DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against
Hi-Kwol (John) Lee, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Mel Greif, Chair Vicki Shannon, OCT
Wes Vickers, OCT
BETWEEN: ) ) Caroline Zayid
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,
) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,
) Litigation Paraprofessional )
- and – )
) Hi-Kwol (John) Lee on his own
) behalf, in person
HI-KWOL (JOHN) LEE )
(CERTIFICATE #536649) )
) Rebecca Durcan
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: September 17, 2012
REASONS FOR DECISION, DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter commenced before a panel of the Discipline Committee (“the Committee”) on September 17, 2012 at the Ontario College of Teachers (“the College”) at Toronto.
On September 17, 2012, the Notice of Hearing dated December 13, 2011 was entered as Exhibit 1. The Member, Hi-Kwol (John) Lee, appeared in person and was self-represented.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against Hi-Kwol (John) Lee (“the Member”) in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Hi-Kwol (John) Lee is guilty of professional misconduct and/or is incompetent as defined in subsections 30(2) and 30(3) of the Act in that:
a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
b) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264(1)(c) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
c) he displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment and/or a disregard for the welfare of his students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the Member is either unfit to carry out his professional responsibilities or that the Member’s certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.
At the hearing on September 17, 2012, College Counsel, in the absence of the Member, sought to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct in paragraphs (a) and (b) in the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member breached Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5) and 1(15). The Committee agreed that these allegations should be withdrawn.
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Hi-Kwol (John) Lee (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
At all material times, the Member was an employee of the York Region District School Board (the “Board”) and was Hospitality and Integrated Technology teacher for Grades 9 and 10 at Bur Oak Secondary School (the “School”) in Markham, Ontario.
The Member’s performance as a teacher was assessed on November 19, 2008, April 28, 2009 and January 4, 2010.
On November 19, 2008, the Member’s performance was assessed by the Board and it was determined to be in the “Development Needed” category. On April 28, 2009 and January 4, 2010, the Member’s performance was again assessed by the Board and determined to be “Unsatisfactory”. On each occasion, the Member received an “Unsatisfactory” rating in each of the areas of assessment, namely his Commitment to Pupils and Pupil Learning, Professional Knowledge and Professional Practice.
The Member, inter alia:
(a) did not address behaviour such as students chatting and moving around the classroom when he was taking attendance;
(b) did not address behaviour such as students talking during group presentations or while instructions were being given;
(c) did not engage his students with activities to help them focus at the beginning of class;
(d) did not use instructional time effectively;
(e) did not pace his lessons well and had to rush through in order to complete the planned activities;
(f) did not clearly articulate his classroom expectations and did not follow-up with consequences when the students’ behaviour did not improve;
(g) did not address students’ inappropriate behaviour;
(h) did not ask his students questions to promote higher level thinking skills;
(i) did not complete detailed lesson and unit plans;
(j) did not effectively complete unit planning and semester planning as both were vague and incomplete;
(k) did not effectively complete unit plans and lesson plans in that they were not sufficiently detailed to include learning expectations, timing, specific teaching strategies and assessments;
(l) did not address classroom management strategies and safety precautions with the class;
(m) lacked documentation in his record binder to support teacher/parent contacts;
(n) did not record marks using the categories of the achievement chart that is a standard province-wide guide used by all teachers;
(o) did not have any records of diagnostic or formative assessments;
(p) did not provide students with mark updates on a regular basis.
- The Member resigned from his employment with the Board, effective January 22, 2010.
MEMBER’S PLEA
The Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.
The Member was self represented. The Committee, therefore, was very much aware of its responsibility to make sure that the Member was fully informed both about the process of the hearing and the Member’s rights before the Committee.
As the hearing began, the Member made a statement about the length of time that it took to deal with this matter. His position was that there was an inordinate delay and that this was fundamentally unfair. At this point, the Committee Chair explained to the Member the reasons for the length of time and offered an apology on behalf of the Committee for any inconvenience. In response to an additional concern, the Member was assured that the members of the Committee were qualified and in fact, were his peers.
During the testimony of the second witness, the Member stood up and expressed his displeasure with the full nature of this hearing, threw down his College membership card and announced that he was leaving. There was an effort made to intercept and/or find the Member, by College Counsel, so that he could return to the hearing. Despite efforts, the Member could not be found.
The hearing resumed without the Member in attendance.
THE EVIDENCE
The College called three witnesses: Mr. Douglas Case, who was employed as the Vice-Principal with the School in the Fall of 2008; Mr. Ron Zoratto, who replaced Mr. Case as Vice-Principal in 2009 and Ms. Kadri Mereweather, who was employed as the Principal of the School at all material times.
EVIDENCE OF MR. DOUGLAS CASE:
Mr. Case testified that the School was in its second year of operation when the Member was hired as the new Hospitality and Integrated Technology teacher. Mr. Case indicated in his testimony that the Board had hired a number of new teachers that year and that he was part of the team that was responsible for hiring the Member. Mr. Case testified that the Board had programs made available to new teachers under the New Teacher Induction Program (“NTIP”) which were aimed at providing guidance and support to new teachers.
Mr. Case indicated that his role was to directly supervise the new teachers and as part of that role, he was responsible for conducting the first performance appraisal of the Member, which took place at the end of October 2008. The Member met with Mr. Case on October 28, 2008 and made arrangements for a classroom observation, which took place on October 30, 2008.
Mr. Case testified that he completed a Summative Report Form for New Teachers (Exhibit 2) based on the observations he made of the Member’s performance during a class on “pumpkin carving” as well as comments he received from several of the students in the class. The Member received a rating of “Development Needed” in the report. Mr. Case observed that this rating was not common given the support, guidance and training offered through the NTIP process.
Mr. Case indicated that he had a post-observation meeting with the Member on November 13, 2008 in which they discussed an enrichment plan that would assist the Member in following up on the recommendations for improvement that Mr. Case outlined in the report. (Exhibit 2) Mr. Case testified that during that meeting, he recommended that the Member continue to work with his mentor and take advantage of the workshops and NTIP programs offered both at the Board and School level. Mr. Case and the Member both signed off on the enrichment plan on December 8, 2008. Mr. Case transferred to another high school at the end of the second semester.
EVIDENCE OF MR. RON ZORATTO:
Mr. Zoratto testified that he joined the School as its Vice-Principal in 2009. In his role as Vice-Principal, Mr. Zoratto indicated that he completed the second performance appraisal of the Member. Mr. Zoratto indicated that he asked the Member to bring all appropriate materials including record-keeping materials to a pre-observation meeting. He noted that the Member had difficulty preparing lesson and unit plans that were in accordance with the Ministry curriculum guidelines. At that meeting, Mr. Zoratto and the Member made arrangements for the classroom observation portion of the evaluation.
Mr. Zoratto testified that he attended for a classroom observation of the Member on April 7, 2009, in which he observed the Member conduct a lesson on the preparation of “Eggs Benedict.” Mr. Zoratto observed that the Member had little interaction with the students when they entered the classroom, had difficulty with maintaining an organized and structured classroom demonstration as several students were observed leaving their eggs untended on the stove and needed to make greater efforts in accommodating the students with an Individual Education Plan (“IEP”) or English Language Learners (“ELL”).
Following the classroom observation, Mr. Zoratto indicated that he completed the Summative Report Form for New Teachers (Exhibit 3) in which the Member received an “Unsatisfactory” overall performance rating. Mr. Zoratto testified that he had a post-observation meeting with the Member on April 9, 2009. At this meeting, Mr. Zoratto indicated to the Member that based on the pre-observation meeting and classroom observation, it was his opinion that the Member had made little progress since the first evaluation that was completed by Mr. Case. Mr. Zoratto observations included but were not limited to:
(a) the Member did not use teaching notes and his lesson templates were only partially filled out;
(b) the Member did not have a thorough understanding of what was in the curriculum or how he should organize it;
(c) the Member had not collected enough data for his students in order to be able to accurately determine their level of achievement in the course;
(d) the Member had not completed all of the items on his enrichment plan as he failed to attend the following NTIP sessions: a) Classroom management March 24, b) Developing a positive learning environment January 14; and
(e) the Member had not implemented the recommendations made to him by Mr. Case, the previous Vice-Principal.
Mr. Zoratto and the Member discussed an Improvement Plan that would address all of the competencies in which the Member required further development. He testified that as part of the improvement plan, they discussed the Member meeting with and seeking guidance from the Hospitality teacher at Danforth Collegiate and Technical School (“Danforth Collegiate”) with whom the Member was familiar. Mr. Zoratto indicated that the Member refused to work with his own Department Head at the School. He noted that they agreed on a plan in which the Member would obtain the contact information for the teacher and/or Principal of Danforth Collegiate, so Mr. Zoratto could assist in making arrangements for the meetings. Mr. Zoratto and the Member both signed off on the Summative Report (Exhibit 3) on April 28, 2009. Mr. Zoratto testified that following the meeting, he sought direction from the School’s Principal, Ms. Mereweather, with regard to assisting the Member with his improvement plan. The Member agreed to the improvement plan on May 26, 2009.
Mr. Zoratto testified that subsequent to the post-observation meeting, he received complaints from some students and parents of students in the Member’s class. He indicated that he made notes regarding an incident that took place on April 28, 2009 (Exhibit 6) in which students indicated that the Member used profanities, called them “pathetic babies” and said “with this attitude you will never make it in life.” Mr. Zoratto indicated that he received an e-mail dated April 30, 2009 (Exhibit 5) from the Principal, in which a parent voiced concerns over the Member’s behaviour in class, treatment of some students in the class as well as his failure to return the parent’s phone call.
Mr. Zoratto detailed the efforts he made in assisting the Member with implementing the requirements of his improvement plan. He testified that he made notes of the meetings and conversations that he had with the Member concerning those requirements. (Exhibit 4) He testified that his efforts in assisting the Member included but were not limited to:
providing the Member with examples of lesson plans;
providing the Member with release days for visits to Danforth Technical School and attendance at NTIP seminars and courses;
arranging mentoring sessions with other hospitality teachers;
contacting the Vice Principal at Danforth Technical School to arrange meetings with the Curriculum Leader;
providing information regarding the Summer Institute programs provided by the Board; and
reviewing the Member’s lesson plans, curriculum planner and teaching strategies.
Mr. Zoratto testified that he met with the Member and a representative from Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (“O.S.S.T.F.”) in mid-June 2009. He indicated that he reviewed all of the performance appraisal information with the Member and the representative and indicated to them that he did not feel that the Member fully appreciated that failure to make improvements could result in termination. He noted that they discussed the Member making efforts to improve his performance over the summer by attending workshops and seminars offered by the Board.
Mr. Zoratto indicated that shortly after commencing the 2009-2010 school year, he e-mailed the Member to set up a lesson planning and class management meeting as he wanted the Member to have a good start to the new school year. Mr. Zoratto noted that he continued to meet with the Member and provide detailed notes of these meetings to the Member and the Principal throughout the months of September and October 2009. There was very little improvement particularly in the areas of formative or diagnostic assessment, lesson and unit planning, class management, record-keeping, accommodating the needs of students with IEP’s in his class and maintaining parent contact.
Mr. Zoratto testified that by mid-November 2009, he advised the Member to make arrangements to complete his third performance appraisal with the Principal of the School, Ms. Mereweather.
EVIDENCE OF MS. KADRI MEREWEATHER:
Ms. Mereweather testified that she was the Principal at the School for all material times. She indicated that she was a part of the team that hired the Member as the Hospitality and Integrated Technology teacher. Ms. Mereweather outlined that the Member was one of four candidates for the position and was ultimately successful based on his qualifications and his fit with the demographics of the School.
Ms. Mereweather testified that she had been advised of the issues with the Member’s performance by Mr. Case following his first appraisal as well as Mr. Zoratto, who detailed numerous areas of concerns after the Member showed little improvement following the second appraisal. She indicated that there were other new teachers who had received reviews that indicated that they needed improvement and that review of their subsequent materials showed improvements; however follow up with the Member showed that he continued to struggle in many of the areas that Mr. Case originally identified following the first performance appraisal.
Ms. Mereweather testified that the Member did attend some of the summer 2009 workshops and seminars organized by the Board and that she was hopeful that he would be more successful in the coming school year.
Ms. Mereweather indicated in her testimony that following the commencement of the 2009-2010 school year, her impression of the Member’s situation was that Mr. Zoratto was spending more time on trying to improve the Member’s performance than the Member was. She indicated that she set up a pre-observation meeting with the Member on November 25, 2009 and discussed with him the efforts and resources that needed to be put into place to assist the students in learning and to assist the Member in improving his performance. Ms. Mereweather testified that they made arrangements during this meeting for the classroom observation. She indicated that she allowed the Member to choose which day and class that she would observe.
Ms. Mereweather indicated that the classroom observation was set for the Grade 10 Hospitality and Tourism class on November 27, 2009. She indicated that on that day, she arrived at the classroom early so she could observe the students as they entered the room. Ms. Mereweather observed that some of the students continued to talk and wander around the room after the final bell had sounded. She observed that the Member did not address this behaviour. She continued to observe students talking and wandering around throughout the Member’s kitchen presentation and Knife Skills test. She noted that the Member’s pacing of the presentation appeared rushed because it took the students a great deal of time to transition between the classroom presentation and the kitchen presentation. Ms. Mereweather noted some concerns with regard to safety skills in the kitchen demonstration as she observed some hazardous behaviour while the students worked with the knives. She observed that her class observation took place later in the school semester and believed that safety skills should have been set in the students by that point in the school year.
Following the class observation, Ms. Mereweather completed a Summative Report Form for New Teachers (Exhibit 7) in which she noted many of her direct observations from her classroom visit and review of the Member’s planning documents, records binder and improvement plan as well as information that she received from speaking with several students and reviewing some of their notebooks. Ms. Mereweather assessed that the Member’s performance was “Unsatisfactory.” She noted that she found very limited evidence that the Member had addressed the performance areas that were cited as areas in need of development and improvement in his two previous performance appraisals.
Ms. Mereweather testified that she held a post-observation meeting with the Member and a representative from the O.S.S.T.F. on December 7, 2009. She indicated that in this meeting she discussed with the Member and the O.S.S.T.F. representative her observations and recommendations contained within the Summative Report. (Exhibit 7)
She indicated that the Member acknowledged that he had not been successful in completing the requirements or implementing the expectations outlined in his improvement plan. Ms. Mereweather reviewed the support that had been provided to the Member (Exhibit 8) and noted that despite the tremendous support given to him, the Member failed to meet the minimum standard with respect to course planning, instruction, assessment and evaluation. The Member and Ms. Mereweather both signed off on the Summative Report (Exhibit 7) on January 4, 2010. Ms. Mereweather testified that the Member tendered his resignation during their meeting.
DECISION
On September 17, 2012, the Discipline Committee rendered the following oral decision with respect to finding:
Having considered the evidence and onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Counsel for the College, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of incompetence. In particular, the Committee finds that Hi-Kwol (John) Lee committed acts of incompetence as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Act.
In particular, the Committee finds the Member to be incompetent in that he displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment that demonstrates that this Certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations, as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Act.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Committee reached its decision based on the evidence and testimony presented as stated in the portion of the Decision above. The Committee placed weight on the testimony of the two Vice-principals, Mr. Case and Mr. Zoratto, and the Principal, Ms. Mereweather. A full review of the Summative Reports (Teacher Performance Appraisals) was undertaken by the Committee. Before his departure from the hearing, the Member did not provide any evidence or make any submissions about any of the allegations or particulars in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1). The Summative Reports did provide adequate evidence to support the basic nature of the allegation.
In the first Summative Report, (Exhibit 2), it was made clear that the Member did not achieve the levels commensurate with the assistance provided by the NTIP program. The Member was not able to create appropriate lesson plans and there were issues with his classroom management. The Member was given a “Development Needed” assessment and encouraged to continue to work with his mentor.
The second Summative Report, (Exhibit 3), was produced under the auspices of the new Vice-principal, Mr. Zoratto. Here it was observed that the Member did not use teaching notes, did not have a thorough understanding of the curriculum, was unable to determine levels of achievement of his students, had not completed the “Enrichment Plan” previously developed with Mr. Case, had not attended NTIP sessions and had not implemented the recommendations made by Mr. Case, his first Vice-principal.
As a result of the second Summative Report, it was agreed that the Member would seek outside information by contacting another school where there was a large programme with a number of teachers who taught the subjects that were part of the Member’s classroom assignment. This was necessitated by the fact that the Member would not work with his own Department Head.
During the time of the second Summative Report, information regarding parental concerns about the Member’s classroom management skills was being directed to the Principal.
As part of the “Improvement Plan” developed following an “Unsatisfactory” assessment in the second Summative Report, the Member was provided with examples of lesson plans, release days for observing other teachers in another school, sessions with other hospitality teachers, access to other schools, informed of Summer Institutes provided by the Board, review of the Member’s lesson plans, curriculum planner and his teaching strategies. At the same time, the Member was encouraged to contact his Federation for support.
Mr. Zoratto gave the Member advance warning of his upcoming third performance appraisal, which would be conducted by the Principal, Ms. Mereweather. The principal completed the final Summative Report (Exhibit 7). The report assessed the Member as “Unsatisfactory”. There appeared to be no evidence of improvement on the part of the Member in spite of the significant amount of support offered to him. It became obvious that the Member failed to meet the minimum standard with respect to course planning, instruction, assessment and evaluation. The Member tendered his resignation from the Board during his meeting with the Principal. The Member signed off on the third Summative Report.
The Summative Reports as indicated in Exhibits 2, 3 and 7 clearly indicate that the Member failed to demonstrate the knowledge, skill or judgment expected of a teacher. This was even more significant given that the Member was teaching in a classroom setting that required rigorous classroom management and awareness of fundamental safety procedures in a technology class.
The Member was given many opportunities and sufficient time through the NTIP program to develop his skills to the minimum standard required. Even though the Board offered full support, the Member failed to implement the recommendations for improvement that were required. The Member received one “Development Needed” and two “Unsatisfactory” Teacher Performance Appraisal Summative Reports. The testimony of the Vice-principals, Mr. Case and Mr. Zoratto, clearly described, in great detail, the areas needing improvement and the failure of the Member to do so. In her testimony, the Principal, Ms. Mereweather, fully explored the reasons that formed the basis of her assessment that the Member had performed in an unsatisfactory manner.
PENALTY
College Counsel made a submission that the Member not return to any teaching position without evidence of successful completion of a course covering lesson planning, classroom management, student evaluation and record-keeping. College Counsel also requested the Member pay for such course and that the course have the length equivalency of an Additional Qualification course. There need not be a time period for the completion of the course, but the Member would not be permitted to return to teaching until the above conditions have been met.
The Committee accepts the submissions of College Counsel and makes the following order:
a) The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms and conditions and limitations is to be recorded on the Register of the College until such time as they are fulfilled; and
b) Prior to any return to a teaching position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall attend at his own expense, a course which is the length of an Additional Qualification course. This course shall cover the domains of lesson planning, classroom management, student evaluation and record-keeping. This course must be pre-approved by the Registrar.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
The penalty that has been ordered serves the public interest in that it seeks to rehabilitate the Member. The successful completion of the course that has been required ensures the public that the Member will have the awareness of the competencies expected of a teacher. The penalty also serves as a specific deterrent to the Member in that it makes clear the path that he must follow to become an effective and competent teacher.
Dated: October 4, 2012
______________________________ Mel Greif
Chair, Discipline Committee ______________________________ Vicki Shannon, OCT Member, Discipline Committee
Wes Vickers, OCT
Member, Discipline Committee