STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
THE PROVIDENCE TEACHERS UNION,
LOCAL 958, American Federation of
Teachers, AFL-CIO, on behalf of Fifteen
Providence Teachers,
Petitioner,
vs.
ANGÉLICA INFANTE GREEN, as
Commissioner of Education and delegate
of the Council on Elementary and
Secondary Education under the Crowley Act
and DR. JAVIER MONTAÑEZ, as
Superintendent of the Providence Public
Schools,
Respondents
RIDE No. 25-033 A
Held: Probationary teacher failed to meet the burden of proving that the Commissioner’s order requiring the non-renewal of the teaching contract was “arbitrary and capricious” and/or “devoid of any factual basis” and thus an interim order entered denying and dismissing the teacher’s appeal which, by agreement, is without prejudice to the teacher’s right to later argue that the Commissioner lacked the authority to unilaterally order the non-renewal of the contract after the Superior Court has rendered a decision in a separate pending appeal addressing the extent of the Commissioner’s authority in such situations.
March 5, 2026
On February 24 and 25, 2025, Notices of Appeal were filed with Education Commissioner Angélica Infante-Green (the “Commissioner”) in connection with her February 13, 2025 order (the “Feb. 13 Order”) which adopted the recommendation of Javier Montañez, Ed.D., the Superintendent of the Providence Public School District (the “Superintendent” and “PPSD,” respectively), and ordered the non-renewal of the teaching contracts of some fifteen probationary teachers in PPSD (collectively, the “Appellants”). See Joint Exhibit 3. This decision addresses the appeal filed on behalf of one of the Appellants, middle school teacher and librarian Samantha Wallace.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The budget, program and personnel of PPSD have been under the control of the Commissioner since November 1, 2019, pursuant to the powers delegated to her by the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education (the “Ed. Council”) under The Paul W. Crowley Rhode Island Student Investment Initiative, R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-7.1-5 (the “Crowley Act”). See Joint Exhibits 1 and 2. That being said, whether the Commissioner has the legal authority under the Crowley Act to unilaterally order the non-renewal of the contracts of probationary teachers in the PPSD during the state intervention is the subject of a pending appeal before the Superior Court. See The Providence Teacher’s Union v. Angélica Infante Green, RIDE No. 24-042A (October 21, 2024).[1] However, rather than delaying adjudication of the instant appeals and await a decision from the Superior Court, the Commissioner and the parties have agreed to proceed with the evidentiary hearings and briefings required to adjudicate relevant factual and legal issues while staying without prejudice all legal arguments relating to the Commissioner’s authority. See Joint Exhibit 5.
As a general matter, the procedure applicable to the non-renewal of a non-tenured teaching contract in a Rhode Island public school is set forth under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-13-2(a), which provides, in pertinent part, that:
Teaching service shall be on the basis of an annual contract, except as hereinafter provided, and the contract shall be deemed to be continuous unless the governing body of the schools shall notify the teacher, in writing, on or before March 1, that the contract for the ensuing year will not be renewed. . . [p]rovided, however, that a teacher, upon request, shall be furnished a statement of cause for dismissal or nonrenewal of his or her contract by the school committee; provided further, that whenever any contract is not renewed, or the teacher is dismissed, the teacher shall be entitled to a hearing and appeal pursuant to the procedure set forth in § 16-13-4.
Id. And R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-13-4(a) provides, in pertinent part, that:
The teacher may, within fifteen (15) days of the notification, request, in writing, a hearing before the school committee or school board. The hearing shall be public or private, in the discretion of the teacher. Both teacher and school board shall be entitled to be represented by counsel and to present witnesses. The board shall keep a complete record of the hearing and shall furnish the teacher with a copy. Any teacher aggrieved by the decision of the school board shall have the right of appeal to the department of elementary and secondary education and shall have the right of further appeal to the superior court. Any decisions rendered must be approved by a majority of the full board. Members voting on a decision must have been in attendance at the hearing.
Id.[2]
The Providence School Board (the “PSB” or the “Board”) has played an advisory role during the state intervention.[3] However, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the terms of the PSB members expired on December 31, 2024 and the newly-constituted hybrid Board, i.e., with half of the members elected and half appointed, was not approved by the Providence City Council and sworn in until February 6, 2025.[4] In addition, the PSB meeting scheduled for February 12, 2025 lacked a quorum.[5] Thus, to ensure compliance with the March 1 deadline under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-13-2, the Commissioner issued the Feb. 13 Order adopting the Superintendent’s non-renewal recommendations without the benefit of an advisory opinion from the PSB. The Feb. 13 Order also provided that it “constituted the determination by the Commissioner that the PPSD can find more qualified teachers as yet unidentified and shall constitute a Statement of Cause for Non-Renewal pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-13-2.” See Joint Exhibit 3.
Wallace was notified by PPSD in writing that the contract would not be renewed on February 14, 2025 and as noted, an appeal to the Commissioner was then filed on Wallace’s behalf on February 24, 2025. See Joint Exhibit 4.
On April 25, 2025, counsel for the PSB wrote the undersigned Hearing Officer and requested that the commencement of Appellants’ individual hearings be stayed for a brief period of time so that the Appellants had the opportunity to argue their appeals before the PSB, which could then render an (albeit untimely) advisory opinion to the Commissioner.[6] The PSB then wrote Wallace on May 30, 2025 and invited Wallace to attend a Board meeting at some time in the future when the Board will “receive a presentation from the Superintendent as to why he recommended that your employment be non-renewed, and for you to respond to that presentation so that the Board can issue an advisory opinion to the Commissioner as to whether your appeal from the Commissioner’s decision should be sustained.” See Wallace Exhibit 7. Wallace and Union counsel appeared before the PSB at its meeting on June 18, 2025, after which the Board voted to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation of non-renewal,[7] which advisory recommendation was not adopted by the Commissioner. Thus, hearings with respect to Wallace’s appeal of the Feb. 13 Order were then commenced before the undersigned Hearing Officer.
The facts below were deduced from the testimony and documents entered into evidence during the hearings relating to Wallace’s appeal before the undersigned Hearing Officer on August 14, August 27, October 15, and November 5, 2025 (the “Aug. 14, Aug. 27., Oct. 15. and “Nov. 5 Trs.” respectively). In addition, the parties filed post-hearing memoranda on February 17 and 24, 2026.
II. FACTS
1. Wallace started working as a non-tenured teacher and librarian at the DelSesto Middle School (“DelSesto”) in Providence in the Fall of 2022. (Nov. 5 Tr. at 86). As was noted by PPSD Chief of School Improvement and Innovation Craig Creller, DelSesto was one of five PPSD schools that had not made sufficient progress after five years pursuing a Comprehensive School Improvement Plan and was being redesigned to be a Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Math (“STEAM”) hub. (Aug. 27 Tr. at 7, 9).
2. DelSesto had just been renovated and as a result, most of its library books had been randomly stored in boxes located in two rooms outside the library, one of which was “piled up all the way to the ceiling.” (Aug. 14 Tr. at 9-10, 13, 15, 18, Aug. 27 Tr. at 9, 11) (Aug. 27 Tr. at 11). Creller testified that during his first walk through DelSesto at the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year, he noticed boxes of books blocking the hallway by the library and a lack of books on the library shelves. (Id.).
3. Creller, who has a doctorate and has had thirty-five years of experience in education as a superintendent, assistant superintendent, interim superintendent and chief academic officer (id. at 31), testified that he approached Wallace about the empty shelves and was informed by Wallace that shelving books was not Wallace’s job. (Id. at 12). According to Creller, Wallace displayed a dismissive attitude and showed dissatisfaction with the library being used as a STEAM space, and he testified that the books in boxes had not been shelved as of October, 2024. (Id. at 17-18).
4. Ashley Ferranti, DelSesto’s new Principal, had served as a middle school principal in both Rhode Island and Massachusetts and had previously been Assistant Principal at Nathaniel Greene Middle School in Providence. She testified that she has hired “hundreds of teachers.” (Aug. 14 Tr. at 7, 50). She arrived at DelSesto on November 25, 2024, and was “shocked” to observe the following day that there were so many empty shelves in the school library, which was to be a “STEAM hub within the school” as part of the school’s redesign plan. (Id. at 9-10, 13, 15, 18).
5. Principal Ferranti met with Wallace “around December 16” of 2024 and stated that her goal was to have the books shelved by “the end of January” 2025 so there could be a “ribbon cutting” ceremony around the library re-opening. (Id. at 20-21; Nov. 5 Tr. at 18). At that time, ninety per cent (90%) of the library shelves were empty. (Nov. 5 Tr. at 130). Wallace responded by requesting that the reshelving begin on President’s Day, i.e., on February 17, 2025, and stated people could assist with the task during February vacation. (Aug. 14 Tr. at 21; Nov. 5 Tr. at 18, 126).
6. In addition to Wallace’s usual teacher preparation periods, Wallace had two to three periods per week in which to reshelve. (Nov. 5 Tr. at 19). However, according to Wallace, reshelving could not be accomplished during this time “because checkout of books occurs during that time. Setting up displays occurs during that time. Buying books occurs during that time. Making GoFundMe's occurs during that time.” (Id. at 106-07)
7. According to Principal Ferranti, Wallace appeared “frustrated and dismissive” of the Principal’s timeline. Ferranti offered “to provide payment to Wallace for an additional four hours a month.” Id. However, according to Principal Ferranti, the offer was never accepted, (Aug. 14 Tr. at 20, 22), whereas Wallace testified that there was work on Saturdays and Wallace “submitted my hours [in] an email to the clerk,” but was not paid. (Nov. 5 Tr. at 133-34).
8. At the end of January, 2025, with eighty per cent (80%) of the library shelves still empty (Nov. 5 Tr. at 131), additional meetings took place then and during the first week of February, 2025, involving Principal Ferranti, one or both of the Assistant Principals, Wallace, and Wallace’s union delegate. Principal Ferranti indicated that she would provide Wallace with assistance to get the books shelved. (Aug. 14 Tr. at 25; Nov. 5 Tr. at 23).
9. According to Principal Ferranti, several PPSD administrators arrived at DelSesto to assist Wallace reshelve on February 11, 2025, and although coverage was provided for Wallace’s classes so Wallace would be free the entirety of that day, and although Principal Ferranti expected that Wallace would be participating in the process of reshelving, the Principal never saw Wallace actually reshelving any books. (Id. at 23-25, 30-32).
10. Lendozia Edwards, who succeeded Creller as the PPSD School Transformation Officer assigned to DelSesto, emphasized the need for a library due to DelSesto’s poor performance in English Language Arts (see Aug. 27 at 74-75), and testified that she personally helped put books on the library shelves on February 11, 2025 along with PPSD library head Lenwood Thompson and PPSD administrator Tracy Bothman. Edwards observed that Wallace was “in and out”, did not provide any guidance, did not put any books on the shelves and questioned whether the task was “really a good use of time.” (Aug. 27 Tr. at 80-81).
11. According to Peter Quesnel, the now-retired former PPSD school librarian in the Juanita Sanchez complex who volunteered to assist reshelving books at DelSesto, in January of 2025, eighty to ninety per cent (80 to 90%) of the shelves in the DelSesto library remained empty. (Id. at 99).
12. Photographs of the library taken from November 26, 2024 through March and April of 2025, were entered into evidence (see PPSD Exhibits 3 - 10) and reflect little to no improvement in the organization and general condition of the library during this five-month period.
13. Wallace testified that:
. . .as a librarian, I can't put all 13,000 books on the shelves. If a kid takes a book off the shelf and it has the N-word in it, that's going to be a whole issue. If a kid takes a book off the shelf and it has racist depictions, if it has a penis drawn in it, which is not uncommon in a middle school. You know, I have to make sure that what's going on the shelves is reflective of me and reflective of our school. . .
(Id. at 145).
14. Dr. Mary Moen, a recently-retired faculty member in the Graduate School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Rhode Island (“URI”) who taught Wallace and observed Wallace as a teacher while Wallace held an emergency teaching certification, testified that Wallace “was an exemplary student” and it would not have been possible for Wallace to re-shelve all the books at DelSesto by February of 2025. (Oct. 15 at 58, 67). Dr. Moen also testified that in her opinion, it would not have been possible for PPSD to find a more qualified teacher and librarian than Wallace. (Id. at 59).
15. Responding to questioning about whether she had directed anybody to move the boxes of books into the library, Principal Ferranti replied that:
I think at the end of the day, right, like it’s not just up to me to effectuate the plan. The idea is that the librarian would have a vision aligned and some ownership over implementing the plan. I think that’s really important to state, you know. And you know, I didn’t make recommendations in a vacuum. I certainly have, you know, consulted others above me on it, as well. I just think that it’s the lack of urgency but also -- the attitude towards the ask that worked together to make this very difficult.
* * *
Well, no one asked [Wallace] to complete [the reshelving] in three hours. I think it was just a good faith effort needed to be observed. If I had observed someone saying, like, oh, you know, I was able to get this box out, then that -- that tells me something. That tells me, okay, look we’re aligned. We understand that this is what we're doing. I never expected to be 100 percent done, but I didn't see any -- any effort after our conversations to get it done.
(Nov. 5 Tr. at 39-40, 45).
16. Principal Ferranti decided not to recommend that Wallace’s teaching contract be renewed “in the middle of January,” 2025 (Nov. 5 Tr. at 35), and the formal recommendation was made either the week of January 13 or January 20, 2025. (Id. at 36). See Union Exhibit 1. She testified as to the reason for her recommendation as follows:
It was really just the lack of urgency around setting up the library to have it prepared for kids. We know that library is important. I really value the library in a school, especially a renovated library in a school that's in the middle of turnaround that has two percent proficient in math and six percent in ELA. We know literacy is important. So the lack of urgency there that I saw, as well as the insubordinate behavior towards myself and the district administrators when we went into the library to help set it up and just lack of alignment with the vision of the school.
(Id. at 45-46). In addition, Principal Ferranti testified that in her opinion, PPSD could find a more qualified teacher to fill Wallace’s position at DelSesto. (Id. at 51).
17. The Superintendent explained the District process for recommending the non-renewal of a probationary teacher as follows:
. . . once that principal receives the list of those individual teachers, what happens is they have a conversation, they meet with HR, they make a recommendation. Once the recommendation is done with HR, the transformational officers who are in charge of certain buildings, they also have a conversation with the principals to make sure that the recommendations they're making are correct. Once they send to HR, HR, as well as legal, oversee the process and the recommendations from the principals. If HR and legal agree that this is how they want to move forward, then a recommendation is done to me. I, once again, review the recommendations. I sit down with HR, legal, and my senior staff to review, to make sure there's documentation, that there's evidence, the recommendation whether to keep or not, to renew or not. And then, once if I agree, then I make that recommendation to the school board or school board and then the commissioner as well. . .
(Oct. 15 Tr. at 9); see also Wallace Ex. 1 (summarizing PPSD non-renewal process).
18. When asked to explain his recommendation to the Commissioner that Wallace’s contract not be renewed, the Superintendent testified that:
. . . based on the information that I had in front of me, and I was able to ask questions, it feels that Teacher Wallace was asked several times, from beginning of the year, to make sure that the room was set up for successful students and worked towards setting it up. And it feels that by February, when I received this information, the library room was still not set up, even though there was support given to Teacher Wallace from the beginning of the year.
(Oct. 15 Tr. at 14). The Superintendent also testified that he believed PPSD could find a more qualified teacher and librarian for DelSesto. (Id. at 17).
III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
1. Wallace
Wallace asserts that “the standard for dismissal is that the district believes it can find a more qualified educator,” Claimant’s Memorandum of Law submitted on February 24, 2026 (“Wallace Mem.”) at 3 (citing Chrabaszcz v. Johnston School Committee, RIDE No. 0010-05 (January 29, 2005) and PPSD’s Memorandum on Non-Renewal for the 2021-2022 School Year (the “PPSD Non-Renewal Mem.”)),[8] and then argues that PPSD failed to meet the standard because “[t]he weight of evidence. . . clearly shows that the Providence Public School District has NOT shown they could find a more qualified teacher, and that teacher Wallace is the most qualified teacher for this position.” Id. at 2. Wallace argues that there was no evidentiary foundation supporting the claim that a more qualified replacement for Wallace could be found, see id. at 5,6, and points to the testimony of Dr. Moen that it would not be possible for PPSD to find a more qualified teacher and librarian than Wallace. See id. at 9-10 (citing Oct. 15 Tr. at 59).
Wallace also argues that “the nonrenewal of Ms. Wallace’s contract was essentially for failing to have forty (40) boxes of books lying in a hallway outside the library at the end of the summer in 2024, taken out, sorted, shelved, and aligned with the Dewey Decimal System.” Id. at 6. Wallace then argues that the task was “herculean” and the non-renewal reflected PPSD’s “unrealistic expectations,” asserting that it was “impractical to expect a teacher with full-time teaching duties to undertake the activity in addition to their teaching.” See id. at 4,5, 9-10.
Alternatively, Wallace argues that there was not adequate support from PPSD with respect to the reshelving task and organization of the library. Id. at 7.
2. PPSD
PPSD argues that it “produced ample evidence and testimony” supporting its decision not to renew Wallace’s contract, and that “[t]he evidence establishes that PPSD repeatedly attempted to assist Wallace with library set-up, that Wallace failed to effectively utilize or cooperate with those efforts, and that PPSD reasonably concluded, based on sustained performance concerns, that a more qualified librarian/media teacher exists.” See PPSD’s Post-Hearing Memorandum of Law submitted on February 17, 2026 (“PPSD Mem.”) at 10. In support, PPSD argued that:
- “Superintendent Montañez’s decision was largely based on Wallace’s failure to take steps towards setting up the library despite the support given to [Wallace] from the beginning of the year.” Id. at 7 (citing Oct. 15 Tr. at 14);
- “DelSesto Principal, Ashley Ferranti, testified extensively at the Hearing that Wallace’s failure to reshelve library books was an ongoing problem with substantial impact.” Id. (citing Aug. 14 and Nov. 5 Trs.);
- “Craig Creller, the transformation officer responsible for DelSesto until October 2024, provided compelling testimony that, in his professional opinion, the librarian of a school is responsible for setting up and maintaining the library. Hearing Transcript, pg. 47 (August 27, 2025). He further testified that in his experience with PPSD, in other buildings where there has been library construction, it is the responsibility of the librarian to organize and place books on the shelves.” Id. at 8 (citing Aug. 27 Tr. at 66); and
- “Lendozia Edwards, transformation officer for DelSesto beginning in October 2024, testified that she approved Principal Ferranti’s request to provide Wallace with additional compensation to work beyond their regular work hours to facilitate the library set up. . . Despite that approval in December and the other supports offered, Petitioner Wallace made little to no progress shelving additional books through mid-January.” Id. (citing Aug. 27 Tr. at 76).
IV. DECISION
1. Standard of Review and Burden of Proof
At the outset, it should be emphasized that a probationary teacher “has no right to continuing employment” and, therefore, “does not have a vested right to reinstatement to any position at all.” Beaudoin v. School Committee of the City of Cranston, 1980 WL 336012 at *2 (R.I. Superior Court, February 4, 1980). As noted by the Court in Beaudoin, “[t]he very purpose of a probationary period is to afford the school committee an opportunity to evaluate the probationary teacher without making a commitment to rehire that teacher.” Id.
Nonetheless, in Drown v. Portsmouth School District, 451 F.2d 1106, 1108 (1st Cir. 1971), the First Circuit, while emphasizing “the broad scope of a school board’s discretion” under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-13-2, held that “even the minimal interest of the non-tenured teacher in renewal of her contract cannot be taken away for reasons which are entirely arbitrary and capricious.” Id. The Circuit Court then explained that “a reason may be arbitrary or capricious in any of three ways. . . a reason may be unrelated to the educational process or to working relationships within the educational institution. . . [o]r a reason may be arbitrary in that it is trivial.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Wujcik v. School Committee of the Town of Warren, 120 R.I. 452, 453, 388 A.2d 17, 18 (1978) (adopting the Drown test for evaluating the legality of a nonrenewal notice sent to a nontenured teacher).
Moreover, numerous cases decided by the Commissioner make clear that the non-renewal standard is only a notch above “at will.” See, e.g., Andrews-Mellouise v. East Prov. Sch. Comm., RIDE No. 19-060K at 10 (April 16, 2020) (“. . . it is well-settled law that a Superintendent’s belief that a more qualified educator can be found is a permissible reason for non-renewal.”); Monemou v. Prov. Sch. Bd., RIDE No. 0002-11 at 7 (March 2, 2011) (Finding that the non-renewal decision “was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unfair to the Appellant” despite the lack of any formal evaluation process.); Provencial v. Prov. Sch. Bd., RIDE No. 0015-07 at 4 (June 18, 2007) (“The school committee is not required to demonstrate good cause for not renewing a non-tenured probationary teacher’s contract.”).
In addition, while the hearing before the Commissioner afforded a non-tenured teacher appealing from a school committee decision under § 16-13-2 is de novo,[9] the teacher “bears the burden of producing persuasive evidence tending to show that the decision not to renew the contract was devoid of any factual basis.” Kagan v. R.I. Bd. Regents, 1997 WL 1526517 at *5 (R.I. Superior Ct., August 21, 1997) (citations omitted). As the Court noted in Jacob v. Board of Regents for Education, 117 R.I. 164, 170, 365 A.2d 430, 433 (1976), while “the school committee must give the nontenured teacher who is not rehired the reasons or causes for its decision, the committee was not bound to defend its action by a showing of just cause for the result it reached.” Id.; see also Tanguma v. Providence School Board, RIDE No. 0004-06 at 6 (January 27, 2006) (“The burden of proof is that of the non-renewed teacher to show that the school committee could not find a better teacher from somewhere if it sought to do so.”); Dajer v. Providence School Board, RIDE No. 0015-06 at 4 (June 6, 2006) (Teacher has “heavy burden of proof” that requires proving the negative: “the non-existence of a more qualified teacher.”). And Wallace has not suggested that the same rules governing the standard of review and burden of proof should not apply when, as here, the appeal is from an order of the Commissioner during a state intervention as opposed to an appeal from a school committee.
2. Wallace’s Failure to Meet the Burden of Proof
Wallace argues that the sole standard by which to evaluate the non-renewal of a probationary teacher in the absence of a dismissal for cause or fiscal exigency or program reorganization “is that the district believes it can find a more qualified educator.” See Wallace Mem. at 3 (citing Chrabaszcz and the PPSD Non-Renewal Mem.). In so arguing, Wallace has conflated the applicable standard of review with the factual basis justifying non-renewal. Moreover, although a school district’s belief that it can find a more qualified educator is one of the most common factual justifications offered by districts in support of such a non-renewal, it is by no means exclusive.[10]
In addition, Wallace misstates the reasons for the non-renewal proffered by PPSD. According to Wallace, “testimony showed that the nonrenewal of Ms. Wallace’s contract was essentially for failing to have forty (40) boxes of books lying in a hallway outside the library at the end of the summer in 2024, taken out, sorted, shelved, and aligned with the Dewey Decimal System.” Id. at 6. In fact, Principal Ferranti testified that she was just looking for Wallace to make “a good faith effort” to set up the library. See § II, supra at ¶ 15.
Wallace also incorrectly assumes that PPSD had the burden of proof. However, as has been noted, the “heavy burden” of proving that PPSD’s non-renewal decision was “arbitrary and capricious” and/or “devoid of any factual basis” resided at all times with Wallace. Wallace attempts to carry this “heavy burden” by relying upon: (a) Wallace’s own opinion concerning the difficulty and/or complexity of the reshelving task and Wallace’s conclusion that Principal Ferranti’s expectations were “unrealistic.” See id. at ¶¶ 7, 13; and (b) the testimony of Dr. Moen, Wallace’s former teacher and now a retired member of the URI faculty, that it would not have been possible for PPSD to find a more qualified teacher and librarian than Wallace. See id. at ¶ 14.
However, PPSD presented the opinions of its Superintendent and Principal Ferranti that Wallace exhibited “a lack of urgency around setting up the library at DelSesto” and, according to DelSesto’s Principal, was “insubordinate.” See § II, supra at ¶¶ 16, 18; see also id. at ¶ 3 (“According to Creller, Wallace displayed a dismissive attitude and showed dissatisfaction with the library being used as a STEAM space”), and ¶ 10 (“Edwards testified that Wallace was ‘in and out’, did not provide any guidance, did not put any books on the shelves and questioned whether the task was ‘really a good use of time.’”).
In fact, even if one were to assume, for argument’s sake, that PPSD did have some burden of proof (which it did not), it appears the District would have carried the burden. After all, Wallace’s own perception was rebutted not only by Principal Ferranti, but also by PPSD Chief of School Improvement and Innovation Creller and School Transformation Officer Edwards; and Dr. Moen’s opinion that PPSD would not be able to find a more qualified teacher and librarian than Wallace was rebutted by the testimony of both the Superintendent and Principal Ferranti, see id. at ¶¶ 16, 18, and PPSD’s current Superintendent and an experienced principal who has “hired hundreds of teachers,” see id. at ¶ 4, were both at least as familiar with the current market for teachers and librarians as a retired URI faculty member.
Finally, even if one were to assume, again for argument’s sake, that Wallace’s self-evaluation and Dr. Moen’s opinion as to the job market for teachers and librarians were both accurate, it does not therefore follow that PPSD’s decision not to renew Wallace’s teaching contract was either “arbitrary and capricious” or “devoid of any factual basis.” Thus, it is apparent that Wallace has failed to meet the requisite burden of proof.[11]
V. Interim Order
For all of the above reasons, the appeal of teacher and middle school librarian Samantha Wallace from the Commissioner’s Order requiring the non-renewal of Wallace’s teaching contract with the Providence Public School District is hereby denied and dismissed; provided, however, that this Interim Order shall not become a Final Order until the Superior Court renders a decision in The Providence Teacher’s Union v. Angélica Infante-Green, RIDE No. 24-042A (October 21, 2024) and the parties herein have briefed the legal issues concerning the extent of the Commissioner’s authority under the Crowley Act, which shall include, but not be limited to, the argument at pages 15-23 in Wallace’s Memorandum of Law dated February 24, 2026.
Footnotes
[1] Appealing The Providence Teacher’s Union v. Angélica Infante-Green, RIDE No. 24-042A (October 21, 2024).
[2] During the state intervention in the PPSD the Commissioner has afforded non-renewed probationary teachers with the statutory rights provided under state law. However, whether or not § 16-13-2 is even applicable after the control of a school district has been assumed by the Ed. Council/Commissioner pursuant to the Crowley Act presents a legal question of first impression, and the Commissioner does not intend her decision to apply § 16-13-2 in this or in any other case to be a waiver of the argument that she is not legally required to do so while a state intervention remains in effect.
[3] On April 29, 2020, the Commissioner signed an order providing that “[t]he PSB shall continue to serve in an advisory role on matters related to PPSD’s budget, program, and personnel decisions.” See In re PPSD, RIDE No. 19-089, Order 20-002 Re the PSB, § 2 at 2 (April 29, 2020).
[4] See https://council.providenceri.gov/2025/02/06/council-confirms-providence-school-board-appointments-hybrid-board-sworn-in/#:~:text=Providence,%20RI%20%E2%80%93%20At%20tonight%27s%20meeting,%20Providence,Smiley%27s%20five%20school%20board%20appointments:%20Melissa%20Hughes.
[5] Minutes of the meeting are available at https://providencepublic.ic-board.com/Reference_Library/ESB_Minutes/2-12-2025%20School%20Board%20Minutes.pdf.
[6] On March 19, 2025, the PSB approved a “Resolution Urging RIDE to Rescind the Superintendent’s Decision and Halt the Non-Renewals of LGBTQ+ Educators in Providence Public Schools.” See PSB Meeting minutes dated 3/19/25 (available at https://providencepublic.ic-board.com/Reference_Library/ESB_Minutes/3-19-2025%20Full%20Board%20Minutes.pdf). It is impossible to determine which, if any, of the fifteen current Appellants were the subject of this Resolution. However, what is clear is that the Resolution did not include Wallace since Wallace did not argue that the decision not to renew the teaching contract was in any way related to sexual identity or orientation.
[7] The meeting minutes are available at https://providencepublic.ic-board.com/Reference_Library/ESB_Minutes/6-18-2025%20Full%20Board%20Minutes.docx. No rationale for the rejection was provided by the Board.
[8] Attached to the Wallace Mem. as an Exhibit.
[9] “When a court engages in de novo review of a legal issue, it makes an independent determination without deference to any earlier analysis about the matter. It is treated as if no previous decision had been made: there is no presumption of the correctness or validity of any prior finding, recommendation, or conclusion.” Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024).
[10] The PPSD Non-Renewal Mem. cited by Wallace is in no way binding here or capable of altering the applicable rules regarding the burden of proof or standard of review adopted by the Courts, even if the Memorandum was not outdated and had actually been introduced into evidence by Wallace.
[11] And this would be true regardless of whether one were to rely solely on Wallace’s conduct prior to Principal Ferranti’s recommendation of non-renewal on or about January 13, 2025 (see Nov. 5 Tr. at 35), or up to and including the Superintendent’s decision to recommend non-renewal to the Commissioner in February of that year (see Oct. 15 Tr, at 14).
/s/ Anthony F. Cottone
ANTHONY F. COTTONE, ESQ.,
Hearing Officer for the Commissioner
/s/ Angelica I. Green
ANGÉLICA INFANTE-GREEN,
Commissioner
DATED: March 5, 2026