The Issue Whether Petitioner, Cordelia Brown, is eligible to receive a scholarship offered by the 2015 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Legislature created the Scholarship Program during its 2015 Session. Through the 2015 General Appropriations Act, the Legislature adopted proviso language in Specific Appropriation 99A (“Appropriation 99A”) allocating $44,022,483.00 to “award a maximum of 4,402 teachers with a $10,000 scholarship based on high academic achievement on the SAT or ACT.” See Ch. 2015-232, § 2, 99A, at 27, Laws of Fla. To be eligible to receive the scholarship, Appropriation 99A stated that, “a teacher must have scored at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment.”2/ Appropriation 99A further provided that an “eligible teacher” was to apply to the employing school district no later than October 1, 2015. Thereafter, each school district was to submit to the Department the number of eligible teachers who qualified for the scholarship by December 1, 2015. By February 1, 2016, the Department was to disburse scholarship funds to each school district for each teacher who was to receive the scholarship. By April 1, 2016, each school district was to pay the scholarship award to each eligible teacher. Appropriation 99A further stated that if the number of eligible teachers exceeded the total appropriated amount ($44,022,483.00), the Department was to prorate the per teacher scholarship amount. On September 3, 2015, Petitioner timely applied to the School Board to receive the scholarship award under the Scholarship Program. On November 11, 2015, the School Board notified Petitioner that it had been determined that she did not qualify for the Scholarship Program. The School Board explained that Petitioner was not a “classroom teacher.” Therefore, she was not eligible to receive the scholarship. Petitioner is a first-year employee with the School Board. The School Board hired her at the start of the 2015-2016 school year. The School Board hired Petitioner as a speech- language pathologist. Prior to working for the School Board, Petitioner taught in Fulton County, Georgia. One factor in her decision to accept the School Board’s offer of employment and relocate to Florida was the Scholarship Program. For the 2015-2016 school year, Petitioner entered into a “Probationary Contract of Employment for Instructional Personnel of the Public Schools” with the School Board.3/ Petitioner holds a two-year, temporary teaching certificate issued by the Department in the area of Speech-Language Impaired. For the 2015-2016 school year, the School Board assigned Petitioner to work as a speech language pathologist at Brentwood Elementary. All of Petitioner’s students were identified as exceptional student education or “ESE” students. At Brentwood Elementary, Petitioner led two class subjects, Speech Therapy and Language Therapy. In her Speech Therapy class, Petitioner addressed her students’ problems with speech and fluency (e.g., stuttering). Petitioner’s Language Therapy class focused on the content of what is being said (i.e., expressive and receptive language). Petitioner instructed students in areas including reading, reading aloud, and analysis. Petitioner instructed a total of 25 students over six class periods. Her classes consisted of small groups of two-to- four students. Petitioner’s students ranged in age from pre- kindergarten through fifth-grade. For her six classes, Petitioner prepared daily lesson plans. Her lesson plans targeted the goals and objectives on each of her students’ individualized education plans. She aligned her lesson plans with Florida state standards. Some of the state standards are general education grade-level standards, and some are specific to speech or language therapy. Each lesson plan included sections addressing “Setting the Purpose for Learning,” “Instruction and Assessment,” “Teacher Supported Guided Instruction,” and “Application.” Petitioner submitted her lesson plans to her assistant principal for a quarterly review. Petitioner was observed and evaluated by her assistant principal using the same form used for evaluating other teachers at Brentwood Elementary. Petitioner was observed and evaluated on criteria related to the instruction she provided to her students as well as the culture of her classroom. The School Board reported that Petitioner is “outstanding” in her role and was doing “a great job” according to the Brentwood Elementary administration. The School Board further relayed that “there is no question that [Petitioner] is an up-and-coming great professional.” The School Board denied Petitioner’s application because it did not consider a speech language pathologist to be eligible for the Scholarship Program. The School Board explained that it understood the term “teacher” as used in Appropriation 99A to mean a “classroom teacher” as that term is defined in section 1012.01(2)(a). The School Board did not believe that Petitioner fit into the definition of a “classroom teacher.” The School Board described a “classroom teacher” as a “person who is in charge of the whole classroom who is doing the daily instructional services to the kids.” In contrast to a “classroom teacher,” the School Board considers speech-language pathology as a type of “related service.” Related services are services provided to exceptional- education students to assist them in accessing and benefiting from classroom instruction. The School Board considers its “classroom teachers” and speech language pathologists to possess different skill-sets, bases of knowledge, and job goals and responsibilities. Speech-language pathologists have a specific role to support other teachers by helping students meet their educational goals. The School Board described Petitioner’s job duties as “therapeutic services.” In general, speech-language pathologists are professionals who assess, diagnose, and provide therapeutic treatment for various speech, language, and hearing disorders. In her role at Brentwood Elementary, Petitioner provided a comprehensive program to her ESE students to treat those students’ specific speech or language impairments. Petitioner’s Speech Therapy and Language Therapy classes were provided to two- to-four students at a time who were evaluated and deemed to have a disability that impacted their educational classroom performance. Petitioner taught her selected students specific skills or coping mechanisms that would allow them to overcome their impairments in order to better access instruction and curriculum. In other words, Petitioner’s focus was to give her students the ability to learn. The School Board further explained that Petitioner’s “lesson plans” are referred to in the therapy setting as “plans of care.” Plans of care are similar in form to lesson plans created by classroom teachers, but they differ in substance. Classroom teachers’ lesson plans set forth strategies for an educator to deliver instruction to an entire classroom. Speech- language pathologists’ plans of care, on the other hand, set forth tailored therapy plans that address an individual student’s specific impairment. In addition, Petitioner’s class roster is referred to as a “caseload.” Furthermore, while the Petitioner’s Speech Therapy and Language Therapy classes were assigned course codes similar to general education course codes, her two classes were specially coded. Petitioner’s students did not receive course credit for attending her classes with the therapy course code designation. Testimony at the final hearing, however, revealed that in an academic setting the goals and responsibilities of a speech-language pathologist have objectives similar to a “classroom teacher’s.” Sonia Figaredo-Alberts, the School Board’s executive director of pupil support services, who is also a speech-language pathologist, recognized that Petitioner “is instructing students with communication disorders.” Ms. Figaredo-Alberts explained that “we, as speech and language pathologists assist with very specific targeted areas . . . we do a very therapeutic intervention. We’re teaching [our students]. There’s no question that our therapy is about teaching that student specific skills . . . in a very thorough and specialized area.” According to Appropriation 99A, the Legislature gave the decision regarding a “teacher’s” eligibility to receive a scholarship to the school districts. Appropriation 99A directed each Florida school district to receive teacher applications for the Scholarship Program and to submit the number of eligible teachers who qualified for the scholarship to the Department. While processing applications, several school districts sent questions to the Department regarding the implementation of the Scholarship Program. In particular, the Department received inquiries regarding who should be considered a “teacher” for purposes of the scholarship. Although the Department administered the Scholarship Program, Appropriation 99A did not grant the Department rulemaking authority. Therefore, the Department did not adopt rules regarding what teachers were eligible for the scholarship. The Department, however, did prepare and issue a memorandum addressing school districts’ commonly asked questions. On July 27, 2015, Hershel Lyons, chancellor of the Division of Public Schools for the Department, issued a memorandum entitled “Guidance on Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship” (the “Memorandum”) to the Florida School District Superintendents. The Memorandum provided that “[t]eachers eligible for the Best and Brightest Teachers Scholarship Program are classroom teachers as defined in [section] 1012.01(2)(a), F.S., who are employed by Florida school districts, charter schools, or the [Florida School for the Deaf and Blind].” The Department based its interpretation of the term “teacher” on the various classes of employees set forth in section 1012.01(2)(a). The Department determined that the term “classroom teacher” in section 1012.01(2)(a) provided the best definition of the word “teacher” for purposes of the Scholarship Program. On September 4, 2015, Chancellor Lyons issued a second memorandum to School District Superintendents with an attached Frequently Asked Questions document. The Frequently Asked Questions provided, in relevant part: What are the eligibility criteria for the Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program? In order to meet eligibility requirements for the scholarship, the individual must: Be a classroom teacher as defined in section 1012.01(2)(a), Florida Statutes . . . * * * According to section 1012.01(2)(a), F.S., what is the definition of a classroom teacher? Classroom teachers are staff members assigned the professional activity of instructing students in courses in classroom situations, including basic instruction, exceptional student education, career education and adult education, including substitute teachers. Upon reviewing the Memorandum, the School Board believed the Department confirmed its view that “classroom teachers” were the only individuals eligible for the Scholarship Program. The Department did not follow up to determine whether any school district followed its guidance. The Department did not believe that Appropriation 99A gave it that authority. The Department received the names of 5,332 teachers that the school districts determined were eligible for the scholarship awards. Appropriation 99A directed the Department to act as the fiscal agent for the Scholarship Program. As Appropriation 99A directed, the Department disbursed scholarship funds by February 1, 2016.4/ The Department prorated the scholarship funds so that each eligible teacher received approximately $8,300. Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the final hearing, Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence that she qualifies for the Scholarship Program. Accordingly, the School Board should take the necessary steps to ensure that Petitioner receives the appropriate scholarship award contained in Appropriations 99A.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Sarasota County, Florida, issue a final order fulfilling its responsibilities under Appropriation 99A, i.e., submitting Petitioner’s name to the Department of Education as a teacher eligible for the scholarship created by the 2015 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 13th day of June, 2016.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, who is employed as an occupational therapist by a local school board, is considered a “teacher” eligible for the 2015 State of Florida Best and Brightest Scholarship Program.
Findings Of Fact The 2015 Florida Legislature Appropriations Act created the Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program, chapter 2015- 232, p. 27, Item 99A. The eligibility pre-requisites for applying to and being awarded the Scholarship (up to $10,000) were established in the Scholarship. The Scholarship provides as follows: Funds in Specific Appropriation 99A are provided to implement Florida's Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program. The funds shall be used to award a maximum of 4,402 teachers with a $10,000 scholarship based on high academic achievement on the SAT or ACT. To be eligible for a scholarship, a teacher must have scored at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment and have been evaluated as highly effective pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, or if the teacher is a first-year teacher who has not been evaluated pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, must have scored at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment. In order to demonstrate eligibility for an award, an eligible teacher must submit to the school district, no later than October 1, 2015, an official record of his or her SAT or ACT score demonstrating that the teacher scored at or above the 80th percentile based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment. By December 1, 2015, each school district, charter school governing board, and the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind shall submit to the department the number of eligible teachers who qualify for the scholarship. By February 1, 2016, the department shall disburse scholarship funds to each school district for each eligible teacher to receive a scholarship. By April 1, 2016, each school district, charter school governing board, and the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind shall provide payment of the scholarship to each eligible teacher. If the number of eligible teachers exceeds the total the department shall prorate the per teacher scholarship amount. The Scholarship does not define the word “teacher.” Petitioner, who timely filed an application for the Scholarship, contends that she is a “teacher” and is therefore eligible for the award. Respondent and Intervenor contend that Petitioner is an occupational therapist, and, as such, she is not considered a “classroom teacher,” which is the target group that the Legislature intended for the teacher scholarship program to cover. Petitioner contends that even if the Scholarship is limited to “classroom teachers,” she meets the statutory definition of a “classroom teacher” and is therefore eligible to receive the Scholarship. It is undisputed that the 2015 Scholarship language is vague as to whether the Scholarship is limited to classroom teachers. In 2016, the Legislature made it clear that the award is intended to only cover “classroom teachers.” Legislation enacted in subsequent legislative sessions may be examined to ascertain legislative intent. See Crews v. Fla. Pub. Emp’rs Council 79, AFSCME, 113 So. 3d 1063, 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)(citing Dadeland Depot, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 945 So. 2d 1216, 1230 (Fla. 2006)). Recently, the Governor signed chapter 2016-62, Laws of Florida. Section 25 of chapter 2016-62 enacts section 1012.731, Florida Statutes, the Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program.1/ Section 1012.731(2) provides that the “scholarship program shall provide categorical funding for scholarships to be awarded to classroom teachers, as defined in s. 1012.01(2)(a), who have demonstrated a high level of academic success.” The Legislature's amendment of the language, just a year after the first appropriation, confirms that the Legislature intended the award to go to "classroom teachers," as defined in chapter 1012. Petitioner was hired by Respondent as an occupational therapist. She has worked as an occupational therapist for Respondent for approximately 17 years. Petitioner does not hold a Florida teaching certificate and her position as an occupational therapist does not require a Florida teaching certificate. Instead, Petitioner is licensed by the Florida Department of Health, which has jurisdiction over ethical violations committed by occupational therapists licensed in Florida. In her position as an occupational therapist, Petitioner reports to Respondent’s director of Pupil Support Services, who supervises all therapists within Sarasota County Public Schools. Petitioner’s stated job goal is “[t]o facilitate the handicapped student’s independent functioning in the school setting.” Petitioner’s performance responsibilities, as set forth in her job description, are to: Conduct appropriate evaluation of students referred for possible exceptional student education needs and prepare reports of the evaluation and findings. Plan intervention and service delivery programs to meet student’s individual needs. Implement and direct interventions essential to meeting targeted students’ needs. Provide information and consultative services to appropriate personnel in support of students with disabilities. * * * Establish schedules for meeting with students, conferencing with parents and assisting in rehabilitation techniques. Provide resources to all stakeholders involved in the evaluation, identification of student needs and rehabilitation of students. Petitioner delivers therapeutic services individually or in a small group setting, in a room assigned to her, or in a classroom, usually at the same time a teacher is delivering instruction to the entire class. Petitioner completes “lesson plans,” which are referred to in the therapy setting as “plans of care.” Plans of care differ in substance from lesson plans prepared by teachers because lesson plans set out a teaching plan for the entire class, whereas plans of care set out therapeutic goals and activities directed to one student that complies with the goals set forth in a student's Individualized Education Plan (IEP). As an occupational therapist, Petitioner is responsible for maintaining a “class roster,” which is referred to in the therapy setting as a “caseload.” Occupational therapists maintain a caseload for student accountability purposes and for Medicaid billing purposes. Petitioner’s therapy sessions are assigned a “700” course code, which correlates in the Florida Department of Education's course directory to “related services.” Joint Exhibit O is an example of courses offered to students by Respondent. The course list includes math, language arts, physical education, science, social studies, art, Chinese, music, and occupational therapy. Petitioner is listed as the “teacher” for the occupational therapy course. Unlike the other listed “teachers,” Petitioner is not instructing students in a subject area; she is delivering a service. See § 468.203(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2015). Succinctly stated, the difference, in this context, between “occupational therapy” and the other listed “courses,” is that occupational therapy is not a subject area that a student learns about; it is a service that a student receives to help them to achieve independent functioning. Although listed as “course” by Respondent, occupational therapy, as compared to the other listed “courses,” is not a “course” within the meaning of section 1012.01(2)(a).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Sarasota County enter a final order finding Petitioner ineligible for the Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 April, 2016.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, David Oness, is eligible to receive the remuneration from the 2015 state of Florida Best and Brightest Scholarship program.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Oness is employed by the SCSB and is in his 11th year as a teacher at Sarasota High School. The 2015 Florida Legislature Appropriations Act created the Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program (the scholarship), chapter 2015-232, p. 27, Item 99A. The eligibility pre-requisites for applying to and being awarded the scholarship (up to $10,000) were established in the scholarship. The scholarship provided the following: Funds in Specific Appropriation 99A are provided to implement Florida's Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program. The funds shall be used to award a maximum of 4,402 teachers with a $10,000 scholarship based on high academic achievement on the SAT or ACT. To be eligible for a scholarship, a teacher must have scored at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment and have been evaluated as highly effective pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, or if the teacher is a first-year teacher who has not been evaluated pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, must have scored at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment. In order to demonstrate eligibility for an award, an eligible teacher must submit to the school district, no later than October 1, 2015, an official record of his or her SAT or ACT score demonstrating that the teacher scored at or above the 80th percentile based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment. By December 1, 2015, each school district, charter school governing board, and the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind shall submit to the department the number of eligible teachers who qualify for the scholarship. By February 1, 2016, the department shall disburse scholarship funds to each school district for each eligible teacher to receive a scholarship. By April 1, 2016, each school district, charter school governing board, and the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind shall provide payment of the scholarship to each eligible teacher. If the number of eligible teachers exceeds the total the department shall prorate the per teacher scholarship amount. Mr. Oness timely filed an application to participate in the scholarship. Mr. Oness was evaluated as “highly effective” pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. Mr. Oness was raised and educated in Canada. Mr. Oness did not take either the ACT3/ or the SAT4/ when he went to college, as it was not necessary in Canada. Mr. Oness took the ACT in Las Vegas, Nevada, on September 12, 2015. On “The ACT® Student Report” (pages 6 and 7 of Exhibit A), it recorded Mr. Oness’s ACT score as: Composite Score 24 U.S. RANK 74%|STATE RANK 81% No credible testimony or evidence was received from any authoritative figure from the ACT entity or otherwise that clearly establishes what is meant by the “STATE RANK” percentile. The form provides: U.S. Rank and State Rank: Your ranks tell you the approximate percentages of recent high school graduates in the U.S. and your state who took the ACT and received scores that are the same as or lower than yours. It remains unclear whether the term “STATE RANK” means: the state of Nevada, where Mr. Oness took the ACT; the state of Florida, where Mr. Oness lives and works; or some other state. On November 13, 2015, SCSB’s Human Resources Salary Specialist, Mary McCurry, advised Mr. Oness that he did not qualify for the scholarship award “because your ACT test scores do not reflect the 80th national percentile or higher.” Mr. Oness asked Respondent to review the non- qualification determination by e-mail dated November 13, 2015, and received an e-mail in return from the SCSB’s Employee Relations and Equity Administrator, Al Harayda, advising that the DOE provided “the percentiles that we had to use” in determining eligibility. The DOE provided guidance to the SCSB that “the national percentile score should be used to meet eligibility requirements.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Sarasota County School Board enter a final order that Petitioner is not eligible for a Best and Brightest Scholarship. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2016, 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 29th day of March, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to the Best and Brightest Scholarship as established and defined by section 1012.731(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2017).
Findings Of Fact In 2015, the Legislature enacted, by way of a line item in the annual appropriations bill, the Best and Brightest Program to award cash scholarships to Florida teachers who have been evaluated as “highly effective” by their school districts and who scored at or above the 80th percentile (top 20%) on the SAT or ACT when they took the test. Ch. 2015-232, § 2, line item 99A, Laws of Fla.1/ In 2016, the Legislature enacted a stand-alone statute for the Best and Brightest Program, codifying the appropriations bill language and providing that the program is to be administered by the Department of Education (the “Department”). Ch. 2016-62, § 25, Laws of Fla., codified at § 1012.731, Fla. Stat. (2016). Rather than enacting a statutory scholarship amount, subsection (5) of the 2016 version of section 1012.731 provided that the scholarships would be awarded to every eligible classroom teacher “in the amount provided in the General Appropriations Act.”2/ The 2016 statute also explained that the Best and Brightest Program was intended to provide “categorical funding for scholarships to be awarded to classroom teachers, as defined in s. 1012.01(2)(a), who have demonstrated a high level of academic achievement.” § 1012.731(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). Section 1012.01(2) defines “instructional personnel,” including “classroom teachers,” as follows: INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL.— “Instructional personnel” means any K-12 staff member whose function includes the provision of direct instructional services to students. Instructional personnel also includes K-12 personnel whose functions provide direct support in the learning process of students. Included in the classification of instructional personnel are the following K-12 personnel: Classroom teachers.--Classroom teachers are staff members assigned the professional activity of instructing students in courses in classroom situations, including basic instruction, exceptional student education, career education, and adult education, including substitute teachers. Student personnel services.--Student personnel services include staff members responsible for: advising students with regard to their abilities and aptitudes, educational and occupational opportunities, and personal and social adjustments; providing placement services; performing educational evaluations; and similar functions. Included in this classification are certified school counselors, social workers, career specialists, and school psychologists. Librarians/media specialists.-- Librarians/media specialists are staff members responsible for providing school library media services. These employees are responsible for evaluating, selecting, organizing, and managing media and technology resources, equipment, and related systems; facilitating access to information resources beyond the school; working with teachers to make resources available in the instructional programs; assisting teachers and students in media productions; and instructing students in the location and use of information resources. Other instructional staff.--Other instructional staff are staff members who are part of the instructional staff but are not classified in one of the categories specified in paragraphs (a)-(c). Included in this classification are primary specialists, learning resource specialists, instructional trainers, adjunct educators certified pursuant to s. 1012.57, and similar positions. Education paraprofessionals.--Education paraprofessionals are individuals who are under the direct supervision of an instructional staff member, aiding the instructional process. Included in this classification are classroom paraprofessionals in regular instruction, exceptional education paraprofessionals, career education paraprofessionals, adult education paraprofessionals, library paraprofessionals, physical education and playground paraprofessionals, and other school-level paraprofessionals. In 2017, the Legislature amended section 1012.731(3) to establish that the scholarship award would be $6,000 for those classroom teachers rated “highly effective” who also had the requisite SAT or ACT scores: (3)(a) To be eligible for a scholarship in the amount of $6,000, a classroom teacher must: 1. Have achieved a composite score at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based on the National Percentile Ranks in effect when the classroom teacher took the assessment and have been evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded, unless the classroom teacher is newly hired by the district school board and has not been evaluated pursuant to s.1012.34. * * * In order to demonstrate eligibility for an award, an eligible classroom teacher must submit to the school district, no later than November 1, an official record of his or her qualifying assessment score and, beginning with the 2020-2021 school year, an official transcript demonstrating that he or she graduated cum laude or higher with a baccalaureate degree, if applicable. Once a classroom teacher is deemed eligible by the school district, the teacher shall remain eligible as long as he or she remains employed by the school district as a classroom teacher at the time of the award and receives an annual performance evaluation rating of highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 or is evaluated as highly effective based on a commissioner- approved student learning growth formula pursuant to s. 1012.34(8) for the 2019-2020 school year or thereafter. Ch. 2017-116, § 46, Laws of Fla. The 2017 amendment to section 1012.731 also added a new subsection (3)(c), providing that lesser amounts could be awarded to teachers rated “highly effective” or “effective,” even if they could not demonstrate scores at or above the 80th percentile on the SAT or ACT: Notwithstanding the requirements of this subsection, for the 2017-2018, 2018- 2019, and 2019-2020 school years, any classroom teacher who: Was evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded shall receive a scholarship of $1,200, including a classroom teacher who received an award pursuant to paragraph (a). Was evaluated as effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded a scholarship of up to $800. If the number of eligible classroom teachers under this subparagraph exceeds the total allocation, the department shall prorate the per-teacher scholarship amount. This paragraph expires July 1, 2020. Id. By December 1 of each year, each school district must submit to the Department the number of eligible classroom teachers who qualify for the scholarship, as well as identifying information regarding the schools to which the eligible classroom teachers are assigned. § 1012.731(4)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. For the 2017-2018 school year, the December 1, 2017, submission deadline was extended to January 2, 2018, due to a hurricane. The School Board’s deadline for teachers to apply for the scholarship was accordingly extended from November 1, 2017, to December 1, 2017. By February 1 of each year, the Department is required to disburse scholarship funds to each school district for each eligible classroom teacher to receive a scholarship. § 1012.731(5), Fla. Stat. By April 1, each school district is required to award the scholarship to each eligible classroom teacher. § 1012.731(6), Fla. Stat. In 2018, the Legislature amended section 1012.731 to provide that a school district employee who is no longer a classroom teacher may receive the $6,000 award if the employee was a classroom teacher in the prior school year, was rated highly effective, and met the requirements of this section as a classroom teacher. § 1012.731(3)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature did not add a similar provision stating that former classroom teachers who are still school district employees remain eligible for the $1,200 and $800 awards. § 1012.731(3)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature funds the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board had no role in creating the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board is required to determine the eligibility of classroom teachers who qualify for the Best and Brightest Program pursuant to the requirements of the statute. Petitioners in this case claim entitlement only to the $1,200 award established by the 2017 version of the statute. Brenda Troutman, director of Instructional Personnel, is the School Board employee in charge of the Best and Brightest Program application and submission process. Ms. Troutman has worked for the School Board for 17 years. She has been a junior high classroom teacher and an assistant principal and vice principal at the high school level. Though no longer teaching in the classroom, Ms. Troutman retains her certifications in math grades 5-9, exceptional student education (“ESE”), educational leadership, and school principal. When working as a high school administrator, Ms. Troutman was the master scheduler for her school, meaning that she built the schedule for every teacher at the school. This task required that she become very familiar with the School Board’s course code directory. Ms. Troutman also had to understand the certification system in order to hire and assign teachers. If a teacher asked to teach a certain course, Ms. Troutman had to know both the course requirements and the teacher’s certifications to determine whether the teacher was eligible to teach the course. As part of her current position in the School Board’s human resources department, Ms. Troutman is required to know the School Board’s various job titles and descriptions. She is responsible for replacing obsolete job descriptions and posting current job descriptions on the School Board’s website. Ms. Troutman testified as to how she manages the application and submission process of the Best and Brightest Program. She starts by making herself familiar with any changes the Legislature may have made to the program. She then issues a notice to teachers about the program and the current eligibility requirements. For the 2017-2018 Best and Brightest Program, Ms. Troutman prepared a draft email that Superintendent Addison Davis reviewed and sent to all of the school district’s teachers and administrators on September 28, 2017. The email explained that to be eligible for the $6,000, $1,200 or $800 scholarship, an applicant must meet the definition of classroom teacher as set forth in section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Troutman developed the School Board’s application for the Best and Brightest Program, based upon her understanding of the statutory requirements. All completed applications for the Best and Brightest Program come into Ms. Troutman’s office. Ms. Troutman testified that she received approximately 2,000 applications for the 2017-2018 award. Ms. Troutman, with the aid of her assistant, reviews and verifies the information on the applications. If Ms. Troutman has any questions about an application, she seeks the opinion of her direct supervisor David Broskie, the director of Human Resources. In some cases, they also have discussions with Superintendent Davis and School Board Attorney David D’Agata. The School Board employs two major data programs. FOCUS is the program/database that holds all student information, including attendance, grades, disciplinary actions, test information, and demographics. TERMS is the program/database that houses all employee information. When verifying information on the Best and Brightest Program applications, Ms. Troutman uses both FOCUS and TERMS, and on occasion conducts additional investigation. The School Board’s application asks for the teacher’s assignment. Because the application was titled “2017-2018 Clay County Application: Florida Best & Brightest Teacher Scholarship,” Ms. Troutman believed that the teachers were required to provide their 2017-2018 teacher assignments. As will be discussed in more detail below, the year of the teacher assignment was a major point of disagreement between Petitioners and the School Board. The application provided a checkmark system for the teacher to indicate which scholarship was being sought. The $1,200 scholarship line provided as follows: I am applying for the $1,200.00 highly effective scholarship. I have attached a copy of my 2016-2017 highly effective final evaluation (with student performance measures). The application’s language led Petitioners to believe that the 2017-2018 scholarship awards would be based on their teacher assignments and evaluations for 2016-2017. Ms. Troutman explained that this belief was incorrect. Eligibility for the 2017-2018 scholarship was based on a teacher’s assignment for the 2017-2018 school year. The plain language of the statute requires that one must be a “classroom teacher” in order to be eligible for the scholarship; having been a classroom teacher in a previous year does not suffice. Ms. Troutman stated that she verified with Mr. Broskie, Mr. Davis, and Mr. D’Agata that the School Board should base the award on the teacher’s 2017-2018 assignment. Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that the statutory language requires only an evaluation of “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. The statute is silent as to whether a teacher applying for the $1,200 scholarship must be teaching in a classroom situation during the 2017-2018 school year. Petitioners argue that the School Board is reading a requirement into the statute that is not evident from the plain language. Ms. Troutman further explained that the applications for the 2017-2018 scholarships were to be submitted prior to the conclusion of the 2017-2018 school year. Therefore, as required by section 1012.731(3)(a)1. and (3)(c), the application requested the evaluation for “the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded.” Ms. Troutman testified that it is sometimes obvious from the teaching assignment that the teacher qualifies as a “classroom teacher.” If an application states that the assignment is “chemistry teacher” or “algebra teacher” or “fifth grade classroom teacher,” it is clear that the applicant meets the definition. Aside from verifying the assignment in the TERMS database, Ms. Troutman takes no further action. However, some applications require additional research before Ms. Troutman can conclude that the applicant qualifies as a classroom teacher. For example, Petitioner Abbie Andrews identified her assignment on her application as “classroom teacher.” Ms. Troutman went to TERMS and saw that Ms. Andrews was designated as an “ESE Support Facilitator” for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Troutman testified that ESE Support Facilitators are sometimes assigned to teach classes and therefore could be classified as “classroom teachers” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman examined both the master schedule and the teacher’s personal account in FOCUS to determine whether Ms. Andrews was assigned to teach any courses. Ms. Andrews had no teaching assignments for 2017-2018 in FOCUS. Ms. Andrews and fellow Petitioners Cherry Deaton, Donna Foster, and Danielle Perricelli held the position of ESE Support Facilitator during the 2017-2018 school year. The School Board concluded that these Petitioners did not qualify for the $1,200 scholarship because their schedules did not assign them the professional activity of instructing students in courses in a classroom situation, as required by the statute. It was undisputed that these Petitioners had been rated “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. It was also undisputed that Ms. Andrews, Ms. Deaton, and Ms. Foster met the statutory definition of a classroom teacher for the 2016-2017 school year. The School Board’s general job description for an ESE Support Facilitator provides as follows: The teacher is responsible directly to the Principal. He/she provides for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of assigned students on an as needed basis. He/she supports both general education and ESE teachers. He/she serves in a staff relationship with other teachers and supports and promotes ESE inclusion activities. (Emphasis added). The School Board contrasts this job description with that of “Classroom Teacher,” which provides: “The teacher is responsible directly to the principal for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of students.” The classroom teacher is fully responsible for the “instruction, supervision, and evaluation” of the students in her classroom, whereas the ESE Support Facilitator performs those activities only “as needed.” The School Board also points out that, unlike a classroom teacher, an ESE Support Facilitator is not required to be certified in-field for the position. The ESE Support Facilitator is not the teacher of record for any particular course. Their schedule is fluid. The ESE Support Facilitator comes and goes as needed (“pushes in,” to use the teaching vernacular) in the classroom, and is expected to be wherever the ESE student assigned to them needs their services. Sometimes they push into the classroom and sometimes they pull students out of the class to work on a specific concept or skill. An ESE Support Facilitator is assigned “contact students” for whom individualized educational plans (“IEPs”) are prepared. The classroom teacher of record is responsible for giving the student course credit or a grade and is responsible for recording attendance in FOCUS. One-third of the classroom teacher’s evaluation is tied to student performance. Only the classroom teacher has default access to FOCUS in order to enter attendance and grade information for the students in the class. An ESE Support Facilitator must seek and be granted access to student’s FOCUS information. An ESE Support Facilitator is expected to meet with each contact student at least once a month; in practice, these meetings tend to occur more frequently. The ESE Support Facilitator goes over accommodations the student needs and assignments the student did not understand. The facilitator reteaches the course material if need be and stays in touch with the student’s teachers and parents, making sure all stakeholders in the student’s success are on the same page. The evidence presented at the hearing indicated that all of the students served by the ESE Support Facilitators in this case attended classes in regular classrooms, not in separate ESE classes. In such “inclusion” classes, the ESE Support Facilitator’s role is to push in and assist contact students in the regular classroom, ensuring that their IEP requirements are met and that the students are progressing satisfactorily through the course material. Based on these definitional and operative distinctions, Ms. Troutman considered ESE Support Facilitators to be “other instructional staff” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(d), rather than “classroom teachers” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Andrews was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Andrews met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Andrews was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, not assigned to teach any courses. In FOCUS, she was assigned as the “contact teacher” for approximately 60 students, meaning that she was primarily responsible for writing their IEPs and ensuring that they made adequate progress in their classes. She met with all of her contact students on an as needed basis, at least once per month but often as much as twice per week. However, Ms. Andrews was not listed in FOCUS as the teacher of record for any class. Even though she routinely pushed into classes to support her assigned ESE students, Ms. Andrews was not the primary teacher of record. She was there to assist her contact students with whatever they needed to learn the course, but the course was not assigned to her to teach. Ms. Andrews did not have a traditional classroom. She was not the teacher of record in any course for which students received academic credit, and she did not assign grades to students for the material she was teaching. Ms. Andrews prepared IEPs that were individualized to particular contact students. She did not prepare daily lesson plans in the manner of a classroom teacher. Ms. Andrews described her job as an ESE Support Facilitator as follows: My job is to teach, mentor, challenge students to make them -- make them ready for graduation, become productive members of society. I believe that’s the same thing a classroom teacher does. I am using the Florida standards to prepare lessons for remediation if a student needs it. I am constantly having conversations with not just students, but their parents, keeping them on track or making sure their students are on track because ultimately, a parent wants that student to graduate on time as well. I believe that the questions that are asked of me as a support facilitator are the same questions that parents would ask of a classroom teacher because they are very concerned. I am not just answering questions based on one classroom. I'm answering questions based on six classes. I'm responsible for that student being successful in six classes. The IEPs that I write, they're legally binding. I am involved in the academics, behavior, discipline. I deal with discipline problems. All of these things are the same things that a classroom teacher would deal with. I do not have a schedule in Focus; however, when a need arises, I'm there, I'm in a classroom, I'm helping, and I'm doing what's needed to be done for the kids to be successful. Ms. Deaton was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Deaton met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Deaton was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, with approximately 60 contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. She was not assigned to teach any courses. If she pushed into a class to support her assigned ESE students, she was not the primary teacher of record. She was not designated as a co-teacher,3/ but she would assist teaching classes on an as-needed basis if she was not busy testing students or preparing IEPs. For those classes, she was provided access to view grades in FOCUS, but she did not have access to give grades. She would meet students as needed in her office, in another teacher's classroom, or in the computer lab. She did not develop lesson plans on her own, but provided suggestions and advice on lesson plans to the primary teacher. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Deaton did not have a classroom or teach a classroom full of students. She had no schedule assigned to her in FOCUS, but had contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. Ms. Foster was employed as an English/language arts and ESE Inclusion Teacher during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught four classes as ESE inclusion teacher. The remaining two periods were devoted to her position as ESE department head. Ms. Foster had a schedule in FOCUS. She had her own classroom and students, prepared daily lesson plans, and assigned grades. Students in her classes received academic credit. Ms. Foster was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Foster met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. Ms. Foster was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator and ESE department head during the 2017-2018 school year. She retired at the end of the school year, effective June 7, 2018. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Foster did not have a set schedule. Ms. Foster’s assigned ESE students did not receive academic credit for the services she provided, but her assistance was integral in helping them pass their courses. Ms. Foster assisted with an American history class during the 2017-2018 school year, but was not assigned as the primary teacher in FOCUS. Ms. Foster testified that she did not believe she had ever been identified as a co-teacher in FOCUS, though she thought she should have been. Ms. Foster testified that she had IEPs for the American history class that listed both the class setting and the service delivery method as “co-teach.” She explained that because the class had both general education and ESE students, the teacher had to be certified in both the subject matter and ESE. Because the primary teacher was certified only in the subject matter, it was necessary for Ms. Foster to co-teach the class. Ms. Foster testified that she split lesson plan preparation with the primary teacher. Ms. Foster believed she was not listed in FOCUS as the co-teacher because the school administration never bothered to remove the name of Kristin Heard, the ESE teacher originally assigned to the class, who was moved to a science class early in the year. Ms. Foster pursued the matter with the assistant principals at Lakeside Junior High, but nothing came of it. Mallory McConnell, the principal at Lakeside Junior High School during the 2017-2018 school year, confirmed that Ms. Foster was not listed as a co-teacher on the master schedule. Ms. McConnell testified that in 2017-2018 there were no “true co-teacher” situations, by which she meant two teachers who equally shared responsibility for the instruction and grading of every student in the class. Ms. McConnell was aware of situations in which a student’s IEP mandates co-teaching in a class, but she testified that she was unaware of any student at Lakeside Junior High School in 2017-2018 whose IEP required a co-teacher. Ms. McConnell conducted infrequent walkthrough observations of the American history class. She testified that she saw Ms. Foster providing support services to the ESE students but never saw Ms. Foster teaching at the front of the class. Ms. McConnell stated that she would not have expected to see Ms. Foster teaching the class or creating lesson plans for the class as a whole because those tasks were not her job responsibility. Ms. McConnell was in no position to state whether Ms. Foster did, in fact, prepare lesson plans and teach the class. Ms. McConnell was able to state that for at least one month during the school year, Ms. Foster administered tests to her ESE students, meaning that she could not have been co- teaching the American history class. Ms. Foster did not tell Ms. Troutman that she had assisted teaching the American history class during the 2017- 2018 school year, nor did she include such information on her application for the Best and Brightest Program, because she believed the award was based upon her position in 2016-2017 and because she believed the school administration’s failure to include her as teacher of record in FOCUS was an “in-house” issue. Ms. Perricelli was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator, ESE department head, and MTSS intervention team facilitator at Orange Park Junior High School. “MTSS” is an acronym for Multi-Tiered System of Support, a framework for providing support to students who are struggling academically or have an identified need in a specific area such as speech, language, or behavior. MTSS interventions may be used for regular education or ESE students. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not the teacher assigned by FOCUS for any class in 2016-2017. In addition to her regular ESE duties, Ms. Perricelli taught “grade recovery” to two students in language arts, science, and math. Grade recovery is a class offered to students who have failed a course and lack the credits to move on to the next grade level. Ms. Perricelli designed lesson plans and curriculum assessments for each subject, graded papers and tests, and reported the students’ grades to the school. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not given the authority to enter the grade recovery students’ grades into FOCUS in 2016-2017. She requested a course code but was never provided one. Ms. Perricelli taught grade recovery for two periods, one for each student. For the other four periods of the school day, Ms. Perricelli would push into classrooms and work with ESE students, usually in small groups with students who needed remediation. She had around 40 contact students and developed IEPs for each of them. Most of her contact students were in the classrooms that she was going into, so she would see them throughout the week. She would meet with her other contact students about once a week. Ms. Perricelli would work with the assigned teacher to modify the course material to meet the needs of the ESE students. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated as “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year, based on standard classroom teacher criteria. She was observed working with her grade recovery students and in the classrooms in which she pushed in. Ms. Perricelli testified that her assignments were the same for the 2017-2018 school year. She taught one student in a grade recovery course. Due to her persistence, Ms. Perricelli was able to get a course code from Ms. Troutman for the grade recovery course in 2017-2018. The grade recovery course was named “Unique Skills.” In 2017-2018, Ms. Perricelli was assigned around 70 contact students for whom she prepared IEPs. As department head, Ms. Perricelli oversaw 22 ESE instructors. She was the only ESE Support Facilitator at the school. Janice Tucker was vice principal at Orange Park Junior High School in 2017-2018. She testified that early in the school year, the assigned teacher for seventh grade math left for another county. A long-term substitute, Lashonda Campbell, took over as teacher of record. Ms. Perricelli testified that she developed some of the curriculum in Ms. Campbell’s math classes, which included ESE and non-ESE students. She stated that she taught the class alone once a week when Ms. Campbell started, then tapered off into pulling out small groups of ESE students who needed remediation. She worked with four periods of seventh grade math classes that year. Ms. Perricelli testified that she gave grades to students in those courses and gave them to Ms. Campbell for entry into FOCUS. Ms. Tucker testified that Ms. Perricelli was not a co- teacher for the math class. Ms. Campbell was the teacher of record. Ms. Tucker testified that when she observed the math class, she saw Ms. Perricelli working with small groups in the back of the class or at a table in the hallway, and Ms. Campbell at the front teaching the class. Ms. Tucker never saw Ms. Perricelli at the front of the class teaching. Ms. Tucker conceded that she had no knowledge whether Ms. Perricelli was involved in creating lesson plans or assigning grades for the math class. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated by Ms. Tucker for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Tucker observed Ms. Perricelli in the seventh grade math class and in the Unique Skills class. Ms. Perricelli was again rated “highly effective.” Ms. Perricelli testified that she did not mention teaching the math class on her scholarship application. She stated that she did not tell Ms. Troutman about the math class because at the time, the school was still attempting to get a full-time teacher for the class. Ms. Troutman obviously knew about the “Unique Skills” class, having issued the course code to Ms. Perricelli. Ms. Troutman testified that she consulted with Mr. Broskie and Mr. D’Agata as to whether having one assigned class in FOCUS should qualify Ms. Perricelli for the scholarship. They concluded that teaching one class with one student was insufficient to qualify as a “classroom teacher” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman testified that this conclusion was consistent with the School Board’s historic practice of considering two or more classes as the “cutoff” for a classroom teacher. Ms. Troutman believed that if an ESE Support Facilitator taught two classes, then she would qualify as a “classroom teacher.” Petitioner Easter Brown taught a fourth grade classroom at Grove Park Elementary School during the 2016-2017 school year and was rated “highly effective.” It is not disputed that Ms. Brown met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Brown was a full-time SPRINT specialist. “SPRINT” stands for Supervisor of Pre-Interns and New Teachers. SPRINT specialist is a support position for teacher trainees and new teachers, operating under an agreement between the School Board and the University of North Florida (“UNF”), each of which pays half of the SPRINT specialist’s salary. Ms. Brown taught field classes at UNF and conducted workshops for clinical educator training and professional development. Ms. Brown kept Grove Park Elementary as her home base and shared a classroom there with two other teachers. She taught UNF students in classes at the university and worked with new teachers at the school. She estimated that she spent half her time at UNF and half at Grove Park Elementary. Ms. Brown had no K-12 courses or K-12 students assigned to her in 2017-2018. She had no courses assigned to her in FOCUS. She gave grades to only UNF students. Ms. Brown did not create traditional lesson plans but did assist new teachers in writing lesson plans. Ms. Brown testified that she did some teaching in a regular classroom for purposes of modeling teaching techniques for her student teachers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Clay County School Board enter a final order: Finding that Petitioners Abbie Andrews, Cherry Deaton, and Donna Foster were not eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were not classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year; and Finding that Petitioners Easter Brown and Danielle Perricelli were eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year, and directing staff to take all practicable measures to secure the scholarship monies for Ms. Brown and Ms. Perricelli. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 18th day of March, 2019.
The Issue The issues in this case are (a) whether Respondent committed fraud in seeking to obtain funds from the McKay Scholarship Program, thereby warranting Petitioner's summary suspension of payments to Respondent; and (b) whether Petitioner should revoke Respondent's participation in the McKay Scholarship program for failing to comply with applicable laws.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Muskateer's Academy, Inc. ("MAI") is a Florida corporation that, at all times relevant to this case, operated a private school known as Muskateer's Academy ("Muskateer's"). MAI was closely held by Erick and Jacqueline Cermeno, a married couple. Together, they ran the school, holding (and sometimes swapping) various titles of importance, such as "principal" and "superintendent," which signified their supervisory roles. Located in Hialeah, Florida, Muskateer's served mainly at-risk students who, for one reason or another, were unable or unlikely to succeed in the public school system. On paper, the school's tuition was quite steep. The undersigned infers, however, that few parents, if any, actually paid the "sticker price" for tuition and other expenses that Respondent reported to the Florida Department of Education ("Department") in its student fee schedules, which charges totaled $24,000 per year, per child. Rather, the undersigned infers that, for most students at least, Respondent agreed to accept as payment in full whatever amount was available annually for a particular student under the John M. McKay Scholarships for Students With Disabilities Program ("McKay Scholarship Program"). Respondent operated two separate high schools at Muskateer's. One was a "regular," four-year high school that followed the traditional model, where instructors taught various academic subjects to classes of students, who attended classes for the purpose of learning academic subjects from their teachers. In this high school, tests were given periodically, as a means of measuring the students' mastery of the material. The other program was an "accelerated" high school where each student worked individually, at his own pace. Teachers played a relatively small part in this program, doing little but overseeing the "testing room" in which the students took tests——their primary scholastic activity. Students received course credit for passing tests.1 At the relevant times, there were three or four teachers at Muskateer's. To be a teacher there, a person did not need a bachelor's degree. Instead, MAI was willing to hire individuals having some type of educational background, preferably including at least 40 college credits, more or less. One of the teachers at Muskateer's was Amneris Mesa, whose brother, O. F., attended the school for some period of time. As will be seen, O. F. is one of the key figures in the instant dispute. In August 2006, the Department's Office of Independent Education and Parental Choice ("Choice Office") received a complaint about Muskateer's, the gravamen of which was that MAI was continuing to receive funds under the McKay Scholarship Program for former students who had stopped attending the school. The Choice Office, which administers the McKay Scholarship Program, referred the complaint to the Department's Office of Inspector General ("OIG") for investigation. The OIG's investigation led to the discovery of evidence sufficient to persuade the Commissioner of Education ("Commissioner") that MAI had engaged in fraudulent activity with regard to the McKay Scholarship Program. Consequently, on November 1, 2006, the Commissioner issued an Administrative Complaint against MAI, which charged MAI with fraud and other violations of the laws governing the McKay Scholarship Program. At the same time, the Commissioner immediately suspended all payments to MAI under the McKay Scholarship Program. Being thus cut off from its primary source of revenue, MAI closed Muskateer's on November 18, 2006. As of the final hearing, the school had not reopened. The Commissioner's present case against MAI hinges on allegations that, to induce the payment of funds under the McKay Scholarship Program, the company falsely represented to the Department that three students——O. F., N. P., and C. M.——had "reenrolled" at Muskateer's for the 2006-07 school year, when in fact two of them (O. F. and N. P.) previously had graduated, and the third (C. M.) had dropped out midway through the preceding school year. MAI disputes these allegations, and hence the focus of the hearing largely was on whether the three individuals in question had attended Muskateer's during the 2006-07 school year. Before addressing the contested factual issues, however, a brief examination of the McKay Scholarship Program is in order, to provide context for the findings of fact that will follow. The McKay Scholarship Program affords a disabled student the option of attending a different public school from the one to which he is assigned, or, if he is eligible, the opportunity to receive a scholarship to defray the cost of attending a private school of choice. Once awarded, a McKay scholarship remains in force until the student returns to a public school, graduates, or turns 22, whichever first occurs; provided, however, that he does not drop out, which would render the student ineligible for the scholarship, at least during the period of non-enrollment. To participate in the McKay Scholarship Program, a private school must meet certain conditions as well. Inasmuch as the Commissioner has alleged that MAI failed to comply with some conditions of continued eligibility, the relevant ones will be discussed in greater detail below. For the moment, however, it is sufficient to note that McKay scholarship funding is potentially available to most private schools operating lawfully in the state, for the program is designed to be inclusive in this regard. A private school that wants to participate in the McKay Scholarship Program must notify the Department of its interest and submit information demonstrating compliance with the eligibility requirements. This information——and other data necessary to secure the disbursement of scholarship funds——must be transmitted to the Department electronically, through forms available online to registered users, at a secure website maintained by the Department. To access this site, a private school must first obtain a unique code and establish a confidential password, both of which must be entered correctly in order to logon to the Department's secure web page. If the parent of an eligible student chooses the private school option and secures a place for his child at the private school of choice, then the parent must notify the Department of his decision before the child begins attending the private school. After receiving such notice, the Department verifies the student's enrollment in the private school, obtains from the private school a schedule of the tuition and fees, and receives from the student's school district a "matrix of services" reflecting the student's special educational needs. The maximum amount of the McKay scholarship for a particular student is the lesser of (a) the "calculated amount" (which is roughly equal to the estimated cost of educating the student in the public school to which he is assigned) or (b) the actual amount of the private school's tuition and fees.2 The amount of the student's scholarship is deducted from his public school district's total funding entitlement.3 McKay scholarship payments are made in four equal amounts during the school year to which the scholarship applies. The payment dates are September 1, November 1, February 1, and April 1. Payments are made by warrant payable to the student's parent. The Department mails each warrant to the private school of the parent's choice. The parent is required restrictively to endorse the warrant, authorizing the funds to be deposited only in the private school's account.4 To remain eligible for the McKay scholarship, the student must have regular and direct contact with his teacher(s) at the private school's physical location. Thus, ahead of each payment (after the initial payment), the private school must verify, through the Department's secure, password-protected website, that the student continues to be enrolled in, and to attend, the private school. It is in connection with this ongoing duty to verify continued enrollment and attendance at the private school that MAI is alleged to have engaged in fraudulent activity, namely, reporting to the Department that O. F., N. P., and C. M. were still enrolled in, and attending, Muskateer's when, in fact, they were not. The undersigned will now turn to these allegations, which lie at the heart of this matter. But first: It must be acknowledged that the evidence is in conflict concerning the historical facts relevant to the allegations of fraudulent activity. Given the evidential conflicts, the undersigned supposes that reasonable people might disagree about what happened here. Ultimately, however, it falls to the undersigned, rather than a group of hypothetical "reasonable people," to resolve the evidential conflicts and settle the disputed issues of material fact. Thus, to the extent that any finding below (or herein) is inconsistent with the testimony of one witness or another, or with some documentary evidence, the finding reflects a rejection of all such inconsistent testimony and evidence (none of which was overlooked, disregarded, or ignored) in favor of proof that the undersigned deemed, in the exercise of his prerogatives as the fact-finder, to be more believable and hence entitled to greater weight. O. F. In January 2006, halfway through the 2005-06 school year, O. F. was enrolled as a student of Muskateer's. He began attending the accelerated high school on January 26, 2006. At the same time, his sister, Ms. Mesa, started working for MAI as a teacher in the regular high school. About five months later, O. F. graduated from Muskateer's. O. F. participated in a graduation ceremony on June 3, 2006, and, according to the transcript maintained in his student file, O. F. was awarded a diploma or certificate on that date. The transcript notwithstanding, it is undisputed that O. F. did not actually receive his diploma until several months after his graduation date. MAI contends that it withheld O. F.'s diploma because he had not finished all the tests necessary for graduation. The undersigned finds, however, that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that O. F. had not finished his degree requirements as of June 3, 2006; indeed, the greater weight of the persuasive evidence is to the contrary. Accordingly, MAI's assertion that O. F. did not graduate from high school at the end of the 2005-06 school year is rejected. On May 26, 2006, MAI reported to the Department, through the Department's secure, password-protected website, that O. F. had reenrolled in Muskateer's for the 2006-07 school year, and that he would resume attending the school on July 1, 2006. On the same date and in the same manner, MAI reported that O. F.'s tuition and fees for the upcoming school year would total $24,000. These representations were made for the purpose of obtaining funds from the McKay Scholarship Program. The foregoing representations regarding O. F.'s reenrollment in Muskateer's for the 2006-07 school year were false. Moreover, the greater weight of the evidence persuades the undersigned that, more likely than not, the individuals responsible for making these representations——namely Mr. And Mrs. Cermeno——actually knew that the representations were false, or they recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of the matters asserted.5 Despite having graduated, O. F. returned to Muskateer's on three or four occasions in September and October 2006, at which times he took a few tests that he had previously taken and passed. This happened because the Cermenos refused to give O. F. his diploma unless he retook these tests——a condition that was repeated both to O. F.'s mother and his sister (the teacher).6 The undersigned infers that, more likely than not, the Cermenos used the threat of withholding O. F.'s diploma as a means of coercing his "attendance" at Muskateer's during the 2006-07 school year, to create plausible deniability in the event the charge were brought (as it was) that MAI had fraudulently sought to obtain McKay scholarship funds for O. F. At any rate, post-graduation "attendance" such as O. F.'s——to retake exams for no apparent legitimate reason——is not the kind of regular attendance that would support the reasonable inference that the student had enrolled for the 2006-07 school year.7 N. P. N. P. enrolled in Muskateer's on May 3, 2004, and began attending classes in the accelerated high school on August 16, 2004. He graduated (at least in the ceremonial sense) at the end of the 2004-05 school year but never received a diploma. N. P. testified that he never returned to Muskateer's as a student after he (ceremonially) graduated. In other words, N. P. claims that he was not a student of Muskateer's during either the 2005-06 school year or the 2006-07 school year. N. P.'s testimony in this regard is corroborated by the testimony of his aunt (and legal guardian), Altagracia Moreta. Additionally, N. P.'s testimony is corroborated by the absence of well-kept, reliable documentation——such as enrollment registers and attendance records——attesting to his ongoing attendance at Muskateer's after the 2004-05 school year. The undersigned considers the lack of such documentation to be a telling fact. Consequently, although there is conflicting evidence, the undersigned finds that, more likely than not, N. P. did not attend Muskateer's during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years, as he testified. On May 4, 2005, MAI reported to the Department, through the Department's secure, password-protected website, that N. P. had reenrolled in Muskateer's for the 2005-06 school year, and that he would resume attending the school on August 8, 2005. On the same date and in the same manner, MAI reported that N. P.'s tuition and fees for the 2005-06 school year would total $24,000. These representations were made for the purpose of obtaining funds from the McKay Scholarship Program. On May 26, 2006, MAI reported to the Department, through the Department's secure, password-protected website, that N. P. had reenrolled in Muskateer's for the 2006-07 school year, and that he would resume attending the school on July 1, 2006. On the same date and in the same manner, MAI reported that N. P.'s tuition and fees for the 2006-07 school year would total $24,000. These representations were made for the purpose of obtaining funds from the McKay Scholarship Program. The foregoing representations regarding N. P.'s reenrollment in Muskateer's for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school year were false. Moreover, the greater weight of the evidence persuades the undersigned that, more likely than not, the individuals responsible for making these representations——namely Mr. And Mrs. Cermeno——actually knew that these representations were false, or they recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of the matters asserted. C. M. In July 2004, C. M. registered to attend Muskateer's. He began attending the accelerated high school on August 16, 2004. C. M. testified at hearing (via deposition) that he continued to attend Muskateer's while this proceeding was pending, having been in class there as recently as "yesterday" (January 17, 2007). C. M. did not know what courses he was currently taking or how many other students currently were attending Muskateer's. (Recall that Muskateer's closed its doors on November 18, 2006, and, as of the final hearing, had not reopened).8 Whatever credibility C. M. still possessed after giving testimony such as that just described was shredded when Petitioner impeached him with a prior inconsistent (actually, contradictory) statement. On August 22, 2006, C. M. told the OIG's investigator that he had stopped attending Muskateer's in December 2005 and never returned. The investigator made an audio recording of C. M.'s statement, which was received in evidence, but C. M. was not under oath at the time he gave the statement. The undersigned finds that C. M. is not a believable witness, and his testimony, being unreliable and unpersuasive, is given no weight.9 The documents in C. M.'s disorderly (and seemingly incomplete) student file are likewise insufficient to establish, to the required degree of persuasiveness (namely, that the fact is more likely true than not), the dates on which C. M. attended Muskateer's as an enrolled student. The bottom line is that the evidence is insufficient to permit the undersigned to make a finding as to when (or whether) C. M. stopped attending Muskateer's (prior to its closure on November 18, 2006).10 Lacking sufficient proof regarding the dates during which C. M. attended Muskateer's as a duly enrolled student, it is impossible to determine whether MAI engaged in any fraudulent activity with regard to C. M. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, to induce the state to disburse McKay scholarship funds for the benefit of O. F., MAI engaged in fraudulent activity, to wit: MAI intentionally reported to the Department that O. F. had reenrolled in Muskateer's for the 2006-07 school year, while either (a) knowing that this representation of material fact was false or (b) recklessly disregarding the truth or falsity of this material representation, which was, in fact, false. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, to induce the state to disburse McKay scholarship funds for the benefit of N. P., MAI engaged in fraudulent activity, to wit: MAI intentionally reported to the Department, on separate occasions, that N. P. had reenrolled in Muskateer's for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years, while either (a) knowing that these representations of material fact were false or (b) recklessly disregarding the truth or falsity of these material representations, which were, in fact, false. The greater weight of the evidence is insufficient to establish that MAI engaged in fraudulent activity in connection with its efforts to obtain McKay scholarship funds for the benefit of C. M. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, by failing to keep and maintain complete and orderly records of enrollment and attendance, MAI failed to meet its obligation under Section 1002.39(8)(a), Florida Statutes, to comply with all of the requirements set forth in Section 1002.421, which mandates that private schools participating in the McKay Scholarship Program must, among other things, conform to all the requirements outlined in Section 1002.42, Florida Statutes, including Section 1002.42(4), which directs that private schools must prepare and keep attendance records in accordance with the provisions of Section 1003.23(2), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner enter a final order (a) suspending payment of McKay Scholarship funds to MAI in connection with the 2006-07 school year (b) revoking MAI's participation in the McKay Scholarship Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from her employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida, upon grounds of incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, misconduct in office and/or absence without leave. POST-HEARING PROCEDURE A transcript of the formal hearing was provided the undersigned on March 21, 1985, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were timely filed by both parties. A subsequently-filed revision of Respondent's initial proposal was accepted without objection and considered. When a party's proposed findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence admitted, they were adopted and are reflected in the Recommended Order, but to the extent proposed findings of fact were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been rejected or, where possible, modified to conform to the evidence. To the extent proposed findings of fact have not been adopted or are inconsistent with the findings herein, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has thereby been made either directly or indirectly except where the proposed finding of fact was cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary. Based upon observation of the witnesses and their candor and demeanor while testifying, all exhibits admitted in evidence, and the proposals and arguments of counsel, the following relevant facts are found:
Findings Of Fact Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner on November 15, 1982, at West Little River Elementary School. She suffered a non-school related accident and was absent approximately 121 days during the 1982-1983 school year. Observations of her teaching by her then-principal, John Johnson II, were unfavorable, but due to the prolonged absences, those observations did not result in any formal evaluations/recommendations. Respondent's requested leave for this period was granted and approved by Petitioner upon the basis of her severe electrical shock and back injury. Some of this period was classified as leave without pay. Petitioner also paid Respondent's insurance premiums for this period. Having thus condoned this absenteeism, Petitioner cannot now be heard to complain of it. (See allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Notice of Charges.) Principal Nicholas Rinaldi of Bay Harbor Elementary School hired Respondent as the teacher for its new "home-based" gifted program beginning there for the 1983-1984 school year. Although Principal Johnson would not have recommended Respondent for employment in the second year, he was not consulted by Principal Rinaldi. Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that she was limited to a $1,000.00 budget for purchasing materials for the program she was to develop. Principal Rinaldi understood that Respondent knew she was both to stay within this budget which is the standard limit at all home-based gifted programs and that she was required to get prior approval of her purchases from him. Apparently, Respondent grasped, the concept of a $1,000.00 "cap" but did not initially understand that she was to obtain prior written permission. After two orders were cancelled, she still had overspent by $60.00. She was then told specifically not to make any further purchases without the principal's permission. Thereafter, another order placed by Respondent was received at the school but Petitioner did not establish that Respondent placed the order after the cancellation of two prior orders and after Rinaldi's specific instruction not to order any more goods whatsoever. (See allegations of Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was clearly informed that she needed prior authorization for phone calls. She did not get prior permission for five long distance phone calls made personally or by students at her direction. The total cost of these calls is 8.56, which is very minimal. All calls were related to classwork with the exception of one call for $.44 and one call for $.25, which were admittedly of a personal nature. Respondent reimbursed the $.72 after the fact when notified of investigation into the phone bill. (See allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Notice of Charges.) Twenty-five students are required for a home-based gifted program. Bay Harbor was one of three North area schools piloting a home-based program in the 1983-1984 school year. In prior school years, gifted children from Bay Harbor attended a center program physically located elsewhere. A center program places a team of teachers of subjects from various schools in one physical location. Eligible students from various schools come to the center for two days a week for the gifted program and they receive their basic skills education at their respective home schools in the remaining three days per week. In a home-based program, a school which has enough gifted students elects to keep those students physically at the home school. They usually go into that program for two hours a day, every day. Some subject or subjects are used to deliver the gifted program. Those subjects are then graded by the home- based gifted teacher, who in this case was Respondent. When he hired her, Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that mathematics would be part of the new "home-based" gifted program, but math was essentially unstructured in the beginning. Thereafter, Principal Rinaldi instructed Respondent to utilize the standard Dade County "total math program, (TMP). When the TMP program was selected by Principal Rinaldi in approximately, December 1983, his motivation was that he understood TMP provided a structure for math that allows students to enter at the level that they are individually and moves each at a pace commensurate with his individual ability. Unfortunately, because a home-based program does not select its students on their specific giftedness in content area, some students in Bay- Harbor's 1983-1984 pilot program were lower than others in math. Some were even below their grade level. Those above the grade level were becoming bored with the program and those below the grade level were in a constant state of frustration struggling to keep up. A failure on Respondent's part to communicate surfaced, and misunderstandings arose between Respondent and parents and students as to the nature of projects, when projects were due and the reasonableness of homework. Problems concerning teacher absences also arose. The more academic and less "time-out-of-school" atmosphere of a home-based versus a center-based program also caused problems between the Respondent teacher and students/parents and between the Respondent and her principal. Upsets among the students and their parents resulted in many students being permanently removed from the gifted program. Over a period of time, the decrease in enrollment threatened to destroy the Bay Harbor gifted program, the survival of which required 25 students. On January 4, 1984, Principal Rinaldi observed Respondent's class for an hour for teacher evaluation purposes. This resulted in a basically good evaluation with some areas targeted for improvement (instructional planning and maintenance of student records [P-7]). The crux of this targeting was the principal's perception that Respondent did not record sufficient grades and her student files were not arranged alphabetically with papers arranged chronologically within each file. This standard of record-keeping is personal to Mr. Rinaldi and not uniform among other Dade County principals. At the standard post-observation conference, the two argued over the evaluation and the exactitude required by the principal, and Respondent refused to sign the evaluation to acknowledge that she had seen and received a copy of the document. As will be related infra, this refusal to sign or initial merely for acknowledgment of receipt of documents became a constant and continuing refusal on Respondent's part whenever the issue came up. Six days later she refused again; on January 17, 1984, Respondent responded in four written pages defending her methods. As events unfolded chronologically thereafter what started basically as a personality clash of the principal's "irresistible force" authoritarianism and the teacher's "immovable object" obstructionism mushroomed to affect students, parents, teachers, and administrators. In early January, Respondent complained concerning the inclusion of math in the gifted program to a higher outside administrator Dr. Agerwald. Mr. Rinaldi objected to this contact. On January 11, 1984, Mrs. Vickers, Petitioner's Director of Exceptional Students Program, arrived to observe Respondent's classes. She prepared a "School Visitation Report." The report is basically positive but does comment that the gifted classes are too big and current IEPs (records) were not and should have been available in the classroom. On February 2, 1984, Vickers issued a commendation to Hay Harbor on quality of cumulative records for exceptional children. Mr. Rinaldi passed this commendation (R-19) on to Respondent with the note, "Mrs. Burton, please continue this fine record 2/6/84." On 1/23/84, he also commended her on quick responses to the Miami Module records-keeping requests (R-20). Petitioner's advisor to gifted teachers, Richard Huffman, was assigned to assist Respondent at the beginning of the 1983-1984 school year. He testified that in his opinion she was a fit teacher, but he was removed as her advisor at the end of January or early February. February 24, 1984, Assistant Principal Vince Vignola observed Respondent in the classroom for a full hour and rated her overall acceptable except that she needed more grades in math and had, lost a student "contract" which had never been signed. Principal Rinaldi called in Gary Rito, Petitioner's Director of Academic Excellence for help resolving the gifted class problems. On March 2, 1984, Mr. Rito met with Respondent, Principal Rinaldi, and Mrs. Laurence, mother of a gifted student. Respondent and Laurence, who teaches elsewhere in Dade County, exchanged sharp words. It was agreed to meet again on March 8, 1984. At that time, James Miley, Petitioner's Supervisor of Gifted Programs, was present. Respondent was given written notice of the meeting one day in advance. Respondent elected to continue in this meeting at the conclusion of the school day. At this time most of her concerns, as expressed to all others present, were with the number of subjects she was required to cover and with the content of the mathematics curriculum in particular. Mr. Rito explained that "gifted" symbolizes a "technique" not a "subject," that Respondent was to use this technique for teaching subjects of math, science (which Respondent should be teaching anyway), and social studies, and for teaching a health and safety unit which was taught for only one or two grade units. Respondent strenuously objected to the use of the TMP math program. Rinaldi and Miley concurred that it was reasonable to include math in the gifted program. Math was, in fact, successfully used in the other two home-based programs beginning in Bay Harbor's Division that year, but the programs utilized may not have been the TMP. Nonetheless, the following adjustments were agreed upon among all those present at the March 8, 1984 meeting: Principal Rinaldi agreed to relieve the academic excellence program of the TMP math program and increased their enrichment activities; Ms. Thomas, Say Harbor's 6th Grade math teacher, was assigned by Principal Rinaldi to help Respondent in math. It was later Ms. Thomas' assessment that Respondent did not understand the TMP concept; and Respondent was directed and agreed to develop four units of study in botany (2 intermediate and 2 primary) to cover the rest of the school year (9 weeks). These plans were to cover instructional objectives, classroom activities, student evaluation methods and homework assignments on a time line. A preliminary plan was to be shown by Respondent to Mr. Miley on March 20. This assignment was primarily the result of a request by Ms. Laurence and other parents requesting to see a sets of plans for purposes of deciding whether to leave their children in the Respondent's class or return those who had already been withdrawn. Rinaldi, Rito, and Miley felt the plans required by the directive would ease the primary problems of implementing the program and of parent-teacher communications and misunderstandings which had been growing, and also felt they were reasonable and necessary. Everyone was aware that withdrawal of Mrs. Laurence's child could reduce program enrollment below the 25 student minimum required. However, no one clearly expressed the belief that this directive was a prescription to improve Respondent's teaching performance, which had been found basically sound up to this point. 1/ The direction itself was for a reasonable and necessary purpose (preserving and improving the gifted program). However, despite Mr. Miley's opinion that the plans as initially directed were reasonable and necessary and despite Respondent's failure to object to the direction at this point, the initial scope of the direction was actually unreasonable under the circumstances. Mr. Miley postponed his scheduled meeting with Respondent from March 20 to March 23, 1984. On that date, Respondent had nothing to show him with regard to the required botany units she had been asked to prepare. Mr. Miley met with Respondent anyway and reduced the required units from 4 to 2 and extended the time for preparation until April 12, 1984. He also gave her a document entitled "Standards of Excellence" for use in the units she was to prepare and agreed to let Respondent continue with her present evaluation system. This adjustment, made in consultation with Respondent also rendered the scope of the direction to prepare the units reasonable. 2/ On April 12, 1984, Mr. Miley asked for the required botany units and received nothing from Respondent. He returned to the school on April 13, and Respondent produced a series of goals and objectives essentially copied from the "Standards of Excellence" wherein she had identified part of a program for the primary students but none for the intermediate students. There were no classroom activities listed, no homework mentioned, and no time lines provided. Despite the extension of time, Respondent did not fulfill the required directive even in its reduced and consequently reasonable form. 3/ The units were not further amplified by Respondent before she left on April 20 and Mrs. Laurence's child was permanently removed from the gifted program. (See allegations of Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Notice of Charges). On March 12, 1984, Respondent called Principal Rinaldi a liar three times in the presence of two other school employees. 4/ (See allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent later informed Principal Rinaldi that she perceived the March 8 meeting as disciplinary in nature. He had not considered it so. He accordingly removed a request for her signature from a summary he had prepared of the March 8 meeting and scheduled a "conference-for-the-record" for March 16, 1984. Conferences-for-the record are disciplinary conferences. The March 16, 1984 meeting was postponed at the request of the Respondent's union representative. A second request for postponement for emergency reasons peculiar to the schedule of that particular union representative (Ms. Perez), was not granted and the conference-for-the-record went forward on March 20, 1984, with Respondent accompanied by her union steward, James Collings. At this conference, Rinaldi discussed the same matters that had been discussed at the March 8, 1984 meeting, the incident which had occurred March 12 when Respondent called him a "liar" three times, Respondent's unsatisfactory attendance record that year, and the fact that her absences were having an adverse effect on the program. Respondent was specifically instructed by her union advisers not to speak at this conference. Certainly she did not deny the March 12 "liar" incident. When she did not respond to Principal Rinaldi's accusations and inquiries, he became agitated. Respondent had received prior approval for a half-day in-service conference (8:30 a.m. to noon on March 21, 1984) with Mrs. Vickers, Director of Petitioner's Exceptional Student Education Program. When she did not report back to teach at Bay Harbor that afternoon, Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi made inquiries and Respondent's continued presence with Mrs. Vickers was confirmed, but not approved. This constitutes a 1/2 day's absence without leave. No substitute was procured since Respondent had been expected to teach her afternoon class. (See allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Notice of Charges.) On March 28, 1984, during a regularly scheduled parent meeting, the parents present expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction with various aspects of the gifted program, particularly math. Principal Rinaldi publicly attributed the problems in the gifted program to Respondent and Respondent retaliated by publicly stating that she did not believe TMP math should ever have been included in the gifted program and that she had no control over the inclusion of the math. The majority of witnesses actually present at this meeting found its entire tone and nature informative prior to Principal Rinaldi's comment. Even then, Respondent's comments may have been less than tactful but were hardly untruthful, unprofessional, irresponsible, or incendiary. (See allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to the March 29, 1984 faculty meeting. Based on the contemporaneous memoranda and letter, Respondent's estimate of 3-4 minutes tardiness is accepted over Dr. Rinaldi's later estimate of 20 minutes. The causes related contemporaneously by Respondent are entirely reasonable. (See allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Notice of Charges.) At Principal Rinaldi's April 16, 1984 classroom observation of Respondent, he rated her teaching performance as unacceptable in 3 categories: preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility (P-18). Rinaldi testified that his negative ratings in preparation and planning were due to what were minor concerns on the January evaluation. However, as observed above in Fact Paragraph 6, the January evaluation actually concentrated on the principal's particularly harsh requirement that Respondent's student files must be arranged alphabetically with papers neatly arranged chronologically within each file. Since his perception of the adequacy of records is so intensely personal to Mr. Rinaldi and in light of interim commendations to Respondent for record-keeping, his April analysis of inadequate records of assessment renders the final evaluation "score" highly suspect. 5/ (See allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to work and failed to timely sign in on March 26, 27, 28, and April 20, 1984. (See allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was absent on April 17, 18, and 19. She requested leave for April 17-18 late but it was approved and authorized in advance by Principal Rinaldi for participation in religious holidays. However, these were absences without pay and pushed Respondent over the number of personal leave days to which she was annually entitled. Respondent was absent without authorization on April 19; this was an absence without pay. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 20, 1984, Respondent protested, but finally agreed to meet with Principal Rinaldi in his office for a post-observation conference. Post- observation conferences are not normally considered disciplinary in nature. By this time, he had added Respondent's late notification of the 4/17-4/18 absence and her 4/19 absence to the prescription sheet as deficiencies. Respondent declined an oral dialogue with Rinaldi wherein she was invited to respond to the rating criticisms and prescriptions and offer alternatives and also refused to initial his notation that she insisted on responding in writing. Midway in this meeting, Respondent announced she was going to leave. Again, she would not sign to acknowledge receipt of the observation and prescriptions. Rinaldi instructed her that she was obligated to discuss the rating and if she left, he would consider it insubordination. Respondent left his office and the school and did not return to work as a teacher at Bay Harbor again. A formal reprimand issued partly as a result of this incident. (See allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 23 and April 24 Respondent was absent without pay. April 23 was unauthorized leave. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) With regard to the frequent' short absences, which total led 18 as of April 22, Respondent rarely if ever complied with the "Teachers' Handbook" guidelines for advance notification. Respondent originally felt that it did not matter what type of leave (personal or sick) was listed because she had no leave left anyway. Although many of these absences were for legitimate illnesses or injury of herself or a relative, there was either an on-going absence of lesson plans or a failure on Respondent's part to inform the principal that she had created plans since he last commented on there being none. Consequently, he often could not or did not secure substitutes. This resulted in wasted class time and interfered with classroom continuity. Some of Respondent's unauthorized absences were simply gifted programs she chose to attend without notifying the principal in advance. Respondent was also absent during the 1983-1984 school year for two lengthy periods, which, with all other absences, totalled 62 1/2 days. Medical narratives, admitted without objection, corroborate Respondent's testimony that the two lengthy absences were the result respectively of unanticipated allergic complications of a CAT scan (from January 30 to February 10, 1984,) and of surgery to correct acute sinusitis and recovery time from late April until release. One doctor released her from this last treatment On May 29, 1984; the other released her on June 8, 1984. During the period of time she was absent immediately following the April 20 "walkout" incident until approximately June 8, Respondent failed to adequately inform Petitioner of her proposed date of return. Certified letters sent to her post-office box were returned because Respondent did not pick them up and Petitioner could not send these to her by regular mail or by hand- delivery via a "visiting teacher" because Respondent had never informed Petitioner of her street address. The failure of Respondent to stay in touch, her failure to indicate when she could return to work, and her failure to indicate that her absence would be lengthy resulted in an inability of Petitioner to immediately hire a permanent substitute teacher. Therefore, the gifted classes had to "make-do" with a series of short term substitutes (4 or 5) until Mr. Rinaldi finally hired Mrs. Judith Dryanoff. This process created a lack of continuity in the classroom and more student withdrawals from the gifted program. The problem with multiple substitutes was compounded by Respondent's failure on April 24 and thereafter to have available substitute lesson plans. 6/ Because of Respondent's failure to leave any form of lesson plans or grade book, substitute Judith Dryanoff had to make up her own lesson plans for science and enlist the help of Janice Thomas for math plans. (See allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Notice of Charges.) On May 24, Principal Rinaldi signed Respondent's Annual Evaluation, not recommending her for employment in the next school year (P-22). When released by her doctors, Respondent was assigned by Administration to the North Area Office for June 11-15 and was expected by her principal to be at Bay Harbor simultaneously. She obviously could not do both. She was at the North Area Office for part of June 12 and at Bay Harbor for part of June 14. She was in neither location on June 11, 13, and 15. These days constitute absences without leave. (See allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On June 12, 1984, James Monroes, a supervisor in Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, ordered Respondent to begin the 180 hour course, Beginning Teacher Program, to start at 10:00 a.m., June 14, 1984, at Bay Harbor Elementary School. 7/ At 7:20 a.m. that morning Respondent confronted Principal Rinaldi in his office and called him "malicious, devious, incompetent," and "a sorry excuse for a principal." She accused him of personally taking her personal items from her room and of attempting to get her fired. 8/ Although she initially refused to come back for the program, she returned at 10:00 a.m. and repeated essentially the same harangue in the presence of Mrs. Thomas, the peer teacher selected to oversee Respondent's Beginning Teacher Program. Mrs. Thomas was called in by Mr. Rinaldi who had anticipated that a scene would ensue. Thereafter, out of Mr. Rinaldi's presence, Respondent invited Mrs. Thomas to sign a petition "to get rid of Mr. Rinaldi". (See allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Notice of Charges.) Dr. Huffman testified that Respondent also frequently yelled at Mr. Rinaldi in Dr. Huffman's presence prior to Dr. Huffman's February reassignment, and Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi testified that she had heard Respondent call Mr. Rinaldi a "bastard" or refer to him as a"bastard," but the date of this incident(s) was not proven. On August 29, 1984, Dr. Richard Artmeier, supervisor of Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, directed Respondent to be psychiatrically evaluated the next day to determine if there were any mitigating circumstances for her June 14, 1984 behavior. Respondent is obligated to submit to such evaluation by terms of her employment. After vacillation, Respondent refused to sign the written directive indicating its receipt and adamantly refused to see a psychiatrist. Finally, Dr. Artmeier directed her instead to report to the North Area Office the next day. Respondent did, however, actually go the next day as originally directed for psychiatric evaluation to Dr. Gail Wainger. Dr. Wainger was on Petitioner's "approved" list. In so doing, Respondent could not immediately comply with the directive to report to the North Area Office. Respondent reported to the North Area Office later the same day after her psychiatric evaluation. Petitioner accepted Dr. Wainger's psychiatric evaluation of Respondent, paid for it, and it was admitted at hearing upon Petitioner's motion (P-38). Since Respondent could not be in two places at once, she fulfilled the alternative directives reasonably by fulfilling them sequentially even if she did initially refuse. (See allegations of Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Notice of Charges). The psychiatrist's evaluation is admissible under Section 231.291, Florida Statutes and has been considered. Upon that evidence, together with all other credible evidence adduced at formal hearing, Respondent was accountable for her actions. Respondent has never qualified for and has never been characterized as a teacher under continuing contract.
Recommendation It is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from employment with the Dade County School Board and denying any claims for back pay. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1985.
