The Issue Whether there was just cause to suspend Jacklyn James from her employment for three days without pay.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all public schools within Broward County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. James was employed as an English teacher at FLHS. She has worked in this capacity for the last nine years, teaching ninth and eleventh grade students. Ms. James taught six periods out of seven every day, with a planning period during the second period of the day. In between periods, there are seven minutes for students to move from class to class. During those transition times, teachers are expected to stand at the door to their classrooms, monitoring halls and greeting students. At FLHS, it was common for a teacher to ask neighboring teachers to watch a classroom if a teacher needed to use the restroom or had some other type of emergency. This was an unwritten policy at FLHS. In the fall semester of 2013, Ms. James had a teacher’s assistant who assisted her in the classroom. The teacher’s assistant was a student herself, a senior at FLHS. On October 21, 2013, Ms. James did not leave her classroom during her planning period, or during her lunch period. When the sixth period of the day arrived, around 12:50 p.m., she realized she needed to use the restroom. After her students entered the classroom, Ms. James started the class and gave the students instruction on what they needed to do. Realizing that she had to use the restroom, Ms. James gave additional instruction to her teacher’s assistant regarding the lesson and told her she would leave the door open and have Mr. Beaulieu, a neighboring teacher, provide adult supervision to the class in her absence. Prior to leaving the classroom, Ms. James called Mr. Liburd, who was substituting in a classroom adjacent to hers (but without visual), and asked him to listen out for her class. About ten to fifteen minutes after sixth period began, Ms. James left her classroom to use the restroom. Because the restroom was in close vicinity to the planning area, and in another building, she took some items she wanted to drop off at her mailbox when she left. She left the door to her classroom open. Ms. James walked into Mr. Beaulieu’s classroom, informed him that her teacher’s assistant was still in the room, and asked if he could keep an eye on her classroom while she went to the restroom. Ms. James informed Mr. Beaulieu that she had left the door to her classroom open. Mr. Beaulieu, whose students were taking a test, asked if there was anyone else in the room. Ms. James told him that her teacher’s assistant was present, and Mr. Beaulieu indicated he would open his door and look out for her students. Ms. James picked up a ream of paper while in Mr. Beaulieu’s classroom and left to walk to the building where the restroom was located. Ms. James left through Mr. Beaulieu’s back door, as it was closer to the restroom, with the expectation that Mr. Beaulieu would open the door at the front of his classroom and supervise her class as he agreed to do, and as he had done in the past. Ms. James walked to the planning area, put the ream of paper in her mailbox, and used the restroom. In passing her mailbox on her way back to her classroom, Ms. James noticed some copies had been placed in her mailbox, and she picked those up. When Ms. James left the classroom, her students were sitting quietly, working in pairs. Prior to that date, there had never been a fight between students in her classroom; she had no reason to believe that any of the students would fight in her absence. During the time when Ms. James was away from her classroom, a fight broke out between two boys. They punched each other, wrestled each other to the floor, and dragged each other out into the hallway. Mr. Beaulieu was aware of the fight, but never came out of his classroom to help. Mr. Liburd left his classroom and broke up the fight. When she returned to her classroom, approximately seven minutes after she left, she noticed that Mr. Beaulieu’s door was closed, which she immediately thought was strange, given his agreement to watch her class. When she entered the classroom, her students informed her that a fight had taken place in her absence. Due to a complaint by a parent of one of the boys involved in the fight, the school conducted an investigation regarding an allegation that Ms. James had left her students unsupervised. Likely due to self-interest and self-preservation, Mr. Beaulieu denied ever having been asked to supervise the classroom while Ms. James went to the restroom. Mr. Beaulieu’s testimony at the hearing was not found credible. Several portions of his testimony were contradicted by Ms. James, Mr. Liburd, and the teacher’s assistant. Based upon the investigation, it was recommended that Ms. James be suspended for three days without pay. Those who made the recommendation admitted that they would not have made such a recommendation if Ms. James had asked another teacher to watch her class while she used the restroom. At the time of the recommendation to suspend Ms. James, the FLHS administration was unaware that it was common practice for the teachers at their school to request a neighboring teacher to watch their classrooms while they used the restroom.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Ms. James and ordering that Ms. James be awarded back pay for the previously served three-day suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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 16th day of July, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Melissa C. Mihok, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605 Adrian Alvarez, Esquire Haliczer, Pettis, and Schwamm, P. A. One Financial Plaza, Seventh Floor 100 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0442 Robert Runcie, Superintendent Broward County School Board Floor 10 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0442
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the letter from the Petitioner dated August 22, 2002, and in the Notice of Specific Charges filed October 12, 2002, and, if so, whether dismissal from employment is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes (2002). At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Starr was employed by the School Board as a social studies teacher at Lake Stevens. After receiving a degree in political science from Loyola University, Mr. Starr enrolled in the social studies education program at Florida International University. Mr. Starr completed this program in the summer of 1998 and applied for a teaching position with the Miami-Dade County public school system. He was hired as a substitute teacher and placed in a substitute teacher pool so that he worked at various schools, and he also taught in the Adult Education Program at North Miami Senior High School. Dr. Alvin Brennan became the principal of Lake Stevens in January 2000. In or around November 2000, he hired Mr. Starr to teach social studies at Lake Stevens. At the times material to this proceeding, Arnold Montgomery was the assistant principal at Lake Stevens who, among other duties, supervised the social studies program, observed teachers' classroom performance, and acted as a resource person regarding curriculum, instructional, and academic issues at the school. In a Teacher Assessment and Development System Post- Observation Report dated January 18, 2001, Dina Carretta, an assistant principal at Lake Stevens, rated Mr. Starr acceptable in all six categories of the Teacher Assessment and Development System evaluation instrument. Mr. Starr's failure to keep a standard grade book. In early November 2001, Dr. Brennan learned that the State Department of Education intended to include Lake Stevens in a Full-Time Equivalency audit. The grade books of the teachers at Lake Stevens were to be reviewed as part of the audit to ensure that Lake Stevens accurately reported its full- time equivalents to the district so that the State could ultimately determine the accuracy of the number of full-time equivalents reported by the various school districts to the State. On or about November 2, 2001, Dr. Brennan instructed all of the teachers at the school to turn over their grade books to him for review so that he could prepare for the audit. It is one of the responsibilities of a teacher to maintain a grade book that contains the attendance record and grades for each student in his or her classes. Mr. Starr did not submit a grade book to Dr. Brennan in response to this instruction, and Dr. Brennan called Mr. Starr to his office and directed him to turn over his grade book. Mr. Starr told Dr. Brennan that he was experimenting with a computerized grade book and that only he could understand it.2 Dr. Brennan explained to Mr. Starr that each teacher is required to keep complete and accurate grade books because funding is dependent on the number of students attending a school and because grade books are official documents that must be produced to parents who ask about their children's grades and attendance. Mr. Starr still did not provide his grade book to Dr. Brennan as instructed. During roughly this same timeframe, Mr. Montgomery began preparations for an observation of Mr. Starr's classroom performance in accordance with the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System ("PACES"), which is a tool for evaluating teachers that came into use in the Miami-Dade County public school system in or about 1999. Mr. Montgomery intended to conduct an observation of Mr. Starr's classroom in late November 2001, and, in accordance with procedure, Mr. Montgomery scheduled a pre-observation conference with Mr. Starr for November 19, 2001. In the notice of the pre-observation conference, Mr. Montgomery asked Mr. Starr to bring his grade book, lesson plans, and three student folders to the conference. Mr. Starr did not attend the pre-observation conference and did not provide the materials that Mr. Montgomery had requested. Mr. Montgomery followed up with Mr. Starr and asked him again to provide the requested documents; Mr. Starr responded that he would provide the documents, including the grade book, at a later time. Mr. Starr did not provide his grade book to Mr. Montgomery prior to or at the November 26, 2001, observation. Dr. Brennan held a Conference-for-the-Record with Mr. Starr on December 7, 2001, to discuss Mr. Starr's failure to comply with Dr. Brennan's directive to provide him with a proper grade book; Ms. Carretta was also in attendance. It is noted in the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record, dated December 13, 2001, that Mr. Starr was asked whether the United Teachers of Dade represented him, and he responded that he was not a member of the union. In the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record, Dr. Brennan recorded that the purpose of the conference was to discuss Mr. Starr's non-compliance with School Board Rule 6Gx13- 4-1.21 and with administrative directives requiring that he properly maintain a grade book. Dr. Brennan explained to Mr. Starr during the conference the importance of maintaining a grade book to record daily attendance and grades for his students and advised him that one of his responsibilities as a teacher was to maintain a proper grade book. At the December 7, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record, Dr. Brennan advised Mr. Starr that, although there were authorized computer grade book programs, the program with which Mr. Starr was experimenting was not authorized. Dr. Brennan directed Mr. Starr not to use any computerized or computer- assisted grade books without first obtaining Dr. Brennan's approval and instructed him to ask Arnold Montgomery, an assistant principal at Lake Stevens, to help him set up and maintain a standard grade book. Mr. Starr did not believe that he was required to get Dr. Brennan's approval for the use of a computer grade book "right off the bat."3 In his view, the rules provided that Dr. Brennan had the authority to demand that he not use a computer grade book but that the School Board allowed computer grade books in general. Mr. Starr continued to use his computerized "grade book," and he did not provide a grade book to Dr. Brennan or to Mr. Montgomery during the 2001-2002 school year, despite being instructed to do so on numerous occasions.4 At some point, Mr. Starr provided Dr. Brennan with sheets of paper that Mr. Starr identified as his computerized grade book, but Dr. Brennan was unable to understand the documents that Mr. Starr presented to him. Mr. Starr's failure to adhere to Lake Stevens' discipline plan. Currently, and at the times pertinent to this proceeding, Lake Stevens has in place a discipline plan developed by the school's Discipline Committee pursuant to which teachers are required to go through five steps before taking the sixth step of requesting administrative action with respect to students who presented discipline problems. This six-step discipline plan has the approval of the teachers and administrators at Lake Stevens. Pursuant to the plan, the teachers at Lake Stevens are grouped into teams of six teachers, who work in collaboration in carrying out each step of the six-step discipline plan. It is Dr. Brennan's responsibility to ensure that the six-step discipline plan is implemented. The main elements of the six-step discipline plan are as follows: When a student misbehaves in a teacher's classroom, the teacher first initiates a discussion about the student at the daily team meeting to determine whether any other teachers on the team have a problem with that student. If necessary, the team moves to the second step, which requires that the team conduct a conference with the parent(s) of the student. If the problem still is not resolved, the third step is initiated and the student is required to confer with a school counselor. The fourth step in the six-step plan requires that the student meet with both the school counselor and the team. The fifth step is a parent/student conference with the school counselor and the team. If the problem has not been resolved after these five steps have been completed, the team then moves to the sixth step and the teacher is permitted to complete a referral sending the student to a school administrator for intervention.5 The referral must be routed through the team leader. Once the team leader approves a referral, the team leader meets with the administrator for the particular grade-level, and they decide the appropriate punishment for the student. If a teacher refers a student for administrative action before the first five steps in the plan are completed, the team leader sends the referral back to the teacher with instructions to follow the appropriate procedure. According to Mr. Starr, there was chaos in his classroom by December 2001. Prior to this time, he had spoken with Dr. Brennan about the problems he was having maintaining discipline, and Dr. Brennan told him he needed to learn to handle the problems himself. Dr. Brennan insisted that Mr. Starr strictly adhere to the six-step discipline plan, and Dr. Brennan refused to provide direct assistance to Mr. Starr even though Mr. Starr repeatedly requested his assistance. In Dr. Brennan's view, it is the teacher's responsibility to manage the learning environment, and it is not the responsibility of the principal to help the teachers maintain discipline in their classrooms. To this end, Dr. Brennan encouraged Mr. Starr to work with the team of teachers on his grade level on a daily basis for assistance in managing his classroom. In addition, Dr. Brennan directed Mr. Starr to discuss techniques for classroom management with the members of a Professional Growth Team that was appointed in December 2001 to assist Mr. Starr and with Mr. Montgomery, who was available to assist Mr. Starr. Mr. Starr resisted all efforts to assist him in managing his classroom. Mr. Starr absolutely refused to adhere to the six-step discipline plan during the entire 2001-2002 school year and repeatedly prepared referrals and sent students to the administrative offices without having completed even the first step of the six-step plan. Mr. Starr did not attend team meetings and isolated himself from the team. Because of his refusal to work with his team, it was very difficult for anyone to help Mr. Starr deal with students that he considered disruptive and defiant. Mr. Starr refused to adhere to the six-step discipline plan because he disagrees with the philosophy of the plan; he believes that misbehavior must be addressed with immediate consequences and that, because it took days to complete the five steps required before a referral could be made, the plan reinforced his students' perceptions that there were no consequences to defiance and disruption in his classroom.6 Mr. Montgomery had numerous conferences with Mr. Starr about his failure to follow the six-step discipline plan, specifically about his not following the first five steps in the plan, but, rather, going directly to the sixth step and referring misbehaving students to Dr. Brennan's office. Mr. Starr told Mr. Montgomery periodically throughout the 2001- 2002 school year that the six-step discipline plan did not work for him and that he was not going to follow the plan. Mr. Starr described the conditions in his classroom in a memorandum to Dr. Brennan dated March 5, 2002: The situation in my classroom has become dangerous and untenable due to rampant student defiance. Students no longer obey what the instructor directs them to do, and they are no longer in compliance with any class rules. Lesson objectives are not being met due to the chaos, and there is a potential that student[s] may be injured. Mr. Starr referred in his memorandum to a number of "management referrals" that he contended had not been processed by the administration, and he attributed the chaos in his classroom to "administrative neglect." Mr. Starr concludes his memorandum by stating: "The weakness in my management is due to lack of administrative support because of inadequate follow-up." Mr. Starr sent copies of this memorandum to the district office, the regional superintendent and the district superintendent of schools.7 Dr. Brennan responded to Mr. Starr's memorandum by discussing the situation in Mr. Starr's classroom with the administrator handling discipline matters for the sixth grade;8 during the discussion, Dr. Brennan "question[ed] the validity of the statements that Mr. Starr was making in his letter."9 Dr. Brennan then referred Mr. Starr to the leader of his team and to the grade-level administrator for the sixth grade for a review of the six-step discipline plan. Dr. Brennan also instructed Mr. Starr to work with his team on discipline problems. Dr. Brennan found it very difficult to assist Mr. Starr, however, because, in Dr. Brennan's view, Mr. Starr resisted all of the administration's efforts to help him with the discipline problems in his classroom and refused to implement the six-step discipline plan. In addition, many of the students identified by Mr. Starr as discipline problems were not causing problems for any of the other teachers on Mr. Starr's team. Mr. Starr's refusal to complete prescriptive activities. Mr. Starr was in his second year of an annual contract during the 2001-2002 school year and was, therefore, considered a new teacher subject to two formal PACES observations each year. Whenever a PACES observation is scheduled, the teacher is notified at least a week in advance, and a pre-observation conference is scheduled. The teacher is told to bring to the pre-observation conference his or her grade book, lesson plans, and other materials for review so that everything will be in order at the time of the observation, and the teacher and the administrator who is to conduct the observation discuss the observation procedures. Currently, and at the times material to this proceeding, new teachers at Lake Stevens are given a "free" observation, if necessary, in addition to the two required formal observations. The purpose of the free observation is to allow the administrator observing the teacher to identify the teacher's deficiencies, to discuss the deficiencies with the teacher, and to provide the teacher with assistance to remedy the deficiencies prior to the formal observation. A teacher who has deficiencies in the first observation is given a week or more to work on correcting any deficiencies before an official observation is conducted. Mr. Montgomery scheduled a PACES observation of Mr. Starr's classroom performance for November 26, 2001. In preparation for this observation, Mr. Montgomery scheduled a pre-observation conference for November 19, 2002, and he directed Mr. Starr to bring with him to the meeting his grade book, his lesson plans, and three student folders. As noted above in paragraph 10, Mr. Starr did not attend the conference, and he did not produce any of the materials requested by Mr. Montgomery. Mr. Montgomery, therefore, did not have an opportunity to review these items prior to the observation. Mr. Montgomery determined during the PACES observation on November 26, 2001, that Mr. Starr's classroom performance was deficient in a number of the components of the PACES evaluation instrument. Mr. Montgomery attributed these deficiencies in large part to Mr. Starr's failure to have a lesson plan prepared for his classes and to his inability to manage his classroom. Had Mr. Starr's classroom performance been acceptable during the November 26, 2001, observation, that observation would have been considered his formal PACES observation. Mr. Starr's classroom performance had serious deficiencies, however, and the November 26, 2001, observation was treated as a "free" observation. Mr. Montgomery met with Mr. Starr after the November 26, 2001, observation, discussed the deficiencies in his classroom performance, and instructed him to provide the grade book, lesson plans, and student folders that Mr. Montgomery had previously requested before the formal PACES observation of his classroom performance. Mr. Montgomery conducted a formal observation of Mr. Starr's classroom performance on December 3, 2001, after having given Mr. Starr one week's notice. Mr. Starr again failed to provide his grade book, lesson plans, or student folders, and Mr. Montgomery found his classroom performance deficient in five out of the seven PACES domains: Mr. Montgomery found that Mr. Starr was deficient in planning for teaching and learning; managing the learning environment; enabling thinking; classroom-based assessment of learning; and professional responsibility.10 On or about December 13, 2001, Mr. Montgomery and Dr. Brennan conferred with Mr. Starr to discuss his December 3, 2001, observation. Mr. Starr was provided with a copy of the observation and was told to work with a Professional Growth Team for assistance in correcting the deficiencies in his classroom performance. He was also directed to work with a buddy, a peer, and a master teacher to learn how to set up a grade book and to learn what must be included in a lesson plan. A Professional Growth Team consists of two teachers, one selected by the teacher and one selected by Dr. Brennan. Mr. Starr selected Ms. Davis and Dr. Brennan selected Ms. Scriven-Husband as members of the Professional Growth Team.11 Dr. Brennan gave Ms. Davis and Ms. Scriven-Husband a general outline of Mr. Starr's deficiencies and advised them of the areas in which they were to work with Mr. Starr. The work of the Professional Growth Team was done under the supervision of Dr. Brennan, and he was advised that Mr. Starr was not completing the tasks given him by the Professional Growth Team. One of the items Mr. Starr was to produce for the Professional Growth Team was a long-range plan. Dr. Brennan wanted Mr. Starr to produce a long-range plan so the Professional Growth Team could determine whether he knew how to plan a lesson. Dr. Brennan was advised that Mr. Starr did not provide such a plan to the Professional Growth Team. When Dr. Brennan questioned Mr. Starr about the plan, Mr. Starr replied that he intended to prepare it over the Christmas holidays. Dr. Brennan told him to provide the plan by the end of the day; Mr. Starr did not do so. Mr. Montgomery scheduled an informal observation of Mr. Starr's classroom performance on or about February 8, 2002. Mr. Montgomery had spoken periodically with members of Mr. Starr's Professional Growth Team between the December 3, 2001, and February 8, 2002, observations and had been advised that Mr. Starr had not provided the Professional Growth Team with his grade book, lesson plans, or student folders and that Mr. Starr had not sought the team's assistance in correcting the deficiencies identified in the December 3, 2001, observation. Mr. Montgomery again instructed Mr. Starr to provide his grade book, lesson plans, and student folders prior to the February 2002 observation. In response to this instruction, Mr. Starr advised Mr. Montgomery that he used an electronic grade book and that his lesson plans were on his Palm Pilot because he felt that he had more flexibility using these tools than trying to work with written documents. Mr. Montgomery told Mr. Starr to provide hard copies of the lesson plans and the grade book, as required by the Miami-Dade County public school system procedures; Mr. Starr did not provide the requested documents to Mr. Montgomery. Mr. Montgomery observed numerous deficiencies in Mr. Starr's classroom performance during the February 8, 2002, observation, and Mr. Montgomery discussed the results of the observation with Dr. Brennan. Mr. Montgomery conducted a formal observation of Mr. Starr's classroom performance on March 1, 2002. Again, Mr. Montgomery noted a number of deficiencies in Mr. Starr's classroom performance, specifically in seven components of Domain I, Planning for Teaching and Learning; eight components of Domain II, Managing the Learning Environment; two components of Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and one component of Domain VI, Classroom-Based Assessment of Learning. Dr. Brennan discussed the results of the March 1, 2002, observation with Carnel White, the Region Superintendent for Lake Stevens, who instructed Dr. Brennan to proceed to develop a Professional Improvement Plan.12 Dr. Brennan was, by this time, certain that Mr. Starr was not going to correct the deficiencies in his classroom performance, since the deficiencies noted in the March 1, 2002, observation were the same deficiencies noted in previous observations. Mr. Starr met with Dr. Brennan and Mr. Montgomery in a Conference-for-the-Record on March 15, 2002, to discuss the results of the March 1, 2002, observation.13 An extensive Professional Improvement Plan was developed for Mr. Starr during the Conference-for-the-Record: Mr. Starr was required to complete course work for Domains I, II, V, and VI; he was required to discuss with the Professional Growth Team 17 assigned readings and to submit written summaries of these readings to Dr. Brennan for his approval; and he was required to discuss with Dr. Brennan and identify for him techniques and strategies for 14 components in which he was deficient, to apply the new techniques and strategies, and to maintain and submit to Dr. Brennan logs charting the successes and failures in his application of these new classroom techniques and strategies. All of the courses and plan activities in the Professional Improvement Plan were to be completed by April 9, 2002.14 Mr. Starr was advised at the March 15, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record that he should speak to Mr. Montgomery if he had any concerns about the Professional Improvement Plan. Mr. Starr did not complete the plan activities set forth in the Professional Improvement Plan by the April 9, 2002, deadline. On April 9, 2002, Dr. Brennan called Mr. Starr to the office to ask him to submit the written plan activities required by the Professional Improvement Plan; although Mr. Starr presented himself at the main office, he refused to go into Dr. Brennan's office to meet with him. According to Dr. Brennan, Mr. Starr also advised him at this time that he did not intend to comply with any further administrative directives. On April 10, 2001, after conferring with Dr. Brennan, Mr. White placed Mr. Starr in an alternate work assignment at his residence, pending a district-level Conference-for-the- Record requested by Mr. White. The district-level Conference- for-the-Record was held at the Office of Professional Responsibilities on April 12, 2002, to discuss Mr. Starr's failure to comply with the Professional Improvement Plan; his insubordination; his violation of Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code; and his future employment status with the School Board. The April 12, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record was conducted by Barbara Moss, District Director of the Office of Professional Standards, and Ms. Moss prepared a Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record dated May 3, 2002. In the summary, Ms. Moss noted that, prior to the conference, Mr. Starr asked to bring an attorney to the Conference-for-the-Record and to tape the proceedings and that he was told that attorneys and tape recordings were not permitted. Ms. Moss also noted that Mr. Starr accused Dr. Brennan of harassing him and that she discussed with Mr. Starr the procedure for reporting harassment and gave him an Equal Employment Opportunity packet. Ms. Moss further noted that Mr. Starr stated that he wanted to file a grievance against Dr. Brennan and that she explained the procedure for filing a grievance and gave him a copy of the Contract between the Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, which contained the formal union grievance procedure. Mr. Starr was not, however, a union member and did not have access to this procedure. Mr. Starr's failure to comply with the plan activities specified in the Professional Improvement Plan dated March 15, 2002, was discussed at the April 12, 2002, Conference-for-the- Record. It is reported in the summary that Mr. Starr stated that he believed the evaluation process was designed to make him fail and that there was a conspiracy against him. According to the Summary of the Conference-for-the- Record, Mr. Starr confirmed during the conference that he had told Dr. Brennan that he wouldn’t comply with Dr. Brennan's directives, explaining that he defied Dr. Brennan because Mr. Starr perceived that Dr. Brennan was abusive and belligerent in his dealings with him. The summary also reflects that Mr. Starr's failure to provide Dr. Brennan with a student grade book and with attendance records was specifically discussed at the Conference-for-the-Record. The summary of the April 12, 2002, Conference-for-the- Record reflects that Mr. Starr was issued the following directives: He was directed to comply with all administrative directives; to complete all Professional Improvement Plan activities and to submit them to Dr. Brennan by the end of the workday on April 15, 2002; to maintain a grade book, a record of students' attendance, and lesson plans; and to implement Lake Stevens' discipline plan to effect classroom management. Mr. Starr was also told to submit to Dr. Brennan by April 15, 2002, an updated grade book and student attendance records. Finally, Mr. Starr was advised that he could return to Lake Stevens and resume his teaching duties on April 15, 2002. Mr. Starr indicated at the conclusion of the April 12, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record that he would comply with the directives. Finally, Mr. Starr requested at the April 12, 2002, district-level Conference-for-the-Record that Mr. White order Dr. Brennan to relieve him of the sixth period class, stating, according to the summary, that he was not capable of teaching six periods. Mr. White instructed Dr. Brennan to assign the sixth period to another teacher, which Dr. Brennan did.15 When Dr. Brennan did not receive Mr. Starr's completed Professional Improvement Plan activities by April 15, 2002, he extended the deadline to April 16, 2002. Mr. Starr did not provide the materials on April 16, 2002, and Dr. Brennan summoned Mr. Starr to his office.16 According to Dr. Brennan, Mr. Starr was disruptive when he arrived at the administrative offices in response to Dr. Brennan's summons on April 16, 2002. Mr. Starr announced in the main office, in front of several members of the school staff, that he was not going into Dr. Brennan's office, and he told Dr. Brennan not to summon him to Dr. Brennan's office again.17 Dr. Brennan telephoned Ms. Moss on April 16, 2002, after this incident, and advised her that Mr. Starr "had been blatant in his insubordination" and that either Mr. Starr would have to leave the Lake Stevens campus or he, Dr. Brennan, would leave.18 On April 17, 2002, Dr. Brennan conducted a PACES observation of Mr. Starr for his annual evaluation. The Observation Form for Annual Evaluation indicates that Dr. Brennan observed Mr. Starr's classroom performance from "12:30 to 12:50."19 Mr. Starr again failed to have a lesson plan, and Dr. Brennan found that Mr. Starr was deficient in every component of the six PACES domains evaluated. The evaluation form reflects that a post-observation meeting was held on April 19, 2002, at which time Mr. Starr signed the evaluation form and wrote on the form that he did not agree with the evaluation. On April 18, 2002, Dr. Brennan issued a notice advising Mr. Starr that a Conference-for-the-Record had been scheduled for April 22, 2002, to discuss Mr. Starr's failure to comply with the Professional Improvement Plan, gross insubordination, violation of the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, and violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21. According to the Summary of the Conference-for-the- Record, the conference was held in Mr. Starr's absence because of "his refusal to comply with an administrative directive." Dr. Brennan referred in the summary to Mr. Starr's "refusal to report to the principal's office" and categorized the refusal as insubordination and conduct unacceptable for a School Board employee. Assistant Principal Dina Carretta was the only person other than Dr. Brennan attending the Conference-for-the-Record. During the April 22, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record, Dr. Brennan prepared a Professional Improvement Plan for PACES Domain VII, Professional Responsibilities, having found Mr. Starr deficient in that domain, because he failed to comply with the March 15, 2002, Professional Improvement Plan; failed to submit by the required date the activities set out in the Professional Improvement Plan; and failed to comply with "district and school site requirements regarding grade book and student's attendance records." Mr. White again placed Mr. Starr on alternate work assignment at his residence, effective April 24, 2002. Ms. Moss included in the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record held April 12, 2002, which she prepared on May 3, 2002, a notation that, on or about April 24, 2002, she spoke with Mr. Starr and advised him that he could resign his position if he did not wish to comply with administrative directives and the Professional Improvement Plan activities. According to the notation in the summary, Mr. Starr again affirmed that he would comply with the directives and the plan activities. After she prepared the summary of the April 12, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record, Ms. Moss submitted it to the School Board's attorneys for review because Dr. Brennan and Mr. White had recommended that Mr. Starr's employment with the Miami-Dade County public school system be terminated. The bases for the termination recommendation included gross insubordination, violation of School Board rules, and violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession. In July 2002, after it was decided that a recommendation would be made to the School Board that Mr. Starr be terminated as a teacher with the Miami-Dade County public school system, Ms. Moss met with Mr. Starr to advise him of the recommendation; she also gave Mr. Starr another opportunity to resign his position, which he refused. Summary. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Starr repeatedly refused to comply with directives and instructions from Dr. Brennan and Mr. Montgomery that were reasonable and within the scope of their authority and that, in at least one instance, Mr. Starr openly and publicly defied an order given by Dr. Brennan. Mr. Starr freely admits that there was a serious lack of discipline among the students in his classroom and that the problems were so severe that he was unable to teach and the students were unable to learn. Mr. Starr also admits that he defied Dr. Brennan in almost everything that Dr. Brennan directed him to do and that he was repeatedly insubordinate towards Dr. Brennan. Although Mr. Starr's defiance of Dr. Brennan's directives consisted, for the most part, of a stubborn refusal to do as Dr. Brennan directed, Mr. Starr did cause a public disturbance in the main office by refusing to enter the principal's office when summoned on April 16, 2002, thereby openly defying Dr. Brennan's authority to summon Mr. Starr to his office. Mr. Starr's refusal to comply with reasonable administrative directives and his blatant defiance of Dr. Brennan reflected discredit on Mr. Starr as a teacher. The evidence is also sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that, from December 2001, until he was removed from the classroom on April 24, 2002, Mr. Starr did not make any effort to work with Mr. Montgomery or with his Professional Growth Team to improve his teaching and class management deficiencies, nor did he make any effort to complete the activities set forth in the Professional Improvement Plan that were designed to assist him in achieving professional growth. Mr. Starr's failure to strive for professional growth by working to correct the deficiencies identified in Mr. Montgomery's December 3, 2001, and March 1, 2002, observations negatively affected his ability to teach his students. Mr. Starr refuses to accept responsibility for the lack of discipline in his classroom. Rather, he faults Dr. Brennan for failing to help him impose discipline on those students who were misbehaving and defying Mr. Starr's authority. According to Mr. Starr, the six-step discipline plan did not work, and, once the students realized that there were no consequences if they behaved badly, it was impossible for him to manage the students in his classes. Mr. Starr also believes that, if Dr. Brennan cared about Mr. Starr's professional development, Dr. Brennan would have "developed a specific strategy of corrective action for students that were defiant" towards him.20 Mr. Starr considers his defiance of and insubordination towards Dr. Brennan "principled," and he believes that he had "no other reasonable recourse" but was forced by Dr. Brennan to defy Dr. Brennan's administrative directives.21 Additionally, Mr. Starr justifies his refusal to complete the Professional Improvement Plan activities, to keep a standard grade book, to adhere to the six-step discipline plan, and to prepare lesson plans on the grounds that Dr. Brennan behaved towards him in an abusive and belligerent manner and attempted to set him up for termination. It may well be, as Mr. Starr contends, that Dr. Brennan began losing patience with Mr. Starr, as the 2001-2002 school year progressed; it may well be that Dr. Brennan's manner towards Mr. Starr became increasingly abrupt; and it may well be that Dr. Brennan could have provided Mr. Starr with more assistance than he was willing to provide. Whatever Dr. Brennan's failings as Mr. Starr's principal, however, Mr. Starr was not justified in defying Dr. Brennan, in refusing to obey Dr. Brennan's directives, and in generally behaving in a manner inappropriate for a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order Finding that Stephen J. Starr, Jr., violated School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and committed gross insubordination and misconduct in office; Sustaining his suspension; and, Terminating his employment as a teacher with the Miami-Dade County public school system. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, holds Teaching Certificate Number 475518, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida. Respondent is certified to teach in the area of elementary education, grades 1-6. From 1968 or 1969 until 1980, Respondent worked for the School Board as a teacher aide. As a teacher aide, she had approximately twelve years to view a wide variety of teaching strategies, methods, and teaching techniques in the approximately six different schools to which she had been assigned. While employed as a teacher's aide, Respondent attended Miami-Dade Junior Community College, North Campus, and studied Initial Elementary Education. She then completed Bachelor's Training at Nova University in 1979 and thereafter became employed as a classroom teacher with the Dade County School Board at the Elementary Level beginning in the 1980-1981 school year. Respondent has been employed as an elementary teacher by Petitioner School Board since the 1980-1981 school year. During all of that period, she has taught at Perrine Elementary School in Dade County, Florida. During all of the years Respondent taught, except for the first year, she had classes approximately half of a regular size class. This was because she has been teaching Title I/Chapter I classes. "Title I", renamed "Chapter I", classes refer to classes funded and mandated as part of the Education Consolidation Improvement Act which targets children who are deficient in certain areas and concentrates on bringing them into the mainstream of the education process by concentrated remediation in small, directed education classes. It is a "given" that many of these children are difficult to teach and to control. 1980-1981 SCHOOL YEAR On October 29, 1980 Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by her principal, Gloria H. Gray. Although rated overall acceptable she was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. Although rated acceptable in techniques of instruction, Respondent was rated unacceptable in one subcategory thereof because the proliferation of students' questions concerning the work indicated to the observer that the Respondent did not give clear assignments and directions to allow ample time for completion of tasks. Respondent was next formally observed by Principal Gray on December 12, 1980. Although Respondent was rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in classroom management because Mrs. Gray found much off-task behavior on the part of students, and Respondent appeared not to notice it. Through no fault of her own, Respondent had a very difficult first year experience with many interruptions. She was the foreman of the Grand Jury and was absent every Wednesday. In addition, she had legitimate family and medical problems causing frequent absences. To the extent possible, principal Gray initiated and followed through on numerous attempts to remediate Respondent's deficiencies in teaching. Mrs. Gray also provided an aide for Respondent in order to be assured that the education of her students was not being sorely neglected. Respondent was in a large pod with two other teachers. They helped Respondent in putting work on the board clearly. They also helped her in getting and using instructional material. Although Mrs. Gray testified that she was, in the spring of 1981, of the opinion that there was a repeated failure on the part of Respondent to communicate with and relate to the students in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimal educational experience, she nonetheless rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and gave Respondent an overall acceptable rating on her Annual Evaluation for the 1980-1981 school year. Mrs. Gray gave Respondent the benefit of the doubt because Respondent had improved her teaching skills during the year, she had a good attitude toward trying to improve, she took Mrs. Gray's recommendations and attempted to implement them, and Mrs. Gray expected further improvement from Respondent the following year. Mrs. Gray further recommended Respondent for re-employment as an annual contract teacher. 1981-1982 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by her new principal Dr. Joan Hanley, on November 23, 1981. While Respondent was very devoted to self-improvement, she was nevertheless rated overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the category of preparation and planning because she did not have complete lesson plans for each of the following subjects she was responsible to teach: social studies, science, art, music, and physical education. Likewise, she did not have plans which could be used by a substitute in the event of her absence. Although she was rated acceptable in classroom management, Dr. Hanley offered suggestions for Respondent's improvement. It was not clear to Dr. Hanley whether Respondent's students were grouped for math. It is a standard instructional strategy to ascertain the ability levels of the students, group them accordingly, and plan separate instruction for the various groups. She also instructed Respondent to stand up and move between her groups of students in order to monitor the random activity that goes on. Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Assistant Principal Ellen Supran on January 6, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was found unacceptable in one subcategory, techniques of instruction. This subcategory deals with the use of instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter. Her students were not grouped for math instruction and the subject matter was too difficult and too abstract for the students. Respondent was not getting feedback from them. During the remainder of the school year, Mrs. Supran assisted Respondent through informal visitations. On these occasions, Mrs. Supran was concerned about Respondent's lesson plans, her children being off-task, and the appropriateness of the tasks assigned to the students by Respondent. She spent time working with Respondent on lesson plans, materials, instructional strategies, grouping, and monitoring children's progress. Respondent had an accident during the 1981-1982 school year which resulted in extended sick leave. Dr. Hanley was unable to observe Respondent formally in the classroom for the remainder of that school year. Because Respondent was anxious to improve her teaching and because she had made a good start, Dr. Hanley felt that it was only fair to rate Respondent acceptable in all categories for her Annual Evaluation for the 1981-1982 school year. Therefore, for the school year 1981-1982, Respondent's second annual contract year, Respondent was found acceptable in all categories on her Annual Evaluation and was again recommended for employment. 1982-1983 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent's next formal observation was on November 23, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, because the observer, Dr. Hanley, felt Respondent needed improvement in grammar, particularly verb usage. More specifically, Dr. Hanley observed poor grammar was utilized orally by Respondent in the course of teaching other subjects. Hers was a significant error because Respondent was teaching a resource class in compensatory education. This is a remedial class which addressed the reading, language arts, and mathematics needs of low- achieving students. In every type of class, it is necessary that a teacher set a good example in spoken English. Because elementary school children model the speech of their teacher, Respondent's grammatical errors, which were frequent and excessive, would impede the students' acquisition of appropriate language arts skills. In remedial classes, the effect is more pronounced and reinforces poor language arts skills because the children are already deficient in that area. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was again found unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she continued to make the same kinds of grammatical errors she had been observed making at the November 23, 1982 observation. The December 7, 1982 observation resulted in a prescription for remediation. Dr. Hanley suggested that Respondent record herself on a tape recorder so that she could become sensitized to verb forms. Respondent followed Dr. Hanley's advice and it helped on the subsequent observation, but she did not sustain the improvement as indicated below. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on February 10, 1983. She was rated overall acceptable and made only one grammatical error, saying "cent" sometimes instead of "cents." Note was made of excellent behavior modification. On Respondent's Annual Evaluation for the 1982-1983 school year, Dr. Hanley rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and recommended her for employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. Respondent had achieved tenure. 1983-1984 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on May 7, 1984. Although rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and in a single subcategory of preparation and planning. She was rated unsatisfactory in the latter subcategory because her room was so cluttered that it was difficult to carry on her instruction. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she was again making the same grammatical errors she had made the year before. (See Finding of Fact No. 20 that improvement was not sustained). For example, the following statements were written on Respondent's chalk board: "Dorothy want to go back home", " . . . work that I have not finish." Dr. Hanley reminded Respondent that they had worked on the "ed" and "s" endings on verbs before. Nonetheless, Respondent was rated acceptable in all areas on her Annual Evaluation for 1983-1984 and was recommended for continued employment as a continuing contract teacher. 1984-1985 SCHOOL YEAR Through the 1983-1984 school year, the School Board utilized the standard evaluation system which was an undefined system that allowed observers maximum discretion, without any clear or consistent criteria. It was essentially geared toward making any end-of-the year employment decision. With the advent of the 1984-1985 school year, a new method of evaluating teachers was put into effect. Beginning with the 1984-1985 school year, Respondent's performance was assessed under a new form of evaluation which was thoroughly tested by the School Board and which was negotiated and agreed-to between the School Board and Respondent's union. This is the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS is a highly specific research-based clinical supervision system. State-of-the-art research has characterized certain teaching behaviors that are effective in a learning environment. TADS has grouped these into categories of assessment criteria. Required teaching behaviors are very precisely defined and there is very little room for discretionary interpretation by the observer. Ideally, the system is governed by decision rules which eliminate the potential of an arbitrary or capricious application of the criteria. The system is intended to further develop and upgrade teaching skills and assist the individual teacher to perform better. On the down side, TADS was characterized by the School Board's expert, Dr. Patrick Gray, as a clinical form of evaluation which primarily identifies teaching behavior which is simply acceptable, but it would not identify behavior of superior or excellent performance. (TR-II 47) Respondent's first formal classroom observation under TADS was on November 13, 1984. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she only carried out a very small part of the lesson and because she did not follow the assessment item in her lesson plan. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she presented the information to the children inadequately. There was no background given to draw out the students' previous understanding; no introduction, reinforcement, and drill; and no form of assessment to ascertain what the children had learned when the lesson was completed. She was rated unacceptable in classroom management, because there was disorder a good part of the time and the class was not conducive to learning. Respondent and students arrived late. There were many delays during the class period. The cardboard coins utilized in the lesson on coin values became a great distraction and Respondent was unable to bring the coins into the lesson. She only got into the very introductory part of the lesson and rambled in her instruction. Respondent was not able to pull the students together into a group of attentive listeners. She was also rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she never fully instructed the students about her expectations regarding what they were to do at their desks. The coins became the major focus of the children's attention and they were tossing them and taking them from one another. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no assessment of the teaching objectives. As a result, there would be no way to tie up a lesson or help a teacher plan subsequent lessons. In order to aid Respondent in improving her performance, Dr. Hanley prescribed help. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent develop the skill of pacing her lessons so that she could complete the lesson within the allotted time; that Respondent seek help from Cynthia Muller, a PREP specialist, and that she also seek help from Dorothy Sissel, Chapter I Manager. Dr. Hanley also prescribed help in that she recommended that Respondent reorganize her room to make materials accessible for more efficiency. She recommended Mr. Holmberg, Assistant Principal, as a resource person. She also recommended that Respondent seek help from the Chapter I Specialist. Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent seek help from Chapter I and PREP specialists because she felt that the on-the- spot classroom training by these very qualified people would be very helpful to Respondent. PREP stands for Florida Primary Education Program, a program mandated by the State of Florida pursuant to Section 230.2312, Florida Statutes. PREP mandates a diagnostic- prescriptive approach that enables each child to have an individualized program to permit development of that child's maximum potential and to achieve a level of competence by that child in basis skills. Pursuant to this approach, students are divided into three categories, with those developing at a normal level being taught with developmental teaching strategies, those having been identified as having potential learning problems, being taught with preventive teaching strategies, and those needing more challenging work, being taught with enrichment teaching strategies. The School Board has developed reading and math programs to comply with the statutory mandate. Respondent actually received help from Cynthia Muller, the PREP Specialist, in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Muller helped Respondent approximately on 9 to 10 occasions for a total of approximately 12 hours of assistance. She provided this assistance on November 7, 9, 26, 29 and December 4, 1984, and on February 7, May 28, June 6, and 11, 1985. In the course of her assistance, Mrs. Muller observed several problems with Respondent's teaching. There was a lot of off- task behavior. The children were jittery and walked around the classroom at will. They exhibited little motivation. Mrs. Muller found that much of the work was inappropriate for the students, above the level for which they were competent. That added to the off-task behavior. On November 26, 1984, Mrs. Muller did a demonstration lesson for Respondent showing her how the children could be motivated to stay in their seats and work quietly. She also demonstrated the use of the teacher manual in planning for the complete class period so that all of the children would receive their reading lessons within the prescribed timeframe. On another occasion, they also discussed the Total Math Program (TMP), Petitioner School Board's diagnostic-prescriptive program for math. TMP provides for pre- and post-testing of students and clustering students into particular groups. They discussed grouping students, assessing them, planning for them, and instructing them using a teacher's manual. Mrs. Muller also suggested a positive re-enforcement type of reward system. She also suggested that Respondent remove books and materials from the instructional area so that the class would have a clean place to work and place their books. Mrs. Muller also noticed misspelled words and improperly used words on the chalkboard e.g., "When he finish the book." Mrs. Muller's assistance, November 7, 1984 to June 11, 1985 overlaps several subsequent formal observations. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984. Despite Mrs. Muller's assessment on November 7 and 11 that there was some improvement, Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she had no assessment item in her lesson plan. Because Respondent told Dr. Hanley that she knew what was expected and she promised to do it in the future, Dr. Hanley did not make a further prescription in that area. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was still very disorderly. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent designate areas for specific subjects and tasks within her room. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because her lesson, again, was considered by Dr. Hanley to be a rambling one. Dr. Hanley found the lesson components not to be sequenced; Respondent did not accent the important points; Respondent was unaware of what her students were doing; she did not provide suggestions to her students for improving performance; she did not adjust her lesson when students were not understanding but went right on with what she was teaching rather than re-teach a concept. Dr. Hanley did not feel Respondent provided for closure of the lesson so as to help the children pick up the critical areas of the lesson and so as to be ready for the next lesson. Respondent continued to make grammatical and spelling errors, e.g., "...Santa Clause and other tradition." In order to help Respondent improve her performances Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent observe two fellow teachers whom Dr. Hanley felt had excellent techniques of instruction. A conference-for-the-record was scheduled for the Respondent in December, 1984, but due to Respondent's illness and impending surgery, it was rescheduled for February 13, 1985. A conference-for-the-record is an official meeting regarding a teacher's teaching performance. It is required so that the teacher is officially notified that her deficient performance has not been remediated. At the conference, administrators went over Respondent's classroom observations. Respondent was notified that if she was still under prescription at the time of her Annual Evaluation, she would not receive her annual teaching increment (pay raise). From February through May, 1985, Perrine Elementary School was visited at least once a week by the Chapter I Educational specialist, Tarja Geis. She helped most of the teachers each time she visited. Chapter I is a federally funded program which addresses reading and math deficiencies in children from low income areas. It uses a language experience approach. Ms. Geis' opportunities to observe Respondent were short and sporadic. Her observations were not "formal" observations. However, when Ms. Geis did observe Respondent in the classroom, she noticed Respondent's inattentiveness to some of the children's behavior. She suggested ways to Respondent to improve that, most of which were "boilerplate" suggestions. Ms. Geis also observed one of Respondent's lessons and did a demonstration lesson for her on May 22, 1985, in order to show Respondent the language experience approach used in the Chapter I program. Ms. Geis discussed and/or demonstrated techniques to improve class management, student behavior, student comprehension and student attitude. On March 15, 1985, Ms. Geis gave a workshop for Chapter I teachers. All teachers who would have been working that day would have been in attendance. It is probable that Respondent attended that workshop. She had missed an earlier one in February because of her absence. Respondent indicated at formal hearing that she was not aware that Tarja Geis was a resource person for her use, but her perception is illogical in that Ms. Geis is a Chapter I Educational Specialist and Respondent teaches in the category of Chapter I students. Respondent also testified that she was not given in-service learning experiences by Dr. Hanley and Mr. Holmberg when she requested them. The workshop given by Ms. Geis would seem to address this request, contrary to Respondent's assertion. Respondent concurs that she attended at least one such workshop. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on March 21, 1985. By this time, Respondent had received help from Mrs. Muller and Ms. Geis. She may have also sought help from the two teachers at her school. By her own testimony, she sought assistance from Ms. Jackerson and by a course taught outside of the usual school day. She showed great improvement and was rated acceptable in every category. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom on May 7, 1985, simultaneously by Dr. Hanley and the area director, Phyllis Cohen. Under TADS, this is an external or dual observation where two observers assess the same classroom performance. Its purpose is to assure objectivity and fairness. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not carried out. While Respondent attempted to work with one group, the other groups' lessons were not implemented. The students were not on task. The group at the listening station was not doing its work. The group doing independent reading did not open their books. At least half the students did not receive their directed reading lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because her development of ideas and information was unclear and confusing. She would give insufficient definitions and did not reinforce with enough examples so that the students could understand the homework assignment. The lesson was not sequenced and Respondent was again using inaccurate language. The vocabulary words that the students were working on were not introduced to them and did not have any relationship to the lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was out of control and because of her problems in managing the transition time, getting and keeping students settled, and managing the different reading groups. Class started ten minutes late, and during transitions in the lesson, approximately twenty minutes were wasted. As the hour progressed, the noise crescendoed. Five to eight students were off-task at different times during the class. One student slapped another during the lesson. Respondent was not aware of the off-task behavior and did not redirect the students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not introduce the lesson, provide opportunities for the students to practice, get feedback whether the students had obtained information, or provide reinforcement and follow-up. In other words the sequence was not appropriate. There was a lot of jumping around in the lesson. Respondent did not address the various learning styles of the students. Her communication was not precise enough for students to understand what she was trying to teach. She did not give the students feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. Although she used the teacher manual, she did not fill in between the questions with her own information. She asked the questions in a distorted manner. The students were unable to answer the questions and Respondent could not elaborate but went on to the next question. Her directions to the students were very poor, as were her explanations. She failed to rephrase explanations that were not understood. Her instructions to the listening station group were not specific enough. Her questions on the worksheet were not explained in a way that the students were able to proceed independently. They did not do the worksheet at all. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she did not assess what the students were learning at their levels. Material was presented at a low cognitive level. She did not seem to be able to ascertain whether the students were learning what she was teaching them. She did not walk around to determine what each group was doing. In order to help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she work with Mrs. Muller again on the execution of her lesson plans in order to facilitate a directed reading lesson for each of her reading groups. To help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she observe another Chapter I teacher during a reading lesson to hone in on the development of ideas and information in a sequential and meaningful manner. Two teachers were named as resources. To help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent work with Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal to develop strategies for effective student management while beginning classes and during transition periods and that she work with an observer to sensitize herself to off-task, nonproductive activities on the part of students. It was also recommended that Respondent revamp her behavior modification plan to enhance student involvement. To help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent again work with Ms. Geis and Mrs. Muller since she had improved after working with these two education specialists the prior year. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent review the elements in a basal reading lesson, i.e., background, sequence, and closure. She also recommended that Respondent rehearse her reading lesson so that she would think ahead about the main points and key definitions. She recommended that Respondent work with the observers to sensitize herself to situations in which the students are confused, and that she develop strategies to improve clarification. Dr. Hanley was also available to Respondent as a resource. In order to help Respondent improve techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent have a person observe Respondent while she was teachings and help her on the spot when her students were not following the lesson. She suggested the Respondent develop assessment techniques which incorporated multilevel assessment activities. She also recommended that Respondent include development of summative assessment instruments in conjunction with these other activities. She recommended that Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal be used as resources to help Respondent develop a sensitivity in identifying whether the students were on-track. On May 28, 19 85, Mrs. Muller discussed reading lessons with Respondent. She went over sequencing. She asked Respondent to rehearse her reading instruction. Mrs. Muller also gave Respondent a PREP teacher guide and a sample directed reading lesson. She referred her to a section on classroom organization and management. On June 6, 1985, Mrs. Muller was to visit Respondent's class and to observe a directed reading lesson. Respondent, however, was doing a different lesson. There was very little organization in the lesson. Mrs. Muller saw some improvement in the Respondent's teaching; however, considering the amount of time she had spent with the Respondent, she would have expected to have seen more progress. Although Respondent had demonstrated a willingness to receive suggestions for improvement and a willingness to work toward acceptable ratings, her Annual Evaluation for the 1984-1985 school year was unacceptable. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Nonetheless, Respondent was recommended for continued employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. It was Dr. Hanley's hope that Respondent would remediate herself during the next school year. Respondent remained on prescription and would not be entitled to her pay increment (raise) for the next school year while she was still on prescription. 1985-1986 SCHOOL YEAR On October 16 and 17, 1985, Respondent received more help from a fellow teacher, Joyce King. Ms. King discussed with Respondent the instructional processes of sequencing, interfacing subjects, and closure. Ms. King also demonstrated a reading lesson for Respondent. On October 22, 1985, Respondent received further help from another teacher, Doretha P. Thomas. Respondent observed Ms. Thomas during a developmental reading lesson in her class. Ms. Thomas also discussed with Respondent the amount of time used with the reading group, scheduling, and possible changes Respondent could make in her own planning. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on October 30, 1985. The class was working on the Dade County required diagnostic-prescriptive reading curriculum known as RSVP. This curriculum contemplates that students are to be pretested and their deficiencies listed on individual profiles so that the teacher knows what specific skills to teach them. It is mandatory that the students' skills be profiled before the teacher attempts to work with them. Respondent had not completed the RSVP paperwork as of the date of this observation. I accept Respondent's testimony that she only had from October 18 until October 30, 1985 in which to complete these profiles; that she was under some disadvantage in preparing the profiles because of the administration's peremptory move of all her materials to a smaller classroom on Friday October 18; and that her observation rating was somewhat tainted by the temporary mess that resulted from the move. However, I find that the period involved would have been sufficient to complete at least the profiles if she had performed her tasks diligently in the intervening seven workdays. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because the class was not well managed and the students were not working. After the midpoint of the period, three students did no work. In the last ten minutes of the periods, six students did no work. Many students completed worksheets during the first twenty minutes of the class and then colored pictures. These students of Respondent's were not re- directed by her. Respondent seemed to be unaware of the off-task behavior. In order to help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent move among the students periodically. She also recommended the Respondent plan sufficient work for the instructional period and that she clarify to students what additional study and enrichment activities were available when work is completed. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was not monitoring pupil performance. Students were doing work incorrectly on their worksheets, and Respondent did not circulate and catch the errors or clarify them. Therefore, incorrect material was being reinforced by the students in their work. Several of the students did not understand the follow- up worksheets. The students' confusion indicated that they were not being taught at their appropriate level. They were being taught on a hit or miss method since their profiles had not been completed. In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that she fulfill the requirements of RSVP by completing her profiles, grouping her children, and making a class profile chart. Dr. Hanley also recommended that the teacher aide assist Respondent with the pretesting. Dr. Hanley listed the area PREP specialist and herself to review grouping for instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because although she, as part of her school faculty, had been instructed every year as to the School Board requirements for maintaining student folders, her student folders were deficient. She had no papers dated after September 19, 1985 in them. In order to help Respondent improve her assessment techniques, Dr. Hanley clarified what was expected as far as classroom folders. Respondent must have at least one graded and dated paper per week in reading, math, and writing in each student's folder. Dr. Hanley listed herself and other classroom teachers as a resource for Respondent. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Assistant Principal, Herbert Holmberg. He rated her unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she had grammatically incorrect information and statements on the chalkboard. Knowledge of subject matter was not exhibited as Respondent read verbatim from the teacher manual. She did not address various cognitive levels. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Mr. Holmberg recommended that Respondent prepare her material, information, and directions in advance and that her verbal and written usage be grammatically correct. He suggested more flexibility and elaboration during reading. He also suggested that the subject matter be presented at more than one level. As recommended resources, he listed the Principal, the Assistant Principal, and a peer teacher. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not have a sequence in the lesson. The grammar on the board was incorrect. Her spelling was incorrect. There was no variety to her activities. There was no assessment of closure in the lesson. As resources for help, he recommended the Assistant Principal, the PREP specialist, and a peer teacher. Another conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on December 9, 1985. Respondent's teaching performance was discussed. Dr, Hanley was hopeful the Respondent would be able to remediate her deficiencies; however, Respondent was put on notice that if she was not fully remediated by the close of the school year she would be recommended for termination for cause. Respondent was next formally observed by Charles Sherwood, Directors Basic Skills on December 13, 1985. She was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. Respondent testified that Dr. Sherwood orally indicated to her that her rating was satisfactory and created no problems but the business record of the school (P 30) shows that he rated her unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because all of the pupils received the same spelling lesson, despite the differences in their reading levels; and that he rated her unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because, although the school year was very close to being halfway over, Respondent still had not completed her PREP roster. Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in her classroom in another external observation on March 17, 1986, by Dr. Hanley and Mrs. Cohen, and she was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because there were a substantial number of errors in teaching the concept "1/2". The words "equal" and unequal" were not used, although they were key vocabulary words in the teacher's manual for the lesson. Respondent told the children that a whole with a line in it becomes one-half. She did not indicate that the line had to be in the middle of the whole in order for there to be halves. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of her subject matter, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent use the teacher's manual for planning and delivering of instruction. It was requested the Respondent master the use of and use the words "equal" and "unequal" appropriately. She also recommended the Respondent use the area specialists, peer teachers, and the Assistant Principal as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the explanations of the concept of a whole, half, and fractions were not clear to the reviewer, and the reviewers felt the components necessary to address the key concepts were not effectively presented, thereby confusing she children, and an appropriate vocabulary was not used. They felt Respondent's lesson was again lacking in sequence. Additional resources and suggestions for improvement were prescribed to Respondent. Another conference-for-the-record was held with the Respondent on April 16, 1986. Some of Respondent's concerns regarding the TADS process were addressed. Respondent's improvement was discussed and Respondent was again notified that if she failed to be removed from prescription by the end of this second year of deficiency, recommendation of dismissal for cause would be made. Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in the classroom in another external observation by Dr. Hanley and Evelyn Evans, another area director. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she made errors in subtracting. The errors which she made on the board were not corrected. She also made errors in the process itself. These errors were demonstrated on a chalkboard at formal hearing which was erased without being admitted in evidence, but the oral testimony and business records of this observation are sufficient to support this finding. Respondent did not correct student errors, used inappropriate terminology referred to the one's and ten's columns as the right column and left columns and thereby confused the children. Dr. Hanley found the deficiencies in this lesson very similar to the math lesson observed on March 17, 1986. Respondent was still using her own vocabulary. Despite the fact that most of the children in her class and certainly most of our society could understand Respondent's use of "take away" for "subtract" and use of similar colloquialisms, the School Board established the need for more precise and consistent language in teaching early math skills. Respondent did not show evidence of having mastered the subject matter. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Hanley again emphasized mastery of vocabulary and concepts in the teacher's manual and advised adhering closely to the recommended word usage and plan of instruction. Respondent was instructed not to use her own vocabulary and methods until she had total command of the material. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because of many errors. The lesson was not properly sequenced; the children did not have a basic understanding of subtracting without regrouping before beginning subtracting with regrouping; Respondent's use of her own vocabulary confused the children; Respondent did not clarify by rephrasing with different words, but rather, used the same vocabulary over again that the children had not understood the first time. Respondent blocked the chalkboard while she was demonstrating to the class, was inattentive to the need for a chair by one student, and required a reading level of the children in math for which they were not prepared. Respondent again demonstrated improper subject-verb agreement, e.g., "What is the numbers?" and dropping endings on verbs, e.g., "As time go on", "Three minus two leave one." In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley again recommended the Respondent work with another second grade teacher to understand and become proficient in following the sequence and the delivery of instructions to include introduction, background, and the other steps in sequencing. She was also instructed to master the vocabulary and instructional plans in the teacher's manual and to adhere to them while teaching. She was instructed to develop a method for re-teaching individual students who appeared not to understand the lesson. Another conference-for-the-record was held on June 6, 1986. Respondent's unacceptable teaching performance was reviewed. Respondent was advised that a recommendation for dismissal for cause would be made. Respondent was also given an end of the year prescription, as required by TADS. Although Respondent had improved her classroom management during the year, she was still unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction for the 1985-1986 school year. The two unacceptable categories are key categories in teaching. Improvement in these had either been slight or not at all, and Dr. Hanley had exhausted the school system's resources in attempting to assist Respondent. Respondent's testimony at formal hearing corroborates her supervisors' observations as to her failure to exhibit appropriate English grammar and usage with regard to subject-verb tenses. Gloria Jackerson, a retired teacher, testified on behalf of Respondent. Although this retired teacher of 21 years and a candid witness, she is Respondent's best friend. While this relationship may not have colored her favorable testimony, she admits that she has never observed Respondent teach in the classroom nor has she taught Chapter I students in Miami-Dade County under the present program. Therefore, her testimony with regard to Respondent's competency must be rejected. Evidence presented by several satisfied parents is all in Respondent's favors however, most had no training in classroom observation nor were they able to observe Respondent teaching in her classroom over any significant period of time. Their observations, therefore, were of minimal duration and purely subjective. No objective records showing whether their children were promoted or how their children progressed under Respondent's teaching were offered to substantiate their layman's viewpoint. With regard to the testimony of Robert Collins, a Learning Disability teacher in the Dade County School System, who requested that his child be placed in the Respondent's class and who had a brief opportunity to observe Mrs. Brewer in the classroom and who testified that her classes were well managed, his observation opportunities were so brief and so sporadic as to not outweigh the greater weight of the expert testimony of Petitioner's witnesses. The supportive evidence of Geraldine Townsend, another Perrine teachers is not helpful to Respondent in that this witness also had no truly meaningful observations of Respondent. The testimony of Mrs. Collins, a mother and also a teacher's aide, that some of the formal observers made Respondent's classes nervous and jittery is accepted, but this circumstance does not eliminate or seriously mitigate Respondent's responsibilities to teach effectively and to keep her students under control during observations. Respondent Brewer has worked hard to obtain her education and position. She is a deeply religious, compassionate, and caring individual. She has the type of supportive personality the young people of this society dearly need to know and relate to. She has good rapport with the young and communicates with them in loving and supportive ways. However, her personal qualifications and attributes do not outweigh the clear and convincing evidence of her incompetency as demonstrated by the foregoing Findings of Fact. On August 20, 1986, Petitioner School Board suspended Respondent, 55 years old, from employment, 2.20 years short of her attaining full retirement, and further initiated dismissal procedures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension, without pay, as of August 20, 1986, of Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, and dismissing Respondent Anna M. Brewer as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. That the Educational Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's Florida teaching certificate for five years or until she demonstrates competency pursuant to statute and ruled whichever occurs first. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOs. 86-3926, 87-0468 The following constitutes specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner School Board's PFOF Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2 and 3. Covered and corrected to reflect the record in FOF 5. Covered in FOF 6. Covered in FOF 7. 6-8. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary except as set out in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 8. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, it is covered in FOF 9. Rejected as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. Partially addressed in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 12. Covered in FOF 13. 16-18. Covered in FOF 14. Covered in FOF 15. Covered in FOF 16. Covered in FOF 17. 22-23. Covered in FOF 18. Covered in FOF 19. Covered in FOF 20. Covered in FOF 21. Covered in FOF 22. Covered in FOF 23. Covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 25. Covered in FOF 26. Except to the extent it required expansion to fully conform to the record and except to the extent its proposals are subordinate and unnecessary, this proposal is covered in FOF 26. 33.-42. Covered in FOF 27-28. 43.-47. Except as contrary to the record for expression or subordinate, covered in FOF 29. Covered in FOF 30. Covered in FOF 31. Covered in FOF 32. Covered in FOF 33. Covered in FOF 34. Covered in FOF 35. Covered in F0F 36. Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, in FOF 37. Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, in FOF 38. Covered in FOF 39. Covered in FOF 41. Covered in FOF 42. , 62., 64., 66. and 68. are covered in FOF 43. , 63., 65., 67. and 69. are covered in FOF 44. 70.-73. Covered in FOF 45. Covered in FOF 46. Covered in FOF 47. Covered in FOF 48. Covered, expanded and modified so as to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record as a whole in FOF 49. Covered in FOF 50. Covered in FOF 51. Covered in FOF 52. Covered in FOF 50 and 53. Covered in FOF 54. Covered in FOF 55. Covered in FOF 56. Covered in FOF 57. Covered in FOF 58. Covered in FOF 59. Covered in FOF 60. 89-91. Expanded and modified to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record and to eliminate the subordinate and unnecessary in FOF 61. Covered in FOF 62. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 63 and 65. Covered in FOF 64. 95-96. Covered in FOF 65 except for cumulative and unnecessary material. Covered in FOF 66. Covered in FOF 67. Covered and expanded in FOF 68. Covered in FOF 69. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary or cumulative, covered in FOF 70. Covered in FOF 71. Covered in FOF 72. Covered in FOF 73. Rejected as cumulative. Covered in FOF 74. Rejected as cumulative. Covered and expanded in FOF 80. Petitioner Betty Castor's (EPC's) PFOF Since this petitioner adopted the PFOF of Petitioner School Board, the rulings are also the same. Respondent's PFOF Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2-3. Covered in FOF 4. There is no PFOF. Covered in FOF 7-13, most specifically in FOF 13. Covered in FOF 14-17, most specifically in FOF 17. Covered in FOF 18-22, most specifically in FOF 22. Covered in FOF 23-25, most specifically in FOF 25. 9-10. Covered in FOF 26. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 75. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 77. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 76. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 78. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madeline P. Schere, Esquire Board Administration Building Suite 301 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 J. David Holders Esquire 211 South Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite 1 Miami, Florida 33129 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, whether her employment with Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher for 16 1/2 years. She holds a Florida teaching certificate in the areas of specific learning disabilities and educable mental retardation. Throughout her employment by Petitioner, she has been assigned to teach exceptional student education classes. For the 1995-96 school year, she was assigned to teach a varying exceptionalities class at Winston Park Elementary School. At that school, the principal and the assistant principal have a practice of visiting every classroom every day whenever possible. The visits usually consist of a general walk-through. As a result of his visits to Respondent's classroom, Assistant Principal Polakoff, an experienced varying exceptionalities teacher, became concerned about the lack of discipline in Respondent's classroom. Respondent made a large number of referrals of students to the administrators for disciplinary action. Polakoff discussed his concerns with Respondent. In late September or early October, the administration at Winston Park Elementary School requested Rene Miscio, an Exceptional Education Program Specialist from the area office to come and assist Respondent. Miscio identified concerns with Respondent's classroom performance and gave Respondent suggestions for improving her areas of deficiency. Miscio took Respondent to a different school so Respondent could observe that teacher. Respondent later advised her administrators that she was implementing the suggestions made by Miscio. On November 2, 1995, Respondent referred a student to the office. Assistant Principal Polakoff went to Respondent's classroom and observed for 30 to 40 minutes. He wrote detailed notes while he was in Respondent's classroom and later discussed his observations with Principal Smith. They determined that Respondent's performance was deficient in three areas: behavior management, classroom management, and lesson presentation. By letter dated November 2, Assistant Principal Polakoff advised Respondent that she was moved from the development phase to the documentation phase of the Instructional Personnel Assessment System (hereinafter "IPAS") because deficiencies had been identified. In the documentation phase strategies are formulated for remediating the identified deficiencies. The goal is to provide the teacher with strategies to become successful in helping students learn. Principal Smith and Assistant Principal Polakoff worked with Respondent in writing a Performance Development Plan. Such a Plan envisions ongoing contact between the administrators and the teacher to address the teacher's deficiencies over the course of a defined time period. Respondent was given a February 29, 1996, deadline for remediating her deficiencies. Assistant Principal Polakoff began working with Respondent to develop behavior plans for specific students because of his background in exceptional student education. The administrators also assigned the exceptional student education specialist at Winston Park to observe and assist Respondent to overcome her areas of deficiency. Principal Smith also assigned Carolyn Koesten, another special education teacher at Winston Park, to "model" in Respondent's classroom from November 27 through December 7, 1995. Koesten had "modeled" before. "Modeling" means that an experienced teacher teaches another teacher's class in order to demonstrate to that teacher classroom management skills, behavior skills, and academic skills. Principal Smith instructed Koesten to establish a classroom management system, to establish a behavior management system, and to teach the students. When Koesten took over Respondent's classroom, Respondent was on leave. Koesten assessed Respondent's class when she started her modeling. Respondent's lesson plans were sketchy, and no routine had been established in Respondent's classroom. Koesten conducted a class meeting to develop a schedule for daily activities. She, together with the students, set up a behavior management system, establishing the rules of conduct, consequences, and rewards. She experienced no problems with Respondent's students once they had established rules for that classroom. "Running reading records" was a school-wide system being implemented that year to help measure a student's progress in reading. Respondent had no running reading records when Koesten began modeling in Respondent's class. Koesten set up running reading records for Respondent's class, established a reading program using those records, and began using spelling words from the reading program. She also set up learning centers within the classroom so students who had finished an activity could begin other work rather than beginning to misbehave. Respondent did not have any learning centers in her classroom. Respondent returned to school on December 6. Koesten met with her in the morning to explain the changes which had been implemented. Respondent then spent the day observing Koesten teaching Respondent's class. At the end of the day, she again met with Koesten to discuss the reading program and learning centers which Koesten had established. On the next day, Respondent took over the class, and Koesten observed her teaching. During the time that Koesten was in charge of Respondent's class, the class ran smoothly with the classroom management system and the behavior management system she had put in place. The students liked the systems because they had participated in developing them. Neither the number of students in the class nor the mix of students presented Koesten with any problem. During the morning of February 13, 1996, Assistant Principal Polakoff received a referral on one of Respondent's students for whom they had just recently developed an individual behavior plan. He told Principal Smith about the referral, and Smith went into Respondent's classroom. Smith determined that Respondent had ignored the individual behavior plan which they had developed for that student. Principal Smith summoned Respondent to his office that afternoon to meet with him and Assistant Principal Polakoff so he could give her feedback on what he had observed regarding the deficiencies in her performance that still existed. When she arrived, Smith asked her to describe her behavior management plan, and she did. Smith then advised her that she was not following that plan when he was in her classroom. She told him she was not able to follow her behavior management plan because the children were misbehaving. Smith also told her she had not followed the individual behavior plan for the student whom she had referred that morning. Respondent became very loud, angry, and agitated while Smith was trying to discuss her failure to follow the behavior plans. She alternated between being very angry and calming herself. When she calmed herself, she sat down. When she became angry, she got up and leaned on Smith's desk and leaned toward him. Smith kept trying to focus on how Respondent could improve her classroom performance but Respondent would not discuss that subject. She began attacking Smith verbally. She told him he reminded her of her parents. She told him he was a terrible person and a terrible father. She told him she hated him and that everyone hated him. She told him she would not talk to him but would only talk to Assistant Principal Polakoff. Polakoff told Respondent she needed to talk with Smith because Smith was her boss. Smith remained very calm and "matter of fact." He did nothing to cause Respondent to become agitated. He continued to try to focus on what was needed in order for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. At the end of the conference, Respondent told Smith that he was treating her "shitty". Smith calmly responded that at that point her teaching was "shitty" and that it was "a joke". Also at the end of the conference which had lasted for an hour or more, Respondent told Smith that she was "going to get him". Smith asked her what she meant by that, and Respondent told him that he was just going to have to wait to find out, that he would not know when or where she was going to get him, but that she would. The meeting ended when Respondent walked out of Smith's office. Polakoff was so uneasy about Respondent's threats that he followed her when she left the building and locked the building behind her so she could not return. Smith was concerned for his safety, Respondent's safety, and the safety of the other employees due to Respondent's threats and her agitation level. Just a few weeks before, a Broward County employee had killed his co-workers. Smith was concerned regarding Respondent's emotional stability and whether she should be in a classroom. Principal Smith telephoned his supervisor, Area Superintendent Dr. Daly, and told her what had transpired. She gave him an oral reprimand for using the word "shitty" and told him to call Director of Professional Standards Ronald Wright. Wright also orally reprimanded Smith for using that word and told him to send Respondent a memo asking her to clarify what she meant by her statements that she was going "to get" Smith and that he would not know when or where. Wright also explained to Smith the procedures for requesting that an employee undergo a psychiatric and/or psychological evaluation to determine fitness to remain in the classroom. Principal Smith wrote such a memo to Respondent the following day. Two days later, Respondent replied in writing and stayed out of school for the next several days saying she was too depressed to function. Her written explanation is not accurate, does not reflect the tone of her voice or her anger, and is not believable. On February 14, 1996, Principal Smith initiated the procedure for requiring Respondent to undergo psychological and/or psychiatric testing. He also re-assigned her so that she would assist in the school's media center and not return to her classroom until completion of the psychiatric evaluation. While Respondent was assigned to the media center, she was very disruptive. She kept trying to involve students and parents in her anger toward Principal Smith. On Friday, March 1, Respondent initiated a conversation with Josetta Royal Campbell who was in the media center. Although Campbell was a fellow teacher, she had no personal relationship with Respondent. Respondent asked Campbell if she had been evaluated by Principal Smith, and Campbell replied that she had been. Respondent asked if Campbell had heard that Respondent had received a bad evaluation, and Campbell replied that she had not. Respondent followed her to Campbell's classroom. Inside Campbell's classroom, Respondent became very excited and loud and was easily heard by the custodian cleaning the classroom. Respondent told Campbell that she and Smith had a big argument, that Smith was "out to get" her, and that she was going to kill him. Respondent said she thought Polakoff was her friend but he was a "backstabber" and that Koesten was also "out to get" her. She told Campbell that she was "going to get them all", that Smith had ruined her life, and that "everybody involved would pay for it". She also said that she could not return to her classroom until after she had undergone psychological testing but that since she had been under psychological treatment for ten years, she could pass the test with "flying colors". Over the weekend Campbell thought about what Respondent had said. She was concerned about the threats Respondent had made toward Principal Smith and the others. She took Respondent's threats seriously. On Monday she wrote a letter to Principal Smith telling him what had happened. On March 6, Principal Smith re-assigned Respondent to temporary duty with pay in her own home. Respondent selected a psychiatrist from a list given to her by the Director of Petitioner's Instructional Staffing Department. She selected Dr. Fernando Mata and was evaluated by him on March 7, 1996. After seeing Respondent on that date, he recommended that she undergo psychological testing. Respondent was given a list of psychologists to choose from, and she selected Dr. Jack Singer. He evaluated her on March 22, conducting a personal interview and administering the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory II, the Thematic Apperception Test, and the Holtzman Inkblot Technique. Dr. Singer concluded that Respondent is unstable and unpredictable. He opined that Respondent cannot safely handle a classroom full of children at this time. Upon review of Dr. Singer's report, Dr. Mata issued a supplemental report agreeing with Singer's opinions and concluding that Respondent "should not be returned to a classroom setting at this time". A conference was held with Respondent, her union representative, Petitioner's Director of Personnel, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards, and Petitioner's Director of Instructional Staffing to discuss with Respondent the options available to her under Petitioner's policies and the union contract due to the medical report determining that Respondent was not fit to teach at that time. Respondent was advised that she could elect: (1) family/medical leave of up to 12 weeks; (2) disability leave for up to two years; or (3) a personal leave of absence. The financial impacts of each type of leave were explained to Respondent. Respondent declined all leave options. By letter dated May 15, 1996, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards wrote to Respondent asking her to confirm that she still declined all leave options. By letter dated May 22, 1996, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards again wrote to Respondent confirming that they had spoken on May 20 and that Respondent still declined all leave options and that Respondent understood that her refusal to take any type of leave would force Petitioner to terminate her employment. Petitioner does not second-guess medical opinions. When Respondent declined all leave options, Petitioner had no choice but to initiate termination of Respondent's employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and dismissing her from her employment with Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this day of November, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Eugene K. Pettis, Esquire Haliczer, Pettis & White, P.A. 101 Northeast Third Avenue Sixth Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Francisco M. Negron, Jr., Esquire Tom Young, Esquire FEA/United 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Dr. Frank R. Petruzielo, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
The Issue The issue presented is whether or not the Respondent should be dismissed from her employment with the Dade County School Board. Petitioner called Mrs. Rose Ann Collum, Keith William Reilly (a minor), Anthony Rossi (a minor), Mrs. Carol Zappi, Robert Staelen, and Desmond Patrick Gray and had admitted Exhibits 1 and 2. Respondent testified on her own behalf. The Pre-Trial Stipulation was admitted as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. No transcript was provided and the parties' failure to file proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within the time stipulated therefor is deemed a waiver of that right.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was an employee of the School Board of Dade County under a continuing contract of employment as an elementary school teacher at Madie Ives Elementary Community School in Miami, Florida. She has taught there successfully since 1966 or 1967. Beginning on or about September 1, 1983 and continuing through and including May of 1984, Respondent engaged in a course of conduct with the students assigned to her which included paddling, and on multiple occasions during this period she administered this paddling, which is in the nature of corporal punishment, to various students (more than 20) in her class. The type of paddling involved was described variously by the two students who testified live at formal hearing as "did not hurt," "just an attention getter," "not bad," "only a little sting," "only when I was bad," and "I was never injured or hurt." Parents were never contacted in advance of the paddlings which seem to have had a spontaneous quality. These paddlings occurred always in the Respondent's 5th Grade classroom in front of the class at the side of Respondent's desk, and a thin narrow wooden paddle was used. The paddle was applied to the child's buttocks through his/her clothing. Paddlings never occurred in the principal's office or in the presence of any other adult. Respondent made no attempt to hide what was going on, but she admitted that some students would excitedly post "look-outs" at the classroom door, so it appears that there was a belief, at least on the children's part, that the paddlings were contrary to the School Board's or principal's stated policies. These paddlings occurred on an almost daily basis. Some children received a stroke once a week or every other day. It seldom occurred to the same child two days in a row. Keith William Reilly, now 12 years old, described the 1983-84 year's punishment for fighting as 4 strokes and for talking as less. Anthony Rossi, also now 12 years old, testified he was paddled 8 or 9 times in the 1983-84 school year and no one else was paddled more often than he. Most students got no more than two strokes on a single occasion. There is no evidence of physical or emotional harm to these students. The majority of parents contacted by School Board Investigator Robert Staelen indicated that if they had been contacted before the paddling incidents they would have or might have given permission to paddle. The two mothers who testified live corroborated this as to their own children. At least one set of parents, Mr. and Mrs. Zappi, objected to not being noti- fied before their daughter was paddled. They experienced diffi- culty getting the child to return to school after she related to them the paddling incident or incidents. There is no evidence of paddling of any child under psychological or medical treatment. During Conferences for the Record, conducted by Dr. Desmond Patrick Gray, Executive Director, Director of Personnel Control, Division of Management for the School Board of Dade County, after the School Board became aware of the paddling incidents, Respondent acknowledged that she was familiar with School Board Rule 6GX13-5D-1.O7. Normally, Dr. Gray would have recommended that Respondent be given a 10 working days' suspen- sion upon the facts of the paddlings as he understood them, but thereafter, believing that Respondent had been paddling for two school years and had been previously reprimanded for similar incidents, he recommended dismissal. Indeed, on January 29, 1982, Respondent had been formally reprimanded (P-2) by her then-principal, Robert D. Conk, for four apparently unrelated "events," the only pertinent one of which is phrased: "(1) You are frequently out of your room and students were left unsupervised. Upon your return, absences were reprimanded by your students who had misbehaved during your spanking them with a ruler or paddle." Respondent acknowledges that she received this reprimand, but states that it slipped her mind in her discussions with Dr. Gray because it was of a minor nature and the emphasis was not directed against paddling or corporal punishment, because Dr. Conk told her to forget the reprimand as an unimportant formality, and because Dr. Conk frequently sent students to her for discipline, including paddling. On or about August 22, 1984, Respondent was suspended from employment with the Dade County School Board upon grounds of incompetency, gross insubordination, and misconduct in office.
Recommendation That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order limiting the suspension of Respondent to a total of 90 working days, applying that period to the time she has already been suspended and reinstating her thereafter with any appropriate back pay and benefits. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Robertson, Esquire McCormick Bldg., 3rd Floor 111 S.W. Third St. Miami, Florida 33130 William DuFresne, Esquire One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1782 Two South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131 Phyllis O. Douglas Esquire Dade County School Board 1410 N. E. Second Ave. Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools 1410 N.E. Second Ave. Miami, Florida 33132 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the actions set forth in the Notice of Charge of Misconduct in Office, dated December 18, 2013, and if so, whether these actions constitute just cause for suspension.
Findings Of Fact The Walton County School Board (School Board) is charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the School District of Walton County, Florida. During the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Harriet Hurley was a teacher at Walton Middle School. Ms. Hurley had earlier been a teacher in Georgia for eight years, had been employed in Walton County Schools in 1984 for a period of three years, and taught in Okaloosa County Schools for five years. She then returned to Walton County Schools where she has been ever since, for a career of over 30 years. In addition to her responsibilities as a teacher at Walton Middle School, Ms. Hurley assists in scheduling parent- teacher conferences for students at Walton Middle School. Ms. Hurley’s responsibilities in scheduling conferences are limited to a coordination function. She is not responsible for addressing the substance of the issues to be addressed in the conferences or becoming involved in attempting to resolve them. Principal Hope never asked Ms. Hurley to assume a role as a guidance counselor. Ms. Hurley is employed by the School Board. As a member of the School Board’s instructional staff, Ms. Hurley’s employment is subject to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2013), which provides that her employment will not be suspended or terminated except for “just cause.” As a teacher, Ms. Hurley is required to abide by all Florida Statutes which pertain to teachers, the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, and the Policies and Procedures of the School Board of Walton County, Florida. Ms. Hurley is not the legal guardian of her granddaughter, B.C., who is a student at Walton Middle School. On November 20, 2013, Ms. Hurley’s granddaughter, B.C., approached her in the adult dining area about a group math assignment that was upsetting her. B.C. told Ms. Hurley that she had been told by her sixth-grade math teacher, Ms. Black, that her “high grade was gone” because of the failure of her group to complete a group math assignment. B.C. told Ms. Hurley that she blamed S.A., another student in her group, for their failure to complete the work. Ms. Hurley immediately left the adult dining area with her lunch only partially eaten and went with B.C. back to Ms. Black’s classroom. B.C. had been released for lunch a few minutes before the other students because she was an A/B Honor Roll student, so the other students were still in the classroom when Ms. Hurley arrived there. When Ms. Hurley and B.C. arrived at the classroom, the students were packing up their personal items in preparation for their release for lunch. Ms. Black testified in part: At that time, I think it was because the students leave five minutes early, A/B honor roll students. I don’t really want to go ahead and teach them anything, because they’re missing that opportunity to learn. At that time I get them to pack up and get their things together to leave for lunch. There was a high level of noise in the classroom. Ms. Black, in her first year as a teacher, was at her desk trying to help some students who did not understand something, and was in a verbal altercation with S.A., who was walking away from her. On November 20, 2013, S.A. was not a student in one of Ms. Hurley’s classes. Ms. Hurley addressed S.A., telling him that he should not talk to his teacher that way. Ms. Hurley told S.A. to “come here to me.” She was upset with S.A. and told him that he needed to stop playing around. In a loud and forceful tone of voice, she told him that he was not going to be the cause of a “straight A” student getting a bad grade and that he needed to concentrate on his schoolwork. She told him that she knew his mother, who worked at a KFC-Taco Bell restaurant in Miramar Beach, and that she would talk to his mother if necessary. S.A. denied that his mother worked at KFC, and Ms. Hurley restated that she knew that his mother did. The other students in the class heard Ms. Hurley’s disparagement and public discipline of S.A. The bell rang and Ms. Hurley and the students began to leave the classroom. S.A. was embarrassed and upset by the incident. Due to the fact that the students were already packing up their things to leave, and because Ms. Black had been in a verbal altercation with S.A., the actions of Ms. Hurley in Ms. Black’s class did not disrupt the students’ learning environment. Ms. Hurley’s actions were unnecessary. She might have comforted B.C., and encouraged B.C. and her parents to pursue the issue with Ms. Black. S.A. was not one of Ms. Hurley’s students and at the time she decided to go to Ms. Black’s class Ms. Hurley had not directly witnessed any behavior by S.A. that called for immediate correction. Even had it been appropriate for Respondent herself to take action based upon her granddaughter’s information, there was no emergency which required that Ms. Hurley intrude upon a colleague’s class and loudly berate S.A. in front of other students. She used her institutional privileges as a teacher to gain access to Ms. Black’s classroom in order to assist her granddaughter. As Ms. Black was leaving her classroom, she saw that S.A. was reluctantly moving toward the door and she noticed he was crying. She attempted to comfort him. Ms. Black then reported the incident to Mr. Jason Campbell, Assistant Principal, who was in the student lunch room. A few minutes later, S.A. also approached Mr. Campbell to report his version of the incident. Ms. Hurley returned to her lunch in the adult dining room. When Ms. Black came in to the dining room later, Ms. Hurley apologized to her for coming into her classroom. That evening, Ms. Hurley drove to Miramar Beach and went to dinner at the fast food restaurant where she knew Ms. A. worked. Ms. Hurley was one of Ms. A’s teachers when Ms. A. had been in the seventh grade, and the two were casual acquaintances. Ms. Hurley told Ms. A. what had happened that morning with S.A. and B.C. in their math group. Ms. Hurley told Ms. A. that she had “kind of stepped out and went into grandma mode” and had “gotten onto” (disciplined) S.A. Ms. Hurley relayed that she had told S.A. that she knew his mother and that if he did not improve his conduct, she was going to let his mother know about his behavior. During the course of the conversation, Ms. A. relayed that she was concerned about an incident involving a damaged globe from Mr. Price’s classroom, which was S.A.’s SPEAR classroom (“home room”). The following day, on November 21, 2013, Ms. Hurley removed S.A. from his first-period classroom. Neither Principal Hope nor Vice Principal Campbell authorized Ms. Hurley to remove S.A. from his first-period classroom on November 21, 2013. On November 21, 2013, Ms. Hurley contacted S.A.’s mother on the telephone on her own initiative and without the authority of Principal Hope or Vice Principal Campbell. Ms. Hurley called Ms. A. on the telephone with S.A. present. Ms. Hurley and Ms. A. talked about the incident involving S.A. and the damaged globe from Mr. Price’s classroom. The telephone conversation had barely begun when Mr. Hope, upon learning that Ms. Hurley had gone to S.A.’s classroom and removed him from class, came into Ms. Hurley’s room and took S.A. back to Mr. Hope’s office. While the School Board alleged that Ms. Hurley and Ms. A. discussed the incident that happened in Ms. Black’s classroom the day before, this was not shown by the evidence. The allegation that Ms. Hurley was misusing her institutional privileges by engaging in the phone call may be correct, for Ms. Hurley was not authorized to discuss the substance of parent/teacher conferences, but was instead limited to scheduling responsibilities. The evidence did not show that the phone conversation was conducted for personal gain or advantage to Ms. Hurley, however. The School Board’s further argument that Ms. Hurley’s actions on November 21, 2013, reduced the ability of Principal Hope to efficiently perform his duties is also rejected. Assuming that Principal Hope could even be considered a “colleague” of Ms. Hurley’s, the evidence showed that he was able to efficiently “track down” S.A. with minimal effort. To the extent that Ms. Hurley’s actions on November 21, 2013, exceeded her “job description,” they could be corrected with a simple directive or memorandum, and in the absence of evidence that her actions were taken for her personal gain, they are not a just cause for discipline. Statements were taken from several students in Ms. Black’s math class regarding the incident on November 20th, which vary in detail, but taken as a whole corroborate the findings of fact above regarding the incident on November 20, 2013. No statement was taken from B.C., and neither party called B.C. as a witness at hearing. On December 2, 2013, Ms. Hurley met with Walton Middle School administration to discuss the events of November 20 and November 21, 2013. On December 17, 2013, Principal Tripp Hope issued a letter of reprimand advising Respondent that he would be recommending a 10-day suspension without pay to the Superintendent. On December 18, 2013, the Superintendent notified Respondent of her intention to recommend a 10-day suspension without pay. A Notice of Charge of Misconduct in Office, dated December 18, 2013, notified Respondent of the Petitioner’s intent to suspend her employment for 10 days without pay. (As stipulated by the parties.) Although the Notice of Charge of Misconduct in Office did not explicitly identify all rules that Ms. Hurley was charged with violating, the allegations of more specific rule violations were included in the Letter of Reprimand which was attached to the charge. Ms. Hurley was not prejudiced or hindered in the preparation of her defense by any lack of specificity in the charging documents. Ms. Hurley is substantially affected by the intended action of the School Board to suspend her employment without pay for ten days. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley failed to “value” the worth and dignity of every person, the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of knowledge, or the nurture of democratic citizenship. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley did not strive for professional growth or did not “seek” to exercise the best professional judgment or integrity. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley did not “strive” to achieve or sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. The evidence showed that by entering S.A.’s classroom and raising her voice in anger towards him in the presence of other students, Ms. Hurley failed to make reasonable effort to protect S.A. from conditions harmful to his learning or to his mental health. The evidence showed that any required discipline of S.A. should not have been administered by Ms. Hurley and so her actions were unnecessary. Her actions, which reduced S.A. to tears, exposed him to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. The evidence showed that in entering another teacher’s classroom to assist her granddaughter by disciplining S.A. when he was not even one of her students, Ms. Hurley used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley lacked integrity, high ideals, or human understanding or that she failed to “maintain or promote” those qualities. The evidence did not show that in entering Ms. Black’s classroom during the final minutes of the class, when the students were already packing up their things and preparing to go to lunch, Ms. Hurley engaged in behavior that disrupted the students’ learning environment. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley engaged in behavior that reduced her ability or her colleague’s ability to effectively perform duties. One might speculate as to whether Ms. Black’s ability to maintain control over her class in the future was undermined by Ms. Hurley’s aggressive intrusion, but Ms. Black did not testify that her ability to effectively perform was reduced and this was not otherwise shown. There was similarly no evidence offered to indicate that Ms. Hurley’s own effectiveness was reduced. Her actions were not taken in her own classroom, there was no evidence that she had any of Ms. Black’s students in her classes, or that her own students or the student body generally was even aware of her actions. The actions of Ms. Hurley on November 20, 2013, constitute misconduct in office. Her actions are just cause for suspension of her employment without pay. The School Board witnesses conceded that Ms. Hurley has never received “formal” counseling, and presented no documentary evidence that she had been counseled even informally. The School Board did present credible testimony from Principal Hope and Assistant Principal Campbell that Ms. Hurley had been informally counseled regarding raising her voice with students and for communication with her peers. The actions of Ms. Hurley on November 20, 2013, were not so serious as to justify a ten-day suspension, but do warrant suspension without pay for three calendar days.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Lee County School Board (School Board), has established "just cause" to terminate the Respondent, Patricia Slade (Ms. Slade), as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Slade is a teacher at Lehigh Acres Elementary School and has worked for the Lee County School District since August 19, 1997. As a teacher, Ms. Slade is an instructional employee and her employment is governed, in part, by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Teachers Association of Lee County (TALC). The School Board is charged with the operation of the free public education in Lee County, Florida, and has the authority to terminate or suspend instructional employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f). The record shows by preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Slade has fallen asleep in her classroom during the school day on several instances and on one occasion left her classroom unattended. The record shows that for school year 2010-2011, Ms. Slade was a teacher for pre-kindergarten children, who are four-years-old. The School Board witnesses credibly testified that they had observed Ms. Slade asleep in the classroom on different dates. Ms. Sanchez, a grandmother of one of the students in Ms. Slade's classroom and school volunteer, credibly testified that she had observed Ms. Slade asleep three or four times during the school year. In one instance, Ms. Sanchez observed Ms. Slade asleep during the children's naptime for a period of approximately 30 minutes. Ms. Sanchez's testimony was corroborated by the credible testimony of Ms. Hicks, a former teacher and two teacher aides, Ms. Serrano and Ms. Kinney. Ms. Hicks credibly testified that she observed Ms. Slade on three occasions. Ms. Hicks described one of the occasions when she walked into Ms. Slade's classroom during the afternoon and found her asleep on the floor. Similarly, Ms. Serrano credibly testified that sometime in January 2011, during the students' naptime, Ms. Kinney had come to her classroom and asked Ms. Serrano to watch Ms. Slade's class while Ms. Kinney left to use the restroom. Upon entering Ms. Slade's classroom, Ms. Serrano found Ms. Slade asleep on the floor. Ms. Serrano credibly testified that she woke Ms. Slade up, because Ms. Serrano had to go back to her own classroom. Finally, Ms. Kinney, who was Ms. Slade's teacher aide, credibly testified that Ms. Slade had fallen asleep once before the winter break and more frequently after the winter break. In a written statement provided by Ms. Kinney to the school, Ms. Kinney indicated by February 2011, Ms. Slade was falling asleep in the classroom "once a week to every other week." During one of Ms. Slade's midday naps after the winter break, Ms. Kinney took a picture with a cell phone of Ms. Slade sleeping on the floor. The photograph, which was admitted into evidence, clearly shows Ms. Slade asleep on the floor of the classroom with the students asleep on their mats around her. The record also shows that on February 15, 2011, Ms. Slade fell asleep in the classroom. Mr. Dworzanski, assistant principal for the school, credibly testified that he went to Ms. Slade's classroom after being called by Ms. Kinney, because Ms. Slade was asleep. Mr. Dworzanski credibly testified that he found Ms. Slade "sitting underneath where the smart board was propped up against the wall and she was asleep." Mr. Dworzanski further testified that Ms. Slade was difficult to wake and that she was incoherent when she was finally aroused. Based on her incoherence, Ms. Slade was taken to the school nurse and paramedics were called. After this February 15, 2011, incident, Ms. Slade did not return to the class. Ms. Slade offered that she had "passed out" on the February 15, 2011, incident as the result of acute bronchitis. While Ms. Slade testified that she had acute bronchitis, her testimony was not credible for showing that her diagnosis of acute bronchitis was the cause for her being asleep or in an unconscious state on February 15, 2011. Therefore, the undersigned finds that there was no competent evidence to explain why Ms. Slade slept during the school day. Mr. Dworzanski credibly explained that a teacher is not permitted to sleep during the pre-kindergarten student's naptime, because the teacher must monitor the students and keep them safe. Apparently, not all four-year-old students sleep during naptime and the teacher needs to keep an eye on the students. Next, the record supports the finding that on one instance Ms. Slade left her class unattended. Ms. Kinney credibly testified that on one occasion Ms. Kinney went to the cafeteria to retrieve the school lunches. Upon returning to the classroom, Ms. Kinney did not see Ms. Slade in the classroom. Further, there was no adult supervision in the classroom when Ms. Kinney entered the class with the lunches. When asked by Ms. Kinney, the students informed her that Ms. Slade had gone to the bathroom. Ms. Slade returned "several minutes" after Ms. Kinney had returned to the classroom. Ms. Slade does not have any prior disciplinary record with the school, and was an effective teacher when she had been observed teaching.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Patricia Slade, as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 15th day of November, 2011.
The Issue Whether revocation of Respondent's state certification requires his dismissal by the Pinellas County School Board and, if so, has Respondents' certificate been revoked for these purposes by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was employed on the instructional staff of the Pinellas County School system under a Professional Services Contract. On October 23, 1985, Respondent was issued a Florida Department of Education Teacher's Certificate valid through June 30, 1990. By Administrative Complaint dated October 31, 1988, the Commissioner of Education alleged Respondent violated Sections 231.28 (1)(a), (c), (e), (h), and (2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), (f), (g), and (h), Florida Administrative Code. These allegations constitute grounds for revocation of Respondent's certificate. Respondent waived formal hearing, and requested informal proceedings before the EPC. These informal proceedings resulted in a Final Order filed February 17, 1989 in which Respondent's teaching certificate was revoked for three years. The action of the EPC was announced orally at the informal hearing on January 26, 1989, and on February 3, 1989, Respondent filed a Motion to Rescind Election of Rights previously waiving formal proceedings and to set aside agency action. On February 22, 1989, Respondent filed a motion with EPC for a stay pending final review in which he requested the action of the EPC revoking his certificate be stayed pending action by the EPC on his February 3rd motion. On February 23, 1989, an order was entered by the EPC granting the stay pending reconsideration of the order revoking Respondent's teaching certificate On May 30, 1989, the EPC entered an order denying Respondent's demand for reconsideration and affirming it's final order revoking Respondent's certificate. An appeal from that order had previously been filed with the Second District Court of Appeals, but jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals had been relinquished to allow the EPC to reconsider. On July 25, 1989, Respondent filed in the Second District of Appeals a Motion to Stay the revocation of his certificate pending review by the court of his appeal. By order entered August 9, 1989, the Second District Court of Appeals denied the motion to stay the revocation of Respondent's certificate pending appeal of the EPC order.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing Lloyd Crossman from the instructional staff of the Pinellas County School system. ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. K.N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Dr. Scott N. Rose, Supt. Pinellas County Schools 1960 East Druid Road Clearwater, Florida 33546 Karen Barr Wilde, Exec. Dir. Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether respondent's teaching contract should be renewed for school year 1995-96.
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this proceeding, petitioner, Suwannee County School Board (Board), seeks to terminate respondent, Lallah P. Singh, a teacher, on the ground his classroom performance in school years 1993-94 and 1994-95 was unsatisfactory. In doing so, petitioner relies upon Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes, which authorizes a school board to terminate an employee with a professional services contract (PSC) when that employee has an unsatisfactory performance rating for two consecutive years. This proceeding represents the first occasion on which the Board has utilized the statute for a PSC teacher. Respondent, who has been employed in the Suwannee County school system since December 1977, is certified as a teacher in the areas of biology and mathematics for grades 6-12. A native of India, he holds the equivalent degree of a doctor in veterinary medicine from a university in that country. He has also obtained a master's degree in veterinary science in this country and is certified as an education specialist in mathematics. Until school year 1993-94, respondent was employed in a variety of positions, including a regular classroom teacher (1977-86), a home study teacher (1987-89), and an alternate education teacher (1990-92). During school year 1993-94, respondent was assigned to the Branford Pre K-12 School in Branford, Florida where he taught the in-school suspension (ISS) class. That class is made up of high school level students suspended from their regular classes for disciplinary reasons. The assignment required that respondent maintain discipline and assist students with work assigned by their regular teachers. Based on observations conducted by his principal during the school year, respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation for his classroom performance. He was notified of these deficiencies in writing and was told that such deficiencies must be corrected by the end of the following school year, or else he would face possible non-renewal of his contract. For school year 1994-95, respondent was reassigned to an ISS classroom four periods per day but was also required to teach a general science class one period per day. During that year, respondent was observed by his principal in the general science class on four occasions to determine if the deficiencies noted in the prior year had been remediated. While most of the earlier deficiencies were eventually corrected, respondent was still unsatisfactory in one performance area noted in the prior year, as well as two other areas, and his performance was accordingly deemed to be unsatisfactory. On May 15, 1995, he was notified that his contract would not be renewed. By letter dated May 19, 1995, respondent requested a hearing to contest the Board's action. Although Section 231.36(3)(e)4.b., Florida Statutes, requires that the hearing be scheduled within 45 days of receipt of the written appeal, the parties have waived this requirement by requesting hearing dates beyond that timeframe. As clarified by his counsel, respondent generally contends the Board erred in the termination process by (a) providing him untimely and insufficient notice, (b) performing an inadequate evaluation, and (c) offering him inadequate assistance to correct his deficiencies. He asks for reinstatement of his professional services contract, as well as back pay. Events Leading up to School Year 1993-94 Around 1982, the legislature amended Section 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, to create a professional services contract under which teachers could be employed. Prior to that time, teachers not on annual contract status were employed under what was known as a continuing contract. Both a PSC and a continuing contract are considered a form of tenure for public school employees. After the new law became effective, teachers employed under a continuing contract were given the option to convert to a PSC. The advantage to a PSC is that if a teacher is cited for unsatisfactory performance in a given year, he or she has the following year in which to remediate those deficiencies. If the deficiencies are not remediated in the second year, a school board can change the teacher to annual contract status and decline to renew the teacher's contract. This procedure contrasts with the continuing contract process which, after an unsatisfactory rating is given but is not remediated by the teacher, allows a school board to change the teacher to annual contract status and not renew the contract at the end of any given year. In school year 1991-92, respondent was still employed under a continuing contract. When he received an unsatisfactory evaluation, and was threatened with the possibility of being changed to an annual contract and not renewed, he consulted with a teacher's union field representative, Richard E. Layer, on his procedural and substantive rights. During their discussions, the two talked about whether respondent should remain on a continuing contract or switch to a PSC. According to Layer, he explained to respondent "how the statute (governing a PSC) worked," advised him that a PSC offered more job security than a continuing contract, and recommended respondent switch to a PSC since this would give him two years in which to correct any deficiencies that might occur in the future. Layer added that after their conversation, respondent "knew exactly what the (PSC) provided." Based on Layer's advice, in April 1992 respondent requested that he be converted to a PSC. This was done for school year 1992-93, and he remained in that status until his contract was terminated in May 1995. The Evaluation Process Generally When evaluating classroom performance in both school years 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Board used standard evaluation forms developed by representatives of the Board and teacher's union. The evaluation, which must be performed at least once a year for teachers having a PSC, is conducted by the teacher's immediate supervisor, who in this case was the school principal, Melvin McMullen. McMullen had assumed that position during the latter part of school year 1992-93, had received special training for conducting evaluations, and was required to perform evaluations for over fifty teachers in both school years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The evaluation process for a teacher on a PSC consists of at least one classroom evaluation during a given school year. The results of the first evaluation are recorded by the evaluator on an assessment form. Within five days after the observation, a principal-teacher conference must be held for the purpose of reviewing the outcome of the observation. At that meeting, the teacher must sign the form, which includes a written admonition that "(f)ailure to correct the area(s) marked unacceptable may lead to your dismissal or non- renewal." Subsequent evaluations during the year, if any, are also recorded by the evaluator on an assessment form. For all evaluations, the teacher is given an acceptable ("A") or unacceptable ("U") rating for each evaluated area. Although the assessment forms used herein changed in some minor respects from school year 1993-94 to school year 1994-95, their substance was essentially the same. Each assessment form for a classroom teacher contains six overall performance standards, including planning, teaching procedures, classroom managment, presentation and knowledge of subject matter, assessment techniques and personal characteristics and professional responsibilities. Under the performance standards are found a total of twelve "indicators." Finally, within the indicators are found a "checklist of observable teaching behaviors," consisting of twenty-seven behaviors, each requiring a rating of "U" or "A." If any teaching behavior is given a "U," the indicator likewise requires a rating of "U." If an indicator is marked "U," the performance standard is also scored unacceptable. A total score is then assigned to the teacher, with one point given for each indicator with an "A," and the highest score being twelve. Anything less than a twelve is considered unsatisfactory and, if not corrected, may result in the teacher's dismissal. If the first observation of a PSC teacher results in an unsuccessful rating in any area, a "level-one" assistance plan is instituted by the principal, which consists of a principal-teacher conference to discuss the deficient areas, suggestions on how to correct the deficiencies, and a timeframe to correct the substandard performance. If insufficient progress has been made by the end of the timeframe, at the option of the assessor, the level-one assistance process can be repeated or a "level-two" assistance plan can begin. The latter level of assistance generally mirrors the assistance given during level-one but the assessor must also notify the superintendent that level-two has been initiated. If the deficiencies are still not corrected by the end of the school year, the superintendent is notified, and the teacher is again placed on notice that he must correct those deficiencies during the following school year or suffer the risk of being reverted to an annual contract status and not being renewed. Finally, during the subsequent school year, the same observations are conducted, and level-one and two assistance plans are implemented if deficiencies are observed. If remediation does not occur by the end of the second school year, the superintendent has the authority to recommend that the school board decline to renew the teacher's contract. School year 1993-94 Respondent was first evaluated by principal McMullen on February 23, 1994. He received a total credit of 10 out of 12 possible points. For the indicators "Recognizes and provides for individual differences" and "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," respondent received a "U." A conference was held by McMullen and respondent the same day, at which time respondent was given a form entitled "Related Work Performance Form (Appraisal III)." It contained not only an explanation of unacceptable areas and recommended procedure for correction, but also a notation that respondent had "2 weeks from today to demonstrate acceptable teacher corrective action." On March 14, 1994, respondent was again evaluated by principal McMullen. Although McMullen noted that "improvement" had occurred since the earlier evaluation, respondent received a credit of 11 out of 12 points. Indeed, he was still deficient in the area of "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control." At a conference held the same day, respondent was given an explanation of his unacceptable area, a recommended procedure for correction, and the following timeframe for improvement: "2 weeks approximately from 3/14/94.". On March 15, 1994, respondent was given a lengthy list of resource materials available for use in correcting his deficiencies, including videos, journals and publications. In addition, he was given written instructions for use of the materials. Based on the unsatisfactory performance rating, principal McMullen sent the following letter to respondent on March 25, 1994: This letter is to notify you that you have demonstrated unsatisfactory performance on the Final Observation/Assessment Form (Appraisal I), with deficiencies noted in the folowing areas: Classroom Management Number 2: Maintains rules of conduct Number 3: Maintains instructional momentum These deficiencies must be corrected by April 1, 1995. I am requesting that your employ-ment be continued an additional year in order to provide you assistance. If you wish to discuss this matter with me further, please schedule an appointment through Mrs. Cannon. I look forward in continuing to work with you on classroom management issues. Respondent acknowledged receiving a copy of the letter the same day. On March 31, 1994, principal McMullen wrote the following letter to superintendent Blaylock: Dr. Lallah Singh has been notified of unsatis- factory performance on the Final Assessment Form with deficiencies noted in the following areas: Classroom Management Number 2: Maintains rules of conduct Number 3: Maintains instructional momentum I request that his employment be followed for an additional year to allow the opportunity to correct these deficiencies by April 1, 1995. Whether respondent received a copy of this letter is not of record. Although the March 14, 1994 evaluation was ostensibly used for personnel decisions that year, on May 6, 1994, a third formal assessment of respondent's classroom performance was conducted by principal McMullen. On that date, he received a credit of 11 out of 12 points. Even so, respondent was still deficient in "Classroom Management" and the related indicator based on unacceptable ratings given for the following observable teaching behaviors: "Maintains rules of conduct" and "Maintains instructional momentum." Thus, no matter whether the March or May evaluation was used, at the end of the first school year in question, respondent's only noted deficiency continued to be for classroom management and the related indicator, "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control." On May 10, 1994, respondent and principal McMullen met to discuss respondent's latest assessment. Although McMullen noted that respondent had made "progress in meeting recommended procedures to help correct areas of concern," he noted that his level of improvement was "still not acceptable" and that respondent must continue the earlier suggestions for improving his performance. The two agreed to meet during the next school year's pre-planning period to discuss a plan of improvement for that year. This was embodied in a letter sent by McMullen to respondent on May 11, 1994. Sometime after receiving this notification, respondent contacted his local teacher's union representative, Willie Veal, Jr., for advice and assistance. On April 21, 1994, acting on the superintendent's recommendation, the Board reemployed respondent for the following year and placed him in a status known as "Professional Services Contract continuation (2nd year)," which is the Board's terminology for the "subsequent year" described in section 231.36(3)(e). Respondent did not receive a copy of this action. On June 7, 1994, however, respondent received a letter from the superintendent advising that the Board had approved him for a PSC for school year 1994-95. School year 1994-95 On August 19, 1994, respondent, union representative Veal, and principal McMullen met to discuss respondent's teaching status for the 1994-95 school year. At that meeting, respondent learned he would be reassigned to ISS but would also be required to teach general science one period per day. Although respondent says general science was not his strongest suit, which was mathematics, it was a subject within his certified area of biology. He also understood that his contract was subject to being non-renewed if he did not correct his deficiencies during the school year. This was confirmed by witness Veal. The following letter was given to respondent on August 29, 1994, to memorialize the substance of the meeting: Thank you for meeting with me while Mr. Veal had a moment last Friday (August 19th., 1994) to generally discuss plans for teaching improvement for the 1994-95 school year. As we discussed, I believe the opportunity to teach a General Science class and Mr. Brown spending two periods a days (sic) with I.S.S. students (doing Drop-Out Prevention counseling) will be two positive techniques to aid improvement as noted on the Appraisal II Form from last year. You and I will meet again soon, to review matters particular to unacceptable areas noted on the May 6th., 1994 Observation/ Assessment. We will then outline other suggestions, techniques and/or personnel that might assist this teacher improve- ment process. On November 15, 1994, respondent was sent the following letter by principal McMullen: As we discussed at our 8/25/94 (sic) meeting, and briefly the other day, we need to meet this coming week to discuss items noted on the Appraisal II Form. We will review the items which were unacceptable on the 5/6/94 Observation/Assessment Form. Can a meeting between you and I be set up for Tuesday afternoon, about 2:30 in your room? Please let me know. Pursuant to this letter, a meeting was held on November 20, 1994. During the meeting, principal McMullen further discussed respondent's deficient areas in the prior year and suggested ways to improve them. He also recommended that informal observations be made in an effort to prepare respondent for his formal observations during the following months. While respondent contends this assistance was begun too late in the school year to be of any meaningful value, it was rendered more than four months before the final evaluation on March 29, 1995. Then, too, respondent's most persistent problem continued to be in the area of classroom management, for which assistance to remedy that problem had been offered throughout the previous year. On December 12, 1994, principal McMullen conducted the first of four observations of respondent's performance in his general science classroom. That classroom, rather than the ISS class, was chosen out of fairness to respondent in order to assess him in a controlled classroom environment. On that day, respondent received a score of 7 out of 12 possible points. More specifically, he received an unacceptable rating for the following indicators: "Uses instructional materials effectively," "Displays skills in making assignments," "Recognizes and provides for individual differences," "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," and "Presents subject matter effectively." The following day, or December 13, 1994, petitioner was placed in the level-two assistance process. He was given a detailed explanation of unacceptable areas of performance observed at the December 12 evaluation and a lengthy list of suggestions on how to correct each of those deficiencies. Late on the morning of the same day, or December 13, 1994, principal McMullen walked by the building in which respondent taught and "noticed (him) sleeping at (his) desk" with his shoes off and leaning back in his chair. There were four students in his classroom at the time. Respondent was given a letter confirming this incident and told that if he had a medical reason which caused him to sleep to provide the principal with a doctor's note by December 16, 1994. Respondent provided a letter from his doctor the following day in which the physician listed four medications being taken by respondent, none of which would cause him to sleep. However, the physician noted that respondent "occasionally" took an over the counter cough syrup "that may cause drowsiness." Whether respondent was taking a cough syrup that day is not of record. This incident is relevant to the charge that respondent did not properly manage his classroom. On January 24, 1995, principal McMullen again performed an assessment of respondent's classroom performance. On this occasion, respondent received a score of 10 out of a possible 12 points. He received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control" and "Presents subject matter effectively." On January 27, 1995, and pursuant to the level-two assistance program, respondent was again given a written, detailed explanation of his unacceptable areas and a list of recommended procedures for correction. He was told that he would be reevaluated on or about February 17, 1995. Finally, respondent was given the following written notice: Failure to satisfactorily correct all area(s) of unacceptable performance within the expected timeframe may result in returning the teacher holding a CC/PSC contract to annual contract status. If area(s) of unacc- eptable performance are not satisfactorily corrected during the second year, the teacher may be recommended for non-renewal. On February 21, 1995, another classroom observation was conducted by principal McMullen. That day, respondent received a score of 10 out of 12 possible points. Respondent again received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control" and "Presents subject matter effectively." At a conference the same date, respondent was advised in writing that the following administrative assistance would be rendered: "Arrange conference time with fellow teachers/administrators, help secure resource materials and arrange for time to visit (illegible), etc." Respondent was also told that "(b)y April 5th (approximately six weeks), 1995 all observed/assessed areas should be scored acceptable." In addition, respondent was given a more detailed explanation of his unacceptable areas and recommended procedures for correction of those areas. On March 13, 1995, principal McMullen acknowledged receipt of certain corrective measures which respondent proposed to use at his next observation. These corrective measures were considered by principal McMullen at the next observation. A final observation of respondent occurred on March 29, 1995. Respondent received three unacceptable ratings which resulted in a score of 9 out of 12 points. On that occasion, he received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Uses appropriate motivating techniques," "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," and "Presents subject matter effectively." The second noted indicator, "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitiation and control," was the same indicator for which respondent had received an unacceptable rating the prior year. On March 30, 1995, principal McMullen sent the following letter to respondent: This letter refers to our meeting today on your 3/29/95 Observation/Evaluation. Having gone over that with you, I wanted to highlight the fact that you still have three areas deficient in evaluation of your classroom teaching. These areas are noted on your evaluation form. Instructional recommendations are due to the Superintendent April 1, 1995. Due to this being the second year in the process to correct noted deficiencies and those continue, I have no choice but to recommend non-renewal at that time. Respondent acknowledged receiving a copy of the letter the same date. On March 31, 1995, principal McMullen notified the superintendent by letter that he could not recommend respondent for the 1995-96 school year term given his failure to correct the deficiencies. The superintendent accordingly recommended to the school board on April 21, 1995, that respondent not be rehired for the following school year. The recommendation was accepted by the school board at its April 25, 1995 meeting. On May 15, 1995, the superintendent advised respondent by letter that his contract was not being renewed for the following school year. This notice prompted respondent to request a formal hearing to contest the school board's proposed action. Was There Adequate Notice, Evaluation and Assistance? Notice Respondent contends that the school board erred by giving him inadequate and untimely notice of its actions. At the same time, respondent asserts that he was unaware of the consequences of the unsatisfactory performance ratings in school year 1993-94. He claims that, before the middle of school year 1994-95, no one ever specifically told him that his employment status was in jeopardy if his deficiences were not corrected by the following school year. Respondent's contention that he was unaware of the consequences of the 1993-94 unsatisfactory rating is not deemed to be credible. As early as 1992, respondent was given an explanation on how section 231.36(3)(e) "worked" by a field representative of the teacher's union, and according to the representative, "knew exactly what the law provided." Based on that advice, he switched from a continuing contract to a PSC since he had been told that this would give him two years to correct deficiencies before his employment could be terminated. Beginning in the summer of 1994, he was also represented by the president of the Suwannee County teacher's union, Willie Veal, Jr. At a meeting with Veal and principal McMullen in August 1994, respondent was told that he must correct his deficiencies before the end of the school year or face non- renewal. In addition, respondent had been through a similar evaluation process several years earlier. In 1992, he received an unsatisfactory performance rating and was told that unless the deficiencies were corrected, his contract might be terminated. In that case, however, the deficiencies were corrected, and he retained his tenure under a PSC. Finally, each of the many assessment forms that respondent signed during this process specifically noted that his "(f)ailure to correct the area(s) marked unacceptable may lead to (his) dismissal or non-renewal." Therefore, the totality of the evidence belies respondent's contention that he did not understand that this could happen. Statutory requirements The school board did not strictly follow all requirements of the law in terminating respondent. For example, the law requires that the superintendent provide the teacher in writing "no later than 6 weeks prior to the end of the postschool conference school period, of performance deficiencies which may result in termination of employment, if not corrected during the subsequent year of employment." In this case, respondent received this notice from his principal, rather than the superintendent. However, such notice was sufficient to inform respondent of the gravity of the situation. In the subsequent year, or school year 1994-95, the same notice must again be provided to the employee "no later than 6 weeks prior to the close of the postschool conference period." In this case, the notice was given by the superintendent, but this occurred less than "6 weeks prior to the postschool conference period." Although several errors in procedure occurred during the termination process, they were not so serious as to impair the fairness of this proceeding, or to cause prejudice to respondent in the defense of this case. Therefore, the errors in procedure are deemed to be harmless. Evaluation and Assistance The statute also calls for the employee to be "provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies." However, the specific type of assistance and opportunties to be afforded a teacher is not statutorily defined. Respondent contends that such assistance and opportunities were never provided. Beginning with his first evaluation in February 1994, respondent was given assistance in the form of specific suggestions on how to correct the deficiencies. Also, numerous principal-teacher conferences were held to discuss the observation findings. After the March 14, 1994 evaluation, respondent was given a lengthy list of videos, journals and publications to use in an effort to correct his deficiencies. He was also given written instructions for the use of the materials. At the beginning of school year 1994-95, respondent had a pre-school meeting with both his principal and union representative concerning this matter. He also met with the principal on November 20, 1994, and the two discussed "other suggestions, techniques and/or personnel that might assist (his) teacher improvement process." Following an evaluation on December 12, 1994, respondent was given a detailed explanation of unacceptable areas of performance and a lengthy list of suggestions on how to correct those deficiencies. After another evaluation on February 21, 1995, respondent was again given advice on how to correct his deficiencies before the next evaluation. Although respondent says he took this advice to heart, and did all of the things suggested by his principal, he was still unable to obtain an acceptable rating. The Board, however, cannot be faulted for respondent's continued inability to correct the cited deficiencies. Through his expert, respondent contended that the evaluation and assistance process was not adequate. In reaching this conclusion, the expert relied upon her experience in the States of Georgia and Texas, as well as Dade and Seminole Counties, Florida. She did not, however, have any teacher remediation experience in small, rural counties such as Suwannee. The expert pointed out that a peer teacher did not assist the principal in performing the evaluations and making subsequent recommendations on how to correct the deficiencies. But there is no requirement that more than one person conduct the evaluation, and respondent (and his union representative) did not request that someone other than principal McMullen perform the observation. The expert further contended the Board should have assigned a peer teacher to assist respondent throughout this process. She also recommended that the Board send him to various seminars relating to his deficient areas. Again, however, there is no statutory requirement that a school board provide this type of assistance, especially when other forms of assistance and opportunities being given the teacher are adequate. Finally, the criticism that the Board did not adequately formalize its planned assistance measures into a written document is deemed to be unavailing. Because the assistance and opportunties provided respondent were adequate, the Board met its statutory obligation to provide "assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies." Summary After being evaluated in a fair and impartial manner, and receiving timely and adequate notice of his deficiencies, as well as adequate assistance and opportunities to correct those flaws, respondent did not remediate a noted performance standard and related indicator during two consecutive school years. Therefore, the Board could properly change respondent's contract status from PSC to annual at the end of school year 1994-95 and decline to renew his contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order terminating respondent from employment by not renewing his 1995-96 contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2988 Respondent: 1-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 3. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 9-12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Rejected as being unnecessary. 15-17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 18-19. Rejected as being unnecessary. 20-21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 44. 22-35. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13-20. 36-56. Partially accepted in findings of fact 21-34. 57-67. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40-46. 68-71. Partially accepted in findings of fact 35-37. 72-73. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, not supported by the more credible evidence, cumulative, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Victor Africano, Esquire P. O. Box 1450 Live Oak, Florida 32060-1450 Sally C. Gertz, Esquire 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Charles F. Blaylock, Jr. Superintendent Suwannee County School Board 224 West Parshley Street Live Oak, Florida 32060-2396 Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent, a teacher, for 30 days without pay for pushing a student.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by the School Board as an eighth-grade teacher at NDM, a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent has taught for the School Board for 15 years without receipt of any prior discipline. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade. The proposed discipline is based upon conduct occurring on Thursday, March 4, 2014. On that day, 14-year-old eighth-grade student, D.H., entered Respondent's classroom approximately ten minutes late. Respondent told D.H., “You are going to jail.” When D.H. asked why and said he had done nothing wrong, Respondent did not answer and instructed D.H. to immediately leave the classroom. This interaction was observed by other students in the classroom. D.H. exited to the hallway outside of Respondent's class. At or about this same time, substitute teacher Green was walking several students who had been disruptive to other classrooms. Green took a female student to Respondent's class. Green saw D.H. and told him to go into the classroom. Green opened Respondent's classroom door and asked if she could leave the female student with Respondent and he agreed. While Green and Respondent were talking, D.H. attempted to re-enter the classroom as directed by Green. Respondent stood in front of D.H. and told him he was not allowed to enter. D.H. asked why and said he was going to enter. Respondent replied, “You'd have to go through me first. I wanna see that.” D.H. replied, “Man, I ain't studying you, I don't even see you.” Respondent and D.H. then got in a heated verbal exchange. Green tried unsuccessfully to have Respondent calm down and go back in the classroom. Respondent taunted D.H. by saying he was waiting for D.H. to throw the first punch and that he would give D.H. a “beat down.” Respondent escalated the situation by calling D.H. “weak” and saying “You have no power. That's why you always get beat up.” D.H. was visibly upset and Green kept him separated from Respondent. Respondent went back into the classroom and closed the door, but continued making comments, gestures, and laughing at D.H. in front of his classmates. D.H. remained in the hall yelling. Respondent opened the door again and said if D.H. put his hands on him, he would give him a beat down. D.H. moved from behind Green, towards Respondent, and got a few inches from him and said, “I'm right here. What are you going to do?” D.H. did not touch Respondent. Respondent hit D.H. hard with two open hands to D.H.'s chest causing D.H. to stumble several steps and fall into Green. At the time of this incident, Respondent weighed 220 pounds. D.H. was 14 and weighed approximately 140 pounds. Green told another student to call security and then convinced Respondent to go back in his classroom. Green took D.H. to her classroom. D.H. was not physically injured, but was embarrassed. As a result of the investigation, Respondent was suspended without pay for a period of 30 days for misconduct in office, in violation of State Board of Education and School Board rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding Richter Flambert guilty of misconduct in office, suspending his employment without pay for a period of 30 school days, and placing him on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 11th day of December, 2015.
