Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 584 - TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
Overview of OAR Chapter 584 — TSPC
OAR Chapter 584 establishes the rules for educator licensure, educator preparation, standards of ethical and competent practice, disciplinary procedures, and sanctioning in Oregon. The rules are promulgated by the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC) under authority granted by Oregon Revised Statutes, particularly in Chapter 342.
The chapter is divided into many divisions; among the important ones:
Division 1 – Procedural Rules
Division 5 – Definitions
Division 10 – Procedures for Approval (of educator preparation programs)
Division 17 – Standards for Unit Approval (for Educator Preparation Providers, or EPPs)
Division 18 / 400–410 – Educator Preparation program standards and provider approval rules
Division 19 – Rules for Investigations / Hearings
Division 20 – Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance of Educators
Division 50 – Commission Sanction, etc.
Key Provisions & Rules
Here are some of the core rules and how they function:
Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance (Division 20).
OAR 584‑020‑0040, “Grounds for Disciplinary Action,” sets out when the TSPC may deny, suspend, or revoke an educator’s license. It includes conviction of certain crimes, “gross neglect of duty,” “gross unfitness,” false statements, etc. OregonLaws
Gross neglect of duty: defined as a serious and material inattention to or breach of professional responsibilities. Examples include abuse of a student, failure to cooperate with investigations, misuse of school resources, etc. Justia+1
Gross unfitness: conduct that renders an educator unqualified for professional responsibilities; may include criminal conduct even if off duty, if related to ability to perform duties. Justia+2OregonLaws+2
Application of Rules and Investigation (OAR 584‑020‑0000).
Specifies TSPC’s authority to investigate upon complaints or reports that may constitute grounds for actions under the rules. OregonLaws
Also provides for some deferral or delay of investigation under certain conditions (e.g., when a local school district process is involved). OregonLaws
Educator Preparation Units / Program Approval (Divisions 10, 400‑410).
Requirements for state approval of educator preparation providers (EPPs) and programs. Among them, national accreditation by certain approved accreditors, plus fulfillment of state‑specific standards. OregonLaws+2OregonLaws+2
Rules for what happens when approval is denied or withdrawn. The process is a contested case under ORS Chapter 183. OregonLaws
Procedures & Due Process.
When disciplinary or licensing decisions are made (suspension, revocation, denial), there must be notice, hearings, rights of response; many decisions are contested cases under state administrative procedure. Statutes like ORS 342.175, 342.176, and ORS Chapter 183 are relevant. OregonLaws+2OregonLaws+2
Statutory Authority
The TSPC rules derive their legal authority from Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) in Chapter 342:
ORS 342.143 — covers issuance of licenses and registrations, and requirements like good moral character.
ORS 342.165 — authorizes TSPC to adopt rules regarding standards of professional conduct.
ORS 342.175 — provides grounds for discipline (including suspension, revocation of licenses).
ORS 342.176 — complaint process.
Also, the Administrative Procedures Act (ORS Chapter 183) governs contested cases, judicial review, rule validity, etc.
Case Law Interpreting Chapter 584
Here are some of the notable cases and what they teach about how courts have interpreted parts of OAR Chapter 584.
Teacher Standards & Practices Commission v. Bergerson (2007, Oregon Supreme Court)
In Bergerson, the TSPC suspended a teacher’s license based on “gross unfitness” and “gross neglect of duty,” after the teacher committed an act of criminal mischief (a felony) off‑duty (damage to property) and the community found out. The ruling addressed whether such off‑duty conduct could support discipline under the rules. Justia Law
Key points from Bergerson:
The rules define “gross unfitness” to include “acts constituting criminal conduct, even in the absence of a conviction.” OAR 584‑020‑0040(5)(e). Justia Law
For off‑duty conduct to be grounds for discipline under “gross unfitness,” there must be a demonstrable relationship between the conduct and the educator’s ability to fulfill professional duties effectively. That is, off‑duty acts are not automatically disqualifying; the commission must show how they bear on professional capacity. Justia Law
Similarly, for “gross neglect of duty,” the commission must show a nexus between the educator’s responsibilities and the breach. It is not enough that a person simply violated an ethical standard in general; there must be a connection to professional duties. Justia Law
In that case, the Supreme Court found the TSPC’s rule was valid, but the specific order (suspension) was problematic in how TSPC interpreted “gross neglect of duty” because TSPC treated off‑duty ethical violations (e.g., violating law outside work) as sufficient without showing that they materially affected the teacher’s professional responsibilities. The Court remanded because the TSPC’s order did not adequately show that nexus. Justia Law
W. A. S. v. TSPC (2021, Oregon Court of Appeals)
In W. A. S., a school administrator’s license was suspended for one year by TSPC for “gross neglect of duty” under OAR 584‑020‑0040(4)(n) and related rules, for failing in leadership, failing to apply lawful and reasonable regulations, failing to use professional judgment, etc. FindLaw Case Law
The petitioner (administrator) sought judicial review (under ORS 183.482) of the TSPC’s final order. FindLaw Case Law
The case illustrates how TSPC applies its rules of professional competence and ethical performance to administrators (not just classroom teachers), showing that leadership failures and deviation from district or statutory expectations can be found to constitute gross neglect. The Court of Appeals evaluated whether TSPC’s findings were supported by evidence, whether the conduct was sufficiently connected to professional responsibilities. It upheld the suspension in that case. FindLaw Case Law
Key Principles Derived from Case Law & Rules
From the rules and the cases, several recurring principles emerge:
Nexus Requirement: For disciplinary action under “gross neglect of duty” or “gross unfitness,” especially for off‑duty conduct or conduct outside the immediate classroom/district responsibilities, there must be a demonstrable relationship to professional responsibilities. Violations of ethics alone are not sufficient absent proof that they impair ability to perform duties. (As in Bergerson.)
Due Process & Standards of Proof: Educators are entitled to a fair process—notice of allegations, a contested case hearing, opportunity to respond, findings supported by evidence. The TSPC must follow the Administrative Procedures Act.
Statutory vs. Rule Authority: There is a close relationship between what the statute allows (e.g. ORS 342.165, 342.175) and what the rules define. The rules must stay within the bounds of the statute. In Bergerson, the Court looked carefully at whether the rule as applied exceeded legislative intent.
Professional/Ethical Conduct Standard: The rules place emphasis on ethical and competent behavior, including obeying the law, honesty, maintaining professional integrity. The “ethical educator” standard is a cross‑cutting requirement.
Severity & Context Matter: When imposing sanctions (suspension, revocation) the Commission considers factors like whether conduct was isolated or repeated, severity, danger to students, public confidence, etc. These considerations are part of OAR rules (for example in the factors for sanction) and in the cases.
Example: How a Disciplinary Proceeding Might Work
Putting together the rules + statutory + case law, here is how a process might typically unfold:
Complaint / Report: A complaint about an educator or license applicant (could be criminal conduct, ethical violations, neglect, etc.).
Investigation: Under OAR 584‑020‑0000, the Executive Director investigates or defers depending on nature of complaint and whether the local district has or is already investigating. If sexual conduct involved, rules demand prompt investigation. OregonLaws
Determination of Grounds: TSPC determines whether the facts may constitute grounds under OAR 584‑020‑0040: convictions, gross neglect, gross unfitness, false statements, etc.
Hearing / Contested Case: If TSPC intends to suspend/revoke/deny license, often this becomes a contested case under ORS Chapter 183, where the educator has rights to hearing, representation, to respond.
Decision & Sanction: Based on evidence, the TSPC imposes sanction (reprimand, probation, suspension, revocation) depending on severity, prior conduct, and whether conduct is related to professional duty.
Judicial Review: Educator may seek judicial review under ORS 183.482 or related statutes. The reviewing court will examine whether:
the rule applied is valid (statutory authority, rulemaking process),
the findings are supported by substantial evidence,
the sanction is within the rules/statute, and
the nexus between the conduct and professional responsibilities is properly established.
Important Implications & Criticisms
Overlap between moral character / ethics and professional responsibilities: There is often debate in cases about whether off‑duty conduct (especially criminal or ethical violations outside school) should factor into licensing discipline. The rules allow that, but only if there is a connection to ability to perform duties.
Clarity & Fair Notice: Educators may argue that rules are vague (what is “gross neglect” or “gross unfitness” in a given context). Courts have in cases required TSPC to show clear findings, not just conclusory statements.
Timeliness / delays: For investigations, especially involving sexual conduct, there are required timelines (e.g. completing certain investigations within specified periods). If TSPC delays without good cause, that may be a basis for challenge.
RELATED Blog
0 comments