Findings Of Fact The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (hereinafter "NCEES") writes and otherwise prepares the examinations for candidates seeking engineering licenses in 55 states and jurisdictions. The examinations are then administered by the states and jurisdictions which constitute NCEES' member boards. Respondent, State of Florida, Board of Professional Engineers, is a member board and uses NCEES' examinations. The Fundamentals of Engineering (hereinafter "FE") examination is given twice a year, in April and in October. The FE examination measures the basic knowledge a candidate has acquired in a bachelor degree program in the first two years during which the candidate takes basic engineering and science courses. Passage of the examination does not result in licensure as an engineer; it results in either an "engineer intern" or an "engineer in training" certificate which shows that the examinee has completed the necessary educational requirements to sit for that eight-hour examination and to have passed it. The next step is that a successful candidate will then complete four years of experience and then pass a principles and practices examination called the "PE" examination in order to then be licensed as a professional engineer. The FE exam is a minimal competency examination. Questions for the FE examination are written by individuals and are then reviewed by a committee. That committee is composed of registered professional engineers who are practicing engineers and engineers from the academic world, from consulting firms, and from governmental entities. Each question or item on the examination is reviewed by at least 12 to 15 individuals during the review process which takes from one to one and a half years. As part of the development process, individual items appear on examinations as pre-test questions. The purpose of using pre-test questions is to determine the characteristics of that specific item, as to how hard or easy the item is when used on the target population (candidates for the FE examination), and to verify that minimally competent candidates can answer the test item correctly. If pre-test questions perform as expected, they are used on subsequent examinations. If they do not perform adequately, the questions go back to the committee to be changed or to be discarded. Pre-test questions on examinations are not scored, and whether an examinee correctly answers that question is irrelevant to the raw score or final grade achieved by that candidate on the examination. Pre-test questions are distributed proportionately throughout the examination, and no subject area on the examination ever consists of only pre-test questions. Pre-test questions are used by other national testing programs. No unfairness inures to candidates from the presence of pre-test questions on an examination for two reasons. First, all candidates are treated equally. Candidates do not know that the examination contains pre-test questions, and, even if they did, they do not know which questions are pre-test questions and which questions will be scored. Second, the length of the examination itself is not increased by adding pre-test questions. The examination has the same number of questions whether pre-test questions are included or not. In the actual exam preparation, NCEES uses American College Testing and/or Educational Testing Service as contractors. The contractors pull the proper number of items in each subject area from the item bank and assemble the examination which is then sent to the NCEES committee of registered professional engineers to see if changes in the examination are necessary. Once approved, the contractor then prints the examination booklets and sends them to the member boards to administer the examination. Answer sheets from an exam administration are transmitted to the contractor for scanning and statistical analysis. The contractor then recommends a passing point based on a scaling and equating process so that future exams are no easier or harder than past exams. When NCEES approves the passing point, the contractor sends the examination scores or results to the member boards. When the examination is changed in some fashion, a new base line or pass point must be established to ensure that the new examination remains equal in difficulty to past examinations and remains a good measure of competency. The new examination is referred to as the anchor examination. The October, 1990, FE examination was an anchor exam. The member boards of NCEES determined that the October, 1993, FE examination would be changed to a supplied reference document examination, meaning that the candidate during the examination could use only the supplied reference handbook, a pencil, and a calculator. Candidates would no longer be able to bring their own reference materials to use during the examination. One of the reasons for the change was fairness to the candidates. The FE examination was not being administered uniformly nationwide since some member boards prohibited bringing certain publications into the examination which were allowed by other member boards. Accordingly, it was determined that NCEES would write and distribute at the examination its Fundamentals of Engineering Reference Handbook, thereby placing all candidates nationwide on an equal footing in that all examinees would be using this same reference material of charts, mathematical formulas, and conversion tables during the examination, and no other reference materials would be used during the examination itself. In August of 1991, NCEES approved the concept of a supplied reference handbook, and a beginning draft was sent to the FE sub-committee of the examination committee for review. The individual members of the sub-committee actually took two FE examinations using the draft of the supplied reference document to ensure that all material needed to solve the problems on an FE examination was included in the reference document and that the document was accurate. On a later occasion the committee took the examination that would be administered in October of 1993 using a subsequent draft of the supplied reference handbook. The last review of the handbook occurred in February of 1993 when the committee used that draft to review the October 1993 examination for the second time, and NCEES' Fundamentals of Engineering Reference Handbook, First Edition (1993) was finished. When NCEES received its first copies back from the printer, it mailed copies to the deans of engineering at 307 universities in the United States that have accredited engineering programs for review and input. As a result, NCEES became aware of some typographical and other errors contained in that document. In July of 1993 NCEES assembled a group of 12 individuals for a passing point workshop for the October 1993 a/k/a the '93 10 examination. The group consisted of three members of the committee, with the remainder being persons working in the academic world or as accreditation evaluators, and recent engineer interns who had passed the FE examination within the previous year and were not yet professional engineers. That group took the '93 10 FE examination using the first edition of the Handbook and then made judgments to determine the pass point for that examination. During that two day workshop, the errors in the Handbook were pointed out to the working group so it could determine if any of the errors contained in the Handbook had any impact on any of the problems contained in the '93 10 examination. The group determined that none of the errors in the Handbook impacted on any test item on the '93 10 FE examination. In September of 1993 subsequent to the passing point workshop, the '93 10 FE exam and the first edition of the Handbook went back to the committee of registered professional engineers for a final check, and that committee also determined that none of the errors in the Handbook would have any impact on the questions in the '93 10 FE examination. An errata sheet to the first edition of the Handbook was subsequently prepared but was not available until December of 1993. In September of 1994 the second printing of the Handbook was completed, and that version incorporated the changes contained on the errata sheet. Of the errors contained in the first edition of the Handbook, only one error was substantive; that is, one mathematical equation was wrong. However, no item on the '93 10 FE exam could be affected by that mathematical error. The remaining errors were typographical or simply matters of convention, i.e., errors in conventional terminology and symbols found in most textbooks such as the use of upper case instead of lower case or symbols being italicized as opposed to being non-italicized. Candidates for the '93 10 FE examination were able to purchase in advance as a study guide, a Fundamentals of Engineering sample examination which had its second printing in March of 1992. The sample examination was composed of questions taken from previous FE exams which would never be used again on an actual FE examination. The sample examination consisted of actual test questions and multiple choice answers. The sample examination did not show candidates how to solve the problems or work the computation, but merely gave multiple choice responses. Errors were contained on the two pages where the answers to the sample examination were given. The answer key was wrong as to two items on the morning sample examination and was wrong for all of the electrical circuit items, one of the subject areas included in the afternoon sample examination. An errata sheet was prepared and distributed in September of 1993 to those who had purchased the sample examination. Petitioner took the '93 10 FE examination, which contained 140 items during the morning portion and 70 items during the afternoon portion. Approximately 25 percent of the questions on the examination were pre-test questions. The minimum passing score for that examination was 70, and Petitioner achieved a score of only 68. Accordingly, Petitioner failed that examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner failed to achieve a passing score on the October 1993 Fundamentals of Engineering examination and dismissing the amended petition filed in this cause. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 14th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-5 and 8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 7 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 6 and 9 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony or conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-15 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 16 has been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Wellington H. Meffert, II Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Dorian Kenneth Zinck, pro se 521 Beech Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Lynda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Sections 231.28(1)(c) and 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1997), and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida educator's certificate No. 539913. This certificate authorizes Respondent to teach art, early childhood education, and elementary education. Respondent's certificate is valid through June 30, 2002. Respondent has thirteen years of experience as a certified fifth-grade teacher at Florosa Elementary School in Okaloosa County, Florida. At the time of the hearing, the Okaloosa County School District employed Respondent under a continuing contract. The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) currently is administered to third, fourth, and fifth grade students once each year. The test is designed to determine whether students meet certain academic levels in Florida's Sunshine State Standards, which range from level 1 as the lowest below-average score to level 5 as the highest above-average score. The test is also used to provide a "report card" for each school, based upon the number of students who score level 3 or above. At all times relevant here, student performance on the FCAT had no positive or negative consequences for individual teachers. Respondent participated in the administration of the FCAT in 1998 as a field test. Neither the school nor the students received the test results in 1998. Respondent also participated in administrating the FCAT in 1999, the first year that fifth-grade students received their scores. Susan Lowery was the school district's Director of Student Services for the 1998-1999 school term. Ms. Lowery's position included serving as the district's Director of Assessment Testing. As such, she was responsible for ensuring that each school site followed correct testing procedures. Prior to the administration of the FCAT in 1999, Ms. Lowery attended training sessions at the state level to learn the proper testing procedures for the FCAT. Upon her return to the district, Ms. Lowery trained the individual school test coordinators on the FCAT testing procedures. Sonia Weikel was the school counselor at Florosa Elementary School for the 1998-1999 school year. Her duties included serving as the school's testing coordinator. Ms. Weikel first participated in Ms. Lowery's FCAT training session then conducted a training session at Florosa Elementary School for all the classroom teachers, including Respondent. During her FCAT training session for the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. Weikel explained to Respondent and her colleagues that they could answer questions concerning test instructions but they were not to assist students in answering questions on the test. Specifically, the classroom teachers were not supposed to interfere with the natural responses of the children during the test. Ms. Weikel directed the teachers to inform the students of the test schedule, and the specific start and stop times. This was necessary because the fifth-grade test consisted of two 45-minute sessions on the morning of the first day and two 40- minute sessions on the morning of the second day. A short break between the two test sessions was also scheduled. However, if all the students finished a particular test session in less than the allotted time, the break time for an individual class could be adjusted as long as testing in other classrooms was not disrupted. Ms. Weikel instructed the teachers to maintain test security by making sure that students did not look at each other's test booklet. The students' desks were supposed to be at least three feet apart. Ms. Weikel told the teachers to make sure that the students were working in the correct test booklet. As the teachers scanned the room, they were advised to ensure that the students were following prescribed directions. During the training session, the teachers were reminded that it was a crime to interfere with a student's responses. This information was contained in the testing manual and the security paper that individual teachers, including Respondent, were required to sign.1 See Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6A-10.042, Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Weikel used a hand-out containing an outline of the testing procedures for the 1998-1999 FCAT. The outline stated as follows in relevant part: TEST SECURITY-PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES: Copying or reading the student responses during testing or after testing. Mishandling of secure material--Breaks in number codes, Destruction of materials. Reading test items. Interpreting a test passage or item from the test. The outline also reminded the teachers to read certain pages in the testing manual regarding test modifications for special students and test booklet directions. Sometime prior to Ms. Weikel's training session, the teachers at Florosa Elementary School were given a copy of the testing manual. This was done so that the teachers could familiarize themselves with the specific testing procedures and student instructions set forth by the developers of the FCAT.2 Based on the instructions she received from Ms. Weikel, and after having read the teacher's instructions in the testing manual, Respondent understood that she was responsible for the following: (a) circulating around the room to ensure that the children were working in the right section; making sure that the students followed and understood the test and the test instructions; (c) making sure that the students were bubbling in the answers in the correct manner and not indiscriminately; (d) ensuring that a student was not falling too far behind other students; (e) making sure that a student was not spending too much time on one item; and (f) ensuring that a student was not hurrying through the test. Each classroom was assigned a parent volunteer to act as a proctor for the 1998-1999 FCAT. Kimberly Clark was the proctor assigned to Respondent's classroom. Ms. Clark assisted Respondent in administering the FCAT on the first day, February 2, 1999, and for the first 40-minute test session on February 3, 1999. Some of Respondent's students requested assistance as Respondent circulated around her classroom during the test on February 2, 1999, and during the first test session on February 3, 1999. Respondent told the students that she could not help on the test. However, she verbally encouraged the students with comments such as "you can do it," "go ahead," "go back and reread it." Respondent used non-verbal cues when communicating with students during the test. These cues included gesturing and pointing with her hands to redirect the students to the test booklet. In addition to gesturing with her hands, Respondent would nod her head when encouraging students and shake her head when telling students that she could not help them. On a few occasions, Respondent pointed toward a particular question in the booklet that some students had inadvertently passed over because of its placement on the page. The question was small in size and placed at the top of the page. The remainder of the page was filled entirely by another question. Respondent circulated in the room and alerted several students to the question that was skipped, telling them to go back and not skip it. A new student was placed in Respondent's class on or about February 3, 1999. This student had never taken the FCAT and was not prepared to take it on the date in question. Throughout the administration of the FCAT, this student would frequently close his test booklet and stop working. Respondent used verbal and non-verbal means of communication, repeatedly telling the student to go back in his book, to reread the questions, and keep working. Prior to the break in testing between the two 40- minute test sessions on February 3, 1999, Ms. Weikel visited Respondent's classroom several times, observing no testing irregularities. On each such occasion, Ms. Clark signaled to Ms. Weikel that everything was fine. On February 3, 1999, Ms. Weikel visited Respondent's classroom during a time that appeared to be an early break between the two 40-minute test sessions. Ms. Clark informed Ms. Weikel that everyone had finished the test and that the proper times had been observed. Respondent did not post the stop and start times for the test on the blackboard as required by the testing manual. Instead, she posted the testing schedule on a legal size paper. She also wrote "10 minutes" and "5 minutes" on the blackboard as appropriate to remind her students of the time remaining to complete each test session. Respondent knew that the children could not rely on the school clocks to follow the prearranged test schedule because the clocks were not synchronized. Therefore, she used an egg timer to time the FCAT test sessions, ensuring that her students would be provided the correct amount of time to complete the FCAT. If students are not allowed the correct amount of time for a section of the test, their tests must be invalidated. None of the tests in Respondent's class were invalidated for timing irregularities. Additionally, none of the tests in the surrounding classes were compromised because Respondent's class started or stopped a testing session a few minutes earlier than scheduled. While Ms. Weikel was visiting Respondent's classroom during the break between the two 40-minute test sessions on February 3, 1999, Ms. Clark reported a suspicion that Respondent appeared to be assisting students on the test. Ms. Clark's suspicions were based on her observations of the physical movements and gestures of Respondent. Assisting a student with a question on the FCAT is considered cheating. Such assistance would require invalidation of the student's test. None of the tests in Respondent's class were invalidated for cheating. After hearing Ms. Clark express her suspicions, Ms. Weikel sought the assistance of Kathleen Ball, the assistant principal. Ms. Ball met with Ms. Weikel and Ms. Clark briefly. Ms. Ball then decided to relieve Ms. Clark of her duties and to serve as Respondent's proctor for the last 40-minute test session. When Ms. Ball entered Respondent's classroom, Respondent informed Ms. Ball about the question that several students had overlooked at the top of one page. Respondent told Ms. Ball that she had told the students to go back to the question.3 Ms. Ball stood in the back of Respondent's class when the testing resumed. Ms. Ball observed Respondent walk up to a student's desk and bend over, putting one hand on the back of his chair and one hand flat on his desk. Respondent gave the appearance that she was reading a test question. Ms. Ball approached Respondent and said, "Ms. Mulhearn, we're not allowed to read the test questions on standardized testing." Respondent then left the area, stopped circulating among the students, and went to sit at the front of the room for the duration of the test. During the hearing, Ms. Weikel testified that it was appropriate for a teacher to point out a question that a student had overlooked or skipped on the test. According to Ms. Weikel, the FCAT testing procedures have been tightened considerably in recent years, with increased restrictions on the amount of assistance that teachers can give to students. During the hearing, Ms. Ball testified that it is recommended for a teacher to circulate during a test to make sure the students are moving through the test and not stopping and spending too much time on one item. According to Ms. Ball, if a child spends too much time on one question, the teacher should tell the child to keep working or not to stop. Respondent's expert, Rebecca Spence, Okaloosa County School District's Chief of Human Resources, expressed a similar opinion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission dismiss the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 20th day of April, 2001.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Harriet Parets, should be suspended from her employment for a period of 30 days based upon a violation of testing protocols in administering the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, is responsible for the administration and operation of all public schools within the Broward County School District. As such, its authority covers personnel and employment including the discipline of its teachers. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent, Harriet Parets, was employed as an elementary school teacher in the Broward County School District. The Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate Number 592721. Her certificate covers the areas of elementary education and English for Speakers of Other Languages. It is valid through June 30, 2008. Prior to the incidents complained of in this cause, the Respondent taught in the Broward County School District without discipline for six years. The Respondent was in her seventh year with the system when the allegations of this case arose. The Respondent had administered the FCAT on five prior occasions. During the 2002 school year the Respondent was assigned to teach fourth grade at McNab Elementary School (McNab). Her class was scheduled to take the FCAT on March 11-13, 2003. Prior to the dates of testing, teachers at McNab were instructed to view a resource video. The video instructed and directed the teachers in the administration of the FCAT. It included information not previously addressed by the video. Additionally, teachers at McNab were provided testing procedures to guide the administration of the FCAT. Teachers were to follow specifically worded texts in the directions provided to their students. A verbatim reading of the text was required by the FCAT testing protocols. Additional comments outside the text were prohibited. Teachers at McNab were advised of the importance of the FCAT results, the requirement of adhering to the testing protocols, and the opportunities available to the school should McNab students perform well on the FCAT. In fact, as McNab had received an "A" rating in the past (following good FCAT results), the school had received special funding tied to that performance. In connection with the FCAT testing at issue herein, McNab administrators took precautions to provide test administrators with the schedule of the exam dates, the materials needed to administer the test, and training in the proper administration of the FCAT. Testing protocols were reviewed. Proctors also received training regarding the administration of the exam. Each class was assigned a proctor along with the teacher who was primarily responsible for the test administration. In this case, the proctor and several students verified comments from the Respondent that deviated from the scripted instructions. Contrary to the scripted instructions the Respondent looked at the students' test booklets, told more than one student to re-exam their work for errors, and pointed out a wrong answer. The Respondent announced to the class as a whole that she was "seeing a lot of wrong answers." The Respondent was not authorized to make comments during the administration of the test. More important the Respondent was not permitted to assist by any means the students who were taking the FCAT. The Respondent admitted that she did not watch the FCAT training video (known in this record as the BECON video). The Respondent knew or should have known that she had been directed to watch the video. The Respondent admitted that she made comments to students that were beyond the scripted instructions provided in the teacher's testing manual. The issues of the Respondent's comments to the class and the level of assistance she had provided to students came to light when a student told her mother of the Respondent's conduct. The mother then contacted a school administrator to make the alleged improprieties known. After determining that the Respondent had assisted students in her class, administrators invalidated the test results from the Respondent's class. As a result of the invalidation, the school did not have a sufficient number of test results to qualify as an "A" performing school under the state guidelines. Had the results from the Respondent's class been included, the school might have qualified and received recognition as it had in the past. Following the investigation of the case, the school district superintendent recommended that the Respondent be terminated from her employment. After hearing comments on the matter, the Petitioner took the action at issue herein, the suspension without pay for 30 days. The Respondent timely challenged that proposed action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order suspending the Respondent without pay for a period of 30 days. Further, before being permitted to administer the FCAT again, the Respondent should be required to complete a training course in the administration of the exam, including all testing protocols. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark J. Berkowitz, Esquire Mark J. Berkowitz, P.A. 524 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 200N Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mark A. Emanuele, Esquire Panza, Maurer, Maynard & Neel, P.A. 3600 North Federal Highway Bank of America Building, Third Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr. Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Daniel Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent should be subject to demotion for directing staff to violate testing protocols related to the administration of the February 28, 2012, FCAT Writes test (FCAT test); for subsequently failing to report violations that were known to Respondent at the time of the administration of the FCAT test; and for making inappropriate comments to staff regarding the investigation of the reported violations, as alleged in Petitioner?s January 3, 2013, Notice of Discipline and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Duval County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Sharon Sanders, was the principal at Windy Hill, a Duval County public school. She has been in the field of education for approximately 35 years, and has been with the Duval County public school system for 13 or 14 years. Ms. Sanders had been the principal at Windy Hill for four-and-a-half years prior to her demotion, and previously served as the principal at Holiday Hill Elementary School for four years, with an intervening stint of a year or so as the school district?s executive director of language arts. Since the demotion that forms the basis for this proceeding, Ms. Sanders has been the assistant principal at Landmark Middle School. In her 35 years of service as an educator prior to the incidents that are the subject of this proceeding, Ms. Sanders had not been subject to any disciplinary action. On March 6, 2012, the Duval County school district launched the investigation that resulted in the January 3, 2013, issuance of the Notice of Discipline. The investigators assigned by the school district were Mr. Thomas Scott, the district assessment coordinator, and Ms. Jessica Altman, a school district investigator. General FCAT Testing Duties and Responsibilities The Florida Department of Education issued a 2011-2012 Writing Test Administration Manual (DOE Manual) to govern and direct the process of administering the FCAT test. In order to ensure that the appropriate personnel were familiar with its contents, the DOE Manual provided that “[e]ven experienced district and school assessment coordinators and test administrators are responsible for reading and becoming familiar with all information in this manual.” Ms. Sanders was not a district or school assessment coordinator, or a test administrator. The DOE Manual establishes duties and responsibilities to be performed by the district assessment coordinator, school assessment coordinators, test administrators, and proctors for ensuring that standards for testing facilities, accommodations, pre-test and post-test procedures, and test administration are met. Other than general admonitions against violating test security applicable to anyone having exposure to the test or the process of its administration, the DOE Manual imposes no duties or responsibilities regarding FCAT testing on school administrators unless they hold one of the listed positions. Ms. Sanders has never participated in FCAT testing as a member of the school administration, properly leaving duties and responsibilities for testing to the assigned school assessment coordinator and test administrators. During FCAT testing, Ms. Sanders would generally go to her office and “let the testing coordinator and the teachers handle testing because they're the ones with the training and they're the ones with the expectation that they should handle it.” Ms. Sanders? position regarding her role in the FCAT-testing process is consistent with the DOE Manual. Windy Hill FCAT Assessment Coordinator At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Kasey Williams was the assigned FCAT school assessment coordinator for Windy Hill, having held that assignment for two years prior to the February 28, 2012, FCAT Writes exam. She had assisted as co-coordinator for a year previous to her assignment. Based on Ms. Williams? experience and training, Ms. Sanders had a justifiable expectation that she would be capable of performing the responsibilities assigned to her as set forth in the DOE Manual. As a result of personal issues unrelated to her employment, Ms. Williams routinely arrived late for work. Although the Windy Hill school workday started at 7:40 a.m., Ms. Williams? normal arrival time was between 8:00 and 8:10. Ms. Sanders was willing to accommodate Ms. Williams, allowing her to work a flexible schedule “as long as she was doing her job and making sure everything was taken care of and she was willing to stay late and make sure everything was handled.” Whether she stayed late is difficult to determine, since Ms. Williams rarely signed in and out of work, a task expected of and performed by other teachers and staff. In the weeks leading up to the administration of the FCAT test, Ms. Williams? personal issues had gotten to the point that she was observed crying on numerous occasions, walking out of her office on the telephone crying, and snapping at teachers and administrators. She was planning to move out of her home on the weekend following the FCAT test. Ms. Williams? job performance was affected by her personal situation. Pre-FCAT Staff Meeting Several weeks before the FCAT test, a meeting was held in Ms. Sanders? office to discuss preparations for the FCAT test. Attendees, in addition to Ms. Sanders, were Ms. Rebecca Nelson, Mr. Chris Bacca, and Ms. Branaii Kennell. Ms. Williams, as the school assessment coordinator, had been advised of the meeting and was expected to attend. As the participants were assembling, Ms. Williams “stuck her head in” and advised that she would not be attending the meeting, but rather had an unspecified meeting “off-campus.” The purpose of the off-campus meeting was not explained. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Williams knew of the pre-FCAT meeting, but chose to be elsewhere. When Ms. Williams made her brief appearance at the meeting, Ms. Sanders, consistent with her practice when teachers miss faculty or planning meetings, advised her to “make sure you get with. . . one of us and find out what you need to know.” Ms. Kennell knew that Ms. Williams was not at the meeting, but did not know why she was not there. In that regard, Ms. Sanders was not certain that Ms. Kennell had arrived for the meeting when Ms. Williams made her appearance. Items for discussion at the pre-FCAT staff meeting included where to do testing, assignment of teachers as administrators and proctors, accommodations for ESE students, the need for seating charts -- in general the “nitty-gritty things.” The issue of student seating was not discussed. Harris Hall, a large, carpeted multipurpose room with an elevated stage, was suggested as the testing location because students had been going to Harris Hall since the beginning of the year for collaborative writing labs and writer?s workshops. A consensus among the attendees developed that Harris Hall would be the setting that the children would be the most comfortable in, and would be an appropriate location for a preparatory Writer?s Camp and the FCAT testing. The plan was to have basic testing conducted on the floor level of Harris Hall, and to have ESE students test on the smaller stage level, with large flat-screen televisions and a white board used to visually separate the areas. The ESE teacher, Ms. Miller, was to be consulted to ensure that the arrangement was suitable to meet the accommodations required by her students? Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). If Ms. Miller decided that Harris Hall was not suitable to accommodate her students? IEPs, a different location would be provided. Ms. Williams did not follow up with Ms. Nelson about the meeting, and there was no evidence that she followed up with any other attendee. Ms. Williams? testimony that, by holding the pre-FCAT meeting as previously scheduled, “[m]y administrator chose to pretty much coordinate the FCAT without me” is not supported by the evidence, and is rejected. Based almost entirely on Ms. Williams? self-serving statements, Mr. Scott determined, and made part of his report, that Ms. Williams was “excluded” from the meeting. Mr. Scott?s investigatory finding is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Harris Hall Preparation As the FCAT test approached, and in order to ensure that Harris Hall could accommodate students for the Writer?s Camp and the FCAT test, Ms. Sanders prepared a rough sketch showing tables and chairs on the floor level and the stage of Harris Hall. Ms. Sanders gave the sketch, which included the dates on which the tables and chairs were needed, to the school custodian. The sketch was not intended to be a seating chart, but was for the purpose of making sure that tables and chairs were brought to Harris Hall so that the teachers and test administrators involved in the Writer?s Camp and the FCAT test would not have to get them on their own. It was then the responsibility of the test administrators to arrange them, and to make the final decisions as to where the children were to sit. Writer?s Camp A “Writer?s Camp” designed to familiarize students with, and prepare them for, the FCAT test has been conducted at Windy Hill for at least five years. A writer?s camp was conducted at Holiday Hill Elementary School during the period when Ms. Sanders was the principal and Ms. Nelson was the instructional coach, and was implemented at Windy Hill when Ms. Sanders and Ms. Nelson were reassigned to Windy Hill. The purpose of Writer?s Camp is to recognize the work of the students over the course of the year, and to build up their confidence through guest speakers and activities. The Windy Hill Writer?s Camp has become a model that is used at other schools in the district. Ms. Sanders had been asked by Sylvia Johnson, a district school administrator, to use her program as a model for other schools. In order to implement that request, Ms. Nelson has met with principals and fourth- grade teachers at elementary schools in the district to instruct them on developing writer?s camps at their schools. The Windy Hill Writer?s Camp was generally the same as camps operated in at least six other elementary schools in the district. Writer?s Camp was to be held on February 21-24 and 27, 2013 in Harris Hall. Ms. Sanders authorized teachers who had been designated as test administrators for the FCAT test to develop the expectations for the camp, identify the speakers, develop the lessons, and plan how the students were to be broken into small groups. The agenda and schedule were developed by Ms. Nelson, Ms. Kennell, Mr. Bacca, and Ms. Hurst working as a team. Ms. Sanders did not participate in the planning. Rather, she provided the teachers and Ms. Hurst with the opportunity to work together. Consistent with the written schedule developed by the planning group, Writer?s Camp was held for several hours per day for five days preceding the FCAT test, commencing on Tuesday, February 21, 2012. Writer?s Camp did not take up the entirety of the school day, though it did focus on writing for more than the normal period. For the five days on which Writer?s Camp was held, the written schedule allotted a total of 10 hours for Writer?s Camp. The remaining 18.5 hours of the scheduled portion of the school days were to be devoted to math and science instruction, recess, lunch, “resource/common planning,” and “share time.” The written schedule generally reflected what was done on those days. During the period that Writer?s Camp was ongoing, Ms. Payne found sufficient time to teach math and science in her classroom. Ms. Kennell testified that she did not teach other subjects except to go over homework and worksheets during the days on which Writer?s Camp was held, but admitted that it is up to the teacher?s discretion as to how much time they spend on various subjects in their classroom. Ms. Boney testified that she could not teach math to her fourth-grade students because of their participation in Writer?s Camp. She acknowledged that she had up to two hours per day for subjects other than Writer?s Camp, which time included lunch, recess, and bathroom breaks. The greater weight of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence in this case indicates that there was sufficient time during the day for instruction in math and reading to take place, though not to the extent that it might have been taught without Writer?s Camp. The fact that Ms. Kennell and Ms. Boney felt that they were unable to teach other subjects appears to be a function of their own classroom organization, rather than a lack of time. After the FCAT Writes test, most teachers temporarily increased their focus on other subjects so as to equalize the time spent on each subject. A district math coach came to Windy Hill for five Fridays after the FCAT test was done for a kind of informal math camp. Ms. Payne chose to take advantage of the math coach and as a result believed that her students did not lose out on any math instruction as a result of Writer?s Camp. Ms. Boney did not opt to use the services of the district math coach for reasons that were not well explained, although Ms. Kennell and Ms. Boney had their students do “double block math” the week following Writer?s Camp so that they did not miss anything. Since the specifics of classroom instruction are up to each teacher?s discretion, the manner by which Ms. Kennell and Ms. Boney chose to make up the class time was by no means improper. There is nothing inappropriate in concentrating on writing leading up to the FCAT Writes test, as long as there is a greater emphasis on the other subjects after the FCAT Writes test is complete. In that regard, Mr. Scott acknowledged that a school may conduct a writer?s camp at the temporary expense of instruction in other subjects, as long as the time for those other subjects is balanced out with greater instruction at a later time.1/ Even though he acknowledged that a balancing of instructional time was appropriate, Mr. Scott did not discuss the Writer?s Camp with Mr. Bacca, Ms. Payne, or Ms. Nelson, did not receive or review the written schedule and curriculum, and did not ask the fourth-grade teachers whether time in Writer?s Camp had been subsequently balanced out with time devoted to other subjects. As justification for his failure to ask questions that would reasonably bear on whether the Writer?s Camp violated section 1008.22(4), Mr. Scott testified that “writing camp had been done in the past and it was not precedent . . . for there to be a math camp or for there to be a reading camp.” Mr. Scott?s assumption was without any support in the record of his investigation or of this proceeding. Despite his failure to review the written schedule or to conduct meaningful interviews regarding the issue, Mr. Scott testified as to his understanding that students “spent five days in Harris Hall preparing for the FCAT Writes by doing practice prompts and that type of thing,” and that “from what I gathered,” Writer?s Camp was all day long. Mr. Scott?s understanding of the Writer?s Camp schedule is unsupported by competent, substantial, and credible evidence in the record. What is clear from the record of this proceeding is that Writer?s Camp did not take up the entire day on the days of its administration, and that the time spent on focusing on writing before the FCAT test was “balanced out” with greater instruction in other subjects the following week. The manner in which such balancing was accomplished was within the discretion of the classroom teachers, and was not the decision of Ms. Sanders or the school administration. The School Assessment Coordinator Engages Ms. Williams was an experienced school assessment coordinator. Ms. Sanders had no reason to doubt that Ms. Williams would fail to perform her duties as the school assessment coordinator as she had done in the past in a very reliable fashion. Having assigned responsibility for the FCAT test preparations to the person designated in the DOE Manual as having such responsibility, a person she reasonably believed to be a competent member of her staff, Ms. Sanders was not remiss in having confidence that Ms. Williams would perform her duties. Ms. Williams made no effort to engage in planning for the upcoming FCAT test until February 22, 2012, the day after Writer?s Camp started, and four school days before the FCAT test was to be administered. On that date, Ms. Williams sent an e-mail to Ms. Sanders in which she stated that “[t]his one snuck up on me.”2/ She then testified at the hearing that “the FCAT always snuck up on us.” The evidence demonstrates that remainder of the staff appeared to be fully engaged in their preparations for the FCAT test, including Writer?s Camp. The only person that the FCAT “snuck up on” was the person with the greatest assigned and expected responsibilities, Ms. Williams. Ms. Sanders responded to Ms. Williams? February 22, 2012, e-mail by suggesting that Ms. Nelson would help with the selection of proctors. Proctors were thereafter selected, and were in attendance during the administration of the FCAT test. Ms. Sanders also advised Ms. Williams that Ms. Turner would “send information” to the teachers and proctors about picking up the manual on Friday, and meeting on Monday afternoon for training. Ms. Turner had no specific recollection of sending information, but it would have been consistent with her normal practice of complying with Ms. Sanders? requests to have done so. Ms. Sanders responded and assisted Ms. Williams in a reasonable and appropriate manner. Her offer of modest assistance cannot reasonably be construed as an assumption of control over the duties of the school assessment coordinator. In the days following her February 22, 2012, e-mail, Ms. Williams did little to fulfill her duties as the school assessment coordinator. The only “preparation” performed by Ms. Williams involved her effort to locate partitions that she believed should have been placed at the testing tables to create visual barriers between students. As will be discussed in detail herein, Ms. Williams? belated effort to obtain partitions was rushed and disorganized. More to the point, there is little in the way of competent, substantial, and credible evidence that Ms. Sanders was told of Ms. Williams? efforts until minutes before the test was to begin. The DOE Manual requires that the school assessment coordinator train test administrators and proctors prior to the test. Such training is typically performed well in advance of the test. Ms. Williams determined that she could fulfill her obligation to train test administrators by providing them with copies of the DOE Manual on the afternoon before the FCAT test for them to review on their own. Ms. Williams asserted that she typed up “brief training notes” to hand out with the DOE Manual, though no other witness mentioned having received notes from Ms. Williams. With her distribution of the DOE Manuals, Ms. Williams “preparations” for the FCAT test were complete. February 28, 2012 - Testing Day On the day of FCAT testing, Ms. Williams showed up for work at approximately 8:10 a.m. Ms. Williams saw no problem with arriving late to work on testing day because, with regard to the necessary preparations, “usually most of it's done prior to the morning of testing.” To the extent that FCAT preparations were done, they were done in spite of her lack of preparation. Ms. Turner encountered Ms. Williams as Ms. Williams arrived for work. It appeared to Ms. Turner that Ms. Williams was having emotional problems as she was teary-eyed and visibly upset. Ms. Turner went with Ms. Williams to her office due to her concern for Ms. Williams? well-being. Ms. Turner spoke with Ms. Williams about her needing to move, her having ongoing family issues, and it having been a rough night for her. Ms. Turner knew that Ms. Williams had responsibilities for the administration of the test, and wanted to make sure that she was alright. Ms. Williams? account of the discussion differs from that of Ms. Turner. Ms. Williams testified that Ms. Turner “spent 40 minutes in my office berating me.” She further testified that Ms. Turner instructed her to pack her things and get ready to leave campus, a statement finding no support in the investigative report or otherwise in the record of this proceeding. The preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence adduced at the hearing fails to support a finding that Ms. Turner berated Ms. Williams on the morning of the FCAT test, that she interfered with Ms. Williams? duties as school assessment coordinator, or that she suggested to Ms. Williams that she needed to leave the school campus while the FCAT test was ongoing. Ms. Williams estimated that her discussion with Ms. Turner lasted for approximately 40 minutes. Accepting Ms. Williams? time estimate, she began to distribute FCAT test materials to the test administrators at approximately 8:50 a.m. Each of the four test administrators received his or her tests and materials in turn, counted them, and signed for them. The process took, in Ms. Williams? estimation, a total of ten minutes. According to the security logs, Ms. Kennell entered Harris Hall at 8:50 a.m., Mr. Bacca and Ms. Miller at 9:00 a.m., and Ms. Nelson at 9:20 a.m. By the time Ms. Williams got to Harris Hall, the students were assembled “in the front corner with Mr. Bacca reading a book or talking to them.” Since Mr. Bacca entered Harris Hall with his materials at 9:00 a.m., the time necessary for him to put his things down, assemble a group of fourth-grade students, and start to read to them, suggests that Ms. Williams showed up well after 9:00 a.m. for the 9:30 a.m. test. The circumstances regarding Ms. Williams? appearance in Harris Hall, and the testing conditions that form the grounds for the School Board?s Notice of Discipline, will be discussed in detail herein. Ms. Williams returned to her office. Ms. Sanders then delivered her pep talk to the students. The talk was brief, whereupon Ms. Sanders went to her office. Ms. Sanders had no further involvement with the testing. At the conclusion of the pep talk, Ms. Nelson took about 17 high-performing students to Room 21 for testing because that was where they had received the majority of their writing instruction during the year. The remaining students were individually seated by the test administrators. The basic students were seated at tables at the floor level of Harris Hall, and the ESE Students were seated at tables on the stage. Ms. Miller, the ESE teacher, and the person most qualified and knowledgeable about her students? IEPs and accommodations, had no issue with her students being tested on the stage. There was no evidence that the accommodations for the ESE students included anything other than additional time for testing. Mr. Scott was critical of the arrangement, testifying that if a prompt had to be read to an ESE student, other students probably would have heard it. However, Mr. Scott did not review any of the IEPs to determine what accommodations were provided, did not know whether any verbal prompts were necessary or required, and otherwise had no evidence to suggest that the testing of the ESE students had the potential to, or did, cause a disruption to any student being tested in Harris Hall. After the students were seated, Mr. Bacca read the testing scripts to the students and testing commenced. Mr. Bacca gave the students the required warning with ten minutes remaining, and the basic testing ended as scheduled without incident. At the conclusion of basic testing, and after a short break, Ms. Miller?s ESE students resumed testing in Room 21, which had been vacated by Ms. Nelson?s students. There, they were accommodated with additional time to complete their tests. Although Mr. Scott found it unusual for students to move during the break, there was no allegation or proof that allowing the ESE students to complete their testing in Room 21 was improper or a violation of FCAT testing protocols. In any event, there is no evidence that Ms. Sanders was aware of the move. Ms. Kennell, Mr. Bacca, and Ms. Nelson took their completed test materials, which included the tests themselves, student work papers, scripts, security logs, and other documents to Ms. Williams as required. Although the test administrators were to have turned in their seating charts to Ms. Williams, they did not. Ms. Williams did not ask the test administrators about their seating charts. Further issues regarding the seating charts that form a basis for the School Board?s Notice of Discipline, will be discussed in detail herein. After basic testing was complete, Ms. Williams left the school campus. Further issues regarding Ms. Williams? departure that form a basis for the School Board?s Notice of Discipline, will be discussed in detail herein. After Ms. Williams left campus, Ms. Miller completed the FCAT testing of her ESE students. She gave the testing materials to Ms. Turner, who placed them in Ms. Williams? locked and secured office. The Investigation After the conclusion of the FCAT test, a report was made to the school district that Mr. Bacca had received information regarding the testing prompt, and that he had shared that information with other teachers. The report resulted in the initiation of an investigation to determine the merits of the complaint. The investigation was assigned to Mr. Scott and Ms. Altman. At approximately 9:30 on the morning of March 6, 2012, Mr. Scott sent an e-mail to Ms. Williams advising her that he would be coming to the school later that morning to start an investigation of the complaint. Ms. Williams was with Ms. Kennell when the e-mail was received. Ms. Kennell told Ms. Williams that she believed the investigation was related to Mr. Bacca and the testing prompt. Mr. Scott and Ms. Atwater arrived at Windy Hill at approximately 10:30 a.m. and went to see Ms. Sanders. Mr. Scott advised Ms. Sanders of the nature of his investigation, and requested Ms. Sanders? cooperation in making teachers available for interviews. Ms. Sanders agreed to do so. Ms. Sanders expressed her support for her teachers, and advised Mr. Scott of her belief that the fourth-grade teachers at Windy Hill would not cheat on the FCAT test. During their initial discussion, Ms. Sanders advised Mr. Scott of her concerns with Ms. Williams, and described some of her recent emotional difficulties. Ms. Sanders made inquiry as to the process for changing the school?s assessment coordinator before the next round of tests. Mr. Scott provided the information to Ms. Sanders, which she subsequently implemented, assigning Ellen Rubens to be the assessment coordinator for the next round of FCAT testing. Ms. Sanders walked with Mr. Scott through the school, and showed him the testing rooms. During their tour, Ms. Sanders engaged in a very general discussion of Writer?s Camp and of the reasons that Harris Hall was selected for testing. She showed Mr. Scott the student papers that remained on the walls of Harris Hall. At the time of the tour, Ms. Sanders did not know whether the papers had been covered at time of test, and Mr. Scott asked no questions about them. Mr. Scott and Ms. Atwater interviewed a number of students, along with Ms. Williams, Mr. Bacca, Ms. Payne, Ms. Kennell, and Ms. Boney. Brief questionnaires used by Mr. Scott for his teacher interviews were preserved. During the interviews, Ms. Nelson, who was a test administrator during the FCAT test and a participant in the pre- FCAT staff meeting, stuck her head into the room and asked Mr. Scott and Ms. Altman if they needed to see her. They indicated that they did not. Ms. Nelson was never interviewed. On March 8, 2012, Mr. Scott and Ms. Altman returned to Windy Hill to continue their interviews with the five teachers previously interviewed. The thrust of the investigation remained the allegation that Mr. Bacca had learned of the prompt prior to the FCAT test. Ms. Sanders allowed Mr. Scott to use her office to continue the interviews. After Ms. Kennell appeared for her interview, Ms. Sanders received a call from counsel for the Duval Teachers Union, David Hertz, who asked her to advise the teachers and the investigators that he was in route to the school, and to ask them to postpone further discussions until his arrival. Ms. Sanders did not know who called Mr. Hertz. Ms. Sanders complied with Mr. Hertz?s request, and acted appropriately in doing so. Mr. Scott believed that Ms. Sanders? act of advising the teachers of Mr. Hertz?s request was somehow improper, commenting that “[i]t?s very unusual for a principal to tell us that the Union lawyer is on their way.” He further testified that Ms. Sanders “inhibit[ed]” his investigation and “cause[d] a delay in some of the information happening quickly.” While Ms. Scott may have preferred to conduct his investigation free from the interference of the teachers? legal counsel, there is no evidence that Ms. Sanders had any intent or reason to hinder the investigation when she forwarded Mr. Hertz?s message, or that by so doing she inhibited the investigation. Rather, her actions were reasonable, appropriate, and in keeping with the legal rights of the teachers. During one of the two days that she was on campus, Ms. Altman advised Ms. Sanders to speak with her staff, instruct them not to discuss the investigation, and advise them that progressive discipline could result if they discussed the investigation amongst themselves. Further issues regarding Ms. Sanders? delivery of Ms. Altman?s message will be discussed in detail herein. On or about March 12, 2012, Mr. Hertz provided the investigators with written statements from Ms. Kennell, Mr. Bacca, and Ms. Boney. Follow-up interviews with those three teachers were conducted on March 13, 2012. Approximately two weeks after the test, and after Mr. Scott and Ms. Altman had completed their interviews, Ms. Williams discovered the Writer?s Camp papers and decorations that remained on the walls of Harris Hall. Ms. Williams photographed the papers, and sent the photographs to Ms. Altman. No cheating regarding the testing prompt was uncovered in the investigation. The FCAT Writes test scores were validated by DOE, and the writing scores were released and counted as part of Windy Hill?s school grade announced in June or July of 2012. At some indeterminate point, the investigation turned from one regarding the testing prompt to one directed at Ms. Sanders for alleged violations of testing conditions. After the focus of the investigation turned to Ms. Sanders, neither Mr. Scott nor Ms. Altman saw fit to conduct further interviews of Ms. Sanders or any other member of the Windy Hill staff regarding specific testing improprieties, including those for which allegations of disciplinary conduct against Ms. Sanders were sustained. The bulk of the information relied upon by the investigators to sustain allegations against Ms. Sanders came from Ms. Williams. Mr. Scott had previously worked with Ms. Williams, and believed her to be “a reliable test coordinator.” Mr. Scott glossed over the possible effect that Ms. Williams? personal issues may have had on the performance of her duties as the school assessment coordinator, testifying that in her interviews “[s]he was the same Kasey I had known the year before.” When asked about his unquestioning acceptance of Ms. Williams? statements, Mr. Scott testified as follows: Q: Because [Ms. Williams] was somebody who's been in your classes, you've worked with her, you've trained her, right? And you just assumed that she was telling you the truth, didn't you? I had no other reason to believe she was not. As will be discussed herein, Ms. Williams? had a clear self-interest in covering for her inadequacies. At the very least she had her attention directed to other concerns as the FCAT test approached, failed to make any meaningful preparations for the FCAT test, neglected her duty to train the test administrators and proctors, and knowingly falsified seating charts that she submitted to the Department of Education. Mr. Scott went to considerable effort to minimize and dismiss the failings of Ms. Williams. After having admitted that Ms. Williams should have called his office with her purported concerns, as was standard procedure for all school assessment coordinators, Mr. Scott stated that “I don't think she felt comfortable that she could do that. I had to give her a comfort level to do that without retribution.” He further testified that Ms. Williams “was a person who did not feel comfortable calling my office because of retribution, as indicated by all the teachers I spoke to, other than Mr. Bacca maybe.” Finally, he testified that “I felt that one of the reasons Kasey did not report and that they didn't, they feel there's retribution. They were very, very fearful that day in that room giving me testimony. There was -- fearful of retribution, what might happen in terms of their jobs.” There is not a scintilla of competent, substantial, and credible evidence that Ms. Sanders expressed, implied, or intimated that there would be retaliation for anything associated with the FCAT test before, during, or after its administration. Furthermore, there is no evidence of retaliatory action being meted out for anything related to the FCAT test or subsequent investigation, despite the almost ten months that passed between the commencement of the investigation and the date of the disciplinary notice. The suggestion that Ms. Williams? description of events is entitled to any degree of credibility due to her professed fears of “retaliation,” is rejected. The investigators? unquestioning acceptance of Ms. Williams? account of events -- particularly in light of their failure to interview material witnesses and to review “best-evidence” materials, including the Writer?s Camp schedule and the recording of the March 7, 2012, faculty staff meeting -- causes the undersigned to seriously question the completeness and accuracy of the conclusions drawn from the investigation. In October 2012, more than seven months after the commencement of the investigation, Ms. Altman typed her first draft report. All notes of the student and teacher interviews that formed the basis of the report were then destroyed by Ms. Altman. On or about October 20, 2012, Ms. Altman sent her first draft report to the chief human resource officer for the school district, Ms. Young, for her review and comments. Ms. Young provided written comments and returned the edited draft document to Ms. Altman. The original draft report and Ms. Young?s comments were then destroyed by Ms. Altman. The only version of the investigative report entered into evidence is the version created after the School Board voted to sustain the demotion of Ms. Sanders. Copies of the investigative report created prior to the time that the School Board voted to demote Ms. Sanders were destroyed. Upon finalization of the investigative report, Ms. Young prepared and sent a memorandum to Nikolai Vitti, the Superintendant of Schools, that provided the results of the investigation, outlined the investigators? findings, and sustained the allegations against Ms. Sanders, concluding that the evidence “proves the allegation(s) to be true. The Superintendant of Schools had the disciplinary matter referred to the School Board with a recommendation for Ms. Sanders? demotion from the position of principal, and reassignment to the position of assistant principal. The Charges On January 3, 2013, Ms. Sanders was provided with notice of her recommended demotion when she was called to Ms. Young?s office and handed the Notice of Discipline. Prior to that time, Ms. Sanders assumed that the investigation into improprieties in the FCAT Writes test was closed, since the scores had been validated and released, and the school grade announced. She did not know that she was the target of an investigation, and had been provided with no opportunity to respond or to provide information regarding her role, or lack thereof, in any of the specific allegations. Ms. Sanders, through her counsel, requested an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the School Board took action at its January 7, 2013, meeting. On the day of the School Board meeting, the request was denied. Ms. Sanders was advised that she would have an opportunity to speak at the School Board meeting. During the School Board meeting, Ms. Sanders again asked for time to respond to the allegations before action was taken. Her request, along with similar requests made by between 20 and 30 attendees, was denied. The School Board approved the report, and voted to demote Ms. Sanders to the position of assistant principal. Ms. Sanders challenged the action of the School Board, and this proceeding ensued. The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders “directed staff to violate testing protocols, failed to report violations that were known to her at the time of the administration of the test, and made inappropriate comments to staff regarding the investigation of the reported infractions.” The specific testing protocols alleged to have been violated by Sanders, as reflected in Ms. Young?s memorandum sustaining the allegations, are identified and addressed as follows: 1008.22(4) - Writer?s Camp The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders violated section 1008.22(4) by “suspending a regular program of curricula for purposes of administering practice tests or engaging in other test-preparation activities for a statewide assessment.” Ms. Sanders was never interviewed about her involvement with the Writer?s Camp, how it was set up, or how many hours of the day it was held. The circumstances of the planning and conduct of the Writer?s Camp are set forth in detail above. The evidence demonstrates that the Writer?s Camp was developed and administered for the purpose of administering practice tests and engaging in test preparation activities that were determined by Windy Hill faculty and their education consultant to be appropriate to familiarize students with the organization, format, and directions for the FCAT test. The evidence demonstrates that the Windy Hill Writer?s Camp was accepted by the district office as a model for use in other schools, and was, in fact, implemented at other Duval County schools. The assumption made by Mr. Scott that Writer?s Camp was a day-long event that subsumed the regular curricula, was made without having reviewed the actual schedule and without having interviewed material witnesses, and is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The increased time that was devoted to allowable FCAT test preparation activities during the five-day Writer?s Camp was balanced out with greater instruction in math and other subjects over the following weeks, a practice recognized as appropriate by Mr. Scott. The School Board has failed to prove that the Writer?s Camp was contrary to the allowable scope of activities described in section 1008.22(4)(e) by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence in this proceeding. 1008.24(1) - Test Security The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders violated section 1008.24(1) by “knowingly and willfully” violating test security rules for the following specified reasons: Failure to follow security rules for distribution and return of secure test as directed, or failure to account for all secure test materials before, during and after testing. The facts underlying this count are those related to the allegation that Ms. Sanders did not allow Ms. Williams to monitor testing rooms, and that Ms. Sanders did not allow Ms. Williams to supervise make-up administrations, both of which were pled as violations of the DOE Manual. The specific findings that apply to this count are set forth in detail in the analysis of the corresponding DOE Manual violation counts, which are incorporated as to this count. In addition to the findings of fact incorporated in this analysis, the evidence demonstrates that FCAT test materials were distributed and accounted for in compliance with applicable standards before and during the FCAT test. The only potential irregularity in the return of the completed FCAT tests was that occasioned by Ms. Williams? decision to leave campus to attend to her personal affairs before ESE testing was complete. To ensure the integrity of Ms. Miller?s test materials in Ms. Williams? absence, Ms. Turner accepted those tests and locked them in Ms. Williams? office pending her return. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Sanders did not know of Ms. Williams? departure from campus prior to the completion of testing on February 28, 2012, nor was she advised of Ms. Turner?s acceptance of Ms. Miller?s ESE class FCAT tests. In light of the findings of fact made regarding Ms. Williams? ability to monitor testing rooms and supervise make-up administrations, the School Board has failed to prove by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence that Ms. Sanders “knowingly and willfully” failed to follow security rules for the distribution and return of the FCAT test and testing materials as directed, or that she “knowingly and willfully” failed to account for all FCAT tests and testing materials before, during, and after testing. Failure to follow test administration directions specified in the test administration manuals The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders “knowingly and willfully” failed to follow test administration directions specified in the test administration manuals. The DOE Manual provides that it is the responsibility of the test administrator to administer the FCAT test in accordance with the directions. The greater weight of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence demonstrates that the test administration directions, including scripts and prompts, were followed to the letter. The only potential breach was that of Ms. Kennell, who told the students that they should not forget their conclusions as the test was winding down. There is absolutely no evidence that Ms. Sanders was advised of that possible minor irregularity. There is no evidence in the record of this proceeding that Ms. Sanders failed to follow test administration directions specified in the test administration manuals. The School Board has failed to prove by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence that Ms. Sanders “knowingly and willfully” failed to follow test administration directions specified in the test administration manuals. Participate in, direct, aid, counsel, assist in, or encourage any of the acts prohibited in this section. By this count, the School Board has, essentially, thrown the kitchen sink at Ms. Sanders in a broad and general count with little specificity. Thus, the undersigned concludes that the only way this count can be addressed, consistent with accepted tenets of due process, is to limit the “acts prohibited in this section” to those pled and specifically identified elsewhere. In addressing this count, the undersigned incorporates the findings of fact as to each of the acts alleged in the Notice of Discipline. In light of the findings of fact made as to each of the acts alleged in the Notice of Discipline, the School Board has failed to prove by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence that Ms. Sanders “knowingly and willfully” participated in, directed, aided, counseled, assisted in, or encouraged any act alleged to have violated the provisions of section 1008.22 or section 1008.24, the DOE Manual, or the educators? Code of Ethics. Violations of the DOE Manual The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to adhere to the following requirements of the DOE Manual: School Assessment Coordinator not able to monitor testing rooms: The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders caused Ms. Williams, the school assessment coordinator, to be unable to monitor the testing rooms in accordance with the DOE Manual. As set forth previously herein, Ms. Williams appeared in Harris Hall on the morning of February 28, 2012, well after 9:00 a.m. Students had already assembled, and Mr. Bacca was reading to them. Ms. Sanders had entered the room, was speaking with students, and was preparing to deliver her “pep talk.” When she entered Harris Hall, Ms. Williams was still visibly upset. She began to gather, count, and place and tape partitions onto the tables, which will be discussed in greater detail herein. The evidence supports Ms. Sanders impression that Ms. Williams “was stressed out and she was stressing teachers and students out.” In order to minimize the effect of Ms. Williams? hurried efforts, and to avoid “a big discussion about whether or not we were going to use those partitions in front of the students right before their test started,” Ms. Sanders recommended that Ms. Williams return to her office in order to start to normal testing procedures. Ms. Sanders? request that Ms. Williams return to her office was driven in part by the need to have the FCAT test started on time. During the FCAT test, all of the other children at the school are on “lockdown” to minimize movement around the school and potential distractions for the fourth- grade students being tested. Essentially, everyone stays in place until basic testing is finished. Therefore, it was important that the testing be started on time so as to be completed by lunchtime. In order to ensure that testing staff can quickly locate the assessment coordinator if needed, it has been the normal FCAT testing protocol at Windy Hill for the assessment coordinator to be located at a central location when the testing is in progress, typically in the assessment coordinator?s office. It had been determined during previous tests that the assessment coordinator should not be “roaming” about the school grounds. Thus, the instruction that Ms. Williams return to her office was consistent with the standard testing protocol at Windy Hill, and was not a new or unusual practice. Windy Hill staff members not engaged in test administration are stationed in or near the assessment coordinator?s office to act as “runners” at the direction of the assessment coordinator in the event of an emergency, which can range from a student getting sick to an unauthorized person walking into the testing area. However, there is nothing to prevent the assessment coordinator from personally handling an incident. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that, although Ms. Sanders advised Ms. Williams to return to her office to start the testing process, she did not direct Ms. Williams “to go to her office and stay there,” or tell Ms. Williams that she could not leave her office. To the extent Ms. Williams remained in her office during the basic testing, such was consistent with the normal testing protocol at Windy Hill. Mr. Scott?s conclusions that Ms. Williams “was constrained” from performing her duties as a school assessment coordinator, and his statement that “Ms. Sanders chose to take over that responsibility [of assessment coordinator] when she sent Ms. Williams to her office,” both of which were based predominantly on Ms. Williams? statements, are contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and are rejected. Basic testing was completed prior to 11:00 a.m. Mr. Bacca, Ms. Kennell, and Ms. Nelson returned their testing materials to Ms. Williams at that time. Ms. Miller moved her ESE students to Room 21 to complete their testing so that Harris Hall could be freed up for other uses. Therefore, Ms. Miller did not return the test materials for her students to Ms. Williams when basic testing was completed. After the return of the basic testing materials, but while Ms. Miller?s ESE student tests were still out, Ms. Williams went to the office of Jennifer Green, the school?s speech pathologist.3/ Ms. Green?s office is not in the same building as Ms. Williams? office. Ms. Williams admitted that she was emotionally upset as she sat in Ms. Green?s office, but attributed it to Ms. Turner?s interaction with her earlier that morning. She further testified that she had gone to Ms. Green?s office “to ask her to take care of some things that needed to be taken care of while I was forced off campus.” Having previously found that Ms. Williams was not forced off campus by Ms. Turner, Ms. Williams? testimony that she was emotionally upset as a result of anything to do with the FCAT test or her duties as the school assessment coordinator is not accepted. Ms. Turner received the information that Ms. Williams was in Ms. Green?s office, upset and crying, and having a conversation with Ms. Green. She reported that information to Ms. Sanders, who instructed Ms. Turner that “if she?s finished testing, that?s fine with me. Tell her she can go home and do what she needs to do.” Since it was later in the day, Ms. Sanders believed that ESE testing had been completed, and could think of no reason for Ms. Williams to be in Ms. Green's office in a different building if testing had not been completed. Ms. Sanders testified credibly that her instruction to Ms. Turner was not intended to mean that Ms. Williams was to leave before testing was finished. The intent behind Ms. Sanders? instruction to Ms. Turner was one of compassion and support for Ms. Williams, allowing her to deal with what was understood by many at Windy Hill to be a difficult and troubling personal situation. There is no credible evidence that Ms. Sanders intended to restrict Ms. Williams from performing her duties as the school assessment coordinator if she was capable of doing so, or to authorize her departure from school grounds before testing was complete. After discussing the issue with Ms. Sanders, Ms. Turner spoke with Ms. Williams and told her that “if testing is finished, . . . why don't you go home. You've got some stuff going on. You're trying to move. You need to find a home, that kind of thing. Why don't you go home.” Ms. Turner testified credibly that she did not order Ms. Williams to leave the campus before testing was completed. Ms. Williams decided to act on the offer to go home. She advised Ms. Turner that she had not yet received tests from Ms. Miller. Ms. Turner, who considered herself to be a friend of Ms. Williams, and understood that she was upset and had been so since her arrival at school that morning, allowed her to leave even though the last of the tests had not been returned. Ms. Turner walked with Ms. Williams to her car. As with Ms. Sanders, Ms. Turner?s act was driven by concern for Ms. Williams? well-being. She testified credibly that she was not “marching” Ms. Williams out of the office. Ms. Turner?s account is accepted. After Ms. Williams? departure, Ms. Turner accepted the responsibility of taking delivery of Ms. Miller?s tests and testing materials in Ms. Williams? absence and, upon receipt, locked them in Ms. Williams? office for her to handle. Given the circumstances, that was the only viable course of action. There has been no suggestion in this case that any of Ms. Miller?s materials were missing, or that security was breached so as to cause the invalidation of the test scores. There is no evidence that Ms. Sanders knew that Ms. Williams left campus before testing was complete, or that Ms. Turner had agreed to accept delivery of Ms. Miller?s tests on her behalf. Ms. Sanders was never interviewed about her alleged instruction that Ms. Turner order Ms. Williams off campus while testing was ongoing. Despite the fact that Ms. Turner?s account of the incident would appear to be critical to any reasoned investigation, neither Mr. Scott nor Ms. Altman interviewed Ms. Turner. Mr. Scott -- either in an effort to discount Ms. Turner?s subsequent testimony or to minimize the effect of the failure to interview her -- testified that he “absolutely” believed, based on his “interactions with Ms. Turner” that Ms. Turner “was influenced by Ms. Sanders.” Since Mr. Scott did not interview Ms. Turner, those “interactions” are a mystery. In any event, there is no legitimate reason for an investigator to decline an interview with a material witness because of a subjective belief that the witness may have been influenced by events. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support a finding that Ms. Turner?s testimony in this case was shaded or influenced in any way by the fact that she served as Ms. Sanders? assistant principal. Although Mr. Scott understood that Ms. Turner “escorted” Ms. Williams off campus -- an understanding that is not supported by the evidence -- he was not able to determine that Ms. Sanders directed Ms. Williams to leave. In addition, Ms. Altman testified candidly that she uncovered no evidence or information that Ms. Sanders was aware that Ms. Williams left campus prior to the conclusion of the day?s testing. Mr. Scott?s determination that Ms. Sanders had taken over the testing process or assumed the responsibilities of the school assessment coordinator when she instructed Ms. Williams to return to her office, and later allowed her to go home to attend to her pressing personal affairs, is not supported by the evidence and is rejected. The School Board has alleged that the actions of Ms. Sanders resulted in the inability of the school assessment coordinator to monitor the testing rooms. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. Student Seating Seating Arrangements The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to ensure that students were seated at least three feet from one another, and that they were not facing one another. Testing in Harris Hall4/ was done at conference-type tables. The estimated size of the tables varied from Ms. Kennel?s estimate of 8 feet in length, to Ms. Boney?s estimate of 12 to 15 feet in length. The most persuasive evidence was that provided by Mr. Scott and Ms. Sanders who described the tables as being 10 feet in length. By applying simple mathematics, six students may be seated at a table 10 feet in length without being less than three feet apart.5/ There was no persuasive evidence as to the width of the tables. The only estimates provided were those of Ms. Williams, who described the width as “maybe” three feet plus a few inches, and Ms. Kennell, who described the tables as “maybe 3 feet wide.” The lack of competent, substantial evidence as to the width of the tables constitutes a failure of proof on the part of the School Board, the size of the tables being a material element of the allegation that students were seated too closely. Ms. Kennell testified that students were seated six to a table, with one on each end, and two on each side. Her testimony was persuasive that the students on the sides were facing the students on the other side. Even though the evidence supports a finding that students were seated facing each other -- though not that they were seated too close together -- that fact alone does not prove that such a violation was attributable to Ms. Sanders. The DOE Manual makes it clear that test administrators have the direct and primary responsibility to prepare the testing facilities, and includes the instruction that the test administrators are to: Arrange the room so the each student will have enough workspace for the test materials. There must be at least three feet between students. Make sure that students are not facing each other when seated at tables and are not in seating (stadium or staggered) that allows them to easily view other students? writing. The DOE Manual also makes it the responsibility of the school assessment coordinator to “[e]nsure that students are not facing each other when seated and are not in seating (stadium or staggered) that allows them to easily view other students? writing . . . . Make sure there is at least three feet between students to prevent cheating.” Neither the DOE Manual nor any other authority cited makes it the responsibility of a school principal to make decisions regarding student seating. Ms. Sanders testified convincingly that the decision as to how students were to be seated was best made by test administrators, stating that “I would not go into a teacher's classroom and say, you need to seat your children here, here, and here. That would be something a teacher would decide.” Her understanding is consistent with the duties and responsibilities established in the DOE Manual. Ms. Sanders? hand-drawn sketch was not a seating chart, and does not support an inference that Ms. Sanders had assumed responsibility or control from the school assessment coordinator and test administrators for seating students. If Ms. Williams had made a timely request for additional resources for the FCAT test, Ms. Sanders would have directed the school custodian to provide her with help and with what was needed before the test was to begin. There were more tables and chairs in the building and, if anyone had indicated that they were needed, there was ample time to have brought them to Harris Hall. No one suggested to Ms. Sanders that the students could not be properly seated, or that additional seating was needed. Ms. Sanders did not know how the test administrators and proctors arranged seating. She gave her motivational speech on the morning of testing, and left before students were seated. Ms. Kennell testified that the “teachers were responsible for the seating of the students. That wasn?t the principal?s duty.” Mr. Scott acknowledged that the test administrator is responsible for the administration of the FCAT test. As applied to the decision to seat students at the tables, he stated “[t]hat would have been [Mr. Bacca?s] responsibility.” Ms. Altman admitted that there was no evidence that Ms. Sanders ever directed that students sit less than three feet apart. The School Board has alleged that Ms. Sanders violated the DOE Manual regarding the seating of students for testing. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. Partitions Although not pled with specificity, the School Board argued that problems with seating -- if they had been proven -- could have been resolved if partitions had been used to separate students seated at the tables. Ms. Williams stated that “[w]e?ve been given permission from the District coordinator to use partitions in cases where we can?t sit them 3 feet apart.” Mr. Scott admitted that there was nothing in the DOE Manual that allows the use of dividers or partitions. Having reviewed the DOE Manual, the undersigned agrees that it does not address the issue. During the Writer?s Camp, partitions were not used to separate or divide students seated at a table. Ms. Hurst testified that it would not be appropriate to practice without dividers or partitions at tables, and then administer an exam with partitions and dividers in place. To do so would subject the students to different conditions, which would likely reflect on their performance. Ms. Williams first discussed the issue of partitions with Mr. Bacca on Friday, February 24, 2012. While Writer?s Camp was ongoing, Ms. Williams entered Harris Hall, apparently for the first time after she became aware of the FCAT test. She expressed her concern with student seating. Her concern was directed to the effect that improper seating arrangements might have on her certificate. Ms. Williams made her statements in the presence of the students who were participating in Writer?s Camp. Ms. Kennell testified that Ms. Williams “[w]asn?t any louder than she normally is.” Ms. Kennell thought that she may have been loud enough for students to hear, though she could not be certain if they did. In the investigative report, Mr. Bacca was reported to have stated that Ms. Williams expressed her concern that the decision to not use partitions would cause someone to lose their job in the presence of students, and that her statement had impacted the students in a negative way. Mr. Bacca?s statement as set forth in the investigative report is corroborated by Ms. Kennell?s testimony, both of which are accepted. By the time Mr. Bacca brought the issue of partitions to Ms. Sanders? attention, the practice testing was complete. Mr. Bacca and Ms. Sanders discussed the fact that the students had not practiced with partitions, which was a concern. Ms. Sanders recognized that dividers are not mentioned in the DOE Manual or DOE directions. She noted the size of the room, and thought that as long as the students were spaced out, they could be accommodated without dividers. There is no evidence that Mr. Bacca suggested that students could not be appropriately seated. For those reasons, it was decided that partitions would not be needed. Ms. Sanders understood that Mr. Bacca related their discussion to Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams did not thereafter seek to express her disagreement to Ms. Sanders, or to otherwise ask Ms. Sanders to explain the decision to her. Since the issue of student seating had been discussed as early as the pre-FCAT staff meeting, and since no one suggested to Ms. Sanders that students could not be seated with plenty of space, Ms. Sanders reasonably understood that the issue was being managed by the test administrators. Ms. Williams testified that she approached Ms. Sanders at a party being held at the home of “Pastor G” on Sunday, February 26, 2012, to inquire about where she could obtain some partitions. The alleged discussion was not corroborated by Ms. Sanders, who had no recollection of having had a discussion with Ms. Williams regarding partitions until the morning of the test. Given the totality of the evidence in this proceeding, the undersigned credits the testimony of Ms. Sanders. The investigative report indicates that Ms. Williams sent an e-mail to four teachers late in the evening of Sunday, February 26, 2012, indicating that she was in search of partitions to use on the following Tuesday morning. At some point prior to the FCAT test, Ms. Williams asked Ms. Turner if she knew where she could get some partitions. The most reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence is that the inquiry was made on Monday, February 27, 2012. Ms. Turner directed Ms. Williams to a third- grade teacher that she believed may have had some -- either Ms. Marcham or Ms. Boney. The discussion was limited to who might have had partitions, not whether or not they should be used. There is no evidence that Ms. Turner advised Ms. Sanders of the discussion. On Monday afternoon, Ms. Williams and Ms. Boney had a discussion regarding partitions. Ms. Boney had some partitions, but they were too flimsy. They discussed trying to get better ones and taping them down to the tables. In Ms. Boney?s opinion, the effort to get partitions was not planned out. By the morning of February 28, 2012, Ms. Kennell had located some pre-made partitions, and had some that had been made the day before by substitute teachers. She brought them to Harris Hall. She believed that she had plenty of time to go around and ask for more partitions. Her attempt would have been rushed, but she felt that she could have done it. Minutes before the test was to start, when Ms. Sanders had already begun speaking with students, Ms. Boney appeared in Harris Hall with some free-standing three-fold partitions. Others available on the morning of the test would have to have been taped down. Ms. Williams appeared at Harris Hall well after 9:00 a.m. on the morning of testing with the intent to set up partitions. As to the reason for her hurried and last minute efforts, Ms. Williams testified that “[w]e couldn?t set them up prior to [Tuesday morning] because we have car riders coming in and out of [Harris Hall] every day.” That purported reason is not consistent with the evidence as to the availability of partitions prior to the morning of the FCAT test. Ms. Williams did not know whether the number of partitions gathered up by Ms. Kennell and Ms. Boney was sufficient. Even as she was directed to return to her office, Ms. Williams stated to Ms. Sanders that “I don't know if there are enough partitions.” There is no competent, substantial evidence that, even if partitions were necessary, Ms. Williams had arranged for a sufficient number to be available before testing was to begin. Ms. Williams expressed her belief that in the few minutes remaining before testing was to begin, she could have counted out the partitions, gotten more if necessary, and placed the partitions and taped them to the tables without distracting students or disrupting test procedures. Ms. Williams? belief is far-fetched. After her arrival in Harris Hall, Ms. Williams commenced gathering up and placing partitions, not knowing whether there were enough to go around, in a hurried and agitated manner. Ms. Sanders justifiably felt that Ms. Williams? actions were detrimental to the students, and she did not want them to be upset before the testing began. Ms. Sanders instruction to Ms. Williams to return to her office so that testing could commence was an appropriate way of dealing with the issue given Ms. Williams rushed and disruptive efforts. It was not done with intent or effect of taking over the duties of the school assessment coordinator, or of assuming the responsibility of seating students. There is no evidence that Ms. Sanders? decision to forego the use of partitions was made with any understanding that students could not be appropriately seated at the tables and chairs available. She did not believe that partitions were allowed by the DOE Manual -- which they do not appear to be -- and was not aware of Mr. Scott?s ad hoc determination that they were allowable. There is no evidence that Ms. Sanders acted in any way except that calculated to be in the best interests of the students. Her actions were not designed or intended to encourage cheating amongst the students, to influence the test results, or for any improper purpose. The School Board did not allege the issue of partitions as a separate basis for its disciplinary decision apart from that of student seating. To the extent the issue is determined to be included as a basis for discipline, the School Board has failed to prove by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence that the decision to forego the use of partitions was unreasonable or improper under the circumstances, or that the decision violated any provision of the DOE Manual. Visual aids not removed or covered in testing room The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to ensure that visual aids in Harris Hall were removed or covered prior to the administration of the test. During Writer?s Camp, students practiced writing and did sample tests. As the camp progressed, certain pieces that were done by students were taped to the wall of Harris Hall, along with maps and materials related to local colleges and universities, and a large sign that said “Mapping Our Way to a “6”!” The papers and decorations from Writer?s Camp remained on the wall on the day of testing and after. As indicated previously, it is regarded as a sound practice for a school assessment coordinator to inspect the testing venue a day or two before the test, a practice acknowledged as appropriate by Mr. Scott. In that regard, the DOE Manual directs the school assessment coordinator as follows: “In your walk-through of the school prior to testing, check for and remove all unauthorized visual aids posted in classrooms or affixed to student desks.” Ms. Altman confirmed that it is the school assessment coordinator's responsibility to remove any unpermitted visual aid from the walls of the testing venue. As the trained school assessment coordinator, Ms. Williams was in the best position to recognize whether the papers and decorations were a problem, particularly since she had failed to conduct training for the test administrators and proctors that may have refreshed their knowledge of the issue. Ms. Williams testified that she could not inspect Harris Hall on the Monday prior to the test because students were, according to the schedule, having Writer?s Camp until 11:00 a.m. She testified that she could not perform her duty of walking through Harris Hall after Writer?s Camp was done for the day because “I believe I had a meeting off campus, so I was going to do things Tuesday morning.” That explanation is not credible. Ms. Williams met with Ms. Boney to discuss partitions, and distributed the DOE Manuals to test administrators on the Monday afternoon prior to the FCAT test. There was no suggestion that a purported “meeting off campus” interfered with those on-campus activities. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Williams had time to inspect Harris Hall if she had been interested enough to do so. Instead, she neglected her duty to inspect Harris Hall in any meaningful or timely manner prior to testing. Ms. Williams stated that she had no time to notice the items on the wall upon her appearance in Harris Hall on February 28, 2012, because she was told by Ms. Sanders to leave. Ms. Williams? suggestion that in the few minutes before testing was to commence she could have performed all of her duties regarding the testing venue that she should have done days in advance is unrealistic and rejected. Furthermore, there was no testimony as to how the assembled students may have reacted to a rushed and hurried act of tearing down their work, but common sense suggests that it would have been distracting at best, and likely upsetting to some. The DOE Manual provides that it is the responsibility of the test administrator to: Remove or cover all visual aids on student desks or displayed in the room, including word lists, spelling lists, word definitions, punctuation charts, transitional devices, organizational patterns, etc. Students may not have access to any unauthorized aids. Discuss any concerns with your school assessment coordinator. Ms. Kennell stated that the materials were not something that would be used by a teacher for instructing children. She understood that there were to be no instructional materials on the walls, but saw no need to take down the papers and decorations. Ms. Nelson was in Harris Hall a few days before the administration of the FCAT test to make sure the room was ready for testing. Ms. Nelson could not recall what was on the walls, but had she seen anything inappropriate, she would have taken it down or covered it up. Ms. Boney testified that she thought the materials were testing violations, but did not see fit to remove them because “[i]t wasn't my duty to take them off.” Not only did Ms. Boney take no steps to act on her purported concern, she did not tell anyone of her belief that the papers and decorations might be a violation. When Ms. Sanders entered Harris Hall on the morning of the test, her purpose was to deliver her “pep talk” to the children and leave. She did not inspect the room, and did not notice what was on the walls. No one, including Ms. Boney, suggested to Ms. Sanders that there was anything posted that would have been a concern. Having had an opportunity to review the photographs of the papers and decorations, Ms. Sanders did not believe that they were instructional materials. Since the materials contained no information regarding the prompt that was to be the subject of the February 28, 2012, test, she saw no reason to believe that the papers would help the students to do well on the test. The papers and decorations from Writer?s Camp do not correspond to the examples of prohibited visual aids provided by the DOE, i.e., they were not word lists, spelling lists, word definitions, punctuation charts, transitional devices, or organizational patterns. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the papers and decorations were not unauthorized visual aids. The School Board has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the materials on the walls were unauthorized visual aids, that Ms. Sanders ever saw the papers and decorations, or that Ms. Sanders, rather than the assessment coordinator or test administrators, was responsible for removing any such materials. Seating charts not properly maintained The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to ensure that seating charts were properly maintained. The February 28, 2012 FCAT test was the first FCAT test for which student seating charts were required. During the pre-FCAT planning meeting that Ms. Williams chose to skip, the requirement that student seating charts were to be made by the test administrators was briefly discussed. Ms. Kennell testified that, despite her attendance at the pre-FCAT planning meeting, she was unaware that she had to do a seating chart because she had not received the required training from Ms. Williams. Mr. Scott testified convincingly that it is the responsibility of the school assessment coordinator to train the test administrators to make seating charts and turn them in with the completed tests, and that it is the responsibility of the school assessment coordinator to collect the seating charts at the end of testing. Ms. Williams admitted that it was purely her duty to communicate the need for seating charts to the teachers, and that she knew of nothing in the DOE Manual that created a duty on the part of a school principal to do anything with regard to seating charts. Ms. Williams did not train the test administrators to make seating charts, or to turn them in with the completed tests, nor did she collect the seating charts at the end of testing. Ms. Williams testified that she instructed the teachers “at least six times” to make sure that they prepared seating charts. Her testimony was not substantiated by any other witness, and the suggestion that she provided multiple instructions to the test administrators is not credible. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Williams gave no instruction to the test administrators regarding seating charts. Ms. Nelson and Ms. Miller were able to glean sufficient information from the DOE Manual or otherwise to know that they were to prepare seating charts, and they did so. They did not, however, know enough to turn them in at the conclusion of testing with their testing materials. Mr. Bacca and Ms. Kennell did not maintain seating charts. On Friday, March 2, 2012, Ms. Williams administered the last of the make-up tests. As she prepared the tests and materials for submission to the DOE, she discovered that she did not have seating charts from any of the test administrators. She went to each of the four test administrators to ask for seating charts. Ms. Nelson and Ms. Miller gave her their charts. Mr. Bacca and Ms. Kennell did not have seating charts for the children in their classes. After make-up testing was complete, Ms. Turner was going to use the restroom located across the hall from Ms. Williams? office. Ms. Williams was having a discussion with one of the fourth-grade teachers about missing seating charts, and they made mention of the situation to Ms. Turner. Having never done a seating chart, and having not known of the requirement for seating charts until that moment, Ms. Turner advised Ms. Williams to figure out what she was supposed to do. Since she was not the school assessment coordinator or a test administrator, it was Ms. Turner?s expressed intent that the testing coordinator and the teachers having that knowledge figure out who was sitting where. Ms. Turner testified credibly that she did not suggest that Ms. Williams falsify the seating charts. Rather, she wanted it done accurately. In order to meet the requirement that she submit seating charts with the other test materials, Ms. Williams decided to make up seating charts “out of the clear blue sky.” As explanation for her falsification of the seating charts, Ms. Williams asserted that she was instructed to do so by Ms. Turner. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Turner did not instruct Ms. Williams to fabricate seating charts, or to otherwise act improperly in their preparation. Ms. Turner never discussed the issue of the seating charts with Ms. Sanders. Ms. Altman testified candidly that she uncovered no evidence or suggestion that Ms. Sanders was aware of any inaccuracy or problem in the seating charts, or that Ms. Sanders was otherwise involved with them. Despite the complete lack of evidence against Ms. Sanders with regard to the seating charts, Mr. Scott testified, based solely on Ms. Williams? self-serving statements, that Ms. Williams fabricated seating charts “at the request of Administration, from my understanding.” Mr. Scott never interviewed Ms. Turner or anyone else from “Administration” who may have had information regarding such a serious allegation. The undersigned would have not the least bit of hesitation in recommending the most severe sanctions available if the evidence suggested that Ms. Sanders, or any other person in authority, instructed Ms. Williams -- either directly or by any reasonable implication -- to falsify records. However, the preponderance of competent, substantial, and credible evidence in this case demonstrates that such an instruction was never given. Rather, when asked to perform her duty as the school assessment coordinator to see to it that seating charts were provided, Ms. Williams accomplished that task by simply making them up. The School Board has alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to properly maintain seating charts for the FCAT test. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. School assessment coordinator not able to supervise make-up administrations The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders prevented Ms. Williams from being able to supervise make-up FCAT test administrations. After having departed for the day on February 28, 2012, Ms. Williams e-mailed Ms. Sanders to ask if she could come back, finish the make-ups, and pack up tests. Ms. Sanders responded in the affirmative. In general, it was Ms. Sanders? expectation that Ms. Williams would make sure everything for the FCAT test was properly done and turned in. Ms. Nelson administered a make-up test on the morning of February 29, 2012. Ms. Williams should have, and could have, been on campus for that test but elected not to return since all of the make-up tests had not been completed. Ms. Williams? decision was hers, not Ms. Sanders?. Ms. Williams attended a training off-campus on March 1, 2012. She returned to campus and administered a make- up test on the morning of March 2, 2012. She thereupon packed up and delivered the testing materials to the district office. The evidence does not support a finding that Ms. Sanders either prevented or discouraged Ms. Williams from supervising make-up FCAT test administrations on February 29, 2012, or otherwise. The School Board has alleged that the actions of Ms. Sanders resulted in the inability of the school assessment coordinator to supervise make-up test administrations. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. No training for test administrators or proctors The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to ensure that test administrators and proctors received training. The DOE Manual provides that it is the responsibility of the district assessment coordinator to “ensure that all school administrators, school assessment coordinators, test administrators and proctors receive adequate training prior to test administration.” The district assessment coordinator failed to ensure that such training occurred. The DOE Manual further provides that the school assessment coordinator is responsible for training all test administrators and proctors. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Williams did not offer or perform training for test administrators and proctors. Neither the DOE Manual nor any other cited authority makes it the duty or responsibility of a school principal to conduct or ensure that test administrators and proctors have received training. Training of school assessment coordinators was held in mid-January, 2013 for the test to be administered in late February. The idea behind offering training well in advance is to provide plenty of time to prepare for the FCAT test and conduct the test properly. Ms. Kennell and Ms. Boney testified that training of test administrators and proctors is usually done weeks before the test. In her February 22, 2012, e-mail, Ms. Williams asked Ms. Sanders to help her to make arrangements for training. Ms. Sanders offered the modest assistance of Ms. Nelson and Ms. Turner. There is no evidence that such assistance was not provided. Under no reasonable assessment of the facts can Ms. Sanders? response to Ms. Williams be construed as an assumption of the duties of the school assessment coordinator to train test administrators and proctors. In lieu of training, Ms. Williams intended to provide copies of the DOE Manual to the fourth-grade teachers on the Friday before testing so they could read them over the weekend. She did not do so, blaming her neglect on Ms. Turner?s alleged -- but unsubstantiated -- failure to advise teachers and proctors to pick up manuals from Ms. Williams on that Friday. No test administrator or proctor received training from Ms. Williams. All Ms. Williams did to fulfill her duty was to give the test administrators copies of the DOE Manual on the afternoon before the FCAT test. The test administrators were thereafter left to their own devices. Ms. Kennell, who left campus on Monday afternoon before school let out, did not receive the DOE Manual until the morning of the FCAT test, and did not have an opportunity to read it. In her view, things were rushed and last minute. The evidence suggests that Ms. Williams did not give the test proctors, who were also entitled to training, a copy of the DOE Manual. Despite meeting with Ms. Williams on the afternoon of February 27, 2012 regarding partitions, Ms. Boney did not receive a DOE Manual or even minimal training. All Ms. Boney received was the “booklet” that she was to pass along to Ms. Kennell. Ms. Williams testified that she typed up “brief training notes,” and gave them to the test administrators along with the DOE Manuals. No other witness mentioned having received training notes. No training notes were introduced as evidence. The contents of the training notes were not described. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that training notes were not provided to test administrators. What is clear is that Ms. Williams failed to take any initiative to perform even the most rudimentary “training,” and made no meaningful effort to timely provide DOE Manuals to the test administrators and proctors, as was her job. Her failure in that regard was in spite of, and not because of, Ms. Sanders? offer of assistance. The evidence is overwhelming that Ms. Williams, due to her own neglect, failed to provide the training that was her responsibility under the DOE Manual. No one advised Ms. Sanders that Ms. Williams had not provided training. Ms. Altman, relying exclusively on Ms. Williams? account, concluded that Ms. Sanders and Ms. Nelson had prevented Ms. Williams from conducting the training. That conclusion was drawn without having interviewed Ms. Sanders or Ms. Nelson regarding FCAT training. The investigatory conclusion that Ms. Sanders prevented, prohibited, or blocked Ms. Williams from conducting FCAT training is not supported by a shred of competent, substantial, and credible evidence. Furthermore, the suggestion that Ms. Sanders either knew of or was responsible for Ms. Williams? misfeasance is without evidentiary support. The School Board has alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to properly adhere to the requirement in the DOE Manual regarding training for test administrators and proctors. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. Allegation of Failing to Report Violations that were Known to Respondent at the Time of the Administration of the Test The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders “failed to report violations that were known to [Ms. Sanders] at the time of the administration of the test.” The evidence in this case, as recited herein, does not support a finding that Ms. Sanders failed to report violations of FCAT testing standards that were known to her at the time of the administration of the test. Ms. Sanders appointed a school assessment coordinator who, based on past performance, she trusted to competently perform her duties. Except with regard to the disputed issue of the need for partitions -- an issue that was not proven to be a violation -- no issue regarding Ms. Williams? concerns with testing conditions, or of her neglect and malfeasance regarding the FCAT test, were brought to the attention of Ms. Sanders by the faculty or staff of Windy Hill. Ms. Sanders? understanding of testing violations, until her receipt of the Notice of Discipline, was limited to the allegation that Mr. Bacca had learned of and divulged the testing prompt, an allegation that was brought to her attention after-the-fact by Mr. Scott and Ms. Altman. Ms. Sanders knew of no irregularities in the administration of the February 28, 2012, FCAT test at the time of the administration of the test. The suggestion that Ms. Sanders had taken over the duties of the school assessment coordinator, and that knowledge of alleged testing violations should be therefore imputed to her, is not supported by any competent, substantial, and credible evidence. The School Board has failed to prove by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence that Ms. Sanders failed to report violations that were known to her at the time of the administration of the test. Allegation that Respondent Made Inappropriate Comments to Staff Regarding the Investigation of the Reported Violations The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders “made inappropriate comments to staff regarding the investigation of the reported violations.” On or about March 6, 2012, Ms. Altman advised Ms. Sanders of the investigation. She did not reveal the precise nature or target(s) of the investigation, only that it involved teacher improprieties related to the administration of the FCAT test. March 7, 2012, was an early release day. After students were released for the day, Ms. Sanders attended a regularly scheduled early-release staff meeting. All teachers were required to attend. The allegation that Respondent made inappropriate statements to staff came as the result of her statements at the faculty staff meeting. Since the School Board did not specify what comments were “inappropriate,” or what might make a comment “inappropriate,” the allegation is so vague and non-specific as to raise issues of a lack of meaningful notice and due process. However, having heard the recording of the meeting, reviewed the transcript, and taken testimony from attendees, the undersigned is prepared to make findings as to whether any comment might reasonably be construed as “inappropriate,” given the facts of this case. Ms. Sanders was never interviewed about her allegedly threatening and inappropriate comments. The staff meeting was taped by one of the attendees. Thus, a record of exactly what was said and not said was available. Ms. Altman testified that she learned of the recording during the investigatory interviews, and spoke to the person who had the recording. However, in one of the more baffling elements of the investigation, neither Mr. Scott nor Ms. Altman obtained a copy of the recording, and never listened to it before making their conclusions as to what was said by Ms. Sanders. Thus, Mr. Scott and Ms. Altman proceeded to form conclusions regarding statements made at the meeting without any reference to the available best evidence of that meeting. Comments Regarding Discussions of the Investigation, and Progressive Discipline for a Violation While she was on the Windy Hill campus conducting interviews, Ms. Altman advised Ms. Sanders that she should instruct her staff that they were not to discuss the investigation, and that progressive discipline could result if they discussed the investigation. Ms. Altman testified that she intended Ms. Sanders to advise only the handful of teachers that had been interviewed that they were not to discuss the investigation. Ms. Sanders testified that she understood Ms. Altman?s advice to be that she was “to pull my staff together and have a conversation with them about an open investigation and that -- how serious that was and that they were not to talk about [the] open investigation.” Ms. Sanders? interpretation was reasonable. She thereafter complied with Ms. Altman?s advice. When Ms. Sanders appeared at the staff meeting, she was very emotional as a result of the allegations directed towards the fourth-grade teachers. She expressed her trust that the fourth-grade teachers had done nothing improper, and asked the faculty to rally their support. Ms. Sanders dutifully related Ms. Altman?s instruction that faculty members were not to discuss the investigation. Ms. Sanders included co-workers, friends, and family in her admonition. The instruction that faculty could not discuss the matter with family members may have been overly restrictive, but it was not improper or inappropriate. Ms. Sanders believed it to be warranted, given the seriousness of the allegations, and it was a restriction that she complied with herself. Ms. Sanders also related Ms. Altman?s instruction that discussing the investigation could result in progressive discipline. Progressive discipline is a means of administering discipline in steps, starting with a verbal warning, then a written reprimand, proceeding to suspension, and eventually termination. Based on her knowledge of other investigations, Ms. Sanders viewed the instruction provided to the faculty as a first-step verbal warning of the prohibited conduct. She understood that a breach of the prohibition would thus be subject to discipline at the next step. Ms. Sanders? expression of her understanding, which was given in an effort to keep her teachers from getting into trouble, was not inappropriate. Due to the vagueness of the School Board allegation, certain of the conclusions and statements referenced in the investigative report and witness testimony must be addressed. Ms. Boney testified that Ms. Sanders privately asked her to pray before the staff meeting, and publically asked her to pray at the end of the meeting. Ms. Sanders did not corroborate Ms. Boney?s testimony regarding a pre-meeting prayer, and such a private request -- if made -- was not during the faculty meeting and would not support the allegation as pled. The recording of the faculty meeting, which is the best evidence of the meeting, provides no evidence of a request having been made during the meeting. Thus, the allegation that Ms. Sanders asked Ms. Boney to pray, such as it is, is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Ms. Williams testified that Ms. Sanders stated that “nothing was anonymous and she would find out who made the phone call.” A simple review of the recording would have revealed her statement to be false. Ms. Sanders commented on the fact that the complaint was made anonymously, and stated her understanding that calls made to the district office were not anonymous to the district because the district used caller ID. Contrary to Ms. Williams? account, Ms. Sanders plainly stated during the meeting that “I don?t know who the individual is, and, frankly, I don?t want to know . . . . And they?re not going to tell me who it is. . .” Furthermore, the meeting concluded with her stating that “[t]his is not going to become a witch hunt. This is no longer about the person who called in the report. We?re going to walk out this door and get back up because what?s done is done.” Thus, any suggestion that Ms. Sanders intended to ferret out the source of the phone call as stated by Ms. Williams is completely unfounded. Ms. Kennell testified that Ms. Sanders said that if any “snoops” came on campus, the teachers should not talk to them but should ask for a lawyer, a statement that was memorialized in the investigative report. The statement has no basis in fact. The instruction given by Ms. Sanders was clearly that staff was not to discuss the investigation with “family, your friends, your neighbors,” or with other staff members. There was no reference to lawyers at all. Having listened to the recording and read the transcript, and having heard testimony from attendees, the undersigned finds nothing to support that Ms. Sanders suggested in any way that staff was not to cooperate with the investigation. Ms. Young testified that “some of the comments were inappropriate . . . the tone of the conversation and certainly that the way the message was received by those who have shared this information was very threatening.” Although she read the transcript,6/ Ms. Young admitted that she had not listened to the recording of the meeting. She was therefore in no position to gain a sense of the tone of the conversation. Had she listened to the recording, she would have heard expressions of support and determination, laughter, and positive comments from a faculty faced with difficult circumstances. While Ms. Sanders was emotional and upset, and tended to repeatedly drive home Ms. Altman?s instructions, her comments, taken in their entirety and in context were not inappropriate or threatening. If some perceived Ms. Sanders? comments as threatening, it was not due to the substance or delivery of the comments themselves. Ms. Young also testified that Ms. Sanders? statements caused “great concern by the teachers that there would be some type of retribution.” There is no evidence whatsoever in the record of this proceeding that would support an attribution of retaliatory intent or conduct on the part of Ms. Sanders, and the suggestion that faculty members had legitimate and well- founded fears of retaliation is rejected. The allegation regarding Ms. Sanders? statements at the March 7, 2012, faculty meeting appears to be directed to the supposition that she made her statements with the intent to intimidate staff or to discourage others from reporting illegal conduct regarding the FCAT. That conclusion cannot be reasonably drawn from the record. Having heard the recording of the meeting, and the testimony of the participants, it is clear that Ms. Sanders delivered an accurate accounting of what she had been told to do by Ms. Altman. There is no competent, substantial, and credible evidence in the record of this proceeding that Ms. Sanders would not cooperate, or would encourage others to not cooperate with the investigation. Furthermore, if staff was “intimidated,” their intimidation was due to their own subjective but incorrect impressions of Ms. Sanders? comments. The School Board has alleged that Ms. Sanders made inappropriate comments to staff regarding a prohibition against discussing the investigation, and the discipline for a breach of the prohibition. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. Comments Regarding Ms. Sanders? Faith, including Biblical References The School Board also appears to contend that Ms. Sanders? references to her faith, including recitation of verses from the Bible, constituted a violation of standards applicable to school administrators. How such comments might be construed as being ones “regarding the investigation of the reported violations” is unclear. In any event, both Mr. Scott and Ms. Young testified that references to religion and scripture at a faculty staff meeting were “inappropriate.” The only standard referenced in the Notice of Discipline to which a reference to one?s faith and to scripture might reasonably apply is rule 6B-1.001(3), which has since been transferred to rule 6A-10.080(3), and which provides that: Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one?s colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. Thus, the School Board?s allegation suggests that Ms. Sanders? references to her faith and scripture was conduct that was, to a degree, unethical. The March 7, 2012, faculty staff meeting, coming close on the heels of her being notified of the allegation that a member or members of her staff had been alleged to have cheated in the administration of the FCAT, was a troubling matter for Ms. Sanders. Ms. Sanders acknowledged that she was very emotional by what she perceived as an unwarranted complaint against a group that she regarded as her “family.” She expressed concern not only for the fourth-grade teachers involved, but for the effect that allegations of cheating would have on the students at Windy Hill. In dealing with the issue, Ms. Sanders presented a description of her beliefs. She made it clear that she was not trying to tell anyone what to believe, but was offering it “because this is the only way I know that I can do this job everyday.” The context and words of her comments made it clear that she was not proselytizing. Rather, as stated by Ms. Sanders, “it was not to persuade them. It was to let them know this is bad, I'm upset, you're upset . . . . But this is who I am. If you don't believe what I believe, that's okay.” The undersigned recognizes the historical precedent and importance of the doctrine generally known as the separation of church and state, which derives from the establishment clause of the United States Constitution7/ and the Florida Constitution.8/ The question in this case, however, is not whether Ms. Sanders? comments may have violated the establishment clause -- a question best suited for resolution by the judicial branch -- but whether a non-proselytizing reference to one?s faith and to scripture, delivered in a meeting of adult faculty and in the context of a trying and emotional occurrence, results in a conclusion that an educator has failed to strive to “achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct” so as to warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanctions. Ms. Sanders stated that, she had done the best of her ability to handle a very difficult situation. It is clear that her quoting of scripture was not intended to bring anyone to her point of view. Though her emotion and concerns could have, and perhaps should have, been channeled differently, neither the substance nor the delivery of her comments at the March 7, 2012, faculty meeting was “inappropriate” under the circumstances, nor were they less than “ethical conduct.” The School Board has alleged that Ms. Sanders made inappropriate comments to staff regarding the investigation of the reported violations as a result of her references to her faith and to scripture so as to violate applicable provisions of the Code of Ethics. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. Violations of the Code of Ethics Rule 6B-1.001(2) The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders violated rule 6B-1.001(2), which has been transferred and now exists as rule 6A-10.080(2). That rule provides that: The educator?s primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student?s potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity. Given the complete record of this proceeding, including the findings of fact herein, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Sanders? actions were motivated by her professional and personal concern for the students at Windy Hill, particularly those involved in the FCAT test. The greater weight of the evidence also demonstrates that Ms. Sanders? actions with regard to the February 28, 2012, FCAT test and the subsequent investigation of alleged testing irregularities constituted a reasonable and appropriate exercise of her best professional judgment and integrity. There is no competent, substantial and credible evidence to the contrary. The School Board has alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to direct her primary professional concern to the students at Windy Hill and for the development of the students? potential, and that she failed to exercise her best professional judgment and integrity. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. Rule 6B-1.001(3) The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders violated rule 6B-1.001(3), which has been transferred and now exists as rule 6A-10.080(3). That rule provides that: Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one?s colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. Given the complete record of this proceeding, including the findings of fact herein, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that, with regard to the February 28, 2012, FCAT test and the subsequent investigation of alleged testing irregularities, Ms. Sanders acted in a manner that was designed to, and did, achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. There is no competent, substantial and credible evidence to the contrary. Given the facts of this case, there is no reason why Ms. Sanders should not have the respect and confidence of her colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community. The School Board has alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct, and that her actions resulted in a loss of the respect and confidence of her colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. Conclusion The School Board failed to prove the allegations in the Notice of Discipline by a preponderance of competent, substantial evidence. Ms. Sanders did everything expected or required of a principal in administering the FCAT test and in responding to allegations of irregularities. She was, however, faced with a school assessment coordinator who thoroughly neglected her duties, and who was all too willing to deflect personal responsibility for her failings onto others. Far from trying to find a scapegoat, Ms. Sanders? defense of the allegations in this case was warranted and effective. Thus, the Notice of Discipline and other charges that form the basis of this proceeding should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Duval County School Board, enter a final order dismissing the Notice of Discipline in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent's proposed decision to award a contract to Florida Youth Academy, Inc., pursuant to Request for Proposals No. F4G01, is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules, or policies or the proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact On June 19, 2001, the Department issued and advertised RFP No. F4G01 for the design, implementation, and operation of a moderate risk residential program with a daily capacity of 30 youthful female offenders who have been committed to the Department after having been assessed and classified as a medium risk to public safety. This was an on-going program, and PEMHS was the incumbent contractor. PEMHS and FYA submitted proposals, which were opened on July 24, 2001. Three qualified agency employees, Mary Mills, Nicholas Lefrancois, and Jennifer Gallman, were given the assignment of evaluating the proposals in accordance with the requirements of the RFP and an evaluation score sheet providing evaluation and scoring criteria. The evaluators worked separately and returned their completed score sheets to Genanne Wilson, the contract administrator who developed the RFP. Ms. Wilson tabulated the scores. On August 31, 2001, the Department posted the tabulations for the RFP, recommending the contract be awarded to FYA. FYA received 328 points, and PEMHS received 288 points. FYA's score was corrected to 303 points when it was discovered that Ms. Wilson had applied an incorrect weighting factor to the points awarded FYA for CMBE participation. The correction did not affect the outcome of the process. PEMHS filed a formal written protest on September 14, 2001, and an amended formal written protest on October 19, 2001. Section L of the RFP set forth the proposal award criteria. Subsection L.1 described the RFP's sole "Fatal Item" as follows: Fatal Item A proposal with a "no" response to the following question shall be rejected without further consideration. Did the Offeror submit an original, signed State of Florida, Request for Proposal, Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form (PUR 7033)? _____ Yes No If the above item is marked "NO" the evaluation of this proposal will STOP! The referenced Form PUR 7033 is prescribed by the Department of Management Services, Division of Purchasing, for inclusion in all agency RFPs. Rule 60A-1.002(7)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The form lists 17 separate General Conditions applicable to all contracts, provides potential vendors with information as to posting of proposal tabulations, and, most importantly, provides space for a manual signature by an authorized representative of the prospective vendor, stating the vendor's assent to the following statement: I certify that this Proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any corporation, firm, or person submitting a Proposal for the same services, supplies or equipment and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. I agree to abide by all conditions of this Proposal and certify that I am authorized to sign this Proposal for the Proposer and that the Proposer is in compliance with all requirements of the Request for Proposal, including but not limited to, certification requirements. In submitting a Proposal to an agency for the State of Florida, the Proposer offers and agrees that if the Proposal is accepted, the Proposer will convey, sell, assign or transfer to the State of Florida, all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may now or hereafter acquire under the Antitrust Laws of the United States and the State of Florida for the price fixing relating to the particular commodities or services purchased or acquired by the State of Florida. At the State's discretion, such assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the purchasing agency tenders final payment to the Proposer. The vendor's manual signature on Form PUR 7033 binds the vendor to the terms of its proposal, should it prevail at the end of the evaluation process. The RFP was made available to vendors via download from the Department's Internet web page. The web page allowed the downloading of the Form PUR 7033, but also allowed the downloading of a form similar but not identical to Form PUR 7033. This second form included the language quoted above binding the vendor to its proposal and the space for the manual signature assenting to those terms, but did not include the 17 General Conditions found on the Form PUR 7033. The proposal submitted by FYA employed the second form, not the Form PUR 7033. It included the manual signature of Dr. Devyani Desai, the president and chief executive officer of FYA, indisputably a person authorized to bind FYA to its proposal. PEMHS' protest contends that, given the strict language of the "Fatal Item" RFP term, FYA's proposal should have been rejected out of hand for failure to include the mandatory Form PUR 7033. Genanne Wilson, the contract administrator, was the person charged with deciding whether the FYA proposal should be rejected. She consulted a Department attorney, who advised her that the second form was acceptable and met the criterion for submission of a Form PUR 7033. Based on that advice, Ms. Wilson distributed the FYA proposal to the three evaluators for scoring. The evaluators' score sheets contained a space calling for them to confirm the presence of the Form PUR 7033, but the testimony at the hearing established that the evaluators relied on Ms. Wilson for that information. Mr. Lefrancois testified that he assumed he would not have received the proposals for evaluation at all had they not contained the Form PUR 7033. The seventeen General Conditions set forth on Form PUR 7033 are commonly referred to as the "boilerplate" language included in any contract issued pursuant to an RFP. They include the terms of submission and opening of proposals, bid protest procedures, terms of invoicing and payment, conflict of interest notices, public records requirements, and contractual restrictions regarding assignment, default, advertising, liability, and cancellation. All of the substantive areas of the General Conditions were set forth in substance, if not precisely the same form, within the RFP itself. While pressing its claim that the literal language of the RFP should apply to disqualify FYA's proposal, PEMHS offered no evidence that FYA gained any competitive advantage by submitting the alternative form that it downloaded from the Department's own web site. No party contended that the submission of the alternative form would release FYA from any of the General Conditions. The Department has modified Form PUR 7033 to include blank signature spaces to be signed in the event the bidder enters into a contract with the Department. PEMHS argued that FYA's failure to include the modified Form PUR 7033 meant that FYA and the Department would be unable to finalize the contract by signature. PEMHS offered no statutory or rule citation that would require the contract to be executed on the modified Form PUR 7033, or that would prohibit the Department from drafting a separate document for the parties to sign in execution of their contract. Greg Chown, the Department's director of contracts, testified that the lack of a signature page in the bid documents would not prevent the Department from subsequently entering into a contract with a successful bidder. In summary, FYA filled out and submitted a form provided by the Department. The form bound FYA to its proposal just as the Form PUR 7033 bound PEMHS to its proposal. FYA gained no competitive advantage by submitting the alternative form. The RFP labeled submission of the Form PUR 7033 a "Fatal Item," but the clear intent of this requirement was to ensure a firm commitment by the vendor, not to trap an unwary bidder who inadvertently downloaded the alternative form from the Department's own web page. The alternative form signed by FYA's president complied with the substance of the "Fatal Item" requirement. In view of all the evidence, FYA's failure to submit a Form PUR 7033 was at most a minor irregularity, properly waived by the Department in the interest of preserving competition in a situation in which only two proposals were received. Section K.3.3 of the RFP provided that the bidder must present "a letter of intent to enter into local interagency agreements required in program objectives: submit cooperative agreement(s) or contract(s) with local school districts describing the manner in which education services shall be provided in performance of this contract." PEMHS contended that one evaluator, Mr. Lefrancois, awarded FYA a "satisfactory" score of three points for this item despite the fact that FYA did not submit the required cooperative agreement or contract.1 In response to Section K.3.3, FYA submitted a letter from Frank Potjunas, the supervisor of dropout prevention services for Pinellas County Schools. The letter, addressed to FYA's president, stated: It has come to my attention that you are applying to the Department of Juvenile Justice to provide a 30 bed residential program for moderate risk girls at your Largo facility. As a Pinellas County School administrator and a member of Florida Youth Academy's Advisory Council, I have spent many days at your program. I have worked closely with the FYA administration and staff and I am aware of the services and care you provide to at-risk youth. I support your application, and if I can be of any further help please let me know. PEMHS contended that the above letter did not constitute either a letter of intent or an actual contract as contemplated by Section K.3.3 of the RFP, and that Mr. Lefrancois therefore erred in awarding FYA three points for this item. PEMHS also pointed out that evaluator Mary Mills agreed that the FYA response was inadequate and that she awarded FYA only two points for this item. The third evaluator, Jennifer Gallman, also awarded FYA three points for this item. She testified that a cooperative agreement signed by all parties would be an ideal submission, but that only the incumbent bidder can realistically be expected to have such an agreement in place. A bidder who does not enjoy the advantage of incumbency should demonstrate that it has made contacts within the community and enlisted support for its prospective program. Ms. Gallman was satisfied that the letter quoted above satisfied Section K.3.3 when read in conjunction with its accompanying text in the FYA proposal: Florida Youth Academy intends to modify existing cooperative agreement [sic] with the Pinellas County School Board to provide onsite dropout prevention programming for these additional beds. There will be one classroom for every 19 youth. A letter of intent from Pinellas County School System is included in this submittal. In summary, the issue raised by PEMHS regarding Section K.3.3 amounts to no more than a minor difference of opinion among the evaluators. Two of the evaluators found FYA's response "adequate" and awarded three points. One of the evaluators found FYA's response "poor" and awarded two points. Either opinion is rational and defensible. Nothing in the FYA response to Section K.3.3 or in the evaluators' scoring thereof merits a finding that the agency's actions were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, capricious, or in contravention of the applicable rules, statutes, or the requirements of the RFP. Section K.4 of the RFP, entitled "Organizational Capability," required the bidder to submit seven items: An organization chart identifying relationships between dedicated program staff and corporate staff, along with a narrative detailing the capacity of program staff to accomplish program objectives. A synopsis of corporate qualifications indicating ability to manage and meet performance objectives of the proposed program, including copies of corporate documents. A plan to illustrate adequate internal administrative review and monitoring services to assure performance for the program. A resume for each professional staff member to include name, position titles, certifications and qualifications of those providing service. A staffing plan to include name, position titles, and weekly hours allocated to ensure quality service delivery. Narrative description that outlines the arrangements that will be in existence at the time of contract award to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment or other resources required to perform the contract. Narrative outlining the Offeror's ability to perform the contractual services taking into consideration any existing contracts with the Department, other state agencies or any other agency in which the Offeror has entered into a contractual relationship.2 PEMHS contended that FYA's proposal did not address items 3 and 5 of Section K.4, but that two of the evaluators nonetheless awarded FYA an "adequate" score of three points for this section, while the third evaluator awarded a "poor" score of two points. While FYA's proposal did not separately set out the "plans" referenced in items 3 and 5, a fair reading of the proposal as a whole could lead a rational evaluator to conclude that FYA addressed the substance of those items. As with the dispute over the scoring of Section K.3.3, this issue involves a minor difference of opinion among the evaluators as to the adequacy of FYA's response. Two of the evaluators, judging the proposal in its entirety, determined that FYA adequately addressed the requirements of Section K.4. One evaluator disagreed, finding the response "poor." Either opinion is rational and defensible. Nothing in the FYA response to Section K.4 or in the evaluators' scoring thereof merits a finding that the agency's actions were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, capricious, or in contravention of the applicable rules, statutes, or the requirements of the RFP. PEMHS complained that evaluator Mary Mills changed her score for two items in her evaluation of PEMHS' proposal. The evidence established that in one instance, Ms. Mills lowered the score from three points to two. In the other instance, Ms. Mills raised the score from two points to three. The evidence further established that Ms. Mills made these changes on her own, prior to submitting her completed evaluation to Ms. Wilson. In each instance, her completed review of the entire PEMHS proposal caused Ms. Mills to reconsider the score she had preliminarily awarded. PEMHS failed to establish that Ms. Mills did anything inconsistent with the duties of a conscientious evaluator. Finally, PEMHS alleged that FYA submitted false information concerning its past performance. Section K.4.1 of the RFP set forth the requirement for documentation of past performance: The Offeror shall submit documentation to support the following: An established history of program implementation within the fiscal constraints of any previous contracts. Achieved measurable results in educational achievements by participants. Satisfactory or higher ratings in a similar program Quality Assurance Evaluation. Involvement by the community in which the program is located indicating the community's support for the continuation of the program, such as local boards, volunteers, local financial or in-kind support, and support by local governmental organizations. Any documentation to support the program's recidivism rates for clients served. The corresponding section of the score sheet provided a possible five points for each of the five aspects of past performance listed in Section K.4, for a possible total of 25 points. Each of the evaluators awarded FYA an "adequate" score of three points for each of the items, except for the item corresponding to "satisfactory or higher ratings in a similar program Quality Assurance Evaluation." For this item, Mr. Lefrancois and Ms. Gallman awarded FYA a "very good" score of four points. Each of them noted that the superior rating on this item was based on FYA's having operated other programs that had achieved "deemed" status, the highest rating available under Quality Assurance Evaluations conducted by the Department. PEMHS alleged that the experience claimed by FYA in its proposal is actually that of another company, Florida Health Facilities, L.P., the assets of which FYA acquired in 2000. PEMHS claims that it was misleading, if not actually false, for FYA to claim credit for accomplishments achieved prior to 2000, and that the evaluators' crediting FYA with those accomplishments fatally undermined the integrity of the procurement process. Contrary to PEMHS' implication, FYA's proposal made no effort to disguise the facts. It stated, in pertinent part: Dr. Devyani N. Desai is the President & CEO of Florida Youth Academy, Inc., which was formed in September 2000 to acquire Florida Health Facilities' business and property. (p. 36) * * * Florida Youth Academy operates 132 beds at the Largo facility, which has received deemed status every year since 1998. It also leases Wilson Youth Academy facility at Land O'Lakes of 32 moderate risk beds. This facility has also received deemed status since 1999. Through the change of ownership FYA has retained all the key management personnel. (p. 37) * * * As noted in the Organizational Capability section of this proposal, FYA programs formerly owned and operated by Florida Health Facilities, L.P., has been [sic] a proven provider of female and female [sic] services for the State, and also the Circuit 6 service area. Along with general program implementation, Florida Youth Academy has also been successful in maintaining financial stability and utilizing the per diem dollars within the constraints of the contract. The formalized report of the audit for year 2000 will be made available upon request. Examples of FYA's ability to provide quality program [sic] is outlined below: FYA currently operates four treatment programs, with varying levels of care. The programs consist of 96 High Risk, 18 Moderate Risk, 18 Low Risk and additional 32 Moderate Risk program [sic] located in another county. Three of the four residential commitment programs have received excellent quality Assurance rating with deemed status results for a consecutive two-year period. (p. 37-38) * * * The facilities have received five year's [sic] of Quality Assurance surveying. Each year ongoing improvements have been evident through increasing scores and achievement of deemed status ratings. Since program development, all levels of care have been proven to be effective at implementing which [sic] meet and exceed QA standards. In the most recent survey of 2000, all the programs achieved and/or maintained deemed status reporting . . . . (p. 38) * * * The current programs at the facility of Florida Youth Academy were previously owned and operated by Florida Health Facilities, L.P. The programs have been operated consistently through change of ownership. The recidivism rate at FYA is below average for comparable programs. The most recent experience is 28% and 30% for High Risk and Moderate Risk programs respectively. (p. 38) PEMHS' implication that FYA submitted false information is unfounded. As the quoted examples from its proposal indicate, FYA directly stated that it had acquired the assets of Florida Health Facilities in 2000, and emphasized that it had made strong efforts to maintain continuity of personnel and services during the transition. PEMHS offered no evidence to document that FYA has failed to maintain the documented quality of the "deemed" facilities it now owns. It was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition for the evaluators to accept FYA's representations as to the historical and continuing quality of the programs it acquired, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered awarding the contract for a moderate risk residential program in Pinellas County for 30 female offenders, pursuant to RFP No. F4G01, to Florida Youth Academy, Inc., and dismissing the protest of Personal Enrichment Through Medical Services, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 29th day of November, 2001.
The Issue Whether Respondent properly invalidated Petitioner’s Florida Teacher Certification Examination for Health K-12 for violating test center rules, as alleged in the Agency Action Letter dated September 17, 2019.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Matthew B. Forrest, resides in Jacksonville, Florida where, at all times relevant hereto, he was a football coach and teacher of Health Opportunities in Physical Education (“HOPE”) at Creekside High School. In order to continue teaching HOPE for the 2019-2020 school year, Petitioner was required to become a certified teacher by passing both the General Knowledge and the Health K-12 components of the FTCE. Respondent, Richard Corcoran, as Commissioner of Education (hereinafter, “Respondent” or “Department), is the agency with the duty and authority to certify teachers for the State of Florida. For purposes of this Recommended Order, the Department is the “test program sponsor.” The Department administers the FTCE through third party test administrators. The test administrator in the instant case is a company known as “Pearson.” Petitioner took and passed the General Knowledge Examination on February 25, 2019. Petitioner took the Health K-12 Examination on three different occasions. The administration of the exam relevant hereto was on August 7, 2019. Two different types of breaks may be taken during test administration. A scheduled break is automatic, usually given between sections of an exam. The test administrator instructs candidates as to the length of the break and when to return to the testing room. During a scheduled break, a candidate may access personal items which have been stored at the test center. An unscheduled break is voluntary, and may include time to use the restroom or water fountain. John Hartzog was the test center administrator for the August 7, 2019 exam administration. Petitioner took three unscheduled breaks during the exam. The first lasted 16 minutes, while the other two breaks lasted 6 minutes each. At each break, Petitioner notified the proctor he was leaving to use the restroom. At the Florida Gateway College test center, the restrooms are separate from the testing rooms. The two are located in the same building, but are accessed by different entrances connected by an outdoor covered walkway. The restrooms are considered part of the test center building; however, the parking lot is not. During Petitioner’s third unscheduled break, Mr. Hartzog walked down to the restrooms to check on Petitioner. Mr. Hartzog observed Petitioner exiting his personal vehicle in the parking lot. Petitioner explained that he had water bottles stored in his vehicle and had retrieved and consumed a water bottle after he used the restroom. Through the window of the vehicle, Mr. Hartzog observed a case of 12- ounce water bottles on the back seat directly next to a beach bag, which was unzipped. Mr. Hartzog observed Petitioner’s exam study notes and other papers, as well as Petitioner’s cell phone, in plain view in the open bag.1 Administrative Charges On or about September 17, 2019, Petitioner received the Agency Action Letter, which states, in pertinent part, as follows: As noted on the program website under ‘Policies,’ the FTCE/FELE testing rules DO NOT permit an examinee to leave the test center or to access personal items during an unscheduled break. Therefore, the scores for your Health K-12 examination taken on August 7, 2019, have been invalidated. The Department has charged Petitioner with both leaving the test center, and accessing prohibited materials, during an unscheduled break.2 1 Mr. Hartzog photographed the items on the back seat, as well as the items in the open bag. The photographs were admitted in evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit 10. 2 The Department’s Agency Action Letter does not specifically state what actions taken by Petitioner constitute a violation of the rules. Respondent’s position was clarified throughout the final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Education issue a final order invalidating Petitioner’s FTCE Health K-12 Examination due to his violations of test center rules during the August 7, 2019 administration of the exam. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew B. Forrest 10743 Alden Road, Unit 4 Jacksonville, Florida 32246 Bonnie Ann Wilmot, Esquire Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Gavin Hollis Dunn, Esquire Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Chris Emerson, Agency Clerk Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1520 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
