The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke, suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. (2016). Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2016). Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 829054, covering the areas of Education, Leadership, Physical Education, Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an Exceptional Student Education Teacher at Holly Hill School in the Volusia County School District. Holly Hill School is a combined K-8 school. During the time in question, Respondent shared a small office with Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards. The office was formerly a teachers’ lounge/lunchroom. It still had a counter, sink, and refrigerator, and had bathrooms that continued to be used on occasion by other teachers. Each of the three teachers who shared the office had their own desk. The office also included two smaller tables at which the teachers could provide service to their ESE students when necessary. At the start of the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Pollok knew Mr. Edwards, who had been in the ESE program, but did not know Respondent. The incidents described herein occurred between the start of the 2013-2014 school year on August 13, 2013, through late November, 2013, when Respondent was removed from the classroom. Racial Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent made numerous statements of a racial nature. While on hall duty between classes, Respondent would occasionally call African-American children “Bebe’s kids.” The reference was to an animated television show in which “Bebe’s kids” were unruly and ill-mannered African-American children. Mr. Edwards understood the comment to be derogatory, and noted that the children hearing the comment would occasionally react, even to the point of commenting that they did not want to be referred to as such. Respondent’s statements were also heard by Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who likewise understood the term to be derogatory, and observed that the children at the receiving end of the comment looked shocked. She advised Respondent that he should not call them that name. Ms. Pollok testified that Respondent routinely called children “nappy” during hall duty when students transition from one period to the next. The comments were directed to middle school students, whose reactions were perceived by her as being ones of humiliation or embarrassment.1/ Mr. Edwards testified that he heard Respondent refer to African-American children as “nappy,” though not with the frequency with which he called them “Bebe’s kids.” Respondent testified that he only called one child “nappy” at the request of the child, an ESE student -- though not one of his students -- who wanted to be called “napster” or “nappy.” There was no competent, substantial evidence to support that claim. No other teacher substantiated such a request, and Mr. Edwards and Ms. Burnam-Hoyt testified credibly that the term was used more broadly. In any event, as stated by Ms. Fisher, there would be no reason to address any student by that type of obviously inappropriate term, even if requested. Mr. Edwards perceived Respondent’s comments as inappropriate, and they made him uncomfortable. He believed, rightfully, that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable as well. There was no evidence that any student’s learning ability or mental health was actually adversely affected by Respondent’s racially-demeaning statements. Nonetheless, under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect students at Holly Hill School from humiliation and embarrassment, conditions reasonably understood to be harmful to their learning environment and their mental health. Sexual Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent repeatedly made statements of a sexual nature. On occasion, when Ms. Pollok arrived to work in less than a cheerful mood, Respondent would state to the effect of “What's the matter, Pollo[]k, why are you grumpy? Am I going to have to go downstairs and talk to your husband about how to wake you up properly?” The first time he made the comment, he accompanied it with hip thrusts and grunts, i.e., sounds that people make when they're having sex, thus accentuating the sexual nature of the comment. The first time Respondent made the statement, Ms. Pollok felt awkward, left the office, and went to her husband’s classroom (he was also a teacher at Holly Hill School) where she stayed until the school day started. When he continued to make such statements on a more regular basis, it made her uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards heard Respondent make the statement to Ms. Pollok on one or two occasions. Respondent denied having ever made the comments, attributing them to Mr. Anderson, who laughingly took credit. Regardless of whether Mr. Anderson may have also made comparable statements, the testimony of Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that Respondent made the statements at issue is more credible, and is accepted. Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who enjoys a well-known and long-term relationship with her wife, would occasionally visit the office. On one occasion, while in the presence of Mr. Edwards, Respondent told Ms. Burnam-Hoyt that she looked nice that day and said “I wish you would switch teams.” Though she gave an off-hand reply, Ms. Burnam-Hoyt did not discuss her sexuality, especially in the workplace, and was offended by the comment. On several other occasions, when Ms. Burnam-Hoyt was not in the room, Respondent commented in the presence of both Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that he wished “she didn’t bat for the other team.” On one occasion, when Ms. Pollok had returned from ESE training and asked Respondent about his day, he replied that “it was pretty boring until your old boss, what's her name, Mandy [Elzy], bent over and showed me her boobs.” Respondent commented, with regard to Anna Garces, that “she was spicy and he'd like to make her his consuela.” When Donna Mounts, a P.E. instructor, would come to the office, Respondent’s favorite phrase was that he “would like to mount Coach Mounts.” Respondent did not make the statement directly to Ms. Mounts, but he made it in the office on a routine basis. Respondent commented regarding Marcie Lockamy, an African-American assistant principal, that “I don’t normally do black ladies, but she’s pretty hot . . . I’d get at that.” Respondent’s denial that he made the statement, or that he even knew who Ms. Lockamy was, was not convincing. Respondent’s comments were repetitive, and he would make some statement every day. Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards told Respondent that he should “tone it down.” In particular, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that he advised Respondent “at different points” that his comments about women were not appropriate, not only because of his own view of the matter, but because he believed them to be disturbing to Ms. Pollok. The requests and recommendations had no identifiable effect. Mr. Anderson’s testimony in this case, apparently designed to exonerate Respondent and transfer responsibility for many of the statements to himself, was not persuasive, and in several instances, conflicted with the more credible testimony of other witnesses.2/ Respondent’s general defense to his sexual comments was that he was just “joking around,” that they occurred when he and the target of his comments “were talking and laughing and having a good time in between classes,” that they were a “jovial gesture,” and the like. He denied that they were perceived as offensive by any the persons within earshot, a statement denied by the persons exposed to his comments. Individually, Respondent’s comments could be categorized as puerile. Collectively, and over time, they rose to the degree that they created a hostile, abusive, offensive, and oppressive environment in the small office that constituted the workplace for the three teachers. Threatening Comments The Administrative Complaint alleges that, over the period of time in question, Respondent made “threatening comments to or around [Ms. Pollok].” As to comments regarding Respondent’s prior work- history as a police officer, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that they were nothing more than “experiences that people have or wanted to share.” Mr. Edwards did not take those statements as threatening. When Respondent discovered that he was being investigated by Holly Hill School, he was understandably upset. He made some comments that expressed his frustration. However, Mr. Edwards testified that Respondent did not threaten him or Ms. Pollok. Respondent admitted to being upset and frustrated, but denied either expressing, or having the intent to harm anyone. The comments, under the circumstances, were not so out of line as to objectively constitute a threat to one’s safety or welfare. Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s allegedly threatening statements created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment in violation of rule 6A-10.081(5)(d). Holly Hill School’s Response Ms. Pollok complained of Respondent’s behavior to various administrators at Holly Hill School, including Mr. Strother, and went so far as to request a reassignment of her duties so as to avoid Respondent. On November 1, 2013, Mr. Strother spoke with Respondent. The conversation was “short and brief,” and non-specific, with Mr. Strother generally advising Respondent to “be cognizant of conversations you're having and what you're saying around other people.” On or about November 4, 2013, Ms. Pollok renewed her complaint to Mr. Strother about Respondent’s comments about “the ladies,” and their looks and sexual preferences. Mr. Strother could tell that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards had also spoken to Mr. Strother regarding Respondent’s comments. As a result of those complaints, Mr. Strother sent out an email directing all teachers to have “professional conversations,” and to lead “by example with appropriate conversation.” Though the email was not specific, included other topics, and was sent to a number of Holly Hill School employees, it nonetheless should have placed Respondent on notice to heed not only Mr. Strother’s earlier advice, but also the earlier admonitions from Mr. Edwards and Ms. Pollok to “tone it down.” It did not have the intended effect. On November 20, 2013, Ms. Pollok reported Respondent’s unabated comments about women and those made towards students to Ms. Fisher. Ms. Pollok was upset and crying during their discussion. Ms. Fisher then spoke with Mr. Strother to confirm Ms. Pollok’s earlier complaints. Ms. Fisher reported the allegations to the school district, and on November 21, 2013, an investigation of Respondent’s conduct was initiated. The investigation delved into the sexually-inappropriate comments, and extended into areas that are not the subject of this proceeding, for which Respondent received a reprimand. As to the comments directed to students, which were determined to be violative of principles of professional conduct and school board policy for failing to protect students or exposing them to excessive embarrassment or disparagement, Respondent was suspended without pay for five days, and transferred from Holly Hill School.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d). It is further recommended that the Education Practices Commission impose a suspension of the Respondent's educator certificate for a period of one year, and a probationary period of one year upon his return to teaching in any public or private school in Florida on such reasonable terms and conditions as the Educational Practices Commission determines are necessary to prevent recurrences of the conduct proven in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2017.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the offenses charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against individuals who hold a Florida educator’s certificate and who are alleged to have violated one or more provisions in section 1012.795 and implementing rules. Respondent holds Florida educator’s certificate 777352, covering the area of social science, which is valid through June 30, 2020. Prior to becoming a teacher, Respondent was in the military for 21 years, serving as a soldier and non-commissioned officer in the U.S. Army. Respondent describes himself as a “great leader,” a skill he believes he developed in the Army. Respondent was employed as a teacher for the Lee County School District (School District) beginning in 1998 or 1999.6/ He taught social science classes at Bonita Springs Middle School until 2009. A former student who attended that school between 2002 and 2004 spoke highly of Respondent as her teacher. That student has not been in a classroom with Respondent since 2004. Beginning in early 2005, Respondent’s record as a teacher at Bonita Springs Middle School became spotted with disciplinary measures being regularly taken against him. The matters for which Respondent was disciplined were similar, evidencing a pattern of inappropriate physical contact with students, angry outbursts, conflicts with principals, and inappropriate classroom conduct, including ridiculing, embarrassing, and yelling at students. In February 2005, at the request of the Bonita Springs Middle School principal, Respondent attended an in-service training on Anger Management and De-Escalation Training. Despite that training, between 2005 and 2009, Respondent received six letters of reprimand from three different principals and two different directors of the School District’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity (DPSE). The letters of reprimand were for incidents described as: pushing a student (letter of reprimand, March 2, 2005); inappropriate physical contact--putting his hands in the pants of a female student (letter of reprimand, September 27, 2005); shoving two students out of the classroom (letter of reprimand, March 2, 2006); shouting at students in the hallway in a very harsh and loud tone (letter of reprimand, September 22, 2006); exposing students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement (letter of reprimand, August 6, 2009); and kicking three students out of class, and yelling at the remaining students in the classroom, “You all are a bunch of idiots” (letter of reprimand, October 26, 2009). On December 8, 2009, Respondent was involved in another incident with a student, E.C., who was a seventh-grade female. Respondent had sent E.C. to a neighboring classroom, connected to his classroom by a vacant office. When E.C. tried to return to Respondent’s classroom through the vacant office to retrieve her things, Respondent stopped her and told her to return to the other classroom. E.C. was determined to get her things and disobeyed Respondent. When she tried to go around him to go back into his classroom, Respondent put his hand on her shoulder in an attempt to stop her. E.C. told him: “Don’t touch me.” She retrieved her things from Respondent’s classroom and then returned to the other classroom where Respondent had sent her. At that point, Respondent called the office for assistance. The District’s DPSE immediately began an investigation. Respondent was suspended from teaching with pay and benefits as of December 9, 2009, pending completion of the investigation. Following the investigation and a predetermination conference, the School District’s superintendent filed a Petition for Termination, alleging that Respondent was guilty of misconduct and other violations in connection with the incident on December 8, 2009. Respondent, represented by counsel, requested an administrative hearing to contest the proposed termination. Beginning March 9, 2010, the terms of Respondent’s suspension were changed to without pay pending resolution of the administrative proceeding. A DOAH evidentiary hearing was held on July 14, 2010. The resulting Recommended Order found Respondent guilty of misconduct and some of the other charged violations. The recommended penalty was suspension without pay from March 9, 2010, through January 1, 2011. The Recommended Order’s findings of facts, conclusions of law, and recommended penalty were adopted in a Lee County School Board Final Order rendered November 2, 2010. Lee County School Board v. Joseph Cofield, Case No. 10-1654 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 24, 2010; Lee Cnty. Sch. Bd. Nov. 2, 2010) (2010 Suspension Order). Detailed findings of fact were made in the 2010 Suspension Order regarding the history of disciplinary action taken against Respondent from 2005 through 2009, which went uncontested by Respondent through the grievance process available to dispute disciplinary action. See 2010 Suspension Order, RO at 3-7. The findings also describe the repeated warnings given to Respondent in the numerous letters of reprimand, which went unheeded; Respondent continued to engage in the same types of inappropriate behavior, despite the discipline and the warnings. Findings were also made in the 2010 Suspension Order regarding Respondent’s positive contributions as a teacher during the same time span as his patterned inappropriate behavior. These included: being honored in 2005 as Wal-Mart Teacher of the Year; being honored by Florida Gulf Coast University as College Reachout Program Coordinator of the Year; participating in a conference in January 2009 to discuss the Troops to Teachers Program; coordinating a computer give-away program in conjunction with a community organization that presented computers to Bonita Spring Middle School; and achieving success in Cadet and College Reachout Programs. See 2010 Suspension Order, RO at 11-12. The 2010 Suspension Order concluded as follows: The School Board did establish that Mr. Cofield placed his hand on a student’s shoulder without the permission of the student. Mr. Cofield has been warned and disciplined in the past for placing his hands on students without the student’s permission. Mr. Cofield chose not to heed those warnings. Mr. Cofield argues that placing his hand on E.C. was reasonable force needed to control his classroom. This argument is without merit. Mr. Cofield did not need to put his hand on E.C.; he could call the office for assistance. The School Board has established that Mr. Cofield’s conduct constitutes misconduct[.] * * * Mr. Cofield has performed outstanding work with the various programs designed to assist students, such as the computer give-away program, the Cadet program, and the College Reachout Program. This work mitigates against termination. However, placing a hand on a student without justification warrants a serious disciplinary action. 2010 Suspension Order, RO at 14-15. Respondent did not appeal the 2010 Suspension Order. Its findings, officially recognized herein, establish the backdrop of Respondent’s significant track record of discipline, and of the repeated warnings given in connection with disciplinary measures, from 2005 through 2009. No contrary evidence was offered. In October 2010, just before the School Board rendered the 2010 Suspension Order, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent (2010 Complaint), seeking to take disciplinary action against Respondent’s educator’s certificate. The 2010 Complaint set forth Respondent’s “history of discipline related to conduct with students,” listing in summary fashion much of the same disciplinary history detailed in the 2010 Suspension Order. Respondent’s disciplinary history set forth in the 2010 Complaint was as follows: On or about March 2, 2005, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal related to pushing [a] student. On or about September 27, 2005, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal resulting from allegations that Respondent put [his] hand into [a] student’s front pocket. On or about September 25, 2006, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal for yelling at Cadets in a loud and harsh manner. On or about October 9, 2009, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal for, among other things, Respondent’s confrontational behavior towards [the] principal. On or about October 28, 2009, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal relating to conduct with students. On or about December 9, 2009, Respondent received a Letter of Suspension from [the] principal related to allegations of [a] physical assault on a student. 2010 Complaint at 1-2 (Pet. Exh. 1). The 2010 Complaint added allegations of other incidents of inappropriate conduct by Respondent during the 2008-2009 school year, including the following: Respondent called students embarrassing names such as “knucklehead” and “fruitcake.” Respondent looked at female students in a manner that made the students feel uncomfortable and self conscious. Respondent threatened students telling them, “I will cut your fingers off,” or “I’ll smash your head into a wall,” or words to that effect. 2010 Complaint at 2 (Pet. Exh. 1). Respondent, represented by counsel, entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the charges in the 2010 Complaint, rather than contest them in an administrative hearing. Respondent signed the agreement on April 28, 2011. Pertinent terms of the settlement agreement were: Respondent neither admits nor denies, but elects not to contest the allegations set forth in Petitioner’s Administrative Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. Respondent agrees to accept a letter of reprimand, a copy of which shall be placed in his certificate file with the Department of Education and a copy of which shall be placed in his personnel file with the employing school district. Respondent agrees that he shall be placed on probation for a period of two (2) employment years. . . . As conditions of probation, Respondent: * * * shall, within the first year of probation, take a 3-credit hour college level course in the area of Classroom Management. . . . shall violate no law and fully comply with all district school board regulations, school rules, and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006 [transferred to rule 10A-1.081 in January 2013; see endnote 2]; and shall satisfactorily perform his duties in a competent, professional manner. * * * In the event Respondent fails to comply with each condition set forth herein, he agrees that the Petitioner shall be authorized to file an Administrative Complaint based upon the violation of the terms of this Settlement Agreement. Settlement Agreement at 1-2 (Pet. Exh. 1). By Final Order rendered on August 9, 2011, attaching and incorporating the 2010 Complaint and settlement agreement, the EPC accepted the settlement agreement and ordered Respondent to comply with its terms. Respondent did not appeal. Respondent was on probation, and subject to the specific probation conditions imposed by the EPC Final Order, for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years. Meanwhile, Respondent completed the term of his suspension from teaching without pay imposed by the School Board’s 2010 Suspension Order on January 1, 2011; he was allowed to return to work on January 3, 2011. Respondent was not asked to return to teach at his former school, Bonita Springs Middle School. Instead, he was offered a teaching position at the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). The ALC principal, Ken Burns, was told to make a spot for Respondent to teach there, and he did. Respondent accepted the teaching position at ALC. He taught eighth grade social studies. ALC is an alternative school. Students are sent to ALC because they are having problems at other schools. Principal Burns describes the ALC students as kids who made bad decisions, but who are not bad kids. These students can present challenges for teachers and administrators. In classrooms, sometimes these students do not act properly. They can be disruptive. The teachers are responsible for managing their classrooms properly, in accordance with standards set by Florida law and regulations, and School District policies. Principal Burns described some of the methods used at ALC to deal with problems in the classroom. One tool in place is called Team Time Out. Specific teachers are scheduled to be in charge of Team Time Out for a period of time. If a student is getting unruly in a classroom, the teacher can send the student to the designated teacher in charge of Team Time Out. The student is allowed to cool down before returning to class. Another tool used is a regular Time-Out Room. If a student is disrupting a class, the teacher might send the student to the Time-Out Room, where the student can work on assignments. Regardless of the student problem being confronted, each teacher is expected to abide by the code of conduct established for the education profession. Rather than violate those conduct standards, if the teacher cannot otherwise handle a student problem, the teacher is expected to call administration or security for assistance. On November 30, 2012, while on his EPC-imposed probation, Respondent received a letter of warning, which is a form of disciplinary action, from the ALC principal. As described in the warning letter, a student reported that Respondent pushed the student out the door during a fire drill, and that the push nearly caused the student to fall. The incident described in the letter of warning is similar to the long list of prior incidents for which Respondent was disciplined and about which Respondent was repeatedly warned, including the incident for which Respondent had recently served a suspension without pay for nearly ten months. The November 30, 2012, letter of warning ended with a yet another reminder “to assist in correcting this conduct,” providing as follows: “From this point forward, please remember at no point should a student be physically touched. If you are having an issue with a student please notify the administration or security for immediate assistance.” Very shortly after that incident, the ALC principal received other complaints about Respondent’s behavior with students and his classroom temperament. The complaints came not just from students, but also from a paraprofessional (teacher’s aide) who was concerned about Respondent’s behavior that she had observed when she was in his classroom. The ALC principal consulted with the School District’s DPSE, collected statements from the paraprofessional and students, and passed on the information to the DPSE. By letter dated January 11, 2013, Respondent was informed that the DPSE was conducting an investigation into allegations of misconduct. Because the allegations involved issues of student safety, the notification letter informed Respondent that he was suspended from teaching with pay during the investigation. Andrew Brown, then-investigator for the DPSE, conducted the investigation of alleged incidents involving Respondent in December 2012 and January 2013, and prepared an investigative report. The complaints that were investigated were summarized in the report as follows: On or about December 20, 2012 (just before Winter Break), Mr. Cofield allegedly slammed a student’s fingers between the student’s desk and a binder the student was holding. In a separate incident [on] December 19, 2012, Mr. Cofield allegedly threatened a student by grabbing and holding a keyboard in a threatening manner. He allegedly slammed a door behind the same student as the student was leaving the room, making contact with the student’s arm. In a third incident [on] 1/8/12 [sic: 2013], Mr. Cofield allegedly embarrassed students by asking each one to sit separately on a stool at the front of the room and answer the question, “Do you have a teacher’s license?” before sending the same students out of the class. The investigative report noted that Respondent was “on probation” with the EPC “for similar allegations and conduct.” A predetermination conference was held on January 30, 2013, to allow Respondent to respond to the investigation findings and add any information he would want considered. Respondent was represented by union counsel at that conference. By letter dated February 5, 2013, Respondent was informed that the School District found probable cause for disciplinary action based on the allegations of misconduct investigated, and would be recommending termination of his employment.7/ As was done in 2009, the terms of Respondent’s suspension were changed to without pay, as of February 6, 2013. Before the School District could proceed with a Petition for Termination, Respondent submitted a letter of resignation on March 12, 2013. Respondent has disputed Petitioner’s contention that the resignation was in lieu of termination. When Respondent was deposed, he testified that he wrote his resignation letter to explain that this was a stressful situation for him. However, the letter makes no mention of a stressful situation. It simply reports that Respondent was taking the time for pursuit of higher education, to complete a master of arts degree and then seek a doctorate degree, and that Respondent had concluded: “I feel that it is time to resign in my career as a classroom teacher. I will peruse other opportunities that will be open to me as a result of obtaining my new graduate education.” Respondent testified that he did not think he had already been suspended from teaching when he resigned, and he thought he was still being paid. Contrary to Respondent’s recollection, he had not been teaching for nearly two months, having been suspended on January 14, 2013. He resigned six weeks after being confronted with the details of the DPSE’s investigation in a predetermination conference, and five weeks after he received a letter informing him that probable cause had been found and the recommendation would be made to terminate his employment. He had not been paid for five weeks when he submitted his letter of resignation. A fair inference from the timing is that he chose to resign when he did to avoid being terminated from employment and/or having to contest the charges in another administrative hearing. Pursuant to section 1012.796(1)(d), Florida Statutes, even though Respondent had resigned, the School District was required to report the alleged misconduct to the Department of Education, which then conducted its own investigation. Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent on March 9, 2015, and an Amended Administrative Complaint on December 3, 2015. The specific incidents alleged in both versions of the complaint, are as follows: On or about December 19, 2012, Respondent grabbed a keyboard from a computer being used by R.T., a fourteen year old, male student. Respondent held the keyboard over the head while glaring at R.T. and in a manner that made the student believe Respondent was about to hit him with the keyboard. On or about December 20, 2012, Respondent became angered when C.G., a thirteen year old, male student, tapped on his binder repeatedly. Respondent slammed C.G.’s binder with force, bringing the binder down on C.G.’s fingers causing pain to C.G. Respondent then threw C.G.’s binder in the trash. On or about January 7, 2013, Respondent called students in his class to the front of the room and individually asked them, in front of the class, if they had a license to teach. Respondent disputed the first allegation of a keyboard incident; Respondent admitted parts of the second allegation of a binder incident, while denying part of the allegation; and Respondent admitted the third allegation. No non-hearsay evidence was presented to prove the allegations regarding a computer keyboard incident on December 19, 2012. The student, R.T., did not testify; no other students or other eyewitnesses testified; and Respondent denied the allegations. R.T. provided a written statement about the incident, which is in evidence, but that statement is hearsay and cannot be used as the sole basis for a finding of fact. Petitioner did not argue that R.T.’s statement would be admissible over objection in a civil action, and the statement does not supplement or explain any non-hearsay evidence. Respondent admitted parts of the allegations regarding a binder incident on December 20, 2012. Respondent acknowledged that a student in his classroom, C.G., was tapping on, flipping, or otherwise playing with a notebook or binder when the class was supposed to be taking a test. Respondent admitted that he took the binder out of the student’s hands, and threw the binder across the room into the garbage can. As he testified: A: If there is a kid sitting in my classroom after I’ve given instructions of what to do and they still banging on a desk, yes, I have the right to go remove this noise away from these students that are trying to get ahead. If there is something wrong with that I don’t need to be in a classroom. Q: And throw this in the trash can? A: Sir, when I took -- as my statement says, I took the binder away from the child and I threw it across the classroom. If it went in the garbage can, sir, it went in the garbage can. I don’t -- I didn’t pay attention to where it went at. I stopped the negative behavior going on in my classroom. Q: So now your testimony is you took it and threw it across the classroom? A: Sir, I took the instrument away from the student and it went in the garbage can. Q: . . . [T]ell us what you told them at your predetermination conference. Didn’t you say you put it in the garbage? A: No, I put the binder in the garbage, that’s what it states. But we clearly know that that’s not . . . [t]here’s nothing false about that. What it means is the binder left the student’s desk and wound up in the garbage can. Q: It didn’t wind up there, you put it there, right? A: Yes sir, I put it there. (Tr. 131-132). In his deposition testimony, Respondent more clearly acknowledged that he intended to throw the student’s binder in the garbage can; he did not equivocate as he did at hearing: Q: Then you didn’t walk over to the trash can and, in a Frisbee-type manner, throw the binder into the trash can? A: Oh, I most definitely put it in the garbage can, sir. Q: You did? A: Yes sir, I did. Q: All right. Why did you do that? A: Because the student was disrupting – or, I mean, was interrupting a test environment. Q: Okay. A: and that – and that instrument was the thing that was causing all of that disturbment [sic]. (Pet. Exh. 11 at 39-40). The facts regarding this binder incident that were admitted by Respondent were supplemented and explained by a number of written witness statements by students who were present, including C.G. These statements confirm that Respondent got angry because of C.G.’s toying with his binder, and that Respondent snatched the binder out of C.G.’s hands, and then either went across the room and then tossed it Frisbee-style into the garbage can or tossed the binder Frisbee-style across the room where it landed in the garbage can. While Respondent may have had good reason to stop C.G. from disrupting the classroom, the manner in which he went about it was inappropriate and contrary to the repeated warnings he had been given over the prior seven years by no less than four different principals (including, most recently, the ALC principal) to avoid any physical contact with students. See 2010 Suspension Order (detailing past disciplinary warnings and identifying principals issuing them). Respondent did not admit to having smashed the binder down on C.G.’s hand before snatching it away from C.G., and there was no independent non-hearsay evidence to prove that aspect of the allegation. Nonetheless, Respondent’s admissions establish that he took C.G.’s binder away while C.G. was tapping on it, flipping the cover, or otherwise playing with it, as the means Respondent chose to stop C.G. from playing with his binder. The only reasonable inference is that Respondent forcibly removed the binder while at least one of C.G.’s hands was on, in, or under the binder--an inappropriate physical contact. Respondent’s explanation that he did this because the binder was the instrument being used to cause disruption is insufficient to justify the inappropriate physical contact that had to occur to remove the binder from C.G. while he was playing with it. Respondent’s additional acts of tossing C.G.’s binder like it was a Frisbee and throwing the binder in the garbage can were inappropriate responses that went well beyond the claimed objective of stopping the disturbance. These actions can only be explained as displays of anger, presumably because C.G. did not listen to Respondent’s instructions to stop playing with the binder. If Respondent were genuinely concerned only with stopping the disruptive behavior, he would not have reacted by causing an even greater disturbance by tossing the binder like a Frisbee into the garbage can. Instead, he would have, and should have, dealt appropriately with C.G. Moreover, it was irresponsible for Respondent to throw the binder in the garbage can, after he had wrested the binder away from C.G. The binder could have contained important schoolwork for Respondent’s class or another class. Despite being on probation for a string of similar incidents, despite having been suspended from teaching for nearly ten months for a similar incident, and despite having just received a letter of warning three weeks earlier, Respondent failed to heed the repeated warnings that if he had an issue with a student, he should contact security or administration for immediate assistance rather than inappropriately attempting to “control” the situation by making contact with the student. The evidence was clear and convincing that in this binder incident, Respondent did not act with the calm, professional demeanor expected of a teacher who is able to deal appropriately with a student disrupting the classroom by playing with a binder. Instead, Respondent acted inappropriately with a temper that made an all-too-regular appearance in the classroom. The ALC principal described Respondent as having a temper that would turn on and off like a switch. His testimony was credible and is credited. Ms. Lewis, the paraprofessional who spent time working in Respondent’s classroom during the 2012-2013 school year, observed the same thing: Respondent had a temper that greatly affected his classroom conduct. Set off by minor incidents of students talking or not listening, Respondent would get angry, yell at the students, use profanity (not the “f” word, but somewhat milder words),8/ and act in volatile ways, such as tossing text books so that they would slide on a table and stop just before they hit students. Respondent’s unpredictable outbursts caused concern for the students’ safety; sometimes when Respondent got angry, he would clench and shake his fists, trembling as if he was about to strike out. Respondent’s classroom temperament was unlike anything the paraprofessional observed from any other teacher in the other ALC classrooms where she also worked. While Respondent’s temper and classroom temperament, as described by the ALC principal and paraprofessional, were not set forth as the subjects of separate charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint, they tend to support the findings above that Respondent’s admitted conduct on December 20, 2012, was inappropriate, just as they undermine Respondent’s claimed justification. Respondent’s temper and lack of control also were on display on several occasions during the course of the hearing, adding even more credence to the findings. He raised his voice and got agitated while giving his sworn statement. He also accused the undersigned of having “belittled” him, without explanation as to why he said that. (Tr. 105). Respondent also admitted the third allegation describing his classroom conduct on January 7, 2013: Q: Did you do that on January -- on or about January 7, 2013, did you bring students up to the front of the class and ask them, “Do you have a license to teach?” A: I most – yes I did, sir. Q: All right. Good. So that, you admit? A: I clearly admit that, yes. Q: All right, good. A: And I –- and I will challenge anybody that -- that's in my classroom that’s trying to disrupt the class that don’t have a teaching license. (Pet. Exh. 11, p. 46). Respondent acknowledged to having engaged in that conduct on other occasions--indeed, as a matter of course: “I can guarantee you that I have asked all of my students over many periods of time do they have a license, because I’m the only person in that classroom with a teacher’s license.” (Pet. Exh. 11, p. 45). The paraprofessional working in Respondent’s classroom was an eyewitness to this conduct, which she described as very demeaning and embarrassing for the students. Respondent’s admissions and the paraprofessional’s eyewitness observations are corroborated by numerous written statements by students subjected to this conduct. Respondent sought to justify his conduct as legitimate teaching strategy. As he tried to explain it: It’s effective classroom management. If you have a bunch of students that do not have the ability to stop stopping their behavior, you have to ask them before you take them away from the classroom do they know what they’re doing. If the answer is yes, I know what I’m doing, then you need to send them out. If the person says no, I have no idea what I’m doing you need to work with that student until that student understands what is wrong with that behavior that you want to correct. (Tr. 129-130). Respondent’s explanation for his conduct does not square with his actual conduct. He is not being accused of asking unruly students whether they know what they are doing and then working with those students to correct their misbehavior. Instead, he is accused of demeaning these young teenaged students by isolating them one at a time at the front of the room, and requiring them to face their peers and announce that they are not licensed to teach, so that Respondent can remind them that he is superior. This has nothing to do with addressing unruly or disruptive behavior, questioning that behavior, or attempting to correct that behavior. Instead, Respondent dealt with disruptive students by belittling them, embarrassing them, and reminding them that he is better than them. As the ALC principal confirmed, there is no reasonable explanation for Respondent’s conduct as any form of legitimate teaching strategy. Instead, this is inappropriate conduct for a teacher. Respondent offered little by way of specific evidence in his defense. Instead, at times he claimed to not recall anything about his disciplinary track record, or about the incidents alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint.9/ He repeatedly challenged Petitioner to produce video evidence of the incidents, but never proved that any video evidence existed. If there had been video evidence, it would have been in the possession of the School District, but no video is identified in the investigative report as would be expected if it existed. Respondent could have taken steps to compel the production of any such evidence by the School District, but he did not. Respondent’s other defense was to attempt to challenge the credibility of Petitioner’s witnesses. These efforts were ineffective. Respondent made general sweeping statements that he was “shocked” by the testimony of Petitioner’s witnesses, which he repeatedly characterized as filled with lies, without proof of that characterization. Other than those broad generalizations, no specifics came to light as to why the testimony of Petitioner’s witnesses should not be believed. Respondent argued in his opening statement that the ALC principal “has seemed to have an axe to grind and has been on the greatest witch hunt to railroad a great educator.” (Tr. 17). That charge was wholly unsubstantiated. Instead, the ALC principal recognized the same pattern of behavior evident since 2005 when Respondent was first required to take anger management training by a former Bonita Springs Middle School principal. Respondent proclaimed himself a great leader while offering his view that with one exception, none of the principals he worked for in Lee County were good leaders. It is worth noting that according to the 2010 Suspension Order, the “one great principal” Respondent identified (Tr. 113) was the principal who had Respondent undergo anger management training in early 2005, and who issued Respondent’s first letter of reprimand for pushing a student. To the extent Respondent attempted to blame his disciplinary history and the allegations he is now facing on his principals, rather than excusing or explaining the conduct for which he was disciplined and for which he is subject to discipline in this proceeding, the impression given is that Respondent has had difficulty accepting the subordinate role of teacher vis-à-vis principal. Indeed, Respondent admitted that he “did tell the principal the one that write down these false things against me, I could do your job just as well as you can do it. And maybe that offend some people. . . .” (Tr. 115). Respondent also attempted to discount the significance of the EPC Final Order by alluding to various medical problems he was experiencing that caused him to enter into a settlement agreement, even though he claimed the charges were not true. Respondent offered no evidence to substantiate his claims, but stated generally that he “had just got over having a kidney removed” and that he “had prostate cancer.” He also said that he had taken his wife’s money to fight the allegations, and agreed to the settlement so he could get back to work. (Tr. 111). Notwithstanding Respondent’s testimony, the EPC Final Order cannot be collaterally attacked in this proceeding. Respondent accepted the terms of that Final Order, and knew full well that he was required to comply with the probation conditions or face more discipline for violating the terms of his probation. Respondent also claimed that he was set up for failure by being assigned to ALC, which was more than one hour away from his home instead of the ten-minute commute he enjoyed when teaching at the school where he earned a lengthy suspension, after a string of six letters of reprimand. Respondent did not contest the assignment, but accepted the teaching position at ALC. Respondent’s school assignment may have been a matter he could have raised in a grievance proceeding, but it is not a matter that explains his inappropriate conduct while teaching there, especially knowing he was on probation. Finally, in a seeming admission that his temper was erratic and his behavior volatile while he was teaching at ALC, Respondent testified that he was undergoing radiation treatment for prostate cancer, and that anybody undergoing that treatment “would have such mood swings some times.” Yet in the next breath, he said: “But it never affected my effectiveness in my classroom.” (Tr. 112). In his predetermination conference in which Respondent was informed of the investigation findings and allowed to respond to the allegations of misconduct, Respondent did not mention that he had been undergoing treatment that may have affected his behavior or his classroom conduct. If this was a legitimate reason that might explain or excuse, even in part, Respondent’s conduct in December 2012 and January 2013 that was the subject of the School District’s investigation, surely Respondent would have shared information about his treatment and how it might have affected him in a conference to determine if there was probable cause to proceed to terminate his employment. Without more to substantiate the relevance of any medical conditions, treatment, or other external factors alluded to by Respondent, including specifics as to the timing of such matters, they cannot excuse or explain Respondent’s improper conduct as found above. As in the administrative hearing that resulted in the 2010 Suspension Order, Respondent offered evidence of his positive contributions as a teacher, as mitigating evidence to consider in imposing discipline. However, most of Respondent’s evidence is old, pre-dating Respondent’s suspension, and in fact, duplicating the evidence of Respondent’s contributions, honors, and achievements considered and addressed in the 2010 Suspension Order. Respondent’s contributions and achievements in 2009 and earlier years were expressly credited as mitigating against a harsher result in the 2010 Suspension Order for his misconduct committed during the same timeframe as the contributions. Having already enjoyed the mitigating benefit of his pre-2010 achievements, honors, and contributions to lessen the consequences of his pre-2010 misconduct, Respondent’s older achievements are not considered again in this proceeding in mitigation of the appropriate penalty for Respondent’s post- suspension improper conduct. Respondent presented evidence that after he returned to teaching when his suspension was completed, he continued his participation in the computer give-away program, working with a community computer club sponsoring free laptop computers for selected students who wrote an essay explaining how they would benefit from a laptop. Respondent provided one such essay submitted by an ALC student. Respondent’s continued involvement in the computer give-away program while at ALC was a positive contribution for at least one ALC student who participated. The other post-suspension evidence offered by Respondent shows that he is bettering himself by pursuing higher education, obtaining an additional degree and a certificate, as he stated he would do in his March 2013 resignation letter when he stopped teaching. These are positive contributions by Respondent, but cannot be considered contributions by Respondent as an educator to mitigate the penalty imposed for Respondent’s improper conduct as an educator. Respondent has not worked as a teacher since he submitted his resignation letter to the School District in March 2013, but he has been pursuing the higher education described in that letter. It is unclear whether Respondent would otherwise be seeking work as a classroom teacher pursuant to his educator’s certificate. Petitioner’s witness for the School District testified that he could not imagine that the School District would consider hiring Respondent back to teach there. The ALC principal echoed that sentiment. The principal would be concerned because it is his job to make sure the school is safe for all students. He would not want Respondent back in a teaching role at his school because of his track record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order: Finding Respondent guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(j) and (1)(l), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 10A-1.081(3)(a), (3)(e), and (5)(p); Finding Respondent not guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(g); and Revoking Respondent’s educator’s certificate no. 777352 for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 1st day of August, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent shall be dismissed from employment with the Dade County School Board upon grounds of incompetency and gross insubordination pursuant to Section 321.36, Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-4.09(1) and 6B-4.09(4), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was, at all times relevant, an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida on an continuing contract as a teacher. Respondent is a 49 year old native of Bolivia, South America. She was educated in Bolivia, Paris, and the United States, receiving a Bachelor's degree from the University of Miami in approximately 1969 and a Master's degree from Northwestern University. Respondent's positions with the Dade County School Board may be summarized as follows: In early 1970 she was a teacher of English as a Second Language (ESOL). From 1971 to 1973, she served as a media specialist (librarian) at Blue Lakes Elementary School. From 1973 to 1978 she was a media specialist (librarian) at Seminole Elementary School. From 1978 to 1981 she was a third grade teacher of normal students at Douglas Elementary School and from 1981 until her suspension between the 1983-1984 and 1984- 1985 school terms, she was a first grade teacher at Kinloch Park Elementary School. Respondent started employment with the Dade County School Board in 1970. While employed, she received annual evaluations; her evaluations and performance from 1971 to November 1, 1983 were all favorable, except for an evaluation in the 1979-1980 school year. Approximately June 3, 1980, Respondent was given an annual evaluation for her performance as a third grade teacher at Douglas Elementary School for the 1979-1980 school year. Therein, then-principal Eugene Turano found her unacceptable in six of the eight observable evaluation criteria. This annual evaluation resulted from two formal observations. In February 1980, Respondent was observed and evidenced disciplinary and teaching difficulties related to the reading program. This was Respondent's first experience teaching third grade and her first assignment to that school. Mr. Turano assigned Ms. Whipple, his assistant principal, to work with Respondents concentrating on lesson planning. The subsequent observation did not indicate much improvement. At each of these observations, Respondent had the entire third grade in one reading group, which grouping was felt by Mr. Turano not to respond to individual needs. Also bulletin board use by Respondent was not conducive to encouraging student interest or providing assessment feedback. Respondent stayed at her desk instead of giving children individual attention. Because Respondent was thereafter absent on sick leave from March until May 1980, there was no time for diagnostic prescription. As a results Mr. Turano gave Respondent the benefit of the doubt and did not formally recommend her termination or return to annual contract as he normally would have done. He did formally recommend her for employment and did personally suggest to Respondent that she take some summer school courses. In March, 1981, the Respondent received an official letter of reprimand for failure to implement her authorization for a period of leave of absence from the school system. Although this constitutes official disciplinary action by Petitioner, Dr. Gray's explanation of the reasoning behind it is not persuasive that anything occurred here beyond an absenteeism problem eventually fully- authorized by Petitioner. Respondent came to Kinloch Park Elementary in the 1981- 1982 school term to teach first grade. Respondent's 1981-1982 annual evaluation by then- principal Dr. James McKenna was overall acceptable. Then-Assistant Principal Lucy Williams observed Respondent in the 1982- 1983 term and, finding her teaching deficient, put Respondent on prescription. Her class of two groups of non-readers and one group which had just begun to read at the first grade level was kept small. Mrs. Williams taught all lessons herself for a while and gradually released the class to Respondent's full control again. Because Respondent complied by keeping adequate grades and lesson plans, by dividing her reading students into three groups, and by decorating with visual aids on the bulletin boards, Mrs. Williams removed Respondent from reading class prescription in the spring of 1983 before Mrs. Williams' transferred to another elementary school. Mrs. Williams removed Respondent from the prescription without observing her in reading. At that time, however, Respondent continued to have assistance in the area of math instruction. Starting in the 1983-1984 term, Respondent taught a Chapter One first grade class of 15 both English-speaking and non-English-speaking students. Kinloch Park Elementary had become an all Chapter One school in February, 1983. "Chapter One" is a classification that comprises students in a federally funded program designed to teach only basic skills for the entire day. The Chapter One first grade class of Respondent was in the lower twentieth percentile of learning ability. On November 1, 1983, Respondent was formally observed by Kinloch's new principal, Dr. Cecelia Hack, for evaluation purposes. New, more detailed observation forms were being used by Dade County at this time. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in six of the eight standard evaluation criteria. Most noticeably, Respondent was failing to use the directed reading approach all teachers had been instructed by Dr. Hack to use. This system, contemplated by the teacher's manual, provides for assembling three reading groups based on individual student assessments, which groups rotate through activities made up of teacher direction and two varieties of follow-up activities. Based upon Dr. Hack's observations and testimony, it is found that on this occasion, Respondent concentrated too much time on the workbooks did not provide the group working independently with sufficient and correct materials, did not have her evaluation folders up to date and had only one grade per child and that grade was for report card purposes. She also had not returned adequate amounts of graded materials to the students so as to provide acceptable feedback and encouragement to them. Dr. Hack further observed lack of courteous interchange between Respondent and her class. Respondent's comments to her students were terse, intimidating, and not encouraging to small children. The Room was cold and sterile without lively bulletin boards to spark student interest, encourage desire to learn, or to provide pride of accomplishment and additional feedback to the students. Respondent conferenced with Dr. Hack and the assistant principal, Norma Aguilar, on November 3, 1983 and was put on prescription. Among other actions for remediation, Dr. Hack suggested that Respondent provide classroom activities reflecting the assigned instruction policy. She further suggested that Respondent sit and plan on a regular basis with two other teachers of Chapter One first graders. She arranged for Respondent to visit other classrooms and asked Dr. Charles Sherwood, Petitioner's Director of Basic Education, to send members of his staff to work with Respondent. A Mrs. Gonzalez, Chapter One Specialist, came several times to assist Respondent in implementing the Chapter One program. Mrs. Ellen Williams came to update the student assessments for Respondent. A time- line was established for December 1, 1983. Assistant Principal Aguilar's assistance was part of the prescriptive measures assigned for Respondent. She visited Respondent on at least a weekly basis to check on Respondent's lesson plans and to talk about what Respondent was supposed to be doing. Respondent was instructed that she must duplicate her own materials for class as that was part of each teacher's duties, but she was provided reading materials she needed on her prescription and tapes with recorded lessons so that the children could do more independent work. Respondent expressed resentment of the prescribed activities. She turned in no lesson plans. Mrs. Hack also expected Respondent to attend an in- service course on the primary education program (PREP) and that she use "RSVP," a diagnostic prescriptive reading program. Although Respondent completed the in-service workshop ending in late February or early March, she did not complete her material to be turned in until June 25, 1985. On December 6, 1983, Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal Norma Aguilar, for evaluation purposes and was found unacceptable in three categories of the standard evaluation criteria. Mrs. Aguilar had been part of Respondent's previous prescription. Because of hers and Ellen Williams' involvement, the requirement for assessment techniques had been met and the grade book was up-to-date. Respondent had improved her teacher-student relationships somewhat in that Respondent had learned to give some positive reinforcement to her students. At that time, although some deficiencies had been corrected pursuant to the previous prescription, Respondent remained unsatisfactory in preparation and planning knowledge of the subject matter, and in techniques of instruction. Instructional activities, and follow-up thereto and reading progress were inappropriate for the students. Various groups now were set up but all groups were set at the same activity at the same time instead of each group rotating through three activities within each instructional hour. Respondent continued to use terms considerably above the children's understanding; her directions were unclear to small children; and she persisted in using only the workbooks for directed teaching. Prescriptive measures were again set out for the improvement of Respondent's teaching performance. On February 15, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed for evaluation purposes by Dr. Hack and was found unacceptable in five categories of the standard evaluation criteria. One category was not rated. The deficiencies were much the same as in November 1983. Particular problems were again noted in preparation and planning knowledge of the subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Arrangements had not been made by Respondent for materials and the supplemental activities were not appropriate for the children doing the lesson plans. The children exhibited little respect for the material and did not seem to understand what was expected of them. Respondent constantly found fault with the children but contrariwise accepted sloppy written work. Respondent answered this criticism by saying she did not concern herself with neatness and manuscript form on math papers. Mrs. Hack felt Respondent was confused about what she was doing and although Respondent was grading more papers, Respondent was not returning graded papers regularly to meet the constant need of the children for feedback. Mrs. Hack felt Respondent's class should have moved much faster by so late in the school year and that the reading aspect was very weak. As remediation, Dr. Hack prescribed that Respondent use the teacher's manual and the "RSVP" decoding kits and books and that Respondent emphasize independent student activities that would keep all the students constructively occupied throughout each class hour. Further prescriptive measures were assigned. On March 22, 1984, Respondent was formally observed by Dr. Charles Sherwood, Petitioner's Director of Basis Education, for evaluation purposes and was rated unacceptable in four of the standard evaluation criteria. One category was not rated. At that time, Respondent's lesson plan was unacceptable because it provided insufficient student work. She was not using the required "9-block plan," rotating three groups of readers three times during the class session in twenty minute intervals per rotation. Her lesson plan showed an absence of anything but page numbers, which was directly contrary to county policy requiring minimally that objectives, independent activities, and evaluation methods be set out in the formal lesson plan. Appropriate classroom management was lacking in that many students were off- tasks although Dr. Sherwood noted that there was no genuine misbehavior. Respondent's only technique of instruction remained the directive approach. Her assessment technique was deficient in that only the first few weeks' assessment scores were evident. The children were about five months behind others comparably situated. In Dr. Sherwood's opinion, Respondent's excessive verbal instruction was not good for young students struggling with English who needed demonstrations rather than lectures. He felt Respondent's students were making less progress than normal for a Chapter One class. Further prescriptive measures were assigned Respondent after a conference with Dr. Hack. On April 18, 1984 Respondent was observed and evaluated again by Dr. Sherwood as unacceptable in four criteria. Two criteria were not rated. This left Respondent unacceptable in four out of six categories. Because of the short timeframe for prescribed remediation, Dr. Sherwood had assigned Ellen Williams' Director of the South Central Reading Center, to help Respondent. Mrs. Williams had worked with Respondent on methods of directing a reading lesson, maintaining close access to a chalkboard for introducing new vocabulary in context without the teacher having to leave the reading group, and had helped Respondent arrange the classroom furniture for group reading (instead of using rigid rows of desks). Thereafter, Respondent had returned the room to its original state. Dr. Hack and Mrs. Aguilar confirmed that a mobile chalkboard had been provided Respondent. Respondent explained her removal of the mobile chalkboard from her room as being done due to safety considerations occasioned by its sharp edges in near proximity to the faces of small children, but this does not explain why Respondent could not accomplish physical rotation of three groups of children so that each reading group would be near Respondent at the wall chalkboard during one of the required three teaching activities. The problems and unacceptable teaching activities observed by Dr. Sherwood on his second visit were very similar to those he observed on his first visit: absence of evaluation procedures and all students doing the same lesson regardless of their level of achievement. However, with Mrs. Williams' help, Respondent's records for evaluating student levels remained relevantly current. Dorothy Adside, an administrator at the level between area supervisor and school principal observed Respondent teaching on May 30, 1984. Prior to this observation, Mrs. Adside dispatched a primary educational specialist Mrs. Fulton, who conferred with Respondent and gave Respondent in-the-classroom assistance on two occasions. At the May 30 observation, however, Mrs. Adside found Respondent not acceptable in the categories of preparation and planning classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. She noted that there were no motivations for the children, not sufficient vocabulary development and not sufficient questioning from Respondent or use by her of visual study aids. Respondent's use of the "Round Robin" method of oral reading prevented the children from following her in their books as she read and otherwise thwarted the idea of rotating three activities for each group within a single class period. As a result of all the previous observations, evaluations, and unfulfilled prescriptions, Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1983-1984 school year was found to be unacceptable in four categories and unacceptable overall on June 1, 1984. There is a significant discrepancy between the testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses and that of Respondent with regard to the in-service courses assigned as prescriptive measures. On the basis of the documentary evidence as well as the candor, demeanor, and credibility of all witnesses as well as the detail provided by Dr. Hack and Mrs. Aguilar concerning these prescriptive measures and their personal observation of Respondent's participation and non-participation in all or part of these courses, Respondent's testimony that no course assignment was ever made is not persuasive. It is found that Respondent was orally requested to enroll in certain in-service training programs offered for February 25 to March 3, 1984, April 10 to May 15, 1984, May 5 to May 12, 1984, and June 2 to June 9, 1984, but these requests were not always reduced to a written prescription and Respondent may, indeed, have understood that she was only required to attend in-service training when the instruction was reduced to writing. None the less, Respondent enrolled in one course February 25 to March 3, 1984, but did not complete her work until ordered to do so by Mrs. Aguilar in June 1984. At the conference-for-the-record on April 30, 1984, Dr. Hack observed Respondent changed facial expression and made sounds expressing resentment of various remedial prescriptions required of her. Respondent attributed most of her difficulties to a personality clash with Dr. Hack and to Dr. Hack's calling Respondent to her office on twelve occasions during the 1983-1984 school year to discuss Respondent's problems. In light of so many unacceptable evaluations from so many observers, Respondent's analysis is rejected. While testifying concerning her reading groups, Respondent demonstrated a lack of understanding of the threefold rotating group concept based on individual student assessments by stating that she had created a fourth group for four new Nicaraguan students who spoke no English merely because they entered her class in the middle of the year and that she had created the fourth group on the theory that the new students would have to start with the first work book in the first grade series. Respondent has had admitted in evidence her grade book for the 1983- 1984 term. It does not in every instance corroborate Petitioner's witnesses' testimony. It evidences at least one weekly grade in each subject but each subject is on a different page. This finding does not, however, significantly diminish or impugn the credibility of a number of Petitioner's witnesses who observed that Respondent kept insufficient grades. In making this determination considerable weight is attached to Respondent's own testimony that she chose to record only one weekly grade instead of recording all test and progress scores by date of the item graded. Her voluntary election to use one weekly grade per subject over grades on all items falls short of the prescription assigned to her. Respondent maintained that evaluations of her performance are clouded by the evaluators' failure to take into account the many problems inherent in anyone educating the Chapter One child. This premise is not accepted. Six of other Kinloch Park Elementary teachers of larger Chapter One first grade classes managed adequately in the 1983-1984 term. Mrs. Lucy Williams, Respondent's witness, testified that it should be easier to teach Chapter One students because there are less subjects and fewer students in classes under such a program. Dr. Gray, Petitioner's Executive Director of its Division of Standards, testified by way of expert opinion that he had considered transferring Respondent to a non-Chapter One school but decided against it because the nature of the assessment system used by Dade County is a measurement of basic teaching skills and is not a measurement of only specialized skills for Chapter One classes. Petitioner did not offer Respondent the opportunity to transfer to a different (Non- Chapter One) type of class. Dr. Patrick Gray further testified that in his opinion, Respondent's first grade class in 1983-1984 was deprived of a minimal educational experience. This opinion is accepted over Respondent's assertion that a promotion of the majority of her class to second grade demonstrates her competency as a teacher. Respondent's premise is rejected in part upon Dr. Hack's testimony that even the students' Stanford Achievement Test scores would not give an accurate picture of what Respondent had successfully taught because these scores measure only all accumulated knowledge from all sources throughout broad fields of knowledge up to a specific time in each child's life. The witnesses who testified for Petitioner established the Respondent was unable to properly teach the Chapter One students.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered ratifying Respondent's dismissal without pay and denying any claims for back-pay and benefits. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1985.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from her employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida, upon grounds of incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, misconduct in office and/or absence without leave. POST-HEARING PROCEDURE A transcript of the formal hearing was provided the undersigned on March 21, 1985, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were timely filed by both parties. A subsequently-filed revision of Respondent's initial proposal was accepted without objection and considered. When a party's proposed findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence admitted, they were adopted and are reflected in the Recommended Order, but to the extent proposed findings of fact were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been rejected or, where possible, modified to conform to the evidence. To the extent proposed findings of fact have not been adopted or are inconsistent with the findings herein, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has thereby been made either directly or indirectly except where the proposed finding of fact was cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary. Based upon observation of the witnesses and their candor and demeanor while testifying, all exhibits admitted in evidence, and the proposals and arguments of counsel, the following relevant facts are found:
Findings Of Fact Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner on November 15, 1982, at West Little River Elementary School. She suffered a non-school related accident and was absent approximately 121 days during the 1982-1983 school year. Observations of her teaching by her then-principal, John Johnson II, were unfavorable, but due to the prolonged absences, those observations did not result in any formal evaluations/recommendations. Respondent's requested leave for this period was granted and approved by Petitioner upon the basis of her severe electrical shock and back injury. Some of this period was classified as leave without pay. Petitioner also paid Respondent's insurance premiums for this period. Having thus condoned this absenteeism, Petitioner cannot now be heard to complain of it. (See allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Notice of Charges.) Principal Nicholas Rinaldi of Bay Harbor Elementary School hired Respondent as the teacher for its new "home-based" gifted program beginning there for the 1983-1984 school year. Although Principal Johnson would not have recommended Respondent for employment in the second year, he was not consulted by Principal Rinaldi. Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that she was limited to a $1,000.00 budget for purchasing materials for the program she was to develop. Principal Rinaldi understood that Respondent knew she was both to stay within this budget which is the standard limit at all home-based gifted programs and that she was required to get prior approval of her purchases from him. Apparently, Respondent grasped, the concept of a $1,000.00 "cap" but did not initially understand that she was to obtain prior written permission. After two orders were cancelled, she still had overspent by $60.00. She was then told specifically not to make any further purchases without the principal's permission. Thereafter, another order placed by Respondent was received at the school but Petitioner did not establish that Respondent placed the order after the cancellation of two prior orders and after Rinaldi's specific instruction not to order any more goods whatsoever. (See allegations of Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was clearly informed that she needed prior authorization for phone calls. She did not get prior permission for five long distance phone calls made personally or by students at her direction. The total cost of these calls is 8.56, which is very minimal. All calls were related to classwork with the exception of one call for $.44 and one call for $.25, which were admittedly of a personal nature. Respondent reimbursed the $.72 after the fact when notified of investigation into the phone bill. (See allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Notice of Charges.) Twenty-five students are required for a home-based gifted program. Bay Harbor was one of three North area schools piloting a home-based program in the 1983-1984 school year. In prior school years, gifted children from Bay Harbor attended a center program physically located elsewhere. A center program places a team of teachers of subjects from various schools in one physical location. Eligible students from various schools come to the center for two days a week for the gifted program and they receive their basic skills education at their respective home schools in the remaining three days per week. In a home-based program, a school which has enough gifted students elects to keep those students physically at the home school. They usually go into that program for two hours a day, every day. Some subject or subjects are used to deliver the gifted program. Those subjects are then graded by the home- based gifted teacher, who in this case was Respondent. When he hired her, Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that mathematics would be part of the new "home-based" gifted program, but math was essentially unstructured in the beginning. Thereafter, Principal Rinaldi instructed Respondent to utilize the standard Dade County "total math program, (TMP). When the TMP program was selected by Principal Rinaldi in approximately, December 1983, his motivation was that he understood TMP provided a structure for math that allows students to enter at the level that they are individually and moves each at a pace commensurate with his individual ability. Unfortunately, because a home-based program does not select its students on their specific giftedness in content area, some students in Bay- Harbor's 1983-1984 pilot program were lower than others in math. Some were even below their grade level. Those above the grade level were becoming bored with the program and those below the grade level were in a constant state of frustration struggling to keep up. A failure on Respondent's part to communicate surfaced, and misunderstandings arose between Respondent and parents and students as to the nature of projects, when projects were due and the reasonableness of homework. Problems concerning teacher absences also arose. The more academic and less "time-out-of-school" atmosphere of a home-based versus a center-based program also caused problems between the Respondent teacher and students/parents and between the Respondent and her principal. Upsets among the students and their parents resulted in many students being permanently removed from the gifted program. Over a period of time, the decrease in enrollment threatened to destroy the Bay Harbor gifted program, the survival of which required 25 students. On January 4, 1984, Principal Rinaldi observed Respondent's class for an hour for teacher evaluation purposes. This resulted in a basically good evaluation with some areas targeted for improvement (instructional planning and maintenance of student records [P-7]). The crux of this targeting was the principal's perception that Respondent did not record sufficient grades and her student files were not arranged alphabetically with papers arranged chronologically within each file. This standard of record-keeping is personal to Mr. Rinaldi and not uniform among other Dade County principals. At the standard post-observation conference, the two argued over the evaluation and the exactitude required by the principal, and Respondent refused to sign the evaluation to acknowledge that she had seen and received a copy of the document. As will be related infra, this refusal to sign or initial merely for acknowledgment of receipt of documents became a constant and continuing refusal on Respondent's part whenever the issue came up. Six days later she refused again; on January 17, 1984, Respondent responded in four written pages defending her methods. As events unfolded chronologically thereafter what started basically as a personality clash of the principal's "irresistible force" authoritarianism and the teacher's "immovable object" obstructionism mushroomed to affect students, parents, teachers, and administrators. In early January, Respondent complained concerning the inclusion of math in the gifted program to a higher outside administrator Dr. Agerwald. Mr. Rinaldi objected to this contact. On January 11, 1984, Mrs. Vickers, Petitioner's Director of Exceptional Students Program, arrived to observe Respondent's classes. She prepared a "School Visitation Report." The report is basically positive but does comment that the gifted classes are too big and current IEPs (records) were not and should have been available in the classroom. On February 2, 1984, Vickers issued a commendation to Hay Harbor on quality of cumulative records for exceptional children. Mr. Rinaldi passed this commendation (R-19) on to Respondent with the note, "Mrs. Burton, please continue this fine record 2/6/84." On 1/23/84, he also commended her on quick responses to the Miami Module records-keeping requests (R-20). Petitioner's advisor to gifted teachers, Richard Huffman, was assigned to assist Respondent at the beginning of the 1983-1984 school year. He testified that in his opinion she was a fit teacher, but he was removed as her advisor at the end of January or early February. February 24, 1984, Assistant Principal Vince Vignola observed Respondent in the classroom for a full hour and rated her overall acceptable except that she needed more grades in math and had, lost a student "contract" which had never been signed. Principal Rinaldi called in Gary Rito, Petitioner's Director of Academic Excellence for help resolving the gifted class problems. On March 2, 1984, Mr. Rito met with Respondent, Principal Rinaldi, and Mrs. Laurence, mother of a gifted student. Respondent and Laurence, who teaches elsewhere in Dade County, exchanged sharp words. It was agreed to meet again on March 8, 1984. At that time, James Miley, Petitioner's Supervisor of Gifted Programs, was present. Respondent was given written notice of the meeting one day in advance. Respondent elected to continue in this meeting at the conclusion of the school day. At this time most of her concerns, as expressed to all others present, were with the number of subjects she was required to cover and with the content of the mathematics curriculum in particular. Mr. Rito explained that "gifted" symbolizes a "technique" not a "subject," that Respondent was to use this technique for teaching subjects of math, science (which Respondent should be teaching anyway), and social studies, and for teaching a health and safety unit which was taught for only one or two grade units. Respondent strenuously objected to the use of the TMP math program. Rinaldi and Miley concurred that it was reasonable to include math in the gifted program. Math was, in fact, successfully used in the other two home-based programs beginning in Bay Harbor's Division that year, but the programs utilized may not have been the TMP. Nonetheless, the following adjustments were agreed upon among all those present at the March 8, 1984 meeting: Principal Rinaldi agreed to relieve the academic excellence program of the TMP math program and increased their enrichment activities; Ms. Thomas, Say Harbor's 6th Grade math teacher, was assigned by Principal Rinaldi to help Respondent in math. It was later Ms. Thomas' assessment that Respondent did not understand the TMP concept; and Respondent was directed and agreed to develop four units of study in botany (2 intermediate and 2 primary) to cover the rest of the school year (9 weeks). These plans were to cover instructional objectives, classroom activities, student evaluation methods and homework assignments on a time line. A preliminary plan was to be shown by Respondent to Mr. Miley on March 20. This assignment was primarily the result of a request by Ms. Laurence and other parents requesting to see a sets of plans for purposes of deciding whether to leave their children in the Respondent's class or return those who had already been withdrawn. Rinaldi, Rito, and Miley felt the plans required by the directive would ease the primary problems of implementing the program and of parent-teacher communications and misunderstandings which had been growing, and also felt they were reasonable and necessary. Everyone was aware that withdrawal of Mrs. Laurence's child could reduce program enrollment below the 25 student minimum required. However, no one clearly expressed the belief that this directive was a prescription to improve Respondent's teaching performance, which had been found basically sound up to this point. 1/ The direction itself was for a reasonable and necessary purpose (preserving and improving the gifted program). However, despite Mr. Miley's opinion that the plans as initially directed were reasonable and necessary and despite Respondent's failure to object to the direction at this point, the initial scope of the direction was actually unreasonable under the circumstances. Mr. Miley postponed his scheduled meeting with Respondent from March 20 to March 23, 1984. On that date, Respondent had nothing to show him with regard to the required botany units she had been asked to prepare. Mr. Miley met with Respondent anyway and reduced the required units from 4 to 2 and extended the time for preparation until April 12, 1984. He also gave her a document entitled "Standards of Excellence" for use in the units she was to prepare and agreed to let Respondent continue with her present evaluation system. This adjustment, made in consultation with Respondent also rendered the scope of the direction to prepare the units reasonable. 2/ On April 12, 1984, Mr. Miley asked for the required botany units and received nothing from Respondent. He returned to the school on April 13, and Respondent produced a series of goals and objectives essentially copied from the "Standards of Excellence" wherein she had identified part of a program for the primary students but none for the intermediate students. There were no classroom activities listed, no homework mentioned, and no time lines provided. Despite the extension of time, Respondent did not fulfill the required directive even in its reduced and consequently reasonable form. 3/ The units were not further amplified by Respondent before she left on April 20 and Mrs. Laurence's child was permanently removed from the gifted program. (See allegations of Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Notice of Charges). On March 12, 1984, Respondent called Principal Rinaldi a liar three times in the presence of two other school employees. 4/ (See allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent later informed Principal Rinaldi that she perceived the March 8 meeting as disciplinary in nature. He had not considered it so. He accordingly removed a request for her signature from a summary he had prepared of the March 8 meeting and scheduled a "conference-for-the-record" for March 16, 1984. Conferences-for-the record are disciplinary conferences. The March 16, 1984 meeting was postponed at the request of the Respondent's union representative. A second request for postponement for emergency reasons peculiar to the schedule of that particular union representative (Ms. Perez), was not granted and the conference-for-the-record went forward on March 20, 1984, with Respondent accompanied by her union steward, James Collings. At this conference, Rinaldi discussed the same matters that had been discussed at the March 8, 1984 meeting, the incident which had occurred March 12 when Respondent called him a "liar" three times, Respondent's unsatisfactory attendance record that year, and the fact that her absences were having an adverse effect on the program. Respondent was specifically instructed by her union advisers not to speak at this conference. Certainly she did not deny the March 12 "liar" incident. When she did not respond to Principal Rinaldi's accusations and inquiries, he became agitated. Respondent had received prior approval for a half-day in-service conference (8:30 a.m. to noon on March 21, 1984) with Mrs. Vickers, Director of Petitioner's Exceptional Student Education Program. When she did not report back to teach at Bay Harbor that afternoon, Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi made inquiries and Respondent's continued presence with Mrs. Vickers was confirmed, but not approved. This constitutes a 1/2 day's absence without leave. No substitute was procured since Respondent had been expected to teach her afternoon class. (See allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Notice of Charges.) On March 28, 1984, during a regularly scheduled parent meeting, the parents present expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction with various aspects of the gifted program, particularly math. Principal Rinaldi publicly attributed the problems in the gifted program to Respondent and Respondent retaliated by publicly stating that she did not believe TMP math should ever have been included in the gifted program and that she had no control over the inclusion of the math. The majority of witnesses actually present at this meeting found its entire tone and nature informative prior to Principal Rinaldi's comment. Even then, Respondent's comments may have been less than tactful but were hardly untruthful, unprofessional, irresponsible, or incendiary. (See allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to the March 29, 1984 faculty meeting. Based on the contemporaneous memoranda and letter, Respondent's estimate of 3-4 minutes tardiness is accepted over Dr. Rinaldi's later estimate of 20 minutes. The causes related contemporaneously by Respondent are entirely reasonable. (See allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Notice of Charges.) At Principal Rinaldi's April 16, 1984 classroom observation of Respondent, he rated her teaching performance as unacceptable in 3 categories: preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility (P-18). Rinaldi testified that his negative ratings in preparation and planning were due to what were minor concerns on the January evaluation. However, as observed above in Fact Paragraph 6, the January evaluation actually concentrated on the principal's particularly harsh requirement that Respondent's student files must be arranged alphabetically with papers neatly arranged chronologically within each file. Since his perception of the adequacy of records is so intensely personal to Mr. Rinaldi and in light of interim commendations to Respondent for record-keeping, his April analysis of inadequate records of assessment renders the final evaluation "score" highly suspect. 5/ (See allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to work and failed to timely sign in on March 26, 27, 28, and April 20, 1984. (See allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was absent on April 17, 18, and 19. She requested leave for April 17-18 late but it was approved and authorized in advance by Principal Rinaldi for participation in religious holidays. However, these were absences without pay and pushed Respondent over the number of personal leave days to which she was annually entitled. Respondent was absent without authorization on April 19; this was an absence without pay. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 20, 1984, Respondent protested, but finally agreed to meet with Principal Rinaldi in his office for a post-observation conference. Post- observation conferences are not normally considered disciplinary in nature. By this time, he had added Respondent's late notification of the 4/17-4/18 absence and her 4/19 absence to the prescription sheet as deficiencies. Respondent declined an oral dialogue with Rinaldi wherein she was invited to respond to the rating criticisms and prescriptions and offer alternatives and also refused to initial his notation that she insisted on responding in writing. Midway in this meeting, Respondent announced she was going to leave. Again, she would not sign to acknowledge receipt of the observation and prescriptions. Rinaldi instructed her that she was obligated to discuss the rating and if she left, he would consider it insubordination. Respondent left his office and the school and did not return to work as a teacher at Bay Harbor again. A formal reprimand issued partly as a result of this incident. (See allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 23 and April 24 Respondent was absent without pay. April 23 was unauthorized leave. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) With regard to the frequent' short absences, which total led 18 as of April 22, Respondent rarely if ever complied with the "Teachers' Handbook" guidelines for advance notification. Respondent originally felt that it did not matter what type of leave (personal or sick) was listed because she had no leave left anyway. Although many of these absences were for legitimate illnesses or injury of herself or a relative, there was either an on-going absence of lesson plans or a failure on Respondent's part to inform the principal that she had created plans since he last commented on there being none. Consequently, he often could not or did not secure substitutes. This resulted in wasted class time and interfered with classroom continuity. Some of Respondent's unauthorized absences were simply gifted programs she chose to attend without notifying the principal in advance. Respondent was also absent during the 1983-1984 school year for two lengthy periods, which, with all other absences, totalled 62 1/2 days. Medical narratives, admitted without objection, corroborate Respondent's testimony that the two lengthy absences were the result respectively of unanticipated allergic complications of a CAT scan (from January 30 to February 10, 1984,) and of surgery to correct acute sinusitis and recovery time from late April until release. One doctor released her from this last treatment On May 29, 1984; the other released her on June 8, 1984. During the period of time she was absent immediately following the April 20 "walkout" incident until approximately June 8, Respondent failed to adequately inform Petitioner of her proposed date of return. Certified letters sent to her post-office box were returned because Respondent did not pick them up and Petitioner could not send these to her by regular mail or by hand- delivery via a "visiting teacher" because Respondent had never informed Petitioner of her street address. The failure of Respondent to stay in touch, her failure to indicate when she could return to work, and her failure to indicate that her absence would be lengthy resulted in an inability of Petitioner to immediately hire a permanent substitute teacher. Therefore, the gifted classes had to "make-do" with a series of short term substitutes (4 or 5) until Mr. Rinaldi finally hired Mrs. Judith Dryanoff. This process created a lack of continuity in the classroom and more student withdrawals from the gifted program. The problem with multiple substitutes was compounded by Respondent's failure on April 24 and thereafter to have available substitute lesson plans. 6/ Because of Respondent's failure to leave any form of lesson plans or grade book, substitute Judith Dryanoff had to make up her own lesson plans for science and enlist the help of Janice Thomas for math plans. (See allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Notice of Charges.) On May 24, Principal Rinaldi signed Respondent's Annual Evaluation, not recommending her for employment in the next school year (P-22). When released by her doctors, Respondent was assigned by Administration to the North Area Office for June 11-15 and was expected by her principal to be at Bay Harbor simultaneously. She obviously could not do both. She was at the North Area Office for part of June 12 and at Bay Harbor for part of June 14. She was in neither location on June 11, 13, and 15. These days constitute absences without leave. (See allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On June 12, 1984, James Monroes, a supervisor in Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, ordered Respondent to begin the 180 hour course, Beginning Teacher Program, to start at 10:00 a.m., June 14, 1984, at Bay Harbor Elementary School. 7/ At 7:20 a.m. that morning Respondent confronted Principal Rinaldi in his office and called him "malicious, devious, incompetent," and "a sorry excuse for a principal." She accused him of personally taking her personal items from her room and of attempting to get her fired. 8/ Although she initially refused to come back for the program, she returned at 10:00 a.m. and repeated essentially the same harangue in the presence of Mrs. Thomas, the peer teacher selected to oversee Respondent's Beginning Teacher Program. Mrs. Thomas was called in by Mr. Rinaldi who had anticipated that a scene would ensue. Thereafter, out of Mr. Rinaldi's presence, Respondent invited Mrs. Thomas to sign a petition "to get rid of Mr. Rinaldi". (See allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Notice of Charges.) Dr. Huffman testified that Respondent also frequently yelled at Mr. Rinaldi in Dr. Huffman's presence prior to Dr. Huffman's February reassignment, and Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi testified that she had heard Respondent call Mr. Rinaldi a "bastard" or refer to him as a"bastard," but the date of this incident(s) was not proven. On August 29, 1984, Dr. Richard Artmeier, supervisor of Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, directed Respondent to be psychiatrically evaluated the next day to determine if there were any mitigating circumstances for her June 14, 1984 behavior. Respondent is obligated to submit to such evaluation by terms of her employment. After vacillation, Respondent refused to sign the written directive indicating its receipt and adamantly refused to see a psychiatrist. Finally, Dr. Artmeier directed her instead to report to the North Area Office the next day. Respondent did, however, actually go the next day as originally directed for psychiatric evaluation to Dr. Gail Wainger. Dr. Wainger was on Petitioner's "approved" list. In so doing, Respondent could not immediately comply with the directive to report to the North Area Office. Respondent reported to the North Area Office later the same day after her psychiatric evaluation. Petitioner accepted Dr. Wainger's psychiatric evaluation of Respondent, paid for it, and it was admitted at hearing upon Petitioner's motion (P-38). Since Respondent could not be in two places at once, she fulfilled the alternative directives reasonably by fulfilling them sequentially even if she did initially refuse. (See allegations of Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Notice of Charges). The psychiatrist's evaluation is admissible under Section 231.291, Florida Statutes and has been considered. Upon that evidence, together with all other credible evidence adduced at formal hearing, Respondent was accountable for her actions. Respondent has never qualified for and has never been characterized as a teacher under continuing contract.
Recommendation It is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from employment with the Dade County School Board and denying any claims for back pay. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1985.
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether the Petitioner Duval County School Board should dismiss the Respondent for professional incompetence pursuant to the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Laws of Florida, Chapter 21197 (1941) as amended.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the Duval County School Board. The Respondent, Bobby Palmore, has been an employee of the Petitioner since the 1992-93 school year. The Respondent is a tenured teacher assigned as a guidance counselor. During the 1997-98 school year, the Respondent was a guidance counselor at North Shore Elementary School. The Principal at the school in 1997-98 was Larry Davis. Concerns regarding the Respondent’s work performance at North Shore were raised early in the school year regarding his participation with Intervention Teams. An Intervention Team is formed to assist a guidance counselor with a particular student. The team meets when requested by the guidance counselor. Notwithstanding that the Intervention Team convened at the Respondent’s request, he missed the meeting scheduled for September 29, 1997. His erratic attendance at other Intervention Team meetings was of concern to the Assistant Principal, Martha Johnson, and the Principal. Ms. Johnson spoke with the Respondent about this, and Mr. Davis wrote the Respondent about his attendance at these meetings. Respondent’s attendance did not improve. The Respondent’s erratic attendance at Intervention Team Meetings was unsatisfactory performance of his duties and showed a lack of understanding of the subject matter. The Respondent repeatedly interrupted classroom teachers with unannounced and unscheduled calls and visits to their classrooms. This disrupted their classes, and they complained to administrators about Respondent’s conduct. These interruptions were frequently to obtain information regarding students who were being staffed for one reason or another, an activity coordinated by the guidance counselor. The Respondent was officially counseled about these interruptions by Ms. Johnson, but continued to interrupt classes and cause disruptions. This was unsatisfactory job performance and showed the Respondent’s failure to follow directions, plan his activities effectively, and manage his time well. These are considerations in Competency 2 of the Evaluation criteria. The Respondent was asked by Ms. Johnson to make a sign to direct parents and others to a December 12, 1997, Child Study Team (CST) meeting. He did not do so. This also showed the Respondent’s inability to follow direction. On January 13, 1998, the Respondent told Deborah Nurse, an employee of the school, in a rude and loud voice, that she was not to use the copying machine that was outside his office. Mr. Davis counseled the Respondent in writing regarding his behavior on January 16, 1998. On January 14, 1998, at a CST meeting, Ms. Slaughter asked the Respondent for a cumulative folder on a student. The Respondent had been asked to the meeting because of his lack of cooperation regarding the folder. The Respondent accused Ms. Slaughter of not respecting him in the meeting, and insisted that she ask him again for the folder. The Respondent’s actions were embarrassing to the professionals present at the meeting and showed a lack of professionalism on the part of the Respondent. He was counseled in writing by Ms. Johnson about his conduct. On January 15, 1998, a meeting was held to discuss a student between Ms. Johnson, Mrs. Shabazz, and the Respondent. Mrs. Shabazz indicated that a pertinent document was missing from the student’s folder that could effect his educational program and result in a loss of funding for the school. It was Respondent’s responsibility to maintain the student’s records in the guidance office. Ms. Johnson counseled the Respondent about his responsibilities in maintaining records and their importance to the school. She offered to assist the Respondent in reviewing the cumulative folders prior to their processing. The Respondent was responsible for preparation of materials for and participation in CST meetings on students. The Respondent placed students on the CST agenda without completing the data in their folder. This failure interfered with the proper and timely placement of students, and evidenced an unsatisfactory performance of a basic part of the Respondent’s job. As a result of the complaints about the Respondent’s work and conduct, a Success Plan was developed. This plan outlined areas in which the Respondent was not performing satisfactorily, identified objectives for improving his performance, and strategies to meet the objectives. A team was created to assist the Respondent including Mr. Davis, Ms. Johnson, the Respondent’s supervisor in guidance services, and the professional development facilitator. The Intervention Team had decided that team members should receive a response from the Respondent within three days. This time limit was incorporated in the Respondent’s Success Plan; however, the Respondent did not submit the CST packets within the time limits. In addition, the Respondent’s tone in speaking with the teachers was such that they complained to Ms. Johnson about the Respondent. Ms. Johnson counseled the Respondent about the lateness of his submittals and his interactions which the teachers. The Respondent did not improve his conduct that directly resulted in student’s needs not being met. The Respondent continued to be late to or to miss meetings and scheduled classroom visits. On February 4, 1998, he was late to a classroom visit. He cancelled a classroom visit he had scheduled. He did not follow the weekly calendar of guidance activities as required in his Success Plan. On February 4, 1998, Mr. Davis met with the Respondent to discuss the proper procedures for conducting a CST meeting as a means of assisting the Respondent. On February 6, 1998, Mr. Davis counseled the Respondent about his continued interruption of classes, and the Respondent forgot about a scheduled guidance session and did not attend, until reminded by Ms. Dennis. On February 6, 1998, Ms. Anderson met with the Respondent to discuss the guidance program and to offer assistance to him. She suggested that he use a weekly, hour-by- hour calendar to plan his time and activities. She also counseled with him about using a lesson plan for a small group session to provide a clearly defined objective for the session. Ms. Anderson directed the Respondent to follow-up with her in a week. The Respondent did not follow-up with Ms. Anderson or follow any of her advice. On February 9, 1998, Mr. Davis observed the Respondent conduct a meeting with staff regarding the Florida Writes Test. The Respondent’s conduct of the meeting was unsatisfactory. Issues were left unresolved and staff members were confused about the presentation. Some of the material presented was inconsistent with the information in the manual. Mr. Davis wrote the Respondent about these matters, and referred the Respondent to his Success Plan. On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to provide proper parental notification of a CST meeting pursuant to district guidelines. On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to provide proper parental notification of a CST meeting pursuant to district guidelines. On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to make to two-scheduled classroom visitations. On February 10, 1998, the Respondent missed a scheduled classroom visitation. The Respondent was not following a weekly calendar of activities, and his performance was unsatisfactory and contrary to the Success Plan. On February 10, 1998, the Respondent attempted to counsel the wrong child about the death of the child’s mother, and was prevented from doing so by the teacher. This reflected poorly on the Respondent’s attention to his duties, and his professionalism. On February 10, 1998, the Respondent was provided a list of counselors at other schools who had agreed to let the Respondent attend classroom guidance or CST meetings at their schools. The Respondent was late and showed a lack of interest while attending a classroom guidance session at Lake Forrest. On February 11, 1998, Mr. Davis observed a CST meeting at North Shore. It was evident that the parents had not received the required seven days' notice of the meeting. The Respondent had not conducted the pre-conferences, and had not coordinated the scheduling with the teachers. The Respondent did not have the proper forms in the cumulative folders, and had not conducted any classroom observations in preparation for the CST meeting. In sum, the Respondent’s performance showed a complete lack of competence and knowledge of his duties as a guidance counselor. On February 11, 1998, the Respondent missed his scheduled classroom guidance visit. On February 12, 1998, the Respondent missed his scheduled classroom guidance visit because he was late in arriving. On February 12, 1998, The Respondent discovered a coding error on the Florida Writes Test. He reported the error to Mr. Davis and accused the teacher of coding the test incorrectly. Davis directed the Respondent to correct the mistake and notify the testing department regarding the possible problem. The Respondent did not correct the test as directed, but placed a note on the box and resealed it to be mailed. The Respondent’s actions violated the testing procedures, and he did not do as he had been directed. On February 17, 1998, Ms. Johnson counseled with the Respondent concerning his failure to respond to student and staff needs. She advised him he was not meeting his Success Plan goals, and students were not receiving services they needed. The Respondent refused to counsel with a developmentally disabled student who had been sent to guidance by his teacher. The proper paper work had been completed for the student to participate in the group counseling session; however, the Respondent refused to allow the student to participate, chasing the student around the room telling him to "get out." The student was confused and embarrassed. Ms. Johnson, who was observing the session, and took charge of the student by having him sit with her, resolved the situation. The Respondent's actions demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the role of a guidance counselor, sensitivity for students, and ability to conduct a class or counseling session. On March 9, 1998, Mr. Davis completed the Respondent’s Annual Performance Evaluation. The evaluation consisted of eight competency areas. The Respondent received an unsatisfactory rating in three of the competency areas, which constituted an overall unsatisfactory evaluation. The facts as presented at hearing confirm the evaluation, and show that the Respondent was clearly incapable of performing his job duties. He lacked knowledge of his duties or how to perform them. He was insensitive to the students' needs and did not meet them. He did not follow the direction of his Principal and did not maintain a professional relationship with his coworkers and superiors. After receiving this evaluation, the Respondent continued in the same pattern of behaviors. He did not prepare and use a calendar of activities. He continued to provide materials late. He refused to assist a parent obtain the proper papers to enable the parent’s child to enroll in another school. He continued to disturb classes. He failed to notify staff of CST meetings at which they needed to attend. He took seven months to complete the paper work to have one child tested. In fact, there were several students who were awaiting CST processing at the end of the year. The Respondent was treated fairly and provided assistance by the school’s administration. Based upon his unsatisfactory evaluation in 1997-98, the Respondent was administratively transferred to J.E.B. Stuart Middle School the following year for an additional year of observation of in-service training. Carol Daniels is the Principal of Stuart Middle School. She met with the Respondent and advised him that he was starting with a clean slate at her school. School Board Policy required that Ms. Daniels confer privately with the Respondent and develop a Success Plan. She met with the Respondent on August 24, 1998. The Success Plan outlined goals and objectives to improve the Respondent’s performance as a guidance counselor. A support team was created to assist him. Soon after the school year began, Ms. Daniels counseled the Respondent about the proper method to request student records. She arranged for him to attend New Counselor Training on or about August 31, 1998. The Respondent was negative and adversarial about being requested to attend the training. He officially complained about the request, but upon review the Regional Superintendent determined that Ms. Daniels’ request was not arbitrary and was appropriate. The Respondent was counseled by Mr. Gilmore, the Vice Principal, on the need to process gifted students under the ESE program. He had failed to process several of these students, and he was given a deadline for processing these students. On September 8, 1998, the Respondent did not exit the building during a fire drill. Ms. Daniels counseled him in writing about the need for everyone to evacuate the building during drills. Mr. Gilmore counseled in writing the Respondent about the lack of lead-time in requesting information about students, and his abruptness and tone in making requests. On October 26, 1998, Linda Bailey requested an ESE/CST Agenda from the Respondent. The Respondent replied he was too busy to provide the information. On October 28, 1998, Ms. Bailey again asked for the information in writing. The Respondent did not provide the information. On October 26, 1998, Ms. Bailey also requested progress reports for the ESE students who would be reevaluated on November 9, 1998. These reports had been used at Stuart Middle School for many years as a best practice strategy. The Respondent advised that he had no intent of providing the progress reports and refused to do so. On October 26, 1998, the Respondent accused the District ESN Admissions Representative of taking ESE forms from his office. His tone and manner were threatening and confrontational. On October 27, 1998, Ms. Daniels notified the Respondent that he would have an evaluation and conference on October 30, 1998, pursuant to district guidelines. On October 28, 1998, Charlotte Robbins, ESE Interventionist, met with the Respondent to discuss three students. It was the Respondent’s responsibility to provide information to Ms. Robbins in a timely manner. The Respondent did not provide Ms. Robbins the necessary information prior to the meeting. The Respondent also invited parents to the meeting without advising Ms. Robbins. On November 2, 1998, Norma Peters, a speech therapist, advised Ms. Daniels that she had requested the Respondent to provide her a list of students to be evaluated two to three weeks before CST meetings. The Respondent told Ms. Peters he would not be able to provide the information as requested, although previous guidance counselors had provided Ms. Peters the names three to four weeks in advance of meetings. Although Ms. Daniels spoke with the Respondent about Ms. Peter’s concern, the Respondent did not provide the information as requested. On November 5, 1998, the two eighth grade counselors met with the Respondent to discuss the need for him to be a team member. They raised the fact that he did not answer the phone, assist parents, or help the guidance clerk when necessary. They also advised him to improve his communication with the ESE teachers, CST members, speech pathologist, and interventionist. A CST meeting was held on November 9, 1998, and only half the parents had been noticed and invited to come to the meeting. The Respondent had been responsible for contacting the parents in compliance with district policies. This failure prevented the CST team from addressing the needs of students. Not only did it potentially deny students services, it frustrated teachers, staff, and parents. On November 24, 1998, the Respondent interrupted class instruction by bringing a parent into the class who had missed an earlier appointment with the teacher. On November 25, 1998, Kathee Cook telephoned the Respondent regarding contacting children for the December 9, 1998, CST meeting. The Respondent refused to contact the parents of the students because ESE procedures required that Ms. Cook contact him seven days prior to the designated date. Ms. Cook reported this to Ms. Daniels, who discussed it with the Respondent, explaining that the requirement was for at least seven days notice. Ms. Daniels advised him that he was responsible for notifying parents for CST meetings, and his position potentially jeopardized notice to the parents as required by district policy. Ms. Daniels directed the Respondent to give the Vice Principal all of the parental notices by December 2, 1998. On December 2, 1998, the Respondent gave Mr. Gilmore ten notice letters; however, he did not provide notices to eleven other parents. The Respondent excused his failure by asserting his interpretation of the seven-day rule. On November 25, 1998, Ms. Daniels advised the Respondent that he had made little improvement in his performance. She discussed with him performance of his duties; and being courteous and respectful to faculty, staff, and parents. The Respondent did not accept the evaluation and was confrontational and adversarial with Ms. Daniels. He refused Ms. Daniels' offer of assistance. On or about January 5, 1999, the Respondent placed seven notice letters to parents in Mr. Gilmore’s box for the January 11, 1999, CST meeting. Not only were the letters late, if intended for the January 11th meeting, but they were addressed to the parents of children being staffed in the January 22, 1999, meeting. The Respondent failed to discontinue ESE services to a student contrary to the parent’s request on three separate occasions, to include at least one request in writing. The Respondent’s failure resulted in the matter being re-assigned to the chair of the guidance department to discontinue the services in accordance with the parent’s wishes. The Respondent left the campus without following the procedures for leaving early. These requirements had been explained during orientation and were in the teachers’ handbook. Ms. Daniels had to notify the Respondent in writing of his oversight. On January 25, 1999, Ms. Daniels notified the Respondent pursuant to the collective bargaining that his work performance was unsatisfactory. He was advised that his performance in Competencies 1, 2, 4, 8 and 9 needed improvement by March 15, 1999. On February 2, 1999, the Respondent was notified that this memorandum would be placed in his personnel file. The Respondent met with parents who were not enrolled in Stuart Middle School during the middle of the school day. Ms. Daniels advised him in writing on February 11, 1999, that this was inappropriate, and he should limit meeting to parents or students enrolled or engaged in enrolling at Stuart. On March 10, 1999, the Respondent made a presentation to an ESE class. His Success Plan required him to schedule presentations during Advisor/Advisee time period. The Respondent’s presentation was arbitrary and he did not seek assistance from his support team. On March 11, 1999, Ms. Daniels completed the Respondent’s annual evaluation. The evaluation addressed nine competency areas. Th Respondent received an unsatisfactory in five of the nine areas, which constituted an overall unsatisfactory evaluation. The Respondent’s performance in Competency 1 (ability to plan and deliver instruction), Competency 2 (demonstrates knowledge of subject matter), Competency 4 (shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school climate), Competency 8 (demonstrates a commitment to professional growth), and Competency 9 (shows evidence of professional characteristics) was unsatisfactory. Not only was his performance unsatisfactory, he continued to be unwilling to accept support and assistance. He failed to comply with many areas of his Success Plan and failed to perform his duties. On March 17, 1999, the Respondent interrupted Mrs. Bascombe’s class. Ms. Daniels counseled the Respondent in writing about class interruptions, and how to handle situations by checking the master schedule and placing notices in teacher mailboxes. On March 23, 1999, Ms. Daniels relieved the Respondent of his responsibilities for ESE students because of his poor performance and its impact on the students' welfare. He had failed to timely notify parents. He had failed to communicate with parents, the staff, faculty and the district. His failures had adversely affected the operations of the ESE program. The Respondent was assigned to handle seventh grade non-exceptional education students. Ms. Daniels had to direct the Respondent in writing to relinquish the ESE forms to his successor. On April 20, 1999, after being relieved of his ESE duties, he met with the mother of an ESE student who was then receiving services from his successor. The Respondent was treated fairly at Stuart Middle School. All of the personnel were ready and willing to provide him assistance. He was negative, and refused to co-operate or perform his duties as directed. On May 19, 1999, the Respondent was notified by the Superintendent that he was charged with professional incompetence. He was advised that he would be discharged from the Duval County School System if the charge was sustained by the School Board. He was advised of his right to request a hearing within two days of receipt of the letter dated May 19, 1999. On June 15, 1999, Ms. Daniels provided John Heavner, Director of Professional Standards, written notice that the Respondent had not completed the requirements of his Success Plan. The Respondent requested a formal hearing by letter on July 10, 1999. Notwithstanding that this was late, he was afforded a hearing. On August 5, 1999, the Respondent was notified that he would be suspended without pay effective August 12, 1999. The Respondent was advised that the suspension would be considered at the September 7, 1999, regular meeting of the School Board. The Respondent is charged with incompetence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that: A final order be entered denying the Respondent’s disciplinary appeal and demands set forth in his pleadings, and dismissing the Respondent for incompetence. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 27th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Lashanda R. Johnson, Esquire City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Bobby G. Palmore 863 Poydras Lane, West Jacksonville, Florida 32218 John C. Fryer, Jr., Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182 Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 321399-0400
The Issue Did Respondent, Cynthia Bradford, commit the violations as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, Orange County School Board, is the governmental entity responsible for the operation, supervision, and control of public schools in Orange County, Florida, including the employment of personnel associated with the educational process. Respondent is a white, female employed by Petitioner as an exceptional student education (ESE) annual contract teacher. She taught students with learning and/or emotional disabilities at Meadowbrook Middle School. The students that testified, D.C., N.B., and P.S., are all exceptional education students with mental handicaps, learning disabilities, and/or emotional disabilities. These students are African-American, which is the predominate race of the Meadowbrook Middle School population. ESE students with mental handicaps, learning disabilities, and/or emotional disabilities require a greater period of time and more intensive instruction to acquire knowledge and skills taught in the school curriculum. Students with these problems have difficulty processing emotion, which impacts on their ability to function socially and academically in an educational setting. These students are taught in a “self-contained” classroom environment with a lower teacher-to-student ratio and more individualized instruction time each school day. They remain within Respondent’s classroom the greater part of each school day, leaving only for special classes. These students have a diminished cognitive capacity for abstract thought processing and have difficulty grasping, intellectually and comfortably, the concepts described in the book noted hereinbelow. Some of these students would be at high risk for working with concepts articulated in the book. Meadowbrook Middle School has a Reading Achievement and Progress course, referred to as the “RAP” program. RAP instruction is provided school-wide in every class each day during the sixth period. While the primary focus of RAP is to promote reading proficiency, it is also used to instruct students on character development. This is done with the teacher reading aloud to the class and engaging the student in pertinent discussion about character with reference to the topics discussed in the particular book. All teachers at Meadowbrook Middle School, including Respondent, received training on the implementation of the RAP program before the start of the school year and throughout the school year. Respondent participated in the RAP pre-planning and staff development meetings each of the three years that she taught at Meadowbrook Middle School. In connection with RAP training, Respondent received a “R.A.P. Curriculum and Instruction Guide” to provide classroom assistance and resource information for teachers implementing the RAP program. In addition to containing a list of 140 recommended books, the curriculum guide provided teachers with the following guidance on the selection of reading materials: Choose a quality book – this may seem like an obvious thing to do but it is one that many teachers failed to do. A poor book cannot be made better, no matter how well the reader reads it, so choose a book that: Has significant literary value; Is developmentally appropriate for the target age level students; and/or Affords instructional opportunities (e.g., you can use it to teach a specific concept or skill) . . . While there is a list of recommended books, there is no "approved" reading list. A teacher has the latitude to select any book he or she deems appropriate. The Meadowbrook Middle School library has class sets of books for teachers to check out for RAP. Class sets are just that: forty novels--one for each student--so that each student can read his or her own copy of the book along with the teacher and the rest of the class. Meadowbrook Middle School has a literary coach who is available to assist teachers in the selection of books or other aspects of implementation of the RAP program. Respondent selected a book titled Dumb As Me to read to her ESE students during RAP. This book was not on the recommended book list or available in the school library. She believed the book would capture the interest of her students and present a negative example to stimulate character development discussions. She chose the book because it reflects African- American inter-city culture, similar to the Bluford series which is available in the school library. She did not consult with the literary coach or any other Meadowbrook Middle School educational professional in the selection of the book. Dumb As Me, is fiction about a married, African- American male who lives a self-described “pimp” and “player” lifestyle. The book describes in graphic detail sexual behavior including cunnilingus, masturbation, fellatio, sadism, and sexual intercourse. The book is filled with profanity, including "shit," "fuck," "motherfucker," and such words as "ass," "pussy," "cock," and "dick" as descriptions of the human sexual organs. If Respondent's students had uncensored access to the book, it would be harmful to them. Most of the time the book was locked in a cabinet in the classroom. Through unfortunate circumstance, Respondent's students, or some of them, gained access to the book and read it. When Respondent read the book in class, she sometimes edited the book substituting "F-word" for "fuck," for example. On other occasions, she read the plain text of the novel, including depictions of graphic sexual activity and profanity. As a practical matter, the students are aware of most of the profanity contained in the book. When the same profanity is used by students in class, Respondent attempts to discuss the particular word, "bitch" for example, and explain why it is an inappropriate term. An adult teacher's aid assigned to Respondent's classroom was present when Respondent read part of the novel to her students. She left the classroom after Respondent read a sexually explicit portion of the book about the protagonist engaging in cunnilingus with his mistress. This adult teacher's aid reported Respondent's having read the particular book to the school principal. As a result of this report, the principal obtained and read portions of the book. Another administrative employee undertook an investigation that involved interviewing several of Respondent's students. The investigation confirmed that Respondent had read sexually explicit and profanity-laced portions of the novel to her students. Respondent appears to be a sensitive and concerned teacher; however, the error in judgment demonstrated by her selection of Dumb As Me to be read to learning disabled, emotionally and mentally handicapped children raises question of her competence to teach children. Reading the book, as she did, with its graphic depiction of sexual activity and profanity, exposed Respondent's students to conditions harmful to their social, emotional, and academic development. During the investigation and subsequent activities, Respondent misstated the extent that she had read sexually explicit and profanity-laced portions of the book to her students. Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was diminished by her selection of the particular book and reading sexually explicit and profanity-laced sections of the book to her students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent's "misconduct in office" constitutes “just cause” under Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2005), to dismiss her from her employment as a teacher with Petitioner, Orange County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian F. Moes, Esquire Orange County School Board 445 West Amelia Street Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271 Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 140 South University Drive, Suite A Plantation, Florida 33324 Honorable John Winn, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ronald Blocker, Superintendent Orange County School Board Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and how, Respondent should be disciplined for failing to take appropriate action regarding a middle school student who brought a knife to school.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 1063574 and is licensed in the fields of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Reading, and Exceptional Student Education. She began teaching at Bonita Springs Middle School in Lee County in September 2011, after the start of the 2011-2012 school year. During instruction in her fourth period class on February 13, 2012, Respondent heard a student ask another student, who was an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) student with emotional issues, "was that a knife?" The ESE student responded, "Drama!" When Respondent looked up, she saw the ESE student place something in her lap, out of Respondent's view. Respondent did not see what it was but saw a flash of silver or metal. The class started to "act up," and Respondent decided to diffuse the incident and quiet the class by telling the ESE student to "put it away." The ESE student then put the object in her backpack. When the class ended, Respondent approached the ESE student and asked if she had a knife. The student denied it. Respondent told the student, if she had a knife, that would be unacceptable, but Respondent did not pursue the matter any further at the time and allowed the student to leave for her next class. During Respondent's eighth period class, the last period of the day, Respondent asked her student-aide, who also was a student in her fourth period class, about the incident during fourth period. The student-aide told Respondent that it was a knife, like a small steak knife, and that the ESE student had been licking it. After speaking with her student-aide, Respondent sent the school's ESE director, who also was the ESE student's caseworker, an electronic message simply asking to discuss the student with her when she had a moment. No details about the incident were included in the message out of Respondent's concern that it would be a public record. Respondent did not receive a response by the end of the school day. The ESE director received the message after hours. The next morning, Respondent saw the ESE director at a teacher's meeting and explained the previous day's incident. The ESE director was concerned about the delay in doing anything else about it and immediately went to the school principal, who was in the cafeteria, as were several other students, including Respondent's ESE student. The principal immediately went to the student and asked if she had a knife. The student admitted she did and thought it was no big deal since Respondent did nothing about it the day before. The student later stated that she was depressed and was considering cutting herself with the knife. Respondent now understands that she did not take the appropriate action on February 13, 2012. However, she contends that there are mitigating factors to consider, and any discipline should be constructive (such as, additional training), not punitive. Respondent attempts to defend herself to an extent by saying she did not actually see the knife during fourth period. However, it is clear that Respondent heard students asking about a knife, and saw something silver or metallic that could have been a knife, and was aware of the student's emotional issues. In light of those circumstances, Respondent should not have been satisfied with the student's denial that she had a knife; she should have involved the school's administrators and resource officer at that point. When she learned during eighth period that the student in fact had a knife, she should not have been satisfied with an unacknowledged electronic message to the ESE director. Respondent also attempts to deflect some blame onto the school for not making sure she knew what to do about incidents like the one that confronted her on February 13, 2012. It may well be true, as she testified, that Respondent did not get a copy of the Parent Guide and Code of Conduct for Students, normally distributed to teachers at the beginning of the school year, which identifies a kitchen knife as a weapon and prohibits it. Petitioner attempted to impeach Respondent's denial of receipt of the document by citing a handful of student discipline referrals by Respondent that use incident types taken from that document. One incident type, albeit not used by Respondent in any of her referrals, was possession of weapons; however, the form does not define weapons. Respondent testified convincingly that she used the forms without reference to the source document. Nonetheless, she knew it would be unacceptable for a student to have a knife at school. When Respondent started teaching at the school, she was offered an opportunity to take the APPLES program for new teachers, which provides information and training on codes of conduct, including provisions to protect the safety of students and faculty. Respondent opted out, stating that she took the APPLES program during her previous employment in Collier County. While perhaps not handed to Respondent when she started teaching at Bonita Springs Middle School, the Parent Guide and Code of Conduct for Students was easily accessible from Respondent's school computer via a program called SharePoint that was a link on the home page. Respondent denies ever accessing the material from her computer. However, Respondent prepared a professional development plan shortly after she started teaching at the school in October 2011. It included a plan to train on how to download documents from SharePoint, but Respondent had not yet followed through on that plan by the time of the incident. Information also was available to Respondent in the form of an Agenda book that she was given. The Agenda book contained the school's rules, including one prohibiting weapons as nuisances and providing that they would be confiscated. It is not clear whether any of the information provided or available to Respondent would have told her what to do in circumstances where she suspected, but was not certain, that a student had a knife, and the student denied it. Based on the facts of this case, additional training is appropriate and actually is desired by Respondent. On the other hand, Respondent would rather not be reprimanded, submit to supervised probation, and pay a $500 fine and pay costs, as Petitioner proposes. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, Petitioner's proposal would be harsh, not constructive, and possibly demoralizing. The evidence is clear that Respondent will follow the rules she is given and take appropriate action in a situation if she knows what is expected of her. A repeat of the failure to act appropriately in a situation similar to the incident on February 13, 2012, is not likely.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission find Respondent guilty of violating rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), issue a letter of reprimand, and place her on a short term of probation conditioned on the completion of appropriate additional training. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 8th day of April, 2013.
The Issue This issue in this case is whether just cause exists for the proposed disciplinary action against the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Since 1976, and at all times material to this case, Philip Chase (Respondent) was employed by the Pinellas County School Board (Petitioner) under a continuing contract pursuant to Section 231.36(4)(a), Florida Statutes. The Respondent has a Masters Degree in Education. In 1988, the Respondent was a teacher and wrestling coach at Dunedin High School. On February 8, 1988, the Respondent received a letter of reprimand for addressing three students as "street niggers." In 1991, while still teaching at Dunedin High, the Respondent received a three day suspension for kicking a student. Due to budgetary constraints in the 1992-1993 school year, some Pinellas County high school teachers were reassigned to other schools. The Respondent was transferred to Cypress Woods Elementary School as a Physical Education (P. E.) teacher. The Respondent received an evaluation while at Cypress Woods Elementary by the school principal. Although the evaluation is generally positive, the principal noted that the Respondent should avoid raising his voice in the classroom and suggested should refrain from singling out a student (apparently for misbehaving) in the presence of other students. In the 1994-1995 school year, the Respondent taught P. E. at the Sandy Lane Elementary School. The transfer to Sandy Lane was voluntary. Each Sandy Lane P. E. class is divided into four sections. Each section is taught by one of two P. E. teachers or one of two teacher assistants for up to four weeks, at which time each section rotates to another adult instructor. The P. E. teachers are responsible for development of lesson plans. The teacher must explain the lesson plan to the assistant. When an assistant is responsible for a section of students, the assistant instructs according to the lesson plan developed by the teacher. The teacher is responsible for grading the students. During the 1994-95 school year, the Respondent was verbally abusive towards students. On September 12, 1994, early in the school year, the Respondent received a letter of warning from the assistant principal of Sandy Lane Elementary for making inappropriate comments to children. Students were called derogatory names by the Respondent, including the use of "four-eyes" in reference to a child wearing classes. The Respondent referred to some students as "wimps" or "sissies." The Respondent made other inappropriate remarks to children, including telling students that if he were their father, he would administer corporal punishment. During another class, a child running laps paused momentarily, and was berated as "lazy" by the Respondent. On a few occasions the Respondent reacted in an inappropriate physical manner with students. In one case, he intervened in a fight between two students and pushed one child to the ground. In another case, the Respondent grabbed a child who was refusing to remain in line and pushed the child into the line. On February 20, 1995, the Respondent received a memo from the principal of Sandy Lane in which he was directed to alter his behavior with students including inappropriate raising of his voice and physical interaction. According to the testimony of witnesses observing his teaching method, students were unhappy at the prospect of rotating into his section and would make up excuses to avoid his class. Other P. E. Teachers or assistants in the vicinity of the Respondent's class had to address his behavior with their students. At times he raised his voice loud enough to draw the attention of their students and disrupt their classes. On several occasions, in addition to the letter and memo regarding the school's concerns, the Sandy Lane Principal met with the Respondent to address the issues related to his classroom behavior. During the 1994-95 school year, the Respondent's preparation of lesson plans was inadequate. Elementary school P. E. lessons should focus initially on basic motor skills and progress to more concise hand-eye skill development. He did not establish appropriate skill levels for the students. The Respondent frequently instructed all children to play games without regard to skill level. He failed to provide proper instruction to the teacher assistants. The Respondent sometimes spoke about colleagues in an inappropriate manner. During the 1994-95 school year, on two occasions, the Respondent complained to one teacher about another, calling the disfavored teacher a "bitch." During the 1995-96 school year, a new P. E. teacher joined the Respondent on the staff of Sandy Lane. The evidence establishes that the Respondent's behavior continued to be unacceptable. During the 1995-96 school year, the Respondent continued to address students inappropriately, using such terms as "bonehead" or "meathead." Again he was overhead stating that were he the student's father, he'd administer corporal punishment. During the 1995-96 school year, the Respondent continued to yell at children in order to maintain control of his students. He continued to disrupt nearby classes with the volume and tone of his voice. Other P. E. teachers or assistants in the vicinity of the Respondent's class had to address his behavior with their students. During the 1995-96 school year, he continued to touch students inappropriately. He grabbed children by the arms to maintain control of the class. He pushed a recalcitrant student to the ground when the student hesitated to sit down. At one point during a P. E. class, the Respondent sent one child to "time-out" and called attention to the child's misbehavior by having the other students applaud the child for "earning" a time-out. The students applauded the child as he walked to the time-out area. During the 1995-96 school year, the Respondent's preparation of lesson plans remained inadequate. He did not establish appropriate skill levels for the students. "Lessons" were basically games with little regard to skill development of the students. His instruction to teaching assistants remained inadequate. Little if any written lesson instruction was provided. One assistant testified that when she requested additional clarification, the Respondent offered no guidance. When she voiced her concerns to the school principal, the Respondent confronted her in front of students and told her she was to do whatever he told her to do. On December 7, 1995, James Barker, the Petitioner's Administrator for the Office of Professional Standards, met with the Respondent to discuss the matters addressed herein. At that time, the Respondent received a latter of reprimand related to aggressive physical interaction with students and embarrassing a student (during the time-out incident.) The letter states that such acts constitute misconduct in office and insubordination. The letter advises that such behavior cease and that continued incidents will result in further disciplinary action including suspension or dismissal. During the spring of 1996, the other Sandy Lane P. E. teacher went on maternity leave. During the tenure of the substitute teacher, the Respondent continued to have inadequate (if any) lesson plans. He often met with the substitute at the beginning of the day and the two would discuss what to do immediately prior to each day's classes. The Sandy Lane principal continued to be concerned about the Respondent's lack of adequate lesson plan preparation. In March 1996, he requested that the Petitioner's Supervisor for Physical Education meet with the Respondent and the principal to review the existing plans. During the meeting, the supervisor determined that the lesson content was minimal, lacked any sequence of skill development, and had little regard for the grades and skill levels of students. The supervisor discussed his concerns with the Respondent. He reviewed an elementary textbook with the Respondent, and used a sample lesson planning book to demonstrate the kind of information which would be included in an acceptable lesson plan. The Respondent argued with the supervisor and was resistant to his suggestions. The supervisor followed up the meeting with the Respondent by providing copies of curriculum materials to the Respondent. Despite the guidance from the supervisor, the Respondent's lesson planning continued to be inadequate. The Respondent continued to speak about colleagues in an inappropriate manner. During the 1995-96 school year, in discussing a female teacher with another male teacher, the Respondent used the word "tits" in describing her appearance. During the 1995-96 school year, responsibility for an aggressive emotionally handicapped child was assigned to the Respondent because the pregnant female P. E. teacher was concerned about her safety. The assignment was made by the school principal at a meeting with the teachers and the child's parent. The Respondent agreed to the assignment. The Respondent failed to monitor the child. On both the first and second days of the assignment, the Respondent inquired of the pregnant teacher about the child's behavior so that he could complete the evaluation sheet. On the second day of the assignment, the child got involved in a fight, left his P. E. class and returned to another classroom. The Respondent was unaware of the incident until he inquired of the pregnant teacher as to the child's behavior. Afterwards, the Respondent complained to another teacher about the pregnant teacher, calling her a "bitch." The Respondent was responsible for grading other emotionally handicapped children in his classes. On one occasion during the 1995-96 school year, the Respondent turned his grades over to an "EH" assistant, commenting that he had forgotten to write them down during the classes, and that if she disagreed with them, she could change them. She reviewed the grades and determined that they did not reflect the actual conduct of the EH students, so she changed them. At one point during the 1995-96 school year, the Respondent, speaking in the vicinity of kindergarten children, commented to another teacher that "[t]hey're on my ass again," apparently in reference to the continuing issues related to his teaching. During the 1995-96 school year, students continued to express their displeasure to other teachers at being rotated into the Respondent's P. E. section. During his term of employment at Sandy Lane Elementary, the Respondent's behavior provided ineffective guidance to students. At times, after standing in front of a misbehaving student and yelling at the child, he'd "high-five" or verbally praise the child. According to witnesses for the Petitioner, such signals are confusing and fail to provide clear direction to the child as to what types of behavior are acceptable. The Respondent also used exercise as a form of punishment for misbehavior. There is evidence that using exercise as punishment is counterproductive to teaching children about the benefits of exercise and encouraging students to exercise as a from of recreation. The evidence establishes that the Respondent is verbally and physically inappropriate with elementary school students and that he fails to perform proper instructional planning. Generally, when the Respondent's various inappropriate behaviors were called to attention, he would minimally attempt to improve the situation, but the improvements were marginal and of brief duration. On April 1, 1997, the Respondent was notified by certified letter that the Superintendent of Pinellas County Schools would recommend termination of the Respondent's employment. The letter states that the termination is for incompetency, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a Final Order terminating the employment of Philip Chase. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of February, 1997 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 1997. Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent School Board of Pinellas County 301 Fourth Street Northwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34640 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County School Board Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649 Mark Herdman, Esquire 34650 U. S. Highway 19 North, Suite 308 Palm Harbor, Florida 34684
The Issue Whether Respondent, Teresa Wimmer, violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.080, the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (Code of Ethics), or 6A-10.081, the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (Principles of Professional Conduct), as alleged in the Hernando County School Board’s March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination, and March 24, 2015, modification of that notice; and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Hernando County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Respondent has been a teacher at Pine Grove for roughly 11 years. During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent was a teacher of first-grade students, with a class of approximately 18 students. As a classroom teacher, Respondent was expected to comply with the 2014-2015 Staff Handbook. Among the provisions applicable to Respondent was the following: TOUCHING STUDENTS Employees are advised that they should not touch students in any way except for the protection of the health, safety and/or welfare of a student or for protection of themselves. Respondent has been the subject of several disciplinary proceedings over the years. In September 2004, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for grabbing a student’s arm on two occasions to correct misbehaviors, the result of which appeared to be a reprimand. The report of the employee conference was to remain in the school file for one year. In January 2006, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for making derogatory comments regarding a student and allowing classmates to do the same. Respondent was required to re-read the Code of Ethics and Professional Practice forms and write a letter of apology to the student and parents. The employee conference report closed with “[a]ny further behaviors involving embarrassment to students will result in further disciplinary action.” In September 2013, Respondent was involved in an incident that is of more direct relevance to this proceeding. In that instance, Respondent was accused of roughly handling students in her classroom. As a result, she was offered, and accepted, a Stipulation for Employee Discipline and Last Chance Agreement (Stipulation). In the Stipulation, Respondent acknowledged that she “engaged in misconduct by having inappropriate and unprofessional interactions with students in her classroom” and that such conduct “warrants disciplinary action up to and including termination.” In lieu of termination, the School Board and Respondent agreed that she would be suspended for ten days and, thereafter, serve a probationary period for the remainder of the 2013-2014 school year. The Stipulation further provided that Respondent “agrees that she will not engage in the conduct which gave rise to this Stipulation at any time or any place so long as she is an employee of the Hernando County School District. Further, [Respondent] understands that if she does engage in misconduct, it will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination.” Respondent successfully completed the terms of her probation without incident. School principals, assistant principals, guidance counselors, and persons in similar duties are trained in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI), which is an approved method of restraining or transporting completely out-of-control students or removing children from the classroom. CPI training is not provided as a matter of course to classroom teachers. Respondent has not received CPI training. Holding a student’s hand is not a CPI hold. There is nothing inherently inappropriate with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. The 2014-2015 Staff Handbook provides, in the section entitled “Return of Students to Classroom (Authority of the Teacher),” that: Teachers should follow their school’s procedure for the removal of students who are acting out. Suggestions include: having an adult accompany the student from the class or requesting an administrator to come to the class. (emphasis added). The routine procedure for removal of a disruptive or unruly student from the classroom is for the classroom teacher to call the office, whereupon Ms. Johnson, Ms. Kasten, or a guidance counselor, each of whom are trained in CPI, would go to the room, try to calm the student, and, if warranted, take the student to the office. Despite the procedure described above, Ms. Kasten testified that teachers, on occasion, “would bring the student down for me to talk to or the guidance counselor to talk to.” In such instances, “[t]hey would just walk them down” to the office. Although the teacher would usually call the office first, the evidence did not support a finding that a call was required or necessary, or that it happened in each event. Although the timing of those other events of taking students to the office was described as generally occurring “during their planning period or whatever, if they were at specials or whatever,” the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the act of walking a student to the office, per se, does not constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook and that the school has not previously determined it to be so. Among the reasons for having teachers call the office for assistance with disruptive students is to limit those periods in which a teacher may leave students unattended or, as in this case, leave a co-teacher responsible for up to 36 students while the disruptive student was walked to the office. However, Ms. Tyree testified that there have been times when she would ask Respondent to “keep an eye on [her] class” while she went to attend to other things, and vice versa. There was no suggestion that asking a co-teacher to watch over a class was improper, as long as “your class is covered.” In the weeks prior to February 4, 2015, J.S., a student in Respondent’s classroom, had become increasingly disruptive in the classroom. The behaviors ranged from J.S. talking in “baby-talk” and rolling crayons on his desk, to choking another student with a lanyard. Respondent did not know why J.S.’s behavior had spiraled out of control, but indicated to Ms. Kasten that it was creating a problem for her ability not only to teach J.S., but to teach the other students in her classroom. The office was called on three occasions to deal with J.S., and Ms. Kasten went to the class to address the situations. On two occasions, J.S. remained in the classroom after Ms. Kasten’s intervention. On one occasion, Ms. Kasten removed J.S. from the classroom. On the occasion when Ms. Kasten removed him from Respondent’s classroom, J.S. was walking around the room and disturbing the other students. Ms. Kasten could not get J.S. to listen to her. Thus, she decided to take J.S. to the office. She did not employ her CPI training or use a CPI hold, but took him by the hand “with the idea of keeping him from getting away.” During the walk to the office, J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away.1/ There was no suggestion that the actions of Ms. Kasten in taking J.S. by the hand and walking him to the office were inappropriate or contrary to the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. On the afternoon of February 3, 2015, Ms. Kasten met with Respondent to discuss the behavior of J.S. in her classroom. Respondent was upset and frustrated with J.S.’s unruly behavior and wanted to know what could be done about it. Ms. Kasten suggested that the two of them could work to develop a behavior plan for J.S. and indicated that she would bring a plan to Respondent the next day for them to work on. The incident that forms the basis of this proceeding occurred on February 4, 2015. As students were entering the class for the day, Respondent heard screaming and the words “stop hitting me.” She turned and saw J.S. striking a female student with his fists. Respondent was able to verbally quell the disturbance. However, after initially returning to his seat, J.S. went to the back of the room where he began kicking table legs and other items. Respondent asserted that prior to her taking the student to the office, she called Ms. Kasten to advise her that she would be doing so and received permission from Ms. Kasten. Ms. Kasten had no recollection of having received any such call. The telephone records admitted at the hearing do not reflect that any calls were placed between Respondent’s line and the office.2/ There was no evidence to support a finding that the telephone records maintained by the school were unreliable. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent did not receive prior approval before taking the student to the office on the morning of February 4, 2015. However, the issue of whether Respondent received or did not receive permission to take J.S. to the office, and whether the act of doing so violated any school policy, was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On her way out of the classroom with J.S., Respondent passed through the classroom of her co-teacher, Ms. Tyree, with whom she shared a paired classroom, and stated to her something to the effect of “[c]an you watch my class? They told me to take [J.S.] to the office.” Although not a frequent occurrence, it was not unusual for Respondent and Ms. Tyree, as paired teachers, to watch one another’s classes while the other was out for short periods. In this case, Respondent’s class was covered while she walked J.S. to the office. Respondent took J.S. by the hand and tucked his arm inside her arm. Although J.S. did not want to go to the office, his resistance was described by Ms. Tyree as “verbal like ‘I don't want to go, I don't want to go.’ But there wasn't a, like, a tug of war going on there.” Respondent indicated that she took J.S. by the hand in order to keep him safe. Given J.S.’s actions of physically assaulting a fellow student, followed by continued physical agitation at the back of the room, Respondent’s concern for safety, not only for J.S., but for the other students in her charge, was warranted. The walk to the office was captured by the school’s video system. The video covered the time from 8:33:00 to 8:33:58. Respondent and J.S. are clearly visible in the video for approximately 30 seconds, from frame 08:33:04 to frame 08:33:32. The video is somewhat grainy, and certain details are not readily observable. However, the video is consistent with Respondent’s statement that she was holding J.S. by the hand. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence supports that Respondent was holding J.S. by the hand as she walked with him to the office and not by the “wrist area,” as surmised by Ms. Johnson. At frames 08:33:12 and 08:33:13, J.S. appears to briefly resist Respondent’s efforts to take him to the office by trying to remove his hand from Respondent’s hand as they walked side-by-side. Despite his resistance, Respondent was not “pulling/dragging” J.S. during those frames. At frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19, J.S. appears to briefly pull away from Respondent. The action was that of J.S., not of Respondent. Respondent did not release J.S., but neither did she pull or drag J.S. The action at frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19 is entirely consistent with that described by Ms. Kasten when giving the account of her earlier walk to the office with J.S. -- which did not involve a CPI hold -- when J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away. Despite J.S.’s efforts to pull away in both instances, neither Respondent nor Ms. Kasten was “pulling/dragging” J.S. during their walks to the office. For the remainder of the walk to the office, Respondent and J.S. walked side-by-side at a consistent pace. The evidence suggests that J.S. was vocal in his reluctance to be taken to the office, consistent with the description of his verbal resistance when being taken from the classroom as described by Ms. Tyree. The verbal resistance apparently continued, as evidenced by the reaction of the boy using the walker, who comes into the picture at frame 08:33:22. However, J.S.’s verbal protestations did not involve pulling or dragging and do not form the basis of a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. Respondent’s actions, though firm, did not appear to be aggressive. They were consistent with the description offered by Ms. Tyree, who testified that, as to the Respondent’s walk through her classroom, “there wasn't an altercation of, like, dragging or, you know -- it wasn't -- she was walking, he was walking. But he wasn't happy, you could tell that he didn't want to.” As Respondent entered the office with J.S., Ms. Kasten, the elementary assistant, was in the office, though on the other side of the office. Respondent approached the office with J.S. The door to the office opens out. It occasionally slams, and Ms. Kasten has seen it slam on students. In order to ensure J.S.’s safety, Respondent placed both of her hands on his arms to move him through the door and into the office. Respondent yelled for Ms. Kasten to “take him.” Ms. Kasten observed that Respondent was trying to get J.S. into the doorway to someone who could help. Although Respondent’s calls for Ms. Kasten to take J.S. were loud, her tone of voice was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. Upon their entry into the office, Ms. Kasten went over to Respondent and J.S. J.S. stopped resisting once he saw Ms. Kasten. There was no evidence that J.S. was physically harmed in any way, i.e., there were no bruises, scratches, or marks of any kind. Respondent indicated to Ms. Kasten that J.S. had come to class very angry and was physically fighting with his female cousin. Ms. Kasten’s contemporaneous statement of the incident indicated that J.S. was “very upset that he had a fight with his sister.”3/ There was no suggestion that J.S. was upset about his walk to the office with Respondent. Ms. Kasten took J.S. off to the side and talked with him. After J.S. calmed down, Ms. Kasten advised Respondent that she would handle the situation from there, and Respondent left the office. J.S. was ultimately kept in the in-school suspension room for an hour or two. Ms. Kasten reported the incident to Ms. Johnson, who was not in her office or out front and did not witness the event. Shortly thereafter, in a conversation regarding other matters, Ms. Johnson reported to Ms. Martin at the District office that Respondent “brought a student in yelling and dragging.” Ms. Johnson was instructed to immediately remove Respondent from student contact. Ms. Johnson called to Respondent’s classroom and left a message with Respondent that she needed to speak with her. The following day, a meeting was convened to discuss the incident. Present at the meeting were Ms. Johnson, Respondent, and Respondent’s union representative. The confidential secretary to the school principal, Mr. Deen, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During her February 5, 2015, interview regarding the incident, Respondent indicated that “I was keeping him safe. I was holding his hand at first and he was okay. Then he started pulling away from me and I wanted to make sure he didn't hurt himself.” Her statement is consistent with the video. During the meeting, Respondent remained adamant that she had called Ms. Kasten and received the instruction to bring J.S. to the office. In conjunction with the investigation of the incident by Petitioner, Ms. Johnson reported the incident to the Department of Children and Families. The School Board received nothing from the Department of Children and Families to suggest that it found wrongdoing on the part of Respondent. Ms. Johnson believed, based on the information conveyed to her, that there was no reason for Respondent to remove the disruptive student from the classroom and that such action did not follow the protocol for the school for the removal of an unruly student. The alleged breach of protocol involved in taking the child to the office was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On February 18, 2015, Respondent was advised of the opportunity for a pre-determination meeting to be held the following week. Respondent took advantage of the opportunity. The pre-determination meeting was held on February 25, 2015. In attendance were Respondent, Ms. Martin, labor counsel Tom Gonzales, Ms. Johnson, and Joann Hartage, who appeared to be representing Respondent. Ms. Martin’s secretary, Sherrie Kudla, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During the pre-determination meeting, Respondent gave her account of the incident and was questioned, primarily by Ms. Martin. In addition to questions regarding the walk to the office, Ms. Martin asked about interviews of Respondent’s students undertaken by Ms. Johnson, which Ms. Martin found to be “very concerning.” Among the issues raised by Ms. Martin was “their perception [] that you yell and get aggravated with students and that you’re mean to [J.S.].” Although Respondent stated that she had read the statements, she was not involved in the interviews, and had no opportunity to ascertain the accuracy of the statements. More to the point, whether Respondent yelled or was a mean teacher was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. At the conclusion of the pre-determination meeting, Ms. Martin conferred with the school superintendent, and the decision was made to recommend to the School Board that Respondent be terminated from employment. By letter dated March 9, 2015, Respondent was advised that, as a result of her “pulling/dragging a student to the front office,” the District determined that she had violated rules 6A-10.080(2) and (3), rules 6A-10.81(3)(a) and (3)(e), and the School Board Policy/Staff Handbook; that she was suspended with pay; and that she had the right to appeal the recommendation of termination. On March 23, 2015, Respondent appealed the recommendation of termination. By letter dated March 24, 2015, Respondent was notified that the recommendation to the School Board would be modified to one of suspension without pay, effective April 22, 2015, and referral of her appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the April 21, 2015, meeting of the School Board, the School Board authorized that this case be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whereupon this case ensued. Ultimate Findings of Fact Based upon the facts as set forth herein, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in an incident of “pulling/dragging a student to the front office.” The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Respondent walked J.S. to the office and, despite J.S.’s verbal protestations and brief efforts to resist, did so in a safe and effective manner. Any “pulling” was brief and on the part of J.S., not on the part of Respondent. There was no “dragging.” The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that a teacher’s act of walking an unruly or disruptive student to the office is not, in and of itself, a violation of any applicable procedure or standard and has not been determined to be so in the past. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that there is nothing inherently inappropriate or improper with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. Issues of whether Respondent received telephonic approval to take J.S. to the office, should have left Ms. Tyree to watch her class, spoke to Ms. Kasten in a loud voice, or was loud or mean with her students were not pled as bases for Respondent’s termination, and, thus, cannot form the basis for any disciplinary sanction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Hernando County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing the March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination; reinstating Respondent to a position equivalent to that previously held with the Hernando County School Board; and to the extent there is a statute, rule, employment contract, or collective bargaining agreement that authorizes back pay as a remedy for Respondent’s wrongful termination/suspension without pay, Respondent should be awarded full back pay and benefits. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 2015.
