Providence School Board rejects the non-renewal recommendations for two teachers

"If you feel that the process used doesn't meet your expectations, you have every right, in fact, I would argue that you have a duty, to reject the recommendation," said Attorney DeSimone.

During public comment at Wednesday night’s meeting of the Providence School Board, a non-stop series of speakers, 24 in all, spoke in defense of two teachers facing non-renewals. In Providence Public Schools (which is currently being run by the State of Rhode Island), when a teacher receives a notice of non-renewal, they are no longer eligible to retain their current teaching position. They are also not allowed to apply for open positions at other schools in the District and are essentially banned from teaching in Providence for the rest of their careers. Aside from the non-renewals, the two teachers share two things in common: they are both members of the Providence Caucus of Rank and File Educators (PVD CORE) and identify as non-binary. They use they/them pronouns. For more, see here, here, and here.

You can watch the public testimony in defense of the teachers here:

Around 15 teachers recieved non-renewal notices. Two of the 15+ non-renewed teachers, Em Schluter, a grade 6 ELA/ESL teacher at DelSesto Middle School, and Sam Wallace, a librarian at DelSesto Middle School, were at the school board meeting to challenge the decision, employing the services of Attorney John DeSimone. Challenges to non-renewals are typically held behind closed doors during executive session, as a performance review of an employee is one of the exceptions to Rhode Island’s Open Meetings Act. The exception was established to protect the privacy of employees when a public body discusses their job performance, character, or physical or mental health. However, if the employee wishes the performance review to be done publicly, that is their right.

In the case of the two teachers under discussion, an open meeting was the correct course of action, as the hearing revealed the weakness of the state’s case against the two teachers. It became obvious to the majority of the school board members present that the teachers were selected for non-renewal first, then a case was built against them.

In the end, the School Board voted to reject the non-renewal recommendations of Providence Superintendent Dr. Javier Montañez. However, the decision of the Providence School Board is advisory, due to the state takeover of Providence Schools.

Here’s a graphic, courtesy of PVD Core, showing the school board member votes:

You can watch the video of the hearing here, or read the partial transcription, edited for clarity, below:

Sara Rapport, legal counsel to the Providence School Board: The purpose of this action tonight is to hear presentations by the superintendent, regarding his recommendation to the Commissioner of Education in February, not to renew the employment of certain probationary teachers for the forthcoming school year. These two probationary teachers have chosen to present these sessions in an open forum. Each of these educators, as the board may recall, was working for the Providence Public School Department as a probationary teacher during the 2024-2025 school year, which has just concluded. On February 13, each of these teachers received a written order from the Commissioner notifying each that their employment with the school department would end at the close of the school year because the Commissioner had determined, based on the recommendation of the superintendent, that the department could find a more qualified teacher “as not as yet unidentified” - the standard that the Commissioner invoked.

“As yet unidentified” is based on state law that dates back to the 1970s, which invests the school department, and specifically its leadership through the superintendent, with the responsibility to exercise professional judgment in assessing whether a probationary teacher should be retained. As you may know, administrators in the state of Rhode Island, as well as in other states, have approximately three years, or specifically, three years out of five, to make a judgment about tenure. That’s what it boils down to. And over those three years, the teacher’s status is probationary. Unlike an employee who may be on a six-month probationary period, who can be let go without cause, the probationary period in this profession has been extended under state law to a period of three years within five years.

This boils down to the opportunity at three different times, specifically before March 1 in accordance with state law, for the administration to let the probationary teacher go without cause. The only constraint under the law (which began in 1978 and has been endorsed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court) is that the superintendent’s decision, made through their staff, cannot be arbitrary and capricious. Under the law, “arbitrary and capricious” has a very particular legal meaning, and it can’t be because the superintendent or the principal had some unprincipled dislike of someone that had nothing to do with teaching.

The legal premise of the probationary period is to afford some leeway to make a judgment about obtaining the best. [The law] really began to be used as a tool in the early two thousands, although there was a law that afforded that discretion prior to that. The important point to emphasize is that a decision of non-renewal has both advantages and disadvantages, depending on how you view the situation. On the more positive side or gentler side, it does not mean that a teacher who is non-renewed is bad. It doesn’t mean that there is good and just cause because the teacher has done something wrong.

Looking at it from a legal and evidentiary point of view, what it also means is that this is not a hearing [where] ... there is going to be an adjudication of good and just cause, which from my experience is a very strong bastion of protection for teachers in the state because good and just cause means a lot and doesn’t happen lightly and without a lot of attention to detail. [Instead], this is an arbitrary and capricious standard, which means, under the many cases that the Commissioner has issued, that the decision or the recommendation is presumptively to be upheld unless the teacher can prove, and carry the burden of proving, that the decision was devoid of factual basis.

There is no dispute that that is an extremely difficult challenge in the context of proving the case for the teacher. It is also intentionally designed as a matter of law to afford deference to the professional judgment of the administration. It doesn’t mean that, when the representative of the administration gives reasons, you can’t question it; it means that this is not a good and just cause hearing.

Returning to the process, the Commissioner issued these orders in February 2025. She had before her the recommendations, along with the supporting information, from the superintendent. We expect that Mr. Ruggiero will explain the process of gathering and presenting the information to the Commissioner in accordance with the law. Those recommendations by the superintendent must be informed by the judgment of building principals who are invested with the responsibility not only to make recommendations for hiring, but also to make recommendations for ending employment relationships in their buildings. When those orders were issued in February, 15 of the teachers challenged those orders by way of an appeal under state law.

Since the State Commissioner of Education oversees this school department, she issued the orders based on the superintendent’s recommendation, and the appeal is directed to her. So this is a second chance at changing her mind, and typically, that happens in front of you, [the school board]… Because the Commissioner is attempting to remediate this school department, she is hearing the appeals... The task today is for the school board to issue an advisory opinion at the hearing before the Commissioner. The superintendent, through legal counsel, will likely present documents and witnesses. There will be cross-examination and an opportunity to question. That is not what’s happening here today.

This is not an evidentiary hearing, nor is it an appeal hearing. It is an attempt to solicit the input of the new board, which wasn’t positioned as of late February to do this work, but is now. This is an attempt to gather your input and involvement, and deliver this advisory input to the Commissioner, who is currently hearing the appeal. The process is much simplified compared with what will happen at the Department of Education.

To start, the superintendent, through legal counsel, will make a presentation regarding each teacher to explain, in summary form, why the superintendent made the recommendation and why the Commissioner endorsed it, stating that a more qualified educator could be identified to fill the position. After that presentation, there will be an opportunity for board members to ask questions.

Then the teacher, either directly or through legal counsel, will facilitate a response to the presentation. This is an important point legally, although it’s tricky to get your head around it: even though the superintendent goes first, the burden of proving the case still rests with the teacher.

At the end of that, the board can ask questions. Then, the board will deliberate in an open session and, at the conclusion, take a roll-call vote. As a result of that vote, the board will issue an advisory opinion regarding the Commissioner’s order, which will be transmitted to the Commissioner’s legal counsel tomorrow or the day after.

Please understand again that the process here is limited legally to the question of whether the superintendent’s recommendation was arbitrary and capricious. Suppose the teacher believes that the recommendation constitutes unlawful discrimination in violation of state or federal law. In that case, the teacher has the right and retains the right to file a complaint with the Commission for Human Rights or in court, in accordance with those rules. This is not a hearing designed to adjudicate that legal question, which itself is a complex one and has certain rules attendant to it. That’s a separate proceeding. What happens here doesn’t foreclose the teacher from doing that in a different forum.

---

Charles Ruggerio, Labor and Employment Counsel at Providence Public Schools: Two non-renewal appeals are being heard tonight in open session. Those teachers have elected to discuss this matter in an open session rather than a closed session, with the understanding that we will address their performance and concerns that prompted the determination to move forward with their non-renewal.

Em Schluter

Em Schluter is a middle school English ESL teacher at DelSesto Middle School. They have been in that position for, I believe, their third year in the district?

Em Schluter, non-renewed teacher: Second.

Charles Ruggerio: I’m sorry, second, yeah. The basis for recommending the non-renewal of Em Schluter’s contract is their continued struggles to perform the job duties expected of teachers within the district. There were repeated struggles throughout the course of this school year to complete grading within the provided district timelines for students, and multiple instances of the principal having to follow up about grades not being submitted for students. They consistently fell behind in submitting grades in comparison to other grade six teachers at Del Sesto. According to the principal, only four and a half percent of teacher Schluter’s grades were completed on time.

In addition to that, there are continued concerns about their attendance, specifically their repeated inability to provide consistent and predictable attendance throughout both this school year and last school year. As of today, teacher Schluter has been out 24 times. They’ve been chronically absent, and they’ve been late several times as well. Additionally, they were absent 17 times last year and this year. For a district in turnaround, where we have an incredible focus on student attendance, our educators must embody the importance of attendance. Their continued absence and chronic absenteeism have been an ongoing concern throughout both this year and last year.

Additionally, last year, teacher Schluter received a developing evaluation score. So there has been some progress. There is no final effectiveness rating for this year. By way of educating the board, in the last school year, only 6.7% of teachers throughout the entire district received a score of developing or ineffective. Given our district’s needs, turnaround requirements, and focus on professional practice, this was the basis for the superintendent’s non-renewal recommendation to the Commissioner.

John DeSimone, Attorney for non-renewed teachers: I disagree with the history that he described. I think it’s important for the board to understand that Em was recruited from California. They came here to teach from California. They taught for two years at City Year and were dedicated to the schools of the City of Providence. They’re teaching ESL to sixth-grade English students. Their evaluation last year was, as Charlie said, 2.46, but their evaluation this year was 3.47. So they greatly increased their teaching skills during he second year. And they’ve been enrolled at URI and Roger Williams to get certs for middle and secondary English. They’ve done very well on their tests. They’ve passed all their practice tests. They’re well-positioned to be successful in Providence, and numerous students and community members have supported them, recognizing their efforts and teaching abilities.

I take issue with the way this happened. The school they’re in received a new principal just after Thanksgiving. This new principal made a recommendation not to renew the teacher’s contract. The principal never witnessed Em in the classroom. The principal never approached Em with any constructive criticism and never discussed their work with them.

It’s premature to non-renew this teacher.

I would suggest that their students’ SLOs (Student Learning Objectives) are significantly better than those of the others. The total points for the effectiveness of the students in their class is 3.47, which is outstanding. They exceeded expectations in the performance of their students. Student results and what kids are learning are the most important things. Em’s kids learned very well and exceeded expectations. The principal was new and didn’t have a chance to review Em to help them or anything like that.

So, I think that is arbitrary and capricious, right? If you didn’t talk to your teacher, didn’t review their skills, and didn’t observe them in the classroom, and they received a tremendous evaluation, how can the decision to non-renew be justified? What’s it based on? It’s certainly not based on any fact.

I would submit to the board that this particular teacher has done very, very well. They’ve not been coached at all. One of the things that Mr. Ruggerio brought up was the administration’s ability, by statute, to make these determinations. I would argue that with decision-making comes responsibility.

It’s up to administrators, principals, and vice-principals to enter these classrooms and make observations about how the teachers are instructing, determine whether the students are learning, and assess the evaluation process. You didn’t hear any of that. You heard a broad, general, and vague process, but it is uncontroverted that the principal started after the Thanksgiving recess, and at no time did that principal observe Em’s classroom. Never.

Whatever recommendation came out of that lack of homework is a bad recommendation. I would suggest to the board that, contrary to what Ms. Rapport said, the legal decision is that the board has not set a standard. I believe the board has standing regarding the non-renewal of teachers, and I don’t agree that the Commissioner has absolute power. Nowhere in the Crowley Act has that determination been stated, and we are appealing that now.

I don’t know why the board doesn’t join me in that appeal, but that’s a separate issue. I say to the board: Em is a very good and dedicated teacher. Their evaluation is superb. They haven’t been viewed by any principal or any administrator in their classroom. Em’s kids’ scores are exceeding expectations. And I can’t think of any reason why the district would want to non-renew this particular teacher.

The one thing that was brought up was attendance. Em has asthma and had an attack after the non-renewal went in. Those absentee days were after the recommendation, which I find somewhat concerning because it suggests that the district didn’t have anything to say, so they had to include this as an afterthought.

Again, we should be discussing the information the superintendent had at the time the non-renewal occurred. That was in January or December, sometime, far before any type of asthma kicked in. Em has great student performance, great evaluations, they’re great in the community, came here from California to work with these kids, loves teaching, and has a lot of support. I would suggest that the board should not follow the superintendent’s recommendation.

Charles Ruggerio: I would suggest, as it relates to the attendance issue, that during the first three years as a probationary employee, you’re getting the best conduct you can from a probationary employee. Wait until you get tenure and see what the conduct becomes like after that... I would suggest that, based on my experience, which spans over 20 years, those issues likely don’t improve.

John DeSimone: This teacher was issued an oral reprimand for their attendance, but when it was discovered that Em had bronchitis as a result of asthma, the reprimand was rescinded. Any suggestion that attendance was a problem falls short.

Charles Ruggerio: I am not aware of any rescission of an oral warning.

I would note that there was also a PAR (Peer Assistance and Review) supporting teacher for Mx. Schluter during this school year. There was additional support provided by a PAR coach and those PAR coaching sessions and opportunities to receive that support were frequently missed by the teacher Schluter, who would forget about opportunities to meet with the teacher, would be at working on the school musical instead of working on professional practice.

John DeSimone: Obviously, we reject that. PAR never got completed, but not because of my client.

Em Schluter: I only got seven of the 15 sessions because my PAR instructor went out on maternity leave. I have an email from Jessica Walters stating that the admin was supposed to take over, but the admin never did.

Board member Dr. Steven Williamson: The problem with implicit bias is it’s implicit. Therefore, the person with the bias may not be aware that they have it. Therefore, it’s essential to understand how the process unfolded... I think, from where we’re sitting, my job is to see that the methods that we’re using are rational. When I ask how someone is initially flagged for non-renewal, I would like to hear that there is a process involving the statistical analysis of teachers’ performance in the system, with evidence to support it. Then we see that this person isn’t meeting the standard. Instead, what I hear is that somebody gets flagged for non-renewal first, and then we put together the evidence.

Sara Rapport: I’m going to intervene. I appreciate the enthusiasm for that perspective, but you must understand that this process is being handled against the backdrop of 50 years of law. What you’re asking and what you’re describing is the very argument that the General Assembly made to not do that. Yes, implicit bias can infect decisions, but even if you were in front of the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights, you have to have evidence of discrimination. The data points you have here don’t obligate the district to create a process that the General Assembly has specifically instructed school districts not to have. You’re saying that this is what I would want, and the law doesn’t work that way.

Dr. Steven Williamson: Okay, let’s set that aside. What is my assurance that the initial decision to flag somebody for non-renewal is not arbitrary?

Sara Rapport: The legal standard asks you to ask, “Are they lying? Is this made up?” It is a very different legal standard from “Are they doing it in a way that satisfies the good and just cause?”

Charles Ruggerio: It’s a good-faith belief. Do we have a good faith belief that we can find a better-qualified teacher for that position?

Dr. Steven Williamson: This more qualified teacher is sort of hypothetical at the moment, right? Is this purely hypothetical, or is that standard of a better teacher based on your experience with the current crop of teachers or the applicant pool who are seeking jobs?

Charles Ruggerio: That’s a really good question.

And the answer to that question is it’s based on the professional experience of the individual making the recommendation. When making this determination as a superintendent or Commissioner, you base it on your knowledge about the existing marketplace, other teachers that you’ve been able to recruit, and the performance metrics of those other individuals, but the legal standard requires the individual who’s challenging that to prove that they’re the most qualified teacher for that position. That’s a different legal standard in relation to the burden of proof. In terms of making the demonstration and the good faith belief, it’s based upon the superintendent’s experience, his familiarity with the teachers that he presently has, and his familiarity with the recruitment that we’re doing throughout.

John DeSimone: I disagree with the board’s analysis of your role. The superintendent makes a recommendation to this board. This board makes a decision. You don’t have to accept this recommendation. Whether it’s a zoning board or a jury, any board takes their life experience and common sense with them. If you feel that the process used doesn't meet your expectations, you have every right, in fact, I would argue that you have a duty, to reject the recommendation, because only by rejecting specific recommendations will the process change.

What they’re trying to say to you is, “You are handcuffed.” You are not handcuffed. You hear all the evidence. And like Mr. Williamson said, “How did Em get picked? Did they get picked out of a hat?”

I would argue that the process here stinks. You have a principal who arrived after Thanksgiving. What type of recommendation, what kind of analysis did the principal do? Boardmembers can take their life experience and say, “I don’t think it was founded on anything.” I just gave you examples where Em’s students exceeded the expectations. I wholeheartedly disagree with the explanation of Ms. Rapport and Mr. Ruggerio. Somehow, they’re trying to limit your comprehension of this issue. You are free to do whatever you want as long as you do it based on constitutional issues, not being prejudiced, not being ethnically motivated, or anything like that. If you are basing it on a process with which you disagree, you have every right to reject it.

And we are not talking about the superintendent. He didn’t witness Em; he relied on what his principal told him, and we know the principal didn’t get there until after Thanksgiving. So what is that? I would suggest that you’ve got two good teachers in front of you, and you should not accept the recommendations.

Sam Wallace

Charles Ruggerio: The recommendation for the non-renewal of teacher Sam Wallace is based upon a continuing struggle to complete the job expected of teachers. In essence, there is considerable concern about the state of the DelSesto library throughout the 2024-2025 school year.

After repeated instructions to set up the library for students, which continued throughout the fall and into early spring of this school year, the library remained a place that was not conducive to instruction or a suitable space for students. Construction took place within the library over the summer and continued into the fall. There were repeated efforts to ask teacher Wallace to organize the library so it could be used for instructional purposes by students. Throughout that time, those efforts were unsuccessful until, ultimately, a district administrator was sent to DelSesto to set up the library instead. And when she asked for support from teacher Wallace, there was no response to the email that the administrator sent.

In addition to the state of the library, there were concerns regarding general classroom management and student safety. There is repeated use of phones in the library by the DelSesto students, who would tell assistant principals that they’re allowed to use them here. During that time, teacher Wallace was present but wouldn’t speak to or redirect the students who were utilizing the phone. Additionally, there was an incident where concerns arose about students being summoned to the library instead of remaining in their designated classroom. They were directed over PA systems to come to the library, presumably interfering with their instructional time, to apprise them of the [non-renewal] status of each teacher. Wallace’s discontinued employment with the district is a private matter and should not be a basis for discussion with students, especially during instructional time. Those are the bases for the recommendation: the state of the existing library, the improper use of instructional time with students, and the inability to manage students while in the library.

I believe those are the concerns of the administrative team. They’re documented, and I have photos here that would demonstrate that. Additionally, there are concerns related to attendance. During this year, teacher Wallace has had 17 absences.

John DeSimone: First of all, it’s amazing that they’re doing construction in the library, and they’re trying to blame Sam for the state of the library. Construction started in June 2023 and continued through October 2023. During that period, Sam did the best they could with the library, but there were construction issues.

Sam Wallace, non-renewed teacher: To clarify, I wasn’t in the library. I was in the classroom. I would have had no access to the space, and I was never informed when construction ended.

John DeSimone: Sam wasn’t able to be in the library because of the construction, and I would point out to the board that they started as a school culture coordinator. Their last evaluation was 3.69, which is a very good evaluation. They’ve had 230 students. They’re part of a student safety plan, which means that if a student is in crisis, Sam is one of the people with the necessary credentials for the student to meet with and secure the crisis. Sam’s been very dedicated. Again, this is the same school where the principal left, and the new one started after Thanksgiving, in November. The principal never gave Sam any guidance. The principal never went into the library, as far as Sam knows, never spoke to Sam, and never provided any guidance or answered any questions.

Sam Wallace: We did meet. I was told to put the books on the shelves, and I asked for specific goals. Putting books on the shelves, as I’ve submitted in testimony to y’all multiple times, requires organization. The last time the library had an inventory was 10 years ago. Some books have the N-word in them. I can’t put them on the shelves randomly. Other buildings underwent construction, but I was the only librarian asked to develop plans for the district. No other librarians were asked to do that. I had no feedback on my plans, and I had, at most, three hours a week to do anything related to the library, which includes checking out books.

John DeSimone: In effect, they gave you two conflicting recommendations. They said to put books on the shelves, and then they said to do a Battle of the Books program, which is inconsistent. Sam wrote an email asking which one they wanted, and they never responded.

Sam Wallace: I got direction from Tracy Boothman to put books on the shelves. Tracy Boothman showed up in my class while I was teaching to meet with me. I had no prior understanding that a meeting was occurring, and she asked, “What do you need?” And I was like, “I don’t know. I’m covering a class right now. What do you mean? Who are you? What’s going on?”

Board President Ty’Relle Stephens: Who’s Tracy?

Sam Wallace: Great question. The organizational chart at the time hadn’t been updated. I didn’t know who this person was, and when I asked what their job title was, they said, “I don’t know, coordinator, director, special projects. I’m not sure.” The organizational chart has been updated since June 9, but it hadn’t been updated previously. So I researched. I went into Outlook asking, “Who is this person? Why are they telling me to put books in the library?”

Charles Ruggerio: Tracy was the administrator that I spoke about, who came to set up the library in March.

John DeSimone: I would suggest to the board that this is an unfair recommendation. Sam was put in a situation where a library was under construction. A new principal arrived in late November, and Sam was given conflicting directives on how to manage the library. They’ve been a dedicated teacher, and as you can tell, their students love them, and it’s been a tough pill to swallow when you have a recommendation to non-renew a teacher based on a library that’s under construction. It makes no sense.

One of the things they said at the beginning was about teacher evaluations. Sam’s evaluation is 3.69. Why are you non-renewing this particular teacher? What is the impetus for it? How did the non-renewal process even start? I would suggest that you not accept the superintendent’s recommendation in this case.

Charles Ruggerio: I’ve described the basis for the recommendation. The construction ended in October. Throughout the period from October to March, it was not an ideal learning space.

Teachers usually use their own time to set up their classrooms. Setting up your classroom, your work environment, is not unique to librarians. That happens annually. Teachers spend a considerable amount of time preparing their classroom environment. I think that’s part of the expectations you would have of any educator.

Sam Wallace: I did work for free, by myself on Saturdays, all the time, constantly.

John DeSimone: I would suggest that if the construction were completed sometime in October, the recommendation or impetus for the non-renewal process probably began sometime in December, as it had to be presented to the board sometime in January. The principal, who had recently arrived at the building, issued the notice, but the process had begun well before that. The new principal initiated that process based on a library that was under construction only a month before their arrival. I mean, talk about arbitrary and capricious. Can you get any more arbitrary?

Charles Ruggerio: In terms of clarification, regarding the library setting, we have emails from the February break period requesting that Sam set up the room during any available time. Those emails went unheeded, prompting the continued status of the library, which still had all of these books in boxes as of March 18. Boxes were shoved into corners with empty shelves, which prompted Ms. Boothman to come to the library and set it up. And now we are set up.

Ty’Relle Stephens: I wish she did that.

John DeSimone: I would point out that the decision to non-renew had already been made in March, well before the library was set up.

Charles Ruggerio: There was a specific incident where it was mentioned over the PA system that students were to report to the library. I think this occurred during the morning, in late March or early April, regarding that event, and during instructional time, when students were supposed to report to their classes instead of the library.

Sam Wallace: It isn’t true. Also, why is all this evidence being presented against me after this decision to non-renew? I’m the most exploited employee.

John DeSimone: I was going to point out, as Sam just did, that you are looking at a decision that was made sometime in December or January. They’re bringing up things that occurred in March and after that, which suggests they didn’t have any reason for not renewing the teachers.

Charles Ruggerio: We’ve gone through our presentation, and I’ve given you a basis for the good-faith recommendation.

Appendix:

Providence teacher Lindsay Paiva wrote the following testimony for the hearing. Though she was unable to deliver her testimony, she submitted it to the school committee members and shared it with me for publication:

Hi everyone,

First, I would like to thank you for moving forward with the executive sessions tonight (although, to Mr. Muhingabo’s point, they should have happened months ago). In addition, I’d like to thank you for voting to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation for non-renewals for Em and Sam.

I am writing to you tonight because, unfortunately, despite signing up to provide verbal testimony Monday morning (see email below), I was not included on the list to speak. I respect the process and procedure, and for this reason did not interrupt the meeting to demand I be included in public comment, however, I am very frustrated and want to make sure this doesn’t happen moving forward. I know Martha is always very thorough, so maybe there is a filtering issue or something that the technology department can look into as a few other folks had the same issue tonight, and have voiced this concern in the past.

I would like to share my testimony with you here because I was planning to speak on behalf of Brandi Tucker, who was supposed to have their hearing tonight as well, but was unable to attend for reasons I will detail below.

Despite the vote having already occurred, I would like to share this with you because it still matters to me that you hear it:

Hi, everyone. My name is Lindsay Paiva. I use she/her pronouns, and I teach third grade multilingual learners at Webster Avenue Elementary School. I want to thank everyone for being here tonight to show their support to the non-renewed teachers and to the substitute teachers.

Yes, to everything the substitutes have raised. This is about dignity and support for subs as employees and workers, but is also fundamentally about student safety.

I know tonight’s hearings will be non-evidentiary, however, I believe that, for months, we have heard an abundance of evidence from community members, colleagues, community partners, and students. The student testimony alone should be enough to help you make your decision. There has been a deafening silence on the part of the district, and we know that is mostly because they have no evidence to support these non-renewals.

I want to start by saying that I believe that we have as much power as we think we have. You have much more power than you may think you do, and it is especially critical in this historical moment that we do not obey in advance.

You all were either elected or appointed because others believe that you bring something special and valuable to this space, and because, as Providence residents, we are entrusting you with our schools and to do right by students, teachers, and the community at-large.

We put you here to do this work. And you have a responsibility to answer to the constituents of the regions you represent. As a Region 2 resident, I am disappointed to see that both of my representatives are not present at the meeting, but I have heard them voice support for the non-renewed teachers at past meetings, and hope that they would have done the same tonight.

Our school board has turned over non-renewals during the state takeover before and I believe you can do it again. Be wary of what power others tell you that you have (or do not have), especially anyone from the district or RIDE.

I find it highly suspicious that the first time we have a partially elected board, all of a sudden non-renewal hearings are heard before RIDE and the Commissioner makes the final decision instead of our school board. This does not align with my understanding of and interpretation of the Crowley Act, and I urge you to look into this procedure carefully.

Thank you for offering the executive sessions today and for your advocacy with the resolution a few months ago. Unfortunately, that action was only symbolic, and the non-renewed folks watched their jobs get posted and, in some cases, filled, right before their eyes while they had to come to school day after day to work for principals who they knew did not believe they deserved their jobs.

In that time, these teachers did not give up, did not stop showing up for kids. They actually upped the ante.

Sam and Em ran the middle school musical at Del Sesto. I repeat: volunteered to run a school musical. At a middle school. That’s all I have to say about that.

I am actually hoping to spend most of my time tonight speaking on Brandi’s behalf.

They regret that they couldn’t be here themselves, but it is ironically because of their non-renewal that they were unable to make it. They gave me permission to share this information tonight to express the severity of this situation.

Watching Brandi’s health decline so dramatically since they found out about the non-renewal has been one of the most difficult experiences of my career.

After finally getting a chance to see their doctor yesterday, it was recommended that Brandi not be present in situations that could elevate their stress. According to their doctor, the health risks, were just too high. The risk to Brandi’s physical safety and well-being was too elevated for them to attend tonight, despite having prepared for months for this moment. A medical professional has told them that this process has caused them great harm and physical risk.

Despite living these conditions, on a daily basis since February, Brandi has actually doubled down on showing up for their students.

When told there was no money in the budget for a field trip or for fifth grade t-shirts Brandi and their fifth grade partner refused to take no for an answer. They organized a fundraiser, completely designed and managed by the fifth graders, integrating math, reading, writing and art lessons to raise over $2,400 in just one month to make these dreams a reality for their students.

They spent the first half of this morning bringing 54 fifth graders roller skating, and then came back to school, set up chairs and tables, and hosted the fifth grade graduation. Brandi refused to let the students suffer because of the uncomfortable conditions at our school after their non-renewal, and continued to show up for them with a smile on their face every day.

Watching the care and love Brandi put into these events and knowing that they have been forcibly removed from these experiences for the foreseeable future is horrible.

I implore you to do the right thing and, not only make the recommendation to rescind these non-renewals, but also to have the courage to investigate the PTU’s appeal of this process and to rescind the non-renewals yourselves. You have the power. Now you just have to claim it and take real action today.