The Issue Whether Respondent shall be dismissed from employment with the Dade County School Board upon grounds of incompetency and gross insubordination pursuant to Section 321.36, Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-4.09(1) and 6B-4.09(4), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was, at all times relevant, an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida on an continuing contract as a teacher. Respondent is a 49 year old native of Bolivia, South America. She was educated in Bolivia, Paris, and the United States, receiving a Bachelor's degree from the University of Miami in approximately 1969 and a Master's degree from Northwestern University. Respondent's positions with the Dade County School Board may be summarized as follows: In early 1970 she was a teacher of English as a Second Language (ESOL). From 1971 to 1973, she served as a media specialist (librarian) at Blue Lakes Elementary School. From 1973 to 1978 she was a media specialist (librarian) at Seminole Elementary School. From 1978 to 1981 she was a third grade teacher of normal students at Douglas Elementary School and from 1981 until her suspension between the 1983-1984 and 1984- 1985 school terms, she was a first grade teacher at Kinloch Park Elementary School. Respondent started employment with the Dade County School Board in 1970. While employed, she received annual evaluations; her evaluations and performance from 1971 to November 1, 1983 were all favorable, except for an evaluation in the 1979-1980 school year. Approximately June 3, 1980, Respondent was given an annual evaluation for her performance as a third grade teacher at Douglas Elementary School for the 1979-1980 school year. Therein, then-principal Eugene Turano found her unacceptable in six of the eight observable evaluation criteria. This annual evaluation resulted from two formal observations. In February 1980, Respondent was observed and evidenced disciplinary and teaching difficulties related to the reading program. This was Respondent's first experience teaching third grade and her first assignment to that school. Mr. Turano assigned Ms. Whipple, his assistant principal, to work with Respondents concentrating on lesson planning. The subsequent observation did not indicate much improvement. At each of these observations, Respondent had the entire third grade in one reading group, which grouping was felt by Mr. Turano not to respond to individual needs. Also bulletin board use by Respondent was not conducive to encouraging student interest or providing assessment feedback. Respondent stayed at her desk instead of giving children individual attention. Because Respondent was thereafter absent on sick leave from March until May 1980, there was no time for diagnostic prescription. As a results Mr. Turano gave Respondent the benefit of the doubt and did not formally recommend her termination or return to annual contract as he normally would have done. He did formally recommend her for employment and did personally suggest to Respondent that she take some summer school courses. In March, 1981, the Respondent received an official letter of reprimand for failure to implement her authorization for a period of leave of absence from the school system. Although this constitutes official disciplinary action by Petitioner, Dr. Gray's explanation of the reasoning behind it is not persuasive that anything occurred here beyond an absenteeism problem eventually fully- authorized by Petitioner. Respondent came to Kinloch Park Elementary in the 1981- 1982 school term to teach first grade. Respondent's 1981-1982 annual evaluation by then- principal Dr. James McKenna was overall acceptable. Then-Assistant Principal Lucy Williams observed Respondent in the 1982- 1983 term and, finding her teaching deficient, put Respondent on prescription. Her class of two groups of non-readers and one group which had just begun to read at the first grade level was kept small. Mrs. Williams taught all lessons herself for a while and gradually released the class to Respondent's full control again. Because Respondent complied by keeping adequate grades and lesson plans, by dividing her reading students into three groups, and by decorating with visual aids on the bulletin boards, Mrs. Williams removed Respondent from reading class prescription in the spring of 1983 before Mrs. Williams' transferred to another elementary school. Mrs. Williams removed Respondent from the prescription without observing her in reading. At that time, however, Respondent continued to have assistance in the area of math instruction. Starting in the 1983-1984 term, Respondent taught a Chapter One first grade class of 15 both English-speaking and non-English-speaking students. Kinloch Park Elementary had become an all Chapter One school in February, 1983. "Chapter One" is a classification that comprises students in a federally funded program designed to teach only basic skills for the entire day. The Chapter One first grade class of Respondent was in the lower twentieth percentile of learning ability. On November 1, 1983, Respondent was formally observed by Kinloch's new principal, Dr. Cecelia Hack, for evaluation purposes. New, more detailed observation forms were being used by Dade County at this time. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in six of the eight standard evaluation criteria. Most noticeably, Respondent was failing to use the directed reading approach all teachers had been instructed by Dr. Hack to use. This system, contemplated by the teacher's manual, provides for assembling three reading groups based on individual student assessments, which groups rotate through activities made up of teacher direction and two varieties of follow-up activities. Based upon Dr. Hack's observations and testimony, it is found that on this occasion, Respondent concentrated too much time on the workbooks did not provide the group working independently with sufficient and correct materials, did not have her evaluation folders up to date and had only one grade per child and that grade was for report card purposes. She also had not returned adequate amounts of graded materials to the students so as to provide acceptable feedback and encouragement to them. Dr. Hack further observed lack of courteous interchange between Respondent and her class. Respondent's comments to her students were terse, intimidating, and not encouraging to small children. The Room was cold and sterile without lively bulletin boards to spark student interest, encourage desire to learn, or to provide pride of accomplishment and additional feedback to the students. Respondent conferenced with Dr. Hack and the assistant principal, Norma Aguilar, on November 3, 1983 and was put on prescription. Among other actions for remediation, Dr. Hack suggested that Respondent provide classroom activities reflecting the assigned instruction policy. She further suggested that Respondent sit and plan on a regular basis with two other teachers of Chapter One first graders. She arranged for Respondent to visit other classrooms and asked Dr. Charles Sherwood, Petitioner's Director of Basic Education, to send members of his staff to work with Respondent. A Mrs. Gonzalez, Chapter One Specialist, came several times to assist Respondent in implementing the Chapter One program. Mrs. Ellen Williams came to update the student assessments for Respondent. A time- line was established for December 1, 1983. Assistant Principal Aguilar's assistance was part of the prescriptive measures assigned for Respondent. She visited Respondent on at least a weekly basis to check on Respondent's lesson plans and to talk about what Respondent was supposed to be doing. Respondent was instructed that she must duplicate her own materials for class as that was part of each teacher's duties, but she was provided reading materials she needed on her prescription and tapes with recorded lessons so that the children could do more independent work. Respondent expressed resentment of the prescribed activities. She turned in no lesson plans. Mrs. Hack also expected Respondent to attend an in- service course on the primary education program (PREP) and that she use "RSVP," a diagnostic prescriptive reading program. Although Respondent completed the in-service workshop ending in late February or early March, she did not complete her material to be turned in until June 25, 1985. On December 6, 1983, Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal Norma Aguilar, for evaluation purposes and was found unacceptable in three categories of the standard evaluation criteria. Mrs. Aguilar had been part of Respondent's previous prescription. Because of hers and Ellen Williams' involvement, the requirement for assessment techniques had been met and the grade book was up-to-date. Respondent had improved her teacher-student relationships somewhat in that Respondent had learned to give some positive reinforcement to her students. At that time, although some deficiencies had been corrected pursuant to the previous prescription, Respondent remained unsatisfactory in preparation and planning knowledge of the subject matter, and in techniques of instruction. Instructional activities, and follow-up thereto and reading progress were inappropriate for the students. Various groups now were set up but all groups were set at the same activity at the same time instead of each group rotating through three activities within each instructional hour. Respondent continued to use terms considerably above the children's understanding; her directions were unclear to small children; and she persisted in using only the workbooks for directed teaching. Prescriptive measures were again set out for the improvement of Respondent's teaching performance. On February 15, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed for evaluation purposes by Dr. Hack and was found unacceptable in five categories of the standard evaluation criteria. One category was not rated. The deficiencies were much the same as in November 1983. Particular problems were again noted in preparation and planning knowledge of the subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Arrangements had not been made by Respondent for materials and the supplemental activities were not appropriate for the children doing the lesson plans. The children exhibited little respect for the material and did not seem to understand what was expected of them. Respondent constantly found fault with the children but contrariwise accepted sloppy written work. Respondent answered this criticism by saying she did not concern herself with neatness and manuscript form on math papers. Mrs. Hack felt Respondent was confused about what she was doing and although Respondent was grading more papers, Respondent was not returning graded papers regularly to meet the constant need of the children for feedback. Mrs. Hack felt Respondent's class should have moved much faster by so late in the school year and that the reading aspect was very weak. As remediation, Dr. Hack prescribed that Respondent use the teacher's manual and the "RSVP" decoding kits and books and that Respondent emphasize independent student activities that would keep all the students constructively occupied throughout each class hour. Further prescriptive measures were assigned. On March 22, 1984, Respondent was formally observed by Dr. Charles Sherwood, Petitioner's Director of Basis Education, for evaluation purposes and was rated unacceptable in four of the standard evaluation criteria. One category was not rated. At that time, Respondent's lesson plan was unacceptable because it provided insufficient student work. She was not using the required "9-block plan," rotating three groups of readers three times during the class session in twenty minute intervals per rotation. Her lesson plan showed an absence of anything but page numbers, which was directly contrary to county policy requiring minimally that objectives, independent activities, and evaluation methods be set out in the formal lesson plan. Appropriate classroom management was lacking in that many students were off- tasks although Dr. Sherwood noted that there was no genuine misbehavior. Respondent's only technique of instruction remained the directive approach. Her assessment technique was deficient in that only the first few weeks' assessment scores were evident. The children were about five months behind others comparably situated. In Dr. Sherwood's opinion, Respondent's excessive verbal instruction was not good for young students struggling with English who needed demonstrations rather than lectures. He felt Respondent's students were making less progress than normal for a Chapter One class. Further prescriptive measures were assigned Respondent after a conference with Dr. Hack. On April 18, 1984 Respondent was observed and evaluated again by Dr. Sherwood as unacceptable in four criteria. Two criteria were not rated. This left Respondent unacceptable in four out of six categories. Because of the short timeframe for prescribed remediation, Dr. Sherwood had assigned Ellen Williams' Director of the South Central Reading Center, to help Respondent. Mrs. Williams had worked with Respondent on methods of directing a reading lesson, maintaining close access to a chalkboard for introducing new vocabulary in context without the teacher having to leave the reading group, and had helped Respondent arrange the classroom furniture for group reading (instead of using rigid rows of desks). Thereafter, Respondent had returned the room to its original state. Dr. Hack and Mrs. Aguilar confirmed that a mobile chalkboard had been provided Respondent. Respondent explained her removal of the mobile chalkboard from her room as being done due to safety considerations occasioned by its sharp edges in near proximity to the faces of small children, but this does not explain why Respondent could not accomplish physical rotation of three groups of children so that each reading group would be near Respondent at the wall chalkboard during one of the required three teaching activities. The problems and unacceptable teaching activities observed by Dr. Sherwood on his second visit were very similar to those he observed on his first visit: absence of evaluation procedures and all students doing the same lesson regardless of their level of achievement. However, with Mrs. Williams' help, Respondent's records for evaluating student levels remained relevantly current. Dorothy Adside, an administrator at the level between area supervisor and school principal observed Respondent teaching on May 30, 1984. Prior to this observation, Mrs. Adside dispatched a primary educational specialist Mrs. Fulton, who conferred with Respondent and gave Respondent in-the-classroom assistance on two occasions. At the May 30 observation, however, Mrs. Adside found Respondent not acceptable in the categories of preparation and planning classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. She noted that there were no motivations for the children, not sufficient vocabulary development and not sufficient questioning from Respondent or use by her of visual study aids. Respondent's use of the "Round Robin" method of oral reading prevented the children from following her in their books as she read and otherwise thwarted the idea of rotating three activities for each group within a single class period. As a result of all the previous observations, evaluations, and unfulfilled prescriptions, Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1983-1984 school year was found to be unacceptable in four categories and unacceptable overall on June 1, 1984. There is a significant discrepancy between the testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses and that of Respondent with regard to the in-service courses assigned as prescriptive measures. On the basis of the documentary evidence as well as the candor, demeanor, and credibility of all witnesses as well as the detail provided by Dr. Hack and Mrs. Aguilar concerning these prescriptive measures and their personal observation of Respondent's participation and non-participation in all or part of these courses, Respondent's testimony that no course assignment was ever made is not persuasive. It is found that Respondent was orally requested to enroll in certain in-service training programs offered for February 25 to March 3, 1984, April 10 to May 15, 1984, May 5 to May 12, 1984, and June 2 to June 9, 1984, but these requests were not always reduced to a written prescription and Respondent may, indeed, have understood that she was only required to attend in-service training when the instruction was reduced to writing. None the less, Respondent enrolled in one course February 25 to March 3, 1984, but did not complete her work until ordered to do so by Mrs. Aguilar in June 1984. At the conference-for-the-record on April 30, 1984, Dr. Hack observed Respondent changed facial expression and made sounds expressing resentment of various remedial prescriptions required of her. Respondent attributed most of her difficulties to a personality clash with Dr. Hack and to Dr. Hack's calling Respondent to her office on twelve occasions during the 1983-1984 school year to discuss Respondent's problems. In light of so many unacceptable evaluations from so many observers, Respondent's analysis is rejected. While testifying concerning her reading groups, Respondent demonstrated a lack of understanding of the threefold rotating group concept based on individual student assessments by stating that she had created a fourth group for four new Nicaraguan students who spoke no English merely because they entered her class in the middle of the year and that she had created the fourth group on the theory that the new students would have to start with the first work book in the first grade series. Respondent has had admitted in evidence her grade book for the 1983- 1984 term. It does not in every instance corroborate Petitioner's witnesses' testimony. It evidences at least one weekly grade in each subject but each subject is on a different page. This finding does not, however, significantly diminish or impugn the credibility of a number of Petitioner's witnesses who observed that Respondent kept insufficient grades. In making this determination considerable weight is attached to Respondent's own testimony that she chose to record only one weekly grade instead of recording all test and progress scores by date of the item graded. Her voluntary election to use one weekly grade per subject over grades on all items falls short of the prescription assigned to her. Respondent maintained that evaluations of her performance are clouded by the evaluators' failure to take into account the many problems inherent in anyone educating the Chapter One child. This premise is not accepted. Six of other Kinloch Park Elementary teachers of larger Chapter One first grade classes managed adequately in the 1983-1984 term. Mrs. Lucy Williams, Respondent's witness, testified that it should be easier to teach Chapter One students because there are less subjects and fewer students in classes under such a program. Dr. Gray, Petitioner's Executive Director of its Division of Standards, testified by way of expert opinion that he had considered transferring Respondent to a non-Chapter One school but decided against it because the nature of the assessment system used by Dade County is a measurement of basic teaching skills and is not a measurement of only specialized skills for Chapter One classes. Petitioner did not offer Respondent the opportunity to transfer to a different (Non- Chapter One) type of class. Dr. Patrick Gray further testified that in his opinion, Respondent's first grade class in 1983-1984 was deprived of a minimal educational experience. This opinion is accepted over Respondent's assertion that a promotion of the majority of her class to second grade demonstrates her competency as a teacher. Respondent's premise is rejected in part upon Dr. Hack's testimony that even the students' Stanford Achievement Test scores would not give an accurate picture of what Respondent had successfully taught because these scores measure only all accumulated knowledge from all sources throughout broad fields of knowledge up to a specific time in each child's life. The witnesses who testified for Petitioner established the Respondent was unable to properly teach the Chapter One students.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered ratifying Respondent's dismissal without pay and denying any claims for back-pay and benefits. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 17th day of December, 1985.
Findings Of Fact The facts which resulted in the filing of these administrative charges are not in great dispute. The Respondent, Henry Gooch, taught the class of Marriage and the Family during the summer term of 1975 at Santa Fe Community College. The college class schedule listed this course and indicated that the course included the weekend of July 12 and 13. Classes began around July 2, 1975, and Respondent informed the students that class attendance was required for this course, any student who missed over three classes would receive a "W" (for which a student does not receive a course credit), that the weekend experience would count as five class sessions, and that the course would, because of this weekend, terminate two weeks earlier than normal. Respondent Gooch stated that the weekend experience was a requirement for the course and that any student that did not attend would receive a grade of "W." At no time were any students given an indication of what was to take place during this required weekend "experience." The weekend experience took place on Little Lake Santa Fe outside Gainesville, Florida. One student advised the Respondent that because of religious reasons, she could not attend. This student did not attend the weekend experience and received a "W" for the course. Failure to get credit for this course caused this student not to graduate after the summer term and required her continuing attendance and enrollment at Santa Fe Community College. Students were permitted to bring their spouses to the weekend experience and several of them did. After the students arrived, the Respondent began a group discussion on the topic of public nudity. This discussion became very heated and apparently some of the students got the impression that nudity was part of the program for this weekend. Several of them, in fact, asked Mr. Gooch whether he intended to require nudity as part of the weekend experiences. Mr. Gooch assured them it was not. After this discussion had ended Mr. Gooch began what has been called "the machine game." Basically what happened is that one student was asked to come into the center of the room and imitate a machine. After this had begun, the other students were advised to join in by forming a circle or a line and to imitate the machine in unison. Each student was then asked to exchange pants with the student in front of then. At this time, at least one student found this activity to be extremely objectionable. Several other students did not participate in the exchange of clothing. One student, Ron Griffith, who found the activities objectionable, left the room and shortly thereafter left the weekend with his wife. The student Griffith eventually filed a formal complaint with the School Administration outlining his version of the activities of the weekend and his feelings that the Respondent's conduct was extremely unprofessional. This statement was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The Respondent stated that the factual allegations in that complaint are accurate. At least one other student left the weekend after the machine game had been completed and that student also received a "W." Shortly after student Griffith filed his formal complaint with the School Administration, the Respondent Gooch was suspended from teaching responsibilities at Santa Fe. This occurred on August 1, 1975. Another instructor took over the responsibilities for teaching Marriage and the Family and in that manner the course was completed. It is admitted that the school regulations regarding field trips was not complied with by the Respondent Gooch. A copy of the school regulations in the school policy manual had been assigned to Gooch as Department Coordinator. Mr. Gooch claims he was not aware of the field trip policy and would have complied with it had he known. For several students that did not attend the weekend trip or left before its completion and who received "W's" for their final grade, there was no real showing that an alternative requirement for course completion was made available to them. It is true that the Respondent Gooch testified he intended to give several of these students an opportunity to make up the missed time at this weekend, but whatever effort he put into this was certainly inadequate, particularly in light of the fact that his prior announcements would give any reasonable person the absolute impression that failure to participate and complete this weekend made the grade of "W" mandatory. There is certainly no question that the Respondent, Gooch, did violate provisions of the College Policy Manual. The pleadings filed in this case admit such did occur. The crucial issue is whether these were mere technical violations or whether the nature of the Respondent's conducts should be considered serious infractions. It is undisputed that the Respondent required the attendance of students in this course at this weekend experience. The charges filed on behalf of the college state that the students were coerced to attend this weekend. Perhaps coerced is not the most appropriate word to use, but it is certain attendance at this weekend was mandatory on a threat of receiving no credit for the course. It is also undisputed that the students were not given any indication of what to expect during this weekend. The Respondent should have known that his planned activities for this weekend would be objectionable or distasteful to at least some of the students in this class. Those students were given no choice or alternative course of study by which they could have received credit for this course as a substitute for this weekend experience. As a result, these students, as mentioned above, did not participate in the weekend experience and received a grade of "W" for the course of Marriage and the Family. The failure of these students to receive credit for this course was a direct result of the Respondent's not complying with school policy. Even though the Respondent advised the class the weekend experience was a mandatory requirement in time for the students to drop this course and add another one to receive required credit, that opportunity was not very meaningful without a better explanation of what was involved in the "weekend experience." The students could not be held responsible for having made a choice in this matter when they were uninformed as to what they were choosing. A student should not be subjected to requirements found to be personally distasteful without at least the sanction of the University and the informed consent of the student. In this case, neither occurred, as the school policy on field trips was not followed and the students were kept in total ignorance as to what the itinerary was for this weekend. The students who received a "W" grade cannot be said to have failed to meet the minimum requirements in this course when one of the announced requirements, the unapproved field trip, violated school policy. It must, therefore, be concluded the Respondent Henry Gooch did violate School Policy 1- 5.17 by causing several students to receive the grade of "W" for not participating in the weekend. Were it only that the weekend turned out to be less than completely successful, this matter might be dismissed as nothing more than exercise of poor judgement on the part of the Respondent that caused no real harm. However, the violation of school policy combined with this poor judgement caused several students to lose credit for the course and at least one not to graduate in time. The loss to the students cannot be replaced and the harm to them is real, not speculative. Therefore, it is recommended that the Respondent Gooch be found to have violated school policy, and suspended until the end of the Fall Quarter of 1975, thereupon to be returned to faculty Status on an annual contract status. Furthermore, he should not be considered for reinstatement on a continuing contract basis for one year and during this probationary period, not be eligible for pay adjustment. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of November, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. KENNETH G. OERTEL Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1975. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert P. Cates, Esquire Attorney for Respondent 635 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida Robert V. Bookman, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner 222 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Jack E. Ferrell, was a teacher at Parkway Junior High School (PJHS) in Miami, Florida. He holds Florida Teacher's certificate Number 107694 issued by petitioner, Department of Education, Education Practices Commission (Commission). The certificate was reissued in 1987 and covers the areas of health education, physical education and mathematics. With the exception of a short break in the 1960s, respondent has been a teacher in Dade County, Florida since 1959. He taught at PJHS from school year 1967-68 until January 10, 1986 when he was reassigned to administrative duties at a Dade County School Board area office. The school has a racial composition of at least ninety percent black students. On February 18, 1986, Ferrell retired rather than face disciplinary action by the Dade County School Board which might have culminated in his dismissal and loss of retirement benefits. As a condition of accepting his resignation, the School Board stipulated that Ferrell would not be rehired by that school district. At the same time, the charges which prompted his retirement were referred to the Commission. On November 10, 1987, or some twenty-one months later, an administrative complaint was issued against Ferrell charging him with various violations of general law and agency rules. As amended on March 8, 1988, the complaint alleges that Ferrell, who is white, (a) used excessive corporal punishment on a black student and called that student a "nigger" on December 20, 1985, (b) called a black student a "dummy, gorilla and nigger" on December 18, 1985, (c) showed unprofessional conduct at a parent-teacher conference on December 19, 1985, (d) failed to follow school policies and procedures, used unprofessional conduct and defied school personnel, all of which resulted in a letter of reprimand on April 15, 1985, (e) argued with a fellow teacher on June 5, 1984, (f) was guilty of direct insubordination by refusing to accept a student into his classroom on December 14, 1984, and (g) committed battery upon another teacher on April 23, 1982. 1/ These charges will be discussed separately hereinafter. The December 20 Incident On December 20, 1985 Ferrell was teaching a mathematics class when J.W., then a fourteen year old black student, was brought to his classroom by Mr. Robertson, a school security guard. The student had been caught skipping class earlier and was sent to Roy Scott, an administrative assistant, who gave a "shot" (paddling) to J.W. and several other students. When J.W. entered Ferrell's class, Ferrell asked him "What happened to you?" J.W., who was upset and teary eyed from his paddling, responded "I just got a shot." Ferrell replied "You should have been suspended." J.W. then said words to the effect "Don't worry about me," and went to his desk which was in the back corner of the classroom. Ferrell, who did not hear J.W.'s last remark, asked "What did you say?" When J.W. did not respond Ferrell went to the student's desk and lifted it slightly once or twice and again asked him to repeat his comment. J.W. would not respond and told Ferrell to leave him alone. Using both hands, Ferrell picked up J.W. by his shirt and asked him to repeat his comment. During the process of picking up J.W., Ferrell's hands ended up around the upper chest area or lower part of J.W.'s neck. J.W., who by now was angry and even more upset, tried to break loose but Ferrell pushed him against the wall resulting in J.W. accidentally bumping his head. After Ferrell asked J.W. what he intended to do, J.W. threatened to tell his mother but Ferrell replied that he didn't care. When J.W. again attempted to break away, Ferrell pushed him against the wall a second time. At that point, Ferrell thought he heard J.W.'s shirt tear and released the student. He told a security guard to take J.W. to the principal's office. He later gave J.W. a detention for coming to class without a book. Although at hearing J.W. claimed that Ferrell had called him a "nigger" and "boy," this contention is rejected since J.W. did not allege this in his initial statements and interviews, and nearby students who witnessed the event did not hear Ferrell use those words. 2/ After J.W. related the event to the school administrators, the administrators concluded that J.W. was "okay," and he was sent to his next class, a physical education class. During the interview, one of the school officials noted a small bump on the back of J.W.'s head where it had struck the wall and accordingly reported Ferrell to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for child abuse (excessive corporal punishment) However there is no evidence that formal charges were ever filed against Ferrell by the agency or state attorney. According to J.W., the bump "hurt" and stayed on his head for "about a week." However, he did not ask for nor was he given medical assistance for his injury. In a meeting later that day, Ferrell admitted to the assistant principal in charge of administration, Kenneth Jaworski, that he had pushed J.W. against the wall, that the child may have bumped his head, and that his hands may have slid up around J.W.'s throat area. At that time, Ferrell blamed the incident on a "wise" statement made by the student. In early January, 1986, or some two to three weeks later, school officials contacted J.W.'s mother and told her of the incident. According to school policy, a teacher should never place his hands on a student unless he is in fear of bodily harm from a student or unless a student is about to inflict bodily harm on another student. Since neither situation was present, Ferrell violated school policy. Had Ferrell considered J.W.'s conduct to be disruptive or defiant, Ferrell should have either referred him to the principal's office or contacted a security guard who would escort J.W. to the principal's office. These procedures are outlined in the faculty handbook, and Ferrell was aware of such policies. Finally, under School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D- 1.08 appropriate corporal punishment was considered to be paddling. If corporal punishment was justified, only two persons designated by the principal at PJHS were authorized to administer such punishment and then only under certain conditions prescribed within the rule. Ferrell was not one of the two designated hitters. At hearing, Ferrell contended that he was simply "restraining" J.W. when the student attempted to leave the room and that he did not physically pull the student up with his hands or deliberately shove his head against the wall. He did concede it was possible that J.W.'s head could have accidentally hit the wall during the confrontation. Ferrell strongly disagreed with the contention that his actions equated to excessive corporal punishment and characterized it instead as an effort on his part to restrain the student from leaving class. It was his contention that the definition of corporal punishment was vague but was generally interpreted only to be paddling. He also said his actions were necessary in order to maintain control and discipline in his classroom. The December 18 Incident During the first semester of school year 1985-86, N.W. was a twelve year old black student at PJHS enrolled in Ferrell's sixth period mathematics class. Around 7:00 a.m. on the morning of December 18, N.W. was standing with two other black female students outside the school building when Ferrell walked by on the way into his classroom. There may have been as many as ten or twenty other black students who were within hearing distance of Ferrell but the exact number, if any, is unknown. One of the students, S.W., called out to Ferrell "Do you have a brother named Fred?" Ferrell replied "No, do you have a brother named Dummy?" He also asked S.W. if she was in his class. The student then retorted "No, but you remind me of Fred Flintstone." Ferrell replied "You remind me of a nigger." The evidence is conflicting as to whether Ferrell used the word "gorilla" during the incident, but it is found he did not. N.W. told her mother of the incident that day. Even though she was extremely upset with Ferrell, the mother chose not to bring the matter up until after the Christmas holidays. On January 9, 1986 N.W.'s mother met with Ferrell and a counselor, who was also black, to discuss her daughter's poor grades and the name-calling incident that occurred on December 18, and to request that her daughter be transferred out of Ferrell's classroom. At the conference, Ferrell acknowledged to both N.W. and the counselor that he had used the word "nigger." However, he explained that he was from North Carolina, that the word was always used to describe blacks and that the term was not used in a derogatory sense. In a conference with the principal, Fred Damianos, Ferrell freely admitted he had used the word "nigger" in his exchange with the three black students but, as he had told the mother, stated the word was a common one in North Carolina and was not meant to be derogatory. The principal did not consider this to be justification for his conduct and had a letter of reprimand placed in Ferrell's file. At hearing, Ferrell agreed his use of the word showed a lack of good judgment and could have offended the students in question. Direct Insubordination On December 14, 1984 Ferrell sent N.C., a female student, to Jaworski's office for using profanity in class. She had already been sent out of class on several prior occasions for disciplinary reasons. Ferrell did not want her back in class until after a parent-teacher conference had been held. However, Jaworski was "extremely busy" at the time and sent her back to the classroom with a note requesting that Ferrell take her, and they would talk about the student's situation later on. When N.C. returned to his class, Ferrell refused to accept her and sent her back to Jaworski's office with a note saying he would not admit her. Jaworski considered Ferrell's refusal to accept N.C. to be in defiance of his authority and therefore direct insubordination. Jaworski explained that, under then-existing school procedures, if the student continued to be a disciplinary problem, Ferrell should have prepared another referral slip rather than simply refusing to accept her. Jaworski discussed the incident with Ferrell that afternoon and later placed a memorandum describing the matter in Ferrell's file. However, the memorandum did not constitute disciplinary action since Jaworski had no authority to discipline Ferrell. Ferrell considered N.C. to be a persistently disruptive student who had to be removed from the classroom. He also felt his conduct in the matter was consistent with the school's Code of Student Conduct which authorized a teacher to temporarily remove that type of student from the classroom, request a parent-teacher conference, and to send the student to a predesignated area determined by the school principal. In Ferrell's view, Jaworski overreacted to the situation and had failed to give consideration to all the facts before the memorandum was written. Angry Parent-Teacher Conference On December 19, 1985, Ferrell held a parent-teacher conference with a Mr. and Mrs. Sterling and a school counselor. The conference concerned the Sterlings' son, R.S., who had been a disciplinary problem in one of Ferrell's classes. The mother carried a small baby with her to the conference. The four (plus baby) met in the counselor's 8'x 10' office which was approximately twenty feet from Jaworski's office. After the meeting had been underway for some time, another administrator asked Jaworski to check out the loud voices emanating from the counselor's office. When Jaworski went over to see what was happening, he found what he considered to be a "heated" meeting taking place. He described Ferrell's tone of voice as being loud and aggressive. After a few minutes had passed, Ferrell stood up and, in an irritated manner, said words to the effect "I can't add anything else, I don't know what else to say" and departed the meeting. As Ferrell left, Mr. Sterling said he had heard that Ferrell was "prejudiced." Upon hearing this comment, Ferrell returned to the doorway and said "If you believe that, you're as immature as that baby." At that point Jaworski, who was still standing near the office, felt that there was going to be a physical confrontation between Ferrell and Mr. Sterling and placed his arm across the doorway to prevent Ferrell from entering the room. Ferrell then left the area. However, Ferrell did not "physically push" Jaworski as alleged in the complaint. At hearing Ferrell admitted the conference "did not go well" and that, at one point, he and Mr. Sterling may have been "trying to out talk the other." Ferrell's contention that he did not use "threatening" words at any time was corroborated by Jaworski. Ferrell also pointed out that between September 5, 1985 and January 10, 1986, he had twenty-six parent-teacher conferences and only this conference drew a complaint from administrators. Even so, Ferrell was cited for unprofessional conduct in a memorandum prepared by Damianos on January 9, 1986. Battery on a Teacher On April 23, 1982 Ferrell was involved in an altercation with another teacher named Bellis. The incident occurred around 9:00 a.m. that day when some students left Bellis' classroom and congregated in the hallway outside of Ferrell's classroom. Because this disturbed his class, Ferrell first complained to Bellis, who did nothing about the matter. Ferrell then complained to the principal (Mr. Hanna) A short time later, the three men met in the hallway in front of Ferrell's classroom and, when Bellis turned and began walking away, Ferrell grabbed his upper bicep and told Bellis to turn around and tell Hanna the truth about the situation. Because Ferrell had touched him, Bellis filed criminal battery charges against Ferrell. However, there is no evidence that Ferrell was ever prosecuted for this crime. Even so, Ferrell was administratively charged with battery by school administrators and was suspended from school without pay for ten days. Ferrell contends he accepted the punishment only because he was promised a reassignment to another school. The promised reassignment did not materialize. Failure to Follow School Policy, Etc. The complaint alleges that Ferrell was guilty of "tearing up three discipline referrals in front of (Damianos) during a fit of anger." In the spring of 1985, a new countywide school policy was implemented requiring teachers to contact the student's parents before referring the student to the principal's office for "minor infractions." This policy was explained to all PJHS teachers, including Ferrell, at a faculty meeting on March 26, 1983. However, Ferrell had referred three students to the principal's office during the week preceding the meeting without first making such parent contact. By March 27, Ferrell had contacted the three sets of parents, albeit after the referrals had already been sent to the principal's office. On March 27, Ferrell and Damianos met in the school cafeteria to discuss the three referrals and the need to follow the new procedure. When the meeting ended, Ferrell was "upset," but not in "a fit of anger," and as he walked out of the cafeteria, he tore up the referrals and threw them in the wastebasket. Damianos considered this to be "unprofessional conduct" and "immature" and Ferrell's way of showing the administration that he was "upset." Ferrell justified his tearing up the forms on the ground the forms were no longer necessary since they failed to comply with the new school directive. He added that he meant no disrespect towards Damianos. Ferrell admitted being late to his classroom a few times in the spring of 1985 due to heavy traffic and parent- teacher conferences that lasted beyond the school starting hour. He also acknowledged that he had told another teacher (Scott) that Jaworski was "fat and lazy." In hindsight, Ferrell realizes he may have been "a little off base" for doing so. Unfortunately for Ferrell, his comments were relayed to Jaworski. Ferrell was charged with having received a letter of reprimand dated April 15, 1985 for various matters, including those discussed in findings of fact 17-19. He was also placed on two weeks' prescription in May, 1985 and satisfactorily completed all conditions by the prescribed time. Other than Ferrell's admission of being late, calling Jaworski certain names, and tearing up the three referral forms, there was insufficient evidence to support findings concerning any other incidents which form the basis for the reprimand and prescription. Incident on May 4, 1984 The complaint charges that Ferrell and Bellis supposedly had another altercation on June 4, 1984 albeit one of a purely verbal nature. No specifics are of record, and Ferrell's contention that he was completely exonerated was not contradicted. Indeed, the assistant principal did not dispute this contention and admitted that Bellis was an "unusual" person who had a tendency to lie. Loss of Teacher Effectiveness According to the testimony of various administrators, Ferrell's conduct in its totality, if shown to be true, has resulted in the loss of his effectiveness as a teacher in the public school system. Ferrell's Case Ferrell contended that all allegations were either untrue or exaggerated. He suggested the School Board of Dade County began compiling a paper trail in 1984 in an effort to dismiss him. According to Ferrell, this began when Ferrell met with the area superintendent in July, 1984 after the second Bellis incident. The superintendent told him that if one more incident occurred, Ferrell was "through as a teacher in Dade County." Ferrell also attributed many of his problems to a personality conflict with Jaworski and Damianos. Ferrell admits that he is a strict disciplinarian in class and assigns a great deal of homework. As a result, he is unpopular with many students. Ferrell's reputation as a strict disciplinarian was corroborated by one administrator who described Ferrell's class discipline as "extremely good." Ferrell also describes himself as "blunt," "frank," "to the point," and "very firm" in dealing with students, parents and teachers. However, these characteristics have tended to cause strained relations with his counterparts. Except for the December 18, 1985 incident, Ferrell denies ever using derogatory terms during his lengthy school tenure. This was corroborated by Jaworski and Damianos to the extent that they had contact with Ferrell while they were at PJHS. Indeed, they stated that Ferrell never gave any prior hint of racial bias. Ferrell was also described as an adequate teacher in terms of teaching skills as evidenced by his continuous receipt of satisfactory annual evaluations during his tenure with the school system. Further attributes included his never being absent and a willingness to stay after regular school hours to tutor students. Finally, Ferrell was offered the opportunity by Damianos in both 1984 and 1985 to teach extra classes because of the principal's confidence in his capabilities. Ferrell has not taught since his retirement in February, 1986 but wishes to retain his teacher's certificate. He thinks revocation of his certificate is too harsh a penalty given his otherwise satisfactory twenty-five year tenure as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Jack E. Ferrell be found guilty of violating Subsections 231.28(1)(c), (f) and (h), Florida Statutes (1987), as more specifically discussed in the conclusions of law, and that his teaching certificate be suspended for three years retroactive to his date of retirement in February 1, 1986. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of May, 1988.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (2011), or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher certified by the State of Florida, holding Florida Educator’s Certificate 958493, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Exceptional Student Education (ESE), and Autism Spectrum Disorders, valid through June 30, 2014. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Bay County School District as an ESE teacher at Margaret K. Lewis Center (MKL Center). This is a second career for Respondent. She left a business and technology career to pursue a career in education, specifically working with students with special needs. Respondent obtained her Master’s degree and a special designation to work with special needs students. Respondent was motivated to pursue teaching special education students because she had an aunt with Down’s syndrome who had limited educational opportunities. Respondent taught at Oscar Patterson Elementary for the 2006-2007 school year, and then transferred to MKL Center beginning in the 2007-2008 school year. After Respondent received her state educational certification in autism spectrum disorders, she requested to be assigned to teach an ESE class beginning with the 2010-2011 school year. That year, she was voted as “Teacher of the Year” by her peers. The class to which Respondent was assigned was a challenging class. It was not unusual for students in this classroom to bite, kick, hit, pinch, and trip staff. During the 2010-2011 school year, the number of students was reduced from eight to four, and the number of paraprofessionals was increased from two to three. During the 2011-2012 school year, there were four students in her classroom: C.B., J.B., K.M., and D.C. One paraprofessional, Patricia Lewis, was assigned specifically to D.C. The other two paraprofessionals, Jennifer Shea Saulmon and Nancy Davis, worked with all of the children, and when able to, Patricia Lewis did as well. Ms. Davis, Ms. Saulmon, and Ms. Lewis have seven, fourteen and twenty-seven years of experience, respectively. C.B. had a severe mental disability with a limited ability to comprehend verbal communications and a limited ability to communicate. C.B.’s communication involved single words, sounds, and gestures. He could discern the speaker’s mood, but might not fully understand the content of what was said. For example, C.B. might not understand that someone was saying hello, but would understand that the speaker was friendly towards him. C.B. also had problematic behaviors including biting, pinching, scratching, and hitting. C.B. had an awkward gait and wore ankle orthotics (AFO’s), a type of plastic brace, over his shoe and lower leg to provide stability from the foot to the leg, and to assist in improving his ability to walk. C.B. was ten years old. J.B. was approximately 11 years old in January 2012, and was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. He also had a limited ability to communicate using single words, sounds and utterances, and gestures. J.B. also used an iPad to communicate. Over time, someone working with J.B. would develop a greater ability to understand and communicate with him. J.B.’s difficult behaviors included spitting, hitting, kicking, and pinching. K.M. was 11 in January 2012. K.M. was diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, and had previously suffered a stroke which limited her use of one arm. She also had significant intellectual limitations. However, K.M.’s ability to communicate was greater than the other members of the class, and she could understand verbal communications. In addition, K.M. was more independent than her classmates, and was a risk for elopement from both the classroom and the campus. As stated by one of the paraprofessionals, K.M. “was a runner.” By all accounts, K.M.’s behaviors were consistently disruptive, and managing her in a classroom took a significant effort. D.C. was also 11 in January 2012. D.C. was diagnosed as autistic and engaged in repeated self-injurious behaviors. When upset, D.C. would repeatedly strike himself in the head and face, and he often wore a football helmet as a protective measure. D.C. was very strong, and attempts to prevent him from hurting himself could often result in staff members being hurt. There was testimony at hearing that his behavior plan addressed how many he times he was allowed to hit himself or how long he was allowed to hit himself without intervention. However, the behavior plan for D.C. was not in evidence. A portion of the classroom was designed specifically for D.C., with padded walls and a padded floor, in light of D.C.’s tendency to hit his head against hard surfaces as well. He had some beads that he played with that sometimes calmed him. At some point during the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began to show signs that the stresses of her very challenging classroom were having an effect on her. After the Christmas break, her stress seemed to have intensified. Respondent was having trouble sleeping, suffered from high blood pressure and pain from injuries sustained in the classroom, and was experiencing some depression. Respondent began to “self- medicate” with alcohol at night. There was no credible evidence that Respondent ever drank during the day or was under the influence of alcohol during work hours. At the end of the school day on January 30, 2012, Ms. Lewis approached assistant principal Elizabeth Swedlund to voice some concerns about Respondent’s behavior in the classroom. Ms. Lewis related some events that had occurred in the classroom that day, as well as some general concerns regarding treatment of the students in the classroom. She voiced the following concerns: that Respondent took away D.C.’s beads and would allow him to hit himself for a period of time longer than allowed by his treatment plan; that she made statements to K.M. such as “I could kill you” or “go play in the street”; and that she hit C.B. with a closed hand and kicked him while working in “circle time.” On January 31, 2012, Ms. Swedlund notified her principal, Britt Smith, of the conversation with Ms. Lewis. She decided to speak with the other paraprofessionals in the classroom and after doing so, to report the information to the abuse registry. Principal Smith notified Sharon Michalik, the District’s Executive Director of Human Resources, of the issue with respect to Respondent. As a result, Mike Jones, Chief of Safety, initiated an investigation. Mike Jones visited the campus the following day. All three paraprofessionals were interviewed and asked to provide written statements. He took Respondent for a drug and urine test, which came back negative. On Friday, February 3, 2012, Respondent was notified to meet with Ms. Michalik and other administrators to review the allegations. After this meeting, Respondent was suspended with pay, and the School District planned to proceed with a recommendation for termination. However, instead the parties entered an agreement executed on March 30, 2012, through which Respondent would take a medical leave of absence and would only be allowed to return to a position with the School District if she was found fit for duty. If she returned, she would be required to submit to random drug and alcohol testing. On March 30, 2012, the Department of Children and Families issued a letter to Respondent stating that it found no indicators of physical injury and no indicators of bizarre punishment. On April 27, 2012, Respondent was evaluated by psychologist David J. Smith who opined that at that time, she was not fit for duty. She was re-evaluated on July 26, 2012, and cleared to return to work. At that time, she was assigned to a different school. One of the issues raised by Ms. Lewis was that Respondent permitted D.C. to hit himself more frequently than allowed by his behavior plan. The Administrative Complaint specifically charges that she allowed D.C. to hit himself repeatedly for up to ten minutes, while his behavior plan indicated that he should be allowed to hit himself up to three times. The behavior plan was not entered into evidence. The evidence was unclear as to what the plan actually required, and it was equally unclear exactly what Respondent was doing. For example, there was testimony that she would attempt to redirect him once he started hitting himself, but did not physically intervene for ten minutes. There was other testimony that there was never a time when he was allowed to simply hit himself with no one doing anything. Without being able to examine the behavior plan, and without being able to specify the exact incident or incidents at issue, it is not possible to determine whether Respondent was varying from the requirements of the behavior plan, or if any variation was significant. Ms. Davis reported to Ms. Swedlund that on or about Friday, January 27, 2012, J.B. was in time-out because of bad behaviors. While he was in time-out, he was sitting behind a rolling partition, and Respondent was holding the partition in place so that J.B. would have to remain in place. J.B. spat at Respondent, which is something he did often. Ms. Davis reported that while holding the partition Respondent spat back at him, an action that shocked Ms. Davis. Respondent denies ever spitting on J.B. She testified via deposition that J.B. was spitting while in time-out, and she was holding the barrier while talking to him. She responded to his behavior by saying “you do not spit.” Respondent testified that it was possible that some spittle may have fallen on J.B., but that she never intentionally spit on him. The only person who testified regarding the spitting was Ms. Davis. While she was a very credible witness, there was no testimony regarding how close she was to Ms. Henson or to J.B., or that J.B. reacted in any way. Neither of the other paraprofessionals in the room testified that they saw or heard about the incident, and it is implausible to think that such behavior would go without comment. It is conceivable that in saying, “you do not spit,” that spittle would result. Given the high burden of proof for this proceeding, the allegation has not been proven by clear and convincing evidence. As previously stated, K.M. presented a classroom management problem. She had a tendency to run around the classroom, take her clothes off, or run out of the classroom and sometimes out of the building. She also would tear up items in the classroom and could be very disruptive. Ms. Lewis felt that Respondent had a hard time getting past her dislike of the child. She had heard her say things like, “I could just kill you right now,” and “go ahead and go into the street.” While Ms. Lewis believed K.M. could understand such statements, she did not react to them, except perhaps to run faster. Ms. Lewis did not believe that Ms. Henson was serious when she made the statements, but more likely made them when frustrated by K.M.’s behavior. Respondent did not recall ever making such statements. Neither Ms. Lewis nor the Administrative Complaint identified exactly when Respondent was to have made these statements, although Ms. Lewis specified that they were statements made at different times. While Ms. Lewis testified that she believed Respondent did not like K.M., it is just as likely that she did not dislike the child, but was extremely frustrated by her behavior. All of the paraprofessionals testified that Respondent truly loved the children she worked with, but that she was frustrated and overwhelmed in the very challenging classroom in which she taught. While the evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent made the statements, even Ms. Lewis testified that she did not believe Respondent was serious when she made them. Regardless, the statements were not appropriate statements to make to a child, especially a child with limited intellectual abilities that might not be able to discern whether Respondent was serious. They are, by their nature, disparaging statements. Finally, the incident which caused Ms. Lewis to approach Ms. Swedlund about Respondent involved Respondent’s reactions to C.B. C.B. liked to work on the computer. He would play computer games, such as Dora the Explorer, and was rewarded with computer time for good behavior and finishing all of his assigned work. On Friday, January 27, 2012, C.B. had a rough day, and had been hitting, pinching, and kicking staff. Respondent had spoken with his mother about his behaviors to see if there had been any changes at home that might have contributed to his aggressive behavior. Respondent had told C.B.’s mother that they would have to try some different methods to get C.B. to comply, and that his playing on the computer all day would have to stop. The paraprofessionals testified that on Monday, January 30, 2012, Respondent seemed agitated all day. One said she seemed to carry the frustrations of Friday into Monday. That morning Jennifer Shea Saulmon went to the cafeteria to pick up C.B., who had walked from the parent pickup area without incident, and seemed to be in a good mood. When they reached the classroom, C.B. went straight to the computers. Respondent immediately told him that he could not have computer time. Ms. Saulmon was upset by this, because C.B. had not misbehaved that morning. She questioned Ms. Henson’s decision, and Respondent responded that he could not play on the computer all the time. He then completed his morning work without any disruption, and then walked over to the computers. Ms. Saulmon told him he could not play on the computer at that time. At about 9:15 a.m., the class began “circle time.” During this time, the students sit on the outside of a u-shaped table while Respondent sits on the inside of the “u.” C.B. did not like circle time. On this particular day, he was sitting at the end of the u-shaped table, to Respondent’s left. He began, as he often did, to hit and bite. According to Ms. Saulmon, this behavior usually subsides after about five minutes. This day, however, it did not. C.B. continued to pinch and hit Respondent. In response, Respondent put her arm up with a closed hand (so that the child could not pull and bend back a finger) in a blocking motion, as the teachers and paraprofessionals had been taught to do in order to protect themselves. She said out loud, “I’m blocking, I’m blocking.” However, rather than simply holding her arm up to block against any blows, she would swing her arm toward him to stop the blow, and in doing so, made contact with his arm. Although to Ms. Davis it looked like Respondent was hitting him, she never thought Respondent was trying to hurt C.B. Each time Respondent blocked C.B., he pinched her again, and she blocked him again, which made him angrier. He then started kicking her, and Ms. Davis and Ms. Saulmon believed she kicked him back. However, neither paraprofessional could say that Respondent actually made contact with C.B. They were pretty certain that C.B. was kicking Respondent, and they could see movement toward him by Respondent, and C.B. responded angrily by squealing as he usually did when frustrated or angry. It is just as likely that Respondent was using her leg or foot to try to block C.B.’s kicks, as she stated in her deposition, and that C.B. was angry because she was blocking him. Nonetheless, Respondent’s clear agitation in the classroom that day led to Ms. Lewis’ conversation with Ms. Swedlund about Respondent’s behavior. While all of the paraprofessionals stated concerns about Ms. Henson’s ability to handle that particular class, all were very supportive of her continuing to teach in the special education area. All three seemed to think that the environment of that particular class, which by any measure would be extremely challenging, is one that overwhelmed Respondent, and that she had been in that setting too long. When Respondent returned to work at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, she was transferred to Beach Elementary School. The principal at the new school is Glenda Nouskhajian. Ms. Nouskhajian considers Respondent to be one of her lead teachers in the ESE department, and has no performance- related concerns about her. The only issue Respondent has had since coming to Beach Elementary was a minor paper-work issue related to transferring schools within the district. Respondent is not working in a stand-alone classroom like she was before. She is what Ms. Nouskhajian referred to as a “push-in,” meaning that she goes into other teachers’ classrooms and works with students in small groups in an inclusion setting. She works with the lowest quartile of students, and helps with all of these students’ interventions. Ms. Nouskhajian testified that the students with whom Respondent works are making “great strides,” and Respondent is an educator she would “absolutely” seek to retain. Ms. Nouskhajian knew that there was an issue at Respondent’s prior school, but did not investigate the details. She stated that Respondent had been placed at Beach Elementary by Sharon Michalik, and “I knew that if she was a danger to students, Sharon Michalik would not have placed her at my school . . . . That she went through the counseling and everything she had to do so when she came to my school it was a total fresh start.” Since coming to Beach Elementary, Respondent’s evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was overall effective, with all categories rated as effective or highly effective. In sum, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made inappropriate remarks to student K.M. There is not clear and convincing evidence that Respondent spat on J.B., or that she hit or kicked C.B. Likewise, there is not clear and convincing evidence that she varied significantly from D.C.’s behavioral plan or acted in a way that allowed him to hurt himself. There is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was frustrated and overwhelmed in the autistic classroom and, despite having asked for the assignment, had been teaching in that environment for too long to be effective, given the violent tendencies of the children in that setting. There is clear and convincing evidence that she took a leave of absence in lieu of termination and could only return to the classroom after an evaluation found her fit for duty. A change of setting was needed and has served to re-invigorate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent has violated rule 6A- 10.081(3)(e). It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded and placed on probation for a period of two years, subject to such terms and conditions as the Commission in its discretion may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder PA 387 Lakeside Drive Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Milton Aaron Wetherington, holds Florida teacher's certificate number 035136 issued by the State Department of Education covering the areas of physical education, history and administration/supervision. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1991. This proceeding involves an administrative complaint filed against Wetherington by petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education. The complaint stems from various complaints lodged with the Volusia County School Board by several students and parents who alleged that Wetherington engaged or attempted to engage in improper relationships of a romantic nature with female high school students assigned to his classes. The filing of the administrative complaint precipitated the instant action. Wetherington, who is 57 years old, has been a teacher for some twenty seven years, the last seventeen in the Volusia County school system. From 1975 until 1984 Wetherington was a teacher at Spruce Creek School in Port Orange, Florida. Because of the pending disciplinary proceeding, he was reassigned to a non-instructional position as an assistant manager of purchasing and property for school year 1984-85. However, after the charges came to light in early 1984, Wetherington was allowed to continue as a teacher for the remainder of the school year, and was a chaperone on the senior class trip to Walt Disney World. In his twenty seven years of teaching, he has had no prior disciplinary action taken against him. In school year 1983-84 Wetherington taught a political systems course to first semester seniors. Two of his students were Lisa and Tammy, both seventeen years of age at the time, and the best of friends. Seven of the specific charges in the complaint involve respondent's relationship with Lisa, and to a lesser extent, Tammy. Lisa lived at home with her mother and step father for a part of her senior year. Because of problems with her stepfather, who beat her, she moved out at the end of January, 1984, to live with a girlfriend. She was involved with drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, and was experiencing financial problems. Lisa needed a social studies course to graduate, and transferred into Wetherington's class about two weeks after the semester started. She had not met or known Wetherington prior to that time. Wetherington immediately took a special interest in Lisa, and selected her to assist him during office hours with grading papers and the like. Lisa spotted an opportunity to take advantage of the situation, and began cultivating the relationship in an assiduous manner. Her testimony reveals she had two goals in mind: to obtain money from Wetherington and to get a good grade without studying. She also saw the opportunity to get her friend Tammy a good grade since she had access to Wetherington's grade book. The relationship was non-sexual, and all parties agree that Wetherington made no sexual advances or demands upon Lisa. One evening during the fall of 1983, Wetherington asked Lisa if she and Tammy wanted to get a pizza after a football game. Lisa agreed and Wetherington gave her $20 to purchase the food. The three met briefly in separate cars at a local Pizza Hut, but after the girls saw other students there, they all drove in Wetherington's car to the Breakers Restaurant and Lounge, an establishment in New Smyrna Beach. They arrived around 12:45 a.m. or so, and after being seated in a booth next to the stage on which a band was playing, they placed an order for pizza. Because of the lateness of the hour, the waitress informed there the kitchen had closed. They then departed the premises and returned to Daytona Beach where all went their separate ways. The two girls claimed Wetherington purchased them an alcoholic drink at the Breakers, but a member of the band, who happened to be a teaching colleague of Wetherington disputed this and observed the three had no drinks during their five to seven minute stay at the restaurant. His testimony is deemed to be more credible and it is found respondent did not "purchase alcoholic beverages for both students" as alleged in the administrative complaint. At some point in the first semester, Wetherington gave Lisa a key to his house in Holly Hill where he lives alone. According to respondent, he did so since he wanted Lisa to have a place to go in the event she suffered a beating from her stepfather. Lisa visited his house approximately five times in the company of a girlfriend when Wetherington was home, and an undisclosed number of times when he was not at home. One of Wetherington's sons lives at Bunnell, and visited his father regularly. The son kept a stash of marijuana at the house which the son used when he visited. Wetherington acknowledged that this was true, but maintained he did not know where it was hidden at the time. Indeed, he claimed he never used drugs himself, and objected to their use by other persons. Wetherington gave Lisa instructions to use the key only when she had problems with her stepfather, but Lisa ignored these instructions. While at Wetherington's home, she used both alcohol and marijuana on at least one occasion in his presence. The alcohol (wine) was taken from Wetherington's refrigerator while the marijuana was either brought onto the premises by Lisa, or came from the son's hidden stash. 1/ There is no credible evidence that Wetherington himself used "marijuana and alcohol at his residence with female students" as charged in the complaint. During the school year, Wetherington gave Lisa a friendship ring valued at $12, some $500 in cash, between $400 and $500 worth of clothes, and lent her an Amoco gasoline credit card for gasoline purchases to get her to and from the part-time job she held. Lisa charged some $120 worth of gasoline on the card as well as $247 in auto repairs. With her mother's consent, and after clearing it with the school principal, he also paid Lisa's mother $500 for the equity in Lisa's car, transferred the title to his own name, and financed it with a Miami bank. Lisa got to use the car with the understanding that she would pay him $125 a month, which was Wetherington's obligation on the bank note. Wetherington considered all this to be a "loan," and kept a book detailing the total amount advanced to Lisa. As a part of the social studies course, Wetherington required each student to prepare a term paper. Wetherington gave fourteen students, including Lisa and Tammy, copies of term papers written in the prior year with instructions to use them as a "format" or "guideline" in preparing their own. Lisa and Tammy simply changed the title page, and turned the papers back in as if they were their own. They each received a grade of 25, which was the highest grade in the class. Lisa claimed she simply did what Wetherington told her to do, and Tammy corroborated this claim. Although Wetherington was negligent in failing to detect that the papers turned in by Lisa and Tammy were identical to those previously given them to be used as a "formats" the evidence does not support a finding that Wetherington gave them the papers for the purpose of evading any academic requirements. The final charge concerning Lisa and Tammy is that Wetherington "[o]n at least one occasion kissed and hugged a female student." This charge apparently stems from Wetherington kissing Lisa on the cheek one day and giving her a paternal hug. Wetherington does not deny this, but contends it was not romantic in nature but done in a fatherly way. Wendy was a seventeen year old senior at Spruce Creek High School in school year 1983-94. She is the source of some four separate charges against respondent in the administrative complaint. Wetherington approached her at the beginning of the year and asked if she wanted to be his teacher's aide. She said yes, and he accordingly rearranged her schedule so that she worked in his office or classroom during first period as an aide, and was a student in his social studies class the following period. During the first nine weeks, Wetherington gave Wendy two rings, one for her birthday and the other to simply keep till the end of the school year. He also gave her $230 in cash over this period of time. He kept a log detailing each amount of money given to her, and considered the payments to be a loan. While working in Wetherington's classroom one day, Wendy walked by Wetherington who pulled her onto his lap and began rubbing her upper thigh. He also approached her one day in his office and put his arms around her waist and pulled her towards him. After she told him, "I don't want this," he released her. She then pulled away and claimed she immediately reported the incident to the principal. The principal could not recall such a conversation. The next day Wetherington apologized to her in his office, but he then turned off the lights in the room and began hugging her. She pushed him away and ran out of the room. Although Wendy again claimed that she immediately reported the incident to the school principal, the principal could not recall such a meeting. In any event, Wendy went to her parents, disclosed the various incidents and gave them the two rings given to her by Wetherington. The parents were understandably irate, and went to the principal demanding that Wendy be transferred out of Wetherington's class. A meeting was held by the principal, with Wetherington and the two parents in attendance. At the meeting Wetherington simply acknowledged that he admired Wendy very much, that she was a good student, and that the cash given to her ($230) was a loan for car payments and voice lessons because he trusted her. However, Wendy does not own a car, and her another paid for all voice lessons. Moreover, her father is a physician who has provided well for his family. The mother then wrote Wetherington a check for $230 to repay the "loan." Wendy was also transferred out of respondent's class. Wendy acknowledged that she "took advantage" of Wetherington, and characterized their relationship as simply a friendship. In a note written to him in a school yearbook at the end of the year, she apologized for "putting (him) through hell" and wished she "could erase it all." Wetherington denied any romantic involvement with Wendy, and acknowledged only that he had kissed her twice on the cheek, once at a football game and another time outside his house. He attributes Wendy's story to emotional problems she was experiencing that fall caused by her relationship with a married man. Wetherington portrayed himself as a teacher genuinely interested in his students. He estimated he has given financial aid in the form of loans and gifts to students over the years in excess of $10,000. Because he has raised seven children of his own, he vigorously denied having any illicit or sinister purpose in his dealings with Lisa and Wendy. Instead, he contended he was merely helping them overcome personal and financial problems so that they would be better persons after graduation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found GUILTY of violating Rules 6B- 1.06(3)(a) and (e), and Subsection 231.28(1)(c), as set out more specifically in the Conclusions of Law portion of this order. All other charges should be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent be placed on probation for three years and that he be retained by the school board during his probationary period only as a non- instructional employee. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 22nd day of January, 1985.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates, as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. (2017). Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2017). Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 880641, covering the areas of Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, Physical Education, Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education (ESE), which is valid through June 30, 2022. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an ESE teacher at GHS in the Alachua County School District. Respondent began his teaching career at GHS in 2002 teaching ESE classes. The incident that forms the basis for this proceeding occurred on May 12, 2016, during the 2015-2016 school year. Teachers employed by the Alachua County School Board are subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Alachua County School Board and the Alachua County Education Association, the local teachers’ union. Article IX, Section 21(a), of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which was in effect during the 2015-2016 school year, provides that: Subject to the approval of the principal or his designee, a teacher may leave the campus of his particular school if appropriate arrangements are made to insure that students are not left unsupervised. Approval is required for each circumstance or situation. The principal or his designee will not unreasonably deny such a request. A teacher will use this privilege only in unusual circumstances. At the beginning of each school year, before students report, a faculty pre-planning meeting is held at GHS to go over information provided by the school district. Supervision of students is among the topics of discussion, and teachers are advised that they are not to leave students unsupervised in their classrooms. The reason for the instruction is obvious -- GHS, being responsible for the safety of its students, should take all reasonable measures to ensure their safety on campus. In addition to the instruction provided at the pre- planning meeting, GHS sent periodic emails to teachers throughout the year reiterating that students were not to be left unsupervised in classrooms. On April 5, 2016, an email was sent directed to the general problem of unsupervised students “walking around A, B, and C hallways” during the lunch periods. The email noted that some teachers allowed students to come to their classrooms during the lunch period for mentoring, which was recognized as a laudable activity. One teacher responded the next day expressing appreciation for the reminder, noting that “[t]here are students all over upstairs in A & B wings. They also hang out in the stairwells, especially on the West end.” On April 7, 2016, Mr. Shelnutt sent an email to all teachers reiterating that it was “fantastic” that teachers allowed students in their classrooms during the lunch period, but that students were not to be “roaming around.” The email emphasized that “if you chose to allow students in your classroom during your lunch, you are assuming responsibility for supervising them.”2/ During the lunch shifts, school employees were routinely stationed in areas where general education students were allowed to eat lunch in order to provide adult supervision while their teachers took their 30-minute lunch break. As will be described herein, ESE students were subject to a different lunchtime regimen. During the 2015–16 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach a self-contained class of 4 to 7 students with intellectual disabilities. The “self-contained” setting means that students generally remained in the Gaines building on the GHS campus with other students with disabilities. Respondent’s students were intellectually disabled, but functioned at a higher level than their ESE peers in other classrooms, who had more severe disabilities. Respondent’s students identified more with general education students, and were much more likely to interact with general education students than with those in the other ESE classrooms.3/ The Gaines building was a “community of classrooms,” in that a teacher could request and receive assistance from teachers or paraprofessionals in the other two classrooms in the building. The ESE classrooms surround a small courtyard at the Gaines building. The courtyard has a table and seating, and students would most often sit there to eat their lunch. One of the three ESE teachers usually oversaw the courtyard, and the courtyard could be seen from the ESE classroom windows. There is also a basketball court and track behind the Gaines building, which were occasionally used by ESE students before and after school, and during lunch period. The school day at GHS has six periods. Respondent taught ESE students for five of the six daily periods. During the period when Respondent’s ESE students were at their P.E. class, Respondent was assigned to teach a general education history class. Mr. Shelnutt indicated that “[e]very teacher [at GHS] should have a 30-minute duty free lunch in addition to a planning period.” Mr. DeLucas testified that Respondent was in “a very unique situation. The other self-contained rooms had multiple paraprofessionals. He did not have multiple paraprofessionals.”4/ Consequently, Respondent was the only teacher in his classroom and was assigned students every period of the school day with no planning period. Because of the circumstances, if it became necessary for Respondent to leave the classroom, he would ask one of the teachers or paraprofessionals from the other ESE classrooms to watch his class. Unlike the situation that was the subject of the April 5, 2017 and April 7, 2017, emails referenced above, which appears to describe a general education student lunch period, ESE “self-contained” students were allowed to get their lunches and then return to their classrooms, to avoid the crowds and the lines. It was apparently not uncommon for special needs students to go to the cafeteria during the 20-minute break between the end of A-Lunch at around 11:55 a.m. and the beginning of B-Lunch at 12:15 p.m. when there is not a standard lunch shift. Respondent’s only break in the school day was during his students’ lunch period, from 12:15 p.m. to 12:45 p.m. Since ESE students typically had lunch in the Gaines building courtyard or their classrooms, even Respondent’s “duty free lunch” was not free of duties. On May 12, 2016, Respondent released his students -- which on that day were only B.S., B.H., and N.C. -- around 12:05 p.m. to get lunch from the cafeteria. Respondent’s students had been watching a movie, and wanted to finish the movie during the lunch period. Respondent agreed to let the students return to his classroom to finish watching the movie. Before the students returned to the classroom, Respondent received a telephone call from the baseball booster club president regarding an upcoming banquet. When the students returned to the classroom, Respondent continued the telephone call outside. When Respondent ended the telephone call, he realized that the lunch period was “counting down.” Respondent left the Gaines Building, with the students unattended in his classroom, and drove to a sandwich shop several blocks away. There was no explanation as to why Respondent did not ask one of the other ESE teachers or paraprofessionals to watch his classroom. During Respondent’s absence from the classroom, another of Respondent’s students, J.H., entered the classroom and saw male ESE student, B.S., emerging from a storage closet in Respondent’s classroom, and thereafter discovered female ESE student, B.H., in the closet crying. J.H. went to the office and told Ms. Conyers what he had seen. Ms. Conyers radioed for a dean or an administrator to report to Respondent’s classroom. Ms. Gantt and Mr. Bauer arrived at the classroom at about the same time. Ms. Gantt questioned B.H. as to what had happened, and Mr. Bauer went to the nearby basketball court where B.S. had been reported to have gone. B.H. and B.S. were taken to the Dean’s office for questioning. At some point after Ms. Gantt and Mr. Bauer arrived at Respondent’s classroom, and approximately 15 minutes after his departure from campus, Respondent returned from the sandwich shop. There was considerable evidence devoted to the events that occurred in Respondent’s classroom closet during his absence. All of the evidence was hearsay. However, what was established (and agreed upon) is this: On May 12, 2016, while Respondent was absent from his classroom, during which time students were left unsupervised in the classroom, an event occurred that was of sufficient severity that the police were called in, that the police conducted an investigation, and that the police ultimately completed a sworn complaint charging B.S. with lewd and lascivious molestation of B.H. Alachua County Public Schools charged Respondent with violating school board policies regarding student supervision, specifically a policy that required teachers to obtain the permission of the school principal before leaving school campus, and recommended his termination from employment. Respondent contested the recommendation of termination. On February 16, 2017, the Alachua County School Board, the Alachua County Education Association, and Respondent executed a settlement agreement, providing that: (1) the superintendent would rescind the recommendation for Respondent’s termination; (2) Respondent would take an unpaid leave of absence beginning March 1, 2017, until June 6, 2017; Respondent would agree to complete Safe Schools online training regarding classroom supervision and school safety; and upon completion of the Safe Schools training, Respondent would be returned to paid status as an employee of Alachua County Schools. Respondent fulfilled the terms of the settlement agreement and, with regard to the Safe Schools training, exceeded the required courses. For the 2017–2018 school year, Respondent has been assigned as a P.E. teacher at the Sidney Lanier Center, a K-12 public school in Alachua County. Sidney Lanier is a specialized school for ESE students. The principal of Sidney Lanier was aware of the events of May 12, 2016, when Respondent was assigned. It should be acknowledged that Respondent taught ESE classes at GHS for 14 years without incident. He had no prior discipline and received uniformly good evaluations. He was well regarded as a teacher and a coach, and was generally acknowledged to have had a positive impact on students’ lives. Respondent expressed genuine remorse about leaving students unattended in his classroom, and credibly testified that he would never again do so. The incident did not involve Respondent denigrating or disparaging students, or improperly or abusively making physical contact with students. Nonetheless, Respondent violated a clear and direct requirement that he not leave students unattended. Although he believed his students would not engage in the activity described, such action on the part of a high school student was certainly not unforeseeable. There was conflicting evidence as to whether B.H.’s mental health was actually affected by the incident. A preponderance of the evidence indicates that it had some negative effect. However, rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. “does not require evidence that Respondent actually harmed [a student]'s health or safety. Rather, it requires a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the student from such harm.” Gerard Robinson, as Comm’r of Educ. v. William Randall Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL, RO at 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2012; Fla. EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent, though without specific intent or malice, failed to make reasonable effort to protect his students from conditions harmful to their mental or physical health, or safety, pursuant to rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. It is further recommended that Respondent’s educator’s certificate be suspended for a period of 30 days, that he be issued a letter of reprimand, and that he be placed on probation for a period of two years following his suspension, which penalty is within the range of penalties established in rule 6B-11.007(2). DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 2017.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Lawrence Brennan, holds Florida teaching certificate number 250648, issued by the State Department of Education. The Respondent is certified in the area of English and his certificate is valid through June 30, 1988. The Respondent is a tenured teacher in the Duval County School System in which he has taught since September 8, 1969. The Respondent has taught at Paxon Junior High School since 1984-84, and has taught compensatory education in Paxon Junior High School during school years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Compensatory education is a special program for children with low test scores. Many of the students also have disciplinary problems. The Respondent received satisfactory evaluations for the last three full years of his employment, to include his years at Paxon. The Respondent was removed from the classroom and Paxon Junior High School following the altercation with a student on February 27, 1986, which gave rise to these charges. The Respondent is currently assigned to one of the media centers of the Department of Education in Duval County. The Respondent was informed in writing of the various requirements and responsibilities of teachers in the Duval County School System. Bresha Woods was a student of the Respondent's in November 1985. Ms. Woods had received six to eight referrals to the Principal's office through November 1985 for disrupting class and for not performing assigned duties. Subsequent to the incident described here, Woods was suspended and transferred to the Darnell Cookman Alternative School in March of the 1985-86 school year. On November 7, 1985, the Respondent told Woods to take her things and to go to the Principal's office for not doing her work and disrupting class. Woods delayed, slowly gathering her books, purse and other belongings. The Respondent approached Woods from the rear as she was at her desk, grasped her by the shoulders, pulled her to her feet alongside the desk, turned her toward the door of the classroom and told her to go to the school office. Woods' statement that she was "marked up" is not credible and the fact that she visited a physician on March 29, 1987, is not relevant because of the passage of time. No report of the physician's findings was offered. Woods' report to Atkinson that Respondent had choked her was contrary to Woods' sworn testimony. Atkinson accepted Woods' version of events as opposed to the explanation of Respondent. See T 179, 180. In January 1986, Delilah Elliott, a new student at Paxon, was late for class and cut across a grassy area between the wings of the classroom building which was closed to walking students. Between classes the Respondent was performing monitoring duties outside the classroom as do many of the teachers and staff and observed Ms. Elliott crossing the prohibited area. The Respondent called for Elliott to stop. Although Elliott heard the Respondent call for her to stop, she ignored him, attempting to go to her next class. The Respondent approached her, grabbed her by the shoulders to restrain her, and pushed her toward the sidewalk. She attempted to walk around him and continue on to her class. Elliott refused to tell the Respondent her name. The Respondent herded Elliott to the Principal's office, sometimes pushing her in the back when she stopped walking. Ms. Atkinson, the Assistant Principal in charge of disciplining girls, having seen the incident, followed the Respondent to the office. Atkinson told the Respondent not to be so physical with the children. The Respondent advised Atkinson that he knew what the rules were. Atkinson advised the Respondent that she would take care of the problem, and that he should return to class. Atkinson took no action against Elliott because, according to Atkinson, walking on the grass was not a referral offense. As the Respondent exited the office, Atkinson heard the Respondent say to Elliott, "You little tramp." The Respondent was frequently in physical contact with students in his class. Craig Monasco and Frank Lane were students in the Respondent's class. The Respondent grabbed their buttocks on several occasions when they were leaning over getting books. This practice, called "scooping" by the students, was a form of horse play engaged in by the students. The students were embarrassed by this. On other occasions, the Respondent pulled students out of their seats in the process of disciplining them within the classroom. Leopolean Spikes was a 13 year old black student in the Respondent's 7th grade comp. ed. English class. Spikes had a history of disruptive behavior in class and had been sent to the Principal's office several times during the school year. On February 26, 1986, Spikes was disruptive in class and the Respondent escorted him to the Principal's office. On this occasion, Spikes had refused to accept the referral, and Spikes said he was going to have his father come out and talk with the Respondent. The Respondent added Spikes' additional comments to the referral regarding Spikes' behavior and escorted Spikes to the Principal's office. Upon re-entering the class, the Respondent stated to the class that had Spikes hit him, the Respondent would have knocked him through the wall. The Principal gave Spikes an in-school suspension for his conduct of February 26, 1986. However, based upon the general school policy, a child with the number of referrals that Spikes had had would have been subject to general suspension. On February 27, 1986, Spikes reported to the Respondent's first period comp. ed. class. Spikes exhibited additional disruptive behavior during the class period of approximately 50 minutes in length. During this time, the Respondent warned Spikes on several occasions that he was going to refer him again if his behavior did not change. Shortly before the class was over, Spikes' continued disruptive conduct caused the Respondent to write a referral of Spikes to the Principal. The Respondent told Spikes to go to the Principal's office. Spikes delayed in getting his personal effects together to go to the Principal's office, and the Respondent went over to Spikes and told him to hurry up and leave the class. Spikes told the Respondent that he would not go to the Principal's office. At this point, a conflict exists in testimony regarding what occurred next. The one non-involved adult observer, Ms. Morkin, the co-teacher, stated that she observed six "acts" to the incident: (1) Spikes stood around reading the referral and not doing anything; (2) Respondent guided Spikes to the door by the shoulder; (3) Spikes ran around her desk to his own desk by the windows and wall; (4) Books were thrown in the direction of her desk from the vicinity of Spikes' desk; and (5) A struggle ensued between Spikes and Respondent, which came to an end with the Respondent kneeling next to Spikes and restraining Spikes on the floor. The various student witnesses had more dramatic versions of the incident, but one can trace the activity by its location. Their versions began with: (1) Spikes refused to go and told Respondent that he was not going to the office at or around Spikes' desk; (2) Spikes or Respondent threw books; (3) Spikes and Respondent fought in the area of the desk; (4) Spikes threatened Respondent with a desk; (5) Spikes and Respondent fought in the area of the wall and Spikes' head hit against the wall; and (6) The fight ended with Respondent pinning Spikes to the floor. The following findings are based upon a most credible evidence and testimony presented: The Respondent was standing in the aisle alongside Spikes' desk and between Spikes' desk and the front of the room where Ms. Morkin's desk was located. Spikes, when confronted by the Respondent and told to hurry, told Respondent he refused to go, and threw his books at Respondent, who was standing between Spikes and Morkin. Spikes adopted a combative stance and the Respondent grabbed Spikes' arms, fearing that Spikes was going to strike him. Spikes began to struggle and both Spikes and the Respondent fell to the floor. Respondent let go of Spikes and regained his feet and Spikes pulled himself to his feet using the back of a school desk which he raised in front of him and advanced toward the Respondent saying, "I'm going to hit you with this desk. See T-70. The Respondent pushed the desk out of the way, grabbed the writing portion of the desk, then grabbed Spikes and a second struggle ensued, during which Spikes hit the Respondent, who grabbed Spikes in a bear hug. Spikes and the Respondent were by the windowed wall of the classroom, and the Respondent attempted to pin Spikes against the windowed wall to stop his struggling and prevent Spikes from hitting him. In doing so, Spikes' head was banged against the window once. Spikes continued to hit the Respondent all this time. The Respondent and Spikes again fell to the floor where Spikes ceased fighting after Respondent pinned him down. After the struggle ceased, Ms. Morkin left to seek assistance as the Respondent requested. After he was at the office, a knot came up on Spikes' head. Spikes parents were called and they took Spikes to the emergency room where he underwent a complete examination, to include X-rays of his head. This examination revealed no abnormal findings except tenderness and swelling in the left occipital area of the head. Subsequent medical problems which Spikes has suffered were related to an injury to the right occipital area. No evidence of such an injury was revealed in the examination or reported by Spikes. See Petitioner's Exhibit The Respondent is approximately 6' tall and weighs approximately 200 pounds. Spikes is approximately 4'6" tall and weighs 72 pounds. Mr. Randolph and Ms. Atkinson, the persons in charge of disciplining children at the school, gave their opinions concerning the appropriateness of the Respondent's actions. In their opinion, the Respondent's actions were inappropriate. The record reflects that both Atkinson and Randolph had failed to apply the requisite disciplinary standards to students by taking action to remove them from the school system permanently, based upon continued disciplinary problems. Atkinson, who observed the Elliott incident, described the Respondent as "striking the student" and was of the opinion that a person who touches another person with their hand is striking the person. Mr. Larry Paulk, Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Affairs for the Duval County Schools, interviewed the Respondent after the altercation. To Paulk, the Respondent appeared hostile and was sarcastic in his dealings and approach to students. Paulk offered his opinion that the Respondent's conduct regarding discipline and leadership was inappropriate. The Respondent has attended psychiatric counseling for the past year to deal with his hostility and to improve his effectiveness as a teacher. There is no evidence of the Respondent receiving progressive discipline for prior acts involving physical contact with students, although he received several written reprimands for inappropriate conduct towards students to include physical conduct, language, and attitude. Mr. Randolph, the principal in charge of boys, advised that the school's solution for the removal of an unwilling child from class was to call the Principal. The Principal would come to the room and ask the student to come out of the classroom and, if the student refused, the Principal would then call a uniformed policeman who would arrest the child for trespassing. In Randolph's experience they had never had to take the final step of calling for a uniformed policeman.
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked based upon conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail, as contained in the Petition for Revocation filed by Petitioner on or about May 11, 1979. During the course of the hearing, Petitioner withdrew allegations B, E and J, which are set forth in the Petition. Pursuant to the Stipulation, the parties waived the thirty-day period prescribed in Subsection 120.56(3), Florida Statutes, requiring the undersigned to file a Recommended Order within the prescribed thirty-day period.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the legal memoranda submitted by counsel for the parties and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Respondent, Michael S. Park, has been employed by the Broward County School System as an instructor in art at Plantation High School since 1970. He was continuously employed until his suspension on April 19, 1979. Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 274996, Post Graduate, Rank III, valid through June 30, 1985, covering the areas of art and junior college. Respondent currently enjoys continuing contract status. While employed by the Broward County School System, Respondent taught several courses, including design, drawing, craft, sculpture and ceramics. Pursuant to a probable cause determination made by the Commissioner of Education on May 11, 1979, the Petitioner, pursuant to authority contained in Chapter 6A-4.37, Florida Administrative Code, filed a Petition seeking revocation of Respondent's teaching certificate based upon the following allegations: During the school year 1974-75, MICHAEL S. PARK locked a female student in his classroom office, presented her with a psychology magazine opened to an article on sex, and asked her if she had ever read such an article. During the school year 1977-78, MICHAEL PARK asked a female student to go 'bumming' with him and to meet him at the night spot, 'Crown', and telephoned the home of the same student stating that 'Mike' from Plantation was calling. During the school year 1977-78, MICHAEL PARK stated to a female art student that he knew for a fact that the she was going to bars for the purpose of meeting male teachers and eventually sleeping with male teachers. During the month of February, 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK asked a female student who was not under his supervision as a teacher to come to his office during the school day at which time MICHAEL S. PARK questioned the student about family and personal problems stating that he knew the only reason a certain boy took her out was to make love to her. Further, MICHAEL S. PARK asked this student whether or not she participated in or agreed with the practice of oral sex. During the spring of 1978, MICHAEL S. PARK hugged one or more female students, grabbed one female student from behind and pushed himself up against her buttocks. During the spring of 1978 and 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK pinched one or more female students on the buttocks on one or more occasions. During 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK pinched one or more female students on the breasts on one or more occasions. Based thereon, it is alleged that the Respondent violated Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and rules 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code. As such, the Petition concludes that the Respondent's alleged conduct seriously reduced his effectiveness as a school board employee. It is alleged in paragraph 1, subparagraph A. of the Petition that: During the school year 1974-75, MICHAEL S. PARK locked a female student in his classroom, presented her with a psychology magazine opened to an article on sex, and asked her if she had ever read such an article. The Respondent denied the allegation. Darlene Wilcox is the female student referred to in the allegation (TR 96-98). The thrust of student Wilcox's testimony is that Respondent invited her to stay after class one day and when her classmates left, he handed her a psychology magazine opened to an article on sex and asked her if she had ever read a magazine like that before (TR 97). Student Wilcox, who was a ninth-grade student of Respondent, testified that Respondent sat down across from her in a chair and asked her questions about how she was that day. They were interrupted by another student, whereupon Respondent immediately got up, opened the door, and told her he would see her in class the following day (TR 98). Respecting this allegation, the evidence reveals that it was impossible for Respondent to secure the lock on his classroom door from the inside, as alleged (TR 243-244 and 359). The evidence reveals that student Wilcox could have left the room by turning the doorknob. Student Wilcox told her parents about her encounter with Respondent, whereupon her parents replied that she should keep clear of Respondent and not be over-friendly with him. Paragraph C of the Petition alleges, in pertinent part, that: During the school year 1977-78, MICHAEL S. PARK asked a female student to go 'bumming' with him and to meet him at a night spot, 'Crown', and telephoned the home of the same student stating that 'Mike' from the Plantation was calling. The female student referred to in the above-described allegation is Cathy Weber. The evidence respecting the above allegation reveals that during the fall of 1977, while a twelfth-grade student, Cathy Weber, was at a local establishment called the "Crown" bar with other students one evening. Student Weber was not a student of Respondent, although Respondent joined Weber and a group of her friends and started conversing with her at the "Crown" bar. During the conversation, Respondent took student Weber's wrists, stated that he could read her mind and proceeded to tell her birth date. On another occasion, Respondent telephoned student Weber at her home although she declined to talk to him. Additionally, during late November or early December, Respondent entered Linda Whealin's class and asked permission from instructor Whealin to excuse Cathy Weber when she finished her work in order that she could help in the office. Ms. Whealin agreed, but Cathy testified that she was afraid of Respondent and, therefore, took as much time as she could to complete her work because of the "too personal attitude" the Respondent evidenced toward her. The matter was brought to the attention of the Principal and Assistant Principal, which resulted in a counselling of Respondent by the Principal. During these counselling sessions, Respondent admitted that he told student Weber that he could read minds; that he called student Weber at her home because she wanted to talk to him and that he had asked for her to help him inventory an art order. Respondent was warned of his conduct by school officials and advised to restrict his student contact to classroom situations. A summary of the warning is embodied in a memorandum dated December 5, 1977, which Respondent signed acknowledging that he had read the warning contained therein. Respondent also submitted a rebuttal reciting his version of circumstances involving the student (Petitioner's Exhibit 3 and the testimony of Respondent and witnesses Lawton, Weber, Whealin and Hanes). The Respondent acknowledged talking to student Weber at the Crown bar; however, he testified that he was merely attempting to joke with the student, rather than, as contended by Petitioner, to advance a sexual topic to achieve a lustful objective. Paragraph D of the Petition alleges, in pertinent part, that: During the school year 1977-78, MICHAEL S. PARK stated to a female student that he knew for a fact that she was going to bars for the purpose of meeting male teachers and eventually sleeping with male teachers. The student referred to in the above paragraph is Susan Clement. During the 1977-78 school year, student Susan Clement was a student of Respondent. Student Clement testified that during the school year, she smoked marijuana approximately three times a week and was sometimes under the influence of marijuana while attending classes. However, she testified that her ability or memory was not impaired and that she was able to concentrate in her art classes. She testified that on several occasions, Respondent grabbed her neck with his hand, pinched her buttocks, and pushed up against her buttocks with his body from behind while she was washing her hands at a sink in the classroom. Student Clement testified that Respondent told her that there were rumors going around that she was going to bars and meeting male teachers there. Following one of these incidents, student Clement complained to the school's Principal about Respondent's conduct. The Respondent denied making such statements to student Clement and testified further that Clement confided in him without any prompting on his part with respect to her relationship with males. Additionally, the Respondent urges that student Clement generally spoke to others about her personal life in an unguarded manner (testimony of Dan Van Fleet)(TR 134 and 236). Paragraph F of the Petition alleges that: During the month of February, 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK asked a female student, who was not under his supervision as a teacher, to come to his office during the school day at which time MICHAEL S. PARK questioned the student about family and personal problems stating that he knew the only reason a certain boy took her out was to make love to her. Further, MICHAEL S. PARK asked the student whether or not she participated in or agreed with the practice of oral sex. The student with whom the Respondent allegedly addressed the above remarks is Tammy DeCarlo. In this regard, the evidence reveals that the Respondent had four conversations with student DeCarlo. Respondent acknowledged that he initiated the first conversation with DeCarlo. Evidence reveals that the above-referenced conversations occurred during February of 1979 while student DeCarlo was a senior at Plantation High School. DeCarlo was not a student of Respondent. While DeCarlo was conversing loudly with another student in a school corridor, Respondent joined the conversation based on DeCarlo's "frantic behavior" and the fact that she was shouting that "I'm going to kill him", referring to Mr. Kinder, the yearbook advisor, in a tone which was loud enough for Respondent and others to overhear the conversation (TR 76, 77 and 376). DeCarlo was the school yearbook editor and had been having problems with its publication. The thrust of the problem appeared to be that DeCarlo was of the opinion that although she was exerting all the effort towards the publication of the yearbook, advisor Kinder was receiving or attempting to receive all credit for her work. While the Respondent initially injected himself into the conversation with DeCarlo and another student concerning differences that DeCarlo was having with the yearbook advisor, Kinder, she later conversed with Respondent about various problems that she was having with the yearbook in the following weeks. During the third of approximately four conversations with Respondent, the evidence reveals that the Respondent told another student (Chris Sarko) that he wanted to speak with DeCarlo, whereupon Sarko summoned student DeCarlo to go to his office where he later joined her, bringing a paper flower with him to give her. In Respondent's office, they discussed the yearbook deadline and Respondent mentioned that he had "ESP". Respondent gave student DeCarlo several examples in that regard. Respondent requested DeCarlo to keep their conversations between the two of them, although DeCarlo later mentioned the conversations to her parents. DeCarlo's parents later spoke with the Assistant Principal about Respondent. Within a few days, DeCarlo received a note telling her that Respondent wanted to see her and again Respondent took her into his office. During this conversation, Respondent told DeCarlo that she did not trust him because she had been hurt by her boyfriend. Respondent later told her to close her eyes and concentrate and told her that the boy just took her out so that she could make love with him and that he had tried to make her do something she did not want to. DeCarlo replied that she did not know what he was talking about, and Respondent inquired "What is it, oral sex?". According to DeCarlo, Respondent asked her to give him something personal, whereupon she took her necklace off and gave it to him. Respondent also inquired of her the type birth control pill she used and DeCarlo told him. Approximately one week later, student DeCarlo saw Respondent again. He asked her to come to see him during her lunch hour, but she declined. DeCarlo later asked a friend (Sarko) to get her necklace from Respondent, which was returned by the student, together with Respondent's picture. DeCarlo's parents made a written complaint to school authorities concerning Respondent's conduct. Respondent testified that he was regarded as a confidant among the students and that they frequently conversed with him about personal matters. He testified that the DeCarlo relationship, which was initiated by him, was motivated by a normal concern for a student who was visibly upset, and he felt that he could offer some assistance to student DeCarlo in resolving a crisis. Paragraph G of the Petition alleges that: During the spring of 1978, MICHAEL S. PARK hugged one or more female students from behind and pushed himself up against their buttocks. The primary incident in which Respondent is alleged to have gone beyond a mere touching of the shoulder is when he grabbed student Clement from behind and touched his lower torso against his buttocks. As stated earlier, Respondent denied this allegation. In this regard, several of Respondent's former students testified that they had never seen him act improperly in class or inquire into the personal lives of students. These students considered Respondent to be a warm, friendly teacher who occasionally would pat a student on the back or put his arm around a student's shoulders. In this regard, Van Fleet testified that the Respondent was a "touching, feeling type of friendly" person (TR 254). Other students testified that the Respondent often placed his arms around the shoulders of various students. During the period 1971 through 1979, Respondent's Principal warned him approximately four or five times concerning his involvement with female students (testimony of witnesses Graff, Wilcox, Landers, Cirillo, Larkin, DeCarlo, Evans, Jackson, Hanes and Van Fleet). Paragraph H of the Petition alleges that: During the spring of 1978 and 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK pinched one or more female students on the buttocks on one or more occasions. The two students involved in this allegation are Susan Clement and Lori Evans. The Respondent testified and denied that he pinched students Evans and Clement on the buttocks; however, he conceded that he might have grabbed Clement's neck when she did not "clean up her mess" in the classroom. Student Clement was not sure of the time when the Respondent allegedly pinched her or of the number of times when such acts were allegedly committed by Respondent. Instructors Dan Van Fleet and Gail Altman testified that students Clement and Evans both complained and were upset that the Respondent gave them failing grades. Noteworthy, also, was the fact that student Evans testified that there were students present at the time that the Respondent pinched her, although no corroborating student witnesses were called upon to verify said acts. Paragraph I of the Petition alleges that: During 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK pinched one or more female students on the breasts on one or more occasions. During the hearing, the only student who claimed to have been pinched by Respondent was Lori Evans. Again, the Respondent denied that any such conduct occurred on his part. Although Evans testified that there were student witnesses to the incident, no witnesses were called upon to testify during the hearing. RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE Respondent, for the most part, denied that he engaged in any conduct which could be considered grossly immoral or inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience or conduct which would not be a proper example for students. He further denied that such conduct was sufficiently notorious to bring him and the educational profession into public disgrace and respect, or that it otherwise reduced his effectiveness as a School Board employee. He testified that students confided in him and that he was an instructor who was overly concerned about the plight and well-being of students. In that regard, he testified that he interjected himself into conversations in situations wherein students appeared to have needed his counsel and guidance. Respondent denied pinching Lori Evans above the breast or on the buttocks or slapping her on the buttocks with a ruler. He testified that Evans' motive for giving testimony supportive of the charges is that she was a problem student who was unreliable when assigned a task. Additionally, Respondent denied pushing against student Susan Clement at the classroom sink or pinching her buttocks; however, he conceded that he might have grabbed her neck inadvertently as stated earlier, when she failed to "clean up her mess". Respondent's stated reason for visiting the "Crown" bar to join students with whom he taught was merely an effort to socialize with students and that respecting the Cathy Weber allegation, he was merely trying to assist her to resolve the problem that she was having with her boyfriend. He testified that the fact that he asked her to go shopping in a public shopping center indicates that he had no ulterior motive in making such request. Respondent voiced his opinion that student Weber was probably drinking due to that problem and that he wanted to inspire confidence in her to prevent her from drinking to resolve problems. Respondent's version of the incident surrounding the Tammy DeCarlo incident is much the same as his involvement with student Weber. That is, that he was simply trying to console her, which was prompted, in part, by counselling from the Assistant Principal to the effect that students and parents complained that he was not consoling enough to students. However, Respondent's testimony and inquiries, admittedly, as they related to his giving of flowers to student DeCarlo and inquiring into her sexual activity, missed the mark of a proper teacher-student relationship. Respondent's denial of the incidents involving student Wilcox, Evans and Clement as they related to his alleged physical contact is denied based upon the entire record, including other admissions by Respondent, including his inquiries into students' personal/social lives. In this regard, Respondent's inquiries relative to students' birth control pills, talks about oral sex, the giving of paper flowers to students and the embracing of students are considered immoral in a student-teacher setting and certainly does not inspire or set a proper example for students, as required in Chapter 6B-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent's teaching certificate, No. 274996, be suspended for a period of three (3) years. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of January, 1980, at Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
