DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Pilania 2021 ONOCT 128

Date: 2021-11-03

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

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

Anuradha Pilania, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

ANURADHA PILANIA (REGISTRATION #477417)

PANEL: Hanno Weinberger, OCT, Chair

Emile Ramlochan

Linda Staudt, OCT

HEARD: October 29, 2021

Christine Wadsworth, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Sheilagh Turkington, for Anuradha Pilania

Erica Richler, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on October 29, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Anuradha Pilania (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

A. PUBLICATION ban

3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated October 13, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Anuradha Pilania is guilty of professional misconduct and/or is incompetent as defined in the Act in that:

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

(b) she failed to comply with the Act, or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);²

(c) she failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);³

(d) 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 unfit to carry out her professional responsibilities or that the Member’s certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Anuradha Pilania is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Peel District School Board (the “Board”) as an elementary teacher.

3. As an occasional teacher, including while she held a long-term occasional position, the Member received satisfactory appraisals of her performance.

4. The Member was hired as a permanent teacher for the Board on October 20, 2014, and assigned to Copeland Public School. In September 2015, the Member began teaching at [XXX] (“the School”) in Brampton, Ontario.

5. In the Member’s first New Teacher Induction Program (“NTIP”) evaluation on May 20, 2015, she was rated “Development Needed.” On her second NTIP on January 25, 2016, the Member received a “Satisfactory” rating.

6. On or about December 12, 2017, the Member’s first Teacher Performance Appraisal (“TPA”) was completed while she was assigned to teach Grade [XXX]. Instead of conducting a third NTIP, it was determined that the Member should be evaluated under the experienced TPA, as the timelines in the regulation had been exceeded. The Member received an overall “Unsatisfactory” rating. Specific areas of concern with the Member’s performance included:

(a) a failure to differentiate instruction to meet individualized learning styles;

(b) a failure to establish clear learning goals and expected outcomes;

(c) ineffective communication with students and an absence of rapport;

(d) a failure to engage students and promote effective participation;

(e) a failure to use a variety of assessment strategies or to provide meaningful feedback;

(f) a lack of effective classroom management strategies necessary to promote student engagement and foster a positive learning environment.

Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the TPA Summative Report dated December 12, 2017.

7. Subsequent to the TPA, the Principal of the School provided the Member with an Improvement Plan with the intention of providing various supports which included, additional time for the Member to focus on planning in specific areas, an organized visit to another Grade 8 classroom to observe best practices, the purchase of additional materials to support the Member’s program, the support of an Instructional Coach, work with a Climate Resource Teacher, ongoing professional learning, as well as access to an experienced teacher mentor. Ultimately, not all of the additional resources contemplated were made available to the Member. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Improvement Plan.

8. For September 2018, the Member was assigned to teach grade [XXX], a grade she had not previously taught as a permanent teacher.

9. The Principal set the first pre-observation meeting in the second week of school, on Friday, September 14, 2018. He also scheduled the first TPA observation to take place on September 17, with the second to follow closely on September 24, 2018.

10. On or about October 19, 2018, a second TPA for the Member was completed by the Principal of the School based on the September 17 and 24, 2018 classroom observations. The Principal’s overall rating was again “Unsatisfactory”. Although the Member accessed resources provided through her Improvement Plan and made some attempt to incorporate feedback from her first TPA, the Principal reported that many of the same issues persisted. Concerns noted included:

(a) a failure to address or accommodate individualized learning styles;

(b) a failure to review learning goals and success criteria for students to anticipate their learning;

(c) ineffective communication with students;

(d) a lack of student engagement as a result of poor classroom management and poor strategies to elicit participation;

(e) a failure to assess student understanding, employ appropriate assessment tools or to provide meaningful feedback.

Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the TPA Summative Report dated October 19, 2018.

11. The Member took an unpaid personal leave beginning on October 18, 2018.

12. Following the second unsatisfactory TPA, the Member was placed in an “on review” status. The School Board initially advised that both another appraisal would take place and that the School Board would provide her with assistance to improve her level of teaching performance. The Member was to be provided with an Improvement Plan. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the letter to the Member dated October 19, 2018.

13. Upon further consideration, the Board reached the conclusion that, based on the concerns outlined in the Member’s second TPA, and her prior unsatisfactory appraisal, conducting a third TPA was inconsistent with the best interests of students. The Board confirmed to the Member in writing that she was to be assigned to home with pay pending a recommendation to the Board for termination of her employment under section 277.38(5) of the Education Act. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the letter from the Superintendent of Education to the Member dated October 23, 2018.

14. Ultimately, the Member remained on leave from her employment with the Board for the period of October 18, 2018 to February 16, 2021. The Member resigned her employment with the Board effective February 16, 2021.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

15. By this document, the Member does not contest the accuracy of the allegations and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

16. The Member hereby pleads no contest to the allegation of incompetence in that she has displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgement or disregard for the welfare of a student of a nature or extent that demonstrates that her Certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations, as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996.

17. By this document the Member states that:

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

(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) she understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise 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 counsel for the College with respect to the terms, conditions or limitations proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

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

18. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E.23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.

19. In light of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and circumstances and the plea of no contest, the Ontario College of Teachers submits and the Member does not contest that the Discipline Committee find the Member to be incompetent, as that term is defined in subsection 30(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996.

D. DECISION

6Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5), 1(14) and 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw these allegations was being sought because the evidence does not support a finding of professional misconduct, as this case relates to the Member’s incompetence. The Panel granted these requests.

7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on October 29, 2021 finding the Member incompetent as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Act, in that she displayed in her professional responsibilities a lack of knowledge, skill or judgement or disregard for the welfare of a student of a nature or extent that demonstrates that her certificate the should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 14 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of incompetence against her. She acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute incompetence as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Act and show serious deficiencies in several domains of the Member’s teaching practice.

9The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that as an occasional teacher, the Member received satisfactory appraisals of her performance. Once she became a permanent teacher, the Member was given two NTIP evaluations. The Member received an overall “Development Needed” appraisal rating on her first NTIP evaluation and a “Satisfactory” rating on her second NTIP evaluation. Rather than conduct a third NTIP appraisal, the Member was subsequently evaluated under the experienced teacher performance appraisals.

10The Member received an overall “Unsatisfactory” rating on her first TPA dated December 12, 2017. The Member was teaching Grade [XXX] students at the time. The Principal noted numerous areas of concerns and provided the Member with an improvement plan with the intention of providing various supports to the Member to assist with her teaching performance.

11The Member subsequently received another “Unsatisfactory” rating on her second TPA dated October 19, 2018. The Member was teaching grade [XXX] at the time of the second TPA (a grade she had not previously taught as a permanent teacher) and she did not have access to all the resources that had been contemplated in the improvement plan that had previously been provided to her following her first unsatisfactory TPA. However, the Panel believes that the Member should have applied what she learned from the resources she did have access to, and ought to have performed better on her second TPA. While the Member made some attempt to incorporate feedback from her first TPA, many of the same issues persisted on her second TPA.

12The Member’s Principal noted several repeated concerns. For instance, both TPAs noted that the Member had limited rapport with students during classroom observations. They also noted that the Member did not use effective classroom management techniques. As a result, students did not listen to the Member or follow her directions, engaged in off topic conversations or activities, and the Member had difficulty eliciting students’ participation and redirecting students who were not paying attention in class. In addition, the Member did not communicate in effective ways with students. The Principal noted that the Member did not review learning goals and success criteria for students, and did not provide meaningful feedback to students. The Principal wrote in both TPAs that the Member “did not encourage feedback, risk taking questioning and experimentation by establishing a non-threatening learning environment”. Moreover, the Member had difficulties in addressing or accommodating individualized learning styles and did not employ appropriate assessment tools. As noted in her second unsatisfactory TPA, it was especially important for the Member to adapt her lessons to the various needs of her grade [XXX] class, which included students who were English Language Learners and students with Individual Education Plans.

13Overall, the Panel finds that the two TPAs show that Member did not demonstrate adequate professional knowledge or deploy appropriate teaching practices and classroom management strategies to promote the learning and achievement of her students.

F. Decision ON ORDER

14The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Terms, Conditions or Limitations (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on October 29, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Terms, Conditions or Limitations and made the following order:

1. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) within 180 days of the Decision of the Committee, the Member shall attend, at her own expense, and successfully complete the following course, pre-approved by the Registrar:

(i) an Additional Qualification course or Additional Basic Qualification course which covers curriculum, lesson planning, instructional strategies, assessment and evaluation of student learning and classroom management;

(ii) within thirty (30) days of her completion of the course referred to at paragraph (i) above, the Member shall provide evidence to the Registrar in writing of her successful completion of same;

(b) within two years of the decision of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall take all reasonable steps to have her employer conduct two appraisals of her performance and shall provide the Registrar with acceptable proof that she has taken such steps. The Member shall also provide the Registrar with copies of her performance appraisal reports within thirty (30) days of each appraisal. If the Member’s employer is unable, or unwilling, to conduct such performance appraisals, the Member shall immediately so notify the Registrar in writing. The employer’s refusal or failure to conduct the appraisal will not, in and of itself, constitute a breach of the terms and conditions on the part of the Member, provided the Member has taken all reasonable steps, as set out above, to facilitate the completion of the appraisals within the two year time period. In the event of the employer’s failure to complete the appraisals within the allotted time, the Registrar may, in his discretion, grant an appropriate extension.

G. REASONS FOR ORDER

15The Panel accepts the terms, conditions, or limitations jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed order 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 Panel finds that the order proposed in the Joint Submission on Terms, Conditions or Limitations falls within a range of acceptable outcomes, based on the following prior decision of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Nakhla, 2020 ONOCT 153.

16The Panel finds that the Additional Qualification course or Additional Basic Qualification course that covers curriculum, lesson planning, instructional strategies, assessment and evaluation of student learning, and classroom management will assist the Member in acquiring competencies required to improve her teaching practice. The coursework will also focus specifically on the deficiencies identified in the Member’s unsatisfactory TPAs.

17In addition, the Member will take all reasonable steps to have her employer conduct two performance appraisals within a two-year period, which the Registrar of the College will monitor. This provision will help ensure that the Member is putting into practice the knowledge and skills gained from the ordered coursework, and that there is sufficient oversight of the Member’s teaching performance to ensure that it meets professional expectations and the needs of her students going forward.

18The Panel is satisfied that the order is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
2. 2Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
3. 3Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.