Ruling goes against Sooke teacher who refused to administer districtwide test

Arbitrator: Sooke educator didn't have right to refuse to carry out task

BY JEFF BELL, TIMES COLONIST
SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 6:27 AM



An arbitrator has ruled against teacher Kathryn Sihota as well as the Sooke Teachers' Association and the B.C. Teachers' Federation in a grievance stemming from Sihota's refusal to administer a districtwide test more than two years ago.

Sihota was issued a letter of discipline by the Sooke school district in September 2007 after she wouldn't give the District Assessment of Reading Team, or DART, test to her elementary school class the previous spring. A grievance against the letter was filed immediately by the teachers' association.

The association also filed a grievance in June 2007, claiming that Sihota's being directed to administer the DART test by her principal violated the professional autonomy provision of the teachers' contract.

The grievances were considered by arbitrator James Dorsey over nine days in a hearing held intermittently since last October. The decision was handed down this month in favour of the Sooke board of education and the B.C. Public School Employers' Association.

"Ms. Sihota did not have the right to refuse the lawful direction to perform an administrative task as an exercise of her individual professional autonomy," Dorsey said in his decision. "This is not a situation that meets an exception to the principle 'obey now and grieve later.' The employer had just and reasonable cause for discipline."

Dorsey said the DART test -- distinct from standardized tests like the Foundation Skills Assessment or FSA -- can be dealt with however a teacher chooses once it is given to students, with such a choice falling within the meaning of professional autonomy.

"The teacher can choose to embrace and integrate DART assessment into the planning, instructing, assessing and evaluating cycle or can choose to simply treat it as an additional administrative and bureaucratic burden."

Sooke school district superintendent Jim Cambridge said Dorsey's decision closes the issue.

"It was never about the teacher," he said. "The teacher is an excellent teacher and somebody of high principle.

"Now that it's finished, it gives us an opportunity to open a dialogue with teachers about what good assessment is."

Hugh Finlayson, chief executive officer of the B.C. Public School Employers' Association, said the case has clear provincial implications.

"It's an important one in that it clarifies the workplace parameters as they apply to the exercise of professional discretion by individual teachers."

But Sooke Teachers' Association president Patrick Henry said Sihota took her stand without far-reaching motives, despite the attention the case attracted.

"This is a teacher that made a very informed professional decision about what was best for her students on a particular day. There was no philosophy or dogma."

Sihota was not available for comment.

Irene Lanzinger, president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, expressed disappointment in the decision but praised Sihota's actions.

"Kathryn took a very courageous stand. She is a wonderful teacher; everybody recognizes that."

She said the case is symptomatic of the ongoing problem of teachers being forced to give tests that they have deep reservations about. She said her organization has called for a moratorium on "mandated testing" and making teachers give tests "to drive a data machine."

Lanzinger said there are other cases, similar to Sihota's that may be brought forward.

jwbell@tc.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist

“Let her character, conviction, and willingness to act be an inspiration to you. The point is not, of course, whether you or I agree with the particulars of her stance. The point is that her professional conscience was definitive for her and gave her the courage to act in the face of public disapproval, disciplinary measures, and economic risk. Essential to societies we consider ‘free’ is the right and responsibility to engage in civil disobedience, that is, to follow the dictates of our conscience in non-violent ways when we are called upon. When our conscience is stirred professionally, however, we are called to yet a higher standard. We are obliged to act. Essential to professional identity is the obligation to protect our students, not only from bullets or brutality, as we have seen teachers regularly do, but also from psychological and educational vandalism against their spirits.”

(underlining in original newsletter)