PFAE

08/29/2026

𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗗𝗢 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗧𝗘𝗔𝗖𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗦 𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗟𝗟 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗔 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗧?

Today, we want to explain the negotiation process with a bargaining unit in a public school system.

This is especially relevant right now because the largest employee group in the Grosse Pointe Public School System, our teachers and counselors, still does not have a settled contract.

Every other employee group already has a contract, all with terms longer than anyone has seen in years. Our teachers start on Tuesday. Why don’t they have a contract?

When teachers have started a school year without a settled contract in the past, it has occurred during some of the district’s most difficult periods of labor relations. Reaching that point again would signal a level of disagreement and instability that our schools do not need.

𝗛𝗢𝗪 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗡𝗘𝗚𝗢𝗧𝗜𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗖𝗘𝗦𝗦 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞?

The Board majority sets the bargaining parameters, and the administration negotiates within them. Any tentative agreement then returns to the Board for public approval.

As we were told when the administrators’ tentative agreement was reached, it would look very bad for the Board to reject an agreement already signed by the administration. That means the real decision is made when the Board majority establishes the parameters, not when the final agreement appears on a public agenda.

Board President Clint Derringer has excused himself from negotiations because he has publicly stated that his spouse’s membership in the GPEA creates a conflict. That leaves Vice President Colleen Worden to lead or provide direction on behalf of the Board majority.

The administration works from the parameters set by the Board to negotiate with the bargaining team representing the GPEA.

𝗦𝗢 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗜𝗦 𝗛𝗢𝗟𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗨𝗣 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗡𝗘𝗚𝗢𝗧𝗜𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦?

We can only surmise what Colleen Worden and the Board majority are requiring based on the information the GPEA has made public.

The biggest issue is that the Board is not willing to offer teachers terms on par with those provided to other district employees.

Every other employee group received annual increases of 3 percent through three- or four-year agreements. In the case of administrators, the combination of a raise and fewer working days amounted to an improvement of approximately 3 percent. For some reason, teachers and counselors were offered less.

We may not know the exact parameters established in closed session, but we can see the result: no contract. If the majority wanted those parameters changed, they would have changed them.

𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗜𝗦 𝗟𝗘𝗔𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗢𝗔𝗥𝗗 𝗠𝗔𝗝𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗧𝗬?

Colleen Worden has repeatedly demonstrated that she leads the Board majority and that the majority will follow her direction.

She led Valarie St. John and Laura Hull into what appeared to be an ambush over the superintendent’s evaluation. She led the effort to reconsider a swim grant that had already been approved, resulting in the funding being denied. She has also led a Board majority that has refused to establish a Finance Committee, even though Tim Klepp previously supported creating one.

She also led the Board’s handling of the law-enforcement camera-access MOU. To date, only municipalities on the south end have agreed to the strict parameters contained in the Worden-revised MOU. As a result, the district still does not have a districtwide working agreement in place to protect all our students.

Whether the issue has been the superintendent’s evaluation, an approved grant, the refusal to establish a Finance Committee, or school security, Worden has demonstrated her influence over the Board majority. Given her pattern of directing that majority, it is fair to ask why she has not provided the administration with parameters that would allow it to reach an agreement.

𝗜𝗧 𝗜𝗦 𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗢𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥 𝗕𝗢𝗔𝗥𝗗 𝗠𝗘𝗠𝗕𝗘𝗥𝗦 𝗧𝗢 𝗦𝗣𝗘𝗔𝗞 𝗨𝗣

The other Board members are not relieved of responsibility because Worden is leading the group.

Two other members of the Board majority need to step outside of her shadow and speak up in favor of new bargaining parameters that give the administration the authority to reach a fair agreement with the district’s teachers and counselors.
At this point, the question is not only why Colleen Worden has not provided that direction.

It is why other members of the Board majority, Trustee Hull and Trustee Klepp, have not spoken up in favor of parameters that could allow an agreement to be reached with our largest bargaining unit. If they had, it is likely the district isn't heading into the school year without a contract.

08/24/2026

BEFORE THE FORUM, READ THEIR ANSWERS.

With candidate forums approaching, voters have an opportunity to see where GPPSS School Board candidates stand on the issues they may actually face if elected.

Pointers for Academic Excellence asked every candidate actively seeking election the same 13 questions:

• Schools of Choice
• Reopening Trombly
• Enrollment and school buildings
• Employee compensation and spending priorities
• Class size and staffing
• A Board finance committee
• Donations and outside organizations
• Political influence on Board decisions
• Education and financial experience
• Armed School Resource Officers

Participating candidates’ complete responses are published in their own words. PfAE has not summarized, characterized or altered their answers.

Read the answers before the forums. Compare what the candidates have to say. Decide for yourself.

https://www.pf-ae.org/gppss-school-board-candidates

08/20/2026

If you are trying to understand the issue with police access to school security cameras, here is some background. The school year is about to start, and almost nine months after the Board approved the policy to allow camera access for law enforcement, there is an MOU in place covering South but not North. A districtwide, Board-approved school-safety measure has been implemented in only half of the district.

We raised concerns last fall when Trustee Worden, on the advice of Maureen Krasner, a private citizen and vocal supporter of the Board majority, reworked a superintendent-recommended policy for camera access and became directly involved with local law enforcement. The reworked policy, filled with layers of provisions and caveats, was initially rejected by the municipalities.

The camera resolution was ultimately approved unanimously in November. That will be used to suggest everyone agreed with how it was handled. Board members said at the time that the resolution was not perfect, but they were willing to approve it because getting police access in place was more important than delaying it any longer.

Almost nine months later, there is still no agreement at Grosse Pointe North.

Trustee Worden has spent years talking about inequities between the two ends of this district. We are now beginning a school year with a safety policy in place at South and not at North. Why has this not been resolved?

Dr. Tuttle announced her retirement in January, and Roy Bishop became the Board-appointed successor in March. During the transition, Bishop reorganized central administration, created new positions and built the administrative structure he would lead. This is the responsibility of the acting superintendent, Dr. Bishop.

This is also a Board that has spent considerable time insulating its decisions and excluding viewpoints that challenge the majority. When so much attention is spent controlling the process and limiting who has a meaningful voice in it, other priorities get less attention.

School is starting without a teacher contract. While teachers negotiated throughout the summer, the district prioritized four-year agreements with 3% annual increases for paraprofessional, plant and office units. Four-year commitments were made to three other employee groups while teachers were offered two years and allowed to reach contract expiration without an agreement.

These are the kinds of outcomes you get when you give unchecked authority by majority but all is not lost.

This can be prevented in November by electing independent voices, not by arming this Board majority with more of their loyal supporters.

We will update the community when the North agreement is signed. For the safety of GPPSS students, we hope Dr. Bishop acts swiftly to get this resolved.

08/17/2026

GPPSS SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATE INFORMATION

Pointers for Academic Excellence invited each candidate actively seeking election to the GPPSS Board of Education to answer the same 13 questions about the issues facing our district.

We have also provided links to the candidates’ campaign pages so voters can learn more about them directly.

Candidate responses are published in their own words. PfAE has not summarized, characterized or altered their answers.

THE QUESTIONS

SCHOOLS OF CHOICE

Do you support introducing Schools of Choice in GPPSS? Please explain why or why not, including any suggested grade levels and enrollment conditions.

TROMBLY

Do you support reopening Trombly as an elementary school? Please provide your reasoning and the metrics, including enrollment, financial and facilities considerations, you would prioritize.

SCHOOL BUILDINGS

Given the district’s enrollment trends, under what circumstances, if any, should the district consider consolidating, closing, reopening or repurposing a school?

FINANCIAL PRIORITIES

When financial resources are limited, how would you prioritize employee compensation, classroom needs, student programs, technology, facilities and central-office staffing?

FINANCE COMMITTEE

Do you support creating a standing Board finance committee? Please detail your thoughts on its responsibilities, composition and community member involvement.

CLASS SIZE, STAFFING AND BUILDING USE

How should the district balance class size, staffing, course offerings and building utilization? What data would you use to measure efficiency without compromising educational quality?

ENROLLMENT

What do you believe are the primary drivers of enrollment within our community, and what specific steps should the district take to attract and retain more resident students?

USE OF DISTRICT BUILDINGS

What policies or guardrails should govern the use of district buildings by outside organizations? Should the same standards be applied consistently across all classifications of groups, particularly when their activities could affect the district’s public image or create the appearance of district endorsement? If different standards are appropriate, please explain what distinctions justify them.

DONATIONS

What standards should the district use when deciding whether to accept donations from outside organizations? Should an organization’s political or advocacy stance impact this?

BOARD DECISION-MAKING

How will you ensure that your decisions remain focused on the needs of GPPSS students and residents rather than national political debates or pressure from organized groups?

EDUCATION EXPERIENCE

What experience do you have in education, and how has it prepared you to make decisions affecting students, teachers and academic programs?

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE

What experience do you have with budgets, financial oversight or long-term financial planning, and how would you apply that experience as a Board member?

SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS

Do you support having an armed School Resource Officer assigned to each GPPSS high school? Why or why not? Please explain what role the officer should have and how the program should be funded.

READ THE COMPLETE RESPONSES

Read each participating candidate’s complete answers and visit the candidates’ campaign pages here:

https://www.pf-ae.org/gppss-school-board-candidates

PfAE is not telling voters what conclusions to reach. We are providing the candidates’ answers and links to their own campaign information so the community can hear directly from the people actively seeking to serve on the GPPSS Board of Education.

Read. Compare. Decide.

08/16/2026

We are thrilled to learn that the remaining funding needed for the Grosse Pointe North Band and Orchestra instruments has been provided!

That was the goal.

When PfAE raised this issue publicly, we did so because students had an identified need and the funding had not yet been secured. We offered to provide it. Within days, the remaining need was filled by someone else.

Whether the money came from PfAE or another generous donor was never the important part. The instruments were.

Thank you to whoever made the donation. The students win, the program gets what it needs, and PfAE couldn’t be happier with that outcome.

08/15/2026

PART ONE: WHAT IS BEING OFFERED TO TEACHERS?

Negotiations began in May. The district had the entire summer to reach an agreement but did not. The teachers’ contract has now expired, and the school year is beginning without a new agreement.

In an August 15 bargaining update to its members, the GPEA outlined the district’s current offer: a two-year agreement with a 2% to 3% increase in the first year, depending on where a teacher falls on the salary schedule, followed by 3% for everyone in the second year.

That is not 3% across the board in year one. Some teachers would receive less, and the agreement would provide only two years of stability.

Meanwhile, the district has already reached four-year agreements with the paraprofessional, plant and office units covering FY27 through FY30, with 3% annual increases. The district also handled the administrative agreement before reaching an agreement with teachers.

Every employee group has different priorities and compensation structures. However, settling three units at the same percentage over the same four-year period creates an obvious point of comparison. Teachers are being offered less in the first year and an agreement only half as long.

Based on our financial model, giving every teacher a uniform 3% increase in each of the next two years would result in a compounded 6.09% increase. The model projects approximately $14.8 million in fund equity after the first year and $11.5 million after the second.

We also modeled a 4% increase in each year to consider what it might take to improve the district’s competitive position more meaningfully. Those increases would compound to 8.16%, with projected fund equity of approximately $14.2 million after the first year and $9.9 million after the second.

These figures are estimates, not an official district forecast. Our model includes estimated costs for the other employee agreements, but the district has not publicly provided their complete financial impact. Enrollment, healthcare, staffing, state funding and other compensation changes could affect the actual balances.

The district should release its own multiyear analysis showing the full cost of every agreement already approved, its current teacher proposal and uniform 3% and 4% increases. That analysis should include enrollment projections, expected per-pupil revenue, staffing assumptions, healthcare costs and the fund-equity minimum being used.

Trustee Colleen Worden previously oversaw and defended budgets that reduced the district’s fund equity to approximately $8 million because she argued that the spending was necessary to support students. Our model projects approximately $11.5 million remaining under a 3% and 3% agreement and $9.9 million under a 4% and 4% agreement.

Is the district now operating under a new fund-equity formula or minimum balance? If so, what is that minimum, when was it established and what financial analysis supports it? If no new minimum has been adopted, the Board should explain why fund-equity levels above those previously accepted are now limiting what it can offer teachers.

The Board must also explain whether its proposal would improve Grosse Pointe’s ability to recruit and retain teachers. If surrounding districts are providing comparable increases, 3% may only raise salaries without closing the competitive gap.

Three years ago, Trustee Worden, Trustee St. John and many of their most vocal supporters argued that not extending administrators whose contracts had not yet expired created damaging uncertainty and instability. Administrative departures were repeatedly cited as evidence of those consequences.

The teachers’ contract has now actually expired, but beginning the school year without a successor agreement has not produced that same level of concern. If contractual certainty was essential for administrators, it should also matter for the teachers serving every classroom in the district.

Our teachers and our community deserve answers at the next Board Meeting on August 17. Getting this agreement right matters to the district’s finances, its ability to retain excellent educators and the stability of its schools.

Our priority is the expired contract but the public also deserves an explanation for a middle-school advisory proposal introduced by the administration one day before the contract expired. That proposal could reduce academic instructional time, add responsibilities for teachers, and create additional curriculum expenses, something we will examine in Part Two.

08/14/2026

The Grosse Pointe North Band and Orchestra program has requested help purchasing much-needed musical instruments. Pointers for Academic Excellence is prepared to provide the remaining funding needed to fulfill that request.

PfAE has formally requested to be placed on the agenda for the August 17 Board of Education meeting so the Board can consider accepting this donation.

The need has been identified, the funding is available, and PfAE is ready to provide it. It is time for this Board to put kids above politics and focus on getting our students the instruments they need.

The Board meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. and includes two public comment periods for community members to share their opinions. Anyone who supports accepting this donation is encouraged to attend and make that support known.

08/04/2026

The district is creating yet another central-office position specifically to free the newly hired Chief Personnel Officer from day-to-day HR responsibilities so she can focus on “executive leadership,” “strategic workforce planning” and “Board and Superintendent priorities.”

Free her from what? The new Senior Employee Relations Specialist will conduct investigations, interpret contracts, handle grievances, draft disciplinary documents and oversee employment compliance. Those sound like the central responsibilities of the personnel office.

The district elevated this position into a new title and pay band while claiming its legal expertise would help reduce outside legal bills. It then hired someone without the requested JD. Now taxpayers may spend another $74,000 plus benefits for her “primary professional HR partner,” who also is not required to have a JD.

Meanwhile, a band director is using GoFundMe to buy instruments and teachers are negotiating for a fair contract.

Students fundraise. Teachers negotiate. Central office gets freed up for strategy.

08/03/2026

The Pointers for Academic Excellence Summer 2026 Newsletter is linked below.

Inside, you will find our perspective on the 26-27 Budget, the Central Office reorganization, and links to our podcast.
It also includes info about the new superintendent, the candidates for the November Board elections, as well as school calendars and voting information.

We look forward to seeing you at events this Fall!

Check out this US Letter designed by Glen Hipple.

07/30/2026

This clip provides context for our recap of the July 27 board meeting.

Board President Derringer placed the three-year administrator agreement on the agenda for approval after only one reading. Trustee Cotton moved to require a more transparent first- and second-read process, supported by Trustee Jeup. The motion passed, with Trustees Hull, St. John and Worden voting to proceed with an immediate vote.

During the discussion, President Derringer incorrectly stated that the agreement had been discussed at the previous meeting. Trustee Worden immediately used that claim to scold Cotton for missing the meeting and suggest he had already had an opportunity to participate. The record was then corrected: the agreement had not been discussed.

The contrast is striking. Cotton missed the meeting but sought more information and asked the district to prioritize the GPEA agreement. Worden attended the meeting, yet used an incorrect account of it to criticize him publicly.

Dr. Bishop offered a useful standard for district leadership: communicate accurately, lower the temperature, and avoid creating narratives without the facts. That standard was not met here by Trustee Worden.

Thankfully, the motion passed. The administrator agreement will receive the public review it should have had from the beginning, while the administration prioritizes reaching a fair agreement with the GPEA.

Our comments also raised questions about the June check register, including $151,581.70 paid to outside law firms. We will examine the district’s rising legal costs, how they were budgeted and reported, and why eight months of Clark Hill invoices were paid together at year-end. The public deserves answers.