Findings Of Fact Except for the matters at issue, the Petitioner is full qualified for licensure as an agent and to obtain an agency license. The Petitioner served twenty (20) years in the US Army, retiring as a sergeant-major in 1973. His last ten (10) years in service were involved directly with work which the agency concedes is the equivalent of the work done by an employment clerk. The Petitioner, since retiring from the US Army, has been employed as a teacher/career counselor in the Detroit school system at the high school level. There he instructed high school ROTC six (6) to seven (7) hours per week. The remainder of his time was spent in counseling and duties associated with administration of the ROTC department of which he was head. The Petitioner has counseled more than 200 students regarding careers to include helping them fill out applications, helping to place them in programs, and encouraging them to develop job skills. He held this position until applying for this license. The petitioner also served for more than three (3) years immediately preceding his application on the Harper Woods School Board. As a member of the school board he had to approve the hiring, firing and granting of tenure to school board employees, and review negotiated contracts for employees of the school board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the application of Ralph E. Young for an employment agency/agent license be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Ralph E. Young 2117 South East Erwin Road Port St. Lucie, Florida
The Issue Whether the School Board of Broward County, Florida (School Board) has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment based on the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated May 13, 2010.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida. At all times material hereto, the School Board employed Respondent as a classroom teacher pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was assigned to Ashe Middle School where she taught reading and language arts. Respondent holds a Florida educational certificate that has both reading and gifted endorsements. During the time Respondent taught at Ashe Middle School, the school was considered a low performing school. There was a high level of student turnover and a relatively high number of foreign students who did not speak English. Respondent had an advanced reading class that read on grade level. Most of her other students read below grade level.1 Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Broward Teachers Union and applicable law, which will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order, School Board has adopted a system to assess teachers known as Instructional Personnel Assessment System (IPAS). Subsection (F)(1)b of Article 18 of the CBA contains the following guiding principle: b. The School Board and BTU [Broward Teachers Union] acknowledge that the assessment process should recognize the professional nature of teaching and supervision. Educational research has not identified a single uni-dimensional construct called "effective teaching." Teachers must pursue a variety of models of effective teaching. It is recognized, moreover, that the educational environment is complex and variable and great weight should be placed on teacher judgment to guide the activities of student learning. Subsection F(2)(e) of Article 18 of the CBA requires that the principal, director, or his/her designee evaluate each employee at least once a year utilizing IPAS. Rating criteria are defined on the IPAS form in the following categories: Instructional Planning Lesson Management Lesson Presentation Student Performance Evaluation Communication Classroom Management Behavior Management Records Management Subject Matter Knowledge Other Professional Competencies The evaluator rates the employee as to each criterion and for overall performance. The rating can be "satisfactory", "needs improvement", or "unsatisfactory." Subsection F of Article 18 of the CBA describes IPAS. Pursuant to the CBA, the assessment system requires a teacher, whose performance has been deemed deficient in one or more areas by an appropriate school administrator, to be placed on a Performance Development Plan (PDP). A school administrator develops the plan and monitors the employee's progress in completing the plan. Subsection F(2)(m)2 of Article 18 of the CBA provides as follows as to the use and implementation of a PDP: Use and implementation of this plan requires identification of deficiencies, definition of strategies for improvement, definition of an assistance timeline, definition of expected outcomes, definition of possible consequences for failure to remediate, completion of assistance activities, and documentation. Subsection (F)(2)f of Article 18 of the CBA provides as follows: The following five (5) techniques are used to gather data on employee performance. Assessors use multiple techniques to understand actual performance and develop performance ratings. Informal classroom observations: Informal observations are made periodically by the principal or designee. A follow-up conference is not required subsequent to an informal classroom observation if performance is deemed satisfactory. Formal classroom observations: Formal observations are primarily initiated by the principal or designee. Employees may, however, request a formal observation. These are not less than 30 minutes in duration and are conducted by the principal, director or his/her designee. The 30 minute time period may be shortened by mutual agreement between the principal and the affected employee. All observations of employees for the purpose of assessment shall be conducted with the full knowledge of the employee. A conference is conducted after each formal observation. The FPMS [Florida Performance Measurement System] or other educationally sound observation instruments which may be used for formal observation.[sic] Observations in non-classroom situations: Principals use opportunities outside the classroom to observe the performance of employees. A follow-up conference is not required subsequent to this type of observation if performance is deemed satisfactory. Review of records and data: Principals review a variety of work samples prepared by the employee. These may include lesson plans, reports, grade card comments, discipline referral documents, etc. In addition, specific records or plans may be requested for review. A follow-up conference is not required if performance is deemed satisfactory. Review of performance portfolio: The principal or designee and the employee may mutually decide that a performance portfolio is needed to provide additional information for the completion of the assessment ratings. The design of a portfolio is determined by the principal and employee. A follow-up conference is not required if performance is deemed satisfactory. A teacher placed on a PDP is given 90 calendar days, excluding school holidays and vacations, to correct the identified performance deficiencies. If, at the end of the 90- day probation period, the performance of the employee remains at an unsatisfactory level for one or more of the assessment criteria, a rating of U (for unsatisfactory) is given. At that juncture, the administrator can extend the PDP period, or he/she can refer the matter to the Office of Professional Standards for further proceedings. Mr. Luciani was the principal and Mr. Muniz was an assistant principal at Ashe Middle School during the 2006-07 school year. On December 11, 2006, Mr. Muniz wrote a memo to Respondent. The memo is quoted verbatim because it targeted problems that continued throughout Respondent's tenure at Ashe Middle School. The memo is as follows: This correspondence is to document the last few week's [sic] events when it was determined that your job performance has been less than satisfactory in the following areas: Behavior Management-managing student behavior Records Management-management of data Communications Instructional Planning On December 7, while doing a classroom visit that lasted 31 minutes I noticed a lack of classroom management. It took almost seven minutes to get the class under control to start your lesson. While there were only 11 students in your room, yet, only five students were on task. You continued to do your lesson despite the disruptions. I am not sure if you were aware or just ignored the disruptions. In the last few weeks you have banished, kicked out, or attempted to kick out students everyday for almost twelve consecutive days. In the past Mr. Hart, Assistant Principal, and I have mentioned that the students should be accompanied by an escort or if you have a receiving teacher you should wait at the door until the child is situated. In at least five occasions your students have been caught wandering the halls because you have kicked them out. There have been many times while on hall duty that I noticed you kicking students out and the class has not yet started. This is unacceptable. You are responsible for the students in your class. When they are unescorted the possibility of injury exist [sic] due to your negligence. The students have not sat down and you attempt to remove them from class. This is also unacceptable. Prior to our recent data conference it was 12:15 in the afternoon and you requested to find out what data you needed at the conference. I directed you to Ms. J. Shakir[,] reading coach[,] who assisted you in securing minimal data for the conference. Please note that there had been four data presentations regarding preparation for the data conferences conducted by Mr. Fleisher and Ms. Lumpkin form c-net. Ms. Shakir and Ms. Pickney also conducted data disaggregation workshops in the previous weeks. While at the conference itself you appeared to know very little with regard to your student data. You were not familiar with your BMA results or the progress your individual students or classes had made. There was no attempt made at providing categorical breakdowns of students which needed prescriptive strategies to address their needs. The confrontational manner with which you speak to children is a direct factor in the lack of classroom management. Your lack of communication skills has led to referrals on many students which have led to major consequences for students after the referrals led to escalated verbal confrontations. During various grade level meetings, I have requested that all teachers provide me with emergency lesson plans every two weeks. To date I have not received any of these plans. Our expectations for each of the above listed concerns are: First and foremost, resolve the discipline problems in compliance with the policies of the school, rules of the District School Board and [sic] the State Board and Florida Statutes. Next, maintain consistency in all application of policy and practice by: Establishing routines and procedures for the use of materials and the physical movement of students. Formulating appropriate standards for student behavior. Identifying inappropriate behavior and employing appropriate techniques for correction. You must prepare for your students all day every day. Lesson plans must be meaningful and relevant to your content area. Studies show that students who are authentically engaged are less prone to deviant [sic] behavior. You must maintain complete order in your classroom. The Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in the State of Florida requires that the educator make reasonable efforts to protect the students from conditions harmful to learning, and/or to the students' mental, and/or physical health and/or safety. In the next few weeks you will be provided with assistance from behavior specialists, reading/curriculum coach and c-net personnel to assist you in meeting expectations. In February 2007 Respondent was placed on a PDP. Mr. Muniz monitored Respondent's progress and opined that she had not successfully completed the PDP. Mr. Luciani disagreed and instructed Mr. Muniz to give Respondent a satisfactory evaluation, which he did.2 Mr. Luciani was the principal and Mr. Hart was an assistant principal at Ashe Middle School during the 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years. Mr. Hart received a written complaint from a student that on October 1, 2008, Respondent told the student that the student's mother was unfit and did not know how to raise the student. In response to that complaint, on October 3, 2008, Mr. Hart issued Respondent a letter addressing the inappropriate manner in which she had addressed students, which included the following: On numerous occasions you have been counseled regarding your inappropriate comments/behavior towards students. This behavior includes embarrassing, disparaging, and/or awkward comments and/or actions. It has recently been brought to my attention that, once again, you have exhibited this behavior. * * * I am directing you to cease and desist all actions/comments of this nature immediately. You are to speak to students in a respectful, professional manner at all times. Mr. Hart, Respondent, and the student's parent met to discuss the alleged statements made by Respondent to the student. During that conference, Respondent became angry and left the meeting. Later, Mr. Hart met with Respondent to give her a copy of his letter dated October 3. Respondent took the letter and walked out of the meeting without signing the acknowledgment that she had received the letter. Respondent slammed the door as she left Mr. Hart's office. Mr. Hart received numerous complaints from parents and, as a result, transferred several students from Respondent's class to another class. On February 5, 2009, Mr. Hart observed Respondent arguing with a student in her classroom. He admonished her in writing to not be confrontational with students. Respondent's conduct on February 5, 2009, was inconsistent with Mr. Hart's admonishment to her on October 3, 2008. In an undated memorandum subsequent to January 20, 2009, Mr. Hart set forth the following issues that continued to be of concern despite his previous discussions with Respondent: Parent phone calls from her classroom Completing assignments Checking emails Inputting grades into Pinnacle (a computer database) Being prepared for instruction On February 18, 2009, Mr. Hart issued a written reprimand to Respondent for her failure to input student grades into Pinnacle. Respondent was placed on a PDP on February 13, 2009. Noted under the categories "Lesson Management" and "Lesson Presentation" were the failures to meet the following criteria: Orients students to classwork, specifies purposes of activities and relationship to the objectives; Prepares the classroom materials and equipment for the presentation of the lesson; Selects and uses appropriate instructional techniques including available materials and technology which support learning of the specific types of knowledge or skills; and Asks questions which are clear and require students to reflect before responding. During the PDP period that began February 13, 2009, Respondent was offered appropriate services designed to remediate her deficient performance areas. On May 28, 2009, Mr. Hart completed an IPAS evaluation that rated Respondent unsatisfactory overall and as to the following five categories: "Lesson Management", "Lesson Presentation", "Student Performance Evaluation", "Classroom Management", and "Behavior Management." Mr. Hart rated Respondent satisfactory as to the remaining five categories. Mr. Hart placed Respondent on a second PDP that extended into the 2009-10 school year. At the end of the 2008-09 school year, Mr. Luciani retired. Before the start of the 2009-10 school year, Ms. Peebles became principal of Ashe Middle School. Respondent failed to enter grades and other data for students during the first marking period of the 2009-10 school year. That failure hindered the assessment of each student's needs and made it more difficult to monitor each student's progress. On November 19, 2009, Ms. Peebles conducted an IPAS evaluation for Respondent as to the PDP Mr. Hart had placed her on at the end of the 2008-09 school year. Ms. Peebles found Respondent to be deficient in the same five categories as Mr. Hart's evaluation, and she rated Respondent's overall performance as unsatisfactory. During the PDP period that began May 28, 2009, Respondent was offered appropriate services designed to remediate her deficient performance areas. After her evaluation of November 19, 2009, Ms. Peebles had the options of referring Respondent to the Office of Professional Standards for further proceedings or placing Respondent on another PDP. Ms. Peebles elected to place Respondent on another PDP (the last PDP) because Ms. Peebles was new to the school and she wanted to give Respondent another chance to prove herself. At the conclusion of the last PDP, Ms. Peebles conducted an IPAS evaluation, which was dated April 19, 2010. Respondent remained unsatisfactory in the same five categories as the previous evaluations by Ms. Peebles and Mr. Hart, and her overall evaluation remained unsatisfactory. Throughout her employment at Ashe Middle School, Respondent exhibited a pattern of being absent on Fridays and Mondays. Respondent failed to correct that deficiency after having been counseled by administrators. During the 2009-10 school year, Respondent repeatedly failed to timely provide or leave appropriate lessons after having been counseled by administrators to do so. Respondent was instructed to give her lesson plans to Ms. Brown, the Reading Coach and Reading Department Chairperson, during that school year. Respondent never provided Ms. Brown a complete set of lesson plans the entire year. During the 2009-10 school year, Respondent repeatedly failed to demonstrate that she could control her classroom. She made multiple calls to security on nearly a daily basis and she continued to kick students out of class, which left them in the hallways, unsupervised. The Benchmark Assessment Test (BAT) is a county created test that is administered twice a year in September and again in November. The test is designed to measure the progress, if any, the student has made between the testing dates. The test is also used as a predictor for the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT). The vast majority of Respondent's student's test scores depict either no growth or a regression in all classes. A Mini-BAT is an assessment tool used to develop and provide effective lesson plans as well as student growth. The teacher is responsible for administering the assessment tool to her students and thereafter inputting the results in the computer database. During the 2009-10 school year, approximately half of Respondent's students either were not tested or had no score inputted after being tested. The DAR Assessment is a two-part standardized test designed to measure a student's ability at word recognition and all reading frequency. The test is administered twice a year, once in September and again in January. Ms. Brown administered the tests at Ashe Middle School during the 2009-10 school year. Ms. Brown scored the tests and gave the score results to Respondent, who was required to input the scores in the computer database. The Florida Department of Education (DOE) requires that 90 percent of the students complete the tests, which gives a 10 percent leeway for students who are absent on test days. Students are placed in reading classes based on their test result. The tests also measure each student's progress, or lack thereof, between the test dates. Forty-five percent of Respondent's students had no scores. Nineteen percent of those with scores had no gain. Mock FCATs are periodically administered to students following Mini-BATs. The Mock FCATs administered to Respondent's students during the 2009-10 school year were created by Ms. Brown. Ms. Brown utilized previous iterations of the FCAT that had been released by DOE in an effort to simulate the actual FCAT process in terms of difficulty and complexity. The tests are graded by computer and the scores are given to the teacher to input into the computer database. The results of the Mock FCATs are used to develop instructional plans for students. Sixty-three of Respondent's 111 students (or 57 percent) had no score inputted in the computer database. Nine students who did receive a score made no progress between the dates of the two tests. School Board entered into a contract with a consulting firm named Evans Newton, Inc. (ENI) to assist schools in need of improvement. In 2009-10 school year, ENI provided an assessment test that teachers were to use to monitor students' progress. Respondent administered the assessment test to her class, gave the results to Ms. Brown to score, and recorded the scores in the computer database after receiving the scored results from Ms. Brown. More than 40 percent of Respondent's students had no score recorded for the assessment test. Ms. Brown testified, credibly, that she returned all scored results to Respondent. The lack of a score for over 40 percent of her class can only be explained by Respondent's failure to do her job. Respondent either did not administer the test to those students, she did not give the test results to Ms. Brown to score, or she did not input the scores in the computer database after receiving the results from Ms. Brown. The FCAT Reading Learning Gain is the document through which DOE reports test score results to school districts. During the 2009-10 school year, DOE required a 60 percent learning gain. Respondent's students did not achieve that goal during that school year. For three of the four years she taught at Ashe Middle School, Respondent's classes failed to achieve their FCAT goals. The administrators at Ashe Middle School followed all applicable procedures in formulating and implementing the PDPs and IPASs at issue in this proceeding. After her IPAS evaluation of April 19, 2010, Ms. Peebles referred Respondent's case to the Office of Professional Standards, which resulted in the termination proceedings at issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this May 23, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 23rd day of May, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Education Practices Commission may revoke or suspend John T. Guzalak's Florida teaching certificate, or otherwise discipline Mr. Guzalak, for violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint entered September 21, 1992?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, on behalf of the EPC, is authorized to discipline individuals holding Florida teaching certificates. The Respondent is John T. Guzalak. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Guzalak held Florida teaching certificate number 615516. Mr. Guzalak is certified to teach English and Speech. Mr. Guzalak's teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1995. From approximately August of 1987, until June of 1992, Mr. Guzalak served as a teacher for the Okaloosa County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"). Mr. Guzalak's Attendance at Choctawhatchee Senior High School. Mr. Guzalak attended, and graduated from, Choctawhatchee Senior High School (hereinafter referred to as "Choctaw"). Mr. Guzalak graduated from Choctaw in 1981. Choctaw is a high school located in Okaloosa County, Florida. Choctaw has approximately 2,000 students, 117 to 120 teachers and a total of approximately 160 employees. While a student at Choctaw, Mr. Guzalak was active in debate and drama. His drama teacher was Mary Jo Yeager. Ms. Yeager was so impressed with Mr. Guzalak's acting ability that she cast him in the male leading role of essentially every play produced at Choctaw while Mr. Guzalak was a student there. Ms. Yeager and Mr. Guzalak developed a friendship and still remain friends. Mr. Guzalak's Employment by the School Board. After Mr. Guzalak had graduated from Choctaw and was attending college, Mr. Guzalak informed Ms. Yeager that he was interested in becoming a teacher. Ms. Yeager, who was planning to retire in a few years, talked to Richard G. Bounds, the Principal at Choctaw, about the possibility of Mr. Guzalak replacing her when she retired. Prior to August, 1987, Mr. Guzalak applied for a teaching position with the School Board as a teacher at Meigs Junior High School (hereinafter referred to as "Meigs"). Ms. Yeager recommended that Mr. Guzalak be hired. Mr. Guzalak was hired to teach at Meigs and began his employment with the School Board in August, 1987. Mr. Guzalak taught speech/drama and English during the 1987-1988 school year at Meigs. The Stage Crafters' Party. In January, 1988, Mr. Guzalak was involved with a local theatre group known as Stage Crafters. The group presented a play in which Mr. Guzalak participated during that month. Mr. Guzalak organized and gave a party for the cast of Stage Crafters after the presentation of the play. The party was held at the home of Mr. Guzalak's parents, where Mr. Guzalak lived until approximately August, 1991. Mr. Guzalak invited all students in his speech/drama classes at Meigs to attend the Stage Crafters' party. Mr. Guzalak invited his students because he thought it would be beneficial for his students to meet and talk to individuals who were involved in drama and who had more experience with acting. Mr. Guzalak had alcoholic beverages available for his guests during the Stage Crafters' party. A table was set up where guests were able to obtain alcoholic drinks. Adults drank alcoholic beverage in front of Mr. Guzalak's students during the party. Alcohol was consumed in the presence of students who were under the legal age required to consume alcoholic beverages. The evidence failed to prove that students who were not legally old enough to drink alcohol who were at the Stage Crafters' party were encouraged or allowed to drink alcoholic beverages. The evidence also failed to prove that underage students were in fact drinking in the presence of Mr. Guzalak or that Mr. Guzalak drank alcoholic beverages in front of any underage students. The testimony of Chris Hutcherson, a student at Meigs at the time of the party, concerning the party was contradicted by the testimony of Aaron Utley, another student at Meigs at the time, and is rejected. Mr. Guzalak testified that the underage students who attended the Stage Crafters' party were mainly relegated to half of the house and the adults and alcohol were located, and the consumption of alcoholic beverages took place, in the other half of the house. Mr. Guzalak testified that this separation of his underage students from the adults consuming alcohol was deliberate and intended to mitigate the extent to which alcohol would be consumed in front of his underage students. This testimony contradicts the purpose for which Mr. Guzalak indicated the students were invited to the Stage Crafters' party and is rejected. Mr. Guzalak simply failed to exercise good judgement when he allowed his underage students to attend a party without also inviting their parents when he knew that alcoholic beverages would be consumed. Mr. Guzalak was counseled by Bobby Smith, Principal at Meigs and Mr. Guzalak's supervisor, after Mr. Smith learned of the party. Mr. Guzalak told Mr. Smith that he had not consumed alcohol in the presence of his students at the party. Mr. Guzalak did admit that alcoholic beverages had been consumed in front of his students, although he minimized the extent to which alcohol had been consumed. Mr. Smith counseled Mr. Guzalak about his lack of judgement in allowing his underage students to attend a party where alcohol was being consumed. Meigs Student-Cast Dinner. In May, 1988, Mr. Guzalak was involved with a play presented at Meigs. The cast of the play consisted of Meigs students. After the play, Mr. Guzalak took the cast of the play to dinner at a restaurant. Some parents also attended the dinner. Mr. Guzalak failed to inform Mr. Smith or anyone else in the Meigs administration about the dinner. During the dinner Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in the presence of the students, who were too young to legally consume alcoholic beverages, and the parents who attended the dinner. After the dinner about five students stayed to talk to Mr. Guzalak after everyone else had departed. When Mr. Guzalak was ready to take the students home who had stayed, he let one of the students drive his automobile. The student driver was 15 years of age at the time. The student driver had a learners' driving permit which allowed her to drive with an adult in the automobile. The student driver took the other students home and then drove to her own home. Mr. Guzalak then drove himself home from the home of the student that had driven his automobile. Mr. Guzalak testified that he had allowed the student driver to drive his automobile because he was concerned about the fact that he had consumed a glass of wine. This testimony is inconsistent with Mr. Guzalak's testimony that he did not give the drinking of the glass of wine with dinner in the presence of the students any thought, one way or the other, and is not credible. Mr. Guzalak allowed the student to drive his automobile that evening because Mr. Guzalak wanted to be accepted by students as a friend and not just a teacher. Consuming alcoholic beverages in front of students is against the policies of the School Board. Mr. Smith and Mr. Guzalak had previously discussed the inappropriateness of a teacher consuming alcohol in front of students as a result of the Stage Crafters' party. Despite this prior warning, Mr. Guzalak again exercised poor judgement and failed to adhere to School Board policy. Mr. Smith was informed of the dinner and spoke to Mr. Guzalak about it. Mr. Smith admonished Mr. Guzalak for drinking alcohol in front of his students. A few days after their discussion, Mr. Guzalak was given a formal, written reprimand by Mr. Smith. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Mr. Guzalak was specifically reprimanded for drinking alcohol in front of his students. He was also informed that he was required "to discuss any and all school sponsored activities with [Mr. Smith] before they occur." See Petitioners' Exhibit 2. During Mr. Smith's conference with Mr. Guzalak, Mr. Guzalak expressed concern to Mr. Smith about why it was improper for him to consume alcohol in front of students under the circumstances of the cast dinner. Mr. Guzalak found it difficult to understand why the drinking of a glass of wine with dinner in the presence of students by a teacher was inappropriate. Mr. Guzalak's Employment at Choctaw. Ms. Yeager decided to retire from Choctaw after the 1988-1989 school year. She recommended that Mr. Bounds hire Mr. Guzalak to be her replacement. Mr. Bounds questioned Mr. Smith about Mr. Guzalak's performance at Meigs. Mr. Smith informed Mr. Bounds of the dinner incident when Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in the presence of students and provided Mr. Bounds with a copy of the written reprimand, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, that Mr. Smith had given to Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Bounds, Mr. Guzalak's supervisor at Choctaw, discussed Mr. Smith's written reprimand with Mr. Guzalak prior to, or soon after, Mr. Guzalak's employment at Choctaw. Mr. Bounds cautioned Mr. Guzalak about consuming alcohol in front of underage students. This was the third time that Mr. Guzalak had been cautioned about the inappropriateness of consuming alcohol in front of underage students. Mr. Guzalak was hired to teach at Choctaw. Mr. Guzalak began his employment at Choctaw in August of 1989. Mr. Guzalak taught at Choctaw during the 1989-1990, 1990-1991 and 1991-1992 school years. Part of his duties included coaching the forensic teams. The 1990-1991 School Year--Student Visits to Mr. Guzalak's Home. Mr. Guzalak developed and maintained relationships with several Choctaw students which went beyond the appropriate and acceptable teacher- student relationship. Those relationships were more typical of the relationships that students develop among themselves. During the 1990-1991 school year students would go to Mr. Guzalak's home to visit. Students who went to Mr. Guzalak's home during the 1990-1991 school year included Sarah Stimac, David Barron, Bobby Arnold, Steve Bucci, Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul, Kevin Mock, Richard "Matt" Schoditsch, David Hodges, Thomas Ignas and Ross Foster. Sarah Stimac, Bobby Arnold, Steve Bucci, Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock were seniors at Choctaw during the 1990-1991 school year. David Barron was a sophomore at Choctaw. David Hodges and Thomas Ignas were juniors at Choctaw. Matt Schoditsch and Ross Foster were also students at Choctaw. Initially, students began going to Mr. Guzalak's home for school- related purposes. They went for assistance from Mr. Guzalak with school subjects, to practice for plays and to practice for forensic team competitions. Students eventually began visiting Mr. Guzalak's home primarily for social reasons. Mr. Guzalak allowed students to come to Mr. Guzalak's home to visit without invitation, without informing Mr. Guzalak they were coming and without asking for Mr. Guzalak's permission. While at Mr. Guzalak's home, students would watch movies, listen to music, play music, play chess, talk and "just hang out." Mr. Guzalak's characterization of student visits as tending to be "academic in nature" is rejected. At some time during the Fall of 1990, Mr. Guzalak invited a group of students who had formed a rock band to come to his home to practice for an upcoming pep rally. Bobby Arnold was one of the first students to be invited to practice at Mr. Guzalak's home. Eventually, the students included Steve Bucci, Kevin Foster and John Randall. A few other students would join in on occasion. At some point, students, including those mentioned in the foregoing finding of fact, would go to Mr. Guzalak's home and just play music as opposed to practicing for some upcoming event. Other students, including Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock would listen. The music sessions were social in nature and were not school related. Bobby Arnold's suggestion that the students and Mr. Guzalak, in addition to playing music, would talk about books is rejected to the extent that Bobby Arnold was suggesting an academic purpose for his visits. As Steve Bucci described the visits, they were "jam sessions." Bobby Arnold went to Mr. Guzalak's home at least five to seven times during the 1990-1991 school year. Steve Bucci indicated that the music sessions at Mr. Guzalak's home took place two times a month and more often if he was getting ready for a talent show. Matt Schoditsch went to Mr. Guzalak's home at least six times. Matt Schoditsch's testimony that he only went to Mr. Guzalak's home for academic purposes and not for social reasons was contradicted by many of the other witnesses in this proceeding, including Mr. Guzalak, and is rejected. Mr. Schoditsch's suggestion that students would "be sitting there reading a book or something . . . Magazines" is rejected. Even Mr. Guzalak admitted that students came for social reasons. David Barron went to Mr. Guzalak's home more than twelve times and less than twenty times. During three to five of those visits by David Barron went to Mr. Guzalak's home, beer was consumed by underage students in Mr. Guzalak's presence. Matt Schoditsch, Kevin Foster, Patrick Peavy and others were at Mr. Guzalak's home at times that David Barron saw beer consumed by underage students in front of Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Guzalak also consumed beer in David Barron's presence and the presence of other underage students. The beer consumed by David Barron was either provided by Mr. Guzalak or Mr. Barron brought his own beer. On one of the occasions where Mr. Guzalak provided beer to David Barron at Mr. Guzalak's home, it was a type of beer that David Barron had not seen before. Mr. Guzalak said that he got the beer when he had gone north to visit his parents. On one occasion Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in front of Kevin Mock. This took place despite the fact that Mr. Guzalak had previously been counselled by Mr. Smith (twice) and Mr. Bounds about the impropriety of drinking alcohol in front of students. Mr. Guzalak offered Kevin Mock a drink of the wine and Mr. Mock took it. Sarah Stimac also went to Mr. Guzalak's home during the 1990-1991 school year. Patrick Peavy started taking Ms. Stimac to Mr. Guzalak's. Mr. Peavy was Ms. Stimac's boy friend during the 1990-1991 school year. Mr. Peavy and Ms. Stimac had started doing things with a group of their friends during the summer of 1989 and by the end of the summer they had developed a relationship. Sarah Stimac began going to Mr. Guzalak's home because Patrick Peavy and his friends, primarily Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock, liked to go there and they went there often. On one occasion during the 1990-1991 school year, Sarah Stimac saw Mr. Guzalak and Eric Gaul smoke marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home in the guest rest room. They used a "bong", a pipe-like device used for smoking marijuana. Ms. Stimac also witnessed Patrick Peavy and Kevin Mock smoke marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home. Mr. Mock admitted to Martha Clemons, his girl friend during part of the 1990-1991 school year, that he had smoked marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home. Sarah Stimac also saw marijuana smoked and alcoholic beverages consumed on at least one other occasion at Mr. Guzalak's home. Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock visited Mr. Guzalak's home more frequently than other students. By their own admissions, they went to Mr. Guzalak's home, on average, from two to three times a week. Contrary to Mr. Guzalak's testimony that Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock were rarely at his home at the same time, Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock went to Mr. Guzalak's together or were at Mr. Guzalak's home at the same time often based upon their own admissions. Based upon the weight of the evidence, it is concluded that Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock went to Mr. Guzalak's home on a frequent and regular basis. Sarah Stimac substantiated the fact that Patrick Peavy went to Mr. Guzalak's home frequently. She went with him approximately six times. She also picked him up at Mr. Guzalak's and she telephoned Mr. Peavy at Mr. Guzalak's home. Mr. Peavy told Ms. Stimac and his parents that he was going to Mr. Guzalak's home more often than he actually went. Mr. Peavy lied to Ms. Stimac and his parents so that he could do other things without Ms. Stimac or so that he could do things that his parents would not let him do if he told them the truth. This gave Ms. Stimac the impression that Mr. Peavy was at Mr. Guzalak's home more often then he actually was. Despite this fact, the weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Peavy was at Mr. Guzalak's home on a frequent and regular basis for non-academic purposes. The 1990-1991 School Year Initiation Night. At some time during the Fall of 1990, an annual event, referred to as "Initiation Night," took place at Choctaw. Groups of students at Choctaw traditionally go out together on Initiation Night. On Initiation Night during the Fall of 1990, Sarah Stimac drove Angie Smallwood to Mr. Guzalak's home at approximately 9:00 p.m. to pick up Patrick Peavy. Mr. Peavy had told Ms. Stimac that he would be there. Mr. Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock were at Mr. Guzalak's home and were picked up by Ms. Stimac. After Sarah Stimac picked up Patrick Peavy, he told Ms. Stimac that he had been drinking and that he had smoked marijuana and taken LSD. The evidence, however, failed to prove where these events took place. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was present when these events took place or that he was aware of what had happened. After leaving Mr. Guzalak's home, Ms. Stimac and the students she picked up went to a local pizza restaurant and met other students, including Matt Schoditsch. The students then went to a bayou where they built a fire. Eric Gaul had a bottle of spiced rum. At some point during the evening Okaloosa County sheriff's deputies appeared. When they did, despite the cold evening, Patrick Peavy, who had been swinging on a rope swing over the water, fell into the water. Whether Mr. Peavy did so because he was startled (as he testified) or because he was trying to get rid of the marijuana and LSD he had in his pocket (as Ms. Stimac testified) need not be decided. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was directly involved in this incident. It is also not necessary to decide whether Mr. Peavy had drugs in his pocket because the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak had anything to do with any such drugs. After Eric Gaul admitted that the bottle of spiced rum he had, and which the deputies had found, was his and he had convinced the deputies that he had a stranger buy the rum for him at a liquor store, the students were allowed to leave. Although Mr. Gaul, after getting into Ms. Stimac's automobile, stated that he had been given the rum by Mr. Guzalak, the evidence failed to prove the truth of this hearsay statement. After the incident at the bayou the students went back to Mr. Guzalak's home. The 1990-1991 School Year Senior Prom. The day of the 1990-1991 school year senior prom, Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy had a fight and broke off their relationship. They did, however, go to the prom together that night. The prom was held at a local motel. Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy rented a room at the motel. At some time before the prom was over, Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy went to the room they had rented. Mr. Guzalak came to the room to visit. Mr. Peavy had invited Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Guzalak left after Ms. Stimac gave Mr. Peavy an ultimatum that either Mr. Guzalak leave or she would, and Mr. Peavy asked Mr. Guzalak to leave. Mr. Guzalak stayed approximately five to fifteen minutes. Although there was alcohol in Ms. Stimac's and Mr. Peavy's room, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was aware of the alcohol or that anyone was drinking while Mr. Guzalak was there. The 1990-1991 Spring Break Canoe Trip. During the spring break of April, 1991, a student party was organized. The party consisted of a canoe trip down a local river. The party was not a school-sponsored event. Mr. Guzalak was invited to come on the 1991 canoe trip. Although Mr. Guzalak remembered that he was invited by one or more students, Mr. Guzalak, who had an excellent memory for most details, could not remember the names of any student that invited him. Mr. Guzalak spent most of the trip with Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock. There were about 120 students who participated in the canoe trip. They met at the Choctaw parking lot the morning of the trip. During the canoe trip, underage students were drinking beer. They did so openly and in Mr. Guzalak's presence. Mr. Guzalak was offered beer at least ten times by underage students. Kevin Mock admitted that he drank beer in front of Mr. Guzalak during the trip. Mr. Guzalak did not make any effort to stop any of the underage students from drinking alcoholic beverages. Mr. Guzalak's testimony that there was nothing he could do about students drink beer on the trip is not credible. Mr. Guzalak had a duty and responsibility to attempt to stop underage students from drinking beer. Even if Mr. Guzalak's testimony that he did not attempt to stop the drinking because of the number of students involved was credible (which it is not), his testimony did not explain why he did not say something to those students who were bold enough to offer him a beer and then students who he came into contact with that were drinking beer By allowing the consumption of alcohol in his presence by students who were under the legal drinking age, Mr. Guzalak condoned their illegal behavior. When a teacher allows the violation of one law, it becomes difficult for the teacher to enforce other laws and rules governing student conduct. Mr. Guzalak failed to report the incident to Mr. Bounds or any other administrative employees at Choctaw. Mr. Guzalak should not have just ignored the fact that students, some of whom were his students, had blatantly violated the law in his presence. The 1991-1992 School Year--Mr. Bounds Second Warning. In approximately August of 1991, Patrick Peavy's father spoke to Mr. Bounds about his belief that his son was drinking alcohol and using drugs at Mr. Guzalak's home. The evidence failed to prove what basis, if any, Mr. Peavy had for his suspicions at the time he made his complaint. As a result of the concerns raised by Patrick Peavy's father, Mr. Bounds spoke to Mr. Guzalak. The conversation took place on approximately September 19, 1991. Among other things, Mr. Bounds told Mr. Guzalak that a parent had reported that students were frequenting Mr. Guzalak's home and that alcohol and drugs were being used there. Mr. Bounds told Mr. Guzalak that the parent had followed his child to Mr. Guzalak's home. While Mr. Guzalak admitted to Mr. Bounds that students were frequenting his home, he denied that alcohol was being consumed or that drugs were being used. Mr. Bounds explained to Mr. Guzalak why it was not a good idea to allow students to come to his home. Mr. Guzalak, however, did not agree with Mr. Bounds' concerns over the possible pitfalls of forming personal, social relationships with his students. On September 24, 1991, Mr. Bounds wrote a memorandum to Mr. Guzalak "to reiterate my position regarding our conversation in my office on Thursday, September 19, 1991." Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Mr. Bounds also stated the following in the memorandum: During our conversation you related to me that students from our school were invited and allowed to visit your home for non-academic reasons. Furthermore, you related to me that students from our school are not discouraged by you to establish a personal friendship with you. These personal friendships are encouraged by your participating in non-school related activities. You are hereby notified that all future contact with students from our school should be exclusively of a professional and academic nature. Moreover, meetings with our students should be held on our school property exclusively unless express permission is obtained from me. Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Mr. Bounds also arranged for Mr. Guzalak to meet with Annette Lee (formerly, Annette Francis), Personnel Director of the School Board. Ms. Lee, who was Assistant Superintendent, Human Resource Division, at the time, met with Mr. Guzalak. On October 9, 1991, Ms. Lee wrote Mr. Guzalak a letter memorializing this meeting and provided him with a copy of a document titled "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgement to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching," a form containing some School Board expectations for teacher conduct. See Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5. Ms. Lee also discussed the inappropriateness of Mr. Guzalak's behavior and stressed to him the importance of maintaining a professional relationship with students. Mr. Guzalak again admitted that he had developed friendships with some of his students and that he had seen them on occasion socially. Among other things, Ms. Lee stressed the following portions of the "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgement to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching" form she had provided to Mr. Guzalak: Interaction with Students: Maintain a professional barrier between you and students. You are the adult, teacher and the professional; act like the expert not like another one of the "kids." . . . . 3. Refer students to the appropriate resource person for counseling and/or discussions about personal matters. . . . . 5. Do NOT discuss your personal life or personal matters with students. Do NOT discuss your husband, boyfriend, dates or controversial issues with students. . . . . 10. Chaperone only school sponsored functions. Do NOT socialize with students. If you chaperone a field trip, put in writing what your responsibilities will be. Do NOT drink alcoholic beverages in front of students. Do NOT take children home with you. . . . . C. Reputation in the Community. . . . . Communicate with parents and document your communications. Dress and act appropriately but professionally. You are a role model in the community as well as in the school; be a good example for students. Use common sense and good judgement. Ask yourself how someone else could perceive your comments or actions. Ask yourself if your comments or actions could be taken out of context and/or misinterpreted. Avoid putting yourself in a position where you have to defend, explain, or justify your behavior or actions. Avoid putting yourself in a position where it's your word against another person's word. . . . . Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Continued Student Visits to Mr. Guzalak's Home. Mr. Guzalak was very concerned about what Mr. Bounds had told him about students coming to his home. Mr. Guzalak thought that he was being watched (by a parent) and he was concerned because some of the allegations about alcohol and drug use were true. Initially, Mr. Guzalak told students who dropped by or who asked if they could come by, not to come or that they could not stay. For example, Mr. Guzalak told Thomas Ignas and David Hodgson they should not come to his home. On at least one occasion, however, Mr. Guzalak allowed students to visit him at his home during the 1991-1992 school year after Mr. Bounds had instructed Mr. Guzalak to stop such visits. The incident took place during the first three months of 1992. Aaron Utley was told to come to Mr. Guzalak's home by either David Hodges or Thomas Ignas. When Mr. Utley arrived at Mr. Guzalak's home, Mr. Hodges and Mr. Ignas were there with Mr. Guzalak. There were empty beer cans on the coffee table. Mr. Hodges was drunk. Mr. Guzalak did not request that any of the students leave. The weight of the evidence failed to prove, however, that alcohol was consumed by Mr. Guzalak in front of the students or that the students consumed alcohol in front of Mr. Guzalak. The Florida State University Trip--September, 1991. At some time after Mr. Guzalak spoke to Mr. Bounds in September 1991, Mr. Guzalak took a group of students who were participating in the forensic program to Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida, for a forensic competition. Among others on the trip were Chris Hutcherson, Mark Bradshaw, David MacCarroll and Josh Mickey. These Choctaw students stayed in the same motel room while on the trip. One evening, Mark Bradshaw, David MacCarroll and Josh Mickey came into the motel room where they were staying and smelled marijuana smoke. Mr. Hutcherson was in the room. Mr. Hutcherson had smoked marijuana just before the other students came into the room. Mr. Guzalak came into the motel room shortly after the students arrived and he smelled the marijuana smoke also. Mr. Guzalak asked what was going on, but no one admitted anything at that time. At some point during the trip, Chris Hutcherson admitted to Mr. Guzalak that he had smoked marijuana in the motel room. At no time did Mr. Guzalak report Chris Hutcherson's admission to Mr. Hutcherson's family, Mr. Bounds or any other administrative official. Nor did Mr. Guzalak take any disciplinary action against Mr. Hutcherson. Failing to report the use of illicit drugs was against school policy. Mr. Guzalak did not even explain to Chris Hutcherson why he should not have been using marijuana. Instead, Mr. Guzalak told Mr. Hutcherson that he had put Mr. Guzalak in an untenable position by his actions. Because Mr. Bounds had spoken to Mr. Guzalak only a few days before this incident, Mr. Guzalak's concern was not for Mr. Hutcherson or even the forensic team--"[i]t was for myself." See line 11, page 595, Transcript of the Final Hearing. Mr. Guzalak, by his use of marijuana and alcohol with students prior to this incidental, had placed himself in a position of action in a manner similar to that of Mr. Hutcherson. Therefore, it became difficult for Mr. Guzalak to carry out his responsibility as a teacher to report Mr. Hutcherson's admission. The Pensacola Trip--November, 1991. In November, 1991, the Choctaw forensic team went to Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida, to participate in a competition. Since the competition was out of Okaloosa County, students were prohibited by School Board policy from driving their own vehicles. Students who participated in the competition were required to have their parents sign a form granting permission for their child to travel on the trip. See Respondent's Exhibit 1. On the permission form it indicated that "students' may not drive themselves to out of county school-sponsored activities . . . ." The students who were going on the Pensacola trip were told to be at Choctaw at 6:15 a.m. They were scheduled to leave at 6:30 a.m. Chris Hutcherson, who was to participate in the Pensacola competition, did not want to get up as early as he would have to arise to be at Choctaw at 6:15 a.m. Therefore, Mr. Hutcherson asked his mother, Sharon Philbrook, if he could drive his automobile to Pensacola. She told him no. She also spoke to Mr. Guzalak who confirmed the School Board policy that students were not allowed to drive their own vehicles on the trip and that transportation would be provided for students for the trip. The morning of the Pensacola trip, Ms. Philbrook found a note from Chris Hutcherson indicating he had taken his stepbrother's automobile despite her instructions to the contrary. Ms. Philbrook reported the incident to Mr. Bounds who suggested that she go to Pensacola and get Mr. Hutcherson. She did so. Upon arriving at the competition site, Ms. Philbrook introduced herself to Mr. Guzalak and explained what had happened. She also told him that she had reported the incident to Mr. Bounds and that Mr. Bounds wanted Mr. Guzalak to telephone him. Mr. Guzalak was very upset about what Ms. Philbrook told him and told her he wished she had not telephoned Mr. Bounds. In light of Mr. Bounds' admonishment of Mr. Guzalak in September and Chris Hutcherson's admission to Mr. Guzalak that he had smoked marijuana on the Florida State University trip (which Mr. Guzalak had not reported), Mr. Guzalak's reaction is understandable. Mr. Guzalak's reaction and the other evidence presented by the EPC concerning this incident, however, failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was responsible for Chris Hutcherson's violation of School Board policy against students driving their own vehicles out of the county. As a result of Mr. Hutcherson's actions, Mr. Guzalak informed Mr. Hutcherson that he could no longer travel with the forensic team. Mr. Hutcherson's testimony concerning whether Mr. Guzalak told him that it was okay to drive his own automobile to Pensacola was not credible and is rejected. The Rush Concert--February, 1992. In February, 1992, Mr. Guzalak was responsible for the production of a play at Choctaw. During the week before the play was to begin, Mr. Guzalak cancelled a rehearsal. The rehearsal was cancelled because Mr. Guzalak and several students involved in the play wanted to attend a concert by a musical group, Rush, in Pensacola. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak went to the concert with any students from Choctaw, although he did see and speak to at least one student at the concert. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak acted improperly or violated School Board policy in cancelling the rehearsal. Matt Schoditsch's Party--February, 1992. On a Friday evening in February, 1992, Mr. Guzalak spoke to Matt Schoditsch on the telephone. Mr. Schoditsch invited Mr. Guzalak to come to his home. Mr. Schoditsch told Mr. Guzalak that there would be other students at his home, students that Mr. Guzalak knew, and that they would be grilling food. Mr. Guzalak knew that Mr. Schoditsch was having a student get-together. Mr. Guzalak's and Mr. Schoditsch's testimony that Mr. Guzalak was invited and came to Mr. Schoditsch's home only to discuss his participation in a play is not credible. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Schoditsch invited Mr. Guzalak for social reasons, and that Mr. Guzalak accepted the invitation for social reasons. Mr. Guzalak accepted the invitation and went to a student's house contrary to Mr. Bounds' directive to him and contrary to Ms. Lee's advice. Mr. Guzalak testified that he had assumed that Mr. Schoditsch's parents would be there. Mr. Guzalak also testified that it was not until after students starting showing up with beer that he realized that Mr. Schoditsch's parents were not there. This testimony is not credible. In light of Mr. Bounds' directive, which Mr. Guzalak indicated he was very concerned about, a reasonable person would have inquired. Additionally, a reasonable person, especially a teacher and one who had previously been accused of being too friendly with students, would seek out a student's parents soon after arriving at their home to introduce himself or to say hello if the teacher thought the parents were home. Even if Mr. Guzalak did not know that Mr. Schoditsch's parent would not be home before he arrived, he should have realized soon after arriving that they were not there and left. Shortly after arriving at Mr. Schoditsch's home, Mr. Guzalak saw students start to arrive with beer which they began drinking. According to Mr. Guzalak and Mr. Schoditsch, Mr. Guzalak expressed concern to Mr. Schoditsch about students drinking in front of him. They also testified that Mr. Schoditsch attempted to stop the drinking, but too many students started coming, and there was too much beer. This testimony is not credible. According to Mr. Barron, who also attended the party, there were only fifteen to twenty people at the party. If Mr. Schoditsch had really wanted to, he could have stopped the drinking. Mr. Schoditsch had no intention of stopping the beer drinking. And Mr. Guzalak did not expect him to. Even after Mr. Guzalak saw students drinking beer he did not leave immediately. According to his own testimony, he stayed another twenty-five to thirty minutes after he saw students drinking and even took time to go speak to a student, Jodie Brooks, before leaving. The weight of the evidence failed to prove whether Mr. Guzalak drank alcohol while at Mr. Schoditsch's home. Although Mr. Barron thought Mr. Guzalak was drinking a mixed drink because he was drinking out of Mr. Schoditsch's cup or glass, Mr. Barron did not testify about how he knew that Mr. Schoditsch was drinking a mixed drink. Use of Profanity. It is against the policy of the School Board for a teacher to use profanity in the presence of students. Mr. Guzalak used the term "fucking" in front of several students when he became angry about their use of squirt guns on a forensic competition trip. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak used profanity in the classroom. Supervision of Students on Trips. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak failed to provide adequate or required supervision of students while on school trips. Mr. Guzalak's Resignation from the School Board. Ultimately, several teachers became aware of various rumors about Mr. Guzalak and some of his inappropriate behavior with students. Those comments were reported to Mr. Bounds, who spoke to a few students and then reported the problem to Ms. Lee. The Superintendent of Okaloosa County Schools met with Mr. Guzalak in March 1992, and discussed the various allegations against him. Mr. Guzalak subsequently resigned, effective at the end of the 1991-1992 school year. Credibility of the Witnesses. Mr. Guzalak and the students who were most involved in the incidents at issue in this proceeding denied that most of the more serious accusations against Mr. Guzalak are true. In addition to denying the accusations against him, Mr. Guzalak also suggested that he is the victim of unfounded rumors. Finally, Mr. Guzalak questioned the credibility and motives of some of the witnesses who testified in this proceeding. The denials of Mr. Guzalak and those students who supported his version of events have been rejected. Based upon the weight of the evidence, Mr. Guzalak's testimony was not convincing. The denial of the accusations by several (but not all) of the witnesses called by Mr. Guzalak was also not credible and has been rejected. Many of those witnesses are young men who have developed a close relationship to Mr. Guzalak. They consider Mr. Guzalak to be their "friend." Their testimony reflected their desire not to betray their "friend" and has been rejected in large part based upon the weight of all of the evidence. The efforts to suggest that Mr. Guzalak is merely a victim of rumors also failed. Rumors were caused, in part, because of the perception that Mr. Guzalak was different or eccentric, and, in part, because of the incidents described in this Recommended Order. While there were no doubt rumors concerning this matter and Mr. Guzalak, the incidents which have been found to have occurred in this Recommended Order are based upon the specific knowledge of those witnesses found to be credible. Many of those incidents were confirmed or substantiated by more than one witness. Finally, the efforts of Mr. Guzalak to discredit some of the witnesses also failed. Most of those efforts were directed at Sarah Stimac, Chris Hutcherson and Aaron Utley. The testimony of Ms. Stimac, Mr. Utley and most of the other witnesses called by the Petitioner was credible. It is true, however, that Mr. Hutcherson's testimony contained inconsistencies and that Mr. Hutcherson evidenced an extremely bitter and judgemental attitude against Mr. Guzalak. Consequently, Mr. Hutcherson's testimony has not been accepted except to the extent that it has been corroborated by other evidence. Attacks on Ms. Stimac's credibility are rejected. The suggestion that Sarah Stimac was not credible fails to consider, among other things, the fact that Ms. Stimac's actions in this matter were taken at some personal expense and aggravation. Mr. Guzalak, during the investigation of this matter by the EPC, allowed several students to read confidential statements that Ms. Stimac and other students had given during the investigation. He did so without regard to the consequences to Ms. Stimac or the other students. As a result, Ms. Stimac has faced hostility and ridicule from those misguided students who believe that not telling, or "ratting," on a friend is admirable. Despite such hostility, Ms. Stimac refused to compromise her integrity. The weight of the evidence proved that other students, such as Aaron Utley and David Barron made the same choice that Sarah Stimac made. Rather than lacking credibility, Ms. Stimac's testimony, Mr. Barron's testimony, and the testimony of most of the other students who spoke out about Mr. Guzalak's inappropriate conduct is admirable. The Impact of Mr. Guzalak's Actions on His Ability to Perform His Duties Effectively. There was no direct evidence to prove that Mr. Guzalak was not effective in the classroom. Most of the witnesses agreed that Mr. Guzalak was very effective in the classroom. Several of the witnesses spoke of Mr. Guzalak's intelligence and ability with some admiration. Unfortunately, Mr. Guzalak, by his own admission and based upon the facts presented in this case, has evidenced a lack of the judgement necessary for him to be entrusted with the education of young people. This fact is based upon the nature of the improper acts which Mr. Guzalak has been found to have committed in this case and by his attitude about the warnings he received from Mr. Smith, Mr. Bounds, Ms. Lee and even Mr. Guzalak's coworkers. A teacher that drinks alcohol in the presence of students and provides alcohol to, or condones the use of, alcoholic beverages by students has lost his or her effectiveness as a teacher because of the high standard of conduct expected of teachers. A teacher that uses marijuana in the presence of students or allows students to use marijuana in his or her presence has also lost his or her effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak's conduct was, therefore, contrary to the conduct expected of him by the School Board and the community. Mr. Guzalak's conduct is sufficiently notorious in the community that he has lost his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak's inability to follow the directions of his supervisors has also reduced his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak probably has begun to take too much stock in the praise he has received concerning his intelligence and abilities. He has begun to believe his "reviews." As a result, Mr. Guzalak believes that he knows more about how to be an effective teacher than his supervisors and fellow teachers. Mr. Guzalak was asked during the hearing why he had a problem with Mr. Bounds' directive concerning his student friendships. Mr. Guzalak's response, which evidences his attitude about the appropriate role of a teacher with his or her students, was as follows: Because I was used to the idea at that point of having some social contact with students. It was important to me. I was, basically, disturbed because I felt that Richard Bounds was asking me to suddenly make some sort of major capitulation, not in my life-style, but in my mode of thought, in the way I viewed my relationship with students. He wanted me to be an authoritarian clone, if I must. Lines 18-25, Page 627 and Lines 1-2, Page 628, Vol. IV of the Transcript. Additionally, Mr. Guzalak answered the following questions: Q. [Mr. Bounds is] your principal. Shouldn't he be allowed to tell you how you should behave with your students? A. No. Q. He shouldn't be able to tell you how you conduct yourself with your students? A. No. Q. Why not? A. Because I'm an adult and because I'm a professional. And I'm capable of making those decisions on my own. . . . . Lines 17-25, Page 628 and Lines 1-2, Page 629, Vol. IV of the Transcript. Rather than being an "authoritarian clone," Mr. Guzalak attempted to reach some of his students by being their friend on their level. To some extent, he was influenced by Ms. Yeager, who developed friendships with her students. Ms. Yeager, however, was more mature, married, had a family and had been teaching for some time. As Ms. Yeager put it: . . . . Of course, I have an advantage, being an old, married woman. I mean, I had a husband. I had a family. I had a track record when I came here, Ms. O'Sullivan. I taught seven years junior high and two more years in high school. So I think age -- Not all people are respected because they're older, as you know. But, I'm saying I sort of had an edge there on John [Guzalak], plus experience. Lines 19-25, Page 375 and Lines 1-2, Page 376, Vol. III of Transcript. More importantly, Ms. Yeager, by her actions, her character and her good judgement, was able to develop a certain level of friendship with her students while maintaining her distance and her professionalism. Mr. Guzalak has not evidenced the ability to do the same because of his lack of judgement and his inability to heed the advice and experience of his supervisors and peers.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Russell Freeman, was employed by the School Board of Broward County, Florida, as coordinator of exceptional student education for the physically handicapped and was under a continuing contract status for that position for the 1975-1976 school year. He had been employed by the School Board of Broward County since 1969. The Respondent is the School Board of Broward County, Florida, a government agency charged with employing, regulating, supervising and managing the practices, operations and tenure of instructional and non-instructional personnel for the Broward County Public School System. During the 1975-1976 school year, the Respondent employed individual coordinators for exceptional education, each assigned to cover a single student exceptionality. The Petitioner was employed as such a coordinator, serving in the capacity of coordinator for physically handicapped students. There were four such coordinators, specializing in various student exceptionalities, one of whom was the Petitioner. During that school year, the School Board's Administrative Staff conducted a review of the exceptional student education program on a county-wide basis to determine what services were being rendered to exceptional students with a view toward determining the best method and practice to deliver appropriate educational services to the various categories of exceptional students considering problems posed by the dense population in the county and the high and growing population of exceptional students. At the time this review was conducted, the exceptional student population in the county school system was approximately 15,000. The Petitioner was responsible for coordination of the provision of exceptional education services to approximately 5,060 of these students, approximately 5,000 being in a speech handicap program and approximately 60 being in a physical motor handicap program. The Petitioner, as were the other three former coordinators, was responsible for the students in his particular category of exceptional education for the entire county. With the advent of United States Public Law, 94-142, the School Board Staff charged with conducting the exceptional student program for Broward County was required to approve, promulgate and implement individualized educational plans (IEPs) for each exceptional student in the county. This would have necessitated each of the four coordinators attempting to appropriately oversee the promulgation, drafting and implementation of an individualized educational plan for each of the 2,000 to 5,000 students under his supervision (in the Petitioner's case 5,060 students). The School Board and Administrative Staff became concerned that this task and service could not be provided students on an adequate basis from a centralized organization, wherein each coordinator had several thousand students for which he was mandated to implement such an I.E.P. Accordingly, the School Board retained the services of an expert consultant in the field of exceptional education, Dr. Sage, who ultimately prepared a report, the thrust of which was a recommendation that the School Board decentralize the provision of exceptional education services and assign a coordinator who was responsible for all types of exceptional student (rather than one category) for a smaller geographical area than the county as a whole. This report, and she consultant who prepared it, recommended, and Dr. Scalise, in his testimony for the Respondent, established that the provision of exceptional educational services, including the preparation and use of appropriate individualized educational plans could be better performed if one coordinator had less students and a smaller geographical area under his "jurisdiction." With a view toward this goal, the School Board began deliberation on a reorganization plan for the provision of exceptional educational services. Dr. Scalise at the time was one of the four former coordinators. He was asked to advise the School Board regarding this reorganization. It was felt by Dr. Scalise, others on the exceptional educational staff, and the Board, that because of the size of the population in Broward County and the population of exceptional students as well as the geographic size of the county that it was not possible for the former coordinators to each serve the entire county for a single exceptional educational category. The kind of service envisioned by Public Law 94-142 could not he provided unless coordinators were qualified to supervise all exceptionalities in a decentralized fashion, being responsible for a smaller geographical area and a smaller number of students. Dr. Scalise, in his advisory capacity to the School Board felt that a decentralized exceptional education supervisory operation would improve the quality of services rendered to exceptional students. Accordingly, with a view toward the recommendation in this report, as well as his own experience in operation of the mentally handicapped exceptional student program, Witness Scalise recommended that the county consider decentralizing the exceptional education program so that an exceptional student coordinator would be assigned to handle the entire scope of the exceptional student program and be appropriately qualified, for such, within each of four geographic areas of the county. After due deliberation, the School Board, on April 8, 1976, voted to implement a reorganization of the exceptional education office or department and, thus, accept Dr. Scalise's recommendation that the provision of exceptional student services be decentralized. Formerly, the Director of Exceptional Student Education for the entire county had to approve the eligibility of each student who entered or exited the exceptional student program and had to approve any significant change in the students individualized education plan required by Public Law 94-142. He, thus, had to supervise the eduational plans for each of approximately 15,000 students. When the decentralization plan was inaugurated the four new area coordinators who were ultimately hired were given the responsibility, because of their background, experience and qualifications in special education to approve the eligibility of each student within their own geographical area, rather than all plans having to be approved by one director for the entire county. Witness Scalise demonstrated that, based upon his experience as director of the entire program after the reorganization was implemented, that decentralized administration of exceptional education of four geographical areas of the county permitted more efficient monitoring and delivery of educational services to exceptional students than had the earlier system under the former four "at large" coordinators who had to visit each of many schools where students within their particular category of exceptionality were assigned. With the advent of the new organization, the "geographical" exceptional education coordinators work directly with the assistant county superintendent for their geographical areas in establishing programs, selecting teachers, determining curricula, the types of materials, supplies and other aids, and concomitant preparation of exceptional student program budgets for their particular geographical areas. The coordinator exceptional education for that area had to assist in the handling of due process proceedings, with obtaining transportation for exceptional students to various special programs. In short, the "new coordinator" has to handle the total scope of the delivery of exceptional education for that geographical area. Under the former system, only one person, the Director, was responsible for and handled the entire task of providing all needs of exceptional education, whereas under the new organization, four qualified people were hired to perform those varied tasks. With the approval by the School Board of the decentralized organization plan, the four new positions were duly advertised and four new coordinators were hired. All but one were certified in at least one area of exceptional education. Witness Scalise was hired as the director of the exceptional education program for the county and is certified in "varying exceptionalities," which is an overview certification issued by the State Department of Education certifying that the holder, Witness Scalise, has some qualification in all areas of exceptional student education. The philosophy or purpose behind the School Board's reorganization of this department was thus to better and more efficiently provide exceptional education services to a high population of exceptional students which has grown since the year in question to number approximately 20,000 students at the time of the hearing. The testimony of Dr. Stephenson corroborates that of Dr. Scalise and establishes that a new job description for these new coordinator positions was created with new qualifications. The School Board then openly advertised the new positions in accordance with its rules. The Petitioner applied for one of those new positions and was unsuccessful. Dr. Stephenson's testimony was uncontradicted in establishing that the Petitioner, Mr. Freeman, was not possessed of all of the qualifications necessary in order to be considered for the new position. The Petitioner's continuing contract, which is the subject of this proceeding, provides that he is to be placed in the position of "coordinator- 9560" at a salary of $21,450 per year with the beginning date being July 1, 1973 and the ending date 1984. The contract, however, provides that if the School Board adopts a lower salary schedule than the contract salary for the immediate prior year this may be done provided 15 days notice are provided the teacher (the Petitioner) at which point he may accept such salary or decide not to accept it and resign "without prejudice." The contract also has a provision at Item 9 providing that the contract will not operate to prevent the discontinuance of a position "as provided by law." The contract is, of course, for a specific coordinator position rather than as a "teacher" continuing contract. It does, however, have the escape clause of Item 9 allowing the discontinuance of a position without breach of the contract, provided it is legally performed.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the petition of Russell Freeman for reinstatement into his continuing contract position of "coordinator-9560" for the limited purpose of obtaining full concomitant entitlement to retirement benefits should be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald J. Vestal, Esquire 4001 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida 33021 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 James E. Maurer, Superintendent School Board of Broward County 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
The Issue The issue is whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent from his teaching position without pay for 15 days and to terminate his employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools within the School District of Palm Beach County ("District"), pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher with Petitioner since 2008. During the timeframe relevant to this proceeding,5/ Respondent was employed as a teacher at Forest Hill High School ("Forest Hill"). He taught the Theatre I, II, III, and Theatre I IB classes (collectively, the "drama classes") and the Speech and Debate classes, and was the faculty sponsor for the school's drama club. Respondent has not previously been subject to discipline by Petitioner, and the evidence shows that he consistently received high performance evaluations and was a popular teacher with the students at Forest Hill. Administrative Charges On or about April 6, 2016, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent for 15 days without pay and to terminate his employment as a teacher. Respondent timely challenged Petitioner's action by requesting an administrative hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1). The factual bases for the administrative charges against Respondent are set forth in paragraph 10 of the Petition, which constitutes the administrative charging document in this proceeding. Paragraph 10 alleges: "[o]n or about May 14, 2015, it was reported that Respondent interacted inappropriately and made inappropriate comments to students in his drama class." The Petition does not identify the time frame in which the conduct referenced in paragraph 10 is alleged to have occurred, nor does it specifically describe the conduct in which Respondent is alleged to have engaged that would violate the rules and policies cited in the Petition. Based on the facts alleged in paragraph 10 of the Petition, Petitioner has charged Respondent with violating the following: Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056(2), 6A- 10.080(2), and 6A-10.081(3); School Board Policy 0.01(2), (3), and (6); School Board Policy 1.013(1); School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), (b), (d), (e) and (5)(a); School Board Policy 3.27; and School Board Policy 5.81(10)(c).6/ If proved, the alleged violations of these rules and policies would constitute just cause under section 1012.33 to suspend Petitioner and terminate his employment as a teacher. Events Giving Rise to This Proceeding In March 2015, R.H., a student at Forest Hill, reported to Shawn McCall, a teacher at Forest Hill, that Respondent had engaged in what McCall characterized as "inappropriate" behavior with respect to another student, S.G. R.H. also relayed to McCall that S.G. had told her that Respondent was having a sexual relationship with another student, C.W. According to McCall, R.H. was emotionally distraught as she relayed this information to McCall. However, the evidence shows that R.H. did not have any personal knowledge regarding any of the matters she reported to McCall; rather, she relayed to him what she had been told by S.G. R.H. did not testify at the final hearing. McCall did not have personal knowledge of any of the matters that R.H. relayed to him. McCall reported the information he had received from R.H. to Dr. Mary Stratos, the principal of Forest Hill. Thereafter, Stratos spoke with R.H., who relayed to her that Respondent "may have been inappropriately touching" S.G. Pursuant to protocol, Stratos contacted the Palm Beach County School Police Department ("School Police"), which conducted an investigation of the matters relayed by R.H. The School Police interviewed students and teachers who witnessed, or may have witnessed, matters germane to the investigation. Stratos did not have personal knowledge of any of the matters about which R.H. told her.7/ As a result of the School Police investigation, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent without pay for 15 days and to terminate his employment as a teacher. Evidence Regarding Factual Allegations in Petition As discussed above, the Petition does not provide any detail or specificity regarding the type or nature of the "inappropriate" interactions in which Respondent allegedly engaged, or the "inappropriate comments" Respondent allegedly made, with respect to the students in his drama class. From the evidence presented at the final hearing, the undersigned gleans8/ that Petitioner has charged Respondent with making sexually-suggestive comments and jokes to, and making verbal sexual advances toward, students in his classes and in drama club; making physical sexual advances toward three students9/; and having a sexual relationship with one10/ of those students.11/ Student S.G. S.G., a former student in Respondent's drama classes, testified at the final hearing. S.G. was a student in Respondent's drama classes in the 2013-14 school year, when he was a junior, and the 2014-15 school year, when he was a senior. S.G. also was a member of the drama club for all of his junior year and part of his senior year. S.G. testified that Respondent engaged in verbal and physical sexual advances toward him during both years in which he was a student in Respondent's classes and was a member of the drama club. Specifically, S.G. testified that during both years, Respondent would constantly ask him how large his penis was in front of the entire class, loudly enough for others to hear. He also testified that Respondent would comment on his appearance openly in class, telling him that he looked "cute," and that Respondent would frequently look at him in a sexually-suggestive manner while biting his lower lip and sticking out his tongue. S.G. also testified that during both years, during drama class and in drama club rehearsals, Respondent often would get very close to his face, sniff his neck, and try to kiss him. On cross-examination, S.G. characterized the frequency of Respondent's attempts to kiss him and sniff his neck as occurring "daily" or "every other day, at least." Also on cross- examination, S.G. asserted that Respondent's behavior was open and obvious "to everyone," including to persons passing in the hallway when Respondent engaged in such conduct while standing in the doorway of his classroom. S.G. also testified that during his junior year, Respondent sniffed his neck and bit his nipple as he and another student were moving a platform from center stage following a drama club rehearsal. According to S.G., the other student moving the platform was the only witness (other than Respondent) to the incident. That student did not testify at the final hearing. Additionally, S.G. testified that during his senior year, Respondent "cupped" his genitals on one occasion12/ as he held the auditorium door for female drama club students, and that after this incident, he quit participating in the drama club. S.G. testified that he heard Respondent frequently make sexual comments to students R.C. and C.W. in drama class and during drama club rehearsals, and he often saw Respondent try to kiss students R.C. and C.W. S.G. testified that Respondent engaged in this conduct frequently, in front of everyone in drama class and during drama club rehearsals. S.G. also testified that he heard Respondent and C.W. exchange sexual jokes, engage in sexually explicit discussions, and call each other "pet" names "all the time." Additionally, S.G. testified that one day, he saw Respondent and C.W. come to a pep rally "together" and sit together, and also that they were "just together constantly." On these bases, he surmised that Respondent and C.W. were engaged in a sexual relationship. S.G. testified that he did not report Respondent's conduct to anyone because he was embarrassed and thought that no one would believe him because Respondent was a popular teacher. He also testified that he was concerned that if he reported Respondent's conduct, school authorities would find out that he was attending Forest Hill instead of the school (Wellington) for which his actual place of residence was zoned. When asked why he chose to take a second year of Respondent's drama class after Respondent purportedly had engaged in the conduct that he claimed, S.G. testified that he took the drama course in his senior year because it was an easy class in which you could get an A just for attending, that Respondent was a very lax teacher who let students play on their phones, and that some of his friends were in the class. On or about March 5, 2015, S.G. told R.H. that Respondent had made verbal and physical sexual advances toward him and that Respondent was engaged in a sexual relationship with C.W. As discussed above, R.H. relayed this information to McCall, who relayed it to Stratos. Shortly thereafter, the investigation leading to this proceeding was initiated. Student R.C. As previously discussed, student R.C.'s deposition was admitted into evidence when R.C. did not appear to testify at the final hearing despite having been subpoenaed by Petitioner.13/ R.C. was a student in Respondent's drama class in his freshman and sophomore years and was a member of the drama club. R.C. initially testified that he had heard Respondent make "homosexual jokes," but then clarified that Respondent would, on occasion, compliment students, saying things like "you look nice today." R.C. testified that he had heard Respondent and C.W. engaged in "homosexual jabber," but was unable to recall anything specific that he had heard Respondent and C.W. say to each other that constituted "homosexual jabber." R.C. testified that S.G. had told him, in passing, that Respondent engaged in "homosexual jokes" with him and that S.G. was upset about it; however, R.C. testified that S.G. was mostly upset because Respondent gave preference to C.W. in assigning roles in the drama club plays. R.C. testified that S.G. felt that Respondent treated him unfairly by not giving him a more prominent role in a play being produced by the drama club, and that S.G. would become upset if Respondent corrected him on stage during rehearsals. R.C. also testified that S.G. told him that Respondent had tried to kiss him (S.G.), but that again, it was in passing, and that S.G. mainly vented about how he was upset about learning lines in drama class. R.C. testified that once during class, he had gone to Respondent with a personal issue, and that after Respondent listened and talked with him, Respondent tried to kiss him. However, R.C. subsequently clarified that Respondent had actually blown a kiss in a theatrical manner in R.C.'s direction as he went back to his seat. R.C. stated that he had never had a problem with Respondent and that he liked him as a teacher. Student C. W. C.W. was a student in Respondent's drama class in his junior and senior years of high school, and also served as Respondent's teacher's aide in his senior year. He also was a member of the drama club in his junior and senior years. In high school, C.W. aspired to be an actor. He is majoring in theater in college. While in high school, Respondent functioned as C.W.'s mentor and would coach him on acting techniques after school, either in his classroom or in the auditorium. C.W. credibly testified that Respondent did not charge him for the tutoring, and that he never paid Respondent for tutoring. C.W. credibly testified that his relationship with Respondent was strictly professional and related to acting. C.W. credibly testified that he and Respondent did not have a personal relationship; that neither had visited each other's house; that they did not date; that Respondent had not made any sexual advances toward him or tried to kiss him; and that Respondent had never done anything to make him feel uncomfortable. C.W. also credibly testified that he and Respondent did not engage in sexual discussions and did not call each other pet names. C.W. confirmed that he had talked to Respondent at a school pep rally. Specifically, C.W. arrived at the pep rally separately and sought Respondent out, because, as C.W. put it, "I'd rather spend my time talking to him, if I could, about acting or something whenever I could instead of just watching a pep rally." C.W. testified that he stood, not sat, next to Respondent during the pep rally. C.W. credibly testified that during his time as a student and teacher's aide in Respondent's classes and during drama club rehearsals, he never heard Respondent make inappropriate comments toward, engage in sexual discussions with, make verbal sexual advances toward, or otherwise engage in inappropriate conduct directed toward S.G., R.C., or any other students. He also never saw Respondent sniff any student's neck or embrace any student. C.W. also credibly testified that during Respondent's classes, students were required to be engaged in school work related to theater and were not allowed to use their phones. To that point, C.W. noted that Respondent often would confiscate phones if the use of them was "getting out of hand." C.W. also credibly testified that Respondent did not curse or participate in sexual joke-telling or banter, that he would not tolerate students making sexual jokes or cursing in his class, and that he would threaten discipline if they engaged in such conduct. Student I.D. I.D. was a student in Respondent's classes in her sophomore, junior, and senior years of high school, and she also served as Respondent's teacher's aide. She also was a member of the drama club. In her junior year, she was in drama class with S.G., who also was a junior that year. I.D. credibly testified that she had never seen Respondent act inappropriately toward S.G. She never saw Respondent try to kiss S.G. or get close to his face, nor did she ever see Respondent make overtures to any students in his class or in the drama club. She also testified, credibly, that she never saw any conduct by Respondent directed toward C.W. that suggested a personal relationship between Respondent and C.W. Student V.A. V.A. was a student in Respondent's classes. She took four classes from him while attending Forest Hill. During her junior and senior years, she took drama classes from Respondent. During both years, S.G. also was a student in those classes. V.A. credibly testified that she sat close enough to S.G. and Respondent to hear conversations between them, and that she never heard Respondent ask about S.G.'s penis size. She never saw Respondent try to kiss S.G., embrace him or smell his neck, or otherwise engage in any inappropriate conduct toward him, and she never saw Respondent make any sexual advances toward any other students, including R.C. and C.W., in the classroom. Likewise, she never saw Respondent make sexual advances or otherwise engage in inappropriate conduct, or make inappropriate comments, directed toward S.G., R.C., C.W., or any other students in the drama club. V.A. was friends with C.W. She credibly testified that she often was present when C.W. and Respondent were together and that she never heard them call each other pet names. Through her friendship with C.W. and her frequent interactions with Respondent and C.W., she did not believe that Respondent was any closer to C.W. than he was to other students in the class. V.A. also credibly testified that while in Respondent's classes, students always were engaged in classwork, were not allowed to sit around and play on their phones, and, in fact, were not permitted to have their phones out during Respondent's classes. Respondent Respondent credibly testified that he did not have a sexual interest in S.G. or C.W. He also credibly testified that he never tried to kiss S.G., R.C., or C.W. He credibly denied having ever groped S.G., and he also credibly denied having bitten S.G. He denied having ever embraced any students or having smelled their necks. Respondent credibly testified that he did not make sexual comments toward S.G., and he credibly denied having asked or joked about the size of S.G.'s penis or that of any other student. Respondent tutored C.W. in theater after school, and he credibly testified that he was not paid for it. He also credibly testified that he did not call C.W. by pet names, and he credibly denied having anything other than a teacher-student academic mentoring relationship with C.W. Clear and Convincing Evidentiary Standard As discussed in greater detail below, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard applies to this proceeding. This burden requires that: [T]he evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. In re Davey, 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994). Findings Regarding Alleged Sexual Comments, Jokes, and Verbal Sexual Advances Toward Students Petitioner has not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent made sexual comments to, engaged in sexual jokes with, or made verbal sexual advances toward students in his drama classes or in the drama club. S.G.'s testimony that Respondent constantly asked him how large his penis was and also made similar comments to R.C. and S.G.——frequently, loudly, and openly in class, where others could hear——during both years in which he was a student in Respondent's drama class, was not credible. Not only did no other witness corroborate S.G.'s testimony, but the testimony of C.W., I.D., and V.A. flatly contradicted it. Those witnesses——who were students in Respondent's class, and, thus, in a position to hear and see any "constant," loud comments of a sexual nature——credibly and persuasively testified that they never heard Respondent make sexual comments, tell sexual jokes, or make verbal sexual advances to any members of the class, including S.G. Had Respondent made these comments——particularly in the loud, frequent, open, and obvious manner to which S.G. testified——it is highly likely that these students would have heard them; yet all consistently and credibly denied having ever heard them. Although R.C. initially testified that he heard Respondent make "homosexual" comments, he subsequently clarified that Respondent simply occasionally complimented students on their appearance. Additionally, although R.C. claimed to have heard Respondent and C.W. engage in "homosexual jabber," he was unable to specifically articulate anything that either Respondent or C.W. said that was, or could be considered, sexual or "homosexual" in nature. Additionally, Respondent credibly and persuasively denied having made sexual comments to, engaged in sexual jokes with, or engaged in verbal sexual advances toward S.G. or any other student in his class or in the drama club. The undersigned finds the testimony of C.W., I.D., V.A., and Respondent on these allegations credible and persuasive, while finding S.G.'s testimony incredible and unpersuasive. Further, R.C.'s testimony regarding hearing Respondent make "homosexual jokes" and engage in "homosexual jabber" was not precise, explicit, or distinctly remembered; rather, it was equivocal and non-specific. In sum, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent made sexual comments or jokes to, or made verbal sexual advances toward, the students in his drama classes and in the drama club. Findings Regarding Alleged Physical Sexual Advances toward Students The undersigned also finds incredible and unpersuasive S.G.'s testimony that Respondent would get close to his face, sniff his neck, and try to kiss him, and that Respondent engaged in similar conduct toward C.W. and R.C. S.G. testified that Respondent directed this conduct toward him openly and obviously to everyone, on an almost daily basis. However, C.W., I.D., and V.A.——all of whom were in the drama class, drama club, or both, so were in a position to observe any such behavior——all unequivocally testified that they had never observed Respondent engage in any of those actions toward S.G. or any other students. Again, had Respondent engaged in this conduct——particularly in the loud, frequent, open, and obvious manner to which S.G. testified——it is highly likely that these students would have seen that conduct; yet, all persuasively and credibly testified that they never saw Respondent engage in such conduct. S.G. also testified that on one occasion, Respondent bit him on the nipple, and that one other student (who did not testify at the final hearing) witnessed it. Respondent credibly denied having engaged in this behavior. The undersigned does not find S.G.'s testimony on this point credible or persuasive. To the contrary, the undersigned finds it far more likely that, had Respondent engaged in such behavior, S.G. would have told his mother, school authorities, or other students——and, most important——would not have voluntarily taken another drama class from Respondent the following year.14/ Furthermore, the undersigned finds Respondent's testimony that he did not bite S.G.'s nipple credible and persuasive. S.G. also testified at the hearing that on one occasion during his senior year, Respondent had purposely groped his genitals. However, in his sworn statement made during the School Police investigation, S.G. stated that Respondent had "constantly" tried to kiss him and grab him in his "private area," and that Respondent had grabbed his genitals on more than one occasion——the latest occasion as recently as a week before S.G. was interviewed as part of the investigation. S.G.'s hearing testimony is patently inconsistent with his sworn statement on a material detail——i.e., the frequency with which he claims Respondent grabbed or attempted to grab his genitals. This inconsistency bears directly on S.G.'s credibility as a witness. Due to this obvious inconsistency on a key detail——one which cannot credibly be explained to mistake or lapse of memory——S.G.'s testimony that Respondent grabbed his genitals is deemed incredible and unpersuasive. Further, the undersigned finds credible and persuasive Respondent's testimony that he did not ever grab S.G.'s genitals. Although R.C. initially testified that Respondent tried to kiss him, he subsequently clarified that Respondent had, in fact, blown a "theatrical kiss" toward him as he returned to his seat after they had engaged in a discussion. This testimony does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent made a sexual advance toward R.C. In sum, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent made physical sexual advances toward S.G., R.C., C.W., or any other students in his drama class or in the drama club. Findings Regarding Alleged Sexual Relationship with Student The credible, persuasive evidence does not show that Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with C.W. S.G.'s testimony that he heard Respondent and C.W. engage in sexually explicit discussions, exchange sexual jokes, and call each other pet names "all the time" was directly contradicted by the credible, persuasive testimony of C.W. and Respondent, both of whom denied engaging in such conduct. Furthermore, I.D. and V.A.——both of whom were in Respondent's classes and in the drama club, so were often around both Respondent and C.W.——persuasively and credibly testified that they never heard Respondent and C.W. engage in sexually explicit discussions, exchange sexual jokes, call each other pet names, or otherwise engage in inappropriate verbal or physical conduct toward each other. Additionally, as previously discussed, although R.C. claimed to have heard Respondent and C.W. engage in "homosexual jabber," he was not able to specifically articulate anything that Respondent or C.W. said to each other that was, or could be considered, sexual or "homosexual" in nature. The fact that Respondent and C.W. stood (or even sat) next to each other and talked to each other during a school pep rally——and that, consequently, S.G. and R.C. perceived them as a "couple"——is of no probative value in proving the existence of a sexual relationship between Respondent and C.W.15/ Indeed, the undersigned finds completely credible and persuasive C.W.'s testimony that he had gone to the pep rally separately, and found Respondent and stood by him specifically to talk to him about acting instead of watching the pep rally. Respondent and C.W. both credibly and persuasively denied being involved in a sexual relationship, engaging in sexual jokes with each other, or calling each other pet names. The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with C.W. Findings of Ultimate Fact It is well-established in Florida law that whether charged conduct constitutes a deviation from a standard of conduct established by rule or statute is a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact, considering the testimony and evidence in the context of the alleged violation. Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). See also McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); MacMillan v. Nassau Cnty. Sch. Bd., 629 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Accordingly, whether alleged conduct violates the laws, rules, and policies set forth in the charging document is a factual, not legal, determination. For the reasons addressed in detail above, the competent substantial evidence in the record does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent engaged in any of the conduct with which he was charged in the Petition. Therefore, the undersigned finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent did not violate the following rules and policies, as charged in the Petition: Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056(2), 6A-10.080(2), and 6A- 10.081(3); School Board Policy 0.01(2), (3), (4) and (6); School Board Policy 1.013(1); School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), (b), (d), (e) and (5)(a); and School Board Policy 5.81(10)(c).16/ Accordingly, the undersigned finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner did not show, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is just cause, as defined in section 1012.33(1)(a), to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate his employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent, reinstating his employment as a teacher, and awarding him back pay to the date on which he was first suspended without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 2017.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has demonstrated that Respondent should be suspended and terminated from employment with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, for failure to correct performance deficiencies; and whether Petitioner should be terminated for just cause, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes, for incompetency due to inefficiency.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Background Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been employed with the Miami-Dade County Public School District (?District?) as a teacher of Emotional/Behavioral Disabled (?EBD?) students since 2001. He initially was a part-time teacher, substituting for a teacher on maternity leave. He became a full-time teacher with the District in the 2002-2003 timeframe. At the time of the events that gave rise to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a full-time teacher at Pine Villa Elementary School (?Pine Villa?), pursuant to a professional services contract. At all times material, Respondent’s employment was governed by the collective bargaining between Miami-Dade Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade (?UTD?), Petitioner’s rules, and Florida law. The 2009-2010 School Year In the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent taught second grade and third grade EBD students. EBD students are disabled due to persistent emotional or behavioral responses that may interfere with their learning ability. It is common for EBD students to academically perform below grade level; accordingly, they need to be in a smaller class with a more structured learning environment. Renny Neyra became the Pine Villa Principal at the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, and held the position through the 2010-2011 school year. According to Ms. Neyra, Respondent had difficulty teaching his class, and the test data for his students showed no improvement in their performance. Ms. Neyra requested and received assistance for Respondent from the District, consisting of expert personnel on special assignment to assist in areas in which Respondent’s performance was perceived to be lacking. Ms. Neyra did not place Respondent on 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34 during the 2009-2010 school year because she felt it would be unfair to do so. She testified that she wanted to afford Respondent the opportunity to obtain professional performance assistance so that he could improve his teaching skills, which, in turn, would help his students. The 2010-2011 School Year Because of Respondent’s perceived difficulties in planning for and teaching students of different grade levels during the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Neyra decided to assign Respondent only third grade EBD students for the 2010-2011 school year. In the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent’s class consisted of 11 students. This is slightly smaller than the typical third grade EBD class in the District, which generally consists of 16 to 17 students. For the 2010-2011 school year, an interventionist, curriculum specialist, and full-time paraprofessional were assigned to assist Respondent in his classroom.2/ Ms. Neyra testified that it was unlikely an interventionist or curriculum specialist would have been assigned to Respondent’s classroom, had he been performing well. IPEGS Evaluations of Respondent Teachers employed by the District are evaluated pursuant to the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (?IPEGS?). IPEGS entails assessor observation of, and provision of written comments on, teacher classroom performance. Five separate IPEGS evaluations of Respondent were conducted in the 2010-2011 school year, on September 23, 2010; October 25, 2010; December 7, 2010; January 26, 2011; and February 28, 2011. In the September 23, 2010, evaluation, Ms. Neyra observed that Respondent had incomplete lesson plans; failed to provide clear, specific, and sequential directions and guidance; did not use teaching strategies that engaged the students; and did not clarify the lesson for the students. The specific IPEGS Performance Standards (?Standards?) in which Ms. Neyra determined Respondent deficient were Standards 2 - Knowledge of Learners; 3 – Instructional Planning; and 4 – Instructional Delivery and Engagement. Respondent was informed of the observed deficiencies and placed on Support Dialogue for a 21-day period. Support Dialogue entails the provision of mutually-determined support strategies designed to remedy the deficiencies identified in the evaluation. Ms. Neyra conducted a second evaluation of Respondent’s teaching on October 25, 2010, and observed the same deficiencies. She also observed deficiencies in Respondent’s performance with respect to Standard 8 – Learning Environment. Following this evaluation, a Conference-for-the-Record (?CFR?) was held to inform Respondent that he was being placed on 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34(3), and to obtain Respondent’s and UTD’s input regarding measures to address Respondent’s performance deficiencies. As a result of the CFR, Respondent was provided an Improvement Plan containing specific direction regarding correction of his performance deficiencies. Assistant Principal Dorothy Pinkston evaluated Respondent’s classroom teaching performance on December 7, 2010, after which another Improvement Plan was provided to Respondent.3/ Ms. Neyra conducted another evaluation of Respondent’s classroom teaching performance on January 26, 2011, and found Respondent deficient in Standards 2, 3, 4, and 8. According to Ms. Neyra, Respondent did not attend to students’ needs and did not provide teacher-directed instruction. As a result of the January 26, 2011, evaluation, Respondent was provided another Improvement Plan. Ms. Neyra conducted a fifth evaluation, termed a ?confirmatory observation,? of Respondent’s classroom teaching performance on February 28, 2011. She again determined that he had not corrected the previously identified performance deficiencies. Respondent’s Students’ Performance on Objective Assessments Ms. Neyra testified that in addition to the IPEGS evaluations, Respondent’s students’ performance on interim assessments in math and reading and the Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading (?FAIR?), administered by the District, played a role in her decision to terminate Respondent’s employment. Student performance assessments, termed ?benchmark assessments,? for math and reading are administered by the District at the beginning of the school year. ?Interim assessments? for math and reading are administered in the fall and winter of the school year. These assessments are used to measure student performance prior to taking the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (?FCAT?) later in the school year. Where performance deficiencies are identified, students can be provided remedial instruction to better prepare them to take the FCAT. Petitioner presented documentary evidence regarding Respondent’s students’ performance on the interim assessments for math and reading in the 2010-2011 school year. This evidence compared Respondent’s students’ performance to that of all third grade students in the District, and to that of third grade ?disabled students? throughout the District. Petitioner did not present any evidence comparing Respondent’s students’ interim assessments scores to those of other EBD third grade students in the District. Petitioner’s documentary evidence was not supported by testimony of any witnesses qualified and competent to analyze the scores or to explain what the scores demonstrate or mean,4/ or by any other competent evidence. Without such testimony or other competent evidence, meaningful determinations Respondent’s students’ scores and their use in evaluating Respondent’s performance pursuant to section 1012.34(3) cannot be made. Moreover, Petitioner’s documentary evidence did not provide information that could be used to accurately compare Respondent’s students’ scores to those of other similarly situated students. The uncontroverted evidence established that EBD students generally perform below grade level in their school work and on objective assessment measures; accordingly, Respondent’s students’ interim assessment scores cannot be meaningfully compared to those of all other third grade students in the District. Although Petitioner’s evidence did compare Respondent’s students’ scores to those of third grade disabled students, the ?disabled students? category includes students with all types of disabilities, not only emotional and behavioral disabilities. Petitioner provided no evidence to support its contention that EBD students perform comparably to all other disabled students on the interim assessments. Absent evidence specifically comparing Respondent’s students’ interim assessment scores with those for comparable students——i.e., other third grade EBD students in the District——it cannot be determined whether Respondent’s students’ performance is attributable to teaching deficiencies on his part, or to their emotional and behavioral disabilities. Petitioner also provided documentary evidence, supported by the testimony of reading coach Eida Herrera, regarding Respondent’s students’ performance on the FAIR assessments. However, again, no evidence was presented specifically comparing Respondent’s students’ performance on the FAIR assessments to other third grade EBD students’ scores, so there is no context in which to meaningfully evaluate Respondent’s students’ FAIR assessment results for purposes of assessing his teaching performance pursuant to section 1012.34. Respondent’s students’ scores for the FCAT were not reported until after Respondent was suspended and action was taken to terminate his employment. Accordingly, the FCAT scores did not, and could not, play a role in Ms. Neyra’s decision to terminate Respondent.5/ Ms. Neyra testified that once Respondent’s students’ FCAT scores were received, she compared them to the District- wide scores for EBD third grade students, and that Respondent’s students did not perform well when compared with other EBD third grade students in the District. She testified that this information confirmed the correctness of her decision to terminate Respondent’s employment. However, as with the interim assessment scores, absent competent testimony by qualified persons or other competent evidence regarding FCAT scores and their analysis and use, accurate determinations regarding Respondent’s students’ FCAT scores and their meaning and use in assessing his classroom teaching performance pursuant to section 1012.34 cannot be made. In any event, Ms. Neyra testified that the primary reason she decided to terminate Respondent was that he did not remediate the performance deficiencies she had observed in the IPEGS evaluations. Ms. Neyra testified regarding the need for three other professionals to assist Respondent in his classroom, and the expense involved in providing this support. However, Petitioner did not present any expert testimony addressing incompetency relative to Respondent’s specific circumstances. Respondent testified on his own behalf. He has a master’s degree in exceptional student education, varying exceptionalities, and ten years’ experience as a teacher of EBD students. Respondent credibly testified that he has had positive evaluations throughout his teaching career and has not previously had problems with any other principals with whom he has worked. Respondent’s testimony established that he is intimately familiar with each of his students’ specific academic and personal issues. He credibly testified, in substantial detail, regarding the instructional and behavioral management measures in which he engaged, on an individual student basis, to address each student’s specific academic and personal issues,6/ and to try to help each student learn. Respondent also credibly testified regarding the challenges involved in teaching his students——many of whom had significant behavioral and emotional issues and came from severely socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds—— while at the same time keeping order in his classroom.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order rescinding the action taken to suspend and terminate Respondent from his employment and paying Respondent’s back salary and any other benefits owed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Gloria E. Walker, holds Teaching Certificate No. 294140, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida. Respondent is certified to teach in the area of music education. Respondent has been employed as a Music Teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County since 1970. From 1973 until 1986, Respondent taught music at Dunbar Elementary School in the Dade County School District. During the 1970-71 through 1977-78 school years, Respondent received either unacceptable or marginally acceptable scores for five of the seven years on her annual evaluations. (Petitioner's Exhibits 29). During the 1973-79 school year, the School Board altered its evaluations System for instructional Personnel. During the 78-79 through 83-84 school years, Respondent's annual evaluations were rated as acceptable. However, during the school years 1981- 82 through 83-84, school and district Personnel made comments concerning Respondent's need to improve her performance and development in certain areas. (TR 298). Commencing with the 1973 school year, Respondent received assistance from Charles Buckwalter, music specialist for elementary schools for the Dade County School District. Respondent was initially contacted by Mr. Buckwalter that year because of concerns the school's Principal expressed regarding Respondent's lack of classroom management. During that year, Mr. Buckwalter visited and provided assistance to Respondent approximately seven (7) times. Mr. Buckwalter's assistance to Respondent continued during the following three (3) years. During the 1981-82 school year, Mr. Buckwalter assisted Respondent on more than four occasions during which time he attempted to demonstrate lessons concerning management techniques and the use of new materials; objectives of instruction and on January 26, 1982, Buckwalter, along with Dr. Howard Doolin supervisor of music for Dade County, visited Respondent so that Dr. Doolin could observe Buckwalter's assistance to Respondent. On April 26, 1982, Respondent and Mr. Buckwalter met for approximately three and one half hours. Buckwalter visited several of Respondent classes and demonstrated the use of certain new materials. As a part of that visit, he observed Respondent's teaching and noted that Respondent abandoned the new materials and returned to teaching the old curriculum. On November 11, 1982, Mr. Buckwalter spent approximately three hours with Respondent in which time he visited two classes and had a conference with Respondent concerning the new curriculum for level 1 students. On November 18, 1982, Mr. Buckwalter made a follow-up visit concerning Respondent's lesson plans and objectives. Additionally, he demonstrated a lesson to one of Respondent's classes. On or about November 29, 1982, Respondent was formally observed by assistant principal, H. Elizabeth Tynes. Ms. Tynes has a wealth of experience lasting more than thirty years in both Hillsborough and Dade Counties. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, teacher/student relationship and in a subcategory of assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management based on a large number of disruptive students in her music class and Respondent's inability to control the students' behavior through either verbal or nonverbal strategies. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in the area of teacher/student relationship based on her failure to demonstrate consistency as concerns student behavior, failing to praise good behavior and reprimand students for disruptive conduct. On another occasion, assistant principal Tynes listened to a musical program Respondent's students were giving over the intercom system. Ms. Tynes rated the program a "total disaster". Ms. Tynes and the principal were "ashamed" of what they heard from Respondent's music class. Respondent demonstrated skills preparation for the program as observed by Ms. Tynes. On May 19, 1983, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Katherine Dinkin, who was then principal of Dunbar Elementary School. Following the observation, Respondent was evaluated unacceptable in areas of classroom management, teacher/student relationship, and techniques of instruction. (Petitioner's Exhibit 17). Principal Dinkins observed that Respondent's students were not on task, the classroom was chaotic and the students only responded to directives of the Principal, as a Person of authority. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instructions based on Ms. Dinkin's observation that students were being taught at levels beyond their ability; class openings and closings were not done appropriately and Respondent failed to develop a plan for the individual needs, interests and abilities of students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the category of teacher/student relationships based on her failure to demonstrate warmth toward the students and her inability to command respect. During this period in 1983, principal Dinkins prescribed help for Respondent as concerns observing and working with other teachers for guidance. On April 12, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed by principal Dinkins and rated unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instructions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 21). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management based on her demonstrated inability to keep students on task or to develop strategies to control their behavior. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of techniques of instructions based on an inadequately prepared lesson plan and an inability to deliver the instructional components to students. Principal Dinkins observed that the material Respondent attempted to teach was too complicated for the students and she failed to Properly sequence her instructions. Principal Dinkins, who was tendered and received as an expert in the areas of teacher observation and assessment, was unable to observe any continuum of improvement by Respondent over the extended period of Principal Dinkins' supervision. Principal Dinkins opined that Respondent deprived her students of the minimal educational experience in music. During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again received help from Mr. Buckwalter. As part of this help, Mr. Buckwalter organized small study groups in order to improve instructions throughout the music education department. These groups met on September 28, October 19, November 9 and 30, 1983. Respondent was asked to become part of the study group. The study group was Particularly concerned with focusing on the scope and sequence of curriculum, students' achievement and implementation of certain aspects of the curriculum, particularly as concern level 1 and 2 students. On or about August 30, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter spent the day with Respondent and a new music teacher, Ronald Gold. On or about September 27, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent for approximately 3 and 1/2 hours in which time he visited three of her classes and again attempted to discuss some work with Respondent concerning student management techniques including the use of a seating chart. On or about October 18, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent approximately four hours during which time he visited several classes and observed her using ideas gleaned from the study group. On or about November 7, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter again visited with Respondent for approximately four hours. After the conference, he taught classes with her and implemented the use of instruments to enrich the class lesson as well as the implementation and use of progress charts. On or about December 9, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited with Respondent for approximately 3 hours. At this time, Mr. Buckwalter expressed concern in that Respondent was not clearly understanding the intent of the school board curriculum. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instructions, teacher/students relationships, assessment techniques and professional responsibility during her annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year. On or about October 29, 1984, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by assistant principal, Edwardo Martinez. Although Respondent was rated acceptable, this class was not a typical situation but rather a rehearsal of a specific program. On other occasions, assistant principal Martinez had opportunities to walk by Respondent's classroom. He often noted loud noises emanating from her classroom. During these instances, he would enter the room and immediately settle the students down. On March 26, 1985, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Maybelline Truesdell, Principal of Dunbar Elementary. Based on this formal observation, Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, instructional techniques and teacher/student relationships. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). As a result of the unacceptable evaluation, Respondent was given a prescription form suggesting methods in which she could improve areas in which she was rated unacceptable. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the category of classroom management based on her inability to retain the students attention; her failure to open and close classes appropriately and her general observation of students being off task. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of instructional techniques based on the observation that she did not interact verbally with students; students were inappropriately excluded from participating in discussions of the lesson and Respondent did not use instructional methods/materials which were appropriate for the students' learning levels. (TR pages 30-35). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of student/teacher relationships based on her improper focusing on a small number of students; inappropriately criticizing a student assistant in the presence of other students, and a failure to use sufficient positive interaction to maintain class control. On may 3, 1985, Respondent was again formally observed by Maybelline Truesdell and rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management; instructional techniques; student/teacher relationships and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management as she failed to properly discipline students; failed to maintain classroom control and students were off task. In the area of techniques of instruction, Respondent received an unacceptable rating in one category which remained unremediated pursuant to a prior prescription issued by Ms. Truesdell. Respondent was again rated unacceptable in the area of teacher/student relationship based on her inability to display any of the indicators considered necessary to become acceptable and her continued rejection of students who volunteered or attempted to participate; her failure to involve the entire class by focusing her attention on a small number of students to the exclusion of others and her failure to appropriately address students by their name rather than "you." (TR 39-41). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of assessment techniques based on her failure to follow county and state guidelines for assessing students. Specifically, Respondent failed to provide substantial evidence of (documentation) to justify grades assigned to students and her grade books did not indicate if or when she was giving formal quizzes or tests. In addition, there was no letter grade or numerical indication in Respondent's grade books to gauge academic progress. Additionally, there was insufficient documentation in the student folders to back-up student progress or to otherwise substantiate the grades assigned to students. During the 1984-85 school year, Mr. Buckwalter returned to Dunbar Elementary to again assist Respondent. On September 6, 1984, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent for approximately three hours during which time he visited a class; co-taught a class and attempted to assist Respondent concerning improvement in areas of student behavior and management. On November 2, 1984, Mr. Buckwalter visited one of Respondent's classes. He thereafter visited Respondent on March 22, 1985 at which time he spent approximately two hours in her classroom. He taught five classes to demonstrate strategies of progressing students from one level to another. He thereafter conferred with Respondent concerning the need to reflect a positive attitude toward students.. On March 29, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter again visited Respondent. Respondent was then using materials suggested by Mr. Buckwalter although she utilized them in a "rote" manner and included too many concepts within a single lesson. On April 18, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter returned to observe Respondent. The students were going over materials that had been taught in past years and the new curriculum was not being taught. On May 23, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter spent four hours with Respondent. They concentrated on the development of lesson plans; planned activities concerning class objectives and stressed the need to remain-on one concept until it was understood by a majority of the class. Respondent's evaluation for the 1985-86 school year was unacceptable in the areas of subject matter knowledge instructional techniques; teacher/student relationships; assessment techniques and Professional responsibility. On October 10, 1985, Respondent was formally observed by assistant principal William J. Kinney. Respondent was rated acceptable in the area of assessment techniques. Mr. Kinney offered certain suggestions to Respondent including the fact that the lesson taught would be more beneficial by more student participation. Respondent was advised of a need to immediately cure problems respecting students who were observed hitting bells with pencils and pens and the need to immediately address problems when students were observed off task. During the school year, Mr. Kinney made numerous informal visits to Respondent's classroom at which times he observed loud noises coming from Respondent's classes, chanting, fighting, furniture pushed into the walls, student misbehavior and other indications that Respondent's classroom management was ineffective. On December 3, 1985, Respondent was officially observed by principal Truesdell and was rated unacceptable in the areas of instructional and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). Respondent was made aware of her continuing problems and was provided with an acknowledged receipt of a summary of the conference-for-the-record dated Thursday, December 12, 1985. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Additionally, Respondent was given specific instructions in the form of a prescription concerning her grade book and instructed to strictly follow the conduct prescribed. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). In the opinion of principal Truesdell (received as an expert in the area of teacher assessment teacher evaluation, teacher observation in the role of school principal) Respondent was unacceptable for further employment by the school district, was continuing to demonstrate ineffective classroom management, instructional techniques, assessment techniques and had done so for such an extended period of time that improvement appeared unlikely. Additionally, Ms. Truesdell considered that Respondent was unable to make sufficient competent analysis of students' individual needs and potential in the classroom; failed to ensure and promote the accomplishment of tasks to the proper selection and use of appropriate techniques; failed to establish routine and procedures for the use of materials and physical movements of students in her class; failed to employ the appropriate techniques to correct inappropriate student behavior; failed to demonstrate competence in evaluating learning and goal achievement by her students and failed to demonstrate appropriate interpersonal skills required of a teacher to maintain discipline and effectively teach in a classroom environment. On February 7, 1986, Respondent was officially observed in her class by Marilyn Von Seggern, music supervisor for Dade County and by Ms. McCalla, assistant principal at Dunbar, under the provision of the TADS program. (Petitioner's Exhibit 23). Following that observation, Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of subject matter knowledge, instructional techniques, assessment techniques and teacher/student relationships. In the Professional opinion of Marilyn Von Seggern, received herein as an expert in the areas of music education, teacher observation and assessment, Respondent was depriving students of the minimum educational experience and had serious problems concerning her ability to communicate and relate to students respecting the music curriculum. On January 16, 1986, Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Dunbar's assistant principal Carolyn Louise McCalla, and was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 24). Based on Mr. Buckwalter's repeated observation of Respondent's classroom and teaching techniques, Mr. Buckwalter opined that Respondent's students were not receiving the minimum education required by the Dade County School System as concerns the curriculum for music. As example, on one occasion Mr. Buckwalter observed Respondent presenting an organized lesson to students which was quite successful and upon his return approximately five minutes later, Mr. Buckwalter observed that Respondent was not teaching the new successful lesson but had instead reverted back to an old lesson and her students were observed inattentive and generally off task. (TR pages 250-254). On March 26, 1986, Respondent was having difficulty maintaining her students' attention to the point that the students were out of control. While Respondent was attempting to stop a certain student from chanting and beating on the desk, Respondent tried to restrain the student and in so doing, Respondent broke her watch band and scratched the student on her face. The student required hospitalization and although the injury was deemed an accident, Respondent's lack of classroom control and management played a major part in causing the incident. Pursuant to a request by the School Board, Respondent, on April 30, 1986, was evaluated by psychiatrist, Gail D. Wainger. Dr. Wainger took a medical history from Respondent which included Respondent's revelation of previous psychiatrist treatment. Dr. Wainger observed that Respondent had a very flattened, blunted affect with little emotional expression. She related that this was a sign of a patient who was recovering from a major psychiatric episode. Additionally, Respondent showed difficulty recalling recent events. Dr. Wainger diagnosed Respondent as having chronic residual schizophrenia with a possible personality disorder including impulsive and avoidance features. Dr. Wainger opined that a person with such diagnosis would have difficulty being an authority figure and that this would be especially Problematic for students who needed positive reinforcement. On April 28, 1986, Respondent attended a conference-for-the-record with the school board's administrative staff. A past history of performance and evaluations was reviewed. Additionally, the investigative report concerning the injury of the student which occurred March 26, 1986 was also reviewed. Respondent was informed that the matter would be referred to the School Board for possible disciplinary action. (Petitioner's Exhibit 31). On May 21, 1986, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent's employment and initiated the instant dismissal proceeding against her. (Petitioner's Exhibit 32). For the 1985-86 school year, Respondent's annual evaluation indicated that she was rated unacceptable in five of seven categories and was not recommended for re-employment. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension, without pay, of Respondent, Gloria E. Walker and dismissing Respondent, Gloria E. Walker as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. That the Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, entered a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of incompetency and incapacity. It is further Recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 294140, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida, for a period of three years based on incompetence and incapacity. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1987.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be transferred from Glades Middle School to an opportunity school.
Findings Of Fact For the 1989-90 school year John Sarmiento was enrolled in the Dade County public school system and he was assigned to the eighth grade at Giades Middle School. On November 27, 1989, Petitioner administratively transferred him from Glades Middle School to J.R.E. Lee, an opportunity school. The stated basis for the transfer was the student's disruptive behavior and his failure to adjust to the regular school. As an opportunity school, J.R.E. Lee has a more structured program than a traditional school, such as Glades Middle School, and is designed to assist students with discipline problems. While attending Glades Middle School, John Sarmiento repeatedly engaged in disruptive conduct that interfered with his own learning and with the learning of others in his classes. This conduct resulted in his being referred to the assistant principal's office between five and ten times per week. On one occasion the student, while in class, threw a piece of chalk at another student. On another occasion, the student engaged in an argument with another student that almost resulted in a fight during class. On an almost daily basis, the student would wander around the class while making loud, boisterous comments. This student's misconduct would have merited his suspension according to the district code of student conduct. Instead of suspending this student, the school officials worked with him and with his parents in an effort to improve his behavior. Unfortunately the considerable efforts of the personnel at Glades Middle School to serve the student's educational needs did not succeed. The student needs the structured environment that the opportunity school can provide, and his educational needs will best be served by his transfer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which approves John Sarmiento's assignment to the J.R.E. Lee opportunity school. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April 1990, 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 3rd day of April 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire 2780 Galloway Road, Suite 100 Twin Oaks Building Miami, Florida 33165 Maria Ruiz de la Torre, Esquire 7111 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite Three Miami, Florida 33138 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Paul W. Bell Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Petitioner established “just cause” to discipline Respondent as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Since 2004, Ms. Gardner has been employed by the Glades County School District as a teacher. During the 2009-2010 school year, she taught language arts to middle school students at West Glades School. During the relevant time period, Ms. Gardner worked under a professional service contract. A teacher's professional service contract automatically renews each year, and the contract can be terminated only by a showing of “just cause” or by performance deficiencies outlined in section 1012.34, Florida Statues. On April 16, 2010, Ms. Gardner was teaching language arts to seventh grade students. The students were supposed to be working on the language arts assignment. However, as Ms. Gardner walked around the class, she found some students working on their math homework. Frustrated by students doing math homework during her language arts class, Ms. Gardner confiscated the students' math work. In one instance, Ms. Gardner tore a student's math homework in half. One of the students whose math work Ms. Gardner confiscated was C.H. C.H. was generally described as a "good student." Ms. Gardner placed C.H.'s math workbook on a table near Gardner's desk at the front of the room, and redirected C.H. to the language arts assignment. At some point in the class, C.H. walked up to the front of the classroom and removed her math workbook from the table without Ms. Gardner's permission. As C.H. turned to walk back with her book, Ms. Gardner forcefully grabbed C.H.'s arm from behind. C.H. credibly testified that Ms. Gardner "grabbed my arm and turned me around and pushed me, and my books fell." C.H. started crying, and walked out of the classroom. As C.H. was leaving the classroom, Ms. Gardner told C.H. to return to her desk. C.H. stated that she was crying because she was "shocked." C.H. walked to the School's office, which is in the same hallway as Ms. Gardner's class. When she arrived at the office, C.H. was crying and visibly upset. The school guidance counselor took C.H. to speak with Principal Davis. Principal Davis found C.H. to be "distraught, crying, [and] shaking." Principal Davis spoke with C.H. to determine why the student was upset. C.H. informed Principal Davis that Ms. Gardner had become angry with C.H., and that Ms. Gardner had snatched C.H.'s books, grabbed her arm and pushed her. Based on the seriousness of the allegation, Principal Davis decided to immediately investigate C.H.'s claims by obtaining statements from C.H.'s classmates. After the language arts class, the next class for C.H. and her classmates was math taught by Ms. Wills. Before the math class began, Ms. Gardner came to Ms. Wills' class and gave her C.H.'s workbook and other students' papers. Ms. Gardner informed Ms. Wills that several of the students had been doing math homework when the students should have been doing their language arts work. Ms. Wills credibly testified that Ms. Gardner was "really upset" with students doing their math homework in her class, and appeared agitated. Shortly after Ms. Wills' class began, Principal Davis came to speak with the students. Principal Davis released Ms. Wills to take an early lunch, and then asked the students to write down anything "bothersome" that has happened in Ms. Gardner's class during the prior period. A majority of the students provided written statements that, in essence, corroborated C.H.'s story. After reviewing the students' statements, Principal Davis decided she needed to investigate further. Principal Davis met with Ms. Gardner and advised her about C.H.'s allegation that Ms. Gardner had inappropriately touched C.H. Because the investigation could result in discipline, Ms. Gardner decided to have a union representative present when she gave her statement. Further, Principal Davis informed Ms. Gardner that Ms. Gardner should go home until the investigation was completed. On April 21, 2010, Ms. Gardner gave her statement to Principal Davis. Ms. Gardner admitted to confiscating C.H.'s math notebook and calculator. Ms. Gardner indicated that later in the class C.H. walked across the room and retrieved her math notebook without permission. Ms. Gardner stated that she merely "touched" C.H.'s arm to redirect the student, and to put the math notebook back on the table. C.H. dropped the math notebook, and left the class. According to Ms. Gardner's interview, she did not forcefully grab C.H.'s arm. Ms. Gardner's testimony that she merely "touched" C.H.'s arm was consistent with the interview given to Principal Davis. The undersigned finds Ms. Gardner's characterization that she only "touched" C.H.'s arm without force not to be credible. Ms. Gardner's testimony concerning the events was often evasive on key points. For example, when asked if she recalled that C.H. was crying when leaving the classroom, Ms. Gardner indicated that she did not. Yet, in her deposition, taken just a week earlier, she testified that C.H. was crying when she left the classroom. Similarly, Ms. Gardner was evasive concerning questions about whether or not she acted in frustration or her understanding that the change in her contract status was the result of her touching C.H. As a result of Ms. Gardner's evasiveness, the undersigned found her credibility damaged. C.H. did not receive any physical injury from the incident on April 16, 2010. After completing her investigation on April 21, 2010, Principal Davis provided Wayne Aldrich, superintendent for Glades County School Board, with the following recommendation: As a result of a battery allegation by a student against Ms. Gardner, I have conducted a thorough investigation and found the allegation to be substantial. Ms. Gardner has been suspended with pay since the incident occurred on Friday, April 16. As a result, I have followed protocol required by the Florida Department of Education Office of Professional Practices and I am recommending the following action: Placement of a narrative of my investigation in her personnel file. Change of her contractual status to fourth year annual for 2010-2011 school year. Recommendation of termination if any further substantiated incidents of intentional physical contact with a student occur. I am requesting that she return to the classroom on Friday, April 23, 2010. Principal Davis testified that she considered the recommended change in Ms. Gardner's contract status from a professional service contract to a "fourth year annual contract" as less severe than termination or suspension. A "fourth year annual contract" would allow Ms. Gardner to return to professional service contract after being on an annual contract for one year. Principal Davis explained that Ms. Gardner had been evaluated as a high-performing teacher in the past, and it was hoped that she would return to that level after this discipline. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Principal Davis evaluated Ms. Gardner as "needs improvement." Under the comments section, Principal Davis noted "offer to wait for 2010 FCAT declined." There was no evidence tying this "needs improvement" evaluation to the incident that occurred on April 16, 2010. Superintendent Aldrich reviewed Principal Davis' investigation and recommendation. Based on his review, Superintendent Aldrich recommended that the School Board follow Principal Davis' recommendation, including the change in Ms. Gardner's contract status. Similar to Principal Davis, Superintendent Aldrich believed that the change in Ms. Gardner's contract status was less severe than a suspension. Superintendent Aldrich testified that a teacher should use physical force only "if the student was out of control and would be in a position to do physical harm to another student or themselves." However, no School Board Policy concerning the use of physical force was offered into evidence. The School Board, without notice to Ms. Gardner concerning her rights to an administrative hearing, adopted Principal Davis' recommendations. Ms. Gardner, subsequently, requested a formal administrative hearing and reconsideration of the School Board's decision. The School Board denied her request, finding that Ms. Gardner had waived her right to a hearing. Ms. Gardner filed an appeal. The Second District Court of Appeal found the following: It is undisputed that the Board did not give Ms. Gardner written notice of her right to seek administrative review and the time limits for requesting a hearing. Under these circumstances, the Board failed to provide Ms. Gardner with a point of entry into the administrative process before taking adverse action on her contract status. It follows that Ms. Gardner did not waive her right to request a formal hearing. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the School Board's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Gardner v. Sch. Bd. of Glades Cnty., 73 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). While Ms. Gardner's appeal was pending before the Second District Court of Appeal, Ms. Gardner worked under the fourth year annual contract for 2010-2011 school year. At the end of the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Gardner's annual contract was not renewed. On remand, the School Board issued a May 16, 2012, letter, notifying Ms. Gardner of her rights to an administrative hearing. The School Board framed the issue as “to challenge the change in her contract status from a professional service contract for fourth year annual contract.” In the Joint Pre- Hearing Stipulation, the parties identified a factual issue for resolution as “[w]hether Gardner's physical contact with the student, C.H., constitutes “just cause” for discipline.” Further, the parties’ stipulation identified three disputed issues of law: 1) Whether the disciplinary options available to Petitioner included placement of Ms. Gardner on a fourth year annual contract status; 2) whether the placement of Ms. Gardner on fourth-year annual contract status was the appropriate discipline; and 3) whether the School Board's action in denying Ms. Gardner's request for a formal hearing in July 2010 renders the placement of Gardner on a fourth-year annual contract status for the 2010-2011 school year, and the non-renewal of her annual contract at the end of the 2010-2011 school year void ab initio. Before considering the legal issues identified by the parties, it is clear that the factual dispute of whether or not “just cause” exists must be addressed first. If “just cause” does not exist, then the issue of the penalty becomes moot. At the hearing, the parties presented testimony concerning the facts underlying the School Board's action here, and whether or not “just cause” existed to sanction Ms. Gardner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Glades County School Board enter a final order finding: The record contains insufficient evidence of "just cause" in order to discipline Ms. Gardner; and Pursuant to section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), immediately reinstate Ms. Gardner under her professional service contract and pay her back salary. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 2013.
