09-003004TTS Duval County School Board vs. Edna Bowman Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, January 12, 2010.

Summary: Petitioner proved professional incompetence in a number of instructional areas, as well as failure to cooperate with improvement plan. Recommend termination for cause proven.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 09-3004

)

EDNA BOWMAN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

After appropriate notice this cause came on for formal

hearing before P. Michael Ruff, duly-designated Administrative

Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The

hearing was conducted in Jacksonville, Florida, on October 26,

2009. The appearances were as follows:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: David J. D'Agata

Assistant General Counsel

General Counsel's Office

City of Jacksonville

117 West Duval Street, Suite 480

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

For Respondent: Edna Jane Bowman, pro se

1043 Talbot Avenue

Jacksonville, Florida 32205

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent, Edna Jane Bowman, should be terminated

from her position as a teacher with the Duval County School

Board (DCSB) for good cause, based on alleged incompetence, as

that status is defined at Section 4(e) of the Duval County

Teacher Tenure Act, Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as

amended (Tenure Act).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case arose when the Respondent was informed, by a

Notice of Discharge, that her employment as a teacher for the

DCSB was terminated. The notice was issued May 7, 2009, and was

based upon alleged professional incompetencies defined in

Section 4(e) of the Tenure Act. The Notice of Discharge was

predicated upon the Respondents' receiving two consecutive

unsatisfactory annual evaluations, from two different

principals, at two different schools, for the school years 2007-

2008 and 2008-2009, as well as the issues which culminated in

those unsatisfactory evaluations.

Upon being informed of the discharge, the Respondent

elected to have the matter referred to the Division of

Administrative Hearings for adjudication of a formal dispute by

which she contested the Board's decision. The Respondent

contends that her termination was not truly based upon poor

performance, but rather was the product of the Board's

retaliation against her for being "out-spoken" and publicly

critical of the School Board, as well as certain administrators.

The cause came on for hearing as noticed on the above date.

The Petitioner presented the following witnesses: Addison

Davis, former principal of Jefferson Davis Middle School

(Jefferson Davis); Leslie Sarjeant, an instructional coach, also

formerly assigned to Jefferson Davis; Latanya McNeal, principal

of Southside Middle School (Southside); and John Williams,

Director of the Board's Office of Professional Standards. The

Petitioner offered and had 23 exhibits admitted into evidence.

The Respondent presented no witnesses at the hearing but

did testify on her own behalf. The Respondent had 29 exhibits

admitted into evidence, as identified in the index at pages 196-

199 of the Transcript of this proceeding.

Upon conclusion of the hearing the parties elected to

obtain a transcript thereof and to file proposed recommended

orders. By agreement of the parties, proposed recommended

orders were due 20 days after the filing of the transcript. The

Transcript was filed on November 17, 2009. The proposed

recommended orders were therefore due on December 7, 2009. The

Proposed Recommended Orders were timely filed and have been

considered in the rendition of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Respondent has been a full-time "tenured" teacher

for the School Board during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school

years and for a total of 28 years. She is certified by the

State Department of Education in the area of Social Studies,

grades five through nine, as well as other fields such has

History (grades six through twelve). Like other teachers in the

School District, her performance was evaluated annually by the

principals of the schools where she taught.

2. During the relevant school years, referenced above, the

Teacher Assessment System (TAS) was the primary method used for

evaluating teachers. John Williams has 39 years of experience

in the field of K through 12 education and is the Board's

Director of Professional Standards. He is familiar with the TAS

and manages the District level officials who are responsible for

proper administration of the TAS in teacher evaluation.

3. The TAS measures teaching performance based on nine

different "Competencies." These include:

A. Promotes student growth and performance.

B. Evaluates instructional needs of

students.

C. Plans and delivers effective

instruction.

D. Shows knowledge of subject matter.

E. Utilizes appropriate classroom

management techniques, including the ability

to maintain appropriate discipline.

F. Shows sensitivity to student needs by

maintaining a positive school environment.

G. Communicates with parents.

H. Pursues professional growth.

I. Demonstrates professional behaviors.

( See Petitioner's Exhibit 22, in evidence).

4. Teachers are evaluated by a school administrator,

typically the principal, based on two formal classroom

observations, which are announced to the teacher ahead of time.

The Teacher Assessment Instrument (TAI) is used to collect data

and identify indicators associated with each competency

criterion. In evaluating a teacher's performance,

administrators or principals may also employ informal,

unannounced observations and use the results thus obtained in

evaluating the teacher's performance. The "Evaluation of

Professional Growth of Teacher" is an evaluation form used

during the final annual evaluation conference. The form

reflects the teacher's final rating as to each competency area

and also reflects the teacher's overall performance rating for

the school year.

5. The TAS delineates the steps in conducting a

performance assessment or evaluation of the teacher beginning

with an instructional session and a pre-observation conference

and then proceeding with the observation process.

6. If a teacher demonstrates deficient performance in any

competency area, a "success plan" is written in collaboration

with the teacher. Although the success plan may be implemented

at any time, it must be implemented by February 1st of a given

school year for teachers who have the potential to receive an

overall annual rating of "unsatisfactory."

7. A success plan identifies areas of weakness by

competency category, sets out objectives to be achieved, and

provides timelines to meet those objectives. A success plan

team is assembled and, in addition to the teacher, it is

typically composed of school administrators, teachers with

expertise in a subject matter that the deficient teacher is

struggling with, and "resources teachers" or "coaches." The

various steps and procedures in conducting a success plan and

success plan team effort is delineated in the TAS, shown in

Petitioner's Exhibit 22, in evidence.

8. Ms. Bowman worked at Jefferson Davis Middle School

(Jefferson Davis) during the 2007-2008 school year. Mr. Addison

Davis was principal of Jefferson Davis.

9. Mr. Davis made multiple informal observations of

Ms. Bowman's teaching and provided her with his opinions, based

on his observations, including concerns he had about a lack of

lesson plans and failure to implement a District-wide "workshop

model." The workshop model requires classroom activities where

small groups of students work collaboratively to complete an

activity or project and achieve certain curriculum student

standards. Mr. Davis explained that model is particularly

effective for students whose primary language is not English.

Several of such students were assigned to Ms. Bowman's classes

during that school year.

10. Principal Davis also noted that the Respondent did not

provide students with academic and behavioral expectations, did

not adequately assess student performance and failed to use

student portfolios. He opined that he observed a disconnection

between student needs and the instruction provided, intended to

serve those needs.

11. Mr. Davis also observed a lack of instruction in some

instances, in which students were directed to sit down, be

quiet, or read portions of a text book. Due to observed

deficiencies, a Success Plan was put into place on November 8,

2007, with Ms. Bowman's input. The Success Plan outlined areas

of weakness, objectives toward improvements in those areas, with

timelines.

12. The Success Team included experienced teaching coaches

who were available to model appropriate instruction for

Ms. Bowman on several occasions. Ms. Bowman opposed the Success

Plan, viewing it as unnecessary, essentially as harassment by

the School District's administration. She failed to attend any

of the bi-weekly meetings which were held throughout the entire

school year.

13. Mr. Davis also conducted two formal observations on

December 10, 2007 and January 30, 2008. He met with Ms. Bowman

before each formal observation to set a date for the observation

and to discuss the lesson plan to be observed. They discussed

the data related to the lesson plan, showing the relevance of

the lesson to student needs and showing how student learning

would be assessed. Ms. Bowman, however, failed to provide any

assessment data, and, in lieu of that information, she submitted

a "District Learning Guide" from three years past, which was not

sufficiently related to the 2007-2008 curriculum.

14. During the formal observation, Mr. Davis witnessed a

period of 25 to 30 minutes during class time when there was no

instruction. He saw students asleep at their desks and some

arguing between the teacher and several students. He observed

that there was a continuing failure to implement the "Workshop

Model" and to provide students with academic and behavioral

expectations. He saw a lack of assessment of student

performance and a failure to use student portfolios. There was

a continued disconnection between student needs and the

instruction being given, supposedly to serve their needs.

15. Mr. Davis gave the Respondent a number of warnings

about the above-referenced deficiencies, based upon his

observations, and their post-observation conferences. He

encouraged the Respondent to participate in her Success Plan but

she continued to refuse to cooperate.

16. Ms. Leslie Sarjeant was an instructional coach and

Success Team Member. She corroborated the fact that Ms. Bowman

rejected the Success Plan process and did not participate.

Rather than participating in the Success Plan for her own

remediation Ms. Sarjeant described Ms. Bowman as railing against

what she believed were the ill motives of the DCSB in

criticizing her performance and embarking on the Success Plan

process, which she believed was a pre-conceived effort to

terminate her.

17. The TAI forms completed by Principal Davis, and others

completed by Assistant Principal Torrence, showed Ms. Bowman's

failure to demonstrate competencies in promoting student growth

and performance, evaluating instructional needs, and planning

and delivering effective instruction. Mr. Davis then issued a

"Notice of Potential Unsatisfactory Performance" to the

Respondent on January 2, 2008.

18. The evaluation of the Respondent was issued on

January 31, 2008, reflecting unsatisfactory performance in the

following competency areas: promoting student growth and

performance, planning and delivering effective instruction, and

demonstrating professional behaviors.

19. Mr. John Williams, a District administrator, issued a

formal Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance on May 7, 2008. In

accordance with DCSB policy, after a first such unsatisfactory

rating, he gave the Respondent the option to transfer to another

school. Ms. Bowman elected to transfer to Southside Middle

School, to teach seventh grade Social Studies and Geography for

the following school year, 2008-2009.

20. Ms. Bowman introduced a satisfactory evaluation of her

teaching by Principal Davis, for the school year 2005-2006, in

order to attack his credibility concerning the testimony about

the unsatisfactory performance. This evaluation was done

shortly after Principal Davis had been assigned to Jefferson

Davis, in December of 2005. She maintained that he changed his

opinion only after she wrote a letter to a local newspaper

critical of DCSB administration, concerning certain policies

regarding student attendance, discipline, promotion, etc. She

did not, however, criticize DCSB administrators, and

particularly not Principal Davis personally. This contention is

not persuasive because Ms. Bowman, in past years, had also made

similar accusations that other school administrators/principals

had retaliated against her by the use of performance

evaluations. She, for instance, raised concerns in a memorandum

to the DCSB's human resources office in which she contended that

the administration was using her evaluations, in 2004, as a

means of retaliation.

21. The contention that Principal Davis was retaliating

against her at Jefferson Davis Middle School because she wrote

the letter to the local newspaper is less than credible,

inasmuch as these other complaints as to retaliation, as to her

past evaluations, arose in earlier school years (2004-2005), and

the other referenced events at Jefferson Davis Middle School

occurred before Principal Davis was ever assigned to that

school.

22. The principal at Southside Middle School (Southside)

during 2008-2009 school year was Ms. Latanya McNeal. She has 14

years of experience in education, with eight years as a school

administrator. Because the Respondent received an

unsatisfactory evaluation for the prior year, and in light of

her early observations of Ms. Bowman, Ms. McNeal initiated a

Professional Development Plan (PDP) on August 28, 2008. Ms.

Bowman signed acknowledgement of that plan.

23. The PDP stressed the importance of: (a) maintaining

and developing lesson plans based on student data/assessment of

needs; (b) maintaining and using classroom materials tied to

academic standards; (c) effectively using portfolios containing

student work tied to curriculum and academic standards; and (d)

continuous use of the workshop model.

24. Although these were announced ahead of time, and

despite Ms. Bowman's knowledge of the PDP and the Southside

Classroom Observation Checklist, outlining duties she should

perform, two subsequent informal observations on September 3,

2008, and September 24, 2008, revealed little progress toward

the goals stated in the PDP.

25. The observation checklists and "observation follow-up

forms" for each observation showed the following deficiencies:

(a) "teacher needs to plan lessons that align to the standard";

(b) "no instruction, students given worksheets, no connection to

standard or text"; (c) "no workshop model, no evidence of

portfolios"; (d) "no evidence of instruction"; (e) "presents a

negative student/teacher environment . . .".

26. After observation of these deficiencies on these

occasions, a Success Plan for the Respondent was created and

initiated on November 3, 2008. The Success Plan included all

the concerns outlined in the PDP and focused on data-driven

instruction, use of portfolios, assessment of student needs,

measurement and explanation of student progress, and use of the

CHAMPS program. The CHAMPS program is classroom management

program used through out the School District. All teachers,

including the Respondent, have been trained in its use.

27. A "Success Plan Team" was established, consisting of

Principal McNeal, other administrators and teachers, as well as

a reading coach and an instructional coach. Regularly scheduled

meetings were announced, held, and attended by most members of

the team.

28. The Respondent did not cooperate with the efforts of

the Success Plan Team. At the first meeting she refused to

speak about the plan, but insisted upon discussing and

discrediting the evaluations of her by Principal McNeal. The

Respondent was provided training and technical support with two

computer programs, Compass Odyssey and FCAT Explorer. These are

used to assess student needs and to track student progress.

Despite the training and the need to use data to drive

instruction, the Respondent never used either program or other

student assessment programs. She acknowledged and expressed

appreciation for the support and assistance provided to her by

the Success Team members, but rejected the idea that instruction

can be individualized based on student needs. The Respondent

also failed to institute a portfolio system and refused to

observe another teacher conducting a teacher-parent conference.

As of January 30, 2009, five months into the school year, the

Respondent had not yet submitted a five-day lesson plan, as

required of every teacher at Southside. After conclusion of the

Success Plan; Ms. Bowman complained that she was being singled

out for purposes of termination.

29. Although the Success Plan was noted as completed on

February 25, 2009, Ms. Bowman did not integrate the plans,

strategies, or objectives into her classroom instruction.

30. Principal McNeal conducted two formal observations on

December 22, 2008, and March 11, 2009. Before each formal

observation she met with the Respondent to identify a date for a

formal observation and to discuss the lesson plan to be

observed, the data tied to it, showing student needs, the

relevance of the lesson, and how student learning would be

assessed. Implementation and use of portfolios, small group

workshop models, and the CHAMPS program were also discussed.

31. During the formal observations, Principal McNeal

observed and documented on the TAI forms that no evidence of

student portfolios existed. There was no evidence of

differentiated/workshop instruction or data to guide

instruction. There were incomplete grade books and no

assessment of learning.

32. There was no evidence of use of the CHAMPS program and

it was noted that the Respondent engaged in "shouting matches"

with students. She allowed one student to sleep throughout the

observation, only to yell "wakeup" at the student when someone

came to the door to pick the student up.

33. A progress report, dated March 5, 2009, shows that a

substantial number of Ms. Bowman's students were failing. The

progress report shows that her students had only three graded

items from January through March 5, 2009. One of these was an

undefined "extra credit" entry.

34. In her first class she had 16 students. Five of those

students had F's and two had D's. In her second class she had

24 students with 13 having F's and two with D's. In another

class of 28 students, nine had F's, four had D's, and two had no

grades at all. See Petitioner's Supplemental Exhibits 32 and

33, in evidence.

35. Although Principal McNeal discussed these and other

concerns with Ms. Bowman, at the post-observation meetings, her

concerns were unaddressed.

36. Ample opportunity was given the Respondent during that

school year to take part in training and workshops. The

absentee report showed that 14 of Ms. Bowman's absences that

school year were taken for training and workshops. She was also

given the opportunity to have instructional and reading coaches

come into her class, prepare lesson plans with her and model

instruction for her. According to Ms. McNeal, however, as well

as Instructional Coach Shakethia Butler, the Respondent rejected

the idea of collaborating with others in planning and

instruction.

37. On March 13, 2009, Principal McNeal issued the

Respondent's evaluation for the year. It showed unsatisfactory

performance as to the following competencies: (a) promotes

student growth and performance; (b) evaluates instructional

needs of students; (e) utilizes appropriate classroom management

techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate

discipline; (f) shows sensitivity to student needs by

maintaining a positive school environment; and (g) communicates

with parents.

38. The Respondent received and signed that annual

evaluation, but did not accept its contents and wrote a notation

on the document to the effect that the evaluation was done on

the second day of the FCAT testing and that the principal had

not followed the evaluation schedule. However, both the

Director of Professional Standards, John Williams, as well as

Principal McNeal, established that observations are permitted on

FCAT test days and that the FCAT had only been administered in

the morning. That left the Respondent with more than three

hours of instructional time in the afternoon during which she

could be observed. Moreover, the conference form signed by

Ms. Bowman on March 6, 2009, indicated her agreement with and

approval of the March 11, 2009, observation date.

39. As was the case with Principal Davis, the Respondent

attacked the credibility of Principal McNeal, and the evaluation

she prepared, with the argument that the evaluations were a

pretext for retaliation against her based upon her "outspoken

attitude."

40. Ms. Bowman's work history shows a pattern of similar

accusations of retaliation against several other principals at

other schools where she taught. Thus, she accused the principal

at Eugene Butler Middle School of giving her poor evaluations

based upon "lies and revenge." She made accusations that she

was retaliated against regarding matters concerning her

evaluation for "being outspoken" and complained of being treated

unfairly and harassed while at James Weldon Johnson Middle

School. She accused the principal at yet another school,

(J.E.B. Stuart Middle School) of conjuring up false evaluations

of her based upon race discrimination, because, as she testified

at hearing, discrimination had occurred "because everyone

involved was African-American." She also made complaints, as

found above, regarding her 2004-2005 teacher evaluations at

Jefferson Davis Middle School as being based on retaliation.

This was before Principal Davis was assigned to that school.

41. In summary, the Respondent has demonstrated the above-

found deficiencies in the competency areas referenced. This

ultimately resulted in the two successive unsatisfactory

evaluations, in two successive school years. The parties have

stipulated that, under the Tenure Act, two successive

unsatisfactory annual evaluations can provide grounds for

termination of employment as a teacher. Moreover, when the

above-found plans and efforts to help the Respondent improve her

performance were inaugurated, the Respondent fairly consistently

refused to cooperate with that performance improvement process.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

42. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties to this

proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2009).

43. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof of just cause

for termination in this case by the standard of preponderance of

the evidence. Sublett v. Sumter County School Board , 664 So. 2d

1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); McNeill v. Pinellas County School

Board , 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1996). The Petitioner thus

had the burden to prove that the Respondent committed the

offenses or the deficiencies found and charged and that those

constituted professional incompetence See Ferris v.

Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987); Ferris v. Austin , 487

So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

44. The parties have stipulated that the Respondent's

employment is governed by the Tenure Act, referenced above, and

have stipulated that two successive unsatisfactory annual

evaluations can provide grounds for termination of employment as

a teacher.

45. The Petitioner has contended that the Respondent

should be discharged from her teaching position "for cause," as

that term is defined by the Tenure Act, on the basis of

"professional incompetence." See Section 4(e), Duval County

Teacher Tenure Act, Laws of Florida, Chapter 21197 (1941) (as

amended). The term "incompetency," as defined in the Florida

Administrative Code, has been accepted as persuasive in

determining incompetency under the above-referenced Tenure Act.

School Board of Duval County v. Smith , Case No. 89-4132 (DOAH

Aug. 1990). Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009 states in

pertinent part:

(1) Incompetency is defined as inability or

lack of fitness to discharge the required

duty as a result of inefficiency or

incapacity. . . . [a finding of incompetence

may be based on] a preponderance of evidence

showing the existence of one or more of the

following:

(a) Inefficiency:

(1) repeated failure to perform duties

prescribed by law;

(2) repeated failure on the part of a

teacher to communicate with and relate to

children in the classroom, to such an extent

that pupils are deprived of minimum

educational experience; or

(3) repeated failure on the part of an

administrator or supervisor to communicate

with and relate to teachers under his or her

supervision to such an extent that the

educational program for which he or she is

responsible is seriously impaired.

(b) Incapacity:

(1) lack of emotional stability;

(2) lack of adequate physical ability;

(3) lack of general educational

background; or

(4) lack of adequate command of his or

her area of specialization.

46. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-5.004 sets out the

"minimal standards of the education profession in Florida." It

requires teachers to:

(2) Select, adapt or develop, and sequence

instructional materials and activities for

the designated set of instructional

objectives and student needs.

(3) Create interest through the use of

materials and techniques appropriate to the

varying abilities and backgrounds of

students.

(4) Use individual student interests and

abilities when planning and implementing

instruction.

(5) Make assignment of tasks and duties

consistent with individual abilities and

specialties.

47. Professional incompetence is demonstrated by the

following examples:

1. Failure to adequately prepare and plan

for instruction of students. See Turlington

v. Reaves , 9 FALR 1371 (1986) (giving

assignments without proper explanation of

the assignment contributed to a finding of

incompetency).

2. Failure to employ appropriate

disciplinary techniques suitable to the

particular situation. See Turlington v.

Reaves , supra ; Turlington v. Walker , 9 FALR

2305 (1987) (inability to control the

behavior of disruptive students within the

class constituted incompetence) Department

of Education v. Ferrara , 10 FALR 5766 (1987)

(inability to handle discipline problems

revealed teacher incompetence).

3. The failure to utilize adequate

techniques of instruction in the classroom.

Turlington v. Reaves , supra ; Department of

Education v. Ferrara , supra ;(failure to

provide stimulative and varied learning

experiences shows incompetence); Castor v.

Brewer , 9 FALR 5339 (1987) (teaching

technique consisting primarily of giving

students a reading assignment and having

them answer questions in class demonstrates

incompetence); Department of Education v.

Marshall , 10 FALR 4303 (1987) (failure to

use more than one teaching technique shows

incompetence).

4. The failure to create a classroom

environment conducive to learning.

Turlington v. Walker , supra .

5. The failure to maintain proper

supervision of students in the classroom is

incompetence. Turlington v. Walker , supra ;

Castor v. Perry , 9 FALR 5291 (1987) (off-

task students supported finding of

professional incompetence).

48. The Tenure Act, cited above, mandates that a teacher

first be given fair written notice containing a clear and

detailed statement on which the claim of incompetence is based.

The teacher must be given at least one opportunity to transfer

to a new school, and adequate opportunities throughout one

school year for in-service training, tailored to the correction

of the alleged areas of incompetence, before a teacher may be

discharged for professional incompetence. The persuasive

evidence clearly shows that the Respondent was given those

opportunities required by the Tenure Act. Just as importantly,

the Tenure Act requires teachers to cooperate and make a fair

attempt to participate in such training.

49. The Petitioner provided the Respondent ample notice of

her instructional short-comings and provided her ample

opportunities to improve and correct them. The Respondent

simply failed to cooperate. She refused to participate in her

own success plan at Jefferson Davis Middle School in the 2007-

2008 school year. She also resisted and failed to participate,

in a substantial way, in her success plan at Southside Middle

School in the following year.

50. The deficiencies shown in the above Findings of Fact

meet the various standards for demonstrating professional

incompetence referenced above. Moreover, the Respondent

received two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations, for the two

consecutive school years in question. Therefore, preponderant,

persuasive evidence has established that she has demonstrated

professional incompetence and that the Petitioner has shown good

cause for her termination.

51. Sadly, this result, after a 28-year career with the

Petitioner School District, might have been avoided had the

Respondent not continually attacked the motives of those who

were critical of her performance. Rather, had she taken the

criticism seriously, made a good faith effort to use the

additional training to adequately address the perceived problems

with her performance, and restore her career to a proper

professional plane, the outcome may have been different.

Unfortunately, that effort did not occur.

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and

demeanor of the witnesses and pleadings and arguments of the

parties, it is, therefore,

RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Duval

County School Board terminating the Respondent's employment as a

teacher.

DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2010, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

P. MICHAEL RUFF

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 12th day of January, 2010.

COPIES FURNISHED :

David J. D'Agata

Assistant General Counsel

General Counsel's Office

City of Jacksonville

117 West Duval Street, Suite 480

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Edna Jane Bowman

1043 Talbot Avenue

Jacksonville, Florida 32205

Ed Pratt-Daniels, Superintendent

Duval County School Board

1701 Prudential Drive

Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 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.