Castor v. Penchansky

29 Fla. Supp. 2d 252
CourtState of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings
DecidedDecember 11, 1987
DocketCase No. 87-2689
StatusPublished

This text of 29 Fla. Supp. 2d 252 (Castor v. Penchansky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Castor v. Penchansky, 29 Fla. Supp. 2d 252 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1987).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, this cause was heard by Linda M. Rigot, the assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on September 29, 1987, in Miami, Florida.

Petitioner Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, was represented by J. David Holder, Esquire, Tallahassee, Florida; and Respondent Joyce Lipkin Penchansky appeared on her own behalf.

Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent [253]*253seeking disciplinary action against Respondent’s teaching certificate. Although Respondent admitted several of the allegations contained within that Administrative Complaint, she requested a formal hearing as to the remaining allegations. Accordingly, the issue for determination herein is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.

Petitioner presented the testimony of Willie Mae Brown; Walter G. Foden, Jr.; Gwendolyn Bryant; Margaret Rogers; Helen B. Francis; Eneida Hartner; and Dr. Patrick Gray. The Respondent testified on her own behalf. Additionally, Petitioner’s Exhibits numbered 1-30 and Respondent’s Exhibits 1-8 were admitted into evidence.

Petitioner submitted posthearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order, and Respondent submitted posthearing correspondence. Rulings on each proposed finding of fact can be found in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate 297447 covering the area of elementary education.

2. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher in the Dade County School District.

3. During the 1983-84 school year, the Respondent was employed as a second grade teacher of Chapter I students at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School.

4. During the 1984-85 school year, the Respondent was again employed at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School as a second grade teacher. In March 1985, Respondent was transferred to Miami Springs Elementary School for the remainder of the school year as a result of an altercation involving an irate parent.

5. During her tenure at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School, Respondent was assigned approximately 16 students in her second grade classes each year.

6. Respondent was assigned a fourth grade class at Miami Springs Elementary School from March through June 1985. The Respondent’s class contained approximately 30 students.

7. Respondent was a first year annual contract employee of the Dade County Public Schools during the 1983-84 school year and a second year annual contract employee of the Dade County Public Schools during the 1984-85 school year.

[254]*2548. Respondent was not reappointed for the 1985-86 school year as an employee of the Dade County Public Schools because she failed to perform at an acceptable level of professional performance at two different schools, under two different administrations, with two different sets of students.

9. The principal of Lillie C. Evans Elementary School, Willie Mae Brown, is a thirty-six year employee of the Dade County School System. Ms. Brown was Respondent’s principal during Respondent’s employment at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School. Ms. Brown has been trained to observe and evaluate the professional performance of classroom teachers and has observed and evaluated hundreds of teachers in her position as principal.

10. On May 31,1984, Brown prepared the Respondent’s annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year. She rated Respondent as unacceptable in the category of classroom management and noted in the remarks section of the evaluation that Respondent “should continue participating in workshops that will enable her to acquire techniques in instruction and classroom management.”

11. Brown requested that Respondent attend workshops on techniques of instruction and classroom management during the 1983-84 school year and that she observe fellow teachers in the school in order to improve Respondent’s performance in the classroom.

12. During the 1984-85 school year, Brown continued to observe serious problems with Respondent’s control of student conduct and classroom management. On October 1, 1984, Brown overheard a child screaming loudly in the Respondent’s classroom as if the child was in pain.

13. When Brown observed Respondent on October 5, 1984, she noted that Respondent was unable to manage the class, failed to use nonverbal techniques and few verbal techniques to deal with students who were off-task. Brown observed that pupils were moving about and making noise in the classroom. Respondent’s lesson plans did not appear to have enough activities to occupy the students’ attention. Respondent was provided with “prescription plan” activities and recommended resources for implementation of the prescriptions. Brown provided a time line for improvement of October 29, 1984.

14. On October 24, 1984, Brown prepared a log of assistance which had been provided to Respondent. Brown’s log noted that on October 1, 1984, Mrs. Mayme Moore, North Central Area Chapter I Resource Teacher, provided special assistance to Respondent concerning control of student conduct. In addition, Brown documented assistance pro[255]*255vided to Respondent by Teacher Lena Hoskins; Teacher Sharon Sbrissa; Mr. Mitchell, School Guidance Counselor; Walter Foden, Assistant Principal; and others.

15. As a follow-up to the October 5, 1984 observation, Brown again observed Respondent’s classroom performance on October 29, 1984. Brown observed that the Respondent’s performance was deficient in preparation and planning and classroom management. Brown observed a large number of children off-task. Respondent still appeared to be unable to manage her students. Again, Respondent failed to provide enough activities to occupy the students for the full class period. Brown noted that two pupils fell asleep during the class. Once again, Brown prescribed plan activities and recommended resources to Respondent with a time line of November 15, 1984. Brown continued to provide Respondent with assistance through the Teacher Education Center and through fellow teachers.

16. On November 21, 1984, Brown found four of Respondent’s students creating a disturbance in a bathroom. Upon returning these students to Respondent’s classroom, she observed eight or nine of the twelve students in the classroom running around making noise.

17. During the course of the 1984-85 school year, Ms. Brown received three or four written complaints and several additional telephone calls from parents complaining about Respondent’s class. The nature of the parental complaints concerned Respondent’s lack of control of student conduct in the classroom.

18. On December 10, 1984, a conference for the record was held by Brown with Respondent and her union representative to address parent complaints, the complaint of the primary helping teacher for Respondent, Respondent’s performance assessment to date and her employment status. At the conference, Respondent was advised of letters of complaints from parents and peers regarding her classroom management.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 Fla. Supp. 2d 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castor-v-penchansky-fladivadminhrg-1987.