DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and Ontario Regulation 437/97 thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Hélène Goulet, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Jacques Tremblay, OCT, Chair Gabrielle Blais Dean Favero, OCT
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Colin Baxter, Cavanagh, Williams, Conway, Baxter LLP for Ontario College of Teachers
– and –
HÉLÈNE GOULET (CERTIFICATE #423841) Hélène Goulet, in attendance at the hearing but not represented by counsel
Paul Le Vay, Stockwoods LLP, Independent Counsel
Heard: October 20, 2008; November 30 and December 1, 2009; April 7 and April 8, 2010
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
This matter was referred to a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) in Toronto on October 20, 2008.
During the hearing dates indicated above on the first page of this decision, the Discipline Committee was made up of three individuals: Jacques Tremblay, Dean Favero and Gabrielle Blais. On October 5, 2011, Mr. Tremblay resigned from his position as a member of Council and withdrew from the Discipline Committee.
Subsection 4.4 (1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act clearly states that if a “… member of a tribunal who has participated in a hearing becomes unable, for any reason, to complete the hearing or to participate in the decision, the remaining member or members may complete the hearing and give a decision…”
Relying on this provision, the Panel retained its statutory power to render its decision with a panel made up of two individuals, namely, Mr. Favero and Ms. Blais, as of October 5, 2011.
A Notice of Hearing dated January 13, 2006, was served to Hélène Goulet requesting that she appear before the Discipline Committee of the College on February 6, 2006, to set the hearing date. The hearing date was set for October 20, 2008, and the hearing continued on November 30 and December 1, 2009, as well as on April 7 and 8, 2010.
The Member was in attendance for the duration of the hearing.
ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against Hélène Goulet in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) dated January 13, 2006, are as follows
IT IS ALLEGED THAT
- Hélène Goulet is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (the “Act”) and/or is incompetent as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Act in that:
a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
b) she failed to keep records as required by her professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10);
c) she failed to comply with the Act and the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2 and specifically paragraph 264(1)(c) thereof or the regulations made under those Acts, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14) and (15);
d) she committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);
e) she engaged in conduct unbecoming of a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19); and
f) she displayed in her professional responsibilities a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of a student of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the member is unfit to continue to carry out her professional responsibilities or that a certificate held by the member under this Act should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.
MEMBER’S PLEA
Hélène Goulet denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.
OVERVIEW OF THE FACTS PRESENTED IN THE NOTICE OF HEARING
Hélène Goulet (the “Member”) was at all relevant times a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
Between the approximate dates of February 2, 2004, and November 4, 2004, the Member was employed by the Conseil scolaire du district catholique Centre-Sud (the “Board”) as a teacher.
On or about February 2, 2004, the Member was assigned to teach Grade [XXX] students at [XXX] (the “School”).
On or about May 19, 2004, the Member received an unsatisfactory evaluation which was contained in a summative report. Three parents had voiced their concerns with respect to the Member’s methods of teaching, her classroom management and her negative relations with students.
On or about May 22, 2004, the Member received a second unsatisfactory evaluation which was contained in a summative report. In that report, one parent had voiced some concern about the Member.
In September 2004, the Member was assigned to a [XXX] class at the School.
On or about October 6, 2004, the Member received a third unsatisfactory evaluation which was contained in a summative report. At that time, five parents had voiced their concerns with respect to the organizational ability of the Member.
The Member was then suspended from her position with pay while awaiting the Board’s decision on the recommendation of the principal of the School to terminate her employment.
In a letter dated November 2, 2004, the Director of Education of the Board informed the Member of the termination of her employment.
The Member failed to demonstrate a commitment to students and student learning in that:
a) she did not consistently maintain a positive rapport with students including replying sharply to a student in an inappropriate manner;
b) she did not establish an environment that maximized learning, in particular, her class was disorganized and had centres that were not identified;
c) she did not utilize a variety of teaching strategies suited to the individual needs of the students. For instance, she did not comply with the Individual Education Plan of a student;
d) she rarely treated students equitably and with respect, as she did not differentiate between the expectations of the curriculum and the teaching strategies to meet the needs of all students. For example, she did not follow the procedures of the school curriculum; and
e) she rarely provided a learning environment that would encourage students to solve problems, make decisions, be life-long learners and grow as individuals and contributing members of a changing society. Further, the Member did not encourage students to observe, take risks, ask questions and experiment by offering them a reassuring learning environment. For example, she did not ask questions at appropriate times.
- The Member failed to maintain and use adequate professional knowledge in that:
a) she had little knowledge of the subject matter that she was teaching, the Ontario Curriculum and education-related legislation as she did not use the appropriate resources to improve learning;
b) she rarely demonstrated that she knew a variety of effective teaching and evaluation methods, and did not use a range of appropriate teaching techniques to create interest in the students;
c) she rarely demonstrated that she knew a variety of effective classroom management strategies and did not use appropriate strategies to ensure discipline; and
d) she did not seem to know how students learned or the factors that influenced their learning and their performance as she failed to use a variety of strategies to motivate students to acquire skills in all subject matters.
- With respect to the Member’s teaching practice:
a) she rarely demonstrated that she made good use of her professional knowledge as well as her understanding of students, the curriculum, legislation, teaching methods and classroom management strategies to foster student learning and performance and did not integrate curriculum guidelines into assignments in a timely manner;
b) she rarely communicated with students, parents and her colleagues on a regular and effective basis as she did not follow the guidelines of the School and of the Board with respect to presenting reports on time;
c) she rarely conducted on-going evaluations of the progress of students, rarely assessed their performances and rarely communicated those results to students and parents on a regular basis. Further, the Member did not establish reports on a regular basis to keep students and parents briefed and to monitor closely the progress of students;
d) she rarely adapted and refined her teaching methods through reflection and continuous learning by using a variety of resources and did not integrate the expectations of the program Pour l’amour des nôtres in her teaching practice; and
e) she rarely used technology in an appropriate manner as part of her teaching and related professional responsibilities and rarely used technology in the School’s activities and to meet the expectations of the Board.
- The Member failed to exercise the appropriate leadership and degree of community commitment which was expected of her in that:
a) she rarely communicated with other members of the teaching staff and school colleagues to create and maintain a favourable learning environment in her classroom and in the School. For example, the member did not participate in community work to organize school activities;
b) she rarely collaborated with other professionals, parents and community members to improve learning and student performance as well as school programs and rarely collaborated with the School support team or worked with that team;
c) she rarely took part in ongoing professional retraining activities to improve her teaching and even though the member had observed other teachers she did not adopt exemplary practices or use new information and/or techniques to enhance her teaching practice;
d) she infrequently integrated the teachings and values of the Roman Catholic church in school programs and activities;
e) she rarely promoted the French language and the Franco-Ontarian culture in school programs and activities; and
f) she failed to participate in the planning of cultural and pastoral activities at the School.
EVIDENCE
It should be noted that, at the time of the hearing, Ms. Francine Dutrisac, Director of Investigations and Hearings, advised the Committee through College counsel, that, in a previous position, she had been copied on two letters concerning the Member (Exhibit 4, Tabs 9 and 11). She therefore informed the Committee that, from the outset of this matter, she had withdrawn from any involvement in this case.
EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE COLLEGE:
The College called the following witnesses:
Lynn Cowie:
Ms. Lynn Cowie was principal at the school where the Member taught during the time of the evaluation period in question. She was the sole author of the Member’s performance evaluations. Ms. Cowie explained the process established by the School Board to evaluate a new member of the teaching staff. In February 2004, Grade [XXX] was split and the Member was hired at that time to teach mathematics, science, French and religious education.
Ms. Cowie admitted to feeling ill at ease with the Member from her first day at school. Wondering whether Ms. Goulet was able to teach the Ontario Curriculum, Ms. Cowie told her that, if this work made her uncomfortable, there was no commitment on her part and that she could resign if she wished. The Member stated that she was quite comfortable teaching Grade [XXX]. Later in her testimony, Ms. Cowie explained that she had another slight feeling of uneasiness on that first day when the Member failed to follow the principal’s instructions as to how to memorize the list of students and when she apparently did not even say “hello” to them. A month later, Ms. Cowie met with the Member because she was concerned about her professional responsibilities. She testified that she had “learned” that the Member was not complying with the Grade [XXX] mathematics curriculum requirements. The Member responded that she had to teach the basics because the students knew nothing about Grade [XXX] mathematics. Ms. Cowie explained that the request for the meeting was motivated by a parent’s complaint regarding the Member’s science teaching and by her own visit to the Member’s classroom to observe the oral science presentations. She followed up the meeting with a letter of clarification dated March 11, 2004, in which she raised her concerns about the Member’s professional responsibilities and the deficiencies in her interpersonal relations with her colleagues. Ms. Cowie also offered the support of a teaching consultant but, because of the consultant’s workload, this assistance was limited to one or two meetings.
The Member’s first evaluation took place on May 5, 2004. Ms. Cowie recalled that the Member was going to teach a mathematics lesson and remembered having filled in the Parent and Student Observation section of the evaluation document and having noted the parents’ concerns vis-à-vis the Member’s teaching methods and how she “conducted herself” in the classroom. In response to a question asked by College counsel, Ms. Cowie admitted that a parent had questioned the Member in her presence but that she did not recall the nature of the discussion. She did, however, remember the student ([XXX]) who was being discussed. Afterwards, she summarized the classroom visit that she had made as part of the evaluation. She reported certain weaknesses such as the Member’s lack of commitment to students, the lack of classroom decoration, the absence of memory aids, the lack of a variety of instructional techniques, her lack of knowledge of the Ontario Curriculum, the absence of a lesson plan, the Member’s profuse use of photocopies as her main teaching tool and her isolation vis-à-vis her colleagues. Ms. Cowie stated that, since the Member left her classroom door open, she was frequently able to make informal observations. According to Ms. Cowie, the Member’s meeting with the teaching consultant did not lead to any observable performance improvement. The Member’s overall rating was unsatisfactory.
Under the Leadership and Community heading on the Member’s performance evaluation, Ms. Cowie indicated that the resource teacher was “there” to help the students and also to help the teacher. The Member did not request any assistance from the resource teacher.
Ms. Cowie offered to help the Member, saying “I was always available to support her in her development.”
The principal provided other examples of the Member’s professional shortcomings as she continued her testimony. She found the Member unpleasant and curt with the students. On the other hand, she indicated that “her politeness was noteworthy. Ms. Goulet was always very polite in my office.” She also said that the Member failed to send the student evaluations to the students’ homes so that their parents could look them over and sign them. All she sent was the achievement chart and this, according to Ms. Cowie, was not enough. She believed that she had discussed this issue with the Member.
In conclusion, Ms. Cowie informed the Committee that the Member declined to sign the three documents of the first evaluation as well as the resulting learning plan and improvement plan. The principal did, however, testify that the Member took part in drafting these two plans because it was her practice to involve the teachers in this exercise.
With respect to the learning plan and the improvement plan, the principal confirmed that the teacher showed an open mind in wanting to get to know the curriculum and in wanting to learn.
Two teaching sessions were planned for the second evaluation, that is, a French lesson and a science lesson. When Ms. Cowie arrived for the French lesson, the Member was teaching mathematics. She admitted to Ms. Cowie that she had lost her daily agenda book and had forgotten that the evaluation was supposed to take place that day. The evaluation of the science course, scheduled for a later date, did not take place because the Member was absent. Ms. Cowie testified that, during this evaluation period, a few parents had complained about the Member’s teaching or her lack of communication. In short, the second evaluation pointed to the same weaknesses as those identified at the time of the first evaluation. The Member was given a “Notice to the Teacher” advising her that she had received two unsatisfactory evaluations and would consequently be on review status in accordance with the School Board’s supervision process.
The Member declined to sign the various documents related to the second evaluation.
The third evaluation took place during the new school year, that is, in October. The Member was teaching a [XXX] class. During her visit, Ms. Cowie observed that the Member was not teaching and had not prepared her class in accordance with the program procedures. The children were noisy and talkative, indicating a lack of routine and discipline. The class was poorly structured and the learning centres were not identified. Once again, Ms. Cowie reported that the Member’s failure to communicate had been raised by some parents. In addition, the principal noted that the Member had been curt with a student. Under the Leadership and Community heading, Ms. Cowie criticized the Member’s lack of committee participation.
The result of the third evaluation was unsatisfactory. The Member signed the post-observation meeting report for the third evaluation. She declined to sign the other related documents. Ms. Cowie subsequently advised the Board of the result of the third evaluation and recommended terminating the Member’s employment.
The Member began her cross-examination of Ms. Cowie by questioning her about the process used to split the Grade [XXX] class when she arrived at the school and the placement of a student with serious emotional disorders in her class.
The Member continued with questions about her own teaching techniques. Ms. Cowie explained that she had found it very difficult during one of the teacher’s performance evaluations to understand some of the students because they spoke too softly or indistinctly in the oral presentations. With regard to the question period that followed the presentations, Ms. Cowie voiced the opinion that very few questions had been asked because the students had likely not heard or understood the presentation. She was concerned about how well the other students had understood.
Ms. Cowie then stated that the Member was often sitting while teaching and that, according to some of the complaints from parents and students, she did not teach the subject but made copious use of photocopies. In response to a question from the Member, Ms. Cowie was unable to specify the extent to which photocopies were used. She also denied that she was a friend of the mother of a student in the Member’s class.
The Member then questioned Ms. Cowie’s testimony about the manner in which she spoke to the students and to Ms. Cowie. The Member was always polite towards her, according to Ms. Cowie, since she was in a position of authority and the students were not.
Ms. Cowie explained that, over her 31 years of experience, she had taught mathematics and science for approximately 20 years. She also responded that she was not familiar with the new mathematics and science program.
With respect to the working atmosphere in the classroom, the Member asked Ms. Cowie how she could explain that the students were always working silently when they were grouped into teams. Ms. Cowie answered, “I don’t know because it was very quiet in your class.”
Ms. Cowie confirmed that a transfer to the secondary school would have been a possibility for the next year, provided that the two principals concerned were in agreement and that the performance evaluations were satisfactory. Since the Member’s evaluations were not satisfactory, a transfer was no longer possible. This decision was in compliance with the Board’s guidelines. When a Grade [XXX] position became available at the end of the school year, Ms. Cowie decided that she could not transfer the Member from the [XXX] class to which she had assigned her. She informed the Member that she had failed to demonstrate the skills required to teach at that level and that the [XXX] curriculum was “a wee bit easier.” The Member asked the principal to explain this decision since she had already been offered training in science teaching by the teaching consultant.
The cross-examination continued with the case of a [XXX] student and communications with the parent. Ms. Cowie explained that the parent had complained on several occasions that the Member was not returning her calls.
Questions were asked about the state of the [XXX] classroom and the performance evaluation for this level. Ms. Cowie confirmed that the classroom was smaller than usual but that it had been used for [XXX] both before and after the period during which the Member taught. With respect to the evaluation observation period, Ms. Cowie estimated that she stayed in the classroom approximately 50 minutes, observing the school day opening routine; this included singing the national anthem and saying the prayer over the intercom, taking attendance and counting with the students. Ms. Cowie stated that she did not remember very many details after that. During the questioning about the adaptation period required for a teacher assigned to a particular level for the very first time, Ms. Cowie said that it was not usual for a teacher to know a whole program after one month. However, the class should have been prepared in the prescribed manner. Finally, Ms. Cowie noted that she had received an e-mail on May 31 informing her of training for the [XXX] program available in August. She forwarded this message to the Member and invited her to take part in it.
The Member submitted three exhibits that Ms. Cowie was unable to identify: Exhibit 6, “Incremental Planning – 2003-2004”; Exhibit 7, “Preparation for the Supply Teacher”; and Exhibit 8, “AEFO Individual Grievance.” These exhibits would later be authenticated by the Member when she herself testified.
The Member asked Ms. Cowie how she could consider her to be incompetent when she had been selected to give make-up courses in French and mathematics. Ms. Cowie responded that these courses came under the School Boards’ authority and not hers.
The Member and Ms. Cowie then discussed the complaint brought by a parent concerning the evaluation of a student. Ms. Cowie did not at first remember the student in question but, after some prompting from the Member, she managed to identify the student as the daughter of a witness who would be appearing later in the hearing. She also did not remember whether the student’s mark had been changed or “repaired.” Ms. Cowie confirmed that if marks had not been properly assigned, the principal had the right to make changes.
France Cossette:
College counsel introduced Ms. Cossette as the second witness. Ms. Cossette was a resource teacher at the same school as the Member during the period in question. After filing her curriculum vitae (Exhibit 11) and describing her academic background, Ms. Cossette reviewed her assignment within the school. As a resource teacher, she worked in her room with students who had been identified as having learning difficulties and with students who had various types of handicaps. Ms. Cossette’s classroom was opposite the library between two other classrooms. Since the library wall was made of glass, she was able to observe the Member’s class because it had been temporarily located in the library.
Ms. Cossette explained that she often heard the Member shout. She also commented that there was very little interaction between the Member and the students. She never observed the Member writing on the board.
In her role as a resource teacher, Ms. Cossette taught some of the students in the Member’s class. These students had to leave the Member’s classroom whenever they went to see Ms. Cossette.
Ms. Cossette testified that E was a high-needs student who was entitled to consult the resource teacher for support in all subject areas. When she was assigned to a half-day of intensive support, the student sometimes reported for a period of more than 45 minutes. Ms. Cossette said that Student E was denied access to her services on several occasions. Ms. Cossette explained that the Member had told Student E two or three times that she had to work in the classroom and that she did not need additional help. According to Ms. Cossette, Student E once left the Member’s class without permission to go to see the resource teacher, who received her. According to her, Student E had asserted herself vis-à-vis the Member’s directive and she was very proud of this student’s action. In response to other questions from College counsel, Ms. Cossette testified that she had fewer memories of similar incidents with other students who had acted less emotionally than Student E. She stated that she also met with Student C and Student D.
Ms. Cossette testified that the students arrived with photocopies of mathematics sheets and that these exercises “had been taken from” manuals originating in Québec and did not comply with the Ontario Curriculum. She further stated that no preparation was done in the classroom and that, according to the students, the only instructions were to “do the work.”
Ms. Cossette said that she could see from her own classroom that the students in the Member’s classroom were at their desks working on “sets of papers.” She said that she was able to observe the Member’s activities for approximately six weeks until the class moved to a portable classroom.
Ms. Cossette continued with a detailed criticism of the Member’s teaching methods in mathematics. She used the Ontario Curriculum as a benchmark. College counsel asked Ms. Cossette whether she was able to see any emotional bonds between the Member and her students. She responded that she did not observe any interaction between the Member and her students. Student J was often a victim of the Member’s mood swings and was frequently denigrated by her in the classroom. Student N apparently received the same treatment.
College counsel tried to introduce a new item of evidence based on hearsay. The intention was to ask Ms. Cossette to “give a brief description of your observations through your daughter, C, in terms of [the Member’s] science and math teaching.” Before admitting the testimony, the Committee Chair asked the independent counsel for his opinion. He explained the Discipline Committee’s Rule on Hearsay Evidence, including the discretion given to the Committee and the admissibility threshold. College counsel explained that the intention was to have Ms. Cossette testify in terms of her experience as a parent, but he agreed that there would be a certain amount of hearsay in such testimony. The Member did not oppose this testimony. After deliberating, the Committee decided not to hear a testimony that might be based on hearsay because it would not meet the reliability and necessity criteria requirements of the evidence relevance test.
Ms. Cossette emphasized that she had never seen the Member in the staff room and that she had no memory of seeing her involved on a committee. Ms. Cossette explained that she was trying to avoid making suggestions in the case of curriculum-related questions since that was not her “role at the school.” She was often approached as a resource person, however, because of her knowledge of the curriculum. The Member had never come to consult her.
Ms. Cossette’s cross-examination began with questions about her experience with the new curriculum. She answered that, as a resource teacher, she had to work with the curriculum of Grades 6, 7 and 8. The Member also asked questions about the timetable, recreation and on-call time. Ms. Cossette explained that these did not come under her responsibility. Later, the Member asked Ms. Cossette to draw a diagram of the Member’s classroom. It was agreed that the witness would produce such a diagram later in the day as best she could from memory (Exhibit 18). According to the Member, the purpose was to examine several aspects of the physical layout of the classroom and how these impacted her teaching.
The testimony then turned to the materials used in the classroom. Ms. Cossette testified that she rarely looked at the materials assigned by the teacher (the Member) to her own daughter, adding that she did not supervise her daughter’s homework. She testified that she had, however, looked at the work of some of the students and that she had come to the conclusion that, in general, the materials were always derived from the same source. In response to other questions related to mathematics, Ms. Cossette said that, over a two-week period, she had taught from “a set of papers” assigned by the Member to the students and that these papers did not comply with the curriculum.
With regard to science teaching, Ms. Cossette testified that co-operative teaching was not involved because, according to her, there was no teaching.
Following a brief review of the exchanges between the Member and Ms. Cossette about teaching fractions, both of them agreed that teaching fractions is a prerequisite for the Grade [XXX] curriculum. The Member asked Ms. Cossette whether they had discussed between themselves the relevance of teaching fractions in Grade [XXX]. Ms. Cossette replied that she did not remember any such discussions.
Ms. Cossette also testified about the school atmosphere and splitting the student groups at the time of the Member’s arrival. Ms. Cossette said that there was a good atmosphere of collaboration and mutual aid. She noted that she had not participated in the splitting of the 34 students and that she did not know why Students J1, P and N had been placed in the Member’s class. Ms. Cossette confirmed that the Member taught science and mathematics to both groups. She responded that she was not aware that the Member taught French to two classes and that this assignment had been made the day before the Member began her employment.
In response to a question from the Member, Ms. Cossette said that she did not know the religious education curriculum as well as the other curricula and that she did not recall the Member’s requesting her help with this subject. She also responded that it was possible the Member had received help in religious education or other subjects from other teachers, but she reiterated that the Member had never consulted her.
Ms. Cossette confirmed that Student E’s school record indicated that she was a high-needs student. She said that she and the Member had discussed Student E and had come to an agreement that this student was to leave the regular class and come to see her. This agreement was reached following an incident in which the student was denied the right to leave the regular class. The Member and Ms. Cossette agreed that Ms. Cossette had shared the fact that Student E had an IEP and was to leave the class to receive help in mathematics. They were not able to confirm, however, whether this discussion had taken place before classes started or later.
Ms. Cossette had difficulty remembering the condition of the Member’s portable classroom and the lunch supervisions she had supposedly done there. When the Member asked Ms. Cossette how she could criticize her lack of teaching strategy, Ms. Cossette responded that three of her students came to see her on a regular basis. Returning to Student E, Ms. Cossette denied the Member’s allegation that the class marks had been “inflated” so as to meet parents’ expectations.
The testimony continued with questions about the “circular” diagrams and, in particular, about an incident in which Ms. Cossette advised the Member not to teach these principles because they were “already known.” Ms. Cossette denied making any such intervention. The Member asked Ms. Cossette to comment on the criticism that she always taught sitting down. Ms. Cossette replied that she had seen very few situations in which the Member was standing and walking about in the classroom. In response to how many times Ms. Cossette had come into the class while the Member was teaching, she answered: “once, maybe twice, very infrequently.” The last thing that Ms. Cossette remembered about these visits was that they took place in a science course, that the visit in question had been difficult and that she had decided to keep her distance from the Member’s classroom after that. The Member and Ms. Cossette continued with an exchange about an intervention allegedly made by Ms. Cossette with respect to the “circular” diagrams and an accusation by Ms. Cossette that the Member had shouted in the classroom. Ms. Cossette stated that she did not recall the mathematics intervention but remembered that the Member had shouted, “Be quiet and work.”
Ms. Cossette confirmed that there was no student mathematics textbook related to the new curriculum at that time.
The Member returned to the questions concerning the time when she was teaching in the library. Ms. Cossette confirmed that she could not see everything that was going on in the room but that she moved about frequently, which allowed her to see all the same. According to her, the Member was often sitting down and did no formal teaching.
Ms. Cossette said that she vaguely recalled that the Member had been hired by the School Board to offer remedial courses in mathematics and French.
The testimony continued with questions about Student J3. Ms. Cossette confirmed that, on several occasions, she witnessed inappropriate comments made by the Member to Student J3. The following examples were given: “You’re a slacker. You’re lazy. You don't work. You do what you want. You think you can come out with anything because you’re a good-looking jock.” Ms. Cossette added that she would have liked to see the Member bond with all the students.
When questioned about the writing competition, Ms. Cossette confirmed that the competition was presented to all the teachers and that they agreed on how to organize it following a staff meeting. She explained that the competition was sponsored by the school council. The Member asked Ms. Cossette whether she recognized the signature of a colleague who thanked the Member (Exhibition 13, written communication). She replied, “No, I couldn’t swear to it.”
In response to questions asking for confirmation of details about the location and conditions of the Member’s second-floor [XXX] classroom, Ms. Cossette first denied having any knowledge but then indicated that “it was a regular classroom with a washroom just in front.” Later on in her testimony, she confirmed that she had taught in the classroom “just next door” for an entire school year.
The Member asked Ms. Cossette to express her opinion on the allegation that she supposedly committed acts that were disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. She responded that she believed the Member had done something unprofessional and that she had engaged in disgraceful conduct by shouting at students and calling them slackers.
The Member and Ms. Cossette continued their exchange about the interactions needed with learning-disabled students. Ms. Cossette stood by her allegation that the Member refused to allow Student E to come and see her for instructional support until she intervened. She continued her testimony, explaining that Student E came to see her over the course of the year because she wanted to leave the Member’s classroom.
As for the science manipulation strategies, the Member questioned the witness to find out whether she had observed her using a variety of strategies. Ms. Cossette responded, “I would hope so… I don’t know… I know that this variety was lacking in the case of the students I was working with.”
On the second day of her testimony, Ms. Cossette stated that, based on her observations, communication between the Member and her students was infrequent and ineffective. As for herself, she said that she often felt intimidated by the Member, who allegedly used a sarcastic tone with her.
The Member asked numerous questions about the physical layout of the Member’s classroom in the library. Ms. Cossette answered, giving the details she could remember, and concluded that it was not an ideal place for teaching. As for the small office located within the library, she maintained that there was minimal traffic; she did, however, acknowledge the possibility that there was a printer in the library used to print materials coming from other classrooms.
At the beginning of the cross-examination, the Member had asked Ms. Cossette to produce a diagram of the classroom (Exhibit 4). She completed it at the end of the day. It contained a visual image of the classroom (which was located in the library), including the bookshelves, student desks, board, windows, etc. The next day, the Member informed the Committee that she wanted to make some changes to the diagram. After discussion, the Committee decided that the diagram with the changes approved by Ms. Cossette would become Exhibit 14A. Then, in response to questions from the Member, Ms. Cossette made a few changes.
At the Member’s request, Ms. Cossette identified the documents (Exhibits 15 and 16) as being taken from the Mathématiques en direct [Math in Context] exemplars, which are tools provided by the Ontario Ministry of Education. The Member used these documents in the classroom. Ms. Cossette confirmed that the use of these tools complied with the curriculum requirements until the students could be offered adequate preparation. According to her observations, the Member’s three students who came to her classroom for support were not adequately prepared. In Ms. Cossette’s view, it followed that the same was true for the other students.
College counsel noted that Exhibits 15 and 16, produced by the Member to contradict Ms. Cowie’s testimony, had not been submitted to Ms. Cowie at the time of her own testimony. The independent council explained to the Committee that “according to the Browne and Dunn Rule, when the testimony of a previous witness is going to be contradicted, this evidence must, out of fairness to this witness, be submitted to the witness so that he or she can have the opportunity to present his or her own version of the facts.” He added that there were two possibilities, namely: either allow the College to recall Ms. Cowie as a witness or give less weight to the evidence that the second witness would be introducing. College counsel made no further objections to the filing of Exhibits 15, 16 and 17. The Committee decided to allow the Member to proceed with the questioning but reserved the right to weigh it appropriately.
With respect to Exhibit 17, the Member questioned Ms. Cossette in order to establish the compliance of the planning materials with Ministry expectations. She gave the following Ministry of Education examples: “Identifying a solid from its views, faces, sides and top,” “Modelling and Algebra,” “Interpolating and extrapolating from a graphic representation of a relationship,” “Using a decimal number or a percentage to express probability” and “Structure and Mechanism: Mechanical Efficiency.” Ms. Cossette confirmed the source of the documents but was unable to recall whether they had been used in the Member’s classroom. The Member asked Ms. Cossette whether there were posters on the walls of the science class. She confirmed that the posters had been produced by the students but admitted that she did not remember whether they reflected the Ministry expectations for the appropriate curriculum.
At this point, the Member decided to introduce her own diagram of the classroom to elicit comments from Ms. Cossette. In response to an objection from College counsel that the exhibit had not been authenticated, the Committee decided to allow this exhibit (Exhibit 18), subject to authentication at the time of the Member’s testimony. Ms. Cossette was not able to confirm certain details of the diagram, in particular the exact location of the furniture.
The Member then produced a student activity workbook as Exhibit 19. The Member also produced a memorandum (Exhibit 20) which the witness acknowledged having written. This was in the form of Post-it note and requested details on the competencies that would be evaluated so that Ms. Cossette could better prepare the students whom she was assisting. The Member asked the witness whether it was probable that she administered that “particular test,” to which the witness replied “probably.” The witness also confirmed that the test content was directly tied to the Ministry recommendations. She further confirmed that there was a probability the Member administered the evaluation task submitted as Exhibit 21 as well as the task filed as Exhibit 23.
The Member produced a planning document (Exhibit 22) containing handwritten notes and asked the witness to confirm that these notes referred to the “Math Soleil” [Sun Math] instructional program. The witness responded that it was possible that the items noted represented the concepts of percentage, ratio, equivalent rate, unit rate, powers and scientific notations. She was not able to confirm that these notions had actually been taught. However, she recalled a test on percentages. At the end of the cross-examination, College counsel returned to Ms. Cossette to have her clarify certain issues. The witness confirmed that she often moved about in the school and was able to see and hear what was going on in the library.
The Committee also asked certain questions. In response to one question, Ms. Cossette explained that there was no precise protocol that applied to the movement of students during class. She also acknowledged that she never heard the Member give the order to “get going and do the work,” as she had earlier testified. In response to a question of clarification from College counsel, Ms. Cossette reaffirmed that she did not hear the Member utter this order and that she had based her interpretation on comments made to her by the students. With regard to Student J3, Ms. Cossette confirmed that she had witnessed two incidents in which he was treated disrespectfully. She also confirmed that she had seen Student N getting a telling-off from the Member. Finally, Ms. Cossette testified that she never was responsible for supervising the Member.
EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE MEMBER:
The Member began her testimony by requesting authentication of all the exhibits which she had introduced prior to her own testimony. The Committee decided that the Member should have authenticated each exhibit at the time she brought it into her testimony. The Member advised the Committee of her intention to proceed, commenting on the minutes of the previous testimonies. She stated that the supporting documents which she had submitted, together with her cross-examination of the witnesses, demonstrated that her teaching was based on the Ontario Curriculum.
She stated that she gave formative tests at the beginning of the school year so that she could get to know the students better and guide their instruction, especially in the basics of mathematics. She added that she did a huge amount of remedial work in mathematics both with groups and with individuals. She was able to do so because she had already worked as a remedial teacher for a few years.
According to the Member, there was serious disagreement between her, the school principal and Ms. Cossette about how to teach fractions. The Member justified her position by maintaining that she had to review fractions with the students because they had not mastered them and that fractions were a prerequisite to other mathematical concepts. She stated that she received the help she needed from the teaching consultant, Ms. Lachapelle, without the knowledge of the principal and Ms. Cossette. The Member denied several statements made by Ms. Cowie in her testimony, such as “The students had not been well prepared.” The Member reacted to Ms. Cowie’s criticism that she was not meeting Ministry expectations by stating that the achievement charts included in the mathematics documents that she submitted were in compliance with Ministry expectations.
As for Student E, the Member explained that she refused to let her leave [the classroom] because she had not been informed that Student E was not supposed to attend her course. As soon as the situation was clarified, she agreed with Ms. Cossette to a working arrangement. In response to the matter of “Student-oriented Teaching,” the Member confirmed that she individually revised all the homework of each student so as to provide individualized instruction. In response to the criticism that she tended to teach while sitting down, the Member stated that the fact that there were texts on the board, as described by Ms. Cowie, showed the contrary. She completely denied the statement that she did not say “good morning” to the students. She referred to the paradox of Ms. Cowie’s criticizing her classroom for being too quiet while also saying that she shouted a lot.
In response to Ms. Cowie’s testimony that the Member kept her classroom doors open, the Member responded that she had nothing to hide and that this did not bother her. The Member responded to Ms. Cowie’s comment that she did not ask her for help by explaining that she sought out help when she needed it. As for Ms. Cowie’s criticism that she was rather curt, the Member used another statement from Ms. Cowie’s testimony: “Her politeness is noteworthy. Ms. Goulet was always very polite in my office.”
The Member stated that her communications with some of the parents were friendlier and less tense than Ms. Cowie’s. She cited the cases of Student N and another student as examples.
The Member pointed out that the inappropriate physical premises were a factor that could explain why the [XXX] class was not laid out in the prescribed manner.
Regarding the training sessions offered by Ms. Cowie on August 30 and 31, the Member explained that she was a supernumerary in the system on those two days.
The Member refuted the allegations claiming that she called Student J “lazy and good-for-nothing.” She confirmed that she had never, in all her career, made offensive comments to a student face to face. Instead, according to her, she “jolted” Student J a bit by telling him that it was time he did some work.
The question of whether or not to include references to Ms. Cossette’s daughter in the testimony was raised again in the context of the Committee’s earlier decisions on hearsay evidence. The Member and College counsel gave arguments as to the relevance of the testimony in a teacher-student context. After hearing the arguments and receiving the opinion of the independent counsel, the Committee decided to admit the Member’s testimony regarding Ms. Cossette’s daughter, as long as it focused on or dealt only with the teacher-student relationship.
The Member maintained that Ms. Cowie, the school principal, wanted to “force” her to have a meeting with her colleague, Ms. Cossette, about fractions. She stated that Ms. Cossette had twice told her that she was not supposed to be teaching fractions. According to the Member, Ms. Cossette was not the person who could help her because Ms. Goulet said that she herself had competencies in science and mathematics. She stated in this regard: “How can a person lacking these competencies possibly evaluate the competencies of someone else?”
As for the performance evaluations and her competence, the Member made a connection between the materials which she used for student evaluations and the Ontario Curriculum. According to the Member, Ms. Cossette confirmed in her cross-examination that certain activities and tests were directly tied to the Ontario Curriculum. She also referred to Exhibit 19, Student C’s individual activity workbook. This exhibit contains various evaluation tasks in mathematics and some student workbooks.
With regard to the difference of opinion on how to teach fractions, which is part of the Ontario Curriculum, the Member maintained that she did teach them and that Ms. Cossette’s testimony backed up her statement. Also, according to the Member, Ms. Cossette told her, “You mustn’t teach fractions because they’ve already been covered and you’d do well not to spend any time on them.” The Member added that Ms. Cossette was very aggressive in this regard.
The following points concerning science were raised:
- The Member stated that Ms. Cowie criticized her for not using a variety of teaching strategies. When the Member asked her for examples, the only suggestion she received was to use an overhead projector.
- She was referred to another teacher for assistance. This person merely used the textbook as a tool.
- The Member stressed that this was an excellent textbook. However, while she did use it in her own teaching as a basic reference, she also added some external references.
- A part of her course included student projects. These were so successful that they became a source of personal renewal for her. She acknowledged, however, that some of the students did not meet the expectations.
In her testimony, the Member presented her pedagogical approach to teaching mathematics and specifically to teaching fractions. She checked to make sure that the students had the prerequisite knowledge. Then, to help make up for their lack of knowledge about fractions, she made mini-vignettes lasting five to 10 minutes; these were followed by personal exercises and homework exercises, which she corrected individually. She testified that if a student needed more, she gave him or her extra exercises.
She explained that she then taught equivalent fractions, the conversion of fractions to decimal percentages, decimal percentages to fractions and the four basic fraction operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. She then moved on to powers, as prescribed by the Ontario Curriculum. However, she had to teach fractions as a prerequisite to powers.
She summarized her form of teaching by saying that, as soon as she began her employment, she assessed what the students knew, invested in their knowledge and brought them along to the point where they were supposed to be according to the Curriculum. She added that she frequently went beyond the expectations, enriching them with her own additions.
At the request of the Chair, the Member authenticated and commented on the following exhibits:
Exhibit 6, “Incremental Planning – 2003-2004, Grade [XXX] Level.” The Member explained that this exhibit was a copy of her plan and that it was written by her.
Exhibit 7, “Timetable for February 19 and other dates.” This was a timetable developed the day before she began her employment. It was written in the presence of the other teacher.
Exhibit 8, “Individual Grievance – Ms. Hélène Goulet.” The Member explained that this exhibit was an harassment grievance against the principal. In response to a question from the Chair, the Member confirmed that it was the grievance linked to her dismissal.
Exhibit 9, “Freehand letter and other information.” The Member explained that these notes written on October 27 described what was happening at the school.
Exhibit 15, p.1, The Member submitted this document as evidence that the students were prepared for the test.
Exhibit 23, “Achievement Chart and Data Processing/Probability Test.” The Member filed this document as evidence that her teaching complied with the Ontario Curriculum.
Exhibit 24, “Correspondence between [XXX] and Ms. Goulet and other correspondence.” The purpose of this exhibit was to show that the Member treated Student N fairly and to prove that she maintained relations with the parents.
The Member continued her testimony with a description of difficult situations with some of the students. In one case, her task was complicated by a student who had high expectations concerning her academic achievement and questioned the evaluation results. This student also tried to assume a teaching role in the classroom. As for Student J, the Member stated that she made quite sure there was no one in the hall before “reprimanding” him. Later, she described a time when she congratulated him. Student E was described as being a “major cause of disruption … who did nothing” and who was a bad influence on Student J. These examples were presented to show the Member’s “how-to” approach, which was aimed primarily at developing student autonomy.
With respect to science teaching, the Member said that she had answered a question from Ms. Cowie about what she had taught in science that day, stating that she had taught internal motor combustion. Ms. Cowie replied with some confusion that chemistry should not be taught before Grade [XXX]. The Member then pointed out in the class book that this concept was part of the program and that the students needed to understand motor combustion.
The Member raised the fact that Ms. Cowie had not criticized her French teaching in any of the evaluations. The Member also indicated that she taught religious education but maintained that she had had difficulty finding instructional materials for this course. She asked the principal and her colleagues in the library for resources. She finally received some documents from the School Board. She concluded by saying that she read the program, obtained information and taught the program.
The Member testified that, although the principal and Ms. Cossette said that they were not aware of what was going on in the classroom, this was not the case. She gave a few examples in which one or the other had criticized certain specific aspects of her teaching. The Member further stated that Ms. Cossette visited her class with no prior notice and that she had sometimes shown up quite angry, asking what the Member was teaching. The Member also accused Ms. Cowie of making such intrusive visits.
As for the Individual Education Plan (IEP) for Student E, the Member confirmed that this student did have an IEP but that it did not come under her responsibility; she added that she gave the initial explanations to the student and that the student then went to see Ms. Cossette. The Member stated that she was told that Ms. Cossette was responsible for Student E’s IEP. In conclusion, the Member knew that Student E had an IEP but did not know whether the IEP was linked to the courses that she was teaching.
The Member pointed out that she had good relations with the parents, including with the parents of Students N, J1 and G. She added that, during the report card meetings with parents, she had no problem with the parents, not even with those who had a reputation for being problem parents.
The Member referred to a workplace harassment grievance against the principal which she had filed through her union. She described the situation leading up to the grievance, notably the principal’s attitude towards her (for example, she was never given pleasant tasks), the “spying” to which she was subjected, the inadequate physical facilities (for example, the dirty classroom and excessive heat in the portable classroom) and the lack of equipment. The Member later informed the Committee that this grievance had been withdrawn.
The Member explained that, during her [XXX] trial period, Ms. Cowie insisted that she had to receive a class preparation every day. The Member maintained that the union saw this as an abuse because of the availability of both the daily preparations and the comprehensive preparation for the month.
The Member backed up Ms. Cowie’s earlier testimony in which Ms. Cowie stated that she could withdraw from the job on her first day of work. According to the Member, Ms. Cowie was motivated by the intervention of a School Board official or by the fact that the Member suggested changes in the class schedule or by the intervention of Ms. Cossette. The Member explained that she was supposed to teach temporarily in the school library for a two-week period but that, in actual fact, this had lasted for three or four months. She added that such an environment was not conducive to various teaching strategies. As far as she was concerned, the Member felt that she had demonstrated that she did indeed know the mathematics, science and French instructional programs.
According to the Member, there were gaps in the evaluations; these included an error as to the number of students and the fact that Ms. Cowie claimed to have observed for an hour, although the Member estimated that she was there for less than 15 minutes. In short, the evaluations did not reflect the Member’s entire teaching assignment (mathematics, science and religious education) but consisted of targeted observations. As for the letters from parents complaining about the Member, the Member maintained that these letters had been solicited.
The Member continued her testimony by specifically addressing certain items in the evaluations. She rejected the observations criticizing her commitment to the students and her collaboration with the support team.
She maintained that no evidence had been submitted proving that she failed to engender enthusiasm and a love for learning. She once again referred to her interventions with Students E and J1 and reiterated the fact that the IEP was not her responsibility.
As for the comment that she was “reluctant to collaborate with the support team,” the Member maintained that France Cossette was the support team and that she had a difficult relationship with her. She felt trapped by Ms. Cossette and confirmed that, given their relationship, she would not consult her on pedagogical matters. The Member explained that she collaborated with Ms. Lachappelle, who was a source of valuable assistance for her. She also referred to special education training that she had taken with the “others,” citing this as an example of the fact that she had consulted other people. The Member stated that, when there was a difference of opinion among the teachers, the students should not become involved. She quoted Ms. Cossette: “I was proud that she (Student E) did not listen to Ms. Goulet.” According to her, Ms. Cossette was using Student E as a hostage and was using the students against her. She commented on Ms. Cossette’s conduct as showing an extraordinary lack of professionalism.
In response to several questions from the Committee, the Member confirmed that she had declined to sign a performance evaluation report because she did not realize that her signature was solely for the purpose of acknowledging receipt of the document and because she had the right to respond to the evaluation with her own version of the facts. When she was asked to sign the second evaluation, she reportedly told the union representative who was present, “I can’t sign that, I’m not… It’s not right. I don’t agree with it.” The Member confirmed that she signed the third evaluation and that she prepared some comments at the request of her union. She said that she only remembered preparing the comments for the union. She was unable to explain how the comments ended up on the evaluation.
The Member continued, explaining that she was hired as the result of the splitting of a class of 34 students. She maintained that she was given the group with the most problem cases.
The evaluation identified the use of a variety of teaching strategies as one of the expectations. The Member commented that, when she asked for advice, all the principal mentioned was using the overhead projector. The Member suggested striking out the entire Skills Needing Improvement section because it was “copied and pasted” from the bank of stock comments on the evaluation form.
The Member confirmed that there were differences of opinion with Ms. Cowie about the efforts she made with her students. She did not feel that Ms. Cowie acknowledged her work and the efforts she made to help the students succeed. In one notable case of student success, Ms. Cowie responded, “Well, he’s brilliant.”
The Member gave an overview of the process used for the third evaluation. According to her, there was no “pre-evaluation.” In addition, the evaluation was delayed at the request of the union because it was too close to the time of her starting her [XXX] position. Ms. Cowie apparently stayed in the classroom in the presence of the students for only 10 minutes. In response to the criticism that the program was not posted, the Member stated that it was indeed posted on the left-hand side but not all the time because several elements were missing. To complete it, the school would have had to buy another kit.
As for the comment that the Member had been “curt” with a student, the Member explained that the student in question was making fun of another student and that she had intervened.
The Member confirmed that she had been asked to take some training in late August. She introduced Ms. Cowie’s e-mail to this effect (Exhibit 25). She then explained that she had received the information in late August, only shortly before the training began, rather than in May.
The Member’s curriculum vitae (Exhibit 26) was introduced; the Member described the content of this document.
The Member testified that she attended a training session on February 4, 2004, two days after beginning her employment. Referring to Exhibit 7 (“Preparations for the Supply Teacher”) as evidence, she tried to demonstrate to the Committee that the classroom needed to be prepared for the supply teacher and that she was suggesting in this document a variety of learning strategies, contrary to Ms. Cowie’s claims that such variety was lacking.
The Member introduced Exhibit 27 (“Grade [XXX] Timetable and Related Documents”), which she apparently prepared with another teacher one Sunday afternoon. The goal was to show the workload, how it was exacerbated by the lack of resources in science, mathematics and religious education and how the teaching subjects were divided up.
Exhibit 28 was filed under the title “Series of Memos from Ms. Cowie.” These memos deal with meeting requests and the graduation party. The Member put them in context and stressed that she several times requested “a copy of the list of things discussed while Denise was present.” Exhibit 29 consists of other memos from Ms. Cowie. These are various requests and notices of meetings. When College counsel objected to interpreting the principal’s intentions, the Committee Chair advised the Member that she could include the memos in her evidence but that she would have to use them with caution because Ms. Cowie had not had an opportunity to comment on them. The Member explained the content of the memos in order to illustrate her view that the principal had a controlling nature.
The Member submitted Exhibit 30, made up of [XXX] activity sheets and the draft of the pre-observation meeting form (first evaluation). The goal was to prove that the instruction in question had been given. She also explained how the activities were conducted and how they functioned, and described the classroom timetable in order to contradict Ms. Cowie’s comments about not posting the timetable.
The next day the Member began her testimony by filing Exhibit 31, which was the correspondence between her and her union representative about the comments written by the Member at the time of her third evaluation. The Member wanted to prove that the comments had been written with the union. She was still not able to explain who had written “There are going to be comments” on the evaluation form.
Exhibit 32 contains the speech suggested by the principal for the graduation party. Ms. Cowie had added some accolades of her own about the school. Once again, the Member brought up the issue of the principal’s controlling nature.
The Member filed the class timetable for May 5, 2004, as Exhibit 33. She used this timetable to show that the subject matter was new because the word “Introduction” was used. According to the Member, Ms. Cowie had complained at the time of the second evaluation that the material being taught was not new. Exhibit 34 contains documents related to the transfer of Grade [XXX] students to high school. The Member explained that she met with a high school representative to share the information needed for placing students in Grade [XXX].
The Member continued her presentation by submitting documents that she had not filed as exhibits. She also commented, page by page, on the minutes of the testimonies given by Ms. Cowie and Ms. Cossette. In certain instances, the Member identified contradictions between the various statements made by these two witnesses. She accused Ms. Cowie of having selective memory and of working to build a file against her. The Member stated that Ms. Cossette seemed to be part of this “conspiracy” and often used the same words as the principal in her criticisms of the Member, such as the expression “I saw what I saw. I heard what I heard.” The Member reminded the Committee that, although Ms. Cossette had never been in a position of authority over her, she acted as if this were the case. She related incidents to illustrate her statement, such as:
Ms.Cossette would spy on the Member when she was on duty in the schoolyard.
She would criticize her actions in the schoolyard.
She would make whirlwind visits to the classroom.
She would twist what the Member said.
The Member insisted that she had a professional relationship with the other teachers and a good relationship with the parents. Unfortunately, the principal was unaware of the good state of her relationships.
At the end of her testimony, the Member told how she had taken on a group of problem students whose academic learning was stalled and whose parents were in a state of panic. She found herself in an alarming situation.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE COLLEGE:
In response to a question from College counsel, the Member confirmed that she did indeed receive the letters appearing in the supporting documentation, that is, Exhibit 4, tabs 5, 6 and 9; however, she was not able to confirm the dates of receipt. She was unable to confirm that she had received the letter in Exhibit 4, tab 8. As for Exhibit 4, tab 11, the Member did not recall receiving a copy of this letter but confirmed that she had seen it.
The Member confirmed that she had met several times with the teaching consultant to discuss report cards and achievement charts. With respect to Exhibit 4, tab 7, which is an invitation dated May 31, 2004, to take a summer educational training course, the Member testified that this document had reached her in late August and that she had been a supernumerary at her school as of the end of the 2004 school year. Although the principal had received information about this training, she did not tell the teacher because, at that time, she had not yet been assigned to the pre-school division.
The Member also indicated the possibility that the evaluations had taken place during the periods stated in the documents. She signed an acknowledgment of receipt of the third performance evaluation (Exhibit 4) on the recommendation of the union, which told her to sign because her signature simply meant that she had received a copy and did not indicate her acceptance of the content.
The Member confirmed her participation in the graduation ceremony with the other Grade [XXX] teacher. She left the area to go to Québec City on June 23, 2004. Nevertheless, she reaffirmed that she did not receive the training offer (Exhibit 4, tab 7) dated May 31, 2004, prior to her departure. Instead, near the end of the summer while she was in Québec City, the teacher received a training invitation from Ms. Cowie at the same time as the notice of her [XXX] assignment. She admitted that she did not attend the training because of personal obligations. In response to a question from the College about another training session offered on September 3 or 7, 2004, the Member did not know whether she had attended. She testified that, although she could not recall the exact dates, she did take part in an initial briefing session on the [XXX] and [XXX] programs with the new [XXX] teacher.
College counsel tried to obtain specific information from the Member as to how long the principal’s observation had lasted at the time of the third performance evaluation. The Member insisted several times that the observation had not lasted more than 10 to 15 minutes.
College counsel asked the Member to confirm whether she was under the impression that a [XXX] child with behaviour problems had been intentionally placed in her class to make her look bad. The teacher rejected this supposition but expressed the opinion that she had a greater number of difficult students than the other teacher. The class lists were changed for this purpose the day before she began her employment. According to her, the principal’s aim in these placements was to put pressure on her.
College counsel requested details about Exhibit 30, “Activity Sheets – [XXX] and Evaluation Documents,” which the Member had filed. The last three pages of the exhibit are a form called “Pre-observation Meeting (Evaluation 1).” The Member denied adding the written comments. The College compared this document to the other formal evaluation documents submitted as Exhibit 2, tab 1. The Member maintained that she did not write these comments. As to whether or not her union representative had been present and signed, the Member stated that he did not take part in the first evaluation.
College counsel tried to show that the principal had acted in an acceptable manner towards the Member, reminding her that she had asked her to participate in the graduation party. He also suggested that she gave the Member support with certain special-needs students. The Member maintained that the graduation party was a shared task. She then expressed her disagreement with the claim that she had received support vis-à-vis the special-needs students.
College counsel came back to the Member’s testimony regarding J3 and N. She admitted that she “shook” J3 and several other students when they did not work. In response to the details that she was asked to provide, she stated that she did not touch the students and that she was using the term “shook” to describe verbal warnings.
When College counsel questioned the Member about the call from a parent on May 25, 2004, which the Member returned on June 7, 2004, she explained that she did not have the right telephone number, that the mother called every two weeks, that the student refused to share the telephone number and that she had asked the school secretary to find it. She also added that she had tried to call several times but to no avail.
RE-EXAMINATION OF THE MEMBER:
The Member asked to clarify some of the responses that she had given to questions from College counsel. Following an exchange with the Committee Chair, she decided to postpone her interventions until she made her closing arguments.
ARGUMENTS:
Submission by College Counsel:
College counsel gave a summary outline of the allegations, namely, that the Member did not show commitment towards the students and their learning, that she failed to acquire and use appropriate professional knowledge, that she breached the standards of the profession and that she did not demonstrate the appropriate degree of leadership and community commitment. The shortcomings resided in her course planning, classroom management and communications with students and parents.
He insisted that the school principal, with her 31 years of experience in education and a hundred or so performance evaluations to her credit, was a credible witness. According to him, she tried on several occasions to help the Member with her pedagogical learning, giving as an example the service provided by the teaching consultant.
College counsel reviewed the main stages of the performance evaluation as it applies to all teachers. Ms. Cowie had expectations as to how the evaluation process would take place, which she shared with them (for example, pre-evaluation meeting, course outline and the like). She testified that she never received any planning from the Member. The Member testified, however, that she did submit the course outline (Exhibit 33). According to College counsel, if the planning was done, Ms. Cowie never received it. He criticized the Member for introducing exhibits after Ms. Cowie had given her testimony. Citing the Browne and Dunn Rule, he reminded the Committee that the Member was required to ask Ms. Cowie for her comments on these documents. He asked the Committee to consider how much weight would be given to Exhibit 33.
In terms of communications with parents, College counsel referred to the telephone call of May 25, 2004, and the two-week period it took before a response was forthcoming. In his view, a diligent teacher would have felt duty bound to follow up quickly. College counsel argued that the principal supported the Member in her training but that the Member did not take advantage of the training opportunities she was offered. He denied that the principal had tried to undermine the Member’s authority and gave five examples to support this claim:
- She asked the Member to take responsibility for the graduation party.
- Early in the school year, she offered the support of the teaching consultant, Ms. Lachapelle.
- She offered assistance for students who were struggling in mathematics or French.
- She made recommendations in the performance evaluation improvement plans.
- She invited her to take part in a workshop on teaching [XXX].
He ended his comments about Ms. Cowie by reaffirming her credibility. The submission continued with a review of the testimony given by the resource teacher, Ms. Cossette. The Member’s counsel [Editor’s query: “Member’s counsel” is a correct translation of the French text, but should it not be the “College counsel”? The Member is not represented by Counsel.] argued that Ms. Cossette had proved to be a reliable and credible witness. College counsel explained that the location of the classrooms was such that Ms. Cossette could easily see the Member and hear her shouting in class. She cited a number of instances of unacceptable conduct and the lack of preparation by the students she was helping. Ms. Cossette also pointed out that Ms. Goulet did not sit on the school committees.
College counsel insisted that the Member was given many opportunities to remedy, improve and develop her competencies between her second and third evaluations. Unfortunately, the Member’s third evaluation was unsatisfactory. He also stressed the statement from Ms. Cowie claiming that the Member knew at the end of the school year that she would be teaching [XXX] in September 2004. This testimony contradicted the Member’s testimony.
The last part of the submission from College counsel dealt with the Member’s relationship with her students. He related Ms. Cossette’s testimony concerning Student E, who was denied access to the resource teacher, and the testimonies of Students N and J3, who were often the targets of the Member’s shouting.
The submission from College counsel ended with a question period for the Committee. He emphasized the short interval between the evaluation dates. With respect to the third evaluation, College counsel explained that it was assumed the Member could teach [XXX] because she was an experienced teacher. However, complaints from parents precipitated the events. He then gave three reasons to explain why the first and second evaluations came so close together:
The principal gave the Member a letter asking her not [sic] to vary her teaching strategies so as to include direct instruction and scientific experiments rather than having the students read chapters and give presentations.
The Member waited for some time before returning a telephone call from a parent.
A complaint from a parent about the mathematics tests.
Member’s Submission:
The Member began her intervention by noting that the submission from College counsel contained some inaccuracies. She argued that the allegations about her lack of classroom management and planning had not been proved. She stated that the principal had access to her planning at all times. As for classroom management, Ms. Cossette was the only person who heard shouts. She reiterated that Ms. Cowie and Ms. Cossette had said “I saw what I saw and heard what I heard”; in the Member’s view, this cast doubt on Ms. Cossette’s credibility with respect to the shouting. According to the Member, she, the principal and Ms. Cossette were not in agreement about what should be taught in the classroom. In particular, they wanted to prevent the Member from teaching fractions despite the fact that, in her opinion, the students were behind in this subject.
The Member questioned Ms. Cossette’s competence in science and mathematics teaching. She also expressed doubts as to Ms. Cossette’s statements that she could see everything that was going on in the classroom, a claim that allowed her to make judgments about the Member’s teaching. She explained again that her “shaking” Student J was actually to make a point and give him a warning, with the exception of a single time when she might have reprimanded this student somewhat more severely. As for the references to the “sets of papers,” the Member explained that she had no choice because no textbooks were available.
With regard to the short interval between the evaluations, she was sure that the goal was to dismiss her as quickly as possible because the school year was almost over and the Member had declared her intention of staying on with the School Board. According to the Member, the complaints from the parents that had been mentioned were not “substantiated” [unsupported by any evidence] and were likely solicited. As to the incident of the unreturned telephone call, the Member informed the Committee that she had done everything she could to return the mother’s call and that the principal was aware of this. The Member described the conduct of the student involved in this incident, explaining that this student claimed that she needed help but made no effort whatsoever and “put on her little act” at the beginning of each class. Finally, when the Member did reach the student’s mother, “she didn’t have much to say.”
The Member presented her version of the facts concerning the training in [XXX] teaching. She explained that she had personal reasons and the principal’s offer came at the last minute. Moreover, she and the other teacher received training from the teaching consultant. In the meantime, she spent a good deal of her own time in the evenings looking at the documents. The teaching consultant told her that she was “on the right track.”
At the time of the first evaluation, the Member asked about the mandatory procedure and what had to be done to correct the information because she did not think the evaluations had been done correctly. Her understanding was that there was no procedure for a rigorous process. The Member submitted that the evaluations were not admissible because the College had not had them authenticated. She also questioned some of the information in the evaluations such as the number of students and the amount of time spent in class. According to the Member, the principal did not spend a sufficient amount of time in class to allow her to make an accurate evaluation. She stated that the evaluations contained unsupported generalities. The greatest criticisms involved her shouting at a student, saying things to another student and taking too long to respond to a telephone call from a parent.
The Member repeated that she got along well with the teaching consultant. However, at a planned meeting with the teaching consultant about a subject which she knew well, the principal said, “Well, you’ll talk about something.” According to the Member, the principal scheduled meetings with the teaching consultant so that she could say she had provided help to the Member.
The Member wondered about the reasons motivating Ms. Cowie and explained that these various actions made her life difficult. She inherited a disastrous situation that improved under her guidance.
In conclusion, the Member stated that she had proved the evaluations were not valid. She repeated some of the arguments presented previously. She suggested that she may have been treated in this manner because she was more knowledgeable than some of the others and may have been perceived as a potential threat. She had always made sure that she was well versed in the subject that she was required to teach.
Response of College Counsel:
College counsel asked the Committee to ensure that the evidence and arguments supported one another as presented. He added that it would be better to rely on the contemporaneous documents than to get into a credibility contest. Finally, he explained that the College had never argued that there were no curriculum-related documents. The fact that a sample of such documents existed did not show that there were no shortcomings as far as planning and classroom management were concerned.
Response of the Member:
The Member argued that she submitted eight documents to show that she had carried out her planning based on Ministry expectations. She presented her daily agenda book to show her planning but the book disappeared.
Submission of Independent Counsel:
The independent counsel presented the legal considerations which the Committee had to take into account in reaching its decision. He explained the Committee’s mandate in terms of the law. With regard to the evidence, he insisted that it was the College’s responsibility to produce convincing evidence for each allegation.
The independent counsel reviewed the allegations made by the College. As for the standards of the profession, he explained that not all errors represent a breach of the standards; a breach occurs only when the error is widely recognized as such (for example, hitting a student). He stated that, before reaching its decision, the Committee needed to make sure that the standard in question, especially vis-à-vis paragraph 1a) and 1b), had been established in the form of a regulation of the profession so that a link could be made to the Member’s conduct. The College then needed to present its evidence to demonstrate the Member’s failures to live up to the standard. As for paragraph 1c), the independent counsel stated his confidence that the Committee had the knowledge required to administer the test. He then made certain clarifications concerning paragraph d), saying that the Committee could use professional experiences as a guide and that it did not have to demonstrate a failure to comply with all elements.
With regard to incompetence, the College had the duty to show that the nature of the Member’s conduct was such that she was incapable of carrying out her professional responsibilities. According to the independent counsel, incompetence is established on the basis of a pattern or series of conducts over time, provided that there is an act sufficient to establish the incompetence. The Committee would have the responsibility of determining whether such was the case.
He continued with a description of the factors that would need to be evaluated if credibility were at issue, namely:
The appearance and conduct of the witness;
The ability to recall the incident from memory; and
The probable or reasonable nature of the testimony.
He ended with a reference to the Browne and Dunn decision, which had come up throughout the hearing.
DECISION
The Committee had to face challenges involving logistics and evidence submission; these challenges lengthened the time it took to arrive at a decision.
The alleged incidents took place in 2004. The first day of the hearing took place in 2008. The hearings were spread over a long period of time to accommodate the Member, who preferred not to have to travel in winter. The hearing ended in April 2010.
The withdrawal of the Committee Chair right in the middle of the deliberations deprived the Committee of support and an important resource. There was also a change in independent counsel. The independent counsel who advised the Committee during the deliberations and the drafting of the decision did not take part in the hearing.
The Committee also had to deal with organizational issues and problems involving the submission of evidence from the College and from the Member. The evidence filed by the College and the submissions by the witnesses lacked organization; they were not clearly linked to the allegations and were not conducive to a systematic analysis. The Member’s arguments were not presented in such a way as to elucidate her position. Furthermore, over the course of the hearing, the Member submitted documents with no particular organization. Consequently, the Committee had to reconstruct the testimonies and evidence before they could arrive at a decision. The volume of documents that had to be taken into consideration over a long period of time further extended the task.
The Committee would like to have been able to consult other decisions and refer to them for precedents. Unfortunately, this was not possible because of the unique set of events leading to the dismissal of the Member (for example, the brief intervals between evaluations).
Having heard the testimonies and having reviewed the relevant and admissible exhibits, the Committee determined that Hélène Goulet was guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, in that:
she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
she committed acts that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and
she engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
The Committee determined that the College did not convincingly demonstrate the Member’s failure to keep records as required by her professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10).
The Committee also determined that the College did not demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Act and the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2 and specifically section 264(1)(c) thereof or the regulations made under those Acts contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14) and (15)
The Committee determined that Hélène Goulet is not incompetent as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, subsection 30(3).
REASONS FOR DECISION:
With respect to all cases submitted to a discipline committee, the College has the responsibility to prove the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof, that is, to determine, further to a review of the evidence, that, on a balance of probabilities, the Member did commit the acts in question. According to the Committee, the evidence presented by the College was not sufficient to clearly demonstrate the majority of the allegations made in the Notice of Hearing.
The allegations forming the subject of this case were based on three performance evaluations completed over a seven-month teaching period. The Member began her employment on February 2, 2004. The evaluations took place on May 19, 2004, June 22, 2004, and October 6, 2004. The Member was informed on November 2 that her employment was terminated. During this period, the Member taught at two different levels, that is, at the intermediate level (Grade [XXX]) and at the [XXX] level. Since the evaluations came so close together and did not contain enough examples to support the allegations, the Committee decided to lean toward the testimonies. The Committee also confined the scope of Ms. Cossette’s testimony to the situations observed since she was a factual witness and had no supervisory responsibilities over the Member.
Frequently, however, these testimonies were contradictory and aggressive. It was impossible in such a context to determine whether the Member had a pattern of unacceptable conduct or whether, as the Member testified, she was a victim of circumstances.
As for the schedule of the performance evaluations, College counsel acknowledged that the third evaluation took place early in the new school year. He explained that this evaluation had been motivated by complaints from parents. He added that, in light of the Member’s years of experience and the support offered, the Member was able to teach [XXX]. However, it was the opinion of the Committee that, with respect to the support and training offered, the Member was not given the time she needed to learn and apply the courses and mentorship that were available to her.
In his arguments, College counsel summarized the aspects of the Member’s conduct that supported the allegations, namely:
The Member failed to acquire and use appropriate professional knowledge.
The Member did not demonstrate the appropriate degree of leadership and community commitment.
The Member did not demonstrate commitment to the students and their learning.
The Member demonstrated shortcomings with respect to her teaching practice.
These elements are evaluation criteria that are found on the teacher evaluation forms.
A number of allegations were made about the Member’s teaching, in particular about her knowledge and methods. With regard to her knowledge, the Committee received no evidence showing that the Member lacked the required knowledge. Moreover, in her testimony, she appeared to have a good mastery of mathematics and science concepts. As for her teaching methods, the principal submitted no concrete examples of the Member’s shortcomings, either in her evaluations or in her testimony. Instead, she emphasized her teaching style, such as the fact that the Member was often sitting down. The Member herself submitted certain teaching method components but did not clearly demonstrate that she was meeting the expectations of the School Board or the Ministry. The Committee heard several exchanges between the Member and the witnesses about the subjects she was teaching, especially concerning fractions. Since opinions varied so greatly and were not backed up with concrete examples, the Committee was unable to make a decision and, as a result, the allegations remained unproved.
The Member was criticized for failing to show leadership and community commitment. The examples presented included her lack of participation on committees and her absence from the staff room. The Member countered with a few examples of her participation within the school and her relations with the other teachers and parents. The Committee considered the fact that the case in question covered only a seven-month period and that the Member was new to the school. Moreover, committee participation is optional. Consequently, a finding of professional misconduct on the part of the Member with regard to leadership and community commitment was not possible and the allegations were therefore not proved.
The Committee concluded, however, that the source of the Member’s problems lay instead in her lack of planning. The principal testified that she never received any planning prior to her formal visits despite having asked the Member to send her the lesson plan. When she received the written report of the evaluation, the Member was still unable to demonstrate that she had a lesson plan. Instead, she simply declined to sign the evaluation forms prepared by Ms. Cowie. The Member did not submit any proof of having any comprehensive planning documents. She submitted a few planning documents and daily preparations for supply teachers. She also referred to modifications in her mathematics courses; however, she never presented any modified plans. At one time, she submitted a planning document to Ms. Cowie but Ms. Cowie responded that she did not think she had seen it. In other cases and in spite of the many objections and reminders from the Committee, the Member failed in her duty under the Browne and. Dunn Rule by presenting documents which Ms. Cowie was not able to examine and comment on.
Course planning based on student needs and Ministry expectations is the basis of teaching and is the chief tool by which the principal and parents are able to understand the subject matter and to be sure that the instructional goals are being met. The procedures and standards are clear in this regard. In the present case, there was an absence of proof that any such planning took place. Consequently, the Committee acknowledged that the Member was guilty of professional misconduct in that she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
With respect to the lack of commitment to students, the evidence submitted by the College consisted of the school principal’s testimony, the performance evaluations and Ms. Cossette’s testimony. The performance evaluations contained observations about the Member’s failure to maintain positive relations with her students. The principal noted the lack of positive interaction between the Member and students; the Member’s sharp response to a student; her refusal to allow a student to leave the class despite his saying that he felt sick; and the lack of follow-up with parents. Ms. Cossette testified that she frequently heard the Member shouting at the students; that one student had often been the victim of the Member’s mood swings; and that there was no interaction between the Member and the students. The Member denied all the allegations made by Ms. Cowie and Ms. Cossette and made reference to students and their parents with whom she said she maintained good relations.
The Committee observed that the Member made some statements that revealed a lack of discretion towards, and respect for, certain students. During her testimony, the Member made reference to a student who, she said, pretended to need explanations and help and who made “little scenes” at the beginning of class. Such a description of a student in a public setting showed no pedagogical reflection that took the student’s needs into consideration and the strategies required to address them. Instead, the student was presented as a difficult little schemer. The Member claimed that she ended up with all of the “problem” students in her classroom. Rather than describing how she provided differentiated instruction to these students, she made a list of them and their difficulties, revealing to the Committee a serious lack of empathy and respect towards her students.
Equally disturbing was the fact that the Member testified that she had “shaken” a student while telling him it was time he did some work. In response to a question from College counsel, she explained that she did not touch the students but that she had used the term “shaken” to describe verbal warnings. In another case, the Member stated that she had made sure there was no one in the corridor before “reprimanding” a student. Such actions are not acceptable and have no place in the school. Rather, her role was to motivate the student, and approaches of this sort have an adverse effect on the relationship that needs to exist between students and teachers.
Based on this evidence and the testimonies, the Committee found that the Member committed an act or acts that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).
The Committee determined that the College did not convincingly show that the Member failed to keep records as required by her professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10). In the first place, it did not present the expectations of the Ministry and the Board with regard to record-keeping. The Committee was therefore not able to identify the Member’s shortcomings in this regard.
The Committee also determined that the College did not establish the Member’s failure to comply with the Act and the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2 and specifically section 264(1)(c) thereof or the regulations made under those Acts, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14) and (15). College counsel presented no arguments in this regard.
Since the Committee determined that the Member is not incompetent, it rejected Allegation 1 f).
Given that Ms. Goulet’s Certificate of Qualification had expired, there was no need to make any observations concerning sanctions.
January 31, 2013
Gabrielle Blais Member, Discipline Committee Panel
Dean Favero, OCT Member, Discipline Committee Panel