Opinion: Are We Using Feedback To Terminate Veteran Educators?
When employee feedback turns into weaponizing policy
We’re beginning to see educators in Tecumseh, those with 5-10 years of experience and/or multiple qualifications, being targeted by administrators for a litany of offenses that eventually build a paper trail. This process is not uncommon when money gets tight, or when there’s a new boss in town. It’s unclear why we’re seeing this trend in TPS currently. We are tight on money however, and there is a new boss in town. You might be unsure what to do, or where to go. I’ll try to explain your options as best as I can.
Salary Driven Termination
The economics are undeniable. A teacher with twenty-five years of experience and a master’s degree plus 30 credits can easily earn $90,000–$110,000 in much of the Midwest and Northeast, plus generous pension and health-care contributions. A first-year teacher with a bachelor’s degree starts closer to $42,000–$55,000. Replacing just five veteran teachers with rookies can free up $250,000–$350,000 annually—enough to close a sizable portion of a typical district deficit without raising taxes or cutting programs that affect public perception (athletics, AP classes, elementary art). In an era of flat or declining enrollment, expiring federal COVID relief, and voter resistance to millage increases, the temptation is enormous.
“Papering the File”, as it’s referred to by industry insiders, happens across many industries. To write this article, I consulted with an Ethics Officer (EO) at a Fortune 500 company who happens to be a friend of mine. He explained that, while this practice is widespread, it comes down to intent. If an organization chooses to “tighten up” on employees breaking or deviating from policy, their past adherence to policy (and the policy itself) is examined. Employees with a good history that suddenly receive write-ups (or “observations” as it’s called here) continually can be a red flag.
Another red flag is when the same policies are not enforced unilaterally. If Joe Employee is cited for arriving to a meeting late, was Jim Employee cited for the same offense, if committed? If the same employees are continually cited for the same offense that other employees are not cited for, this becomes grounds for harassment. Yes, you can make a mistake, be cited for the mistake, and it still qualify as harassment. It’s often hard to prove, but it’s easier when it’s as widespread as it is currently.
Finally, policy is key. In my experience at THS, guilt was assumed. The vice principal was judge, jury, and executioner without oversight. We are told by Edustaff that this is just the way it goes as contractors. While they’re not wrong, ultimately administrators are the final word in disputes, it’s a bit different when it comes to full time employees. An “observation” must be observed, not reported on by the principal or vice principal’s henchmen. Those who receive derogatory remarks have a right to challenge those remarks or elevate their challenge.
I will provide the process and course of action for those who believe they have been unfairly targeted. I ask that employees exhaust their options at least up to the district level (Matt Hilton) before asking for this blog to publish the details of your specific situation. I understand that many of you came to me because you already have reached this level, as I had. If a need arises for a future article on this topic, my goal is to use all feedback submitted as an example of how the process is broken and needs further oversight. I hope it doesn’t come to that.
Statewide Framework for Evaluations
Michigan law requires annual (or less frequent for high performers) rigorous, transparent evaluations focusing primarily on teacher/administrator performance, with only 20% tied to student growth or learning objectives (down from 40% pre-2024 reforms). Derogatory ratings trigger support plans, but employees can contest them to prevent impacts on tenure, certification, or employment. Key protections include:
Mandatory Feedback and Review: Within 30 days of an observation or final rating, employees receive written feedback. They can request a formal review of any rating, especially “needing support.”
No Punitive Use: Evaluations cannot directly inform tenure denial, certification revocation, or immediate dismissal without additional process.
Rater Training: Evaluators (e.g., principals) must complete rater reliability training every three years to ensure fairness.
These apply uniformly to TPS, as confirmed by Michigan Department of Education (MDE) guidelines.
Step-by-Step Process to Challenge an Evaluation
Employees at TPS follow this multi-tiered process, blending informal resolution, formal review, and escalation. Timelines are strict to protect due process.
Informal Discussion (Recommended First Step):
Immediately after receiving feedback, discuss concerns with the evaluator (e.g., principal or superintendent designee). This is not required by law but encouraged under PERA (Public Employment Relations Act, MCL 423.201 et seq.) for collaborative resolution.
Document the conversation in writing for your records.
Formal Request for Review:
Submit a written request to the superintendent (or intermediate superintendent for district-level issues) within 30 days of receiving the rating.
The district must provide a written response within 30 days, addressing the disagreement and any evidence.
If unresolved, proceed to mediation or grievance.
Mediation via Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC):
Request mediation through MERC, Michigan’s labor relations body, at no cost to the employee. This is a neutral, facilitated discussion under PERA.
MERC mediators help negotiate a resolution without binding decisions. This step is available for any disputed rating but is especially relevant for “needing support.”
Grievance Procedure (via Collective Bargaining Agreement - CBA):
As a mandatory subject of bargaining since 2024 reforms, TPS’s CBA with TEA likely includes evaluation grievances.
File a formal grievance alleging violation of the CBA, state law, or evaluation fairness (e.g., biased rater or insufficient evidence).
Standard steps (per typical MEA-affiliated CBAs):
Level 1: Building principal (within 10-20 school days of the incident).
Level 2: Superintendent (escalate if unresolved).
Level 3: School board hearing.
Grievances can vacate a rating if successful, exempting the employee from future evaluations that year.
Binding Arbitration (for Repeated or Severe Cases):
If rated “needing support” twice consecutively, demand arbitration under the CBA or individual contract.
If the CBA lacks a binding arbitration clause, file a demand with MERC within 30 days of the superintendent’s response. Arbitration is through the American Arbitration Association (AAA) or similar, with a neutral third-party deciding the outcome (binding and enforceable).
Costs are typically shared, but unions often cover employee fees.
Final Thoughts
I’ve found it’s better to assume best intent and be wrong than to walk in “guns blazing”. Document your case professionally. Include names, dates, and policies wherever possible. Consider speaking with your local union rep or an attorney if needed. My emphasis on “bringing receipts” is covered in more detail in my previous article here: Bring The Receipts!
I will be reviewing the cases you’ve sent me in the coming weeks to determine if they meet the criteria for elevating beyond the district (by publishing the complaints). I need to ensure educators are exhausting their available resources here in the district first, which includes giving Mr. Hilton the opportunity to resolve issues at his level. I must also ensure that, by eventually publishing details, I’m not interfering with any ongoing investigations or mediations. Please know that I hear you, and I’ll do whatever is within my ability to help.
Thanks for reading!