EVALUATION OF TEACHING

SGDC5023
CRITICAL ARTICLE REVIEW
A Look at the Danielson Framework
for Teacher Evaluation
NAME

: NORSAHIRAH BINTI GHANI

MATRIX NO

: 819008

SEMESTER

: SEM 02/2015

PROGRAMME

: MASTER OF EDUCATION

SPECIALIZATION

: CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

INSTRUCTOR

: PROF. DR. NURAHIMAH BT MOHD.

YUSOFF

A Look at the Danielson Framework for Teacher Evaluation

The article is about A Look at the Danielson Framework for Teacher Evaluation
written by Brian R. Evans, Fran Wills and Megan Moretti. This article was published at
Journal of the National Association for Alternative Certification (JNAAC) in 2015.
In this age of teacher accountability, school districts are increasingly interested in
using the best possible methods in evaluating their teachers. It happen because, years of
research have proven that nothing schools can do for their student matters more than
givingthem effective teachers. A few years with effective teachers can put even the most
disadvantagedstudents on the path to college. A few years with ineffective teachers can deal
students an academicblow from which they may never recover. (Jordan, Mendro &
Weerasighe, 1997; TNTP, 2010). Many researches had also shown that the best predictor of a
teachers effectiveness is his or her past success inthe classroom. Most other factors pale in
comparison, including a teachers preparation route, advanceddegrees, and even experience
level (after the first few years). The lesson is clear: to ensure that every childlearns from the
most effective teachers possible, schools must be able to gauge their teachers
performancefairly and accurately (TNTP,2010).
From that statement, we know that evaluationis very important for teachers.
Evaluation should provide all teachers with regular feedbackthat helps them grow as
professionals, no matter how long theyhave been in the classroom. Evaluations should give
schools theinformation they need to build the strongest possible instructionalteams, and help
districts hold school leaders accountable forsupporting each teachers development. Most
importantly, theyshould focus everyone in a school system, from teachers to
thesuperintendent, on what matters most: keeping every student ontrack to graduate from
high school ready for success in college ora career.Because of that, The Danielson Group was
built an organization to seek for help the education community understand and apply the
Danielson Framework for teaching. They also was promotes the framework to be used by
schools and districts in professional development, and elevate professional practices that have
a positive impact on student achievement.
Based on that, research was performed by Brian R. Evans, Fran Wills and Megan
Moretti to look at the Danielson Framework as an assessment method to evaluate teachers.
The framework was developed by Charlotte Danielson, an educational consultant and former
teacher and administrator with expertise in teacher effectiveness and design of teacher
evaluation systems. Danielson Framework is a set of 22 component of instruction that were
1

aligned to Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) standardsand

measure teacher effectiveness. The components are categorized under four domains: (1)
planning and preparation, (2) classroom environment, (3) instruction and (4) professional
responsibilities.
Because of that, the authors performed this research to serve as a case study and
catalyst for understanding how alternative certification teachers perceive the Danielson
Framework. In order to help the authors begin to understand the perceptions alternative
certification teachers have about the Danielson Framework, the authors interviewed six
teachers from an elementary mathematics methods class and six teachers in a special
education class. All of the respondents were teachers from partnering university with the New
York City Teaching Fellow (NYCTF) program. The teachers were selected through
volunteering for interviews. All twelve teachers were enrolled in a masters program at the
partner university in New York City and were teaching in New York City public schools.The
NYCTF program is an alternative certification program in New York City that began in 2000
to address teacher shortages in high need subject areas. The purpose of the NYCTF program
is to prepare a critical mass of exceptional teachers committed to a better future for the New
York Citystudents who need them most(NYCTF, 2014 p.1; Evans, B. R., Wills, F. &
Moretti, M., 2015).
To make sure this research got the better result, all of the respondents were chosen by
different kind of fields and year of experiences. Out of the twelve teachers interviewed, six of
them taught general education, four taught childhood special education, and two taught
adolescent special education. In regard to teaching experience, five teachers were currently in
the first year of teaching, four were in the second year of teaching, and three teachers had two
or more years of experiences. Interviews were conducted by phone and consisted of five
questions. (1) How long have you been a teacher? (2) Are you currently in or have you been
in an alternative certification program? (3) In a few sentences, what do you know about the
Danielson Framework? (4) What is your opinion on the Danielson Framework?Is it a good
thing? (5) What is your opinion on teacher evaluation? Teachers responses to interview
questions were recorded and subsequently analyzed to find common themes, similarities, and
differences.
After all the processes, the authors found that allthe twelve teachers had a basic
understanding of the purpose and process of the Danielson Framework. The teachers also
2

explained that the Danielson Framework was a teacher evaluation system, involving teacher
observation in conjunction with a rubric, with goal of assessing effective teacher
performance. They also had more in-depth knowledge of the framework, citing components
such as classroom environment, planning and preparation, and professionalism.
From the interview, the authors also found that all of the teachers have mixed opinion
on thought whether the Danielson Framework was good or not. Some of them though that
performances of evaluations really depended on the teacher and their teaching style. They
also acknowledged the Danielson Framework was a potential to be, a good rubric.
Unfortunately, some of the teachers indicated that the Danielson Framework was ineffective
when assessing teachers of special education students. They all disagreed with being
evaluated on certain components, such as higher order thinking, questioning and engaging,
and lively class discussions, in their classroom because they felt this was not always possible
with their student populations. They thought that this framework might be effective for
general education classrooms, but certain considerations should be taken into account for
evaluating special education teachers. These teachers also acknowledge the importance of a
quality, common rubric. However, they questioned how it was being used and how a single
subjective observer could make effective objective evaluations on a lengthy list of
components in short period of time.
Besides that, all of the teachers also agreed that teacher evaluation was necessary.
They also stated the importance of having a unified, consistent teacher evaluation system
working toward the same goal. They also said that teacher evaluations should be used as a
way to provide feedback so teachers can continuously improve and develop professionally.
Taking about teacher evaluations, a few of the teachers mentioned stress and pressure
accompanying teacher observations. They was suggested that should be a process of
acquainting new teachers with evaluation systems and better effort in ensuring everyone is
trained on the Danielson Framework.
As the conclusions, the authors retrieved that it seems clearly that from small samples
of teachers that the teachers were generally fairly knowledgeable about Danielson
Framework. But, teachers had some reservations on how decisions would be made based
upon the information gathered from the framework. While it seems that Danielson
Framework takes the teacher quality and evaluation in a suitable direction in regard to

accountability, caution is needed for the interpretation of results gathered from the
framework.
Besides that, the authors also mentioned that in the age of teacher accountability, they
are likely to see increased emphasis on teacher evaluation with interest in valid and reliable
means to determine classroom teacher quality. Currently, the Danielson Framework is a
widely accepted instrument to assist administrators, teachers, and parents in determining
teacher quality in the classroom. According to New York State Education Department (2011)
in Evans, B. R., Wills, F. & Moretti, M. (2015), the Danielson Framework for Teaching in
2011 was approved as one of accepted assessment models or evaluating teachers
effectiveness aligned with the New York State Teaching Standards. Furthermore, many
districts in New York had already adopted the Danielson Framework for Teaching as a
assessment method to measure teacher effectiveness.However, the authors also stated that we
must be cautious to acknowledge the limitations of using a single instrument to determine
teaching quality. Clearly, other variables, such as student achievement, affective variables,
and demonstrated creativity, for example, will present a fuller picture of teacher classroom
productivity.
Through this research, there are more than one issue that we can discuss deeply.
Firstly, as we already know, this article was focused about teacher evaluation. According to
The New Teacher Project (2010),most teacher evaluation systems suffer from aslew of design
flaws. It happened because many teachersespecially more experiencedteachersarent
evaluated

every

year.

These

teachersmight

go

years

between

receiving

any

meaningfulfeedback on their performance. Besides that, a teachers most important

responsibilityis to help students learn, yet student academic progressrarely factors directly
into evaluations. Instead, teachersare often evaluated based on superficial judgments
aboutbehaviours and practices that may not have any impact onstudent learninglike the
presentation of their bulletinboards.
In many school districts, teachersalso can earn only two possible ratings:
satisfactory orunsatisfactory. This pass/fail system makes it impossibleto distinguish
great teaching from good, good fromfair, and fair from poor. To make matters worse,
nearlyall teachers, almost 99 percent in many districtsearn thesatisfactory rating. Even in
districts where evaluationsinclude more than two possible ratings, most teachersearn top
marks. Teachers alsooverwhelmingly reported that evaluations dont givethem useful
4

feedback on their performance inthe classroom.The results of evaluations also are rarelyused
to make important decisions about development,compensation, tenure or promotion. In fact,
most ofthe school districts we studied considered teachersperformance only when it came
time to dismiss them (TNTP, 2010)
From the information above, we know that evaluation for teachers is necessary. But,
the first important is to define good teaching before evaluation. By applying research on
effective instruction to define good teaching, that why Danielson created an evidence-based
framework for teaching. The framework can then be used as a rubric to evaluate teaching. He
also emphasized that two important variables for successful evaluation of good teaching are
well trained evaluators and time allowed for meaningful observations and professional
conversations about teaching practice (Danielson, 2010; Evans, B. R., Wills, F. & Moretti,
M., 2015). Danielson hope when he created the Danielson Framework, all of the problems
can be solved.
Unfortunately, from that data of the interviewed, the authors also stated that we must
be cautious to acknowledge the limitations of using a single instrument to determine teaching
quality. It because, no single data point can paint a complete picture of a teachers
performance, so evaluationsystems should use multiple measures to determine whether
teachers have met performanceexpectations. Whenever possible, these should include
objective measures of student academic growth, suchas value-added models that connect
students progress on standardized assessments to individual teachers whilecontrolling for
important factors such as students academic history. Other possible measures include
performance ondistrict-wide or teacher-generated assessments, and classroom observations
centred on evidence of student learning.Each measure should have a specific weight, so that
teachers and instructional managers understand how eachcomponent will factor into the final
evaluation rating. The most weight should be afforded to the most accuratemeasures of
student progress, which will often be the objective measures.
Here, Im not telling that Danielson Framework is not a good evaluation method for
teacher but all of the evaluation method had advantages and disadvantages. There are many
benefits when we use this framework. According to Danielson (1996), the benefits of having
a framework for professional practice are several. First, a framework offers the profession of
teaching a shardvocabulary as a way to communicate about excellence. For novice teachers,
aframework provides a pathway to excellence by laying out the twenty-twoimportant
5

components that constitute professional practice. A framework forteaching provides a

structure for discussions among teachers and also serves tosharpen the focus for professional
development. A framework also serves tocommunicate to the larger community the array of
competencies needed to be aneffective teacher.
Finally, after for decades, teacher evaluations were little more than a bureaucratic
exercise that failed to recognize either excellence or mediocrity in teaching. Increasingly, this
is no longer the case. Since 2009, the vast majority of states have made significant changes to
how teachers are evaluated for the main purpose of improving instruction. For most, this
means evaluations will now take into consideration student achievement, as measured by
standardized scores, alongside traditional methods like classroom observations, lesson plan
reviews and others. Combined, these measures make for a more accurate assessment while
providing valuable feedback to teachers on their strengths and weaknesses (Hull, 2013).
Through this research, we know thatan evaluation process must have meaningful
implications,both positive and negative, in order to earn sustainedsupport from teachers and
school leaders and tocontribute to the systematic improvement of the teacherworkforce. It
should produce information that districts can easilyfactor into important decisions about
teacher tenure, compensation,development, hiring, promotion and dismissal. This means that
the resultsof evaluations must be accurate, clear and easy to interpret.Some policymakers
may support using evaluations only to reward excellentteachers, and not for more difficult
decisions like layoffs. But if teacherperformance matters at all, it should matter for any
significant decisionthat affects the quality of instruction students receive.As schools seek
tobuild and sustain strong instructional teams, a teachers track record ofsuccess in the
classroom should be paramount, not off-limits.
Accountability for evaluation outcomes should not rest on the shoulders ofteachers
alone; the ability to identify, develop and keep talented teachersis arguably the most
important priority of any school leader. Therefore,instructional managers should be held
accountable not just for evaluatingteachers accurately, but for acting on the results and
helping teachersimprove over time. Likewise, district and state education leaders shouldbe
similarly responsible for ensuring that instructional managers receiveeffective oversight and
the training and support their need to evaluateteachers fairly, consistently and accurately.
REFERENCES
6

Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching Association

for

Supervisor

and

Curriculum

Development

Retrieved

from

http://ee.dpi.wi.gov/teacher/teacher-practice
Danielson, C. (2014). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument 2013 ed. Retrieved
from www.danielsongroup.org
Evans, B. R., Wills, F., Moretti, M. (2015).A look at the Danielson Framework for Teacher
Evaluation. Journal of the National Association for Alternative Certification, 10(1),
21-26
Hull, J. (2013). Trends in teacher evaluation how state are measuring teacher performance
Retrieved from www.centerforpubliceducation.org
The New Teacher Project TNTP (2010). Teacher Evaluation 2.0 Retrieved from
www.tntp.org