OOF-AII-661870

Houston ISD's EVAAS Teacher-Evaluation System Reportedly Put Teachers' Jobs at Risk Through Unverifiable Scores

From 2011 to 2015, Houston Independent School District used SAS Institute’s Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS) to rate teacher effectiveness from student test-score growth. Teachers alleged that proprietary, unverifiable EVAAS scores contributed to terminations and contract nonrenewals. On May 4, 2017, a federal judge allowed due-process claims over the system to proceed.

Event date
2017-05-08
Country
United States of America
Severity
Low
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

Measures source-group corroboration only; it does not establish factual truth.

Extraction completeness
High

Measures populated source fields after deterministic normalization; it does not measure correctness.

Methodological assignment confidence
High

Measures automated assignment support; substantive correctness requires authorized human review.

Known facts from the incident record

  • The incident record identifies the event date as 2017-05-08.
  • The incident record identifies the location as United States of America.

Reported claims

  • From 2011 to 2015, Houston Independent School District used SAS Institute’s Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS) to rate teacher effectiveness from student test-score growth. Teachers alleged that proprietary, unverifiable EVAAS scores contributed to terminations and contract nonrenewals. On May 4, 2017, a federal judge allowed due-process claims over the system to proceed.

Material unknowns

  • Independent corroboration is not established in the available incident record.

Primary governance problem

The incident appears to expose a governance problem involving prediction, models, probability, support, uncertainty. Available reporting supports preliminary methodological interpretation, not a finding of fault or non-compliance.

Architecture intelligence

PGA™ — Prediction Governance Architecture

Primary architecture

The reported prediction, models, probability concern falls within the governed questions represented by PGA™ — Prediction Governance Architecture.

Governance focus: How may a prediction be communicated, interpreted, and relied upon without exceeding what its methodology, uncertainty, feasibility, intended purpose, and governed conditions legitimately support?

Canonical methodology (ParentStandard):

Preliminary governance questions

  • How may a prediction be communicated, interpreted, and relied upon without exceeding what its methodology, uncertainty, feasibility, intended purpose, and governed conditions legitimately support?
  • What operational authority and controls applied to Houston Independent School District at the relevant time?
  • What evidence would establish how Value Added Teacher Evaluation Models, Education Value Added Assessment System (Evaas), 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.

Return to the public incident index