LT 1: Discussion Facilitation and Synthesis

Kash Chowdhury, Evan Gilchrist, Ahmad Gora

Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary

EDUC 525: Ethics and Law in Education

Dr. Astrid Kendrick, Dr. David Scott

October 25, 2023

Fact-Finding (Part 1): From 1998 to 2011 James Kenneth Gow was employed as a teacher by

the Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board. Between 2009 and 2011 Gow was

subject to three performance evaluations during which his performance was found

unsatisfactory (Ontario College of Teachers v, Gow, 2014). This matter came before a panel of

the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, of which Gow did not appear

before or was legally represented. Gow was alleged to be guilty of professional misconduct

according to subsections 30(1) and 30(2) under the Ontario College of Teachers Act (1996) in

that he demonstrated a lack of “knowledge, skill or judgement and/or disregard for the welfare of

his students.” Making him unfit to carry out his professional responsibilities as a teacher and

therefore require conditions or limitations to his teaching certificate (Ontario College of Teachers

v, Gow, 2014). Testimony from school staff demonstrated, amongst numerous unsatisfactory

behaviours, Gow’s inability to control his classroom, inappropriate comments made towards

students, and a lack of motivation towards improving his practice following performance reviews,

despite resources provided. A penalty was imposed upon Gow due to his incompetence, limiting

his teaching certificate until completing a qualification course covering “curriculum, lesson

planning, instructional strategies and assessment of student learning” and notifying the Ontario

College of Teachers registrar of his completion of said course, giving notice 30 days prior to

returning to teaching, and to “take all reasonable steps to cause his employer to conduct a

performance appraisal in each school year for the first two years'' providing copies to the

registrar (Ontario College of Teachers v, Gow, 2014).

Stakeholder Perspectives: The people involved in this case are the teacher, the school board,

students, Ontario College of Teachers and parents/community members. Gow may have

assumed that due to how long he had been teaching, his behaviour was acceptable. The school

board would have been concerned that Gow’s inappropriate actions (comments about students,

not participating in professional development) would reflect on the board. The Ontario College of
Teachers would also be concerned, as Gow’s actions and reluctance to improve could reflect

poorly on the teaching profession itself. Students, parents and community members would likely

be troubled by the classroom environment being fostered by Gow. They may also lose trust in

the school, as well as the school board, for allowing the situation to go on for as long as it did.

Identifying Areas of Conflict: The case of James Kenneth Gow raises several contentious

points that demand attention. Firstly, Gow's apparent negligence to uphold the professional

standards expected of a teacher by the Ontario College of Teachers and by extension, the

Alberta Teaching Quality Standard and the Code of Professional Conduct, emerges as a

primary concern, especially in light of the substantial tenure of his employment from 1998 to

2011. Explicitly, Gow failed to “behave in a manner that maintains the honour and dignity of the

profession” as outlined in the CoPC (Government of Alberta, 2022). He also fails to meet any of

the competency requirements as outlined by the TQS. This is further underscored by the three

consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations between 2009 and 2011. Challenges in his

classroom management, characterised by his reported inability to control student behaviours

and address disruptions, alongside allegations of inappropriate comments towards students, are

indicative of deeper issues in his teaching practice. Additionally, the claims surrounding his

reluctance to adapt and improve, even when provided with resources, accentuate a potential

disregard for professional growth. The termination of his employment by the school board post

these evaluations not only adds to the strife but questions his commitment to the profession.

Gow's absence from the disciplinary proceedings, both personally and legally, signifies a

possible disconnect or disinterest in addressing the issues raised. Furthermore, the stakeholder

perspectives underscore the multi-dimensional impacts of the conflict; from Gow's own

perceptions, the school board's reputation, the Ontario College of Teachers' image, to the

potential trust breach experienced by students, parents, and community members.

Your Role as a Teacher: Based on witness testimony, alongside the fact three separate

performance appraisals were conducted Gow seems to have been given more than enough

opportunity to prove and improve his competency. In his position we all feel there was more than

enough leniency, resources, and opportunity for improvement given. One potential interpretation

is that he was finished with teaching as a career and wanted to be fired from his position. In

which case a more professional means would be giving notice to school administration and

discussing with your principal how best to leave your position in a way that doesn’t interfere with

student wellbeing. Open, clear communication alongside making use of or advocating for

resources to aid in teaching would provide a means to avoid a situation like this entirely, which

requires greater effort on the teacher's part.

Question 1: In your opinion is this such a clear cut decision and penalty for Gow? Were

appropriate measures taken as per a breach under the Alberta Code of Professional Conduct

(despite having the fact that this is an Ontario case)?

Question 2: How can we advocate for more meaningful improvement in teacher performance

beyond appraisals or surface level resource sharing?

Question 3: We know how the College of Teachers and school board felt about Gow’s actions.

How do you think parents, community members and other teachers might have felt?

Question 4: As a teacher, how would you hope for constructive criticism to be delivered?

Question 5: This case was obviously looked at using the profession framework. How could we

consider it through a different framework?

Synthesis

Addressing question 1, our entire group was in agreement with the measures taken regarding

Gow’s suspension, and that this was a clear breach of the competencies and standards listed in

the ATA Code of Professional Conduct (2022). This quickly gave rise however to the question of

how much leniency a teacher should be granted when displaying such obvious disdain towards

improvement of their own teaching practice. This was tied into question 2, which asked our

group to step back and consider if there are other ways we can better address teacher

competency issues. Through the lens of this case improvement ultimately rested on Gow in

multiple situations, which he failed to address. This went on for multiple years which we

discussed created an unfairness for his student stakeholders who received education not up to

par with the rest of the school while they continually tested competency. Although we didn’t

reach an agreement we debated the benefits of whether incompetence and apathy can be

detangled and not be measured by the same metric.

The discussion then shifted to the reasoning behind Gow’s behaviour. This brought up question

5. The group discussed how if seen through the care framework, there were elements of this

case that would raise red flags about Gow’s mental health. For example, his early teaching

career didn’t bring up any concerns about his competency. So this seemed to be only an issue

in the last few years of his career. Furthermore, his lack of professional development and little to

no motivation towards classroom management may be signs of burnout. In this case, our group

asserted that the admin should’ve supported him and his mental health. But even if this was the

reason behind his actions, it was ultimately Gow’s responsibility to reach out to his supervisors

and coworkers and communicate his circumstances.

We discussed the perspectives of stakeholders in the community (question 3). The group

pointed out that parents must’ve been very concerned about the situation, and wondered if they
had been kept in the loop in the four years that Gow was investigated. We also discussed how

Gow’s actions were unfair to his colleagues, who did attempt to help him, and who were working

extremely hard in their own classrooms. Gow also failed to uphold the dignity of the teaching

profession, which would reflect poorly on his colleagues as well.

Lastly, we discussed how we would personally like to receive constructive criticism (question 4).

Group members said that they would feel that 1-on-1s would be most beneficial, along with an

action plan of achievable steps. They also mentioned that if there were issues, like mental

health in the case of Gow, they would appreciate being provided with resources (therapy).
 References

Government of Alberta. (2022, December 7). Code of professional conduct for teachers

and teacher leaders - alberta. Code of Professional Conduct for Teachers and

Teacher Leaders.

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/9aae1037-3259-4bc6-a216-808238bcb913/resour

ce/32eac3a3-b479-41b5-a59e-faadf8a22d62/download/educ-code-of-professional

-conduct-for-teachers-and-teacher-leaders.pdf

Ontario College of Teachers v Gow, 2014 ONOCT 44 (CanLII). CanLII. (2014, July 22).

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onoct/doc/2014/2014onoct44/2014onoct44.html

?autocompleteStr=ontario%20college%20of%20teachers%20v%20go&autoc

ompletePos=5