01-001724RU Florida Education Association vs. Department Of Education Status: Closed DOAH Final Order on Wednesday, July 25, 2001.

Summary: January 22, 2001, and March 23, 2001, memoranda of Department of Education do not constitute unpromulgated rules of that agency. "Responsible instructor data element" is not a rule under Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 01-1724RU

)

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, )

)

Respondent. )

__________________________________ )

FINAL ORDER

A final hearing was conducted in this case on the stipulated

date of June 4, 2001, in Tallahassee, Florida, before Ella Jane

P. Davis, a duly-assigned Administrative Law Judge of the

Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Mark F. Kelly, Esquire

Kelly & McKee, P.A.

1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301

Post Office Box 75638

Tampa, Florida 33675-0638

Pamela L. Cooper, Esquire

Florida Education Association

118 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700

For Respondent: Margaret O'Sullivan Parker, Esquire

Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Petitioner Florida Education Association (FEA) filed a

Petition to require Respondent Department of Education (DOE) to

initiate rule-making and has challenged the validity of two

documents issued by DOE, alleging that they are unpromulgated

rules. The challenged documents are a January 22, 2001,

memorandum to District Management Information System Coordinators

and District Assessment Coordinators and a March 23, 2001,

memorandum to District School Superintendents, regarding

"Responsible Instructor--Reading, Writing, and Mathematics."

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Petition herein was filed on May 4, 2001.

DOE has, in fact, adopted several rules to implement Sections

229.555 and 229.57, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, at the

commencement of final hearing, Petitioner moved, without

opposition, to amend its Petition to delete a contrary

allegation. The motion was granted.

Petitioner and Respondent had four joint exhibits admitted in

evidence. Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Michael

Monroe and Rob McMahon. Respondent presented the oral testimony

of Garnet Lavan Dukes, Jr., and Thomas Fisher.

Respondent's unopposed motion for official recognition of

Rules 6A-1.09401, 6A-1.0941, 6A-1.0942, 6A-1.09421, 6A-1.09422,

6A-1.09981, 6A-6.09091, 6A-10.042, 6A-1.0011, 6A-1.0014, and

6A-10.024, Florida Administrative Code, and The Environmental

Trust v. State Department of Environmental Protection , 714 So. 2d

493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), was granted.

A Transcript was filed on June 15, 2001. The parties'

timely-filed Proposed Final Orders have been considered.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner FEA is an employee association representing

over 100,000 Florida educators for collective bargaining,

representation in administrative and legal proceedings,

professional development, and political activity. Its standing

to bring this challenge was stipulated.

2. T wo DOE memoranda are challenged herein as unpromulgated

rules. It was stipulated that the memoranda were, in fact,

disseminated to the recipients indicated on them. Their content

is not at issue and is recited in Findings of Fact 23-25, infra .

3. Petitioner's witnesses believe that teacher evaluations

and compensation ultimately will be tied to student performance.

A law is already in place providing for the award of bonuses to

"outstanding" teachers, and efforts to implement evaluation of

teachers based on student performance are underway in some school

districts. Petitioner's witnesses have concluded that the

challenged memoranda establish statewide criteria for identifying

the "responsible instructor" for teacher (or educator)

assessment, credit, and/or monetary rewards, and that the use of

the "responsible instructor's" social security numbers will be

subject to abuse of confidentiality.

4. Petitioner's witnesses were unaware of rulemaking

activities associated with amending Rule 6A-1.0014, Florida

Administrative Code, in the year 2000 and were unfamiliar with

the Rule itself. The Rule itself has not been challenged in this

proceeding.

5. The Commissioner of Education is charged with

maintaining an integrated information system for educational

management. Section 229.555(2), Florida Statutes. This is

called the Comprehensive Management Information System. The

system must collect data from school districts to determine

student, school, and district performance, and to support

management decisions at the departmental, district, and school

levels. The Commissioner of Education's responsibilities include

providing operational definitions for the proposed system

(Section 229.555(2)(a)2., Florida Statutes), determining

information and data elements required for management decisions

(Section 229.555(2)(a)3., Florida Statutes) and developing

standardized terminology and procedures. (Section

229.555(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes).

6. Section 229.57, Florida Statutes, establishes the

purpose, scope, and criteria of assessing student performance,

and school and district accountability.

7. The State Board of Education is authorized to adopt

rules to administer the provisions of both laws. Sections

229.555(3) and 229.57, Florida Statutes.

8. DOE's Bureau of Education, Information, and

Accountability Services maintains the database established by

Section 229.555, Florida Statutes.

9. DOE has promulgated administrative rules to implement

Section 229.555, Florida Statutes, which rules have been

officially recognized for this proceeding.

10. There is no DOE rule which, in and of itself, refers to

"responsible instructor" or "responsible instructor data

element." Those terms also are not specifically used anywhere in

the Florida Statutes.

11. Section 229 .57(11)(e)1., Florida Statutes, was amended,

effective upon becoming law in June 1999 (see Section 7, Session

Law 99-398), to read:

The statistical system shall use measures of

student learning, such as the FCAT, to

determine teacher, school and school district

statistical distributions, which

distributions:

1. Shall be determined using available data

from the FCAT, and other data collection as

deemed appropriate by the Department of

Education, to measure the differences in

student prior year achievement against the

current year achievement or lack thereof,

such that the "effects" of instruction to a

student by a teacher, school, and school

district may be estimated on a per-student

and constant basis.

12. DOE considered that amendment to be a legislative

directive to DOE to measure the "effects" of instruction by a

teacher, school, and district, using data from the Florida

Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) "and other data collection

as deemed appropriate by the Department of Education."

13. Upon that basis, DOE set out to determine what method

to use to collect the data. After considering various

alternatives, DOE selected the "responsible instructor" approach.

14. DOE held workshops and solicited input to determine the

appropriate method of implementing the requirements of Section

229.57(11)(e)1., Florida Statutes. Three methodologies were

considered: Using existing Management Information System

components which were not adequate to meet the new statutory

language; doing laborious surveys on the day each FCAT was

administered, which surveys would be accurate only for that

single day; or using the responsible instructor element.

Ultimately, the responsible instructor element was selected by

Lavan Dukes and Thomas Fisher after talking to District

Management Information System officials and testing officials and

key staff members. Lavan Dukes is DOE's Bureau Chief for

Education, Information, and Accountability Services. Thomas

Fisher is Administrator of DOE's Assessment and Evaluation

Section.

15. T he "responsible instructor element" was first

applicable to the 2000-2001 school year.

16. The "responsible instructor element" was first included

within the Comprehensive Management Information System in

April 2000, effective July 2000. It provides a four-page form

for reporting and the following instructions:

1. Submit only for Survey Period 2 for all

students in grades 3-10 to identify teacher

primarily responsible for instructing the

student in reading, writing end mathematics.

2. Report Social Security Numbers for

instructors in each of the categories,

reading, writing and mathematics.

3. ELEMENTARY SELF-CONTAINED: Social

Security Numbers of teachers of students in

elementary self-contained classes may be

reported in all three responsible instructor

categories.

4. MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL LANGUAGE ARTS:

unless a student has separate reading and

writing classes, the language arts teacher

would be reported for both the reading and

writing category.

5. KEY FIELDS: the key fields for this

format are item numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

If a key field needs to be changed, the

record must be deleted and resubmitted as an

add. (Joint Exhibit 4)

17. As such, the "responsible instructor element" became

part of a voluminous publication entitled 2000-2001 Automated

Student Information System, Volume 1 ("The Manual"). (Joint

Exhibit 3).

18. Rule 6A-1.0014, Florida Administrative Code, prescribes

data collection on an annual basis. The Rule was initially

adopted in 1987. It has been amended 13 times between

December 21, 1987, and October 17, 2000.

19. Among other things, Rule 6A-1.0014, Florida

Administrative Code, now incorporates, by reference, 2000-2001

Automated Student Information System, Volume 1 ("The Manual").

The collection of the "responsible instructor element" is

contained for the first time in that publication as an automated

student reporting format.

20. Rule 6A-1.0014, Florida Administrative Code, cites as

its legislative authority only Sections 228.093(3)(d),

229.555(2), 229.565.(3), and 229.781, Florida Statutes, and does

not expressly purport to implement Section 229.57, Florida

Statutes. Rule 6A-1.09422, pertaining to the creation,

administration, and security of the FCAT, and Rule 6A-1.09981,

involving implementation of Florida's system of school

improvement and accountability do name Section 229.57, Florida

Statutes.

21. The evidence further shows that after the data element

was included in the Rule, revised in October 2000, DOE staff

conducted workshops around the state to explain and clarify

changes in DOE's database requirements.

22. Only after receiving input at its instructional

workshops did DOE circulate the two memoranda at issue herein.

23. On January 22, 2001, DOE promulgated a memorandum from

Lavan Dukes and Thomas Fisher to District Management Information

System Coordinators and District Assessment Coordinators

throughout Florida. The memorandum's stated subject was

"Responsible Instructor Data Element," and it states:

Previously, you were given instructions by

the Department 's Education Information and

Accountability Services Bureau relative to a

new data element called "Responsible

Instructor-Reading, Writing and Mathematics."

The inclusion of this data element is related

to the Department of Education's efforts to

build a value-added accountability system in

accordance with Section 229.57, F.S.

We have received a number of inquiries

concerning how districts should define and

collect the requested data. This memorandum

is being distributed to assist districts into

[sic] submitting accurate and valid

information about the "responsible

instructor."

The intent of the data element is to link

each individual student to the person(s)

primarily responsible for providing

instruction in reading, writing and

mathematics. While the concept is clear, in

practice there may be more than one

instructor identified. [T]he [sic] student

at the high school level may be taking two

mathematics courses, or the student may not

be enrolled at the moment in either an

English or mathematics course. This means

that decisions about how to define and

identify the "responsible instructor" must

reside with the district and school staff.

We are unable to provide a complete list of

rules to follow since we cannot imagine all

the permutations that may occur. We have

received a number of specific questions that

can be used to illustrate the principles that

may be followed, and these are discussed in

the attachment to this memorandum. Review of

these examples should be of assistance to you

in completing the data request.

We recognize that there are other situations

that will arise that have not been addressed

in the attachment. Hopefully you will be

able to make your local decisions within the

framework established in this memorandum.

After you have completed the data collection

activities and have had time to think about

the process, please send a note to either of

us with your suggestions for improvements in

the future. Thanks for your assistance.

(Emphasis supplied).

24. Attached to th e foregoing memorandum was a document

entitled "Questions and Answers About the Responsible Instructor

Data Element":

1. Q: Should the district inspect the

student's course/class schedule to determine

who the responsible instructor is? Should

this be tied to a particular date?

A: Each district must determine whether

it will collect the data from original

sources through the use of a paper form or if

it will analyze existing computer files to

extract the information. In either case, the

data collection activity is associated with

Survey 3. The "responsible instructor" will

be either the person currently delivering the

instruction or the person who most recently

provided the instruction. The latter would

be illustrated by a student who took a

mathematics course in the fall semester but

was not registered in a mathematics course at

the time of the Survey 3.

2. Q: In a block schedule school, a student

might not currently be enrolled in either an

English or mathematics course at the time of

Survey 3. He/she may have taken such courses

in a previous block. How should the data be

returned?

A. See previous question. The task is to

identify the teacher most recently delivering

instruction to the student in the specified

subject area. This may well be a teacher who

taught English or mathematics in the previous

round of the "block schedule."

3. Q: How should one respond if the

student actually is enrolled in two English

or math courses at the time of Survey 3?

A: The decision must be made at the

local level as to whether there is a single

person who is primarily responsible for

instruction in reading, writing, or

mathematics. One way to handle the

situation would be for one teacher's name to

be entered but to understand that this

person's name represents the work of two

teachers . This principle could be followed

in situations where the student is in a team

teaching classroom. If this approach is

used, backup information must be retained at

the local level to interpret any future data

analyses that may be disseminated.

4. Q. If a student is not currently

enrolled in a reading, writing or

mathematics course how should the data

element be defined?

A. It is difficult to imagine a

situation in which a student would not be

receiving instruction in these areas, but if

it happens, the data element should be zero

filled.

5. Q: Is the Department requesting one

record per student?

A: Yes.

6. Q: Can the Department specify what

course numbers to use from the MIS data

fields?

A: No. This is a local decision related

to how your data is organized and

maintained.

7. Q: What course numbers would be used

for reporting "reading and writing?"

A: In most instances the student will be

receiving instruction in reading and writing

through the English courses. At the

elementary level, either a self-contained

classroom or a team teaching situation would

be encountered. The former would require

identification of a single teacher whereas

the latter would require a solution as

described above in question number 3. A

high school student could be taking English

as well as a special course in Reading;

however most students do not take a course

titled "Reading." If a student is enrolled

in two such courses, the decision of how to

code it should be made at the local level.

8. Q: Should the district code the courses

in which the student is enrolled at the time

of Survey 3 or courses the student may have

taken earlier in the school year?

A: The records should reflect the

current courses except as discuss [sic]

question number 1 above.

9. Q: How would the district code a

student who is taking a course in the Adult

Evening School to make up the credit in the

regular school program?

A: No courses taken in the Adult Evening

School should be coded.

10. Q: How should districts report ESE

students?

A: Districts have a choice of either

coding all students or coding only those

students who are pursuing an instructional

program leading to a regular high school

diploma. If you code a student who does not

actually take the FCAT there will be no

match and no further analysis by the

department for that student.

11. Q: Should we code students for

attending Juvenile Detention Centers?

A: Yes.

12. Q: Should we code the responsible

instructors for students attending Charter

Schools?

A: Yes.

25. On March 23, 2001, DOE promulgated a memorandum to

District School Superintendents from Betty Coxe, Deputy

Commissioner for Educational Programs. That memorandum's stated

subject was "Clarification of Memorandum dated January 22, 2001-

Responsible Instructor-Reading, Writing and Mathematics." It

reads:

The new data element "responsible instructor-

reading, writing, and mathematics" that is

being collected will never be used by the

Florida Department of Education to evaluate

individual teachers. This new data is being

collect [sic] at the state level for two

primary reasons: to provide information to

the State which allows the determination of

the success of teaching programs and to track

state-level educational trends. School

districts have the sole responsibility of

conducting teacher evaluations.

Florida has a number of teacher-related

initiatives that clearly need this data for

program evaluation purposes. These include,

but are not limited to, programs associated

with teacher preparation, alternative

certification, and interstate licensure

reciprocity. Information must be gathered on

the relative success of these programs to

guide state policyends must be

identified in order to promote a system of

ongoing quality improvement.

Furthermore state law (F.S. 231.29) says that

test scores are just one criteria [sic] used

by school districts for evaluating teachers.

Other criteria that districts should use are

maintaining classroom discipline, knowledge

of subject matter, ability to plan and

deliver instruction, etc. In other words,

there are various other criteria besides test

scores that should be taken into account

before school districts can evaluate

teachers.

Please disseminate this information as widely

as possible within your district. Your

assistance is, as always, much appreciated.

26. The January 22, 2001, memorandum does not direct the

school districts to submit the data element in any particular way

and does not impose sanctions for any school district's failure

to comply with its contents. It does contain the interesting

language, for purposes of the case at bar, that DOE is "unable to

provide a complete list of rules to follow since we cannot

imagine all the permutations that may occur."

27. T he document issued on March 23, 2001, does not provide

any directives as to the method for designating the data element

or impose any sanctions. At most, it suggests possible

alternatives in reporting, with final decisions left up to the

reporting agency.

28. Indeed, if any sanctions exist with regard to the two

memoranda, the sanctions are imposed by existing rules or

statutes. These memoranda were intended to advise districts as

to possible optional methods of reporting the new data element.

If they had not been generated, school districts still would be

required to file the new data element. In either case, schools

and school districts (not DOE) make the ultimate determination of

how to report the data element.

29. Petitioner presented no evidence to demonstrate that

the challenged memoranda impose any requirements or solicited any

information not already specifically required by statute or rule.

30. The concerns of Petitioner's members related in Finding

of Fact 3 are speculative. To the extent that educator

assessment, credit, and/or money awards are at issue, they would

be affected, if at all, by their respective district's decisions

at a different level and in a function(s) subsequent to DOE data

collection. These memoranda do not impinge on independent

evaluations, etc., by school districts.

31. As to concerns over confidentiality of social security

numbers, there was no evidence presented that the new data

element does anything other than collect data on registered

educators whose social security numbers are already known to the

districts and DOE for retirement and certification purposes. No

reason was demonstrated to suppose that a breach in the

confidentiality of those social security numbers would occur as a

result of the new data element or as a result of the challenged

memoranda.

32. There was anecdotal testimony to the effect that

teachers have been placed in improper competition with one

another due to these memoranda (allegedly unpromulgated rules)

and that, as a result of this competition, apparently based on

some teachers' speculation as to what the respective school

districts may ultimately do with the data collected, those

teachers are teaching reading at the expense of other subjects

and/or are emphasizing reading about science and other technical

subjects while eliminating more worthy "hands-on" projects and

laboratory experiments of greater benefit to their students.

Similar anecdotal testimony suggested that all teachers are now

teaching so that their students read objective textual as opposed

to "fun" or subjective material and so that their students are

able to answer the type of questions posed on the FCAT, instead

of gaining a broader range of knowledge. While these side-

effects of certain teachers' perceptions of how their respective

districts may use the data gathered and processed by DOE may

demonstrate that the concept of accountability of teachers via

the FCAT is either good or bad or valuable or not valuable, it

fails to define the memoranda at issue as rules.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

33. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

proceeding. Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes.

34. Petitioner has the burden of proof in a rule challenge

hearing under Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, to establish

that the challenged statement has the effect of a rule.

35. The term "rule" is defined in Section 120.52(15),

Florida Statutes as:

. . . each agency statement of general

applicability that implements, interprets or

prescribes law or policy or describes the

procedure or practice requirements of an

agency and includes any form which imposes

any requirement or solicits any information

not specifically required by statute or by an

existing rule.

36. Sectio n 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, in pertinent part,

states:

(A)ny person substantially affected by an

agency statement may seek an administrative

determination that the statement violates

Section 120.54(1)(a). The petition shall

include the text of the statement or a

description of the statement and shall state

with particularity facts sufficient to show

that the statement constitutes a rule under

Section 120.52 and that the agency has not

adopted the statement by the rulemaking

procedure provided by Section 120.54.

37. Section 229.555, Florida Statutes , provides in

pertinent part that:

The system must be designed to collect, via

electronic transfer, all student and school

performance data required to ascertain the

degree to which schools and school districts

are meeting state performance standards, and

must be capable of producing data for a

comprehensive annual report on school and

district performance. In addition, the

system shall support, as feasible, the

management decisions to be made in each

division of the department and at the

individual school and district levels.

The system shall be based on an overall

conceptual design; the information needed for

such decisions, including a fiscal student,

program, personnel, facility, community,

evaluation, and other relevant data ; and the

relationship between cost and effectiveness.

The system shall be managed and administered

by the commissioner and shall include a

district subsystem component to be

administered at the district level, with

input from the reports -and -forms control

management committees. (Emphasis provided)

38. To reiterate, Section 229.57(11)(e), Florida Statutes ,

provides in pertinent part that:

The statistical system shall use measures of

student learning, such as the FCAT, to

determine teacher, school and school district

statistical distributions, which

distributions:

1. Shall be determined using available data

from the FCAT, and other data collection as

deemed appropriate by the Department of

Education, to measure the differences in

student prior year achievement against the

current year achievement or lack thereof,

such that the "effects" of instruction to a

student by a teacher, school, and school

district may be estimated on a per-student

and constant basis . . . . (Emphasis

provided).

39. Rule 6A-1.0014, Florida Administrative Code, was

promulgated to effectuate provisions of Sections 229.555 and

229.57, Florida Statutes. Absent a challenge to the Rule itself,

the fact that it does not specifically name the latter statute is

of no significance.

40. The "responsible instructor" data element is contained

in a publication (The Manual) that is incorporated by reference

into the Rule. The statute gave authority to DOE in June of

1999. The publication was amended, effective July 2000. The

Rule incorporating the publication was amended in October 2000.

There does not seem to be any "hidden agenda" or promulgation

flaw at work here. Indeed, the Rule itself has never been

challenged.

41. The inclusion of the "respons ible instructor" data

element in Rule 6A-1.0014, Florida Administrative Code, is not at

issue in this proceeding. Petitioners have not challenged the

Respondent's authority to promulgate that Rule or the

applicability and effect of the Rule. The sole inquiry in the

instant case is whether the documents constitute unpromulgated

rules.

42. Pursuant to Sections 229.555 and 229.57, Florida

Statutes, and Rule 6A1-0014, Florida Administrative Code, school

districts are required to provide the information under the

category of "responsible instructor."

43. The two memoranda in question do not impose any

additional requirement or solicit information not already

required by statute and rule.

44. Therefore, the memoranda are not "rules" as defined by

Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes. They are not self-

executing. They do not create or adversely affect rights, and

they do not have the direct and consistent effect of law.

Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME v. Department of

Labor , DOAH Case No. 98-4706RU (Final Order, February 23, 1999);

Lawrence v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ,

DOAH Case No. 95-5585RU (Final Order, April 4, 1997), aff'd , 690

So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Nor do they alter or restrict

any of the statutory or rule requirements related to the subject

matter.

45. Each memorandum explains and clarifies the

implementation of an existing rule.

46. The January 22, 2001, memorandum addresses possible

methods of reporting the data element. By its very terms, it

merely suggests non-binding options:

This means that decisions about how to define

and identify the "responsible instructor"

must reside with the district and school

staff.

Review of these examples should be of

assistance to you in completing the data

request.

We recognize that there are other situations

that will arise that have not been addressed

in the attachment.

47. Although DOE did not assert it as a defense herein, the

fact that the foregoing memorandum acknowledged that DOE is

"unable to provide a complete list of rules to follow since we

cannot imagine all the permutations that may occur," would be a

defense in this proceeding if it were found that this document

constituted an unpromulgated rule. See Section 120.56(4)(b),

Florida Statutes.

48. The March 23, 2001, memorandum also merely explains the

purpose of the data element collection and the methods by which

school districts may evaluate teachers.

49. An agency's explanation of the applicability and

implementation of a rule to a particular set of facts is not

itself a rule. Otherwise, "the agency would be forced to adopt a

rule for every possible variation on a theme, and private

entities could continuously attack the government for its failure

to have a rule that precisely addresses the facts at issue." The

Environmental Trust v. State Department of Environmental

Protection , 714 So. 2d 493, 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

50. Petitioner has not met its burden. Respondent is not

required to promulgate the challenged statements as rules.

51. Peti tioner's cited cases are not persuasive of a

contrary ruling.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is ORDERED that Petitioner has not established that

Respondent's documents were rules within the meaning of

Section 120.52(15), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's

challenge is hereby dismissed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of July, 2001, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

ELLA JANE P. DAVIS

Administrati ve 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

Fi led with Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 25th day of July, 2001.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Mark F. Kelly, Esquire

Kelly & McKee, P.A.

1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301

Post Office Box 75638

Tampa, Florida 33675 -0638

Pamela L. Cooper, Esquire

Florida Education Association

118 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700

Margaret O'Sullivan Parker, Esquire

Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -0400

Honorable Charlie Crist

Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

The Capitol, Plaza Level 08

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

James A. Robinson, General Counsel

Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -0400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled

to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes.

Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate

Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of

a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of

Administrative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing

fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First

District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate

District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be

filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.