Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In December 2009, The New Teacher Project (TNTP) launched a partnership with the
Houston Independent School District (HISD) to assist with the core initiative of the district’s
AUGUST 2010
1. In order to attract top teaching talent, HISD must hire earlier, strategically
recruit from candidate pipelines that produce the most effective teachers,
and utilize rigorous selection processes to identify candidates with the best
likelihood of being effective. Page 3
TNTP shared the results of this analysis with the HISD Board of Trustees in two separate
reports on April 29 and June 3, 2010. TNTP is engaged in the process of presenting its
analysis to other stakeholders and has conducted briefings with teachers, HISD central
administration staff, and community members. As TNTP enters the planning and
implementation phases of its work with HISD, it will continue to pursue and receive feedback
from stakeholders through targeted focus groups, community forums, and educator working
committees.
Value-Added Data
TNTP’s analysis includes data from HISD’s measures of teacher impact on student learning
from the Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS). Each teacher with EVAAS
data2 receives a cumulative growth index (CGI) in up to five subjects. These indexed scores
allowed for a consistent benchmark across multiple years of data. Additionally, in order to
improve confidence in the analysis of value-added data, wherever possible, TNTP applied
two or three year average EVAAS scores in place of single year value-added scores.
1 The response rates that the teacher, principal, and applicant surveys received (see sidebar) are on par with, if not
higher than, the response rates in surveys of other large districts in which TNTP has worked. Surveys of applicants
to a district typically yield lower response rates because the respondents are not district employees and thus are
less likely to respond to a district email inquiry.
2 Teachers teaching the tested subjects of Language Arts, Mathematics, Reading, Science, and Social Studies in
grades 3 through 8 currently receive EVAAS scores. In 2008-09, approximately 30 percent of classroom teachers
received EVAAS scores.
It should be noted that HISD has significantly altered its recruitment practices for the 2010
hiring season, and data from that year was not captured in our survey. While it is expected
that many of the issues faced by candidates in prior years have been improved upon, HISD
must continue to use student outcome data to evaluate whether the changes in its
recruitment and hiring practices have had the result of attracting new teachers who are
ultimately more effective in the classroom.
Summary of Data:
i. In prior hiring seasons, HISD has lost desirable candidates due to flawed
communication processes and a late hiring timeline.
ii. HISD should recruit strategically from the candidate pipelines that produce the most
effective teachers and pair those efforts with selection processes that can
demonstrably identify candidates likely to be effective in the classroom.
Over the last three hiring seasons, teacher applicants to HISD have faced a lack of prompt
and clear communication. Respondents to TNTP’s applicant survey felt confused and
devalued by the application process, often due to unresponsiveness from the district and a
lack of clarity about how the hiring process would proceed.
% of Overall Applicant
% of Declining % of Withdrawing
Population in Each
Licensure Area Applicants in Each Applicants in Each
Licensure Area
Licensure Area (n=29) Licensure Area (n=24)
(n=461)
4 Survey of HISD teacher applicants. For research linking undergraduate GPA to applicant quality, see Andrew J.
Wayne and Peter Youngs, “Teacher Characteristics and Student Achievement Gains: A Review,” Review of
Educational Research, 73 (1) (2003), 89-122; and Cathy W. Hall, Kris M. Smith, and Rosina Chia, “Relationship
Between Metacognition and Affective Variables in College Achievement,” National Social Science Journal 19(1),
(2002), 43-50.
TNTP’s analysis indicated that while some preparation programs are better than others at
producing high percentages of effective teachers, all pipelines produce both high and low
performers. Analysis linking teacher effectiveness to degree-granting institutions produces a
complex picture with regard to the number of both high and low performing teachers;
however, some conclusions can be drawn from the aggregate data. For example, HISD has
almost a one in five chance of receiving a low performer from Sam Houston State, but less
than a one in ten chance of receiving a low performer from Texas A&M - College Station. The
latter program also produced a higher percentage of high performers.
Going forward, HISD will need to refine this data by grade, license area, and effectiveness
with sub-groups of students (e.g., English Language Learners or students multiple years
below grade level) in order to get richer data with which to inform recruitment strategies. In
addition, these efforts must be paired with rigorous selection and evaluation processes to
ensure the district only hires candidates that have the potential to be effective in the
classroom. For any new selection models that are adopted, HISD should analyze the
5 HISD Human Resources and EVAAS data. Bolded numbers on the left side of the chart indicate number of total
teachers with a degree from the listed institution. Figures in parentheses are the total number of teachers with
degrees from the listed institution who have multi-year value-added data. High-performing teachers are defined as
being in the top decile of performers in at least one subject and not in the bottom quartile of performers in any
other subject when using two or three year average EVAAS percentile ranks. Low-performing teachers are defined
as being in the bottom decile in at least one subject and not in the top quartile in any other subject.
A wide body of research has established that teacher effectiveness is the single most
important school-based factor impacting student achievement. In order to maximize student
achievement, HISD must base key human capital decisions on accurate data regarding
teacher performance levels. These decisions (including compensation, retention, dismissal,
the granting of term contracts, and professional development) are currently made in a
vacuum of information, as teacher appraisal and survey data demonstrate that the district
currently has no reliable data differentiating teachers’ instructional performance. HISD must
develop new, comprehensive systems to appraise teacher performance that include
measures of a teacher’s impact on student achievement as a predominant factor.
Summary of Data:
i. Neither teachers nor principals believe the district’s current teacher appraisal
practices accurately assess teachers’ instructional performance.
ii. By rating almost all teachers as “Proficient” or “High Performing” regardless of their
ability to promote student achievement, the teacher appraisal process fails to
provide a basis for continuous professional improvement.
iii. The Staff Review Process conducted in March 2010 yielded a greater degree of
differentiation among teacher performance levels, pointing to potential opportunities
for the improvement of the teacher appraisal system.
iv. Teachers want to be assessed based on multiple factors including student
achievement growth, but have concerns about the district’s current value-added
measures.
The current teacher appraisal systems in HISD, the Professional Development and Appraisal
System (PDAS) and the Modified Professional Development and Appraisal System (MPDAS),
evaluate teachers’ performance in eight domains, each of which is assessed on a four point
scale that ranges from “High-Performing” to “Unsatisfactory.” Teachers are appraised once
each year. Term or continuing contract teachers who are rated “Proficient” or higher in each
domain can choose to be appraised using MPDAS during the following year. Under MPDAS, in
five of the eight appraisal domains, teachers accept the previous year’s ratings as the
highest possible ratings they can receive that year, and appraisers gather data for those five
domains using walk-through observations rather than formal observations.
Figure 2.1: Teacher and Principal Opinions Regarding the PDAS/MPDAS Process6
One likely reason for principals’ and teachers’ lack of confidence in the current appraisal
system is that its results do not match the reality of the instructional performance that they
observe in their schools daily. Survey responses indicate that principals and teachers
recognize a significant percentage of low-performing and developing teachers in their
buildings, yet almost no teachers are rated “Below Expectations” or “Unsatisfactory” on
PDAS or MPDAS.
6 Surveys of HISD teachers. Percentages indicate respondents who selected “Strongly agree” or “Agree.”
7 Surveys of HISD teachers and principals and HISD Human Resources records. Survey respondents were asked to
identify the percentage of teachers at their school performing in each of the four groups. These percentages were
calculated by averaging all of the respondents’ distributions. Principal n=81. Teacher n=2,871. The PDAS rating
curve indicates the percentage of teacher appraisals that had all domains scored in the indicated rating category or
higher over the last three years. n=32,345.
Figure 2.3: PDAS/MPDAS Results for Teacher by School TEA Rating for the 2008-
2009 School Year8
During the 2009-2010 school year, HISD implemented a Staff Review Process as a
performance management measure. In this process, principals categorized each of the
teachers at their schools according to their assessment of the teacher’s level of
effectiveness. Principals met with members of HISD’s administration to discuss the evidence
for these categorizations and the actions that principals were taking to retain high
performers, provide struggling teachers with professional development, and pursue
nonrenewal or the extension of three-year probationary contracts to a fourth year for
underperforming probationary teachers..
In the Staff Review Process, principals differentiated the performance of their teachers to a
greater degree than through the PDAS/MPDAS process, and were much more likely to rate
teachers in one of the two lowest categories. Differences between the implementation of the
Staff Review Process and PDAS/MPDAS shed light on needed reforms of teacher appraisal.
First, the review of teacher ratings by HISD administrators and the requirement that
principals provide evidence for performance categorizations discouraged principals from
inflating their decisions. Second, in cases where teacher-level EVAAS data was available, the
information was used by principals and HISD administrators to inform performance
categorization decisions. Finally, principals were held accountable to act on the
categorizations they assigned their teachers (e.g., developing professional growth plans for
struggling teachers and working with HISD Professional Development Services to plan
training resources) so that the Staff Review Process was meaningfully connected to the
principal’s primary role as the instructional leader of his/her school. These three elements –
norming and oversight of appraisal ratings; incorporation of student outcome data; and
meaningful connections to key decisions – must be part of any redesign of the appraisal
system.
Figure 2.5: Rating Category Distribution from PDAS/MPDAS for 2008-2009 School
Year and Staff Review Process for 2009-10 School Year10
Highly
Low- Total
Effective/
Proficient Developing Performing/ Teacher
Exceeds
Unsatisfactory s Rated
Expectations
2009-10 Staff Review Process 28% 45% 21% 6% 11,249
2008-09 PDAS/MPDAS 30% 67% 3% 0% 10,572
Figure 2.6: Staff Review Process Results by Texas Education Agency School Rating
from 2008-09
However, even in the context of the Staff Review Process, rating inflation and a culture of
low expectations persist. While teachers with multiple years of strong value-added results
were much more likely to be rated as “Highly Effective” or “Proficient” during the Staff
Review Process a significant number of low performers continued to receive a satisfactory
categorization. Of those teachers identified as low performers by their multi-year EVAAS
data, 36 percent received a Staff Review Process categorization of “Proficient” or higher.
Percent of
Staff Review Percent of EVAAS Percent of EVAAS
EVAAS High
Categorization Middle Performers Low Performers
Performers
Highly Effective 78% 34% 8%
Proficient 20% 44% 28%
Developing 2% 16% 42%
Low-Performing 0% 5% 22%
Total Teachers 308 1396 275
Figure 2.8: Teachers Who Believe the Following Criteria Are “Very Important” Or
“Important” In A Fair and Comprehensive Evaluation System12
12 Surveys of HISD teachers Percentage of respondents who selected “Very Important” or “Important.”
Teachers want appraisals to include their impact on student performance, and they support
the use of tests to measure growth, as 87 percent of teachers believe that some form of
test-based assessment should be used to measure their impact on student learning.
However, teachers lack confidence in EVAAS, as only 18 percent of teachers surveyed in
March and April 2010 believe that it provides a fair and accurate measure of a teacher’s
impact on student learning. This uneasiness with value-added measures can be partially
explained by teachers’ lack of understanding about the measures themselves. After HISD
conducted trainings of teachers on EVAAS methodology in June 2010, a significant
percentage of participants indicated that their confidence in value-added measures like
EVAAS had increased. After participating in trainings, 56 percent of teachers expressed
belief in the system’s fairness and accuracy.13
Furthermore, teachers indicate support for the use of school- and teacher-generated
assessments in their appraisals in addition to TAKS or other state standardized exams. This
suggests that in addition to using measures of standardized test score growth, teachers wish
to have their impact on students be assessed using methods that they consider to be
authentic and connected to their daily practice.
Figure 2.10: The Percentage of Teachers Who Believe That These Individual
Components Should Be Used As Part of the Measure of Their Impact on Student
Learning 14
13 It should be noted that teachers participating in trainings responded with higher levels of confidence in EVAAS
prior to trainings than the average teacher responding to the March and April teacher surveys.
14 Surveys of HISD teachers and HISD exit survey of teachers participating in Foundation Level EVAAS Trainings
held between June 8 and June 28. Teacher survey n=4,505. Exit survey n=636. Data accurate as of July 28, 2010.
Summary of Data:
i. Teachers do not currently receive professional development that addresses their
individual growth needs or helps them improve their ability to promote student
achievement.
ii. Principals do not have the time and training necessary to appraise and develop
teachers’ instructional performance.
Among the many repercussions of an ineffective teacher appraisal system, one of the most
detrimental is the inability to provide teachers with targeted professional development to
improve their instructional performance. HISD teachers reported that current professional
development offerings do not address their individual needs or help them improve their
ability to promote student achievement.
15 Surveys of HISD teachers. Percentages indicate respondents who selected “Strongly agree” or “Agree.”
ii. Principals do not have the time and training necessary to appraise and
develop teachers’ instructional performance.
TNTP’s surveys of principals indicate that one of the major barriers to effective teacher
appraisal and development at the school-level is the lack of time and training. As HISD
redesigns its teacher performance management processes, it is clear that significant
alterations to principal time allocation and training must be considered in order for teacher
professional development and appraisal to be conducted successfully.
• Only 18 percent of principals feel that they have sufficient time to focus on teacher
appraisals and development.
• Only 32 percent of principals feel that they are given adequate training and support
from HISD on how to appraise and develop teachers’ instructional performance.
16 Surveys of HISD teachers. Percentage of respondents who selected “Highly Effective” or “Effective.”
17 Surveys of HISD principals. Average “Actual’ and “Desired” time allocation taken from principals who indicated
that their time is not distributed in a way that best supports student growth.
Summary of Data:
i. There is limited variability in the retention rates of HISD’s highest and lowest
performing teachers.
ii. HISD teachers do not feel confident that ASPIRE awards are reflective of their
classroom performance, likely due in part to the use of fluctuating single-year
EVAAS results.
iii. Many teachers support a restructuring of compensation that would make
advancement on the salary schedule reflective of student learning growth, which
could be accomplished by diverting resources from salary increases based on
factors unrelated to teacher effectiveness in HISD.
iv. HISD has failed to exit consistently ineffective teachers.
TNTP’s analysis indicates that the district’s highest and lowest performing teachers, as
identified by value-added measures of teacher impact on student growth, are retained at
similar rates. While in some subjects, such as Math, teachers in the EVAAS 90 th percentile or
above are retained at higher rates than those in the 10 th percentile or below, in other
subjects, such as Language, the retention rates are identical.
Figure 4.1: Retention Rates for Teachers Scores in the Top and Bottom Deciles of
EVAAS Scores in 2008-0918
18 HISD Human Resources and EVAAS Data. EVAAS percentile determined by two and three year EVAAS averages.
The responses to TNTP’s survey of HISD teachers indicate that the district’s highest
performing teachers, those who have demonstrated high levels of student growth across
multiple years, do not consistently plan to remain in the district longer than low performers.
Figure 4.2: Teachers Planning to Leave HISD within Three Years in the Top and
Bottom Deciles of EVAAS Scores19
Beginning in 2006, HISD launched the ASPIRE Award Program and has distributed rewards to
teachers, administrators, and other school-based staff using student achievement outcomes,
including value-added measures of teacher impact on student learning. The ASPIRE program
has had a measurable impact on the retention of effective teachers 20, but since the retention
rate of teachers receiving the highest amount of individual financial reward is only slightly
higher than that of teachers receiving no individual reward at all, it is clear that HISD has not
maximized the effect of its incentive program. HISD should take additional steps to refine its
teacher compensation structure in a way that allows it to reward effective teaching and
encourage high-performing teachers to remain in HISD.
Figure 4.3 2008-09 Teacher Retention Rate and Amount of 2008 Strand 2
Individual ASPIRE Award21
HISD has conducted annual surveys of teachers on their opinions regarding the ASPIRE
Award Program. Those surveys indicate that while most teachers are not opposed to the
concept of performance pay, the limited impact of the ASPIRE program on the retention of
highly effective teachers can be partly explained by the fact that many teachers are
confused about the program’s implementation and unsure if it is executed accurately and
fairly.
Figure 4.4: HISD Surveys Regarding ASPIRE Awards 2006-07 through 2008-0922
20 SAS Institute, “Analysis of a Teacher Pay-For-Performance Program: Determining the Treatment Effect and
Overall Impact.”
21 HISD data on ASPIRE individual awards, Human Resources separation data, and a survey of current HISD
teachers.
22 HISD Surveys on ASPIRE Program conducted annually beginning in 2008. Some questions were not asked in
every year of the survey. The 2008-2009 survey was distributed soon after the Board of Education approved the
use of value-added data in teacher appraisals. The uncertainty felt by many teachers as a result of this policy
change is likely reflected in their survey responses.
In part, these concerns may stem from the instability of the single year value-added scores
that are used to calculate ASPIRE Awards. Over three years, significant percentages of
teachers shift from the top and bottom quintile of EVAAS scores in each subject, and the
majority of teachers have had both positive and negative value-added scores. Fluctuation in
single-year scores may contribute to a lack of credibility among teachers regarding the
reward system’s ability to reward excellence accurately. Without teachers’ trust in the
district’s value-added measures, ASPIRE cannot effectively incentivize retention and
effective instructional practice. Therefore, HISD should consider using multi-year value-
added scores to inform financial incentives and other means of retaining effective teachers.
Figure 4.5: Teachers with Fluctuating EVAAS Scores across Three Years of Data23
Figure 4.6: Agreement with: “To what extent do you agree that the following
factors would be an appropriate part of a compensation system that fairly
rewards teachers for instructional excellence?”24
Figure 4.7: The Average Number of Years Taught by a Teacher in HISD by EVAAS
Percentile and Subject Area (n=2075)25
24 Surveys of HISD teachers. Percentages indicate teachers who responded “Strongly Agree” or “Agree.”
As in other school districts across the country, the number of continuing or term contract
teachers who have been nonrenewed or terminated for performance reasons is also
extraordinarily low. To address this problem, HISD must couple more effective means of
identifying poor performance through the appraisal system with more efficient methods of
exiting teachers whose performance does not improve after receiving targeted support.
28 HISD Human Resources Records. Average performance of lowest 10% of teachers is based on two and three
year value-added data. Average performance of first year teachers is based on single year data from SY 2008-09.
TNTP has been working with HISD leadership to develop a five-year master plan to transform
the district’s human capital systems and lead to HISD having an effective teacher in every
classroom. This plan includes the development of new tools and processes, coordination and
monitoring of school-level implementation activities, and building stakeholder buy-in for
reform. Throughout the five-year initiative, data on implementation outcomes will
continuously be monitored and real-time adjustments will be made to strategies and tactics,
as required. Ambitious, concrete goals have been set for the success of the Effective
Teachers Core Initiative by the 2014-15 school year, including:
• Fewer than 10 percent of new hires are ineffective in their first year in HISD as
identified through the Staff Review Process and annual teacher appraisal instrument,
and at least 50 percent of new hires are effective or better by their third year in the
district.
• The distribution of teacher appraisal ratings at the district and school-level is aligned
with student performance outcomes and with survey data indicating teachers’ and
principals’ assessments of teacher performance.
• 100 percent of probationary teachers who receive a term contract have performed at
the “Effective” level or above, and at least 90 percent of teachers rated “Ineffective”
either improve their performance to a level above “Ineffective” or are removed from
teaching in HISD within one year of receiving the “Ineffective” rating.
• In surveys, at least 85 percent of teachers and 90 percent of principals agree or
strongly agree that teacher appraisal in HISD is a fair and accurate measure of
teacher performance.
• Annual appraisal data shows a significant increase in the overall effectiveness of
HISD’s teaching force, and a significant percentage of teachers improve their
performance at least one rating level from year to year.
• At least 85 percent of teachers and at least 90 percent of principals agree or strongly
agree that HISD’s teacher support and development systems and processes address
teachers’ individual needs and help them improve their performance.
• HISD retains highly effective teachers at a rate at least twice the rate of teachers
rated “below effective” as measured through the Staff Review Process and teacher-
level value-added data, when available.
• At least 85 percent of teachers and at least 90 percent of principals agree or strongly
agree that HISD is doing enough to leverage and retain its most effective teachers.