How can AI help Hawaii evaluators write teacher evaluations under the EES?
How can AI help Hawaii evaluators write teacher evaluations under the EES?
July 07, 2026 • 17 min read
Hawaii's classroom observation rubric is unusually narrow by design. Rather than scoring the full Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching, the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) deliberately focuses classroom observation on five specific components, plus a separate, holistically-rated Core Professionalism domain. Together they form the Teacher Practice piece of Hawaii's Educator Effectiveness System (EES) — which also includes Student Growth and Learning data that classroom observation doesn't touch at all. AI can meaningfully help with the observation write-up itself: mapping evidence to the correct focus component, drafting ratings on Hawaii's actual point scale, and generating feedback in the rubric's own language. What it can't do is calculate the other 70% of your EES composite rating.
What Hawaii's Educator Effectiveness System actually is
The EES replaced Hawaii's earlier evaluation system, the Professional Evaluation Program for Teachers (PEP-T), following a two-year pilot, and was implemented statewide beginning in the 2013–14 school year. It's governed by Hawaii Board of Education Policy 2055, which centers the system on two broad categories: Teacher Practice and Student Learning and Growth.
Within those categories, HIDOE's published composite weighting is: Teacher Practice — classroom observation (or Working Portfolios for non-classroom teacher roles) — contributes 30% of the overall rating; Core Professionalism contributes 20%, and folds in reflection on Student Growth Percentiles as well as data from the Tripod Student Survey, a nationally used student-perception instrument; and Student Growth and Learning — assessed through Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) and Student Growth Percentiles from the Hawaii Growth Model — contributes the remaining 50%. Classroom observation, in other words, is meaningfully less than a third of a Hawaii teacher's overall EES rating.
Five focus components, not the full framework
Hawaii's classroom observation rubric — the Hawaii Adapted Framework for Teaching — is built on Charlotte Danielson's Framework for Teaching, using the same domain and component numbering. But HIDOE made a deliberate choice: rather than scoring teachers across the full framework's roughly twenty components spanning all four domains, the Department narrowed classroom observation to five specific focus components, chosen for their alignment with Hawaii's statewide strategic initiatives.
Those five components span two domains. Domain 2, The Classroom Environment, contributes two: 2b, Establishing a Culture for Learning, and 2d, Managing Student Behavior. Domain 3, Instruction, contributes three: 3b, Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques; 3c, Engaging Students in Learning; and 3d, Using Assessment in Instruction. Notably, Domain 1 (Planning and Preparation) doesn't appear in the scored observation rubric at all — it's part of the broader Hawaii Adapted Framework reference document, but it isn't one of the five components HIDOE chose to observe and score.
Alongside those five sits Domain 4, Core Professionalism — but it works differently. Rather than being broken into separately scored sub-components, HIDOE's own manual rates Core Professionalism holistically: one overall rating that considers professional ethics, record-keeping systems, family and community communication, participation in school and department projects, engagement in professional development, and reflection on practice, all together.
The 0/2/3/4 point scale — and how it becomes your EES rating
Hawaii's scale has a distinctive wrinkle. Each of the five focus components (and Core Professionalism) is rated Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, or Distinguished — but the point values behind those labels aren't the 1-2-3-4 you'd expect. They're 0, 2, 3, and 4. Unsatisfactory is worth zero points, not one — a design choice that weights an unsatisfactory rating more heavily than a simple sequential scale would.
Those component-level labels then translate into a different set of labels for your overall EES rating. Basic translates to Marginal. Proficient translates to Effective. Distinguished translates to Highly Effective. Unsatisfactory stays Unsatisfactory at both levels. It's easy to conflate the two label sets since they overlap in places, but they're doing different jobs: one describes a specific component's rating, the other describes where your overall composite lands.
The observation cycle
HIDOE's observation cycle consists of three steps — typically a pre-conference, the observation itself, and a post-conference — completed by the same observer, with best practice calling for the full cycle to wrap within two weeks. For non-classroom teacher roles (instructional specialists, school counselors, library and media staff, and similar positions), evaluators and the teacher collaboratively identify the five most appropriate components from the broader Hawaii Adapted Framework for a Working Portfolio process, rather than a live classroom observation.
Across all of this, the constant is the same underlying task: capture what happened, decide which of the five focus components (or Core Professionalism) the evidence supports, and write it up in language that matches HIDOE's rubric.
After the observation: where the work piles up
Because Hawaii's rubric is narrower than most states' — five components plus one holistic domain, rather than twenty or more individually scored elements — the volume of writing per evaluation is smaller than in many other states EvalScribe supports. That doesn't make the write-up trivial. Each of the five components carries its own specific rubric language, its own point value, and its own translation to an EES label, and Core Professionalism has to be synthesized into one coherent holistic rating covering six distinct focus areas rather than reported as six separate scores.
Getting all of that right by hand — correct component, correct point value, correct label translation, a properly synthesized Core Professionalism narrative — takes real time even with a comparatively lean rubric. And because Teacher Practice is only 30% of the final composite, a rushed or generic observation write-up doesn't just look sloppy; it undersells the one part of the EES that's entirely under the evaluator's direct observation and control.
Where AI helps with the Hawaii write-up
The strongest fit between current AI and Hawaii's EES documentation is the mapping-and-translation problem, made more precise here by the rubric's unusually specific scope.
AI handles three parts of that reliably. First, it turns fragmentary notes into coherent, evidence-anchored prose in the rubric's voice — the difference between "kids were building on what each other said" and a sentence tied specifically to component 3b's language about student-to-student discussion. Second, it maps evidence to the correct one of five components rather than guessing across the full Danielson framework, which matters precisely because Hawaii's scope is narrower than most states'. Third, it synthesizes evidence across all six Core Professionalism focus areas into the single holistic rating and narrative HIDOE's manual calls for, rather than fragmenting it into six separate write-ups.
For Hawaii specifically, the payoff is in respecting the rubric's own boundaries: using the real 0/2/3/4 point scale, applying the correct component-to-EES label translation, and keeping Core Professionalism genuinely holistic rather than over-decomposed.
Where AI doesn't help — and what stays with the evaluator
The honest scope here is shaped directly by how much of the EES composite sits outside the observation rubric entirely.
AI cannot calculate Student Growth Percentiles or evaluate Student Learning Objectives. That's 50% of the EES composite, calculated through the Hawaii Growth Model and SLO process — entirely separate from anything a classroom observation write-up touches.
AI cannot administer or score the Tripod Student Survey. That instrument feeds into the 20% Core Professionalism weighting through a separate, standardized survey process, not through observation notes.
AI cannot compute your overall EES composite rating. With observation contributing only 30%, any tool that implies a finished observation write-up equals a finished EES rating is overstating what it actually determined.
AI cannot verify the factual claims inside Core Professionalism — whether records are actually accurate and complete, whether family communication logs are current, whether professional development requirements were genuinely met. Those are matters of record, not something inferred from a well-written paragraph.
And AI cannot supply the local knowledge a seasoned Hawaii evaluator brings — how a particular complex area interprets ambiguous evidence, what a specific school's professional development expectations look like this year, how a teacher's context (a split grade level, a new curriculum rollout) should shape the read on Basic versus Proficient. That judgment stays with the evaluator.
What AI does well, it does well. Pasting notes into a general chatbot works as a glorified search engine — but for a rubric this specifically scoped, with a nonstandard point scale and a label-translation step most tools won't know exists, the gap between "sounds polished" and "actually matches HIDOE's manual" is real.
Observable evidence: what each focus component looks like in practice
Each component surfaces in things an evaluator actually sees and hears.
2b, Establishing a Culture for Learning, shows in high, consistently communicated expectations, student work treated as meaningful rather than merely completed, and genuine student investment in the substance of the task. 2d, Managing Student Behavior, shows in clear, proactively enforced standards of conduct, calm and prompt handling of issues before they escalate, and — at the top of the scale — students who largely self-manage.
3b, Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques, shows in questions that require analysis or reasoning rather than recall, real wait time, and discussion that moves student-to-student rather than only through the teacher. 3c, Engaging Students in Learning, shows in students doing genuine cognitive work on appropriately challenging, purposefully structured tasks rather than passively completing busywork. 3d, Using Assessment in Instruction, shows in visible, varied formative checks, specific and actionable feedback, and instructional adjustments made in response to evidence of understanding.
Core Professionalism shows across ethics and confidentiality, accurate and complete records, proactive and culturally sensitive family communication, substantive participation in school and department work, professional learning connected to actual practice change, and reflection that cites specific evidence rather than general impressions.
Common scoring mistakes under Hawaii's EES
Even experienced Hawaii evaluators fall into a few recognizable patterns.
The first is defaulting to the full Danielson framework out of habit. Evaluators trained broadly on Danielson's Framework for Teaching sometimes drift toward scoring components outside Hawaii's chosen five. HIDOE's narrowing is deliberate, not an oversight, and write-ups should stay within the five focus components plus Core Professionalism.
The second is using a generic 1-2-3-4 scale instead of Hawaii's actual 0-2-3-4 point values. The zero-point floor for Unsatisfactory is a real, intentional design feature, not a typo to correct away.
The third is conflating component labels with EES rating labels. A component rated Proficient and an overall EES rating of Effective are related but distinct facts, described with different label sets; using them interchangeably in a write-up muddies which one is actually being reported.
The fourth is breaking Core Professionalism into six separate scores. HIDOE's manual is explicit that this domain is holistic. A write-up that treats each focus area as its own graded component doesn't match how the domain is actually meant to be scored.
The fifth is implying the observation determines the whole EES outcome. With Teacher Practice at 30% of the composite, a strong observation write-up is genuinely good news — but it's not the same as a strong overall EES rating, which also depends on Student Growth and Learning data the observation never touches.
Hawaii in context — the narrowest observation scope among the frameworks EvalScribe supports
Compared to most states, Hawaii's classroom-observation rubric is unusually compact. Where frameworks like California's CSTP or the DC Model Rubric score twenty or more components across several domains, Hawaii scores exactly five — a direct result of HIDOE's decision to align observation specifically with statewide strategic priorities rather than exhaustively covering every Danielson component. That narrowness is a genuine design strength for observation time and evaluator workload, but it also means Teacher Practice is a proportionally smaller share of the overall EES composite than classroom observation tends to be in states where it's the dominant or sole measure.
The presence of the Tripod Student Survey inside Core Professionalism is also distinctive — few of the frameworks EvalScribe supports build a standardized student-perception instrument directly into a professionalism domain the way Hawaii does.
How EvalScribe handles Hawaii's EES
EvalScribe is built around the actual Hawaii Adapted Framework for Teaching as HIDOE scores it — the five focus components (2b, 2d, 3b, 3c, 3d) and the Core Professionalism domain — rather than approximating the full Danielson framework. Each focus component carries the rubric's own language across all four levels, using Hawaii's real 0/2/3/4 point scale and the correct translation to your overall EES rating label. An evaluator captures notes by typing, dictating, or photographing handwriting (Smart Scan OCR converts it to text), and EvalScribe maps that evidence to the correct component and drafts best-fit ratings and feedback in the rubric's voice. For Core Professionalism, EvalScribe drafts one holistic rating and narrative covering all six focus areas, matching how HIDOE's manual actually scores that domain.
A few honest scope notes, because Hawaii's composite structure demands them. Classroom observation is Teacher Practice, and Teacher Practice is 30% of your overall EES composite. Core Professionalism is another 20%, and it also draws on Tripod Student Survey data that EvalScribe doesn't administer or score. Student Growth and Learning — SLOs and Student Growth Percentiles — makes up the remaining 50%, calculated entirely outside anything a classroom observation tool touches. EvalScribe drafts the Teacher Practice observation and helps document Core Professionalism narrative; it does not calculate your composite EES rating.
Beta testers report saving 30 to 60 minutes per evaluation versus writing the documentation traditionally. More detail on the Hawaii workflow is available at evalscribe.com/hawaii.
Frequently asked questions about Hawaii's EES and AI
Does EvalScribe score the full Danielson framework for Hawaii? No — just the five components HIDOE actually observes: 2b, 2d, 3b, 3c, and 3d, plus Core Professionalism.
Why does the scale go 0, 2, 3, 4 instead of 1, 2, 3, 4? That's Hawaii's actual point scale for these components — Unsatisfactory is deliberately worth zero points.
What's the difference between a component rating and my EES rating? Components use Unsatisfactory/Basic/Proficient/Distinguished; your overall EES composite uses Unsatisfactory/Marginal/Effective/Highly Effective. Basic, Proficient, and Distinguished translate to Marginal, Effective, and Highly Effective respectively.
Does AI replace evaluator judgment? No. EvalScribe drafts best-fit ratings and evidence-based feedback; the evaluator reviews, edits, and finalizes every rating.
Does EvalScribe compute my overall EES composite? No. Teacher Practice (observation) is only 30% of the composite; Core Professionalism (20%) and Student Growth and Learning (50%) involve data EvalScribe doesn't calculate.
Where can I read the official sources? HIDOE publishes the Educator Effectiveness System Manual for Evaluators and Participants, including the Hawaii Adapted Framework for Teaching Rubrics, through its Office of Talent Management. EES is governed by Hawaii Board of Education Policy 2055.
If you're evaluating teachers in Hawaii under the EES, see how EvalScribe handles the five-component observation workflow at evalscribe.com/hawaii.
References
Hawaii State Department of Education, Educator Effectiveness System Manual for Evaluators and Participants
Hawaii Adapted Framework for Teaching Rubrics (HIDOE, based on Charlotte Danielson's Framework for Teaching)
Hawaii Board of Education Policy 2055
Hawaiʻi State Teachers Association, Educator Effectiveness System (EES)
Related articles
Page maintained by Anthony D. Neely, Ph.D. — practicing K-12 educator with nearly 20 years in the classroom, 2025–2026 Walker County Distinguished Teacher of the Year, and co-founder of EvalScribe. Framework details verified against the Hawaii Educator Effectiveness System Manual and Hawaii State Department of Education sources.
Last reviewed: July 7, 2026.
