At its April 16 meeting, the Houston Independent School District heard more than 50 public-comments dominated by complaints about teacher contract nonrenewals, test-driven instruction and a recently adopted pay-for-performance system.

Students, parents and teachers said the pace of personnel changes and testing requirements is eroding classroom stability and student learning. Student speaker Eliana Gottlieb said the district “promotes a 50% decrease from last year’s 1,400 nonrenewals,” and described what she called an administrative error that wrongly informed dozens of educators they would not be rehired. Josephine Guzman, who identified herself as a student, said, “Teachers deserve evaluation practices that are accurate, transparent and communicated with professional dignity.”

Representatives of educator groups and parents amplified those concerns. Michelle Williams of the Houston Education Association said the union filed a grievance March 28 that she said has not been addressed by the board. Parents and teachers described increased emphasis on repetitive test preparation, timers on daily learning checks (DOLs) and scripted lessons that they say squeeze out deeper instruction and drive experienced teachers away.

Several speakers challenged the validity of district assessment data. Multiple academic commenters said the 2023–24 MAP scores carry numerous threats to validity — including inconsistent administration conditions and a rapid shift to new testing modes — and therefore should be treated as observational information rather than evidence of lasting improvement.

Speakers linked the testing and evaluation policies to retention problems. Parent Adriana Isquierdo said her campus lost multiple staff members midyear and that five additional teachers recently received nonrenewal notices. Teacher and parent commenters asked the board to prioritize mentorship, coaching and retention over punitive measures and to restore librarians and wraparound supports that they said have been cut.

Board president and trustees did not take public action on personnel policy during the meeting. The board heard the comments during the public-comment portion; multiple speakers requested prompt investigation or reversal of specific personnel decisions and urged the board to review the accuracy and communication processes tied to contract notices.

The meeting also included calls from community members to rescind or revise the pay-for-performance plan, reduce onerous timers and DOL practices, and increase transparency about nonrenewal calculations. Several speakers asked the board to consider revisions that would emphasize teacher development and campus-based supports rather than salary competition.

The public comment period closed before the board moved to superintendent updates and later to closed session. The board did not announce any immediate policy changes during the open portion of the meeting.