Questions about making evaluative judgments based on observation data and examination of artifacts

Expand all Collapse all

How can assessments from multiple observations and artifacts be combined in a single rating for each of the components in the Framework for Teaching?

For the observable domains, that is, Domain 2 and Domain 3, the answer to this question depends on how many observations have been conducted, whether they are announced or unannounced, and whether the information from each observation is captured electronically or only on paper. Ideally, an observer can look at the assessments from each observation, and examine them as a whole; this is done most readily if the information has been stored electronically. But, regardless of the technology used, the observer must consider the “preponderance of evidence” to determine the level of performance for each component. Alternatively, the process can specify that the ratings for each of the observations are averaged to arrive at a mean or median score for the component. The same process can be followed for Domains 1 and 4: following an examination of the artifacts for each component, a judgment is made linking the evidence to the statements in the levels of performance.

It should be remembered, however, that the score resulting from an average of scores on individual components of the FFT is just that, an average of performance. It, in itself, does not constitute an evaluative judgment about that teacher. For example, if a teacher’s performance improves over the course of a school year in some aspect of teaching, the evaluator might want to consider that improvement when making the final, evaluative, judgment. (See next question/answer.)

How can the evidence from observations and artifacts be used to evaluate a teacher? That is, how can the assessments of the teacher’s practice be converted to an evaluation of the teacher?

The headings in the levels of performance in the Framework for Teaching (unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and distinguished) are descriptive words – that is, they don’t on their own, make a judgment; they merely describe the practice. On the other hand, words used to evaluate teachers (words like ineffective, needs improvement, effective, and highly effective) are judgmental words; they are used to evaluate. Many educators are inclined to simply equate the descriptive words with the evaluative words, and mandate, for example, that in order for a teacher to receive an “effective” rating, all the components must be rated at the “proficient” level. Some systems even replace the FFT descriptive words (basic, etc.) with the judgment words (effective, etc.)

I recommend that school districts (or states, if the decisions are made at that level) use different words for the evaluative judgments made regarding teachers from the words used for the levels of performance of practice (such as unsatisfactory, etc. in the Danielson Framework). In that case, evaluators must be able to translate from one to the other.

How can evaluations about teacher practice, based on the Framework for Teaching, be combined with other measures of teacher effectiveness?

This requires the application of an algorithm, typically specified by the state, or district administration.

"Danielson’s Framework for Teaching has been a revelation to me; the best analogy I can offer is that the Framework is like having voice-guided GPS to direct you to a destination, when before you might have only had a destination name and an outdated road map."

Pre-Service Teacher, May 2016

“[The consultant] gave the best PD I have seen in 15 years of teaching, and was the first to explain [the] Danielson [Framework] in a human way. Bravo.”

A teacher, June 2015

“I am so impressed with the Danielson Group consultants. They are all so real. Your trainers helped make [proficient] teaching stronger and steered [basic teaching] toward increasing effectiveness.” 

A principal, June 2015

"Due to your consultant's seamless and meaningful transitions, knowledge of content, and rapport with the audience, the room was alive with energy and it made us all feel ready to begin the year off with success."

"Never before have I seen a group of seasoned educators like your consultants master the art of communicating with an audience with varied levels of expertise and interests. The two days that I spent with your team, I walked away with a desire to use the rubric to truly enhance my own practice."

"I left with a renewed look at the rubric, thinking that the rubric is the Great Equalizer! We can ALL enhance our practice by using it as a tool and a roadmap to produce students who think and are ready for college and careers. THANK YOU!"

"Your consultants' presence and organization of the day will not only impact the new teachers that attended, but will make the year alive for a vast number of students this year."

"Our workshop focused on calibration and inter-rater agreement training, so it was directly aligned to our individual and collective work with teacher performance evaluation.  With new administrators on the team, this type of training is critical."

"We were highly impressed with our Danielson Group consultant and the workshop. We have nothing but positive things to share. Staff have been emailing us, thanking us. This is the most worthwhile presentation we've been to in a while."

"The workshop you provided was hands-on, interesting, practical, and respectful of time limits. I heard more positive feedback about this workshop from staff than I have about any other."

"We wanted to let you know how much we appreciated the flexibility and professionalism that your consultant provided in our unique context. It helped us to keep on track with our schedule at a critical time. For that we are truly grateful."

"Your consultant presented a perfectly differentiated learning experience for all our principals. They were highly engaged, as demonstrated by on-topic conversations using academic language, completion of tasks requiring evidence identification, and note taking and 'grading' during classroom videos of teaching."

"Our school principals said the Framework observation training was the best training they had ever had, including the training provided when earning their Master’s degrees."

"I have a principal who was so excited about the breakthrough work with her staff in special education. I am already getting my money back!"

"My concern about the extra time it would take to implement the Framework successfully was not accurate. It took about the same amount of time as our prior evaluation system, and the benefits in professional growth and increased student achievement were more than worth it."

"I want to truly thank you for the brilliant job that you did with our training. I got such positive feedback from the team. They feel re-energized and like they have a direction and new tools to do the job."