The Issue Whether the Respondent, a classroom teacher, committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has held Florida teaching certificate 497810 issued by the Florida Department of Education, covering the area of journalism. This certificate is valid through June 30, 1998. Respondent was 36 years old at the time of the formal hearing and had been a teacher for 14 years, 13 of which were in the Dade County School District. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Palmetto Middle School, one of the schools in the Dade County School District. D. K. is a female who was fifteen years old at the time of the formal hearing. During the 1992-93 school year, D. K. was a student in Respondent's homeroom and in his honors history class. D. K. is a good student who made primarily As or Bs. At different times during January 1993, Respondent made certain comments to D. K. The conflicts in the evidence as to what was said are resolved by finding that in the presence of other students in the room Respondent made the following comments to D. K. told her that she was a nice, sweet, good-looking girl; told her that someday she will make someone a wonderful wife; told her that if he were younger he would marry her; asked her how many children she wanted; told her that he was going to law school, and that when he finished, that they could get married; told her that he had two children and that if they married she would be the stepmother of his two children; told her that her parents would not approve of her dating such an older man. D. K. felt uncomfortable and embarrassed by Respondent's comments. D. K. told her mother about the comments as they occurred. D. K.'s mother believed that Respondent's comments were inappropriate, but she did not think Respondent was trying to establish an inappropriate relationship with D. K. D. K. testified that when Respondent told her that she would make someone a good wife he was talking in general terms and not insinuating that he wanted to marry her himself. On February 19, 1993, Respondent was absent from his classroom. Some of the students began to look into his desk. One student, a male who had previously teased D. K. about other matters, found a picture of D. K. taped to the pullout writing tablet of Respondent's desk. D. K. was teased by some of the students in the class and she was embarrassed. D. K. told her mother about the students finding her picture in Respondent's desk the day the incident occurred. The following day, D. K. and her mother reported the incident with the picture and the comments that had been made to the assistant principal of Palmetto Middle School. D. K. was immediately transferred out of Respondent's homeroom and assigned to a different history class. On or about June 2, 1993, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand by the principal of Palmetto Middle School because of his conduct with D. K. Respondent testified, credibly, that D. K. had been teased by certain of the male students and that her self-esteem had suffered. He testified that he made these comments to D. K. only because he was trying to make D. K. feel good about herself and to have greater self-esteem. D. K. gave Respondent the picture of herself that was found taped to the sliding writing tablet. Respondent taped the picture to the writing tablet because he felt that the sliding writing tablet would be a good place to put the photograph and he taped it so it would not fall off. He was not trying to embarrass D. K. by placing the picture on the writing tablet. Respondent never propositioned D. K., he never asked her out on a date, and he never attempted to make inappropriate contact with her. Respondent was not trying to flirt with D. K. or make inappropriate sexual advances towards her. Respondent's comments were inappropriate. These comments did not impair Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact contained herein and which dismisses the administrative complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-7717 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 3 and 4 were admitted by Respondent in response to Petitioner's request for admissions, but are rejected as findings of fact as being irrelevant to the issues. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 11 and 12 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 411 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Du Fresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent, Peter W. Newton, violated Pinellas County School Board Policies 8.25(1)(k), (v), and (x), the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed by Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner operates, controls, and supervises the free public schools of Pinellas County, Florida. It has entered into individual and collective agreements with the teachers it employs and publishes policies that control the activities of its teaching professionals. Respondent is employed by Petitioner as a teacher of emotionally handicapped third graders at Skycrest Elementary School and has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher of emotionally handicapped children for six years. Petitioner assesses student and instructional performance utilizing the Pinellas Instructional Assessment Portfolio which consists of two tests: the Parallel Reading- Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test and the Parallel Math- Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. These tests test students on the Sunshine State Standards which are the Florida Department of Education Standards for student achievement in Florida public schools. These tests are given three times during each school year. Emotionally handicapped students are required to take the Parallel Reading-Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test and the Parallel Math-Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. Published rules govern teacher conduct in administering these tests. Teachers can only make general statements of encouragement to students. A teacher cannot read any portion of the tests to the students nor can a teacher provide input or comment on a student's answers or failure to answer. The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test is a state- wide assessment test given to particular grades annually. The Florida Department of Education has mandated that third grade students achieve a passing score on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test be allowed to progress into the fourth grade. It is suggested that, in addition to the student and instructional assessment function, the district-wide Parallel Reading-Florida Comprehensive Assessment and Parallel Math- Florida Comprehensive Assessment Tests prepare students for the state-wide Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. Respondent acknowledged understanding the published rules prohibiting providing assistance to his students while they took the Parallel Reading-Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. He also acknowledged assisting his students during the December 2002 test in ways prohibited by those same rules. Two full school days are dedicated to each portion of the test. Over the course of the test week, Respondent gave prohibited assistance to each of his nine emotionally handicapped students. Some of Respondent's students were apparently overwhelmed by the test and did not make a sincere effort. After examining their test booklets, he encouraged these students to go back and to continue trying. He examined answers to multiple-choice questions and sent students back to work harder on an answer, indicating by inference that the given answer to a particular question was incorrect. He read words and phrases to students, sounded out words, and pointed out sections of the text in which an answer could be found. While it does not appear that Respondent actually gave any student the correct answer to a question, he certainly directed students to answers. Respondent acknowledged the inappropriateness of his conduct but offered the excuse that he was trying to give his students the confidence of believing in themselves, that they could make passing scores on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test and advance to the fourth grade. Respondent's admittedly inappropriate conduct does not appear to be motivated by anything other than a misguided attempt to help his students by instilling the confidence that would necessarily result from the belief that they had done well on the test.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and being mindful that Petitioner, as stated in its Policy 8.25, Disciplinary Guidelines for Employees, "follows a system of progressive discipline," and giving full consideration to the apparent misguided motivation of Respondent, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner reprimand Respondent for his conduct and suspend him without pay from February 25, 2003, through the end of the 2002-2003 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2003, 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 19th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Jacqueline M. Spoto Bircher, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-3536
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes (2016). § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 962539, covering the areas of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages, Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, and Reading, which is valid through June 30, 2017. During the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Sims Middle. He continued teaching at Sims Middle for the 2014- 2015 school year, and currently teaches at Woodham Middle School in Escambia County. Among his teaching assignments, Respondent taught an eighth-grade honors science class during the school day’s first period. Among his students in that class was T.L. T.L had, in 2010, been diagnosed with Type I diabetes. By her eighth-grade year, T.L. was an “independent diabetic,” using an insulin pump and capable of carrying her meter and lancing device with her. On March 6, 2014, during a discussion of the consequences of the failure of various organs, Respondent made a comment that was substantially similar to that alleged in the Administrative Complaint, i.e., “Your pancreas can die and you could go into sugar shock; go into a coma and die, like (T.L.) could.” Respondent was standing in front of T.L.’s desk at the time. His position meant that the students were, or should have had their attention directed to Respondent. Thus, his statement would have been obvious. The investigation performed by Mr. Stokes indicated that comments similar to that involving T.L. “are often made” by Respondent; that T.L. likely took the statement “the wrong way” due to Respondent’s “dry sense of humor”; that Respondent “often makes comments trying to be funny but it usually just makes people feel weird”; and that he has made similar comments regarding other students in the past. The statements contained in Mr. Stokes’ report are not accepted for the truth of the matters asserted, but are used herein as evidence of Respondent’s overly loose and unsuccessfully “funny” teaching style. The statements contained in Mr. Stokes’ report also support a finding, made herein, that Respondent did not single T.L. out for disparate treatment, but (misguidedly) used her condition, with benign intent, to reinforce the importance of his lesson plan. In that regard, even T.L.’s mother, who was aggravated by the incident, admitted that the instruction as to what can happen when one’s pancreas dies “would have been appropriate in the classroom,” with her concern being the personalization of the instruction. However, she acknowledged that Respondent’s “unprofessional” comments had previously been directed to other students, and were not restricted to T.L. The evidence suggests that T.L.’s diabetic condition was not unknown. T.L.’s close circle of friends knew, having been told by T.L. C.P. testified that T.L.’s diabetes was fairly common knowledge. On at least one occasion prior to Respondent’s statement, the alarm on T.L.’s insulin pump went off during class. Respondent asked the class whether the sound was a cell phone, to which T.L. replied “Oh, that is my pump, sorry,” and turned the alarm off. T.L. carried the pump in her pocket, and she testified that the other students “probably just thought I had something weird in my pocket, but didn’t really know what it was.” T.L.’s mother testified that “her tubing was usually visible, depending on what she was wearing.” Finally, the topic of T.L.’s award-winning science project was the effect of contaminants at the site of a finger stick when testing one’s blood for glucose. While there was no evidence that T.L.’s diabetes was the subject of a general announcement, or that it was a topic of particular concern amongst her peers, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that it was unlikely that her condition was unknown to those in her class. The comment that forms the basis for the Administrative Complaint, though related to the class lesson plan, was inappropriate and unnecessary. Despite the fact that T.L.’s diabetes was not unknown to her peers, Respondent’s act of using her as an example was embarrassing to her. Respondent’s testimony that his use of T.L. as an example of an unchecked diabetic reaction was purely happenstance is not plausible. The evidence is convincing that Respondent was well aware of T.L.’s diabetes, and used her as an example of someone who had the condition that was the topic of discussion. However, there was no evidence that Respondent made the statement maliciously, or with the intent to embarrass or humiliate T.L. Prior to the incident in question, T.L., along with other students, used her telephone with Respondent’s permission in his class after completing Florida Writes testing, and Snapchatted a video to a friend. That became known when the friend asked Respondent why students in her later class period could not use their phones in similar circumstances. Respondent verbally admonished both T.L. and her friend, with his primary concern seeming to be that he could get in trouble for having allowed his first-period students to use their phones in class. T.L. was not written up for the incident, and there was no adverse effect on her grades. On March 5, 2014, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from Sims Middle regarding the incident of allowing students to use telephones in class. Although the incident that forms the basis for the Administrative Complaint occurred on March 6, 2014, there is insufficient evidence to establish a causal connection between the two. The suggestion that the incident in question was retaliation, or was otherwise precipitated by the Snapchat incident, is not accepted. On March 28, 2014, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from Sims Middle for the incident in question. Other than the two reprimands described herein, both having been issued in the span of little more than three weeks, he had not been the subject of any previous disciplinary actions during his eleven-year period of employment with the Santa Rosa County School District. There was no evidence that T.L.’s mental health was actually affected by the incident. The testimony of T.L. and her mother is evidence that she was, and remains, a bright, articulate, well-adjusted, straight-A student. However, rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) “does not require evidence that Respondent actually harmed [T.L.]'s health or safety. Rather, it requires a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the student from such harm.” Gerard Robinson, as Comm’r of Educ. vs. William Randall Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL ¶ 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2012; EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent, though without specific intent or malice, failed to make reasonable effort to protect T.L. from embarrassment, a condition reasonably contemplated to be harmful to her mental health pursuant to rule 6A-10.081(3)(a).
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(3)(a). It is further recommended that Respondent be issued a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 7th day of December, 2016.
The Issue Whether or not Ossie L. Gardner, the Respondent, on or about August 2, 1977, in Duval County, Florida, did expose his sexual organs by masturbation inside a pornographic booth in the presence of a plain clothes city vice detective at a Jacksonville movie theater, and further, whether or not Ossie L. Gardner plead guilty to the lesser charge of "indecent exposure" and was fined 550.00 plus court costs, all in violation of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 60-1 and 60-5, Florida Administrative Code, in that it is conduct which is inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience, not a proper example to students, and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Ossie L. Gardner and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect. Whether or not Ossie L. Gardner, the Respondent, on or about June 29, 1967, in Leon County, Florida, did solicit for a lewd and lascivious act by an offer to commit and engage in lewdness, to wit, fellatio with an employee of the Tallahassee Police Department, in violation of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code, in that it is conduct which is inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience, not a proper example for students, and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Ossie L. Gardner and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Petition for Revocation of Teacher's Certificate filed by the Petitioner, Professional Practices Council, against Ossie L. Gardner, the Respondent. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties entered into several stipulations. The first of those stipulations was that the statements in the Petition for Revocation of Teacher's, Certificate found under the title "Jurisdictional Matters" are agreed to and established as facts in this cause; therefore, with the recitation of those facts in the following quotation, those facts under the title "Jurisdictional Matters" are hereby established. "JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS" "OSSIE L. GARDNER is the holder of Post-Graduate, Rank II Florida teaching certificate number 181441, covering Math, Emotionally Disturbed and Junior College, which is valid until June 30, 1993." "OSSIE L. GARDNER has been employed as a math/science teacher at the Juvenile Shelter in Jacksonville, Florida. He holds a tenure contract in Duval County where he continues to teach at this time. The Professional Practices Council received a report from Buford H. Galloway, Director of Evaluation and Development, indicating that OSSIE L. GARDNER was charged with Exposure of Sexual Organs by Masturbation on August 2, 1977. Pursuant to this report and under the authority contained in Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, staff of the Department of Education conducted a professional inquiry into the matter and on February 13, 1978 made its report to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council. The Executive Committee recommended that the Commissioner of Education find that probable cause exists to believe that OSSIE L. GARDNER is guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida teaching certificate. The Commissioner of Education found probable cause on February 13, 1978, and directed the filing of this petition. The Petitioner has authority under Section 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education to file this Petition. The State Board of Education has authority under action 231.28, Florida Statutes to revoke the teaching certificate of OSSIE L. GARDNER." At the commencement of the hearing, the parties further agreed to stipulate to the introduction of certain items of evidence without the necessity for authentication of those documents. Finally, the parties agreed to stipulate to the introduction of the deposition of Otha Lee Wooden, as a late-filed exhibit, to be used by the undersigned in the same way as the testimony offered in the course of the hearing. The facts in the case revealed that on August 2, 1977, between 3:30 and 4:00 P.M., Officer J. W. Lockley of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, Duval County, Florida, was making a routine check of the J & K Adult Theater in the 400 block of Main Street, Jacksonville, Florida. This theater contains material of sexual content. Among other features of the theater are certain booths located behind a curtained area, which is separated from the other part of the establishment. Those booths have coin-operated projectors which allow for the display of preselected film clips which have been obtained from the proprietor. The booths are approximately four feet by seven or eight feet in dimension and the patron may stand up or in some cases may sit down in the booths. The booths have a further feature which is a door which has instructions that it must be closed during the course of the film being shown. On the date in question, Officer Lockley went into the area of the theater which contains the booths and observed the Respondent, Ossie L. Gardner, in Booth No. 8. At that time, the door to the booth was open and Gardner was observed with his sexual organs exposed, and was observed stroking his exposed penis with his hand in an upward and downward motion. A film was playing in the booth, being projected on a small screen. The film depicted sexual activity between male participants, specifically fellatio. Officer Lockley passed up the aisle from where he had observed this activity on the part of the Respondent and then returned to the area of the booth in which Mr. Gardner was located. At that point, Gardner continued to stroke his penis and to look and obtain eye contact with Lockley and then to look down at his penis. Lockley subsequently arrested Gardner for exposure of sexual organs, in violation of Section 80003, Florida Statutes. Gardner later plead guilty to a municipal ordinance violation of indecent exposure, City of Jacksonville Ordinance No. 330.124. For this violation, Gardner was given a judgment and sentence of a $50.00 fine plus $2.00 court costs. In the course of the arrest, the Respondent indicated to Officer Lockley that he had bean arrested for similar conduct before in a matter in Tallahassee, Florida. This incident pertained to a situation which occurred in the Greyhound Bus Station in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 29, 1967. At that time, C. A. McMahan, an employee of the State Prison Camp, Division of Corrections, Tallahassee, Florida, was working as an agent with the Tallahassee Police Department to assist in the investigation of vice activities. In particular, McMahan was assisting in the investigation of alleged homosexual activities in the men's restroom of the Greyhound Bus Station. On the date in question at around 10:00 P.M., McMahan went into the men's restroom and entered one of the closed-in stalls in which a commode was located; Gardner went to one of the urinals in the bathroom facility. Before entering the stall, McMahan observed Gardner masturbating at the urinal. McMahan then closed the door to the stall and was seated in the area of the commode when Gardner moved into the area next to McMahan's stall and continued to masturbate as observed through a hole in the wall between the stall in which McMahan was located and the area where Gardner was positioned. After a period of three or four minutes, Gardner stuck his penis through a hole in the partition wall into the area where McMahan was located. At that point, McMahan left to tell Captain Burl S. Peacock of the Tallahassee Police Department, Tallahassee, Florida, of his observation. Both of these individuals went back into the restroom, at which point Gardner was arrested. Gardner, after being advised of his constitutional right to remain silent, admitted that he had gone to the restroom with the thought that he could get some "sexual relief", and further admitted putting his penis through the hole in the partition for the purpose of getting that "sexual relief." Gardner also admitted to Peacock that he had been involved in homosexual activities as early as the age of 18 and had performed sodomy on one occasion and had been a passive partner in homosexual activities at other times. Subsequent to the June 29, 1967, arrest, Gardner received psychiatric attention for his problem. For the incidents related in the matters of August 2, 1977, and June 29, 1967, the Respondent has been charged with violations of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 60-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code; in that his conduct is alleged to be inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience; not a proper example for students and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Ossie L. Gardner and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect. A review of those stated sections of the Florida Statutes and the The Florida Administrative Code reveals that any substantive allegations cognizable through this complaint are found in provision of Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes, and Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, only. Therefore, no further reference will be made to Section 6A- 4.37, 60-1 and 60-5, Florida Administrative Code. Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes, reads as follows: "(2) EXAMPLE FOR PUPILS.--Labor faithfully and earnestly for the advancement of the pupils in their studies, deportment and morals, and embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and example, the principles of truth, honesty and pat- riotism and the practice of every Christian virtue." The conduct which has been established in the facts pertaining to the incidents of August 2, 1977, and June 29, 1967, involving the exposure of the Respondent's sexual organs and the surrounding activities in those incidents, is conduct which shows that the Respondent is not laboring faithfully and earnestly for the advancement of the pupils in their deportment and morals' in violation of Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes. No other violation of that provision has been established. Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, together with the preamble to the overall Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, reads as follows: "231.28 Suspension or revocation of certificates. The Department of Education shall have authority to suspend the teaching certificate of any person for a period of time not to exceed 3 years, thereby denying him the right to teach for that period of time, after which the holder may return to teaching as provided in subsection (6); to revoke the teach- ing certificate of any person, thereby denying him the right to teach for a period of time not to exceed 10 years, with reinstatement subject to provisions of subsection (6); or to revoke permanently the teaching certificate of any person, provided: (1) It can be shown that such person obtained the teaching certificate by fraudulent means, or has proved to be incompetent to teach or to perform his duties as an employee of the public school system, or to teach in or to operate a private school, or has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude, or has had his certificate revoked in another state, or has been convicted of a mis- demeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation, or upon investigation has been found guilty of personal conduct which seri- ously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board, or has otherwise violated the provisions of law, the penalty for which is the revocation of the teaching certificate, or has refused to comply with the regulations of the State Board of Education or the school board in the district in which he is employed." Again, the acts of August 2, 1977, and June 29, 1967, involving the exposure by the Respondent of his sexual organs and the facts therein, show that the Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude. The only other possible violation under Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, which might be argued is the allegation of possible conduct which seriously reduces the Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the school board. The sole testimony offered in the course of the hearing which would address that substantive accusation would be that testimony found in the deposition of Otha Lee Wooden. A review of that testimony indicates that the opinion of the principal of the school in which the Respondent teaches, to wit, the school No. 182, Juvenile Shelter School, is to the effect that the facts in these cases are not known to other persons in the school. Consequently, there is no testimony to indicate that there would be any loss of effectiveness if Mr. Gardner continued to teach. No other violations were alleged or proven.
Recommendation In the course of the hearing, matters in mitigation and aggravation were considered. In that presentation, it was demonstrated that the Respondent is a teacher with an outstanding background, as revealed by his personnel file, which is the Respondent's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. It was also established that the Respondent is a man of distinguished service to his country through service in the United States Army, as established in the Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1 through 7. Further, it was established that absent these incidents alluded to in the course of this Recommended Order, the Respondent has not been the subject of disciplinary action by the Petitioner on any other occasion. Nonetheless, in consideration of the nature of his profession, it is recommended that the Respondent, Ossie L. Gardner, have his Post-Graduate Rank II Florida Teaching Certificate No. 181441 REVOKED for a period of three (3) years. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Mail: 530 Carlton Building 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 2516 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida Charles E. Grabill, Jr., Esquire 168 Blanding Boulevard, Suite 2 Orange Park, Florida 32073 Mr. M. Juhan Mixon Professional Practices Council 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a professional educator who moved to Florida in 1988 to teach in the Broward County public school system. He completed Florida's beginning teacher program and passed the Florida Teacher Certification Examination. At the time of the formal hearing, Petitioner was employed as a social studies teacher in one of the public schools of Broward County. Petitioner received his Bachelor of Science degree from East Tennessee State University (ETSU) in 1967, majoring in Political Science and Speech. In 1971, he received a Masters of Art degree in Educational Administration and Supervision with a minor in Instructional Communication from ETSU. He earned his Doctorate of Education degree from the University of Alabama in 1974, with a major in Educational Administration and Supervision and a minor in Curriculum Development and Instructional Communication. Petitioner has been teaching continuously since 1967, either at the high school or college level. He has considerable experience in reading and evaluating written communication of high school and graduate students. He has served as an assistant principal in the State of Alabama and holds superintendent's credentials as well as principal's credentials and supervisory and teaching credentials for the states of Alabama and Louisiana. Petitioners desires to work as an assistant principal in the public schools of Florida. A person who desires to hold the position as a principal or as an assistant principal in a Florida public school district must earn an Educational Leadership Certificate from Respondent. Among the requirements for achieving this Certificate is the successful completion of the Florida Education Leadership Examination (FELE). FELE is administered twice each year to those seeking certification in educational leadership. The examination covers the eight areas of the Florida Educational Leadership Core Curriculum listed in Rule 6A-4.0082, Florida Administrative Code. The candidates for certification are notified by the FELE registration bulletin that the examination consists of three subtests with Subtest One covering "Management, Leadership, Personnel"; Subtest Two covering "Communications (includes essay)"; and Subtest Three covering "Curriculum, Finance, Law, Technology". The registration bulletin also notifies candidates that: With the exception of the Communications essay question, all questions will be multiple choice. There will be one essay question designed to demonstrate proficiency in written communication. The essay question will be scored holistically by trained experts. As indicated by the registration bulletin, the Communications Subtest consists of multiple choice questions and of an essay. The scores received on the two parts of the Communications Subtest are combined and statistically adjusted to determine whether the candidate passed the subtest. (There are several different versions of FELE that have been developed over the years. The statistical adjustment is made to maintain consistency in the examination process by making adjustments in the scoring process to account for differences in the comparative difficulty between the different versions of FELE. No challenge is raised to the fact that statistical adjustments are made or as to how those adjustments were made for the examinations in question.) A candidate must pass all three subtests of the FELE in order to receive certification, and he can retake any subtest that he failed to pass. A candidate chooses the topic for his essay from the two topics that are offered by the essay portion of the Communications Subtest. While the topics relate to assignments that a school administrator might receive, the essay portion of the examination is designed to test the candidate's communication skills; it is not designed to test the candidate's administrative skills or substantive knowledge of the topic of the essay. Rule 6A-4.00821, Florida Administrative Code, pertains to FELE and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Scoring. (b) The essay portion to the school communications subtest shall be scored by two (2) trained judges using a scale of one (1) which is an unsatisfactory score to four (4) which is an outstanding score. In the event the two (2) ratings are two (2) or more points different, or in the event the summed ratings equal three (3), the writing sample will be rated by a referee and the referee's score will replace the most discrepant of the original ratings. (d) Beginning July 1, 1988, a passing score for each subtest of the Florida Education Leadership Examination shall be: 1. School Communications. Examinee scores for the school communications subtest shall be reported as an average scaled score from the essay test and the scaled score from the multiple choice questions. The passing score shall be the scaled score equivalent to the combination of the essay total raw score of four (4) and a multiple choice total raw score of fifteen (15) on the November, 1987 administration of the subtest. Essay performance standards. (c) Rating scale. The four-level scale for judging the written essays is defined as follows: A rating of one (1) indicates the essay lacks unity and focus. It is distorted or ambiguous, and it fails to treat the topic in sufficient depth and breadth. There is little or no discernible organization and only scant development of ideas, if any at all. The essay betrays only sporadically a sense of paragraph and sentence structure, and it is syntactically slipshod. Usage is irregular and often questionable or wrong. There are serious errors in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. A rating of two (2) indicates the essay has some degree of unity and focus, but each could be improved. It is reasonably clear, though not invariably so, and it treats the topic with a marginal degree of sufficiency. The essay reflects some concern for organization and for some development of ideas, but neither is necessarily consistent nor fully realized. The essay reveals some sense, if not full command of paragraph and sentence structure. It is syntactically bland and, at times, awkward. Usage is generally accurate, if not consistently so. There are some errors in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation that detract from the essay's effect if not from its sense. A rating of three (3) indicates the essay is focused and unified, and it is clearly if not distinctly written. It gives the topic an adequate though not always thorough treatment. The essay is well organized, and much of the time it develops ideas appropriately and sufficiently. It shows a good grasp of paragraph and sentence structure, and its usage is generally accurate and sensible. Syntactically, it is clear and reliable. There may be a few errors in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, but they are not serious. A rating of four (4) indicates the essay is unified, sharply focused, and distinctively effective. It treats the topic clearly, completely, and in suitable depth and breadth. It is clearly and fully organized, and it develops ideas with consistent appropriateness and thoroughness. The essay reveals an unquestionably firm command of paragraph and sentence structure. Syntactically, it is smooth and often elegant. Usage is uniformly sensible, accurate, and sure. There are very few, if any errors in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. In addition to the foregoing, Rule 6A-4.00821, Florida Administrative Code, contains minimal qualifications for those persons who will score the essays. The chief reader and the scorers involved in the scoring of Petitioner's essays for both the May 1989 and the November 1989 examinations are well qualified, appropriately trained, and experienced in the application of the holistic scoring method. 1/ The holistic scoring method is widely used to evaluate essays such as the ones on the FELEs involved in this case. 2/ Unlike the analytical method of evaluating essays, the holistic method is designed only for scoring purposes and is not designed to give the writer feedback as to how he can improve his writing or why the essay received a particular score. For that reason, Petitioner received no feedback following the examinations, and he was not informed what he needed to do to improve his essay. The following instructions were among the general instructions given to the candidates for the May 1989 FELE and the November 1989 FELE: Your essay will be judged on your ability to write in a logical, easily understood style and on the quality of information provided, NOT on the opinion expressed. The following essay rating criteria were provided the candidates for the May 1989 FELE and the November 1989 FELE: Unity, organization, and focus (described as "consistency, coherence, order and interdependence of parts, creating a single, integrated effect") Sufficiency and development (described as "appropriateness of expression to meet writer's and subject's needs; breadth and depth; use of detail, examples, illustrations") Usage and syntax (described as "appropriate ordering of words to convey intended meaning; appropriate use of language, inflection, tense, agreement, vocabulary") Clarity and paragraph and sentence structure (described as "lucidity of expression; paragraph structure; variety, logic, and relatedness of sentences within paragraphs") Spelling, capitalization, punctuation (described as "currently accepted standards") To produce reliable and consistent scoring of the essays, a well developed process is closely followed. The first stage of the holistic scoring process is the selection of a chief reader, an assistant chief reader, and readers. 3/ The chief reader meets with the assistant chief reader and with other readers, normally selected because of their experience, to select range finders and sample papers. This group, referred to as selectors, first discusses the scoring definitions and builds a consensus as to the criteria by which the papers will be judged. The members of the group review range finders from a previous administration of the examination so that the criteria used will be consistent with past scoring. They then read, rank, and discuss 40-50 sample papers, selected at random from the current examination. Thereafter, in a process that builds towards a consensus as to what scores the different sample papers should receive, they discuss what ratings these papers received and how the rating criteria applies. They then select at least six range finders as being typical of the one, two, three, and four categories plus two scores that are borderline. These range finders are backed up by 15-20 sample papers which also exemplify scale level and borderline cases. It is the responsibility of the chief reader to determine that the selectors have reached an appropriate understanding as to the criteria to be applied to scoring these essays. After the range finders and the samples have been selected, the chief reader and the assistant chief readers meet with those readers who will have the responsibility of scoring the essays. The process used to build consensus among the selectors as to the appropriate scoring criteria is followed to build consensus among the readers. It is the responsibility of the chief reader to determine that all readers have a clear understanding as to the criteria to be used in scoring the essays. The actual scoring does not begin until after the chief reader has made that determination. Throughout the scoring process, the chief reader (or the table leader, if an examination is taken by enough people to justify a table reader) monitors the reading to ensure that the readers are applying the appropriate criteria in scoring the essays. Each essay is independently scored by two readers, each of whom is unaware of the score given by the other reader. No participant in the scoring process knows the identity of the essay writer. Essays which receive the same or contiguous scores from two readers are completed and those scores are recorded. For example, if the two readers each scored an essay as a two, the total score the candidate would receive on his essay would be a four. If one reader scored the essay as a two while the other scored it as a three, the total score the candidate would receive on his essay would be a five. That score would be added to the score he received on the multiple choice portion of the communications subtest and statistically adjusted to determine his final score on the communications subtest. The passing score for the communications subtest is determined as provided by Rule 6A-4.00821(7)(d)1, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner took the FELE in May 1989. He failed the communications subtest, but he passed the remaining portions of the examination. On the May 1989 examination, Petitioner received on his essay a score of two from each of the two readers who scored his essay. The four points he received on the essay portion of the subtest, when added to the score he received on the multiple choice portion of the subtest and statistically adjusted were insufficient to attain a passing grade on the communication subtest. Petitioner needed a score of three from each of the two readers to pass the communications subtest. Petitioner retook the communications subtest in November 1989 and again failed to achieve a passing score. On the November 1989 examination, Petitioner again received on his essay a score of two from each of the two readers. Petitioner needed a score of three from one of the two readers to pass the communications subtest. There was nothing about the testing conditions on either occasion that treated the Petitioner differently from any other candidate or that interfered with his opportunity to do his best writing. The holistic scoring process for each examination was carried out according to expectations without any problems or unusual circumstances. The procedural safeguards, designed to ensure uniformly fair scoring, were followed for both examinations. In neither case did the scoring of Petitioner's essay trigger the referring part of the process. In the May 1989 examination, eight range finders were used, but only two dealt with the topic Petitioner selected. Those range finders were assigned a score of 2 and a 4, respectively. Dr. Robert Blackmon and Dr. David Kirby, both of whom have impressive academic credentials and both of whom were accepted as experts in the field of holistic scoring of essays, were of the opinion that the Petitioner's essay on the May 1989 examination merited a score of three. Prior to forming that opinion, each had reviewed the two range finders pertinent to the topic selected by Petitioner and the scoring criteria used by the readers. Each then evaluated Petitioner's essay based on their review of the range finders and the criteria. In the November 1989 examination, six range finders were used, with two dealing with the topic selected by Petitioner. Following the procedure they used in evaluating the May 1989 essay, Dr. Blackmon and Dr. Kirby reviewed Petitioner's essay for the November 1989 exam. Again, both of these witnesses were of the opinion that the Petitioner's essay merited a score of three. The scoring of an essay using only two range finders is not as accurate as the scoring would be if there were additional range finders to be used for comparison. Neither Dr. Blackmon or Dr. Kirby reviewed range finders from other administrations of the FELE, neither reviewed the samples that had been selected, and neither had participated in any process designed to build consensus as to the appropriate scoring technique. Both reviewed Petitioner's two essays in greater detail than that employed by the holistic scoring contemplated for the FELE examination. The use of only two range finders on the topic selected by Petitioner for the May 1989 exam and for the November 1989 exam did not invalidate the scoring process. The readers involved in the scoring of Petitioner's essays for the May and November 1989 examinations had sufficient range finders and sufficient samples to enable them to fairly score Petitioner's essays. While Petitioner's experts were of the opinion that a higher score should be awarded, these opinions were formed using a pre-scoring process different than that used by Respondent in evaluating the FELE and are not afforded greater weight than the scores given by Respondent's readers. It is found, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Petitioner's essays were fairly scored by Respondent's readers, that the scoring process used by Respondent complied in all material ways with the holistic scoring method, and that the scores awarded Petitioner by Respondent's readers should not be changed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which denies Petitioner's challenge to the scoring of his essay on the May 1989 Florida Educational Leadership Examination and which denies his challenge to the scoring of his essay on the November 1989 Florida Educational Leadership Examination. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of July, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1991.
The Issue The Commissioner alleges that Respondent, a teacher who became romantically involved with an adult woman who was a student of his, engaged in several types of sexual misconduct as defined in the disciplinary statutes and rules. If Respondent engaged in any such wrongdoing, it will be necessary to determine what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against his educator certificate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the EPC enter a final order suspending Pleasant's educator certificate for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 2013.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes (2000), and Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 711503, covering the areas of elementary education, varying exceptionalities, and pre-kindergarten handicapped. Respondent's certificate was valid at all times material to this proceeding. Respondent began teaching in 1995. There have been no complaints against Respondent prior to the allegations in this case. Over the years, Respondent has attempted to help students over and beyond her classroom duties. On at least two occasions, she temporarily has taken students into her home in time of need. Flagler County School Board employed Respondent as an exceptional student education (ESE) teacher at Flagler Palm Coast High School (FPC) in the Flagler County School District during the 2000-2001 school year. That school term was her first year on the faculty at FPC. J.E. was a 17 year-old male student who attended FPC during the 2000-2001 school year. J.E. was classified as an 11th-grade ESE student because he suffered from attention deficit disorder. J.E. also worked as a part-time firefighter with the Flagler Beach Fire Department. J.E.'s employment as a firefighter was sponsored by the Boy Scouts of America Explorer Program. At some point during the month of October 2000, J.E. transferred into Respondent's math class. Initially, J.E. was unable to make a passing grade in math due to his learning disability. J.E.'s academic problems were aggravated by several in-school and out-of-school disciplinary suspensions, which caused him to miss class. Toward the end of November or the beginning of December 2000, J.E. was arrested for fighting with his sister. He was in the custody of the juvenile authorities for several days before being placed on juvenile home detention. When J.E. returned to school, Respondent contacted J.E.'s mother, D.B. Respondent requested permission to tutor J.E. after school to help him make up missed assignments. After receiving the approval of the juvenile authority staff, D.B. agreed that Respondent could tutor J.E. Respondent and D.B. agreed that, after each tutoring session, Respondent would transport J.E. to the place where D.B. was employed. Respondent then informed the assistant principal that she would be assisting J.E. after school in her classroom. The tutoring sessions began on December 12, 2000, and lasted for almost two weeks. The sessions terminated when FPC recessed for the holidays. During the tutoring sessions, Respondent and J.E. spent time working on J.E.'s math assignments. However, as time passed, they progressively spent more time discussing personal issues. These conversations included discussions regarding J.E.'s problems and history of abuse, as well as the physical abuse that Respondent experienced during her marriage to her ex-husband. Respondent revealed that she had been molested as a child, a fact that Respondent had shared only with her long-term boyfriend, her sister, and her closest friends. Respondent told J.E. about her two children and her relationship with her boyfriend. At times, Respondent spoke negatively about her boyfriend, referring to him as an "asshole." Respondent and J.E.'s student-teacher relationship became more personal as they spent more time together. J.E. began visiting Respondent during her planning period, during which they would discuss personal issues. Occasionally, J.E. would visit Respondent during her science class even though he was scheduled to be in another class. The personal conversations continued during the time that J.E. waited in Respondent's car for his mother at the school bus compound, sometimes for 20 to 30 minutes. Prior to one tutoring session, Respondent allowed J.E. to ride with her to a fast-food restaurant. She then took J.E. by the fire station before returning to the school. Respondent did not have anyone's permission to transport J.E. off campus. Sometime before the holiday break, J.E. told Respondent that he liked the music of a certain rap artist. The last day of school before the holiday break, Respondent gave J.E. a gift bag containing a compact disk (CD) of the artist's music. The gift bags that Respondent presented to other students contained only cookies and trinkets. On the afternoon of December 27 or 28, 2000, J.E. invited Respondent to visit the fire station with her children, a 9-year-old son and an 11-year-old daughter. Respondent and her children spent approximately one hour at the station while J.E. showed them the facility and firefighting equipment. Next, J.E. told Assistant Fire Chief Shane Wood (Chief Wood), that he was going to a nearby park with Respondent and her children. He advised Chief Wood that he would return to the station if it received a call. J.E. rode to the park in Respondent's vehicle. Francis Abramczyk, another student firefighter and J.E.'s friend, rode a bike to the park at J.E.'s request. When the group arrived at the park, Respondent asked Mr. Abramczyk to watch her children so she and J.E. could talk in a nearby gazebo. About 45 minutes after Respondent and J.E. left to go to the park, Chief Wood got off from work. Chief Wood then rode his motorcycle to his parent's house near the park. Chief Wood visited his parents for 10-15 minutes before riding his motorcycle to the park where he spoke briefly to J.E. Respondent and J.E. were sitting in the gazebo when Chief Wood came by on his motorcycle Once in the gazebo, Respondent and J.E. spent at least 30 minutes talking about Respondent's recent trip to North Carolina, among other things. During this time, Respondent and J.E. sat side-by-side. At one point in time, Mr. Abramczyk saw Respondent's hand resting on J.E.'s hand, which was resting on his leg. Respondent jerked her hand back when she made eye contact with Mr. Abramczyk, who was retrieving a ball from the far side of the gazebo. While sitting in the gazebo, Respondent asked J.E. if he was willing to baby-sit for her that evening while she went out with a girlfriend. Respondent told J.E. that she would not be returning home until late and suggested that he spend the night at her residence. J.E. did not think his mother would approve of Respondent's suggestion. In the meantime, Mr. Abramczyk decided to walk to a nearby store to get some ice cream. Respondent's son tagged along with Mr. Abramczyk. When Mr. Abramczyk returned to the park, Respondent and J.E. were sitting in Respondent's vehicle. While J.E. was sitting in Respondent's vehicle, two or three girls came to the park in a car. One of the girls was J.E.'s former girlfriend. At first J.E. did not want the girls to see him, but eventually he got out of Respondent's vehicle and talked to Mr. Abramczyk and the girls. During this conversation, J.E. was teased about hanging out with his teacher. Mr. Abramczyk rode the bike back to the fire station after this conversation. At approximately 5:00 p.m., J.E., Respondent, and Respondent's children went back to the fire station. J.E. then called his mother to ask permission to baby-sit for Respondent. D.B. told him that he could baby-sit. In a later conversation between Respondent and D.B., Respondent stated that she would not be home that evening until approximately 2:00 a.m. Respondent asked D.B. if J.E. could spend the night at her residence. D.B. responded negatively, telling Respondent to take J.E. home or to the fire station where there was adult supervision at all times. After leaving the fire station, J.E. rode with Respondent and her children to a convenience store where Respondent purchased soft drinks and snacks for her children. She also purchased several wine coolers for herself. At approximately 6:00 p.m., Respondent, her children, and J.E. arrived at Respondent's residence. J.E. changed out of his work uniform before walking to a nearby beach with Respondent and her children. The children played on the beach and in the clubhouse area while Respondent talked to J.E. During this time, Respondent consumed one of her wine coolers. J.E., Respondent, and her children returned to Respondent's home after spending about an hour at the beach. Next, Respondent prepared dinner for J.E. and her children. She then got dressed to go out while J.E. played video games with the kids in the living room. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent walked out of her bedroom into the living room wearing only a skirt and bra during this time. Between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m. Respondent left her residence to meet her girlfriend, taking her wine coolers with her. The girlfriend was not at home, so after waiting for a while, Respondent returned to her home between 9:30 and 10:30 p.m. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent was heavily intoxicated when she returned. Respondent's long-term boyfriend was spending time that evening with one of his male friends. The boyfriend usually stayed with Respondent but decided that evening to stay at his separate residence in St. Augustine, Florida, because he had consumed some beer and did not want to risk driving back to Respondent's residence. However, Respondent did not know that the boyfriend would not come to her house later that evening. When Respondent returned to her residence, her children were asleep and J.E. did not want to go home. Without checking with J.E.'s mother, Respondent decided to let J.E. stay. J.E. listened to music in Respondent's bedroom while she straightened up the house and did the laundry. Respondent took time to talk to J.E. and to listen to some music with him. Sometime during the evening, Respondent spoke to her boyfriend on the telephone. During this call, Respondent learned for the first time that her boyfriend probably would not be returning to her home that night. Respondent talked to her boyfriend a second time that night from her garage. When she went back into the house, J.E. pretended to be asleep but when Respondent approached him, he sat up and appeared to have been crying. Respondent assumed that J.E. was upset because he was jealous of her boyfriend. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent provided J.E. with alcohol or engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with him while he was in her home. However, Respondent admitted during the hearing that J.E. might have consumed beer kept in her refrigerator while she was gone because she found one beer can in her closet weeks later. At approximately 2:00 a.m., Respondent drove J.E. to the fire station. The lights were off in the station. After waiting a few minutes to see if any of the adult firemen were going to return to the fire station, Respondent drove J.E. home, arriving there between 2:30 and 3:00 a.m. On the way to J.E.'s house, Respondent made J.E. promise not to tell anyone that he baby-sat at her residence. She paid J.E. $20 for baby-sitting. When J.E. got home, his mother was asleep on the couch. D.B. woke up as J.E. entered the house. She did not smell any alcohol on him or see any signs of intoxication. Respondent went with her children to the fire station two days later on December 29, 2000. The purpose of the visit was to return one of J.E.'s CDs that he had left at her house. Respondent visited with J.E. for about 15 minutes. During the visit on December 29, 2000, J.E. appeared upset. He told Respondent that he was worried because a man from his past was about to be released from jail. He also stated that he had been fighting with his mother. J.E. told Respondent that he was afraid the fire chief would not like him having visitors. He wanted Respondent to leave, telling her that he would talk to her later. By the end of December, Respondent knew that the other students were teasing J.E. about their close relationship and that he was embarrassed about the situation. J.E. and Respondent had agreed that they would not continue with the after-school tutoring and that they would not socialize at school or at the fire station. Despite this agreement, Respondent returned to the fire station on December 31, 2000. The purpose of the visit was to give J.E. a six-page handwritten letter that included references to Respondent's personal experiences. Several of J.E.'s friends from FPC were at the fire station when Respondent arrived. When J.E.'s friends told him that Respondent was in the lobby area, he told them he did not want to see her and hid in a back room in an effort to avoid her. Two of J.E.'s friends then told Respondent that J.E. was not at the fire station. Respondent started to leave when she realized that her son, who had been waiting in the car, had probably gone into the fire station through the open bay doors. Respondent then went into the station through the bay doors to look for her son. Upon entering the bay, Respondent noticed that J.E. was at work. Instead of asking about her son, Respondent approached J.E. holding the letter. As Respondent walked toward J.E., his friends began to tease him again. J.E. was visibly upset and demanded to know what Respondent was doing at the station. Respondent knew or should have known that she was giving the other students reason to pick on J.E. J.E. was angry and embarrassed by Respondent's presence. He told Respondent to come back later just to hasten her departure. He shredded the letter as soon as she left the station. Notwithstanding J.E.'s extreme displeasure during Respondent's visit, Respondent returned to the fire station later that day about 5:00 p.m. J.E. was not there when Respondent arrived. At that time, Chief Wood told Respondent that J.E. was gone and that she needed to stop visiting him at the station because it did not look right for her to be there "hanging all over J.E." The relationship between J.E. and Respondent dropped off beginning in early January 2001. Shortly after the holidays, J.E. became angry with Respondent. He told her to go screw her boyfriend. Respondent just ignored this comment. On another day during the first week of January, J.E. attempted to leave Respondent's class on a pretext that he was required to go to the school attendance office. J.E. became angry when Respondent would not let him leave the classroom. A short time later, during the same class period, two of J.E.'s friends walked by and looked into the classroom through the window in the door. J.E. noticed his friends, went to the door to speak with them, and asked them to help get him out of class. Respondent again refused to let him leave, causing him to be even more angry. Respondent told J.E. that if he left the class without permission, she would write him up. He then said, "You're gonna write me up? Well, I could do something about that." The first semester ended on January 8, 2001. Although J.E. was failing math in early December, he received a grade of B in Respondent's class for the semester. He then transferred to another teacher's math class for the second semester. After the transfer, J.E.'s grades began to decline again. The other students continued to tease J.E. about Respondent. On or about January 19, 2001, a rumor surfaced that Respondent was pregnant with J.E.'s child. Respondent first learned about the rumor during her science class. The class discussion involved the harmful effect of fumes from spray bottles on the environment and humans. Someone in the class stated that fumes could harm a fetus like Respondent's fetus. Another student said, "Oh, I wonder who the father is." A third student responded, "Oh, it's J.E." The class then began laughing. Respondent made no effort to report the incident to FPC's administrators. Instead, on a day when Respondent was extremely depressed and disillusioned with her career, and when she was feeling "emotionally cheated" and/or "manipulated" by J.E., Respondent wrote J.E. an e-mail message that states as follows: Hi I hope your Term 2 classes are going well so far, and life in general. I heard you're in Mr. Krenichen's class for Algebra now. If you need any help or need a place to escape to you know where to go. I still have 3rd period planning, except for lunch duty 3rd lunch. Even if you still are or stay mad at me forever, I'm still rooting for you to make it. I hope you're staying out of trouble. Well, I just wanted to say hi. I was thinking about you and my kids have been asking about you too. They think you're so cool! Yeah, I guess you're all right most of the time. Ha Ha. I miss you. I miss you talking to me every day most of all. Well, see you around. K. p.s. I also wanted to thank you for keeping your word. Means a lot. Gives me a little bit of hope the whole thing wasn't a lie all along. That helps even if that's all I'll ever have. Well, there's other things I need to talk to you about but don't want to say in an e-mail, so will just let you go now. Bye. Respondent's statement in the e-mail that she hoped J.E. was not still mad at her referred to her refusal to let J.E. leave class. She thanked him for keeping his word about not dropping out of school, not telling anyone that he baby-sat at her home, and not revealing her personal confidences. The e-mail was not specifically romantic in nature but clearly and convincingly evidences an inappropriate personal relationship between Respondent and J.E. After receiving this e-mail, J.E. asked Chief Wood to help him draft a reply that would break off his relationship with Respondent. Chief Wood declined to help but told J.E. he would proofread the message after J.E. wrote it. After reading the e-mail, Chief Wood decided that J.E. had adequately communicated his message to Respondent and did not make any changes. On or about January 24, 2001, a fellow student told J.E. that Respondent had said she was pregnant with J.E.'s child. J.E. became frightened by the false rumor. That same day, J.E. lied to his mother, stating that Respondent had given him alcohol and that, while he was in an intoxicated state, Respondent had forced him to have sexual intercourse on the night that he visited her home. D.B. immediately contacted the sheriff's office. On January 26, 2001, the principal of FPC confronted Respondent with J.E.'s allegations regarding the alcohol and sexual misconduct. During this conversation, Respondent stated that she wished she had never had J.E. baby-sit in her home. She admitted that her relationship with J.E. was inappropriate. Respondent immediately drafted and submitted her resignation effective February 6, 2001, the day of the next scheduled school board meeting. Following Respondent's resignation, J.E. continued to endure severe teasing at the hands of his classmates. Some students referred to J.E. as a "teacher fucker." Understandably, such comments caused J.E. a great deal of stress. J.E. eventually dropped out of FPC and entered the adult education program, where he admitted to one student that he did not have sex with Respondent. He told the student that he wished he could take it all back. Respondent is now employed in a real estate office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That EPE enter a final order suspending Respondent's certificate for two years followed by five years of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 2003, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Matthew K. Foster, Esquire Brooks, Leboef, Bennett & Foster, P.A. 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
