Beaverton School Board lets March nonrenewal stand after probationary teacher's hearing

The Beaverton School Board on April 29 held a public hearing at the request of probationary teacher Vitus Nagasetti to review the board’s March 11 decision not to renew his employment contract; after presentations by the district and by Nagasetti and a closed executive session, the board declined to reverse the March decision and took no further action.

The hearing, called by Board Chair Karen Perez, was held “in accordance with ORS 3428352” as cited by the board at the outset. The district presented a multi-year supervisory timeline it said showed persistent deficits in instruction, inconsistent implementation of corrective strategies and insufficient, sustained student learning in Nagasetti’s classroom. Nagasetti disputed the district’s characterization, presented numeric summaries of evaluation indicators and letters of recommendation, and told the board he had been pressured to resign in exchange for a recommendation.

The district’s presentation was led by school administrator Andrew Guilford, who said the school provided training, mentoring and a formal plan of assistance across Mr. Nagasetti’s probationary years starting in fall 2022. Guilford said observations and evaluations showed intermittent improvement but not consistent, sustained proficiency. “Students continue to struggle to learn in his class and did not appear to be making the gains and growth that was necessary,” Guilford told the board.

Vitus Nagasetti, the teacher at the center of the hearing, told the board he had been a public secondary-school teacher for 11 years and disputed the district’s stated reasons for nonrenewal. Nagasetti said the district’s scoring guide, when tallied, showed an improving trajectory and that his indicator averages rose during the plan of assistance. He said his indicator average was 2.73 on an early summative evaluation (the district’s proficiency threshold, as he cited it, is 2.81) and that during the plan of assistance his averages progressed roughly from 2.70 to 2.87. He also told the board he had collected 12 letters of recommendation and submitted lesson plans and student work as evidence of improvement.

Board members asked clarifying questions about how evaluation ratings were calculated during a plan of assistance and why the district’s and Nagasetti’s interpretations of the same documents produced different conclusions. Human-resources staff, including executive administrator for human resources Janine Mobley and HR leader Susan Rodriguez, told the board that the district did not compute the same summative numeric totals at midpoints of a plan of assistance and that final, year-end summative ratings are calculated differently than midplan notes. “For us in the plan of assistance, those ratings didn’t play out at all,” one administrator said, explaining that midplan feedback is based on multiple observations and that the district’s final year-end rating aggregates multiple indicators and observations over time.

The transcript and presenters outlined the timeline the district relied on: Nagasetti joined the district in the fall of 2022; early drop-in observations in the 2022–23 school year triggered supervisory concerns about student engagement, classroom supports and assessment/feedback; he was rated "basic" at the end of his first probationary year; a plan of assistance was initiated the following February; a midpoint meeting was held March 13, after which Nagasetti took family medical leave and the plan was paused; the plan was reinstated the following August; district administrators said the plan of assistance concluded with a recommendation for dismissal in November, after which Nagasetti was placed on paid administrative leave and the superintendent later recommended nonrenewal.

Nagasetti told the board that at plan midpoints teachers’ written notes from administrators indicated movement from "basic" to "proficient" on specific indicators and that the principal offered a letter of recommendation if Nagasetti would resign—an offer he said he did not accept. He described the process as traumatic and said nonrenewal would effectively end his career because many districts treat nonrenewal or administrative leave as a hiring risk.

After questioning both parties, the board recessed to executive session to deliberate on legal parameters and the information presented. When the board reconvened at about 6:26 p.m., Chair Karen Perez announced that “after careful consideration for all the information presented, both tonight’s hearing and written record, the board is not going to take any further regarding our March 11 decision for non renewal of the employment contract of Mr. Nagasetti.” The meeting record shows HR will follow up with Nagasetti about next steps.

The hearing record attached to tonight’s proceeding includes written plans of assistance, observation notes and the superintendent’s April 10 letter recommending nonrenewal; the district cited those materials as the basis for its March decision. The board did not adopt any additional conditions or directions in public session when it closed the hearing.

The board’s action concludes the special hearing. HR will be in contact with Mr. Nagasetti about administrative follow-up and any next steps noted in district policy and the hearing record.