Pilot Model Comparisons
+
North Mason
(Danielson Framework)





North Thurston
(Danielson Framework)






-
Clearly written
Multiple sources of
information for evidence
Stair step for implementation
PD aligned to stair-step
Possible differentiation for
specialists




Very thorough; detailed out
the elements
Exactly what came out of
Danielson book
Developed some forms
Clearly defined
Self-reflection piece for
individual/team
Liked the complete cycle of
the evaluation process



A little unwieldy – 22 pieces

Creating a portfolio

Some evidence is only
observable
In some cases, there is a

reliance on students
Summative evaluation . .. “it is
my judgment (subjective)
Line blurred between
“volunteer” and
“professional”
Discipline and evaluation are
two different issues
Need to develop a system for
reviewing evidence
Process to refute? [Need PD
to develop skills for crucial
conversations]
How to roll out new system
with confidence – ways to
“take out the scary” [PD]

Tool for district office
administrators (directors,
TOSA’s)?
Directors – could select
appropriate criteria and do a






Snohomish
(Danielson Framework)


?
Liked how the pages were
formatted, started with
exemplary, then moved right
to unsatisfactory
Aligned the Danielson



No long term PD
District resources may be
differed – evaluation PD vs.
content PD
No forms for specialists
Level 1 indicator language is
“weird” or negative
Wondered if “not observed”
should be on there
Not observed vs. not
applicable
Too simplified





Will the state exempt those
who have no specific form?
Remember – NA or Comment
Should reverse the order to 43-2-1
Some items difficult to
measure
School success is a key
indicator to principal
evaluation
1






ESD 101 Consortium
(Danielson Framework)







domains to the state criteria
District has worked on a 4 tier
evaluation system for 8 years.
Emphasized depth vs. breadth
Seem more doable; more
condensed
More specific of what
classroom observation is part
of teacher evaluation (what’s
seen)
More opportunity to use with
certificated specialists
(librarians, counselors)
Not punitive or tied to high
stakes testing

Seems to be tailored to meet
their size (primarily small
districts)
Felt like it was more about
the “feel of it” vs. hard
evidence
Consistent and laid-out
process; teacher protocol
order with tools to support
Manageable
Emphasis on self-assessment
Evidence is applicable to
specialists
Online components support
and add additional “meat” to
the process; i.e. selfassessment, conversations











holistic rating
Principal ( criteria 6) – who is
going to determine whether it
is proficient or merging – they
both say the same thing
Principal: Missing language or
voids in areas of rubrics
Wonder about the difference
in language between
“emerging” and “basic”
Questioning how “equipment
management” pertains to
teacher evaluation – open to
interpretation
No summative report yet
State hot button – “value
added”
Concern about indicator (3b)
that says “all students”
Important components are
left out of the formal
observation form (rubric)
Unsure how evidence from
observation process is
transferred to the final
evaluation; what does
“preponderance” mean?
Unclear as to which of the six
scoring models they have
chosen
Scoring is specifically
designed to avoid averaging
scores
Website is not complete – still


Need clarification of
observation language, i.e.
formal and informal
Why is the
numbering/lettering done
that way? Confuses the
reader
2





Wenatchee
(Marzano Framework)








Teacher self-reflection has all
22 Danielson pieces
Attempts to allow for
collaboration and reflection
Provides criteria comparison
between old eval and new;
takes focus off knowledge and
puts it into “action” words
Holistic process
The meeting design for the
“changing process” and the
future is real valuable
(addresses non-traditional
roles
Format/layout of principal
rubric
Evidence clear on the page;
point system clear
Sub-categories (elements)
give clear, specific criteria to
help teacher and
administrator
Very detailed PD plan;
focused on the individual in
the pilot process
Very clear how you earn the
“final” score
Includes a % of merit
(multiple measures, such as
student growth)
Targeted to what to do within
the day; does not require
work outside the contract
Focuses on student growth in


some unpublished content
Self-assessment for students
is different for special
education students
Concern about 4d; indicates
that teacher would be
evaluated on “work having to
be done outside contract” to
rated a “4”








A few areas are difficult to tie
to individuals; subjective –
peer perception
(1.1, 11.2) From sped point of
view, language does not
honor differences in student
needs
Specialists/ SpEd – “pacing”
and “adopted curriculum” do
not apply
Some things are very specific
to the WSD
33 pages of how to be
successful on criteria –
thought artifacts do not have
a lot of examples
Self-reflection has not been
developed
Could “seem” massive; a lot
to evaluating 4 times/year






Indicates that
measures/evidence and
process steps are “to be
developed” – when?
How does it all fit together? A
lot to evaluating 4 times/year
Why did they specifically
reference K-8 Make Your Day
as the behavior program?
What is meant by “looser vs.
stricter summative eval forms
For implementation, are they
only looking at 3 criteria
(goals areas?) or everything?
Did pilot districts understand
impact across the state or just
focus at district level?
3
learning



Anacortes
(UW Center for Educational
Leadership’s Five Dimensions of
Teaching and Learning)







Observables in the
frameworks
3.9 supplemental material –
student selects (pg. 8)
Observables had several
options – student and teacher
Student engagement is very
important
Easy to read
Glossary nice to have, but
could be a problem if
incorrect wording
Grades teacher performance
– mostly what happens in the
classroom

Unclear how it all “fits
together;” not clearly lined
out
Harder to be proficient than
distinguished (2.1, 1.2, 2.2)
Some criteria were difficult to
distinguish from 1 to 4
48 pages – lots of words


And/or follow state or district
curriculum
District policy on “blogging?”
4