Findings Of Fact Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, holds Teaching Certificate Number 475518, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida. Respondent is certified to teach in the area of elementary education, grades 1-6. From 1968 or 1969 until 1980, Respondent worked for the School Board as a teacher aide. As a teacher aide, she had approximately twelve years to view a wide variety of teaching strategies, methods, and teaching techniques in the approximately six different schools to which she had been assigned. While employed as a teacher's aide, Respondent attended Miami-Dade Junior Community College, North Campus, and studied Initial Elementary Education. She then completed Bachelor's Training at Nova University in 1979 and thereafter became employed as a classroom teacher with the Dade County School Board at the Elementary Level beginning in the 1980-1981 school year. Respondent has been employed as an elementary teacher by Petitioner School Board since the 1980-1981 school year. During all of that period, she has taught at Perrine Elementary School in Dade County, Florida. During all of the years Respondent taught, except for the first year, she had classes approximately half of a regular size class. This was because she has been teaching Title I/Chapter I classes. "Title I", renamed "Chapter I", classes refer to classes funded and mandated as part of the Education Consolidation Improvement Act which targets children who are deficient in certain areas and concentrates on bringing them into the mainstream of the education process by concentrated remediation in small, directed education classes. It is a "given" that many of these children are difficult to teach and to control. 1980-1981 SCHOOL YEAR On October 29, 1980 Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by her principal, Gloria H. Gray. Although rated overall acceptable she was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. Although rated acceptable in techniques of instruction, Respondent was rated unacceptable in one subcategory thereof because the proliferation of students' questions concerning the work indicated to the observer that the Respondent did not give clear assignments and directions to allow ample time for completion of tasks. Respondent was next formally observed by Principal Gray on December 12, 1980. Although Respondent was rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in classroom management because Mrs. Gray found much off-task behavior on the part of students, and Respondent appeared not to notice it. Through no fault of her own, Respondent had a very difficult first year experience with many interruptions. She was the foreman of the Grand Jury and was absent every Wednesday. In addition, she had legitimate family and medical problems causing frequent absences. To the extent possible, principal Gray initiated and followed through on numerous attempts to remediate Respondent's deficiencies in teaching. Mrs. Gray also provided an aide for Respondent in order to be assured that the education of her students was not being sorely neglected. Respondent was in a large pod with two other teachers. They helped Respondent in putting work on the board clearly. They also helped her in getting and using instructional material. Although Mrs. Gray testified that she was, in the spring of 1981, of the opinion that there was a repeated failure on the part of Respondent to communicate with and relate to the students in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimal educational experience, she nonetheless rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and gave Respondent an overall acceptable rating on her Annual Evaluation for the 1980-1981 school year. Mrs. Gray gave Respondent the benefit of the doubt because Respondent had improved her teaching skills during the year, she had a good attitude toward trying to improve, she took Mrs. Gray's recommendations and attempted to implement them, and Mrs. Gray expected further improvement from Respondent the following year. Mrs. Gray further recommended Respondent for re-employment as an annual contract teacher. 1981-1982 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by her new principal Dr. Joan Hanley, on November 23, 1981. While Respondent was very devoted to self-improvement, she was nevertheless rated overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the category of preparation and planning because she did not have complete lesson plans for each of the following subjects she was responsible to teach: social studies, science, art, music, and physical education. Likewise, she did not have plans which could be used by a substitute in the event of her absence. Although she was rated acceptable in classroom management, Dr. Hanley offered suggestions for Respondent's improvement. It was not clear to Dr. Hanley whether Respondent's students were grouped for math. It is a standard instructional strategy to ascertain the ability levels of the students, group them accordingly, and plan separate instruction for the various groups. She also instructed Respondent to stand up and move between her groups of students in order to monitor the random activity that goes on. Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Assistant Principal Ellen Supran on January 6, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was found unacceptable in one subcategory, techniques of instruction. This subcategory deals with the use of instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter. Her students were not grouped for math instruction and the subject matter was too difficult and too abstract for the students. Respondent was not getting feedback from them. During the remainder of the school year, Mrs. Supran assisted Respondent through informal visitations. On these occasions, Mrs. Supran was concerned about Respondent's lesson plans, her children being off-task, and the appropriateness of the tasks assigned to the students by Respondent. She spent time working with Respondent on lesson plans, materials, instructional strategies, grouping, and monitoring children's progress. Respondent had an accident during the 1981-1982 school year which resulted in extended sick leave. Dr. Hanley was unable to observe Respondent formally in the classroom for the remainder of that school year. Because Respondent was anxious to improve her teaching and because she had made a good start, Dr. Hanley felt that it was only fair to rate Respondent acceptable in all categories for her Annual Evaluation for the 1981-1982 school year. Therefore, for the school year 1981-1982, Respondent's second annual contract year, Respondent was found acceptable in all categories on her Annual Evaluation and was again recommended for employment. 1982-1983 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent's next formal observation was on November 23, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, because the observer, Dr. Hanley, felt Respondent needed improvement in grammar, particularly verb usage. More specifically, Dr. Hanley observed poor grammar was utilized orally by Respondent in the course of teaching other subjects. Hers was a significant error because Respondent was teaching a resource class in compensatory education. This is a remedial class which addressed the reading, language arts, and mathematics needs of low- achieving students. In every type of class, it is necessary that a teacher set a good example in spoken English. Because elementary school children model the speech of their teacher, Respondent's grammatical errors, which were frequent and excessive, would impede the students' acquisition of appropriate language arts skills. In remedial classes, the effect is more pronounced and reinforces poor language arts skills because the children are already deficient in that area. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was again found unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she continued to make the same kinds of grammatical errors she had been observed making at the November 23, 1982 observation. The December 7, 1982 observation resulted in a prescription for remediation. Dr. Hanley suggested that Respondent record herself on a tape recorder so that she could become sensitized to verb forms. Respondent followed Dr. Hanley's advice and it helped on the subsequent observation, but she did not sustain the improvement as indicated below. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on February 10, 1983. She was rated overall acceptable and made only one grammatical error, saying "cent" sometimes instead of "cents." Note was made of excellent behavior modification. On Respondent's Annual Evaluation for the 1982-1983 school year, Dr. Hanley rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and recommended her for employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. Respondent had achieved tenure. 1983-1984 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on May 7, 1984. Although rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and in a single subcategory of preparation and planning. She was rated unsatisfactory in the latter subcategory because her room was so cluttered that it was difficult to carry on her instruction. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she was again making the same grammatical errors she had made the year before. (See Finding of Fact No. 20 that improvement was not sustained). For example, the following statements were written on Respondent's chalk board: "Dorothy want to go back home", " . . . work that I have not finish." Dr. Hanley reminded Respondent that they had worked on the "ed" and "s" endings on verbs before. Nonetheless, Respondent was rated acceptable in all areas on her Annual Evaluation for 1983-1984 and was recommended for continued employment as a continuing contract teacher. 1984-1985 SCHOOL YEAR Through the 1983-1984 school year, the School Board utilized the standard evaluation system which was an undefined system that allowed observers maximum discretion, without any clear or consistent criteria. It was essentially geared toward making any end-of-the year employment decision. With the advent of the 1984-1985 school year, a new method of evaluating teachers was put into effect. Beginning with the 1984-1985 school year, Respondent's performance was assessed under a new form of evaluation which was thoroughly tested by the School Board and which was negotiated and agreed-to between the School Board and Respondent's union. This is the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS is a highly specific research-based clinical supervision system. State-of-the-art research has characterized certain teaching behaviors that are effective in a learning environment. TADS has grouped these into categories of assessment criteria. Required teaching behaviors are very precisely defined and there is very little room for discretionary interpretation by the observer. Ideally, the system is governed by decision rules which eliminate the potential of an arbitrary or capricious application of the criteria. The system is intended to further develop and upgrade teaching skills and assist the individual teacher to perform better. On the down side, TADS was characterized by the School Board's expert, Dr. Patrick Gray, as a clinical form of evaluation which primarily identifies teaching behavior which is simply acceptable, but it would not identify behavior of superior or excellent performance. (TR-II 47) Respondent's first formal classroom observation under TADS was on November 13, 1984. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she only carried out a very small part of the lesson and because she did not follow the assessment item in her lesson plan. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she presented the information to the children inadequately. There was no background given to draw out the students' previous understanding; no introduction, reinforcement, and drill; and no form of assessment to ascertain what the children had learned when the lesson was completed. She was rated unacceptable in classroom management, because there was disorder a good part of the time and the class was not conducive to learning. Respondent and students arrived late. There were many delays during the class period. The cardboard coins utilized in the lesson on coin values became a great distraction and Respondent was unable to bring the coins into the lesson. She only got into the very introductory part of the lesson and rambled in her instruction. Respondent was not able to pull the students together into a group of attentive listeners. She was also rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she never fully instructed the students about her expectations regarding what they were to do at their desks. The coins became the major focus of the children's attention and they were tossing them and taking them from one another. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no assessment of the teaching objectives. As a result, there would be no way to tie up a lesson or help a teacher plan subsequent lessons. In order to aid Respondent in improving her performance, Dr. Hanley prescribed help. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent develop the skill of pacing her lessons so that she could complete the lesson within the allotted time; that Respondent seek help from Cynthia Muller, a PREP specialist, and that she also seek help from Dorothy Sissel, Chapter I Manager. Dr. Hanley also prescribed help in that she recommended that Respondent reorganize her room to make materials accessible for more efficiency. She recommended Mr. Holmberg, Assistant Principal, as a resource person. She also recommended that Respondent seek help from the Chapter I Specialist. Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent seek help from Chapter I and PREP specialists because she felt that the on-the- spot classroom training by these very qualified people would be very helpful to Respondent. PREP stands for Florida Primary Education Program, a program mandated by the State of Florida pursuant to Section 230.2312, Florida Statutes. PREP mandates a diagnostic- prescriptive approach that enables each child to have an individualized program to permit development of that child's maximum potential and to achieve a level of competence by that child in basis skills. Pursuant to this approach, students are divided into three categories, with those developing at a normal level being taught with developmental teaching strategies, those having been identified as having potential learning problems, being taught with preventive teaching strategies, and those needing more challenging work, being taught with enrichment teaching strategies. The School Board has developed reading and math programs to comply with the statutory mandate. Respondent actually received help from Cynthia Muller, the PREP Specialist, in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Muller helped Respondent approximately on 9 to 10 occasions for a total of approximately 12 hours of assistance. She provided this assistance on November 7, 9, 26, 29 and December 4, 1984, and on February 7, May 28, June 6, and 11, 1985. In the course of her assistance, Mrs. Muller observed several problems with Respondent's teaching. There was a lot of off- task behavior. The children were jittery and walked around the classroom at will. They exhibited little motivation. Mrs. Muller found that much of the work was inappropriate for the students, above the level for which they were competent. That added to the off-task behavior. On November 26, 1984, Mrs. Muller did a demonstration lesson for Respondent showing her how the children could be motivated to stay in their seats and work quietly. She also demonstrated the use of the teacher manual in planning for the complete class period so that all of the children would receive their reading lessons within the prescribed timeframe. On another occasion, they also discussed the Total Math Program (TMP), Petitioner School Board's diagnostic-prescriptive program for math. TMP provides for pre- and post-testing of students and clustering students into particular groups. They discussed grouping students, assessing them, planning for them, and instructing them using a teacher's manual. Mrs. Muller also suggested a positive re-enforcement type of reward system. She also suggested that Respondent remove books and materials from the instructional area so that the class would have a clean place to work and place their books. Mrs. Muller also noticed misspelled words and improperly used words on the chalkboard e.g., "When he finish the book." Mrs. Muller's assistance, November 7, 1984 to June 11, 1985 overlaps several subsequent formal observations. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984. Despite Mrs. Muller's assessment on November 7 and 11 that there was some improvement, Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she had no assessment item in her lesson plan. Because Respondent told Dr. Hanley that she knew what was expected and she promised to do it in the future, Dr. Hanley did not make a further prescription in that area. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was still very disorderly. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent designate areas for specific subjects and tasks within her room. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because her lesson, again, was considered by Dr. Hanley to be a rambling one. Dr. Hanley found the lesson components not to be sequenced; Respondent did not accent the important points; Respondent was unaware of what her students were doing; she did not provide suggestions to her students for improving performance; she did not adjust her lesson when students were not understanding but went right on with what she was teaching rather than re-teach a concept. Dr. Hanley did not feel Respondent provided for closure of the lesson so as to help the children pick up the critical areas of the lesson and so as to be ready for the next lesson. Respondent continued to make grammatical and spelling errors, e.g., "...Santa Clause and other tradition." In order to help Respondent improve her performances Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent observe two fellow teachers whom Dr. Hanley felt had excellent techniques of instruction. A conference-for-the-record was scheduled for the Respondent in December, 1984, but due to Respondent's illness and impending surgery, it was rescheduled for February 13, 1985. A conference-for-the-record is an official meeting regarding a teacher's teaching performance. It is required so that the teacher is officially notified that her deficient performance has not been remediated. At the conference, administrators went over Respondent's classroom observations. Respondent was notified that if she was still under prescription at the time of her Annual Evaluation, she would not receive her annual teaching increment (pay raise). From February through May, 1985, Perrine Elementary School was visited at least once a week by the Chapter I Educational specialist, Tarja Geis. She helped most of the teachers each time she visited. Chapter I is a federally funded program which addresses reading and math deficiencies in children from low income areas. It uses a language experience approach. Ms. Geis' opportunities to observe Respondent were short and sporadic. Her observations were not "formal" observations. However, when Ms. Geis did observe Respondent in the classroom, she noticed Respondent's inattentiveness to some of the children's behavior. She suggested ways to Respondent to improve that, most of which were "boilerplate" suggestions. Ms. Geis also observed one of Respondent's lessons and did a demonstration lesson for her on May 22, 1985, in order to show Respondent the language experience approach used in the Chapter I program. Ms. Geis discussed and/or demonstrated techniques to improve class management, student behavior, student comprehension and student attitude. On March 15, 1985, Ms. Geis gave a workshop for Chapter I teachers. All teachers who would have been working that day would have been in attendance. It is probable that Respondent attended that workshop. She had missed an earlier one in February because of her absence. Respondent indicated at formal hearing that she was not aware that Tarja Geis was a resource person for her use, but her perception is illogical in that Ms. Geis is a Chapter I Educational Specialist and Respondent teaches in the category of Chapter I students. Respondent also testified that she was not given in-service learning experiences by Dr. Hanley and Mr. Holmberg when she requested them. The workshop given by Ms. Geis would seem to address this request, contrary to Respondent's assertion. Respondent concurs that she attended at least one such workshop. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on March 21, 1985. By this time, Respondent had received help from Mrs. Muller and Ms. Geis. She may have also sought help from the two teachers at her school. By her own testimony, she sought assistance from Ms. Jackerson and by a course taught outside of the usual school day. She showed great improvement and was rated acceptable in every category. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom on May 7, 1985, simultaneously by Dr. Hanley and the area director, Phyllis Cohen. Under TADS, this is an external or dual observation where two observers assess the same classroom performance. Its purpose is to assure objectivity and fairness. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not carried out. While Respondent attempted to work with one group, the other groups' lessons were not implemented. The students were not on task. The group at the listening station was not doing its work. The group doing independent reading did not open their books. At least half the students did not receive their directed reading lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because her development of ideas and information was unclear and confusing. She would give insufficient definitions and did not reinforce with enough examples so that the students could understand the homework assignment. The lesson was not sequenced and Respondent was again using inaccurate language. The vocabulary words that the students were working on were not introduced to them and did not have any relationship to the lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was out of control and because of her problems in managing the transition time, getting and keeping students settled, and managing the different reading groups. Class started ten minutes late, and during transitions in the lesson, approximately twenty minutes were wasted. As the hour progressed, the noise crescendoed. Five to eight students were off-task at different times during the class. One student slapped another during the lesson. Respondent was not aware of the off-task behavior and did not redirect the students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not introduce the lesson, provide opportunities for the students to practice, get feedback whether the students had obtained information, or provide reinforcement and follow-up. In other words the sequence was not appropriate. There was a lot of jumping around in the lesson. Respondent did not address the various learning styles of the students. Her communication was not precise enough for students to understand what she was trying to teach. She did not give the students feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. Although she used the teacher manual, she did not fill in between the questions with her own information. She asked the questions in a distorted manner. The students were unable to answer the questions and Respondent could not elaborate but went on to the next question. Her directions to the students were very poor, as were her explanations. She failed to rephrase explanations that were not understood. Her instructions to the listening station group were not specific enough. Her questions on the worksheet were not explained in a way that the students were able to proceed independently. They did not do the worksheet at all. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she did not assess what the students were learning at their levels. Material was presented at a low cognitive level. She did not seem to be able to ascertain whether the students were learning what she was teaching them. She did not walk around to determine what each group was doing. In order to help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she work with Mrs. Muller again on the execution of her lesson plans in order to facilitate a directed reading lesson for each of her reading groups. To help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she observe another Chapter I teacher during a reading lesson to hone in on the development of ideas and information in a sequential and meaningful manner. Two teachers were named as resources. To help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent work with Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal to develop strategies for effective student management while beginning classes and during transition periods and that she work with an observer to sensitize herself to off-task, nonproductive activities on the part of students. It was also recommended that Respondent revamp her behavior modification plan to enhance student involvement. To help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent again work with Ms. Geis and Mrs. Muller since she had improved after working with these two education specialists the prior year. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent review the elements in a basal reading lesson, i.e., background, sequence, and closure. She also recommended that Respondent rehearse her reading lesson so that she would think ahead about the main points and key definitions. She recommended that Respondent work with the observers to sensitize herself to situations in which the students are confused, and that she develop strategies to improve clarification. Dr. Hanley was also available to Respondent as a resource. In order to help Respondent improve techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent have a person observe Respondent while she was teachings and help her on the spot when her students were not following the lesson. She suggested the Respondent develop assessment techniques which incorporated multilevel assessment activities. She also recommended that Respondent include development of summative assessment instruments in conjunction with these other activities. She recommended that Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal be used as resources to help Respondent develop a sensitivity in identifying whether the students were on-track. On May 28, 19 85, Mrs. Muller discussed reading lessons with Respondent. She went over sequencing. She asked Respondent to rehearse her reading instruction. Mrs. Muller also gave Respondent a PREP teacher guide and a sample directed reading lesson. She referred her to a section on classroom organization and management. On June 6, 1985, Mrs. Muller was to visit Respondent's class and to observe a directed reading lesson. Respondent, however, was doing a different lesson. There was very little organization in the lesson. Mrs. Muller saw some improvement in the Respondent's teaching; however, considering the amount of time she had spent with the Respondent, she would have expected to have seen more progress. Although Respondent had demonstrated a willingness to receive suggestions for improvement and a willingness to work toward acceptable ratings, her Annual Evaluation for the 1984-1985 school year was unacceptable. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Nonetheless, Respondent was recommended for continued employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. It was Dr. Hanley's hope that Respondent would remediate herself during the next school year. Respondent remained on prescription and would not be entitled to her pay increment (raise) for the next school year while she was still on prescription. 1985-1986 SCHOOL YEAR On October 16 and 17, 1985, Respondent received more help from a fellow teacher, Joyce King. Ms. King discussed with Respondent the instructional processes of sequencing, interfacing subjects, and closure. Ms. King also demonstrated a reading lesson for Respondent. On October 22, 1985, Respondent received further help from another teacher, Doretha P. Thomas. Respondent observed Ms. Thomas during a developmental reading lesson in her class. Ms. Thomas also discussed with Respondent the amount of time used with the reading group, scheduling, and possible changes Respondent could make in her own planning. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on October 30, 1985. The class was working on the Dade County required diagnostic-prescriptive reading curriculum known as RSVP. This curriculum contemplates that students are to be pretested and their deficiencies listed on individual profiles so that the teacher knows what specific skills to teach them. It is mandatory that the students' skills be profiled before the teacher attempts to work with them. Respondent had not completed the RSVP paperwork as of the date of this observation. I accept Respondent's testimony that she only had from October 18 until October 30, 1985 in which to complete these profiles; that she was under some disadvantage in preparing the profiles because of the administration's peremptory move of all her materials to a smaller classroom on Friday October 18; and that her observation rating was somewhat tainted by the temporary mess that resulted from the move. However, I find that the period involved would have been sufficient to complete at least the profiles if she had performed her tasks diligently in the intervening seven workdays. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because the class was not well managed and the students were not working. After the midpoint of the period, three students did no work. In the last ten minutes of the periods, six students did no work. Many students completed worksheets during the first twenty minutes of the class and then colored pictures. These students of Respondent's were not re- directed by her. Respondent seemed to be unaware of the off-task behavior. In order to help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent move among the students periodically. She also recommended the Respondent plan sufficient work for the instructional period and that she clarify to students what additional study and enrichment activities were available when work is completed. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was not monitoring pupil performance. Students were doing work incorrectly on their worksheets, and Respondent did not circulate and catch the errors or clarify them. Therefore, incorrect material was being reinforced by the students in their work. Several of the students did not understand the follow- up worksheets. The students' confusion indicated that they were not being taught at their appropriate level. They were being taught on a hit or miss method since their profiles had not been completed. In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that she fulfill the requirements of RSVP by completing her profiles, grouping her children, and making a class profile chart. Dr. Hanley also recommended that the teacher aide assist Respondent with the pretesting. Dr. Hanley listed the area PREP specialist and herself to review grouping for instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because although she, as part of her school faculty, had been instructed every year as to the School Board requirements for maintaining student folders, her student folders were deficient. She had no papers dated after September 19, 1985 in them. In order to help Respondent improve her assessment techniques, Dr. Hanley clarified what was expected as far as classroom folders. Respondent must have at least one graded and dated paper per week in reading, math, and writing in each student's folder. Dr. Hanley listed herself and other classroom teachers as a resource for Respondent. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Assistant Principal, Herbert Holmberg. He rated her unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she had grammatically incorrect information and statements on the chalkboard. Knowledge of subject matter was not exhibited as Respondent read verbatim from the teacher manual. She did not address various cognitive levels. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Mr. Holmberg recommended that Respondent prepare her material, information, and directions in advance and that her verbal and written usage be grammatically correct. He suggested more flexibility and elaboration during reading. He also suggested that the subject matter be presented at more than one level. As recommended resources, he listed the Principal, the Assistant Principal, and a peer teacher. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not have a sequence in the lesson. The grammar on the board was incorrect. Her spelling was incorrect. There was no variety to her activities. There was no assessment of closure in the lesson. As resources for help, he recommended the Assistant Principal, the PREP specialist, and a peer teacher. Another conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on December 9, 1985. Respondent's teaching performance was discussed. Dr, Hanley was hopeful the Respondent would be able to remediate her deficiencies; however, Respondent was put on notice that if she was not fully remediated by the close of the school year she would be recommended for termination for cause. Respondent was next formally observed by Charles Sherwood, Directors Basic Skills on December 13, 1985. She was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. Respondent testified that Dr. Sherwood orally indicated to her that her rating was satisfactory and created no problems but the business record of the school (P 30) shows that he rated her unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because all of the pupils received the same spelling lesson, despite the differences in their reading levels; and that he rated her unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because, although the school year was very close to being halfway over, Respondent still had not completed her PREP roster. Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in her classroom in another external observation on March 17, 1986, by Dr. Hanley and Mrs. Cohen, and she was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because there were a substantial number of errors in teaching the concept "1/2". The words "equal" and unequal" were not used, although they were key vocabulary words in the teacher's manual for the lesson. Respondent told the children that a whole with a line in it becomes one-half. She did not indicate that the line had to be in the middle of the whole in order for there to be halves. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of her subject matter, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent use the teacher's manual for planning and delivering of instruction. It was requested the Respondent master the use of and use the words "equal" and "unequal" appropriately. She also recommended the Respondent use the area specialists, peer teachers, and the Assistant Principal as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the explanations of the concept of a whole, half, and fractions were not clear to the reviewer, and the reviewers felt the components necessary to address the key concepts were not effectively presented, thereby confusing she children, and an appropriate vocabulary was not used. They felt Respondent's lesson was again lacking in sequence. Additional resources and suggestions for improvement were prescribed to Respondent. Another conference-for-the-record was held with the Respondent on April 16, 1986. Some of Respondent's concerns regarding the TADS process were addressed. Respondent's improvement was discussed and Respondent was again notified that if she failed to be removed from prescription by the end of this second year of deficiency, recommendation of dismissal for cause would be made. Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in the classroom in another external observation by Dr. Hanley and Evelyn Evans, another area director. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she made errors in subtracting. The errors which she made on the board were not corrected. She also made errors in the process itself. These errors were demonstrated on a chalkboard at formal hearing which was erased without being admitted in evidence, but the oral testimony and business records of this observation are sufficient to support this finding. Respondent did not correct student errors, used inappropriate terminology referred to the one's and ten's columns as the right column and left columns and thereby confused the children. Dr. Hanley found the deficiencies in this lesson very similar to the math lesson observed on March 17, 1986. Respondent was still using her own vocabulary. Despite the fact that most of the children in her class and certainly most of our society could understand Respondent's use of "take away" for "subtract" and use of similar colloquialisms, the School Board established the need for more precise and consistent language in teaching early math skills. Respondent did not show evidence of having mastered the subject matter. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Hanley again emphasized mastery of vocabulary and concepts in the teacher's manual and advised adhering closely to the recommended word usage and plan of instruction. Respondent was instructed not to use her own vocabulary and methods until she had total command of the material. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because of many errors. The lesson was not properly sequenced; the children did not have a basic understanding of subtracting without regrouping before beginning subtracting with regrouping; Respondent's use of her own vocabulary confused the children; Respondent did not clarify by rephrasing with different words, but rather, used the same vocabulary over again that the children had not understood the first time. Respondent blocked the chalkboard while she was demonstrating to the class, was inattentive to the need for a chair by one student, and required a reading level of the children in math for which they were not prepared. Respondent again demonstrated improper subject-verb agreement, e.g., "What is the numbers?" and dropping endings on verbs, e.g., "As time go on", "Three minus two leave one." In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley again recommended the Respondent work with another second grade teacher to understand and become proficient in following the sequence and the delivery of instructions to include introduction, background, and the other steps in sequencing. She was also instructed to master the vocabulary and instructional plans in the teacher's manual and to adhere to them while teaching. She was instructed to develop a method for re-teaching individual students who appeared not to understand the lesson. Another conference-for-the-record was held on June 6, 1986. Respondent's unacceptable teaching performance was reviewed. Respondent was advised that a recommendation for dismissal for cause would be made. Respondent was also given an end of the year prescription, as required by TADS. Although Respondent had improved her classroom management during the year, she was still unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction for the 1985-1986 school year. The two unacceptable categories are key categories in teaching. Improvement in these had either been slight or not at all, and Dr. Hanley had exhausted the school system's resources in attempting to assist Respondent. Respondent's testimony at formal hearing corroborates her supervisors' observations as to her failure to exhibit appropriate English grammar and usage with regard to subject-verb tenses. Gloria Jackerson, a retired teacher, testified on behalf of Respondent. Although this retired teacher of 21 years and a candid witness, she is Respondent's best friend. While this relationship may not have colored her favorable testimony, she admits that she has never observed Respondent teach in the classroom nor has she taught Chapter I students in Miami-Dade County under the present program. Therefore, her testimony with regard to Respondent's competency must be rejected. Evidence presented by several satisfied parents is all in Respondent's favors however, most had no training in classroom observation nor were they able to observe Respondent teaching in her classroom over any significant period of time. Their observations, therefore, were of minimal duration and purely subjective. No objective records showing whether their children were promoted or how their children progressed under Respondent's teaching were offered to substantiate their layman's viewpoint. With regard to the testimony of Robert Collins, a Learning Disability teacher in the Dade County School System, who requested that his child be placed in the Respondent's class and who had a brief opportunity to observe Mrs. Brewer in the classroom and who testified that her classes were well managed, his observation opportunities were so brief and so sporadic as to not outweigh the greater weight of the expert testimony of Petitioner's witnesses. The supportive evidence of Geraldine Townsend, another Perrine teachers is not helpful to Respondent in that this witness also had no truly meaningful observations of Respondent. The testimony of Mrs. Collins, a mother and also a teacher's aide, that some of the formal observers made Respondent's classes nervous and jittery is accepted, but this circumstance does not eliminate or seriously mitigate Respondent's responsibilities to teach effectively and to keep her students under control during observations. Respondent Brewer has worked hard to obtain her education and position. She is a deeply religious, compassionate, and caring individual. She has the type of supportive personality the young people of this society dearly need to know and relate to. She has good rapport with the young and communicates with them in loving and supportive ways. However, her personal qualifications and attributes do not outweigh the clear and convincing evidence of her incompetency as demonstrated by the foregoing Findings of Fact. On August 20, 1986, Petitioner School Board suspended Respondent, 55 years old, from employment, 2.20 years short of her attaining full retirement, and further initiated dismissal procedures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension, without pay, as of August 20, 1986, of Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, and dismissing Respondent Anna M. Brewer as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. That the Educational Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's Florida teaching certificate for five years or until she demonstrates competency pursuant to statute and ruled whichever occurs first. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOs. 86-3926, 87-0468 The following constitutes specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner School Board's PFOF Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2 and 3. Covered and corrected to reflect the record in FOF 5. Covered in FOF 6. Covered in FOF 7. 6-8. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary except as set out in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 8. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, it is covered in FOF 9. Rejected as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. Partially addressed in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 12. Covered in FOF 13. 16-18. Covered in FOF 14. Covered in FOF 15. Covered in FOF 16. Covered in FOF 17. 22-23. Covered in FOF 18. Covered in FOF 19. Covered in FOF 20. Covered in FOF 21. Covered in FOF 22. Covered in FOF 23. Covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 25. Covered in FOF 26. Except to the extent it required expansion to fully conform to the record and except to the extent its proposals are subordinate and unnecessary, this proposal is covered in FOF 26. 33.-42. Covered in FOF 27-28. 43.-47. Except as contrary to the record for expression or subordinate, covered in FOF 29. Covered in FOF 30. Covered in FOF 31. Covered in FOF 32. Covered in FOF 33. Covered in FOF 34. Covered in FOF 35. Covered in F0F 36. Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, in FOF 37. Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, in FOF 38. Covered in FOF 39. Covered in FOF 41. Covered in FOF 42. , 62., 64., 66. and 68. are covered in FOF 43. , 63., 65., 67. and 69. are covered in FOF 44. 70.-73. Covered in FOF 45. Covered in FOF 46. Covered in FOF 47. Covered in FOF 48. Covered, expanded and modified so as to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record as a whole in FOF 49. Covered in FOF 50. Covered in FOF 51. Covered in FOF 52. Covered in FOF 50 and 53. Covered in FOF 54. Covered in FOF 55. Covered in FOF 56. Covered in FOF 57. Covered in FOF 58. Covered in FOF 59. Covered in FOF 60. 89-91. Expanded and modified to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record and to eliminate the subordinate and unnecessary in FOF 61. Covered in FOF 62. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 63 and 65. Covered in FOF 64. 95-96. Covered in FOF 65 except for cumulative and unnecessary material. Covered in FOF 66. Covered in FOF 67. Covered and expanded in FOF 68. Covered in FOF 69. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary or cumulative, covered in FOF 70. Covered in FOF 71. Covered in FOF 72. Covered in FOF 73. Rejected as cumulative. Covered in FOF 74. Rejected as cumulative. Covered and expanded in FOF 80. Petitioner Betty Castor's (EPC's) PFOF Since this petitioner adopted the PFOF of Petitioner School Board, the rulings are also the same. Respondent's PFOF Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2-3. Covered in FOF 4. There is no PFOF. Covered in FOF 7-13, most specifically in FOF 13. Covered in FOF 14-17, most specifically in FOF 17. Covered in FOF 18-22, most specifically in FOF 22. Covered in FOF 23-25, most specifically in FOF 25. 9-10. Covered in FOF 26. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 75. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 77. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 76. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 78. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madeline P. Schere, Esquire Board Administration Building Suite 301 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 J. David Holders Esquire 211 South Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite 1 Miami, Florida 33129 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, St. Lucie County School Board, has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned credits and makes the following findings of material and relevant facts: Lockridge has been employed by the School Board and last worked as an ESE behavior technician at Northport K-8 School. Pet. Exh. 1. Lockridge is a continuing status employee covered under the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between the School Board and the Classroom Teachers' Association Classified Unit ("CTA/CU"). Resp. Exh. 6. The CTA/CU consists of behavior technicians, paraprofessionals, bus paraprofessionals, and clerical staff. Tr. II, p. 180, lines 10-14. During the 2014-2015 school year, Lockridge was assigned to Teacher Amber McDonald's self-contained classroom for intellectually disabled students at Floresta Elementary. The intellectually disabled classroom is for students with emotional disorders and students with an intelligence quotient ("IQ") under 69. Tr. I, p. 51, line 25-p. 52, line 2. For the 2014-2015 school year, there were five adults working in Ms. McDoanld's classroom: Randolph Lockridge, behavior technician; Sharon Koen, paraprofessional; Stephanie Ludwig, paraprofessional; Ms. McDonald, classroom teacher; and Deborah Ramsingh, student teacher. Tr. I, p. 52, line 24-p. 53, line 7. There were approximately 12 students in the classroom. Tr. I, p. 53, lines 8-10. Student D.S. was an eight-year-old ESE student whose primary disability is intellectual. D.S. is non-verbal and has Down's syndrome. Pet. Exh. 7. Because of his disability, D.S. is limited to two-word utterances "here and there." He has an IQ below 60 and intellectually he is on about a one and one-half- year-old level. Tr. I, p. 54, lines 10-17. September 8 and 9, 2014, Incidents with D.S. On September 8, 2014, Ms. Ramsingh was engaged in a lesson with the students on using crayons, teaching them how to hold the crayons and how to draw on the paper. D.S. kept taking his crayons and throwing them on the floor. She observed Lockridge take the student's hand and press his fingernail into the palm of D.S.'s hand. The student screamed "ow" and pulled his hand back. Tr. I, p. 34, lines 9-18. Lockridge looked at him and asked, "Why are you crying, what's wrong?" Tr. I, p. 35, lines 14-15. Ms. Ramsingh reported what she saw the following day to Ms. McDonald, the supervising teacher in the classroom. Tr. I, p. 35, line 25-p. 36, line 12. On September 9, 2014, when Lockridge and D.S. returned to the classroom from physical education ("PE"), Ms. Ramsingh observed another interaction between them. D.S. had his crayons, and he threw them on the floor again. Lockridge took his hand and pushed his fingernail into the palm of the student's hand again. He said "ow" again, but continued to throw his crayons on the floor. Lockridge pressed his finger into the student's hand a second time. The student said "ow" again. When Lockridge realized Ms. Ramsingh was looking at him, he commented, "I shouldn't do that, they don't like when I do that, some people think it is abuse." Tr. I, p. 36 line 22-p. 37 line 9. Ms. Ramsingh went to Ms. McDonald and told her that Lockridge put his fingernail in the student's hand two more times, and she told Ms. McDonald the statement that Lockridge made. Tr. I, p. 38, lines 12-18. Ms. McDonald left the classroom to report it. Tr. I, p. 38, lines 17- 20. Ms. Ludwig took D.S. into the restroom and yelled for Ms. Koen to come into the restroom. Tr. I, p. 39, lines 14-18. Ms. Koen told Lockridge to get Ms. McDonald. Tr. I, p. 40, lines 9-14. The staff had ice packs on D.S. Tr. I, p. 40, lines 21-23. Ms. Ramsingh observed the fingernail marks in D.S.'s hand and the ice that the staff was putting on D.S.'s wrist. Tr. I, p. 47, lines 5-9. Ms. Ramsingh gave a statement to law enforcement the following day. Tr. I, p. 41, lines 3-7; Pet. Exh. 4. She also provided a statement for the School Board's investigation. Pet. Exh. 7. Ms. McDonald testified about what she observed on D.S.'s body (after the student had returned from P.E.). She described it as a fresh bruise about three to four inches on both of D.S.'s wrists; it looked like he had a hand mark on both his wrists, and it was purplish already. Tr. I, p. 55, lines 5-11. D.S. did not have any bruises on his body before he went to PE. Ms. McDonald asked Lockridge what happened. Lockridge said he did not know, "maybe he fell." Tr. I, p. 56, lines 1-2. Lockridge said he had to help D.S. walk. Tr. I, p. 56, lines 5-6. D.S. did not have any bruising on his body when he left the classroom for PE. But, he returned with bruises on his wrist, and Lockridge was responsible for supervising D.S. while he was at PE. Tr. I, p. 73, lines 17-25. Ms. McDonald testified that her observation of Lockridge was that there were a lot of times he was loud and instead of de-escalating a situation, he would often escalate it. Tr. I, p. 59, lines 1-3. There were parents of children that Lockridge had worked with who had concerns about Lockridge. As a result, Ms. McDonald restricted him from working with specific students in the classroom. Tr. I, p. 58, lines 4-5 and lines 15-18. As a behavior technician, Lockridge was trained in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI). Pet. Exh. 20 and Exh. 23. The purpose of CPI is to de-escalate a situation before it ever comes to the point of having to restrain a child. Tr. I, p. 59, lines 4-8, and p. 59, lines 12-14. Ms. McDonald testified that de-escalation means to approach the student and get them to calm down, to breathe. Tr. I, p. 60, lines 1-6. Ms. McDonald also testified that it is not appropriate to restrain a child by the wrist where bruising would be caused. Tr. I, p. 62, lines 21-24. If the child begins to resist, "the teacher should not move, but should stand there until the child is ready to move." Tr. I, p. 64, lines 2-4. Lockridge provided a statement to the principal regarding the September 9, 2014, incident with D.S. Pet. Exh. 9. Law enforcement was contacted. Tr. I, p. 56, lines 14- 15; Pet. Exh. 4. On September 10, 2014, the school security officer, Frank Sisto, notified Maurice Bonner, executive director of Human Resources, of Ms. Ramsingh's report. Pet. Exh. 11. On September 10, 2014, Mr. Bonner hand-delivered a Formal Notice of Investigation and Temporary Duty Assignment to Lockridge and also verbally notified Lockridge of the allegations. Pet. Exh. 6; Tr. II, p. 171, lines 23–p. 172, line 11. Lockridge was temporarily assigned to the ESE office pending an investigation. On March 19, 2015, the School Board's internal investigation concluded. Pet. Exh. 7. On May 1, 2015, Mr. Lockridge received a Letter of Reprimand from Mr. Bonner and was reassigned to Northport K-8 School as a behavior technician. Pet. Exh. 15. Involvement by Mr. Maurice Bonner Mr. Bonner testified that he discussed Lockridge's conduct and his expectations concerning future conduct with Lockridge. Specifically, Mr. Bonner explained to Lockridge that inappropriate discipline of students was not acceptable behavior and that he was to cease and desist from any type of such discipline in the future. Tr. II, p. 174, line 15-21. As executive director of Human Resources for St. Lucie County Public Schools, Mr. Bonner is in charge of the hiring process for applicants, in charge of records for the school district employees, supports administrators in the discipline process, works with employees on leave, interprets School Board policy, and provides support to the superintendent and the School Board members. Tr. II, p. 168, lines 12-17. Mr. Bonner is responsible for applying and enforcing School Board Policy Chapter 6.00, Human Resources. Tr. II, p. 169, line 24–p. 170, line 4. When an allegation of inappropriate conduct or violation of School Board policy is made for an individual who interacts with students, and if it rises to the level of institutional abuse, the school district's protocol is for the School Board administrators to contact the Department of Children and Families, law enforcement, the human resources administrator, and then the parent. Tr. II, p. 171, lines 5-15. After Lockridge was assigned to Northport K-8 School on May 1, 2015, there was another incident involving Lockridge and a disabled student, V.S.I. Tr. II, p. 175, lines 14-18. On January 20, 2015, when Lockridge said he did not want to give any further statement, he and Victoria Rodriguez, his union representative, asked for a copy of the incident report from the law enforcement officer. Tr. II, p. 179, lines 21– p. 180, line 3. The School Board provided the incident report to Lockridge and Ms. Rodriguez, and Lockridge wrote a statement. Pet. Exh. 10. Lockridge said he was too nervous (about the meeting) and he did not want to sit down and answer questions. But, he eventually wrote his statement after reviewing law enforcement's incident report while his union representative was present. Pet. Exh. 10; Tr. II, p. 182, line 6. By letter dated June 29, 2015, Superintendent Genelle Yost informed Lockridge that she intended to recommend to the School Board that he be terminated. Pet. Exh. 22. Mr. Bonner, in his conversation with Lockridge regarding the first incident (with Student D.S.), warned and instructed Lockridge to not use inappropriate discipline on students. Despite this warning, a few weeks later at Northport K-8 School, Lockridge used inappropriate discipline on a student again. Mr. Bonner, as an administrator, had given Lockridge a previous directive that was not followed. In Mr. Bonner's professional opinion, that constituted insubordination. Tr. II, p. 185, lines 17–p. 186, line 1; Pet. Exh. 24. Mr. Bonner testified that sitting on a student's hands is not appropriate discipline. It is not an appropriate method of restraint of a student. Tr. II, p. 186, lines 5-9. In addition, it constitutes a violation of the code of ethics of the standards for employees in the education profession, putting students in danger of harm. Mr. Bonner stated that "We're in charge of their health, welfare and safety and that's not meeting that standard." Pet. Exh. 24; Tr. II, p. 186, lines 10-14. Commenting on the incident involved, Mr. Bonner felt that "sticking a thumb down in a student's palm" was indecent conduct and can be considered abusive to a student. Tr. II, p. 186, lines 21–p. 187, line 1; Pet. Exh. 24. In his opinion, Lockridge's conduct constituted unsatisfactory work performance since he had harmed a student. He also felt it constituted neglect of duty and violation of any rule, policy, or regulation. Tr. II, p. 187, lines 5-18; Pet. Exh. 24. Mr. Bonner explained how progressive discipline works: We have several steps that we can use as far as disciplining employees based on their conduct and based on the severity . . . if we believe that the incident or the behavior is severe enough, we can skip steps . . . we can start immediately with termination if it's severe enough. If we don't believe it is severe enough to go that way, then we go down that continuum--a letter of concern, letter of reprimand, suspension or termination. Tr. II, p. 191, lines 7-23. When you look at progressive discipline, you have to look at what the previous action is. If you're going to look at multiple offenses of the same nature, you can't discredit that. T. II, p. 193, line 23–p. 194, line 2. In Mr. Bonner's opinion, Lockridge's second incident of sitting on a child's hand is "also abusive and discourteous conduct, it's immoral and indecent, it's negligent because he was told not to use inappropriate discipline, it's unsatisfactory work performance, and it's a neglect of his duty because it's not proper protocol or training for restraint of a student. His conduct is also a violation of the rules, policies, and regulations." Tr. II, p. 194, lines 3-10; Pet. Exh. 24. Lockridge had a duty and responsibility, and he failed to discharge that duty knowingly, and that was negligence, in Mr. Bonner's opinion. Tr. II, p. 194, lines 23-25; Pet. Exh. 24. Lockridge knew that sitting on a child's hands was not a proper restraint technique under the CPI training that he has received as a behavior technician for the St. Lucie County Public School System. He was told, based on a previous instruction, that sticking his thumb down in the student's hand was not appropriate discipline or restraint of a student. He knew that what he was doing was not appropriate and that it did not meet the standards of the St. Lucie County Public School System nor the training he received. Tr. II, p. 195, lines 11-23. Mr. Bonner told Lockridge when he gave him the Letter of Reprimand that if Lockridge violated any of the School Board policies again, more severe disciplinary action could be taken. Tr. II, p. 197, lines 13-22. The standard for skipping steps in progressive discipline is based on the employee's behavior. Tr. II, p. 198, lines 12-15. "It is on a case by case basis . . . if you did something very egregious, we don't have to start at the beginning of that continuum. Based on the behavior of the employee then [sic] dictates where we go on to that continuum." Tr. II, p. 198, lines 17-23. May 19, 2015, Incident with V.S.I. Jennifer Staab was a behavior technician at Northport K-8 School. Tr. I, p. 80, lines 1-6. Ms. Staab was certified in CPI. Tr. I, p. 81, lines 5-9. She worked with students in an emotionally behaviorally disturbed ("EBD") classroom on May 19, 2015. It is a self- contained classroom. Tr. I, p. 82, lines 1-7. On May 19, 2015, there were eight or nine students in the EDB self-contained classroom. Tr. I, p. 82, lines 11-14. There was only one way into the desk; the desk was pushed up against the computers. Tr. I, p. 83, lines 11-15. Ms. Staab heard a slap and that drew her attention to that direction. Tr. I, p. 84, lines 5-8. Lockridge was sitting on the desk; his back was towards V.S.I. Tr. I, p. 84, lines 11-12. V.S.I. was sitting in the desk. Tr. I, p. 84, lines 14-18. When Lockridge got off of the desk, Ms. Staab noticed deep indentations, at least two or three of them, on the student's one arm. Tr. I, p. 85, lines 22–p. 86, line 5. Ms. Staab concluded that Lockridge had to have been sitting on V.S.I.'s hands. Tr. I, p. 86, lines 16-18. From the way behavior technicians are trained, Ms. Staab considered Lockridge being seated on the desk and trying to prevent the student from getting out of the desk, to be an inappropriate restraint. Tr. I, p. 87, lines 14-22. If the student is not a threat to themselves or others, then physical restraint is not appropriate. Tr. I, p. 89, lines 15-18. While doing a single-hold restraint, the adult is behind the child. Tr. I, p. 93, lines 1-4. Ms. Staab never observed Lockridge behind the child. Tr. I, p. 93, lines 5-7. Ms. Staab noticed two indentations on V.S.I.'s arm, about three inches long. Tr. I, p. 93, lines 8-19. Testimony of Randolph Lockridge Ms. Staab did not witness V.S.I. trying to elope or run from the classroom. Tr. I, p. 98, lines 22-24. Lockridge admitted that he took hold of V.S.I.'s wrists, causing bruising to her wrists. Pet. Exh. 16; Tr. II, p. 213, lines 6-9. From Lockridge's perspective, "it was crisis because she was not being safe . . . she was 'not complying' with his verbal direction." (emphasis added). Tr. II, p. 213, lines 19-23. Lockridge argued that V.S.I. exhibited behavior, i.e. her elopement, that might harm other students. Tr. II, p. 213, line 24–p. 214, line 5.1/ Lockridge testified, without specific detail, that V.S.I. "could have hit, kicked, maybe spit on somebody or something." Tr. II, p. 214, lines 7-10. Lockridge testified that he was holding V.S.I.'s wrists when he was sitting on them. Tr. II, p. 215, lines 4-6. Despite his training, Lockridge testified that he did not understand that it was an inappropriate method of discipline for him to be sitting on V.S.I.'s hands. Tr. II, p. 215, lines 11-13. Lockridge testified that he did not intentionally violate any School Board policies or intend to violate any directives that he was given. Tr. II, p. 220, line 24–p. 221, line 3. This appeared, in part, to be the crux of his defense to the charges brought. Lockridge testified that when the incident was happening at Northport K-8 School with V.S.I., he reverted to and used his "military restraint training," instead of his School Board restraint training. Tr. II, p. 222, lines 15-17. Lockridge testified that he did not bring up this issue of his military training "kicking in," as he put it, concerning the incident involving V.S.I. However, he discussed it before with a behavior analyst concerning another student. Tr. II, p. 230, lines 19-21, and p. 231, lines 18-20. Lockridge related an incident that had occurred in May 2015. Apparently, a student tried to assault him while he was walking back to the ESE office. His old military restraint training came into play, and he ended up having to put the student on the ground. He physically put the student on the ground. Tr. II, p. 232, lines 12-16, and p. 233, lines 4-11. In a candid admission, Lockridge testified that he does not believe that "at this moment" he could work with disabled students at the school district as a behavior technician. Pet. Exh. 12; Tr. II, p. 236, lines 21-24. Describing his military restraint training (that he sometimes reverts to), Lockridge testified that because he was going to be working with prison detainees, "They taught us various techniques to keep yourself safe and try not to do harm to the prisoners either." Tr. II, p. 237, lines 17-22. Lockridge testified that, unlike CPI training, military restraint training is not non-violent training. It could be violent. Because, as he put it, you are working with prison detainees. So, Lockridge could not say it was non-violent. Tr. II, p. 237, line 23–p. 238, line 3. When asked if it is foreseeable that he could become violent with a student, Lockridge answered, "I don't know. . . . I understand what I did was wrong. I don't know how I could have done some things differently. I don't know." Tr. II, p. 238, lines 4-8. When asked if he can say with any degree of certainty that he may not pose a danger to students, Lockridge testified that, "if I'm put in a stressful situation with a very aggressive student or that I perceive to be aggressive, I do what I think is best for my safety at the time. Or the student's safety too." Tr. II, p. 238, lines 14-24. Lockridge testified, frankly, that for him, it is sometimes more of an automatic response and that he cannot really control this military restraint training that kicks in. Tr. II, p. 238. line 25–p. 239, line 3. Testimony of Virginia Snyder Virginia Snyder works for the Department of Children and Families as a child protective investigator. Tr. I, p. 153, lines 6-8. She prepared a report of institutional abuse, an investigative summary. Pet. Exh. 2.; Tr. I, p. 153, lines 13-25. Her investigation and report involved Lockridge sitting on V.S.I.'s hands to restrain her in the classroom at Northport K-8 School. Tr. I, p. 154, lines 21-25. She went to the school, talked with administration, talked to witnesses, and talked to children involved on the report. Tr. I, p. 154, lines 3-9. Ms. Snyder made verified findings for "threatened harm of physical injury." Tr. I, p. 154, lines 11-16. Ms. Snyder concluded that Lockridge had in fact sat on the child's hand. Tr. I, p. 155, lines 2-4. She also made a finding that the school district's policies and practices were appropriate. Tr. I, p. 155, lines 15-17. "Threatened harm" means the possibility that the person's actions can cause an injury to the child. Tr. I, p. 155, line 23–p. 156, line 1. Ms. Snyder testified that the Department of Children and Families felt that a pattern was appearing due to a prior investigation that was closed without a substantiated finding. When the Department of Children and Families conducted an institutional staffing, the Department of Children and Families was concerned that there was a pattern starting. Tr. I, p. 157, lines 4-8. Specifically, Ms. Snyder "looked at how Lockridge restrained the child, was it appropriate or was it inappropriate . . . . And that is where we established that there was a type of behavior, a pattern starting." Tr. I, p. 157, line 20–p. 158, line 2. "We (DCF) don't make the recommendation. We make the report so that those involved can have a copy of an official report from the Department of Children and Families. We put the findings in there so that whoever administrative-wise is taking a look at it can make a decision, like the School Board, as to what penalty that staff member may face." Tr. I, p. 159, lines 17-24. Based on Department of Children and Families legislation, she felt that the two incidents are "a pattern" and are not reflective of just isolated events. Tr. I, p. 162, lines 1-5, 16-17. Testimony of William Tomlinson Bill Tomlinson is the executive director for Student Services and Exceptional Student Education. Tr. I, p.112, lines 4-5. He has worked for the School Board a total of 29 years. Tr. I, p. 112, lines 13-14. Tomlinson testified regarding whether behavior technicians are trained in any sort of restraint or CPI. He testified that the school district has two separate models that are used in the district. The first is non-violent crisis prevention intervention, better known as CPI. The second model the district uses, for more severe children that may be in a special day school, is professional crisis management. Non- violent CPI is a nationally recognized model that deals primarily with strategies to verbally de-escalate behavior. It employs different levels of strategies with students before getting into physical management of any type of behavior. The physical management piece is a part or a component of the training, but it is really the last resort. In his opinion, "that (i.e., physical management) should be last." Tr. I, p. 114, lines 4-21. It is meant to be a process in which the teacher tries to curtail the behavior of the student by working with them to help them self-regulate so that the student can take ownership of his/her behavior and get themselves under control without the teacher having to do any type of physical management. Tr. I, p. 115, lines 8-16. "Many teachers, many principals have all been trained in this method so that they understand how to de-escalate behavior verbally, how to work with students to offer choices that you can do, versus doing this." Tr. I, p. 115, line 24. Tomlinson noted that "restraint" is a term used "whenever we physically manage a person . . . the way we define it is if you have to immobilize someone's limbs and they're not free, they no longer have freedom of movement, that would be considered a restraint." Tr. I, p. 116, lines 5-10. In his opinion, restraint of anyone is the last resort. Tr. I, p. 117, line 7. He added that "if you see that the behavior is something that you can verbally begin to de-escalate, have conversation with the child, the child is able to understand rationally what it is that you're asking of them, then you're going to employ all of these strategies before you ever get to that last resort." Tr. I, p. 118, lines 4-9. Any time an employee in the district has involvement with a child and there is a report of suspected institutional abuse, Tomlinson is notified. Mr. Bonner (Human Resources) is notified, and he, law enforcement, and the Department of Children and Families all work through the process together. Tr. I, p. 122, lines 16-23. Lockridge was removed and placed in the ESE department, working in the reception area where there was no access to children while the investigation was ongoing. Tr. I, p. 123, lines 6-11. Freedom of movement is good (the child likes the freedom of running off and playing on a playground or during PE) as long as they are safe. Tr. I, p. 126, lines 19-23. "If we end up bruising the child in anything that means to us that we have applied the wrong process or the wrong procedure." Tr. I, p. 127, lines 4-8.2/ "If the child starts fighting back in the process where there is restraint used, they're trying to get out of that, you need to let them go. You may have to resume the restraint once it is safe to do so." Tr. I, p. 127, lines 9-11. "If the child isn't hurting anybody . . . from crawling under (the desk) or crawling out of their desk . . . then it would be appropriate to not bring attention or get attention from someone. Instead, praise another child for acting appropriately or remaining in their chair. This is an effective approach to use." Tr. I, p. 128, lines 3-25. It is "absolutely not appropriate," in terms of restraint, to sit on a child's hand. Tr. I, p. 129, lines 1-3. It is not appropriate to take a disabled child by the wrist to try to get them to go where you want them to. The first appropriate response is "take my hand and let's walk." Tr. I, p. 131, lines 17–p. 132, line 3. Tomlinson testified, "I may take a person simply by the elbow and follow me. . . . That . . . is after you have exhausted the verbal demand for this. Because it's unnatural to have to do that, to lead people or to pull them where you want them to go." Tr. I, p. 132, lines 14-24. The January 13, 2012, mid-year review for Lockridge shows improvement needed in job knowledge and skills and quality of work. Resp. Exh. 5; Tr. I, p. 143 line 25–p. 144, line 2. Listed on Lockridge's mid-year evaluation at the time was that he needed improvement in job knowledge and skills and the quality of work. The narrative indicated that he was required to work with the behavior analyst at Sam Gaines School to review the appropriate protocols to follow to gain compliance from the students with whom he is working. Lockridge was required to attend training offered behavior technicians on early release and professional development days. Tr. I, p. 149, lines 6-14; Pet. Exh. 19. Lockridge was directed to increase his knowledge of behavioral tools to verbally de-escalate a situation, as well as to remain objective instead of entering into a verbal disagreement with students. It means not getting into a verbal power struggle with the child. "Be calm, relaxed in the tone and tenor of your voice and, whenever you work with the individual, don't let that person bring you into the type of behavior that they're exhibiting." Tr. I, p. 149, line 4–p. 150, line 4; Pet. Exh. 19. Finally, Tomlinson testified that it would not be appropriate for a behavior technician to drive their fingernail into the palm of any child. Tr. I, p. 150 lines 5-9.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the St. Lucie County School Board terminating Respondent from his position as an ESE behavior technician. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 4th day of April, 2016.
The Issue Whether Arthurine Brown (Respondent) committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Miami-Dade School Board (the School Board) on July 3, 2013, and whether the School Board has good cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a paraprofessional.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. NMSHS is a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. During the 2012-2013 school year, the School Board employed Respondent as a paraprofessional pursuant to a professional service contract. The School Board assigned Respondent to a self-contained, special education classroom at NMSHS taught by Dorothy Roberts. Respondent has worked at NMSHS as a paraprofessional since 2004. During the 2012-2013 school year, paraprofessionals Frantzso Brice and Larry Eason were also assigned to Ms. Roberts' classroom. Ms. Roberts' class consisted of 13 special needs children with varying exceptionalities. The vast majority of Ms. Roberts' class was of Haitian descent. Ms. Roberts' students included P.P.C. (the Student), a non-verbal child on the autism spectrum. The Student is a 14-year-old male who functions at the level of a two or three-year-old child. On January 17, 2013, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Brice, and Respondent were in the process of escorting children into the classroom for the beginning of the school day when an incident involving Respondent and the Student occurred. Ms. Roberts, Mr. Brice, and Respondent were in the classroom when the incident occurred. Mr. Eason was not in the classroom when the incident occurred. After the Student entered the classroom at approximately 7:15 a.m., he picked up Respondent's purse from a table and went towards a window. What happened next is in dispute. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Respondent cornered the Student, grabbed him by the throat with her left hand, and slapped him in the face using the palm of her right hand. Ms. Roberts heard the sound of the slap. Ms. Roberts and Mr. Brice described the slap as being very hard. Ms. Roberts heard Respondent warn against "touching her fucking shit." Mr. Brice heard Respondent warn against "touching her fucking stuff." 1/ Immediately after the incident, the Student had tears in his eyes, but his face had no observable bruising or swelling. Ms. Roberts immediately reported her version of the incident to Michael Lewis, the principal of NMSHS. After talking to Ms. Roberts, Mr. Lewis interviewed Respondent in Ms. Roberts' classroom, without Ms. Roberts being present. Mr. Lewis removed Respondent from the classroom, and instigated an investigation that culminated in this proceeding. Respondent had no justification for striking the Student. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent repeatedly used profanity in front of students and co-workers. Ms. Roberts repeatedly told Respondent to stop using profanity, but Respondent did not heed that instruction. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent repeatedly made derogatory remarks about Haitians. Respondent stated that she was tired of working with "fucking" Haitians and declared that Haitians were dumb, stupid, and should go home. Mr. Brice, who is Haitian, felt disrespected by Respondent's disparaging statements. At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 8, 2013, the School Board suspended Respondent's employment and instituted these proceedings to terminate her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of employment of Arthurine Brown and terminates that employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 2013.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to uphold the dismissal of Tirso Valls ("Respondent") from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board" or "Petitioner").
Findings Of Fact Based on the record and the evidence presented, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact: At all times relevant to this case, Petitioner was charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, § 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. Respondent was employed as a physical education teacher at Cutler Ridge Elementary School ("CRES"). Respondent first arrived at the school in August 2017 at the start of the 2017/2018 school year. Shortly after his arrival, Respondent began exhibiting odd behavior, which was noticed by the administration and other staff members. The principal, Wright-Mullings, found that it was difficult to communicate with Respondent and he appeared disheveled in his dress and appearance at times. Early in the 2017/2018 school year, fifth-grade students also began complaining about Respondent's behavior. In response, three separate investigations were initiated into Respondent's conduct based on specific reports by several students. The first concerned allegations that Respondent was making insulting comments, screaming, and poking students; the second concerned Respondent allegedly snatching a jump rope from a female student, injuring her hand; and the third allegation concerned Respondent referring to a female student in a demeaning manner and calling her derogatory names. Pet. Exs. 3-5. These allegations gave the principal cause for concern because she wanted students and their parents to feel comfortable with teachers at the school. She also felt that these allegations raised safety concerns. After investigation by the school police, probable cause for three separate violations of School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, were found.2/ Taking exception to the investigative results, Respondent requested that a supplemental investigation be conducted. This was done. However, the outcomes of the initial investigations did not change. Pet. Exs. 6 and 7. Respondent was not formally disciplined for the allegations or findings made in these investigations, since the disciplinary process was never fully completed. However, as a result of these investigations, Respondent was removed from CRES and placed in an alternative assignment at the regional office on September 1, 2017, followed by placement at the District's Federal and State Compliance Office on September 19, 2017. The principal remained concerned that despite completion of the three investigations and disciplinary process, the safety of the students could still be in jeopardy if Respondent returned to the school. Suffice it to say, that in addition to these three investigations, multiple and repeated instances of odd and bizarre behavior by Respondent occurred at school and around the students he was charged to protect and educate. These are outlined in detail in Petitioner's Exhibit 14. They occurred primarily from August 18 through September 1, 2017. Some of the odd and abnormal behavior by Respondent was witnessed by the principal herself. Other behavior was reported by staff members and supplemented or explained what the principal had seen. For several months, and during the course of the investigations, the principal had expressed her ongoing concerns about Respondent to Pina, district director of the Office of Professional Standards. They also discussed the need to refer Respondent for a medical fitness for duty evaluation. Pina shared the principal's concerns regarding Respondent's odd behavior and conduct. This was based, in part, on her own observations of Respondent. She too was concerned for the safety of the students. When Pina brought the results of the investigations regarding Respondent before the Disciplinary Review Team for review and action, it was decided that discipline would be deferred while the School Board proceeded with a fitness for duty evaluation of Respondent. Pina instructed the principal to monitor and record Respondent's behaviors and maintain the results in writing. Wright-Mullings contacted her staff and had some of them write statements regarding their observations of Respondent. Pet. Exs. 10-13. Wright-Mullings compiled her own written summary containing her observations of Respondent's conduct, as well as conduct and actions by Respondent that her staff had observed and reported. Pet. Ex. 14. These observations by her and the staff included, among other things, Respondent's inability to understand directives and to communicate; repeatedly asking the same questions or asking for clarity on points made to him; the inability to understand sample lesson plans; a disheveled appearance that included holes in his shirts and body odor; suppressed anger when questioned about uncompleted tasks; illogical explanations concerning his actions; a nervous laugh; odd facial expressions; staring blankly at coworkers; speaking very close to people in their personal space and becoming agitated. These behaviors and the incidents giving rise to the investigations were carefully evaluated, weighed, and considered by Wright-Mullings. They gave the principal reasonable cause for concern, and she was uneasy with the prospect of Respondent coming back to work at CRES. Other teachers and staff members at CRES also expressed discomfort regarding Respondent's odd and abnormal behaviors.3/ Pursuant to School Board Policy 3161--Fitness for Duty--and Article XXI, Section (2)(F), of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the United Teachers of Dade Labor Union and the School Board ("UTD Contract"), Pina held a Conference for the Record ("CFR") with Respondent on April 11, 2018, to address concerns about his fitness for duty. Pet. Ex. 19. At the conference, Respondent was advised of the troubling nature of his behavior and conduct, and the need of the School Board to do a fitness for duty evaluation of him. Pet. Ex. 19. On April 16, 2018, Respondent was again advised of the basis for a fitness for duty evaluation in writing. He signed a release to have the results of that evaluation sent to Pina. Pet. Exs. 16 and 17. As permitted by School Board policy, Respondent reviewed and selected a licensed psychologist from a list provided to him. Thereafter, a request for an evaluation of Respondent was sent to the doctor he selected, Dr. Theodora "Teddy" Tarr, on April 17, 2018. Pet. Exs. 18 and 19. Dr. Tarr had two clinical sessions with Respondent. She also reviewed Respondent's work history at Miami-Dade County, as well as Respondent's prior written responses to the complaints at the elementary school. Respondent also completed an intake form and a self-inventory on certain issues that were of concern to the doctor, both of which were reviewed and considered by her. Pet. Ex. 20, p. 57. After an examination and testing of Respondent, Dr. Tarr prepared a confidential assessment report. In essence, her report concluded that Respondent was not fit for duty as a teacher. More specifically, the report from Dr. Tarr stated: Refer Mr. T.V. for therapy. He needs social skill training and further assessment. He is incapable or unwilling to correct negative behaviors evidencing poor communication skills for self-control. It is not advisable he return to a teaching environment without identifying inappropriate behaviors and correct boundary, communication and social skill issues. Mr. T.V. is not qualified to return to his position in the MDC School System due to poor insight, poor boundaries, difficulty communicating, and confusing body language. (Emphasis added). Pet. Ex. 20, p. 57. Dr. Tarr provided the report to Pina. Subsequently, Pina held another conference with Respondent on April 30, 2018. At the conference, it was explained to Respondent that he had the option to seek a second fitness medical opinion pursuant to the UTD Contract, and that he could take a medical leave of absence, resign, or retire. Pet. Ex. 21. Respondent was required to give Pina his decision by May 3, 2018. Respondent gave no response by the May 3, 2018, deadline. He also never sought a second medical opinion despite having the rest of the school year and summer months to do so. On August 1, 2018, Pina held another meeting with Respondent and advised him that since he had not exercised any of the options available to him, and based on the doctor's report and his conduct and actions to date, the School Board would be dismissing him at the School Board meeting of August 15, 2018. Pet. Exs. 22 and 23. On August 16, 2018, Respondent was sent a final memorandum informing him that he had been dismissed by the School Board. Pet. Ex. 25.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Miami-Dade County School Board upholding Tirso Valls' dismissal from employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 12th day of March, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment as a teacher by the Miami- Dade County School Board should be terminated for the reasons specified in the letter of notification of suspension and dismissal dated June 20, 2013, and the Notice of Specific Charges filed on August 28, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami- Dade County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent was employed as a social studies teacher at Horace Mann Middle School ("Horace Mann"), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material, Respondent's employment was governed, in part, by a collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"). Dr. Jones-Carey, the principal at Horace Mann, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. Dorothy De Posada, the assistant principal at Horace Mann, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. Petitioner alleges, in its Notice of Specific Charges, an array of factual scenarios spanning several years that, when considered individually or in concert, supply just cause for Respondent's termination. Below, the undersigned has endeavored to address each seriatim. 2010-2011 School Year: Dr. Jones-Carey issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on May 23, 2011, concerning an alleged incident that occurred on April 27, 2011. On May 25, 2011, Dr. Jones-Carey held a Conference for the Record ("CFR") regarding this alleged incident.1/ Respondent was directed to strictly adhere to all Miami-Dade County School Board ("MDCSB") rules and regulations, specifically, rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213. 2011-2012 School Year: On April 13, 2012, subsequent to the investigation of an alleged incident that occurred on February 27, 2012, a CFR was held. Respondent was directed to adhere to all MDCSB rules and regulations, specifically 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics. Respondent was further directed to refrain from contacting any of the parties in the incident, refrain from using physical discipline, and "to conduct [herself] both in [her] employment and in the community in a manner that will reflect credit upon [herself] and M-DCPS." Respondent agreed to a 17-day suspension without pay regarding the alleged incident. 2012-2013 School Year: October 24, 2012 On November 16, 2012, subsequent to an investigation of an alleged incident that occurred on October 24, 2012, a CFR was held. Respondent was directed to adhere to all MDCSB policies, specifically 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; refrain from contacting any parties involved in the investigation; and "to conduct [herself] both in [her] employment and in the community in a manner that will reflect credit upon [herself] and M-DCPS." Additionally, on November 28, 2012, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand concerning the October 24, 2012, incident. November 5, 2012 On November 5, 2012, Dr. Jones-Carey observed several male students standing outside of Respondent's classroom during the class period. While Petitioner contends said students were told to remain outside of the classroom at Respondent's instruction due to body odor, Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to support such a finding.2/ November 26, 2012 Shawnda Green-McKenzie is the Horace Mann social studies department chair and a social studies teacher. Ms. McKenzie explained that, on or around November 26, 2012, it was necessary for several homeroom classes to be "dissolved." The students in the dissolved homeroom classroom were to be added to the roster of other homeroom classes. Ms. McKenzie further explained that the homeroom teachers, such as Respondent, were unaware of the number of additional homeroom students they would acquire until the day the additional students arrived. On November 26, 2012, Ms. Green-McKenzie observed that a substantial number of the newly acquired students did not have desks or chairs available for their use in Respondent's homeroom class. She further observed some of the children sitting on the floor. Petitioner failed to present any evidence concerning when the new students presented themselves to Respondent's homeroom or the duration said students did not have available desks or chairs. While Ms. Green-McKenzie agreed that children sitting on the floor would "be kind of a safety concern if someone were walking around in the classroom," she further opined that Respondent's classroom was "definitely too small to take any additional desks" and adding additional chairs would make it "tight." February 8, 2013 On March 21, 2013, subsequent to an investigation of an alleged incident that occurred on February 8, 2013, a CFR was held. Respondent was directed to adhere to MDCSB policies and conduct herself in her employment and community in a manner that would reflect credit upon herself and the teaching profession. On April 9, 2013, Respondent issued a letter of reprimand concerning the alleged incident which likewise directed her to adhere to MDCSB policies and conduct herself in her employment and community in a manner that would reflect credit to herself and the teaching profession. February 20, March 7, and April 1, 2013 Dr. Jones-Carey testified that, on those occasions when a teacher is absent and a substitute teacher is unavailable, the students are typically "split" among classrooms within the same department. Teachers are expected to cooperate and receive the "split-list" students. Prior to February 9, 2013, Respondent was accommodating and amenable to accepting students on the "split-list." On February 20, March 7, and April 7, 2013, however, Ms. Green-McKenzie was informed that Respondent was unable to receive, or uncomfortable in receiving, any additional students. Respondent's refusal to accept the split-list students was premised upon her concern that accepting students, who may potentially have behavioral problems, may incite further problems between herself and the Horace Mann administration. After the second occasion (March 7, 2013), Ms. McKenzie-Green simply stopped placing Respondent's name on the split-lists. On each of the above-referenced occasions, Ms. McKenzie Green accepted the Respondent's split-list students into her classroom. Ms. McKenzie-Green explained that her classroom is a "double" that always has additional space and seating and can accommodate upwards of 60 students. Dr. Jones-Cary credibly testified that Respondent's unwillingness to accept the split-list children created a disruption in the "flow of instruction" and was disruptive to the operation of the school. March 1 and 5, 2013 On March 1 and March 5, 2013, Ms. De Posada observed Respondent, during class, seated in a chair in the doorway of her classroom with her feet up on the doorframe. On both occasions, Ms. De Posada directed Respondent to move inside the classroom; however, she refused. March 7, 2013 On March 7, 2013, Ms. De Posada observed that Respondent's classroom door was open. When Ms. De Posada directed Respondent to close the door, Respondent refused. In addition to Ms. De Posada's directive, Dr. Jones-Carey had previously issued an email directive to all faculty and staff to keep the classroom doors closed in an effort to preserve the newly-installed air-conditioning system. March 12, 2013 On March 12, 2013, Ms. De Posada was present in the main office with several parents, as well as clerical staff. Respondent was also present in the main office for the purpose of making photocopies. Due to the number and nature of individuals present, coupled with a pending deadline on another administrative matter, Ms. De Posada requested Respondent to leave the main office and offered clerical assistance in providing Respondent the needed copies. Ms. De Posada credibly testified that, in response to the request, Respondent complained loudly and defiantly, and refused to leave the office when directed. March 21, 2013 On March 21, 2013, Ms. De Posada presented to Respondent's classroom to conduct an official observation. On that occasion, she observed that, after the class bell had rung, Respondent's students remained outside and unsupervised. Ms. De Posada took it upon herself to usher the students inside the classroom. Respondent arrived prior to the late bell and took her seat at her desk. Ms. De Posada advised Respondent that she was there to officially observe and requested Respondent's lesson plans. Ms. De Posada credibly testified that Respondent thereafter opened her desk drawer, tossed her lesson plans to Ms. De Posada without speaking, and slammed the desk drawer.3/ Respondent proceeded to call roll and, upon completion of same, began reading the paper. Once finished her reading, Respondent remained in her chair and, with the exception of reprimanding three children, did not engage with the students. Respondent did not engage in any conversation with Ms. De Posada throughout the duration of the observation. Respondent concedes that she did not interact with Ms. De Posada during the observation because of her concern of being falsely accused of irate or belligerent behavior. April 3, 2013 On April 3, 2013, Horace Mann held a mandatory faculty meeting to provide training for the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"). Per the UTD Contract, teachers are required to extend their workday for the purpose attending faculty meetings; however, such meetings cannot exceed one hour and shall begin no later than ten minutes after students are dismissed. On this occasion, the faculty meeting was scheduled to begin at 4:00 p.m., however, it began a few minutes later to allow all teachers to arrive. Respondent, believing the UTD Contract allowed for her to leave at 5:00 p.m., left prior to the meeting being formally dismissed and without prior approval, at approximately 5:00 p.m. When Dr. Carey-Jones called out to Respondent, she continued to walk away from the meeting. Respondent was notified via a school-wide email that a make-up session for the FCAT training would be conducted at 8:20 a.m. Respondent perceived the make-up session was voluntary because it was scheduled prior to 8:30 (the time she believes she is required to work) and conflicted with a FCAT practice run also scheduled for that morning. Respondent did not seek clarification as to where she was to report. Accordingly, Respondent did not present to the training, but rather, went to the testing center. It is undisputed that Respondent did not complete the requisite training, and, therefore, was unable to proctor the FCAT exam. As a result, other teachers were assigned to cover Respondent's duties or responsibilities. April 24 and May 6, 2013 On April 24, 2013, a CFR was held and Respondent was directed to adhere to School Board polices and conduct herself in her employment and community in a manner that would reflect credit upon herself and her profession. On May 6, 2013, following Dr. Jones-Carey's recommendation that Respondent's employment be terminated, the Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") held a final CFR. Thereafter, OPS recommended that Respondent's employment be suspended pending dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding Shavonne Anderson guilty of gross insubordination, suspend her employment without pay for a period of 180 school days, and place her on probation for a period of two years. Because Ms. Anderson has already been suspended for more than 180 school days, it is RECOMMENDED that her employment be reinstated, with the calculation of back pay not to include pay for the 180- day suspension period. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2013.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Lake County School Board, had just cause to terminate Respondents for the reasons specified in the agency action letters dated April 17, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lake County School Board, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Lake County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is authorized to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Mr. Rosier has been employed at Groveland Elementary School (Groveland) in Lake County, Florida, for three years. During the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years, Mr. Rosier was the Instructional Dean. One of Mr. Rosier’s duties was to assist teachers with students who have behavioral problems and liaison with parents of these students. Mr. Rosier also conducted in- school suspension of students. Mr. Rosier also had a contract supplement to assist with students who were on campus after school hours because they either missed the bus or were not picked up by their parent or guardian on time. Mr. Rosier assisted by keeping the student safe and contacting the emergency contact on file for the student to find a way to get the student home. Ms. Lassen has taught at Groveland for four years. She taught first grade during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. Petitioner Lassen is an “inclusion teacher,” meaning her classroom is a combination of students receiving Exceptional Student Education (ESE) services and students with no need for services. Ms. Lassen has no special training in ESE services for children with behavioral challenges. ESE students in her classroom are “push in, pull out,” meaning an exceptional education teacher comes in to work with some of the students in the classroom, and other students are pulled out of the classroom to work with an exceptional education teacher. Ms. Lassen was not happy at Groveland. She enjoyed teaching and was passionate about her students achieving their learning potential. However, she was frustrated by what she saw as a lack of needed services for her ESE students. Ms. Lassen applied for a transfer during the 2016 school year, but the transfer was denied. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Lassen had eleven ESE students in her classroom, four of whom had severe behavioral issues. Some of her students were violent, even trying to harm themselves. She found it stressful to corral children who were throwing things in the classroom, especially at other children, while trying to teach the required lessons. She often found herself dealing with parents who were upset about their ESE child being disciplined for their behaviors, or who were upset about the treatment of their child by an ESE student. To address these concerns, Ms. Lassen frequently met with Mr. Rosier. Toward the end of the 2017-2018 school year--in March 2018 particularly--they met roughly twice a week. The two met once in Mr. Rosier’s office and sometimes in the portable where Mr. Rosier conducted in-school suspension; however, they met most frequently in Ms. Lassen’s classroom. The meetings usually occurred around 4:00 p.m., after students were dismissed at 3:30 p.m. and Mr. Rosier’s after- school responsibilities ended. Ms. Lassen usually left the school between 4:15 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. to pick up her own children from school and daycare and take them to after-school activities. During the meetings, Ms. Lassen discussed with Mr. Rosier the behavioral challenges she faced with students in her classroom, as well as the issues with parents. Mr. Rosier had the responsibility to deal with parents, often conducting parent conferences to address issues arising in the classroom. Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier became friends, and occasionally discussed personal matters, in addition to classroom and parent issues. Sometimes Ms. Lassen would become emotional. Mr. Rosier assured her he would work to get the help the students needed. Kimberly Sneed was the Groveland Principal during the 2017-2018 school year. On April 2, 2018, Mr. Sneed entered Ms. Lassen’s classroom shortly after 4:00 p.m. Assistant Principal Joseph Mabry had suggested to Ms. Sneed that she should look into why Mr. Rosier was in Ms. Lassen’s classroom at that time. When Ms. Sneed arrived, she observed that the lights were turned off and the classroom was empty. She walked to the classroom supply closet, inserted her key, and opened the door, which opens inward. Just as she was pushing the door open, Ms. Lassen pulled the door open to exit the closet with her purse and supply bag in hand. Ms. Sneed did not try the closet door handle first to determine whether the closet was locked. She simply inserted the key in the lock and pushed open the door. She testified that she was not certain the closet door was actually locked. The closet light was off when Ms. Lassen opened the closet. Ms. Lassen testified that she had just switched the light off before opening the door to exit the closet. Ms. Sneed turned the light switch on as she entered the closet. Ms. Lassen was surprised to see Ms. Sneed and asked if she could help her find something. Ms. Sneed asked Ms. Lassen why she had been in a dark closet. How Ms. Lassen replied to Ms. Sneed’s question was a disputed issue. Ms. Lassen maintains she said, “Ms. Sneed, you don’t understand, all it was, it was just a kiss, a kiss on the cheek, nothing more.” Ms. Sneed maintains Ms. Lassen said, “We were only kissing, we weren’t doing anything, no sex or nothing.” Ms. Lassen promptly left to pick up her children. Ms. Sneed entered the closet and observed Mr. Rosier standing at the back of the L-shaped closet, with his back to the door. Mr. Rosier was fully clothed, but his shirt was untucked and his glasses were off. Ms. Sneed did not question Mr. Rosier. Instead she quipped sarcastically, “Really, Mr. Rosier? Really?” Mr. Rosier did not turn toward Ms. Sneed or otherwise respond to her immediately. As Ms. Sneed exited the closet and proceeded to leave the classroom, Mr. Rosier called after her and asked if he could talk with her in her office. What else Mr. Rosier said to Ms. Sneed at that time was also a disputed issue. Ms. Sneed testified that Mr. Rosier stated, “I’ll admit we were kissing, and it turned into touching, but nothing else.” Mr. Rosier was not certain what exactly he said, but admitted that he did use the word “kiss.” He testified that everything happened quickly. He was embarrassed and Ms. Sneed was angry. The following day, Ms. Sneed reported the incident to the School Board Employee Relations Supervisor Katherine Falcon. That same day, both Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier were interviewed separately by Ms. Falcon. Ms. Falcon drafted an interview questionnaire based solely on her telephone conversation with Ms. Sneed that morning. The questionnaire contained the following seven questions: For the record state your name. What is your current position? How long have you been in your current position? Yesterday, Ms. Sneed found you and another teacher in a locked dark closet. Can you explain? Is this the first time you have engaged in this activity on campus? Did you share any information about this incident with anyone else? Is there anything else you would like to say? Ms. Falcon asked the questions, and David Meyers, Employee Relations Manager, typed Respondents’ answers. Ms. Falcon printed the interview record on site and presented it to each respective Respondent to review and sign. The report states Ms. Lassen’s response to Question 4 as follows: The closet was unlocked. It is always unlocked. I just kissed him. It didn’t go any further. There was no touching or clothing off. Nothing exposed. Nothing like that has ever happened before. Yesterday was more, like a kiss goodbye. I was getting ready to leave and getting my stuff. He was standing by the door. He was standing by my filing cabinet. Nobody ever comes in there during the day. Sneed wanted to know what we were doing in there. We told her we were fooling around a little bit, kissing. Ms. Lassen signed her interview report without asking for clarifications or changes. Ms. Lassen testified that she did not review the interview report before signing, did not understand it to be any form of discipline, and was anxious to return to her classroom because her ESE students do not do well in her absence. At the final hearing, Ms. Lassen denied stating anything about “fooling around a little” with Mr. Rosier. In response to the same question, Mr. Rosier’s report states the following: The closet wasn’t locked. This teacher, Katie Lassen and I have become good friends. Yesterday we caught ourselves being too close, kissing, hugging . . . . We were first in the main classroom. When we began to kiss we went in the closet. There was a knock on the door. It was Ms. Sneed. My clothes were kind of wrangled. Mr. Rosier also signed his interview report without asking for clarifications or changes. At the final hearing, Mr. Rosier denied stating that he and Ms. Lassen were “kissing and hugging” or that “when we began to kiss we went into the closet.” As to his statement that “we caught ourselves becoming too close,” he testified that he meant they had begun discussing personal issues in addition to Ms. Lassen’s concerns with her ESE students. Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier testified as follows: they were discussing her concerns about a particular ESE student who was very disruptive and threatened to harm himself. Ms. Lassen was emotional. Ms. Lassen proceeded into the closet to get her things so she could leave to pick up her children and get them to after-school activities. Just inside the closet, Ms. Lassen broke down crying again. Mr. Rosier entered the closet, closing the door behind him (allegedly to keep anyone from seeing Ms. Lassen cry), put his hands on her shoulders and told her to get herself together and not let anyone see her crying when she left the school. She collected herself, thanked him, gave him a hug and they exchanged kisses on the cheek. Respondents’ stories at final hearing were nearly identical, a little too well-rehearsed, and differed too much from the spontaneous statements made at the time of the incident, to be credible. Based on the totality of the evidence, and inferences drawn therefrom, the undersigned finds as follows: Mr. Rosier was consoling Ms. Lassen and the two adults became caught up in the moment, giving in to an attraction born from an initial respectful working relationship. The encounter was brief and there is no credible evidence that Respondents did anything other than kiss each other. Both Respondents regret it and had no intention to continue anything other than a professional relationship. This incident occurred after school hours, sometime between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. on April 2, 2018. The only students on campus were at an after-school care program in a different building across campus. No one witnessed Respondents kissing or entering the closet together. Only Ms. Sneed witnessed Respondents emerging from the closet. Both Respondents were terminated effective April 23, 2018. Administrative Charges The school board’s administrative complaints suffer from a lack of specificity. Both employees are charged with “engaging in sexual misconduct on the school campus with another school board employee which is considered Misconduct in Office,” in violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for Educators (Principles). The administrative complaints do not charge Respondents with any specific date, time, or place of particular conduct which constitutes “sexual misconduct.”2/ Moreover, the School Board introduced no definition of sexual misconduct. The School Board inquired about some specific conduct during the Employee Relations interviews with Respondents. Ms. Falcon asked Respondents about being found together in a “locked dark closet.” The School Board failed to prove that the closet was either locked or dark while Respondents were in the closet. It appears the School Board bases its charge of Misconduct in Office, in part, on an allegation that the Respondents had “engaged in this activity on campus” on dates other than April 2, 2018. When Ms. Sneed went to Ms. Lassen’s room on April 2, 2018, she was acting upon a report that Mr. Rosier went to Ms. Lassen’s room every day at 4:00 p.m. There is no reliable evidence in the record to support a finding to that effect. The report that Mr. Rosier “went to Ms. Lassen’s classroom every day at 4:00,” was hearsay to the 4th degree,3/ without any non-hearsay corroborating evidence. Petitioner did not prove Respondents were ever together in a closet, much less a dark closet, on campus any date other than April 2, 2018. Finally, it appears the School Board bases its charges, in part, on an allegation that Mr. Rosier was not fulfilling his after-school duties because he was spending too much time with Ms. Lassen. To that point, Petitioner introduced testimony that on the Friday after spring break in March, Mr. Rosier was not to be found when the administration had to deal with a student who had either missed the bus or was not picked up on time. Ms. Sneed testified that Mr. Rosier came through the front office, observed the student there with herself and Mr. Mabry, and left through the front office. Ms. Sneed assumed Mr. Rosier had left for the day, but that when she left the school she saw his car in the parking lot. Mr. Rosier recalled that particular day, and testified that, as two administrators were attending to the student, he did not see the need for a third. He chose instead to keep his appointment with Ms. Lassen to discuss her difficult students. Petitioner did not prove that Mr. Rosier neglected either his after-school or any other duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lake County School Board enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondents Katie Lassen and Alan Rosier, and award back pay and benefits retroactive to April 23, 2018. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 2018.
The Issue (1) Whether facts and circumstances demonstrate the existence, on August 20, 2019, of an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the students of Championship Academy of Distinction at Davie, Inc.-5422 d/b/a "Championship Academy" ("Championship") justifying the immediate termination of its charter by the Broward County School Board ("School Board") pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c); and (2) whether the School Board formulated one or more agency statements that constitute unadopted rules, in violation of section 120.54(1)(a), and applied one or more of those unadopted rules as the basis for its agency action immediately terminating Championship's charter.1 1 Championship's rule challenge petition, as filed, also challenged an adopted School Board rule under section 120.56(3). This challenge was abandoned at the beginning of the final hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Championship is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that holds the charter for numerous charter schools throughout Florida, including in Broward County, Florida. Championship was the holder of the charter for Championship Academy of Distinction at Davie, Inc., the charter school for which the charter was immediately terminated by the School Board on August 20, 2019.4 Pursuant to Article IX, section 4 of the Florida Constitution, the School Board is the political subdivision that operates, controls, and supervises all district public schools in Broward County, Florida.5 3 CS for CS Senate Bill 7030 (2019) substantially amended section 1006.12, Florida Statutes, regarding safe-school officers. This legislation was published as chapter 2019-22, Laws of Florida (2019) and has been codified in numerous Florida Statutes, including section 1006.12. 4 For purposes of this Final Order, including the stipulated facts, all references to "Championship" are to the Championship Academy of Distinction at Davie, Inc., the charter school for which the charter was terminated on August 20, 2019. 5 The School Board is an educational unit, as that term is defined in section 120.52(6), and, therefore is an "agency" for purposes of chapter 120. Pursuant to section 1002.33(8), Florida Statutes, the charter termination proceeding is conducted pursuant to sections 120.569 and In Florida, charter schools are nonsectarian public schools that operate pursuant to a charter contract with a public sponsor. § 1002.33(1), Fla. Stat. In this case, the School Board is the sponsor for Championship. Stipulated Facts At a regularly scheduled meeting, the School Board approved a renewal Charter School Agreement (the "charter"), dated April 5, 2016, with Championship. The charter became effective on July 1, 2016, for a term of five years. At a regularly scheduled meeting on August 20, 2019, the School Board voted to immediately terminate Championship's6 charter pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). As the basis for its action, the School Board concluded that the particular facts and circumstances indicated that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students existed on that date, due to Championship's failure to comply with and implement the requirements of section 1006.12, by failing to arrange for the assignment of one or more safe-school officers for the protection and safety of students, school personnel, and property, without interruption, during all school hours of every school day, and for repeatedly allowing a licensed security guard other than a safe-school officer to possess a firearm on Championship's campus in violation of section 790.115(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The School Board's notice of termination of the charter was delivered to Championship on August 22, 2019. The first day of the 2019-2020 school year for the students at Championship was Wednesday, August 14, 2019. Students attended classes at Championship on Wednesday, August 14, through and including Friday, 120.57(1). Additionally, pursuant to section 1001.41(2), Florida Statutes, the School Board is required to adopt its policies pursuant to the rulemaking procedure in section 120.54. 6 In the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, the parties interchangeably refer to "Championship" and the "Charter School." For consistency, the stipulated facts in this Final Order are modified to refer to "Championship." August 16, 2019, and on Monday, August 19, through Thursday, August 22, 2019. Pursuant to section 1022.33(8)(c), Florida Statutes, the School Board assumed operation of Championship after it immediately terminated Championship's charter. On August 14, 2019, Championship had an armed security guard, rather than a safe-school officer pursuant to one of the four options authorized and required by section 1006.12, present on its campus. On August 15, 2019, Championship had an armed security guard, rather than a safe-school officer pursuant to one of the four options authorized and required by section 1006.12, present on its campus. On August 14, 2019, Detra Adams observed a person sitting behind the front desk at the Charter School. Championship's principal, Todd Dupell, told her that that person was an armed guard. On August 15, 2019, starting at approximately 2:37 p.m., a police officer from the Davie Police Department was present on Championship's campus. A police officer from the Davie Police Department was present on Championship's campus during all school hours on Friday, August 16, 2019; during all school hours on Monday, August 19, 2019; and during all school hours on Tuesday, August 20, 2019. On August 19, 2019, Broward County Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie, Leslie Brown, and School Board Deputy General Counsel Robert Vignola received a copy of an email dated August 16, 2019, from Davie Police Department Captain Christopher Chastain to Todd Dupell, stating, in part: We will meet with the Town Administrator Monday morning to finalize everything. In the interim[,] there will be an officer at your location on school days. We hope to have an approved agreement ready for signing by Monday afternoon which will provide you with what is being requested by the county. Runcie stated the following during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: "I know, I think it was late on Thursday afternoon, and certainly on Friday when we checked, there was a full-time officer there from the City of Davie." Brian Katz, the School Board's Chief Safety, Security, and Emergency Preparedness Officer, stated the following regarding whether the Charter School was in compliance with section 1006.12, during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: "as of today [August 20, 2019], they are." School Board member Nora Rupert stated the following regarding a written communication she received from the Mayor of Davie, Judy Paul, during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: The Mayor of Davie, Judy Paul, says there presently are Davie officers in the three Davie charter schools, and the executed agreement will be forwarded, specifically, Championship, excuse me, when completed today. We take care of our own, ["]we["] meaning their city. They've always been a very good, good partner with us. I asked if I could say this publicly, and she said yes. This is for the public record. I also forwarded it to the attorney, as well as the Superintendent the minute I received it, and just so my colleagues could have that information, I had to say it here. Vignola stated the following during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: If there's an officer there [at Championship] now and . . . if there is a representation from appropriate officials in the City [Town of Davie] that they see themselves as having a binding obligation to provide safe-school officer coverage with continuity, that goes to your threshold question of whether immediate termination is appropriate. The following exchange occurred between School Board member Laurie Rich Levinson and Vignola during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: Levinson: "So, Mr. Vignola, I know it's a difficult question, but legally, where are we? As of today, we are going to have an agreement with the Town of Davie that this school is covered, so as of today, we're not able to terminate a contract." Vignola: "If we get that representation from the city, I think that I would counsel voting against immediate termination." School Board member Donna Korn stated the following during the meeting of the School Board on August 20, 2019: "Do I believe that our decision will be overturned? Unfortunately, to the extent we have a very mixed message, I do." Vignola stated the following at the meeting of the School Board on August 20, 2019: Right now, today, they have, as I've been—it's been reported to me, they have a safe[-]school officer on campus today that would be compliant. As for what they have down the road, the law is not very clear as to an obligation. There's nothing in here that says have a contract in place. At an emergency meeting held on August 27, 2019, the School Board voted against immediately terminating its charter school agreement with The National Ben Gamla Charter School Foundation, Inc. ("Ben Gamla Charter School"), pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c), concluding that the particular facts and circumstances did not indicate that an immediate and serious threat to the health, safety, or welfare of that charter school's students existed on August 27, 2019. The School Board was aware, at its August 27, 2019, meeting that the security guard at the Ben Gamla Charter School campus was not a certified guardian pursuant to section 1006.12. School Board member Dr. Rosalind Osgood stated the following during the August 27, 2019, meeting of the School Board regarding the Ben Gamla Charter School: It was a problem because there were not enough law enforcement officers in the whole state even available to meet the demands of the legislature, so we had to be very creative in the way that we made decisions to keep our kids in the traditional public schools safe[,] with requiring that they have military or law enforcement background and training, which again, we keep hearing limited the pool, but it's the . . . safest way that we can address it. Runcie stated the following during the meeting of the School Board on August 27, 2019, regarding the Ben Gamla Charter School: "[s]o I think they're [Ben Gamla Charter School] working to try to get to a point where they have a sustainable plan, but if they currently have a plan, no matter how short-term it is, and they're able to have a safe[-]school officer on campus, they're technically in compliance." Chief of the Plantation Police Department, W. Howard Harrison, stated during the meeting of the School Board on August 27, 2019, that the Plantation Police Department did not provide any officers for the campus of Ben Gamla Charter School on August 14 through 16, and August 26, 2019. A Plantation Police Department Officer was provided to Ben Gamla Charter School for half a day on August 19, 2019, and an officer from the Broward County Sheriff's Office provided coverage for August 27, 2019. The School Board did not designate, assign, or provide any safe-school officers at Championship for the 2019-2020 school year. Championship timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearings with the School Board, requesting an administrative hearing on the School Board's immediate termination of its charter. The School Board referred Championship's request for hearing to DOAH on September 11, 2019. Findings of Fact Based on Evidence at Final Hearing Safe-School Officer Statute In response to the tragic school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that occurred on February 14, 2018, the Florida Legislature enacted the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, a portion of which is codified at section 1006.12, the statute titled "Safe-school officers at each public school." Certain provisions of section 1006.12 have given rise to the matters in dispute in these consolidated proceedings. School Board Communications and Actions Regarding Charter School Compliance with Section 1006.12 On or about March 8, 2019, the Florida Department of Education ("DOE") contacted the School Board, requesting information regarding the status of compliance, by all public schools in the Broward County Public Schools District ("District"), including charter schools, with the statutory requirement in section 1006.12 for a safe-school officer to be present at each school. The request set a March 22, 2019, deadline for each school in the District, including charter schools, to provide that information to DOE. The School Board contacted all charter schools in the District, requesting that they provide the information requested by DOE by March 22, 2019. Championship did not provide the requested information by that date. The amendments to section 1006.12 enacted as part of SB 7030 became law on May 8, 2019. On May 15, 2019, Katz conducted an informational meeting with charter school personnel to inform them of the requirements of newly- amended section 1006.12, and to provide instructions to upload compliance documentation into the Charter.Tools application. Dupell attended the meeting. On June 28, 2019, Commissioner of Education Richard Corcoran sent a letter (the "Corcoran Letter") to the representatives of charter schools regarding compliance with newly-amended section 1006.12. The letter provided information regarding the options for meeting the requirement to have at least one safe-school officer present on campus while school is in session. The Corcoran Letter particularly addressed the expanded school guardian option codified at section 1006.12(3), and the new school security guard option codified at section 1006.12(4). The letter stated, in pertinent part: [E]very public elementary, middle, and high school in Florida, including all Florida charter schools, must have a Safe-School Officer (SSO) physically present on each campus while school is in session. . . . All charter schools without current [safe-school officer] coverage have until August 1 to come into compliance for the 2019-2020 school year For those charter schools that choose to treat our requests for information as optional, our only option going forward will be to use the full extent of the law to ensure compliance. On July 9, 2019, Katz and Leslie Brown, the School Board's Chief Portfolio Officer, issued a memorandum directed to the charter schools in the District. The memorandum stated: "[t]he statute requires each charter school to implement one of the safe-school officer options." The memorandum listed the options and explained that the first three options, with some legislative revisions, had been available to charter schools in the 2018-2019 school year. The memorandum further stated: [t]he School Board has taken no action to deny any charter school access to any of the safe-school officer options summarized above and more fully detailed in [s]ection 1006.12, Florida Statutes." Citing the Corcoran Letter, the memorandum stated, in boldface type: If one of the Safe[-]School Officer options is not confirmed by your location by August 1st,[2019,]such facts and circumstances will be considered by your charter school sponsor to present an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of your charter school's students. Please be advised that, under those circumstances, the school district will request the School Board of Broward County, Florida, to "use the full extent of the law[,]" as urged by Commissioner Corcoran and immediately terminate your charter agreement pursuant to [s]ection 1002.33(8)(c), Florida Statutes. July 9, 2019, memorandum, Exhibit JE-4 (emphasis added). From this memorandum, it is apparent that the School Board interpreted the phrase "use the full extent of the law," as referenced in the Corcoran Letter, to mean immediately terminating a noncompliant charter school's charter. In so stating, the School Board was not merely following guidance set forth in the Corcoran Letter—which did not mention immediate termination of a charter as a sanction for noncompliance with section 1006.12—but, instead, was articulating its own sanction, which it would impose for noncompliance with section 1006.12.7 The memorandum further stated: "[p]lease upload into Charter.Tools, under the benchmark entitled Senate Bill 7030, the attached form and pertinent documentation that confirms that your implemented Safe[-]School Officer option is in compliance with [s]ection 1006.12, Florida Statutes, for the 2019-2020 school year. This documentation is due by August 1, 2019." On July 31, 2019, the School Board sent a follow-up email to the principals of the charter schools in the District, reminding them of the August 1, 2019, deadline. 7 To this point, in response to an email from Broward County Public Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie dated August 15, 2019, Corcoran counseled against immediate charter termination to sanction noncompliant charter schools, recommending instead that the District take immediate steps to provide safe-school officer coverage at a noncompliant charter school, followed by steps to ensure that the school maintained coverage and implemented a long term solution. The School Board conducted another meeting with charter school principals on August 1, 2019, at which Katz highlighted the four safe-school officer options available under section 1006.12, and reminded the charter school principals of the School Board's position that charter schools were solely responsible for establishing and assigning one or more safe-school officers for their campuses. Championship did not meet the August 1, 2019, deadline to upload the safe-school officer documentation into Charter.Tools. Katz testified at the final hearing that the School Board did not establish or assign any safe-school officers at any charter schools in the District, including Championship, in the 2019-2020 school year. Actions Taken by Championship Regarding Safe-School Officer Requirement in 2019-2020 School Year On Friday, August 2, 2019, Linda Williamson, office manager for Championship, emailed Lieutenant Patricia Ravine of the Davie Police Department regarding obtaining a school guardian while Championship's security guard was in training to become certified as a School Guardian. Ravine told her that the Broward County Sheriff's Office ("BSO") was in the process of developing the guardian program, and that the Davie Police Department had a contract with the School Board for all 13 of its school resource officers to be assigned to the 12 traditional public schools in Davie. Ravine suggested that Championship contact a security agency, and she also suggested, as an alternative to a temporary guardian, that Championship secure the services of a Davie Police Department private duty detail officer. On or about Friday, August 9, 2019, Championship submitted a Private Duty Detail Application ("Application") to the Davie Police Department, requesting private duty detail officer coverage for Championship from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. for each school day, beginning on August 14, 2019, and ending on September 28, 2019. Private duty detail coverage consists of voluntary coverage by off-duty police officers whose presence is not guaranteed by the police department. To that point, the Application states, in pertinent part: "[e]very reasonable effort will be made to fill the detail request, but there is no guarantee that it will be filled. Members of the Davie Police Department, who are authorized to work Private Duty Detail, do so voluntarily during their off duty hours." The first day of the 2019-2020 school year for District schools, including Championship, was August 14, 2019. On August 14, 2019, the Davie Police Department did not send a private duty detail police officer to provide safe-school officer services to Championship, and Championship did not have any other persons qualified under any of the safe-school officer options in section 1006.12 present on its campus that day. On August 14, 2019, Championship did have present on its campus an armed security guard, Steven Carbone, who Championship had hired to provide school safety services on its campus. Although Carbone had not yet completed the school guardian training program, he met the other safe-school officer requirements set forth in section 1006.23, including having completed a psychological evaluation which indicated that he was suitable for the position, and holding Class D and Class G licenses under chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Additionally, Carbone was trained regarding domestic and foreign terrorism, explosives, improvised explosive devise recognition, and identification of hazardous materials. Detra Adams, Curriculum Supervisor of Secondary Literacy for the District, visited Championship's campus on August 14, 2019. She did not view a safe-school officer who met the requirements of section 1006.12 on Championship's campus that day. However, she did observe a person at the front desk wearing a security uniform and bearing a firearm. That person ultimately was identified as Carbone. Adams met with Dupell, who told her that Championship had procured the service of an armed security guard (Carbone) who was present on campus that day. Dupell acknowledged that Championship had not submitted the required documentation to the District to have an armed security guard on campus. He told Adams that Carbone was registered for a school guardian training program8 and that once he completed the training, Championship would submit the certification documents to the District. Dupell also told Adams that Championship had arranged for a Davie private duty detail police officer to be present at the school on some, but not all, school days. On August 15, 2019, the Davie Police Department did not send a private duty detail police officer to provide safe-school officer services to Championship, but did send an on-duty police officer who arrived shortly before the end of the school day. Donte´ Fulton-Collins, Director of the Charter Schools Management Support Department for the District, visited Championship's campus on August 15, 2019, and did not observe a safe-school officer meeting the requirements of section 1006.12 on campus that day. However, she did observe an armed security guard on that date. That person ultimately was identified as Carbone. Katz, along with Damien Kelly of the DOE Safe Schools Office, visited Championship's campus on August 15, 2019, to discuss with Dupell the need for Championship to secure the services of a safe-school officer who met the requirements of section 1006.12. At that meeting, Dupell provided documentation to Katz showing that Championship had filed the Application with the Davie Police Department, 8 On July 31, 2019, Championship entered into an agreement with the BSO to provide Carbone training to serve as a safe-school officer pursuant to the Aaron Feis School Guardian option under section 1006.12(3). The training course was only offered every three months, so when Carbone was hired to fill the safe-school officer position at Championship, the soonest he could obtain training by BSO was early September 2019, after the 2019-2020 school year had begun. requesting to have private duty detail officer coverage until Carbone could complete the training to satisfy the requirements for certification as a school guardian under section 1006.12(3). Dupell also provided Katz a list of dates for which Davie Police Department had signed up to provide private duty detail coverage at Championship between August 14 and September 28, 2019. Katz observed that for many of the shifts on school days during that period, no officers had signed up to provide coverage at Championship. In sum, for the first two days of the 2019-2020 school year, Championship was not in compliance with section 1006.12 because it did not have present on its campus an individual who met the statutory requirements to serve as a safe-school officer. Championship does not dispute that it was not in compliance with section 1006.12 on those days. For the first two days of the 2019-2020 school year, Championship did have an armed security guard, Carbone, who had been hired by Championship specifically to provide school safety services to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its students. As discussed above, although Carbone had not yet been trained as a school guardian, he met the other requirements to be a school guardian. Pursuant to an electronic mail exchange between Championship and Ravine on the afternoon of August 15, 2019, the Davie Police Department guaranteed police officer coverage for Championship's campus, for the full school day, on all the days requested in the Application for which no private duty detail officer had volunteered. Thus, by the afternoon of August 15, 2019, Championship had secured guaranteed police officer coverage from the Davie Police Department—albeit not pursuant to a fully-executed contract. Pursuant to this informal arrangement, a police officer from the Davie Police Department was present and provided safe-school officer services on Championship's campus for the entire school day on August 16 and 19 through 22, 2019. On Wednesday, August 22, 2019, Championship and the Town of Davie, Florida, executed a Safe School Officer Agreement ("SSO Agreement") for a term commencing on August 14, 2019, and ending no more than 90 days later. Article 2 of the SSO Agreement states, in pertinent part, T[own] shall assign a certified police officer to serve as a [Safe School Officer ("SSO")] at the charter school for a period not to exceed the school year [(sic)] to allow C[harter] to otherwise become compliant with the [c]hapter 2019-22, Laws of Florida (2019) . . . . The certified police officer assigned to the school will be working in an overtime capacity. There is no guarantee that the same officer will work at the school on a daily basis. The parties agree that this does not include any after[-]hours activities, sports programs, aftercare, etc. Assignment of SSOs. The Town may change the law enforcement officer assigned to participate as a[n] SSO at any time during the Agreement. Unless precluded by emergency circumstances, the T[own] shall at all times maintain an SSO on duty during those regular school hours. "Regular school hours" shall be defined as the respective [p]articipating school's posted bell schedule. Wherever possible, the T[own] shall assign a replacement SSO during the time that the assigned SSO is absent when students are required to be in attendance during regular school hours. Pursuant to the SSO Agreement, the Town of Davie guaranteed police officer coverage for Championship for every school day during regular school hours, commencing on August 14, 2019, and ending no more than 90 days later. This coverage was to be provided by private duty detail officers when available, and if no private duty detail officers were available, safe-school officer coverage would be provided by an on-duty police officer. Because the SSO Agreement was not fully executed until August 22, 2019, and because no private duty detail officers had volunteered to provide safe-school officer coverage at Championship on August 14 and 15, 2019, the Davie Police Department did not provide coverage on those dates. However, as found above, pursuant to the informal arrangement for private duty detail coverage that Championship had made with the Davie Police Department on August 15, 2019, a Davie police officer was physically present and provided safe-school officer services on Championship's campus on August 16 and 19 through 22, 2019. Thereafter, the Davie Police Department provided safe-school officer services to Championship under the SSO Agreement for the rest of the 2019- 2020 school year, until all District schools were closed in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Other School Safety Measures Taken by Championship Cynthia Dotson, Chief Executive Officer of the management company who provides services to small charter schools, including Championship, testified regarding the measures that Championship has implemented on its campus to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its students and staff. The Championship campus is located in a fenced facility within a small business park in a cul-de-sac. The school has one point of ingress and egress for the public, and additional means of ingress and egress for the provision of fire, life, and safety support services. Championship screens persons entering the campus through a software application used to determine whether that person has a criminal record. It also utilizes a video camera system to provide surveillance of the interior and exterior of the campus, an audio communication system consisting of an intercom system and walkie-talkies, and a software application through which faculty members can report suspicious activity to the appropriate authorities. Additionally, Championship has hired a retired SWAT team to train all of its employees to respond to active assailant situations on campus in order to mitigate any threat and prevent injury and loss of life. To this end, Championship conducts monthly code red drills in both the summer months and the school year. Before the 2017-2018 school year, Championship hired a school security guard, Yoan Herrera, to provide school safety services to its campus. Herrera became certified by the BSO on November 15, 2018, to serve as an Aaron Feis Guardian on Championship's campus.9 He provided those services to Championship until approximately mid-March 2019. After Herrera left his position, Championship retained the temporary services of the King Security Agency ("King") to provide school security services while it searched for a replacement school security employee. After an exhaustive search that yielded very few qualified applicants, Championship hired Carbone to fill the school security guard vacancy. Carbone had been an employee of King and had provided school security services to Championship during the last few months of the 2018-2019 school year. As noted above, Carbone's psychological evaluation indicated that he was suited for the position. Additionally, he had training regarding domestic and foreign terrorism, explosives, improvised explosive device recognition, and identification of hazardous materials, and he also held Class D and Class G licenses. After Championship hired Carbone, he was immediately enrolled in the Aaron Feis School Guardian certification program offered by the BSO. However, due to the high demand for such training and limited program 9 Notably, even though Herrera was present on Championship's campus while carrying a firearm for the entire 2017-2018 school year and a portion of the 2018-2019 school year, and for part of that time, provided school security services in a capacity other than as a safe- school officer pursuant to section 1006.12, no evidence was presented at the final hearing showing that the School Board considered Herrera's presence on Championship's campus as constituting a violation of section 790.115(2), warranting immediate termination of Championship's charter. offerings, Carbone was unable to begin the training before early September 2019. Thus, assuming he successfully completed the program, he would not have been certified as a school guardian pursuant to section 1006.12(3) until October 2019. Ultimately, Carbone did not successfully complete the training program. Additionally, on August 19, 2019, Championship hired Andre Chambers to serve as a safe-school officer at its campus. At the time Chambers was hired, he already was certified as an Aaron Feis School Guardian pursuant to section 1006.12(3). He began providing safe-school officer services on Championship's campus in September 2019, and did so until all District schools, including Championship, were closed in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. School Board's Immediate Termination of Championship's Charter As a result of Championship's failure to have a safe-school officer meeting the requirements of section 1006.12 on its campus on August 14 and 15, 2019, School Board personnel prepared an agenda item recommending immediate termination of the Charter for consideration at the School Board's next regular meeting, scheduled for August 20, 2019. At the final hearing, Brown and Katz testified that the School Board determined that Championship's failure to have, on campus, a safe-school officer who met the requirements of section 1006.12, constituted an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students, which commenced on August 14, 2019, and continued through August 20, 2019, when the School Board immediately terminated Championship's charter. Brown acknowledged that the School Board was aware that as of August 16, 2019, Championship had a police officer from the Davie Police Department physically present on its campus. She testified that this did not change the School Board's position that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare to Championship's students existed. As she put it: [t]he services were piecemeal, there was nothing that we could depend on, nothing had been established and nothing had been assigned. . . . There was no evidence that [having a Davie police officer on campus] was going to be the case as each—each minute or hour or day that was going to continue. Katz and Brown also testified that the School Board interpreted section 1006.12 as requiring a charter school to have in place a fully-executed contract for a safe-school officer in order to meet the statute's requirement that a safe-school officer be "established and assigned" to the school. To this point, Katz testified that having a Davie Police Department police officer present on campus would not, by itself, meet the safe-school officer requirement, because an executed contract "establishing" the presence of the officer also is required by the statute. He stated: "I believe both things are necessary, the agreement and presence. A fully[-]executed contract and presence [J]ust to be clear, a contract that states that there will be coverage, not a contract that says there may be coverage."10 Katz and Brown also testified that the School Board interprets section 1006.12 as placing the responsibility solely on the charter school to secure a safe-school officer for its campus. To this point, Katz testified that the School Board has "always believed that they [charter schools] were responsible for . . . assigning or establishing a safe school officer for every one of their schools." 10 In the stipulated facts set forth above, Katz stated, in response to a question from a School Board member at the August 20, 2019, meeting, that if Championship had a law enforcement officer present on its campus on that day, it was in compliance with section 1006.12. At the final hearing, Katz testified at the final hearing that this statement assumed the existence of a fully-executed contract on that date. As discussed above, the evidence establishes that the SSO Agreement was not fully executed until August 22, 2019. Brown testified that the School Board views Florida law as prohibiting the District from assigning a safe-school officer to a charter school. To that point, she testified that if a charter school wished to secure the services of a school resource officer under section 1006.12(1) to meet the safe-school officer requirement, the charter school would have to directly contract with the law enforcement agency to do so.11 Further to this point, Katz testified that the School Board did not have the authority to assign a law enforcement officer whose services are contracted by the District to provide safe-school officer coverage on a charter school's campus.12 Both Brown and Katz testified that the School Board met the requirement in section 1006.12 to "collaborate with charter school governing boards to facilitate charter school access to all safe-school officer options available" by providing information, presentations, and training to charter schools regarding the statute's safe-school officer requirements and available options for meeting those requirements. Katz acknowledged at the final hearing that Championship having an armed security guard who was not a safe-school officer present on its campus to provide school security services did not pose an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the students at Championship. Fulton-Collins testified that she assisted in preparing the School Board agenda item recommending the immediate termination of Championship's charter because, as she put it: 11 Section 1006.12(1), establishing the school resource officer option, states: "A school district may establish school resource officer programs through a cooperative agreement with law enforcement agencies." § 1006.12(1), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Notably absent from this provision is language authorizing charter schools to do so. 12 Section 1002.33(12)(a) states: "A charter school shall select its own employees. A charter school may contract with its sponsor for the services of personnel employed by the sponsor." § 1002.33(12)(a)(emphasis added). This provision appears to authorize a school board to contract with a charter school to establish or assign a safe-school officer at the charter school, pursuant to a partnership between the school board and a law enforcement agency or security agency as provided in the first sentence of section 1006.12. all charter schools must be in compliance with any requirements that the Legislature has deemed to be necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the students. The Legislature specifically found in section 1006.12 . . . that the establishment or assignment of a safe school officer on a charter school campus is necessary for the protection of school personnel, property, students, and visitors. And by failing to do so, failing to establish and assign a safe school officer on the campus, Championship created an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, and welfare of its students. Fulton-Collins testimony, T. Vol. I, p. 192. Fulton-Collins acknowledged that section 1006.12 does not expressly state that charter schools are responsible for establishing and assigning their own safe-school officers.13 However, she maintained that charter schools are solely responsible for establishing and assigning safe-school officers for their own campus, and that the School Board's duty is "not impeding [them] on any opportunity that they have to secure a safe-school officer." Broward County Public Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie confirmed that the School Board interprets section 1006.12 as placing the sole responsibility on charter schools to secure their own safe-school officers. To this point, Runcie testified: " [j]ust as we [the District] go and secure [safe- school officers], by any means necessary, to have them on our campuses, [charter schools] are also required to go and use whatever means they can to secure them." Runcie also confirmed the School Board's position, articulated by Katz and Brown, that for charter schools to be in compliance with section 1006.12, a person meeting the requirements of one of the safe-school officer options 13 Notably, during the 2019 Legislative Session, the Legislature expressly rejected an amendment to SB 7030 that would have amended the first sentence of section 1006.12 to also require "charter schools, as applicable" to establish and assign one or more safe-school officers at its school facility. must be physically present on the school campus for the entire school day, and a fully-executed contract must exist, guaranteeing the presence of the safe-school officer on the campus each school day, for the full term of the contract.14 Runcie testified that the School Board interprets the terms "establish and assign" to require that both of these conditions be met for the charter school to be in compliance with section 1006.12. He acknowledged that section 1006.12 does not expressly state that a fully-executed contract is required for compliance with the statute.15 To this point, he testified: [t]he statute, itself, may not specify a contract. It says what you are required to do. And the reason why it doesn't specify a contract is that there are several means to do it. There are some school districts, like Miami, I believe Palm Beach may be similar, but there's a handful of them where they actually have their own police force. So they're not going to have a contract in order to meet that[.] So the legislation is not going to be that specific because there's varying ability in how school districts and charter schools go about securing safe- school officers. So it wouldn't have that . . . degree of specificity. Runcie testimony T., Vol. II, pp. 44-45. Further to this point, Runcie testified: It [(the statute)] doesn't specifically require that, but the—so, again, the statute speaks to multiple 14 Runcie testified that in the School Board's view, section 1006.12 does not require an executed long term contract, such as a school-year-long contract, securing safe-school officer services; rather, the School Board interprets the statute as requiring a fully-executed contract that guarantees continuous presence of a safe-school officer on campus for the duration of the contract's term, whatever that term is. 15 See paragraph 243, below. To the extent a statute does not specify the precise means by which it is to be implemented, rulemaking may be necessary in order for an agency to implement the statute. See § 120.52(16), Fla. Stat. (defining "rule" as a statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule). avenues, multiple ways of securing a safe-school officer. A couple of those don't require a contract. Again, if you have your own police force or you're using an armed guardian. So, for example, we actually have some schools that we have put in our detectives from our school investigative unit when we needed to. So we have 15, 20 police officers, if you will. So some districts, their whole entire system, they have their own police department. Or you can hire an individual, put him through the guardian program, have them become certified. Outside of doing those two things you would actually have to have a contract or some types of established agreement, an arrangement to be able to fulfill that. Runcie testimony, T. Vol. II, pp. 58-59. The School Board terminated Championship's charter on August 20, 2019, because Championship did not have a safe-school officer present on its campus for the first two days of the 2019-2020 school year, and because as of August 20, 2019, Championship did not have a fully-executed contract with the Town of Davie guaranteeing the presence of a police officer to serve as a safe-school officer on Championship's campus; thus, the School Board considered these circumstances to constitute an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the students at Championship, warranting immediate termination of the charter pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). Safety-Related Circumstances on Championship's Campus in the 2019- 2020 School Year Three parents of students who attended Championship in the 2019-2020 school year testified regarding the safety-related circumstances on Championship's campus at the beginning of the school year leading up to the School Board's termination of Championship's charter on August 20, 2019. Specifically, Anne-Valerie Daniel-Laveus, the mother of three students enrolled at Championship during the 2019-2020 school year and a teacher at Championship during that school year, testified that she observed a school security guard present at the school every day. In her experience as a teacher at Championship and as a mother whose children were enrolled there, she perceived conditions at Championship as being safe. To that point, no other parents or students relayed to her any concerns they had regarding safety at Championship at any time during the 2019-2020 school year, including on August 14 through 20, 2019. She was not aware of any incidents, threats, or weapons-related incidents having taken place at Championship at any time during the 2019-2020 school year. Sandra Acosta, the mother of a student enrolled at Championship, testified that she took her child to school daily during the 2019-2020 school year, that she always saw a security guard present on campus when she did so. She always felt that her child was safe at Championship, and that she was not aware of any incidents in which the safety of the students at Championship was threatened. Melissa Bustamante, the mother of two students enrolled at Championship during the 2019-2020 school year and a member of Championship's governing board since 2011, also testified regarding conditions at Championship during the 2019-2020 school year, including on the school days between August 14 and 20, 2019. Specifically, when she took her children to school, she always observed a security guard at the front of the school, which is the only publicly-accessible entrance to the school facility. She was not aware of any bomb threats, weapons threats, or trespassing by unauthorized persons on Championship's campus during the 2019-2020 school year, nor was she aware of any parents of Championship students having expressed concerns regarding safety-related matters at the school during the 2019-2020 school year. As a member of Championship's governing board, she verified that the school had secured the presence of a Davie police officer on campus before, and for some time after, the charter was terminated, and also had secured a school guardian (Chambers) to serve as a safe-school officer for the remainder of the 2019-2020 school year. No evidence was presented showing that there were any actual or imminent threats or dangers to the health, safety, or welfare of the students at Championship on any school days between August 14 and 20, 2019. Additionally, no evidence was presented showing that the presence of Carbone, who had been hired by Championship specifically to provide school safety and security services and who provided those services, presented a threat or danger to the students at Championship on August 14 through 16, 19, and 20, 2019. To the contrary, the witnesses who observed Carbone testified that he was at the front entrance to the school performing his school protection duties. None of them testified that they perceived him as a threat or saw him threatening or endangering the students, and all of them testified that his presence was one reason they perceived Championship's school campus as being safe. Additionally, as noted above, Katz conceded at the final hearing that Championship's having an armed security guard on campus to provide school security services on August 14 through 16, 19, and 20, 2019, did not present an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students. Championship's Standing The School Board took action on August 20, 2019, to immediately terminate Championship's charter, pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). Although the School Board subsequently operated Championship for the 2019-2020 school year while these proceedings were pending, if the School Board were to prevail in Case No. 19-4818, Championship's charter would be permanently terminated and the charter school could no longer operate. Thus, the School Board's immediate termination of Championship's charter has caused Championship to suffer an immediate, direct injury that is within the scope of these proceedings, which are brought under sections 1002.33 and 1006.12. Additionally, as discussed below, the School Board applied unadopted rules to Championship in these proceedings to terminate its charter. Findings of Ultimate Fact Immediate Termination of Charter under Section 1002.33(8)(c) Championship's Noncompliance with Section 1006.12 did not Cause Immediate and Serious Danger to Its Students Pursuant to the foregoing, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the School Board did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students was in existence on August 20, 2019, when it immediately terminated Championship's charter. The School Board contends that Championship's failure to have present on its campus a person who met the statutory qualifications for serving as a safe-school officer on August 14 and 15, 2019, coupled with its failure to have a fully-executed contract securing the services of a safe-school officer for Championship by August 20, 2019, constituted an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students warranting immediate termination of its charter, pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). However, the School Board presented no evidence of any particular facts and circumstances showing that an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students was in existence on August 20, 2019—whether due to Championship's failure to have a person on campus who met the statutory qualifications for serving as a safe-school officer plus a fully-executed contract securing the services of a safe-school officer for Championship, or for any other reason. To that point, there was no evidence presented showing that there were any threats or actions constituting a threat—such as bomb threats, trespassing by unauthorized persons, armed persons presenting a danger or threat, or any other circumstances on Championship's campus that existed on August 20, 2019—or on any other school day in the 2019-2020 school year, for that matter. To the contrary, Championship presented the testimony of three witnesses stating that to their knowledge, there had been no threat or danger whatsoever to Championship's students at any time during the 2019-2020 school year, including on the school days before and including August 20, 2019. Each of these witnesses was in a position to have personally known whether, or be informed if, there had been any actual, immediate threat or danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students. The very most that may be inferred from the evidence is that not having a person who was qualified as a safe-school officer on campus may have presented a potential threat to Championship's students on August 14 and 15, 2019. However, even such a potential threat—to the extent it may have existed—was substantially diminished by the presence of a trained, armed security guard who had been hired specifically to provide protection to the students, faculty, and staff on campus, and who had satisfied most of the requirements, including the psychological evaluation, to become certified as a school guardian. Further, starting on August 16, 2019, a Davie police officer was present and provided safe-school services on Championship's campus every day for the rest of the school year, including on August 20, 2019, when the School Board immediately terminated Championship's charter. There is no dispute that these law enforcement police officers met the qualifications expressly stated in section 1006.12 to serve as safe-school officers. Therefore, as of August 16, 2019, the only remaining ground for the School's Board's conclusion that an immediate and serious danger existed on Championship's campus warranting immediate termination of its charter was that a contract securing the guaranteed presence of a safe-school officer on Championship's campus had not yet been fully executed. However, no evidence was presented showing that Championship's failure to have a fully-executed contract for a safe-school officer constituted any danger—much less an immediate and serious danger—to its students. Accordingly, there was no factual or circumstantial basis for finding that an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students existed on August 20, 2019, when its charter was terminated. Based on the foregoing, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the evidence failed to establish the existence of an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students on August 20, 2019, as a result of Championship not having a safe-school officer on August 14 and 15, 2019. Additionally, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the evidence failed to establish the existence of an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students on August 20, 2019 (or on August 14 through 16, and 19, 2019), as the result of Championship not yet having secured a fully- executed contract guaranteeing the presence of a safe-school officer on Championship's campus. Presence of Armed Security Guard Did Not Constitute an Immediate and Serious Danger As previously discussed, no evidence was presented showing that Carbone presented any threat or danger to the students at Championship on August 14 through 16, 19, or 20, 2019. The witnesses who observed him on those days testified that he performed his school protection duties, and he did not threaten or endanger Championship's students. Additionally, the evidence establishes that the school security and protection services that Carbone provided on Championship's campus on these days were school-sanctioned activities. To that point, Championship hired Carbone for the specific purpose of providing school security services to its students. As such, Carbone was given express permission by Championship's governing board to be on campus specifically to provide school security services to enable and support school-related activities. Based on the foregoing, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the presence of the armed security guard on Championship's campus on August 14 through 16, 19, and 20, 2019, did not constitute an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students warranting the immediate termination of its charter under section 1002.33(8)(c). Unadopted Rules Applied to Championship to Terminate Charter Section 120.57(1)(e)1. states, in pertinent part: "[a]n agency or administrative law judge may not base agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule." This provision prohibits an ALJ or an agency from basing agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule. Because this statute is directed at, and specifically circumscribes, the authority of the ALJ, or the agency, as applicable, neither the ALJ nor the agency is authorized to base agency action on an unadopted rule, regardless of whether a party has alleged that a particular agency statement constitutes an unadopted rule. The evidence establishes that in immediately terminating Championship's charter, the School Board determined Championship's substantial interests based on two unadopted rules. Unadopted Rule Interpreting Section 1002.33(8)(c) The evidence shows that the School Board has determined that the failure of a charter school (in this case, Championship) to have, on campus, a safe-school officer who meets the requirements of section 1006.12, to constitute an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the charter school's students, warranting immediate termination of the school's charter. In so determining, the School Board has interpreted section 1002.33(8)(c)—specifically, the first sentence of that statute16—to define a charter school's failure to comply with section 1006.12 as per se constituting an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the school's students. This interpretation ascribes a meaning to the first sentence of section 1002.33(8)(c) that is not readily apparent from the literal reading of the statute. Indeed, the first sentence of that section specifically speaks to the "particular facts and circumstances" showing that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the charter school's students exists. Thus, the statute's plain language requires that the particular facts and circumstances of each particular case be considered to determine whether those particular facts and circumstances constitute an immediate and serious danger that exists at the time the charter is immediately terminated. Nowhere does the statute's plain language speak to, or authorize, a school board to formulate a categorical determination that a defined set of facts and circumstances—here, noncompliance with section 1006.12—per se constitutes an immediate and serious danger to the charter school's students. It is indisputable that the School Board's interpretation of section 1002.33(8)(c) requires compliance and has the direct and consistent effect of law. This interpretation requires a charter school to comply with section 1006.12—including all of the interpretive gloss the School Board has placed on that statute by imposing the requirement that a fully-executed safe-school officer contract be in place to be in compliance—or face having its charter immediately terminated on the basis of such noncompliance. 16 The first sentence of section 1002.33(8)(c) states: "[a] charter may be terminated immediately if the sponsor sets forth in writing the particular facts and circumstances indicating that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the charter school's students exists." § 1002.33(8)(c), Fla. Stat. The evidence also establishes that the School Board uniformly applies this interpretation of section 1002.33(8)(c) to all charter schools in the District. Therefore, the School Board's interpretation of section 1002.33(8)(c) to determine that a charter school's noncompliance with section 1006.12 per se constitutes an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the charter school's students is a rule. This interpretation has not been adopted as rule pursuant to section 120.54, and, thus, constitutes an unadopted rule, as defined in section 120.52(20). The School Board applied this unadopted rule to Championship to determine that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship student's was in existence on August 20, 2019, such that its charter must be terminated. Unadopted Rule Interpreting Section 1006.12 The evidence also establishes that the School Board interprets section 1006.12 as requiring a charter school to have in place, at the time the school is in session, a fully-executed contract with an appropriate safe-school officer entity, guaranteeing that a safe-school officer will be present on the school's campus for the entire school day for the specified term of the contract.17 Nowhere in the plain language of section 1006.12 is there an express requirement for a charter school to have a fully-executed contract for safe- school officer services in order to be in compliance with the statute. Thus, the School Board's interpretation of section 1006.12 imposes a requirement that is not apparent from the literal reading of the statute. 17 Runcie, Katz, and Brown each testified that a fully-executed contract is necessary for a charter school to meet the statutory requirement that a safe-school officer be "established and assigned" to the school. This interpretation of section 1006.12 requires compliance and has the direct and consistent effect of law. Specifically, it requires a charter school to either have a fully-executed contract for safe-school officers in place by the time school is in session, or face having its charter immediately terminated on the basis of such alleged noncompliance. The evidence also shows that the School Board uniformly applies this interpretation of section 1006.12 to all charter schools in the District. Therefore, the School Board's interpretation of section 1006.12 as requiring a charter school to have in place, at the time the school is in session, a fully-executed contract with an appropriate entity that guarantees that a safe-school officer will be present on the school's campus for the entire school day for the specified term of the contract, is a rule. This interpretation has not been adopted as rule pursuant to section 120.54, and, thus, constitutes an unadopted rule, as defined in section 120.52(20). The School Board applied this unadopted rule to Championship to determine that Championship was not in compliance with section 1006.12 on August 20, 2019, such that an immediate and serious danger to its students was in existence on that date, warranting immediate termination of its charter. Alleged Unadopted Rules Challenged under Section 120.56(4) Championship alleges that in immediately terminating its charter, the School Board has formulated and applied two agency statements which constitute unadopted rules. As articulated in the Rule Challenge Petition, these statements are: "[T]he School Board's unadopted policy that it is not legally required to provide safe-school officers to charter public schools within its borders"; and "[T]he School Board's policy of failing to collaborate with charter schools to facilitate access to safe-school officers pursuant to section 1006.12. . . by directing charter schools to either comply with the statute or risk having their charters terminated." Each of these alleged unadopted rules is separately addressed. Alleged Unadopted Rule that School Board is not Legally Required to Provide Safe-School Officers to Charter Schools in the District The School Board takes the position that it is not required by section 1006.12 to establish or assign safe-school officers to charter schools in the District, and that the responsibility for securing a safe-school officer for a charter school rests solely with the charter school itself. To this point, the School Board contends that the only circumstance under which it ever would be required to assign a safe-school officer to a charter school is if it denied the charter school access to a safe-school officer—which the School Board claims means actively preventing a charter school from securing a safe-school officer, and then declares it has not done so.18 As more fully discussed below, the School Board's interpretation of section 1006.12 ascribes a meaning to the statute that is not readily apparent from a reading of the statute's plain language. Further, the School Board's interpretation requires compliance and has the force and effect of law because it directs charter schools to secure their own safe-school officers and imposes the penalty of charter termination for failure to do so. . The School Board's interpretation of section 1006.12 is applied to every charter school in the District, and, thus, is a statement of general applicability. Therefore, the School Board's statement that it is not required to establish and assign safe-school officers to charter schools except when it has affirmatively prevented a charter school from securing a safe-school officer, is an unadopted rule. 18 The July 9, 2019, memorandum from Brown and Katz to charter school principals states, in pertinent part: "The School Board of Broward County has taken no action to deny any charter school access to any of the safe-school officer options summarized above and more fully detailed in [s]ection 1006.12." The School Board applied this unadopted rule to Championship such that it did not assign a safe-school officer to its campus for the 2019-2020 school year. This led to the School Board determining Championship noncompliant with section 1006.12 and immediately terminating its charter on that basis. Alleged Unadopted Rule that School Board has a Policy of Failing to Collaborate to Facilitate Charter School Access to Safe-School Officers Championship also alleges that "the School Board has a policy of failing to collaborate with charter schools to facilitate access to safe-school officers pursuant to section 1006.12. . . by directing charter schools to either comply with the statute or risk having their charters terminated." By casting the alleged agency statement in these terms, Championship effectively asserts that by not establishing and assigning safe- school officers to charter schools, the School Board has a policy of "failing to collaborate" with charter schools in direct contravention of the second sentence in section 1006.12. The evidence does not show that the School Board has a policy of "failing to collaborate" with charter schools—which would be tantamount to the School Board having a policy of purposefully violating the statute. Rather, as more fully discussed below, the evidence shows that the School Board interprets the phrase "collaborate to facilitate" to mean that it is only required to communicate with charter schools and inform them regarding the safe-school officer requirements of section 1006.12, and to require them to provide documentation showing compliance.19 Championship disputes the correctness of this interpretation, and contends that instead, this phrase means that the School Board must 19 Championship has not challenged the School Board's interpretation of the phrase "collaborate to facilitate" as an unadopted rule in this proceeding. establish and assign a safe-school officer to each charter school if the charter school so chooses.20 Based on the evidence, and for the reasons more fully discussed below, it is determined that the School Board's alleged policy of "failing to collaborate" to facilitate charter school access to safe-school officers is not an unadopted rule. The School Board did not present evidence showing that to the extent the alleged agency statements constituted rules, rulemaking was not feasible or practicable, as provided in section 120.54(1)(a)1. and 2.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent has violated the provisions of section 1012.795(1)(d), (g), or (j), Florida Statutes (2010), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 10.081(5)(d), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Doreen Whitfield, holds Florida Educator?s certificate 819770, which is valid through June 30, 2015. She is certified in the area of exceptional student education. At all times material to the proceedings in this case, Respondent was employed by the Duval County School District (DCSD). Beverly Cobb is a payroll technician employed by the DCSD for approximately 20 years. In December 1999, she was working as a payroll technician, when the district was implementing a new payroll system. On or about December 17, 1999, Ms. Cobb was in the payroll office on the second floor of the DCSD building when Ms. Whitfield came to the office because of a problem with a check. She had a young woman with her. Ms. Cobb did not assist Ms. Whitfield with her problem but was close enough to hear Ms. Whitfield?s conversation with her co-worker and with Ms. Whitfield?s companion. Ms. Cobb?s co-worker went to get a payroll supervisor to assist in dealing with Ms. Whitfield?s problem. Ms. Whitfield was angry, and Ms. Cobb heard her say to the young woman with her, “all they need is one fatality up here and everything would be okay.” She paused and then said, “if I have to come back, I?m going to take someone with me.” Ms. Whitfield?s statements disturbed Ms. Cobb, and she perceived them as a threat. She was especially concerned in light of a mass killing at a car dealership that had taken place in Jacksonville not long before. Ms. Cobb reported the comments to her director, Ms. Parker, who called security. Security staff asked Ms. Whitfield to leave the building, and Ms. Cobb was asked to write a statement, which she did. Ms. Cobb?s account of the incident is credible. On or about January 10, 2000, Respondent was given a written warning and directed not to go to the second floor of the DCSD building where the payroll section was located. On or about April 8, 2004, Respondent was notified by the DCSD that she would not be reappointed for the 2005-2006 school year.2/ On or about August 18, 2004, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand by her principal, who at the time was John Lumpkin. The parties stipulated that the reprimand was issued, but no evidence was presented to indicate the reason for the reprimand. While the letter of reprimand refers to three incidents where Ms. Whitfield had apologized, and notes concerns on the part of other staff members, there was no evidence presented, beyond the fact of the reprimand itself, to indicate what prompted the disciplinary action. In October 2004, approximately two months after the issuance of the reprimand, Ms. Whitfield had a conversation with Johnetta Thorpe-Williams. Ms. Thorpe-Williams was an employee at Grand Park Middle and High School (Grand Park), where she worked as an office assistant for the house administrator in the discipline office for the school. At the time, Ms. Whitfield was working at Grand Park as a drama teacher. Ms. Thorpe-Williams? desk was situated where she could see everyone coming and going out of the office. Ms. Whitfield would often come by and talk to her in the mornings. On October 17, 2004, Ms. Whitfield came to her desk and started speaking about Mr. Lumpkin. Ms. Whitfield stated that Mr. Lumpkin was trying to discredit her, ruin her career, and take food out of her child?s mouth by making her lose her job. She also stated that she was standing up for her rights; that she hated him and could “take a knife and cut his heart out;” and that she wanted to kill him because he was nasty, mean, and treated her like a dog. Ms. Thorpe-Williams also described comments by Ms. Whitfield that Mr. Lumpkin was “nasty, mean, and dangerous, but that he did not know dangerous. He don?t know who I know. He don?t know what I can do.” Ms. Thorpe-Williams responded that she did not see those traits in Mr. Lumpkin, but that she did not want to be a part of this dispute and that Ms. Whitfield needed to talk to Mr. Lumpkin. She called Mr. Lumpkin and went with Ms. Whitfield to his office because she thought the comments should be addressed immediately. She had never seen Ms. Whitfield act this way, and did not know that she would not act on her statements. However, when the two women went to Mr. Lumpkins? office, Ms. Whitfield denied making any of the statements Ms. Thorpe-Williams reported. Ms. Whitfield started screaming, accused Ms. Thorpe-Williams of making it all up, and called her a liar. Understandably, Ms. Thorpe-Williams was very upset by this turn of events. Mr. Lumpkin sent her home for the rest of the day, and when she returned, Ms. Whitfield was no longer at the school. Ms. Thorpe-Williams? account of the incident is credible. During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Winter Park High School in Duval County. Her specific assignment was as a support facilitator for the eighth grade. Support facilitators go into other teachers? classrooms and work with ESE students in those classrooms. Close to the end of the school year, Winter Park received its budget projections for the following year. As a result of those projections, one support facilitator position was going to be eliminated. Ronda Cotter, the principal at Winter Park High School, decided that Ms. Whitfield would be transferred from a support facilitator position to an ESE teacher position working in a self-contained classroom. She announced the change at a meeting with the ESE teachers in approximately May of 2011. Ms. Whitfield was unhappy with the prospect of returning to the classroom, and made her objections known. The support facilitators and speech and language pathologists at Winter Park shared an office. Marchete Kelly- Cole was a support facilitator for the seventh grade, Carol Thomas was a speech-language pathologist, and Martha Johnson was a support facilitator for the sixth grade. At some time shortly after the announcement regarding her reassignment, Ms. Whitfield was upset and started complaining, loudly, about being assigned to a self-contained classroom. Martha Johnson and Marchete Kelly-Cole were both present for this conversation, which took place in the shared office. Ms. Johnson suggested that she speak with Ms. Cotter about the reassignment, reminded her that she was going to have no reduction in pay, and told her that sometimes you just have to make adjustments. Ms. Whitfield responded that, “maybe something needs to happen to the principal?s children, and then she would know how it feels.” Ms. Johnson was concerned about the comment, and said to Ms. Whitfield, “what if someone said that about your granddaughter?” Ms. Whitfield got up and left the room. Ms. Kelly-Cole?s description of Ms. Whitfield?s comments is very similar to that of Ms. Johnson. She stayed very quiet during the conversation because she believed Ms. Whitfield sometimes came to school with extreme mood swings, and was unsure what Ms. Whitfield might do. Ms. Whitfield?s statements made her uneasy because she also has children and Ms. Whitfield knew where she lived. When she was eventually asked to write a statement about the incident during a subsequent investigation, she declined to do so because she was concerned for herself and for her children. Both Ms. Johnson?s and Ms. Kelly-Cole?s accounts of the conversation are credible. Ms. Whitfield had a similar, if perhaps more colorful, conversation with Carol Thomas. On a Monday morning in early June 2011, the two of them were in the office alone. Ms. Whitfield told her, “I am so angry at Ms. Cotter, I could take a gun and blow her brains out.” Ms. Thomas did not know how to respond to such a statement. Ms. Whitfield went on to say that Ms. Cotter ruined people?s lives and laughed about it, and that something bad should happen to her or her children so that she would know how other people feel. Ms. Thomas perceived the comments as a threat, but was initially reluctant to do anything about them. She did not want to be in the position of reporting a conversation with no witnesses, and felt unsafe even though the threats were not made toward her. She found the comments to be “chilling, given the current climate in our nation and the things happening in schools.” Ms. Thomas sought advice from her son, but did not get a clear answer from him regarding how she should handle the matter. However, on Wednesday of that week, Ms. Thomas went to see Ms. Cotter early in the morning and relayed to Ms. Cotter the conversation that had occurred on Monday. Ms. Thomas, like the other staff members who had encounters with Respondent, was a credible witness. Ms. Cotter was upset by the report and concerned about her two young children. She reported Ms. Thomas?s conversation to the district office, and staff from professional standards and the district police department came to the school and searched Respondent?s car. No weapons were found in the vehicle. However, Respondent was escorted off campus and not allowed to return, and was assigned to Bulls Bay where she would not have interaction with children. Ms. Cotter also called her husband to alert him regarding the comments, and asked him to check on their children. She also reported the potential threat to the director of the daycare facility her children attended. For some time after the incident, the school resource officer would come to school early to make sure Ms. Cotter entered the building safely, and for months she parked right next to the building entrance so that she could enter the building quickly. She still harbors some residual concern, although Ms. Whitfield now works at a different school. In her experience, the kinds of statements attributed to Ms. Whitfield are not normally made in a school environment. On or about July 12, 2011, the DCSD issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent and required her to attend the District?s employee assistance program.
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 section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j) and rule 6A-10.081(5)(d). It is further recommended that the Commission revoke Respondent?s certification as an educator, with the decision concerning whether the revocation is permanent being left to the discretion of the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 2014.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent had just cause to suspend Petitioner for 30 workdays, without pay.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that the School Board is a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise the public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was employed full-time with the School Board as a teacher and held a professional service contract. Mr. Boundy had been a teacher with the School Board for 15 years. In his professional career, Mr. Boundy had been a teacher, then had practiced law in the State of Florida for 15 years, and had become a teacher again. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was assigned to Nautilus Middle School, hereinafter Nautilus, in the Miami-Dade County’s school district. He was assigned to teach science. On September 30, 2005, Mr. Boundy was teaching his science class at Nautilus. He was having problems with one particular student, D. M., who was approximately 14 years of age.1 D. M. had just returned to class from being on indoor suspension, for cutting class. Earlier that day, after having returned from indoor suspension, D. M. had been involved in a physical altercation, a “minor”2 fight, and Mr. Boundy counseled him. At lunch time, another teacher broke-up a fight between D. M. and another student; Mr. Boundy counseled him again. Mr. Boundy determined that the first fight did “not” warrant a “write-up” and that the second fight perhaps “may” have warranted a write-up but that he decided not to do so.3 After lunch, while in Mr. Boundy’s class, D. M. had another fight with a student, which was D. M.’s third fight that day. Mr. Boundy has a policy in his class that, “after three strikes, you’re out,”4 therefore, instead of counseling D. M. again, Mr. Boundy determined that a “write-up” was warranted and that D. M. had to leave his class. Mr. Boundy told D. M. to leave the class and go to the office. Before leaving the class, D. M. began spraying perfume and then walked out into the hallway but did not go the office. Mr. Boundy observed D. M. still outside in the hallway. When Mr. Boundy walked out of his class into the hallway, he observed D. M spraying perfume in the hallway. Mr. Boundy asked D. M. to give the perfume to him (Mr. Boundy). D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy at which time Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.’s hand and pulled it behind his (D. M.’s) back and told D. M. that he (D. M.) needed to go to the office. The hallway outside of Mr. Boundy’s classroom is equipped with a surveillance camera, which recorded the interaction between Mr. Boundy and D. M. after the contact described above. The surveillance camera does not record as a regular video camera but records as a series of snapshots or still pictures approximately every second, with gaps in between the snapshots; therefore, the surveillance camera fails to reveal completely what happens within a segment of time.5 As a result of the gaps in between snapshots of the surveillance camera, the testimony of witnesses is crucial in determining what happened. While in the hallway, the surveillance camera shows Mr. Boundy’s back to it and D. M. directly in front of him in such close proximity as if their bodies were touching. Mr. Boundy testified that he took D. M. by the arms and was directing him toward the doors leading to the office. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found to be credible. Subsequently, while also in the hallway, the surveillance camera, in several snapshots, shows Mr. Boundy and D. M. separated, with D. M. facing Mr. Boundy, who testified that D. M. wrestled away from him. The surveillance camera also shows, in one snapshot, Mr. Boundy’s left hand on D. M.’s right shoulder and, in another snapshot, D. M. moving back toward the classroom. Mr. Boundy testified that D. M. was going back to the classroom without his (Mr. Boundy’s) permission. D. M. admitted that he was returning to the classroom without Mr. Boundy’s permission. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found credible. Further snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy grabbing D. M. by the arms and shoulder area, when D. M. gets close to the classroom, and pushing D. M. down the hallway; and shows some students observing the conduct in the hallway. Also, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy and D. M. exiting the exit doors at the stairwell, with Mr. Boundy continuing to hold D. M.’s arms. After they go through the exit doors, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy releasing D. M. and watching D. M. go down the stairs. Mr. Boundy testified that he told D. M. to go to the office. D. M. does not deny that Mr. Boundy told him to go to the office at that point. D. M. went to the main office. The school counselor, Amy Magney, talked with D. M., who was loud and appeared to be agitated. Ms. Magney observed marks on D. M.’s arms and the back of his neck, which she described as “very red.” D. M. informed Ms. Magney that Mr. Boundy’s forceful touching had caused the red marks. Ms. Magney took D. M. to the assistant principal, Ms. Gonsky, who observed marks on D. M.’s arms, which were red, and marks on D. M.’s the neck, shoulder area, which Ms. Gonsky described as a “little red.” Mr. Boundy admits, and at no time did he deny, that he grabbed D. M. by the arms and shoulder area. For example, at the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, Mr. Boundy admitted that he held D. M.’s arms by the back directing him towards the stairs. A detective of the School Board’s police department reviewed the snapshots by the surveillance camera. From the detective’s observation, he determined that Mr. Boundy did not take any malicious action against D. M.; that D. M. was resisting Mr. Boundy; that, at one point, D. M. made an aggressive action against Mr. Boundy; and that Mr. Boundy was “directing, escorting” D. M. through the exit doors. D. M. testified that Mr. Boundy also grabbed him around the neck. Mr. Boundy denies that he grabbed or touched D. M.’s neck but admits that he grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area. V. V., a student in Mr. Boundy’s class, testified that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. by the neck, pushing D. M. out of the classroom. Also, the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, indicates that the same student stated that, while Mr. Boundy and D. M. were in the hallway, D. M. swung at Mr. Boundy and struck him in the chest. Mr. Boundy denies that he was struck by D. M. and D. M. denies that he struck Mr. Boundy. V. V.’s testimony is not found to be credible. The snapshots by the surveillance camera do not show Mr. Boundy grabbing or touching D. M.’s neck. Ms. Magney was the first person in the school's office to observe the marks, and when she saw the marks on the back of D. M.’s “neck,” the marks were “very red”; however, when Ms. Gonsky, the second person in the school's office to observe the marks, the marks around the “neck, shoulder area” were a “little red.” Further, D. M. had been in two physical altercations before the incident with Mr. Boundy and the last altercation had occurred at lunch time. Ms. Gonsky’s account of the location of the red marks is not inconsistent with Mr. Boundy’s testimony, regarding the shoulder area. Additionally, when Ms. Gonsky observed the marks at the neck, shoulder area, they were a little red, not red or very red. The undersigned finds Mr. Boundy’s and Ms. Gonsky’s testimony and account more credible regarding the marks being at the shoulder area, not the neck. Furthermore, the undersigned finds that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area and that the marks at the shoulder area were caused by Mr. Boundy and were a little red. No dispute exists that D. M. was being disruptive. Mr. Boundy had counseled D. M. on two occasions that same day for fighting. D. M. had committed a third strike by fighting again in Mr. Boundy's class, and according to Mr. Boundy's classroom policy of which the students were aware, the third strike meant that the student was leaving the classroom and going to the school's office. Mr. Boundy was going to write-up D. M. for the incident but did not do so. Before he could write-up D. M., Mr. Boundy was summoned to the school's office after the administrators in the office observed the marks and heard D. M.'s version of the incident. At the beginning of each school year, the principal of Nautilus, Caridad Figueredo, has an opening meeting, consisting of two days. At the opening meeting, among other things, Ms. Figueredo notifies the Nautilus' faculty that they must comply with the rules of the School Board and the Code of Ethics, and some of the rules are reviewed with the faculty. Further, at the opening meeting, Nautilus' faculty is provided a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Nautilus' faculty signs an acknowledgement that they understand that they are responsible for becoming knowledgeable about the rules and adhering to them. Mr. Boundy signed an acknowledgement and received a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Regarding physical contact, Ms. Figueredo indicates at the opening meeting that the School Board prohibits using physical contact to maintain discipline or to affect a student’s behavior. As a result, at the opening meeting, she informs Nautilus' faculty, and stresses to them, that they should not use physical force or, generally, to come in physical contact with the students. However, as to coming into physical contact with students, an exception is recognized and allowed in the touching of a student by a teacher if the teacher has a rapport with the student and the student has no objection to or approves of the teacher just tapping him or her. That exception is not applicable in the instant case. Nautilus had a 2005-2006 Faculty and Staff Handbook, hereinafter Handbook. The Handbook contained a Progressive Discipline Plan, hereinafter Plan, for teachers to use when they encounter disruptive students. The Plan contained several steps of action, which provided in pertinent part: Step I: Teacher The teacher may handle discipline in the following ways (list not inclusive): Move close to the student – use verbal and/or non-verbal techniques to correct behavior problems * * * Speak with the student on a one-to-one basis * * * Contact parent (verbal and/or written) Hold parent or student/parent conference PLEASE NOTE: Parent contact is REQUIRED before a referral can be made to the administration. Only disciplinary problems involving infractions of the Code of Student Conduct Group III or higher (fighting . . .) may be directly referred to the administration using a case management form. * * * Step IV: Referring Students For Administrative Action Students should be sent directly to the appropriate administrator only when critical incidents occur such as fighting . . . Please use your emergency button to request for[sic] assistance. If a student becomes disruptive and you request removal the administrator will take the appropriate disciplinary action deemed necessary according to the Code of Student Conduct and provide teachers immediate feedback. (emphasis in original) The Handbook also contained a section entitled “Things To Remember When Dealing With A Student,” which provided in pertinent part: 4. DON’T: Snatch things away from students. Become confrontational. Physically block an exit. Argue or get on the student’s level. Shout or put them down. Disrespect them. * * * 6. Use common sense regarding touching students: Be aware that affectionate gestures may be misconstrued. Avoid physical contact of any kind in situations involving you and student (i.e. where there are no witnesses). Additionally, the Handbook contained a section entitled “How to Avoid Legal Complications as an Educator,” which provided in pertinent part: Respect the space of others. Do not place your hands on students. * * * Know the laws, School Board policies and school rules, and follow them. * * * Corporal punishment is prohibited in Miami- Dade County Public Schools. Treat each student with respect. Establish a policy regarding discipline. Distribute the policy to students and parents at the beginning of the year or when the students begin your class. The School Board has established “Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment,” which provides in pertinent part: Purpose of the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment This document, Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment, is incorporated by reference and is a part of School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.08, Maintenance of Appropriate Student Behavior. It has been prepared to assist school administrators in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. These procedures and directions are set forth to guide and promote orderly and productive participation of students in school life and support the achievement of Florida's education goal for school safety and environment, Section 229.591(3)(e), F.S. Student actions and behaviors that can be defined as disruptive and/or threatening must be dealt with according to Florida Statutes, and Florida Board of Education and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules. This manual contains information necessary to assist school administrators in making the most appropriate decisions and taking warranted action in promoting maintaining a safe learning environment. * * * Administrators, counselors, and appropriate staff are expected to become familiar with this document, to review it periodically, and to utilize it according to its inherent purpose -- promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. As the administration and staff at each school site address the requirements of current Miami- Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS) guidelines, they should also review modifications of requirements related to school discipline and school safety as established by the Florida Legislature. * * * GUIDELINE #39: REMOVAL OF STUDENT FROM CLASS AND POSSIBLE EXCLUSION OF THE STUDENT BY THE TEACHER CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: Florida Statutes and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules allow for teachers to remove a disruptive student from class if the behavior of the student has an adverse effect on the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with students or the ability of the students to learn. Section 232.271, F.S., provides for the right of the teacher to refuse to accept a student back to class who has been removed for disruptive behavior which adversely affects the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with the students or with the ability of the students to learn. Provisions for Exceptional Students: The Placement Review Committee shall refer to the IEP team all exclusion requests for students from exceptional education classes. Temporary Removal from Class 1. The teacher shall have the authority to remove a seriously disruptive student from the classroom. In such cases, the principal or designee shall be notified immediately and the teacher shall be entitled to receive, prior to the student's return to class, a report describing corrective action(s) taken. Guidelines for implementing this provision shall be developed by each Educational Excellence School Advisory Council (EESAC). Code of Student Conduct Infractions The principal or designee will follow the Code of Student Conduct on all disciplinary matters. Only those disciplinary problems which disrupt a teacher's instruction, when the teacher requests the student's permanent removal from class, shall be referred to the Placement Review Committee, if the request is not resolved by the principal. A CFR was held on November 15, 2005. A Summary of the CFR was prepared and provides in pertinent part: [Mr. Boundy was asked]: 'Did you touch the student?' [Mr. Boundy] replied: 'Yes and it will never happen again.' * * * The following directives are herein delineated which were issued to you [Mr. Boundy] during the conference: Adhere to all M-DCPS [Miami-Dade County Public Schools] rules and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Rules [sic] 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Adhere to The Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. Cease and desist from utilizing physical means to effect the behavior of students. * * * During the conference, you [Mr. Boundy] were directed to comply with and were provided copies of the following School Board Rules: 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties 6Gx13-4A-1.213, The Code of Ethics You [Mr. Boundy] were advised of the high esteem in which teachers are held and of the District's [School Board's] concern for any behavior, which adversely affects this level of professionalism. You [Mr. Boundy] were reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment for all students and that your actions violated this directive. . . . Further, attached to the Summary of the CFR was "Guideline #9: Corporal Punishment, Current Law and/or Practice, from the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment," which provides in pertinent part: GUIDELINE #9: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS PROHIBITED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS. . . . Corporal punishment is physical force or physical contact applied to the body as punishment. Section 228.041(27), F.S., defines corporal punishment as: . . . the moderate use of physical force or physical contact by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce school rule. However, the term 'corporal punishment' does not include the use of such reasonable force by a teacher or principal as may be necessary for self-protection or to protect other students from disruptive students. The use of physical restraint techniques in accordance with the Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-6A-1.331, Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students and Article VIII of the Contract Between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade is not corporal punishment. Prior to Mr. Boundy’s going into the hallway, to confront D. M., alternative avenues were available to Mr. Boundy for sending D. M. to the school's office without confronting him in the hallway. Nautilus has a protocol that, whenever a teacher is unable to control a disruptive student by using classroom management techniques, the teacher can press a security button, located in the classroom, and a security monitor or an administrator will immediately come to the classroom. The security monitor or administrator will assess the situation and remove the disruptive student. Mr. Boundy failed to use this established protocol. The undersigned does not find credible the testimony given on alternative methods of dealing with D. M., as a disruptive student, in terms of in-school suspension, student mediation, conflict resolution, parent involvement, alternative education, suspension, and expulsion as being applicable to the instant case. These alternatives are available after the student is removed from the classroom to the school's office; they fail to address the immediate removal of the physical presence of a disruptive student from the classroom. The exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline Nos. 9 and 39, regarding the use of physical restraint techniques for situations involving Exceptional Student Education (ESE), is not applicable to the instant case. Mr. Boundy's class was not an ESE class, and D. M. was not an ESE student. Also, the exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline No. 9, regarding situations to protect other students, is not applicable to the instant case. None of the other students in Mr. Boundy's class were in harm's way or needed protection in the hallway outside Mr. Boundy's classroom. However, the exception to corporal punishment in a situation for self-protection, i.e., the protection of Mr. Boundy from D. M., was applicable in the instant case. When D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy, Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.'s arms and put his (D. M.'s) arms behind his back; at that instant, Mr. Boundy was in need of self-protection and he (Mr. Boundy) acted appropriately. But, the evidence fails to demonstrate that, after Mr. Boundy prevented D. M. from striking him, Mr. Boundy continued to be in need of self-protection. Self-protection failed to continue to exist and failed to exist during the time that Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall to the exit doors. The Administrative Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Gretchen Williams, testified that Mr. Boundy's use of physical contact in the handling of D. M. in the hallway and that the presence of red marks on D. M., exemplified excessive force, which rendered Mr. Boundy's action as a violent act. Further, she testified that Mr. Boundy's conduct was corporal punishment; that his violent act constituted unseemly conduct; and that his violent act was contrary to the School Board's prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment, which constituted unseemly conduct and was conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Williams' testimony is found to be credible. Also, the School Board's Administrative Director, Region II, DanySu Pritchett testified that Mr. Boundy's physical force constituted violence in the workplace; and that he failed to maintain the respect and confidence of the student and the value of worth and dignity of the student through the use of physical force. Further, she testified that the failure to use an alternative method of removal by using the emergency call button was poor judgment and constituted conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Pritchett's testimony is found to be credible. Additionally, Ms. Figueredo, testified that Mr. Boundy subjected D. M. to unnecessary embarrassment by using physical force in the hallway in front of D. M.'s classmates while Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall. Further, Ms. Figueredo testified that, during the hallway incident, Mr. Boundy engaged in corporal punishment, conduct unbecoming an employee of the School Board, unseemly conduct, and poor judgment, and was not a good role model to the students and staff. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Also, Ms. Figueredo testified that Mr. Boundy's use of poor judgment and failure to use established protocol and to exemplify a good role model to the students and the staff caused Mr. Boundy to lose his effectiveness. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Pending the investigation of the incident by the School Board, Mr. Boundy was removed from the classroom. He was placed on alternative assignment, i.e., at his home. Due to Mr. Boundy's failure to follow established protocol at Nautilus for the removal of D. M. from the classroom, to the physical force used by Mr. Boundy, to the marks that were a little red and were caused by the physical force, and to the seriousness of the incident, by memorandum dated November 21, 2005, Ms. Figueredo recommended a 30-day suspension for violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Ms. Pritchett agreed with the recommendation. By memorandum dated December 1, 2005, the School Board's Region Center II concurred in the recommendation. On February 28, 2006, a meeting was held with Mr. Boundy to address the forthcoming School Board's consideration of the recommendation for a 30-day suspension without pay. Those in attendance included Mr. Boundy, Ms. Williams, Ms. Pritchett, Ms. Figueredo, and a UTD representative, Mr. Molnar. The determination was that Mr. Boundy would be recommended for a 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, including but not limited to "deficient performance of job responsibilities; conduct unbecoming a School Board employee; and violation of State Board Rule 6B-1.001, Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment--Prohibited." By letter dated March 1, 2006, Mr. Boundy was notified by the School Board's Assistant Superintendent, among other things, that the School Board's Superintendent would be recommending, at the School Board's meeting scheduled for March 15, 2006, the 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, indicating the violations aforementioned. By letter dated March 16, 2006, the School Board's Assistant Superintendent notified Mr. Boundy, among other things, that the School Board had approved the recommendation and that he was not to report to work at Nautilus from March 16, 2006 through April 26, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding that just cause existed for the 30-day suspension, without pay, from employment of Robert Boundy. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 30th day of April, 2007.
