Unsatisfactory Evaluations: Oregon
Exiting Ineffective Teachers Policy
Analysis of Oregon's policies
Oregon requires that local districts implement an evaluation policy that includes a post-evaluation interview in which "a written program of assistance for improvement is established, if one is needed to remedy any deficiency." The state does not address whether a particular number of unsatisfactory evaluations would make teachers automatically eligible for dismissal.
Recommendations for Oregon
Make eligibility for dismissal a consequence of unsatisfactory evaluations.
Teachers who receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations or have two unsatisfactory evaluations within five years should be formally eligible for dismissal, regardless of whether they have tenure. Oregon should adopt a policy that ensures that teachers who receive such unsatisfactory evaluations are eligible for dismissal.
State response to our analysis
Oregon recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.
-
Oregon
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
- Admission into Preparation Programs
- Elementary Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Social Studies
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- Assessing Professional Knowledge
- Student Teaching
- Teacher Preparation Program Accountability
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Identifying Effective Teachers
- State Data Systems
- Evaluation of Effectiveness
- Frequency of Evaluations
- Tenure
- Licensure Advancement
- Equitable Distribution
Retaining Effective Teachers
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Research rationale
To review the process and types of personnel evaluations observed in other job sectors, including the problems inherent to some evaluation systems see, for example, Gliddon, David (October 2004). Effective Performance Management Systems, Current Criticisms and New Ideas for Employee Evaluation in Performance Improvement 43(9), 27-36.