B.C.’s commissioner for teacher regulation has issued two reprimand notices that have no names, school districts, or even the name of the adjudicator.
The Ministry of Education, however, said the omissions in the two decisions released on Dec. 17 are to protect people.
The decisions were not made by a hearing panel but rather an agreement between the teachers and the commissioner.
Threatening student
In the first case, a teacher lost their job in June 2021 after reaching an agreement that they had committed professional misconduct.
The undated commissioner’s decision said that, in 2020/2021, one student threatened another with a sharp object and the teacher separated them.
“However, the teacher failed to secure the sharp object,” the decision said.
The student was removed from the classroom but got the object from their desk on return until an education assistant took it away.
The teacher then released the class for outdoor recreation time without reporting the incident.
During that period, the first student struck the student with another object and threatened them.
The decision said the teacher failed to provide a safe and positive learning environment for their students.
“The students in question were of a young age and required greater vigilance and supervision,” the decision said. “The teacher was aware of a previous incident of conflict between the students and would reasonably have been aware of the risk of continued conflict and the importance of taking immediate steps to mitigate that risk by reporting the first incident to the administration and staff, which failure resulted in the second incident.”
The decision said the teacher’s response was insufficient.
Bathroom break denied
In a second decision, the commissioner’s office said a teacher resigned after they had refused a Grade 8 student’s request to go to the bathroom.
The decision said the student had explained why they needed to use the bathroom and began to cry as a result of what the decision called “a very embarrassing situation.”
However, two years prior to that incident, the teacher had been issued a letter of expectation saying there was no place for sarcasm or belittlement of others in the school.
The teacher was told if they had a concern about a worrying pattern of students visiting the bathroom, they should discuss it with a supervisor.
There, the teacher was given a five-day suspension and told not to prevent students from going to the washroom.
The decision said the teacher did not promote the student’s physical well-being and failed to create a positive classroom atmosphere.
'Not about protecting the teacher'
In a statement to Glacier Media, the ministry said the two particular cases did not include adjudicator names because they were made by a hearing panel.
“School names are not included in published discipline outcomes because identifying a school can more easily identify minors who were/may have been victims of a teacher’s misconduct,” it said.
The statement said the outcomes of such cases are consent resolution agreements, agreements between the teacher and the commissioner for teacher regulation resulting in the teacher voluntarily admitting to professional misconduct and agreeing to a certain discipline outcome.
It said that, under the Teachers Act, the commissioner can decide to exclude all identifying information from public resolution agreements.
“Withholding teacher names from publication only occurs in cases where the commissioner determined that making a full consent resolution agreement public would cause undue hardship to a person who was harmed, abused or exploited by the teacher,” the statement said. “It is not about protecting the teacher, but rather protecting vulnerable students/former students.”
The B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils did not respond to a request for comment.
