The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed with DOAH on March 21, 2012, and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Monroe County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been an ESE teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional services contract. Prior to the incidents that are the subject of this proceeding, Respondent has not received any disciplinary action. Respondent has been an ESE teacher employed by Petitioner since 2005. The 2011-12 school year was her first year working with kindergarten through second grade students. Respondent worked with ESE students both in the regular classroom setting, where she works one-on-one with a student, and in situations where she removes students from the regular classroom and works with one or more students in a separate classroom. Charity King (Ms. King) is a kindergarten teacher in one of Petitioner's elementary schools (the subject school). Respondent was assigned to the subject school for the 2011-12 school year, which was her second year as a teacher. Ms. King's class consists of 16 kindergarten students, one of whom is the Student. The Student is a five-year-old female with special needs. The Student has been diagnosed with a form of autism known as Pervasive Developmental Disability Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified. The Student is high functioning intellectually, but she has trouble verbalizing and is easily distracted. She sometimes screams, pushes others (including her teacher), and becomes defiant. Periodically, she has tantrums. The Student's father is a school psychologist employed by Petitioner. The Student's mother is an ESE staffing specialist in the subject school. Both the father and the mother are very involved with their daughter's education. Respondent testified, credibly, that she communicated daily with the Student's parents and that she had developed a good rapport with the Student. Respondent also testified, credibly, that she is philosophically opposed to becoming physical with any student. Ms. Rollason has worked with Respondent on a daily basis since August of 2006. During that time, Ms. Rollason has never seen Respondent be physically inappropriate with a child, Respondent lose her temper with a child, or do anything inappropriate with a child.2/ On December 7, 2012, Respondent provided one-on-one services to the Student in Ms. King's classroom. Ms. King taught her other students during that day. On December 16, Ms. King reported to Ms. Diaz, the assistant principal at the subject school, that on December 7 she had witnessed Respondent spank the Student on one occasion, at which time she administered two blows.3/ Ms. King testified that on a scale ranging from a low of 1 to a high of 10, each of the two blows administered to the Student would have been a 7. Ms. King testified at the formal hearing that she first discussed the spanking incident with Respondent on December 15. Ms. King testified that during that conversation, Respondent tacitly admitted spanking the Student by nodding her head and making a spanking motion. Respondent testified that she met with Ms. King to discuss target groups, which included a general discussion about the Student. Respondent denied that the subject of spanking was discussed, and she denied making any spanking motion Ms. King testified that other than the conversation she had with Respondent, she did not discuss the alleged spanking incident with anyone at the school, including the Student's mother, until December 16, when she talked to Ms. Diaz. Ms. King did not confront Respondent on the day of the alleged incident. Ms. King does not know the approximate time of day the alleged spanking occurred, does not know what she was doing when the alleged spanking occurred, does not know where she was in the classroom, does not know where in the classroom Respondent and the Student were, and does not recall whether the Student cried or had any other reaction to the alleged spanking. Ms. King did not talk to the Student about the alleged spanking, and she did not check to see if the Student was hurt. Ms. King also testified that prior to December 7, she had seen Respondent mishandle the Student. Ms. King did not identify the time, date, or place of this alleged mishandling. Ms. King did not describe the acts that constituted the mishandling. Respondent testified, credibly, that she never mishandled the Student and did not know what Ms. King was referencing. On either December 17 or 18, Respondent was first notified of the allegation that she had spanked the Student. Respondent was totally surprised by the allegation. She had no idea what Ms. King was talking about. Over the course of the following days and weeks, Respondent tried to reconstruct the events of December 7. She could not recall any incident, and nothing in her notes from that day referenced any issue. Mr. Russell interviewed the other students in Ms. King's class on December 22. None of those students reported witnessing anything inappropriate on December 7. The Student's parents were not informed of the alleged incident until January, after the holiday break. Consequently, they were unable to discuss the incident with their daughter right after the alleged incident occurred. Since the first time she was confronted with the allegations, Respondent has maintained she did not hit, spank, or strike the Student on December 7. Respondent has also maintained that she never handled the Student in a rough manner. There is no basis in this case to credit Ms. King's testimony over that of the Respondent. While the undersigned finds Ms. King to be a sincere witness, her vague, uncorroborated testimony is insufficient to support a finding of guilt in this proceeding. Mr. Russell recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. When he made that recommendation, he was unaware of Petitioner's progressive discipline policy. There was no other evidence that Respondent's effectiveness in the school system had been impaired by the alleged incidents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Monroe County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find Janet Faber not guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and reinstate her employment with back pay and appropriate benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Paula Sinclair's employment with the Broward County School Board based upon the allegations made in its Administrative Complaint dated July 9, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Broward County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Sinclair started her employment with Petitioner in 2007. She was employed as a guidance counselor pursuant to a professional services contract. Sinclair has a Florida Educator's Certificate and received a bachelor's degree in youth and community studies from Surrey University in England, a postgraduate diploma in social work and criminology from Middlesex University in England, and a master's degree in school guidance counseling from Nova University. Sinclair was a guidance counselor at Walter C. Young Middle School for the 2007-2008 school year. The following school term, 2008-2009 school year, Sinclair transferred to New River Middle School and held the position of a guidance counselor. 2009-2010 School Year Sinclair was placed at Indian Ridge Middle School ("Indian Ridge") for the 2009-2010 school year. She was assigned as the eighth grade guidance counselor. On August 3, 2009, Assistant Principal Michael Lyons ("Lyons"), and Busjit-Bhalil ("Busjit"), guidance counselor, met with Sinclair to explain her duties and responsibilities. Indian Ridge opened for the school year on August 25, 2009, and Sinclair started getting parent complaints about her performance. She also started making scheduling errors. On August 27, 2009, Sinclair had her first conference with Lyons. On August 28, 2009, Lyons had a second conference with Sinclair regarding her scheduling being taken over by Busjit because Sinclair was either not completing the work or the work was not timely done. On September 2, 2009, Lyons set a meeting for September 8, 2009, with Sinclair, Busjit, and Zagari to discuss Sinclair's job performance because Sinclair had made numerous mistakes. On September 3, 2009, Sinclair placed an eighth grade student in a seventh grade course. On September 11, 2009, Lyons met with Sinclair and outlined Sinclair's major areas of job performance concerns. Scheduling, poor communications with parents, inability to provide accurate information, and failure to read and respond to emails in a timely manner were addressed with Sinclair. Lyons set up a cycle of assistance to provide Sinclair the help she needed to bring her performance up to District level. Lyons also provided Sinclair training. He directed Sinclair to work with the following co-workers to get specific training in the different areas she needed improvement: Busjit, to review all guidance functions and duties, scheduling practices, procedures and protocols; Nancy Bourbeau ("Bourbeau") for TERMS1/; Susan Perless ("Perless") in regard to ESE students; Brown for best practices with parents and to read CAB system emails daily, as well as formulate a record-keeping system for phone communications. During the meeting, Sinclair responded by staring silently at Lyons. Sinclair was provided two weeks to correct the performance deficiencies. On September 15, 2009, Lyons followed up the meeting discussions from September 11, 2009, with a memo to Sinclair outlining the serious concerns regarding her job performance. The memo deemed the following areas substandard: Students being placed in double reading classes that are not designed for being double blocked. Placing 8th grade students in 7th grade classes. Placing advanced students in regular education classes. Providing only 5 courses for students when they should have 6 courses. Wrong team designations on student schedules. Incorrect course and section numbers on student schedules. Interacting with parents in a curt manner. Failure to return phone calls from parents. Providing wrong or inadequate information to parents. Failure to follow direction in formulating a new algebra class. Failure to notify impacted teachers of schedule changes. Failure to process schedule changes in a timely manner. Failure to open and read emails in a timely manner. A general lack of "Withitness" in regard to school matters. On September 15, 2009, Busjit started Sinclair's training on TERMS panels. She reviewed the differences among the intensive reading classes and processes for accessing the server and database. On September 16, 2009, Bourbeau, data management specialist, trained Sinclair on TERMS and scheduling. Bourbeau went through every panel guidance counselors needed to know and discussed the procedures of a schedule change, as well as how to create a new schedule. On September 22, 2009, Perless, ESE specialist, reviewed the different roles in ESE with Sinclair, went over the panels in TERMS, and discussed the role of guidance in the area of ESE. After Sinclair received the training and assistance, her performance did not improve at all. She was inept in performing scheduling tasks and continued to assign students to the wrong class. Busjit continued to instruct Sinclair numerous times on the process of scheduling students properly. On December 4, 2009, Lyons discovered the physical education ("PE") waivers2/ were not completed. Lyons provided Sinclair a directive to ensure that all students in need of a PE waiver have one by December 18, 2009. Lyons first instructed Sinclair to perform the task by August 28, 2009, previously extended the deadline to November 13, 2009, and addressed the issue again on November 16, 2009. On or about December 4, 2009, a conference was held with Sinclair, which was detailed in a summary of conference memo dated December 8, 2009. The memo detailed that Sinclair would continue to receive assistance to help improve her performance, but if her performance did not improve, she would be placed on a Performance Development Plan ("PDP"). The next day Sinclair was absent from work. On December 18, 2009, Lyons wrote a memo to Respondent concerning her excessive absenteeism and requested Sinclair to provide a doctor's note justifying her absences since December 9, 2009. On December 19, 2009, Sinclair produced a Return to Work Certificate from Dr. Alvarez ("Alvarez") with a return date to start during the school holiday period, December 21, 2009. On or about January 15, 2010, Sinclair reported that she was taken to the emergency room the previous evening and filed for Family Medical Leave ("FMLA") requesting 12 weeks of leave from work. The request was accompanied by a Certificate of Health Care Provider and stated Sinclair had been treated by Alvarez since 1997 and was unable to perform her duties. On January 15, 2010, while out on FMLA, Sinclair applied for a hardship transfer to another school for the 2010- 2011 school year. On February 19, 2010, while on leave Sinclair also filed a discrimination charge against Lyons and the principal, which was denied. Upon Sinclair's return to work, her inability to perform her duties continued, and she made repeated mistakes. Sinclair failed to submit the students' PE waivers and educational plans after repeated directives from administration. She also failed to complete the Florida Virtual students' list. Sinclair's work was substandard. She could not perform basic routine counseling functions of the job, such as the scheduling of students. Sinclair received a satisfactory performance rating in the Instructional Personnel Assessment System because Broward County Teachers Union contract prohibits any employee from getting less than a satisfactory without first being on a PDP. 2010-2011 School Year Sinclair transferred to Northeast High School ("Northeast") for the 2010-2011 school year. She was assigned the ninth grade and a third of the seniors, who were split between the three counselors. Lupita Wiggins ("Wiggins") was Sinclair's guidance director at Northeast. Before school started, Wiggins asked Sinclair if there were any areas she needed help with and Sinclair requested training in TERMS. Wiggins met with Sinclair at her home and went over TERMS with Sinclair. Wiggins also trained Sinclair about high school graduation requirements since Sinclair had previously worked in guidance at middle schools. Sinclair did not show up to work the first two weeks of school. When she reported to work, Wiggins started noticing that Sinclair was having difficulty in scheduling. In November 2010, Wiggins discovered Sinclair still had not moved the ESOL students from Mercier's class, which she should have completed near the beginning of the year. On January 4, 2011, Wiggins reviewed the process for scheduling students properly with Sinclair again. On January 21, 2011, Sinclair incorrectly scheduled Term 8 courses for Term 9. Sinclair never mastered TERMS and continued to make mistakes such as: placing students in the wrong classes for the wrong quarters, which caused teachers' rosters to be missing students; placing a freshman student in a 10th grade biology class; double booking a student; and placing a non-ESOL student in an ESOL writing class. On January 21, 2011, Wiggins requested a list of ninth graders who had below a 2.0 GPA. Sinclair provided Wiggins a list of seniors who either had been in Apex3/ and were rejected or already scheduled for Apex. Wiggins worked with Sinclair to try to help her understand how to schedule properly and spent over two hours explaining to Sinclair again how to look at the students' credits to determine the courses that they needed. On January 25, 2011, Sinclair supplied another wrong class in Apex by not providing the classes for fourth or second period Apex classes. On February 24, 2011, Sinclair made another scheduling error and the terms did not match up. Sinclair also scheduled one student for American History as a needed graduation requirement, but removed her out of another class needed as a graduation requirement. Wiggins sat down with Sinclair countless times to try to teach her how to schedule students properly. Sinclair continued to make huge errors. On March 9, 2011, Sinclair improperly removed a student out of Spanish II, the second part of the two-year foreign language mandatory requirement to go to a four-year university, and told the student she needed Geometry in the second semester for graduation. The student already had all of her credits for math. On March 28, 2011, Sinclair still had not fixed the TERMS scheduling error brought to her attention by Wiggins on February 24, 2011. Wiggins had to constantly go back and double-check and recheck Sinclair's work, as well as fix it or do it herself. Wiggins also received complaints from parents that Sinclair was being unprofessional and disrespectful. 2011-2012 School Year In the 2011-2012 school year, Sinclair returned to Northeast where her performance issues continued. On or about August 26, 2011, Sinclair was notified of five ninth grade students who she did not place in the appropriate reading class, and Sinclair was instructed to correct the scheduling. Subsequently, Wiggins checked the five students' statuses and Sinclair had only changed one student's status, which was still an incorrect placement. From September 12 to October 7, 2011, Wiggins reviewed Sinclair's senior letters. Thirty-five of them had erroneous information. One letter told a student he was on target for graduation and not on target at the same time. In another letter Sinclair detailed a meeting with a student, who had withdrawn two weeks prior to the meeting date. Sinclair continued to fail to perform her counseling duties. She was still unable to use TERMS, continued to improperly schedule classes for students, and could not evaluate transcripts. She even failed to assign students to core classes. On or about November 29, 2011, Sinclair went out on FMLA through January 3, 2011. Alvarez noted in her doctor's note that she needed to rest. Jonathan Williams became the principal at Northeast and decided to develop a PDP to address Sinclair's ineptitude. On April 24, 2012, Allan Thompson, assistant principal, notified Sinclair by memo that she had been absent since April 19, 2012, and he was unable to write her PDP. Therefore, the meeting was being rescheduled for April 30, 2012, "for the purpose of writing your PDP." Sinclair did not return to work on April 9, 2012, as scheduled. Instead, Sinclair applied for a leave of absence. Principal Williams signed the request but noted that he was in the process of developing a PDP for Sinclair. Sinclair's leave was approved and she was absent from April 9, 2012, through May 9, 2012. Sinclair requested another hardship transfer to another school while out on leave. The transfer was denied. A conference was scheduled with Sinclair to write the PDP on May 11, 2012, but at 7:00 p.m. on May 9, 2012, Sinclair wrote an email stating "due to illness, I will not be in until next week." Sinclair never returned to work in time to write the PDP and she did not receive an evaluation for the 2011-2012 school year because of her days on leave: she did not meet the minimum requirements to get an evaluation. 2012-2013 School Year Sinclair took personal leave for the 2012-2013 school year. Her request stated her reason was "to care for my 88 year old Aunt who is dependent on me for everything. She recently had a fall and is declining health." Sinclair did not receive an evaluation rating for the 2012-2013 school year because she was not in attendance and/or actively teaching one day more than half of the school year, which is the minimum requirement to be evaluated. 2013-2014 School Year In August 2013, Respondent came off leave from Northeast and was placed at Western High School ("Western") because an opening was available after a guidance counselor retired. Principal Jimmy Arrojo ("Arrojo"), assigned her to the ninth grade students since she had previously been a guidance counselor over ninth grade students. On August 7, 2013, Arrojo first met with Sinclair and treated the meeting as an entry interview trying to get to know Sinclair and transition her comfortably into her new position. Sinclair did inform Arrojo that she had previously been placed on a cycle of assistance. Arrojo explained to Sinclair that her job duties included counseling students, scheduling, reading transcripts, placement of students, dealing with problems that may occur, talking with parents, and setting up parent conferences. During the initial meeting, Arrojo provided Sinclair a list of immediate assignments due August 16, 2013. He instructed Sinclair to find the incoming ninth graders at risk report, look up ninth grade graduation requirements, and review her job description and highlight any areas where she thought she might have issues. Lauren Cohen ("Cohen"), Western's school counselor director, was Sinclair's supervisor assigned to guide Sinclair through guidance including registration, evaluating transcripts, and scheduling. In October 2013, Cohen started receiving emails and phone calls from parents requesting a counselor change from Sinclair. Parents would request verification of information Sinclair provided and other parents would report that Sinclair had not responded to them. Mary Jones ("Jones"), assistant principal over the guidance department, also became concerned with Sinclair's performance as a guidance counselor because Sinclair generated numerous complaints from parents and was making mistakes. Jones decided to provide Sinclair extra help to improve her work performance. Sinclair made numerous scheduling errors, improper class placements, as well as calculated incorrect grades and credits for the students assigned to her. Sinclair's errors and failures exposed her students to graduation mishaps. Sinclair also had attendance issues and Arrojo had several informal conversations with Sinclair to help her improve her performance. On December 19, 2013, a mid-year review meeting was held with Sinclair, Cohen and Jones. Sinclair's weaknesses with scheduling, including her inability to schedule students with TERMS, incorrect grades, discipline records, graduation requirements, and credits, were discussed with Sinclair during the meeting. Sinclair's failure and inability to perform her duties continued into 2014. Sinclair was still providing incorrect information to students, placing students in the wrong classes, and improperly evaluating transcripts. The School Board evaluates employee's performances with the Broward Instructional Developments and Growth Evaluation ("BrIDGES") system. The School Board uses iObservation to maintain the observation data. BrIDGES is mutually agreed upon by the School Board and Broward Teachers Union. BrIDGES has an evaluation tool for guidance counselors in sections J through R, which evaluates their day-to-day interactions and responsibilities. During evaluation observations, administrators record ratings based on numeric values that are averaged out based on the calculations that have been determined in the District. There are five different ratings based off of what is observed. Each rating has a numeric value. Innovating is worth 4 points, applying is worth 3 points, developing is worth 2.5 points, beginning is 2 points, and not using is 1 point. The points are averaged to come up with the Instructional Practice Score. Jones was trained on BrIGDES and iObservations. On February 22, 2014, Jones observed Sinclair's day to day activity. She also evaluated Sinclair's interaction with colleagues. Jones rated Sinclair beginning. On March 11, 2014, Jones conducted a meeting observation of Sinclair with an incoming ninth grade registration. During the meeting, instead of properly guiding the student and showing the student the course on the course card, Sinclair asked the student to find the course. Jones rated Sinclair beginning for the interaction since Sinclair did not demonstrate she knew how to map courses on the course card as she had been previously instructed and trained. On April 7, 2014, Jones was dissatisfied with Sinclair's timing and methods used to communicate information skills and rated Sinclair with beginning in the category of promoting positive interactions with students and parents for a classroom incident. The rating was for a parent meeting Sinclair had. She interrupted the instructional flow of the classroom and put a teacher on the spot by calling her during class and questioning her about the student instead of taking a message and facilitating communication between teacher and parent later. On or about April 9, 2014, Jones conducted a 30-minute formal observation of Sinclair's registration of a new ESE student. Sinclair showed up 30 minutes late to the scheduled conference and provided incorrect information about the course and credit. Jones rated Sinclair beginning for the observation because of the errors. On May 1, 2014, Jones assessed Sinclair's evaluation category for collegiality and professionalism, domain 4, and noted that Sinclair "identified ESE student and his needs during registration." She gave her a score of developing. Sinclair's performance as a guidance counselor at Western went up and down. Sometimes she did what was needed to be done. And, more often than not she scheduled students inappropriately. When Jones met with Sinclair to review issues, she would just stare at Jones and not provide an answer to her questions even if prompted and asked a direct question. Sinclair would reply with silence or reply "I don't recall." After her observations for the 2013-2014 school year, Sinclair ended up with an Instructional Practice Score 2.335, which showed she needed improvement. 2014-2015 School Year Sinclair started off the 2014-2015 school year needing to improve her Instructional Practice Score. The District provides support for employees with performance concerns. Tanya Thompson ("Thompson"), evaluation coordinator for the District, was assigned to Western to coordinate support for employees that receive a less-than- effective annual evaluation. Thompson's job is to provide assistance in rectifying the employee's performance deficiencies. Thompson started to assign Sinclair Nardia Corridon ("Corridon") as her fall peer reviewer to provide extra help and coaching, which would improve Sinclair's performance to the District level. However, Sinclair requested that she not get Corridon as her peer reviewer. For the 2014-2015 school year, Cohen oversaw the guidance department and met with all the guidance counselors periodically to address processes and issues. When Sinclair did not grasp the guidance counseling processes, Cohen started working one-on-one with her to explain and show her how each counseling duty should be done. Thompson assigned Gisella Suarez ("Suarez"), to Sinclair from the District as her peer reviewer after Sinclair notified Thompson she did not want Corridon. Suarez was assigned to coach Sinclair and help enhance her job performance. She did not serve as part of the assessment procedure or evaluation process for Sinclair. Even though Sinclair had a weekly peer reviewer, Cohen continued to provide Sinclair school-based support including extra meetings, and making sure that she sat down with her often to go over the different aspects of the counseling job including addressing parent concerns, following protocol for test materials, registering students, evaluating transcripts, scheduling, placing students, and Response to Intervention ("RtI).4/ Cohen documented her support meetings with Sinclair in coaching logs dated August 11, 13, 14, 22, 26, 28, 2014, September 2, 5, 9, 2014, October 29, 2014, November 4, 2014, and December 11, 12, 2014. On August 22, 2014, Suarez started coaching Sinclair and also documented her training sessions by coaching logs each time she met with her. When Sinclair met with Suarez, she shared her final evaluation from the previous year. Suarez used the evaluation to develop the session topics for coaching Sinclair. Suarez met with Sinclair weekly and focused her coaching sessions on all the areas of concern from Sinclair's evaluation. Suarez coached Sinclair on areas such as: contacting and communicating with parents, teachers, and students; facilitating educational planning in her office; and using counseling technology to help look up data on students. On or about August 28, 2014, Sinclair erroneously overrode the system and allowed a student to register for a higher math class because the parent wanted the student in the class. Sinclair should have verified that the class was appropriate by accessing the student's transcript or had the student tested before placing the student in a higher level math class. During the coaching sessions, Suarez would provide Sinclair additional resources to look at or ask her to log on to a database or go to a website. Repeatedly Sinclair did not follow through with the assistance and would inform Suarez that she did not have time. On or about August 31, 2014, the counselors were handling incoming registrations for private school transfers and middle school transfers prior to the start of the school year. Sinclair was not performing her share of registrations because she was not able to get into TERMS for a day and a half. Sinclair had to have her password reset. Jones rated her beginning for waiting a day and a half to gain access to the main working database, TERMS, and have access to check students schedules or appropriately place students. On September 9, 2014, Cohen reviewed RtI with Sinclair and showed her the website for the prevention office and all resources. They reviewed the use of technology on iObservation. Cohen also instructed Sinclair not to blame other counselors when working as a team. Cohen continued to receive numerous complaints about Sinclair not returning emails and phone calls to parents. While observing Sinclair, Suarez would also provide her feedback and suggestions to improve her interactions when she met with parents. Sinclair was generally receptive. However, Sinclair did not follow through with Suarez's suggestions. Sinclair struggled remembering her password to access BASIS, the web based guidance counselors' database to obtain the information for students. On October 6, 2014, Jones conducted a 30 minute formal observation during Sinclair's registration of a foreign student. Sinclair conversed with the student's uncle from the beginning of the meeting to the end about the student's registration without including or interacting with the student. Instead of letting the uncle convey the information to the niece and making her a part of the conversation, Sinclair repeatedly told the uncle, "you can talk to her about this tonight." Jones ultimately interceded in the meeting and pulled up InfoCat, a database utilized to identify foreign speaking students, to pair the new student with a student on campus that spoke the same home language and help transition the student. While coaching Sinclair, Suarez accessed Sinclair's skills with RtI and determined that she could not even go into the database even though she had been a counselor for over four years. Since Sinclair was responsible for RtI, Suarez provided Sinclair a Brainshark webinar from the District's counseling department to assist her in becoming proficient on RtI. The tool detailed the RtI process and included training on how to get on the system, initiate referrals, maintain data on interventions, and how to input information. On October 8, 2014, Suarez suggested that Sinclair register for the District RtI additional training. Sinclair attended the training. On October 10, 2015, Suarez met with Sinclair and used her coaching period with her to view the Brainshark RtI webinar since Sinclair still had not viewed it on her own time although Suarez had suggested it previously. Suarez had to log on to Brainshark because Sinclair could not access it. After the District RtI training and webinar training, Sinclair still struggled with RtI. She was still only able to get on RtI one time independently while with Suarez and continued to forget her password, although she would write her password down, and how to get on the system. On October 27, 2015, Jones observed Sinclair performing domains 2 through 4 and rated Sinclair developing because she did what she was supposed to do. On October 29, 2014, Cohen reviewed transcripts and test codes with Sinclair. Cohen met with Sinclair and went through the process and trained Sinclair again on how to enter grades and what assessment codes to use on a grade transcription sheet. When coaching Sinclair, Cohen had to repeat most topics multiple times. On November 3, 2014, Suarez and Sinclair watched a BASIS webinar to improve Sinclair's performance with BASIS. Sinclair took notes. Suarez also coached Sinclair on Virtual Counselor, a simple web-based program the District has where students, including middle school aged students, teachers and parents have access to student's grades and attendance. Sinclair also struggled with getting into Virtual Counselor and using the system. On November 20, 2014, Jones decided that it was about halfway through the school year so she would conduct an informal observation to see how Sinclair was doing. On December 11, 2014, Cohen met with Sinclair to review the previous assignment to put together a one page sheet with everything a ninth grader would need to know about semester grades including GPA, exams, and end-of-course classes ("EOC"). Sinclair's product did not contain the requested information and when asked to explain the document Sinclair could not explain it to Cohen. Cohen went over the components again and Sinclair took notes. Cohen ended the meeting by quizzing Sinclair. Cohen asked Sinclair if a student passed the nine weeks but failed the exam would they get credit. Sinclair looked at Cohen and would not answer. After being asked three times, Sinclair said no, which was the wrong answer. Cohen explained that Sinclair needed to learn, understand, and master how credits worked as part of her counseling job and she needed to be able to explain it to students properly. On December 12, 2014, Jones and Derek Gordon had a meeting with Sinclair and provided her a summary memo informing her that there were concerns with her job performance and a possible professional growth plan would be implemented. Jones summarized Sinclair's performance of November 20, 2014, informal meeting in the memo. Jones also rated Sinclair as not using for area L; beginning for area M; and not using for area N. The Post Observation Summary memo which stated: There was little interaction with parents during the parent meeting Resources were not provided to the parents No conclusions were drawn or action plan created following conference Based on my observation, I am concerned about your performance. I stated that I would provide you with assistance in order to assist you in improving your performance. I also encouraged you to continue working with your Peer Reviewer, Ms. Suarez. I also have had the opportunity to conduct observations this year. Based on those observations, a rating of beginning or not using have been given in the following elements: Use of Available Technology Participating in District and School Initiatives Supporting and organizing the Physical Layout of the Session Room Collecting and Analyzing Data to Develop and Implement Interventions Within a problem- Solving Framework Know and understand that if these deficiencies are not remediated, you may need to be placed on a Performance Development Plan. On December 12, 2014, Suarez also attempted to meet with Sinclair for their next weekly coaching session. Suarez's plan for the session was to review RtI again and to look at some technology resources for students. Sinclair did not respond to Suarez while she was in the office and finally stood up and opened the door showing Suarez out after approximately 20 minutes. Suarez responded requesting a date for their next coaching meeting the following week. Sinclair informed her she would get back to her. On January 8, 2015, Sinclair left Suarez a voicemail on her cellphone saying that she did not believe she needed her support any further. On January 9, 2015, Jones provided Sinclair a January 14, 2015, meeting agenda which listed topics to be addressed at the meeting, including at risk students, failing ninth grade students, RtI, goal-setting with ninth graders, transcript evaluation, and appropriate placement for scheduling. The email requested Sinclair to "please be sure to come prepared with a list of ninth grade students who have failed the first semester." On or about January 13, 2015, Arrojo met with Sinclair and addressed her attendance. He pointed out she had been absent 13 days and it was only halfway through the school year. He also informed her that she only had less than a day of sick leave left. Arrojo further explained that Sinclair had a pattern of non-attendance because most of the absences were tied to days off, a weekend or a vacation.5/ Arrojo questioned Sinclair about the absences four times and she did not respond or answer. Finally, Arrojo directed Sinclair to report to work on a daily basis and explained that Sinclair's numerous absences as guidance counselor caused problems for the guidance department because unlike a teacher who has a substitute replacement, the other guidance counselors had to pick up Sinclair's work when she was out. On January 13, 2015, Jones also sent Sinclair an email rescheduling the meeting time for January 14, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. On that same day, Sinclair incorrectly added classes for a student in Term 1 when it was second semester Term 2, and the student should have been added to Term 2. Each of the student's classes Sinclair scheduled started with a "1" which represents Term 1 instead of "2", which represents Term 2. On January 14, 2015, Sinclair reported to the meeting with the administrators at 1:30 p.m. and then excused herself to the restroom, came back at 1:45 p.m. and refused to answer any questions without a union representative. After she conferred with the union representative, the meeting began at 1:55 p.m. At the meeting on January 14, 2015, Arrojo observed. Jones requested that Sinclair provide the list of ninth grade at risk students that she had asked for previously on multiple occasions and instructed Sinclair to bring to the meeting for review. Sinclair refused to show the administrators the documentation she was holding in her hands or turn it over for review. It was explained to Sinclair that an accurate compilation of at risk students is important in order to determine which students out of the approximate 800 freshmen need extra help to graduate because credits are lacking, a low GPA, attendance issues, or discipline issues. Sinclair's previous reports on at risk students had varied from 21 to as large as 100. Jones had requested a copy of the list Sinclair was working off to review it for accuracy of criteria and properly identify the at risk students that needed plans formulated to help them. Sinclair would not respond to Jones several requests for the list even after she asked her directly. Sinclair just stared at the administrators with no response. Sinclair finally said 100 plus students were on the at risk list. Jones asked for the list a third time and Sinclair did not hand her the list. Jones asked Sinclair did she look on BASIS, the computer database that contains student data, including a tool that compiles list by areas at risk. Sinclair continued to stare blankly at Jones and not answer her. At some point in the meeting, Sinclair finally asked Jones, "does it matter what list?" Jones explained, "Yes, because on BASIS there's only 12 students and you're saying there's a hundred plus students." During the meeting, Jones tried to get Sinclair to open BASIS to look up the list. Sinclair was never able to open BASIS. Sinclair also failed to provide the strategies for at risk students or discuss interventions with Jones and Arrojo during the meeting. She just stared blankly at and through her supervisors. Sinclair never produced the list. At the end of the meeting Arrojo requested Sinclair leave the list that was in her hand but Sinclair just walked out. On January 14, 2015, Principal Arrojo also provided Sinclair a summary memo of the January 13, 2015, meeting and offered Sinclair employee assistance, which she refused. The memo provided expectations with the following directives: You are expected to report to work on a daily basis. This is an excessive amount of absences that has had an adverse impact on the operation of our school be reminded that attendance is an essential function of your job. All future absences will require you to provide a doctor's note verifying that you were ill. However, providing a doctor's note does not excuse an absence for which you have no accumulated sick leave. In order to try to prevent any students from falling through the cracks, Jones personally took the time to create the at risk list and discovered only 15 students were on the failure at risk list, not the 100 Sinclair claimed. On January 16, 2015, Sinclair received a pre- disciplinary meeting notice regarding insubordination. The letter detailed that Sinclair: refused to adhere to My directive to provide the list of at risk and failing 9th grade students that I requested and you refused to respond to inquiries regarding these students at a meeting held in Assistant Principal Ms. Missy Jones' office on January 14, 2015. During this pre- disciplinary meeting we will discuss your insubordination and failure to respond to inquiries regarding your students and your failure to turn in requested documentation. Prior to being placed on PDP Sinclair was provided District based support to see if her deficiencies could be corrected and job duties could be performed at an acceptable level. She received counseling notes, meetings with the guidance director, peer reviewer, and assistant principal. However, Sinclair was still repeating mistakes, not grasping basic guidance functions, making errors and not making progress with all of the support given. On January 23, 2015, Arrojo provided Sinclair a notice for a January 28, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. meeting "for the purpose of writing your Performance Development Plan." On January 28, 2015, Sinclair reported to Western. Arrojo was waiting for her in his office to meet and she left the school grounds around 8:00 a.m. Sinclair's union representative showed up for the meeting and was not aware Sinclair had left the school premises. On January 28, 2015, a memo was provided to Sinclair from the pre-disciplinary meeting held on January 23, 2015, which stated: [R]efused to respond to inquiries regarding your students and your refusal to turn in requested documentation, I have decided to issue you a Verbal Reprimand. Effective immediately, you are to fully answer all inquiries and you will provide an/all requested documentation from your supervising administrator/s. That same day, Arrojo wrote Sinclair another meeting notice, which she ultimately refused to sign, directing Sinclair to report to his office February 2, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. for the purpose of writing her PDP. Sinclair called out on February 2, 2015. On January 29, 2015, a transfer of support meeting was held. Sinclair requested Corridon to be her peer reviewer instead of Suarez because she had a guidance counselor background. Corridon met with Sinclair and discussed the areas of support needed. On February 2, 2015, Arrojo wrote Sinclair a third meeting notice in an attempt to set up a meeting on February 5, 2015, at 12:30 p.m. for the purpose of writing her PDP. On February 5, 2015, a PDP was created for Sinclair. Sinclair was informed that her Instructional Practice Score was 1.898, in the unsatisfactory range. Sinclair was given a 90-day probationary period letter, which stated "failure or refusal to remediate all areas identified as deficient would be less than effective BrIDGES evaluation and/or termination of contract." The PDP highlighted Sinclair's performance concerns, which included but were not limited to the following: failing to systematically tract academic progress of students who were in danger of failing; inability to get participants to record and represent the exchange of information from interactions with the counselor; inability to consistently access and utilize technology to enhance the quality of services; inability to develop or articulate interventions or providing counseling to develop effective behaviors; and failure to collect and analyze data to develop interventions with the RtI framework. On February 6, 2015, Corridon, the second peer reviewer, started coaching Sinclair twice a week. She reviewed and provided assistance in all the areas Sinclair made an unsatisfactory rating on the PDP. On February 9, 2015, Jones emailed Sinclair to instruct her to read Policy 6000.1, and a meeting would be set soon to discuss the policy. Corridon spent coaching sessions going over and over the same areas of assistance with Sinclair. Sinclair would often forget her password, after writing it down. Corridon went over the RtI process manually and the next time Corridon reviewed it with Sinclair, Sinclair was not be able to follow through the RtI process independently. Sinclair did not demonstrate any consistency and there was not much effectiveness in terms of improvement with regards to performance. After Sinclair was placed on PDP, observations continued to ascertain the status of her work performance and progress. Jones observed Sinclair on March 5, 2015, March 8, 2015, March 30, 2015, April 9, 2015, May 1, 2015, and May 8, 2015. Arrojo observed Sinclair on March 3, 2015, March 9, 2015, March 19, 2015, and April 14, 2015. During the observations, Sinclair consistently continued to make numerous mistakes and rarely was capable of performing her job successfully. As a guidance counselor, Sinclair had an office to work from, was provided the opportunity to attend regular guidance department meetings with the other guidance counselors, sit in on plan reviews, schedule reviews, and share other counselor information together. Even so, Sinclair continued to commit constant errors repeatedly. She did not improve and her mistakes endangered the students' graduation timelines, college entrance opportunities, as well as scholarships. Additionally, she put undue strain on the guidance department by having the other guidance counselors in the department stop their workload, pick up Sinclair's work to get it done or correct her errors. Numerous scheduling and transcript errors had to be corrected by the other staff. Sinclair showed minimal improvement and still could not put basic guidance counseling skills into practice. Instead, she repeated the errors even after extensive coaching and one-on-one training. On March 4, 2015, Western had an incoming ninth grade open house. The event is for incoming freshman and their parents from the middle schools to come and learn about Western. Sinclair failed to show up even though she was required to attend and she did not contact any one to let them know she would not be in attendance. Other guidance counselors had to step in and handle Sinclair's table for incoming freshmen. Sinclair never provided an excuse for her absence. Prior to the open house, Arrojo had informed Sinclair that he would be introducing her to the 1000+ visitors at the event. On March 8, 2015, Jones observed Sinclair and memorialized the observation in a post observation summary memo dated March 18, 2015. Sinclair provided 19 records for 11 students, of which only four were at risk, even though Jones had asked her yet again for the at risk students' list as she had been requesting since January. Sinclair was still not providing the at risk student list so that the intervention plans could be created and implemented to provide the services needed by the students. Jones also requested RtI records with the at risk list. The 19 records were all Sinclair supplied from August 2014 to March 8, 2015. At some point, Sinclair said over 100 students were at risk but she only brought four at risk student records to the meeting of March 8, 2015, not the requested list. Sinclair had very little documentation of her efforts to help the students. Sinclair also failed to be able to list or address the traits of Policy 6000.01 as requested on February 9, 2015. Additionally, when asked, Sinclair was unable to discuss quality points, the points provided for higher-level classes like AP that boost students GPA for graduation. Sinclair needed to comprehend and be able to explain quality points to parents and/or students to successfully perform her job. Sinclair only contacted 20 students in December and 63 in January according to her log. Jones determined the number was low since December is only two school weeks. Out of the 83 students contacted, Sinclair failed to address the need of improving one's GPA, which 520 of the ninth graders also needed her assistance with, as well as her providing them with information. By email on March 9, 2015, Corridon scheduled Sinclair to go to Cooper City High School ("Cooper City") on March 16, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. to shadow Clara Able ("Able"), a guidance counselor, so she could observe her day-to-day activities and be taught more counseling skills. On March 10, 2015, Jones emailed Sinclair and requested she provide additional documentation about some items discussed in the earlier March Policy 6000.1 meeting observation. Jones set a deadline of March 13, 2015. Jones requested the information so that she could properly rate Sinclair from the observation. Jones informed Sinclair that she could provide her more time if she could not have the documents ready by the 13th as requested: You mentioned that you call in students, call home to parents to provide tutoring information, etc. Please provide me with recent documentation that corroborates your outreach efforts. Examples of this could be L27 entries, list of targeted students, phone logs, examples of the tutoring services, etc. You mentioned you shared the Quality Points information with parents/students who come to your office. Please provide documentation of who has received this information and what exactly you share with them. At the meeting, Sinclair provided Jones incomplete L panels6/ and student sign in logs, which failed to have the sign out time for the students and incomplete. Out of the 18 contacts provided, Sinclair was only able to provide records for less than 10 students. The backup materials provided did not provide any details of discussions with students she had met with to utilize later for follow up or documentation. Jones reminded Sinclair during the meeting that she was available to help her if needed and even though she was receiving assistance from site-based coaches and a peer reviewer, there were still on-going concerns regarding her performance. By email on March 13, 2015, Jones scheduled a meeting with Sinclair on March 19, 2015. The email notified Sinclair that the meeting would cover RtI, student registration, and SBBC Policy 6000. The email instructed Sinclair, "As we will need to reference documentation on those topics during the meeting, the meeting will take place in your office. Please be ready to refer to items in your possession on the topics referenced above during our meeting." On March 16, 2015, Sinclair showed up approximately an hour and forty minutes late for her shadow session with Able. By the time Sinclair arrived Able, had left Cooper City and Sinclair did not get the counseling training. On March 17, 2015, Jones provided Sinclair a meeting notice to report to the principal's office on March 30, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. to review her PDP. On March 18, 2015, Arrojo hand-delivered a summary memo to Sinclair from the March 13, 2015, meeting, which stated: Middle school registration took place this week at Indian Ridge Middle School. You came to the middle school with the incorrect course cards. You arrived and placed the Grade 10-12 Course Selection sheets (green cards) on the desk to register the incoming freshmen or current 8th graders. Ms. Cohen, Guidance Director, told you those were the incorrect forms and supplied the correct ones to you (blue cards). The next day, you again brought the incorrect Grade 10- 12 Course Selection sheets and placed them on the desk for the incoming 9th grade students to use. Ms. Cohen, Guidance Director, again removed the forms from the desk and provided the correct ones for you. You were unable to start a testing session for the group of students you were proctoring on March 11, 2015. You were trained on protocols for testing administration on February 26th, 2015. You were a Testing Administrator in a session previously held on March 2, 2015. You reported to the computer-based testing session without your laptop on March 11, 2015. As Testing Administrator, your laptop was required in order to start the session and approve students to begin testing. You were searching for a session code in the bin to begin computer-based testing, unaware that one had to be created once you log in as the Testing Administrator. Ms. Cohen, Guidance Director had to log in as Testing Administrator for the session as you were unable to log in after multiple. On March 19, 2015, Arrojo, Jones, and D. Jones observed Sinclair. She was incapable of explaining how a student earns a credit. She confused semesters with nine weeks and included the EOC calculation percentages when explaining the general course calculations. Sinclair also failed to explain how to utilize the forgiveness rule. Sinclair did not have an understanding of how to use the tool to help students make up credit and replace or forgive a student's original bad grade, which helps improve the GPA of the student who failed. Jones scored her beginning for the meeting. During the meeting, Sinclair also displayed her typical responsive behavior to the administrator's questions. She stared blankly in response to pointed questions. Sinclair never provided the RtI list, even though she had been over RtI during the 2013-2014 school year. Ultimately, Arrojo had D. Jones pull the list and D. Jones took over RtI because Sinclair was incapable of performing the task. On March 20, 2015, Cohen met with Sinclair to follow up on the status of the transcripts that had been previously erroneously handled. Sinclair failed to have them corrected by the March 20, 2015, deadline. Cohen used the meeting to provide coaching on accurate future transcript evaluation. Cohen sat with Sinclair one-on-one and went through each folder and listed with her what needed to be done to award the students credit as well as provided examples. Cohen reminded Sinclair to indicate student name and student number, use designated colors to highlight grade level credit earned, and add appropriate assessment codes to EOC courses. During the coaching session, Cohen also pointed out transcript and registration errors. One such error discussed was Sinclair awarding half of a credit to a student when Dade County clearly stated the student was in Term 1 or Quarter 1 and the student could not have earned a credit yet. Cohen never received the requested transcripts. Cohen suggested Sinclair check her drawers for the missing transcripts and Sinclair became upset. The transcript information was not available to be entered into the system and students were not properly placed or were in statuses to miss credits for graduation. The guidance department also had to request transcripts from prior schools a second time because of Sinclair not supplying the transcripts. Sinclair's deficiencies in her performance as a guidance counselor continued almost on a daily basis. On March 30, 2015, a meeting was held to review Sinclair's PDP. Sinclair's Instructional Practice Score had improved minimally to 2.043, needs improvement. The meeting ended with Arrojo agreeing to continue to provide Sinclair observations and coaching in an attempt to help Sinclair improve her work performance. On April 2, 2015, a memo was written regarding the March 30, 2015, meeting outlining Sinclair's ongoing performance issues. The memo detailed the following observations: During the observation, Ms. Sinclair could not identify students that she was the case manager for and therefore, unable to provide strategies for improvement. Ms. Sinclair was able to log in to Virtual Counselor but was not familiar with the RtI layout in Virtual Counselor. During the observation, Ms. Sinclair continued to click on the screen hoping to navigate through the website. Mr. Sinclair was unable to describe how a student earn a credit. In speaking, Ms. Sinclair included the EOC calculation percentages while explaining the general course calculations. On April 7, 2015, Jones conducted a formal observation meeting with Sinclair. A new student from a private school was being registered and enrolling as an incoming ninth grader. Sinclair showed up 15 minutes late without any explanation or apology for tardiness. Sinclair recommended four out of the six classes that were closed to the student. The four classes were all on the closed class list Sinclair had been provided both by a printed copy on April 6, 2015, and emailed on March 30, 2015. After the registration observation, Jones asked Sinclair for the closed class list provided to her. Sinclair had it taped to her desk but she did not use it when registering the student. Jones asked Sinclair to tell her which classes she had recommended to the parent and she could not answer. Sinclair also could not find the student's name in Virtual Counselor. Sinclair's work continued to be unsatisfactory because she failed to competently perform her duties as a guidance counselor; failed to communicate appropriately with students, colleagues, administrators and parents, which caused numerous complaints; stared and refused to acknowledge conversations with administrators; failed to have command of her area of specialization as guidance counselor with the repeated errors. Additionally, she made the same mistakes over and over and did not show improvement or competency. On April 9, 2015, Corridon provided Sinclair's last coaching session. In April, Jones was still trying to get the list from Sinclair of students who failed the first semester even though it was late in the year to start addressing the struggles of failing students. On April 28, 2015, Jones conducted a formal observation and requested Sinclair go through the process of creating a referral in RtI. Sinclair was able to login to the referral database but clicked from screen to screen, unable to either navigate the database properly or record key information. Sinclair also failed to navigate resource sites necessary to provide students resources for assistance. Jones rated Sinclair a beginning for the exercise. On May 1, 2015, a post observation conference was held with Sinclair to discuss the observation of April 22, 2015. Sinclair, David Olafson, and Jones attended. Jones shared the findings from the Marzano observation system, which Sinclair obtained beginning/not using datamarks in design question 2, element 12 and elements M and Q. Specifically, Jones documented the following observations in the memo: Lack of familiarity with the BASIS database when entering students and other pertinent information. The counselor advises students to visit certain websites to begin to do better in school. The students receive no handout with key points or an overview of what the website offers. The counselor does not diversity the resources offered to students in danger of failing and the do not address they students deficiencies. Students in danger of failing were expected to create their own plan for success. Some students have been in danger for failing all year and were not seen until April 2015. On May 6, 2015, a meeting observation for domains 2 through 4 was conducted. Sinclair was asked to pull up the presentation she used for incoming freshmen to discuss graduation requirements. She was not able to find the document after multiple tries. On May 8, 2015, a post observation conference was held to discuss the results of the 30-minute observation held on May 6, 2015. Jones outlined Sinclair's ongoing performance concerns and numerous errors, as well as improper actions, which included Sinclair: improperly inputting 21 out of 38 transcripts reviewed; failing to monitor and assist three students in danger of failing by only meeting with each of them one time in April; failing to review the TERMS panels with each student along with Virtual Counselor; failing to assess the student's deficiencies incorrectly so was unable to offer additional services to the student, which impacted student's placement and graduation status; failing to look at two student's L panels to review their history and help develop the direction to proceed; and failing to provide services to a student who indicated problems at home. That same day Jones notified Sinclair to report to the principal's office on May 15, 2015, for the final review of PDP. On May 15, 2015, Sinclair's final review was conducted. She never was able to perform the basic functions of counseling. Sinclair failed to do the job and her ineptitude continued throughout the PDP process. Sinclair's final Instructional Practice Score was 1.974, unsatisfactory. As a result, Arrojo recommended Sinclair for termination based on her failure to correct her performance deficiencies during a 90-day PDP. After Sinclair left Western, the missing transcripts Cohen had requested from Sinclair and instructed her to look for were found in Sinclair's office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Broward County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing the charge of violation of rules 6A- 5.056(2)(a); finding Respondent in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2)(b), (c), (d), and (e); rule 6A-5.056(3); sections 1012.33, 1012.53(1) and (2); and School Board Policy 4008(B). upholding Respondent's suspension without pay and termination for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 10th day of March, 2017.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Department of Children and Families (Department), should impose a $75 fine on Respondent, Jumpstart Enrichment Program, Inc. (Jumpstart), and place it on probation for up to six months for not complying with child care facility staff-to-children ratio requirements for the fourth time.
Findings Of Fact The Department has issued Respondent license C09OR0629 to operate a child care facility in Orlando under sections 402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-22. The statutes and rules have minimum staff-to-children ratio requirements that are clear, but not uncomplicated, and not always easy to implement. It is necessary to have one staff person for every four children from birth to age one, for every six aged one to two, for every ten aged two to three, for every 15 aged three to four, for every 20 aged four to five, and for every 25 aged five or older. Generally, the ratio requirement for a mixed group of children aged two or older is dictated by the age group with the largest number of children in the group. However, if children under the age of two are present, the ratio requirement for a group is dictated by the age of the youngest child. It was undisputed that staff-to-children ratio requirements are Class II standards under the Department's rules. Citation Issued January 6, 2012 The Administrative Complaint alleges that a citation for insufficient staff was issued to Respondent during a Department inspection on January 6, 2012. It alleges that this was the fourth violation of the standard, justifying a $75 fine and probation for up to six months conditioned on being subject to unannounced visits to ensure compliance with all statutes and codes and on ensuring the maintenance of appropriate staff-to- children ratio. On January 4, 2012, Sabrina Hayles and Conswela Green were the staff on duty at Jumpstart. Eight children were present that morning when Ms. Hayles left the facility to go to lunch. She took two of the children with her so that Ms. Green would meet ratio requirements for the remaining six. While Ms. Hayles was gone, a grandmother dropped off another child, which put the facility out-of-compliance with staffing ratio requirements. Ms. Green asked the grandmother to stay until Ms. Hayles returned, but she said she had an appointment and could not stay. Ms. Green accepted the child into the facility and telephoned Ms. Hayles to tell her to return to the facility because they were out-of-compliance. Ms. Hayles, who already was on her way back, arrived several minutes later. The facility's being out- of-compliance was observed by staff from the Early Learning Coalition of Orange County (ELCOC), who happened to drop some paperwork off at the facility at that time. ELCOC reported the ratio violation to the Department, which investigated the allegation on January 6 and issued a citation. The Administrative Complaint alleges that this was Respondent's fourth insufficient staff violation and that the previous violations were on September 9 and April 14, 2011, and on August 20, 2010. Alleged Violation on September 9, 2011 There was no evidence of a staffing ratio violation on September 9, 2011. Actually, there was a staffing violation on September 7, 2011. One staff was caring for an infant and five toddlers; two staff were required. ELCOC reported the violation to the Department. When apprised of the violation, Michael Collins, the owner and director of the facility, took immediate action to increase staffing and bring the violation to an end as soon as possible. The Department investigated on September 9, 2011, verified the violation through interviews with Shawnda Bernard, and cited Respondent for the violation on September 9, 2011. Alleged Violation on April 14, 2011 Another entity involved in child care and school readiness, referred to in the hearing as Devoreaux, reported to the Department on April 12, 2011, that there was one staff caring for 13 children, when two staff were required. The Department investigated on April 14, 2011, determined from interviews with staff that the violation had in fact occurred, and cited Respondent for the violation. There was hearsay evidence of another staffing violation after the Department's inspection on April 14, 2012. The second alleged violation was not proven by any direct evidence or by any hearsay evidence that would be admissible over objection in a civil action. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Alleged Violation on August 20, 2010 On August 20, 2010, the Department conducted a routine inspection and cited Respondent for having six children at its facility and no staff, just the owner/director, Mr. Collins. Two qualified staff were required for the six children. There was an unscreened volunteer there, who would have counted and made the staffing ratio sufficient prior to August 1, 2010, when the law changed to require staff to be screened. First Affirmative Defense In May 2011, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent charging staffing ratio violations on August 20, 2010, and on August 6 and December 28, 2009, plus numerous other kinds of violations, including some on August 20, 2010. In October 2011, the Department and Respondent settled the charges in that Administrative Complaint by payment of a $500 fine (reduced from $2,205) and a reduced period of probation, through August 15, 2011. The alleged facts and charges were not admitted as part of the settlement. The settlement included a provision that the Department would "make no further orders and will take no further action on the Administrative Complaint and underlying violations in connection with this proceeding that is being settled." It also including a provision in the next numbered paragraph saying: However, if in the future, the Petitioner should have to take administrative action against the Respondent, the Respondent agrees that the Petitioner shall not be estopped from using the facts set forth in the Administrative Complaint in this case as additional basis' [sic] for any future denials, revocations or other administrative actions, taken against the Respondent by the Petitioner resulting from any future non- compliances with applicable statute, code or agreements, by the Respondent. Since one of the "facts set forth" in the settled Administrative Complaint was that Respondent had insufficient staffing on August 20, 2010, the Department was not estopped from using those facts as it does in this case--i.e., as one of the three staffing violations that preceded the one in January of 2012. Second Affirmative Defense Because of the insufficient staffing on January 4, 2012, ELCOC withheld payment for that day under the federal school readiness program it administers, which requires qualified staff to be present.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order: finding Respondent guilty as charged; fining Respondent $75; and placing Respondent on probation for six months, with unannounced visits to ensure compliance with all statutes and codes, including the maintenance of appropriate staff-to-children ratio. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Stefanie C. Beach, Esquire Department of Children and Families Suite S-1129 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 Jack P. Caolo, Esquire 131 East Woodland Drive Sanford, Florida 32773 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Marion Drew Parker, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 David Wilkins, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent's teaching certificate should be subjected to sanctions based upon whether he engaged in personal conduct that seriously reduces effectiveness as a teacher; whether he violated the principles of professional conduct of the education profession; whether he intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and whether he failed to take reasonable efforts to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and to the student's mental health or physical safety.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida's Educator Certificate No. 533651, certifying him in the area of music. It is valid through June 3, 2004. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a music teacher in the Citrus County School District. He has been a teacher for 14 years and began teaching in Citrus County in August of 1993. During the 1996-1997 school year C.C. was a seventh grade student. She was 12 years of age until May of 1997, when she turned 13. She had taken violin lessons from the Respondent during the 1996-1997 school year and the Respondent had been one of her teachers since she had been in the second grade. C.C. was admitted to the National Junior Honor Society (NJHS) when she was in the seventh grade because she had good grades and was a good student. One of the fund-raising projects for the NJHS was a pineapple sale. C.C. participated in this sale and asked the Respondent if he would like to buy a pineapple and he agreed. At that point he hugged her and told her he loved her. She became somewhat upset at being hugged by the Respondent and his telling her that and made a note in her diary for February 27, 1997, that "Mr. Wedebrock told me he loved me. I don't know what to make of it." This made her somewhat uncomfortable and embarrassed. The Respondent told C.C. he loved her several times over the early months of 1997. This made her feel uncomfortable since she was only 12 years old and did not think she needed to hear such comment from her teacher. She had never been spoken to by another teacher in that way and never saw Respondent tell any other students that he loved them in that way. It embarrassed her. The Respondent gave C.C. souvenirs from a trip to Disney World and marked two brochures from Disney World with his rankings of the many different rides or attractions. He gave her those brochures and gave her a key chain with her name on it and a pin. At the same time he gave her a note which said among other things "maybe some day we can go together" (referring to Disney World). The Respondent had called her into his office to give her the Disney World-related items. She had never seen the Respondent give presents to any other student. Near the end of the school year the Respondent wrote a note to C.C. and placed it in her violin case along with several pieces of music. The Respondent then told C.C. to go look in her violin case. When she did so she discovered the note along with "Music of the Night" a piece from Phantom of the Opera. The note read as follows: Please remember everything I told you this year. It's really true times a billion! Times infinity! Please just give me a chance. That's all I ask of you. You are my music of the night . . . I'll miss you (over) so much this summer! I'll miss seeing you in chorus next year. I'm sure you would have made All State! Did you know that you could be a peer counselor at CHS (hint hint). I just need to know how you feel about me. My love for you is so strong and deep. Should I just stop? Or do you think some day you'll love me? Have a great summer! Enjoy your new violin! I love you!!! (Emphasis from the original) C.C. thought the note was embarrassing and somewhat disgusting coming from a teacher. She showed the note to her sister who was one year younger than C.C. Her sister believed that C.C. should show the note to her mother and father. C.C. decided to tell her mother. Later, at a restaurant, C.C. placed the note in her mother's hands and then ran into the bathroom. After receiving the note, C.C. became quite withdrawn, having less interaction with others. When she gave her mother the note her mother noticed that she was extremely upset and teary-eyed and did not want to talk to her mother or step- father. This was unusual behavior for her. C.C.'s mother and step-father decided to notify the school about the note; however, at C.C.'s request they waited until the last day of class with the Respondent before revealing it to the school administration. C.C.'s mother and step-father went to the school and in Mr. Eldridge's absence they spoke to Ms. Staten, the assistant principal. They informed her of the situation with the Respondent and the note, although C.C. did not go with them because of her embarrassment. Both C.C.'s mother and step- father were very upset about the contents of the note and the Respondent's expressions towards C.C. After meeting with the parents Ms. Staten informed the principal, Mr. Eldridge, of the situation when he returned. Mr. Eldridge had a meeting with the Respondent that day and the next day Ms. Staten, Mr. Eldridge, and the Respondent met again. During the course of that second meeting the Respondent agreed to resign. Ms. Stiteler, the Director of Personnel for Citrus County Schools met with the Respondent on May 30, he admitted to her that he had given the note to C.C. He appeared rational and lucid during the course of that interview and told Ms. Stiteler that he did not know why he wrote the note in question but admitted having feelings for C.C. and said he had not intended to have those feelings. He said he was fond of her and that she was a special student and was very bright and musical. The Respondent acknowledged that he himself had noticed a change in C.C.'s behavior (withdrawal) after he had given her the note in question. The Respondent also wrote a note to C.C.'s parents which he gave to Ms. Stiteler. Among other things he promised in that note to never again express his feelings for C.C., but does not deny that he had the feelings previously expressed. The Respondent's actions damaged the trust that C.C.'s parents, C.C., and her sister had placed in him as a teacher. It also lessened the trust the administrators, such as Ms. Stiteler, Mr. Eldridge, and Ms. Staten, confided in him as well as their trust in his judgment. The Respondent has experienced weight problems much of his life and, in fact, during the relevant time period he was considered "morbidly obese." He strongly desired for obvious health reasons, to end his obesity and so on April 19, 1996, began seeing Dr. Azeele Borromaeo, M.D. Dr. Borromaeo prescribed the dietary drug combination of Phentermine and Fenfluoramine, commonly known as "Phen-fen." While he was taking Phen-fen the Respondent met regularly with Dr. Borromaeo. In the fall of 1996, he complained of mood swings, great irritability, forgetfulness, and other side effects, such as dry-mouth, frequent headaches, and sexual problems. In November of 1996, after such complaints, the doctor took him off Phen-fen for about a month. The side effects subsided at that time. During the time the Respondent had been on Phen-fen through November 1996, his weight decreased from 359 pounds to 289 pounds. Given that degree of success he decided to begin again taking Phen-fen in December of 1996. He noticed a return of the side effects almost immediately. The forgetfulness, confusion, nausea, sensitivity to light and sound, and irritability all returned and the Respondent says it got progressively worse through the first half of 1997 while he was taking Phen-fen. His wife described the effects as getting worse and worse. Beginning in about February of 1997 through May 1997, the Respondent wrote and said the inappropriate things to C.C. referenced in the above findings of fact. The Respondent candidly admits that he expressed these feelings, of an amorous nature, referenced in the above findings but professes not to know why he wrote or said those things to the student in question. He maintains he was confused, depressed, and suffering from the other referenced side effects of the drug at the time. The Respondent's professional peers, Mr. Eldridge and Ms. Staten, did not notice any abnormal behavior by the Respondent while he was working at school. They perceived him to be happy and in control of his personality. Ms. Staten was his supervisor during the school year and saw him almost daily, including in his classroom setting. She did not notice anything unusual about his behavior and found him personable and jovial. Neither C.C. nor S.G., a classmate, noticed any unusual behavior by the Respondent in the classroom, such as forgetfulness or excessive irritability. In his visits to Dr. Borromaeo and his primary care physician, Dr. Dwinelle, the Respondent noted the he was a little irritable and had some sexual problems and dry mouth from February through May of 1997, but did not, at least according to the doctors' notes, complain of any of the other side effects of Phen-fen. The Respondent did not mention any effects of the use of the drugs as a possible explanation for his conduct in his conversations with Mr. Eldridge, Ms. Staten, and Ms. Stiteler around the time of his resignation. Following his resignation from his teaching position, the Respondent underwent a neuro-psychological examination from Sidney J. Merrin, Ph.D., a psychologist in private practice in Tampa, Florida. A variety of psychological tests on the Respondent was performed, lasting approximately 15 hours. Dr. Merrin also conducted a counseling session with the Respondent. Dr. Merrin concluded as shown in his report, in evidence as the Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, including Exhibit A thereto, that: . . . There was nothing in his examinations that would support any contention he is an emotionally or mentally disturbed individual that would prompt him to invade the privacy of a young student or disturb the decency of normal interpersonal relationships. I see nothing in his examinations that would describe him in pathological terms. Consequently, should he have behaved as he described, in the manner he had, the basis for that behavior must then be ascribed to a temporary condition of short-term destabilization from which he has now very adequately recovered. In his deposition Dr. Merrin opined that whatever did occur in his estimation would have been unlike the Respondent's usual personality to the extent that something in the interim had to have changed his behavior or reduced his impulsivity controls. Dr. Merrin opined that it could have been the introduction of Phen-fen. Dr. Una D. McCann is an associate professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University. She has conducted clinical and pre-clinical research on a variety of different amphetamine analogs, including Fenfluoramine, for over 10 years. Her interest in studying Phen-fen is that it is an amphetamine analog that happens to be neurotoxic. It has been shown in animals to damage certain brain cells which produce the chemical serotonin, related to mood. Her research has been directed to achieving understanding of the effect of Phen-fen and related drugs towards specific cells such as those that make serotonin in the brain. Thus Dr. McCann's primary interest as a psychiatrist has been to determine what happens to humans who take Phen-fen, whether the brain's serotonin neurons are damaged from taking the drug and whether and to what extent any psychiatric effects flow from that damage. There is no definitive study according to Dr. McCann's testimony, which shows that Phen-fen can cause such personality changes or behaviors as are involved in the Respondent's actions in this case. Dr. McCann is aware of some 30 case studies or histories of people who, while taking the drug combination called Phen-fen had exhibited aberrational psychiatric symptoms and behaviors. Dr. McCann did not examine and test the Respondent but upon being provided information of his circumstances and the actions he took at issue in this case, she concluded that his behavior toward the student could have been influenced by his use of Phen-fen. The Respondent is no longer taking Phen-fen and the evidence indicates he has returned to his baseline psychiatric state. He has exhibited no such abnormal and inappropriate behavior since abandoning the use of Phen-fen. The Respondent has an excellent teaching background, with excellent evaluations and no other disciplinary problems. He has been a teacher for 14 years and began teaching in Citrus County in August of 1983. He has been a very effective teacher with no personality traits or behaviors other than those in the time referenced-above which have caused any difficulties in his relationships with students, other teachers, or administrators. His family history is that of a stable marriage and of his being a loving father to his three children. There is little in the evidence of record to show any pattern to the objectionable behavior involved in this proceeding. Thus it would appear, with his history of exhibiting a stable personality and stability in his employment life and family life that, along with the rather scant available medical and scientific evidence, that there may indeed be some causal relationship between the Respondent's use of Phen-fen and his inappropriate actions towards the student in question. Persuasive evidence, however, has not been presented to show as through appropriate scientifically managed, and refereed that the use of Phen-fen abrogates such a person's exercise of free- will, that it abrogates his sense of reality nor that it prevents him from knowing what he is doing as he commits certain behaviors. It was not shown to prevent him from being able to control his own actions. Phen-fen may cause severe depression and the other symptoms and psychiatric problems referenced in the above findings of fact while the associated depression and other problems possibly, although not proven to have been caused by Phen-fen, may have caused a lowering of his impulse control which relates to the exercise of bad judgement, the clear and convincing evidence shows that at the time he committed the behaviors in question he was in touch with reality. Although he exhibited abysmally poor judgment on those occasions, he knew what he was doing at the time and in fact never denied it when interviewed by his superiors in the school system. Consequently, it cannot be found that the use of Phen-fen abrogated his responsibility for his actions.
Recommendation Accordingly, in consideration of the above findings of fact, including those of the mitigatory circumstances, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Petitioner Agency suspending the Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years, during which time he should engage in therapy and counseling from a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist with a view towards showing that he is mentally and emotionally recovered and able to work with children and otherwise perform the duties of a public school teacher. Upon his completion of such counseling and therapy, under a professionally-mandated schedule and regimen, he should be required to provide a written opinion of a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist to the Department of Education, establishing that he is mentally and emotionally able to work with children and otherwise perform the duties of a public school teacher before his licensure should be restored to active, unrestricted status. He should also be placed on probation for a period of five years following any such reinstatement, under such terms and conditions as the Education Practices Commissions may deem appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's employment as a teacher with Petitioner should be terminated for alleged willful neglect of duties and gross insubordination.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Miami-Dade County School Board (Petitioner) was a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Judith Zucker (Respondent) began her employment with Petitioner, as a teacher, in 1968 and continued her employment with Petitioner until 1972. She began her employment with Petitioner again in 1989. Respondent holds a teacher certification in elementary education. She is also certified to teach the learning disabled and mentally handicapped. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a teacher, assigned to Little River Elementary School (Little River), Citrus Grove Elementary School (Citrus Grove), and Miami Jackson Senior High School (Miami Jackson). Little River Elementary School In August 1989, Respondent resumed teaching with Petitioner. She was employed at Little River pursuant to a continuing contract of employment. On January 8, 1991, Respondent suffered injuries to her neck and spine when she attempted to break-up a fight between two students. Despite her injury, she immediately returned to work, not losing any time from work. In November 1994, Respondent was injured again. While walking down the hall of the school, a student, for whom she was not responsible, was hanging on a door. The student pushed himself off the door and fell on top of Respondent onto a cement floor. As a result, Respondent's original injury was aggravated. During the 1994-95 and 1995-96 school years, Respondent was a Title I tutor. She tutored three to eight students at a time in reading. During the 1996-97 school year, the reading program changed. For this school year, Little River, along with some other schools, was placed on Florida's critically low school list. Petitioner initiated a program called Operation Safety Net in which schools on the critically low list began using the Successful for All/Roots and Wings program (Success for All Reading Program). The Success for All Reading Program was for students who were critically deficient in reading. Little River and Petitioner's other critically low schools began using the Success for All Reading Program for the 1996-97 school year. In the Success for All Reading Program a tutor had a group of 18 to 20 students for 90 minutes in the morning. For the rest of the day, the tutor worked one-on-one with first grade students. Respondent was not assigned to the Success for All Reading Program at the beginning of the 1996-97 school year. Respondent requested her principal to assign her to the Success for All Reading Program due to her medical condition resulting from the injuries to her neck and spine for which she was still undergoing physical therapy. The principal agreed to assign Respondent to the Success for All Reading Program because the principal wanted to make sure that Respondent was provided with the opportunity and the time to attend therapy. Respondent was assigned to the Success for All Reading Program with a modification. Respondent was allowed to assist other tutors with testing and was working in groups of two to four students, significantly smaller than the regular groups of 18 to 20 students. Using the smaller groups for Respondent caused the other morning groups to become even larger. At the time that the principal made the assignment with the modification, the principal expected the duration of the assignment to be short, but the assignment spanned the entire school year. Having groups expanding beyond the 18 to 20 students for the entire school year created a hardship in that it was counter-productive for the critically deficient readers. In the fall of 1996, Respondent was again injured. This time, Respondent was injured by a student to whom she was tutoring one-on-one. Respondent did not lose any work as a result of the injury she sustained. Respondent had now been injured by students at Little River on three separate occasions: January 8, 1991, November 1994, and the fall of 1996. Despite the injuries that she sustained, she immediately returned to work after each occurrence without any loss of time. At the end of a school year, teachers indicate what they would prefer to do during the following school year. In May or June 1997, the principal of Little River advised Respondent that she would be assigned to teach a regular class, a third grade class, for the 1997-98 school year. Respondent sought a transfer from Little River in August 1997. No transfer occurred. When Respondent returned to Little River in August 1997 for the 1997-98 school year, Respondent informed the principal that she was still in physical therapy; that she was unable to write on the chalkboard because to do so caused her to shake; and that she was, therefore, unable to return to a regular classroom. Respondent requested a return to tutoring. The principal informed Respondent that the tutors had already been assigned and that she (Respondent) was expected to return to a regular classroom. However, for the first two weeks of school, the principal allowed Respondent to tutor. The principal contacted Petitioner's Office of Risk Management1 to determine Respondent's status as to whether she was able to return to a regular classroom. Risk Management advised the principal that Respondent was cleared to return to her regular duties, to return to a regular classroom. On September 19, 1997, the principal explained to Respondent that, according to Risk Management, she was cleared to return to her regular duties and that she would be returning to a regular third grade classroom. The third grade classroom would contain no more than 29 to 33 students. Respondent informed the principal that she (Respondent) was not able to return to a regular classroom and that her doctor would have to contact Risk Management. On September 23, 1997, the principal again contacted Risk Management which again informed the principal that Respondent was cleared to return to her regular duties. The principal advised Respondent of the information that she had obtained from Risk Management. Respondent again informed the principal that she was unable to return to a regular classroom. Risk Management had also advised the principal that, if Respondent continued to insist that she was unable to return to a regular classroom, the principal should direct Respondent to leave the school's campus. The principal did as Risk Management advised and directed Respondent to leave the school's campus. Respondent complied with the principal's directive and left the campus of Little River. The Executive Director of Risk Management (Executive Director) had advised the principal to direct Respondent to leave the school's campus if Respondent insisted that she could not return to a regular classroom. He advised the principal to direct Respondent to leave the school's campus because of Respondent's medical condition. The Executive Director had reviewed Respondent's file and had become aware of a letter dated September 3, 1997, from Dr. Raul Grosz, Respondent's authorized2 neurologist. The letter stated in pertinent part: She [Respondent] has at this time chronic persistent [sic] and discomfort. I am recommending that she be placed in a non- threatening environment in which she does not have to move furniture or lift furniture whatsoever. I also feel that she is unable to carry a full class-load at this time. As a result of the letter, the Executive Director authorized the payment of workers' compensation benefits from the date that Respondent was directed to leave Little River's campus by the principal. Even though Dr. Grosz opined that Respondent was "unable to carry a full class-load," he did not state the number of students as to what represented a full class-load. However, Dr. Grosz considered a full class-load to consist of a large group of students who were not well-behaved and who were potentially dangerous. Dr. Grosz did not inform Respondent as to what he considered to be a full class-load. There was no neurological basis for restricting Respondent to a non-threatening environment or a reduced class size. Respondent requested Dr. Grosz to add the restrictions. Respondent also expressed her desire to be in a non-threatening environment. Respondent's requests seemed reasonable to Dr. Grosz and he attempts to accommodate his patients' subjective feelings, so Dr. Grosz included the restrictions in his letter. It was Dr. Gorsz's intent that Respondent and Petitioner attempt to reach a mutually acceptable solution and that Petitioner would provide what it determined was appropriate. As of September 19, 1997, Respondent had exhausted all of her available sick and personal leave. Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) have entered into a collective bargaining agreement (UTD Contract). The UTD Contract provides generous, extensive leave provisions. Respondent never applied for any type of leave, including leave pursuant to the UTD Contract. The Executive Director was authorized to direct a teacher to a work assignment. In determining a work assignment for Respondent, the Executive Director sought assistance from and relied upon Petitioner's Instructional Staffing Department to locate a position for Respondent which would meet her medical restrictions. Citrus Grove Elementary School The Director of Instructional Staffing informed the Executive Director that a varying exceptionalities (VE) position in special education was available at Citrus Grove. A VE teacher teaches a group of students who have different exceptionalities. The VE teacher may simultaneously teach the students with different exceptionalities in the same class or the teacher may teach the students with one exceptionality during the school day at one time and may teach other students with a different exceptionality during the same school day at another time. VE teaching is used for mildly handicapped students. By letter dated October 7, 1997, the Executive Director informed Respondent that a VE position was available at Citrus Grove and that the VE position was within her certification and met her medical restrictions. He also indicated that the position was an appropriate accommodation for Respondent. Moreover, the Executive Director directed Respondent to report to Citrus Grove immediately and to call the principal at Citrus Grove for further reporting instructions. Respondent failed to call the principal. She also failed to report to Citrus Grove. Respondent decided, without making any personal investigation, that the VE position at Citrus Grove was not appropriate and was unreasonable. Respondent did not believe that she was physically capable of performing as a VE teacher at Citrus Grove. Respondent is in pain daily. She wears a Tens Unit to short-circuit some of the pain. Respondent expresses being afraid of being in groups wherein she may be bumped which would worsen her condition. However, Respondent's authorized neurologist, Dr. Grosz has no concern regarding physical contact by bumping causing further neurological damage or problems. He has more concern regarding further neurological damage or problems caused by Respondent being involved in a high-speed motor vehicle accident. Respondent did not observe the placement or inquire about the profiles of the students who she was going to teach. The composition of the VE class, as to students, at Citrus Grove was decided before Respondent was assigned the VE class, and, therefore, the composition was not decided with consideration given to Respondent's physical limitations. Respondent assumed that she would be required to use physical restraint techniques with the students. The UTD Contract provides for the use of the Safe Physical Management (SPM) program, which is the use of physical restraints for severely disabled students. Teachers, who are in self-contained programs for severely emotionally disturbed students and autistic students, receive training in techniques to contain highly disruptive students under unusual circumstances. The techniques are used to prevent injuries to persons, including the student, and damage to property. Before SPM is used, Petitioner's Multi-Disciplinary Team must recommend its use and the use of SPM must be documented on the student's Individualized Education Program (IEP). One student in Respondent's assigned class had an IEP which approved SPM. However, based upon the student's progress, it was unlikely that SPM would have been needed. Moreover, SPM is not used in VE classes at Citrus Grove; mildly handicapped students, not volatile students, are placed in the VE classes. Dr. Grosz opined that Respondent could teach a class of 25 to 30 well-behaved students. The VE classes at Citrus Grove were not full-load classes. The VE classes consisted of 7 to 10 mildly disabled students at any one time; whereas, the regular classes consisted of between 28 and 39 students. Elementary VE classes contained no more than 12 to 15 students. The number of students in VE classes at Citrus Grove were smaller than VE classes throughout Petitioner's district. Respondent also erroneously relied upon Dr. Grosz's opinion that she was unable to teach a full class-load. What Respondent considered a full class-load and what Dr. Grosz considered a full class-load were not the same. Pursuant to what Dr. Grosz considered a full class-load, Respondent would have been able to accept the VE position at Citrus Grove. Respondent would have been the third VE teacher at Citrus Grove. The VE students were all in one room separated by a partition. Respondent's class would have been on one side of the partition and one VE teacher would have been in the class with Respondent. The other VE teacher and the other VE students would have been on the other side of he partition. Citrus Grove was a safe, non-threatening environment. The needs of the VE students at Citrus Grove were more an educational concern than emotional, and the VE students were well-behaved. As to Respondent being injured at Citrus Grove in the VE position, such an occurrence was unlikely. Respondent would not have been required to lift or move any furniture or any heavy items at Citrus Grove. Respondent was qualified to teach the VE class at Citrus Grove. The Citrus Grove assignment met Respondent's medical restrictions. The assignment of Respondent to Citrus Grove was reasonable. Respondent's refusal of the Citrus Grove assignment was unreasonable and unjustified. Approximately one week after Respondent was assigned to Citrus Grove, Respondent, on October 13, 1997, presented to Dr. Grosz for an examination. Respondent did not inform Dr. Grosz of the assignment at Citrus Grove. Informing Dr. Grosz of the assignment would have provided Dr. Gorsz with an opportunity to explain to Respondent what he meant by his opinion. Respondent did not also inform Dr. Sanford Jacobson, her authorized psychiatrist, of the Citrus Grove assignment when she presented to him for a psychiatric evaluation on October 14, 1997. Dr. Jacobson prepared a report of the evaluation dated October 16, 1997.3 In the "Summary and Conclusions" section of his report, Dr. Jacobson states, among other things, the following: There have been three incidents which have resulted in injuries as described by Mrs. Zucker [Respondent]. While some of them may have been somewhat surprising, difficult to manage, and distressing, I would not think that they are the kind of injuries that one would see as causing a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. . . . The most prominent symptoms are depressive symptoms. Clinical diagnosis at present is that of: Axis I: Mood disorder associated with cervical disc disease and stenosis with depressive-like episode. * * * It would appear that her depression is related to the injuries. . . . At this time I do not believe she can resume full classroom duties. In essence, Dr. Jacobson's diagnosis was that Respondent was suffering from depression related to her pain and discomfort from her physical injury. Even though Dr. Jacobson opined that Respondent could not resume "full classroom duties," he did not state the number of students as to what he considered a full classroom. However, Dr. Jacobson considered a full classroom to consist of approximately 25 to 30 students or more. As a result of Respondent not reporting to Citrus Grove, day-to-day substitutes filled her position. The needs of the VE students were not met with such an arrangement. Miami Jackson Senior High School On or about October 15, 1997, one of Respondent's physicians had placed Respondent on a no-work status. Subsequently, on November 10, 1997, Dr. Grosz returned Respondent to work but with restrictions. Dr. Grosz states in his report dated November 10, 1997, among other things, the following: She [Respondent] remains able to perform at light duty status with no lifting of furniture allowed and I will defer to psychiatry in terms of her emotional complaints. The Executive Director consulted again with Petitioner's Instructional Staffing to locate a position for Respondent. Instructional Staffing informed him of a VE position at Miami Jackson. On December 3, 1997, the Executive Director informed Respondent that a VE position at Miami Jackson was within her certification and met her medical needs. He directed Respondent to report to Miami Jackson. The Executive Director also directed Respondent to call the principal at Miami Jackson for further reporting instructions. Respondent failed to report to Miami Jackson. She also failed to call the principal at Miami Jackson. Respondent decided, without making any personal investigation, that the VE position at Miami Jackson was not appropriate and was unreasonable. Respondent did not believe that she was physically capable of performing as a VE teacher at Miami Jackson. Respondent did not observe the placement or inquire about the profiles of the students whom she was going to teach. The composition of the VE class, as to students, at Miami Jackson was decided before Respondent was assigned the VE class, and, therefore, the composition was not decided with consideration given to Respondent's physical limitations. Respondent assumed that she would be required to use physical restraint techniques with students. The VE classes at Miami Jackson were not full-load classes. The regular classes at Miami Jackson averaged approximately 35 students; whereas, the VE classes consisted of 14 to 21 students per class period in Respondent's proposed classes. The students in the VE classes were mildly disabled, with the majority of the students being learning disabled and a few being emotionally handicapped and a few educationally mentally handicapped. Many of the students were being mainstreamed into the regular school setting. A majority of the students were on track for a standard diploma. Three students in Respondent's proposed class at Miami Jackson had IEPs which approved SPM. The students would have been in Respondent's proposed class in 1998. The students' prior IEPs had approved SPM and the SPM was carried over to Miami Jackson. However, based upon the students' progress, it was unlikely that SPM would have been needed. Moreover, SPM is not used in VE classes at Miami Jackson; SPM is only used in severly emotionally disabled classes at Miami Jackson. Miami Jackson was a safe, non-threatening environment. Respondent would not have been required to lift or move any furniture or any heavy items at Miami Jackson. Respondent was qualified to teach the VE class at Miami Jackson. However, the Miami Jackson assignment failed to meet Respondent's medical restrictions. The Miami Jackson assignment met Dr. Grosz's medical restrictions; but, it failed to meet Dr. Jacobson's medical restrictions. Dr. Jacobson did not state in his report the size of the class that he recommended that Respondent teach. Nor did he recommend to Respondent the size of class that she should teach. At hearing, Dr. Jacobson opined that he would recommend that Respondent teach a class with 7 to 10 students; however, he would not recommend that Respondent teach a class with 14 to 21 students. Respondent's proposed VE classes at Miami Jackson consisted of 14 to 21 students. The assignment of Respondent to Miami Jackson was unreasonable. Respondent's refusal of the assignment to Miami Jackson was reasonable and justified. It matters not that Respondent was unaware of the size of class recommended by Dr. Jacobson; it is sufficient that the assignment failed to meet his medical restrictions. Even though Respondent did not know the size of class to which Dr. Jacobson was referring, she relied upon his report, as well as Dr. Grosz's opinion, in refusing the assignment to Miami Jackson. As a result of Respondent not reporting to Miami Jackson, day-to-day substitutes filled her position until a permanent teacher could be assigned. Dr. Grosz examined Respondent again on December 12, 1997. Respondent did not advise him of her assignment to Miami Jackson. Because Respondent had failed to report to Citrus Grove and to Miami Jackson as directed, the Executive Director turned Respondent's case over to Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (OPS). By letter dated January 26, 1998, OPS advised Respondent, among other things, that she had been absent without authorized leave and that such absence constituted willful neglect of duty and subjected her employment to termination. OPS also requested that Respondent provide a written request within 10 working days if she wanted a review of her situation. Respondent failed to reply to OPS' letter. However, Respondent's counsel for workers' compensation responded. The response from Respondent's counsel indicated that Petitioner was aware why Respondent was not working, but his response failed to specifically address the assignments to Citrus Grove and to Miami Jackson. Petitioner took action on March 18, 1998, to suspend Respondent and dismiss her from employment. According to Petitioner's computerized attendance records, at that time Respondent had been absent without authorized leave since September 19, 1997. From September 19, 1997, to October 7, 1997, Respondent was not absent without authorization. On September 19, 1997, Respondent informed the principal of Little River that she was unable to teach the regular third grade class. Subsequently, on September 23, 1997, the principal directed Respondent to leave Little River, upon the advice of the Executive Director, and the Executive Director authorized Respondent to receive workers' compensation benefits retroactive to the date that she was directed to leave. Moreover, Respondent was not directed to report to Citrus Grove until October 7, 1997.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order sustaining the suspension of Judith Tucker without pay, but not dismissing her from employment, and reinstating Judith Tucker under the terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1999.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be terminated from her employment with the Miami-Dade County School District.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is responsible for the operation and control of all public schools within the Miami-Dade County School District. As such, it is authorized to employ the personnel necessary to instruct the school district's students. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as an annual contract teacher at Miami Springs Middle School. Respondent was born in Africa and received college degrees from the Sorbonne University in Paris, France. Respondent holds a bachelor's degree in American Literature and Civilization, a master of arts degree in English Literature, a master of arts in International Relations, and a doctorate in American Civilization and Third World Literature. Prior to emigrating to the United States in 1989, Respondent had approximately three years of teaching experience. She taught secondary students for one year in England and France, and for an unknown time in the English Department at Cheikh Anta Diop University in West Africa. After coming to the United States, Respondent taught at Michigan State University for one semester, then at Vassar for one year, at Miami-Dade Community College during a two-year span, at Nova University for one semester, at Jones College in 1994, and at the Florida International University in 1995. In these instances, Respondent's teaching experience was limited to college-age students. Additionally, the number of terms or courses taught in the various settings is unknown. Respondent is certified by the Florida Department of Education in language arts. Pursuant to this certification she may teach middle school students. Respondent began her career with Petitioner as a substitute teacher. Respondent was hired for a full-time teaching position at Miami Springs Middle School for the 1996/97 school year. The transition from college-age students to middle school students proved difficult for Respondent. The students' lack of respect, discipline, and interest in education were new to Respondent. During her first year at Miami Springs, Respondent was assigned a "peer teacher." This individual, Caridad Hildago, was to assist Respondent to overcome beginning teacher problems. In this regard, over the course of the year Ms. Hildago gave Respondent numerous suggestions to help her keep students on task, to maintain control, and to promote interaction between teacher and students in the class. Although she received an acceptable evaluation for this first year at Miami Springs, Respondent exhibited problems with student management. Security monitors were sent to Respondent's classroom on more than one occasion. Nevertheless, because she made progress in the first year, Respondent was expected to become an adequate teacher and was retained for the 1997/98 school year. During Respondent's second year at Miami Springs, the 1997/1998 school year, Dr. Senita became the principal. In October 1997, Dr. Senita informally met with Respondent and told her that students had complained that Respondent had pushed them or handled them roughly. Dr. Senita reminded Respondent that such behavior was not appropriate and that she should keep her hands off the students. Teachers employed by the School Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS has been approved by the Florida Department of Education and is incorporated into the labor contract between Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD). At all times material to this case, TADS was employed to evaluate Respondent's performance. The same TADS documents are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and all teachers. TADS objectively measures 68 minimal behaviors necessary for teaching. TADS' observers are trained and certified. The observer records deficiencies which are observed during the observation period and provides a prescription (a plan) for performance improvement when needed. During the 1997 legislative session, the Florida Legislature amended Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 1997, to provide for a 90-calendar-day performance probation for annual and professional service contract teachers who are observed to have unsatisfactory performance. Because the statutory amendment impacted how TADS would be used in the future, Petitioner and the union began collective bargaining to revise performance review procedures. In the midst of these negotiations, on October 1, 1997, Respondent was formally observed in her 4th period creative writing class by Mr. Scriven, assistant principal. She was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management and techniques of instruction. Respondent was unsatisfactory in classroom management because the students were off task throughout the lesson and Respondent did nothing to redirect them. Two students had their heads down and/or slept during the class. By Mr. Scriven's count, ten students never participated. Additionally, Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because during sustained silent reading, Respondent continually interrupted the students. Respondent also failed to give instructions prior to beginning the lesson. Respondent did not make adjustments when the students' performance warranted it. When students did not understand the assignment, Respondent did not clarify areas of confusion by giving examples or re-explaining. During the post observation conference with Respondent on October 6, 1997, Mr. Scriven made recommendations to correct the areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provided assistance to help Respondent understand the deficiencies. Suggestions included observing a lesson taught by a fellow teacher and listing the non-verbal techniques used by that teacher to redirect off task learners. Mr. Scriven also directed Respondent to read specific pages from the TADS prescription manual and to complete the activities. Respondent was directed to list areas where she would expect student confusion and to discuss strategies with another teacher to address that confusion. On November 25, 1997, Respondent was formally observed in her 5th period creative writing class by Dr. Senita. Respondent had no lesson plan and her performance was marginal. Normally, the absence of a lesson plan would automatically render the observation unsatisfactory. The union asked Dr. Senita to work with Respondent while the Respondent attempted a transfer. To accommodate this request, Respondent was rated satisfactory. On December 5, 1997, Respondent was formally observed in her 4th period creative writing class by Dr. Senita and was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and classroom management. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because the sequence of information she presented was illogical and she failed to include important dimensions in her instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because there was too much wasted time with no instruction. Additionally, off-task students were not redirected. One student colored with markers for twenty-five minutes and then began bouncing a ball. Some students participated in a conversation about a sports figure and others talked about a girl's boyfriend. Many students chewed gum. Respondent failed to redirect any of these students. Dr. Senita made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provided assistance to help Respondent correct her deficiencies. These included observing a lesson taught by a fellow teacher and noting the strategies that teacher used to deal with students who were interacting inappropriately. Respondent was also directed to list three topics and to outline their components to ensure that the sequence would be logical. She was to list the important dimensions of each and state how they would be incorporated into the lesson. She was to estimate the amount of time each activity would take. She was to review her lesson plan with the principal. On December 10, 1997, Dr. Senita held a conference for the record with Respondent to address her unsatisfactory performance, to provide recommendations to improve the specific areas of her unsatisfactory performance, and to discuss her future employment status with the school district. Respondent was placed on a Performance Probation in accordance with Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and was provided assistance to help her correct her deficiencies within the prescribed time frame. Meanwhile, bargaining on the changes to TADS between the School Board and the Union culminated in a Memorandum of Understanding which was executed by the parties on December 9, 1997. On January 20, 1998, Respondent was formally observed in her 5th period creative writing class by Ms. Bell, assistant principal, and was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because her instructional activities did not fill the allotted time. Again, there was wasted time. There were instances of prolonged off-task behavior which Respondent did not address. Respondent was unable to keep students quiet. Ms. Bell made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance to help Respondent correct her deficiencies. These included having Respondent observe a demonstration lesson in the same class. Ms. Bell also prescribed activities from the TADS prescription manual. On January 28, 1998, pursuant to Respondent's prescription, Ethel Dickens, a reading specialist with Petitioner's language arts department, presented a demonstration lesson utilizing the reciprocal teaching method to teach The Red Badge of Courage in Respondent's class. Respondent was already familiar with the technique of reciprocal teaching because she had learned it in a workshop during the summer of 1997. Prior to the start of the class, Ms. Dickens attempted to meet with Dr. Senita and Respondent. Because Respondent would not meet with Dr. Senita, Ms. Dickens met with Respondent in the teacher's lounge. At the start of the class, Ms. Dickens observed Respondent handling her class for about 15 minutes. The students did not appear to have a routine. Lack of routine constitutes poor classroom management. In contrast, Ms. Dickens began her instruction with class rules. Ms. Dickens introduced the students to unfamiliar vocabulary prior to reading the book. The lesson was very productive. Ms. Dickens had no discipline problems while she taught the class. On March 2, 1998, Respondent was formally observed in her 4th period creative writing class by Dr. Senita and was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and classroom management. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because she had no lesson plan. Respondent's class was in the library and Respondent requested that the principal not observe her in the library. Dr. Senita requested Respondent's lesson plan but Respondent refused to give one to her. The lesson plan is a contractual requirement. It guides what goes on in the class for the day. Respondent was required to allow Dr. Senita to review the lesson plan. An administrator has the right to observe any class at any time. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because she did not start her lesson for twenty-five minutes while she was on the telephone attempting to call different people to have the principal not observe her. Students reported late to class. Some students chewed gum. One student yelled an obscenity and another barked like a dog. Respondent did not correct the misbehavior. Dr. Senita made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provided assistance to help Respondent correct her deficiencies. These included completing activities from the TADS prescription manual and reading portions of a book entitled Learning to Teach. Respondent was also required to submit her lesson plans on the Friday prior to the week she would teach from them. On March 25, 1998, Dr. Senita formally observed Respondent in her 2nd period creative writing class and rated her unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. As this was the confirmatory observation, a prescription was not issued. The lesson was disjointed and did not extend for the allotted time. The students were again off task. As a result of the observation on March 25, 1998, Dr. Senita notified the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected her performance deficiencies during the Performance Probation and recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. The assistance provided to Respondent through her prescriptions was appropriate to remedy her deficiencies. Respondent completed all of her prescriptions. Nevertheless, Respondent continued to fail to plan for and manage her students. Respondent failed to improve her performance such that the students' instructional needs were not met. On April 2, 1998, the Superintendent of Schools timely notified Respondent that he was going to recommend that the School Board terminate her employment contract because she had failed to satisfactorily correct her performance deficiencies during her Performance Probation. On April 15, 1998, the School Board acted upon the Superintendent's recommendation and terminated Respondent's employment contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order sustaining the action to terminate Respondent's annual contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132 Frank T. Brogan, Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Leslie A. Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade Legal Department 2929 Southwest 3rd Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed September 28, 2010, and, if so, the discipline, if any, that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been on a professional service contract that is subject to a collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade (hereinafter "the UTD Contract"), applicable Florida Statutes, applicable rules adopted by the Florida State Board of Education as set forth in the Florida Administrative Code, and Petitioner's adopted policies and procedures. Article XXI, Section 1.B(1)(a) of the UTD Contract provides that "Any member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes." The School Board has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, which provides in pertinent that: All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the workplace is expressly prohibited. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, requires employees of Petitioner to abide by state regulations. The Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006. Subsections (3)(a) and (e) thereof provide as follows: Obligation to the student requires that the individual: Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's physical health and/or safety. * * * (e) Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Petitioner has employed Respondent as a full-time P.E. teacher at South Miami Heights since the 2006-07 school year. South Miami Heights is a public school located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary actions by Petitioner other than the incident that is the subject of this matter. Respondent's practice throughout her tenure at South Miami Heights was to require students arriving at P.E. to line up, stop talking, and generally exhibit good behavior prior to starting class. On those occasions when students were not well- behaved, Respondent required the students to walk in an orderly fashion until they calmed down and showed they were ready for class. On hot days, she would required them to walk around the inside corridors of the school, while on cooler days the students would walk outside. In prior years, with a different principal, Respondent would have the students walk in front of the principal's office, who would then go out and call the students to attention to get them to calm down. During the 2009-10 school year Respondent taught P.E. at South Miami Heights to second, third, fourth, and fifth-grade students between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Her last P.E. class started at 2:00 p.m. and ended at 3:00 p.m. Students in her last class typically brought their book bags with them. On April 15, 2010, at approximately 2:00 p.m., third- grade students from Ms. Fuentes-Garcia's class walked from her class to Respondent's class. There were approximately 25 students in the class. Each student had a book bag. When Respondent took responsibility for the class, many students were talking or otherwise misbehaving. Respondent directed all students in the class to make laps around an outdoor basketball court by walking the white lines that define the outer boundaries of the basketball court. The temperature on April 15, 2010, was 81 degrees. The students were exposed to the sun while they were walking. Respondent required the students to carry or wear their backpacks while walking around the outdoor basketball court.1 According to Respondent, the students were required to walk around the basketball court until they calmed down. She had no idea how long the students would have to walk until they calmed down when she first directed them to start walking. All students in the class were required to walk without stopping for 32 minutes. A student who tried to put her book bag on the ground was told by Respondent to pick it up and keep walking. At the end of the 32-minute period, Respondent escorted the class back to the vicinity of Ms. Fuentes-Garcia's classroom and had the students walk in an orderly fashion to the playground, where they played games until approximately 2:54 p.m. There was a water fountain on playground, but it was not functioning on April 15, 2010. Water was available in a building adjacent to the playground. The students were not permitted to drink water between 2:00 p.m. and 2:54 p.m. At approximately 2:54 p.m. the students left the playground and entered the adjacent building to drink water. A video of the students walking the white lines of the basketball court was captured by the school's security cameras. In one portion of the video, a child can be seen dragging a backpack on the ground. It cannot be determined from the video whether the backpack had wheels. In another portion of the video, Respondent can be seen monitoring the students while standing in the shade of a tree. On April 16, 2010, Ms. Hernandez, the school principal, received complaints from four or five parents of students in the class. M.V., the mother of one of the students in the class, confronted Respondent about the incident on April 16, 2010. This parent testified, credibly, that Respondent told her that she had the class walk the white lines of the basketball court to calm them down and as punishment for being hyper. Following the complaints, the matter was referred to Petitioner's Civil Investigation Unit (CIU) where it was assigned to CIU investigator Terri Chester. Ms. Chester prepared a report after she concluded her investigation. Ms. Duboulay reviewed the report with Respondent in a Conference for the Record on June 8, 2010, and provided Respondent an opportunity to respond to Ms. Chester's report.2 Thereafter a Disciplinary Review Team convened and reviewed the case and concluded that probable cause existed that Respondent had committed the violations subsequently alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges dated September 23, 2010. The Disciplinary Review Team recommended that Respondent be suspended without pay for 30 days based on the totality of the circumstances of the case and the exposure of the students to harm. The manner in which Respondent disciplined her class on April 15, 2010, did not reflect credit on herself or on Petitioner. The manner in which Respondent disciplined her class on April 15, 2010, was inconsistent with her duty to "make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's physical health and/or safety."3 There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent "intentionally expose[d] a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement." Petitioner followed all relevant procedures in prosecuting this disciplinary proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order sustain the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay for a period of 30 workdays. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Children and Families (Department), should grant the application filed by Cynthia McGuire-Moore to obtain a license to operate a child care facility through an entity known as Funhouse Learning Academy, LLC (Funhouse), contrary to the Department’s Notice of Intent to Deny Application, dated March 17, 2020.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating licensed child care providers in the State of Florida. On March 13, 2020, Ms. McGuire-Moore submitted an “Application for a License to Operate a Child Care Facility” (Application) with the Department. The Application identified Funhouse as the name of the facility to appear on the license. In the Application, Ms. McGuire-Moore disclosed that she had previously owned, and served as director of, a licensed child care facility named “First Steps Learning Academy.” The Application does not reflect Ms. McGuire-Moore’s ownership of another licensed child care facility named “A Step Above Christian Academy.” However, the testimony and evidence presented established that Ms. McGuire-Moore previously owned another licensed child care facility named “A Step Above Christian Academy.” On March 17, 2020, the Department issued a “Notice of Intent to Deny Application,” which denied the Application, and stated: The denial is based on the following: As Owner/Director of A Step Above Christian Academy April 16, 2018 the license to operate A Step Above Christian Academy was revoked following the sixth Class II Violation for standard #3 Sufficient Ratio, in a two-year period. April 3, 2018 (Complaint Investigation) It was reported to the licensing office that Ms. McGuire- Moore had been providing childcare in her home but had asked parents to take their children back to the facility located at 1122 Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune Blvd this week as she would be on vacation. Upon responding to the facility address counselor did not find children in care. They were being cared for by an unscreened individual. Parents were contacted and children were sent home. December 22, 2017 A Cease and Desist letter was provided to Ms. McGuire-Moore while awaiting the final hearing as the facility was again found out of ratio for the sixth time on December 15, 2017 (Routine Inspection). The facility was [sic] also received a fine levied in the amount of $100.00. September 21, 2017 (Routine Inspection) They [sic] facility was found out of ratio for the fifth time and the revocation proceedings were initiated. July 21, 2016 (Complaint Investigation) The facility was found out of ratio for the fourth time and placed on a six-month probationary license and was fined $150.00 (two days out of ratio at $75.00 per day). June 16, 2016 (Complaint Investigation) The facility was found out of ratio for the third time and fined $60.00. Technical Assistance was provided. March 30, 2016 (Routine Inspection) The facility was found out of ratio for the second time and fined $50.00. Technical assistance was provided. December 17, 2015 (Routine Inspection) The facility was found out of ratio for the first time and counselor provided technical assistance. Due to the circumstances noted above we are unable to approve your application to obtain a Child Care Facility license. In Department of Children and Families v. A Step Above Christian Academy, LLC, d/b/a A Step Above Christian Academy, LLC, Case No. 17- 6871 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 21, 2018; Fla. DCF Apr. 16, 2018), ALJ Lawrence P. Stevenson recommended, after conducting a final hearing, that the Department revoke the license for A Step Above Christian Academy, LLC, based on the incidents (i.e., numerous ratio violations) referred to in the Department’s “Notice of Intent to Deny Application” and paragraph 4 above.1 The Department approved ALJ Stevenson’s recommendation in its Final Order. Ms. McGuire-Moore testified that A Step Above Christian Academy had been open for approximately three years before the revocation. She provided child care for infants through kindergarten. Prior to owning and operating A Step Above Christian Academy, she provided home daycare for eight years, and was also the interim director of and VPK teacher at Friendship Academy; another child care facility. Ms. McGuire-Moore testified that she made a “mistake” when operating A Step Above Christian Academy, and took responsibility for the ratio violations detailed in DOAH Case No. 17-6871 and the Notice of Intent to Deny Application. In the approximately two-and-a-half years since the revocation of the license of A Step Above Christian Academy, LLC, Ms. McGuire-Moore has worked for the Daytona Beach News Journal, delivering newspapers. Ms. McGuire-Moore testified that if granted another license, she would maintain the required ratio of children to staff by “do[ing] a better screening of my teachers that I hire ... Also, if teachers can’t be on time, then, I would just have to let them go and hire someone that can be on time.” Ms. Overly was the Department counselor assigned to investigate A Step Above Christian Academy from 2016-2017, and, in her current position as supervisor, reviewed the Application. Ms. Overly confirmed that the basis for the Notice of Intent to Deny Application was the numerous ratio violations involving A Step Above Christian Academy that led to its revocation. She also stated that, when assigned to investigate A Step Above Christian Academy, she found 52 total 1 A ratio violation occurs when the prescribed ratio of staff to children has not been met. Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.001(4). violations—21 of which were Class II violations that included the ratio violations.2 Ms. Overly testified about various violations—other than ratio violations—that she found when investigating A Step Above Christian Academy, which included: Employing individuals who had not completed required background screening; Failing to maintain a clean environment, noting that during the final inspection before revocation, she discovered that five of the six toilets at A Step Above Christian Academy were backed up and not functioning, that a sink was backed up and had mold, that the ceiling was in disrepair, and that a fence in the back of the yard was “down” several months after a previous inspection; and Receiving a complaint from a parent with a child attending A Step Above Christian Academy who was informed by Ms. McGuire-Moore that she was going on vacation, but that a person named Ms. Lex would fill in for her; when Ms. Overly investigated the day after receiving this complaint, she learned that Ms. Lex had not completed required background screening or the required training to care for children. Ms. Overly also testified that she reviewed the history of another child care facility Ms. McGuire-Moore previously owned—Moore’s Christian Academy—and found that between 2006 through 2008, the Department conducted eight inspections and found five ratio violations. Ms. Overly stated that Ms. McGuire-Moore’s history of owning and operating child care facilities indicates a long and consistent pattern of ratio violations. 2 A Class II violation “is an incident of noncompliance with an individual Class II standard as described on CF-FSP Form 5316.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010(1)(e)2. “For the fifth and subsequent violation of the same Class II standard, the Department shall suspend, deny, or revoke the license, and shall also impose an administrative fine of $100.00 per day for each such violation.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010(2)(d)2.d. The undersigned finds that the Department established that Ms. McGuire-Moore’s history of owning and operating child care facilities includes repeated ratio violations, which culminated in the revocation of the license for A Step Above Christian Academy, as indicated in the Notice of Intent to Deny Application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order denying the application for a child care facility license that Ms. McGuire-Moore submitted for Funhouse Learning Academy, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III 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 28th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Jane Almy-Loewinger, Esquire Department of Children and Families Suite 412 210 North Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 (eServed) Lacey Kantor, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204Z 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Steven R. Robinson, President Steven R. Robinson, P.A. Suite 300 533 Seabreeze Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 (eServed) Javier Enriquez, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204F 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Chad Poppell, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
