DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Debich 2018 ONOCT 8

Date: 2018-01-30

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

Danuta Debich, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Jane Ishibashi, Chair

Tom Potter

Ravi Vethamany, OCT

BETWEEN: )

) Zirka Jakibchuk,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) for Ontario College of Teachers

– and – )

) Heather Ann McConnell,

DANUTA DEBICH ) Goldblatt Partners LLP,

(CERTIFICATE #471823) ) for Danuta Debich

) Robin McKechney,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel

) ) Heard: January 30, 2018

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on January 30, 2018 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated July 24, 2017 (Exhibit 1) was served on Danuta Debich (the “Member”), requesting her presence on August 16, 2017 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for January 30, 2018.

The Member was in attendance for the hearing and had legal representation. The Committee was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

THE ALLEGATIONS

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

IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (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 supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);

(c) 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);

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

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

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

College Counsel presented the Committee with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

Danuta Debich, OCT is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. In October 2003, the Member obtained a Certificate of Qualification and Registration. Attached as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Thames Valley District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at West Oaks French Immersion Public School (the “School’’) in London, Ontario.

Background

All Grade 3 students who attend publicly funded schools and who follow the Ontario Curriculum are required by the Education Quality and Accountability Office Act to write the Grade 3 EQAO assessment.
The Grade 3 EQAO assessment is administered consistently across the province at the direction of the Education Quality and Accountability Office (the “EQAO”). Each school determines its own testing dates and times during a designated assessment period.
On May 26, 2016, the Grade 3 French EQAO assessment was administered at the School. The Member was one of the teachers administering the assessment. The proper organizational steps were taken by the School administration prior to the assessment. The relevant EQAO Guides were distributed and there was a scheduled training session before the assessment. The Member did not attend the training session.

Events at the School on May 26, 2016

The Member inappropriately administered the Mathematics component of the Grade 3 French EQAO assessment at the School.
The Member took the following actions, which were contrary to EQAO procedures:

(a) During the test, the Member helped students answer questions correctly. For example, when one student asked the Member whether one of his answers was right or wrong, the Member pointed to an answer and gave him a thumbs-up. Some students reported that the Member also told them how to solve problems or what strategies to use.

(b) The Member read questions for some students and translated some words or phrases from French into English. She also allowed one student to have access to a dictionary during the assessment, although the Member believes the student did not actually use it.

(d) When some students finished the test, the Member reviewed their booklets, and returned them to the students. The Member then pointed to certain answers and asked, “are you sure that’s right?”, “is that your best answer?”, or “did you use the strategies we learned in class?” The students, in some cases, changed their answers after the prompting.

(e) The Member also sent one student who had just completed the assessment to the schoolyard to ask another student, who had already handed in his booklet, to return to the classroom to complete the assessment.

The Board interviewed about 1/3 of the students in the Member’s class during its investigation. All of the students interviewed indicated that the Member provided some assistance during the assessment.

EQAO Decision

On September 1, 2016, the EQAO confirmed irregularities resulting from the Member’s inappropriate administration of the Grade 3 French EQAO Assessment at the School.
The EQAO withheld the Grade 3 Mathematics results from the School and advised parents that their children’s results should be viewed with caution. Attached as Appendix “B” is a copy of EQAO’s letter to this effect.

Board Decision

The Board suspended the Member for 15 days without pay. Attached as Appendix “C” is a copy of the revised discipline letter issued by the Board to the Member.

GUILTY PLEA

By this document¹, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-11 above (the “Admitted Facts”), for the purposes of this proceeding only.
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:

(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;

(b) she understands that she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) she understands that she is pleading guilty to the allegations, and is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;

(d) she understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) she understands that any agreement between her and the College with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee; and

(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

DECISION

Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Committee rendered an oral decision on January 30, 2018 finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee found that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

Paragraphs 6-9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).

Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11).

Paragraphs 6-9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member 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).

Paragraphs 6-9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member 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).

Paragraphs 6-9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY

Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed in this matter would be that the Committee:

direct that the Member appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
direct the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers (the "Registrar") to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of three months from the date of the Committee’s Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order in this matter and that the fact of the suspension be recorded on the Register; and
direct 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) within 90 days of the date of the Committee’s Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order in this matter, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense a course of instruction, pre-approved by the Registrar, regarding professional ethics, subject to the following conditions;

(i) the Member shall provide to a course provider approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Committee’s Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order;

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

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

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

PENALTY DECISION

In an oral decision rendered on January 30, 2018, the Committee accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty presented by the parties and made an order in accordance with its terms, as set out above.

REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

The Committee accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Committee recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Committee’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest. The penalty proposed by the parties is within a reasonable range, based on the following analogous cases presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Lamoureux, 2017 ONOCT 14, Ontario College of Teachers v. Venditti, 2016 ONOCT 53, Ontario College of Teachers v. Curridor, 2014 ONOCT 29, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Pickard, 2007 ONOCT 34.

The Member engaged in the inappropriate administration of the Grade 3 Mathematics EQAO assessment in a French Immersion setting. Specifically, the Member: helped students answer questions correctly; read questions for some students and translated some words or phrases from French to English; allowed students to take a nutrition break; and prompted some students to change their test answers. The improper administration of the EQAO test jeopardized the reliability of the provincial testing process. Ultimately, the results from the EQAO Grade 3 Mathematics assessment were withheld from the School and parents were advised that their children’s results should be viewed with caution.

The Committee finds that because of her involvement in the improper administration of the EQAO Grade 3 Mathematics assessment, the Member’s misconduct warrants a reprimand by her peers. The reprimand will allow the Committee to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession by signalling to the profession and to the public the importance of ethical conduct in our schools.

The Committee finds that the three-month suspension is reasonable in the circumstances. The Member administered the EQAO Grade 3 Mathematics assessment in a way that contravened the EQAO instructions and guidelines. Teachers must fulfill the roles and responsibilities that are entrusted to them, and be role models for students by behaving ethically and with integrity. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member by holding her accountable for her actions. The suspension will also serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession by informing them that the improper administration of provincial tests is unacceptable.

The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding professional ethics will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a member of the teaching profession and is intended to help her make better decisions in the future.

The Committee is satisfied that the acceptance of this Joint Submission on Penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: January 30, 2018

Jane Ishibashi

Chair, Discipline Panel

______________________________ Tom Potter

Member, Discipline Panel