The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Respondent Mary Ann Phillips should be assigned to an alternative school placement. At the final hearing Kenneth Rogers, Assistant Principal, Homestead Junior High School, and Angela McCrenna, Assistant Principal at Campbell Drive Middle School, testified for the Petitioner. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-2 and Respondent's Exhibit 1 were offered and admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact During the 1982-83 school year, the Respondent Mary Ann Phillips was enrolled as a seventh grade student at Homestead Junior High School. On or about October 7, 1982, the Respondent Phillips was referred to Kenneth Rogers, Assistant Principal, by a Home Economics teacher as part of an investigation into the theft of another student's sewing supplies. The Respondent was found to be in possession of the stolen articles which included patterns, scissors and fabrics. A letter was sent to the Respondent's mother which requested a conference concerning this incident; however, no response was received from Mrs. Phillips. On November 30, 1982, six dollars was stolen from a purse during a class when the purse was placed unattended on a table. The students who had access to the purse were questioned by Rogers, who was told that the Respondent Phillips went into the purse while it was on the table. Rogers searched the Respondent and found six dollars in one of her books. As a result of this incident the Respondent was suspended from school for ten days. On February 7, 1983, the Respondent Phillips was again suspended for ten days for the theft of $27 from the purse of a substitute teacher. As a result of this incident, Rogers recommended an alternative placement for the Respondent Phillips. Following her difficulties at Homestead Junior High School, the Respondent Phillips received permission from the Petitioner to transfer schools and enroll as a regular student at Campbell Drive Middle School, but on a probationary status. The Respondent's mother was informed that the Respondent's continued placement at Campbell Drive was contingent on no further discipline problems arising. In May of 1983, Joanna Linardi, a teacher at Campbell Drive, discovered that her wallet was stolen during one of her classes. Linardi was missing cash and a large sum of money in the form of travelers checks. The next day a purse was found which was inadvertently left in a Home Economics class. The purse belonged to the Respondent, and among its contents were Linardi's wallet and travelers checks. Based on the Respondent's possession of the checks, an alternative placement was again recommended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order assigning Mary Ann Phillips to its opportunity school. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Handfield, Esquire McCRARY AND VALENTINE, P.A. Suite 800 - Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mitchell A. Horwich, Esquire Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Northside Shopping Center 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools School Board of Dade County Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Michael Rodriguez was a student at Henry H. Filer Junior High School during the 1984-85 and 1985-86 school years until his assignment to the alternative school. During the 1984-85 school year, Rodriguez was absent about fourteen days, ten of which occurred from May 1 to June 18, 1985. School began for the 1985-86 school year on September 4, 1985. During the first month and one-half, Rodriguez was absent eight days. On September 18, 23, and 30, 1985, Rodriguez was counseled and referred to the visiting teacher for cutting class and excessive absences. A formal complaint of truancy was filed on September 30, 1985. Rodriguez has shown that he will not attend school regularly and was counseled regarding his refusal to attend school. Additionally, when Rodriguez came to school, he left without administrative authority on several occasions. When Rodriguez attended school, he was able to perform at an acceptable level. As a result of his repeated truancy during the latter part of the 1984-85 school year, he received final grades of F in Science, D in Physical Education, C in Social Studies, D in Language Arts, F in Mathematics, and C in Shop. Rodriguez was retained in the seventh grade. He also received numerous effort grades of 3, which means he was making little or no effort in his studies. On February 26, 1985, Rodriguez was disciplined for fighting. On September 8, 1985, he was reprimanded for general disruptive behavior. As mentioned earlier, he was disciplined and counseled on September 18, 1985, for cutting class and excessive absences. On October 3, 1985, Rodriguez was placed on a three-day outdoor suspension for defiance of school authority and leaving class without permission. Rodriguez was counseled on several occasions regarding his truancy, lack, of effort and failing grades. His mother was also contacted and participated in a conference. A Child Study Team Conference was also held in which it was determined that Rodriguez has no learning disability and his failure is due to lack of effort and truancy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order assigning Michael Rodriguez to the alternative school program at Jan Mann Opportunity School-North. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Sheila Rodriguez 610 West 35th Street Hialeah, Florida 33012 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Twin Oaks Building Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mrs. Maeva Hipps 1415 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33136
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate number 375765, covering the area of journalism. Petitioner's teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1995. The Respondent was employed by the Gulf County School District during the school years of 1983-1984, 1988-1989, 1989-1990 and 1990-91. During the 1983-1984 school year Respondent was employed by the District on a part-time basis as a physical education instructor at the Port St. Joe Elementary School. During the 1988-1991 school years the Respondent was employed by the District as an alternative education teacher at the Port St. Joe Junior/Senior High School. The alternative education class was created to function as a dropout prevention program. The students who were placed in the alternative education program were placed in the program because the regular education system was failing them and because the students grades or attendance indicated that the student was likely to drop out of school. In general, these students lacked motivation, had poor attendance, poor attitudes and often came from homes with serious familial problems. Mr. Langston did not receive any particular training to fulfill his role as the alternative education teacher. However, he felt that a program which included aspects of the discipline and self-motivation he learned from his college and pro basketball career would be beneficial to such alternative education students. Additionally, Respondent believed that the students would not benefit from having the nastier side of life outside school glossed over, but believed frank discussions of such things as well as using outside life examples and models would help motivate alternative education students to beat the odds and overcome life's obstacles. Mr. Langston also wanted to impart to each student that he was there for them. In that regard, Mr. Langston gave each student his telephone number and had each student give him their telephone number or a number where the student could be reached. Mr. Langston would use this information to contact any student who was missing too much school in order to ascertain why and to encourage him or her to return. To his credit, even though some may disagree with some of Mr. Langston's methods as not being politically correct, Mr. Langston was very successful with his alternative education students and caused them to stay in school and improve their grades. During the 1990-91 school year at Port St. Joe Junior/Senior High School, the Respondent showed movies, such as "Die Hard", "Witness", "Platoon", and "Lean on Me". Some of the movies had themes of violence with explicit language. "Platoon" was about Vietnam and was shown during a time when the class was studying about Vietnam. "Lean On Me" was a movie about students who were similarly situated to Respondent's students and the favorable relationship they developed with the principal of the school. Both movies had educational value. The movies were generally shown for either entertainment or education as part of the class' reward system known as "recreation time". Occasionally, Respondent would also allow the students in his class to turn the television on during recreation time or other class breaks. Sometimes, during these breaks, the students elected to watch the soap operas on the television. Again these breaks were part of the reward system used in the class. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that the system was overused or substituted for teaching. Additionally, the evidence did not demonstrate that Respondent tried to hide either the movie showing or television watching from other teachers or administration personnel. An "R" rated movie is recommended to be restricted to anyone over the age of 17 years old unless they have adult supervision. The evidence did not demonstrate which of the above-listed movies were "R" rated. Admittedly, however, some of the movies may have had an "R" rating from the movie industry. The movie industry rating system was not shown to be mandatory and all of the listed movies have been shown on television with a little editing for any age viewer to watch. Indeed at least one, if not all, of these movies had been seen on television or VCR by the students who testified at the hearing and probably by most of the students in the class. In fact, the movies are so common Respondent did not check the rating of any of the movies he showed to his class, did not know what an "R" rating was and did not think to inquire whether the School Board had any rules about showing movies to eighth-grade students without prior approval from the principal and parents. At least one of the movies had been shown in another teacher's class. The School Board did have a policy which allowed the showing of "R" rated movies if approved by the Principal and parental approval was sought before airing the movie. Respondent admitted to unknowingly violating the School Board's rules since he did not ask permission to show some of the films in his class. Respondent was disciplined for this violation by the School Board as outlined later in this Recommended Order. More importantly, however, the evidence did not even remotely demonstrate that the Respondent's showing of movies or the viewing of television, either for education or entertainment, was detrimental or potentially detrimental to any student in his class in any way. Nor did the evidence show a violation of any other statute or rule governing the teaching profession. In fact, the evidence showed that the Respondent's system of rewards involving recreation time and breaks worked and served to enhance and encourage the students' performance. Therefore the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint involving the above facts should be dismissed. The Respondent, on a very few occasions, used the words "damn" and "hell" in his class. The evidence did not show that Respondent used the words "shit", "ass" or "motherfucker" in his class. When put in context, Respondent did not use the words "damn" or "hell" as swear words. Nor were they used in a foul or vulgar manner. Nor were they directed at any student or cause harm to any student. The context of the words was quite ordinary and did not violate any rules of the EPC. Therefore the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint involving Respondent's use of language should be dismissed. Because the Respondent was close to some of his students and wanted to relate to them he gave some of the students nicknames after they gave him a couple of nicknames. The nicknames were used occasionally in class but never in a derogatory manner. For example, Antoine Allen, an African-American student of Respondent, was called "Black Moses" by Respondent. Heavenly Bailey was called "bull dog" or "wally gator" by Respondent. "Black Moses" was actually a compliment and was perceived as such by Mr. Allen and those who understood the nickname's meaning. The nicknames were not considered inappropriate by either the nicknamed students or the other students in the class and were seen as terms of affection and not as terms of derogation. The evidence did not demonstrate that the nicknames used by Respondent harmed or were potentially harmful to any students in any way. The evidence did not show that any student was embarrassed or likely to be embarrassed by the nicknames. Likewise, no other violation of a statute or rule was shown by the evidence. Therefore the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint involving Respondent's use of nicknames should be dismissed. There was no evidence that Respondent slept during or in his class. Respondent did read the newspaper during his class, but only when the class was engaged in other individual activities and only to find material to use in the current affairs portion of the alternative education class. Respondent did on occasion find it necessary to leave the classroom for either a restroom break or at the request of another teacher. However, Respondent always tried to use the "buddy system" of having a teacher next door keep an eye on his classroom when he had to step out. If Respondent left the classroom with no other adults to monitor the students it was only for a few minutes at a time while the students were engaged in other activities. There was certainly nothing in the record which suggests that such behavior was improper or even comes close to violating any statute or rule governing the teaching profession. Therefore the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint involving Respondent's classroom conduct should be dismissed. Respondent separated the students in his class whose work was unsatisfactory to one side of the classroom. The section of the classroom where the students were placed whose work was unsatisfactory was called the "ghetto". The seating arrangement was used solely as a motivational tool for students to perform their school and class assignments. The evidence demonstrated that only one student was placed in the "ghetto" for a very short period of time until that student worked his or her way out. There was no evidence that the Respondent mistreated or ignored the educational needs of the one student assigned to sit in the "ghetto". Likewise, there was no evidence that the seating arrangement was made on any criteria other than performance. In short, the technique worked and served to maintain an appropriate level of performance in his class. Furthermore, the evidence did not show that any student was harmed or could be harmed in any way by Respondent's motivational technique. The evidence did not show any other violation of a statute or rule governing the teaching profession. Therefore the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint involving Respondent's classroom conduct should be dismissed. On or about March 27, 1991, Respondent received a Statement of Complaint from the Gulf County School Board for using profane language and showing unapproved and inappropriate movies to students. The complaint did not contain any specific facts regarding the charges. The complaint therefore grossly overstated the ultimate charges of misconduct (misconduct in office, gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty as defined in Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes) with which Respondent was charged. However, the charges generally involved the facts outlined above. The facts did not involve any of the facts involving the allegations of sexual misconduct related to Sabrina Warren. However, by the time of the complaint, the allegations of Ms. Warren were known and more than likely caused the eventual result discussed below even though no hearing or evidence was ever held on the Warren allegations of sexual misconduct. On April 8, 1991, Respondent was suspended with pay by the Gulf County School Board as a result of the incidents outlined in the above Findings of Fact. Respondent did not contest the underlying facts of the complaint and no hearing with appropriate evidence was held on the complaint. Therefore, on April 10, 1991, Respondent was suspended without pay for the remainder of the 1990-91 school year and his annual teaching contract with Gulf County schools was not renewed. From April 10, 1991, until sometime in September of 1991, Respondent was without employment in any school district in the State of Florida. However, the evidence did not show that Respondent was seeking employment as a teacher during this time period or that such employment was available. The evidence did show that Respondent had decided to take some time off and was not actively seeking employment. Later when Respondent did decide to return to teaching he was employed in the Levy County School System. Moreover, the evidence was clear that Respondent was an effective teacher and many of his students and parents want him to return because of the improvement he achieved with their children. There was no evidence that Respondent lost his effectiveness as a teacher because of the uncontested disciplinary action of the Gulf County School Board. Therefore the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint involving Respondent's classroom conduct should be dismissed. Around the beginning of March, 1991, the Respondent taught a student by the name of Sabrina Warren in his eighth-grade alternative education class at Port St. Joe Junior/Senior High School. Ms. Warren had been placed in the alternative education class because she was chronically and frequently absent for weeks at a time from school and other less intense interventions to improve her attendance had failed. Her grades were not good and she had an attitude that was not conducive to improvement or attendance. She had a great deal of experience in sexual matters and therefore had a considerable amount of knowledge in that regard. She also had a reputation of being untruthful and clearly embellished facts during the hearing especially when she felt that was the answer someone wanted to hear. Ms. Warren was then 13 years old at the time she was enrolled in Respondent's class and was in Respondent's class for the majority of the day but alternated class periods with Respondent's class. Upon being placed in Respondent's class, Mr. Langston gathered the biographical information including phone numbers he needed from Ms. Warren and gave her his phone number in case she needed to talk to him. Ms. Warren attempted to remind the Respondent that she had been enrolled in one of his physical education classes when she was either in first grade or kindergarten at Port St. Joe Elementary School. The Respondent had only taught such classes during the 1983-1984 school year, but did not recall teaching Ms. Warren in one of those classes. Ms. Warren indicated that she looked different from when she was in Respondent's physical education class since she had worn glasses at the time. Respondent still did not recall her being in his class and asked Ms. Warren to bring pictures of herself from that time period to his class. Ms. Warren said she would. The discussion was an ordinary discussion which occurred in front of the whole class. Respondent frequently talked to his students because he was interested in them and wanted to develop a rapport with them as well as allow the other students in the class to interact with each other. Ms. Warren brought some pictures of herself from when she was younger and wore glasses. Again the discussion occurred in front of the class. The Respondent showed the class the pictures of Sabrina Warren when she was younger. The pictures did not make an impression on anyone else in the class. However, at the hearing, Ms. Warren claimed she was embarrassed that the Respondent showed the pictures to the class. Clearly, this claim of embarrassment by Ms. Warren is not credible. There was nothing in this so-called picture incident that even suggests a person would likely be embarrassed and it is highly unlikely that Ms. Warren was embarrassed by the pictures being shown. Many of these kids had grown up together, had been in Ms. Warren's grade school class and knew she had worn glasses. Additionally, Ms. Warren's demeanor did not appear to be one of high embarrassment potential. If anything, Ms. Warren had a great need for attention. Finally, Ms. Warren's complaint about the pictures was not even raised until after she had made other more serious charges against Respondent and only serves to illustrate Ms. Warren's general lack of credibility throughout this case. Ms. Warren alleged that in March of 1991, while in the Respondent's class, the Respondent had taken Ms. Warren's notebook pad and wrote to ask permission to ask Ms. Warren some personal questions. Ms. Warren allegedly wrote back on the same pad that he could and that she did not mind. Ms. Warren allegedly then gave the notebook pad back to the Respondent. The Respondent allegedly wrote back and asked her if she ever went to bed with anybody. Ms. Warren wrote back and told him that she had been to bed with one person. Ms. Warren handed the notebook pad to the Respondent, and he wrote back asking if she enjoyed it. Ms. Warren then wrote back that it was all right. She wrote that it was all right because it was her boyfriend. The Respondent allegedly then wrote a statement on the pad that he wanted to go to bed with her. Ms. Warren claimed she was shocked and embarrassed when the Respondent wrote that he wanted to go to bed with her and she allegedly wrote back, "No." All of this note writing allegedly took place during several noncontiguous class periods with Mr. Langston or during a class break when Mr. Langston was cooking hamburgers for the class. Ms. Warren was very vague on the time period. Ms. Warren claimed that she covered the pad while she wrote on it and when the bells were ringing between class periods. She also claimed that the Respondent would keep the pad covered on his desk when he had it and wrote a note on the pad telling her not to let anybody else see the pad or see the notes. Ms. Warren claimed that the Respondent kept the notes and notebook pad and subsequently threw the notes away. She also claimed that the Respondent eventually gave her notebook pad back by way of another student. The other student did not testify at the hearing as to whether she had taken a notebook to Ms. Warren from Mr. Langston. Likewise, no other student in the class testified that they witnessed any exchange of notes between Respondent and Ms. Warren even though at least one student could have readily observed the note-passing incident if it had occurred. Importantly, on the same day Ms. Warren created the above story Mr. Langston had critiqued Ms. Warren for her continued poor attendance, admonished her to improve and informed her that if she did not he would have to report her to the main office. In her next class, Ms. Warren told her earth science teacher a somewhat but materially different story about how Mr. Langston allegedly came to show interest in her. The earth science teacher did not believe Ms. Warren but did advise Ms. Warren to tell her parents and that if she had a problem to go see the guidance counsellor. Again Ms. Warren's testimony of her conversation with the earth science teacher differed materially from the teacher's testimony and serves to highlight Ms. Warren's lack of credibility in this case. Ms. Warren did not return to school the next day and for several days thereafter. At this time, Ms. Warren was living with an Aunt on Port St. Joe beach. The Respondent called one of Ms. Warren's aunts at home and inquired as to why Ms. Warren had not returned to school. Her mother was at the hospital with her father in Tallahassee. Ms. Warren did not tell her aunt of the incident and did not inform either of her parents until approximately ten days to two weeks later and only after Ms. Warren discovered that another aunt and the aunt she was staying with were inquiring as to why she was not at school. After Ms. Warren told her mother, her mother made an appointment to talk with a child abuse investigator with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), Jim Boseman. Mr. Boseman and Ms. Warren's mother informed the Superintendent of the Gulf County School Board of the alleged incident. The Superintendent of the Gulf County School Board, Walter Wilder, gave Ms. Warren permission to stay out of school until this situation was addressed and straightened out. After Mr. Langston was suspended, Ms. Warren eventually went back to school but soon became tired about everyone asking her what was going on between her and the Respondent. In reality Ms. Warren simply did not want to go to school. As a result, Ms. Warren was enrolled at Faith Christian School in Port St. Joe, Florida by her mother. She stayed at Faith Christian for a short period of time and then was enrolled in the adult school in Panama City, Florida because she was pregnant. Mr. Langston has continuously denied the note-writing incident with Sabrina Warren ever occurred and the resolution of this case involving Sabrina Warren turns on the credibility of Ms. Warren. As indicated, Ms. Warren's testimony has not been consistent with her other statements and with other witnesses in this case. Her testimony is neither reliable or credible. Therefore, the facts involving the allegations of sexual misconduct contained in the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. In June of 1990, the Respondent was investigated by Professional Practices Services (PPS) for allegedly making inappropriate comments to students and committing acts of misconduct. On or about June 5, 1990, the Respondent and the Petitioner entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement. According to the Agreement, the deferral period was to last through the end of the 1990-91 school year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found not guilty of violating Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, or Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e), and (h), Florida Administrative Code and the Administrative Complaint is dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO DOAH CASE NO. 92-5336 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 36, 39, 53, 55, 60, 62, 63, 64 and 65 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 57 and 59 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 23, 32, 33, 48, 52, 54, 56, 58 and 61 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, second paragraph 11 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs first paragraph 11 and 18 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire BOND & BOYD, P.A. 411 East College Avenue Post Office Box 26 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Dave Kundin, Esquire Post Office Box 430 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Department of Education 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent entered the seventh grade at North Miami Junior High School at the beginning of the 1982-83 school year. Petitioner reassigned him to the Jan Mann Opportunity School-North in December, 1982. Petitioner presented Respondent's school records which reflected ten separate incidents requiring disciplinary action between September and December, 1983. His grades for achievement, effort and conduct were unsatisfactory in all courses during this period.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order affirming its assignment of Respondent to an educational alternative program. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Gail Shaw Abreu 1139 Northeast 127th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Dr. Leonard Britton, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether the Respondent should be reassigned to the Opportunity School.
Findings Of Fact Raul Lopez entered the Dade County Public Schools in 1980 and was enrolled in the fifth grade. He repeated the fifth grade once, passed the sixth grade, and, in the 1984-85 school year, was repeating seventh grade. When Raul entered the Dade County school system he did not know the English language and was enrolled in a special program called English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). He remained in the program for three years. Raul received no bilingual educational services from the school system after the first three years. Raul Lopez entered Palm Springs Junior High School on September 7, 1984, and was recommended for alternative school on January 18, 1985. During the time Raul was at Palm Springs, he was referred to the office for disciplinary reasons on eight different occasions. Assistant Principal Long's testimony was the only evidence presented by Petitioner to show that Raul had a record of disruptive behavior. However, Mr. Long's testimony was not credible and, for the most part, was uncorroborated hearsay. Mr. Long had no personal knowledge of any of the incidents which caused Raul's disciplinary referrals, and could not provide any information, other than speculation, as to what had actually happened to cause each referral. Mr. Long explained that, when a disciplinary problem occurs, the teacher or staff person involved fills out a referral, setting forth the details of the incident. The assistant principal to whom the matter is referred then prepares a computer card on the incident, fitting the behavior that occurred into one or more of the available categories, such as "general disruptive behavior." Mr. Long's testimony regarding Raul's behavior came directly from a computer print-out. It was clear that Mr. Long had no independent recollection of any of the incidents. From the computer print out, Mr. Long testified that Raul received the following referrals: DATE REASON FOR REFERRAL 10/9/84 general disruptive behavior 10/16/84 defiance of school authority; dress code violations; rude and discourteous (Mr. Long stated that Raul may have had his shirttail out or not worn socks) 10/30/84 general disruptive behavior; rude and discourteous; no school materials (Mr. Long explained that Raul didn't have his books or didn't have his P.E. uniform) 11/1/84 excessive tardiness; rude and discourteous 11/13/84 general disruptive behavior; didn't complete class assignment 11/21/84 unauthorized location; no school materials 12/10/84 excessive tardiness; general disruptive behavior; rude and discourteous 1/11/85 general disruptive behavior; assault (Mr. Long stated that he knew nothing about the assault because he didn't handle the referral) Raul was placed on indoor suspension as a result of the October 9, 1984, incident, and was referred to counseling after the November 1st and November 13th incidents. Although Mr. Long stated that attempts were made to contact the parents, the only conference with the parents was on January 18, 1985, to inform them that Raul was being referred to the alternative school. Mr. Long had personal contact with Raul and found him to be defiant, hostile, and disrespectful. Raul also used obscene language. However, he also testified that he had never had problems with Raul. The evidence establishes that Raul had a very poor attendance record while attending Palm Springs. He was absent 25 days, of which 15 absences were confirmed truancies. The Dade County Public Schools Complaint of Truancy (R.Ex.-l) indicates that several conferences were held with Raul's parents concerning Raul's excessive absences; however, the visiting teacher could not remember whether he actually made contact with Raul's parents or merely went to Raul's home and left a message that Raul was truant, and Mr. Long's testimony concerning parent conferences was inconclusive. Several letters were sent to the home regarding Raul's non-attendance. Mrs. Lopez testified that the only contact she had with school personnel was on January 18, 1985. Raul has not been successful academically. He had to repeat the fifth and seventh grades. After the first nine weeks at Palm Springs he received one C, two Ds, and three Fs. After the first semester the number of Fs had increased to four. Mr. Long testified that Raul was not in school often enough to receive passing grades. He also testified that the low grades were a result of Raul's behavior problem. Raul testified that he didn't go to school because he did not understand the school work. He admitted that he does not read or write very well. He stated that nobody had ever asked him why he did not like to go to school. Raul admitted that he had refused to "dress out" for physical education class. Mr. Long did not know why Raul failed to attend school, but stated that every effort was exhausted at Palm Springs to correct Raul's problems. He felt that Palm Springs simply could not meet Raul's needs. The counselor at the school requests testing for exceptional education, and although Raul had been sent to the counselor, Mr. Long did not know whether the counselor had requested exceptional education testing. Mr. Long believed that Raul was in the proper academic program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered approving the assignment of Respondent to the opportunity school program at Jan Mann Opportunity School-North. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Valentine, Jr., Esq. Assistant Schoo1 Board Attorney McCrarY & Valentine, P.A. 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida Mitchell A. Horwich, Esq. Education Advocacy Project Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Northside Shopping Center 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147-4796 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Board Administration Building Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant School Board Attorney Dade County School Board Suite 301 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes (2000), and Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 711503, covering the areas of elementary education, varying exceptionalities, and pre-kindergarten handicapped. Respondent's certificate was valid at all times material to this proceeding. Respondent began teaching in 1995. There have been no complaints against Respondent prior to the allegations in this case. Over the years, Respondent has attempted to help students over and beyond her classroom duties. On at least two occasions, she temporarily has taken students into her home in time of need. Flagler County School Board employed Respondent as an exceptional student education (ESE) teacher at Flagler Palm Coast High School (FPC) in the Flagler County School District during the 2000-2001 school year. That school term was her first year on the faculty at FPC. J.E. was a 17 year-old male student who attended FPC during the 2000-2001 school year. J.E. was classified as an 11th-grade ESE student because he suffered from attention deficit disorder. J.E. also worked as a part-time firefighter with the Flagler Beach Fire Department. J.E.'s employment as a firefighter was sponsored by the Boy Scouts of America Explorer Program. At some point during the month of October 2000, J.E. transferred into Respondent's math class. Initially, J.E. was unable to make a passing grade in math due to his learning disability. J.E.'s academic problems were aggravated by several in-school and out-of-school disciplinary suspensions, which caused him to miss class. Toward the end of November or the beginning of December 2000, J.E. was arrested for fighting with his sister. He was in the custody of the juvenile authorities for several days before being placed on juvenile home detention. When J.E. returned to school, Respondent contacted J.E.'s mother, D.B. Respondent requested permission to tutor J.E. after school to help him make up missed assignments. After receiving the approval of the juvenile authority staff, D.B. agreed that Respondent could tutor J.E. Respondent and D.B. agreed that, after each tutoring session, Respondent would transport J.E. to the place where D.B. was employed. Respondent then informed the assistant principal that she would be assisting J.E. after school in her classroom. The tutoring sessions began on December 12, 2000, and lasted for almost two weeks. The sessions terminated when FPC recessed for the holidays. During the tutoring sessions, Respondent and J.E. spent time working on J.E.'s math assignments. However, as time passed, they progressively spent more time discussing personal issues. These conversations included discussions regarding J.E.'s problems and history of abuse, as well as the physical abuse that Respondent experienced during her marriage to her ex-husband. Respondent revealed that she had been molested as a child, a fact that Respondent had shared only with her long-term boyfriend, her sister, and her closest friends. Respondent told J.E. about her two children and her relationship with her boyfriend. At times, Respondent spoke negatively about her boyfriend, referring to him as an "asshole." Respondent and J.E.'s student-teacher relationship became more personal as they spent more time together. J.E. began visiting Respondent during her planning period, during which they would discuss personal issues. Occasionally, J.E. would visit Respondent during her science class even though he was scheduled to be in another class. The personal conversations continued during the time that J.E. waited in Respondent's car for his mother at the school bus compound, sometimes for 20 to 30 minutes. Prior to one tutoring session, Respondent allowed J.E. to ride with her to a fast-food restaurant. She then took J.E. by the fire station before returning to the school. Respondent did not have anyone's permission to transport J.E. off campus. Sometime before the holiday break, J.E. told Respondent that he liked the music of a certain rap artist. The last day of school before the holiday break, Respondent gave J.E. a gift bag containing a compact disk (CD) of the artist's music. The gift bags that Respondent presented to other students contained only cookies and trinkets. On the afternoon of December 27 or 28, 2000, J.E. invited Respondent to visit the fire station with her children, a 9-year-old son and an 11-year-old daughter. Respondent and her children spent approximately one hour at the station while J.E. showed them the facility and firefighting equipment. Next, J.E. told Assistant Fire Chief Shane Wood (Chief Wood), that he was going to a nearby park with Respondent and her children. He advised Chief Wood that he would return to the station if it received a call. J.E. rode to the park in Respondent's vehicle. Francis Abramczyk, another student firefighter and J.E.'s friend, rode a bike to the park at J.E.'s request. When the group arrived at the park, Respondent asked Mr. Abramczyk to watch her children so she and J.E. could talk in a nearby gazebo. About 45 minutes after Respondent and J.E. left to go to the park, Chief Wood got off from work. Chief Wood then rode his motorcycle to his parent's house near the park. Chief Wood visited his parents for 10-15 minutes before riding his motorcycle to the park where he spoke briefly to J.E. Respondent and J.E. were sitting in the gazebo when Chief Wood came by on his motorcycle Once in the gazebo, Respondent and J.E. spent at least 30 minutes talking about Respondent's recent trip to North Carolina, among other things. During this time, Respondent and J.E. sat side-by-side. At one point in time, Mr. Abramczyk saw Respondent's hand resting on J.E.'s hand, which was resting on his leg. Respondent jerked her hand back when she made eye contact with Mr. Abramczyk, who was retrieving a ball from the far side of the gazebo. While sitting in the gazebo, Respondent asked J.E. if he was willing to baby-sit for her that evening while she went out with a girlfriend. Respondent told J.E. that she would not be returning home until late and suggested that he spend the night at her residence. J.E. did not think his mother would approve of Respondent's suggestion. In the meantime, Mr. Abramczyk decided to walk to a nearby store to get some ice cream. Respondent's son tagged along with Mr. Abramczyk. When Mr. Abramczyk returned to the park, Respondent and J.E. were sitting in Respondent's vehicle. While J.E. was sitting in Respondent's vehicle, two or three girls came to the park in a car. One of the girls was J.E.'s former girlfriend. At first J.E. did not want the girls to see him, but eventually he got out of Respondent's vehicle and talked to Mr. Abramczyk and the girls. During this conversation, J.E. was teased about hanging out with his teacher. Mr. Abramczyk rode the bike back to the fire station after this conversation. At approximately 5:00 p.m., J.E., Respondent, and Respondent's children went back to the fire station. J.E. then called his mother to ask permission to baby-sit for Respondent. D.B. told him that he could baby-sit. In a later conversation between Respondent and D.B., Respondent stated that she would not be home that evening until approximately 2:00 a.m. Respondent asked D.B. if J.E. could spend the night at her residence. D.B. responded negatively, telling Respondent to take J.E. home or to the fire station where there was adult supervision at all times. After leaving the fire station, J.E. rode with Respondent and her children to a convenience store where Respondent purchased soft drinks and snacks for her children. She also purchased several wine coolers for herself. At approximately 6:00 p.m., Respondent, her children, and J.E. arrived at Respondent's residence. J.E. changed out of his work uniform before walking to a nearby beach with Respondent and her children. The children played on the beach and in the clubhouse area while Respondent talked to J.E. During this time, Respondent consumed one of her wine coolers. J.E., Respondent, and her children returned to Respondent's home after spending about an hour at the beach. Next, Respondent prepared dinner for J.E. and her children. She then got dressed to go out while J.E. played video games with the kids in the living room. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent walked out of her bedroom into the living room wearing only a skirt and bra during this time. Between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m. Respondent left her residence to meet her girlfriend, taking her wine coolers with her. The girlfriend was not at home, so after waiting for a while, Respondent returned to her home between 9:30 and 10:30 p.m. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent was heavily intoxicated when she returned. Respondent's long-term boyfriend was spending time that evening with one of his male friends. The boyfriend usually stayed with Respondent but decided that evening to stay at his separate residence in St. Augustine, Florida, because he had consumed some beer and did not want to risk driving back to Respondent's residence. However, Respondent did not know that the boyfriend would not come to her house later that evening. When Respondent returned to her residence, her children were asleep and J.E. did not want to go home. Without checking with J.E.'s mother, Respondent decided to let J.E. stay. J.E. listened to music in Respondent's bedroom while she straightened up the house and did the laundry. Respondent took time to talk to J.E. and to listen to some music with him. Sometime during the evening, Respondent spoke to her boyfriend on the telephone. During this call, Respondent learned for the first time that her boyfriend probably would not be returning to her home that night. Respondent talked to her boyfriend a second time that night from her garage. When she went back into the house, J.E. pretended to be asleep but when Respondent approached him, he sat up and appeared to have been crying. Respondent assumed that J.E. was upset because he was jealous of her boyfriend. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent provided J.E. with alcohol or engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with him while he was in her home. However, Respondent admitted during the hearing that J.E. might have consumed beer kept in her refrigerator while she was gone because she found one beer can in her closet weeks later. At approximately 2:00 a.m., Respondent drove J.E. to the fire station. The lights were off in the station. After waiting a few minutes to see if any of the adult firemen were going to return to the fire station, Respondent drove J.E. home, arriving there between 2:30 and 3:00 a.m. On the way to J.E.'s house, Respondent made J.E. promise not to tell anyone that he baby-sat at her residence. She paid J.E. $20 for baby-sitting. When J.E. got home, his mother was asleep on the couch. D.B. woke up as J.E. entered the house. She did not smell any alcohol on him or see any signs of intoxication. Respondent went with her children to the fire station two days later on December 29, 2000. The purpose of the visit was to return one of J.E.'s CDs that he had left at her house. Respondent visited with J.E. for about 15 minutes. During the visit on December 29, 2000, J.E. appeared upset. He told Respondent that he was worried because a man from his past was about to be released from jail. He also stated that he had been fighting with his mother. J.E. told Respondent that he was afraid the fire chief would not like him having visitors. He wanted Respondent to leave, telling her that he would talk to her later. By the end of December, Respondent knew that the other students were teasing J.E. about their close relationship and that he was embarrassed about the situation. J.E. and Respondent had agreed that they would not continue with the after-school tutoring and that they would not socialize at school or at the fire station. Despite this agreement, Respondent returned to the fire station on December 31, 2000. The purpose of the visit was to give J.E. a six-page handwritten letter that included references to Respondent's personal experiences. Several of J.E.'s friends from FPC were at the fire station when Respondent arrived. When J.E.'s friends told him that Respondent was in the lobby area, he told them he did not want to see her and hid in a back room in an effort to avoid her. Two of J.E.'s friends then told Respondent that J.E. was not at the fire station. Respondent started to leave when she realized that her son, who had been waiting in the car, had probably gone into the fire station through the open bay doors. Respondent then went into the station through the bay doors to look for her son. Upon entering the bay, Respondent noticed that J.E. was at work. Instead of asking about her son, Respondent approached J.E. holding the letter. As Respondent walked toward J.E., his friends began to tease him again. J.E. was visibly upset and demanded to know what Respondent was doing at the station. Respondent knew or should have known that she was giving the other students reason to pick on J.E. J.E. was angry and embarrassed by Respondent's presence. He told Respondent to come back later just to hasten her departure. He shredded the letter as soon as she left the station. Notwithstanding J.E.'s extreme displeasure during Respondent's visit, Respondent returned to the fire station later that day about 5:00 p.m. J.E. was not there when Respondent arrived. At that time, Chief Wood told Respondent that J.E. was gone and that she needed to stop visiting him at the station because it did not look right for her to be there "hanging all over J.E." The relationship between J.E. and Respondent dropped off beginning in early January 2001. Shortly after the holidays, J.E. became angry with Respondent. He told her to go screw her boyfriend. Respondent just ignored this comment. On another day during the first week of January, J.E. attempted to leave Respondent's class on a pretext that he was required to go to the school attendance office. J.E. became angry when Respondent would not let him leave the classroom. A short time later, during the same class period, two of J.E.'s friends walked by and looked into the classroom through the window in the door. J.E. noticed his friends, went to the door to speak with them, and asked them to help get him out of class. Respondent again refused to let him leave, causing him to be even more angry. Respondent told J.E. that if he left the class without permission, she would write him up. He then said, "You're gonna write me up? Well, I could do something about that." The first semester ended on January 8, 2001. Although J.E. was failing math in early December, he received a grade of B in Respondent's class for the semester. He then transferred to another teacher's math class for the second semester. After the transfer, J.E.'s grades began to decline again. The other students continued to tease J.E. about Respondent. On or about January 19, 2001, a rumor surfaced that Respondent was pregnant with J.E.'s child. Respondent first learned about the rumor during her science class. The class discussion involved the harmful effect of fumes from spray bottles on the environment and humans. Someone in the class stated that fumes could harm a fetus like Respondent's fetus. Another student said, "Oh, I wonder who the father is." A third student responded, "Oh, it's J.E." The class then began laughing. Respondent made no effort to report the incident to FPC's administrators. Instead, on a day when Respondent was extremely depressed and disillusioned with her career, and when she was feeling "emotionally cheated" and/or "manipulated" by J.E., Respondent wrote J.E. an e-mail message that states as follows: Hi I hope your Term 2 classes are going well so far, and life in general. I heard you're in Mr. Krenichen's class for Algebra now. If you need any help or need a place to escape to you know where to go. I still have 3rd period planning, except for lunch duty 3rd lunch. Even if you still are or stay mad at me forever, I'm still rooting for you to make it. I hope you're staying out of trouble. Well, I just wanted to say hi. I was thinking about you and my kids have been asking about you too. They think you're so cool! Yeah, I guess you're all right most of the time. Ha Ha. I miss you. I miss you talking to me every day most of all. Well, see you around. K. p.s. I also wanted to thank you for keeping your word. Means a lot. Gives me a little bit of hope the whole thing wasn't a lie all along. That helps even if that's all I'll ever have. Well, there's other things I need to talk to you about but don't want to say in an e-mail, so will just let you go now. Bye. Respondent's statement in the e-mail that she hoped J.E. was not still mad at her referred to her refusal to let J.E. leave class. She thanked him for keeping his word about not dropping out of school, not telling anyone that he baby-sat at her home, and not revealing her personal confidences. The e-mail was not specifically romantic in nature but clearly and convincingly evidences an inappropriate personal relationship between Respondent and J.E. After receiving this e-mail, J.E. asked Chief Wood to help him draft a reply that would break off his relationship with Respondent. Chief Wood declined to help but told J.E. he would proofread the message after J.E. wrote it. After reading the e-mail, Chief Wood decided that J.E. had adequately communicated his message to Respondent and did not make any changes. On or about January 24, 2001, a fellow student told J.E. that Respondent had said she was pregnant with J.E.'s child. J.E. became frightened by the false rumor. That same day, J.E. lied to his mother, stating that Respondent had given him alcohol and that, while he was in an intoxicated state, Respondent had forced him to have sexual intercourse on the night that he visited her home. D.B. immediately contacted the sheriff's office. On January 26, 2001, the principal of FPC confronted Respondent with J.E.'s allegations regarding the alcohol and sexual misconduct. During this conversation, Respondent stated that she wished she had never had J.E. baby-sit in her home. She admitted that her relationship with J.E. was inappropriate. Respondent immediately drafted and submitted her resignation effective February 6, 2001, the day of the next scheduled school board meeting. Following Respondent's resignation, J.E. continued to endure severe teasing at the hands of his classmates. Some students referred to J.E. as a "teacher fucker." Understandably, such comments caused J.E. a great deal of stress. J.E. eventually dropped out of FPC and entered the adult education program, where he admitted to one student that he did not have sex with Respondent. He told the student that he wished he could take it all back. Respondent is now employed in a real estate office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That EPE enter a final order suspending Respondent's certificate for two years followed by five years of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 2003, 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 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 September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Matthew K. Foster, Esquire Brooks, Leboef, Bennett & Foster, P.A. 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Otis J. Clayton was a student at Nautilus Junior High School during the 1983-84 and 1984-85 school years. He attended Miami Beach Senior High School during the 1985-86 school year until his assignment to the alternative school. While at Nautilus, Clayton had an extensive history of disruptive behavior in class. During the 1983-84 school year, Clayton consistently, regularly and persistently disrupted class by yelling, using abusive language to others including teachers and students, hitting other students, talking and playing in class, and defying authority. He was counseled and disciplined and conferences were held with his mother. Despite constant assistance by the school, Clayton did not change his disruptive behavior. He was finally suspended on June 6, 1984. In addition to his disruptive behavior, Clayton was disinterested and unsuccessful as evidenced by his excessive absences and skipping class. His absences in various classes ranged from 16 to 26 for the 1983-84 school year. During the 1984-85 school year, Clayton's disruptive behavior continued. On February 21, 1985, Clayton was suspended for five days as a result of his disruptive behavior, defiance of school authority and fighting. Again on March 1, 1985, Clayton was disciplined for fighting. Clayton was disciplined and counseled regarding his continuous disruption and defiance in class on March 20, 1885. On March 29, 1985, Clayton was placed on indoor suspension for five days for his repeated disruption, defiance and use of provocative language. Clayton was disciplined on April 2, 1985, for his disruptive behavior and for picking on other students. He was placed on a five day outdoor suspension on April 23, 1985, for his repeated disruption of class, defiance of school authority and assault. Finally, Clayton was again suspended for five days on May 13, 1985, for his repeated disruptive behavior and defiance. Clayton had been hitting other students. During the 1984-85 school year Clayton's absences and skipping class had also increased. He had a cumulative absence total of 34 and a record of absences in various classes ranging from 22 to 71. Clayton began attending Miami Beach Senior High School for the 1985-86 school year. His misbehavior and absenteeism continued. On October 17, 1985, Clayton was disciplined for excessive tardiness. On October 23, 1985, he was again disciplined for excessive tardiness and excessive absences. He was suspended for five days on October 25, 1985 for his general disruptive behavior, defiance, excessive tardiness, refusal to serve detention and refusal to serve an indoor suspension. Finally, on November 4, 1985, Clayton was suspended for 10 days for disruptive behavior, defiance, and excessive tardiness and absences. He had been absent 25 days during the first grading period and he had received grades of F in all classes. On November 5, 1985, the parent was informed by letter that Clayton was being referred to the alternative school program. Because Clayton is an exceptional student, an educational placement staffing conference was held on November 8, 1985. During that staffing a new Individual Educational Plan (IEP) was developed which included placement in the opportunity school at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North. Clayton's mother was present at the staffing and signed the IEP approving Clayton's placement at MacArthur.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order assigning Otis J. Clayton to the alternative school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North. DONE AND ENTERED, this 7th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jackie Gabe, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Martha C. Donalds 1558 Northwest 1st Avenue Miami, Florida 33139 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board of Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Ms. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk 1450 N. E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
