The Issue The issue presented for decision herein concerns the appeal of the Board's assignment of Jesus Valladares to Youth Opportunity School South, an alternative school placement.
Findings Of Fact Jesus Valladares, date of birth April 11, 1970, is an eighth grader who was enrolled at Rockway Junior High School during the 1983-84 school year in the Dade County School System. By letter dated March 14, 1983, Respondent was advised by the Director, Alternative Education Placement, William Perry, Jr., that in lieu of expulsion, Jesus was being administratively assigned to the opportunity school program. The basis of that administrative assignment stems from an incident on February 16, 1984 wherein Respondent carried a knife on his person while attending school at Rockway Junior High School. On February 14, 1984, Respondent displayed the knife to several students and threatened one student with the knife. On February 16, 1984, Lewis Plate, Principal of Rockway Junior High, took the knife from Respondent's person. As noted herein above, Respondent, or a representative on his behalf, did not appear to contest or otherwise refute the basis upon which the Petitioner administratively assigned him to Youth Opportunity School South.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of of law, it is hereby recommended: 1. That the Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a Final Order of assignment of Respondent, Jesus Valladares, to Youth Opportunity School South, an alternative school placement. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Respondent entered the seventh grade at North Miami Junior High School at the beginning of the 1982-83 school year. Petitioner reassigned him to the Jan Mann Opportunity School-North in December, 1982. Petitioner presented Respondent's school records which reflected ten separate incidents requiring disciplinary action between September and December, 1983. His grades for achievement, effort and conduct were unsatisfactory in all courses during this period.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order affirming its assignment of Respondent to an educational alternative program. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Gail Shaw Abreu 1139 Northeast 127th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Dr. Leonard Britton, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue presented is whether a rule establishing high school attendance zones is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Subsection 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the School Board of Orange County, Florida (School Board). The School Board is an educational unit and an agency defined in Subsections 120.52(1)(b)7. and (6), Florida Statutes (2004). Respondent is the governing body of the Orange County School District (School District or District). In relevant part, Respondent has exclusive constitutional authority to "operate, control and supervise all free public schools" within the District pursuant to Article IX, Section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution (2004) (Florida Constitution). On January 11, 2005, Respondent adopted a rule establishing attendance zones for four high schools in western Orange County, Florida (Orange County). The rule modifies previously existing attendance zones for Apopka High School (Apopka), Olympia High School (Olympia), and West Orange High School (West Orange); and establishes a new attendance zone for Ocoee High School (the relief school). It is undisputed that the establishment and modification of school attendance zones involves rulemaking. The parties agree that the adoption of the relevant school attendance zones satisfies the definition of a rule in Subsection 120.52(15), Florida Statutes (2004). Petitioners challenge the rule as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority defined in Subsection 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2004). In relevant part, Petitioners allege that Respondent violated Subsections 120.52(8)(a) and (e), Florida Statutes (2004), by materially failing to follow applicable rulemaking requirements and by adopting a rule in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Before proceeding to the merits of the rule challenge, it is important from a jurisdictional and contextual perspective to note that this Final Order does not reach any matter that falls within the scope of Respondent's exercise of constitutional authority. For reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Respondent has exclusive constitutional authority to operate, control, and supervise public schools within the District (local control). The Legislature has constitutional authority over matters of statewide concern.2 The Legislature cannot statutorily delegate authority that is constitutionally vested in Respondent.3 For purposes of the rule challenge, the exercise of constitutional authority by Respondent is not the exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Subsections 120.56(1) and (3), Florida Statutes (2004). As a factual matter, the challenged rule involves local control of only those public schools within the District that are affected by the rule. The school attendance zones do not have application beyond the boundaries of the School District. The school attendance zones do not benefit or otherwise affect citizens of the state outside the District.4 The trier of fact has avoided findings concerning matters of local control, including the merits of the school attendance zones, the wisdom of the collective decision of the School Board, and the motives and intent of the individual members of the School Board. Jurisdiction to determine the invalidity of a rule involving matters of local control is the exclusive province of the courts.5 Legislative authority over matters of statewide concern includes the authority to ensure that local school attendance zones are drawn in a manner that complies with uniform requirements for fairness and procedural correctness. The Legislature delegated that authority to Respondent when it enacted Subsections 1001.41(6) and 1001.42(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2004). The trier of fact has made only those findings needed to determine whether the exercise of delegated legislative authority is invalid within the meaning of Subsections 120.52(8) and 120.56(1), Florida Statutes (2004). The challenged rule affects the substantial interests of Petitioners within the meaning of Subsections 120.56(1) and (3), Florida Statutes (2004). Petitioner, Citrus Oaks Homeowners Association, Inc. (Citrus Oaks), is a Florida nonprofit corporation, organized as a homeowners' association pursuant to Chapters 617 and 720, Florida Statutes (2004). The members of Citrus Oaks own residences in the Citrus Oaks subdivision. A substantial number of the members of Citrus Oaks are substantially affected by the challenged rule. A substantial number of members have children who are students in a public school affected by the challenged rule. The challenged rule reassigns many of those students from the Olympia school zone to the West Orange school zone. The subject matter of the rule is within the general scope of interest and activity of Citrus Oaks. The relief requested is of a type that is appropriate for Citrus Oaks to receive on behalf of its members. Citrus Oaks has represented its members in previous litigation, although this is the first administrative proceeding for Citrus Oaks. More than a substantial majority of the members of Citrus Oaks expressly authorized Citrus Oaks to undertake this proceeding for their benefit. Petitioner, Joy Hutchison, is the mother of Jamie Petkov and Kirsta Petkov. Mrs. Hutchinson and her children reside in Citrus Oaks in a neighborhood identified in the record as Gotha, Florida. At the time of the administrative hearing, Jamie Petkov and Kirsta Petkov attended Gotha Middle School (Gotha). Jamie Petkov and Kirsta Petkov would have attended Olympia in the absence of the challenged rule. The challenged rule changes the attendance zone of each student to West Orange. The challenged rule splits feeder patterns intended to ensure that students in adjacent neighborhoods stay together through progressive grades. The challenged rule assigns some students from Gotha to the Olympia school zone and assigns other Gotha students to the West Orange school zone. Differences in West Orange and Olympia do not affect the substantial interests of Petitioners. The two schools offer comparable, but not identical, educational programs. Each school is accredited by the Southern Association of Accreditation. Each is a comprehensive high school with a full range of academic opportunities for students and Advanced Placement (AP) classes for college credit. Each school offers comparable student-teacher ratios, teachers with advanced degrees, and extracurricular activities. West Orange and Olympia are not identical. Homebuyers generally prefer Olympia to West Orange. Area realtors emphasize location within the Olympia school zone as a marketing feature for homes. Prospective homebuyers generally request homes within the Olympia school zone. Approximately 100 students residing outside the Olympia attendance zone have falsified their domicile information in order to enroll in Olympia. Disparities between West Orange and Olympia do not deny Petitioners a uniform system of education. A uniform system of education does not require uniformity among individual schools in physical plant, curricula, and educational programs.6 The rule development process that culminated in the challenged rule began sometime in March 2004. Three staff members in the District office of the Director of Pupil Assignment (the Director) were responsible for recommending school attendance zones to the Superintendent and his cabinet. The Director and her staff pursued negotiated rulemaking within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2004). In March 2004, the staff began to establish relevant time lines. In April and May of the same year, staff met with principals of schools potentially subject to rezoning. Staff requested each school principal to submit the names of three individuals to serve on a school rezoning committee to work with the staff. Each school rezoning committee was comprised of the "PTSA president, SAC chairperson, and another member." Each school rezoning committee was a negotiating committee within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2004). Each school rezoning committee was a balanced committee of interested persons who drafted complex rules in anticipation of public opposition. Each committee worked in good faith to develop group consensus for a mutually acceptable proposed rule. The Director and her staff provided packages to each school rezoning committee. The packages included information concerning time lines; rezoning criteria; maps; demographic information about neighborhoods; transfer policies; transportation; and school data such as demographics, enrollment, and original design capacity. Each committee developed proposed attendance zones based on eight rezoning criteria prescribed in the packages. The eight rezoning criteria are identified in the record as: operate under the current desegregation order; consider future planning and growth of attendance zones; equally distribute population to balance facility use of affected schools; consider reducing student transportation distances, when necessary; maximize the number of students walking to school; maximize the school feeder pattern structure; minimize the disruption of residential areas; and ensure demographic balance, when possible. Each committee was required to give overriding importance to the first three of the eight criteria. The school rezoning committees produced approximately 11 initial proposals. The Director and her staff scrutinize various proposals and received citizen input during three public meetings on August 25 and October 5 and 25, 2004. Each public meeting was a rule development workshop within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2004). Approximately 600 members of the public attended the first workshop conducted on August 25, 2004. Many members of the public spoke at the meeting or provided written input concerning the various proposals. Staff and committee members considered the public input and scrutinized the proposals. Staff reduced the number of proposals to seven, identified in the record as options A through G, and conducted a second workshop on October 5, 2004. Between 400 and 500 members of the public attended the second workshop. As the meeting "wore on," the Director concluded that no consensus on a single proposal was attainable at that time and adjourned the meeting. After the second workshop on October 5, 2004, the staff developed one recommendation for rezoning and two best options identified in the record as the recommendation, option A, and option F. Staff presented the recommendation to the Superintendent at a cabinet meeting, but also included, for informational purposes, the two options. Attendees at the cabinet meeting included "area superintendents," the chief financial officer, the chief facilities officer, the chief operations officer, and the deputy superintendent for curriculum instruction. The Superintendent and his staff vetted the recommendation before the recommendation was presented to the public as the "Staff Proposal" during a third workshop conducted on October 26, 2004. Approximately 500 members of the public attended the third workshop. The Director presented the Staff Proposal and received public input. The Staff Proposal reassigns 435 students from Apopka to the relief school; 136 students from Olympia to West Orange; and 2,315 students from West Orange to the relief school. The Staff Proposal does not rezone students in Citrus Oaks from Olympia to West Orange. There was no discussion at the third workshop of rezoning options other than the Staff Proposal. It is undisputed that Respondent complied with applicable rulemaking procedures from the initiation of the rulemaking process, through the third workshop conducted on October 25, 2004, when staff presented the Staff Proposal. The alleged violations of applicable rulemaking procedures occurred from October 26, 2004, through January 11, 2005. During that interval, Respondent amended the Staff Proposal and adopted the challenged rule. From October 26 through November 29, 2004, Mrs. Karen Ardaman, a member of the School Board, conducted several non- public conferences with the Director and her staff. The non- public conferences were workshops conducted for the purpose of rule development within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2004) (private workshops). The private workshops did not involve negotiated rulemaking within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2004). The private workshops were conducted between a member of the School Board and District staff for the official business of rule development. Mrs. Ardaman stated to the Director and her staff that the purpose of the private workshops was to "tweak" the Staff Proposal. Mrs. Ardaman expressed a specific goal of rezoning at least 300 students from Olympia and an optimal goal of reducing Olympia enrollment to design capacity, if possible. The workshops were extensive and produced four "work-up" proposals identified in the record as Petitioner's Exhibits 20 through 23. One of the work-up proposals was adopted by Respondent as the challenged rule on January 11, 2005.7 Each private workshop included "what-if" questions from Mrs. Ardaman to staff members intended to scrutinize alternative school rezoning scenarios. Each scenario involved specific neighborhoods, the demographic breakdown for the neighborhood, the actual number of students, and the number of students to be reassigned. One work-up extended the West Orange zone to an area north of State Road 50. Another work-up reduced the Apopka enrollment from 4,265 to 3,830, or approximately 650 students over design capacity of 3,187. The private workshops included conversations regarding the use of permanent modular classrooms to relieve overcrowding at Olympia. Mrs. Ardaman requested staff to explore the possibility of adding permanent modular classrooms. On November 30, 2004, the Superintendent published in an area newspaper of general circulation a Notice of School Board Meeting scheduled for December 6, 2004. In relevant part, the notice stated that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss "West Orange Apopka Relief School Rezoning." The public meeting conducted on December 6, 2004, was a rule development workshop within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2), Florida Statutes (2004). The School Board considered the Staff Proposal and the Ardaman alternative (the alternative proposal). The alternative proposal was circulated to the other members of the School Board. Two members left the workshop early. The remaining five members, including Mrs. Ardaman, reached consensus to reject the Staff Proposal and to advertise the alternative proposal as the proposed rule. On December 11, 2004, the Superintendent published a Notice of Proposed Action on High School Attendance Zones in The Orlando Sentinel. The public notice advertised a public hearing scheduled for January 11, 2005, to adopt the proposed rule. That portion of the public notice entitled, "Summary of Proposal" states, in relevant part, that the proposed rule reassigns students residing in Citrus Oaks from Olympia to West Orange. The meeting conducted on January 11, 2005, was a public hearing within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(3)(c)1., Florida Statutes (2004). Members of the School Board adopted the proposed rule by a vote of four to three. Mrs. Ardaman voted with the majority. The private rule development workshops between a school board member and District staff failed to follow applicable rulemaking procedures prescribed in Subsections 120.54(2)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2004). Respondent provided no public notice of the private workshops. Respondent failed to follow applicable rulemaking procedures prescribed in Subsections 120.54(2)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2004), for the rule development workshop that Respondent conducted in public on December 6, 2004. The notice published on November 30, 2004, was less than 14 days before December 6, 2004. The published notice did not include an explanation of the purpose and effect of either the Staff Proposal or the alternative proposal. The published notice did not cite the specific legal authority for either proposal and did not include the preliminary text of each proposal. Respondent failed to comply with other rulemaking procedures prescribed in Subsection 120.54(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2004). Respondent precluded public participation during the rule development workshop on December 6, 2004. Therefore, the persons responsible for preparing the respective proposals did not explain either proposal to the public and were not available to answer questions from the public or to respond to public comments. The failure to comply with applicable rulemaking procedures is presumed to be material within the meaning of Subsection 120.52(8)(a), Florida Statutes (2004). § 120.56(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2004). The burden of proof shifts to Respondent to rebut the presumption. Id. Respondent did not rebut the presumption with evidence that the fairness of the proceeding was not impaired or that the proceeding was procedurally correct. Respondent did not show that it cured the materiality of the failure to comply with applicable rulemaking procedures (procedural errors) by satisfying other rulemaking requirements such as those in Subsection 120.54(3)(e), Florida Statutes (2004). After December 11, 2004, when Respondent published the notice of proposed agency action to adopt the proposed rule, Respondent did not show that it filed a certified copy of the proposed rule with the agency head, together with other relevant materials, for public inspection. For reasons stated hereinafter, the public hearing conducted on January 11, 2005, did not cure the materiality of prior procedural errors. A preponderance of evidence shows the failure to comply with applicable rulemaking procedures was material within the meaning of Subsection 120.52(8)(a), Florida Statutes (2004). The procedural errors impaired the fairness and procedural correctness of the development and adoption of the challenged rule. In relevant part, the failure to provide public notice of the private workshops deprived members of the School Board and the public from equal participation, an opportunity to scrutinize various scenarios, and an opportunity for input and comment. The private workshops circumvented six months of prior negotiated rulemaking and public workshops between District staff, rezoning committees, the public, and the Superintendent and his cabinet; and reduced the public process to a shell into which non-public decisions were later poured. The public notice advertised on November 30, 2004, was inadequate. The notice deprived interested members of the School Board and the public of prior notice that the scope of the workshop on December 6, 2004, would include rezoning proposals not addressed in previous public workshops. The procedural errors materially changed the Staff Proposal and materially affected some students not assigned to Olympia in the Staff Proposal. For example, the Staff Proposal decreases Olympia enrollment, through reassignment of students to West Orange, by 136 students; or approximately four percent of the 3,337 students enrolled in Olympia on October 15, 2004; and approximately three percent of the 3,410 students projected to be enrolled in Olympia in the next school year (the 2005-2006 school year). The challenged rule decreases Olympia enrollment by 285 students. That is more than twice the decrease in enrollment in the Staff Proposal. The challenged rule decreases enrollment at Olympia by approximately eight percent of the 3,332 students enrolled in Olympia on November 15, 2004; and approximately eight percent of the projected enrollment of 3,410 for the following school year. The procedural errors materially impact the original design capacities at Olympia and West Orange. The original design capacities at the respective schools are 2,781 and 3,195 students. The enrollment at Olympia on October 15, 2004, in the amount of 3,337 students, exceeded original design capacity by 556 students (overcrowding), or approximately 19.9 percent. The enrollment at West Orange on the same date, in the amount of 4,320 students, exceeded original design capacity by 1,035 students, or approximately 32.4 percent. The Staff Proposal reduced overcrowding at Olympia to 420 students, or approximately 15.1 percent of original design capacity; and added 136 students to West Orange enrollment, or approximately 4.2 percent of original design capacity at West Orange. Based on enrollment on October 15, 2004, the challenged rule decreases overcrowding at Olympia to 271 students, or approximately 9.7 percent of original design capacity; and adds 285 students to the West Orange enrollment, or approximately 8.9 percent of original design capacity.8 The materiality of the procedural errors is exacerbated by the scheduled loss of the Ninth Grade Center at West Orange in the 2005-2006 school year. That event will reduce actual capacity at West Orange from the original design of 3,195 students to 1,993 students. This is a capacity loss of 1,202 students. The challenged rule adds 285 students to West Orange enrollment next year, which is an increase of approximately 14.3 percent over actual capacity. The Staff Proposal adds 136 students to West Orange enrollment, which is an increase of approximately 6.8 percent over actual capacity. The Staff Proposal and challenged rule leave West Orange with 2,236 and 2,385 students, respectively, or approximately 243 and 392 students over next year's actual capacity of 1,993 students. Overcrowding at West Orange from the Staff Proposal is approximately 12.19 percent of actual capacity next year, and overcrowding from the challenged rule is approximately 19.66 percent of actual capacity. The Staff Proposal reduces overcrowding at Olympia next year from 19.99 percent to 15.1 percent over capacity and leaves overcrowding at West Orange over 12.19 percent. The challenged rule reduces overcrowding next year at Olympia from 19.99 percent to approximately 9.7 percent and leaves overcrowding at West Orange at 19.66 percent over actual capacity. The procedural errors facilitated a challenged rule that departs materially from recommendations by the Olympia rezoning committee. The rezoning committee recommended no change at the school. In relevant part, the committee wrote: While we recognize that Olympia remains overcrowded, aggressive, proactive measures should be taken to address overcrowding of Olympia in other ways. Specifically those measures include: Exploring the possibility of adding "permanent" modular structures; and Increasing efforts to remove students who attend Olympia illegally claiming an address in our zone but who actually live out of zone. West Orange is left with room for the growth they expect. Petitioner's Exhibit 14 (P-14). The Orange County Commission, in a decision entered on July 14, 1998, prohibited "portable" classrooms on the Olympia campus in the original design of the school. The decision, however, does not expressly prohibit "permanent" modular classroom structures. Sufficient property exists on the Olympia campus to accommodate permanent modular classroom structures. The procedural errors that occurred in adopting the challenged rule materially affected students in Citrus Oaks who are reassigned to West Orange. The challenged rule will interrupt feeder patterns at Gotha by reassigning some Gotha students to West Orange and allowing others to attend Olympia. The preceding findings concerning variations between the Staff Proposal and the challenged rule are made solely for examining the materiality of procedural errors. The findings do not examine the merits of the challenged rule or the wisdom of the decision of the School Board. Respondent maintains a stated agency policy that prohibits an individual member of the School Board from participating in any matter pending before the Board in which the member has a conflict of interest. In relevant part, the written policy provides: Board members are expected to avoid conflicts of interest involving any matter pending before the board. A conflict of interest is deemed to exist when the member is confronted with an issue in which the member has a personal . . . interest or . . . circumstance that could render the member unable to devote complete loyalty and singleness of purpose to the public interest. . . . The accountability to the whole district supersedes: * * * c. Conflicts based upon the personal interest of a board member who is a parent of a student in the district. P-6, at 001945. Mrs. Ardaman is a member of the School Board who is a parent of three students in the Olympia school zone. When District staff presented the Staff Proposal, one student was a senior at Olympia, another was a sophomore at Olympia, and the youngest was in the sixth grade at Gotha. Mrs. Ardaman did not have a conflict of interest concerning the Staff Proposal, option A, or option F. None of those proposals reassigned any of the Ardaman children from Olympia to West Orange. A deemed conflict of interest existed for Mrs. Ardaman during: the private workshops she conducted with District staff for the purpose of rule development; the public deliberations at the meeting conducted on December 6, 2004; and the vote of the School Board members that took place at the public hearing conducted on January 11, 2005. Courts have recognized that each concerned parent has an interest in his or her children, the educational program in which each is enrolled, the prevention of disruption in the educational progress of each child, and any unwarranted disruption in the child's educational experience.9 Mrs. Ardaman had a judicially recognized interest in developing and adopting a rule that minimized the foregoing impacts on her children. Citrus Oaks sits on the northern boundary of Old Winter Garden Road (Winter Garden). The Ardaman children reside in a neighborhood to the south of Winter Garden. Mrs. Ardaman chose to reassign Olympia students to West Orange from three neighborhoods north of Winter Garden, including students in Citrus Oaks, and to reassign Olympia students to West Orange from only one neighborhood south of Winter Garden. The challenged rule does not achieve the optimal goal sought by Mrs. Ardaman of reducing Olympia enrollment to the original design capacity. The challenged rule could have achieved that goal by increasing the number of reassignments to West Orange from the geographic area south of Winter Garden. Mrs. Ardaman declined that option. During the non-public workshops, Mrs. Ardaman asked District staff to analyze numerous school rezoning scenarios based on reassignments from specific neighborhoods. Although the various scenarios included neighborhoods south of Winter Garden, Mrs. Ardaman did not ask staff to analyze a scenario that would have reassigned students in her neighborhood from Olympia to West Orange. Reassignment of Olympia students in the neighborhood in which Mrs. Ardaman resides would have interrupted feeder patterns for Gotha students. At the time, Mrs. Ardaman had a child in the sixth grade at Gotha. The challenged rule interrupts feeder patterns at Gotha for students residing in neighborhoods north of Winter Garden. Respondent exercised agency discretion in adopting the challenged rule in a manner that was inconsistent with officially stated agency policy. Respondent permitted a member of the School Board with a personal interest deemed to be a conflict of interest to participate in a pending matter before the School Board. The deviation from agency policy was material. The members of the School Board voted on January 11, 2005, to adopt the proposed rule by a vote of four to three. Mrs. Ardaman cast the deciding vote. Without the vote of Mrs. Ardaman, the remaining tie vote would have been insufficient to adopt the proposed rule.10 The deviation from agency policy was material for other reasons previously stated in the discussion of procedural errors and not repeated here. Respondent did not explain the deviation from officially stated agency policy. The adoption of the challenged rule was neither arbitrary nor capricious within the meaning of Subsection 120.52(8)(e), Florida Statutes (2004). The agency action is supported by logic and essential facts. Respondent did not adopt the proposed rule without thought or reason, and the proposed rule is not irrational. Between December 6, 2004, and January 11, 2005, the members of the School Board received data sheets and impact assessments for the proposed rule. The members had already received the data supporting the Staff Proposal. The members had adequate time between December 6, 2004, and January 11, 2005, to evaluate the logic, essential facts, and rationality of the proposed rule. The members of the School Board were faced with a controversial issue and a difficult decision. Reasonable individuals arguably may have decided to draw the school attendance zones differently. However, it is not appropriate for the trier of fact to substitute his judgment for that of the members of the School Board or to examine the wisdom of the decision of the School Board. Even though Respondent did not adopt the challenged rule in an arbitrary or capricious manner, the procedural errors and deviations from officially stated agency policy were material. Each impaired the fairness of the proceedings and prevented the agency action from being procedurally correct.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. Keith O'Neil Vinson (date of birth November 1, 1968) was a student enrolled in the regular school program at Arvida Junior High school during the 1982/83 school year as an eighth grader. By letter dated August 18, 1983, Petitioner, the School Board of Dade County, Florida, advised the parent, Mrs. Yvonne Vinson, that Respondent, Keith D. Vinson, was being administratively assigned to Youth Opportunity School South based on his disruption of the educational process in the regular school program and his failure to adjust thereto. Keith is physically well-developed for his age. That is, he is approximately 6 feet 5 inches and weighs approximately 200 pounds. During the 1982-83 school year, Respondent was the subject of more than 10 suspensions and was called in for numerous teacher conferences based on his defiant and assaultive conduct with other students while enrolled at Southwood and Arvida Junior High School. (Testimony and admission of parent, Yvonne Vinson) From 1981 through 1983, Respondent engaged in repeated acts wherein he was involved in fights and assaults of other students. Despite repeated efforts to attempt to control Respondent's defiant behavior, his same pattern of conduct persisted. Although Respondent's mother, Mrs. Yvonne Vinson, testified that the Respondent's conduct has been exaggerated by school officials and that he was singled out for "petty matters," the evidence herein reveals and it is specifically found that the Respondent's conduct was disruptive of the regular school program throughout his enrollment therein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent's appeal of the Petitioner's assignment of Respondent to an opportunity school program be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Valentine, Esquire Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3050 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Yvonne Vinson 11610 South West 140 Terrace Miami, Florida 33176 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 North East 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. Jorge Barahona is a sixteen (16) year old repeat eighth grader enrolled in the Respondent, School Board of Dade County, Public School System. Petitioner's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Julio Barahona, were notified by letter dated March 16, 1983, by certified mail, return receipt requested, that Jorge, who was then attending Kinlock Park Junior High School, was being transferred to the Youth Opportunity School South based on his disruption of the educational process in the regular school program. Prior to the Respondent's decision to assign Petitioner to an alternative placement, Respondent, through its staff, undertook various measures in an effort to quell Jorge's disruptive activities and to provide an educational setting for him in a regular classroom. These measures included counselor referrals on October 13, 15, 19, 21, and 27, 1982. At that time, a committee including Petitioner's teacher, the school's then assistant principal, W. George Cosgrove, and a guidance counselor all discussed the Petitioner's disruptive activities and placed him in the "outreach program". The Outreach Program is designed to utilize extraordinary measures to attempt to foster respect in students who exhibit disruptive behavior while attending school in a regular classroom. While placed in the Outreach Program, Jorge was again referred repeatedly to counselors for disruptions. On November 1, 1982, Jorge was advised that his next referral would result in an indoor suspension. Petitioner was repeatedly absent from school during the early part of November, 1982, and when he returned to school on the fifth (5) day following the November vacation, he was again referred for counseling due to disruptive conduct. At that time, December 3, 1982, he was given a five-day indoor suspension. During mid-January, 1983, Petitioner was again referred for counseling by three instructors which resulted in an extension of an earlier indoor suspension. On November 21, 1983, Petitioner embarked upon a course of abusive and profane outbursts which resulted in his being escorted to the Principal's office where he was again given an additional two-day indoor suspension. Petitioner's defiant behavior continued and an internal disciplinary committee decided to recommend that he be reassigned to the Opportunity School Program at Youth Opportunity School South. The Position of Petitioner's Parents The Petitioner's parents voiced their contention that Petitioner did not violate any school rules when he was assigned to the regular school program and that Petitioner had recurring medical problems which were the cause of his behavior. Finally, the parents (of Petitioner) contend that the school officials are not treating the Petitioner fairly by recommending the alternative placement for Petitioner. The evidence reveals that Petitioner is eligible for an educational alternative program because he is disruptive, disinterested and unsuccessful in a normal school environment. Rule 6A-1.994(2), Florida Administrative Code. There is no evidence to support the Petitioner's claim that he was unfairly treated due to the fact that he is the subject of an alternative educational assignment. Respondent's recommendation of Petitioner was based on a history of repeated disruptions by Petitioner while enrolled in a regular school environment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the School Board enter a Final Order assigning Petitioner to an alternative school program. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 1983.
Findings Of Fact During the 1985-86 school year Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens was a student in the tenth grade at Miami Sunset Senior High School. On April 18, 1986, during the lunch period Respondent drove into the faculty parking lot in his Corvette with the police following closely behind. It was determined that during his lunch break Respondent had been driving his Corvette in a nearby condominium development threatening residents and throwing beer cans on the lawns. The residents had summoned the police. An Assistant Principal held a conference with Respondent's father whose response was that the police should have better things to do than to bother his son for drinking beer and driving around during his lunch break. Respondent was given a three-day suspension. On May 22, 1986, Respondent got into a fight in class, a Group III violation of the Code of Student Conduct. A conference was held with Respondent's father, and Respondent was given a ten-day suspension. Although other informal discussions were held with Respondent's father during that school year, by the end of the third grading period Respondent's grades were one "C," one "D," and 4 "Fs." His absences from his classes during the third grading period alone ranged between 2 and 13. He received only a "3" for his effort in each and every class. During the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was absent 95 days out of the 180-day school year. On March 3, 1987, an Assistant Principal observed Respondent leaving the campus during Respondent's second-period class. He stopped Respondent and gave him a warning. A few minutes later he caught Respondent again attempting to leave. Respondent's mother was contacted, and Respondent was given a "work detail detention." On April 2, 1987, a fight broke out off campus between a group of Latin students and a group of Anglo students. On the following day Respondent admitted to an Assistant Principal that he was one of the participants. All of the students involved (including Respondent) were suspended for three days for that Group III Code violation. On October 19, 1987, Respondent was nearly involved in a collision in the parking lot. Respondent got out of his car and started pushing the other driver. A fight ensued. Respondent's parents were contacted, and he was given a ten-day suspension. By the time of the October 19th incident, Respondent had already been absent 6 days that school year. Further, although the Assistant Principal had two conferences with Respondent's father during the month of October, Respondent was receiving one "C," one "D," and five "Fs" in his classes. A Child Study Team was convened, and a meeting was held on November 3, 1987. Respondent and his parents refused to attend. The Team recommended that Respondent be transferred to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South, based upon the October 19, 1987, incident, his failing grades during the most-recent two years, and Respondent's chronic aggressive behavior which constituted a threat to the welfare of the other students. It was determined that Respondent required assistance a normal school could not provide and that a structured environment would be more appropriate since the educators at Miami Sunset Senior High School had unsuccessfully attempted to modify Respondent's behavior by conferences between Respondent and a counselor, meetings between Respondent's parents and assistant principals, indoor suspensions, outdoor suspensions, and work detail suspensions
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of March, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675, Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: JOSEPH A. FERNANDEZ, SUPERINTENDENT SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 FRANK R. HARDER, ESQUIRE 175 FONTAINEBLEAU BOULEVARD SUITE 2A-3 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33172 LANA STEPHENS 15490 S.W. 85TH LANE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33183 MADELYN P. SCHERE, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 PHYLLIS O. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Leon County, Florida ("Respondent") is an "agency" as defined in Section 120.52(1), Florida Statutes, and is charged by law with direction and control of grades Kindergarten through 12 for all public schools in Leon County, Florida. Respondent is required by statute to promulgate rules and regulations establishing attendance zones for grades Kindergarten through 12, and has proposed for adoption Rule Gx37-3.02, which establishes 1980-1981 school attendance zones for public school students in Leon County, Florida. Respondent published notice of its intent to adopt Rule Gx37-3.02 in the April 12, 1980, edition of the Tallahassee Democrat. In advertising its intent to adopt the proposed rule, insofar as relevant to this proceeding, Respondent indicated that attendance zones ". . . of several elementary schools are being examined for possible rezoning to reduce overcrowding and to eliminate underutilization." The proposed rule would modify attendance zones for the following Leon County elementary schools: Astoria Park, Riley, Ruediger, Sabal Palm and Kate Sullivan. The proposed attendance zones would also have some impact on students currently attending Carolyn Brevard. In its advertising notice Respondent listed Sections 230.22(2) and 230.23(4), Florida Statutes, as authority for adoption of the proposed rule. Section 230.22(2), Florida Statutes, empowers Respondent to: . . . adopt such rules and regulations to supplement those prescribed by the state board as in its opinion will contribute to the more orderly and efficient operation of the district school system. Section 230.23(4)(a), Florida Statutes, authorizes Respondent to "[a]dopt and provide for the execution of plans for the establishment, organization, and operation of the schools of the district . . .," and further, after considering recommendations of the superintendent of schools concerning attendance areas: . . . to authorize schools to be located and maintained in those communities in the district where they are needed to accommodate, as far as practicable and without unnecessary expense, all the youths who should be entitled to the facilities of such schools, and to approve the area from which children are to attend each such school. Although not cited by Respondent in its advertising notice as authority for adoption of the proposed rule, Section 230.232(1), Florida Statutes, provides that: The school boards of the several districts are hereby authorized and directed to provide for the enrollments in a public school in the district of each child residing in such district who is qualified under the laws of this state for admission to a public school and who applies for enrollment in or admission to a public school in such district. The authority of each such board in the matter of the enrollment of pupils in the public schools shall be full and complete. No pupil shall be enrolled in or admitted to attend any public school in which such child may not be enrolled pursuant to the rules, regulations, and decisions of such board. Section 230.232(2), Florida Statutes, also not cited in Respondent's public notice, provides that: In the exercise of authority conferred by subsection (1) upon the school boards, each such board shall provide for the enrollment of pupils in the respective public schools located within such district so as to provide for the orderly and efficient administration of such public schools, the effective instruction of the pupils therein enrolled, and the health, safety, education and general welfare of such pupils. In the exercise of such authority the board shall prescribed school attendance areas and school bus transportation routes and may adopt such reasonable rules and regulations as in the opinion of the board shall best accomplish such purposes. The school boards shall prescribe appropriate rules and regulations to implement the provisions of this subsection and other applicable laws of this state and to that end may use all means legitimate, necessary and proper to promote the health, safety, good order, education, and welfare of the public schools and the pupils enrolling therein or seeking to enroll therein. In the accomplishment of these objectives the rules and regulations to be prescribed by the board may include, but be not limited to, provisions for the conduct of such uniform tests as may be deemed necessary or advisable in classifying the pupils according to intellectual ability and scholastic proficiency to the end that there will be established in each school within the district an environment of equality among pupils of like qualifications and academic attainments. In the preparation and conduct of such tests and in classifying the pupils for assignment to the schools which they will attend, the board shall take into account such sociological, psychological and like intangible social scientific factors as will prevent, as nearly as practicable, any condition of socio-economic class consciousness among the pupils attending any given school in order that each pupil may be afforded an opportunity for a normal adjustment to his environment and receive the highest standard of instruction within his ability to understand and assimilate. In designating the school to which pupils may be assigned there shall be taken into consideration the request or consent of the parent or guardian or the person standing in loco parentis to the pupil, the available facilities and teaching capacity of the several schools within the district, the effect of the admission of new students upon established academic programs, the effect of admission of new pupils on the academic progress of the other pupils enrolled in a particular school, the suitability of established curriculum to the students enrolled or to be enrolled in a given school, the adequacy of a pupil's academic preparation for admission to a particular school, the scholastic aptitude, intelligence, mental energy or ability of the pupil applying for admission and the psychological, moral, ethical, and cultural background and qualifications of the pupil applying for admission as compared with other pupils previously assigned to the school in which admission is sought. It is the intention of the legislature to hereby delegate to the district school boards all necessary and proper administrative authority to prescribe such rules and regulations and to make such decisions and determinations as may be requisite for such purposes. The 1980-1981 enrollment in the elementary schools of Leon County, Florida, is projected to be approximately 10,404 students, excluding those elementary students participating in special programs. Of this total, the proposed rule would require an estimated 262 elementary school pupils to change schools for the 1980-1981 school year. Petitioners are a group of parents and children residing in the affected attendance areas who will be required to change schools if the proposed rule is adopted. Respondent proposes to modify its current attendance zones by shifting three study areas to new schools. If the proposed rule is adopted, Study Area 0360 will be moved from Sabal Palm Elementary to Astoria Park Elementary; Study Area 0460 will be moved from Sabal Palm Elementary; Study Area 0460 will be moved from Sabal Palm Elementary to Riley Elementary; Study Area 2365 will be moved from Kate Sullivan Elementary to Ruediger Elementary. Petitioners reside within Study Area 0460, and would be transferred under the proposed rule from Sabal Palm Elementary to Riley Elementary. The closest school to Study Area 0460, where Petitioners reside, is Astoria Park Elementary. Four of Respondent's elementary schools are closer to Study Area 0460 than Riley Elementary, where Petitioners will attend if the proposed rule is adopted. Study Area 0460 was rezoned in 1975 so as to shift Petitioners from Astoria Park Elementary, the school closest to their homes, to Sabal Palm Elementary, where they currently are enrolled. Respondent challenges Petitioner's standing to contest the validity of the proposed attendance boundaries, and, alternatively, contends that adoption of the proposed attendance boundaries is within Respondent's statutory authority under Sections 230.23(4) and 230.232, Florida Statutes. In support of their contention that they are "substantially affected" by the proposed rule in order to maintain this action pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioners allege that: [They] attend the public schools of [Leon County], which are under the direction and control of the respondent . . . and [are] regulated by rules and regulations concerning public school zones promulgated by respondent. . . . Petitioners are entitled to an orderly and effective educational program which is not arbitrarily and unreasonably disturbed and disrupted. The proposed rule arbitrarily disrupts petitioners' educational progress by moving them to a different and less academically advantageous school facility and program. The proposed rule will disrupt the educational progress of petitioner children to their substantial detriment by transferring them to a school (Riley Elementary) which produces students who score persistently lower on the Statewide Student Assessment Tests (SSAT) than students from the school (Sabal Palm Elementary) petitioners currently attend. On the SSAT tests administered in October, 1979, Riley was designated as one of four elementary schools in the district which failed to meet the composite student performance criteria in mathematics, writing, and reading at the fifth grade level; on the same test, Sabal Palm fifth graders tied for second in mathematics, tied for first in writing, and ranked fourth in reading when compared with other district schools. The proposed rule will disrupt and adversely affect the educational progress of petitioner children by assigning them to a school (Riley) which produces students who demonstrate less proficiency on the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills than those students from the school (Sabal Palm) petitioners now attend. Although students at Sabal Palm and Riley schools show little difference in attainment of basic skills of reading, language, and mathematics when measured at the first grade level, by fifth grade the students at Riley are performing the basic skills at approximately a grade level lower than students at Sabal Palm. The academic progress of petitioner children will be substantially slowed and adversely affected by transferring them from a school which stimulates performance at or above grade level norms to a school whose program is geared to lower levels of attainment. The rule as proposed requires an estimated 262 public elementary students, including petitioner children, to leave the school and the educational program in which they are now enrolled while the remaining 10,142 elementary students are not required to move. Respondent is not required by court order to carry out this rezoning. The proposed rule contains no "grandfather" clause or exemption which would prevent its application to petitioners. The proposed rule will operate unequally and arbitrarily on petitioners by requiring them to change schools while others similarly situated are not so required. The proposed rule violates petitioners' right to equal protection under Article I, section 2 of the Florida Constitution and Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution. Section 229.57, Florida Statutes, establishes a statewide student assessment program, one of the purposes of which is to assess how well districts and schools are meeting state goals and minimum performance standards. Respondent administers two tests in elementary schools which measure mastery of basic skills. The Florida Statewide Student Assessment Tests, commonly know as "SSAT", are administered in October of each year to all third and fifth grade students not participating in exceptional education programs. Skills tested on the SSAT are reading, writing and mathematics. On the SSAT, schools with a composite student performance score below 70 are reported as below minimum standards in those areas tested. The 1980 SSAT results show a composite score for both Riley Elementary and Sabal Palm Elementary in excess of 70 in all areas tested at the third grade level. At the fifth grade level, Riley Elementary's composite scored were below 70 in all three areas, while composite scores of Sabal Palm Elementary students were among the top scores in the Leon County School District. The Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills ("CTBS") is administered by Respondent to students in the regular school program in grades one through five in the Spring of each school year. The CTBS measures achievement in reading, language and mathematics. On the 1979-1980 CTBS, both Riley Elementary and Sabal Palm Elementary students exceeded national norms at the first and third grade levels. At fourth and fifth grade levels, however, Sabal Palm Elementary students continued to perform at or above national norms, while Riley Elementary students dropped well below these norms. At the fifth grade level, Riley Elementary students performed a full grade level or more lower than Sabal Palm Elementary students in all areas tested. Testing data compiled over a five-year period indicate a pattern of comparable performance of basic skills at lower grade levels at both Riley Elementary and Sabal Palm Elementary. However, at the fourth and fifth grade levels, the test scores of Riley Elementary students are consistently lower than those obtained by Sabal Palm Elementary students. There exist recognized non-school variables which affect student performance on the SSAT. These variable are: percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches; percentage of students' families with some amount of college education; percentage of students' families whose head of household is employed in a white-collar occupation; percentage of students who are members of minority groups; percentage of black minority students; and percentage of students with Spanish has a native language. If accepted as accurate, these variables should affect test scores at all grade levels. However, as noted above, standardized test-score results at the first grade level indicate Sabal Palm Elementary and Riley Elementary students functioning at about the same level, whereas test scores obtained at later stages in their elementary school tenure indicate a drop-off in performance by Riley Elementary students. These test score results indicate that the instructional program at Riley Elementary School, for some reason not entirely clear from the record in this proceeding, is not meeting state goals and minimum performance standards as well as the program at Sabal Palm Elementary. Section 120.52(14), Florida Statutes, defines "rule" as ". . . each agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy . . ." In Polk v. School Board of Polk County, 373 So.2d 960, 961 (2nd DCA Fla. 1979), the Court refused to invalidate the restructuring of high school attendance zones for failure of the school board to submit an economic impact statement. In the course of its decision, however, the Court specifically pointed out that "[b]y definition the action of the school board in adopting the attendance plan constituted the making of a rule." Id. at 961. Accordingly, Rule Gx37-3.02, as proposed by Respondent, is a rule within the meaning of Section 120.52(14), Florida Statutes. Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, provides that: Any substantially affected person may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of any proposed rule on the ground that the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Section 120.52(10)(b), Florida Statutes, defines "party" as: Any . . . person who, as a matter of constitutional right, provision of statute, or provision of agency regulation, is entitled to participate in whole or in part in the proceeding, or whose substantial interests will be affected by proposed agency action, and who makes an appearance as a party. (Emphasis added). Section 230.232(2), Florida Statutes, quoted fully above, requires that in the course of setting school attendance zones ". . . there shall be taken into consideration the request or consent of the parent or guardian or the person standing in loco parentis to the pupil. . . ." Thus, the interests of parents, and through them, their school-age children, must be considered by Respondent in the context of any proposed changes of school attendance zones. In School Board of Broward County v. Constant, 363 So.2d 859 (4th DCA Fla. 1978), the school board, after holding a series of public hearings, established school attendance lines, and several parents and school children filed complaints in circuit court to set aside the board's action. The school board moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the sole remedy available for parents and school children to contest the Board's action was by appeal to the District Court of Appeals, pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The trial court denied the board's motion to dismiss and an appeal was taken. One of the contentions advanced by the parents and school children on appeal was that even if Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, were applicable to the decision of the school board in adopting the school attendance lines, the parents and children were not "parties" to that decision, and would not, therefore, have standing to pursue appellate review under Chapter 120. In reversing the decision by the trial court, the District Court of Appeal held, in part, that: . . . we reject appellees' contention that they are not parties within the meaning of Section 120.52(10). On the contrary, appellees fit the description of any person who, as a matter of agency regulation, have substantial interests which will be affected by the proposed agency action. Such a person is a party within the meaning of the [Administrative Procedure] Act. Thus, appellees are entitled to be heard but via the Administrative Procedure Act and not by resort to collateral action in the Circuit Court. In Polk v. the School Board of Polk County, supra, several members of a group known as "Concerned Citizens" opposed the restructuring of high school attendance zones because the proposed plan would force their children to move to a school further from their home than the school they had been attending, and asserted that such a change ". . . was an unwarranted disruption of their children's school lives and . . . would be the third or fourth such disruption." 373 So.2d at 961. In the course of its opinion, the Polk court pointed out that the "[a]ppellant represents a group known as Concerned Citizens, South Lakeland, who are adversely affected because the new attendance lines will require their children to attend a different school." Id. (Emphasis added).
The Issue Whether the Respondent should be reassigned to the Opportunity School.
Findings Of Fact Raul Lopez entered the Dade County Public Schools in 1980 and was enrolled in the fifth grade. He repeated the fifth grade once, passed the sixth grade, and, in the 1984-85 school year, was repeating seventh grade. When Raul entered the Dade County school system he did not know the English language and was enrolled in a special program called English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). He remained in the program for three years. Raul received no bilingual educational services from the school system after the first three years. Raul Lopez entered Palm Springs Junior High School on September 7, 1984, and was recommended for alternative school on January 18, 1985. During the time Raul was at Palm Springs, he was referred to the office for disciplinary reasons on eight different occasions. Assistant Principal Long's testimony was the only evidence presented by Petitioner to show that Raul had a record of disruptive behavior. However, Mr. Long's testimony was not credible and, for the most part, was uncorroborated hearsay. Mr. Long had no personal knowledge of any of the incidents which caused Raul's disciplinary referrals, and could not provide any information, other than speculation, as to what had actually happened to cause each referral. Mr. Long explained that, when a disciplinary problem occurs, the teacher or staff person involved fills out a referral, setting forth the details of the incident. The assistant principal to whom the matter is referred then prepares a computer card on the incident, fitting the behavior that occurred into one or more of the available categories, such as "general disruptive behavior." Mr. Long's testimony regarding Raul's behavior came directly from a computer print-out. It was clear that Mr. Long had no independent recollection of any of the incidents. From the computer print out, Mr. Long testified that Raul received the following referrals: DATE REASON FOR REFERRAL 10/9/84 general disruptive behavior 10/16/84 defiance of school authority; dress code violations; rude and discourteous (Mr. Long stated that Raul may have had his shirttail out or not worn socks) 10/30/84 general disruptive behavior; rude and discourteous; no school materials (Mr. Long explained that Raul didn't have his books or didn't have his P.E. uniform) 11/1/84 excessive tardiness; rude and discourteous 11/13/84 general disruptive behavior; didn't complete class assignment 11/21/84 unauthorized location; no school materials 12/10/84 excessive tardiness; general disruptive behavior; rude and discourteous 1/11/85 general disruptive behavior; assault (Mr. Long stated that he knew nothing about the assault because he didn't handle the referral) Raul was placed on indoor suspension as a result of the October 9, 1984, incident, and was referred to counseling after the November 1st and November 13th incidents. Although Mr. Long stated that attempts were made to contact the parents, the only conference with the parents was on January 18, 1985, to inform them that Raul was being referred to the alternative school. Mr. Long had personal contact with Raul and found him to be defiant, hostile, and disrespectful. Raul also used obscene language. However, he also testified that he had never had problems with Raul. The evidence establishes that Raul had a very poor attendance record while attending Palm Springs. He was absent 25 days, of which 15 absences were confirmed truancies. The Dade County Public Schools Complaint of Truancy (R.Ex.-l) indicates that several conferences were held with Raul's parents concerning Raul's excessive absences; however, the visiting teacher could not remember whether he actually made contact with Raul's parents or merely went to Raul's home and left a message that Raul was truant, and Mr. Long's testimony concerning parent conferences was inconclusive. Several letters were sent to the home regarding Raul's non-attendance. Mrs. Lopez testified that the only contact she had with school personnel was on January 18, 1985. Raul has not been successful academically. He had to repeat the fifth and seventh grades. After the first nine weeks at Palm Springs he received one C, two Ds, and three Fs. After the first semester the number of Fs had increased to four. Mr. Long testified that Raul was not in school often enough to receive passing grades. He also testified that the low grades were a result of Raul's behavior problem. Raul testified that he didn't go to school because he did not understand the school work. He admitted that he does not read or write very well. He stated that nobody had ever asked him why he did not like to go to school. Raul admitted that he had refused to "dress out" for physical education class. Mr. Long did not know why Raul failed to attend school, but stated that every effort was exhausted at Palm Springs to correct Raul's problems. He felt that Palm Springs simply could not meet Raul's needs. The counselor at the school requests testing for exceptional education, and although Raul had been sent to the counselor, Mr. Long did not know whether the counselor had requested exceptional education testing. Mr. Long believed that Raul was in the proper academic program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered approving the assignment of Respondent to the opportunity school program at Jan Mann Opportunity School-North. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Valentine, Jr., Esq. Assistant Schoo1 Board Attorney McCrarY & Valentine, P.A. 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida Mitchell A. Horwich, Esq. Education Advocacy Project Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Northside Shopping Center 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147-4796 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Board Administration Building Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant School Board Attorney Dade County School Board Suite 301 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: Curtis Stephen Pope, a 12-year-old student, attends seventh grade in the public schools of Dade County. He lives with his grandmother, Mrs. Joyce Robinson, at 11352 Southwest 214 Street, Goulds, Florida. Until January, 1981, he attended seventh grade at nearby Mays Junior High School. (Testimony of J. Robinson, McPhaul.) In December, 1980, the vice principal of Mays Junior High recommended that Curtis be administratively reassigned to the Opportunity School South because of repeated disruptive behavior affecting the learning opportunity of others creating an unsafe learning environment. The school principal subsequently joined in that recommendation and on January 26, 1981, Curtis was reassigned to an educational alternative program at Youth Opportunity School South, 6135 Southwest 66th Street, Miami, Florida--a school located approximately 15 miles from Curtis' residence. It is that reassignment which is the subject of this proceeding. (Testimony of McPhaul; P-3). From September, 1980, through January 1981, Curtis repeatedly disrupted classes at Mays Junior High. His behavior adversely affected the learning environment and interfered with the educational process of other students, as well as his own. He was frequently referred to the assistant principal for disciplinary action. Twice he was suspended from school for ten-day periods: on October 20, 1980, for disrespect and defiance to the assistant principal and principal, and on November 12, 1980, for fighting with another student. Mrs. Robinson was contacted by Curtis' teachers as well as the school's administrators in an attempt to define the nature of Curtis' problem and take remedial action. However, despite these good-faith efforts, his classroom behavioral difficulties continued. (Testimony of McPhaul, J. Robinson; P-2). Specifically, Curtis' disruptive classroom behavior is described below: 2/ CLASS CURTIS' BEHAVIOR Reading Highly disruptive; fails to bring classroom materials or pay attention; easily distracted; plays during class and frequently tardy or absent. Math Disturbs class by talking, walking, and bothering other students; beats on desk, makes loud noises, and runs in and out of classroom; frequently tardy or absent. Intuitive Math Plays and walks about class; fails to follow directions; disturbs class and leaves without permission. Physical Education Disinterested n class; fails to participate in activities with other children. Science Rarely cooperates; fails to remain in seat, and leaves room without permission; unprepared for class; excessive tardiness. Civics Engages in fights and horse- play with other students; makes loud noises and refuses to stop; leaves room without permission; excessive absences. (Testimony of Herrman, Smith, Delvalle, Nicholson, Rochfort, Fields; P-2). At this time, Curtis requires individualized and special educational instruction which is unavailable at Mays Junior High--where classroom enrollment ranges from 25 to 30 students. On the few occasions when Curtis has received individualized instruction at Mays, his interest increased and his academic performance improved. Such individualized attention is available, on a routine basis, at the Youth Opportunity School South's educational alternative program-- where there is one teacher for every ten students. If Curtis makes the progress which can reasonably be expected of him in such a learning environment, he should eventually be able to return to regular school programs. Whether Curtis profits from and takes advantage of the greater instructional opportunities at Youth Opportunity School--and eventually returns to regular school programs--is wholly dependent on his own attitude and choice. (Testimony of J. Robinson, C. Robinson, Smith, Herrman, Delvalle, Nicholson, Rochfort, Fields; P-4). Mrs. Robinson opposes Curtis' reassignment primarily because of her belief that several neighborhood boys who attended the school later became involved in crime. But the fact that some students' behavioral problems persisted despite the educational opportunities offered at the Youth Opportunity School do not negate those opportunities or make them less real. Given positive support and encouragement at home--coupled with the educational environment available at the Youth Opportunity School South--Curtis will be given the opportunity to learn and achieve his potential; whether he--in--fact--does so will depend on him. (Testimony of J. Robinson, C. Robinson, McPhaul).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Superintendent's action in placing Curtis Stephen Pope in the educational alternative program offered at Youth Opportunity School South be upheld and confirmed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Edward Pressley, the Respondent, has been a teacher in the Orange County school system for approximately 12 years. Mr. Pressley was serving as a physical education teacher and a remedial teacher for high school students with scholastic difficulty at all times pertinent hereto. In August of 1978, Mr. Pressley had been transferred from the Magnolia School to Cherokee School as a physical education teacher for the 1978-79 school year. On March 28, 1979, Karen Werrenrath, the Principal of Cherokee School and Mr. Pressley's immediate supervisor, determined that he was not at his assigned work location at about the middle of the morning. Mr. Pressley had earlier reported to the Principal that he had discovered the theft of a film projector from the school and that he had reported the theft to a policeman he had observed driving by the school after discovering it missing. Mrs. Werrenrath had inquired about Mr. Pressley's whereabouts because she had received a call from the school system's media center inquiring about the projector which Mr. Pressley had checked out and then reported stolen. The media center required the police department case number which was assigned to the stolen article. Upon calling the police department, Mrs. Werrenrath was informed that the police had no record of any such report, and on March 28, 1979, she therefore informed Mr. Pressley that she had had difficulty in obtaining the number and requested that he obtain it for her. On that date, however, the Respondent left the school campus without permission of the Principal between 10:30 and 11:00 a.m. and did not return to his duty station until approximately 1:15 p.m. Mrs. Werrenrath inquired about his whereabouts during that period of time, and he stated he had gone to the police department and sat on a bench waiting for the police officer to whom he had reported the theft to walk by, and after that he went to lunch. Immediately upon his return to the school campus, however, and during the course of his attempt to explain his previous whereabouts, Mrs. Werrenrath smelled alcohol on Mr. Pressley's breath. Mrs. Werrenrath informed Mr. Pressley that she detected alcohol on his breath, and he offered the explanation that he was taking medication for a halitosis condition. On March 29, 1979, a "workshop" or seminar for physical education teachers in the Orange County school system was held at Meadowbrook Junior High School. Judith Walker is the physical education coordinator for the Orange County public school system and attended that meeting. Ms. Walker is acquainted with the Respondent and saw him at the meeting. Mr. Pressley asked her if he could talk to her, apparently with regard to what he felt was a situation of personal harassment by the school administration. Ms. Walker assented, and the two of them left for lunch together, riding in Mr. Pressley's car. Mr. Pressley was driving. Ms. Walker has known the Respondent for approximately seven years and has observed him on those occasions when he has obviously not been drinking or under the influence of any sort of drug. On those occasions he has been polite and gentlemanly in his conduct, has been able to speak clearly and concisely, and articulate his thoughts reasonably. When she got into Mr. Pressley's car, Ms. Walker noticed a very definite odor of alcoholic beverages. As they drove to a local fast food restaurant, Ms. Walker observed that Mr. Pressley had difficulty controlling the car. He was unable to stay in his lane and was "weaving" from the center line to the side of the road and drove in the wrong way to a drive-in window of the fast food restaurant. In attempting to back out of the drive-in lane, he ran into a post and ultimately hit another post with his car before leaving the restaurant parking area. Ms. Walker also established that the Respondent appeared disoriented and unable to locate the familiar restaurant without her assistance, spoke with slurred speech, and articulated his thoughts in an erratic and disorganized manner. He was unable to conduct a conversation about a subject in a clear and concise manner. Ms. Walker has frequently been in contact with people who have been drinking alcoholic beverages with her knowledge and has seen people in an intoxicated condition. Based upon her experience in observing people in that condition and her observations of Mr. Pressley while she was with him during the school day on March 30, 1979, she felt he was under the influence of alcohol during that time. Shortly after this episode, Ms. Walker reported the incident to the Superintendent of Schools for Orange County at that time, Mr. L. Linton Deck, Jr. She also, shortly thereafter, reduced her observations and impressions regarding the incident to writing in a memorandum to the Superintendent dated April 17, 1979. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). During the course of their conversation, while Ms. Walker was riding in Mr. Pressley's car on March 30, he informed her that he had been taking pain medication for a back injury and that it was his practice to take beer with his pain pills in order to hasten the comforting effects. Ultimately, in a letter dated April 24, 1979, the Superintendent of public schools in Orange County charged Mr. Pressley with misconduct in office based upon the observations of the two above witnesses that he had been drinking or had been under the influence of alcohol during duty hours. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Mr. Pressley retained counsel at that time and, after various negotiations between the Petitioner and the Respondent, an agreement was worked out between counsel for the School Board and Mr. Pressley such that no final disciplinary action was taken with respect to those charges, with the express understanding that Mr. Pressley would enroll in an alcoholic rehabilitation program and would be removed from continuing contract status and placed on annual contract status henceforth. Mr. Pressley was also transferred to Evans High School for employment. Petitioner's Exhibit 1, stipulated into evidence, reveals that the Superintendent's action in deferring taking any formal action against Mr. Pressley on the basis of the charges was purely a result of this agreement. The Respondent expressly agreed, as the letter from his counsel dated May 4, 1979, contained in this exhibit establishes, that the School Board's forbearance in pressing formal action on the charges would not prejudice the School Board in any way with regard to reinstituting the charges at a later time should Mr. Pressley's subsequent conduct justify resumption of their prosecution. Accordingly, as a result of that agreement, Mr. Pressley was allowed to return to the Orange County school system as a teacher on annual contract and was transferred to Evans High School for the 1979-80 school year as a teacher of remedial classes for students who were having scholastic difficulties. Magnolia School is a special education center in the Orange County school system. The Respondent was employed at the Magnolia School some years prior to 1980. On Friday, May 23, 1980, while Mr. Pressley was on personal leave from his job at Evans High School, he appeared upon the grounds of Magnolia School. Jessie D. Smith is a special education teacher who was acquainted with Mr. Pressley from the time he was employed at Magnolia School. On this particular day, Ms. Smith was conducting a private conference with Mrs. Margaret Murray. Mrs. Murray had a son enrolled in the untrainable mentally retarded program at Magnolia Center under Ms. Smith's supervision. This was a private conference between Mrs. Murray and Ms. Smith regarding Mrs. Murray's son's progress in the program and his prognosis for the future. Mr. Pressley had nothing to do with the education of Mrs. Murray's child and had no business being in attendance at the private conference between Ms. Smith and Mrs. Murray. Mr. Pressley had no official business to conduct which justified his presence on the grounds of Magnolia School on that or any other day. The Respondent was not invited by either of the participants in this private conference to participate in it, and indeed Mrs. Murray had never seen Mr. Pressley before he walked into the room, interrupting their conference. Mr. Pressley did not know Mrs. Murray and, although he was not invited to participate in the conference, interrupted it by taking a seat in close proximity to Ms. Smith and Mrs. Murray and abruptly started questioning Mrs. Murray. The Respondent asked Mrs. Murray impertinent and inappropriate questions regarding her marital status, whether she was able to care for her child, and whether she had a boy friend. He insinuated that he felt Mrs. Murray was wasting the school's time by requesting and conducting this conference regarding her child and then declared if he were in her position he would remove her child from school immediately. Ms. Smith naturally became quite irritated with Mr. Pressley's shockingly inappropriate conduct and escorted Mrs. Murray into the next classroom in order to attempt to finish their conference without further interference by the Respondent. Ms. Smith was unable to say whether or not Mr. Pressley had been indulging in alcoholic beverages on the day in question, but she stated, with a view toward her long experience with the Respondent's personality and behavior, that he definitely was not behaving and conducting himself in a normal manner during her observations of him on May 23, 1980. Ms. Smith was shocked and embarrassed that Mr. Pressley as a professional colleague and employee of the same school system would conduct himself in that manner in the presence of the parent of one of her students. When the Respondent first sat down at the conference between Ms. Smith and Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Murray believed him to be a teacher, but when he began talking he was mumbling and slurring his words and speaking in an incoherent manner which led Mrs. Murray to believe that he was in some way retarded. After hearing him converse in that fashion for awhile, she then formed the opinion that he was simply drunk. Ms. Phyllis Albert was employed as a teacher's aide at Magnolia School and was present in the room on May 23, 1980, when Mr. Pressley entered it prior to Ms. Smith and Mrs. Murray coming into the room. Ms. Albert has known the Respondent for a substantial period of time and described him as quiet, reserved and somber. On the day in question, however, Ms. Albert established that Mr. Pressley was acting quite differently from his normal behavior in that he was acting and speaking very exuberantly and in general behaving in an outgoing, extroverted fashion. When the Respondent shook Ms. Albert's hand, she detected a definite odor of alcoholic beverages on the Respondent's breath. She recalled that her impression at the time was that he was "really bombed out of his mind." Olla Evans, the Assistant Principal at Evans High School, observed the Respondent on two occasions between September and December of 1980, when he brought students to her office for disciplinary purposes. On each of these occasions she detected the odor of alcoholic beverages on the Respondent and on the Respondent's breath when he was in her office. On one of these occasions, the odor was so strong that she had to open the door to clear the smell out of her office. On this occasion she also observed that the Respondent's eyes were markedly red. Witness Evans also established that on repetitive occasions (five or six), during the fall of 1980, the Respondent was late arriving for work and that she had to call substitute teachers to take his classes for him until he arrived. Catherine Melton was a regular, continuing substitute teacher for Mr. Pressley's classes at Evans High School in the fall of 1980. She was called to substitute for Pressley's classes at least three or four times during the course of the fall school term. She substituted for his second period class in December on the day before the Christmas holidays commenced. At approximately 8:30 that morning the Respondent appeared, looking in the window of the classroom door. She opened the door and asked him if he was coming into the class at that time. He did not respond but walked into the classroom and appeared confused and disoriented. She observed the Respondent in this disoriented state for several minutes, during which time he did not acknowledge her presence or respond to her in any way. On another occasion, in December of 1980, the Respondent was escorted from the school by two police officers. On that occasion the Respondent missed the entire afternoon of that working day without his absence being excused. He was thus unable to perform his duties as a teacher that afternoon and did not obtain leave approval for that time. On January 7, 1981, Juana Senter, who is an Assistant Principal at Evans High School, reported to John Pitts, the Principal, that Mr. Pressley was late again and had not called in to report that he would be late nor to seek an excuse for his absence. She reported this to the Principal at approximately 8:15 or 8:20 a.m. The official starting time for teachers at Evans High School at all times pertinent hereto was 7:00 a.m. The students then report at 7:15 a.m., and the tardy bell for students and teachers is rung at 7:20 a.m. Inasmuch as Mr. Pressley had already been late reporting for work five or six times during the fall of 1980, and now once again on January 7, 1981, Ms. Senter suggested to the Principal that "something should be done about it." Mr. Pitts directed Ms. Senter to secure a substitute teacher for Mr. Pressley's classes and direct Mr. Pressley to report to his office when he arrived at school. The Respondent arrived at school at approximately 8:30 a.m. on that day and reported to Mr. Pitts' office. Mr. Pitts was taken aback at the Respondent's appearance. The Respondent was untidy, with wrinkled, rumpled clothes, and Mr. Pitts detected the strong odor of alcoholic beverages on or about the Respondent's person as soon as the Respondent entered his office. Mr. Pitts described the Respondent as "either getting drunk or doing some drinking, or coming off a real tough night." The witness then established that he had had substantial experience in the Navy, and since, around people who have been drinking in various amounts, and described his observations as to how people act when under the influence of alcohol. In his experience, people who have been drinking late into the night or early in the morning usually carry evidence of the odor of alcoholic beverages on their breath or on their clothing and generally act, move or behave in an unsteady manner. The witness established that the Respondent acted in this manner on this occasion and that his presence was accompanied by a strong odor of alcoholic beverages. There was no question in this witness' mind that the Respondent had been drinking shortly before coming into his office. Mr. Pitts therefore was not desirous of the Respondent coming in contact with the students while he was in that condition. He therefore directed that Mr. Pressley return home and "get himself straightened out" and report back to Mr. Pitts for a conference about his problem before returning to the classroom to conduct business with his students. Mr. Pitts was aware that the Respondent was enrolled in an alcoholic rehabilitation program, and he described himself and the school administration as making every effort to be supportive of the Respondent in his rehabilitation effort. The Respondent failed to return to the school that day and did not come in for a conference with Mr. Pitts, but rather returned the next day to the regular conduct of his classes without further discussing the incident with Mr. Pitts. The Respondent has been on medication of one type or another since January of 1979. He has had prescribed for him and has been taking various types of pain and tranquilizer medications and muscle relaxants such as Fiorinal No. 3, Talwin, Vicodin, Tylox, Librium and Valium. The Respondent contends he has never taken an overdose of any of his various types of medication, but acknowledges that he has at times taken medication in conjunction with alcoholic beverages in order to speed up the comforting effects of the medication. Although the Respondent stated at one point that he had had no difficulties occasioned by mixing his medications with alcoholic beverages, he has admitted that he was convicted of driving while intoxicated as a result of mixing medication and alcohol on two occasions: January 22, 1979; and again on March 7, 1980. Parenthetically, it should be noted that portions of the arrest record for the Respondent's arrests for Driving While Intoxicated were admitted for the narrow reason of demonstrating that he was aware of the effects of consuming alcohol and his medication contemporaneously prior to his engaging in some of the conduct described in the Findings of Fact above. In any event, Mr. Pressley has admitted that on those two occasions he was mixing medications with alcoholic beverages with the convictions resulting. Mr. Pressley, in testifying concerning the episode occurring at Magnolia School, stated that he had been taking medication that day prior to going to the school. Later in his testimony he recanted and testified that he could not remember if he had been taking medication, and he denied drinking that day. The Respondent's testimony is repeatedly characterized by the statement, "I don't recall," or "I don't remember." He recalls being in the room with Ms. Smith and another person at Magnolia School, but does not recall who that person was, nor does he remember participating in the meeting with Mrs. Murray and Ms. Smith. He claims not to remember anything he asked Mrs. Murray. Mr. Pressley also maintains he cannot recall any of the details of the episode at Magnolia School, although he maintains he definitely does recall that he had not been drinking that day. The undersigned finds the Respondent's testimony and demeanor on the witness stand characterized by poor memory or evasiveness or both.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the evidence in the record, and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the School Board of Orange County, Florida, dismissing the Respondent as an instructional employee of the School Board of Orange County, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Bower, Esquire Bowen and King 217 North Eola Drive Orlando, Florida 32802 Mark F. Kelly, Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
