If you haven’t read Part 1, start here.
In an effort to improve student performance, South San adopted [NIET/TAP], a model that puts changing teacher practice at the center of its improvement strategy. Teachers are trained, coached, observed, and evaluated against prescribed instructional practices. But before asking whether NIET/TAP was the right solution, there is a more basic question:
Did problems in teaching practice contribute significantly to South San's low student performance?
To answer that, we went back to the period before Superintendent Hinojosa arrived and before TEA appointed the new Board of Managers. We looked at what South San itself had already identified as its major needs and challenges, then followed the public record forward to see what changed, what evidence was presented, and when.
South San NIET/TAP Timeline
What the Timeline Shows So Far
We started by looking for South San’s March 2024 Comprehensive Needs Assessment. The district’s original PDF is no longer available at its former web address, but search engines still retain indexed text captured when the document was publicly available.
That text identifies teacher turnover as the formal staff-quality concern. It does not appear identify deficiencies in teaching practice as a districtwide root cause of low student performance. Other identified needs included learning loss, curriculum and intervention systems, data use, and related district processes. We are considering submitting a public-information request to obtain the complete assessment and verify these findings.
In October 2024, South San approved [limited NIET support] for four campuses. That earlier agreement was substantially different from the districtwide NIET/TAP system proposed and implemented in 2025.
Then, at the April 14, 2025 Board meeting, TEA Conservator Abe Saavedra told the Board that a new Needs Assessment would be conducted over the following several weeks, presented to the Board, and used to identify specific district goals.
Hinojosa described NIET/TAP based on his experience in his previous district, including procedures for professional learning communities, teacher evaluations, and performance-based pay. He did not present South San-specific analysis demonstrating that problems in teaching practice were a significant contributor to low student performance across the district or that South San needed this kind of intervention.
Board Manager Dr. Murguia referred to reviewing materials but did not specify which materials or when they were reviewed. She praised individualized campus support and what they called "strength-based coaching." However, that term does not fully describe NIET/TAP's approach, which also identifies areas needing improvement and uses observations and evaluations to monitor teachers' compliance with prescribed instructional practices. The member did not explain how individual campus needs would be identified or how this support would improve student learning.
After that comment, Hinojosa formally recommended approval. A motion and second followed. The chair invited further discussion or questions; none followed, and the Board approved the proposal 7–0.
What Had the Board Considered Before the Vote?
To better understand what evidence the Board had reviewed before the April 14 vote, we examined its public meeting calendar and posted meeting records. We found no public record of earlier Board consideration of districtwide NIET/TAP.
What Was in the Board Packet?
The public meeting agenda lists one NIET/TAP attachment: an [eight-page document] containing the agenda summary and NIET's Statement of Work for districtwide TAP support at 12 schools, totaling $252,500. Under "Historical Data," the summary states "none." The document does not analyze the potential effects on teachers' workload, instructional discretion, or student learning.
We found no South San-specific data showing how widespread problems with teaching were, no analysis connecting those problems to low student performance, and no root-cause analysis identifying teaching practice as a significant contributor to the district’s academic results.
So where was the evidence supporting such a significant districtwide restructuring of instruction?
So far, we’ve determined:[Make into Bullets]
The new Needs Assessment had not been completed when the Board voted.
We found no public record of earlier Board consideration of districtwide NIET/TAP.
One Board member referred to reviewing unspecified materials and commented favorably on the program. No questions were asked, and its potential practical impacts were not examined in the public discussion.The public presentation and agenda attachment did not provide South San-specific analysis demonstrating that problems in teaching practice were a significant contributor to low student performance districtwide.
Four months later, the Board met for an August 25 workshop. Hinojosa and his team presented what was described as their “data analysis and root cause.”
Was this where the missing evidence would appear—and what did the district’s root-cause analysis actually show?
Continue to [Part 3]: Where Is the Root-Cause Analysis?