Ontario College of Teachers v. Crouse, 2016 ONOCT 99

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Crouse, 2016 ONOCT 99

Date: 2016-11-01

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against

Nancy Elizabeth Crouse, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Colleen Landers, Chair Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT Sara Nouini, OCT

BETWEEN: ) Christine Wadsworth and Shane D’Souza ) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) for Ontario College of Teachers, ) assisted by Annie Lacroix, – and – ) Law Clerk Nancy Elizabeth Crouse ) (CERTIFICATE # 101052) ) Nancy Elizabeth Crouse, ) Self-represented ) Julie Maciura, ) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: October 3 and 4, 2016

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on October 3 and 4, 2016 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 2) dated January 24, 2014 was served on Nancy Elizabeth Crouse (the “Member”) requesting her presence on February 21, 2014 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges.

The Member was not in attendance for the hearing and she did not have legal representation.

College Counsel submitted the Affidavit of Annie Lacroix (Exhibit 1) affirmed on September 29, 2016, to prove that the Member had been informed of the allegations against her and the time and date of the hearing. In her affidavit, Ms. Lacroix, a law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, outlines her communications with the Member and provides proof of service of the Notice of Hearing and the College’s disclosure. Based on Ms. Lacroix’s affidavit, the Committee was satisfied that the Member had been properly served with the Notice of Hearing and disclosure documents and was deemed aware of the time and date of the hearing. Out of an abundance of caution, the Committee waited an additional 15 minutes before commencing the hearing on the merits. The Member did not attend. The Committee therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member.

OVERVIEW

The allegations in this matter are centred on the Member’s assessment and evaluation practices during the 2011-2012 school year. The allegations involve the Member’s failure to give students meaningful opportunities for assessment, her failure to grade students fairly based on their performance, and her failure to give individualized feedback to students.

The particular allegations can be found in paragraph 4 of the Notice of Hearing.

For the reasons set out in detail below, the Committee has determined that the College has proven the particularized allegations in subparagraphs 4(a)-(j), which give rise to a finding of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (the “Act”) in that she contravened subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Committee also finds that the College has not proven the particularized allegations in subparagraphs 4(k)-(m).

As well, for the reasons set out in detail below, the Committee finds that an appropriate penalty is an oral reprimand, a one month suspension, coursework, and publication of the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Nancy Elizabeth Crouse is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Act in that:

a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);

b) she failed to 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 committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);

d) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Nancy Elizabeth Crouse, OCT is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was a secondary school teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in the Peel District School Board.

3. During the 2011-2012 school year, parents and students expressed concerns to the School’s Principal regarding the validity of student marks issued by the Member.

4. In particular, the Member demonstrated poor evaluation and assessment practices in the following respects. The Member:

(a) did not provide her Student Mark book as requested by the Principal;

(b) had difficulty utilizing the computerized Mark book program;

(c) provided the Principal with a handwritten version of student marks;

(d) had not assessed marks in accordance with the course description guidelines;

(e) prepared student report cards which contained comments that did not accurately reflect the marks;

(f) displayed a lack of consistency in her analysis of student marks, which prompted the Principal to adjust marks and comments for 21 of 23 student report cards;

(g) had recorded a zero mark for a student for an incomplete assignment, when in fact, the student had completed the assignment and the Member had assigned a mark;

(h) did not provide any copies of tests or assignments to support student marks in her Semester 2 [XXX] class;

(i) adjusted all student marks in her Grade [XXX] class;

(j) in one instance, miscalculated a student’s marks which revealed that the student would have needed to receive -7 on the final exam to achieve the mark assigned;

(k) lost the assignments of 2 students;

(l) adjusted all student marks in her Semester 1 Grade [XXX] [XXX] class; and

(m) adjusted 20 of 22 student marks in her Semester 2 Grade [XXX] [XXX] class.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

A number of preliminary matters were raised at the outset of the hearing and are addressed below.

The motion for adjournment

The hearing of this matter was originally scheduled for June 16-17, 2016. In March 2016, the Member told the College that she would be in hospital in June 2016 to undergo major surgery. The College took the position that it would agree to an adjournment of the June 2016 dates on the condition that new dates be scheduled for fall 2016. The parties exchanged communications and on June 1, 2016, the Member requested that the hearing be scheduled in October 2016. The College confirmed on June 2, 2016 that the hearing had been rescheduled to proceed on October 3-4, 2016. The College sent the Member a number of communications after June 2, 2016 confirming the October 3-4, 2016 hearing dates.

On September 23, 2016, the Member wrote to the College indicating that due to medical issues, she was unable to attend the hearing scheduled for October 3-4, 2016. The College replied that a request for an adjournment would not be considered without the Member providing a medical report. On September 27, 2016, the Member responded and said she could not provide a medical letter until after the hearing dates. The Member asked if she could provide a note from her caregiver; the College responded that it would consider any documentation from a medical professional that set out the Member’s condition and explained why she could not attend the hearing. The Member did not provide a note from her caretaker.

College Counsel took the position that the adjournment should not be granted. Counsel argued that the Member had been given numerous reminders in the months leading up to the October hearing dates of the upcoming matter, but only requested an adjournment a week before the hearing and failed to provide any medical evidence explaining her condition or why she could not attend the hearing. College Counsel also argued that the fact that the College’s witnesses were present at the hearing and ready to proceed was a factor militating against allowing the adjournment.

As noted, the Member did not attend at the hearing and therefore made no arguments in support of her request for an adjournment.

The Committee carefully considered the submissions of Counsel for the College. Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”), the Committee has the discretion to adjourn a hearing. Furthermore, pursuant to sub-rule 14.01(2) of the Rules and in accordance with section 21 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.22, the Committee may consider one or more of the following factors when deciding whether or not to grant an adjournment:

1. the sufficiency of the reasons advanced for the request to adjourn;

2. the timeliness of the request;

3. the resources of the Committee, including scheduling related issues;

4. any prejudice to the parties;

5. whether any adjournments had been granted previously;

6. the consent of the parties; or

7. any other relevant factor.

In arriving at its decision to deny the adjournment request, the Committee applied the seven factors set out above.

First, the Committee finds that the Member did not advance sufficient reasons to support her request for an adjournment. The Member provided no medical report to explain what medical condition she was experiencing or how it prevented her from attending. This was despite ample warning from College Counsel that another hearing date would not be considered unless a medical note was provided. The absence of sufficient medical evidence explaining why the Member cannot attend the hearing will weigh against granting an adjournment, particularly where an earlier adjournment was granted: Ontario College of Teachers v. McIntyre, 2010 LNONCTD 25, para. 25; affirmed, [2012] ONSC 5957 (Div. Ct.).

Second, the Member’s request for an adjournment was communicated to College Counsel very close to the date of the hearing, on September 23, 2016, a factor weighing against an adjournment. This was despite the fact that the Member knew well in advance that she was required to contact College Counsel if there was a medical reason she could not attend on October 3-4, 2016.

Third, the Committee finds that scheduling issues support denying the request for the adjournment. In particular, two witnesses for the College made arrangements to attend at the hearing to give evidence, and it would be an inconvenience for these witnesses to have to reschedule their appearances and return to give evidence in front of a disciplinary panel at a later date.

Fourth, the Committee finds that refusing an adjournment would not be prejudicial to the Member, given that she had the opportunity to provide medical information supporting her request and thereby put forward a stronger case for an adjournment. The Member chose not to provide this information.

Fifth, the Committee notes that an adjournment had been previously granted in this matter and the Member agreed to the rescheduled October date, a factor which weighs against granting another adjournment.

Sixth, College Counsel opposed the adjournment; again, this is a factor weighing against an adjournment.

Seventh, with regard to any other relevant factor, the Committee emphasizes that the public interest favours resolving this matter, as it has been outstanding for some time. The Member was issued the Notice of Hearing in January 2014 and the hearing was originally scheduled for June 2016 before it was postponed. Further delay will increase the risk that witnesses will be unable to recall pertinent facts. It will negatively impact the Discipline Committee’s commitment to resolving allegations of misconduct in an expeditious manner.

Accordingly, the Committee denies the Member’s request for an adjournment.

Qualifying Ms. Wilson as a participant expert

Counsel for the College submitted that its first witness, Ms. Stacy Wilson, should be qualified as a participant expert in the assessment and evaluation of students.

Ms. Wilson has been teaching since 1984, and became a vice principal in 2003. She described her work as a vice principal as including the supervision of students and departments within the school, the monitoring of course profiles, and the review of report cards and exams.

Ms. Wilson was the principal at [XXX] between June 2008 and June 2012. At the time of the hearing she was Principal of Continuing and Adult Education with the Peel District School Board. As principal at [XXX], Ms. Wilson was responsible for the instruction of students. This involved the supervision of staff in order to assess whether they were capable of the delivery of the curriculum, and the assessment and evaluation of students. Her supervision also involved teacher performance appraisals. As an administrator, Ms. Wilson was responsible for determining how the school would implement Ministry and Board policies around assessment and evaluation (which are discussed further in the next section).

College Counsel submitted that, according to the test set out in Westerhof v. Gee Estate, 2015 ONCA 206 (“Westerhof”), Ms. Wilson 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. Wilson qualified as a participant witness due to the fact that the principal came to an opinion about the Member’s teaching practices based on her investigation into the specific allegations against the Member and based on Ms. Wilson’s ordinary duties as a principal in charge of monitoring teacher assessment and evaluation practices.

We agree. Based on her role in the investigation into Ms. Wilson’s conduct and her extensive expertise as a teacher and administrator, Ms. Wilson meets the criteria of a participant expert. Accordingly, she can give evidence as to the standards of the profession regarding the assessment and evaluations of students.

THE MEMBER’S PLEA

The Member did not attend and a plea of not guilty was entered on the Member’s behalf.

EVIDENCE OF THE COLLEGE

Policies and standards

A number of policies and standards were introduced into evidence as part of the testimony of Ms. Wilson. While Ms. Wilson’s testimony will be discussed in detail further below, we set out the documentary sources below for the sake of clarity and we will describe each one briefly.

Policy #14 – Student Assessment, Evaluation and Reporting in Peel Elementary and Secondary Schools (Exhibit 7)

This Policy is the Peel Board’s implementation of the Growing Success provincial policy for assessment, evaluation and reporting.

The Policy states the following regarding Principles of Effective Assessment, Evaluation and Reporting:

To ensure that the process of assessment, evaluation, and reporting is valid and reliable, and to ensure that this process leads to the improvement of learning for all students, Peel District School Board teachers and school teams will use practices and procedures that are:

• fair, transparent and equitable for all students;

• Carefully planned to relate to the curriculum expectations and learning goals and, as much as possible, to the interests, learning styles and preferences, needs and experiences of all students;

• Communicated clearly to students and parents at the beginning of the school year or course and at other appropriate points throughout the school year or course;

• Ongoing, varied in nature and administered over a period of time to provide multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate the full range of their learning;

• Providing ongoing descriptive feedback that is clear, specific, meaningful and timely to support improved learning and achievement;

• Developing students’ self-assessment skills to enable them to assess their own learning, set specific goals, and plan next steps for their learning.

Policy #14 also specifies that “Teachers will obtain assessment information through a variety of means” and that “[i]t is the duty of a teacher to ‘ensure that report cards are fully and properly completed and processed’ (O. Reg. 209/03, s. 1)”. The Policy states that a teacher should weigh and consider:

• All evidence collected through observations, conversations, and student products;

• Evidence for evaluation that the student has completed or submitted, the number of assignments for evaluation that were not completed or submitted, and the evidence of achievement that is available for each overall expectation for a subject in a particular grade or course;

• That some evidence carries greater weight than other evidence;

• All evidence of student achievement in light of these considerations and will use their professional judgment to determine the student’s report card grade. The report card grade represents a student’s achievement of overall curriculum expectations, as demonstrated to hat point in time.

In terms of writing report cards, Policy #14 specifies that teachers “should provide parents with personalized, clear, precise and meaningful feedback. Comments should be in clear, meaningful language that students and parents can understand and should provide essential information to parents and students to help students improve their learning.”

[XXX] School Staff Handbook 2011-2012 - Evaluation Policy (the “Evaluation Policy”) (Exhibit 28)

Ms. Wilson explained that the Staff Handbook was prepared by her and the vice principals, and was a compilation of policies which set out the administration’s expectations. She stated that all teachers get a copy of the handbook before school starts annually.

The Evaluation Policy specifies that 70% of the final grade for a course will be based on evaluations conducted throughout the course, and 30% will be based on a final evaluation. The Evaluation Policy also sets out that teachers should do formal reporting to parents twice during each semester, and teachers will alert parents to potential problems at any time during the semester, so that early remediation action can take place.

The Ontario College of Teachers Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession (the “OCT Ethical Standard”) (Exhibit 29)

The Ethical Standards states that “[a]t the heart of a strong and effective teaching profession is a commitment to students and their learning. Members of the Ontario College of Teachers, their position of trust, demonstrate responsibility in their relationships with students, parents, guardians, colleagues, educational partners, other professionals, the environment and the public.” The document states that the ethical standards of profession are care, respect, trust and integrity.

The Ontario College of Teachers Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (The “OCT Standards of Practice”) (Exhibit 30)

One of the listed Standards is “Professional Practice”, which is described as follows:

Members apply professional knowledge and experience to promote student learning. They use appropriate pedagogy, assessment and evaluation, resources and technology in planning for and responding to the needs of individual students and learning communities. Members refine their professional practice through ongoing inquiry, dialogue and reflection.

Ms. Wilson’s opinion on the policies and standards

Ms. Wilson testified that, as a participant expert, it was her opinion that Policy #14, the Evaluation Policy, The Ethical Standard and the Standards of Practice all established the standard of the profession for the assessment and evaluation of students.

Evidence of Ms. Stacy Wilson

The Committee found Ms. Wilson to be a credible witness with excellent recall of the facts at issue. Her many contemporaneous notes affirm the accuracy of her testimony. The Committee found Ms. Wilson to be an experienced and responsible administrator. It found no evidence that Ms. Wilson was biased against the Member; to the contrary, she worked hard to support the Member to improve her performance.

Background regarding the Member’s training on assessment and evaluation practices

Ms. Wilson testified that she met the Member in June 2008 when she arrived at [XXX], a semestered school, as principal. She said that, in meeting with the outgoing principal, she learned that the Member had been identified as a teacher who required additional support in terms of accurate and transparent grading practices. As well, Ms. Wilson was told that the Member needed training on MarkBook, the computerized marking program that the school used wherein teachers enter marks on an ongoing basis.

Ms. Wilson gave evidence that attempts were made by the administration to improve the Member’s competence with Markbook. She stated that in December 2008 and January 2009, the Member was unresponsive to offers to be trained on MarkBook by an Instructional Technologies teacher (Exhibit 5), but the Member eventually participated in training involving the principal and a vice principal.

According to Ms. Wilson, the Member was given a Letter of Expectation on January 28, 2009 regarding the Member’s inappropriate manner of marking a student’s essay and her failure to use a rubric or marking scheme related to the assignment (Exhibit 6). In the Letter of Expectation, Ms. Wilson indicated the numerous ways the Member could get further supports to improve her assessment and evaluation procedures.

Ms. Wilson stated that complaints by students and parents continued through the end of the 2009 term, and then into the following year as well. Ms. Wilson indicated that the Member’s performance was being monitored by her and the vice principals. According to Ms. Wilson, Vice Principal Leslie Grant recorded her discussions with the Member in a letter dated June 30, 2010 (Exhibit 8), discussing the support and training the Member had received on MarkBook, and the expectations regarding transparency and regular updates in marking.

Problems with the Member’s report cards

Ms. Wilson also provided information about the problems with the Member’s report cards. At the time, one of the vice principals, Mr. Greg Peterson, was tasked with reviewing the Member’s report cards before they were issued (Exhibit 9). Ms. Wilson gave evidence that the Member’s report cards for the first and second semester of 2010/2011 were deficient in that the comments to students were not personalized and did not accurately reflect the students’ performance; as well, the comments did not give students clear guidance on how to improve, and there were multiple errors which were not fixed even when the Member was instructed to do so. Ms. Wilson explained that the Member was “flooding” the report cards, which meant she was using the same pre-scripted comments for many students and not addressing a particular student’s strengths and needs. Ms. Wilson indicated that, although Mr. Pearson addressed these issues with the Member at the end of the first semester, the same problems occurred in the Member‘s report cards in the second semester.

The Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class

Ms. Wilson then discussed problems with the Member’s marks in her Grade [XXX] [XXX] class which arose in the fall of 2011. [XXX] was a half-credit class, so the class was completed in a half a semester. According to Ms. Wilson, the first complaint came from a student who had a failing grade in the class, despite being a strong student. She stated that other complaints by parents and students were being brought forward as well.

Ms. Wilson explained that she asked the Member to provide her with an electronic copy of her MarkBook for the first session of [XXX] so that the principal could see what assignments and tests had been given in the class and how these marks were weighted compared to the final “portfolio” assignment.

On December 19, 2011, the Member provided her with a hard copy of the summary report for [XXX] Semester 1 Term 1, rather than the electronic copy of her MarkBook. The hard copy did not show individual student assignment marks (Exhibit 11).

According to Ms. Wilson, after asking for more detail about the marking breakdown, the Member gave her multiple, conflicting versions of the assignment breakdown for the class between December 19, 2011 and January 13, 2012 (Exhibits 12-16). She explained that, at first, the Member gave her a hardcopy student report which indicated that only two types of work were entered into MarkBook – homework and the portfolio (Exhibit 12), even though homework is not meant to be graded. However, according to Ms. Wilson, the Member later gave her a student report from MarkBook indicating that tests were also given, and the Member claimed she gave students three tests worth thirty marks each but forgot to enter them earlier (Exhibit 14). According to Ms. Wilson, when interviewed on March 20, 2012, the Member claimed that the test marks were recorded on a separate piece of paper which she had at home, but Ms. Wilson never saw this piece of paper (Exhibit 22-23).

Ms. Wilson said that she made two more requests from the Member for her electronic MarkBook – despite these requests, on December 22, 2011 and January 13, 2012, the Member gave her hard copy summaries only (Exhibit 13 and 15).

Upon disclosure of the Member’s handwritten marking book (Exhibit 16), Ms. Wilson also observed that the Member appeared to have written in a column of marks for the tests; Ms. Wilson was of the view that these test marks had been written in after the principal had begun to inquire into the grading of the [XXX] class, and did not reflect actual tests administered to the students.

According to Ms. Wilson, the Member had also improperly weighed her assignments, failing to use the 70% term work/30% final assignment breakdown mandated by the Ministry; the Member failed to fix this problem with her marking even when instructed to do so by Ms. Wilson.

Ms. Wilson also observed that, in the Member’s handwritten record of marks, Student 1 received an “incomplete” for her portfolio assignment and received a failing grade in the class; however, the student has received a marked rubric for the portfolio assignment showing she received a mark of 52/70 (Exhibit 17). Ms. Wilson also noted that the rubric was very generic and could have been used with any assignment, rather than being specific to the portfolio assignment.

According to Ms. Wilson, after uncovering these problems with the Member’s marking in [XXX] class, she decided to interview all the Member’s students in February 2012. Ms. Wilson called students in together and gave them questions to answer on a piece of paper (Exhibits 18-19). She described that virtually all the students reported that the only assignment that was given was the portfolio, and there were no coursework, tests or assignments. She stated that the students also reported that they watched a lot of movies unrelated to the curriculum.

The Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class

Ms. Wilson testified that the vice principal, Greg Pearson, conducted interviews of the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class in February 2012 (Exhibits 20-21). She stated that those students reported a lack of work in the Member’s class, a lack of feedback and assessment; they also reported watching a lot of movies that did not relate to the course. As well, Ms. Wilson recalled that the students reported that they did a diorama assignment and everyone in the class received a 90% but no feedback.

Ms. Wilson highlighted the particular case of Student 2, one of the students in the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class. According to Ms. Wilson, the Member told the student that he had a 58/70 going into the exam (the exam was worth 30% of the course mark); however, Student 2 ultimately received a 51% in the course, which meant that he would have received a mark of -7% (an impossible result) on the final exam (Exhibit 21). Ms. Wilson recalled that when she interviewed the Member on March 20, 2012, similar discrepancies were discussed about students’ final marks being inaccurate (Exhibits 22 and 23).

Ms. Wilson also gave evidence about the case of Student 3, who had been in the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class during the 2011/2012 year but then left in winter 2012 to attend an alternative school. Ms. Wilson gave evidence that the Member continued to give the student marks despite the fact that he was not attending at the school any more, as was evident from a MarkBook printout from the class dated April 24, 2012 and a report card issued by the Member for the student on April 26, 2012 (Exhibit 24).

Meeting and discipline of the Member

Ms. Wilson explained that she interviewed the Member on March 20, 2012 about the concerns with her assessments and evaluations (Exhibits 22-23). Following the interview, a meeting was held with the Member, Ms. Wilson, the Superintendent of Education and the OSSTF President on April 16, 2012. The Member was issued a Letter of Discipline signed by the Superintendent on April 24, 2012. The letter included the following admonishment:

My reasons for holding this meeting are concerns with the validity of marks in your courses.

At the meeting I reminded you that your principal, Ms. Stacy Wilson, has repeatedly requested proof of your mark calculations and background information to substantiate your marks. This request has been made over a period of months. You have not substantiated the marks.

Semester one report cards were sent home to parents with comments and marks that did not reflect the reality that students described. Your analysis of marks and the students’ description of their assessments and evaluations were not consistent. As determined by Stacy Wilson’s review of the [XXX] marks, students could not mathematically receive the marks that you gave them. I can only conclude that the marks were fabricated and that there is no integrity to the marks you have submitted.

As a result of our meeting it is expected that you will review and adhere to the Foundations of Professional Practice which include the Ethical Standards, the Standards of Practice and the Professional Learning Framework, to which all members of the Ontario College of Teachers are bound. A copy of which is enclosed.

Ms. Wilson testified that she was required to assign new grades to the students in the Member’s [XXX] class, and also indicated that she believed she did so for the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class. Ms. Wilson sent letters to the parents of students in both classes dated June 28, 2012 informing them that there had been issues with the calculation of marks, and that she had personally reviewed the marks and adjusted the final grades (Exhibit 26).

Ms. Wilson opined that the Member did not meet the standards set out in Policy #14: she did not have a course plan as to how to deliver courses; she had no targets for students, she did not know what they needed to do to demonstrate knowledge; she had no variety in assessment and evaluation; she falsified marks; and she lacked professionalism in the delivery, assessment and evaluation of courses.

Ms. Wilson was also of the opinion that the Member did not comply with the expectations in the Evaluation Policy: she was not weighing her classes to meet the 70%/30% split, and more generally, was not conducting evaluations frequently enough and not reporting to students and parents.

Ms. Wilson also gave evidence that the Member did not comply with the OCT Ethical Standards insofar as she did not comply with the expectations for fairness, honesty and reliability, and did not treat students equally.

Finally, Ms. Wilson testified that the Member did not live up to the expectations in the College’s Standards of Practice insofar as she had no set plan for teaching, no development of skills, no evaluation plan, no proper use of MarkBook technology, and no commitment to student learning.

Evidence of Mr. Greg Pearson

The Committee found Mr. Pearson’s evidence to be clear and credible. His observations regarding the Member’s marking practices and the student interviews were consistent with Ms. Wilson’s evidence.

Mr. Pearson began working as a vice principal at [XXX] in Fall 2009. He confirmed that one of his duties as vice principal was to review report cards to ensure that teachers were given students and parents relevant, specific examples of areas of strength and areas for improvement.

Mr. Pearson gave evidence that he reviewed the Member’s report card comments in 2011. He stated that the Member’s comments were hard to follow and that she made many mistakes such as spelling mistakes, use of the wrong names or gender, and repeated sentences. He affirmed that she flooded many of her comments and did not individualize them to the student and his or her performance. Mr. Pearson also stated that the Member made inappropriate comments, such as accusing a student of insubordination. Mr. Pearson testified that she did not make corrections to the report cards after he instructed her to do so, and her comments got worse over time.

Mr. Pearson said that he and another vice principal conducted written student interviews into the assessments and evaluations in the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class. According to Mr. Pearson, the interview questions revealed that: the students were never assigned units of study; there was no curriculum integration; students would hand in assignments and not get them back; students were shown movies without any connection to the curriculum; and, when the students were assigned a diorama to do as a major assignment, the Member did not mark it for a long period of time and then finally gave all the students 90%. Mr. Pearson said that he discussed the results of his investigation with Ms. Wilson

POSITION OF THE COLLEGE

College Counsel submitted that the Committee ought to find the Member guilty of professional misconduct under each head of misconduct set out in the Notice of Hearing. College Counsel argued that the Member failed to meet the standards of the profession regarding the assessment and evaluation of students, through a lack of evaluation opportunities and repeated instances of marking inaccuracies or falsifications. College Counsel further argued that the Member’s conduct was a breach of the Education Act; her conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional; and her conduct was unbecoming a member of the profession.

DECISION ON FINDING

Onus and Standard of Proof

The College bears the burden of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, which is proof on a balance of probabilities.

Decision

Having considered the evidence of the two witnesses for the College, the documentary evidence, and the submissions of College Counsel, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Committee has carefully reviewed all of the evidence, both oral and documentary. In the reasons that follow, the Committee comments only on the portions of the evidence that are most relevant to the allegations and particulars contained in the Notice of Hearing. The Committee assesses the evidence relevant to each allegation and makes factual findings with regard to each of these. The Committee then determines whether or not these factual findings give rise to a finding of professional misconduct.

Factual Findings

The allegations regarding the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class

• The Member had difficulty utilizing the MarkBook program;

• She provided the Principal with a handwritten copy of student marks;

• She did not provide any copies of tests or assignments to support student marks in her Semester 2 [XXX] class;

• She did not assess marks in accordance with course guideline;

• She prepared student report cards which contained comments that did not accurately reflect the marks; and

• She erroneously recorded a student’s mark as zero.

The Committee finds that the above allegations have been proven on a balance of probabilities. The Member struggled to use the MarkBook program properly, despite training by the administration. As well, she had a history of inappropriate and unaccountable marking practices.

In the 2010-2011 school year, the Member exhibited a large number of problems with her report cards, as evidenced by the testimony of Mr. Pearson. The Member’s comments were not personalized and did not accurately reflect student’s performance or potential for improvement.

The Committee finds that, in the 2011-2012 school year, the Member continued to have problems with her assessment and evaluation of students, as evidenced in her Grade [XXX] [XXX] class grading practices. Ms. Wilson requested the Member’s electronic MarkBook three times during the December 2011-January 2012 period, but the Member only provided her with a series of hardcopy printouts and a handwritten marking chart. It was clear from the marks presented to Ms. Wilson that the Member failed to use the MarkBook system properly to weigh students’ marks in accordance with the mandated 70%/30% weighting system.

The Committee concludes that, contrary to her claims, the Member failed to assign her Grade [XXX] [XXX] students any other task other than the final portfolio assignment. There were no course assignments, test, or other meaningful forms of evaluation done during the class. The Committee finds that students did not receive ongoing feedback on their performance and their final marks in the class did not reflect a progression of opportunities to exhibit their abilities. As well, the Committee finds that the Member marked the portfolios using a generic rubric which was not tailored to the assignment and its learning goals.

The Committee finds that, in the case of Student 1, the Member incorrectly recorded the student’s portfolio assignment as incomplete and gave the student a failing grade.

As a result of these failures by the Member, Ms. Wilson was required to assign new grades to the students in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class. While the Committee cannot make a precise finding on the evidence as to how many students’ marks were changed, it is apparent from the clear evidence of Ms. Wilson that a significant number of students were reassessed and their parents were notified of this unprecedented change by the principal.

The allegations regarding the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class

• The Member did not assess marks in accordance with course guidelines and prepared student report cards which contained comments that did not accurately reflect the marks.

The Committee finds that the Member committed many of the same deficient assessment and evaluation practices in her Grade [XXX] class as she did in her Grade [XXX] [XXX] class. The Committee finds there was a lack of assignments and feedback. The students were given no meaningful mark on their diorama assignment, all receiving an A instead of individualized marks.

The Committee also concludes that in many instances the Member failed to take due care to ensure her marks were accurate. In the cases of some students such as Student 2, students received marks which were mathematically impossible.

• The Member lost the assignments of two students, and the Member adjusted all student marks in her Grade [XXX] [XXX] classes.

The Committee finds that the College has not presented evidence which would allow it to make a finding with respect to the above particulars.

Legal conclusions: The Member’s conduct gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct.

The Committee finds that the facts set out above give rise to a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Member’s conduct contravened Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

a. The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97

The Committee finds that Policy #14, the Evaluation Policy, the OCT Ethical Standards and the OCT Standards of Practice all reflect standards of the profession with regards to assessment and evaluation, and that the Member breached these standards.

Policy #14 requires that marking be fair, transparent, and equitable. It mandates that evaluations relate to the curriculum and learning goals of the class. It requires that students are given notice of how assignments will be evaluated and receive feedback on their assignments so they may improve.

The Member’s conduct failed to meet any of these standards articulated in Policy #14. In terms of both the [XXX] and [XXX] classes, the Member did not give students proper rubrics which set out the expectations for assignments in a specific and transparent way. She did not treat students fairly, as exhibited by her act of giving Student 1 a zero on an assignment that the student had in fact completed, or her conduct in giving all students in Grade [XXX] [XXX] a 90% on their assignments regardless of actual performance. The Member failed to give students multiple opportunities to display their learning and improve their skills.

The Member also contravened the Evaluation Policy. This Policy requires that 70% of the final grade for a course will be based on evaluations conducted throughout the course, and 30% will be based on a final evaluation. The Member failed to give her [XXX] students any assignments other than a final assignment.

The College’s Ethical Standard requires teachers to act in a trustworthy manner and be committed to student learning. The Member’s act in falsifying grades, and misleading the administration as to the tests and assignments she actually gave, breached the trust placed in her as a professional. Her failure to give a sufficient range of assignments and tests in her classes, and to give students meaningful feedback, showed a marked disregard for student learning and advancement.

Finally, the Member failed to uphold the College’s Standards of Practice insofar as she failed to use adequate learning and assessment tools to ensure that each of her students was advancing in their education.

b. The Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97

The Member’s conduct showed a disregard for her duties to teach diligently and faithfully and to encourage pupils in the pursuit of learning. Her pattern of neglecting to evaluate students, entering erroneous marks and falsifying marks was repeated over time despite many efforts by the administration to help her improve her practice. This pattern of conduct placed her students’ academic success at risk. It denied them the professional educational experience which the Member had a duty to provide.

c. The Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97

The Committee finds that the Member acted in a manner which would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. She falsified marks, misled her principal as to what tests and other assignments she administered, and did not respect Ministry and Board guidelines regarding assessment and evaluation. The administration repeatedly asked her for documents but the Member did not provide them, and she neglected her responsibility to the student to do proper assessments. Teachers are expected to assess students often, using detailed and individualized evaluations so that students may improve their performance, and show integrity at all times during this process. The Member did the opposite, ignoring the need to provide assessment and feedback and falsifying grades when she was required to provide the administration with marks. The Member showed a clear disregard for the well-being of her students, jeopardize their post-secondary future success

d. The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97

For the same reasons as those set out in the three heads of misconduct above, the Committee finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming of a Member. The conduct in which the Member engaged would tend to bring disrepute to the profession.

COLLEGE’S SUBMISSION ON PENALTY

College Counsel proposed a penalty that includes: a reprimand, a one month suspension, coursework and publication with name.

Counsel for the College argued that this penalty was in line with previous similar discipline relating to the failure to properly assess and evaluate students: see Ontario College of Teachers v. Chiarot: 2016 LNONCTD 20.

DECISION ON PENALTY

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. The Committee directs that, prior to commencing a teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required (a “Teaching Position”), the Member appear before the Committee to receive a reprimand which is to be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor St. West, Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

2. The Committee directs the Registrar to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of one month commencing on the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register.

The Committee directs the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions, or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:

(a) prior to commencing a teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required (a “Teaching Position”), the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics and a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar on the assessment and evaluation of students, subject to the following conditions;

(i) the Member will provide to the course provider(s) approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course provider(s) will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for each proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course provider(s) shall also specify the length of the courses to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;

(b) within 30 days of her completion of the courses outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course provider(s):

(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the courses and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the courses.

3. The Committee directs that there be publication of the finding and order of the Committee in summary form, with the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

REASONS FOR PENALTY

The purposes of sanctions include rehabilitation, public protection, deterrence, transparency and accountability. The Committee is of the view that the penalty ordered will meet all these goals.

Firstly, the Committee finds that a reprimand will act as both specific deterrent when delivered to the Member, and general deterrent for the remainder of the profession as the fact of the reprimand will be recorded on the Register. A reprimand acts as denunciation of the Member’s serious misconduct in neglecting to assess and evaluate her students properly so they would have opportunities to improve their skills with accurate and detailed feedback. It sends a message that the failure to evaluate students with integrity and honesty will not be tolerated, and that teachers must be seek out help if they are unable to instruct and assess their students properly. It will also help direct the Member as to how she can rehabilitate herself and prevent future incidents of misconduct.

Secondly, the Committee is of the view that a one month suspension is an appropriate response to the serious nature of the Member’s misconduct. The Member exhibited a long pattern of failing to properly assess students. She did not provide students with rubrics outlining student performance expectations. More egregiously, on multiple occasions, she failed to accurately record student marks in MarkBook and also falsified grades. A suspension will promote both specific and general deterrence, reinforcing that there are serious consequences when a teacher engages in a repeated pattern of neglect and dishonesty in her teaching practice and fails to uphold the standards of the profession.

Thirdly, requiring the Member to complete courses on professional ethics and the assessment and evaluation of students will assist to rehabilitate the Member. It will reinforce the standards expected of her so that she does not repeat the same mistakes in the future. The courses will help the Member improve her practice, leading to better outcomes for students, which is in the public interest.

Finally, publication of the finding and order of the Committee in summary form, with the name of the Member, in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is an important tool for deterrence. It sends strong message that the College will not tolerate this kind of serious misconduct. It ensures the transparency of discipline proceedings and will foster public trust in the process and the profession at large.

November 1, 2016

Colleen Landers

Chair, Discipline Panel

Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Sara Nouini, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel