The Danielson Framework For Teaching

The differences were connected with a teacher’s original preparation for the teaching profession, licensing in the particular subject area to be taught, strength of the educational experience, and the degree of experience in teaching along with the demonstration of abilities through the National Board Certification, in which all of these facets can be addressed through policy (Darling-Hammond, 2010).America has not produced a national method containing supports and reasons to guarantee that teachers’ are adequately prepared and equipped to teach all children effectively when they first enter into the career of teaching. America also does not have a vast collection of methods available that will maintain the evaluation and continuing development of a teacher’s effectiveness in the classroom, or support decisions about entry into the field of teaching and the continuance in the profession of teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2010). n order to reach the belief that all students will be taught and learn to high standards calls for a makeover in the methods our system of education in order to be a magnet for, train, support or uphold, and cultivate effective teachers in more efficient ways. A makeover that is contingent in a certain degree of how the abilities or skills are comprehended (Darling-Hammond, 2010).In the last few years there has been increasing

Based on the Georgia Department of Education, Georgia has a new way of evaluating all of its teachers. Beginners teachers are held with the same standards as tenured teachers. The evaluation is through Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (TKES) which is consist of three components which gives to an overall Teacher Effectiveness Measure (TEM). First component is Teacher Assessment on Performance Standards (TAPS). The second component is Surveys of Instructional Practice (student perception surveys). Lastly Student Growth Percentile and Student Learning Objective. (SGP and SLO).

Danielson’s framework is much more detailed and can be divided into 4 main frameworks: planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction and professional responsibilities (Danielson, 2007). The HSTW framework is not as detailed, because here we find only 10 key practices that should be applied: high expectations from students, plan of study, academic studies, career and technical studies, work-based learning, teachers working together, students actively engaged, guidance, extra help and developing a culture of continuous improvement (Virginia Department of Education, n.d.).

First of all, continual feedback allows teachers to self-reflect on best practices. For example, a teacher can target his/her areas of weakness in order to grow professionally and gain further insight of best practices. Another benefit, of teacher evaluations is higher student success rates. These, for example, are measurable through district assessments and state standardized assessments. If a teachers success rate has significantly improved through modification of practices, T-TESS has served its intended purpose. Finally, yet another benefit of teacher evaluations is the fact that the educator is an active participant in his/her evaluation process. For example, through goal setting, the educator is allowed the opportunity to decide where he/she want to grow. Through the evaluation cycle and the communication therein, the appraiser and educator both take greater responsibility in understanding and meeting established goals. Finally, at the end of the process, student growth is an indicator of a well-developed and integrated evaluation system. These are but a few of the many benefits reaped from an evaluation systems such as T-TESS (TEA,

As schools across the nation look for a uniform method to evaluate teachers’ performances, concerns about both methods are highlighted. NYC is using the Danielson Framework to evaluate teachers this year; some concerns have been brought up by administrators and the teachers union. In the piliot program it was noted by one administrator that “some of her teachers are not scoring as high on the rubric as she would expect — precisely because the rubric expects the same general characteristics in all grades” (Cromidas, 2012). This is because in the Danielson Framework the observer is looking for weather a teacher is doing the behavior or not. Check mark - there is no distinction between a new teacher and a veteran teacher. The other thing that administrators are noting that the “practicing observing teachers using Danielson had proved to be time-consuming” (Cromidas, 2012). It is recommend that they observer spends a number of informal observations lasting at least 15 minutes in the classroom before the official observation and that the report be turned around in 48 hours to the teacher.

I have known for some time that my weakest area on Charlette Danielson’s Framework for Teaching is asking questions that require higher order thinking. As a first grade teacher there is so much information that I am presenting to them that we move at a very fast pace. I am constantly checking for understanding, but my questions focus on knowledge and comprehension. I rarely take time for lengthy discussions that allow the children to express their opinions and interpretation of the information presented. The Idaho State Standards and the Danielson framework make it clear that this is an area I need to focus on and that I must make time for it in my very hectic schedule. I developed a plan of action to assist me in this process and set a goal to have 80% of my students score a 70% or higher on their written reading responses and a 3 or higher on their oral reading

Elizabeth evaluation policy manual is tied to the New Jersey Common core standards in respect to teachers’ evaluation. The district adopts the framework of Danielson model consistent to conduct annual evaluation of tenured and non-tenured teachers.

Napavine’s goal is to engage and inspire critical thinking skills in every student through instruction that is individually relevant, motivating, aligned and diverse. Our action plan is for both the elementary and junior/senior high schools to utilize the Marzano Instructional Framework as a guide to student learning and professional growth. We have established that building administrators and teachers will utilize the Marzano Frameworks to guide professional growth discussions, goal setting meetings, and to identify future professional development opportunities. We have also established a Teacher/Principal Evaluation Program (TPEP) committee who will plan and guide professional development that includes a teacher leader to provide evaluation and framework training. Our School Improvement Plan (SIP) identifies Marzano instructional practices on a yearly basis as a school-wide focus for implementation and/or improvements. We also hold student growth meetings each fall between school administrators and teachers to revolve around students at risk of falling behind their peers and student sub-groups who may be collectively behind the total student population (closing the achievement gap). We plan to make time for instructional rounds during the school year to facilitate professional growth among teachers.

After reading the report, one could characterize current teacher evaluation practices as little more than missed opportunities to increase the effectiveness of teachers and assure that the best teachers stayed in front of students. Practitioners generally agreed with the premise of the critique, and confirmed the identified evaluation weaknesses as both common and wide-spread among school districts. Using teacher effect research and the validity of value-added measures as a platform, and armed with the belief that the sample practices were representative of those in districts across the country, the authors of The Widget Effect urged educational leaders and policy makers to implement specific teacher evaluation reforms, many of which informed (or mirrored) those becoming increasingly prevalent in federal and state

One of the strengths of using the Danielson’s Framework at Stevenson is to improve student learning through a variety of feedback process. Danielson’s Framework promotes reflection on practice, defines clear criteria for evaluation of current practice, provides feedback on curriculum, instructional, and assessment practices, supports fostering a culture of professional learning and collaboration, and ensures faculty continue to grow professionally.

The Framework for Teaching by Charlotte Danielson has been developed through research as a guideline for current and future teacher’s professional responsibilities in and out of the classroom. Districts throughout the country are using this framework to assess and guide their teachers to build successful methods of planning and preparations, setting up the classroom environment, instruction and professional responsibilities. Each of these domains builds off of each other to form a successful learning environment. Domain 3 focuses more specifically on instruction using communication, discussions, engagement, assessments and flexibility.

Herbert bravely sets his sights upon the sacred cow of the educational system, teacher quality. By boldly holding teachers accountable for the outcomes of their students, Herbert describes the road map needed for improvement. Describing how high performing teachers had astonishing results with under-performing students provided the reader with a concrete example of the changes that he believes are needed. Providing the reader with current practices of school districts, these being a focus on credentials of the teacher’s, rather than on their quality inside the classroom. Job performance must be assessed within a classroom in order to prepare the students for the future. “Studies have clearly shown that the good teachers and the not-so-good ones can actually be identified, if they are carefully observed in

The Framework for Teaching measures teacher effectiveness in four teaching domains, in combination with seven common themes. The four domains are identified in the PGES Framework for Teaching (2014) as planning and preparation, classroom environment, professional responsibilities, and instruction. Throughout the document, seven common themes are embedded within the four domains. These themes include equity, cultural competence, student assumption of responsibility, effective technology integration, high expectations, developmental appropriateness, and accommodation of individual needs (Framework,

The quantitative method for this study is being used because of the statistical, arithmetical, or a numerical study of facts gathered through surveys, and questionnaires (Babbie, 2010). The quantitative will allow to measure before and after. This quantitative research is significant because it will statistically show the number of teachers that improve with a before and after test design. The methodology will be a Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Pre-Post Test Design.

The evaluation system that is used in our district to evaluate instructional coaches is different than the system that is used to evaluate teachers. A committee of district members developed the evaluation system that the district content coordinators use when evaluating instructional coaches, mid-year and at the end-of-year. The evaluation system used is broken into three domains: Instructional Management, Administrative Support and Personal Skills. Within each domain there are specific descriptors that instructional coaches are evaluated on using a rating scale of 1-5 (1 = unsatisfactory, 2 = below expectations, 3 = meets expectations, 4 = exceeds expectations, 5 = clearly outstanding). After all domains are evaluated, the total points for each domain are calculated. Then the totals from each domain are used to calculate an average and then used to calculate a summative score. If a summative score is below a 3, it is required that a deficiency plan be developed and it prohibits the instructional coach from an annual increment for succeeding year. At the beginning of school, all instructional coaches are given a copy of the evaluation form so everyone involved knows the expectations. Just like Marzano, Waters & McNulty (2005) wrote, “The responsibility Communication involves developing clear lines of communication to and from faculty members as well as among faculty members” (p. 119), so in order for the evaluation system to be successful, all involved need to