342.850
Teacher evaluation; personnel file content; rules. (1) The district superintendent of
every school district, including superintendents of education service
districts, shall cause to have made at least annually but with multiple
observations an evaluation of performance for each probationary teacher employed
by the district. The purpose of the evaluation is to aid the teacher in making
continuing professional growth and to determine the teacher’s performance of
the teaching responsibilities. Evaluations shall be based upon at least two
observations and other relevant information developed by the district.
(2)(a) The
district school board shall develop an evaluation process in consultation with
school administrators and with teachers. If the district’s teachers are
represented by a local bargaining organization, the board shall consult with
teachers belonging to and appointed by the local bargaining organization in the
consultation required by this paragraph.
(b) The district
school board shall implement the evaluation process that includes:
(A) The
establishment of job descriptions and performance standards which include but
are not limited to items included in the job description;
(B) A
preevaluation interview which includes but is not limited to the establishment
of performance goals for the teacher, based on the job description and
performance standards;
(C) An evaluation
based on written criteria which include the performance goals;
(D) A
post-evaluation interview in which:
(i) The results
of the evaluation are discussed with the teacher; and
(ii) A written
program of assistance for improvement is established, if one is needed to
remedy any deficiency specified in ORS 342.865 (1)(a), (d), (g) or (h); and
(E) The
utilization of peer assistance whenever practicable and reasonable to aid
teachers to better meet the needs of students. Peer assistance shall be
voluntary and subject to the terms of any applicable collective bargaining
agreement. No witness or document related to the peer assistance or the record
of peer assistance shall be admissible in any proceeding before the Fair
Dismissal Appeals Board, or in a probationary teacher nonrenewal hearing before
a school board under ORS 342.835, without the mutual consent of the district
and the teacher provided with peer assistance.
(c) Nothing in
this subsection is intended to prohibit a district from consulting with any
other individuals.
(3) Except in
those districts having an average daily membership, as defined in ORS 327.006,
of fewer than 200 students, the person or persons making the evaluations must
hold teaching licenses. The evaluation shall be signed by the school official
who supervises the teacher and by the teacher. A copy of the evaluation shall
be delivered to the teacher.
(4) The
evaluation reports shall be maintained in the personnel files of the district.
(5) The
evaluation report shall be placed in the teacher’s personnel file only after
reasonable notice to the teacher.
(6) A teacher may
make a written statement relating to any evaluation, reprimand, charge, action
or any matter placed in the teacher’s personnel file and such teacher’s
statement shall be placed in the personnel file.
(7) All charges
resulting in disciplinary action shall be considered a permanent part of a
teacher’s personnel file and shall not be removed for any reason. A teacher
shall have the right to attach the teacher’s response, or other relevant
documents, to any document included under this subsection.
(8) The personnel
file shall be open for inspection by the teacher, the teacher’s designees and
the district school board and its designees. District school boards shall adopt
rules governing access to personnel files, including rules specifying whom
school officials may designate to inspect personnel files.
(9) A program of
assistance for improvement or evaluation procedure shall not be technically
construed, and no alleged error or unfairness in a program of assistance for
improvement shall cause the overturning of a dismissal, nonextension of
contract, nonrenewal of contract or other disciplinary action unless the
contract teacher suffered a substantial and prejudicial impairment in the
teacher’s ability to comply with school district standards. [1971 c.570 §5;
1973 c.298 §3; 1973 c.458 §1; 1977 c.881 §3; 1979 c.598 §1; 1979 c.668 §2a;
1987 c.663 §1; 1989 c.491 §29; 1997 c.864 §9]
342.855 [1965 c.608 §8; repealed by 1971
c.570 §15]
Notes of Decisions
Oregonian Publ'g Co. v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 987 P.2d 480 (Or. 1999).
· cites it 20× “500(2)(h) (1985) exempted from disclosure “[p]ublic records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential or privileged under * * * ORS 342.850 * * ORS 192.500(2)(h) (1985) attempted to list every statute outside the public…”
Oregonian Publ'g Co. v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 952 P.2d 66 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 19× “See ORS 342.850. Because the only source for much of that information is the personnel files, denying the public access to the files serves, and is intended to serve, to deny the public access to the information.”
Smith v. Sch. Dist. No. 45, 666 P.2d 1345 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 20× “1 By writ of review and actions for declaratory relief and breach of contract, 2 she sought, inter alia, reinstatement and attorney fees for alleged violations of the teacher evaluation statute (ORS 342.850), the public records law (ORS 192.”
Oregonian Publ'g Co. v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 925 P.2d 591 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 10× “502(8) and ORS 342.850(7). On September 8, 1993, The Oregonian 1 filed this action for injunctive relief under the public records inspection law, asking the trial court to compel the school district to turn over all records relating to the investigation.”
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 657 P.2d 188 (Or. 1982).
· cites it 4× “107, and to adopt standards of performance for teachers, ORS 342.850(2)(b)(A). ORS 332.107 provides: "Each district school board may establish rules for the government of the schools and pupils consistent with the rules of the State Board of Education.”
Colby v. Gunson, 199 P.3d 350 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “502(9) as including ORS 342.850, a statute on teacher personnel files that had earlier been listed in former ORS 192.”
Springfield Educ. Ass'n v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 549 P.2d 1141 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 3× “The basis for ERB’s decision was that the area of teacher evaluation was pre-empted by the enactment of ORS 342.850. In their petition for reconsideration the education associations argue that this is inconsistent with our opinion in Sutherlin.”
Springfield Educ. Ass'n v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 621 P.2d 547 (Or. 1980).
“regarding clarity of definition of evaluative criteria within the aspects of the complainants’ proposals about which respondent school districts are ordered to cease and desist from refusing to bargain.”
Guard Publ'g Co. v. Lane Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 4J, 791 P.2d 854 (Or. 1990).
· cites it 2× “502(8) and ORS 342.850(7), and that, if the information was not exempt, the Inspection of Public Records law violates Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution by depriving public teachers of the privilege and immunities enjoyed by private teachers.”
Springfield Sch. Dist. 19 v. Guard Publ'g Co., 967 P.2d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 8× “505 and ORS 342.850. The trial court ruled, however, that the documents are not exempt from disclosure and further ruled, in the alternative, that the district had waived any applicable exemption.”
Lincoln Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Mayer, 591 P.2d 755 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 2× “865, then evidence shall be limited to those allegations supported by statements in the personnel file of the teacher on the date of the notice to recommend dismissal, maintained as required in ORS 342.850. Notice shall also be sent to the district school board and to the Fair…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.850(1) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.850(2) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.850(2)(b)(A) — 2 cases
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 657 P.2d 188 (Or. 1982).
“107, and to adopt standards of performance for teachers, ORS 342.850(2)(b)(A). ORS 332.107 provides: "Each district school board may establish rules for the government of the schools and pupils consistent with the rules of the State Board of Education.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.850(5) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.850(7) — 5 cases
Oregonian Publ'g Co. v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 925 P.2d 591 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“502(8) and ORS 342.850(7). On September 8, 1993, The Oregonian 1 filed this action for injunctive relief under the public records inspection law, asking the trial court to compel the school district to turn over all records relating to the investigation.”
Guard Publ'g Co. v. Lane Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 4J, 791 P.2d 854 (Or. 1990).
“502(8) and ORS 342.850(7), and that, if the information was not exempt, the Inspection of Public Records law violates Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution by depriving public teachers of the privilege and immunities enjoyed by private teachers.”
Oregonian Publ'g Co. v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 987 P.2d 480 (Or. 1999).
“500(2)(h) (1985) exempted from disclosure “[p]ublic records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential or privileged under * * * ORS 342.850 * * ORS 192.500(2)(h) (1985) attempted to list every statute outside the public…”
Springfield Sch. Dist. 19 v. Guard Publ'g Co., 967 P.2d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“505 and ORS 342.850. The trial court ruled, however, that the documents are not exempt from disclosure and further ruled, in the alternative, that the district had waived any applicable exemption.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.850(8) — 7 cases
Oregonian Publ'g Co. v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 987 P.2d 480 (Or. 1999).
“500(2)(h) (1985) exempted from disclosure “[p]ublic records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential or privileged under * * * ORS 342.850 * * ORS 192.500(2)(h) (1985) attempted to list every statute outside the public…”
Oregonian Publ'g Co. v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 952 P.2d 66 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“See ORS 342.850. Because the only source for much of that information is the personnel files, denying the public access to the files serves, and is intended to serve, to deny the public access to the information.”
Springfield Sch. Dist. 19 v. Guard Publ'g Co., 967 P.2d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“505 and ORS 342.850. The trial court ruled, however, that the documents are not exempt from disclosure and further ruled, in the alternative, that the district had waived any applicable exemption.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.