The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued by the Petitioner and dated March 28, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Education is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against teachers holding Florida educator's certificates for violations of Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes. Section 231.262, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 231.2615(1), Florida Statutes, the Educational Practices Commission is the entity responsible for imposing discipline for any of the violations set forth in Section 231.2615(1), Florida Statutes. Mr. Colebrook holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 296141. At the times material to these proceedings, Mr. Colebrook was employed as a teacher by the St. Lucie County public school system. Incident of December 21, 1988, and January 6, 1989, letter of reprimand. During the 1988-1989 school year, Mr. Colebrook was employed as a coach and physical education teacher at Fort Pierce Central High School. In a letter of reprimand dated January 6, 1989, then-principal James Sullivan admonished Mr. Colebrook for using profane language in a conversation with an assistant principal, Wayne Gent, outside the school cafeteria, and he noted in the letter that this conduct was a violation of school board policy. Mr. Sullivan did not personally observe the incident involving Mr. Colebrook and Mr. Gent, and his account of the incident was based on information provided to him by Mr. Gent.2 Mr. Sullivan stated in the letter that the December 21, 1988, incident was "not the first time [Mr. Colebrook] had used profane language in the workplace,"3 and, in his testimony at the hearing, Mr. Sullivan inferred from this statement that "there would have been other instances where that had occurred."4 Mr. Sullivan could not, however, recall during his testimony any specific incidents in which Mr. Colebrook had used profanity or any discussions he might have had with Mr. Colebrook regarding such an incident. The incident referred to in the letter of reprimand occurred on December 21, 1988, when Mr. Colebrook engaged Mr. Gent in a conversation about the athletic budget. Mr. Colebrook was upset about the budget, and he may have used profanity during the conversation,5 which lasted a couple of minutes. In his testimony, Mr. Gent declined to describe Mr. Colebrook as "irate" during the encounter. The conversation took place in the corridor outside the school cafeteria during a time when students were changing class, so that there could have been students in the area when the conversation took place. As noted above, the Commissioner charged Mr. Colebrook in paragraph 3 of the Administrative Complaint as follows: "In 1989, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from his Principal for allegedly using profane language outside of the high school's cafeteria. The profane language was directed toward an Assistant Principal and could be overheard by students." It is uncontroverted that Mr. Colebrook received a written reprimand that was placed in his personnel file. The factual allegations in paragraph 3 of the Administrative Complaint, liberally construed, are sufficient to allege not only that Mr. Colebrook received a written reprimand but also that he committed the acts attributed to him in the letter. However, the evidence submitted by the Commissioner is not sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that Mr. Colebrook actually used profanity or was irate during the conversation with Mr. Gent in December 1988. Mr. Sullivan's knowledge of the incident was second-hand, based solely on information received from Mr. Gent,6 and Mr. Gent's recollection at the hearing that Mr. Colebrook "may have" used profanity during the conversation does not rise to the level of clear and convincing proof. Furthermore, Mr. Gent's testimony describing Mr. Colebrook as "upset" during the conversation contradicts the description in the letter that he was "irate." Incident of March 14, 1990, and March 22, 1990, letter of reprimand. During the 1989-1990 school year, Mr. Colebrook was employed as a coach and physical education teacher at Fort Pierce Central High School. In a letter of reprimand dated March 22, 1990, then-principal James Sullivan notified Mr. Colebrook that an investigation had been conducted by Robert Hiple, an assistant principal at Fort Pierce Central High School, into events that allegedly occurred in Mr. Colebrook's classroom on March 14, 1990. In the letter, Mr. Sullivan reported the results of Mr. Hiple's investigation and relied on Mr. Hiple's conclusion, based exclusively on interviews with students, that Mr. Colebrook had used "profane language in [his] second period class on March 14, 1990."7 According to Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Hiple reported that "a consensus of the students" said that Mr. Colebrook said "'I'm not going to put up with this fucking shit, I'll beat your Mother-fucking ass.'"8 Mr. Sullivan also referred in the letter to information provided by Mr. Hiple that one of the students in Mr. Colebrook's class told Mr. Hiple that she was afraid to admit to Mr. Colebrook that she had accidentally flipped an object in class "after seeing [his] reaction and hearing [his] comments."9 The investigation to which Mr. Sullivan referred in his March 22, 1990, letter was initiated on March 15, 1990, when Mr. Hiple reported to Mr. Sullivan that a parent had complained that Mr. Colebrook had used profanity and threatened a student in the classroom. Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. Hiple to investigate the incident, and Mr. Hiple began by asking Mr. Colebrook for his version of the incident. Mr. Colebrook admitted that there had been an incident but denied using profanity or threatening a student or students, although he admitted that he may have said that "he was going to kick somebody's butt and he challenged a student and yelled at them."10 Mr. Hiple proceeded to gather information about the incident by interviewing students who had been in Mr. Colebrook's classroom at the time of the incident, and his testimony at the hearing was consistent with the information attributed to him by Mr. Sullivan in the letter of reprimand. Mr. Hiple did not testify from his personal knowledge of the incident. On or about March 16, 1990, Mr. Colebrook approached Mr. Hiple and asked about the investigation. Mr. Hiple advised him that Mr. Sullivan would discuss the results of the investigation with him. Mr. Colebrook became "a little loud and aggressive" during this encounter and stated that he did not want to discuss the matter with Mr. Sullivan.11 Mr. Colebrook did not "threaten [Mr. Hiple] physically or even verbally, but he was obviously upset and became loud in an open environment where students could hear."12 In the March 22, 1990, letter, Mr. Sullivan referred to the written reprimand issued to Mr. Colebrook in January 1989 for the use of profanity in the workplace, and he advised Mr. Colebrook that he was recommending to the school superintendent that he be suspended without pay for five working days and administratively transferred to another school for the 1990-91 school year. Mr. Sullivan based the recommendation that Mr. Colebrook be transferred to another school on Mr. Colebrook's comment to Mr. Hiple that Mr. Colebrook did not want to talk with Mr. Sullivan about the results of Mr. Hiple's investigation into the March 14, 1990, incident. In Mr. Sullivan's view, "it creates a difficult working relationship if a principal has a staff person who refuses to sit down and talk with him."13 Mr. Colebrook was suspended without pay for three days, but it was not clear from the record whether he was transferred for the 1990-1991 school year, as requested by Mr. Sullivan. As noted above in the Preliminary Statement, the Commissioner charged Mr. Colebrook in paragraph 4 of the Administrative Complaint as follows: On or about March 22, 1990, Respondent received a letter of reprimand while employed at Fort Pierce Central High School, for allegedly using profane and inappropriate language in class with his students. It was recommended that Respondent be suspended without pay for five days and transferred to another school. The suspension was reduced from five days to three days and Respondent was transferred to Woodland[s] Academy, in the St. Lucie County School District. It is uncontroverted that Mr. Colebrook received a written reprimand based on the conduct alleged in the March 22, 1990, letter from Mr. Sullivan and that Mr. Sullivan recommended in the letter that Mr. Colebrook be suspended without pay and transferred to another school. Giving the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Administrative Complaint the most expansive construction possible, they are sufficient to allege that Mr. Colebrook used "profane language in [his] second period class on March 14, 1990," as recited in the March 22, 1990, letter. However, the evidence presented by the Commissioner is not sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that Mr. Colebrook actually used profane language as related by Mr. Hiple in his testimony and by Mr. Sullivan in the letter of reprimand. Not only was Mr. Sullivan's knowledge of the incident second-hand, based solely on information received from Mr. Hiple, Mr. Hiple's knowledge of the incident was also second-hand, based solely on information provided to Mr. Hiple during interviews with some of the students in Mr. Colebrook's classroom on the day in question.14 The evidence presented by the Commissioner is, however, sufficient to support a finding that Mr. Colebrook used inappropriate language in front of the students of his second- period class on March 14, 1990, when he said "he was going to kick somebody's butt" and yelled at the students in his class.15 Mr. Colebrook's use of this language in front of students, while inappropriate, did not constitute gross immorality or involve moral turpitude, but it can be inferred from this conduct that Mr. Colebrook's effectiveness as a teacher was seriously reduced in 1990, when the incident took place, at least with respect to his effectiveness in teaching the students in the classroom at the time of his outburst. Because the Commissioner presented no evidence to establish that Mr. Colebrook directed his comment or his yelling to any particular student, the Commissioner has failed to establish that Mr. Colebrook embarrassed or disparaged any student during the incident of March 14, 1990. The evidence is, however, sufficient to establish that Mr. Colebrook's statement to his students that he was going to "kick somebody's butt" and his yelling at the students created a condition in the classroom harmful to the students' learning. Incident of May 8, 2000, Mr. Colebrook's use of profanity, and September 25, 2000, letter of reprimand. Mr. Colebrook was transferred to Woodlands Academy from Fort Pierce Central High School in either 1990 or 1991. During the 1999-2000 school year, Mr. Colebrook taught physical education at Woodlands Academy. In the afternoon of May 8, 2000, Mr. Colebrook was teaching a combined special education class and eighth grade class consisting of approximately 50 students. Toward the end of the class period, a student in the classroom spoke up and said to Mr. Colebrook: "You're a drunk son of a bitch."16 Mr. Colebrook thought it was the student T.S., and he told him to come to the front of the classroom, where Mr. Colebrook apparently intended to discipline him. T.S. did not obey Mr. Colebrook but, rather, slipped out of the classroom door. Mr. Colebrook did not leave the classroom to go after T.S., but he sent a student into the hall to bring him back into the classroom; the student reported that T.S. was not in the hall. About five or six minutes before the end of the class period, T.S. showed up in the office of Lee Haynes, Dean of Students at Woodlands Academy. T.S. told Mr. Haynes that Mr. Colebrook had sent him to the office. Since classes would change in a few minutes, Mr. Haynes decided to keep T.S. in his office until the bell rang, when he would send T.S. to his next class. Mr. Haynes and T.S. sat at Mr. Haynes' desk and talked.17 Just before time for the bell to ring, Mr. Colebrook walked into Mr. Haynes office. When T.S. saw Mr. Colebrook, he stood up and started moving away from him, around Mr. Haynes' desk. Mr. Colebrook moved toward T.S., placed his right hand on T.S.'s shoulder, asked why T.S. had called him a drunk in class, and gave T.S. a shove with the hand on T.S.'s shoulder. The shove was not hard enough to knock T.S. off balance, but, as a result of the shove and of T.S.'s simultaneous movement away from Mr. Colebrook, T.S. "tangled his feet"18 and fell down.19 Mr. Haynes noticed that there were two chairs in the area where T.S. fell, and he assumed that the chairs may have "aided [T.S.'s] fall."20 As Mr. Haynes helped T.S. get back on his feet, Mr. Colebrook made a motion toward T.S., and Mr. Haynes stood between Mr. Colebrook and T.S. Mr. Haynes then took T.S. to the principal's office, where Johnny Thornton, the principal of Woodlands Academy at the time, talked with T.S. T.S. was not injured as a result of the fall, but Mr. Thornton described him as "visibly upset, crying."21 Joseph Hover, a deputy with the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office who was serving as a school resource officer at Woodlands Academy in May 2000, was a witness to the incident, and he arrested Mr. Colebrook on the afternoon of the incident for misdemeanor battery.22 The criminal case against Mr. Colebrook was concluded on August 21, 2000, when an entry was recorded on the court's progress docket that no information would be filed with respect to the charges against Mr. Colebrook. Several local newspapers printed stories about the incident and about Mr. Colebrook's arrest. Both students and teachers at Woodlands Academy had access to these newspapers, and some of the students at Woodlands Academy were observed actually reading the articles about Mr. Colebrook. In Mr. Thornton's estimation, other teachers at Woodlands Academy were aware of the incident, although Mr. Thornton tried to avoid discussing the incident with either the teachers or the students at Woodlands Academy. In a letter dated May 10, 2000, Mr. Colebrook was advised that an investigation into the May 8, 2000, incident would be conducted by the school system and that he was suspended with pay pending the outcome of the investigation. The final investigative report, dated September 7, 2000, was apparently submitted to the superintendent of schools for St. Lucie County, William Vogel, who prepared a formal letter of reprimand dated September 25, 2000.23 In the letter, Mr. Vogel identified two bases for the reprimand: "The act of pushing or throwing a student to the floor" and "[t]he use of profanity in the presence of students." Mr. Vogel did not identify the source of the information on which he based these charges, although it is inferred that the charges are derived from the investigative report. Mr. Vogel advised Mr. Colebrook in the letter that he would be suspended without pay for five days, that he would be required to complete "coursework in classroom management, stress control or other similar formal training/workshop," and that the complaint would be sent to the state Department of Education.24 After the May 8, 2000, incident, Mr. Colebrook was given an alternate assignment, and he returned to teach at Woodlands Academy in August or early September 2000 for the 2000-01 school year. Mr. Thornton was concerned when Mr. Colebrook returned to Woodlands Academy that some of his effectiveness as a teacher would be undermined by the students' knowledge of the May 8, 2000, incident, but there was no direct evidence that this was indeed the case. As noted above in the Preliminary Statement, the Commissioner charged Mr. Colebrook in paragraph 5 of the Administrative Complaint as follows: On multiple occasions while employed at Woodland[s] Academy, Respondent made inappropriate contact with a student in a violent and threatening manner, and continued to use profane and inappropriate language in front of his students. On May 8, 2000, Respondent threatened a minor student, T.S., pursued the student out of his classroom, and into the office of the Dean of Students at Woodland[s] Academy. In front of Lee Haines [sic], the Dean of Students at Woodland[s] Academy, and Deputy Joe Hover, the School Resource Officer, Respondent physically assaulted the minor student, T.S., by grabbing the student and throwing the student over two chairs, and onto the floor. Respondent then commented to Deputy Hover "This may cost me my job, but no student is going to call me drunk." Respondent was arrested and charged with battery as a result of the incident. The Commissioner has failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Administrative Complaint.25 Rather, the evidence presented by the Commissioner is sufficient only to establish clearly and convincingly (1) that, on May 8, 2000, Mr. Colebrook put his hand on T.S.'s shoulder and shoved him and that, as a result of this shove and of T.S.'s movement away from Mr. Colebrook, T.S. fell over two metal chairs in Mr. Haynes' office and (2) that Mr. Colebrook was arrested and charged with battery as a result of the incident. The evidence presented by the Commissioner is not sufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Colebrook's approaching T.S., placing his hand on T.S.'s shoulder, shoving T.S., and, at least in part, causing T.S. to stumble and fall over two chairs constituted gross immorality or involved moral turpitude. However, Mr. Colebrook's actions were harmful to T.S.'s mental health and safety even though T.S. suffered no physical injury. In addition, because he was upset and crying, Mr. Colebrook's actions exposed T.S. to embarrassment in front of Mr. Colebrook, Mr. Haynes, Deputy Hover, and Mr. Thornton. Accordingly, the evidence presented by the Commissioner is sufficient to establish that Mr. Colebrook violated two provisions of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. Finally, the appearance of news stories about Mr. Colebrook's arrest in the local press can reasonably support the inference that the students and teachers and the community in general were aware of the accusations against Mr. Colebrook with respect to the incident involving T.S. and of Mr. Colebrook's arrest. The Commissioner did not, however, present any direct evidence to establish that Mr. Colebrook's effectiveness as an employee of the St. Lucie County School Board was seriously reduced as a result of the publicity, and such an inference cannot reasonably be drawn, especially since no information was filed against Mr. Colebrook. Mr. Colebrook's shoving T.S., though inexcusable, was not such egregious conduct that it would, of itself, give rise to an inference that his effectiveness as an employee of the St. Lucie County School Board was seriously reduced. In addition, in light of the fact that the Superintendent of Schools for St. Lucie County did not think it appropriate to remove Mr. Colebrook from the classroom, the Commissioner has failed to establish clearly and convincingly that Mr. Colebrook's effectiveness as an employee of the St. Lucie County School Board was seriously reduced as a result of the May 8, 2000, incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Oringen E. Colebrook guilty of violating Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 231.2651(1)(i), Florida Statutes; dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint; and, placing Mr. Colebrook on probation for a period of three years, subject to such reasonable conditions as the Education Practices Commission deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 1st day of March, 2002.
The Issue The issue is whether Juan Jiminez should be assigned to J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School-South?
Findings Of Fact Juan is an 8th grade student at the Citrus Grove Middle School in Dade County, Florida. According to the school records, Juan has been involved in a number of instances of misconduct. On January 12, 1988, he received a referral to the school office for generally disruptive conduct, defiance of school authority, and excessive tardiness. On January 14, 1988, he received another referral for general disruptive conduct, and received in-school suspension. On March 9, 1988, he was involved in a fight, was suspended from the school grounds, and a letter concerning the matter was written to his parents. After he returned to school, on March 21, 1988, he again received a referral for disruptive behavior, followed by another suspension on April 18, 1988, for generally disruptive conduct and defiance of school authority, for which he received an in-school suspension. On May 2, 1988, he received a referral for cutting classes, which resulted in a conference with his parents. He received another referral on May 6, 1988, for general disruptive conduct and excessive tardiness, for which he received an in-school suspension. As the result of his poor performance during the 1987-88 school year, at the beginning of the 1988-9 school year in September of 1988, Juan was selected for participation in a drop-out prevention program, known in the Dade County schools as the Student At Risk Program (SARP). As a result of, the referral, a multi-disciplinary child study team considered his record. It was recommended to Juan's mother that Juan be placed in an opportunity school, but she resisted the suggestion, and the school's administrators agreed to continue the placement at Citrus Grove Middle School while Juan participated in the SARP program. In that program, Juan would be in small classes (usually 18-20) students in order to provide him additional attention. The school and the parents have been working, to some extent, at cross purposes. The parents regard Juan as a good child because he was not a gang member. The school was not concerned because they thought Juan was a member of a gang, but because of his disinterest in his subjects, and his cutting classes, being tardy, or acting out in class which inhibited not only his learning, but that of other students in the class. Even in the SARP program, Juan's situation did not improve a great deal. On November 15, 1988, he received another disciplinary referral for general disruptive conduct, for which he received a reprimand. On November 23, 1988 he received another referral for fighting, and he was suspended from the school grounds. On January 25, 1989, he received a referral to the administration from his reading teacher in the drop-out prevention program, Ms. Jane Liberman. Juan and two friends had come in late, been disruptive in class, and disturbed other students. He was reprimanded and given detention. Juan's excessive absences resulted in a home visit by W. Chester on March 8, 1989. The school administrators hoped for behavioral improvement following the visit, but Juan's behavior did not improve. Juan received at least three more disciplinary referrals that year for disruptive conduct, defiance of school authority, and for cutting class. Juan's disruptive behavior continued in the 1989-90 school year. On September 21, 1989, he received a disciplinary referral from Ms. Sonia Alcazar, his math teacher, for arriving late, being disruptive in class, using foul language, and making fun of the teacher. September 21, 1989, was only his fourth day in math class. He had come to school on September 5, 1989, but then had cut class until September 19, 1989. He attended on the 19th, 20th, and 21st, when the disciplinary referral occurred. Juan needs the increased structure and discipline that is available for students disinterested in education and which is offered at an opportunity school. That program should assist him academically. His current pattern of conduct is a substantial disruption which inhibits other students in his classes at Citrus Grove Middle School from taking advantage of instruction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the assignment of Juan Jiminez to the J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School-South be upheld. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of March, 1990. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire 2780 Galloway Road, Suite 100 Twin Oaks Building Miami, Florida 33165 Gladys Jiminez 1512 Northwest 25th Avenue Miami, Florida 33125 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Monroe County District School Board Policy Rule 2.5.1 on or about January 8, 1976, by possession of marijuana on school grounds.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a 16 year old, 11th grade high school student attending Marathon High School, Marathon, Florida. On January 8, 1976, Respondent was found in possession of 32 grams of marijuana on the grounds of Marathon High School. (Stipulation of the Parties) On April 21, 1976, the Circuit Court of Monroe County, Florida, accepted Respondent's plea of guilty to a charge of possession of marijuana, withheld adjudication as a delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of six months under the supervision of a Youth Counselor, State of Florida Youth Services Division. Conditions of probation included a curfew, weekly meetings with the counselor and part-time employment while attending school. (Testimony of Seale) At the time of his apprehension, Respondent admitted possession of marijuana to authorities and cooperated with them by divulging its source. Respondent denies any prior arrests and, in the opinion of the Youth Counselor, he is not likely to commit an offense of this nature in the future. He has evidenced remorse and desires to continue attendance at the high school. The Youth Counselor feels that it would serve no useful purpose to prevent him from further attendance. (Testimony of Seale, Collins) Respondent is not a problem student nor is he considered to be incorrigible or a socially maladjusted child. An alternative to expulsion exists at Marathon High School in the form of a rehabilitative program for socially maladjusted children that is supervised by one instructor who exercises close supervision over the students in the program. A student who is expelled from high school may enter an evening adult education program whereby he can acquire necessary academic credits by attending evening classes. The principal of Marathon High School recommends that Respondent be expelled because of the seriousness of his offense as evidenced by the unusually large amount of marijuana. (Testimony of Gradick)
Recommendation That Respondent, Gordon Collins, be expelled from Marathon High School, Marathon, Florida, effective June 8, 1976, for violation of Monroe County District School Board Policy Rule 2.5.1, by possession of marijuana on the school grounds on or about January 8, 1976. DONE and ENTERED 14th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Glenn Archer, Jr. Assistant Superintendent Post Office Drawer 1430 Key West, Florida 33040 Peter Lenzi, Esquire Post Office Box 938 Marathon, Florida 33050
The Issue Whether the respondent should be reassigned to the Opportunity School.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Aron Brumm, Assistant Principal at Cutler Ridge, handles about 95% of the disciplinary cases at Cutler Ridge. He was personally involved in investigating the incidents involving Charlotte and in the efforts to correct Charlotte's behavior. The following is an outline of Charlotte's disciplinary record at Cutler Ridge: DATE REASON FOR REFERRAL 9/17/84 Charlotte was disruptive in class, rude, and constantly tardy. 9/25/84 Charlotte was found in possession of pens stolen from the school store. She admitted that she had taken them. 10/4/84 Charlotte was rude, insulting, and disrespectful in class. Class disrupted. 10/31/84 Charlotte threatened another student. 11/1/84 Charlotte talked back to her teacher in class and was rude. She was putting on make-up during the class. 12/6/84 Charlotte constantly tardy to class and disruptive when she gets to class. 12/6/84 Charlotte was disruptive on the school bus. 12/19/84 Charlotte was disruptive in reading class. 1/18/85 Charlotte was found in possession of "Request for Student" blank forms that are used by school to get a student out of class. Charlotte forged the later signature of Mrs. King to get out of class and was found out near the band room; the forms were found in her purse. 1/22/85 Charlotte completely disrupted indoor suspension, which she was attending due to the prior incident. She was defiant and disrespectful. 1/23/85 Charlotte disrupted indoor suspension once again, despite warning given to her the day before. 1/25/85 A pre-opportunity school conference was held, at which time it is discovered that Charlotte had forged Mrs. Steele's name on Charlotte's progress reports. Every effort was made by school personnel to help Charlotte correct her disruptive behavior. From the time of the first incident, contact was made with Charlotte's guardian. By October 4, 1984, Charlotte had been referred to the school counselor. She was placed in an academic study group which met once a week for four weeks. She had special counseling sessions with some of her teachers. She received reprimands, indoor suspensions, and outdoor suspensions. All efforts were ineffective. Although Charlotte had some good days and would show improvement for a short period of time after certain counseling sessions, she ultimately would revert to her former behavior. Charlotte was not removed from the classes where she was having the most difficulty. However, none of the evidence indicates that a change in teachers would have brought about a change in Charlotte's behavior. Charlotte's disruptive behavior was not confined to one class or one teacher. Three different teachers had to refer Charlotte to the assistant principal for disciplinary action because of her intolerable behavior in the classroom. Further, Charlotte's disruptive behavior was not limited to the classroom. She was disruptive on the school bus, she threatened a fellow student, she stole pens from the school store, she forged her guardian's name on her progress reports, and she used a forged pass to get out of class. She was disruptive in indoor suspension. This is clearly not a case of a personality conflict between a student and teacher which can be resolved by transferring the student out of the teacher's class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered approving the assignment of respondent to the opportunity school program at Youth Opportunity School South. DONE and ENTERED this 21th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Board Administrative Building Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mark A. Valentine, Jr., Esq. Assistant School Board Attorney McCrary & Valentine, P.A. 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida Mitchell A. Horwich, Esq. Education Advocacy Project Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Northside Shopping Center 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147-4796 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esq. Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented herein concerns the Respondent's through the person of his parents appeal of the School Board's assignment (of Respondent) to Youth Opportunity School South - an alternative school placement.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. By letter dated November 8, 1983, Petitioner, the School Board of Dade County, Florida, advised the Respondent, Carlos Alberto Giralt, an eighth grade student attending Glades Junior High School, that he was being administratively assigned to the opportunity school program based on his "disruption of the educational process in the regular school program and failure to adjust to the regular school program." Carlos Alberto Giralt, date of birth December 6, 1969, was assigned to Glades Junior High School as an eighth grader during the 1983-84 school year. During October of 1983, Carlos' brother was involved in a physical altercation with another student and Carlos came to his brother's aid by using a stick to physically strike the other student involved in the altercation. Initially, Carlos was given a ten-day suspension and thereafter the suspension was changed to the administrative assignment to the alternative school placement which is the subject of this appeal. 1/ Carlos' father, Salvador Giralt, was summoned to Glades Junior High School and advised of the incident involving Carlos and the other student in the physical altercation. Mr. Giralt was advised of the policy procedures in effect at Glades and was assured that Respondent would be given the least severe penalty, which was the ten-day suspension originally referred to herein. The Giralts are very concerned parents and have voiced the concern by complaining of Respondent's assignment to the Petitioner's area office. In keeping with this concern, the Giralts have requested that their son, Carlos, be reassigned to his original community school, Glades Junior High School. Respondent does not have a history of repeated defiant conduct as relates to School Board authority. According to Petitioner's Assistant Principal at Glades Junior High, Gerald R. Skinner, Respondent was last disciplined approximately two years ago. No showing was made herein that Carlos was either disruptive of the educational process or has failed to adjust to the regular school program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order transferring the Respondent to Glades Junior High School or other appropriate regular school program. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1984.
The Issue Whether the Board refused to re-employ Ms. Smith as a teacher's aide for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for a Complaint that she filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations in January, 1983?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Smith is a graduate of a high school in the Gadsden County School system. Ms. Smith successfully completed a business education course at Gadsden Vo-Tech after receiving her high school diploma. Ms. Smith was rated qualified to work as a teacher's aide in the Gadsden County School system by the Central Administration office in 1982 and in 1984. Ms. Smith was employed as a teacher's aide at Gretna Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Gretna") during the 1982-1983 school year. She began her employment at Gretna in October, 1982. Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna during the first month of her employment was the Principal, Mr. Witt Campbell. Mr. Campbell left Gretna in November, 1982. For the remainder of the 1982-1983 school year, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor was Rosa Barkley, who replaced Mr. Witt as Principal. Ms. Smith was pregnant during the 1982-1983 school year. On January 24, 1983, Ms. Smith became ill because of her pregnancy and had to go to the hospital. Ms. Smith did not return to Gretna during the remainder of the school year. On March 14, 1983, Ms. Barkley went to visit with Ms. Smith at her home. Ms. Smith told Ms. Barkley that she would return to work approximately two weeks after her baby was born. This meant that Ms. Smith would return after the start of the 1983-1984 school year. Ms. Barkley helped Ms. Smith request a leave of absence. This leave of absence was approved by the Board on March 29, 1983. In March, 1983, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a satisfactory rating on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form which was filed with the Board. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith the benefit of the doubt in completing this form because Ms. Smith had been under Ms. Barkley's supervision only from November, 1982 to January, 1983. Ms. Barkley also recommended to the Superintendent that Ms. Smith be re-employed for the 1983-1984 school year. By letter dated June 17, 1983, Ms. Barkley asked the Superintendent to terminate Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley made this request because she wanted to have an aide that would start the school year in August, 1983 and not in November, 1983, when Ms. Smith planned to return. Ms. Barkley indicated in the letter that Ms. Smith had been absent because of her pregnancy. The Superintendent, Mr. Bishop, decided to grant Ms. Barkley's request. The decision to terminate Ms. Smith was made by the Board and not by Ms. Barkley. Although the Superintendent generally relies heavily on the recommendation of a principal, the decision to terminate Ms. Smith was that of the Board. The Board, based upon the information it was provided, should have told Ms. Barkley, that a leave of absence, and not termination, was the proper remedy to Ms. Barkley's problem. By letter dated July 27, 1983, Ms. Smith was terminated by the Board. Ms. Smith filed a Complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on January 19, 1984, alleging sex discrimination against Ms. Barkley. Upon the filing of the Complaint the Board investigated and decided that Ms. Smith should be rehired. The Board realized that it had caused the problem and not Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was offered the first teacher's aide position available. The position was at Chattahoochee Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Chattahoochee"). Ms. Smith accepted the position and began work at Chattahoochee in March, 1984. Ms. Smith worked with fourth grade Chapter 1 children (children who have been disadvantaged with regard to their educational opportunities). Ms. Martha Downs was her teacher. While at Chattahoochee, Ms. Smith had difficulty performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Her primary area of deficiency was in math. Mr. Corbin Scott, the Principal at Chattahoochee, attempted to help Ms. Smith by having Ms. Ella Ponder, a helping teacher, assist her. Although it was alleged that Ms. Smith was required to take a Criteria Reference Test normally taken by fourth graders, the evidence failed to support this allegation. Based upon Ms. Smith's poor performance, Mr. Corbin did not recommend that Ms. Smith be returned to Chattahoochee for the next school year. Although Ms. Smith admitted that she has some problems with math she failed to accept the fact that she was not adequately performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Instead, she believed that Mr. Corbin expected her to "teach" and that he was unfair when he did not recommend her continued employment at Chattahoochee for the next school year. Ms. Smith believed that the Complaint that she filed in January, 1984, affected the way that she was treated at Chattahoochee. This unfounded belief affected Ms. Smith's attitude while at Chattahoochee and later. The Board decided that the period of time that Ms. Smith was employed at Chattahoochee (March, 1984 to June, 1984) was too short. Therefore, in an effort to be fair with Ms. Smith and to settle the dispute with Ms. Smith, the Board decided to place Ms. Smith in another teacher's aide position for the 1984- 1985 school year. During the Summer of 1984, Ms. Smith and the Board settled the Complaint which Ms. Smith had filed in January, 1984. Pursuant to this settlement, Ms. Smith dismissed her Complaint for back-pay and her re-employment at Gretna. Ms. Smith was employed at Gretna during the 1984- 1985 school year as a teacher's aide pursuant to the settlement. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna, was not consulted before the Board decided to return Ms. Smith to Gretna. Principals of schools are not consulted by the Board before employees are assigned to their schools. Although Ms. Smith agreed to return to Gretna as part of the settlement of her Complaint against the Board, she believed that Ms. Barkley would not treat her properly. This belief, which was unfounded, affected Ms. Smith's attitude toward Ms. Barkley and her job during the 1984-1985 school year. Ms. Smith was assigned to assist two teachers for most of the 1984- 1985 school year at Gretna: Ms. Corine D. Palmer and Ms. Charlotte Price. Neither Ms. Palmer nor Ms. Price talked to Ms. Smith about problems which they perceived in Ms. Smith's performance. Ms. Price's attitude was that she was there to teach students and, therefore, she did not want to be bothered with Ms. Smith. Ms. Palmer's attitude was to work around Ms. Smith; she gave up trying to use Ms. Smith effectively because of Ms. Smith's lack of effort. Both ladies essentially stuck their heads in the sand and ignored the problem since neither of them were responsible for evaluating Ms. Smith. Employees at Gretna were required to sign in and sign out on a sheet provided for them at the administrative office of the school. During the school year Ms. Smith was late arriving at school a total of fifteen times. Most of those times she was late more than a few minutes. She was late seven times during 1984 and eight times in 1985. At least three other teachers' aides (Inez Morris, Ida Miller and Mary Wright) were late to school more often than Ms. Smith. While Ms. Smith received an unsatisfactory rating for punctuality for the school year, the other three aides received a satisfactory rating. Many of the times that the other three aides were late, they were late only a few minutes. When they were late more than a few minutes, they notified Ms. Barkley or someone else at Gretna that they would be late, and indicated why. Ms. Smith, on the other hand, did not always notify Ms. Barkley or anyone else that she would be late, or indicate why she was late until she was asked. During the first week of the 1984-1985 school year (August 20-24, 1984), Ms. Smith was late three times. Ms. Smith rode to school with another employee who was late getting to school. On August 27, 1984, Ms. Barkley discussed Ms. Smith's lateness with her and gave her a letter indicating that she was expected to be at school at 8:05 a.m. Ms. Smith was late once during each of the next three weeks. She corrected the problem, however, by arranging to ride with someone else. After the week of September 10-14, 1984, Ms. Smith was late only one other time during 1984. During 1985, Ms. Smith was late at least once a week during seven of the eleven weeks ending March 15, 1985. In addition to being late reporting to school, Ms. Smith was late going to her assigned classroom after arriving at school and after lunch. Ms. Smith was required to be in her morning class no later than 8:15 a.m. Her lateness was reported by Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price and was also noted by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was in the employee lounge on many occasions when she should have been in a class. On October 15, 1984, Ms. Barkley spoke with all of the aides about being in the lounge in the morning when they should be in their classes. Despite Ms. Barkley's comments, that afternoon Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she should not have been, and she continued to be late to her assigned classroom in the mornings. Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price told Ms. Barkley that Ms. Smith was late to class. Both of them tended to do without her and to avoid any effort to try to correct the problem. On February 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a letter that indicated that Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she was not supposed to be. A similar letter was given to Ida Miller and Dorothy Smith. Ms. Miller and Ms. Dorothy Smith corrected the problem. Ms. Smith did not. Ms. Barkley rated Ms. Smith's attendance as "unsatisfactory". This rating was not based upon the number of days that she was absent. It was based upon the number of times that Ms. Smith was not in her assigned classroom. Ms. Barkley kept a notebook in which she noted the dates of some events involving employees' actions. She has kept these notes since she became a principal. Most of the notes concerning Ms. Smith did not give the reason for absences or lateness. Ms. Smith did not, however, always report the reason for her lateness. Most of the observations involved lateness and absences. The notes concerning Ms. Smith were provided to the Board because she was requested to provide any documentation concerning Ms. Smith. She did not know where her other notes were. Ms. Barkley noted the conference she had with Ms. Smith on August 27, 1984. In this note, she referred to Ms. Smith as "Ms. Attitude." This notation and a later notation that Ms. Smith was in the lounge one day "chomping" show a lack of judgment by Ms. Barkley in the manner that Ms. Barkley referred to Ms. Smith. This lack of judgment is not sufficient, however, to prove that Ms. Barkley terminated Ms. Smith at the end of the 1984-1985 school year in retaliation for the Complaint filed by Ms. Smith in 1983. Ms. Barkley's explanation for these notations is rejected. Ms. Barkley talked to teachers and other aides about Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley did not, however, limit her inquiries to Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley was responsible for the supervision of all of the employees at Gretna. She was very active in managing her school. She observed her employees in the halls of the school, in the lounge and in the classroom. She did not single out Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley asked teachers and other aides about all employees and she checked up on all her employees. Ms. Smith was observed in class by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was seen giving wrong answers and performing sloppy work. When Ms. Barkley talked to Ms. Smith about some of her problems, Ms. Smith's attitude was defensive. She did not believe that she had any problems and believed that Ms. Barkley was being unfair to her. She therefore did not indicate that she agreed with Ms. Barkley or that she would make any efforts to correct her problems when Ms. Barkley spoke to her about her problems. Ms. Price indicated that Ms. Smith had evidenced a poor attitude about her performance with her also. On March 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley met with Ms. Smith and informed her that she would not be recommended for employment during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley sent a letter to the Board dated March 15, 1985, recommending that Ms. Smith not be re-employed during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley also rated Ms. Smith "unsatisfactory" on five characteristics listed on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form dated March 8, 1985. This form was signed by Ms. Smith on March 15, 1985. Ms. Smith was given an unsatisfactory rating for utilization of time, compliance with school and district policies, attendance, punctuality and leadership. This evaluation was similar to the evaluation given Ms. Smith by Mr. Corbin. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer were given a Personal Reference Form for Teacher Aide Applicants by Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith told Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer that the forms were going to be used by her to apply for a job outside of its school system. Although both teachers had misgivings about Ms. Smith's ability and did not want her back as a teacher's aide, they both liked her personally and wanted to help her find a job. They also wanted to avoid any conflict with Ms. Smith. Therefore, even though they should have known better, they completed the forms giving Ms. Smith affair rating and indicating that they would employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley completed the form given to her by Ms. Smith on April 30, 1985. She gave her a poor rating and indicated that she would not employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley had completed a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form when Ms. Smith left Gretna in 1983. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a favorable evaluation. She did so, however, because Ms. Smith had only worked at Gretna during the 1982-1983 school year for approximately four months and Ms. Barkley had only been there during three of those months. Therefore, Ms. Barkley did not believe it would be fair to give Ms. Smith an unfavorable evaluation. The Board did not refuse to re-employ Ms. Smith for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for any dispute between Ms. Smith and Ms. Barkley or any other person. Ms. Smith was not re-employed because she lacked the necessary job skills to work as a teacher's aide and had failed to perform adequately. On or about July 15, 1985, Ms. Smith filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that the Board had discriminated against her on the basis of retaliation. The Executive Director of the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued a "Determination: No Cause" on May 12, 1987. Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Rehearing. On or about July 13, 1987, the Executive Director entered a "Redetermination: No Cause." Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Relief. The Florida Commission on Human Relations forwarded the Petition the Division of Administrative Hearings by order dated August 18, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Ms. Smith's Petition for Relief be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 Irrelevant. 4-5 3. 6-7 22. 8 4. 9 23. 10 5. 11 12. The date of termination was July 27, 1983. 12 10. 13-14 13. 15 20-22. 16 10. 17 8. 18 9. 19 22. 20 23. 21 11. The evidence failed to prove that the Board acted solely on the recommendation of Ms. Barkley. 22 25. 23 26. 24 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 25-26 27. 27 28. 28 While Ms. Smith may have corrected the "ride problem" she continued to be late during the 1984-1985 school year. 29-31 27. 32-33 33. 34-36 Although these proposed findings of fact are correct they are irrelevant. 37 41. 38-39 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 40 Irrelevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 41 35. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. 44 35. 45-46 36. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although it is true that Ms. Smith did improve her punctuality arriving at Gretna during 1984 she failed to continue to arrive on time during the rest of the school year. See 28. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 45. 2 21. 3 10 and 11. 4 14. 5 16. 6 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 16. 7 16-18. 8 20 and 22. 9-10 37. 11 41. 12 42. 13 28 and 33. 14 28-29 and 33. 15 45. COPIES FURNISHED TO: EDWARD J. GRUNEWALD, ESQUIRE LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTH FLORIDA, INC. 400 NORTH MADISON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, ESQUIRE 211 EAST JEFFERSON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 DONALD A. GRIFFIN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925 DANA BAIRD GENERAL COUNSEL 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: Curtis Stephen Pope, a 12-year-old student, attends seventh grade in the public schools of Dade County. He lives with his grandmother, Mrs. Joyce Robinson, at 11352 Southwest 214 Street, Goulds, Florida. Until January, 1981, he attended seventh grade at nearby Mays Junior High School. (Testimony of J. Robinson, McPhaul.) In December, 1980, the vice principal of Mays Junior High recommended that Curtis be administratively reassigned to the Opportunity School South because of repeated disruptive behavior affecting the learning opportunity of others creating an unsafe learning environment. The school principal subsequently joined in that recommendation and on January 26, 1981, Curtis was reassigned to an educational alternative program at Youth Opportunity School South, 6135 Southwest 66th Street, Miami, Florida--a school located approximately 15 miles from Curtis' residence. It is that reassignment which is the subject of this proceeding. (Testimony of McPhaul; P-3). From September, 1980, through January 1981, Curtis repeatedly disrupted classes at Mays Junior High. His behavior adversely affected the learning environment and interfered with the educational process of other students, as well as his own. He was frequently referred to the assistant principal for disciplinary action. Twice he was suspended from school for ten-day periods: on October 20, 1980, for disrespect and defiance to the assistant principal and principal, and on November 12, 1980, for fighting with another student. Mrs. Robinson was contacted by Curtis' teachers as well as the school's administrators in an attempt to define the nature of Curtis' problem and take remedial action. However, despite these good-faith efforts, his classroom behavioral difficulties continued. (Testimony of McPhaul, J. Robinson; P-2). Specifically, Curtis' disruptive classroom behavior is described below: 2/ CLASS CURTIS' BEHAVIOR Reading Highly disruptive; fails to bring classroom materials or pay attention; easily distracted; plays during class and frequently tardy or absent. Math Disturbs class by talking, walking, and bothering other students; beats on desk, makes loud noises, and runs in and out of classroom; frequently tardy or absent. Intuitive Math Plays and walks about class; fails to follow directions; disturbs class and leaves without permission. Physical Education Disinterested n class; fails to participate in activities with other children. Science Rarely cooperates; fails to remain in seat, and leaves room without permission; unprepared for class; excessive tardiness. Civics Engages in fights and horse- play with other students; makes loud noises and refuses to stop; leaves room without permission; excessive absences. (Testimony of Herrman, Smith, Delvalle, Nicholson, Rochfort, Fields; P-2). At this time, Curtis requires individualized and special educational instruction which is unavailable at Mays Junior High--where classroom enrollment ranges from 25 to 30 students. On the few occasions when Curtis has received individualized instruction at Mays, his interest increased and his academic performance improved. Such individualized attention is available, on a routine basis, at the Youth Opportunity School South's educational alternative program-- where there is one teacher for every ten students. If Curtis makes the progress which can reasonably be expected of him in such a learning environment, he should eventually be able to return to regular school programs. Whether Curtis profits from and takes advantage of the greater instructional opportunities at Youth Opportunity School--and eventually returns to regular school programs--is wholly dependent on his own attitude and choice. (Testimony of J. Robinson, C. Robinson, Smith, Herrman, Delvalle, Nicholson, Rochfort, Fields; P-4). Mrs. Robinson opposes Curtis' reassignment primarily because of her belief that several neighborhood boys who attended the school later became involved in crime. But the fact that some students' behavioral problems persisted despite the educational opportunities offered at the Youth Opportunity School do not negate those opportunities or make them less real. Given positive support and encouragement at home--coupled with the educational environment available at the Youth Opportunity School South--Curtis will be given the opportunity to learn and achieve his potential; whether he--in--fact--does so will depend on him. (Testimony of J. Robinson, C. Robinson, McPhaul).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Superintendent's action in placing Curtis Stephen Pope in the educational alternative program offered at Youth Opportunity School South be upheld and confirmed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 20th day of May, 1981.
