The Issue By letter dated December 17, 1984, Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, advised the mother of Respondent, Torrey Sherwin Davis, that Respondent was being administratively assigned to an educational alternative program at Jann-Mann Opportunity School- North effective upon receipt of the letter because of Respondent's "disruption of the educational process in the regular school program and failure to adjust to the regular school program." Thereafter, Respondent's mother timely requested a hearing to contest this assignment.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, Respondent, Torrey Sherwin Davis (Torrey), was a sixth grader at Rainbow Park Elementary School in Dade County, Florida, during school year 1984-85. The school is under the jurisdiction of Petitioner, School Board of Dade County. While attending Rainbow Park, Torrey exhibited disruptive behavior on a number of occasions. The dates of such behavior and a detailed description of the same are set forth in detail in Petitioner's exhibit 1 received in evidence. They include pushing, hitting and biting other students both in and out of the classroom, yelling and disrupting classes during periods of instruction, being rude and disrespectful to teachers, and "feeling" female students. Torrey has been repeatedly counseled by teaching personnel regarding his conduct, and at least two or three teacher-parent conferences were held by school officials with Torrey's father. This counseling failed to produce a change in his behavior. Respondent's conduct become so disruptive by December, 1984, that Torrey was unable to function properly in a normal school environment. After a careful assessment of his academic progress and behavior by school officials, Petitioner reassigned Torrey on December 17, 1984, to Jann-Mann Opportunity School- North effective immediately. He has remained there since that time. Although Respondent's mother contended that Torrey was "picked on" by his teacher, periodic monitoring of Torrey's classes by the school's assistant principal dispelled the validity of this claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining that Respondent be placed in an educational alternative program. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Mary Davis 1500 N.W. 154th Street Opa Locka, Florida 33054 Mark A. Valentine, Esq. Suite 800, 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137
Findings Of Fact William Burnett Washington's primary residence is 106 Westwind Court, Sanford, Florida. Mr. Washington and his wife, Betty Washington, have jointly owned the house at 106 Westwind Court house for 10 years. On a highly infrequent basis, Mr. Washington spends the night at 2020 Old Lake Mary Road, Sanford, Florida. This is the primary residence of Mr. Washington's brother, who is normally the sole occupant of the house. The Westwind Court house is occupied by Mr. Washington, Mrs. Washington, and their children, Shawn Washington, aged 16 years, and Niki, aged 14 years. Apart from infrequent overnight visits with friends, the Westwind Court home is the exclusive residence of Shawn and Niki. The Westwind Court house is served by the Seminole High School attendance zone. The Old Lake Mary Road house is served by the Lake Mary High School attendance zone. At the beginning of the 1989-90 school year, Shawn and Niki were attending Lake Mary High School. By letter dated September 21, 1989, Respondent informed Petitioner that his children were enrolled in Lake Mary High School on the basis of false information. The letter explained that they were being administratively withdrawn from Lake Mary High School and administratively enrolled at Seminole High School.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Seminole County, Florida enter a Final Order confirming the enrollment of Shawn and Niki Washington in Seminole High School. ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 22nd day of February. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5651 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondent 1: adopted except that Petitioner primarily resides at 106 Westwind Court. Even if he were to reside primarily at 2020 Old Lake Mary Road, however, the result would be the same because the children primarily reside with their mother. 2-3: adopted. 4: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. The children primarily reside with their mother. 5: adopted. 6-9: rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence. 10: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry L. Lamb, Jr. Perry & Lamb, P.A. 135 Wall St. Suite 200 Orlando, FL 32801 Ned N. Julian, Jr. Stenstrom, McIntosh, Julian, et al. P.O. Box 1330 Sanford, FL 32772-1330 Robert W. Hughes Superintendent The School Board of Seminole County, Florida 1211 Mellonville Avenue Sanford, FL 32772 Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Broward County, Florida, is an "agency" as defined in Section 120.52(1), Florida Statutes. The Board is charged by law with direction and control of all grades Kindergarten through 12 for all public schools in Broward County. The Board is required by statute to promulgate rules and regulations establishing attendance zones for schools under its control. During the latter part of 1981 and early 1982, the Board performed a review of attendance areas for the 1981-1982 school year in order to determine whether changes should be made for the 1982-1983 school year. In making these determinations, it is the Board's established policy to consider the following factors: overcrowded schools; improved utilization of present facilities; maintenance of a "unitary school system"; safety for students as pedestrians; feeder patterns; transportation costs; newly established schools; consolidation of small school attendance areas; and, community involvement. The dispute in this consolidated proceeding arises from the Board's rezoning decision for the 1982-1983 school year relating to four high schools, Pompano Beach High School; Ely High School; Plantation High School; and Dillard High School. On March 30, 1982, at a special meeting, the Board approved its superintendent's school boundary proposal, as reflected in the rule here being challenged. On April 12, 1982, an advertisement advising the general public of the proposal appeared in the local newspaper, in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The effect of the proposed high school boundary changes, insofar as here pertinent, is to remove approximately 125 ninth grade students from Ely High School and to replace them with approximately 72 ninth grade students currently zoned to attend Pompano Beach High, among whom are various of the Petitioners in this proceeding; and further, to remove approximately 81 ninth grade students from Dillard High School and to replace them with approximately 100 ninth grade students currently zoned to attend Plantation High School, including certain other of the Petitioners in this proceeding. One of the Board's primary policy considerations in proposing the challenged rules for adoption is the maintenance of a "unitary school system." Among the policy tools utilized by the Board to maintain what it perceives to be a "unitary school system" is retention of the existing student racial balance at Dillard and Ely High Schools. During the 1981-1982 school year, the student population at Ely High School was 52 percent black, while blacks comprised approximately 72 percent of the student population at Dillard High School. Because of the tremendous increase in the predominantly white population of western Broward County, and the declining school age population of eastern Broward County, where both Dillard and Ely High Schools are located, the Board has a long-standing policy of busing white high school students from the west to maintain the desired racial composition at Dillard and Ely. This problem is not limited to high schools alone. System-wide, approximately 6,000 students are bused from non-contiguous areas in Broward County for purposes of racial integration. Unlike Petitioners in this case, however, approximately 80 percent of those students who are bused are black. If the proposed high school boundary changes are adopted, the Board has reasonably estimated that the student population at Dillard High School will remain approximately 72 percent black, while the percentage of black students at Ely High School will increase by approximately 2 percent. A further factor in the Board's proposed high school boundary change as it relates to the four high schools involved in this proceeding is the problem of under-enrollment. Ely High School has a realistic program capacity of 1,800 students. However, during the 1981-1982 school year there were only 1,519 students enrolled at Ely. Pompano Beach High School had a student population of 1,456 students for the 1981-1982 school year, despite a student capacity of 1,950. Dillard High School's 2,307 student capacity was utilized by 2,075 students during the 1981-1982 school year. 1,812 students attended Plantation High School in 1981-1982 in a school facility designed to accommodate 2,000 students. With or without the proposed boundary changes, all four of these schools will remain under capacity for the 1982-1983 school year. It appears that the primary reason for the rezoning proposal contained in the rules here under attack was the Board's decision to replace certain students attending Dillard and Ely High Schools with other students, including the Petitioners herein, who had previously been zoned to attend Plantation High School or Pompano Beach High School. Students who are being reassigned from Dillard High School and Ely High School to other area schools reside some distance further from Dillard and Ely than do the students being reassigned from Plantation and Pompano Beach High Schools. One result of the proposed zoning changes will, therefore, be a reduction in the distance which students will have to be bused, and a concomitant reduction in transportation costs. Once the decision had been made to curtail longer distance busing, the Board was faced with the dual problem of maintaining desired racial composition and preventing under enrollment at Dillard and Ely High Schools. The choice of reassigning the students from Pompano Beach and Plantation High Schools was a reasoned and logical decision reached after considering a multitude of alternatives suggested by consultants and a very lengthy process of public participation. The curtailment of unduly lengthy student busing, with its accompanying social and economic cost was a logical policy alternative which is clearly supported by facts of record in this proceeding. Petitioners Theodor Huber and Suzan Huber, his high school age daughter, currently reside within a school boundary designated for attendance at Pompano Beach High School for the 1981-1982 school year. If the proposed rule is adopted, they will be rezoned to attend Ely High School for the 1982-1983 school year. Petitioners Janyce Becker, for herself and on behalf of her minor child, Page Becker, and Karen Coates, for herself and on behalf of her minor child, Peter Coates, reside within present school boundaries for Plantation High School, but, if the proposed rule is adopted, they will be rezoned to attend Dillard High School for the 1982-1983 school year. Petitioner Plantation Residents' Association, Inc., is a Florida corporation, comprised of persons with children of school age who have attended and are attending public schools in Broward County, Florida. Members of this organization have children who will be rezoned from Plantation High School to Dillard High School for the 1982-1983 school year, should the proposed rule be adopted. There is no showing in the record of this proceeding that adoption of the proposed high school boundary attendance zones will have any economic impact on the Petitioners involved in this proceeding. Further, there has been no showing that the notice requirements of Chapter 120 54, Florida Statutes, have in any way been violated by the Board
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, Alfreda Grady, should be terminated from her employment as an instructional employee with the Broward County school system.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, post-hearing memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. By its six count Petition for Dismissal, Petitioner, through the person of its Superintendent of Schools, William T. McFatter, seeks to uphold its recommendation that Respondent, Alfreda Grady, be dismissed from employment in the Broward County school system. Respondent, Alfreda Grady, was an instructional employee at the School Board of Broward County until she was suspended with pay from her duties at the close of the workday on January 27, 1983. Respondent holds a continuing contract of employment and holds teaching certificates in both guidance and elementary education. During the course of the 1982-83 school year, Respondent was assigned to the position of guidance counselor at Attucks Middle School. This assignment was made by Mr. Thomas Wilson, Assistant to the south area Superintendent of the Broward County School Board. Ms. Grady was later assigned to teach sixth grade orientation and social studies. On January 27, 1983, Respondent was placed on emergency suspension and a PETITION FOR DISMISSAL from the Broward County school system was filed based on charges of incompetency, misconduct in office, immorality and gross insubordination. A request was made for a formal evidentiary hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The matter was thereafter assigned to the undersigned hearing officer to conduct the instant hearing. On August 19, 1982, Respondent was assigned the position of guidance counselor at Attucks Middle School. Prior to this assignment, the position of guidance counselor had been assigned to Ms. Ricci Mandell, a teacher previously employed at Attucks. This assignment was made by Taft Green, principal at Attucks Middle School. Both Ms. Grady and Ms. Mandell were retained in the Guidance Department. Approximately two weeks into the school year, Respondent was assigned to teach one sixth grade orientation class. It is not unusual for a teacher to be assigned teaching duties in more than one subject area. (TR Volume 1, p. 193) By letter dated September 1, 1982, Mr. Green informed Respondent that she would begin teaching the orientation class on September 7, 1982. Respondent was also informed by Mr. Green that Ms. Friedman, a reading teacher at Attucks, would supply the necessary material and a course syllabus. Ms. Friedman had previously taught the orientation course during the 1981-82 school year. Respondent was advised that principal Green and the other instructional employees were available to assist her, as needed. Although Respondent never contacted Ms. Friedman for either assistance or to obtain the material, Ms. Friedman supplied the Respondent with a variety of materials to be used in teaching the orientation course including the course guide for middle school orientation and two instructional television books. (TR Volume 1, p. 166) Respondent refused to teach the orientation course. The class was used as either a study hall or the students watched programs such as "The Today Show" and "Good Morning America." On September 15, 1982, Respondent was assigned to teach two sixth grade social studies classes. A memo reflecting this assignment was sent both to Respondent and Ms. Mandell, dividing the guidance position between them and assigning them each three classes. (Petitioner's Exhibit P) Mr. Green divided the counselor duties between Respondent and Ms. Mandell based on budgetary considerations. That is, Attucks could not afford three guidance counselors and instead of terminating one instructional employee, the guidance counselor assignments were divided. (TP Volume 1, pp. 204 - 205) On November 3, 1982, Mr. Green began, via a memo, to change Respondent from a guidance position to a teaching position reciting in the memo that the change was based on a report from Rod Sasse, an educational guidance specialist for the Petitioner. Mr. Sasse conducted a study of the Attucks Guidance Department and determined that the Department needed to be restructured. He determined that two full-time counselors were more effective than one full-time and two part- time guidance counselors. Thus, Respondent was assigned a teaching position without any counseling duties. Respondent has refused to perform her assigned duties by Mr. Taft Green citing, inter alia, that the course materials provided her were inadequate or incomplete; that she was not educationally trained and therefore unqualified to teach the assigned duties; that she received no help or assistance from other instructional employees at Attucks and that she was not interested in taking the needed steps to either become qualified or otherwise competent to teach the assigned social studies and orientation classes. Prior to her November 10, 1982 assignment by principal Taft Green, Respondent was afforded one (1) week to prepare for the assigned classes. Additionally, she was given two TDA's (temporary duty assignments) to prepare for the social studies classes. Additionally, Respondent received a course syllabus and other material from other faculty and staff and offers of help from supervisory employees. (Testimony of Green; Carole Fischer, Social Studies Department Head; Mark Thomas, author of the course guide for middle school orientation and Dr. Benjamin Stephenson, Associate Superintendent for Personnel) Respondent made repeated statements, oral and written, to students, other instructional employees, supervisors, principal Green and the press evidencing her lack of interest in performing the assigned duties of teaching social studies and/or orientation. Respondent also cited as one of the reasons of her inability to teach the assigned classes was due to the fact that her students were not functioning at the same level of achievement and therefore it was impossible for her to teach students who are functioning at different progress levels. It is hereby found that it is indeed normal for students to function at varying progress levels and that teachers who are at all interested in performing the duties of an instructional employee, readily adjust to the varying progress levels of students and welcome the challenge of such an adjustment. As stated, Respondent repeatedly refused to perform her assigned duties as an instructional employee for the orientation and social studies classes. Based on this refusal to teach, Respondent assigned 148 out of 150 students a grade of incomplete or "I." Respondent was repeatedly directed to provide grades for her students by principal Green including written demands on January 19, 20, 21 and 25, 1983. On the last two demands on January 21 and 25, 1983, Respondent was further advised that her failure to assign grades to students would be regarded as gross insubordination. Respondent would not and, in fact, refused to teach her students any of the subject areas to which she was assigned by principal Taft Green. A typical day spent in the Respondent's classroom consisted primarily of the students either performing independent work which usually was in the form of preparing for other classes or doing homework which was assigned by other instructional staff or in the case of the orientation class, students would watch programs such as "Good Morning America" and "The Today Show." Respondent performed some minimal teaching including map and globe assignments. However, in the normal day, Respondent would permit students to perform either independent work or repeatedly view film strips. As a result of such repetition, students became bored. A number of Respondent's students expressed a desire to learn skills in the social studies classes which they were attending. It is also found that the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been severely damaged due to the wide notoriety that this case has received, the public statements and/or admissions by the Respondent denoting her lack of interest in teaching the assigned classes and the expressed concern of other staff and parents concerned about entrusting their children to Respondent's class in view of her admitted lack of care and disregard for the educational and social welfare of the students in her class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, School Board of Broward County, enter a Final Order dismissing the Respondent, Alfreda Grady, from employment with the Broward County school system. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 17th day of November, 1983.
The Issue The issue presented is whether a rule establishing high school attendance zones is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Subsection 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the School Board of Orange County, Florida (School Board). The School Board is an educational unit and an agency defined in Subsections 120.52(1)(b)7. and (6), Florida Statutes (2004). Respondent is the governing body of the Orange County School District (School District or District). In relevant part, Respondent has exclusive constitutional authority to "operate, control and supervise all free public schools" within the District pursuant to Article IX, Section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution (2004) (Florida Constitution). On January 11, 2005, Respondent adopted a rule establishing attendance zones for four high schools in western Orange County, Florida (Orange County). The rule modifies previously existing attendance zones for Apopka High School (Apopka), Olympia High School (Olympia), and West Orange High School (West Orange); and establishes a new attendance zone for Ocoee High School (the relief school). It is undisputed that the establishment and modification of school attendance zones involves rulemaking. The parties agree that the adoption of the relevant school attendance zones satisfies the definition of a rule in Subsection 120.52(15), Florida Statutes (2004). Petitioners challenge the rule as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority defined in Subsection 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2004). In relevant part, Petitioners allege that Respondent violated Subsections 120.52(8)(a) and (e), Florida Statutes (2004), by materially failing to follow applicable rulemaking requirements and by adopting a rule in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Before proceeding to the merits of the rule challenge, it is important from a jurisdictional and contextual perspective to note that this Final Order does not reach any matter that falls within the scope of Respondent's exercise of constitutional authority. For reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Respondent has exclusive constitutional authority to operate, control, and supervise public schools within the District (local control). The Legislature has constitutional authority over matters of statewide concern.2 The Legislature cannot statutorily delegate authority that is constitutionally vested in Respondent.3 For purposes of the rule challenge, the exercise of constitutional authority by Respondent is not the exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Subsections 120.56(1) and (3), Florida Statutes (2004). As a factual matter, the challenged rule involves local control of only those public schools within the District that are affected by the rule. The school attendance zones do not have application beyond the boundaries of the School District. The school attendance zones do not benefit or otherwise affect citizens of the state outside the District.4 The trier of fact has avoided findings concerning matters of local control, including the merits of the school attendance zones, the wisdom of the collective decision of the School Board, and the motives and intent of the individual members of the School Board. Jurisdiction to determine the invalidity of a rule involving matters of local control is the exclusive province of the courts.5 Legislative authority over matters of statewide concern includes the authority to ensure that local school attendance zones are drawn in a manner that complies with uniform requirements for fairness and procedural correctness. The Legislature delegated that authority to Respondent when it enacted Subsections 1001.41(6) and 1001.42(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2004). The trier of fact has made only those findings needed to determine whether the exercise of delegated legislative authority is invalid within the meaning of Subsections 120.52(8) and 120.56(1), Florida Statutes (2004). The challenged rule affects the substantial interests of Petitioners within the meaning of Subsections 120.56(1) and (3), Florida Statutes (2004). Petitioner, Citrus Oaks Homeowners Association, Inc. (Citrus Oaks), is a Florida nonprofit corporation, organized as a homeowners' association pursuant to Chapters 617 and 720, Florida Statutes (2004). The members of Citrus Oaks own residences in the Citrus Oaks subdivision. A substantial number of the members of Citrus Oaks are substantially affected by the challenged rule. A substantial number of members have children who are students in a public school affected by the challenged rule. The challenged rule reassigns many of those students from the Olympia school zone to the West Orange school zone. The subject matter of the rule is within the general scope of interest and activity of Citrus Oaks. The relief requested is of a type that is appropriate for Citrus Oaks to receive on behalf of its members. Citrus Oaks has represented its members in previous litigation, although this is the first administrative proceeding for Citrus Oaks. More than a substantial majority of the members of Citrus Oaks expressly authorized Citrus Oaks to undertake this proceeding for their benefit. Petitioner, Joy Hutchison, is the mother of Jamie Petkov and Kirsta Petkov. Mrs. Hutchinson and her children reside in Citrus Oaks in a neighborhood identified in the record as Gotha, Florida. At the time of the administrative hearing, Jamie Petkov and Kirsta Petkov attended Gotha Middle School (Gotha). Jamie Petkov and Kirsta Petkov would have attended Olympia in the absence of the challenged rule. The challenged rule changes the attendance zone of each student to West Orange. The challenged rule splits feeder patterns intended to ensure that students in adjacent neighborhoods stay together through progressive grades. The challenged rule assigns some students from Gotha to the Olympia school zone and assigns other Gotha students to the West Orange school zone. Differences in West Orange and Olympia do not affect the substantial interests of Petitioners. The two schools offer comparable, but not identical, educational programs. Each school is accredited by the Southern Association of Accreditation. Each is a comprehensive high school with a full range of academic opportunities for students and Advanced Placement (AP) classes for college credit. Each school offers comparable student-teacher ratios, teachers with advanced degrees, and extracurricular activities. West Orange and Olympia are not identical. Homebuyers generally prefer Olympia to West Orange. Area realtors emphasize location within the Olympia school zone as a marketing feature for homes. Prospective homebuyers generally request homes within the Olympia school zone. Approximately 100 students residing outside the Olympia attendance zone have falsified their domicile information in order to enroll in Olympia. Disparities between West Orange and Olympia do not deny Petitioners a uniform system of education. A uniform system of education does not require uniformity among individual schools in physical plant, curricula, and educational programs.6 The rule development process that culminated in the challenged rule began sometime in March 2004. Three staff members in the District office of the Director of Pupil Assignment (the Director) were responsible for recommending school attendance zones to the Superintendent and his cabinet. The Director and her staff pursued negotiated rulemaking within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2004). In March 2004, the staff began to establish relevant time lines. In April and May of the same year, staff met with principals of schools potentially subject to rezoning. Staff requested each school principal to submit the names of three individuals to serve on a school rezoning committee to work with the staff. Each school rezoning committee was comprised of the "PTSA president, SAC chairperson, and another member." Each school rezoning committee was a negotiating committee within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2004). Each school rezoning committee was a balanced committee of interested persons who drafted complex rules in anticipation of public opposition. Each committee worked in good faith to develop group consensus for a mutually acceptable proposed rule. The Director and her staff provided packages to each school rezoning committee. The packages included information concerning time lines; rezoning criteria; maps; demographic information about neighborhoods; transfer policies; transportation; and school data such as demographics, enrollment, and original design capacity. Each committee developed proposed attendance zones based on eight rezoning criteria prescribed in the packages. The eight rezoning criteria are identified in the record as: operate under the current desegregation order; consider future planning and growth of attendance zones; equally distribute population to balance facility use of affected schools; consider reducing student transportation distances, when necessary; maximize the number of students walking to school; maximize the school feeder pattern structure; minimize the disruption of residential areas; and ensure demographic balance, when possible. Each committee was required to give overriding importance to the first three of the eight criteria. The school rezoning committees produced approximately 11 initial proposals. The Director and her staff scrutinize various proposals and received citizen input during three public meetings on August 25 and October 5 and 25, 2004. Each public meeting was a rule development workshop within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2004). Approximately 600 members of the public attended the first workshop conducted on August 25, 2004. Many members of the public spoke at the meeting or provided written input concerning the various proposals. Staff and committee members considered the public input and scrutinized the proposals. Staff reduced the number of proposals to seven, identified in the record as options A through G, and conducted a second workshop on October 5, 2004. Between 400 and 500 members of the public attended the second workshop. As the meeting "wore on," the Director concluded that no consensus on a single proposal was attainable at that time and adjourned the meeting. After the second workshop on October 5, 2004, the staff developed one recommendation for rezoning and two best options identified in the record as the recommendation, option A, and option F. Staff presented the recommendation to the Superintendent at a cabinet meeting, but also included, for informational purposes, the two options. Attendees at the cabinet meeting included "area superintendents," the chief financial officer, the chief facilities officer, the chief operations officer, and the deputy superintendent for curriculum instruction. The Superintendent and his staff vetted the recommendation before the recommendation was presented to the public as the "Staff Proposal" during a third workshop conducted on October 26, 2004. Approximately 500 members of the public attended the third workshop. The Director presented the Staff Proposal and received public input. The Staff Proposal reassigns 435 students from Apopka to the relief school; 136 students from Olympia to West Orange; and 2,315 students from West Orange to the relief school. The Staff Proposal does not rezone students in Citrus Oaks from Olympia to West Orange. There was no discussion at the third workshop of rezoning options other than the Staff Proposal. It is undisputed that Respondent complied with applicable rulemaking procedures from the initiation of the rulemaking process, through the third workshop conducted on October 25, 2004, when staff presented the Staff Proposal. The alleged violations of applicable rulemaking procedures occurred from October 26, 2004, through January 11, 2005. During that interval, Respondent amended the Staff Proposal and adopted the challenged rule. From October 26 through November 29, 2004, Mrs. Karen Ardaman, a member of the School Board, conducted several non- public conferences with the Director and her staff. The non- public conferences were workshops conducted for the purpose of rule development within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2004) (private workshops). The private workshops did not involve negotiated rulemaking within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2004). The private workshops were conducted between a member of the School Board and District staff for the official business of rule development. Mrs. Ardaman stated to the Director and her staff that the purpose of the private workshops was to "tweak" the Staff Proposal. Mrs. Ardaman expressed a specific goal of rezoning at least 300 students from Olympia and an optimal goal of reducing Olympia enrollment to design capacity, if possible. The workshops were extensive and produced four "work-up" proposals identified in the record as Petitioner's Exhibits 20 through 23. One of the work-up proposals was adopted by Respondent as the challenged rule on January 11, 2005.7 Each private workshop included "what-if" questions from Mrs. Ardaman to staff members intended to scrutinize alternative school rezoning scenarios. Each scenario involved specific neighborhoods, the demographic breakdown for the neighborhood, the actual number of students, and the number of students to be reassigned. One work-up extended the West Orange zone to an area north of State Road 50. Another work-up reduced the Apopka enrollment from 4,265 to 3,830, or approximately 650 students over design capacity of 3,187. The private workshops included conversations regarding the use of permanent modular classrooms to relieve overcrowding at Olympia. Mrs. Ardaman requested staff to explore the possibility of adding permanent modular classrooms. On November 30, 2004, the Superintendent published in an area newspaper of general circulation a Notice of School Board Meeting scheduled for December 6, 2004. In relevant part, the notice stated that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss "West Orange Apopka Relief School Rezoning." The public meeting conducted on December 6, 2004, was a rule development workshop within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2), Florida Statutes (2004). The School Board considered the Staff Proposal and the Ardaman alternative (the alternative proposal). The alternative proposal was circulated to the other members of the School Board. Two members left the workshop early. The remaining five members, including Mrs. Ardaman, reached consensus to reject the Staff Proposal and to advertise the alternative proposal as the proposed rule. On December 11, 2004, the Superintendent published a Notice of Proposed Action on High School Attendance Zones in The Orlando Sentinel. The public notice advertised a public hearing scheduled for January 11, 2005, to adopt the proposed rule. That portion of the public notice entitled, "Summary of Proposal" states, in relevant part, that the proposed rule reassigns students residing in Citrus Oaks from Olympia to West Orange. The meeting conducted on January 11, 2005, was a public hearing within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(3)(c)1., Florida Statutes (2004). Members of the School Board adopted the proposed rule by a vote of four to three. Mrs. Ardaman voted with the majority. The private rule development workshops between a school board member and District staff failed to follow applicable rulemaking procedures prescribed in Subsections 120.54(2)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2004). Respondent provided no public notice of the private workshops. Respondent failed to follow applicable rulemaking procedures prescribed in Subsections 120.54(2)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2004), for the rule development workshop that Respondent conducted in public on December 6, 2004. The notice published on November 30, 2004, was less than 14 days before December 6, 2004. The published notice did not include an explanation of the purpose and effect of either the Staff Proposal or the alternative proposal. The published notice did not cite the specific legal authority for either proposal and did not include the preliminary text of each proposal. Respondent failed to comply with other rulemaking procedures prescribed in Subsection 120.54(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2004). Respondent precluded public participation during the rule development workshop on December 6, 2004. Therefore, the persons responsible for preparing the respective proposals did not explain either proposal to the public and were not available to answer questions from the public or to respond to public comments. The failure to comply with applicable rulemaking procedures is presumed to be material within the meaning of Subsection 120.52(8)(a), Florida Statutes (2004). § 120.56(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2004). The burden of proof shifts to Respondent to rebut the presumption. Id. Respondent did not rebut the presumption with evidence that the fairness of the proceeding was not impaired or that the proceeding was procedurally correct. Respondent did not show that it cured the materiality of the failure to comply with applicable rulemaking procedures (procedural errors) by satisfying other rulemaking requirements such as those in Subsection 120.54(3)(e), Florida Statutes (2004). After December 11, 2004, when Respondent published the notice of proposed agency action to adopt the proposed rule, Respondent did not show that it filed a certified copy of the proposed rule with the agency head, together with other relevant materials, for public inspection. For reasons stated hereinafter, the public hearing conducted on January 11, 2005, did not cure the materiality of prior procedural errors. A preponderance of evidence shows the failure to comply with applicable rulemaking procedures was material within the meaning of Subsection 120.52(8)(a), Florida Statutes (2004). The procedural errors impaired the fairness and procedural correctness of the development and adoption of the challenged rule. In relevant part, the failure to provide public notice of the private workshops deprived members of the School Board and the public from equal participation, an opportunity to scrutinize various scenarios, and an opportunity for input and comment. The private workshops circumvented six months of prior negotiated rulemaking and public workshops between District staff, rezoning committees, the public, and the Superintendent and his cabinet; and reduced the public process to a shell into which non-public decisions were later poured. The public notice advertised on November 30, 2004, was inadequate. The notice deprived interested members of the School Board and the public of prior notice that the scope of the workshop on December 6, 2004, would include rezoning proposals not addressed in previous public workshops. The procedural errors materially changed the Staff Proposal and materially affected some students not assigned to Olympia in the Staff Proposal. For example, the Staff Proposal decreases Olympia enrollment, through reassignment of students to West Orange, by 136 students; or approximately four percent of the 3,337 students enrolled in Olympia on October 15, 2004; and approximately three percent of the 3,410 students projected to be enrolled in Olympia in the next school year (the 2005-2006 school year). The challenged rule decreases Olympia enrollment by 285 students. That is more than twice the decrease in enrollment in the Staff Proposal. The challenged rule decreases enrollment at Olympia by approximately eight percent of the 3,332 students enrolled in Olympia on November 15, 2004; and approximately eight percent of the projected enrollment of 3,410 for the following school year. The procedural errors materially impact the original design capacities at Olympia and West Orange. The original design capacities at the respective schools are 2,781 and 3,195 students. The enrollment at Olympia on October 15, 2004, in the amount of 3,337 students, exceeded original design capacity by 556 students (overcrowding), or approximately 19.9 percent. The enrollment at West Orange on the same date, in the amount of 4,320 students, exceeded original design capacity by 1,035 students, or approximately 32.4 percent. The Staff Proposal reduced overcrowding at Olympia to 420 students, or approximately 15.1 percent of original design capacity; and added 136 students to West Orange enrollment, or approximately 4.2 percent of original design capacity at West Orange. Based on enrollment on October 15, 2004, the challenged rule decreases overcrowding at Olympia to 271 students, or approximately 9.7 percent of original design capacity; and adds 285 students to the West Orange enrollment, or approximately 8.9 percent of original design capacity.8 The materiality of the procedural errors is exacerbated by the scheduled loss of the Ninth Grade Center at West Orange in the 2005-2006 school year. That event will reduce actual capacity at West Orange from the original design of 3,195 students to 1,993 students. This is a capacity loss of 1,202 students. The challenged rule adds 285 students to West Orange enrollment next year, which is an increase of approximately 14.3 percent over actual capacity. The Staff Proposal adds 136 students to West Orange enrollment, which is an increase of approximately 6.8 percent over actual capacity. The Staff Proposal and challenged rule leave West Orange with 2,236 and 2,385 students, respectively, or approximately 243 and 392 students over next year's actual capacity of 1,993 students. Overcrowding at West Orange from the Staff Proposal is approximately 12.19 percent of actual capacity next year, and overcrowding from the challenged rule is approximately 19.66 percent of actual capacity. The Staff Proposal reduces overcrowding at Olympia next year from 19.99 percent to 15.1 percent over capacity and leaves overcrowding at West Orange over 12.19 percent. The challenged rule reduces overcrowding next year at Olympia from 19.99 percent to approximately 9.7 percent and leaves overcrowding at West Orange at 19.66 percent over actual capacity. The procedural errors facilitated a challenged rule that departs materially from recommendations by the Olympia rezoning committee. The rezoning committee recommended no change at the school. In relevant part, the committee wrote: While we recognize that Olympia remains overcrowded, aggressive, proactive measures should be taken to address overcrowding of Olympia in other ways. Specifically those measures include: Exploring the possibility of adding "permanent" modular structures; and Increasing efforts to remove students who attend Olympia illegally claiming an address in our zone but who actually live out of zone. West Orange is left with room for the growth they expect. Petitioner's Exhibit 14 (P-14). The Orange County Commission, in a decision entered on July 14, 1998, prohibited "portable" classrooms on the Olympia campus in the original design of the school. The decision, however, does not expressly prohibit "permanent" modular classroom structures. Sufficient property exists on the Olympia campus to accommodate permanent modular classroom structures. The procedural errors that occurred in adopting the challenged rule materially affected students in Citrus Oaks who are reassigned to West Orange. The challenged rule will interrupt feeder patterns at Gotha by reassigning some Gotha students to West Orange and allowing others to attend Olympia. The preceding findings concerning variations between the Staff Proposal and the challenged rule are made solely for examining the materiality of procedural errors. The findings do not examine the merits of the challenged rule or the wisdom of the decision of the School Board. Respondent maintains a stated agency policy that prohibits an individual member of the School Board from participating in any matter pending before the Board in which the member has a conflict of interest. In relevant part, the written policy provides: Board members are expected to avoid conflicts of interest involving any matter pending before the board. A conflict of interest is deemed to exist when the member is confronted with an issue in which the member has a personal . . . interest or . . . circumstance that could render the member unable to devote complete loyalty and singleness of purpose to the public interest. . . . The accountability to the whole district supersedes: * * * c. Conflicts based upon the personal interest of a board member who is a parent of a student in the district. P-6, at 001945. Mrs. Ardaman is a member of the School Board who is a parent of three students in the Olympia school zone. When District staff presented the Staff Proposal, one student was a senior at Olympia, another was a sophomore at Olympia, and the youngest was in the sixth grade at Gotha. Mrs. Ardaman did not have a conflict of interest concerning the Staff Proposal, option A, or option F. None of those proposals reassigned any of the Ardaman children from Olympia to West Orange. A deemed conflict of interest existed for Mrs. Ardaman during: the private workshops she conducted with District staff for the purpose of rule development; the public deliberations at the meeting conducted on December 6, 2004; and the vote of the School Board members that took place at the public hearing conducted on January 11, 2005. Courts have recognized that each concerned parent has an interest in his or her children, the educational program in which each is enrolled, the prevention of disruption in the educational progress of each child, and any unwarranted disruption in the child's educational experience.9 Mrs. Ardaman had a judicially recognized interest in developing and adopting a rule that minimized the foregoing impacts on her children. Citrus Oaks sits on the northern boundary of Old Winter Garden Road (Winter Garden). The Ardaman children reside in a neighborhood to the south of Winter Garden. Mrs. Ardaman chose to reassign Olympia students to West Orange from three neighborhoods north of Winter Garden, including students in Citrus Oaks, and to reassign Olympia students to West Orange from only one neighborhood south of Winter Garden. The challenged rule does not achieve the optimal goal sought by Mrs. Ardaman of reducing Olympia enrollment to the original design capacity. The challenged rule could have achieved that goal by increasing the number of reassignments to West Orange from the geographic area south of Winter Garden. Mrs. Ardaman declined that option. During the non-public workshops, Mrs. Ardaman asked District staff to analyze numerous school rezoning scenarios based on reassignments from specific neighborhoods. Although the various scenarios included neighborhoods south of Winter Garden, Mrs. Ardaman did not ask staff to analyze a scenario that would have reassigned students in her neighborhood from Olympia to West Orange. Reassignment of Olympia students in the neighborhood in which Mrs. Ardaman resides would have interrupted feeder patterns for Gotha students. At the time, Mrs. Ardaman had a child in the sixth grade at Gotha. The challenged rule interrupts feeder patterns at Gotha for students residing in neighborhoods north of Winter Garden. Respondent exercised agency discretion in adopting the challenged rule in a manner that was inconsistent with officially stated agency policy. Respondent permitted a member of the School Board with a personal interest deemed to be a conflict of interest to participate in a pending matter before the School Board. The deviation from agency policy was material. The members of the School Board voted on January 11, 2005, to adopt the proposed rule by a vote of four to three. Mrs. Ardaman cast the deciding vote. Without the vote of Mrs. Ardaman, the remaining tie vote would have been insufficient to adopt the proposed rule.10 The deviation from agency policy was material for other reasons previously stated in the discussion of procedural errors and not repeated here. Respondent did not explain the deviation from officially stated agency policy. The adoption of the challenged rule was neither arbitrary nor capricious within the meaning of Subsection 120.52(8)(e), Florida Statutes (2004). The agency action is supported by logic and essential facts. Respondent did not adopt the proposed rule without thought or reason, and the proposed rule is not irrational. Between December 6, 2004, and January 11, 2005, the members of the School Board received data sheets and impact assessments for the proposed rule. The members had already received the data supporting the Staff Proposal. The members had adequate time between December 6, 2004, and January 11, 2005, to evaluate the logic, essential facts, and rationality of the proposed rule. The members of the School Board were faced with a controversial issue and a difficult decision. Reasonable individuals arguably may have decided to draw the school attendance zones differently. However, it is not appropriate for the trier of fact to substitute his judgment for that of the members of the School Board or to examine the wisdom of the decision of the School Board. Even though Respondent did not adopt the challenged rule in an arbitrary or capricious manner, the procedural errors and deviations from officially stated agency policy were material. Each impaired the fairness of the proceedings and prevented the agency action from being procedurally correct.
The Issue Whether the respondent should be reassigned to the Opportunity School.
Findings Of Fact 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. 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. 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.
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
Findings Of Fact Emil Perez attended Kinloch Park Junior High School during the 1983-84 school year. He was then assigned to opportunity school at Lee and enrolled there at the beginning of the 1984-85 school year. Because petitioner failed to file the deposition of its witness, there was no competent evidence presented concerning the reason or reasons why Emilo was assigned to the opportunity school. Emilo began to have serious attendance problems after being assigned to J.R.E. Lee. Both the school social workers and the school psychologist who testified at the hearing agreed that Emilo did not go to school at J.R.E. Lee because he was afraid to go to school there. The fear manifested itself through physical symptoms such as diarrhea and vomiting. Mr. Hayes, the school psychologist, defined Emilo's emotional problem as "school phobia", which is similar to separation anxiety disorder. However, although Emilo's fear of school was exaggerated, it was not totally baseless. The students at Lee are more aggressive than the students enrolled in the regular school program, and Emilo was threatened and harassed by the other students when he went to school. Emilo did not have attendance problems while enrolled at Kinloch. Because of Emilo's emotional problems, he would benefit from mental health counseling and assignment to a regular school program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered disapproving the assignment of respondent to the opportunity school program at J.R.E. Lee and assigning the respondent to the regular school program. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of September, 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 17th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniella S. Levine, Esq. Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Northeide Shopping Center 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, FL 33147-4796 Ms. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk Dade County School Board 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 401 Miami, FL 33132 Mark A. Valentine, Jr., Esq. Assistant School Board Attorney McCrary & Valentine, P.A. Suite 800, 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33137 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Board Administration Building Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132
Findings Of Fact Gonzalo Lazaro Carmona was a student at Miami Jackson Senior High School during the 1984-85 school year until his assignment to the alternative school. On October 31, 1984, Carmona was placed on indoor suspension for cutting class and failure to complete an assignment. Carmona was placed on indoor suspension on November 28, 1984, following three incidents in that month. He was referred for discipline on November 9, 1984, for general disruptive behavior and failure to complete an assignment; November 14, 1985, for general disruptive behavior; and November 28, 1985, for being in an unauthorized area, specifically the girls' locker room. On February 6, 1985, Carmona was placed on outdoor suspension for general disruptive behavior, defiance of school authority and assault on a teacher. Again on March 8, 1985, he was suspended for assault on a teacher. Carmona was disciplined on March 13, 1985, for general disruptive behavior, defiance of school authority, and rude and discourteous behavior. On April 2, 1985, he was reprimanded and warned for defiance, cutting class, and leaving class without permission. An outdoor suspension was given for general disruptive behavior and failure to complete an assignment on April 25, 1985. Finally, on May 17, 1985, Carmona assaulted a teacher, Ms. Sweats, in the classroom. Carmona was being disruptive in class. Ms. Sweats tried to reprimand him. Carmona then made a fist, used profanity, and threatened the teacher. Carmona was placed on a ten-day outdoor suspension. It was also recommended that Carmona be reassigned to the alternative school program. While enrolled at Miami Jackson, Carmona was not successful academically. His final grades for the 1984-85 school year were C (Math), F (Personal Fitness), F (Biology), C (Arts and Crafts), F (Life Management), and F (Fundamentals CM2). At various times during the school year, Carmona was counseled regarding his failure to complete assignments and he was given an academic advisement conference. Despite these efforts by the school personnel, Carmona failed to put forth effort to improve his academic performance, as evidenced by his effort ratings of 3 in all the classes he failed. Carmona's mother signed a request for transfer to the opportunity school program on March 14, 1985. However, she is unable to read English and did not fully understand the importance of signing the request. She intended that the request be used to scare her son into improving his behavior. The recommendation to assign Carmona to the alternative school was based on his history of disruptive behavior and his lack of academic success, and not on the request his mother signed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order assigning Gonzalo Lazaro Carmona to the alternative school program at Douglas MacArthur senior High School - North. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, 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 26th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jackie Gabe, Esquire Suite 800, 300 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Caridad Cabrera 2025 NW 28 Street Miami, Florida 33142 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools School Board of Dade County 1450 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Ms. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk Dade County Public Schools 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue presented herein concerns the appeal filed by Respondent of the school board's assignment of Respondent to J.R.E. Lee Junior High School, an alternative school placement.
Findings Of Fact Based on the entire record compiled herein, including the testimony of Peter Hoffman, Assistant Principal at Centennial Junior High School, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. On approximately August 26, 1983, Respondent, Tracy Jean Hidalgo, was assigned to attend Centennial Junior High School. Upon arriving for enrollment at Centennial, within six days of her enrollment, four fires were set in the bathrooms at Centennial Junior High School. Respondent admitted setting the fires when questioned by Assistant Principal Hoffman. Once the fires were set at Centennial Junior High, the regular school program was suspended and the students evacuated the building until the fires were brought under control. As stated hereinabove, Respondent or a representative on her behalf did not appear at the hearing to offer any testimony respecting the charges which prompted Respondent's administrative assignment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent's appeal of the school board's assignment of her to the school system's opportunity school program at J. R. E. Lee Junior High School be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 10th day of February, 1984.
