The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Susan L. Duerson was employed by Petitioner Miami-Dade County School Board as a School Clerk II, a position classified as an educational support employee pursuant to Article XXI, Section 3, of the Contract between the Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade (the collective bargaining agreement). Respondent was initially employed by the School Board on November 15, 1996, as a part-time "skilled clerical" employee and assigned to Homestead Middle School. On November 10, 1997, Dr. Antonio T. Fernandez, the principal of Neva King Cooper Educational Center (hereinafter "NKC"), hired Respondent on a full-time basis as a School Clerk II. NKC is a special education center which serves profoundly mentally handicapped students. Because of their condition, many of the students at NKC are medically-fragile and require specialized attention. As a School Clerk II, Respondent was required, among other things, to maintain a wide variety of documents, forms, reports, evaluations, and business correspondence. As part of her duties, she was also responsible for maintaining attendance records; scheduling meetings, conferences and appointments between parents and instructional staff; and arranging bus transportation for the students at her school site. Approximately two months after being hired at NKC, Respondent suffered a stroke while hospitalized for kidney stones. From January 12, 1998, through June 19, 1998, Respondent was on medical leave due to a variety of health problems. Although Respondent was not eligible for an extended leave of absence due to her brief employment at NKC prior to her stroke, Dr. Fernandez, along with district administrators, approved Respondent's request for an extended leave of absence. On April 14, 1998, Respondent's treating physician notified Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards that Respondent was capable of performing most of her duties, but that as a result of her stroke, Respondent could not climb, could not grasp, and did not have finger dexterity of her right hand. Respondent also had difficulty remembering the daily tasks and duties that she was required to perform. On June 20, 1998, Respondent returned from her leave of absence and began working at NKC. Because of her physical limitations resulting from her stroke, Respondent sought accommodations from Petitioner in order to fulfill the essential requirements of her job. These requests were presented to Petitioner's District Consultative Committee. The Committee made recommendations in an attempt to provide Respondent with reasonable accommodations. On October 28, 1998, Petitioner approved several accommodations to assist Respondent in fulfilling her responsibilities, including providing a "Wanchik's writer," a "slip-on typing aid," a "day-timer," and a hand-held tape recorder. The tape recorder was provided to Respondent so that she could accurately copy messages for their intended recipients and track her assignments as Respondent frequently was unable to remember them. Respondent was given written instructions for assignments that were not routine in nature, was given the assistance of another employee in removing and replacing files for Respondent's use, and was allowed to leave work early three times a week so that she could attend physical therapy. Respondent's work performance, upon returning from her leave of absence and despite the accommodations provided to her, was unsatisfactory. Assignments were not completed in a timely fashion and were not accurately documented. For example, notices to parents were sent late and with the wrong student's information on them. On December 14, 1998, almost six months after returning from her leave of absence, Respondent was formally observed by her principal. Her work was found to be deficient in the areas of knowledge, quality of work, efficiency, dependability, judgment, attendance, and punctuality. During the December 14 observation, it was noted that Respondent failed to timely schedule conferences, failed to complete assigned tasks, and was unable to correctly process and prepare records required by her work site. Respondent's work was also found to be deficient with respect to her attendance data collection duties. Schools are required by law to maintain accurate attendance records. When they fail to do so, a school can loose funding. Due to Respondent's inability to maintain accurate attendance records, NKC lost funding for some of its programs. Respondent was also found to have problems correctly scheduling transportation for some of the students at NKC. At times, students would not be picked up as the necessary transportation was not requested by Respondent although she was required to do so. Respondent also had difficulty maintaining accurate records for students in the Exceptional Student Education program, particularly with regard to scheduling meetings with parents, staff members, and psychologists. Due to her unsatisfactory rating on December 14, 1998, Respondent was issued an interim evaluation which rated her as unsatisfactory for the 1998-99 school year. On January 11, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address her non-compliance with site directives, her unsatisfactory interim evaluation, her prescription for improvement of those deficiencies noted in the interim evaluation, and her future employment status with Petitioner. She was informed that her failure to correct those deficiencies would result in disciplinary action. On April 22, 1999, another conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address her non-compliance with site directives and to review her performance to date, together with the status of her prescription and her future employment. She was advised of her continuing failure to complete her duties in a satisfactory and timely manner. Respondent was issued a new prescription for improvement of her performance, which was based upon her supervisor's observations of her performance since Respondent's prior formal observation on December 4, 1998. She was advised that the prescriptive activities assigned to her must be completed by the agreed-upon deadlines and that her failure to remedy her deficiencies would lead to disciplinary action, including dismissal. By the time of the April 22 conference, Respondent had been working at NKC for ten months, exclusive of the period of time that she had been on a leave of absence. Nonetheless, she was still exhibiting the same or similar deficiencies that had been noted in her first evaluation. After student records could not be located at the school due to Respondent having taken them home, she was issued a written directive on May 10, 1999, ordering her not to remove permanent student records from the school site. Respondent had previously been directed not to take student records to her home but had disregarded that directive. Accordingly, the May 10 directive advised Respondent that failure to comply with the directive again would be considered an act of insubordination and might lead to further disciplinary action. On May 11, 1999, Respondent was reminded of the accommodations that had been provided her in order that she could perform the duties of her position in an effective manner. Although Respondent was allowed to leave early to attend physical therapy sessions and was provided the assistance of office personnel in removing and replacing files, her supervisor noted that Respondent--of her own volition--had not taken advantage of many of the accommodations provided by her work site. Respondent admitted that she had not taken the adaptive devices that had been purchased as part of her accommodations to her physical therapist, who was to have these devices adjusted so that they fit her properly. Since Respondent's performance had not improved, and since Respondent repeatedly made the same mistakes, her principal urged her to take advantage of the accommodations provided her. After Respondent's excessive absenteeism began to have a detrimental effect on her work, on May 21, 1999, Respondent was issued a written directive advising her of her failure to maintain appropriate attendance and requiring Respondent to notify her work site of her employment intentions, i.e., whether Respondent was going to return to work or take another leave of absence. As of that date, she had accumulated over forty absences. On May 25, 1999, Respondent met with the principal and requested a second leave of absence. She and her doctor believed that she needed to take a leave of absence until May 10, 2000, due to the alleged stress brought on by her duties. Respondent was still on prescription for improvement of her performance at the time she took a second medical leave of absence effective from May 10, 1999, through May 9, 2000. On May 9, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent at the Office of Professional Standards to address her medical fitness to return to duty, to review her employment history, and to address her future employment status with Petitioner. Due to her prior medical history, including her having fallen at her work site on two occasions, she was required to show that she was medically fit to return to her regular duties. At the May 9 conference, Respondent's medical fitness was addressed. Respondent's doctor had cleared her to return to work and advised that Respondent's only limitation was that she could only type with one hand on a left-handed keyboard. The Office of Professional Standards cleared Respondent to return to work. At the conference, Respondent was advised that her prescriptive status would be removed so that she could start anew but that her performance would continue to be monitored throughout the school year. She was directed to maintain regular attendance and was told that all intended absences must be communicated to her principal or his secretary. She was also advised that all absences for illness must be documented by her treating physician. She was informed that her non-compliance with the directives issued at this conference would lead to disciplinary action. On June 8, 2000, approximately a month after she returned from her second leave of absence, a meeting was held with Respondent to address numerous errors she committed while performing her daily tasks. She was advised that she had lost certain records and had failed to properly notify parents of conferences involving students in the exceptional student education program. She was reminded that her failure to properly notice these conferences could expose the school district to liability. In order to assist Respondent to improve her performance and to insure that errors would not continue to occur, she was directed to meet with the assistant principal on a daily basis. On June 20, 2000, Respondent was provided with additional accommodations to assist her in performing her duties. She was advised that a left-handed keyboard would be purchased for her, that she would continue to be provided the assistance of another employee to remove and replace files for her, that she was to continue tape-recording her assignments as a reminder to herself of the tasks that she must complete, and that she would continue to receive written instructions with regard to non-routine assignments. On July 14, 2000, another tape recorder was purchased for Respondent since the one previously issued to her had been lost. She was also issued a new day-timer calendar to keep track of her daily assignments. Over a year after her previous evaluation, on July 27, 2000, Respondent was formally evaluated and was again found to be unsatisfactory in the categories of quality of work, efficiency, and dependability. She was issued a new prescription to assist her in improving her performance. She was required to keep a log of her files since she continued to lose documents and had, by this point, lost a complete file. As a result of her unsatisfactory evaluation, on July 27, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address her performance, her interim evaluation, and her future employment with Petitioner. She was advised of her continued inability to perform her daily duties and that her failure to improve would lead to disciplinary action. On September 20, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held to address Respondent's performance, to review the prescriptive activities assigned to her during the conference held on July 27, and to address her future employment. By the time of that conference, more than four months after Respondent had returned from her second leave of absence, her work performance had not improved. During the September 20 conference, Respondent was advised of her continuing failure to correctly input student attendance information and to provide adequate and timely notice of parent conferences. She was also reminded of the importance of using her school-issued tape recorder in order for her to minimize mistakes and to accurately process information. In order to assist her in improving her performance and in completing her prescriptive activities, the deadline for completing the prescription was extended to October 27, 2000. On October 23, 2000, Respondent was given written notice of her repeated failure to properly send parental notices of conferences and "staffings." She was directed to rectify these deficiencies and to continue to meet with the assistant principal for further assistance. She was advised that if she needed additional assistance, it would be provided to her. On November 16, 2000, another conference-for-the- record was held with Respondent to address her performance and to review the status of the prescription that had been issued at the conference-for-the-record held on July 27. She was advised of her continued deficiencies, which included incorrectly inputting attendance dates, improperly responding to administrative requests, improperly dating time-sensitive material, and failing to give adequate parental notice for school "staffings." She was also issued an addendum to the July 27 prescription. Respondent was further advised that she had failed to complete the prescriptive activities that had been previously issued but that in another effort to assist her, the deadline for completing those activities would be extended to January 12, 2001. Respondent was further advised that her failure to overcome her performance deficiencies would lead to disciplinary action. Respondent acknowledged the support and assistance that the office staff had given her and thanked the principal for all of his support. On December 1, 2000, Respondent, after failing to provide timely notice of a conference with a parent and failing to provide notice of a meeting with another parent, was again reminded by the assistant principal that part of her duties was to provide adequate and timely notice of staff conferences with parents. On December 12, 2000, Respondent was notified in writing that she had failed to complete the prescriptive activities that had been assigned to her on July 27 and amended on November 16. Among other things, Respondent had failed to keep a log of her files and had failed to notify staff and parents of scheduled meetings. Respondent had still failed to make use of her tape recorder. On January 16, 2001, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address her performance and to review the status of her prescriptive activities and her future employment status. She was advised that her performance had not improved and that her repeated failure to complete her prescriptive activities despite three extensions of time was considered insubordination. Respondent was also advised that her failure to improve her overall performance mandated a recommendation for disciplinary action, which could include dismissal. On March 8, 2001, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent at the Office of Professional Standards to address her performance, her non-compliance with site directives, and her professional responsibilities. She was advised that although she had been on prescription for a significant portion of the year, she had failed to correct her deficiencies and improve her performance. As a result of her continuing unsatisfactory performance, she was advised that a recommendation for disciplinary action, including dismissal, would be submitted to the School Board. On March 22, 2001, Respondent's principal recommended that due to her inability to complete her prescriptive activities or to correct her performance deficiencies in spite of continuous support and assistance at the work site, her employment by Petitioner should be terminated. After she continued to accrue excessive and unauthorized absences, on May 9, 2001, Respondent was again reminded of prior directives that she report to work on a regular basis; that if she was to be absent, she needed to communicate that fact to school administrators; and that Respondent provide documentation for any absence alleged to be related to illness. She was also advised that her excessive absenteeism and her repeated failure to comply with administrative directives regarding her absences would lead to disciplinary action, including dismissal. On June 20, 2001, the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, took action to suspend Respondent and initiate dismissal proceedings against Respondent for just cause.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining Respondent's suspension, denying any claim for back pay, and dismissing Respondent from her employment by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Luis M. Garcia, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Susan L. Duerson 15601 Southwest 137th Avenue, No. 306 Miami, Florida 33177 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Merrett R. Stierheim, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Room 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
The Issue Whether just cause exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes,2 for Petitioner to suspend Respondent from his employment as a teacher for ten days without pay in Case No. 19-3380; and (2) whether just cause exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, for Petitioner to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher in Case No. 19-3381.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the entity charged with operating, controlling, and supervising all district public schools in Broward County, Florida, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.33. Respondent is employed by the District as a mathematics teacher at Miramar High School ("MHS") pursuant to a professional services contract issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). He holds a professional educator's certificate in mathematics for 6th through 12th grades. Respondent was employed by the District in 2007, and has been a teacher at MHS since the 2007-2008 school year, with the exception of most of the 2015-2016 school year, during which he was administratively reassigned with pay pending the outcome of a personnel investigation. He returned to teaching at MHS for the 2016-2017 school year, and was a teacher at MHS during the 2018-2019 school year, when the conduct giving rise to these proceedings is alleged to have occurred. The Administrative Complaints February Administrative Complaint The February Administrative Complaint, which gives rise to Case No. 19-3380, alleges that during the 2017-2018 school year and the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent engaged in conduct that violated specified statutes, DOE rules, and School Board policies. Pursuant to the February Administrative Complaint, Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent from his employment as a teacher for ten days without pay. Specifically, the February Administrative Complaint alleges that after previously having been disciplined for making racially insensitive and inappropriate comments to students, Respondent continued to use embarrassing or disparaging language toward students. As a result, a cease and desist letter was issued to Respondent on or about March 23, 2017, directing him to cease engaging in such conduct. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent continued to use racially insensitive, embarrassing, and disparaging language toward students—specifically, that he referred to an African-American male student as "boy." The February Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent threatened to remove students who talked from his class; graded students based on their behavior, rather than their work product; and failed to grade student work in a timely manner. As a result of this alleged conduct, Respondent received a meeting summary memorandum on or about December 7, 2017. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent still failed to contact the parents of students who were failing and engaged in unfair grading practices, resulting in issuance of another meeting summary memorandum to him on or about April 27, 2018. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that in the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year, during a Code Red Drill, Respondent is alleged to have engaged in racially insensitive conduct by disparately disciplining African-American students for engaging in the same type of conduct in which white and Hispanic students engaged, without any disciplinary consequences. The Administrative Complaint also alleges that during the Code Red Drill, Respondent was so disengaged from his students that he did not know one of his student's name and, consequently, wrote a disciplinary referral for the wrong student. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent engaged in conduct demeaning to students. Specifically, it is alleged that Respondent did not respond to student questions regarding how to do problems; embarrassed a student by saying he did not understand fifth grade math; and wrote "1 + 1" on the board to mock students in his class. He also allegedly reduced a student's class participation grade for talking. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent spoke to a "black girl who is Jamaican in Creole because he assumes she is Haitian." The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent embarrassed and degraded a student by saying he did not understand the classwork "because it's not fifth grade math." The February Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent demeaned students by saying "'slick stuff,' such as 'math is simple and we are used to [second] or [fifth] grade math.'" The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent lowered the grade of a student for talking, and told her that she and several other students were "on his 'watch list'" of students who would have their grades lowered for talking. The February Administrative Complaint further alleges that when that student asked about Respondent's grading practices, he responded "you ask too much questions," causing the whole class to laugh. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about October 10, 2018, during the administration of the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test ("PSAT"), Respondent did not follow proper testing protocol. Specifically, it is alleged that Respondent did not pick up the testing materials on time, started the test late, and did not read all of the directions to the students. It is also alleged that he did not collect book bags and cell phones and place them at the front of the room, and that a cell phone rang during the test. Additionally, he is alleged to have allowed students to talk loudly during the test. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent took points off of a student's grade for talking. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent refused to allow students who had missed class due to a band trip to make up their class work. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent made demeaning comments about students' writing; used the word "horrible" to describe their work, which made them feel "dumb or stupid"; was "disrespectful and sarcastic"; and deducted students' class participation points for talking or asking for a pencil or paper. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent talked to students in a demeaning manner about being "slow" and told students he thought the Chinese were smarter than Americans. May Administrative Complaint The May Administrative Complaint, which gives rise to Case No. 19-3381, alleges that in the second semester of the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent continued to engage in conduct that violated specified statutes, DOE rules, and School Board policies. Specifically, the May Administrative Complaint alleges that in February 2019, Respondent threatened to put tape over students' mouths for talking; disparaged students through racially insensitive treatment and comments; and made insulting and offensive comments to students regarding their mental health and ethnicity. The May Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent wrote a "red list" of students' names on the board who were disruptive or talking and continued to engage in inappropriate grading practices, such as lowering students' grades as a means of discipline for behavior issues. The May Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent continued his practices of not contacting parents of failing students; not writing referrals to deal with disciplinary matters; and failing to create a discipline plan for dealing with behavior issues in his classroom, as directed. In addition, the May Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent claimed that during the past four years, Respondent's students were manipulated by an assistant principal, Ms. Hoff, to write false statements against him, notwithstanding that Hoff had not been employed at MHS for the previous two years. Pursuant to the May Administrative Complaint, Petitioner seeks to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher. Stipulated Facts Regarding Disciplinary Corrective Action History The parties stipulated to the following facts regarding Respondent's history of disciplinary corrective actions while employed as a teacher with the District.8 On or about February 13, 2013, Respondent received a verbal reprimand for failing to meet the performance standards required of his 8 Petitioner's Corrective Action Policy, Policy 4.9, section I(b), states: The types of corrective action may include, but are not limited to the following employment actions: verbal reprimands, written reprimands, suspension without pay, demotion, or termination of employment. There are other types of actions to encourage and support the improvement of employee performance, conduct or attendance that are not considered disciplinary in nature. These actions may include, but are not limited to: coaching, counseling, meeting summaries, and additional training. Policy 4.9, Corrective Action. Respondent cannot be subjected to discipline in these proceedings for previous violations of statutes, rules, or policies for which he has already been disciplined. See Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., Case No. 11-4156 (Fla. DOAH Dec. 19, 2011; Fla. DBPR Oct. 2, 2012)(multiple administrative punishments cannot be imposed for a particular incident of misconduct). However, under Policy 4.9, section III, the history of disciplinary corrective actions is relevant to determining the appropriate penalty, if any, to be imposed in these proceedings, and history of disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions is relevant to determining whether Respondent subsequently engaged in conduct constituting gross insubordination, as charged in these proceedings. position, by failing to follow School Board policy and procedures and engaging in unprofessional conduct. On or about May 30, 2013, Respondent received a written reprimand for not following proper procedures, and being insubordinate by failing to follow such procedures after numerous directives. Specifically, he failed to contact the parents of students who had been habitually truant or were failing his class; arrived late to work several times; lied about parking in the student parking lot; and left students unsupervised on multiple occasions. On November 8, 2016, Respondent received a verbal reprimand for not providing accommodations to his exceptional student education ("ESE") students; not taking attendance; not grading students’ work or grading students’ work inaccurately; and failing to provide feedback to students. On February 7, 2017, Respondent received a five-day suspension for making racially insensitive and inappropriate comments to students. This five-day suspension resulted from a personnel investigation by the District police department into allegations that Respondent made racist and racially insensitive remarks to students. The request for the investigation was made on or about October 16, 2015. Respondent was administratively reassigned out of the classroom on November 6, 2015, and was not released from administrative reassignment until August 15, 2016. Respondent originally challenged the five-day suspension in Case No. 17-1179TTS, but later withdrew his challenge, and the case was closed on May 19, 2017. The Commissioner of Education ("COE") also filed an administrative complaint with the Education Practices Commission, based on Respondent making racially, ethnically, and/or socioeconomically-driven disparaging comments toward students. Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with the COE under which he received a written reprimand; was fined and placed on probation for one year; and was assessed costs for monitoring his probation. The written reprimand was placed in his District personnel file. On or about October 27, 2017, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from the District's professional standards committee for unfair grading practices; making embarrassing remarks to students; failing to provide feedback to students; grading inaccuracies; refusing to accept work; grading student behavior rather than student work product; failing to contact parents; failing to follow a discipline plan; failing to grade student work in a timely manner; entering incorrect grades; failing to provide ESE accommodations to students entitled to receive such accommodations; and making disparaging remarks about colleagues. This letter of reprimand resulted from a personnel investigation conducted by the District police department regarding numerous allegations against Respondent. These allegations included, but were not limited to, unfair grading practices; making embarrassing remarks to students; failing to provide feedback to students; lowering grades based on behavior; failing to contact parents; grading and attendance inaccuracies; providing fake lesson plans to his assistant principal; and making remarks to a student that a fellow math teacher did not know what she was doing. The request for the investigation was made on or about November 21, 2016. Respondent did not challenge the letter of reprimand. Stipulated Facts Regarding Non-Disciplinary Corrective Action History The parties stipulated to the following facts regarding Respondent's history of non-disciplinary corrective actions while he was employed as a teacher with the District. On or about July 16, 2011, Respondent received a concerns and expectations memorandum for failing to follow and adhere to School Board and school policies, procedures, and regulations; failing to maintain accurate student records and follow the District grading system; and not fulfilling his responsibility as a professional educator in a timely manner, with integrity. On or about October 20, 2011, Respondent received another concerns and expectations memorandum for failing to follow and adhere to School Board and school policies, procedures and regulations; failing to maintain accurate student records and follow the District grading system; and not fulfilling his responsibility as a professional educator in a timely manner, with integrity. On or about October 31, 2012, Respondent received another concerns and expectations memorandum for failing to follow the District’s grading system. On or about January 7, 2013, Respondent received another concerns and expectations memorandum for failing to follow and adhere to School Board and school policies, procedures and regulations; failing to maintain accurate student records of students and failing to follow the District grading system; and not fulfilling his responsibility as a professional educator in a timely manner, with integrity. On January 23, 2015, Respondent received a meeting summary regarding grading criteria; students not learning in, and failing, his class; and making students feel disparaged or embarrassed. He was directed to ensure that students understand his grading criteria for classwork and homework; use strategies to help students with new knowledge; use strategies to help students practice and deepen the new knowledge in all lessons and activities; and not intentionally expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. On October 14, 2016, Respondent received a summary memorandum for his use of embarrassing language towards students; failure to contact parents or write referrals for behavior issues; and concerns about his failure to provide daily remediation. Respondent was advised that he was expected to create and maintain a positive and pleasant learning environment in the classroom; use effective instructional strategies and feedback techniques that do not embarrass students; create and follow a discipline plan for his classroom; contact parents when students are failing; write referrals for referable acts; and remediate and teach students daily. Respondent was informed that his failure to correct these issues may result in disciplinary action. On or about March 23, 2017, Respondent was issued a cease and desist letter for his continued use of embarrassing and disparaging language toward students. On or about December 7, 2017, Respondent received a meeting summary for his use of embarrassing and condescending language towards the students, by referring to an African-American male student as "boy"; threatening to remove students from his class if they misbehaved during a formal observation; grading students on their behavior rather than their work product; and failing to grade student work in a timely manner. He was directed to refrain from using condescending language that makes students feel inferior in math; learn his students’ names and refer to them by name; create and follow a discipline plan for his classroom without removing students unless they have completely disrupted the teaching and learning process in the classroom; enter grades in a timely manner and refrain from deducting participation points from students' grades for talking; and contact parents and write referrals for student misbehavior. On or about April 27, 2018, Respondent received a meeting summary memorandum for failing to contact parents of students who had D's or F's in his classes, and for keeping inaccurate grades. Findings of Fact Based on Evidence Adduced at Final Hearing Based on the preponderance of the competent substantial evidence; the following Findings of Fact are made regarding the conduct charged in the February Administrative Complaint and the May Administrative Complaint. February Administrative Complaint The February Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having engaged in conduct during the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year that is alleged to violate statutes, DOE rules, and School Board policies. By way of background, Tevin Fuller and Julian Cardenty were students in Respondent's financial algebra class in the 2017-2018 school year. Both credibly testified that during a class in the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent called Fuller, who is African-American, "boy" and "bad boy." Both Fuller and Cardenty were offended by Respondent's use of the word "boy" in referring to Fuller, and considered it a racially demeaning remark. They reported Respondent's conduct to Assistant Principal J.P. Murray. Fuller credibly testified that as a result of Respondent's disrespectful conduct toward him, he avoided attending Respondent's class. As discussed above, in December 2017, as a result, Respondent previously had been issued a summary memorandum—a non-disciplinary corrective action—which instructed him to, among other things, cease using racially demeaning terms toward African-American students, and cease using condescending language that made students feel inferior regarding their mathematical ability. The credible, consistent evidence establishes that during the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent continued to make racially insensitive and demeaning comments, and engage in conduct directed toward students in his classes that they found embarrassing and offensive. Specifically, several students testified, credibly, that on one occasion during the 2018-2019 school year, after Respondent gave an unannounced quiz to his financial algebra class, he stated that he would not grade the quiz papers because he could "see the F's on their foreheads," or words to that effect. The credible evidence establishes that the students considered this remark as demeaning to their ability and intelligence, and they were offended. This testimony corroborated several written statements, admitted into evidence, which were provided by students at or about the time this incident took place. Two students, Malik Cooper and Nyesha Dixon, credibly testified that they witnessed Respondent belittle and mock a student, Jordan Lee, when he asked for assistance on a class assignment in Respondent's financial algebra class. Specifically, they saw and heard Respondent comment to Lee that he (Lee) did not understand the lesson because he could "only understand fifth grade math," or words to that effect. Dixon and Cooper both credibly testified that the whole class laughed at Respondent's comment to Lee. Dixon testified, credibly, that Lee appeared shocked and embarrassed by Respondent's comment. Although Petitioner did not present Lee's testimony at the final hearing, Lee provided a written statement that was admitted into evidence, describing this incident. An email from Lee's mother to Murray regarding this incident corroborates Dixon's and Cooper's testimony and Lee's reaction to Respondent's insulting comment to him. Two students, Breanna Dwyer and Malik Cooper, credibly testified that on one occasion, Respondent told his students that the Chinese were smarter and learned faster than Americans, a comment that the students interpreted as belittling their intelligence. Two students, Dorcas Alao and Nyesha Dixon, testified, credibly, to the effect that Respondent singled out Haitian students and made remarks to them, which those students found offensive. Specifically, they testified that Respondent would attempt to speak to Haitian students in Creole, that the students told him they found his behavior offensive, and that Respondent would "just laugh." Several students credibly testified, in more general terms, that Respondent frequently spoke down to them, treated them in a condescending manner, made rude remarks to them, and was disrespectful toward them, and that his conduct and remarks were insulting and made them feel as if they were ignorant and unintelligent. Additionally, one student, Whitney Malcolm, testified, credibly, that in response to her asking a question about a syntax error on a calculator, Respondent yelled at her loudly enough for the entire class to hear. Malcolm testified, credibly, that she was embarrassed by the incident. The credible evidence establishes that Respondent continued to lower students' academic course grades as a means of addressing behavioral issues, notwithstanding that he had been issued a meeting summary on April 27, 2018, directing him not to do so. Specifically, several students testified, credibly, that Respondent kept a "watch list" of students for whom he deducted points off their academic course grade for behavioral issues, such as talking in class. Murray credibly testified, and the MHS Faculty Handbook for the 2018-2019 school year expressly states, that student misbehavior cannot be reflected in the academic course grade, and, instead, is to be addressed in the conduct grade. Murray testified that he counseled Respondent numerous times on this issue and directed him to cease deducting points from students' academic course grades for behavior issues. The evidence regarding Respondent's history of disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions bears out that he repeatedly has been directed not to lower students' academic course grades as a means of dealing with classroom behavioral issues. The competent substantial evidence also establishes that Respondent did not follow proper testing protocol when administering the PSAT to his homeroom students on October 10, 2018. Specifically, notwithstanding that all teachers, including Respondent, who were administering the PSAT had been given training and provided written instructions regarding picking up the exams, reading the instructions to the students, and administering the exams, Respondent did not timely pick up the exams on the day it was administered. The exams for his homeroom students had to be delivered to the room in which he was to administer the exam, and as a consequence, he was late starting the exam administration. The credible evidence establishes that Respondent instructed the students to turn off their cell phones, place them in their book bags, and put their book bags away. However, he did not collect students' book bags or require students to place their book bags at the front of the room, as expressly required by the exam proctor reminders document and the PSAT/NMBQT Coordinator Manual, both of which previously had been provided to the teachers, including Respondent, who were administering the PSAT. As a result of Respondent's failure to follow exam protocol, the students kept their book bags next to, or under, their desks, in violation of that protocol. A cell phone rang during one of the testing sessions. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent had instructed students to silence their cell phones and put them away; thus, the cell phone ringing during a testing session was the result of a student failing to follow instructions, rather than Respondent failing to provide such instructions. Two teachers, Tamekia Thompson and Richard Cohen, went to Respondent's classroom at different times on the day the PSAT was administered, to tell the students in his classroom to be quiet. Amaya Mason, a student in Respondent's homeroom class who took the PSAT that day, complained in a written statement, and subsequently testified, that students were talking during the testing sessions, while the students were in the process of taking the exam. Other students who took the PSAT in Respondent's homeroom class that day testified that students did not talk during the testing sessions, but that they did talk loudly during breaks between the testing sessions. Thus, the evidence does not definitively establish that students were talking during the testing sessions themselves. As a result of these testing protocol irregularities, Alicia Carl, the Student Assessment Specialist at MHS, contacted the College Board regarding the testing conditions in Respondent's classroom. Ultimately, the students' exam scores were not invalidated. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent refused to allow two students, Dejah Jeancharles and Asia Parker, to make up classwork they had missed, notwithstanding that they had excused absences due to a band trip. However, the credible evidence established that Respondent ultimately did allow the students to make up the missed work. The February Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with disciplining African-American students during a Code Red Drill conducted on or about September 6, 2018, while not subjecting white and Hispanic students to discipline for engaging in the same conduct during the Code Red Drill. The students' testimony regarding whether Respondent engaged in this conduct was conflicting, and the greater weight of the competent, credible evidence fails to establish that Respondent engaged in this behavior. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about April 27, 2018, Respondent was issued a meeting summary for failing to contact parents of failing students and engaging in unfair grading practices. Murray testified, and Petitioner presented excerpts of Respondent's grade book showing, that as of March 6, 2018, approximately 75 percent of Respondent's students were earning either D's or F's in Respondent's classes. Murray testified that MHS has a policy, stated in the 2018-2019 Faculty Handbook, that teachers "shouldn't have that many D's or F's."9 Murray testified, and Petitioner presented evidence consisting of an email from Murray to MHS Human Relations Specialist Nicole Voliton, stating that he (Murray) had spoken to parents, who told him that Respondent had not contacted them regarding their children's failing grades. Murray also testified that Respondent acknowledged to him that he had not 9 However, the February Administrative Complaint does not specifically charge Respondent with conduct related to the amount of D's and F's his students earned. Additionally, as discussed below, the Faculty Handbook policy does not establish a mandatory compliance standard regarding the amount of D's and F's given students on which disciplinary action can be based. contacted the parents of all students who were failing his courses. Murray's email and his testimony regarding parents' statements made to him constitute hearsay evidence that has not been shown to fall within an exception to the hearsay rule in section 90.802, Florida Statutes, and is not substantiated by any competent substantial evidence in the record; accordingly, the undersigned cannot assign weight to this evidence.10 May Administrative Complaint The May Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having engaged in conduct in the second semester of the 2018-2019 school year that is alleged to violate DOE rules and Petitioner's policies. The credible evidence establishes that Respondent continued to engage in conduct, directed toward his students, that was demeaning and racially insensitive. Specifically, several students submitted written statements that in February 2019, Respondent threatened to tape students' mouths shut because they were talking in class. Students Dorcas Alao, Breanna Henry, and Darius Gaskin credibly testified about this incident, confirming that Respondent had engaged in such conduct toward students in his class. Alao, who is of Nigerian heritage, testified, credibly, that Respondent remarked to her that if she couldn't understand something in English, he would "say it in Yoruba," or words to that effect. She also testified, credibly, that Respondent told her that she had "mental issues." She was offended by Respondent's comments and reported the incidents to Murray. The credible evidence also establishes that Respondent continued to deduct points from students' academic course grades for behavioral issues, such as talking in class. 10 § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence but is not sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions. The burden of establishing that hearsay evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rules in sections 90.803 and 90.804 is on the proponent of the hearsay. See Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952, 956 (Fla. 2008)(evidentiary proponent has burden to establish predicate for exception to hearsay rule). To this point, Alao and Henry credibly testified that Respondent deducted points from their academic course grades for talking in class. Murray corroborated this testimony, credibly testifying that he examined Respondent's grade book and confirmed that Respondent had deducted points from their grades. As a result, Henry's class grade dropped a letter grade, from an "A" to a "B." Several students also testified, credibly and consistently, that Respondent did not timely grade their classwork or homework papers, so they were unable to determine what their grades were, even when they accessed the Pinnacle electronic gradebook. The 2018-2019 Faculty Handbook for MHS expressly requires that grades be posted within 48 hours of collecting the assignment/test. Respondent has repeatedly been directed to timely and accurately grade classwork and homework, and to record the grades in Pinnacle so that students and parents can be apprised of student progress in the course. The disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions to which Respondent previously has been subject bear this out. Murray testified, credibly, that in the second semester of the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent still did not timely or accurately grade classwork, homework, or tests, as required by the Faculty Handbook, and as previously directed through disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions, discussed above. The May Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent made claims that former assistant principal Cornelia Hoff had manipulated students, during the previous four years, to write false statements about him. Murray testified, credibly, that Respondent did, in fact, make such claims. There was no evidence presented to substantiate any of Respondent's claims against Hoff, and the competent substantial evidence establishes that Hoff had not been employed at MHS for over two years at the time Respondent made such claims. The May Administrative Complaint also charges Respondent with failing to contact parents, write disciplinary referrals, and create a discipline plan for student behavior issues in his classroom, as previously directed. However, Petitioner failed to present any competent substantial evidence to substantiate the allegation that Respondent engaged in this specific conduct during the second semester of the 2018-2019 school year, which is the period covered by the May Administrative Complaint.11 Thus, Petitioner did not demonstrate that Respondent engaged in this conduct during the timeframe covered by the May Administrative Complaint. Witness Credibility Respondent contends, on the basis of inconsistencies between student witness's testimony and written statements regarding various details of Respondent's alleged conduct and surrounding circumstances, that these witnesses were not credible, so that their testimony should not be afforded weight in these proceedings. The undersigned rejects this contention. Although the students' accounts of Respondent's conduct and surrounding circumstances were not uniformly consistent, the inconsistencies concerned minor or collateral details, which the undersigned ascribes to the fact that the students were testifying about incidents that occurred as much as two years earlier. The undersigned found the student witnesses to be credible and persuasive. Crucial to this credibility determination is that the students' testimony was remarkably consistent with respect to whether Respondent 11 The evidence presented regarding this charge concerned conduct that is alleged to have occurred in the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year, which is not addressed in the May Administrative Complaint. Notably, the February Administrative Complaint, which addressed conduct that is alleged to have occurred in the 2017-2018 school year and the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year, did not charge Respondent with having engaged in such conduct. See Cottrill v. Dep't of Ins., 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (predicating disciplinary action against a licensee on conduct never alleged in an administrative complaint violates the Administrative Procedure Act). engaged in, and the significant circumstances pertaining to, the conduct at issue in these proceedings. Findings of Ultimate Fact Under Florida law, whether conduct charged in a disciplinary proceeding constitutes a deviation from a standard of conduct established by statute, rule, or policy is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact, considering the testimony and evidence in the context of the alleged violation. Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). See also McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); MacMillan v. Nassau Cty. Sch. Bd., 629 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Accordingly, whether conduct alleged in an administrative complaint violates the statutes, rules, and policies cited as the basis for the proposed disciplinary action is a factual, rather than legal, determination. February Administrative Complaint Here, Petitioner demonstrated, by the preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in conduct with which he was charged in the February Administrative Complaint. As discussed below, Respondent's conduct violated DOE rules, School Board policies, and Florida Statutes. Rule 6A-5.056(2) – Misconduct in Office As found above, Respondent made racially insensitive comments and comments that demeaned and belittled students in his classes. The evidence also established that Respondent yelled at students. As a result, many of his students felt disrespected, embarrassed, and offended. One student, Tevin Fuller, even went so far as to avoid going to Respondent's class in order to avoid Respondent's harassment and disrespectful treatment of him. Respondent's behavior toward his students constituted misconduct in office under Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2), because it disrupted the students' learning environment, in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2)(d), and it reduced his ability to effectively perform his teaching duties, in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2)(e). Additionally, Respondent's behavior toward his students constituted misconduct in office, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(2)(b), because it violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a), which establishes a teacher's professional obligations to students. Specifically, in making demeaning, racially insensitive, and embarrassing comments to students in his classes, he failed to make reasonable effort to protect his students from conditions harmful to their learning and mental health, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. He also intentionally exposed students to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., and harassed students on the basis of race, color, and national or ethnic origin, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)7. Respondent's racially insensitive and disrespectful comments toward his students also constituted misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2)(c), because they violated School Board Policy 4008.B., regarding duties of instructional personnel. Specifically, Respondent did not comply with paragraph 1. of Policy 4008.B., because he violated the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, rule 6A-10.081, as discussed herein. Additionally, Respondent violated paragraph 4. of Policy 4008.B., because he did not treat all students with kindness and consideration, as required by that policy. Rule 6A-5.056(3) – Incompetency In making racially insensitive and demeaning comments, and in engaging in disrespectful conduct toward his students, Respondent failed to discharge his required teaching duties. Specifically, in making such comments and engaging in such conduct, Respondent failed to communicate appropriately with, and relate to, his students, and, thus, exhibited incompetency due to inefficiency, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(3)(a)2. As discussed above, Respondent's conduct also violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 7., and, thus, constituted incompetency due to inefficiency, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(3)(a)1. Additionally, as found above, Respondent did not follow established exam protocol when he failed to collect students' book bags and place them at the front of the room during administration of the PSAT to his homeroom class on October 10, 2018, as specified in the PSAT/NMSQT administration manual and mandated pursuant to section 1008.24(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Thus, Respondent failed to perform duties prescribed by law, which constitutes incompetency due to inefficiency under rule 6A-5.056(3)(a)1. Rule 6A-5.056(4) – Gross Insubordination As found above, on January 23, 2015, Respondent received a meeting summary regarding grading criteria; students not learning in, and failing, his courses; and making students feeling disparaged or embarrassed. On October 14, 2016, Respondent received a summary memorandum for his use of embarrassing language toward students. On February 7, 2017, Respondent received a five-day suspension for making racially insensitive and inappropriate comments to students. On March 23, 2017, Respondent was issued a cease and desist letter for his use of embarrassing and disparaging language toward students. On October 27, 2017, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from the District's professional standards committee for making embarrassing remarks to students. On or about December 7, 2017, Respondent received a meeting summary for making racially insensitive comments to a male African-American student. In each of these corrective actions, Respondent was specifically and expressly directed to cease engaging in specified conduct. These directives were directly based on school and School Board policies and DOE rules, and, thus, were reasonable in nature. The directives were given by his supervisors at MHS and Petitioner, all of whom had proper authority to issue such directives. As found above, Respondent continued to make racially insensitive, demeaning, and disrespectful comments to his students during the timeframe covered by the February Administrative Complaint, after repeatedly having been directed not to do so through disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions. Respondent's conduct in this regard constitutes gross insubordination, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(4). As found above, Respondent continued to lower students' academic course grades as a means of dealing with classroom behavioral issues during the timeframe covered by the February Administrative Complaint, after repeatedly having been directed not to do so through disciplinary and non- disciplinary corrective actions. Respondent's conduct in this regard constitutes gross insubordination under rule 6A-5.056(4). Rule 6A-5.056(5) – Willful Neglect of Duty "Willful neglect of duty" is defined in rule 6A-5.056(5) as the intentional12 or reckless failure to carry out required duties. In continuing to intentionally engage in unauthorized grading practices by lowering students' academic course grades to address behavioral issues, Respondent engaged in willful neglect of duty. In continuing to intentionally make racially insensitive and demeaning comments, and engaging in disrespectful conduct toward his students, Respondent failed to comply with authority that establishes required duties. Specifically, Respondent's conduct did not comply with School Board Policy 4008.B.4., requiring that he treat students with kindness and consideration. Additionally, his conduct did not comply with rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 7., requiring that he make reasonable efforts to protect students from conditions harmful to learning; refrain from exposing 12 "Intentional" is defined as "done with intention" or "on purpose." Dictionary.com, https://dictionary.com (last visited Apr. 21, 2021). The evidence establishes that Respondent's actions in this regard were done with intention or on purpose; there was no evidence presented from which it reasonably can be inferred that Respondent's actions in this regard were accidental. students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and refrain from harassing or discriminating against students on the basis of race, national origin, or ethnicity. Section 1008.24 – Test Administration and Security Based on the facts found above, it is determined that Respondent did not follow testing protocol when he failed to collect students' book bags before administering the PSAT on October 10, 2018. However, in order to violate section 1008.24, the failure to follow test administration directions must be done both "knowingly and willfully." Neither "knowingly" nor "willfully" are defined in chapter 1008. Where the legislature has not defined the words used in a statute, the language should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.13 The term "knowingly" is defined as "having knowledge or information"14 or "deliberate, conscious."15 The term "willfully" is defined as "deliberate, voluntary, or intentional."16 The evidence fails to establish that Respondent made the deliberate decision not to collect the book bags, notwithstanding the test manual and exam directions. From the evidence in the record, it is equally reasonable to infer17 that he either did not realize that he needed to collect the book bags, 13 Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach Cty. v. Survivors Charter Sch., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1220, 1233 (Fla. 2009). It is appropriate to refer to dictionary definitions when construing a statute in order to ascertain the plain and ordinary meaning of words used in the statute. Id.; Barco v. School Bd. of Pinellas Cty., 975 So. 2d 1116, 1122 (Fla. 2008); see also Rollins v. Pizzarelli, 761 So. 2d 294, 298 (Fla. 2000)(when necessary, the plain and ordinary meaning can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary). 14 Dictionary.com, https://dictionary.com (last visited Apr. 22, 2021). 15 Black's Law Dictionary, Deluxe 7th ed., at p. 876. 16 See id. at p. 1593, describing "willful" or "willfully" as meaning "only intentionally or purposely as distinguished from accidentally or negligently." 17 See Heifetz v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 475 So. 2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)(it is the presiding officer's function to, among other things, draw permissible inferences from the evidence). or that he simply forgot to do so. The latter inference is particularly plausible, given that he was running late in beginning administration of the test. Thus, it is found that Respondent did not violate section 1008.24, as charged in the February Administrative Complaint. School Board Policy 4008 - Responsibilities and Duties (Principals and Instructional Personnel) As discussed above, Respondent's racially insensitive, demeaning, and disrespectful comments toward his students violated School Board Policy 4008.B., regarding duties of instructional personnel. Specifically, as discussed herein, Respondent did not comply with rule 6A-10.081, the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, as required by paragraph 1. of Policy 4008.B. Additionally, Respondent did not treat all students with kindness and consideration, as required by paragraph 4. of Policy 4008.B. School Board Policy 6314 – Testing – Assessing Student Achievement School Board Policy 6314, the text of which is set forth in the Conclusions of Law, below, establishes a District-wide policy regarding annual achievement testing. The plain language of the policy states, in pertinent part, "[a] program of achievement testing shall be conducted annually . . . ," and "[t]esting within the Broward County School District should be conducted to . . . [p]rovide parents/guardians with a yearly individual student test report and interpretation for those students who have been tested." Policy 6314, at preamble, ¶ 2 (emphasis added). From this language, it is clear that Policy 6314 is specifically directed toward annual achievement testing, rather than routine classroom tests and quizzes. Further to this point, nowhere in Policy 6314 is there any language establishing a prohibition on giving unannounced class quizzes, or deciding not to count quiz grades in a class. Additionally, although the February Administrative Complaint cites Policy 6314 as a basis for imposing discipline, the policy does not establish any specific standards of conduct to which instructional personnel must adhere, or which can constitute the basis of disciplinary action for lack of compliance. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order cites Policy 6314 as a basis for imposing discipline on Respondent for having given an unannounced quiz in his class on material that he allegedly had not yet taught his class, and then deciding not to grade the quiz "because he could 'read the F's on their foreheads.'" However, as discussed above, the language of Policy 6314 makes clear that it does not apply to routine class tests and quizzes. Additionally, the February Administrative Complaint does not specifically charge Respondent with having engaged in any of this conduct. As discussed herein, Respondent cannot be disciplined for conduct which was not specifically charged in the Administrative Complaint.18 Therefore, even though credible testimony and other evidence was provided showing that Respondent engaged in this conduct, that evidence is relevant only with respect to whether Respondent made demeaning comments to his students. That conduct was charged in the February Administrative Complaint, and, as discussed herein, has been considered in determining that Respondent engaged in conduct constituting misconduct in office, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(2). School Board Policy 4.9 – Corrective Action Petitioner also alleges that Respondent "violated" School Board Policy 4.9, titled "Corrective Action," as a basis for its proposal to terminate his employment. As further addressed in the Conclusions of Law, below, Policy 4.9 does not establish a separately enforceable standard of conduct which may be 18 Cottrill, 685 So. 2d at 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). See note 11, supra. violated for purposes of serving as the basis for discipline, but, rather, constitutes a policy designed to improve and/or change employee's job performance and conduct, as well as establishes Petitioner's progressive discipline policy for purposes of determining the appropriate penalty range for violations of applicable standards of conduct established in statutes, DOE rules, and School Board policies. In this case, Respondent has been charged with "Category B" offenses under Policy 4.9. Section III of Policy 4.9, titled "Other Considerations," sets forth a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may be considered in determining the appropriate penalty for Category B offenses. The racially insensitive and demeaning comments that Respondent repeatedly made to his students, over a substantial period of time in his employment with Petitioner, constitute a severe offense. The evidence establishes that Respondent's comments not only offended and embarrassed his students, but also affected his effectiveness as a teacher—to the point that one student avoided going to class in order to avoid Respondent's racially insensitive and disrespectful conduct toward him. Additionally, Respondent's conduct in lowering students' academic course grades to deal with behavioral issues, directly contrary to school grading policy set forth in the MHS Faculty Handbook, was severe, in that it inappropriately affected students' course grades in a negative manner. Moreover, Respondent's students were directly involved in, and affected by, his conduct. To this point, Respondent's racially insensitive and demeaning comments and disrespectful conduct was directed to his students, who were offended and embarrassed by his comments and conduct. Additionally, his students' grades were directly and negatively affected by Respondent's practice of lowering academic course grades to address behavioral issues. Respondent's conduct had direct, negative impacts on his students. Respondent has a lengthy corrective action history during his employment with Petitioner, dating back to 2011. He previously has received two verbal reprimands, two written reprimands, and a five-day suspension without pay. Additionally, he has received numerous non-disciplinary corrective actions during his employment with Petitioner. Collectively, he has received approximately 14 corrective actions, five of which were disciplinary, between July 2011 and November 2018. Notwithstanding these numerous corrective actions, Respondent has persisted, during the timeframe covered by the February Administrative Complaint, in engaging in much of the same conduct for which he previously has been disciplined or issued non- disciplinary corrective actions. The competent, credible evidence shows that these corrective actions have had little, if any, deterrent effect on Respondent's conduct. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, it is determined that Respondent should receive a ten-day suspension without pay in Case No. 19-3380, for having engaged in conduct that was charged in the February Administrative Complaint and proved by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence. May Administrative Complaint Petitioner demonstrated, by the preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in conduct with which he was charged in the May Administrative Complaint. As discussed below, Respondent's conduct violated DOE rules and School Board policies. Rule 6A-5.056(2) – Misconduct in Office As found above, in the second semester of the 2018-1019 school year, Respondent continued to make racially insensitive and disparaging comments, and engage in demeaning and disrespectful conduct, directed toward his students. Specifically, he directed racially insensitive comments toward an African-American student, Dorcas Alao, regarding her language and ethnicity. As discussed above, Alao found Respondent's conduct offensive. Respondent's conduct in this regard constituted misconduct in office, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(2). Specifically, it disrupted his students' learning environment, in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2)(d), and it reduced his ability to effectively perform his teaching duties, in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2)(e). Additionally, Respondent's behavior toward his students constituted misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2)(b), because it violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a), which establishes his professional obligations to students. Specifically, in making racially insensitive and demeaning comments, he failed to make reasonable effort to protect his students from conditions harmful to their learning and to their mental health, in violation of rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1.; he intentionally exposed students to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5.; and he harassed students on the basis of race, color, and national or ethnic origin, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)7. Respondent's racially insensitive and demeaning comments and disrespectful conduct toward his students also constituted misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2)(c), because it violated School Board Policy 4008.B., regarding duties of instructional personnel. Specifically, Respondent did not comply with paragraph 1. of Policy 4008.B., because he violated the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, rule 6A-10.081, as discussed herein. Additionally, Respondent violated paragraph 4. of Policy 4008.B., because he did not treat all students with kindness and consideration, as required by that policy. Respondent's conduct in making unsubstantiated accusations against former assistant principal Hoff constituted misconduct in office because it violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)5., which establishes the professional standard that an educator shall not make malicious or intentionally false statements about a colleague. Although the evidence does not establish that Respondent's accusations about Hoff were malicious—i.e., characterized by, or showing malice, intentionally harmful, or spiteful19—it is reasonable to infer that they were intentionally false, given that Hoff had not been employed at MHS for over two years when Respondent made those accusations, and that Murray had succeeded Hoff as Respondent's supervisor. Rule 6A-5.056(3) – Incompetency In making racially insensitive and demeaning comments, and engaging in disrespectful conduct, toward his students, Respondent also failed to discharge his required teaching duties. Specifically, in making such comments and engaging in such conduct, Respondent failed to communicate appropriately with, and relate to, his students, and, thus, exhibited incompetency as a result of inefficiency, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(3)(a)2. As discussed herein, Respondent's conduct also violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 7., and, thus, constituted incompetency due to inefficiency, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(3)(a)1. Rule 6A-5.056(4) – Gross Insubordination As found above, on January 23, 2015, Respondent received a meeting summary regarding grading criteria; students not learning in, and failing, his courses; and making students feeling disparaged or embarrassed. On October 14, 2016, Respondent received a summary memorandum for his use of embarrassing language towards students. On February 7, 2017, Respondent received a five-day suspension for making racially insensitive and inappropriate comments to students. On March 23, 2017, Respondent was issued a cease and desist letter for his use of embarrassing and disparaging language toward students. On October 27, 2017, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from the School Board’s professional standards committee for making embarrassing remarks to students. On or about December 7, 2017, 19 Dictionary.com, https://dictionary.com (last visited Apr. 22, 2021). Respondent received a meeting summary for making racially insensitive comments to a male African-American student. Additionally, as discussed herein, the undersigned recommends that Respondent be suspended without pay for ten days in Case No. 19-3380, for continuing to engage in such conduct during the timeframe covered by the February Administrative Complaint. This ten-day suspension constitutes yet another disciplinary corrective action against Respondent for continuing to engage in conduct about which he repeatedly has been admonished, and has been directed to cease. In each of these corrective actions, Respondent was specifically and expressly directed to cease engaging in specified conduct. These directives were directly based on school and School Board policies and DOE rules, and, thus, were reasonable in nature. The directives were given by his supervisors at MHS and Petitioner, all of whom had proper authority to issue such directives. As found above, Respondent continued to make racially insensitive and demeaning comments and engage in disrespectful conduct toward his students during the timeframe covered by the May Administrative Complaint, after repeatedly having been directed not to do so through disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions. Respondent's conduct in this regard constitutes gross insubordination, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(4). As found above, Respondent continued to lower students' academic course grades as a means of dealing with classroom behavioral issues during the timeframe covered by the May Administrative Complaint, after repeatedly having been directed not to do so through disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions. Respondent's conduct in this regard constitutes gross insubordination, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(4). Rule 6A-5.056(5) – Willful Neglect of Duty "Willful neglect of duty" is defined in rule 6A-5.056(5) as the intentional20 or reckless failure to carry out required duties. In continuing to intentionally engage in unauthorized grading practices by lowering students' academic course grades to address behavioral issues, Respondent engaged in willful neglect of duty. In continuing to intentionally make racially insensitive, demeaning, and disrespectful comments and conduct toward his students, Respondent failed to comply with authority that establishes required duties. Specifically, Respondent's conduct did not comply with School Board Policy 4008.B.4., requiring that he treat students with kindness and consideration. Additionally, his conduct did not comply with rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 7., requiring that he make reasonable efforts to protect students from conditions harmful to learning; refrain from exposing students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and refrain from harassing or discriminating against students on the basis of race, national origin, or ethnicity. School Board Policy 4008 – Responsibilities and Duties (Principals and Instructional Personnel) As discussed herein, Respondent's racially insensitive, demeaning, and disrespectful comments toward his students violated School Board Policy 4008.B., regarding duties of instructional personnel. Specifically, as discussed herein, Respondent did not comply with rule 6A-10.081, the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, as required by paragraph 1. of Policy 4008.B. Additionally, Respondent did not treat all students with kindness and consideration, as required by paragraph 4. of Policy 4008.B. School Board Policy 4.9 – Corrective Action Petitioner also alleges that Respondent "violated" School Board Policy 4.9, titled "Corrective Action," as a basis for its proposal to terminate his employment. As previously discussed and further addressed in the Conclusions of Law, below, Policy 4.9 does not establish a separately enforceable standard of conduct which may be violated for purposes of serving as the basis for discipline, but, rather, constitutes a policy designed to improve and/or change employee's job performance and conduct, as well as establishes Petitioner's progressive discipline policy for purposes of determining the appropriate penalty range for violations of applicable standards of conduct. The racially insensitive and demeaning comments that Respondent made to his students, repeatedly, over a substantial period of his employment with Petitioner, constitute a severe offense. The evidence establishes that his comments not only offended and embarrassed his students, but also affected his effectiveness as a teacher. Additionally, Respondent's conduct in lowering students' academic course grades to deal with behavioral issues, directly contrary to school grading policy set forth in the MHS Faculty Handbook, was severe, in that it inappropriately affected students' course grades in a negative manner. Moreover, Respondent's students were directly involved in, and affected by, his conduct. To this point, Respondent's racially insensitive and demeaning comments and disrespectful conduct was directed to his students, who were offended and embarrassed by his comments and conduct. Additionally, his students' grades were directly and negatively affected by Respondent's practice of lowering academic course grades to address behavioral issues. Respondent's conduct had direct and negative impacts on his students. As discussed above, Respondent has a lengthy corrective action history during his employment with Petitioner, dating back to 2011. He has previously received two verbal reprimands, two written reprimands, and a 20 See note 12, supra. five-day suspension without pay. Additionally, in Case No. 19-3380, the undersigned has recommended that Respondent be suspended for ten days without pay for engaging in conduct charged in that case. Respondent also has been subjected to numerous non-disciplinary corrective actions during his employment with Petitioner. Collectively, counting the ten-day suspension that has been recommended in Case No. 19-3380, Respondent has received approximately 15 corrective actions, six of which were disciplinary in nature, between July 2011 and March 2019. Notwithstanding these numerous corrective actions, Respondent has persisted, during the timeframe covered by the May Administrative Complaint, in engaging in much of the same conduct for which he previously has been disciplined and issued non- disciplinary corrective actions. The evidence shows that these corrective actions have had essentially no deterrent effect on Respondent's conduct. The competent, credible evidence establishes that Petitioner has given Respondent numerous chances, through its corrective action policy, including the progressive discipline process, to change his conduct which violated, and continues to violate, DOE rules and School Board policies. The competent, credible evidence establishes that nonetheless, Respondent has continued, during the timeframe covered by the May Administrative Complaint, to engage in much of the same conduct which violates DOE rules and School Board policies, and for which he previously has received numerous disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions. Petitioner has closely adhered to the progressive discipline provisions in Policy 4.9, meting out multiple verbal and written reprimands, interspersed with non-disciplinary corrective actions to Respondent, before resorting to suspending him from employment—first, for five days, then for ten days—for his persistent conduct which violated DOE rules and School Board policies. The purpose of Policy 4.9 is "to improve and/or change employees' job performance [and] conduct."21 Despite giving Respondent numerous opportunities, through disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions, to change his conduct, Respondent has not done so. Given that Petitioner has closely followed the progressive discipline provisions of Policy 4.9, and the fact that Respondent has received numerous corrective actions over his period of employment with Petitioner—which have not resulted in him changing his conduct such that he does not engage in behavior which violates DOE rules and School Board policies—it is determined that, pursuant to Policy 4.9, Respondent should be terminated from his employment as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Broward County School Board, enter a Final Order in Case No. 19-3380 suspending Respondent for ten days without pay, and enter a Final Order in Case No. 19-3381 terminating Respondent's employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Marie Heekin, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Robert F. McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605 Elizabeth W. Neiberger, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Katherine A. Heffner, Esquire Robert F. McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605 Ranjiv Sondhi, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 Robert W. Runcie Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue, Tenth Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact From 1985 until his suspension on April 22, 1992, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a school monitor and was assigned to Kelsey L. Pharr Elementary School. Respondent attended mandatory training sessions for school monitors on March 24, 1989; February 2, 1990; September 20, 1990; February 1, 1991; April 1, 1991; and January 31, 1992. During those training sessions, the job description of a school monitor was reviewed. The school monitors were given suggested guidelines on how to handle situations with students and were provided with scenarios that they might encounter on a daily basis. They were specifically instructed to use the least force necessary to bring a situation under control and to always contact a school administrator for assistance using their hand- held radios before putting their hands on a student. School monitors have never been given the authority to administer corporal punishment. At the end of the school day on February 4, 1992, Respondent observed a male student, Thomas Rolle, attempting to kiss a female student. A few days earlier, Respondent had observed him engaging in that same conduct. Respondent approached Rolle and told him that he could not kiss his girlfriend on school premises. Rolle responded by cursing at Respondent, using profanity and a racially derogatory remark. Rolle then turned and began running away from Respondent. Respondent threw his hand-held radio, striking Rolle behind his ear, causing a laceration which began to bleed. Not knowing that Rolle had been injured, Respondent did nothing to assist him. Further, Respondent did not report the incident to a school administrator, as he had not reported the problem with Rolle a few days earlier. One of Rolle's friends told Rolle that his ear was bleeding, and Rolle became quite agitated. He and his friends proceeded to the school building were they encountered the assistant principal at one of the exit doors to the building. The assistant principal, Gigi Gilbert, saw that Rolle was crying and bleeding. Rolle and his friends told her that Rolle had been "doing something" to a girl, that Respondent had told him to stop, that Rolle then began using profane language, that he started running with Respondent running after him, and that Respondent hit Rolle with the radio which Respondent had thrown. Gilbert sent Rolle to the office to receive first aid. Gilbert signaled to the school principal, June Day, to come to where Gilbert was standing with the group of students. Gilbert advised Day as to what the students were telling her and as to Rolle's injury. Day sent a student to get Respondent, and within moments Respondent came to where Day and Gilbert were standing. The principal told Respondent what the students had reported, and Respondent denied that the incident had occurred. Respondent then asked if he could speak with the principal privately, and Gilbert left them alone. Respondent then admitted to the principal that he threw the "walkie-talkie" at Rolle. Day went to the office and attempted to speak to Rolle about the incident. She was unable to because he was too upset and would only say that he was going to "get him," referring to Respondent. She contacted the School Board's Special Investigative Unit, and an investigator was sent to the school. Respondent admitted to that investigator that he had struck Rolle with the radio. Respondent was arrested and charged with aggravated battery. He subsequently plead guilty to that charge, was placed on probation for a period of eighteen months, and was ordered to pay court costs in the amount of $225. Adjudication of guilt was withheld.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing him from his employment with the School Board of Dade County. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-5695 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 3-11, 13-17, and 19-23 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, and 18 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 12 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald A. Williams, Labor Attorney Mack & Bernstein The School Board of Dade County, Florida 1450 N.E. Second Avenue-Suite 562 Miami, Florida 33132 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne & Bradley 2929 S.W. Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Octavio J. Visiedo Superintendent of Schools Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 562 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be suspended from employment for twenty days without pay for misconduct and unprofessional conduct in violation of School District Policies 1.013 and 1.014, Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.001(3) and 6B-1.006(4)(b), (5)(a) and (5)(h), and School Board Bulletins #P-12542-CAO/COO-Count Day and Class Size Reduction Review, and #P-12519-CAO/COO-Florida Department of Education Student Enrollment Procedures.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board (the Board or Petitioner), operates, controls, and supervises all public schools within the Palm Beach County School District (the District), as authorized by Subsection 1001.32(2), Florida Statutes (2008). The District School Superintendent, Dr. Arthur C. Johnson (Superintendent Johnson) is responsible for the administration, management, and supervision of instruction in the District, as provided in Subsection 1001.32(3), Florida Statutes (2008). Respondent, Dr. Gwendolyn Johnson (Dr. Johnson or Respondent) was the principal at Independence Middle School (Independence) during the 2007 to 2008 school year. In her thirty-five years with the District, Dr. Johnson was a principal for eight years, an assistant principal for eleven and a half years, a guidance counselor for approximately nine years, and, before that, an elementary and high school occupational specialist. At Independence, Respondent's assistant principals were Kathleen Carden, Martest Sheffield, and Scott Duhy. Although the projected enrollment was 1174, not the minimum number of 1201 required to justify having a third assistant principal, Dr. Johnson requested and, on May 15, 2007, received approval to keep the third assistant principal, Mr. Duhy, subject to reaching or exceeding the required enrollment by the time the count of students was taken on or about the eleventh day of school in the fall. The increase over the projection was possible because Independence was the 2007 receiving school for students whose parents transferred them from D- or F-rated schools under No Child Left Behind Act. For the 2007-2008 school year, Dr. Johnson assigned primary responsibility for maintaining a count of the student population to another one of the assistant principals, Dr. Carden. In addition to determining the number of assistant principals, the enrollment count is used by the District to determine other staffing, including the number of teachers, and guidance counselors assigned to each school. Attendance at Independence was reported by teachers each school day on bubbled attendance sheets. The sheets were scanned each day and the data stored in a computer program called the Total Education or Resource Management System (TERMS). The sheets were returned to the teachers who used them to record attendance for a two-week period before signing and submitting them, and receiving new computer-generated biweekly attendance scan sheets. On August 23, 2007, the District notified all principals, including Dr. Johnson, by memorandum (Bulletin # P- 12519-CAO/COO/FO/FTE), that any student who had never attended any period since the first day of school must have a withdrawn code entered into the TERMS program by August 27, 2007. Dr. Johnson e-mailed the Bulletin to her administrative staff and convened a meeting of that group to review it. Her secretary also e-mailed a reminder of the requirements to the staff on August 27, 2007. Teachers reported students who never attended school from the beginning of the year, the so-called "no-shows," by making handwritten notes or by drawing lines through the student's name on the attendance sheets, expecting those names to be removed from their rosters. Students who never showed up were not bubbled absent on the attendance sheets. A student aide in the student services office scanned the sheets, so the school's data processor, Angela Jones, did not see the teacher's notes and make changes in the computer. Once teachers kept getting biweekly attendance sheets with the names of no-shows and transfers on them, they started e-mailing or otherwise notifying Ms. Jones who began to keep a running list of no shows and transfers. Ms. Jones was not allowed to enter the withdrawal code in TERMS until authorized to do so by either Dr. Johnson or Dr. Carden, as shown by their e-mails. Rather than following the instructions in Bulletin # P-12519 to withdraw all no-shows by August 27, 2007, no-shows were treated like transfers and were not withdrawn until the student's new school requested their records. Dr. Johnson's claim that she was not aware that procedures outlined in the District's Bulletin of August 23, 2007, were not being followed by Ms. Jones and Dr. Carden, is not credible. She was present at the meetings in her office and her conference room, well after the August deadline, during which Ms. Jones continued to receive instructions to wait for approval to make withdrawals. On August 31, 2007, the District notified all principals, including Dr. Johnson, by memorandum (Bulletin # P- 12542-CAO/COO) that the District's enrollment count day was September 7, 2007, and that the count would be taken from TERMS. Dr. Johnson sent an e-mail to all teachers to count students, as directed in the Bulletin of August 23, by only including students who had been in attendance at least one period since school began on August 22, thereby excluding no-shows from the count. Prior to 2007, this would have been the enrollment number that the school faxed or e-mailed to the District. For the first time in 2007, the number used by the District was the number taken from TERMS summary enrollment screen that included no-shows at Independence. The District also relied on that data for its Full Time Equivalent (FTE) survey and report to the State Department of Education (DOE). The FTE count is used to determine per pupil funding by the State. The actual number of students at Independence on September 7, 2007, was 1188 but the number taken from the TERMS database and reported was 1214, a twenty-six student discrepancy that was later, after an audit, reduced to twenty-four. In October 2007, Dr. Johnson falsely verified the accuracy of the FTE survey that was, subsequent to the audit, determined to be an over-count of 23 students. Dr. Johnson testified that she verified the accuracy of the count relying on the work of Dr. Carden, Ms. Jones, Exceptional Student Education Coordinator Carol Lee, and ESOL Coordinator Ann Costillo. She denied attempting to fraudulently inflate the number to gain or maintain resources allocated by the District, but she knew there was a difference in the numbers based on a September report from Dr. Carden. She also knew that, if the teachers followed her instructions regarding how to count students, the "actual" number of 1214 from TERMS, written in by Dr. Carden, had to be incorrect. TERMS data also was uploaded to another program called Grade-Quick. When it was time to give grades at the end of nine weeks, Ms. Jones no longer had the ability to alter the rosters and teachers were required to give a grade to each student on their roster. David Shore was the Grade-Quick technical support person at Independence. At the suggestion of Dr. Johnson, he sought advice from the District's technical support person, Bruce Roland, who told him to have teachers give each no-show student a grade of "F" to avoid an error code. The uploaded grades for students who did not attend Independence, according to Mr. Roland, would be deleted from the District's mainframe. Fearing other consequences of giving "Fs," including the possibility of generating letters to parents whose children did not attend Independence, and doubting Mr. Shore's advice because he was relatively new in his position, some teachers refused to give "Fs" to no-shows. After discussions with Dr. Johnson, Mr. Shore instructed teachers to give a grade of "C" instead and to be sure also to give a conduct grade. One teacher apparently found a way to give a conduct grade, but no letter grade, to students who were not enrolled in her class and to somehow avoid a computer error code. Some time during the fall semester, anonymous complaints concerning the enrollment at Independence were made to the State Auditor General's Office, who referred the matter to an auditor in the District's office. In December 2007, the audit confirmed that the count at Independence was incorrect largely because no-shows and withdrawals were not withdrawn timely from the computer in TERMS before the District's initial count on August 27, 2007; before the District's eleven-day count on September 7, 2007; nor before Dr. Johnson twice verified the accuracy of the FTE count in October 2007. Dr. Johnson made no effort to make corrections, after she admittedly was aware of the errors in October, November, and December. Dr. Johnson blamed teachers who were unprofessional, racist, and disgruntled over her more strict adherence to the attendance rules for teacher planning and professional development days, and over proposed spending of A-plus money. She testified that they deliberately failed to bubble no-shows as absentees. That assertion contradicts the testimony of her witness that the proper procedure was followed by teachers who drew lines through the names of no-shows rather than bubbling them as absent. It also contradicts the instructions she gave in a memorandum to teachers, on October 5, 2007, telling them to write codes next to students' names on their rosters, NS for no- show, WD for withdrawn - If a student was present at least one day..., T for transfer, and A for add. Her memorandum instructs teachers to give the information to Ms. Jones on October 11, 2007. Ms. Jones said she did look at rosters for FTE reporting and she did make corrections. She too says her count was accurate at the time unless teachers withheld information. The teachers' rosters were maintained and, from a review of the class rosters, the auditor concluded that the error was made in not correcting TERMS to comply with teachers' reports. Dr. Johnson also blamed her supervisor, Marisol Ferrer, for sending a less experienced manager, Joe Patton, to attend a meeting, on October 11, 2007, with her of the Employee Building Council, a group that included some teachers who were antagonistic towards Dr. Johnson. It is true that only later did Mr. Patton recall that, after the meeting and after Dr. Johnson left, some of teachers told him there were problems with the student count at Independence. At the time, however, Mr. Patton did not tell Ms. Ferrer or Dr. Johnson about the comments. Dr. Johnson testified that, had she been told after that meeting on October 11th about the problems, she could have corrected the numbers before she submitted her verification of accuracy. She did know that Dr. Carden showed her two sets of numbers on September 7, 2007. Although she testified that she believed the fluctuations were normal because students come and go during the day for doctor's appointments or for other reasons, Dr. Johnson took no further steps to determine if that was in fact the cause of the discrepancy. After Dr. Johnson and Dr. Carden instructed Ms. Jones to begin making withdrawals after the October FTE report, some of the withdrawals were backdated showing the no-show students' withdrawal dates as the first day of school, August 22, 2007. The District submitted corrections to DOE before the deadline for incurring penalties, ultimately reducing the FTE count at Independence by 23 students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, enter a final order suspending Respondent for twenty days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 16th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick W. Ford, Esquire 2801 PGA Boulevard, Suite 110 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Sonia Elizabeth Hill-Howard, Esquire Palm Beach County School District 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-302 Post Office Box 19239 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239 Dr. Arthur C. Johnson, Superintendent Palm Beach County School District 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact Richard L. Gryte holds Florida Teacher's Certificate Number 323641, issued on January 4, 1983, covering the areas of elementary education, early childhood education, emotionally disturbed education and Junior College. Until his resignation on March 13, 1984, Gryte was employed by the Seminole County School Board as a teacher of emotionally handicapped students at the Milwee Middle School located in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. Gryte was initially hired by Douglas Smith, assistant principal at Milwee, in the summer of 1981, to serve as an emotionally handicapped (herein referred to as EH) resource teacher. This was based on Gryte's prior work history, as well as his educational background; including a master's degree in exceptional education. As a resource teacher, Gryte did not have academic responsibilities, but was used as a counselor who would work with students for a period during the day. These students would be assigned to the resource room by their regular classroom teachers, primarily if they had problems regarding behavior. As a teacher involved with emotionally handicapped students, it was necessary for Gryte to prepare forms known as Individual Educational Plans (hereinafter referred to as IEP's). The IEP's were required by Federal and State law and were necessary in order for the school district to obtain funding. From the beginning of his employment and assignment at Milwee Middle School, Gryte had difficulty performing administrative duties regarding documentation and other paperwork. Gryte recognizes that correct documentation is the responsibility of a good teacher, but also acknowledges his weakness in that area. When this problem was brought to the attention of Douglas Smith, assistant principal, he immediately sent memos and spoke with Gryte regarding the problem. During the 1981-82 year, out of the 22 IEP's necessary for Gryte to complete, at least 12 were incomplete or not done. The IEP's that were done were incomplete in that they lacked objectives, goals and other qualitative methods by which to determine the progress of the child. Even as a resource teacher, Gryte failed to prepare lesson plans which were required of all teachers. In fact, Respondent failed to prepare lesson plans for the entire 1981-82 school term, despite being counseled and informed about the necessity of preparing and submitting lesson plans. Overall, Gryte's teaching performance for the 1981-82 school term was not in keeping with minimum standards required of his profession. In addition to the paperwork and other administrative tasks, Gryte had a problem maintaining classroom discipline and control and would violate school rules by leaving the class unattended. During the 1982-83 school term, Mr. Willie G. Holt became the principal at the school. He first became concerned regarding Gryte's performance because of safety concerns he had for student's in Gryte's resource class. Due to the nature of these children and their behavioral problems, it was a policy of the school that children would not be left alone and unattended. Gryte knew of this policy. During the 1982-83 school year, Gryte would periodically leave his class unattended. On two occasions in the spring of 1983, a female student was involved with and performed sexual acts including masturbation and oral sex in the presence of two male students. These acts occurred when Gryte left his class unattended. Gryte recognized that it was wrong to leave the class unattended, but felt he could trust the boys involved and was only gone for a brief period of time. Due to concern for the safety and welfare of the students entrusted to Gryte and because of a need to relieve the previous self-contained teacher, Mr. Holt, school principal, and Mr. Smith, assistant principal in charge of the exceptional education program, decided to place Gryte in the self-contained EH class for the 1983-84 school year. This was thought to be appropriate since the self-contained class had a full-time aide, Betty Manly, who would always be present in the event Gryte would leave the class unattended. Gryte objected to this assignment, but based on his certification and education, he was qualified to be in the self- contained classroom and he was so assigned. Gryte's teaching performance in the self-contained classroom during the 1983-1984 school term was extremely unsatisfactory in all aspects. As in previous years, Gryte was required to submit weekly lesson plans. This was a requirement of all teachers. As in prior years, Gryte was derelict in preparing his lesson plans. From the beginning of the school term until January, 1984, he submitted lesson plans for the first five weeks, but failed to submit any lesson plans thereafter. He next submitted lesson plans for two weeks during the weeks of January 20 and 27, 1984. Thereafter, he did not submit any additional lesson plans until the date of his resignation in March, 1984. The assistant principals, Gordon Hathaway and Douglas Smith, repeatedly instructed Gryte to submit lesson plans timely, but he failed to do so. Even the lesson plans which were submitted were not proper in that they were too generalized and did not serve the proper function. In addition, for the 1983-84 school term, Gryte still had problems completing his IEP's timely and in a proper manner. It was a concern of the school officials that if they were ever audited, they would lose funding. Gryte was counseled by Dr. Daniel Scinto and Dr. Robert Carlton regarding the preparation of IEP's, as well as class management, but little improvement occurred. Gryte's classroom was extremely noisy, unruly and out of control. Dr. Carlton worked with Gryte on several occasions regarding implementation of behavioral management techniques. However, no improvement was noted. The excessive noise from Gryte's classroom was disturbing to the adjoining classes. Mr. Holt started receiving complaints from other teachers. Mrs. Poole indicated that students in her classroom actually complained about the noise from Respondent's class, as did she. The teacher's aide, Betty Manly, observed that Gryte did not assert control. He allowed the students to do as they pleased and demonstrated an apparent lack of classroom control. Gryte himself recognized that there was an excessive amount of noise in his class which was disturbing to other teachers. Some of the noise was due to Gryte's policy of allowing students to use curse words and engage in verbal altercations, which at times led to physical violence. He would permit the students to use "damn", "hell", and other similar curse words. On occasion, fights would break out among the students because Gryte would allow an argument to become too heated and would not assert control. He thought it was necessary for the children to have the freedom to release their anger in this manner. He ultimately hoped to be able to work with the students and this was part of his counseling therapy. Gryte often imposed corporal punishment as a means of discipline with the students. However, he frequently imposed the punishment in violation of State law and School Board policy. The School Board policy, as set forth in the student disciplinary code, requires that all corporal punishment be administered in the presence of another adult and not administered in the presence of other students. On numerous occasions, Gryte paddled a student in the classroom without the presence of another teacher or administrator as a witness and also while in the presence of other students. This practice was against direct orders of the principal. In addition, students were embarrassed by punishment being administered in front of other children. Further, the practice is not appropriate when dealing with any student, but even less so when dealing with emotionally handicapped students. On one occasion, Gryte lined the entire class up for "licks." The noise of the paddling and the student's yelling brought an adjoining teacher to see what had occurred. When she arrived, a student was lying on the floor and his leg was shaking and the student was grimacing and in pain. The teacher advised Gryte not to administer any more punishment, because it was in violation of the school policy. During the first nine weeks of the 1983-84 school year, Gryte failed to provide grades for the students in his class. He was unable to give grades because students had not performed a sufficient amount of work in order for Gryte to evaluate their progress and to assign a competent grade. This was in violation of the school policy as well as the State law, and was upsetting to the administration. The school was required to send blank report cards, with the exception of P.E. grades. Gryte was told to produce his grade book and test papers which had been performed by the students. A review of the grade book showed tests and work had not been required or performed or recorded in order to evaluate the students. What papers were produced by Gryte were not of sufficient quality or quantity to effectively grade the students. The policy of the school was to assign enough work each week to allow the students to receive periodic grades. Gryte recognizes his duty to maintain paperwork and other documentation. He understands this is part of being a competent and effective teacher, even though he would place greater emphasis on the students. Jeanette Burgess was a female student in Gryte's self- contained classroom his last year at Milwee. Gryte had a propensity to touch Jeanette in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner. He would periodically touch her on her face, ears and buttocks. This was embarrassing to Jeanette. On one evening, Gryte called Jeanette's home to speak with her. Her mother, Diana Oliver, answered the phone and inquired as to the nature of the call. Gryte indicated it was a private matter and he needed to speak with Jeanette personally. This offended the mother and she refused to allow him to speak with her daughter and advised him that any matters pertaining to Jeanette in school should be discussed with her. In addition, in the mother's opinion, Gryte had been drinking. She formed this opinion based on slurred speech and other mannerisms. On another occasion, Betty Manly entered the classroom and discovered Gryte standing extremely close to Jeanette and, in Ms. Manly's opinion, touching Jeanette inappropriately. Jeanette was forced back against Ms. Manly's desk and was obviously embarrassed by the situation. Gryte had dismissed the other students to attend P.E. class and was left in the room alone with Jeanette. The situation was upsetting to Jeanette, because she dropped her head and started crying when she was questioned about what had occurred between Gryte and her. Following the telephone incident, Gryte, the principal, and Jeanette's mother had a conference and Gryte was directed not to administer corporal punishment or otherwise touch Jeanette for any reason. Gryte violated this direct order in that he did subsequently administer corporal punishment to Jeanette. Another student in Gryte's self-contained class was a child by the name of Kelly Owens who had self-destructive tendencies and frequently would injure herself. On one occasion, Gryte sent her to the office alone and on the way, she took a piece of glass and cut her wrist and neck, not severely enough to cause death, but enough to result in extensive bleeding. Gryte had been specifically advised not to leave this child unattended. On one occasion, he gave her a pass to leave the school and go to an area known as the "swamp". This is an area off campus where students gather to smoke marijuana and allegedly participate in other similar activities. This occurred after a conference with the child's parents which Gryte attended and in which it was emphasized that the child needed close supervision. On another occasion, Gryte actually left the child in the classroom asleep. This was at the end of the school day. Another teacher came by and found the child sleeping in the class by herself. Gryte indicated he was unaware that Kelly was still in the classroom. In addition to the incident involving the telephone conversation with Jeanette Burgess' mother, Gryte appeared at an open house held on the school campus in the beginning of the 1983-84 school term. It was apparent that Gryte had been drinking. Those teachers present were definitely under the·impression that he had been drinking too much due to his slurred speech and demeanor. When confronted by Mr. Holt, Gryte admitted he had been drinking, but stated he only had one drink prior to the meeting. Based on Gryte's conduct and performance at Milwee, the principal and assistant principal felt he was neither effective nor competent and would not employ Respondent in a teaching position. Respondent recognizes he is not qualified and competent to teach certain areas of his certification. He basically desires to be a counselor and not a teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order revoking the teaching certificate of Richard L. Gryte for a period of three years, subject to reinstatement thereafter pursuant to Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: L.Haldane Taylor, Esquire 331 East Union Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard L. Gryte 7703 Meadowglen Drive Orlando, Florida 32810 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Marlene Greenfield, Administrator Professional Practice Service 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes any specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Petitioner Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-31 are all adopted in substance. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Respondent Respondent filed no Proposed Findings of Fact.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Manatee County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause to terminate the employment of Charles Willis (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a drama teacher employed by the Petitioner to work at BRHS pursuant to a professional services contract. During 2010, the Respondent had an account on Facebook, a social networking internet website. Facebook allows an individual user to create and maintain a personal "page" including text and photographs, which can be viewed by other users. Users can also provide links to content posted elsewhere on the internet, and viewers can access the linked information. Facebook allows users to establish privacy settings that restrict access to various types of content. Such privacy options include the identification of other Facebook users as "friends." Privacy settings can be established that prevent users from posting comments to content posted by a user, or from viewing comments posted by other users. Social networking websites are used by some teachers to communicate classroom assignments or other educational information to students. Social networking websites are widely used by students and, at least based on the testimony presented at the hearing, by parents and other adults as well. Prior to the allegations underlying this dispute, the Respondent's privacy settings permitted his Facebook "friends" to view all content posted by the Respondent. The Respondent had in excess of 100 BRHS students identified as friends on his Facebook account. At all times material to this case, the Petitioner had no policy, written or otherwise, that restricted an employee from having an account on a social networking website, or regulated the use of any social networking website by an employee. At various times during 2010, the Respondent posted remarks on his Facebook page that included certain acronyms. Such acronyms, and their commonly understood meaning, included the following: WTF (What the Fuck) OMFG (Oh My Fucking God) F'n (Fucking) LMAO (Laughing My Ass Off) ROTFLMFAO (Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Fucking Ass Off) At the hearing, the Respondent asserted that he intended the "F" in the above acronyms to be understood as "fricking." There was no credible evidence that any student or parent who read the Respondent's Facebook remarks understood the "F" to mean anything other than "fucking." On his Facebook page dated July 31, 2010, the Respondent posted a remark that stated "[I]t's not who you know, it's who you blow," in an apparently derogatory reference to the judging of a student competition. On his Facebook page dated March 30, 2010, the Respondent posted a photograph of a bumper sticker that read "[F]uck the man, become the man" that was taken by a student on a trip to New York. The Respondent explained his posting of the photo by claiming that the people on the trip had agreed that all photos taken on the trip would be posted without censorship and that he had posted several hundred trip photos onto Facebook. On his Facebook page dated August 7, 2010, the Respondent posted a photograph (titled "Accidental Porn") that he obtained from another Facebook user's page. The photograph displayed a television weatherman standing in front of a map showing an elongated weather system. Based on the location of the weatherman and the weather system, the image was perceived by some viewers as depicting the broadcaster holding his penis in a sexually-suggestive position. Comments on the Respondent's Facebook page made it apparent that his viewers were aware of the perception. On his Facebook page dated August 20, 2010, the Respondent posted a link to content titled "[I]t's a great day to whoop somebody's ass." On his Facebook page dated June 26, 2010, the Respondent, apparently intoxicated, posted remarks indicating that he'd consumed excessive alcohol one evening and then posted remarks on the next day indicating that he had a headache related to the consumption. Although the Respondent asserted that some of the posts referenced herein occurred during summer months when he was not "on contract" as a teacher, his students, past and future, were able to freely access the Respondent's Facebook pages during the summer. The Respondent also had an account on Formspring, another social networking internet website. Formspring presents user content in a "questions and answer" format. In an undated post to the Respondent's Formspring page, a student commented "[T]hanks for letting me skip your class today." The Respondent wrote in response, "[Y]ou're welcome, but now you owe me....LOL....just do an amazing job at the encore show." The Respondent acknowledged that he allowed the student to miss his class in order to attend a rehearsal. While the Respondent may have failed to comply with school attendance policy by permitting the student to miss class, the Petitioner's assertion that the posting created the impression of an inappropriate arrangement between a teacher and a student was not supported by credible evidence. In another undated post to the Respondent's Formspring page, an unidentified Formspring user asked "what happened with the whole UP dvd thing," apparently in reference to an incident wherein the Respondent played a movie in class. The Respondent replied, "I got areprimand [sic] for showing an unauthorized video and not following the counties [sic] video policy." The Petitioner's assertion that the Respondent's response was an inappropriate discussion of an employer/employee disciplinary matter with a student was not supported by credible evidence. The reprimand was public record. The identity of the person posting the question was unknown. Upon the initiation of this disciplinary action, the Respondent altered his privacy settings on the social networking sites to limit access of personal content to adults. There was no evidence that social networking internet websites cannot be used for appropriate educational purposes. On more than a few occasions, the Respondent was known in the classroom to use "spoonerisms" in speech, wherein letters in various words were deliberately switched to alter a verbalization of a phrase. While in class and in the presence of students, the Respondent used phrases such as "nucking futs" or "doggammit." The school received a complaint about the practice. On one occasion in the classroom, the Respondent referred to his former wife as a "bitch." On at least one occasion, the Respondent used a hand gesture in the presence of students to signify the word "bullshit." On April 30, 2010, the BRHS principal directed the Respondent to refrain from making such statements and gestures. There was no credible evidence that the Respondent continued to engage in such verbal or physical communication after the April 30, 2010, directive. At the start of the 2009-2010 school year, the Respondent approached the BRHS principal to inquire about organizing a theatre trip to New York for some of his drama students. The principal declined to authorize the travel as a school-sponsored event. The Respondent thereafter organized the trip on a private basis. Eight students expressed interest in going on the trip, and the trip ultimately occurred with a number of parents traveling as chaperones. At times, the Respondent discussed the proposed trip in his classes. The announcement of an organizational meeting occurred during class. The meeting was conducted on the school grounds at a time and place where play rehearsals were occurring, which had been previously arranged by the Respondent. There was no evidence that the Respondent mislead any participant to incorrectly presume that the trip was sponsored by the school. The participants in the trip were aware that the travel was not a school-sponsored event. There was no credible evidence that any participant or parent believed that the trip was a school-sanctioned event. The Respondent failed to comply with the school procedure for private use of the facility, which requires application and approval by school administration. Although execution of a facility lease may be required for larger groups, there was no evidence that such a lease would have been required for this meeting. There was no evidence that there was any adverse consequence to the Respondent's failure to seek permission to hold the organizational meeting in the previously-approved play rehearsal space. The time and location of the organizational meeting was not unreasonable, given the nature of the trip and the expected participants. Teachers who need to leave BRHS grounds during the workday are directed to obtain permission from a school administrator and then document the early departure in a log book maintained in the school office. The school administrators are the principal and the assistant principals, who are identified as such during formal meetings at the beginning of the school year. On September 2, 2010, the Respondent needed to go home on his lunch break and switch cars with his wife. The Respondent testified that he could not locate an administrator and that he thereafter went to the office of Bob McCabe, the BHRS "administrative parent liaison" and advised Mr. McCabe that the Respondent was leaving campus early. Mr. McCabe is not a school administrator and has no authority to approve a request to leave school grounds. Mr. McCabe works with parents and on student disciplinary matters. Mr. McCabe told the Respondent that he would tell the administrators, and the Respondent left the school. Mr. McCabe testified that shortly after the Respondent left, an assistant principal inquired as to whether the Respondent had left the grounds. Mr. McCabe also testified that the assistant principal had told him that she was present in her office at the time the Respondent claimed to be unable to find her, but the hearsay testimony was not otherwise corroborated. The evidence establishes that, had the Respondent requested to leave campus, the request would have most likely been granted, as such authorization, absent use of leave, was routinely granted by school administrators. There was no credible evidence that other teachers who have left school grounds without prior administrative approval have been subjected to discipline for the infraction. The Petitioner presented the expert testimony of Terry Osborn, dean of the University of South Florida College of Education, Sarasota-Manatee campus, who opined that some of the Respondent's social networking interactions could have had negative effects on the learning environment, could cause anxiety for some students, and potentially result in a loss of credibility by the educator. Mr. Osborne essentially based his opinion on very limited literature. There was no credible evidence that any of the adverse impacts identified by the witness has occurred.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Manatee County School Board enter a final order, dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Charles E. Willis. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 31st day of March, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott A. Martin, Esquire Manatee County School Board 215 Manatee Avenue West, Second Floor Bradenton, Florida 34205 Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Lois Tepper, Acting General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Tim McGonegal, Superintendent Manatee County School Board 215 Manatee Avenue, West Bradenton, Florida 34206-9069
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent for 30 days without pay.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Henry E.S. Reeves Elementary School (“Henry Reeves”), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent was initially hired by the School Board as a teacher in 1982. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”). Julian Gibbs, the principal of Henry Reeves (“Principal Gibbs”), was authorized to issue directives to his employees, including Respondent. The 2011-2012 School Year After holding various teaching positions within the School Board, Respondent was assigned to Henry Reeves beginning with the 2011-2012 school year. On August 18, 2011, Respondent arrived late to work on her first day at Henry Reeves. Respondent was supposed to arrive at Henry Reeves at 8:20 a.m., for a pre-planning faculty meeting and to set-up her room, but she did not arrive until after 12:30 p.m., because she reported that morning to another school, Van E. Blanton Elementary School. On August 23, 2011, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Duty and Responsibilities memorandum concerning Respondent’s tardiness and informed Respondent that failure to report to work on time in the future would result in further disciplinary action.1/ Some time during the next few weeks, Principal Gibbs conducted an informal classroom walkthrough of Respondent’s class. At that time, Principal Gibbs observed that Respondent did not have any lesson plans, grades for students, or a “print- rich” classroom and outside bulletin board.2/ On September 16, 2011, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for failing to display current student work, update and have print-rich classroom and outside bulletin boards, timely grade and file student assignments, label data charts, and graph student assessment results. Respondent was advised to ensure she fulfilled these responsibilities by September 20, 2011. On January 4, 2012, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for failing to update outside bulletin boards and ensure her desk was organized and clutter free. The memorandum advised Respondent to ensure she fulfilled these responsibilities by January 6, 2012. The 2012-2013 School Year On October 17, 2012, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for allegedly not providing updated lesson plans for a substitute teacher when she was absent on October 8 and 12, 2012. However, the School Board did not prove at the hearing that Respondent failed to provide updated lesson plans for a substitute teacher when she was absent. Although Principal Gibbs testified about the October 17, 2012, memorandum he authored, he lacked personal knowledge of the lack of updated lesson plans for the substitute teacher on October 8 and 12, 2012. No witness with personal knowledge of the lack of updated lesson plans for the substitute teacher testified at the hearing. The content of the memorandum is hearsay. In any event, the October 17, 2012, memorandum directed Respondent to “read and review the Code of Ethics cited in The School Board of Miami-Dade County Bylaws and Policies, 4210.01 and Common Sense Suggestions and School Board Policy 1139, Responsibilities and Duties for Full-Time Personnel.” Principal Gibbs informed Respondent that failure to comply with her “professional responsibilities may be considered a violation of School Board and Administrative policies.” On November 29, 2012, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for arriving late to two meetings on November 13 and 29, 2012. Principal Gibbs informed Respondent that it is her “professional duty and responsibility to report to all scheduled meetings on time” and “to review all notifications in regards to scheduled meetings and events.” Principal Gibbs informed Respondent that failure to comply with her “professional responsibilities may be considered a violation of School Board and Administrative policies.” On December 12, 2012, Principal Gibbs placed Respondent on support dialogue following an observation he made of Respondent in her classroom. Support dialogue involves a “two-way conversation” between the principal and teacher to develop strategies so that the teacher may improve for the next evaluation. Respondent was upset that she was placed on support dialogue. During the support dialogue meeting between Principal Gibbs and Respondent, Respondent spoke to Principal Gibbs in a loud manner. Later that day during dismissal, Respondent again spoke to Principal Gibbs in a loud manner, but this time in front of other teachers. Because of Respondent’s loud tone of voice during and after the support dialogue meeting, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum advising her to “immediately refrain from exhibiting inappropriate behavior, and adhere to all school site and M-DCPS policies and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, 3210.01, and Code of Ethics.” Respondent was informed that “[a]ny recurrence of the above infraction may lead to further disciplinary actions.” On December 18, 2012, Principal Gibbs held a Conference For The Record (“CFR”) with Respondent, because she allegedly struck a student with a ruler. During the conference, Principal Gibbs provided Respondent with a copy of School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics, and “How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgment to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching.” Respondent was “advised of the high esteem in which M-DCPS employees are held and of the District’s concern for any behavior which adversely affects this level of professionalism.” Respondent was “reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment for all students.” Respondent was informed that “[n]oncompliance with these directives will necessitate further review for the imposition of additional disciplinary measures and will be deemed as insubordination.”3/ During the December 18, 2012, conference, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a written letter of reprimand. The written reprimand directed Respondent to: 1) immediately refrain from inappropriate physical contact/discipline with students; 2) adhere to all School Board policies and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; and 3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Respondent was informed that “[a]ny recurrence of the above infraction may lead to further disciplinary actions.”4/ On January 16, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent “Absences and Tardies From Work Directives,” because Respondent was allegedly tardy and/or absent from work during the 2012-2013 school year on the following occasions: October 1, 2012: tardy one hour October 8, 2012: sick one day October 11, 2012: tardy 1 ½ hour October 12, 2012: personal one day October 25, 2012: sick one day December 4, 2012: personal one day December 6, 2012: sick one day December 12, 2012: sick one day December 19, 2012: personal .5 day January 9, 2013: sick one day January 10, 2013: sick one day January 15, 2013: sick one day However, the School Board failed to prove at the hearing that Respondent was tardy and/or absent from work as indicated in the directives and accompanying documentation. Although Principal Gibbs testified about the January 16, 2013, directives he authored, he lacked personal knowledge of the tardiness and absences. No witness with personal knowledge of the tardiness and absences testified at the hearing. The content of the memorandum and accompanying documentation are hearsay. In any event, Respondent was informed that “[n]on-compliance with the directives will be considered a violation of professional responsibilities and insubordination.”5/ On February 22, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Duty and Responsibility memorandum because she was allegedly six minutes late picking up her students from the cafeteria. Although Principal Gibbs testified about the February 22, 2013, memorandum he authored, he lacked personal knowledge of the incident. No witness with personal knowledge of the incident testified at the hearing. The content of the memorandum is hearsay. In any event, Respondent was informed in the memorandum that “[i]t is essential that all teachers pick up their classes on time, especially when other classes are entering the cafeteria.” On March 14, 2013, Principal Gibbs held a CFR with Respondent because she “grabbed” a student “by the arm” on some unspecified date and time when the student was attempting to obtain a set of headphones out of his backpack. Principal Gibbs witnessed this incident [while] conducting an observation of Respondent in her classroom. However, at the hearing, Principal Gibbs provided no further detail regarding the alleged incident other than indicating that Respondent “grabbed” the student “by the arm.” There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Respondent caused the student any emotional or physical injury. The student did not testify.6/ In any event, the CFR directed Respondent to: 1) immediately refrain from inappropriate physical contact/discipline with students; 2) adhere to all School Board policies and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; and 3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. The 2013-2014 School Year The School Board alleged in paragraph 18 of its Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “On September 13, 2013, a parent reported that her child had been poked under the eye and Respondent failed to render first aid. When asked about the incident, Respondent was completely unaware that a student had been injured [while] under her supervision.”7/ The School Board failed to prove that a student was poked under the eye on September 13, 2013, while under Respondent’s supervision. The parent’s report is hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the alleged incident testified at the hearing. Respondent denied the allegations. In an effort to demonstrate that Respondent is guilty of the allegations, however, the School Board points to Principal Gibbs’s testimony that he “personally observed the lead mark under the child’s eye.” This observation by Principal Gibbs allegedly occurred at some point on September 13, 2013, after the school’s dismissal of students, and after “the parent” returned to the school with the child. The undersigned finds that Principal Gibbs’s testimony is unpersuasive. Even if Principal Gibbs observed a lead mark under a child’s eye at some time after the alleged incident occurred, that does not prove that the child was poked under the eye while under Respondent’s supervision. The child could have been poked under the eye at any time and anywhere. Principal Gibbs’s conclusion that a child was poked under the eye with a pencil while under Respondent’s supervision is based on speculation and hearsay of the parent and students. Nevertheless, on September 16, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued to Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum regarding the alleged incident, requiring her to “[e]nsure the safety and well-being of students at all times”; “[m]aintain close supervision of students at all times”; “[r]eport immediately to administration any accidents or incidents involving student welfare”; and “[n]otify parents in regards to any accident or incidents occurring with students.” The School Board alleged in paragraph 19 of its Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “On September 17, 2013 Respondent informed Mr. Gibbs that she had scratched ‘L.G.’, her student.” The School Board failed to prove that Respondent scratched a student under her supervision as alleged in paragraph 19 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. No evidence was adduced at hearing in support of the School Board’s allegations in paragraph 19 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Moreover, the School Board failed to address this issue in its Proposed Recommended Order. The School Board alleged in paragraph 20 of its Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “On September 18, 2013, a parent reported that her child had been stabbed . . . three times with a pencil by another student. Respondent failed to render first aid and failed to notify the other student’s parents.” The School Board failed to prove that a student was stabbed with a pencil by another student while under Respondent’s supervision as alleged in paragraph 20 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Again, the parent’s report is hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the alleged incident testified at the hearing. In an effort to demonstrate that Respondent is guilty of the allegations, however, the School Board argues in its Proposed Recommended Order that: “[w]hen Respondent was asked about the incident, she indicated that she was on the other side of the room when it happened.” The School Board’s position, however, contradicts Principal Gibbs’s testimony at the hearing when he was asked: Q. Did you speak to Ms. Parris about this incident? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what did she say to you? A. She doesn’t recollect the child being poked by another child in the wrist with the pencil. She just had no memory. Transcript, pages 53-54. Nevertheless, on September 19, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued to Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum regarding the alleged incident, requiring her to “[e]nsure the safety and well-being of students at all times”; “[m]aintain close supervision of students at all times”; “[r]eport immediately to administration any accidents or incidents involving student welfare”; and “[n]otify parents in regards to any accident or incidents occurring with students.” The School Board alleged in paragraph 21 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “Based on the witness statements, the following was gathered during the investigation: i. On September 24, 2013, under Respondent’s supervision, or lack thereof, four students were injured. [One] student, ‘A.J.’ was taken to the hospital by her mother hospital [sic] because of a facial contusion.” The School Board failed to prove that any students were injured while under Respondent’s supervision as alleged in paragraph 21 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Any witness statements are hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the incident testified at the hearing. The School Board argues in its Proposed Recommended Order that on September 25, 2013, a third incident occurred in Respondent’s classroom. Specifically, the School Board contends: “A parent approached administration concerned about the safety of her child. . . . The student had been kicked in the face causing her face to swell.” Notably, this alleged incident is not referred to in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. The notice was, therefore, insufficient to inform Respondent of the School Board’s contention. Even if Respondent was on notice of the allegations, however, the School Board failed to prove that a student was kicked in the face while under Respondent’s supervision. The parent’s report is hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the incident testified at the hearing. Respondent denied the allegations. Notably, Principal Gibbs testified that when asked about the incident, Respondent “said that she doesn’t recall a child being kicked in the face, but allegedly she was pushed by another child in the class, but she doesn’t recall the child being kicked in the face.” The undersigned finds that Principal Gibbs’s testimony is not credible and is unpersuasive. The purported statement contradicts what Principal Gibbs wrote in the September 26, 2013, Professional Responsibilities memorandum. At that time, Principal Gibbs wrote that when Respondent was “asked what happened. [She] stated I have nothing to say.” Nevertheless, on September 26, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued to Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum regarding the alleged incident, requiring her to “[e]nsure the safety and well-being of students at all times”; “[m]aintain close supervision of students at all times”; “[r]eport immediately to administration any accidents or incidents involving student welfare”; and “[n]otify parents in regards to any accident or incidents occurring with students.” On September 25, 2013, Principal Gibbs met with Respondent in his office to discuss her classroom supervision. The meeting was held behind Principal Gibbs’s closed door. During the meeting, Respondent felt as if Principal Gibbs was speaking to her in an arrogant manner. Respondent became upset at Principal Gibbs, spoke to him in a loud manner, and, at one point, hit his desk with one of her hands and stated: “No, I’m not going to allow you to speak to me like that, because I’m 61 years old and I’m old enough to be your mother.” At no time during the meeting did Respondent threaten or intimidate Principal Gibbs in any way. Approximately one week later, Principal Gibbs and Respondent met in his office to discuss some student discipline referrals. During this meeting, Respondent became upset at Principal Gibbs and spoke to him in a loud manner. At no time during this meeting did Respondent threaten or intimidate Principal Gibbs in any way.8/ In sum, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s loud voice and conduct in her meetings and conversations with Principal Gibbs constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. Although Respondent may have used a loud voice during the meetings and conversations, and staff members may have overheard Respondent’s loud voice, given the context in which these meetings and conversations occurred (they were meetings and conversations between a principal and teacher--not a classroom situation involving students), the School Board failed to establish that Respondent engaged in conduct which rose to the level of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. As to the alleged incident on March 14, 2013, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent engaged in conduct which rose to the level of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. As to each of the alleged incidents in September 2013, involving allegations of students getting injured while under Respondent’s supervision, the evidence at hearing failed to show that students were injured while under Respondent’s supervision. Accordingly, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or that she violated applicable School Board policies with regard to these alleged incidents. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s failure to have any lesson plans, grades for students, or a “print-rich” classroom and outside bulletin board, constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent did not have lesson plans available for a substitute teacher on October 8 and 12, 2012. Thus, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or that she violated applicable School Board policies with regard to these allegations. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent “significantly arrived late” to important faculty meetings. The evidence presented at hearing merely showed that Respondent was late to a pre-planning faculty meeting on her first day at Henry Reeves on August 18, 2011, because she went to the wrong school. The significance of this faculty meeting was not established at the hearing. During the next school year, she was late to two other meetings in November 2012. It is unclear from the record that these two other meetings in November 2012, were, in fact, faculty meetings. Be that as it may, the fact that Respondent was late to three meetings from August 2011 to September 2013-- one of which was on the first day of school when she went to the wrong school--is insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent engaged in conduct which constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetence due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent was tardy and absent from work to the extent alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Even if she was tardy and absent as alleged, however, the tardiness and absences do not constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetence due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent engaged in any conduct alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges which constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of School Board policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order rescinding the 30-day suspension with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 26th day of August, 2014.
