STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 89-1093

)

EDGAR LOPEZ, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing in the above styled case was held on June 6, 1989, in Miami, Florida before Jane C. Hayman, hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: George dePozsgay, Esquire

Grove Professional Building, Suite 210 2950 Southwest 27th Avenue

Miami, Florida 33133

For Respondent: Ramonita Gonzalez Lopez, pro se

10,000 Northwest 80th Court Apartment 2127

Hialeah Gardens, Florida 33016 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Respondent should be assigned to the school system's opportunity school program.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated February 6, 1989, Petitioner informed Respondent's mother that Respondent had been assigned to an opportunity school. By letter dated February, 15, 1989, Respondent's mother objected to the assignment. By letter dated February 27, 1989, Petitioner requested that the Division of Administrative Hearings appoint a hearing officer to conduct a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida statutes.

At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented testimony of three witnesses and offered three exhibits which were admitted into evidence. Respondent's mother testified on behalf of Respondent.

A transcript of the proceeding was ordered, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were due on July 3, 1989. Neither party submitted proposed findings of fact.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times material hereto Respondent, Edgar Lopez, was a fifteen year old student who was assigned to Henry Filer Middle School during the school year of 1987-88 and to Jose Marti Middle School during the school year 1988-89.

   
   

2. When a teacher in the Dade County School System wishes to report or refer a discipline problem in the classroom, the teacher completes and submits to the assistant principal a Student Case Management form, commonly referred to as a SCAM.

   
   

3. During the 1987-88 school year, at least nine SCAMs were filed concerning Respondent and addressed disruptive behavior problems of tardiness, disobedience, and failure to cooperate. Respondent, Respondent's parent or both were consulted concerning the nine reports; however the behavior did not improve.

   
   

4. Then, in school year 1988-89, Respondent continued to have excessive absences, and the visiting teacher consulted Respondent's mother about Respondent's attendance.

   
   

5. On January 31, 1989, Respondent was found with two harmful knives at school and during school hours. Possession of knives is a Group 5 offense of the student code of conduct of the Dade County School Board which is punishable by expulsion.

   
   

6. Respondent exhibited disruptive behavior and was consulted about his problems but failed to improve. Further, Respondent committed an offense which warrants expulsion. Accordingly, Respondent's assignment to the opportunity school is correct.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

7. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings. Section 120.57 (1), Florida Statutes.

   
   

8. As part of the Dropout Prevention Act, Section 230.2316, Florida Statutes, disciplinary programs, similar to the opportunity school program in Dade County, Florida are authorized and may be provided for students who have a "history of disruptive behavior in school....", Section 230.2316(d), Florida Statutes. Disruptive behavior is further defined in Section 230.2316(d)(1), Florida Statutes, behavior which:

   
   

   1. 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 results 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

   2. severely threatens the general welfare of students or others with whom the student comes into contact.

9. Section 230.2316 (d)(4),Florida Statutes states the following:

   
   

   Prior to assigning a student to a disciplinary program of more that 10 days in duration, the district shall attempt a continuum of education and student services to identify the causes of the disruptive behavior, or to provide more appropriate educational services to the student; however, a student who has committed an offense which warrants expulsion according to the district code of student conduct may be assigned to a disciplinary program without attempting a continuum of services.

   
   

10. The Respondent has demonstrated disruptive behavior and qualifies for assignment in the disciplinary program. Here, the school offered Respondent several chances to correct his behavior through student services offered by Petitioner prior to suggesting such placement. Respondent failed, however, to correct his behavior.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida issue a Final Order affirming the assignment of Respondent to school system's opportunity school program.

DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida.

JANE C. HAYMAN

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of July, 1989.

COPIES FURNISHED:

George dePozsgay, Esquire 2950 S.W. 27th Avenue Suite 210

Miami, Florida 33133

Ramonita Gonzalez Lopez, 10,000 Northwest 80th Court Apartment 2127

Hialeah Gardens, Florida 33016

Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire

School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue

Miami, Florida 33132

Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools

School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue

Miami, Florida 33132

Docket for Case No: 89-001093

Orders for Case No: 89-001093