The Québec Ombudsman places some school administrations in an unflattering light in its annual report. The negligence of one in putting an end to unacceptable behaviour towards autistic adolescents and the breaches of ethics in the awarding of a contract attributed to another paint a picture of an education system that is sometimes poorly oiled to control its delinquent cogs.
For about ten years, a teacher had a series of complaints in her file. Parents and school staff repeatedly expressed concern about her inappropriate actions and words towards the autistic adolescents in her care and expressed their fears all the way to the top of the school pyramid.
The reports multiplied, the various school managements responsible for the teacher compiled them in files which “brought together a large number of complaint emails concerning [s]”behaviors”. The nature of these justified referring them, according to the report of the Ombudsman, “to the DPJ or to the police authorities”.
Despite the seriousness of the criticism, “in the classroom, however, inappropriate behavior persisted,” adds Marc-André Dowd. All the principals in office during this period tried to supervise the teacher – in vain.
An almost immaculate central file
“She systematically refused any form of help,” the Ombudsman’s investigation concluded. Even during feedback meetings, she became disorganized “to the point of having to go home, her level of aggression and disarray not allowing her to return to class.” “At various times,” the report further notes, “the teacher even verbally attacked managers and work colleagues.”
Although “the few directors who succeeded one another were perfectly informed of the toxic climate which reigned in [s]a class”, the teacher was able to continue her career without any problems. While the disciplinary folders grew on the desks of the various school managements who had to deal with her, the teacher’s central file held by the Human Resources Department remained strangely empty.
“No directive or written instruction obliges school management,” recalls the protector, to forward their information to the central file.
The little information that the latter contained, in the eyes of the watchdog, should have “sufficiently caused the Human Resources Department to initiate an intervention”. This never took place.
The teacher was able to land a job at a new school — and the problems started again. In front of her group of autistic teenagers, “she makes fun of their disabilities or pushes them around, in addition to regularly having explosive tantrums towards them.”
Management acts “immediately”, sets up a “detailed action plan” and multiplies the “warnings”. Months go by, nothing changes and management gives him an ultimatum: the next time he does it again, he’ll be fired.
The teacher went on extended sick leave and escaped dismissal. When she returned a year later, she was transferred to another school “within the same school service center.”
It is the latter that the Québec Ombudsman deplores most severely in his report. “The repeated inaction of the school service centre and the school administration has seriously affected the health and safety of vulnerable students,” he writes.
Following the investigation by the Québec Ombudsman, the teacher was suspended twice and then “she retired.”
A private contract with relatives
Another school administration finds itself in the hot seat in the Ombudsman’s report. This time, it concerns a principal who blithely circumvented his code of ethics and the rules governing the awarding of contracts to entrust the revision of a program by mutual agreement to a former colleague who subsequently hired the spouse of this principal.
The consultant hired without a call for tenders and on the basis of a simple verbal agreement was to produce video capsules — but he did not have the necessary equipment to do so. The director therefore paid approximately $50,000 to purchase the equipment, “and this, with the operating budget of the educational institution.”
He personally approved the purchases and had them delivered directly to his home, the report said. Only his wife had access to the equipment since she alone “held the key to the storage room.”
The director launched this initiative without the knowledge of his superior, the report underlines, although his code of ethics required him to submit a declaration of interest. “He also did not see fit to [l’]inform that he had offered a part-time teaching position to this former colleague, deplores the Ombudsman, while the latter was his partner’s boss.
The investigation concluded that the director “misused public funds and assets” by promoting “his personal financial interests as well as those of his spouse and his former colleague to the detriment of his professional obligations.”