Unfair Labor Practices cited in Hopkins Public Schools

By Gari Voss
The ruling on an Unfair Labor Practice complaint filed by the Hopkins Education Association (HEA) against the Hopkins Public Schools District was released on April 12, 2022. Michigan Employment Relations Commission Administrative Law Judge David M. Peltz deemed that the Hopkins School Board did indeed act unfairly when it set a policy to deny a teacher the ability to advance on the pay scale or receive additional compensation because of unsatisfactory evaluation ratings over a two-year period.
The conversation regarding unsatisfactory teacher evaluations leading to losing advancement on the pay scale had been discussed during contract renewals, but the HEA nixed the concept.
Jacob Oaster, president of the HEA, stated, “Once the contract was negotiated and ratified without a freeze in pay for unsatisfactory evaluations, the HPS Board created a policy that would tie teacher evaluation to compensation. This is what was considered unfair practice.”
Rather than delete the policy regarding compensation when the HEA posed objection, the HPS Board decided to let it go to the Employment Relations Commission. This became another bone of contention for Oaster and the HEA.
“It was a waste of money to let this issue go to court. In addition, the Board’s actions caused a rift in the relations between the teachers and the administration. There is a teacher shortage and the policy did not create a school environment that would welcome new teachers,” added Oaster. “It is actions such as this that cause teachers to leave the profession.”
While Oaster believed that the HPS Board was circumventing the bargained contract, aka Labor Agreement, he did not know the reasoning for this action.
A review of the Revised School Code 380, Section 1249, found that it includes the requirements for performance evaluations – how and when the rating of teachers as highly effective, effective, minimally effective or ineffective is done.
Ineffective teachers and administrators must be given “ample opportunities for improvement”. This can include “providing relevant coaching, instruction support, or professional development.”
The law continues that “The board of a school district or intermediate school district or board of directors of a public school academy shall ensure that the performance evaluation system for teachers meets” all of the requirements listed.
Section 1250 then becomes the legal reference for compensation. Subsection (1) states, “Except as otherwise provided in this section, a school district, public school academy, or intermediate school district shall implement and maintain a method of compensation for its teachers and school administrators that includes job performance and job accomplishments as a significant factor in determining compensation and additional compensation.”
It is the “otherwise stated” that may have made the greatest determination in the ruling for the HEA. Subsection 1250(2) states, “If a collective bargaining agreement is in effect for teachers or school administrators of a school district, public school academy, or intermediate school district as of January 4, 2010, and if that collective bargaining agreement prevents compliance with subsection (1), then subsection (1) does not apply to that school district, public school academy, or intermediate school district until after the expiration of that collective bargaining agreement.”
But, subsection (3) continues, “For teachers and school administrators who are hired by a community district after September 1, 2019, the community district shall implement and maintain a method of compensation that includes job performance and job accomplishments as the primary factor in determining compensation and additional compensation. A teacher’s or school administrator’s job performance shall be evaluated based on the teacher’s annual evaluation under section 1249 or the school administrator’s annual evaluation under section 1249b, as applicable.”
Superintendent Gary Wood shared, “The Board created the policy after consulting with attorneys. The advice given included State School Aid Act of 1979 regarding appropriations to aid public schools and performance-based compensation. We felt that if we did not comply with the law, we would lose about 5% of our allocated funds (approximately $650,000). We cannot afford to lose programs or teachers.”
At tonight’s monthly School Board meeting (May 16, 2021), Wood expects the Board to expunge Policy 3221.
One point that both Wood and Oaster made was that none of the Hopkins Public School teachers have rated below effective. Therefore, none have been affected one way or another by the new policy.
While the Board feels that the Unfair Labor Practice Charge may have been attained with “flawed reasoning” on the part of Judge Peltz. The Board does not wish to contest the decision at this time.
Oaster feels decisions like this have caused teachers to leave the profession and the Hopkins district. “There is a wider gap of mistrust between teachers and the Board of Education that must be bridged to improve relations between teachers and the Board.”
At this time, the Board feels there will be no financial penalty and no teacher has been affected. A media statement shared, “The Board is committed to continue its work with the HEA, teachers and staff members to provide the best educational outcomes for the District’s children.”