The Issue Whether Petitioner has defaulted on student loans and, if so, the principal amounts of the loans, any accrued interest, and any collection costs. Whether Petitioner's employer should be required to withhold payments from Petitioner's pay pursuant to Section 112.175, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact As will be set forth in more detail, there are three loans at issue in this proceeding. For ease of reference, these loans will be referred to as Loans One, Two, and Three.2 Loans One and Three were issued as Florida Guarantee Student Loans, which are popularly known as Stafford Loans. Loans Two and Four were supplemental loans issued by the Student Loan Services program, which are referred to SLS loans. Loans One, Two, and Three were funded and are at issue in this proceeding. THE STAFFORD LOANS, LOANS ONE AND THREE On September 22, 1986, Petitioner executed an Application and Promissory Note for a Guaranteed Student Loan, number 545967. This Stafford Loan, referred to as Loan One, was in the amount of $5,000. Loan One was disbursed in two equal installments of $2,500 (less appropriate fees). The first installment was disbursed on or about December 4, 1986, and the second installment was disbursed on or about December 11, 1986. On June 1, 1987, Petitioner executed an Application and Promissory Note for a Guaranteed Student Loan, number 586917. This Stafford Loan, referred to as Loan Three, was in the amount of $2,261.00. Loan Three was disbursed in one installment of $2,261.00 (less appropriate fees) on June 25, 1987. The promissory notes and other paper work documenting Loan One and Loan Three provided that interest at the rate of 8% per annum would begin to accrue on these loans six months after Petitioner ceased to attend school on at least a half-time basis. Because a Stafford Loan is guaranteed by the federal government, the obligor may be eligible to receive periods of deferment and periods of forbearance during which the federal government may or may not make interest payments. If the federal government made interest payments during a particular period, Petitioner is not obligated for interest during that period. If the federal government did not pay interest during a particular period, Petitioner is obligated to pay interest for that period. Respondent is not claiming any interest on Loans One and Three for any period while interest was paid by the federal government. While Petitioner was attending school on at least a half-time basis and for six months thereafter (the grace period), Loans One and Three were in periods of forbearance, and the federal government paid the interest for both loans. Petitioner ceased attending school on at least a half-time basis on March 18, 1988. The six month grace period on Loans One and Three ended on September 18, 1988, which is the date interest began to accrue on Loans One and Three. As of that date, the principal balance due on Loan One ($5,000.00) and on Loan Three ($2,261.00) totaled $7,261.00. Between September 18, 1988, and January 23, 1997, interest accrued on Loans One and Three in the total amount of $4,744.75, as follows: Between September 18, 1988, and June 15, 1993, interest accrued on these two loans in the total amount of $2,754.80. Between June 16, 1993, and October 6, 1993, interest accrued on these two loans in the total amount of $245.87. Both loans were in a period of administrative forbearance, but the federal government did not pay the interest. Between October 7, 1993, and January 7, 1994, both loans were in a period of deferment due to Petitioner's unemployment, and the interest was paid by the federal government. Between January 8, 1994 and January 31, 1994, interest accrued on these two loans in the total amount of $51.73. Both loans were in a period of administrative forbearance, but the federal government did not pay the interest. Between February 1, 1994, and April 30, 1994, both loans were in a period of deferment due to Petitioner's unemployment, and the interest was paid by the federal government. Between May 1, 1994, and July 24, 1994, interest accrued on these two loans in the total amount of $189.88. Both loans were in a period of administrative forbearance, but the federal government did not pay the interest. Between July 25, 1994, and April 30, 1995, both loans were in a period of deferment due to Petitioner's unemployment, and the interest was paid by the federal government. Between May 1, 1995, and December 1, 1995, interest accrued on these two loans in the total amount of $492.65. Both loans were in a period of forbearance, but the federal government did not pay the interest. Between December 2, 1995, and January 23, 1997, interest accrued on these two loans in the total amount of $1,009.82. Petitioner defaulted on the repayment of Loan One. Petitioner has not made any principal or interest payment since the loan was disbursed. Petitioner defaulted on the repayment of Loan Three. Petitioner has not made any principal or interest payment since the loan was disbursed. On January 23, 1997, Respondent purchased Loan One and Loan Three.3 As January 23, 1997, the principal and the accrued interest for Loan One, plus the principal and the accrued interest for Loan Three, totaled $12,005.75. THE SLS LOAN: LOAN TWO On January 31, 1987, Petitioner executed Auxiliary Loan Application and Promissory Note number 8914 for a supplemental student loan through the Student Loan Services program (Loan Two). This type loan, generally referred to as an SLS loan, was in the principal amount of $4,000.00. Loan Two was disbursed in one installment of $4,000.00 (less appropriate fees) on or about April 9, 1987. The promissory notes and other paper work documenting Loan Two provided that interest at the rate of 12% per annum would begin to accrue upon disbursement. SLS loans also provide for periods of deferment and forbearance during which no payment is due. The federal government does not make interest payments during a period of deferment or forbearance. The borrower is obligated to pay all of the interest from date of disbursement.4 Petitioner defaulted on the repayment of Loan Two. Petitioner has not made any principal or interest payment since the loan was disbursed. Respondent purchased Loan Two from the holder on September 11, 1997.5 Interest in the amount of $7,348.91 accrued on Loan Two between April 9, 1987, the date the loan was disbursed, and September 11, 1997. The total principal balance and accrued interest for Loan Two as of September 11, 1997, was $11,348.91. COLLECTION COSTS Section 682.410(b)(2) of Title 34, C.F.R., provides that Respondent shall impose collection costs, as follows: (2) Collection charges. Whether or not provided for in the borrower's promissory note and subject to any limitation on the amount of those costs in that note, the guaranty agency shall charge a borrower an amount equal to reasonable costs incurred by the agency in collecting a loan on which the agency has paid a default or bankruptcy claim. These costs may include, but are not limited to, all attorney's fees, collection agency charges, and court costs. Except as provided in §§ 682.401(b)(27) and 682.405(b)(1)(iv), the amount charged a borrower must equal the lesser of-- The amount the same borrower would be charged for the cost of collection under the formula in 34 CFR 30.60; or The amount the same borrower would be charged for the cost of collection if the loan was held by the U.S. Department of Education. Respondent established that the amount of the annual collection cost mandated by 34 C.F.R. 682.410(b)(2) for each defaulted loan at issue in this proceeding should be calculated at the rate of 25% of the outstanding principal and accrued interest. PRINCIPAL, INTEREST, AND COLLECTION COSTS AS OF JUNE 1, 1998 Respondent calculated the principal, interest, and collection costs for each loan as of June 1, 1998. For Loan One the amount of the collection costs assessed by the Respondent was $2,231.60. Interest that accrued between January 23, 1997, and June 1, 1998, totaled $895.13. As of June 1, 1998, the total principal, interest, and collection costs for Loan One totaled $11,394.01. For Loan Two the amount of the collection costs assessed by the Respondent was $2,961.20. Interest that accrued between September 11, 1997, and June 1, 1998, totaled $981.29. As of June 1, 1998, the total principal, interest, and collection costs for Loan One totaled $15,291.39. For Loan Three the amount of the collection costs assessed by the Respondent was $1,009.13. Interest that accrued between January 23, 1997, and June 1, 1998, totaled $404.78. As of June 1, 1998, the total principal, interest, and collection costs for Loan One totaled $5,152.39. The total amount due from Petitioner as of June 1, 1998, for Loans One, Two, and Three for principal, interest, and collection costs is $31,837.79. WAGE WITHHOLDING Petitioner is a social worker employed by Dade County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida. As an employee of a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Petitioner is subject to the provisions of Section 112.175, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 28-40, Florida Administrative Code. These provisions pertain to employees of the State of Florida or its subdivisions who have defaulted on an education loan made or guaranteed by the State of Florida. Respondent notified Petitioner in writing by letter dated October 1, 1997, that Loans One, Two, and Three were in default and offered him the opportunity to make voluntary payments on these loans. The letter also advised Petitioner that the Respondent would seek to make involuntary withholdings if he did not make voluntary payments. Petitioner thereafter elected to request the formal hearing that triggered this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein, finds that Petitioner, as of June 1, 1998, owes the sum of $31,837.79, and orders the involuntary wage withholding of Petitioner's pay through his employer, Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Section 112.175, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 28-40, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1998
The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are as follows: (1) whether Respondents employed Lorene Walker, who had contact with scholarship students and who did not meet the requisite criteria to pass the Level 2 background screening as required by section 1002.421(1)(m) and (p), Florida Statutes (2019), and if so, what is the appropriate remedy; and (2) whether Respondents engaged in fraud in violation of section 1002.421(3)(d) and, if so, whether Petitioner should revoke Respondents' participation in several Florida Scholarship Programs.1
Findings Of Fact Parties, People, and Programs The Department is the government agency charged with administering numerous state scholarship programs pursuant to section 1002.421, Florida Statutes. The Department operates or has administrative responsibilities for the Gardiner Scholarship Program, the John M. McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program, the Florida Tax Credit (FTC) Scholarship Program, and the Family Empowerment Scholarship Program. See §§ 1002.385, 1002.39, 1002.394, and 1002.395, Fla. Stat. The Gardiner, McKay, FTC, and Family Empowerment scholarships defray tuition and other qualified educational expenses for eligible students who attend charter, private, or other eligible schools in the state of Florida. The Department also operates or administers the Hope Scholarship Program, which provides tuition assistance to victims of school bullying so that they can enroll in another school. See § 1002.40, Fla. Stat. The scholarship funds are awarded to eligible students to be used at eligible schools. The Commissioner is the agency head of the Department and has the authority to revoke or suspend a school's eligibility to receive scholarship monies on behalf of eligible students. The Independent Education and Parental Choice Office, also referred to as the School Choice Office (Office), is a section of the Department which oversees several school choice options outside Florida's public school system. The Office also oversees the administration of various scholarships programs under chapter 1002. The Office is in regular contact with schools that participate in these scholarship programs. Respondents have been operating as private schools for approximately six years. Since the 2013/2014 school year, they have been found eligible and participated in numerous scholarship programs pursuant to section 1002.421. Respondents operate two campuses: (1) School Code No. 4015 located at 1056 North Pine Hills Road, Orlando, Florida (Pine Hills Campus); and (2) School Code No. 8827 located at 5308 Silver Star Road, Orlando, Florida (Silver Star Campus). The Schools serve 40 to 50 scholarship students and receive approximately $200,000 per year in scholarship funds. Judith Shealey is the owner of the Schools. She carries the title of Executive Director, Principal, Headmistress, and/or Owner. Ms. Shealey has family members who are students and teachers at the Schools. Compliance Requirements As explained by RaShawn Williams, the Office, parents, and eligible schools work closely together to access the scholarship funds. The parents apply for the scholarships through the designated agency and enroll their students directly with an eligible school. The school is responsible for enrolling the student in the scholarship program awarded to that student. Essentially, the student must be deemed eligible to receive scholarship funds, and the school must be eligible to receive those scholarship funds. If a private school is deemed ineligible by the Office for participation in a scholarship program, the students at that school do not lose their eligibility for scholarship funds. Rather, they simply cannot use those funds to enroll in the ineligible school. As private school participants in the Florida Scholarship Programs, the Schools were required to register with the State through the submission of a Private School Annual Survey; and then apply for eligibility through the submission of a yearly Scholarship Compliance Form (Compliance Form). The Compliance Form specifies numerous governing statutory requirements including: (1) submitting background screenings for officers, directors, or other controlling persons; (2) certifying all staff with direct student contact have passed an FDLE Level 2 background screening; and (3) terminating or denying employment to all persons who cannot meet this requirement. The Compliance Form is completed by applicant schools online, and then a signed and notarized hard copy is mailed to the Office. The relevant portions of the Compliance Form are found in "Section 4," and involve background checks: * Has each Owner, Operator, and Chief Administrative Officer undergone a Level 2 background screening through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and submitted the results to the Florida Department of Education in accordance with section 1002.421(1)(m), Florida Statutes? (Reports must be filed with the private school and made available for public inspection). * * * * Have all employees and contracted personnel with direct student contact submitted their fingerprints to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for state and national background screening in accordance with section 1002.421(1)(m), Florida Statutes? * In accordance with section 1002.421(1)(m), Florida Statutes, does the school deny employment to or terminate an employee or contracted personnel with direct student contact if he or she fails to meet the background screening standards under section 435.04, Florida Statutes? * In accordance with section 1002.421(1)(m), Florida Statutes, does the school disqualify instructional personnel and school administrators from employment in any position that allows direct contact with students if the personnel or administrators are ineligible under section 435.40, Florida Statutes? A "No" answer on any of the above questions would, if unresolved, result in a private school's ineligibility for scholarship funds. The evidence establishes that the Schools answered "Yes" for sections 4A, 4C, 4D, and 4E on the notarized Compliance Forms that were submitted on December 18, 2018, and December 11, 2019. In addition to certifying the information above on the Compliance Forms every year, an eligible school must submit to the Office screening documentation for directors, principals, board members, administrators, and officers as part of the renewal of participation in the scholarship programs. Screening documentation related to other employees must be maintained by the schools and is usually only reviewed by the Office during an audit or a site visit of the school. There is no dispute that the Schools never listed Lorene Walker as an administrator for the Schools. There is no dispute the Schools never submitted any background screening information for Ms. Walker until specifically requested by the Office in November 2019. Employment of Lorene Walker Lorene Walker was hired by the Schools in 2013.3 She had children and/or grandchildren who attend the Schools. The Schools claim Ms. Walker was hired from an entity known as "Career Source." Although Ms. Walker believed that she had been cleared to work at the Schools, there is no employment file or documentation that she had undergone the Level 2 background screening required by law before being employed at the Schools. Originally, Ms. Walker worked as a "floater." As a floater, Ms. Walker cooked, cleaned, and did whatever the school needed at the time. It is unclear whether she had direct contact with students in this position. 3 Ms. Walker testified she began working there in 2015, but later stated she started in 2013. Ms. Shealey indicated by 2014, Ms. Walker had transitioned into the current position. Regardless, in 2014, Ms. Walker transitioned into a more active role at the Schools. Although the Schools claim in response to the Complaints that she was simply an administrative assistant to Ms. Shealey, the evidence establishes that Ms. Walker was the Administrator for the Schools during the time relevant to the Complaints. She reminded teachers to send out grades, attended meetings, oversaw the lunch program, and prepared school-related and financial documentation. Ms. Walker was also responsible for the Schools' students' enrollment into the scholarship programs. As Administrator, Ms. Walker also had authority, either explicit or implicit, from the Schools' owner, Ms. Shealey, to represent the Schools when dealing with the Office. She worked directly with Ms. Williams on compliance issues, including fire safety, health inspections, and completion of the Annual Survey and Compliance Form for the Schools. Ms. Walker also responded to requests for information from Ms. Williams and others in the Department. It was clear Ms. Walker was integral to the operation of the Schools. Ms. Shealey and Ms. Walker were the only two individuals with access to the Schools' email accounts that were used to correspond with the Department. The emails from one of the email addresses usually contained Ms. Shealey's signature block indicating either the title of "Principal" or "Headmistress." Ms. Walker's signature line identified her title as "Administrator." Before being hired by the Schools, Ms. Walker had been arrested for numerous offenses between 1978 and 2001 in Florida. Although most of these offenses were dismissed, dropped, and/or abandoned, she pled nolo contendere to and was found guilty of a 1994 charge for unlawful purchase of a controlled substance, a second-degree felony in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1993). The 1994 charge is a disqualifying offense which rendered Ms. Walker ineligible to be a school employee.4 There was no evidence that Ms. Walker had obtained an exemption for this qualification. As noted above, the Schools never disclosed Ms. Walker's importance in their operations in their Compliance Forms. Prior to November 2019, the Schools had never provided any screening documentation for Ms. Walker to the Office as part of the yearly compliance process. Investigation and Complaints On or around October 14, 2019, the Department received a complaint from another state agency concerning possible abuse by an employee of the School at the Pine Hills campus. Although the abuse investigation was handled outside of the Office, the Office opened an inquiry into the Schools' compliance with background check requirements and other issues. Whitney Blake conducted the investigation on behalf of the Office. The first step in this inquiry was a letter from Ms. Blake's supervisor, dated October 25, 2019, requesting (among other things) a list of all employees (including both teachers and other personnel) and results of current FDLE Level 2 background screenings for all employees. 4 Section 435.04, Florida Statutes, provides the following in relevant part: (2) The security background investigations under this section must ensure that no persons subject to the provisions of this section have been arrested for and are awaiting final disposition of, have been found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, or have been adjudicated delinquent and the record has not been sealed or expunged for, any offense prohibited under any of the following provisions of state law or similar law of another jurisdiction: * * * (ss) Chapter 893, relating to drug abuse prevention and control, only if the offense was a felony or if any other person involved in the offense was a minor. On November 4, 2020, Ms. Walker sent the Department a list of all the Schools' staff, including herself as "Administrator," along with the results of her background screening, revealing her previous disqualifying offense. On November 15, 2019, Ms. Blake attempted to contact Ms. Shealey by phone because she was concerned that Ms. Walker, who was the disqualified employee, was the person sending the information from the School. When she called the Schools and requested to speak with the owner (Ms. Shealey), the person who answered purportedly claiming to be the Schools' owner did not have a distinguishable accent. Ms. Shealey was known to have a strong accent, whereas Ms. Walker did not. Regardless, on this call, Ms. Blake instructed the person on the other end of the phone line that the Schools would need to terminate Ms. Walker immediately because of her disqualifying offense. On that same day, Ms. Blake then sent a follow-up email to the Schools (at both email addresses utilized by the Schools) indicating there were outstanding items that had not been provided as requested in the October 25 letter. She also specifically requested proof Ms. Walker was no longer at the Schools. Specifically, the Department stated: Upon review of the Level 2 background screenings, it was determined Lorene Walker has disqualifying offenses pursuant to section 435.04, F.S. An employee or contracted personnel with direct student contact means any employee or contracted personnel who has unsupervised access to a scholarship student for whom the private school is responsible. To certify compliance with this requirement, please submit a signed statement indicating Lorene Walker's employment at your school has been terminated or that individual's role with your school no longer puts he/she in proximity to scholarship students. Your attention to this in the next five days will preempt any further action on our part. (emphasis added). That same date, November 15, 2019, the Schools emailed one of the items requested by Ms. Blake, an abuse poster, to the Office. Although Ms. Walker testified she did not send the email, it had her signature block and was from one of the Schools' two email accounts to which she had access. The undersigned finds Ms. Walker sent this email to Ms. Blake. On November 18, 2019, the Schools sent another item previously requested by Ms. Blake, the teaching qualifications for a teacher, to the Office. Again, although Ms. Walker claimed she did not send the email, it had her signature block and was from one of the Schools' two email accounts to which she had access. The undersigned finds Ms. Walker sent this email to Ms. Blake. Ms. Blake did not receive any proof that the Schools had removed Ms. Walker from her position within five days as requested in the November 15 email to the Schools. As a result, on November 22, 2019, Ms. Blake emailed the Schools reiterating the requirements of section 1002.421, and repeating her request for a signed statement that Ms. Walker had been terminated or had no contact with scholarship students. Ms. Blake also added: "Failure to turn in the requested documentation could impact your school's ongoing participation in the Scholarship Program." During this time, Ms. Blake spoke to Ms. Shealey numerous times on the phone regarding the outstanding requests related to another teacher and the signed documentation that Ms. Walker had been removed from her position. Ms. Shealey indicated it would be difficult to remove Ms. Walker due to Ms. Walker's oversight of the school and her familiarity with the scholarship student information. After Ms. Blake did not receive the requested proof of Ms. Walker's removal from the Schools and two other items related to a teacher, the Office issued a Notice of Noncompliance on December 5, 2019. On December 19, 2019, Ms. Shealey sent to Ms. Blake one of the outstanding items related to the teacher by email. There was no mention of Ms. Walker and no signed proof that Ms. Walker had been removed from her position. The next day, Ms. Blake wrote an email to Ms. Shealey indicating that she did not have authority to exempt Ms. Walker from the background screening requirements. She again asked for the outstanding information related to the other teacher and a signed statement indicating Ms. Walker had been removed and no longer had proximity to scholarship students. On December 23, 2019, Ms. Shealey emailed Ms. Blake that the teacher for which there was an outstanding request had resigned and no longer worked for one of the Schools. Ms. Blake responded with yet another request for the signed statement indicating Ms. Walker had been terminated or was no longer in proximity to scholarship students. In response, Ms. Shealey sent an email to Ms. Blake with an attached letter. The letter titled "Termination of your employment" and dated December 9, 2019, indicates that Ms. Shealey terminated Ms. Walker during a meeting held on December 9, 2019. The letter is unsigned. Ms. Shealey indicated in the text of the email that it was the hardest letter she had to write. Being concerned that they had not received a signed statement, Ms. Blake and Ms. Williams requested that a site visit be conducted at the Pine Hills Campus. A visit was scheduled for February 5, 2020, and the Schools were provided notice of the site visit by certified mail, email, and telephone. Additionally, the Schools were provided a checklist of the documents that should be provided to the inspector during the site visit. On February 5, 2020, Scott Earley from the Office conducted the site visit at the Pine Hills Campus. When he arrived, Ms. Shealey was not there and none of the documentation previously requested had been prepared for review. Mr. Earley testified that once Ms. Shealey arrived, she did not know where all the requested documents were, nor could she produce all of them. For example, when asked about a necessary health form, Ms. Shealey indicated that Ms. Walker would know where the document was, but she could not locate it. Mr. Earley did not recall Ms. Shealey stating during the inspection that Ms. Walker was working from home, but she gave Mr. Earley the impression that Ms. Walker's background screening issue had been resolved. Regardless, the Site Visit Staff/Consultant Worksheet filled out for the February 5 site visit does not disclose Ms. Walker as a member of staff or contracted personnel with the Pine Hills Campus. Although Ms. Walker was not at the Pine Hills Campus during the site visit, Mr. Earley believed based on his observations and conversations with Ms. Shealey that Ms. Walker was still employed by the Schools as a director or principal. Almost two weeks later on February 20, 2020, Petitioner filed the Complaints against the Schools. It was not until March 11, 2020, in response to the Complaints that the Schools submitted for the first time a signed copy of a termination letter dated December 9, 2020. Even after the Complaints had been served on the Schools, however, it was unclear what Ms. Walker's involvement was with the Schools. There may have been some confusion because Ms. Walker had been seen after her purported termination on campus. Ms. Walker claimed she was on campus only to pick up her children and grandchildren. Testimony from two of the Schools' teachers indicated that they noticed Ms. Walker was no longer at the Schools, but knew she was taking care of the Schools' paperwork from her home. Neither teacher could establish a date certain for when Ms. Walker stopped working on campus and/or when she began working at home. Prior to the filing of the Complaints in these proceedings, there was no evidence that the Schools ever reported to the Office that Ms. Walker had been working from home. Nothing in the Petition filed on March 4, 2020, indicates Ms. Walker was still employed at the Schools. It was not until March 11, 2020, in response to the Complaints that the Schools submitted for the first time a signed copy of a termination letter dated December 9, 2020. As part of the March 11 submission, Ms. Shealey sent a signed statement indicating she had not terminated Ms. Walker, but rather "had her work from home." This was the first time Ms. Shealey indicated to the Office that Ms. Walker was still working for the Schools. In the Motion filed April 10, 2020, the Schools indicated they were unaware of the specifics of the Level 2 background screening requirement, and that, once aware, "we took action immediately and terminated the employee in question." There was no indication in the body of the Motion the Schools continued to employ Ms. Walker to work at her home. Attached to the Motion, however, was the same letter submitted on March 11 indicating Ms. Walker was working from home. In the Amended Petition filed on May 15, 2020, the Schools state Ms. Walker was terminated: "I terminated Ms. Lorene Walker due to the Department's information in order to come into compliance with the Florida Department of Education." "I rectified this deficiency by terminating Ms. Walker." "Ms. Lorene Walker was terminated on December 9, 2019, as advised by Whitney Blake." Although the Amended Petition does not explicitly state Ms. Walker continued to work for the Schools at home, it does leave room for this interpretation: "As of December 9, 2019, Ms. Lorene Walker no longer works in the Lion of Judah facility." It is unclear on what date Ms. Walker stopped working from home for the Schools. What is clear is that at the time of the final hearing she was no longer working at the Schools in any location or in any capacity. ULTIMATE FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS The greater weight of the evidence establishes Ms. Walker, in her role as Administrator, should have been disclosed to the Office as an "operator" or "a person with equivalent decision making authority." The Schools were required to send her background screening documentation to the Office as required by the Compliance Form and section 1002.421(1)(p), and they did not. The Schools employed a person with a disqualifying offense in violation of sections 1002.421(1)(m) and 435.04(2)(ss). Specifically, the Schools employed Ms. Walker from 2014 (if not earlier) through December 2019 (if not later) in a position in which she was in the vicinity of scholarship students, knowing that she had been found guilty of a felony and without obtaining or providing documentation related to a Level 2 background clearance. The Schools continued to allow Ms. Walker to remain in a position that placed her in the vicinity of scholarship students after receiving notification of her ineligibility for almost a month (if not more). The greater weight of the evidence establishes the Schools engaged in fraudulent activity, to wit: (1) Ms. Shealey falsely represented to the Office that the Schools complied with Section 4 of the Compliance Form for 2018 and 2019; (2) the Schools falsely obscured Ms. Walker's role at the School and her criminal background; and (3) the Schools failed to honestly disclose Ms. Walker's employment status when they claimed to terminate her on December 9, 2020, but failed to inform the Office that they had retained (or rehired) her to work at home. The Schools made these statements of material fact either knowing they were false or in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the representations, which were false.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner enter a final order (1) upholding the suspension; and (2) revoking the eligibility of Lion of Judah Academy (4015) and Lion Of Judah Academy (8827) to participate in the following Florida Scholarship Programs: John M. McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program, Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program, Gardiner Scholarship Program, Hope Scholarship Program, and/or Family Empowerment Scholarship Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 3rd day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Jason Douglas Borntreger, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1544 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32310 (eServed) Judith Shealey Lion of Judah Academy 1056 North Pine Hills Road Orlando, Florida 32808 Shawn R. H. Smith, Esquire Law Office of Shawn R. H. Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 547752 Orlando, Florida 32854 (eServed) Chris Emerson, Agency Clerk Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1520 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in this case are (a) whether Respondent committed fraud in seeking to obtain funds from the McKay Scholarship Program, thereby warranting Petitioner's summary suspension of payments to Respondent; and (b) whether Petitioner should revoke Respondent's participation in the McKay Scholarship program for failing to comply with applicable laws.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Muskateer's Academy, Inc. ("MAI") is a Florida corporation that, at all times relevant to this case, operated a private school known as Muskateer's Academy ("Muskateer's"). MAI was closely held by Erick and Jacqueline Cermeno, a married couple. Together, they ran the school, holding (and sometimes swapping) various titles of importance, such as "principal" and "superintendent," which signified their supervisory roles. Located in Hialeah, Florida, Muskateer's served mainly at-risk students who, for one reason or another, were unable or unlikely to succeed in the public school system. On paper, the school's tuition was quite steep. The undersigned infers, however, that few parents, if any, actually paid the "sticker price" for tuition and other expenses that Respondent reported to the Florida Department of Education ("Department") in its student fee schedules, which charges totaled $24,000 per year, per child. Rather, the undersigned infers that, for most students at least, Respondent agreed to accept as payment in full whatever amount was available annually for a particular student under the John M. McKay Scholarships for Students With Disabilities Program ("McKay Scholarship Program"). Respondent operated two separate high schools at Muskateer's. One was a "regular," four-year high school that followed the traditional model, where instructors taught various academic subjects to classes of students, who attended classes for the purpose of learning academic subjects from their teachers. In this high school, tests were given periodically, as a means of measuring the students' mastery of the material. The other program was an "accelerated" high school where each student worked individually, at his own pace. Teachers played a relatively small part in this program, doing little but overseeing the "testing room" in which the students took tests——their primary scholastic activity. Students received course credit for passing tests.1 At the relevant times, there were three or four teachers at Muskateer's. To be a teacher there, a person did not need a bachelor's degree. Instead, MAI was willing to hire individuals having some type of educational background, preferably including at least 40 college credits, more or less. One of the teachers at Muskateer's was Amneris Mesa, whose brother, O. F., attended the school for some period of time. As will be seen, O. F. is one of the key figures in the instant dispute. In August 2006, the Department's Office of Independent Education and Parental Choice ("Choice Office") received a complaint about Muskateer's, the gravamen of which was that MAI was continuing to receive funds under the McKay Scholarship Program for former students who had stopped attending the school. The Choice Office, which administers the McKay Scholarship Program, referred the complaint to the Department's Office of Inspector General ("OIG") for investigation. The OIG's investigation led to the discovery of evidence sufficient to persuade the Commissioner of Education ("Commissioner") that MAI had engaged in fraudulent activity with regard to the McKay Scholarship Program. Consequently, on November 1, 2006, the Commissioner issued an Administrative Complaint against MAI, which charged MAI with fraud and other violations of the laws governing the McKay Scholarship Program. At the same time, the Commissioner immediately suspended all payments to MAI under the McKay Scholarship Program. Being thus cut off from its primary source of revenue, MAI closed Muskateer's on November 18, 2006. As of the final hearing, the school had not reopened. The Commissioner's present case against MAI hinges on allegations that, to induce the payment of funds under the McKay Scholarship Program, the company falsely represented to the Department that three students——O. F., N. P., and C. M.——had "reenrolled" at Muskateer's for the 2006-07 school year, when in fact two of them (O. F. and N. P.) previously had graduated, and the third (C. M.) had dropped out midway through the preceding school year. MAI disputes these allegations, and hence the focus of the hearing largely was on whether the three individuals in question had attended Muskateer's during the 2006-07 school year. Before addressing the contested factual issues, however, a brief examination of the McKay Scholarship Program is in order, to provide context for the findings of fact that will follow. The McKay Scholarship Program affords a disabled student the option of attending a different public school from the one to which he is assigned, or, if he is eligible, the opportunity to receive a scholarship to defray the cost of attending a private school of choice. Once awarded, a McKay scholarship remains in force until the student returns to a public school, graduates, or turns 22, whichever first occurs; provided, however, that he does not drop out, which would render the student ineligible for the scholarship, at least during the period of non-enrollment. To participate in the McKay Scholarship Program, a private school must meet certain conditions as well. Inasmuch as the Commissioner has alleged that MAI failed to comply with some conditions of continued eligibility, the relevant ones will be discussed in greater detail below. For the moment, however, it is sufficient to note that McKay scholarship funding is potentially available to most private schools operating lawfully in the state, for the program is designed to be inclusive in this regard. A private school that wants to participate in the McKay Scholarship Program must notify the Department of its interest and submit information demonstrating compliance with the eligibility requirements. This information——and other data necessary to secure the disbursement of scholarship funds——must be transmitted to the Department electronically, through forms available online to registered users, at a secure website maintained by the Department. To access this site, a private school must first obtain a unique code and establish a confidential password, both of which must be entered correctly in order to logon to the Department's secure web page. If the parent of an eligible student chooses the private school option and secures a place for his child at the private school of choice, then the parent must notify the Department of his decision before the child begins attending the private school. After receiving such notice, the Department verifies the student's enrollment in the private school, obtains from the private school a schedule of the tuition and fees, and receives from the student's school district a "matrix of services" reflecting the student's special educational needs. The maximum amount of the McKay scholarship for a particular student is the lesser of (a) the "calculated amount" (which is roughly equal to the estimated cost of educating the student in the public school to which he is assigned) or (b) the actual amount of the private school's tuition and fees.2 The amount of the student's scholarship is deducted from his public school district's total funding entitlement.3 McKay scholarship payments are made in four equal amounts during the school year to which the scholarship applies. The payment dates are September 1, November 1, February 1, and April 1. Payments are made by warrant payable to the student's parent. The Department mails each warrant to the private school of the parent's choice. The parent is required restrictively to endorse the warrant, authorizing the funds to be deposited only in the private school's account.4 To remain eligible for the McKay scholarship, the student must have regular and direct contact with his teacher(s) at the private school's physical location. Thus, ahead of each payment (after the initial payment), the private school must verify, through the Department's secure, password-protected website, that the student continues to be enrolled in, and to attend, the private school. It is in connection with this ongoing duty to verify continued enrollment and attendance at the private school that MAI is alleged to have engaged in fraudulent activity, namely, reporting to the Department that O. F., N. P., and C. M. were still enrolled in, and attending, Muskateer's when, in fact, they were not. The undersigned will now turn to these allegations, which lie at the heart of this matter. But first: It must be acknowledged that the evidence is in conflict concerning the historical facts relevant to the allegations of fraudulent activity. Given the evidential conflicts, the undersigned supposes that reasonable people might disagree about what happened here. Ultimately, however, it falls to the undersigned, rather than a group of hypothetical "reasonable people," to resolve the evidential conflicts and settle the disputed issues of material fact. Thus, to the extent that any finding below (or herein) is inconsistent with the testimony of one witness or another, or with some documentary evidence, the finding reflects a rejection of all such inconsistent testimony and evidence (none of which was overlooked, disregarded, or ignored) in favor of proof that the undersigned deemed, in the exercise of his prerogatives as the fact-finder, to be more believable and hence entitled to greater weight. O. F. In January 2006, halfway through the 2005-06 school year, O. F. was enrolled as a student of Muskateer's. He began attending the accelerated high school on January 26, 2006. At the same time, his sister, Ms. Mesa, started working for MAI as a teacher in the regular high school. About five months later, O. F. graduated from Muskateer's. O. F. participated in a graduation ceremony on June 3, 2006, and, according to the transcript maintained in his student file, O. F. was awarded a diploma or certificate on that date. The transcript notwithstanding, it is undisputed that O. F. did not actually receive his diploma until several months after his graduation date. MAI contends that it withheld O. F.'s diploma because he had not finished all the tests necessary for graduation. The undersigned finds, however, that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that O. F. had not finished his degree requirements as of June 3, 2006; indeed, the greater weight of the persuasive evidence is to the contrary. Accordingly, MAI's assertion that O. F. did not graduate from high school at the end of the 2005-06 school year is rejected. On May 26, 2006, MAI reported to the Department, through the Department's secure, password-protected website, that O. F. had reenrolled in Muskateer's for the 2006-07 school year, and that he would resume attending the school on July 1, 2006. On the same date and in the same manner, MAI reported that O. F.'s tuition and fees for the upcoming school year would total $24,000. These representations were made for the purpose of obtaining funds from the McKay Scholarship Program. The foregoing representations regarding O. F.'s reenrollment in Muskateer's for the 2006-07 school year were false. Moreover, the greater weight of the evidence persuades the undersigned that, more likely than not, the individuals responsible for making these representations——namely Mr. And Mrs. Cermeno——actually knew that the representations were false, or they recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of the matters asserted.5 Despite having graduated, O. F. returned to Muskateer's on three or four occasions in September and October 2006, at which times he took a few tests that he had previously taken and passed. This happened because the Cermenos refused to give O. F. his diploma unless he retook these tests——a condition that was repeated both to O. F.'s mother and his sister (the teacher).6 The undersigned infers that, more likely than not, the Cermenos used the threat of withholding O. F.'s diploma as a means of coercing his "attendance" at Muskateer's during the 2006-07 school year, to create plausible deniability in the event the charge were brought (as it was) that MAI had fraudulently sought to obtain McKay scholarship funds for O. F. At any rate, post-graduation "attendance" such as O. F.'s——to retake exams for no apparent legitimate reason——is not the kind of regular attendance that would support the reasonable inference that the student had enrolled for the 2006-07 school year.7 N. P. N. P. enrolled in Muskateer's on May 3, 2004, and began attending classes in the accelerated high school on August 16, 2004. He graduated (at least in the ceremonial sense) at the end of the 2004-05 school year but never received a diploma. N. P. testified that he never returned to Muskateer's as a student after he (ceremonially) graduated. In other words, N. P. claims that he was not a student of Muskateer's during either the 2005-06 school year or the 2006-07 school year. N. P.'s testimony in this regard is corroborated by the testimony of his aunt (and legal guardian), Altagracia Moreta. Additionally, N. P.'s testimony is corroborated by the absence of well-kept, reliable documentation——such as enrollment registers and attendance records——attesting to his ongoing attendance at Muskateer's after the 2004-05 school year. The undersigned considers the lack of such documentation to be a telling fact. Consequently, although there is conflicting evidence, the undersigned finds that, more likely than not, N. P. did not attend Muskateer's during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years, as he testified. On May 4, 2005, MAI reported to the Department, through the Department's secure, password-protected website, that N. P. had reenrolled in Muskateer's for the 2005-06 school year, and that he would resume attending the school on August 8, 2005. On the same date and in the same manner, MAI reported that N. P.'s tuition and fees for the 2005-06 school year would total $24,000. These representations were made for the purpose of obtaining funds from the McKay Scholarship Program. On May 26, 2006, MAI reported to the Department, through the Department's secure, password-protected website, that N. P. had reenrolled in Muskateer's for the 2006-07 school year, and that he would resume attending the school on July 1, 2006. On the same date and in the same manner, MAI reported that N. P.'s tuition and fees for the 2006-07 school year would total $24,000. These representations were made for the purpose of obtaining funds from the McKay Scholarship Program. The foregoing representations regarding N. P.'s reenrollment in Muskateer's for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school year were false. Moreover, the greater weight of the evidence persuades the undersigned that, more likely than not, the individuals responsible for making these representations——namely Mr. And Mrs. Cermeno——actually knew that these representations were false, or they recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of the matters asserted. C. M. In July 2004, C. M. registered to attend Muskateer's. He began attending the accelerated high school on August 16, 2004. C. M. testified at hearing (via deposition) that he continued to attend Muskateer's while this proceeding was pending, having been in class there as recently as "yesterday" (January 17, 2007). C. M. did not know what courses he was currently taking or how many other students currently were attending Muskateer's. (Recall that Muskateer's closed its doors on November 18, 2006, and, as of the final hearing, had not reopened).8 Whatever credibility C. M. still possessed after giving testimony such as that just described was shredded when Petitioner impeached him with a prior inconsistent (actually, contradictory) statement. On August 22, 2006, C. M. told the OIG's investigator that he had stopped attending Muskateer's in December 2005 and never returned. The investigator made an audio recording of C. M.'s statement, which was received in evidence, but C. M. was not under oath at the time he gave the statement. The undersigned finds that C. M. is not a believable witness, and his testimony, being unreliable and unpersuasive, is given no weight.9 The documents in C. M.'s disorderly (and seemingly incomplete) student file are likewise insufficient to establish, to the required degree of persuasiveness (namely, that the fact is more likely true than not), the dates on which C. M. attended Muskateer's as an enrolled student. The bottom line is that the evidence is insufficient to permit the undersigned to make a finding as to when (or whether) C. M. stopped attending Muskateer's (prior to its closure on November 18, 2006).10 Lacking sufficient proof regarding the dates during which C. M. attended Muskateer's as a duly enrolled student, it is impossible to determine whether MAI engaged in any fraudulent activity with regard to C. M. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, to induce the state to disburse McKay scholarship funds for the benefit of O. F., MAI engaged in fraudulent activity, to wit: MAI intentionally reported to the Department that O. F. had reenrolled in Muskateer's for the 2006-07 school year, while either (a) knowing that this representation of material fact was false or (b) recklessly disregarding the truth or falsity of this material representation, which was, in fact, false. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, to induce the state to disburse McKay scholarship funds for the benefit of N. P., MAI engaged in fraudulent activity, to wit: MAI intentionally reported to the Department, on separate occasions, that N. P. had reenrolled in Muskateer's for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years, while either (a) knowing that these representations of material fact were false or (b) recklessly disregarding the truth or falsity of these material representations, which were, in fact, false. The greater weight of the evidence is insufficient to establish that MAI engaged in fraudulent activity in connection with its efforts to obtain McKay scholarship funds for the benefit of C. M. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, by failing to keep and maintain complete and orderly records of enrollment and attendance, MAI failed to meet its obligation under Section 1002.39(8)(a), Florida Statutes, to comply with all of the requirements set forth in Section 1002.421, which mandates that private schools participating in the McKay Scholarship Program must, among other things, conform to all the requirements outlined in Section 1002.42, Florida Statutes, including Section 1002.42(4), which directs that private schools must prepare and keep attendance records in accordance with the provisions of Section 1003.23(2), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner enter a final order (a) suspending payment of McKay Scholarship funds to MAI in connection with the 2006-07 school year (b) revoking MAI's participation in the McKay Scholarship Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2007, 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 2nd day of April, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, who is employed as an occupational therapist by a local school board, is considered a “teacher” eligible for the 2015 State of Florida Best and Brightest Scholarship Program.
Findings Of Fact The 2015 Florida Legislature Appropriations Act created the Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program, chapter 2015- 232, p. 27, Item 99A. The eligibility pre-requisites for applying to and being awarded the Scholarship (up to $10,000) were established in the Scholarship. The Scholarship provides as follows: Funds in Specific Appropriation 99A are provided to implement Florida's Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program. The funds shall be used to award a maximum of 4,402 teachers with a $10,000 scholarship based on high academic achievement on the SAT or ACT. To be eligible for a scholarship, a teacher must have scored at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment and have been evaluated as highly effective pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, or if the teacher is a first-year teacher who has not been evaluated pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, must have scored at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment. In order to demonstrate eligibility for an award, an eligible teacher must submit to the school district, no later than October 1, 2015, an official record of his or her SAT or ACT score demonstrating that the teacher scored at or above the 80th percentile based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment. By December 1, 2015, each school district, charter school governing board, and the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind shall submit to the department the number of eligible teachers who qualify for the scholarship. By February 1, 2016, the department shall disburse scholarship funds to each school district for each eligible teacher to receive a scholarship. By April 1, 2016, each school district, charter school governing board, and the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind shall provide payment of the scholarship to each eligible teacher. If the number of eligible teachers exceeds the total the department shall prorate the per teacher scholarship amount. The Scholarship does not define the word “teacher.” Petitioner, who timely filed an application for the Scholarship, contends that she is a “teacher” and is therefore eligible for the award. Respondent and Intervenor contend that Petitioner is an occupational therapist, and, as such, she is not considered a “classroom teacher,” which is the target group that the Legislature intended for the teacher scholarship program to cover. Petitioner contends that even if the Scholarship is limited to “classroom teachers,” she meets the statutory definition of a “classroom teacher” and is therefore eligible to receive the Scholarship. It is undisputed that the 2015 Scholarship language is vague as to whether the Scholarship is limited to classroom teachers. In 2016, the Legislature made it clear that the award is intended to only cover “classroom teachers.” Legislation enacted in subsequent legislative sessions may be examined to ascertain legislative intent. See Crews v. Fla. Pub. Emp’rs Council 79, AFSCME, 113 So. 3d 1063, 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)(citing Dadeland Depot, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 945 So. 2d 1216, 1230 (Fla. 2006)). Recently, the Governor signed chapter 2016-62, Laws of Florida. Section 25 of chapter 2016-62 enacts section 1012.731, Florida Statutes, the Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program.1/ Section 1012.731(2) provides that the “scholarship program shall provide categorical funding for scholarships to be awarded to classroom teachers, as defined in s. 1012.01(2)(a), who have demonstrated a high level of academic success.” The Legislature's amendment of the language, just a year after the first appropriation, confirms that the Legislature intended the award to go to "classroom teachers," as defined in chapter 1012. Petitioner was hired by Respondent as an occupational therapist. She has worked as an occupational therapist for Respondent for approximately 17 years. Petitioner does not hold a Florida teaching certificate and her position as an occupational therapist does not require a Florida teaching certificate. Instead, Petitioner is licensed by the Florida Department of Health, which has jurisdiction over ethical violations committed by occupational therapists licensed in Florida. In her position as an occupational therapist, Petitioner reports to Respondent’s director of Pupil Support Services, who supervises all therapists within Sarasota County Public Schools. Petitioner’s stated job goal is “[t]o facilitate the handicapped student’s independent functioning in the school setting.” Petitioner’s performance responsibilities, as set forth in her job description, are to: Conduct appropriate evaluation of students referred for possible exceptional student education needs and prepare reports of the evaluation and findings. Plan intervention and service delivery programs to meet student’s individual needs. Implement and direct interventions essential to meeting targeted students’ needs. Provide information and consultative services to appropriate personnel in support of students with disabilities. * * * Establish schedules for meeting with students, conferencing with parents and assisting in rehabilitation techniques. Provide resources to all stakeholders involved in the evaluation, identification of student needs and rehabilitation of students. Petitioner delivers therapeutic services individually or in a small group setting, in a room assigned to her, or in a classroom, usually at the same time a teacher is delivering instruction to the entire class. Petitioner completes “lesson plans,” which are referred to in the therapy setting as “plans of care.” Plans of care differ in substance from lesson plans prepared by teachers because lesson plans set out a teaching plan for the entire class, whereas plans of care set out therapeutic goals and activities directed to one student that complies with the goals set forth in a student's Individualized Education Plan (IEP). As an occupational therapist, Petitioner is responsible for maintaining a “class roster,” which is referred to in the therapy setting as a “caseload.” Occupational therapists maintain a caseload for student accountability purposes and for Medicaid billing purposes. Petitioner’s therapy sessions are assigned a “700” course code, which correlates in the Florida Department of Education's course directory to “related services.” Joint Exhibit O is an example of courses offered to students by Respondent. The course list includes math, language arts, physical education, science, social studies, art, Chinese, music, and occupational therapy. Petitioner is listed as the “teacher” for the occupational therapy course. Unlike the other listed “teachers,” Petitioner is not instructing students in a subject area; she is delivering a service. See § 468.203(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2015). Succinctly stated, the difference, in this context, between “occupational therapy” and the other listed “courses,” is that occupational therapy is not a subject area that a student learns about; it is a service that a student receives to help them to achieve independent functioning. Although listed as “course” by Respondent, occupational therapy, as compared to the other listed “courses,” is not a “course” within the meaning of section 1012.01(2)(a).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Sarasota County enter a final order finding Petitioner ineligible for the Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 April, 2016.
The Issue By this Petition, the School Administration of Lee County, Florida, seeks to expel Ronald Dale Slayback on charges that on November 4, 1975, while a student at Riverdale High School, he engaged in throwing chairs at other students. Although the witness who observed Slayback throw chairs did not appear and testify inasmuch as his presence was required at the school at the time of the hearing, the principal of the school, James Middlebrooks, Jr., testified that at the preliminary hearing Slayback acknowledged that he had thrown chairs during the incident on November 4, 1975. The chairs involved in these incidents were chairs with metal legs and backs, and hard plastic seats and backs. They could cause serious injury to anyone hit by them. At the time of the incident some 400 to 600 students were passing through the common area inside the building during a class change, and, but for the prompt and effective action of school officials, a race riot could have resulted. Ronald Slayback testified in his own behalf. As Slayback was walking across the common area he was hit in the back with a chair. He also stated he was hit a second time as he ran toward Assistant Principal Hadley. When the chair was thrown at him he reacted by throwing another chair at his assailant, Ronald Tape. He indicated that part of his chair throwing was in self defense and the other part was in retribution for having been hit with a chair. Slayback has caused few disciplinary problems at Riverside. The only other problem involved his overreaction the year before when his brother was arrested. The brother was found not guilty of the offense for which he was arrested. In view of Ronald Slayback's prior disciplinary record, or lack thereof, expulsion in this case does not appear warranted. From the foregoing it is concluded that Ronald Slayback is guilty of throwing chairs at other students as alleged. This is a serious offense and can cause injury to pupils in the school. All students were advised that chair throwing would not be tolerated and, if committed, would result in expulsion. It is therefore, RECOMMENDED that Ronald Slayback be suspended for 30 days. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of December, 1975 in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1975. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Blair, Esquire Post Office Box 1467 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 Ronald Slayback Route 4, Carta Hana Avenue Ft. Myers, Florida 33904
The Issue The issue here is whether the Superintendent has shown "good and sufficient reasons" for recommending that Mr. Udell be returned to annual contract status as a teacher employed by the School Board of Hamilton County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact For fourteen years, Mr. Udell has been employed by the Hamilton County School Board as a teacher. He is presently assigned as an auto-mechanics instructor at Hamilton High School. He has held a continuing contract for the last seven years. The principal of Hamilton High School has been Mr. Maurice Hammond for the last two years. It appears that he is less indulgent of rule violations than was the former school principal, Mr. William Edwards. Mr. Hammond has cracked down on activities such as student card playing which at one time were tolerated by the former administration. This has been at least a partial cause of friction between the old teachers like Mr. Udell and the new principal. It is the school policy that if a student is absent for more than nine days in a nine-week grading period, he will receive a sixty-five or lower grade for that period. With respect to the grade of Tim Holland, a student of Mr. Udell's for the 1979-1980 school year, Mr. Udell did not follow that policy. The policy was known to him through the teachers' handbook which he received at the beginning at the school year. In Mr. Hammond's opinion, Tim Holland would not have graduated if it has not been for Mr. Udell's violation of the nine-day rule. Tim Holland missed a total of seventy-five days of the 1979-1980 academic year. According to Hamilton High School policy, each student must receive nine grades during each nine-week grading period. Mr. Udell has not complied with that policy. During the last complete school year, his students received on the average only three grades. Hamilton High School students who are seniors and have a class grade average of ninety-five or above are exempt from quarter examinations. During the 1979-1980 year, on at least one occasion, Mr. Udell exempted from quarter exams several senior students who had less that a ninety-five average. The teachers of Hamilton High School compute the grades for their assigned students. In the 1979-1980 year, Mr. Udell had one of his students compute grades for him. The result was numerous computation errors, all in favor of the students. For instance, Leonard Phillips had a seventy-four for the first grading period and an eighty for the second period yet he received an average grade of eighty for the whole semester. Jack Alford received a sixty the first period, a sixty-four for the second period and an average of seventy for the semester. For the first semester of 1979-1980 alone, at least sixteen of Mr. Udell's forty-nine students received incorrect grades. Prior to Mr. Hammond's administration at Hamilton High School, there were occasions when students were allowed to play cards during class periods. On April 2, 1979, during a visit to Mr. Udell's classroom, Mr. Hammond observed numerous students playing cards in the third and fourth periods. Halter in the afternoon when the principal spoke with Mr. Udell about the indent, he responded that card playing occurred in other parts of the campus and "the best thing to do was to give me that oil [needed to operate an engine]." This response is typical of Mr. Udell's attitude when deficiencies in his teaching have been pointed out to him. He attempts to rationalize them by shifting repairability onto others. He explained his grading errors by complaining about not having a student assistant or a planning period; yet, with only three grades per student for the whole year, it would take little time for him to accurately compute the grades himself. In one instance, on January 14, 1980, Mr. Udell left an inadequate lessor plan for a substitute teacher. The plan which was for three classes for two periods stated in its entirety (spelling etc. as on original): 1-14-80 Auto Class 1-2 P. Class Basic Tune-up on six cyl. engine Practice on training unit that is on roll cabinit tools are in top drawer in roll cabinit Check training unit with sun scope This is for all classes one group work on engine one on training unit, then change over. Udell A 30-gallon drum of cleaning solvent was sent to Mr. Udell's auto mechanic shop without a purchase order being first submitted. This is contrary to the purchase procedure established at Hamilton High School. It resulted, however, because the salesman sent the solvent before he had Mr. Udell's approval. Mr. Udell was therefore not at fault for there not being a purchase order prior to the delivery of the goods. Evidence was presented which shows that Mr. Udell adequately handles many of the instructional aspects of his teaching responsibilities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Hamilton County, Florida, enter a final order pursuant to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, returning Mr. Lawrence Udell to an annual contract of employment as a member of the instructional staff, effective from the beginning of the 1980-1981 school year. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 7th day of January 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January 1981.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly determined that Respondent's employment as a continuing contract teacher should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operates, controls, and supervises the public schools within Nassau County, Florida. Respondent graduated from the University of Florida in 1978 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English. She began working for Petitioner in the 1980/1981 school year at Emma Love Hardee Elementary School. That year, Respondent gave Petitioner an out-of-field assignment as a teacher of emotionally handicapped students. Respondent received her Master of Arts degree in Special Education from the University of North Florida in 1985. She began working as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) instructor at Fernandina Beach High School in the 1983/1984 school term. Beginning with the 1999/2000 school year, Respondent's primary teaching assignment was as a performing arts instructor at Fernandina Beach High School. Respondent worked in that capacity until the 2006/2007 school year when she became a full- time English and ESE co-teacher. For the 2007/2008 term, Respondent taught English III and English IV. In 2008/2009, Respondent worked as a regular education English teacher. She also served as an ESE co-teacher for intensive language arts. Jane Arnold began working as Principal at Fernandina Beach High School for the 1998/1999 school term. Ms. Arnold completed a performance appraisal of Respondent in 1999 that resulted in an overall unsatisfactory rating. Of particular concern to Ms. Arnold in the 1998/1999 appraisal was Respondent's problem with completing documentation of lesson plans, including daily instructional strategies as well as specific examples showing how the subject matter would be delivered. The failure to provide proper lesson plans made it difficult to know whether Florida's Sunshine State Standards were being met. Respondent was also having problems with grading students' work and recording the grades. Student work papers were disorganized and some papers were missing. Therefore, it was hard to discern what work was completed and when it was completed. The failure to timely grade and record students' work made it difficult for students to know what they needed to do to improve. Ms. Arnold subsequently placed Respondent on a professional development plan (PDP). The one-page PDP required Respondent to improve three job-service categories. After Respondent satisfactorily completed the PDP within the prescribed 90-day period, Ms. Arnold recommended that Respondent's employment continue. Respondent received a satisfactory or above- satisfactory rating on all of her teacher performance evaluation from the 1999/2000 school year through the 2006/2007 school year. However, Respondent admits that she has had consistent problems with time management and organization throughout her career. In October 2007, Respondent received a mini-grant from the Fernandina Beach High School Foundation. Respondent used the grant to provide her students with novels she used to teach literature. Additionally, in October 2007, Respondent earned continuing education credits toward recertification by attending a conference sponsored by the Florida Association for Theatre Arts. During the conference, Respondent participated in the "In Search of Shakespeare" workshop, which she hoped would prepare her to introduce Shakespeare as part of the British literature curriculum. Respondent's problem with providing focused instruction became critical during the 2007/2008 school year. Students in Respondent's classes were receiving failing grades and did not know why. Respondent made errors when reporting grades and had difficulty submitting them on time. Respondent was easily upset in the classroom. She would become emotional, lose her temper, and say things that were less than professional. Ms. Arnold heard disruptions in Respondent's classroom, which was behind a curtain, behind a stage, and behind double doors. Curtis Gaus was the assistant principal at Fernandina Beach High School from 2004 to 2008. Mr. Gaus also witnessed periods with the level of noise in Respondent's classroom was so loud that it could be heard in the cafeteria during lunchtime. Respondent was frequently tardy. As a result, Mr. Gaus would have to unlock Respondent's room and wait with her students until Respondent arrived. In October 2007, Respondent was required to complete progress monitoring plans and schedule parent conferences. The conferences were scheduled on October 14, 15, and 16, 2007. Petitioner did not turn in the progress monitoring plans until two months after holding the conferences. As observed by Ms. Arnold and Mr. Gaus, Respondent frequently failed to provide her students with any explanation of expectation as to a lesson or any modeling of what it was she expected the student to do. She provided no immediate feedback or clarification for the work they were attempting. In January 2008, Ms. Arnold observed Respondent using instructional time to read questions to students, expecting them to write the questions as she read them. Ms. Arnold advised Respondent that she should not use class time to dictate questions. On January 31, 2008, Ms. Arnold met with Respondent and gave her type-written comments, suggesting areas for Respondent to improve classroom instruction. Mr. Gaus observed teacher classroom at least once a month. Many times Respondent would be unaware that Mr. Gaus was in her classroom. For the majority of Mr. Gaus' visits, Respondent's students were off task. On one occasion, while Respondent was handing out notebooks, the students were playing video games and talking to each other. In February 2008, Respondent's English IV students presented a Renaissance Faire. The students researched and prepared exhibits, presented projects, and competed in a soliloquy contest sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts to earn extra credit toward their semester grade. In support of the Renaissance Faire, Respondent wrote lesson plans, developed a project rubric, implemented classroom assignments and kept a record of student project grades. Respondent invited parents, current and former teachers, as well as community leaders to act as judges for an evening program presented by the students. Respondent took a six-week medical leave effective March 5, 2008. On March 8, 2008, Respondent attended a teacher's conference entitled Super Saturday. As a result of participation at the conference, Respondent earned the points she needed to renew her teaching certificate. Petitioner's Classroom Teacher Assessment Handbook for the 2007/2008 school year states that a continuing contract teacher must receive one formal observation, followed within 10 days by a post-observation conference. During the post- observation conference, a PDP must be developed for teachers receiving unsatisfactory performance appraisal reports. The formal observation must be completed by March 14. Performance appraisals are required to be completed and submitted to the Superintendent no later than April 7. However, Petitioner was on medical leave on these dates. In May 2008, Respondent provided Petitioner with a physician's written recommendation for extension of Respondent's medical leave. Petitioner approved extension of the leave through August 11, 2008. On May 29, 2008, Ms. Arnold wrote a letter to Respondent, who was still on medical leave. A Notification of Less Than Satisfactory Performance was included with the letter. The May 29, 2008, letter reminded Respondent that they needed to arrange a time in July to complete Respondent's 2007/2008 performance appraisal and to discuss the implementation of a PDP for the 2008/2009 school year. The letter refers to written comments that addressed Respondent's performance and that were provided to her earlier in the school year. In July 2008, Petitioner sponsored vertical and horizontal curriculum development workshops for English teachers of advanced placement and honors students. Some English teachers of regular/average students also attended the workshops. Respondent did not receive this training. On July 21, 2008, Ms. Arnold and Respondent met to discuss Respondent's 2007/2008 performance appraisal and PDP. The evaluation rated Respondent unsatisfactory with a total overall score of four out of a possible 100 points. Respondent's 2007/2008 performance appraisal contained Ms. Arnold's comments in each of the performance categories as follows: Planning/Preparation: Lack of long and short term planning[.] Detailed lesson plans must identify learning objective and the instructional strategies/activities/assessment planned to accomplish the objective. Work should be clear, compelling and engaging and include representative works and genres from the Anglo Saxon period through the present day. Feedback to students should be timely and specific. Documentation should be organized and accessible. Classroom Management: Classroom environment hostile, negative and chaotic. 3-step discipline procedure not documented. Records not accurate or timely. Classroom procedures lack organization. School & Board policies not consistently enforced. Room in disarray with papers, books, and materials in haphazard piles throughout the room. Assessment/Management: Interventions for academic, attendance and behavioral problems lacking. Parent contacts inconsistent and not documented. 3-step discipline procedure not implemented. Effective instructional strategies lacking. Work is frequently not meaningful or relevant to unit of study. Intervention/Direct Services: Teacher read test questions to students, refused to repeat questions, and subtracted points from students who requested additional clarification. Papers are frequently "lost," performance expectations for assignments not clearly defined, and grade information not easily available to students and parents. Technology: Teacher web site/Edline not utilized[.] Frequent errors in grade reporting[.] Difficulty meeting deadlines[.] Collaboration: Frequently alienates students and parents by failing to produce documentation for grades or clarification of assignments[.] Does not follow Board Policies for make-up work, and fails to communicate problems to parents to seek their assistance. Staff Development: While Ms. Autry has participated in numerous professional development activities for effective instruction, the strategies identified and recommended have not been implemented with any consistency in her classroom. Parental Input: Parents express frustration and impatience with the problems encountered by their students in Ms. Autry's class. Clear communication of academic and behavioral expectations needs to be provided to all stakeholders. Complaints about "disparaging comments" made by Ms. Autry about the students in her classes are frequent, both from students and teachers. Professional Responsibilities: Ms. Autry must learn to maintain a professional demeanor at all times in the classroom, and must avoid making negative comments about the students with whom she works. Improvement of instruction must become a priority. Extra-curricular involvement should be limited as it appears to interfere with time that should be devoted to her classes. Deadlines need to be met. Grading and attendance should be timely and accurate. Curriculum deficiencies must be addressed. Interim Student Growth: Academic interventions should be provided and documented for students experiencing difficulty in successfully completing the coursework[.] Parents must be notified and encouraged to participate in the intervention strategies. Grades should be fair, consistent, and easily available to students and parents. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Ms. Arnold's comments on the 2007/2008 performance appraisal accurately summarized Respondent's professional deficiencies. Many of Ms. Arnold's comments show the same types of problems that Respondent has experienced for years. In 1984, Respondent used sarcasm towards students and failed to submit paperwork on time. In 1988, Respondent had problems with organization, submitting timely grades, and completing paperwork accurately and on time. In June 1998, Respondent was disorganized, late to work, and untimely in submitting paperwork. In August 1998, Respondent had trouble with accurate and punctual recordkeeping, using varied and appropriate educational strategies, and demonstrating effective classroom management. In the 2001/2002 school term, Respondent had trouble submitting grades on time. The final comment of Ms. Arnold on the last page of the 2007/2008 performance appraisal, states as follows: As a result of an unexpected medical leave, this evaluation and resulting professional development plan can not be completed until Ms. Autry's return to work. Ms. Arnold and Respondent signed the evaluation on July 21, 2008. Also on July 21, 2008, Ms. Arnold and Respondent reviewed a 32-page PDP plan. The PDP was designed to meet each area of deficiency on Respondent's 2007-2008 performance appraisal. Respondent did not take advantage of the opportunity to request any specific strategies or otherwise provide input regarding the PDP on July 21, 2008. However, the next day, Respondent sent Ms. Arnold an e-mail, requesting Ms. Arnold to review a folder of documentation to support Respondent's performance in certain areas. Ms. Arnold responded in an e-mail dated July 22, 2008. Ms. Arnold agreed to review the materials provided by Respondent. She also stated that "evaluation specific activities" might help them revise the PDP as needed. Ms. Arnold also invited Respondent to utilize the "Comments of Evaluatee" section of the performance appraisal. In subsequent e-mail, Respondent and Ms. Arnold agreed on a time to meet. Sometime after receiving the 2007/2008 performance appraisal, Respondent performed a self-assessment on all essential performance functions. She gave herself an overall rating of "needing improvement," with 30 of 100 points. For the 2008/2009 school year, Ms. Arnold assigned Respondent to teach four sections of English IV, first through fourth periods. Respondent had some regular education students and some ESE students in these classes. With only one preparation, Respondent did not have and should not have needed a co-teacher to assist her in teaching four classes of English IV. Respondent also was assigned as a co-teacher in two intensive language classes, fifth and sixth period. Anita Bass, a Reading Coach, was primarily responsible for planning and teaching the two intensive-language classes. Respondent, as a co-teacher, was supposed to provide assistance in general and to specifically provide help to ESE students. When Ms. Bass was absent, Respondent would teach the intensive-language class. On one occasion, Respondent taught a lesson on fables. On another occasion, Respondent taught a lesson on neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson. In August 2008, Respondent was assigned a new classroom. She moved her materials from the room behind the cafeteria to a more traditional classroom. On September 12, 2008, Ms. Arnold visited Respondent's classroom for 15 minutes. During that time, Ms. Arnold observed Respondent reading from a text. Only three students had their books open and there was very little student participation. On September 15, 2008, Ms. Arnold sent Respondent an e-mail, advising that her lesson plans and weekly course outline were past due. On September 16, 2008, Ms. Arnold sent Respondent an e-mail regarding her classroom observation on September 12, 2008. The message also requested submission of Respondent's lesson plans and weekly course outline along with a written explanation as to Respondent's reason for not meeting the deadline. On October 13, 2008, Ms. Arnold visited Respondent's classroom. Ms. Arnold found the students talking, sleeping, and watching CNN because the movie described in Respondent's lesson plan was over. None of the students had books or papers on their desks. Respondent stayed behind her desk for approximately ten minutes then handed some graded brochures back to the students. Respondent spoke to her students for about five minutes during the 22 minutes of Ms. Arnold's visit. The students did nothing during that time. In an e-mail written later on October 13, 2008, Ms. Arnold noted that Respondent's weekly syllabus dated October 13, 2008, showed that the students were scheduled to watch a movie then complete a reading guide and a quiz. The e- mail discussed Ms. Arnold's observations earlier in the day and requested revised lesson plans for the week. Referring to the lesson observed that morning, Ms. Arnold also requested an explanation of the learning objectives and teaching strategies employed by Respondent. Ms. Arnold reminded Respondent that required tasks were to be completed in a timely and accurate fashion. A subsequent e-mail dated October 13, 2008, stated that Ms. Arnold had received Respondent's ESE Mainstream Report for four students. According to the message, the reports were given to Respondent on September 29, 2008, were due on October 3, 2008, and not given to the teacher of record until October 7, 2008. Because the Mainstream Reports were incomplete for several students, Mr. Arnold requested Respondent to review her Professional Growth Plan, requiring tasks to be completed in a timely and accurate fashion. Ms. Arnold also requested Respondent to provide the missing information. On October 21, 2008, Ms. Arnold sent Respondent an e- mail, requesting lesson plans that were due on October 17, 2008. Joyce Menz is Petitioner's Director of Staff and Program Development. In November 2008, Ms. Menz provided Respondent with an opportunity to attend a workshop related to classroom management. Petitioner did not attend the workshop. In the fall of 2008, Ms. Menz hired Jimi Buck, a retired language arts resource teacher and reading curriculum specialist, to sit and plan a lesson with Respondent. Ms. Buck then demonstrated instruction of the lesson plan in one of Respondent's classes. Ms. Menz arranged for Respondent to observe Ms. Drake, an English IV teacher at another school. Respondent and Ms. Drake spent some time going over Ms. Drake's yearlong plan of how and what she would be teaching. Ms. Menz hired a substitute for Respondent's classes so that she could consult with Ms. Drake. Ms. Menz hired Ms. Mealing, another consultant, to meet with Respondent and work on a week of lesson plans. During their time together, Respondent and Ms. Mealing viewed and discussed a DVD entitled "Strategies for Secondary English Teachers." Ms. Menz purchased the DVD specifically for the purpose of helping Respondent. Ms. Menz provided a substitute for Respondent's classes while she reviewed the materials with Ms. Mealing. Ms. Arnold made it possible for Respondent to observe Ms. Barlow's classes at Fernandina Beach High School, by hiring a substitute for one-half day. Ms. Barlow taught Advanced Placement and English IV Honors. Ms. Arnold also provided additional help to Respondent when school began in the fall of 2008. First, Ms. Arnold did not assign Respondent as a teacher of record for any ESE students. As a teacher of record, Respondent would have been required to keep track of what was happening with her ESE students. Ms. Arnold also excused Respondent from participating in any extracurricular activities. Ms. Arnold hoped that Respondent would devote all of her energy to improving her instruction. At times, Ms. Arnold would go into Respondent's class to get it under control in response to disruptive behaviors. Ms. Arnold then would make suggestions to Respondent about how to keep control, reminding her of the need to use the three-step discipline procedure. On November 6, 2008, Ms. Arnold and Respondent signed a performance appraisal. Respondent's overall rating on the evaluation was unsatisfactory. Respondent indicated that she thought her overall rating should have been "needs improvement," which would have still required a plan of assistance. Mr. Gaus observed Respondent during the PDP period and completed a performance evaluation. Mr. Gaus found that there was no improvement in keeping students on task. During the post-observation conference with Respondent, she continually acknowledged that she had problems with administrative tasks, lesson plans, submitting grades and managing the behavior of her students. On November 17, 2008, Ms. Menz observed Respondent's classroom. Ms. Menz found that Respondent's overall planning was not based on students' needs and was not clear and engaging. Ms. Menz observed two students who appeared to be sleeping and another texting. While Ms. Menz was in Respondent’s class, six students lost their early-lunch privilege. On the November 17, 2008, performance appraisal prepared by Ms. Menz, Respondent received an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Respondent made a comment on the evaluation form, indicating that she had learned a lot from the post- observation conference with Ms. Menz and looked forward to receiving further assistance. On November 21, 2008, Mr. Gaus, sent Respondent an e- mail. The message advised that Respondent had not posted her grades on Edline since October 21, 2008, and should do so as soon as possible. Edline is the computer program that Petitioner uses to record grades. Despite the PDP, Respondent's deficiencies did not improve. In her semester exam, she used materials that the students had not read. When the students questioned Respondent, she told them, "If you want to read it, look it up on the internet." In response to the PDP, Respondent developed a behavioral incentive plan to implement in the reading classes where she was the co-teacher. Respondent sent a letter to inform parents about the plan. The behavior incentive plan sought to reward positive student behavior with bathroom passes, snacks, and paper money. However, there were school rules against having food in the classroom and allowing bathroom passes except for emergencies. Moreover, the plan was not well received because the students thought Respondent was tallying their actions. As a co-teacher, Respondent was required to help implement a computer-directed reading program. Because Respondent was unable to provide assistance with the program, a third person had to be called in to perform the task for Respondent. An additional concern of Ms. Arnold's was that Respondent continued to ignore Petitioner’s policy regarding makeup work. Ms. Arnold was also concerned that Respondent was losing her temper and taking points from students who asked for clarification on assignments. In January 2008, Ms. Arnold observed Respondent's classroom again. Her comments on the performance appraisal were as follows: Planning/Preparation: Second 9-weeks spent on "Pygmalion" [.] Based on lesson plans, there were no novels, short stories, or poems by British writers included in the material taught (See eval. #1)[.] Classroom activities lack relevance and timeliness. (See eval. #2) Strategies and Objectives listed in lesson plans were not reflected in actual classroom activities. Classroom Management: Inappropriate student behavior during classroom observation was addressed and corrected by instructor. Developed behavioral incentive plan for students in Reading Classes with reward system for positive student behavior and achievement (bathroom passes, snacks, paper money)[.] Assessment/Management: Portions of the semester exam do not correlate to stated learning objectives, learning strategies, or class activities listed in the semester outline, lesson plans, or weekly syllabus. Students have not read "Julius Caesar" or "Heart of Darkness." Neither have they studied the three poems they are to compare. Students were told to "look up" the meaning of the literary terms that they were given to use in analyzing the poems on the exam. Many questions given to student in advance. Intervention/Direct Services: Ms. Autry does not demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the English IV curriculum. Significant works by British writers have not been taught. (See observation #1) Pacing is slow, with 9-weeks spent on "Pygmalion" to the exclusion of British novels, short stories and poems. Activities are not aligned with student needs. In- depth skills development is lacking. Technology: Ms. Autry utilizes technology for administrative and instructional tasks[.] However, on December 16th, Edline grades had not been updated since 10/23[.] Also on that date, the last weekly syllabus posted was for week 11. Collaboration: Ms. Autry's written complaints about ESE co-workers in which she stated the need for colleagues to provide accommodation for her [medical condition] resulted in strained working relationships. Ms. Autry attends department meeting and faculty meetings as outlined in the Plan of Assistance. Staff Development: Completed training in ESE/IEP, Tablet PC, Edline/Grade Quick and ELMO. Received direct training by Ms. Menz, Ms. Mealing & Ms. Buck to address instructional deficiencies. Declined suggested training opportunities in Discipline & Motivation Strategies, Behavior Management Strategies, Classroom Management, Lesson Planning, Parental Input, Classroom Assessment and Professional Responsibilities. (Based on identified needs in PDP and classroom observations.) Parental Input: Edline/Grade Quick posting irregular. Few documented parent contacts. Professional Responsibilities: Ms. Autry is teaching four sections of English IV and is the co-teacher in two sections of Reading taught by the Reading Coach. She in (sic) not the teacher of record for any ESE students. During the 90- day plan of assistance, lesson plans were submitted late 15 out of 18 weeks. Grades were not posted in a timely fashion on Edline. (Ms. Autry was excused from participating in extra curricular activities in order to focus on her plan of assistance. Interim Student Growth: Students who had not passed the FCAT were assigned to the Reading Coach who provided individual/group instruction during the first 9-weeks. 96% of Ms. Autry's students received semester grades of 70% or higher. No other assessments are available at this time. Ms. Autry and Ms. Arnold signed the performance appraisal dated January 7, 2009. Ms. Autry requested that Ms. Arnold attach information about a disability and its accommodations to the evaluation. Ms. Arnold complied with the request. Two weeks before the expiration of the PDP, Respondent requested a two-month extension because she could not comply with the plan. Respondent's request was denied. Petitioner's Superintendent, Dr. John Ruis, placed Respondent on paid suspension when she did not improve. Dr. Ruis then recommended that Respondent be suspended without pay pending termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 April, 2010.
