Houston ISD’s state-appointed board unanimously approved a new teacher evaluation system Thursday that will go into effect for the next school year.
The model, which will be used to evaluate the district’s roughly 11,000 teachers, looks similar to the current system that emphasizes classroom observations and student test score growth. However, the district plans to use the evaluation scores to partially determine the salaries of many employees starting in 2026-27, a change that has angered the district’s largest teachers union.
HISD board members, who have been supportive of Superintendent Mike Miles’ academic and labor proposals since they started running the district in mid-2023, voted 8-0 to adopt the updated evaluation model. Critics of the system have said the regular classroom observations amount to micromanagement and feed into a misguided pay-for-performance system.
“I’ll say no evaluation system is perfect, and I think any of us in the community who work in an organization, lead an organization, understand that,” board member Michelle Cruz Arnold said. “But from what I’ve seen so far, the attempt to try to recognize the concerns and address how we’re going to incorporate feedback and continue to improve is really important to me.”
Under the system, 45 percent of a teacher’s evaluation score will be based on 10 to 20 brief classroom observations by campus administrators. Another 35 percent will depend on how much their students’ performance improves on various tests, including exams given throughout the school year and the state’s primary standardized exams, known as STAAR.
Another 15 percent is tied to lesson planning and professionalism measures, with the final 5 percent is linked to campuswide success.
HISD spent several months gathering recommendations from over 3,000 teachers and leaders, district administrators said.
The final version does not include a controversial student survey component, which would have partially tied teacher evaluations to feedback from their students. District leaders said they removed student surveys after most campus-level committees opposed it.
[…]
Houston Education Association President Michelle Williams spoke in front of the board Thursday, arguing the district will continue “hemorrhaging” experienced teachers and won’t be able to attract high-performing educators at some higher-scoring schools with the system.
“I’ve worked under many evaluation systems but TES is by far the worst I’ve seen,” Williams said. “It’s inequitable. It penalizes teachers with high-achieving students, emerging bilingual students and frankly, parents of children.”
See here and here for the background. The Chron has some further detail.
HISD teacher MinhDan Tran criticized the sincerity with which a 2024 survey, which drew more than 8,000 teacher respondents, collected feedback on the extent to which teachers agreed with statements regarding the evaluation system’s components.
“You didn’t get real input from teachers about this evaluation system,” she said. “Your fake survey didn’t give teachers any real choice. It was like choosing if you prefer to be eaten by sharks or electrocuted by a sinking boat. Bring back consultation with the union so that the professional teachers can have input on how we teach our kids.”
The system would sort teachers scores’ in a “target distribution,” with 3% sorted into the Unsatisfactory evaluation level; 12% in Progressing I, 25% in Progressing II; 40% in Proficient I; 12% in Proficient II; 5% in Exemplary I; and 3% in Exemplary II. The distribution is “to ensure that not only are the assessments across grade bands and disciplines similarly rigorous,” according to the system’s guidebook.
“Every group has roughly the same target distribution. For example, approximately 40% of Group A teachers will receive an effectiveness level of Proficient I,” the system’s guidebook reads. “This is the same percentage of Proficient I teachers in each of the other categories. This is approximate given there are teachers who fall into multiple Groups.”
Carnegie Vanguard High School senior Hira Malik objected Thursday to the target distribution in the evaluation system.
“I truly believe that the targeted distribution system is just another chaotic evaluation tactic designed to scare staff and pit them against each other for a better rating,” Malik said. “Why is competition being prioritized more than healthy cooperation? Classrooms are being micromanaged with scripted lessons that don’t give students the individualized mentorship they need. Is this what success looks like? Is this what learning is?”
In its score composition, the Teacher Excellence System’s components is not much of a departure from the district’s current system. The system bases 35% of a teacher’s rating on student test scores and learning objectives and 45% on “Quality of Instruction” — including routine shorter walkthroughs and a formal classroom observation that would be required for new teachers and teachers who score below a certain threshold the previous year. Fifteen percent would be devoted to a “planning and professionalism” component (under the current system’s “Quality of Instruction” umbrella) and a final 5% to how a teacher contributes to their campus’ action plan.
Danya Serrano, an educational researcher, expressed concern regarding the extent to which the system incorporates standardized exams amid a shortage of certified teachers.
“Research shows that value-added models based on teacher evaluations and higher test scores are biased, unreliable, invalid, unfair and not transparent,” she said.
We are familiar with the certified teacher shortage. I will say again, I am strongly opposed to rank and yank evaluation systems, which punishes any organization lucky enough to have an abundance of high performers and fosters an environment of competitiveness rather than cooperation. We would not evaluate students via a system that ensures some number of them must fail, so I don’t know why we’d want to evaluate teachers that way. Or any other workers, for that matter.