Teacher & Principal Evaluation
Choosing an Instructional Framework
Danielson vs. UW Cel 5D’s +
Scott Poirier spoirier@washingtonea.org
K-12 Education and Policy Issues Coordinator
Three Instructional Frameworks
Marzano
Research based on meta-analysis, control
studies, correlation studies, focus group
feedback, observations
UW 5 Ds +
Research based on UW work, Classroom
practice and principal observation
Danielson
Marzano
Danielson
Research based on classroom-based
observations, theorizing teaching practice, MET
project study, focus group feedback, cross walk
with student assessment
U.W CEL
5D+
Objective and Logical Analysis
of the Two Remaining
Frameworks
Architecture of the two
Research-Based Instructional Frameworks
Domains
Dimensions
Scored Components
Elements
Danielson
5 D+
4 Domains
7 Dimensions
22 + 5
37 + 5
76
0
Questions to ask
Are there any major differences in the architecture of the two
frameworks? If so, what?
Will the differences in the architecture impact how we will
operationalize the evaluation system?
Will there be a difference in the amount of time it would take to
use one framework over the other?
Review the Framework Components
Conduct an initial “circle” process where participants review the
frameworks through the lens of their district culture. Use the
crosswalk to go down each criterion and circle the concepts that
most align with the district’s philosophy. Underline interesting
observations.
Questions to ask
• Do the frameworks have a vocabulary aligned to past district
practice and support?
• Do the frameworks cover the “really big deals” that the district
finds important in a teacher/principal evaluation? Frameworks
missing “really big deals?”
• Does one framework language lend itself better to the type of
evidence the district will collect in the process?
• Specificity? Student or Teacher centric? Jargon? Clear language?
What are Your Observations - Component Level
Danielson
5 D’s +
Architecture of the Two Research-Based
Instructional Frameworks
Domains
Dimensions
Scored Components
Elements
Floor
Gradations
Ceiling
Cut Line
Time
Support Available?
History?
Inter-rater reliability?
Danielson
5 Ds +
4 Domains
7 Dimensions
22 +5
37 + 5
76
0
The Floor What is a “1”
You may want to dissect the actual rubric language for each of the
instructional frameworks. One of the biggest differences may be what
constitutes a “1” (the floor). You usually see four different types of “floors.”
1.
2.
3.
4.
Language that uses detrimental terms, practice is detrimental to students
No impact on students – absence of content/process/learning/ or using strategy wrong
Minimal impact on students (words like rarely, minimal, few, etc)
Progressions (North Carolina, McCREL)
Rubric 1
Rubric 2
When the strategy is
called for the teacher
does not use it or the
teacher uses the strategy
incorrectly or with parts
missing.
Teacher Interaction with
at least some students is
negative, demeaning,
sarcastic or inappropriate
to the age or culture of
the students. Students
exhibit disrespect for the
teacher
Rubric 3
Students are rarely given
an opportunity to assess
their own learning in
relation to the success
criteria.
Can you identify the floor that represents Danielson and 5D’s +?
The Floor What is a “1”
1.
2.
3.
4.
Language that uses detrimental terms, practice is detrimental to students
No impact on students – absence of content/process/learning/ or doing strategy wrong
Minimal impact on students (words like rarely, minimal, few, etc)
Progressions (Central Valley in Spokane, North Carolina, McCREL)
Questions
1. What are the implications/issues related to the different types of
floors?
2. Will the different “floors” impact the types of measures and
evidence collected?
3. Would there be any difference how a district approaches
professional development based on the different floors?
Gradations
Differentiated language - What kind of language differentiates the
levels. Basically there are three kinds of gradations. Quantitative,
qualitative, and progressions. You may want to have the discussion
regarding the differences and what your team thinks will work the best in
your district
1. Quantitatively (never, few, sometimes, consistently, frequently, always, etc)
2. Qualitatively (describes differences in detail and quality)
3. Progressions (do one thing, next level do two things, next level do three things, etc)
4. Combination of the three above
Example 1 below
Student Engagement: Work of High Cognitive Demand
Unsatisfactory
Teacher
expectations and
strategies engage
few students in
work of high
cognitive demand.
Basic
Teacher
expectations and
strategies engage
some students in
work of high
cognitive demand.
Proficient
Distinguished
Teacher expectations
and strategies
engage most
students in work of
high cognitive
demand.
Teacher
expectations and
strategies engage
all students in
work of high
cognitive demand.
Gradations
1. Quantitatively (never, few, sometimes, consistently, frequently, always, etc)
2. Qualitatively (describes differences in detail)
3. Progressions (do one thing, next level do two things, next level do three things, etc)
4. Combination of the three above
Example 2 below
Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Proficient
Distinguished
Classroom
interactions, both
between the teacher
and students and
among students, are
negative,
inappropriate, or
insensitive to
students’ cultural
backgrounds, and
characterized by
sarcasm, put-downs,
or conflict.
Classroom interactions,
both between the
teacher and students
and among students, are
generally appropriate
and free from conflict,
but may be
characterized by
occasional displays of
insensitivity or lack of
responsiveness to
cultural or
developmental
differences among
students.
Classroom
interactions, both
between teacher and
students and among
students, are polite
and respectful,
reflecting general
warmth and caring,
and are appropriate
to the cultural and
developmental
differences among
groups of students.
Classroom interactions
among the teacher and
individual students are
highly respectful,
reflecting genuine
warmth and caring and
sensitivity to students’
cultures and levels of
development. Students
themselves ensure high
levels of civility among
members of the class.
Gradations
1. Quantitatively (never, few, sometimes, consistently, frequently, always, etc)
2. Qualitatively (describes differences in detail)
3. Progressions (do one thing, next level do two things, next level do three
things, etc)
4. Combination of the three above
Review both Instructional frameworks and identify which framework uses which
kind of gradations.
Questions
What are the implications/issues of using the different types of gradations?
How will the different gradations impact the types of measures and evidence
collected?
Would there be any difference how a district approaches
professional development based on the different
types of gradations?
How about with calibration and inter-rater reliability training?
The Ceiling . . . Is it Achievable?
The ceiling also has differences and districts should review them in detail
to make sure the intent of their evaluation system is conveyed. Look for
terms that are absolute (all, every, always, etc) and ask if the wording is
“achievable” or is the wording nearly impossible for a principal and
teacher to reach? What should a “4” be in your district?
Rubric 1
Students always assess their
own learning in relation to
the success criteria and can
always determine where
they are in connection to the
standard and proficiency.
Rubric 2
The teacher adapts or
creates new strategies to
meet the specific needs of
students for whom the
typical application of
strategies does not
produce the desired effect.
Rubric 3
High levels of student energy
and teacher passion for the
subject create a culture for
learning in which everyone
shares a belief in the
importance of the subject
and all students hold
themselves to high standards
of performance—for
example, by initiating
improvements to their work.
Can you identify which is the Danielson framework and which is 5D’s+?
Thoughts?
Questions?
Reflections?
Levels of Performance - Danielson
Unsatisfactory
Lack of
Unsafe
Harmful
Unclear
Unaware
Poor
Unsuitable
Basic
Inconsistent
Partial
General
Attempts
Awareness
Moderate
Minimal
Proficient
Consistent
Frequent
Successful
Appropriate
Clear
Positive
Smooth
Teacher
Directed
Success
Distinguished
Solid
Seamless
Subtle
Skillful
Preventative
Leadership
Students
Student
Directed
Success
Levels of Performance – 5D’s +
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Rarely
Limited
Does not
Occasionally
Few
Some
Non-existent
Does not
effectively
Absent
Poorly executed
Proficient
Frequently
Most
Teacher
Directed
Success
Distinguished
Always
All
Student
Directed
Success
The Cut Line: Basic “Deemed Satisfactory”
Review each rubric with the cut line in mind:
Basic for the first 5 years
Proficient for more than 5 years
Rubric 1
The lesson is based on
grade level standards
and the learning
target(s) align to the
standard. The lesson is
occasionally linked to
broader purpose or a
transferable skill.
Rubric 2
The classroom culture is characterized by little
commitment to learning by teacher or students.
The teacher appears to be only going through
the motions, and students indicate that they are
interested in completion of a task, rather than
quality. The teacher conveys that student
success is the
result of natural ability rather than hard work;
high expectations for learning are reserved for
those
students thought to have a natural aptitude for
the subject.
The Cut Line: Proficient
Review each rubric with the cut line in mind:
Basic for the first 5 years
Proficient for more than 5 years
Rubric 1
The lesson is based on grade level
standards and the learning target(s)
align to the standard. The lesson is
frequently linked to broader purpose or
a transferable skill.
Rubric 2
The classroom culture is a
cognitively busy place where learning is valued
by all, with high expectations for learning being
the norm for most students. The teacher
conveys that with hard work students
can be successful. Students understand their
role as learners and consistently expend effort
to learn. Classroom interactions
support learning and hard work.
Mount Baker TPEP Evaluation Tool for Each of the 8 Criteria
Part Two: Framework Language is …
Marzano
5D
Danielson
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
Marzano
5D
Danielson
1. leads to instructional improvement rather than the creation of time
consuming products
3
2
3
2. leads to instructional improvement rather than compliance activities
2
2
2
3. balances sophistication in understanding instruction with practical
understandings of workload and environment
4. promotes teacher feelings of safety
5. values reflection
6. promotes professional growth
7. can realistically be fully implemented in the district (scale-able)
8. Aligns with district values
2
2
2
2
3
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
3
1
30
26
27
1. easy to understand
2. objective
3. consistent
4. applicable to a variety of teaching assignments
Rating scale is 1-4 following the U B P D model.
Notes:
Part three: The Framework process…
Rating scale is 1-4 following the U B P D model.
Notes:
Total for Criteria 3
Student growth Rubric Language
Criterion 3
SG 3.1 Establishes
appropriate student
growth goals for subgroups
of students not reaching
full learning potential.
Goals identify multiple,
high-quality sources of
data to monitor, adjust,
and evaluate achievement
of goals.
Criterion 6
SG 6.1 Establishes
appropriate
student growth goals for
whole classroom. Goals
identify multiple, high
quality sources of data to
monitor, adjust, and
evaluate achievement of
goals.
SG 3.2 & SG 6.2 - Multiple sources of growth or
achievement data from at least two points in time show
clear evidence of growth for most students.
Criterion 8
SG 8.1 Consistently and
actively collaborates with
other grade-level, subject
matter or instructional
team members to establish
goals, to develop and
implement common, highquality measures, and to
monitor growth and
achievement during the
year.
Time
How much time will frameworks take to score? How many
components will need to be scored? Danielson will score 22
components. 5D’s + will score 37 components. It’s a
consideration regarding how much time the principal and teacher
evaluation will logistically take when it’s operationalized. . . But
are all components created equal?
Policy decisions vs. what does it look like in the trenches.
Kent School District
History of the District Supporting Instructional Frameworks
• What kind of resources have already been used for supporting an
instructional framework in your district?
• What kind of support has been provided?
• How much professional development has been conducted?
• If there is an instructional framework culture in the district, what is the
saturation level among principals and teachers? (operationalized?)
• Is there any negative or positive history already with one or more
instructional framework? Which ones?
• Any ramifications choosing one framework over the other? If so, what are
they?
• What are others considerations that need to be brought up connected to
the history of the district and instructional frameworks?
Support, PD, Manage the System
• What kind of professional development support is available
for each framework? Technical support?
• What are the costs?
• Is it supported by ESDs?
• Can you join forces with another nearby district using the
same framework to mitigate costs (bringing in an
author/workshops, etc?)
• Inter-rater reliability
What have we
looked at so far?
What more do you
need?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Research
Architecture
Scored components
Floor
Ceiling
Gradations
Cut line
Time
Support
Inter-rater reliability & calibration
History of the district
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Language differences
Teacher centric
Student centric
Specificity
Professional development
Measures and evidence
And more
Decision Time
Question:
As you think about the two instructional frameworks, where
would you rate each one on a scale between 1 and 10 (with 10 being high) as it
relates to being the best fit for your district?
1
2
3
4
5
6
All of us are smarter than any one of us
7
8
9
10