DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act (the “Act”) and Ontario Regulation 437/97
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Godfred Kwaku Hiamey, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Monika Ferenczy, OCT, Chair Marie-Louise Chartrand Vicki Shannon, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Lisa Filgiano and Christine ) Lonsdale, McCarthy Tétrault, LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers, ) assisted by Annie Lacroix ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) Law Clerk – and – ) ) Godfred Kwaku Hiamey, GODFRED KWAKU HIAMEY ) representing himself, in (CERTIFICATE # 504002) ) person ) Paul Marshall, ) Emond Harnden LLP ) Independent Legal Counsel ) Heard: February 5, 2013
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on February 5, 2013 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto. On February 5, 2013, a Notice of Hearing dated May 16, 2012, was served (Exhibit 1). The member, Godfred Kwaku Hiamey, was present at the hearing and represented himself.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations made against Godfred Kwaku Hiamey in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Godfred Kwaku Hiamey is guilty of professional misconduct or is incompetent as defined in sections 30 (2) and 30 (3) of the Act, in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) he failed to comply with the Act and the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2 and the Regulations made under those Acts, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14) and 1(15);
(c) he displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment and/or a disregard for the welfare of his pupils of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the Member is either unfit to carry out his professional responsibilities or that the Member’s certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.
At the hearing on February 5, Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct as outlined in points (a) and (b) of the Notice of Hearing, according to which Mr. Hiamey violated sections 1(5), 1(14) and 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. The Committee agreed that these allegations should be withdrawn.
PARTICULARS TO THE ALLEGATIONS
Godfred Kwaku Hiamey ("Mr. Hiamey") is a member of the College.
Mr. Hiamey was, during the entire period in question, employed by the Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud as a teacher.
During the 2008-2009 school year, Mr. Hiamey was teaching at Saint-Noël-Chabanel elementary school in North York.
On November 4, 2008, Mr. Hiamey's teaching performance was assessed and deemed unsatisfactory.
On January 26, 2009, Mr. Hiamey's teaching performance was assessed for a second time and was deemed unsatisfactory.
On May 15, 2009, Mr. Hiamey's teaching performance was assessed for a third time and was deemed unsatisfactory.
On June 12, 2009, Mr. Hiamey's employment with the Board was suspended with compensation.
On July 2, 2009, the School Board terminated Mr. Hiamey's employment.
Mr. Hiamey's performance was deemed unsatisfactory for the following reasons:
A. Commitment to Pupils and Learning
- The teacher is concerned with the welfare and development of all the pupils.
(i) The teacher is not adequately concerned about his pupils' welfare, development and learning.
(ii) The teacher generates little enthusiasm and desire for learning.
(iii) The teacher does not address pupils' learning difficulties or specific needs.
(iv) The teacher does not use teaching methods adapted to pupils who exhibit different learning styles.
(v) The teacher does not use effective assessment strategies.
- The teacher demonstrates dedication in his efforts to teach and enhance student learning and success.
(i) The teacher does not create an environment optimally conducive to learning.
(ii) The teacher does not take the necessary measures to ensure pupils' more active participation in the learning process.
(iii) The teacher uses few learning strategies adapted to pupils' individual needs.
(iv) The teacher sometimes encourages pupils to do their best.
(v) The teacher sometimes ensures a balanced viewpoint in the discussions he leads.
- The teacher treats all students fairly and respectfully.
(i) The teacher does not encourage pupils to interact in a polite and respectful manner.
- The teacher provides an environment for learning that encourages pupils to be problem-solvers, decision-makers, lifelong learners, and contributing members of a changing society.
(i) The teacher sometimes encourages pupils to make observations, take risks and ask questions.
(ii) The teacher does not use additional effective techniques and ask questions that foster development of superior reasoning abilities.
(iii) The teacher gives pupils opportunities to practice their new skills autonomously, but without adequate supervision. Such being the case, pupils do not undergo in-depth learning.
B. Professional Knowledge
- The teacher is familiar with the material to be taught, the Ontario curriculum and legislation related to education.
(i) The teacher has difficulty knowing and following laws, policies and appropriate local procedures.
(ii) The teacher does not always teach the Ontario curriculum, nor demonstrate a good understanding of the material.
(iii) The teacher does not use varied strategies and resources to improve learning.
(iv) The teacher does not always demonstrate mastery of the subject matter and related skills.
C. Exercise of the Profession
- The teacher applies his professional knowledge and his understanding of the students, the curriculum, legislation, teaching methods and classroom management strategies to enhance student learning and success.
(i) The teacher's practices, teaching and management methods do not enhance student learning and success.
(ii) The teacher does not establish clear links between daily lesson plans and long-term plans.
(iii) The teacher does not integrate all curriculum guidelines into his teaching.
(iv) The teacher uses a presentation style that lacks clarity and consistency, and shows little flexibility in his teaching strategies in order to meet the needs of all pupils.
(v) The teacher does not further organize subject matter into meaningful lessons and does not use teaching time with clear and specific objectives.
(vi) The teacher does not make greater use of practices that enhance development of superior reasoning abilities.
(vii) The teacher does not convey information using a multicultural, unbiased perspective.
- The teacher effectively communicates with students, parents and colleagues.
(i) The teacher does not provide clear, practical and useful communication tools to parents (weekly reports, student agendas), which are necessary to support students.
(ii) The teacher does not communicate in a positive or professional manner.
(iii) The teacher has difficulty following the school guidelines and those of the Board concerning presentation of reports in a timely manner.
3 The teacher conducts an ongoing assessment of students' progress, assesses their performance and regularly communicates the results to students and parents.
(i) Despite the fact that the teacher maintains more accurate data on student performance and a mark management file, and more frequently uses assessment techniques that comply more fully with expectations, these improvements are made in a context of insufficient learning by the students and therefore have little value.
D. Additional Competencies
(i) The teacher encourages students to express themselves correctly in French.
(ii) The teacher uses the French language as the language of communication in all school and extracurricular activities, but there are often errors in his written product.
(iii) The teacher participates very little in cultural and pastoral activities.
MEMBER'S PLEA
Mr. Hiamey denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.
Mr. Hiamey represented himself. The Committee was therefore very aware of its responsibility to ensure that Mr. Hiamey be well informed on the hearing process and on his rights before the Committee.
At the start of the hearing, Mr. Hiamey made a statement regarding the time it had taken to address this matter. He contested the process and challenged the College's right to impose this procedure on him when, in his opinion, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario recognized that the School Board had acted in a discriminatory manner when it terminated his employment.
He raised the issue that the College, in its mailing dated October 5, 2012 (Exhibit 9) wanted to make him sign a document indicating a plea of no contest to the allegations and he maintained his belief that the College was forcing him to renounce his rights. The Member also indicated that his employment contract with the School Board had not been respected, given that he was participating in the New Teacher Induction Program (NTIP).
EVIDENCE
The College called on a witness: Roch Lalonde, who was the Principal of École Saint-Noël-Chabanel during the 2008-2009 school year.
ROCH LALONDE'S TESTIMONY
Mr. Lalonde testified that the Member was hired as a teacher at his school and was assigned to the Grade 2/3 class.
Mr. Lalonde indicated that his role was to supervise the new teachers directly and, in this role, he conducted the first assessment of the Member's performance according to the NTIP standards. This program is intended to support teachers in the beginning of their careers and includes three components: orientation, mentoring and professional development. Support is structured according to the needs of any new teacher and is based on the availability of professional staff in the school or employed by the Board.
Mr. Lalonde specified that the Member had access, at the school, to the support of an experienced teacher as a mentor or coach, to a Special Education teacher, and to training sessions with an education counselor from the Board.
For the first assessment in November 2008 (Exhibit 3), Mr. Lalonde met with the Member on November 4, 2008 and arranged for an in-class observation which took place on November 12, 2008. He then met with the Member on December 1, 2008 to share the results of his observations.
During his testimony, Mr. Lalonde also described the process followed during the second performance appraisal (Exhibit 4) and that of the third appraisal (Exhibit 7). This process is also described in his letter to the Board dated June 12, 2009 (Exhibit 8).
Mr. Lalonde described the strengths and weaknesses in the Member's performance and provided answers to the questions asked by the College’s Legal Counsel about the appraisals and on the content of the letter dated April 17, 2009 (Exhibit 5) to the Member and the Member's response to Legal Counsel in the letter dated April 20, 2009 (Exhibit 6). According to Mr. Lalonde, the Member did not meet expectations regarding the competencies required of a teacher. He supported his position by providing the following examples: the pupils' lack of enthusiasm and the classroom atmosphere, the length and quality of the lessons (must be appropriate to the grade level so that students participate actively), the lack of communication with the parents (weekly report) and the fact that the member did not accept the resource teacher's support.
Mr. Lalonde also indicated in his testimony that the member did not introduce differentiated education adapted to the needs of the students in the class, especially to those students following an Individual Learning Plan (ILP). He also added that the reading of the ILPs in the school records had not been carried out within a reasonable time, and that the periodic reports on marks had not been recorded for each student in the Ontario Student Record (OSR) until spring 2009.
The second appraisal (classroom observation date of January 28, 2009) indicates an improvement: "the teacher demonstrated some progress and generally meets the teacher requirements more fully. Certain shortcomings still need to be addressed before the next appraisal." The Member still received an overall performance appraisal of unsatisfactory.
An improvement plan was presented with each of the Member’s performance appraisals.
The Mise au point (focus) letter dated April 17, 2009 from Mr. Lalonde to the Member (Exhibit 5) emphasizes, among other things, his lack of cooperation and that some aspects of his behaviour could be perceived as being signs of insubordination. Mr. Lalonde confirmed having received the Member’s response by letter dated April 20, 2009 (Exhibit 6) in which the Member insisted that there was no insubordination on his part. The tasks expected had been accomplished or would soon be accomplished.
During cross-examination, the Member asked Mr. Lalonde if the performance appraisal process was compliant with the Education Act of Ontario, the collective agreement and his employment contract. Mr. Lalonde responded that, in his opinion, the process followed was in accordance with that of the Board.
THE MEMBER'S TESTIMONY
During his testimony, the Member presented and submitted several adapted assessment grids (Exhibits 11 to 22), which, according to him, demonstrated his competency in terms of assessing tasks that students carried out in the classroom. He also provided a list of assessments of students in mathematics, science and technology, and social studies.
In his explanations providing evidence of competency, he indicated having read the ILPs of students in his class, and he cited one example of a student's improved reading ability, even reading before an assembly. He was able to conduct an analysis of his students and, thanks to him, certain students who had previously been at Level 1 with another teacher, had progressed to Levels 2 and 3. The Member indicated that he also communicated this information to the parents. Moreover, the Member claimed that a work colleague had intended to nominate him for an award.
He insisted that he is a competent teacher.
He also filed a preamble in response to the College's Notice of Hearing on February 5, 2013.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE MEMBER BY THE COLLEGE’S LEGAL COUNSEL
The Member maintained that the performance appraisal was the opinion of Mr. Lalonde and not his, but he did confirm that he received three performance appraisals.
In reaction to the evidence issuing from the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Hiamey v. CSDCCS et al., 2012 HRTO 301, 2012HRTO 301)(Exhibit 23) in which the College’s Legal Counsel pointed out that the allegations of racism and discrimination made by the Member against the defendants (which include the Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-sud,the Ontario College of Teachers, the Association des enseignants et des enseignantes franco-ontariens, Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP and Nelligan, O’Brien, Payne LLP and Julie Skinner) were refuted by the tribunal, the Member still maintained that discrimination had taken place; he believes that his rights had been violated when he had had three teacher performance appraisals in one school year. According to him, this is contrary to the intent of the NTIP program.
DECISION
After having reviewed the evidence, the onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Counsel for the College and by Counsel for the Member, the Committee agreed that the facts presented are not sufficient to support a finding of incompetence as defined in section 30 (3) of the Act.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Committee made this decision based on the above-mentioned proof and testimonies. It accepted the testimony of the school principal, Mr. Lalonde, and heard the Member’s statements concerning his competence.
The parties involved agree that during the 2008-09 school year, the Member’s performance was duly assessed three times and, each time, the result was unsatisfactory.
Although his performance was deemed unsatisfactory, the Member’s classroom performance does not support a finding of incompetence as defined in section 30(3) of the Act.
The Committee had concerns about the evidence provided, because it does not contain a sufficient number of elements to support the observations made in the Member’s performance appraisal. The Committee expressed some reservation because the three assessments were conducted over a brief period of time. The Committee recognized the value of the principal’s observations and opinions and did not doubt his sincerity. However, the Committee found that the evidence before the Committee was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof on the College in this case. The Committee can only determine the competence of the Member based on the evidence presented. In this matter, the Committee did not receive sufficient evidence to determine incompetence of the Member. The assessments, although unsatisfactory in terms of the expectations of the Board as an employer, clearly demonstrate that there was a degree of improvement in the Member’s performance during the period under consideration. This evidence supports the Member’s position to some extent, such as his claim that the time taken to complete his performance appraisals was accelerated so as to explain the expectations of the Board.
The College limited its evidence to the performance appraisals conducted by the principal. In this matter, the Committee did not receive sufficient evidence to determine incompetence of the Member. For example, to make such a determination, the Committee would have required evidence such as lesson plans, student work, daily planning, short- and long-term planning, minutes of meetings with teaching staff and mentors, evidence provided by education or classroom management experts, and reasonable feedback on the Member’s assessment. In this matter, only the Member submitted evidence demonstrating his lesson planning and his student assessments. He states that he met the principal’s expectations and spent time on questions related to preparation, assessment and students’ IEPs.
The Committee recognized that the Member’s performance did not meet all of the Board’s expectations regarding performance, but in light of the absence of convincing evidence, the Committee is not convinced of the incompetence of the Member on the balance of probabilities. For these reasons, the Committee rejects the allegations made by the College.
March 6, 2013
Monika Ferenczy, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Marie-Louise Chartrand Member, Discipline Panel
Vicki Shannon, OCT Member, Discipline Panel