STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
ROCHARD LAMOTHE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 95-5127
)
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this case on December 19, 1995, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before Stuart M. Lerner, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Rochard Lamothe, pro se
4951 Rothschild Drive
Coral Springs, Florida 33067
For Respondent: Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire
Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether the Department of Education (hereinafter referred to as the "Department") should invalidate the score that Petitioner attained on the August 5, 1995, Professional Education Subtest of the Florida Teacher Certification Examination on the ground that Petitioner was guilty of cheating on the examination, as alleged in the Department's September 18, 1995, letter to Petitioner?
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By letter dated September 18, 1995, the Department advised Petitioner of its intention to invalidate the score that Petitioner had attained on the August 5, 1995, Professional Education Subtest of the Florida Teacher Certification Examination (which Petitioner had taken at the North Campus of Broward Community College) on the ground that Petitioner had cheated on the examination. By letter dated September 28, 1995, Petitioner requested a formal hearing on the Department's proposed action. On October 24, 1995, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (hereinafter referred to as the "Division") for the assignment of a Division hearing officer to conduct the formal hearing Petitioner had requested.
At the hearing, which was held on December 19, 1995, the Department presented the testimony of five witnesses: Kenneth Loewe, Ph.D.; 1/ Dotlyn Lowe; Greta Jackson; Consuelo Johnson; and Marcia Cadogan. Dr. Loewe is the director of the Department's professional certification examination program.
Lowe, Jackson, Johnson and Cadogan all played roles in the August 5, 1995, administration of the Professional Education Subtest at the North Campus of Broward Community College. Lowe was the test site administrator. Jackson was the test room supervisor. Johnson and Cadogan were test room proctors. In addition to the testimony of these five witnesses, the Department offered, and the Hearing Officer received, seven exhibits (Agency's Exhibits 1 through 7) into evidence. Petitioner testified briefly on his own behalf. He presented no other evidence.
At the close of the evidentiary portion of the formal hearing on December 19, 1995, the Hearing Officer announced on the record that post-hearing submittals had to be filed no later than January 8, 1996. On January 8, 1996, the Department timely filed a proposed recommended order containing, among other things, what the Department has labelled as, "findings of fact." The Department's proposed recommended order has been carefully considered by the Hearing Officer. The "findings of fact" set forth in the proposed recommended order are specifically addressed in the Appendix to this Recommended Order. To date, Petitioner has not filed any post-hearing submittal.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made:
The Professional Education Subtest (hereinafter referred to as the "Subtest") of the Florida Teacher Certification Examination tests the examinees' mastery and knowledge of general teaching methods and strategies. It is offered four times a year.
The Subtest consists of approximately 130 to 135 multiple choice questions (each with four choices from which the examinees must choose the correct answer).
The questions are printed in a question booklet.
There is a separate answer sheet on which examinees record their answers to these questions by blackening, with a pencil, the appropriate bubble.
Examinees are given two and a half hours to complete the Subtest.
The Subtest is a criterion referenced test as opposed to a norm referenced test. To pass the Subtest, an examinee must attain a scaled score of 200.
The Subtest is administered by the Office of Instructional Resources of the University of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "OIR") pursuant to a contract that OIR has with the Department. Dr. Sue Legg is the head of OIR.
Pat Dovall is one of her assistants.
Among OIR's responsibilities is the development, in cooperation with the Department, of a Test Administration Manual for the Subtest (hereinafter
referred to as the "Manual") to guide and assist test site administrators, test room supervisors and test room proctors in discharging their duties at the test administration sites.
The Manual developed by OIR provides that the following procedures should be followed in the seating of examinees:
3. Procedures for Seating of Examinees
Seat examinees in the same seat they used for the morning session. For retake candidates testing only in the afternoon, follow the procedures below.
Place a test book receipt card on each desk where an examinee will sit.
Be certain you and your assistants have unimpeded access to every examinee.
Assign examinee to a specific row or column
of chairs. DO NOT ALLOW EXAMINEES TO SELECT THEIR OWN SEATING POSITIONS.
Arrange seating in a manner which will separate those who are obviously acquainted.
Seat examinees so they cannot see their neighbors' responses or exchange information.
Fill in appropriate chairs in each row or column in order to expedite distribution and collection of test materials.
Place left handed examinees in a separate row or in the last seat or each row of right-handed examinees. If use of chairs with right-handed tablet arms cannot be avoided, seat left-handed examinees with vacant chairs to their left for use as writing surfaces.
If an examinee objects to his seating assign- ment, the room supervisor should make every attempt to work out a satisfactory solution.
If this is not possible, the center supervisor should discuss the problem with the examinee.
4. Seating Arrangements
Level Seating Arrangements:
Seat examinees directly behind one another, facing in the same direction. Maintain a three-foot separation.
Inclined Seating Arrangements:
Maintain a three-foot separation front and rear and side-to-side.
With respect to the subject of "individual examinee irregularities," the Manual states the following:
Report on the Irregularity Report
name
social security number
test name
time by reset watch
Misconduct
Defined as any of the following: creating a disturbance; giving or receiving help; using notes, books, calculators; removing test materials or notes from the testing room; attempting to take a test for someone else.
ANY EXAMINEE MAY BE DISMISSED WHO IS ENGAGING IN ANY MISCONDUCT AS DEFINED ABOVE:
Two witnesses (or more) must observe the misconduct. The test center supervisor or room supervisor must be one of the witnesses.
A full written report, signed by all witnesses, must be sent to OIR immediately.
Cheating
Defined as an examinee giving or receiving assistance during a testing period.
Dismiss examinee from the testing areas if either of the above occurs. Examinee may not return.
Dismiss examinee who repeatedly, after warning, continues to work on a test after time has elapsed.
Dismiss examinee who uses prohibited aids.
Include the following on the Irregularity Report:
Examinee's identification
Type of "cheating" and details of activity
Warnings given
Time on the reset watch
Test section
Degree of certainty
Name of persons confirming the information
Information given to the examinee at the time of the incident
Attach examinee's answer folder to the Irregularity Report and return to OIR.
Suspected Cheating
Record name of examinee suspected.
Record name of persons from whom you suspect the examinee was copying.
Warn the examinee that you suspect cheating.
Move examinee to provide further separation.
Disturbances
Defined as behavior of examinee during testing that disturbs others; loud noises or other
conditions that lead to complaints by the examinees.
Individual disruptive behavior
Warn examinee that dismissal will result if behavior continues.
Report the incident on the Irregularity Report.
Outside disturbance
Stop test.
Have examinees close test books with answer folders inserted.
Note time on the reset watch.
Adjust time when test is resumed to ensure a full test period.
OIR is also responsible for the selection of test administration sites, subject to the approval of the Department.
The North Campus of Broward Community College (hereinafter referred to as "BCC") was selected by OIR and approved by the Department as one of the test administration sites for the August 5, 1995, Subtest.
For the August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC, Dotlyn Lowe was the OIR- slected test site administrator, Greta Jackson was the test room supervisor, and Consuelo Johnson and Marcia Cadogan were the test room proctors. Each had served in similar capacities for prior examinations and, having previously reviewed the Manual, 2/ each was aware of its contents at the time of the administration of the August 5, 1995, Subtest.
The August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC was administered in a classroom which had approximately 50 seats arranged in eight or nine rows. Each seat had a right-handed tablet arm for use as a writing surface.
Petitioner was one of the approximately 35 examinees who took the August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC.
He sat in the last occupied row of seats (in Seat Number 42). 3/ Seated immediately to his left, approximately two to two and half feet away (in Seat Number 41), was another examinee, George Sauers.
On various occasions during the Subtest, Petitioner looked at Sauers' answer sheet to see Sauers' answers. 4/
Jackson, Johnson and Cadogan all witnessed Petitioner engage in such conduct.
Jackson first noticed such conduct approximately an hour after the Subtest had begun. From her vantage point, she saw that Petitioner, instead of facing straight ahead toward the front of the room, was sitting with his body angled to the left in a position that enabled him to look at Sauers' answer sheet and see Sauers' answers without having to turn his head. 5/ Petitioner's left leg was crossed over his right leg and his left ankle was resting on his right knee. Petitioner had placed his question booklet on his left knee, but he was not looking at the booklet. Rather, his eyes were focused on Sauers' answer sheet.
Jackson continued to watch Petitioner for another ten to twenty minutes from various parts of the classroom. During that time, she observed him repeatedly shift his eyes toward Sauers' answer sheet and then mark answers on his own answer sheet.
Jackson then asked the two test room proctors, Johnson and Cadogan, to observe Petitioner. Johnson and Cadogan complied with Jackson's request. For the next fifteen to twenty minutes Johnson and Cadogan watched Petitioner and
saw him engage in the same conduct that Jackson had observed. They then reported their observations to Jackson.
Jackson thereupon consulted the Manual, specifically that portion dealing with the subject of "individual examinee irregularities," to determine what action she should take. Although she was certain that Petitioner had copied answers from Sauers' answer sheet, she was uncertain as to whether the provisions of the Manual relating to "cheating" or those relating to "suspected cheating" applied to such conduct.
It was Jackson's understanding that an examinee who copied answers from another examinee's answer sheet was guilty of "cheating," as opposed to "suspected cheating," as those terms were used in the Manual, only if the "copying" examinee was knowingly helped by the examinee from whom he had copied, which did not appear to be the situation in Petitioner's case. Jackson, however, was not sure that this interpretation of the Manual was correct. She therefore dispatched Cadogan to seek guidance from Lowe, the test site administrator.
Lowe sent her assistant, Jacqueline Edwards, to speak with Jackson.
Edwards and Jackson determined that the provisions of the Manual relating to "suspected cheating" should be followed in dealing with Petitioner's conduct.
Petitioner therefore was not removed from the test site. Rather, after being told that he was suspected of cheating, he was asked to change his seat (which he did without any argument) and allowed to remain in the classroom to finish the Subtest.
In his new seat, Petitioner sat facing forward and had his test materials in front of him. He made no apparent effort to look at any of his new neighbors' answer sheets.
Petitioner handed in his answer sheet before the expiration of the two and a half hours the examinees were given to finish the Subtest.
Later that same day, following the administration of the Subtest, Jackson prepared and submitted a written irregularity report concerning Petitioner's "suspected cheating." 6/
Subsequently, on August 10, 1995, and again on August 28, 1995, Jackson sent memoranda to OIR accurately describing the incident. The memoranda were signed not only by Jackson, but also by Johnson and Cadogan, who did so to indicate that the information contained in the memoranda was accurate to the best of their knowledge.
The August 28, 1995, memorandum was the most detailed of Jackson's three written statements 7/ concerning the incident. It read as follows:
On Saturday, August 5, 1995, during the Professional Education Examination, I observed Mr. Lamothe looking at another examinee's (George Sauers) answer sheet.
I observed Mr. Lamothe at his desk with one leg [a]cross the other and his test booklet approxi-
mately 1 ft. away from him, resting on his crossed leg. However, Mr. Lamothe's pupils were in the extreme left corner of his eyes, looking onto Mr. Sauers' desk. Mr. Lamothe would then look up and once looked directly at me, pause as though he
was thinking and then marked an answer on his answer sheet.
I observed this incident, within an hour of the test, over a period of 15-20 minutes[.] I then asked the proctors (Consuelo Johnson and Marcia Cadogan) to also watch the examinee. After approximately 15-20 minutes, the proctors confirmed that they also observed Mr. Lamothe cheating. I sent Ms. Cadogan to the Test Center Supervisor, Dotlyn Lowe, for advice. Mr. Lamothe was not dismissed from test room, due to our interpretation of the Test Manual instructions
on page 14, number 3 (that defines cheating as giving or receiving assistance, which was not the case). Therefore, we preceded as per the Test Manual instructions on page 15, number 4.
I then informed Mr. Lamothe that he was observed/suspected of cheating and asked him to change his seat. Mr. Lamothe got his belongings together and moved to the front of the room. Mr. Lamothe finished his exam without further incident.
Mr. Lamothe was sitting in the back of the room in Seat Number 42 and Mr. Sauers was sitting to Mr. Lamothe's left in Seat Number 41.
Petitioner's scaled score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest was 215. Sauers scored a 229. The mean scaled score of the 2478 examinees taking the August 5, 1995, Subtest at all locations was 215.32. Of these 2478 examinees,
94.2 percent received a passing scaled score of 200 or above. 8/ 33. After reviewing Jackson's August 5, 1995, irregularity report and her August 10, 1995, and August 28, 1995, memoranda, 9/ Dr. Loewe consulted with his supervisor, Dr. Thomas Fisher. Dr. Loewe and Dr. Fisher determined, based on the information provided in these documents, that Petitioner's score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest should be invalidated. By letter dated September 18, 1995, Dr. Loewe informed Petitioner of this determination. The letter read as follows:
This letter is in reference to your score on
the August 5, 1995 Florida Teacher Certification Examination Professional Education test adminis- tration.
At that administration test proctors witnessed you repeatedly looking at the answer document of another examinee. This constitutes cheating. As a result your score will not count and no score report will be mailed. 10/
If you dispute the material facts on which this decision is based, you may request a formal hearing by submitting a written request within 20 days of the date of this letter to:
Dr. Thomas Fisher
Administrator, Student Assessment Services Suite 701, Florida Education Center
Florida Department of Educatio Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Failure to timely request a hearing constitutes waiver of administrative proceedings, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes.
If you wish to complete the teacher certification testing requirements you will need to register for and retake the Professional Education test
at a scheduled administration.
In response to Dr. Loewe's letter, Petitioner wrote the following letter, dated to September 28, 1995, to Dr. Fisher:
This letter is in response to the memo that was sent to me on Septemb[er] 18, 1995 in regard to looking at the answer sheet of another examinee. I am appalled by these allegations. I spent several months studying for this exam and did not expect a response such as this (only a positive one).
I am most definitely disputing these allegations. I request a formal hearing as soon as possible.
Please send me further information on a time and place so I will be able to resolve this issue.
A comparison of Petitioner's answers with those given by Sauers and the other examinees who took the August 5, 1995, Subtest lends further support to the conclusion that Petitioner cheated on the examination, as alleged in Dr. Loewe's September 18, 1995, letter to Petitioner.
Petitioner answered 37 of the 132 questions on the August 5, 1995, Subtest incorrectly. Sauers answered 23 of the 132 questions incorrectly.
Twenty-one of the questions Petitioner answered incorrectly, Sauers also answered incorrectly.
Petitioner and Sauers chose the identical incorrect response on 16 of the 21 questions they both answered incorrectly. This exceeds what would be expected based on random chance.
On 11 of these 16 questions where Petitioner and Sauers selected the same incorrect answer, their answer was different than the answer most of the examinees selected. This is highly unusual. For example, on Question 71, 77 percent of the 2478 examinees chose "C," which was the correct answer.
Petitioner and Sauers both selected "A," a choice made by only 5 percent of the 2478 examinees.
Petitioner took the Subtest again, for the fifth time, on October 28, 1995.
In addition to having taken the Subtest in August of 1995, he had also previously taken the Subtest in April of 1994, August of 1994, and April of 1995.
On the April, 1994; August, 1994; and April, 1995 Subtests he had received failing scaled scores of 192, 199 and 194, respectively.
On the October 28, 1995, Subtest, Petitioner received a failing scaled score of 198. The mean scaled score of the 1744 examinees taking the October 28, 1995, Subtest at all locations was 213.11. Of these 1744 examinees, 95.4 percent received a passing scaled score of 200 or above.
Petitioner was among the 81 examinees who took the Subtest on both August 5, 1995, and October 28, 1995.
Of these 81 examinees, 67 scored higher on the October 28, 1995, Subtest than they did on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Such an increase is typical.
Nine of the 81 examinees scored lower on the October 28, 1995, Subtest than they did on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Of these nine examinees, four scored one point lower, one scored three points lower, two scored four points lower and one scored six points lower. Petitioner was the other examinee who scored lower on the October 28, 1995, Subtest. His scaled score on the October 28, 1995, Subtest was 17 points lower than his scaled score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Such a significant decrease in scoring is consistent with his having cheated on the August 5, 1995, Subtest.
Because Petitioner cheated on the August 5, 1995, Subtest by copying answers from Sauers' answer sheet, his score on that examination cannot be considered a reliable and accurate indicator of the extent of his mastery and knowledge of the general teaching methods and strategies covered on the examination.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Petitioner is seeking to be certified as a teacher.
The Department is the state agency responsible for certifying teachers in the State Florida. Section 231.17, Fla. Stat.
"Each applicant for an initial professional certification [must] demonstrate, on a comprehensive written examination or through such other procedures as may be specified by the state board [of education], mastery of those minimum essential generic and specialization competencies and other criteria as shall be adopted into rules by the state board." Section 231.17(2)(a), Fla. Stat.
Subsections (2)(b), (2)(e), (2)(f), (2)(g) and (2)(h) of Section 231.17, Florida Statutes, also make reference to the written examination
candidates for teacher certification must take. They provide, in pertinent part, as follows:
(b) The state board shall adopt rules that specify the minimum essential generic and subject matter competencies to be demonstrated by means of the written examination and those to be demonstrated by other means. The
examination shall require a candidate to demonstrate the following:
* * *
Mastery of professional skills and knowledge of the standards of professional practice; . . .
The commissioner, with the approval of the state board, may assign to a university in the state system the responsibility for printing, administering, scoring, and providing appropriate analysis of the written test required.
The state board shall, by rule, specify the examination scores the achievement of which shall be required for the issuance of a professional certificate and temporary certificates. Such rules shall provide an alternative method by which an applicant may demonstrate mastery of general knowledge, including the ability to read, write, or compute, shall define generic subject area competencies, and shall establish uniform evaluation guidelines. . .
Provision shall be made for a person who does not achieve the score necessary for certifi- cation to review his or her completed examination and bring to the attention of the department any errors that would result in a passing grade.
The department and the board shall maintain confidentiality of the examination, developmental materials, and workpapers, and the examination, developmental materials, and workpapers shall be exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1). This exemption is subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act in accordance with s. 119.14. The board shall adopt such rules as may be necessary to accomplish this purpose.
The state board of education has adopted Rule 6A-4.0021, Florida Administrative Code, to implement the foregoing statutory provisions. The rule provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
This rule governs the written examination for teacher certification. Additional require- ments for certification are specified in Chapter 6A-4, FAC.
Description of the examination and com- petencies to be demonstrated.
The Florida Teacher Certification Exami- nation shall be developed by the Commissioner of Education.
The written examination shall include
subtests of reading, writing, mathematics, professional skills, and subject area specialty. These subtests may contain multiple choice questions and questions requiring the examinee to write an answer or demonstrate a proficiency.
. . .
Administration of the examination.
The examination shall be administered by a test administration agency or agencies under
contract with the Florida Department of Education.
The examination shall be administered at least four (4) times each year. The Commissioner of Education shall establish examination dates each year which may include supplemental test administrations. The Commissioner of Education shall designate the registration deadlines, administration sites, and tests available for
the supplemental administrations.
The examination shall be administered at centers designated by the Commissioner of Education. . . .
Scoring of the reading, writing, mathematics, and professional skills subtests.
A passing score on each of the multiple- choice subtests shall be a scaled score of at least 200. . . .
Score reports for the reading, writing, mathematics, professional skills, and subject area subtests.
A properly authenticated score report is defined as the original score report issued directly by the test administration agency without any qualification, reservation, or irregularity.
The examinee shall be sent two (2) authenticated score reports as described in Rule 6A-4.0021(11)(a), FAC. . . .
Official documentation of scores earned on each subtest of the examination for a temp- orary or for a professional certificate shall be the original authenticated score report as described in Rule 6A-4.0021(11)(a), FAC., or a
duplicate authenticated score report as described in 6A-4.0021(11)(e), FAC.
Scores shall be reported as Pass or Fail for each subtest of the examination. The Commissioner of Education may provide additional score information to the examinee.
An examinee may obtain a duplicate authenticated score report for a test administration by filing a written request and a fee. . . .
Review
An examinee who fails one (1) or more subtests of the examination may file a written request with the test administration agency for handscoring of the reading, mathematics, English
language skills, subject area, or professional skills subtest that was failed. . . .
An examinee who fails one (1) or more subtests of the examination may review each subtest that was failed and bring to the Florida Department of Education's attention any scoring errors which may result in a passing score. . .
In the instant case, Petitioner did not receive a "properly authenticated score report," as that term is used in Rule 6A-4.0021, Florida Administrative Code, for the August 5, 1995, Subtest because there had been an "irregularity" reported. The "irregularity" involved his alleged cheating on the examination by copying answers from the answer sheet of another examinee.
Petitioner challenged the allegation that he had cheated on the August 5, 1995, Subtest and requested a formal Section 120.57 hearing on the matter.
The evidence adduced at the formal Section 120.57 hearing that was held at Petitioner's request clearly and convincingly establishes that Petitioner cheated on the August 5, 1995, Subtest, as alleged. 11/
Because of such cheating, the score he attained on the examination is not a reliable and accurate measure of the extent of his mastery and knowledge of the general teaching methods and strategies covered on the examination and therefore it should be invalidated.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a final order invalidating the score that Petitioner attained on the August 5, 1995, Subtest because he cheated on the examination by copying answers from the answer sheet of another examinee.
DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of January, 1996.
STUART M. LERNER, 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 19th day of January, 1996.
ENDNOTES
1/ Dr. Loewe testified as both a fact witness and as an expert in the interpretation, analysis and evaluation of standardized tests in general and the Florida Teacher Certification Examination in particular.
2/ Jackson, Johnson and Cadogan participated in a final, group review of the Manual's contents on the morning of the August 5, 1995, Subtest.
3/ The last row was unoccupied.
4/ In making this finding, the Hearing Officer has considered, but rejected as unworthy of belief in light of the more credible testimony to the contrary, Petitioner's testimony that he did not engage in such conduct.
5/ Petitioner was close enough to Sauers' answer sheet to see the answers Sauers had marked on the sheet.
6/ Earlier, during the administration of the Subtest, in accordance with the provisions of the manual relating to "suspected cheating," Jackson had made a written notation that Petitioner was suspected of copying from Sauers' answer sheet.
7/ These statements contained varying amounts of detail, but were consistent with one another.
8/ Typically, a high percentage of examinees taking the Subtest receive a passing score.
9/ OIR, which serves as a conduit for communications between test site administrators and the Department, provided Dr. Loewe with these documents.
10/ Ordinarily, a score report is mailed to the examinee and the Department's Bureau of Teacher Certification.
11/ Where an otherwise qualified applicant for certification, registration or licensure is preliminarily denied such certification, registration or licensure by the licensing agency based upon alleged wrongdoing on the applicant's part, the licensing agency bears the burden of proving such wrongdoing by clear and convincing evidence. See Osborne Stern and Company v. Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection, 647 So.2d 245, 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5127
The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the "findings of fact" proposed by the Department in its proposed recommended order:
1-5. Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order.
First and second sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third and fourth sentences: Not incorporated in this Recommended Order because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer.
First, second and sixth sentences: Not incorporated in this Recommended Order because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual
findings made by the Hearing Officer; Third, fourth and fifth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Not incorporated in this Recommended Order because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer.
Accepted and incorporated in substance.
First and second sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third sentence: Not incorporated in this Recommended Order because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer.
11-17. Accepted and incorporated in substance.
18. First and second sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third sentence: To the extent that this proposed finding states that "Lowe and Edwards [as opposed to Jackson and Edwards] consulted," it has been rejected because it lacks sufficient evidentiary/record support. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance.
19-20. Accepted and incorporated in substance.
First and second sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third sentence: To the extent that this proposed finding states that the referenced correspondence was dated August 16, 1995 (as opposed to August 10, 1995), it has been rejected because it lacks sufficient evidentiary/record support. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance.
Not incorporated in this Recommended Order because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer.
First, second and third sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Fourth sentence: Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of a summary of, and commentary upon, testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact. See T.S. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 654 So.2d 1028, 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)("Hearing Officer's "factual findings" which "merely summarize[d] the testimony of witnesses" were "insufficient").
Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of a summary of, and commentary upon, testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact.
25-26. Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of legal argument than a finding of fact.
First and third sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of legal argument than a finding of fact.
Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of a summary of, and commentary upon, testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact.
First sentence: Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact; Remaining sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance.
First sentence: Rejected because it lacks sufficient evidentiary/record support; Second sentence: Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact. Third and fourth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Accepted and incorporated in substance.
First and second sentences: Not incorporated in this Recommended Order because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer; Third sentence: Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact; Fourth sentence: Rejected because it lacks sufficient evidentiary/record support.
First and third sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second, fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected because they lack sufficient evidentiary/record support.
First sentence: Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact; Second, third, fourth and fifth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Sixth sentence: Not incorporated in this Recommended Order because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer.
First sentence: Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact; Second and third sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Fourth and fifth sentences: Not incorporated in this Recommended Order because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer.
First sentence: To the extent that this proposed finding states that Petitioner's score dropped, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that it states that it dropped 15 (as opposed to 17) points, it has been rejected because it lacks sufficient evidentiary/record support; Second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance.
First sentence: Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact; Second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Accepted and incorporated in substance.
First sentence: Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence adduced at hearing to prove the allegations of cheating made against Petitioner; Second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third sentence: To the extent that this proposed finding states that Petitioner's score "should not count," it has been rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of legal argument. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Rochard Lamothe
4951 Rothschild Drive
Coral Springs, Florida 33067
Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Barbara J. Staros General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this recommended order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period of time within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to 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 | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Apr. 11, 1996 | Final Agency Order filed. |
| Jan. 19, 1996 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 12/19/95. |
| Jan. 08, 1996 | Agency`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Dec. 19, 1995 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Nov. 17, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 12/19/95; 9:30am; Ft. Lauderdale) |
| Nov. 06, 1995 | (Respondent) Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Oct. 27, 1995 | Initial Order issued. |
| Oct. 24, 1995 | Agency referral letter; Request for Formal Hearing, letter form; Agency Action Letter filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Mar. 28, 1996 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jan. 19, 1996 | Recommended Order | Score of examinee who cheated on subtest of Florida teacher certification examination by copying answers from another examinee should be invalidated. |
STEVE J. LONGARIELLO vs DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 95-005127 (1995)
DR. ERIC J. SMITH, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs CARMEN KEELING, 95-005127 (1995)
ANA SANTANA vs JOHN L. WINN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, 95-005127 (1995)
DR. ERIC J. SMITH, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs BATUMANE SHAD BANTO KASANGANAY, 95-005127 (1995)
