The letter further stated that by failing to appear at the October 25 conference, respondent believed that petitioner had waived her statutory right to a conference with the building principal and right to question the complaining witness. Petitioner opted to proceed with the appeal to respondent, which heard petitioner's arguments on January 24, 1996. On January 25, respondent denied the appeal and imposed the remaining four days of the suspension, which were served on January 31, February 1,2 and 5, 1996. This appeal ensued. Petitioner objects to the fact that the principal did not notify her that her daughter was the subject of an investigation prior to October 24.
Petitioner also objects to the manner of the investigation.
Petitioner contends that the decision to suspend Paula was not based on competent and substantial evidence that she participated in the objectionable conduct. Petitioner further claims that she was not given an opportunity to question the complaining witness, that Paula's prior record was used as a basis for the suspension, and that Paula was not provided with any homework or instruction during the period of suspension. Petitioner requests that I order Paula's record expunged or sealed. Respondent argues that the suspension was based on competent and substantial evidence and that the district's procedures met the required standards of fairness. Respondent asserts that Ms. Colligan, Ms. Griffin and the assistant principal conducted a weeklong investigation and four eyewitnesses identified Paula as one of the students who had smoked marijuana.