Routson-Gim-Belluardo v. Ohio Dep't of Educ.
2017 Ohio 2611
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Gloria Routson-Gim-Belluardo (Belluardo), a long‑time special‑education Intervention Specialist, used the San Diego Quick Assessment (SDQA) as the Student Learning Objective (SLO) measure for students in 2013–14.
- SDQA uses fixed 10‑word lists per grade that do not change between administrations; Belluardo knew lists repeated.
- Belluardo enlarged and sent home words that students missed on earlier SDQA administrations for students (particularly those with IEPs) to study; some students were tested on those same words again in April 2014.
- April SLO results showed all her students met or exceeded the growth expectation; the district placed her on leave and later terminated her employment for giving students answers.
- The State Board of Education hearing officer found Belluardo engaged in “conduct unbecoming an educator” (academic fraud/negligent reporting) and recommended license revocation with a two‑year reapplication bar and 12 hours of assessment training; the Board adopted the recommendation, the trial court affirmed, and Belluardo appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board’s finding that Belluardo engaged in conduct unbecoming (academic fraud/negligent reporting) is supported by reliable, probative, substantial evidence | Belluardo: she followed approved SLO, sought to help students learn missed words, did not commit fraud | Board: giving exact test words to students invalidated assessment, produced inaccurate reporting and reflected misconduct | Court: affirmed — evidence supports finding of conduct unbecoming (validity compromised; negligence or misconduct) |
| Whether intent to benefit herself or to cheat was required to sustain discipline under R.C. 3319.31(B)(1) | Belluardo: no intent to benefit, so no academic fraud | Board: statute covers "conduct unbecoming" without requiring proof of intent; negligence suffices | Court: intent not required; statute and licensure code permit discipline without proof of subjective intent |
| Whether the Board needed to show a nexus between Belluardo’s conduct and teacher performance/licensure | Belluardo: action related to SLO process and district procedures; nexus lacking | Board: conduct occurred during school duties and directly affected reported evaluations and district ratings | Court: nexus existed; discipline properly tied to educational duties and reporting accuracy |
| Whether district SLO implementation deficiencies excuse Belluardo’s conduct | Belluardo: district offered little SLO support and test choice was reasonable | Board: approval of SLO placed obligation on teacher to administer validly; procedural shortcomings irrelevant to her conduct | Court: district deficiencies do not excuse administering the approved SDQA in a way that produced invalid results; teacher responsible |
Key Cases Cited
- Spitznagel v. State Bd. of Edn., 931 N.E.2d 1061 (Ohio 2010) (standard for reviewing administrative‑board appeals under R.C. 119.12)
- Rossford Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Bd. of Edn., 590 N.E.2d 1240 (Ohio 1992) (appellate review limited to abuse of discretion when reviewing trial court factual determinations)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Lorain City Bd. of Edn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 533 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1988) (deference to administrative factfinding)
- Routson‑Gim‑Belluardo v. Jefferson Twp. Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 61 N.E.3d 914 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (prior appeal affirming district termination; related factual background)