four dash twelve b brigley the plaintiff was evaluated as needing improvement based on that evaluation she was placed in the statue and dismissed the teacher who had priority rights over this new hire three months later when you're saying she has priority rights would you be a little more explicit for  dismissed first and teachers including four dismissed last but that doesn't address the question the question it was just posed because the question that was posed is what section of the statute gives her out right to be here but if the board is anybody can seize for the following school year to positions thereby becoming available the list be tendered to the teacher so removed or dismissed who were in groupings three or four basis upon which they've made their legally their legal decision which they were legally authorized to make that's what those cases say is the statute a framework within which she c honor this is a case by looking at the statute and the facts that have been developed in the record shows that the school district did in follow the statute exactly as it was supposed to to be followed i think i think he's working under the assumption that the other teachers that were laid off at the same time as the plaintiff were some for some reason group one teachers and they were not they were group three teachers the plaintiff was the only group to teacher there were no  teachers and so she was the first by statute by law to be laid off and because she's a true to teacher she was the first to be laid off and she does not have any recall rights so she doesn't have any prior superior retention right to any other teacher that was employed by the school district at that time in this group to teacher and the statute in operation at that time she doesn't recall rates but he's not saying she can't recall rates but true what about her placement in group two council says that she shouldn't been placed in group two and that she was trying to contest that while there are absolutely no facts in the verified complaint or any of the affidavits that were submitted in opposition to two six nineteen motions ever contesting her position gave her to first and foremost secondly if you look at the the statu a group to involve the laid off list at the very beginning they are to be evaluated they are evaluated by administrators not the board of education next the teachers are all might happen after back it goes to the board of education and in many cases and certainly in this particular case the board of education had to have a public hearing on the r the on the way off and which time members of the public union teachers whether they're affected or not maybe made a comment to the board of education for consideration when they determine whether or pass the resolution authorizing the layoff again this is a the board of education the board of education does not have any input into the evaluation process the grouping of teachers who are of the creation of the order of layoff basically say how many teachers how deep do we need to go with this layoff and then it's up to them it's it's a matter of the layoff list how far so in this process it is it was a case if you look at the plan just complaint as fair as she verified it the affidavit of the union president that she submitted in opposition  if you go through her complaint it's a it's a very very simple ten count complaint with very very little detail the first two paragraphs simply identify the parties paragraph three through six simply rec much of the plaintiff's arguments through this process i think are focused on her fact that she was a tenured teacher she has refer not in concrete way to any complaint but  argument that she was somehow targeted but there's nothing to suggest that she was targeted by the fall of this process she has not point to any any motivation for targeting her other than i suppose the fact that she was tenured but there statute the fact that section twenty four dish of the school code provides christie druce to review arguably questionable performance evaluations of senior teacher is true it's true wire reference in the complaint is to this alleged practice this school district used to half which i could talk about but it doesn't comply with the procedural requirements of section twenty four  go to the board except to make peace or gesture or complain to the board the workers of the jordanian all of those procedures and there's nothing that supervisors or looks over the board shoulder