The Issue The issues in this case are whether and how the Education Practices Commission (EPC) should discipline the Respondent on charges that she submitted another teacher’s work to earn an endorsement to her teacher certificate for English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Kimberly Bank, holds Florida educator certificate 993098, which expires on June 30, 2018. She is certified in English and reading. During the 2012-2013 school year, she was employed by the OCPS as a reading teacher at Oakridge High School. In January 2013, the Respondent and a fellow Oakridge reading teacher named Charnetta Starr enrolled in an online course through CaseNEX to earn credit towards an ESOL endorsement to their teaching credentials. ESOL endorsements were required for their jobs. Ms. Starr completed all required course work, including participation in online discussions, journal entries, and workbook submissions, and earned credit for the course. The Respondent began the CaseNEX class, but stopped participating after a few weeks and was told by the course facilitator that she was being withdrawn from the class. The course ended on April 24, 2013. On May 2, 2013, the Respondent emailed Ms. Starr to ask her to provide the Respondent with Ms. Starr’s course work, which Ms. Starr emailed to her. The Respondent enrolled to take the CaseNEX class again during the summer of 2013. She copied Ms. Starr’s journal entries and workbook submissions from the January course and submitted them verbatim as her own work for course credit during the summer course. The submissions struck the course facilitator as being very familiar, and her investigation revealed that they were exact copies of Ms. Starr’s submissions. The facilitator reported this to her supervisor. The Respondent was again withdrawn from the class, this time for violating course prohibitions against plagiarism. The Respondent and Ms. Starr were reported to OCPS, which reprimanded them and suspended them for three days. The Petitioner initiated separate, but virtually identical administrative cases to discipline the educator certificates of both the Respondent and Ms. Starr. The Petitioner agreed to settle Ms. Starr’s case for a reprimand and $750 fine, and the EPC accepted the settlement, because Ms. Starr was not perceived to have used the Respondent’s work product, but only to have allowed her work product to be used by the Respondent. Ms. Starr testified that she agreed to the settlement but actually does not believe her actions were wrong or violations because she did not know the Respondent was going to plagiarize her work and submit it for credit. Because the Respondent was perceived to have used Ms. Starr’s work product and submitted it as her own for CaseNEX course credit, the Respondent’s administrative case proceeded, with the Petitioner seeking to fine her, suspend her educator certificate, and place her on probation. The Respondent contends that she and Ms. Starr collaborated on all of Ms. Starr’s journal entry and workbook submissions with the intention that each would submit the identical work as their own. Initially, the Respondent contended that this was permissible “collaboration” under the CaseNEX honor code and course requirements. Later in the hearing, the Respondent seemed to concede that it was against the honor code and the course’s requirement that each teacher taking the course had to submit his or her own original work. At that point in the proceeding, she seemed to be taking the position that her conduct mirrored Ms. Starr’s and that her discipline should be the same (i.e., that she should not be suspended). In her proposed recommended order, the Respondent again took the position that her conduct was permissible collaboration under the CaseNEX honor code and the course’s requirements and that no discipline should be imposed. The evidence was clear and convincing that the work submitted by the Respondent for credit in the summer 2013 CaseNEX course was not the product of collaboration between her and Ms. Starr. The Respondent testified that she and Ms. Starr collaborated by jointly doing work for the course from the very beginning of the January 2013 course with the intention of each submitting their joint work product for credit. Yet, it is obvious that the Respondent’s work submissions prior to her withdrawal from the January 2013 course were not the same as Ms. Starr’s. The Respondent testified that she collaborated with Ms. Starr throughout the January 2013 CaseNEX course. She testified that they produced joint work for them both to submit for credit in the course. She testified that after she was withdrawn from the January course, she continued to collaborate and produce joint work product with Ms. Starr, and that it was understood that the Respondent would submit the work as her own when she retook the course. The Respondent testified that she misplaced and lost her thumb-drive with a digital copy of the joint work product and asked Ms. Starr to send her a copy as an attachment to an email, which Ms. Starr did on May 2, 2013. Ms. Starr testified that the Respondent emailed her to ask for a copy of Ms. Starr’s work product from the January CaseNEX course and that Ms. Starr complied on May 2, 2013. Ms. Starr testified that this was her own personal work product, not joint work product. She denied knowing that the Respondent intended to plagiarize and submit it as her own. She testified persuasively that there were other legitimate uses the Respondent could have made of the work besides plagiarizing it. Where there is conflict between the Respondent’s testimony and Ms. Starr’s testimony, the Respondent’s is rejected as being false, and Ms. Starr’s is credited as being the truth. The evidence was clear and convincing that Ms. Starr did her own work throughout the January 2013 course. None of the work submitted by Ms. Starr for credit in the January 2013 course was produced jointly with the Respondent. If the Respondent were telling the truth, and she and Ms. Starr collaborated on their work submissions, her early submissions for the January CaseNEX course would have been identical to Ms. Starr’s. They were not. On the other hand, some of her submissions during the course she took during the summer of 2013 were identical to Ms. Starr’s submissions. For this and other reasons, Ms. Starr’s testimony was more credible than the Respondent’s when their testimony was in conflict. The Respondent attempted to attack Ms. Starr’s credibility by use of a screen shot of an incomplete and out-of- context cell phone text message exchange between them on June 13, 2013. At 11:25 a.m. on that date, Ms. Starr texted the Respondent: “OK. Did you sign up for the online modules for the $1000? Let’s start working on them so we can get paid on 7/31.” The Respondent answered: “Girl I have started. The kids do 2 hrs in the computer lab and I do the modules. They are easy but looooooong!” Ms. Starr replied: “OK. Send me any info you have for it please.” The Respondent texted: “You just watch a video and answer 2 multiple choice questions. Skip through the video and go to the questions. You can try as much as you want. There”. There was no evidence as to what preceded or followed the exchange. When Ms. Starr was confronted with the text exchange on cross-examination, she understood that it was being presented to impeach her testimony that the Respondent contacted her about providing the Respondent with their supposedly joint work product from the January CaseNEX course. In her haste to vehemently defend herself, Ms. Starr failed to realize that the text message exchange actually had nothing to do with her providing the Respondent with her work product from the January course, but was about a different course they were taking to earn bonus pay, and she testified incorrectly that it was the Respondent who initiated the text message exchange that was in evidence. The cross-examination failed to impeach the essence of Ms. Starr’s testimony. The evidence was that the Respondent is a good teacher. She performed satisfactorily both at Oakridge before the CaseNEX cheating incident and at Conway Middle School after it. Nonetheless, it is clear that her effectiveness as an employee of the school district was seriously impaired by her plagiarism and cheating on the June 2013 CaseNEX course. For one thing, she was reprimanded and suspended for three days. For another, she did not get the ESOL endorsement that was required for the job she held at Oakridge. Since the Respondent was guilty of plagiarism, and Ms. Starr was less culpable, it is reasonable for the Respondent’s discipline to be harsher than Ms. Starr’s. A period of suspension is reasonable. Based on the EPC records of discipline imposed in similar cases that were officially recognized in this case, it appears that it has been the practice of the EPC to impose a one-year suspension, in addition to a fine, probation, and a requirement to take a college-level course in ethics, for a teacher who admits to plagiarism and cheating in a CaseNEX ESOL endorsement course. In the Respondent’s case, a longer period of suspension is warranted due to the Respondent’s dispute of the charges and her false testimony.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the EPC enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty as charged, suspending her educator certificate for 18 months, placing her on probation for two years with conditions to be determined by the EPC, requiring her to take a college-level course in ethics under terms and conditions determined by the EPC, and imposing a fine in the amount of $750. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 8th day of June, 2016.
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-14.0411 (“challenged rule”) is an “invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority” for the reasons alleged in the Amended Petition to Invalidate Rule (“Amended Petition”) filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Parties agreed to the following findings of facts in the Prehearing Stipulation: Petitioner, United Faculty of Florida, is structurally a voluntary, unincorporated association. The UFF is the registered employee organization under section 447.305, and is the certified collective bargaining agent under section 447.307, for several bargaining units of public employees employed by the college district boards of trustees regulated by the challenged rule. UFF is legally obligated to represent the members of these bargaining units with respect to the determination of their wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment pursuant to section 447.309(1). The State Board is the chief implementing and coordinating body of public education in Florida, and is required to focus on high-level policy decisions. The State Board has the authority to adopt rules to implement the provisions of law conferring duties upon it for the improvement of the state system to the extent compliant with the rulemaking authority standards set forth in the Florida Administrative Procedure Act. The Florida College System comprises the Florida College institutions, which are each governed by a local Board of Trustees. Each Board of Trustees is responsible for cost- effective policy decisions appropriate to the Florida College System institution?s mission, and the implementation of high- quality education programs within law and the rules of the State Board. Each Board of Trustees may adopt rules to supplement those prescribed by the State Board, and is specifically authorized to adopt rules and policies related to governance, personnel, conditions of employment, recruitment and selection, standards for performance and conduct, evaluation, promotion, assignment, demotion, and transfer, subject to the rulemaking authority standards set forth in the Florida Administrative Procedure Act. A “continuing contract” is a contract between a Florida college and a member of the college?s faculty which entitles the faculty member to continue in his or her respective full-time faculty position at the college without the necessity for annual nomination or reappointment. A faculty member who does not have a continuing contract has no assurance that he or she will be employed by the college in the next academic year. A continuing contract is similar to tenure, and is viewed by some as a form of tenure. A predecessor of the continuing contract rule has existed since at least 1979. The 1979 edition of the rule was amended in 2004; and the 2004 edition was not changed until April 23, 2013. There were no changes to Florida Statutes enacted since the adoption of the 2004 edition of the rule which mandated an increase from three to five years of satisfactory service for college instructors to qualify for a continuing contract; mandate that colleges develop criteria to measure students? success; mandate the creation of full-time college faculty positions that are not eligible for continuing-contract status; or mention the creation of full-time college faculty positions that are not eligible for continuing contract status. On April 27, 2012, the State Board published a Notice of Development of Rulemaking for the Rule, which scheduled a rule development workshop for June 5, 2012. The Notice stated that, “[t]he purpose of this rule development is to review the current process of issuing contracts to determine necessary changes. The effect will be a rule aligned with Florida Statutes.” On August 17, 2012, the State Board published a second Notice of Development of Rulemaking for the Rule. The second Notice stated, “[t]he purpose and effect of the rule change is to update the current process of issuing continuing contracts. The effect will be a rule aligned with Florida Statutes.” The Notice scheduled a rule-development workshop for August 31, 2012, but that workshop was cancelled. On November 13, 2012, the State Board published a third Notice of Development of Rulemaking, which included proposed language to amend the Rule. The third Notice stated: “[t]he purpose and effect of the rule change is to update the current process of issuing continuing contracts. The effect will be a rule aligned with Florida Statutes.” The State board held a rule-development workshop on November 29, 2012, at Seminole State College of Florida. On February 21, 2013, the State Board published a Notice of Proposed Rule to amend the Rule. The “Purpose and effect” section of Notice stated: The purpose of the rule development is to revise the current process and criteria for issuing continuing contracts. In addition, criteria for post-award performance reviews are added, and grounds for termination of continuing contracts are revised to include failure to meet the post-award performance criteria. The effect will be a rule aligned with Florida Statutes. The 2004 version of the rule did not have to be changed in 2013 in order to be aligned with any particular statute(s). The State Board held a rule adoption hearing on March 19, 2013, in Tallahassee, Florida. At the March 19, 2013, State Board meeting, the State Board unanimously adopted the proposed amendments to the Rule. The amended version of the rule became effective on April 23, 2013.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is therefore ORDERED THAT: The Petition filed by Petitioner pursuant to section 120.56(3) seeking an administrative determination that Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-14.0411 is an “invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority,” as defined in section 120.52(8) is hereby DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 23rd day of December, 2013.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for his answers to questions 42 and 81 of the morning session of the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination portion of the engineering licensure examination given on April 15, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Worku took the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination portion of the examination for licensure to practice as an engineer intern on April 15, 2000. The examination is a national multiple-choice examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). The examination is divided into a morning session and an afternoon session. The questions in the morning session are worth one raw point each. The questions in the afternoon session are worth two raw points each. Worku challenged questions 42 and 81, which were on the morning session of the examination. Worku received 56 raw points for the morning session and 52 raw points for the afternoon session for a total raw score of 108 on the examination. Based on the NCEES' Score Conversion Table, a raw score of 108 converts to a score of 69. A converted score of 70, which equates to a raw score of 109-113, is a passing score. Question 81 asked the examinee to identify the geometric shape that was given by an equation provided in the question. Each examinee was given a reference manual during the examination. The manual contains general formulas for the types of geometric shapes listed as possible answers to question 81. The equation given in question 81 was for a specific shape and was not listed among the general formulas in the reference manual. Worku felt that because the general equation was not used that the equation was stated incorrectly. However, the equation was stated correctly. The equation differed from the equation listed in the reference manual because it was for a special shape of the geometric figure. Worku did not answer question 81 correctly. Question 42 dealt with recrystallization as it relates to metal. The question asks the examinee to pick the answer which explains the reference to the term "recrystallization" in the question. Worku contends that there are two correct answers to question 42 and that the answer which he provided is one of the correct answers. The answer which Worku provided is not a correct answer. It refers to the process of annealing, which is the process of decreasing the toughness of a metal. Recrystallization can be a part, but is not always part of annealing. Recrystallization and annealing are not synonymous terms; thus Worku is not entitled to credit for question 42.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Amanuel Worku failed the Engineering Fundamentals Examination with a score of 69. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ Susan B. Kirkland Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Amanuel Worku 18492 Northwest 52nd Path Miami, Florida 33055 Douglas Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barbara D. Auger, General counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent (a) pushed a ten-year-old student against a wall and struck his arm with a closed fist; and/or (b) falsely answered a question on the application for renewal of her educator certificate, as Petitioner alleges; if so, whether (and what) disciplinary measures should be taken against Respondent's educator certificate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints against holders of Florida Educational Certificates who are accused of violating section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, and related rules. Respondent holds Professional Educators Certificate 730057 (certificate). Valid through June 30, 2018, the certificate covers the areas of Mathematics, Business Education, Teacher Coordinator of Cooperative Education, Teacher Coordinator of Work Experience Programs, and Exceptional Student Education (ESE). At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as an ESE teacher at WHGES in the Miami-Dade County School District (District). Respondent has been employed by the District in a variety of capacities for a total of 25 years and in a teaching capacity for the last 17 years. The charges against Respondent arise from an altercation Respondent had with a then 11-year-old fourth grade ESE student, E.A., on September 27, 2011. On that date, E.A. returned to Respondent's classroom after an in-school appointment with his therapist. Rather than entering the classroom, E.A. stood outside the closed door and knocked on the door intermittently for approximately five to ten minutes. Several students in the classroom went to the door to tell E.A. that the door was unlocked and to come in. When E.A. continued to knock on the door and disrupt the classroom, Respondent went to the door. Respondent was able to open the door part of the way and get her hand and part of her body in between the door and the door frame when E.A. pushed the door closed on Respondent and held it shut with his foot. Respondent shouted at E.A. to open the door and said repeatedly, "it's the teacher, open the door!" When E.A. removed his foot from the door, the door swung out towards the wall, trapping E.A. in a corner between the open door and the wall. Respondent yelled at E.A. to get into the classroom and struck him on the upper arm at least two times. Respondent also picked up E.A.'s backpack and threw it in the classroom. According to Respondent, she made physical contact with E.A. when he raised his arm and she believed he was about to hit her. Respondent claims she used a "defensive move" to prevent E.A. from striking her. Respondent's testimony is inconsistent with that of E.A. and several students who witnessed the event, and deemed not credible by the undersigned. According to E.A., Respondent definitely meant to hit him although he was not hurt physically by the contact. E.A. entered the classroom crying because he was very embarrassed that this occurred in front of his fellow classmates. This altercation was witnessed by another teacher who reported it immediately to administration. Assistant Principal Mary Pineiro (Pineiro) was sent to the classroom to determine what happened. Pineiro observed E.A. crying and holding his arm. Pineiro heard another student say, "I cannot believe you did that to my friend," to Respondent. Respondent refused to answer Pineiro's questions regarding the incident. The teacher and other students who witnessed the event were sent to the office and asked to provide written statements of what they observed. The statements were provided independently and students were separated when they wrote their statements. They were not told what to write and their statements were not edited. The statements corroborated E.A.'s version of events that he was playing around outside the door when Respondent came out and struck him on the arm several times. On February 15, 2012, Respondent was suspended without pay from her teaching position for 25 days which was later upheld after a formal hearing (DOAH Case No. 12-0808TTS). By certified letter dated March 14, 2012, Petitioner informed Respondent that PPS opened a case to investigate her use of inappropriate discipline.2/ On August 9, 2012, another certified letter was sent from Petitioner to Respondent advising that Petitioner had "concluded its preliminary investigation" and wanted to provide Respondent an opportunity to review the materials and respond to the allegations. The letter states that Respondent is not required to respond and that an informal conference was scheduled for August 29, 2012. Respondent wrote back to Katrina Hinson (Hinson) with PPS on August 31, 2012, thanking PPS for "putting me on this pedestal of honor" and giving her the opportunity to refute the allegations of misconduct. Respondent asserts in this letter that she is the victim of a "mafia-type, posse ring" and the victim of a conspiracy including Pineiro and others at WHGES. Rather than respond to the allegations of misconduct, Respondent's three-page letter appears to be a plea for help from Respondent to protect her teaching position from the "obsessive hate" of the alleged conspirators. Petitioner sent a memo to Respondent on August 30, 2012, enclosing a copy of the materials assembled during the preliminary investigation conducted by PPS. The purpose of this memo appears to be to notify Respondent to keep the materials confidential during the proceedings. This memo and the materials were received by Respondent on September 8, 2012. On September 17, 2012, Respondent wrote another letter to Hinson at PPS in which she states, "to be in compliance with your office's investigation, I am writing for professional guidance in regard to curtailing the constant bare-faced humiliation and bait-and-switch torture by Dade County Public School's [sic] employees, as my soul is longing for peace to have solace to grieve my loss in every respect of life fulfillment." Respondent asks whether PPS is part of the DOAH process, complains about the union attorney and the school board attorney and asserts that the "mafia-type posse wants me to be on an accelerated program for homelessness and malnutrition." This letter, and its reference to an "investigation," is not a response to allegations of misconduct but rather appears to be Respondent's attempt to seek help from PPS with regard to the DOAH proceeding. The final hearing in the DOAH proceeding regarding Respondent's suspension without pay occurred before Administrative Law Judge Stuart M. Lerner on September 24, 2012. On October 1, 2012, Respondent wrote another letter to Hinson which states in the opening paragraph: To be in compliance with your office's investigation, I am writing for professional guidance in regard to my mental faculty due to my mild malnourished and homeless states, as I am constantly being deprived of rightful income due to a group of vicious, hateful, and jealous so-called professional educators and so-called professional administrators of Dade County public schools. This letter states, "I am being sanctioned (mentally slaved [sic]) that if I return to employment of Dade County Public Schools. I cannot communicate further with your office, neither through writing or telephone." In this letter, Respondent asserts that E.A. and the student witnesses were "coached to give false witness against me." Regarding the incident with E.A., Respondent states, "the student kidnapped me between the door and the door jamb, and battered me with the door to my head and upper torso, that left me with a mild head trauma." A similar letter was written by Respondent to Hinson on October 5, 2012. Respondent does not mention any "investigation" but again asks for help from Hinson stating: May you please go another extra mile to help me? I beg of you. My grasp to hope is weakening as my resilience to these evil ones has been for many, many years. They have cornered me by attacking my every phase of bottom line. Please, do not allow evil to have dominion over good. A final letter by Respondent to Hinson was written on October 19, 2012, in which Respondent complains that she is being unfairly harassed by the principal at her new assigned school, Aventura Waterway K-8 Center. Notably, Hinson did not reply to any of the correspondence from Respondent. According to Hinson, PPS has no authority to address concerns or complaints about harassment or discrimination. This information was not communicated by PPS to Respondent. What is clear from these letters is that Respondent had no understanding that she was under investigation by DOE. Rather, Respondent erroneously believed that PPS would intervene on her behalf with regard to her then-pending matter before DOAH or with her assigned schools. The final order upholding Respondent's suspension without pay was issued by the District on February 13, 2013. Respondent alleges that, at that time, she was advised by her union representative that the matter was concluded and that she did not have to worry about this incident any further. On March 18, 2013, Respondent filed her annual application for renewal of her educator's professional certificate with the District. In response to the question, "Do you have any current investigative action pending in this state or any other state against a professional license or certificate or against an application for professional license or certificate?" Respondent answered "No." Respondent certified by her application signature that all information provided in the application was "true, accurate and complete." When the District received and reviewed the application, a computerized alert was received from Petitioner indicating that an investigation was pending with PPS. Jose Garcia, Certification Officer for the District, notified Respondent by memorandum dated April 17, 2013, that Respondent needed to return a corrected application. Respondent did not believe she was under investigation and thought that by indicating "yes" on the form, she would be incriminating herself. Respondent wrote Governor Scott an email on May 17, 2013, alleging that PPS and the District Certification Office were wrongfully preventing the renewal of her application in an attempt to prevent her from working with children with disabilities. As a result of this email, the alert was removed from Respondent's certificate and it was reissued by the District. Respondent never acknowledged the DOE investigation in her application for renewal. Petitioner considers Respondent's refusal to acknowledge the pending PPS investigation as an attempt to renew her certificate by fraudulent means. The Administrative Complaint charges Respondent as follows: STATUTE VIOLATIONS COUNT 1: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent obtained or attempted to obtain a teaching certificate by fraudulent means. COUNT 2: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(d), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude as defined by rule of the State Board of Education. COUNT 3: 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 her effectiveness as an employee of the school board. COUNT 4: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(j), 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 5: 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 6: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. 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 all professional dealings. Respondent filed a Motion for a Formal Hearing on December 26, 2013, with the EPC in which she disputed all of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order reprimanding Respondent for the incident with E.A., with a copy to be placed in Respondent's certification file, and placing Respondent on probation for a period of 90 school days. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 22nd day of January, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Joshua A. Freedman was issued a certificate in accounting from Temple University in 1945 (Exhibit 3). He attended evening classes at Temple during the periods 1937-1940 and 1944-1946. Transcript of Freedman's scholastic record at Temple University (Exhibit 1) shows he completed 56 semester hours during this period. The testimony of Dr. Laibstain (Exhibit 15) is that he completed 58 hours, includes 2 hours earned in 1965. Of the courses completed 26 semester hours were in accounting and 24 semester hours were classified as business courses. Requirements for a certificate in accounting are shown in Exhibit 23 to be completion of 12 one-year courses, or a total of 48 credits. The courses so outlined meet three evenings a week for four years but the time period may be altered if the student attends more or less classes than three evenings a week. A total of 124 semester hours is required by Temple University for a baccalaureate degree in accounting and the requirement has not been less than 120 semester hours since prior to Petitioner's matriculation. Petitioner was issued CPA Certificate Number 2872 on 4-26-50 after having successfully passed the AICPA examination in Pennsylvania with grades of 75 in Law (1947) and 69 in Practice (1949) Respondent stipulated that the only grounds for denying Petitioner's application for a reciprocal CPA certificate was his failure to complete the requirements for a baccalaureate degree and his failure to make a grade of at least 75 on the AI CPA examination- he took in 1949. With this stipulation the evidence regarding Petitioner's experience, professional qualifications and moral character become irrelevant to these proceedings. In 1949-1950 Florida required its applicants for CPA certification to pass examinations in subjects including Auditing, Commercial Law, Theory of Accounts and Accounting Practices with a minimum grade of 75 in each subject. Florida has always required a passing grade of not less than 75 on CPA examinations given. As a result of difficulties in obtaining information from certain states regarding the examinations and grades obtained for those seeking reciprocal CPA certificates in Florida, the Florida Board of Accountancy stopped accepting applications from applicants from these states for reciprocal CPA certification. This led to a meeting between the Pennsylvania Board and the Florida Board in 1974 at which the former agreed to provide all requested information to Florida and Florida agreed to accept the examination grades in which a mark of at least 75 was received as equivalent to the Florida examination even though the same subjects were not covered by the examination. Prior to 1969 the Florida Board of Accountancy had certain discretions in granting reciprocal CPA certificates. The statute was amended in 1969 by what is now Section 473.201 F.S.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Caren Christine Olsen (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued April 20, 2010, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, as the Commissioner of the Florida Department of Education, is responsible to investigate and prosecute complaints against persons who hold a Florida Educational Certificate who are alleged to have violated the provisions of law related to the education profession in the State of Florida. See §§ 1012.79 and 1012.795, Fla. Stat. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent held Florida Educator's Certificate No. 999159, covering mathematics, which was valid through June 30, 2010. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed at Freedom High School in Orange County, Florida. As a secondary teacher, Respondent was required to complete ESOL training. In order to meet the ESOL requirement, on or about January 14, 2008, Respondent enrolled in an ESOL class taught by Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs was a district compliance specialist who was fully approved to teach the ESOL class. He required that participants in the ESOL course attend all of the class sessions. The ESOL class requirements were: attendance at the 14 sessions, pre- and post-curriculum tests, completion of a portfolio of the course, and completion of a final evaluation of the course. Although enrolled in Mr. Biggs’ class, Respondent did not attend all of the class sessions. According to Mr. Biggs, Respondent left the class after the tenth session and did not return. In addition to missing the last sessions, Respondent did not turn in the portfolio or complete the evaluation of the course. Although Respondent maintained she had completed the portfolio, Mr. Biggs did not have record of such completion. In April 2009, Respondent was required to present a certificate that verified she had completed the aforementioned ESOL class. Although Respondent presented a certificate of completion for the ESOL course to school personnel, record of the credit for such completion could not be located. Eventually, it was discovered that Respondent did not have credit for the class because she had not completed the class and had not been given a certificate of completion by the instructor (Mr. Biggs). Thus, the issue of how Respondent could present a certificate of completion when none had been issued was raised by Orange County School District personnel. In fact, the certificate presented by Respondent lacked the Orange County Public School logo. In follow-up to this discovery, Respondent’s principal initiated a formal investigation to resolve the matter. When it was determined that Respondent could not produce a valid certificate of completion for the ESOL course, Respondent’s employment with the Orange County School District was terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner and the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order that suspends Respondent's teaching certificate for a period not to exceed one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 27th day of September, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Todd P. Resavage, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster and Gwartney, P.A. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Caren Christine Olsen 2429 Shelby Circle Kissimmee, Florida 34743 Lois Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is eligible for a Bright Futures scholarship even though he did not take foreign language classes in high school.
Findings Of Fact At the time of the final hearing, Petitioner Daniel B. Gopman ("Gopman") was a fulltime college student enrolled in the Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College of Florida Atlantic University ("FAU"). Respondent Department of Education ("Department") administers the Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program ("Bright Futures"), among other responsibilities. Before graduating from Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School ("Krop") in June 2003, Gopman had applied for a Bright Futures scholarship. Specifically, Gopman had sought a Florida Academic Scholars Award, which is the most generous——and selective——of the several types of scholarship available under Bright Futures. The Department had found him ineligible for a Bright Futures scholarship because Gopman had not earned two high-school credits in a foreign language.1 To his credit, Gopman had taken many academically challenging courses in high school, including honors and advanced placement courses, and had done quite well, despite having a learning disability that had resulted in his being provided special education services pursuant to an individual education plan ("IEP"). He had not, however, taken any foreign language courses in high school. Instead, after graduating from high school (and before beginning his studies at FAU), Gopman successfully completed two courses of Russian at Miami-Dade Community College ("M-DCC"). In the present case, Gopman has suggested that his failure to study a foreign language in high school was due, wholly or in part, to (a) taking the courses prescribed in his IEP, which, coupled with other subjects required for graduation, completely filled his scholastic schedule every semester; and (b) never receiving from school district personnel complete or accurate information concerning the need to take foreign language courses as a condition of qualifying for a Bright Futures scholarship. Lending some support to the first of these purported impediments is a "To Whom It May Concern" letter dated May 30, 2003, which George Nunez, then the principal of Krop, sent to the Department around that time. In this letter, Mr. Nunez urged the Department to grant Gopman an "academic waiver" of the foreign language requirement, arguing that Gopman's failure to take "a second year of a foreign language"——actually, he had not taken even a first year——"was not due to a conscious oversight on [Gopman's] part" but happened because "the mandates of his IEP" had required him to take an "additional elective" instead "of what would have been other academic electives including the second year of his foreign language." Even if scheduling conflicts had made it impossible for Gopman to take foreign language courses in high school, however, and even if he had been given poor advice regarding the requirements for a Bright Futures award (which Mr. Nunez pointedly did not suggest had occurred), Gopman's eligibility to receive a scholarship would be unchanged, for legal reasons that will be discussed below. In any event, though, the evidence in its entirety does not support Gopman's claims in this regard; rather, it disproves them. Based on the greater weight of the persuasive evidence, it is found that Gopman could have taken two foreign language classes in high school, special education services notwithstanding, had he wanted to do that.2 It is found, as well, that Gopman was not misinformed or misled regarding the requirements to qualify for a Bright Futures award. To the contrary, his guidance counselor advised Gopman, in the tenth grade, to start taking foreign language classes soon, while there was still time to complete two years of study before graduating from high school. Gopman told the guidance counselor that, because he planned to attend an out-of-state college, he would not need foreign language credits for admission (as is generally required for admission to a Florida state university) and was not concerned with Bright Futures eligibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED Daniel B. Gopman's application for a Bright Futures scholarship be denied because he failed to meet the foreign language requirement, and that the Department enter a final order consistent herewith. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2008.
The Issue Is Petitioner eligible, pursuant to Section 455.11, Florida Statutes (1981), to take the accountancy examination in Spanish? FINDINGS OF FACT 1/ Petitioner, Victoria Wedemayer, applied to the Board of Accountancy for permission to take the accountancy licensure examination in the Spanish language. By a "Final" Order entered October 1, 1982, the Florida Board of Accountancy denied her request because she failed to: . . . complete the special one-year continuing education program as specified in Chapter 455.015(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in effect when foreign licensure examination was instituted. On October 12, 1982, Petitioner requested a hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to "review" the Board's decision. Petitioner is fully qualified to take the Florida accountancy examination in English. Petitioner, as a licensed accountant in Cuba prior to July 1, 1974, met all of the requirements for entry into a special continuing education program for foreign language applicants, established pursuant to Chapter 74-105, Laws of Florida (1974); but Petitioner never applied for the foreign licensure program when it was available. Petitioner graduated from Biscayne College in Dade County, Florida, with a Bachelor's Degree in accounting. Her course of instruction there is more comprehensive than the special continuing education program offered by the Board of Accountancy and Department of Education, pursuant to Chapter 74-105, Laws of Florida (1974).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida State Board of Accountancy enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request to take the accountancy written examination in Spanish. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1983.
