Findings Of Fact During the 1985-86 school year Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens was a student in the tenth grade at Miami Sunset Senior High School. On April 18, 1986, during the lunch period Respondent drove into the faculty parking lot in his Corvette with the police following closely behind. It was determined that during his lunch break Respondent had been driving his Corvette in a nearby condominium development threatening residents and throwing beer cans on the lawns. The residents had summoned the police. An Assistant Principal held a conference with Respondent's father whose response was that the police should have better things to do than to bother his son for drinking beer and driving around during his lunch break. Respondent was given a three-day suspension. On May 22, 1986, Respondent got into a fight in class, a Group III violation of the Code of Student Conduct. A conference was held with Respondent's father, and Respondent was given a ten-day suspension. Although other informal discussions were held with Respondent's father during that school year, by the end of the third grading period Respondent's grades were one "C," one "D," and 4 "Fs." His absences from his classes during the third grading period alone ranged between 2 and 13. He received only a "3" for his effort in each and every class. During the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was absent 95 days out of the 180-day school year. On March 3, 1987, an Assistant Principal observed Respondent leaving the campus during Respondent's second-period class. He stopped Respondent and gave him a warning. A few minutes later he caught Respondent again attempting to leave. Respondent's mother was contacted, and Respondent was given a "work detail detention." On April 2, 1987, a fight broke out off campus between a group of Latin students and a group of Anglo students. On the following day Respondent admitted to an Assistant Principal that he was one of the participants. All of the students involved (including Respondent) were suspended for three days for that Group III Code violation. On October 19, 1987, Respondent was nearly involved in a collision in the parking lot. Respondent got out of his car and started pushing the other driver. A fight ensued. Respondent's parents were contacted, and he was given a ten-day suspension. By the time of the October 19th incident, Respondent had already been absent 6 days that school year. Further, although the Assistant Principal had two conferences with Respondent's father during the month of October, Respondent was receiving one "C," one "D," and five "Fs" in his classes. A Child Study Team was convened, and a meeting was held on November 3, 1987. Respondent and his parents refused to attend. The Team recommended that Respondent be transferred to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South, based upon the October 19, 1987, incident, his failing grades during the most-recent two years, and Respondent's chronic aggressive behavior which constituted a threat to the welfare of the other students. It was determined that Respondent required assistance a normal school could not provide and that a structured environment would be more appropriate since the educators at Miami Sunset Senior High School had unsuccessfully attempted to modify Respondent's behavior by conferences between Respondent and a counselor, meetings between Respondent's parents and assistant principals, indoor suspensions, outdoor suspensions, and work detail suspensions
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of March, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675, Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: JOSEPH A. FERNANDEZ, SUPERINTENDENT SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 FRANK R. HARDER, ESQUIRE 175 FONTAINEBLEAU BOULEVARD SUITE 2A-3 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33172 LANA STEPHENS 15490 S.W. 85TH LANE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33183 MADELYN P. SCHERE, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 PHYLLIS O. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Notice of Charges, Williams was employed by the School Board in a variety of capacities. With the exception of paragraph 22, which, to preserve continuity, will be consolidated with paragraph 2 of the Notice of Charges, the allegations shall be considered seriatum. That during the 1965-1966 school year, the Respondent did receive an overall unsatisfactory rating. That the Respondent in the 1965 and 1966 school years received a poor rat- ing in the following area: "Relation- ship with others," and "Is healthy and emotionally stable;" and further received an unsatisfactory rating in the category of "works well with others," end "demon- strates professional attitude and imple- menting school policy." The evidence indicates that for the school year 1965-1966, Williams received an average score of 3.3 on his Dade County evaluation form. According to the form an average rating below 3.5 indicates unsatisfactory work in Dade County schools. On that same evaluation form Williams received a 3.0 rating for the category "Works well with others." There was no rating for "Is healthy and emotionally stable." Williams received a 2.8 rating for the category "Understands and supports school policies aid demonstrates a professional attitude in implementing them." From the 1965-1966 school year until the present Williams has consistently received satisfactory overall ratings for his work in the Dade County schools. That on or about January 16, 1968, the Respondent, while a visiting teacher with the School Board of Dade County, and more particularly assigned to Gladeview Ele- mentary School, the Respondent, did without reason or authority demanded [sic] of the principal, Mr. Leonard Wollman, his reason for having a child stand outside and perform a task signed by the principal. Said demand made by the Respondent was made in a loud, rude and unprofessional manner, and was over- heard by numerous persons located within the confines of the school. On or about January 16, 1968, Mr. Leonard Wollman was principal of Gladeview Elementary School and at that time observed a student throw an apple out a school window. When the student refused to pick up the apple, Mr. Wollman made the student pick it up along with other trash. At that time, Williams criticized the handling of the incident by Wollman and claimed that the child was being mistreated. There was a lack of competent substantial evidence to establish that Williams' inquiries as to the handling of the incident were made in a loud, rude and unprofessional manner. There was a complete absence of evidence to establish that Williams' comments were overheard by numerous persons located within the confines of the school. That during the 1969-1970 school year, the Respondent, Charles Williams, did receive an unsatisfactory evaluation in the area of personal characteristics and leadership, notwithstanding an overall average of 4.2. The Dade County evaluation form for school year 1969-1970 reflects that Williams received a score of 3.0 in each of two categories of personal characteristics and leadership. The remarks section indicates "Needs improvement in human relations and group processes, which hopefully he will develop within the year. Otherwise, performance this year has been outstanding." That during the year 1970, more particularly, during the month of October, 1970, the Respondent was required by the Director of the North Central District to submit to the district office a plan for gifted children to participate in a program as outlined by the District Office. Further, as a result of the Respondent's failure to comply with the directive of the District Office two deserving children from the Respondent's school were left out of the program. There is no evidence in the record to establish that Williams was required to submit a plan for gifted children. There was evidence to establish that Williams was required to submit the names of students in his school who qualified for the gifted child program by October 30, 1970, and that such names were submitted late. Notwithstanding the late submission, the names were still considered for the gifted child program. Furthermore, there is an absence of competent substantial evidence to establish that at deserving children were left out of the program because of the actions of Williams. In the final analysis, Williams is charged with failing to submit a plan when the evidence shows that he was not required to submit a plan. Accordingly, the charge is not supported by the evidence. That on or about November 23, 1970, the Respondent did berate and make sarcastic and provocative remarks to Mrs. Carol Kleinfeld because said teacher had sought a transfer from the school where the Respondent served as principal. On Motion of Williams at the hearing, the undersigned ruled that there was a complete absence of evidence to support this charge. That on or about March 1, 1971, the Respondent did berate Mrs. Carol Kleinfeld who [was a] teacher at the school where the Respondent is principal and further did scream and shout at [her] in a violent and threatening manner further threatening that he would fire all parties concerned. During the 1970-1971 school year, Carol Kleinfeld worked for Williams at Primary C Elementary School. From time to time, Williams and Mrs. Kleinfeld engaged in discussions concerning Mrs. Kleinfeld's performance of her duties. The evidence establishes that Williams was displeased with the performance and gave Mrs. Kleinfeld the lowest possible performance rating. The evidence also establishes that Williams pointed his finger at Ms. Kleinfeld on one or more occasions. However, there is an absence of competent substantial evidence to establish that Williams berated Ms. Kleinfeld or that he screamed and shouted at her in a violent and threatening manner. That during the 1970-1971 school year, the Respondent acted in such an unprofes- sional fashion towards teachers assigned to his school, that numerous teachers requested transfers to other schools as a result of the humiliating and threaten- ing attitudes of the Respondent. There was no competent substantial evidence to establish that Williams acted in an unprofessional manner toward his teachers or that numerous teachers requested transfers because of Williams' conduct. That on or about April 4, 1975, the Respondent did, in front of children and custodians, harass, threaten and berate one Franklin Clark, Coordinator of Primary C Elementary School, con- cerning an event which did not happen. On April 4, 1975, Franklin Clark was Community School Coordinator for Primary C Elementary School. Clark's working hours were from 2:00 to 10:00 P.M. On several occasions, prior to that date, Clark had taken extended supper without informing Williams. When Williams discovered this practice, he had occasion to correct Clark and reiterate the requirement that Clark be present at the School for the appropriate period of time. On the day in question, Williams confronted Clark with an accusation that Clark had not been present during his proper working hours the night before. Clark denied the accusation. While Williams was angry during that conversation, there was no evidence to establish that he harassed, threatened or berated Clark during the encounter. That during the year 1975, the Respondent did fail to cooperate with other school principals, more particularly Ms. Della A. Zaher, principal at Edison Park Elementary School, in that he failed to cooperate with a fellow school principal in establishing and coordinating the articulation plans for the second and third grade students. While the evidence shows that Williams did not in fact work with Ms. Zaher in establishing articulation plans for second and third grade students, the record is devoid of any evidence which would establish that Williams was required to do so. In fact, inter school cooperation was necessary only as desired by participating principals. The evidence does establish that Williams followed prescribed procedure for articulation plans and that there would have been no real benefit in deeling with Ms. Zeher as she had requested. That on or about November 19, 1976, the Respondent did leave a meeting early without authorization which meeting was for the purpose of the area superintendent to explain the alternative plans for attendance. The evidence establishes that on November 19, 1976, Williams attended a meeting of principals, directors, and area office personnel, called by the area superintendent. Williams left the meeting early. However, the evidence affirmatively establishes that no permission was required for any of the participants of the meeting to leave early. That during the month of November, 1976, the Respondent did fail to observe and follow the purposes outlined by Robert Little Supervisor of the attendance office, in his memorandum entitled, "Pro- cedures and Calendar for the Development of the 1977-78 Attendant Zone Changes," dated November 4, 1976. That by failing to follow the plan as outlined by the memorandum, the Respondent's actions created the potential for negative parent/community reaction. That the Respondent did not provide a written plan to the area office for con- sideration until February 8, 1977, and said report was scheduled to be rendered to the area office and the area superintendent on November 19, 1976. All other principals met this deadline. The evidence affirmatively establishes that the memorandum in question did not require Williams to do anything. The alternatives available in the memorandum were optional on the part of principals. On Motion of Williams, the Hearing Officer declared that there was insufficient evidence to establish the allegations of the foregoing charges. That on or about July 11, 1977, the respondent failed to be a witness for the School Board of Dade County which involved the suspension of an employee who was under the direction and control of the Respondent while he was principal at the Primary C Elementary School [sic]. That his refusal to be a witness was without foundation and further, was his duty and responsibility as an employee of the School Board of Dade County. On July 11, 1977, Williams was called to a conference regarding a hearing that was to be held that afternoon, involving another employee of the School Board. Williams went to the conference and became upset because he believed certain questions propounded to him were improper. Williams, however, was neither requested nor directed to be a witness at the hearing to be held later that day. No subpoena was issued to compel Williams' attendance at that hearing. That during the 1978-1979 school year, numerous teachers at the Primary C Elementary School, where the Respondent was assigned as principal, have sought reassignment because of the open criticism and un- warranted harassment by the Respondent. This charge is not substantiated by competent substantial evidence. While the evidence does indicate that Williams had a small number of disagreements with one or two teachers during that school year, the evidence further establishes that the overwhelming majority of the teachers at that school during that school year hold Williams in high regard. There is am absence of evidence to establish that numerous teachers sought reassignment. That on or about November 8, 1978, a principal's meeting was held for the purpose of assisting administrator's review procedures used to remediate professional personnel where performance is deficient and at said meeting, the Respondent acted in a negative and disruptive manner, so as to make the meeting ineffective for all persons concerned. This charge is unsupported by the evidence. The evidence does establish that at the meeting in question, Williams fully participated and asked pertinent, incisive questions of those conducting the meeting. That on or about January 9, 1979, the area superintendant [sic] attempted to have a conference with the Respondent con- cerning specific recommendations for improvement, and at said conference the Respondent was insubordinate, disruptive, hostile and negative toward the area superintendant [sic], in such a manner as to make the meeting an ineffective one, and thus the meeting had to be terminated because of the behavior of the Respondent. At the hearing in this cause, there was made available a complete transcript of the conference held on January 9, 1979, with Williams and the area superintendent. The document, received as Respondent's Exhibit "Y", demonstrates that Williams was neither insubordinate, disruptive, hostile or negative. In fact, the area superintendant terminated the meeting after ascertaining that Williams had no further questions regarding the recommendations for improvement which were given to Williams at the meeting. That in the school year 1969-1970 it was further noted that the Respondent needed improvement in "Human relations" and "Group processes." (As amended at the hearing in this cause.) The Dade County evaluation form for school year 1969-1970 reflects that Williams received an overall score of 4.2 for that school year. This constitutes a satisfactory rating in the Dade County School System. The remarks section says "Needs improvement in human relations and group processes which hopefully he will develop within the year. Otherwise his performance this year has been outstanding." 25. Evaluations for school years 1970-1971, 1971-1972, 1972-1973, 1973- 1974, 1974-1975, 1975-1976, 1976-1977 and 1977-1978, all show satisfactory performance ratings in the areas in question. Furthermore, these ratings reflect that while Williams is not a perfect individual, he is an outstanding educator who has made continued significant contributions to the Dade County School System and to the students under his care.
The Issue The main issues in this case are whether, as the district school board alleges, a teacher has given the district just cause to terminate his employment contract for incompetency, and, alternatively, whether the teacher failed to correct performance deficiencies during a 90-day probationary period, which would constitute separate grounds for dismissal if proven true.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all relevant times, Respondent Christopher Marshall ("Marshall") was employed as a math teacher in the Broward County school district, a position which he had held for some 15 years before this proceeding began. During that period, Marshall taught at a few different schools, the latest being McArthur High, where he worked for several years up to and including the 2013-14 school year. Marshall's teaching career, sad to say, has been mediocre. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, at least as early as 2002, Marshall was identified by administrators and colleagues as a teacher of marginal ability. More than once over the years Marshall was placed on performance probation due to concerns about his unsatisfactory performance. Rather than terminate Marshall's employment, however, the district transferred Marshall from school to school, and somehow he managed to muddle through, doing enough to be rated "satisfactory" and avoid getting the sack. One of Marshall's defining characteristics has been the remarkably high percentages of Fs and Ds that his students consistently have earned, year in and year out. Frequently more than half of his students took home final grades lower than a C——and sometimes quite a bit more than 50 percent fell into this category. This was true across grade levels (Marshall taught grades nine through 12) and without regard to degrees of subject-matter difficulty (Marshall taught advanced as well as basic classes; he was not assigned only struggling students). It was not uncommon for Marshall to fail between one-quarter and one-third of his students. In the 2013-14 school year, for example, 31 percent of Marshall's Liberal Arts Math 2 students received a failing grade; 25 percent of his Math College Readiness students failed; and ten percent of his Algebra 2 students got Fs. This was consistent with a decade-long pattern. Needless to say, a teacher whose students in large numbers routinely get Ds or worse in his classes attracts attention from students, colleagues, parents, and administrators. In Marshall's case, students complained to other teachers——and to their parents. Parents, of course, complained to administrators and demanded that their children be placed in other classes. Often, to placate angry parents, Marshall's students were transferred, with the result that Marshall's classes were small, and other math teachers had to squeeze in additional students. Teachers complained about this. It must be acknowledged that poor grades are not necessarily a reflection of the teacher's ability or lack thereof. Certainly, as a general rule, each student bears substantial responsibility for his or her own grade, and no one should expect a teacher simply to hand out high marks that are unmerited and unearned. Sometimes, to be sure, an F or a D is as richly deserved as an A or a B. That said, the sheer persistence of Marshall's grade distribution under different conditions and through changing student populations implies that something other than resistance or indifference to learning, poor study habits, or lack of intellectual ability must be at work. The undersigned has combed the record for an explanation of his students' poor grades that might exonerate Marshall but can find none. There is no persuasive evidence, for example, that Marshall is a demanding teacher who sets the bar high for his students, administering tough but fair tests that are difficult for the unmotivated or unprepared to pass. To the contrary, Marshall had his students spend time on rote exercises, such as copying definitions and formulas from the textbook, which have little educational value. Nor did Marshall's students tend to excel in their next math classes. Rather, after being taught by Marshall, his students often had difficulty in their subsequent courses because they had not learned the prerequisite material. For years, administrators have tried to cajole or compel Marshall to reduce the number of students receiving Fs and Ds in his classes, not by the expedient of grade inflation, but by implementing different pedagogical techniques and strategies. Marshall, however, has ignored these importunings and directives, and nothing has changed. Marshall's apparent imperviousness to criticism has been an ongoing source of frustration to his colleagues and administrators. Marshall considers himself to be an "awesome" teacher, and therefore he concludes that anyone who has a different opinion——which unfortunately seems to be nearly everyone with whom he has worked——is either mistaken, lying, or treating him unfairly. This has led Marshall to file numerous grievances and complaints against his supervisors, none of which has been successful. He is not, however, confrontational, discourteous, or abusive in his workplace relationships. Rather, Marshall engages in passive-aggressive behavior. Faced with a demand or a directive, Marshall does not argue (although he might politely disagree); he simply does not comply. The greater weight of the evidence persuades the undersigned to find that the bad grades Marshall's students consistently have received are a symptom of Marshall's inability to teach. Although he knows his subject, Marshall lacks the skills necessary to impart his knowledge to his students, who consequently do not learn math in his classes. It is not that Marshall is deliberately trying not to succeed. He is not being insubordinate in this regard. He is simply not suited to the job of teaching high school math. In 2011, following a legislative directive then recently enacted, the school district adopted a teacher evaluation system known as the Broward Instructional Development and Growth Evaluation System ("BrIDGES"), which is based on Dr. Robert J. Marzano's strategies for educational effectiveness. When rating a teacher's classroom performance using BrIDGES, an evaluator inputs his or her observations into a database by filling out an electronic "iObservation" form. The iObservation tool contains 60 "elements," each of which represents a discrete strategy, action, or skill that a teacher might employ as appropriate: e.g., "Using Academic Games," "Identifying Critical Information," and "Displaying Objectivity and Control." The elements are organized under four separate "domains" as follows: Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors (Elements 1-41) Domain 2: Planning and Preparing (Elements 42-49) Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching (Elements 50-54) Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism (Elements 55-60). The 41 elements of Domain 1 are further subdivided into nine Design Questions, DQ1 through DQ9. On October 8, 2013, the school district and the Broward Teachers Union entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting forth their agreements regarding the use of BrIDGES to evaluate teachers for 2013-14. Pursuant to the MOU, each classroom teacher was to receive at least three observations, including one formal (30 or more minutes), one informal (15-25 minutes), and one snapshot or walkthrough (3-10 minutes) observation. During an observation, the subject teacher receives a "datamark" (prescribed number of points) for each element that the evaluator chooses to rate. For 2013-14, the datamarks were as follows: Innovating (Highly Effective), 4 points; Applying (Effective), 3 points; Developing (Effective), 2.5 points; Beginning (Needs Improvement), 2 points; and Not Using (Unsatisfactory), 1 point. Each teacher was to receive at least 45 datamarks, comprising at least 25 datamarks in Domain 1 and 10 within Domains 2, 3, and/or 4. A weighted average of the datamarks assigned to a teacher's performance as recorded on the iObservation forms became the teacher's Instructional Practice Score ("IPS"). The IPS was equal to 0.68X plus 0.32Y, where X was the average of the teacher's Domain 1 datamarks and Y was the average of the teacher's datamarks for Domains 2, 3, and 4 combined. The IPS was reported as a number having three decimal digits, to the thousandths place. This created a false precision, for the calculated result could not possibly have been more precise than the number having the least number of significant figures in the equation, which would always be a one-digit integer (unless the teacher happened to receive strait 2.5s——possible, but unlikely, and not the case here). In other words, the numbers to the right of the decimal point in the teacher's IPS were mathematically insignificant, spurious digits, because the original data could not support a measurement beyond the precision of one significant figure. The IPS should have been (but was not) rounded to a single-digit integer to avoid reporting insignificant digits. For 2013-14, the BrIDGES Overall Evaluation Score equaled the sum of the teacher's IPS (weighted as 49%), Deliberate Practice score (weighted as 1.0%), and Student Growth score (weighted as 50%). Teachers at McArthur High (including Marshall) for whom no individual student data were available automatically received a Student Growth score of 3.0 for that school year, and all teachers (including Marshall) who completed a self-assessment received a Deliberate Practice score of 3.0. The Overall Evaluation Scale for 2013-14 was Highly Effective (3.450-4.000), Effective (2.500-3.449), Needs Improvement (2.000-2.499), and Unsatisfactory (1.000-1.999). As of February 4, 2014, Marshall had received eight observations: three formals, three informals, and two walkthroughs. He had received 56 datamarks in Domain 1 and five datamarks in Domains 2, 3, and 4. His weighted IPS, to that date, was 2.145 (but this computed score was precise to no more than one significant figure and therefore should be understood as a 2 after rounding off the spurious digits), or Needs Improvement. Pursuant to the MOU, once a teacher receives an average IPS of Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory among other conditions that Marshall had met as of February 4, 2014, a Performance Development Plan ("PDP") may be written for that teacher. Accordingly, in early February 2014, a PDP was written for Marshall. As well, on February 12, 2014, the principal of McArthur High placed Marshall on performance probation for 90 calendar days, delivering to Marshall a notice of "less than effective performance" ostensibly pursuant to section 1012.34(4), Florida Statutes. The statute, however, authorizes 90-day performance probation only for a teacher whose performance is unsatisfactory, and Marshall's performance was not unsatisfactory; it was Needs Improvement. Needs Improvement is, to be sure, less than Effective performance, but it is better than Unsatisfactory. Indeed, none of the levels of performance besides Unsatisfactory denotes unsatisfactory performance and thus, logically, all teachers rated Highly Effective, Effective, or Needs Improvement fall within the range of satisfactory performance. In any event, between February 28 and May 7, 2014, Marshall received 12 more observations, which added 75 datamarks to his total in Domain 1 (making 131 in all) and six additional datamarks in Domains 2, 3, and 4 (for a grand total of 11). The iObservation forms for Marshall's last six observations, incidentally, are not in evidence. As of May 7, 2014, Marshall's IPS was 1.963. This number, by itself, would be Unsatisfactory on the Overall Evaluation Scale. Given, however, that the initial numerical data was captured (mostly) in single-digit integers, together with a handful of 2.5s, the decimal places are spurious in this result; there is no meaningful distinction between "1.963" (which is a textbook example of false precision) and "2" (which is what 1.963 should be rounded up to, to avoid the fallacy of overprecision). Thus, if the insignificant figures are ignored, Marshall's IPS, by itself, is actually Needs Improvement. But more important, Marshall's IPS was not his Overall Evaluation Score, and therefore it is improper and unfair to deem his performance Unsatisfactory on the Overall Performance Scale based on an IPS of 1.963 as the School Board wants to do. Marshall's Overall Evaluation Score, as calculated by the School Board, was 2.492 — Needs Improvement.1/ Again, Needs Improvement is less than Effective and clearly not ideal, but it is not Unsatisfactory. To the contrary, Needs Improvement is one of the levels of satisfactory performance. Going a step farther, if Marshall's IPS were rounded to 2, as it should be to eliminate the false precision, and his Overall Evaluation Score recalculated absent the spurious decimals, then his final score would be 2.51, which in turn should be rounded to 3 to avoid overprecision, but which equals Effective performance regardless. The point is, based on a final score of 2.492, Marshall's overall performance can as correctly be deemed Effective as Needs Improvement, for there is no real difference between 2.492 and 3 based on the original data used to make these calculations.2/ (To repeat for emphasis, computations cannot make the original data more precise.3/) Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Marshall is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2).4/ The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Marshall is guilty of incompetency,5/ which is just cause for dismissal from employment. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that Marshall's performance as measured in accordance with the BrIDGES evaluation system was not Unsatisfactory during the 2013-14 school year. Therefore, the evidence does not support the termination of Marshall's employment contract pursuant to section 1012.34(4). The evidence does not support a determination that Marshall independently violated section 1012.53, apart from his incompetency, which affords a sufficient basis (as "just cause") for dismissal. The evidence does not support a determination that Marshall independently violated School Board Rule 4008(B), apart from his incompetency, which affords a sufficient basis (as "just cause") for dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing Marshall from his employment as a teacher in the Broward County Public Schools for the just cause of incompetency as a result of inefficiency. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 24th day of March, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, whether such conduct constitutes just cause to dismiss her from her teaching position, as further alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Background Information The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida (including, among others, Arch Creek Elementary School (Arch Creek)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. At all times material to the instant case, Dr. Marie Bazile was the principal of Arch Creek. Respondent has been employed as a teacher by the School Board since 2005. She presently holds a professional services contract with the School Board. Respondent taught at Arch Creek for parts of the 2008- 2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 school years, initially as a third grade teacher (during the first couple of weeks of the 2008-2009 school year) and then as a kindergarten teacher. As an instructional employee of the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and UTD (UTD Contract). Article XXI of the UTD Contract addresses the subject of "[e]mployee [r]ights and [d]ue [p]rocess." Section 1.A.1. of Article XXI provides that "the [School] Board and [UTD] recognize the principle of progressive discipline," that they "agree that disciplinary action may be consistent with the concept of progressive discipline when the [School] Board deems it appropriate," and that "the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense." Section 1.B.1.a. of Article XXI provides that "[a]ny member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes." Section 1.B.2. of Article XXI provides, in part, that "[d]ismissals and suspensions shall be effected in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes, including the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) " Parental Complaints During the 2009-2010 school year, several parents complained to Principal Bazile about Respondent's allowing the students in her kindergarten class to "run[] in the street" at dismissal time.3 As a result of receiving these complaints, Principal Bazile "wrote [Respondent] up" and went over with Respondent the dismissal procedures that all classroom teachers at Arch Creek were expected to follow.4 FAIR Training Also during the 2009-2010 school year, when asked to participate in mandatory FAIR (Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading) training given by Arch Creek's reading coach, Respondent initially did not acquiesce, but, rather, indicated she first wanted to contact UTD to find out if she could be made to take this training notwithstanding that she would not be receiving any "master plan points" for her time and effort. After her inquiry was answered in the affirmative by the UTD representative with whom she spoke, she willingly underwent the training. Bathroom Incident On November 18, 2010, shortly before the school day was to begin, one of Respondent's fellow kindergarten teachers at Arch Creek, Nancy Kurre, called in sick. There was insufficient time to locate a substitute teacher to cover Ms. Kurre's class, so the students in her class were reassigned to other kindergarten classes for the day. Marie Beaubien, Arch Creek's kindergarten/first grade "chair," made the reassignments. Among the reassigned students was F., a boy with behavioral issues who had difficulty remaining in his seat and would constantly wander off, frequently to the bathroom, without Ms. Kurre's permission. F. was reassigned to Respondent's class, much to the displeasure of Respondent, who felt that she was ill-prepared to accommodate F., whom she knew to be a "difficult child," in her classroom. F. was escorted to Respondent's classroom by Socra Antenor, the school secretary. From the outset, F. was a disruptive influence in the classroom. At around 8:30 a.m., Ms. Beaubien went to the school office to look for F. after having been told by another kindergarten teacher that F. was not in Respondent's classroom, where he was supposed to be. In fact, although Respondent had decided to remove F. from her classroom and to take him to the office because she did not "want to deal with [him]" and his disruptive behavior, she had not yet done so as a result of her having been preoccupied with other matters, which diverted her attention away from F. Ms. Antenor was in the office when Ms. Beaubien came by. She told Ms. Beaubien that F. was not there and that he should still be in Respondent's classroom. Ms. Beaubien then went to Respondent's classroom. Ms. Antenor followed closely behind her. When Ms. Beaubien got to Respondent's classroom, she asked Respondent if F. was there. Although F. was not where Respondent had last seen him, nor anywhere else in the instructional space of the classroom, Respondent was confident that he had not exited the classroom. She assumed, given what she knew of F.'s behavioral history in school, that F. had wandered into the classroom's bathroom when her attention was directed elsewhere. It turned out her assumption was correct. When she and Ms. Beaubien went to the bathroom and the door was opened, F. was inside. As F. walked out of the bathroom, Ms. Beaubien took him by the hand and brought him to the school office. Ms. Beaubien erroneously thought that she had heard Respondent admit to having "locked" F. in the bathroom. In fact, not only had Respondent not made such a statement, there was no way she could have locked F. in the bathroom inasmuch as the bathroom door could not be locked from the outside. Nonetheless, Ms. Beaubien reported to Principal Bazile that the statement had been made. The School Board's Civil Investigative Unit (CIU) was thereafter notified and a CIU personnel investigation was begun (Bathroom Incident Investigation). A CIU investigative report, containing the following findings, was subsequently prepared, and it received final approval on December 15, 2010: Based on the information obtained from all parties, Ms. Kiara Higgs is in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and there is PROBABLE CAUSE. Based on the information obtained from all parties, Ms. Kiara Higgs is in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, and there is PROBABLE CAUSE. Outdoor Lunch Detention Incident December 8, 2010, was an unseasonably cold day in the Miami-Dade County area, but that did not deter at least three of Arch Creek's teachers--Respondent, Edouard St. Hilaire, and Paul Fabre--from eating their lunch, at around 10:15 a.m. that day, at tables (with benches) in the outdoor patio area just outside the school cafeteria. Mr. Hilaire, who was wearing a jacket, and Mr. Fabre, who was wearing a blazer, were together at the same table, while Respondent, who was wearing a sweater and pants, was seated several tables away.5 With Respondent was a student of hers who was serving a lunch detention she had meted out. The student had on layers of clothing, including a sweat suit top (worn as an outer garment) that (at least to Mr. Fabre, from his vantage point6) looked like a blouse,7 under which were shirts of some kind.8 Both Mr. Hilaire and Mr. Fabre believed that it was too cold for the student to be eating outdoors, and they so advised Respondent and suggested to her that she send the student inside, back into the cafeteria. To allay her colleagues' concerns, Respondent followed their suggestion, notwithstanding her belief (which has not been shown to be unreasonable) that their concerns were unfounded and that the student was indeed dressed warmly enough to be outside.9 Mr. St. Hilaire reported the incident to Principal Bazile because he thought that Respondent had done something that was "not proper." The CIU was thereafter notified and a CIU personnel investigation was begun (Lunch Detention Incident Investigation). A CIU investigative report, containing the following findings, was subsequently prepared, and it received final approval on January 12, 2011: Based on the information obtained from all parties, Ms. Kiara Higgs is in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and there is PROBABLE CAUSE. Based on the information obtained from all parties, Ms. Kiara Higgs is in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, and there is PROBABLE CAUSE. False 911 Call Paul Greenfield is a Region Administrative Director with the School Board. On the Friday before the start of the 2010-2011 school year winter recess, Mr. Greenfield met with Respondent at the School Board's regional office in Hialeah to formally notify her of the Lunch Detention Incident Investigation and to have her sign paperwork that would enable her to get paid during the winter recess. Respondent was in a foul mood at the time of the meeting. She was already upset that, despite her sincere protestations of innocence, the Bathroom Incident Investigation had resulted in findings of probable cause. Being informed by Mr. Greenfield that she was the subject of another CIU personnel investigation did nothing to improve Respondent's mood. Rather, it made her even more upset and prompted her to tell Mr. Greenfield that she did not feel well and wanted to leave. Mr. Greenfield responded by requesting that Respondent stay so that she could fill out paperwork that would "facilitate [her] getting paid." Respondent, in a very agitated tone of voice, expressed her unwillingness to comply with Mr. Greenfield's request. Mr. Greenfield then said to her, "Ms. Higgs, if you would just wait a few more minutes, but it's certainly up to you. I'm not going to hold you." Respondent's reaction was to call 911 on her cell phone and falsely report that she was being held against her will by her employer at the Hialeah regional office, knowing full well that this was not true and that, as Mr. Greenfield had made clear to her, she was free to leave if she so chose. Indeed, immediately after placing the call, Respondent did walk away from Mr. Greenfield. She did not go very far, however. After turning the corner in the hallway, she wound up on the hallway floor. Fire rescue personnel were summoned to the scene. They examined Respondent. Finding that Respondent did not need any further medical attention, they cleared her to leave. Respondent then left the building.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board issue a final order finding that there is "just cause" to suspend or dismiss Respondent on, and only on, the charge, made in Counts II and III of the Notice of Specific Charges, that in December 2010, she violated School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213 by making a 911 call falsely claiming that she was being held against her will at the at School Board's regional office in Hialeah, and, based on such finding, suspending her, without pay, until the end of the regular 2011- 2012 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 18th day of November, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent is subject to personnel action as specified in the Notice of Charges and if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Casey Carlisle is a teacher at Santa Fe High School and is employed by the Alachua County School Board on a professional service contract. Respondent has taught at Santa Fe High School since 1990 and has taught in the Florida public school system for 32 years. The 2006-2007 school year for students began on Monday, August 14, 2006. Respondent teaches a business systems technology course during the sixth period in Room 11-011. The class has approximately 30 students. Respondent is hard of hearing. He advises both teachers and students of his hearing problem, and tends to speak louder than most. According to his wife, he does not need a microphone when he is talking. He had advised the sixth period class of his hearing problem and his tendency to speak loudly on the first day of school. Room 11-011 is a large classroom, although not the largest in the school. The noise from the air conditioner, lights, computers and monitors, and the normal activity of having a classroom full of students shuffling their feet and passing things out, combined with Respondent's hearing deficit, is such that Respondent finds it necessary to speak loudly in this room. Respondent also has a tendency to "talk with his hands," and did so often during his testimony at hearing. The computers in Respondent's classroom were not functioning properly on the first day of school, which caused frustration for students and teacher alike. As a result, Respondent changed his plans for the second day and gave the students an alternative lesson. In preparing for this lesson, it was necessary for him to hand out books and document holders at the beginning of class that were still in the storage cabinets in the classroom. On this same day, Principal Bill Herschleb was monitoring students in a common area on campus during the transition between fifth and sixth periods, which is his normal practice during the initial days of a school year. A student came up to him and asked for help retrieving a backpack that had been left in Room 11-011. Herschleb escorted the student to the classroom to retrieve the backpack so that the student would not be considered tardy going to his next class. Herschleb entered Respondent's classroom with the student while Respondent was giving instruction and handing out books and document holders. According to Herschleb, he remained in the room only 15-30 seconds, and Respondent's back was to him. Herschleb testified that Respondent was yelling down the second row of students in the direction of a particular student, leaning toward that student and saying very loudly, "Come on, buddy, come on," in what the principal perceived as a threatening challenge. The principal believed that he would have to intervene because a physical confrontation was eminent. The principal testified that Respondent was speaking much louder than normal; that he was gesturing and motioning; that the veins of his temples were sticking out and that in Herschleb's judgment, the volume of Respondent's voice was not appropriate for a classroom setting. During this brief exchange, Respondent also allegedly stated, "I'll show you what we're going to do," and turned to his left. At that point, he saw the principal standing near the door and asked what he needed. Herschleb explained that the student wanted to get his backpack. However, the backpack was not located and both Herschleb and the student left the classroom. Herschleb acknowledged that while he felt the incident to be totally inappropriate, Respondent used no name calling and no profanity, and no physical altercation actually occurred. Herschleb did not testify how close Respondent was to the student in question and did not explain how he could see veins at Respondent's temples when Respondent had his back to him. Several students, as well as Respondent, testified regarding their recollection of the incident. Their testimony varied greatly, in terms of whether anything out of the ordinary happened; whether Respondent was speaking louder than normal; which student, if any, was the subject of Respondent's anger; and the reason for any action taken by Respondent. Their testimony was uniform, however, that there was no physical threat to any student. Further, the incident, to the extent there was one, had not made a lasting impression on any student in the classroom. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that Respondent admonished Garrett Holton for speaking in class when he asked questions of Sarah Sapp, a student sitting next to him, after Respondent had instructed the class not to talk without being recognized first. He pointed at Garrett while speaking to him, but there were no threatening gestures. Respondent did raise his voice, but was not much louder than usual, especially when it is taken into account that he was in the process of passing out document holders and at times had his back to the class. While Respondent did not feel well and may have been irritated, he was not angry. Respondent told the student he would get a referral if he continued to talk. Both the student to whom the comments were directed and the girl to whom he was speaking ultimately viewed the incident as not being a "big deal." Garrett Holt testified that while he was embarrassed initially and did not want to get into trouble, he did not take it too seriously and did not indicate any reluctance to return to the class the next day. Sarah thought it was just a normal day, and teachers yelling in class is "nothing new." She did not think the incident was a big deal and felt she and Garrett were treated appropriately and should have waited to discuss the lesson after Respondent finished talking. The students did not feel threatened and the incident was not the subject of conversation around the school. No student or parent complained about the incident. Indeed, one student testified that the matter had been "blown up into something that it wasn't," and it wasn't "necessary to go to court over." Several students considered the day just an ordinary day. Respondent certainly thought so, and was actually pleased with the overall progress of his class that day, given the challenges the computers had presented. After class ended, Respondent saw the backpack that the student with Herschleb had not been able to find, and loaded it onto his cart to take it to Herschleb or to the student via the lost and found. The next morning Respondent saw Herschleb and told him he had found the backpack. He asked what Herschleb wanted him to do with it and apologized for not helping more to find the backpack during class time, making a comment to the effect that "it shouldn't have happened that way." Herschleb understood his apology to mean that Respondent recognized that his behavior the day before as inappropriate. On Wednesday afternoon, August 16, 2006, Herschleb gave Respondent a letter notifying him of a meeting with the principal to be held on Friday, August 18, 2006. Respondent did not know that Herschleb had any concern about his conduct during the August 15, 2006, sixth period class until Herschleb made the allegation on Friday, August 18, 2006. During this meeting, Herschleb explained what he had observed on Tuesday afternoon in Respondent's classroom and why he was concerned. Respondent denied any wrongdoing. Respondent was placed on administrative leave with pay so that the matter could be investigated. The matter was also reported to Joan Longstreth, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources for the Alachua County School Board. An investigator was assigned who obtained random statements from members of the sixth period class. After receipt of the administrative investigative report, a committee was convened to review the report and make a recommendation. While the committee members discussed the student statements, the most significant factor in recommending disciplinary action to the superintendent was the fact that the school principal had observed the incident.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th of February, 2005.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Marion County School Board, had just cause to terminate Respondent, Richard Collins.
Findings Of Fact Marion County School Board (the Board or Petitioner), is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Marion County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is authorized to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Respondent, Richard Collins, has been employed under a professional services contract with the Board for approximately 20 years. During the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent taught fourth grade at Greenway Elementary School (Greenway) in Ocala, Florida. B.A., S.C., B.R., E.F., S.R., and A.D. were all students in Respondent’s classroom. The children were each nine years of age. October 2, 2017 Incident On October 2, 2017, Respondent’s class was engaged in reading and language arts assignments in small groups throughout the classroom. Some students worked at the computer center, while others sat together at work tables. Respondent was working directly with one small group of students at a table in the front of the classroom. By all accounts, the classroom was noisy. Some of the students were playing loudly, rather than working on their assignments. Student B.A. was at a table in the back of the room with students S.C. and A.D. Rather than attending to their assignments, the students were playing around on top of the table. The students had pillows on top of the table and were taking turns sitting on the pillows and attempting to pull each other off the table by their ankles. Respondent noticed students B.A. and S.C. on the table, and instructed them to sit down. Respondent did not get up from his table at the front of the classroom to correct the children. The record does not reflect that the students heard Respondent tell them to sit down. The students did not sit down. S.C. pulled B.A. off the table by her ankles and B.A.’s head hit the hard tile floor. She began crying. Respondent neither saw B.A. fall nor heard her crying. A third student reported to Respondent that B.A. was crying. Respondent also “overheard” a student say that B.A. could not see, or was having trouble seeing, out of one eye. Rather than seek out B.A. immediately and inquire about her injury, Respondent instructed everyone in the class to return to their seats. After the students returned to their seats, Respondent asked B.A. what had happened and if she was hurt. B.A. reported that she fell and, when Respondent inquired about any injury B.A. sustained, B.A. pointed to the side of her face. B.A. had a red mark on her face by her temple.2/ Respondent saw the mark. Respondent knew B.A. had been on top of the table, had fallen, and had sustained an injury to her head at the temple area. Respondent knew that the classroom floor was hard tile. Respondent had overheard another student say B.A. was complaining of difficulty with her vision. Shortly after the incident, Respondent’s class was scheduled to leave for recess. Respondent did not call for another teacher to take his class to recess so he could accompany B.A. to the clinic. Respondent did not ask another student to accompany B.A. to the clinic while he took the students to recess. Instead, Respondent asked B.A. if she wanted to go to the clinic or to recess. B.A.’s response to this question was a disputed issue. B.A. testified that she probably told Respondent she was fine. However, B.A.’s memory of that day is not reliable. Respondent testified B.A. stated she wanted to go to recess. Shortly thereafter, Respondent sent his class, including B.A., out to recess. The recess area is located just outside Respondent’s classroom. Respondent followed the students out and kept an eye on them free-playing in the open grassy field used for recess. B.A. approached Respondent shortly before recess ended, reported that she was not feeling well, and asked if she could return to the classroom and put her head down. Respondent allowed her to do so. Respondent did not ask any other student to accompany B.A. to the classroom or remain with her there. Instead, Respondent stood in the classroom doorway, where he divided his attention between B.A., with her head down at her desk, and his remaining students playing outside at recess. Respondent called the remaining students in a few minutes early from recess. As the students were coming in, B.A. began vomiting. Respondent gave B.A. a cloth to clean up with, and instructed another student, S.C., to accompany B.A. to the clinic. Shortly thereafter, Respondent contacted B.A.’s grandmother, Ms. Franklin,3/ who was substitute teaching at Greenway that day. Respondent informed Ms. Franklin that he had sent B.A. to the clinic. B.A. was treated briefly at the clinic, then transported to the hospital by emergency vehicle. B.A. was diagnosed with a concussion and was out of school the following day. Under doctor’s orders, B.A. was not allowed to engage in any physical activity for 20 days. School Board Investigation After B.A. was transported to the hospital, Assistant Principal Leona Hunt identified the students in Respondent’s classroom who had witnessed the incident. Ms. Hunt had each student write his or her own account of the incident. Ms. Hunt also instructed Respondent to complete an accident report regarding the incident. In the accident report, Respondent described the type of injury as “Hit her head,” and listed “sit quietly” as the corrective action taken toward the student. Respondent gave the following written description of the incident: Student [sic] were playing around in reading center while I was working with other students in guided reading. Another student said [B.A.] fell. I had all student [sic] go to their desk. I spoke with them all about playing around. Then we went outside for recess and I asked [B.A.] if she was ok and she said she was fine. Then she felt sick and came into [sic] lay down. Before I sent her to the clinic she started throwing up. Based on her investigation, Ms. Hunt referred the matter to Jaycee Oliver, Petitioner’s Director of Employee Relations. Ms. Oliver handles all employee disciplinary matters. Based on the information received from Ms. Hunt, Ms. Oliver identified Respondent’s actions as “egregious,” and referred the matter to Petitioner’s Chief Investigator, Rose Cohen, for a more thorough investigation. Ms. Cohen conducted a full investigation into the matter. Ms. Cohen interviewed Respondent, the students, the health clinic assistant, and paraprofessionals at Greenway. When asked to recount the incident during his interview with Ms. Cohen, Respondent deferred to his written statement in the accident report. Respondent was asked, but refused, to give a written statement detailing the incident during the investigation. Ms. Cohen issued an investigative report dated October 10, 2017. The report found that Respondent “failed students in the most egregious way when he failed to provide adequate supervision to students in his care.” Based on her finding, Ms. Cohen recommended Respondent’s termination. Ms. Oliver agreed with Ms. Cohen’s recommendation, which was also agreed to by the School District Superintendent Heidi Maier. The Board approved Respondent’s termination, which was signed by Dr. Maier and served on Respondent on October 17, 2017. Prior Disciplinary History Following a history of misconduct at other schools, which resulted in disciplinary action, the Board reassigned Respondent to Greenway for the 2017-2018 school year to “give Respondent a fresh start.” In May 2011, Respondent was reprimanded for insubordination and disrespect to his administrator in the presence of other staff and students. In March 2016, Respondent received a written reprimand for making inappropriate verbal remarks of a sexual nature to a colleague. In March 2017, Respondent was reprimanded for leaving his prescription medication on an open shelf in his classroom in plain view of his students. Respondent was warned to be “cognizant of the safety and health of students at all times.” In May 2017, Respondent was suspended for five days without pay for inappropriate interactions with students. Just weeks before the incident at issue in this proceeding, Respondent was disciplined for gross insubordination after allowing two students to go to his classroom unattended and use his keys to access his desk. Respondent had previously been instructed not to send students to his classroom unattended. Administrative Charges The Board first charges Respondent with failure to provide adequate supervision to students in his care, in violation of Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession (Principles) 6A-10.081. Respondent failed to stop students from “playing around on the table” during reading centers on October 2, 2017. Respondent was aware the students were engaged in “horseplay” on top of the table. While Respondent may have asked the students to sit down, he did not ensure that they obeyed, and they were allowed to continue engaging in risky behavior that proved to be dangerous. By all accounts, the classroom atmosphere on October 2, 2017, was loud and chaotic. Nicholas Carey is an instructional coach assigned to assist Respondent with classroom management. Mr. Carey observed Respondent’s classroom before the incident and worked with a small group of students. Mr. Carey testified, credibly, that the classroom was so loud on the day of the incident that he could not hear the students he was working with at a small table in the back of the room. Student E.F. testified that the classroom was so loud on the day of the incident that she could not focus on her work. While some students testified that they heard Respondent tell B.A. and her friends to get off the table and sit down, the record does not support a finding that the students at B.A.’s table in the back of the room heard Respondent’s instruction. The students were so loud that Respondent did not hear B.A. crying after her fall, and had to be informed by another student that B.A. fell and was crying. Respondent failed to maintain order in the classroom and create an environment conducive to learning. The Board next charges Respondent with failing to protect students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s health and safety. The most significant fact supporting this charge is that Respondent sent B.A. out to recess after her fall, rather than sending her for medical attention at the clinic. Respondent knew B.A. had fallen, most likely from the table top where she was playing; had suffered an injury to her head; and had at least overheard a student state that B.A. was complaining about difficulty with her vision. Yet, Respondent took a nine-year-old’s word that she was “fine” and wanted to go to recess. What child would choose the clinic over recess with her friends? Respondent was responsible for B.A.’s safety, not for satisfying her desire to play with her friends. Insubordination Lastly, the Board charges Respondent with insubordination and falsifying a document in connection with his accident report and his refusal to make a further written statement during the Board’s investigation of the incident.4/ The charging document reads, as follows: Respondent was asked to provide a written statement. His written statement stated that the student was playing around, and failed to disclose that the injury was the result of horseplay by students. Although Respondent seemed to later acknowledge the statement provided was not truthful, or at least misrepresented the true facts, Respondent was asked to provide a subsequent statement correcting the information and he refused to do so. Petitioner stated in its Proposed Recommended Order, It is undisputed that Respondent’s written statement was not completely truthful, or at least misrepresented the true facts of the incident. Respondent, however, refused to provide a subsequent statement correcting the information. (citations omitted). On the contrary, whether the statements in the accident report were true and complete was an issue in dispute. The only evidence that Respondent was concerned that his accident report was not accurate was contained in Ms. Cohen’s investigative report. However, the statements contained in the report are hearsay which was not corroborated by any non-hearsay evidence. At the final hearing, Respondent stood by his accident report stating, “I wrote exactly what happened.” As to Petitioner’s allegation that Respondent was insubordinate in refusing to make another statement during Ms. Cohen’s investigation, the record shows Respondent relied upon the advice of his union representative to defer to his accident report. Petitioner established no facts on which to base a finding that Respondent’s refusal to provide a further statement during the investigation constituted insubordination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Marion County School Board enter a final order upholding its termination of Respondent, Richard Collins, from his written contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 2019.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a schoolteacher physically assaulted three third-graders in his music class, thereby giving his employer, the district school board, just cause to terminate his employment.
Findings Of Fact Background The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Manuel Brenes ("Brenes") was a music teacher at Little River Elementary School ("Little River"), which is within the Miami-Dade County Public School System. The alleged events giving rise to this case allegedly occurred on November 18, 2005. The School Board alleges that on that date, Brenes lost his temper in the classroom and physically assaulted three students, each of whom was in the third grade at the time and about nine or 10 years old. More particularly, it is alleged that Brenes poked a boy named K. C. in the head several times; choked, slapped, and/or picked up and dropped another boy, K. M.; and threw a chair at a third boy, whose name is C. P. For his part, Brenes denies these charges, claiming that his interventions were neither assaultive nor potentially harmful, but rather were reasonably necessary either to protect students from harm or to maintain order. There is no question that an incident occurred in Brenes's classroom on November 18, 2005, and that the students K. C., K. M., and C. P. were involved. The evidence adduced at hearing, however, is conflicting, confusing, and often incredible, affording the fact-finder little more than a fuzzy picture, at best, of what actually happened. Five eyewitnesses to the disputed incident testified. These were four student-accusers (comprising the three alleged victims and one of their classmates, a girl named "Kate"1) plus the accused teacher himself. In addition, Pamela C. ("Ms. C."), who is the mother of K. C. and also a teacher at Little River, testified regarding her observations and impressions as the "first responder" to arrive on the scene after the disputed incident had taken place. (To be clear, Ms. C. did not see Brenes commit any wrongful act; she has maintained——and testified——that Brenes made incriminating admissions to her in the immediate aftermath of the events at issue.) None of these witnesses impressed the undersigned as wholly reliable; rather, each had credibility problems that have caused the undersigned to discount his or her testimony to some degree. For example, every eyewitness who testified at hearing had made at least one prior statement about the incident that differed in some unexpected way from his or her subsequent testimony. Moreover, to the extent sense can be made of any given eyewitness account, there exist material discrepancies between the witnesses' respective stories. The upshot is that the undersigned does not have much persuasive, coherent, consistent evidence upon which to make findings of fact. Given the generally poor quality of the evidence, which ultimately precludes the undersigned from making detailed findings of historical fact, a brief summary of the key witnesses' testimonies about the controversial event will next be provided. These summaries, it is believed, give context to the limited findings of historical fact that then follow; they also should help explain the determinations of ultimate fact derived from the findings. It is important to note, however, that the summaries below merely report what each witness said occurred; they do not necessarily, or even generally, correspond to the undersigned's findings about what likely took place in Brenes's classroom on November 18, 2005. K. C. K. C. testified that the incident began when one of the boys told a joke that made "the whole class" laugh. Brenes was teaching a lesson at the time, writing on the board. Whenever Brenes faced the board, this particular boy would make "funny faces behind ["Brenes's] back," and when Brenes turned around, the boy would sit down. One student, C. P., continued to laugh, and Brenes made him stand in the corner. Undeterred, C. P. kept laughing. Brenes grabbed the two front legs of a chair, lifted it over his head, and threw the chair at C. P., who "ducked to the ground" to avoid being hit. After that, C. P. was frightened and remained on the ground "for like five minutes." Brenes told the students to put their heads down. He walked over to K. C. and poked the boy in the head three times, apparently for no reason. Then Brenes grasped K. M. by the throat and lifted the student, with one arm, off the ground and over his (Brenes's) head. While holding K. M. in the air by his throat, Brenes shook and slapped the boy before using two arms to set him down. A short while later, Ms. C. entered the classroom, having been summoned by Brenes. K. C. told his mother what had just occurred. Their conversation, as Ms. C. remembers it, will be recounted below. Angered and upset by what her son had reported, Ms. C. removed K. C. from Brenes's classroom and took him back to her own room. There, on November 18, 2005, K. C. wrote the first of two statements about the incident. K. C.'s second statement, dated November 23, 2005, was written in his mother's classroom as well. The most noteworthy discrepancy between K. C.'s prior written statements and his testimony at hearing is the absence of any mention in the prior statements about Brenes having poked him in the head.2 Asked at hearing about this omission, K. C. testified that he had "forg[o]t[ten] that part" because Ms. Castillo (the principal) rushed him to complete his statements.3 K. M. K. M. testified that "everybody was laughing" because the classroom smelled bad. Brenes put C. P. in the corner and then threw a chair at him. C. P. moved or ducked, however, and hence he was not struck by the chair. Brenes hit K. C. on the head. Then Brenes caught K. M. laughing at him (Brenes). Consequently, Brenes grabbed K. M. by the throat with both hands, lifted him out of his seat, and held him in midair, so that his feet were off the ground. Brenes held K. M. at arm's length, with his arms straight out from his body, for about one "second" before setting the boy down. Brenes did not shake or slap K. M., who was able to breathe while Brenes held him by the neck, suspended off the ground; indeed, K. M. never felt as though he were choking, even as he was practically being hanged. Shortly thereafter, K. M. wrote a statement about the incident, which is dated November 22, 2005. In the statement, K. M. made no mention of Brenes's having thrown a chair, nor did he report that Brenes had hit K. C. in the head, as he would testify at hearing. C. P. According to C. P., the trouble began when K. M. made C. P. laugh, which was sufficiently disruptive that Brenes told C. P. to stand in the corner. This discipline proved to be ineffective, for C. P. continued to laugh. C. P.'s ongoing laughter caused Brenes to grab a chair and walk quickly ("a little bit running") towards C. P. The boy ducked, and the chair, which remained in Brenes's hands and was not thrown, struck the wall. C. P. was unable to give consistent testimony at hearing concerning the distance between his body and the spot where the chair hit the wall. In different answers he indicated that the chair struck as near to him as two or three feet, and as far away as 20 feet. Brenes put the chair down, nowhere close to any students, and told the children to put their heads down. C. P. finally stopped laughing. In a discovery deposition taken before hearing, C. P. had testified that he thought Brenes's use of the chair as a disciplinary tool was funny. At hearing, however, he claimed that he had "just made that up" and given false testimony at the deposition. C. P. testified that Brenes had swung him by the arm, but he could not keep straight when this had occurred. At first, C. P. said that Brenes had taken his arm and swung him after sending him (C. P.) to the corner, because C. P. had kept on laughing despite the mild punishment. Then, because C. P. "was still laughing," even after having been swung by the arm, Brenes had rushed at him with a chair, ultimately causing the boy to quit laughing. Later in the hearing, however, C. P. changed his story and explained that Brenes had grabbed his arm and swung him around after the "chair affair"——when C. P. was no longer laughing——for the purpose of leading him back to his seat. Yet another version of the "arm swinging" episode appears in a prior statement dated November 21, 2005, wherein C. P. wrote that after Brenes had threatened him with a chair, he (C. P.) "was still laughing so [Brenes] took my arm and he [swung] me." Testifying about what Brenes did to K. M., C. P. stated that the teacher had taken K. M. by the neck and shaken him, lifting the boy up from his chair and then putting him back down, all because K. M. had been laughing. This testimony corresponded fairly closely to C. P.'s statement of November 21, 2005. Interestingly, however, on December 13, 2005, C. P. had told the detective who was investigating the charges against Brenes that Brenes merely had grabbed K. M. by the shirt and placed him back on his chair because K. M. was "playing around." C. P. also informed the detective that "the class [had been] laughing and playing, and Mr. Brenes was trying to stop them." C. P. said nothing at hearing about Brenes's allegedly having struck K. C. on the head. Likewise, he did not mention, in his written statement of November 21, 2005, the alleged attack on K. C. However, C. P. did tell the detective on December 13, 2005, that he had seen Brenes "tap" K. C. on the head. Kate Kate was in the classroom when the disruption occurred, although she did not see "all of it, really." She testified that, at the beginning of class on November 18, 2005, while Brenes was calling the roll, some boys were talking and laughing, and they kept on laughing even after Brenes had instructed them to stop. C. P. was one of the laughers. Brenes made him stand in the corner. The laughter continued, so Brenes got up and threw the chair on which he had been sitting toward the wall where C. P. was standing. The chair flew across the room, in the air, and hit the wall. C. P. ducked and was not harmed. Meantime, K. M. was laughing. Brenes "grabbed him up" and talked to him. K. M. started to cry, and Brenes let him go. Kate did not see anything untoward happen to K. C. Rather, Brenes "just talk[ed] to him, because he was laughing, too." After the incident, Kate prepared a written statement, which is dated November 21, 2005. As far as it went, her hearing testimony was essentially consistent with her prior statement. The prior statement, however, contains an additional detail about which she said nothing at hearing. In her statement, Kate wrote that, after throwing a chair in C. P.'s direction, Brenes took a table and hit a desk with it, causing the desk to hit the wall. Ms. C. Ms. C. was at lunch on the day in question when two students approached her with a request from Brenes that she come to his classroom, where her son was presently supposed to be having a music lesson. Ms. C. told the students that she would be there in about five minutes. When Ms. C. arrived, Brenes's students were well- behaved and "sitting very quietly." Brenes informed Ms. C. that her son, K. C., had been disrespectful to him, in particular by laughing at Brenes as though he were "a stupid person." Upon learning of her son's misbehavior, Ms. C. was neither perturbed nor nonplussed, but skeptical; she immediately demanded an explanation from Brenes: "How do you know when someone is laughing at you as though you're a stupid person?" After being persuaded that her son had behaved badly, Ms. C. reprimanded him in front of the class. Brenes thanked Ms. C. for coming, and she turned to leave. Before taking his seat, K. C. said, "But mommy, that's not all that happened." "What happened?" she asked. "Mr. Brenes poked me in the head," replied K. C. Ms. C. asked Brenes if this were true, and Brenes admitted that he had "tapped" K. C., but not hard enough to cause pain. Ms. C. started to leave, but K. C. stopped her again: "But mommy, that's not all." Thereupon, an exchange ensued much like the one just described, except this time, K. C. reported that Brenes had thrown a chair at C. P. "Mr. Brenes, did you throw the chair?" Ms. C. asked. Again, Brenes admitted that the accusation was true, but denied endangering the children. Before Ms. C. could leave, K. C. stopped her for the third time, saying, once again, "But mommy, that's not it." This initiated the now-familiar pattern of dialogue. K. C. accused Brenes of having picked up K. M. and dropped the boy "hard." Ms. C. asked Brenes if he had done that. Brenes conceded that he had, yet he assured Ms. C. that the children had never been in danger. Ms. C. had heard enough. She instructed K. C. to leave the classroom with her, which he did. The two of them proceeded directly to the principal's office. Ms. C. reported the incident to the principal. After listening to Ms. C. and her son, the principal decided to have Brenes removed from his class, and she called the school police. (Evidently, it was not thought necessary to hear from Brenes before taking these actions.) Brenes was kept out his class for a day or two but then was allowed to return to his regular duties. This upset Ms. C., who felt that "nothing was being done." As a result, Ms. C. "took it upon [her]self" to call the School Board's "Region Office" and lodge a complaint in her capacity as parent. Ms. C. was told to prepare an "incident report," which she did, on November 22, 2005. She submitted the incident report the following day. Shortly thereafter, Brenes was removed from Little River and administratively reassigned to the Region Office pending the outcome of the investigation. Brenes On November 18, 2005, Brenes met a class of third- graders at the cafeteria and took the students to his music room for a lesson. At the time, his music classes were being held in a portable classroom because Brenes's regular room had been damaged in a hurricane. Brenes's temporary classroom had an unpleasant odor. The room's bad smell caused the children to go "berserk" upon arrival; many began running around and misbehaving. One of the boys, C. P., pushed another student to the floor. The tables in the room were on wheels, and some of the children were pushing a table toward the boy on the ground. Brenes pushed the table out of the way, so that the student would not be hurt.4 Meantime, K. M. was engaging in horseplay, throwing himself off his seat and landing on the floor. Brenes viewed this misbehavior as not just disruptive, but potentially dangerous, so he took hold of the naughty child at the waist, lifted him up off the floor, and placed him back on his seat where he belonged.5 The students continued to be disruptive, so Brenes tossed a chair toward the wall, away from all the students, to grab their attention and stop the rowdy behavior.6 This quieted the students down——except for K. M., who started running for the door, where C. P. was standing with his arm outstretched, blocking K. M.'s path. Brenes rushed over and pulled C. P. away from the door to prevent a dangerous collision.7 Brenes's disjointed testimony fails to give a cogent explanation for why C. P. had been standing next to the door in the first place.8 In a prior statement, however, Brenes reportedly had told the detective that, before having tossed the chair, he had taken C. P., who was misbehaving, by the arm and led him to the corner, where the student was to remain until he had calmed down. This prior statement finds ample corroboration in the students' respective accounts. While the commotion continued, K. C. was laughing at the situation. Walking past the student's desk, Brenes tapped K. C. gently on the head and told him to quit laughing. About this time, the students calmed down and became quiet. Brenes commenced teaching his lesson for the day, and thereafter the class paid attention and stayed on task. Near the end of the period, Ms. C. appeared in the classroom, having been summoned by Brenes earlier when her son (among others) was misbehaving. Brenes was not asked at hearing to recount the particulars of his conversation with Ms. C. Whatever was said, however, resulted in Ms. C.’s yelling at Brenes in front of the whole class. Brenes, trying to defuse this awkward situation, became apologetic and attempted to explain what had happened, but to no avail. Ms. C.——who took her little boy's word against Brenes's——would not let Brenes tell his side of the story. Resolutions of Evidential Conflict Regarding the Disputed Event It is not the School Board's burden to prove to a certainty that its allegations are true, but only that its allegations are most likely true; for dismissal to be warranted, in other words, no more (or less) must be shown than that there is a slightly better than 50 percent chance, at least, that the historical event in dispute actually happened as alleged. As the fact-finder, the undersigned therefore must consider how likely it is, based on the evidence presented, that the incident took place as alleged in the School Board's Notice of Specific Charges. Having carefully evaluated the conflicting accounts of the disputed event, the undersigned makes the following findings concerning what happened in Brenes's classroom on November 18, 2005. It is highly likely, and the undersigned finds with confidence, that the incident stemmed from the misbehavior of students who were cutting up in class and generally being disruptive. There were, however, neither allegations, nor proof, that Brenes was in any way responsible for this misbehavior. Rather, it is likely, and the undersigned finds, that the children became boisterous in consequence of the classroom's foul odor. The students K. C., K. M., and C. P. were the ringleaders of the rowdy students, and, in the course of the event, Brenes was compelled to redirect each of them. More likely than not, C. P. was the worst behaved of the three main offenders. Because C. P. was clowning around, Brenes placed him in the corner. It is likely that when he did this, Brenes took C. P. by the arm and led him to the spot where he was to stand. The evidence is insufficient to persuade the undersigned that Brenes touched C. P. in a manner that was intended, or reasonably would be expected, to cause harm or discomfort; it is possible that this occurred——the odds, on this record, being roughly in the range of 25 to 40 percent——but not likely. As for what exactly happened with K. M., the undersigned can only speculate. The undersigned believes that the likelier of the possibilities presented is that the boy was rolling off his chair and flopping to the ground, more or less as Brenes described K. M.'s disruptive activity (although Brenes probably exaggerated the risk of danger, if any, this misbehavior posed to the child). The likelier of the scenarios presented (having a probability somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 50 percent) is that Brenes physically returned the boy to his chair, picking him up in a reasonable, nonpunitive fashion and similarly setting him back down.9 The possibility that Brenes strangled the boy, as charged, is relatively low——between 15 and 30 percent——but nevertheless nontrivial and hence bothersome, given the seriousness of the accusation. That said, however, the undersigned is unable to find that any of the possibilities presented is more likely than not true. Therefore, the School Board's proof fails as a matter of fact on the allegation that Brenes choked, slapped, or otherwise assaulted K. M. Brenes admits having tossed a chair, a point that is corroborated (to some degree) by all of the eyewitnesses except, ironically, C. P., the student toward whom the chair was allegedly thrown. Brenes, however, denies having tossed a chair at any student, and the undersigned credits his denial. More likely than not, it is found, Brenes tossed a chair away from the students, as he initially claimed, to focus the students' attention on something other than the rambunctious boys who were creating a disturbance. (The undersigned doubts that the chair was tossed to prevent injury, as Brenes asserted at hearing.) Brenes also admits that he tapped K. C. on the head while urging the boy to be quiet. It is likely——and indeed Brenes effectively has admitted——that this was done as a disciplinary measure. Brenes denies, however, that he tapped the child in a manner intended, or as reasonably would be expected, to cause harm or discomfort. The undersigned credits Brenes's denial in this regard and therefore rejects as unproven by a preponderance of the evidence the charge that the teacher forcefully "poked" K. C. in or about the temple. Other Material Facts The evidence is undisputed that after Brenes had gotten the three rowdiest boys under control——which seems to have taken but a few minutes——the rest of the class fell in line and behaved for the balance of the period. It is reasonable to infer, and the undersigned does find, that whatever actions Brenes took were effective in restoring order to the class. That is to say, Brenes's conduct did not create chaos, but quelled a disturbance that, from every description, could have gotten out of hand. Such efficacy would not justify improper means, of course, but the results Brenes obtained counsel against any easy inference that his alleged misconduct impaired his effectiveness in the classroom. Continuing on the subject of Brenes's alleged ineffectiveness in consequence of his alleged misconduct, the undersigned is struck by the undisputed fact that, notwithstanding the accusations that had been lodged against Brenes, the principal of Little River allowed the teacher to return to his classroom after spending one day in the library. Thereafter, he taught his music classes, as usual, for five or six days before being administratively assigned to the Region Office effective on or about December 5, 2005. The significance of this fact (Brenes's post-incident return to the classroom) lies in the opportunity it afforded the School Board to observe whether Brenes's alleged misconduct actually had, in fact, impaired his effectiveness as a teacher. As the fact-finder, the undersigned cannot help but wonder: What happened in Brenes's classroom in the next two weeks after the incident? The School Board did not provide an answer. Instead, it presented the conclusory opinions of administrators who declared that Brenes could no longer be effective, which opinions were based on the assumption that all the factual allegations against Brenes were true. Because that underlying assumption was not validated by the evidence adduced in this proceeding, however, these opinions lacked an adequate factual foundation. Moreover, the undersigned infers from the absence of any direct proof of actual impairment that Brenes's effectiveness stayed the same after November 18, 2005.10 While Brenes was spending time at the Region Office pending the outcome of the investigation, another teacher who also was awaiting the results of an investigation began to pick on Brenes, ultimately provoking Brenes into an argument on a couple of occasions. During one of these arguments, Brenes responded to his antagonist by saying, "fuck you." While this profanity might have been overheard by other adults nearby (the evidence is inconclusive about that), it is clear that no students were around. Brenes was the only witness with personal knowledge of these arguments who testified at hearing; in lieu of firsthand evidence, the School Board offered mostly hearsay that failed to impress the fact-finder. In light of Brenes's uncontroverted testimony that the other man had been badgering him "for the longest time," the fact that Brenes lost his temper and used vulgar language, while unadmirable, is at least understandable. The bottom line is, this was a private dispute between adults, one of whom——the one not accused of wrongdoing as a result——was actually more at fault as the provocateur. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Brenes is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Brenes is guilty of the offense of violating the School Board's corporal punishment policy. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Brenes is guilty of the offense of unseemly conduct. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Brenes is guilty of the offense of violating the School Board's policy against violence in the workplace.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Brenes of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Brenes be reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Brenes back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 February, 2007.
The Issue The first issue in this case is whether, as the district school board alleges, a teacher abused, mistreated, or otherwise behaved inappropriately towards one of his special-needs students; if the allegations of wrongdoing are proved to be true, then it will be necessary to decide whether the school board has just cause to terminate the teacher's employment.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Edouard Jean ("Jean") was employed as an Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher in the Broward County public schools, a position which he had held for the preceding 16 years. During that period, Jean taught students with disabilities, who typically receive specially designed instruction and related services pursuant to individual educational plans. Ahead of the 2013-14 school year, Jean was transferred to Crystal Lake Middle School, where he had not previously worked. He was placed in an "SVE" class and assigned to teach ESE students having "varying exceptionalities." Jean's class contained a mix of high- and low-functioning students, about nine in number. Jean's colleague, Ray Montalbano, taught a similar SVE class in a nearby room. At the beginning of the school year, the two ESE teachers agreed to share responsibility for their respective students under an arrangement that separated the higher functioning students from the lower functioning students. Jean and Mr. Montalbano took turns teaching the two groups, exchanging one for the other at midday. In this way, each teacher spent roughly equal time with the respective sets of students. For the last hour of the day, they combined the two groups and jointly instructed the approximately 18 students in Mr. Montalbano's classroom, which was larger. There were two paraprofessionals, or teacher's assistants, working in Jean and Mr. Montalbano's SVE classes. One, named Lisa Phillips, was assigned to both teachers; she alternated between their classrooms during the day. The other, Donna Rollins, was assigned to Mr. Montalbano's class, where Jean spent an hour each afternoon. In view of the cooperative arrangement between Jean and Mr. Montalbano, both of the teacher's assistants regularly worked in the same classroom as Jean and assisted with the provision of instruction and services to the 18 students for whom Jean and Mr. Montalbano were responsible. On October 15, 2013, Jean was removed from his classroom and informed that he was the target of a criminal investigation arising from allegations that he recently had abused one of his pupils, a 13-year-old boy with Down Syndrome named Z.P., who was among the lower functioning students. Jean's accuser was an occupational therapist named Lisa Taormina, who at all relevant times worked as an independent contractor for the School Board, providing services to students at various public schools in Broward County. Jean consistently has denied Ms. Taormina's allegations, which shocked and surprised him. Ms. Taormina, who that year was seeing students at Crystal Lake Middle School once per week each Friday, reported having observed Jean mistreat Z.P. on October 4, 2013, and again on October 11, 2013. Ms. Taormina claimed that the alleged events of October 4 took place in Jean's classroom with Ms. Phillips in attendance. The alleged events of October 11, in contrast, purportedly took place in Mr. Montalbano's classroom during the hour when the two SVE classes were combined. Thus, the alleged abuse supposedly occurred in the presence of Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and a substitute teacher named Shirley Ashcroft who happened to be there that day. Ms. Taormina's allegations were investigated by the Broward County Sheriff's Office and the Broward District Schools Police Department. During these investigations, neither Z.P. nor any of the other students were interviewed, because most of them (including Z.P.) are either nonverbal or too intellectually limited to be reliable witnesses.1/ All of the adults were questioned, however, and none of them corroborated Ms. Taormina's allegations. Unsurprisingly, therefore, no criminal charges were brought against Jean. On the strength of Ms. Taormina's allegations, the School Board nevertheless determined that Jean had abused Z.P. and thus should be fired. As it happens, Ms. Taormina's final hearing testimony is the only direct evidence against Jean, whose colleagues Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and Ms. Ashcroft, to a person, credibly denied under oath having ever seen him mistreat Z.P. or any other student. The outcome of this case, therefore, depends on whether Ms. Taormina's testimony is believed likely to be an accurate account of the relevant historical events. In assessing Ms. Taormina's credibility, the undersigned finds it especially significant that Jean's co- workers, who were able to observe him for extended periods of time on a daily basis in the classroom, never witnessed him engage in any troubling or suspicious behavior during the roughly seven weeks he taught at Crystal Lake Middle School; to the contrary, everyone who testified (except Ms. Taormina) who had seen Jean in the classroom praised his performance generally, and his relationship with Z.P. in particular. The undersigned credits the consistent, mutually corroborative, and overwhelmingly favorable testimony about Jean's exemplary conduct. Because an isolated incident, however out of character, can be squared with evidence of otherwise superlative performance, the fact that Jean was well regarded by the employees with whom he closely worked does not exclude the possibility that Jean abused Z.P., but it does diminish the likelihood that he could have abused Z.P. on multiple occasions. For that reason, if Ms. Taormina claimed only to have seen Jean mistreat Z.P. once, her testimony likely would have been more believable. Ms. Taormina claims, however, to have seen Jean abuse Z.P. on two separate days——on consecutive weekly visits to the school, no less. If Ms. Taormina is to be believed, Jean's alleged abuse of Z.P. was not an isolated incident but was rather, if not necessarily part of a pattern of behavior, at least something Jean was capable of repeating. Here it bears emphasizing that Ms. Taormina saw Jean, at most, once per week for relatively brief periods of less than 30 minutes apiece. Within the context of this limited contact, Ms. Taormina (if she is believed) happened to witness Jean abuse Z.P. on back-to-back visits, while Jean's colleagues, who saw him every workday, never noticed anything amiss. Logically, there are, broadly speaking, two possible explanations for this anomalous situation. First, Jean might have abused Z.P. only when Ms. Taormina was present in the classroom, which would explain why no one else ever saw him mistreat the student, so long as the failure of the four other adults in the room on October 11 to witness the alleged misconduct——a lack of attentiveness that defies reasonable expectations——is overlooked. Given that Ms. Taormina's brief weekly visits comprised such a tiny percentage of Jean's total time with the students, however, to abuse Z.P. only in her presence probably would have required Jean to act according to a plan, which beggars belief;2/ otherwise, Ms. Taormina's presence at the very moments that all such abuse occurred was a most remarkable coincidence. At any rate, while the probability that Jean abused Z.P. only when Ms. Taormina was around to witness his misdeeds is perhaps greater than zero percent, the undersigned regards this explanation as far too implausible to be considered likely. Alternatively, and likelier, Jean might have abused Z.P. not only in Ms. Taormina's presence, but also in her absence. Because Ms. Taormina is the only person who has ever claimed to have seen Jean mistreat Z.P., however, to accept this explanation requires believing that Jean's co-workers never saw him abusing Z.P., or that everyone who witnessed such abuse except Ms. Taormina resolved not to report it.3/ Yet both situations are unworthy of belief. More likely than not, if Jean were abusing Z.P. at times when Ms. Taormina was not in the room, which was most of the time, then at some point over the course of seven weeks Mr. Montalbano or one of the paraprofessionals would have noticed something wrong4/——and none of them did, as found above. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine——and impossible reasonably to infer in the absence of any supporting evidence——that another teacher or paraprofessional, or some combination of these employees, would fail to report suspected child abuse and lie under oath to protect Jean. In any event, the undersigned has found that Jean's fellow employees never saw Jean abuse Z.P., which means that, in all likelihood, Jean did not abuse Z.P. when Ms. Taormina was not in the room. In sum, it is unlikely that Jean repeatedly abused Z.P. only in Ms. Taormina's presence; and yet, it is unlikely that Jean ever abused Z.P. during the vast majority of the time when Ms. Taormina was not in the room (but another adult or adults typically were). Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Jean likely never abused Z.P. at all, contrary to Ms. Taormina's allegations. The foregoing reasons are sufficient for the undersigned to reject Ms. Taormina's testimony as ultimately unpersuasive and to find that the School Board has failed to prove its allegations against Jean. Nevertheless, Ms. Taormina was a good witness in many respects. Her story has been consistent, her recollection seemingly clear, her testimony vivid and detailed. Ms. Taormina is articulate and her demeanor at hearing suggested sincerity. She had barely known Jean before the events at issue and was not shown to have had grounds to dislike him or any other motive for damaging him with false allegations of misconduct. Thus, while not necessary to the disposition, it is desirable to examine Ms. Taormina's specific accusations in greater detail. Ms. Taormina claims that on October 4, 2013, while Z.P. was lying on his back on the floor, Jean spun Z.P. around, using the student's legs as a handle for twirling the boy's body. Then, she says, Jean tapped Z.P. with a ruler to prod him into getting up from the floor. Z.P. refused to rise, and Jean resumed spinning the student. Ms. Taormina recognized that Jean and Z.P. were "playing around" and concluded nothing "abusive" had occurred, but she deemed Jean's conduct "inappropriate." As mentioned, Z.P. is cognitively limited in consequence of Down syndrome. He was also, at the time of the events at issue, aggressive, sometimes mean and abusive towards teachers, including Jean, and known to bite, scratch, kick, and spit on others. Z.P., who was a big boy, could be difficult to redirect. By October 2013, however, Jean had established a rapport with Z.P. The student liked his teacher, and Jean and Z.P. would play with each other. One activity that they enjoyed entailed Jean spinning Z.P. around——which is what Ms. Taormina observed. Except for Ms. Taormina, no one who witnessed Jean playfully spinning Z.P.——which Jean admits doing——considered this activity to be inappropriate. There is no persuasive evidence in the record establishing an objective standard of conduct that Jean might have violated when he played with Z.P. in this manner. Striking Z.P. with a ruler would be another matter, of course. Jean denies ever having done that, however, and no one but Ms. Taormina claims to have observed Jean misbehave in such fashion. The undersigned finds, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Jean did not hit Z.P. with a ruler on October 4, 2013, as alleged, but rather tapped the floor with it, as he testified. According to Ms. Taormina, Jean's conduct the following week, on October 11, was worse. She testified that, upon arriving in the classroom, she noticed that Jean's fingers were resting on the back of Z.P.'s neck as he (Jean) moved the student around. To Ms. Taormina, "it looked . . . like [Jean] was searching for, like, a pressure point or tender point . . . ." In fact, Jean was not searching for a pressure point, and he did not dig his fingers into a tender spot on Z.P.'s neck, which explains why no one (including Ms. Taormina) saw or heard the student cry out or grimace in pain. The undersigned credits Jean's testimony that he touched Z.P.'s back and shoulders to guide or comfort him, not to hurt him. Ms. Taormina asserted that after putting his fingers on the back of Z.P.'s neck, Jean gave Z.P. a "violent shaking" which caused Z.P.'s head to rock up and down ("just flapping back and forth") so fast that Z.P.'s features were an unrecognizable blur, but only for "just a few seconds." Somewhat incongruously, however, she characterized this "mockery" as being "more, like, playing" and noted that Jean, who was smiling, did not appear to be acting out of anger. The behavior that Ms. Taormina recounted is indeed disturbing. Yet some of the details seem a bit off. For example, although no expert testimony was presented, the undersigned's rudimentary understanding of simple biomechanics makes him think that violently shaking a passive or helpless person so hard that his features become blurry (assuming this could be accomplished in just a few seconds' time) would cause the victim's dangling head, not to flap up and down (rapidly nodding), as Ms. Taormina described, but to rotate uncontrollably. The undersigned finds it difficult, too, to imagine that such abuse could ever look "like playing." Moreover, it seems peculiar, given the number of adults in the room, that Ms. Taormina did not immediately intervene or speak up to protect Z.P., if Jean were harming the student as she has stated. More important, it is likely that a vigorous physical battery such as the attack on Z.P. that Ms. Taormina recalls would have caused a considerable commotion. And yet, even though there were four other adults in the room besides Jean and Ms. Taormina, no one but the occupational therapist noticed Jean inflicting this alleged abuse. The undersigned cannot find, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Jean violently shook Z.P. as alleged. This incident, therefore, was not proved. After Jean allegedly shook Z.P., according to Ms. Taormina, the student climbed up on a table, where he proceeded to eat a banana. Ms. Taormina testified that all of the students and adults in the room (except her) laughed at Z.P. when someone exclaimed that he looked like a monkey. She said that Jean then led Z.P. to a garbage can and made him spit out the piece of banana in his mouth. When Z.P. got down on the floor afterwards, said Ms. Taormina, Jean hit the student with a broom to compel him to stand and, having no success with that, lifted Z.P. by his shirt and pants and shook him a few times before standing the boy upright. Once on his feet, Z.P. wet his pants, Ms. Taormina stated. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the undersigned finds that Z.P. did, in fact, eat a banana while standing on a table. Further, Jean did hustle Z.P. to the garbage can to spit out the banana in his mouth because the boy was gagging on the fruit. The evidence does not support a finding that the adults laughed at Z.P., although one student did call him a monkey, which prompted Jean to reprimand the offender. The evidence does not support a finding that Jean struck Z.P. with a broom, an act of abuse which Jean credibly denied, or that Jean picked up Z.P. and shook him, a feat which likely could not be accomplished, given the student's size and weight, and which Jean credibly denied. Z.P. did urinate on himself, as Ms. Taormina reported, but the greater weight of the evidence establishes that this was not a response to stress, fright, or abuse, but a common occurrence. In sum, the evidence does not support a determination that Jean likely mistreated Z.P. as alleged. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of the offense of immorality as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(1).5/ The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office, which is defined in rule 6A-5.056(2).6/ The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of incompetency, which is defined in rule 6A-5.056(3).7/ It is undisputed that Jean was never charged with, much less found guilty of, any crime as a result of the events which gave rise to this proceeding. Therefore, the School Board does not have just cause to terminate his employment pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for "being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order exonerating Jean of all charges brought against him in this proceeding, reinstating him as an ESE teacher, and awarding him back salary as required under section 1012.33(6)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 23rd day of December, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Joseph Cabaleiro was a student at Shenandoah Junior High School during the 1983-84 and 1984-85 school years until his assignment to the alternative school. During his attendance at Shenandoah, Cabaleiro was involved in numerous instances of misbehavior that required disciplinary action. During the 1983-84 school year, Cabaleiro was suspended for fighting on October 19, 1983, and for being continually disruptive in class on May 11, 1984. On December 13, 1984, Cabaleiro received a warning for being at an off-limits area during lunch. On January 17, 1985, he was disciplined for constant disruptive conduct in the classroom. He was given a three-day outdoor suspension for fighting on February 8, 1985, and a ten-day outdoor suspension for assault and battery on a teacher on February 20, 1985. This February 20, 1985, incident merits some discussion. An altercation occurred between Mr. Long, a P. E. teacher, and Cabaleiro. During the incident Cabaleiro cursed Mr. Long and Mr. Long allegedly threw a ball at Cabaleiro more than once. Cabaleiro then threw a set of wooden starting blocks at Mr. Long and went to the office to report that Mr. Long injured him with the ball. Cabaleiro alleges that he threw the wooden blocks to protect himself; but the evidence fails to support the need for such action in self defense. Cabaleiro left the playing field and went to the office without any attempt by Long to stop him. He could have left as easily before throwing the blocks. Throwing the blocks was not an act of self defense. On March 28, 1985, Cabaleiro was again suspended for general disruptive behavior. Finally on April 17, 1985, he was suspended for ten days for fighting. That same day he was reported for vandalism when a student saw him placing a piece of glass under the tire of Mr. Long's car. On April 18, 1985, Cabaleiro was recommended for assignment to the opportunity school. Academically, Cabaleiro has not been successful. His final grades for the 1983-84 school year were three F's and two D's with unsatisfactory grades in all classes for conduct and ratings of insufficient in effort for all classes. For the 1984-85 school year, Cabaleiro received F's in all classes academically, F's in all class for conduct, and 3's (insufficient) grades in all classes for effort. Additionally, from September 4, 1984 to March 5, 1985, Cabaleiro missed 41 days of school, with 13 of those days being outdoor suspensions and 28 of those days being absences.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order assigning Joseph Cabaleiro to the alternative school program at Youth Opportunity School-South. DONE and ENTERED this 26th of September, 1985, in Tallahassee; Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Joseph Cabaleiro 3000 N.W. 16th Street Miami, FL 33125 Frank R. Harder; Esq. Suite 100, Twin Oaks Building 2780 Galloway Road Miami, FL 33132 Mrs. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Room 401 Miami, FL 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, FL 33132
