The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for 14 challenged examination questions in the State Officers Certification Examination (SOCE) for Law Enforcement Officers.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner challenged 14 questions after failing the SOCE for the third and final time on September 30, 2009. The challenged questions are numbered 32, 62, 63, 79, 87, 128, 139, 154, 155, 156, 170, 187, 212, and 236. During the hearing, Petitioner withdrew her challenges to questions 79, 87, 155, and 212. Ten questions remain at issue in this proceeding. A preponderance of the evidence does not support Petitioner’s challenges to the 10 questions at issue. Expert testimony shows the challenged questions were validated through appropriate field testing. The questions are accurate to the curriculum and perform sufficiently during testing. The correct answer to each challenged question was identified in the curriculum by expert testimony during the hearing. The statistical probability of an examinee answering a question correctly is identified in the record by a "P" value. For challenged question 32, the “P” value was 0.80, which means that 80 percent of examinees answered the question correctly. Only 78 of 5,220 examinees chose the answer chosen by Petitioner for question 32. The "P" value for challenged question 62 was 0.76, meaning that 76 percent of examinees answered the question correctly. Only 222 of 1,655 examinees chose the response that Petitioner chose for question 62. The "P" value for challenged question 63 was 0.95, meaning that 95 percent of examinees answered the question correctly. Only 150 of 3,387 examinees chose the response that Petitioner chose for question 63. The "P" value for challenged question 128 was 0.59, meaning that 59 percent of examinees answered the question correctly. Approximately 2,142 of 4,456 examinees chose the response that Petitioner chose for question 128. The "P" value for challenged question 139 was 0.93, meaning that 93 percent of examinees answered the question correctly. Only 20 of 568 examinees chose the response that Petitioner chose for question 139. The "P" value for challenged question 154 was 0.90, meaning that 90 percent of examinees answered the question correctly. Only 51 of 4,331 examinees chose the response that Petitioner chose for question 154. The "P" value for challenged question 156 was 0.80, meaning that 80 percent of examinees answered the question correctly. Only 404 of 5,721 examinees chose the response that Petitioner chose for question 156. The "P" value for challenged question 170 was 0.81, meaning that 81 percent of examinees answered the question correctly. Only 596 of 4,681 examinees chose the response that Petitioner chose for question 170. The "P" value for challenged question 187 was 0.90, meaning that 90 percent of examinees answered the question correctly. Only 28 of 2,908 examinees chose the response that Petitioner chose for question 187. The "P" value for challenged question 236 was 0.92, meaning that 92 percent of examinees answered the question correctly. Only 133 of 2,449 examinees chose the response that Petitioner chose for question 236.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner’s challenge to the 10 examination questions from the September 20, 2009, Law Enforcement State Officer Certification Examination numbered 32, 62, 63, 128, 139, 154, 156, 170, 187, and 236. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be fined $11,000.00 and have its license revoked for failing to correct a Class III deficiency and for a Class II deficiency related to the same set of facts.
Findings Of Fact The Agency is the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of ALF's in the State of Florida. The Petitioner is licensed to operate Woodland Field, Inc., as an ALF in Jacksonville, Florida. Robert Cunningham was called as a witness for the Agency. He is a Health Facilities Evaluator II. His duties include performing surveys of different health care facility types. Mr. Cunningham was familiar with Woodland Field because he had surveyed Woodland Field, Inc. Mr. Cunningham identified the Agency's composite Exhibit 1, item 1, as a copy of a letter to Ms. Wallace reporting himself and Audrey Deas, R.N.'s findings of the state appraisal survey of February 14, 2002. Mr. Cunningham found that one staff member on duty at the time of the survey, who was hired in 2001, did not have a Level I background screening on file. See Tag A511, Exhibit 1, item 1. Mr. Cunningham also testified that a staff worker must have a Level I background screening. Mr. Cunningham discussed the employee with Ms. Harriett Wallace and made her aware of the fault, and that it was a Class III deficiency. Mr. Cunningham gave the facility a 30-day period up to and including March 16, 2002, to correct the deficiency. Mr. Cunningham identified the Agency's composite Exhibit 1, item 2, as a copy of a follow-up survey conducted on March 15, 2002, by himself and Audrey Deas. On the follow-up of March 15, 2002, Mr. Cunningham testified that he found Tag A511 uncorrected. The employee who did not meet background screening requirements in February was still there in March. Additionally, it was determined that this person had committed disqualifying offenses. See Tag A1115. Mr. Cunningham testified that he surveyed the facility a day earlier than the full 30 days given for the correction because a plan of correction submitted by the facility showed everything to be corrected on or before March 15, 2002, or a day early. However, the Petitioner had until the following day to effect the correction. Mr. Cunningham cited Tag A1115 because of the police report that he received from Protective Services of Department of Children and Family Services suggested further problems with this particular employee. Robert Dickson was called as a witness for the Agency. Mr. Dickson is employed by the Agency in the Jacksonville Field Office as a Health Facility Evaluator Supervisor. Mr. Dickson supervised Mr. Cunningham and others in the Jacksonville Field Office. Mr. Dickson is familiar with Woodland Field, Inc. Mr. Dickson identified the Agency's Composite Exhibit 1, item 3, as a copy of a recommendation for sanction drafted by himself and approved by his supervisor's designee on March 23, 2002, based on the on-site visits February 14 and March 15, 2002. Petitioner was originally cited for a Class III deficiency, Tag A511. Upon re-inspection, Petitioner was again cited for an uncorrected Class III deficiency, Tag A511, which warranted a fine. The Class II deficiency, Tag A1115, pertaining to the disqualified employee being retained in the facility and a Class III deficiency, Tag A511, pertaining to the employer who was not in compliance with Level I background screening requirements were the bases for levying the second fine on Petitioner. However, it is noted that both cited violations relate to the same factual predicate. Both citations relate to the employment of Pamela Harvey. Petitioner could have come into compliance merely by firing her. At the time of the second inspection, the Petitioner had initiated a background check on Pamela Harvey and been advised by FDLE that Pamela Harvey was cleared for employment. The source of Pamela Harvey's disqualification may have been communicated orally to Wallace by Cunningham, but there is uncertainty about whether the Department had provided Wallace a copy of the disqualifying record. There was no uncertainty about Pamela Harvey's clearance by FDLE. A conflict existed at this point between agencies regarding clearance of Pamela Harvey, and it was incumbent upon the Agency to provide Wallace with a copy of the disqualifying record and resolve the conflict, not just cite Petitioner for an alleged violation. Ms. Wallace had initiated the paperwork for the background screen of the subject employee after the first survey, and around the 1st of March, received notice from Tallahassee that the employee was cleared. Ms. Wallace notified Mr. Cunningham that she had received a clear report from Tallahassee. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Therefore, she had complied with the screening requirement for which she was originally cited. She had appropriate documentation. Mr. Cunningham verbally advised Ms. Wallace about the employee's arrest, but did not provide her a written copy of the file which AHCA had received from the Protective Services of the Department of Children and Family Services. The reviewing personnel in AHCA had the information on the employee; however, the FDLE, from whom an employer requests a background check did not have the record of conviction. Over the next several months, the Petitioner continued to submit information to FDLE and receive back an all clear on Harvey. The Agency's witnesses could not state with certainty that they ever gave the Petitioner a copy of the information from the Department of Children and Family Services.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing both complaints. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Harriett Wallace, Administrator Woodland Field, Inc. 8236 Moncrief-Dinsmore Road Jacksonville, Florida 32219 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Respondent whose Social Security Number is 356-48-9981 was certified as a law enforcement office by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on December 18, 1985 and was issued certificate number 12- 85-222-02. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer. On or about April 23, 1987 Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges of grand theft in the second degree, a violation Section 812.014, Florida Statutes and dealing in stolen property, a violation of Section 812.019, Florida Statutes. The Respondent was adjudged guilty of these offenses by the Circuit Court of Saint Lucie County, Florida on April 23, 1987.
Recommendation Having considered the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witness, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order revoking the law enforcement officer certification (No. 12-85-222-02) of Respondent, Carey A. Reddick. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 15th day of February, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Carey A. Reddick 15424 Loomis Harvey, IL 60426 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Randall J. Cason, is a certified law enforcement officer having been issued certification number 0228323 on December 8, 1980 by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. Until sometime in 1986, he was employed as a police office by the City of Miami. On or about March 4, 1986 Cason was convicted of conspiracy to commit bribery by a public servant (a first degree misdemeanor) and bribery by a public servant (a third degree felony). On April 21, 1986 he was sentenced to serve five years in prison for the felony conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent's law enforcement certification number 0228323 be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Randall J. Cason 2521 Ludlum Road Miami Springs, Florida 33166 Mr. Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be disqualified to work in a position of special trust.
Findings Of Fact The Department disqualified the Petitioner to work in a position of special trust and denied the Petitioner an exemption from that denial. Subsequently, the Petitioner timely challenged the agency's decision. The Petitioner is employed by Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. (EYA) an entity that operates the Eckerd Youth Development Center at Okeechobee, Florida. He has worked as a youth counselor at that facility since 1993. EYA contracts with the state of Florida to provide facilities for the juvenile justice system and, as such, must comply with employment qualifications for persons working with the juveniles assigned to the facility. The screening of EYA employees must be updated every five years. As part of the background screening process, EYA submitted paperwork for the Petitioner in 1998. The Department did not issue its disqualification decision until February 25, 2000. Thereafter, the Petitioner sought an exemption from the disqualification decision which was also denied by the Department on April 7, 2000. The delays in the re-screening decisions were not attributable to the Petitioner. The Department based its disqualification of the Petitioner and denial of the exemption on the criminal history set forth below. In 1995, the Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the possession of a weapon charge. Adjudication of guilt on this charge was withheld by the court. Based upon the plea on the weapon charge, the Petitioner received a two-year probation, the weapon was forfeited, and he was ordered to pay court costs and fees. He successfully completed all aspects of the sentence. In 1994, the Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of domestic violence, a misdemeanor. The Petitioner was adjudicated guilty on this charge and sentenced to one year of probation. He successfully completed all aspects of the sentence on this case. The Department contends that domestic battery/violence is a disqualifying offense which precludes the Petitioner's employment in a position of special trust at the Eckerd Youth Development Center. At all times during his employment by EYA, the Petitioner has served as an outstanding employee. EYA timely filed all the necessary paperwork to have the Petitioner re-screened for employment purposes. At all times during his employment by EYA, the Petitioner has been an excellent role model. He has not exhibited any conduct that would suggest minors would be placed at risk of physical harm if placed in his care. According to Mr. Timko, the Petitioner is "probably one of the most mild- mannered, positive role models that we have out there." The Petitioner's explanations regarding his criminal record have been deemed sufficient and persuasive as to the facts of the underlying incidents. In particular as to the domestic battery/violence incident, it is found that the Petitioner did not harm the alleged victim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order either granting the Petitioner the exemption sought or finding that he has not committed an act of domestic violence such that he must be disqualified from employment in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny R. Jenkins 3745 Northwest 27th Avenue Okeechobee, Florida 34972 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building, Suite 300 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building, Suite 300 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building, Suite 300 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 051784, Post Graduate, Rank II, valid until June 30, 1987, covering the areas of math and junior college. During the 1980-1981 school year Respondent was employed as a mathematics teacher at Shanks High School in Quincy, Florida. Respondent has, in fact, been an employee of the Gadsden County School System as a classroom teacher for the past 27 years. On April 9, 1981, Linda Charleston, a student in Respondent's fifth grade remedial math class, was tested on Mini-Skills Test J-24. These so-called "mini-skills tests" are instruments used for the remediation of students in a variety of "skills," and consist of ten multiple-choice questions. For each "skill" tested, there existed two separate forms, one of which could be administered every three to six weeks in the event a student failed when the test was first taken. The tests were given this length of time apart so that students could be prevented from memorizing the ten multiple-choice questions. Judy Parramore, a teacher's aide at James A. Shanks High School who was in charge of administering the mini-skills tests, gave this particular test to Linda Charleston on April 9, 1981, and graded the results of the test. Miss Charleston correctly answered nine of the ten multiple-choice questions on the test given to her on April 9, 1981. Prior to that time. Ms. Parramore had administered the same skills test to Linda Charleston, and the student had on that occasion scored zero. Miss Charleston's answers were identical on both tests. Answers given by the student were the answers to Mini-Skills Test J-24, Form B. Because of this dramatic and incongruous improvement in Miss Charleston's test scores, Ms. Parramore brought the matter to the attention of the school administration. As a result, on April 9, 1981, Carlos Deason, the Shanks High School Principal; Ms. Parramore; and Bettye Ponder, Curriculum Assistant and teacher at Shanks High School, interviewed Miss Charleston. During the course of this interview, Miss Charleston furnished information which implicated Jackie Gibson, a fellow Shanks student, who, according to Miss Charleston, had given her the answers to Mini-Skills Test, J-24, Form B. According to Miss Charleston, Miss Gibson had advised her at the time that she received the answers that Miss Gibson had gotten the answers from Respondent. Mr. Deason, Ms. Parramore, and Ms. Ponder then interviewed Jackie Gibson, who advised them further that Respondent had given her the answers to Mini-Skills Test RC-7, Forms A and B. Miss Gibson also at that time furnished a sheet purportedly containing the answers to the State Student Assessment Test, Part II, Math, for the April 2, 1981, testing session, which she said had been given to her by Brenda Robinson, a fellow student. According to Miss Gibson, Miss Robinson told her that she had received this answer sheet from Respondent. Brenda Robinson was then called into the meeting to be interviewed by Mr. Deason, Ms. Parramore and Ms. Ponder. Miss Robinson at that time advised that she had gone to Respondent's homeroom class on April 2, 1981, the day the SSAT II exam had been administered, and had gotten the answers to that test from Respondent. Finally, Linda Moye, another Shanks student, was interviewed, and also implicated Respondent as having furnished her with answers to unspecified mini- skills tests. At the conclusion of the student interviews on April 9, 1981, each of the aforementioned students signed written statements attesting to the facts hereinabove recited. Subsequently, approximately one week later, these students were called back to give sworn statements before a court reporter. Although these statements were not introduced into evidence at the final hearing in this cause, each of the students either recanted his or her earlier statements to school administrators or refused to again discuss the matter. Since giving their initial statements to school administrators, all of the four students mentioned above have at one time or another--including in their testimony at final hearing in this cause--withdrawn their stories implicating Respondent as having furnished answers to either the SSAT II exam or the mini-skills tests. The students explain this change in testimony by accusing the school administrators who took their statements of having threatened them with refusing to allow them to graduate if they refused to identify Respondent as the source of the test answers. There is no credible evidence in this record to support such an accusation. Conversely, Petitioner explains the apparent change of heart to community pressure brought upon the witnesses at Respondent's behest. Again, there is insufficient evidence in this record to establish that fact. The only consistent thread in the testimony of Linda Charleston is her admission that she had answers to certain of the mini-skills tests prior to the time she took them, and that she received those answers from Jackie Gibson. Beyond this, even the most cursory review of the record in this cause will reveal that the remainder of Miss Charleston's testimony is so contradictory and inconsistent as to be totally unworthy of belief in any particular. The testimony of Jackie Gibson is consistent only in that she admits having answers to Mini-Skills Test RC-7, Forms A and B, and that she received a sheet containing answers to the SSAT II, Math, test from Brenda Robinson sometime after that test had been administered on April 2, 1981. At various points in this record, Miss Gibson implicates Respondent as being the source of these answers, and at other times testifies that she received the answers from Bruce Bennett, Respondent's student assistant. Even when implicating Bennett, however, Miss Gibson is unclear as to where Mr. Bennett obtained the answers. In short, because of the inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and contradictions in her testimony, it is specifically found that Miss Gibson's testimony is unworthy of belief beyond the point of establishing that she, in fact, furnished answers to Mini-Skills Test J-24, Form B, and RC-7, Forms A and B, to Linda Charleston, and that Brenda Robinson gave her what she thought to be an answer sheet to the SSAT II, Math, test for safekeeping sometime after that test had been administered. Finally, Linda Moye also denied at the final hearing that Respondent furnished her answers to any mini-skills test. Each of these student witnesses--Linda Charleston, Jackie Gibson, Brenda Robinson, and Linda Moye--were called as Petitioner's witnesses. They were neither declared, nor asked to be declared, "adverse" or "hostile" witnesses. Respondent, testifying in her own defense, denied having furnished answers to any mini-skills tests to any of her students. The record in this case establishes that at least one security breach occurred at Shanks High School resulting in the loss or theft of at least one mini-skills test. In addition, the school administration apparently was aware that, prior to the incidents involved in this case, students had answers to various of these tests. In fact, this record establishes that the Respondent mentioned her concerns with security involving the mini-skills test to the principal, Mr. Deason, prior to the instant controversy. However, no effort was made to change the contents of the tests, at least from 1978 through the time of the improprieties alleged to have occurred in this case. There is, therefore, some explanation of record as to how students could have come into possession of these test answers. There is not, however, sufficient, competent, credible evidence to indicate that Respondent at any time, or in any fashion, furnished answers to any of these mini-skills tests to any student at James A. Shanks High School. As previously mentioned, Brenda Robinson, a student in Respondent's fifth period remedial math class, on April 9, 1981, furnished to school administrators what appears from the record to be a key to the SSAT II, Math, test for the April 2, 1981, testing session. These answers were handwritten on a yellow, legal size piece of paper. Miss Robinson gave the answer sheet to Jackie Gibson to keep for her. This sheet was verified by Jim Diamond, general supervisor in charge of guidance and testing for the Gadsden County School Board, and Pat Gwen an employee in the student assessment section of the State Department of Education, as containing a majority of the correct answers to the SSAT II, Math, exam for the April 2, 1981, testing. Alonzo Brown, a student in Respondent's homeroom class, testified that on the morning of April 2, 1981, Respondent told her homeroom class that she expected every student in the class to pass the SSAT test to be administered that day. Mr. Brown further testified that Respondent told her homeroom class that she had the answers to this test, and proceeded to pass out copies of the answers to the test for the students to copy. According to Mr. Brown, he took a copy of the answers home with him and placed them in his dresser drawer. According to Mr. Brown, this answer sheet was later misplaced, and was not produced by Mr. Brown at final hearing. Respondent denies Mr. Brown's versions of the occurrences on April 2, 1981, and the greater weight of the evidence in this cause establishes Respondent was not even in her homeroom on the morning in question. Respondent's homeroom class was regularly assigned to another teacher on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so that it would have been highly unusual for her to have been in the room at all on April 2, 1981, which was a Thursday. In addition, the record clearly establishes that Respondent was involved in both a senior class meeting and a student council meeting on the morning in question during the period when her homeroom met on the morning of April 2, 1981. More important, however, is the question of how Respondent could have come into possession of the answers to the SSAT II, Math, test in the first instance. This examination is altered after each administration, so that no one, having seen a prior examination, would be able to use those answers on a subsequent test. In addition, no answer key to the SSAT II test is ever sent to an individual school district. The only keys available to this test were located in Iowa City, Iowa, and in the Department of Education in Tallahassee. As a result, the only feasible means available for obtaining answers to the SSAT II test administered on April 2, 1981, would have been to obtain a copy of the test booklet itself. The test booklets were not received in the Gadsden County School System until the afternoon of April 1, 1981, the day before the test was administered. The tests were immediately secured and locked in the school's main office. Additionally, each of the tests contains an individual serial number, and is sealed prior to distribution to students at the time of testing. Any irregularity in the sealing of test booklets is required to be brought to the attention of school personnel at the time the test is administered. The record in this case contains no evidence of a breach in the security of the SSAT II test, other than the answer sheet which Jackie Gibson gave to school administrators on April 9, 1981. The security of the test was, therefore, obviously breached at some time prior to the time the test was given on April 2, 1981, or the "answer sheet" was made at or after the administration of the test. The latter possibility would, of course, exculpate Respondent of the charge in this case. Even in the former event, however, Respondent's denial of her involvement in any furnishing of answers to this examination is more credible than the accusation that she did so based solely upon answers contained on a piece of yellow legal paper obtained a week after the test was administered, when taken together with the more credible evidence placing Respondent outside her homeroom during the morning of April 2, 1981. During the summer of 1978, Respondent, along with 36 other teachers, graded Criterion Reference Tests which had been administered to students at the conclusion of summer school at Shanks High School. During the grading of these tests, Respondent, in the presence of Katherine Peddie, a fellow teacher, made erasures and pencil marks on students' answer sheets on two or three occasions. Ms. Peddie did not immediately mention anything about this incident to Respondent, nor did she bring it to the attention of any of the monitors present in the room while the tests were being graded. After the test scoring had been completed, however, Ms. Peddie went to Carlos Deason, the principal of Shanks High School, and advised him of what she had observed. It should be noted here that Respondent is not simply charged with making marks and erasures on these students' answer sheets. Instead, she is charged with changing answers on these tests the effect of which changes is alleged to have resulted in ". . . altering the true score on those tests." Even when viewed in its most favorable light, Ms. Peddie's testimony does not establish any alteration in a student's test score. She merely observed some unexplained marks and erasures, the true effect of which is not clear from the record in this case, at least in part due to the fact that Ms. Peddie did not bring anyone's attention to the matter when the actual tests could have been examined for alterations. Indeed, this Hearing Officer is unwilling to draw an inference that any such marks and erasures in fact have had the effect of altering the true score of any student's test, when the record does not clearly establish that fact. As indicated earlier in this order, Linda Moye and Brenda Robinson gave statements implicating Respondent to school administrators on April 9, 1981. On Saturday evening, April 11, 1981, Miss Moye and Miss Robinson were questioned about their statements at a meeting of the local NAACP. Subsequently, on the afternoon of Sunday, April 12, 1981, Respondent and Leola Francis, a fellow teacher, spoke to Brenda Robinson about the statement she had given to school administrators on April 9, 1981. During the week following April 9, 1981, Jackie Gibson voluntarily went to Respondent at Shanks High School and asked Respondent to write a note for her to sign recanting her original statement of April 9, 1981. Respondent wrote such a note, which was signed by Jackie Gibson. As previously indicated, each of the students who gave statements to school administrators on April 9, 1981, subsequently recanted those statements either in sworn statements, depositions, or sworn testimony at final hearing. Another student, Barbara Jones, who testified in this proceeding, also received contacts from fellow students and from Leola Francis concerning her testimony in this proceeding. Ms. Jones also, shortly prior to the final hearing in this cause, received two telephone calls threatening her life should she appear to testify against Respondent. Notwithstanding these threatening telephone calls, Ms. Jones did, in fact, appear and testify. It does not appear from the record in this case that the threatening telephone calls affected Ms. Jones' testimony. Finally, Bettye Ponder, a curriculum assistant and teacher at Shanks High School, also received a threatening telephone call in the summer of 1981, and a "T" for traitor was burned in her front yard in August of 1981. Again, notwithstanding these threats, Ms. Ponder did, in fact, appear to testify at final hearing, and this record does not establish that these threats affected Ms. Ponder's testimony. It is clear from the record in this case that this entire episode has generated a great deal of interest and anxiety in the Quincy community. It is equally clean that a number of people, students, teachers, and citizens alike, spoke with several of the witnesses concerning their testimony in this case. This record does not, however, establish that the Respondent either directly or indirectly had any hand in attempting to influence the testimony of any of the students or other witnesses in this cause.
The Issue This is an examination challenge proceeding in which the Petitioner contends that he should be given additional credit for his answers to two challenged questions from Section 5 of the April 25, 1995, Law Enforcement Officer Basic Recruit Training Examination.
Findings Of Fact Background matters The Respondent agencies are agencies of the State of Florida and are charged by statute with responsibility for the testing and certification of law enforcement officers in Florida. Petitioner seeks to become a Florida certified law enforcement officer. To that end, on April 25, 1995, he sat for Section 5 of the certification examination. In order to receive a passing grade on Section 5 of the examination, the Petitioner must answer 80 percent of the questions correctly. The Petitioner was originally given a grade of 75 percent on the April 25, 1995, examination. The examination was then manually graded and the Petitioner was awarded a raw score of 46 points which equates to a percentage score of 77 percent correct. At the commencement of the hearing the Respondents stipulated that the Petitioner should be given credit for his answer to question 38. That stipulation had the effect of increasing the Petitioner's raw score to 47 and increasing his percentage of correct answers to 78.3 percent. The Petitioner needs a raw score of at least 48 in order to have answered 80 percent of the questions correctly. Multiple choice questions on a certification examination should have only one correct answer choice. If more than one of the answer choices is arguably valid it is the policy of the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission to give candidates the benefit of the doubt and give them credit for an arguably correct answer other than the "keyed" correct answer. Question Number 30 Question number 30 on Section 5 of the April 25, 1995, examination relates to Law Enforcement Objective CJD-704(A1), the topic of which is "Use of Force Matrix/Levels of Resistance Matrix." Question number 30 is a multiple choice question, the answer to which involves identification of the appropriate initial officer response level to a situation described in the question. 5/ The situation described in question number 30 involves conduct by the subjects described in the question that could be interpreted as at least level 5 resistance on the Level of Resistance Matrix. When faced with that level of resistance, the Use of Force Matrix authorizes a broad range of officer responses from as little as "arrival" or "officer presence" to as much as "incapacitation," with nine or ten authorized intermediate responselevels in between. Judging from the "keyed" correct answer, question number 30 was apparently intended to test the candidates' knowledge of the first response level itemized on the Use of Force/Levels of Resistance Matrix. However, the question is worded in such a way that it appears to be asking what the candidate would do first if he or she responded to the situation described in the question. In view of the definitions in Law Enforcement Objective CJD-704(A1) of the terms "Presence" and "Dialogue" under the caption "OFFICER RESPONSE LEVELS," the answer chosen by the Petitioner is as good an answer, if not a better answer, than the "keyed" answer. 6/ Question number 30 is also ambiguous because of all of the potential variables that might be present in a situation such as that described in the question, which variables could change the nature of the most appropriate response. By reason of this ambiguity in the subject question, the answer chosen by the Petitioner is as good an answer, if not a better answer, than the "keyed" answer. Question Number 54 Question number 54 on Section 5 of the April 25, 1995, examination relates to Law Enforcement Objective CJD-723(F1), the topic of which is "Vehicle Pullovers." Question number 54 is a multiple choice question, the answer to which involves identification of the first thing an officer should do in the situation described in the question. 7/ Question number 54 is ambiguous and misleading when the question is considered in light of the language of the relevant portions of Law Enforcement Objective CJD-723(F1), which read as follows: OBJECTIVES: The student will: * * * Describe the proper positioning of the patrol vehicle, to include: approximately 15 feet behind the vehicle approximately 3 feet to the left turn the radio up leave flashing lights on during the entire stop. Recall that an officer should constantly observe the vehicle and occupants. Identify the procedures to be followed while approaching the vehicle on foot, to include: be aware of traffic conditions observe the driver and passengers by looking in the side or rear windows check the trunk to be sure it is closed. approach slowly and carefully from the left front door of the patrol vehicle to just behind the left front door of the violator's vehicle when only the front seat is occupied minimize exposure by standing just to the rear of the violator's vehicle, if rear seat occupied visually check persons and passenger's compart- ment for weapons carry flashlight, if needed, leaving strong hand free for possible weapon use Recall that it is important to have the driver turn off the engine [immediately] after stopping. Identify steps to follow during the initial violator contact, to include: greet the offender with courtesy obtain the driver's license and registration [immediately] to gain control briefly state reasons for stop do not accept a purse or wallet with a license inside; ask the offender to remove it do not argue with the offender; thoroughly explain the reason for the stop. [Emphasis added.] The language from CJD-723(F1) quoted above does not purport to prioritize the actions it describes, nor does it clearly state which of the many actions described in that language should be taken first. Several of the actions described above could be reasonably identified as the first action a police officer should take under the circumstances described in question number The answer chosen by the Petitioner is as good an answer, if not a better answer, than the "keyed" answer. 8/
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case concluding that the Petitioner is entitled to credit for his answers to questions 30 and 54 and adjusting his examination score accordingly. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January 1996.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 30, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Veita Jackson-Carter is the assistant principal at Eastside High School (Eastside) which is located in Gainesville, Florida, and is part of the Alachua County School District (school district). In the summer of 2002, Petitioner came to Eastside to talk to Ms. Jackson-Carter about employment there. At that initial meeting, Petitioner and Ms. Jackson-Carter discussed instructional positions at Eastside. While Petitioner gave a resume to Ms. Jackson-Carter, Ms. Jackson-Carter informed Petitioner that he needed to submit an employment application with the school district's personnel office. Ms. Jackson-Carter was very interested in hiring Petitioner. However, she explained to Petitioner that while the individual schools make recommendations regarding hiring, the school district actually hires applicants. Petitioner submitted a completed Application for Instructional Position on June 28, 2002, to the school district.2/ Because of her interest in hiring Petitioner, Ms. Jackson-Carter checked with someone in the school district's personnel office on the status of his application for an instructional position. She learned that there was a problem with his obtaining a teaching certificate. During this same period of time, Petitioner met with Marcia Shelton. At that time, Ms. Shelton was a certification specialist with the school district's department of personnel services. She worked with applicants in assisting them in determining eligibility for certification. However, neither she, nor anyone who works for the school district, has the authority to issue teaching certificates or statements of eligibility for teaching certificates as only the Florida Department of Education has the authority to do that. At the initial meeting between Petitioner and Ms. Shelton, Petitioner informed Ms. Shelton that a particular school was interested in hiring him for an instructional position. She began the process of assisting him to determine his eligibility for certification. Petitioner's application contained his educational achievements. He earned a bachelor's degree from Kentucky State University with a major in criminal justice and a minor in political science, and a master's degree with a major in human resource management and a minor in the area of public administration. Ms. Shelton asked for and received copies of Petitioner's academic transcripts. Ms. Shelton's review of the transcripts revealed that Petitioner had a cumulative undergraduate grade point average (GPA) of 2.322. She informed Petitioner that the minimum GPA required for issuance of an initial teaching certificate was 2.5 and that he would not be eligible for certification because the GPA for the courses needed for certification were not high enough. While Petitioner had the course work to meet specialization requirements for political science, the grades were not what was required. In an effort to help Petitioner, Ms. Shelton contacted Jean Morgan with the Bureau of Educator Certification of the Florida Department of Education (Department), to inquire as to whether public administration courses Petitioner had taken could be counted toward those required for certification in political science or social science. Petitioner's own exhibits establish that Ms. Shelton made numerous attempts to assist Petitioner by making repeated inquiries in August 2002 to Ms. Morgan and Ms. Morgan's supervisor, Kathy Hebda, in an effort to find a way for Petitioner to meet the Department's requirements. Ms. Shelton's efforts included faxing course descriptions to the Department for evaluation in an effort to satisfy the Department's certification requirements. Ms. Shelton's efforts, however, on Petitioner's behalf were unsuccessful. That is, she learned from both Ms. Morgan and Ms. Hebda that the Department would not accept the public administration courses to bring up Petitioner's GPA in political science. On August 5, 2002, Petitioner again went to Eastside to meet with Ms. Jackson-Carter. She informed him of some career service positions at Eastside for which he could apply. Petitioner completed and filed a Career Service Application Form dated August 13, 2002, with Respondent. There is an inconsistency in Petitioner's answers to a question regarding criminal background on each application for employment with Respondent. Each application contains a question regarding whether the applicant had ever been found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere to offenses listed in three categories. On the Application for Instructional Position, Petitioner checked "no" for all three categories: felony, first degree misdemeanor, and second degree misdemeanor involving a minor child or involving violence. He then answered "yes" to the question, "Have you ever been judicially determined to have committed abuse or neglect against a child." The application instructs the applicant that if any question was answered yes, to explain and attach all pertinent documents. Despite having answered yes to one question, Petitioner wrote "N/A" in the blank provided. However, on the Career Service Application Form, he answered "yes" to the category generally entitled "misdemeanor." The application instructs the applicant that if the answer to any of the criminal background questions was "yes," that the applicant must list charge(s) and disposition. In the blank provided to list charge(s) and disposition, Petitioner put "N/A" in the blank provided, despite having answered "yes" to the category entitled "misdemeanor." The application also instructs the applicant to attach all pertinent documents. On or about August 16, 2002, Petitioner again went to Eastside to meet with Ms. Jackson-Carter. He inquired of Ms. Jackson-Carter when he was to report to work. Ms. Jackson- Carter inquired of Petitioner if the school district had offered him a position as she was not aware of any position having been offered to him. The last correspondence in the record from Ms. Shelton to the Department is dated August 29, 2002, in which she notes that the Bureau Chief of the Department's Bureau of Educator Certification was personally reviewing Petitioner's documents. She also noted that "he still has not applied to DOE." In Ms. Shelton's and Dr. Pratt's experience, it is unusual for the bureau chief to become personally involved in such a review. Ms. Shelton received a call from Ms. Hebda and the bureau chief during which Ms. Shelton learned that the bureau chief personally was going to accept the course work to enable Petitioner to meet specialization requirements for a temporary certificate in political science. Ms. Shelton did not have the authority to make that determination that was ultimately made by the bureau chief of the Bureau of Educator Certification. On August 23, 2002, the school district sent a letter to Petitioner informing him that his application for substitute teaching had been approved for the 2002-2003 school year. The letter informed him about a mandatory new employee orientation. It also specified that state law requires that all new employees be fingerprinted. The letter was signed by Josephine Brown, Coordinator, Personnel Services. Being a substitute teacher requires direct contact with students. The position of substitute teacher is not a permanent position with the school district. It is a conditional offer pending cleared fingerprint processing. Dr. Leila Pratt was Director of Personnel Services for the Alachua County School Board in August 2002. She was Ms. Shelton's and Ms. Brown's supervisor. She has since retired. On August 27, 2002, Dr. Pratt attended the criminal history review committee meeting during which Mr. Price was discussed. Of particular concern to Dr. Pratt were certain entries on Mr. Price's criminal history record received from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation which Ms. Pratt believed reflected violent behavior. She was concerned that these offenses would make Petitioner ineligible for employment because of statutory and school district policy requirements. She was also concerned about the inconsistencies between the answers provided on the two applications. A Criminal Records form was completed regarding Petitioner as a result of the committee meeting which included the following notations: "criminal possession of handgun (87); possession of handgun (93); DUI & suspended license (2000); violation of KY charges (01). Falsification of application." The recommendation of the committee was termination. The school board issued a Separation of Service form to Petitioner dated and signed by Petitioner and Dr. Pratt August 28, 2002. The form identifies the reason for separation as "background check." Petitioner requested and was given the opportunity to explain his criminal history. On August 29, 2002, he went to Dr. Pratt's office to discuss his criminal background and to provide Dr. Pratt with pertinent documentation. However, the information which Petitioner provided to Dr. Pratt did not satisfy her concerns. On August 29, 2002, Dr. Pratt wrote a letter to Petitioner which stated as follows: Dear Mr. Price: In response to the three charges: criminal possession of a weapon, menacing and assault filed in August 1987, your documentation does not indicate your charges were dropped to a misdemeanor. It indicates that you pled guilty and was sentenced to thirty (30) days confinement. [sic] In response to your charge filed on April 6, 1989 for trespassing on property after a warning, you provided no official documentation from the court records. In response to the charge filed on November 12, 1993 for possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, your documentation does not officially state that your charges were dismissed or that the charges were dropped. We are unable to determine what is meant by the statement, "lack of probable cause" on the paperwork you submitted. In response to the charge filed on April 20, 2000 for DUI and suspended license, your documentation stated the case was dismissed, but there was probable cause for the arrest and your case was remanded back to another court for the disposition. You submitted no documentation as to the final disposition. A restraining protection order was issued from 2000 to 2003 for domestic battery. No official court documentation regarding this charge has been provided. In addition to the information you submitted being incomplete, one of the documents you presented was not an official court document, which is what we requested, official court records. To provide further consideration to your request for employment, official court documents will need to be provided for all of the charges that have been filed. Until this information is received and reviewed, you are not eligible to work for the School Board of Alachua County. According to Ms. Price, official court documents are required of everyone under these circumstances. Even if the court documents had been official, Dr. Pratt's concerns would have remained because of the violent nature of some of the offenses in the documents and the statutory and school district policy requirements. Petitioner did not submit further documentation to Respondent clarifying his criminal history. Petitioner completed an Application for Florida Educator Certificate which was mailed to the Department on August 30, 2002. The Department issued an Official Statement of Status of Eligibility to Petitioner dated May 28, 2003, which explained to Petitioner what was required of him to get a temporary certificate and a professional certificate covering political science for grades 6 through 12. The Official Statement of Status of Eligibility also informs Petitioner that issuance of a certificate will be contingent upon a review of any criminal offense as a result of fingerprint processing. Dr. Pratt characterized Ms. Shelton's efforts on Petitioner's behalf as going "beyond the call of duty." She believes that her entire staff acted appropriately in dealing with Petitioner. Petitioner is an African-American male. At the time of the adverse employment action giving rise to this proceeding, Petitioner was 42 years old. Ms. Jackson-Carter and Dr. Pratt are African-American females. Ms. Shelton is a white female. Beyond Petitioner's allegation of discrimination, Petitioner presented no evidence that his race, sex, or age played any role in any action taken by Respondent regarding Petitioner's eligibility for teacher certification or its decision to terminate his probationary employment as a substitute teacher. The Department's ultimate acceptance of coursework and issuance of a Statement of Status of Eligibility some eight months after the adverse employment action taken by Respondent does not establish that Respondent engaged in discriminatory conduct.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 2003.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated standardized testing procedures while proctoring the SAT-9 Test for her first grade class, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 467712, covering the area of Elementary Education. Her certificate is valid through June 30, 2007. Respondent has been a public school teacher in Florida for 21 years. During that time, she has worked as a classroom teacher in fifth and first grades at four different schools. At all times material here, Respondent was a first grade teacher at Niblack Elementary School (Niblack) in Columbia County, Florida. Respondent was the curriculum resource teacher at Niblack for the 2000/2001 school term, the first year Niblack was established. She helped organize the new school, selecting textbooks and other school materials. She assisted in the development of school improvement plans and the creation of the Parent Teacher Organization. Respondent worked long hours beyond the normal school hours to ensure the success of Niblack as a neighborhood school. She had good report with the parents and the community. After her first year at Niblack, Respondent returned to the classroom as a first grade teacher because she missed being with the children. Prior to the incident at issue here, Respondent has never been the subject of any disciplinary action. She has always received positive teacher evaluations. For the school years 1999/2000, 2000/2001, and 2001/2002, Respondent's evaluations reflect that she met or exceeded expectations. When school began in the Fall of 2001, Nikki Crawford was the paraprofessional assigned to work with the first grade students at Niblack. In the first week of classes, a conflict arose between Ms. Crawford and some of the first grade teachers, including Respondent. The initial conflict involved the scheduling of Ms. Crawford's time in each of the first grade classrooms. Eventually, Mark Crutcher, Niblack's Principal, and personnel at the school district level had to intervene in order to resolve the conflict. The purpose of the intervention was to clarify that the teachers and not Ms. Crawford were in control of the classrooms. The SAT-9 is a standardized test that is used to evaluate student performance. The staff at Niblack uses the test results as a guide to determine what the students learned over the past year, how they compared to other students nationally, and where the students should be placed the following school year. The test results do not benefit an individual teacher personally or professionally. The school does not receive a grade or funding based on the test results. The administration of the SAT-9 in the first grade is the first time that students at Niblack experience a standardized test. For the 2001/2002 school year, the test was administered in April 2002. The SAT-9 is a secure test that requires teachers and proctors to undergo training on test procedures. Amber Todd, Niblack's guidance counselor and testing coordinator, provided that training for the 2001/2002 school term. During the training, Ms. Todd gave Respondent a copy of the state statutes governing testing procedures. On or about April 5, 2002, Respondent signed a document indicating that she had received a copy of the test security requirements for the 2001/2002 administration of the SAT-9. Ms. Todd gave Respondent a document outlining the general testing procedures at Niblack. The document explained the mechanics of distributing and returning the tests to the guidance counselor's office. In regard to test preparation, the document listed spatial seating as one of several topics. The topics relating to procedures during testing included, but were not limited to, cheating and disruptive behavior. The document did not reference appropriate or inappropriate communication between teachers and students during the test. Ms. Todd gave Respondent a photocopy of the test security page out of the test manual but did not give her a copy of the test manual. However, Ms. Todd informed Respondent that she could review the manual in Ms. Todd's office. Respondent had prior experience in administering the SAT-9. She did not take advantage of the opportunity to review the test manual in Ms. Todd's office prior to the test in April 2002. Ms. Todd informed Respondent that the desks in the classroom needed to be separated. Ms. Todd and the test manual directed Respondent to read the script in the manual verbatim and to strictly follow the time allowed for each test section. Finally, Ms. Todd told Respondent and Ms. Crawford that they had discretion to redirect students but not to coach them. Respondent and Ms. Crawford could tell students to stay in their seats, to stop talking, and to pay attention. Teachers and proctors were allowed to tell students they were working in the wrong section, to erase the answers in the wrong section, and to go back to the correct section. Ms. Crawford was assigned to proctor the SAT-9 in Respondent's class in April 2002. When the test began, Respondent had not separated all of the students' desks. With the exception of a couple of desks that had been moved to one side, the desks were arranged in the normal classroom configuration with desks touching in groups of threes. The only other change in the classroom was that the seating location of some students had been rearranged. Respondent did not separate the desks because she wanted room to walk between the students during the test. The classroom was small and crowded with 18 desks. However, the most persuasive evidence is that Respondent did not make an effort to separate the desks to the extent possible. When Respondent began the first section of the test, she read the script of the instructions to her students. She read the sample question, which was in a story format, and the multiple choice answers as required. Pursuant to the test instructions, Respondent had to direct some of the students to erase their answers to the sample question and to mark the correct answers. Respondent then deviated from the script by reading aloud the first part of the first test question and telling the students to put their finger where the question began. She did not read the answers to the first question. Respondent did not improperly read any other portion of the test. Respondent was responsible for timing each section of the test. At one point during the test, Ms. Crawford asked Respondent how long the students had to finish a test section. Respondent replied that they had until 9:20 a.m. Ms. Crawford's testimony that Respondent began the timed test at 8:54, allowing the students an extra 6 minutes to complete the section is not persuasive. Students are not allowed to work on test sections that are not being timed. In other words, if a student begins to work in section 2 while section 1 is being timed, the teacher and the proctor should tell the student to erase his or her answers in section 2 and go back to work on section 1. During the test, Ms. Crawford informed Respondent that a student named Tyler was working in the wrong section. Respondent then told Tyler to go back to the section she should have been working on. Respondent's communication with Tyler was not improper according to the training provided by Ms. Todd. Ms. Crawford also had to redirect a couple of Respondent's students to erase their answers in the wrong section of the test and to begin working in the correct test section. A second student named Latrice put her head on her desk and closed her booklet within five minutes after a timed test began. Respondent did not believe Latrice could not have finished the test so quickly. Respondent picked up and opened Latrice's booklet. Respondent told Latrice that she could not possibly be finished and needed to go back and check her answers. Respondent also told Latrice she must have some of the answers wrong. Respondent made this statement to Latrice without actually checking to see if any of her answers were wrong. Even so, Respondent's communication with Latrice was inappropriate. If Latrice had finished the test and closed her booklet, Respondent should have taken the booklet without telling Latrice that she needed to keep working because she must have some of the answers wrong. After the test, Ms. Crawford informed Ms. Todd that Respondent had violated the reading portion of the SAT-9 test procedures by failing to separate the desks, by failing to properly time the test on one section, by failing to follow the script, and by improperly coaching two students. Ms. Todd then informed Mr. Crutcher about the allegations of improper test procedures. The Columbia County School District decided to invalidate the reading portion of the SAT-9 test for Respondent's first grade class. They did not invalidate the math portion of the test. The school district then administered a substitute reading test to the students. The Columbia County School District subsequently suspended Respondent without pay from May 21, 2002, through May 28, 2002. Respondent transferred to another Columbia County school for the 2002/2003 school term. As of the date of the hearing, Respondent continued to be employed by the Columbia County School District.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the EPC enter a final order, placing Respondent’s teaching certificate on probation for a period of five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty N. Goggins 1291 East Camp Street Lake City, Florida 32025 William B. Graham, Esquire Ginger L. Barry, Esquire McFarlain & Cassedy 305 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
