directed, but placed a note on the box and resealed it to be mailed. The Respondent’s actions violated the testing procedures, and he did not do as he had been directed. On February 17, 1998, Ms. Johnson counseled with the Respondent concerning his failure to respond to student and staff needs. She advised him he was not meeting his Success Plan goals, and students were not receiving services they needed. The Respondent refused to counsel with a developmentally disabled student who had been sent to guidance by his teacher. The proper paper work had been completed for the student to participate in the group counseling session; however, the Respondent refused to allow the student to participate, chasing the student around the room telling him to "get out." The student was confused and embarrassed. Ms. Johnson, who was observing the session, and took charge of the student by having him sit with her, resolved the situation. The Respondent's actions demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the role of a guidance counselor, sensitivity for students, and ability to conduct a class or counseling session. On March 9, 1998, Mr. Davis completed the Respondent’s Annual Performance Evaluation. The evaluation consisted of eight competency areas. The Respondent received an unsatisfactory rating in three of the competency areas, which constituted an overall unsatisfactory evaluation. The facts as presented at hearing confirm the evaluation, and show that the Respondent was clearly incapable of performing his job duties. He lacked knowledge of his duties or how to perform them. He was insensitive to the students' needs and did not meet them. He did not follow the direction of his Principal and did not maintain a professional relationship with his coworkers and superiors. After receiving this evaluation, the Respondent continued in the same pattern of behaviors. He did not prepare and use a calendar of activities. He continued to provide materials late. He refused to assist a parent obtain the proper papers to enable the parent’s child to enroll in another school. He continued to disturb classes. He failed to notify staff of CST meetings at which they needed to attend. He took seven months to complete the paper work to have one child tested. In fact, there were several students who were awaiting CST processing at the end of the year. The Respondent was treated fairly and provided assistance by the school’s administration. Based upon his unsatisfactory evaluation in 1997-98, the Respondent was administratively transferred to J.E.B. Stuart Middle School the following year for an additional year of observation of in-service training. Carol Daniels is the Principal of Stuart Middle School. She met with the Respondent and advised him that he was starting with a clean slate at her school. School Board Policy required that Ms. Daniels confer privately with the Respondent and develop a Success Plan. She met with the Respondent on August 24, 1998. The Success Plan outlined goals and objectives to improve the Respondent’s performance as a guidance counselor. A support team was created to assist him. Soon after the school year began, Ms. Daniels counseled the Respondent about the proper method to request student records. She arranged for him to attend New Counselor Training on or about August 31, 1998. The Respondent was negative and adversarial about being requested to attend the training. He officially complained about the request, but upon review the Regional Superintendent determined that Ms. Daniels’ request was not arbitrary and was appropriate. The Respondent was counseled by Mr. Gilmore, the Vice Principal, on the need to process gifted students under the ESE program. He had failed to process several of these students, and he was given a deadline for processing these students. On September 8, 1998, the Respondent did not exit the building during a fire drill. Ms. Daniels counseled him in writing about the need for everyone to evacuate the building during drills. Mr. Gilmore counseled in writing the Respondent about the lack of lead-time in requesting information about students, and his abruptness and tone in making requests. On October 26, 1998, Linda Bailey requested an ESE/CST Agenda from the Respondent. The Respondent replied he was too busy to provide the information. On October 28, 1998, Ms. Bailey again asked for the information in writing. The Respondent did not provide the information. On October 26, 1998, Ms. Bailey also requested progress reports for the ESE students who would be reevaluated on November 9, 1998. These reports had been used at Stuart Middle School for many years as a best practice strategy. The Respondent advised that he had no intent of providing the progress reports and refused to do so. On October 26, 1998, the Respondent accused the District ESN Admissions Representative of taking ESE forms from his office. His tone and manner were threatening and confrontational. On October 27, 1998, Ms. Daniels notified the Respondent that he would have an evaluation and conference on October 30, 1998, pursuant to district guidelines. On October 28, 1998, Charlotte Robbins, ESE Interventionist, met with the Respondent to discuss three students. It was the Respondent’s responsibility to provide information to Ms. Robbins in a timely manner. The Respondent did not provide Ms. Robbins the necessary information prior to the meeting. The Respondent also invited parents to the meeting without advising Ms. Robbins. On November 2, 1998, Norma Peters, a speech therapist, advised Ms. Daniels that she had requested the Respondent to provide her a list of students to be evaluated two to three weeks before CST meetings. The Respondent told Ms. Peters he would not be able to provide the information as requested, although previous guidance counselors had provided Ms. Peters the names three to four weeks in advance of meetings. Although Ms. Daniels spoke with the Respondent about Ms. Peter’s concern, the Respondent did not provide the information as requested. On November 5, 1998, the two eighth grade counselors met with the Respondent to discuss the need for him to be a team member. They raised the fact that he did not answer the phone, assist parents, or help the guidance clerk when necessary. They also advised him to improve his communication with the ESE teachers, CST members, speech pathologist, and interventionist. A CST meeting was held on November 9, 1998, and only half the parents had been noticed and invited to come to the meeting. The Respondent had been responsible for contacting the parents in compliance with district policies. This failure prevented the CST team from addressing the needs of students. Not only did it potentially deny students services, it frustrated teachers, staff, and parents. On November 24, 1998, the Respondent interrupted class instruction by bringing a parent into the class who had missed an earlier appointment with the teacher. On November 25, 1998, Kathee Cook telephoned the Respondent regarding contacting children for the December 9, 1998, CST meeting. The Respondent refused to contact the parents of the students because ESE procedures required that Ms. Cook contact him seven days prior to the designated date. Ms. Cook reported this to Ms. Daniels, who discussed it with the Respondent, explaining that the requirement was for at least seven days notice. Ms. Daniels advised him that he was responsible for notifying parents for CST meetings, and his position potentially jeopardized notice to the parents as required by district policy. Ms. Daniels directed the Respondent to give the Vice Principal all of the parental notices by December 2, 1998. On December 2, 1998, the Respondent gave Mr. Gilmore ten notice letters; however, he did not provide notices to eleven other parents. The Respondent excused his failure by asserting his interpretation of the seven-day rule. On November 25, 1998, Ms. Daniels advised the Respondent that he had made little improvement in his performance. She discussed with him performance of his duties; and being courteous and respectful to faculty, staff, and parents. The Respondent did not accept the evaluation and was confrontational and adversarial with Ms. Daniels. He refused Ms. Daniels' offer of assistance. On or about January 5, 1999, the Respondent placed seven notice letters to parents in Mr. Gilmore’s box for the January 11, 1999, CST meeting. Not only were the letters late, if intended for the January 11th meeting, but they were addressed to the parents of children being staffed in the January 22, 1999, meeting. The Respondent failed to discontinue ESE services to a student contrary to the parent’s request on three separate occasions, to include at least one request in writing. The Respondent’s failure resulted in the matter being re-assigned to the chair of the guidance department to discontinue the services in accordance with the parent’s wishes. The Respondent left the campus without following the procedures for leaving early. These requirements had been explained during orientation and were in the teachers’ handbook. Ms. Daniels had to notify the Respondent in writing of his oversight. On January 25, 1999, Ms. Daniels notified the Respondent pursuant to the collective bargaining that his work performance was unsatisfactory. He was advised that his performance in Competencies 1, 2, 4, 8 and 9 needed improvement by March 15, 1999. On February 2, 1999, the Respondent was notified that this memorandum would be placed in his personnel file. The Respondent met with parents who were not enrolled in Stuart Middle School during the middle of the school day. Ms. Daniels advised him in writing on February 11, 1999, that this was inappropriate, and he should limit meeting to parents or students enrolled or engaged in enrolling at Stuart. On March 10, 1999, the Respondent made a presentation to an ESE class. His Success Plan required him to schedule presentations during Advisor/Advisee time period. The Respondent’s presentation was arbitrary and he did not seek assistance from his support team. On March 11, 1999, Ms. Daniels completed the Respondent’s annual evaluation. The evaluation addressed nine competency areas. Th Respondent received an unsatisfactory in five of the nine areas, which constituted an overall unsatisfactory evaluation. The Respondent’s performance in Competency 1 (ability to plan and deliver instruction), Competency 2 (demonstrates knowledge of subject matter), Competency 4 (shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school climate), Competency 8 (demonstrates a commitment to professional growth), and Competency 9 (shows evidence of professional characteristics) was unsatisfactory. Not only was his performance unsatisfactory, he continued to be unwilling to accept support and assistance. He failed to comply with many areas of his Success Plan and failed to perform his duties. On March 17, 1999, the Respondent interrupted Mrs. Bascombe’s class. Ms. Daniels counseled the Respondent in writing about class interruptions, and how to handle situations by checking the master schedule and placing notices in teacher mailboxes. On March 23, 1999, Ms. Daniels relieved the Respondent of his responsibilities for ESE students because of his poor performance and its impact on the students' welfare. He had failed to timely notify parents. He had failed to communicate with parents, the staff, faculty and the district. His failures had adversely affected the operations of the ESE program. The Respondent was assigned to handle seventh grade non-exceptional education students. Ms. Daniels had to direct the Respondent in writing to relinquish the ESE forms to his successor. On April 20, 1999, after being relieved of his ESE duties, he met with the mother of an ESE student who was then receiving services from his successor. The Respondent was treated fairly at Stuart Middle School. All of the personnel were ready and willing to provide him assistance. He was negative, and refused to co-operate or perform his duties as directed. On May 19, 1999, the Respondent was notified by the Superintendent that he was charged with professional incompetence. He was advised that he would be discharged from the Duval County School System if the charge was sustained by the School Board. He was advised of his right to request a hearing within two days of receipt of the letter dated May 19, 1999. On June 15, 1999, Ms. Daniels provided John Heavner, Director of Professional Standards, written notice that the Respondent had not completed the requirements of his Success Plan. The Respondent requested a formal hearing by letter on July 10, 1999. Notwithstanding that this was late, he was afforded a hearing. On August 5, 1999, the Respondent was notified that he would be suspended without pay effective August 12, 1999. The Respondent was advised that the suspension would be considered at the September 7, 1999, regular meeting of the School Board. The Respondent is charged with incompetence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that: A final order be entered denying the Respondent’s disciplinary appeal and demands set forth in his pleadings, and dismissing the Respondent for incompetence. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 27th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Lashanda R. Johnson, Esquire City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Bobby G. Palmore 863 Poydras Lane, West Jacksonville, Florida 32218 John C. Fryer, Jr., Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182 Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 321399-0400
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent was a public school teacher licensed by the State of Florida to teach English language at the secondary school level, and her teaching certificate was current and in full effect. The Respondent, Queen Bruton, is employed by the Duval County School Board and holds tenure under the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. On November 22, 1982, Respondent was sent a Notice of Proposed Dismissal by the School Board indicating the Board's intention to dismiss her as a teacher upon a charge of professional incompetency. The grounds for such conclusion include an indication that Respondent received unsatisfactory evaluations of her performance for the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years. The Duval County Teacher Tenure Act (TTA), Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended, permits the discharge of a teacher for, inter alia, professional incompetency as a teacher if certain conditions are met and procedures followed. All teachers in the Duval County public schools are evaluated whenever necessary, but at least once a year. Under the rating system in effect during the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years, an unsatisfactory rating is awarded when an evaluation contains eight or more deduction points. Ratings are: (1) satisfactory, (2) needs improvement, and (3) unsatisfactory. On the rating form in use during the time in issue here, an unsatisfactory rating results in two deduction points in Items 1 through 27, and one deduction point in Items 28 through 36. An evaluation of "needs improvement" does not result in any deduction points. The School Board of Duval County has not, in any formal way, defined professional incompetence. The evaluation process is but one tool in the management of teacher employment. An unsatisfactory evaluation is not, therefore, conclusive of professional incompetence, but is one factor in that judgmental decision. The procedure used by the School Board in evaluating teacher performance was not adopted in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act. At the time of adoption, the School Board was operating under teacher working conditions that had been implemented after extensive bargaining between the School Board and the teachers' union. These working conditions contained extensive provisions involving "teacher evaluation." When a contract was finally agreed upon between the School Board and the teachers' union, it contained provisions concerning teacher evaluation identical to those which were in effect under the working conditions previous to the implementation of the contract. These provisions, therefore, do not constitute rules "as defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes," but instead constitute guidelines for the evaluation of teacher performance arrived at not by decision of the School Board under conditions which require public hearing but jointly by agreement of the parties to the negotiations of the teacher contract between the School Board and the union, a collective bargaining agreement. Warren K. Kennedy was in Respondent's sophomore English class at Forrest Senior High School in Jacksonville during the 1980-81 school year. At one point during the school year, Kennedy saw a series of approximately 22 sexually explicit words or phrases written on the blackboard in Respondent's room. Kennedy copied these words and notified the principal, who went to Respondent's classroom and saw them himself. These words were placed on the board by someone other than Respondent, with her permission, and consisted of a part of an exercise in outlining. As such, Respondent claims the words themselves mean nothing, but words of that nature, including "orgasms, sexual intercourse, French tickler, blow job, condoms, dildo, masturbation, orgy," and the like serve no legitimate purpose in, and are not a legitimate part of, a sophomore English class. Respondent's classroom that year was chaotic. Students did little work, but instead talked openly and freely. Respondent sat quietly at her desk doing paperwork unless the noise got so great as to disturb other classes. Students felt free to walk out of class with impunity. Cursing was prevalent in class, and discipline was nonexistent. Defacing of school property occurred on at least one occasion with Respondent taking no corrective action. As a result, several students and the parents of other students requested their transfer from Respondent's class to another. Respondent was also unreliable in submitting grades and reports in a timely fashion. Observations of Respondent in the classroom environment by several different individuals revealed she did not insist her students come to class equipped with the proper supplies for effective writing or textbook activity. She rarely utilized visual aids pertinent to the matter being discussed. Classroom discussion with students did not generally involve a broad sampling of the class, but was focused on only a few class members. Her questions to the students were often vague and confusing to the students. Respondent's principal during that school year, Ronel J. Poppel, at whose request the above observations were made, himself observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions. As a result of the input from those requested observations and of his own observations, he prepared an evaluation form on Respondent on March 15, 1981, which bore an overall rating of unsatisfactory and reflected that her performance was declining. This report, which reflected 7 of 36 items as unsatisfactory (12 total deduction points), had 20 other items rated as "needs improvement" and contained such written-in suggestions as "needs classroom management techniques, needs better standards of behavior, needs to have long-range planning from the beginning of the year, needs to show more enthusiasm for teaching--needs more variety in methods of teaching," and "should use better judgment in selection of topics." As a result of this evaluation, the observations of her principal and others, and the several counseling periods during which Respondent's deficiencies were pointed out to her along with suggestions for improvement, Respondent was put on notice of her failing performance and afforded the opportunity to take advantage of teacher education counseling (TEC) and, while she did enroll in at least one improvement course, failed to take full advantage of the available opportunities. Poppel's evaluation of Respondent as an incompetent teacher is based on: His personal observation; Evaluation by other professionals; Parent complaint follow-up; Her demonstrated lack of effective planning; Her lack of enforcement of school policies; Her lack of or inability to motivate students; Observed and reported chaotic classroom deportment; Her failure to keep proper records; and Her failure to leave lesson plans for substitutes. Notwithstanding the above, Respondent was well versed in the subject matter she was to teach and had the subjective background to be an excellent teacher. Her shortcomings, as described above, however, far outweighed the positive aspects of her credentials. Respondent was transferred for the 1981-82 school year to Fletcher High School in Jacksonville where she was placed under the supervision of Dr. Ragans, Principal, to teach English. Dr. Ragans spoke to Mr. Poppel, her former principal, about Respondent's weak areas so that he could develop plans to help her in those areas. In an effort to prepare Respondent for the coming year and to ensure she was fully aware of school policies and standards, Dr. Ragans held an extensive conference with Respondent to discuss her previous year's unsatisfactory rating and to make plans to remedy or remediate those areas. On August 25, 1981, he wrote a letter to Respondent in which he reiterated the items discussed previously. Review of this letter reveals there could be little doubt of what Dr. Ragans expected. Nonetheless, when he personally observed her in her classroom less than a month later, he found many of the same weaknesses previously identified, such as a noisy classroom environment, talking by students without being called on, Respondent appearing preoccupied with desk work, and inadequate lesson plans. In the observation report, he made numerous suggestions for improvement and offered Respondent the opportunity to a conference which she did not request. Prior to that observation, however, on September 8, 1981, Dr. Ragans and Respondent met with Dr. Jeff Weathers, TEC consultant for the School Board, in a full discussion of her professional shortcomings, at which meeting a suggestion was made that Respondent enroll in certain university-level courses in classroom management and motivation. Respondent was somewhat reluctant to take these courses because she felt they might interfere with her planning and her preparation for classes. Nonetheless, she did attend one class. Dr. Ragans had advised her he would arrange for substitute teachers for her so that she could take available classes. She was also invited to meet with master teachers in the school to seek assistance and to observe them, and she did in fact do so. In addition, a program was set up for her lesson plans to be reviewed by experts at the School Board. Respondent denies she ever submitted these plans, but according to Judith B. Silas, a resource teacher at School Board headquarters who reviewed Respondent's plans in December, 1981, her plans were confusing and lacking a consistent format: the dates on the plans reflect they were from an earlier series of years; objective numbers did not refer to the 1981 Curriculum Guide and did not cross-reference; and some included material had no relationship to plans or lessons. Ms. Silas's comments, forwarded to the school in February, 1982, were discussed with Respondent. A follow-up letter dated September 25, 1981, outlining the substance of the joint meeting with Dr. Weathers, was forwarded to Respondent. Shortly thereafter, on October 29, 1981, Dr. Ragans prepared a preliminary evaluation on Respondent rated overall as unsatisfactory in which 13 items were rated that way and 12 more rated as "needs to improve." On November 25, 1981, Respondent was provided with a lesson presentation checklist drawn by Dr. Weathers for her to use along with a notice of several night courses available to Respondent and a notice of a proposed observation of another teacher by Dr. Weathers and Respondent on December 14, 1981. After this observation, Dr. Weathers and Respondent discussed the positive aspects of that teacher's operation that Respondent could and should emulate. A new classroom observation of Respondent was set for January, 1982. In the interim, in January, 1982, Dr. Ragans received at least one parent request for a student to be transferred from Respondent's class because the classroom environment was noisy, unruly, and not conducive to learning. As a result of this letter and other parent contacts of a similar nature, Dr. Ragans had several informal discussions with Respondent during this period. On February 23, 1982, Respondent requested a conference with Dr. Ragans on her upcoming evaluation which was, she understood, to be unsatisfactory from a letter to her on February 5, 1982, from Dr. Ragans. This rating, conducted on February 2, 1982, but not signed by Dr. Ragans until March 3, 1982, was unsatisfactory, containing 14 items so marked and 13 marked "needs to improve." At the conference, held the same day as requested, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent he still felt she had marked deficiencies previously indicated regarding classroom control, authority, respect, lesson plans coordination, classroom planning, her failure to provide purposeful learning experiences, no student motivation, and her apparent inability to be understood by her students. Also cited to her were the continuing parent complaints and those of other teachers that their classrooms, used by her (she was a traveling teacher with no room of her own), had been damaged by her students. Much of this had previously been outlined in Dr. Ragans' February 2, 1982, letter indicating his intent to rate Respondent as unsatisfactory. Both Dr. Weathers and another school district supervisor, Dr. Henderson, observed Respondent in the classroom situation in late January or early February, 1982. Both individuals identified the same deficiencies as previously noted by so many others, and both made recommendations for improvement which were passed on, intact, to Respondent. In early March, 1982, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent in writing of his intent to evaluate her on March 15, 1982, to see if she had made any improvement. He did this because of Respondent's feeling that the previous evaluation had not given her enough time to work out improvements. This latest evaluation was also overall unsatisfactory. Two days later, on March 17, 1982, Respondent indicated in writing that she did not accept this evaluation. On April 30, 1982, Dr. Ragans again visited Respondent's classroom so that, if she had markedly improved, he could try to extend her contract or change her evaluation before the end of the school year. However, he could observe no appreciable change. Shortly after this visit, on May 3, he discussed with Respondent complaints he had received from several parents about warnings she had sent out on some students which inconsistently showed both satisfactory performance and danger of failing on the same form. She explained this as all students, including straight "A" students, who had not taken the MLST (test) were in danger of failing. Dr. Ragans felt this excuse was feeble and unjustified and demonstrated poor judgment on her part. All this was confirmed in a letter on May 17. A complaint from a parent of one of Respondent's students, received on June 11, 1982, initiated an audit of the grades given by Respondent during the school year. Results of this audit revealed at least 68 errors involving 46 students, including three students who received passing grades when they, in fact, had failed and should have been in summer school. A total of 13 student grades had to be changed, requiring a letter of notification and apology from the principal. Respondent did not deny the inconsistencies shown in the audit, but defended them on the basis of, in many cases, their being the result of her exercising her discretion and prerogative to award a grade different from that supported by recorded achievement if, in her opinion, other factors so dictated. In any case, the number of inconsistencies requiring a grade change was substantially higher than is normal. During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent had not been assigned a classroom of her own, but instead met and taught her classes in the rooms assigned to other teachers. This situation, while not unique to Respondent and one which several other teachers had as well, is nonetheless a definite handicap to any teacher. In an effort to alleviate the impact of this situation, all Respondent's rooms were scheduled as geographically close together as possible, and she was assigned only one subject to teach. Therefore, though she may have had several class periods which progressed at different speeds, the planning and preparation was similar and much less an arduous task than if she had different subjects to prepare for. In any case, there is little relationship between this and discipline and control in the classroom. Dr. Mary Henderson, Director of Language Arts/Reading for the Duval County School Board, observed Respondent in the classroom during both the 1980- 81 and 1981-82 school years at two different schools. Recognizing that Respondent has definite strengths in her knowledge of the subject matter to be taught and her recognition of and communication to the students of the relationship of their lessons to the test requirements, Dr. Henderson still felt Respondent was not a competent teacher. On both occasions, she found Respondent's lesson plans to be inadequate, her techniques in classroom management were deficient, she failed to make effective use of the students' time, and she failed to effectively motivate her students to participate in the classroom activities. Throughout all this period, according to both supervisors and others who observed her, Respondent always maintained a pleasant, calm, positive, and cooperative approach to all with whom she came into contact. At no time did she show hostility or resentment. Also, there was never a question as to her knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent possesses a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in administration and supervision. She has sufficient credit hours to qualify for a major in Spanish. She has also taken several in-service courses in such subjects as linguistics, methods of curriculum and instruction, British literature, and school administration. She is certified to teach English, Spanish, and typing. She has been a teacher in several Florida school systems for 29 years, of which the last 21 years were in various Jacksonville area schools. She is tenured. She was selected for summer school employment in 1980, while at Forrest High School, even though tenure does not ensure selection to teach summer school. During the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was caring for the aunt who raised her and who was suffering from terminal cancer. This required frequent travel back and forth to another part of the state, and in addition to being a physical burden, constituted a severe strain on her mental state. During that year, she started out teaching only twelfth grade classes, but as a result of a reduction in class sizes during the school year, she was given some additional tenth grade classes for which she had not prepared. Respondent feels her classroom discipline was not so unusual as to be remarkable. She feels she maintained classroom discipline as well as required and contested the allegations that she rarely referred students to the administration for additional discipline. She made all reasonable effort to improve her performance by enrolling in some of the courses recommended by Drs. Weathers and Ragans, but had to wait until the second semester because she did not get the information on the first semester courses until after they had started. The classes she took urged the use of listening and negotiating skills rather than the authoritative method in dealing with students. She tried to implement what she learned in her classrooms and feels she succeeded regardless of what the testimony shows. In addition, she took a course dealing with self- concept and self-confidence and applied for admission to Jacksonville University's master of arts program in an effort to upgrade her skills. Respondent admits that at the beginning of the 1981-82 school year, she was not using formal lesson plans. She had been asked by the administration for plans on a weekly basis and had jotted down ideas on paper. To formulate these ideas, she used prior years lesson plans, but did not turn any of these in. This does not track with Ms. Silas's testimony that the Respondent's plans she reviewed appeared to be from prior years. I find that prior years' plans were used by Respondent extensively and how these plans were transmitted to Ms. Silas for review is immaterial. Respondent, based on the above, while possessing the necessary technical qualifications to perform as a teacher, while possessing the appropriate knowledge of her subject matter, and while possessing the desire to impart that knowledge to her students, is nonetheless incompetent to conduct a class, maintain proper discipline, and generate adequate student motivation to accomplish these desired ends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be removed from classroom teaching duties and be assigned some other function within the school system until such time, unless sooner released for other good cause, as she can retire with maximum benefits. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 1st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary E. Eckstine, Esquire Chief Administrative Hearings Section City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William F. Kachergus, Esquire Maness & Kachergus 502 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Herb A. Sang Superintendent Duval County Public Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
