The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent had good cause to reject the then Lake County Schools’ Superintendent’s nomination of Petitioner, Dennis Teasley, to be Assistant Principal I of Eustis High School for the 2008-2009 School year.
Findings Of Fact From 1987 until 2006, Dennis Teasley was employed by the Broward County School System. During those years, he served the school system in a number of capacities, including: dropout prevention teacher from 1987-1988; middle school science teacher from 1988-1999; Assistant Principal of Pines Lakes Elementary from 1999-2004; Intern Principal from 2002-2004; and Principal of Pines Lakes Elementary from 2004-2006. The Intern Principal title was used by Broward County School System to designate an assistant principal as a “principle-in-training.” The designation provided an assistant principal with additional opportunities to become involved on a larger scale with the administrative responsibilities of the school. Mr. Teasley’s performance appraisals from Broward County consistently rated him as “Effective” or “Highly Effective” in all the criteria assessed. Additionally, Mr. Teasley received or was nominated for numerous awards based on his performance or the performance of the schools under his charge. For the school year 2003-2004, when Mr. Teasley served as assistant and intern principal, Pines Lakes Elementary earned an “A” rating. For the school years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, when Mr. Teasley was principal of Pines Lakes Elementary in Broward County, the school earned grades of “B” and “A,” respectively, and achieved AYP each year. “AYP” refers to Adequate Yearly Progress under the No Child Left Behind Act. To achieve AYP, a certain percentage of students from each population demographic represented at the school must achieve a Level 3 or higher in reading and mathematics, as measured by Florida’s “A-Plus” program. Sometime during the summer of 2006, Mr. Teasley either relocated or intended to relocate to the Lake County area. He applied for a position with the Lake County school system. Eventually, he was hired as a principal by Lake County Schools sometime in July, 2006, just prior to the beginning of the 2006- 2007 school year. Mr. Teasley was assigned to Beverly Shores Elementary School. Beverly Shores has a large population of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, as well as a large population of students requiring Exceptional Student Education (ESE). The ESE population includes students designated as Emotionally Handicapped (EH), and Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH). Indeed, 68 percent of the students at Beverly Shores in 2006- 2007 came from economically disadvantaged homes and 11 percent of the students were classified as ESE. The environment of the school was described by most of the witnesses as being a tough environment with a variety of discipline problems. Prior to Mr. Teasley’s appointment as principal, 447 students were suspended from Beverly Shores during the 2005-2006 school year, with 422 students suspended out-of-school (OSS) and 25 students given in-school suspensions (ISS). Eighty of the students given OSS were kindergartners. The principal for that year was described by the Superintendent as being burned-out and needing a respite from such a tough environment. Mr. Teasley entered this environment with insufficient time to familiarize himself with staff and/or review procedures and policies that were in place. He had one Assistant Principal (AP) to support him. Mr. Teasley’s two goals for the 2006-2007 school year were: 1) improving the academic standing of the school, by raising FCAT scores in mathematics and in the lowest performing quartile of students, all without a reduction in the scores for reading and writing; and 2) reducing the rate of serious discipline incidents by 50 percent. Mr. Teasley wanted to redraft the prior year’s disciplinary policy. There was some lack of communication on the status of the redrafted policy between teachers and Mr. Teasley and lack of activity by the committee responsible for the redraft. Eventually, some teachers felt that Mr. Teasley did not support them when it came to disciplinary matters and that Mr. Teasley allowed the students to get out of control. In September or October of 2006, a first-grade student brought a cellophane baggie containing a white powder to school. The police were called to confirm that the substance was cocaine. After confirmation, the child was removed from the custody of his mother, and immediately suspended from school. There was no evidence to suggest that the discipline imposed for this incident was inappropriate. In early September, Mr. Teasley placed an ESE/EH student in a non-ESE class. The student in question had been “retained” (or “held-back”) twice. As a consequence, the student was a seventh-grade-age student in a classroom of third- grade-age children. Mr. Teasley thought that the student’s development would be better met in middle school with similarly aged peers. He, therefore, hoped to have the student reassigned to middle school. While waiting to hear if the reassignment would happen, Mr. Teasley placed him/her in a non-ESE fifth- grade class under the supervision of a teacher with whom he had a good rapport. The decision to place the student in the non- ESE classroom was predicated on a number of factors, including Mr. Teasley’s desire to put the child in an environment where he/she could be successful, as well as, safety concerns regarding significantly younger ESE students being in the same class as the ESE student. Unfortunately, the student was not reassigned to the middle school and Mr. Teasley transferred him back to his original class. After the ESE/EH student was returned to his/her original class, the student “jumped” another student after school was dismissed, breaking the other student’s wrist. The ESE student was immediately given an out-of-school suspension (OSS). However, because the child was an EH student, he/she could only be suspended for a cumulative maximum of ten days, without convening a special ESE disciplinary staffing. Since the student had already been suspended for five days earlier in the year, his/her suspension was limited to five days. After this incident, the student’s parent consented to placement in an alternative school and the student was transferred to the Lifestream school. Again, there was no evidence that Mr. Teasley’s method of handling this student’s behavior problems was inappropriate given the fact that this student was a special education student and special disciplinary procedures applied to such students. Additionally, during the first semester, there was an on-going concern with a second-grade EH student who was “stalking” a female student. Mr. Teasley attempted to have the EH student assigned to the alternative school. However, the student’s mother was “dead-set” against the assignment and the student remained at Beverly Shores. At the same time, Mr. Teasley immediately informed the mother of the child being stalked of what was going on, as well as the steps that were being taken for the girl’s safety. Mr. Teasley assigned an adult to escort the EH student everywhere he/she went on campus. He also rearranged the lunch schedule for the student’s entire class to ensure that the student was not in the cafeteria at the same time as the girl. Again, there was no evidence that demonstrated the steps taken by Mr. Teasley in regard to this EH student were inappropriate given the fact that the student’s mother refused alternative placement and the student was an EH student. Ms. Jule Hand, a kindergarten teacher at Beverly Shores, provided the only direct testimony regarding Mr. Teasley’s perceived lack of support for the faculty. Specifically, she recounted incidents in which she personally sent referrals to the administration and was disappointed when a referral was not addressed on the same day it was written, or when the consequences were not, in her opinion, suitable for the incident. Ms. Hand testified regarding one incident where a student, with a history of significant disciplinary problems and multiple suspensions, pushed two students in her classroom and then threw down all the chairs around the classroom. In the process of throwing chairs, the child hit her and was physically and verbally abusive to her senior volunteer. Ms. Hand called the office for assistance in removing the child from the classroom. The child was removed and received a verbal reprimand with a warning to discontinue the behavior or harsher consequences would follow. To Ms. Hand’s dismay, the student was returned to the classroom. Ms. Hand went on to detail further incidents of misbehavior by this particular child, such as hitting the physical education teacher, spitting in another child’s face, throwing food, grabbing a child from behind, verbal defiance, swinging a metal pipe, and hitting another student with his/her shoulder hard enough to almost knock her over. During this time, the student’s parent was contacted on numerous occasions by both faculty and administrative personnel. Additionally, the student had been suspended twice during the course of these incidents. However, even with these suspensions, the student continued to have disciplinary problems. Mr. Teasley did not want to expel the student and recommended that Ms. Hand contact a social worker and counselor so that the student could be referred to ITOS, a behavioral- intervention study. Eventually, the student left Beverly Shores to attend the study. However, the year following Mr. Teasley’s term as principal, the student returned to Beverly Shores and continued to have behavioral problems. Again, the evidence did not demonstrate that Mr. Teasley’s handling of this matter was inappropriate, given Mr. Teasley’s desire not to expel the student. Ms. Karen Seltzer also testified at hearing about her impressions of the discipline problems at Beverly Shores under Mr. Teasley. Some of her testimony involved the EH student referenced above who again began stalking during the second half of the school year. Ms. Seltzer’s testimony was quite confusing and based on hearsay she had gathered from discussions with other teachers who did not testify at hearing. Furthermore, she also testified that she was unaware of the actions taken by Mr. Teasley in response to the incidents she related. The Assistant Superintendent, Mr. Cunningham, observed the students and environment of Beverly Shores during his visits in the first semester of the school year. The visits were prompted by complaints he or the Superintendent had received about the lack of discipline at Beverly Shores. During his visits to Beverly Shores, Mr. Cunningham observed behaviors that he reported to Mr. Teasley as situations that should be addressed from a discipline and control standpoint. He witnessed students traveling about the campus unsupervised by adults, as well as various unsafe behaviors such as running and jumping. There was some testimony from staff that indicated Mr. Cunningham’s observations regarding unsupervised students were not isolated incidents. Mr. Cunningham also saw classrooms that were cut-off from casual observation (e.g., the blinds were drawn). He also testified that at the beginning and the end of the day, when the entire student body was on the move, he observed that teachers were not “on duty” supervising the movement of students. He instructed Mr. Teasley that during those times it was especially important that teachers be in “supervisory mode.” Mr. Cunningham did not return to Beverly Shores until just before the end of the school year. At some point around March 2007, a parent named Ms. Burry contacted Mr. Teasley about obtaining a Sheriff’s Resource Officer (SRO) for Beverly Shores. Ms. Burry thought a uniformed officer on campus would help with student discipline. Even though a SRO is not involved with student discipline, Mr. Teasley felt that a uniformed officer on campus would serve as a positive role model at Beverly Shores. In support of Ms. Burry, Mr. Teasley attended a March 12, 2007, Leesburg City Commission meeting in which parents and teachers sought funding for an SRO at Beverly Shores. He spoke in favor of the idea. The City Commission referred the request back to the Board. At that point, Mr. Teasley felt that the SRO issue was “out of his hands.” Ms. Burry began to contact the Board and Superintendent about her desire for an SRO on campus and the need for greater discipline in the school. Around March or April 2007, Mr. Cunningham was again contacted by parents who were concerned about safety at Beverly Shores. At about the same time, a representative from the teacher’s union had come to him with concerns about the administration at Beverly Shores and “suggested pretty strongly that they might file a grievance” regarding Mr. Teasley’s performance. Mr. Cunningham did not identify which or how many parents voiced concerns to him. Likewise, he did not identify which or how many teacher complaints created the impetus for the union to consider filing a grievance. None of the parents testified at the hearing. On April 30, 2007, Mr. Teasley sent a letter to Assistant Superintendent Cunningham requesting that an additional assistant principal be assigned to Beverly Shores. As indicated earlier, Beverly Shores operated with one AP in 2006-2007. The letter, in part recognized there was a significant disciplinary problem at Beverly Shores and that the school did not have adequate administrative staff to handle the number of disciplinary referrals. Mr. Teasley made the request based on the approximately 1,200 disciplinary referrals the administration had processed through April 19th of the school year and the amount of time spent on processing those referrals. Mr. Teasley stated that the time spent processing those referrals reduced the time administrators were able to spend in classrooms or on campus. The number of disciplinary referrals was due, in part, to Mr. Teasley’s philosophy of using OSS as a disciplinary tool of last resort. In his view, a child cannot be educated if they are not in school. At some point, the Superintendent became aware of the complaints and problems at Beverly Shores and decided to meet with the staff and faculty to assess the situation at the school. In May of 2007, the Superintendent held two meetings with some teachers and staff of Beverly Shores. Ms. Rhonda Lynn attended those meetings. Her interpretation of the tone of the first meeting was that some members of the faculty and staff were frustrated and searching for leadership and that such leadership should have been provided by the principal and his administration. Some teachers and staff in attendance voiced complaints about Mr. Teasley’s lack of discipline and control of the student population. The Superintendent indicated such complaints would remain confidential. At the second meeting with the Superintendent, Mr. Teasley was present and either various complaints were mentioned by the Superintendent in Mr. Teasley’s presence or he was clearly aware of the complaints that had been made in the first meeting. Ms. Lynn’s interpretation of the tone of the second meeting was that the Superintendent had breached the confidentiality promised the staff in the first meeting regarding complaints about Mr. Teasley and that the staff was very upset over that breach. Ms. Lynn admitted that she could not speak for how every teacher at Beverly Shores felt about Mr. Teasley. Ms. Lynn stated that she never had any discussions with Mr. Teasley regarding an explicit philosophy for dealing with students who had received multiple referrals. She also testified that she had no responsibilities for the processing of disciplinary referrals. Throughout the time period outlined above, Mr. Teasley was formally evaluated by the School District. Originally, Mr. Cunningham would have been assigned to perform Mr. Teasley’s evaluation. However, at the time he would have performed the evaluation, Mr. Cunningham was assigned other duties within the District. Therefore, Ms. Pat Nave, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, K-12, completed Mr. Teasley’s evaluation. In the course of performing her evaluation of Mr. Teasley, Ms. Nave made four separate visits to the Beverly Shores’ campus. During those visits, Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley would discuss a number of different topics regarding the operation of the school. Specifically, Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley discussed his policies for monitoring faculty and student conduct. One such tool for monitoring the campus was a structured system for scheduling the weekly classroom walk-through assignments by members of the school’s leadership team. Based on the reports Mr. Teasley would receive as a result of these walkthroughs, Mr. Teasley would follow up with individual teachers regarding their performance. Additionally, during the evaluation visits, Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley would discuss the goals that Mr. Teasley had established at the beginning of the year to gauge the school’s progress in the areas he had identified as needing improvement. As noted earlier, those goals were: 1) improving the academic standing of the school, by raising FCAT scores in mathematics and in the lowest performing quartile of students, all without a reduction in the scores for reading and writing; and 2) reducing the rate of serious discipline incidents by 50 percent. Ms. Nave concluded that all of the strategies that had been outlined for reaching those two goals had been, or were being, implemented. With regards to discipline, she specifically noted that referrals had decreased. Indeed, the evidence demonstrated that out-of-school suspensions decreased from 422 the previous year to 221 for the current year and that on-going concerns were being addressed through the safety and discipline committee Mr. Teasley had established, even though the evidence at the hearing showed that this committee was not very active. Additionally, there was some suggestion at the hearing that disciplinary referrals may have been down because Mr. Teasley was not processing such referrals. There was no competent evidence to support such a conclusion. Evidence did demonstrate that Mr. Teasley preferred ISS to OSS. Toward that end, the ISS procedure was altered from the way it had been operated in the years prior to his tenure at Beverly Shores. During the course of the 2006-2007 school year, Mr. Teasley hired a teacher to monitor the ISS room and provide instruction when necessary, eliminated the practice of sending children to the ISS room as a “time-out” by requiring administrator approval, and required teachers to supply the child’s lessons for the periods that the child was in ISS so that the student could keep up with his or her classes. Finally, Ms. Nave discussed the School Advisory Council’s (SAC) performance rating of Mr. Teasley. SAC had given Mr. Teasley a mixed satisfaction rating at one of its meetings. At that meeting, eight members of SAC were present. Four of those members voted that Mr. Teasley was doing a satisfactory job. Four voted that Mr. Teasley was doing an unsatisfactory job. Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley, nonetheless, discussed the issue of the need to foster a productive working relationship with SAC. After the discussion, Ms. Nave was satisfied that Mr. Teasley was taking appropriate actions to continue working with SAC members to implement changes at Beverly Shores. As a result of this performance review, Mr. Teasley received the maximum amount of points on his evaluation and met the performance criteria of that evaluation. After the evaluation and three weeks before the end of the school year, a fifth-grade student at Beverly Shores wrapped the leather portion of his belt around his hand and began to swing the belt, striking students and adults with the metal buckle. Mr. Teasley and AP Jeff Williams were called to the classroom to assist with restraining and removing the student. Once they got the student to the office, Mr. Teasley immediately notified the police that a battery had occurred, suspended the student for the ten-day maximum suspension period, and began the expulsion process. The student did not return to school that year. No suggestion was made that Mr. Teasley’s response to this event was inappropriate. The belt incident garnered media attention. Shortly after the incident, the Superintendent went to the Beverly Shores campus, but could not locate Mr. Teasley in his office or on campus. She, therefore, sent Mr. Cunningham to the school. Eventually, she assigned Mr. Cunningham, along with Messrs. Mitchell and Habring, to Beverly Shores for the remainder of the school year. The Board also authorized the placement of an SRO at Beverly Shores. Mr. Cunningham testified that within a few days of the assignment of the extra personnel, the discipline situation began to improve and the school began to operate in an orderly way. Mr. Cunningham stated that he started to do the things that he had told Mr. Teasley needed to be done earlier in the year. The actions of Mr. Cunningham included administrative staff becoming more visible on campus while students were in transit from one place to another and dealing with each and every referral on the day in which it was written. Importantly, these actions were accomplished with a significant increase in administrative personnel. From an academic standpoint, there can be no question that Beverly Shores made significant improvements under Mr. Teasley’s direction. Evidence admitted at hearing showed that the school grades from the Department of Education (DOE) based on the students’ FCAT performance for Beverly Shores for the six school years prior to Mr. Teasley’s tenure (i.e., 2000- 2001 through 2005-2006) were “C”, “B”, “B”, “B”, “C” and “C”, respectively. During Mr. Teasley’s time as principal, Beverly Shores earned a grade of “A.” Beverly Shores also achieved AYP. Additionally, Beverly Shores had increases in the percentage of students meeting high standards in mathematics, as well as an increase in the percentage of students in the lower-quartile who made learning gains. The school’s grades did not decrease in the areas of reading and writing. These improvements show that the school was successful in achieving the academic goals that Mr. Teasley had identified at the beginning of the year. It should also be noted that such improvements were also due to the efforts of teachers and other staff at the school. Due to this achievement, Mr. Teasley was one of only 92 principals in the state to receive recognition as a “Turn- Around” Principal in 2006-2007. The “Turn-Around” award recognizes the principal of a school which improves by at least two letter-grades in one academic year. In 2007-2008, the year after Mr. Teasley’s tenure, Beverly Shores’ grade fell back to a “C” and the school failed to make AYP. The evidence did not demonstrate that Mr. Teasley had more discipline problems at his school than in prior years. There was some evidence to demonstrate that there may have been some student control problems related to monitoring the passageways of the school. Those problems were in part due to a lack of sufficient administrative staff to patrol the school. There was also some evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Teasley had lost the support of some of the faculty because he would return students to the teacher’s classroom or not assess a harsher penalty for misbehavior. However, there was only one teacher who testified to support that conclusion. Other staff testimony regarding lack of support and lack of discipline was based on hearsay. Just as Beverly Shore’s grade was not dependent on one person, Beverly Shores alleged discipline and student control problems cannot be attributed to one person. One teacher’s testimony coupled with hearsay and vague testimony is insufficient evidence to conclude that Mr. Teasley was no longer professionally qualified to perform in some capacity within the School District. At a May 21, 2007 Board meeting, Mr. Cunningham gave a report of the actions that had been taken at Beverly Shores to deal with discipline during the time he was assigned there. He also made suggestions for improving the discipline situation at the school going forward. Some of the suggestions involved actions previously sought by Mr. Teasley. At about the same time, the 2006-2007 school year came to a close. The Superintendent began to finalize the academic teams she would recommend to the Board for the 2007-2008 school year. In fact, for the next year, 2007-2008, the Superintendent and the Board recognized the need for additional supervisory staff at Beverly Shores and appointed two APs and a behavioral specialist to the school. The Superintendent was mindful of the events at Beverly Shores and the fact that some of the faculty and staff had lost confidence in Mr. Teasley’s ability to lead the school as principal. She decided not to recommend Mr. Teasley for principal at Beverly Shores. However, she did not want to lose Mr. Teasley’s skills as an administrator and recommended him for a district level administrative position for the 2007-2008 school year. The Superintendent’s recommendation was accepted by the Board and Mr. Teasley fulfilled the duties of that position during the 2007-2008 school year. At the close of the 2007-2008 school year, the Superintendent again created staffing recommendations for the 2008-2009 school year. Toward that end, the Superintendent created staffing recommendations to the Board that considered many factors. The most important factor was the creation of administrative teams for each school that would serve as that school’s “instructional leaders.” Similarly, it was very important that at least one member of an administrative team be well-versed in making learning-gains, raising student achievement and school grades. Mr. Teasley was clearly well- versed and well-qualified in such areas. The Superintendent recognized that since the 1998-1999 school year, Eustis High School had earned a grade of “C”, except for the year 2006-2007, when the school’s grade was “D.” Because of the high school’s performance, the Superintendent intended to make changes at Eustis High School to attempt to address the academic problems and raise the school’s academic performance. Additionally, the school was not known for having any extraordinary disciplinary issues. Mr. Larry was the principal of Eustis High School. He had been appointed the principal of the school because of his success in implementing advanced programs as a principal at the middle-school level. Mr. Larry was also very strong on discipline, had 4 other APs and did not require additional help in the area of discipline. Therefore, the Superintendent was not worried about discipline-related issues at Eustis High School. In putting together an educational team for the school, the Superintendent wanted to place a person who had demonstrated their ability to raise a school’s academic achievement and performance. As indicated, the Superintendent did not want to place Mr. Teasley back at Beverly Shores because that educational team had not been successful. However, Mr. Teasley had skills in school improvement that were very useful to the District. She recommended Mr. Teasley for appointment as one of Eustis High School’s five APs. Her recommendation was based on Mr. Teasley’s proven ability in achieving AYP, his ability to analyze the raw performance data for AYP and to work with teachers to raise the test scores which form the basis of a school’s grade. Indeed, the Superintendent felt that Mr. Teasley was one of the strongest individuals she could recommend to Eustis High School to work with the current administration and to help improve the school’s academic performance. Mr. Larry indicated to the Superintendent that he could work with Mr. Teasley. There was no direct testimony given at the hearing of how Mr. Larry wanted to use Mr. Teasley at Eustis High School, although there was some hearsay testimony that Mr. Teasley would be placed at the Curtright Center, a separate ninth grade center that is approximately 1.5 miles from the main high school campus. The Superintendent recommended Mr. Teasley for the position of AP-1 at Eustis High School. Ultimately, the Board rejected the Superintendent’s recommendation. The testimony at hearing and the evidence admitted shows that the primary reason that the Board rejected the Superintendent’s nomination was because of the Board’s lack of confidence in Mr. Teasley’s ability to maintain discipline and control at Eustis High School. Mr. Cunningham, Assistant Superintendent for Administration and Safety, testified that he did not believe that Mr. Teasley was qualified to serve as an AP-1 at Eustis High School. He based that opinion on his observations at Beverly Shores during the 2006-2007 school year and his opinion that if one loses his administrative authority at an elementary school, that person has “no business” as an administrator of a high school. Mr. Cunningham did not offer an opinion on the academic-improvement functions the Superintendent intended Mr. Teasley perform in the academic team to which she assigned him. In addition, the individual members of the Board testified regarding their reasons for rejecting the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Strong testified that his basis for rejecting the Superintendent’s recommendation related to the situation at Beverly Shores during the 2006-2007 school year; particularly, the perceived lack of administrative discipline that created a disorderly educational environment, and the Board’s decision in May of 2007 to place an SRO at the school. He also stated that his vote was influenced by the public input of Ms. Pam Burtnett, president of the Lake County Education Association (“LCEA”), received by the Board at the June 23, 2008 meeting, and by his conversations in the spring of 2007 with one parent and one teacher from Beverly Shores, Ms. Denise Burry and Ms. Bordenkircher, respectively. Ms. Burtnett was not a teacher at Beverly Shores. Neither Ms. Burry nor Ms. Bordenkircher testified at hearing. However, Mr. Strong also testified that prior to the School Board meeting on May 7, 2007, no one had previously raised the issue of discipline at Beverly Shores at any previous Board meeting, and that he never personally witnessed any discipline problems at Beverly Shores. Ms. Kyleen Fischer testified that she had visited the Beverly Shores campus while it was under the direction of Mr. Teasley. Specifically, she testified that she observed that Beverly Shores’ students were not under control and that they were disrespectful. Based on her observations, she felt that the appointment of Mr. Teasley to Eustis High School would create a safety issue. Ms. Cindy Barrow testified that she did not believe Mr. Teasley possessed the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities to serve as a high school AP-1. She based her belief on information gathered from many different sources, including reports such as the 2006-2007 climate survey, conversations with Mr. Cunningham and Ms. Burry, reports given orally to the Board at the May 21, 2007 and June 23, 2008, Board meetings, and the fact that 22 teachers and one guidance counselor left the school during or after the 2006-2007 school year. However, she did not speak to any of the departing personnel regarding their reasons for leaving, nor did she testify as to any of the specifics regarding the above. Ms. Barrow’s belief was that Mr. Teasley had not been able to maintain order or deal with behavioral problems at Beverly Shores and, therefore, he would not be successful at dealing with behavioral problems at Eustis High School. However, Ms. Barrow admitted that she had never been to Beverly Shores. She believes that a primary duty of any high school AP-1 is to handle disciplinary issues. However, she also testified that she had no specific conversations with Mr. Larry or the Superintendent about how either planned to use Mr. Teasley as AP-1 at Eustis High School. Mr. Metz, who testified that he had never visited Beverly Shores during its hours of operation prior to May of 2007, stated that his decision to vote against the Superintendent’s recommendation was based on the situation at Beverly Shores in the Spring of 2007, his written and verbal communications with concerned parties, and Ms. Burtnett’s presentation to the Board in June of 2008. The Board re-reviewed the issues the Superintendent had already considered in creating her educational teams at the various schools and in making her recommendations to the Board. The Board concluded that Mr. Teasley was not qualified to serve as an AP-1 at Eustis High School based on very broad generalizations about appropriate discipline. The Board’s action was not based on any knowledge regarding the role Mr. Teasley would play in the Eustis administration. As indicated, the Superintendent, as is her authority, considered all of the issues surrounding Mr. Teasley’s tenure at Beverly Shores. She also recognized the successes in academic improvement achieved during Mr. Teasley’s tenure and that those skills were needed at Eustis High School. The Superintendent assembled an administrative team after discussing the team members with the principal of the High School and assuring as much as possible that Mr. Teasley could function within that team. The evidence did not demonstrate that the Board’s assessment should trump the Superintendent’s recommendation regarding Mr. Teasley, especially given the fact that Mr. Teasley had many years of good performance evaluations as an AP in Broward County and a good performance evaluation in Lake County. As a consequence, the Board has failed to carry its burden of showing “good cause” to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation and the Superintendent’s recommendation should be accepted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: that the Board enter a Final Order reversing its earlier decision and accepting the nomination of the Superintendent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan E. Moxley, Ed.D. Superintendent School District of Lake County, Florida 201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares, Florida 32778 Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire McLin & Burnsed Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357 Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following pertinent facts are found: Respondent Wieland has been employed with the Broward County school system for approximately twenty-three years. In the school year 1973/74, he held the position of Director of Exceptional Child Education. His immediate superior was the Program Director of Educational Services, Mr. Larry I. Walden, a member of the superintendent's staff. Dr. James R. Fisher served as Director of Psychological Services on Dr. Wieland's Exceptional Child Education staff. During the 1973/74 school year, several rather drastic changes were occurring with regard to the administration of the exceptional child education program. This was the year of decentralization in Broward County, where concepts of authority, decision-making, accountability and responsibility were filtering down to the building or school levels through the various principals. Also, the Florida Educational Financial Program began in that year. This program related to state funding for students based upon a particular weight factor assigned for students in different programs. The cost factors for programs for exceptional students is considerably higher than for basic programs. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, the actual responsibility for placement of children and implementation of programs resided with the principals of the individual schools. The role of the Exceptional Child Education staff was then reduced to one of consultation, advice and administration. Prior to decentralization, psychological testing was conducted under the direction or supervision of the Exceptional Student Education Department at the Diagnostic Center. With decentralization, testing psychologists became a part of the staff of the area offices and were answerable to their respective area superintendents. With this change, they were repeatedly instructed that their functions were consultative and that they were simply to test students upon receipt of a request from a school's principal. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, school psychologists, as well as the then Director of Psychological Services, were constantly concerned with the pressures being placed upon them by the school principals and area superintendents to rapidly test and certify students for eligibility in the various exceptional education programs. A count of such eligible students was to be made in October and February of each school year. The results of such counts had a tremendous effect upon the school principal's budget. Many school psychologists felt that students were being placed in programs without sufficient diagnosis or data. This, along with inadequate personnel, was a constant topic of discussion both among school psychologists and at meetings on the staff level. Mr. Walden, respondent's immediate superior, was informed by Dr. Fisher of files containing insufficient data and other procedural irregularities. Mr. Walden also attended some of the staff meetings at which various problems were discussed. No specific problems at Horizon Elementary School were discussed between Fisher and respondent Wieland during the 1973/74 school year. In fact, Dr. Fisher was unaware of any discrepancies or procedural irregularities at Horizon during that year. Conditions did not improve during the 1974/75 school year, according to various school psychologists and the exceptional education staff. They still felt pressure to rapidly identify eligible students for exceptional education programs in order to generate funding and they still felt there was inadequate staffing for psychological services. During this year, Mr. Joel Kieter assumed respondent's position of Director of the Exceptional Education Program and respondent became Coordinator of Special Services, formerly called Psychological Services. Thus, Mr. Kieter was respondent's immediate superior. During this year, Mr. Kieter's office had no direct role in the certification of students for the various exceptional education programs. The 1974 "District Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students" specifically provided that: "In the process of decentralization the exceptional student personnel at the district level have been relieved of direct responsibility for administration and instruction. The respon- sibilities of such personnel are now consultative and advisory in nature. The primary responsibility for administration and instruction is at the building level." However, Mr. Kieter's staff did attempt to give guidance to school psychologists and administrative personnel regarding the criteria for placement and the required procedures to be followed. Among the duties of respondent Wieland during the 1974/75 school year was direct responsibility for the Diagnostic Center, which was a repository for some 35,000 to 40,000 student files. School psychologists were instructed to obtain a case number from the Diagnostic Center for all new student files and to send a copy of the completed file to the Center. At one time, they were told that they could retain the folders as long as they thought the case was active. Student files were also to be kept at the student's school and in the area superintendents' offices. Inasmuch as the school psychologists were accountable to the area superintendents, the Center and its staff had no authority and could do little more than request them to promptly forward the files to the Center. At times, staff at the Diagnostic Center would return files for parental consent forms. Numerous staff meetings were held by Director Kieter during the 1974/75 school year. During these meetings, the school psychologists complained of their heavy caseload, the lack of secretarial help and other staff, pressures placed upon them by principals and area superintendents to place children in programs, inappropriate testing and lost or misplaced files. These were general discussions and specific incidents were not related. Dr. James Fisher, who was the team leader for psychologists in the North-Central area, had general discussions with both Dr. Wieland, Director Kieter, and even Mr. Walden concerning the pressure he felt with regard to the rapid testing of children and the inadequacy of data in the files of children who had already been placed. Dr. Fisher expressed to them his fear that emphasis was being placed upon the filling of classes, rather than upon the individual students. During the school year 1975/76, respondent again occupied the position of Coordinator of Special Services and Joel Kieter was again the Director of the Exceptional Education Program. The building principal of the referring school or the school enrolling the student was directly responsible for placement in the appropriate exceptional student program. ("1975 District Procedures for providing special Education for Exceptional Students," p. 199, H(2)(c) and p. 3). The exceptional student education staff was responsible for the determination of eligibility of individual students (p. 3 of the 1975 District Procedures). This determination was to be based upon the report of the testing psychologist. In the first portion of the 1975/76 school year, Director Kieter signed the eligibility determination forms (also referred to as the B-1 form). This responsibility was delegated by Mr. Kieter to respondent Wieland in mid- December, 1975. Prior to this delegation, Mr. Kieter occasionally signatured some B-1 forms without having seen the psychological report. This was done because of a backlog in clerical assistance and processing, and to expedite the procedure. Mr. Kieter was assured by the school psychologists that if the B-1 form had been sent to him for execution, proper testing had been completed, the report was in the process of being written and the data was available. Simultaneous with the time that the authority to sign B-1 forms was delegated to Dr. Wieland, Mr. Kieter issued a memorandum to all school psychologists stating that B-1 forms without the completed psychological report attached thereto would no longer be entertained. In the Fall of 1975, Mr. Fisher communicated with Director Kieter concerning the absence of certain psychological data in the files of some ten to twelve students at Horizon Elementary School. Mr. Kieter instructed Mr. Fisher to make up any deficiencies in those folders. Mr. Kieter also discussed the folders with the principal of Horizon, Mr. Wallsworth. Other than this incidence, Director Kieter was not informed of any specific irregularities or abuses in the exceptional education program at Horizon during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. John Georgacopoulos worked in the Diagnostic Center as a psychometrist from 1969 to 1971, and at Horizon Elementary School as a guidance counselor in the school years 1974/75 and 1975/76. As a guidance counselor, he attended "staffings" or meetings with school psychologists pertaining to the placement of students in the various programs. He was also involved with the testing of students at Horizon. In the school year 1974/75 -- his first year at Horizon -- Mr. Georgacopoulos perceived that there were problems in the running of Horizon's exceptional student program. These problems included the misclassification of students, the placing of students into programs without certification and without proper testing, the nonexistence of programs for which children were certified and mimeographed certifications with the students' name placed thereon at a later time. Mr. Georgacopoulos informed Horizon's principal, Mr. Wallsworth, of these irregularities on numerous occasions during the 1974/75 school year. He also states that he discussed these problems with Mr. Fisher, Director Kieter and respondent Wieland. Both Dr. Wieland and Mr. Kieter denied being informed by Mr. Georgacopoulos of any irregularities at Horizon during the 1974/75 school year. According to Mr. Georgacopoulos, problems at Horizon continued in the 1975/76 school year. These included the misplacement of children, improper or inadequate testing of students, nonexistence of programs, inadequate data in student files and the lifting of signatures onto psychological reports. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos obtained from Mr. Wallsworth's office a computer printout of students funded for the various exceptional education programs at Horizon. He then checked the files of these students both at the Diagnostic Center and at Horizon and found that many did not have case numbers assigned to them, that many contained inadequate or no data and that, for some students, files did not exist at all either at the school or the Center. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos went to respondent's office and talked to respondent about the alleged irregularities existing at Horizon. It is difficult to discern from Georgacopoulos' testimony what specifics were related to respondent. It appears that Wieland was informed that children were certified as gifted when no gifted program existed at Horizon, that children were being placed in the wrong programs, that children were being placed without appropriate or adequate testing and that the information in the student files was inadequate. At the time of this discussion, respondent had a difficult time following Georgacopoulos' conversation. He appeared to respondent to ramble and to be upset and confused. Respondent felt that Georgacopoulos simply disagreed with the psychologists' reports as well as the contents of the gifted program. As a result of this conversation, respondent told Georgacopoulos that some information might be in the files at the Diagnostic Center and offered him the opportunity to check these files with the assistance of his staff. Georgacopoulos told respondent that he had discussed these irregularities with Principal Wallsworth. On May 27, 1976, Robert Lieberman, a school psychologist at Horizon, went to respondent's office and told him of irregularities that existed at Horizon. These included the lack of programs for gifted and emotionally disturbed students, the misplacement of certified children, inappropriate "staffing" of children, inappropriate and/or inadequate testing before placement and the pressures placed upon school psychologists to test and place numerous students within a short amount of time. Lieberman was concerned that he would lose his job at Horizon and Respondent told him to try to finish out the school year without sacrificing his professionalism. Dr. Wieland also offered to help him get an interview for a job at the county level. Sometime between May 27th and June 9, 1976, Ms. Queen Sampson, a school psychologist from the area office, talked to respondent and confirmed the statements made by Georgacopoulos and Lieberman. On June 9, 1976, respondent again discussed the irregularities at Horizon with Mr. Georgacopoulos. During this conference, Mr. Georgacopoulos specifically placed the blame upon Principal Wallsworth and he was more emphatic and specific in his allegations concerning the irregularities. He also mentioned the falsification of psychological reports via the "lifting" of signatures, and stated that this had come to his attention in May of 1976. Respondent was aware at this June 9, 1976, meeting that Mr. Georgacopoulos was leaving the Broward County school system. Mr. Georgacopoulos testified that he had discussed specific irregularities at Horizon with Director Joel Kieter during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. Kieter denied that there had been any such discussions and testified that he had never even met Mr. Georgacopoulos prior to June 9, 1976. About an hour after talking to Mr. Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, respondent Wieland went to the office of William T. McFatter, Assistant to the Superintendent. He related that Georgacopoulos had made serious allegations against Mr. Wallsworth and asked for McFatter's advice. Mr. McFatter remembers that respondent mentioned the possibility of double funding and the qualification of students for the gifted program at Horizon. McFatter advised respondent to go straight to superintendent Mauer with the allegations. McFatter and respondent then went to the superintendent's office and a brief ten to fifteen minute meeting ensued. This was the last day of the school year for students and the superintendent was quite busy at this time. The possibility of double funding was an explosive issue to the Superintendent and this is the only irregularity he recalls having been mentioned by respondent on June 9, 1976. The superintendent immediately called a Mr. Cox, who deals with pupil accounting, and related to him his concern with double funding of students in the exceptional education program. Mr. McFatter, Mr. Mauer and respondent then went to the office of Mr. Cox and respondent Wieland was assigned the task of determining the existence or nonexistence of double funding. None was found and respondent so reported to Mr. Mauer. Subsequently, respondent and two other persons were assigned the task of auditing the records of the exceptional student program at Horizon. The auditors were unable to verify either the existence or nonexistence of certain records, forms and psychological reports for many students. It was clear that many files were incomplete and there was no evidence that either the gifted or emotionally disturbed programs existed at Horizon. Respondent Wieland explained the delay between the first March 1976, meeting with Mr. Georgacopoulos and his June 9, 1976, report to Mr. McFatter and the Superintendent as follows. Respondent (as well as others) classified Georgacopoulos as a "child advocate," and respondent felt at the March meeting that Georgacopoulos was merely expressing his disagreement with psychological reports and the contents of certain existing programs. During the March meeting, his allegations were general in nature and his discussion of irregularities appeared to ramble and be confusing. Respondent was more concerned with the demeanor of Georgacopoulos than with what he was saying. When Mr. Lieberman related similar and more specific irregularities, which were thereafter confirmed by Queen Sampson, respondent felt that disclosure of Lieberman's and Sampson's statements would be detrimental to their future employment with the school system. Upon confirming that Georgacopoulos was leaving the school system, respondent felt that the charges could be attributed to Georgacopoulos without injury to Lieberman and Sampson. He therefore had another conference with Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, and decided to seek advice from the Assistant to the Superintendent, Mr. McFatter. Various other events have transpired since June 9, 1976, concerning Horizon Elementary School exceptional education program irregularities. These include a letter from Mr. Georgacopoulos to the Superintendent, which letter appears to have instigated an investigation by the Security Office or the Internal Affairs Division. Such later events are not deemed relevant to the present charges against respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent be immediately reinstated to his former position and that any back salary be paid to him for the reason that the charges against him were not sustained by the evidence. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: School Board of Broward County 1327 S.W. Fourth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida John B. Di Chiara DiGiulian, Spellacy, Bernstein, Lyons and Sanders Suite 1500, One Financial Plaza Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Robert M. Curtis Saunders, Curtis, Ginestra & Gore P.O. Drawer 4078 1750 East Sunrise Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33338
The Issue Whether Respondent shall be dismissed from employment with the Dade County School Board upon grounds of incompetency and gross insubordination pursuant to Section 321.36, Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-4.09(1) and 6B-4.09(4), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was, at all times relevant, an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida on an continuing contract as a teacher. Respondent is a 49 year old native of Bolivia, South America. She was educated in Bolivia, Paris, and the United States, receiving a Bachelor's degree from the University of Miami in approximately 1969 and a Master's degree from Northwestern University. Respondent's positions with the Dade County School Board may be summarized as follows: In early 1970 she was a teacher of English as a Second Language (ESOL). From 1971 to 1973, she served as a media specialist (librarian) at Blue Lakes Elementary School. From 1973 to 1978 she was a media specialist (librarian) at Seminole Elementary School. From 1978 to 1981 she was a third grade teacher of normal students at Douglas Elementary School and from 1981 until her suspension between the 1983-1984 and 1984- 1985 school terms, she was a first grade teacher at Kinloch Park Elementary School. Respondent started employment with the Dade County School Board in 1970. While employed, she received annual evaluations; her evaluations and performance from 1971 to November 1, 1983 were all favorable, except for an evaluation in the 1979-1980 school year. Approximately June 3, 1980, Respondent was given an annual evaluation for her performance as a third grade teacher at Douglas Elementary School for the 1979-1980 school year. Therein, then-principal Eugene Turano found her unacceptable in six of the eight observable evaluation criteria. This annual evaluation resulted from two formal observations. In February 1980, Respondent was observed and evidenced disciplinary and teaching difficulties related to the reading program. This was Respondent's first experience teaching third grade and her first assignment to that school. Mr. Turano assigned Ms. Whipple, his assistant principal, to work with Respondents concentrating on lesson planning. The subsequent observation did not indicate much improvement. At each of these observations, Respondent had the entire third grade in one reading group, which grouping was felt by Mr. Turano not to respond to individual needs. Also bulletin board use by Respondent was not conducive to encouraging student interest or providing assessment feedback. Respondent stayed at her desk instead of giving children individual attention. Because Respondent was thereafter absent on sick leave from March until May 1980, there was no time for diagnostic prescription. As a results Mr. Turano gave Respondent the benefit of the doubt and did not formally recommend her termination or return to annual contract as he normally would have done. He did formally recommend her for employment and did personally suggest to Respondent that she take some summer school courses. In March, 1981, the Respondent received an official letter of reprimand for failure to implement her authorization for a period of leave of absence from the school system. Although this constitutes official disciplinary action by Petitioner, Dr. Gray's explanation of the reasoning behind it is not persuasive that anything occurred here beyond an absenteeism problem eventually fully- authorized by Petitioner. Respondent came to Kinloch Park Elementary in the 1981- 1982 school term to teach first grade. Respondent's 1981-1982 annual evaluation by then- principal Dr. James McKenna was overall acceptable. Then-Assistant Principal Lucy Williams observed Respondent in the 1982- 1983 term and, finding her teaching deficient, put Respondent on prescription. Her class of two groups of non-readers and one group which had just begun to read at the first grade level was kept small. Mrs. Williams taught all lessons herself for a while and gradually released the class to Respondent's full control again. Because Respondent complied by keeping adequate grades and lesson plans, by dividing her reading students into three groups, and by decorating with visual aids on the bulletin boards, Mrs. Williams removed Respondent from reading class prescription in the spring of 1983 before Mrs. Williams' transferred to another elementary school. Mrs. Williams removed Respondent from the prescription without observing her in reading. At that time, however, Respondent continued to have assistance in the area of math instruction. Starting in the 1983-1984 term, Respondent taught a Chapter One first grade class of 15 both English-speaking and non-English-speaking students. Kinloch Park Elementary had become an all Chapter One school in February, 1983. "Chapter One" is a classification that comprises students in a federally funded program designed to teach only basic skills for the entire day. The Chapter One first grade class of Respondent was in the lower twentieth percentile of learning ability. On November 1, 1983, Respondent was formally observed by Kinloch's new principal, Dr. Cecelia Hack, for evaluation purposes. New, more detailed observation forms were being used by Dade County at this time. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in six of the eight standard evaluation criteria. Most noticeably, Respondent was failing to use the directed reading approach all teachers had been instructed by Dr. Hack to use. This system, contemplated by the teacher's manual, provides for assembling three reading groups based on individual student assessments, which groups rotate through activities made up of teacher direction and two varieties of follow-up activities. Based upon Dr. Hack's observations and testimony, it is found that on this occasion, Respondent concentrated too much time on the workbooks did not provide the group working independently with sufficient and correct materials, did not have her evaluation folders up to date and had only one grade per child and that grade was for report card purposes. She also had not returned adequate amounts of graded materials to the students so as to provide acceptable feedback and encouragement to them. Dr. Hack further observed lack of courteous interchange between Respondent and her class. Respondent's comments to her students were terse, intimidating, and not encouraging to small children. The Room was cold and sterile without lively bulletin boards to spark student interest, encourage desire to learn, or to provide pride of accomplishment and additional feedback to the students. Respondent conferenced with Dr. Hack and the assistant principal, Norma Aguilar, on November 3, 1983 and was put on prescription. Among other actions for remediation, Dr. Hack suggested that Respondent provide classroom activities reflecting the assigned instruction policy. She further suggested that Respondent sit and plan on a regular basis with two other teachers of Chapter One first graders. She arranged for Respondent to visit other classrooms and asked Dr. Charles Sherwood, Petitioner's Director of Basic Education, to send members of his staff to work with Respondent. A Mrs. Gonzalez, Chapter One Specialist, came several times to assist Respondent in implementing the Chapter One program. Mrs. Ellen Williams came to update the student assessments for Respondent. A time- line was established for December 1, 1983. Assistant Principal Aguilar's assistance was part of the prescriptive measures assigned for Respondent. She visited Respondent on at least a weekly basis to check on Respondent's lesson plans and to talk about what Respondent was supposed to be doing. Respondent was instructed that she must duplicate her own materials for class as that was part of each teacher's duties, but she was provided reading materials she needed on her prescription and tapes with recorded lessons so that the children could do more independent work. Respondent expressed resentment of the prescribed activities. She turned in no lesson plans. Mrs. Hack also expected Respondent to attend an in- service course on the primary education program (PREP) and that she use "RSVP," a diagnostic prescriptive reading program. Although Respondent completed the in-service workshop ending in late February or early March, she did not complete her material to be turned in until June 25, 1985. On December 6, 1983, Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal Norma Aguilar, for evaluation purposes and was found unacceptable in three categories of the standard evaluation criteria. Mrs. Aguilar had been part of Respondent's previous prescription. Because of hers and Ellen Williams' involvement, the requirement for assessment techniques had been met and the grade book was up-to-date. Respondent had improved her teacher-student relationships somewhat in that Respondent had learned to give some positive reinforcement to her students. At that time, although some deficiencies had been corrected pursuant to the previous prescription, Respondent remained unsatisfactory in preparation and planning knowledge of the subject matter, and in techniques of instruction. Instructional activities, and follow-up thereto and reading progress were inappropriate for the students. Various groups now were set up but all groups were set at the same activity at the same time instead of each group rotating through three activities within each instructional hour. Respondent continued to use terms considerably above the children's understanding; her directions were unclear to small children; and she persisted in using only the workbooks for directed teaching. Prescriptive measures were again set out for the improvement of Respondent's teaching performance. On February 15, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed for evaluation purposes by Dr. Hack and was found unacceptable in five categories of the standard evaluation criteria. One category was not rated. The deficiencies were much the same as in November 1983. Particular problems were again noted in preparation and planning knowledge of the subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Arrangements had not been made by Respondent for materials and the supplemental activities were not appropriate for the children doing the lesson plans. The children exhibited little respect for the material and did not seem to understand what was expected of them. Respondent constantly found fault with the children but contrariwise accepted sloppy written work. Respondent answered this criticism by saying she did not concern herself with neatness and manuscript form on math papers. Mrs. Hack felt Respondent was confused about what she was doing and although Respondent was grading more papers, Respondent was not returning graded papers regularly to meet the constant need of the children for feedback. Mrs. Hack felt Respondent's class should have moved much faster by so late in the school year and that the reading aspect was very weak. As remediation, Dr. Hack prescribed that Respondent use the teacher's manual and the "RSVP" decoding kits and books and that Respondent emphasize independent student activities that would keep all the students constructively occupied throughout each class hour. Further prescriptive measures were assigned. On March 22, 1984, Respondent was formally observed by Dr. Charles Sherwood, Petitioner's Director of Basis Education, for evaluation purposes and was rated unacceptable in four of the standard evaluation criteria. One category was not rated. At that time, Respondent's lesson plan was unacceptable because it provided insufficient student work. She was not using the required "9-block plan," rotating three groups of readers three times during the class session in twenty minute intervals per rotation. Her lesson plan showed an absence of anything but page numbers, which was directly contrary to county policy requiring minimally that objectives, independent activities, and evaluation methods be set out in the formal lesson plan. Appropriate classroom management was lacking in that many students were off- tasks although Dr. Sherwood noted that there was no genuine misbehavior. Respondent's only technique of instruction remained the directive approach. Her assessment technique was deficient in that only the first few weeks' assessment scores were evident. The children were about five months behind others comparably situated. In Dr. Sherwood's opinion, Respondent's excessive verbal instruction was not good for young students struggling with English who needed demonstrations rather than lectures. He felt Respondent's students were making less progress than normal for a Chapter One class. Further prescriptive measures were assigned Respondent after a conference with Dr. Hack. On April 18, 1984 Respondent was observed and evaluated again by Dr. Sherwood as unacceptable in four criteria. Two criteria were not rated. This left Respondent unacceptable in four out of six categories. Because of the short timeframe for prescribed remediation, Dr. Sherwood had assigned Ellen Williams' Director of the South Central Reading Center, to help Respondent. Mrs. Williams had worked with Respondent on methods of directing a reading lesson, maintaining close access to a chalkboard for introducing new vocabulary in context without the teacher having to leave the reading group, and had helped Respondent arrange the classroom furniture for group reading (instead of using rigid rows of desks). Thereafter, Respondent had returned the room to its original state. Dr. Hack and Mrs. Aguilar confirmed that a mobile chalkboard had been provided Respondent. Respondent explained her removal of the mobile chalkboard from her room as being done due to safety considerations occasioned by its sharp edges in near proximity to the faces of small children, but this does not explain why Respondent could not accomplish physical rotation of three groups of children so that each reading group would be near Respondent at the wall chalkboard during one of the required three teaching activities. The problems and unacceptable teaching activities observed by Dr. Sherwood on his second visit were very similar to those he observed on his first visit: absence of evaluation procedures and all students doing the same lesson regardless of their level of achievement. However, with Mrs. Williams' help, Respondent's records for evaluating student levels remained relevantly current. Dorothy Adside, an administrator at the level between area supervisor and school principal observed Respondent teaching on May 30, 1984. Prior to this observation, Mrs. Adside dispatched a primary educational specialist Mrs. Fulton, who conferred with Respondent and gave Respondent in-the-classroom assistance on two occasions. At the May 30 observation, however, Mrs. Adside found Respondent not acceptable in the categories of preparation and planning classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. She noted that there were no motivations for the children, not sufficient vocabulary development and not sufficient questioning from Respondent or use by her of visual study aids. Respondent's use of the "Round Robin" method of oral reading prevented the children from following her in their books as she read and otherwise thwarted the idea of rotating three activities for each group within a single class period. As a result of all the previous observations, evaluations, and unfulfilled prescriptions, Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1983-1984 school year was found to be unacceptable in four categories and unacceptable overall on June 1, 1984. There is a significant discrepancy between the testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses and that of Respondent with regard to the in-service courses assigned as prescriptive measures. On the basis of the documentary evidence as well as the candor, demeanor, and credibility of all witnesses as well as the detail provided by Dr. Hack and Mrs. Aguilar concerning these prescriptive measures and their personal observation of Respondent's participation and non-participation in all or part of these courses, Respondent's testimony that no course assignment was ever made is not persuasive. It is found that Respondent was orally requested to enroll in certain in-service training programs offered for February 25 to March 3, 1984, April 10 to May 15, 1984, May 5 to May 12, 1984, and June 2 to June 9, 1984, but these requests were not always reduced to a written prescription and Respondent may, indeed, have understood that she was only required to attend in-service training when the instruction was reduced to writing. None the less, Respondent enrolled in one course February 25 to March 3, 1984, but did not complete her work until ordered to do so by Mrs. Aguilar in June 1984. At the conference-for-the-record on April 30, 1984, Dr. Hack observed Respondent changed facial expression and made sounds expressing resentment of various remedial prescriptions required of her. Respondent attributed most of her difficulties to a personality clash with Dr. Hack and to Dr. Hack's calling Respondent to her office on twelve occasions during the 1983-1984 school year to discuss Respondent's problems. In light of so many unacceptable evaluations from so many observers, Respondent's analysis is rejected. While testifying concerning her reading groups, Respondent demonstrated a lack of understanding of the threefold rotating group concept based on individual student assessments by stating that she had created a fourth group for four new Nicaraguan students who spoke no English merely because they entered her class in the middle of the year and that she had created the fourth group on the theory that the new students would have to start with the first work book in the first grade series. Respondent has had admitted in evidence her grade book for the 1983- 1984 term. It does not in every instance corroborate Petitioner's witnesses' testimony. It evidences at least one weekly grade in each subject but each subject is on a different page. This finding does not, however, significantly diminish or impugn the credibility of a number of Petitioner's witnesses who observed that Respondent kept insufficient grades. In making this determination considerable weight is attached to Respondent's own testimony that she chose to record only one weekly grade instead of recording all test and progress scores by date of the item graded. Her voluntary election to use one weekly grade per subject over grades on all items falls short of the prescription assigned to her. Respondent maintained that evaluations of her performance are clouded by the evaluators' failure to take into account the many problems inherent in anyone educating the Chapter One child. This premise is not accepted. Six of other Kinloch Park Elementary teachers of larger Chapter One first grade classes managed adequately in the 1983-1984 term. Mrs. Lucy Williams, Respondent's witness, testified that it should be easier to teach Chapter One students because there are less subjects and fewer students in classes under such a program. Dr. Gray, Petitioner's Executive Director of its Division of Standards, testified by way of expert opinion that he had considered transferring Respondent to a non-Chapter One school but decided against it because the nature of the assessment system used by Dade County is a measurement of basic teaching skills and is not a measurement of only specialized skills for Chapter One classes. Petitioner did not offer Respondent the opportunity to transfer to a different (Non- Chapter One) type of class. Dr. Patrick Gray further testified that in his opinion, Respondent's first grade class in 1983-1984 was deprived of a minimal educational experience. This opinion is accepted over Respondent's assertion that a promotion of the majority of her class to second grade demonstrates her competency as a teacher. Respondent's premise is rejected in part upon Dr. Hack's testimony that even the students' Stanford Achievement Test scores would not give an accurate picture of what Respondent had successfully taught because these scores measure only all accumulated knowledge from all sources throughout broad fields of knowledge up to a specific time in each child's life. The witnesses who testified for Petitioner established the Respondent was unable to properly teach the Chapter One students.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered ratifying Respondent's dismissal without pay and denying any claims for back-pay and benefits. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1985.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged and violations charged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, on behalf of the Education Practices Commission, is charged with the responsibility of certifying and regulating public school teachers in Florida. Respondent is a teacher. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent held Florida Educator's Certificate 1266409, covering the area Exceptional Student Education (ESE). Respondent's Background Respondent earned a bachelor's degree in special education from New York University and a master's degree in early childhood special education. From 1998 to 2015 she taught ESE in self-contained classrooms (classrooms dedicated to ESE students) in New York. Respondent moved to Florida and began working for Orange County Public Schools, where she was employed in February 2015 as an ESE teacher at Ocoee Elementary School (Ocoee Elementary). For reasons unrelated to this case, Respondent was moved to the position of behavioral specialist (a non-classroom position), but returned to ESE classroom teaching in the fall of 2017. Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) is a "best practice" crisis de- escalation protocol used district-wide in Orange County Public Schools. Respondent is CPI trained and certified. In June 2017, Respondent injured her shoulder and ankle at work while she was attempting to pick a student up from the floor. She returned to work after a few weeks of physical therapy. She continues to have pain in her shoulder and ankle. Respondent also suffers from asthma and recurrent nerve pain. By all accounts, Respondent was a dedicated and effective ESE teacher at Ocoee Elementary. She used her own funds to purchase supplies for her ESE students, including exercise balls for autistic students to prevent them from rocking in standard-issue chairs. Her evaluations from Ocoee Elementary were all "effective" or "highly effective." All of the witnesses who had occasion to observe Respondent in the classroom gave her high marks. There is no evidence that Respondent ever acted in anger or frustration with a student. She is accused of having done so in the incident at issue here. Respondent's Classroom For the fall of 2017, Respondent taught ESE students in a self- contained classroom at Ocoee Elementary. The grade level of her students spanned three grades, from second to fourth grade. The class size was approximately 12 students. The students were autistic and/or intellectually disabled. Paraprofessionals were assigned to assist Respondent in the classroom, including Cory Baker, Chanda Nguyen, and Michelle Hartley. The classroom had a designated "safe space," a small open area approximately three to four feet wide located between a large portable closet on wheels, a file cabinet on one side, and a wall on the other side. The safe space floor was covered with a soft mat and pillows. Posters on the safe space wall showed students how to breathe, relax, and decompress. A bathroom was located inside the classroom. The door opened out to the classroom. The door could be locked from the inside. Respondent and the paraprofessionals assigned to the classroom had access to an Allen key to unlock the bathroom door, but a disc had to be "popped" off of the lock to use it. Ocoee Elementary had a "crisis team" that could be called to assist when a student was in crisis, including removing the student if necessary. The crisis team included Juan Colon, who was the school's behavior specialist, and Isaac Bowen, a behavior trainer. The crisis team typically responded to a call for assistance within one to two minutes. The Incident with Student E.T. E.T. was assigned to Respondent's ESE classroom for the fall of 2017. He was 12 years old at that time. The other students ranged from seven to nine years of age. At approximately 5'6", E.T. was not only the largest student in the class, but he was also larger, and about four inches taller, than Respondent. E.T. was considered to be intellectually disabled. He was learning on a first or second grade level and his IQ was below 70. Some of the other students in the classroom were autistic, but E.T. was not. A Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) is a written plan that identifies problematic behaviors of a particular ESE student and strategies staff should use to address them. E.T. had a BIP that listed three problematic behaviors: (1) noncompliance (that is, refusing to perform tasks, by saying words like "no," "this is stupid," making faces or squeaking noises, or simply walking away); (2) physical aggression (including aggressive posturing towards his peers and throwing small objects like pencils, erasers, and papers); and (3) elopement (defined as walking away from staff). On the morning of October 12, 2017, E.T. began engaging in disruptive behavior that ultimately required his removal from the classroom. The disruptive behavior began when E.T. crawled under the desk of one or more other students and grabbed crayons and pencils that were not his. Respondent attempted to de-escalate and redirect E.T. with oral instructions, but her attempts failed. Ultimately, Respondent called the crisis team for help with E.T. Mr. Bowen arrived at Respondent's classroom within a short time with two other behavior trainers. The rest of the class was taken to the playground. Respondent and Mr. Bowen sat with E.T. at a table to work on compliance tasks, and E.T.'s behavior and mood improved. Respondent and Mr. Bowen walked with E.T. to the playground to retrieve the rest of the class. Respondent, E.T., and the rest of the class went back to the classroom. Mr. Bowen and the other behavior trainers left to respond to another call. On the way back to Respondent's classroom, E.T. refused to walk in line with the other students. One of the paraprofessionals walked with E.T. and redirected him back to the line. Back in the classroom, E.T.'s disruptive behavior resumed. He grabbed pencils and crayons that were not his and crawled under the desks of other students. He also blew mucus out of his nose, spit saliva onto his hands, and wiped his mucus and saliva all over his body. Respondent attempted to redirect E.T., initially by ignoring his behavior. When that failed, she attempted to redirect him with instructions and incentives. This strategy also failed. Finally, Respondent asked two of the paraprofessionals, Ms. Nguyen and Ms. Hartley, to take the other students to the sensory room, an activity room located outside of Respondent's classroom. The class was removed in the hope that E.T.'s behavior would improve once he was denied an audience of his peers. Respondent asked Ms. Baker to remain in the classroom with her to assist with E.T. When E.T.'s behavior did not improve, Respondent and Ms. Baker called the crisis team again, but this time they were unable to reach Mr. Colon or Mr. Bowen because they were either responding to other calls for help or in a radio "dead zone." Respondent thought E.T. might respond better if he was allowed to talk with his mother, so she called E.T.'s mother and allowed him to talk to her on the class telephone. At that time, E.T. was under a table in the classroom pretending to be a turtle. E.T. feigned illness (fake coughing) and told his mother he wanted to go home. He also asked for potato chips to eat. The call terminated and E.T. refused to come out from under the table. After repeated unsuccessful attempts to coax E.T. out from under the table without laying hands on him, Respondent carefully pulled E.T. from under the table, making sure he did not hit his head. E.T. was not injured in any way in the process. Respondent then took E.T. to the classroom safe space. Once in the safe space, E.T. started to crawl under the portable wheeled closet. Respondent was concerned E.T. would injure himself in the process— legitimately so—and lifted him up and held him against the wall. E.T. made himself go limp to become "dead weight" and slumped down to the floor mat. Respondent lifted him back to his feet again and E.T. slumped back down to the floor. This process was repeated several times until E.T. reached on top of the closet and grabbed a basket of toys, causing the basket contents to fall to the safe space floor. The basket included toy train cars made of die cast metal. E.T. grabbed one of the train cars off the floor and threw it over the head of Ms. Baker, who was standing in the middle of the classroom. He threw another train car at Respondent, striking her in the head. Respondent stepped on one of the train cars and fell hard against the wall, pinning E.T. between her and the wall. E.T. said, "My chest hurts, my heart hurts," and "I think I am going to die." Respondent's shoulder hurt and she was short of breath. Having reached her physical limits, Respondent decided to remove E.T. from the safe space because she was concerned he would be able to reach other items on top of the closet, including a heavy paper slicer with a sharp cutting arm. Respondent's plan was to transport E.T. out of the classroom to the "calm-down" room, an empty classroom used to allow students in crisis to decompress. The calm-down room is located about 20 to 30 yards from Respondent's classroom. Respondent guided E.T. out of the safe space and toward the classroom door, with his arm under her armpit. This would be an approved CPI transport hold but for the fact that CPI transport requires two adults to transport a student in crisis in this manner, with each of the student's arms under the armpits of an adult on each side of the student. Ms. Baker—who was also CPI-trained—did not offer to serve as the second adult or provide any other assistance to Respondent while she was struggling to transport E.T. out of the safe space. E.T.—apparently unfazed by falling with Respondent against the safe space wall moments earlier—started to laugh and grabbed crayons off the desk of another student as he was being guided toward the classroom door. E.T. pulled away from Respondent and started walking quickly ahead of her. Respondent tried to maintain a hold on E.T., but was unable to do so without help from anyone (such as Ms. Baker, who continued as a spectator to Respondent's struggles). E.T. announced he was going to the bathroom and headed for the bathroom door. Respondent rushed to stop him, but tripped and landed hard against the bathroom door with E.T. Respondent was concerned—legitimately so—that E.T. could lock himself in the bathroom and create a mess or injure himself before the key to the bathroom could be accessed. Respondent applied all of her weight to the bathroom door, while E.T. held onto the doorknob, to prevent him from accessing the bathroom. Respondent held E.T. against the bathroom door, using her forearm against his chest. Respondent then struggled to lead E.T. away from the bathroom door and toward the classroom exit door, sliding with him against the wall. Natalie Hatch, a staffing specialist at Ocoee Elementary, and Mr. Colon entered the classroom door when Respondent was struggling to keep E.T. out of the bathroom. Mr. Colon immediately assisted Respondent to escort E.T. to the calm-down room using the dual-hold CPI transport position. On the way to the calm-down room, E.T. was crying and upset and he continued to wipe mucus and saliva on his body. In the calm-down room, E.T. tore paper and threw it on the floor. After about 15 minutes, he calmed down and Mr. Colon talked to him about the importance of following instructions. Ms. Colon asked E.T. to pick the paper off the floor and E.T. complied. Mr. Bowen also arrived and walked with E.T. and Mr. Colon back to Respondent's classroom. There were no further incidents involving E.T. that day. E.T. was not injured, physically or otherwise. The Findings of Fact regarding the incident with E.T. are based almost entirely on Respondent's testimony, which the undersigned found to be highly credible. The findings are also consistent with the credible testimony of Mr. Colon, who found nothing wrong with Respondent's attempt to keep E.T. from going into the bathroom by holding him against the bathroom door, nor did he find anything wrong with anything else he witnessed after entering Respondent's classroom. Ms. Baker stood in the middle of the classroom while Respondent struggled with E.T. Ms. Baker could not see all of the safe room interactions between Respondent and E.T., because her field of view was blocked by the closet and cabinet that formed the boundary of the safe space. Ms. Baker made repeated calls to the crisis team, but otherwise failed to offer any assistance to Respondent. Ms. Baker did not voice any objection to the manner in which Respondent physically interacted with E.T. The following day, Ms. Baker complained to administration that Respondent physically mistreated E.T. This led to an investigation of the incident and ultimately to Respondent's termination. Rejection of Corey Baker's Testimony Petitioner relies chiefly on the testimony of Ms. Baker to prove its case. For the reasons that follow, Ms. Baker's testimony was not credible and has not been accorded any weight. Ms. Baker's account of the incident differed from Respondent's in that she contends Respondent "manhandled" E.T. out of frustration, including: "snatching" him out from under the table when he was pretending to be a turtle; and repeatedly slamming E.T. hard against the wall of the safe room; and later the bathroom door. Essentially, Ms. Baker accuses Respondent of physically mistreating E.T. out of frustration with his conduct that day. Ms. Baker's testimony is rejected where it conflicts with the testimony of Respondent and Mr. Colon for several reasons. First, Ms. Baker 's field of view of the safe space was obstructed. No credit has been given to her testimony about what occurred when E.T. and Respondent were in the safe space together, because she could not see all of what happened there. That she would offer testimony describing events she could not have seen casts doubt on her overall veracity. Ms. Baker's credibility also suffers from her admitted failure to intercede in any way to aid a student she now claims to have been physically mistreated for a prolonged period of time. If, as Ms. Baker contends, Respondent "manhandled" E.T. while the three were alone in the classroom, then Ms. Baker should have attempted to separate the two or at least warn Respondent that she was being too rough; she did neither. Here is Ms. Baker's explanation for why she stood idle when Respondent and E.T. struggled: Q. So why didn't you jump into that space and help her lift him up? Why didn't you do something? A. Because, like I said, I do not feel comfortable with it being a blind corner [referring to the safe space] and already seeing stuff done that shouldn't have been done. If somebody came in, it would have literally looked like we were both just trying to take this kid out. In other words, Ms. Baker claims she did nothing to protect E.T. because she might also get into trouble. This explanation is rejected. It is inconceivable that Ms. Baker would sit back and do nothing if she believed Respondent was mistreating E.T. The rational explanation for why Ms. Baker did nothing to intercede to stop Respondent is that Respondent's actions were appropriate under the circumstances. Finally, Ms. Baker's credibility suffers from her embellishment of the incident, including the trauma she claims to have suffered after-the-fact. Ms. Baker testified that the incident was so traumatic that she had nightmares for a week or two afterwards. She went so far as to blame the stress of witnessing the incident for ending her relationship with her boyfriend. There was no evidence that E.T. was injured in the slightest. Indeed, as Ms. Baker admitted, E.T. laughed and continued to grab crayons that were not his after he left the safe space with Respondent. Ms. Baker grossly distorted the resulting trauma she claims to have suffered. For all of these reasons—and the undersigned's observation of the demeanor of the witnesses who testified live at the final hearing— Ms. Baker's account of the incident with E.T. is found to be grossly exaggerated and unreliable, and is given no weight.2 The OCPS Investigation Petitioner also offered the testimony of Acacia Vierbicky, an investigator for Orange County Public Schools (OCPS). Ms. Vierbicky was charged with investigating the incident involving E.T. after Ms. Baker complained to administration. Ms. Vierbicky testified that during the investigation, Respondent admitted to her that she "snatched" E.T.'s arm from underneath the table when he was pretending to be a turtle, and pinned him against the wall—face first—in the safe space. The Administrative Complaint does not allege facts regarding the manner in which Respondent removed E.T. from under the table as a predicate for any charges. Regardless, Respondent denied that she "snatched" E.T. from under the table and explained why she removed him from underneath the table. Respondent's testimony was credible and is accepted over Ms. Vierbicky's recollection of what she was told during her investigation. 2 Additional evidence was offered to impeach Ms. Baker's credibility. First, to suggest bias, Respondent and Ms. Baker were close friends at one time, but that relationship soured the summer before this incident occurred. Second, another teacher testified that Ms. Baker came forward with false allegations against her in an attempt to get her fired. Finally, another witness testified that Ms. Baker is prone to exaggerate events involving students in general. While all of this testimony may be true, it is unnecessary to rely upon it to reach the conclusion that Ms. Baker's testimony is unreliable. The characterization of whether Respondent "pinned" or "held" E.T. against the wall of the safe space with the weight of her body is not an important distinction here. What is important is that Respondent did so to prevent E.T. from crawling under the wheeled closet or grabbing dangerous items from the top of the closet. Holding E.T. against the wall under these circumstances—whether an approved CPI hold or not—was entirely reasonable to prevent E.T. from hurting himself or others. Ms. Vierbicky's testimony as to her recollection of Respondent's admissions is rejected where it differs from Respondent's live testimony.3 Crisis Prevention Intervention CPI is not the law; it has not been adopted by statute or rule. Petitioner offered the testimony of Kimberly Ann Smith, an expert in CPI and behavior analysis. Ms. Smith testified credibly that pinning or holding a student against a wall or holding a student with his arm behind his back is not an approved CPI hold. But, as Ms. Smith repeatedly acknowledged, CPI is a "best practice" protocol. As such, restraining a student with a non-CPI approved hold can be reasonable under certain circumstances even if it is not the "best practice." Ms. Smith testified that it is acceptable to physically restrain a student when the student may hurt himself or others. Ms. Smith also agreed that E.T. could have injured himself crawling under the wheeled closet and that throwing the metal trains presented a legitimate safety concern. The CPI training materials offer examples of approved holds that one teacher can apply to restrain a student, but these holds are not appropriate for a student 3 Ms. Vierbicky's investigative summary of the incident involving E.T. was admitted as an exhibit in this proceeding, as were the witness statements she collected during her investigation. Although admitted, these exhibits have not been relied upon here because they are largely hearsay. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. It is also noteworthy that there are obvious material omissions from Ms. Vierbicky's investigative summary, including the failure to mention that E.T. grabbed and threw metal trains while in the safe space and the failure to mention the fact that E.T. was not injured. Thus, even if not hearsay, or predicated on hearsay, the investigative summary represents an incomplete assessment of the incident with E.T., and is unreliable for this reason alone. who is taller than the teacher. In fact, these holds should only be used on a student who is at least a head shorter than the teacher. E.T. is significantly taller than Respondent. Petitioner offered no evidence of a CPI-approved hold that would have been appropriate for Respondent to use under the circumstances she confronted with E.T. Petitioner also offered testimony from Ms. Hatch to show that Respondent did not use a CPI-approved restraint when E.T. was attempting to enter the bathroom. Ms. Hatch testified that when she entered the classroom, she saw Respondent holding E.T. with his face against the wall with his hand behind his back. This differs from Mr. Colon's testimony, which was that Respondent was holding E.T. with his back against the bathroom door with her forearm on his chest. Although Mr. Colon's and Ms. Hatch's recollection of the positioning of Respondent and E.T. differ, the distinction is not material. Respondent had a legitimate concern to keep E.T. from entering the bathroom under the circumstances, and her attempts to do so—although not a CPI-approved hold—were reasonable under the circumstances. For all of these reasons, Respondent's admitted failure to use CPI- approved holds to restrain E.T. is not evidence that she failed to make reasonable effort to protect E.T. from any potentially harmful conditions, or that she exposed him to a risk of mental or physical harm. Ultimate Findings It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent, in fact, made reasonable effort to protect E.T. from conditions harmful to learning and/or to his mental or physical health and/or to his safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRIAN A. NEWMAN 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 27th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobe M. Lev, Esquire Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A. 231 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Ron Weaver, Esquire Law Office of Ron Weaver Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, is guilty of misconduct in office, and/or incompetency, and/or willful neglect of duty, as set forth in s231.36(6), F.S., in that during the 1975-76 school year, the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, caused to be prepared and submitted, documentation, including but not limited to, State Board of Education forms ESE- 269 and ESE-135, which subsequently, qualified Horizon Elementary School for additional FTE funding for students classified as "gifted" in the fourth and fifth grades, when, during the 1975-76 school year, as Principal of Horizon Elementary School, the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, failed to provide and/or implement an appropriate program for those gifted students, in accordance with the "1975 District Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students.", all as alleged in the first substantive paragraph of the complaint letter. Whether or not the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, is guilty of misconduct in office, and/or incompetency, and/or willful neglect of duty, as set forth in s231.36(6), F.S., in that during the 1975-76 school year, while the Respondent, James P. Walsworth served as Principal of Horizon Elementary School, he caused two children, to wit: Warren Moody and Johnny Knight to be placed in the Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH) program at Horizon Elementary School, and these two children were not certified for such a program, thus violating s230.23(4)(m) Subsections 1 - 7, F.S., Rules of the State Board of Education of Florida, policies of the School Board of Broward County, Florida, and the "1975 District Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students.", all as alleged in the second substantive paragraph of the complaint letter. Whether or not the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, is guilty of misconduct in office, and/or incompetency, and/or willful neglect of duty, as set forth in s231.36(6), F.S., in that during the 1975-76 school year, while the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, served as Principal of Horizon Elementary School, Respondent, James P. Walsworth, caused to be prepared and submitted documentation concerning the Special Learning Disability (SLD) students wherein, of the 79 students classified by the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, as (SLD), only 49 were certified; thereby violating the "1975 District Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students" and s230.23(4)(m) Subsections 1 - 7, F.S., all as alleged in the third substantive paragraph of the complaint letter. Whether or not the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, is guilty of misconduct in office, and/or incompetency, and/or willful neglect of duty as set forth in s231.36(6), F.S., in that during the 1975-76 school year, while the Respondent, James P. Walsworth served as Principal of Horizon Elementary School, he prepared and submitted documentation concerning one child classified as emotionally disturbed, without proper certification; and after having designated child for additional FTE funding, the Respondent, James P. Walsworth then failed to provide and/or implement an appropriate program for said child in violation of the "1975 District Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students" and s230.23(4)(m), subsections 1 - 7, F.S., all as alleged in the fourth substantive paragraph of the complaint letter.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, James P. Walsworth, became Principal of Horizon Elementary School at the time of its opening in the fall of 1973, and has remained the Principal of that school, except for the period of his suspension between August 19, 1976 and November 18, 1976. Horizon Elementary School is a part of the school system of Broward County, Florida and the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, is an employee of the School Board of Broward County, Florida. During the pendency of the Respondent's employment at Horizon Elementary School, there was in effect certain District Procedures of the School Board of Broward County, Florida, pertaining to the education of exceptional children. The first of these were procedures for 1973-74 and appears as Petitioner's Exhibit #12, admitted into evidence. The second document represents procedures for the school year 1974-75 and appears as Petitioner's Exhibit #13, admitted into evidence. The last document is for the year 1975-76 and is found in Petitioner's Exhibit #14, admitted into evidence. All the aforementioned procedures in Petitioner's Exhibits #12 - #14, were enacted by the School Board of Broward County, Florida. In the school year 1975-76, the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, requested and received funding for seven students in the fourth grade and six students in the fifth grade, he claimed to be "gifted" students for funding purposes. This request for funding was placed in the October, 1975, funding count and the February, 1976, funding count. It is the October 1975, count that establishes the right to funding. Petitioner's Exhibits #19 and #20, admitted into evidence show the funding request for those gifted students. Petitioner's Exhibit #28, admitted into evidence, shows the total amount of FTE monies received in the gifted program at Horizon Elementary School. (The initials FTE stand for Full Time Equivalence). In the year 1975-76 the six fourth grade students which had been placed in the gifted program were taught by Terence Byrnes. Mr. Byrnes had a total class of 27 students comprised of third and fourth grade students. The gifted students were placed with seven other students for purposes of reading instruction. Terence Byrnes is not certain of any particular instruction about the gifted program given by Walsworth at the commencement of the school year. He only understood that he was being designated as the gifted teacher for the fourth grade students who had been designated gifted and had FTE funding claimed in their behalf. Mr. Byrnes did not buy any special materials for those six gifted students, per se, but selected materials which he felt the average fourth grader could not do because, "they would not know how." The materials selected were taken from the media center and the curriculum for the gifted was constituted of math, science, social studies and reading. The six gifted students in his class were not segregated from the other members of the class at any time during the instruction period in a physical sense. Those students, together with the other members of their group who were identified as students of solid average to above average were given open ended assignments, by that, all students did not have to complete all parts. Mr. Byrnes indicated that the emphasis on the program for the gifted and others was independent study where the student would have to think. He further stated that these gifted students and other members of their group were under his supervision. Some of the items of study were the use of globes, maps, film strips and human anatomy. The anatomy subject included the examination of a skeleton model, placing x-rays of the human body over light fixtures as a supplement to the study of the skeleton model and examination of the bones of animals to show the action of the sockets of those bones. The students then used tracing paper to outline the bodies of their fellow students and to place the skeleton and organs of the human body in the outline tracing. Mr. Walsworth commented that this skeleton model had been bought for sixth and seventh grade students. Approximately one hour per day was spent on the gifted program. Warren Smith was the teacher of the fifth grade students who had been labeled as "gifted" and had funds requested for their program. There were seven of these students who were placed with fifteen or sixteen other students in the top reading group. The other students were indicated to be academically talented. The gifted students were not physically separated from the other students. The type of assignments for the gifted and academically talented were open ended assignments and materials provided were materials provided for the gifted and academically talented. Mr. Smith remembers the instructions from Mr. Walsworth at the beginning of the school year 1975-76 as being, "to provide enrichment materials for the gifted," but Mr. Walsworth did not indicate what that program would consist of. The fifth grade "gifted" students read certain stories and wrote sequels to those stories. Some of the members produced a play and others wrote scripts and productions for television. The persons involved in the reading and writing assignments were "gifted" students; however, it was not clear what the involvement of the academically talented students were in this program. In addition, there was a clay and rock model in the curriculum area of a social studies unit on Western Movement and this program was an appropriate program for "gifted" students. Again it is not clear whether the "gifted" students alone worked on the Western Movement project, as opposed to the" gifted" and academically talented. During the school year 1975-76, Virginia Barker, the art teacher at Horizon Elementary School taught certain fourth and fifth grade students to weave on special looms, to do needlepoint on special canvas and string art, which she felt to be above the level of children in these grades. This work was done as independent study before and after school. Mrs. Barker indicated that these students had been identified to her as being gifted students, but her testimony was unclear on the question of whether those persons involved in this independent study would include children who were talented, but not necessarily identified and funded as "gifted" students. During the school year 1975-76 the students Warren Moody and Johnny Knight were placed and attended a program for Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH) at Horizon Elementary School. Information on the child, Warren Moody, may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit #17 and Respondent's Exhibit #3, both admitted into evidence. Information on the child, Johnny Knight, may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit #16 and Respondent's Exhibit #5, both admitted into evidence. On October 1, 1973, the student, Warren Moody was given certain testing and a psychological report was rendered by Dr. Halcyon H. Carroll. The results of this testing and the conclusions of that examiner may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit #17 admitted into evidence. Dr. Carroll found that Moody did not qualify for a program for the Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH). This conclusion and the remainder of the facts in that report are accepted as being the determination reached by Dr. Carroll. Subsequent to Dr. Carroll's report, a decision was made to place Warren Moody in the (EMH) program at Horizon Elementary. This decision was based upon a committee or staffing conference held between the teachers and school psychologist, Dr. Robert Ginsberg, conducted in the fall of 1973. Dr. Robert Ginsberg was the psychologist assigned to the Horizon Elementary School. Dr. Ginsberg made his decision notwithstanding the determination of Dr. Carroll. Dr. Ginsberg's decision was made in view of the comments of the teacher that the student was not performing at a reasonable level and in view of his own observations of the student; however, Dr. Ginsberg did not conduct any further testing on the student beyond the testing rendered by Dr. Carroll. The committee report and other matters pertaining to the October, 1973, staffing at Horizon Elementary School, at which time Warren Moody was placed, are unavailable. The record is not clear on the question of whether or not Dr. Ginsberg rendered a written psychological report in addition to the committee findings on the student Warren Moody, who was staffed in the fall of 1973. After Warren Moody was placed in the EMH program in the fall of 1973, he continued in the program through the end of the school year 1975-76. At all times his participation was in the Horizon Elementary School. In the spring of 1976, Queen M. Sampson, a school psychologist for the Broward County School System tested Moody and rendered a psychological report. Again this report is a part of Petitioner's Exhibit #17, admitted into evidence. In the report, Queen Sampson indicated that Warren Moody did not qualify for (EMH) in terms of testing and recommended return of the student to the regular classroom. On June 1, 1976, the student assessment and review committee met at Horizon Elementary School and concluded that the student should be returned to regular class. This report was entered at the end of the 1975-76 school year, and is part of Petitioner's Exhibit #17. In the school year 1972-73, the student, Johnny Knight, had been attending Royal Palm Elementary School. While attending that school certain tests were made of the student's ability to determine appropriate academic placement. Subsequent to the tests a report was rendered under the signature of Dr. Robert Ginsberg and co-signed by Dr. James R. Fisher, the Director of Psychological Services, in Broward County, Florida. The conclusion of Dr. Ginsberg was that the student did not qualify for (EMH) placement at that time, but did require much retraining and remedial help in all perceptual areas. A copy of this written report may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit #16 and the report is accepted as being an accurate depiction of Dr. Ginsberg's findings. The student was transferred to Horizon Elementary in the fall of 1973, for the school year 1973-74. After discussion with the teachers at the fall staffing for placement of students, determining that the student was not working well in the normal class setting, observing the student and reviewing the report of April, 1973, Dr. Ginsberg concluded that the student should be placed in (EMH). No written psychological report was rendered and no further tests were conducted by Dr. Ginsberg in the fall staffing committee conference. The student Johnny Knight remained in the program from the school year 1973-74 through the school year 1975-76, at which time, on June 8, 1976, per the re-evaluation committee's recommendation, he was removed from the (EMH) program. The placement of the students, Warren Moody and Johnny Knight, was for a period of three years from the fall of 1973 and was not in violation of any statutes, rules or procedures. The term, three years, means three school years. Acting on a complaint filed by John Georgacopoulos, school guidance counselor for Horizon Elementary School in the years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the Superintendent of Schools of the School Board of Broward County, Florida, ordered an audit of the Horizon Elementary records. One of the aspects of the audit was to examine certain folders on the specific Learning Disability students who were enrolled in the year 1975-76. These folders were folders that were found in the main office of the school. The audit report which is Petitioner's Exhibit #1, admitted into evidence, in part, states that 79 folders were examined in the course of the audit. In addition there was testimony by one of the auditors, that a computer print-out contained the names of those students that were found in the Specific Learning Disability program (SLD). Apparently the auditor was referring to that computer print-out which is Petitioner's Exhibit #8, admitted into evidence. That exhibit shows a color code for certain categories and (SLD) is shown in yellow. The number of (SLD) students in the year 1975-76 was determined by the auditors on the basis of the examination of the file folders in the main office and the computer print-out and this gave them the number 79. When the charge was made, it alleged 74 students were in the (SLD) program in the 1975-76 school year, but was subsequently amended during the course of the hearing to reflect the number 79, which appeared in the audit report. In fact, FTE funding in the (SLD) program of Horizon Elementary was claimed for 71 students in the October 27 - 31, 1975, count and for 74 students in the February 23 - 27, 1976, count as reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit #19, admitted into evidence. Therefore, funding would have been received for 71 students in October, 1975, in the (SLD) program. Moreover, testimony established that it was this October count which set up the process for the actual receipt of funds for such program. Of the 79 students claimed to be enrolled in the 1975-76 school year, in the category (SLD), 47 of those students whose files were examined were felt to be properly certified. Certification to the audit members meant that a school psychologist had indicated the propriety of placing that student in the (SLD) program in years prior to 1975-76, and after 1975-76 that a form known as B-1 had to be signed by the Director of Exceptional Student Education or his designee to have certification. This word certified comes from the audit summary table found in the audit, Petitioner's Exhibit #1. The original charge claimed 47 students of the (SLD) program were certified. This number was amended to read 49 as certified, such amendment being made in the course of the hearing. In addition to the audit report, there was prepared a tally sheet. This tally sheet was the product of the three auditors and pertained to the (SLD) students. The tally sheet is Petitioner's Exhibit #15, admitted into evidence. It shows 79 names, which are the names of the file folders examined in the audit. It has certain columns pertaining to items being sought, one of which columns is the aforementioned certification. Looking at this exhibit it is determined that there are 30 names of students, whom the auditors did not locate data for on the column labeled certification. Those 30 names are found in a separate part of Petitioner's Exhibit #15, In determining what data existed, the auditors had asked the Respondent to produce his files, they had looked at files in the main office and in the Specific Learning Disability room, and at the Diagnostic Center for the Exceptional Education Program in Broward County. Their examination of the Diagnostic Center files was only on a random basis. They had also spoken to the (SLD) teachers at Horizon Elementary in a general way, but not as to the specific names of students that they could not find data for. The auditors did not look in the cumulative folders, which were found with the homeroom teachers of the 30 (SLD) students. No document was offered which shows which if any of the 79 students named on the tally sheet were part of the 71 students for whom FTE funding in the (SLD) program was claimed for in the October 27 - 31, 1975, request, nor was such documentation shown for which if any of the 79 students on the tally sheet were claimed as part of the 74 students who were involved in the FTE funding count of February 23 - 27, 1976. Therefore, it is not known specifically which of the students were having funding claimed for them in October, 1975 and February, 1976. There was a great deal of testimony in the case concerning the referral process, testing, psychological evaluation, and staffing of those students in the (SLD) program at Horizon Elementary School. This discussion involved allegations and counter allegations about the conduct of the prescribed process, as to the compliance with procedures and the quality of that compliance, and the disposition of the evidence showing qualification of the (SLD) students for such a program, once placement had been made and funding requested. Essentially, the Petitioner was trying to establish, through its witnesses, that procedures were not followed in placing (SLD) students for the years 1973-74 through 1975-76 either in fact or in the quality of compliance. The Respondent, through its witnesses, countered that compliance had been achieved and that the placement of those students in the (SLD) program was correct. Within this testimony, there are claims on both sides that files either did not exist or certain data in those files had been removed. Some evidence which was offered to establish that testing was done on those 30 students whose names appear on Petitioner's Exhibit #15, will be found in Respondent's Exhibit #18 - #22, admitted into evidence. These Respondent's exhibits show materials taken from the files of the named students and compilation of tests scores kept by the (SLD) teachers, Bonnie Kirkham and Pat Sanders. These items were not seen by the audit team. Some information was in the possession of the (SLD) teachers based on notes of test scores that were take-offs of the original test booklets and documents, with the exception of one file which was mistakenly kept in the (SLD) teachers room, and the balance of the data was taken from the cumulative folders of the students, that had been kept in the homeroom teachers' rooms, which were not examined by the auditors. Other data may be found in Petitioner's Exhibits 36 - 38 which are psychological reports written by Dr. James R. Fisher, a school psychologist with the Broward County School System. These reports pertain to certain of the 30 students whom he recommended to be returned to regular class, and some of which were left in the (SLD) program from January, 1976 through the end of the school year to avoid adjustment problems. Although the psychological reports are dated September, 1975, these reports were not sent to Horizon Elementary School until January, 1976. In addition the attorney for the Petitioner after reviewing the evidence, concedes that the children, Jeanine O'Hara, Wayne Martin, Suzanne Cain, Karen Treese, Alderto Guzman, Laura Natzke and Kieth Franklin were tested and found eligible for placement in (SLD). After entertaining considerable testimony on the procedures and the whereabouts of certain data within the files of the 30 (SLD) students under discussion, and after reviewing the evidence offered to show the existence of data about the students, the undersigned is unable to conclude what the actual facts are, and for that reason it has not been shown that the procedures for placement and claiming funding were followed or not. However, there is strong evidence to show that the procedures were followed for placing the thirty (SLD) students, as shown by Respondent's Exhibits #18 - #22. On October 27, 1975, the student Anthony Buffone was tested by a school psychologist in the Broward County School System. This psychologist was Bob Lieberman, and Mr. Lieberman rendered a written psychological report, which indicated that Anthony Buffone should be placed in a program for Emotionally Disturbed children. A copy of this report may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit #18, admitted into evidence. This child was staffed and proper placement effected, in accordance with the existing law and procedures. The activity of placement transpired in the fall of 1975. The child was attending Horizon Elementary School in the school year 1975-76. The program provided for Anthony Buffone in that school year was to have him attend regular class part of the day and to spend approximately two hours a day with John Georgacopoulos, the school guidance counselor. Georgacopoulos was to help Anthony Buffone with academics, to assist in behavioral modification and to improve the student's self concept. This program was provided as needed, and this need turned out to be approximately two hours a day. In addition, the Respondent worked with the student in terms of counseling. The student spent some time in the (SLD) program but because of the disruptive nature of his conduct, was removed from that program. His attendance in (SLD) was from the beginning of January, 1976 through the spring, 1976. He was removed from the (SLD) program at the request of the (SLD) teacher. Mr. Georgacopoulos the instructor, had a BA Degree in psychology from the University of Oklahoma and a Master's Degree in Institutional Guidance and Counseling from Oklahoma City University. In addition Mr. Georgacopoulos had been approved by the Broward County School Board to do psychometric testing. Prior to coming to the Broward County School System in 1969, he had done work at the Wagon Wheel School in Oklahoma, in the field of guidance and counseling. He was not a certified psychologist, certified with the State of Florida. The Respondent recognized that the student Anthony Buffone, would have been better placed at the Castle Hill School which had a more comprehensive program for the Emotionally Disturbed, but the mother of the child did not wish this placement since it would work a hardship in transporting the child to the school, and would place the child in a location that was inconvenient to the parent.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, be relieved of further responsibility in answering to these charges and that back pay and other benefits that he may be entitled to, be forthcoming. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John B. Di Chiara, Esquire Suite 1500, One Financial Plaza Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Emerson Allsworth, Esquire 1177 S.E. Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mr. James E. Maurer Superintendent of Schools The School Board of Broward County Administration Offices 1320 S.W. Fourth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33312
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Russell Freeman, was employed by the School Board of Broward County, Florida, as coordinator of exceptional student education for the physically handicapped and was under a continuing contract status for that position for the 1975-1976 school year. He had been employed by the School Board of Broward County since 1969. The Respondent is the School Board of Broward County, Florida, a government agency charged with employing, regulating, supervising and managing the practices, operations and tenure of instructional and non-instructional personnel for the Broward County Public School System. During the 1975-1976 school year, the Respondent employed individual coordinators for exceptional education, each assigned to cover a single student exceptionality. The Petitioner was employed as such a coordinator, serving in the capacity of coordinator for physically handicapped students. There were four such coordinators, specializing in various student exceptionalities, one of whom was the Petitioner. During that school year, the School Board's Administrative Staff conducted a review of the exceptional student education program on a county-wide basis to determine what services were being rendered to exceptional students with a view toward determining the best method and practice to deliver appropriate educational services to the various categories of exceptional students considering problems posed by the dense population in the county and the high and growing population of exceptional students. At the time this review was conducted, the exceptional student population in the county school system was approximately 15,000. The Petitioner was responsible for coordination of the provision of exceptional education services to approximately 5,060 of these students, approximately 5,000 being in a speech handicap program and approximately 60 being in a physical motor handicap program. The Petitioner, as were the other three former coordinators, was responsible for the students in his particular category of exceptional education for the entire county. With the advent of United States Public Law, 94-142, the School Board Staff charged with conducting the exceptional student program for Broward County was required to approve, promulgate and implement individualized educational plans (IEPs) for each exceptional student in the county. This would have necessitated each of the four coordinators attempting to appropriately oversee the promulgation, drafting and implementation of an individualized educational plan for each of the 2,000 to 5,000 students under his supervision (in the Petitioner's case 5,060 students). The School Board and Administrative Staff became concerned that this task and service could not be provided students on an adequate basis from a centralized organization, wherein each coordinator had several thousand students for which he was mandated to implement such an I.E.P. Accordingly, the School Board retained the services of an expert consultant in the field of exceptional education, Dr. Sage, who ultimately prepared a report, the thrust of which was a recommendation that the School Board decentralize the provision of exceptional education services and assign a coordinator who was responsible for all types of exceptional student (rather than one category) for a smaller geographical area than the county as a whole. This report, and she consultant who prepared it, recommended, and Dr. Scalise, in his testimony for the Respondent, established that the provision of exceptional educational services, including the preparation and use of appropriate individualized educational plans could be better performed if one coordinator had less students and a smaller geographical area under his "jurisdiction." With a view toward this goal, the School Board began deliberation on a reorganization plan for the provision of exceptional educational services. Dr. Scalise at the time was one of the four former coordinators. He was asked to advise the School Board regarding this reorganization. It was felt by Dr. Scalise, others on the exceptional educational staff, and the Board, that because of the size of the population in Broward County and the population of exceptional students as well as the geographic size of the county that it was not possible for the former coordinators to each serve the entire county for a single exceptional educational category. The kind of service envisioned by Public Law 94-142 could not he provided unless coordinators were qualified to supervise all exceptionalities in a decentralized fashion, being responsible for a smaller geographical area and a smaller number of students. Dr. Scalise, in his advisory capacity to the School Board felt that a decentralized exceptional education supervisory operation would improve the quality of services rendered to exceptional students. Accordingly, with a view toward the recommendation in this report, as well as his own experience in operation of the mentally handicapped exceptional student program, Witness Scalise recommended that the county consider decentralizing the exceptional education program so that an exceptional student coordinator would be assigned to handle the entire scope of the exceptional student program and be appropriately qualified, for such, within each of four geographic areas of the county. After due deliberation, the School Board, on April 8, 1976, voted to implement a reorganization of the exceptional education office or department and, thus, accept Dr. Scalise's recommendation that the provision of exceptional student services be decentralized. Formerly, the Director of Exceptional Student Education for the entire county had to approve the eligibility of each student who entered or exited the exceptional student program and had to approve any significant change in the students individualized education plan required by Public Law 94-142. He, thus, had to supervise the eduational plans for each of approximately 15,000 students. When the decentralization plan was inaugurated the four new area coordinators who were ultimately hired were given the responsibility, because of their background, experience and qualifications in special education to approve the eligibility of each student within their own geographical area, rather than all plans having to be approved by one director for the entire county. Witness Scalise demonstrated that, based upon his experience as director of the entire program after the reorganization was implemented, that decentralized administration of exceptional education of four geographical areas of the county permitted more efficient monitoring and delivery of educational services to exceptional students than had the earlier system under the former four "at large" coordinators who had to visit each of many schools where students within their particular category of exceptionality were assigned. With the advent of the new organization, the "geographical" exceptional education coordinators work directly with the assistant county superintendent for their geographical areas in establishing programs, selecting teachers, determining curricula, the types of materials, supplies and other aids, and concomitant preparation of exceptional student program budgets for their particular geographical areas. The coordinator exceptional education for that area had to assist in the handling of due process proceedings, with obtaining transportation for exceptional students to various special programs. In short, the "new coordinator" has to handle the total scope of the delivery of exceptional education for that geographical area. Under the former system, only one person, the Director, was responsible for and handled the entire task of providing all needs of exceptional education, whereas under the new organization, four qualified people were hired to perform those varied tasks. With the approval by the School Board of the decentralized organization plan, the four new positions were duly advertised and four new coordinators were hired. All but one were certified in at least one area of exceptional education. Witness Scalise was hired as the director of the exceptional education program for the county and is certified in "varying exceptionalities," which is an overview certification issued by the State Department of Education certifying that the holder, Witness Scalise, has some qualification in all areas of exceptional student education. The philosophy or purpose behind the School Board's reorganization of this department was thus to better and more efficiently provide exceptional education services to a high population of exceptional students which has grown since the year in question to number approximately 20,000 students at the time of the hearing. The testimony of Dr. Stephenson corroborates that of Dr. Scalise and establishes that a new job description for these new coordinator positions was created with new qualifications. The School Board then openly advertised the new positions in accordance with its rules. The Petitioner applied for one of those new positions and was unsuccessful. Dr. Stephenson's testimony was uncontradicted in establishing that the Petitioner, Mr. Freeman, was not possessed of all of the qualifications necessary in order to be considered for the new position. The Petitioner's continuing contract, which is the subject of this proceeding, provides that he is to be placed in the position of "coordinator- 9560" at a salary of $21,450 per year with the beginning date being July 1, 1973 and the ending date 1984. The contract, however, provides that if the School Board adopts a lower salary schedule than the contract salary for the immediate prior year this may be done provided 15 days notice are provided the teacher (the Petitioner) at which point he may accept such salary or decide not to accept it and resign "without prejudice." The contract also has a provision at Item 9 providing that the contract will not operate to prevent the discontinuance of a position "as provided by law." The contract is, of course, for a specific coordinator position rather than as a "teacher" continuing contract. It does, however, have the escape clause of Item 9 allowing the discontinuance of a position without breach of the contract, provided it is legally performed.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the petition of Russell Freeman for reinstatement into his continuing contract position of "coordinator-9560" for the limited purpose of obtaining full concomitant entitlement to retirement benefits should be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 10th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald J. Vestal, Esquire 4001 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida 33021 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 James E. Maurer, Superintendent School Board of Broward County 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2012), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 739881, covering the areas of Physical Education and Exceptional Student Education, which is valid through June 30, 2015. He has held a certification in Florida since 2005. Respondent is African- American. At all times relevant to the charges in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been employed as an In- School Suspension (ISS) Teacher at the CARE Program in the Calhoun County School District (District). The CARE acronym is shorthand for character, achievement, respect, and education. The CARE Program is a second-chance school for students who have been suspended for more than ten days, have been suspended for drug offenses, or who are currently in a juvenile facility. The first time a student is assigned to the CARE Program, it is for a 90-day term. If the student does well, he or she returns to their regular school. The second referral is for a period of 180 days; the third for a year. The CARE Program generally has approximately 30-40 students at a time. In November 2012, the program had approximately 31-32 students. The CARE Program is located at a facility that used to house a vocational complex, next to the adult school. Also housed in this complex is the In-School Suspension (ISS) class, where students serve in-school suspensions of less than ten days. Students are referred to the ISS class for behavior such as tardiness and being disruptive in the classroom. The number of students in the ISS classroom varies, because it depends on how many students have been referred. There is a limit to how many students can be in the ISS class, because each school has a cap on the number of students it can refer at any given time. Testimony varied as to how many students were present at the time of the incident giving rise to this case. The most reasonable and credible testimony indicates that on November 14, 2012, there were approximately 15-20 students in the ISS class. There was adequate room in the ISS classroom for the number of students in the class. Some time prior to the incident giving rise to this case, part of the complex where the CARE Program and the ISS class were housed underwent construction. As a result, several staff members working in the complex had tires punctured because of construction debris in the area. The District would reimburse employees for repairs to tires that were punctured if the employee submitted the documentation related to the repair. Respondent had requested two new tires, as opposed to repair of his tires. Although the record is not clear when Respondent made his request, there was some delay in any action being taken to address it. Wilson McClellan was the superintendent of the District from 2000 to 2004, and then again from 2008 to 2012, after which he retired. Mr. McClellan, who is Caucasian, was an educator in Calhoun County for approximately 25 years. He had worked with Respondent in a summer recreation program at some point before Respondent was hired by the District. Mr. McClellan had told Respondent that if there was an opening in Calhoun County, he would give Respondent a call and let him know. On November 13, 2012, Mr. McClellan was defeated in his bid for re-election as superintendent. The next day, he visited the CARE Program and spoke with several of the staff there, presumably to touch base with people with whom he had worked. He came to the CARE Program around midday, and class was in session. While he was there, Mr. McClellan went to speak with Respondent about Respondent’s pending request for reimbursement for his tires. While repairs had been authorized, no other staff member had requested new tires. Mr. McClellan told Respondent that he would need to submit documentation for the reimbursement for action by the School Board, as opposed to the superintendent, because Mr. McClellan did not feel comfortable authorizing the expenditure when no one else had requested reimbursement for new tires instead of repair of existing ones. Mr. McClellan knocked on the door to the ISS classroom and he and Respondent went into the small office adjacent to it. When he told Respondent about the need to submit the reimbursement matter to the Board, Respondent became angry and walked back into his classroom. Respondent told McClellan, in the presence of his students, that if he had a different last name and a different color, then the results would have been different. McClellan denied Respondent’s claim and left the classroom. Mr. Thomas’s classroom had an inside door, going into a hallway, and an outside door that led to a covered pavilion area with picnic tables. Also adjacent to the area with the picnic tables is Barbara Hathaway’s office. Ms. Hathaway served as the Dean of Students for the CARE Program, a position that functions much like a principal does in a traditional school. When Mr. McClellan left the classroom, he went to the area with the picnic tables. Ms. Hathaway saw him there and came out to speak with him. While Ms. Hathaway and Mr. McClellan were speaking, Respondent came out of his classroom and asked Ms. Hathaway to get someone to cover his class because he was “pretty hot” and needed to walk. According to Ms. Hathaway, Respondent was agitated and upset. She did not understand him to mean he was overheated based on temperature, but rather that he was upset or angry, and her testimony is credited. Without waiting for coverage for his class, Respondent walked away from the classroom and the area where Mr. McClellan and Ms. Hathaway were standing and up the sidewalk. Ms. Hathaway left to ask another staff member to cover the classroom and was going to walk back outside when she heard Mr. Thomas speaking loudly. She could not hear what Mr. Thomas said, but his tone was agitated. She noticed that the ISS classroom door to the outside was open, and the students could hear the heated conversation between their instructor and the superintendent, so she opened the inside door and told a student to shut the outside door. Ms. Hathaway thought from the students’ reactions that they were enjoying the interchange between Mr. McClellan and Mr. Thomas. She used her phone to call for a resource officer because she felt the situation was agitated and that someone should be present to intervene. After Ms. Hathaway walked inside to arrange for coverage for the classroom, Mr. Thomas had walked back down the sidewalk to Mr. McClellan. He repeated to Mr. McClellan that in this county, if he had a different last name and a different color, it would probably be a different result. Mr. McClellan became impatient and said, “shut up Ed, I am just not wanting to hear any more about that.” Mr. Thomas walked closer to him, glared and said, “if you ever say shut up again to me, I will be the last black man you ever say that to.”1/ Mr. Thomas is a large, imposing figure, and according to Mr. McClellan, he spoke in a loud, angry voice and “bowed up” in a threatening gesture; however, he was never close enough to the superintendent to actually strike him. While Ms. Hathaway could not hear the actual language being used, both Ms. Barbee, who came to cover the ISS classroom, and the students in the classroom were able to hear the colorful exchange. Ms. Barbee testified that she did not remember the actual conversation, but that there was “some cussing and hollering.” Her statement written the day of the incident indicates that Mr. Thomas used the term “f**k.” Likewise, P.G., one of the students in the classroom, testified that Mr. Thomas told Mr. McClellan, “don’t tell me to shut the f**k up,” and for him to “shut the f**k up.” P.G. believed the students in the room were shocked at the interchange.2/ After this exchange, Respondent once again walked away from Mr. McClellan and up the sidewalk away from his class. On both occasions, Respondent was five to six classroom lengths away from his classroom, and unable to monitor in any way the actions of his students. Ms. Hathaway, as noted above, was not present for this heated exchange and did not hear what was said. When she returned outside, Mr. Thomas was standing on the sidewalk up the hill from the classroom. She spoke to Mr. McClellan, who told her about the conversation with Mr. Thomas. What he told her involved the reimbursement issue and not any complaint about overcrowding. About that time Warren Tanner, the school resource officer, came around the corner. When he arrived, he saw Ms. Hathaway and Mr. McClellan sitting on a bench under the pavilion, and Mr. Thomas was standing at the end of the driveway at the end of the building. Mr. Tanner asked what had happened, and Mr. McClellan told him that Mr. Thomas had threatened him. Mr. Thomas walked back down the hill to where the others were standing, and Mr. McClellan told him to go home for the rest of the day. Mr. Thomas went into his classroom briefly, then came out and asked Mr. McClellan if he was sending him home for the rest of the day, and was told, “yes.” Mr. Thomas got in his truck to leave, then got out and asked Mr. Tanner if this was going to be a complaint, and Mr. Tanner told him, not at this time. Mr. McClellan returned to his office and called David House, the school board attorney. He related the events of the morning and told Mr. House that, in light of past behavior by Mr. Thomas and the current incident, he was considering terminating Mr. Thomas. Later that afternoon, Vicki Davis, assistant superintendent for the District, called Mr. Tanner and asked him to collect statements from those who witnessed or heard the morning’s events. Mr. Tanner got statements from Mr. McClellan, Ms. Hathaway, Ms. Barbee, and several students in Mr. Thomas’s class.3/ On Thursday, November 15, 2012, Mr. McClellan wrote to Mr. Thomas advising him that he was suspended with pay, effective immediately. Respondent had been the subject of discipline previously, and there had been concerns expressed about his behavior during his employment in Calhoun County. For example, in January 2008, he received a formal reprimand for allegedly confronting a fellow teacher in front of students in a loud, belligerent, and profane manner.4/ On June 3, 2008, Respondent received a second reprimand for allegedly leaving a magazine with an unclothed woman on the cover in the Health Building bathroom where it could be viewed by students. On January 13, 2011, Neva Miller, the principal of Blountstown Middle School, wrote a lengthy letter to Superintendent McClellan detailing several alleged incidents involving Mr. Thomas that caused her to “express concerns that I have as to the effectiveness and concerning anger control abilities of Edward Thomas.” A two-page document titled “Ed Thomas Issues Calendar Year 2011” was placed in his personnel file, recounting a series of concerns regarding alleged deficiencies in his performance. On February 23, 2012, Ms. Hathaway, as Dean of the CARE Program, documented an alleged incident involving a ninth-grade student.5/ On December 11, 2012, Mr. McClellan’s successor, Superintendent Ralph Yoder, issued a Notice of Charges for Dismissal to the Calhoun County School Board, recommending Respondent be suspended without pay and dismissed from employment by the District. The Notice of Charges stated, “Mr. Thomas has a history of engaging in insubordinate, hostile and confrontational behavior toward faculty members and administrators, which began in 2007 and culminated in an incident that occurred on November 14, 2012, involving the former Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Tommy McClellan. Mr. Thomas has been repeatedly instructed by persons in authority to correct his behavior, but he has failed to do so.” The Notice goes on to describe 13 separate incidents and references several others. Only the incident involving Mr. McClellan on November 14, 2012, is alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and Petitioner presented no evidence to prove what happened with respect to the other incidents. No findings are made concerning the validity of the other allegations in the Notice of Charges. It is considered solely to show that the District took action with respect to Respondent’s employment. Likewise, it is unclear what, if any, proceedings were conducted with respect to the Notice of Charges before the school board. Respondent acknowledged that his employment was terminated as of December 11, 2012, the day the Notice was issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), as well as Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a). It is further recommended that the Commission suspend Respondent’s teaching certificate for one year; that he submit to an evaluation for anger management by the Recovery Network on terms to be set by the Education Practices Commission; and that upon re-employment as an educator, Respondent be placed on probation for a period of three years, with terms and conditions to be set by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 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 19th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Dennis Michael Hester (Respondent or Mr. Hester), violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2011), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), (4)(b), (4)(c), (5)(a), (5)(d), and/or (5)(f), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, with respect to his role as a Professional Development Facilitator (PDF) and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) trainer, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Dennis Hester was employed by the School District as a teacher from 1994 until his termination in 2015. He was covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Duval Teachers United and the School Board for the period from 2008-2011. At the time of the events giving rise to both this case and the School Board case, Mr. Hester was assigned to Fletcher High School in Duval County as an instructional coach and a PDF. Although no direct evidence was presented on this point, Respondent admits in his Proposed Recommended Order that he holds a Florida Educator’s Certificate. Respondent’s substantial interests are affected by this proceeding. ESOL Certification Requirements The allegations against Respondent include allegations of unprofessional behavior toward colleagues and an allegation that Respondent repeatedly gave District employees credit for ESOL courses that they did not attend and/or for which they performed no work. While both claims, if proven, would warrant discipline, the more serious claim in both cases is the allegation that Respondent gave credit for ESOL courses which employees did not attend and performed no work. In August 1990, Judge James Lawrence King of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a consent decree to oversee the implementation of a settlement agreement between the Florida State Board of Education and a coalition of plaintiff organizations that included the League of United Latin American Citizens, ASPIRA of Florida, the Farmworkers’ Association of Central Florida, the Florida State Conference of NAACP Branches, the Haitian Refugee Center, the Spanish American League Against Discrimination, the American Hispanic Educators’ Association of Dade, and the Haitian Educators’ Association. The text of the consent decree and settlement agreement is found at www.fldoe.org/aala/lulac.asp. Section IV of the settlement agreement requires teachers of “English language learners” or “ELL Students”3/ to obtain an ESOL endorsement and complete between 60 and 300 hours4/ of in-service training in each of the five subject matter areas: methods of teaching English to speakers of other languages, ESOL curriculum and materials development, c) cross-cultural communication and understanding, d) applied linguistics, and e) testing and evaluation of ESOL. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-4.0244 (specialization requirements for the ESOL endorsement) and 6A-6.907 (in-service requirements). Not every teacher is required to obtain the ESOL certification. The requirement is triggered once an ELL student is assigned to a teacher’s class. Karen Patterson, the School Board’s ESOL specialist at the time period relevant to this proceeding, testified that she knew of one teacher who taught for nearly 40 years before being flagged as out-of-field for having an ELL student in her class and no ESOL course credits on her record. The School Board policy is to terminate the employment of teachers who are flagged for ESOL and who do not timely obtain the required ESOL in-service training. Approximately 750 to 800 teachers are flagged as out-of-field for ESOL each school year and must come into compliance with ESOL requirements by June 30 of the school year in which they were flagged. A teacher must obtain between 60 and 300 in-service credits, depending on the subject matter the teacher teaches. Reading and language arts teachers are required to complete 300 credits, while math and science teachers need only 60 credits. The Department of Education allows teachers to “bank” their ESOL credits and apply them toward the requirements for recertifying their Florida Educator’s Certificate. Section 1003.56(3)(a), Florida Statutes, requires each district school board to submit to the Department of Education for review and approval a plan for providing ESOL instruction to ELL students. Section 1003.56(3)(f) also requires the district school board to provide qualified teachers for ESOL instruction. The School Board’s approved District Plan identifies the standards for obtaining the ESOL endorsement, stating that the “expectation is that any teacher who obtains the ESOL Endorsement will acquire the appropriate strategies to teach English language learners.” The District Plan refers to the ESOL endorsement as an “add-on program,” because the endorsement can be added to any Florida Educator’s Certificate requiring a bachelor’s degree or higher. The District Plan provides in pertinent part: The standards to be addressed in each course will be stated and updated in the district’s master in-service plan for the Add-on- Certification Program for ESOL. Each component has been developed in accordance with the requirements for the Master Plan for In-Service Education components. Participants must complete and demonstrate competency of 80% of the course objectives in order to receive credit for the component. Participants must participate in the following clinical activities in the ESOL Add-on-Program for the ESOL endorsement: Submit a portfolio of ELL student work with analysis of student growth Develop appropriate formal and alternative methods of assessment for ELLs Develop lesson plans using effective teaching methodologies in planning and delivering instruction to meet the needs of ELLs Complete a culture sketch and mini- ethnography on an ELL to identify language proficiency and cultural influences on learning Use knowledge of culture and learning styles to plan and evaluate instructional outcomes Evaluate, modify, and employ appropriate instructional materials for ELLS at all proficiency levels Evaluate instructional programs in ESOL based on current standards Reflect on and analyze current trends in ESOL Select and develop appropriate ESOL content according to ELL students’ level of proficiency Identify and implement strategies for using school, community and home resources Analyze ELL Case Studies View and discuss pd360.com segments for each course[5/] The District Plan also sets forth the following “Completion Requirements”: The participant will satisfactorily complete all the appropriate courses needed for the endorsement. The successful completion of each required course will document that the participant has attained the competencies and skills addressed in and specific to the course. In order to complete a course successfully, a participant must: Complete a Pre/Post test or other valid measure to show at least 80% competency of the course objectives Complete all individual and group activities at a professional level of quality that demonstrates knowledge of the Florida Teacher Standards for ESOL Endorsement Complete all written assignments at a level that demonstrates competency of Domains 1-5 of the Florida Teacher Standards for ESOL endorsement[6/] Program Completion The participant must master 80% of the course objectives in order to complete the in-service component satisfactorily. In order to add the ESOL endorsement the participant must complete all five state- approved ESOL in-services courses or the equivalent. The participant must complete all individual projects and assignments at the level of quality as stated in the objectives. The instructor will follow the criteria established for satisfactory completion. Upon completion of the required course work, the Professional Development Director will certify the program completion. Competency Demonstration The participant must demonstrate successful completions of all competencies as outlined in the district master in-service components for each ESOL class included in the add-on endorsement program for the Florida Teacher Standards for ESOL Endorsement. The “Management” section of the District Plan states: Attendance Requirement for in-service points Attendance is mandatory. All of the classes have a specific number of hours and participants must attend the required number of hours. Absences must be made up with the instructor or the ESOL Specialist. Excessive absences will result in the participant not satisfactorily completing the class. The Director and ESOL Specialist for Professional Development will determine what will happen with a participant in the event of an extreme emergency or serious illness causing excessive absentees [sic]. During the period relevant to this case, Brenda Wims was the director of professional development for the School District. She was responsible for all in-service programs in the School District, including the ESOL program. Karen Patterson, the ESOL specialist, worked directly beneath Ms. Wims in the hierarchy. There were 20 to 35 ESOL facilitators, such as Mr. Hester, who delivered the in-service training for ESOL development.7/ Ms. Patterson testified that there was always a crunch at the end of the school year to obtain ESOL credits and that the bulk of the training pushed up against the June 30 deadline. Teachers came to her office as late as June 27 desperately seeking ESOL credits. Some teachers had not realized that they were out-of-field for ESOL until near the deadline, and they would approach Ms. Patterson in a panic. Ms. Patterson also testified that the professional development staff did whatever they legitimately could to ensure that teachers flagged for ESOL obtained the credits that they needed to keep their jobs. Given the number of teachers caught by the ESOL requirement each year, Ms. Patterson had an enormous task to schedule sufficient ESOL courses for them. As the end of the school year approached and the desperate push for ESOL classes began, the professional development staff would schedule additional courses and would shorten courses. The standard ESOL training program consisted of five separate courses, each covering one of the “domains” identified in paragraph four. Each course was worth 60 points. Those teachers needing 300 points were required to take all five classes. In recognition that there is some subject matter overlap among the ESOL courses, the District decided to implement a “hybrid” ESOL course as part of its effort to quickly move more teachers through the training. The facilitator of this course would offer all five class titles, and the teachers taking the course would choose the title they needed. During the first half of each class session, the facilitator would teach the entire class the materials common to all ESOL courses. During the second half, the facilitator would offer differentiated instruction for each course title. Ms. Patterson testified that the typical ESOL class took ten to 12 weeks, but that the hybrid class was shortened to six weeks. Ms. Patterson also testified that other “emergency” courses were shortened to six weeks. When asked what “emergency” meant, she responded, “[t]hat means that we needed to offer more courses, so we added more that were not hybrid as well.” Section 1012.56(8) provides for a “cohesive competency- based professional preparation alternative certification program” through which persons with bachelor’s degrees in majors other than education may become certified teachers. This program is popularly referenced as “alternative education,” or “alt. cert.” Ms. Patterson testified that the alternative certification coordinator approached Ms. Wims about adding an ESOL component so that new teachers entering the profession through the alternative certification program would satisfy the ESOL requirement without adding to the backlog of teachers needing separate ESOL certification. The District added an ESOL component to the alternative certification program. Another way to obtain ESOL credit was through independent study. Foreign travel by a teacher could be counted as independent study if certain criteria were met, including a certification that the teacher had been out of the country for five or more days and the completion of an independent study form.8/ Teachers who were unable to attend ESOL classes due to professional or familial conflicts also could seek permission to complete independent studies by performing the course work on their own time. When Ms. Patterson was a PDF teaching ESOL, she conducted between 20 and 40 independent studies per year. After becoming the District’s ESOL specialist, she oversaw roughly 20 independent studies per year conducted by the ESOL trainers. Ms. Patterson also testified that when she conducted an independent study for a teacher, she would record the teacher’s participation in the independent study by marking the teacher present in an ESOL course being taught at the time, either by her or by another trainer. This method was used in order to be able to track the credits, not to indicate that the teacher was actually in that particular class. She testified credibly that this method was in place when she started training and that she continued to use it when she became the ESOL specialist. However, on those class rosters identified at hearing by Ms. Patterson as being records of independent studies that she conducted, the students were not actually added to an already existing attendance roster for the class. Instead, they were added by use of an additional form that identified the trainer for the course at the top, as well as what component was being taught, and that was signed by Ms. Patterson at the bottom. Teachers also could obtain ESOL credit for ESOL courses they took in college. Credit was not automatic, however. To receive credit this way, the teacher had to submit a written request and a copy of his or her transcript. A similar credit was available to teachers who received in-service ESOL credit during employment with another Florida school district. Finally, teachers also could obtain ESOL certification by passing an examination. At hearing, Mr. Hester contended that there was an alternative method for receiving ESOL credits at the discretion of the PDF, by the teacher in question demonstrating his or her ESOL knowledge and skills. The School Board denied that there was such an option, and the District Plan makes no allowance for such an alternative method. Mr. Hester’s Qualifications and Experience After four years as a classroom teacher in Duval County, Mr. Hester became a PDF in 1998, working with the District’s Professional Development Cadre (Cadre), which mentored novice and “needs assistance” teachers, and implemented the School District’s master plan for in-service education. Until 2002, Mr. Hester continued to teach in the classroom in addition to his PDF duties. During his time in the Cadre, Mr. Hester estimated that he trained between 3,000 and 4,000 new teachers through the District’s Mentoring and Induction for Novice Teachers (MINT) program. He trained teachers who majored in education, as well as alternative certification teachers. Mr. Hester was chosen to redesign the alternative certification to include the ESOL requirement. After Mr. Hester completed the redesign in 2010, teachers finishing the alternative certification program would receive 120 master plan points for ESOL in the areas of testing and evaluation and cross-cultural communication. In addition to training teachers in the alternative certification program, Mr. Hester became a trainer of trainers in the program. In 1998, Mr. Hester became state certified in the Florida Performance Measurement System, which qualified him to train administrators on how to observe and evaluate teachers. In 1999, he also became state certified in Clinical Educator Training, which further refined his training in the observation and evaluation of classroom teachers and helped him to develop strategies to improve the teachers’ performance. Mr. Hester was also a trainer in Clinical Educator Training, another observational tool used informally to coach teachers. In 2003, Mr. Hester was chosen to receive two weeks of intensive training in the America’s Choice program, a method for implementing standards-based education. Mr. Hester described the standards-based program as founded on the principle that all students can learn the same information and reach a uniform standard of achievement, but that some students take longer and need more assistance to reach the goal. The “critical attribute” of standards-based education is differentiated instruction, whereby faster learners may move at their own pace while the lower achieving students receive remedial support from the teacher. Mr. Hester’s specialized training led to his appointment as a District standards coach from 2003-2007. As a standards coach, Mr. Hester held workshops, coordinated breakout sessions on early release days, and created pamphlets setting forth pre-planning activities, among other duties. Former Fletcher High School principal Dane Gilbert described the standards coach position as an especially tough one in terms of “ruffling feathers” among the teaching staff. From 1998 through 2009, Mr. Hester served as an adjunct professor in the College of Education and Human Services at the University of North Florida. He taught several courses that included ESOL instruction. Mr. Hester testified that this college-level teaching experience was one reason the District brought him into the ESOL program as a trainer. In addition to his redesign of the alternative certification program, Mr. Hester also was the author of the hybrid ESOL course. For a time he was the only PDF teaching the hybrid course because he was one of the few trainers in the District qualified to train teachers in all five ESOL subject areas. Mr. Hester testified that his development and teaching of the ESOL course gave him a reputation as the “trainer of last resort” for the School District. This reputation was enhanced by his willingness to work through holidays to assist desperate teachers in completing their ESOL requirements. He was paid for ESOL classes through the Shultz Center for Teaching and Leadership, which is part of the School District. Contracts appear to be on a per-class component basis, and performance was approved through Ms. Wims. For those contracts provided, Mr. Hester generally received up to $2,100 per class. From 2007 until his termination, Mr. Hester served as Fletcher High School’s PDF and instructional coach. As such, he helped generate the school improvement plan, part of which involved coordination of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). PLCs are a facilitated collaborative effort among teachers to improve instruction, including the preparation of lesson plans and development of teaching strategies. The 28 or so PLCs at Fletcher High School were organized according to academic subjects or administrative duties, such as “guidance” or “leadership.” As Fletcher High School’s PDF, Mr. Hester also was involved in the adoption of the requirement that teachers develop “lesson design notebooks.” These notebooks were more complex than simple lesson plans in order to enable the teacher to document everything happening in the classroom in terms of standards-based education and the “Florida Educator Accomplished Practices” found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.065. The lesson design notebooks were used for evaluative purposes by the school administration. Mr. Hester attended the various PLC meetings and assisted them with teaching issues. Each PLC at Fletcher had a PLC binder placed in the front office. The documents generated at PLC meetings would be routed to Mr. Hester for his review and for retention in the binders. As the PDF, Mr. Hester also was assigned to work with low-performing “needs assistance” teachers to improve their performance. In addition, Mr. Hester was the Advanced International Certificate of Education (AICE) program coordinator. AICE is a diploma program created by Cambridge University. As program coordinator, Mr. Hester worked closely with top students and their teachers. Mr. Hester also was Fletcher High School’s main data analyst with respect to student and teacher performance. ESOL Endorsements The Administrative Complaint charges in part that “[d]uring the 2011/2012 school year, Respondent repeatedly provided English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) endorsements to employees without requiring that they complete the course requirements, including submission of work or attendance in classes.” The testimony related to this allegation involves the ESOL credits awarded to teachers Christine Anderson, Julie Durden, Sherry Murrell, Heather Kopp, Catherine Johnson, Josh Corey, Andrew Davis, Suzanne Harman, and Susan Podzamsky, and former principal Dane Gilbert. With respect to some of the teachers, Mr. Hester claimed that he allowed them to do independent studies because of conflicts that prevented them from attending scheduled ESOL classes. Mr. Hester believed that he had the authority to provide independent studies to teachers who could not attend classes, and marked those students as present in classes he taught, similar to Ms. Patterson’s testimony as to how she kept track of independent studies. Respondent contended that these teachers earned their credits through the use of independent studies within the scope of discretion he believed that he had until January 23, 2013. On that date, he received an e-mail entitled “ESOL Independent Study other than ESOL Foreign Travel.” The e-mail had no text, but included an attachment that stated the following: ESOL Independent Study other than ESOL Foreign Travel This is decided on a case by case basis and must be approved by Brenda A. Wims Director [sic] of Certificated/Non-certificated personnel for Professional Development and Kella Grant, Supervisor of Certification. All assignments must be submitted to the trainer who will then submit the completed work to Karen L. Patterson, ESOL Specialist for Professional Development. The request must meet the following criteria: Classes are not open for Registration and termination is within a short period of time Death/illness of family member Illness that requires treatment or hospitalization of participant Cross content conflicts (reading/ESOL) Participant assigned Summer School during the Summer course offerings and realizes after the fact that they have not satisfied their out of field status and a replacement is not available and this situation is verified by a Human Resource Administrator/ Principal You must be able to complete the assigned task and meet with the ESOL Specialist for Professional Development, Diversity Specialist or Brenda A. Wims. Brenda A. Wims, Director Karen L. Patterson, ESOL Specialist It appears that Mr. Hester is the only recipient of the e-mail, and he understood it as a directive to change how independent studies are handled. Ms. Patterson testified that the e-mail was generated to clarify the policy because some of the trainers may have had a different understanding. She testified that she probably handed the document out at a meeting, as opposed to e-mailing to everyone, but that it was provided to other trainers in addition to Mr. Hester. Mr. Hester testified that he would go to Ms. Patterson for approval of independent study projects, and that Ms. Patterson told him, as well as other trainers, that they were aware of the criteria for independent study established by Ms. Wims: that a teacher must have extraordinary family obligations or school duties that prevented him or her from taking the classes offered by the District. Mr. Hester also testified that Ms. Patterson said she trusted him to make the call on the independent student study project (required for the curriculum), and that teachers must meet the expectations of the course. By contrast, Ms. Patterson testified that Ms. Wims had to approve independent studies and that Ms. Patterson did not have the authority to do so alone. She would relay requests to Ms. Wims and act as a conduit for the trainers, but would not actually approve or deny requests for independent study. She also testified that the criteria listed in the January 23, 2013, e-mail was consistent with the existing policy for independent studies. Her testimony is credited. A comparison of the e-mail to the District Plan reveals that the documents are relatively consistent. The District Plan allows the Director and ESOL Specialist to determine what will happen with a participant “in the event of an extreme emergency or serious illness causing excessive absentees [sic].” The e-mail clarifies what is meant by “extreme emergency or serious illness,” and also clarifies that Ms. Wims must actually approve the independent study. While the District Plan could have been read as allowing Ms. Patterson to act unilaterally, clearly neither Ms. Wims nor Ms. Patterson interpreted “and” in that fashion. Further, nothing in either the District Plan or the e-mail came close to allowing Respondent the freedom to expand the parameters for allowing independent study or to change the scope of the classes for which credit would be given. However, the allegation in the Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with providing independent studies that were not authorized. It charges him with awarding credit where work was not performed. Nevertheless, there were clearly incidents where, according to Ms. Patterson, Mr. Hester received approval for and conducted independent studies for teachers with whom he worked. By the same token, there were teachers for whom he granted ESOL credits and required no work at all. Christine Andrews is a teacher at Fletcher High School. During the time related to this case, she taught AP statistics and calculus. Mr. Hester described her as a phenomenal teacher. On March 16, 2012, Ms. Andrews and several other teachers received an e-mail from Respondent requesting they see him regarding their out-of-field status. Ms. Andrews was confused by this e-mail, because she believed that her undergraduate program at the University of North Florida (UNF) included an ESOL component that satisfied the 60-hour requirement for a high school math teacher. She had not, however, taken her college transcripts to the District ESOL office to obtain approval for the ESOL credit. On March 16, 2012, Ms. Andrews sent Respondent an e-mail stating that she had spoken to Natosha Earst-Bailey in the District’s certification department, who had told her that the computer reflected that she had her 60 hours of ESOL credit, and that she should not have been flagged as out-of-field. While Ms. Earst-Bailey suggested to Ms. Andrews that she provide her transcript to Mr. Hester and to Ms. Patterson at the District Professional Development Office, so that the records would be consistent, she did not do so. In May of 2012, Mr. Hester sent both Ms. Patterson and Ms. Earst-Bailey e-mails requesting a review of Ms. Andrews’ credits at UNF for possible ESOL credits. In the e-mail to Ms. Earst-Bailey, Respondent stated, “[a]lso, I attached her points and she has 60 for cross-cultural and has the paperwork for 60 hours earned at UNF.” There is no issue with respect to the credits earned through coursework at UNF. However, the credits for cross- cultural communications are based upon her purported attendance in a cross-cultural ESOL class taught by Mr. Hester commencing on July 11, 2011. Respondent signed the attendance sheet, which reflects that Ms. Andrews was present for all 12 class sessions, as well as the completion report for her ESOL course; however, Ms. Andrews testified that she never attended this class, never performed any work for it, and never completed an independent study in order to obtain ESOL credits. She was unaware that she had been awarded these points for the July 2011 class until she was contacted by School District personnel in connection with the School District investigation concerning Mr. Hester. Respondent initially claimed that he completed an independent study with Ms. Andrews, but admitted that he did not require her to do any work in order to receive the credits. Instead, he stated: MR. HESTER: . . . So with her being as good of a teacher as she is, knowing her PLC work, knowing what’s in her lesson design notebook, observing her and sitting down and talking with her, I was able to determine that she met the competencies of the course she was given. Q: Well, did you also know what was in the course content she took out at UNF? A: Yeah, because I taught it. And the fact that she was at the – the fact that she took that course at UNF, I also took that into consideration in making that determination. Q: Okay. Well, what did you specifically do to make sure that Christine Andrews possessed all the skills and knowledge and abilities to be able to communicate and properly teach any ESOL student she had? A. Again, I looked at her lesson design notebook, which had all of the information and everything in it, also with her PLC work. I’ve been in several of the PLC meetings. I don’t remember if I observed her or not, but – and also in talking with some of the ESOL students and being able to make the determination that, you know, they would be able to say, oh, that she’s communicating with me, these are the strategies we’re using, so on and so forth. In short, Ms. Andrews performed no classwork or dedicated work of any kind to obtain the cross-cultural communication ESOL points that Respondent submitted on her behalf. His belief that he had the authority to award ESOL credits based on a teacher’s competence and the quality of her “phenomenal” teaching directly conflicts with the express requirements in the District Plan for ESOL certification, which requires that a teacher complete all individual projects and assignments; attend all class sessions; and complete all written assignments. Respondent’s stated belief that he had the authority to award points for something that does not meet these requirements is simply not reasonable. Julie Durden is a teacher at Fletcher High School. She began teaching there in 2004, teaching American Sign Language. Although the timing is unclear in the record, at some point within the last few school years, she began teaching English, and was flagged as out-of-field for ESOL. Ms. Durden, like Ms. Andrews, received an e-mail from Mr. Hester concerning her out-of-field status. When she went to see Mr. Hester about it, he told her not to worry; he would take care of it and she would not have to attend class. Ms. Durden’s name is listed on the same class roster as Ms. Andrews, beginning in July 2011 and ending in September 2011. She did not sign up, attend, complete course work, or perform an independent study for this course. Ms. Durden was not aware that she had received credit for this class until approached during the School Board investigation. Ms. Durden was instrumental in bringing a program called “Challenge Day” to Fletcher High School and, ultimately, to the entire District. Challenge Day is a program geared to creating a safe environment for children where they feel loved, safe, and celebrated, and is designed to break down barriers and eliminate cliques and bullying. Preparation for Challenge Day is a work- intensive undertaking. Mr. Hester determined that the work Ms. Durden performed in preparing for Challenge Day, along with her assistance with preplanning training, equated to the expectations of the ESOL cross-cultural course. Mr. Hester had no authority to make this determination, which is totally inconsistent with the requirements delineated in the District Plan. Ms. Durden acknowledged that she performed a lot of work for the Challenge Day program, and that there might be some content overlap. However, she could not see how these activities could substitute for attending an ESOL class, because the Challenge Day activities are not related to teaching strategies for ELL students. Mr. Hester claimed that he discussed the possibility of granting cross-cultural ESOL points for Challenge Day preparations with Ms. Patterson by telephone. However, he could produce no documentation regarding such a conversation, and Ms. Patterson could not recall any such conversation ever taking place. Moreover, she denied having any conversation with Mr. Hester that could be interpreted as giving Mr. Hester permission to award ESOL credit via his “alternative delivery” method. Ms. Patterson’s testimony is consistent with the parameters of the District Plan she assisted with implementing, and is credited. To the extent that Mr. Hester truly believed that he had the authority to award ESOL credit in this fashion, his belief was unreasonable. Sherry Murrell is a geometry and intensive math teacher at Fletcher High School. She completed all of her ESOL requirements in June of 2005, and was not out-of-field. While she had expressed an interest in being able to “bank” ESOL credits for recertification, she did not sign up for any classes because she had children at home that she had to care for at the time the classes were taught. Mr. Hester asked her to attend one of his classes, but she declined to so because she could not be at two places at one time, and thought nothing more about the issue. Mr. Hester later brought up the subject of the class with her, and she reminded him that she never signed up for the class. Mr. Hester told her not to worry, that he could make it an independent study because “you’ve gone above and beyond . . . you’ve met all the criteria.” She asked him what work she needed to complete, and he told her not to worry about it. Ms. Murrell did not sign up for, attend, or perform any work for any ESOL classes taught by Mr. Hester. However, her name appears on the attendance roster for the cross-cultural ESOL class taught from July through September 2011, and she is listed as being in attendance for all 12 classes. Her name also appears on the attendance roster for the curriculum and materials for the ESOL class beginning January 10, 2012, and is listed as attending 11 out of 12 classes. Approximately a week and a half prior to the School Board investigator coming to the school, Ms. Murrell received an envelope containing completed “course activities checklists” for the curriculum and materials class taught in the Spring of 2012, and for a hybrid class taught during that same period. Both lists were signed by Mr. Hester and dated April 3, 2012. The checklists are the documents an instructor uses to verify completion of the required activities in an ESOL course. Mr. Hester asked Ms. Murrell if she had received the envelope, and she indicated she had, but Ms. Murrell did not really examine the documents until she met with the investigator. She provided the documents to the investigator. Respondent testified that he gave Ms. Murrell credit because she is a phenomenal teacher. As with Ms. Andrews, Respondent did not have the authority to award ESOL credits based on the quality of Ms. Murrell’s teaching when she performed no work for the ESOL courses. Heather Kopp taught at Fletcher High School for two years after her graduation from UNF, transferred to Mandarin High School, and then after two years returned to Fletcher High School. Ms. Kopp testified that she took ESOL courses as an undergraduate at UNF and was told that she needed no further ESOL courses. She has her ESOL endorsement. There was evidence presented indicating that Ms. Kopp’s name was on class rosters for ESOL classes taking place in January 2009 and January 2010 taught by Mr. Hester. Mr. Hester claimed that he oversaw an independent study for her because she had to care for her children at night and was unable to take ESOL classes. While the charges against Mr. Hester brought by the School District could be interpreted as including conduct related to Ms. Kopp, the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding limits the allegations regarding ESOL classes to the 2011/2012 year. Therefore, no findings will be made with respect to Ms. Kopp’s participation, or lack thereof, in ESOL classes. Catherine Johnson is an English teacher at Fletcher High School, and started teaching there in 1998. She took a two-year leave of absence and returned in December 2008. In December 2010, she received an out-of-field notice for ESOL. She talked to Mr. Hester about the notice, who asked Ms. Patterson what classes Ms. Johnson would need to complete her ESOL endorsement. Ms. Patterson indicated that Ms. Johnson needed part 2 of the cross-cultural communications course, and Mr. Hester passed along the information to Ms. Johnson. Ms. Johnson asked Respondent what she needed to do to complete the ESOL endorsement. He told her to consider it an independent study. Ms. Johnson stated that Respondent gave her two discs to load onto her computer, which she was unable to do. When she returned the discs to Respondent, he took them and said that he knew her reputation as a classroom teacher, that she was a quality instructor, and that she had fulfilled the requirements of part 2 of the cross-cultural ESOL course. She accepted that Respondent had the authority to make this determination and did not question it. Respondent, on the other hand, claims he never gave Ms. Johnson any discs because the curriculum was available on the District website. He claims that he gave her the course syllabus for cross-cultural ESOL and told her she could use that as documentation if she needed it. Whether Respondent gave Ms. Johnson discs or merely gave her a syllabus is irrelevant. Respondent admits that he did not give her any work to do in order to fulfill the requirements of the course. He claims that he was not “giving” Ms. Johnson anything: that she earned the ESOL credit because of the extra work she did with PLC groups, her status as an AICE, her lesson design notebook, and his observations with her in the classroom and in PLCs. Respondent signed completion reports for a cross- cultural ESOL course taught by Mr. Hester from January to April 2011. Ms. Johnson did nothing to earn credit for this class.9/ Josh Corey is a teacher at Fletcher High School. At the time of the hearing, he had been teaching at Fletcher High School for 12 years. He teaches physical education and serves as the school’s head football coach, assistant athletic director, and student activities director. Mr. Corey looked at his records in 2013, and saw that he had credit for 300 ESOL hours. He believed that he had only completed the work for 180 of those hours. He had attended one class and completed two other domains through independent studies under Mr. Hester’s direction. There is no allegation of impropriety regarding the points awarded for these independent studies. Mr. Corey’s name was on attendance sheets for two courses conducted from January to April 2011, offered on different days. Mr. Corey did not attend these classes. Mr. Corey’s wife’s name also appeared on these attendance sheets. Mr. Corey could not have attended these classes because he was coaching softball during this time, and his coaching duties would have conflicted with the class schedule. He could not recall any discussions with Mr. Hester about the classes. Mr. Hester, on the other hand, testified that Mr. Corey wanted ESOL credits for banking purposes, and that his wife needed the ESOL credits, having returned to teaching after having a child. She could not attend because her husband was coaching when the classes were offered, and they had two small children. Mr. Hester testified that he allowed them to do independent studies together, and the work was turned in with both of their names on it. In his view, collaboration between teachers for an independent study was acceptable because it mimics the sharing of activities and experience that goes on in class. The undersigned notes that Mr. Corey only testified in the School Board case, and no additional testimony from him was elicited in the hearing conducted March 29. Therefore, Judge Stevenson was in a better position to assess the credibility of both Mr. Corey and Mr. Hester. Judge Stevenson favored Mr. Hester’s version of the events, and believed that it is more likely that Mr. Corey’s wife completed and turned in the coursework in “collaboration” with Mr. Corey than that Mr. Hester invented the scenario of having received the work for which he credited both teachers. Given Judge Stevenson’s superior position to assess both witnesses’ credibility, and the higher burden of proof applicable to this proceeding, the undersigned defers to his assessment. Andrew Davis is a physical education teacher and football coach at Fletcher High School. He went through the alternative certification program and finished it during his third year of teaching. Mr. Hester was his instructor for the program. Mr. Davis’s ESOL credits were obtained through independent study under Mr. Hester’s direction. Only one of the independent studies was conducted during the 2011/2012 school year, and therefore within the period of time encompassed by the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Mr. Davis is listed on a class roster for the curriculum and materials ESOL course given from January 10, 2012, through April 13, 2012. Mr. Davis testified that he did not attend these classes, but performed an independent study with Mr. Hester. He could not recall what tasks he was required to perform other than reading articles that Mr. Hester directed him to read. He stated, “I did whatever Mr. Hester asked me to do regarding these courses.” The evidence is not clear and convincing that, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Hester gave Mr. Davis an endorsement without requiring him to complete the course requirements. Suzanne Harman is a teacher at Fletcher High School. She has been teaching since 1974, and has taught English at Fletcher High School since 1996. She did not teach from 1986 to 1996 because of her husband’s naval career. Ms. Harman was notified on March 25, 2011, that she was out-of-field for ESOL credits and needed to complete her ESOL credits by December 31, 2011. Ms. Harman was unfamiliar with the ESOL requirements because of her absence from the teaching field when the program was first implemented. Although the timing of her actions is unclear, she consulted with Mr. Hester to find out what she needed to do. Ms. Harman testified that Mr. Hester took out a checklist of course artifacts for the cross-cultural ESOL class, and went down the list, identifying things that he had seen her do in her classroom. Mr. Hester denied telling Ms. Harman that she could get credit for the things she had done in her classroom. He said that he agreed to work with her through an independent study, because she was dealing with significant issues in her personal life. He claimed that he did go over the items on the list with her, but only when she came in with her completed portfolio at the end of the 2011 independent study. Ms. Harman’s name appears on the class roll for an ESOL class beginning in July and ending in September 2011. The more plausible explanation with respect to this class is the one given by Mr. Hester. Ms. Harman also was on the out-of-field list issued on March 16, 2012, that Ms. Andrews and Ms. Durden received. Upon receiving this notice, Ms. Harman approached Mr. Hester and asked if it was time for her to take another class from him. Mr. Hester told her that he was teaching a hybrid ESOL class on Tuesday nights. Ms. Harman attended the curriculum and materials portion of this class for seven of the sessions conducted from April 24 to June 5, 2012. However, her ability to complete the assignments for the class was severely impaired by demands on her time due to her mother’s serious illness. As a result, she was unable to turn in her work folder on the final day of class. Mr. Hester told her to get the work to him when she could, but no deadline for doing so is apparent from her testimony. Mr. Hester gave Ms. Harman credit for the class and notified her of the credit via an e-mail dated June 26, 2012. Once she received the e-mail, Ms. Harman made no further effort to finish the materials for the course, and, from her testimony, apparently made no contact with Mr. Hester to ask whether she needed to do so. On January 22, 2013, an anonymous letter accusing Mr. Hester of giving ESOL credits without requiring work for the courses became public. The following day, Mr. Hester sent Ms. Harman an e-mail asking about her unfinished portfolio for the ESOL class. Ms. Harman provided some, but not all, of the work she was supposed to complete, and said it was all she could find. Mr. Hester did not ask her for anything else. In May 2013, Mr. Hester notified Ms. Patterson that Ms. Harman had not completed the agreed-upon work assigned to her in the ESOL class for which she was enrolled from April to June 2012. The e-mail stated: It was agreed upon that she would be given more time to complete the required work and have it ready by September 2012 due to her extreme family situation. I gave her another extension to the holidays to complete the work (I know I am not allowed to give that amount of time). However, I did not get the information needed. I asked for her work and finally received an incomplete packet (see attached) April 1, 2013. I still waited to see if she would come to me and complete the necessary work— she did not. I am asking that she not be awarded the 60 points for ESOL: Curriculum and Materials. Please have these points removed from her Master Plan Points. Mr. Hester explained that the e-mail Ms. Harman received in June 2012 was a mass e-mail sent to all participants of the class. He claims that he had spoken to Ms. Harman multiple times following the class about her need to provide the materials to complete her class obligations. He met with her again at the beginning of the school year about the outstanding course work. Mr. Hester’s version of the events is more credible than Ms. Harman’s. His rationale for giving credit to teachers, such as Ms. Andrews and Ms. Johnson, was that they were what he considered to be “phenomenal” teachers. By contrast, he characterized Ms. Harman as a “needs assistance” teacher. While she strenuously resisted that label, Ms. Harman acknowledged that she had multiple observations in her classroom; that she had experienced some issues with administration about items that should have been posted in her classroom; and that she was a very messy person. Mr. Hester clearly should have waited until he received all of the documentation that Ms. Harman had completed the requirements of the class before awarding her credit. Regardless of his motives for doing so, he did make an attempt to correct the record in light of her continued failure to provide the work he requested of her. Susan Podzamsky was a special education teacher at Fletcher High School. She received credit for four ESOL courses taught by Respondent. Mr. Hester admitted that Ms. Podzamsky never attended an ESOL class or completed any ESOL course work for an ESOL class taught by him. She is listed on class rosters and Respondent signed completion reports for her for cross- cultural communications and understanding, beginning July 14, 2011; ESOL curriculum and materials development, beginning January 10, 2012; ESOL hybrid, beginning February 2, 2012; and methods of teaching ESOL, beginning May 1, 2012. Mr. Hester considered her to be a good teacher, and admitted giving her ESOL credit not for course work, but for her participation in non- ESOL-related PLCs, preparation of Individualized Education Plans, and reading competencies. Dane Gilbert was the principal at Fletcher High School until his retirement at the end of the 2011/2012 school year. Mr. Gilbert also served, during his career, on the Education Practices Commission for eight years, and as Chair of the Commission his final year of service. Mr. Gilbert is listed on an attendance sheet for an ESOL hybrid class component, testing and evaluation, beginning May 2, 2012, and signed by Respondent. The attendance sheet lists him as having attended six of seven class sessions. Mr. Gilbert did not attend this class and did not work for it. He saw it on his record when he was checking his hours after he retired. Mr. Gilbert acknowledged a discussion with Mr. Hester about an independent study, but did not follow up on it because he was planning to retire and was not planning on renewing his certification. Mr. Hester, on the other hand, claimed that Mr. Gilbert was interested in banking the hours and that the credit was based upon Mr. Gilbert’s involvement in Challenge Day, as well as the principal evaluation binder he prepared, which required a case study. Mr. Gilbert’s version of the events is more credible than Mr. Hester’s. Under either version, however, the facts establish that Mr. Gilbert did not take the ESOL class for which he was given credit, and did not perform an independent study in lieu of attending class. Unprofessional Behavior The Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent behaved in an unprofessional manner with respect to Christine Reed, Andrew Davis, and Nicole Conrad. Mr. Hester came to Fletcher High School as a standards coach during Mr. Gilbert’s second year as principal. Mr. Hester’s position evolved into his becoming the PDF and the AICE coordinator for the high school. Mr. Gilbert believed that Mr. Hester was very good at his job and very good for the high school. Mr. Hester was in a teaching position not an administrative position, but appeared to have a position of authority over the faculty. Mr. Hester’s position included quasi-administrative duties, including work with need-assistance teachers, modeling appropriate teaching methods, assistance with preparation of and access to teachers’ lesson design notebooks, and professional development for teachers. His office was two doors down from the principal’s office, with whom he often worked closely. Right or wrong, Respondent was perceived as being Mr. Gilbert’s “right- hand man.” He was present at and involved in meetings related to building the class schedules. Although he often gave input at those meetings, the ultimate schedule was created by the assistant principal for curriculum and approved by the principal. Mr. Hester had no power or authority other than providing suggestions. While Mr. Hester did not have the authority of an administrator, the evidence clearly indicates that some teachers believed that he had that authority, and Respondent apparently did little to dispel this belief. A significant segment of teachers were irritated by or dissatisfied with Mr. Hester’s actions at Fletcher High School, and at least a part of the teachers’ discomfort was due to Mr. Hester’s sometimes high- handed behavior. Several teachers testified about personal conflicts with Mr. Hester. However, the concerns of only three of those teachers are alleged in the Administrative Complaint and only those three will be addressed in this Recommended Order. At least one teacher testified that it was well known around school that if a teacher got on the “wrong side” of Mr. Hester, he could make the teacher’s life miserable. Mr. Hester believed that at least part of the animosity directed toward him was because of his homosexuality. No credible evidence was presented that would support this assertion. For several years, Mr. Hester organized what was known as FCAT Boot Camp. The event occurred on a Saturday, and he would recruit teachers to help him run it. Christine Reed was chairman of the reading department at Fletcher High School, and has taught in Duval County for 24 years. At some time during either the 2011/2012 or the 2012/2013 school year, Mr. Hester approached Ms. Reed about helping with the FCAT Boot Camp. Ms. Reed had assisted with the program for the two previous years, and did not want to do it again. When she refused, Mr. Hester told her he “really needed help with this,” and “you know that I can get you moved.” Ms. Reed believed that he was threatening to get her teaching assignment within the school changed. She believed that he had this authority because of meetings she had attended as a department head where schedules were discussed. While Mr. Hester had no actual authority to change a teacher’s schedule, he did have input into the process. However, she also testified that “I felt like he could, but I wasn’t concerned because it wasn’t happening at the time. And I had heard him say that to other people or about other people, so I just kind of ignored that.” Given that Ms. Reed was a department head, any belief that Mr. Hester could get her teaching assignment changed is not very reasonable. However, there was a general belief that because of Mr. Hester’s close work with the principal of the school, he could influence Mr. Gilbert’s decision-making. Whether he could make good on his threat is not the point. Any behavior indicating that he would use his position, or any perceptions regarding the reach of his authority to attempt to force people to do what he wanted, is not appropriate. Respondent attempted to impeach Ms. Reed’s credibility by soliciting testimony that she enlisted people to complain about him, and that she benefited from his termination by getting a position as testing coordinator that Mr. Gilbert was considering giving to Mr. Hester. She acknowledged that she did receive the testing coordinator position, and that she once thought of Mr. Hester as her colleague and friend. She testified, however, “in all honesty Dennis, I have great respect for some of the things that you can do educationally, but I steered away from being a close friend of yours when I saw some of the negativity and just the attitude at school and how some people were fearful, and I didn’t want to be associated with that.” Ms. Reed’s testimony was consistent and credible, and is accepted. Testimony was presented regarding the interaction between Mr. Hester and Nicole Conrad. Ms. Conrad was a teacher at Fletcher High School, beginning in 2007. Although testimony was presented regarding three incidents that made Ms. Conrad uncomfortable, none of those alleged incidents occurred during the 2011/2012 or 2012/2013 school years. Ms. Conrad stated that they occurred very early in her tenure at Fletcher High School, in either 2007 or 2008. Given that this alleged conduct is well outside the period of time alleged in the Administrative Complaint, it cannot be considered. In January 2013, an anonymous letter regarding Mr. Hester was sent to the School Board Superintendent Nikolai Vitti, School Board Chairman Fred “Fel” Lee, Human Relations Director Sonia Young, and Fletcher High School Principal Donald Nelson. Mr. Nelson succeeded Mr. Gilbert as principal of Fletcher High School in July of 2012. The letter complained about his unprofessional, bullying behavior toward teachers at Fletcher High School; the failure of administration to address complaints about his behavior; and his award of ESOL credits where no work was done. Mr. Nelson met with Mr. Hester to address the concerns expressed in the letter, and believed at the time that it was the result of a personal conflict between Mr. Hester and the anonymous writer, along the lines of a cat fight. He did nothing else locally, but contacted Sonia Young from human resources (HR), who confirmed her office had received the letter and someone would be in touch with the school. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Nelson was contacted by Mary Mickel, an employee of the professional standards office of the HR department. Mr. Nelson advised Ms. Mickel that he believed the matter was a vendetta by the anonymous author. Eventually the matter was investigated at the School District level, and led to the School Board charges against Mr. Hester and his eventual termination. Mr. Hester was required to meet with an investigator at the District office as part of the investigation. He was anxious to learn who wrote the anonymous letter, and understandably agitated about the allegations against him. In May of 2013, Mr. Hester spoke to Andrew Davis in the parking lot of the high school. Mr. Hester was quite heated about the situation in which he found himself, and told Mr. Davis he believed the anonymous letter was written by Mses. Snell, Reed, and Chalker,10/ that he was going to go after these women, and that he would not feel bad about anyone who got caught in the collateral damage. Mr. Hester stated, “[y]ou never want to piss off a gay man,” and warned Mr. Davis to distance himself from the three woman Mr. Hester was blaming for the anonymous letter.11/ Mr. Davis was a reading teacher whose department head was Ms. Reed. He reported the conversation to her, as well as reporting the conversation to Mr. Nelson, and wrote a statement about the incident on May 23, 2013. Respondent admits making this statement to Mr. Andrews, and regrets it. There was no testimony by Mr. Davis that he felt harassed or threatened personally. However, the statement on its face was one that clearly indicates the intention to harm colleagues professionally, with no regard as to who might be harmed in the process. As noted in the Preliminary Statement, the School Board suspended Respondent’s employment without pay and brought an action against Respondent to terminate his employment. After an evidentiary hearing, Judge Lawrence Stevenson found that Respondent had committed some, but not all of the charges alleged in the Notice of Termination. Judge Stevenson recommended that Respondent’s suspension without pay from July 3, 2013, through the date of the Final Order be upheld, and that a reprimand be issued. The School Board adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, but rejected the recommendation regarding the penalty to be imposed, choosing instead to terminate Respondent’s employment. The School Board stated: It was only after careful deliberation that this Board decided to terminate Respondent’s employment at the outset of these proceedings. Thereafter, as a result of this administrative proceeding, the ALJ’s recommended discipline appears to be based on his impression of what he considers to be fair and his impressions of the specialized skills of Mr. Hester. Regardless of Mr. Hester’s expertise, his actions are inexcusable and potentially damaging to those colleagues who placed their trust in him, potentially damaging to the students these teachers serve. After careful deliberations before entering this Final Order for this administrative proceeding, the Board could not ignore its constitutional obligations and overarching duty to protect students and ensure that teachers are properly trained under the law, . . . .
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), and rule 6B-1.006(4)(b), (5)(a), and (5)(d), as alleged in Counts 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that Respondent’s license as an educator be revoked, with the right to reapply to be determined by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2016, 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 3rd day of August, 2016.
