Last updated: October 2026
The School District of Phillips sent families a five-paragraph letter Monday evening. Price County Fun obtained the letter, which carries a “Staff and Parents” distribution tag. It said one teacher faces criminal charges in Minnesota, that the district had suspended the teacher without pay, and that the district would not conduct its own investigation.
Quick Answer: The School District of Phillips suspended a teacher without pay after criminal charges were filed in Minnesota, according to an Oct. 26, 2026 letter Superintendent Rachel Hoffman sent to staff and parents. Hoffman wrote that the alleged conduct involved no district students and did not occur in Wisconsin, and that the district will not investigate. Wisconsin law separately requires school administrators to report certain educator misconduct to the state superintendent under Wis. Stat. 115.31, a duty that runs parallel to any local investigation.
The letter is short. The questions it leaves open are not, and parents have begun asking them in public.
What did the Phillips superintendent actually say?
Hoffman dated the letter Oct. 26 at 6:00 p.m. and addressed it to “School District of Phillips families and staff.” Five points in it are specific.
The charges are in Minnesota. Hoffman wrote that “one of our teachers is facing criminal charges in Minnesota” and that “law enforcement in Minnesota investigated and then filed the charges.”
She acknowledged probable cause, and the presumption of innocence. “Because law enforcement in Minnesota investigated and then filed the charges, there is probable cause supporting the allegations,” she wrote. “But I also note that there is a presumption of innocence.”
The suspension is unpaid. The district suspended the teacher without pay “pending resolution of that criminal matter,” on “the advice of legal counsel.”
The district narrowed the scope. Hoffman wrote that the alleged conduct “did not involve any of our students” and “did not even occur in Wisconsin.” On that basis, she wrote, “the District will not investigate.”
Employment is unresolved. The district “will reevaluate the teacher’s employment status” once the criminal matter resolves. In the meantime, Hoffman wrote, “we have taken steps to ensure that the teacher’s students will continue to receive a quality education.”
The letter does not name the teacher, describe the charges, or name the Minnesota county.
Does Wisconsin law require a district to investigate?
Not in the way a parent might assume. A district’s investigative duty and the state’s licensing duty are separate tracks, and the letter addresses only the first.
The state track
Wisconsin’s educator misconduct statute, Wis. Stat. 115.31, covers license or permit revocation, reports, and investigations. The Department of Public Instruction’s guidance describes how cases reach the state: “DPI typically receives this information through school district referrals, media reports, and individuals.”
That page also states the obligation that matters here. Under 115.31, “administrators are required to report to the state superintendent the name of a person employed by the educational agency who meets the statutorily-defined criteria.”
That is a reporting duty, not an investigative one. A district can decline to run its own inquiry and still be obligated to refer a licensed educator to the state.
What DPI does with a referral
DPI describes its role as conducting “formal investigations of licensed educators based on information received by the DPI that alleges immoral conduct.” The agency publishes a public license lookup, where an educator’s status can be checked. Educators under investigation carry a status reading “Under Investigation.”
DPI’s guidance adds a detail that speaks to the Phillips letter’s logic. “In most cases, an employing school district will be aware that their employee is under investigation by DPI,” the agency writes. “However, in cases where DPI does not have employment information about the person under investigation, DPI will not be able to notify the employing school district.”
Notification flows from employment records. It is not automatic.
Why the “we won’t investigate” line is narrower than it sounds
Hoffman’s sentence is carefully built. It rests on two factual claims: no district students were involved, and nothing happened in Wisconsin.
Both are jurisdictional arguments, not statements about severity. A district’s investigative reach is generally tied to conduct affecting its students or occurring on its watch. If both conditions fail, a local investigation has little to attach to.
What that reasoning does not address is the referral duty. A district can conclude it has nothing to investigate locally while still owing the state a report about a licensed employee. The two positions are not in conflict, and the letter does not say whether a referral was made.
That is the question the letter leaves open, and it is one the district can answer without naming anyone.
What parents are saying
They are not satisfied with the letter.
In the public Facebook group Price County Past and Present, which lists 16,000 members, a recent post asked why the situation was not in the news and why parents had not been alerted. The post drew dozens of reactions and comments.
Commenters pressed the district directly. One asked why a teacher “slipped through the cracks” and called for the superintendent’s replacement. Another wrote, “WTH is going on with Phillips School District and the predators they hire? This sort of thing has happened too often.” A third asked, “Is this person at one of our area schools?”
A Facebook thread establishes that people are asking questions. It does not establish that their claims are correct. Public comment on an open personnel matter is not evidence, and several details circulating in the thread have not been confirmed by the district.
The frustration is real and on the record, and it points at a gap the letter did not close: some parents first learned of a criminal matter involving a classroom teacher from social media, not from the district.
What happens next
The criminal case will proceed on its own schedule in Minnesota. The district has committed to revisiting employment once it resolves.
For Price County parents, three things are worth watching. Whether the district confirms it referred the matter to DPI under 115.31. Whether any educator’s license status changes in the state lookup. And whether the district says anything further to families, or leaves the Oct. 26 letter as its only statement.
Those are answerable questions. None of them require the district to name anyone.
Price County has watched its school districts navigate hard public business before, from how county government runs its meetings to how state ballot measures affect school funding. This one tests a different question: what a district owes families when the alleged conduct happens somewhere else.
Weather and public business both shape what happens here.
See also: our guide to free camping in Wisconsin
See also: our guide to Price County public records
See also: our weekend weather preview
FAQ
Did the School District of Phillips suspend a teacher?
Yes. Superintendent Rachel Hoffman wrote in an Oct. 26, 2026 letter to staff and parents that the district suspended a teacher without pay pending resolution of criminal charges filed in Minnesota, acting on the advice of legal counsel.
Why won’t the district investigate?
Hoffman wrote that the alleged conduct did not involve any district students and did not occur in Wisconsin. She framed the decision as jurisdictional: the conduct falls outside what the district would investigate locally.
Does Wisconsin law still require the district to report it?
Potentially. Wis. Stat. 115.31 requires school administrators to report to the state superintendent the name of an employee who meets the statute’s criteria. That reporting duty is separate from whether a district conducts its own investigation. The district has not said publicly whether it made a referral.
Is the teacher still being paid?
No. Hoffman’s letter states the suspension is without pay.
Were any Phillips students involved?
According to the superintendent’s letter, the alleged conduct did not involve any district students.
Sources
- School District of Phillips — letter from Superintendent Rachel Hoffman to district staff and parents, Oct. 26, 2026 (obtained by Price County Fun)
- Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction — Reporting Educator Misconduct
- Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction — License Lookup
- Wisconsin Statutes — Wis. Stat. 115.31, license or permit revocation; reports; investigations
- School District of Phillips — Staff Directory