The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) Whether Petitioner's allegations regarding Respondent schoolteacher's purported performance deficiencies are, in fact, true, thereby justifying Petitioner's placing Respondent on statutory performance probation; (2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative, then, Whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected the specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes; and (3) Whether Respondent's employment should be continued or terminated.
Findings Of Fact Material Historical Facts At all times material to this case, Respondent Samuel K. Young ("Young") was a teacher in the Palm Beach County School District ("District"). From 1993 until July 2003, when Respondent Palm Beach County School Board ("Board") suspended him without pay, Young taught English at the Alexander W. Dreyfoos, Jr. School of the Arts ("Dreyfoos"), a magnet high school for students interested in an arts-centered education. In August or early September of 2001, shortly after the beginning of the 2001-02 school year, one of the Assistant Principals at Dreyfoos, Tanya Daniel, began routinely to observe Young, on an "informal" basis, while he was teaching his classes. These unscheduled, informal observations were triggered by students' complaints, of which Ms. Daniel, as Young's immediate supervisor, had been the recipient or been made aware. As time passed, the informal observations became increasingly formal. On October 25, 2001, Ms. Daniel conducted a formal evaluation of Young, using the Summative Observation Instrument, which is a tool that was developed for the Florida Department of Education's Florida Performance Measurement System. Another Assistant Principal, Leo Barrett, also started formally observing Young's classes. By early December 2001, Ms. Daniel had come to the conclusion that Young was not performing his teaching responsibilities in a satisfactory manner. Specifically, Ms. Daniel believed that Young was deficient in the areas of classroom management; presentation and organization; planning; student assessment; obedience to policies and procedures; and maintenance of the learning environment. Two points are especially notable about Ms. Daniel's negative assessment of Young. First, she placed considerable reliance on student feedback. Indeed, Ms. Daniel invited and encouraged Young's students to report to her on how he was doing in the classroom. Second, she did not rely upon student performance as measured, in accordance with Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes, by state and/or local assessments. On January 8, 2002, as a result of Ms. Daniel's evaluation, the Principal of Dreyfoos, Ellen Van Arsdale, placed Young on school-level performance probation pursuant to the procedures spelled out in the Classroom Teacher Assessment System (CTAS) Evaluation Handbook (the "CTAS"). (Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the District and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association, effective July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2005 (the "Union Contract"), the District is required to conduct formal evaluations of teachers "in keeping with" the 1999 CTAS.) The CTAS provides that a teacher whose performance is found deficient must be afforded at least 30 calendar days to improve his performance to a satisfactory level. During that time, the teacher must be given "school-site assistance" to help him correct the identified performance deficiencies. Accordingly, a 30-day School-Site Assistance Plan was developed for Young and put into effect on January 8, 2002. The school-level performance probation that began in January 2002 constituted a new phase in the evaluation process. The purpose of the first phase, which lasted about three months (from September through December 2001), purportedly was to determine whether Young's performance was satisfactory or not. Thus, the first-phase evaluators should not have assumed at the outset that Young's performance was satisfactory or unsatisfactory. In contrast, during the second phase, the evaluators worked from the initial premise that Young's performance was, in fact, unsatisfactory, in the several areas noted by Ms. Daniel. The focus, therefore, was on whether Young was improving sufficiently to correct deficiencies that were assumed to exist. Throughout the school-level probationary period, a number of evaluators reviewed Young's performance. Ms. Van Arsdale conducted several evaluations, and Mr. Barrett performed at least one. Another was conducted by Dr. Lisa Troute, a Curriculum Specialist with the District. Others, too, were involved. None of the evaluators questioned the conclusion, which was based largely on Ms. Daniel's opinions, that Young's performance actually was deficient. Ms. Daniel did not observe Young's classroom performance during this second phase, evidently in consequence of Young's having voiced some concerns about her impartiality. Ms. Daniel remained an important participant in the process, however, and she continued actively to solicit students' opinions about Young's competence. On February 20, 2002, she interviewed at least three of Young's students, making handwritten notes (which are in evidence) to memorialize their respective assessments. Ms. Daniel asked one student to rate Young's performance on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being "poor" and 10 being "great"; the student gave Young a 3.5. There is no evidence that Ms. Daniel elicited the opinions of a random, representative sample of Young's students——or instead, for example, polled only the known malcontents. There is also no persuasive evidence that Ms. Daniel ever did anything but accept the students' mostly unfavorable opinions uncritically. What the evidence does establish is that Ms. Daniel put great weight on the students' opinions——so much so that the students she spoke with effectively became Young's evaluators themselves. The school-level probationary period was extended well beyond 30 days, and ended up lasting until the end of the 2001- 02 school year. By letter dated May 17, 2002, Ms. Van Arsdale informed the Superintendent that Young's performance remained unsatisfactory after 91 days of school-site assistance. Specifically, it was Ms. Van Arsdale's opinion that Young's performance was deficient in the following six areas, each of which is a designated "indicator" of competence under the CTAS: Management of Student Conduct; Presentation of Subject Matter; Learning Environment; Planning; Assessment; and Policies/Procedures/Ethics. Ms. Van Arsdale asked the Superintendent to place Young on statutory performance probation for 90 days, pursuant to Sections 231.29 and 231.36, Florida Statutes (2001). The assessment procedure used to evaluate Young during the school-level probation was not primarily based on the performance of students as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes. In fact, the evaluators placed no meaningful weight on student performance, so measured. Nevertheless, the Superintendent acceded to Ms. Van Arsdale's request. By letter dated May 20, 2002, the Superintendent notified Young that he would be placed on performance probation for 90 calendar days. The statutory performance probation——a distinct, third phase of the evaluation process——commenced in August 2002, at the beginning of the 2002-03 school year. On August 22, 2002, Young was given a Professional Development Plan, which called for the provision of assistance, as well as ongoing evaluations, through November 2002, when a final evaluation would be issued passing judgment on whether he had——or had not——corrected the alleged performance deficiencies. The statutory performance probation unfolded largely as had the school-level performance probation. Young was, again, observed and critiqued by a number of evaluators. Of the written evaluations in evidence, the most balanced is a report dated September 22, 2002, which Dr. Troute prepared concerning her observation of Young on September 10, 2002. Based on this contemporaneous report, the undersigned is persuaded that Dr. Trout then believed Young was a "satisfactory" teacher who could, with additional effort, be a "good" teacher. Others were less charitable, however, including Ms. Van Arsdale, who prepared Young's final evaluation based on her November 5, 2002, observation of his class. On the CTAS's evaluation form, Ms. Van Arsdale gave Young a rating of "concern" on five separate "indicators" of competence: Management of Student Conduct; Presentation of Subject Matter; Learning Environment; Planning; and Assessment. This resulted in an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory." The assessment procedure used to evaluate Young while he was on statutory performance probation was not primarily based on the performance of students as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes. Indeed, once again, the evaluators placed no meaningful weight on student performance, so measured. By letter dated November 6, 2002, Ms. Van Arsdale notified the Superintendent that, in her opinion, Young had failed to correct performance deficiencies and therefore should be fired. The Superintendent agreed, and by letter dated November 14, 2002, informed Young that he would recommend to the Board that Young's employment be terminated. The Board later accepted the Superintendent's recommendation, and Young was suspended without pay, effective on or about July 16, 2003, pending his discharge. The CTAS A. Teachers who are evaluated under the CTAS are rated on 15 categories of qualities or abilities, which are referred to collectively as "indicators." Each indicator, such as, e.g., Management of Student Conduct, is best understood not as a single ability, but rather as a label for a skill-set, that is, a collection of qualities, abilities, or skills. The indicators are divided into two classes called "performance areas." The performance areas are: "A. Teaching and Learning" and "B. Professional Responsibilities." There are eight indicators under Teaching and Learning and seven under Professional Responsibilities. The CTAS uses a two-point rating scale. The only grades used for scoring a teacher on the 15 indicators are "acceptable" and "concern." The section of the CTAS's evaluation form where the grades are recorded is reproduced below, with the ratings from Ms. Van Arsdale's final evaluation of Young, dated November 6, 2002, added to show how the form is used in practice: A. TEACHING AND LEARNING ACCEPTABLE CONCERN 1. Management of Student Conduct X 2. Human Development and Learning X 3. Presentation of Subject Matter X 4. Communication X 5. Knowledge of Subject Matter X 6. Learning and Environment X 7. Planning X 8. Assessment X B. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES ACCEPTABLE CONCERN 9. Technology X 10. Record Keeping X 11. Continuous Improvement X 12. Working Relationships with Coworkers X 13. Working Relationships with Parents X 14. Policies/Procedures/Ethics X 15. Duties as Assigned by the School Administration X The teacher's overall evaluation rating of "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" depends entirely upon the combination of ratings awarded on the 15 indicators. The following combinations require an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory": NUMBER OF CONCERNS SECTION A SECTION B 3 0 2 1 1 3 0 4 As can be seen, the indicators under Section A carry greater relative weight in the overall evaluation than those under Section B. Because Young received five "concerns" on his final evaluation, the CTAS dictated that he be given an overall "unsatisfactory" rating. In rating the various indicators, evaluators are supposed to consider numerous "performance criteria." The CTAS defines the "performance criteria" as "examples of descriptors which define the indicators." To be more precise, the performance criteria are specific behaviors, acts, and practices that the teacher should be performing as an outward manifestation of the teacher's command or mastery of the respective skill-sets known as indicators. Various performance criteria are set out in the CTAS as "bullet points" under each of the indicators. The first bullet point under the first indicator (Management of Student Conduct), for example, is: "[The teacher] specifies and explains rules of conduct and provides for practice of rules when appropriate." For each of the indicators, the CTAS further provides a set of "data collection sources." The CTAS defines the term "data collection sources" as "examples of multiple data sources used to determine a rating of 'acceptable' or 'concern.'" In other words, the data collection sources are lists of "evidence" that can be examined to determine whether, and perhaps how well, the teacher is performing the prescribed performance criteria. For example, the data collection sources for the indicator Planning are: observation reports; lesson plans; conference notes; assessment data; instructional materials; and written reports. B. As we have seen already, the CTAS defines the terms "satisfactory" and "unsatisfactory" in a completely objective fashion. It does so by specifying the rating combinations that will result in an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory." Thus, anyone who knows the number of "concerns" that a teacher has received in Sections A and B can apply the formula and assign the overall grade; this ministerial function requires neither discretion nor judgment. What does demand discretion and judgment is rating the teacher's command or mastery of the respective indicators as either "concern" or "acceptable." This rating function requires that qualitative determinations be made at two distinct levels. First, for every indicator (skill-set), the evaluator must decide how well the teacher is executing each of the several subsidiary performance criteria (behaviors). Then, based on how well the teacher is executing the subsidiary performance criteria (behaviors), the evaluator must render a judgment as to how well the teacher is doing with regard to the indicator (skill-set) that comprises those performance criteria. At both stages of the analysis, to arrive consistently at fair conclusions——that is, to obtain similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of the time——requires (a) that there be uniform standards to guide evaluators in making the requisite judgment calls and (b) that the same standards always be applied, to all teachers in all evaluations. Thus, it is important to know what standards, if any, the CTAS prescribes. To begin, some negative findings are in order. First, the indicators are not standards upon which to make a judgment. They are, rather, the qualities to be judged, using appropriate standards of decision. Second, the performance criteria are likewise not standards. They define or prescribe the relevant facts to which, jointly and severally, standards should be applied, so as to make a judgment regarding one indicator or another.1 To illustrate, the fact that a teacher is observed "reinforc[ing] appropriate social behavior" tells us nothing about how well he does this, much less about how well he has mastered Management of Student Conduct, which indicator comprises the referenced performance criterion. Rather, to make a qualitative judgment regarding the teacher's performance of this practice requires some test, some basis, for distinguishing between good and bad performances. Similarly, the ultimate fact that the teacher acceptably "reinforces appropriate social behavior" tells us relatively little, presumably, about whether the teacher's mastery of the indicator Management of Student Conduct is acceptable or not, for there are eleven other performance criteria to be considered also in respect of this particular indicator. To make a qualitative judgment regarding whether the teacher has demonstrated an acceptable command of the skill-set known as Management of Student Conduct requires some sort of standard, some yardstick for measuring the relative importance of the teacher's demonstrated expertise (or lack thereof)——as determined by the evaluator——in the execution of the various performance criteria. The only "standards" that the evidence in this case persuasively establishes are the terms "acceptable" and "concern." Superficially, these terms seem to possess some degree of objective content. On reflection, however, it should be seen that they do not, a point which will be examined in greater detail below. The undersigned, moreover, has searched the CTAS and the record in vain for an adequate definition of these terms. As far as the proof in this case goes, these terms are criteria without content, and as such can be used as cover for almost any decision an evaluator might want to make. C. It is desirable at this point to elaborate on why the terms "concern" and "acceptable," by themselves, are not standards that evaluators (or administrative law judges or courts) can consistently and fairly apply to teachers across- the-board. As a starting point, envisage a spectrum comprising every conceivable level or degree of teacher talent, ranging from, in the abstract, "worst imaginable" (or "perfectly awful") to "best imaginable" (or "perfectly excellent"). It makes no difference, for present purposes, how exactly "worst" and "best" might be defined. Rather, it is sufficient to say of the "worst" teacher, in regard to any imaginable attribute, that "none could be worse." Conversely, it need only be said of the "best" teacher, in regard to any imaginable attribute, that "none could be better." As should be obvious, these "worst" and "best" teachers are constructs that serve to define the terminal points at either end of the "talent-level spectrum" we are calling to mind. This talent-level spectrum can be depicted with a simple drawing, as follows: Worst ? ? Best It can now be observed that all teachers, everywhere, must fall somewhere on this talent-level spectrum, between the two poles as we have defined them. Of course, the precise point at which any given teacher should be placed on the spectrum, at any given time,2 is a matter about which reasonable people, in every instance, could disagree. But that is presently of no consequence. Turning next to the facts of this case, the question is posed: Where, on this spectrum of talent, should the mark separating "concern" from "acceptable" be placed? Given their ordinary meanings, the words themselves provide no guidance in this regard. Either of the following, for example, is consistent with the plain meaning of "concern" and "acceptable": Worst ? ? ? Best Concern Acceptable Worst ? ? ? Best Concern Acceptable It does not matter how the mark-point in either example might be defined. What matters is the relationship between the mark and the respective poles. As the mark moves closer to the "worst" terminal, the "concern" band becomes narrower, leaving more teachers on the "acceptable" side. Conversely, moving the mark towards the "best" terminal narrows the "acceptable" band, consigning more teachers to the "concern" category. In the instant case, there is no persuasive evidence on which the undersigned can base a finding as to where the mark should be placed. As a result, the undersigned cannot make de novo findings regarding whether Young's execution of the performance criteria was "acceptable" or not, or whether, ultimately, his command of the indicators in dispute was of "concern," as the Board has alleged. To do that, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and hence it would be unfair to apply them to Young. Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence in this case as to where the several evaluators placed the mark when they assessed Young's performance.3 The undersigned therefore cannot find that the evaluators all used the same standards——cannot even infer that they did. Consequently, assuming it were proper to do so, the undersigned could not review whether the evaluators acted fairly and appropriately vis-à-vis Young or whether they reached a "correct" (i.e. legally sustainable) judgment regarding his teaching performance.4 Student Performance The 1999 CTAS that was used in evaluating Young had been developed in 1998 and approved by then-Commissioner Tom Gallagher in January 1999. By letter dated January 25, 1999, Commissioner Gallagher informed the District that its CTAS had received "Full Approval." The Commissioner further instructed the District: [I]t will not be necessary for you to resubmit the [CTAS] unless there are statutory changes which affect the requirements for district instructional performance appraisal systems or unless you substantively revise your system for other reasons. In the very next legislative session following this letter, the legislature substantially amended the statute governing the procedures and criteria for the assessment of instructional personnel, which at the time was Section 231.29, Florida Statutes (1999).5 See Ch. 99-398, § 57, Laws of Florida. These statutory changes, which will be examined more closely in the Conclusions of Law below, took effect on June 21, 1999. Id. at § 78. The thrust of the relevant amendment was to require that, in evaluating teacher performance, primary emphasis be placed on student performance, as measured by "state assessments" and "local assessments." These latter two terms were defined, at the time, in Section 229.57, Florida Statutes (2000). Section 229.57 was subsequently transferred to Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes (2003). The District never amended the CTAS to reflect the statutory changes. Not surprisingly, therefore, the CTAS puts little or no particular emphasis on student performance6 and makes no specific references (that the undersigned can locate) to state and local assessments within the statute's contemplation.7 Consequently, as was mentioned several times above, none of the assessment procedures used during Young's protracted evaluation was primarily based on student performance as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statues (2003). Equally if not more important, however, is the lack of persuasive (indeed any) evidence in the record regarding the performance of Young's students as measured by state and/or local assessments. Because of this, it is impossible for the undersigned to make de novo findings based primarily on student performance as to either (a) whether Young's execution of the performance criteria was "acceptable" or not, or (b) whether, ultimately, his command of the indicators in dispute was of "concern," as the Board has alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Young of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Young be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Young back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 2004.
The Issue Whether Polk County School Board ("School Board") has just cause to terminate Judy Gail Vann ("Respondent" or "Vann") pursuant to Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes.
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: Respondent started working for the School Board in 2000. During the last ten years, she has taught English. In November 2008, the School Board recommended Respondent's termination for excessive absenteeism, dishonesty, ongoing gross insubordination, and not preparing lesson plans. The case came before the Division of Administrative Hearings in Case Number 09-0955.1 On August 20, 2009, a Recommended Order was entered concluding that a preponderance of the evidence in that case did not support the alleged acts in the charging document, and Respondent was reinstated with full back pay. After the School Board reinstated Respondent, for the 2009-2010 school year, she was assigned to Traviss Career Center ("Traviss") to teach 11th and 12th grade English. Prior to this assignment, Respondent had never taught in a high school. Traviss is a school for high school students and adults. Both high school diplomas and certificates in a career field or vocational trade are available to graduates. Traviss students that are trying to achieve a regular high school diploma take the FCAT. Seventy-seven percent of the student population at Traviss who took the 2008-2009 FCAT were reading at level two or below. Level two is a fifth-sixth grade reading level. Polk County requires that the 11th and 12th grade students do the same work as their counterparts at the traditional schools and follow the same curriculum maps.2 Alan Harrell ("Harrell"), the assistant director of curriculum, was Vann's supervisor at Traviss. His primary responsibility is to oversee the academic programs. Such duties include monitoring lesson plans and learning guides, and keeping the curriculum maps on target. Harrell also oversees students' grades and makes sure students are getting the right courses for their diploma. Harrell supervised Vann during the six periods she taught a day. Three of the classes were English III for juniors and three were English IV for seniors. Vann tried to be creative when teaching the curriculum maps. When the students were required to study Shakespeare, Chaucer, and epic works such as Beowulf, she would often-times show modern movies like Hercules to keep the students interested. Harrell did not think the movies were the best teaching methods for the students. Harrell made regular visits to Vann's classroom and met with her about various issues periodically. During Harrell's second meeting with Vann on October 16, 2009, some items discussed were students' grades, homework, and lesson plans. On November 17, 2009, Harrell emailed Vann to instruct her about her lesson plans for the two previous weeks. The email stated: Please post your lesson plans for week of 11/09/2009 and for week of 11/16/2009. They should be posted on Friday prior to the next week so we have some guideline for the substitute to be able to follow when the teacher is absent. During Harrell's fifth meeting with Vann on November 30, 2009, Harrell discussed several areas of concern. The first was her lesson plans not being posted. During the first semester, Vann was absent from school approximately 15 days. On December 11, 2009, Harrell met with Vann again to discuss proper protocol and procedures for preparing lesson plans. Harrell also discussed Vann's numerous absences and the effect on the students. On January 11, 2010, Harrell contacted Vann again about incomplete lesson plans by email. It stated: In reviewing your lesson plans for the week of 1/11/2010, I observe a number of discrepancies that need to be corrected. "same as above" under PLANNING does not define the objectives. "same as above" under PLANNING does not define the Standards/Benchmarks. Under Procedures/Activities, a description of what the intended activity is going to be needs to be described. As previously discussed your lesson plans need to be in line with the curriculum map. On January 13, 2010, Vann emailed Harrell and informed him that she had "reposted the completed version of the lesson plan template for 1/11/10." Deficiencies in Vann's performance as a teacher and absences from school continued into the second half of the school year. Vann's posted lesson plans were incomplete or insufficient, and she would email lesson plans to the school on the mornings when she was absent. Vann was absent approximately 10 days without pay between January 7, 2010, and February 11, 2010, including the 11th. The emails Vann sent during that period listed the following explanations for her absences: January 7, 2010, "I have no voice."; January 11, 2010, "Sick . . ."; January 12, 2010, at 5:19 a.m., "Sick since Friday . . . trying to see doctor today"; January 12, 2010, at 5:24 a.m., "As stated my lesson plan template was incomplete for 1/11/10 because I have been sick and was unable to complete the template."; January 19, 2010, "I have been down with a Migraine for three days and I hope to be able to see the doctor today."; February 9, 2010, "I am having very severe back problems and have a doctor's appointment today."3 On February 12, 2010, Respondent was in a car accident on the way from school on Thornhill Road. A car slammed into her going approximately 55 miles per hour in the drizzling rain. Vann first sought medical treatment on February 25, 2010, from a chiropractor, Dr. Sundermeyer.4 Vann was treated the rest of the school year for her back and spine by the chiropractor. As a result of Vann's continuing decline in performance, on February 25, 2010, Respondent received a Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance, which advised that she had performance deficiencies and was being placed on a 90-day probationary period pursuant to Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance informed Respondent that she had failed to perform satisfactorily in the following aspects or duties of her job: You have had excessive absences. You have failed to prepare and maintain current lesson plans for your classes. In addition to the fact that the preparation of lesson plans is a requirement of your job, your failure to prepare such plans has made it extremely difficult to maintain the educational process for your students during your absences. The management of your classroom environment, including student discipline, has been extremely poor. You have failed to prepare and deliver appropriate or effective teaching strategies for your students. You have failed to maintain an appropriate and distinct relationship as a teacher with your students. A meeting was held on March 1, 2010, with Vann to discuss recommendations and a plan of action to provide assistance in correcting the deficiencies identified in the Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance. Dr. Dickens, Harrell, Mrs. Amy Hardee("Hardee"), Ms. Angela Dawson, and Vann with her PEA representative attended the meeting. At the March 1, 2010, meeting Vann was informed that she needed to correct the following deficiencies: excessive absences, lesson plan preparation, classroom management, effective teaching strategies, and maintaining an appropriate and distinct relationship with her students. After the meeting, Vann and her union representative met with Hardee, the senior curriculum coordinator of language arts. Vann indicated that her textbook resources were out of date and requested Hardee fix the problem. Hardee immediately located literature and grammar books and made arrangements to have them delivered to Vann. On March 2, 1010, Vann received her 90-Day Corrective Action Plan that specified the following five areas that Respondent was to correct during her probationary period from March 2, 2010, to May 30, 2010: Excessive Absences-It was agreed that you will provide Traviss Career Center a doctor's note when you are ill. You will also make a diligent effort to contact Ms. Loretta Stewart(Principal Secretary) before 6:30am when you are not going to be at work. This will allow sufficient time to obtain a substitute instructor for your class. Lesson Plans-To assist you with improving your classroom management skills, it was suggested that PD 360 be used. Outlines of the segments are attached for your use. Classroom Management-To assist you with preparing lessons for your class, it was suggested PD 360 be used. Outlines of the segments are attached for your use. Effective Teaching Strategies-To assist you in developing effective teaching strategies, it was suggested PD 360 be used. Outlines of the segments are attached for your use. Maintaining a distinct relationship-It was recommended that you refrain from use of unprofessional language and allowing disruptive student behavior during instructional time. You are to work on building a better instructional relationship with your students and expect the respect you deserve. * * * Traviss will provide a substitute for you on Mondays and Thursdays for the remainder of this school year to allow you time to work in the above mentioned areas of deficiency. It is your responsibility to be present at school and working on the criteria listed above. To address the issues with lesson plans, classroom management, and effective teaching strategies, Hardee assigned Vann 39 segments of Professional Development 360 ("PD360") training to view and complete the questions during her probationary period.5 Vann had less than seven hours of PD360 training to complete during her 90-day probationary period. Respondent was provided a list of the 24 modules addressing classroom instruction and 15 modules on differentiated instruction. Each module included a video Vann was to view, followed by approximately six reflection questions that were to be answered on-line by her. On March 2, 2010, Vann acknowledged her understanding and agreement to adhere to the corrective action plan with her signature. To ensure that Vann was successful in completing her PD360 training, a substitute instructor was hired for classroom instruction to allow Vann some time to complete the professional development plan during the 90-day probationary period. However, Respondent chose not to come to work and was absent most of the remainder of the school year. While on probation, from March 3, 2010 to May 5, 2010, Respondent was absent without pay 12 days during March and 17 days during April 29 days.6 Respondent claims that she was not at work because she was sick and couldn't attend. However, Respondent only provided one medical note excusing her from working due to illness. Vann provided the School Board a note that excused her from work from March 17, 2010, until March 18, 2010, which was on an Auburndale Chiropractic, LLC Authorization for Absence form.7 Respondent also provided the School Board a letter dated May 10, 2010, that specified treatment but did not indicate Vann was prohibited from attending work. The letter was from the same chiropractor, Dr. Sundermeyer, on Auburndale Chiropractic, LLC letterhead, not an Authorization for Absence form as previously submitted by Respondent for the March 2010 excused absence. The letter on her chiropractor's letterhead stated: To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in regards of my patient, Judy Gail Vann. I have been treating Ms. Vann for neck pain and lower back pain since February 25, 2010. She has been under my constant care 3 times per week since she started her treatment in this office. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions concerning my patient's health. Thank you, Dr. Sara Sundermeyer8 During her probationary period, Vann never sought treatment from a medical doctor other than the chiropractor, Dr. Sundermeyer. Respondent was not prohibited from attending work due to her illness.9 Vann failed to provide a doctor's note indicating that she could not attend work for her 29 days of absences without pay during her probationary period. Vann improved with her lesson plans. However, starting April 13, 2010, Respondent submitted the same lesson plans for all classes, no matter whether for the 11th or 12th grade students, and did not distinguish between the separate curriculums required for each grade. While on probation, Vann viewed only 15 of the assigned 39 PD360 modules.10 She completed one of the 15 reflection questions and answers, which was a total of two and one-half hours of the seven hours assigned. Vann also failed to meet either the criteria of contacting Ms. Loretta Stewart (Principal's Secretary) when absent or making the contact before 6:30 a.m. some mornings including: April 5, 2010; March 17, 2010; and April 15, 2010.11 By letter dated May 14, 2010, Principal Dickens ("Dickens") informed Vann that a decision had not yet been made on her reappointment at Traviss. The letter further informed Respondent that she had failed to fulfill several of the requirements for her 90-day Corrective Action Plan, including not providing a doctor's note covering all of her absences for illness when she was ill and unable to report to work and failing to complete the PD360 segments designed to help her with her classroom management skills, lesson plans, and effective teaching strategies. On June 3, 2010, Dickens recommended to Superintendent Gail McKenzie that Respondent's employment be terminated for failure to comply with the 90-day Corrective Action Plan, and her failure to perform her duties as an English teacher. The following items were identified as not being completed during the probationary period: failure to provide physician's notes when absent; Dr. Dickens' secretary was not contacted on days Respondent was absent; and the failure to complete the PD360 training. By letter dated July 15, 2010, Respondent was informed that the Superintendent would recommend her termination because Vann had "failed to correct [her] performance deficiencies, failed to complete [her] Professional Development Plan, and that there is 'just cause' for [her] termination pursuant to Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED Polk County School Board enter a final order ratifying Vann's termination from further employment in Polk County Public Schools. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly determined that Respondent's employment as a continuing contract teacher should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operates, controls, and supervises the public schools within Nassau County, Florida. Respondent graduated from the University of Florida in 1978 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English. She began working for Petitioner in the 1980/1981 school year at Emma Love Hardee Elementary School. That year, Respondent gave Petitioner an out-of-field assignment as a teacher of emotionally handicapped students. Respondent received her Master of Arts degree in Special Education from the University of North Florida in 1985. She began working as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) instructor at Fernandina Beach High School in the 1983/1984 school term. Beginning with the 1999/2000 school year, Respondent's primary teaching assignment was as a performing arts instructor at Fernandina Beach High School. Respondent worked in that capacity until the 2006/2007 school year when she became a full- time English and ESE co-teacher. For the 2007/2008 term, Respondent taught English III and English IV. In 2008/2009, Respondent worked as a regular education English teacher. She also served as an ESE co-teacher for intensive language arts. Jane Arnold began working as Principal at Fernandina Beach High School for the 1998/1999 school term. Ms. Arnold completed a performance appraisal of Respondent in 1999 that resulted in an overall unsatisfactory rating. Of particular concern to Ms. Arnold in the 1998/1999 appraisal was Respondent's problem with completing documentation of lesson plans, including daily instructional strategies as well as specific examples showing how the subject matter would be delivered. The failure to provide proper lesson plans made it difficult to know whether Florida's Sunshine State Standards were being met. Respondent was also having problems with grading students' work and recording the grades. Student work papers were disorganized and some papers were missing. Therefore, it was hard to discern what work was completed and when it was completed. The failure to timely grade and record students' work made it difficult for students to know what they needed to do to improve. Ms. Arnold subsequently placed Respondent on a professional development plan (PDP). The one-page PDP required Respondent to improve three job-service categories. After Respondent satisfactorily completed the PDP within the prescribed 90-day period, Ms. Arnold recommended that Respondent's employment continue. Respondent received a satisfactory or above- satisfactory rating on all of her teacher performance evaluation from the 1999/2000 school year through the 2006/2007 school year. However, Respondent admits that she has had consistent problems with time management and organization throughout her career. In October 2007, Respondent received a mini-grant from the Fernandina Beach High School Foundation. Respondent used the grant to provide her students with novels she used to teach literature. Additionally, in October 2007, Respondent earned continuing education credits toward recertification by attending a conference sponsored by the Florida Association for Theatre Arts. During the conference, Respondent participated in the "In Search of Shakespeare" workshop, which she hoped would prepare her to introduce Shakespeare as part of the British literature curriculum. Respondent's problem with providing focused instruction became critical during the 2007/2008 school year. Students in Respondent's classes were receiving failing grades and did not know why. Respondent made errors when reporting grades and had difficulty submitting them on time. Respondent was easily upset in the classroom. She would become emotional, lose her temper, and say things that were less than professional. Ms. Arnold heard disruptions in Respondent's classroom, which was behind a curtain, behind a stage, and behind double doors. Curtis Gaus was the assistant principal at Fernandina Beach High School from 2004 to 2008. Mr. Gaus also witnessed periods with the level of noise in Respondent's classroom was so loud that it could be heard in the cafeteria during lunchtime. Respondent was frequently tardy. As a result, Mr. Gaus would have to unlock Respondent's room and wait with her students until Respondent arrived. In October 2007, Respondent was required to complete progress monitoring plans and schedule parent conferences. The conferences were scheduled on October 14, 15, and 16, 2007. Petitioner did not turn in the progress monitoring plans until two months after holding the conferences. As observed by Ms. Arnold and Mr. Gaus, Respondent frequently failed to provide her students with any explanation of expectation as to a lesson or any modeling of what it was she expected the student to do. She provided no immediate feedback or clarification for the work they were attempting. In January 2008, Ms. Arnold observed Respondent using instructional time to read questions to students, expecting them to write the questions as she read them. Ms. Arnold advised Respondent that she should not use class time to dictate questions. On January 31, 2008, Ms. Arnold met with Respondent and gave her type-written comments, suggesting areas for Respondent to improve classroom instruction. Mr. Gaus observed teacher classroom at least once a month. Many times Respondent would be unaware that Mr. Gaus was in her classroom. For the majority of Mr. Gaus' visits, Respondent's students were off task. On one occasion, while Respondent was handing out notebooks, the students were playing video games and talking to each other. In February 2008, Respondent's English IV students presented a Renaissance Faire. The students researched and prepared exhibits, presented projects, and competed in a soliloquy contest sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts to earn extra credit toward their semester grade. In support of the Renaissance Faire, Respondent wrote lesson plans, developed a project rubric, implemented classroom assignments and kept a record of student project grades. Respondent invited parents, current and former teachers, as well as community leaders to act as judges for an evening program presented by the students. Respondent took a six-week medical leave effective March 5, 2008. On March 8, 2008, Respondent attended a teacher's conference entitled Super Saturday. As a result of participation at the conference, Respondent earned the points she needed to renew her teaching certificate. Petitioner's Classroom Teacher Assessment Handbook for the 2007/2008 school year states that a continuing contract teacher must receive one formal observation, followed within 10 days by a post-observation conference. During the post- observation conference, a PDP must be developed for teachers receiving unsatisfactory performance appraisal reports. The formal observation must be completed by March 14. Performance appraisals are required to be completed and submitted to the Superintendent no later than April 7. However, Petitioner was on medical leave on these dates. In May 2008, Respondent provided Petitioner with a physician's written recommendation for extension of Respondent's medical leave. Petitioner approved extension of the leave through August 11, 2008. On May 29, 2008, Ms. Arnold wrote a letter to Respondent, who was still on medical leave. A Notification of Less Than Satisfactory Performance was included with the letter. The May 29, 2008, letter reminded Respondent that they needed to arrange a time in July to complete Respondent's 2007/2008 performance appraisal and to discuss the implementation of a PDP for the 2008/2009 school year. The letter refers to written comments that addressed Respondent's performance and that were provided to her earlier in the school year. In July 2008, Petitioner sponsored vertical and horizontal curriculum development workshops for English teachers of advanced placement and honors students. Some English teachers of regular/average students also attended the workshops. Respondent did not receive this training. On July 21, 2008, Ms. Arnold and Respondent met to discuss Respondent's 2007/2008 performance appraisal and PDP. The evaluation rated Respondent unsatisfactory with a total overall score of four out of a possible 100 points. Respondent's 2007/2008 performance appraisal contained Ms. Arnold's comments in each of the performance categories as follows: Planning/Preparation: Lack of long and short term planning[.] Detailed lesson plans must identify learning objective and the instructional strategies/activities/assessment planned to accomplish the objective. Work should be clear, compelling and engaging and include representative works and genres from the Anglo Saxon period through the present day. Feedback to students should be timely and specific. Documentation should be organized and accessible. Classroom Management: Classroom environment hostile, negative and chaotic. 3-step discipline procedure not documented. Records not accurate or timely. Classroom procedures lack organization. School & Board policies not consistently enforced. Room in disarray with papers, books, and materials in haphazard piles throughout the room. Assessment/Management: Interventions for academic, attendance and behavioral problems lacking. Parent contacts inconsistent and not documented. 3-step discipline procedure not implemented. Effective instructional strategies lacking. Work is frequently not meaningful or relevant to unit of study. Intervention/Direct Services: Teacher read test questions to students, refused to repeat questions, and subtracted points from students who requested additional clarification. Papers are frequently "lost," performance expectations for assignments not clearly defined, and grade information not easily available to students and parents. Technology: Teacher web site/Edline not utilized[.] Frequent errors in grade reporting[.] Difficulty meeting deadlines[.] Collaboration: Frequently alienates students and parents by failing to produce documentation for grades or clarification of assignments[.] Does not follow Board Policies for make-up work, and fails to communicate problems to parents to seek their assistance. Staff Development: While Ms. Autry has participated in numerous professional development activities for effective instruction, the strategies identified and recommended have not been implemented with any consistency in her classroom. Parental Input: Parents express frustration and impatience with the problems encountered by their students in Ms. Autry's class. Clear communication of academic and behavioral expectations needs to be provided to all stakeholders. Complaints about "disparaging comments" made by Ms. Autry about the students in her classes are frequent, both from students and teachers. Professional Responsibilities: Ms. Autry must learn to maintain a professional demeanor at all times in the classroom, and must avoid making negative comments about the students with whom she works. Improvement of instruction must become a priority. Extra-curricular involvement should be limited as it appears to interfere with time that should be devoted to her classes. Deadlines need to be met. Grading and attendance should be timely and accurate. Curriculum deficiencies must be addressed. Interim Student Growth: Academic interventions should be provided and documented for students experiencing difficulty in successfully completing the coursework[.] Parents must be notified and encouraged to participate in the intervention strategies. Grades should be fair, consistent, and easily available to students and parents. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Ms. Arnold's comments on the 2007/2008 performance appraisal accurately summarized Respondent's professional deficiencies. Many of Ms. Arnold's comments show the same types of problems that Respondent has experienced for years. In 1984, Respondent used sarcasm towards students and failed to submit paperwork on time. In 1988, Respondent had problems with organization, submitting timely grades, and completing paperwork accurately and on time. In June 1998, Respondent was disorganized, late to work, and untimely in submitting paperwork. In August 1998, Respondent had trouble with accurate and punctual recordkeeping, using varied and appropriate educational strategies, and demonstrating effective classroom management. In the 2001/2002 school term, Respondent had trouble submitting grades on time. The final comment of Ms. Arnold on the last page of the 2007/2008 performance appraisal, states as follows: As a result of an unexpected medical leave, this evaluation and resulting professional development plan can not be completed until Ms. Autry's return to work. Ms. Arnold and Respondent signed the evaluation on July 21, 2008. Also on July 21, 2008, Ms. Arnold and Respondent reviewed a 32-page PDP plan. The PDP was designed to meet each area of deficiency on Respondent's 2007-2008 performance appraisal. Respondent did not take advantage of the opportunity to request any specific strategies or otherwise provide input regarding the PDP on July 21, 2008. However, the next day, Respondent sent Ms. Arnold an e-mail, requesting Ms. Arnold to review a folder of documentation to support Respondent's performance in certain areas. Ms. Arnold responded in an e-mail dated July 22, 2008. Ms. Arnold agreed to review the materials provided by Respondent. She also stated that "evaluation specific activities" might help them revise the PDP as needed. Ms. Arnold also invited Respondent to utilize the "Comments of Evaluatee" section of the performance appraisal. In subsequent e-mail, Respondent and Ms. Arnold agreed on a time to meet. Sometime after receiving the 2007/2008 performance appraisal, Respondent performed a self-assessment on all essential performance functions. She gave herself an overall rating of "needing improvement," with 30 of 100 points. For the 2008/2009 school year, Ms. Arnold assigned Respondent to teach four sections of English IV, first through fourth periods. Respondent had some regular education students and some ESE students in these classes. With only one preparation, Respondent did not have and should not have needed a co-teacher to assist her in teaching four classes of English IV. Respondent also was assigned as a co-teacher in two intensive language classes, fifth and sixth period. Anita Bass, a Reading Coach, was primarily responsible for planning and teaching the two intensive-language classes. Respondent, as a co-teacher, was supposed to provide assistance in general and to specifically provide help to ESE students. When Ms. Bass was absent, Respondent would teach the intensive-language class. On one occasion, Respondent taught a lesson on fables. On another occasion, Respondent taught a lesson on neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson. In August 2008, Respondent was assigned a new classroom. She moved her materials from the room behind the cafeteria to a more traditional classroom. On September 12, 2008, Ms. Arnold visited Respondent's classroom for 15 minutes. During that time, Ms. Arnold observed Respondent reading from a text. Only three students had their books open and there was very little student participation. On September 15, 2008, Ms. Arnold sent Respondent an e-mail, advising that her lesson plans and weekly course outline were past due. On September 16, 2008, Ms. Arnold sent Respondent an e-mail regarding her classroom observation on September 12, 2008. The message also requested submission of Respondent's lesson plans and weekly course outline along with a written explanation as to Respondent's reason for not meeting the deadline. On October 13, 2008, Ms. Arnold visited Respondent's classroom. Ms. Arnold found the students talking, sleeping, and watching CNN because the movie described in Respondent's lesson plan was over. None of the students had books or papers on their desks. Respondent stayed behind her desk for approximately ten minutes then handed some graded brochures back to the students. Respondent spoke to her students for about five minutes during the 22 minutes of Ms. Arnold's visit. The students did nothing during that time. In an e-mail written later on October 13, 2008, Ms. Arnold noted that Respondent's weekly syllabus dated October 13, 2008, showed that the students were scheduled to watch a movie then complete a reading guide and a quiz. The e- mail discussed Ms. Arnold's observations earlier in the day and requested revised lesson plans for the week. Referring to the lesson observed that morning, Ms. Arnold also requested an explanation of the learning objectives and teaching strategies employed by Respondent. Ms. Arnold reminded Respondent that required tasks were to be completed in a timely and accurate fashion. A subsequent e-mail dated October 13, 2008, stated that Ms. Arnold had received Respondent's ESE Mainstream Report for four students. According to the message, the reports were given to Respondent on September 29, 2008, were due on October 3, 2008, and not given to the teacher of record until October 7, 2008. Because the Mainstream Reports were incomplete for several students, Mr. Arnold requested Respondent to review her Professional Growth Plan, requiring tasks to be completed in a timely and accurate fashion. Ms. Arnold also requested Respondent to provide the missing information. On October 21, 2008, Ms. Arnold sent Respondent an e- mail, requesting lesson plans that were due on October 17, 2008. Joyce Menz is Petitioner's Director of Staff and Program Development. In November 2008, Ms. Menz provided Respondent with an opportunity to attend a workshop related to classroom management. Petitioner did not attend the workshop. In the fall of 2008, Ms. Menz hired Jimi Buck, a retired language arts resource teacher and reading curriculum specialist, to sit and plan a lesson with Respondent. Ms. Buck then demonstrated instruction of the lesson plan in one of Respondent's classes. Ms. Menz arranged for Respondent to observe Ms. Drake, an English IV teacher at another school. Respondent and Ms. Drake spent some time going over Ms. Drake's yearlong plan of how and what she would be teaching. Ms. Menz hired a substitute for Respondent's classes so that she could consult with Ms. Drake. Ms. Menz hired Ms. Mealing, another consultant, to meet with Respondent and work on a week of lesson plans. During their time together, Respondent and Ms. Mealing viewed and discussed a DVD entitled "Strategies for Secondary English Teachers." Ms. Menz purchased the DVD specifically for the purpose of helping Respondent. Ms. Menz provided a substitute for Respondent's classes while she reviewed the materials with Ms. Mealing. Ms. Arnold made it possible for Respondent to observe Ms. Barlow's classes at Fernandina Beach High School, by hiring a substitute for one-half day. Ms. Barlow taught Advanced Placement and English IV Honors. Ms. Arnold also provided additional help to Respondent when school began in the fall of 2008. First, Ms. Arnold did not assign Respondent as a teacher of record for any ESE students. As a teacher of record, Respondent would have been required to keep track of what was happening with her ESE students. Ms. Arnold also excused Respondent from participating in any extracurricular activities. Ms. Arnold hoped that Respondent would devote all of her energy to improving her instruction. At times, Ms. Arnold would go into Respondent's class to get it under control in response to disruptive behaviors. Ms. Arnold then would make suggestions to Respondent about how to keep control, reminding her of the need to use the three-step discipline procedure. On November 6, 2008, Ms. Arnold and Respondent signed a performance appraisal. Respondent's overall rating on the evaluation was unsatisfactory. Respondent indicated that she thought her overall rating should have been "needs improvement," which would have still required a plan of assistance. Mr. Gaus observed Respondent during the PDP period and completed a performance evaluation. Mr. Gaus found that there was no improvement in keeping students on task. During the post-observation conference with Respondent, she continually acknowledged that she had problems with administrative tasks, lesson plans, submitting grades and managing the behavior of her students. On November 17, 2008, Ms. Menz observed Respondent's classroom. Ms. Menz found that Respondent's overall planning was not based on students' needs and was not clear and engaging. Ms. Menz observed two students who appeared to be sleeping and another texting. While Ms. Menz was in Respondent’s class, six students lost their early-lunch privilege. On the November 17, 2008, performance appraisal prepared by Ms. Menz, Respondent received an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Respondent made a comment on the evaluation form, indicating that she had learned a lot from the post- observation conference with Ms. Menz and looked forward to receiving further assistance. On November 21, 2008, Mr. Gaus, sent Respondent an e- mail. The message advised that Respondent had not posted her grades on Edline since October 21, 2008, and should do so as soon as possible. Edline is the computer program that Petitioner uses to record grades. Despite the PDP, Respondent's deficiencies did not improve. In her semester exam, she used materials that the students had not read. When the students questioned Respondent, she told them, "If you want to read it, look it up on the internet." In response to the PDP, Respondent developed a behavioral incentive plan to implement in the reading classes where she was the co-teacher. Respondent sent a letter to inform parents about the plan. The behavior incentive plan sought to reward positive student behavior with bathroom passes, snacks, and paper money. However, there were school rules against having food in the classroom and allowing bathroom passes except for emergencies. Moreover, the plan was not well received because the students thought Respondent was tallying their actions. As a co-teacher, Respondent was required to help implement a computer-directed reading program. Because Respondent was unable to provide assistance with the program, a third person had to be called in to perform the task for Respondent. An additional concern of Ms. Arnold's was that Respondent continued to ignore Petitioner’s policy regarding makeup work. Ms. Arnold was also concerned that Respondent was losing her temper and taking points from students who asked for clarification on assignments. In January 2008, Ms. Arnold observed Respondent's classroom again. Her comments on the performance appraisal were as follows: Planning/Preparation: Second 9-weeks spent on "Pygmalion" [.] Based on lesson plans, there were no novels, short stories, or poems by British writers included in the material taught (See eval. #1)[.] Classroom activities lack relevance and timeliness. (See eval. #2) Strategies and Objectives listed in lesson plans were not reflected in actual classroom activities. Classroom Management: Inappropriate student behavior during classroom observation was addressed and corrected by instructor. Developed behavioral incentive plan for students in Reading Classes with reward system for positive student behavior and achievement (bathroom passes, snacks, paper money)[.] Assessment/Management: Portions of the semester exam do not correlate to stated learning objectives, learning strategies, or class activities listed in the semester outline, lesson plans, or weekly syllabus. Students have not read "Julius Caesar" or "Heart of Darkness." Neither have they studied the three poems they are to compare. Students were told to "look up" the meaning of the literary terms that they were given to use in analyzing the poems on the exam. Many questions given to student in advance. Intervention/Direct Services: Ms. Autry does not demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the English IV curriculum. Significant works by British writers have not been taught. (See observation #1) Pacing is slow, with 9-weeks spent on "Pygmalion" to the exclusion of British novels, short stories and poems. Activities are not aligned with student needs. In- depth skills development is lacking. Technology: Ms. Autry utilizes technology for administrative and instructional tasks[.] However, on December 16th, Edline grades had not been updated since 10/23[.] Also on that date, the last weekly syllabus posted was for week 11. Collaboration: Ms. Autry's written complaints about ESE co-workers in which she stated the need for colleagues to provide accommodation for her [medical condition] resulted in strained working relationships. Ms. Autry attends department meeting and faculty meetings as outlined in the Plan of Assistance. Staff Development: Completed training in ESE/IEP, Tablet PC, Edline/Grade Quick and ELMO. Received direct training by Ms. Menz, Ms. Mealing & Ms. Buck to address instructional deficiencies. Declined suggested training opportunities in Discipline & Motivation Strategies, Behavior Management Strategies, Classroom Management, Lesson Planning, Parental Input, Classroom Assessment and Professional Responsibilities. (Based on identified needs in PDP and classroom observations.) Parental Input: Edline/Grade Quick posting irregular. Few documented parent contacts. Professional Responsibilities: Ms. Autry is teaching four sections of English IV and is the co-teacher in two sections of Reading taught by the Reading Coach. She in (sic) not the teacher of record for any ESE students. During the 90- day plan of assistance, lesson plans were submitted late 15 out of 18 weeks. Grades were not posted in a timely fashion on Edline. (Ms. Autry was excused from participating in extra curricular activities in order to focus on her plan of assistance. Interim Student Growth: Students who had not passed the FCAT were assigned to the Reading Coach who provided individual/group instruction during the first 9-weeks. 96% of Ms. Autry's students received semester grades of 70% or higher. No other assessments are available at this time. Ms. Autry and Ms. Arnold signed the performance appraisal dated January 7, 2009. Ms. Autry requested that Ms. Arnold attach information about a disability and its accommodations to the evaluation. Ms. Arnold complied with the request. Two weeks before the expiration of the PDP, Respondent requested a two-month extension because she could not comply with the plan. Respondent's request was denied. Petitioner's Superintendent, Dr. John Ruis, placed Respondent on paid suspension when she did not improve. Dr. Ruis then recommended that Respondent be suspended without pay pending termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 22nd day of April, 2010.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher, for alleged violations of various School Board rules and policies, as outlined in the Superintendent’s letter to Respondent, dated June 15, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the School Board of Sarasota County, the entity responsible for operating, monitoring, staffing, and maintaining the public schools within Sarasota County, in accordance with Part II, Chapter 1001, Florida Statutes (2009). The School is a middle school operated by Petitioner. Petitioner employed Respondent, Brian Berry, as a teacher at the School for several years. Respondent taught students with ESE designation. Respondent is an “instructional employee” under the Instructional Bargaining Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association (“Union”), and Petitioner (July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2009, for the 2008-2009 year)(the “Collective Bargaining Agreement”). Article XXV of the Collective Bargaining Agreement governs disciplinary actions against teachers, including Respondent. The Collective Bargaining Agreement requires there to be just cause for any discipline. Normally, the following progressive discipline steps are administered: (1) verbal reprimand; (2) written reprimand; (3) suspension and, (4) termination. Following progressive discipline is not required “in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the district or other flagrant violations.” During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent’s classroom was one of four classrooms arranged in a quadrant fashion around a center internal office that connects the four classrooms to each other. Respondent’s room was in the southwest quadrant. Holmes had the room in the northwest quadrant. Brooks had the room in the southeast quadrant. Like Respondent, Holmes and Brooks taught ESE students. Brooks and Respondent shared a paraprofessional, Collins. Bazenas became the School’s principal in April 2006, and has been its principal since that time. Before resorting to the progressive discipline system, School administration routinely counsel employees on an informal basis when there is a concern. Generally, the counseling occurs as a conversation between the administrator and instructor. This informal counseling is non-punitive. Administrators also use Memorandums of Instruction to clarify expectations. A Memorandum of Instruction is also non-punitive in nature; however, failing to abide by the expectation contained in a Memorandum of Instruction could warrant discipline. Respondent’s prior disciplinary history includes: Verbal Reprimand, dated December 17, 2007, for failing to monitor students. Verbal Reprimand, dated January 19, 2009, for failing to submit student attendance on 39 occasions during the 2008- 2009 school year through January 6, 2009. Written Reprimand, dated January 20, 2009, for failing to follow three separate Memorandums of Instruction concerning posting student attendance and for failing to report student attendance on January 7, 2009. Individual Education Plans During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was the case manager responsible for drafting Individual Education Plans (“IEPs”) for several of his students. Under federal law, IEPs must be updated at least once each year. Failing to update an IEP by the time the prior IEP becomes out of date means such IEP is out of compliance. This jeopardizes ESE funding, which comes from state and federal sources. During the 2008-2009 school year, there was an ESE liaison (Cindy Lowery) at the School who routinely and timely reminded case managers, including Respondent, of their IEP responsibilities, important deadlines, and steps necessary to be taken by the case manager. At the beginning of the school year, Lowery explained the procedures to case managers, including Respondent. Respondent received numerous reminders prior to the expiration of each IEP for which he was responsible. The expectations relating to IEP completion were clear and known to case managers, including Respondent, at all relevant times. At all times during the 2008-2009 school year prior to his being placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009, Respondent had the ability to complete in a timely manner each IEP for which he was responsible. He also had access to all materials and assistance necessary to timely complete each of the IEPs. During school year 2008-2009, Respondent was the case manager and responsible for the IEPs of students A.M. (due 11/27/08; completed 12/1/08); J.G. (due 1/17/09; completed 2/25/09); U.S. (due 1/17/09; completed 2/25/09); J.C. (due 2/20/09; completed 2/25/09); N.C. (due 3/3/09; not completed prior to date Respondent was placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009); B.B. (due 3/11/09; not completed prior to date Respondent was placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009). Reporting Attendance Teachers are required to take classroom attendance each period and timely post that attendance into the School’s computer program that tracks attendance. This expectation is contained in the School’s staff handbook, which is developed and reviewed annually by a shared-decision making team, composed of administrators, teachers, and community members. Reporting attendance each period is a safety and security matter. Reporting attendance also assists with accountability for funding purposes. During the 2008-2009 school year prior to being placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009, Respondent failed to report attendance in at least one period on: August 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29; September 3, 4, 9 - 12, 15, 16, 22, 26, 30; October 1, 3, 7 - 9, 15, 16, 22, 23, 28, 29; November 6, 7, 12, 18, 20, 21, 25; December 4, 5, 10; January 6, 7; February 19, 24; and March 3, 4, 10, 13, and 16. In all but six of those dates, Respondent failed to report attendance for multiple periods. On October 20, 2008, November 24, 2008, and January 7, 2009, administrators at the School provided Respondent with Memorandums of Instruction reminding Respondent of the need to submit attendance electronically each period. FCAT Proctoring On March 10 and 11, 2009, the FCAT was administered at the School. Respondent was assigned to proctor students who were permitted testing accommodations. Some permitted accommodations included extended testing time and having proctors read questions. Testing of these students occurred in the School’s media center. Another ESE teacher, Aisha Holmes, was also assigned to proctor similar students. Proctors were instructed that they needed to sign-in and sign-out upon entering and leaving the media center; that they could not engage in personal reading; and that they needed to actively supervise the students at all times. A preponderance of evidence supports the finding that Respondent engaged in the following activities contrary to his duties as proctor: Over the two-day proctoring session, Respondent failed to sign-in and sign-out every time that he took a break. Respondent engaged in personal reading and other non-proctoring activities when he was required to be actively proctoring the FCAT. Respondent stood over student S.L.’s shoulder for a time period exceeding two minutes. While Respondent contends that he was trying to determine if S.L. had finished, S.L. had not finished. Respondent’s actions were intimidating to S.L. On the second testing day, Respondent fell asleep on a couch in the media center for a period of time when he should have been actively proctoring. Respondent snored, causing a disturbance to the students engaged in testing activities. While the length of time Respondent slept was in dispute, the evidence demonstrates that it was considerably longer than a brief moment as advanced by Respondent. On the second day of testing, a student spilled juice on that student’s reference sheet. Respondent placed the reference sheet in the microwave but did not monitor the drying process. The microwave scorched the reference sheet, resulting in a burnt smell invading the testing area and causing another disturbance to the students engaged in testing activities. Use of Video with No Learning Objective in Place In February 2009, Respondent showed the movie “Happy Feet” to his class. He concedes that he had no learning objective in mind in showing this video. Although Respondent explained that in his opinion, no learning could be accomplished that day due to the death of a co-teacher’s fiancé, Respondent conceded that he requested no assistance in addressing this situation despite such assistance being available to him. Lesson Plans Teachers are required to prepare lesson plans at least one week in advance. Teachers are also required to have the lesson plan on their desk and available for review. The lesson plan expectations are contained in the School’s staff handbook. The lesson plans are the guiding document for instruction, which requires teachers to give forethought as to the content of their lessons. It is used by teachers to focus their lessons, by administrators to ensure content aligns with teaching objectives, and by substitutes in the absence of the teacher. It is undisputed that the School’s administration repeatedly counseled Respondent to create and have lesson plans available. Respondent failed to have lesson plans completed and available for the week of October 6, November 17, and December 15, 2008, and January 5, January 20 and February 2, 2009. February 3, 2009 Weingarten Hearing On February 3, 2009, Bazenas and Respondent met in a formal, noticed meeting to discuss Respondent’s failure to complete IEPs for Students J.G. and U.S. That meeting also addressed Respondent’s continued failure to comply with school policy on maintaining lesson plans. It is undisputed that Respondent failed to timely complete the IEPs for students J.G. and U.S., and that he failed to comply with the lesson plan requirement. March 16, 2009 Weingarten Hearing On the afternoon of Monday, March 16, 2009, Bazenas and Respondent and others met in a formal, noticed meeting to discuss: (1) Respondent’s failure to complete IEPs for students N.C. and B.B. prior to their IEPs becoming out of compliance; (2) the FCAT proctoring matters; (3) use of the video “Happy Feet” with no learning objective; (4) continued failure to comply with the lesson plan expectation; (5) tardiness on March 9, and March 10, 2009; and (6) use of the girls’ restroom.1 It is undisputed that Respondent failed to complete the IEPs for students N.C. and B.B. in a timely manner, and that he used the video “Happy Feet” with no learning objective in place. During the meeting, Bazenas presented Respondent with the summary of Holmes’ observations of Respondent’s conduct while proctoring the FCAT. Respondent conceded that he was inattentive at times during FCAT proctoring and did fall asleep for some period of time during the FCAT, although he disputes it was for 45 minutes. March 17, 2009, Confrontation On the morning of Tuesday, March 17, 2009, Respondent entered Holmes’ classroom to “discuss” Holmes’ summary of her observations of Respondent during the FCAT. A student, whom Holmes was tutoring, was present in Holmes’ room at the time. Holmes was uncomfortable with Respondent’s insistence on discussing the FCAT matter at that time in front of the student. Holmes advised Respondent that she would talk to him later. Respondent, however, persisted in continuing his challenge to Holmes’ FCAT proctoring observations in front of the student. At that point, Bazenas entered Holmes’s room. Bazenas observed that the situation was “tense” and that Holmes was backed into a corner of the room. Bazenas also observed that the student that was present looked very uncomfortable. At that point, Bazenas, in a reasonable voice, requested that Respondent return to his own classroom to supervise his students. Respondent immediately became upset and began yelling at Bazenas, telling Bazenas not to interrupt him. Respondent approached him and pointed his finger in Bazenas’ face. At that time, Collins was in Brooks’ room. Collins heard shouting coming from the direction of Holmes’ room. Collins proceeded into the center office of the quad. She observed Respondent shouting at Bazenas that he was a “liar” and that Respondent would see Bazenas “in court.” Collins did not hear Bazenas raise his voice. Collins was fearful of Respondent; she had never seen Respondent act in that way. She also testified that Bazenas looked fearful of Respondent. Respondent then proceeded into his classroom and Bazenas followed Respondent into the classroom. He put himself between Respondent and his students, permitting Collins to remove the students from Respondent’s classroom, taking them into Brooks’ classroom. Respondent continued with his emotional outburst during this time. When Bazenas requested that Respondent leave campus immediately, Respondent threatened Bazenas. Bazenas subjectively believed that Respondent’s agitated behavior and his statement to be a threat of violence. Respondent also directed inappropriate comments to his students about Bazenas during his outburst. As Collins brought Respondent’s students into Brooks’ classroom, Collins was shaking and looked very fearful. After all of Respondent’s students were in Brooks’ classroom, Brooks locked the doors. Locking the doors is an unusual occurrence; however, Respondent did leave campus voluntarily. Respondent was immediately placed on administrative leave. Shortly thereafter, a police officer went to Respondent’s house to advise Respondent to stay away from campus. Respondent complied with the request. Respondent’s outburst on March 17, 2009, constituted a real and immediate threat to the School administration, teachers and students and was a flagrant violation of school policies and the State Principles of Professional Conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Sarasota County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent from the date Respondent was placed on unpaid leave of absence. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Prior to his dismissal in December, 1983, respondent had worked as a custodian for the School Board for over eight years. Since 1976, he had been a custodian at Gulfview Junior High School. At Gulfview Junior High, he worked the 2:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. shift, except for summer vacation periods, when he worked the 7:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. shift. During the 1981-82 and 1982-83 school years, respondent's work record for attendance and punctuality was less than satisfactory. The principal of Gulfview Junior High, Arthur J. Palin, noted on respondent's 1981-82 performance evaluation that improvement was needed in job attendance and punctuality. The principal noted that, in case of absence, phoning the school prior to report-in time would enable a substitute to be found. On many occasions, respondent had failed to comply with this requirement. Respondent, despite prior warnings not to leave work early without permission, repeatedly did so. Finally, on February 11, 1983, Principal Palin notified him, in writing, of various deficiencies in his job performance and the need for dramatic improvement. Specifically, respondent was notified that since September, 1982, he had left his job early on 18 different occasions without excuse or explanation; that he had been seen (and spoken to about) watching television, reading newspapers, and spending long periods of time on the telephone and engaging in personal activities during working hours; and that the area of the school which he was responsible for cleaning was the only one which had received negative comments during the last plant inspection. The Principal ended the memorandum by advising respondent that "Unless all actions on your part dealing with the above cease immediately, I will not recommend you for continued employment for the 83/84 school year." (petitioner's Exhibit 1) Respondent signed the memorandum, acknowledging receipt. The principal reinforced this warning with several verbal warnings that respondent needed to improve his work performance. The written warning notice resulted in a marked, though short-lived, improvement in respondent's work performance. Between February 11, 1983 and May, 1983, respondent reported to work on time, did not leave early, and received no unsatisfactory reports. (Deposition of Palin, p. 33) On May 5, 1983, Mr. Hogan, respondent's immediate supervisor, inspected C-Wing of Gulfview Junior High (respondent's area of responsibility) and found discrepancies such as dirty floors, lack of dusting and dirty window sills. On May 5, 1983, respondent failed to report to school and failed to timely report his absence. On May 10, 1983, Principal Palin gave respondent his 1932-83 school year performance evaluation, which was accompanied by another written notice. The evaluation graded him less than satisfactory in categories of Utilizes Time Efficiently ("does not follow regular routine; spends time on task(s) of personal nature and not on assigned job. . ."); Attendance ("absent far too often"); Punctuality ("arrives late or leaves early on many occasions.") Other areas of needed improvement were also identified. Respondent signed the evaluation, indicating it had been discussed with him, but expressed--by check mark--his disagreement with its content. The warning notice of the same date advised that he had been absent on March 5, 1983 without informing the school and that, because of that and numerous other similar incidents, "I must inform you that if you fail to notify us of your absence in the future, I will not recommend you for reemployment or will ask for your resignation." (petitioner's Exhibit 3) Despite respondent's assertion to the contrary, the evidence convincingly demonstrates that he was repeatedly warned, both verbally and in writing, of deficiencies in his attendance, punctuality and quality of work; that he knew the correct procedure for reporting absences; and that he knew that, absent dramatic improvement, his continued employment with the school system was in jeopardy. In September, 1983, Principal Palin met with his custodians, including respondent, and specifically warned them that they were not to leave work early without permission. On November 23, 1983, respondent requested permission to leave work early; but when Principal Palin denied his request, respondent left work early anyway. The quality of respondent's work and his responsiveness to his supervisor's requests, continued to deteriorate. On September 30, 1983, an inspection of his work area revealed dirty walls, dirty fixtures, dirty windows, and bugs in light fixtures. On October 20, 1983, Mr. Hogan asked him to change the light fixtures in a classroom; when he did not do so, Mr. Hogan changed them himself. In November, 1983, respondent ignored his supervisor's request to clean bugs from light fixtures prior to an inspection. On each of these occasions, respondent was warned verbally if not in writing, of his work deficiencies. These deficiencies--together with further observations of respondent reading newspapers and watching television during working hours, complaints by teachers about the condition of their rooms; and continued reports by supervisors of respondent's deteriorating work--led Principal Palin to recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that respondent be dismissed. These grounds have been substantiated by the evidence and provide a sufficient basis for respondent's dismissal. On November 30, 1983, after being informed of the charges against him and of the principal's recommendation that he be dismissed, respondent threatened Mr. Hogan, his supervisor: "If anything happens and I lose my job, you are going to pay." (petitioner's Exhibit 21, testimony of Hogan)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, RECOMMENDED: That respondent be DISMISSED from his employment, effective January 4, 1984, on grounds of neglect of duty, excessive absenteeism, misconduct, and insubordination, and that the charge of immorality be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of November, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR., Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Abbey G. Hairston, Esquire 3323 Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Hyman Borax Dawn P. Bonard Post Office Box 449 Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Thomas J. Mills, Superintendent School Board of Palm Beach County 3323 Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be suspended from employment for twenty days without pay for misconduct and unprofessional conduct in violation of School District Policies 1.013 and 1.014, Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.001(3) and 6B-1.006(4)(b), (5)(a) and (5)(h), and School Board Bulletins #P-12542-CAO/COO-Count Day and Class Size Reduction Review, and #P-12519-CAO/COO-Florida Department of Education Student Enrollment Procedures.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board (the Board or Petitioner), operates, controls, and supervises all public schools within the Palm Beach County School District (the District), as authorized by Subsection 1001.32(2), Florida Statutes (2008). The District School Superintendent, Dr. Arthur C. Johnson (Superintendent Johnson) is responsible for the administration, management, and supervision of instruction in the District, as provided in Subsection 1001.32(3), Florida Statutes (2008). Respondent, Dr. Gwendolyn Johnson (Dr. Johnson or Respondent) was the principal at Independence Middle School (Independence) during the 2007 to 2008 school year. In her thirty-five years with the District, Dr. Johnson was a principal for eight years, an assistant principal for eleven and a half years, a guidance counselor for approximately nine years, and, before that, an elementary and high school occupational specialist. At Independence, Respondent's assistant principals were Kathleen Carden, Martest Sheffield, and Scott Duhy. Although the projected enrollment was 1174, not the minimum number of 1201 required to justify having a third assistant principal, Dr. Johnson requested and, on May 15, 2007, received approval to keep the third assistant principal, Mr. Duhy, subject to reaching or exceeding the required enrollment by the time the count of students was taken on or about the eleventh day of school in the fall. The increase over the projection was possible because Independence was the 2007 receiving school for students whose parents transferred them from D- or F-rated schools under No Child Left Behind Act. For the 2007-2008 school year, Dr. Johnson assigned primary responsibility for maintaining a count of the student population to another one of the assistant principals, Dr. Carden. In addition to determining the number of assistant principals, the enrollment count is used by the District to determine other staffing, including the number of teachers, and guidance counselors assigned to each school. Attendance at Independence was reported by teachers each school day on bubbled attendance sheets. The sheets were scanned each day and the data stored in a computer program called the Total Education or Resource Management System (TERMS). The sheets were returned to the teachers who used them to record attendance for a two-week period before signing and submitting them, and receiving new computer-generated biweekly attendance scan sheets. On August 23, 2007, the District notified all principals, including Dr. Johnson, by memorandum (Bulletin # P- 12519-CAO/COO/FO/FTE), that any student who had never attended any period since the first day of school must have a withdrawn code entered into the TERMS program by August 27, 2007. Dr. Johnson e-mailed the Bulletin to her administrative staff and convened a meeting of that group to review it. Her secretary also e-mailed a reminder of the requirements to the staff on August 27, 2007. Teachers reported students who never attended school from the beginning of the year, the so-called "no-shows," by making handwritten notes or by drawing lines through the student's name on the attendance sheets, expecting those names to be removed from their rosters. Students who never showed up were not bubbled absent on the attendance sheets. A student aide in the student services office scanned the sheets, so the school's data processor, Angela Jones, did not see the teacher's notes and make changes in the computer. Once teachers kept getting biweekly attendance sheets with the names of no-shows and transfers on them, they started e-mailing or otherwise notifying Ms. Jones who began to keep a running list of no shows and transfers. Ms. Jones was not allowed to enter the withdrawal code in TERMS until authorized to do so by either Dr. Johnson or Dr. Carden, as shown by their e-mails. Rather than following the instructions in Bulletin # P-12519 to withdraw all no-shows by August 27, 2007, no-shows were treated like transfers and were not withdrawn until the student's new school requested their records. Dr. Johnson's claim that she was not aware that procedures outlined in the District's Bulletin of August 23, 2007, were not being followed by Ms. Jones and Dr. Carden, is not credible. She was present at the meetings in her office and her conference room, well after the August deadline, during which Ms. Jones continued to receive instructions to wait for approval to make withdrawals. On August 31, 2007, the District notified all principals, including Dr. Johnson, by memorandum (Bulletin # P- 12542-CAO/COO) that the District's enrollment count day was September 7, 2007, and that the count would be taken from TERMS. Dr. Johnson sent an e-mail to all teachers to count students, as directed in the Bulletin of August 23, by only including students who had been in attendance at least one period since school began on August 22, thereby excluding no-shows from the count. Prior to 2007, this would have been the enrollment number that the school faxed or e-mailed to the District. For the first time in 2007, the number used by the District was the number taken from TERMS summary enrollment screen that included no-shows at Independence. The District also relied on that data for its Full Time Equivalent (FTE) survey and report to the State Department of Education (DOE). The FTE count is used to determine per pupil funding by the State. The actual number of students at Independence on September 7, 2007, was 1188 but the number taken from the TERMS database and reported was 1214, a twenty-six student discrepancy that was later, after an audit, reduced to twenty-four. In October 2007, Dr. Johnson falsely verified the accuracy of the FTE survey that was, subsequent to the audit, determined to be an over-count of 23 students. Dr. Johnson testified that she verified the accuracy of the count relying on the work of Dr. Carden, Ms. Jones, Exceptional Student Education Coordinator Carol Lee, and ESOL Coordinator Ann Costillo. She denied attempting to fraudulently inflate the number to gain or maintain resources allocated by the District, but she knew there was a difference in the numbers based on a September report from Dr. Carden. She also knew that, if the teachers followed her instructions regarding how to count students, the "actual" number of 1214 from TERMS, written in by Dr. Carden, had to be incorrect. TERMS data also was uploaded to another program called Grade-Quick. When it was time to give grades at the end of nine weeks, Ms. Jones no longer had the ability to alter the rosters and teachers were required to give a grade to each student on their roster. David Shore was the Grade-Quick technical support person at Independence. At the suggestion of Dr. Johnson, he sought advice from the District's technical support person, Bruce Roland, who told him to have teachers give each no-show student a grade of "F" to avoid an error code. The uploaded grades for students who did not attend Independence, according to Mr. Roland, would be deleted from the District's mainframe. Fearing other consequences of giving "Fs," including the possibility of generating letters to parents whose children did not attend Independence, and doubting Mr. Shore's advice because he was relatively new in his position, some teachers refused to give "Fs" to no-shows. After discussions with Dr. Johnson, Mr. Shore instructed teachers to give a grade of "C" instead and to be sure also to give a conduct grade. One teacher apparently found a way to give a conduct grade, but no letter grade, to students who were not enrolled in her class and to somehow avoid a computer error code. Some time during the fall semester, anonymous complaints concerning the enrollment at Independence were made to the State Auditor General's Office, who referred the matter to an auditor in the District's office. In December 2007, the audit confirmed that the count at Independence was incorrect largely because no-shows and withdrawals were not withdrawn timely from the computer in TERMS before the District's initial count on August 27, 2007; before the District's eleven-day count on September 7, 2007; nor before Dr. Johnson twice verified the accuracy of the FTE count in October 2007. Dr. Johnson made no effort to make corrections, after she admittedly was aware of the errors in October, November, and December. Dr. Johnson blamed teachers who were unprofessional, racist, and disgruntled over her more strict adherence to the attendance rules for teacher planning and professional development days, and over proposed spending of A-plus money. She testified that they deliberately failed to bubble no-shows as absentees. That assertion contradicts the testimony of her witness that the proper procedure was followed by teachers who drew lines through the names of no-shows rather than bubbling them as absent. It also contradicts the instructions she gave in a memorandum to teachers, on October 5, 2007, telling them to write codes next to students' names on their rosters, NS for no- show, WD for withdrawn - If a student was present at least one day..., T for transfer, and A for add. Her memorandum instructs teachers to give the information to Ms. Jones on October 11, 2007. Ms. Jones said she did look at rosters for FTE reporting and she did make corrections. She too says her count was accurate at the time unless teachers withheld information. The teachers' rosters were maintained and, from a review of the class rosters, the auditor concluded that the error was made in not correcting TERMS to comply with teachers' reports. Dr. Johnson also blamed her supervisor, Marisol Ferrer, for sending a less experienced manager, Joe Patton, to attend a meeting, on October 11, 2007, with her of the Employee Building Council, a group that included some teachers who were antagonistic towards Dr. Johnson. It is true that only later did Mr. Patton recall that, after the meeting and after Dr. Johnson left, some of teachers told him there were problems with the student count at Independence. At the time, however, Mr. Patton did not tell Ms. Ferrer or Dr. Johnson about the comments. Dr. Johnson testified that, had she been told after that meeting on October 11th about the problems, she could have corrected the numbers before she submitted her verification of accuracy. She did know that Dr. Carden showed her two sets of numbers on September 7, 2007. Although she testified that she believed the fluctuations were normal because students come and go during the day for doctor's appointments or for other reasons, Dr. Johnson took no further steps to determine if that was in fact the cause of the discrepancy. After Dr. Johnson and Dr. Carden instructed Ms. Jones to begin making withdrawals after the October FTE report, some of the withdrawals were backdated showing the no-show students' withdrawal dates as the first day of school, August 22, 2007. The District submitted corrections to DOE before the deadline for incurring penalties, ultimately reducing the FTE count at Independence by 23 students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, enter a final order suspending Respondent for twenty days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick W. Ford, Esquire 2801 PGA Boulevard, Suite 110 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Sonia Elizabeth Hill-Howard, Esquire Palm Beach County School District 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-302 Post Office Box 19239 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239 Dr. Arthur C. Johnson, Superintendent Palm Beach County School District 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner has sufficient grounds to support dismissal of Respondent from employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was 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 (“School District”), pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher by the School Board and currently holds a professional services contract. He began working for the School District on or about March 2007, in the middle of the 2006-2007 school year. His first assignment was at Holmes Elementary School where he worked on a “waiver,” since he did not have an elementary education certification. The principal asked him to get his certification in elementary education, which he did. According to Respondent, he was asked to start working early because the principal did not have enough teachers. During that year, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas of evaluation and was rehired for the 2007-2008 school year. Prior to becoming a teacher in Miami-Dade County, Respondent served in the United States military from 1978-1985, and had worked as a registered nurse. He holds an associate’s degree from Miami-Dade College, a bachelor’s degree from Florida International University (“FIU”), two master’s degrees from FIU, an academic certificate in gerontological studies from FIU, and an academic teaching certificate from FIU. For the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent worked at Little River Elementary School (“Little River”). The principal at Little River asked Respondent to work on another “waiver,” this time for teaching English as a Second Language students (“ESOL”). After completing the necessary coursework, Respondent received an ESOL certification. Respondent remained at Little River through the 2008-2009 school year until he was involuntarily transferred to Scott Lake Elementary School (“Scott Lake”) for the 2009-2010 school year. During the latter two years at Little River, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas. According to Respondent, he was transferred to Scott Lake because the administration of Little River objected to the number of student discipline referrals (“SCMs”) he was writing on students. Respondent reports having written somewhere between 600 and 700 SCMs on students over the years. Respondent freely admits he wrote many SCMs at every school he worked at and highlights that fact as an excuse for why he performed poorly. During Respondent’s first three years of employment at Holmes Elementary and Little River, he was evaluated across the board on his annual evaluations as “Meets Standards.” During this period of time, the only other rating an employee could receive was “Does Not Meet Standards.” During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent’s principal for his first year at Scott Lake was Valerie Ward. During the 2009-2010 school year, the School District made changes to the teacher performance evaluation system. Use of the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (“IPEGS”) was implemented. The IPEGS Summative Performance Evaluations (“SPEs”) were now comprised of eight Performance Standards, where a teacher could be rated “Exemplary,” “Proficient,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In her first year with Respondent, Ms. Ward rated him “Proficient” in all eight standards. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Ward placed Respondent on a 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34. During this 90-day probation process, he was observed by administration on at least five different occasions, was put on several improvement plans, and had several meetings with administrators. The 90-day probation process is very time- consuming for both the subject employee and the employee’s administration. In other words, it is not the preferred task of a busy principal, unless he or she must, and then only when it is warranted by poor performance. Respondent believes Ms. Ward placed him on performance probation to retaliate against him because he complained about the temperature in his classroom. This is the first of many excuses and justifications Respondent has offered to explain criticisms of his performance by administrators. For the 2010-2011 school year at Scott Lake, Respondent was again evaluated as proficient in all areas. On or about April 2012, Principal Lakesha Wilson- Rochelle assumed Ms. Ward’s role at Scott Lake. Principal Rochelle signed off on Respondent’s summative evaluation during the 2011-2012 school year, but did not fill it out, since it had already been completed by someone else. The score placed Respondent in the “needs improvement” category. She signed it only because she was required to do so, and the summative evaluation rating she gave him for the next school year was even worse by several points. It was also during the 2011-2012 school year that IPEGS underwent another change. Now there were seven professional practice standards on which teachers were evaluated and one standard that was based on actual student data. Use of IPEGS IPEGS was approved by the Florida Department of Education (“FDOE”) for all years relevant to this case. The IPEGS processes from the 2013-2014 school year forward consisted of the following: Each teacher that had been teaching for more than two years received one formal observation. If during that observation the teacher’s performance was sufficient, nothing more need be done, outside of a summative evaluation at the end of the year. However, informal feedback is given to teachers throughout the year after classroom walkthroughs and through other means. If a teacher was observed to be deficient in one or more standards during the formal observation, the teacher and administration would engage in something called “support dialogue” in which support in various forms is provided to the teacher, so that the deficiencies can be remediated. If the teacher still exhibits performance deficiencies after the support dialogue, they are placed on the 90-day performance probation. While on performance probation, the teacher is observed another four times after the initial observation. After the second, third and fourth observations, if the teacher has not remediated, the administration develops an improvement plan, which must be followed. The improvement plan gives the teacher assignments and assistance to aid him or her in remediating any deficiencies. Also, each teacher, regardless of whether placed on performance probation, receives an SPE, as well as a Summative Performance Evaluation Rating (“SPE Rating”) of either “Highly Effective,” “Effective,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In addition to the seven professional practice standards, a data component is also factored into the SPE Rating known as the VAM. The VAM As explained by Director of Research Services Dr. Aleksander Shneyderman (“Dr. S”), the VAM is a statistical model that attempts to measure a teacher’s impact on student learning growth through the use of a multi-level lineal regression. Dr. S has been working with the VAM, since its inception in 2010-2011. He has studied it and keeps abreast of Florida’s rules and regulations of how to calculate it. Dr. S and his office calculate what is called “Local VAM” for the School District. He also provides trainings to School District employees on the use of the VAM. Dr. S was tendered and accepted in this proceeding as an expert in VAM calculation. Local VAM is usually calculated in September/October by his office after the previous year’s testing data become available. Various assessments are used to create the Local VAM. It is calculated in compliance with state statutes, and the methodology is approved each year by FDOE. Also, the methods for calculating the Local VAM are bargained for and ratified by the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”) teacher’s union. The Florida VAM is calculated by the State using a model that is approved by the Florida Commissioner of Education. The results of the Florida VAM are given to Dr. S’s office by the State. The Florida VAM is created using the Florida Standards Assessment (“FSA”). In the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years, Respondent’s Local VAM scores were calculated by Dr. S’s office and based upon his students’ results on the Stanford 8 Achievement Test, 10th edition. UTD approved the methodology in VAM calculation for both of these years. For the 2015-2016 school year, Respondent’s VAM score was the Florida VAM in English language arts for fifth grade. The goal of the VAM is to measure a teacher’s effectiveness on student learning growth. In order to do this as accurately as possible, students are compared to similar students for an “apples to apples” comparison. Only students with the same demographic characteristics, as well as the same prior year’s test scores are compared to one another. The demographic factors considered are English Language Learner (“ELL”) status, gifted status, disability status, relative age (which considers whether a child was retained in a previous grade), and attendance (which was added in 2014-2015). Student demographics and the prior year’s test scores must be exactly the same. Based on these demographics and past scores, an expected score is created for each student. If the student exceeds that score, the credit for that success is given to the teacher. The School Board and Dr. S concede that the VAM does not account for every possible student performance variable, because, simply put, this would be impossible, since there are a limitless number of factors that could be considered. Moreover, certain factors are forbidden to be used by the Legislature, including socioeconomic status, race, gender, and ethnicity. (See § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.). Respondent argues that because not every imaginable factor that might affect a student’s grade is captured, that the VAM is not useful. Respondent claims that factors beyond the teacher might be causing poor performance, for example: lack of parental engagement. While levels of parental engagement could impact student performance, the School Board states that it is following state statutes to the letter and doing the best it can within the applicable statutory framework. Moreover, just as factors outside of consideration might hurt student performance, other factors might enhance performance, and the teachers receive those possible benefits as well--for example, if parental engagement is good. Those benefits would flow to the teacher, despite not having earned them through his or her personal efforts. Moreover, the VAM score ranges that are used to classify teachers are bargained for with UTD. The ranges have confidence intervals developed through the application of margin of error calculations that mitigate uncertainty to protect and “safeguard” teachers from unfair classifications. In many instances these safeguards give the teachers the benefit of the doubt to make sure they do not fall into the lowest category, which is “unsatisfactory.” Noticeably absent from these bargained for “safeguards” is any mention of how much instructional time a teacher must have with a class before those students’ data can be used to calculate a teacher’s VAM score. UTD has not bargained for any special rules designating when teachers can and cannot be held accountable for their class’ data based on the time they have instructed that class. As such, the only relevant inquiry is whether those students are with that teacher during the FTE period in February. Also, the law (see § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.) makes no mention of any minimum length of instructional time necessary to hold a teacher accountable for his or her students. The 2013-2014 School Year at Scott Lake Refusal to teach basic Spanish In May 2013, near the end of the 2012-2013 school year, Principal Rochelle advised Respondent that he would be teaching a kindergarten class for the 2013-2014 school year and that he would be required to teach them one hour of introductory Spanish. In an email to Principal Rochelle, Respondent asserted that he believed he was being assigned to teach Spanish to the kindergarteners in retaliation for his extensive reporting of student SCMs. In that same email, he advised her that he did not want to teach Spanish. Prior to being advised of this assignment, the School District conducted a language proficiency assessment for Respondent with both a written and verbal component, which he passed. Principal Rochelle had personally seen Respondent speak fluent Spanish to her school secretary and the art teacher. Because Respondent spoke fluent Spanish, or, at least, “conversational” Spanish (as admitted by Respondent’s counsel in his opening), she gave him the assignment. Moreover, as a principal, she had the right to assign Respondent as she saw fit. School Board Policy 3130 - Assignments reinforces this assertion stating, in relevant part, “Instructional staff members may be reassigned to any position for which they are qualified in order to meet needs of the District and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.” In order to teach the one-hour basic Spanish component of the class, Respondent did not need to be certified to teach Spanish. He only needed an elementary education certification, which he had. He even attended a training class on the implementation of the Spanish program. Respondent admits he can speak Spanish, write basic Spanish, has taken Spanish classes and passed the School District’s proficiency exam. Curiously, he objected to them giving the proficiency exam to him based on the grounds he was “singled out” for having a Hispanic last name, having been overheard speaking the language, and because he is not from a Spanish-speaking country. These are not reasonable objections when the School District explained the objective reasons listed above regarding Respondent’s qualifications to provide the basic- level Spanish instruction. Respondent persisted in his belief that he is “not qualified” to teach kindergarten Spanish despite all the evidence to the contrary. Respondent simply refused to do something that he was entirely capable of doing and that was within his ambit of responsibilities. He described one of the lessons he was allegedly incapable of teaching as follows, “You put a CD in the player. The kids sing songs in Spanish. The kids cut out pictures of objects and match them to a picture with the word in Spanish.” The kindergartners in his class did not speak Spanish; they spoke English. The Spanish component of the class was very basic and involved things like vowels, colors, puppets, basic books, and vocabulary words. Contrary to Respondent’s assertions, no complex grammar or sentence structure was involved. Such things are not even part of ordinary English kindergarten instruction, as admitted by Respondent. Moreover, he was provided with materials from which to draw the instruction. Principal Rochelle does not speak Spanish herself, yet believes she could teach the Spanish component, as it is a “piece of cake.” Respondent filed a grievance regarding the Spanish assignment. In order to appease and accommodate Respondent, Principal Rochelle eventually sent a Spanish teacher to his room to teach the Spanish component. However, Respondent then complained that the grades she was entering still had his name attached to them in the computerized grading system. Finally, the principal decided to move him to a first-grade class in early November 2013. Undoubtedly, the requests of Respondent led to this assignment change. Formal IPEGS observation On March 11, 2014, Principal Rochelle performed her formal observation of Respondent pursuant to IPEGS. On that day, no performance deficiencies were noted. However, throughout the year, Principal Rochelle had conducted many informal observations and walkthroughs of his classroom and had already provided him feedback regarding his performance and her expectations. Examples of that feedback can be found in an August 27, 2013, email from Principal Rochelle to Respondent. Moreover, according to Principal Rochelle, teachers tend to be on their best behavior during these observations–-which makes sense, because they know the boss/evaluator is watching. The formal observation is also only a snapshot in time of the teacher’s performance on a particular lesson; it is not a reflection of the entire year’s performance. Respondent has argued that Principal Rochelle has retaliated against him. If that were the case, this observation would have been a perfect opportunity to retaliate against him. However, she found no deficiencies in his performance on this day. Scott Lake SPE—Professional Practice Throughout the rest of the school year, Principal Rochelle made other credible observations regarding Respondent’s performance. Despite her counseling that he meet with parents, he refused to do so. He refused to participate in activities, including field trips, school celebrations, and award ceremonies. Other teachers actually had to hand out awards for him at the ceremony. He refused to implement group instruction techniques and did not take advantage of the presence of reading and math coaches. He refused to implement progressive discipline and “red, green, yellow” behavior management techniques. He refused to implement various discipline strategies laid out in the Student Code of Conduct and school-wide discipline plan prior to writing SCMs on students. Principal Rochelle recalls that he wrote approximately 25 SCMs on one student within the first nine weeks of school and made no attempt to address the behavior issues with the student’s parents. At one point Principal Rochelle accommodated his request to have a student removed from his class. Since this was only Principal Rochelle’s first full year as principal of Scott Lake, and she was still new to the school, she tended to give the teachers the benefit of the doubt when completing their SPEs. She also had a few teachers who had to be terminated for lack of professionalism that were more of a priority for her than Respondent. As such, she rated Respondent as “effective” in six standards on his SPE and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Communication standard. In her view, “effective” is akin to a “C” grade, whereas “highly effective” is “A plus/high B” status, “developing/needs improvement” is a “D,” and “unsatisfactory” is an “F.” When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he testified he would have given himself five “highly effectives” and two “effectives.” He believes Principal Rochelle rated him lower than she should have as a result of retaliation against him for him not wanting to teach Spanish. This is Respondent’s second claim of retaliation against Principal Rochelle, and third claim of retaliation overall. Principal Rochelle’s denial of such retaliation is credited based upon her testimony at hearing and the exhibits offered in support. Despite the fact that Respondent’s 2013-2014 SPE seemed adequate to a casual observer (with the only obvious blemish being the “developing/needs improvement” in the Communication standard), when compared to his peers, a different story emerges. His professional practice points total put him in the bottom .8 percentile for all teachers district-wide and in the bottom 2.6 percentile for all first-grade teachers district-wide. Without belaboring the data, Respondent’s professional practice scores are at the bottom of the barrel, regardless of how you spin them. Scott Lake VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 12.5 points–-the lowest possible score. He was one of 11 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2013-2014 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 29 percent of his first-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent’s VAM was based on the performance of his first-grade students. Respondent believes that, since he was moved to the class in early November 2013, and the SAT exam was given in April, he should not be held accountable for their performance. In order for him to have a fair shake, he claims he would have had to be there instructing the students on week one. Respondent says the amount of time he was given was not fair because, “if I’m the lowest teacher in Miami-Dade County, and here for termination, no, sir, I don’t think it was fair.” If the rule Respondent proposes were implemented as policy, any teacher could simply avoid responsibility for their student’s performance by requesting a transfer sometime after the first week of the year. It is also not uncommon for teachers to have students added or subtracted from their classes throughout the year for a multitude of reasons. This is a fact of life that teachers have to be able to cope with in the ordinary course of business for the School District. Moreover, and somewhat ironically, if another teacher had been teaching Respondent’s students for a portion of the year, based on his SPE Ratings and student achievement data, Respondent probably would have had better scores. The students would likely have been getting a more effective teacher than he. Respondent also claims Principal Rochelle gave him a lower functioning group of students, who were behind in their learning. He explained that he knew they were low-functioning because he gave them “STAR tests” to gauge their ability levels. When pressed on cross-examination, Respondent admitted that he only tested his own students and never anyone else’s. Therefore, it would be impossible for him to know whether his students were any lower-functioning or further behind than any other teachers’ students. Respondent’s doubtful claim is further undercut by Principal Rochelle’s credible testimony that she selected the members of his first-grade class at random from overcrowded classrooms. Respondent’s claims that he was robbed of instructional time by field trips and fundraising activities, matters that are required of all teachers, are unconvincing excuses for his students’ poor performance. The 2014-2015 School Year at Norwood Shortly after the start of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent requested a hardship transfer to Norwood Elementary School (“Norwood”) because the school day at Scott Lake was going to be increased by one hour. Despite the fact that he would have been compensated approximately $4,500.00 for this time, he chose to transfer schools. Principal Kevin Williams (or Dr. Williams) had a teacher on leave so he assigned Respondent to fill that gap. Respondent started teaching a kindergarten class, but was moved to a second-grade class during the first week of school. Prior to conducting a formal IPEGS observation of Respondent, Dr. Williams had performed several walkthroughs of his classroom. Based on these walkthroughs, Dr. Williams advised Respondent that he was not properly implementing the school discipline plan. Respondent also refused to implement “grouping” of the students during instruction time. Dr. Williams also had a reading coach model lessons for Respondent and assigned him a teaching assistant. Respondent was the only teacher who received this level of assistance. Dr. Williams even went so far as to have two meetings with UTD prior to his formal evaluation of Respondent in order to help him. By October 2014, Dr. Williams had already explained his expectations to Respondent. Formal IPEGS observation On October 1, 2014, Principal Williams performed the formal IPEGS evaluation of Respondent. Principal Williams noted no deficiencies on that day. Generally speaking, Principal Williams does not view these observations as punitive. Over the years, Dr. Williams has conducted approximately 240 observations of teachers, and, generally, the employees are “on point” when being watched. Moreover, like Principal Rochelle, Dr. Williams views these observations as a snapshot of teacher performance while the SPE captures the year- long performance. In the report of the observation, Dr. Williams suggested that Respondent promote interactions with students, encourage more student participation, connect to prior student knowledge and interests, and present concepts at different levels of complexity, among other items. Norwood SPE—Professional Practice After the formal observation, Dr. Williams continued to conduct walkthroughs of Respondent’s class. He observed the same issues with refusing to use “grouping” and refusing to properly implement the discipline plan. Respondent never took advantage of the modeling techniques that were provided for him. He also was not implementing differentiated instruction. Dr. Williams himself held a professional development class on campus for the school discipline plan, which, instead of attending, Respondent attended a social studies class off campus. Instead of following the prescribed discipline plan, Respondent was trying to control the behavior of his students with treats. Similar to his time at Scott Lake, he refused to participate in field trips, staff gatherings, award assemblies, and student activity days. Respondent had lesson plans, but did not always follow them. He would spend an inordinate amount of time on vocabulary. He gave some tests, but would refuse to grade other tests. The pattern of his teaching was inconsistent, at best. On his SPE, Principal Williams rated Respondent as “effective” in five standards, “highly effective” in one, and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Learning Environment standard. Dr. Williams’ rating for Learning Environment was lower because Respondent failed to implement appropriate discipline strategies despite being told to do so. In eight years of being a principal, this was the first time he had ever given a teacher a “needs improvement” rating. He mostly gives his teachers combinations of “highly effective” and “effective,” if they do what they are supposed to do. Nevertheless, Dr. Williams testified he still went easy on Respondent because he was new to the school. In terms of his SPE professional practice points, Respondent scored in the bottom two percentile for second-grade teachers district-wide and was the worst rated second-grade teacher at Norwood. Instead of following the discipline plan, Respondent was using the emergency call button, writing SCMs, and writing to the superintendent to have ten students removed from his class. Another teacher at the school, Mr. W, had the exact same set of students as Respondent, only he taught them in the afternoon and not in the morning. He had none of the same behavior management issues Respondent had with this same group of children. Respondent claimed that Mr. W was able to manage the children better because, like the students, he was African-American. When asked how Respondent would have rated himself in these seven SPE standards, he would have given himself six “highly effectives” and one “effective.” He believes Principal Williams rated him lower than he should have as a result of retaliation against him for writing SCMs and because he complained about the size of his initial kindergarten class. This marked Respondent’s fourth claim of retaliation overall. Principal Williams credibly denied such retaliation at the hearing. Norwood VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 8.75 points-–the lowest possible score, again. He was one of 50 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only six percent of his second-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from Norwood should not be considered because of his students’ behavioral issues. He also stated he did not have enough textbooks to send home with students. Much like at Scott Lake, he believes he was intentionally given bad students. This is peculiar for two reasons. First, Dr. Williams first tried to assign Respondent another class, but Respondent complained that one was too big. To accept this argument, the viewer would have to believe Dr. Williams knew Respondent would reject the larger class, and the principal had another one in the wings filled with “bad” students to make Respondent look ineffective. Second, Mr. W had none of the same problems Respondent did with this same group of students in the afternoon. To accept this contention, Principal Williams’ plan only “worked” on Respondent, since he was singled out for retaliation. This line of argument is nonsensical, at best. The 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 School Years at Aventura Waterways K-8 In looking for the right fit, Respondent was sent to Aventura Waterways K-8 (“AWK8”) for the 2015-2016 school year. He remained there for the 2016-2017 school year until he was dismissed from his employment in March 2017. As at his previous school assignments, the administrators at AWK8 tried to work with Respondent and the UTD to let him know their expectations prior to the formal observations. During these two school years Respondent was observed formally by Principal Luis Bello and Assistant Principal Ileana Robles on no less than nine occasions. In both years, during his initial observations, his performance was found to be deficient; and he was immediately placed on support dialogue and, eventually, 90-day performance probation. During these two probationary periods, he was provided assistance through improvement plans and completed all his improvement plan assignments. The goal was to help him remediate his deficiencies. The only change he ever implemented was switching from block to weekly lesson plans. Both his instructional delivery and the learning environment never improved. During these observations, Principal Bello and Assistant Principal Robles both observed the same repeated deficiencies, which they described in meticulous detail at the hearing. Summarizing their testimony, the issues concerning Respondent were: Pacing. Respondent spends too much time on issues and did not complete entire lesson plans. Questioning students. Respondent only uses basic, easy to answer questions; does not ask enough questions; or is dismissive of questions. Failing to properly explain concepts to students or to activate prior knowledge. Respondent fails to prompt students in order to generate interest in the subject matter and holds no conversations about the material in class. Not using challenging enough material. Respondent’s material was so basic that parents were concerned their children were getting grades they did not deserve and not learning grade- appropriate material. Principal Bello described Respondent’s instruction as “robotic” and lacking any semblance of “passion.” AWK8—Professional Practice On his SPE, Principal Bello rated Respondent as “effective” in two standards, and “unsatisfactory” in five standards. Principal Bello’s ratings were in line with the repeated deficiencies discussed above. He awarded Respondent “unsatisfactory” ratings because Respondent never remediated his deficiencies. Principal Bello credibly stands by his SPE Ratings as honest and admits to spending a great deal of time on them. In terms of his SPE professional practice points for 2015-2016, Respondent scored in the bottom (0) percentile for fifth-grade teachers at AWK8, all teachers at AWK8, fifth-grade teachers district-wide, and all teachers district-wide. When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he would have given himself seven “highly effectives.” He believes Principal Bello rated him lower than he should have been rated, but could not say why. AWK8 VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s State VAM score for learner progress points was 8.5 points-–the lowest possible score, for the third year in a row. He was the only one of 98 fifth-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 32 percent of his fifth-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from AWK8 are not legitimate for a variety of reasons, none of which relate to his own shortcomings. Respondent’s excuses and the reasons not to credit those excuses are as follows: Respondent argues that his VAM cannot be counted against him because his afternoon class of fifth graders were ELL, and they spoke a variety of languages, including French, Russian, Hebrew, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish. His theory was that they performed poorly because of their poor grasp of the English language. For VAM scoring purposes, this excuse should not be credited because the VAM already takes into account their ELL status by comparing them only to other ELL students with identical demographics and prior test scores; and they are not expected to perform as well as non-ELL students. However, by Respondent’s own admission his afternoon ELL class was the best class he had had in ten years of teaching. He said they had emotional balance, presence of mind, and good parental engagement. He even explained how his ESOL certification assisted him in understanding how to teach them. According to him, by the end of the year, the students were at the level where they would be having conversations. Respondent also had another ESOL-certified teacher assist him for a portion of the year, which was a standard practice. Finally, ELL students, who are brand new to the country, are not calculated into the VAM because there are no prior year scores for which they can be compared “apples to apples.” Respondent himself testified that the lowest level ELL students did not get graded. This makes sense because Respondent testified that his afternoon ELL class was 31 students-–yet only 15 ELL students were factored into the data used to calculate his VAM score for 2015-2016. In sum, the grades of the lowest English language functioning students were not even held against him. Respondent next argues that the numbers of students in both his morning and afternoon classes at AWK8 exceeded class size restrictions. Respondent “believes” his morning class had 24 or so students, but only 18 after the special education students were removed. When the student data is examined, it appears that Respondent only had 15 non-ELL students factored into his VAM score. As for the afternoon ELL class, otherwise considered by him the best class he has ever had, Respondent claims there were 31 in that class. Even assuming Respondent’s numbers are accurate (and they do not seem to be, given the VAM data), these class sizes do not run afoul of class size restrictions and are commonplace at AWK8. The School District operates on averages for class size compliance and everyone teaching fifth grade at AWK8 had similar class sizes. None of those other teachers had the same problems Respondent did. Moreover, Respondent reported the alleged class size violations to the FDOE, and they did nothing about it. Respondent further argues that his morning group of students was once again a “bad” group that did not give him a “fair shot.” According to Respondent, he had a student who would sit in a garbage can and another that would tell him “F_ _k you” every day. He had behavior concerns with four to five students in the morning class. Eventually, the student who sat in the garbage can was removed from the class. Respondent then testified that these behavior issues were exacerbated by his absence from the classroom when he was performing his improvement plan activities. He now appears to be placing his behavior concerns on the administration for doing their job by trying to assist him and by remediating his deficiencies. Behavior management is integral to being a teacher. A teacher must not be allowed to escape his or her own responsibility for performance shortcomings by blaming it on the students. At every school where Respondent has taught, he has admittedly written a large number of SCMs, had behavior issues with his students, and believes he was purposely given “bad” students. The only common thread among these schools is Respondent. Nevertheless, he refuses to acknowledge that he might possibly be even a part of the problem and believes he has done nothing wrong. Respondent also blames his poor VAM on the fact that fundraising activities, book fairs, student activity days, and dances all detracted from instructional time at AWK8. This is the same excuse he used for his poor VAM at Norwood and holds no weight, since these are activities that all teachers at all schools must cope with as part of the instructional process. Respondent’s Termination by the School Board Respondent’s case was the first of its kind brought pursuant to section 1012.33(3)(b) (“3-year provision”), since this was the first time the School District had the requisite number of years’ data available. Of the thousands of teachers working for Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Respondent was part of a singular group of seven to nine teachers who fell into the three-year provision of the statute having the necessary combination of “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” final overall SPE Ratings. Of that handful of teachers, Respondent was the single worst. Respondent’s performance actually declined each year despite the assistance provided for and made available to him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 430 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 912 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has demonstrated that Respondent should be suspended and terminated from employment with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, for failure to correct performance deficiencies; and whether Petitioner should be terminated for just cause, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes, for incompetency due to inefficiency.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Background Petitioner 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, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been employed with the Miami-Dade County Public School District (?District?) as a teacher of Emotional/Behavioral Disabled (?EBD?) students since 2001. He initially was a part-time teacher, substituting for a teacher on maternity leave. He became a full-time teacher with the District in the 2002-2003 timeframe. At the time of the events that gave rise to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a full-time teacher at Pine Villa Elementary School (?Pine Villa?), pursuant to a professional services contract. At all times material, Respondent’s employment was governed by the collective bargaining between Miami-Dade Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade (?UTD?), Petitioner’s rules, and Florida law. The 2009-2010 School Year In the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent taught second grade and third grade EBD students. EBD students are disabled due to persistent emotional or behavioral responses that may interfere with their learning ability. It is common for EBD students to academically perform below grade level; accordingly, they need to be in a smaller class with a more structured learning environment. Renny Neyra became the Pine Villa Principal at the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, and held the position through the 2010-2011 school year. According to Ms. Neyra, Respondent had difficulty teaching his class, and the test data for his students showed no improvement in their performance. Ms. Neyra requested and received assistance for Respondent from the District, consisting of expert personnel on special assignment to assist in areas in which Respondent’s performance was perceived to be lacking. Ms. Neyra did not place Respondent on 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34 during the 2009-2010 school year because she felt it would be unfair to do so. She testified that she wanted to afford Respondent the opportunity to obtain professional performance assistance so that he could improve his teaching skills, which, in turn, would help his students. The 2010-2011 School Year Because of Respondent’s perceived difficulties in planning for and teaching students of different grade levels during the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Neyra decided to assign Respondent only third grade EBD students for the 2010-2011 school year. In the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent’s class consisted of 11 students. This is slightly smaller than the typical third grade EBD class in the District, which generally consists of 16 to 17 students. For the 2010-2011 school year, an interventionist, curriculum specialist, and full-time paraprofessional were assigned to assist Respondent in his classroom.2/ Ms. Neyra testified that it was unlikely an interventionist or curriculum specialist would have been assigned to Respondent’s classroom, had he been performing well. IPEGS Evaluations of Respondent Teachers employed by the District are evaluated pursuant to the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (?IPEGS?). IPEGS entails assessor observation of, and provision of written comments on, teacher classroom performance. Five separate IPEGS evaluations of Respondent were conducted in the 2010-2011 school year, on September 23, 2010; October 25, 2010; December 7, 2010; January 26, 2011; and February 28, 2011. In the September 23, 2010, evaluation, Ms. Neyra observed that Respondent had incomplete lesson plans; failed to provide clear, specific, and sequential directions and guidance; did not use teaching strategies that engaged the students; and did not clarify the lesson for the students. The specific IPEGS Performance Standards (?Standards?) in which Ms. Neyra determined Respondent deficient were Standards 2 - Knowledge of Learners; 3 – Instructional Planning; and 4 – Instructional Delivery and Engagement. Respondent was informed of the observed deficiencies and placed on Support Dialogue for a 21-day period. Support Dialogue entails the provision of mutually-determined support strategies designed to remedy the deficiencies identified in the evaluation. Ms. Neyra conducted a second evaluation of Respondent’s teaching on October 25, 2010, and observed the same deficiencies. She also observed deficiencies in Respondent’s performance with respect to Standard 8 – Learning Environment. Following this evaluation, a Conference-for-the-Record (?CFR?) was held to inform Respondent that he was being placed on 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34(3), and to obtain Respondent’s and UTD’s input regarding measures to address Respondent’s performance deficiencies. As a result of the CFR, Respondent was provided an Improvement Plan containing specific direction regarding correction of his performance deficiencies. Assistant Principal Dorothy Pinkston evaluated Respondent’s classroom teaching performance on December 7, 2010, after which another Improvement Plan was provided to Respondent.3/ Ms. Neyra conducted another evaluation of Respondent’s classroom teaching performance on January 26, 2011, and found Respondent deficient in Standards 2, 3, 4, and 8. According to Ms. Neyra, Respondent did not attend to students’ needs and did not provide teacher-directed instruction. As a result of the January 26, 2011, evaluation, Respondent was provided another Improvement Plan. Ms. Neyra conducted a fifth evaluation, termed a ?confirmatory observation,? of Respondent’s classroom teaching performance on February 28, 2011. She again determined that he had not corrected the previously identified performance deficiencies. Respondent’s Students’ Performance on Objective Assessments Ms. Neyra testified that in addition to the IPEGS evaluations, Respondent’s students’ performance on interim assessments in math and reading and the Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading (?FAIR?), administered by the District, played a role in her decision to terminate Respondent’s employment. Student performance assessments, termed ?benchmark assessments,? for math and reading are administered by the District at the beginning of the school year. ?Interim assessments? for math and reading are administered in the fall and winter of the school year. These assessments are used to measure student performance prior to taking the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (?FCAT?) later in the school year. Where performance deficiencies are identified, students can be provided remedial instruction to better prepare them to take the FCAT. Petitioner presented documentary evidence regarding Respondent’s students’ performance on the interim assessments for math and reading in the 2010-2011 school year. This evidence compared Respondent’s students’ performance to that of all third grade students in the District, and to that of third grade ?disabled students? throughout the District. Petitioner did not present any evidence comparing Respondent’s students’ interim assessments scores to those of other EBD third grade students in the District. Petitioner’s documentary evidence was not supported by testimony of any witnesses qualified and competent to analyze the scores or to explain what the scores demonstrate or mean,4/ or by any other competent evidence. Without such testimony or other competent evidence, meaningful determinations Respondent’s students’ scores and their use in evaluating Respondent’s performance pursuant to section 1012.34(3) cannot be made. Moreover, Petitioner’s documentary evidence did not provide information that could be used to accurately compare Respondent’s students’ scores to those of other similarly situated students. The uncontroverted evidence established that EBD students generally perform below grade level in their school work and on objective assessment measures; accordingly, Respondent’s students’ interim assessment scores cannot be meaningfully compared to those of all other third grade students in the District. Although Petitioner’s evidence did compare Respondent’s students’ scores to those of third grade disabled students, the ?disabled students? category includes students with all types of disabilities, not only emotional and behavioral disabilities. Petitioner provided no evidence to support its contention that EBD students perform comparably to all other disabled students on the interim assessments. Absent evidence specifically comparing Respondent’s students’ interim assessment scores with those for comparable students——i.e., other third grade EBD students in the District——it cannot be determined whether Respondent’s students’ performance is attributable to teaching deficiencies on his part, or to their emotional and behavioral disabilities. Petitioner also provided documentary evidence, supported by the testimony of reading coach Eida Herrera, regarding Respondent’s students’ performance on the FAIR assessments. However, again, no evidence was presented specifically comparing Respondent’s students’ performance on the FAIR assessments to other third grade EBD students’ scores, so there is no context in which to meaningfully evaluate Respondent’s students’ FAIR assessment results for purposes of assessing his teaching performance pursuant to section 1012.34. Respondent’s students’ scores for the FCAT were not reported until after Respondent was suspended and action was taken to terminate his employment. Accordingly, the FCAT scores did not, and could not, play a role in Ms. Neyra’s decision to terminate Respondent.5/ Ms. Neyra testified that once Respondent’s students’ FCAT scores were received, she compared them to the District- wide scores for EBD third grade students, and that Respondent’s students did not perform well when compared with other EBD third grade students in the District. She testified that this information confirmed the correctness of her decision to terminate Respondent’s employment. However, as with the interim assessment scores, absent competent testimony by qualified persons or other competent evidence regarding FCAT scores and their analysis and use, accurate determinations regarding Respondent’s students’ FCAT scores and their meaning and use in assessing his classroom teaching performance pursuant to section 1012.34 cannot be made. In any event, Ms. Neyra testified that the primary reason she decided to terminate Respondent was that he did not remediate the performance deficiencies she had observed in the IPEGS evaluations. Ms. Neyra testified regarding the need for three other professionals to assist Respondent in his classroom, and the expense involved in providing this support. However, Petitioner did not present any expert testimony addressing incompetency relative to Respondent’s specific circumstances. Respondent testified on his own behalf. He has a master’s degree in exceptional student education, varying exceptionalities, and ten years’ experience as a teacher of EBD students. Respondent credibly testified that he has had positive evaluations throughout his teaching career and has not previously had problems with any other principals with whom he has worked. Respondent’s testimony established that he is intimately familiar with each of his students’ specific academic and personal issues. He credibly testified, in substantial detail, regarding the instructional and behavioral management measures in which he engaged, on an individual student basis, to address each student’s specific academic and personal issues,6/ and to try to help each student learn. Respondent also credibly testified regarding the challenges involved in teaching his students——many of whom had significant behavioral and emotional issues and came from severely socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds—— while at the same time keeping order in his classroom.
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 rescinding the action taken to suspend and terminate Respondent from his employment and paying Respondent’s back salary and any other benefits owed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2011.
