Oregon Teacher Pay Determined by Student Learning, Measure 95 (2000)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on Education
Education policy
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Oregon Constitution
Flag of Oregon.png

The Oregon Teacher Pay Determined by Student Learning Amendment, also known as Measure 95, was on the November 7, 2000 ballot in Oregon as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was defeated. The measure would have required student learning, not seniority, as the determinate of teacher pay and student learning and qualification as the determinate for retention.[1]

Election results

Oregon Measure 95 (2000)
Defeatedd No962,25065.1%
Yes 514,926 34.9%

Election results via: Oregon Blue Book

Ballot title

Amends Constitution: Student Learning Determines Teacher Pay; Qualifications, Not Seniority, Determine Retention[2]


Stuart Miller and Becky Miller


[3] Supporters believe that teachers should earn salaries based on how well they teach, not simply on seniority, which is how about 95% of teachers were being payed in 2000. Supporters believed that measure 95 would assure that good teachers are rewarded.

Chief petitioner Becky Miller said of the current system in 2000, "Thanks to collective bargaining contracts the teachers union has forced down the throats of every school district in the state, schools automatically keep the teachers who have been there the longest; even if they are the least competent, and even if some of the brightest and best must be laid off to protect those with seniority."

Bill Sizemore of Oregon Taxpayers United said, "The NEA, the national teachers union, and its Oregon affiliate, the OEA, hate merit pay. They know as well as you and I that the current seniority based pay system undermines public education. But as unions, they know they cannot survive a pay system that rewards job performance."

"...when the union demands higher salaries than the district can afford, the higher salaries must be financed by either increasing taxes or laying off as many existing teachers as it takes to save enough money to pay the remaining teachers the higher salaries."

"...why would teachers allow their union to demand pay raises so large that some of them will lose their jobs? They wouldn't, unless, of course, everybody knows in advance who would get laid off and who would stay. With a seniority based system, they do. Those who have been there the longest stay, and newer teachers are let go; all regardless of job performance."


[4] Opponents of the measure, including Lisa Laursen Thirkill, Vice President of the Oregon PTA, argued that there could be no clear way to measure progress in the classroom, which teachers' "performance" would be based on. Thirkill also pointed out that local communities would have no say in the process. Many opposed the competition the measure would encourage among teachers and believed the system should be set up so teachers will colaborate.

Some people were concerned that the measure did nothing to provide more funding for schools. The measure was considered vague and poorly written by some of the opposition.

The Oregon State Council of Senior Citizens argued that, "Nobody wants to see a bad teacher in our classrooms, least of all other teachers. The Oregon Legislature has ended teacher tenure and poor performing teachers are shipped out if they don't shape up. Measure 95 contains nothing that will weed out bad teachers." The organization also criticized adding "another level of bureaucracy" to the public school system.

Some others opposed are:

  • John A. Kitzhaber, M.D., Governor of Oregon
  • Confederation of Oregon School Administrators
  • Oregon Consumer League
  • Oregon Education Association

See also

Suggest a link

External links


BallotMeasureFinal badge.png
This historical ballot measure article requires that the text of the measure be added to the page.