The Issue Respondent is charged in a five-count Administrative Complaint with violations of Subsection 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes (gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude); Subsection 231.2615(1)(f), Florida Statutes (personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board); Subsection 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes (violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as prescribed by the State Board of Education); Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code (failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical safety), and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code (intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement).
Findings Of Fact Respondent has continuously held Florida Educator's Certificate 734274, covering the area of English, since 1996. It is valid through June 30, 2006. Respondent was first employed by the Holmes County School District in November 2000 and served as a language arts teacher for seventh and eighth grades at Poplar Springs School for the remainder of the 2000-2001 School Year. During the 2000-2001 School Year, Respondent disciplined students in her seventh and eighth grade language arts (English) classes as more specifically described below. All instances of Respondent's discipline were employed in response to male students talking inappropriately or "cutting up" in her classroom so as to detract from the educational process. On one occasion, Respondent placed two pieces of masking tape over the mouth of student C.R. because he was talking in class. C.R. had the tape over his mouth for the remainder of the class period (approximately fifteen to twenty minutes). A science teacher saw C.R. in the hall, en route to his next class, and told him to take the tape off his mouth. Respondent placed masking tape over the mouth of student J.F. when he laughed out loud after being warned not to continue talking in class. J.F. had the tape over his mouth for approximately twenty minutes, until the bell rang to go to his next class. Respondent directed student T.J. to place tape on his own mouth after he had talked in class. The tape remained on his mouth until the end of the class period, or for approximately fifteen minutes. Respondent placed tape over the mouth of student W.W. because he was talking in class. W.W. had the tape over his mouth for the remainder of the class period, which ended approximately thirty minutes later. W.W. experienced difficulty breathing with the tape over his mouth, because he had a cold at the time and was having trouble breathing through his nose. Respondent placed masking tape over the mouth of student C.B. for talking in class. The tape remained on his mouth until the end of the class period, or approximately thirty minutes. All of the foregoing five students admitted that Respondent had warned them at least once not to continue talking, before she resorted to taping their mouths, but each of these students also was embarrassed as a result of sitting through the remainder of the class, surrounded by other students, while their mouths were taped. Also during the 2000-2001 School Year, Respondent required student C.R. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of three or four heavy dictionaries for approximately fifteen minutes. This method of punishment caused C.R. to experience physical distress in his back. Respondent also required student J.C. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of seven or eight heavy dictionaries, stacked to his chin, for approximately twenty minutes. This method of punishment caused J.C. to experience physical distress. His knees were buckling, and he was slumping against the wall. Respondent initially required student L.C. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of twelve dictionaries. However, because the books were stacked almost two feet higher than L.C.'s head, Respondent removed four of them from his arms. L.C. was then required to hold the remaining eight dictionaries for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. Respondent also required student J.H. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of six or seven heavy dictionaries stacked up to his eyes, for approximately twenty minutes. Respondent required student E.M., who had talked out of turn early in the class period, to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of six or seven heavy dictionaries for approximately ten to fifteen minutes. At one point during this ordeal, Respondent came out of the classroom and felt E.M.'s forehead to see if he were sweating. When she found that he was not sweating, she returned to her classroom, leaving E.M. outside, still holding the dictionaries. Most students who testified indicated they were disciplined toward the end of a class period, and accordingly, their discipline was automatically ended by the change of classes' bell. However, the foregoing incident, when E.M. was disciplined with books, suggests that Respondent's theory concerning that type of discipline was that once a misbehaving student began to sweat, he had experienced enough punishment. A teacher saw E.M. in the hallway and went to fetch the Principal, Jerry Dixon. Mr. Dixon observed E.M. to be "in a strain," tired, and drooping. When Mr. Dixon discovered what was going on, he told E.M. to go back into Respondent's classroom and take the books with him. Each of the five students disciplined with books was embarrassed by the process, and the posture of holding the dictionaries caused most of them discomfort. After the incident with E.M., Mr. Dixon counseled with Respondent. He advised her that disciplining students as E.M. had been disciplined with the dictionaries was unacceptable and that if she felt future situations were bad enough to warrant punishment, she should send the misbehaving child to his office for him to administer appropriate discipline. In early April 2001, Respondent approached student T.W. at his desk, got down "in his face," and told him that if he did not behave, she would paddle him as hard as she had paddled student C.R., and that was "pretty damn hard." C.R. testified that Respondent had, in fact, actually paddled him, but apparently he was not intimidated or concerned over the paddling. Also, T.W. was not intimidated by Respondent's threat, because he smiled and laughed. However, T.W. was so concerned about Respondent's use of profanity that he approached Principal Dixon in the cafeteria that day and asked the principal if it were "right" for a teacher to curse at a student. Subsequently, in the principal's office, T.W. explained to Mr. Dixon the situation concerning Respondent's use of profanity. Principal Dixon also then learned for the first time that Respondent had been taping her students' mouths as a form of discipline. Mr. Dixon investigated further by talking with other students who verified all or some of T.W.'s account. Mr. Dixon testified that he also believed the incident of Respondent disciplining J.C. with dictionaries in the hallway (see Finding of Fact 11) had occurred after he had told Respondent not to use that procedure. On April 5, 2001, Mr. Dixon met with Respondent to discuss the allegations. In their meeting, Respondent admitted placing tape over students' mouths. She also admitted cursing at T.W. She told Mr. Dixon she had been mad and upset at the time. On April 10, 2001, Mr. Dixon issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for her conduct. In this letter he reminded her that he had, at the time of E.M.'s discipline, told her she was supposed to send students to the office for discipline, not undertake it herself. On June 6, 2001, Mr. Dixon notified Respondent that he would not recommend her reappointment for the 2001-2002 School Year. His decision to not recommend Respondent's appointment was based, at least in part, upon Respondent's admitted inappropriate discipline and use of profanity. There is no evidence Respondent's disciplinary method of causing students to hold heavy books while excluded from the classroom learning environment was effective in improving their behavior in the classroom. There is no evidence this disciplinary methodology was sanctioned by the School District, Principal Dixon, or any recognized educational text. Indeed, it was not sanctioned, and it is certain that the boys being disciplined were not being taught any curriculum while they were in the hallway. There is no evidence Respondent's method of taping her students' mouths shut and deliberately embarrassing them in the classroom before their peers was effective in teaching them to be quiet in class. There also is no evidence that this disciplinary methodology was sanctioned by the School District, the principal, or any recognized educational text. Indeed, the evidence is contrary. The disciplinary methods employed by Respondent were not approved or condoned by the Holmes County School Board or by the Poplar Springs School Administration. Her methods were inappropriate. Her inappropriate discipline and use of profanity with her Middle School students exposed them to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement at a time in their development when they were particularly emotionally vulnerable. Her methods of discipline and use of profanity with her Middle School students seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the Holmes County School Board. Respondent failed to take reasonable efforts to protect her students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to their mental health and/or physical safety by employing these inappropriate methods of discipline.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order which: Finds Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 231.2615(1)(f)and (i) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code; Suspends Respondent's Educator's Certificate for a period of one year; Requires that, as a condition precedent to Respondent's re-employment as an educator in Florida following the suspension, Respondent submit to a psychological evaluation by a qualified provider as required by the Recovery Network Program; Requires that Respondent follow the recommended course of treatment, if any, resulting from her evaluation and that she provide written verification to the Department of her successful completion of the evaluation and/or treatment; and Provides that if Respondent is reemployed as an educator in Florida, she be placed on three years' probation, upon such terms as the Education Practices Commission deems appropriate, including but not limited to successful completion of a college level course in the area of classroom management. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 12th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Crawford Post Office Box 573 Ashford, Alabama 36312-0573 J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 U.S. Highway 331, South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent has been licensed in the fields of elementary education and exceptional student education. Her Florida education certificate number is 840291. Her certificate expires on June 30, 2010. Respondent was employed by the Bradford County School District from 1994 to 1996, from 1998 to 2001, and finally from 2004 to 2007. She has worked as a substitute teacher, a parent specialist, and a teacher of varying exceptionalities. At the time of the events alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was the principal and teacher at Believer's School of Learning (Believer's School) in Bradford County School District. Believer's School was a charter school, for grades K-3, meant to give alternatives to traditional public school. Charter schools fulfill various purposes such as improving student learning and increasing learning opportunities. With respect to the Believer's School, a special emphasis was placed on low- performing students and reading. An "exceptional student" is defined by Section 1003.01(3)(a), Florida Statutes, as: ny student who has been determined eligible for a special program in accordance with rules of the State Board of Education. The term includes students who are gifted and students with disabilities who have an intellectual disability; autism spectrum disorder; a speech impairment; a language impairment; an orthopedic impairment; an other health impairment; traumatic brain injury; a visual impairment; an emotional or behavioral disability; or a specific learning disability, including, but not limited to, dyslexia, dyscalculia, or developmental aphasia; students who are deaf or hard of hearing or dual sensory impaired; students who are hospitalized or homebound; children with developmental delays ages birth through 5 years, or children, ages birth through 2 years, with established conditions that are identified in State Board of Education rules pursuant to s. 1003.21(1)(e). Respondent had Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students in her school. Believer’s School was required to follow federal and state guidelines with respect to ESE students. Those requirements include keeping complete, current and accurate records with respect to exceptional education students. These recordkeeping requirements are required by federal and state law and are necessary for the school system of Bradford County, of which Believer's School was a part, to remain eligible for federal and state funds allocated to pay costs associated with educating exceptional students. In accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 6.03028(3), Respondent was required to prepare an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for each ESE student attending Believer's school. Rule 6A-6.03028(3) states: (3) IEP Requirements. An IEP or individual family support plan (IFSP) must be developed, reviewed, and revised for each eligible student or child with a disability served by a school district, or other state agency that provides special education and related services either directly, by contract, or through other arrangements, in accordance with this rule. Parents are partners with schools and school district personnel in developing, reviewing, and revising the IEP for their student. An IEP is necessary to evaluate the student's educational level, to establish short and long-term educational objectives, to develop alternative ways to accomplish those objectives, and to record the progress of the plan and establish a means for review of the student's educational progress. The proper preparation and maintenance of an IEP is a basic responsibility of the Respondent for exceptional education students at Believer's School. An improperly prepared IEP is potentially harmful to the learning of an ESE student because services and accommodations must be listed on the student's IEP before they can be provided. IEP’s are created by an IEP Team during a meeting involving the parties as set out in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(c) as follows: (c) IEP Team participants. The IEP Team, with a reasonable number of participants, shall include: The parents of the student; Not less than one (1) regular education teacher of a student with a disability... Not less than one (1) special education teacher of the student, or where appropriate, not less than one special education provider of the student; A representative of the school district who is qualified to provide or supervise the provision of specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities, is knowledgeable about the general curriculum, and is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the school district. . . An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results who may be a member of the IEP Team as described in subparagraphs (3)(c)3., or (3)(c)4., of this rule;. . . Upon completion, the IEP is signed by the regular education teacher, the ESE teacher, the local education agency (LEA), and the parent or guardian of the student. The LEA is ultimately responsible for what goes into the IEP. If something is in the IEP it is because the LEA determined that it was feasible to carry out. The ESE teacher examines the psycho-educational reports and the specialized needs of the student. He or she often provides strategies to the regular education teacher to use with the ESE student. The regular education teacher is the most familiar with the curriculum being used for the student’s grade level. He or she provides insight as to how that curriculum can be adapted for the ESE student. Members of the IEP Team for an ESE student are supposed to be teachers and individuals associated with the student’s current grade level and involved in the student's education, in order to provide accurate curriculum and services for the student. The IEP Team is supposed to review the child’s test scores or have access to the child, know about the curriculum being used, and what types of accommodations an ESE student of the particular grade level would need. By signing the IEP, the individual team members are stating they met to discuss the ESE student, to develop goals and objectives and services for the student, and that they will follow up on making sure those goals and objectives are met. IEP's are updated on an annual basis. The annual IEP conference is mandatory, and failure to provide such a conference is a violation of federal, state, and School Board rules and policies. Failure to hold such a conference deprives the parents of the exceptional student any meaningful participation in determining the student's educational goals and may deprive the child of the assistance to which he or she is entitled. It also jeopardizes continued state and federal funding of the School Board's exceptional education program. Respondent was instructed, as were other teachers of exceptional students in the school district, that every IEP must be reviewed at least once a year through an annual IEP conference. Respondent was trained in how to prepare IEPs by the Bradford County School District on July 19, 20, and 21, 2005. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b) requires that the school notify parents of an ESE student that an IEP meeting is scheduled prior to the IEP Team Meeting taking place. This notification is more than a formality; it is meant to insure meaningful participation by parents or guardians in the IEP process. Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b) states as follows: (b) Parental participation in meetings. Each school district shall establish procedures that provide the opportunity for one or both of the student’s parents to participate in meetings and decisions concerning the IEP for the student. Parents of each student with a disability must be members of any group that makes decisions on the educational placement of their student. Procedures to ensure participation in meetings shall include the following: Notifying parents of the meeting early enough to ensure that they will have an opportunity to attend; and Scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place. A written notice of the meeting must be provided to the parents and must indicate the purpose, time, and location of the meeting, and who, by title or position, will be attending. . . . * * * A meeting may be conducted without a parent in attendance if the school district is unable to obtain the attendance of the parents. In this case, the district must have a record of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place, such as: Detailed records of telephone calls made or attempted and the results of those calls; Copies of correspondence sent to the parents and any responses received; and Detailed records of visits made to the parents’ home or place of employment and the results of those visits. To comply with Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b), it is Bradford County School District’s policy to send out a Parent Notification Form 10 days prior to an IEP team meeting. A few days after the first notification was sent, a second notification is sent to the parent. After the two written notifications are sent, a phone call is made to the parent of the ESE student. Student S.B. began school in the Bradford County School District when she was in pre-K. She was identified as a student with developmental disabilities. In 2005, she was living in Richmond, Virginia, and found to be eligible for exceptional education services as a student with a developmental disability. Upon return to Florida, S.B. was enrolled in Southside Elementary on March 17, 2005. In May 2005, an IEP team met, determined that S.B. was a student with specific learning disabilities, and developed an IEP outlining the services required for S.B. Without those services, S.B. would not receive a free appropriate public education as contemplated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), or Florida law regarding the provision of exceptional education. IEPs for exceptional education students are required to be completed every year before the prior year’s IEP expires. S.B.’s next IEP was due on May 17, 2006. On February 13, 2006, S.B. enrolled in Respondent’s charter school, Believer's School of Learning, approximately three months before S.B.’s next IEP was due. There was apparently some delay in providing S.B.'s May 2005 IEP to Respondent, but the length of the delay is unclear. In order for a school district to receive the extra funding for its ESE students all the ESE students’ IEP’s must be current by "FTE week." FTE week is when the schools determine a final head count of all the students that are in attendance. The FTE week for Bradford County School District in 2006 was October 13, 2006. All the ESE students within the school district had to have their IEPs in by that date or the schools would not receive the extra funding associated with that student. If S.B.’s IEP was not turned in before October 13, 2006, Believer's School would have only received its normal funding only instead of the additional ESE funding. As of the last week of September 2006, Respondent had not completed the IEP for S.B. In late September, Respondent called Verdell Long, and asked for some assistance in preparing an IEP for a third grader. On September 28, 2006, Respondent met with Verdell Long, at Bradford County High School, during Ms. Long’s lunch break, for assistance with preparing an IEP for a third grader at her charter school. Verdell Long was a high school teacher at Bradford County High School who had worked with ESE students, with a focus on mental retardation from grades K-12. She had assisted Respondent with IEPs in the past. She understood that she was assisting with a “sample” IEP to be used as a model. However, it was Respondent’s intention to use the product created as an IEP for the student S.B. The day of the meeting Verdell Long’s computer was not working so she could not access the IEPs she had on file. She asked another high school teacher, Dr. Vivian Haynes to assist in the meeting. Dr. Haynes was an ESE teacher at Bradford County High School in September 2006. She was very experienced with preparing and writing IEPs, having just completed a doctoral dissertation which included copies of third and fifth grade IEPs. Dr. Haynes had not previously met Respondent. Dr. Haynes brought several blank “dummy” IEPs with her to the meeting in order to have examples to show Respondent. The IEP prepared at the meeting included the various components of an IEP, such as the measurable goals and objectives for a third grader, but did not include the demographic information on any student. The document prepared at the meeting did not have a student’s name or test scores on it anywhere. Respondent did not bring the student S.B. or her test scores with her to the meeting. However, neither Ms. Long nor Dr. Haynes expected to see individualized information because they did not understand that an IEP for an actual child was being prepared. Verdell Long signed the IEP as the ESE teacher, Dr. Vivian Haynes signed as the LEA, and Respondent signed as the regular education teacher. Neither Verdell Long nor Dr. Vivian Haynes was contracted with Believer's School by the Bradford County School District to provide services as an LEA representative or an ESE teacher. Both Verdell Long and Dr. Vivian Haynes believed the purpose of the meeting was to construct a model IEP in order to assist Respondent with properly preparing an IEP for an ESE student. Neither expected the document created at their meeting to be submitted as an actual IEP for S.B., or any other student, and neither considered the meeting to be an IEP team meeting. Neither Verdell Long nor Dr. Vivian Haynes was shown a Parent Notification Form indicating that their meeting was to be an IEP team meeting. Neither would have signed the IEP if they had seen such a form because they did not believe that an IEP team meeting was being conducted. After the meeting on September 28, 2006, Respondent took the IEP form prepared with the help of Ms. Long and Dr. Haynes, and inserted information specific to S.B. She then submitted the form as S.B.’s IEP and turned in to the Bradford County School District. Submitted with the IEP form was a document which purported to be the Notification of Meeting Form for the IEP team meeting. Only one notification is referenced. The form was dated September 15, 2006, and identified Dr. Vivian Haynes and Verdell Long as participants in the meeting, notwithstanding Respondent's acknowledgement that she did not meet Dr. Haynes until September 28, 2006, and did not know until that time that Dr. Haynes would be participating in the meeting. The form also indicated that the IEP meeting would take place at the Believer's School, as opposed to the Bradford County High School, where the meeting between Respondent, Ms. Long and Dr. Haynes took place. There is no other indication of other attempts of notification. The signature line reserved for a parent or legal guardian is signed by a Rudolph Williams and dated September 29, 2006, the day after the meeting took place. Respondent claims that Mr. Williams is S.B.'s stepfather. However, there is nothing in the Bradford County School District's records to indicate that Mr. Williams is a parent or legal guardian of S.B., and school district officials were not aware of anyone by that name living in the home. By her own admission, Respondent did not keep "official records" for any of her students, including ESE students. She was not particularly concerned with who signed the IEP, because she apparently considered it to be simply a matter of paperwork to be filed with the School District. In her view, the person responsible for ensuring that a child is receiving the appropriate education is her teacher, regardless of the directives in the IEP. She felt that some of the things identified as required simply could not be done at a school her size. She did not consider the role of the LEA and the ESE teacher on the IEP to be all that important. To her, the real responsibility for the child's education lay with the teacher who worked with her on a daily basis. S.B. was later withdrawn from Believer's School and now attends Starke Elementary School. Believer's School has since closed and is no longer operating as a charter school.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent to be guilty of the violations alleged in Counts Two through Seven and dismissing Count One of the Administrative Complaint; imposing a fine of $500; suspending her certificate for one year and placing Respondent on probation for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Respondent began working for Petitioner in 1966 as a teacher's aide. She became a teacher in 1974 at Olympia Heights Elementary School under the principalship of William Kennedy. Although Respondent received acceptable evaluations from Kennedy for the next several years, she frequently had problems in classroom management and in her paperwork. Kennedy admonished Respondent to utilize more voice control in giving directions and corrections to students, since she frequently yelled at the students and sometimes the yelling could be heard in the hallway and even in the principal's office. Kennedy held informal conferences with Respondent. He also directed the assistant principal, Tessa Gold, and Respondent's fellow teacher, Josie Wright, to give advice to Respondent. Additionally, he changed Respondent's grade-level assignments from fifth grade to third grade to first grade and then to kindergarten in an attempt to assist her. Respondent basically corrected her errors each year and managed to obtain a good evaluation by the end of each school year. However, each year she required more administrative input in order to be an adequate teacher. On or about October 28, 1977, Respondent struck a child with a ruler. Kennedy and Gold saw redness and ruler marks on the child's hands. Respondent admitted to Kennedy that she had struck children, and Kennedy directly ordered her never to strike a child again. Clifford Herrman became the principal of Olympia Heights Elementary School for the 1981-82 school year. Although Herrman's goal was to visit every classroom once a day, he was generally successful in visiting each classroom at least three times a week for a short visit or "walk-through" for up to five minutes. Herrman also was responsible for official evaluations of the teachers at his school. New teachers are required to have a certain number of observations. As teachers have more seniority, fewer observation are required. If a teacher was found to be unacceptable in any area, Herrman was required to reevaluate to see that the improvements that had been recommended were actually made. Therefore, every time, as will be set forth below, that Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in a long series of observations, Herrman was required to reevaluate Respondent to ascertain if the recommended improvements had been made. Accordingly, mare formal observations were performed on Respondent than on other teachers with the same seniority in order that Respondent could demonstrate improvement. Respondent was promised a kindergarten class for the 1981-82 school year by Kennedy before he was replaced as the principal by Herrman. During the preceding summer, Herrman questioned whether there would be enough students for that additional kindergarten class. He therefore notified Respondent that she would be teaching a third grade class but that if there were enough kindergarten students he would make sure she taught a kindergarten class. During the pre-planning week, Herrman ascertained that the number of students was sufficient to generate the additional kindergarten class, and he so notified Respondent. Although she had only one afternoon to get ready for her kindergarten class, Respondent was not penalized in any way for having a late start. Herrman assigned the other kindergarten teachers to assist Respondent in preparing her classroom and son plans because of the reduced time Respondent had to prepare individually. When Herrman made his first official observation of Respondent on September 14, 1981, he rated her performance as acceptable. The Balanced Curriculum is a Dade County Public Schools district policy. It mandates that certain blocks of time be committed to different areas of study. Different grade levels require different lengths of time, and certain material must be taught within those blocks of time. PREP is a program mandated by the State Legislature. The most important aspect of the PREP program is that the children receive an intense amount of individualized help. Their problems are identified early in their school careers. The intent is to identify problem areas and eliminate those areas by the use of small class size, low teacher ratio, and a lot of support in the kindergarten through third grade classrooms. When a child enters school, a test is given. Through the results of that test, the child is placed into one of the three PREP strategies. The preventative strategy means that there is an identifiable, correctable problem. A "preventative child" needs a lot of manipulatives, a lot of "hands-on" activities, and more one-to-one instruction. A "developmental child" is one who is progressing the way a child is expected to progress at that grade level. These are generally the "average" children. The "enrichment children" would include the gifted and those children who need extended activities because they finish their work early and need to be challenged. The children are charted on a PREP roster, which is a classroom chart. A teacher's plans must reflect different activities for the children on the different strategies, and the children's work folders must reflect the strategies. Dade County provides in-service training for the PREP program in the form of a 30-hour course. Respondent had received her PREP training during the first year of teaching kindergarten, probably before Thanksgiving. Dade County requires all of the schools to have children's work folders with graded, dated work. Homework is to be reflected in those folders. The work must show corrections. There is also a requirement that the grade book reflect at least one grade per week in each subject area. The next formal observation of Respondent was performed by Herrman on November 24, 1981. Respondent was found to be unacceptable overall and was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was marked unacceptable in preparation and planning because she was not following her lesson plans and was therefore off task. Her lesson plans did not reflect the specific time allocations for different subject areas as required by the Dade County Balanced Curriculum. Respondent wad unacceptable in classroom management because the students were not on task, they were noisy, and they were out of their seats. Respondent did not appear to be aware of which students were on or off task. Respondent was unacceptable in the area of techniques of instruction because she was not involving the students in a diagnostic prescriptive program, as required by Dade County policy. All of Respondent's students were given the same material and were not put into PREP strategies. This meant that the work was too difficult for some and too easy for others. Respondent therefore failed to meet the individual needs of her students, as required by Dade County policy. Additionally, Respondent's directions were not given in a clear and precise manner. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because her verbal communication was found to be inappropriate and very negative. She used phrases such as "Shut up" and "You're acting like babies." Respondent was found to be unacceptable in maintaining a complete grade book. There were many entries in the grade book that had no indication as to what they were for and for which date. There were grades missing for some subject areas. There were not sufficient grades in the grade book to document a child's progress at the end of the nine-week grading period. The grade book is used to determine whether a student has mastered the skills according to the Dade County Public Schools Minimum Performance Standards and to document whether a child has met the requirements for promotion to the next grade. Herrman prescribed help for Respondent. He directed her to (1) follow planned lessons, (2) establish classroom procedures and require the children to follow those procedures, (3) periodically check the students to see that they remain on task, (4) give directions in a clear and precise manner, (5) date her grades, and (6) have more complete grades. He further directed that her verbal communication should be more positive. Herrman performed the next formal observation of Respondent on December 1, 1981. She was found to be unacceptable overall, and she was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Tessa Gold, the assistant principal, was in the Respondent's classroom when this observation was made, and she is in full agreement with the observation. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans did not reflect the Balanced Curriculum requirements. Respondent failed to ascertain whether the students' record player was working properly. The record player was on the wrong speed, and the lesson was inaudible to the children who were using headphones. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in classroom management because the children were not on task and doing their lesson. instead, they were doing other things, talking, and out of their seats. Respondent was found unacceptable in her techniques of instruction because nothing was being done to remediate the deficiencies of the children. Much of the work was at a level that was too difficult for them. The strategies were not appropriate for them, they were not on task, and they were not supervised closely. Respondent was evaluated unacceptable in her assessment techniques. There were still insufficient grades to determine a student's progress. The Teacher's Handbook for Respondent's school indicated the requirement that a minimum of one grade per week per subject area be given. Respondent had no more than five grades in any one subject area for a period of 13 weeks. Herrman prescribed help for Respondent and directed that his recommendations for improvement be implemented by December 7, 1981. He directed Respondent to show all times of day in her plan book along with individual lessons with objectives from the “balanced Curriculum. Her grade book was to show the dates and objectives. She was to monitor individual group activities to see that the children remained on task and was to limit the number of group activities so as to allow time to move from group to group to see that the students understood and were on task. She was to meet regularly with the kindergarten staff, at least twice a week, so that they could assist her in complying with the recommendations. She was advised that all grades in her grade book must be identified by date and subject and that a minimum of one grade per week per required subject area was required to be recorded in her grade book. Teacher-directed activities were to be relevant to the needs of the students, and basic skills of the Balanced Curriculum were to be taught. Respondent was to implement a classroom management system that emphasized positive interaction with students. She was to keep the office advised of the status of compliance or noncompliance with these recommendations. Respondent was next formally observed by Tessa Gold, assistant principal, on January 22, 1982. She was found to be unacceptable overall and was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in preparation and planning because her plans were not in compliance with the Balanced Curriculum. All of the teachers in the school had received copies of the Balanced Curriculum, and there had been meetings to review that information. Respondent did not have the materials at hand which were necessary to conduct the lesson she intended to teach, and the lesson which was being taught was not listed in the lesson plan. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in the area of classroom management because the students were not attentive and were talking. Further, a group of students returned from the ESOL program (English for Speakers of Other Languages), entered the room noisily, and did not settle down. The students were not incorporated into the lesson. Other students were trying to explain to these students what to do, and that made the class even noisier. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in her techniques of instruction because the students never settled down to pay attention to the lesson that was being taught. Respondent did not use motivating factors to begin her lesson and never obtained the attention of the students. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in her teacher-student relationships. She made inappropriate comments to the students, such as "Don't bother me now. This is inappropriate because it does not build a comfortable feeling on the part of the students about coming to school. She also threatened to send a student to the principal if he did not listen, and then, when the student had to be reprimanded again, Respondent did not follow through with her threat. Gold also recommended help for Respondent. She directed Respondent to follow the time guidelines for the Balanced Curriculum and to adjust her schedule accordingly. Gold indicated that the instructional time must follow the plan book times and that all lessons taught must be written in the lesson plans. Respondent was directed to have all supplies ready and available before beginning a lesson. Respondent was directed to compliment the students who listened and to reward their positive behavior. Gold further suggested that Respondent take a workshop course in classroom management and gave her a copy of 62 Suggestions to Improve Classroom Discipline. Respondent was directed to become familiar with the Science Teacher Manual and to utilize the information therein to prepare the students. Respondent was directed to be more positive with the students and not to threaten the students unless she intended to follow through with her threat. On January 26, 1982, in an effort to aid Respondent in complying with the Balanced Curriculum, Herrman developed a lesson plan for her to use. She was instructed to follow this lesson plan and to make no changes without first discussing it with him. Herrman's next formal observation of Respondent was on February 12, 1982. She was found to be unacceptable overall and was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Gold accompanied Herrman during this observation and concurred with his observations. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in preparation and planning because during the time that was allotted for a literature and expressive language lesson, she passed out art materials for 15 minutes. She also read a story, which was used as a time filler. She did nothing with the story to make it into a literature and expressive language lesson. She was therefore not meeting the Balanced Curriculum for language and literature on that day. Further, Respondent had not made the necessary arrangements for materials relative to the planned lesson. Respondent was also found to be unacceptable in her knowledge of the subject matter because she was not teaching the lesson in the plan book in the required manner, which entailed introducing the lesson and using some type of activity involving the students and some type of assessment. Respondent was also found to be unacceptable in classroom management because the children were very loud, and Respondent had to stop the lesson four times to quiet the students so that she could proceed. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction. The lesson was not appropriate, was not in compliance with the lesson plan, and did not meet the interests, needs, and abilities of the students. No interaction was taking place. Respondent was not teaching the subject listed in the lesson plans, and no directions were given by Respondent for the completion of tasks. Respondent was found unacceptable in student-teacher relationships because she used very negative communications and raised her voice almost to the scolding pitch. It was at this time that Herrman discovered Respondent had struck six children with a pointer stick. Although Respondent admitted hitting the children, she only admitted hitting four of them even though she had been previously advised by Principal Kennedy that corporal punishment was contrary to Dade County School Board policy. There is a relationship between classroom management and corporal punishment. Corporal punishment is a last-resort type of discipline for children. Respondent's repeated use of corporal punishment was a further indication that Respondent's class was out of control. Herrman made several recommendations to Respondent for improvement. He directed her to follow her lesson plans. He directed her to observe the classes of Mrs. Wright and Mrs. Peraza in order to observe their classroom management skills, and he arranged for coverage for Respondent's class so that she could observe those classes. He directed her to use motivation preceding all lessons and to encourage pupil participation and interest by discussions. He suggested that she enroll in one of the Teacher Education Center courses. He directed her to incorporate a behavior management program that stresses positives. He reiterated to respondent the fact that corporal punishment is not permitted by staff at the school and that, if punishments are deemed necessary, school board policies must not be violated. Respondent was next formally observed by Herrman on March 15, 1982. She was found unacceptable overall and was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and teacher-student relationships. Gold accompanied Herrman during this observation and concurred with his observations. Respondent was exhibiting the same kinds of problems that were found unacceptable on previous observations. All students were receiving the same lesson. No pre- and post-assessments were done, and the needs of the individual children were not being met. Negative responses were given to students, and Respondent discouraged student expression. The lesson was not being; introduced, and the children were not given adequate instructions as to what to do. Many of the children sat with no work to do for most of the period. In an effort to help Respondent, Herrman recommended that Respondent ask students to repeat the directions. He also indicated that a positive approach to classroom management must occur to improve the teacher-student relationship. Respondent was next formally observed by Herrman on April 15, 1982. She was found to be acceptable overall; however, she was found to be unacceptable in the areas of assessment techniques and professional responsibility. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in professional responsibility because she had not implemented the directives for improvement as requested thus far and was still having trouble with certain areas She was still teaching the same lesson to the whole class. There were not enough grades recorded in her grade book. There were no recorded expressive language grades since march 10, 1982; no social studies grades since March 12, 1982; no science grades since march 10, 1982; no homework grades since February 23, 1982; and no health and safety grades since February 23, 1982. As a recommendation for improvement Respondent was again directed to record a minimum of one grade par week as per prior recommendations. Herrman next formally observed despondent on May 11, 1982. She was found to be unacceptable overall and was rated acceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and professional responsibility. The areas marked acceptable at this time were areas that had been marked unacceptable at various times over the year. The reason for Respondent's decline in performance since her prior observation is that she had been given a tremendous amount of support in the way of help being provided. Once she was left on her own to proceed and implement recommendations or to follow through on things that had been demonstrated, she could not do so. Her lessons again became acceptable in many areas. For example, she taught a lesson for only 10 minutes that should have taken 30 minutes. The children's individual needs were not taken into consideration in the presentation of the lessons. Classroom management became acceptable again. The children did not follow the directions, and Respondent resorted to a very negative approach in dealing with the children. There was no organization evidence in the classroom. Respondent was marked acceptable in professional responsibility because she was still not being consistent in implementing the recommendation for improvement. Herrman made recommendations for improvement and noted that all of the recommendations made had been made before and that implementation dates had been set and not met. He directed Respondent to meet these reasonable directives immediately. On the May 11, 1982, evaluation, Herrman noted that Respondent's grade book was complete and up to date. Subsequently, he discovered that the grades did not reflect the academic achievement or non-academic achievement of the students. The work was graded, but the grade was not a legitimate evaluation of the students' progress. Further, the grades were not substantiated by documentation of the students' work in the students' folders, as required by Dade County policy. At the close of Respondent's first year in the kindergarten classroom Herrman prepared an annual evaluation, which is a summary of all of the observations done during the year. While he believed that Respondent had not performed satisfactorily enough to attain an acceptable rating in most of the areas observed, he recommended her for reemployment because he was still committed to working with her in trying to improve her performance to bring it up to an acceptable level. In a memorandum to Respondent, Herrman indicated that he was still greatly concerned about her potential to implement recommendations for improvement. He stated that if improvement were not shown during the next year disciplinary action might be taken. He offered to continue to assist her in meeting the goals, but that, after one year of intensive assistance, he felt she must now assume a major portion of the responsibility. The first formal observation of Respondent during her second year of teaching kindergarten was performed by Herrman on September 13, 1982. She was found unacceptable overall and was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility. Some of the areas that were unacceptable previously were still unacceptable, and some of the areas where she had previously shown improvement were again unacceptable. Respondent spent more than one-half of the time intended for the lesson just getting the children ready. Ten minutes were used for passing out science books and locating page 35. The children were lacking the skills to know the number 35, and consequently they could not find the page. It took Respondent a long time to realize that the children did not know the concept They could have been introduced to it at that time, but they were not. This resulted in their being on the wrong pages, and few children, if any, could find the right page. This was not an appropriate introduction to the lesson. Additionally, children were not attentive to the lesson being taught, and they were flipping pages, talking, and out of their seats. No assessment of the lesson was done. The grade book had no recorded names or grades for any subject. Respondent was again given specific recommendations for improvement. On September 24, 1982, a conference-for-the-record was held to discuss Respondent's noncompliance with recommendations for improvement. Herrman and Barbara Porzio, the assistant principal, reviewed all areas that had been marked unacceptable on the prior evaluations. Respondent was directed to use each of these recommendations when planning, teaching, evaluating, and conducting her professional responsibilities. Herrman performed the next formal observation of Respondent on September 24, 1982. She was found unacceptable overall and was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, teacher-student relationships, and professional responsibility. The same problems continued to surface: lesson plans did not reflect what was happening in the classroom; the lesson proceeded even though the children were off task; Respondent made negative comments to the students; and Respondent was still not recording grades as directed. As a recommendation for improvement, Herrman directed Respondent to review all recommendations for improvement and to incorporate them into her planning, teaching, and follow-through strategies. Respondent was next officially observed by Barbara Porzio on October 15, 1982. Respondent was found to be unacceptable overall and was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and teacher-student relationships. Earlier in the year, Porzio had passed through Respondents classroom on a daily basis and had made some unofficial observations: she noted that there was general confusion in the classroom; Respondent and the children were speaking at the same time; there was an unrest that should not have been there; and Respondent reinforced the unrest by rewarding bad behavior, i.e., giving attention to the children who were not seeking it appropriately. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she ignored the workbook directions which would have been more appropriate than the directions she gave, which directions were confusing to the children. Respondent did not review with the children what a good breakfast was. The children were directed to a two-digit page number, which they had difficulty finding because they did not have knowledge of two- digit numbers. They looked at each other and thumbed through the pages until they came to the number that Respondent wanted them to have. Herrman had previously recommended that the books could have been distributed prior to the lesson and the pages marked or the books opened to the right page for these kindergarten students. Respondent was marked unacceptable in classroom management because the children were out of their seats, talking while directions were being given, talking throughout the lesson, and talking at will. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of ink auction because several children clearly needed more explanation than was given. The whole class received the same lesson. Both the health lesson and the math lesson were presented to the whole class and not to smaller groups. The lesson on the square was presented in a very abstract manner. Respondent defined the word "square" by using the word "square." She did not have the children identify squares in the room and did not have them see and feel squares. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because there were no grades or corrections on the papers in the children's folders. The papers only had happy faces and sad faces on them. The child had no way to look at the paper and know what part of the paper was unacceptable. Finally, there were no grades in the grade book for that particular week. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships. Some children monopolized Respondent's attention by calling out, talking, and/or being out of their places. There were children who were not getting the recognition they should have had. There was one problem child in the class who needed outside attention but was not referred by Respondent until March, after Respondent had complained about the student all year and after being prodded by the administration. Although Respondent got along well with the children and the children liked her, it is possible to have good rapport but still not effectively conduct a class. Children can like a teacher, but that does not mean that the teacher is necessarily relating to them in an appropriate teacher-student relationship. Respondent communicated with the children more on a personal level, and the communication of skills and learning was not done well. Porzio recommended Respondent establish classroom rules for behavior. Eye contact should be made when addressing a group, the class should be broken down into small groups, and a method for recognition, such as raising hands, must be established. Corrections on children's papers should be made in such a way that the child can identify his or her mistakes. Porzio further recommended that Respondent observe another lesson in Mrs. Wright's kindergarten class, that Porzio teach a lesson in Respondent's class, and that Porzio observe another lesson done by Respondent. The first two suggestions were rejected by Respondent. She did, however, invite Porzio back to observe another lesson. While Respondent is very artistic and her room was creatively decorated, she did not change those decorations frequently enough in order for them to be stimulating and interesting to the children. She did display some children's work, but the work remained on display for a long time. It would have been more effective to keep changing the display so that the children could be rewarded for doing well. At Herrman's request, during the months of November and December 1982, despondent was provided additional help by the PREP specialist for the south Central Area, Marcia Fulton. Herrman felt that he had exhausted the resources within his building and some outside the building, such as the Teacher Education Center, in his efforts to assist Respondent. Therefore, he contacted the area office for some other suggestions and the area office assigned a resource specialist to help Respondent. Fulton made six classroom visitations. When Fulton first arrived, Respondent did not have her PREP roster posted, nor did she have it in her planning or grade book, nor was it readily accessible. The Kindergarten tests which had been given by the counselor had the strategies marked at the top. The PREP chart had the children's names on it, but the strategies had not been filled in with the appropriate "Xs." The PREP chart is required to be completed within the first 20 days of school, so the PREP chart should certainly have been done by November. Fulton completed Respondent's PREP chart for her. Fulton determined that Respondent's lesson plans did not reflect strategies for the different children and were not in compliance with the Dade County Balanced Curriculum. Fulton further observed that Respondent did not spend the required time for math and did not teach the children according to their different strategies. They were all doing the same lesson. This was not appropriate because her PREP roster indicated that she had children in all three strategies. There was no evidence that the children had been grouped into reading groups. By testing the children, Fulton found that there was one child who was very advanced in reading, and she recommended resourcing that child to first grade for reading. Prior to Fulton's suggestion, that child's needs were not being met. The children who were resourced out for Spanish and ESOL were not getting the required subjects upon their return to Respondent's classroom. Fulton restructured Respondent's schedule to put her into compliance with the Balanced Curriculum. Fulton observed that Respondent did not prepare her materials prior to the lesson, for academic lessons and holiday activities as well, and that Respondent was still preparing her materials for Thanksgiving and Christmas activities at the beginning of the class. Only part of the class could begin work, while the rest of the class had to wait until materials were finished so that they could have some meaningful work to do. They had no other work to do in the meantime, and this caused discipline problems as well as lost instructional time. Even though Respondent cooperated and gathered some materials at the suggestion of Fulton, the kindergarten curriculum was not being implemented to the extent that a mid-year kindergarten teacher should have been implementing it. Fulton arranged for Respondent to accompany her to visit another elementary school to observe an excellent kindergarten program, but she was disappointed that the main concept which Respondent grasped from that visit was an art idea which she would try with her own students. Fulton had hoped that Respondent would gain ideas as to how to integrate and reinforce kindergarten objectives. The next formal observation of Respondent was performed by Herrman on November 30, 1982. She was found to be unacceptable overall was rated unacceptable the areas preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, teacher-student relationships, and professional responsibility. This observation was similar to prior ones: all of the students still had the same assignment; Respondent did not follow the plan in the teacher's manual, and she gave an inadequate presentation; she was not utilizing diagnostic information to meet the individual needs of the students; the lesson plans were not followed; the students did not follow directions, talked out loud, were out of their seats, and did not raise their hands after being told eight times; the children were noisy and off task; PREP strategies were not being followed; children were not given adequate introductions to lessons, and papers graded with an "N" (Needs Improvement) did not show what items were wrong. There were only two grades in the grade book for math in November, two missing grades for science and writing, no social studies grades, no health and safety grades, and no expressive language grades. Lastly, there were many negative interactions, and Respondent made few positive remarks. Dorothy Adside, the area director, formally observed Respondent on January 21, 1983, and found Respondent unacceptable overall, with "unacceptable" ratings in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Respondent was unacceptable in preparation and planning because she had one lesson plan for all children. There was no evidence of any attempt to vary the instruction according to the Dade County policy for diagnostic prescriptive teaching in elementary schools. Adside suggested that Respondent carefully study the PREP tests, seat work, and class participation to determine where additional instruction was needed. Children were to be grouped according to the skills to be taught, and they were to be taught in small groups within the PREP strategies. Respondent was to include opportunities for evaluation and development of independent work habits. Respondent was to be certain that the children's independent work had been taught previously, so that they understood it well enough to work without assistance and confusion. She was to learn the parts of a lesson and the sequence for teaching it. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because the general procedures she used resulted in confusion and chaos. For example, a spelling lesson was given which was too simple for some children, about right for some, and too difficult for others. As a result, some children finished quickly and became discipline problems. Also, when Respondent was to begin the math lesson, she sent four children to get "counters" for each table without giving further instructions. When the children returned to he tables, they grabbed, dropped, scrambled for, crawled for, and played with the counters loudly. Although Respondent began teaching the lesson, she never did capture the students' attention, and order was never restored. Adside recommended that Respondent use the assistance given by the PREP specialist, Marcia Fulton. Respondent was also to implement the techniques demonstrated by the specialist and was to take a course in classroom management. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was not teaching the children according to their interests and levels of learning. All children were given work on the same level. There was limited and inadequate opportunity for children to express their ideas. The lesson was dull, and there was no motivation for learning. Instructions in spelling and math were poorly given, thereby resulting in confusion. Children who finished their work early were given busy work to do. Respondent inappropriately had the children count from right to left, contrary to the required pre-reading skill of going from left to right. Adside also found that some seat work was too mature for kindergarten children, and the lines upon which they were to write were too close together. Respondent was found unacceptable in assessment techniques because she did not make use of the diagnostic prescriptive strategies. The PREP records were not current. There was no evidence of the use of listed sources to select instructional strategies for meeting students' needs. When Adside asked for Respondent's PREP roster, Respondent took it out of the middle of a stack of materials that was in the desk drawer. Adside recommended that Respondent use test materials and teaching strategies to assess strengths, weaknesses, and levels of learning. She suggested that Respondent study assessment data to group children according to skills missed and then to teach in either small groups or individually, as needed. She was to update her records to show the progress or lack of it. The next formal observation performed by Herrman was on March 4, 1983. Respondent was found unacceptable overall and in the areas of preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility. Porzio was in the room during the time that this observation was made and is in agreement with it. Respondent still had lesson plans that were incomplete and inappropriate. There was no lesson plan for development or enrichment PREP strategies for Friday. Children were not properly placed in groups. The children did not have the correct materials according to their individual needs. According to lessons and the PREP roster, students were given inappropriate assignments. Student folders contained grading errors. Herrman directed that the lesson being taught be reflected in Respondent's lesson plans. He directed that the children on the enrichment strategy have enrichment level material. He directed Respondent to involve all students in a diagnostic prescriptive program which reflected appropriate assignments. Assignments were to reflect PREP strategies. Respondent was directed to correctly grade and date all papers and was told that when an "S" or "N" was used as a grade there must be consistent indications of what is right or wrong with the paper. Herrman attached student papers to this observation form as an example for Respondent so that she could see the errors in the grading of papers in the student folders and because she insisted that she was grading papers correctly. The papers are representative of great inconsistency in grading and incorrect grading. The student papers indicated that some children received grades on a particular lesson while other students received no grade at all for the same lesson. One child received a perfect score on a paper, but his paper was completely wrong. Incomplete papers had perfect or satisfactory grades. On a paper where Respondent had marked all the correct answers, she missed some, which would indicate to the child that his answer was wrong when it was not. The grades that these children were receiving were inconsistent with their performance. On some papers, Respondent failed to indicate to the students what needed to be corrected or worked upon. There was also inconsistency in grading symbols. On some papers, a checkmark meant "correct," while on others it indicated a wrong response. There were indications of busy work in the folders. Some papers indicated that the children were given written work to do on unlined paper, which is inappropriate for kindergarten children who need to develop their motor skills. Some of the student papers did not have dates on them. Dates are needed to substantiate grades that are given for a particular marking period. The work folders indicated that "Erika" was working with the developmental group, even though she is listed on Respondent's PREP roster as an "enrichment" child. During the school year, Respondent had changes Erika's PREP strategy from enrichment to developmental and had documented that in her lesson plan book; however, Respondent admitted that she did not change the level on her PREP roster. Previously, Respondent had told Herrman that she worked directly from her PREP roster. While it is acceptable for a teacher to use teacher judgment to change the strategies of children, there must be appropriate documentation. If the PREP roster reflects that the teacher has enrichment children, there must be a different kind of activity going on in the classroom for those children. Respondent was suspended from employment on March 16, 1983, and Respondent's class was taught by a substitute teacher for the remainder of that school year. Under the substitute teacher, there was a great change in the classroom. The children were working on task. Even a child who was a hyperactive discipline problem was working on task--not perfectly, but on task. The disruptions to the teacher were almost totally dismissed by her organization methods. There was a change in atmosphere in the room, and the curriculum was implemented by the new teacher. The substitute had to be given a lot of help by Porzio because of the state the classroom was in upon Respondent's suspension. The papers that were found in the children's folders had grades on them, but they were not graded correctly. The grades did not match the work on the paper, and therefore the grade book was not representative of the children's achievement. The children had to be organized into groups. Some of the children were given assignments that they had been given earlier in the year; since they had not received the basic skills, the substitute was required to go back to fill in these deficiencies. Some of the lessons which had been given earlier may not have been appropriate for the children at the time they were given, and therefore the children were given some of the same assignments over again because they were more appropriate to what the children were now doing. During the 1981-82 and the 1982-83 school years, Respondent was unable or unwilling to communicate with and relate to the children in her classroom to such an extent that those children were deprived of minimum educational experience. Respondent is incompetent to teach and to perform her duties as an employee of the Dade County Public School system. Respondent has been either unwilling or unable to implement the directives given to her by her superiors for attaining acceptable teaching methods and procedures and for complying with the Policies of the School Board of Dade County. The prescriptions given to Respondent by Kennedy, Herrman, Gold, Porzio, and Adside are not merely suggestions but rather are mandates. Further, those prescriptions were reasonable and given by persons with proper authority. A continual noncompliance with repeated Prescriptions and a continual, or at least repeated, failure to comply with school board policies constitutes gross insubordination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Specific Notice of Charges filed against her, affirming the suspension of Respondent from employment, dismissing Respondent from her employment as a teacher with the School Board of Dade County, Florida, and denying Respondent's claim for back pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1410 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33132 Patricia Williams, Esquire 18583 Northwest 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33056 Dr. Leonard Brittonp Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Did Respondent, Cynthia Bradford, commit the violations as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, Orange County School Board, is the governmental entity responsible for the operation, supervision, and control of public schools in Orange County, Florida, including the employment of personnel associated with the educational process. Respondent is a white, female employed by Petitioner as an exceptional student education (ESE) annual contract teacher. She taught students with learning and/or emotional disabilities at Meadowbrook Middle School. The students that testified, D.C., N.B., and P.S., are all exceptional education students with mental handicaps, learning disabilities, and/or emotional disabilities. These students are African-American, which is the predominate race of the Meadowbrook Middle School population. ESE students with mental handicaps, learning disabilities, and/or emotional disabilities require a greater period of time and more intensive instruction to acquire knowledge and skills taught in the school curriculum. Students with these problems have difficulty processing emotion, which impacts on their ability to function socially and academically in an educational setting. These students are taught in a “self-contained” classroom environment with a lower teacher-to-student ratio and more individualized instruction time each school day. They remain within Respondent’s classroom the greater part of each school day, leaving only for special classes. These students have a diminished cognitive capacity for abstract thought processing and have difficulty grasping, intellectually and comfortably, the concepts described in the book noted hereinbelow. Some of these students would be at high risk for working with concepts articulated in the book. Meadowbrook Middle School has a Reading Achievement and Progress course, referred to as the “RAP” program. RAP instruction is provided school-wide in every class each day during the sixth period. While the primary focus of RAP is to promote reading proficiency, it is also used to instruct students on character development. This is done with the teacher reading aloud to the class and engaging the student in pertinent discussion about character with reference to the topics discussed in the particular book. All teachers at Meadowbrook Middle School, including Respondent, received training on the implementation of the RAP program before the start of the school year and throughout the school year. Respondent participated in the RAP pre-planning and staff development meetings each of the three years that she taught at Meadowbrook Middle School. In connection with RAP training, Respondent received a “R.A.P. Curriculum and Instruction Guide” to provide classroom assistance and resource information for teachers implementing the RAP program. In addition to containing a list of 140 recommended books, the curriculum guide provided teachers with the following guidance on the selection of reading materials: Choose a quality book – this may seem like an obvious thing to do but it is one that many teachers failed to do. A poor book cannot be made better, no matter how well the reader reads it, so choose a book that: Has significant literary value; Is developmentally appropriate for the target age level students; and/or Affords instructional opportunities (e.g., you can use it to teach a specific concept or skill) . . . While there is a list of recommended books, there is no "approved" reading list. A teacher has the latitude to select any book he or she deems appropriate. The Meadowbrook Middle School library has class sets of books for teachers to check out for RAP. Class sets are just that: forty novels--one for each student--so that each student can read his or her own copy of the book along with the teacher and the rest of the class. Meadowbrook Middle School has a literary coach who is available to assist teachers in the selection of books or other aspects of implementation of the RAP program. Respondent selected a book titled Dumb As Me to read to her ESE students during RAP. This book was not on the recommended book list or available in the school library. She believed the book would capture the interest of her students and present a negative example to stimulate character development discussions. She chose the book because it reflects African- American inter-city culture, similar to the Bluford series which is available in the school library. She did not consult with the literary coach or any other Meadowbrook Middle School educational professional in the selection of the book. Dumb As Me, is fiction about a married, African- American male who lives a self-described “pimp” and “player” lifestyle. The book describes in graphic detail sexual behavior including cunnilingus, masturbation, fellatio, sadism, and sexual intercourse. The book is filled with profanity, including "shit," "fuck," "motherfucker," and such words as "ass," "pussy," "cock," and "dick" as descriptions of the human sexual organs. If Respondent's students had uncensored access to the book, it would be harmful to them. Most of the time the book was locked in a cabinet in the classroom. Through unfortunate circumstance, Respondent's students, or some of them, gained access to the book and read it. When Respondent read the book in class, she sometimes edited the book substituting "F-word" for "fuck," for example. On other occasions, she read the plain text of the novel, including depictions of graphic sexual activity and profanity. As a practical matter, the students are aware of most of the profanity contained in the book. When the same profanity is used by students in class, Respondent attempts to discuss the particular word, "bitch" for example, and explain why it is an inappropriate term. An adult teacher's aid assigned to Respondent's classroom was present when Respondent read part of the novel to her students. She left the classroom after Respondent read a sexually explicit portion of the book about the protagonist engaging in cunnilingus with his mistress. This adult teacher's aid reported Respondent's having read the particular book to the school principal. As a result of this report, the principal obtained and read portions of the book. Another administrative employee undertook an investigation that involved interviewing several of Respondent's students. The investigation confirmed that Respondent had read sexually explicit and profanity-laced portions of the novel to her students. Respondent appears to be a sensitive and concerned teacher; however, the error in judgment demonstrated by her selection of Dumb As Me to be read to learning disabled, emotionally and mentally handicapped children raises question of her competence to teach children. Reading the book, as she did, with its graphic depiction of sexual activity and profanity, exposed Respondent's students to conditions harmful to their social, emotional, and academic development. During the investigation and subsequent activities, Respondent misstated the extent that she had read sexually explicit and profanity-laced portions of the book to her students. Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was diminished by her selection of the particular book and reading sexually explicit and profanity-laced sections of the book to her students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent's "misconduct in office" constitutes “just cause” under Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2005), to dismiss her from her employment as a teacher with Petitioner, Orange County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian F. Moes, Esquire Orange County School Board 445 West Amelia Street Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271 Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 140 South University Drive, Suite A Plantation, Florida 33324 Honorable John Winn, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ronald Blocker, Superintendent Orange County School Board Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271
The Issue Whether Cheryl Rayam (Respondent) should be dismissed from her employment with the school district.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Lake County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district. See §1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2009). At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was an employee of the School Board assigned to middle schools within the district. As such, it was expected that Respondent would faithfully perform the duties assigned to her and would comply with all terms of her agreement with the School Board. Respondent's assignment at EMS as an exceptional education teacher led to the instant case. At all times material to this matter, Respondent’s employment relationship with Petitioner was subject to a Professional Service Contract of Employment for Instructional Personnel of the Public Schools. Additionally, on April 20, 2007, Respondent signed a compliance plan so that she would become eligible for the designation of "highly qualified" instructor. Respondent elected to seek the two-year option within which to obtain the designation as she intended to obtain the reading endorsement. The document executed by Respondent (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) noted that Respondent would have to successfully pass the MGIC together with achieving the reading endorsement designation. The compliance plan also specified that failure "to complete the components of this compliance plan by the specific timeline may result in the termination of employment." Respondent was to obtain the reading endorsement and pass the MGIC no later than June 30, 2009. In short, Respondent failed to pass the MGIC. Although she achieved the reading endorsement and has successfully completed the requirements for ESOL endorsement, Respondent did not successfully complete the MGIC examination. The "highly qualified" designation requirement came as a result of the No Child Left Behind provisions of law. As an exceptional student educator in a self-contained classroom, Respondent was identified as one of the teachers who were required to pass the MGIC examination. Other teachers in the school district were also within the category of those who were required to achieve highly qualified status. On January 7, 2008, and March 18, 2009, Respondent was reminded by Petitioner of her continuing obligation to achieve highly qualified status. Respondent did not successfully pass the MGIC by June 30, 2009. Thereafter, she was granted an extension in order to afford her more time to pass the exam. By memorandum dated May 7, 2009, Respondent was given until the end of the first term of the 2009/2010 school year to pass the exam. When the winter break came in December 2009, Respondent had still not passed the MGIC. Although Respondent claimed that medical problems interfered with her ability to take the exam, she never sought a medical accommodation from Petitioner. Although Respondent achieved the reading endorsement, Petitioner was not obligated to place her in a reading endorsement position. All job positions held with Petitioner required Respondent to achieve highly qualified status. Petitioner treated all teachers who were required to achieve highly qualified status similarly. Respondent did not get singled out for any reason. Other teachers who signed compliance plans were also required to pass examinations to remain employed with the district. Respondent was duly notified of the Petitioner's intention to terminate her employment by letter dated December 22, 2009. Thereafter, Respondent timely challenged Petitioner's decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lake County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment for the position requiring highly qualified status but allowing Respondent leave in the future to reapply for employment with the district for any position that may fall open for which she is qualified and certified to teach. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 28th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Susan Moxley, Superintendent Lake County Public Schools 201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares, Florida 32778-2486 Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire McLin & Burnsed Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357 Cheryl Rayam 1705 Idaho Avenue Orlando, Florida 32809 Andre T. Young, Esquire 11 North Summerlin Avenue, Suite 210 Orlando, Florida 32801 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated June 25, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent began employment as a teacher with the Lake County School District in school year 1983-1984 and was continuously employed by the District until she voluntarily resigned her position in May 2000. She holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 541066, covering the area of speech correction. Her Certificate expires on June 30, 2004. Beginning in school year 1983-1984 and continuing until her resignation, Respondent provided ESE speech pathology and testing/evaluation for various schools in the Lake County school system. During school year 1999-2000, Respondent was employed as a speech and language pathologist at UMS. She also provided the same services (when needed) at Umatilla High School and Lake Tech High School (Lake Tech) in Eustis, Florida. Part of her responsibilities included administering tests to ESE students which aid in determining whether such students should continue in the ESE program. Two of those tests are the Adolescent Test of Problem Solving (TOPS) and the Adolescent Word Test (Word Test), both of which are given to students with a language impairment. Such tests were normally administered during a student's elective period, such as homeroom or band. In school years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999, when she was in the sixth and seventh grades at U.M.S., T.S. received speech services from Respondent in the ESE program for an expressive receptive language delay condition, which created a language processing deficiency. At T.S.'s seventh grade Individual Education Plan (IEP) meeting, however, it was determined that she would be mainstreamed into regular classes for the eighth grade, which meant that she would no longer receive direct services from Respondent, but rather Respondent would only "check on her grades" to see how the student was "performing in the mainstream." When a student in the ESE program is due for testing or assessment, a clerk in the UMS guidance office normally sends a notice and any other pertinent forms to the student's parents and the ESE teacher several weeks before the meeting. Besides the annual IEP, every three years a re-evaluation is done to determine whether the student should be retained in the ESE program. On April 21, 2000, a Lake County Schools Exceptional Student Notification of Educational Staffing (Notice) was sent to T.S.'s parents and Respondent scheduling a meeting at 11:00 a.m., Monday, May 8, 2000. A Notice and Consent for Re- Evaluation was also sent to the parents for their signature, which would serve as authorization for the school to give T.S. another "language screening/evaluation," that is, authorization to administer the TOPS test and Word Test. Although the Notice was not wholly clear in identifying the purpose of the meeting, and cited a "review of your child's IEP/EP program(s) Speech/Language Impaired" and a discussion of the "re-evaluation assessment [of T.S.] and possible continued eligibility [in the ESE program]" as its purposes, in plainer terms its purpose was simply to obtain permission from the parents to administer a re-evaluation examination and to explain to the parents the testing procedure. Respondent acknowledges receiving both documents. Attendees were to include the parents, Respondent, and Connie Gibson, a guidance counselor at UMS. During school year 1999-2000, Respondent normally provided ESE services at Lake Tech (in Eustis) on Monday mornings until around 11:00 a.m. Because she mistakenly believed the meeting was to be held on Tuesday, May 9, 2000 (rather than May 8), Respondent signed out for Lake Tech on the morning of May 8. She also indicated on the sign-out sheet that after leaving Lake Tech, she would stop by Eustis Heights Elementary School (Eustis Heights) for a few minutes to speak with its principal. When she arrived at Eustis Heights around 11:00 a.m., Respondent received a message reminding her that a meeting was being held at UMS. In the meantime, T.S.'s parents and Connie Gibson arrived for the meeting at 11:00 a.m. Ms. Gibson was under the mistaken impression that the purpose of the meeting was to have Respondent go over the re-evaluation testing that Ms. Gibson thought Respondent had already administered to T.S. When Respondent arrived at the meeting, Ms. Gibson asked her if she had the test results for T.S. Respondent replied that the testing was in her room (which was no more than a minute or two away) and that she needed to retrieve the tests. Although the tests could have been retrieved in less than five minutes, Respondent exited the room and returned around fifteen or so minutes later. This amount of time has been accepted as being the most accurate, even though the length of Respondent's absence is in dispute, with estimates ranging from as few as four or five minutes to as long as twenty-five minutes. Respondent returned with both the TOPS test and Word Test allegedly taken by T.S. Respondent had handwritten on the tests that they had been administered on Monday, May 1, 2000, or one week earlier. Respondent then proceeded to review the results of the tests with the parents. Based upon the test scores (which were a little above average) and T.S.'s grades in the mainstream middle school, Respondent recommended that T.S. be dismissed from the ESE program. Indeed, under the testing results, T.S. met dismissal criteria, that is, she had made enough progress in the program that she could be dismissed. As it turned out, this decision was satisfactory with the parents since they did not like Respondent and did not believe that their daughter was receiving good services from her. While the meeting was progressing, Ms. Gibson realized that the purpose of the meeting was to get permission for the testing of T.S., not to discuss test results. This realization was reinforced by the fact that the written parental consent is required by federal law to test a student's qualifications for a special education program, and the re-evaluation form had not been signed. Believing that the tests had been administered without parental permission, Ms. Gibson asked the parents to sign the form that day, but to backdate the document to May 1, when the tests were allegedly administered. The parents agreed to do so and signed the form. After the meeting was concluded, Ms. Gibson felt uncomfortable about what had transpired, including the backdating of the document. Accordingly, she reported this to James R. Polk, Jr., then the principal at UMS. At that time, she also reported that she suspected that Respondent had not actually administered the tests or that Respondent had done so improperly. This suspicion was based in part on the fact that the tests did not have any "anecdotal notes" written on them. According to the TOPS test manual, the tester should write down any response that does not closely match one of the responses that was already printed on the test protocol. This means that not only should all incorrect answers be recorded, but also any responses that do not closely match the suggested response in the test manual. The purpose of this requirement is to enable another person to verify that the scores given by the original tester are correct. It also enables the tester to later compare a student's questionable response with the test manual, and to then score it correct or incorrect. The Word Test manual further provides that "questionable or alternative responses" should be recorded. In this case, Respondent recorded nothing on the tests except whether the answers given were right or wrong. Respondent contended, however, that her practice had always been to record only those responses that were "very strange or off the wall that really didn't pertain to [the] question." Even assuming that this practice was acceptable, it is highly unusual that out of 110 questions supposedly answered by T.S., none fell within this category. A short time after meeting with Ms. Gibson, Mr. Polk summoned T.S. (who had not attended the meeting) to his office and was told by the student that she had never been tested by Respondent, nor had she been seen by Respondent for a long period of time. A telephone call the same day by Mr. Polk with T.S.'s mother corroborated this fact. On the following day, May 9, 2000, Mr. Polk met with Respondent to discuss Ms. Gibson's concerns. At that meeting, Respondent stated that she had administered the tests during homeroom period on May 1, 2000. However, homeroom period was only 22 minutes long and it would be impossible to take the student out of class, walk to the testing location, and administer two tests in less than twenty-two minutes. This is because the TOPS test contains fifty questions and takes approximately forty minutes to administer, while the Word Test contains sixty questions and takes approximately twenty to thirty minutes to complete, or a total time of at least one hour. At hearing, Respondent conceded that "[p]robably . . . it [the testing on May 1] didn't happen that way." Mr. Polk later confronted Respondent about these facts which made her claims impossible, and Respondent then indicated that she had given the wrong date, and that she had given the test during homeroom on Tuesday, May 2, 2000. Mr. Polk checked T.S.'s schedule on May 2 and learned that T.S. was in an intramural program the entire day. When presented with this information, Respondent then gave a third date - Thursday, May 4, 2000. This date was purportedly taken by Respondent from the calendar on the wall in her office. However, the sign-in sheet Respondent kept for her classroom failed to show that T.S. had signed in on that date for testing. Respondent later contended, however, that mainstream students (such as T.S.) did not have to sign in for testing. Even so, based on these circumstances, Mr. Polk concluded that the tests were never administered and thus he recommended to the Superintendent that Respondent be dismissed. This was formalized in an Appraisal II evaluation (which is used to designate areas of deficiencies) prepared by Mr. Polk on May 18, 2000, and signed by Respondent on May 22, 2000. For at least the preceding six years, Respondent had always received outstanding appraisals by her supervisors. After receiving the Appraisal II, Respondent submitted her resignation. During Respondent's deposition taken on June 24, 2003, or five weeks before the final hearing, she stated for the first time that the tests were actually administered over a two-day period, with one being given on Thursday, May 4, and the second being given on May 9, 2000 (or the day after the May 8 meeting when the test results were reviewed). At the urging of her counsel, however, she then changed these dates to May 4 and 5. In answers to interrogatories submitted by Respondent on July 7, 2003, she responded that it took only 25 to 30 minutes for T.S. to complete both tests. A letter of mitigation sent by Respondent's counsel to Petitioner on May 15, 2001, also took the same position. However, these two documents are at variance with Respondent's testimony at final hearing. At final hearing, or more than three years after the events here occurred, Respondent stated that the correct dates were sometime between April 21 (when she received the Notice) and May 8, 2000, and that the tests were administered during one of T.S.'s homeroom or elective periods. She further recollects that she pulled T.S. from her first period in homeroom (which is a 22-minute class) and administered the longer TOPS test at that time. However, because the test ran over, Respondent says the testing consumed some ten to fifteen minutes of the next period, but she had the leeway to do so since the next period was an elective class (band). She further claims that the Word Test was also begun during the band class and was eventually completed on another undisclosed date. In light of the numerous conflicting versions of events given by Respondent, and especially the multiple testing dates suggested by Respondent no more than a week after the tests were supposedly administered and when her recollection should have been the clearest, this testimony is not accepted as being credible. The more credible evidence supports a finding that Respondent either filled out the test scores during the time when she left the meeting on May 8 ostensibly for the purpose of retrieving the tests, or she filled out the test scores in whole or in part after receiving the Notice on April 21 but prior to May 8. No matter which scenario is correct, or what her motivation might have been, the fact remains that the tests were never administered to the student. Indeed, at hearing T.S. confirmed that she was certain that the tests had never been administered. Respondent's contention that T.S. and her mother fabricated their stories because of personal bias against her has been rejected. By falsifying the test scores, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was seriously impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Education enter a final order finding that Respondent is guilty of the charges specified in the Amended Administrative Complaint and that the penalty described in paragraph 29 be imposed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 1st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 1st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert F. Sickles, Esquire Broad and Cassel 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500 Tampa, Florida 33602-5842 Joan Stewart, Esquire Florida Education Association 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of incompetency, misconduct in office, or insubordination and, if so, whether Petitioner may suspend her without pay for 13 days.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner for 26 years, but not for the period of 1997-2007. For the most part, Respondent has served as a classroom reading teacher, but she has also served as a district-level behavior specialist over ten years ago. Starting in the 2006-07 school year and through the 2011-12 school year, Respondent has been assigned as a tenth grade reading teacher at Blanche Ely High School. Respondent has never received any discipline on her educator's certificate. Until the 2011-12 school year, Respondent had never received any adverse employment action from Petitioner. All of her evaluations during her tenure at Blanche Ely bore satisfactory marks. For the first two years after Respondent returned to teaching in Petitioner's schools, she was on annual contract, but she regained a professional service contract starting the 2008-09 school year. Ms. Baugh's first year as assistant principal at Blanche Ely was the 2011-12 school year. Ms. Baugh previously served as assistant principal at Deerfield Beach High School and, before that, served for seven years as a classroom reading and English teacher. Among Ms. Baugh's responsibilities at Blanche Ely during the 2011-12 school year was to supervise the reading and English departments. Ms. Baugh was thus Respondent's direct administrator. Ms. Baugh's first observation of Respondent's class took place on September 28, 2011. Ms. Baugh remained in the classroom for 30 minutes. Ms. Baugh observed deficiencies in three areas. First, as to instructional planning, Respondent had failed to write the learning objectives on the board, so the students lacked a clear understanding of what they were supposed to learn from the lesson. By failing to introduce the students to the material properly, Respondent allowed students to become confused as to their tasks in reading an interview in a textbook. Lastly, Respondent broke the class into pairs to write an interview, without first providing an example of how to write an interview or giving the students a chance to practice the task, and some students did not understand their respective roles in the small groups. Second, as to lesson presentation, only a few students engaged in an assigned activity because Respondent had failed to provide pre-reading assignments or to explain the purpose of the reading assignment. In reviewing an activity in which students were to determine their areas of weakness, Respondent asked three students to share their three most common mistakes, but failed to determine whether the students actually knew their areas of weakness. Lastly, Respondent failed to write on the board the vocabulary, learning objectives, and specific tasks for the lesson. Third, as to subject-matter knowledge, Respondent consistently misidentified the FCAT 2.0 Reading Category Four as "Informational Text and Technology." It is "Information Text/Research Process." Respondent did not resist Ms. Baugh's comments during the post-observation conference, which took place on October 3, 2011, although Respondent incorrectly insisted that the FCAT section to which she had referred would cover technology. During the conference, Ms. Baugh informed Respondent that she would receive assistance in instructional planning, lesson presentation, and subject-matter knowledge. Ms. Baugh warned Respondent that she would be placed on a Performance Development Plan, if she failed to remediate these deficiencies. One day within two weeks of the October 3 conference, Respondent was instructing her class when a student asked a completely off-topic question about sex. Unable to regain control of the class, Respondent floundered, and other students seized the opportunity to ask inappropriate questions. In the ensuing verbal melee, answering questions posed to her, Respondent told the students that she first had had sex in college and it had been physically painful. As surprising as Respondent's lapse in judgment in answering these questions about her personal sex life, her explanations for why she did so were even more surprising. When asked during cross-examination why she would answer such obviously impertinent questions, Respondent twice, sitting silently, responded by snapping her fingers repeatedly. As though she were overwhelmed by the attorney's question, Respondent resorted to this gesture to indicate that the rapid- fire questions themselves had overwhelmed her. When finally coaxed to substitute language for gesture, Respondent lamely explained that a teacher cannot ever be viewed as inappropriate when she is honest with a child. After a conference on October 22, during which Respondent denied having made any sexual comments in class, Ms. Baugh informed Respondent, somewhat cryptically, "to no longer engage in nonacademic discourse and off-topic discussion by desisting students' negative behaviors." Doubtlessly, though, Respondent understood that she was not to do this again. Ms. Baugh's second observation of Respondent's class took place on November 9, 2011. As Ms. Baugh entered the class, the students were loudly demanding to know what they were supposed to be doing in class. In response to one student, Respondent replied that they should write the words on the overhead projector. The lesson was devoted to acquiring vocabulary through morphemes. While students were working on the lesson, a loud dialog took place between a student sitting near Ms. Baugh and another student sitting across the classroom. Their comments included profanity and disparaging remarks, including one statement referring to the boy on the other side of the classroom as "fat boy." Other students were leaving the classroom, some with and some without passes. Still other students were laughing and talking. Few students were doing the assigned work, but Respondent never intervened. When later asked why she had not intervened, Respondent told Ms. Baugh she did not want the behaviors to worsen and the situation to escalate. After working on the morphemes assignment, the students turned their divided attention to another assignment. Respondent neither explained the purpose of the new activity, nor did she introduce the new activity to the students. Instead, Respondent told the students merely to turn to a certain page and begin to work. Ms. Baugh observed deficiencies in instructional planning, lesson presentation, and behavior management. As to the last, Ms. Baugh told Respondent to stop negative behaviors and impose consequences for misbehavior. By this time, Respondent was receiving assistance from Ms. Powell, another reading teacher, and a retired principal. Later, Ms. Baugh assigned a second reading coach to try to help Respondent. Ms. Powell actually had started helping Respondent in 2009, at least in group sessions given for the benefit of all of the reading teachers. Clearly, though, by the 2011-12 school year, Ms. Powell was providing much more in-depth, individual assistance to Respondent. For instance, following an observation on October 28, Ms. Powell provided Respondent with a detailed Teacher Support Narrative. As to one observation, Ms. Powell noted how Respondent's board was cluttered, bore incorrect lesson objectives, and reflected the use of obsolete student-grouping criteria. Ms. Powell told Respondent to visit the classrooms of three other teachers to see how a board should be organized. But, by their next meeting, Respondent had not done so. Increasingly, though, Respondent was losing control of her classroom. Nearby teachers would enter Respondent's classroom to try to help restore order. Respondent later explained that she did not summon security because she had done so on a couple of occasions early in the school year, but security had never responded. On at least two or three occasions, when a student swore openly in class, Respondent's "strategy" was to repeat the word, in asking what he had said, such as "did you say 'fuck?' or "did you say 'bitch?'" Predictably, the effect of the teacher's repeating the swear word did not de-escalate the situation. On December 12, 2011, one student repeatedly directed a profanity toward Respondent in class and then seized Respondent's personal computer to access a grade program to change his grade. When the other students became disruptive too, another teacher had to enter the classroom to restore order. Because Respondent had not contacted security, the other teacher did so. Eventually, Respondent issued a referral only for the profanity, not the seizing of the computer, although this act compromised confidential information of other students. By letter dated January 17, 2012, Ms. Baugh issued Respondent a written reprimand for failing to manage the behavior of her students and allowing an unsafe learning environment to ensue. Ms. Powell witnessed the aftermath of a more serious incident that took place on December 15 in Respondent's classroom. At the start of class, a boy struck a girl in the head with a bottle. Although Respondent wrote a referral on the boy, she allowed both students to remain in the class for the duration of the period. As Ms. Powell entered the classroom, the period had evidently just ended, and the boy had just left the classroom, but she saw the girl, crying, on her cellphone talking to someone. She was asking the person with whom she had called to come to school to pick her up because a boy was bothering her, and her teacher was not doing anything about it. Instead of comforting the child, Respondent was busily walking around the classroom picking up papers. In response to questions from Ms. Powell, Respondent confirmed what had happened. When Ms. Powell asked if Respondent had called security, she said she had not because she was straightening up the room. Respondent then told the girl to proceed to her next class, but Ms. Powell told her not to leave the safety of the classroom until they knew the location of the boy. The girl left the classroom anyway, and Ms. Powell trailed her to make sure that the boy did not approach her. Just at that moment, the security guard arrived, so Ms. Powell could return to the classroom and admonish Respondent for, among other things, cleaning up the room before addressing the needs of the student who had been struck by the bottle. Later, in a conference, Respondent told Ms. Baugh that she had not called security because the fight had taken place just outside her classroom. Respondent added that she also knew that the boy did not bother girls, only other boys. Unmoved by Respondent's so-called explanations, by letter also dated January 17, 2012, Ms. Baugh issued a written reprimand for Respondent's failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to her health or safety. Ms. Baugh's third observation of Respondent's class took place on January 5. The observation generally noted the same deficiencies as had been noted in the preceding two observations. This time, students laid their heads on their tables, and Respondent did not make them pay attention. The classroom was noisy, as students laughed and talked without being redirected. Two students even had headphones over their ears. When later asked about these matters, Respondent told Ms. Baugh that she did not address these behaviors because she did not want to delay instructional momentum. As was the case with the second observation, Ms. Baugh noted deficiencies in instructional planning, lesson presentation, and behavior management. In February 2012, Respondent experienced serious problems in assigning correct grades and less serious problems in proctoring exams and handling secure exam materials. Eventually, Respondent managed to combine her deficiencies in teaching and classroom management by improperly assigning low academic grades based on misbehavior. By letter dated March 21, 2012, which was later superseded by a letter dated March 22, 2012, Ms. Baugh advised Respondent that she was recommending a three-day suspension for the above-discussed performance deficiencies, which covered a period starting with the beginning of the school year and ending on the date of a predisciplinary meeting that had taken place on March 2. This is the proposed action that is the subject of DOAH Case No. 12-1924TTS. Two more classroom-trashings occurred in the two days following the March 21 three-day suspension letter. First, on March 22, Ms. Powell found Respondent trying to use an overhead in a fully lighted room. Because the image was washed out, Ms. Powell suggested that they turn out the lights, but provide some light by opening the blinds shading the top of the windows. Ms. Powell and Respondent adjusted the lighting accordingly. Ms. Powell left the classroom to help another teacher. Returning to Respondent's classroom 30 minutes later, Ms. Powell could hear a loud commotion as she approached the classroom in the hall. She heard falling desks and chairs and loud shouting. As Ms. Powell entered the classroom, it was pitch black. Ms. Powell turned on the lights and saw that the students had trashed the classroom, again flipping desks and chairs and strewing the floor with papers and books. Ms. Powell asked what was going on, and Respondent explained, with no sense of urgency, that the students kept turning off the lights. When Ms. Powell asked Respondent to identify the misbehaving students, Respondent mentioned the name of one student. The student declared that he was innocent, but Respondent said, "oh, yes, it was you." When Ms. Powell began to call this student's parents, Respondent interrupted and said she was not sure that he was the perpetrator. Second, on the afternoon of Friday, March 23, Ms. Powell noticed students running from the computer lab toward the vending machine area. Ms. Powell approached Respondent, who had just escorted her class (or most of it) from the computer lab back to her regular classroom. Respondent denied that there had been any trouble. Unconvinced, Ms. Powell walked over to the computer lab and found overturned desks, flipped chairs, the phone off the hook and on the floor, and papers and books strewn along the floor. Respondent entered the room and denied that her students had done this trashing of the lab. This denial, which Respondent repeated at hearing, is specifically not credited. Additionally, after receiving the March 21 three-day suspension letter, Respondent continued to grade student work arbitrarily. On one occasion, also on March 22, Ms. Powell noticed that two students with the identical answers had received very different grades for their homework--one getting a 100% and one getting a 50%. When Ms. Powell asked Respondent about the discrepant grading, Respondent replied that she had concluded that the student with the 50% had cheated. Respondent reasoned that the first student to have handed in her assignment had obviously done her own work, but the other student must have copied. When Ms. Powell pointed out the fallacy of this thinking and asked if Respondent had bothered to speak to either of the students, Respondent admitted that she had not. On another occasion, within the same week, Respondent reduced a student's grade on an assignment because of classroom misbehavior--again, improperly using an academic assessment to deal with misbehavior. The student demanded to know whether Respondent had reduced her grade because she is black. Resorting to her earlier strategy of repeating profanity, Respondent sarcastically repeated the question by saying that she had reduced her grade because she was black. Outraged, the student then became loud and aggressive with Respondent. This statement of Respondent, who is white, was insensitive, at the least. As noted by the reference in Petitioner Exhibit 44, this statement came shortly after the racially charged killing of Trayvon Martin. This exhibit states that Respondent tried to justify her reducing the student's grade because the student had taken a piece of yellow paper from Respondent's desk, without permission, and had written on it: "RIP Trayvon Martin." This is a good example of Respondent's missing a crucial teachable moment, instead insensibly clinging to her "technique" of repeating the student's utterance--for what purpose is never clear. The evidentiary record reveals some evidence of insubordination, considerable evidence of incompetency, and overwhelming evidence of misconduct in office. In some cases allowing and in other cases creating conditions in her classroom the precluded learning and endangered the safety of the students entrusted to her, Respondent's deficiencies in classroom management--exacerbated by her incompetency in the form of inefficiency and incapacity--are so serious as to impair her effectiveness in the school system. Considering the acts and omissions covered by the two written reprimands solely for the purpose of applying the progressive discipline policy of Petitioner, the evidentiary record amply supports a 13-day suspension, without pay, for the misconduct in office and incompetence proved in these cases.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order suspending Respondent, without pay, for 13 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 12th day of February, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Eugene K. Pettis, Esquire Brian Engel, Esquire Haliczer, Pettis, and Schwamm, P. A. One Financial Plaza, 7th Floor 100 Southeast 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Dr. Tony Bennett Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, had just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent has been employed as a teacher by the School Board since August 15, 1995. As a member of the School Board's instructional staff, Respondent's employment is subject to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2008),1 which provides that her employment will not be terminated except for just cause. The School Board is a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the School District. Exceptional Student Education Exceptional Student Education covers a range of students who have individual needs that must be addressed by a specific plan for education, called an Individual Education Plan. The drafting and maintenance of IEPs is governed by federal and state law. The government may complete audits of district ESE records from time to time, although audits are not completed every year. However, the School District self-reports ESE compliance issues to the government. IEPs are valid for one year and must be rewritten annually, although not necessarily coinciding with the beginning of each school year. Generally, a draft form of the IEP is prepared and taken to an IEP meeting to be reviewed by individuals who are involved with the student's education ("IEP team"), including ESE teachers, regular education teachers, guidance counselors, and parents. Although everyone who is directly involved with the student's education is invited to the IEP meeting, it is not necessary that each individual attend for the IEP to be valid. For instance, if parents or service providers do not attend, the IEP is not invalid. All members of the IEP team attending the IEP meeting are required to sign a signature page indicating their attendance. The parents of the students are legally entitled to two notices of the IEP meeting, the first being at least ten days prior to the meeting. The notice can be written or verbal, but should be documented in the ESE file. Parents may waive their right to ten days' notice of the hearing. One person is assigned as the school's Local Education Agency (LEA). An LEA must be present at all IEP meetings which are required to ensure that ESE guidelines are followed. Students are required to be evaluated by service providers, such as speech-language pathologists, psychologists, social workers, and occupational therapists and to be re-evaluated every three years. The re-evaluation must be completed within three years from the calendar date of the earliest testing completed in the previous evaluation or re-evaluation. Each service provider is expected to review the file and to complete a re-evaluation. However, a re-evaluation is not required if the student's IEP team determines that such re-evaluation is not needed. Furthermore, re-evaluations are not required to draft an IEP. Prior to any testing, evaluation or re-evaluation of a student, the consent of the parent must be obtained. The consent forms are valid for one year after the parent's signature is obtained. Each student receiving ESE services should have a file which includes documentation, such as his/her IEP. Students who have more than one exceptionality (such as speech-language) will often have more than one file housed in the ESE office. Also, students who have been receiving ESE services for a long period of time often require more than one file folder to contain all of the documents. The School District obtains funds from the government based upon the ESE status of the students in the district. Students who receive ESE services are given more funding than students in regular classes. The funding is allocated on a per-student basis, and ESE students receive different levels of funding depending on the classification of their disabilities. In order to qualify for the funds, IEP and other relevant documents must be in compliance with certain guidelines referred to as FTE or "full time equivalent." There are two FTE periods during each school year wherein the ESE files must be compliant in order to obtain funds; the first one is in October and the second one is February. Respondent's Employment at Haile Middle School Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a teacher for 13 years. For the past several years, and at all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE teacher at Haile. In 2005-2006, after the preceding ESE department chair was transferred to another school, Janet Kerley, principal at Haile, asked Respondent if she would serve as the ESE department chair. Respondent accepted the job and had served continuously as ESE department chair until early February 2008. While serving as ESE chair, Respondent continued to work as an ESE teacher, and her position was designated as such by the School Board. As ESE department chair at Haile, Respondent received a stipend.2 In 2005-2006, when Respondent first became the ESE department chair, her work day was divided evenly between teaching her scheduled ESE classes and ESE department chair duties. Training for ESE Chair Position No special training was provided for Respondent to serve as ESE department chair. The School District assigned an ESE specialist to each secondary school, including Haile. The ESE specialist's role was to provide support to the ESE department chair. However, ESE specialists had no supervisory responsibilities for the ESE department chair. In the 2006-2007 school year, Emma Mileham, the ESE specialist assigned to Haile that year, gave Respondent a checklist titled, "ESE Department Chair Responsibilities." She also distributed "monthly mind joggers," titled, "ESE Teacher Activities." The checklist of the department chair's responsibilities included reviewing ESE files. During the 2007-2008 school year, Amy Lloyd, the ESE specialist assigned to Haile, interacted with Respondent once a week as part of the school's Child Study Team. However, Lloyd did not provide any list of job responsibilities to Respondent. Kerley evaluated Respondent's work performance in the past and found her work to be satisfactory. Prior to the allegations that gave rise to this action, Kerley never perceived deficiencies in Respondent's ability to maintain the ESE files. During Respondent's 13-year tenure as a teacher in the School District, she has consistently received satisfactory evaluations and has never been the subject of a disciplinary matter. Changes Impacting ESE Department in 2007-2008 Jerry Hernandez was appointed as the assistant principal at Haile for the 2007-2008 school year. Kerley designated Hernandez as the school's ESE administrator. As ESE administrator, Hernandez was responsible for ensuring compliance with FTE requirements, implementation of IEPs, and monitoring the ESE department chair. In the 2007-2008 school year, two changes were implemented which impacted the ESE Department at Haile and those working in that area. First, as part of an overall change implemented by the School District, ESE teachers at Haile were required to use a new computer system for creating ESE documents (i.e., IEPs, notices, consent forms, etc.). Second, there were significant changes in job responsibilities of the ESE department chair at Haile implemented at the school level. Computer System Changes Prior to the 2007-2008 school year, Haile was using a software program called Dynamo to assist in the maintenance of ESE files. Dynamo was primarily based upon the use of "hard copies" of relevant documents and was limited to each user's computer. At the end of the 2006-2007 school year, Haile switched from the Dynamo software to a web-based program called the A3 system ("A3"). The main difference between Dynamo and A3 was that A3, as a web-based program, allowed individuals to view relevant documents from any computer by logging into the system. After Haile switched from Dynamo to A3, the teachers and service providers were encouraged to input all previous IEPs drafted in Dynamo into the A3 system. In fact, after the School District switched to the A3 system, there was a "push" by administrators to have all IEPs inputted into A3. To accomplish this, Respondent typed IEPs drafted in Dynamo and those received from other states into the A3 system verbatim, so that teachers and other individuals would have access to the information from their computers. Also, other Haile employees, including ESE teachers Athena Jantzen and Alice Moreland, and speech-language pathologist, Marie Bryant-Jones, input Dynamo IEPs into the A3 system. At the end of the 2006-2007 school year, the speech- language pathologist then assigned to Haile, Bryant-Jones, input goals for each student who received speech services into the A3 system. The next speech-language pathologist was free to revise the goals as she saw fit. The fact that Respondent and ESE teachers were inputting IEPs originally drafted in Dynamo into the A3 system was common knowledge at Haile. The School District provided training in the A3 system for ESE teachers at or near the end of the 2006-2007 school year. Additionally, on March 20, 2007, a district-sponsored one-on-one training was offered to the staff of Haile. Respondent attended that session and the training staff spent that day reviewing and/or explaining the A3 system. The training staff also worked with and helped Respondent input the current IEPs in the A3 system in order "to speed up the process." To start a new IEP in A3, the user is required to click on "Copy IEP" on the computer page. Clicking "Copy IEP" makes an identical copy of the last IEP in the system, including goals and objectives for other information about the student. The dates for the previous IEP remains the same until the user manually changes the date. This copy is a "draft" which becomes the new IEP when the modified or updated information is input into the A3 system. ESE Department Chair Changes in Responsibilities in October 2007 Prior to October 2007, ESE teachers at Haile were responsible for the ESE files of the students they taught, and each ESE teacher drafted the IEPs for their students. In October 2007, Hernandez told Respondent that as the department chair, she was now to assume responsibility for all of the ESE files at Haile. Hernandez explained to Respondent that this change was being made because the ESE teachers had complained to him that they could not, or no longer wanted to, take care of the ESE files and to teach their classes. When Hernandez told Respondent that she was now responsible for maintaining all of the ESE files, Respondent informed Hernandez that she was not happy about that added responsibility. In response, Hernandez told Respondent not to worry about the files, indicating that they (the files) would "take care of themselves." Hernandez than told Respondent that she should concentrate on giving as much support to the teachers as possible. In October 2007, when Hernandez assigned Respondent the responsibility for maintenance of all ESE files, there were approximately 170 ESE files that needed to be maintained in compliance with FTE guidelines. Except for the foregoing, Hernandez never specifically informed Respondent of what her new duties were as ESE department chair. In October 2007, after being given the responsibility for all ESE files, Respondent drafted IEPs into the A3 system for students she did not have in class by getting feedback from the students' teachers and reviewing the students' progress reports. One ESE teacher at Haile, Athena Jantzen, continued to draft some of her own students' IEPs, as Respondent was overloaded with work. Service providers, such as speech-language pathologists and psychologists, were still expected to draft and enter their own goals into the A3 system. If a student received only speech services, the speech-language pathologist was responsible for drafting the student's IEP and maintaining the file. After being assigned the responsibility for all the ESE files, Respondent asked the ESE clerk to print copies of various active IEPs from A3. Respondent requested the copies so that a copy of the student's IEP could be included in each file related to that student. The IEPs and related documents were printed from the A3 system, not photocopied, and reflected a print date of October 17, 2007, on the top of each page. The executed signature pages of the IEP which could not be printed from A3, were not photocopied by the ESE clerk and were not included in each file. After being assigned the responsibility for all the ESE files, Respondent continued to teach her assigned ESE class and perform cafeteria duty on a daily basis. Respondent was also pulled almost weekly from her department chair responsibilities to cover additional classes. Responsibilities Related to ESE Compliance Issues As chairperson for the ESE Department, Respondent was charged with the maintenance and oversight of IEPs. At Haile, the guidance counselor is designated as the school's LEA. At Haile, the registrar was designated by the school administration to set up IEP and revision meetings. The ESE clerk, who worked at Haile one day a week, was assigned to mail out the notices of meetings to the parents. When students enrolled at Haile from another school, the registrar or guidance counselor would inform Respondent if the child required ESE services. Error Reports Respondent received an "error report" from the school's registrar almost weekly. The error report identified potential compliance issues with the ESE files, but did not represent a completely accurate accounting of the files. For example, it would not identify compliance issues, such as a missing signature page for an otherwise valid IEP. Respondent used the error report to ensure that IEPs were timely updated and reviews for re-evaluations were timely initiated. Hernandez, as ESE administrator, received an "error report" about three times a year. Error reports were available to service providers who requested them. These error reports were obtained and used by some service providers to determine when the re-evaluations for which they were responsible were due. Systems to Notify Service Providers of Re-Evaluation Dates While ESE department chair, Respondent used the following three different systems to notify and/or remind service providers when students needed to be re-evaluated: (1) the "white board" system; (2) the "file drawer" system; and (3) the "binder" system. At some point prior to the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent used the "white board" system. Under that system, Respondent listed the names of students whose re-evaluation date was approaching and the due date of the re-evaluation on a "white board" that was located in the ESE office. Respondent updated the "white board" monthly. In the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent used the "file drawer" and "binder" systems to notify service providers of upcoming re-evaluation dates. The "file drawer" system consisted of placing all files that needed to be reviewed and/or files of students who were ready for testing in a file drawer designated and labeled for that specific category. In the case of a file review, Respondent would initiate the file review and then put the ESE file in a drawer labeled, "File Review." The service providers would simply go to the drawer and pull out student files to complete their review. Once the file review was completed and the student was ready for testing, the ESE file would be placed in the re-evaluation and/or evaluation drawer. At the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent informed all of the service providers assigned to Haile of the "file drawer" system. Among the service providers Respondent informed about the "file drawer" system were Krista Cournoyer, a school psychologist, and Julia Caldwell, a speech- language pathologist. Respondent specifically explained the use of the file drawers to them, because this was their first year working at Haile. The "file drawer" system is a typical system used by schools in the School District, but schools are not required to use that system. Instead, schools have the option of developing and using any system they choose. Early in the 2007-2008 school year and at all times relevant to this proceeding, the "binder" system was initiated at Haile.3 Under that system, the names of students who required testing and re-evaluations were placed in a binder (notebook) in the ESE office. Respondent and Karen Ciemniecki, the ESE evaluator assigned to Haile, updated the information in the binder. The various service providers could utilize the information in the binder to determine which students they needed to test and/or re-evaluate. Service providers were free to use either the "file drawer" or "binder" system to determine when they were to review a file and re-evaluate a student. In addition to utilizing those systems, the service providers could also obtain an error report which would provide information concerning re-evaluations which were due the following month. Both the "file drawer" and the "binder" systems provided the service providers the means to determine when a review and re-evaluation was due, without the direct assistance of Respondent. During the 2007-2008 school year, several service providers, including Ciemniecki and Caldwell, used the "file drawer" and/or "binder" systems to determine when student file reviews, testing and re-evaluations were to be done. In addition to using the established systems, both Ciemniecki and Caldwell obtained error reports from either Respondent or Haile's registrar. Cournoyer, like the other service providers, was aware of the "file drawer" and "binder" systems and knew how to use them. Nonetheless, Cournoyer believed that the systems were inadequate and did not ensure that she would consistently know when the re-evaluations for which she was responsible were due. Although the systems in place were not perfect, if utilized, they provided a reasonable means to determine when reviews and re-evaluations were due. Moreover, the error reports, if obtained and used, provided an additional source by which service providers could determine about a month in advance when re-evaluations were due. There were times when there were files in the designated file drawer that Cournoyer needed to review. In those instances, Respondent removed those files from the drawer and handed them to Cournoyer, indicating that they needed to be reviewed. Events Leading to Investigation In January 2008, Cournoyer believed that it appeared that she was not completing re-evaluations in a timely manner. Cournoyer also believed that the reason for any delays in completing the re-evaluations was that she did not get all the requisite forms for those re-evaluations until they were overdue. On or about January 31, 2008, Cournoyer was conducting a file review for Student E.A. While reviewing the file, she noticed that an IEP meeting was conducted for this student on January 8, 2008. Upon reviewing the file, Cournoyer had two concerns. First, she had not been invited to that IEP meeting. Second, the documentation in the file indicated that the meeting occurred three weeks before Cournoyer was notified of the need to conduct a file review for this particular student. While reviewing the file of E.A., Cournoyer noticed that the student was receiving services from Caldwell, the speech-language pathologist. She then gave the file to Caldwell who, upon review of the file, noticed that the speech goals were already written on the student's active IEP. Caldwell was concerned that she had not written those goals, as it had been her intent to dismiss the student from speech-language services, and that she had not been invited to the IEP meeting. Caldwell discussed her concerns about the speech goals for E.A. with Respondent, who instructed her to set up a meeting to revise the IEP. Cournoyer shared her concerns about "overdue" re-evaluations in an email to Respondent, but disagreed that there was a system in place that addressed her concerns. Dissatisfied with Respondent's response to her email, Cournoyer then sent an email to members of Haile's Child Study Team, including Lloyd, the ESE specialist. After receiving a response from Lloyd, Cournoyer sent an email about her concerns to the Haile administrators, including Hernandez, and ESE staff on or about February 1, 2008. After receiving Cournoyer's email, Hernandez requested that she provide additional information about her allegations and concerns. In response to that request, Cournoyer provided Hernandez with a list of students and dates of re-evaluations that were overdue. On Sunday, February 3, 2008, Hernandez and Cournoyer met at Haile and reviewed the ESE files. During that review, they found some files that were missing signature pages and that one IEP appeared to have an altered date on a consent form. After conducting a preliminary investigation, Hernandez reported his findings to Principal Kerley who, in turn, contacted the School District's Office of Professional Standards ("OPS"). OPS then initiated an investigation of Respondent and the maintenance and formulation of the ESE files at Haile. Respondent was placed on administrative leave on February 5, 2008, before the February 2008 FTE cut-off date. During that leave, Respondent was prohibited from communicating with School District employees or entering the premises of Haile. Prior to being placed on administrative leave, Respondent was not informed of the allegations against her. The matter was assigned to Debra Horne, a specialist with OPS. After reviewing an email about the case from Hernandez, Horne decided to allow the ESE department to review the ESE files at Haile.4 On February 6, 2008, the ESE team, consisting of all the secondary ESE specialists and the ESE coordinator, Joe Roberts, conducted a preliminary review of the ESE files at Haile for compliance issues. That same day, Roberts memorialized the review team's preliminary findings in an email to the ESE director, Ron Russell. According to the email, the ESE team conducted a two-hour review of the ESE files and found about ten files with problems (i.e., missing signature pages, what appeared to be an altered consent form, and IEPs which appeared to be copied from previous year's IEPs). The email memorializing the findings noted that the ESE office was not organized and that "many folders and confidential information were spread out in varying locations of the office, not in a secured fashion." The email also noted that the team looked for "numerous folders [files] and could not locate them in the filing system."5 On February 29, 2009, Horne met with Roberts and Lloyd to review the ESE files and the ESE team's preliminary findings. Based on the review of the files, the OPS determined that 15 ESE files were non-compliant for FTE (funding) purposes and that another five ESE files had compliance issues that did not affect funding. On March 13, 2008, Horne interviewed Respondent about the findings of the ESE review team. The purpose of the interview, which lasted most of the day, was to allow Dozier the opportunity to offer an explanation of the alleged compliance issues concerning specific ESE files.6 Prior to the March 13, 2008, interview, school officials did not notify Respondent of the allegations or allow her to respond to those changes. After completing the investigation and interviewing Respondent, Horne published her findings in an investigative report. The findings in the OPS investigative report and which are the bases of the charges against Respondent in this case involve the non-compliant ESE files referenced above. Specifically, the investigative report found and determined that: (1) 15 ESE files were non-compliant for FTE or funding purposes; and (2) five ESE files had compliance issues that did not affect funding. As a result of the 15 non-compliant ESE files, the affected students were returned to basic funding, causing a decrease in the overall funds available to the School District. Nevertheless, those identified students were provided with services in accordance with their IEPs. Non-Compliant ESE Files Resulting in Loss of Funds Student A.C. The investigative report found that there was no signature page in the ESE file of A.C. for the April 10, 2007, IEP. Without a properly-executed signature page, the IEP is invalid. Respondent testified credibly that she did not know if she conducted the IEP meeting when the April 10, 2007, IEP was developed, but believed that A.C. may have had more than one file. This belief was based on the fact that A.C.'s primary disability was "language impairment," and A.C. received speech services. Typically, such students had two ESE files, one of which was kept by the speech-language pathologist. The April 10, 2007, IEP meeting was conducted during the previous school year and before Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Respondent further testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page before the FTE window closed. Student J.B. The investigative report found that the ESE file of J.B. did not contain a signature page for the November 6, 2006, IEP. Without a properly executed signature page, the IEP is invalid. The November 6, 2006, IEP meeting was conducted during the previous school year and before Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Moreover, there is no evidence that Respondent conducted or was present at this IEP meeting. Respondent testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page for the November 6, 2006, IEP before the FTE window closed. The investigative report found that a second IEP for J.B. indicated that it was drafted on January 25, 2008, but the registrar was informed it was drafted on October 23, 2007. However, there is nothing in the record to establish that the registrar made such a statement. Student Z.L. The investigative report found that the ESE file of Z.L. did not contain a signature page for the March 19, 2007, IEP. The IEP for Z.L. dated March 19, 2007, was drafted while Z.L. was attending Freedom Elementary School ("Freedom"), and, thus, was drafted by employees of Freedom. This IEP was valid through March 18, 2008. Freedom is a school in the School District, and the IEP developed at that school was apparently put in the A3 system. The March 19, 2007, IEP was printed on October 19, 2007, and was a copy of the IEP from Freedom dated March 19, 2007. Because the IEP printed in October 2007 was a copy of a valid IEP, no signature page was required. No determination was made as to whether the original March 19, 2007, IEP, with the fully executed signature page, was ever sent by Freedom to Haile. The signature page could not be printed from the A3 system. Therefore, unless the original or a photocopy of the fully executed signature page of the March 19, 2007, IEP had been sent to Haile, the school would not have the signature page. Student A.L. The investigative report found that there was no temporary IEP written for A.L. after the student transferred to the School District in September 4, 2007, from an out-of-state school. In September 2007, when A.L. enrolled at Haile, the student had a valid IEP from the out-of-state school district. The out-of-state IEP was for the period March 7, 2007, through March 6, 2008, if the student had remained in that state. Once the student was enrolled, the School District had six months from the student's enrollment date to develop a temporary IEP. Accordingly, a temporary IEP should have been developed on or before March 4, 2008. A temporary IEP was not developed for A.L. prior to or by March 4, 2008, or as of March 13, 2008, when Respondent was interviewed by Ms. Horne. Although the temporary IEP had not been developed prior to Respondent's being placed on leave, steps were being taken to develop the IEP prior to Respondent's being placed on leave. For example, Ciemniecki administered achievement tests to A.L. in late September 2007. Also, Cournoyer was reviewing the student's file and also testing the student. Respondent was placed on leave February 5, 2008, about one month before the temporary IEP was required to be developed. Thus, no conclusion can be reached as to whether Respondent would have taken the necessary steps to ensure that the temporary IEP was developed by March 4, 2008. On the other hand, it is equally apparent that after being placed on leave, Respondent was prevented from and could not take any steps to ensure that a temporary IEP was developed for A.L. Therefore, it can not be concluded that Respondent is responsible for the failure to timely develop a temporary IEP. The credible testimony of Respondent was that she intended to take steps to ensure that an IEP was drafted within six months of A.L.'s enrolling in the School District. An issue was raised regarding what appeared to be inconsistent dates on the Informed Notice and Consent for Evaluation/Re-evaluation ("Informed Notice and Consent") form. That form included spaces in which the following was to be provided: (1) the referral date; (2) the parent's signature, either giving or denying consent for the evaluation; and (3) the date of the signature. The referral date printed or typed on the form is February 26, 2006. The parent's signature, giving consent for the evaluation, was dated September 24, 2007. The concern expressed was that the date of the referral, February 26, 2006, was more than a year and a half prior to A.L. enrolling in the School District. This discrepancy was explained by the credible testimony of Respondent. According to that testimony, the above-referenced consent form was from the Dynamo computer system and had been used to make copies of blank forms to be used. However, the "referral date," February 26, 2006, had been printed or typed on the original form, and that date had been inadvertently left on the form prior to copies of the form being made. Student S.H. The investigative report concluded that S.H.'s IEP dated April 26, 2007, was invalid because it was created at Haile four or five months prior to the student's enrolling in the School District on September 5, 2007.7 The ESE file of S.H. contained a valid IEP dated April 26, 2007, that was drafted while the student was living out-of-state and enrolled in an out-of-state school. That IEP would have been valid through April 25, 2008, had the student remained in the out-of-state school district. In addition to the out-of-state IEP, the ESE file of S.H. also contained another IEP dated April 26, 2007, which indicated that, as of that date, the student was attending Haile. There was also a fully executed signature page for this April 26, 2007, IEP, which had been signed by the parent, Respondent, and six other individuals. In addition to the parent and Respondent, six others signed the signature page of that IEP. Contrary to the allegations, the IEP for S.H. created at Haile was not created on April 26, 2007, four months before the student enrolled in the School District. Respondent testified credibly that she input the data from the out-of-state IEP into the A3 system. However, while inputting information in A3 for the student's new IEP, she neglected to change the IEP plan date from April 26, 2007, to the new IEP plan date. The testimony of Respondent is supported by a careful review of contents of the IEP. For example, the IEP clearly indicates that the student is now enrolled at Haile as a "transfer [student] from out of state."8 The signature page of the Haile IEP also mistakenly shows that the IEP was developed on April 26, 2007. However, the upper right corner of that signature page indicates that the signature page form for S.H.'s Haile IEP was printed from the A3 system at 7:18 a.m., on October 29, 2007, almost two months after S.H. enrolled in the School District. As noted above, only blank signature page forms can be printed from A3. Therefore, the signatures had to be placed on the signature page some time after the form was printed. Respondent's failure to change the plan date of the student's out-of-state IEP to the plan date of the new IEP created at Haile, was due to human error. Student S.R. The investigative report found that S.R.'s ESE file did not contain an IEP, a notice of IEP meeting, or signature page. S.R.'s ESE file contained a valid IEP dated February 8, 2007, drafted while the student was at Gene Witt Elementary ("Witt"), a school in the School District. The IEP was drafted by employees at Witt and was valid through February 7, 2008. The file also contained an IEP with a plan date of February 7, 2008 (the same as the Witt IEP), indicating that the student was attending Haile at the time of the IEP. Respondent testified credibly that she typed the data contained in the Witt IEP, which was in the Dynamo System, into the A3 system so that the data would be available to other teachers. Respondent testified credibly that she had no intent to make it appear that S.R. was attending Haile in February 2007. Respondent further testified credibly that when an individual inputs data into the A3 system, the school that the individual is assigned to automatically "pop[s] up" in A3 as the student's school. The document included in the investigative report that is the basis for discipline against Respondent is a copy of S.R.'s IEP that was created at Witt dated February 8, 2007. That IEP was printed from A3 on October 19, 2007. Because the IEP is a copy of a valid IEP, no signature page was required. Likewise, no notice of the IEP meeting was required. No evidence was presented to establish that the notice and fully executed signature page of the subject IEP were ever received by Haile. Student E.M. The investigative report found that the ESE file of E.M. did not contain a signature page for the April 11, 2007, IEP, and, thus, the IEP was invalid. E.M.'s April 11, 2007, IEP notes that the student's primary exceptionality is "language impaired." During the March 2008 interview, Respondent informed the OPS investigator that she believed E.M., as a language-impaired student, had two ESE files, one of which was maintained by the speech-language pathologist.9 Respondent testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page or schedule another IEP meeting before the FTE window closed. The April 11, 2007, IEP was drafted during the previous school year and prior to Respondent becoming responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Student M.D. The investigative report found that the ESE file of M.D. did not contain a valid IEP. According to the report, Respondent gave a plan date of November 2, 2007, to the registrar, but failed to create an IEP on that date. On November 2, 2007, a parent conference was called and conducted by Ms. Moreland, a teacher at Haile. Respondent did not attend the parent conference, but about mid-meeting, Moreland went to Respondent's office. Moreland then told Respondent that the team originally intended to remove M.D. from mainstream classes, but during the parent conference decided against it. The November 2, 2007, date may have been incorrectly given to the registrar as the IEP plan date.10 However, the meeting conducted on that date was a parent conference, and unlike IEP plan dates, are not reported to the registrar. It is alleged that the report of the conference and IEP revision sheets were incomplete. However, as a result of the team's decision that M.D. services remain the same (he would remain in mainstream classes), there was no need for the partially completed revision form to be included in M.D.'s ESE file. Thus, Moreland should have discarded that form. M.D.'s ESE file included a valid IEP dated February 8, 2007. This IEP was valid through February 7, 2008. The short-term objectives from M.D.'s 2007 and 2008 IEPs were identical. The latter IEP was dated March 6, 2008, after Respondent was on administrative leave and Jantzen was interim department chair. Student E.R. The investigation found that E.R.'s sixth-grade IEP appeared to be copied "exactly" from the student's fifth-grade IEP. The concern was that the information copied from the fifth-grade IEP to the sixth-grade IEP did not accurately reflect an appropriate measurable annual goal in the area of math. The annual measurable goal on E.R.'s fifth-grade IEP and copied on the student's sixth-grade IEP was that the student "will satisfy fifth grade math requirements." However, during the investigation, it was established that the student was performing above the fifth-grade level in math at Haile. Thus, that previous math goal should have been changed.11 The fifth-grade IEP was developed on December 7, 2006, when E.R. was enrolled at Freedom Elementary School ("Freedom") and remained effective through December 6, 2007. E.R. was enrolled as a sixth-grader at Haile in the 2007-2008 school year. Therefore, the fifth-grade IEP was effective the first few months of E.R.'s sixth-grade year at Haile. Pursuant to the administration's instructions, after E.R. enrolled at Haile, Respondent input the information from the December 2006 IEP into A3.12 Although E.R. was in the sixth grade, the IEP was effective until December 6, 2007. The December 7, 2006, IEP, upon which the OPS refers, was printed on October 19, 2007, and is a copy of the IEP developed at Freedom, except that E.R.'s school and grade had been changed. The student's school was changed from "Freedom" to "Haile" and the current grade was changed from fifth to sixth.13 Respondent testified credibly that she did not know who changed the grade and school on E.R.'s December 2006 IEP. Moreover, no evidence was presented as to who made those changes. However, undoubtedly, on October 19, 2007, E.R. was enrolled at Haile and was in the sixth grade. Respondent testified credibly that in inputting E.R.'s December 7, 2006, IEP, developed at Freedom, into the A3 system, she did not intend to make it appear that E.R.'s December 7, 2006, IEP was developed at Haile. Student C.D. The investigative report found that Respondent gave the registrar an IEP plan date on January 30, 2008, but A3 indicated the meeting was held the following day. Having the IEP meeting on the following day would not necessarily be a violation.14 However, C.D.'s ESE file did not contain a notice of a January 30 or 31, 2008, IEP meeting, an IEP, or a signature page for either of those dates. If a meeting were held on either of those days, a notice of the meeting and a signature page should be in the file. C.D.'s ESE file contained a valid IEP dated February 5, 2007, that was valid through February 4, 2008. Respondent testified that she intended to draft another IEP and hold a meeting before the deadline, which would have brought the file into compliance with the FTE requirements. Notwithstanding Respondent's testimony, there was no indication that an IEP plan meeting had been scheduled on or before February 4, 2008, and that notices of such meeting had been sent to parents and other appropriate individuals. Unless an IEP plan meeting had been scheduled and properly noticed, regardless of Respondent's intent, an IEP could not have been developed on or before the February 5, 2007, IEP expired. Student J.D. The investigative report found that the goals from J.D.'s 2008 IEP are identical to the student's 2007 IEP, which was effective from January 26, 2007, through January 25, 2008, unless and until a new IEP was developed. A new IEP ("2008 IEP") was developed for J.D. on January 14, 2008, and was effective from that date until January 13, 2009. During her March 2008 interview with OPS, Respondent informed Horne that she was taught that the goals of a student who was not meeting with success could be carried over to the next year. Other district employees confirmed that it was common practice to carry over goals from one year to the next. J.D.'s 2007 IEP indicates that Jantzen was the contact person for the IEP and that Respondent was not invited to the IEP meeting. J.D.'s 2008 IEP indicates that Respondent was not invited to the IEP meeting. Jantzen signed the signature page of this IEP as the ESE teacher, and Nosal, Moreland, Edmonson, and J.D.'s parent also signed the page. Jantzen, the current ESE department chair at Haile, testified credibly that a student's goals could be carried over to the next year, if deemed appropriate. According to Jantzen, it would be proper to include a note on the IEP regarding the reason(s) why the goals were carried over. However, there is no indication that Jantzen did so in J.D.'s file. Student M.M. The investigative report found that M.M.'s IEP dated April 4, 2007, did not include an LEA signature. Respondent informed OPS that it was probably an oversight that the LEA failed to sign the signature page. Respondent testified credibly that she would not have held a meeting if an LEA was not present, and it was likely that she anticipated an LEA coming or that the LEA was in attendance, but failed to sign the sheet. Typically, in the School District, the ESE department chair is the designated LEA at his/her respective school. However, at Haile, the school's guidance counselor, not the ESE department chair, is the designated LEA. If and when the guidance counselor at Haile is unavailable to serve as LEA, other individuals at the school, including Respondent, as the ESE department chair, were authorized to act as LEA. The failure to obtain the signature of an LEA at the April 4, 2007, IEP meeting was an oversight. Respondent was at that meeting and signed the signature page as the ESE teacher/evaluator. In the absence of the guidance counselor or another person designated as LEA, Respondent could have signed as LEA in addition to signing as ESE teacher/evaluator. Respondent was not aware that the LEA had not signed the form until she (Respondent) was interviewed by OPS. If Respondent had become aware of the problem prior to being placed on administrative leave, she could have taken one of two steps to correct the situation before the FTE window closed. To correct the omission of the LEA signature, Respondent could have scheduled another IEP meeting if no LEA was present. According to Hernandez, corrective action could have been taken by having the LEA sign off after the meeting, if that person had attended the meeting, but forgot to sign.15 Due to her oversight, Respondent took no corrective action to obtain the signature of an LEA on M.M.'s IEP dated April 4, 2007. As a result of this oversight, the IEP was not compliant for the October 2007 or the February 2008 cut-off date. Student B.R.H. The investigative report found that B.R.H.'s IEP dated March 6, 2007, did not include an LEA signature. The effective period of that IEP was March 6, 2007, through March 5, 2008. Respondent signed the signature page of the March 6, 2007, IEP as the ESE teacher/evaluator. In addition to signing the signature page as the ESE teacher/evaluator, Respondent, as ESE department chair, also could have signed as LEA if the primary LEA representative was not at the meeting. The corrective action discussed in paragraph 148 could also have been taken if the LEA representative attended the meeting, but left without signing the signature page. Respondent was not aware of the omission of the LEA signature until it was called to her attention during the March 13, 2008, OPS interview. Had Respondent been aware of that omission prior to that time, she could have taken appropriate corrective action. Because Respondent was unaware of the situation prior to that time, no corrective action was taken prior to the October 2007 FTE cut-off date. Student J.G. The investigative report determined that the ESE file of J.G. could not be found. Despite that determination, it was not established when this student enrolled at Haile and/or if that student's ESE file was ever delivered to Haile. Moreover, at this proceeding no testimony or evidence was presented as to whether the ESE file was found after Respondent was placed on administrative leave. As ESE department chair, Respondent was responsible for maintaining the ESE files. However, in this instance, it is unknown when, and if, J.G. enrolled in Haile and/or if the student's file was ever delivered to the school. Assuming, though not finding it, that J.G's ESE file was at Haile, no evidence was presented that Respondent intentionally or otherwise concealed the file.16 The credible testimony of Respondent was that she did not conceal J.G.'s ESE file. Student B.M. The investigative report found that B.M.'s ESE file could not be found. It was not established that B.M. was a student at Haile, whether the student enrolled at Haile, or if B.M.'s ESE file was ever delivered to Haile. Also, no evidence was presented at the hearing as to whether the file was found since Respondent was placed on administrative leave. During the March 13, 2008, OPS interview, Respondent informed Horne that she did not know B.M. Also, Respondent testified credibly that she did not know B.M. and never saw B.M.'s ESE file. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Respondent intentionally concealed the ESE file of B.M. or that the file was ever at Haile. Alleged Deficiencies Not Resulting in Loss of Funds Student E.A. The investigative report found that Respondent falsified an Informed Notice and Consent form for E.A. This finding was based on a comparison of two Informed Notice and Consent forms for E.A. Informed Notice and Consent forms: (1) advise parents that their child has been recommended for an evaluation, re-evaluation and/or file review; (2) indicate the types of assessments that may be used; (3) provide parents the option to either give or deny consent for the evaluation; and (4) provide a signature and date line for parents to complete. Informed Notice and Consent forms also provide spaces for information, such as the student's name, address, school, grade, and teacher's name ("identifying information"). On both of the Informed Notice and Consent forms for E.A., the identifying information had been written in the appropriate spaces, and the parent had signed and indicated that consent was given for the proposed evaluation. The two Informed Notice and Consent forms were different in several ways as set forth below. On the first Informed Notice and Consent form, someone had written in the student's grade as "6." The middle portion of the form, which describes the student's proposal for evaluation, was not completed. Finally, the parent's signature was on the form, but the "date" line next to his/her signature was not completed. On the second Informed Notice and Consent form: in the space for the student's grade, the number "8" was written over what appeared to be a "6," indicating that the student was in eighth grade, not sixth grade; (2) the middle portion relating to the proposal for evaluation had been completed; and (3) the date, April 23, 2007, previously not on the form, was written next to the parent's signature. The finding in the investigative report assumes that the first Informed Notice and Consent form (which was incomplete) was prepared and signed by the parent when E.A. was in the sixth grade, and the form was copied and modified when the student was in eighth grade. Those alleged modifications included changing the student's grade and inserting a date next to the parent's signature. Respondent testified that she may have changed the grade from "6" to "8" on the second form and did not know if she had added the date next to the parent's signature. While Respondent is not sure how the foregoing occurred or who did it, she explained that, with respect to the grade, it was possible that she wrote the "8" over the "6," because the grade had been initially entered incorrectly.17 According to the OPS report, during the March interview, Respondent advised the investigator that the file she (Respondent) was given to review was E.A.'s speech file and not the student's ESE file. Respondent told Horne during that interview that she was "almost certain that there was another consent form." At hearing, Respondent testified credibly that she believed that there was another consent form elsewhere.18 Based on the record, no determination can be made as to when the date next to the parent's signature was written on the Informed Notice and Consent form or who wrote that date.19 Based on the record, no determination can be made as to who or when E.A.'s grade level was changed from "6" to "8" or whether that change was made to correct an error.20 Student L.H. The investigative report found that the Informed Notice and Consent form for L.H. was falsified by Respondent. On the student's Informed Notice of Consent form, the date next to the parent's signature was January 25, 2008. The date of the parents' signature on that form appeared to have been changed to January 25, 2007. The investigative report found that the "8" in the year 2008 appeared to have been written over what seemed to have been a "7" in the year 2007. No evidence was presented to establish who wrote an "8" on the form, indicating that the form was signed by the parents on January 25, 2008. No evidence was presented as to when the parents actually signed the Informed Notice and Consent form. The credible testimony of Respondent was that she did not change the date on the consent form and did not know who had done so. Student B.H. It is alleged that the ESE file of B.H. did not contain a notice of an IEP meeting and should have since the student's current IEP was to expire on February 6, 2008. No evidence was presented to establish that Respondent directed or instructed the ESE assistant or registrar to send out notices of an IEP meeting for B.H. or that the notices were sent out. Respondent testified that she intended to make the file compliant by sending a notice to the parents before the deadline. Despite Respondent's intentions, unless a notice had been sent out prior to February 5, 2008, and unless she took extraordinary measures, the IEP plan meeting could not be convened and no IEP was developed for B.H. on or before February 6, 2008, when the student's IEP expired.21 Student A.T. The investigative report determined that the IEP for A.T. dated October 4, 2007, did not include a signature page. According to the investigative report, during the March 2008, interview with Respondent, the investigator "reviewed the concern for A.T." (no signature page for the October 2007 IEP). The investigator then advised Respondent that the School District could have lost funding, but the problem was caught in time, and an IEP meeting was held to obtain the signatures. Finally, the investigator told Respondent, "Please explain." Respondent answered by telling the investigator that she could not remember. The investigative report makes no mention of Horne providing any file of A.T.'s to Respondent during the above- described discussion. After the allegation related to the missing signature page was made and Respondent was placed on leave, a signature page for A.T.'s October 4, 2007, IEP, which included Respondent's signature, was found.22 Apparently, before the signature page for the October 4, 2007, IEP referenced in paragraph 189 was located and after Respondent was placed on leave, school officials completed two signature pages for that IEP. These signature pages were backdated to correct the "missing signature page" issue. Ultimate Findings The School Board lost funding due to 15 ESE files being non-compliant with applicable statutes and regulations. However, those non-compliant issues were the result of human errors, mistakes, omissions and oversights of those responsible for the files, including, but not limited to, Respondent. The record is void of any evidence that the ESE files' non-compliance issues were the result of Respondent’s committing intentional acts to falsify the ESE records and/or to misrepresent the facts relative to the ESE students. Finally, there is no evidence that the errors, mistakes, and omissions attributed to Respondent resulted from her intentionally or deliberately neglecting her duties and/or refusing to adhere to the directives of supervisors and/or applicable laws, regulations, and School Board policies.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, enter a final order: Finding Respondent, Annette D. Dozier, not guilty of the charges alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and Reinstating Respondent with back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 23rd day of December, 2009.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant, Respondent was employed with Petitioner pursuant to a professional services contract as a teacher at Fienberg/Fisher K-8 Center ("Fienberg/Fisher"), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent has been employed with Petitioner as a teacher since 2005. She became employed at Fienberg/Fisher in the 2009-2010 school year, and taught kindergarten for the first three years. She taught third grade in the 2012-2013 and 2013- 2014 school years. At all times relevant, Respondent's employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between Miami- Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade Contract, Petitioner's rules, and Florida law. Evidence Adduced at Hearing During the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent taught third grade. Between 18 and 20 students were assigned to her class, 12 of which were classified as "English for Speakers of Other Languages" ("ESOL") students.2/ Respondent had the largest number of ESOL students assigned to her classroom for the entire third grade at Fienberg/Fisher that school year. The Reading Portfolios During the 2013-2014 school year, the Florida Comprehensive Assessment ("FCAT") Test was administered statewide to third-grade students, including the third-grade students at Fienberg/Fisher. Students must pass the FCAT to be promoted to fourth grade. If a student fails to earn the necessary minimum score of 2 (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest score) on the reading portion of the FCAT, the student is mandatorily retained in third grade unless he or she has successfully completed a series of reading passages and related tests called "Reading Portfolios" ("Portfolios"). Each Portfolio is an instructional package consisting of a reading passage covering a particular topic, followed by questions——essentially, a test——aimed at measuring the student's reading comprehension for the passage. The tests consist of a series of multiple choice questions, each having four answer choices. In taking the test, the student is to select the one correct answer for each question.3/ The reading passages in the Portfolios are administered as a "cold read," which means that the student sees the passage for the first time when he or she reads it in order to answer the test questions associated with that passage. The Portfolios are administered over a ten-week period starting in January of the school year. Portfolios are administered one day per week, with one Portfolio administered that day, for a total of ten Portfolios that are administered to, and completed by, the students. Students may complete two additional Portfolios if needed. The Portfolio reading passages and questions are keyed to the reading benchmarks that are tested on the FCAT. A student has three opportunities to demonstrate, through completing the Portfolios, that he or she has mastered a particular reading benchmark. The Portfolios help prepare the student to take, and presumably pass, the reading portion of the FCAT. They also enable a student who does not pass the reading portion of the FCAT to nonetheless be promoted to fourth grade, provided he or she is able to demonstrate, through the Portfolio tests, mastery of the reading benchmarks. A student's scores on the Portfolios serve to alert the student, his or her parents, and the teacher as to whether the student is reading at a level sufficient either to pass the reading portion of the FCAT, or to demonstrate that he or she should be promoted to the fourth grade in spite of having failed the reading portion of the FCAT. Therefore, it is vitally important that a student's Portfolio scores accurately reflect the student's actual performance on the Portfolios. To that point, it would be very harmful to a student if he or she received scores on the Portfolios indicating that he or she could read at a level sufficient to either to pass the FCAT or otherwise be promoted, when, in fact, that was not the case. Third grade teachers at Fienberg/Fisher are trained to correctly administer the Portfolios. As part of their training, all teachers sign a security form. In doing so, the teacher acknowledges that the Portfolios are secure tests, that he or she may not share secure information with the students, and that he or she may not take any action that would cause the Portfolio results to be misinterpreted or scored in a way that does not accurately reflect student performance. Respondent attended the training session for the 2013- 2014 school year4/ and signed the security form acknowledging that she was informed regarding the secure administration of the 2014 Portfolios. In administering the Portfolios, the teacher distributes the particular Portfolio assigned for that day to the students. The Portfolio is not timed, so the students may take as much time as needed to read the assigned passage and complete the test questions. When the Portfolio is administered, translation dictionaries are distributed to the ESOL students who need them to read the passages and complete the test questions.5/ Most of Respondent's students were ESOL and most of them used translation dictionaries when reading the 2014 Portfolio passages and taking the tests associated with those passages. When a student finishes a Portfolio, he or she returns the Portfolio materials, including the completed test questions, to the teacher. The teacher grades the test and records the student's score for the test for that particular Portfolio reading passage on a Score Summary Sheet, which is kept in the individual student's Portfolios folder.6/ The Score Summary Sheet identifies the specific benchmarks being tested on each reading passage and test. When a student's response to a question constitutes an "acceptable demonstration" that the student has met the specific benchmark being tested for that particular Portfolio passage, the teacher checks the Score Summary Sheet indicating that the benchmark has been acceptably demonstrated. As noted above, the student has three opportunities to demonstrate mastery of a particular benchmark and, if necessary, may complete two additional Portfolio passages and tests to demonstrate benchmark mastery. Once the teacher has scored each student's test for a particular Portfolio passage and recorded each student's test score on the student's Score Summary Sheet, the teacher returns the graded test to the student. The teacher then reviews the reading passage and the graded test questions with the class, identifying the correct answer for each question and explaining why that answer is correct and the other choices are incorrect. The review is instructional, so is a crucial component of the correct administration of the Portfolios. Following review of the specific Portfolio reading passage and test with the class, the teacher collects the graded tests, which are securely stored, along with the other Portfolio passages and tests, in the student's Portfolio folder. Respondent stored the students' Portfolios folders in a locked cabinet or closet in her classroom, so they were not readily accessible to others. For the 2013-2014 school year at Fienberg/Fisher, Portfolios were administered on Thursdays starting in January 2014. The third-grade teachers at Fienberg/Fisher decided, as a group, the order in which the specific Portfolios would be administered to the students based on the reading benchmarks being covered at the time. The same Portfolio was administered to all students present in the class on a given day.7/ Events Triggering Investigation of Portfolios On March 6, 2014, Respondent notified Maria Zabala, the principal at Fienberg/Fisher, that due to her father's illness, she needed to take personal leave. At the final hearing, Zabala testified, credibly, that when Respondent requested to take leave, she told Zabala that she nonetheless needed to be present on Thursday to administer the Portfolios to her students. Zabala testified that, initially, she did not understand why Respondent insisted that she needed to be present to administer the Portfolios and was under the impression that Respondent simply wanted to be supportive of her students. However, Respondent explained that if she wasn't there, the students would not do well because she needed to help them. At that point, Zabala stopped the conversation and asked Respondent to report to her office the following morning to continue the discussion. Zabala testified, credibly, that when Respondent came to her office on the morning of March 7, 2014, she recounted to Respondent her understanding of their conversation the previous day, stating "[t]his is what I understood of our conversation yesterday. I understood that you need to be here for Portfolio because the students are helped when they're taking Portfolio." Zabala credibly testified that in response, Respondent "went back and forth a little, but then settled on "[y]es, I'm there and I help them, because if not, they won't do well." At that point, Zabala called Assistant Principal Mary Murphy to her office and asked Respondent to explain to Murphy how she administered the Portfolios. Zabala testified, credibly, that Respondent also told Murphy that she helped her students take the Portfolios. Zabala explained to Respondent that the Portfolios are a secure test and that in order to determine if Respondent's actions breached test security, she was required to report the matter to Petitioner's investigative unit. Zabala testified that at that point, Respondent asked what would happen next. Murphy corroborated Zabala's version of the discussion between Zabala, Respondent, and herself. She testified, credibly, that when Zabala asked Respondent to repeat, in her (Murphy's) presence, what she previously had relayed to Zabala, Respondent stated that the students could not take the reading Portfolios if she wasn't present because they would not score well, that she needed to be there to ensure they would answer in the correct way, and that that the Portfolios needed to be scored a certain way to ensure the students passed. Murphy reminded Respondent that changing answers or helping the students on the Portfolios would misrepresent student scores and would be very detrimental to the students and the school. Murphy testified, credibly, that Respondent then responded that the reading coach, Danielle Klahr, had told her to help the students take the Portfolios.8/ Thereafter, Zabala retrieved the Portfolios from Respondent's classroom and securely stored them in her office. Thereafter, Respondent did not administer the reading Portfolios to her students, but did continue teaching at Fienberg/Fisher for the rest of that school year. Respondent's version of these events differs sharply from Zabala's and Murphy's. Respondent testified that on March 6, 2014, when she notified Zabala that she needed to take one week of leave due to her father's illness, Zabala became upset and tried to dissuade her from taking leave. Respondent characterized Zabala's response as "like a guilt trip. She basically cried and told me, you know, that she needed me to be there and how my students were going to suffer and how I really didn't care about my students." Respondent testified that at that point, she offered to come in on Thursday and administer the Portfolio to her students. She stated: "I wasn't even thinking about correcting it. I'm talking about administering it because children need consistency and they will not be as nervous as they would be if they had somebody else. So I was doing that as a favor. However, that was extremely misconstrued." According to Respondent, she went to Zabala's office on the morning of March 7, 2014, for the sole and specific purpose of requesting two weeks' leave instead of the one week she originally had requested. She testified: "[t]he only thing ——the only conversation that I was thinking on having with Ms. Zabala that morning was the fact that I got the paper signed for me to take the week off." Respondent testified that Zabala refused to approve her request for two weeks' leave and that in the course of their discussion, Zabala questioned the accuracy of her students' Portfolio test scores, which she recently had submitted. According to Respondent, Zabala observed that Respondents' students previously had failed interim reading tests and other tests but now "mysteriously" were performing relatively well on the Portfolios. Respondent testified that Zabala ordered her to bring the students' Portfolios to her office, and she complied. Respondent testified that in the discussions with Zabala and Murphy, she had explained that she needed to be present to administer the Portfolios because "children need consistency[,] [a]nd them having another teacher in the Portfolio would be devastating for them." Respondent claimed that she had "offered," rather than requested, to be present to administer the Portfolios, and that her offer was "misconstrued." Respondent denied having allowed her students to cheat on the Portfolios, and she denied having told Zabala and Murphy that she allowed her students to cheat on the Portfolios. Respondent did not specifically address or deny Murphy's testimony that she (Respondent) had told Murphy that the reading coach had told her to assist the students in taking the Portfolio tests. Petitioner's Investigation Respondent's students had completed an estimated six Portfolios by the time Zabala retrieved their Portfolios. Zabala reviewed the Portfolios to determine whether Respondent had helped her students cheat on the Portfolios. She specifically reviewed the students' test papers to determine, from erasure marks on the tests, "did [the students] go too many times from wrong answers to right answers." Zabala testified that on several of the students' Portfolio test papers, there were numerous erasure marks showing that the student had erased the wrong answer, and that the right answer had been circled. Zabala interpreted that as indicating either that Respondent had told the student the right answers and allowed them to change wrong answers to right answers, or that Respondent herself had erased the wrong answers and circled the right answers. Zabala acknowledged that she did not review Respondent's students' test papers to evaluate the frequency with which the students changed answers from right to wrong or from wrong to wrong, and she further acknowledged that she did not review the Portfolio test papers for any of the other third- grade classes. Zabala noted that many of Respondent's students' test papers were graded in pencil, rather than pen and asserted that this was a violation of test protocol because it enabled the students or Respondent to erase "X" marks placed next to the wrong answers and to select the right answers. She testified, based on her review of Respondent's students' papers, that it appeared that this had happened. The evidence showed that in several instances, students' test papers were not graded, but scores for those tests nonetheless were recorded on the Portfolio Score Summary Sheets kept in the students' folders. Zabala explained that it is extremely important that the test papers are graded and returned to the students, because review of the graded tests enables the students to learn from their mistakes and, therefore, be better prepared to take the FCAT. Zabala also testified that in several instances, students who consistently had performed poorly on previously- administered standardized tests, including the Stanford Achievement Test ("SAT") and the second-grade FCAT, had performed comparatively well on the Portfolio tests that Respondent administered. She observed that it is uncommon for a student who previously performed poorly on such tests to perform well on the Portfolios. The clear import of Zabala's testimony was that she believed that the students' improved performance on the Portfolios was due to Respondent having helped the students or having herself changed wrong answers to right answers. Invalidation of Respondent's Students' 2014 Portfolios Following her discussion with Respondent and Murphy on the morning of March 7, 2015, Zabala contacted Petitioner's District office to report the suspected security breach in Respondent's administration of the 2014 Portfolios. Petitioner's Civilian Investigative Unit conducted an investigation of the matter. Ultimately, as a result of the investigation, the Portfolios that had been completed by Respondents' students to that point in the school year were invalidated. Because their 2014 Portfolios were invalidated, the students were required to complete another set of Portfolios. Invalidating the 2014 Portfolios placed Respondent's students, their parents, and the school in a very difficult position. The students were confused and did not understand why they were being forced to complete another set of Portfolios. Many of them wondered if they had done something wrong and were concerned about being retained in the third grade. The students' parents, understandably, were distraught that their children had to complete another set of the Portfolios. The administration and teaching staff at Fienberg/Fisher were placed in the difficult circumstance of having to administer ten weeks of replacement Portfolios in a compressed timeframe before the FCAT was administered in April 2014. Administration of Replacement Portfolios As replacement for the invalidated 2014 Portfolios, the students completed Portfolios that previously had been given to third-grade students in the 2012-2013 school year ("Replacement Portfolios"). Because there were only a few weeks remaining between invalidation of the 2014 Portfolios and administration of the 2014 FCAT, Respondent's students were forced to complete more than one Replacement Portfolio per week. Susan Shugar, a reading specialist who administered the Replacement Portfolios to Respondent's students, testified that in administering the Replacement Portfolios, "I was just there. I did what I was told, and that's it." She testified that she was not told to distribute translation dictionaries to the students in Respondent's class, so she did not do so. Shugar testified: "I think maybe one student had a dictionary and that's it." Many of Respondent's students performed significantly worse on the Replacement Portfolios than they had performed on the 2014 Portfolios. Zabala interpreted this as further evidencing that Respondent had assisted her students in taking the Portfolios, either by giving them the correct answers or changing their incorrect answers. Specific Charges Against Respondent In its Notice of Specific Charges, Petitioner alleges that Respondent engaged in conduct that helped the students in taking the Portfolio tests by allowing them to change their answers from wrong to right——essentially, that she help her students cheat on the tests. Petitioner charges that Respondent's conduct constitutes misconduct in office under Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056; violates the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, rule 6A-10.080; violates the Principals of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, rule 6A-10.081; violates the School Board of Miami-Dade County ("School Board") Standards of Ethical Conduct, Policy 3210; and violates the School Board Code of Ethics, Policy 3210.01. Findings of Ultimate Fact Evidentiary Findings Having fully and carefully considered the evidentiary record, it is determined that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence, that Respondent did, in fact, did help her students cheat on the Portfolio tests, and that this conduct constitutes misconduct under rule 6A-5.056; violates the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, rule 6A-10.080; violates the Principles of Professional for the Education Profession in Florida, rule 6A-10.081; and violates School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.10. The undersigned found Zabala and Murphy to be very credible witnesses,9/ and found their account of the discussions that took place on March 6 and 7, 2014, to be far more persuasive and credible than Respondent's account of those discussions.10/ As discussed above, the persuasive evidence establishes that when Respondent told Zabala that she needed to be present to administer the Portfolios, Zabala herself initially thought that Respondent merely meant that she needed to be present in order to provide consistency for her students. However, specifically to ensure that she did not misinterpret Respondent's statement, Zabala asked Respondent to clarify, and that based on Respondent's explanation, Zabala concluded that Respondent meant that she needed to be present to help the students get the right answers on the Portfolio tests. Murphy precisely corroborated Zabala's version of the March 7, 2014, discussion with Respondent. Based on Murphy's discussion with Respondent, Murphy also concluded that Respondent did indeed admit that she helped her students get the right answers on the Portfolio tests. Given Zabala's and Murphy's precise testimony on this point, it is difficult to envision that they both "misconstrued" Respondent's statements, made during three separate discussions, such that they both incorrectly concluded that Respondent had effectively admitted that she helped her students get the right answers when they took the Portfolio tests. Accordingly, the undersigned rejects, as incredible and unpersuasive, Respondent's claim that Zabala and Murphy "misconstrued" her March 6 and March 7, 2014, statements. Murphy's testimony that Respondent told her that the reading coach had directed her (Respondent) to help the students take the Portfolio tests was credible and persuasive. Respondent's attempt to exculpate herself by blaming the reading coach constitutes a tacit admission that she did, in fact, help her students cheat on the tests. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Respondent effectively admitted that she helped her students cheat in taking the 2014 Portfolios. Findings Regarding Violation of Rules and Policies Whether Respondent committed the offenses charged in the Notice of Specific Charges is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each alleged violation. Misconduct in Office As noted above, Petitioner has charged Respondent with misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2). The rule defines misconduct in office to mean conduct that constitutes one or more of the following: (a) a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.00111/; (b) a violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in rule 6B-1.00612/; (c) a violation of the adopted school board rules; (d) behavior that disrupts the student's learning environment; or (e) behavior that reduces the teacher's ability or his or her colleagues' ability to effectively perform duties. Respondent's conduct in allowing or enabling her students to cheat on the Portfolio tests violated rule 6B-1.001, the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. Her conduct evidences that she does not value the truth and is not devoted to excellence in her teaching. She failed to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity, and her failure to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct caused her to lose the respect and confidence of her colleagues at Fienberg/Fisher, and, presumably, the parents of the children who were forced to complete another set of Portfolios due to her conduct. Accordingly, Respondent's conduct constitutes misconduct in office as provided in rule 6A-5.056(2)(a). Respondent also violated rule 6B-1.006, the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. Respondent's conduct in helping her students cheat on the Portfolio tests harmed the students by giving them and their parents the misimpression that they were more proficient in reading than actually was the case. As a result of her actions, her students were denied the benefit of learning from their mistakes on the Portfolios, so that they could be better prepared to take the FCAT. Respondent failed to maintain honesty in her professional dealings, and she submitted fraudulent information on documents in connection with her professional activities. Accordingly, Respondent's conduct constitutes misconduct in office as provided in rule 6A- 5.056(2)(b). Respondent's conduct also violated School Board Policy 3210. She failed to conduct herself in a manner that reflected credit on herself and on the school system, and also failed to teach efficiently and faithfully by employing approved methods of instruction as provided by law and the rules of the Department of Education. As discussed above, her conduct did not protect students from conditions harmful to learning; she failed to maintain honesty in her professional dealings; and she submitted fraudulent information on documents in connection with her professional activities. Accordingly, Respondent's conduct constitutes misconduct in office as provided in rule 6A- 5.056(2)(c). Respondent's conduct also violated School Board Policy 3210.01. She failed to create an environment of honesty and integrity and did not aid in providing a high quality education to her students. As discussed above, her conduct evidences that she does not value the truth and that she is not devoted to excellence in her teaching. She failed to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity, and she did not achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. She failed to adhere to the fundamental principles of Petitioner's Code of Ethics because she did not deal truthfully with, or exhibit respect for her students, their parents, and her colleagues at Fienberg/Fisher. Further, when it became apparent that Respondent had helped her students cheat so that she may be subject to discipline, she did not accept responsibility for her actions and instead attempted to blame a colleague. She failed to perform her job as a teacher efficiently and effectively and, as discussed above, failed to protect her students from conditions harmful to learning. Accordingly, Respondent's conduct constitutes misconduct in office as provided in rule 6A- 5.056(2)(c). Respondent's conduct disrupted her students' learning environment. As discussed above, her conduct harmed her students by causing or contributing to the misimpression that they were capable of reading at higher levels than actually was the case. Further, as a direct result of her conduct, her students were forced to complete another set of Portfolios under suboptimal conditions, which may have resulted in some of them performing poorly and being retained in the third grade. Thus, Respondent's conduct constitutes misconduct in office as provided in rule 6A-5.056(2)(d). Respondent's conduct unquestionably reduced her and her colleagues' ability to effectively perform their teaching duties. As a direct result of her conduct in administering the 2014 Portfolios, she was relieved of that duty and her colleagues were forced to assume the responsibility of administering the Replacement Portfolios under a compressed timeframe. Respondent's conduct thus constitutes misconduct in office as provided in rule 6A-5.056(2)(e). Violation of the Code of Ethics Petitioner also has charged Respondent with violating the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, rule 6A-10.080.13/ As discussed above,14/ the evidence establishes that Respondent's conduct violated this rule. Violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct Petitioner also has charged Respondent with violating the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, rule 6A-10.081.15/ As discussed above,16/ the evidence establishes that Respondent's conduct violated this rule. Violation of School Board Policies Petitioner has charged Respondent with violating School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.10. As discussed above,17/ the evidence establishes that Respondent's conduct violated these policies. Weight Assigned to Other Evidence in the Record Petitioner's evidence regarding Respondent's grading of the Portfolio test papers was not persuasive. Although Zabala testified that many of Respondent's students' test papers appeared to have an unusually large number of erasure marks and changes of wrong answers to right answers, she acknowledged that she did not look for or count the number of changes from right answers to wrong answers or wrong answers to wrong answers. Further, she acknowledged that she did not compare any other third-grade students' Portfolio test papers with those of Respondent's students in order to determine whether the number of erasures and answer changes on Respondent's students' papers actually were inordinately high. Without these benchmarks, there is no factual basis on which to conclude that there was an unusually large number of erasure marks on Respondent's students' test papers, and, thus, that Respondent helped her students cheat on the Portfolio tests. The undersigned also found unpersuasive Zabala's testimony that on some of Respondent's students' test papers, circles around some correct answers were larger than circles around answers on those same papers——evidencing that Respondent herself had circled the correct answers on the test papers. Zabala was not qualified as an expert in handwriting and was not otherwise shown to be competent to testify on this point. See Huff v. State, 437 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1983)(the trier of fact is not competent to make a handwriting comparison without the aid of expert testimony); Clark v. State, 114 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)(the comparison of handwriting is an art which can be judicially practiced only by expert or skilled witnesses).18/ Accordingly, her testimony on this point is not considered reliable and is given no weight in this proceeding. The undersigned also finds unpersuasive Zabala's testimony to the effect that Respondent graded many of her students' test papers in pencil rather than pen specifically to facilitate cheating. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that teachers were not required to grade the Portfolio papers in pen; therefore, it is speculative to surmise that Respondent graded the Portfolio tests in pencil specifically to help her students cheat on the Portfolios. The undersigned also finds unpersuasive Petitioner's evidence regarding Respondent's students' poor performance on the Replacement Portfolios as compared to that on the 2014 Portfolios. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent's students took Replacement Portfolios under significantly different conditions than those under which they took the 2014 Portfolios. Specifically, Respondent's ESOL students——which comprised a substantial majority of the class—— had used translation dictionaries in taking the 2014 Portfolios but were not able to use them in taking the Replacement Portfolios. Thus, it is entirely reasonable to infer that their significantly poorer performance on the Replacement Portfolios was due to this substantial inconsistency in how the 2014 Portfolios and Replacement Portfolios were administered. In any event, Petitioner did not demonstrate, by credible, persuasive evidence, that the reason Respondent's students performed markedly worse on the Replacement Portfolio tests than they had on the 2014 Portfolios was because Respondent helped them cheat on the 2014 Portfolios. The undersigned also assigns no weight to Zabala's testimony that Respondent's students' markedly better performance on the 2014 Portfolios tests compared to their performance on previously-administered SAT and FCAT exams, and that this indicated that Respondent had helped her students cheat on the Portfolio tests. The interpretation and comparison of different types of standardized and non-standardized educational evaluation instruments, such as the SAT, FCAT, and Portfolio tests, requires special knowledge, skill, experience, or training in educational measurement or a similar subject area, and, therefore, is appropriately the subject of expert testimony. See, e.g., Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 272 F. Supp. 2d 539 (W.D. Pa. 2003); Teresa P. v. Berkeley Unified Sch. Dist., 724 F. Supp. 698 (N.D. Cal. 1989). Here, although the evidence showed that Zabala generally is knowledgeable about testing from her many years as an educator, she was not qualified as an expert in educational measurement or in any other discipline, so is not competent to testify on this point. Thus, pursuant to sections 90.701 and 90.702, Florida Statutes, her testimony is not afforded any weight. In sum, for the reasons addressed above, it is determined that Respondent helped her students cheat in taking their Reading Portfolio tests during the 2013-2014 school year, and that her conduct constitutes misconduct in office as defined in rule 6A-5.056, violates rules 6A-10.080 and 6A-10.081, and violates School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Accordingly, just cause exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes, for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay and to terminate her employment as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order upholding its suspension of Respondent, Arleen Gomez, without pay and terminating her employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2015, 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 October, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly determined that Respondent's employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material here, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Taylor County, Florida. A Master Teacher Contract between Petitioner and the Taylor Education Association governs relations between Petitioner and its teachers. Respondent is an educator, with 35 years of teaching experience. She is certified by the Florida Department of Education to teach students enrolled in the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. Respondent has at least 20 years of experience in teaching ESE students. During the 2009-2010 school year, Petitioner employed Respondent as an annual contract teacher at Perry Primary School. Pursuant to the contract, Petitioner hired Respondent to work from August 17, 2009, to June 9, 2010. Respondent’s class during the 2009-2010 school year was made up of students with varying exceptionalities. The exceptionalities included handicaps such as specific learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, autism, or emotional or physical handicaps. The class consisted of students in kindergarten, first, and second grades. At the outset of the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was assigned eight students, two of which had a full-time personal assistant. Just prior to the Christmas break, Respondent was assigned another ESE student with a full-time personal assistant. The primary responsibility of the personal assistants was to help their designated students function successfully and safely in the classroom. Additionally, the personal assistants were supposed to support the classroom teacher as needed. In addition to the personal assistants, Respondent’s class utilized the services of Behavioral Management Center (BMC). The BMC consultants visited Respondent’s classroom frequently to develop and monitor the implementation of behavior modification plans for certain students. The school psychologist also visited the classroom frequently to assist the teacher and students. Petitioner uses many computer software programs for the testing and monitoring of student progress. The computer programs are necessary in order to comply with Florida Department of Education requirements. The computer programs are used throughout the state and require data entry and transmission at several points in the academic year. Gradequick is a program that enables teachers to electronically enter student grades. Among other tasks, the program calculates grade point averages. The grades and averages are then entered in the Edline program that is accessible by both parents and students. Administrators can access these programs to ascertain the level of progress by a particular class or student. For the 2009-2010 school year, the initial Gradequick and Edline training was conducted the first week of September 2009. Respondent attended the training session. Tienet is a computer program used to assist with the drafting of individual education plans (IEPs) for ESE students. It is a web-based program that also is used to monitor a student’s progress in accomplishing the goals and objectives on the student's IEP. Tienet generates a parent report that goes out with report cards. All students in Respondent’s 2009-2010 class were learning in accordance with an IEP. Aimsweb is a computer program that monitors compliance with state and federal guidelines regarding student achievement and progress in reading and math. Aimsweb requires that all students be tested at the beginning, middle and end of the school year. The teacher uses the initial test or “probe” to determine the child's baseline. Other probes are performed on a weekly basis throughout the school year. Petitioner can use the data to determine if a child is academically at risk and, if so, to implement interventions to address any deficiency. FAIR is a state-mandated assessment test in reading that also is given three times a year. FAIR provides for an exemption for students who are severely limited academically. However, Petitioner always completes the initial FAIR test for all students, regardless of academic ability. After assessing the results of the first probe, Petitioner can then determine whether students will be exempted from further testing. In the 2009-2010 school term, Jack Palaio was an ESE resource teacher and the Perry Primary School technology coordinator. As technology coordinator, Mr. Palaio had to make sure the teachers’ and students’ computers were up and running. He also trained staff and teachers on the use of the computer software programs referenced above. Mr. Palaio’s responsibilities included monitoring data collection and data transmission from the classrooms. On or about September 2, 2009, Mr. Palaio requested that Respondent provide him with a list of her students. Mr. Palaio needed the names to made sure the students were placed in the proper Gradequick files. As of September 14, 2009, Respondent still had not provided Mr. Palaio with the list of names. In addition to the training sessions taught when school began, Mr. Palaio offered to assist Respondent on several occasions starting at the beginning of the year. At times, Respondent sought help from Mr. Palaio in person or by email. By mid-year, it should not have taken Respondent but a few minutes per student to enter weekly data on Gradequick. Aimsweb should have required no more than five minutes per student on a weekly basis. The FAIR data requires very little time because the teacher enters it while testing the students. Tienet data entry takes even less time because it requires formulation of IEPs only once a year and review and maintenance quarterly. Pam Padgett was the assistant principal at Perry Primary School. On September 15, 2009, Ms. Padgett advised Respondent to provide Ms. Padgett with a copy of Respondent’s class schedule. The schedule was necessary to show the times that Respondent intended to teach specific subject areas. On September 15, 2009, Ms. Padgett also informed Respondent that her students would need to take the initial FAIR and Aimsweb probes in order to establish baselines. Ms. Padgett advised Respondent that other staff members would do this testing for Respondent. In September 2009, two of Respondent’s students were exempt from taking the initial FAIR reading probe because of their disabilities. The two students were supposed to be tested using an alternative assessment known as the Brigance. Petitioner’s staff decided to test the two students on the FAIR material, using a paper test, in addition to the Brigance test. The Brigance test, in booklet form, was supposed to be given three times a year. Teachers used a different color to score students’ tests each time it was administered. On September 17, 2009, Mr. Palaio requested Respondent to see him about testing her students using the Brigance. Mr. Palio also offered to help Respondent set up Edline for her class. Alise Thompson is the Intervention Resource Compliance Specialist at Perry Primary School. In the 2009-2010 school year, she was responsible for ensuring that teachers properly drafted IEPs using Tienet and for scheduling IEP meetings. On September 21, 2009, Ms. Thompson instructed Respondent to prepare the IEP (goals and objectives) for a student. She reminded Respondent that the IEP meeting for the student was scheduled for September 25, 2009. On September 22, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that her class was set up in Gradequick so that she could start adding weekly grades. Mr. Palaio asked Respondent to see him for information about entering the grades in Gradequick. On September 29, 2009, Mr. Palaio again reminded Respondent that she needed to enter her grades in Gradequick so that she could send home midterm progress reports the next day. On September 30, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that her kindergarten student needed to have grades entered in the computer on a weekly basis for reading now and for reading, spelling, and math beginning in January. He also reminded Respondent that her first and second grade students needed grades for reading, math, and spelling. As of September 30, 2009, Mr. Palaio had prepared the midterm reports for Respondent’s first and second grade students. He also offered to do the same for the kindergarten student if Respondent would send him the necessary information. Mr. Palaio reminded Respondent that she had been provided with additional computer training in Edline and needed to post her grades in Gradequick on a weekly basis. The September 30, 2009, email to Respondent told her to put her Brigance booklets back in the students’ cumulative folders in the school office. This was necessary in order to ensure their safekeeping. On October 26, 2009, Perry Primary School was preparing to send report cards home for the first nine weeks. Mr. Palaio offered to help Respondent in this regard if she encountered any difficulty. On October 28, 2009, Mr. Palaio offered to help Respondent with entering grades in Gradequick because she was late in doing so. Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that he had corrected some of her inconsistencies, but that he was more concerned with her failure to enter all required grades for her students. Specifically, Mr. Palaio noted that Respondent had not entered grades for some children for over two weeks. George Clayton was the principal of Perry Primary School for the 2009-2010 school year. Around the end of October or the beginning of November 2009, Mr. Clayton sent Respondent a reminder that she was two weeks behind in posting her grades to Edline and entering grades to Gradequick. Mr. Clayton told Respondent to "take care of this matter." Anne Sesock, as the Response to Invention (RTI) Specialist for the 2009-2010 school term, was responsible for monitoring teachers’ data for FAIR and Aimsweb testing at Perry Primary School. Over time, Ms. Sesock became aware that Respondent was behind on her FAIR and Aimsweb testing and/or data entry. On October 29, 2009, Ms. Sesock reminded all teachers that Thursday was the day they should monitor progress of their students in math using Aimsweb. Ms. Sesock had already entered the students’ names into the computer. Ms. Sesock then gave a brief description of how to perform the task. On October 30, 2009, Ms. Sesock reminded certain teachers, including Respondent, that they needed to enter their reading/literacy scores into Aimsweb. This was necessary for the school to prepare for a data meeting. On October 30, 2009, Mr. Palaio reminded Respondent that she needed to see about her Tienet progress reports that had to go home with student report cards. Mr. Palaio sent Respondent another message on October 30, 2009. In that message, Mr. Palaio stated that one of Respondent’s students still needed early literacy scores entered in Aimsweb. On November 2, 2009, Perry Primary School sent report cards home. Ms. Padgett asked Respondent to a meeting regarding Respondent’s failure to send Tienet parent reports out with report cards. On November 2009, Mr. Palaio responded to Respondent’s request for help in checking her students’ grades and parent reports. Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that he had corrected the grades in Gradequick so that she would now be entering grades for the second nine weeks. He stated that she had some grades missing and needed to be consistent in entering the grades. He also reminded Respondent that she needed to make corrections in the Tienet parent reports relating to student objectives, which should have been sent home with the last report cards. On November 17, 2009, Ms. Sesock directed Respondent to bring certain Aimsweb reading benchmark assessment sheets to a training session that afternoon. Ms. Sesock offered to enter them in the computer. In November 2009, Mr. Clayton became concerned with the lack of structure and student behavior problems in Respondent’s classroom. He subsequently initiated a plan to provide Respondent with help in this regard. On November 23, 2009, Ms. Padgett advised Respondent that a substitute would be available the next day so that Respondent could meet with school staff and the BMC consultant. The purpose of meeting was to develop a schedule and activities for Respondent’s class. On or about November 24, 2009, Respondent, the BMC consultant, and other school staff members met to develop a Tuesday/Thursday schedule for Respondent’s class. After the meeting, Respondent was supposed to develop a similar schedule for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent ever completed this task. The Tuesday/Thursday schedule provides for whole group time beginning at 8:00 a.m. As the day progresses, the personal assistants were assigned to work one-on-one with a student, in small groups, or large groups, while Respondent worked one-on- one or two-on-one with specific students. To supplement the Tuesday/Thursday schedule, Respondent and the BMC consultant developed a Tuesday/Thursday Lesson Plan of 1:1 or 2:1 Instructions. The lesson plan names specific students and the skills/materials to be used with that student. On December 1, 2009, BMC staff visited Respondent’s classroom to observe implementation of the new schedule. They advised Ms. Padgett that Respondent stayed on the schedule for part of the day, but failed to follow it for the rest of the day. On December 1, 2009, Ms. Padgett provided Respondent with a copy of a walk-through monitoring form to be used when she and other administrative staff visited Respondent's class. Ms. Padgett reminded Respondent to post her class schedule for all support staff during the times that Respondent and the personal assistants were working one-on-one with students and in group time. On December 2, 2009, Ms. Padgett shared BMC’s concerns with Mr. Clayton. On December 3, 2009, Ms. Padgett visited Respondent’s classroom to observe a reading lesson under the new Tuesday/Thursday schedule. Ms. Padgett noted that Respondent was behind schedule but appeared to be implementing the new plan. Ms. Padgett subsequently provided Respondent with written observations, setting forth strengths, missed opportunities, and something to work on. In December 2009, Ms. Padgett became aware that Respondent had not done the required mid-year FAIR testing or had done the testing but failed to enter the data in the computer. On December 3, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Ms. Padgett that Respondent had not started a single FAIR test. The next day, Ms. Padgett directed Respondent to begin FAIR-testing her students and to get help from Mr. Palaio and/or Ms. Sesock, if needed. On December 4, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent and another teacher that they needed to complete the regress/recoupment forms for their students before Christmas break. The forms are used three times a year to record test data on the same specific skill. The data is used to determine whether a student requires an extended school year (summer school) as an accommodation. On December 7, 2009, Mr. Clayton responded to Ms. Padgett that he was disappointed in Respondent’s failure to adhere to the new schedule. Mr. Clayton stated that he would be visiting Respondent’s class that day. From December 8, 2009, through December 11, 2009, Respondent was absent from school because she had pneumonia. During that week, Respondent came to school one time for a meeting at Mr. Clayton’s request. The meeting related to a student that would soon be entering Respondent’s class. There is no record of Respondent receiving emails from school while she was home sick. Accordingly, the following emails dated December 8 through 11 may not have been read by Respondent until she returned to school on December 14, 2009. On December 8, 2009, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. He advised her that certain students were missing a spelling score in the FAIR testing. On December 9, 2009, Ms. Thompson reminded Respondent that an IEP meeting was scheduled on December 11, 2009, for "O." Ms. Thompson had started the IEP but reminded Respondent to add the goals. The December 11, 2009, IEP meeting obviously had to be cancelled because Respondent was home sick and had not completed drafting the IEP. On December 10, 2009, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. Once again, he reminded her that she needed to enter FAIR scores for spelling. On December 11, 2009, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. Once again, he reminded Respondent to complete the regress/recoup form with all students that week. On December 16, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that the initial regress/recoup testing had been done by another staff member the week before and that he had entered the scores. Mr. Palaio provided Respondent with a spreadsheet showing the results of the first probe that needed to be repeated the first day after Christmas break and then again two weeks later. On December 17, 2009, Mr. Palaio reviewed the policy at Perry Primary School regarding the need to check email three or four times a day. Teachers were supposed to read email before school, after reading, during lunch, and after school. Respondent was advised that teachers are held responsible for knowing the information contained in school emails, including requests for specific data. On December 17, 2009, Ms. Sesock reminded all teachers to complete their Aimsweb math and reading probes. Ms. Sesock wanted all teachers to enter the data that day or the next day so that the data would be available in January for intervention assistance team meetings. In an email dated January 3, 2010, Ms. Sesock wanted to know about missing scores in Respondent’s Aimsweb progress monitoring. Ms. Sesock could not run charts on the students until all scores were entered in the computer. January 4, 2010, was a teacher-planning day. During the day, Mr. Palaio sent Ms. Sesock a list of teachers, including Respondent, who had missing Aimsweb data as of December 18, 2009. Ms. Sesock responded with an email inquiring whether they could give Respondent an explicit instruction booklet on how to input scores so Respondent would learn to do it herself and quit bothering them. On January 4, 2010, Mr. Palaio reminded Respondent and other teachers that they needed to complete the second set of regress/recoup progress monitoring. He advised them to use the spreadsheet started before Christmas and to repeat the process on January 19, 2010. On January 5, 2010, Mr. Palaio requested that Respondent see him about Aimsweb and Brigance. He wanted to assist her with the Brigance books and Aimsweb probes. On January 5, 2010, Respondent injured her shoulder and knee when she fell after tripping over a student at school. She was prescribed pain medication (Vicodin and Celebrex) and required to wear a leg brace. Respondent claims that the medications made her sleepy and made it difficult for her to focus. However, she did not complain to anyone at Perry Primary School that the medications were interfering with her performance. On January 8, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent and other teachers about completing IEPs. Specifically, she reminded them that they needed to enter the accommodations for each child on an individual basis. On January 11, 2010, Mr. Palaio requested that Respondent see him that day. Mr. Palaio wanted to discuss Respondent’s scores for Brigance, Aimsweb, and Tienet. By January 2010, Mr. Clayton was aware that Respondent and the three personal assistants in her classroom were not working as a team. The personal assistants resented having to work with small or large groups of students while Respondent worked with students on a one-on-one or two-on-one basis. Mr. Clayton had a meeting with Respondent and her personal assistants on January 13, 2010. He gave the personal assistants a copy of their job descriptions. He reminded them that Respondent was the class leader and that they were her support staff. On January 13, 2010, Mr. Clayton told the personal assistants that they had to stay with their assigned students when BMC staff came to model implementation or observe implementation of a behavior plan. He did not want the assistants to think they could take a break every time BMC staff visited the classroom. During the January 13, 2010, meeting, Mr. Clayton discussed the Tuesday/Thursday schedule developed by BMC staff. He requested that Respondent develop a Monday/Wednesday/Friday schedule, using the same format, and give it to him. Mr. Clayton was concerned that there was not a consistent daily routine in Respondent’s classroom. Mr. Clayton also discussed Respondent’s lesson plans during the January 13, 2010, meeting. Mr. Clayton wanted Respondent to give him a copy of her lesson plans for the upcoming week every Friday before she left school. The first Friday that Respondent should have given Mr. Clayton her lesson plans was on Friday, January 15, 2010. As a general rule, teachers kept their lesson plans, two weeks in advance, in spiral notebooks provided by the school at the beginning of the school year. Teachers were supposed to keep the lesson plan books on their desks at all times. Mr. Clayton reviewed the lesson plans on a regular basis. Mr. Clayton made the special request on January 13, 2010, about Respondent’s lesson plans because he never saw her plan book on her desk. When he asked about the plan book, Respondent always said it was in her car or at home. During the January 13, 2010, meeting, Mr. Clayton instructed Respondent to provide each personal assistant with a copy of the IEPs and behavior plans for each student in the class. Mr. Clayton wanted the personal assistants to be familiar with all of the students’ IEPs and behavior plans so that they would know what to do in the absence of Respondent or a colleague. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent never complied with Mr. Clayton’s directive in this regard. Finally, Mr. Clayton told Respondent on January 13, 2010, that her class would be moved that weekend from a portable classroom to a classroom in the main building. The purpose of the move was to place the class closer to the school clinic to accommodate a student with medical issues. Mr. Clayton created written minutes of the January 13, 2010, meeting to share with Respondent and the personal assistants. Following the meeting on January 13, 2010, the assistants became more cooperative. On January 13, 2010, Ms. Sesock told Respondent how important it was for her to have up-to-date progress monitoring data for Aimsweb reading and math. At that time, Respondent had not entered the required weekly progress monitoring data, seven scores in math and five scores in reading. The second benchmark assessment for Aimsweb was due to be entered between January 11, 2010, and January 15, 2010. Ms. Sesock wanted to make sure that Respondent had all the materials she needed to perform the assessment. On January 13, 2010, Ms. Thompson reminded Respondent that "O's" IEP meeting was scheduled for Friday, January 15, 2010. Ms. Thompson requested that Respondent update his academic and behavior goals before the meeting. The next day, Ms. Thompson directed Respondent to update "O's" curriculum and behavior goals. On January 15, 2010, the IEP meeting had to be rescheduled because Respondent did not have “O’s” IEP properly drafted. Ms. Thompson sent an email to Respondent, stating that Respondent needed to separate goals and objectives on the IEP by subject area. For example, Respondent needed one goal and two objectives for reading, math, and behavior. After receiving a copy of Ms. Thompson’s January 15, 2010, email to Respondent, Mr. Clayton directed Respondent to complete “O’s” IEP goals by January 19, 2010. Mr. Clayton told Respondent to put the IEP in his mailbox before she left school on the 19th. On January 15, 2010, Respondent did not provide Mr. Clayton with the lesson plans for the upcoming week. Instead, she left school early for a doctor’s appointment and took the rest of the day off. On January 19, 2010, Mr. Clayton advised Respondent that he had reviewed her Aimsweb data and that it was not updated. He told her to update the reading and math data before she left school on January 21, 2010. During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent had completed two IEPs before attempting the IEP for “O.” However, Respondent failed to complete “O’s” IEP and place it in Mr. Clayton's mailbox on January 19, 2010, as requested. On January 19, 2010, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an internet link for Tienet. Apparently, Respondent had lost the website address. On January 21, 2010, Mr. Clayton issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for “insubordination” for failing to complete “O’s” IEP on time. Respondent received the January 21, 2010, letter of reprimand, concerning the IEP, in her mailbox at school. Respondent’s failure to timely complete the IEP was gross insubordination. Respondent had been given more than enough time and assistance to properly draft the IEP. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent’s pain medication was responsible for her inability to complete the IEP. On January 21, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent that corrections still needed to be made to “O’s” IEP. Respondent was told that each area of the IEP needed a present- level statement followed by at least one goal and two objectives. Later that day, Mr. Palaio gave Respondent additional suggestions to make the IEP meet Petitioner’s ESE standards. On January 21, 2010, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. The message reminded Respondent that most of her Aimsweb scores had not been entered. On the morning of January 22, 2010, Mr. Clayton shared some of his concerns with Respondent in an email. First, he discussed Respondent’s need to conduct Aimsweb progress monitoring probes in reading and math. Second, Mr. Clayton was worried about Respondent’s failure to enter grades in Gradequick, advising her to see Mr. Palaio by the end of the day to resolve this matter. Third, Mr. Clayton reminded Respondent that she needed to be using the school-wide behavior modification program. Fourth, Mr. Clayton noted some errors in “O’s” IEP. Fifth, Mr. Clayton told Respondent not to forget to do the ESE regress/recoup form. Finally, Mr. Clayton reminded Respondent that she was supposed to provide him with a copy of her lesson plans before leaving school that afternoon. Mr. Clayton wanted to make sure that Respondent received his January 22, 2010, email. He asked his assistant to call Respondent that afternoon. Realizing that Respondent was not in her classroom, Mr. Clayton requested the assistant to call Respondent’s cell phone and her husband’s cell phone. Because Mr. Clayton could not reach Respondent, he sent her another email at 3:55 p.m., telling her to contact Mr. Palaio if she and he were still on campus. Respondent left school on Friday, January 22, 2010, without giving Mr. Clayton her lesson plans. At 5:51 p.m. on January 22, 2010, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. He reminded her to do her quarterly Tienet progress reports that were due to go home with report cards on January 27, 2010. On Monday morning, January 25, 2010, Mr. Clayton sent Respondent an email. The message stated that administration wanted to meet with her at 2:30 in Mr. Clayton’s office. Respondent was advised that she could bring union representation to the meeting. During the meeting on January 25, 2010, Mr. Clayton discussed Respondent’s failure to provide him with her lesson plans as directed. Mr. Clayton also told Respondent that her failure to complete a task by a given date constituted insubordination and served as grounds for termination. During the January 25, 2010, meeting, Mr. Clayton told Respondent that she had a chance to resign. Mr. Clayton stated that if she did not resign, he would contact the Superintendant and recommend her termination. Respondent could not make a decision to resign without talking to someone. Mr. Clayton told Respondent to let him know her decision by Wednesday, January 27, 2010. Respondent did not do so. At some point in time, Mr. Clayton placed a letter of reprimand, dated January 25, 2010, in Respondent's mailbox for failing to provide him a copy of her lesson plans on January 15, 2010, and on January 22, 2010. Mr. Clayton noted in the letter that he still had not received Respondent's lesson plans. Following the meeting, on January 25, 2010, Respondent got materials ready for her students for the remainder of the week. Respondent did not return to work until Monday, February 1, 2010. On January 26, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent by email that “O’s” goals and objectives were looking better. However, Ms. Thompson noted certain corrections needed to be made. Ms. Thompson placed a draft copy of the IEP, with notations, in Respondent’s mailbox. When Respondent returned to school on February 1, 2010, she gave Mr. Clayton a very detailed copy of her lesson plans for February 1, 2010, through February 12, 2010. The lesson plans were in a narrative form and not in a lesson plan book form that contains plans for a week at a glance. Even though the plans were not drafted according to Perry Primary School policy and were not the plans expected, Mr. Clayton provided Respondent with a lengthy critique of the lesson plans. On February 1, 2010, Mr. Clayton advised Respondent that she needed to complete the regress/recoup spreadsheet. He also told her that she still needed to fix “O’s” IEP by February 3, 2010, and before the IEP meeting on February 10, 2010. Mr. Clayton directed Respondent to complete the January Brigance testing before she left work on February 5, 2010. On February 1, 2010, Ms. Padgett sent Respondent an email regarding the reading programs in Respondent’s classroom. Ms. Padgett told Respondent that Ms. Padgett and the BMC staff had made certain decisions about the reading program while Respondent was absent from school. On February 2, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent that "O's" IEP was better. However, Ms. Thompson noted that Respondent needed to work on the reading goal and two objectives. On February 3, 2010, Ms. Thompson stated that she had met with Mr. Palaio and that he had offered some suggestions for “O’s” IEP. Ms. Thompson's message included a copy of a draft IEP prepared by Mr. Palaio. In a letter dated February 3, 2010, Mr. Clayton recommended that the Superintendant terminate Respondent’s employment. The letter references Respondent’s failure to provide him with lesson plans and the associated reprimand. The letter does not refer to Respondent’s reprimand for not completing the IEP goals. Mr. Clayton’s February 3, 2010, letter also included the following deficiencies: (a) Respondent never provided the personal assistants with the student behavior plans as instructed on January 13, 2010; (b) Respondent did not have her Brigance testing up to date; and (c) Respondent’s Aimsweb data was not up to date. In a letter dated February 5, 2010, Paul Dyal, Superintendant of Taylor County School District, advised Respondent that her employment was suspended with pay as of February 8, 2010. Mr. Dyal stated that the action was based on Respondent’s insubordination as outlined in Mr. Clayton’s February 3, 2010, letter. Mr. Dyal’s letter was hand-delivered to Respondent on February 5, 2010.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That The Taylor County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2011, 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 February, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela M. Ball, Esquire Post Office Box 734 Perry, Florida 32348 Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Levine & Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul Dyal, Superintendent Taylor County School District Alton J. Wentworth Administrative Office Complex 318 North Clark Street Perry, Florida 32347 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lois Tepper, Acting General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
