21-000706PL Richard Corcoran, As Commissioner Of Education vs. Jo Carty Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, September 30, 2021.

Summary: R made no reasonable effort to protect students from harmful conditions during active assailant drill. She closed herself in a closet with a few students, leaving most students in classroom unsupervised, scaring and confusing some.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

R ICHARD C ORCORAN , A S C OMMISSIONER

OF E DUCATION ,

Petitioner ,

Case No. 21 - 0706PL

vs.

J O C ARTY ,

Respondent .

/

R ECOMM ENDED O RDER

On June 11, 2021, a disputed - fact evidentiary hearing was held by Zoom

conference before Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth W. McArthur of the

Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH).

A PPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Ron Weaver, Esquire

Post Office Box 770088

Ocala, Florida 34477 - 0088

For Respondent: Peter Caldwell, Esquire

Florida Education Association

Legal Department

1516 East Hillcrest Street, Suite 109

Orlando, Florida 32803

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE S

The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated section

1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2018), and Florida Administrative Code

Rule 6A - 10.081(2)(a)1., as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint;

and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.

P RELIMINARY S TATEM ENT

On October 14, 2020, Richard Corcoran, as Commissioner of Education

(Petitioner), issued an Administrative Complaint against Jo Carty

(Respondent). The Administrative Complaint alleged facts from the 2018 -

2019 school year, which served as the predicat e for charg ing a violation of

section 1012.795(1)(j) and rule 6A - 10.081(2)(a)1.

Respondent timely filed an Election of Rights by which she requested a

disputed - fact administrative hearing to contest the alleged facts and charges.

The case was referred t o DOAH on February 19, 2021, for the assignment of

an administrative law judge to conduct the requested hearing.

Based on input from the parties, the hearing was scheduled for May 6,

2021, by Zoom conference. On April 19, 2021, Respondent filed an Unoppo sed

Motion to Continue Final Hearing, which was granted, and the Zoom hearing

was rescheduled for June 11, 2021.

On May 26, 2021, non - party , Orange County School Board (OCSB) , filed a

Motion to Seal Documents Requested by Respondent Pursuant to Subpoena

Duces Tecum. A Protective Order was issued on May 27, 2021, protecting

certain subpoenaed documents from public disclosure and outlining the steps

to be taken by the parties before, during, and after the hearing to maintain

the confidentiality of those doc uments.

Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion to Amend Administrative

Complaint on May 27, 2021, to which the proposed Amended Administrative

Complaint was attached. The motion was granted.

On May 28, 2021, Petitioner filed a Motion in Limine to Exclud e

Character Evidence and Evidence Beyond the Amended Administrative

Complaint. Respondent filed a response in opposition on June 4, 2021. The

motion was denied, without prejudice to Petitioner asserting objections at the

hearing to specific testimony and d ocumentary evidence.

Prior to the hearing, the parties filed a Joint Pre - hearing Stipulation in

which they stipulated to several facts. The stipulated facts are incorporated

in the Findings of Fact below, to the extent relevant.

On the morning of the hearing, Petitioner filed a Motion to Deem Facts

Admitted, based on excerpts of Respondent's deposition testimony. The

motion was denied, but Petitioner was permitted to offer into evidence the

deposition excerpts and Respondent was permitted to offer any additional

portions of the deposition needed for context. The parties agreed that the

entire deposition should be admitted , and that it would be designated

Petitioner's Exhibit 20. Petitioner agreed to file the complete deposition

transcript a fter the hear ing.

At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Kimberly Beckler ;

students M.P., N.S., C.S., C.K., and K.S.; and student N.S.'s parent, J.S.

Petitioner ' s Exhibits 2, 5 through 12, 16, 17 A through 17D , and 20 were

admitted into evidence. 1

1 Petitioner's proposed exhibits 2 and 7 through 12, as well as Respondent's proposed exhibits

5 and 6, contained unredacted student names (or, in one instance, unredacted names of a

student and the student's parent). These exhibits w ere conditionally admitted into evidence,

subject to being redacted to obliterate the students' and parent's names, leaving only initials.

The redacted versions of Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 7 through 12, and Respondent's Exhibits

5 and 6 were submitted b y both parties after the hearing, and they are included in the public

record portion of the evidentiary record. Their unredacted counterparts are in a sealed

envelope with a restrictive legend indicating the confidential nature of the contents.

Re spondent testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony of

Ja c queline Saccamano, Altamont Coley, and student B.M. Respondent's

Exhibits 1 through 5, 2 and 9 through 11 3 were admitted.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Respondent requested an exte nded 30 -

day period after the hearing transcript filing date to file proposed

recommended orders (PROs). Petitioner did not oppose the request, which

was granted. 4

The two - volume hearing Transcript was filed on July 16, 2021. Thereafter,

each party filed one unopposed motion for an additional brief extension to the

PRO filing deadline. Both motions were granted for good cause shown. The

parties timely filed their PROs by the extended filing deadline, and they have

been carefully considered in the preparati on of this Recommended Order.

Unless otherwise noted, citations to Florida Statutes and Florida

Administrative Code rules are to the 2018 codifications in effect at the time of

the conduct alleged to warrant discipline. See McCloskey v. Dep't of Fin.

Ser vs. , 115 So. 3d 441 , 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

2 Port ions of Respondent's proposed exhibit 3 were not admitted. After the hearing,

Respondent submitted a substitute Exhibit 3, pared down to contain only the admitted

portion. Respondent's Exhibit 5 was acknowledged to be hearsay that would not be

admissible in a c ivil action over objection, and therefore was admitted only for the limited

purpose authorized for hearsay evidence. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code

R. 28 - 106.213(3).

3 Respondent's Exhibits 10 and 11 are subject to the May 27, 2021, Protective Order, and are

contained in a separate sealed envelope with a restrictive legend on the outside and a copy of

the Protective Order on the inside. The terms of that Protective Order control and restrict

the use of these confidential documents and dictate how they are to be disposed of upon the

completion of this proceeding, including any appeal. Both parties are bound by the Protective

Order and have been directed to comply with its requirements.

4 By agreeing to an extended deadline for post - he aring submissions beyond ten days after the

filing of the transcript, the parties waived the 30 - day timeframe for issuance of the

Recommended Order. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28 - 106.216 .

F INDINGS OF F ACT

Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the documentary

evidence admitted at the hearing , and the parties' stipulations, the following

Findings of Fact are made:

1. Petitioner is the agency head of the Florida Department of Education.

Petitioner is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct against

individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable

cause, Petitioner is responsible for filing an administrative complaint, and

prosecuting the case in an administrative hearing pursuant to chapter 120,

Florida Statutes, if the educator disputes the allegations.

2. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 631669, covering the

areas of Education al Leadership and Mathematics, which is valid through

June 30, 2025.

3. Respondent has been a teacher for at least 25 y ears ; quite a few of

those years were in other states. She has not been previously disciplined by

the Education Practices Commission in conn ection with her Florida

certificate. No evidence was offered to show any prior discipline against

Respondent's educator license or certificate in another state. 5

4. At the time of the allegations in the Amended Administrative

Complaint, Respondent was employ ed by the OCSB as a mathematics

teacher at Howard Middle School, part of the Orange County Public Schools

(OCPS) system. Respondent began working at Howard Middle School on

August 6, 2018, for the pre - planning week for teachers prior to the arrival of

stud ents for the start of the school year.

5. Kimberly Beckler was the new principal for Howard Middle School

that year , although she had been employed by the OCSB since 2004, most

recently as a senior administrator in the District's office . She started work as

5 R espondent was disciplined by th e OCSB for the incident at issue in t his proceeding,

receiving a written reprimand. It appears that this is the only disciplinary blemish on an

otherwise clean record during her 25 - year teaching career; no evidence was offered to prove

any other discipline imposed against Respondent.

p rincipal at Howard Middle School shortly before the teachers' pre - planning

week.

6. The Amended Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding is

predicated on the following allegations of fact:

On or about September 6, 2018, during an active

assailant drill at Howard Middle School,

Respondent directed several of her students to

go into her classroom closet. Respondent went

into the closet with the students, turned the

closet light off, and closed the closet door.

Respondent's remaining students were le ft

inside the classroom for a period of time without

direct adult supervision. Some of the students

who remained in the classroom were confused

by what Respondent did, and at least one

student was "scared" because she did not know

what would happen if the drill were real and the

Respondent left her and the other students in

the classroom alone.

7. The parties stipulated that on September 6, 2018, the Howard Middle

School administration conducted an active assailant drill.

8. Before the drill, in August 2018, Re spondent and other teachers at

Howard Middle School were instructed to complete safety training regarding

how to proceed during a n active assailant drill. The training included two

online video modules and a six - question test. Teachers were reminded severa l

times in August that they were required to complete the training and certify

having done so before the end of August.

9. Respondent testified she did not remember th is training or watching

th e videos , but is sure that if she was required to view them, she w ould have

done so.

10. As a "reminder" of the instructions detailed in the training videos, a

written summary was provided to Howard Middle School teachers at some

point prior to the September 6, 2018, drill . Respondent acknowledged that

she received the sum mary written instructions prior to September 6, 2018,

when the first drill of the new school year was conducted. The same summary

information was provided on posters in each classroom.

11. The summary instructions included various steps for teachers to take

in their classroom s . The step at issue in this case requires teachers to mov e

all class room occupants out of the line (s) of sight through windows.

12. To comply with this "out of sight" instruction, teachers had to consider

the lines of sight through narrow windowpanes in the classroom doors. In

addition, for classrooms on the ground floor with exterior windows, lines of

sight from outside the building also had to be considered.

13. Respondent taught different math classes in six or seven class periods ,

but all of her classes were held in the same classroom , which was not on the

ground floor. According to Principal Beckler, Respondent's classroom was on

the second floor. Respondent could not remember whether her classroom was

on the second or third floor. A ll wit nesses agreed that for purposes of

conducting an active assailant drill, the line of sight through the exterior

windows did not have to be considered, because classroom occupants coul d

not be seen through the exterior windows by someone outside the buildin g.

For Respondent, then, the only line of sight she had to address was through

the narrow window panel in the classroom door.

14. Principal Beckler testified that instructions for a ctive assailant drills

were the subject of much discussion during the teac hers' pre - planning week

and at administrative meetings . Principal Beckler said that teachers were

instructed to identify the lines of sight applicable to their particular

classrooms and then identify areas in their classrooms where they could

safe ly move o ccupants out of the lines of sight.

15. It would have made sense, as part of general teacher training in

preparation for lockdown active assailant drills , to provide those instructions

to teachers . At the hearing, Respondent heard Principal Beckler's testimon y;

she did not deny being given this instruction, nor was she asked about it.

T he re was no clear proof that the verbal instructions described by Principal

Beckler were provided to or discussed with Respondent as part of a group of

teachers in August 2018 . Nonetheless, even without such instruction ,

identifying line s of sight through windows into one's own classroom , so as to

know where to move classroom occupants so they are out of view , would have

been a reasonable, prudent step to prepare to apply the wri tten instructions

that were admittedly provided to Respondent . Stated differently, it would be

unreasonable for a teacher , knowing that he or she would be expected to act

quickly in an active assailant drill to move students out of the line s of sight of

wi ndows , to not prepare for that drill by identifying the reaches of that line of

sight for their own classroom.

16. Respondent testified that the September 6, 2018, active assailant drill

was the first such drill ever conducted by OCPS. Her testimony was refu ted

by the more credible adamant testimony by Principal Beckler and by

Respondent's witness Altamont Coley, who was an administrative dean at

Howard Middle School in charge of the active assailant drill on September 6,

2018. 6 Several student witnesses also confirmed that they had participated in

the same type of lockdown active assailant drill previously , although their

other teachers conducted the drills differently, not in a way that left students

feeling unprotected .

17. Respondent's testimony reflected som e confusion on her part

regarding the various type of drills conducted by OCPS. For example, she

testified that she had participated in "lockdown" drills before at an OCPS

school, and that in at least some prior lockdown drills, the instructions were

6 Princi pal Beckler's clear, credible testimony was elicited in the following question and

answer sequence: Q: "And the September 6, 2018, drill was the first ever active assailant

drill in Orange County Public Schools, correct?" A: "That is absolutely false." Q: "Okay. But it

was Ms. Carty's first, correct?" A: "No, that is false. Ms. Carty was employed by OCPS the

year prior." (Tr. 150 - 151). Equally clear and credible was Altamont Coley's testimony given

in the following question and answer sequence: Q: "And was the September 6, 2018, drill the

first ever active assailant drill in Orange County Public Schools?" A. "Oh. No, sir. No, sir. I

have participated in drills before that. Even at previous schools. On my previous school

before coming to Howard." Q: "Were the y specifically active assailant drills? The ones that

you're Ï the previous ones?" A: "Yes, sir." (Tr. 208 - 209).

to lock the door and "hide" in the classroom. She also testified that in some

"lockdown" drills, she only had to lock the door, did not have to hide, and

could continue teaching. Based on the evidence, Respondent confused

different types of drills and the req uirements for each type of drill . 7

18. Contrary to Respondent's claim that the S eptember 6, 2018, drill was

a completely new procedure, the clear and credible evidence established that

the drill was a "lockdown" active assailant drill that was not new to OCPS ,

had been conducted in prior school years , and was not new to Respondent,

who had prior experience in "lockdown" drills in which she was required to

move the classroom occupants out of view through windows .

19. Howard Middle School t eachers were informed be fore the drill that a

drill was going to take place sometime on September 6, 2018, but they were

not told specifically when during the school day. That would simulate the

"surprise" element of an actual active assailant situation.

20. Respondent 's classroom w here she taught her math classes on

September 6, 2018, was large . It was one of the larger - sized classrooms at

Howard Middle School .

21. Without knowing the class period during which the drill would occur,

Respondent could not know exactly the number of clas sroom occupants she

would have to move out of view , but she would know the approximate

number. For example, the geometry class Respondent was teaching when the

drill was held was capped by state law at 25 students. However, only 23

students were enrolled i n that class. And at least one student was confirmed

to have been ab sent that day.

7 R espondent testified that "there's a difference between a lockdown and an assailant drill.

An assailant drill was, you know, first time for m e and I believe first time, you know, issued

in the school. So that's a completely different type of drill." (Tr. 225). Without delving into

confidential material, suffice it to say that the claim that a "lockdown" drill is different from

the active assail ant drill conducted on September 6, 2018, is contrary to the nomenclature

used by OCPS. See Respondent's Exhibits 10 (in effect since before September 6, 2018)

and 11 (similar to prior versions in effect since before September 6, 2018).

22. The only window through which someone could see into Respondent's

classroom was a very narrow vertical windowpane , set into part of the upper

half of the classroom door. The door itself was recessed from the classroom

wall, with a little entry alcove formed by side walls that appear to be t en to

twelve inches in width . 8 The narrow width of the window combined with the

recessed design of the doorway left only a very restric ted line of sight into the

classroom fr om the hallway.

23. Respondent's classroom was rectangular . The two long er walls were :

(1) t he exterior wall on the opposite side of the classroom from the door ; and

(2) the wall separating the classroom from the hallway (hallway wall) . The

long hallway wall was broken up by the recessed classroom door, with about

one - third of the hallway wall to the left of the door (f acing the door from

inside the class ) and about two - thirds of the hallway wall to the right of the

door. The two side walls appear to be somewhat shorter than the hallway and

exterior walls.

24. For someone in the hallway peering into the classroom through the

classroom door window, the exterior wall across the classroom w ould most

likely be completely visible ; the two side walls w ould be partially visible

(those parts closest to the exterior wall ), a nd both parts of the hallway wall ,

on either side of the recessed door, w ould be completely hidden from sight.

Although Respondent did not say that she ever tried to identify the reaches of

the lines of sight through her classroom door window, she testified that she

believed o ne wall w as completely out of the line of sight, and the two side

walls w ere partially hidden from view through the door window Ð the parts of

t he side walls close r to the exterior wall would be within the line of sight.

25. Respondent's classroom had an interior walk - in closet . The closet door

was off one of the side walls, c lose to the hallway wall. P rincipal Beckler

8 Petitioner's Exh ibit 17B (Bates - stamped 022) shows one side wall forming the classroom

door's entry alcove. A landscape - oriented (horizontal) chart is hanging on the alcove side

wall, close to the top. The chart appears to be on standard letter - sized paper, with the 11 -

an d - one - half inch side easily fitting across the side wall.

testified credibly that she exa mined the line of sight through Respondent's

classroom window door, and the closet door could not be seen from the

hallway. The classroom pictures in evidence provide visual corroboration.

26. A t the time of the drill, there were no more than 22 students in

Respondent 's class. Including Respondent, there wer e, at most , 23 occupant s .

27. When the announcement was made over the public address system for

the drill, Respondent said she instructed her students to hide along the

longer part of the hallway wall (to the right of the door, from inside the class ,

facing the door). She had the students sit down in a single row along that

wall from the classroom door alcove, under the smart board, to the far corner.

She then quickly proceeded to turn off the classroom lights and computer

monitors.

28. When Respondent finished these steps , she saw that approximately

five or six students had not yet found a place to hide. Respondent testified

that they were all standing directly in front of the classroom door window.

T hat w as the one spot in the classroom where the students could not be.

29. Respondent testified that she did not think it was possible to hide

another five or six (or seven, including herself) people along the hallway wall.

She said the rest of the students were sittin g on the floor up against the

hallway wall under the smart board , and that to add any more people would

have required that they sit on top of each other.

30. Respondent testified that she had never been unable to hide all of her

students in her classrooms be fore: "When we had lockdowns and things of

that nature, I never had that issue. So that, you know, it shocked me. That

was the ver y first time in my entire career that happened to me." (Tr. 248).

31. Respondent decided the remaining students should hide insi de the

large walk - in closet. She gave this step some thought . First, s he thought that ,

to comply with the drill instructions , she would have to turn off the closet

light. Then her thought process continued beyond the drill instructions,

imagining that some one in the hallway might be able to see the open closet

door, and even if the closet light was out, that person might suspect from the

open closet door that there were people in the closet. Therefore, Respondent

decided that she would have to not only turn off the closet light , but also close

the closet door completely. But this decision gave rise to another line of

thought. Respondent testified she became concerned that if she left students

alone in the dark in a closed closet , they could act inappropriate ly , such as by

touching each other inappropriately, because there were both males and

females. To address this concern, she join ed the five or six students in the

closet, turned off the light, and closed the door.

32. Respondent's concern for leaving five or six students in the closet

unsupervised apparently did not provoke a similar concern for the other 16 or

17 students left unsupervised in the classroom. However, as Principal

Beckler credibly stated, a teacher's number one responsibility is to supervise

h er students. That means having eyes on all students in the classroom at all

times, because things can otherwise get out of control very quickly.

33. Respondent acknowledged that as a classroom teacher , she was

responsible for supervising all her students . She understood "supervise" to

mean "observe and direct." Her duty to supervise the students in her

classroom did not stop during the lockdown active assailant drill.

34. If Respondent had focused her thoughts on finding p laces in her large

classroom for a ll students to hide out of sight, rather than on th e

unreasonable solution she seized on to separate the class by hiding a few

students Ð then join ing the m Ð in the closet , she would have easily found a

reasonable solution that did not require leaving most of her class

unsupervised. Respondent had several reasonable options to meet the

requirements of the drill while also continuing to supervis e all her students.

35. Respondent could have kept the closet door open or partially open so

that natural light would hav e kept the closet from being dark. The closet door

opened out into the classroom, with the door opening on the side a way from

the classroom door , towards the exterior windows . Accepting Principal

Beckler's testimony, borne out by the pictures, that the clo set door could not

be seen from the hallway through the narrow window in the recessed

classroom door , Respondent could have remained in the classroom while

being able to see the students in the closet and the students lined up along

the hallway wall under the smart board .

36. Rather than resorting to hiding students in the closet, though,

Respondent had several clear options within the classroom itself. T here was

ample room in the classroom for all 22 students and Respondent to have sat

on the floor out of vi ew of the classroom door window. T he line of sight

through the door window w ould have been a co ne - shaped area , narrow at the

window and widening out to the exterior wall. T hat left substantial portions

of the classroom's floor space hidden from view.

37. Inex plicably, Respondent apparently only considered having students

sit on the floor in a single row , with their backs against the hallway wall

under the smart board to the corner, with possibly a few students sitting in

the space around the corner against par t of the side wall. These 16 or 17

students apparently sat shoulder - to - shoulder against those walls. It would

have been very easy for the remaining five or six students, plus Respondent,

to sit on the floor in a second row facing the row of students sittin g against

the wall. It is clear from the pictures in evidence that there was ample floor

space to allow students to sit two - deep along the smart - board wall and, if

necessary, around the corner along the side wall.

38. The re was more space still in the area a long the hallway wall on the

other side of the classroom door , and around the c orner to the partial side

wall where the closet door is located. Respondent could have directed the five

or six students standing in front of the classroom door to sit on the fl oor along

the hallway wall to the left of the door, and around the corner to the closet

door.

39. Respondent could have had all the students sit on the floor in a

triangular area (fitting for a geometry class), with two sides formed by the

smart - board hallway w all where she said most of them were sitting and the

part of the side wall furthest from the classroom door, filling in the floor

space outward from both of those walls.

40. Any number of different configurations were not only possible, but

were obvious an d clearly reasonable. There was more than enough floor space

in Respondent's large classroom for 23 occupants (including Respondent) to

hide out of the limited line of sight through that very narrow windowpane in

the recessed classroom door.

41. Respondent's claim that she could not hide a maximum of 23

occupants out of the limited sight line through the door window somewhere

in her large classroom is simply not credible. Respondent's claim is

contradicted by the visual evidence. It is also contradicted by the credible

testimony of Principal Beckler, who said that although Respondent's

classroom was one of the larger classrooms, no other teacher has had to hide

students in classroom closets; no other teacher has ever had a problem

mov ing all classroom occupants to places within the classroom itself that

were not within the lines of sight of windows. Finally, Respondent's claim is

contradicted by Respondent's own testimony. When she was asked in her

deposition how many students were in her class during the drill, she gave

this candid response: "It had to have been a large class for us not to fit in the

two sides of the classroom. Maybe 28 to 30. I'm not certain. But they should

have that record at the school, I would think." (Pet. Ex. 20 at 34). As it turns

out, t hough, there were no more than 22 students in the class. Respondent's

testimony stands as an admission that she could have (and therefore should

have) fit the smaller number of students out of window view in her classroom.

42. The drill lasted for approxim ately five minutes Ð including several

minutes after Respondent secreted herself away with five or six students in

the closet. Respondent could not see the 16 or 17 students in the classroom

for at least several minutes. In fact, Respondent acknowledged that she could

not even see the five or six students in the closet with her, because they were

not near her and it was completely dark. Respondent claimed that she would

be able to hear any noise made by the 16 or 17 students in the classroom but

admitted that she heard nothing. C.K. , one of the students who went into the

closet with Respondent because she thought it was safer than staying out in

the classroom, testified that they could not hear what students outside in the

classroom were saying through the clo sed closet door. C.K.' s testimony was

more credible than Respondent's contrary testimony. Respondent did not

offer any basis for her belief that she could hear through the closed closet

door (such as if she reported having closed herself in the closet to t est

whether sounds made in the classroom would be audible). For a t least several

minutes, the 16 or 17 students in the classroom were completely

unsupervised.

43. After the public address a nnouncement that the drill was completed,

Respondent and her students returned to regular classroom activities. No

student voiced concern at the time regarding how the drill was conducted.

44. Although not expressed directly to Respondent that day, several

students did, in fact, have concerns. Since this was an active assailant drill,

when the class was supposed to practice what to do i n an actual active

assailant situation, Respondent's separation of the students , leaving three -

quarters of the class unsupervised in the classroom , left several students

confused and apprehensive.

45. On the day of the drill, one student, N.S., went home upset, told

parent J.S. about the drill , and expressed confusion and fear. As N.S.

explained:

[Ms. Carty] left the rest of the class out in the

classroom while she was in the closet. She did not

tell the class where to go or hide during the drill. I

was very confused and did not know where to go. I

was also scared because I did not know what would

happen if the lockdown was real and if Ms. Carty

would leave us alone in a real lockdown. (Tr. 51 - 52;

P et. Ex. 8). [ 9 ]

46. Other students who testified at the hearing expressed at least some of

the same confusion and concern with the unusual procedure employed by

Respondent to separate the class and leave most of the class alone in the

classroom. Student M.P. testified to having felt "a little unprotected" being

left out in the classroom. M.P. explained feeling unprotected this way:

"[A]ccording to my other teachers I've been with, they've done it a lot

differently, which is supposed to better protect the stude nts and I felt like she

did it a little differently." (Tr. 34). S tudent C .S. , one of the students in the

closet, credibly testified: "I was feeling a little afraid for my classmates if this

was a real active assailant. After the drill we came out of the cl oset.

Everything went kind of back to normal. Most of the students that were left

outside didn't seem upset, but I could kind of tell they were." (Tr. 69 - 70).

47. Prior to giving the all - clear announcement, several administrators

checked all hallways to make sure they were empty and checked all

classroom doors to make sure they were locked. There was no classroom - by -

classroom assessment to determine how each teacher fared in carrying out

the drill instructions within each classroom Ð that would have taken a very

long time. Immediately after the drill, Dean Coley sent an email to all staff

9 Counsel for Respondent attempted to un dermine N.S.'s testimony about being scared , but

he did not succeed . He suggested that N.S. was afraid because it felt like an actual assailant

situation. N .S. disagreed: "No. Because I've done active shooter drills before." Counsel then

tried to get N.S. to agree that the fear was only of the idea of an active assailant in the

building, but N.S. made it clear that the fear was also caused by the way Ms. Cart y carried

out the drill, leaving N.S. and others alone in the classroom. Ultimately, in the following

exchange, counsel conceded that N.S. was actually harmed by being scared from the way the

drill was conducted : Q: "Okay. So apart from being scared , you w ere not actually harmed by

the active assailant drill on September 6, 2018, correct?" A: "Correct." Q: "And you did not Ï

a nd did you quickly recover from being scared on September 6, 2018?" A: "I guess, yeah."

(Tr. 56, emphasis added). Respondent's PRO m ischaracterized N.S.'s testimony, claiming

N.S. admitted to suffering no actual harm. N.S. answered the question as posed, agreeing

that "apart from being scared," N.S. was not actually harmed.

pronouncing the drill a success , while providing teachers with another

"reminder , " repeating the summary instructions for active assailant drills.

48. Re spondent did not report a ny concerns to the administration about

how the drill was carried out in her classroom , either immediately after the

drill or at any subsequent point . She did not report that she had been

"shocked" to discover there was not enough space in her large classr oom to

move all occupants out of the line of sight through the classroom door

window. She did not request assistance from an administrator to help plan

for future drills by identifying the window's sight line so as to identify all the

space within the clas sroom out of the window's line of sight. Instead, as of the

hearing in June 2021, Respondent testified that she would like Principal

Beckler to show her where in the classroom she could have hidden everyone.

It is troubling that, if Respondent had been tru ly "shocked" on September 6,

2018, by an inability to hide everyone in the classroom as she claimed, she

did not immediately bring this shocking discovery to the administration's

attention and worked to address the problem.

49. Shortly after student N.S. t old parent J.S. about being scared by how

Respondent carried out the drill in her classroom, J.S. sent an email to the

administration voicing their concern.

50. Upon receiving this email, the administration at Howard Middle

School launched an investigation in to the incident .

51. The students who were in Respondent's class during the incident were

asked to write brief statements about the incident. Several of those students

testified at the hearing. Respondent also wrote a brief statement , which she

signed and dat ed on September 24, 2018. Her statement was as follows:

During the last drill where we had to hide and turn

of f the lights. I stayed in the closet with several

students because I told them I cannot turn on the

lights. The other students hid under a desk in the

main classroom with the lights off. They did have

sunlight from the windows. I asked them to remain

quiet during the drill. When the drill was over we

all took our seats and resumed class. No one

indicated being frightened to me.

Respondent made no m ention in her written statement of her "shocking"

discovery during the drill that there was not enough space within the

classroom to hide all students out of sight.

52. On October 22, 2018, after the investigation was completed and a

predetermination meeting was held, Respondent was given a disciplinary

letter of reprimand for misconduct by failing to properly supervise her

students during the September 6, 2018, drill . She was also given non -

disciplinary written directives to : (1) establish a safe, caring, and nurturing

environment conducive to learning and the physical and psychological well -

being of students; and (2) maintain proper supervision of her students at all

times ; students are not to be left alone unsupervised. R espondent refused to

sign either docu ment , despite the statement in both documents that "[m]y

signature indicates only that I have received a copy of this

[reprimand/directive]." A t the hearing, Respondent did not deny having

received the letter of reprimand and the directives.

53. In December 2 018 , R espondent requested a transfer to another OCPS

school . Respondent 's request was granted, and she taught at Memorial

Middle School in Orange County during the spring 2020 semester. At the end

of the spring 2020 semester at Memorial Middle School, Resp ondent was

informed that her teaching contract was not going to be renewed for the

upcoming school year . No explanation was given for the nonrenewal .

54. Respondent testified that she is having trouble finding another

regular teaching position, but is working as a substitute teacher. She

speculated that the reason why she is having difficulty finding a regular

position is the pendency of this disciplinary proceeding, but had no non -

hearsay evidence on which to base her speculation. It would be fair to say,

how ever, that Respondent's ability to work in her chosen career and in the

job of her choice may be impacted by th e outcome of this proceeding, although

the opposite may also be true once the outcome is no longer an uncertainty.

55. Respondent raised as an "affi rmative defense" to the Amended

Administrative Complaint "that the allegations in this case underlie anti -

black racism and/or animus directed against her as an African - American

teacher." See Answer With Affirmative Defenses at 2, ¶ 2. However,

Respondent o ffered no evidence to prove that any non - African American

teachers acted similarly during an active assailant drill but were not charged

with the violation alleged in this case. Instead, the unrefuted testimony by

Principal Beckler was that no other teache r ever had a problem hiding all

students within the classroom, and no other teacher ever separated his or her

class to hide with some students in the closet while leaving other students

unsupervised in the classroom. The allegations and charge at issue her e are

narrowly focused on Respondent's admitted conduct during the September 6,

2018, lockdown active assailant drill. The claim of racism as a defense to the

allegations and charge at issue in this proceeding is wholly unwarranted .

Ultimate Findings of Fa ct

56. Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect her students

from conditions harmful to learning and/or to their physical health, mental

health and/or safety. She could not see three - quarters of her class for at least

several minutes during an a ctive assailant drill when she was in the closet

with five or six students. Indeed, she could not see the five or six students

who were in the closet with her. Nor could Respondent hear the unsupervised

students out in the classroom from behind the closed closet door.

57. Several students Ð most notably N.S. who went home upset that day to

report what happened to parent J .S. Ð reasonably were concerned about what

would happen if an active assailant actually entered the school, and whether

they and their classmate s would be protected. While there was no evidence of

significant or lasting effects on the students' mental health and no student

were physically harmed, the conditions created by Respondent during the

drill were harmful to students' mental health in the s hort - term , and to

students' safe ty .

58. Indeed, the whole point of the active assailant drill is to appropriately

prepare everyone in the school for an active assailant situation so that if they

ever had to respond to an actual active assailant, they would h ave practiced

and could respond automatically, knowing exactly what they needed to do to

take the appropriate precautions for their safet y and their physical and

mental health . Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect her

students by supervis ing and leading all her students through the proper drill

steps. Instead, she undermined the goal of creating conditions to protect

students, by leaving most of her students to fend for themselves Ð

unsupervised, unprotected, and anxious about what would ha ppen in an

actual active assailant situation.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

59. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

parties and the subject matter of this proceeding, pursuant to sections

120.569 , 120.57(1), and 1012.796, Florida Statute s (2021).

60. In this proceeding, Petitioner seeks to impose discipline against

Respondent's educator's certificate, which is a form of license. § 120.52(10),

Fla. Stat. A proceeding to suspend, revoke, or impose other discipline upon a

license is penal in na ture due the potential for loss of livelihood. State ex rel.

Vining v. Fla. Real Estate Comm'n , 281 So. 2d 487, 491 (Fla. 1973); Ferris v.

Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292, 295 (Fla. 1987). Accordingly, to impose such

discipline, Petitioner must prove the allega tions in the Amended

Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Dep ' t of Banking

& Fin., Div. of Sec. & Inv. Prot. v . Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932,

933 - 34 (Fla. 1996); Ferris , 510 So. 2d at 294 - 95.

61. As stated by the Supreme Court of Florida:

Clear and convincing evidence requires that the

evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to

which the witnesses testify must be distinctly

remembered; the testimony must be precise and

lacking in confusion as to the facts at issue. The

evidence must be of such a weight that it produces

in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or

conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the

allegations sought to be established.

In re Henson , 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Slomow itz v. Walker ,

429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). This burden of proof may be met

where the evidence is in conflict; however, " it seems to preclude evidence that

is ambiguous. " Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Shuler Bros., Inc. , 590 So. 2d 986,

988 (Fla . 1st DCA 1991).

62. Section 1012.796, Florida Statutes, sets forth the disciplinary process

for educators, and provides in pertinent part:

(6) Upon the finding of probable cause, the

commissioner shall file a formal complaint and

prosecute the complaint purs uant to the provisions

of chapter 120. An administrative law judge shall

be assigned by the Division of Administrative

Hearings of the Department of Management

Services to hear the complaint if there are disputed

issues of material fact. The administrative law

judge shall make recommendations in accordance

with the provisions of subsection (7) to the

appropriate Education Practices Commission panel

which shall conduct a formal review of such

recommendations and other pertinent information

and issue a final order. The commission shall

consult with its legal counsel prior to the issuance

of a final order.

(7) A panel of the commission shall enter a final

order either dismissing the complaint or imposing

one or more of the following penalties:

(a) Denial of an a pplication for a certificate or for

an administrative or supervisory endorsement on a

teaching certificate. The denial may provide that

the applicant may not reapply for certification, and

that the department may refuse to consider that

applicant's applica tion, for a specified period of

time or permanently.

(b) Revocation or suspension of a certificate.

(c) Imposition of an administrative fine not to

exceed $2,000 for each count or separate offense.

(d) Placement of the teacher, administrator, or

supervisor on proba tion for a period of time and

subject to such conditions as the commission may

specify, including requiring the certified teacher,

administrator, or supervisor to complete additional

appropriate college courses or work with another

certified educator, with the administrative costs of

monitoring the probation assessed to the educator

placed on probation. È

(e) Restriction of the authorized scope of practice

of the teacher, administrator or supervisor.

(f) Reprimand of the teacher, administrator, or

supervisor in w riting, with a copy to be placed in

the certification file of such person.

(g) Imposition of an administrative sanction, upon

a person whose teaching certificate has expired, for

an act or acts committed while that person

possessed a teaching certificate or a n expired

certificate subject to late renewal, which sanction

bars that person from applying for a new certificate

for a period of 10 years or less, or permanently.

(h) Refer the teacher, administrator, or supervisor

to the recovery network program provided i n

s. 1012.798 under such terms and conditions as the

commission may specify.

63. Penal statutes and rules authorizing discipline against a professional

license must be strictly construed, with any ambiguity resolved in favor of the

licensee. Elmari ah v. Dep't of Prof 'l Reg., Bd. of Med. , 574 So. 2d 164, 165

(Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

64. In addition, disciplinary action must be predicated on facts alleged

and charges set forth in an administrative complaint. See § 120.60(5), Fla.

Stat.; Trevisani v. Dep't o f Health , 908 So. 2d 1108, 1109 (Fla 1st DCA 2005);

Cottrill v. Dep't of Ins. , 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

65. The factual allegations on which the charges against Respondent are

predicated were clearly set forth in the Amended Administrative C omplaint .

66. Count 1 of the Amended Administrative Complaint charges

Respondent with a violation of section 1012.795(1)(j) for having "violated the

Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by

State Board of Education rules. " This count does not charge an independent

violation, but rather, is dependent upon a corresponding violation of the rule

prescribing the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession in Florida.

67. Count 2 of the Amended Administrative Co mplaint charges

Respondent with violating rule 6A - 10.081(2)(a)1., which provid es :

(2) Florida educators shall comply with the

following disciplinary principles. Violation of any of

these principles shall subject the individual to

revocation or suspension o f the individual

educator's certificate, or the other penalties as

provided by law.

(a ) Obligation to the student requires that the

individual:

1. Shall make reasonable effort to protect the

student from conditions harmful to learning and/or

to the stude nt's mental and/or physical health

and/or safety.

68. Teachers stand in loco parentis , "in the place of a parent , " with respect

to students in their classrooms who m the y must supervise and control.

Morris v. State , 228 So. 3d 670, 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (ci ting State v.

Lanier , 979 So. 2d 365, 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)). Accordingly, teachers owe

"a general duty of supervision to the students placed within [their] care È

based on the school employee standing partially in place of the student's

parent È [and ar e responsible] to protect children during school activity."

Morris , 228 So. 3d at 673 (quoting Rupp v. Bryant , 417 So. 2d 658, 666 (Fla.

1982)). The specific Principle of Professional Conduct under which

Respondent has been charged codifies this standard: teachers have a duty to

protect the students in t heir charge , which they carry out through their duty

to supervise and control the students in their classrooms .

69. Whether particular conduct constitutes a violation of the applicable

statutes and rules is a f actual question to be decided in the context of the

alleged violation. Langston v. Jamerson , 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA

1995). Whether specific conduct constitutes a deviation from the required

standard is an ultimate finding of fact within the real m of the administrative

law judge's fact - finding discretion . Holmes v. Turlington , 480 So. 2d 150,

1 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). 10

70. Based on the Findings of Fact above, Petitioner proved by clear and

convincing evidence that Respondent violated rule 6A - 10.081(2) (a)1.

71. Respondent admitted to leaving most of her students in the classroom

for the duration of the lockdown active assailant drill , while going into the

closet with five or six students, turning off the light in the closet, and closing

the closet door. For at least several minutes when she was in the dark closet,

she was unable to see or hear the students left alone in the classroom, and

10 Respondent's PRO relies on a series of inapposite cases to argue that expert testimony was

necessary to prove both the standard of conduct and deviation from that standard. No case

sets an absolute rule that expert testimony is always required. Nor do the contexts in which

expert testimony was addressed in the cases discussed in Respondent's PR O bear any

resemblance to this case. Respondent's argument that expert testimony was necessary in this

case was unpersuasive.

she was unable to see the students in the closet with her. She failed to

adequately supervise her students.

72. In the c ontext of a lockdown active assailant drill, Respondent was

required to lead her students through the procedures and ensure they were

moved to a place in the classroom that was out of the limited line of sight

through the narrow classroom door window. Resp ondent's claim that she

could not accomplish this for 22 students, plus herself, within the classroom

is contrary to the evidence.

73. The whole point of conducting the drill is to practice the appropriate

steps so that if there ever is an actual active assa ilant situation, Respondent

and her students move quickly through the practiced steps without having to

think about what to do or where to go. The drill steps serve to create

conditions protective of students' safety. Practicing the steps in a drill

situat ion serves to create conditions protective of students' mental health, in

that they are not fearful of what they need to do in an actual assailant

situation. Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect her students

from conditions harmful to the ir mental health and safety.

74. Respondent argued that the undersigned should take into account, in

determining whether there is a violation at all, the fact that imposing any

sanction for a violation would count for purposes of the three - violation

statutor y provision in section 1012.795( 6 ) (b) and implementing rule . This

statute and rule require t hat the third time an educator is found to have

committed a violation for which sanctions are imposed by the Education

Practices Commission, the required discipline is permanent revocation of the

educator's certificate.

75. Respondent characterizes this statutory provision as a draconian

punishment, while acknowledging it has been in place for over a decade.

Respondent argues that if a violation is found here, it is a m inor one, and

minor violations should not lead to permanent revocation of an educator's

certificate. Respondent's argument is one of policy to be addressed to the

Legislature. The Legislature could have written its statute in a way to

discount or not count minor violations, but it did not. The undersigned cannot

accept Respondent's argument that this statutory provision should affect the

undersigned's determination of whether there is a violation here. The level of

penalty for a disciplinable violation is a separate matter from whether there

is a violation. The appropriate penalty must be determined from the

disciplinary guidelines.

76. Respondent argued: "Even if Ms. Carty could have complied with the

district's Active Assailant Drill rules without hiding stud ents in the closet,

this should not lead to the permanent revocation of her Florida Educator

Certificate, as mandated by [ section 1012.795(6)(b) and implementing rule]."

Resp. PRO at 22. However, in this case, the evidence established that

Respondent has b een a teacher for at least 25 years and has never been

previously sanctioned by the Education Practices Commission. Thus,

contrary to Respondent's argument , Respondent is not facing permanent

revocation of her educator's certificate by reason of the three - violation

statute. That statute does not apply in this case.

77. Instead, as the Legislature intended, the first violation should serve

as a lesson learned and a warning that Respondent should take care not to

commit future violations , as she was able to acco mplish for such a lengthy

span of her career . A refresher in the professional standards for educators

might be helpful to reinforce the standards that govern Respondent's

profession, with which she must comply.

78. At the time of Respondent's conduct, the di sciplinary guidelines,

codified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B - 11.007, provided that the

normal penalty for the violation found here broadly ranged from reprimand

to revocation. Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B - 11.007(2)(j)1., effective May 29, 2018.

79. Rule 6 B - 11.007(3) provided that a penalty outside the normal range is

permitted when warranted by consideration of mitigating and aggravating

circumstances. Consideration of the applicable mitigating and aggravating

circumstances do not support imposition of no penalty. Instead, the factors

embodied in the codified mitigating and aggravating circumstances are more

appropriately considered and balanced to determine the appropriate penalty

within th e broad range provided in the guidelines rule .

80. As for mitigating c ircumstances, Respondent has been an educator for

at least 25 years and has never been sanctioned by the Education Practices

Commission. Teaching is and has been Respondent's chosen career ; any

penalty that would take her out of the classroom would harm he r pursuit of

her livelihood. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B - 11.007(3)(c), (e), (f) , and (i) .

81. Respondent attempted to prove her contributions as an educator

during her 25 - year career. The evidence offered on this subject was very

limited. It showed that at th ree different points during Respondent 's 25 - year

career, observation reports or evaluations indicate d Respondent's satisfactory

performance as a teacher: on September 30, 2010, in Clarke County (in a

state other than Florida); during the 2012 - 2013 school y ear in Polk County,

Florida; and during the 2017 - 2018 school year in Orange County, Florida. 11

82. From this very limited evaluative evidence, the only conclusion that

can be drawn i s that Respondent was considered a satisfactory teacher at

some point in three different teaching years in three different schools over

her 2 5 - year career. While no negative inferences are drawn from the many

years for which no evaluative information was provided, the undersigned also

11 The specific evidence provided by Respondent was: (1) one classroom observation form

reporti ng satisfactory performance during a 20 - minute observation of Respondent's

classroom in Clarke County (in a state other than Florida) on September 30, 2010;

(2) a partial (Stage 1) evaluation for school year 2012 - 2013 in Polk County, Florida, showing

that Respondent needed improvement in managing classroom procedures, but otherwise was

mostly "effective" with a few "highly effective" ratings for the partial Stage 1 evaluation (the

Stage 2 evaluation was not provided, which would be necessary to determine he r overall final

evaluation for that school year); (3) an observation report addressing "Domain 4" from

several days' observation in Respondent's classroom at Dr. Phillips High in December 2017,

rating Respondent's performance as "applying" four of five cri teria, but "developing" in one of

the five categories; and (4) a single Final Evaluation document for the 2017 - 2018 school year

at Dr. Phillips High, which included the Domain 4 observation report (i.e., the Domain 4

report Ð item (3) Ð is considered part of t his Final Evaluation). Respondent's overall

evaluation score was within the "effective" range, slightly below the midpoint Ð closer to

needs improvement than to the highly effective category.

cannot conclude that Respondent has proven that her c ontributions as an

educator during her 2 5 - year career warrant consideration in mitigation of the

appropriate penalty for her violation.

83. Additional f actors such as the severity of the offense, the number of

repetitions of offenses, and the actual dama ge, physical or otherwise, caused

by the violation weigh in favor of a penalty at the low er end of the

permissible range. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B - 11.007(3)(a), (c), and (g).

Respondent's violation must be considered relatively minor in nature, owing

in large part to the fact that this was a drill and not an actual assailant

situation with potentially catastrophic results. No evidence was offered to

show that Respondent has repeated the offense; one would hope and expect

that Respondent has learned her l esson and there would be no repetition of

this sort of violation. Although Respondent's actions caused actual harm to at

least one student, no long - lasting harm to any of the unsupervised students

resulted from the violation.

84. Respondent also argues for l eniency based on her claim that she did

her best under the press ure of carrying out the first ever active assailant

drill. Respondent's claim that this was the first active assailant drill of its

kind is contradicted by the evidence (including Respondent's own testimony),

as found above. As for the particular instruction that led to Respondent's

violation Ð that she had to move all classroom occupants out of the line of

sight of the narrow classroom door window Ð Respondent admitted prior

experience with lockdo wn drills with the same instructions to hide in the

classroom. She could have taken steps to prepare for the drill by identifying

the window's line of sight and the areas of the classroom not within that

limited line of sight, but she did not. And, even th ough she acted under the

pressure of the ongoing drill, her choice to split up her class and secure

herself with five or six students in a dark closet with the door closed was not

a reasonable choice. There were multiple obvious ways in which Respondent

co uld have complied with both the drill instructions and her ongoing duty to

supervise all students in her classroom.

85. Making this same point somewhat differently, Respondent argues that

she should not be punished at all because the drill functioned as it w as

supposed to, as a practice exercise to "get the k inks out." This argument is

undercut by Respondent 's failure to take any steps to correct the "kink" that

she claimed to have been "shocked" to identify during the drill. Following

Respondent's professed "shock" that she could not move all of the occupants

to a place in the classroom out of the door window's line of sight , Respondent

failed to report this huge "kink" to the administration or seek assistance from

the administration to plan to "get the kinks out" for future drills or worse, for

an actual active assailant situation . Her failure to take any corrective step s

renders her claim somewhat suspect. Taking corrective measures to address

the "shocking" discovery would have made Respondent's claim that she tried

to hide all the students within the classroom, using the closet only as a last

resort, more credible. Corrective or rehabilitative measures would have also

served as mitigating circumstances. Instead, her failure to take corrective or

rehabilitat ive steps is an aggravating circumstance. See Fla. Admin. Code

R. 6B - 11.007(3)(j) and (m).

86. As for the appropriate penalty, Respondent offered no suggestion

other than to argue that no penalty be imposed, or that no violation be found

"[e]ven if Ms. Carty could have complied with the district's Active Assailant

Drill rules without hiding students in the closet," because of the "draconian"

penalty that could result if Respondent commits two additional violations and

is sanctioned twice more. Responden t's argument cannot be accepted to

impact the outcome of this proceeding, as previously determined.

87. Petitioner proposed in its PRO that Respondent's certificate should be

suspended for one year, but did not explain why. The evidence does not

support impos ition of a penalty that would remove Respondent from the

classroom. However, a relatively short (six - month) period of probation on

terms set by the Education Practices Commission, including a required

Continuing Education course in professional standards f or educators, plus a

letter of reprimand, are warranted as appropriate discipline for Respondent's

violation that was established by the record evidence.

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

R ECOMMENDED tha t the Education Practices Commission issue a final order

finding Respondent guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes

(2018), through a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A -

10.081(2)(a)1 . , imposing a six - month probation on te rms established by the

Education Practices Commission, including a required Continuing Education

course in professional standards for Educators, and issuing a letter of

reprimand to Respondent as discipline for her violation.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 30th d ay of September , 2021 , in Tallahassee,

Leon County, Florida.

S

E LIZABETH W. M CARTHUR

Administrative Law Judge

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrat ive Hearings

this 30th day of September , 2021 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Peter Caldwell, Esquire Lisa M. Forbess, Executive Director

Florida Education Association Education Practices Comm ission

Legal Department Department of Education

1516 E ast Hillcrest Street, Suite 109 Turlington Building, Suite 316

Orlando, Florida 32803 325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Ron Weaver, Esquire

Post Office Box 770088 Anastasios Kamoutsas, General Counsel

Ocala, Flor ida 34477 - 0088 Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief 325 West Gaines Street

Office of Professional Practices Services Tallahassee, Florida 3239 9 - 0400

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 224 - E

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All parties have the right 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 Fina l Order in this

case.