STATE OF FLORIDA EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION PAM STEWART, as Commissioner of Education, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 123-3107 BETH ANNE STONE, Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT . Petitioner, Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education, files this Administrative Complaint against BETH ANNE STONE. The Petitioner seeks the appropriate disciplinary sanction of the Respondent’s educator’s certificate pursuant to Sections 1012.315, 1012.795, and 1012.796, Florida Statutes, and pursuant to Rule 6A-10.081, Florida Administrative Code, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, said sanctions specifically set forth in Sections 1012.795(1) and 1012.796(7), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner alleges: JURISDICTION L. The Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 698714, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and Reading, which is valid through June 30, 2018. 2. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a Third Grade Teacher at Crystal River Primary School in the Citrus County School District. MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS 3. On or about August 29, 2012 and May 1, 2013, the Respondent signed the Citrus County Schools 2012-2013 test Security Agreements (“Security Agreements”). 4 The Respondent’s signed Security Agreements contained the following prohibited activities: Explaining or reading passages or test items to students, changing or otherwise interfering with student responses to test items, failing to follow test administration directions BETH ANNE STONE Administrative Complaint Page 2 of S specified in the test administration manuals, participating in, directing, aiding, counseling, assisting in, or encouraging any of the acts prohibited by Florida Statute. 5. During the 2011-2012 school year, the STAR testing results became a factor in teacher evaluations. 6. For the 2011-2012 school year, the Respondent received an “unsatisfactory” on the Student Learning Growth portion of her evaluation. 7. On the morning of May 1, 2013, the Respondent’s students were administered the STAR test. This test would determine her students’ reading growth for the year. At the conclusion of the test, a growth report (“growth report”) was generated. 8. The growth report evidenced that the Respondent would not achieve the 80 percent growth necessary for her to receive an “effective” rating on the Student Learning Growth portion. of her evaluation. 9. There were three students whose final test scores were lower than, or the same as their first test score from the beginning of the year, K.K., F-F.,.and E.B: 16, On or about May 1, 2013, three students, K.K., F.F. and E.B, were issued a low growth management on the morning exam. The Respondent pulled students K.K., F.F., and EB. from listening to speeches and toid them they were going to take the test again, they needed to try harder and “they could not teil anyone,” or words to that effect. fl. On or about May 1, 2013, K.K., F.F. and E.B. were tested for a second time that day. The Respondent did not receive approval to remove these students and solely re-administer the STAR exam. 12, Students E.B., F.F, and K.K.’s test scores increased from the first test given on May | to the second test given later on May | as follows: 2.9 to a 6.1, 3.6 to a 4.4; and 3.4 toa 4.5, 13. During the 2012-2013 school year, the Respondent failed to follow test administration rules and/or protocol in her actions alleged in this Administrative Complaint. 14, During May 1, 2013 through May 2, 2013, the Respondent was dishonest, intentionally misleading and attempted to conceal her actions in retesting three students for the STAR exam. The Respondent did not receive approval to retest the students, nor did she inform anyone until May 3, 2613. In a series of multiple actions and imactions, the Respondent deliberately concéaled the retesting of students K.K., F.F., and E.B. and thwarted the district’s investigation, evidenced by the following: BETH ANNE STONE Administrative Complaint Page 3 of 5 (a) on or about May 1, 2013, the Respondent sent an e-mail to test proctor Valerie Komara and principal Donnie Brown, stating she was puzzied by three students’ scores and stated they are very different from the scores that morning, or words to that effect. The Respondent in further discussion, told test proctor Komara that she had misplaced her first report, had run a second report and that’s when she noticed three student scores had changed; (b) the Respondent told test proctor Komara not to worry about the additional test score; (c) on or about May 2, 2012, the Respondent left a sticky note attached to test proctor Komara’s computer telling her that testing coordinator Virginia George was checking into the second test and for her not to worry, that she’ll get it taken care of, or words to that effect; (d) on or about May 2, 2012 around 8:37 a.m., the Respondent emailed Principal Brown and stated, Virginia is taking care of this. Sorry to bother you, or words to that effect; and (e) on or about May 2, 2013 in the morning, the Respondent asked proctor Virginia George if she was able to delete the second test record for each student, F.F., K.K., and E.B, or words to that effect. Later, on May 2, 2013, after school, the Respondent asked proctor Virginia George if she had deleted the scores. Proctor George told the Respondent she planned te interview the children who had duplicate test scores. The Respondent offered to go and interview the students for procter George, or words to that effect. Proctor George dismissed the Respondent’s offer and stated she wanted to interview the students herself, or words to that effect. The Respondent then admitted she tested the students twice. 15. On or about May 3, 2013, the Respondent admitted to Principal Brown that she tested students twice on May 1, 2013. 16. On or about May 1, 2013, three students, E.B., F.F. and K.K. were singled out and removed from Tropicana Speeches, were retested, and interviewed regarding their May 1, 2013 retesting, 17. The Respondent assisted at least one student, E.B., during the STAR retest. 18. On or about August 25, 2013, details surrounding the Respondent’s suspension without pay for providing misleading information in conjunction with standardized testing and reporting results were reported in the local media. 19. | The Respondent is in violation of Section 1008.24(1), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent knowingly and willfully violated test security rules adopted by the State Board of Education for mandatory tests administered by or through the State Board of Education or the BETH ANNE STONE Administrative Complaint Page 4 of S Commissioner of Education to students, educators, or applicants for certification or administered by schoo! districts pursuant to s. 1008.22. 20. The Respondent is in violation of Section 1008.24(1)(), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent knowingly and willfully failed to follow test administration directions specified in the test administration manuals. 21, The Respondent is in violation of Section 1008.24(1)(g), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent participated in, directed, aided, counseled, assisted in, or encouraged any of the acts prohibited in this section. 22. ‘The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10.042(1}, Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent failed to maintain/administer tests in a manner to preserve test integrity. : 23, The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10.042(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has participated in, directed, aided counseled, assisted in, or encouraged an activity which could result in the inaccurate measurement. or reporting of examinees’ achievement. 24. ‘The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10.042(3), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent failed to report suspected cheating or other violations of Rule 6A-10.042. The Petitioner charges: STATUTE VIOLATIONS COUNT i: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces effectiveness as an employee of the school board. COUNT 2: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)@), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules. RULE VIOLATIONS COUNT 3: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10,081(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental health and/or physical health and/or safety. COUNT 4: The aliegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- BETH ANNE STONE Administrative Complaint Page 5 of 5 10.081(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. COUNT 5: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10.08 1(3)(h), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has exploited a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. COUNT 6: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10.081(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has intentionally distorted or misrepresented facts concerning an educational matter in direct or indirect public expression. COUNT 7: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10,081(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has failed to maintain honesty in ail professional dealings. COUNT 8: The Respondent is in violation of Rule 6A-10.081(5)th), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has submitted fraudulent information on a document in connection with professional activities. WHEREFORE, based on the reasons set forth herein and in accordance with the Explanation of Rights and Election of Rights forms attached to and made a part of this Administrative Complaint, Petitioner respectfully recommends that the Education Practices Commission impose an appropriate. sanction against the Respondent’s educator’s certificate pursuant to the authority provided in Sections 1012.795(1) and 1012.796(7), Florida Statutes. The sanctions imposed by the Education Practices Commission may include, but are not limited to, any one or a combination of the following: issuing the Respondent a written reprimand; placing the Respondent on probation for any period of time; restricting the Respondent’s authorized scope of practice; assessing the Respondent an administrative fine; directing the Respondent to enroll m the Recovery Network Program; suspending the Respondent’s educator’s certificate for a period of time not to exceed five years; revoking the Respondent’s educator’s certificate for a period of time up to 10 years or permanently; determining the Respondent to be ineligible for certification; or barring the Respondent from reapplying for an educator’s certificate for a period of time up to 10 years or permanently. EXECUTED on this 2.\ day of cil 2014. PAM STEWART, as Commissioner of Education State of Florida

Docket for Case No: 14-004449PL