1. Teacher Evaluation and Development
in the Common Core Era
ASCD Annual Conference
March 16, 2014
Los Angeles, California
Charlotte Danielson
The Danielson Group
5. Teacher Evaluation System Design
High Rigor
Low ←--------------------------------------- Level of Stakes -------------------→High
Low Rigor
6. Teacher Evaluation System Design
High Rigor
Structured Mentoring Programs,
e.g. New Teacher Center
Low ←---------------------------------------
National Board Certification
Praxis III
Level of Stakes -------------------→High
Informal Mentoring Programs
Traditional Evaluation Systems
Low Rigor
DANGER!!
7. Getting it “Right” …What Does This Mean?
• Technically defensible
- clear definition of practice
- validated instrument
- trained and certified evaluators
- psychometrically valid
• Professionally defensible
- “We’re not going to fire our way to Finland”
- systems that promote learning
8. Establishing Validity of the Framework for Teaching
Three Important studies:
• Chicago pilot evaluation study, conducted by CCSR
• The MET study, funded by the Gates Foundation
• The Cincinnati study, conducted by Eric Taylor and John
Tyler
9. Correlation Between Observation Ratings and VAM (CCSR)
Results:
• Ratings explained a
significant portion of
variation in VAM in
reading and math
• Relationship stronger in
reading than in math
• Teachers with high
observation ratings had
high VAMs (and vice-
versa)
10. Key Findings From the CCSR Study on
Professional Conversation
Principals and teachers thought the conferences they had about
instruction were:
• More reflective than those they had using the CPS checklist
• Based on a shared language about instructional practice and
improvement
• Evidence-based, which reduced subjectivity
.
However, the quality of the conversations could be improved because
they were:
• Dominated by principal talk
• Driven by low-level questions
• Principals identified the need for additional training in this area
11. MET Results Underscore Accuracy For Feedback
On a 4 point scale 88.3% of
teachers were a 2 or a 3!
Correlations with alternate
assessments for FfT much
higher than for state
assessments
15-minute observations as
reliable as 45-minute
observations
Student perceptions highly
correlated with VAM
14. A Third Important Study:
Eric Taylor and John Tyler, Cincinnati
• Studied mid-career teachers, evaluated by classroom
observation
• Evaluators were principals and teacher evaluators; they
were trained and required to demonstrate accuracy in
observation
• Compared the achievement of teachers’ students
before, during, and after the year of evaluation
• Evaluation instrument based on the Danielson
Framework for Teaching
17. Defining Effective Teaching
Two basic approaches:
• Teacher practices, that is, what teachers do, how well
they do the work of teaching
• Results, that is, what teachers accomplish, typically
how well their students learn
18. The Complexity of Teaching
“After 30 years of doing such work, I have concluded
that classroom teaching … is perhaps the most
complex, most challenging, and most demanding,
subtle, nuanced, and frightening activity that our
species has ever invented. ..The only time a physician
could possibly encounter a situation of comparable
complexity would be in the emergency room of a
hospital during or after a natural disaster”
Lee Shulman, The Wisdom of Practice
19. Defining What Teachers Do: The Four Domains
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
Domain 3: Instruction
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
20. The Framework for Teaching
Domain 4: Professional
Responsibilities
• Reflecting on Teaching
• Maintaining Accurate Records
• Communicating with Families
• Participating in a Professional
Community
• Growing and Developing Professionally
• Showing Professionalism
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
• Demonstrating Knowledge of Content
and Pedagogy
• Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
• Setting Instructional Outcomes
• Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
• Designing Coherent Instruction
• Designing Student Assessments
Domain 2: The Classroom
Environment
• Creating an Environment of Respect
and Rapport
• Establishing a Culture for Learning
• Managing Classroom Procedures
• Managing Student Behavior
• Organizing Physical Space
Domain 3: Instruction
• Communicating With Students
• Using Questioning and Discussion
Techniques
• Engaging Students in Learning
• Using Assessment in Instruction
• Demonstrating Flexibility and
Responsiveness
23. Teacher Evaluation Meets the Common Core:
Another View
• Two parallel initiatives, both
enormous
• Independent demands,
timelines, pressures
• Educators forced to make a
decision as to which initiative
to focus on
24. Teacher Evaluation Meets the Common Core:
A Third View: Merging The Two Important Initiatives
This involves:
• Understanding the content
challenges of the CCSS
• Considering the instructional
implications of the CCSS
• Creating a version of the FfT
that reflects teaching to the
CCSS
25. Teaching the Core: Supported by a Grant from The
Helmsley Charitable Trust
The project has involved training observers on both the FfT
and the Instructional Practice Guides, created by Student
Achievement Partners
Questions we’re trying to answer:
1. When observers watch lessons using either/both the FfT
(2013) and the IP Guides, do they detect relevant
information with the IP Guides that is not discernible with
the FfT?
2. How can (should?) the FfT be modified so it captures
important evidence found when observers use the IP
Guides?
26. Those Questions Are Not Sufficient
• Initially, we thought the project was answering questions
about the instrument (fft 2013)
• It’s not just about the instrument. That is, we can’t answer
that question without answering some others:
- used by whom (generalist principal, specialist)?
- used for what purpose (evaluation, coaching on CCSS)?
- what is the level of content and pedagogical content
knowledge of the user?
• Is one instrument sufficient, or is there a need for multiple,
discipline-specific tools? If so, how many of them are
needed?
27. The “Big Ideas” of the CCSS (in all disciplines)
These concepts have always been part of the Framework
for Teaching:
• Intellectual rigor and reasoning
• Precision in thought and language
• Analysis and development of logical arguments
based on evidence
• Conceptual understanding and application
• Strategic thinking
• Hard work and resilience
• Student independence and responsibility for learning
28. The Integration of the CCSS
into The Framework for Teaching
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
• Reflecting on Teaching
• Maintaining Accurate Records
• Communicating with Families
• Participating in a Professional Community
• Growing and Developing Professionally
• Showing Professionalism
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
• Demonstrating Knowledge of Content
and Pedagogy
• Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
• Setting Instructional Outcomes
• Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
• Designing Coherent Instruction
• Designing Student Assessments
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
• Creating an Environment of Respect
and Rapport
• Establishing a Culture for Learning
• Managing Classroom Procedures
• Managing Student Behavior
• Organizing Physical Space
Domain 3: Instruction
• Communicating With Students
• Using Questioning and Discussion
Techniques
• Engaging Students in Learning
• Using Assessment in Instruction
• Demonstrating Flexibility and
Responsiveness
29. Challenges in Integrating the CCSS and the FfT
• Curriculum work:
- ensuring that the year’s units and lessons accommodate all the
learning outcomes of that year
- recommending texts that lend themselves to the analysis called
for in the ELA/literacy standards
- incorporating high-quality informational text into science and
social studies lessons
• Depth of teacher subject knowledge
• Students’ possession of essential knowledge/skills/cognitive
structures for grade-level work
• Teacher skill in teaching for conceptual understanding,
argumentation
• Capacity of supervisors to recognize/promote rigorous learning
across disciplines
30. Our Current Thinking
• Make (slight) revisions as needed to the 2013 fft for use by
principals/evaluators in a comprehensive evaluation of
practice
• Recommend that this instrument be used for discharging
the HR requirements of evaluation
• Produce smaller, discipline- and level-specific tools for use
by teachers, mentors, and coaches for use to promote
professional learning in Common Core teaching.
31. A System for Teacher Evaluation and Professional Growth
