The Issue Whether Respondent's suspension from employment with the Dade County School Board should be affirmed and whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment with the Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Jill Cohen (Ms. Cohen), has been a school teacher for fifteen years. At all times material hereto, Ms. Cohen, was employed by Petitioner, Dade County School Board (School Board) as an elementary school teacher under a continuing contract. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Dade County, Florida. On April 27, 1989, Ms. Cohen, while employed at Edison Park Elementary School, had to leave her classroom for a personal hygiene emergency. She asked another teacher with whom she shared the classroom to watch her students while she went to the school clinic. The other teacher advised Ms. Cohen that in a few minutes she had to pick the students up at the physical education field. While Ms. Cohen was absent, the other teacher had to leave the classroom to get her own students. With both teachers absent from the classroom, Ms. Cohen's students were left unsupervised. On May 8, 1989, a conference-for-the-record was held with Ms. Cohen concerning the incident on April 27, 1989, and eleven tardies Ms. Cohen had from January 12, 1989 through May 2, 1989. She was advised that she had a professional responsibility to supervise her students at all times, that leaving students unsupervised was a violation of school and state rules and regulations, and that she was required to report to work on time. Ms. Cohen was told that if an emergency requiring her to leave her class unsupervised arose, she was to notify the administrator so that supervision could be arranged. Additionally, she was advised that future incidents of this nature would result in a recommendation for further disciplinary action. On January 19, 1990, Ms. Cohen left her students unsupervised. During this unsupervised period, one child allegedly sexually abused another student. Upon returning to the classroom, Ms. Cohen learned of the incident and spanked the alleged perpetrator. Ms. Cohen did not report the incident. A conference-for-the record was held on February 5, 1990, concerning the January 19, 1990 incident and another alleged incident of lack of supervision. Ms. Cohen was again advised that she must provide adequate supervision of her students at all times and that if she had an emergency necessitating her absence, she was to contact the administrator. She was told that any reoccurrence of her failure to supervise her students would be deemed gross insubordination for which further disciplinary action would be recommended. Ms. Cohen was given a letter of reprimand. In February, 1990, Ms. Cohen was given an alternate work assignment through June, 1990 at Region IV Operations. The incident of January 19, 1990, was investigated by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The same incident was also investigated by the State Attorney's Office which brought charges against Ms. Cohen. As a result of these charges brought by the State Attorney, Ms. Cohen entered into a pre-trial advocacy program. A conference-for-the-record was held with Ms. Cohen on May 29, 1990, concerning the January 19, 1990, incident. On September 25, 1990, Ms. Cohen and the School Board entered into a Community Service Agreement, in lieu of suspension, dismissal, or demotion. The agreement included 160 hours of community service, tutoring students, and counseling students. The Florida Commissioner of Education filed an Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cohen as a result of the January 19, 1990, incident. The Administrative Complaint was resolved with a settlement whereby Ms. Cohen did not contest the allegations that Respondent failed to supervise students and spanked a student as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. As a result of the settlement agreement with Commissioner Castor, Ms. Cohen was given a written reprimand, her state teaching certificate was suspended for eight days, she was placed on three years probation, and was required to undergo psychological evaluation and counseling. Ms. Cohen received an overall unacceptable performance evaluation for the school year 1989-90. Ms. Cohen was assigned to the Morningside Elementary School (Morningside) for the 1990-91 school year due to the notoriety stemming from the January 19, 1990 incident. On June 11, 1991, Ms. Cohen accidently hit a student on the head with a stick. The student did not cry or tell Ms. Cohen that his head hurt. At the time of the incident, there were no physical signs on the student that he had been hit. Later a bump appeared on his forehead. When the student went home, he told his mother what happened. She called the police. The next day the student's mother, accompanied by a police officer, went to see the school principal. Ms. Cohen had not reported the accidental hitting of the student. The principal first learned of the accident when the parent and police officer met with the principal. As a result of the accidental hitting of the student, HRS, investigated the allegations and submitted a final report where the investigation was closed without classification. Ms. Cohen received an unacceptable performance evaluation for the school year 1990-91. Ms. Cohen was returned to Region IV Operations for alternate work assignment on August 29, 1991. In lieu of harsher disciplinary action, Ms. Cohen entered into another Community Service Agreement with the School Board on October 8, 1991. Ms. Cohen agreed to perform 200 hours of community service. On October 22, 1991, Ms. Cohen received a written reprimand relating to the June 11, 1991 incident. She was directed to implement appropriate procedures for dealing with inappropriate student behavior. Ms. Cohen was warned that further such incidents would be considered insubordination and would warrant further disciplinary action. After a psychological examination, Ms. Cohen was returned to Morningside for classroom duty in either December, 1991, or January, 1992, with conditions of employment which included, among other conditions, acceptable attendance at the work site and adherence to site directives, prescriptive directives and Code of Ethics stipulations. Ms. Cohen's performance began to improve and she received an acceptable performance evaluation for the 1991-92 school year. At the beginning of the school year 1992-93, the faculty at Morningside were advised that their students must be supervised and students were not to be left unattended. During the first week of school the teachers were given a faculty handbook, which was discussed at the first faculty meeting. The Morningside Elementary School Faculty Handbook provides the following pertinent directives: Discipline: It is the professional responsibility of the teacher to handle routine disciplinary problems. When it becomes necessary for a student to be removed from the classroom, the teacher should seek assistance from the principal, or his/her designee. No Student is to be removed from a classroom and placed in an area that is unsupervised by a qualified person. . . . (at page 1) . . . Supervision of Children: Children should be supervised by adults at all times. Teachers are responsible for walking children to and from physical education. In cases of emergencies, if you must leave students unattended, leave your door open and notify the teacher next door. (at page 3) . . . DISCIPLINE PLAN: Staff members are asked to have a discipline plan on file outlining steps taken to ensure understanding of class and school rules, procedures to be implemented when rules are not followed and positive reinforcement strategies. The county approved Assertive Discipline Plan is the preferred plan for all teachers. (at page 4). . . . PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING STUDENTS WHO ARE SENT TO THE OFFICE. In instances where the routine procedures for handling misbehaving students has not been effective, or if the incident is of a more serious nature, i.e., fighting, defiance of authority, vandalism, teachers will call upon the assistant principal, counselor or principal for assistance. (at page 5) . . . SOME DON'T'S: . . . Put child outside the classroom unsupervised. If a child needs to be excluded from class, send him/her to the office. (at page 7) . . . Accidents and Injury Reports - Student: When a child under your supervision is injured, notify the office and an accident report will be issued. This form must be filled in within 24 hours. (at page 28) At Morningside the teachers pick their students up at the physical education field at the beginning of the school day and escort them to the classroom. During January and February, 1993, Ms. Cohen was late to work three times, resulting in her students being late to class on those days. Ms. Cohen had prepared a discipline plan for the school year which plan provided for a student to have time out in another classroom as part of the progressive discipline. Her discipline plan was posted in her classroom, but had not been filed with the school administrator. Other teachers at Morningside had discipline plans which included time out for students in another classroom. The practice, however, was to not send a child alone. If the teacher or her assistant was unable to accompany the student, the teacher would send two other students to escort the child being disciplined to another classroom. Sometimes the teachers would call the office for assistance. On February 3, 1993, a student in Ms. Cohen's kindergarten class was coloring in a coloring book. Ms. Cohen took the coloring book away from the student. As a disciplinary measure, Ms. Cohen decided to send the student to another classroom for time out. She did not use the call button to alert the principal that she needed assistance. Ms. Cohen took the child to the door of their classroom and told the student to go to Ms. Holden's classroom. Ms. Holden's classroom was down the hall from Ms. Cohen's classroom. The doorway to Ms. Holden's classroom was recessed and could not be seen from Ms. Cohen's doorway. Ms. Cohen saw the student go down the hall but did not see her go into Ms. Holden's classroom. The student did not go into Ms. Holden's classroom, but stood outside and began to cry loudly. A school employee discovered the crying student alone in the hallway and took the student to the office. Morningside is located close to Biscayne Boulevard near an industrial district and a high crime area, known for prostitution and drug dealing. The school is designed with open corridors and no fencing around the school. Vagrants loiter around the school. On May 17, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was held to address the February 3, 1993, incident. Ms. Cohen received a performance evaluation for 1992-93 of unacceptable. On July 14, 1993, a pre-dismissal conference-for-the record was held with Ms. Cohen to address the pending dismissal action scheduled for the School Board meeting of July 21, 1993. At the July 21, 1993, meeting the School Board voted to suspend Ms. Cohen and commence dismissal proceedings against her. The Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade have entered into a collective bargaining agreement (Labor Contract) which provides in pertinent part on page 15: ARTICLE VII - SAFE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT Section 1. Student Discipline A safe and orderly learning environment is a major priority of the parties. Such an environment requires that disruptive behavior be dealt with safely, fairly, consistently, and in a manner which incorporates progressive disciplinary measures specified in the Code of Student Conduct. . . . E. The teacher shall have the authority to remove a seriously disruptive student from the classroom. In such cases, the principal or designee shall be notified immediately and the teacher shall be entitled to receive, prior to or upon the student's return to the classroom, a report describing corrective action(s) taken. Guidelines for implementing this provision shall be developed by each Faculty Council/Shared Decision-Making Cadre. At page 88, the Labor Contract provides in pertinent part: Section 3. Workday The employee workday shall be seven hours and five minutes for employees at the elementary level . . .
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Ms. Cohen guilty of incompetency, insubordination and willful neglect of duty, sustaining her suspension without pay, and dismissing her from employment from the School Board of Dade County without back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4232 The following rulings are made on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: The first three sentences are accepted in substance. The last two sentences are rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 5-6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 8-18: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 19: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 20: Rejected as immaterial since Ms. Cohen received an acceptable performance evaluation for the year 1991-92. Paragraph 21: Rejected as unnecessary to the facts found. Paragraph 22: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 23: Rejected as unnecessary to the facts found. Paragraphs 24-26: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 27: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence with the exception of "hysterically" is accepted in substance. The portion of the last sentence that Ms. Cohen was assigned to the region office is accepted and the remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 28: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected to the extent that Petitioner is inferring that Ms. Cohen did not see the child to the doorway of Ms. Cohen's classroom. Paragraph 29: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 30: The first two sentences are not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The last sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraph 31: Rejected as argument. Paragraph 32: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 33: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 34: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 35: Rejected as constituting argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue #403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Douglas L. "Tim" Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2013), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (3)(e) with respect to her treatment of an autistic child in her classroom. If so, then the appropriate penalty for her conduct must be determined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher in the State of Florida. She holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 952211, covering the areas of elementary education, English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), and exceptional student education. Respondent’s certificate is valid through June 2016. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) teacher at Maplewood. Ms. Newton has been involved in teaching in Marion County since 1999. She started as a teaching assistant, then substitute taught while putting herself through school, then obtained her bachelor’s degree in varying exceptionalities and began teaching full time. She also received her master’s degree in 2007 in the area of interdisciplinary studies in curriculum and instruction. With the exception of an internship at Oak Crest Elementary, all of Ms. Newton’s teaching experience was at Maplewood. Her performance evaluations from the 2004-2005 school year through the 2012-2013 school year all contain at least satisfactory ratings, with the majority of the recent evaluations rating her as highly effective or outstanding, depending on the evaluation tool used. The majority of her evaluations reference her excellent classroom management skills. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, Maplewood received an entirely new administrative team. Laura Burgess was the new principal, Claire Smith and Brian Greene were newly- appointed assistant principals, and Doris Tucker was the new dean. The new administration started at Maplewood in July, approximately a month before the beginning of the school year. Ms. Newton had been teaching and continued to teach autistic students. At the beginning of the school year, she was assigned six students in her self-contained classroom, and had the assistance of one teacher’s aide, Susanne Quigley. Ms. Newton believed strongly in the value of a structured, disciplined classroom, especially when dealing with autistic students. She believed that establishing the rules and routine for the classroom created an environment where any child could be taught, but that without structure and adherence to routine, chaos would result and impair the learning process. Her classroom management skills were well known and in past years, well respected. Both Ms. Newton and Ms. Quigley testified about the assistance she was asked to give to other teachers and students with respect to class management and discipline. Their testimony is credited. After the start of the school year but before September 3, 2013, Laura Burgess, Maplewood’s principal, was notified by the Social Services Education Team (SET team) for the District that Maplewood would be receiving a new student, B.L., who had moved to the area from North Carolina. She also received an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for B.L., which listed his disability as autism spectrum disorder. B.L.’s IEP also indicated that he had problematic behaviors that could impede his learning, including oppositional defiance disorder, tantrums, attention deficit disorder, and extreme violence. The documentation provided to her did not include a behavioral intervention plan, and Ms. Burgess was concerned that B.L.’s placement at Maplewood did not match the needs identified in the IEP. However, she determined that Ms. Newton’s class would be the best placement for B.L., because Ms. Newton had a reputation for having a structured and disciplined classroom, and perhaps B.L. would benefit from that kind of structure. Ms. Burgess saw Ms. Newton that morning and told her that she would be receiving a new student. Ms. Burgess described the issues with the child, and said that if he ended up in Ms. Newton’s class, she should document his behaviors in case he needed to be moved to a therapeutic unit for behaviors (TUB unit). Ms. Newton understood from the conversation that Ms. Burgess believed B.L. should be in a TUB unit, which did not exist at Maplewood. However, later in the day Ms. Newton and her aide, Susanne Quigley, were supervising her students on the playground when she was approached by Claire Smith, one of the new assistant principals. Ms. Smith informed her that B.L. would indeed be placed in her class and gave her a copy of his IEP, with certain portions related to his behavior highlighted. Ms. Newton expressed surprise at the placement, thinking that he would be going to the TUB unit. Ms. Smith had met with B.L. and his mother earlier in the day and felt that he could benefit from Ms. Newton’s structured classroom. She also talked to Ms. Newton about documenting his behaviors should a change be necessary. Ms. Newton was concerned about the addition to her classroom because she already had six autistic students and, with respect to B.L.’s identified behaviors, “we’ve never had a child like that at Maplewood.” Nonetheless, B.L. was placed in her classroom on September 3, 2013. Consistent with her usual practice, Ms. Newton began to teach B.L. the rules of her classroom. For the first two days, there were no major problems. There were instances where B.L. did not want to comply with the directions she gave him or follow the rules of the classroom, but with some coaxing, she was able to get him to comply. Ms. Newton did not see the need to call the front office for assistance on either of the first two days B.L. was in her classroom, but then, Ms. Newton had never called the front office for assistance with any child. At the end of the first day, she had the opportunity to speak with B.L.’s mother briefly when she picked him up from school. After Ms. Newton introduced herself, B.L.’s mother basically confirmed the contents of the IEP. According to what B.L.’s mother told Ms. Newton, B.L. had lived previously with his father and there had been issues both at school and at home with disruptive and violent behavior. Ms. Newton told her they were going to “wipe the slate clean” and asked if there was anything that B.L.’s mother wanted Ms. Newton to work on, and she identified B.L.’s behaviors as an area for improvement. Ms. Newton told B.L.’s mother that Maplewood was a great school, and “that would happen.” B.L.’s third day at Maplewood did not go well. At the very beginning of the day, B.L. would not follow directions to stand with the rest of his classmates at their designated spot after getting off the bus. Instead, he plopped down in the middle of the walkway, in the midst of the area where children were trying to walk to their classes. He had to be coaxed all along the way to get to class, and once there, refused to unpack and sit down. He refused to follow any direction the first time it was given, instead responding with shuffling feet, shrugging shoulders, talking back, calling names, and wanting to lay his head down on his desk instead of participate in class. When it was time for the students in the class to go to art, Ms. Quigley normally took them while Ms. Newton attended to other responsibilities. According to Ms. Quigley, B.L. did not want to go to art class, and had to be coaxed to walk with the others to the art room. Once he got there, he did not follow directions, did not want to participate, and did not want to move from the back of the room. Normally, Ms. Quigley might have let him stand and watch if he remained quiet, but he was not being quiet: he was touching things and grumbling and getting angry. Ms. Quigley knew from prior experience that students with autism tend to mimic the bad behavior exhibited by others, and one child’s actions could cause a chain reaction of bad behaviors. She felt that if she did not remove him from the art room, the other children would also start to misbehave, and she did not want them to follow B.L.’s example. Ms. Quigley took B.L. out of the art classroom and went back to the classroom in search of Ms. Newton. Ms. Newton was not in the classroom, as she was attending to other responsibilities. Ms. Quigley then took B.L. to the office, but again, found no one there to assist her. B.L. was not happy during any of these travels, and again had to be coaxed all along the way. Once she got back to the art class, Ms. Quigley had B.L. stand in the back of the classroom. She was trying to watch him and also attend to the other students, but one of the other students knocked everything off the art table, so Ms. Quigley added clean-up to her responsibilities. At that point, Ms. Newton came into the art room. Ms. Newton took both B.L. and the other misbehaving child back to the classroom while Ms. Quigley stayed with the remaining students for the rest of the art period. What remained of the afternoon became a battle of wills between Ms. Newton and B.L.: Ms. Newton was trying to establish the ground rules for behavior in her classroom with B.L., and B.L. was determined not to follow those rules. The result was Ms. Newton spending the bulk of the afternoon with B.L. and Ms. Quigley attending to the needs of the other students in the class. For at least part of this time, Ms. Newton placed B.L. in time-out, with directions that he was to stand still with his hands to his sides. For Ms. Newton, the purpose of time-out is for a student to gather his or her thoughts, to get himself or herself together, and to remind the student of the rules of the classroom. She wants a student to have time to think about his or her actions, and wants to discuss with the student the nature of the problem presented by his or her behavior and how the problem should be resolved. If a child stops behaving, time-out may begin again. Ms. Newton put B.L. in time-out because he was not following her directions to him. She talked to B.L. about the rules of the classroom and where they are posted in the room, and told him what he needed to do. B.L. is very verbal and able to talk about his issues. Ms. Quigley described him as very high-functioning and not on the same level as other children in the classroom. Instead of responding appropriately, B.L. was calling names, talking out, and using curse words; flailing his arms and legs, wrapping himself in his sweatshirt so that his arms were in the body of the sweatshirt as opposed to in the armholes, and covering his face so that he could not see obstacles in his environment; wandering around instead of staying still; kicking things in the classroom, including a box and a door; throwing objects on the floor, rolling around on the floor and spitting; and generally resisting any instruction. During the course of the afternoon, Ms. Newton attempted to show B.L. what she wanted from him. For example, she demonstrated how she wanted him to stand in time-out by holding his arms in the area close to his wrists to demonstrate standing still with his hands down. B.L. repeatedly resisted this direction and tried to break away from Ms. Newton. B.L. was not only resisting her, but at times appeared to be butting his head against her and kicking her. He was at other times rubbing his hands against his face. Ms. Newton told B.L. he needed to stop rubbing his hands over his face, or she would remove his glasses so that he did not hurt himself with them. When B.L. continued his resistant behaviors, she removed his glasses and eventually put them in his backpack. B.L. continued to lightly slap his face with both hands. Ms. Newton did not physically intervene, but testified that she gave B.L. consistent verbal direction to stop hitting himself. Although he clearly continued to slap his face for some time, Ms. Newton testified that the movement was more like a pat than a slap, and she did not believe that he was hurting himself. Her testimony is credible, and is accepted. Ms. Newton also told B.L. to quit flailing his arms and putting his jacket over his head. She was concerned that he could hurt himself given that he was standing (not still, as directed) near the corner of a table. Ms. Newton told him if he did not stop she would take his jacket from him. He did not and she removed his jacket and placed it on a table in the classroom. She did not give B.L. the jacket back when he wanted it, because she wanted B.L. to understand that there are consequences to not following directions. With approximately 30 minutes left to the school day, Ms. Newton asked Ms. Quigley to call the front office for assistance. Ms. Tucker, the dean at Maplewood, came to her classroom. Before Ms. Tucker’s arrival, Ms. Newton was trying to get B.L. to stand in the back of the room. He was not following directions and had gone over to sit in a chair near the center of the room. The chair was near a free-standing easel with teaching implements attached to it, and it is reasonable to assume, given B.L.’s behavior, that Ms. Newton did not want him near the easel because of the potential for harm. Each time he went to the seat, Ms. Newton directed him away from it. When Ms. Tucker arrived, he once again sat in the chair he had been directed not to use. Ms. Newton removed him from the chair and told him again he was not to sit in it. B.L. immediately went to another chair in the same vicinity and sat down. Ms. Newton, took him by the arm and away from the chair, and took him out of the room. From Dean Tucker’s perspective, B.L. was just trying to sit in a chair. From Ms. Newton’s perspective, this was just one more instance in a litany of instances where B.L. was refusing to follow her directions. Dean Tucker was outside the room with B.L. when the door closed. B.L. starting kicking and beating on the door, screaming that he wanted in, and opened the door. Ms. Newton placed her arm on his chest and pushed against him to keep him from entering the room, and asked Ms. Tucker to lock the door from the outside, which she did. B.L. continued to kick and beat at the door, and Dean Tucker called assistant principal Greene to assist her. When Mr. Greene arrived, B.L. was still kicking at the door. He kept saying that he wanted in the classroom but would not say why. Eventually Mr. Greene was able to calm B.L. enough to find out that he wanted his backpack. Because it was close to the end of the day, Mr. Greene took B.L. to the office but instructed Ms. Tucker to retrieve his backpack from Ms. Newton’s classroom. Ms. Tucker returned to Ms. Newton’s classroom to retrieve the backpack. Ms. Newton expressed frustration at the decision to return the backpack to B.L., saying that meant “he won.” From Ms. Tucker’s and Mr. Greene’s perspectives, returning the backpack to him made sense, in part because they were not aware of the exchange related to the backpack earlier, and in part because it was close to the end of the day and B.L. would not be returning to the classroom that day. From Ms. Newton’s perspective, the backpack had been taken from B.L. because she had told him she would take it if he did not comply with her directives, and he did not do so. She felt that returning the backpack to him at that point was ensuring that B.L. had no consequences for his bad behavior. After completing their end-of-day responsibilities, Mr. Greene and Ms. Tucker returned to the classroom to speak to Ms. Newton about B.L. Ms. Newton told them that he had been out of control all day, kicking boxes, pushing chairs, and a danger to himself and others. She stated that it was only B.L.’s third day in the classroom and it would take some time to live up to expectations, but that he knew the rules and knew how to follow them. Mr. Greene felt that Ms. Newton was clearly upset with both him and Ms. Tucker with respect to how B.L. was handled. Ms. Newton asked whether B.L.’s parent had been called, and felt that his parent should have been contacted as part of addressing B.L.’s behavior. After speaking to Ms. Newton, Mr. Greene and Ms. Tucker pulled the videotape for the afternoon in Ms. Newton’s classroom. After scanning through the tape, Mr. Greene went to Ms. Burgess and asked her to view it because the tape’s contents concerned him. Once she did so, Ms. Burgess called Lisa Krysalka, the head of human resources for the District, and after discussion with her, called both the Department of Children and Families and the local sheriff’s office. She also spoke to Ms. Newton and told her she was to report to the District office the following day, and called B.L.’s parent. Rose Cohen investigated the matter for the District, which included speaking to Ms. Burgess, Mr. Greene, Ms. Newton, Suzanne Quigley, and a Ms. Ballencourt, and watching the video. Adrienne Ellers, the lead behavior analyst for the District, was asked to watch the video and to identify any deviations from the TEACH program for student management accepted by the District. Ms. Cohen recommended to the superintendent that Ms. Newton’s employment be terminated, and the superintendent presented that recommendation to the School Board. Ms. Newton appealed the recommendation and a hearing was held before the School Board, which included a viewing of the video of her classroom. The School Board rejected the superintendent’s recommendation for termination by a 3-2 vote. However, Ms. Newton did not return to Maplewood. No evidence was presented to indicate that the Department of Children and Families determined that there was any basis for a finding of child abuse or neglect. Likewise, no evidence was presented indicating that law enforcement took any action against Ms. Newton. There was also no evidence to indicate that B.L. was harmed. The focus of much of the evidence in this case dealt with the video from Ms. Newton’s classroom. The video, Petitioner’s Exhibit 1, is approximately two hours long. It is from a fixed position in the classroom and it shows some, but not all, of Ms. Newton’s classroom. It has no sound. There are parts of the video where, due to lighting deficiencies and similar skin color tones, it is difficult to tell exactly what is transpiring. There are also times when either Ms. Newton or B.L., or both, are not fully within the view of the camera, and sometimes they are not visible at all. With those parameters in mind, the video does show some of the interaction between Ms. Newton and B.L. What is clear from the video is that Ms. Newton spends a great deal of time talking to B.L., and that she remains calm throughout the day. B.L. does appear to comply with direction for short periods in the video, but never for very long. The video shows Ms. Newton holding B.L. by the arms; pulling him up both by the torso and by his arms; removing (but not “snatching”) his eyeglasses; removing his jacket with some resistance from him; blocking his access to his jacket; and kicking his backpack away from his reach. It also shows B.L. kicking items in the room, including a large box near where he is standing; rolling around on the floor; flailing his arms and legs around when he is clearly being directed to be still; and generally resisting any attempt at correction. The video also shows that during the time Ms. Newton is focused on B.L., the other students are engaged in learning, and Ms. Quigley is able to work with them without assistance. The Administrative Complaint alleges that “Respondent and B.L. engaged in a tussle which resulted in B.L. falling to the ground.” A more accurate description would be that B.L. resisted Ms. Newton’s attempts to show him how she wanted him to stand, and in his struggling, he went to the ground. It appeared to the undersigned that Ms. Newton was attempting to prevent his going down, but was unable to do so safely. The Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent “grabbed B.L. by the back of the neck and gripped B.L.’s neck for approximately 10 seconds.” A more accurate description would be that Respondent placed her hand at the back of B.L.’s neck and guided him with her hand at the base of his neck for approximately 10 seconds. She did not grab him by the neck or hold him that way; it appeared that she was protecting him from falling backwards, as he pulled away from her. Respondent did not, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, drag B.L. across the floor. She did attempt to get B.L. to stand one of the many times that he flopped on the floor, and he resisted her attempt. In that process, the two of them did move across the floor a short distance, which appeared to be due to B.L.’s pulling away from her, but she was not dragging him across the floor. All of Ms. Newton’s actions were taken in an effort to either instill the rules of the classroom in order to create for B.L. an atmosphere for learning, or to prevent harm to either herself, B.L., or property in the classroom. Ms. Quigley, who was present in the classroom during most of the interchange depicted on the video, was more focused on the other students in the class than she was on B.L. She has seen a portion of the video since the incident. Ms. Quigley recalls hearing parts of the conversation between B.L. and Ms. Newton, and testified that Ms. Newton never lost control with B.L., and understood from what she heard that Ms. Newton was trying to get B.L. to follow the rules. Nothing Ms. Quigley saw or heard caused her any concern. Barbara O’Brien and Christine Spicoche are both parents of former students who testified on Ms. Newton’s behalf. Both acknowledged that they had not seen the interaction between Ms. Newton and B.L.,2/ but both have been in her classroom on numerous occasions during the years that their children spent with Ms. Newton: Ms. O’Brien’s son was in Ms. Newton’s class for six years, while Ms. Spicoche’s son was there for three years. Both expressed a great deal of gratitude for the positive effect Ms. Newton and her teaching methods have had on their sons’ lives. With respect to both children, the mothers testified that their sons went from children who were out-of-control to children who were able to function appropriately both in the classroom and in other places. As stated by Ms. Spicoche, “It would be best for him to be at a strong hand of a loving teacher who cares, who wants the best for him than being at the fist of the legal system later.” At all times, Ms. Newton’s focus was to establish the rules of the classroom so that B.L., like the other students in her classroom, would be able to learn. B.L. was different from the other students in her classroom, and she admitted he was a challenge. However, Ms. Newton’s actions in this case are consistent with her general philosophy for teaching: to be firm, fair, and consistent at all times. Ms. Newton believes that if you do not follow these principles, you have chaos in the classroom, and where there is chaos, no one is learning. With a disciplined, structured environment, Ms. Newton believes every child can learn, and the atmosphere observed in her classroom is consistent with her philosophy. Ms. Burgess chose Ms. Newton’s classroom for B.L. precisely because of her reputation as having a disciplined structured classroom. However, in her view, Ms. Newton should have just given B.L. his backpack when he wanted it; should have given him his glasses; should have let him just walk around the room when he wanted to; and should have just let him kick the door, rather than ever putting a hand on him. Ms. Burgess did not explain (nor was she asked) how many children in the classroom should be allowed to do what B.L. was doing, and whether learning could still take place should each of the children be allowed to wander, kick, and be disruptive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 2015.
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 just cause exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes,2 to suspend Respondent from his employment as a teacher for ten days without pay. 1 All references to chapter 120 are to the 2019 version. 2 All references to chapter 1012 are to the 2018 version, which was in effect at the time of the alleged misconduct at issue in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the credible and persuasive competent substantial evidence in the record, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools in Miami-Dade County pursuant to section 1001.32, Florida Statutes (2018), and article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution. Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher since 2000. He has been employed as an art teacher at E.W.F. Stirrup Elementary School ("Stirrup") for the last 18 years, including when he is alleged to have engaged in the conduct that has given rise to this proceeding. Respondent is certified in art, graphic design, and vocational education. Notice of Specific Charges The Notice of Specific Charges ("NSC"), which constitutes the administrative complaint in this proceeding, alleges two instances of conduct on Respondent's part as the grounds for the proposed disciplinary action. Specifically, the NSC alleges that on or about September 27, 2018, Respondent told a female 5th grade student words to the effect of "get out here; I do not want you here," and forcibly pushed her away with his hand. The NSC also alleges that Respondent used profanity, spoken in Spanish— specifically, the words "mierda"3 and "pinga"4?while covering a class of kindergarten students. The complaint alleges that two adults witnessed Respondent's use of these words.5 This incident is alleged to have occurred on or about December 5, 2018. Based on this alleged conduct, the NSC charges Respondent with misconduct in office, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2), for having violated specified provisions of rule 6A-10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession; School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; and School Board Policy 3210.01, Code of Ethics. Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing The September 27, 2018 Incident 3 Translated into English, "mierda" means "shit." 4 Translated into English, "pinga," as used in the context pertinent to this proceeding, means "fuck." 5 As more fully discussed below, the NSC does not allege that Respondent's use of these words was directed at any students, or that any students saw or heard Respondent use these words. On September 27, 2018, S.D., a minor, was a student in Respondent's 5th grade art class. S.D. testified, credibly, that on that day, Respondent told her to "get out of his way," then pushed her away by placing his hands on her shoulders. She testified that Respondent's words and actions made her feel "embarrassed, or, like, weird." S.D. acknowledged that she had gone up to Respondent and tried to talk to him while he was talking to the president of the Parent Teacher Association ("PTA"). She tried to get hand sanitizer and Respondent said to her "not now, go away" because he was talking to the PTA president at that time. Respondent characterized S.D. as a child who "has a reputation for basically not obeying anything." He testified that when S.D. approached his desk, he was in a discussion with the PTA president, and he told S.D. to "get out of here" and "sit down." He did not recall touching her. He stated that from where he was standing, he doubted that he could have reached her to push her away, and that had he pushed her, she likely would have fallen. No other witnesses testified at the final hearing regarding this incident. The December 5, 2018 Incident On Wednesday, December 5, 2018, Respondent was assigned to cover another teacher's kindergarten class starting at 9:00 a.m., so that the teacher who regularly taught that class, Ms. Rivero, could attend an exceptional student education ("ESE") meeting regarding one of her students. For the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent was assigned a full day of planning each Wednesday. In addition, Respondent was assigned one hour of planning every other day of the school week, per the Miami-Dade School District ("District") policy of providing teachers a minimum of one hour of planning per day.6 6 Respondent was assigned a full day of planning on Wednesdays in the 2018-2019 school year. This was not a function of his having an extraordinary workload; rather, it was because on Wednesdays, the language arts classes were scheduled back-to-back and students were dismissed early, so that it was infeasible to schedule art classes on Wednesdays. As a result of this scheduling, Respondent enjoyed nearly four more hours of planning per week than the minimum planning time to which he was entitled under the District's planning policy. According to Smith-Moise, if a teacher's schedule provides more than an hour of planning per day, that teacher may be requested, from time to time, to use that additional planning time for involvement in other school activities, including covering other teachers' classes as necessary. The administration at Stirrup generally attempts to schedule substitute teachers to cover classes when a teacher is called away from his or her class; however, on December 5, 2018, another teacher's class already was being covered by a substitute teacher. Because Respondent had planning that entire day, he did not have classes, so was available to cover Rivero's class. The length of ESE meetings varies, depending on the type of ESE service being delivered and whether the students' parents agree with the school district regarding the ESE services proposed to be provided. This particular meeting was an initial ESE team staffing meeting; these types of meetings often are relatively long compared to other types of ESE meetings. Respondent covered Rivero's class on December 5, 2018, from approximately 8:35 a.m. until shortly after 1:00 p.m., when a substitute teacher was called to cover the class for the remainder of the ESE meeting. During the time he was covering Rivero's class, Respondent called the Stirrup administration office multiple times, and also called and sent text messages to a fellow teacher, Yvette Mestre, asking how long the ESE meeting would take and when it would be over. In response to Respondent's calls, Smith-Moise twice left the ESE meeting to speak to Respondent in Rivero's classroom. Both times, when she entered the classroom, she observed Respondent disengaged from the students and talking very loudly on his phone. Respondent made clear to Smith-Moise that he was very frustrated at having his planning time taken to cover Rivero's class when he had other responsibilities to attend to.7 7 Respondent testified that he had a great deal of work to do on a large mural project for his own classes that needed to be completed under a tight deadline. Shortly after the beginning of the school day on December 5, 2018, Smith- Moise had taken a student from Rivero's class to Mestre's classroom because the student was misbehaving in Rivero's classroom. A short time thereafter, Respondent began sending text messages to Mestre, asking when the ESE meeting was going to be over. Mestre, who was occupied with teaching her own class, responded that she did not know, and suggested that Respondent contact the administration office. Around 10:30 or 11:00 a.m., Respondent began calling Mestre, again asking about the length of the ESE meeting. Mestre testified that "he seemed upset because he had stuff that he wanted to plan." Mestre again responded that she did not know and suggested that Respondent contact the administration office. At some point, Mestre went to Rivero's classroom to retrieve a lunchbox for the student from Rivero's class whom she was supervising. When she entered the classroom, she observed Respondent on his phone. Respondent told Mestre that he was on the phone with his United Teachers of Dade ("UTD") representative and that he was upset at having to cover Rivero's class because it was his planning day. Mestre went to the administrative office and reported to Smith-Moise that Respondent was upset and needed assistance in Rivero's classroom. Smith-Moise directed Mestre to take Acevedo Molina, an office assistant, to the classroom so that she (Acevedo Molina) could assist Respondent. According to Mestre, when they entered the classroom, Respondent initially thought Acevedo Molina was going to take over supervision of the class; however, when Mestre informed him that Acevedo Molina was there to assist him but would not be taking over supervision of the class, Respondent became very irate, raised his voice, and used the words "mierda" and "pinga" in speaking to them.8 Acevedo Molina confirmed that Respondent used these words when he spoke to her and Mestre. Mestre and Acevedo Molina were, respectively, "shocked" and "surprised" at Respondent's use of these words. 8 Mestre testified that Respondent said, translated into English, "[t]he school doesn't understand the shit that I do," and "they don't give a fuck what I do in this school." Respondent testified that he does not recall having said those words when he spoke to Mestre and Acevedo Molina that day. There is conflicting evidence whether Respondent used those words inside the classroom, such that they were said within earshot of the students, or outside of the classroom, where the students would not be able to hear or see him use the words. Mestre and Acevedo Molina both testified that they had entered Rivero's classroom and were inside the classroom with Respondent when he used the words. Respondent claims that he had to have stepped outside of the classroom into the corridor to speak to Mestre and Acevedo Molina, because the door was locked and they would have been unable to open it and enter the classroom on their own. In any event, it is unnecessary to determine whether Respondent used these words in the classroom within the students' earshot, because the NSC only charges Respondent with having said "mierda" and "pinga" while "covering a class of kindergarten students for another teacher," and that Respondent's use of these words was "overheard by two adult witnesses." The NSC does not allege that Respondent directed the words toward any students or that any students saw or heard him use these words.9 No direct or persuasive circumstantial evidence was presented showing that any students saw or overheard Respondent use those words. Although Mestre and Acevedo Molina testified that Respondent was inside the classroom when he said the words, both testified that the words were not directed toward the students, and neither testified that any students heard or saw Respondent say those words. Thus, even if the evidence conclusively established that Respondent was inside the classroom when he said those words—which it does not—that does not prove that any students saw or heard Respondent use those words. To that point, Smith-Moise 9 Trevisani v. Dep't of Health, 908 So. 2d 1008, 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)(a respondent cannot be disciplined for offenses not factually alleged in the administrative complaint); Cottrill v. Dep't of Ins., 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla 1st DCA 1996)(predicating disciplinary action on conduct never alleged in an administrative complaint or some comparable pleading violates the Administrative Procedure Act). See Hunter v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 458 So. 2d 842, 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)(administrative complaint seeking to impose discipline must state, with specificity, the acts giving rise to the complaint). testified that the school had not received any complaints about Respondent's use of those words from any of the students or their parents. The UTD Contract establishes a policy of imposing progressive discipline ("Progressive Discipline Policy") when "the Board deems it appropriate, and . . . the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense." Neither the Progressive Discipline Policy nor Petitioner's adopted policies articulate a disciplinary "scale" or penalty categories applicable to specific types of conduct. There is no competent substantial evidence in the record showing that Respondent previously has been subjected to disciplinary action by Petitioner. Petitioner did not present any competent substantial evidence establishing the factual basis for its proposal to suspend Respondent for ten days for the offenses charged in the NSC. Findings of Ultimate Fact As noted above, Petitioner has charged Respondent with misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2) for having violated specified provisions of rule 6A-10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession; School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; and School Board Policy 3210.01, Code of Ethics. Whether an offense constitutes a violation of applicable statutes, rules, and policies is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each violation. McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether particular conduct violates a statute, rule, or policy is a factual question); Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether the conduct, as found, constitutes a violation of statutes, rules, or policies is a question of ultimate fact); Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)(whether there was a deviation from a standard of conduct is not a conclusion of law, but is instead an ultimate fact). Charged Conduct and Rule Violations The September 27, 2018 Incident Based on the foregoing, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent pushed S.D. on September 27, 2018. There was no justification for Respondent to place his hands on and push S.D., even if she interrupted him while he was speaking with another person. Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. constituted misconduct in office, as defined in rule 6A-5.056(2). Specifically, Respondent's conduct did not comport with rule 6A-10.081(1)(a), which provides that his primary professional concern must be for the student, and requires him to exercise best professional judgment. In pushing S.D., he did not treat her as his primary professional concern, and he did not exercise best professional judgment. Additionally, Respondent's conduct did not comply with rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. or School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Specifically, in pushing S.D., Respondent did not make a reasonable effort to protect her from conditions harmful to her mental and physical health and safety. Although S.D. was not physically injured, she was embarrassed by Respondent's conduct in pushing her. Respondent's conduct also did not comply with rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5. or School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. was intentional and it exposed her to embarrassment. Because Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. violated rules 6A- 10.081(1)(a)1. and (2)(a)1. and 5., and School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent committed misconduct in office, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(2). Pursuant to the UTD Progressive Discipline Policy, it is determined that Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. was sufficiently serious to warrant suspending him without pay for five days. There was no justification for him having pushed her. Although S.D. was not physically injured as a result of Respondent's conduct, the potential existed for her to have been injured had she fallen, and, in any event, Respondent's intentional action subjected her to embarrassment. The December 5, 2018 Incident Based on the foregoing findings, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent used the words "mierda" and "pinga," which are profane words, when speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina on December 5, 2018. However, for the reasons discussed above, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent did not direct those words toward the students or that any students heard or saw him use those words.10 Respondent's use of profanity in speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina did not comport with rule 6A-10.081(1)(c). In using profanity toward his colleagues, Respondent did not strive to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. Mestre and Acevedo Molina both testified to the effect that they viewed his conduct as inappropriate in that professional setting. Respondent's use of those words when speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina did not comply with the requirement in School Board Policy 3210 to refrain from the use of profane or abusive language in the workplace. Respondent's use of those words when speaking with Mestre and Acevedo Molina also did not comply with the standard set forth in School Board Policy 3210.01, which requires the employee to show respect for other people. In sum, Respondent's conduct in saying "mierda" and "pinga" while speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina violated rules 6A-10.081(1)(c) and School Board policies 3210 and 3210.01. Accordingly, Respondent's conduct constituted misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2). As discussed above, there is no competent substantial evidence establishing that Respondent has ever been subjected to discipline by Petitioner prior to this proceeding. Although Respondent's conduct in using profanity when speaking to two adult colleagues violates certain policies, in light of the UTD Progressive Discipline Policy, such violation is not sufficiently serious to warrant suspension without pay. Therefore, it is determined that, consistent with the concept of progressive 10 Further, as discussed above, the administrative complaint does not charge Respondent with using those words toward students or charge that any students saw or heard him use those words. discipline, Petitioner should issue a verbal reprimand to Respondent for his conduct in using profanity when speaking to his colleagues. Because Respondent was not charged with, and the evidence did not prove, that he directed profanity toward any students or that any students saw or heard him use profanity, Petitioner may not impose discipline on Respondent on that basis. Just Cause Based on the foregoing, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that just cause exists to suspend Respondent. Recommended Penalty Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent should be suspended for five days without pay for having pushed S.D. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent should be issued a verbal reprimand for using profanity when speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina and Respondent should receive five days of back pay for the balance of the ten-day period for which Petitioner proposed to suspend him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, consistent with the foregoing, Petitioner enter a final order suspending Respondent from his employment as a teacher for five days without pay, issuing a verbal reprimand to Respondent, and awarding Respondent back pay for five days. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Cristina Rivera, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Carlos M. Sanjurjo Apartment 214 14907 Southwest 80th Street Miami, Florida 33193 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent, a teacher, for 30 days without pay for pushing a student.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by the School Board as an eighth-grade teacher at NDM, a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent has taught for the School Board for 15 years without receipt of any prior discipline. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade. The proposed discipline is based upon conduct occurring on Thursday, March 4, 2014. On that day, 14-year-old eighth-grade student, D.H., entered Respondent's classroom approximately ten minutes late. Respondent told D.H., “You are going to jail.” When D.H. asked why and said he had done nothing wrong, Respondent did not answer and instructed D.H. to immediately leave the classroom. This interaction was observed by other students in the classroom. D.H. exited to the hallway outside of Respondent's class. At or about this same time, substitute teacher Green was walking several students who had been disruptive to other classrooms. Green took a female student to Respondent's class. Green saw D.H. and told him to go into the classroom. Green opened Respondent's classroom door and asked if she could leave the female student with Respondent and he agreed. While Green and Respondent were talking, D.H. attempted to re-enter the classroom as directed by Green. Respondent stood in front of D.H. and told him he was not allowed to enter. D.H. asked why and said he was going to enter. Respondent replied, “You'd have to go through me first. I wanna see that.” D.H. replied, “Man, I ain't studying you, I don't even see you.” Respondent and D.H. then got in a heated verbal exchange. Green tried unsuccessfully to have Respondent calm down and go back in the classroom. Respondent taunted D.H. by saying he was waiting for D.H. to throw the first punch and that he would give D.H. a “beat down.” Respondent escalated the situation by calling D.H. “weak” and saying “You have no power. That's why you always get beat up.” D.H. was visibly upset and Green kept him separated from Respondent. Respondent went back into the classroom and closed the door, but continued making comments, gestures, and laughing at D.H. in front of his classmates. D.H. remained in the hall yelling. Respondent opened the door again and said if D.H. put his hands on him, he would give him a beat down. D.H. moved from behind Green, towards Respondent, and got a few inches from him and said, “I'm right here. What are you going to do?” D.H. did not touch Respondent. Respondent hit D.H. hard with two open hands to D.H.'s chest causing D.H. to stumble several steps and fall into Green. At the time of this incident, Respondent weighed 220 pounds. D.H. was 14 and weighed approximately 140 pounds. Green told another student to call security and then convinced Respondent to go back in his classroom. Green took D.H. to her classroom. D.H. was not physically injured, but was embarrassed. As a result of the investigation, Respondent was suspended without pay for a period of 30 days for misconduct in office, in violation of State Board of Education and School Board rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding Richter Flambert guilty of misconduct in office, suspending his employment without pay for a period of 30 school days, and placing him on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 11th day of December, 2015.
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.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate 297447 covering the area of elementary education. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher in the Dade County School District. During the 1983-84 school year, the Respondent was employed as a second grade teacher of Chapter I students at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School. During the 1984-85 school year, the Respondent was again employed at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School as a second grade teacher. In March 1985, Respondent was transferred to Miami Springs Elementary School for the remainder of the school year as a result of an altercation involving an irate parent. During her tenure at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School, Respondent was assigned approximately 16 students in her second grade classes each year. Respondent was assigned a fourth grade class at Miami Springs Elementary School from March through June 1985. The Respondent's class contained approximately 30 students. Respondent was a first year annual contract employee of the Dade County Public Schools during the 1983-84 school year and a second year annual contract employee of the Dade County Public Schools during the 1984-85 school year. Respondent was not reappointed for the 1985-86 school year as an employee of the Dade County Public Schools because she failed to perform at an acceptable level of professional performance at two different schools, under two different administrations, with two different sets of students. The principal of Lillie C. Evans Elementary School, Willie Mae Brown, is a thirty-six year employee of the Dade County School System. Ms. Brown was Respondent's principal during Respondent's employment at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School. Ms. Brown has been trained to observe and evaluate the professional performance of classroom teachers and has observed and evaluated hundreds of teachers in her position as principal. On May 31, 1984, Brown prepared the Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year. She rated Respondent as unacceptable in the category of classroom management and noted in the remarks section of the evaluation that Respondent "should continue participating in workshops that will enable her to acquire techniques in instruction and classroom management." Brown requested that Respondent attend workshops on techniques of instruction and classroom management during the 1983-84 school year and that she observe fellow teachers in the school in order to improve Respondent's performance in the classroom. During the 1984-85 school year, Brown continued to observe serious problems with Respondent's control of student conduct and classroom management. On October 1, 1984, Brown overheard a child screaming loudly in the Respondent's classroom as if the child was in pain. When Brown observed Respondent on October 5, 1984, she noted that Respondent was unable to manage the class, failed to use non-verbal techniques and few verbal techniques to deal with students who were off-task. Brown observed that pupils were moving about and making noise in the classroom. Respondent's lesson plans did not appear to have enough activities to occupy the students' attention. Respondent was provided with "prescription plan" activities and recommended resources for implementation of the prescriptions. Brown provided a time line for improvement of October 29, 1984. On October 24,1984, Brown prepared a log of assistance which had been provided to Respondent. Brown's log noted that on October 1, 1984, Mrs. Mayme Moore, North Central Area Chapter I Resource Teacher, provided special assistance to Respondent concerning control of student conduct. In addition, Brown documented assistance provided to Respondent by Teacher Lena Hoskins; Teacher Sharon Sbrissa; Mr. Mitchell, School Guidance Counselor; Walter Foden, Assistant Principal; and others. As a follow-up to the October 5, 1984 observation, Brown again observed Respondent's classroom performance on October 29, 1984. Brown observed that the Respondent's performance was deficient in preparation and planning and classroom management. Brown observed a large number of children off-task. Respondent still appeared to be unable to manage her students. Again, Respondent failed to provide enough activities to occupy the students for the full class period. Brown noted that two pupils fell asleep during the class. Once again, Brown prescribed plan activities and recommended resources to Respondent with a time line of November 15, 1984. Brown continued to provide Respondent with assistance through the Teacher Education Center and through fellow teachers. On November 21, 1984, Brown found four of Respondent's students creating a disturbance in a bathroom. Upon returning these students to Respondent's classroom, she observed eight or nine of the twelve students in the classroom running around making noise. During the course of the 1984-85 school year, Ms. Brown received three or four written complaints and several additional telephone calls from parents complaining about Respondent's class. The nature of the parental complaints concerned Respondent's lack of control of student conduct in the classroom. On December 10, 1984, a conference for the record was held by Brown with Respondent and her union representative to address parent complaints, the complaint of the primary helping teacher for Respondent, Respondent's performance assessment to date and her employment status. At the conference, Respondent was advised of letters of complaints from parents and peers regarding her classroom management. Respondent was afforded the opportunity to identify a fellow teacher with whom she could confer and observe. Respondent did not indicate a preference for peer assistance. As primary helping teacher, Ms. Scurry complained that Respondent's inability to control students in her classroom was requiring Ms. Scurry's assistance almost every day. Scurry expressed concern to Brown about Respondent's continuous need for assistance with her students which was interfering with Scurry's instruction of her own class. In addition to Scurry, two other teachers, Ms. Drawley and Ms. Bell, made written complaints to Brown concerning the disruption of their respective classes due to excessive noise emanating from Respondent's classroom. At the request of Principal Brown, on November 1, 1984, Respondent prepared a summary of assistance which the Respondent received during the year. Respondent's handwritten narrative discloses that she received assistance from Mrs. Sbrissa, Mrs. Hoskins, Mrs. Moore, Mrs. Knight, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Brown, and Mr. Foden. Brown continued to require that Respondent attend prescriptive in- service courses through the Teacher Education Center in the latter half of the 1984-85 school year. Specifically, Brown requested that Respondent attend courses concerning classroom management and preparation and planning. On February 15, 1985, a joint observation of Respondent's professional classroom performance was conducted by Brown and Mrs. Eneida Hartner, the Area Director for the North Central Area of the Dade County Public Schools. Each observer evaluated Respondent's performance separately. Respondent received advance notice of the observation. The combined evaluations of Brown and Hartner resulted in an overall rating of unacceptable, with specific ratings of unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning and classroom management. Respondent was once again provided with prescription plan activities, recommended resources with which to implement the activities and a time line for improvement. Both observers noted that Respondent failed to provide sufficient activities for the class period to occupy the students' time for the entire period and, as a result, students were off-task. Respondent failed to motivate her students to be interested in the task at hand and failed to provide appropriate feedback concerning the students' behavior. In March, 1985, Brown again received a memorandum from the Teacher Education Center regarding prescriptive in-service courses for the Respondent. Brown requested that Respondent attend the course on classroom management. Subsequently, on April 15, 1985, Ms. Brown was notified by memorandum that the Respondent had failed to attend the classroom management course prescribed for her. During the 1984-85 school year, many educators from Lillie C. Evans Elementary School and from the school district provided Respondent with assistance at the request of Brown in an effort to remediate Respondent's observed deficiencies. In addition to Principal Brown, Assistant Principal Walter Foden observed and evaluated Respondent's performance. On November 19, 1984, Foden conducted an observation of Respondent's classroom and found her to be deficient in the area of classroom management. In the TADS observation form, Foden identified the areas of deficiency, prescribed plan activities for improvement, indicated recommended resources, and provided a time line for Respondent's improvement. Foden observed that Respondent was unaware of childrens' off-task behavior in the classroom despite the fact that there were only 12 to 13 children in her classroom at the time. Foden recommended six individuals to provide Respondent with assistance, and each of the six did provide assistance to her. Foden also observed Respondent on September 12, 1984. Based upon this observation, Foden concluded that Respondent was deficient in classroom management and in the teacher-student relationship. The students ignored Respondent, would not listen to her and appeared to lack respect for her. In addition, Respondent's instructions were unclear. Foden recommended four resource persons to Respondent. These individuals provided Respondent with the assistance requested. Gwendolyn Bryant, Primary Education Coordinator for the Dade County School System, provided assistance to Respondent at the request of Principal Brown. Bryant met with Respondent in her classroom on December 12, 1984, and on January 9, 1985. Bryant observed that Respondent needed assistance with classroom management and with the implementation of the primary education program. Bryant returned on January 9, 1985, and reviewed the procedures for implementing PREP, RSVP (Reading Systems Very Plain) and TMP (Total Math Program). During her January visit, Bryant found that Respondent had not yet evaluated her students to determine their needs under these programs. The evaluations of the students' individual needs should have been completed at the beginning of the school year. Bryant concluded that Respondent was in need of continuing assistance with classroom organization and management. Margaret Rogers, teacher on special assignment to the Reading Department, provided assistance to Respondent in April 1985 at Miami Springs Elementary School. Rogers reviewed RSVP with Respondent, reviewed the Respondent's grouping of students for reading, provided the Respondent with handouts on teaching a directed reading lesson and classroom management, rearranged the students' desks to comply with fire code and to provide access to the blackboard, and provided Respondent with numerous suggestions on control of student conduct. On the following day, April 2, 1985, Rogers demonstrated a writing lesson for Respondent and provided Respondent with information on RSVP and teaching a directed reading lesson. During her tenure at Miami Springs Elementary School, Respondent received assistance from Helen B. Francis, Assistant Principal. It was Ms. Francis who requested that Mrs. Rogers provide assistance to Respondent. On April 15, 1985, Ms. Francis conducted a formal observation and evaluation of Respondent's classroom performance. Ms. Francis rated Respondent deficient in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Francis observed that Respondent failed to control student conduct, resulting in constant disruptions and interference in the reading lesson which she was attempting to conduct at the time. Ms. Francis was in the Respondent's classroom almost on a daily basis because of constant complaints from parents and other teachers. Francis concluded that Respondent was unable to provide her students with appropriate instruction because she could not maintain control of the children's behavior. On March 29, 1985, Principal Margot J. Silverman observed and evaluated Respondent's teaching performance. Based upon that observation, Dr. Silverman rated Respondent deficient in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Dr. Silverman provided an intensive description of the observed deficiencies and numerous specific suggestions for improvement. Silverman observed Respondent's performance again on May 13, 1985. Based upon the observation, Dr. Silverman evaluated Respondent's performance to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction and teacher-student relationships. Again, Dr. Silverman provided a detailed description of the observed deficiencies as well as specific suggestions for improvement. On May 30, 1985, Dr. Silverman prepared Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year. On the evaluation, Silverman rated Respondent's performance as unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction and teacher-student relationships. Silverman rated Respondent's overall performance as unacceptable and recommended that she not be re- employed for the following school year. Dr. Patrick Gray, Executive Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards for the Dade County Public Schools, testified at formal hearing that in his professional opinion, Respondent has proven to be incompetent as a classroom teacher, by the standards of both the County School System and the Florida Department of Education. In Dr. Gray's expert opinion, Respondent's personal performance in the classroom has seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the Dade County School Board. Dr. Gray determined from a review of all of the observations, both internal and external, that Respondent's professional performance was worsening, rather than improving, despite extensive assistance to help her remediate her deficiencies. Gray's review of Respondent's personnel file discloses that the Respondent did not achieve an acceptable level of performance in any of the nine classroom observations conducted of her during the 1984-85 school year. Gray is unaware of any additional assistance which the Dade County School System could provide to Respondent to assist her in remediating perceived deficiencies beyond the assistance which has been previously provided to her.
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 within the Administrative Complaint and permanently revoking Respondent's Florida Teaching Certificate. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 11th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-46 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 47 has been rejected as being unnecessary, and Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 48 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Respondent filed posthearing correspondence which contains ten unnumbered paragraphs. The eighth unnumbered paragraph is the only one which constitutes a proposed finding of fact, and it is rejected since it is not supported by the evidence in this cause. The remainder of the unnumbered paragraphs in Respondent's correspondence have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: J. DAVID HOLDER, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 1694 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302 JOYCE L. PENCHANSKY 610 N.E. 177TH STREET NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33162 KAREN B. WILDE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION 125 KNOTT BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399 MARTIN B. SCHAPP, ADMINISTRATOR PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES SERVICES 319 WEST MADISON STREET, ROOM 3 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is sufficient "just cause" to warrant termination of Respondent's annual contract of employment with the Monroe County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Based on the Findings of Fact and Burke's prior disciplinary record, the undersigned concludes that Burke's chronic misconduct and series of continuing disciplinary problems on February 23, 2015 ( para. 9o.); May 7, 2015 ( para. 9q.); and May 12, 2015 ( para. 9r.), as well as Burke's performance evaluation from April 9, 2015 ( para. 9t.), permitted the School Board to dispense with the progressive discipline steps under the CBA since immediate and\or stronger action was reasonably necessary under Article V, Section 1B. of the CBA, and "just cause" existed for her termination. Burke's unabated misbehavior, even after several sit- downs and fair and repeated warnings, constituted sufficient legal grounds to permit the School Board to omit or skip steps in the progressive discipline process. See, generally, Quiller v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 171 So. 3d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (concurring opinion, Osterhaus, J.) (The employee's repeated use of profanity and derogatory language, her discipline history, and her failure to modify her conduct warranted skipping steps of the progressive discipline policy.). Quiller was decided the summer of 2015 and provides an analogous set of circumstances. Relevant portions of Judge Osterhaus's concurring opinion are instructive and worth repeating here: By highlighting Ms. Quiller's rhetorical and disciplinary history, the Final Order disputes the Recommended Order's conclusion that "[t]here is no proof that the behavior at issue constitutes [5] 'severe acts of misconduct.'" Though the definition of "more severe acts" in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was left undefined, the School Board's human resource officer testified at the hearing that the School Board determines appropriate discipline based on how many times an incident has occurred, who the witnesses are, the severity of the incident, the amount of time that has occurred between incidents, and the employee's willingness to modify his or her behavior. Her testimony continued that "some of the most severe conduct" includes instances when an employee has failed to modify his or her more serious behavior after having been warned. In turn, the School Board's conclusion in this case was that Ms. Quiller's repeated use of profanity and derogatory language, her discipline history, and her failure to modify her conduct warranted skipping step three of the progressive discipline policy. So there wasn't "no proof" that Ms. Quiller's behavior constituted "more severe acts of misconduct" for purposes of the CBA, even if the ALJ thought that her acts weren't particularly severe. Deference is due to the School Board's decision with respect to its personnel decisions. Courts [6] have little room to define what constitutes "more severe acts of misconduct" as against those responsible for running the county's schools. See, e.g., Dep't of Prof. Regulation v. Bernal, 531 So. 2d 967, 968 (Fla. 1988) (giving great discretion to boards to determine discipline). Courts will not substitute their judgment "if valid reasons for the board's order exist in the record and reference is made thereto." Id. at 968. To that end, the School Board's identification of Ms. Quiller's bad language, discipline, and failure to modify her behavior probably supports the departure it took from the ALJ's recommended penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Monroe County School Board accept and implement the superintendent's recommendation to terminate Respondent, Sue Burke. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 2015.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to sustain Respondent’s ten-workday suspension from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board (“School Board” or “Petitioner”).
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“School District”), pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. Respondent was hired as a full-time teacher at Mandarin Lakes K-8 Center Academy (“Mandarin Lakes”) and was employed there as a teacher of emotionally behavior disabled (“EBD”) students when all events material to this case took place. She has been employed in the School District for 14 years and, prior to that, for two years in the School District of Broward County, Florida. She has been an EBD teacher throughout her career. As a teacher, Respondent was subject to School Board policies and the collective bargaining agreement under United Teachers of Dade, as well as the Florida State Board of Education. During the 2019-2020 school year, D.J. and I.N. were students in Respondent’s classroom. D.J. was in the EBD class, which is a class for students with an emotional disability. No evidence of record concerning whether I.N. is an EBD student, as well, was presented. I.N. was a student along with D.J. in Respondent’s class who is currently in the fourth grade, however, they are not friends he said. I.N. had heard Respondent yell at D.J. prior to this incident. On October 10, 2019, D.J. asked Respondent to use the bathroom and Respondent said, “No.” D.J. said he was going to pee on himself. This was known by Respondent as behavior she had seen often after the lunch period when the students were not eager to return to school work. Respondent did not allow D.J. to use the bathroom. Respondent called D.J. “pissy,” and it caused the students in the class, including I.N., to laugh. After that, D.J. started to get mad or angry, and D.J. started to hit his head with his hand. Also, D.J. felt “bad” about the situation. Respondent did nothing to stop the students from laughing at D.J. Respondent then asked D.J. if he wanted to be Baker Acted after she observed him picking a scab, which caused it to bleed, and hitting himself on the head. When he got home later that day, D.J. was still upset, so he told his mother what happened at school and asked her what a Baker Act was. D.J.’s siblings have severe mental health issues and have been Baker Acted before; therefore, it was concerning to C.R. (D.J.’s mother) that Respondent made the Baker Act comment to D.J. D.J. told his mother that Respondent called him “pissy” because he went to the bathroom a lot. D.J. was taking medication at the time, of which Respondent was aware, that caused him to have to use the bathroom a lot. D.J. was seven years old when he testified at hearing and was recalling an incident that happened when he was five to six years old. After the incident, D.J. started to say that he wanted to be Baker Acted so he could be with his brother, who at the time was subject to a Baker Act commitment. At that time, C.R. wrote a statement detailing the incident from her perspective, which was consistent with her testimony at hearing. Respondent admitted to using the word “pissy.” Respondent also admitted to making a comment about Baker Acting D.J. because D.J. pulled at a scab and rubbed the blood on himself and also because he smacked himself on the head. Later, Respondent admitted during cross-examination that the scab incident did not occur on the same day as the Baker Act comment and was unrelated. She further admitted that she is not qualified to Baker Act someone and was not serious about D.J. being Baker Acted. This was an “unfortunate incident,” and Respondent apologized for it. D.J. has remained Respondent’s student for nearly a year and a half since the two incidents occurred in 2019. Respondent has maintained a good relationship with both D.J. and his mother. The School Board and the United Teachers of Dade, the classroom teachers’ union, have agreed to be bound by the principle of progressive discipline and that discipline imposed shall be consistent with that principle. Accordingly, they have agreed that the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Miami-Dade County School Board issue a written reprimand to Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Michele Lara Jones, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
