Go Ad Free

A troubling disregard for student security has emerged at an elementary school in Ontario, where a former early childhood educator — whose license was formally revoked — appears to have ongoing access to kindergarten-aged children under the Wellington Catholic District School Board.

The individual in question, Alexander “Alex” Dotzko, is not currently registered with the College of Early Childhood Educators (CECE), though he claims the title in written communication and online personas.

According to the college’s public registry, he is legally prohibited from presenting himself as an educator or working in that capacity within Ontario schools. And yet, Dotzko recently led a classroom initiative called a “Social Skills Tea Party,” inviting select children aged three to six to dress up in clothing that made them feel “confident and fancy.”

Parents say they were not informed about Dotzko’s involvement in organizing the event — nor of his revoked license. Invitations to the event, however, were signed by him, as if he retained official standing.

Compounding the concern, Dotzko has previously posted publicly accessible videos to YouTube showing himself reading Pride Puppy, while wearing rainbow attire and a tutu. In the now-removed video, identifiable kindergarten students can be seen, and sources close to the children involved say that parental consent was not obtained before the footage was published on his personal channel(s).

This appears to be a direct violation of Ontario’s Guide to Privacy and Access in Schools and the WCDSB’s own policies, which clearly prohibit the online sharing of student images without explicit parental permission.

Dotzko’s now-deleted social media profiles, which operated under pseudonyms such as “Alley Trans Pride,” were laden with adult-themed hashtags including #FemBoy, #SissyBoy, and #CrossDress — raising further questions about the appropriateness of his presence in a kindergarten setting.

By contrast, a school employee in British Columbia was fired in 2023, immediately after it was discovered that she ran an anonymous adult content account, despite never filming on school grounds, never naming her employer, and keeping her identity completely private. There were no children involved, and no privacy breach — yet she was shown the door without hesitation. So how is it that in this case, where a man with a revoked license is visibly interacting with kindergarteners and publicly uploaded footage of identifiable children, there’s been no action at all?

Rebel News submitted formal inquiries to the Wellington Catholic District School Board, the Ontario Ombudsman’s Children and Youth Unit, and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). While the board has not issued a statement, the IPC confirmed that it has since launched an investigation into the potential privacy breach involving children while at school.

“Children’s personal information is deeply sensitive,” the IPC stated. “When their privacy is breached, it can cause real and lasting harm.”

“Individuals who feel their children’s personal information may have been impacted by this incident can file a complaint with our office,” they furthered, “though it is not necessary as we are already looking into the matter. They can also contact the school board for additional information and to discuss their concerns.”

However, sources note that parents who have raised concerns with the board have been met with deflection, stonewalling, or vague references to “privacy.” Yes, the same privacy protections that were blatantly denied to their own children. It’s a stunning reversal where the system is shielding the adult in question, while the privacy of vulnerable minors was exposed without consent.

This case raises serious concerns about regulatory oversight, transparency, and the rights of parents to be informed about who interacts with their children in educational settings.

If you have information about this story — and wish to come forward either publicly or anonymously — please contact [email protected].

---

Editor's Note: The Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario responded, stating that "this is not a matter that our office would comment on."