|
|
investigationsThe College investigates and considers complaints about members that relate to alleged professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity. If the Investigation Committee concludes that a complaint does not relate to one of those three matters or is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, it does not proceed with the complaint. Approximately four out of five complaints are not referred to the Discipline Committee but are dismissed or resolved by other means. Examples of cases considered by the Investigation Committee and not referred to a hearing are provided here. Case #1 Complaint: Marginalization and poor student management A parent of students at the same school complained to the College about their principal’s alleged marginalization of the family in the principal’s management of the admitted poor behaviour of one of the students. A plethora of allegations included criticism of a suspension being imposed, differential treatment, removing a school trip privilege after the student swore, inability to help the student “de-escalate” after a fight with another student, failing to send home classwork during the suspension, failing to mediate in a relationship between the student and another student, failing to investigate the origins of the student’s bad language and failing to contact the parent before the student’s behaviour escalated. A panel of the Investigation Committee instructed staff not to investigate the complaint because the allegations, even if proven true, did not relate to professional misconduct. Case #2 Complaint: Failure to adhere to student’s Individual Education
Plan (IEP) Parents of a nine-year-old student complained to the College about their child’s classroom teacher’s alleged failure to adhere to the student’s IEP, bullying tactics, refusal to accept an EA’s suggestions, failure to supervise by repeatedly sending the student out of the class and verbal abuse by calling the student “stupid.” Following a full investigation of the allegations, a panel of the Investigation Committee decided that the information collected did not support the allegations and refused to refer the matter to a hearing. Case #3 Complaint: Failure to supervise, yelling and inappropriate comments
and actions An employing school board notified the College about a Grade 7 teacher whom, it believed, had acted inappropriately with students. The alleged actions included yelling at students daily, calling them “stupid,” “idiots” and “immature,” throwing a water bottle at a student, sarcasm inferring that a student had no brain, lifting a desk while a student was sitting on it and forcefully pulling off a student’s hat and pulling the student’s hair at the same time. The Investigation Committee panel reviewing the complaint wrote a caution to the member to maintain, at all times, appropriate teacher-student boundaries and to ensure that future conduct and behaviour are consistent with the standards of the teaching profession. Case #4 Complaint: Failure to meet with complainant’s legal counsel Parents of an 11-year-old student complained to the College that the student’s principal failed to respond to their counsel’s requests for a meeting to discuss concerns. The Investigation Committee panel reviewing the complaint instructed staff not to investigate it because, even if proven true, the allegation did not relate to professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity. Case #5 Complaint: Filing inaccurate, vexatious field trip report A member filed a complaint about the actions of a teaching colleague following a field trip and the filing of a report that was perceived to be written in a vexatious tone and to contain inaccuracies, portraying the member as an incompetent supervisor. The complaint was considered by a panel of the College’s Investigation Committee, which instructed staff not to investigate the matter. The panel stated that matters such as these were more appropriately addressed to the employer and that the allegations did not rise to the level of professional misconduct.ps |
