Question: I checked the government’s registry of teachers and found that my former name is listed and linked to me. This former name is now dead to me and its publication is an intrusion into my private life. What is the Association doing about the registry?
Answer: The most basic question that one can ask about the Alberta Teacher and Teacher Leader Registry is “why”? It’s a question that I have yet to get a straight or satisfactory answer to, and it is where I’d like to start my answer to your question.
Many professions have public-facing registries that allow anyone to inquire as to the status of those practising in the profession. It is a simple matter to look up a lawyer or a doctor online to determine whether they are currently members in good standing of their professional regulatory body. So why not do the same for teachers?
Well, there are several fundamental differences that set teaching, as a profession, apart. To begin with, the certification of teachers has always been within the purview of the minister of education, and not an independent professional body. The Association is responsible only for its own members, and ATA membership is separate and distinct from certification—while all active ATA members must be certificated teachers, not all certificated teachers are required to be ATA members. The Association has policy calling for it to assume responsibility for certification, but this is a direction in which provincial governments have not been willing to go.
The practical implication of this state of affairs is that every teacher working in a public, separate, francophone, charter or accredited private school must, by law, be certificated by the province, and their employer must verify their status upon employment. So, the fact that a person is working in a school or school system as a teacher or certificated school leader means that they are certificated.
For lawyers, doctors and other professionals, there is no such all-encompassing employment arrangement. These professionals may practice individually or in partnership with others; they may be employed or hang out their own shingle; they may move from situation to situation without necessarily having a public body verify their professional standing in each instance. In such circumstances, it makes sense to have a registry accessible to the public. It may well be wise to be able to verify that the persons handling the sale of your house or to whom you turn to treat your aches and pains are licenced and qualified to do so. However, this rationale simply does not apply to teachers, and so there seems to be little need for an intrusive online registry.
Furthermore, the teacher registry goes back to 1954. Why? Because that is as far back as the government has certification records. As a result, the registry includes the names of people who are not currently teaching; those who may have received an interim certificate upon graduation, but who have never taught; and those who have left teaching, retired or are long dead. And for those who have had several legal names over the course of their lives, all of them are listed.
The government will claim that this is necessary to assist in identifying and holding to account teachers who may have engaged in unprofessional conduct in the past. But that is only a tiny fraction of teachers and a problem that could have been dealt with more efficiently using an inquiry-driven model. The registry does note when a teacher’s certification has been suspended or cancelled, linking to the hearing report. This was already being undertaken by the Association with respect to cases where the professional conduct process resulted in the suspension or cancellation of membership and is important for maintaining public confidence in teacher regulatory processes. The decision to finally shed light on cases under the government’s auspices (such as those involving superintendents or private school teachers) would be welcome.
From the outset, the Association identified serious issues in the design of the registry and, before the registry even went live, filed a protest with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). At the recommendation of the commissioner, who noted that her intervention would be premature, ATA staff met with government officials and were able to obtain some limited but helpful assurances—most importantly, that the government would withhold posting the names of teachers who had filed a request for exemption until the exemption (including requests not to publish “dead names”) had been properly considered by ministry officials. The government also made provision for applications and supporting documentation to be submitted using the secure TWINS portal rather than by email.
Still, the fundamental issues around the registry remain, both generally and with respect to its impact on gender minorities and women, who are more likely to have personal information concerning their identity disclosed. In response, the Association has now filed a formal complaint with the OIPC and will be assisting members who wish to do likewise.
We await the outcome of this process. If you are personally affected, please contact the Association’s Teacher Employment Services, which will connect you with the ATA information and privacy officer. ❚
Questions for consideration in this column are welcome. Please address them to Dennis Theobald at dennis.theobald@ata.ab.ca.
ATA Executive Secretary
