The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 6A-10.081(2)(c)1., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence, testimony, and stipulated facts, the following Findings of Fact are made. The Commissioner is the head of the state agency, the Florida Department of Education, responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is then responsible for filing a formal complaint and prosecuting the complaint pursuant to chapter 120, if the educator disputes the allegations in the complaint. Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 834897, covering the areas of elementary education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (“ESOL”), and varying exceptionalities, which is valid through June 30, 2023. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an exceptional student education (“ESE”) teacher at Wyomina Park Elementary School (“WPES”) in the Marion County School District (“MCSD”). Ms. Miller has served as an elementary education teacher since the 2000-01 school year. Thus, she has a 20-year career with MCSD. From 2008 to 2018, Respondent taught third, fourth, and fifth grades at Reddick Collier Elementary (“Reddick Collier”’). Since she holds certification in ESE, she also taught ESE inclusion students in her general education classrooms. However, she has never taught a classroom of only ESE students. In 2018, Respondent’s value-added model (commonly referred to as VAM) scores rendered her ineligible to continue teaching at Reddick Collier because it was one of the District’s lowest performing schools. As a result, she was involuntarily transferred to WPES. Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent was initially assigned to teach students with academic issues, not behavioral issues. The initial assignment was consistent with her experience and previous work with ESE inclusion students. Respondent had maintained certification in ESE so that she could better serve academically low-performing ESE students in a general education inclusion environment. While Respondent had training in an inclusion environment, she did not have training or certification in Treatment and Education of Autistic and Communication Handicapped Children (“TEACCH”) or Crisis Prevention Intervention de-escalation techniques for use with students with behavioral issues. Ms. Baxley believed that Respondent had been trained to work with children with behavioral issues. After the initial assignment, students were reassigned between Ms. Miller and Patricia Poag. Respondent became responsible for only students with behavioral issues. Some of the students assigned to Respondent had extensive behavioral issues to the extent they required medication treatment. Respondent’s new assignment was a kindergarten through second grade self-contained ESE class of 12 to 13 students. Generally, a self- contained ESE classroom is a group environment with students who have special needs. Respondent’s students required increased supervision, structure, visuals, and very specific direct instruction. Respondent, Ms. Davis, and Ms. Poag testified that the classroom assignment was very “challenging, overwhelming, and distressing.” The new classroom structure included six or seven more students than previously assigned. Respondent had one paraprofessional to assist with supervision of the students. Respondent requested additional staff support, but never received it. In addition to learning to navigate the struggles with the student’s behavioral issues, Respondent was struggling with paperwork. Respondent made the effort to get help with completing necessary documents and learning how to complete IEP’s and behavior plans. She had no experience in completing these documents, or in working with “severe maladaptive behaviors” before being assigned to WPES. Allegations Involving Classroom Management As an ESE instructor, Ms. Miller’s primary responsibility was to ensure compliance with services or accommodations required for ESE students assigned to her classroom. Gina Gazzaniga is the MCSD ESE specialist. Her primary responsibility is to ensure compliance with services/accommodations required for all ESE students. Ms. Gazzaniga visited Respondent’s classroom. While in Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Gazzaniga observed students run on tables, throw items, and elope from the classroom unsupervised. Ms. Gazzaniga testified that while students were engaged in this conduct, Respondent did not intervene. Ms. Gazzaniga also testified that when students eloped from the classroom, they would typically go to the Guidance office or the Dean’s office. Ms. Gazzaniga had the Behavior Team (behavior tech, behavior specialist and analyst, and school academic coaches) assist with structure and behavior/classroom management strategies in Respondent’s classroom. The team implemented procedures to help prevent students from eloping. However, Respondent would change the practices the behavior team implemented. Respondent testified that some of the practices put into place were not effective. For example, when tables were lowered, the students increased their jumping from table to table. In addition, the assistance button was not within the reach of the teachers in the classroom. Ms. Gazzaniga’s overall assessment was that she saw “limited improvement, or refusal to follow taught strategies.” Other members of the WPES administration expressed concerns about Respondent’s classroom management. While visiting Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Baxley, along with Kendra Hamby, saw student W.H. pulling the hair of M.D. W.H., a male student, dragged M.D., a female student, by her hair as she screamed. Ms. Baxley testified that she heard Respondent say “stop.” Ms. Baxley then approached the students and removed W.H.’s hand from M.D. so that he would “stop pulling M.D. around like a caveman on the floor.” Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent did not intervene to help M.D., but rather “she just stood there.” Ms. Hamby testified that “Ms. Miller was standing there, not intervening, not saying or doing anything. So that was extremely concerning.” On another occasion, while in Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Baxley saw students hitting each other with containers. Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent did nothing to intervene. Respondent testified that she approached the students and instructed them to return the containers. Jennifer Foster was a paraprofessional assigned to Respondent’s classroom. On one occasion two students were running around the room, fighting, and chasing each other. Ms. Foster tried to “get in the middle to separate them and they both ran behind the big solid wooden table.” When Ms. Foster went in front of the table in an effort to separate them, the two students picked up the table and tossed it over on the side. Ms. Foster was able to move one foot out of the way, but the table landed on her other foot. Ms. Foster testified “I eventually got up and hobbled over to push the panic button and asked for assistance.” Her foot was injured as a result of the incident involving the students. Ms. Foster indicated that Respondent did not assist her. Allegations Involving Failure to Supervise Students In addition to concerns about classroom management, the Administrative Complaint alleged Respondent failed to supervise students. One of those incidents involved K.C. K.C. was one of Respondent’s kindergarten students. He is an ESE student with a medical condition. On September 6, 2018, a teacher informed Assistant Principal Troy Sanford that Respondent’s student, K.C., was found standing at the exit door of a hallway that opens to the playground. Mr. Sanford saw K.C. approaching the exit doors to the playground alone at 11:24 a.m. K.C. stood there alone until 11:29 a.m., at which time the teacher spoke to K.C. After consulting with another teacher, Ms. Hawthorne, about where K.C. belonged, the teacher took him to Respondent’s classroom. Respondent denied allowing K.C. to stand alone in the hallway for several minutes. She testified that while standing at her classroom door, awaiting the arrival of students coming from the restroom, K.C. began to walk from Ms. Davis toward her. This was customary for her students if children needed additional time in the restroom. As K.C. got close to Respondent, L.G.R. began climbing on the top shelf of a bookcase in the classroom. Since their routine was for the students to come into the classroom, she assumed K.C. would follow the customary practice and enter the classroom. Respondent testified that she made a judgment call to turn her attention to L.G.R. to ensure his safety and prevent harm to him. Instead of entering the classroom, K.C. walked down the hallway. Based on the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s actions were reasonable. A second incident involved a different student. Two first-grade teachers, Nancy P. Neal and Ireina Hawthorne, were outside on the playground with their students. When recess was over, they were gathering their students and doing a head count to go back inside to their classrooms when they noticed there was “an extra child” in line. The student did not belong in their classroom. The student was nonverbal so they could not determine to which classroom he belonged. Ms. Hawthorne assumed that he belonged in Respondent’s class and took the student to Respondent’s classroom. When Ms. Hawthorne took the student to Respondent’s classroom, Respondent “ushered him into the classroom.” Respondent testified that she was in the hallway, counting her students before going to her classroom. She explained that she had a substitute paraprofessional, Ms. Foster, who did not know all of her students. In addition, this was the first time she had Ms. Foster serve as a substitute. To help remedy the issue regarding the student left outside, Respondent asked her assigned paraprofessional not to take breaks or lunch during recess. Whether Respondent was in her classroom (as stated by Ms. Hawthorne) or in the hallway, the student was left outside without her supervision, which could be harmful to the student’s safety. A third incident related to supervision involved student L.G.R. On October 19, 2019, L.G.R. entered Ms. Gazzaniga’s office and hid under a table. The evidence offered at hearing demonstrated that when the student eloped from the classroom, Respondent immediately followed the student into the guidance office. However, she did not see the L.G.R., so she continued to search for him. A minute or so later, Ms. Gazzaniga saw Respondent walk down the hallway towards the main office. Respondent later learned the student was in the guidance office at the time she initially searched that location. However, Ms. Gazzaniga did not alert Respondent that L.G.R. was in her office. Ms. Gazzaniga testified that she “kept an eye on him while he was there.” After a short time, Ms. Gazzaniga went over to L.G.R. and spoke to him. He came from under the table and went to the doorway of the office. At the same time, Respondent was walking back down the hallway and saw L.G.R. and took him back to her classroom. The credible evidence demonstrates that Respondent made reasonable efforts to locate the student by searching for him immediately after his elopement from the room. DP-3 Assessment On September 10, 2018, Ms. Scott gave Respondent a Developmental Profile Third Edition (“DP-3”) to complete for student A.M.S. Students who are developmentally delayed must have a DP-3 completed for re-evaluation to determine what ESE services need to be continued. A DP-3 is an assessment tool used to evaluate nonverbal or low achieving students that have not reached the cognitive level to take an IQ test. MCSD uses the DP-3 to assess the student’s level of achievement. The DP-3 assesses five areas of development, including the child’s cognitive functioning, physical development, communication skills, social, emotional, and adaptive skills. The assessment is completed by completing a series of questions on whether a student can or cannot perform a particular task. Respondent returned the DP-3 to Ms. Scott on September 25, 2018. Respondent circled items indicating a “yes” response. During the hearing, however, Respondent acknowledged the student would not be capable of performing the tasks. In addition, Ms. Scott did not believe A.M.S. could perform the skills for which Respondent answered yes. Based on the evidence offered at hearing, some of the responses Respondent provided on the DP-3 were inaccurate. Performance Assessments Throughout her career, Respondent had been assessed as progressing or effective related to instructional practice as an educator. For the 2018 informal classroom teacher instructional assessment performed by Ms. Baxley, Ms. Cino, and Mr. Sanford, Ms. Miller was assessed as unsatisfactory in multiple areas.1 However, in the areas of criticism, it was also noted that Ms. Miller was engaged in instruction of students. Interestingly, she was criticized for a child wandering to her desk, and then, criticized for leaving the group of students she was working with to redirect the wandering student. In another instance, the observers were critical of a Positive Behavioral Interventions Support plan but Ms. Miller was never trained in the area of behavioral management. For the 2019 informal classroom teacher evaluation, Ms. Miller was assessed effective in each category, including areas where she was assessed unsatisfactory in 2018. Disciplinary Action at WPES For the first time in her career, Respondent received disciplinary action while working at WPES. On or about September 10, 2018, Respondent was issued an oral reprimand for purported failure to supervise the students assigned to her. On or about September 26, 2018, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for misconduct for purported falsification of documents. On or about October 26, 2018, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for alleged failure to supervise a student assigned to her. On or about November 26, 2018, Respondent was issued Step One progressive discipline for substandard performance due to behavioral concerns in her classroom and failure to report grades. On or about December 11, 2018, Respondent was issued a Step Two verbal reprimand regarding substandard performance. 1 In 2018, Ms. Miller was assessed unsatisfactory in the following areas: 2b. establishing a culture for learning, managing student behavior; 3b. using questioning and discussion techniques; and 3c. engaging students in learning. On or about December 18, 2018, Respondent was issued a Step Three progressive discipline written reprimand regarding substandard performance. Respondent’s educator certificate has no prior discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that: Respondent violated the statues and rules as referenced above; Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2021. Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lisa M. Forbess Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, Room 316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent submitted work that demonstrated a high degree of overlap between his submission and that of another candidate when applying for National Board Certification, and what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against his educator certificate.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Reveron holds Florida educator certificate 442908, which covers the areas of Elementary Education and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). The certificate is valid through June 30, 2013. Reveron has been employed as a teacher at Dania Elementary School in Broward County, Florida, since 2003. Catherine Wires (Wires) was a colleague of Reveron’s at Dania Elementary. During all times material to the instant case, Wires and Reveron taught fourth grade, and were involved in an on-again, off-again intimate relationship. During the 2007-2008 school year, Reveron and Wires decided to apply for National Board Certification through the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). To qualify for such certification, candidates must submit four portfolio entries. In preparing their respective submissions, Reveron and Ms. Wires helped each other, and taught essentially the same curriculum. According to the instructions given by the National Board, the entire portfolio had to consist of the candidate’s own work. Collaboration with a colleague was permitted, but the actual written work submitted was to be authored solely by the candidate submitting the portfolio. The portfolios were due to the National Board on a Saturday in March 2008. The day before, Reveron was working in the after-school care program. In an effort to save time, he gave his flash drive, which contained his four entries, to Ms. Wires and asked Ms. Wires to print out all of his documents. He was hoping she could print all four entries, so that when he finished his work at 6:30 p.m., he could simply place them in his portfolio and mail the package. Ms. Wires did as Reveron asked, and printed Reveron’s four entries, which she found on his flash drive. That same afternoon, Ms. Wires printed her submissions for the certification. She used the same computer when printing her documents and Reveron’s documents. After he finished working, he collected the four entries that had been printed by Ms. Wires, placed them in the portfolio without checking them, and mailed them to the National Board. The National Board, in March 2009, notified Reveron that his scores would not be released because the Board identified a high degree of overlap between Reveron’s submission and that of another candidate. Reveron was notified that he would not be permitted to seek certification in the future, but that he could request a review of the decision. Reveron never requested such a review. At issue in this case is Reveron’s submission #3, which consisted of fourteen pages. There is no dispute that the entry was almost identical to Ms. Wires’ entry #3, and had been written by Ms. Wires. There were a few areas where Reveron and Wires’ submissions varied, namely, the candidate identification numbers, the classroom demographic information, and the description of a group of students in terms of their gender, seating, and clothing. The only explanation provided for the overlap in the submissions was that it was a printing and packaging error. Ms. Wires, while in the process of printing her submissions and Reveron’s submissions off of the same computer, inadvertently printed the wrong document when she believed she was printing Reveron’s entry #3. Instead of Reveron’s entry #3, Ms. Wires printed her own entry #3. Reveron never reviewed the contents of the portfolio prior to mailing the package to the Board. Thus, there was a printing and packaging error that caused the “high degree of overlap” between Reveron and Wires’ entries. At hearing, no explanation was provided as to why differences existed between Reveron and Ms. Wires’ entries. In her deposition, however, Ms. Wires explained that she was in a rush to gather all the documents needed for the portfolios that afternoon, and that she must have accidently printed one of the rough drafts of her entry #3 when she thought she was printing Reveron’s entry #3. Absent from the record is any evidence of Reveron acting dishonestly or knowingly submitting fraudulent information to the National Board. Based on the evidence in the record, the overlap in the entries appears to be a result of a careless mistake.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Department of Education dismiss the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA ENCISO VARN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 2011.
Findings Of Fact On April 23, 1980, Petitioner applied for a teaching certificate in the areas of biology, chemistry, and general science. Petitioner had been certified by the State of Florida from August 20, 1974, through 1979 in these subjects. Petitioner allowed his prior certificate to lapse in 1979 as he was not sure he wanted to continue to be a teacher. At the time he allowed his certificate to lapse, he was involved in a drug problem, which drug problem resulted in the three arrests at issue herein. Petitioner was arrested in 1977, in 1978, and in 1979 for possession of controlled substances. Each of the arrests resulted in the withholding of adjudication. None of the arrests involved the sale of drugs, and Petitioner has never sold drugs. Petitioner has not used drugs since January of 1979, the date of his last arrest, and the drug used that date was a drug prescribed for him by a doctor. Prior to this application, Petitioner had reapplied for his teaching certificate. That application was denied since Petitioner was on probation from his arrests. Petitioner has completed all of his probationary periods. During the last year and a half, Petitioner has been teaching at the Miami Shores Preparatory School. He was hired to start a science department and has been teaching seventh and eighth grade life science, ninth and tenth grade biology, eleventh and twelfth grade honors biology, and eleventh and twelfth grade honors chemistry. He is also the swimming coach and serves as a counselor for seventh and eighth graders. Since he has been teaching at Miami Shores Preparatory School, a student has written an essay about him in describing the characteristics of an ideal teacher for a literary contest. The students at Miami Shores have dedicated the school yearbook to him. He has started a program at that school for students with drug problems by enlisting the aid of persons in the drug program which he himself successfully completed. Petitioner has had no difficulty in his present teaching position. However, in order for him to continue teaching at Miami Shores Preparatory School, a Florida teaching certificate is required. He is supported in his application for a teaching certificate by the principal of that school as well as by some of the other teachers, students, and parents of students at that school. Petitioner meets all requirements for issuance of a Florida teaching certificate, and the only basis for Respondent's denial of his application involves his three arrests.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered approving Petitioner's application for a Florida Teacher's Certificate, providing that Petitioner be issued a Teacher's Certificate on a probationary basis for a period of five years, and further providing that such certificate be automatically revoked if Petitioner be arrested for possession of any controlled substance during his five-year probationary period. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24 day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Roberts, Miller, Baggett, LaFace, Richard & Wiser Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Woods, Johnston & Carlson 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Should discipline be imposed on Respondent's Florida Educators Certificate 174039?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts: The Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 174039, covering the areas of Elementary and Business Education, which is valid through June 30, 2005. Respondent was at all times material to the allegations of this administrative complaint an employee of the Alachua County School District. On or about April 27, 1999, the Commission of Education found probable cause to file an Administrative Complaint (Commission of Education v. Earnestine M. Young, Case No. 978-0721M) against Respondent. The Administrative Complaint in Case No. 978-0721M alleged that "during the 1995- 1996 and 1996-1997 school years, Respondent made derogatory and insulting comments to and about students, in front of a whole class. She referred to one student as 'stupid' because he had a calculator, told another student to 'stop looking at me like that because you look queer . . .' and in other ways demeaned her students. Respondent, also ignored students in class if they had annoyed her." The Administrative Complaint contained three counts alleging violations respectively of Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a) and 1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. On or about November 3, 1999, the parties entered into a settlement agreement pertaining to Case No. 978-0721M. To settle the dispute in Case No. 978-0721M, the parties agreed that Respondent not admit nor deny but elected not to contest the allegations in the Administrative Complaint and to accept a letter of reprimand, a copy of which would be placed in Respondent's certification file with the Department of Education and in her personnel file with the employing school district. The parties agreed that the Respondent should be placed on a period of probation of one year commencing upon the issuance of a final order by the Education Practices Commission. The terms of that probation, in pertinent part, incorporated the requirement that Respondent violate no law (statutory violations) and not violate the State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006 during her probation. It was likewise agreed that if the Respondent failed to comply with the conditions of the probation, Petitioner would be authorized to file an administrative complaint for sanctions up to and including the revocation of her teaching certificate based upon the violation of the terms of the probation. On or about December 28, 1999, the Education Practices Commission entered a Final Order approving the settlement agreement in Case No. 978-0721M. Additional Facts: In the school year 1999-2000, Respondent was assigned to Duval Elementary School, part of the Alachua County School District. In late January 2000, J.M. was a second grade student in Respondent's class with other students. On this date Respondent was serving as a substitute teacher in an art class. J.M. got up from her seat to retrieve a piece of paper without raising her hand for permission from Respondent. During this encounter Respondent hit the student with a pen on her knuckles. J.M. described the incident to the effect that "it hurt a little bit, but it did not hurt that much." The incident happened at the Respondent's desk in the classroom. After the incident Respondent told the student, "Just sit down." The student then started to cry. J.M. was not sure whether Respondent intended to strike her. Respondent concedes that she may have struck the student. Respondent denies any intent to strike the student. Respondent was grading papers at the desk with a pen and noticed the papers moving, put her hands down on the paper, repeated that procedure and commented to the effect that the student should not take the papers that were being graded. (What J.M. considered to be a pencil was in fact a pen.) To the extent that J.M. surmised that she was being struck because she did not raise her hand to ask permission to get a piece of paper, that belief by J.M. was not established in the proof. After weighing these facts, it is not certain that Respondent intentionally struck the student on the hand. On February 18, 2002, Respondent was responsible for a computer class at the Duval Elementary School. The computer lab class included A.H., a fifth grade student. A.H. sat down at his seat and raised his hand. Respondent approached A.H. and under her breath, but loud enough to be heard by A.H. and student H.J. stated, "I hate these damn kids." Respondent struck A.H. on the back of his head with her hand. A.H. turned around and looked at Respondent. Respondent told A.H. to "turn back around and do your work." In 1999-2000 Lenita McNeally was the principal at Duval Elementary. In that school year she observed Respondent with students in class and described Respondent as gruff in her mannerisms and demeanor. Ms. McNeally considered Respondent's teaching style to be curt and not what Ms. McNeally would expect. Ms. McNeally did not deem Respondent to be as pleasant as Ms. McNeally would desire. Ms. McNeally believed the children to be uncomfortable with Respondent. Ms. McNeally felt that the Respondent needed to come forth with a mild-mannered temper, with a smile and to diminish her tone. Ms. McNeally's comments concerning the tone Respondent used in dealing with Respondent's students are accepted. Ms. McNeally did not hear the use of foul language, or Respondent calling students names or making derogatory remarks about the abilities of students as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Laura Renfroe was a reading facilitator in the reading program at Duval Elementary School during the school year 1999-2000. She observed Respondent in class and found Respondent to be very strict, and very tough with the students. When the students would question Respondent, Respondent often seemed angry in giving her answers. Respondent's tone, as observed by Ms. Renfroe, was angry and upset. This approach by Respondent was met by the students' silence beyond that point. The observations Ms. Renfroe made of Respondent in providing instruction were as reading facilitator. Ms. Renfroe also overheard Respondent from Ms. Renfroe's adjacent room to the Title I lab where Respondent was teaching. Again, what Ms. Renfroe overheard was the tone used by Respondent in addressing her students which was angry, upset, and sarcastic. Ms. Renfroe did not hear Respondent use foul language or call the students by derogatory names. Ms. Renfroe did not hear the Respondent tell the students that she did not wish to be in the classroom or did not like them personally.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Counts 1 through 5 and suspending her teaching certificate for a period of 60 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2002.
