By DONNA KENNY KIRWAN

PAWTUCKET — The state educacommissioner for elementary and seconday education has upheld the dismissal of a non-tenured Slater Junior High School English teacher who had been fighting to get reinstated.

John E. Carr, a third-year, probationary teacher whose contract was not renewed for the 2005-2006 school year, had allegedly been cited for “classroom control issues” by Principal Meredith Caswell and had not been recommended for rehiring by Schools Supt. Hans Dellith. The School Committee upheld that decision.
However, state education Commissioner Peter McWalters ruled that Carr was not entitled to reinstatement because he had failed to show that the Pawtucket School Committee couldn’t find a better qualified teacher for the position he had held, which was the “burden of proof” needed to overturn the School Committee’s decision.
McWalters also ruled that Carr had also not proved two other claims: that his non-renewal violated the city’s teacher contract and that it was in retaliation for his absence from school due to a job-related injury.
Attempts to reach both Carr and Dellith to comment on the matter were unsuccessful.
According to documents related to the case, Carr, through legal counsel, had appealed the School Committee’s decision to McWalters on Nov. 20, 2006.
The appeal followed a written decision by the School Committee issued on Nov. 14, 2006, in which it sustained its prior non-renewal of Carr’s contract as a non-tenured teacher in the school district.
The documents state that Carr “met the standard” for evaluations during his first and second years of teaching, but problems with classroom management surfaced after his evaluation in December 2004.
Among the latter are complaints about bad conduct that prompted Principal Meredith Caswell to ban Carr’s students from using the school’s computer laboratory. It was also noted that, on a couple of occasions, Carr had sent students who misbehaved into the corridor where they remained unsupervised, instead of sending them to the assistant principals’s office as school policy directs.
Additionally, Caswell testified that she had observed “kids running around, lots of noise, some chaos,” and on one occasion, after pulling her car into the school’s parking lot, saw students “hanging out of the windows of the third floor classroom that Mr. Carr was using at the time.”
Caswell testified that she had discussed thse classroom control issues with Carr in November 2005 and told him she needed to see improvement.
Caswell again met with Carr on Nov. 17, 2005,  to give him a “heads up” that she would not be recommending him for tenure. A few days later, Carr was injured, reportedly when a female student pulled a chair out from under him and he fell during class. He was absent for five months, receiving workers’ compensation benefits from November of 2005 until April 7, 2006.
Based on the recommendation from Caswell, Dellith notified Carr that he planned to present a recommendation to the School Committee that his contract not be renewed. The School Committee voted, for the first time on Feb. 14, 2006, not to renew Carr’s contract.
Counsel for Carr argued that evidence showed he “was and is the best teacher available for the position he held.”
While not captured in the formal evaluation process, Carr, his counsel noted, “consisted demonstrated his commitment to Slater students by participating in after-school programs, coaching sports and chaperoning dances, and also routinely called parents of his students to give them progress reports.” Therefore, he argued, the non-renewal of his contract was based on an “arbitrary and capricious decision.”
Through counsel, Carr also maintained that comments made on separate occasions by Caswell and Dellith both referred to his 90-day absence, and he suggested that his non-renewal was based on “illegal retaliation” for receiving workers’ compensation benefits.
Carr also maintained that he was not evaluated during his third probationary year and, as such, was not provided with written feedback sufficient to give him a fair opportunity to improve his performance.
Counsel for the School Committee submitted that Carr had not shown evidence that a better teacher was not available. In fact, he said evidence from Caswell and her assistant supports the conslucison that not only that a better teacher would be available, but that Carr had “serious performance issues, particularly in the area of classroom management.”
On the matter of the performance review, both administrators testified that while they saw improvement in Carr’s second year at Slater, his performance had deteriorated after his review of December 20, 2004.
The School Committee pointed out that while Carr’s extracurricular work is commendable, his ability to perform the primary functions of his classroom job was at issue.
School Commitee counsel also wrote that any notion that Carr’s renewal was in retaliation for his extended absence because of a work-related injury is dispelled by the fact that Caswell’s decision was made, and communicated to Carr, several days before he was injured.
The commissioner upheld most of the basic findings of the School Committee, including the assertions by Carr that he hadn’t received proper assessment and time to make improvements.
McWalters also wrote that the contractual decision that entitles a Pawtucket teacher on workers compensation to return to his original position has not been violated, because Carr was allowed to return to work on May 1, 2006, to his position at Slater.