Ain't no mo' potatoes, frost done killed the vine,  |
| Recommended listening while reading this blog post: Blues Brothers Can't Turn You Loose. |
On this ridiculously cold February afternoon, Humphrey is huddling under a comforting duvet, fighting not only a chill, but the blues. Why, you ask? A recent entry in Professionally Speaking's Blue Pages has left him rather unsettled.
For those unfamiliar with the publication in question, Professionally Speaking is the glossy magazine put out by the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT), the body responsible for the certification and regulation of teachers in the province of Ontario. One of OCT's roles is investigating complaints of misconduct or incompetence made against members. These complaints can be initiated by anyone – a parent, a supervisor or board, or even by the College itself. Once a complaint is made against a member, the OCT initiates and investigation through the Investigation Committee. If the complaint is deemed to have merit, disciplinary action begins through a referral to the Discipline Committee.
Generally, complaints are considered in light of Regulation 437/97 of the Ontario College of Teachers’ Act (1996).While the Regulation is important for controlling “dangers” to students in cases where teachers are abusive, it winds up being used to deal with minor situations. This piece of legislation is objectionably vague – and as such, when applied, they result in penalties for OCT members that can be unfair. For example, point 19 from the Regulation, “Conduct unbecoming a member,” is frequently used as a rationale for this.
Disciplinary hearings are open to the public and a summary of hearings and their outcomes is published in Professionally Speaking in a section called The Blue Pages. It was this passage that caused Humphrey to experience the blues:
 |
| p. 125 of the March 2015 issue of Professionally Speaking |
This passage is part of the decision summary for a member named as Heather Anne Ashford-Smith, and the full report can be viewed here. Before launching into the reasons for Humphrey's concern, it is worth noting that the teacher's employment with the private school in which the allegations were made was terminated in 2011 after two written warnings about her poor classroom management skills. Ashford-Smith was not represented at the hearing by counsel, and did not attend. The ultimate decision was "Reprimand and Conditions" (which stays on her public record). It seems the main cause for the decision has to do with what was deemed inadequate "classroom management" (already an antiquated term steeped in neoliberal ideology!) as well as teaching that was not developmentally appropriate.
In this post, Humphrey will *NOT* attempt to make sense of the classroom management nor teaching charges. Rather, in Humphrey's view, the following aspects of the case were highly problematic:
(1) The section titled "Reason for Decision" in the full report states that the teacher "over the course of 3 academic school years, spoke in a loud and shrill voice and/or yelled at students." The report also states the teacher says that her "naturally loud voice could be misconstrued as angry."
(2) The "Reason for Decision" also includes the statement that "her facial expressions were interpreted as angry and frustrated by some of her students." Note the use of "some" and not "all."
Humphrey's blues surround these two statements. The use of the word "shrill" to describe the teacher borders on (or embodies? See, for example, Kahn, 1975 who names this word as) sexist language. "Shrill" has an anti-feminist connotation, having been used to demean women. By focusing on a "shrill" voice, the accuser and/or OCT panel is reducing her to a physical attribute, and possibly one out of her control (Merriam-Webster defines "shrill" as high-pitched, which very well may be her natural voice pitch and therefore not appropriate for discrimination).
While this video alleges to deal with a "very serious medical condition," its light-heartedness speaks volumes about the conjecture surrounding the teacher's "facial expressions" in the case. Perhaps the students were not perceiving expressions for what they really were?
And even if the teacher had unpleasant facial expressions, is that a reason to professionally discipline a person such that her public record contains the ruling and case details?
Does this ruling leave you with a case of the blues, too? In fact, many prior cases have left a lot of people experiencing a range of emotions, from the blues, to the mean reds. OCT disciplinary hearings have been subject to legal rulings in Ontario courts that suggest a “kangaroo court” environment in which the OCT does not adhere to just legal processes. For example, in Kalin v. Ontario College of Teachers, Ontario Reports citation 75 O.R. (3d) (Part 7 p. 523), the judge ruled that OCT applied 1997 standards of conduct to incidents that were alleged to have happened in 1991; thus “offending the rule against retrospective application of legislation.” Moreover, the OCT gave no reasons for its procedural rulings, and arbitrarily refused to accommodate Kalin's absence from the country and arbitrarily refused his request for an adjournment so that he could attend the OCT hearing. This example suggests that once disciplined, an OCT member cannot expect procedural fairness from a body which is supposed to represent her.
What do you think? Humphrey would love to hear from you. Presently, however, he is preoccupied with deciding if he would prefer a supper of dry white toast, or 4 roasted chickens and a Coke.
No comments:
Post a Comment