Ritter.tea.state.tx.us



DOCKET NO. 176-TTC-898

BRIDGEPORT INDEPENDENT § BEFORE THE

SCHOOL DISTRICT §

§

V. § COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

§

§

FONDA BRADBERRY § THE STATE OF TEXAS

DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER

Statement of the Case

Petitioner, Bridgeport Independent School District, requests that the Commissioner take action against the Texas Teaching Certificate of Respondent, Fonda Bradberry. Christopher Maska is the Administrative Law Judge appointed by the Commissioner of Education to preside over this cause. Petitioner is represented by Daniel A. Ortiz, Attorney at Law, Arlington, Texas. Respondent is represented by Mary Littlepage, Assistant Superintendent.

On February 1, 1999, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Proposal for Decision recommending that a reprimand be placed on the face of Respondent's Texas Teaching Certificate for abandonment of contract without consent of the board of trustees. Exceptions and replies were timely filed and considered.

Findings of Fact

After due consideration of the evidence and matters officially noticed, in my capacity as Commissioner of Education, I make the following Findings of Fact:

1. Petitioner, Bridgeport Independent School District, employed Respondent, Fonda Bradberry, under a one-year probationary contract for the 1998-1999 school year.

2. Respondent holds Texas Teaching Certificate XXX-XX-XXXX.

3. Respondent and her family moved from Dallas to Bridgeport in May 1998. A major reason for the move was that Respondent's husband managed oil leases that the Bradberrys owned. Bridgeport was located at a convenient spot to manage the leases.

4. Oil prices declined significantly through 1998.

5. From the time of her marriage, Respondent did not need to work to support her family. Respondent's husband's income was sufficient to conformably support the family. Respondent taught because she loved to teach.

6. Respondent's husband kept knowledge of the true extent of their deteriorating financial situation from Respondent.

7. In mid August, Respondent's husband informed her that they were bankrupt.

8. Respondent informed her principal that she would have to leave Bridgeport Independent School District. The principal stated that Respondent would have to talk to the superintendent about this.

9. On August 18, 1998, Respondent called the superintendent and informed him that she could no longer work for the Bridgeport Independent School District. Respondent erroneously became convinced that the superintendent was not interested in working with her to resolve her difficulties. Respondent concluded the conversation and made no further attempt to contact the superintendent other than to drop off her letter of resignation. Respondent's actions can, in part, be attributed to the fact that she was under significant stress at the time.

10. Respondent did not assist Petitioner in the transition period of getting a new teacher to fill her position.

11. Petitioner was quickly able to retain a certified teacher to fill Respondent's position.

12. Respondent and her family moved to Dallas because her husband had obtained a job in Dallas.

13. Respondent abandoned her contract when the school year had already begun. Petitioner did not consent to Respondent abandoning her contract.

14. Respondent did not have good cause to abandon her contract.

Discussion

Petitioner contends that Respondent abandoned her contract without good cause. Respondent admits to abandoning her contract but maintains that she had good cause.

In the spring of 1998, Respondent and her family moved from Dallas to Bridgeport. Respondent entered into a teaching contract with Petitioner. Respondent's husband was in the oil business. He managed oil leases that he and Respondent owned. Bridgeport was a good location to manage the leases. Throughout 1998, oil prices declined significantly. Respondent's husband had hoped for a turnabout in oil prices. The turnabout never came. By August 1998, he had to liquidate their holdings. Respondent's husband kept her in the dark as to how dire their financial position was until the situation was hopeless. Throughout their marriage, Respondent's husband made enough money to comfortably support the family. Respondent taught because she loved to teach. With no oil leases to manage, Respondent's husband had to find another job. Unfortunately, there were few jobs in Bridgeport. The decision was made to move back to Dallas to search for a job.

Respondent informed her principal that she would have to resign from her position. The principal informed her that she would have to speak to the superintendent. There is some dispute as to what transpired during the conversation with the superintendent. It is concluded that when Respondent called the superintendent, she had just recently received quite a shock. She told the superintendent that she would be leaving the district. While the superintendent wished to discuss possible options such as having Respondent commute, Respondent erroneously interpreted this as an unwillingness to take her situation seriously. Respondent ended the conversation and did not communicate with the superintendent until this case had begun.

The Commissioner has held that good cause for abandoning a contract may be found when a spouse takes a job in a distant city and the teacher takes steps to minimize the disruption caused by departure during the school year. College Station Independent School District v. Wellborn, Docket No. 055-TTC-1196 (Comm'r Educ. 1998). In the present case, Respondent's spouse did take a job in a distant city. The first requirement in the Wellborn test is met. However, Respondent wholly failed to meet the second element. Respondent did not take steps to make the transition easier. It is concluded that Respondent abandoned her contract without good cause.

In an abandonment of contract case, the most common penalty is suspension of a Texas Teaching Certificate for one year. In this case, there are some mitigating factors. In the first place, Respondent did meet the first prong of the Wellborn test. Respondent's spouse found a job in a distant city. In the second place, while Respondent did not properly handle her conversation with the superintendent and did not assist the transition, Respondent had received a serious shock. She had just found out that she had gone from being well-to-do to being bankrupt. Respondent's actions were actions under great stress. In the third place, Petitioner was able to quickly fill Respondent's position with a certified teacher. For these reasons, a less severe penalty is appropriate in this case. An inscribed reprimand is an appropriate penalty. This penalty acknowledges that abandoning a contract without good cause is a serious matter, but will not place an absolute bar to Respondent pursuing the teaching profession in the immediate future.

Conclusion

Respondent did abandon her contract. She did not have the consent of the board of trustees to do so. While she did have a reason for leaving, she did not attempt to mitigate the difficulties caused by changing teachers during the school year. However, in this case, an inscribed reprimand is an appropriate penalty.

Conclusions of Law

After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact, in my capacity as Commissioner of Education, I make the following Conclusions of Law:

1. The Commissioner has jurisdiction to hear this cause under Texas Education Code §13.0461.

2. A teacher may not abandon a contract more than 45 days before the first day of instruction without the consent of the board of trustees or good cause.

3. Good cause for abandonment of contract may be shown if a teacher's spouse takes a job in a distant city and the teacher takes steps to minimize the disruption caused by leaving during the school year. Texas Education Code §13.046.

4. Action should be taken against Respondent's Texas Teaching Certificate because Respondent abandoned her contract during the school year without the consent of the board of trustees and without good cause.

5. Respondent shall send the State Board for Educator Certification all originals and copies of her Texas Teaching Certificate that she possesses.

6. The State Board for Educator Certification shall reissue Respondent's Texas Teaching Certificate with the inscription: "This certificate was reprimanded for abandonment of contract on (date of the Decision of the Commissioner)."

O R D E R

After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed and the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in my capacity as Commissioner of Education, it is hereby

ORDERED that Respondent shall send the State Board for Educator Certification all originals and copies of her Texas Teaching Certificate; and

FURTHER ORDERED that the State Board for Educator Certification shall reissue Respondent's Texas Teaching Certificate with the inscription: "This certificate was reprimanded for abandonment of contract on (date of the Decision of the Commissioner)."

SIGNED AND ISSUED this 6th day of August, 1999.

_________________________________________

MIKE MOSES

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

1 This reference is to the Texas Education Code as it existed on January 1, 1995. Conforming Amendment 63 to SB 1 continues into effect Subchapter B of Chapter 13 of the Texas Education Code.

#010-R2-994 -6-

#176-TTC-898 -6-

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download