Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent was a public school teacher licensed by the State of Florida to teach English language at the secondary school level, and her teaching certificate was current and in full effect. The Respondent, Queen Bruton, is employed by the Duval County School Board and holds tenure under the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. On November 22, 1982, Respondent was sent a Notice of Proposed Dismissal by the School Board indicating the Board's intention to dismiss her as a teacher upon a charge of professional incompetency. The grounds for such conclusion include an indication that Respondent received unsatisfactory evaluations of her performance for the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years. The Duval County Teacher Tenure Act (TTA), Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended, permits the discharge of a teacher for, inter alia, professional incompetency as a teacher if certain conditions are met and procedures followed. All teachers in the Duval County public schools are evaluated whenever necessary, but at least once a year. Under the rating system in effect during the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years, an unsatisfactory rating is awarded when an evaluation contains eight or more deduction points. Ratings are: (1) satisfactory, (2) needs improvement, and (3) unsatisfactory. On the rating form in use during the time in issue here, an unsatisfactory rating results in two deduction points in Items 1 through 27, and one deduction point in Items 28 through 36. An evaluation of "needs improvement" does not result in any deduction points. The School Board of Duval County has not, in any formal way, defined professional incompetence. The evaluation process is but one tool in the management of teacher employment. An unsatisfactory evaluation is not, therefore, conclusive of professional incompetence, but is one factor in that judgmental decision. The procedure used by the School Board in evaluating teacher performance was not adopted in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act. At the time of adoption, the School Board was operating under teacher working conditions that had been implemented after extensive bargaining between the School Board and the teachers' union. These working conditions contained extensive provisions involving "teacher evaluation." When a contract was finally agreed upon between the School Board and the teachers' union, it contained provisions concerning teacher evaluation identical to those which were in effect under the working conditions previous to the implementation of the contract. These provisions, therefore, do not constitute rules "as defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes," but instead constitute guidelines for the evaluation of teacher performance arrived at not by decision of the School Board under conditions which require public hearing but jointly by agreement of the parties to the negotiations of the teacher contract between the School Board and the union, a collective bargaining agreement. Warren K. Kennedy was in Respondent's sophomore English class at Forrest Senior High School in Jacksonville during the 1980-81 school year. At one point during the school year, Kennedy saw a series of approximately 22 sexually explicit words or phrases written on the blackboard in Respondent's room. Kennedy copied these words and notified the principal, who went to Respondent's classroom and saw them himself. These words were placed on the board by someone other than Respondent, with her permission, and consisted of a part of an exercise in outlining. As such, Respondent claims the words themselves mean nothing, but words of that nature, including "orgasms, sexual intercourse, French tickler, blow job, condoms, dildo, masturbation, orgy," and the like serve no legitimate purpose in, and are not a legitimate part of, a sophomore English class. Respondent's classroom that year was chaotic. Students did little work, but instead talked openly and freely. Respondent sat quietly at her desk doing paperwork unless the noise got so great as to disturb other classes. Students felt free to walk out of class with impunity. Cursing was prevalent in class, and discipline was nonexistent. Defacing of school property occurred on at least one occasion with Respondent taking no corrective action. As a result, several students and the parents of other students requested their transfer from Respondent's class to another. Respondent was also unreliable in submitting grades and reports in a timely fashion. Observations of Respondent in the classroom environment by several different individuals revealed she did not insist her students come to class equipped with the proper supplies for effective writing or textbook activity. She rarely utilized visual aids pertinent to the matter being discussed. Classroom discussion with students did not generally involve a broad sampling of the class, but was focused on only a few class members. Her questions to the students were often vague and confusing to the students. Respondent's principal during that school year, Ronel J. Poppel, at whose request the above observations were made, himself observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions. As a result of the input from those requested observations and of his own observations, he prepared an evaluation form on Respondent on March 15, 1981, which bore an overall rating of unsatisfactory and reflected that her performance was declining. This report, which reflected 7 of 36 items as unsatisfactory (12 total deduction points), had 20 other items rated as "needs improvement" and contained such written-in suggestions as "needs classroom management techniques, needs better standards of behavior, needs to have long-range planning from the beginning of the year, needs to show more enthusiasm for teaching--needs more variety in methods of teaching," and "should use better judgment in selection of topics." As a result of this evaluation, the observations of her principal and others, and the several counseling periods during which Respondent's deficiencies were pointed out to her along with suggestions for improvement, Respondent was put on notice of her failing performance and afforded the opportunity to take advantage of teacher education counseling (TEC) and, while she did enroll in at least one improvement course, failed to take full advantage of the available opportunities. Poppel's evaluation of Respondent as an incompetent teacher is based on: His personal observation; Evaluation by other professionals; Parent complaint follow-up; Her demonstrated lack of effective planning; Her lack of enforcement of school policies; Her lack of or inability to motivate students; Observed and reported chaotic classroom deportment; Her failure to keep proper records; and Her failure to leave lesson plans for substitutes. Notwithstanding the above, Respondent was well versed in the subject matter she was to teach and had the subjective background to be an excellent teacher. Her shortcomings, as described above, however, far outweighed the positive aspects of her credentials. Respondent was transferred for the 1981-82 school year to Fletcher High School in Jacksonville where she was placed under the supervision of Dr. Ragans, Principal, to teach English. Dr. Ragans spoke to Mr. Poppel, her former principal, about Respondent's weak areas so that he could develop plans to help her in those areas. In an effort to prepare Respondent for the coming year and to ensure she was fully aware of school policies and standards, Dr. Ragans held an extensive conference with Respondent to discuss her previous year's unsatisfactory rating and to make plans to remedy or remediate those areas. On August 25, 1981, he wrote a letter to Respondent in which he reiterated the items discussed previously. Review of this letter reveals there could be little doubt of what Dr. Ragans expected. Nonetheless, when he personally observed her in her classroom less than a month later, he found many of the same weaknesses previously identified, such as a noisy classroom environment, talking by students without being called on, Respondent appearing preoccupied with desk work, and inadequate lesson plans. In the observation report, he made numerous suggestions for improvement and offered Respondent the opportunity to a conference which she did not request. Prior to that observation, however, on September 8, 1981, Dr. Ragans and Respondent met with Dr. Jeff Weathers, TEC consultant for the School Board, in a full discussion of her professional shortcomings, at which meeting a suggestion was made that Respondent enroll in certain university-level courses in classroom management and motivation. Respondent was somewhat reluctant to take these courses because she felt they might interfere with her planning and her preparation for classes. Nonetheless, she did attend one class. Dr. Ragans had advised her he would arrange for substitute teachers for her so that she could take available classes. She was also invited to meet with master teachers in the school to seek assistance and to observe them, and she did in fact do so. In addition, a program was set up for her lesson plans to be reviewed by experts at the School Board. Respondent denies she ever submitted these plans, but according to Judith B. Silas, a resource teacher at School Board headquarters who reviewed Respondent's plans in December, 1981, her plans were confusing and lacking a consistent format: the dates on the plans reflect they were from an earlier series of years; objective numbers did not refer to the 1981 Curriculum Guide and did not cross-reference; and some included material had no relationship to plans or lessons. Ms. Silas's comments, forwarded to the school in February, 1982, were discussed with Respondent. A follow-up letter dated September 25, 1981, outlining the substance of the joint meeting with Dr. Weathers, was forwarded to Respondent. Shortly thereafter, on October 29, 1981, Dr. Ragans prepared a preliminary evaluation on Respondent rated overall as unsatisfactory in which 13 items were rated that way and 12 more rated as "needs to improve." On November 25, 1981, Respondent was provided with a lesson presentation checklist drawn by Dr. Weathers for her to use along with a notice of several night courses available to Respondent and a notice of a proposed observation of another teacher by Dr. Weathers and Respondent on December 14, 1981. After this observation, Dr. Weathers and Respondent discussed the positive aspects of that teacher's operation that Respondent could and should emulate. A new classroom observation of Respondent was set for January, 1982. In the interim, in January, 1982, Dr. Ragans received at least one parent request for a student to be transferred from Respondent's class because the classroom environment was noisy, unruly, and not conducive to learning. As a result of this letter and other parent contacts of a similar nature, Dr. Ragans had several informal discussions with Respondent during this period. On February 23, 1982, Respondent requested a conference with Dr. Ragans on her upcoming evaluation which was, she understood, to be unsatisfactory from a letter to her on February 5, 1982, from Dr. Ragans. This rating, conducted on February 2, 1982, but not signed by Dr. Ragans until March 3, 1982, was unsatisfactory, containing 14 items so marked and 13 marked "needs to improve." At the conference, held the same day as requested, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent he still felt she had marked deficiencies previously indicated regarding classroom control, authority, respect, lesson plans coordination, classroom planning, her failure to provide purposeful learning experiences, no student motivation, and her apparent inability to be understood by her students. Also cited to her were the continuing parent complaints and those of other teachers that their classrooms, used by her (she was a traveling teacher with no room of her own), had been damaged by her students. Much of this had previously been outlined in Dr. Ragans' February 2, 1982, letter indicating his intent to rate Respondent as unsatisfactory. Both Dr. Weathers and another school district supervisor, Dr. Henderson, observed Respondent in the classroom situation in late January or early February, 1982. Both individuals identified the same deficiencies as previously noted by so many others, and both made recommendations for improvement which were passed on, intact, to Respondent. In early March, 1982, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent in writing of his intent to evaluate her on March 15, 1982, to see if she had made any improvement. He did this because of Respondent's feeling that the previous evaluation had not given her enough time to work out improvements. This latest evaluation was also overall unsatisfactory. Two days later, on March 17, 1982, Respondent indicated in writing that she did not accept this evaluation. On April 30, 1982, Dr. Ragans again visited Respondent's classroom so that, if she had markedly improved, he could try to extend her contract or change her evaluation before the end of the school year. However, he could observe no appreciable change. Shortly after this visit, on May 3, he discussed with Respondent complaints he had received from several parents about warnings she had sent out on some students which inconsistently showed both satisfactory performance and danger of failing on the same form. She explained this as all students, including straight "A" students, who had not taken the MLST (test) were in danger of failing. Dr. Ragans felt this excuse was feeble and unjustified and demonstrated poor judgment on her part. All this was confirmed in a letter on May 17. A complaint from a parent of one of Respondent's students, received on June 11, 1982, initiated an audit of the grades given by Respondent during the school year. Results of this audit revealed at least 68 errors involving 46 students, including three students who received passing grades when they, in fact, had failed and should have been in summer school. A total of 13 student grades had to be changed, requiring a letter of notification and apology from the principal. Respondent did not deny the inconsistencies shown in the audit, but defended them on the basis of, in many cases, their being the result of her exercising her discretion and prerogative to award a grade different from that supported by recorded achievement if, in her opinion, other factors so dictated. In any case, the number of inconsistencies requiring a grade change was substantially higher than is normal. During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent had not been assigned a classroom of her own, but instead met and taught her classes in the rooms assigned to other teachers. This situation, while not unique to Respondent and one which several other teachers had as well, is nonetheless a definite handicap to any teacher. In an effort to alleviate the impact of this situation, all Respondent's rooms were scheduled as geographically close together as possible, and she was assigned only one subject to teach. Therefore, though she may have had several class periods which progressed at different speeds, the planning and preparation was similar and much less an arduous task than if she had different subjects to prepare for. In any case, there is little relationship between this and discipline and control in the classroom. Dr. Mary Henderson, Director of Language Arts/Reading for the Duval County School Board, observed Respondent in the classroom during both the 1980- 81 and 1981-82 school years at two different schools. Recognizing that Respondent has definite strengths in her knowledge of the subject matter to be taught and her recognition of and communication to the students of the relationship of their lessons to the test requirements, Dr. Henderson still felt Respondent was not a competent teacher. On both occasions, she found Respondent's lesson plans to be inadequate, her techniques in classroom management were deficient, she failed to make effective use of the students' time, and she failed to effectively motivate her students to participate in the classroom activities. Throughout all this period, according to both supervisors and others who observed her, Respondent always maintained a pleasant, calm, positive, and cooperative approach to all with whom she came into contact. At no time did she show hostility or resentment. Also, there was never a question as to her knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent possesses a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in administration and supervision. She has sufficient credit hours to qualify for a major in Spanish. She has also taken several in-service courses in such subjects as linguistics, methods of curriculum and instruction, British literature, and school administration. She is certified to teach English, Spanish, and typing. She has been a teacher in several Florida school systems for 29 years, of which the last 21 years were in various Jacksonville area schools. She is tenured. She was selected for summer school employment in 1980, while at Forrest High School, even though tenure does not ensure selection to teach summer school. During the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was caring for the aunt who raised her and who was suffering from terminal cancer. This required frequent travel back and forth to another part of the state, and in addition to being a physical burden, constituted a severe strain on her mental state. During that year, she started out teaching only twelfth grade classes, but as a result of a reduction in class sizes during the school year, she was given some additional tenth grade classes for which she had not prepared. Respondent feels her classroom discipline was not so unusual as to be remarkable. She feels she maintained classroom discipline as well as required and contested the allegations that she rarely referred students to the administration for additional discipline. She made all reasonable effort to improve her performance by enrolling in some of the courses recommended by Drs. Weathers and Ragans, but had to wait until the second semester because she did not get the information on the first semester courses until after they had started. The classes she took urged the use of listening and negotiating skills rather than the authoritative method in dealing with students. She tried to implement what she learned in her classrooms and feels she succeeded regardless of what the testimony shows. In addition, she took a course dealing with self- concept and self-confidence and applied for admission to Jacksonville University's master of arts program in an effort to upgrade her skills. Respondent admits that at the beginning of the 1981-82 school year, she was not using formal lesson plans. She had been asked by the administration for plans on a weekly basis and had jotted down ideas on paper. To formulate these ideas, she used prior years lesson plans, but did not turn any of these in. This does not track with Ms. Silas's testimony that the Respondent's plans she reviewed appeared to be from prior years. I find that prior years' plans were used by Respondent extensively and how these plans were transmitted to Ms. Silas for review is immaterial. Respondent, based on the above, while possessing the necessary technical qualifications to perform as a teacher, while possessing the appropriate knowledge of her subject matter, and while possessing the desire to impart that knowledge to her students, is nonetheless incompetent to conduct a class, maintain proper discipline, and generate adequate student motivation to accomplish these desired ends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be removed from classroom teaching duties and be assigned some other function within the school system until such time, unless sooner released for other good cause, as she can retire with maximum benefits. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary E. Eckstine, Esquire Chief Administrative Hearings Section City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William F. Kachergus, Esquire Maness & Kachergus 502 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Herb A. Sang Superintendent Duval County Public Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Findings Of Fact Ms. Osteen is employed by the School Board as a content staffing specialist in the Exceptional Student Education (E.S.E.) program. Her duties include the placement and monitoring of students in the Leesburg area that are identified as exceptional students. Ms. Osteen is responsible for declaring she student's eligibility for the program and for effectuating placement of those students. At times, in her duties as a staffing specialist, Ms. Osteen determines the number of hours of instructions that E.S.E. students are to receive and prepares individual educational plans (IEPs). As an additional duty, Ms. Osteen is employed as a homebound teacher, carrying out those tasks after the completion of her normal work day which is from 8:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. She was the homebound teacher assigned to William (Billy) Vickery during February and March, 1988. Homebound teachers in the Lake County School System are compensated by submitting a monthly time sheet to the Exceptional Student Education Office. They are paid on an hourly basis cumulative over the month based upon the number of hours actually worked. Payment is only for instructional time with the student, not driving or commuting time. NOTE: PAGE 4 OF THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER IS UNAVAILABLE The composite of the four (4) different F.T.E. weeks determines the money a particular child earns in the system. Instruction of Billy Vickery by Ms. Osteen from February 17, 1988, through February 29, 1988, would have no impact on the F.T.E. count for the Lake County School System because it was after the count and the window period. There is no window period after the F.T.E. week. The entire staff is notified of the F.T.E. periods as they are published near the beginning of the school year. Teachers typically are not, however, involved in reporting the F.T.E. Nancy Vickery, Billy Vickery's mother, made a complaint to the Superintendent's office, in early February concerning Ms. Osteen's performance. Ms. Vickery explained that her concern was the amount of time Billy was receiving in homebound instruction. Ms. Vickery knew that Billy was to receive eleven (11) hours from Ms. Osteen weekly. After Ms. Vickery's conference with the school personnel, she began keeping, at their request, a record of the amount of time Ms. Osteen actually spent instructing Billy. Subsequently, Ms. Vickery created a summary of her time records and submitted it to the School Board. From February 10, 1988, through February 16, 1988, Ms. Vickery reported that Ms. Osteen spent approximately two (2) hours in homebound instruction of Billy. From February 17, 1988 through February 29, 1988, Ms. Vickery reported approximately three (3) hours by spent by Ms. Osteen in homebound instruction of Billy Vickery. After Ms. Vickery's complaint, the School Board hired an independent investigator to make a surveillance report of the number of hours that Ms. Osteen was in fact at the Vickery residence from February 17, 1988, through the end of the month. The surveillance report showed that Ms. Osteen spent two (2) hours and fifty-seven (57) minutes at the Vickery home from February 17, 1988, through the end of the month. Ms. Osteen submitted a time record to the School Board indicating that she had worked a total of forty-four (44) hours during February in the homebound program of instruction of Billy Vickery. Ms. Osteen claimed eleven (11) hours during the week of February 10, 1988, through February 16, 1988, and nineteen (19) hours from February 17, 1988, through the end of the month. Ms. Osteen admitted that she did not put in the hours claimed. In fact, she also admitted not working during the F.T.E. week, February 8, 1988, through February 12, 1988, and not giving Billy Vickery eleven (11) hours a week instruction from February 1, 1988, through February 17, 1988. The homebound teacher keeps a daily planning book, an attendance register, and a copy of the individual education plan as well as time sheets. Ms. Osteen conceded that homebound teachers are required to keep an attendance register, but that she used her register as a grade book instead. Ms. Osteen claimed that she used her plan book as an attendance registry, but acknowledged that it did not accurately reflect the days that Billy was instructed. Ms. Osteen did not keep an attendance record. Ms. Osteen's plan book is filled in retroactively, meaning that she makes entries for what she had done with Billy, as opposed to planning what she will do. The plan book does not accurately reflect the times or dates spent on the material and Ms. Osteen conceded she filled in the February plan in March with work done partly in March. Mr. Osteen made retroactive entries in the registry, coordinating it with the plan book, and the registry did not reflect what happened on any particular day. Ms. Osteen's testimony was confusing and contradictory regarding the actual instruction given Billy, especially in math. From the records presented and Ms. Osteen's testimony, it cannot be determined what actual instruction hours were given to Billy. Eight (8) witnesses testified either that Ms. Osteen's reputation was that of a truthful person or that they would believe her. Ms. Osteen was described as meticulous, conscientious, thorough and as one who follows the book. Ms. Osteen expected to be paid for the time that she turned in for February claiming that she planned to complete the work and make up the time before pay day. Ms. Osteen claimed that she did not intend to defraud the school system of any money. Ms. Vickery kept a time record for Ms. Osteen's visits to the Vickery home from March 1, 1988, through March 11, 1988, noting that Ms. Osteen made one visit for four (4) minutes and one other visit to have Ms. Vickery sign the time sheet. Ms. Osteen disputed Ms. Vickery's records, claiming that in March she had made up eight (8) hours of the time turned in for February. However, even Ms. Osteen admitted that by the end of the first week in March, she would have owed Billy the eleven (11) additional hours he was entitled to for that week. According to Ms. Osteen's own computations, she still owed Billy ten (10) hours from February. Thus, by March 10, 1988, Billy Vickery was behind twenty-one (21) hours in instruction by Ms. Osteen's own admission. Ms. Osteen's computations are, however, incredible in view of the surveillance report and testimony of Mrs. Vickery. In fact, by March 10, 1988, Billy Vickery was owed at least sixteen (16) hours of instruction for the time period of February 11, 1988 through February 29, 1988, additional hours for the F.T.E. week, and eleven (11) hours for the first seven (7) days of March. The March time records refute Ms. Osteen's claim that she intended to make up the February time. She continued instead to fall further behind with the hours of instruction due. Ms. Osteen attempted to explain her reporting of hours not spent with Billy Vickery by claiming that if she had not, the child would have been denied his entitlement and the County would have lost its F.T.E. There was no basis in fact for these assertions. Ms. Osteen may have believed this, but was incorrect. Ms. Vickery kept a child during the month of February that was ill with Scarletina. Ms. Vickery also conceded that Sandy had illnesses during the time that she taught Billy and had advised her that Ms. Osteen's son had pink eye. However, illness is not relevant to the issues of falsification of the time or attendance records. Ms. Osteen claimed that there was precedence for her falsification of the records, including the fact that she had falsified the time records before for Billy Vickery as well as for another child. Further, Ms. Osteen claimed that School Board personnel falsified records all of the time. The Lake County School Supervisor of Exceptional Student Education conceded that a teacher on occasion is allowed to swap time, but that the practice was not encouraged. Such a request must be written and signed by both the teacher and the supervisor. That was not done in this case. Homebound teachers sometimes extend the time sheet forms to include Saturdays and Sundays as well as holidays in order to accurately report hours worked. Homebound teachers are encouraged to perform the homebound instruction on Monday through Friday and to consider the educational principles that it is better to do small chunks at a time rather than one extended day on a Saturday. Ms. Osteen had turned in a time sheet the last day of school before Christmas vacation reflecting hours not given at that time for a previous student. Additionally, in 1987, Ms. Osteen had been unable to complete the last week in May for Billy Vickery but turned in the time sheet claiming the hours as she had in the past. Ms. Osteen stated that she went back in June to give the additional instruction and that this procedure was approved by her supervisor. Apparently, it was common practice in the Lake County School System for IEPs to be corrected by back-dating, obtaining signatures at a later date, and placing check marks in appropriate places. These corrections were made to reflect what actually had happened. Information known not to comport with the facts was not, however, placed on forms. While it is a common practice for employees to make corrections in forms, it is not an accepted practice to create false statements on forms or records. Witnesses testifying concerning record corrections consistently drew a distinction between falsifying documents and making corrections to reflect what had actually occurred. No falsification of documents was reported.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Lake County enter a Final Order finding Sandra Osteen guilty of the violations set forth above and dismissing her from her employment in the school system. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 7th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2029 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, SCHOOL BOARD OF LAKE COUNTY Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-16(1- 16); 18-39(17-38); 41(39); 42 & 43(40); and 44(41). Proposed finding of fact 17 is unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 40, 45 and 46 are rejected as being argument and as relating to legal conclusions. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, SANDRA OSTEEN Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(1 & 2); 7(8); 10(17); 12 & 13(32); 19 & 20(38); and 22(39). Proposed findings of fact 3-6 and 11 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 8, 9, 14-18, and 23-26 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of facts 27 and 28 are rejected as being argument and as relating to legal conclusions. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter S. McLin, III, Attorney at Law Post Office Drawer 1357 Leesburg, Florida 32749-1357 Richard H. Langley, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 188 Clermont, Florida 32711 Freddie G. Garner, Superintendent The School Board of Lake County, Florida 201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares, Florida 32778 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 ================================================================= SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT =================================================================
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 Whether Respondent, Robert P. Sulcer, as principal of Riverland Elementary School, is guilty of "incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty" as charged in a 28-count "Amended Petition for Dismissal from Broward County School System," filed September 6, 1984, and should be dismissed from employment with the Petitioner, Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact RESPONDENT: BACKGROUND AND PAST PERFORMANCE In 1955, Respondent received a Master's Degree in Education, Supervision, and Administration from Southern Illinois University. He moved to Broward County in 1957 and was first employed by the School Board as a teacher at McNab Elementary School. He has been employed as a principal for 25 years. In 1960, he became the principal of McNab Elementary and continued as a principal in various elementary schools until 1971 or 1972, when he became a principal at Pompano Beach Middle School for seven years. He was assigned the principalship at Lake Forest Elementary School for 5 years, then became principal of Riverland Elementary School in 1982. When he was suspended without pay on August 2, 1984, based on the charges which are the subject of this proceeding, he had a continuing contract (as principal) with the School Board. His supervisors evaluated (in writing) his performance as a principal during each of the 25 years he was a principal, including the 1982-83 and 1983- 84 school years. All evaluations were positive and described his performance as satisfactory. There were no negative comments. II COUNTS 1 AND 2: CONSISTENT DISCIPLINE PLAN Count 1 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 2 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 1 and 2 center on the "development of a consistent disciplinary plan" at Riverland Elementary School, including rules and regulations for the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. To sustain these charges the School Board must demonstrate that there was no consistent disciplinary plan including rules and regulations in effect at Riverland Elementary School for the years 1982-1983 and 1983-84 and that such omission constituted incompetency, misconduct in office or willful neglect of duty. The evidence not only fails to substantiate these two charges but affirmatively establishes that a consistent formal disciplinary plan and procedure was in effect at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. A. 1982-83 During the 1982-83 school year, the Student Conduct and Discipline Code ("Discipline Code") for Broward County was in effect and fully utilized. Riverland Elementary School received its accreditation at the conclusion of that year and there was no reference to an inconsistent or non-existent disciplinary plan. There were no reports of a non-existent or inappropriate disciplinary system at Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 made to School Board administrators at any time prior to the lodging of initial charges in March 1984. (R-2; TR-IV, p.467; TR-V, p.712; TR-XI, pp.42,108) The Discipline Code delineated the teachers' responsibilities for student discipline as well as the consequences for student misconduct. During school year 1982-83, Respondent utilized the disciplinary referral system and handled student discipline problems in a manner consistent with the Discipline Code. (Conversely, there is no evidence demonstrating that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in any instance, whatsoever during the year 1982-83.) He made sure (that parents, teachers, and students were aware of the Discipline Code. When he became principal of Riverland he discussed discipline with the students during an orientation assembly. He met with the grade level chairpersons on a daily basis and discussed discipline with them. They, in turn, were instructed to direct the teachers under their jurisdiction to review the contents of the Discipline Code with their students and ensure that students took the Code pamphlets home to be signed by their parents. In connection with the SACS review process, a student assembly was held to discuss discipline. Because of the type of children in the school and the age of the majority of the students, however, school-wide assemblies to discuss discipline proved to be less effective than small group discussions. Respondent's preferred use of small group settings and his utilization of the Discipline Code was deemed acceptable by his immediate supervisor. Other teachers followed a similar practice without objection. (TR-III, p.372; TR-IX, p.40, TR-X, p.83, TR-XIII, p.77, TR-XV, pp.38 169,2,192-193; TR-XVI, pp.8-9,16,48-49) B. 1983-84 During school year 1983-84, the Discipline Code remained in effect. Respondent continued to utilize it as the foundation for the disciplinary process in place at Riverland Elementary School. Indeed, use of the Discipline Code, as adopted by the School Board of Broward County, was mandated. Although several teachers testified that there should be a school-wide code which overlaps or supercedes the official county-wide Discipline Code, there is no showing that a school-wide code, other than the Discipline Code, was required or even customarily used in the school system (TR-I, pp.89,90, TR-II, p.201; TR- IV, p.467, TR-V, p.712; TR-IX, p.38; TR-XI, p.108; TR-XV, p.16) Several teachers critical of Respondent's performance testified that he should have adopted a code listing infractions which would automatically lead to specific consequences. To comply with this request, Respondent would have had to enact a code inconsistent with the Discipline Code mandated by the School Board. Page 6 of the Code sets forth the criteria to be used by a principal or his designee in meting out discipline. The Code attempts to match specific conse- quences with specific behavior. The numbers in brackets which follow each rule refer to consequences which may be used if misbehavior occurs. With the exception of Attendance, consequences are listed on page 24. Under certain circumstances, specification is mandatory and is so identified by an asterisk (*). When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teachers it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. School personnel are encouraged to employ realistic and appropriate methods of disci- pline not necessarily outlined in this Code. For example, cleaning desk tops is an appro- priate consequence for writing on them. When determining the consequences, the fol- lowing circumstances should be taken into consideration: age and/or grade level of student; frequency of misconduct; seriousness of particular misconduct; attitude of student; student records; any other relevant factors including but not limited to, handicapped students who are governed by provi- sions outlined in School Board Policy 5006.1. (e.s.) Under this disciplinary scheme, a principal administers discipline not only to punish students but to encourage behavior modification. To accomplish the latter a principal is given alternatives and combinations of alternatives for use based on the unique circumstances of each situation. Factors to be taken into account include the number of prior referrals, the seriousness of the situation, the child's previous disciplinary record, the age of the child, the intellectual level of the child, the emotional level of the child, and any learning disabilities that might be associated with the child. Respondent followed the Discipline Code and administered discipline based upon the referrals he received from teachers. There was no showing that he failed to follow the student Discipline Code. If the charge is that the Discipline Code, itself, lacks "consistent rules and regulations," or fails to conform to "consistent rules and regulations" such charge is more appropriately directed at the School Boards which adopted the Coded than Respondent who merely implemented it. (TR-XV, pp.38-39, 54; TR-XVI, p.31) At the outset of the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again directed his grade level chairpersons to disseminate the Code to teachers and instruct them to teach the Code to their students. The teachers were instructed to use the Discipline Code in conjunction with I.T.V. programs during the first week or two of school. The teachers carried out these instructions. Students were taught the Code, and their understanding of the Code was reinforced throughout the year. (R,4, TR-II, pp.184, 189,201; TR-V, pp.638,640; TR-X, p.126; TR-XVI, pp.48-49,5-6) In addition to the grade level chairpersons' meetings, Respondent disseminated various bulletins dealing with discipline, specifically Bulletin 83-9, which set forth the steps the teachers were to utilize in the disciplinary process. He issued Bulletin 83-9 because some teachers were not following the Discipline Code and meting out the appropriate discipline in the classrooms (per the Code) before sending students to his office. This bulletin was intended to reinforce the Code's recognition that teachers are primarily responsible for discipline in the classroom. The Code recognizes that classroom management is an integral part, if not the most important component, in the disciplinary process: When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teacher, it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. (R-4; TR-III, P.394; TR-V, p.708)(R-2, p.6, TR-XV, p.31) COUNTS 3 AND 4: INCONSISTENT METING OUT OF DISCIPLINE Count 3 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 4 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges allege inconsistency in the meting out of discipline by Respondent as opposed to the failure to establish or maintain consistent disciplinary rules alleged in Counts 1 and 2. Although inconsistent discipline was alleged, none has been shown. The only evidence offered to support these charges was innuendo and vague, elusive accusations or perceptions by several teachers, most of which were based on hearsay consisting of generalizations uttered by others. The record is devoid of specific, concrete examples of "inconsistent" disciplinary action by Respondent. The complete lack of specific evidence is not due to want of records. Detailed records of every disciplinary action taken by Respondent during 1983-84 were available for analysis. (743 discipline referral slips covering school year 1983-84 were retained by Respondent and available for review.) There is no evidence, however, that anyone critical of Respondent's meting out of discipline ever took the time to, or went to the trouble of, reviewing them. Indeed, no one on behalf of the School Board even asked to see them.) It was Respondent who offered all referral slips (identifying details of each infraction and Respondent's action) into evidence. Some teachers testified that there were too many steps in the referral process although how this complaint relates to inconsistency was not shown. Others testified that they had to go through every single disciplinary step in order to refer a child to Respondent for discipline. The opposite was proven to be true. If a situation was serious enough, the disciplinary steps prescribed by Respondent (which were essentially the same steps as those prescribed by the Discipline Code) could be short, circuited and an immediate referral made. When serious disciplinary problems occurred, teachers brought students directly to Respondent's office and he handled the situation. (TR-II, p.219; TR-III, p.425; TR-IV, p.475; TR-X, p.15; TR-XI, P.24) Respondent made an effort to insure that the disciplinary process at Riverland was rational, and known to and followed by all. In addition to Bulletin 83-9 (delineating the steps in the process), Respondent disseminated numerous other bulletins and materials dealing with assertive discipline as part of the Faculty Handbook. He met with the faculty and discussed the disciplinary process. He insisted they use the detailed referral process which he established. The referral slips themselves show that he used all of the allowable disciplinary consequences--individually or in combination--including, but not limited to, student conferences, verbal reprimands written punishments, parental contacts, internal suspensions, corporal punishments, and external suspensions based upon the unique circumstances of each case. (TR-III, P.427; TR-XVI, pp.15,31; R-1; R-2) A. 1982-83 Count 3 alleges that Respondent failed to administer discipline in a consistent manner for the school year 1982-83. There was no meaningful evidence of any inconsistent discipline administered in 1982-83. There was no testimony or documentation of one specific incident which Respondent could cross-examine or refute. 2/ Indeed the record supports an inference that discipline was meted out consistently during 1982-83. There was a detailed Discipline Code in effect, known to all, and he insisted that it be followed. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, and the grant of accreditation do not reflect that discipline was being inconsistently administered. Ms. Swilley, the Department of Education's competence reviewer, doesn't find inconsistent discipline; she refers to materials appended to her report, and then states the referrals reflect the teacher "concerns." The appended material only contains referrals from 1983-84 gathered together by Ms. Elmore, one of Respondent's harshest critics. The official Broward County School Board Progress Reports for Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 and 1983-84, reflect teachers', students', and parents', attitudes, all of which are extremely high. (Teachers- -86 percent, parent--92 percent, and students--88 percent) There is no evidence that this alleged deficiency was ever complained of or mentioned in any memoranda, read-react-and-return memo, grade level chairperson minutes, faculty minutes, correspondence to Respondent's supervisor or Board administrators, notes or minutes of the P.T.A., parents advisory group, Respondent's performance evaluation, or any other document. (R-4; Appendix 14; P-4; P-3; R-19) B 1983-84 Similarly, no factual basis has been shown for the charge that Respondent inconsistently administered discipline during the 1983-84 school year. This charge, too, is unsubstantiated. No systematic analysis of the 1983-84 disciplinary records of particular students was done to demonstrate that students were disciplined differently when the facts indicate they should have been disciplined the same. Although some witnesses generally testified that Respondent disciplined students inconsistently during 1983-84, their conclusions were not substantiated. Although one teacher, Ms. Ordway, claimed inconsistency in the meting out of discipline, she could not give one specific example. Similar negative conclusions by Ms. Ross, another teacher, were based on "what the [other] teachers would say." The testimony of Ms. Kasmarik, another teacher, supports the opposite conclusion: Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, let me ask you do you know what--can you give me specific instances that Mr. Sulcer treated two children with disparate consequences for the same act? Can you give me an example? A. That I personally saw it or that I heard about it? Q. No. You are the witness. What you saw, personally were involved in. A. With the referrals that he wrote up, Mr. Sulcer--The only referrals I wrote up were for fighting. That's the only referrals I wrote up, and when I got the response from that, Mr. Sulcer had used corporal punishment on both children. Q. So they were consistent as it goes to your personal observations? A. As my personal observations, it was consistent, yes. (e.s.) (TR-VI, p.826, TR-X, p.147) Likewise, Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, testified: A. I would say that the punishment was consistent. Now, the problem is I didn't feel it was severe enough because it didn't prevent them from repeating the same incidents. (TR-XI, p.23) Mr. Dandy, Respondent's supervisor throughout, and the person who initially pressed him to correct alleged deficiencies, was unable to recall any specific instance of inconsistent discipline being meted out; rather, his criticism of Respondent only reflected the "teachers' perceptions." The unsubstantiated "perceptions" of other teachers based on nothing more than generalized complaint or hearsay are patently insufficient to sustain the charge. (TR-XIII, pp.82- 83,92,97) Respondent followed a set procedure in disciplining students. Before referral the child would describe, in writing, the misbehavior so that the child would understand the significance and inappropriateness of the conduct. On referral to the principal the child would bring with him or her the written description of the incident. Respondent would discuss the situation with the child review any prior disciplinary problems, and then determine the appropriate consequence based on the Discipline Code. He often gave verbal reprimands arranged for parent conferences, or wrote letters to parents. (TR- XVI, pp.10,11,20,31) Witnesses who complained of Respondent's disciplinary actions at hearing never stated what they expected him to do other than to formulate an additional code specifying an automatic consequence for every conceivable infraction. Such a rigidly defined code is neither required nor customary in Broward County. Moreover, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct a code with such mathematical precision. The effective disciplining of students is an art, not a science, involving many human variables. It requires flexibility and the exercise of professional judgment. A rigid code which precludes a principal from taking into account the unique circumstances of each case would be inconsistent with the Discipline Code adopted by the Board. COUNTS 5 AND 6: DETERRENCE OF CHRONIC BEHAVIOR OFFENDERS Count 5 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action of causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said, students referred to you by teachers during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 6 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said students referred to you by teachers during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, the Board charges that Respondent failed to establish adequate deterrents and, as a result, he allowed or caused students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders during school year 1982-83. A. 1982-83 The Board has not shown what a "chronic behavior offender" 3/ is or how many students, out of the total student population of approximately 600, fit this category. Neither was it shown that there were a significant number of chronic offenders that "were caused" by Respondent's disciplinary actions. There was student misbehavior at Riverland Elementary School while Respondent was principal, as there was prior to his arrival and after his departure. It has not been shown that the misbehavior was caused by Respondent's efforts to enforce the Student Discipline Code. Many of the children at Riverland came from poor families. These children had little respect for authority and had attitude problems stemming from background and upbringing. Many came from single-parent homes. Many of the children who had behavior problems at school came from homes where discipline was lax or nonexistent. The student population was transient--students were constantly checking in or out of the school. Some students had repeated at least two grade levels so there were several children 13 or 14 years old. Some children had learning disabilities and could be disciplined only in accordance with their prescribed plans. (TR-II, pp.193,222; TR-X, pp.39, 40, 131; TR-XI, p.27; TR-XV, pp.39, 44, 46) Given the diversity and nature of this student body, it has not been shown how the repetitive misbehavior of five to ten of the students can be fairly or logically imputed to Respondent's action or inaction. These students, which the Board (at least for the purpose of this proceeding) classifies as "chronic offenders," were not identified, neither was each incident of misbehavior together with Respondent's disciplinary action, analyzed, compared and critiqued by qualified witnesses. Finally, though some students were referred numerous times, it has not been shown that there was an inordinate number of such students, given the nature and diversity of the student population. Neither does it appear that such repetitive referrals became a problem of serious concern to teachers. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, does not indicate that a "chronic offender" problem existed at the school. (R-13) B. 1983-84 The nature of students at Riverland Elementary School during 1983-84 was similar to that of the previous year and the Board's failure of proof is, likewise, the same. Respondent applied the district-wide Discipline Code in disciplining the students. The teachers were responsible for the teaching of the Code to students, and for the management of students in their classrooms. All acknowledged that the proper disciplining of students is a joint or cooperative effort by teachers, administrators, and principals. The evidence fails to show that there was an inordinate number of repetitive referrals, neither does it disclose the identity of these children (including their particular acts of misbehavior and the discipline administered) or how Respondent's action was deficient. To the extent some children were repeatedly referred for misbehavior, it has not been shown that Respondent's disciplinary action was the cause. It may well be that the teachers of these children failed to properly control and prevent their misbehavior, or the misbehavior may be due more to the unique personality and family context of each child. (R-2) Indeed, the parents of some of these children tried, without success, to modify their behavior. There were occasions when Respondent would have two or three parental conferences concerning a child's misbehavior, yet--a few weeks later--the child would revert to inappropriate conduct. Several teachers who testified were critical of the effectiveness of Respondent's disciplinary action, but failed to indicate action that would have been more effective. Some teachers favored more use of external suspensions, but under School Board policy external suspensions are to be used only as the last resort. Respondent did suspend some students and the referral slips for 1983-84 showed he used corporal punishment extensively. (R-66) As with school year 1982-83, the record does not establish the identity and number of the "chronic or serious behavior offenders". A reasonable estimate would be that there were between five and ten children (out of 600 students) who had repetitive disciplinary referrals. There is no basis to conclude that this is an inappropriate or unusually high number. In a student population of this nature and diversity, it is perhaps unavoidable that there will be some students who will be repetitively referred for disciplinary action. This condition existed before Respondent arrived at Riverland--and has persisted since he left. COUNTS 7 AND 8 VERBAL AGREEMENTS-1982-83 AND 1983-84 Count 7 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 8 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 In order to substantiate this charge, it was incumbent on the Board to identify those "repeat offender" students with whom Respondent entered into verbal agreements not to engage in the same conduct to specify the circumstances surrounding the infraction and to show that such verbal agreements were inappropriate. The appropriateness of a disciplinary action (otherwise authorized) cannot be determined without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Board has failed to substantiate its charges with concrete and specific evidence. Indeed the record is devoid of evidence establishing that Respondent even entered into verbal agreements with students during 1982-83, under any circumstances. (The Board apparently assumed that he entered into verbal agreements with children who were repeat offenders, that such agreements were "in lieu of providing any appropriate discipline," and that such action had a negative impact on student behavior and student discipline at Riverland Elementary School.) It was not shown that Respondent inappropriately used the Student Discipline Code in any instance when he "counseled" with students concerning inappropriate conduct. 4/ To determine appropriate discipline for an individual student, all of the factors contained on page 6 of the Discipline Code would have to be considered in light of the specific infraction. Because of the flexibility and discretion given school principals, any analysis less definitive would be incomplete. (R-2) B. 1983-84 In 1983-84, Respondent--who continued to use the Student Discipline Code--entered into verbal agreements with students, whereby the students agreed not to engage in further inappropriate conduct. It has not been shown that he entered such verbal agreements in lieu of any other more appropriate discipline, or that, in any particular case, the verbal agreement was inappropriate. "Repeat offenders" were not identified nor Respondent's action in any particular incident shown to be improper. As already mentioned, the Board has not demonstrated that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in the meting out of discipline. Under this Code, the use of verbal agreements, as part of the overall discipline process, is appropriate. Thus the critical factor is not the entering into of verbal agreements (because verbal agreements are permitted), but rather whether he did so in lieu of other more appropriate discipline. But disciplinary action--otherwise permissible--cannot be found inappropriate without knowing the specific facts of an incident. Such facts have not been shown. COUNTS 9 AND 10 RAMPANT DISRESPECT AND VERBAL ABUSE Count 9 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1982-83 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 10 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1983-84 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 Here the Board charges Respondent with "unacceptable performance" in administering the school discipline program during school year 1982-83. Respondent's discipline program was based on the Student Discipline Code and it was not shown that he ever violated that Code. The Board further charges that Respondent's disciplinary performance led to "rampant disrespect" by students towards teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teachers' instructions. The evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of rampant disrespect for teachers by students. 5/ Neither was it shown that any specific incident of disrespect was attributable to Respondent's implementation of the Student Discipline Code. Once again, this charge rests on supposition and generalization and lacks a factual foundation. Assuming, arguendo, that a student verbally defies a teacher's instructions, the question becomes whether the defiance is attributable to a principal's conduct. There are several plausible reasons as for defiance of a teacher's instructions, many of them unrelated to a principal's actions or inactions. Teachers may fail in managing their classrooms and earning the respect of their students, parents may have neglected to teach their children to respect and obey teachers. Here, the Board has not established a causal relationship between Respondent's conduct and any defiance of teachers by students. Speculation or generalization cannot substitute for specific and concrete evidence. (TR-X, pp. 100,101) B. 1983-84 For similar reasons, the charge relating to school year 1983-84 is unsubstantiated. Rampant disrespect for teachers has not been shown. (TR-X, pp.9,10,16,17) It has not been shown that Respondent violated the Discipline Coded the foundation of his disciplinary process, during 1982-83 or 1983-84. Neither has rampant disrespect for teachers been shown. The SACS Report completed by the teachers at the conclusion of the 1983 school year, makes no mention of it. Neither do any memoranda, documents, or other school records support this claim. If student disrespect and defiance had been so widespread, it is likely that it would have been brought to the attention of School Board officials long before Mr. Dandy came to Riverland to listen to teachers' grievances on February 17, 1984. (R-13) COUNTS 11 AND 12 CONTRIBUTING TO SERIOUS DISCIPLINE AND/OR BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS WHEREIN STUDENTS EXHIBITED DEFIANCE Count 11 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 12 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward, fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 11 and 12, virtually identical to Counts 9 and 10, are, likewise, unsubstantiated by the evidence. The record is inadequate to support a conclusion that Respondent contributed to serious discipline or student behavior exhibiting defiance and disrespect toward teachers and fellow students. It is likely that student disrespect for or defiance of teachers occurs, at least occasionally, in every elementary school. Relevant questions are what was the frequency and magnitude of the defiance and disrespect; who were the offenders, and what factors or combination of factors caused or contributed to it? The evidence offered by the Board is non-specific and incapable of supplying answers to these questions. Count 13 THE LOCKING OF THE BATHROOMS BECAUSE OF VANDALISM Count 13 You are hereby charged with failing to di- rect, administer and maintain a program to foster proper student behavior in the halls to such an extent that during the 1983-84 school year one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism of bathrooms during the school day, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, alleged student misbehavior (establishing Respondent's incompetence and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty) was so bad that one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism. This charge is unsubstantiated by concrete factually meaningful evidence; it is based, in the main, on hearsay and the unsupported conclusions of several teachers. It was not shown that vandalism in the bathrooms at Riverland Elementary increased or was at an unacceptably high level during 1983-84, or that any property damage was attributable to Respondent's performance of his duties. An occasional act of vandalism or damage to school property cannot, by itself and without more, support a conclusion that a principal is guilty of incompetency, misconduct in officer or willful neglect of duty. Neither was it shown that there were students fights in the bathrooms, or that fights occurred with such frequency that Respondent was forced to close the bathrooms. Rather, students would gather in the bathrooms prior to school starting and get into mischief. Mary Jo Sluder a teacher who was also Safety Patrol Director and supervised the school hallways, complained to Respondent that she was having problems watching both sets of bathrooms before school started. Respondent asked if it would help if one set of bathrooms remained locked until the second bell at 8:15 a.m., signaling the start of school. Ms. Sluder replied that it would be helpful and the plan was implemented. So one set of bathrooms remained locked for approximately 15 minutes, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., while children were at school. At 8:15 a.m., it was opened. (TR- XVI, pp.41,42; TR-IV, p.452) This was an acceptable strategy used by other principals under similar circumstances, and violated no rule or policy of the School Board. Between the first (8:00 a.m.) and second (8:15 a.m.) bells, bathrooms were always accessible to students. Respondent's action was a rational measured response to a problem perceived by the Safety Patrol Director and it obtained positive results without imposing a hardship on anyone. The danger of relying on hearsay and generalized conclusions of others is illustrated by the testimony offered to support this charge. Mr. Dandy, Respondent's immediate Area Supervisor and an individual who identified Respondent's action as deficient, admitted that he had no specific facts to support this charge; he had only talked to teachers and had reviewed no vandalism records at the school. Of the teachers who testified, one did not know if vandalism had increased during Respondent's tenure over that which had occurred under his predecessor; one did not know how long the bathrooms were closed. Although one teacher testified that it was common knowledge that the bathroom was locked because of vandalism--and this was the extent of her knowledge--vandalism was not discussed at the faculty meetings. Teachers would sometimes stop in the girls' and boys' bathrooms, to tell them to quit playing around. One teacher who complained of vandalism never witnessed conditions inside the bathrooms, never wrote disciplinary referrals for students who congregated in them, and never sent them to Respondent's office. (TR-V, pp. 578,774, TR-II, pp.242, 243, 245, 324; TR-IV, pp. 433, 451; TR-VI, pp. 871,872; TR-X, p.150) COUNTS 14 AND 15: TOO MUCH TIME OFF-CAMPUS AND NOT ENOUGH ON-CAMPUS VISIBILITY Count 14 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary School during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 15 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen, tary School during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon, duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges accuse Respondent of spending too much time off-campus or in his officer and not making himself "visible enough" among students, thus contributing to poor student disciplinary behavior. Once again, as with the other charges, there is no evidence that Respondent, during 1982-83, spent too much time or an inordinate amount of time in his office or off-campus. This was not identified as a problem by the SACS Report or documented by any exhibit in evidence. A principal is evaluated based on his or her performance. Respondent's evaluations for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were totally acceptable. Neither indicates Respondent spent inordinate amounts of time in his office or off-campus, or that he did not make himself "visible enough." Respondent, charged with the responsibility of administering an entire school, attended numerous off-campus functions such as county directed meetings, parent conferences, visitations, professional meetings, and community service projects relating to Riverland Elementary School. His attendance was legitimate and, in most instances, required. (TR-I, p.74; TR-VIII, pp.40,42; TR-XIII, pp.14,16,20; TR-XV, p.46, R-45) It was not shown (nor was it alleged) that Respondent was unlawfully or inappropriately engaging in personal activities off campus. The charges focus on the frequency of his absences, not his whereabouts. The school district official who prepared this charge had no independent knowledge of Respondent's absences, and did no analysis to determine the extent of his absences from campus. Rather, he simply relied on and reiterated vague conclusions offered by several teachers dissatisfied with Respondent's performance. (TR-II, p.246; TR-IV, p.888; TR-VIII, pp.23, 24, 143) Mr. Stephenson, the school district official who helped prepare the charge, never asked Respondent about his alleged excessive absenteeism from campus because (according to Stephenson) that would be a normal routine matter discussed between a principal and his Area Superintendent (Mr. Dandy). But Mr. Dandy never asked Respondent about alleged excessive absenteeism either. (TR- XIII, p.140) The evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was absent from campus for an inordinate amount of time. The only evidence in support of the accusation is sporadic hearsay, or conclusions by others lacking a factual basis. Rather, the evidence establishes that Respondent's presence on campus was sufficient and that, if he left campus, he handled any disciplinary problems (that arose in his absence) upon his return. His secretary always knew where he was. A teacher could find out where he was by simply asking his secretary. (TR-I, p.75; TR-X, p.32) As to Respondent's alleged poor visibility among students, there is no specific factual information pertaining to 1982-83, so this charge is unsubstantiated. As for 1983-84, the evidence was also insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was not "visible enough." No standard of visibility was established against which Respondent's conduct could be measured. There is no evidence in the record that anyone (teachers, parents, or administrators) complained to Respondent about his visibility or asked that he become more visible on campus. (TR-VIII, p.91) Testimony by several teachers on this subject was inconsistent and contradictory. Some offered critical opinions, but their conclusions lacked factual support, they simply had a feeling that he should have been more visible. In contrast, some teachers felt that Respondent was "sufficiently visible;" Ms. Kasmarik testified that he was always around the campus and always walking down the halls: CROSS-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, isn't it a fact that it's your opinion that you're better off with discipline when Mr. Sulcer was there than you are right now with the new principal? Isn't that a fact? Isn't that what you just said within the last couple of weeks? A. We have the same kinds of problems that we had when Mr. Sulcer was there. Q. Same kinds of problems with the new principal, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Are those same kinds of problems based upon the type of children, in your opinion, that are in that school? A. Yes. Q. Now, you mentioned--Just kind of working backwards a little bit--that visibility was a problem or--not was a problem, is not a problem. You said Mr. Sulcer was walking the hall? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Sulcer went into classrooms, is that correct? A. Yes. He was in and out of the classroom all the time. Q. So teachers could see him around the school. He wasn't--he was there physically in the school? A. Yes. (TR-X, pp.121-122) Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, admitted that he had been visible and had visited her classroom 15 to 20 times: DIRECT-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Montante) Did you ever tell him it was necessary to come down [to observe her class? A. No. Q. Did you ever tell him it was necessary to become visible? A. No. Q. Did he ever offer to become visible to you? A. No. I felt he was visible. Q. Several times a year? A. Yes. Q. How long is the school year, ma'am? A. From August until June. Q. August until June? A. Yes. Q. That's a period of 11 months. A. Ten months. The school year is ten months. Q. He came down to the classroom several times: A. Several times. Q. Three times in 11 months. A. I didn't say three times. Several. How many is several? A. Ten, 15, 20. (e.s.) (TR-XI, pp.61,62) Although Ms. Ross, another teachers claimed that his visibility was almost non- existent, her location in the library (where she worked) was such that she would not have known when he was out of his office or in it. Ms. Bullock, another teacher, never asked him to come to her room because it wasn't necessary. (TR- VI, pp. 823,828; TR-XI, p.61) The vague and indefinite charge of not "enough visibility" must be based on more then the subjective, unsubstantiated judgment of a critical teacher. To be meaningful, the charge must be put in a factual context. In a letter to Dr. Stephenson, the district administrator involved in preferring the charges, Respondent's counsel asked for specific information on the charge so that Respondent could comply with Mr. Dandy's March 21, 1984 directive requiring improvement in this area: 4. Monitor hallways frequently through- out the school day (in an attempt to assist in undesirable behavior on the part of students (Effective immediately) Mr. Sulcer will, as he always has, monitor the hallways. As I am certain you are well aware, it is impossible to be in the hallway all day if one is expected to be a Principal of a school. Once again, I would request specific instances of when Mr. Sulcer was negligent in his monitoring of the hallways which allowed undesirable behavior to take place. I would also like to have the specif- ic set of circumstances that the administra- tion of the School Board can demonstrate that there was undesirable behavior on the part of students because of Mr. Sulcer's conduct. I would like to know the exact amount of time required by Mr. Dandy so Bob Sulcer can comply. If Mr. Dandy is going to evaluate Bob Sulcer in this area, he (Dandy) must know exactly how much time he expects Sulcer to spend. (R-50) This letter went unanswered. COUNTS 16 AND 17 SUPPLIES Count 16 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 17 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. There were no records of any kind, type or description, offered in evidence to support the allegations that school supplies were inadequate during 1982-83. One team chairperson during 1982-83 and 1983-84 never heard a complaint about lack of supplies. Dr. Stephenson, the school district administrator who helped prepare this charge, became aware of the alleged budget problem through information he received in writing from Ms. Elmore, a teacher critical of Respondent's performance. Based on Ms. Elmore's submittal, he concluded that there was a lack of materials and supplies at Riverland, a situation which should not have existed because adequate funds were available. He never independently investigated to determine if Ms. Elmore's statements were correct. (TR-XI, p.19; TR-VIII, pp.11,151) Ms. Elmore, a Faculty Chairperson at Riverland, had been told by the school bookkeeper that there was a freeze on supplies in 1983-84. She never personally asked Respondent for supplies, and he never told her that funds were unavailable. She felt that it was unnecessary to bother Respondent "with things that minor." (TR-V, pp.771,776) Ms. Ross, a grade level chairperson responsible for coordinating the ordering of supplies for teachers under her control, had no difficulty ordering supplies or books except that, when the funds were frozen, she "couldn't spend the money in my budget for awhile." (TR-VI, p.819) (She never asked Respondent if the budget was frozen.) She had all materials needed to currently teach her students. (Funds were temporarily unavailable only while the F.T.E. count was underway, a situation which was not unusual in the school district). When told the budget was frozen during F.T.E. count, she simply delayed ordering until the count was completed, she "had enough (supplies) to carry (her) over past the F.T.E. count." (TR-VI, p.865) After the count, she was allowed to order whatever she needed. (TR-VI, pp.819, 862, 864, 865) Ms. Ordway, a fifth grade teacher, who had switched to kindergarten, testified that she was unable to get necessary books and supplies for her kindergarten class. However, Ms. Callender, her Faculty Grade Level Chairperson, testified that Ms. Ordway as well as the rest of her grade group, had supplies the entire year. Ms. Callender also testified that Ms. Ordway was given permission to go to the A.B.C. Store to purchase whatever supplies she needed. Ms. Callender's testimony, more precise and less emotional than Ms. Ordway's, is accepted as persuasive. (TR-X, pp.28,48) Respondent did not turn down any supply order for materials that were needed for classes during 1982-83 and 1983- 84. The charge that teachers lacked supplies in 1983-84 is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (TR-XVI, pp.57,58,61) Finally, Ms. Elmore, one of the teachers most critical of Respondent's performances testified that she did not have enough supplies for 1982-83 and 1983-84. Her testimony was conclusory and is rejected as lacking in credibility. Finally, the SACS Report does not mention any problem with supplies at Riverland Elementary School for 1982-83. It is likely that if there was a supply problem of the magnitude alleged, it would have been mentioned in the SACS Report. The evidence does not establish that any children at Riverland were denied instructional materials due to lack of supplies. These charges are unsubstantiated. (TR-V, p.580; R-13) COUNTS 18 AND 19: SECOND IN COMMAND Count 18 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence during the 1982-83 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from campus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office/and or willful neglect or duty. Count 19 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence until approximately January 1984 of the 1983-84 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from cam- pus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Respondent appointed a second in command or designee at Riverland Elementary School for years 1982-83 and 1983-84. For 1982-83, Respondent appointed Polly Jones as his second in command or designee. There was no requirement to identify the second in command by posting a notice. However, Mr. Dandy, the Area Superintendent, required principals within his area to advise him of the name of the second in command at the commencement of the school year. Respondent notified him in accordance with this requirement. (TR-I, p.32; TR- VII, p.92; TR-XVI, p.7) During 1982-83, Ms. Jones handled discipline referrals during Respondent's absence and signed as designee. Teachers who were unaware of who the second in command needed only to ask. Respondent's secretary, the office personnel, and administrative staff were informed that Ms. Jones was the appointed second in command. (TR-XVI, pp.7,104) The contention that problems resulted from some teachers not knowing who was second in command during 1982-83, is unsupported by the evidence. No teacher asked Respondent who was second in command--either in person (at grade level chairperson meetings, faculty meetings, in the halls, at SACS Committee Meetings) or by memorandum. Ms. Elmore who was Faculty Chairperson during 1982- 83, never placed the question of who was second in command on the faculty agendas though she had the authority to do so. Although she testified that she did not know who was second in command in 1982-83, she did not ask Respondent or her grade/level chairperson who, ironically, was Ms. Jones, the second in command. In any case, most teachers at Riverland knew Polly Jones handled disciplinary problems in Respondent's absences and expected her to do so. (TR- V, pp.598, 763) For school year 1983-84, Respondent designated Elaine Callender as his second in command. Again, he informed Mr. Dandy of his action at the beginning of the school year. Although most teachers knew that she was the second in command, they did not hear it officially from Respondent. They knew that Ms. Callender could, and did, administer corporal punishment in Respondent's absence. Finally, teachers in 1983-84 knew, or should have known, that Ms. Callender was the second in command because she signed referral slips above the signature line marked "Designee": copies of the completed slip are normally returned to the referring teacher. (TR-I, pp.34,35; TR-X, p.5, TR-XVI, p. 175) These charges must fail since Respondent did, in fact, appoint a designee, and the teachers knew or could have known by simply asking him. Although it was suggested (through hearsay testimony) that students were disciplined by secretaries, there is no substantial evidence to support that implication. When the issue of who was second in command surfaced up at the faculty meeting on November 15, 1983 (as part of 12 identified concerns) would it not have seemed reasonable at the time for someone to ask Respondent who was second in command? The Faculty Council, after it was organized and operational in the early part of January, did ask Respondent, stating that some teachers claimed they did not know who was second in command and wanted this information posted. Respondent posted his second in command that very day. (Mr. Dandy's testimony that the second in command was not posted until mid-February is rejected as clearly erroneous.) (TR-XII, p.87; TR-XIII, p.123) COUNTS 20 AND 21: MORALE Count 20 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1982-83 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 21 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1983-84 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency. These two Counts center on the issue of faculty morale as it related to student discipline caused allegedly by Respondent's failure to maintain positive lines of communication with faculty and students during schools years 1982-83 and 1983, 84. Morales a somewhat amorphous term, is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "the state of the spirits of an individual or group as shown in willingness to perform assigned tasks, confidence, cheerfulness, and discipline." Although affected by many variables, morale is not a subject incapable of measurement. Instead of utilizing an objective or standard method to determine the level of morale at Riverland the School Board presented the testimony of selected teachers, for the most part, the same teachers who were on the ad hoc disciplinary committee and among Respondent's most avid critics. Their testimony lacks credibility and fails to support a conclusion that morale was lowered due to Respondent's handling of discipline problems. They were the teachers who complained most about morale. They gave secret testimony to Dr. Stephenson, the ranking administrator, who developed the charges against Respondent and they were, generally, unwilling to cooperate with Respondent and other teachers (led by the Faculty Council), who were attempting (between November, 1983 and March 1984) to develop ways to improve discipline at Riverland. 6/ No systematic evaluation of faculty morale, using any acceptable and reliable method, was ever undertaken. A poll was conducted at Riverland Elementary in connection with the Official Progress Report of the School Board. The poll indicated that 86 percent of the teachers thought that Riverland was a good school. Ninety-two percent of the parents with children at Riverland responded, "this is a good school." (TR-IV 34 p.461) These results detract from the weight to be given the adverse opinions of the several teachers (testifying at hearing) most critical of Respondent's performance. (TR-IV, p.461; R-19) COUNT 22 FAILING TO DISCIPLINE A STUDENT Count 22 You are hereby charged with failing to disci- pline a student who said to a teacher's aided "Fuck You," during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On one occasion during the 1983-84 school year, a child cursed at a teacher's aide, Ms. Williams, who promptly referred the student to Respondent's office. Respondent asked the student for an explanation and the child admitted that he had said the disrespectful words and was ready to be spanked. Respondent asked Ms. Williams (the aide that was cursed at) to enter the office and witness the corporal punishment. After she entered, the child refused to submit to the spanking and constantly moved around, putting his hands across his buttocks and fidgeting making it difficult for Respondent to administer corporal punishment without injuring him. Under these circumstances, Respondent decided not to administer the corporal punishment for fear of injuring the child's hands. Instead, he telephoned the child's parents and told them the child refused the spanking. The parents told him they would punish the child, by using a belt. (TR-XVI, pp.53-54; TR-X, pp.67-68,85) This particular child did not have any further behavior problems at Riverland Elementary. Respondent did not ignore, dismiss, or fail to discipline this child. His handling of this incident of disrespect toward an aide was appropriate and consistent with the Discipline Code. (Although the Board faults him for not reporting the incident to the Department of Internal Affairs, Board Policy 4018, reasonably construed, does not require the reporting of every instance of student disrespect toward a teacher.) Since Respondent properly disciplined the child, the charge must fail. COUNT 23 RAT-INFESTED ROOM Count 23 You are hereby charged with failing to take appropriate action to remove kindergarten students at the request of the teacher from a rat infested room after being informed by the teacher that rats were prevalent in the area, subjecting kindergarten students to rat poison which had been placed by custodial personnel in the students' classroom, and refusing from approximately February 28, 1984, to March 7, 1984, to relocate said kindergarten students from said classroom to an empty portable on the school site which action had been formerly requested by the complaining kindergarten teachers which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On March 1, 1984, Ms. Ordway, a kindergarten teacher at Riverland Elementary, complained to Respondent about a mouse she had seen in her classroom. He told her that he would get the custodian on it right away, which he did on that same day. The custodian set out traps that night, Respondent also went to Ms. Ordway's classroom that night to make sure that the traps were placed so that there would be no danger to the children. He continued to periodically check the room after school throughout the week, he looked for evidence of mice, but found none. Meanwhile, Ms. Ordway did not ask to have her class moved and her class remained at its regular location. (TR-XVI, pp.71- 73,87,155,254) On Thursday, March 8, 1984, approximately one week after Ms. Ordway had complained of a mouse, Mr. Dandy telephoned Respondent and told him of a complaint he had received (presumably from Ms. Ordway) concerning the mice situation. Respondent immediately called the Area Maintenance Office and requested assistance, then contacted Omni Pest Control and asked them to come out that day. (Respondent had not called the exterminator prior to this because neither he nor the custodian had found evidence of mice, and the custodian was actively addressing the complaint.) (TR-XVI, pp.72,154,157) Omni Pest Control came out on Monday, March 12, 1984, around noontime. Respondent immediately relocated Ms. Ordway's class since he assumed that the exterminator might use chemicals hazardous to children. The exterminator treated the classroom and returned two days later to do a follow- up. At 7:30 a.m. on March 19, 1984, the exterminator returned to check the classroom. Respondent, unavailable to talk to him at that time, called him later to check on the classroom's condition. The exterminator, having found no evidence of mice, told him that the mouse sighting "must have been a fluke." (TR-XVI, pp.72-73,86,88,155,157,159) The evidence does not support a conclusion that Ms. Ordway's classroom was infested with mice or rats. She is the only person who sighted one, and her testimony about what she saw, and the frequency of her sighting's, was inconsistent. No other mice were sighted and no evidence of mice was found by those who investigated and responded to her complaint: Respondent, a Health Department inspector, the school custodian, and the professional exterminator. Respondent reacted to Ms. Ordway's complaint in a reasonable and timely manner. The school custodian was the person who would normally investigate and handle such a complaint. When Respondent received a second complaint, he immediately contacted a professional exterminator despite the fact that he and others had found no evidence of mice in the classroom. This charge is based on the exaggerated complaint of Ms. Ordway, a teacher who, seemingly, Respondent could not mollify. COUNTS 24 AND 25 FAILING TO COOPERATE Count 24 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the declining [sic] student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 25 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the increasing student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board failed to substantiate its charge that during 1982-83 or 1983-84, Respondent failed to utilize the suggestions of parents and work with them to improve student discipline at Riverland Elementary. Indeed, there is no evidence that any parents made specific suggestions to Respondent concerning ways to improve student discipline. Even if, arguendo, suggestions were submitted, there was no showing that Respondent was obliged to follow theme irrespective of their merit. Although the School Board also charges Respondent with failing to utilize the suggestions of, and work with, teachers, the opposite was shown. Respondent relied on the teachers of Riverland. He routinely asked them to address problems, and suggest specific changes, usually he implemented their suggestions. One of his management techniques to maximize participation was to set up committees of teachers to address problems and make recommendations. His conviction was that since teachers were a vital part of the school, they should have a say in how it was run--and what changes should be made. He respected their views and welcomed their comments. For example, in late 1983 and early 1984, he encouraged the Faculty Council to devise ways to improve student discipline. When the Council presented him with a School Wide Disciplinary Plan (suggesting numerous changes to improve student discipline) he promised to implement it. (In contrast, some teachers refused to cooperate with either the Faculty Council or Respondent, and were determined to leave student discipline problems to Respondent--alone--to solve.) Another example was his formation of a Cafeteria Committee (of teachers) to address student misbehavior in the cafeteria--a focal point of student "horseplay" in most elementary schools. The Committee met and formulated a plan, which Respondent approved and implemented. Both charges must be dismissed for failure of proof. (TR-III, p.387; TR-V, p.708; TR-VI, p.819; TR-XI, pp. 143,149,150,162; TR-XV, pp.59,110; TR-XVI, p.76) COUNT 26 THE CAFETERIA Count 26 You are hereby charged with failing to prop- erly maintain student control and discipline in the cafeteria and/or inadequately super- vising and/or providing inadequate supervi- sion of students which has resulted in chaos throughout the 1982-83 school year and has continued through the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board has not established a standard against which the adequacy of the supervision and control of students in school cafeterias can be judged. Elementary school students abound with energy and will sometimes run in cafeterias. Such running occurred prior to Respondent's arrival at Riverland, and continues, even now. As one witness summed it up, "Every child runs." . . . [and] "Kids are kids." (TR-X, p.78) These cafeterias are noisy, relatively unstructured places where children, within limits, are free to be themselves. No evidence was presented showing that, on a comparative basis, student behavior in the Riverland cafeteria was any worse than that prevalent in the other elementary schools. Indeed, Dr. Gail Daly (an experienced elementary school principal and chosen by the School Board to investigate Respondent's performance at Riverland) visited the school's cafeteria and found student behavior acceptable. (TR-XV, p.59) Although some teachers were critical of Respondent's visibility in the student cafeteria, they rarely ate their own lunches there (to help maintain order)-- even though they could leave school a half-hour early for doing so. Since most teachers did not eat their lunches with the students, supervision of student behavior in the cafeteria was left, for the most part, to teachers' aides. This was an acceptable practice in the various elementary schools. Any student misbehavior which may have existed in the cafeteria was not serious enough to warrant being brought to Respondent's attention, either by the group of teachers who identified "12 concerns" at Riverland or to Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor who responded to them. The teachers "12 concerns" do not mention misbehavior in the cafeteria, neither do Mr. Dandy's letters of February 24, and March 1, 1984 (which identify deficiencies in Respondent's performance and require corrective action). This charge must fail for lack of proof. (P-5, P-6, R-2) COUNT 27 FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES AS ALLEGED IN COUNTS 1-26 Count 27 You are hereby charged with failing to ade- quately perform your duties as principal with respect to student discipline/behavior as enumerated in the above counts during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years to such an extent that your effectiveness as a principal in this area has been impaired serious enough to warrant your dismissal as principal for "good and sufficient reasons, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The efficacy of this charge depends on a positive finding that Respondent failed to adequately perform his duties as principal with respect to student discipline during 1982-83 and 1983-84, as alleged in the foregoing counts, Nos. 1 through 26. Since these counts were not sustained by the evidence, the charge fails. COUNT 28 SWILLEY REPORT Count 28 You are hereby charged with failing to demon- strate competent performance as an adminis- trator in one or more of the following areas: the administrative and supervisory require- ments and/or communication skills and/or management techniques and/or exercise learn- ing and goal achievement and/or human and interpersonal relationships for the school year (or any part thereof) 1983-84, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Dr. Stephenson, then Associate Superintendent of Personnel, requested a review of Respondent on April 3, 1984, for the purpose of determining his competence. The Department of Education selected Henrietta Swilley (from Bay County) to conduct the competency review. She visited Riverland Elementary from May 1, 1984, to May 3, 1984, (2 1/2 days) one-half day short of the three-day observation required by 6B-5.02(12) Florida Administrative Code. On or about July, 1984, she sent to the School Board her undated and unsigned report. This report was placed in evidence by the School Board as an attachment to a deposition taken of Respondent. Neither Ms. Swilley nor any School Board official testified about the contents of this report, or vouched for its accuracy. Consequently, Respondent's ability to challenge the accuracy of its opinions and conclusions, or examine those who developed or relied on it, was limited. The report, however, is hearsay which, though admissible, can be used only to explain or corroborate other evidence, it cannot, in itself, support a finding of fact. See, 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Apart from this limitation on its use, the report is replete with factual errors, misstatements, and inconsistencies. It appends materials which do not correspond to references in the report. These errors detract from the weight which might otherwise be given to the report, and place in doubt the credibility of its assertions and conclusions. Several examples should suffice. On pages 4 and 5 of the report, Ms. Swilley reviews teacher observations and evaluations. Of the eight teachers listed, the evaluations of only four were included in the appendix. She indicates that Respondent held conferences with all eight teachers on the same day, May 17, 1983. The four evaluations appended, however, show that the conferences were held on March 3, 16, and April 12 and 15, 1983. On page 5, she faults Respondent of using similar or "patterned" comments on seven of the eight teachers evaluated. But she does not show how this violated any rule or standard of practice. (Mr. Dandy, Area Supervisor, using a similar form, includes no comments, whatsoever, on his evaluations of principals, a practice which, in his views was perfectly acceptable. (TR-XII, p.43).) On page 6, she states: From studying the 1983 evaluations of Ms. Elayna Cross and Ms. Catherine Phoenix it was unclear to this reviewer as to how much time Mr. Sulcer spent observing these teachers. Yet, the time Respondent spent in observing Ms. Phoenix (9:15 to 10:15 on March 3, 1983) is shown on the top of her evaluation contained in the appendix. On page 6, Ms. Swilley further states: If the sampling of evaluations studied is an indication of administrative progress in the area of assessment, all other continuing contract employees on staff would have to be evaluated within 25 days from my visit in order to stay within the confines of the negotiated contract [which prohibited princi- pals from conducting evaluations during the last week of school]. But the evaluations in her sampling were completed, and applied only to the prior school year--1982-83, not 1983-84. Thus her conclusion lacks support. (In fact, Respondent had approximately ten teachers left to evaluate after Ms. Swilley's visit in May, 1984 [TR-XVI, p.77].) Finally, on pages 6,7, Ms. Swilley questions whether Respondent acted as an instructional leader at Riverland. She opines as to what Respondent would have observed if he had visited the classrooms, and includes the results of her interviews with an unknown number of teachers. Among those teachers were Ms. Ross, Ms. Sluder and Ms. Elmore. (These were Respondent's most vociferous critics and members of the original ad hoc faculty committee which identified "12 concerns" at Riverland.) The assertions of Ms. Ross and Ms. Sluder--hearsay, once removed--concerning Respondent's alleged failure to visit or observe their classes are rejected in favor of Respondent's more persuasive testimony to the contrary. (TR-X, p.121; TR-XVI, pp.46-47) The School Board has not shown, by independent evidence, that Respondent failed to demonstrate competence in any of she areas described in this charge. Thus the Swilley Report, even if internally consistent, cannot support a finding of incompetence. This charge must also fail. FAILURE OF SCHOOL SYSTEM TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL RULES In recommending the suspension and dismissal of Respondent, the Superintendent of Schools failed to follow procedures governing dismissal. Rule 6B-4.08, entitled, "Criteria for Dismissal Procedures," provides: 6B-4.08 Criteria for Dismissal Procedures. When an action or other matter appears to exist which may possibly result in the future dismissal of any employee, the immedi- ate supervisor of the individual should take appropriate action to advise the employee of the matter and the potential consequence if not corrected. Every possible helpful effort should be made by the immediate supervisor to aid the employee to correct the matter which could cause his or her dismissal if not corrected. Except in extremely serious circum- stances, the employee should be given suffi- cient time, following notification, for improvement. Any charges of undesirable traits or practices should be bona fide, verifiable, and clearly stated to the employee in writ- ing. Any employee thus charged should have a fair opportunity to explain or otherwise defend himself or herself, as provided in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. These criteria mandate that an employee be advised of deficiencies which may result in his dismissals and that he be given sufficient time, following notice, to improve or correct the deficiencies. Here, Mr. Dandy, as Area Supervisor, routinely evaluated Respondent on January 31, 1984, and found him satisfactory when judged against all performance criteria. On February 17, 1984, approximately two weeks later, Mr. Dandy--at the invitation of Ms. Elmore or Ms. Sluder--came to Riverland Elementary and met with some teachers who had gathered to complain to him about lack of student discipline. After hearing the complaints of several teachers, Mr. Dandy--precipitously--told them he was now in control, that they should hence forth come directly to him. Some teachers were intimated by his manner and aggressiveness. Instead of asking individual teachers about any perceived problems, he asked, "Do you feel the rest of the teachers feel . . . is a problem?" or words to that effect. On February 21, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy met with the teachers again and, this time, invited Respondent to attend. Respondent, though genuinely surprised by this turn of events, came to the meeting and responded to each of the complaints or concerns raised by the teachers. On February 24, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy wrote Respondent outlining the teachers' complaints or concerns and asked for a written response by March 1, 1984. Respondent complied, submitting a timely response addressing, as specifically as possible, each of the concerns. Mr. Dandy responded with a second letter on March 21, 1984, directing Respondent to take eight corrective actions (Mr. Dandy never subsequently evaluated Respondent to determine if those directives were satisfactorily carried out, though he admits improvements were being made.) On March 22, 1984, one day after receiving Mr. Dandy's eight directives, the Superintendent filed the charges against Respondent which later (with one added count) became the basis for Respondent's dismissal. (P-5; P-6; P-19; TR-XII, p.47; TR-XIII, pp. 14, 47, 72, 128, 129) The complaint about Respondent's performance voiced by some teachers to Mr. Dandy were never thoroughly, and conscientiously, investigated or verified by Mr. Dandy prior to his undermining Respondent's authority and, to some extent, taking control of the school away from him. When Respondent was finally informed of the complaints he responded to each in a professional and meaningful way. He was then given "directives," quickly followed by charges, without being given a fair opportunity to take corrective action and effectively respond to the complaints. In their hasty action, school board officials disregarded or were oblivious to the requirements of Rule 6B-4.08. This is all the more perplexing in light of the fact that Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor and Respondent's immediate supervisor, never recommended--then or now--that Respondent be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That all charges against Respondent be dismissed, that he be reinstated with full back-pay and emoluments of employment; and that he be awarded reasonable attorney's fees which he actually expended in his defense or which he has legal duty to pay. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all time relevant hereto, respondent, Delores V Crumiel, held Teaching Certificate No. 342743 issued by the State Department of Education. The certificate covers the specialization of elementary education, grades one through six. During school years 1979-80 through 1984-85, Crumiel was employed by petitioner, School Board of Dade County, as a tenured elementary teacher at West Little River Elementary School (WIRES) in Miami, Florida. Crumiel received a bachelor of science degree in elementary education from Florida Memorial College. Except for a leave of absence during school year 1982-83 due to the death of her husband, she was employed as an elementary school teacher in Dade County for the eleven years immediately preceding her dismissal. WLRES is located in a low socio-economic area of Miami. It has qualified as a Chapter I school, which means it receives federal monies to provide supplementary instruction in basic skills for low-achieving students from the low-income areas of the community. Under this program, instruction is focused on basic skills such as mathematics, language arts and reading, and the teacher has no responsibility in content areas such as science, social studies and health. However, in order to compensate for the lack of content areas, the Chapter I teacher is required to interweave topics from the missing content areas into language lessons in order to give a "language experience" to the students. The language experience is an important part of the federal program. The size of Chapter I classes at WLRES is roughly half of a normal class, and typically numbered from thirteen to fifteen students. It was established that a Chapter I class is easier to teach than a class in the regular school program because of smaller classroom size, less discipline problems, and easier subject matter content. The lesson plans are also easier to prepare than regular lesson plans because only language arts and mathematics are included in Chapter I plans. During the relevant time period, Crumiel was assigned to teach either fifth or sixth grades. By virtue of required classroom observations being conducted by supervisory personnel, Crumiel was found to be deficient in classroom management and teacher-student relationships in school year 1979-1980, deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment technique in school year 1983-84, and deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques in school year 1984-85. After Crumiel declined a School Board offer to relinquish her teaching job, and accept a teaching aide position, the School Board voted on October 21, 1985, to dismiss Crumiel from employment with the Board on the basis of incompetency. This action confirmed her earlier suspension effective October 2, 1985, and she has remained suspended without pay since that date. The Board's action prompted the instant proceeding. Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, thereafter filed an administrative complaint seeking revocation of Crumiel's teaching certificate on the same ground. The two matters have been consolidated for hearing purposes. School Year 1979-1980 During school year 1979-1980, Crumiel was assigned to teach in a fifth grade classroom at WLRES. At that time Dr. John Johnson, II was her principal. Crumiel was formally observed by Johnson on December 4, 1979 and February 26, 1980 when he made routine visits to her classroom to evaluate her teaching skills. On these two visits Johnson found Crumiel to be deficient in the areas of classroom management and teacher- student relationships. More specifically, Johnson observed hostility and screaming in the classroom, and found her "upset, emotional and loud." He described her as being in "total disarray." He also felt the students were "acting out." Because of this, she received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1979-80 school year. In an effort to assist Crumiel, Johnson assigned a systems aide to work with Crumiel in the classroom. Crumiel was also assigned to work with a master teacher during the following summer (1981). The results of this effort are noted in a subsequent finding. Dr. Johnson gave her written prescriptions to help improve her performance and asked that the assistant principal work with Crumiel. A prescription is a course of action that must be carried out by a teacher in order to remediate a deficient performance. This type of assistance continued until Johnson departed WLRES in 1983. During this period of time Johnson received numerous complaints regarding Crumiel's classroom management from other teachers, and had to go to her class on a number of occasions to calm the students. During school year 1979-80, a first-year teacher taught in the classroom adjacent to respondent's classroom. She confirmed that Crumiel's classroom discipline was very poor, and that the students were noisy and disruptive. In addition, even though Crumiel was supposedly a "seasoned" teacher, the first year teacher frequently found Crumiel seeking assistance from her regarding subject matter content and teaching techniques. Despite the unacceptable annual evaluation given Crumiel in school year 1979-80, Johnson continued to recommend Crumiel for employment. However, he noted that Crumiel's performance was going "down" as time progressed, and except for the fact that he was leaving WLRES in 1983, he would have recommended she be dismissed from the school system. C. 1980-83 During the summer of 1981, Dr. Johnson assigned crumiel to team teach with Alstene McKinney, a master teacher, so that Crumiel could learn some ideas and techniques from McKinney. They taught two regular size classes of twenty-five to thirty Chapter I students in a pod. A pod is a free standing building utilizing the open space concept where a number of classrooms are separated by partitions. At least two classrooms would share common bathrooms and water fountain facilities. McKinney observed that Crumiel has a problem with classroom management, and that her class was always noisy. On various occasions McKinney had to stop teaching and ask Crumiel's students to quiet down. On one occasion McKinney observed Crumiel instructing her students that a quarter past the hour meant 25 minutes after the hour. When she later mentioned it to Crumiel, Crumiel corrected herself and said, "I meant 20 minutes after." Crumiel's husband unexpectedly died on September 1, 1982, from injuries received in an accident. By the following spring, respondent has accumulated some forty-five days of absences, and her absences were affecting her students' progress. In addition, she developed a pattern of calling in the evening and informing the school secretary htat she would report to work the next day, and then in the morning, calling to inform the school she would be absent. At that time, Dr. Johnson referred Crumiel to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in an effort to aid her in coping with her family crisis. The EAP is a program designed to assist teachers having academic, personal or psychological problems. Crumiel eventually took a leave of absence April, 1983 for the remainder of the school year. She was medically cleared to return to work in August, 1983. The medical clearance noted that Crumiel did not have any medical condition that would impair or restrict her performance as a teacher. School Year 1983-84 Respondent returned to WLRES on August 24, 1983. She was given a Chapter 1 fifth grade classroom assignment on that day by her new principal, Glenda Harris. The class was to be taught in an air-conditioned pod to be shared with two other teachers, Pauline Maloof and Merrial Daniels Radford. There were a total of forty-five students assigned to the entire pod. Although the adequacy of the size of the room was questioned by one of respondent's witnesses, it is found that respondent's classroom contained adequate space for the number of children being taught. In fact, in the prior year, two teachers and sixty-four students had shared the same space. Moreover, the pod concept is common in the Dade County school system, and even today, Crumiel's former pod classroom is still set up structurally in the same manner. During this school year, Chapter I classes were restricted to a maximum of sixteen students, with the average being fifteen students. This compared with a regular class that would have from twenty-eight to thirty-five students. An essential component in the Chapter I program is the oral language development segment. Through this component, the teacher gives the children a better example of speech patterns so that students who are not proficient in the use of standard English become aware of the standard patterns and usage. This enables the students to use appropriate language when entering the job market. To improve and enhance the teacher skills in the foregoing area, all Chapter I teachers, including Crumiel, received five in-service training sessions during the school year. On November 16, 1983, Harris visited Crumiel's classroom to make a formal observation of respondent's teaching. Harris was so stunned by what she observed that she chose not to record her visit as an official observation. During the visit, it became apparent to Harris that Crumiel had no grasp of Chapter I requirements. More specifically, Crumiel was not interweaving the content areas of science and social studies into the language experience. She confused the students by accepting incorrect answers as correct and vice-versa. Crumiel also demonstrated a lack of basic English skills, making such statements as, "Is there anyone who do not understand?"; "I am sorry, boys and girls--my book do not have . . . "; "Why you think it's 'drink?'"; and "Who do not understand?" In addition, Crumiel was using an outdated reading technique (round-robin reading), and did not use the diagnostic prescriptive approach by setting up reading groups within her class. It was evident to Harris that Crumiel had not read the lesson prior to teaching the children, and was totally unprepared. Because of this, the children in Crumiel's classroom did not receive a minimal educational experience on that day. Harris asked Crumiel where her teaching aid materials were, and was told by Crumiel they were in the bottom of one of her desk drawers. Crumiel also acknowledged that she had not read them. Harris returned for a formal observation of Crumiel on November 21, 1983. She found respondent's performance to be no better than it was on November 16, 1983. It was evident that respondent had not read the lesson prior to teaching the class and did not understand the point of the story being told. The students were also having great difficulty reading. Crumiel's interpretive skills were very poor and she still accepted incorrect responses from the students and vice-versa. For example, when one student gave an example of a compound word, charcoal, Crumiel told the student that it was incorrect because "char" was not a word. Respondent continued to mispronounce words such as "jack-o-later" for "jack-o-lantern," "likeded" for "liked," and "terranium" for "terrarium." She also used very poor grammatical structure. Based upon her observations, Harris rated Crumiel as being unacceptable with specific deficiencies in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She also concluded that the students failed to receive a minimal educational experience. After the observation was concluded, Harris and Crumiel discussed the problems Harris had noted that day. Crumiel acknowledged she had done poorly, and asked that Harris observe her another day when she would be better prepared. Harris again formally observed respondent on November 29, 1983. She was given an overall rating of unacceptable with specific deficiencies in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. Harris noted that Crumiel had not set up a reading program even though this is required in both regular and Chapter I classes. In addition, respondent's lesson plans merely listed page numbers rather than activities, materials and evaluations. Further, while she had grouped the children, she had not given them the appropriate reading books based upon their diagnostic tests. Crumiel had also failed to preview the lesson prior to teaching the class. Respondent continued to mispronounce words such as "shevel" for "shovel," and "depenable" for "dependable," and displayed poor grammar throughout the instruction. Her subject verb agreement was virtually nonexistent and she misused possessives. For example, Crumiel stated, "This machine what is called the steam shovel. . . what is the little boy name? . . . Yes it does scoops up dirt." She was unable to define a steam shovel for a student until she looked the term up in a dictionary. She continued to accept incorrect information from the children as correct and vice-versa. Finally, Harris found respondent's techniques of instruction unacceptable since Crumiel merely read directions to the class. After the observation was completed, Harris met with Crumiel and discussed all areas of her evaluation. On December 8, 1983, a conference-for-the-record was attended by Harris, Crumiel and Jack Grayson, the assistant principal at WLRES. At that time, the observations and visits of November 16, 21 and 29, 1983 were discussed. In an effort to assist Crumiel, Harris and Grayson devised a prescription designed to meet Crumiel's needs. In this case, the prescriptive plan required Crumiel to enroll in a basic English course and a Methods and Materials course in the teaching of reading. She was told to do this by the second semester of the school year. She was also told that Grayson would give her assistance with her reading plans, and visit her classroom on December 13, 1983 to become more familiar with her classroom style. In addition, Harris offered to make available further training in the Dade County Diagnostic Prescriptive Reading System. She was asked to set up a schedule of visitations to other classrooms so that she might learn teaching techniques from other faculty members. Finally, Crumiel was given a set of procedures to be used in critiquing her own plans and presentations of lessons. After the conference, Harris and Grayson spent an hour- and-a-half showing Crumiel how to set up her reading program. They were surprised when they found that respondent, despite having taught for eight or nine years in the system, did not know how to do this. Respondent was next formally observed by Grayson during a lesson on invitations on December 13, 1983. Respondent was given an overall rating of acceptable. However, Grayson later discovered that another teacher, Merria1 Radford Daniels, had actually written the lesson plan, and had demonstrated to Crumiel how to teach that day's class. She did so after Crumiel came to her seeking help before Grayson's visit. Daniels had made displays for Crumiel, and had written the lesson on Crumiel's blackboard with the key words to be used. She also demonstrated the lesson in Crumiel's presence. Daniels then had Crumiel demonstrate the lesson for her, and told respondent to go home and practice in front of a mirror. Respondent admitted this to Grayson. Respondent was informally visited by Harris on January 23, 1984. Although the students were supposed to be in their seats and ready to begin at 8:30 a.m., Harris found them up and out of their seats at 8:58 a.m. when she entered the classroom. Crumiel had not prepared a lesson for that particular class, so she taught a lesson originally scheduled for another time. Even so, she merely read instructions and handed out materials. Harris found no evidence that respondent was carrying out the prescription previously given to her on December 8, 1983. She concluded that the children did not receive a minimally acceptable educational experience that day. Respondent was again formally observed by Harris on June 5, 1984. At that time she was given an overall rating of unacceptable with specific deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Although respondent had developed lesson plans for the class, the classroom activities did not reflect evidence of effective instructional planning. More importantly, Harris did not see any progress by Crumiel since she had been given the prescription on December 8, 1983. She found Crumiel still reading directions to the students rather than teaching them subject matter content. A large part of the classroom instruction was taken up by students performing meaningless exercises. Respondent still lacked a basic understanding of the subject matter, abbreviations. This was evidenced by respondent's inability to answer questions from students indicating when abbreviations are to be used. For example, she could not answer why the abbreviation for doctor is capitalized, or why the abbreviation for ounces is oz. rather than oun. She still continued to use improper English such as "Be sure your name and date is on all your papers." On June 6, 1984, Grayson revisited Crumiel's classroom to conduct a formal evaluation of Crumiel's mathematics class. Grayson rated respondent's performance as unacceptable with a specific deficiency in the area of techniques of instruction. He found the lesson too simple for the students and therefore a waste of their time. Crumiel's instructions and directions were confusing, and she was unable to clarify them for the students' benefit. Crumiel was again observed by Harris on June 8, 1984. Respondent had asked Harris to return after her prior visit on June 5 because she had learned something in a class she was taking and wanted to demonstrate it to Harris. After observing respondent Harris rated her as unacceptable with deficiencies in the areas of planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She was found barely acceptable in classroom management. Although Crumiel had a lesson plan, it was not effective and was inappropriate for students of the fifth grade level. Moreover, her classroom management appeared to Harris to be staged and practiced as in a performance. At hearing, Crumiel contended the pod was a poor environment in which to teach, and stated her class was frequently disrupted by outside students coming in to her area to use the restroom and drinking fountain. However, during school year 1983-84, Crumiel voiced no complaints to the administration about teaching in a pod, or that she experienced the disruptions she described. Indeed, no such disruptive activity was ever observed by the administrators who made classroom evaluations or by other teachers in the pod. If such activity did occur, it was only after someone inside the classroom unlocked the door since Crumiel's door was always kept locked. During the school year, the disruptive children were always evenly distributed between Maloof, Daniels, and Crumiel. After Harris became aware of Crumiel's classroom management problems, several students with behavioral problems were reassigned from Crumiel's classroom to that of Maloof and Daniels. Moreover, Crumiel received the highest academic level in the three groups. On her annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year, Crumiel was rated unacceptable in the areas or preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. However, Harris refrained from recommending Crumiel for termination, choosing instead to write another, more detailed prescription in the hope that Crumiel could improve over the summer. On June 21, 1984, another conference-for-the-record was held by Harris, Crumiel, Grayson and a teacher union representative. At that time, Harris outlined the prescription and asked that Crumiel continue with the EAP. Crumiel had previously participated in the EAP but had ceased attending, Crumiel was told to prepare her lesson plans in behavioral terms and was given various reading materials to help her with this task. She was further given an excerpt from the teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) manual on techniques of instruction. In addition, she was directed to take certain courses offered by the Teacher Education center (TEC) to assist her in deficient areas. However, Harris suggested that the outside course work could be postponed until the fall so that she could spend a restful summer. Finally Crumiel was told she would be informally observed during the first nine weeks of the following school year, and formally observed in the second nine week period. This information was incorrect since any teacher on prescription must be formally observed during the first six weeks of the next school year. In conjunction with the EAP respondent began individual psychotherapy and supportive counseling with a licensed clinical psychologist that summer. She remained his patient until September, 1985. During school year 1983-84, Crumiel received help from Maloof and Daniels, who shared her pod. Maloof gave Crumiel assistance in grouping her children, shared materials with her, and made various suggestions on how to improve her teaching techniques. However, when they discussed educational topics, Crumiel did not seem to understand the subject matter. Daniels showed respondent how to order materials for the different levels of students. Finally, a reading specialist gave a workshop session in October, 1983 that addressed the procedures for pre- testing, post-testing and leveling students. Crumiel attended this workshop. School Year 1984-85 Beginning in the 1984-85 school year, WLRES implemented the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) of teacher observation for all teachers. In the prior year, only annual contract teachers were under the TADS observation scheme. Since Crumiel was under a continuing contract, she was not subject to this observation method prior to school year 1984-85. Under the TADS system, teachers are required to have objectives, activities and a way of monitoring student progress in and through their lesson plans. At the beginning of the school year, Harris moved Crumiel to Room 212, a self-contained classroom. This move was prompted by complaints about noisy, disruptive students in Crumiel's classroom from the teachers who shared the pod with Crumiel during the prior year. Room 212 contained approximately the same amount of space that Crumiel previously had in the pod, but the classroom was not air-conditioned. However, around two- thirds of the teachers in the school did not have air- conditioning at that time. Harris also changed respondent's grade level from grade five to grade six. This was done to relieve her of the additional pressures of preparing the students for the state assessment test (SAT). WLRES had been adjudged deficient during the previous school year, and fifth grade classes were scheduled to be tested on the SAT in the first nine weeks of the school year. Crumiel protested her reassignment to a higher grade level and told Harris that sixth grade mathematics were beyond her teaching ability. However, Harris reminded Crumiel that she was certified for the sixth grade, and that the chances of her actually teaching sixth grade math in a Chapter I class were remote. Children were assigned to respondent in very much the same manner that they had been assigned the previous year. The administration made certain that slow learners and students exhibiting behavior problems were evenly distributed among the various teachers. Harris visited respondent's classroom on September 20, 1984 to conduct an informal observation. Respondent's lesson plans were not written in behavioral terms as directed by her June 21 prescription. Further, she had not grouped the children or pretested them in reading. Harris also found Crumiel's presentation of subject matter and classroom management skills unacceptable. Harris concluded that the children did not receive a minimally acceptable educational experience. Harris met with respondent following the informal visit. At that meeting, Harris reviewed Crumiel's prescription and the efforts being made by Crumiel to fulfill its goals. Harris discovered that respondent had "forgotten" to inquire about the various courses taught at the Reacher Education Center and displayed an unconcerned attitude towards the requirements of the prescription. She was told by Crumiel that the sixth grade level objectives were too difficult for her, and that she did not know how to write lesson plans in behavioral objectives. Harris then told Crumiel she would visit respondent's classroom on September 25, 1984. Harris also began showing Crumiel how to write objectives in behavioral terms. Harris was unable to visit respondent's classroom on September 25 because respondent called in sick that morning. Crumiel did, however, bring her lesson plans to Harris the following day. Harris found them lacking any behavioral objectives. Harris again encouraged Crumiel to read the material furnished her. Respondent's mathematics class was formally observed by Grayson on October 1, 1984. A formal observation was required at that time since Crumiel was on prescription from the prior year. She was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because her lesson plans did not have the items required by the TADS system. In other words, Crumiel had no way to assess her students in order to monitor their progress. Grayson recommended that respondent continue with the prescription given by Harris, and to turn in her lesson plans on a weekly basis for his review. Grayson continued to review those plans until her dismissal some two years later, and to offer suggestions on how they could be improved. During the school year, the teacher occupying the adjacent classroom continually complained about the noise in respondent's room. Because of this, Crumiel was moved to room 206, a larger self-contained classroom which had been recently renovated and filled with new furniture. It was uncontradicted that room 206 was far superior to the other classroom spaces in the building that were used by Chapter I classes. Respondent was formally observed again by Harris on January 23, 1985. Harris found that the children were not receiving a minimal educational experience. Using the TADS system, Crumiel was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessments techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she was still using November lessons plans with only the dates changed, and was not using the prescribed plan. Crumiel was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she gave no instruction. She was found to be unacceptable in classroom management because the children were not prepared to begin the lesson. In the area of techniques of instruction, Crumiel received an unacceptable rating because she was not using appropriate methods or differentiated materials, and she failed to use two or more learning styles as required by TADS. Finally Crumiel was found to be deficient in assessment techniques because she failed to use the information given her in the TADS prescription manual. In addition, because her grade book and student folders were not properly maintained, and there was no way to tell what had been taught and tested, or to access the students' improvement. As a result of the January 25 visit, Harris prescribed help for respondent from the TADS prescription manual, which is written on a level that the average teacher can understand. However, Harris did not suggest that Crumiel use the manual after that occasion since Crumiel admitted she was unable to understand the information in the manual. At respondent's request, Harris performed another formal observation on January 29, 1985. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Harris also concluded that the students did not receive a minimal educational experience. Crumiel was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not written in conformity with her prescription. She appeared unprepared and wasted classroom time on repetitious, meaningless exercises. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of knowledge of subject matter because she did not understand the lesson she was suppose to be teaching, and told the children that adding an "s" at the end of a verb would make it plural. Crumiel's classroom management was rated unacceptable because the classroom environment was not conducive to learning. Harris found the room unkempt and materials in disorder, and noted that Crumiel did not start the lesson promptly due to a number of unnecessary delays. In the area of techniques of instruction Crumiel received an unacceptable rating because the majority of the materials used were inappropriate for the objectives. Further, the methods of instruction never varied, and respondent did not give consideration to the various learning styles in the classroom. Harris concluded that the materials and methods used often insulted the age level of the students. After the observation was concluded, Harris asked Crumiel to review and study the materials given her in the prior prescription. Crumiel was also told that Eneida Hartner, director of the North Central area, would provide her with additional help. Finally, Harris taught a reading lesson to Crumiel's class in an effort to improve Crumiel's teaching style. While Harris was in the classroom, respondent did relatively well with teacher-student relationships. However, when no administrator was present, respondent could often be heard shouting and cajoling the children to behave. There were instances when children were seen hanging out of the windows and shouting. Respondent was heard telling a student on one occasion, "Sit your black butt down." On February 8, 1985, Harris and Hartner visited respondent's classroom for approximately one hour to informally observe Crumiel. Even though Hartner had designed certain activities for respondent to use that day while teaching, Hartner and Harris concluded there was no teaching in the classroom. They also noted that respondent was not following the diagnostic prescriptive approach which is required of all elementary teachers.. Hartner recommended that Crumiel receive assistance from a Chapter I educational specialist, Pat Kanovsky, who was assigned to help Crumiel with the language experience approach used in Chapter I classes. Hartner also directed a prep specialist, Gwen Bryant, to monitor Crumiel in the areas of basic skills, such as reading, writing and mathematics, and to help respondent in the prescriptive diagnostic approach. She also recommended that Crumiel receive assistance from the assistant principal, department chairman and master teacher, and to make use of certain excerpts from the TADS prescription manual. Bryant visited Crumiel's classroom four times in February 1985 in an attempt to provide her with assistance. On her February 14 visit, Bryant observed that respondent was not using the "RSVP" program in an appropriate manner. This is a program that is used for all children in both Chapter I and regular classes. Bryant also noted that Crumiel had not used her pacemaker chart correctly, and was therefore unable to determine if the children were being taught subject matter at a pace commensurate with their level of ability. On her February 27 visit, Bryant found the students confused and not understanding what they were expected to do in class that day. They were yelling, and many were out of their seats. Respondent was unsuccessful in her efforts to manage behavior. After seeing this, Bryant made a number of suggestions to respondent. She also went over the instructional material and demonstrated how to properly use it. She explained how the students were to be placed and instructed according to their reading levels. Bryant gave further tips on teaching techniques, suggestions on managing classroom behavior and how to properly begin a lesson. On February 11, 1985, Kanovsky spent approximately two hours with Crumiel in an effort to improve Crumiel's lesson plan preparation. Among other things, Kanovsky told respondent that her grammar was inappropriate for use in a Chapter I classroom. Hartner, accompanied by Harris, visited respondent's classroom on March 27, 1985, for the purpose of making an external observation. This type of observation was required since Crumiel had already received two negative evaluations from WLRES administrators. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. She was given an unsatisfactory rating in preparation and planning because she failed to properly include a language experience activity in her instruction. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she continued to use poor grammar while teaching. For example, Crumiel made such statements as, "Their eyes be red" and "How do their face look?" Crumiel was found to be deficient in techniques of instruction because the lesson lacked sequence, and she failed to adjust her instruction when she did not get anticipated responses from the students. She also accepted responses from the students without telling them whether they were right or wrong. Further, it did not appear that Crumiel had made use of any of the suggestions regarding teaching techniques given by Bryant on February 27. Finally, respondent was given an unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because a review by Hartner of the students' folders revealed that Crumiel had failed to use the diagnostic prescriptive approaches in reading and mathematics that were required by the Dade County school system. Having formally observed Crumiel, Hartner concluded that respondent's students did not have a meaningful educational experience on March 27, 1985. She further concluded that respondent lacked adequate command of her area of specialization, elementary education, and that she lacked the necessary motivational skills necessary to promote oral language development. She also concluded that Crumiel would be unable to teach non-Chapter I students because of the greater number of students and more difficult subject matter in those classes. In short, she found Crumiel unable to teach in any capacity at the elementary school level. In addition to her visits on February 14 and 27, Bryant met with Crumiel on at least two other occasions to help Crumiel understand the diagnostic prescriptive approach to reading. Bryant came away from those meetings with the belief that Crumiel did not understand her directions or the teaching materials. She also concluded the Crumbie was unqualified to teach the sixth grade. An educational specialist, Shirley Fields, also visited respondent's classroom on April 19 and 22, 1985, to discuss the oral language development segment of instruction. On one of her visits, she demonstrated for Crumiel's benefit an actual lesson from the program. Harris returned to respondent's classroom on June 3, 1985 for the purpose of conducting a formal observation. She found no improvement on Crumiel's part and concluded it would be counter-productive to fill out a formal observation form. The subject matter of the class was fractions, and Crumiel appeared to have no knowledge of the subject matter. During the school year, Harris and Grayson received a number of verbal complaints about respondent's classroom management. This was confirmed by testimony from the other teachers and a teacher liaison who frequently observed or heard disruption and noise in respondent's classroom. Harris, Crumiel and a teacher union representative attended a conference-for-the-record on June 12, 1986 to discuss Crumiel's teaching performance. However, it was necessary to discontinue the conference shortly after it was begun because Crumiel lost her composure. The conference was reconvened on June 24, 1985. At that meeting Crumiel rejected an opportunity to be reclassified as a teacher aide, a position that would enable her to continue working with children, but only under the direct supervision of another teacher. On her annual evaluation for 1984-1985, respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques and professional responsibility. In addition, she was not recommended for employment the following school year. Psychological Testing In an effort to find some type of alternative position for Crumiel, the classroom teacher's union recommended that she undergo a battery of psychological tests. In this vein, Crumiel was referred to both a psychiatrist and a psychologist to determine if there was a reason for her poor performance in classroom teaching. The psychologist, Dr. Bradman, had previously seen the patient since June, 1984 in conjunction with the EAP. On June 14 and 18, 1985 Bradman administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) Test to Crumiel. This test is more commonly known as an IQ or intelligence quotient test. At the time of testing, Bradman found no evidence of depression although Crumiel experienced some mild anxiety. The test segment which would most likely be affected by depression was the Digit Symbol Subtest. However, Crumiel scored within the average range on this segment, and it represented one of her highest scores. Respondent obtained a Full Scale IQ of 74 which is in the borderline range of intelligence. Stated differently, approximately 95% of the people taking the test would achieve a higher score than Crumiel. Bradman found this result to be accurate and valid, and that neither stress or depression could account for Crumiel's low performance. During the course of the two sessions on June 14 and 18, Bradman asked Crumiel a number of questions to test her intellectual skill and capacity. In response to a question asking her to name four men who have been president of the United States since 1950, she responded, "Roosevelt, Lincoln, George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt." When questioned further, she added, "Jefferson." Crumiel also told Bradman that there were 48 weeks in a year and that Labor Day is in May. She did not know who Louie Armstrong was, and thought that to get from Chicago to the country of Panama one would travel east. She could not correctly define the words "assemble," "enormous," "conceal," "consume," "regulate," "commence," "domestic," "tranquil" or "ponder." Finally, Crumiel could not answer basic arithmetic questions such as "If raffle tickets cost twenty-five cents each, how much would it cost to buy six tickets?" and "If soft drinks are sold six cans to a package, if you want 36 cans, how many packages must you buy?" Based upon the results of the WAIS-R, Dr. Bradman concluded that respondent was not capable of teaching the higher elementary school grades. However, he was unable to form an opinion as to whether Crumiel could teach the lower grade levels based strictly upon the testing he had performed. On August 29, 1985, Crumiel was also evaluated by a board certified psychiatrist, Dr. Waldo M. Ellison, who was accepted as an expert in that field. He examined Crumiel to ascertain if there was a psychological reason for her dysfunction as an elementary school teacher. Ellison noted that respondent experienced some mild anxiety during the examination but had no depression. Further, he found no evidence of any medical problem or condition. Although Crumiel told Dr. Ellison that mathematics was her favorite subject, she was unable to determine two-thirds of the number sixty. She also could not correctly define the word "motivate," and was unaware of important current events such as the name of the mayor of Miami, or the fact that a hurricane was then approaching the City of Miami. Based upon his evaluation, Ellison concluded that respondent's intellectual deficiencies would interfere with the ability to provide her students with a minimum educational experience. Miscellaneous It was the general consensus of all administrators and faculty who observed Crumiel during the relevant time periods that she did not possess the skills necessary to teach elementary students, either at a regular or Chapter I level. More specifically, they found that she lacked an adequate command of her area of specialization, elementary education, and that her lack of minimum skills and competency resulted in her students being deprived of a minimal educational experience. Respondent's own testimony helped confirm the above observations since it was replete with inappropriate English grammar and language. Her lack of fundamental mathematics skills also became apparent during cross-examination by the Board counsel. Respondent's Case Respondent blamed her problems in 1984-85 on her assignment to a small, self-contained classroom without air- conditioning. However, this classroom was approximately the same size as used by two other teachers in the pod, and they did not experience the same difficulty as did Crumiel. Moreover, two- thirds of the faculty at WLRES that year had no air-conditioning. Even so, she was moved to a larger, more modernized classroom during the year but her performance did not improve. Respondent also cited over-aged, disruptive students being assigned to her Chapter I classes as a cause for her classroom management difficulty. But credible testimony established that disruptive students were evenly assigned to all Chapter I teachers, that Crumiel's class had no more than other Chapter I teachers, and several were taken out of her classroom in an effort to aid her performance. Crumiel also contended that her classes were frequently disrupted by students wandering into her classroom from an adjacent physical education area to use the restroom and water fountain facilities. No administrator ever observed this while visiting in her class, and it was shown that even if it did happen, she could have prevented this by refusing to unlock her door. Crumiel further stated that she attempted to follow through with her prescriptions, but that Harris and Grayson were never satisfied. However, independent administrators not associated with WLRES confirmed her failure to follow the prescriptions. Respondent also stated she received a "B" in a college course taken one summer at a local college as evidence of her effort to improve her skills. But a fellow teacher placed this testimony in serious doubt when she testified that Crumiel had taken notes into the final examination and improperly used them while filling out her examination booklet. Through the deposition testimony of Dr. Capp, a psychologist, respondent attempted to refute the IQ score of 74 by showing that she received a score of 99 on the test on February 4, 1986, and that she was functioning within the normal range of intelligence. Dr. Bradman had no scientific explanation for this result, but opined that Crumiel may have studied for the second test, or had remembered the questions from the first time the test was administered. Dr. Capp agreed that this was possible. In any event, the testimony of Drs. Bradman and Ellison is deemed to be more persuasive and credible, and their results and conclusions are found to be more accurate. Union Contract Respondent was a member of the United Teachers of Dade County. That body has a labor contract with the Dade County School Board. Among other things, section 6 of the contract provides in relevant part as follows: Any teacher assigned in any observation category shall be entitled to a prescription of professional growth practices (remedies) which shall include reasonable time-frames for implementation . . .. The function of such practices is to assist the teacher in professional growth . . .. Failure to implement prescribed professional growth practices or to correct deficiencies for which professional growth was prescribed shall constitute just cause for disciplinary action in accordance with the due process provisions in this Article . . .. In the instant case, respondent was placed on prescription at the end of school year 1983-84. Respondent was told she would remain on prescription during the first nine weeks of school year 1984- However, in order to comply with a TADS requirement, a teacher who ends the year on prescription must be observed during the first six weeks in the following school year. To meet this requirement, a formal observation was made by Grayson on October 1, 1985 which was within the time-frame for improvement set forth in the prescription. At that time, Grayson gave a second prescription to Crumiel with instructions that a lesson plan be submitted by each Wednesday. Another formal observation was made by Harris on January 23, 1985, or well after the first and second prescriptive periods. Crumiel was then placed on another prescription effective January 28, 1985 by prescription dated January 23, 1985. Certain prescriptives were ordered to be complied with no later than the next visit. This was followed by a formal observation by Harris on January 29, 1985. When the next formal observation was made by Hartner on March 27, 1985, no time-frames were in effect. All such observations, prescriptive periods and remedies were in conformity with the contract. Even respondent did not file a grievance complaining that the contract was violated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of incompetency, and that she be terminated from employment with the School Board of Dade County, and her teaching certificate number 342743 be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Bldg., Suite 301 1450 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 215 Fifth Avenue, Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Daniel F. Solomon, Esquire 1455 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith Brechner, General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 215, Knott Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX Petitioner (Case No. 85-3673): Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in findings of fact 1 and 2. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 6. Rejected as not being necessary to resolve the issues. Rejected as not being necessary to resolve the issues. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being irrelevant. Rejected as being irrelevant. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 10 Covered in finding of fact 11 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 14 Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 28 Rejected as being unnecessary Covered in finding of fact 29 Covered in finding of fact 28 Covered in finding of fact 29 Rejected as being unnecessary Covered in finding of fact 29 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 17 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Partially covered in finding of fact 16. Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in findings of fact 18 and 19. Covered in finding of fact 18 Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 19. Covered in finding of fact 19. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 22. Covered in finding of fact 23. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 26. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 30. Covered in finding of fact 31. Covered in finding of fact 31. Covered in finding of fact 32. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 33. Covered in finding of fact 34. Partially covered in finding of fact 34. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 36. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 37. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 39. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 40. Covered in finding of fact 41. Covered in finding of fact 42. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 44. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 46. Covered in finding of fact 45. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 47. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 54. Covered in finding of fact 55. Covered in finding of fact 55. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 56. Covered in finding of fact 57. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 59. Covered in finding of fact 59. Covered in finding of fact 60. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 62. Covered in finding of fact 63. Covered in finding of fact 64. Covered in finding of fact 65. Covered in finding of fact 66. Covered in finding of fact 66. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 67. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 57. Petitioner (Case No. 86-1116): Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in findings of fact 2 and 5. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 13. Covered in findings of fact 16 and 17. Covered in findings of fact 18 and 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 23. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in findings of fact 30 and 31. Covered in findings of fact 35 and 36. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 39. Covered in finding of fact 40 except that the observation took place on October 1, 1984. Covered in finding of fact 41. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in findings of fact 3 and 29. Covered in finding of fact 56. Covered in findings of fact 11 and 33. Covered in finding of fact 71. Covered in findings of fact 5, 6, 9 and 10._ Covered in findings of fact 61, 65 and 66. Covered in findings of fact 61-63. Covered in finding of fact 69 Covered in findings of fact 13 and 35. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 70. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Respondent:* Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in finding of fact 34. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 30. Covered in finding of fact 45. Partially covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 21. Partially covered in finding of fact 53. The second sentence is irrelevant since no formal external observation was performed by Hartner on February 8, 1985. Rejected as being irrelevant since no formal observation was conducted on February 8, 1985. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Findings of Fact Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 1. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 45. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 49. Essentially covered in findings of fact 48-58. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence and irrelevant. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. *Respondent's filing contained two sections entitled "Proposed Findings" and "Findings of Fact."
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent is a teacher certified in English, which he has taught while employed by Petitioner. He was first employed by Petitioner during the 1984-85 school year. In 1987, he was awarded a professional service contract. He has six years' teaching experience outside Highlands County. Principals or assistant principals routinely conduct annual teacher evaluations. The evaluation form contains two sections. Section 1 contains 14 categories that are marked based on one or more classroom observations. Section 2 contains 15 categories that are marked based on classroom observations and experience with the teacher. The back of the evaluation form explains the marks as follows: Mark Description Commendable (C) Indicates exceptional performance of the identified behavior(s). Satisfactory (S) Indicates satisfactory performance of the identified behavior(s) Needs Improvement (NI) Indicates a need for the employee to strengthen/improve performance of the identified behavior(s). Must Improve (MI) Indicates a need for the employee to remediate deficient behavior(s). If the deficiency is not corrected, the employee's contract status could be affected. The back of the evaluation form explains the "NEAT Procedure/Due Process": When an employee is evaluated as Must Improve, remediation procedures must be implemented as follows: Notice--The employee has the right to receive full written notification of the identified deficient behaviors. Explanation--The employee has the right to receive a full explanation for the reason behaviors are considered deficient. Assistance--The employee has the right to receive assistance in remediating the deficient behavior. Time--The employee has the right to a reasonable amount of time to achieve remediation. Various documents exist to normalize the evaluations of teachers. However, a degree of subjectivity necessarily remains in the evaluation process. Petitioner has prepared a booklet entitled, "Performance Appraisal System for Instructional Personnel" (Appraisal Booklet). The Appraisal Booklet introduced into evidence is dated October 5, 1992, but, judging from the cover letter from the superintendent, was in effect for the entire 1992-93 school year. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 12, a section describing the assessment process. The booklet states in part: When a competency or behavior is marked "NI-Needs Improvement," the appraiser shall provide counseling and/or resources whereby improvement may occur. For each competency or behavior which is marked "MI--Must Improve," a remediation procedure must be designed and implemented. The procedures will be described in a Professional Development Plan, as called for in the NEAT procedures. Each deficient item shall be addressed in a separate [Professional Development Plan]. The plan shall include the following: Area to be improved: specify the identified problem. Specific desired improvement: write as a measurable goal or objective. Action to be taken: describe action the involved parties will complete to achieve desired improvement. Assistance plan: List and describe who will provide assistance, showing role of each participant. Time line: specify dates for each activity to be completed and evaluated. Evaluation: describe how and when evaluation of progress or success will occur. Consequences: specify consequences if improvement is not achieved satisfactorily. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 15, a section entitled, "Use of Assessment Data for Personnel Decisions." This section requires written comments for every C, NI, or MI. Under a subsection entitled, "Unsatisfactory Ratings," the Appraisal Booklet states in its entirety: For every MI assigned, the assessor will conduct a follow-up of the Professional Development Plan to determine if the appraisee accomplished the required improvement and/or when that competency will be reassessed. Failure to improve within the expected time may be grounds for returning to annual contract for an employee holding a Professional Service Contract or a Continuing Contract. If the deficiency is not corrected during the second year, it may be grounds for non-renewal. (See NEAT) If the appraisee receives two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, the superintendent shall notify the Department of Education as required by statute. On [the evaluation form] three or more ratings of MI . . . will constitute an "unsatisfactory annual evaluation" for purposes of reporting to the DOE. The Appraisal Booklet discusses C's. Nothing in this section of the booklet explicitly addresses NI's except, as noted above, that comments must accompany each NI. The contract between Petitioner and the teachers discusses evaluations, but not in such detail as to address the meaning of NI's and MI's. Concerning remediation, the contract states: Where deficiencies are brought to the teacher's attention by his/her supervisor, the teacher shall be responsible for taking the necessary steps for improving his/her skills to an acceptable level as determined by the principal. Assistance shall be offered the employee and such assistance for improvement shall be noted in writing and a signed copy be retained by the appropriate supervisor and the employee. Following remediation, reassessment shall be accorded the employee in compliance with the procedures of Article XI. If the final assessment report fails to note specific deficiency, it shall be interpreted to mean adequate improvement has taken place. The professional judgment of the evaluator shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. The contract acknowledges that it shall not be interpreted to abridge or in any way usurp the authority or power of [Petitioner] as established by constitutional provisions or state Board of Education regulations or statutes existing at the time of the [contract]. And further, [Petitioner] shall be relieved of compliance with any term or condition of this [contract] if such compliance is contrary to any constitutional provision or state Board of Education regulation or statute in effect or enacted subsequent to the signing of this [contract]. Petitioner has no clear written or unwritten policy regarding whether a performance deficiency evidenced by an MI is corrected by an NI, rather than a C or an S. The determination whether a teacher has corrected performance deficiencies depends on the circumstances. The Lake Placid Teacher Handbook for the 1992-93 school year, a copy of which was given to Respondent at the beginning of the year, notes that teachers are to administer their assertive discipline plan and enforce all school rules. Regarding student control, "teachers must not argue with students, use profanity or sarcasm, and must keep hands off students." Petitioner's Code of Student Conduct for the 1992-93 school year describes the teacher's role in the maintenance of discipline as starting with the preparation of a classroom assertive discipline plan, which outlines a series of increasing consequences for disciplinary problems. Under the first step, the teacher will follow his or her plan, which may contain consequences such as withholding a privilege, isolation, counseling, detention, extra work, task assignment, or a parent conference. Under the second step, if the misconduct is repeated, the teacher shall try to contact the parent and record the result. Under the third step, the teacher will refer the matter to the social worker, school nurse, Guidance Committee, or School Attendance Review Committee for positive intervention. Under the fourth step, if the problem persists or the misconduct becomes a major disruption, the teacher will complete a student disciplinary referral form and a school administrator will determine the appropriate punishment. Evaluations Prior to 1991-92 School Year Respondent's evaluation dated November 13, 1985, contains all S's with the exception of an NI for circulating and assisting students. The evaluation was prepared by Donn Goodwin, an assistant principal at Sebring High School where Respondent was then teaching. Respondent's evaluation dated March 5, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating friendly, positive attitude toward all students; maintaining academic focus; using effective questioning techniques; providing for practice; dependability; and punctuality/attendance. The evaluation contains one NI for parent/community relations. The comment accompanying the NI is obscured, but suggests that Respondent did not schedule enough parent conferences, although he did a good job with those that he conducted. The evaluation was prepared by James Bible, the principal of Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated September 4, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, presenting subject matter effectively, maintaining academic focus, arranging physical features of the classroom for a safe learning environment, dependability, work attitude, and commitment. A note at the bottom of the evaluation states that Respondent maintained an "excellent class." The evaluation was prepared by Michael Agner, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 25, 1987, contains all S's except for C's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control and an NI in using specific academic praise. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated April 6, 1988, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, having materials ready, maintaining academic focus, using effective questioning techniques, punctuality/attendance, quantity/quality of work, commitment, and professional behavior/ethics. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated February 28, 1989, contains all S's. A comment under parent/community relations notes: "Need to continue working in this area. Parental support helps your teaching." A comment under student/staff relations adds: "Need to be mindful of backing students in corners with no alternatives." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated October 17, 1989, was obscured in the copying process. It appears to contain all S's with some C's in Section 1. The evaluation was prepared by Thomas Knowles, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated October 3, 1990, contains all S's. The evaluation was prepared by Ruth Hatfield, then an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 20, 1991, contains all S's except for C's in having materials ready and circulating and assisting students and NI's in punctuality/attendance, student/staff relations, personal appearance, and receptiveness. Among the comments under Section 1 is that the observer did not see Respondent's assertive discipline rules posted. Section 2 comments are that Respondent was often late and "very defensive--refuses criticism." Under student/staff relations, the comment is: "Alienates students. Backs up kids in corners. Need to be aware of this." Another comment suggests a need to dress more professionally. The final comment states: "Need to work on areas that deal with students and parents." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. A letter dated May 13, 1991, memorializes a conference that took place on May 9, 1991, between Respondent and Rebecca Clark, another assistant principal at Sebring High School. The letter states that Ms. Clark had noticed Respondent leaving his class while two guest speakers were making a presentation. Upon questioning, Respondent said that he had to run a quick errand and would be right back. Ms. Clark remained in the classroom until the end of the period, at which time Respondent returned. The letter warns Respondent that he must remain with his class and may not leave campus without prior authorization from an administrator. Evaluations During 1991-92 School Year A new principal, Calvin Smith, replaced Mr. Bible at Sebring High School for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Smith conducted Respondent's next evaluation, which was dated December 2, 1991. Based on an observation taking place during a 50- minute period on November 26, 1991, Respondent received all S's in Section 1 except for a C in presenting the subject matter effectively and an NI in using specific academic praise. In Section 2, Respondent received S's in only five categories: keeping accurate records, punctuality and attendance, initiative, student evaluation, and professional growth. Receiving no C's in Section 2, Respondent received three NI's in personal appearance, receptiveness, and commitment and seven MI's in dependability, work attitude, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, quantity/quality of work, planning, and professional behavior/ethics. The comments for the NI's are brief and in handwriting. Under receptiveness, the comment is: "seem[s] to be afraid of dealing with a problem. I am only trying to make you a better teacher." The comment under commitment states: "dedicate yourself to your job. You have too much talent to waste." Each MI is treated in a separate Professional Development Plan. The Professional Development Plans, which are attached to the December 2 evaluation, consist of several parts: "area to be improved," "desired improvement," "action to be taken," "who will provide assistance," "time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement," "evaluation process to determine improvement," and "consequences if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "When dealing with parents you must exhibit an air of professionalism but be understanding." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over with the situation." Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Should show he is able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Submit lesson plans on time. Supply I[n] S[chool] S[uspension] students with work when requested. Meet with parents without being directed to do so. Learn to deal with students as an adult rather than getting into shouting matches, etc." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Show you understand students by working with them in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Don't get in students['] faces and yell at them. Don't allow things to go on and then establish a rule of the next one goes to the office. Learn to deal with student problems rather than expecting the office to handle the problem." Under work attitude, the desired improvement is: "Show that you like what you do. Turn students on to your subject. Work on faculty relations." The action to be taken is: "Be cooperative in dealing with parents, students, and faculty members. Present an atmosphere of enthusiasm that is contagious and infectious to those around you." Each Professional Development Plan states that assistance or training would be provided if requested by Respondent. For student/staff relations, the plan states: "Inservice will be provided by administrators as requested and a workshop may be recommended." Similar language is contained in the plan for work attitude. Under time line for achieving objectives/goal, improvement, each Professional Development Plan states: "Should show some immediate improvement but enough improvement must be shown prior to evaluation in 92/93 school year to remove the MI." Each Professional Development Plan describes the evaluation process to determine improvement as: "List kept of ineffective behaviors. [Respondent] will be given a copy of each item placed in folder." Each Professional Development Plan warns that, "if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved," there will be a "recommendation to place [Respondent] back on annual contract." By letter dated December 16, 1991, Mr. Smith refers to the evaluation and the evaluation conference that took place on December 5, 1991. The letter notes that one of the Professional Development Plans required Respondent to supply in-school suspension students with work when requested. The letter acknowledges that Respondent had said at the conference that he would take care of all of the MI's. The December 16 letter notes that Respondent had already failed to provide make-up work for five named students who had been sent to in-school suspension. Students punished by in-school suspension are prohibited from attending their classes, but are sent to another part of the school. It is important for their teachers to provide their assignments, so the students can study the same materials that the teacher is presenting to their classes. The December 16 letter concludes: "Repeated cases of this problem will lead to my recommendation to the superintendent that you be suspended without pay for five (5) days for gross insubordination." Respondent received a second evaluation from Mr. Smith during the 1991-92 school year. Dated March 3, 1992, the second evaluation is slightly worse than the first. Section 1 contains the same C for the presentation of the subject matter and NI for using specific academic praise. A new NI appears in Section 1 for demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, and a new MI appears for maintaining effective classroom control. The new MI rating appears to be based in part on Respondent's allowing several students to have food and drink in the classroom after telling one student to dispose of his food or drink. In Section 2, Respondent received five S's, as he did in the first evaluation, as planning went from MI to S and punctuality/attendance went from S to NI. Work attitude improved from MI to NI, but personal appearance and receptiveness went from NI to MI. A written comment states that dependability improved some, but not enough to remove the MI. The MI's on the March 3 evaluation are again the subject of attached Professional Development Plans. Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Show you are able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with students without being sarcastic or getting into shouting matches. Student and parent complaints are numerous." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "Exhibit an air of professionalism in meetings with parents." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over. Show parents you care about their child." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Work with students in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with student problems. Be more friendly. Be consistent in your discipline but be fair." Under receptiveness, the desired improvement is: "Be able to listen to constructive criticism and follow suggestions made by administration." the action to be taken is: "Follow rules and regulations established for personnel and students at Sebring High School rather than defying directions given by an administrator." Each of the Professional Development Plans states that the administration will provide assistance or training if requested to do so by Respondent. The time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement is now "immediate" for the cited areas. There is no longer any mention of the removal of MI's, except that the Professional Development Plan for student/staff relations requires: "Immediate improvement--MI must be removed prior to October 92 visitation." The consequence of Respondent's failure to remove the MI's remains returning him to annual contract. The March 3 evaluation is followed by a letter dated March 9, 1992, from Mr. Smith to the superintendent. Mr. Smith writes that Respondent has not improved since the December 2 evaluation and recommends that Respondent be placed on annual contract for the following school year. The Grievance Process On March 13, 1992, Respondent filed a grievance seeking a list of specific remedies for each MI in the March 3 evaluation, adherence to the NEAT procedure, a reconfirmation of the deadline stated in the December 2 evaluation of 1992-93 "for remediation," withdrawal of the recommendation that Respondent be returned to annual contract, and transfer of Respondent to another position where he could be evaluated by someone not part of the current Sebring High School administration. Mr. Smith responded to the grievance with two documents, both dated April 7, 1992. In a three-page memorandum, Mr. Smith recounted the December 2 evaluation, noting that Respondent's "statement to all of this (as he signed the assessment and the PDP's) was, 'You mean all I have to do is correct these and I will get satisfactories?'" The April 7 memorandum notes that the March 3 evaluation was worse than the December 2 evaluation. Despite the fact that, with one exception, the March 3 evaluation did not equate correction with the removal of MI's, the April 7 memorandum states: "[Respondent] still has until the 1992-93 assessment to remove the MI's from his assessment. However, if he does not, he will be notified of non-renewal of a contract for 1993-94." Attached to the April 7 memorandum are "Specific Remedies for Must Improve." These remedies track the areas receiving MI's in the evaluations and discussion in the Professional Development Plans. Under maintaining effective classroom control, the April 7 attachment informs Respondent that he is to ensure that his students follow the rules. Under dependability, the April 7 attachment gives 12 examples of assignments that Respondent must perform. These include timely providing grades for meetings of the School Attendance Review Committee, remaining current with printed attendance sheets, submitting in-school suspension assignments when requested, arriving and leaving on time, not leaving the classroom unattended, and not allowing the students to break the rules. Under parent/community relations, the April 7 attachment states that Respondent should meet with parents at his initiative rather than waiting until irate parents demand a conference after hearing their child's complaints. Also, the attachment advises Respondent to be "gentle" with parents and not be negative. The attachment suggests that Respondent return parents' telephone calls. Under student/staff relations, the April 7 attachment warns Respondent not to back students into a corner. The attachment notes that many reports indicate that Respondent uses sarcasm with students and then disciplines them when they reciprocate with sarcasm. The attachment recommends, "Work on your personality to be more accepting and understanding of students." Under quantity/quality of work, the April 7 attachment suggests that Respondent spend more time on grammar rather than literature alone. The attachment suggests that Respondent should become involved with students' activities so that they know that he cares about them, as well as about what they learn. Under receptiveness, the April 7 attachment notes a lack of desire by Respondent to change his attitude about the providing in-school suspension assignments. Under professional behavior/ethics, the April 7 attachment recommends that Respondent not retaliate against students. It is unclear exactly what Mr. Smith means by "retaliate"; it may mean confront the students in class or respond to the students' sarcasm with sarcasm. By letter dated May 13, 1992, Deputy Superintendent John Martin decided the grievance by determining that Petitioner would grant Respondent a subsequent year of employment, under a subsequent year or annual contract, to correct the indicated deficiencies, and, if Respondent "corrects the indicated deficiencies," he would be given a new professional service contract. The May 13 letter also states that Respondent would be transferred, as he had requested. Respondent chose not to pursue additional grievance procedures available to him, so the grievance was resolved at this point. On May 15, 1992, Petitioner informed Respondent that he had been appointed for a "subsequent year of employment . . . on annual contract pursuant to Florida Statute 231.26(3)(e)." On June 23, 1992, Petitioner and Respondent executed a contract for a "'subsequent year of employment,' as that term is used in 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes . . .," for the 1992-93 school year. The 1991-92 School Year During the 1991-92 school year at Sebring High School, Respondent experienced problems in his relationship with the students and parents and in his inability to fulfill certain important responsibilities imposed on each teacher. With students, Respondent was often sarcastic. When the students returned in like kind, Respondent took offense and disciplined them, often with a disciplinary referral to the office. Mr. Smith witnessed a half dozen confrontations between Respondent and students in the main office where Respondent made derogatory remarks to the students. With parents, Respondent often failed to behave professionally in parent/teacher conferences. He walked out on one conference involving a parent who was also a teacher at Sebring High School. He often responded negatively to parents and sometimes failed to follow through on conferences or even return parents' telephone calls. Respondent was often late in fulfilling his duties. He was frequently late in getting his grades or attendance sheets to the Student Attendance Review Committee, which consisted of a guidance counsellor, an administrator, student's teachers, and student's parents who met periodically to discuss a student's attendance problems. Respondent consistently failed to submit assignments for students who had been assigned to in-school suspension. Each of the deficiencies described in the preceding paragraph interfered materially with Respondent's performance as a teacher. With respect to each of these deficiencies, Respondent was materially worse than his fellow teachers at Sebring High School. The resulting evaluations were the worst ever given by Mr. Smith, who describes himself as a hard evaluator. Evaluations During the 1992-93 School Year As Respondent demanded in the grievance, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Lake Placid High School for the 1992- 93 school year. He was assigned to teach English to all of the ninth grade students except those in honors and dropout prevention. On November 3, 1992, Respondent received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. He received all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, and student evaluations and NI's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control. The evaluation was prepared by David Robinson, who was an assistant principal. On February 25, 1993, Respondent received a second evaluation for the 1992-93 school year. This evaluation, which was prepared by the principal, Roger Goddard, was worse than the first. There were no C's, and there were NI's in demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, maintaining academic focus, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, receptiveness, and professional behavior/ethics. Under the comments in Section 1 of the February 25 evaluation, a note reads: "Needs skills in [knowing] when to use in-class discipline or office referral." The handwritten comments under Section 2 note that Respondent "had difficulty dealing with parents in conferences an/or returning phone calls" and "lack[s] rapport with students, staff, and administration." The handwritten comments state that Respondent is "many times defensive during conferences with administrators" and "needs a better procedure with make-up work utilizing school policy." By letter dated March 19, 1993, Dr. Goddard informed Respondent that he would be unable to reappoint Respondent for employment at Lake Placid High School for the following school year. Respondent asked Dr. Goddard to perform another evaluation, and Dr. Goddard did so on April 23, 1993. There were fewer NI's than in the February 25 evaluation, but the evaluation was not much better. Under Section 1, Respondent received all S's except for an NI in demonstrating a friendly attitude toward all students. An anecdotal comment adds: "There have been over 70 referrals for discipline during the year. This is as many as 20 other teachers combined." Under Section 2, Respondent received all S's except for three NI's in parent/community relations, student/staff relations, and receptiveness. Accompanying handwritten notes state that Respondent "still shows difficulty in dealing with parent conferences," "still lacks understanding of role of assistant principal [and] staff," and "many times still defensive regarding suggestions from administration." By letter dated April 26, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised Respondent that he could not change his original recommendation given on March 19. The letter states that the recommendation is based on the need for a change in the ability to handle discipline effectively within the classroom, handle parent conferences without conflict, and be receptive to administrative suggestions without a defensive attitude. By letter dated April 30, 1993, to Dr. Goddard, Respondent states, in part: . . . Some administrators are possessed by a sort of spectral indifference, and look at their fellow beings as ghosts. For them, teachers and other staff members are often merely vague shadowy forms, hardly distinct from the nebulous background of such a life, and easily blended with the invisible. But you, Dr. Goddard, are an honorable man and I believe, from our conversations, that you really care about the parents, staff, and students of our school. . . . Respondent's letter to Dr. Goddard discusses the preceding evaluation and asks for an opportunity to continue teaching. By letter dated May 25, 1993, Superintendent Richard Farmer states that Dr. Goddard had informed Mr. Farmer that Respondent had not successfully removed all deficiencies from his evaluation. The letter advises Respondent that his annual contract was expiring, Dr. Goddard had decided not to issue Respondent another annual contract, and, according to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner would not issue him a new professional service contract. By notice to the Florida Department of Education dated June 2, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised that, after two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was being terminated or not renewed. The 1992-93 School Year Despite the absence of MI's on the 1992-93 evaluations, the problems Respondent had experienced with students, parents, and administrators in 1991-92 worsened in 1992-93. With respect to relations with students, the basic problem is that Respondent reverted to sarcasm at Lake Placid High School, and his students reciprocated, just as his students at Sebring High School had done the prior year. Sarcasm bred sarcasm, which bred disciplinary referrals--125 of them in fact. Respondent outdistanced his nearest competitor in disciplinary referrals by 2.5 times. On two separate days, Respondent submitted more than 10 disciplinary referrals--more than most teachers submitted all year. As Dr. Goddard's comment notes, Respondent issued more disciplinary referrals than a score of his colleagues. The huge number of disciplinary referrals did not mean that Respondent was maintaining firm control of his classes. To the contrary, he was not able to maintain firm control of his classes, partly due to the atmosphere of mutual disrespect that his sarcasm engendered. The number of disciplinary referrals indicated that Respondent had lost control of the situation and tried to shift to the administrators the job of regaining control of his classroom. A major part of the problem, in addition to Respondent's sarcasm, was his inability to adhere to his own assertive discipline plan. Respondent's assertive discipline plan, which was duly posted in his classroom, contains the following consequences in increasing order of severity: warning, contact parents, detention, and office referral. Sometime during the school year, Respondent switched the second and third consequences, so that he would place a student on detention before he would contact the parents. This change was duly posted in the classroom. Respondent's assertive discipline plan is satisfactory, but he never adhered to it. Sometimes he gave detentions, but then failed to appear at the location where the students were to serve the detentions. Sometimes Respondent simply placed the offending students in the hall where they remained, unsupervised, in violation of school rules. Sometimes Respondent gave warnings, and often he gave disciplinary referrals. But he displayed an aversion to parent/teacher conferences by almost invariably omitting the step that required him to contact a parent. Nearly all disciplinary referrals were made prior to this step taking place, and many were made prior to giving the student a detention. Respondent clung doggedly to his sarcasm despite all efforts to free him from this habitual behavior. Dr. Goddard intervened at one point during a parent/teacher conference and prevailed upon Respondent to stop using sarcasm against the student who was the subject of the conference. Respondent's response was to post a sign in his room indicating a "moratorium" in the use of sarcasm--intentionally implying that the cessation in sarcasm would be temporary. At times, Respondent lashed out at students with hurtful remarks lacking even the thin veneer of humor. He told one student that he would be a serial killer. He told another student that he would never be rich and successful. He repeatedly referred publicly to one student as a witch and asked if she had taken her Midol. In front of another student's mother, as well as other teachers and Mr. Robinson during a parent/teacher conference, Respondent referred to a girl as "bitchy." Respondent refused to accommodate valid student needs, such as the unusual demands placed on one child by a disabled brother. The regressive effect on students of Respondent's embittered and embittering classroom presence was unwittingly reflected in another student's class journal. His early entries demonstrated an emotional vulnerability as he depicted his simple, rural lifestyle; his later entries were defiantly copied out of textbooks, magazines, or encyclopedias. As a result of Respondent's poor relations with students, more than one student quit Respondent's class, even if it meant taking English in summer school or another school or dropping out of high school altogether. One parent checked her son out of school just long enough that he would not have to attend Respondent's class. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, morale among Respondent's students and their parents was a very serious problem. Respondent's relationship with parents was, if possible, even worse than his relationship with students, although his contact with parents was less frequent. During one meeting with a father in the main office, the parent and Respondent had a heated exchange. Mr. Robinson intervened and diplomatically tried to end the conference. After the parent had started to walk away, Respondent restarted the argument and approached the parent until their noses were touching. Mr. Robinson again broke up what had transformed from a conference into a confrontation, and again Respondent reinitiated the engagement. Again, Mr. Robinson had to break up the argument. Mr. Robinson attended another parent/teacher conference in which the mother, according to Respondent, looked at him with "eyes . . . like daggers." (Tr 541) The mother observed that her daughter had no problems in any other classes but Respondent's class. The parent charged that Respondent's class was out of control. Respondent saw that Mr. Robinson was not "going to fulfil his role as mediator," so Respondent got up, announced that "I'm not going to take this damn stuff anymore," and walked out of the conference. (Tr 542) At first glance, Respondent's relationship with the administrators seems better than his relationships with the students and parents, but this is due to the professionalism of Dr. Goddard, inexperience of Mr. Robertson, and uninvolvement of Ms. Hatfield. For different reasons, each administrator at the school responded differently to Respondent's increasingly bizarre behavior and in no case did any administrator at the school ever lose his or her composure in dealing with Respondent. Respondent believes that he has been unfairly treated by every administrator at Lake Placid High School, and at least two at Sebring High School. Interestingly, Ms. Hatfield had given Respondent his last evaluation-- in October, 1990--without an NI or MI. However, without any evident provocation, Respondent demanded that the other assistant principal, Mr. Robinson, handle Respondent's evaluations and disciplinary referrals. Respondent was apprehensive that Ms. Hatfield might be biased due to her past service at Sebring High School. In November, 1992, Ms. Hatfield had a conference with Respondent and cautioned him that she was receiving a number of student complaints about his use of sarcasm. Respondent's reaction was to request that he be evaluated by Mr. Robinson, who was in his first year of service as an assistant principal. In retrospect, Respondent's demand proved unwise. As evidenced by his treatment of another teacher, Mr. Robinson displayed a heightened sensitivity toward humor directed at students, even if the humor did not seem sarcastic at all. Thus, Mr. Robinson's concern about Respondent's sarcasm was not due to bias against Respondent, but was due to Mr. Robinson's concern that students be treated with dignity and respect. But, as noted above, even without Mr. Robinson's heightened concern about humor, Respondent's sarcasm exceeded the wildest imaginable limits. Dr. Goddard intervened after the first evaluation. Respondent's concern about bias defies reason and logic when applied to Dr. Goddard, who counselled Respondent and gave him an opportunity to discover for himself the shortcomings of his defensive style of dealing with students, parents, and administrators. To imply that Dr. Goddard's evaluations were orchestrated by individuals at Sebring High School or the district office is to ignore reality. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the very lack of coordination presents legal problems that could have easily been avoided with the smallest amount of coordination. Respondent had trouble with nearly every administrator. And Respondent consistently found himself the blameless target of unwarranted persecution. His paranoia interfered with his ability to do his job. This fact is best illustrated by the time that Dr. Goddard instructed the teachers to clean up their rooms in preparation for a visit that night by the school board. Respondent wrote the following on his chalkboard to be read by the school board members: "The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you." In addition to problems with students, parents, and administrators, Respondent continued to display an inability to fulfill his important responsibilities. He failed to appear at ninth grade orientation at the beginning of the school year, despite the fact that he was a new teacher at the school and taught most of the ninth graders. Respondent routinely failed to supply grades to students for whom guidance counsellors were trying to prepare weekly progress reports in order to monitor the students' progress more closely than is possible with report cards. Respondent was routinely resistant to assigning make- up work. Students would have to pursue him for days to get assignments, until finally Respondent decided to write these up on the chalkboard. On more than one occasion, Respondent's solution--when pushed by parents or administrators--was to avoid the extra work imposed upon him by grading additional materials; rather than assign make-up work or tests, Respondent would simply not penalize the student for the missed assignment, such as by doubling the weight of the next grade. There is no evidence that the administration at Lake Placid High School learned of Respondent's 1991-92 evaluations at Sebring High School until Respondent mentioned them when he received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. There is no evidence that the actions taken by the administration at Lake Placid High School were influenced by anything except the Respondent's performance during the 1992-93 school year. Respondent was warned about his problems in evaluations going as far back as the 1980's when Respondent was evaluated by Mr. Bible. The March, 1986 evaluation identifies Respondent's reluctance to deal with parents. The February, 1989 evaluation suggests that Respondent lacked the support of parents and was placing students on the defensive. In the February, 1991 evaluation, Mr. Bible warned Respondent that he needed to improve in several areas, including student/staff relations and receptiveness to criticism from administrators. Again, Mr. Bible pointed out that Respondent was alienating students. Respondent's problems, which culminated in the exceptionally bad evaluations during the 1991-92 school year, largely represented a continuation of problems that had been identified in one manner or another for the preceding five years. But instead of correcting the problems, Respondent had allowed them to get worse. These problems were described in greater detail in the 1991-92 and 1992-93 evaluations due to the deterioration of Respondent's behavior. Petitioner provided Respondent with reasonable assistance in remediating his performance deficiencies. Dr. Goddard made numerous additional visits to Respondent's classroom, and he and other administrators routinely talked to Respondent. After the first evaluation in November, 1992, Mr. Robinson twice recommended to Respondent that he rely on his assertive discipline plan because he was referring too many students to the office. After discovering how poorly Respondent handled parent conferences, administrators ensured that appropriate persons participated in Respondent's conferences to model suitable behavior. In early February, 1993, Mr. Robinson gave Respondent a set of assertive discipline tapes to view to assist in imposing proper discipline in his class. This intervention preceded the February 25 evaluation by almost three weeks. About one week prior to the February 25 evaluation, Mr. Robinson suggested that Respondent attend a workshop on parent/teacher conferences. Respondent attended the workshop. Evidently arranged prior to the February 25 evaluation, Respondent went to a high school in another district to observe a ninth-grade English teacher. The practical effect of this assistance is attenuated by the fact that the February 25 evaluation preceded the visit, although the visit preceded the March 19 non-appointment letter, April 23 follow-up evaluation, and April 26 follow-up letter. The extent of the assistance effectively offered Respondent must be evaluated in the context of Respondent's problems. He was not an ineffective teacher due to an inadequate grasp of the course material or inability to present material imaginatively. To the contrary, Respondent is a highly intelligent, literate individual who is intellectual capable of being an outstanding teacher. If his problems were in his understanding of the material or an inability to find the methods to convey the material to his students, a program of assistance and inservice workshops probably could be designed to provide meaningful help. Instead, Respondent needed to stop disparaging students. He needed to stop confronting parents. He needed to stop ignoring administrators who were trying to stop Respondent from disparaging students and confronting parents. But Respondent simply refused to change his ways, and no amount of videotapes, inservice workshops, school visits, evaluation follow-ups, and informal discussions were going to help. Respondent was given a second chance when he was transferred to Lake Placid High School. But instead of addressing the source of the problem-- himself--he attacked students, parents, and administrators. He avoided performing rigorously all of his teaching duties, such as enforcing his assertive disciplinary plan and its graduated response to misbehavior, promptly providing make-up work, and sending interim grades when needed. Instead, he inexplicably continued to bicker with the students, provoke the parents, and defy the legitimate demands of the administrators.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Highlands County enter a final order not issuing Respondent a new professional service contract. ENTERED on January 13, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 13, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8: rejected as irrelevant. 9-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as irrelevant. 20-35: adopted or adopted in substance. 36: rejected as irrelevant. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 40: rejected as irrelevant. Nothing requires that Petitioner make "every effort" to help Respondent through the means cited. 41: adopted or adopted in substance. 42: rejected as subordinate. 43-44: adopted or adopted in substance. 45: rejected as irrelevant. 46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-48 (first three sentences): rejected as irrelevant. 48 (last sentence)-53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54-56: rejected as irrelevant. 57-59: adopted or adopted in substance. 60-61: rejected as irrelevant. 62: adopted or adopted in substance. 63: rejected as irrelevant. 64-65: adopted or adopted in substance. 66: rejected as subordinate. 67-69: adopted or adopted in substance. 70: rejected as subordinate. 71-74: adopted or adopted in substance. 75-76: rejected as subordinate. 77-78: adopted or adopted in substance. 79: rejected as hearsay. 80-85: adopted or adopted in substance. 86: rejected as irrelevant. 87-92: adopted or adopted in substance. 93: rejected as subordinate. 94: rejected as irrelevant. 95-100: adopted or adopted in substance. 101: rejected as irrelevant. In fact, to permit either student to leave the classroom would violate Paragraph 11 of the Classroom Management section of the Teacher Handbook. 102: rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Smith wore sunglasses indoors during part of the hearing. 103-04: rejected as irrelevant. 105: rejected as subordinate. 106-17 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 117 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 118: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 119: rejected as hearsay. 120-34: adopted or adopted in substance. 135-37: rejected as irrelevant. 138: adopted or adopted in substance. 139: rejected as irrelevant. 140: adopted or adopted in substance. 141: rejected as irrelevant. 142-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 144: rejected as subordinate. 145-46: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-10: rejected as irrelevant. 11-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15-17 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 18-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-22: rejected as subordinate. 23-24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25-26: rejected as subordinate. 27-28 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 28 (second sentence)-29: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 30: adopted or adopted in substance. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as subordinate. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. This provision governs only when Petitioner must refer matters to the Department of Education. 35: rejected as subordinate. 36: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance except as to meaningful follow-up conferences. 40-41: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Richard Farmer Highlands County School District 426 School St. Sebring, FL 33870-4048 Commissioner Doug Jamerson Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 James F. McCollum James F. McCollum, P.A. 129 S. Commerce Ave. Sebring, FL 33870-3698 Anthony D. Demma Meyer and Brooks, P.A. P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302
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 presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, whether her employment with Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher for 16 1/2 years. She holds a Florida teaching certificate in the areas of specific learning disabilities and educable mental retardation. Throughout her employment by Petitioner, she has been assigned to teach exceptional student education classes. For the 1995-96 school year, she was assigned to teach a varying exceptionalities class at Winston Park Elementary School. At that school, the principal and the assistant principal have a practice of visiting every classroom every day whenever possible. The visits usually consist of a general walk-through. As a result of his visits to Respondent's classroom, Assistant Principal Polakoff, an experienced varying exceptionalities teacher, became concerned about the lack of discipline in Respondent's classroom. Respondent made a large number of referrals of students to the administrators for disciplinary action. Polakoff discussed his concerns with Respondent. In late September or early October, the administration at Winston Park Elementary School requested Rene Miscio, an Exceptional Education Program Specialist from the area office to come and assist Respondent. Miscio identified concerns with Respondent's classroom performance and gave Respondent suggestions for improving her areas of deficiency. Miscio took Respondent to a different school so Respondent could observe that teacher. Respondent later advised her administrators that she was implementing the suggestions made by Miscio. On November 2, 1995, Respondent referred a student to the office. Assistant Principal Polakoff went to Respondent's classroom and observed for 30 to 40 minutes. He wrote detailed notes while he was in Respondent's classroom and later discussed his observations with Principal Smith. They determined that Respondent's performance was deficient in three areas: behavior management, classroom management, and lesson presentation. By letter dated November 2, Assistant Principal Polakoff advised Respondent that she was moved from the development phase to the documentation phase of the Instructional Personnel Assessment System (hereinafter "IPAS") because deficiencies had been identified. In the documentation phase strategies are formulated for remediating the identified deficiencies. The goal is to provide the teacher with strategies to become successful in helping students learn. Principal Smith and Assistant Principal Polakoff worked with Respondent in writing a Performance Development Plan. Such a Plan envisions ongoing contact between the administrators and the teacher to address the teacher's deficiencies over the course of a defined time period. Respondent was given a February 29, 1996, deadline for remediating her deficiencies. Assistant Principal Polakoff began working with Respondent to develop behavior plans for specific students because of his background in exceptional student education. The administrators also assigned the exceptional student education specialist at Winston Park to observe and assist Respondent to overcome her areas of deficiency. Principal Smith also assigned Carolyn Koesten, another special education teacher at Winston Park, to "model" in Respondent's classroom from November 27 through December 7, 1995. Koesten had "modeled" before. "Modeling" means that an experienced teacher teaches another teacher's class in order to demonstrate to that teacher classroom management skills, behavior skills, and academic skills. Principal Smith instructed Koesten to establish a classroom management system, to establish a behavior management system, and to teach the students. When Koesten took over Respondent's classroom, Respondent was on leave. Koesten assessed Respondent's class when she started her modeling. Respondent's lesson plans were sketchy, and no routine had been established in Respondent's classroom. Koesten conducted a class meeting to develop a schedule for daily activities. She, together with the students, set up a behavior management system, establishing the rules of conduct, consequences, and rewards. She experienced no problems with Respondent's students once they had established rules for that classroom. "Running reading records" was a school-wide system being implemented that year to help measure a student's progress in reading. Respondent had no running reading records when Koesten began modeling in Respondent's class. Koesten set up running reading records for Respondent's class, established a reading program using those records, and began using spelling words from the reading program. She also set up learning centers within the classroom so students who had finished an activity could begin other work rather than beginning to misbehave. Respondent did not have any learning centers in her classroom. Respondent returned to school on December 6. Koesten met with her in the morning to explain the changes which had been implemented. Respondent then spent the day observing Koesten teaching Respondent's class. At the end of the day, she again met with Koesten to discuss the reading program and learning centers which Koesten had established. On the next day, Respondent took over the class, and Koesten observed her teaching. During the time that Koesten was in charge of Respondent's class, the class ran smoothly with the classroom management system and the behavior management system she had put in place. The students liked the systems because they had participated in developing them. Neither the number of students in the class nor the mix of students presented Koesten with any problem. During the morning of February 13, 1996, Assistant Principal Polakoff received a referral on one of Respondent's students for whom they had just recently developed an individual behavior plan. He told Principal Smith about the referral, and Smith went into Respondent's classroom. Smith determined that Respondent had ignored the individual behavior plan which they had developed for that student. Principal Smith summoned Respondent to his office that afternoon to meet with him and Assistant Principal Polakoff so he could give her feedback on what he had observed regarding the deficiencies in her performance that still existed. When she arrived, Smith asked her to describe her behavior management plan, and she did. Smith then advised her that she was not following that plan when he was in her classroom. She told him she was not able to follow her behavior management plan because the children were misbehaving. Smith also told her she had not followed the individual behavior plan for the student whom she had referred that morning. Respondent became very loud, angry, and agitated while Smith was trying to discuss her failure to follow the behavior plans. She alternated between being very angry and calming herself. When she calmed herself, she sat down. When she became angry, she got up and leaned on Smith's desk and leaned toward him. Smith kept trying to focus on how Respondent could improve her classroom performance but Respondent would not discuss that subject. She began attacking Smith verbally. She told him he reminded her of her parents. She told him he was a terrible person and a terrible father. She told him she hated him and that everyone hated him. She told him she would not talk to him but would only talk to Assistant Principal Polakoff. Polakoff told Respondent she needed to talk with Smith because Smith was her boss. Smith remained very calm and "matter of fact." He did nothing to cause Respondent to become agitated. He continued to try to focus on what was needed in order for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. At the end of the conference, Respondent told Smith that he was treating her "shitty". Smith calmly responded that at that point her teaching was "shitty" and that it was "a joke". Also at the end of the conference which had lasted for an hour or more, Respondent told Smith that she was "going to get him". Smith asked her what she meant by that, and Respondent told him that he was just going to have to wait to find out, that he would not know when or where she was going to get him, but that she would. The meeting ended when Respondent walked out of Smith's office. Polakoff was so uneasy about Respondent's threats that he followed her when she left the building and locked the building behind her so she could not return. Smith was concerned for his safety, Respondent's safety, and the safety of the other employees due to Respondent's threats and her agitation level. Just a few weeks before, a Broward County employee had killed his co-workers. Smith was concerned regarding Respondent's emotional stability and whether she should be in a classroom. Principal Smith telephoned his supervisor, Area Superintendent Dr. Daly, and told her what had transpired. She gave him an oral reprimand for using the word "shitty" and told him to call Director of Professional Standards Ronald Wright. Wright also orally reprimanded Smith for using that word and told him to send Respondent a memo asking her to clarify what she meant by her statements that she was going "to get" Smith and that he would not know when or where. Wright also explained to Smith the procedures for requesting that an employee undergo a psychiatric and/or psychological evaluation to determine fitness to remain in the classroom. Principal Smith wrote such a memo to Respondent the following day. Two days later, Respondent replied in writing and stayed out of school for the next several days saying she was too depressed to function. Her written explanation is not accurate, does not reflect the tone of her voice or her anger, and is not believable. On February 14, 1996, Principal Smith initiated the procedure for requiring Respondent to undergo psychological and/or psychiatric testing. He also re-assigned her so that she would assist in the school's media center and not return to her classroom until completion of the psychiatric evaluation. While Respondent was assigned to the media center, she was very disruptive. She kept trying to involve students and parents in her anger toward Principal Smith. On Friday, March 1, Respondent initiated a conversation with Josetta Royal Campbell who was in the media center. Although Campbell was a fellow teacher, she had no personal relationship with Respondent. Respondent asked Campbell if she had been evaluated by Principal Smith, and Campbell replied that she had been. Respondent asked if Campbell had heard that Respondent had received a bad evaluation, and Campbell replied that she had not. Respondent followed her to Campbell's classroom. Inside Campbell's classroom, Respondent became very excited and loud and was easily heard by the custodian cleaning the classroom. Respondent told Campbell that she and Smith had a big argument, that Smith was "out to get" her, and that she was going to kill him. Respondent said she thought Polakoff was her friend but he was a "backstabber" and that Koesten was also "out to get" her. She told Campbell that she was "going to get them all", that Smith had ruined her life, and that "everybody involved would pay for it". She also said that she could not return to her classroom until after she had undergone psychological testing but that since she had been under psychological treatment for ten years, she could pass the test with "flying colors". Over the weekend Campbell thought about what Respondent had said. She was concerned about the threats Respondent had made toward Principal Smith and the others. She took Respondent's threats seriously. On Monday she wrote a letter to Principal Smith telling him what had happened. On March 6, Principal Smith re-assigned Respondent to temporary duty with pay in her own home. Respondent selected a psychiatrist from a list given to her by the Director of Petitioner's Instructional Staffing Department. She selected Dr. Fernando Mata and was evaluated by him on March 7, 1996. After seeing Respondent on that date, he recommended that she undergo psychological testing. Respondent was given a list of psychologists to choose from, and she selected Dr. Jack Singer. He evaluated her on March 22, conducting a personal interview and administering the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory II, the Thematic Apperception Test, and the Holtzman Inkblot Technique. Dr. Singer concluded that Respondent is unstable and unpredictable. He opined that Respondent cannot safely handle a classroom full of children at this time. Upon review of Dr. Singer's report, Dr. Mata issued a supplemental report agreeing with Singer's opinions and concluding that Respondent "should not be returned to a classroom setting at this time". A conference was held with Respondent, her union representative, Petitioner's Director of Personnel, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards, and Petitioner's Director of Instructional Staffing to discuss with Respondent the options available to her under Petitioner's policies and the union contract due to the medical report determining that Respondent was not fit to teach at that time. Respondent was advised that she could elect: (1) family/medical leave of up to 12 weeks; (2) disability leave for up to two years; or (3) a personal leave of absence. The financial impacts of each type of leave were explained to Respondent. Respondent declined all leave options. By letter dated May 15, 1996, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards wrote to Respondent asking her to confirm that she still declined all leave options. By letter dated May 22, 1996, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards again wrote to Respondent confirming that they had spoken on May 20 and that Respondent still declined all leave options and that Respondent understood that her refusal to take any type of leave would force Petitioner to terminate her employment. Petitioner does not second-guess medical opinions. When Respondent declined all leave options, Petitioner had no choice but to initiate termination of Respondent's employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and dismissing her from her employment with Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this day of November, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Eugene K. Pettis, Esquire Haliczer, Pettis & White, P.A. 101 Northeast Third Avenue Sixth Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Francisco M. Negron, Jr., Esquire Tom Young, Esquire FEA/United 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Dr. Frank R. Petruzielo, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was served on the Respondent in April, 1983. Herb A. Sang, Superintendent of Duval County County Schools, was responsible for those charges. In the complaint, it is alleged that Respondent is guilty of professional incompetency in fulfilling his duties as a teacher in the Duval County School System in the years 1979-80 and 1980-81. Respondent is a tenured teacher in the Duval County School System and had held that tenure at all times relevant to this inquiry. Respondent opposed these allegations, leading to the formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes hearing. Respondent, who has been employed in the school system since 1954, was transferred to Duncan U. Fletcher Senior High School in 1971. Lee remained at Fletcher High through the school year 1979-80. In that year, Lee taught 10th grade English. His performance in the classroom was observed by Dr. Andrew Knight, principal at Fletcher High School, and by other professionals in the school. These observations commenced in September 1979 and continued throughout the school year. By January 30, 1980, Dr. Knight had gained a sufficient impression of the performance of the Respondent to write and inform him of areas of deficiency. A copy of that letter of evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. In addition to setting forth deficiencies, the letter suggests techniques that might be employed to correct the deficiencies. Relevant areas of concern involved classroom management, teaching effectiveness and classroom performance. Those observations as set out in the letter of evaluation and critique of the Respondent's performance are an accurate depiction of the performance. All these items set forth relate to teacher competency and this depiction of Respondent, coupled with similar observations which were testified to during the course of the hearing, demonstrate a lack of competency on the part of the Respondent in performing his teaching duties. The deficiencies set forth in the letter of evaluation were explained to the Respondent in person. Following the interim evaluation of January, 1980, the annual formal evaluation was made on March 12, 1980. A copy of that evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, admitted into evidence. As depicted in this document, Respondent was still perceived in March, 1980, as giving a poor performance as a teacher. This characterization of his performance, as found in the evaluation of March 12, 1980, is accurate and those observations, together with the observations of his performance as testified to in the hearing, point to the fact that the Respondent continued to be less than competent in his teaching. Throughout that school year, classroom management was the most obvious deficiency. In particular, students were sleeping and talking to each other and not paying attention, a problem not satisfactorily addressed by Lee. As a result, the learning experience was diminished. Moreover, this circumstance was made worse by the fact that Lee's perception of how to plan for instruction and his efforts at carrying out these plans were not structured in a fashion to hold the attention of his classes and promote the goals announced in the Duval County School course Curriculum for Tenth Grade Language Arts. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 33. Based upon his unsatisfactory evaluation for the school year 1979-80, and in keeping with the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Respondent was transferred to Edward White High School in the school year 1980-81. The principal at that school was John E. Thombleson. Thombleson was aware of the unsatisfactory rating that Lee had received and undertook, during the course of Respondent's stay at White High School, to observe and assist Lee in trying to improve Lee's teaching. That improvement was not forthcoming. Lee continued to have problems related to classroom management and teacher effectiveness and he was not responsive to beneficial ideas of improvement offered by Thombleson related to in-service assistance. Ideas for improvement which were posed to the Respondent include those set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, admitted into evidence which is a memorandum concerning a conference held with Respondent by Principal Thombleson. Other exhibits admitted pertaining to observations by Thombleson and other administrators at White are found to be accurate depictions of the atmosphere in Lee's classroom related to management and teaching effectiveness. Through October, 1980, visits to Respondent's classes revealed a lack of attention on the part of students, a lack of preparedness by the Respondent, a failure to proceed in a sequence which would be commensurate with the curriculum goals set for the classes, tardiness on the part of the Respondent and students, failure to provide lesson plans to the administration observer, failure to conform to the scheduled lesson plan for the day, and failure to provide continuity between the lesson of the day and the following day's assignment. These were problems that had been observed during Lee's 1979- 80 year at Fletcher. Consequently, the required interim evaluation of October 30, 1980, was not favorable to Lee. A copy of that formal evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 18, admitted into evidence and the observations set forth therein are found to be accurate. Lee was also provided with a memorandum on that date, a copy of which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 19, admitted into evidence. This document suggested ways to improve classroom management, teaching effectiveness and classroom performance. Both the evaluation and memorandum of improvement were discussed with the Respondent and the matters of that conference are set forth in the memorandum of October 30, 1980, a copy of which is found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 20, admitted into evidence. On November 6, 1980, Respondent's grade book was evaluated and found to be deficient, a finding which is accepted. The grade book was not properly documented, among other shortcomings. Respondent, by correspondence of November 18, 1980, a copy of which is admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 24, requested Principal Thombleson to give concrete examples of expectations of the Respondent in fulfilling his teaching responsibilities. This correspondence was replied to by memorandum of December 5, 1980, a copy of which is admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 25, and contains a continuing explanation of ideas of improvement which had been previously suggested by Principal Thombleson. Lee's performance did not improve after this exchange and the final evaluation at White of March 12, 1981, was not positive. A copy of that evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 27, admitted into evidence and the evaluation's conclusions are accepted. Overall, in the year 1980-81, Respondent did not perform as a competent teacher while at Edward White. Respondent did not conclude the teaching year at Edward White in 1980- In the face of an attitude which Thombleson considered to be insubordinate and the Respondent's expressed desire to be transferred, Lee was reassigned to William Raines Senior High School in April, 1981. For the remainder of that academic year he served as a substitute teacher. It was not established in the course of the hearing what quality of performance Lee gave as a substitute teacher when assigned to Raines High School and it is therefore assumed that that performance was satisfactory. In the school year 1981-82, Respondent was assigned to Raines High School and acted primarily as a substitute teacher. He remained in the high school for that school year premised upon a settlement negotiation between the Respondent and the Duval County School Board pertaining to an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint which he had filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For the school year 1981-82, the Duval County school administration decided that they would not afford a performance evaluation to the Respondent and none was given. There being no evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that Respondent fulfilled his role as substitute teacher adequately. In the school year 1982-83, Respondent was reassigned to Raines school and worked primarily in the media center program in a nonteaching capacity. Lee did a limited amount of substitute teaching in that year. Jimmie A. Johnson, Principal of Raines school found his work as a substitute teacher to be acceptable as set forth in the memorandum of March 23, 1983, a copy of which is admitted as Respondent's Exhibit B. No contrary position being offered on the question of the quality of performance in the limited role of substitute teacher during that school year, Respondent is found to have performed the role of substitute teacher in a satisfactory manner. Lee's performance as a substitute teacher in the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 while accepted as satisfactory does not overcome the established fact that in the school years 1979-80 and 1980-81, when performing the role of full- time tenured teacher in Duval County, he was not a competent teacher. This performance in the substitute role, while similar, is not sufficiently so to provide a quality of rehabilitation which would set aside the present perception that Respondent is not competent to fulfill the role as full-time classroom teacher in Duval County. This finding is supported by the observations of Dr. Jeffrey Weathers, a professional educator who specializes in teacher evaluations related to their classroom performance as to subject matter and general methodologies. Although some of the tasks which Weathers observed in the Respondent's classroom both at Fletcher and White did not pertain to active instruction, to the extent that other tasks observed called upon Respondent to teach, he was not doing so in an effective manner. As Dr. Weathers described, the vital link between activity and learning could not be found in Lee's classes. Weather's observations, together with those of other professionals at Fletcher and White, coupled with the Respondent's less than cooperative attitude, results in the finding that Respondent has not removed the stigma of his incompetence as a full-time classroom teacher through his teaching in the substitute role at Raines. Finally, while the quality of performance by those students at Fletcher and White who were taught by Lee and participated in the MLST minimum skills tests were similar to students of other teachers in the aggregate, this fact is not enough to set aside the impression of the Respondent's competence. As Dr. Curtis Randolph, who was assistant principal at Fletcher in 1979-80, correctly stated upon reflecting on Respondent's performance, Lee is not competent to teach in Duval County Schools.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent held Florida Teaching Certificate No. 390436, Provisional Graduate, Rank III, valid through June 30, 1981, covering the areas of Sociology, English, History and Social Studies. On or about October 19, 1978, Respondent while acting within the scope of his employment as a teacher at Robert E. Lee Junior High School in Dade County, Florida, was observed to seize a student, Rodney Canull, by his hair and right arm, lift the student off the ground, and throw the student repeatedly onto a concrete ramp. As soon as the student was able to extricate himself from Respondent, he fled the scene of the altercation. However, later the same day, Respondent was again observed in a confrontation with this same student, in which Respondent had twisted the student's arm behind his back, and the student was doubled over in pain with his head below his knees. On or about April 24, 1978, Respondent was involved in a physical confrontation with another student, Carla Brinson, at Robert E. Lee Junior High School. The confrontation between Ms. Brinson and Respondent occurred in the course of Respondent's attempt to discipline the student. When Respondent requested that the student turn around so that he could administer corporal punishment, she refused. Upon the student's refusal, the Respondent threw her to the floor. The student got up from the floor, and struck Respondent with her fist, whereupon Respondent struck the student in the face with his fist. The student then ran out the front door of the classroom in which the confrontation had occurred, and was pursued by Respondent, who began to strike the student with his belt. Both Respondent and the student ended up on the ground in front of the portable classroom where Respondent again struck the student in the forehead with the heel of his open hand. When another teacher attempted to intervene in the confrontation, he was pushed aside and Respondent continued to strike the student with his belt. On or about May 11, 1977, Respondent was involved in a physical confrontation with a student at Madison Junior High School in Dade County, Florida, named Wesley G. Frater. In the course of Respondent inquiring as to whether the student belonged in a particular room, the student referred to Respondent as "man", whereupon Respondent began shoving the student into a row of standing metal lockers, approximately 25 in number, and then lifted the student upside down from the ground and dropped him onto a concrete floor. On or about May 20, 1977, Respondent was involved in a physical confrontation at Madison Junior High School with a student named Vincent Johnson. Some dispute of an undetermined nature occurred between the student and the Respondent, after which the student attempted to flee from Respondent. Respondent chased the student down in the school parking lot, and threw the student against a parked truck. Respondent then threw the student to the ground, picked him up and attempted to transport him to the principal's office. Once in the corridor of the school building, Respondent picked the student up and repeatedly threw him to the floor. Other teachers at the school, after hearing a disturbance in the hallway, intervened to separate Respondent and the student. As previously indicated in this Recommended Order, Respondent neither appeared in person nor offered any evidence for inclusion in the record in this proceeding through his counsel. As a result, the record in this proceeding contains no explanation or justification for Respondent's conduct. However, it is clear from the record that Respondent's conduct, as outlined above, worked to create an atmosphere of fear among his students, thereby seriously reducing his effectiveness as a teacher.
