19-002194TTS Brevard County School Board vs. Lisa S. Lemieux Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, March 16, 2020.

Summary: The School Board proved just cause to terminate Respondent's employment contract where Respondent had three consecutive annual performance evaluations of needs improvement.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

B REVARD C OUNTY S CHOOL B OARD ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 19 - 2194TTS

L ISA S. L EMIEUX ,

Respondent .

/

R ECOMMENDED O RDE R

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in this cause was held in Viera ,

Florida, on December 10 and 11 , 2019, before Linzie F. Bogan,

Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

A PPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Shannon L. Kelly, Esquir e

Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A.

1477 West Fairbanks Avenue , Suite 100

Winter Park, Florida 32789

For Respondent: Mark S. Levine, Esquire

Levine & Stivers, LLC

245 East Virginia Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE

Whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent from employment with

the Brevard County School Board.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

By correspondence dated March 26, 2019, Respondent, Lisa S. Lemieux

(Respondent), was informed by Dr. Mark Mullins, superintendent of the

Brevard Public Sch ools (Superintendent ), that a recommendation seeking th e

termination of RespondentÔs employment would be submitted to Petitioner,

Brevard County School Board (Petitioner/School Board), for appropriate

action. In response to the correspondence referenced above, Respondent

timely filed a request f or administrat ive hearing. By correspondence dated

April 25, 2019, the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative

Hearings for a disputed fact hearing.

The disputed fact hearing was scheduled t o commence on October 1, 2019.

Respondent moved for a continuanc e, and the hearing was re - sch eduled for

December 1 and 2, 2019. During the hearing, Petitioner offered the testimony

of Dr. Mullins, Lena Wiebelt, Dr. Karyle Green, John Hayes, Bridget Reed,

and Burt Clark. Respondent did not testify, nor did she offer the testimony of

any witnesses during her case - in - chief. PetitionerÔs Exhibits 1 through 46

were admitted into evidence. RespondentÔs Exhibits 1 and 2 were admitted

into evidence, and RespondentÔs Exhibits 3 and 4 were officially recognized.

A Transcript of the proceeding was filed with the Division of

Administrative Hearings on January 16, 2020. By agreement, each party

filed a Proposed Recommended Order (PRO) on February 18, 2020. The

respective PROs were considered in the preparation of this Recommended

Or der.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

1. Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control,

and supervise the public schools in Brevard County, Florida. This includes

the power to discipline employees, such as teachers. § 4, Article IX, Fla.

Const. ; §§ 1001.42(5), 1012.22(1)(f), and 1012.33, F la. S tat . 1

2. Respondent is a classroom teacher, and as such, the terms and

conditions of her employment are governed by the collective agreement

between the School Board and The Brevard Federation of Teachers, Local

2098.

3. Respondent has a BachelorÔs degree in exceptional education. On or

about November 9, 2006, Respondent, pursuant to an annual contract, was

hired by the School Board to provide services as a classroom teacher.

Beginning in the 2009 - 2010 scho ol year, Respondent continued her

employment with the School Board pursuant to a professional services

contract.

4. During all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent taught at

Hoover Middle School, which is under the jurisdiction of the School Board . At

the commencement of the 2014 - 2015 school year, Respondent taught

exceptional education (ESE) students in a self - contained, supported - level

class. At approximately the midway point of the 2014 - 2015 school year,

Respondent began teaching a resource math class which was comprised

entirely of ESE students.

5. Beginning in the 2017 - 2018 school year, and continuing through the

2018 - 2019 school year, Respondent taught one resource math class for a

single class - period of the day, and she co - taught, or Ñpushed - in,Ò for the other

five instructional class periods. In both settings, Respondent taught math to

ESE students.

6. By correspondence dated March 26, 2019, Superintendent Mullins

advised Respondent of the following:

Pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.34, you a re being

recommended for termination of your Professional

Services Contract due to unsatisfactory

1 All subsequent references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2018 codification, unless

otherwise indicated.

P erformance È. The actions leading to this

recommendation are as follows:

1. On October 29, 2018, you were provided a 90 - day

notice advising of performance - related concerns

based upon three years of unsatisfactory annual

evaluations.

2. Several performance review meetings were held

with you, your union representative, and your

school Principal to discuss your progress.

3. A review of your past evaluations indicates

several attempts at corrective activities through

the use of District Peer Mentors and Resource

Teachers.

4. After the completion of the 90 - day plan,

adequate progress was not obtained and is grounds

to sever the Professional Services Contract.

7. The School Board uses an ÑInstructional Personnel Performance

Appraisal System Ò (IPPAS) as a guide when evaluating a teacherÔs

performance. According to the IPPAS manual, classroom teachers are

evaluated on a rubric which consists of five dimensions. T he first dimension

focuses on Ñinstructional design and lesson planning.Ò The second dimension

focuses on the Ñlearning environmentÒ created and fostered by the teacher.

The third dimension focuses on Ñinstructional delivery and facilitation.Ò The

fourth d imension focuses on Ñassessment,Ò and the fifth dimension focuses on

a teacherÔs Ñprofessional responsibility and ethical conduct.Ò

8. IPPAS is approved annually by the Florida Department of Education

(FLDOE), and the School Board meets regularly with The Brevard

Federation of Teachers, Local 2098, to address any issues concerning the

evaluation process.

9. Teachers and evaluators receive yearly training , which covers the

various components of the evaluation process.

10. Pursuant to IPPAS, and related stat utory provisions, classroom

teachers are evaluated annually. The overall score given to a teacher on the

annual evaluation is determined by how a teacher scores in the areas of

ÑProfessional Practices Based on FloridaÔs Educator Accomplished Practices

(Pro fessional Practices),Ò and ÑIndividual Accountability for Student

Academic Performance Based on Identified Assessments (Student

Performance).Ò The Professional Practices category accounts for 67 percent,

and Student Performance accounts for the remaining 3 3 percent of a

teacherÔs annual evaluation score.

1 1 . For purposes of quantifying a teacherÔs annual evaluation, IPPAS

identifies the Professional Practices category as ÑPart 1 of the Summative

Evaluation,Ò and the Student Performance category as ÑPart 2 of the

Summative Evaluation.Ò Part 1 of the Summative Evaluation is completed in

the spring of each school year and consists of the supervising principalÔs

annual evaluation of the teacher, the teacherÔs self - assessment, and the

collaboration and mutual ac countability score. The evaluative components of

Part 1 of the Summative Evaluation are comprised of the previously

referenced Ñfive dimensions.Ò

1 2 . Part 2 of the Summative Evaluation is determined based on student

academic performance data (VAM score) as calculated by the FLDOE. VAM

scores are released by FLDOE in the fall, and these scores reflect student

performance for the preceding school year. Consequently, a teacher will not

receive an overall annual evaluation score for the immediate preceding

scho ol year until the fall semester during w hich VAM scores are available. As

a practical matter, this explains, in part, why the recommendation for

termination letter sent to Respondent by Superintendent Mullins was issued

on March 26, 2019. 2

A. 2015 - 20 16 S CHOOL Y EAR

1 3 . Respondent, on or about April 25, 2016, received Part 1 of he r

Summative E valuation for the 2015 - 20 16 school year. Respondent received a

score of 27.71 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. RespondentÔs

Part 1 Summative score placed her in the category of ÑNeeds Improvement.Ò

14 . On or about November 2, 2016, Respondent received Part 2 of her

Summative Evaluation for the 2015 - 20 16 school year . Respondent received a

VAM score of 56.71 out of a maximum available score of 100 points.

Re spondentÔs VAM score placed her in t he ÑNeeds ImprovementÒ category.

The c ombin ed Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an

overall annual evaluation rating of ÑNeeds Improvement.Ò

B. 2016 - 20 17 S CHOOL Y EAR

15 . Respondent, on or about Ap ril 5, 2017, received Part 1 of her

Summative E valuation for the 2016 - 20 17 school year. Respondent received a

score of 20.42 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. RespondentÔs

Part 1 Summative score placed her in the ÑNeeds Improvement Ò category .

16 . On or about November 13, 2017, Respondent received Part 2 of her

Summative Evaluation for the 2016 - 20 17 school year . Respondent received a

VAM score of 50.42 out of a maximum available score of 100 points.

RespondentÔs VAM score placed her in the ÑNeed s ImprovementÒ category .

The combin ed Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an

overall annual evaluation rating of ÑNeeds Improvement.Ò

2 VAM scores for the 2017 - 2018 school year were released on or ab out October 19, 2018. As

discussed elsewhere herein, Respondent was placed on 90 days probation following the

release of her VAM score. The timing of the release of the VAM score, coupled with the

90 - day probationary period and related matters, account f or the March 2019 date of

Superintendent MullinÔs letter to Respondent.

C. 2017 - 20 18 S CHOOL Y EAR

17 . Respondent, on or about May 3, 2018, received Part 1 of her

Summative E valuation for the 2017 - 20 18 school year. Respondent received a

score of 34.58 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. RespondentÔs

Part 1 Summative score placed her in the ÑNeeds ImprovementÒ category.

18 . On or about October 19, 2018, Respondent r eceived Part 2 of her

Summative Evaluation for the 2017 - 18 school year . Respondent received a

VAM score of 64.58 out of a maximum available score of 100 points.

RespondentÔs VAM score placed her in the ÑNeeds ImprovementÒ category .

The combin ed Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an

overall annual evaluation rating of ÑNeeds Improvement.Ò

D. A P LAN FOR A DDRESSING P ROFESSIONAL D EFICIENCIES

19 . The School Board, in order to address RespondentÔs professional

deficiencies as identified du ring the relevant evaluation periods, provided

support to Respondent through the utilization of Professional Development

Assistance Plans (PDAPs). PDAPs are designed to provide a teacher with

opportunities for professional development, which includes acces s to online

resources, training activities and courses, and opportunities to work with

School Board resource and peer mentor teachers.

20 . The School Board, acting through RespondentÔs supervising

administrators, agreed in the PDAPs to support Respondent Ôs professional

growth and development as follows:

By providing access to the ÑDistrict Peer Mentor

Teacher for collaboration on dimension 3.Ò

By conducting Ñinformal observations documented

in ProGOE with feedback for improvement.Ò

By providing Ñresour ces on utilizing formative

assessment to check for understanding.Ò

By providing Ñresources regarding implementing

differentiated instruction.Ò

By providing Ñresources on the utilization of WebbÔs

Depth of Knowledge.Ò

By providing Ñexemplary sample less on plans as a

model È to follow.Ò

By providing Ñpacing guide if needed.Ò

By meeting every two weeks to review weekly

lesson plans.

By providing Respondent with Ñan exemplary

teacher to observe, as well as a substitute [teacher]

for class coverage during observation.Ò

By providing a list of Professional Development

courses on classroom management, as well as a

substitute teacher to cover RespondentÔs class while

she attends the course.

By providing Ñassistance and specific feedback from

school based coa ches.Ò

By completing Ñinformal observations on a bi -

monthly basis, and provid[ing] feedback.Ò

The evidence establishes that the School Board honored its commitment to

Respondent as outlined in the respective PDAPs.

E. 90 D AYS OF P ROBATION , A ND R ECOMMEND ATI ON FOR T ERMINATION

21 . By correspondence dated October 29, 2018, the School Board advised

Respondent of the following:

In accordance with section 1012.34(4), F.S., this

shall serve as the DistrictÔs notification of

unsatisfactory performance. Please be advised that

your Professional Service Contract for the 2018 - 19

academic year is on a probationary status for

ninety (90) days. Your contract is being placed on

probation due to your receiving an overall ÑNeeds

ImprovementÒ rating on your last three

(3) co nsecutive annual performance evaluations.

See also section 1012.22, F.S.

During the next ninety (90) days, you will be

evaluated periodically. You will be apprised of any

progress achieved in writing. You will work with

the administration of your school t o assist you in

obtaining opportunities to help correct any noted

deficiencies.

After February 25, 2019, the ninetieth (90 th ) day,

administration has fourteen (14) days to assess

your progress. If no improvement is shown,

administration will notify the Su perintendent if

you do not rate an overall Effective on the

Summative Part 1 of your evaluation.

Sincerely,

Burt Clark, Principal

Hoover Middle School

22 . Respondent, during her 90 - day probationary period, continued to

receive professional development s ervices from the School Board, which

included working with a peer mentor teacher, participating in CHAMPs

training, receiving assistance from a math content specialist, and observing

an exemplary math teacher.

23 . Burt Clark was the principal at the school where Respondent worked

when she was placed on probation. As the principal, Mr. Clark served as

RespondentÔs supervisor and was responsible for evaluating her performance.

During RespondentÔs probationary period, Mr. Clark regularly met with

Respondent an d her union representative to discuss RespondentÔs progress

and offer assistance. In addition to meeting with Respondent, Mr. Clark also

conducted one interim evaluation, four informal observation , and two formal

observations of RespondentÔs performance. M r. Clark also conducted a

number of Ñwalk - throughs , Ò which provided additional insight into the status

of RespondentÔs professional development.

2 4 . While it is true that Mr. ClarkÔs observations of Respondent mainly

occurred in the classroom where Respo ndent was the teacher of record, as

opposed to RespondentÔs work as a Ñpush - inÒ teacher, Mr. Clark credibly

testified that he had sufficient data to assess RespondentÔs performance.

25 . Mr. Clark, at the end of the probationary period, determined that

Res pondentÔs professional deficiencies remained, and on March 6, 2019, he

made the following recommendation to Superintendent Mullins:

Ms. Lisa Lemieux had an overall unsatisfactory

performance appraisal. We have worked with her to

try to improve her instruct ional strategies; but, it

has not been successful in changing the behavior to

better serve the students assigned to her.

As defined in [section] 1012.34(4), [Florida

Statutes], February 25, 2019, was the 90th day

since the notification of her 90 - day proba tion for

this contract year and after demonstrating no

improvement on the Summative Part 1, I have

assessed that the performance deficiencies have not

been corrected.

I would recommend the termination of her

employment with Brevard Public Schools.

Burt C lark, Principal

Hoover Middle School

26 . After receiving Mr. ClarkÔs recommendation to terminate RespondentÔs

employment, Superintendent Mullins reviewed RespondentÔs last three years

of evaluations, considered the extensive support and training provided to

Respondent by the School Board, and concluded that termination of

RespondentÔs employment was warranted and justified.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

27 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

parties and the subject matter of this pro ceeding pursuant to sections

120.569, 120.57 and 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2019).

28 . In accordance with the provisions of section 4(b) of article IX of the

Florida Constitution, district school boards have the authority to operate,

control, and sup ervise all free public schools in their respective districts and

may exercise any power except as expressly prohibited by the State

Constitution or general law. A school boardÔs authority extends to personnel

matters and includes the power to suspend and d ismiss employees.

§§ 1001.32(2), 1001.42(5), 1012.22(1)(f), and 1012.23(1), Fla. Stat.

2 9 . Petitioner bears the burden to prove the charges against Respondent

by a preponderance of the evidence. Allen v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty. , 571 So.

2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (citing Dileo v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty. ,

569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)); McNeill v. Pinellas Cnty. Sch. Bd. ,

678 So. 2d 476, 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

30 . The preponderance of the evidence standard requires proof by Ñthe

greater weight of the evidenceÒ or evidence that Ñmore likely than notÒ tends

to prove a certain proposition. See Gross v. Lyons , 763 So. 2d 276, 280 n.1

(Fla. 2000); see also Williams v. Eau Claire Pub. Sch. , 397 F.3d 441, 446 (6th

Cir. 2005) (holdin g trial court properly defined the preponderance of the

evidence standard as Ñsuch evidence as, when considered and compared with

that opposed to it, has more convincing force and produces . . . [a] belief that

what is sought to be proved is more likely tr ue than not trueÒ).

31 . As a classroom teacher, RespondentÔs employment with the School

Board is governed by an instructional staff contract. §§ 1012.01(2)(a) and

1012.33, Fla. Stat.

32 . Section 1012.33 provides, in part, as follows:

Each person employed as a member of the

instructional staff in any district school system

shall be properly certified pursuant to s. 1012.56 or

s. 1012.57 or employed pursuant to s. 1012.39 and

shall be entitled to and shall receive a written

contract as specified in this sect ion. All such

contracts, except continuing contracts as specified

in subsection (4), shall contain provisions for

dismissal during the term of the contract only for

just cause. Just cause includes, but is not limited

to, the following instances, as defined by rule of the

State Board of Education: immorality, misconduct

in office, incompetency, two consecutive annual

performance evaluation ratings of unsatisfactory

under s. 1012.34, two annual performance

evaluation ratings of unsatisfactory within a 3 - year

period under s. 1012.34, three consecutive annual

performance evaluation ratings of needs

improvement or a combination of needs

improvement and unsatisfactory under s. 1012.34,

gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or

being convicted or found gui lty of, or entering a

plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt,

any crime involving moral turpitude.

§ 1012.33(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added).

33 . A teacher with a professional service contract Ñ can only be terminated

for just cause purs uant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes, or based upon

uncorrected performance deficiencies pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida

Statutes. Ñ Orange Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Rachman , 87 So. 3d 48, 49 n.1 (Fla. 5th

DCA 2012).

3 4 . In order for students to achieve in a public school system, it is

mandatory that teachers effectively perform the duties of their position in

accordance with the generally accepted standards of the profession. In 2011,

the Florida Legislature amended section 1012.34 to more closely align the

performance expectations of a teacher to the ratings in a teacherÔs annual

performance evaluation. Additionally, section 1012.33 was amended to

specifically incorporate the ratings on a teacherÔs annual performance

evaluation into the criteria for cont inued employment with a school board.

The offense of three consecutive ratings of Ñneeds improvementÒ was added to

the list of offenses constituting Ñjust causeÒ for termination during the term of

a contract. As described above, Respondent received a final rating of Ñneeds

improvementÒ for each of the three years preceding the S uperintendentÔs

recommendation to terminate her employment (2015 - 2016, 2016 - 2017, and

2017 - 2018).

35 . Section 1012.34 prescribes the requirements for a districtÔs evaluation

system a nd provides that:

The department must approve each school districtÔs

instructional personnel and school administrator

evaluation systems. The department shall monitor

each districtÔs implementation of its instructional

personnel and school administrator ev aluation

systems for compliance with the requirements of

this section.

§ 1012.34(1)(b), Fla. Stat.

36 . The evidence establishes that the School BoardÔs instructional

evaluation systems for each of the three years at issue complied with the

requirements of section 1012.34 and were approved by FLDOE. Moreover,

the unrebutted testimony established that each of the administrators having

evaluation responsibilities was appropriately trained with respect to the

proper use of the evaluation criteria and procedure s. Finally, while

Respondent may disagree with the final rating each year of Ñneeds

improvement,Ò there is no evidence that she filed a grievance challenging the

procedures followed by administrators in implementing the evaluation

systems and arriving at t he ratings.

37 . Under section 1012.34(3)(c), it is the Ñindividual responsible for

supervising the employee [who] must evaluate the employeeÔs performance.Ò

Having established as a matter of law that the evaluation systems were

approved by the FLDOE as bei ng in compliance with the statutory

requirements, and that the administrators were trained and properly

implemented the procedural aspects of the instructional evaluation systems,

the ratings arrived at by the evaluators are final.

39 . The School Board has established by a preponderance of the evidence

that Respondent has received three consecutive ratings of Ñneeds

improvementÒ on her annual evaluations.

40 . Section 1012.34(4)(b)1. provides as follows:

The employee who holds a professional service

contract shall be placed on performance probation

and governed by the provisions of this section for

90 calendar days following the receipt of the notice

of unsatisfactory performance to demonstrate

corrective action. School holidays and school

vacation periods ar e not counted when calculating

the 90 - calendar - day period. During the 90 calendar

days, the employee who holds a professional service

contract must be evaluated periodically and

apprised of progress achieved and must be provided

assistance and inservice tr aining opportunities to

help correct the noted performance deficiencies. At

any time during the 90 calendar days, the employee

who holds a professional service contract may

request a transfer to another appropriate position

with a different supervising adm inistrator;

however, if a transfer is granted pursuant to

ss. 1012.27(1) and 1012.28(6), it does not extend the

period for correcting performance deficiencies.

41 . The evidence establishes that the School Board, in accordance with

section 1012.34(4), met its obligations to Respondent during her probationary

period.

42 . The primary duty of a teacher is to work diligently and faithfully to

help students meet or exceed annual learning goals, and to meet state and

local achievement requirements. § 1012.53(1), Fla. Stat.

43 . The evidence here establishes that Respondent was repeatedly unable

to help her students meet learning goals. The evidence is clear that, despite

the School Board's best efforts during school years 2015 - 2016, 2016 - 2017, and

2017 - 2018, there was no marked improvement of RespondentÔs teaching

skills. Her performance as a teacher continued to be deficient, thus justifying

the termination of her employment by the School Board.

44 . Respondent did not rebut the School BoardÔs evidence as to its fi ndings

about her substandard performance. Instead, Respondent raised

unsubstantiated claims that the School BoardÔs charging document is

insufficient (which it is not), that there was insufficient observational data

collected to justify termination of her employment, and that the School Board

did not attempt to evaluate or compare the scores of her students to those of

other students in her school or district - wide. Contrary to RespondentÔs

assertions, the record is replete with evidence sufficient to warr ant

termination of her employment. As for the latter assertion, Respondent does

not cite to any statutory or IPPAS provision(s) which requires such a

comparison, and the undersigned is otherwise unaware of any such authority.

4 5 . Just cause exists to termi nate RespondentÔs professional services

contract.

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Brevard County enter a final

order terminating RespondentÔs employment as a teacher .

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 16th day of March , 2020 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

S

L INZIE F. B OGAN

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 16th day of March , 2020 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Amy D. Envall, General Counsel

Brevard County Public Schools

2700 Judge Fran Jamieson W ay

Viera, Florida 32940

(eServed)

Mark S. Levine, Esquire

Levine & Stivers, LLC

245 East Virginia Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(eServed)

Wayne L. Helsby, Esquire

Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A.

1477 West Fairbanks Avenue , Suite 100

Winter Park, Florida 32789

(eServed)

Shannon L. Kelly, Esquire

Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A.

1477 West Fairbanks Avenue , Suite 100

Winter Park, Florida 32789

(eServed)

Howard Michael Waldman

Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A.

1477 West Fairbanks Avenue , Suite 100

Winter Park, F lorida 32789

(eServed)

Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire

Levine & Stivers, LLC

245 East Virginia Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(eServed)

Dr. Mark Mullins, Superintendent

School Board of Brevard County

2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way

Viera, F lorida 32940 - 660 1

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building

325 West Gaines Street , Suite 1244

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Richard Corcoran , Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

Turlington Building

325 West Ga ines Street , Suite 1514

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from

the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended

Ord er should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this

case.