STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE )

COUNTY, FLORIDA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 99-5005

)

CHARLIE L. BRADLEY, )

)

Respondent. )

_________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on January 31 through February 1, 2001, with the parties appearing from Miami, Florida, by video teleconferencing before

1. D. Parrish, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

   APPEARANCES

   
   

   For Petitioner: John A. Greco, Esquire

   School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400

   Miami, Florida 33132

   
   

   For Respondent: Charlie L. Bradley, pro se

   130 Northwest 193rd Terrace Miami, Florida 33169

   
   

   STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

   
   

   Whether the Respondent's employment with the Petitioner should be terminated as alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges filed on July 31, 2000.

   PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

   
   

   On November 17, 1999, the Petitioner, the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, took action to terminate the employment of the Respondent, Charlie L. Bradley, as a teacher employed at Mays Middle Community School. The basis for the action was Respondent's alleged failure to satisfactorily correct identified performance deficiencies during a 90-calendar day performance probation. On November 23, 1999, the Respondent timely filed a request for a hearing to contest the termination. The matter was then forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearing for formal proceedings and the case was assigned to an administrative law judge.

   At the hearing, the Petitioner presented testimony from Kenneth S. Cooper, the principal at Mays Middle Community School (Mays Middle); Carolyn Kaloostian, assistant principal for curriculum at Mays Middle; and Thomasina O'Donnell, the district director in the Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards.

   Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 10, 11, 12, 13, 13A, 14, 15, 16,

   
   

   17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 26A, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,

   
   

   33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, and 46 were

   
   

   admitted into evidence. Although initially admitted into evidence, the Petitioner withdrew Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1-6.

   The Respondent testified in his own behalf. The Respondent's Exhibits numbered 1, 4, 5, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22,

   28, 29, 31, 33, and 34 were received into evidence. Proffered, but not admitted into evidence, were the Respondent's Exhibits numbered 2, 14, 23, 30, and 32.

   The transcript of these proceedings was filed on April 16, 2001. The Respondent filed a request to extend the time to file proposed recommended orders. By Order entered April 19, 2001, the parties were granted leave until May 4, 2001, to file such proposed orders.

   Both parties filed proposed orders that have been considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. The Respondent's Notice of Filing filed on May 30, 2001, has not been considered.

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was employed as a math teacher at Mays Middle. As such, the Respondent was responsible for the day-to-day teaching assignment of the students enrolled in his class. The

      Respondent's duties also encompassed maintaining the appropriate records to be in order to fulfill his teaching responsibilities. These records included lesson plans, grade sheets, attendance records, class rosters, and time cards.

   2. The Petitioner is the agency charged by Florida law to administer the public schools within the Miami-Dade County School District.

   3. The Petitioner is authorized to hire and to, when appropriate, discipline teachers within the Miami-Dade County school system. Mays Middle is a public school within the Petitioner's district.

   4. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Mr. Cooper was the principal at Mays Middle and was the supervisor responsible for personnel performance at the school. He has been a principal at several schools within the Miami-Dade school district and is a candidate for a doctorate degree in educational leadership.

   5. Mr. Cooper met the Respondent in approximately 1997 when he became the principal at Mays Middle. The Respondent was already employed at Mays Middle as a math teacher.

   6. All teachers at Mays Middle are required to attend faculty meetings, to turn-in class lists, to maintain teacher logs, to compile grades for students, to arrive at work on time prepared to teach, and to prepare appropriate lesson plans to be followed for the instruction of the students in the event the teacher is absent from school.

   7. All teachers at Mays Middle are provided with a faculty handbook that outlines their responsibilities. All teachers are

      required to follow the directives and instructions issued by the school principal regarding their responsibilities.

   8. All teachers who are cited for a performance deficiency are issued a prescription to address the identified problem. The prescription requires the teacher to perform specific acts to encourage remediation of the deficiency within a specified time.

   9. On November 17, 1998, Mr. Cooper issued a reprimand to the Respondent. This reprimand cited the Respondent's failure to notify or report to the worksite on November 6, 1998, and his failure to submit grades with gradesheets in a timely manner.

   10. In connection with this reprimand, Mr. Cooper conducted a conference for the record (CFR) with the Respondent in order to review the professional responsibilities of reporting to school timely or notifying the school and of submitting required paperwork in a timely manner.

   11. On January 13, 1999, the Assistant Principal,

       
       

       Mrs. Kaloostian, went to the Respondent's classroom to perform an observation. The class was to run from 9:30 a.m. until 11:15 a.m. Instead of beginning class promptly with the bell, the Respondent left the room after observing Mrs. Kaloostian in the rear of the classroom.

   12. Instead of returning to teach the class, the Respondent returned to the room at approximately 9:40 a.m.,

       removed his bags and announced he was going home. Thereafter the school administrators attempted to locate a substitute for the Respondent's classes.

   13. The Respondent did not leave emergency lesson plans for the classes. Emergency lesson plans are required of all teachers so that a substitute teacher has material to review with the class. In this case, the Respondent did not leave plans for the day he left or the two days that followed.

   14. On January 22, 1999, Mr. Cooper conducted another CFR with the Respondent. This time the Respondent was placed on prescription for his conduct of January 13, 1999, and his failure to report to work the next two days. The doctor's note submitted by the Respondent to justify the absence indicated the Respondent was able to return to work on January 14, 1999.

   15. The prescription issued on January 22, 1999, outlined directives regarding lesson plans, attendance guidelines, the teacher code of ethics, and employee conduct requirements. The timelines for the Respondent's completion of these prescription directives were defined, ample, and unambiguous.

   16. When the Respondent did not timely complete the prescription, he was afforded additional time within which to complete the prescription directives.

   17. On February 17, 1999, the Respondent arrived at a faculty meeting 20 minutes late. The Respondent later stated that the tardiness was unintentional.

   18. On February 25, 1999, the Respondent was given a reprimand. Mr. Cooper conducted a CFR to review the attendance requirements and to address the Respondent's continuing failure to meet his professional responsibilities.

   19. All teachers employed by the Petitioner are evaluated pursuant to a Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS evaluators must be trained in the assessment tool and all teachers are advised of the categories covered by the instrument.

   20. Mrs. Kaloostian performed a formal TADS observation of the Respondent's class on February 18, 1999. This evaluation cited the Respondent with deficiencies in six categories covered by the assessment tool.

   21. The prescription issued with the TADS evaluation provided the Respondent with specific corrective measures to be completed by March 26, 1999.

   22. On March 1, 1999, the Respondent reported late to work.

   23. On March 23, 1999, the Respondent reported late to work and failed to attend a faculty meeting.

   24. On April 2, 1999, Mr. Cooper issued a reprimand to the Respondent for insubordination, failure to comply with attendance directives, and failure to comply with directives regarding tardiness or absences.

   25. On March 23, 1999, Mrs. Kaloostian performed a TADS observation in the Respondent's class. This assessment found the Respondent deficient in five categories of performance. The Respondent was provided a prescription to be completed by May 4, 1999.

   26. Under the terms of the teachers' contract, the successful completion of prescription requirements results in the remediation of the deficiency identified. Thus a teacher on prescription must complete the directives of the prescription in order to show remediation. The Petitioner makes personnel and other resources available to a teacher to assist the completion of the prescription.

   27. On April 12, 1999, the Respondent refused to sign a time card as directed by the Principal. The Respondent disagreed with the information on the card and refused to comply with Mr. Cooper's instruction to sign the card. Following this incident, the Respondent was given a written reprimand.

   28. On May 4, 1999, Mrs. Kaloostian wrote a memorandum to Mr. Cooper outlining the Respondent's failures regarding the prescription that was to be completed by that date. On May 5,

       1999, Mr. Cooper gave the Respondent an additional 24 hours to complete the TADS prescription materials.

   29. On May 13, 1999, the Respondent asked to speak with Mrs. Kaloostian. At that time he gave her a letter describing his medical problems and represented that he would be seeking a medical leave effective the end of the school day.

   30. After completing papers regarding the leave, the Respondent refused to deliver his gradebook to Mrs. Kaloostian. He was asked several times to turn the gradebook in and each time he refused. The Respondent represented he would deliver it the next day at 9:00 a.m. He did not return the gradebook by 2:00 p.m., May 14, 1999.

   31. In addition to not delivering the gradebook, the lesson plans for Respondent's classes were not provided. As a result the math department chair had to provide lessons for the Respondent's classes.

   32. On or about June 14, 1999, the Respondent turned in his gradebook through another teacher. The gradebook was deficient in the information it was designed to log.

   33. On May 14, 1999, the Respondent did not attend a scheduled CFR. Accordingly, the record of the deficiencies cited by Mr. Cooper and the prescription for correction was provided to the Respondent by certified mail. Such prescription

       noted the Respondent's continuous failure to meet the prescription activities.

   34. During the 1998/1999 school year, the Respondent was absent from school 42.5 days. Nineteen of those days occurred prior to May 14, 1999.

   35. From February 6, 1998 through April 1, 1999, the Respondent received five prescriptions for Category VII deficiencies in professional responsibilities.

   36. On August 9, 1999, Dr. O'Donnell, director of the Office of Professional Standards, conducted a CFR with the Respondent. The conference addressed Respondent's performance assessments, attendance, medical fitness to perform his duties, noncompliance with directives, violations of the Code of Ethics, and future employment with the Petitioner. Following the CFR the Respondent was to return to Mays Middle to assume his responsibilities on August 26, 1999.

   37. In order to afford the Respondent with additional time to complete his prescriptions, the 90-calendar day probationary period was extended. Since he did not timely complete the prescription but effected medical leave commencing May 14, 1999, the time for formal observations was extended. All parties knew the observation would be conducted between September 13, 1999, and October 19, 1999.

   38. Moreover, the Respondent knew as a result of the CFR that he would be required to comply with his professional responsibilities. Nevertheless, on August 31, 1999, the Respondent failed to submit class counts; he did not submit emergency lesson plans on September 3, 1999; and he did not provide a class list on September 8, 1999.

   39. As a result, Mr. Cooper conducted a CFR on

       
       

       September 17, 1999. The Respondent was deemed insubordinate in all of the areas of professional responsibilities that had been previously delineated. He knew or should have known that the administration was not going to tolerate the failures to submit the required documents. Further, he knew or should have known that the untimely submission of the documents would also not be acceptable. If the Respondent had a medical condition that impaired his ability to timely complete and submit his records, he did not fully explain it to Mr. Cooper.

   40. On September 15, 1999, between 9:30 a.m. and

       
       

       11:15 a.m., Mrs. Kaloostian observed the Respondent's class and performed a TADS assessment. The Respondent knew or should have known the assessment would be forthcoming. He had ample opportunity to be prepared for the assessment. He was not.

   41. The deficiencies cited in the September 15, 1999, evaluation required prescriptive remediations to be completed by October 1, 1999. Again the prescription identified persons

       available to the Respondent to assist in the prescription activities.

   42. The Respondent did not timely complete the prescription and was given 24 additional hours to complete the work.

   43. The Respondent failed to submit attendance cards on time on September 5, 1999, and September 7, 1999.

   44. The Respondent failed to timely submit Student Interim Progress Reports on October 6, 1999.

   45. On October 5, 1999, Mr. Cooper performed a TADS observation in the Respondent's class. Deficiencies were outlined and the Respondent was provided until October 19, 1999, to complete the prescriptive activities.

   46. On October 22, 1999, Mr. Cooper performed a TADS observation in the Respondent's class. This observation also established deficiencies in the Respondent's performance. Consequently, Mr. Cooper recommended that the Respondent's employment with the School District be terminated.

   47. On November 3, 1999, the superintendent of schools issued a letter advising the Respondent that the Petitioner would take action on November 17, 1999, regarding the recommendation to terminate the Respondent's employment contract. The Petitioner did approve the termination as outlined by the superintendent's letter. Thereafter, the

       Respondent timely challenged the action and the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings.

   48. At the hearing, the Respondent did not provide a credible explanation as to why he failed or refused to complete the prescriptions that were provided for him. He did not provide a credible response as to why he failed to be punctual with reports, attendance of meetings, or to comply with the directives provided by the principal and assistant principal.

   49. The directives and suggestions were reasonable in nature and should have afforded the Respondent with an ample opportunity to correct the performance deficiencies.

   50. At all times the Respondent was entitled to and had a representative from the union to advise him and to assist him for the CFRs conducted with school personnel.

   51. The Respondent was repeatedly offered additional time to complete prescriptive assignments.

   52. The Respondent was offered assistance and resources to complete the prescriptive assignments.

       CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

       
       

   53. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings.

   54. Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, provides that teachers may be terminated and dismissed from their employment for just cause. Gross insubordination and willful neglect of duties constitute just cause.

   55. In this case, the Petitioner has established that the Respondent was insubordinate on numerous occasions. The Respondent was directed to comply with all professional responsibilities in a timely manner. The directives were adequate to apprise the Respondent of what was expected of him, were reasonable in nature, and were given with proper authority. Nevertheless the Respondent continued to fail to timely perform. Tardiness, inadequate or inaccurate records, the lack of emergency lesson plans, and the failure to timely complete prescriptions were documented. The Respondent knew or should have known that these continuing failures would not be accepted. His insubordination in the continuing failure to timely perform his responsibilities constitutes just cause for termination of his employment with the Petitioner.

   56. Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, authorizes termination of a teacher when such teacher fails to perform satisfactorily and fails to correct deficiencies within a 90-day probationary period. In this case, the Petitioner has established that the Respondent failed to comply with the prescriptions outlined by the TADS assessments. Despite the

       opportunity to correct the deficient areas of performance, despite assistance opportunities, and despite the extension of time to complete the activities, the Respondent failed to meet the standards. Such failure constitutes adequate evidence to justify the termination of his employment with the Petitioner.

   57. Finally, the Respondent's assertions that his due process and employee rights (as outlined by his Summary Argument) have been violated are rejected. First, the Respondent's argument is not supported by competent, credible evidence in the record. Second, the Respondent has not demonstrated bias or prejudice on the part of Mr. Cooper. To the contrary, Mr. Cooper exhibited restraint and tolerance in a particularly difficult professional circumstance. The Respondent's assessment of this case is not supported by the persuasive weight of the evidence. The Respondent's allegations of conspiracy and collusion as some convoluted scheme to terminate the Respondent's employment with the School District are not supported by the weight of credible evidence.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the termination of the Respondent's employment with the Miami-Dade County School District be affirmed.

DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2001.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education

The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Room 912

Miami, Florida 33132-1308

Charlie L. Bradley

130 Northwest 193rd Terrace Miami, Florida 33169

John Greco, Esquire

Miami-Dade County School Board

1450 North East Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132

Paul J. Schwiep, Esquire

Aragon, Burlington, Weil & Crockett, P.A. Office in the Grove, Penthouse

2699 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33133

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.

Docket for Case No: 99-005005

Orders for Case No: 99-005005