DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act and Ontario Regulation 437/97;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Corinne Bernadeth Christina Braam-Carew, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Shanlee Linton, Chair, OCT
Alexander (Sandy) Bass
Tom Potter
BETWEEN: )
) Vladimira Ivanov,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
) assisted by Duane Crocker, Law Clerk
– and – )
Corinne Bernadeth Christina ) Corinne Bernadeth Christina Braam-Carew
Braam-Carew ) was not present or represented
(CERTIFICATE # 421934) )
) Erica Richler,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc,
) Independent Legal Counsel ) )
) Heard: October 20, 2016
DECISION ON FINDING AND REASONS FOR DECISION
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on October 20, 2016 at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated February 8, 2016 (Ex. 1) was served on Corinne Bernadeth Christina Braam-Carew (“the Member”) requesting her attendance before the College’s Discipline Committee on March 1, 2016 to set a date for a hearing. The hearing was subsequently set for October 20, 2016.
The Member was not in attendance at the hearing and was not represented by legal counsel.
Counsel for the College submitted an Affidavit of Duane Crocker sworn October 19, 2016 (Ex. 3), to prove that the Member had been informed of the allegations against her, the date and time of the hearing and the penalty that could be sought by the Committee. In the affidavit, Mr. Crocker, a law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, describes in detail his communication with the Member and provides proof of service of all required documents. The Member decided not to attend at the hearing. On the basis of the affidavit, the Committee is satisfied that the Member was served with the Notice of Hearing and disclosure documents, and was aware of the date and time of the hearing and the penalty that could be sought by the Committee. The Committee therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member.
SUMMARY
The allegations in this case centre around three teacher performance appraisals which were conducted by the principal of the Member’s school in order to evaluate her performance in the 2013-2014 year.
The Committee finds that the Member displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment and disregard for the welfare of her students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the Member is either unfit to carry out her professional responsibilities or that the Member’s certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.
As well, the Committee finds that the Member failed to maintained the standards of the profession and failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, s. 264(1), contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5) and 1(15).
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Corinne Bernadeth Christina Braam-Carew is guilty of professional misconduct and/or is incompetent as defined in subsections 30(2) and 30(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (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 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);
(c) she displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment and/or disregard for the welfare of her students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the Member is either unfit to carry out her professional responsibilities or that the Member’s certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.
THE PARTICULARS OF THE ALLEGATIONS
Corinne Bernadeth Christina Braam-Carew is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Peel District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”).
During the 2013-2014 academic year, the Member was a Grade [XXX] teacher at the School.
From in or about September 2013 to in or about June 2014, including during observations of her teaching, the Member’s performance as a teacher was unsatisfactory in that:
(a) Commitment to Students and Student Learning
(i) The Member did not adequately provide an environment for learning that encouraged students to be problem solvers, decision makers, lifelong learners and contributing members of a changing society;
(ii) the Member did not adequately demonstrate dedication in her efforts to teach and support student learning and achievement;
(iii) the Member did not adequately assist learners in practising new skills by providing opportunities for guided practice;
(iv) the Member failed to structure the [XXX] lesson on the model of gradual release of responsibility: modeled practice, shared practice, guided practice and/or independent practice;
(v) the Member did not employ a balance of student and teacher directed discussion/learning;
(vi) students were disengaged and the Member was unaware that the students were unable to keep up with the lesson and/or complete the task;
(vii) the Member did not follow and/or use the questions in her lesson plan to engage students effectively on [XXX];
(viii) the Member did not model the use of [XXX] vocabulary and/or did not ask students to use the vocabulary in their responses;
(ix) students were disengaged and/or did not make connections between the activity and/or the learning in the [XXX] lesson;
(x) the Member failed to establish an environment that maximized learning;
(xi) the Member failed to adequately implement the lesson plan;
(xii) the Member failed to provide the students with adequate time to complete their work before presenting their investigations;
(xiii) the Member interrupted student presenters, causing the students confusion and/or ineffective showing and sharing of their investigations;
(xiv) the Member did not adequately establish learning criteria for the students in the [XXX]class and/or did not adequately provide the learning goal;
(xv) the Member did not use vocabulary pertinent to the learning goal;
(xvi) the Member hindered student work when she interrupted, rushed the group along and/or distracted students from the learning goal;
(xvii) the Member did not use a variety of teaching strategies suited to the individual needs of the students;
(xviii) the Member did not adequately provide opportunities for student-led inquiry or small group investigation;
(xix) the Member did not use the technology available in the classroom and/or did not check students' ongoing work;
(xx) the Member did not provide students with appropriate opportunities for independent practice of new skills, as outlined in the lesson plan;
(xxi) the Member was unclear as to whether students were expected to complete an assigned task using theoretical or investigational [XXX] during the lesson;
(xxii) the Member did not employ effective questioning techniques to encourage higher level and/or critical thinking skills in class;
(xxiii) the Member's [XXX]lesson plan did not reflect any formative or summative assessments;
(xxiv) the Member did not pose questions consistent with the Grade [XXX] curriculum during the [XXX]lesson;
(xxv) the Member did not provide guidance and/or appropriate feedback to students on attainment of new concepts/skills by asking guiding questions that would have students reflect on their learning.
(b) Professional Knowledge
(i) the Member did not adequately demonstrate knowledge of a variety of effective classroom management strategies;
(ii) the Member did not adequately demonstrate knowledge of how students learn and/or factors that influence student learning and achievement;
(iii) the Member did not adequately demonstrate a variety of effective teaching and assessment practices;
(iv) the Member did not adequately provide constructive criticism as part of the evaluation and/or did not provide samples of student work with descriptive feedback and/or evidence that students had used teacher feedback to improve their work;
(v) the Member did not adequately align assessment strategies with learning objectives;
(vi) the Member failed to adequately provide students with a framework of the assessment criteria for the work they were completing;
(vii) the Member did not effectively debrief classroom activity and/or did not provide feedback, clarification and/or confirmation of accuracy to students' wide array of answers to questions;
(viii) the Member did not make adequate use of appropriate techniques to assess student difficulties and/or failed to provide student Leading Indicator Data;
(ix) the Member did not provide adequate descriptive feedback, assessment and/or evaluation to students;
(x) the Member did not provide adequate evidence of her use of assessment and/or evaluation to help students improve and/or did not provide adequate evidence of how student achievement data was gathered and/or used to determine report card marks;
(xi) the Member did not adequately use tools such as anchor papers and/or exemplars to improve student performance;
(xii) the Member did not demonstrate an adequate balance of self, peer and/or teacher evaluation appropriate to the lesson and the curriculum expectations;
(xiii) the Member did not adequately provide an assessment and evaluation plan and/or detailed student records of achievement;
(xiv) the Member did not apply several of the seven fundamental principles in the Ontario Ministry of Education's Growing Success guideline;
(xv) the Member did not provide evidence that she used a variety of assessment and/or evaluation techniques aligned to instruction and/or appropriate to the [XXX]or [XXX]curricula and/or to the learning needs of students;
(xvi) the Member did not demonstrate adequate knowledge of how students learn and/or of factors that influence student learning and achievement;
(xvii) the Member did not adequately demonstrate modification of programs to fit student needs and/or did not utilize a variety of teaching strategies suited to the individual needs of students by making topics relevant to students' lives and experiences;
(xviii) the Member did not adequately use questions to draw on students' previous knowledge and/or experience;
(xix) the Member did not ask students about their personal experiences with [XXX], but interrupted students with questions about the operation of printers, which distracted the learning process.
(c) Professional Practice
(i) the Member did not adequately apply her professional knowledge and understanding of students, curriculum, legislation, teaching practices and/or classroom management strategies to promote the learning and achievement of her students;
(ii) the Member did not conduct an adequate ongoing assessment of her students' progress, evaluate their achievement or communicate adequately with students and/or parents;
(iii) the Member did not adequately adapt and refine her teaching practices through continuous learning and reflections, using a variety of sources and/or resources to meet the varied learning requirements of her students;
(iv) the Member did not adequately use professional knowledge and understanding of students, curriculum, legislation, teaching practices and/or classroom management strategies to promote the learning and achievement of her students;
(v) the Member did not adequately demonstrate clear and achievable classroom expectations and/or did not pose questions that aligned with the language introduced during the lesson;
(vi) the Member instructed a student to stand in the corner after asking the student three times to stop talking;
(vii) the Member did not adequately provide clear classroom behaviour expectations and/or clear expectations for efficient use of time at the end of class;
(viii) the Member did not adequately use instructional time in a focused, purposeful manner or organize subject matter into meaningful lessons to be completed within an appropriate time;
(ix) the Member interfered with student participation in the learning process by her interruptions;
(x) the Member did not adequately demonstrate an understanding that the 3-part lesson plan was a flexible strategy that could be applied to several lessons for effective inquiry-based student learning;
(xi) the Member did not adequately model and/or promote effective communication skills, such as appropriate [XXX]terminology;
(xii) the Member's written and/or verbal instructions lacked clarity;
(xiii) the Member did not conduct adequate ongoing assessment of students' progress and/or evaluate their achievement to allow her to report results effectively to students and/or their parents regularly;
(xiv) the Member did not provide adequate evidence of gathering accurate data on student performance, comprehensive records of student achievement, mark records and/or samples of student work;
(xv) the Member did not establish an appropriate environment for students requiring time to catch up in their work;
(xvi) the Member did not assign roles for group work, did not instruct students on how the work was to be completed and/or did not discuss efficient ways for the groups to work;
(xvii) the Member's Show and Share strategy was ineffectively executed and/or did not adequately use a variety of teaching strategies to suit the individual needs of students;
(xviii) the Member did not adequately adapt and/or refine her teaching practice through continuous learning and reflecting using a variety of sources and/or resources;
(xix) the Member did not adequately assess and/or review her program delivery for relevance;
(xx) the Member did not use competency statements as a reference point for evaluation of teaching, despite discussion with the School Principal;
(xxi) the Member did not use the template, which had been reviewed during the pre-observation meeting, resulting in a modified lesson plan which was not adhered to;
(xxii) the Member did not effectively demonstrate knowledge of trends, techniques and/or research relevant to her teaching, which resulted in inadequate evidence of improvement in instructional strategies in any of the classes observed.
(d) Ongoing Professional Learning
(i) the Member did not adequately engage in ongoing professional learning and apply it to improve her teaching practice;
(ii) the Member did not effectively apply input from colleagues and others to enhance her teaching practice;
(iii) the Member did not provide evidence of effective application of learning from professional development seminars to her teaching practice;
(iv) the Member did not participate willingly and/or effectively in professional learning, study groups and in-service programs to enhance skill development or broaden knowledge;
(v) the Member did not keep a portfolio to record her learning experiences and/or effectively relate them to educational contexts;
(vi) the Member did not adequately provide and/or refer to her use of a reflective journal throughout the performance appraisal process as proposed in the Member's Improvement Plan.
THE MEMBER’S PLEA
Because the Member was not in attendance at the hearing nor was she represented by legal counsel, the Committee proceeded on the basis that she denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.
THE EVIDENCE
At the hearing, the College called one witness: Ms. Wendy Peyer, who was the principal at [XXX] School during the time of the events at issue.
Ms. Peyer’s role as participant expert
Ms. Peyer gave evidence as to her experience as an administrator who did teacher performance appraisals. Ms. Peyer began teaching in 1982. She received a Masters of Arts in Leadership in 2006. Ms. Peyer took additional qualification courses, including the two-part Principal’s Qualification Program.
From 2004 to 2008, she acted as a vice principal at two [XXX]schools in Brampton. From 2008 to 2015 she was the Principal at [XXX] School, and in 2015 she became Principal at [XXX]School, where she worked at the time of the hearing. The Committee was also provided with a copy of Ms. Peyer’s curriculum vitae (Ex. 4).
Ms. Peyer testified that she did teacher performance appraisals beginning as a vice principal, and that by the time she performed the Member’s appraisals, she had done between 30-50 prior appraisals.
College Counsel submitted that, according to the test set out in Westerhof v. Gee Estate, 2015 ONCA 206 (“Westerhof”), Ms. Peyer meets the definition of a participant expert. Westerhof defines a participant expert as an expert who “form[s] opinions based on [her] participation in the underlying events… rather than because [she was] engaged by a party to the litigation to form an opinion” (para. 6). Such a witness can give opinion evidence where the opinion is based on the witness’s observation of or participation in the events at issue, and the witness formed his or her opinion based on the ordinary exercise of his or her skill, knowledge, training and experience (para. 60). Counsel submitted that Ms. Peyer qualified as a participant witness due to the fact that the principal came to an opinion about the Member’s teaching abilities and her breaches of the standards of the profession based on the three appraisals she gave the Member and based on Ms. Peyer’s ordinary duties as a principal in charge of monitoring teacher performance.
In R. v. Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 9, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that expert evidence may be admitted where the following criteria are met: (a) relevance; (b) necessity in assisting the trier of fact; (c) the absence of any exclusionary rule; and (d) a properly qualified expert.
The Committee is of the view that the expert evidence of Ms. Peyer should be admitted. Her evidence is relevant to the question of whether the Member breached the standards of the profession or is incompetent; it is necessary insofar as the Committee must receive evidence as to what the relevant standards of the profession are in the circumstance of the case before it can make a ruling as to whether these standards have been breached (Novick v Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 508); there is no exclusionary rule preventing Ms. Peyer’s evidence from being admitted; and, Ms. Peyer is a properly qualified expert based on her expertise and experience as an educator and administrator. In addition, there is no evidence that Ms. Peyer’s role as the supervisor of the Member has so biased her evidence that it cannot be admitted according to the criteria above.
Additionally, based on her role in the appraisal process and her extensive expertise as a teacher and administrator, Ms. Peyer meets the criteria of a participant expert as articulated in Westerhof. Accordingly, the Committee qualified Ms. Peyer as an expert to give evidence as to the standards of the profession and the expectations of a competent teacher.
Ms. Peyer’s credibility
The Committee found the witness to be credible. Ms. Peyer gave her evidence in a straightforward and detailed manner. She made reference to the voluminous notes she made of the Member’s performance which were contemporaneous with the observed classes. She answered questions in a forthright manner. As discussed above, Ms. Peyer did not show bias against the Member and had no apparent ulterior motive to discredit the Member, which strengthened her credibility.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE COLLEGE WITH RESPECT TO FINDING
Counsel for the College submitted that the Member displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment and/or disregard for the welfare of her students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the Member is either unfit to carry out her professional responsibilities or that the Member’s certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.
College Counsel argued that, specifically, the Member displayed five areas of incompetence: (1) the Member did not show a commitment to pupil learning by failing to address the individual learning needs of students; (2) the Member failed to show a satisfactory level of professional knowledge; (3) the Member was deficient in her professional practice in that she made ineffective use of her time with students in the classroom; (4) the Member did not engage properly in learning communities insofar as she failed to communicate productively with colleagues; and (5) the Member failed to incorporate new learning from ongoing professional development.
Counsel for the College also argued that the Member’s teaching performance did not meet the standards of the profession, despite two improvement plans and significant support to develop her skills. Students’ learning was compromised because of the Member’s poor lesson planning, her inability to teach in a differentiated and effective way, and her lack of student feedback. These deficiencies, argued Counsel, placed students in jeopardy, leaving them unprepared for the next grade level. The College also argued that this unacceptable performance by the Member breached the Education Act.
Counsel for the College produced two cases in support of their contention of professional misconduct and incompetence: Ontario College of Teachers v. Curtis, 2015 ONOCT 15, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gow, 2014 ONOCT 44.
DECISION
Onus and Standard of Proof
The College is required to prove the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53; that is, the balance of probabilities.
Finding
Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Counsel for the College, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5) and 1(15), as set out in the Notice of Hearing.
The Committee also finds that the facts support a finding of incompetence as defined in section 30(3) of the Act and finds that the Member demonstrated a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that she is unfit to continue to carry out her professional responsibilities or that a certificate held by the member should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Committee carefully reviewed the evidence and the submissions by Counsel for the College. In the interests of clarity and orderliness, the Committee addresses first the allegations of incompetence and then the allegations of professional misconduct against the Member.
Factual findings
Background
The Member was informed by letter dated September 25, 2012 that she would be part of the School Board’s Teacher Performance Appraisal (Ex. 6). The Committee will focus its findings on four areas of competency1 identified in the summative reports which were used to evaluate the Member:
Commitment to pupils and pupil learning;
Professional knowledge;
Professional practice; and,
Ongoing professional learning.
The Member’s First Summative Report, dated September 11, 2013 (Ex 7), was unsatisfactory. Before receiving the summative report, the Member met with the principal for three pre-observation meetings, and the principal attended at three classroom observations. They also met for a post-observation session. Following the First Summative Report, Ms. Peyer prepared an improvement plan which set out steps the Member could take to improve her performance, including working with colleagues to develop and implement effective instructional strategies, participating in professional development on differentiated instructional strategies, and meeting weekly with the vice principal to monitor progress and supports.
The Member’s Second Summative Report, dated December 4, 2013 (Ex. 13), was also unsatisfactory. The process followed the same format as the first appraisal, and included two pre-observation meetings, two classroom observations, and a post-observation meeting. The Member received another improvement plan following the report, and was given a letter dated December 4, 2013 informing her that she was placed in an “on review” status. Once placed on review, a teacher is given another appraisal within 120 school days, and if the teacher’s performance remains unsatisfactory, the principal and superintendent must send a recommendation to the Board for termination.
The Member’s Third Summative Report, dated June 26, 2014 (Ex. 18), was unsatisfactory as well. It also followed the same format, with three pre-observation meetings, three classroom observations, and a post-observation meeting.
In a letter dated September 2, 2014, the Superintendent of Education informed the Member that she was assigned to home with full pay and benefits (Ex. 20). The Member was terminated on October 14, 2014 (Ex 22).
1. Commitment to Pupils and Pupil Learning
The Committee finds that the Member failed to show a sufficient commitment to student learning and improvement.
The Member received an unsatisfactory assessment in this domain on all three assessments, and the Committee accepts Ms. Peyer’s detailed evidence regarding the Member’s lack of commitment to student learning.
Ms. Peyer found that the Member did not employ differentiated instruction and assessment strategies to support her students’ learning. For instance, in her First Summative Report, Ms. Peyer noted that during the Member’s literacy circles, the Member had students read six different novels of varying reading levels, but did not consider student reading readiness when assigning the books to students, and instead had all students read all six books regardless of their individual reading strength.
Ms. Peyer also found that the Member did not use a balance of teacher and student directed learning. This was evident in the Third Summative Report, when the Member was teaching a [XXX]class on[XXX]. The Member used a dice rolling game which was supposed to last only a few minutes; it lasted 45 minutes, and the Member rolled the dice herself and did not engage the students. The students were bored and did not make a connection between the activity and the learning. Ms. Peyer noted that the Member also failed to use technology available in this class to make the lesson more engaging and support student learning.
As well, Ms. Peyer found that the Member did not give students assignments which were tailored to their ability level. During the Second Summative Report, the principal noted that the Member gave her students a [XXX]“warm up” problem which was supposed to last 10 minutes, but instead lasted 75 minutes.
Ms. Peyer found that the Member was over-reliant on group work, and this limited individual instruction; as well, students were often relying on self-assessment and group assessments to determine how they were doing, and were not receiving adequate feedback from the teacher as to how they were progressing. In the Second Summative Report, for instance, Ms. Peyer noted that during a [XXX]lesson the students were asked to assess themselves using a[XXX], [XXX]and [XXX]rubric at the end of a group project, even though the [XXX]and [XXX]rubric criteria were not relevant.
Ms. Peyer found that the Member did not give students opportunities to consolidate learning after they had received instruction, and therefore became confused and disengaged when doing group work.
The principal also noted that the Member’s classroom was in disarray. She had piles of student work on most of the classroom’s horizontal surfaces, as well as collections of work which dated back several weeks which had not been evaluated. Ms. Peyer noted that there were dirty dishes and empty water bottles scattered throughout the classroom, as well as leftover food in opened drawers in the teacher’s desk. She also observed that there was a bin with old report cards and confidential student information dating back to 2008.
Ms. Peyer also noted that the Member gave minimal feedback, and often gave feedback on group submissions rather than individualized feedback which was precise and detailed.
2. Professional Knowledge
The Committee finds that the Member’s ability to manager her classroom and understand how students learn was deficient. The Committee accepts Ms. Peyer’s ample evidence on this issue.
Ms. Peyer found that the Member’s performance in this domain was unsatisfactory in all three summative reports. She found that the Member failed to provide detailed lesson plans that reflected curriculum expectations. She noted that the Member’s lessons were lacking in content, skill development, student engagement and assessment, and that the Member failed to use the assessment practise outline in the Minister of Education’s Growing Success document and the Peel District School Board’s Policy 14.
She found that the Member rarely used diagnostic and formative assessments to determine student learning needs and to provide practice opportunities and feedback. The Member often had students working in groups, and differentiated evaluations were not given to individual students.
The principal found that the Member did not use a variety of teaching strategies to improve student learning. As well, Ms. Peyer found the Member did not provide students with descriptive feedback so that they could improve their work.
In the Second Summative Report, Ms. Peyer observed that the Member instructed students to self-assess and then peer assess their [XXX] assignments. As part of this process, the Member called out each student’s name in front of the class and the student would call out the achievement level as marked on the page by their peer. The Member recorded the mark. The students reported that they did not get teacher feedback.
Ms. Peyer also observed that the Member did not use achievement criteria as a reference when evaluating student work, and failed to show how she arrived at students’ final grades.
3. Professional Practice
In terms of the Member’s ability to apply professional knowledge and understanding of students, curriculum, legislation, teaching practices and/or classroom management strategies, the Committee finds that Ms. Peyer demonstrated through her evidence that the Member did not meet these requirements as a teacher.
The Member’s performance in this domain was unsatisfactory in all three reports. In the First Summative Report, Ms. Peyer found that the Member failed to demonstrate the professional knowledge and teaching strategies to properly support her students. Ms. Peyer found that, during the pre-observation meetings, the observation and the debrief meetings, the Member failed to show how her lessons were linked to the curriculum. As well, she was ineffective in her use of classroom time, and she did not give students the opportunity to practice skills they were learning.
Ms. Peyer also reported that the Member did not provide evidence to demonstrate that she was communicating to students and parents about student progress, nor was she keeping comprehensive records of student achievement.
As well, the principal observed that the Member did not organize her teaching time properly and could not complete her lessons in the time allotted, nor did she adjust her lesson schedule when students were having difficulties.
4. Ongoing professional learning
The Committee concludes that the Member’s did not show an adequate commitment to ongoing professional learning, based on Ms. Peyer’s evidence.
The Member’s performance in this domain was unsatisfactory in all three reports. Ms. Peyer found that the Member failed to apply the skills she had learned in professional development programs, as demonstrated by her inability to assess a lesson’s effectiveness.
Evidence as to the standards of the profession
In her evidence, Ms. Peyer testified in her role as a participant expert that the standards of the profession require the Member to teach her assigned subjects diligently and faithfully, to encourage student learning, and to provide feedback so that students can succeed and be prepared for the next grade level.
Specifically, in terms of commitment to student learning, Ms. Peyer said she would expect that students would be grouped by their ability level, such as in reading groups. She would also expect to see the use of formative and summative assessment and the use of diagnostic tools to guide differentiated instruction. She also stated there is an expectation to note learning expectations, such as an expectation in the [XXX]class that students would understand they were learning the [XXX]and [XXX]. Ms. Peyer also stated that it was an expectation of the profession that classes would be designed to target the varying academic level of the students.
Ms. Peyer pointed to the teaching resources provided to the Member (Ex. 14) as documents which establish the standards of the profession regarding competent teaching practice. She expected that a teacher would incorporate these types of resource into their classroom planning and execution.
As well, Ms. Peyer explained that a teacher who was meeting the standards of the profession would have used teacher assessment, and would not just rely on self and peer assessment. She also said it was an expectation of the profession that the assessment process would be clear and transparent so that students could understand why they were receiving the feedback or grade they received.
Legal Findings
Finding as to incompetence
After examining all of the evidence, the Committee finds that the Member is incompetent as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Act.
The three summative evaluation reports and the testimony of Ms. Peyer demonstrated that the Member 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 she is unfit to continue to carry out her professional responsibilities or that a certificate held by her under this Act should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.
The Committee was struck by the Member’s numerous significant deficiencies in the areas of competency identified in the summative reports. Moreover, despite all the support the Member received to improve her teaching and assessment methods, she failed to utilize this support to improve her practice.
The Member showed a complete lack of awareness that her practice was so poor that students were not able to learn because of her deficits.
Moreover, the Member was unwilling to develop her practice once it was repeatedly pointed out to her that her performance was unsatisfactory and she was given two improvement plans and a multitude of supports. She made no effort to understand why she was below standard and to take responsibility for her failures as a teacher. For example, the Member did not sign the first improvement plan, illustrating that she did not care about engaging in the improvement process. The Committee finds this was reflective of a pattern of disengagement and disinterest on the part of the Member.
Based on Ms. Peyer’s evidence, there was a significant gap between what is expected from a competent and responsible teacher and what was being displayed by the Member. Despite many opportunities to improve, the Member displayed a lack of knowledge, skill and judgement reflecting her incompetent performance as a teacher. This incompetence jeopardized the welfare of her students and limited their ability to learn and progress.
Finding as to professional misconduct
The Committee finds that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct in that she contravened subsections 1(5) and 1 (15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In view of the overlapping of the evidence in support of the finding of incompetence and the evidence in support of the finding of professional misconduct, the Committee refers to the aforementioned evidence, where applicable, instead of reiterating the evidence in the reasons that follow.
Failure to maintain the standards of the profession
The Committee finds that the Member failed to meet these standards of the profession. The Member was giving tasks to the students which were inappropriate to the levels of learning in the class. Students were not engaged and class time was not used effectively. The students were not given learning goals. The students were not informed in a meaningful way by the Member what the purpose of the lessons were and the criteria which were being used to evaluate them. In fact, the Member could not explain to Ms. Peyer what methodology the Member was using to assess student performance. The classroom was extremely disorganized with confidential student reports in public and unmarked work left in disarray.
The Committee found that the Member did not meet the standards of the profession in regards to professional assessment. The Member failed to understand that having students peer-evaluate and then call out marks in class was demeaning to students and gave the students no understanding of how they could improve. It is crucial to professional teaching that students be given an explanation of how to master the subject matter and perform at the competent level.
It was also an expectation that teachers would improve their practice through continuous learning and improvement. The Member failed to meet this standard of the profession. The Member was given ample training on how to improve after each assessment and failed to do so. She did not address the issues that the administration had identified. She declined to incorporate the learning she was receiving from colleagues and from documentary materials.
For all the above reasons, the Committee finds that the Member committed professional misconduct insofar as she failed to maintain the standards of the professions.
Failure to comply with the Education Act
The Committee finds that the Member failed to comply with the Education Act
Section 264(1)(a) and (b) of the Education Act require a teacher to “to teach diligently and faithfully the classes or subjects assigned to the teacher by the principal” and “to encourage the pupils in the pursuit of learning”. As illustrated by the evidence outlined above, the Member failed to teach her Grade [XXX] students diligently and faithfully and encourage learning. She failed to provide differentiated instruction so that students of all abilities could improve. She did not explain the learning goals and criteria to students in a clear and transparent way. Her students were disengaged in the lessons presented, and did not grasp the concepts they were meant to learn.
As well, s. 264(1)(e) requires a teacher to maintain “proper order and discipline in the teacher’s classroom and while on duty in the school and on the school ground”. As noted by Ms. Peyer, the Member failed in terms of classroom management. Her classroom was disorganized and appropriate learning materials were not being used. This lack of order hindered student learning.
For these reasons, the Committee finds that the Member committed professional misconduct insofar as she failed to comply with the Education Act, s. 264.
PENALTY
The Committee will schedule a subsequent date on which to hear submissions with respect to penalty.
Date: December 20, 2016
Shanlee Linton, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
Alexander (Sandy) Bass Member, Discipline Panel
Tom Potter
Member, Discipline Panel