The Issue The issues for determination at the final hearing were: 1) whether the Respondent should be dismissed from employment due to incompetency; and 2) whether the conflict in the statute cited in the Notice of Charges dated November 18, 1982, and the Notice of Hearing dated June 18, 1983, constitute inadequate notice to the Respondent Muina of the charges against him. At the final hearing, Marsha Gams, a learning disability teacher at Carol City Junior High School, Rosetta Vickers, Director of Exceptional Student Education, Dade County School Board, Carol Cortes, principal at Carol City Junior High School, Karen Layland, department chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School and Desmond Patrick Gray, Jr., Executive Director of Personnel, Dade County School Board, testified for the Petitioner School Board. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-13 were offered and admitted into evidence. Yvonne Perez, Bargaining Agent Representative, United Teachers of Dade, Alexander Muina and Desmond Patrick Gray, Jr., testified for the Respondent. Respondent's Exhibits 1-5 were offered and admitted into evidence. Subsequent to the hearing, the Respondent requested via telephone conference call, that Respondent's Exhibit 6, the published contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, be admitted into evidence as a late-filed exhibit. The contract was admitted over Petitioner's objection. Proposed Recommended Orders containing findings of fact have been submitted by the parties and considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. When the parties' findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence introduced at final hearing, they were adopted and are reflected in this Recommended Order. To the extent that the findings were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been either rejected, or when possible, modified to conform to the evidence. Additionally, proposed findings which were subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary have not been adopted. On July 11, 1983, the Petitioner filed objections to the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Penalty. Certain of the Petitioner's objections were subsequently stipulated to by the Respondent and are not in issue in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Alexander Muina has been employed by the Dade County School System for approximately nine years. He initially worked with regular students, then worked as an assistant teacher with profoundly mentally handicapped students. During the 1979-80 school year, the Respondent became a permanent substitute in a class for the trainable mentally handicapped. He held this position for approximately two months and during that period received a satisfactory annual evaluation. During the 1980-81 school year the Respondent was assigned to the "ESOL" Program which is an acronym for English for Speakers of Other Languages. During this period, the Respondent taught as an itinerant teacher at three different schools each week. One of the schools the Respondent was assigned was Carol City Junior High School, where he taught on Thursdays and Fridays, as part of the Entrant Program. This was a program which was established for the approximately 13,000 children who had entered the Dade County School System during the Mariel boat lift. Mrs. Carol Cortes, principal at Carol City Junior High School, compiled the Respondent's annual evaluation for 1980-81 after consulting with the two other principals to whose schools Respondent was also assigned. At that time, Respondent received an acceptable annual evaluation from Cortes; however, Cortes had not continually observed the Respondent or had continuous direct contact with him since he was only at the school two days a week. At the close of the 1980-81 school year, the Respondent asked Cortes if there was an opening in exceptional education in which he could be placed. Toward the end of the summer a position became available in varying exceptionalities, an area in which the Respondent is certified by the State of Florida, and he accepted this position. A varying exceptionality class includes students who have three types of learning disabilities or exceptional problems, including the educable mentally handicapped, the learning disabled, and the emotionally handicapped. Although the Respondent is certified by the State of Florida to teach varying exceptionalities, during his first year instructing the class the Respondent experienced significant problems which are reflected in his evaluations of November, January and March of the 1981-82 school year. The first observation of Respondent as a varying exceptionalities teacher was done on November 5, 1981, by Carol Cortes, principal. The Respondent's overall summary rating was unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning and classroom management. Individual Education Plans (IEPs) for each of the students were not being followed. The Respondent was not using the IEPs to develop activities for the students which would meet the goals of providing "diagnostic prescriptive teaching." Using the IEPs and the diagnostic prescriptive teaching techniques is crucial to the success of exceptional educational students. The students were not being taught according to their individual abilities, but rather were doing similar classroom work. Additionally, classroom management was lacking in that the Respondent did not formulate adequate behavior modification plans for the students who were observed talking and milling about the classroom. Following her first observation, Cortes offered assistance to Respondent, including changing his physical classroom layout and placing him with the department chairperson. This was done so that the chairperson could assist in developing the activities and plans necessary for the students and could also provide support in developing behavior modification plans. Cortes also asked the school psychologist to work with the Respondent in establishing such plans. Dr. Gorman, the assistant principal, had frequent informal observations of the Respondent in an attempt to help him with his classroom difficulties. The next formal observation of Respondent was performed by Cortes on January 20, 1983, and the overall summary rating was again unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because the Respondent was still not following the student's IEPs. He continued to assign the same general activities to all students regardless of individual differences. His class was confused regarding their goals. Because the Respondent was not teaching toward the objectives set forth in the IEPs, the children were not achieving a minimum education experience. The Respondent was marked unacceptable in classroom management because he did not have adequate control over the students. Students were walking around the class and the class was generally noisy The work that the Respondent did with individual students was in the nature of giving directions rather than actually teaching. In order to teach it is necessary to provide students with new concepts and provide teacher input rather than simply monitor students. The Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because his lesson planning was deficient. He spent the majority of time in the classroom attempting to discipline students. His grade book was kept in an inappropriate manner and the students were frustrated. As a result of these problems, Cortes requested that the Respondent visit a program at Madison Junior High School which had an acceptable behavior modification program in place. The Respondent visited the program on January 26, 1982; however, no substantial improvement after the Respondent's visit was noted. The Respondent also took a reading course in late January, 1982. No significant improvement was noted following completion of that course. In January of 1982, a social studies position at Carol City Junior High School became available. Cortes offered that position to the Respondent and he could have transferred into the social studies department if he had so desired. The Respondent, however, elected to remain in the field of exceptional student instruction. At that time, Cortes felt that the Respondent was attempting to deal with his deficiencies and he should be given the opportunity to correct the problems with his class. Mrs. Vickers, Director of Exceptional Student Education for Dade County Schools, made a routine visit to Carol City Junior High School on January 27, 1982. She had heard from one of her education specialists that there were difficulties in classroom management in the Respondent's classroom. She observed that many of the students were not on task in that they walked around the classroom, talked out loud, and called the Respondent "pops". A few of the students tried to work, but the noise level in the class was so high it was disruptive. Vickers chose not to do a formal observation at that time, because she felt that there were many areas that she could not have marked acceptable. Instead, Vickers chose to do a planning session with Respondent on that same date. At the planning session, Vickers discussed with Respondent such topics as getting the students on task, bringing supplies and materials, completing assignments and doing homework. She discussed IEPs with the Respondent and the minimal skills tests that the children are administered in grades 5, 8 and 11. She explained to the Respondent how to use a grade book and examined the student's work folders. Although the folders contained significant amounts of work, the work did not correlate with the objectives on the children's IEPs. Vickers was also concerned that the Respondent was monitoring the class rather than directly instructing the students on specific skills. He did not pull individual students or groups aside for direct instruction. Vickers returned to the Respondent's classroom on February 25, 1982, in order to conduct a formal observation. At that time, Vickers gave the Respondent an unacceptable overall summary rating. She found him deficient in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, student-teacher relationships, and acceptable in the category of preparation and planning. She rated the Respondent unacceptable in classroom management because a serious problem existed with the management of his students who were not on task. The students were not working in an orderly fashion and the class was so loud that it distracted the class on the other side of the room. When Vickers tried to speak with the teacher in the adjoining room, the noise level in the Respondent's class prevented a successful conversation between them. Due to these problems, the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience. Children with learning disabilities are easily distracted by visual or auditory interference; this problem was occurring in Respondent's class. Vickers rated the Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction since he was not using the diagnostic prescriptive teaching method that is required in the Dade County School System. Respondent was not utilizing small groups to give specific help with skills, but was instead, monitoring. Vickers also rated the Respondent unacceptable in assessment techniques. Exceptional education teachers are required to do a profile on each student showing the skills that the student has met and the skills that the student needs to improve. The Respondent did not meet this requirement. Finally, Vickers found the Respondent unacceptable in student-teacher relationships since she observed that the students showed an unacceptable level of respect for the Respondent. Vickers suggested that the Respondent visit three other exceptional education teachers along with regular teachers in school. She also scheduled an assertive discipline workshop for exceptional education teachers and asked that Respondent attend. The Respondent however, did not attend the workshop. On March 25, 1982, Cortes completed Respondent's annual evaluation for 1981-82 and recommended nonreappointment. This annual evaluation took into consideration all of the observations done by administrators in the building. She found the Respondent unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Cortes next observed the Respondent on May 17, 1982, and again gave him an overall summary rating of unacceptable. She found him unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning and classroom management. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because the Respondent was not following the IEPs for the students. Cortes observed that the Respondent misspelled a word on the black board and the students copied his misspelling. Classroom management remained unacceptable because most of the class was not working. The Respondent continued to have difficulties controlling his students who continued to address him inappropriately by calling him "pops". As the Respondent moved from student to student, the remainder of the class was either talking or milling about the room. Respondent did not have understandable classroom rules and resultant consequences for breaking such rules. Rather than institute positive rewards for students who met the classroom criteria, his emphasis was on negative reinforcement. Following Cortes' discussion with the Respondent as to these deficiencies, she continued to see minimal improvement. It was also recommended that the Respondent visit Mrs. Layland, the department chairperson, to observe her classroom management techniques. Layland had a behavior modification plan in place and was able to work individually with each student while other students remained on task. The Respondent did visit Mrs. Layland's class but there was no significant improvement following that visit. On May 24, 1982, Cortes performed a second annual evaluation on the Respondent in which she found him unacceptable in one category, preparation and planning and acceptable in the remaining categories, but did not recommend him for reemployment. The second annual evaluation had only one unacceptable category, preparation and planning, and overall Respondent was rated unacceptable. However, the area in which the Respondent was rated unacceptable is especially important in the context of exceptional education. Preparation and planning is an important aspect of this field since planning for exceptional education students must be done on an individual basis. Additionally, the teacher has to plan what each student will be learning over a given period of time, and such planning is necessary in order to successfully instruct these students. Notwithstanding the Respondent's improvement, Cortes moved for his nonreappointment at the conclusion of the 1981-82 school year. The Respondent, however, was reappointed for the 1982-83 school year, when it was determined that the documentation upon which the nonreappointment was to be based was insufficient due to noncompliance with the existing union contract. Prior to the completion of the 1981-82 school year, the Respondent, through his area representative, Yvonne Perez, requested a transfer back into a regular classroom where the Respondent could teach Spanish or Social Studies. This was based on the Respondent's recognition that he was encountering extreme difficulties in teaching varying exceptionalities. Patrick Gray, Personnel Director for the Dade County School System, was aware of the request for a transfer on behalf of the Respondent and agreed to consider it. Gray subsequently determined not to transfer the Respondent, and reassigned him to his existing position. Following his assignment back to Carol City Junior High School, Cortes began to formally observe the Respondent. The first such observation of the 1982-83 school year occurred on September 13, 1982, less than one month after teachers had returned to school. Cortes observed the Respondent and documented an observation sheet with five attached papers. Observations performed the previous year had included only one statement. Approximately one month later, Cortes conducted another observation with four detailed attachments. The documentation provided to the Respondent in September and October of 1982 was accumulated to verify or affirm the decision which was made by Cortes in May of the prior year, to terminate the Respondent. Based on Cortes' observations of the Respondent while he was employed at Carol City Junior High School, she would not recommend him for a teaching position in any other field. According to Cortes, the Respondent is lacking the basic skills necessary to be a successful teacher. Marsha Gams, chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School during the 1981-82 school year and Respondent's supervisor, met with the Respondent on numerous occasions during the course of his assignment to Carol City Junior High School. Although Gams saw improvement on Respondent's part during the period that she observed him, the improvement was not significant. Based on Gams' observation of the Respondent's class, she felt that the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience since the Respondent did not have an adequate grasp of the curriculum and materials required for the learning disabled and educable mentally handicapped students. The Respondent's class eventually affected Gams' students due to the noise level which came from his adjoining class. Karen Layland, chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School during the 1982-83 school year, also worked with the Respondent. They had joint planning periods and spent a number of afternoons reviewing lesson plans, methods, curriculum, and matching materials to IEP objectives. According to Layland, the Respondent's basic problem was that he did not clearly understand the requirements of teaching varying exceptionalities Layland did not observe significant academic progress in the Respondent's class. The Respondent's grade book was disorganized and the materials contained in the student's folders were not appropriate for the particular students. Moreover, there was a lack of organization in his classroom in that students left class without permission. Although Layland felt that the Respondent was well intentioned, he did not have an adequate grasp of the curriculum, teaching management and behavior management that are necessary in an exceptional education setting. Even if Layland had been allowed to continue to work with the Respondent for the remainder of the school year, she did not feel that he could have been brought up to a competent level to teach varying exceptionalities during that period of time. Based on her observations, Layland believed that the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience due to the Respondent's lack of definite knowledge of methods in instructional techniques for varying exceptional students. By November, 1982, the School Board had made a determination that the school system had exhausted its remedies to raise the Respondent's performance to an acceptable level. Although the Respondent had obtained an acceptable rating from Cortes at the end of the 1982 school year, even this evaluation demonstrated a serious deficiency on Respondent's part. Additionally, during the 1981-82 school year the Respondent encountered numerous significant problems which had not been adequately remediated in order to permit him to continue teaching varying exceptionality students. The school board administration declined Perez' request that the Respondent be transferred into a regular class on the belief that the Respondent was incompetent in basic classroom instruction. However, based on the Respondent's teaching record prior to his employment at Carol City Junior High School, the Respondent encountered difficulties only when he was teaching varying exceptionalities, and in other fields, his basic skills were documented as acceptable. At all material times, the Respondent was employed as an annual contract teacher and did not hold a professional service contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner Dade County School Board affirming the dismissal of the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact During the first semester of the 1981-1982 school year, David Michael Wolfe was absent 66 times from his homeroom class. His absences from other classes, each of which, like homeroom, met 90 times during first semester, ranged from 56 to 87. From January 28, 1982, till March 5, 1982, while he was still enrolled at North Miami Junior High School, David went still less frequently to class. Not one of these absences was excused. Mrs. Wolfe is very cooperative with the school authorities, but her daughter is absent more than David. David, who was born June 20, 1968, was referred to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services because of his truancy. On December 8, 1981, David and four other students missed their fourth period class(es) but were apprehended on or near school grounds by William G. Murray, an assistant principal at North Miami Junior High School. Mr. Murray spanked each boy, and sent them to class. Like the others, David never went to class that afternoon. In addition to corporal punishment and a court referral, the school administration employed both "indoor suspension" and "outdoor suspension," in an effort to improve David's attendance. Nothing worked. David was not disruptive in the sense of disturbing the few classes he did attend, according to Mr. Murray. He did, however, for the first semester of the 1981-1982 school year, fail all six subjects, also getting an "F" in conduct.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner assign David Michael Wolfe to the Jan Mann Opportunity School-North. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Bonnie Wolfe 2260 Northeast 135 Lane North Miami, Florida 33181 Michael Niemand, Esquire Suite 300 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Leonard M. Britton Superintendent Dade County School Board 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Anna Mann, should be dismissed from her employment with the Palm Beach County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Palm Beach County School District. Such authority includes, but is not limited to, the employment and discipline of the instructional staff for all Palm Beach County public schools. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a classroom teacher teaching Family and Consumer Sciences (formerly known as Home Economics). Respondent's teaching duties were at Glades Central Community High School (GCCHS). Respondent received a continuing contract (CC) for employment during the 1974-75 school year. There is no evidence that Respondent elected to accept a professional services contract (PSC) during her tenure with the District. Respondent did not voluntarily relinquish her continuing contract. Consequently, it is presumed Respondent continued employment as a CC teacher until the end of the 1997-98 school year. At the conclusion of the 1997-98 school year, the superintendent of schools, acting on the recommendation of the principal, notified Respondent that she would not be recommended for employment and would not be offered a teaching contract for the subsequent school year. This notice was issued on or before April 1, 1998. Such notice further advised Respondent that her employment with the District would end on June 11, 1998. Upon receipt of the notice that she would not be re- appointed for employment, Respondent timely challenged the termination, and the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings. Thereafter, in accordance with the notice previously provided to Respondent, the District did not offer Respondent a contract to teach for the 1998-99 school year. The District utilizes an evaluation instrument known as the Classroom Teacher Assessment System (CTAS) Evaluation. Persons using this CTAS tool must be trained and approved prior to implementing any use of the instrument for teacher assessment. All individuals in this proceeding who assessed Respondent's classroom performance were fully trained and authorized to evaluate Respondent. Those using the CTAS instrument had been trained and approved in its use. Those using other methods of evaluation were also fully trained and approved for evaluation of instructional personnel. While Respondent did not agree with the findings of the assessments, Respondent has not raised any credible challenge to the qualifications of any assessor. The CTAS instrument rates the teacher as "acceptable" for which 2 points are assigned or as "concern" for which 1 point is given. There are sixteen specific assessment areas covered by the CTAS instrument. Thus, there is a possible 32-point score for any teacher receiving "acceptable" in all areas of review. Teachers with less than 28 points are formally directed to correct the cited deficiencies. In May of 1996, Respondent was given an annual evaluation by the Assistant Principal, Mr. Campbell. This assessment noted four areas of concern and yielded a total score of 28 points. The topics of the assessment wherein Respondent showed concern (as opposed to acceptable performance) were: management of student conduct, instructional organization and development, presentation of subject matter, and establishes an appropriate classroom climate. Because Respondent had received a marginal rating in the prior annual assessment, Dr. Grear directed another Assistant Principal, Dr. Fuller, to conduct a mid-year evaluation for Respondent during the fall of 1996. This mid-year evaluation was conducted on December 6, 1996. On this occasion Dr. Fuller observed Respondent in all three of her classes. The evaluation comments were memorialized on a Florida Performance Measurement System Screening/Summative Observation Instrument (FPMS) form as well as in anecdotal notes of the review. Although Respondent did not have many students in the classes observed (her largest observed class held 22 students), frequently students were off-task and not engaged in the learning process. According to Dr. Fuller, Respondent allowed students to put their heads on the desks, get out of their seats and walk around, and ignore her directions to them. In one instance when Respondent directed students to gather at a table for a demonstration, six of the thirteen attending students paid no attention. The CTAS evaluation for the December 6, 1996, mid-year review yielded a total score of 26 points. This instrument documented concerns in six assessment areas: management of student conduct, instructional organization and development, presentation of subject matter, establishes an appropriate classroom climate, demonstrates ability to plan effectively, and demonstrates effective written communication skills. Respondent reviewed the CTAS form and executed the receipt of it on December 9, 1996. Based upon the concerns noted in the mid-year evaluation, Respondent was given a school site assistance plan. It was hoped this plan would allow Respondent to improve in the deficient areas. This plan outlined strategies and directed Respondent to perform certain tasks by the progress dates indicated in the plan. Respondent was advised that during the time frame identified in the school site assistance plan she would be observed to determine if deficiencies had been corrected. Over the course of the rest of that school year, Respondent continued to receive school site assistance. Unfortunately, although she was able to improve in two areas of concern, she was not able to remedy all deficiencies. At the conclusion of the 1996-97 school year Respondent still had six areas of concern (albeit two new areas of concern added to four uncorrected deficiencies). Assistant Principal Jean Beehler performed Respondent's annual evaluation at the end of the 1996-97 school year. This evaluation, conducted on March 12, 1997, awarded Respondent a total score of 26 points. The areas of concern noted on this CTAS form were: management of student conduct, instructional organization and development, presentation of subject matter, establishes an appropriate classroom climate, demonstrates knowledge of subject matter, and demonstrates ability to evaluate instructional needs. To her credit, Respondent had improved in planning and written communication skills. Moreover, she demonstrated compliance with the curriculum framework for her courses. Nevertheless, because there were still six areas of concern at the end of the school year, Respondent was given a district level professional development plan to assist her in the correction of the deficiencies. This district level plan (See Petitioner's exhibits 5, 6, and 8) replaced the school site plan. The strategies and directives of this plan offered Respondent a wider level of resources for improvement. A portion of this plan outlined summer remediation activities for Respondent. As to all portions of the plan, Respondent was given set time frames within which to accomplish various tasks. At all times material to the evaluations and plans adopted for Respondent during the 1996-97 school year Respondent had the assistance of Clarence Gunn, a representative from the Classroom Teachers' Association. Mr. Gunn was aware of the evaluations and recommendations for correction made to Respondent and participated in meetings conducted with the teacher when the annual evaluation was reviewed and when the subsequent corrective plan was implemented. It is undisputed that Respondent was given the entire 1997-98 school year to utilize numerous school resources in order to remedy the deficiencies outlined by the CTAS evaluations from the prior year. Respondent was offered assistance at the school site from administrators and peer teachers, as well as from district support staff. Respondent was permitted to attend various conferences and seminars. Despite the numerous and continuous efforts of school personnel to assist in the correction of the deficiencies, Respondent remained resolved, and improvidently observed to students that the school administration was out to get her job. Although Respondent attended workshops and made some efforts to improve, neither gravamen of the deficiencies nor the remedies necessary to correct them registered with Respondent until the time of hearing. In short, the Respondent did not correct the deficiencies. Students in Respondent's class continued to exhibit unacceptable, out of control, behaviors. They ignored her directions, tampered with her resource materials, and would walk out of the classroom. The mid-year evaluation conducted on December 9, 1997, by the principal, Dr. Grear, mirrored the past CTAS forms in that Respondent still showed the same six areas of concern. The district level professional development plan was updated in January 1998 to again offer Respondent assistance, guidance and timelines for correction of the deficiencies. Among the aids offered to Respondent were full-day workshops (for which substitutes were provided for Respondent's classes), after school seminars, reading materials and videos. Regional personnel, an outside expert, and peer-level teachers were also offered to Respondent. None of these individuals or references resulted in the correction of the deficiencies. In March 1998, Respondent was given her annual evaluation which noted the same six areas of concern. As a result, on or about April 1, 1998, Respondent was notified that the superintendent would recommend that the School Board not renew Respondent's teaching contract for the 1998-99 school year. Perhaps most telling of Respondent's failure to maintain classroom management and to establish an appropriate classroom climate was the testimony of Respondent's witness, Mary Willingham. Ms. Willingham was a student in two of Respondent's classes during the 1997-98 school year. She recited different activities done in the classes but when asked: Did you experience the same kind of disruptive behavior in your classmates, like, throwing books and throwing Crayolas in your other three classes like you did in Mrs. Mann's class? Answer: No, nothing like it was in her class. Even Ms. Rasmussen, the AVDA guest speaker in Respondent's classroom, had to shorten a presentation due to the disruptive conduct of the students while Respondent was present in the classroom. The collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the classroom teachers (the contract) contains several paragraphs Respondent argues are pertinent to this case. Article II, Section G, paragraph 3 of the contract provides: 3. The evaluation shall be discussed with the employee by the evaluator. After the conference, the employee shall sign the completed evaluation form to acknowledge that it has been received. The employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the evaluation which shall be made a part of the employee's official personnel file. If a PSC/CC employee's performance warrants a mid-year evaluation then such mid- year evaluation shall be completed by December 10 and shall follow all aspects of this Section. If any deficiency is noted on the mid-year evaluation, the Principal shall provide the employee with written and specific recommendations for improvement within twenty (20) days of the employee receiving the mid-year evaluation. The Principal/District will provide assistance to the affected employee in all noted areas of concern and adequate time to improve. Except as provided in this Section, employees shall be formally evaluated once yearly prior to May 31. As to both mid-year evaluations conducted in this matter the Petitioner complied with the provisions set forth in Article II, Section G, paragraph 3. Article II, Section M, of the contract provides, in pertinent part: With the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of this Agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written notice of wrong- doing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee prior to taking any action. * * * Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with provisions of this Section, an employee may be reprimanded verbally, reprimanded in writing, suspended with pay, suspended without pay or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent. Other disciplinary action(s) may be taken with the mutual agreement of the parties. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: * * * (d) Dismissal. An employee may be dismissed (employment contract terminated or non- renewed) when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable laws. An employee against whom disciplinary action(s) has been taken may appeal through the grievance procedure. If the disciplinary action(s) taken includes either a suspension or a dismissal, the grievance shall be initiated at STEP TWO. Pertinent to this case, Petitioner fully advised Respondent of the allegations which resulted in the non-renewal of her CC contract. Moreover, Petitioner fully advised Respondent of the remedies necessary to correct all deficiencies. Finally, Petitioner extended to Respondent a protracted period of time within which to correct such deficiencies. In reaching such conclusions, it is observed that Respondent was provided adequate notice of all deficiencies asserted by the Petitioner, was kept apprised of her progress (or lack thereof) in the efforts to remedy the deficiencies, was given a sufficient number of evaluations by different evaluators to properly and accurately document the areas of concern, and was afforded two school years to correct the deficiencies noted in her evaluations. To her credit, Respondent has, over the course of her employment, provided valuable contributions to the GCCHS community. She has maintained close contact in the community and supported many extracurricular activities. Indeed, it is not subject to dispute that she has been helpful to the school and its community. Such positive contributions do not, however, ameliorate her classroom deficiencies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida enter a final order affirming the decision to not renew Respondent's teaching contract for the 1998-99 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: M. Annette Himmelbaum, Esquire 6770 Indian Creek Drive Suite 9E Miami Beach, Florida 33141 Anthony D. Demma, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas E. Elfers, Esquire Palm Beach County School District 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Dr. Joan Kowel, Superintendent Palm Beach County School District 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
The Issue Whether the Early Learning Coalition of Duval (ELC of Duval) is a state agency as defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes, and whether the quality improvement rating system identified in Petitioner's Amended Petition is an agency statement that constitutes an unadopted rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Florida Association for Child Care Management, Inc. (FACCM) is a Florida not-for-profit corporation which serves as a trade organization of private child care facilities. Respondent, AWI, is the state agency that has the authority and obligations relating to school readiness programs as set forth in Section 411.01, Florida Statutes, and applicable federal law. Respondent, ELC of Duval, is an early learning coalition as that term is applied in Section 411.01, Florida Statutes. The School Readiness Act The Florida Legislature passed the School Readiness Act in 1999. The Act, codified at Section 411.01, Florida Statutes, required the creation of local school readiness coalitions with the goal of ensuring that children are eager to learn and ready to succeed when they enter kindergarten. The Act is directed toward at-risk children in the State. The following portions of Section 411.01, Florida Statutes, provide part of the framework for the school readiness programs in Florida: (2)(a) . . . Each school readiness program shall provide the elements necessary to prepare at-risk children for school, including health screening and referral and an appropriate educational program. * * * (d) It is the intent of the Legislature that the administrative staff at the state level for school readiness programs be kept to the minimum necessary to administer the duties of the Agency for Workforce Innovation, as the school readiness programs are to be regionally designed, operated, and managed, with the Agency for Workforce Innovation developing school readiness program performance standards and outcome measures and approving and reviewing early learning coalitions and school readiness plans. * * * (g) It is the intent of the Legislature that the federal child care income tax credit be preserved for school readiness programs. The administration of the school readiness programs was moved to AWI in 2001. The Agency now oversees the coalitions operating school readiness programs throughout the state, and is considered, for purposes of the administration of the federal Child Care and Development Fund, 45 C.F.R. parts 98 and 99, the lead agency for the State of Florida. The Agency's responsibilities with respect to school readiness programs include coordinating birth-to-kindergarten services for eligible children, as well as the programmatic, administrative and fiscal standards for all public providers of school readiness programs; providing leadership for school readiness through early learning coalitions; responsibility for prudent use of all public and private funds in accordance with all legal and contractual requirements; providing final approval and periodic review of early learning coalitions and school readiness plans; providing technical assistance to early learning coalitions; and developing and adopting performance standards and outcome measures for school readiness programs, which must address age-appropriate progress of children regarding school readiness skills and must be integrated with performance standards adopted by the Department of Education in the Voluntary Prekindergarten Education Program. See generally § 411.01(4), Fla. Stat. The Legislature has granted authority to the Agency to adopt rules with respect to the preparation and implementation of the school readiness system, the collection of data, the approval of early learning coalitions and school readiness plans, the provision of a method by which more than one county may be served by an early learning coalition, the award of incentives to early learning coalitions and the issuance of waivers. As of the date of hearing in this case, there are no rules adopted by the Agency regarding the approval of school readiness plans or performance standards and outcome measures for school readiness programs. Early Learning Coalitions and School Readiness Plans Services for at-risk children are furnished through child-care providers such as pre-schools. School readiness programs provide, through early learning coalitions, tuition vouchers to the parents of eligible children, and the parents use the vouchers to enroll their children with a provider. Priority for participation is afforded to children served by the Family Safety Program Office of the Department of Children and Family Services or a community-based lead agency under Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, and for whom child care is needed to minimize the risk of further abuse, neglect or abandonment. Section 411.01, Florida Statutes, authorizes a series of early learning coalitions throughout Florida to administer school readiness programs at the local level. The law contemplates 30 or fewer coalitions to be established, and requires that each one serve at least 2,000 children based upon the average of all children served per month through the program during the previous 12 months. Multi-county coalitions generally are established when a learning coalition would serve fewer than 2,000 children as described above. At present, there are 31 early learning coalitions in the State of Florida.1/ There are 12 coalitions that serve more than one county. Respondent ELC of Duval operates only in Duval County. It does not have the authority to act outside the bounds of Duval County, and has no rulemaking authority. Whether an early learning coalition serves one county or multiple counties, it is composed of 18-35 members, with the chair and two other members being appointed by the governor. In addition, each early learning coalition must include a Department of Children and Family Services district administrator or designee; a district superintendent of schools or designee; a regional workforce board executive director or designee; a county health department director or designee; a children's services council or juvenile welfare board chair or executive director, if applicable; an agency head of a local licensing agency as defined in Section 401.302, Florida Statutes, if applicable; a president of a community college or designee; a member appointed by a board of county commissioners; a central agency administrator, where applicable; a Head Start director; a representative of private child-care providers, including family day care homes; a representative of faith-based child-care providers; and a representative of programs for children with disabilities under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Act. The last five categories of members are non-voting members. ELC of Duval was incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation in 2000. It provides school readiness services pursuant to a grant agreement entered into with the AWI and is considered an independent contractor. Under the grant agreement and in accordance with the provisions of Section 411.01, ELC of Duval must submit a school readiness plan detailing how the coalition will meet state and federal requirements for school readiness programs, including the implementation of quality initiatives. The AWI may suspend or terminate its agreement with the ELC of Duval, as it can with any early learning coalition, if it fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant agreement. The grant agreement provides in pertinent part: In the Coalition's performance of its duties and responsibilities under the Agreement, it is mutually understood and agreed that the Coalition is at all times acting and performing as an independent contractor and not a division or subpart of the [Agency]. The [Agency] shall neither have nor exercise any control or direction over the methods by which the Coalition shall perform its functions other than as provided herein and in law. Nothing in the Agreement is intended to or shall be deemed to constitute a partnership or joint venture between the parties. Early learning centers operating in Duval County are not required to participate in any program or receive any funding from ELC of Duval to legally operate as an early learning center in Duval County. In fact, Section 411.01(4)(g), Florida Statutes, prohibits the Agency from imposing requirements on a child care or early childhood education provider that does not deliver services under a school readiness program or receive state or federal funds pursuant to Section 411.01. Participation in school readiness programs is voluntary. Payments for school readiness services are made by a transfer of funds from the ELC of Duval to legally operating school readiness providers that have entered into a negotiated service agreement with the coalition. In other words, while participation is voluntary, early learning centers wishing to participate must sign a contract saying that they will abide by certain minimal quality standards. There is, however, no requirement that any early learning center accept children requiring subsidies to pay for attendance as a condition of operating an early learning center in Duval County. There are between 500 and 600 preschools in Duval County, including family childcare homes. Of those, approximately 315 have contracts with the ELC of Duval to accept school readiness children. Approximately 7,500 children in Duval County receive school readiness subsidies. There are approximately 2,000 additional children on a waiting list for school readiness subsidies. One of ELC of Duval's obligations, under both its grant agreement and the terms of Section 411.01, is to submit a plan for implementing its school readiness program to the AWI for approval. The plan must demonstrate how the program will ensure that each 3 and 4-year-old in a publicly funded school readiness program receives scheduled activities and instruction designed to enhance the age-related appropriate progress of the children in performing the performance standards adopted by the Agency. The plan must also include a single point of entry and unified waiting list, which is part of a statewide information system established by the Agency. The plan must include developmentally appropriate curriculum designed to enhance the progress of the child; a character development program to develop basic values; an age-appropriate assessment of each child's development; a pretest administered when children enter the program and a posttest when they leave; an appropriate staff-to- children ratio; a healthy and safe environment; and a resource and referral network to assist parents in making an informed choice of a learning center for their children. An early learning coalition may not implement its school readiness plan until the Agency has approved it. Plans must also be reviewed by the Agency at least annually. The early learning coalition must review and revise the plans as necessary, at least biennially.2/ Revisions to the plan cannot be implemented until approved by the Agency. § 411.01(5)(d), Fla. Stat. The Agency has been given the authority to adopt rules related to the approval of early learning coalitions and school readiness plans. It has been directed to adopt criteria for the adoption of school readiness plans consistent with the performance standards and outcome measures adopted by the Agency and must require each approved plan to include certain minimum standards related to a sliding fee scale based upon ability to pay; a choice of settings and locations to be provided to parents; instructional staff with certain delineated training; specific eligibility priorities; performance standards and outcome measures; payment rates adopted by the early learning coalition and approved by AWI; certain delineated system support services and direct enhancement services to families and children; the early learning coalition's business organization; and strategies to meet the needs of unique populations, such as migrant workers. In the absence of a rule, AWI has provided to the early learning coalitions a "guidance document" for submitting their school readiness plans, entitled the Early Learning Coalition Guidance and Instruction Workbook (Workbook). This Workbook was developed at least by 2006. The Workbook was used by ELC of Duval in preparing its plan for approval by AWI. The ELC of Duval submitted its school readiness plan on July 22, 2006. This plan was approved by the Agency. ELC of Duval submitted amendments to the 2006 plan in early 2008. These amendments were approved by the Agency via letter dated March 6, 2008. Funding for Early Learning Programs In addition to the program components outlined above, both AWI and early learning coalitions must be mindful of the spending allocations outlined in federal regulations. School readiness programs administered by the early learning coalitions are funded by a combination of state and local funds. The federal portion of the school readiness funding comes from the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 45 C.F.R. § 98.50 describes the required funding allocations for child care services related to school readiness programs: § 98.50 Child Care Services. Of the funds remaining after applying the provisions of paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of this section the Lead Agency shall spend a substantial portion to provide child care services to low-income working families. * * * Of the aggregate amount of funds expended (i.e., Discretionary, Mandatory, and Federal and State Share of Matching Funds), no less than four percent shall be used for activities to improve the quality of child care as described at §98.51. Of the aggregate amount of funds expended (i.e., Discretionary, Mandatory, and Federal and State share of Matching Funds), no more than five percent may be used for administrative activities as described in § 98.52. Not less than 70 percent of the Mandatory and Matching Funds shall be used to meet the child care needs of families who: Are receiving assistance under a State program under Part A of title IV of the Social Security Act, Are attempting through work activities to transition off such assistance program, and Are at risk of becoming dependent on such assistance program. 45 C.F.R. § 98.51 further describes quality activities: No less than four percent of the aggregate funds expended by the Lead Agency for a fiscal year, including the amounts expended in the State pursuant to §98.53(b), shall be expended for quality activities. These activities may include but are not limited to: Activities designed to provide comprehensive consumer education to parents and the public; Activities that increase parental choice; and Activities designed to improve the quality and availability of child care, including, but not limited to those described in paragraph (2) of this section. Activities to improve the quality of child care services may include, but are not limited to: Operating directly or providing financial assistance to organizations (including private non-profit organizations, public organizations, and units of general purpose local government) for the development, establishment, expansion, operation and coordination of resource and referral programs specifically related to child care; Making grants or providing loans to child care providers to assist such providers in meeting applicable State, local, and tribal child care standards, including applicable health and safety requirements, pursuant to §§ 98.40 and 98.41; Improving the monitoring of compliance with, and enforcement of, applicable State, local and tribal requirements, pursuant to §§98.40 and 98.41; Providing training and technical assistance in areas appropriate to the provision of child care services, such as training in health and safety, nutrition, first aid, the recognition of communicable diseases, child abuse detection and prevention, and care of children with special needs; Improving salaries and other compensation (such as fringe benefits) for full-and part-time staff who provide child care services for which assistance is provided under this part; and Any other activities that are consistent with the intent of this section. Development of the Quality Rating Improvement System In 2002, the ELC of Duval began discussions on how to best improve its school readiness program through the expenditure of "quality activity" funds contemplated by 45 C.F.R. §98.51. In September 2002, it began work on a quality rating system for school readiness programs operating in Duval County. The purpose of the quality rating system was to assist early learning centers providing school readiness services through contracts with ELC of Duval in improving their programs and to assist parents in selecting quality care for their children. The quality rating system was developed through two pilot programs. The initial pilot program involved 14 volunteer early learning centers. The second year pilot program, which began in 2005 and lasted until 2007, involved 100 centers. Participants for this portion of the pilot were taken from sites located in the boundaries of elementary schools where 75 percent or more of the children were on free or reduced lunch programs, and the site indicated a willingness to participate. The quality rating system was fully implemented in November 2007 and currently has 96 early learning centers participating in Guiding Stars. Seventy-two of the 100 centers in the second year pilot have graduated or exited the program. As will be discussed more fully below, the name of the program was changed in early 2008 to the Quality Rating Improvement System (QRIS). Phase I of the current program is called "Quality Connections." This phase involves an environmental assessment of the early learning center based upon rating scales referred to as ITERS (Infant/Toddler Environmental Rating Scale) and ECERS (Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale). The purpose of this phase is to determine the environmental needs of the provider and to determine whether the provider is ready for Phase II, which is known as the "Guiding Stars." Notably, assessment using ITERS and ECERS is required of all providers accepting school readiness children, and is not a requirement unique to the QRIS. There are presently 110 school readiness providers in Phase I. These providers receive grants from the ELC of Duval for books, materials, and equipment as indicated in the ITERS and ECERS assessments. If a participant receives a score of three (out of five) on the environmental assessments, then they are eligible to participate in Guiding Stars. Phase II is the portion of the QRIS that has 96 participants. However, Phase II envisions a two-year window of participation, and not all participants start on the same schedule. There was no testimony presented that any early learning center had completed Phase I and was denied entrance in Phase II for want of a slot. Based on the assessment in Phase I, the ELC of Duval assists the provider by supplying technical assistance support for up to two years. Technical assistance can include classroom assessments by trained evaluators, development of an action plan to address areas identified as needing improvement, training for staff members, educational stipends and scholarships, and wage incentives. Once the provider has had an opportunity to improve any shortcomings identified in the initial assessment, it is evaluated by a team of early learning professionals based on factors such as: a) the quality of a provider's facility; b) the quality of the educational environment at the provider's facility; c) the ratio of staff to children; d) the qualifications of the provider's staff members; e) the quality of the curriculum; and f) parental/family involvement with the children's learning and development. After the evaluation team has completed its assessment, a provider receives one to five stars, and each star represents an increasing level of quality. Once a child-care provider has received a star rating, it is considered to be an "exited" provider and receives a maintenance support plan which may include, but is not limited to quarterly contacts by the Guiding Stars program manager; on-site training opportunities and technical assistance for directors and teachers; educational scholarships for the professional development and continuing education of staff members; recognition through the Child Care Resource and Referral Network and the Northeast Florida Early Care and Education Guide; curriculum support; staff training; mini-grants to enhance program development; and wage incentives for staff. A significant amount of evidence was presented regarding the funding of the Guiding Stars program. In compliance with the federal requirements in 45 C.F.R. § 98.50, ELC of Duval allocates approximately 80 percent of its funds for child care slots (as opposed to the 70 percent required for this purpose). ELC of Duval devotes approximately 9 percent to quality enhancement activities, including the Guiding Stars program. The funding for services provided to exited centers comes from a combination of state, federal and private sources. While "quality dollars" from CCDF are used to finance the program, the majority of the funding (approximately $3.5 million) comes from the Mayor of Jacksonville's Early Literacy Initiative. The Guiding Stars program also receives significant funding from private sources, including the Rice Foundation and Blue Cross-Blue Shield. Early learning centers that participate in ELC of Duval's school readiness program are qualified to participate in the Guiding Stars program, but are not required to do so. There is no cost to early learning centers that accept children attending school readiness programs under tuition subsidies to participate in the Guiding Stars programs. Every early learning center who has a signed provider agreement with ELC of Duval receives the same amount of subsidy per eligible child whether or not they participate in the Guiding Stars program. Information regarding the rating received by participants in the program is available to parents seeking placement for their children. Reference to the Guiding Stars ratings is a way for parents to assess the provider's commitment to quality, and the program is featured in some of ELC of Duval's promotional materials. Description of quality activities and services is required in an early learning coalition's school readiness plan submitted to and approved by AWI. Reference to ELC of Duval's QRIS is included in "Section 5: Quality Activities and Services. The ELC of Duval could not have implemented the QRIS program unless some description of the program was included in the school readiness plan. The school readiness plan submitted by the Early Learning Coalition of Duval in 2006 did not contain documentation on the Guiding Stars Program itself. It did reference the program under the following categories in the School Readiness Plan (consistent with the format required by the Early Learning Coalition Guidance and Instruction Workbook): 1.92 (Evaluation Plan); 2.5 (Collaboration and Coordination of Services with Other Entities); and 3.4 (Parent Involvement and Skill Building). More substantial information is provided in Section 5 (Quality Activities and Services). When ELC of Duval decided to change the description of the program from a quality rating system to a quality rating improvement system, it submitted amendments to its school readiness plan to reflect the change. These amendments are included in the submission referred to in paragraph 26, above. The ELC of Duval's plan amendment likewise did not incorporate the actual workings or substance of the QRIS. It did not submit the material identified as an agency statement attached to the Amended Petition in this case. Brittany Birken, Director of the Office of Early Learning for the AWI, did not review the QRIS or Guiding Stars program as a part of the review of ELC of Duval's early learning readiness plan. On behalf of the Agency, she reviewed ELC of Duval's school readiness plan to make sure that it complied with federal and state law requirements that at least four percent of identified funding was being spent on appropriate quality activities. AWI determined that the wage incentives, technical assistance and professional development proposed through the QRIS were consistent with federal requirements for quality activities. AWI approved the ELC of Duval's school readiness plan. It did not approve the QRIS or endorse it. Standing The Florida Association for Child Care Management is a not-for-profit corporation that functions as a trade association for approximately 2,500 private child-care providers in Florida. It monitors legislation and provides lobbying services on behalf its members before both the executive and legislative branch. Ninety-three of its members are in the Duval county area. There was no indication of how many members receive children using vouchers via the school readiness program. However, thirty-three members participate in the Guiding Stars program. Two of the board members for FACCM own preschools in Duval County. In the one meeting called to discuss the challenge to the Guiding Stars program, approximately 20 to 25 members attended. There was no evidence presented to indicate how many of those in attendance supported the challenge in this case. With regard to its standing to initiate the challenge in this proceeding, FACCM alleged that a substantial number of FACCM members are substantially affected by the QRIS, which they claim is an unadopted rule, because only providers who participate in the Guiding Stars program are entitled to the benefits of the program; the star ratings are publicized as an indication of the quality of a program, and providers face increased costs to achieve higher star ratings. The Executive Director for FACCM testified that FACCM members are substantially affected by Guiding Stars because a) the funding of the Guiding Stars program reduces the funding that would otherwise be available for school readiness programs operated by FACCM members; b) providers who do not participate in the program are denied positive public promotion by ELC of Duval, mini-grants, educational scholarships and wage incentives for staff; c) the Guiding Stars program imposes additional regulatory costs on FACCM members; d) some providers are not eligible to participate in the Guiding Stars program even though they operate school readiness programs in Duval County; and e) the Guiding Stars program determines the level of benefits a participating member may receive. Only one child care program owner testified regarding participation (or lack thereof) in the program. Carol Moore is the owner/director of the Learning Tree Schools of Jacksonville. There are two locations: Fort Caroline and Hidden Hills. Both schools are in the Arlington area of Jacksonville. The Fort Caroline School has 160 preschool children, with 22 of them receiving subsidies. Hidden Hills has 80 preschool children, with 4 children receiving subsidies. At the time of hearing, both schools were at full enrollment with a wait list of about a year. Ms. Moore testified that she was visited by representatives from ELC of Duval in November or December 2007 regarding possible participation in the Guiding Stars program. She testified that sometime soon after the visit she was informed that only one of two schools could be accepted into the program. However, she could not identify who made this statement, when it was made or any reason provided for such a statement. Ms. Moore admitted that she never formally applied to participate in the program and never received any type of rejection in writing. She also indicated that things have changed since the time ELC of Duval representatives visited her program. Ms. Moore was only interested in being in the program if she could obtain a five-star rating. To do so, she claimed that she might be required to purchase an additional piece of playground equipment, although the type and price was not identified. Once again, she did not identify who told her such equipment would be required, and no documentation was produced. Indeed, Ms. Moore admitted that there was no regulatory cost to participate in the program, but "if you wanted to be a five-star school, yes, it's going to cost you some money." Ms. Moore has not suffered a decrease in enrollment or any other financial harm resulting from the existence of the program. As a program receiving subsidies for care, her schools are already assessed in terms of ITERS and ECERS, and her program is accredited as a Gold Seal Program through the Department of Children and Families. No other FACCM member was identified whose program had been denied participation in the Guiding Stars or who had suffered additional costs as a result of the program. The more credible evidence indicates that no provider accepting school readiness children has been denied access to participate in the Guiding Stars program. The program has sufficient capacity to serve current provider requests and ELC of Duval is attempting to recruit additional programs to participate. The ELC of Duval advertises the existence of the program encouraging additional child-care providers to enroll. Susan Main, the Executive Director for ELC of Duval, testified that she was unsure whether the program could accommodate all 315 child care programs accepting early readiness children if all of the programs wanted to participate in the program, and to do so would dilute the resources each program would receive. However, she believed that ELC of Duval would, in that instance, seek additional funding for the program. The more credible evidence indicates that the Guiding Stars program does not necessarily reduce the funding available for subsidies to school readiness children. ELC of Duval already exceeds the required level of funding for this component by ten percent. Much of the funding for Guiding Stars does not come from the funds received through AWI. There is no credible evidence from any witness in a decision to participate in decision-making that, absent the Guiding Stars program, funding would divert to providing additional subsidies. The more credible evidence indicates that providers who do not participate in the program choose not to participate. It cannot be said that they are denied promotion by ELC of Duval when they have declined participation in the program. Participation in the Guiding Stars program does not result in additional regulatory costs. The more credible evidence indicates that participation in the program results in additional funding being available to a child-care provider for improvements in the quality of its program. No credible evidence was presented indicating that there are programs that are not eligible for participation in the program. As noted above, the more credible evidence is that no program has been denied participation. Finally, Guiding Stars benefits are determined on a case by case basis, depending on the needs of the individual providers and the level of funding available. Petitioner has not established that it is substantially affected by the implementation of the Guiding Stars program by the ELC of Duval.
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 issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2013), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (3)(e) with respect to her treatment of an autistic child in her classroom. If so, then the appropriate penalty for her conduct must be determined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher in the State of Florida. She holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 952211, covering the areas of elementary education, English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), and exceptional student education. Respondent’s certificate is valid through June 2016. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) teacher at Maplewood. Ms. Newton has been involved in teaching in Marion County since 1999. She started as a teaching assistant, then substitute taught while putting herself through school, then obtained her bachelor’s degree in varying exceptionalities and began teaching full time. She also received her master’s degree in 2007 in the area of interdisciplinary studies in curriculum and instruction. With the exception of an internship at Oak Crest Elementary, all of Ms. Newton’s teaching experience was at Maplewood. Her performance evaluations from the 2004-2005 school year through the 2012-2013 school year all contain at least satisfactory ratings, with the majority of the recent evaluations rating her as highly effective or outstanding, depending on the evaluation tool used. The majority of her evaluations reference her excellent classroom management skills. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, Maplewood received an entirely new administrative team. Laura Burgess was the new principal, Claire Smith and Brian Greene were newly- appointed assistant principals, and Doris Tucker was the new dean. The new administration started at Maplewood in July, approximately a month before the beginning of the school year. Ms. Newton had been teaching and continued to teach autistic students. At the beginning of the school year, she was assigned six students in her self-contained classroom, and had the assistance of one teacher’s aide, Susanne Quigley. Ms. Newton believed strongly in the value of a structured, disciplined classroom, especially when dealing with autistic students. She believed that establishing the rules and routine for the classroom created an environment where any child could be taught, but that without structure and adherence to routine, chaos would result and impair the learning process. Her classroom management skills were well known and in past years, well respected. Both Ms. Newton and Ms. Quigley testified about the assistance she was asked to give to other teachers and students with respect to class management and discipline. Their testimony is credited. After the start of the school year but before September 3, 2013, Laura Burgess, Maplewood’s principal, was notified by the Social Services Education Team (SET team) for the District that Maplewood would be receiving a new student, B.L., who had moved to the area from North Carolina. She also received an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for B.L., which listed his disability as autism spectrum disorder. B.L.’s IEP also indicated that he had problematic behaviors that could impede his learning, including oppositional defiance disorder, tantrums, attention deficit disorder, and extreme violence. The documentation provided to her did not include a behavioral intervention plan, and Ms. Burgess was concerned that B.L.’s placement at Maplewood did not match the needs identified in the IEP. However, she determined that Ms. Newton’s class would be the best placement for B.L., because Ms. Newton had a reputation for having a structured and disciplined classroom, and perhaps B.L. would benefit from that kind of structure. Ms. Burgess saw Ms. Newton that morning and told her that she would be receiving a new student. Ms. Burgess described the issues with the child, and said that if he ended up in Ms. Newton’s class, she should document his behaviors in case he needed to be moved to a therapeutic unit for behaviors (TUB unit). Ms. Newton understood from the conversation that Ms. Burgess believed B.L. should be in a TUB unit, which did not exist at Maplewood. However, later in the day Ms. Newton and her aide, Susanne Quigley, were supervising her students on the playground when she was approached by Claire Smith, one of the new assistant principals. Ms. Smith informed her that B.L. would indeed be placed in her class and gave her a copy of his IEP, with certain portions related to his behavior highlighted. Ms. Newton expressed surprise at the placement, thinking that he would be going to the TUB unit. Ms. Smith had met with B.L. and his mother earlier in the day and felt that he could benefit from Ms. Newton’s structured classroom. She also talked to Ms. Newton about documenting his behaviors should a change be necessary. Ms. Newton was concerned about the addition to her classroom because she already had six autistic students and, with respect to B.L.’s identified behaviors, “we’ve never had a child like that at Maplewood.” Nonetheless, B.L. was placed in her classroom on September 3, 2013. Consistent with her usual practice, Ms. Newton began to teach B.L. the rules of her classroom. For the first two days, there were no major problems. There were instances where B.L. did not want to comply with the directions she gave him or follow the rules of the classroom, but with some coaxing, she was able to get him to comply. Ms. Newton did not see the need to call the front office for assistance on either of the first two days B.L. was in her classroom, but then, Ms. Newton had never called the front office for assistance with any child. At the end of the first day, she had the opportunity to speak with B.L.’s mother briefly when she picked him up from school. After Ms. Newton introduced herself, B.L.’s mother basically confirmed the contents of the IEP. According to what B.L.’s mother told Ms. Newton, B.L. had lived previously with his father and there had been issues both at school and at home with disruptive and violent behavior. Ms. Newton told her they were going to “wipe the slate clean” and asked if there was anything that B.L.’s mother wanted Ms. Newton to work on, and she identified B.L.’s behaviors as an area for improvement. Ms. Newton told B.L.’s mother that Maplewood was a great school, and “that would happen.” B.L.’s third day at Maplewood did not go well. At the very beginning of the day, B.L. would not follow directions to stand with the rest of his classmates at their designated spot after getting off the bus. Instead, he plopped down in the middle of the walkway, in the midst of the area where children were trying to walk to their classes. He had to be coaxed all along the way to get to class, and once there, refused to unpack and sit down. He refused to follow any direction the first time it was given, instead responding with shuffling feet, shrugging shoulders, talking back, calling names, and wanting to lay his head down on his desk instead of participate in class. When it was time for the students in the class to go to art, Ms. Quigley normally took them while Ms. Newton attended to other responsibilities. According to Ms. Quigley, B.L. did not want to go to art class, and had to be coaxed to walk with the others to the art room. Once he got there, he did not follow directions, did not want to participate, and did not want to move from the back of the room. Normally, Ms. Quigley might have let him stand and watch if he remained quiet, but he was not being quiet: he was touching things and grumbling and getting angry. Ms. Quigley knew from prior experience that students with autism tend to mimic the bad behavior exhibited by others, and one child’s actions could cause a chain reaction of bad behaviors. She felt that if she did not remove him from the art room, the other children would also start to misbehave, and she did not want them to follow B.L.’s example. Ms. Quigley took B.L. out of the art classroom and went back to the classroom in search of Ms. Newton. Ms. Newton was not in the classroom, as she was attending to other responsibilities. Ms. Quigley then took B.L. to the office, but again, found no one there to assist her. B.L. was not happy during any of these travels, and again had to be coaxed all along the way. Once she got back to the art class, Ms. Quigley had B.L. stand in the back of the classroom. She was trying to watch him and also attend to the other students, but one of the other students knocked everything off the art table, so Ms. Quigley added clean-up to her responsibilities. At that point, Ms. Newton came into the art room. Ms. Newton took both B.L. and the other misbehaving child back to the classroom while Ms. Quigley stayed with the remaining students for the rest of the art period. What remained of the afternoon became a battle of wills between Ms. Newton and B.L.: Ms. Newton was trying to establish the ground rules for behavior in her classroom with B.L., and B.L. was determined not to follow those rules. The result was Ms. Newton spending the bulk of the afternoon with B.L. and Ms. Quigley attending to the needs of the other students in the class. For at least part of this time, Ms. Newton placed B.L. in time-out, with directions that he was to stand still with his hands to his sides. For Ms. Newton, the purpose of time-out is for a student to gather his or her thoughts, to get himself or herself together, and to remind the student of the rules of the classroom. She wants a student to have time to think about his or her actions, and wants to discuss with the student the nature of the problem presented by his or her behavior and how the problem should be resolved. If a child stops behaving, time-out may begin again. Ms. Newton put B.L. in time-out because he was not following her directions to him. She talked to B.L. about the rules of the classroom and where they are posted in the room, and told him what he needed to do. B.L. is very verbal and able to talk about his issues. Ms. Quigley described him as very high-functioning and not on the same level as other children in the classroom. Instead of responding appropriately, B.L. was calling names, talking out, and using curse words; flailing his arms and legs, wrapping himself in his sweatshirt so that his arms were in the body of the sweatshirt as opposed to in the armholes, and covering his face so that he could not see obstacles in his environment; wandering around instead of staying still; kicking things in the classroom, including a box and a door; throwing objects on the floor, rolling around on the floor and spitting; and generally resisting any instruction. During the course of the afternoon, Ms. Newton attempted to show B.L. what she wanted from him. For example, she demonstrated how she wanted him to stand in time-out by holding his arms in the area close to his wrists to demonstrate standing still with his hands down. B.L. repeatedly resisted this direction and tried to break away from Ms. Newton. B.L. was not only resisting her, but at times appeared to be butting his head against her and kicking her. He was at other times rubbing his hands against his face. Ms. Newton told B.L. he needed to stop rubbing his hands over his face, or she would remove his glasses so that he did not hurt himself with them. When B.L. continued his resistant behaviors, she removed his glasses and eventually put them in his backpack. B.L. continued to lightly slap his face with both hands. Ms. Newton did not physically intervene, but testified that she gave B.L. consistent verbal direction to stop hitting himself. Although he clearly continued to slap his face for some time, Ms. Newton testified that the movement was more like a pat than a slap, and she did not believe that he was hurting himself. Her testimony is credible, and is accepted. Ms. Newton also told B.L. to quit flailing his arms and putting his jacket over his head. She was concerned that he could hurt himself given that he was standing (not still, as directed) near the corner of a table. Ms. Newton told him if he did not stop she would take his jacket from him. He did not and she removed his jacket and placed it on a table in the classroom. She did not give B.L. the jacket back when he wanted it, because she wanted B.L. to understand that there are consequences to not following directions. With approximately 30 minutes left to the school day, Ms. Newton asked Ms. Quigley to call the front office for assistance. Ms. Tucker, the dean at Maplewood, came to her classroom. Before Ms. Tucker’s arrival, Ms. Newton was trying to get B.L. to stand in the back of the room. He was not following directions and had gone over to sit in a chair near the center of the room. The chair was near a free-standing easel with teaching implements attached to it, and it is reasonable to assume, given B.L.’s behavior, that Ms. Newton did not want him near the easel because of the potential for harm. Each time he went to the seat, Ms. Newton directed him away from it. When Ms. Tucker arrived, he once again sat in the chair he had been directed not to use. Ms. Newton removed him from the chair and told him again he was not to sit in it. B.L. immediately went to another chair in the same vicinity and sat down. Ms. Newton, took him by the arm and away from the chair, and took him out of the room. From Dean Tucker’s perspective, B.L. was just trying to sit in a chair. From Ms. Newton’s perspective, this was just one more instance in a litany of instances where B.L. was refusing to follow her directions. Dean Tucker was outside the room with B.L. when the door closed. B.L. starting kicking and beating on the door, screaming that he wanted in, and opened the door. Ms. Newton placed her arm on his chest and pushed against him to keep him from entering the room, and asked Ms. Tucker to lock the door from the outside, which she did. B.L. continued to kick and beat at the door, and Dean Tucker called assistant principal Greene to assist her. When Mr. Greene arrived, B.L. was still kicking at the door. He kept saying that he wanted in the classroom but would not say why. Eventually Mr. Greene was able to calm B.L. enough to find out that he wanted his backpack. Because it was close to the end of the day, Mr. Greene took B.L. to the office but instructed Ms. Tucker to retrieve his backpack from Ms. Newton’s classroom. Ms. Tucker returned to Ms. Newton’s classroom to retrieve the backpack. Ms. Newton expressed frustration at the decision to return the backpack to B.L., saying that meant “he won.” From Ms. Tucker’s and Mr. Greene’s perspectives, returning the backpack to him made sense, in part because they were not aware of the exchange related to the backpack earlier, and in part because it was close to the end of the day and B.L. would not be returning to the classroom that day. From Ms. Newton’s perspective, the backpack had been taken from B.L. because she had told him she would take it if he did not comply with her directives, and he did not do so. She felt that returning the backpack to him at that point was ensuring that B.L. had no consequences for his bad behavior. After completing their end-of-day responsibilities, Mr. Greene and Ms. Tucker returned to the classroom to speak to Ms. Newton about B.L. Ms. Newton told them that he had been out of control all day, kicking boxes, pushing chairs, and a danger to himself and others. She stated that it was only B.L.’s third day in the classroom and it would take some time to live up to expectations, but that he knew the rules and knew how to follow them. Mr. Greene felt that Ms. Newton was clearly upset with both him and Ms. Tucker with respect to how B.L. was handled. Ms. Newton asked whether B.L.’s parent had been called, and felt that his parent should have been contacted as part of addressing B.L.’s behavior. After speaking to Ms. Newton, Mr. Greene and Ms. Tucker pulled the videotape for the afternoon in Ms. Newton’s classroom. After scanning through the tape, Mr. Greene went to Ms. Burgess and asked her to view it because the tape’s contents concerned him. Once she did so, Ms. Burgess called Lisa Krysalka, the head of human resources for the District, and after discussion with her, called both the Department of Children and Families and the local sheriff’s office. She also spoke to Ms. Newton and told her she was to report to the District office the following day, and called B.L.’s parent. Rose Cohen investigated the matter for the District, which included speaking to Ms. Burgess, Mr. Greene, Ms. Newton, Suzanne Quigley, and a Ms. Ballencourt, and watching the video. Adrienne Ellers, the lead behavior analyst for the District, was asked to watch the video and to identify any deviations from the TEACH program for student management accepted by the District. Ms. Cohen recommended to the superintendent that Ms. Newton’s employment be terminated, and the superintendent presented that recommendation to the School Board. Ms. Newton appealed the recommendation and a hearing was held before the School Board, which included a viewing of the video of her classroom. The School Board rejected the superintendent’s recommendation for termination by a 3-2 vote. However, Ms. Newton did not return to Maplewood. No evidence was presented to indicate that the Department of Children and Families determined that there was any basis for a finding of child abuse or neglect. Likewise, no evidence was presented indicating that law enforcement took any action against Ms. Newton. There was also no evidence to indicate that B.L. was harmed. The focus of much of the evidence in this case dealt with the video from Ms. Newton’s classroom. The video, Petitioner’s Exhibit 1, is approximately two hours long. It is from a fixed position in the classroom and it shows some, but not all, of Ms. Newton’s classroom. It has no sound. There are parts of the video where, due to lighting deficiencies and similar skin color tones, it is difficult to tell exactly what is transpiring. There are also times when either Ms. Newton or B.L., or both, are not fully within the view of the camera, and sometimes they are not visible at all. With those parameters in mind, the video does show some of the interaction between Ms. Newton and B.L. What is clear from the video is that Ms. Newton spends a great deal of time talking to B.L., and that she remains calm throughout the day. B.L. does appear to comply with direction for short periods in the video, but never for very long. The video shows Ms. Newton holding B.L. by the arms; pulling him up both by the torso and by his arms; removing (but not “snatching”) his eyeglasses; removing his jacket with some resistance from him; blocking his access to his jacket; and kicking his backpack away from his reach. It also shows B.L. kicking items in the room, including a large box near where he is standing; rolling around on the floor; flailing his arms and legs around when he is clearly being directed to be still; and generally resisting any attempt at correction. The video also shows that during the time Ms. Newton is focused on B.L., the other students are engaged in learning, and Ms. Quigley is able to work with them without assistance. The Administrative Complaint alleges that “Respondent and B.L. engaged in a tussle which resulted in B.L. falling to the ground.” A more accurate description would be that B.L. resisted Ms. Newton’s attempts to show him how she wanted him to stand, and in his struggling, he went to the ground. It appeared to the undersigned that Ms. Newton was attempting to prevent his going down, but was unable to do so safely. The Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent “grabbed B.L. by the back of the neck and gripped B.L.’s neck for approximately 10 seconds.” A more accurate description would be that Respondent placed her hand at the back of B.L.’s neck and guided him with her hand at the base of his neck for approximately 10 seconds. She did not grab him by the neck or hold him that way; it appeared that she was protecting him from falling backwards, as he pulled away from her. Respondent did not, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, drag B.L. across the floor. She did attempt to get B.L. to stand one of the many times that he flopped on the floor, and he resisted her attempt. In that process, the two of them did move across the floor a short distance, which appeared to be due to B.L.’s pulling away from her, but she was not dragging him across the floor. All of Ms. Newton’s actions were taken in an effort to either instill the rules of the classroom in order to create for B.L. an atmosphere for learning, or to prevent harm to either herself, B.L., or property in the classroom. Ms. Quigley, who was present in the classroom during most of the interchange depicted on the video, was more focused on the other students in the class than she was on B.L. She has seen a portion of the video since the incident. Ms. Quigley recalls hearing parts of the conversation between B.L. and Ms. Newton, and testified that Ms. Newton never lost control with B.L., and understood from what she heard that Ms. Newton was trying to get B.L. to follow the rules. Nothing Ms. Quigley saw or heard caused her any concern. Barbara O’Brien and Christine Spicoche are both parents of former students who testified on Ms. Newton’s behalf. Both acknowledged that they had not seen the interaction between Ms. Newton and B.L.,2/ but both have been in her classroom on numerous occasions during the years that their children spent with Ms. Newton: Ms. O’Brien’s son was in Ms. Newton’s class for six years, while Ms. Spicoche’s son was there for three years. Both expressed a great deal of gratitude for the positive effect Ms. Newton and her teaching methods have had on their sons’ lives. With respect to both children, the mothers testified that their sons went from children who were out-of-control to children who were able to function appropriately both in the classroom and in other places. As stated by Ms. Spicoche, “It would be best for him to be at a strong hand of a loving teacher who cares, who wants the best for him than being at the fist of the legal system later.” At all times, Ms. Newton’s focus was to establish the rules of the classroom so that B.L., like the other students in her classroom, would be able to learn. B.L. was different from the other students in her classroom, and she admitted he was a challenge. However, Ms. Newton’s actions in this case are consistent with her general philosophy for teaching: to be firm, fair, and consistent at all times. Ms. Newton believes that if you do not follow these principles, you have chaos in the classroom, and where there is chaos, no one is learning. With a disciplined, structured environment, Ms. Newton believes every child can learn, and the atmosphere observed in her classroom is consistent with her philosophy. Ms. Burgess chose Ms. Newton’s classroom for B.L. precisely because of her reputation as having a disciplined structured classroom. However, in her view, Ms. Newton should have just given B.L. his backpack when he wanted it; should have given him his glasses; should have let him just walk around the room when he wanted to; and should have just let him kick the door, rather than ever putting a hand on him. Ms. Burgess did not explain (nor was she asked) how many children in the classroom should be allowed to do what B.L. was doing, and whether learning could still take place should each of the children be allowed to wander, kick, and be disruptive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2015, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from her position as a Media Specialist or otherwise disciplined for alleged violation of Section 231.09, and 231.36(6), F.S., as set forth in the Petition dated June 13, 1983. This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by William T. McFatter, Superintendent of Schools for the Broward County School System, on June 13, 1983, that seeks to dismiss Respondent, Antionette Pauline, a media specialist in the public schools of Broward County, Florida. In five (5) Counts, the Petition alleges as follows: That on May 4, 1983, the Respondent grabbed Steven Richardson, a fifth grade student at Nob Hill Elementary School, by the arm and forcibly pushed said student against or into a classroom door approximately three (3) times, which action constitutes misconduct in office in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes, State Board of Education Administrative Rules, and School Board policies; That on May 4, 1983, the Respondent took Steven Richardson's media center pass and pulled on the front of teacher Verda Farrow's blouse in the presence of said student and forcibly jammed the pass down the inside front of the teacher's blouse, which action constitutes misconduct in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes, State Board of Education Administrative Rules, and School Board policies; That on February 16, 1983, the Respondent was directed to cease from verbally attacking teachers, and that she again verbally attacked Verda Farrow on May 4, 1983, which action constitutes gross insubordination and/or willful neglect of duty in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes, State Board of Education Administrative Rules, and School Board policies; That during the 1981-1982 school year, the Respondent had several other encounters with faculty and students at Sunrise Middle School and that during the school year 1982-1983, the Respondent had several encounters with the faculty at Nob Hill Elementary School, the result of which would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Respondent to recover and be an effective librarian, which actions constitute misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty and/or incompetency, in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes, State Board of Education Administrative Rules, and School Board policies; and That the Respondent has violated the Code of Ethics by failing to practice her teaching profession with the highest ethical standards by failing to protect the student, Steven Richardson, from unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, by failing to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or safety, and/or by making false or malicious statements about her colleagues, which actions constitute misconduct in office in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes, State Board of Education Administrative Rules and School Board policies. Respondent denied the allegations in the Petition and requested an Administrative Hearing. Thereafter, eighteen (18) witnesses were called by the Petitioner, five (5) witnesses were called by Respondent, and forty (40) exhibits were offered into evidence. The deposition testimony of Ernest M. Roberts was accepted as a late-filed exhibit. Further, ruling on the admissibility of the polygraph examination conducted upon Respondent was deferred. The testimony of the polygraph examiner, his chart, and rebuttal testimony were offered by proffer, subject to a continuing objection as to its admissibility, without stipulation, in an Administrative Hearing. Proposed Recommended Orders containing findings of fact have been submitted by the parties and considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. When the parties' findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence introduced at the final hearing, they were adopted and are reflected in this Recommended Order. To the extent that the findings were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been either rejected, or when possible, modified to conform to the evidence. Additionally, proposed findings which were subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary have not been adopted.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, was employed by the Broward County School Board commencing with the school year 1960-61. She was originally employed as a librarian in an elementary school and, thereafter, held several positions, including Media Specialist (librarian) with the Broward County Migrant Program and the State Department of Education, Florida Migratory Section. She presently holds a Master's Degree in library science which she received in July of 1975. In 1977, the Respondent obtained a position at Dillard High School and was promoted to the position of Head Media Specialist. At the conclusion of the school year 1980-81, the Respondent was administratively transferred by the Area Superintendent to Sunrise Middle School, where she remained as a media specialist for that school year, when she was again administratively transferred by the Area Superintendent to Nob Hill Elementary School for the school year 1982-83. Following the incident which occurred on May 4, 1983, Respondent was transferred to the staff of the Director of Learning Resources of the Broward County School System for the remainder of school year 1982-83. Thereafter Respondent was suspended pending the results of this hearing. During her tenure at Dillard High School, the Respondent incurred several problems with the staff and the principal wherein complaints were received from teachers who were not utilizing the media center, and from students who felt they were being treated unfairly. The Respondent had a problem interacting and communicating with white people and as a result, became ineffective. When Amos Bonner, the principal at Dillard High School, concluded that Respondent's effectiveness had been impaired, he brought the matter to the attention of the Area Superintendent, William Dandy. Consequently, the Respondent was administratively transferred to Sunrise Middle School. During the school year 1981-82, while assigned to Sunrise Middle School, the Respondent incurred similar problems with the faculty and students at that school. Her principal, Nick Gancitano, found her to be defensive, negative, and communicated with the faculty, students and administration in a negative way. Students were not using the library, and there was a dramatic decrease in the number of books being circulated from the previous year. As the problem seemed to get progressively worse, throughout the year, her principal concluded that her overall effectiveness as a Media Specialist was impaired. Principal Gancitano, who was charged with the responsibility for evaluating the performance of the Respondent in accordance with her job description, concluded that the Respondent lacked the "ability to work with principals, teachers and other appropriate educational leaders in order to design learning experiences and to recommend educational media suited to specific instructional objectives, and to stimulate effective utilization of media" and, further, lacked the "ability to inspire and gain the respect of staff and students." Michael Galbreath and James Rupp, fellow teachers at Sunrise Middle School, related incidents where children were crying out of frustration and upset with the experiences that they encountered in the library. It reached the point that Mr. Galbreath would not take his classes to the library. Instead, he would sneak into the library or would purchase books from his own financial resources, for classroom use, so the children would not have to enter the library. Mr. Galbreath testified that the Respondent's attitude was belligerent and intimidating, and that other classroom teachers had also refused to take their children to the library. He concluded that the Respondent's effectiveness as a Media Specialist was impaired and that, as a direct result of her severe problems in dealing with people, the Respondent was incompetent. Mr. Rupp testified that the Respondent was "standoffish" and that she didn't really want to relate to everyone that was at the school. He was also aware that children were not utilizing the library facility towards the end of the year and he concluded that her effectiveness as a Media Specialist was "null and void." During the school year 1981-82, these complaints were brought to the attention of the Area Superintendent, William Dandy, who requested an investigation. He had received complaints from parents and from teachers concerning the Respondent. Because of her inability to discharge her required duties at Sunrise Middle School, at the conclusion of school year 1981-82, Respondent was again administratively transferred this time to Nob Hill Elementary School. While at Nob Hill Elementary School during school year 1982-83, Respondent again involved herself in altercations with other faculty members. Susan Reynolds, a fellow teacher at Nob Hill Elementary School, testified that Respondent threatened to "choke her" and that as a result of the comment, she was intimidated and afraid of the Respondent. She called this to the attention of Ernest Roberts, the Principal at Nob Hill. The Respondent also had a confrontation with Verda Farrow, which resulted in Mr. Roberts directing the Respondent to cease from verbally attacking and accusing teachers of "talking about you" and "spying on you." On May 4, 1983, Steven Richardson, then a fifth grade student of Verda Farrow's went to the library with a pass to check a bibliography. The Respondent was reading to a kindergarten class and for no justifiable reason she determined that Steven Richardson's attempt to gain her attention was disruptive. She took Steven Richardson to the office and discovered that Mr. Roberts was out of the building. Thereafter, she took the student to Verda Farrow's classroom to discuss the matter with her. During the conversation that ensued outside the classroom door, the Respondent grabbed Steven Richardson by the arm and attempted to push him into the door approximately three times. Respondent also grabbed Mrs. Farrow by the dress, pulled her dress loose, and stuffed the library pass down the front of Mrs. Farrow's dress. This incident was witnessed by Steven Richardson and several of the students in the classroom at the time, three of whom testified at the Hearing. Following the incident on May 4, 1983, a Police Report was filed, and school security conducted an investigation of the alleged incident. Faculty members, upon becoming aware of the incident, boycotted the library and several parents, who became aware of the incident, wrote unsolicited letters requesting that their children not be sent to the library. Arthur Rose, President of the Nob Hill Elementary School P.T.O. Advisory Committee, became aware of the situation and received phone calls at his office and his home from parents who were concerned regarding their children. Mr. Rose believes that he and the parents with whom he spoke had concluded that Respondent's effectiveness as a Media Specialist had been impaired. The parents were desirous of having the Respondent removed from the school and they feared for the safety of their children. Following the investigation by school security, the Respondent was transferred on a temporary basis to the staff of the Director of Learning Resources by Benjamin F. Stephenson, Associate Superintendent for Personnel. This was not an existing position. The Respondent denied ever touching Steven Richardson. The Respondent admits that the position of Media Specialist, or librarian, is in some respects more difficult than the position of a classroom teacher, in that a classroom teacher is only responsible for dealing or communicating with one class of students, while a Media Specialist must effectively communicate with three or four hundred children a day. The Respondent also agrees that a librarian must have good communication skills among faculty members. To corroborate the Respondent's contention that she did not grab Steven Richardson and push him into the door, the Respondent submitted to a private polygraph examination conducted by Robert Rios, who concluded that the Respondent did not attempt deception when asked whether she grabbed Steven Richardson by the arm and pushed him into the door on May 5, 1983. He concluded that the reliability of this polygraph examination should have at least equal weight to eyewitness testimony. In rebuttal to the proffered testimony of Mr. Rios, his polygraph examination chart and findings were reviewed by Carl Lloyd, investigator and polygraph examiner for the State Attorney's Office in Broward County, Florida, and the individual under whom Mr. Rios served an internship. Mr. Lord had previously supervised Mr. Rios in conducting twenty or thirty polygraph examinations, and has reviewed his charts in one hundred fifty to three hundred cases. Mr. Lord concluded, based upon the pre-test and test procedures utilized, that the validity of the test conducted upon Respondent was less than fifty (50%) percent. Mr. Lord further testified that in the State of Florida, polygraph examinations are only admissible in Court upon stipulation of both parties. The purpose of the stipulation is to ensure that the subject is testable, that there is a testable issue, and that the pre-test and test procedures utilized result in conclusive and reliable findings.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent be dismissed from employment by the School Board of Broward County. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of January, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1985 COPIES FURNISHED: William S. Cross, Esquire 4540 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Ronald W. Houchins, Esquire 3075 W. Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 103 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 William T. McFatter Superintendent of Schools Broward County School System 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a classroom teacher on an annual contract basis. Respondent first began working for Petitioner in February 1987, as an elementary teacher at Westview Elementary School. She taught at Westview Elementary School from February 1987 to the end of the 1986-87 school year and at Miami Park Elementary School during the 1987-88 school year. Both Westview Elementary School and Miami Park Elementary School are public school in the Dade County School District. For the 1988-89 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach a first grade class at Westview Elementary School. At the time of the final hearing, Respondent was 29 years of age. Respondent had received training as to Petitioner's disciplinary policies. She was aware of Petitioner's general disciplinary policies and the specific disciplinary procedures in place for Westview Elementary. During the 1988-89 school year there was in place at Westview Elementary an assertive discipline policy which was designed to discipline students without the use of physical punishment and which prohibited the use of physical force by teachers in the discipline of students. Teachers were instructed to remove disruptive students from the classroom by referring them to the administration office. If a student would not willingly go to the administration office, the teachers were to summon an administrator to the classroom to take charge of the disruptive student. In Respondent's classroom at Westview Elementary there was a coat closet that had hooks and shelves for storage. This closet was left without light when the two doors to this closet were closed. S.W., D.C., and D.W. were, during the 1988-89 school year, first grade students in Respondent's class at Westview Elementary. From the beginning of the 1988-89 school year, Respondent disciplined S.W., D.C., and D.W., individually, by placing each of them at various times in the coat closet and by then closing the two doors to the closet. On each occasion, the respective student was left in darkness. Respondent administered this punishment to S.W., a student Respondent characterized as having emotional problems, on seven separate occasions. Respondent administered this punishment to D.C. on at least one occasion and to D.W. on more than one occasion. Respondent knew, or should have known, that this form of discipline was inconsistent with Petitioner's disciplinary policies. During the 1988-89 school year, D.N. and S.M. were first grade students at Westview Elementary School who were assigned to Ms. Ortega's class. On February 14, 1989, Respondent observed D.N. and S.M. fighting while returning to their class from lunch. Ms. Holt, a substitute teacher temporarily assigned to that class while Ms. Ortega was on maternity leave, was the teacher in charge of D.N. and S.M. Respondent did not think that Ms. Holt could manage D.N. and S.M. Instead of referring the two students to the administration office, Respondent, with the permission of Ms. Holt, took D.N. and S.M. to Respondent's classroom to discipline the two students. Respondent had not been asked to assist Ms. Holt in this fashion. Respondent placed D.N. and S.M. in separate corners of the room and instructed them to be quiet. While Respondent attempted to teach her class, D.N. and S.M. continued to misbehave. D.N. began playing with a fire extinguisher and S.M. began writing and drawing on a chalkboard. To discipline D.N., Respondent tied his hands behind his back with a red hair ribbon. While he was still tied, Respondent placed the end of a broom handle under D.N.'s chin, where it remained propped until it fell to the floor. Respondent then placed the fire-extinguisher into D.N.'s tied hands to show him that the heavy fire extinguisher could harm him if it fell on him. These actions took place in Respondent's classroom in the presence of Respondent's class. Respondent frightened D.N. and almost caused him to cry in front of his fellow students. Respondent exposed D.N. to embarrassment and subjected him to ridicule from his fellow students. Respondent knew, or should have known, that this form of discipline was inconsistent with Petitioner's disciplinary policies. To discipline S.M., Respondent placed him in the coat closet. Respondent closed one of the doors and threatened to close the other door if S.M. did not remain still and quiet. After S.M. did not obey her instructions, Respondent closed the other door of the closet which left the closet without light. While S.M. was in the coat closet, Respondent remained stationed by the second door and continued instructing her class. After a brief period of time, Respondent let S.M. out of the dark closet. Respondent knew, or should have known, that this form of discipline was inconsistent with Petitioner's disciplinary policies. D.N. and S.M. remained in Respondent's class until a student sent by Ms. Holt summoned them to the library to participate with the rest of their class in vision and hearing testing. D.N. had to walk from Respondent's class to the library with his hands tied behind his back. This exposed D.N. to further embarrassment and ridicule. Ms. Holt untied D.N.'s hands in the library in the presence of other students. The ribbon which Respondent had used to bind D.N.'s hands behind his back left red marks on D.N.'s wrists. Ms. Holt immediately reported the incident to the principal. During the course of its investigation into the incidents involving D.N. and S.M., Petitioner learned of the prior incidents during which S.W., D.C., and D.W. were punished by being placed in the closet. Following the investigation of the Respondent's disciplinary methods, Petitioner suspended her without pay on May 17, 1989, and instituted proceedings to terminate her annual contract. Respondent timely demanded a formal hearing of the matter and this proceeding followed. The progressive discipline approach used by Petitioner in some cases involving teachers who violate disciplinary procedures usually requires that a reprimand be imposed for the first offense. Subsequent violations by the teacher would result in the imposition of progressively severe sanctions, culminating in dismissal. The progressive discipline approach is not used in a case involving a serious breach of policy such as where an established pattern of violations is established. Respondent's repeated practice of placing students in a darkened closet, which began at the beginning of the school year and continued into February when the incident involving D.N. and S.M. occurred, established a patterned breach of disciplinary procedure. Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the school became impaired because of her repeated breaches of discipline policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a final order which finds Katherine R. Santos guilty of misconduct, which affirms her suspension without pay, and which terminates her annual contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3064 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Recommended Order. The students, who are identified by initials, are described as being first grade students rather than as being a specific age. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in part by paragraphs 5 and 9 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact relating to Respondent's having struck a student with a ruler and having twisted the ears and arms of other students are rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted in material part by paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are adopted in material part by paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in material part by paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 16 and 17 are rejected as being the recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings made. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed finding that the ribbon was tied loosely is rejected because of the marks left on the student's wrists. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being the recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being conclusions and as not being findings of fact. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are rejected. A finding that none of the students were struck or hit is rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. A finding that none of the students were abused is rejected as being a conclusion that is unnecessary to the results reached and as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The greater weight of the evidence is that Respondent had been advised as to Petitioner's disciplinary policies and that she knew or should have known that the forms of punishment she was using violated those policies. The proposed finding of fact in paragraph 10 that the discipline inflicted on these students does not amount to corporal punishment is rejected as being a conclusion that is unnecessary to the results reached and as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The remaining proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in material part. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Office of Professional Standards 1444 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 215 Miami, Florida 33132
