OOF-AII-597532
Algorithmic Teacher Evaluation Program Reportedly Failed to Improve Student Outcomes and Was Alleged to Have Harmed Teachers
Gates Foundation-funded Intensive Partnerships for Effective Teaching Initiative's algorithmic program to assess teacher performance reportedly failed to achieve its goals for student outcomes, particularly for minority students, and was criticized for potentially causing harm against teachers.
- Event date
- 2009-09-01
- Country
- United States of America
- Severity
- Moderate
- Evidence state
- Single-source
Assessment status
Generated from available public incident evidence using OOF® governance methodology. It is not an official investigation, legal determination, regulatory finding, certification, or OOF® Approved Assessment.
View source record from AI Incident Database (Responsible AI Collaborative)
Assessment confidence dimensions
- Source corroboration
- Single-source
- Extraction completeness
- High
- Methodological assignment confidence
- Limited
Measures source-group corroboration only; it does not establish factual truth.
Measures populated source fields after deterministic normalization; it does not measure correctness.
Measures automated assignment support; substantive correctness requires authorized human review.
Known facts from the incident record
- The incident record identifies the event date as 2009-09-01.
- The incident record identifies the location as United States of America.
Reported claims
- Gates Foundation-funded Intensive Partnerships for Effective Teaching Initiative's algorithmic program to assess teacher performance reportedly failed to achieve its goals for student outcomes, particularly for minority students, and was criticized for potentially causing harm against teachers.
Material unknowns
- Independent corroboration is not established in the available incident record.
Primary governance problem
The incident appears to expose a governance problem involving evaluation, decision. Available reporting supports preliminary methodological interpretation, not a finding of fault or non-compliance.
Architecture intelligence
CLIA® — Cognitive Governance Intelligence Architecture
Primary architecture
The reported evaluation, decision concern falls within the governed questions represented by CLIA® — Cognitive Governance Intelligence Architecture.
Governance focus: How should evaluation, decision be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
ASGA™ — Autonomous Systems Governance Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported evaluation concern falls within the governed questions represented by ASGA™ — Autonomous Systems Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: How should evaluation be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
INTEGROS® — Integrity Governance Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported evaluation concern falls within the governed questions represented by INTEGROS® — Integrity Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: How should evaluation be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
Preliminary governance questions
- How should evaluation, decision be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
- How should evaluation be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
- What operational authority and controls applied to Intensive Partnerships For Effective Teaching at the relevant time?
- What evidence would establish how Intensive Partnerships For Effective Teaching Teacher Evaluation System, Algorithmic Teacher Evaluation Program, Ai Enabled Decision Support Systems, Algorithmic Management Systems produced or enabled the reported outcome?
- What additional independent evidence is required to resolve the material evidence gaps?
Evidence gaps and limitations
- Only one independent source group is represented; corroboration is not established.
- AI technology is not specified in the source record.
- AI system type is not specified in the source record.