The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Petitioner, Osceola County School Board (School Board or Petitioner), has just cause to terminate Respondents Mona Sagar and Kristie Gilmore from their employment contracts.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is duly constituted and charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Osceola County, Florida. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; ch. 1012, Fla. Stat. The School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Sagar and Ms. Gilmore were employed by the School District. Ms. Sagar has been in the education field for years. She attended “teachers college” in Trinidad and taught school there for ten years. She was hired as a paraprofessional (para) by the School District in 2011. Ms. Sagar was assigned to an autistic classroom at Discovery Intermediate School (Discovery) and later switched to an “intellectually disabled mild” (InD mild) classroom. She has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. At the start of the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Sagar was the para assigned to the “intellectually disabled severe” (InD severe) class. The InD severe class had a teacher and two paras,7/ and was composed of children who were mainly confined to wheelchairs or who needed special assistance to walk. Ms. Sagar completed the crisis prevention intervention (CPI) class, a class that instructs personnel on how to physically and verbally restrain, redirect, and prompt a child who is misbehaving. Ms. Gilmore became a para in exceptional student education (ESE) in 2005. She arrived at Discovery in August 2005. Ms. Gilmore worked with students with varying educational needs including: emotional behavior disorder (EBD); autism; InD mild; intellectually disabled moderate (InD moderate); intellectually disabled profound (InD profound); and regular educational students.8/ Ms. Gilmore had completed the CPI training twice before, but she was not re-certified at the start of the 2013-2014 school year. She has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. Discovery had six self-contained ESE classrooms for the 2013-2014 school year. There were two autistic classrooms, one InD mild classroom, one InD moderate classroom, one InD severe classroom, and one EBD classroom. All six classrooms are located on the first floor of one of Discovery’s buildings, in close proximity to the office of the dean of students. Student safety is of paramount concern for School District employees. As such, every EBD classroom has a land-line telephone and a walkie-talkie for use to request assistance, to notify the appropriate office of a student’s unscheduled exit from the classroom and to provide other information. The telephone is primarily a school-based phone that has its own five-digit internal extension number.9/ In the event a walkie-talkie is not available, a teacher or para may use the telephone to communicate with other school personnel. The walkie-talkies are limited to the self-contained classrooms, guidance counselors, deans, school resource officer, administrators, principal’s secretary, academic coaches, athletic coaches, and maintenance staff. The walkie-talkies are on one channel or frequency, and when used, everyone who has a walkie- talkie can hear the conversation. Discipline referrals may be written by any adult at Discovery for any infraction in the student code of conduct. The referral form reflects the student’s name, identification number, the classroom, school, grade level, date of birth, race, sex, homeroom teacher, incident date and time, location of the incident, the problem or explanation of the problem, the action taken by the adult prior to the referral, the signature of the referring adult, and the date signed. The bottom of the referral form was for “administrative use only,” and reflects what if any action was taken. Ms. Gilmore, as the para in the EBD self- contained classroom, authored numerous discipline referrals for student J.G. During the 2013 summer, Ms. Chowdhary was notified that she would be re-assigned to Discovery’s EBD self-contained classroom for the 2013-2014 school year. Ms. Chowdhary did not want this assignment; however, Ms. Chowdhary contacted Ms. Gilmore and asked if she (Ms. Gilmore) would consent to be Ms. Chowdhary’s para in her EBD self-contained classroom. This request was based on their positive working relationship during the 2012-2013 school year in an autistic classroom. Ms. Gilmore agreed, the school administration concurred, and Ms. Gilmore was assigned to Ms. Chowdhary’s EBD self-contained classroom. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year there were ten male students in Ms. Chowdhary’s EBD self-contained classroom. This classroom had a walkie-talkie and telephone. Each student had an individual educational plan (IEP), a different EBD, and a medical condition. On the first day of school, each student was given a welcome packet that contained an emergency contact sheet and a health care report form. The parents are requested (but not required) to complete as much of the information as they wish, and return it to the classroom. Ms. Gilmore read the responses “thoroughly” regarding the medical conditions of students J.G. and J.C., as provided by their respective parents or guardians. In early December 2013, Ms. Gilmore was re-assigned to an InD moderate classroom as an accommodation for her pregnancy. Ms. Chowdhary requested a male para to replace Ms. Gilmore. Based on the support staff already engaged by Discovery, Ms. Sagar was transferred to work in Ms. Chowdhary’s self- contained classroom. Ms. Sagar observed and worked with Ms. Gilmore on two separate days for several hours prior to the actual transfer in mid-December. Approximately two weeks before the Christmas break, a female student, J.T., arrived in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. was taller and heavier than either Ms. Chowdhary or Ms. Sagar. J.T.’s language was loud and predominantly profanity-laced. J.T. did not complete her classroom assignments, and she did not follow the classroom rules regarding the use of her cellphone.10/ On January 9, 2014, Ms. Gilmore learned that Ms. Chowdhary was absent from school. Ms. Gilmore volunteered to be the substitute teacher in Ms. Chowdhary’s classroom.11/ In the early afternoon of January 9, two male students engaged in a physical altercation (Altercation No. 1) in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. took out her cellphone and recorded Altercation No. 1 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 6, Respondents’ Exhibit 21). That recording showed one student, J.G., standing over and taunting another student, J.C. J.G. called J.C. a “taco.” J.C. responded that J.G. should call J.C. “Taco Bell,” and added that J.G. was the dark meat in his taco. J.G. took J.C.’s remark to be a racist comment. J.C.12/ was crumpled on the floor behind a desk where J.G. grabbed J.C. by his warm-up jacket collar/shirt. J.G. pulled J.C. up by the collar/shirt and pushed J.C. into a chair at a computer cubby and small space near a wall. J.G. kept one hand on J.C. while pinning J.C. to the small space. J.G. continued to taunt J.C. and is heard to say: Next comment I’m gonna stomp on your [J.C.’s] heart, and I know you got a condition to where I stomp on it, you dead, and I don’t give a f . So you can’t keep making a racist joke. Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were both present and observed Altercation No. 1. Ms. Gilmore was sitting at the teacher’s desk in the front of the room when Altercation No. 1 started. When J.G. “dumped [J.C.] out of the chair,” [to start the altercation], [Ms. Gilmore] told J.G. to “knock it off,” and when J.G. had J.C. on the floor, she [Ms. Gilmore] “told him to quit.” Ms. Gilmore testified that she didn’t call for help because “It was over.” Her testimony is not credible because the recording shows that J.G. then pulled J.C. up to a standing position, and continued to taunt him. Further, Respondents’ Exhibit 16 is a discipline referral that Ms. Gilmore authored on January 9, the day of the altercations. Ms. Gilmore documented in this discipline referral the following “PROBLEM – EXPLAIN:” During Science class, 5th period, [J.G.] was talking about how he fights and got into an altercation with another student. Words were exchanged and [J.G.] didn’t like what the student [J.C.] said so he [J.G.] flipped him [J.C.] out of his chair, kicked him [J.C.] a couple times and threatened to kill the other student [J.C.] by stomping on his [J.C.’s] heart. Ms. Sagar was seated at a desk assisting another student, J.M., when Altercation No. 1 started. Ms. Sagar did not hear any loud shouting or threats at the beginning of Altercation No. 1, but it escalated to the point where she was “alarmed.” Ms. Sagar admitted that she got up to leave the room, then decided not to do so, telling herself: “I shouldn’t leave the class at this time.” The reason she did not leave the classroom was because the altercation “wasn’t settled like down, down, down. It still had like the talking and everybody, so I turned around and came back to my seat.” Ms. Sagar did not move to intervene or call for help. Neither Ms. Gilmore nor Ms. Sagar moved to intervene in Altercation No. 1, and neither used the walkie-talkie or the telephone to call for assistance or to alert the administration of the volatile situation. A few minutes later another altercation (Altercation No. 2) took place in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. also recorded Altercation No. 2 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 8) on her cellphone. J.G. was again taunting J.C. J.G. dared J.C. to “take a swing” at J.G. J.C. did not swing at J.G. J.G. proceeded to talk to the class about J.C. and other classmates. J.C. then expressed his desire to die because his life “sucks,” his father was dead, and his step-father didn’t love him. J.C. violently kicked/pushed a chair several feet away from himself, began to cry, stated that he’d be “happy if you [J.G.] kill me,” violently overturned a desk, and walked out of the EBD self- contained classroom. Again, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were present in the EBD self-contained classroom, and observed Altercation No. 2. During Altercation No. 2, Ms. Gilmore was at the front of the class at the teacher’s desk. Ms. Gilmore confirmed that J.C. “flipped a desk and walked out of class.” Ms. Gilmore testified she “opened the door, . . . and put myself at the doorway to get the rest of the kids out of the class if I had to get them out.” Ms. Gilmore is briefly partially seen in the recording, and she is heard asking J.C. to pick up the desk before he left the classroom. J.C. did not pick up the desk. The recording shows Ms. Sagar seated at a work table with J.M. At one point Ms. Sagar rises from her seat, walks to a counter with a microwave, stays at the counter for a short time, returns to her seat, and then eats something while Altercation No. 2 is on-going. Neither Ms. Gilmore nor Ms. Sagar used the walkie- talkie or telephone to obtain assistance or alert the administration of the continuing volatile situation. J.C. went to the dean of students (Ms. Rice’s) office after he walked out of the EBD self-contained classroom. Once there, he screamed at Ms. Rice about the events that had just taken place in his classroom. Ms. Rice observed J.C. to be distraught and angry. Based on J.C.’s comments, Ms. Rice understood that a recording of the classroom events was made. Ms. Rice requested the principal to obtain the recording. Between when J.C. left the EBD self-contained classroom and when the principal arrived at the EBD self-contained classroom to retrieve the recording, yet another altercation, Altercation No. 3, occurred. J.T. started recording Altercation No. 3 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 10) on her cellphone. Student W.F. held a chair over his head and threatened to throw it at another student, D.S. The other students in the classroom can be heard urging W.F. to throw it, but W.F. did not. J.G. can be seen standing behind D.S., and heard to say he’ll “make sure it hit[s] you [D.S.].” When it became apparent that W.F. was not going to throw the chair, J.T. handed her phone to W.F., who continued to record the action, and J.T. threw the chair. J.T. testified that she did not intend to hurt D.S., but she was not “play acting.” Ms. Gilmore testified she did not remember much of Altercation No. 3. She thought she might have been writing a referral at her desk, and did not call for help because the altercation was over so quickly. Again, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were present in the classroom, observed Altercation No. 3, and did nothing to radio or call for assistance or alert the administration of the volatile situation. There is no credible evidence that any of the altercations were pretend fights, or that they were staged for the benefit of the other students. Ms. Gilmore’s contention, that the altercations were staged, is not credible. This EBD self-contained classroom is a challenging class, one that should be closely monitored and adequately staffed to ensure learning can occur, and safety maintained. Respondents never attempted to gain control of the classroom or students. They never called for help or removed the other students from the area. Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner has just cause to terminate the employment of Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Osceola County School Board, enter a final order finding that just cause exists for terminating the employment of Ms. Sagar and Ms. Gilmore. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 19th day of June, 2015.
The Issue Did Petitioner, Gregory K. Adkins, as Superintendent for the Board of the School District of Lee County, Florida (Superintendent), prove just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Orlando Torres?
Findings Of Fact The Superintendent, on behalf of the School Board of Lee County (Board), is responsible for hiring, overseeing, and terminating, all employees in the school district. At all times material to this case, the Board employed Mr. Torres as a security specialist at East Lee County High School (East Lee). Mr. Torres also sometimes served as an assistant coach and/or substitute athletic trainer. Mr. Torres has worked for the Board since August 5, 2011. For the 2011 through 2015 school years Mr. Torres’ received a final Performance Evaluation with a score of “Effective” in all areas assessed. The "Manager Comments" on Mr. Torres' Final Performance Evaluations consisted of the following: "Mr. Torres is an integral part of the MLE [Mirror Lakes Elementary] team. He has been a great addition to our staff [2014-2015 Evaluation]”; "Mr. Torres is a very valuable asset and is well respected and supported as an integral part of the MLE team [2013-2014 Evaluation]"; "Orlando performs various duties at East: security and coaching. He has done a good job with both. Orlando was accepting of taking on the night security position until a candidate was hired [2012-2013 Evaluation]"; and "Orlando is a team player and is always willing to go above and beyond to help staff and students [2011-2012 Evaluation]." Mr. Torres is a member of SPALC and was a member during all periods relevant to this matter. On February 4, 2016, the Board’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity (PS&E) received reports that on several occasions Mr. Torres made inappropriate comments and sexual remarks in the presence of or to female high school students. The comments included suggestions that Mr. Torres was interested in sex with the students. The comments caused the students extreme discomfort and embarrassment and created an inhospitable learning environment. The Board investigated. The information it collected caused the Board to terminate Mr. Torres’ employment. PS&E Coordinator, Andy Brown, conducted an investigation that included interviews of several students and of Mr. Torres. When Mr. Torres met Mr. Brown for his interview, Mr. Torres did not know the reason for the interview. Mr. Brown advised Mr. Torres that he was the subject of an investigation and asked him if he knew what it was about. Mr. Torres said: “When I meet with a female, I always have another female present.” This was not true. Mr. Torres’ spontaneous and dishonest statement in response to simply being asked if he knew what the investigation was about is persuasive evidence that he had improper conversations with female students and is a contributing factor to concluding that his testimony denying the charges is not credible. In November and December of 2015, and January 2016, Mr. Torres made several sexually charged, inappropriate comments to students. Five of the incidents involved N.M., who was an eleventh grade student at the time. N.M.’s mother worked at the school. Consequently, N.M. stayed at school after classes until her mother left work. N.M.’s mother arranged for N.M. to assist Mr. Torres in his training tasks after school. This is how she met Mr. Torres. The arrangement lasted about a week. Around November 2015, Mr. Torres gave N.M. a “high-five.” He prolonged the contact by grabbing her hand and intertwining his fingers with hers. In a separate incident, while giving N.M. a “bandaid” for a scratch, Mr. Torres asked her if she would ever get involved with a married man. She said no and walked away. On another occasion, N.M. encountered Mr. Torres while she was walking to lunch. N.M. was wearing what she described as a “burgundy semi-see-through” shirt. Mr. Torres told her to cover up her “goodies” or her “girls,” referring to her breasts, so nobody else could see them. N.M.’s testimony used the word “girls” while her statement in February 2016 said “goodies.” This minor discrepancy is understandable given the passage of time and the stresses of an interview and testimony. On yet another occasion, Mr. Torres remarked in Spanish, when N.M. bent down, “I like ass.” Mr. Torres spoke to N.M. after she had been called to the school office to provide a statement about a conflict that Mr. Torres had with another student. When he learned the purpose of the request for a statement from N.M., Mr. Torres said, “I thought I was gonna get in trouble for flirting with you; thank god we didn’t take it to second base.” In early February, N.M. was walking with her then- friend S.S., when Mr. Torres exited a room and saw them. He said “you look delic . . ., beautiful,” to N.M., shifting from “delicious” to “beautiful” when he noticed S.S. Mr. Torres also made a comment about wishing N.M. was 18. Another Security Specialist, Russell Barrs, who N.M. considered a friend, overheard bits of a conversation between N.M. and S.S. about the encounter. He asked N.M. about it. She replied with generalities A day or two later N.M. met with Mr. Barrs and provided complete information about Mr. Torres’ comments to her. Mr. Barrs reported this to Assistant Principal Edward Matthews. Mr. Matthews launched the investigation. It is noteworthy that S.S., whose friendship with N.M. ended, still testified to the same events as N.M. did. The two had a falling out sometime in 2016. The testimony of S.S. was not a matter of loyal support for a friend. In fact, the tone and body language of both students gave the distinct impression that the end of the friendship was not pleasant. N.M.’s mother had just started working at the school. N.M. did not immediately report Mr. Torres’ advances to her mother or other adults. When she did report them, her initial statements were incomplete and vague. She just told her mother she was not comfortable being in the room with Mr. Torres. She also told her mother that Mr. Torres “says things.” Later, after speaking to Mr. Barrs, N.M. provided her mother a complete description of the comments. After classes, Mr. Torres spent a good deal of time in the training room where first aid supplies and ice are stored for student-athletes. The training room was divided into two smaller rooms separated by a door that was usually shut. One room contained the ice machine, other equipment, and supplies. The other part of the room served as an office for Mr. Torres. Students, including N.M. and C.P., assisted or visited with Mr. Torres in the training room at times. C.P. was a female student who served as one of the managers for the girls’ basketball team. Once while observing her prepare an ice pack by sucking air out of it, Mr. Torres said words to the effect of “like how you suck a boy’s dick.” C.P. was a ninth grader at the time. Mr. Torres also told her that he would like to marry her when she turned 18. Another time, Mr. Torres tried to hug C.P. Mr. Torres also told C.P. that they should not talk in the hall because the security video cameras may record them. Another time, after overhearing a discussion in Spanish by several female students about sexual activity, Mr. Torres told C.P. that if he ever had sex with her he would break her. Two or three times Mr. Torres told C.P. that she was beautiful and he wanted to marry her after she graduated. The comments made C.P. extremely uncomfortable and unsure of what to do. She was scared. She quit her position as manager to avoid contact with Mr. Torres. Like N.M., C.P. was slow to report the comments to an adult. When she first told her step-mother she described Mr. Torres’ comments as coming from a substitute teacher. C.P. was scared and did not want to get involved. When she did, the details understandably came out in bits and pieces. Mr. Torres’ improper familiarity with students N.M. and C.P. and his sexually charged comments were frequent and varied. They were improper and detrimental to the emotional and mental health of the students. The crux of Mr. Torres’ defense is that none of the testimony about his actions is true. His testimony is not as credible as that of the students who testified to his offenses. One reason, mentioned earlier, is Mr. Torres’ spontaneous statement when Mr. Brown met him for the interview that he was never alone with a female. It manifests guilt and anxiousness that would not be present without his being aware of his improper behavior. Another reason is that the testimony of the students is sufficiently consistent to provide credibility. And N.M., C.P., and S.S. all made reports within a few months of Mr. Torres’ comments. A third reason is that N.M.’s testimony was supported by S.S. at hearing even though their earlier friendship had ended. A fourth reason is that there is no evidence of a motive for N.M., S.S., and C.P to fabricate their reports. For the time period when Mr. Torres made the comment to C.P. about “breaking her,” several students offered differing testimony about who was in the room when and whether Mr. Torres was giving a student instruction on a trumpet. This testimony is not sufficient to impeach the credibility of N.M. and C.P. Those were not the students to whom the offending remarks were made. The details of that day would not have been noteworthy to them at the time. Similarly, given the nature of Mr. Torres’ comments, the details of exactly who was present when would have been secondary to N.M. and C.P. Finally, Mr. Torres made one particularly transparent and deliberate effort to manipulate the truth during cross-examination that undermines relying on Mr. Torres’ testimony. Early in the hearing, in Mr. Torres’ presence, the Board attempted to enter evidence that during prior employment as a detention officer with the Sheriff of Lee County, Mr. Torres reacted to teasing by other officers by drawing his service pistol. The objection to the evidence was sustained. Later Mr. Torres testified that the testimony against him was not credible because he would never take such risks at a school where his wife was also employed, his children were students, and N.M.’s mother was employed. This testimony opened the door to the pistol drawing incident as evidence of Mr. Torres taking risky actions at work. The exchange about the incident, starting at page 329 of Volume II of the Transcript, follows: Q: But you engaged in risky behavior in your two law enforcement jobs prior, did you not? A: I don’t consider that risky behavior. Q: Well, you don’t consider pulling your service revolver as risky behavior? [objection and ruling] A: I have never carried a revolver. Q: Your service weapon, sir? ALJ: You said you never carried a revolver. Have you ever carried a pistol? A: Yes sir. ALJ: Next question. Q: Would you consider pulling your service pistol in an inappropriate manner risky behavior, sir? A: Yes, sir. Mr. Torres testified with full knowledge from the earlier attempt to introduce evidence of the incident to what the question referred. His answer was hair-splitting at best and demonstrated a willingness to shade, if not evade, the truth that significantly undermines his credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order finding just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Orlando Torres, and dismissing him from his position with the Lee County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 31st day of October, 2016.
The Issue The issues in this proceeding involve Petitioners' challenge, pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, of the proposed adoption by the School Board of school attendance boundaries and attendant policy changes for implementation beginning with the 1981-82 school year. Initially, Petitioners challenged both the proposed zones for high and elementary schools. However, during the pendency of this proceeding, Respondent withdrew the proposed attendance zone changes for elementary schools, thereby rendering issues related thereto moot, and leaving only the high school boundaries for further consideration. In summary, Petitioners claim that the proposed rule amendments, including maps prepared in conjunction therewith, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by virtue of the School Board's failure to comply with procedural and substantive requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Petitioners allege that deficiencies exist in procedures utilized by the School Board prior to publication of its notice of intent to adopt the proposed rules, in the advertisements and economic impact statement prepared in conjunction with the proposed rule amendments, and in the allegedly arbitrary and capricious nature of the Proposed changes from current attendance boundaries. Petitioners further claim that the School Board's announced intention to utilize student race as a factor in drawing attendance zones is unconstitutional and beyond the School Board's delegated legislative authority. The Respondent contends that each of the Petitioners is without standing to maintain this rule challenge pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes; that the preadvertisement procedures followed by the School Board are not jurisdictional insofar as this present proceeding is concerned; that any deficiencies in the legal notices or economic impact statement constitute harmless error; and that the proposed rules are a valid exercise of legislative authority delegated to it in Sections 230.23(4) and 230.232, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Leon County, Florida, 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 certain amendments to its existing rules which will have the effect of changing attendance boundaries for middle and high schools located in Leon County, Florida. On May 5, 1981, the School Board withdrew previously advertised plans to adopt modified attendance boundaries for the 1981-82 school year, but announced its intention to continue its rezoning efforts. The School Board held a workshop meeting to discuss rezoning on May 14, 1981. This meeting was noticed in the legal advertisement section of the Tallahassee Democrat on that same date. Action on rezoning was taken at the meeting, and the meeting was recessed until the evening of May 18, 1981. No formal notice of the recessing of the May 14 meeting or the reconvening of that meeting on May 18 was published in any newspaper. On May 18, the May 14 workshop was reconvened. At this meeting the public addressed questions to the School Board members and staff. The Board announced at this meeting that it would discuss the matter further at its regular meeting the following night, May 19, 1981, and that the general issue of rezoning was already on the agenda for the May 19 meeting. The School Board also directed the Superintendent to "take administrative steps as are necessary to schedule a special meeting of the Board pursuant to provisions of Section 230.16, Florida Statutes." This reconvened meeting held on the evening of May 18, 1981, was the subject of an article in the May 18, 1981, edition of the Tallahassee Democrat, which carried a news article reporting on rezoning under the headline, "The rezoners are feeling the pressure." This newspaper article included a special separated section entitled "Meeting is Monday," which directed the public's attention to the time and location of the workshop meeting that night. Toward the end of the regular School Board meeting on May 19, 1981, the School Board recessed and subsequently reconvened to discuss rezoning. The School Board held an extensive discussion on various topics related to rezoning, and responded to questions from the public. Two subsequent meetings were then scheduled. The first was a workshop meeting on rezoning to be held on May 25, 1981, and the second was a meeting scheduled for May 26, 1981, to direct the Superintendent to advertise the proposed modified school attendance boundaries. On May 20, 1981, in the Special Notice section of the Tallahassee Democrat, an ad appeared noticing a "special meeting" of the School Board at Belle Vue Middle School on May 26, 1981, beginning at 7:00 p.m., to discuss rezoning. On May 21, 1981, in the Legal Advertisement section of the Tallahassee Democrat, an ad appeared noticing a "special emergency meeting" at Bond Elementary School beginning at 5:00 p.m. on May 26, 1981, to deal with rezoning, which notice indicated that the meeting time and place was a rescheduling of the meeting previously set for Belle Vue Middle School. The May 25, 1981, workshop meeting was noticed in a legal advertisement in the Tallahassee Democrat on May 22, 1981. In a news article on rezoning published on Sunday, May 24, 1981, in the Tallahassee Democrat, which article was entitled "Rezoners can't find all the answers," the purpose, times and locations for both the May 25 workshop and the May 26 special emergency meeting were contained in a special section set off from the remainder of the article. The Petitioners challenging the modification of the high school attendance boundaries in this proceeding testified that they were each present at the May 26 meeting. At the School Board meeting on May 26, 1981, there were approximately forty to fifty members of the public in attendance. Members of the public addressed the School Board during the meeting. Several modifications were made to the maps and the language of the proposed rule amendments at this meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Superintendent was directed to initiate in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the adoption of modified school attendance boundaries and associated language changes in as expeditious a fashion as possible. On June 3, 1981, four legal advertisements pertinent to this proceeding, each entitled "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Rule," appeared in the Legal Notices section of the Tallahassee Democrat. These notices were titled 6GX37-3.02(1) High School; 6GX37-3.02(1) Middle School; 6GX37-3.02(1) Elementary School; and 6GX37-3.02 Assignment of Pupils. Under the economic impact portion of the four advertisements is the phrase, ". . . [p]arents of students who elect to be grandfathered are responsible for transportation and the costs associated with that responsibility." The maps containing the proposed high school attendance boundaries are Respondent's Exhibits 8(d) High School City Map, and 8(e) High School County Map. The two high school maps were referenced in the legal advertisement denominated 6GX37-3.02(1) High Schools. By its actions, the School Board proposes to amend Rule 6GX37-3.02(1) to read as follows: The Establishment of Schools. All public schools operated by the School Board of Leon County, Florida, shall be for its residents and for such other students as may be authorized by the Board and shall be fully desegregated. The School Board shall from time to time promulgate atten- dance zones so that each school will serve those students residing in each such zone. The Board shall also establish student capacities for, and grades served by, each school in the county, which may be modified by the Board as required. Maps showing the attendance zones applicable to each school, including grades served by each school, shall be maintained in the Office of Student Services and shall be available for public inspection. The School Board also proposes to amend Rule 6GX37-3.02(2) to add the following provision: Grandfathering. The following standards shall be for grandfathering certain students, provided that their residence remains unchanged, in order to preserve educational continuity. Once a student has indicated his or her choice, in writing, changes may be made through application to the Board Reassignment Subcommittee. The Board shall, upon request, allow students who were enrolled in a high school during the 1980-81 school year to remain at that same high school if the new zones for the 1981-82 school year put them in the attendance zone of a different high school so long as the parents shall be responsible for all necessary transportation. (Emphasis added). The School Board is not presently under any federal or state mandate to rezone the school system in Leon County. The School Board is, therefore, performing a purely discretionary function in undertaking its current rezoning effort. Respondent's express purpose in rezoning Leon County high schools for the 1981-82 school year is . . . to make more effective use of school facilities and to seek greater racial balance among the four high schools." In the preparation of school attendance boundaries the School Board, for statistical purposes, divided Leon County into a large number of small geographical areas called "study areas" or "study zones." The number of students residing in each study area was determined by both race and grade level, and this information was then placed in a computer to establish an accurate baseline of current attendance data for making various enrollment projections. In connection with the proposed zoning changes, the School Board administrative staff attempted to bring current and make as accurate as possible the data used in the rezoing process. Current enrollment figures at the high school level were updated through April 8, 1981. In making the various projections based upon available data, the School Board, through its consultant, used "cohort survival rates," a student projection technique developed by the Florida Department of Education for use throughout the state by school districts considering modification of school attendance boundaries. It is recognized that, although this projection technique is commonly accepted, it is subject to the normal errors inherent in any such predictive technique. On February 3, 1981, the School Board adopted five of eight criteria recommended by the Superintendent to be considered in drawing new attendance boundaries. These criteria, although never formally adopted as "rules," were used by community volunteers, staff, consultants, and ultimately the School Board itself in the development of the maps delineating the proposed new attendance boundaries. These criteria are as follows: * * * That the concept of neighborhood schools be adhered to in the revision of the attendance areas, but that non-contiguous attendance areas be allowed where necessary to achieve the desired racial composition. That natural boundaries be used to define attendance areas insofar as it is possible, avoiding duplicate transportation service on individual roadways. That the minority enrollment in any school be not more than 10 percent above or 10 percent below the percent of minority enrollment in that school level in the county as a whole, excluding Chaires, Concord, Fort Braden and Woodville Elementary Schools. That rising 5th, 8th and 12th grade students, on request, be permitted to continue in attendance if their resi- dence is placed in another school attendance area, with any needed transportation being provided by the parent and not the School Board (an exception to this rule should be made for students whose school of atten- dance was changed by the School Board in August, 1980, and transportation be provided at district expense in the event that the attendance areas affecting them are changed this year and the parents desire to have their children continue to attend the school they are attending in 1980-81). That the transportation needed to accomplish the desired racial compo- sition of each school be provided in as efficient and cost effective manner as possible, consistent with Florida Laws and Regulations, and School Board policy on hazardous areas. (Emphasis added). There are four high schools in Leon County: Leon, Godby, Rickards and Lincoln. Enrollment figures for the four high schools, as of April 8, 1981, are as follows: Leon, 1,690; Godby, 1,430; Lincoln, 1,664; and Rickards, 928. White students attending each of the four high schools comprise the following percentages of the total student body: Leon, 78 percent; Godby, 64 percent; Lincoln, 73 percent; and Rickards, 49 percent. The recommended capacities for the high schools in Leon County, based upon the School Plant Survey of Leon District Schools conducted by the Florida Department of Education, are: Leon, 1,644; Godby, 1,556; Lincoln, 1,704; and Rickards, 1,465. In designing the proposed attendance boundaries for the 1981-82 school year, the School Board's consultant used a recommended enrollment figure supplied to him by the School Board staff. This recommended enrollment figure was not the same as the physical plant capacity figure. These recommended enrollment figures were, however, closely related to plant capacities, any differences between the two figures being reflective of various other program considerations. The most reliable prediction of future enrollments at the various high schools, which takes into account the estimated effect of grandfathering under the proposed amendments, reveals that for the first three years in which the proposed school boundaries are to be in effect, anticipated enrollments will be within the physical plant capacities of the various high schools. In addition, under the proposed zone changes, the racial composition of the student populations at each of the four high schools is projected to be within the 10 percent criteria established by the School Board by March of 1984. Rickards is the only high school in Leon County which does not presently meet the plus-or- minus 10 percent racial composition criteria. However, as indicated above, according to the School Board's projections, Rickards should meet that criteria during the 1983-84 school year. The greater number of students assigned to Rickards under the proposed zoning changes will make use of available and currently unused space, and, because of increased student enrollment, the diversity of course offerings should also increase. This is so because the amount of funds allocated to a given school is directly related to the number of students enrolled. Thus, for an under-enrolled school such as Rickards, fewer funds are generated under the statewide funding formula for that facility, which, in turn, may result in fewer programs being offered to students. There are, in fact, some courses not presently offered at Rickards that are available in other county high schools, due, at least in part, to under-enrollment at Rickards. The record in this proceeding does not establish with absolute certainty the total number of students either eligible for or expected to exercise the grandfathering option for the 1981-82 school year. However, a poll conducted by the School Board indicates that from 90 percent to 100 percent of students eligible for grandfathering will exercise that option, and estimates of potential school enrollments are partially based on that assumption. In fact, all student petitioners in this proceeding eligible for grandfathering testified that they would take advantage of that option. The reasons for this choice generally dealt with current school activities and friendships, and was consistent with the policy expressed by the School Board "to preserve educational continuity." The economic impact of the grandfathering provision on parents required to furnish transportation as a result of electing that option was not addressed quantitatively in the School Board's Economic Impact Statement. With regard to this cost factor, the Economic Impact Statement provided that: Current Board policy provides that bus transportation will be provided by the district if the residence of the parent is more than two miles from the assigned school. None of the proposed rule amendments modify this basic policy; however, the policy changes in 3.02 allow for the "grandfather- ing" of students in certain grade levels subject to the requirement that the parents provide all necessary transportation. To the extent that a parent voluntarily chooses to assume that responsibility, that parent may incur associated costs such as gas and oil. There is no indication in this record that the School Board considered the potential cost and feasibility of providing transportation at School Board expense to those students choosing the grandfather option who live two or more miles from the "grandfathered" school. Testimony at the final hearing estimated transportation costs of $367.20 based upon an average driving distance between a student's home and school of 5.1 miles (based on the length of the average bus route), full attendance for the full 180 student school days, and a 20 cents- per-mile cost, which is the current state reimbursement rate for travel by automobile. Naturally, actual transportation costs would vary substantially, depending upon the type of vehicle driven, the number of students transported, the student's actual attendance pattern, carpooling, travel routes, and other associated factors. The parents' responsibility to assume these transportation costs in the event of electing tee grandfathering option is pointed out both in the rule advertisements and the Economic Impact Statement. The School Board has other existing policies which allow a student to attend a school different from that to which he is assigned based upon the location of his residence. These include the School Board's majority/minority transfer policy and instances in which a student requests to attend a special program at another school which is not available at his assigned school. In all such cases, the School Board requires that the student or his parents provide transportation at their own expense. The Economic Impact Statement prepared by the School Board in conjunction with the rule adoption process was based upon materials developed by the School Board staff on impact costs associated with rezoning in their areas of administrative responsibility. The Economic Impact Statement itself was based ". . . upon the premise that only those incremental, out-of-pocket costs attributable to the policy revision and rezoning process are included." Previously committed, or "sunk," costs such as salaries and related employee benefits were explicitly excluded from the analysis, although such costs were significant since the rezoning process absorbed a great deal of staff time. Similarly, "opportunity" costs, in the form of benefits foregone by directing district resources to rezoning rather than other goals were specifically excluded from consideration in the Economic Impact Statement. These base assumptions were described in the Economic Impact Statement itself. Petitioners, Joseph and Piercie Ehrlich, reside in Leon County, Florida, with their two daughters, Stephanie and Betty, who presently attend Lincoln High School. Under the proposed rezoning plan, the Ehrlichs' daughters would be required to attend Rickards High School, unless they choose the grandfather option in order to remain at Lincoln High School. Lincoln High School is located 1.58 miles from the Ehrlich home, and it is approximately 5 miles to Rickards High School from their residence. In the event that the proposed amendments to the school attendance zones are adopted, both of the Ehrlichs' daughters testified that they will exercise the grandfather option in order to continue to attend Lincoln High School. Petitioners, Robert and Joni McDermott, reside in Leon County, Florida, with their daughter, Dana, who is presently a student at Lincoln High School. The McDermotts' daughter will be required to attend Rickards High School, unless, as she testified, she exercises the grandfather option, should the proposed school attendance zones be adopted. The McDermott residence is located 2 miles from Lincoln High School, and approximately 3.5 to 4 miles from Rickards High School. Curt and Linda McKenzie reside in Leon County, Florida, with their daughter, Kris, who is a student at Lincoln High School. If the proposed rezoning amendments are adopted, Kris will be required to attend Rickards High School, unless she chooses to remain at Lincoln under the grand fathering provision. The McKenzie residence is located 1.6 miles from Lincoln High School, and approximately 4 miles from Rickards. A. P. and Judy Floyd reside in Leon County, Florida, with their child, Tracy, who would be entering the 9th grade at Lincoln High School, absent the proposed amendments to the school attendance zones. However, under the proposed plan, Tracy will be required to attend Rickards High School for the 1981-82 school year. Lincoln High School is located 1.6 miles from the Floyd residence, and Rickards High School is located 4.4 miles from their home. Counsel for both Petitioners and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those findings of fact have not been adopted in this Order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Tracy Tashanna Jackson is a 13-year-old, and Tammy Terrell Jackson is a 12-year-old, who were, until February 7, 1979, assigned respectively to the eighth and seventh grades at Miami Edison Middle School in Miami, Florida. On February 7, 1979, an incident occurred at Miami Edison Middle School which resulted in both students being reassigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School North. At the time of this incident, the two students had been attending Miami Edison Middle School for only approximately one month. On February 6, 1979, one day prior to the incident which gave rise to this proceeding, the students were threatened by another student who allegedly was a member of a group of students popularly known as the "Graveyard Gang." Upon receiving the throat, the students went to the office of the Assistant Principal and advised him that they expected trouble from these other students. The Assistant Principal essentially advised the students to attempt to avoid any confrontation. However, on the afternoon of February 6, 1979, while Tammy and Tracy Jackson were on their way home from school, they encountered the students who had threatened them, and a fight ensued. After the fight, Tracy and Tammy Jackson were advised by the other students that the fight would continue the next day at school, that these other students would have knives, and that Tracy and Tammy Jackson should come prepared. When Tracy and Tammy Jackson and their brother stepped off the city bus in the vicinity of Miami Edison Middle School the next morning, they were met by a large group of other students. Apparently, some member of this group struck Tracy and Tammy Jackson's brother, at which point Tracy and Tammy Jackson first displayed knives which they had brought with them from home. According to the testimony of Tracy and Tammy Jackson, which is not controverted, this was the first and only time that they had attended school armed with knives. The entire group of students apparently began milling around but proceeded generally in the direction of the main school building. At this point, Freddie Robinson, the Assistant Principal at Miami Edison Middle School, noticed the crowd of students, and proceeded into the crowd on the assumption that a fight was occurring. Upon being advised that Tracy and Tammy Jackson were armed with knives, Mr. Robinson managed to direct the students into the main school building, down the hall and into the Counselor's office. At all times during those movements, the Assistant Principal and the students were surrounded by a milling group of hostile students apparently intent on prolonging the confrontation. According to the Assistant Principal, at no time did either of the students display their knives in a threatening or offensive manner, but were instead attempting to defend themselves against attack. At some point in this process, the Assistant Principal was joined by George Thomas, a teacher at the school, who attempted to assist Mr. Robinson in disarming the girls. Mr. Thomas managed to remove the knife from the possession of Tammy Jackson without incident, but when Mr. Robinson grabbed the arm of Tracy Jackson, that student, in attempting to break free, inflicted what appears to have been a minor wound to Mr. Robinson's forearm. Mr. Robinson testified, without contradiction, that it appeared to him that the student did not intentionally stab him, but inflicted the wound accidently in the process of attempting to break free from his hold. On February 22, 1979, both Tammy and Tracy Jackson were reassigned from Miami Edison Middle School to Jan Mann Opportunity School North as a result of this incident. There is nothing in the record to indicate the procedures by which this assignment was accomplished. It is, however, clear that the students never attended Jan Mann Opportunity School North, but were instead held out of school by their mother. As a result, February 7, 1979, was the last day on which these students attended school during the 1978-79 school year. The incident which occurred on February 7, 1979, was the only incident of disruptive behavior in which Tracy and Tammy Jackson have been involved while enrolled in the Dade County Public Schools. The other students involved in the fight with them, however, had been suspended from school on several occasions for fighting and disrupting classes. There is no evidence in the record in this cause concerning Tracy and Tammy Jackson' grades from which any determination could be made that they have been unsuccessful in the normal school environment. Likewise, the record is devoid of any testimony regarding their lack of attendance in the regular school program. Although the students did not attend Jan Mann Opportunity School North after having been assigned to that facility, there appears no evidence of record concerning the programs available at that institution in which the students would have been enrolled had they chosen to attend. In addition, although there exists some testimony concerning a very commendable Dade County School Board policy against the possession of knives on campus at any school in Dade County, no such written policy was offered into evidence at this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Dade County School Board reassigning the students, Tammy Terrell Jackson and Tracy Tashanna Jackson, to the regular school program in the Dade County School System. Recommended this 17th day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Jerry D. Jackson 2340 NW 73rd Terrace, #12 Miami, Florida 33147 Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Building, Suite 300 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mr. Ludwig J. Gross Executive Director Division of Student Services Dade County Public Schools 5975 East 7th Avenue Hialeah, Florida 33013 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 NE 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Michael Neimand, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami Florida, 33137 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY CASE NOS. 79-709, 79-710 MRS. JERRY D. JACKSON, on behalf of minor child, TAMMY TERRELL JACKSON, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-709 THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Respondent. / MRS. JERRY D. JACKSON, on behalf of minor child, TRACY TASHANNA JACKSON, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-710 THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Respondent. / ORDER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY FLORIDA THIS CAUSE came on for hearing before The School Board of Dade County, Florida at its regular meeting on August 22, 1979, upon the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended order, recommending that Tammy Terrell Jackson and Tracy Tashanna Jackson be reassigned to the regular school program in the Dade County school system. IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED by The School Board of Dade County, Florida that the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended order are adopted with the following modifications: 1. The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law are modified by deleting paragraph 7 and substituting the following therefor: 7. F.A.C. Section 6A-1.994 provides: "6A-1.994 Educational alternative programs. Definition. Educational alternative programs are programs designed to meet the needs of students who are disruptive, dis- interested, or unsuccessful in a normal school environment. The educational alter- native may occur either within the school system or in another agency authorized by the school board. Criteria for eligibility. A student may be eligible for an educational alternative program if the student meets one (1) or more of the criteria prescribed below as deter- mined by grades, achievement test scores, referrals for suspension or other discipli- nary action, and rate of absences. (a) Disruptive. A student who: Displays persistent behavior which inter- feres with the student's own learning or the educational process of others and requires attention and assistance beyond that which the traditional program can provide; or Displays consistent behavior resulting in frequent conflicts of a disruptive nature while the student is under the jurisdiction of the school either in or out of the class- room; or Displays disruptive behavior which severely threatens the general welfare of the student or other members of the school population." (emphasis supplied) 8. The petitioners have both displayed "dis- ruptive behavior which severely threatens the general welfare of the student or other members of the school population." Meeting this criteria is sufficient grounds for placement in an educational alternative program. Accordingly, they are properly, and in their own best interests, assigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School North. There is no evidence that this assignment is punitive rather than positive in nature. 2. The Hearing Officer's recommendation is, therefore, rejected, and the assignment of Tammy Terrell Jackson and Tracy Tashanna Jackson to Jan Mann Opportunity School North is affirmed. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 1979. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Phyllis Miller, Chairman
The Issue The issue presented for determination is whether the proposed high school attendance zone plan, Z2, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: This rule challenge to a proposed rule is a result of proposed changes to school attendance zones in Seminole County, Florida, which would result in students attending different schools than they presently attend. Hagerty High School (Hagerty) is a newly constructed Seminole County school. The opening of this new high school in August 2005 was the catalyst for the county-wide rezoning. Incidental to rezoning to accomplish populating the new high school, adjustments in student populations were made in an attempt to create appropriately balanced racial and ethnic student populations and to alleviate school over-crowding. Since 1970, schools in Seminole County have been subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal government regarding desegregation of the public schools. This continuing jurisdiction is the subject of "Consent Decrees" between the United States of America and Respondent in Case No. 70-152, ORL CIV (M.D. Fla. August 19, 1975). In particular, adjustments in school attendance zones have been the subject of the scrutiny of the Federal government. Several members of the current School Board were on the School Board when a rezoning plan was rejected by the Federal government. Since early in the 1990's, the School Board and school administration have aggressively pursued the goal of a "unitary" school system, i.e., a system that has accomplished a myriad of goals which equate to a system wherein any student, regardless of race and ethnicity, has an equal opportunity for a quality education. Once the status of a "unitary school district" is accomplished, direct Federal supervision will cease. In 2002, preparing for the day when "unitary" status would be achieved, the School Board developed an extensive post-unitary status policy. The Parties Petitioner, Jennifer Finch, is the mother of Christopher Brady; she and Christopher reside in Seminole County, in the residential community known as Sable Point. Christopher is currently in the sixth grade. The Finch residence is in Cell 27A; a "cell" is a geographic area created by the Core Committee when it divided the county into numerically identified “cells” for purposes of considering rezoning alternatives. The Finch residence is currently zoned for Lake Brantley High School. As a result of the proposed rezoning, children (with the exception of "grandfathered in" children) residing in Cell 27A will be zoned to attend Lyman High School. Lake Brantley High School is "over-crowded." The facility is designed to accommodate 3,000 students; it has a current student population of approximately 3,650. Because of Lake Brantley High School's over-crowding, its principal regularly audits the student population, using unique and creative methods, in an effort to assure that each of the students attending Lake Brantley High School is zoned to attend Lake Brantley High School. Petitioner, SC. Read, Inc., is a Florida corporation. Members of SC. Read, Inc., live in Cell 27A, and several of its members have children who are currently enrolled in the public schools of Seminole County. Intervenor, Tuscawilla Home Owners’ Association, Inc., is a Florida corporation. Part of Cell 10, and all of Cell 11, are within the area of subdivisions represented by Intervenor. Intervenor has 2,109 member households; 734 member households are in Cells 10 and 11. The homes in Cells 10 and 11 are single-family residences with many children who attend Seminole County public schools. The proposed rezoning contemplates students living in Cells 10 and 11, who are not specifically "grandfathered in," attending Oviedo High School instead of Winter Springs High School where they are currently zoned. One of the specific functions of Intervenor is to engage in efforts to secure educational opportunities and a stable educational environment for its members. It has historically worked with the schools to provide increased educational and extracurricular activities for its constituent members. The School Board is the governmental entity responsible for the operation, supervision, and control of public schools in Seminole County, Florida, including establishing attendance zones, determining the educational capacity of schools and assigning students to schools. The Rezoning Process Rezoning is a thankless responsibility; whenever the lives of children are disrupted, parents are unhappy. Moving a student from one school to another, places unanticipated demands on both parents and students. In January 2000, the School Board adopted a policy entitled “Revision of School Attendance Zones” (hereinafter referred to as “Policy J”). Section III of Policy J, entitled Process for Revision, at Step One provides, in relevant part: The Board establishes a Core Committee including, but not limited to district representatives . . . , affected school administrators, a representative from the affected School Advisory Councils, and a PTA representative from the affected schools to solicit public input, develop and evaluate alternative plans, and keep the local community informed of the progress . . . . The role of the Core Committee in the rezoning process is advisory. Its responsibilities, as enumerated in Policy J, are to serve as a conduit for public communication, receive demographic data, create "cells" to be considered in attendance zone shifts, consider public input, and create rezoning plans to be considered by the School Board. Policy J provides definitions of certain "words of art" used in the rezoning process, for example, "Over- enrolled/under-enrolled": an over-enrolled school has an enrollment that exceeds its permanent design capacity, and an under-enrolled school has an enrollment less than its design capacity -- both are identified on an annual basis, and "Design capacity": the permanent capacity of a school as calculated by the Department of Education. Portables are not included in the design capacity of a school. The calculation variables include class size, classroom program types, and scheduling. Based on appropriate definitions and criteria, Lake Brantley High School is "over-enrolled" and Lyman High School is "under-enrolled." In addition, Policy J specifies specific parameters that "current and proposed attendance zone plans will be measured against." The parameter having the highest priority according to this policy is: "[T]he plan is consistent with the district Consent Decrees as long as the decrees remain in effect." In April 2004, in anticipation of the August 2005 opening of Hagerty, the rezoning process was initiated. Because rezoning was county-wide and affected numerous schools, the Core Committee consisted of 54 people. The following schedule was established: Organizational Meeting June 15 Core Committee will identify "cells" Core Committee (CC) August 19 CC will use cell data to develop plan options Core Committee Sept. 2 CC will choose plans for public input Public Input Sept. 20 Lyman High 7:00 PM Public Input Sept. 23 Winter Springs High 7:00 PM Core Committee Sept. 30 CC uses public input to develop final drafts School Board Public Input Oct. 26 Educational Support Center 6:00 PM Final Adoption Nov. 9 This schedule outlined in paragraph 17, supra, was essentially followed. However, one meeting was cancelled and one shortened because of hurricanes. The Core Committee meetings, while they took place in public facilities, did not lend themselves to ongoing public input due to the nature of the work that was to be accomplished by the committee members. As would be expected, the committee members relied heavily on school administrators, Deputy Superintendent of Operations Dianne L. Kramer, in particular, who was the facilitator and contact between the committee and school administration, for information necessary for their consideration of student demographics, school populations, and other pertinent data for high schools and middle schools. Geographic enrollment numbers (all potential students living in a geographic area) were used, which is appropriate for rezoning planning. In addition to the information provided directly and electronically to the Core Committee members, which was more than adequate and conforming to Policy J requirements, the School Board made this information available to the interested public directly and electronically. Nothing in this record indicates that any Core Committee member was denied any needed information. Policy J charges the Core Committee with the responsibility "to solicit public input, develop and evaluate alternative plans, and keep the local community informed of the progress." This was accomplished. Because the Core Committee is composed of members of the Parent-Teacher Associations and School Advisory Councils from each affected school, parents were involved and made aware of the Core Committee activities. The Core Committee and the School Board meetings were advertised as required. There was a great deal of public awareness of the rezoning process. For example, it was estimated that 1,600 people attended the two scheduled "public input" sessions, and the School Board meeting and workshop where the plans were presented took more than seven hours. At the conclusion of the Core Committee's consideration of many alternatives, some of which were submitted by the public, three rezoning plans were advanced by the committee. These plans were identified as W, Z, and Z1. Plan Z1 was a plan modified by Deputy Superintendent Kramer at the direction of the committee. These plans were then published on the School Board web-site and made available to the School Board members. Policy J and the Core Committee's stated involvement and participation in the "process for revision," was substantially complied with and any deviation from Policy J or the Core Committee's purpose was insignificant and did not negatively affect the rezoning process. On October 19, 2005, the School Board members took an informational bus trip during which they traveled proposed bus routes for the rezoning plan alternatives. The School Board members are generally familiar with routes to and from the various schools in Seminole County. Seminole County, like most of Central Florida, has experienced dynamic growth in the past decades. This growth has burdened the infrastructure of all communities. As a result, not only are new schools needed, but roads must be constructed and improved. Traffic congestion, whether occasioned by too many vehicles, new construction or for whatever reason, is a daily challenge to central Floridians. Regardless of the particular school a student attends, buses transporting students will be a part of the traffic with which all motorists, including the bus drivers, must contend. Student transportation is a consideration in rezoning, but is not significant or controlling. The School Board has a safety advisory committee whose membership includes police officials and traffic safety personnel from the various governmental entities in Seminole County. As safety or traffic issues arise, this committee provides recommendations regarding those issues. As the need arises, bus routes can be adjusted to accommodate optimum travel time and safety. Subsequent to the publication of the Core Committee Plans W, Z, and Z1, several of the School Board members approached Superintendent Bill Vogel and indicated that they did not feel that any of the Core Committee plans would be acceptable to the Federal government. The School Board members are regularly informed of student demographics, school populations, over/under-crowding, and myriad other statistics which help them make informed judgments in their roles as School Board members. On each school day, every Seminole County school electronically provides the School Board administration with data, including attendance information, to assist in school governance. During the rezoning process, each School Board member was provided timely updates on the Core Committee's activities and had numerous contacts with the general public regarding concerns associated with rezoning. Perhaps, the School Board members who had previously seen a rezoning plan rejected by the Federal government were overly concerned; perhaps, in order to achieve "unitary" status, they wanted to see racial and ethnic ratios adjusted to meet county averages; or perhaps, they were concerned about under/over-crowding. For whatever reason, the School Board members directed Superintendent Vogel to create additional rezoning plans which would address over-crowding at Lake Brantley High School and student enrollment at Lyman High School that included disproportionately high percentages of students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunches. As a result, Superintendent Vogel directed Deputy Superintendent Kramer to prepare modified plans addressing the deficiencies in Plans W, Z, and Z1: that enrollment at Lake Brantley High School had not been reduced in the plans presented by the Core Committee to the extent that it needed to be and that the percentage of students receiving free and reduced-price lunches at Lyman High School was too high in each of the plans presented by the Core Committee. In addition, Superintendent Vogel believed a greater number of the district's high schools could be closer in enrollment percentages to the county-wide averages for black students, Hispanic students, and students receiving free and reduced-price lunches. This planning direction is one of the fundamental considerations of Policy J. Using essentially the same data and cells identified by the Core Committee, Deputy Superintendent Kramer developed Plans Z2 and Z3 in response to the Superintendent's directive. Plan Z2 incorporates the essential components of the plans advanced by the Core Committee with modification of the attendance zones for specific cells. The primary modification in Plan Z2 is moving Cell 27A from the Lake Brantley High School attendance zone to the Lyman High School attendance zone. Cells 10 and 11, which are included in the Intervenor's area of interest, were recommended for transfer from Winter Springs High School in Plan Z as well as Plans Z1 and Z2. Plans Z1 and Z2 were forwarded to the School Board and the Core Committee members electronically upon development. On October 26, 2004, after being appropriately advertised, all five rezoning plan alternatives were presented at an eight-hour public meeting of the School Board held at the School Board's administration building, at which time the public addressed the School Board on the subject rezoning plans. At the close of the public input, Superintendent Vogel recommended Plan Z2 to the School Board. During the presentation in which Plan Z2 was recommended, Superintendent Vogel presented an assessment of each of the five rezoning plan alternatives and how each impacted each Seminole County high school, including the new high school, Hagerty. This assessment included the current student enrollment, with black students, Hispanic students, and students receiving free or reduced-price lunches noted by percentage, current numeric enrollment, and target numeric enrollment. The assessment specifically addressed the effect of each rezoning plan alternative on these critical areas and demonstrated how each plan alternative measured against each critical area. Superintendent Vogel's recommendation reflects consideration of the criteria and process outlined in Policy J, as well as considerations fundamental to the basic objectives articulated by the School Board's commitment to becoming a "unified" school district. Members of the School Board were not bound by Superintendent Vogel's assessment; each had a worksheet by which each individual School Board member could render his or her own assessment. In addition, several of the School Board members had over 14 years of Board experience being first elected in 1990. These experienced members had participated in previous rezonings and had a wealth of experience and knowledge of critical information needed to make informed decisions with or without Superintendent Vogel's assessment of the various plans. The totality of the evidence presented revealed that each of the School Board members was well-informed on all significant data needed to make an informed decision. At the close of the October 26, 2004, meeting, the School Board unanimously voted to accept Superintendent Vogel's recommendation of Plan Z2 with certain modifications.
The Issue The issues are whether the proposed change of school attendance boundaries for five middle schools and five high schools (West Side Schools) located in southwest Pasco County (County) is a rule, and, if so, whether the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is an educational unit and an agency defined in sections 120.52(1)(a) and (6), Florida Statutes. One of its duties is to assign students to schools after consultation with the Superintendent. See § 1001.41(6), Fla. Stat. The School Board has divided the County into geographic areas for purposes of drawing attendance boundaries. At issue here is an area that encompasses the West Side Schools, comprised of 35 designated areas, all west of the Sunshine Parkway, in which five middle schools and five high schools are located. Petitioners and Intervenors are students or parents who reside in area 12. Students in area 12 are currently assigned to J.W. Mitchell High School (Mitchell) or Seven Springs Middle School (Seven Springs). With a few exceptions cited below, under the new attendance plan, area 12 students will be reassigned to the River Ridge Middle School or River Ridge High School (River Ridge) beginning in school year 2017-2018. Only the rezoning for area 12 is being challenged in this case. Around 140 students will be moved from Mitchell and Seven Springs to other schools during the first year. Intervenors Evelyn Nessler and Dominic Faiella, who are in the third and second grades, respectively, will not change schools this fall and are unaffected by the new rezoning. Petitioner Nicholas Carvalho is currently in the eighth grade at Seven Springs and, as a result of his graduation, will be assigned to River Ridge this fall. Intervenor Brady Nessler is in the terminal grade for elementary school and, upon graduation, will be assigned to River Ridge this fall. Thus, the reason for reassignment of Carvalho and Nessler is unconnected to the new rezoning. The County is experiencing an increase in population caused by new residential development in the western part of the County. As a result, enrollment in some West Side Schools has exceeded capacity. For the spring term of school year 2016- 2017, Mitchell exceeds capacity by 18 percent, while Seven Springs exceeds capacity by 22 percent. Without a change in boundaries, in school year 2017-2018, Mitchell is projected to exceed capacity by 27 percent, while Seven Springs is projected to exceed capacity by 31 percent. In contrast, both River Ridge High School and River Ridge Middle School are currently below capacity, operating at 86 and 93 percent capacity, respectively. The over-capacity at the two schools is expected to continue, as more residential development is being planned in the State Road 54 corridor near area 12, Mitchell, and Seven Springs. To counter this condition, attendance zones are periodically redrawn in an effort to balance school enrollment. A School Board planner recalled there have been 27 boundary changes during his tenure as an employee. This case, and one other, Case No. 17-0629RP, which challenges the East Side Schools rezoning plan, are the first instances when attendance zones have been formally challenged. As the Superintendent observed, school rezoning "can be an incredibly painful process" because parents often move into neighborhoods with the belief that schools come with the homes. A fair assumption is that as long as rezoning does not affect their children, parents are content with a new rezoning plan. Because of anticipated growth in the County and existing disparities in school enrollment, in August 2016, the Superintendent instructed his planning staff to begin the process of developing a plan for amending school attendance boundaries, including the West Side Schools. The stated goal was to "review and alter the southwest secondary school boundaries in order to redistribute the school populations between overcrowded and under crowded schools and to provide for future growth as much as possible." Resp. Ex. 17, p. 00285. He further directed that a recommendation be formulated in time for the School Board to approve a new plan before February 1, 2017. This deadline was necessary because by April of each year, the School Board must prepare a proposed budget for the following year; adequate lead time is required to develop a new transportation routing plan; and once new boundary lines are drawn, an open enrollment plan, known as the School Choice program, allows students, between February 1 and March 1 of each year, to apply for enrollment in another school, i.e., in this case their former school. The School Board has adopted a set of Bylaws and Policies, which apply to "Legislative/Policymaking," or rulemaking, and follow the requirements found in chapter 120. See Pet'r Ex. 1. Policy 0131 provides that "the term 'rule' and 'policy' shall have the same definition." Id. at 1. The policy spells out in detail the procedural requirements for adopting policies (rules), which include notice of the proposed policy, a hearing, preparation of a rulemaking record, Board action, and appropriate notices. Id. at 2-3. The policy also describes how a substantially affected person may challenge a proposed policy (rule). Id. at 4. Reference to a "rule" and chapter 120 was made in various announcements, notices, and statements throughout the rezoning process. Also, the School Board acknowledges in a discovery response that section 120.54 is one of the statutes that apply to the rezoning process. Even so, the School Board takes the position that its policies and chapter 120 do not govern the redrawing of attendance boundaries. As a consequence, the Superintendent did not review the Bylaws and Policies or chapter 120 before he established the rezoning process. As explained by one witness, the School Board has not used formal rulemaking in prior rezoning plans, and it was its intention to follow usual past practice. The Superintendent opted to follow the same rezoning process used since at least 2004 or 2005. Under this process, a boundary committee, advisory in nature, is appointed for the purpose of developing multiple boundary maps and then recommending one of them to the Superintendent. The Superintendent does not attend the meetings or direct any member to draw a plan in a particular way. The Superintendent considers, but is not required to accept, the committee recommendation. A parent meeting is also conducted to allow parents to provide input into the process. After the committee and parent meetings are concluded, the committee submits a recommendation to the Superintendent, who then submits a final recommendation to the School Board. By law, two adoption hearings must be conducted by the School Board, which makes the final decision. A boundary committee is comprised of parents, district staff, and principals of affected schools. The committee is intended to represent the interests of students, parents, communities, schools, and the district. The committee for the West Side Schools consisted of 27 members, three of whom reside in Longleaf, a residential community in area 12 where most Petitioners and Intervenors reside. During the rezoning process, a committee will typically conduct three meetings before making its recommendation. In this case, the Superintendent scheduled a fourth meeting to be held after the parent meeting so that parent input could be considered. In developing new school attendance boundaries, the committee was instructed to follow certain guidelines. Under these guidelines, a new boundary should provide socioeconomic balance, maintain to the extent possible an in-line feeder pattern, provide for future growth and capacity, provide safe and efficient transportation, maintain subdivision integrity, and consider long-term school construction plans. See Pet'r Ex. 23. The committee was also given "lots of information" at the first meeting including, among other things, existing and projected enrollments for each school for school years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018; five and ten-year projected enrollments for each school; long-term school construction plans; future growth potential in the area; minority, low income, and special education population by area; and total population history for each school. The School Board employs a full-time public information officer who directs and coordinates the dissemination of information to the public. This is accomplished through social media (Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook) and a School Board website accessible to the public. In addition, a special zoning website was established during the rezoning process. The website and social media profiles are identified on the inside front cover of the student planner issued to every student at the beginning of the school year. The district also operates a program known as School Connect, which is capable of sending telephone messages, emails, and text messages to the parents. School Connect was used to make automated telephone calls to the contact telephone number listed on a student's information card informing the parents of the time and date of the parent meeting. See Resp. Ex. 6. All parents with a valid telephone number received a call, although some parents either did not personally answer the call or did not remember its substance. School Connect also sent emails and texts to parents, including notification of the plan the Superintendent was going to recommend to the School Board. Signs and notices regarding the rezoning were not posted in the neighborhoods before any meeting. However, multiple notices were posted on social media and websites, and text messages, emails, and telephone messages were sent to parents. This constituted substantial compliance with the requirement that notice of rulemaking be "post[ed] in appropriate places so that those particular classes of persons to whom the action is directed may be duly noticed." § 120.81(1)(d)3., Fla. Stat. Besides telephone calls, text messages, emails, and social media, on November 7, 2016, letters were sent to affected parents informing them of the parent meeting on November 14, 2016. See Resp. Ex. 3. Although the final plan was not known at that time, the letter put parents on notice that Mitchell and Seven Springs were overcrowded due to the influx of new homes being built in that area. Many parents knew as early as August 2016 that a new rezoning plan was going to be adopted that fall, but none believed area 12 would be affected due to its proximity to Mitchell and Seven Springs. This mistaken belief probably explains why some parents did not diligently follow the process until the parent meeting or even the School Board meetings when a final plan was adopted. However, one Intervenor formed a group known as "Delay West Pasco Rezoning" in August 2016 in an effort to prevent area 12 from being moved. There is no evidence that any parent or homeowner association requested that they be provided advance written notice of any meeting during the entire process. On September 6, 2016, the procedures for school rezoning were announced on Facebook and other social media. A press release for various media was issued on September 14, 2016. The press release provided the day, time, and location of each boundary committee meeting. The press release was also published on the School Board's Twitter account. The boundary committee for the West Side Schools was appointed on September 16, 2016. Committee meetings were conducted on October 5, October 26, and November 7, 2016. These meetings were open to the public, and all were live-streamed on YouTube.com., although some parents say portions of the broadcast were inaudible. The meetings were also broadcast live on the School Board's Facebook account, and a link to the broadcast was published on its Twitter account. Only around 30 parents attended each meeting. Members of the public who attend the committee meetings are observers only, they do not have input into the meeting process, and they are not allowed to participate in committee discussions. However, there is nothing to prevent an observer from asking a member a question before or after the meeting, or in another setting. As noted above, three committee members lived in Longleaf where most Petitioners and Intervenors reside, and members were encouraged to speak with neighbors and homeowner associations to keep them updated on what was occurring. All documents considered by the committee were posted on the School Board and special zoning websites. Finally, minutes for each meeting, which summarized decisions of the committee and gave notice to parents as to which path the committee was taking, were published before the following meeting. On November 14, 2016, "hundreds" of parents attended a parent meeting, which lasted more than three hours. Before the meeting began, parents were told which options were still being considered by the committee. Although committee members were present, Petitioners stated that questions were not answered by the members, and the entire meeting consisted of comments by the parents. So that their input would be considered, the Superintendent scheduled a fourth committee meeting on November 17, 2016. Five plans were considered by the committee at its fourth meeting, but there was no consensus on which plan to adopt. By a 13-to-12 vote, with two members absent, the committee recommended approval of a new plan known as Plan 4A2, which was posted on the website and social media the same day. Under the plan, effective school year 2017-2018, area 12 students (and others) would be reassigned to River Ridge. Notably, Plan 5A2, the option with the second most votes, garnered 12 votes and is "very similar" to Plan 4A2. It also reassigned area 12 students to River Ridge. The River Ridge joint campus is approximately eight or nine miles north of area 12, while Mitchell and Seven Springs, also a joint campus, are only two or three miles south of area 12. The Superintendent concurred in the recommendation to approve Plan 4A2 with one modification which did not affect area 12: students in areas 1 through 4, previously unaffected, would be reassigned to Gulf Middle School and Gulf High School. In developing the new plan, the committee followed the guidelines given to it at the outset of the process. The new plan took into account future growth and capacity of the schools. Consideration was also given to providing socioeconomic balance. Subdivision integrity was maintained, in that the entire Longleaf community was reassigned to the same schools. During the development of the plan, the committee had available the long-term school construction plans of the district. The district transportation coordinator was a member of the committee and ensured that the new plan provided safe and efficient transportation. Finally, because of overcrowding and anticipated growth in the area, the school feeder pattern structure, which now directs area 12 students to Mitchell and Seven Springs, was necessarily impacted. On balance, however, the guidelines were observed. A few alternative plans were submitted by parents during the committee process, including at least one plan prepared by an unidentified observer that was left on the committee's table before a meeting. The alternative plans are not of record. Pursuant to other district policies, certain exceptions apply to the new area 12 attendance boundary. Students who are rising seniors at Mitchell are grandfathered and remain at Mitchell. Students approved under the School Choice program to remain in Mitchell or Seven Springs may also do so. To take advantage of this program, a student must give a valid reason, such as hardship, separation of siblings, participation in certain extracurricular activities, or acceptance into the Mitchell Academy for Medical Arts Program, which is not offered at River Ridge. Many Petitioners and Intervenors have applied for School Choice to remain at Mitchell or Seven Springs, but there is no guarantee their requests will be approved. Notice of the Superintendent's recommended plan, including the map, was posted on the Board's website seven days before the first School Board meeting. In addition, the same information was posted on the district's Twitter and Facebook accounts, and emails were sent to those parents who provided an email address. Finally, the Superintendent published a letter on December 12, 2016, explaining his reasons for recommending Plan 4A2. It is fair to say that all parents had actual notice well before the first School Board meeting that area 12 was being reassigned to different schools. On November 20, 2016, a Public Notice (Notice) was published in the Tampa Times advising that a first reading on the new school attendance boundaries would be conducted by the School Board on December 20, 2016, and that final action would be taken at a second meeting on January 17, 2017. The Notice read in relevant part as follows: PUBLIC NOTICE INTENT TO ADOPT A RULE TO ESTABLISH SCHOOL BOUNDARIES FOR THE 2017-2018 SCHOOL YEAR The District School Board of Pasco County intends to change attendance boundaries for the 2017-2018 school year for the schools listed below: * * * West Pasco County Schools Chasco Middle, Gulf Middle, Paul R. Smith Middle, River Ridge Middle, Seven Springs Middle, Anclote High, Gulf High, J.W. Mitchell High, Ridgewood High, River Ridge High First reading on this matter is scheduled for the regular meeting of the District School Board of Pasco County on December 20, 2016. School Board action on this matter is scheduled for the regular meeting of the District School Board of Pasco County on January 17, 2017. Even though none of Petitioners or Intervenors read the Notice, they now complain that it does not contain a detailed summary of the new boundary lines, a reference to the grant of rulemaking authority, a reference to the statute being implemented, a summary of the estimated regulatory costs, or the other details normally included in agency rulemaking pursuant to section 120.54. There is, however, no evidence that the parents were prejudiced by a lack of more information in the Notice. With the exception of those parents who voluntarily chose not to attend, virtually all other parents who were not working or were not out of town had actual notice and attended the two School Board meetings. Sensing that Plan 4A2 was going to be selected, on December 17, 2016, with the assistance of a committee member who happened to be an attorney, Petitioners James Stanley and Cecilia Loyola, husband and wife, drafted a letter to the Superintendent and School Board Chairman. See Pet'r Ex. 2. The letter stated the proposed rule (new attendance boundaries) was arbitrary and capricious. It requested (a) a workshop pursuant to section 120.54(2)(c) mediated by a neutral party, and (b) the attendance of committee members at the workshop to answer questions. The letter also asked that if a workshop was not conducted, the rulemaking process be suspended and a separate draw-out proceeding be conducted pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57. Finally, the letter asserted that by limiting each speaker to only "one or three minutes," the School Board was violating section 120.54(3)(c). This was the first and only time that a parent invoked a chapter 120 rulemaking requirement in an effort to slow or derail the rezoning process. The letter was delivered to the Superintendent and Board Chairman on the day of the meeting. By that late date, the request was untimely, and the Superintendent had insufficient time to prepare a written response stating why a workshop was unnecessary, as required by section 120.54(2)(c). See § 120.54(3)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (a person must "timely" assert and affirmatively demonstrate to the agency that the rulemaking proceeding does not protect his substantial interests). No draw-out or workshop was conducted, and except for the Superintendent's reply letter, discussed below, no formal ruling was made by the School Board at the meeting on the untimely draw-out and workshop requests. On February 17, 2017, the Superintendent replied to the Stanley/Loyola letter. See Pet'r Ex. 3. The three-page letter outlined the multi-step rezoning process that was followed by the School Board, the efforts to solicit and facilitate parent participation, and the numerous types of notice given to the parents. Thus, he concluded that a workshop was unnecessary. At both School Board meetings, members of the public were allowed to speak. Normally, one hour of public testimony is permitted for an agenda item, with a three-minute time limitation for each speaker. Because three sets of attendance boundary plans were being considered as a single item, this time was expanded, and each plan was allotted one hour, for a total of three hours. To accommodate the large turnout of parents wishing to speak (58), only 90 seconds was allotted to each speaker, including those representing groups. Given the time constraints, not every parent was given the opportunity to speak. However, 16 speakers who were not allowed to speak at the first meeting were scheduled to speak first at the second meeting on January 17, 2017. Committee members were not required to attend either School Board meeting to explain Plan 4A2 or to answer questions posed by the audience. At this point in the process, the Superintendent, and not the committee, bore the responsibility of making a final recommendation to the School Board and to answer any questions members had. At the close of public comment on December 20, 2016, the School Board considered and approved Plan 4A2. However, one Board member suggested a modification to Plan 4A2, which would delay by one year the reassignment of students in areas 1 through 4 from Mitchell and Seven Springs to Gulf High School and Gulf Middle School. In all other respects, Plan 4A2 remained the same. This suggestion was to be reviewed by the Superintendent prior to the second meeting the following month. On January 17, 2017, the day of the second School Board meeting, the Superintendent sent a memorandum to School Board members regarding the rezoning issue. Among other things, he stated that "[t]he establishment of school attendance boundaries is authorized by Section 1001.42, Florida Statutes. In addition, the Administrative Procedures [sic] Act requires that the District publish a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Rule twenty-one days prior to the public hearing. The first reading was held on December 20, 2016." Pet'r Ex. 19. On January 17, 2017, the day of the second School Board meeting, the Superintendent tweeted on his Twitter account that he intended to recommend the adoption of Plan 4A2, as modified. See Pet'r Ex. 9. After public comment, final action was taken by the School Board and Plan 4A2 was adopted as the new school attendance boundaries for the West Side Schools. Unlike typical agency rulemaking, the adopted plan is in the form of a map, rather than a numbered rule. See Resp. Ex. 16. The additional cost for parents to transport their children to a new school is highly speculative, and no evidence was adduced to show that the new plan would increase regulatory costs, directly or indirectly, more than $200,000.00 within one year after implementation. See § 120.54(3)(a)b., Fla. Stat. Therefore, a statement of estimated regulatory costs for implementing the new boundary lines was not prepared by the School Board, and none was requested nor submitted by a third party. As required by section 120.54(3)(e)6., a copy of the new boundaries was filed with the "office of the agency head" after it was adopted at the second meeting. The parties stipulated that had the students who are named as parties testified at the final hearing, they would have reiterated the allegations set forth in the Second Amended Petition and Motion for Leave to Intervene. These include allegations that the students will be emotionally affected by the transfer; they will be separated from friends, teachers, counselors, and certain extracurricular programs in which they now participate; the change will limit their ability to walk or bike to school; and they will have increased travel time to attend the new schools. The parents expressed a wide range of concerns with the new attendance boundaries. Many wondered why area 13, which lies just west of area 12, was not reassigned to River Ridge. However, the committee decided early on to use State Road 54 as a demarcation line, sending students who reside north of State Road 54 to River Ridge. Area 12 lies north of the roadway, while area 13 is just south of the line. The reassignment of area 12 students was based on this consideration and is not illogical or unreasonable. Most parents purchased their homes with the understanding that their children would always be attending the schools located closest to their homes. The new school assignments will result in longer bus rides, inconvenience for parents who drive their children to school in the morning, or pick them up after regular school hours if they participate in extracurricular activities. The parents also noted that driving on Starkey Boulevard (Starkey) is the shortest route to the new schools. They described the route as unsafe and one that requires them to make a difficult left turn onto Starkey when leaving Longleaf. There are, however, other routes to the new school, and the district transportation coordinator established that student safety is a top priority. Several parents, including one who is a realtor, expressed a concern that the value of their homes would decline since buyers would not choose to purchase a home if their children could not attend the schools closest to their homes. However, the record gives no indication that any homes have been offered for sale, any homes have been sold at a distressed price, or any homeowners have not been able to sell their homes due to the proposed rezoning. Parents are concerned that River Ridge does not have the same clubs, extracurricular activities, or educational opportunities that are found in Mitchell and Seven Hills. The record shows, however, that both schools are ranked as "B" schools; they have the same core academic and educational programmatic offerings; they both have advanced offerings for students who excel; they both have magnet programs; and both are accredited by AdvancED/Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. There is no evidence that classes currently available at Mitchell and Seven Hills will not be available at River Ridge this fall, or even that such classes will remain available to the students at Seven Springs and Mitchell. In summary, there is no evidence that the students will not have the same educational opportunities at the River Ridge schools as they now receive at Mitchell and Seven Springs. Some students visit doctors and dentists who have offices near Mitchell and Seven Springs. Having to travel from River Ridge to those offices will be more time-consuming and inconvenient. This is not, however, a ground to invalidate a rule. It was contended that some parents provide a false address to the School Board in order to have their children enrolled in Mitchell and Seven Springs, rather than their assigned schools under the current school attendance plan. Petitioners assert that if all addresses are verified, those students can be removed, and the overcrowding at Mitchell and Seven Springs alleviated. However, no evidence to support this assertion was produced. Some parents complained that emails requesting answers to questions that were sent to the Superintendent or planning staff during the process were never answered. Although the Superintendent instructed staff to reply to all emails, if hundreds or thousands of emails were received by staff during the process, it is likely that some were not answered.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Manatee County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause to terminate the employment of Charles Willis (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a drama teacher employed by the Petitioner to work at BRHS pursuant to a professional services contract. During 2010, the Respondent had an account on Facebook, a social networking internet website. Facebook allows an individual user to create and maintain a personal "page" including text and photographs, which can be viewed by other users. Users can also provide links to content posted elsewhere on the internet, and viewers can access the linked information. Facebook allows users to establish privacy settings that restrict access to various types of content. Such privacy options include the identification of other Facebook users as "friends." Privacy settings can be established that prevent users from posting comments to content posted by a user, or from viewing comments posted by other users. Social networking websites are used by some teachers to communicate classroom assignments or other educational information to students. Social networking websites are widely used by students and, at least based on the testimony presented at the hearing, by parents and other adults as well. Prior to the allegations underlying this dispute, the Respondent's privacy settings permitted his Facebook "friends" to view all content posted by the Respondent. The Respondent had in excess of 100 BRHS students identified as friends on his Facebook account. At all times material to this case, the Petitioner had no policy, written or otherwise, that restricted an employee from having an account on a social networking website, or regulated the use of any social networking website by an employee. At various times during 2010, the Respondent posted remarks on his Facebook page that included certain acronyms. Such acronyms, and their commonly understood meaning, included the following: WTF (What the Fuck) OMFG (Oh My Fucking God) F'n (Fucking) LMAO (Laughing My Ass Off) ROTFLMFAO (Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Fucking Ass Off) At the hearing, the Respondent asserted that he intended the "F" in the above acronyms to be understood as "fricking." There was no credible evidence that any student or parent who read the Respondent's Facebook remarks understood the "F" to mean anything other than "fucking." On his Facebook page dated July 31, 2010, the Respondent posted a remark that stated "[I]t's not who you know, it's who you blow," in an apparently derogatory reference to the judging of a student competition. On his Facebook page dated March 30, 2010, the Respondent posted a photograph of a bumper sticker that read "[F]uck the man, become the man" that was taken by a student on a trip to New York. The Respondent explained his posting of the photo by claiming that the people on the trip had agreed that all photos taken on the trip would be posted without censorship and that he had posted several hundred trip photos onto Facebook. On his Facebook page dated August 7, 2010, the Respondent posted a photograph (titled "Accidental Porn") that he obtained from another Facebook user's page. The photograph displayed a television weatherman standing in front of a map showing an elongated weather system. Based on the location of the weatherman and the weather system, the image was perceived by some viewers as depicting the broadcaster holding his penis in a sexually-suggestive position. Comments on the Respondent's Facebook page made it apparent that his viewers were aware of the perception. On his Facebook page dated August 20, 2010, the Respondent posted a link to content titled "[I]t's a great day to whoop somebody's ass." On his Facebook page dated June 26, 2010, the Respondent, apparently intoxicated, posted remarks indicating that he'd consumed excessive alcohol one evening and then posted remarks on the next day indicating that he had a headache related to the consumption. Although the Respondent asserted that some of the posts referenced herein occurred during summer months when he was not "on contract" as a teacher, his students, past and future, were able to freely access the Respondent's Facebook pages during the summer. The Respondent also had an account on Formspring, another social networking internet website. Formspring presents user content in a "questions and answer" format. In an undated post to the Respondent's Formspring page, a student commented "[T]hanks for letting me skip your class today." The Respondent wrote in response, "[Y]ou're welcome, but now you owe me....LOL....just do an amazing job at the encore show." The Respondent acknowledged that he allowed the student to miss his class in order to attend a rehearsal. While the Respondent may have failed to comply with school attendance policy by permitting the student to miss class, the Petitioner's assertion that the posting created the impression of an inappropriate arrangement between a teacher and a student was not supported by credible evidence. In another undated post to the Respondent's Formspring page, an unidentified Formspring user asked "what happened with the whole UP dvd thing," apparently in reference to an incident wherein the Respondent played a movie in class. The Respondent replied, "I got areprimand [sic] for showing an unauthorized video and not following the counties [sic] video policy." The Petitioner's assertion that the Respondent's response was an inappropriate discussion of an employer/employee disciplinary matter with a student was not supported by credible evidence. The reprimand was public record. The identity of the person posting the question was unknown. Upon the initiation of this disciplinary action, the Respondent altered his privacy settings on the social networking sites to limit access of personal content to adults. There was no evidence that social networking internet websites cannot be used for appropriate educational purposes. On more than a few occasions, the Respondent was known in the classroom to use "spoonerisms" in speech, wherein letters in various words were deliberately switched to alter a verbalization of a phrase. While in class and in the presence of students, the Respondent used phrases such as "nucking futs" or "doggammit." The school received a complaint about the practice. On one occasion in the classroom, the Respondent referred to his former wife as a "bitch." On at least one occasion, the Respondent used a hand gesture in the presence of students to signify the word "bullshit." On April 30, 2010, the BRHS principal directed the Respondent to refrain from making such statements and gestures. There was no credible evidence that the Respondent continued to engage in such verbal or physical communication after the April 30, 2010, directive. At the start of the 2009-2010 school year, the Respondent approached the BRHS principal to inquire about organizing a theatre trip to New York for some of his drama students. The principal declined to authorize the travel as a school-sponsored event. The Respondent thereafter organized the trip on a private basis. Eight students expressed interest in going on the trip, and the trip ultimately occurred with a number of parents traveling as chaperones. At times, the Respondent discussed the proposed trip in his classes. The announcement of an organizational meeting occurred during class. The meeting was conducted on the school grounds at a time and place where play rehearsals were occurring, which had been previously arranged by the Respondent. There was no evidence that the Respondent mislead any participant to incorrectly presume that the trip was sponsored by the school. The participants in the trip were aware that the travel was not a school-sponsored event. There was no credible evidence that any participant or parent believed that the trip was a school-sanctioned event. The Respondent failed to comply with the school procedure for private use of the facility, which requires application and approval by school administration. Although execution of a facility lease may be required for larger groups, there was no evidence that such a lease would have been required for this meeting. There was no evidence that there was any adverse consequence to the Respondent's failure to seek permission to hold the organizational meeting in the previously-approved play rehearsal space. The time and location of the organizational meeting was not unreasonable, given the nature of the trip and the expected participants. Teachers who need to leave BRHS grounds during the workday are directed to obtain permission from a school administrator and then document the early departure in a log book maintained in the school office. The school administrators are the principal and the assistant principals, who are identified as such during formal meetings at the beginning of the school year. On September 2, 2010, the Respondent needed to go home on his lunch break and switch cars with his wife. The Respondent testified that he could not locate an administrator and that he thereafter went to the office of Bob McCabe, the BHRS "administrative parent liaison" and advised Mr. McCabe that the Respondent was leaving campus early. Mr. McCabe is not a school administrator and has no authority to approve a request to leave school grounds. Mr. McCabe works with parents and on student disciplinary matters. Mr. McCabe told the Respondent that he would tell the administrators, and the Respondent left the school. Mr. McCabe testified that shortly after the Respondent left, an assistant principal inquired as to whether the Respondent had left the grounds. Mr. McCabe also testified that the assistant principal had told him that she was present in her office at the time the Respondent claimed to be unable to find her, but the hearsay testimony was not otherwise corroborated. The evidence establishes that, had the Respondent requested to leave campus, the request would have most likely been granted, as such authorization, absent use of leave, was routinely granted by school administrators. There was no credible evidence that other teachers who have left school grounds without prior administrative approval have been subjected to discipline for the infraction. The Petitioner presented the expert testimony of Terry Osborn, dean of the University of South Florida College of Education, Sarasota-Manatee campus, who opined that some of the Respondent's social networking interactions could have had negative effects on the learning environment, could cause anxiety for some students, and potentially result in a loss of credibility by the educator. Mr. Osborne essentially based his opinion on very limited literature. There was no credible evidence that any of the adverse impacts identified by the witness has occurred.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Manatee County School Board enter a final order, dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Charles E. Willis. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 31st day of March, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott A. Martin, Esquire Manatee County School Board 215 Manatee Avenue West, Second Floor Bradenton, Florida 34205 Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Lois Tepper, Acting General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Tim McGonegal, Superintendent Manatee County School Board 215 Manatee Avenue, West Bradenton, Florida 34206-9069
The Issue Whether Brevard County School Board (Petitioner or School Board), has just cause to terminate the professional services contract held by Joyce D. Iloka (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise public schools within the Brevard County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district, including those personnel decisions affecting the professional teaching staff at THS. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was an employee of the School Board and was subject to the statutes, rules, and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. At all times material to this case, Respondent was assigned to teach drafting at THS. All allegations relate to Respondent's tenure at THS and the performance of her duties as a drafting instructor. By letter dated February 2, 2009, Petitioner notified Respondent that a recommendation would be made to the School Board to terminate her employment with the school district. At its meeting on February 10, 2009, Petitioner accepted the recommendation of the school administration and voted to approve Respondent's employment termination. Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing to challenge the decision of the School Board. Petitioner charged Respondent with failure to correct deficiencies identified in a performance plan designed to assist Respondent to remediate unacceptable defects in her teaching performance. Second, Petitioner alleged that the deficiencies noted by THS personnel also constituted an additional basis for termination: incompetency. Respondent maintains that student performance must be considered in the review of her performance and that she was competent and qualified to perform her teaching responsibilities and had done so for a number of years without concern from the THS administration. Respondent began employment with the school district in 1996. She was assigned to THS from 2004-2008. From her first assignment until the 2007/2008 school year, Respondent received satisfactory performance evaluations. Petitioner utilizes an instructional personnel evaluation system known as the Performance Appraisal System (PAS). PAS was approved by state authorities and was cooperatively developed by teachers and administrators for use in Brevard County. PAS details the procedures, method, and forms to be utilized in the completion of instructional personnel evaluations. All such criteria were met in the evaluations performed of Respondent's work. Additionally, school administrators who perform employee evaluations must be thoroughly trained in PAS and must conform to the uniformity afforded by the PAS instrument. All administrators identified in this cause who performed evaluations of the Respondent were trained and were fully certified to evaluate personnel based upon the PAS instrument. Ron Philpot is an assistant principal at THS. He has worked in Brevard County for approximately 37 years and has been assigned to THS for the last 17. Lori Spinner is the principal at THS. For the 2006/2007 school year, Mr. Philpot was assigned to evaluate Respondent. Dr. Spinner signed off on Respondent's 2006/2007 performance evaluation on February 14, 2007. Respondent's 2006/2007 PAS evaluation found her to be overall "high performing." Mr. Philpot was the only administrator/observer who visited Respondent's classroom in order to complete the 2006/2007 evaluation. In his many years of performing evaluations, Mr. Philpot has given only one unsatisfactory evaluation. On December 4, 2007, Dr. Spinner visited Respondent's classroom for the purpose of observing the class and Respondent's performance. On that date there were 17 students present and Dr. Spinner made visual sweeps of the classroom every ten minutes to determine the engagement level of the students. For the time period from 12:25-12:55 p.m., no fewer than two and no more than four students were off-task or not engaged in the lesson. Dr. Spinner remained in Respondent's class for 45 minutes and completed notes from her observation. Pertinent to the allegations of this case are the following observations entered by Dr. Spinner: Instructional Organization - No teacher-based questioning was used during the entire lesson. No learning objective is evident and no agenda or objectives are noted on the board. Materials are not organized and six incidents of non-instructional/unrelated talk were noted. In the middle of the lesson, the teacher states, "Where are you third block?" "What are you working on?" Directions for activity are vague and non- specific. Teacher states "Put in a window anywhere"; "Put in a door somewhere". Teacher circulated several times to address individual concerns. Presentation of Subject Matter - Only 1 concept was presented during the lesson (rotating windows and doors)and appeared to be a review. No new concepts were presented. Instructions for the project were inadequate and vague. Visuals on the board are illegible and difficult to see. Students demonstrated confusion with assignment. Several questions went unanswered or ignored. Communication - Vague and sporadic. No teacher questioning for comprehension. Student questions went unanswered or hands- raised were ignored. In response to one question, teacher states, "I think it says something about that in your book, I think it says . . ." Teacher expressed confusion in demonstrating a plot plan. Was not able to implement the correct commands with Mechanical Desktop Architect program. Management of Conduct - Several students not engaged during lesson. Five incidents of misconduct were not addressed during the lesson. Based upon the observations noted above, Dr. Spinner met with Respondent to provide her with an interim evaluation of her performance. Of the nine individual assessment categories, Dr. Spinner identified only two items that needed improvement. Both were noted under the "Instructional Strand" heading. Comments entered by Dr. Spinner advised Respondent: Ms. Iloka had several students off task or not engaged in the lesson, throughout the class period. She did not have materials prepared in advance which resulted in lost instructional time. Teacher-student interactions often included unrelated talk and off-task discussions. There were long delays during the instructional lesson and instructions/directions were not clear for students. Requirements for the activity were not presented in advance and directions were vague. This resulted in delays in learning and gaps in instructional activities. Presentation of instructions and project directions were vague and difficult for students to follow. Requirements were not presented in advance. There was no instructional questioning during the lesson to ensure comprehension. Concepts were presented with examples only. Students did not have an instructional visual to reference as they worked with the program. Dr. Spinner attempted to communicate the areas of concern noted above but Respondent was resistant. Further, Dr. Spinner sought to encourage Respondent to continue her education and professional development as a means of continuous professional growth. Dr. Spinner hoped that Respondent would recruit more students into the drafting program because the enrollment had steadily declined during Respondent's tenure at THS. None of Dr. Spinner's suggestions were well-received by Respondent. On January 30, 2008, Dr. Spinner observed Respondent's class from 1:55-2:40 p.m. As before, Dr. Spinner made a visual sweep of the class to determine student engagement every ten minutes. Again, as before, Dr. Spinner observed two to four students not engaged during the sweeps. Many of the comments generated by the January 30, 2008, observation mirrored the prior observation. Dr. Spinner felt Respondent had made no serious effort to improve the areas of concern that needed improvement. The interim PAS evaluation signed by Dr. Skinner and Respondent on February 1, 2008, included three categories that needed improvement and noted that Respondent's overall evaluation needed improvement. To provide assistance for Respondent, Dr. Skinner assigned a teacher/peer mentor at the school level to provide direction and help to the Respondent in order to remediate the deficient areas of performance. Respondent did not avail herself of the mentor and did not implement meaningful changes to her instructional content or delivery. Later Dr. Skinner secured a mentor teacher from outside the school to assist the Respondent. Again, Respondent did not implement the suggestions made by that mentor. Dr. Spinner prepared professional development assistance (PDA) forms for areas of concern in order to identify the behaviors that were deficient, the strategies for improvement of the deficiency, and the assistance that the school would provide to Respondent. For example, the PDA dated February 1, 2008, to improve management of student conduct noted that peer mentor, Jane Speidel, would assist Respondent to develop a classroom management plan so that students who are off-task can be appropriately engaged in the learning process. According to Ms. Speidel, Respondent did not want assistance in this regard and had "no desire to adopt any new changes." On February 19, 2008, Dr. Spinner again observed Respondent's class. Many of the same deficiencies in the categories of instructional organization, presentation of subject matter, communication, and management of conduct were noted. At one point during the observation, Respondent received a sub sandwich and a drink from a colleague. As Respondent had just finished a duty-free lunch time prior to the observation time, the delivery of food during a class period seemed inappropriate to Dr. Skinner. Dr. Skinner’s next observation of Respondent's class was on February 28, 2008. Deficiencies were listed in the areas of instructional organization, presentation of subject matter, communication, and management of conduct. Many of the problems noted in prior observations were continuing. The common thread running through each observation was the failure on Respondent's part to even attempt to incorporate new strategies or concepts into her teaching effort. Specifically, with regard to student performance, students remained off task. Students continued to be confused by vague or confusing directions and exhibited an indifference to drafting. Students were observed sleeping, eating, playing solitaire, and computer games or surfing the Internet when they should have been working on projects or completing appropriate drafting assignments. On March 6, 2008, Dr. Skinner gave Respondent her annual evaluation. Unsurprisingly, Respondent was given an overall evaluation of unsatisfactory. As Respondent had made little or no effort to improve in the areas noted as deficient during the school year (as delineated in prior observations), Respondent was advised: Ms. Iloka is expected to improve in the areas noted as unsatisfactory. A formal plan and support has been provided to assist her in becoming more effective with her students. She is expected to demonstrate improvement as an expectation for continued employment. At the conclusion of the annual PAS evaluation, Respondent was advised that a 90-day probationary period would begin at the start of the 2008/2009 school year. Accordingly, from August 11, 2008, Respondent was subject to PDA plans to address deficiencies in the categories of instructional organization and development, presentation of subject matter, and management of student conduct. The same three areas of concern that were identified throughout the 2007/2008 school year continued to be a concern. On August 11, 2008, Respondent signed a letter acknowledging that she would be on probationary status for 90 days and that she would be evaluated periodically during that time. A resource teacher from the county, John Hays, was identified to Respondent as someone who would provide support and information for presenting the subject matter appropriately and developing a classroom management plan. During the fall of 2008, Respondent was observed on several occasions. None of the visits to Respondent's classroom evidenced any significant improvement on her part to address the deficient areas of performance. Assistant Principal Jerri Mallicoat completed PAS evaluations that noted the same deficiencies. Respondent did not complete lesson plans with sufficient detail so that a substitute could understand and step in for an absence. Respondent did not develop a classroom management plan to ensure that off-task students could be redirected to the assignment. Further, students committing violations of school rules (such as eating in the classroom) were not appropriately disciplined and redirected. Respondent did not avail herself of resources available through the school site mentor or county resource opportunities. Petitioner afforded Respondent with opportunities for improvement through in-service classes and mentor teachers. Respondent is a non-degreed vocational industrial arts teacher. Drafting and other vocational industrial arts classes are commonly taught by credentialed persons who achieve some industry-recognized authorization as sufficient to demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent's knowledge of her subject area is not questioned. Her ability to translate that knowledge in a meaningful manner to a classroom of students while maintaining order and on-task behavior and her failure to recognize her need to improve performance in these areas is the subject of this cause. For whatever reason, Respondent would not or could not improve performance in the deficient areas. During the 2008/2009 school year THS used block scheduling. Teachers would have students for 90-minute blocks. Respondent was challenged to fill that time with educational content and maintain students in on-task efforts. Respondent had two blocks of drafting students. Enrollment in drafting declined such that the remainder of Respondent's work day was spent as a substitute for other teachers. Within a block, Respondent had multiple levels of drafting students, first-time drafting students up to the more advanced levels. Each level of proficiency required appropriate instruction. Drafting, like other vocational industrial arts classes, does not have a state-mandated performance assessment tool. Drafting students are recognized in the private sector by whether they are able to achieve an industry-recognized testing standard of performance. Classroom performance at THS was based upon proficient use of the program utilized to create plans and the written materials that accompanied the computer work. Students eating, sleeping, playing solitaire, computer games, or surfing the Internet did not demonstrate proficient use of drafting skills. All of these behaviors were repeatedly observed in Respondent's class. Respondent did not remediate the performance deficiencies noted in the evaluations of the 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 school years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Brevard County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment with the School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph R. Lowicky, Esquire Glickman, Witters and Marrell, P.A. The Centurion, Suite 1101 1601 Forum Place West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey Scott Sirmons, Esquire Johnson, Haynes, & Miller 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 305 Brandon, Florida 33511 Thomas Johnson, Esquire Johnson, Haynes & Miller, P.A. 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 305 Brandon, Florida 33511 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Richard DiPatri, Ed. D., Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6601
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a third-grade teacher at Melaleuca Elementary School in Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent was initially hired by the School Board as a teacher in 2006. At all times material to this case, Respondent's employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board's policies, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association. The Florida Standards Assessment ("FSA") is a standardized, statewide, individual assessment examination administered to students in Florida's public schools. The FSA for third-grade students includes the Mathematics and English Language Arts ("ELA") Reading assessments. Student performance on the FSA is a measure of student accountability. A student's test score on the FSA must accurately reflect the student's actual performance on the test. If a student receives assistance, the student's performance will not be accurately measured. Student performance on the FSA is a factor in the determination of a school's grade, a teacher's evaluation, and potentially, a teacher's compensation and bonus. To maintain the integrity of the FSA and to ensure the proper administration of the FSA, teachers receive mandatory training in the correct administration of the test. On or about March 16, 2016, Respondent attended the FSA Test Administrator Training at Melaleuca Elementary School, which included instruction about test security. On or about March 16, 2016, Respondent received a copy of a PowerPoint entitled "Spring 2016 Florida Standards Assessments Training Materials – Computer Based Grades 4-5 ELA Reading; Grade 5 Mathematics – Paper-Based Grade 3 ELA Reading and Grades 3 & 4 Mathematics." On or about March 16, 2016, Respondent signed the "Test Administration and Security Agreement" and the "Test Administrator Prohibited Activities Agreement," which prohibit assisting students in answering tests, giving students verbal and non-verbal cues, and changing or interfering with student responses. By signing these agreements, Respondent agreed to follow all test administration and security procedures outlined in the manual and rules, and she agreed not to engage in any prohibited activities or acts that would violate the security of the test or cause student achievement to be inaccurately measured. At the hearing, Respondent acknowledged she understood the contents of these agreements and the prohibited testing activities. On March 31, 2016, Respondent was a third-grade teacher at Melaleuca Elementary School and administered/proctored the FSA Mathematics assessment to third-grade students. During the test, Respondent gave assistance to students and interfered with students' answers. Specifically, Respondent: (1) made noises and tapped on students' desks and their test answer sheets to signal wrong answers; (2) pointed to wrong answers on the test answer sheets; whispered to a student that "she was doing a good job"; and erased marks and unwanted answers on students' answer sheets. Many students who were in the classroom when Respondent administered the FSA Mathematics assessment on March 31, 2016, credibly and persuasively testified at the final hearing regarding the assistance Respondent gave to them during the examination, and Respondent's interference with their answers during the examination. N.D. testified that during the test, Respondent made noises to signal a wrong answer. N.D. also testified that Respondent pointed to a question on her answer sheet in an effort to have N.D. change her answer. N.D. also testified that Respondent erased bubbles on her answer sheet. A.C. testified that during the test, Respondent made noises to signal a wrong answer. A.C. also testified that Respondent erased bubbles on her answer sheet. A.V. testified that during the test, Respondent made noises to signal a wrong answer. A.V. also testified that Respondent whispered to her that "she was doing a good job." A.V. also testified that Respondent pointed to answers and erased bubbles on her answer sheet. H.C. testified that during the test, Respondent made noises to signal a wrong answer. D.A. testified that during the test, Respondent tapped on his desk to signal a wrong answer. Y.C. testified that during the test, Respondent made noises to signal a wrong answer. A.R.E. testified that during the test, Respondent made noises to signal a wrong answer. A.R.E. also testified that Respondent erased bubbles on his answer sheet. A.H. testified that during the test, Respondent made noises. A.H. also testified that Respondent erased a mark on his answer sheet. Moreover, at the hearing, Respondent conceded that she erased bubbles on students' answer sheets and prompted a student when asked by the student about the definition of a polygram. Respondent's attempt to explain how she did not assist students and interfere with their answers during the FSA examination is unpersuasive and not credited. Respondent's assistance to students and interference with students' answers during the FSA Mathematics assessment resulted in the Florida Department of Education ("DOE") invalidating each of the students' math tests in Respondent's classroom. The invalidation of the students' math tests resulted in a deficit for the placement of students in the appropriate math instruction for the following school year. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2). By assisting students and interfering with students' answers during the FSA examination, Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.042(1)(c), (d), and (f). Respondent also violated rules 6A-5.056(2)(d) and (e) by engaging in conduct which disrupted the students' learning environment and reduced Respondent's ability to effectively perform duties. Respondent also violated rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., (2)(b)2., and (2)(c)1., by failing to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning, intentionally distorting or misrepresenting facts concerning an educational matter in direct or indirect public expression, and failing to maintain honesty in all dealings. By assisting students and interfering with students' answers during the FSA examination, Respondent also violated School Board Policy 1.013 by failing to carry out her assigned duties in accordance with state rules and School Board policy. Respondent's conduct in assisting students and interfering with students' answers during the FSA examination was clearly flagrant and purposeful. Respondent was trained not to assist students and interfere with students' answers during the FSA examination. Respondent was aware of the prohibition against assisting students and interfering with students' answers during the FSA examination. Rather than adhere to these prohibitions, however, Respondent made a conscious decision to ignore them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order upholding the suspension and termination of Respondent's employment.1/ DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 1st day of September, 2017.
