Recommended Order — 26-001542SP

STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DR. HENRY MACK, AS
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION,1
Petitioner,
vs.
TALLAHASSEE ACADEMY
INTERNATIONAL (8667), MIAMI
INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY (9131),
LENORA BROWN SCHOOL
ACADEMY (9844), MICHAEL TUNSIL,
AND GREGORY TUNSIL,
Respondents.
/
Case No. 26-1542SP
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal administrative hearing was conducted by
Zoom conference on July 21 and 22, 2026, before Administrative Law Judge
June C. McKinney of the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”).
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: 	James Leigh Richmond, Esquire
Department of Education
325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1544
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
For Respondent: 	Laura Maria Marino, Esquire
Ratzan and Faccidomo, LLC
2850 Tigertail Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33133
1 On July 22, 2026, Dr. Henry Mack was appointed as the Commissioner of Education by the
State Board of Education.

2
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Respondents Tallahassee Academy International (“TAI”), Miami
International Academy (“MIA”), Lenora Brown School Academy (“LBS”),
Michael Tunsil (“Tunsil”), and Gregory Tunsil (collectively, “Respondents”)
committed the violations as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if
so, what penalty should be imposed.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On February 13, 2026, Petitioner Commissioner of Education (“Petitioner”
or “Commissioner”) filed an Administrative Complaint charging Respondents
with violating sections 1002.421(1)(f), 1002.421(1)(i), and 1002.421(3)(e),
Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-1.09512 and 6A-
6.03315. The Administrative Complaint also sought immediate suspension
and permanent revocation of each school’s eligibility to participate in the
Florida Tax Credit (“FTC”), Family Empowerment Scholarship for
Educational Options (“FES-EO”), and Family Empowerment Scholarship for
Students with Unique Abilities (“FES-UA”) scholarship programs.
Additionally, the Commissioner sought to permanently revoke the authority
of Tunsil and Gregory Tunsil to establish or operate private schools in
Florida.
On or about March 5, 2026, Respondents timely challenged the
Administrative Complaint and requested a formal hearing on the matter by
Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing Pursuant to Fla. Stat. 120.57(1)
(“Petition”).
On March 23, 2026, the Petition was transferred to DOAH and assigned
to the undersigned to conduct the formal hearing.

3
On March 30, 2026, the case was scheduled for hearing on April 21, 2026.
After several continuances for good cause, the matter proceeded as scheduled
July 21 and 22, 2026.
At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of six witnesses: Tisha
Avera, Margaret Aune, Jacqueline Hitchcock, Andrew Blimes, Bryan
Hudnall, and Whitney Blake. Petitioner offered Exhibits 1 through 8, which
were admitted into evidence. Respondents presented the testimony of
Michael Tunsil and offered Composite Exhibits 1 through 4, which were
admitted into evidence.
The proceedings were transcribed, and the parties availed themselves of
the right to submit proposed recommended orders. On August 26, 2026, the
two-volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed with DOAH.
Respondents filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to submit
proposed orders on September 1, 2026, that was granted. Both parties timely
submitted their proposed recommended orders, which have been duly
considered in the rendition of this Recommended Order.
Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are the versions in effect
at the time of the alleged violations.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner is a duly constituted state official charged with the duty of
administering and overseeing state scholarship programs pursuant to
chapter 1002, including the FES-UA, FTC, and FES-EO (collectively, the
“scholarship programs”).
2. During the 2016-2017 school year, Tunsil opened MIA, a private school
formerly known as Tunsil Athletics International in Miami, Florida.

4
3. During the 2023-2024 school year, Tunsil opened LBS, a private school
in Miami, Florida.
4. During the 2024-2025 school year, Tunsil opened TAI, a private school
in Tallahassee, Florida.
5. Tunsil is the owner and operator of TAI, MIA, and LBS.
6. The schools served primarily minority student populations in
underserved communities, providing educational opportunities and credit-
recovery support.
7. In June 2026, MIA and LBS graduated 151 high school seniors, with
approximately 80 percent matriculating to post-secondary colleges or
universities.
8. Tunsil has over two decades of experience working in private education
as a coach and teacher. He previously worked at Spirit of Christ Academy,
Westlake Preparatory, Zion Lutheran, Champagnat Catholic, and
Jacksonville Country Day private schools.
9. Gregory Tunsil is a registered co-owner of LBS and MIA; however, his
role was strictly limited to that of an investor, and he did not participate in
the daily operations, administration, or management of the schools.
10. TAI, MIA, and LBS participated in the scholarship programs and
maintained physical facility locations in Florida throughout the 2024-2025
and 2025-2026 school years (“school terms”) at issue in this matter.
11. TAI, MIA, and LBS submitted compliance and survey documents to
the Florida Department of Education (“Department”) for the school terms.
12. In their annual scholarship compliance certifications, Respondents
attested under oath on the Private School Annual Scholarship Compliance
Form (“SCF”) that TAI, MIA, and LBS complied with Section 6(E), which
“require[s] the parent to restrictively endorse the scholarship warrant or
approve a funds transfer before any funds are deposited for a student,
whichever may apply,” pursuant to section 1002.421(1)(f).

5
13. Respondents also reported in Section 6(H) of the SCF that TAI, MIA,
and LBS offered a program of instruction providing at least 180 actual school
days and a minimum of 900 net instructional hours for students pursuant to
rule 6A-1.09512.
Instructional Hours and Operating Schedules
14. During the school terms, MIA and LBS operated on a 180-day
academic school calendar.
15. MIA and LBS operated on a gross daily schedule from 9:00 a.m. to
2:00 p.m., totaling 300 minutes, or five hours of facility time per day.
16. MIA assigned instructors Michael Tunsil, Randy Tunsil, Richardson
Eugene, Shayna White, Derrick Smith, and Alvaro Castillo (“instructors”) to
a daily instructional schedule2 that included:
• 1st Period: 9:00 a.m. – 9:10 a.m. (10 minutes of
instruction)
• 2nd Period: 9:15 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. (45 minutes of
instruction)
• 3rd Period: 10:05 a.m. – 10:50 a.m. (45 minutes of
instruction)
• 4th Period: 10:55 a.m. – 11:40 a.m. (45 minutes of
instruction)
• 5th Period: 12:25 p.m. – 1:10 p.m. (45 minutes of
instruction)
• 6th Period: 1:15 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. (45 minutes of
instruction)
17. Totaling the six individual class periods, MIA instructors taught for
exactly 235 minutes each day, which equates to exactly three hours and
55 minutes of net daily instructional3 time.
2 The instructors, periods, and hours of instruction are established by the stipulated facts in
Section E.i. of the Pre-Hearing Stipulation.
3Absent a statutory definition, the plain and literal meaning of “net instruction” refers to the
actual time remaining exclusively for the practice of teaching after the deduction of all non-
teaching intervals, including lunch, passing times, recess, free time, homeroom, or
unstructured study hall, derived from the definitions of “net” (“remaining after the deduction
of all charges, outlay, or loss”) and “instruction” (“the action, practice, or profession of
teaching”) pursuant to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (last visited Oct. 1, 2026).

6
18. Based on the 180-day school year reported by MIA, this daily schedule
provided a total of 705 hours of instructional time over the academic year.
19. LBS did not have an instructor for first period but assigned instructors
Olin Cushion III, Michael Johnson, Rochelle Thomas, and Shermeka Jones
(“LBS instructors”) a daily instructional schedule4 that included:
• 2nd Period: 9:15 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. (45 minutes of
instruction)
• 3rd Period: 10:05 a.m. – 10:50 a.m. (45 minutes of
instruction)
• 4th Period: 10:55 a.m. – 11:40 a.m. (45 minutes of
instruction)
• 5th Period: 12:25 p.m. – 1:10 p.m. (45 minutes of
instruction)
• 6th Period: 1:15 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. (45 minutes of
instruction)
20. The schedule consisted of scheduled class periods, five-minute class
passing transitions, and a 45-minute lunch break from 11:40 a.m. to
12:25 p.m.
21. Totaling the five individual class periods, LBS instructors taught
exactly 225 minutes each day, which equates to exactly three hours and
45 minutes of net daily instructional time.
22. Based on the 180-day school year reported by LBS, this daily schedule
provided a total of 675 hours of instructional time over the academic year.
23. TAI similarly operated on a daily schedule from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.,
with two instructional staff members.
24. TAI assigned instructors Harrison Smith and Kato Nelson to the daily
instructional schedule5 that included:
• 1st Period: 9:00 a.m. – 9:35 a.m. (35 minutes of
instruction)
• 2nd Period: 9:35 a.m. – 10:10 a.m. (35 minutes of
instruction)
4 The instructors, periods, and hours of instruction are established by the stipulated facts in
Section E.j. of the Pre-Hearing Stipulation.
5 Instructors, periods, and hours of instruction are stipulated facts in Section E.k. of the Pre-
Hearing Stipulation.

7
• 3rd Period: 10:10 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. (35 minutes of
instruction)
• 4th Period: 10:45 a.m. – 11:20 a.m. (35 minutes of
instruction)
• 5th Period: 12:30 p.m. – 1:05 p.m. (35 minutes of
instruction)
• 6th Period: 1:05 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. (55 minutes of
instruction)
25. Totaling the six individual class periods, TAI instructors were
scheduled to teach for exactly 230 minutes each day, which equates to exactly
three hours and 50 minutes of net daily instructional time.
26. With respect to TAI’s 2025–2026 academic calendar, the official
published calendar6 established that the school year started on September 1,
2025,7 and concluded on May 22, 2026, following senior graduation on
May 16, 2026. This schedule resulted in a total of approximately 147 school
days.
27. Based on TAI’s 147-day school year calendar, this daily schedule
provided a total of 563.5 hours of instructional time over the academic year.
Step Up and Fund Transfer Approvals
28. Step Up for Students (“Step Up”) administers Florida private school
scholarships by processing applications and distributing funds to eligible
students.
29. Step Up administers scholarships via the Education Multi-Access
(“EMA”) platform, which requires parents to set up guardian profiles, submit
eligibility data, and approve quarterly invoices before funds are transferred
to schools.
6 Pet.’s Ex. 1.
7 In determining the actual length of the school year, the undersigned credits the
documentary evidence of TAI’s “1st Official Day of School” calendar, which establishes a start
date of September 1, 2025, and an end date of May 22, 2026. This written calendar is more
persuasive than the contrary testimony attempting to add five additional school days.
Furthermore, even if that testimony were credited, it would only bring TAI's total calendar to
152 days—still falling significantly short of the required 180 days.

8
30. Parents are required to personally approve each quarterly funds
transfer via the EMA online platform prior to scholarship disbursement.
31. Each parent’s EMA account is secured by an individual username and
password, supplemented by multi-factor authentication (“MFA”) requiring
the user to enter a verification code transmitted to the telephone number
designated by the parent account holder.
32. Schools are explicitly prohibited from managing EMA accounts,
possessing parent passwords, or executing approvals on a parent’s behalf.
33. The 2025-2026 Step Up private school handbook provides: “Schools
and providers cannot apply on students’ behalf; schools and providers also
cannot request or use students’ EMA login credentials. … Penalties, doing so
may result in loss of scholarship eligibility for the student or penalties for the
providers.”
34. In or around September 2025, TAI published its school application8
form on its website that included a written parental authorization form
allowing TAI staff to manage parents’ Step Up accounts and access EMA
portal credentials. The consent authorization form stated:
I 	hereby 	give 	consent 	to 	Tallahassee 	Academy
International to manage my Step Up for Students
accounts.
* 	* 	*
List 	of 	duties 	in 	which 	Tallahassee 	Academy
International will perform on behalf of parent or
guardian.
1. Apply for Step UP for Students[.]
2. Have access to EMA Account[.]
35. MFA records during the school terms revealed that 80 percent of
Respondents’ student accounts (approximately 568 of 710 accounts) utilized
8 The application displayed the physical address and email address of LBS, rather than TAI.

9
MFA phone numbers that did not match the parents’ registered personal
phone numbers.
36. Instead, a single school administrative phone number authenticated
approximately 390 separate guardian accounts across the three schools.
37. Additionally, at least five specific Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses
were identified as executing extraordinary volumes of sequential parent
invoice approvals on specific dates, with sessions extending past regular
school operating hours up to 8:05 p.m.:
• IP Address 2600:1700:5ad0:3890:2d6b:2974:512a:d4b1 (MIA
and LBS): On April 12, 2025, this single IP address was used to log in
to 236 distinct guardian accounts (92 for LBS and 144 for MIA) to approve
invoices between 12:17 p.m. and 8:05 p.m. The average time between
these 236 consecutive logins was less than 2.5 minutes.
• IP Address 2600:1700:5ad0:3890:15d6:7148:3ba0:2b2c (MIA and
LBS): On February 3, 2025, 187 distinct guardian accounts (43 for LBS
and 144 for MIA) logged in from this IP address between 11:28 a.m.
and 7:24 p.m. The average interval between these logins was less than
three minutes.
• IP Address 2603:3020:181b:4400:6819:187c:1495:9f8d (MIA): On
August 12, 2024, 136 guardian accounts for MIA logged in from this IP
address between 12:36 p.m. and 7:29 p.m., with an average interval of less
than three minutes.
• IP Address 2600:1700:5ad0:3890:c47d:bdbf:c786:2d0c (MIA and
LBS): On November 9, 2025, 132 guardian accounts (24 for LBS and 108 for
MIA) logged in between 10:51 a.m. and 12:54 p.m. Consecutive logins
averaged slightly over one minute apart, with never more than a four-minute
window between any two logins.
• IP Address 2603:3020:181b:4400:499d:f2f6:74d2:8ac9 (LBS and
MIA): On November 10, 2025, 102 guardian accounts (101 for LBS and 1 for

10
MIA) logged in between 8:36 a.m. and 3:59 p.m., with an average interval of
less than 4.5 minutes.
38. During the school terms, TAI’s administrative phone number was also
configured as the MFA contact for 24 unique parent accounts.
39. Additionally, at least three specific IP addresses from TAI executed
rapid or after-hours logins, including:
• IP Address 104.222.19.193 (TAI): This permanently assigned static
IP address was shared by the school and 37 different guardians. This single
IP address was utilized 64 times outside of normal business hours, including
30 separate logins occurring late at night between 9:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m.
(28 of which were executed as guardian logins).
• IP Address 2603:301c:b01:4000:b1d5:71ca:f4a6:5118 (TAI): On
February 4, 2025, multiple guardians and the school logged in rapidly from
this shared IPv6 address, with nine distinct guardian accounts accessed
within an 85-minute span.
• IP Address 2603:301c:b01:4000:90b6:ce61:410f:36b4 (TAI): On
September 12, 2025, ten distinct guardian accounts logged in rapidly from
this shared IPv6 address within a 45-minute span.
Disciplinary History
40. Prior to the instant proceeding, there was no documented disciplinary
history against Respondents.
Hearing
41. At hearing, Tunsil conceded Respondents executed and submitted
compliance forms. He maintained he believed TAI, MIA, and LBS complied
with all applicable requirements and the SCF filings were accurate, because
the Department accepted them and never rejected or returned them for
errors, as was the agency practice.
42. Tunsil credibly explained that drawing from his past career in private
education, he understood that TAI, MIA, and LBS met the 900-hour mandate

11
through a baseline calculation of each school having five daily school hours
multiplied by 180 instructional days.
43. At hearing, Vice Chancellor of Strategic Improvement Margaret Aune
credibly testified and clarified that net instructional hours excludes lunch
periods, recess, homeroom, and passing transitions.
44. Tunsil also admitted during his testimony that Respondents’
personnel possessed parent login credentials and completed invoice approvals
in the EMA portal. By way of justification, Tunsil maintained that staff acted
to assist parents who lacked computer access, internet connectivity, or
technical literacy to manage their EMA accounts.
45. Tunsil further testified that he was familiar with the Step Up 2025-
2026 private school handbook that prohibits schools from creating or
managing EMA accounts for families.
Ultimate Findings of Fact
46. At hearing, the record demonstrated TAI operated only 147 school
days, falling significantly short of the 180 actual school days reported on its
sworn compliance documentation.
47. The evidence further establishes that TAI provided 563.5 instructional
hours, which is 336.5 hours short of the 900 net instructional hours the
school certified on its compliance forms.
48. The weight of the credible evidence at hearing shows that MIA
provided a total of 705 hours of instructional time over the academic year.
Consequently, MIA’s schedule fell 195 hours short of the mandatory 900 net
instructional hours it certified as providing on its compliance documentation.
49. The record also demonstrated that LBS provided 675 hours of
instructional time over the academic year. Consequently, LBS’s schedule fell
225 hours short of the mandatory 900 net instructional hours it certified as
providing on its compliance documentation.
50. The greater weight of the competent, credible evidence also establishes
that Respondents systematically circumvented parental security controls to

12
manage and execute scholarship invoice approvals on behalf of parents,
rather than merely assisting them. The undersigned is not persuaded by
Respondents’ assertion that school personnel were simply providing technical
assistance.9
51. TAI’s own parental authorization form explicitly stated that parents
were consenting for the school to “manage” their Step Up accounts, listing
duties the school would perform “on behalf of” the parent, including applying
for Step Up and “having access to EMA Account.” This documented policy
constitutes active account management, not assistance.
52. The digital footprint derived from IP data demonstrated that mass
volumes of parent accounts were accessed directly from centralized school
networks rather than individual residential or cellular networks. For MIA
and LBS, the evidence shows at least five specific IP addresses were utilized
to execute mass batch approvals of parent invoices in rapid, automated
succession. To that end, on specific dates, blocks of 236, 187, 136, 132, and
102 unique parent invoice approvals were submitted from single IP addresses
within intervals of mere minutes, with sessions continuing well past regular
school operating hours up to 7:29 p.m. and 8:05 p.m. Similarly, the record
supports that TAI utilized at least three specific IP addresses shared by the
school and multiple parents to execute rapid batch approvals, including
dozens of late-night logins occurring between 9:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m.
53. The record evidence also demonstrated that to successfully bypass the
EMA platform’s security controls, MFA was rerouted to school personnel. The
MFA data confirmed that the authentication phone numbers for
approximately 80 percent of the parent accounts had been rerouted to a small
group of school-controlled administrative numbers. Specifically, the evidence
at hearing shows that the direct administrative phone number listed for TAI
9 The undersigned rejects Tunsil’s testimony that staff merely “assisted” parents. This
assertion is directly contradicted by the objective forensic evidence of rapid, late-night batch
approvals and TAI’s own written policy requiring parents to let the school “manage” their
accounts.

13
was configured as the authorized MFA contact number for at least 24 unique
parent accounts.
54. The intersection of the IP and MFA evidence conclusively
demonstrates how Respondents’ systematic bypass was achieved. Because
Step Up’s security protocols trigger an MFA code for each login, the rapid,
sequential batch approvals—such as 236 approvals from a single IP address
averaging less than 2.5 minutes apart—would logistically fail unless the
person operating the device at the school’s IP address also controlled the
physical phone receiving the MFA codes. By initiating the logins from the
schools’ specific IP addresses and intercepting the MFA security codes
directly on the schools’ phone lines, school staff systematically circumvented
the parents entirely. The record shows this coordinated interaction allowed
Respondents to approve the financial transfers themselves.
55. Even though the competent evidence at hearing establishes
Respondents’ bypassing the parents to approve the financial transfers, the
record is void of evidence that any scholarship funds were stolen, embezzled,
diverted to unauthorized personal use, or applied to anything other than
standard student tuition.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
56. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter pursuant
to sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 1002.421(3)(d)2.b., Florida Statutes.
57. In this proceeding, the Commissioner seeks to revoke the eligibility of
TAI, MIA, and LBS to participate in the scholarship programs and to
permanently bar Tunsil and Gregory Tunsil from establishing or operating a
private school in Florida.
58. Pursuant to Section F.d. of the Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Petitioner
must prove Respondents committed the charges as alleged in the
Administrative Complaint by a preponderance of the evidence.

14
59. “Preponderance of the evidence” is evidence that more likely than not
tends to prove the proposition set forth by the proponent. Gross v. Lyons,
763 So. 2d 276, 280 n.l (Fla. 2000).
60. In the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondents in
this proceeding, the Commissioner charges Respondents with violating
the following: 1) section 1002.421(1)(f): 2) section 1002.421(1)(i);
3) section 1002.421(3)(e); 4) rule 6A-1.09512; and 5) rule 6A-6.03315.
61. Section 1002.421 defines private school eligibility and obligations and
provides, in relevant part:
(1) 	PRIVATE 	SCHOOL 	ELIGIBILITY 	AND
OBLIGATIONS.—A private school participating in
an 	educational 	scholarship 	program 	established
pursuant to this chapter must be a private school as
defined in s. 1002.01 in this state, be registered, and
be 	in 	compliance 	with 	all 	requirements 	of 	this
section in addition to private school requirements
outlined 	in 	s. 	1002.42, 	specific 	requirements
identified 	within 	respective 	scholarship 	program
laws, and other provisions of Florida law that apply
to private schools, and must:
* 	* 	*
(f) 	Demonstrate 	fiscal 	soundness 	and
accountability by:
1. 	Being in operation for at least 3 school years or
obtaining a surety bond or letter of credit for the
amount 	equal 	to 	the 	scholarship 	funds 	for 	any
quarter and filing the surety bond or letter of credit
with the department.
2. 	Requiring 	the 	parent 	of 	each 	scholarship
student 	to 	personally 	restrictively 	endorse 	the
scholarship warrant to the school or to approve a
funds transfer before any funds are deposited for a
student. The school may not act as attorney in fact
for the parent of a scholarship student under the
authority of a power of attorney executed by such
parent, or under any other authority, to endorse a

15
scholarship warrant or approve a funds transfer on
behalf of such parent.
* 	* 	*
(i) 	Maintain a physical location in the state at
which each student has regular and direct contact
with 	teachers. 	Regular 	and 	direct 	contact 	with
teachers may be satisfied for students enrolled in a
personalized 	education 	program 	or 	for 	students
eligible for a scholarship under s. 1002.394(3)(b) if
students 	have 	regular 	and 	direct 	contact 	with
teachers at the physical location at least 2 school
days 	per 	week 	and 	the 	student 	learning 	plan
addresses the remaining instructional time.
* 	* 	*
(3) 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	EDUCATION
AUTHORITY 	AND 	OBLIGATIONS.—The
Commissioner of Education:
* 	* 	*
(e) 	May 	immediately 	suspend 	payment 	of
scholarship funds if it is determined that there is
probable cause to believe that there is:
1. An imminent threat to the health, safety, or
welfare of the students;
2. A previous pattern of failure to comply with this
section; or
3. Fraudulent activity on the part of the private
school. Notwithstanding s. 1002.22, in incidents of
alleged fraudulent activity pursuant to this section,
the 	department’s 	Office 	of 	Inspector 	General 	is
authorized to release personally identifiable records
or reports of students to the following persons … [.]
62. As reflected in the Findings of Fact, the entirety of the evidence
presented demonstrates that Respondents systematically violated the

16
mandate under section 1002.421(1)(f) that a private school must “require the
parent to restrictively endorse the scholarship warrant or approve a funds
transfer before any funds are deposited for a student.” TAI, MIA, and LBS
circumvented the EMA platform’s security controls to manage and execute
scholarship invoice batch approvals themselves. The record also
demonstrates that TAI’s own authorization form explicitly required parents
to consent to the school “managing” their accounts and accessing the EMA
platform on their behalf.
63. Additionally, the greater weight of the evidence clearly establishes a
forensic intersection of centralized school IP addresses and rerouted MFA
phone numbers, which conclusively proves active, unauthorized account
management. By initiating rapid, sequential batch logins from school
networks and intercepting the requisite MFA security codes on school-
controlled phone lines, school staff systematically bypassed the parents
entirely. This coordinated interception allowed Respondents to approve the
financial transfers directly, constituting a clear violation of the statutory
requirement that the parent personally approve the scholarship program
funds transfer in violation of section 1002.421(1)(f).
64. Petitioner also charged Respondents with violation of section
1002.421(1)(i), which requires that Respondents maintain a physical location
and students have regular and direct contact with the teachers. The record
evidence in paragraph 10 above establishes that Respondents met the
mandate for location in the state.
65. Rule 6A-6.03315 incorporates the private school scholarship
compliance form and provides, in relevant part:
Form 	IEPC 	SCF-1, 	Scholarship 	Program
Compliance Form for Private School Participants in
State 	Scholarship 	Programs
(http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=
Ref-16947), 	hereinafter 	Scholarship 	Compliance
Form, is hereby incorporated by reference to become
a part of this rule effective September 2024.

17
(1) 	Definitions 	related 	to 	this 	rule 	and 	the
Scholarship Compliance Form:
* 	* 	*
(d) 	Regular 	and 	direct 	contact 	– 	A 	program 	of
instruction that provides for a minimum of one
hundred seventy (170) actual school instruction days
with the required instructional hours (determined
by grade level per state board Rule 6A-1.09512,
F.A.C.) under the direct instruction of the private
school teacher at the school’s approved physical
location. 	This 	may 	include 	occasional 	off-site
activities 	including 	the 	Family 	Empowerment
Scholarship Program transition-to-work plan under
the supervision of the private school teacher. For
students 	enrolled 	in 	a 	personalized 	education
program, regular and direct contact is satisfied by
direct instruction by the private school teacher at
least two (2) days a week at the school’s approved
physical 	location. 	The 	remaining 	required
instructional hours must be addressed in a student
learning plan.
66. Rule 6A-1.09512 defines the attendance requirement and provides, in
relevant part:
Equivalent 	Minimum 	School 	Term 	for
Compulsory Attendance Purposes.
Any child of compulsory school attendance age, who
is enrolled in a non-public school pursuant to Section
1002.42, F.S., shall be deemed to be in compliance
with the compulsory attendance requirements of
Section 	1003.21(1)(a), 	F.S., 	provided 	the 	child
maintains 	regular 	attendance 	during 	the 	entire
school term of either:
(1) One hundred eighty (180) actual school days
determined 	as 	prescribed 	by 	Section 	1011.60(2),
F.S., or
(2) A minimum of one hundred seventy (170) actual
school 	days 	and 	the 	hourly 	equivalent 	of 	one

18
hundred eighty (180) actual school days, determined
as prescribed below:
(a) 	Kindergarten: 	Five 	hundred 	forty 	(540) 	net
instructional hours.
(b) Grades 1-3: Seven hundred twenty (720) net
instructional hours.
(c) 	Grades 	4-12: 	Nine 	hundred 	(900) 	net
instructional hours.
67. Rule 6A-1.09512 requires private schools to operate for a term of
180 actual school days (subsection (1)) or provide a minimum of 900 net
instructional hours for grades four through 12 (subsection (2)(c)). Because
the rule is disjunctive, meeting either standard satisfies the requirement.
68. As set forth in the Findings of Fact, MIA and LBS operated on a
180-day calendar, thereby complying with the alternative standard in
rule 6A-1.09512(1). Accordingly, Petitioner did not establish that MIA and
LBS violated rule 6A-1.09512(1). Conversely, the record demonstrates that
TAI failed to meet both alternative standards by operating on a 147-day
calendar (falling 33 days short) and providing only 563.5 net instructional
hours. Therefore, Petitioner met its burden of proof to demonstrate that TAI
violated rule 6A-1.09512(1) and (2).
69. Nevertheless, while MIA and LBS satisfied rule 6A-1.09512
overarching operational standard via their 180-day calendar, the evidence
confirms that Respondents still wrongfully attested to compliance on
Section 6(H) of the SCF. Respondents submitted these forms falsely certifying
that all three schools, including MIA and LBS, provided the 900 net
instructional hours, rendering the compliance attestations inaccurate.
70. In the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner also charged Respondents
with operating TAI, MIA, and LBS in a manner contrary to the health, safety
and welfare of the public in violation of section 1002.421(3)(e)1., by
presenting a threat to the welfare of students by shortchanging students by

19
approximately 15 to 25 percent of the state’s minimum instructional time
requirement. To sustain this charge, Petitioner bears the burden to prove by
a preponderance of the evidence that this instructional deficit constituted an
actual, operational threat to student welfare.
71. While the evidentiary record irrefutably establishes that Respondents
failed to meet the 900-hour net instructional mandate, Petitioner did not
present competent, substantial evidence demonstrating that this
administrative shortfall manifested as a tangible threat to the health, safety,
or welfare of the students or the public. To the contrary, the record indicates
that enrolled students actively received educational services, utilized credit-
recovery curriculum, and achieved successful educational outcomes, including
senior graduation.
72. The deficiency in aggregate instructional minutes stemmed from
Respondents’ flawed reliance on a gross daily facility schedule rather than
calculating net, teacher-led instructional time. While this constitutes a
serious statutory and programmatic compliance violation under rule 6A-
1.09512, equating a mathematical deficit in instructional hours with an
imminent threat to public health and welfare stretches the plain language of
section 1002.421(3)(e)1. beyond its intended regulatory application. Absent
objective evidence of educational neglect, physical danger, or actual harm to
the students, a shortage of instructional hours alone does not satisfy the
elements of this specific statutory provision. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Tunsil or Gregory Tunsil
operated the educational institutions in a manner contrary to the health,
safety, and welfare of the public pursuant to section 1002.421(3)(e)1.
73. Turning to the allegations of fraud, section 1002.421(3)(e)3. authorizes
the Commissioner to immediately suspend payment of scholarship funds
upon probable cause of “[f]raudulent activity on the part of the private
school.” As DOAH concluded in Diaz v. East Atlantic Prep (1995), Case
No. 22-1744SP, R.O. at 23 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 19, 2022):

20
The elements to prove fraud are well settled: there
must be 1) a false statement concerning a material
fact; 	2) 	made 	with 	knowledge 	that 	the
representation is false and with the intention of
inducing another’s reliance on the statement; and 3)
consequent 	injury 	to 	the 	other 	party 	action 	in
reliance on the false misrepresentation. Lance v.
Wade, 	457 	So. 	2d 	1008, 	1022 	(Fla. 	1984) 	... 	.
Fraudulent intent is, by necessity, usually proven by
circumstantial evidence [which] “by their number
and 	joint 	consideration, 	[must] 	be 	sufficient 	to
constitute proof.” Nally v. Olson, 134 So. 2d 265, 267
(Fla. 2d DCA 1961). ... Scienter ... may be established
by showing “actual knowledge, or that the defendant
was reckless or careless as to the truth of the matter
asserted.” Ocean Bank of Miami v. INV-UNI Inv.
Corp., 599 So. 2d 694, 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
74. Applying these standards in the instant case, the record does not
support a finding of fraud under section 1002.421(3)(e)3. While Respondents
falsely certified providing 900 net instructional hours, the evidence of
inaccurate certifications demonstrate administrative negligence and a
fundamental misunderstanding of calculating “net” versus “gross” time,
rather than an intentional scheme to deceive.
75. Similarly, while Respondents intentionally bypassed the Step Up
platform’s MFA protocols in violation of program rules, the record contains no
evidence that Respondents created fictitious students, embezzled funds, or
that the State suffered a “consequent injury” by paying for completely
undelivered educational services. Accordingly, while Respondents’ conduct
unequivocally constitutes serious statutory and programmatic compliance
violations, Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the
requisite scienter or consequent injury necessary to establish fraudulent
activity under section 1002.421(3)(e)3.
76. In summary, Petitioner met its burden of proof by a preponderance of
the evidence as to specific administrative compliance violations alleged in the
Administrative Complaint. Competent, substantial evidence established that

21
Respondents committed administrative noncompliance by improperly
possessing, accessing, and managing parents’ EMA portal accounts and
credentials in violation of section 1002.421(1)(f), and by inaccurately
attesting to compliance on SCF submissions prescribed by rule 6A-6.03315.
Additionally, the evidence proved that TAI failed to satisfy mandatory
minimum operating requirements by falling short of the required 180 school
days and 900 net instructional hours, in violation of rule 6A-1.09512(1)
and (2). However, Petitioner failed to carry its burden of proving the
remaining, more severe charges in the Administrative Complaint—
specifically failing to prove that Respondents committed actionable
fraud or operated contrary to the health, safety, or welfare of the public
under section 1002.421(3)(e) or committed statutory violations under
section 1002.421(1)(i). Accordingly, Respondents’ culpability is confined to
these discrete, remediable administrative and regulatory infractions.
Penalty
77. Under section 1002.421(3)(c), the Commissioner is vested with
discretionary authority to permanently revoke an owner, officer, or director’s
authority to operate a private school and place the individual on the
Department’s disqualification list. This severe remedy represents the
ultimate administrative sanction, permanently extinguishing an individual’s
livelihood. In the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner sought this
permanent bar based primarily on allegations of fraud and operation
contrary to public health, safety, and welfare under section 1002.421(3)(e)1.
and 3. However, as concluded above, Respondents neither committed fraud,
had scienter, nor operated the schools in a manner endangering public
health, safety, or welfare.
78. While the competent, substantial evidence does establish Respondents’
administrative noncompliance with section 1002.421(1)(f) (concerning
parental EMA approval processes) and rule 6A-1.09512 (concerning
minimum net instructional hours), these infractions must be evaluated in

22
their total operational context and weighed against substantial mitigating
factors:
• Absence of Prior Disciplinary History: Tunsil has operated
participating scholarship schools for nearly a decade without prior
administrative discipline or formal sanctions from the Department.
• Lack of Fraudulent Intent or Financial Diversion: There is no
evidence in the record that scholarship funds were stolen, embezzled,
diverted to unauthorized personal use, or applied to anything other than
standard student tuition and educational overhead.
• Bona Fide Educational Delivery: Rather than maintaining a mere
shell or storefront entity, Tunsil maintained physical classroom facilities,
employed teaching personnel, delivered daily academic instruction, provided
essential credit-recovery coursework, and served primarily minority student
populations in historically underserved communities.
• Verified Student Outcomes: The schools achieved measurable
educational milestones, culminating in June 2026 with approximately
151 high school graduates between MIA and LBS, approximately 80 percent
of whom matriculated to post-secondary colleges or universities.
79. Under Florida administrative jurisprudence, administrative discipline
must be proportional to the offense, and regulatory agencies should favor
progressive, remedial discipline over permanent occupational expulsion
where the violations are technical or remediable and devoid of corrupt intent.
Because the proven infractions stem from mismanaged compliance protocols
rather than fraudulent conversion or student endangerment, permanent
disqualification under section 1002.421(3)(c) is unwarranted and punitive.
Therefore, Tunsil should not be permanently barred from Florida private
school ownership or operation but should instead be afforded the opportunity
to seek reauthorization upon demonstrating verified, full regulatory
compliance.

23
80. Additionally, because Petitioner failed to establish that Tunsil
committed fraud or operated the schools contrary to the health, safety, or
welfare of the public under section 1002.421(3)(e)1., the statutory
prerequisites for permanent debarment under section 1002.421(3)(c) are not
satisfied. Placement on the disqualification list maintained pursuant to
section 1001.10(4)(b), Florida Statutes, is an extraordinary, permanent penal
sanction reserved for egregious misconduct, not remediable administrative
noncompliance. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request to permanently disqualify
Tunsil and include his name on the Department’s disqualification list under
section 1001.10(4)(b) must be denied.
81. With respect to Gregory Tunsil, section 1002.421(3)(b) authorizes the
Commissioner to suspend or revoke a private school’s scholarship eligibility if
an “owner or operator” operates an educational institution contrary to public
health, safety, or welfare, or exhibits a pattern of statutory noncompliance.
To determine individual exposure under this provision, subsection (3)(b)
expressly adopts the statutory definition set forth in subsection (1)(p), which
defines an “owner or operator” as an owner, operator, superintendent,
principal, or someone with “equivalent decisionmaking authority over” the
school. § 1002.421(1)(p), Fla. Stat.
82. The record evidence in this proceeding fails to establish that Gregory
Tunsil falls within this statutory definition. To the contrary, Petitioner
explicitly stipulated in Section E.b. of the Pre-Hearing Stipulation that
Gregory Tunsil served solely as a passive financial investor without
operational involvement in TAI, MIA, or LBS. A passive investor possessing
no executive, administrative, or supervisory control lacks the requisite
“decisionmaking authority over” school operations or scholarship
administration mandated by section 1002.421(1)(p). Because Gregory Tunsil
does not qualify as an “owner or operator” under the plain language of the
statute, and the evidentiary record is devoid of any personal act, omission, or
oversight attributable to him, Petitioner failed to prove any statutory basis

24
for disciplinary action against him. All charges against Gregory Tunsil
individually must be dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION
Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that Dr. Henry Mack, as Commissioner of Education,
enter a final order:
1. SUSPENDING the current scholarship program eligibility of
Tallahassee Academy International, Miami International Academy, and
Lenora Brown School Academy, WITH LEAVE TO REAPPLY for future
academic years upon demonstrating full regulatory compliance;
2. SUSPENDING Michael Tunsil from participating as an owner or
operator in state scholarship programs for a period of one academic year (the
remainder of the 2026-2027 school year), with leave for Michael Tunsil and
the subject institutions (Tallahassee Academy International, Miami
International Academy, and Lenora Brown School Academy) to reapply for
private school scholarship program eligibility for the 2027-2028 academic
year upon submission of a comprehensive corrective compliance plan
demonstrating:
(a) strict compliance with net instructional hour mandates pursuant to
rule 6A-1.09512, excluding lunch and passing intervals; and
(b) independent third-party information technology authentication
protocols verifying that school personnel possess no parental EMA login
credentials, passwords, or MFA routing mechanisms;
3. DENYING Petitioner’s request to permanently disqualify Michael
Tunsil from private school ownership or operation and REJECTING his
inclusion on the Department’s disqualification list maintained pursuant to
section 1001.10(4)(b); and

25
Case No. 26-1542SP
4. DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE all administrative charges and
proposed disciplinary sanctions against Gregory Tunsil individually.
DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 2026, in Tallahassee,
Leon County, Florida.
S
JUNE C. MCKINNEY
Administrative Law Judge
DOAH Tallahassee Office
Division of Administrative Hearings
2001 Drayton Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32311
(850) 488-9675
www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the
Division of Administrative Hearings
this 12th day of October, 2026.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Michael Barrett, General Counsel
(eServed)
James Leigh Richmond, Esquire
(eServed)
Dr. Henry Mack, Commissioner of Education
(eServed)
Laura Maria Marino, Esquire
(eServed)
Christian Emerson, Agency Clerk
(eServed)
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 10 days from
the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended
Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this
case.