STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 85-0632

)

CHARLOTTE ELAINE COX, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This cause came on for hearing on April 24, 1985, in Miami, Dade County, Florida, before Diane A. Grubbs, a hearing officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Mark A. Valentine, Jr., Esq.

Assistant School Board Attorney McCrary & Valentine, P.A.

3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida

For Respondent: Mitchell A. Horwich, Esq.

Education Advocacy Project

Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Northside Shopping Center

149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N. W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147-4796

ISSUE

Whether the respondent should be reassigned to the Opportunity School.

BACKGROUND

By letter dated February 5, 1985, the respondent's aunt and guardian was notified that the respondent had been assigned to

Youth Opportunity School South. The basis for the action was the respondent's disruption of the educational process in the regular school program and her failure to adjust to the regular school program. On February 14, 1985, respondent's aunt requested a hearing on the transfer. On February 20, 1985, the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings.

At the hearing the petitioner presented the testimony of one witness, Mr. Aron Brumm, Assistant Principal at Cutler Ridge Junior High School. Respondent testified on her own behalf and also presented the testimony of Shiela Lynn Osborne, a counselor at Cutler Ridge, and Mrs. Albertha Steele, the petitioner's aunt.

Both petitioner and respondent filed proposed recommended orders which have been carefully considered. All proposed findings of fact have been addressed, either directly or indirectly, in this recommended order, except those that are cumulative, irrelevant, or unnecessary. A proposed finding of fact has been specifically rejected when a contrary finding has been made.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Mr. Aron Brumm, Assistant Principal at Cutler Ridge, handles about 95% of the disciplinary cases at Cutler Ridge. He was personally involved in investigating the incidents involving Charlotte and in the efforts to correct Charlotte's behavior. The following is an outline of Charlotte's disciplinary record at Cutler Ridge:

   
   

   DATE REASON FOR REFERRAL

   
   

   9/17/84 Charlotte was disruptive in class, rude, and constantly tardy.

   
   

   9/25/84 Charlotte was found in possession of pens stolen from the school store. She admitted that

   she had taken them.

   
   

   10/4/84 Charlotte was rude, insulting, and disrespectful in class. Class disrupted.

   
   

   10/31/84 Charlotte threatened another student.

   
   

   11/1/84 Charlotte talked back to her teacher in class

   and was rude. She was putting on make-up during the class.

   
   

   12/6/84 Charlotte constantly tardy to class and disruptive when she gets to class.

   
   

   12/6/84 Charlotte was disruptive on the school bus. 12/19/84 Charlotte was disruptive in reading class.

   1/18/85 Charlotte was found in possession of "Request for Student" blank forms that are used by school to get a student out of class. Charlotte forged

   the later

   
   

   signature of Mrs. King to get out of class and

   
   

   was found out near the band room; the forms were found in her purse.

   
   

   1/22/85 Charlotte completely disrupted indoor suspension, which she was attending due to the prior incident. She was defiant and disrespectful.

   
   

   1/23/85 Charlotte disrupted indoor suspension once again, despite warning given to her the day before.

   
   

   1/25/85 A pre-opportunity school conference was held, at which time it is discovered that Charlotte had forged Mrs. Steele's name on Charlotte's progress reports.

   
   

2. Every effort was made by school personnel to help Charlotte correct her disruptive behavior. From the time of the first incident, contact was made with Charlotte's guardian. By October 4, 1984, Charlotte had been referred to the school counselor. She was placed in an academic study group which met once a week for four weeks. She had special counseling sessions with some of her teachers. She received reprimands, indoor suspensions, and outdoor suspensions. All efforts were ineffective. Although Charlotte had some good days and would show improvement for a short period of time after certain counseling sessions, she ultimately would revert to her former behavior.

   
   

3. Charlotte was not removed from the classes where she was having the most difficulty. However, none of the evidence indicates that a change in teachers would have brought about a change in Charlotte's behavior. Charlotte's disruptive behavior was not confined to one class or one teacher. Three different teachers had to refer Charlotte to the assistant principal for disciplinary action because of her intolerable behavior in the classroom. Further, Charlotte's disruptive behavior was not limited to the classroom. She was disruptive on the school bus, she threatened a fellow student, she stole pens from the school store, she forged her guardian's name on her progress reports, and she used a forged pass to get out of class. She was disruptive in indoor suspension. This is clearly not a case of

   a personality conflict between a student and teacher which can be resolved by transferring the student out of the teacher's class.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

4. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdic- tion over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

   
   

5. Section 230.2315, Florida Statutes, provides for the establishment of educational alternative programs for a student who is disruptive, unsuccessful, or disinterested in the regular school environment as determined by grades, achievement test scores, referrals for suspension or other disciplinary action, and rate of absences. Pursuant thereto, the Department of Education has promulgated rules for the determination of eligibility for such a program. Rule 6A-1.994(2), Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the criteria for eligibility for an educational alternative program and defines the disruptive and unsuccessful or disinterested student. A student is eligible for an educational alternative program if he meets one or more of the following criteria:

   
   

   1. Disruptive. A student who:

      
      

      1. Displays persistent behavior which interferes with the student's own learning or the educational process of others and requires attention and assistance beyond that which the traditional program can provide; or

         
         

      2. Displays consistent behavior resulting in frequent conflicts of a disruptive nature while the student is under the jurisdiction of the school either in or out of the classroom; or.

         
         

      3. Displays disruptive behavior which severely threatens the general welfare of the student or other members of the school population; ....

      
      

      * * *

   2. Unsuccessful or disinterested. A student who:

      
      

      1. Demonstrates a lack of sufficient involvement in the traditional school program to achieve success because interests, needs or talents are not being addressed; or

         
         

      2. Shows unsatisfactory academic progress and the effort to provide assistance is either rejected or is ineffective.

      
      

      The petitioner has the burden to prove that the child is disruptive, unsuccessful, or disinterested as those terms are defined above.

      
      

6. From the evidence presented, it is evident that Charlotte is a disruptive student as defined by Rule 6A- 1.994(2)(a)1. and 2. Therefore, she meets the criteria for eligibility for transfer to an educational alternative program.

   
   

7. Respondent suggests that educational alternative school placement is inappropriate because the Petitioner did not determine Charlotte's individual educational needs, and therefore it cannot be determined that Charlotte requires attention and assistance beyond that which the traditional school program can provide. Without identifying any, respondent argues that there may have been other services or programs available at Cutler Ridge that could have met Charlotte's needs and corrected her behavior. The evidence does not support this contention. Charlotte was given all the attention and assistance that was available at Cutler Ridge, and it is apparent that she requires attention beyond that that is available in the traditional school program. Accordingly, the assignment of Charlotte Cox was appropriate and in fulfillment of petitioner's duty to offer an educational alternative program to respondent.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is

RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered approving the assignment of respondent to the opportunity school program at Youth Opportunity School South.

DONE and ENTERED this 21th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

DIANE A. GRUBBS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1985.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Board Administrative Building Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132

Mark A. Valentine, Jr., Esq. Assistant School Board Attorney McCrary & Valentine, P.A.

3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida

Mitchell A. Horwich, Esq. Education Advocacy Project

Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Northside Shopping Center

149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147-4796

Phyllis O. Douglas, Esq. Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132

Honorable Ralph D. Turlington

Commissioner of Education The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 85-000632

Orders for Case No: 85-000632