BY DAN HILDEBRAN
A Florida Auditor General report stated that the state overpaid the Union County School District by $16,332 because the district incorrectly reported student full-time equivalents to the Department of Education.
Auditors stated that the district underreported FTE in basic education but overreported in ESE and adult education students.
The state paid school districts around $5,140 for each full-time equivalent in 2024, so the net overreporting of 3.1776 FTEs resulted in $16,332 in adjustments. Auditors stated that it is the responsibility of the Department of Education to recoup or charge the district for any overpaid FTEs.
Issues with teachers
Auditors also reported:
—One high school ESE student was not in attendance at school during the February 2024 reporting survey period and should not have been reported for FTE funding.
—One high school teacher was properly approved to teach Math out of field but had earned none of the six hours of college credit toward certification in Math required by state rules.
—Two teachers taught a Digital Information Technology course at Union County High School as co-teachers and were properly approved to teach out of field in Web Development. However, both teachers had been approved to teach out of field in multiple areas, inclusive of the current courses in a prior year, but had earned none of the 6 hours of college credit toward certification in any of those areas, as required by state rules.
—The course schedules for several students at Lake Butler Middle School were incorrectly reported.
Transportation funding
Auditors also tested the District’s reporting for transportation funding and noted 47 exceptions of the 219-student sample. The state funded the transportation of 2,091 students in the fiscal year ending June 2024.
“Any student who is transported by the Union County District School Board must meet one or more of the following conditions to be eligible for State transportation funding,” auditors said, “live two or more miles from school, be classified as a student with a disability under IDEA, or be a student with a parent enrolled in the Teenage Parent Program, be a Career Education 9-12 or an ESE student who is transported from one school center to another where appropriate programs are provided, or be on a route that meets the criteria for hazardous walking conditions.”
Auditors reported:
—Sufficient documentation was not maintained to support the reporting of 25 students in the test in the Hazardous Walking ridership category. Specifically, auditors noted that the hazardous locations were not inspected jointly by representatives of the School District, the State, or local government with jurisdiction over the road, and the Sheriff’s Office, as required by the Department of Education.
—Three students in auditors’ tests were incorrectly reported in the IDEA – PK through Grade 12, Weighted ridership category. The students’ IEPs did not indicate that the students met at least one of the five criteria required for reporting in a weighted ridership category. Auditors determined that two of the students were otherwise eligible to be reported in other categories. The remaining student was not eligible for State transportation funding.
—Sixteen students in the test were incorrectly reported in the All Other FEFP Eligible Students ridership category. The students lived less than two miles from their assigned schools and were not otherwise eligible for State transportation funding.
Superintendent responds
Superintendent Mike Ripplinger wrote in a response to the report that the district agreed with most of the auditors’ findings.
However, on the exception about hazardous walking conditions, the superintendent asked them to reconsider that exception.
“The district’s transportation department had documentation from the sheriff’s office but was not aware of the additional documentation needed from state or local governments with jurisdiction over the road,” he wrote. “Since being made aware of this issue, our transportation department has reached out to the corresponding agencies to bring our district into compliance. Additionally, due to the rural location of our District and the students’ residential locations, the students would be walking, at times during the year, in the dark, along major roadways with no sidewalks. The district asks that, due to decreased funding already affecting our district, the AG consider the corrective action being taken and how the loss of these funds will adversely affect our district.”
Ripplinger also disputed auditors’ claims about the two-mile distance rule.
“The district agrees with some of the determination of ridership for these students, but not all,” he wrote. “In determining the ridership of these students, consideration of distance was given to students who would have had to walk to the safest crossing point to get to school. While some online mapping tools may have applied a different route to determine less than two miles on these students, those tools would have the student crossing multiple busy highways at some points during the year, the route for these students would be in the dark, and along roads without sidewalks. The district asks for consideration as eight of these students were elementary age students who would be walking up to forty-two minutes.”
