STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
vs.
Petitioner,
Case No. 13-1148
EXCEL LEADERSHIP ACADEMY, INC.,
Respondent.
/
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On May 13-17, 2013, Robert E. Meale, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings conducted the final hearing in Tallahassee and West Palm Beach, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Laura E. Pincus, Esquire
Bruce A. Harris, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Palm Beach County School Board
3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-323 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
For Respondent: Christopher Norwood
Qualified Representative The Governance Issue for
School Accountability
14844 Breckness Place, Suite 100 Miami Lakes, Florida 33016
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue is whether, as of June 30, 2013, Petitioner may nonrenew Respondent's charter agreement (Charter) to operate a
charter school, pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(a)2. and 4.,
Florida Statutes.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By letter dated March 14, 2013, from Petitioner to Respondent, Petitioner provided written notice of its intent not to renew the Charter at the end of its term on June 30, 2013.
The letter also identifies the statutory and contractual grounds on which Petitioner relies in declining to renew the Charter.
At the hearing, this document was referred to as the "charging document." This recommended order refers to an individual charge as, for example, "Charge 2.a," meaning the charge described under II.2.a below.
Paragraph II.1 of the March 14 letter alleges that Respondent has failed to comply with section 1002.33(2)(b)2. and (7)(a)2.a, Florida Statutes, because Respondent's school lacks a documented reading program or reading course.
Paragraph II.2 alleges that Respondent has failed to comply with section 1002.33(7)(a)9. or (8)(a)2. because: a) the Financial Program Review found ten areas of noncompliance,
b) the external audit for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, determined that the school is in deteriorating financial condition due to a general fund deficit of $38,057 and declining enrollment, and c) the external auditor found five deficiencies,
one of which relates to board governance and is a repeat deficiency for two fiscal years.
Paragraph II.3 alleges that Respondent has failed to comply with Charter Section 3.0.A and section 1002.33(7)(a)2.a. because: a) there is no evidence of a scientifically based reading program and b) there is no reading course offered at the school.
Paragraph II.4 alleges that Respondent has failed to comply with Charter Section 3.0.B and section 1002.33(7)(a)2.a. because there is no Intensive Reading for Level 1 and Level 2 students and other remediation for other students reading below grade level.
Paragraph II.5 alleges that Respondent has failed to comply with Charter Section 3.0.D because it does not offer all core academic courses to all of its students, and its instructional staff consists of teachers certified only in exceptional student education (ESE) and social studies.
Paragraph II.6 alleges that Respondent has failed to comply with Charter Section 4.0.B and section 1002.33(7)(a)4. because:
of the 11 grounds cited for noncompliance in the Assessment Renewal Program Review, b) the failure to administer an Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) assessment in 2013, c) the absence of any recent Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading (FAIR) data, d) the absence of a science teacher at the
school and the consequent inability to enroll students needing a science course, e) the failure to assess students in Windows 4 or 5 of the Palm Beach Writes Assessment period, f) the absence of any evidence of reading diagnostics, and g) the nonparticipation of students in all District assessments. At the hearing, Petitioner dropped Charge 6.e.
Paragraph II.7 alleges that Respondent has failed to comply with Charter Section 4.0.F.5 because of the absence of any evidence of students working toward 120 hours of employment or job shadowing.
Paragraph II.8 alleges that Respondent has failed to comply with Charter Section 4.0.F.8 due to the decline in enrollment.
Paragraph II.9 alleges that Respondent has failed to comply with Charter Section 5.0.B because the curricula do not include core academic subjects.
Paragraph II.10 alleges that Respondent has failed to comply with Charter Section 5.0.C or section 1002.33(7)(a)14. because current teachers are teaching out-of-field with no out- of-field agreements. At the hearing, over objection of Respondent, the Administrative Law Judge allowed Petitioner to amend the citation to the Charter to Section 27.0.C.
Paragraph II.11 alleges that Respondent has failed to comply with Charter Section 13.0.I because it is not providing
ESE services in accordance with students' individual education plans (IEPs).
Paragraph II.12 alleges that Respondent has failed to comply with Charter Section 13.0.J.4 or section 1002.33(7)(a)14. because the school does not employ appropriate personnel to provide ESE services.
Paragraph II.13 alleges that Respondent has failed to comply with Charter Section 13.0.O or section 1002.33(7)(a)14. because the school does not employ any English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) teachers.
Respondent timely requested a formal hearing, and Petitioner transmitted the file to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the purpose of conducting the hearing. In its Petition for Hearing, Respondent raises an affirmative defense. Respondent alleges that Petitioner failed to provide assistance, as required by section 1002.33(20)(a), Florida Statutes, and School Board Policy 2.57(10)(a).
On May 6, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, which is the source of certain of the facts found below.
At the hearing, Petitioner called 11 witnesses and offered into evidence Petitioner Exhibits 1, 3-7, 12, 15, 18-21, 24,
28-30, 37, 39, 41-44, 49-60, 63-65, 67, 71, and 73-76.
Respondent called one witness and offered into evidence
Respondent Exhibits 4-6, 10-13, 15-16, and 18-19. All exhibits were admitted except the letter of November 9, 2012, to Ms.
Merced contained in Petitioner Exhibit 20; and Respondent Exhibits 6 and 12. Additionally, Respondent Exhibit 18 was not admitted for the truth. The parties proffered all exhibits that were excluded in whole or in part or admitted for limited purposes.
The parties did not order a transcript. They filed proposed recommended orders by May 29, 2013.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent operates a charter school pursuant to the Charter, which was entered into in December 2008 by Petitioner, as sponsor, and Life Skills Center Palm Beach County, Inc. Effective June 30, 2012, Life Skills Center Palm Beach County, Inc., changed its name to Excel Leadership Academy, Inc. At all times, the corporation chartered to operate the school was a Florida not-for-profit corporation, and Respondent has been a nongraded charter school with low-performing students.
The Charter expires June 30, 2013. Charter General Provision G states that Petitioner may nonrenew the Charter "for good cause."
On November 1, 2012, Petitioner's Charter School Department met with representatives of Respondent to discuss an upcoming renewal program review that Petitioner would undertake
in order to determine whether it should renew the Charter. During the meeting, Petitioner's representatives went over the review instrument that would be used in conducting the renewal program review.
In January 2013, an employee of Petitioner with financial expertise visited Respondent's school, examined Respondent's financial records, and spoke with Respondent's relevant representatives. In the same month, an employee of Petitioner with English-language-learner(ELL) expertise visited Respondent's school, examined Respondent's ELL records, and spoke with Respondent's relevant representatives. In February 2013, employees of Petitioner with academic expertise visited Respondent's school, examined Respondent's academic records,, and spoke with Respondent's relevant employees. As a result of these examinations conducted as part of the renewal program review, Petitioner found deficiencies and decided not to renew the Charter.
By letter dated February 27, 2013, Petitioner's Superintendent informed Respondent of his intent to recommend to the School Board, at its meeting on March 6, 2013, that it vote to nonrenew the Charter. On March 6, the School Board met and voted to approve the Superintendent's recommendation. By Written Notice of Non-Renewal of Charter Contract dated
March 14, the School Board formally notified Respondent of the nonrenewal of the Charter and itemized the grounds for this action. This March 14 notification is the source of the allegations contained in the Preliminary Statement, above.
Charter Section 1.0.C identifies the target group of students to be served by Respondent as at-risk students, aged 16-21 years--including ESE students, disabled students, ELL students--whose needs may be better served by a nontraditional school given that the students may be unable to attend school during a normal school day due to work requirements to support a family, pregnancy, truancy, academic deficits, disruptive behavior, or limited proficiency in English.
Charter Section 1.0.D recognizes that at-risk students have different needs. Section 1.0.D states that Respondent will employ an Employability Specialist to prepare the students for employment. Section 1.0.D also states that Respondent will emphasize one-on-one instructional systems, and the curricula will cover the "core academic subjects" of reading, language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science, as well as vocational and social skills.
Charter Section 1.0.E identifies the mission of the school as serving at-risk students by giving them a second chance to obtain a quality education and employability training and placement.
Charter Section 2.0.A projects total enrollment for each of the five school years from 2008-09 through 2012-13 at
400 students in the ninth through twelfth grades to be included in the school.
Addressing curriculum, Charter Section 3.0.A states:
[Respondent] agrees to ensure that reading is a primary focus of the curriculum and that resources are provided to identify and provide specialized instruction for students who are reading below grade level. The curriculum and instructional strategies for reading must be consistent with the Sunshine State Standards and grounded in scientifically based reading research.
Charter Section 3.0.D provides that Respondent "agrees to implement an instructional program consistent with the program as specified in the Student Progression Plan of [Petitioner] "
Charter Section 4.0.A states that Respondent is a drop-out prevention and academic-intervention program. Section
4.0.B states: "[Respondent] will establish a systematic method for assessing student progress using the District's Pupil Progression Plan and performance at each grade using valid and reliable procedures and following the requirements of the law pursuant to Sections 1000.03 and 1008.431, F.S."
Section 4.0.B describes baseline and improvement assessment as follows:
A baseline for student academic achievement will be established upon enrollment in the educational program. This baseline will be established by analysis of results from the standard assessment administered at the school, previous FCAT scores, and an electronic assessment tool that measures mastery of Sunshine State Standards in language arts, reading, and math. . . .
Student improvement will be measured by post-testing with the standard assessment utilized at the [school] and FCAT scores. In addition, students will be assessed by nationally normed assessments (administered twice each school year) that provide information about student achievement.
Student improvement will also be measured on a "value added" basis taking into account the student's beginning achievement level (baseline) and progress made through the instructional year. Student progress will be measured and monitored to ensure growth occurs annually.
Nationally, norm-referenced tests will also be particularly valuable to measure growth of students who have previously passed the criterion-referenced FCAT in tenth grade. [Respondent] will continue to measure academic growth for this population with norm-referenced tests. Standards based assessments as prescribed by the state governing authority will be administered in accordance with established state law.
Charter Section 4.0.F(5) provides that all graduates will have completed at least 90 days or 120 hours of employment, volunteering, job shadowing, or mentoring.
Charter Section 4.0.F(8) states that, each year, Respondent shall increase its enrollment by the lesser of 20% or
100 students until it reaches facility capacity. Attainment of
"[t]his goal indicates that the program is working and building a reputation within the community for success."
Charter Section 5.0.B states that Respondent will offer an individualized program for each student to progress at his own pace using one-on-one instructional systems. Each student will attend one school session, which consists of four hours of academic learning and one hour of vocational or job readiness training. "Educational curriculum, resources, and lessons can be delivered by teachers through a number of teaching methodologies, utilizing those that best meet the specific needs of the student."
Charter Section 5.0.C states: "Students will be supervised by a Florida certified teacher or skilled instructional personnel at all times from arrival at Charter School to departure."
Charter Section 8.0.A. provides that the students will take "all applicable State Standardized tests consistent with the sponsor's Student Progression Plan." Respondent is responsible for administering the tests.
Charter Section 13.0.J states that Respondent will provide ESE services as provided by each student's IEP. If a parent chooses Respondent's school and it cannot implement the student's IEP, prior to enrollment, the IEP team must meet, revise the IEP, and determine how the IEP will be implemented at
Respondent's school; in the alternative, the IEP team may determine another appropriate setting for the implementation of the student's IEP. Section 13.0.J.4 provides that Respondent must "hire an appropriate number of ESE certified teachers to provide ESE services." Further, Respondent must notify Petitioner "immediately" if "the certified ESE teacher is no longer employed or providing services to ESE students as required in their IEPs." Section 13.0.J.5 states: "A certified ESE teacher must maintain written documentation of consultative services for any student whose IEP indicates consultative services."
Charter Section 13.0.O provides that students with limited proficiency in English "will be served by ESOL-endorsed personnel."
Charter Section 20.0.C provides that teachers shall be Florida-certified as teachers, as required by chapter 1012, Florida Statutes, and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. However, Section 20.0.C allows Respondent to contract with "skilled selected non-certificated" personnel "to provide instructional services in the individual's field of specialty or to assist instructional members as paraprofessionals in the same manner as defined by Chapter 1012, F.S., and as provided by the State Board of Education Rule for Charter School Governing Boards."
The two most prominent deficiencies are facts to which Respondent stipulated. Its enrollment is declining, and its financial condition is deteriorating due to a general fund deficit. These facts are linked.
Respondent attributes its enrollment declines to the opening of another charter school, called Mavericks, near the original location of Respondent's school. At its peak, Respondent enrolled 378.5 students during the 2010-11 school year. For the 2011-12 school year, Respondent's enrollment declined by 206.5 students to 172 students. For the 2012-13 school year, Respondent's enrollment declined by another 93 students to only 79 students.
Not surprisingly, given the extent to which enrollments drive revenues at schools, Respondent's financial condition is, at best, grave and, at worse, moribund. For fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, Respondent's auditor determined that Respondent maintained a general fund deficit of
$38,057. It is clear from more detailed information in the financial report that the auditor overstated the deficit, which was actually $25,027, but this, too, is a material deficit.
The materiality of the deficit, as well as the rapid rate of Respondent's financial deterioration, is revealed by the facts that, for fiscal year ending 2012, Respondent's expenses exceeded its revenues by $162,039--roughly, an order of
magnitude greater than the excess of expenses over revenues by
$17,771 for fiscal year ending 2011.
Respondent's liabilities of $155,008 exceed its assets of $146,129 by $8879, as of June 30, 2012. The link between declining enrollment and financial deterioration is confirmed by the auditor's finding that Respondent's enrollment shortfall, as compared to its projections, resulted in the failure to earn
$1.4 million in revenues.
During the 2012-13 school year, Respondent has implemented drastic measures to try to control expenses. During this school year, Respondent terminated its management contract, moved the school to a smaller facility with lower occupancy costs, and, as noted below, cut labor expenses by not replacing instructional employees.
In themselves, cost-cutting measures would seem to slow the rate of financial deterioration, although the reduction in capital and operational expenses may as likely be met by an equal or greater reduction in revenues, as market forces drive potential students to more successful charter schools. On this record, Respondent's revenues and expenditures appear to be declining in tandem, as Respondent's operations wind down and Respondent approaches financial collapse.
Petitioner has thus proved Charges 2.b and 8.
Greatly exacerbating the situation, Respondent's serious operational deficiencies, which violate material provisions of the Charter, could only be eliminated by significant increases in expenditures. For example, since sometime in November 2012, Respondent operated with only two instructional employees: a teacher certified in social science and a teacher certified in ESE, Ms. Kangal. During this period of time, each teacher was required to perform the lead-teaching duties in the classes that Respondent was still able to offer.
However, during this period of time, numerous students attending the school had IEPs whose implementation required ESE consultative services in the form of support facilitation. For these students, a lead teacher must provide regular instruction to the class, and the ESE teacher must simultaneously provide specialized instruction to the ESE students whose IEP called for consultative services in the form of support facilitation. This exposure to regular instruction with supplemental specialized instruction is critically important to these ESE students; yet, for several months, Respondent was unable to implement this provision of these IEPs, nor any other IEPs that called for direct specialized instruction. Failing to discharge its obligations with respect to ESE instruction, Respondent also failed to discharge its Charter obligation notify Petitioner of the cessation of these ESE services.
Petitioner thus proved Charges 11 and 12.
At no time during the 2012-13 school year did Respondent employ an ESOL-endorsed teacher. Although this deficiency pales in comparison to the cessation of ESE services for several months, the failure to address the needs of ESOL students is another serious deficiency.
Petitioner thus proved Charge 13.
The critical subject of reading is the focus of multiple deficiencies. Respondent maintained no lesson plans in reading. The person whom Respondent identified as the reading teacher, Ms. Kangal, is reading-endorsed, but is also the sole ESE-certified teacher at the school. Ms. Kangal conceded to Petitioner's representatives that she did not teach reading.
In response to questions as to how reading was taught, Respondent's principal, Ms. Kemp, replied that it was taught across the curriculum and infused in all classes. But evidence at the school did not support these ambitious claims. The classrooms are bereft of such devices as word walls, curriculum- based posters, books, study guides, or even textbooks.
Respondent's students included approximately 69 Level
1 and Level 2 readers, whose reading skills require intensive remediation efforts, including enrollment in an intensive reading class. Only three of these students three enrolled in such a class.
Respondent's assessment of reading was deficient.
Respondent never obtained benchmark data from available standardized tests at the start of the 2012-13 school year, so that it could later measure growth in reading achievement by the end of the school year. At no time did Respondent assess the reading fluency of any of its students.
The record is not entirely clear as to whether Respondent has adopted Petitioner's reading plan. District data reveals no such election, but Florida Department of Education data reveals that Respondent has elected to implement Petitioner's reading plan. If Respondent did not adopt Petitioner's reading plan, there is no evidence that Respondent had adopted any other reading plan, so the absence of a reading plan would be a serious deficiency.
Respondent claims that it adopted Petitioner's reading plan for the 2012-13 school year, as it had for the preceding school year. Given the greater weight ordinarily attaching to an affirmative indication as opposed to the absence of an affirmative indication, it is more likely than not that Respondent adopted Petitioner's reading plan for the 2012-13 school year. However, this reading plan requires FAIR and SRI assessments throughout the school year, and Respondent did not administer these tests, nor has it adopted alternative means of obtaining the same data, which is necessary for any meaningful
implementation of Petitioner's reading plan. Additionally, there is no evidence that Respondent was implementing any reading program whatsoever, even if it had adopted Respondent's reading plan.
Petitioner thus proved Charges 1, 3.a, 3.b, 4, 6.b, 6.c, and 6.f.
At the start of the 2012-13 school year, Respondent employed four teachers: Ms. Shaheed, who is certified in language arts and endorsed in reading; Mr. Innocent, who is certified in math; Mr. Kyryliw, who is certified in social science; and Ms. Kangal, who is described above. (A fifth teacher, Mr. Ramos, had been hired to teach biology, but he quit prior to the first day of school.) In November 2012,
Ms. Shaheed and Mr. Innocent quit and were not replaced, necessitating the removal of Ms. Kangal from her direct and supportive ESE instructional duties and her reassignment to nearly all of the lead-teaching duties formerly handled by both of the teachers who had just quit.
This reduction in instructional personnel by half prior to the end of the first semester of the 2012-13 school year prevented Respondent from providing instruction in all of the core academic subjects. Clearly, biology, a required course for graduation, was neglected. Belated attempts to enroll Respondent's students in an online biology course, without any
live instructional support, were inadequate to address this required subject because the online course is a demanding course that is taught on grade level.
Math was also neglected. During the renewal program review, one of Petitioner's representatives with expertise in math visited a computer lab where students were apparently working in Algebra I, Algebra II, and geometry. When the representative engaged with one of the students, the student asked if she could answer a question. She did so, and the student excitedly told one of his peers that this teacher knew math and could help them.
Suggesting that the math lab may have been staged or, if managed at all, managed incompetently, Petitioner's representative noticed that, when Ms. Kangal returned to the room after leaving the students to work on their own on the computers, she handed out Algebra I workbooks to all the students, even to those who, online, had been working on Algebra II and geometry. If Ms. Kangal had even passing familiarity with the workbooks, she would have noticed that they were to prepare the students for the end-of-course Algebra I exam--a total waste of time for those students purportedly working on Algebra II and geometry a few minutes earlier.
Petitioner thus proved Charges 5, 6.d, and 9.
With even less cause, in terms of cost savings, Respondent has abandoned its undertaking in the Charter to ensure that all of its students perform 90 days or 120 hours of employment, volunteering, job shadowing, or mentoring. Respondent kept no log of any time spent on these important vocational-preparation activities, nor did Respondent have any agreements with employers to help its students meet this requirement.
Petitioner thus proved Charge 7.
The above-detailed deficiencies involving declining student enrollment, deteriorating finances, failing to implement ESE students' IEPs, failing to provide an ESOL-endorsed teacher, multiple failings in providing reading instruction, and failing to provide biology and math instruction provide ample good cause for the nonrenewal of the Charter; it is unnecessary to consider the remaining charges. As noted above, Respondent's enrollment has plunged 75% in two school years, and its enrollment-driven revenues are likewise in steep decline. These facts, alone, are good cause for nonrenewal.
Worse, Respondent is failing even to address the most basic needs of its ESE students for specialized instruction, nearly all of its dwindling student population for intensive reading instruction, its ESOL students for language issues, its
many students seeking to recover the credits necessary for graduation in terms of basic math and biology courses.
In the face of these factors driving it to nonoperational status, Respondent has offered no semblance of an educational/financial/marketing plan. Instead, Respondent feebly has tried to transfer the blame for its current situation from itself, where it belongs, to Petitioner. But Respondent's affirmative defense of inadequate assistance from Petitioner fails on two grounds. First, the evidence does not support this claim. Petitioner made available to Respondent the same training and technical assistance that it made available to other schools--charter and noncharter. Second, as to the above- detailed deficiencies, Respondent's failures do not appear to have been of a type that additional technical assistance would have helped. Respondent failed in its most basic duties to educate its students. Failing even to discharge its duty to notify Petitioner of critical changes, such as the cessation of ESE services and loss of teachers, Respondent's complaints that Petitioner failed to help are disingenuous.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
DOAH has jurisdiction of the subject matter.
§§ 120.569, 120.57(1), and 1002.33(8)(b)2.
Even though this case is couched in terms of a proposed nonrenewal of a charter contract, the burden of proof
is on Petitioner. Dubin v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 262 So. 2d 273,
274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) ("refusal to renew a license to a person who has once demonstrated that he possesses the statutory prerequisites to licensure cannot be used as a substitute for a license revocation proceeding"); Vocelle v. Riddell, 119 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960) (same).
Additionally, the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence. Dep't of Bank. & Fin. v. Osborne Stern &
Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996) (license revocation). In Coke v. Dep't of Child. & Family Services, 704 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), the licensing agency conceded that, when declining to renew a day care license, it bore the burden of proving the material allegations by clear and convincing evidence.
Section 1002.33 provides:
* * *
(2)(b) Charter schools shall fulfill the following purposes:
* * *
2. Increase learning opportunities for all students, with special emphasis on low-performing students and reading.
* * * (7)(a) The charter shall address and
criteria for approval of the charter shall
be based on:
* * *
The focus of the curriculum, the instructional methods to be used, any distinctive instructional techniques to be employed, and identification and acquisition of appropriate technologies needed to improve educational and administrative performance which include a means for promoting safe, ethical, and appropriate uses of technology which comply with legal and professional standards.
The charter shall ensure that reading is a primary focus of the curriculum and that resources are provided to identify and provide specialized instruction for students who are reading below grade level. The curriculum and instructional strategies for reading must be consistent with the Sunshine State Standards and grounded in scientifically based reading research.
* * *
4. The methods used to identify the educational strengths and needs of students and how well educational goals and performance standards are met by students attending the charter school. The methods shall provide a means for the charter school to ensure accountability to its constituents by analyzing student performance data and by evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of its major educational programs. Students in charter schools shall, at a minimum, participate in the statewide assessment program created under s. 1008.22.
* * *
9. The financial and administrative management of the school, including a reasonable demonstration of the professional experience or competence of those individuals or organizations applying to operate the charter school or those hired or retained to perform such professional services and the description of clearly
delineated responsibilities and the policies and practices needed to effectively manage the charter school. A description of internal audit procedures and establishment of controls to ensure that financial resources are properly managed must be included. Both public sector and private sector professional experience shall be equally valid in such a consideration.
* * *
14. The qualifications to be required of the teachers and the potential strategies used to recruit, hire, train, and retain qualified staff to achieve best value.
* * *
(8)(a) The sponsor may choose not to renew or may terminate the charter for any of the following grounds:
* * *
2. Failure to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management.
* * *
4. Other good cause shown.
(b) At least 90 days prior to renewing or terminating a charter, the sponsor shall notify the governing board of the school of the proposed action in writing. The notice shall state in reasonable detail the grounds for the proposed action and stipulate that the school’s governing board may, within 14 calendar days after receiving the notice, request a hearing. . . .
* * *
(20)(a)1. A sponsor shall provide certain administrative and educational services to
charter schools. These services shall include contract management services; full- time equivalent and data reporting services; exceptional student education administration services; services related to eligibility and reporting duties required to ensure that school lunch services under the federal lunch program, consistent with the needs of the charter school, are provided by the school district at the request of the charter school, that any funds due to the charter school under the federal lunch program be paid to the charter school as soon as the charter school begins serving food under the federal lunch program, and that the charter school is paid at the same time and in the same manner under the federal lunch program as other public schools serviced by the sponsor or the school district; test administration services, including payment of the costs of state-required or district-required student assessments; processing of teacher certificate data services; and information services, including equal access to student information systems that are used by public schools in the district in which the charter school is located. Student performance data for each student in a charter school, including, but not limited to, FCAT scores, standardized test scores, previous public school student report cards, and student performance measures, shall be provided by the sponsor to a charter school in the same manner provided to other public schools in the district.
School Board Policy 2.57(10)(a) states:
The District will provide reasonable technical assistance to assist students at low-performing graded charter schools as well as non-graded charter schools with low- performing students. The technical assistance shall be made available to cure
deficiencies and remediate academic concerns of students. Failure by a charter school to cooperate in the resolution of such performance issues may constitute good cause for non-renewal or termination of a charter contract.
Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence good cause for the nonrenewal of the Charter. It has discharged its undertakings to assist Respondent. Unfortunately, Respondent has not discharged many of its core obligations under the Charter. As Respondent's operations have winded down over the course of the past two school years, but especially the
2012-13 school year, the regulatory action of nonrenewal merely follows the lead of the market.
It is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order declining to renew the Charter.
DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
ROBERT E. MEALE
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2013.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Christopher Norwood, Qualified Representative Governance Institute for School Accountability 14844 Breckness Place, Suite 100
Miami Lakes, Florida 33016
Bruce A. Harris, Esquire
Palm Beach County School Board Post Office Box 19239
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239
E. Wayne Gent, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-316
West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
Dr. Tony Bennett, Commissioner of Education Department of Education
Turlington Building, Suite 1514
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
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 Final Order in this case.
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Aug. 07, 2013 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 06, 2013 | Recommended Order | School board proved by clear and convincing evidence good cause for nonrenewal of charter due to declining enrollments, deteriorating finances, failing to implement IEPs, multiple failings in reading, and other deficiencies. |
