04-004093PL Charlie Crist, As Commissioner Of Education vs. Nancy S. Lowery Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, March 18, 2005.

Summary: Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to supervise her class of exceptional education students while inappropriate sexual conduct occurred in her class. Therefore, she did not protect her students` mental health.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CHARLIE CRIST, AS COMMISSIONER )

OF EDUCATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 04 - 4093PL

)

NANCY S. LOWERY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORD ER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case

before Carolyn S. Holifield, Administrative Law Judge, Division

of Administrative Hearings, on January 19, 2005, by telephone

conference call between Tallahassee and Tampa, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Kelly B. Holbrook, Esquire

Broad and Cassell

100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500

Post Office Box 3310

Tampa, Florida 33601 - 3310

For Respondent: No appearance

STAT EMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Nancy S.

Lowery ("Respondent"), violated Subsections 231.2615(1)(c), (f),

and (i), Florida Statutes (2001), 1/ and Florida Administrative

Code Rule 6B - 1.006(3)(a) and (e), as alleged in t he

Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be

imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On September 27, 2002, Charlie Crist, then Commissioner of

Education, issued an Administrative Complaint against

Respondent. The material allegations in the Ad ministrative

Complaint were as follows:

On or about February 1, 2002, Respondent

failed to properly supervise students in her

class and as a result she failed to protect

the safety and well - being of the students.

On this date, Respondent showed a movie

un related to class activity. During the

showing of the film, two students engaged in

sexual conduct, which included oral sex.

By engaging in the alleged misconduct, the Administrative

Complaint charges Respondent with three statutory violations and

two rul e violations. Count One charges that Respondent is

guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude

in violation of Subsection 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes

(2001). 2/ Count Two states that Respondent, upon investigation,

has been found g uilty of conduct which seriously reduces her

effectiveness as an employee of the Orange County School Board

in violation of Subsection 231.2615(1)(f), Florida Statutes.

Count Three states that Respondent violated the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida in

violation of Subsection 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Count

Four alleges that by engaging in the alleged conduct, Respondent

failed to make a reasonable effort to protect the student from

conditions harmful to l earning and/or to the student's mental

health and/or physical safety as required in Florida

Administrative Code Rule 6B - 1.006(3)(a). Finally, Count Five

charges that by engaging in the alleged misconduct, Respondent

intentionally exposed a student to unne cessary embarrassment or

disparagement in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule

6B - 1.006(3)(e).

On November 18, 2002, Respondent, through counsel, timely

filed an Election of Rights form and requested the "Settlement

Option." Pursuant to the terms of that option, Respondent

requested 45 days to try to negotiate a settlement; and if an

agreement was not reached within the designated time period, the

matter would go to final hearing. On March 6, 2004, the

Department of Education notified the Educati on Practices

Commission that settlement negotiations had failed.

Subsequently, on or about November 12, 2004, John Winn, the

Commissioner of Education, forwarded the matter to the Division

of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an Administrative

Law Judge to conduct the final hearing and prepare a recommended

order. Pursuant to notice issued November 29, 2004, the final

hearing was scheduled for January 19, 2005.

On December 3, 2004, counsel for Respondent filed a motion

to withdraw, which represent ed that said counsel had been unable

to contact Respondent. The motion to withdraw was granted on

December 29, 2004.

On January 4, 2005, Petitioner filed a Motion to Compel

Responses to Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories and

Petitioner's Request fo r Production and a motion for discovery

sanctions, which sought to have its request for admissions that

were served on December 3, 2004, deemed admitted. On January 5,

2005, Petitioner filed an emergency motion to compel the

deposition of Respondent, whic h represented that Respondent

failed to appear at her deposition that was scheduled for

December 20, 2004.

Prior to the evidentiary part of the hearing, Petitioner's

counsel argued the above - referenced motions. Upon consideration

of the motions, represent ations and argument of counsel, and the

entire record in the case, the undersigned granted the motion

for discovery sanctions, as related to the request for

admissions. In accordance with that Order, the statements in

the request for admissions were deeme d admitted. Based on the

foregoing ruling, Petitioner's counsel noted that she could

forego discovery and that the issues in the motion to compel

relating to Respondent's failure to respond to interrogatories

and request for production of documents were m oot. Therefore,

the undersigned made no ruling on the motion to compel as it

related to those issues. Finally, no ruling was made on the

emergency motion to compel the deposition of Respondent after

counsel for Petitioner represented that, "at this point ," the

day of the final hearing, it was not likely that Respondent

could be compelled to appear for her deposition.

At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Bobby

Davis, a former student at Oakridge High School, and Alfred

Lopez, a senior manager and area administrator for the Orange

County School District. Petitioner also presented the

deposition testimony of Kari Sperre, the chairman of the

Exceptional Education Department at Oakridge High School in the

2001 - 2002 school year. Petitioner's Exhib its 1 though 6 were

also offered and received into evidence. Ms. Sperre's

deposition was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 7.

Respondent did not appear at hearing, and no evidence was

presented on her behalf.

A Transcript of the proceeding w as filed on February 2,

2005. Petitioner timely filed its Proposed Recommended Order.

Respondent did not file a proposed recommended order or any

other post - hearing submittal. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended

Order has been considered in preparation of this Recommended

Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent

held a Florida Educator's Certificate No. 365470, issued by the

Department of Education. The certificate covered the area of

family and consumer science an d was valid through June 30, 2002.

2. During the 2001 - 2002 school year, Respondent was a

teacher at Oakridge High School ("Oakridge"), a school in the

Orange County School District ("School District"), and taught

exceptional education students.

3. On Feb ruary 1, 2002, while employed as a teacher at

Oakridge, Respondent showed the movie, "Jaws III," in her

classroom to the students in her fourth - period class. That day

there were about ten students in Respondent's fourth - period

class.

4. Prior to or soon after starting the movie, Respondent

turned off the lights in the classroom, and the lights remained

off while the movie was playing.

5. While the movie was playing, the students in

Respondent's class sat at their desks. However, at some point

during the movie, D.C., a female student in the class, asked

J.G., another student, if she (J.G.) gave "head." In response,

J.G. answered in the affirmative. After J.G. responded, D.C.

and G.J., a male student in the class, then coaxed J.G. to

perform oral sex on G.J. Then, G.J. unzipped his pants and told

J.G. to put her head "down there," and she did so. At or near

the same time, G.J. put his hand in J.G.'s pants. For most of

the class period, J.G.'s head was in G.J.'s lap.

6. While J.G. was performing oral s ex on G.J., some of the

students in the class positioned their desks so that Respondent

could not see what J.G. and G.J. were doing.

7. At all times relevant to this proceeding, B.D. was

about 16 - years - old and a student at Oakridge. B.D. was in

Responden t's fourth - period class on February 1, 2002, and

observed the events and incident described in paragraphs four

through six.

8. Petitioner was in the classroom during the entire

fourth period while "Jaws III" was playing. However, once the

movie began pl aying, Petitioner was at the computer in the

classroom "working on" or "typing" something.

9. Petitioner was working at the computer most of the

class period and did not see J.G. and G.J. engaging in the

inappropriate sexual conduct described in paragra ph five.

10. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Kari Sperre

was the chairman of the Exceptional Education Department at

Oakridge, the department in which Respondent worked.

11. On the morning of February 1, 2002, Ms. Sperre took

her class on a field trip. Ms. Sperre and her class returned to

the school during the fourth period. As Ms. Sperre walked by

Respondent's classroom, she noticed that the lights in that

classroom were out.

12. Later that day, it was reported to Ms. Sperre that

J.G. had told another student, L.C., that she (J.G.) had

performed oral sex on G.J.

13. Upon hearing this report, Ms. Sperre investigated the

matter. Ms. Sperre first talked to L.C., a female student in

the ninth grade at Oakridge. L.C., who was not in Respondent's

f ourth - period class, reported to Ms. Sperre that J.G. told her

(L.C.) that she (J.G.) had performed oral sex on G.J.

14. After she spoke with L.C., Ms. Sperre then talked

to J.G. Although initially reluctant to talk to Ms. Sperre,

J.G. eventually told Ms. Sperre what had happened that day in

Respondent's class. J.G. told Ms. Sperre that she had only

recently transferred to Oakridge, that she was in Petitioner's

fourth - period class, and that the lights in the class were out

during class that day. J.G. also reported to Ms. Sperre that

two students in the class, D.C., a female student, and G.J., a

male student, encouraged her to perform oral sex on G.J.

According to J.G., D.C. and/or G.J. told her that all she had to

do was put her head underneath G.J.'s jac ket and nobody would

know what was going on. J.G. also told Ms. Sperre that G.J.'s

pants were open and admitted that, "I just bent down and did

it."

15. J.G. told Ms. Sperre that this incident occurred while

the class was watching the movie and while Resp ondent was

working on the computer.

16. At all times relevant to this proceeding, J.G. was

classified as an exceptional education student, having been

classified as educable mentally handicapped. A student

classified as educable mentally handicapped has a n IQ of

below 70, well below the average IQ of 100.

17. After the February 1, 2002, incident that occurred in

Respondent's class, J.G. was suspended from school for engaging

in inappropriate conduct at school. Also, since the incident,

J.G. withdrew from school and is no longer enrolled in the

School District.

18. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated several

policies of the School District. First, the School District

requires that teachers supervise their students at all times

when they are in the cl assroom. In order to do this, the

teacher should have the students within sight. This is

especially important with regard to exceptional education

students, who have special and unique challenges.

19. Respondent did not supervise her fourth - period class

on February 1, 2002, although she was in the classroom. Instead

of supervising her class, Respondent was working at the computer

most of the class period and was unaware of what the students

were doing. Clearly, Respondent was not supervising her

student s, as evidenced by her failure to ever notice or observe

the sexually inappropriate conduct by students in her class.

20. By failing to properly supervise her class on

February 1, 2002, Respondent failed to protect her students from

conditions harmful to t heir learning and/or physical health

and/or safety.

21. The incident that occurred on February 1, 2002, in

Respondent's class could have a negative impact on both the

students who observed the incident, as well as the student who

was encouraged to perform oral sex on the male student. The

educable mentally handicapped student who was coaxed into

performing the act could be the victim of teasing as a result of

her involvement in the incident. According to Ms. Sperre, those

students who witnessed the incide nt could also be negatively

impacted by being exposed to and observing the incident. For

example, many of the students in the exceptional education class

could also be encouraged to engage in the same type of activity

that they witnessed in Respondent's f ourth - period class on

February 1, 2002.

22. The School District has a policy that prohibits

teachers from turning out all the lights in their classrooms

during class time. This policy is for safety reasons and

requires that even if there is a need to turn off the classroom

lights, at least one "bank" of lights must remain on at all

times.

23. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated the policy

discussed in paragraph 22, by turning off all the lights at or

near the beginning of the fourth period, and they r emained off

while the students were watching the movie. This violation

contributed to Respondent's failure to supervise the students

because with all the lights out, even though she was in the

classroom, Respondent was unaware and unable to see what the

s tudents, including J.G. and G.J., were doing.

24. During the 2001 - 2002 school year, Oakridge had a

policy that allowed teachers to show only movies that were

educational or had some relevance to the lesson being taught in

the class.

25. At the beginning o f every school year, including the

2001 - 2002 school year, teachers at Oakridge are given faculty

handbooks, which include various policies and procedures that

they are required to read. In addition to these written

policies and procedures, Oakridge admini strators would "discuss"

various "oral procedures" with teachers at facility meetings.

It is unclear if the policies or procedures regarding the kinds

of movies that could be shown at Oakridge and the prohibition

against having all the lights off in class rooms at Oakridge were

written or oral policies and/or procedures.

26. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated the policy

related to the kind of movies that are allowed to be shown in

the classroom by showing the movie, "Jaws III." "Jaws III" is

not an e ducational movie, nor was it relevant to any lesson

being taught by Respondent at or near the time it was being

shown to the students.

27. The School District investigated the February 1, 2002,

incident, and thereafter, the committee reviewed the incident

and voted unanimously to recommend that Respondent be terminated

as a teacher in the School District. Despite the unanimous

recommendation of termination, because Respondent's teaching

contract for re - appointment was to be considered soon, instead

of term inating Respondent, the School District decided that it

would simply not recommend her for re - appointment for the 2002 -

2003 school year.

28. On February 20, 2002, after the February 1, 2002,

incident was investigated, Oakridge's principal, J. Richard

Damro n, issued to Respondent a letter of reprimand and a letter

of directives regarding the incident that occurred in

Respondent's classroom on February 1, 2002. The letter of

reprimand specifically referenced the February 1, 2002, incident

and stated that Res pondent had "failed to use reasonable care in

supervising" the students in her class. Next, the letter of

reprimand stated that a directive would be issued in a separate

correspondence that outlines the School District's expectations

regarding Respondent' s conduct in the future. Finally, the

letter of reprimand noted that "should there be another incident

of a similar nature in the future[,] discipline, up to and

including dismissal could be recommended."

29. On February 20, 2002, Principal Damron issued written

directives to Respondent which required her to do the following:

(1) establish a safe, caring, and nurturing environment

conducive to learning and the physical and psychological well -

being of students; (2) refrain from showing films that are not

d irectly associated with lessons that contribute to the

education of children; (3) keep children under her

[Petitioner's] direct supervision at all times and not leave

students alone, with other teachers, or be absent from her

duties unless she makes prior arrangements with the principal or

one of the assistant principals; and (4) comply with all

district and school directives, policies, rules, and procedures.

30. Respondent's job performance as a teacher at Oakridge

for the 2001 - 2002 school year was evalua ted in March 2002. The

results of the evaluation are reported on the School District's

form entitled, Instructional Personnel Final Assessment Report

("Assessment Report"). The Assessment Report dated March 25,

2002, noted two areas in which Respondent " Needs Improvement":

(1) Professional Responsibilities; and (2) Classroom Management

and Discipline. Respondent was rated as "Effective" in four

areas: (1) Curriculum Knowledge; (2) Planning and Delivering

Instruction; (3) Assessment of Student Performan ce;

(4) Development and Interpersonal Skills.

31. On March 25, 2002, the same day the Assessment Report

was completed, Principal Damron notified Respondent that he was

not recommending her for re - appointment for the 2002 - 2003 school

year. According to the letter, Principal Damron decided to not

recommend Respondent for re - appointment "based upon performance -

related reasons and the temporary contract" that she held at

that time.

32. Alfred Lopez, a senior manager with the Orange County

School District, test ified that by failing to supervise the

students in her fourth - period class on February 1, 2002,

Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the School District

had "definitely" been reduced.

33. Ms. Sperre testified that she would not ever want

Respondent e mployed in a school in Orange County in which she

(Ms. Sperre) was employed.

34. Notwithstanding the beliefs of Mr. Lopez and

Ms. Sperre, based on the letter of reprimand and the letter of

directives issued on February 20, 2002, it appears that

Respondent continued to teach at Oakridge after the

February 2002 incident through the end of the school year.

Furthermore, no evidence was presented which established that

after the incident, Respondent was reassigned, relieved of, or

otherwise removed from her pos ition as an exceptional education

teacher at Oakridge after the incident.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

35. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in this case

pursuant to Section 120.569 and Subsection 120.57(l), Florida

Statutes (2004).

36. Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against

Respondent's teaching certificate and other administrative

actions, including the imposition of fines. Because these

actions are penal in nature, Petitioner bears the burde n to

prove the allegations in the Administrative Complaint by clear

and convincing evidence. Department of Banking and Finance v.

Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v.

Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

37. The Administrative Com plaint alleges that Respondent

committed acts prohibited by Subsections 231.2615(1)(c), (f),

and (i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule

6B - 1.006(3)(a) and (e).

38. For violations of Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes,

the Education Pra ctices Commission is authorized to: (1) revoke

or suspend the teaching certificate; (2) impose an

administrative fine, not to exceed $2,000 for each violation or

count; (3) place the teacher on probation; (4) restrict the

authorized scope of the teacher's practice; and/or (5) reprimand

the teacher in writing, with a copy to be placed in the

certification file of such person. § 231.262(7)(b) - (f), Fla.

Stat. (2001). 3/

39. Subsection 231.262(7)(g), Florida Statutes, authorizes

the Education Practices Commi ssion to impose administrative

sanctions upon a person whose teaching certificate has expired

for acts committed while that person possessed a teaching

certificate.

40. According to Subsection 231.2615(1), Florida Statutes,

the Education Practices Commis sion may impose disciplinary

actions on a certificate holder or any other person within the

Commission's jurisdiction, if such person

(c) Has been found guilty of gross

immorality or an act involving moral

turpitude;

* * *

(f) Upon investigation, h as been found

guilty of conduct which seriously reduces

that person's effectiveness as an employee

of the district school board;

* * *

(i) Has violated the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession prescribed by the State Board o f

Education rules.

41. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B - 1.006 reads in

pertinent part:

Principles of Professional Conduct for the

Education Profession in Florida.

(1) The following disciplinary rule shall

constitute the Principles of Professional

Co nduct for the Education Profession in

Florida.

(2) Violation of any of these principles

shall subject the individual to revocation

or suspension of the individual educator's

certificate, or the other penalties as

provided by law.

(3) Obligation to the student requires

that the individual:

(a) Shall make reasonable effort to

protect the student from conditions harmful

to learning and/or to the student's mental

and/or physical health and/or safety.

* * *

(e) Shall not intentionally ex pose a

student to unnecessary embarrassment or

disparagement.

42. Count One of the Administrative Complaint alleges

misconduct in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(c), Florida

Statutes, in that Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality

or an act invo lving moral turpitude. Petitioner has failed to

prove this allegation.

43. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B - 4.009 is

instructive in defining the terms "immorality" and "moral

turpitude." That Rule provides, in pertinent part, the

following:

(2) Imm orality is defined as conduct that

is inconsistent with the standards of public

conscience and good morals. It is conduct

sufficiently notorious to bring the

individual concerned or the education

profession into public disgrace or

disrespect and impair th e individual’s

service in the community.

* * *

(6) Moral turpitude is a crime that is

evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness or

depravity in the private and social duties

which, according to the accepted standards

of the time a man owes to his or h er fellow

man or to society in general, and the doing

of the act itself and not its prohibition by

statutes fixes the moral turpitude.

Respondent's conduct, failing to supervise her class and other

policy infractions, does not constitute gross immorality or acts

involving moral turpitude.

44. Count Two of the Administrative Complaint alleges

misconduct in violation of Subsection 231.2615(1)(f), Florida

Statutes, in that Respondent, upon investigation, has been found

guilty of personal conduct which serious ly reduces her

effectiveness as an employee of the School District. Petitioner

failed to prove this allegation.

45. Petitioner presented no evidence that Respondent's

"personal conduct," failing to supervise students and comply

with other school policies and procedures, seriously reduced her

effectiveness as an employee in the School District. To the

contrary, the evidence established that after the incident,

which is the subject of this proceeding, Respondent continued to

teach at Oakridge after the Febr uary 1, 2002, incident, and

until the end of the 2001 - 2002 school year. In view of the fact

that Respondent taught at Oakridge without any noted problems,

Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent's conduct

surrounding the February 1, 2002, incident constituted personal

conduct which seriously reduced her effectiveness as a teacher.

46. Count Three of the Administrative Complaint alleges

that Respondent has engaged in misconduct by violating

Subsection 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes, in that she

v iolated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the

Education Profession in Florida prescribed by the State Board of

Education. The specific provisions within the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida are

addressed in Count Four and Count Five of the Administrative

Complaint.

47. Count Four of the Administrative Complaint alleges

misconduct in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule

6B - 1.006(3)(a) in that Respondent failed to make reasonable

effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning

and/or to the student’s mental health and/or physical safety.

Petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that

Respondent is guilty of the conduct proscribed in Florida

Administrative Code Rule 6B - 1.006(3)(a).

48. The undisputed evidence established that Respondent

failed to supervise the exceptional education students in her

class; that during that class period, she turned off all the

lights in the class and showed a movie that was not education al

or related to any instruction. There is no evidence that

Respondent condoned the conduct that occurred in her class or

would have allowed it had she been aware of it. Nonetheless, as

a result of Respondent's failure to supervise the students in

her cl ass, a mentally handicapped student was coaxed to and did,

in fact, perform oral sex on another student. Because

Respondent did not supervise her students, she failed to make

reasonable efforts to protect J.G. from conditions harmful to

the student's ment al health.

49. Count Five of the Administrative Complaint alleges

misconduct in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule

6B - 1.006(3)(e) in that Respondent intentionally exposed a

student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.

Petitioner faile d to prove this allegation. A violation of this

provision requires that the person covered by the Rule have

either the specific intent to embarrass or a general intent to

act in a way which one could expect to result in embarrassment

or disparagement. Se e School Board of Pinellas County v. Ray ,

Case No. 94 - 1631 (DOAH June 13, 1994). Petitioner failed to

prove that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule

6A - 1.006(3)(e).

50. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent

intentionally exposed J.G. to unnecessary embarrassment or

disparagement. The fact that Respondent failed to supervise her

students and turned off the lights in the classroom while

showing a movie, does not establish that Respondent had either

the specific or general intent n ecessary to prove a violation of

Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A - 1.006(3)(e).

51. Petitioner recommended that the Education Practices

Commission impose the following penalties: (1) suspend

Respondent's teaching certificate for one year; (2) upon

empl oyment in a public or private position requiring a teaching

certificate, place Respondent on probation, with restrictions,

for two years; (3) require Respondent to take a three - credit

college course in classroom management within the first year of

probatio n; and (4) issue a letter of reprimand.

52. Pursuant to Section 231.262, Florida Statutes, the

one - year suspension of Respondent's teaching certificate is not

authorized by law. It is undisputed that Respondent had a

teaching certificate in February 2002 , when the misconduct took

place and that the certificate was effective only through

June 2002. Given that Respondent does not presently have a

teaching certificate, there is no certificate to suspend.

53. Even though Respondent's license has expired, the

Education Practices Commission is authorized to impose

administrative sanctions against her for acts committed while

she possessed a teaching certificate. Petitioner's recommended

penalties: a two - year probationary period, upon employment in a

positi on requiring a teaching certificate; a requirement to take

a classroom management course; and a letter of reprimand are

administrative sanctions permitted by Subsection 231.262(7)(g),

Florida Statutes.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a

final order finding that Respondent violated Subsection

231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative

Code Rule 6A - 1.006(3)(a), but did not viola te Subsections

231.2615(1)(a) and (f), Florida Statutes, and Florida

Administrative Code Rule 6A - 1.006(3)(e). It is further

RECOMMENDED that the final order impose the following

administrative sanctions on Respondent:

1. Upon employment in any public or private position

requiring an educator's certificate, Respondent shall be placed

on two years' probation with the conditions that during this

period, she shall:

a. Notify the Education Practices Commission,

upon employment and immediately upon termination of

employment in any public or private position requiring

a Florida educator's certificate;

b. Have her immediate supervisor submit annual

performance reports to the Education Practices

Commission;

c. Violate no law and fully comply with all

School Dist rict regulations, school rules, and the

State Board of Education;

d. Satisfactorily perform assigned duties in a

competent, professional manner; and

e. Bear all costs of complying with the terms of

this probation.

2. Enroll in and successfully complete a three - hour

college course in classroom management within the first year of

probation and submit to the Bureau of Education Standards an

official college transcript verifying successful completion of

the course with a grade of "B" or higher. This course must be

taken in person, and a correspondence or on - line course will not

satisfy this requirement.

3. Issue a letter of reprimand, with a copy to be placed

in Respondent's certification file.

DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2005, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax F iling (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 18th day of March, 2005.

ENDNOTES

1/ Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes, is now Subsection

1012.795(1), Florida Statutes (2004).

2/ Unless otherwise indicated, all citations are to Florida

Statutes (2001).

3/ Section 231.262, Florida Statutes, is now Subsection

1012.796, Florida Statutes (2004).

COPIES FURNISHED :

Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director

Education Practices Commission

De partment of Education

325 West Gaines Street, Room 224

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist

Bureau of Educator Standards

Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224 - E

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Kelly B. Holbrook, Esquire

Broad and Cassel

100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500

Post Office Box 3310

Tampa, Florida 33601 - 3310

Nancy Lowery

6033 Oak Bend Street

Apartment 11203

Orlando, Florida 32835

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the r ight to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the final order in this case.