DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against
James Kenneth Gow, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers
PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT Vicki Shannon, OCT
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Larissa Moscu, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Bev Hodsdon, Law Clerk
- and -
JAMES KENNETH GOW (CERTIFICATE # 188995) was not present, nor was he represented
Julie Maciura, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: May 16, 2014
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on May 16, 2014 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) in Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated April 22, 2013 (Exhibit 1) was served on James Kenneth Gow (the “Member”), requesting his presence on June 11, 2013 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for May 16, 2014.
The Member was not in attendance at the hearing.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated April 22, 2013 are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that James Kenneth Gow is guilty of professional misconduct and/or is incompetent as defined in subsections 30(2) and 30(3) of the Act in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15); and
(c) he displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment and/or disregard for the welfare of his students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the Member is either unfit to carry out his professional responsibilities or that the Member’s certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
James Kenneth Gow (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School.
From on or about October 7, 1998 to on or about March 31, 2011, the Member’s performance as a teacher was unsatisfactory in the following respects:
(a) Commitment to Pupils and Pupils Learning:
(i) The Member’s commitment to the well-being and development of all students was inconsistent and did not foster adequate student development, including that the Member:
A. did not actively pursue professional development opportunities in the use of technology and relevant plans in order to improve student engagement, voice and learning;
B. did not actively contribute during planning sessions or make significant changes to his teaching practice.
(ii) The Member did not demonstrate a basic understanding of how to support student learning and achievement, including that the Member:
A. did not provide a layering of support for students or a differentiation of instruction;
B. did not provide accommodations or sufficient time to students with working memory deficiencies for processing and repetition, chunking of information, and use of visuals;
C. provided verbal instructions to students when the students were unable to listen effectively due to movement and talking by students at the same time these instructions were delivered by the Member;
D. did not provide accommodations for a number of students for whom the need to “minimize distractions” was identified in their Individual Education Plan when he continued to talk over the student talk that was occurring;
E. did not provide students the opportunity to access assistive technology (SEA equipment);
F. did not appear to notice disruptions during a lesson as students left their desks, ate food at their desks, and one student wrote and delivered notes to the principal which resulted in students’ learning needs not being met.
(iii) The Member infrequently provided an environment for learning that would help students to be problem solvers, decision makers, lifelong learners, and contributing members of a changing society, including that the Member:
A. did not support student learning when he did not explain the importance of usage of words in determining their role;
B. delivered a lesson without a purpose relevant to the assignment or the students;
C. did not communicate the purpose or the process of a lesson to the students;
D. did not explain or discuss the importance of using visual images to bring writing to life.
(b) Professional Knowledge:
(i) The Member’s classroom management was unsatisfactory, including that the Member:
A. did not address inappropriate behaviour such as students leaving desks and their work, passing notes, talking loudly to students in other groups, eating lunch, or a student sitting on top of a desk for an extended period of time;
B. did not create a classroom environment which was safe or conducive to learning or thriving.
(ii) The Member exhibited limited understanding of how students learn and of factors that influence achievement, including that the Member:
A. did not demonstrate a significant change in teaching practice, classroom management strategies, or comprehensive planning;
B. did not address the purpose and relevance of what was happening during instruction during the lessons observed;
C. did not further his knowledge or practice by incorporating the use of Smart Board technology in the planning and delivery of lessons.
(c) Teaching Practice:
(i) The Member was unable to consolidate an understanding of how pupils learn with curriculum knowledge and classroom management strategies in a way that promotes the learning and achievement of students, including that the Member:
A. yelled at students and did not provide a stress free learning environment.
(ii) The Member did not communicate effectively with students and families to ensure a coherent learning environment.
(iii) The Member showed limited ability to adapt and refine his teaching practices, including that the Member:
A. did not utilize new text resources for literacy and mathematics.
(iv) The Member used technology with limited effectiveness, including that the Member:
A. did not provide students with guidelines regarding the effective and safe use of laptops.
(d) Leadership in Learning Communities:
(i) The Member was unable to implement suggested strategies provided by colleagues, and consultants, including that the Member:
A. did not utilize support offered with respect to “Beginning a Backward Plan” when he did not make contact regarding a follow-up session;
B. did not make use of Smart Board technology that was available at the school;
C. did not access the expertise of his colleagues.
(ii) The Member did not work adequately with other professionals and staff to enhance student learning, achievement, and programs, including that the Member:
A. did not collaborate with colleagues during planning sessions, and/or did not actively engage or follow through with staff professional learning;
B. did not submit Critical Pathway data despite repeated direction from the administrators to do so;
C. did not develop, build on, or submit a plan to administration regarding an outline for a multi-discipline science-based unit, despite multiple requests.
(e) Ongoing Professional Learning:
(i) The Member:
A. did not actively pursue further professional learning, although professional collaboration and development opportunities were provided;
B. did not demonstrate a change in teaching practice resulting from any professional learning.
- On or about March 31, 2011, following three consecutive unsatisfactory performance appraisals, the Member’s employment with the Board was terminated.
At the outset of the hearing, Counsel for the College requested the withdrawal of allegations (a) and (b) of the Notice of Hearing. While these allegations referred to breaches of the College’s Professional Misconduct Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97), the College only intended to tender evidence supporting the allegation of incompetence contained in paragraph (c) of the Notice. The Committee granted the College’s request, and allegations (a) and (b) of the Notice were subsequently withdrawn.
NOTICE TO MEMBER
As the Member did not attend the hearing, Counsel for the College presented an affidavit of service to demonstrate that the Member was informed of the allegations against him and of the date of the disciplinary hearing. The Affidavit of Beverley Hodsdon (Exhibit 3) states that College Counsel served on the Member the Notice of Hearing and other hearing documents on May 14, 2013. The affidavit also indicates that on April 17, 2014, the Member was sent a letter advising him that the hearing would take place at the College on May 16, 2014.
The Committee was satisfied that the Member was aware of the date and location of the hearing and that he was provided with the necessary hearing documents. As such, the Committee proceeded to hear the matter in the absence of the Member.
MEMBER’S PLEA
As the Member was not present nor represented by legal counsel, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegation of incompetence set out in the Notice of Hearing. The Committee Chair, on behalf of the Member, entered a plea of not guilty to the allegation.
OVERVIEW
From 1998 to 2011, the Member was a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”). During the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years, the Member was considered an experienced teacher by Ontario standards, and his performance as a teacher was evaluated three times: once in April 2010, once in June 2010 and once in February 2011. Each time, the Member received an unsatisfactory rating for his teaching performance.
After his third unsatisfactory appraisal, the Member’s employment with the Board was terminated. As required by the Education Act, the Board notified the College that the Member’s employment had been terminated due to unsatisfactory performance. The matter was subsequently referred to a hearing before the Committee.
At the hearing, the specific issue for the Committee to consider was whether or not the Member displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment and/or disregard for the welfare of his students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that he is either unfit to carry out his professional responsibilities or that his teaching certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.
THE EVIDENCE
Counsel for the College provided the Committee with the Member Information for James Kenneth Gow (Exhibit 2), which indicates that the Member was registered with the College during the period of the alleged events.
The College called two witnesses: Maureen Sargeant (“Ms. Sargeant”), former principal at the School and Terri Slack (“Ms. Slack”), a Superintendent of Education with the Board.
Testimony of Ms. Sargeant, Former Principal at the School
From 2008 to 2012, Ms. Sargeant was the principal at the School, a learning institution that served a diverse student population, including a large number of students with special needs. The Member was a teacher at the School, and Ms. Sargeant formally evaluated his performance on three occasions, twice during the 2009-2010 school year and once during the 2010-2011 school year. At the hearing, Ms. Sargeant testified to these three Teacher Performance Appraisals (“TPAs”), her observations of the Member’s difficulties in the classroom and the steps she took to try and help him improve as a teacher. Ms. Sargeant gave her testimony with the aid of a Witness Brief (Exhibit 4) containing her handwritten notes, her communications with the Member, and summative reports of the three appraisals that she conducted.
2008-2009 School Year
Ms. Sargeant testified that at the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year, she was informed that the Member was not adequately supervising his students. Ms. Sargeant’s office was very close to the Member’s classroom, and the Member’s students would approach the principal to tell her about incidents that had occurred in their class. Ms. Sargeant was informed that the Member generally did not notice when students were missing from his classroom and that there had been an incident involving a student [XXX] during class as well as an instance in which another student spent time [XXX] at the back of the classroom. At a certain point, the principal also learned that the Member’s students had, on one occasion, set paper towels on fire in the School washroom.
Ms. Sargeant spoke to the Member about his supervision issues and provided him with staff support to deal with his classroom management challenges. Ms. Sargeant testified, however, that the situation only got worse, and by October, the Member’s classroom was chaotic. Around this time, the Member took a leave of absence from the School and did not return for the rest of the academic year. A supply teacher was hired to fill in for the Member, and Ms. Sargeant stated that at this point, the Member’s class “turned around”, and both students and parents were content.
2009-2010 School Year
Ms. Sargeant gave evidence that the Member returned to the School the following 2009-2010 academic year. Although the Member was not originally scheduled for a performance appraisal that year, the principal felt that it would be a good idea to conduct a TPA and sent the Member a letter in late September 2009 informing him of her plan to assess his performance (Exhibit 4, Tab 1). In this letter, Ms. Sargeant also asked the Member to submit his completed Annual Learning Plan, which was supposed to outline the measures the Member would take to improve his teaching practice. Ms. Sargeant stated that the Member was reminded on a number of occasions to hand in this document, but he only ever submitted a blank learning plan in a folder labelled “Magical Mystery Tour”.
Ms. Sargeant spoke to other instances in which the Member seemed to have difficulty preparing and completing written documentation as required by his professional responsibilities. For instance, the Member would either fail to provide Individual Education Plans (“IEPs”) to students who needed them, or he would neglect to follow the plans. To help the Member with this task, Ms. Sargeant gave him IEP templates that he could use as a guide.
Ms. Sargeant testified that the Member also failed to fill out report cards in a complete and proper manner (Exhibit 4, Tab 2) in that he would include inappropriate comments about students, such as references to a female student’s “mood swings”. While Ms. Sargeant initially reviewed the Member’s report cards, she eventually wrote the Member a note telling him that she would no longer be proofreading his reports until they were completed in such a way that would satisfy Board and Ministry of Education expectations (Exhibit 4, Tab 2). Ms. Sargeant stated that when she spoke to the Member about this issue, he told her that he did not intend for her to see the report cards and did not seem distressed by what he had written in them (Meeting Notes, Exhibit 4, Tab 2B). To help the Member improve, Ms. Sargeant provided him with a handbook containing provincial guidelines for preparing report cards.
First TPA
Ms. Sargeant testified that in April 2010, she conducted a TPA to assess the Member’s performance as a teacher. To prepare the Member for this appraisal, the principal provided him with an outline of the areas she would be examining during her observations of his classroom (Exhibit 4, Tab 3). Prior to conducting formal classroom observations, Ms. Sargeant made informal visits to the Member’s class to see if he was improving as a teacher and had the vice-principal do the same. Through her formal and informal observations, the principal noted that there were many disruptions in the Member’s classroom. In particular, Ms. Sargeant testified that she observed students engaging in social dialogue during class and leaving the classroom without asking their teacher. At one point, the principal noticed a student lounging back in his desk and eating out of a thermos during instruction period, and the Member did not even seem to be aware that some students were writing notes to Ms. Sargeant while she was in the classroom. Ms. Sargeant stated that the Member did not connect with his students, nor did he apply effective classroom management strategies. As such, the Member received an unsatisfactory rating for his April 2010 TPA (Exhibit 4, Tab 4). In Ms. Sargeant’s view, the Member was an “intelligent man” who had access to resources, but he was unable to effectively communicate his knowledge.
Ms. Sargeant testified that she notified her Board superintendent, Ms. Slack, of the results of the Member’s performance appraisal and also prepared an improvement plan for the Member (Exhibit 4, Tab 5). The Member was supposed to fill out a section in the plan indicating how he was going to improve his performance, but he failed to do so. In the principal’s view, it was not that the Member was unwilling to complete this task but rather that he was unable to do it.
Ms. Sargeant stated that there were a number of teachers at the School with specialized skills who could have helped the Member, but the Member did not work with them as he seemed to have a hard time connecting with other staff. Furthermore, the Member would either leave professional development sessions early, or he would fail to show up to them altogether.
Second TPA
Ms. Sargeant testified that after the Member’s unsatisfactory appraisal rating in April 2010, she informed the Member that a second TPA would be conducted in June. The principal continued to visit and observe the Member’s class in the period leading up to the second TPA, and in May, she wrote the Member a note encouraging him to seek support and professional development (Exhibit 4, Tab 6).
Ms. Sargeant stated that in June 2010, she conducted the Member’s second TPA as scheduled, and the Member once again received an unsatisfactory rating on his appraisal (Exhibit 4, Tab 7). Ms. Sargeant provided the Member with the summative report of his second TPA and a written description of her concerns regarding his teaching practice (Exhibit 4, Tab 8). Ms. Sargeant testified that the Member’s performance had been deemed unsatisfactory because he had failed to manage inappropriate student behaviour, to provide clear instructions to his class, and to effectively communicate with parents and students. While the Member was up-to-date in terms of his professional knowledge, he did not use resources purchased for him, nor did he take advantage of other professional development available to him.
Following the Member’s two unsatisfactory TPAs, Ms. Sargeant sent the Member a letter informing him that he had been placed on review status (Exhibit 4, Tab 9).
2010-2011 School Year
Ms. Sargeant testified that in the following 2010-2011 school year, she sent the Member a letter indicating that she would conduct a third TPA to evaluate his performance (Exhibit 4, Tab 10). The principal also prepared a second improvement plan for the Member, which included specific goals and action steps regarding his communications with students and parents (Exhibit 4, Tab 11). Further, the Member was given the name of a teacher that he could observe. Ms. Sargeant stated that while the Member seemed to have good intentions in terms of following the goals laid out for him, she did not observe much improvement on his part.
Third TPA
Ms. Sargeant testified that she made informal visits to the Member’s classroom in the period leading up to his third appraisal but was still unable observe any improvement in his teaching. The Member also neglected to attend any of the classes that had been suggested to him. In November 2010, Ms. Sargeant visited the Member’s classroom to conduct a formal observation of his class for his third TPA. However, it became apparent to the principal during this visit that the Member was not prepared to meet the expectations outlined in his improvement plan. Ms. Sargeant stated that the Member’s classroom was chaotic, that the Member did not have proper lesson plans (Exhibit 4, Tab 12), and that he did not use sound systems for students with hearing problems.
Ms. Sargeant testified that she decided to postpone the Member’s third TPA so that he could receive additional support before his third appraisal. The principal met with the Member to discuss her concerns and provided him with a written summary of the issues that had been raised during their meeting (Exhibit 4, Tab 13). Ms. Sargeant advised the Member that a third unsatisfactory performance appraisal would lead to the termination of his employment.
The Member’s postponed third TPA was finally conducted in February 2011. Ms. Sargeant stated that she visited the Member’s class for a formal observation, and during this visit, students were arguing, while developmentally delayed pupils seemed to be lost. The Member did not provide clear instructions, nor did he bring visual aids or equipment to class. Ms. Sargeant testified that the Member received a third unsatisfactory rating for his February 2011 TPA (Exhibit 4, Tab 14).
Ms. Sargeant stated that she had concerns about all domains of the Member’s performance and found that in the two years that she had known the teacher, he rarely used technology in the classroom, even though it would have encouraged his students. The principal also testified to being concerned about the Member himself as he always seemed to be in distress. Ms. Sargeant had prepared a summative report for each of the Member’s three TPAs, and each report was detailed, addressed specific issues and included particular recommendations. The principal felt frustrated because the Member had failed to put into place any of the recommended changes, even the small ones, despite all the assistance that he had been given. Ms. Sargeant stated that she had a personal conversation with the Member about the situation, and he told her that he was unable to make or accept changes to his teaching.
Termination of Employment
Ms. Sargeant testified that in March 2011, she wrote a letter to the Board’s Director of Education recommending that the Member’s employment with the Board be terminated (Exhibit 4, Tab 15). The principal provided the Member with a copy of this letter, and the Member’s employment with the Board was subsequently terminated. Ms. Sargeant stated that the Member did not contact his union representative to have the Board’s decision disputed.
Testimony of Ms. Slack, Superintendent of Education
Since 2009, Ms. Slack has been a Superintendent of Education with the Board. In this role, one of Ms. Slack’s responsibilities is to provide schools with guidance and support related to teacher performance review issues. During the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years, Ms. Slack supported Ms. Sargeant while the principal was evaluating and reporting on the Member’s performance as a teacher. Ms. Slack testified to her communications with Ms. Sargeant about the Member’s three TPAs and to the support the Board gave to the Member while he was having difficulties in the classroom.
Visit to the School
Ms. Slack gave testimony that she first met the Member during a visit she made to the School. The Superintendent of Education stated that the School served a variety of students from different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, including many students with exceptional needs. On this occasion, the aim of her visit was to look at improving the School and to address any arising issues. Ms. Slack went by each classroom and introduced herself to the teachers, but when she came to the Member’s classroom, he avoided her and did not seem to want to interact with her. Ms. Slack testified that she found the Member’s class to be chaotic and disorganized during her visit.
First TPA
Ms. Slack stated that during the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Sargeant told her that the Member was experiencing various challenges in his teaching practice and that he was a teacher in distress who did not meet professional standards. Ms. Slack herself received complaints from parents about the Member, and she learned that students wished to leave the Member’s class.
Ms. Slack testified that Ms. Sargeant conducted a TPA for the Member in April 2010 and gave him an unsatisfactory rating for his teaching performance. Ms. Slack reviewed and signed the TPA summative report prepared by Ms. Sargeant (Exhibit 4), and the Superintendent of Education and principal then discussed the next steps that needed to be taken to monitor and support the Member’s teaching practice, including improvement plans and subsequent TPAs. Ms. Slack stated that in particular, the Board arranged for the Member to have the support of a special assignment teacher.
Second TPA
Ms. Slack stated that in June 2010, she received the summative report for the Member’s second TPA (Exhibit 4, Tab 7) and was disappointed to see that he had once again received an unsatisfactory rating for his teaching performance. Ms. Slack had expected the teacher to have a successful performance appraisal after all the support that he had been given.
That summer, Ms. Slack and Ms. Sargeant discussed strategies to help the Member in the coming fall, deciding that every opportunity would be given to the Member so that he would be successful in the following school year. Ms. Slack stated that the Member’s lack of engagement in his own improvement was an issue because he did not participate in the meetings or courses that were specifically arranged to support him in his success as a teacher.
Third TPA
In February 2011, the Member received a third unsatisfactory performance appraisal. Ms. Slack testified that after she received the summative report for the third TPA (Exhibit 4, Tab 14), she discussed the matter with Ms. Sargeant, who told her that there were student safety and behaviour issues in the Member’s classroom and that parents wanted their children transferred out of the Member’s class.
Termination of Employment
Ms. Slack stated that the Board received a letter from Ms. Sargeant in March 2011 recommending that the Member’s employment be terminated (Exhibit 4, Tab 15). During a meeting on March 29, 2011, the Board formally terminated the Member’s employment (Meeting Notes, Exhibit 4, Tab 16). Ms. Slack stated that the Member did not have his union take any action regarding the Board’s decision.
SUBMISSIONS ON FINDING
Counsel for the College submitted that the Member is incompetent as there were significant issues in all domains of his teaching practice. College Counsel asserted that the oral testimonies and documentary evidence point to the Member’s lack of skills and professional judgment as well as to his failure to accommodate students with disabilities. In the College’s view, the Member’s students suffered as a result of their teacher’s inability to manage the classroom as they did not learn, and there was aggression and disrespect in the classroom.
Counsel for the College argued that although the Member’s principal and Board provided him with a considerable amount of support to help him succeed in his three performance appraisals, the Member did not take advantage of the resources and opportunities that he had been given. Counsel stated that despite all the attempts made the by Board and the School to assist the Member, he was unable to meet the standards of the teaching profession. College Counsel submitted that the Committee should therefore find the Member to be incompetent.
DECISION
Onus and Standard of Proof
The College bears the onus of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof, with which the Committee is familiar, as set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53 (the “McDougall decision”). The standard of proof applied by the Committee, in accordance with the McDougall decision, is a balance of probabilities. As in all cases, the Committee looked for clear, cogent and convincing evidence.
Decision
Having considered the evidence and onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by College counsel, the Committee finds the Member to be incompetent in that he displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment and/or disregard for the welfare of his students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that his Certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations, as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Committee finds the Member to be incompetent, given the clear, cogent and convincing evidence presented by the College. The testimonies of Ms. Sargeant and Ms. Spark as well as the written documentation relating to the Member’s unsatisfactory TPAs (Exhibit 4) indicate that the provincial appraisal process was properly followed. The evidence clearly demonstrates the Member’s deficiencies in the areas of pupil learning, professional knowledge, teaching practice, leadership in learning communities and ongoing professional learning.
Commitment to Pupils and Pupil Learning
The Committee found that the Member failed to demonstrate a commitment to pupils and pupil learning. According to the testimony of Ms. Sargeant, the Member’s classroom was “chaotic”. In particular, the principal testified that various students shared stories with her about the lack of awareness the Member had of the inappropriate conduct of some of the students in his class. For example, during one class, a student was [XXX], and in another instance, a student was [XXX].
Furthermore, the Member did not utilize different teaching strategies, units or resources to help with the management of his class. The Member also did not have proper lesson plans and did not provide accommodations to students or minimize their distractions. Differentiated instruction was not provided, as was suggested by Ms. Sargeant, in order for students to be more engaged and for their learning to be purposeful and relevant. Notably, the Member failed to provide students the opportunity to access assistive technology. Ms. Sargeant gave testimony that the Member did not use sound systems in his classroom, which would have helped students who had difficulties with hearing.
Finally, the Member did not complete report cards in a timely manner, made inappropriate comments on submitted report cards, and did not send home IEPs with the student report cards.
The Committee found that the Member did not demonstrate a basic understanding of how to support student learning and achievement.
Professional Knowledge
Despite several attempts by Ms. Sargeant to provide the Member with support and guidance, the Member did not demonstrate significant improvement in his teaching practice, classroom management strategies, or comprehensive planning. The Member was provided with improvement strategies, but he did not put these into practice. Ms. Sargeant testified that in several instances, students were belligerent, talked back, got into arguments, and made sarcastic comments to the Member. The Committee heard evidence that the Member’s classroom was not safe.
In sum, the Committee determined that the Member did not create an environment that was conducive to learning or thriving.
Teaching Practice
With regards to teaching practice, the Member did not communicate effectively with students and families. Ms. Sargeant also testified that the Member did not repeat instructions, which was detrimental to the learning of certain students. For instance, Ms. Sargeant gave evidence that life-skill students could no longer work in the Member’s class due to constant distractions and the Member’s failure to deliver instructions in a way that would suit their needs.
Furthermore, the Member neglected to use visual aids, such as anchor charts to guide the students’ learning. No flexible groupings were provided to accommodate the different needs of the students in his classroom. Finally, there was a lack of technology used (FM system, laptops etc.) in his teaching practice.
Overall, the Member showed limited ability to adapt and refine his teaching practices.
Leadership in Learning Communities
The Member did not utilize the support of his colleagues, including assistance from administrators and colleagues with specialized knowledge. In particular, Ms. Sargeant provided three separate special assignment teachers to assist the Member in his professional development, yet he did not take advantage of their expertise. Furthermore, the Member did not make use of available Smart Board technology in his classroom lessons.
Therefore, the Committee found that the Member was unable to implement strategies from colleagues and consultants and that he failed to work adequately with other professionals to enhance student learning.
Ongoing Professional Learning
The Committee heard testimony that the Member displayed no interest in attending professional development sessions. Ms. Sargeant testified that the Member often showed up late for meetings and professional development sessions where his attendance was expected and left these sessions early. On numerous occasions, Ms. Sargeant provided the Member with professional development time with other specialized teachers. However, the Member had no interest in these sessions, nor did he make good use of the professional development provided to him.
The Member did not participate in the plans put in place for his professional improvement. Ms. Sargeant testified that during the 2009-2010 school year, the Member never completed an Annual Learning Plan, and only ever submitted to Ms. Sargeant a blank plan in a folder labelled “Magical Mystery Tour”. Furthermore, when Ms. Sargeant completed an improvement plan for the Member, the Member would not fill out the information in the plan on how he could improve. Ms. Sargeant testified that it was not that the Member was unwilling to fill out the plan, but more that he was unable to do so.
The Member’s actions and omissions, as a teaching professional, point to a lack of knowledge, skill and judgment as well as a disregard for the welfare of students. Despite continual support from his principal and Board, the Member was unable to succeed or demonstrate improvement in the five areas described above. As such, the Committee has determined that a finding of incompetence is warranted in this matter.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
Counsel for the College provided the Committee with a written submission on penalty, which provides as follows:
The Ontario College of Teachers submits that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Discipline Committee in this matter would be that the Committee:
- directs the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and to record the fact of such terms, conditions and limitations on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(i) prior to any return to a teaching position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall attend, at his own expense, and successfully complete the following course or courses, pre-approved by the Registrar:
A. an Additional Qualification course or Additional Basic Qualification course which covers curriculum, lesson planning, instructional strategies and assessment of student learning;
(ii) within thirty days of his completion of the aforementioned course or courses, the Member shall provide evidence to the Registrar in writing, of his successful completion of same;
(iii) the Member shall advise the Registrar at least thirty days before his return to any teaching duties of the date of such return, the name of his employer, and the nature of said employment, and will ensure that the requirements at (i) and (ii) above have been complied with;
(iv) upon the commencement of his employment, the Member shall take all reasonable steps to cause his employer to conduct a performance appraisal in each school year for the first two years, and the Member shall provide copies of the reports of such performance appraisals to the Registrar within thirty days of their completion. If the Member’s employer is unable or unwilling to perform either of the performance appraisals, the Member shall immediately notify the Registrar.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
- The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and to record the fact of such terms, conditions and limitations on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(i) prior to any return to a teaching position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall attend, at his own expense, and successfully complete the following course or courses, pre-approved by the Registrar:
A. an Additional Qualification course or Additional Basic Qualification course which covers curriculum, lesson planning, instructional strategies and assessment of student learning;
(ii) within thirty days of his completion of the aforementioned course or courses, the Member shall provide evidence to the Registrar in writing, of his successful completion of same;
(iii) the Member shall advise the Registrar at least thirty days before his return to any teaching duties of the date of such return, the name of his employer, and the nature of said employment, and will ensure that the requirements at (i) and (ii) above have been complied with;
(iv) upon the commencement of his employment, the Member shall take all reasonable steps to cause his employer to conduct a performance appraisal in each school year for the first two years, and the Member shall provide copies of the reports of such performance appraisals to the Registrar within thirty days of their completion. If the Member’s employer is unable or unwilling to perform either of the performance appraisals, the Member shall immediately notify the Registrar.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The evidence indicated clearly that the Member faced many challenges and failed to demonstrate his ability in the areas of classroom management, effective student discipline, proper instructional strategies, professional knowledge and student safety. The Committee is satisfied that the teacher appraisal process was followed appropriately, that improvement plans were put into place and that extensive supports were provided to assist the Member. No progress was evident, nor was the Member actively engaged in his own improvement and development.
In spite of the additional supports that he received, the Member failed to remediate deficiencies in his teaching abilities. An Additional Qualification or Additional Basic Qualification course will assist the Member in acquiring the necessary and effective skills for the classroom, prior to resuming any teaching responsibilities in publicly funded schools in Ontario.
The penalty also serves as a specific deterrent to the Member by way of reinforcing his awareness of the competencies expected of a teacher, which include curriculum, lesson planning, instructional strategies and assessment of student learning.
Before returning to any teaching duties, the Member is required to have completed the imposed course and to have notified the Registrar of the details of his new employment. The Member must also ensure that his new employer will evaluate his performance in the first two years of his employment. Signed copies of these performance appraisals must be submitted to the Registrar. These measures allow for ongoing monitoring of the Member’s progress and aims to ensure that the Member is able to transfer theory into practice in an effective way.
The Committee is satisfied that the public interest will be served by imposing these terms, conditions and limitations.
Date: July 22, 2014
Irene Dembek, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Vicki Shannon, OCT Member, Discipline Panel