These are my notes from the presentation, “Selecting an Instructional Framework for Teacher Evaluation” on February 28, 2012, by Elaine Phillips, Danielson Group Charter Member, www.danielsongroup.org. Elaine shared these remarks at the Oklahoma State Department of Education’s Teacher Leader Effectiveness (TLE) “road show” presentation in Oklahoma City at the Oklahoma State Department of Education. MY THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS ARE IN ALL CAPS.

ELAINE’S SLIDES ARE NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY YET, BUT THIS SLIDE DECK FROM MARCH 2011 FOR WAKULLA COUNTY SCHOOLS (PDF) INCLUDES MANY OF THE SAME SLIDES SHE SHOWED US TODAY. THE TITLE OF THAT PRESENTATION WAS, “WELCOME TO AN INTRODUCTION TO A FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHING AND ITS APPLICATION TO TEACHER EVALUATION.”

Initial comments from Alicia Currin-Moore, Executive Director for Teacher and Leader Effectiveness in Oklahoma

Districts must select both the Teacher framework and Leader framework by April 16th
- pilot year is a year to collect data on all three frameworks, find out how well they are working based on data as well as comments from educators
- we will use that information to provide updates to the TLE Commission and state board
- post pilot year: there is no decision or talk about moving from 3 framework options to one
- the frameworks are not going to be whittled down to one: the three frameworks will remain available as long as data supports their continued use\

$1.5 million set aside for funding this year for TLE
- in bill 233 there is not a set-aside for this, the SDE is setting apart money for this
- money you receive will be based on your district’s ADA
- you will receive a quota of ‘tickets’ to have educators attend

We’ve asked all trainers to attend certification training
- more than just attendance for certification
- there will be required questions to answer and interactions administrators must perform

CareerTech falls outside the guidelines of 233, but they have decided to voluntarily participate in TLE but they will not be funded via the SDE
- Joe Robinson, Jarred Scott will roll out plan for this to CareerTech teachers in the near future

If you are a vendor or presenter today for another

Now comments from Elaine Phillips
- I started with the framework with the 1996 version, as a curriculum director in northern Minnesota
- when ETS created tools around the framework I started working with them
- since retiring 5 years ago I’ve been working daily with the framework and the direct training of principals
- also doing fieldwork, observations

Today’s topics:
- Teacher Evaluation System Design
- Framework for TEaching Overview
- Validation of Framework for Teaching
- Professional Learning and Supporting Resources

Start with story of a 4th grade teacher doing a year-long inquiry project on buoyancy
- principal saw activities going on in the classroom, told teacher he would come back when she was teaching

THIS IS A CLASSIC STORY OF A PRINCIPAL / INSTRUCTIONAL LEADER NOT UNDERSTANDING PROJECT BASED LEARNING / PBL
- SHOWS WHY WE NEED SPECIFIC PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN OUR SCHOOLS FOR PBL LIKE THAT OFFERED BY THE BUCK INSTITUTE

Old model of teacher evaluation
- few shared assumptions about what constitutes good teaching
- hierarchical and one-way communication
- lack of precision
- same procedures for novice and experienced teachers
- lack of meaningful feedback
- limited data

New model
- promotes growth based both on structured evidence and feedback / self-assessed needs
- prompts reflective dialog between teacher and evaluator
- offers collegial opportunities for growth
- multiple measures including student achievement data
- ratings that accurately capture classroom performance

What is driving new initiatives
1- Widget Effect report (current policies don’t differentiate well between good and bad teaching, assumes

Lake Wobegon effect
- no teachers rated unsatisfactory or improvement needed, very few satisfactory

2- Race to the Top (RTTT) requirements also drivers for this, requirement that states remove legal barriers from using student test data for teacher evaluation
- 9 states are involved in RTTT now

3- New state legislation is also a driver (that is true in Oklahoma)

Why assess teacher effectiveness
- Danielson wrote book with McGrill on Teacher Effectiveness

Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching 2nd edition (Kindle)

1- for quality assurance: to establish the baseline and the minimum expectations

System of teacher evaluation needs:
- clear definition of the teaching (the ‘what’)
- instruments and procedures that provide evidence of teaching (the ‘how’)
- trained evaluators who can make accurate and consistent judgements based on evidence
- professional development for teachers to understand the criteria
- process for making the final judgement

The Danielson Framework for Teaching
- using research out of PRAXIS

2007 edition of the book has the research base for the framework in the appendix
- domain 1: planning and preparation
- domain 2: classroom environment
- domain 3: instruction
- domain 4: professional responsibilities

Domains 1 and 4 are outside the classroom, 2 and 3 are in the classroom
- all have a big impact in the classroom

Habits of mind which the Danielson framework cultivates in teachers: Plan, Teach, Reflect, and Apply

22 components in the framework

Elements of the framework further define the components
- they are what comprise the components
- there are 76 elements

The common language of the framework is domains, components, and elements

At the time it was initially published this was groundbreaking: establishing “levels of performance” in a rubric
- the effect the teacher is able to achieve at four levels: unsatisfactory, basic, proficient and distinguished

“Are some components more important than others? Probably so.”

The ‘power components’ are the ones we really concentrate on the first year particularly
- engaging students in learning is obviously on that list

What of the framework
- evaluative criteria
- levels of performance
- weighting
- score combining
- standard setting

How of the framework
- procedures
- instruments
- timelines
- differentiated system

3 part model: training for evaluators, PD for teachers, process for deciding

In Massachusetts in their guidelines to districts, they are saying 1st year teachers can have some ‘basic’ evaluations but to achieve tenure you cannot
- that is an example of a state deciding ‘how do you specify what is good enough’

I’m working in a state that is designing different pathways for teachers depending on how long they’ve been in the profession
- adding these to the ‘how blueprint’

Training of observers
- rigorous practice with evidence collection, alignment of evidence to appropriate component, interpretation of evidence and assessment of performance
- professional conversation
- calibration
- differentiated support

Initial training for Danielson model evaluators is typically 3 days long
- using videos to gather evidence, apply the rubric, make evaluations
- professional conversations during these training sessions are typically what principals say are the best parts of these learning opportunities

PD for teachers
- orientation to the framework
- on-going development
– peer observations
– study groups
– videos
– online programs
– integrated with mentoring coaching, other programs

Two basic approaches, assessing:
1- teacher practices, that is, what teachers do, how well they do the work of teaching
2- teacher results, that is, what teachers accomplish, typically how well their students learn

it can be controversial to determine the psychometric measures used to determine student performance

primary objectives of evaluation are to provide teachers with
- information that they can use to improve their teaching practices
- evaluation ratings that accurately capture their classroom performance

this was from a 2011 University of Chicago study (Excellence in Teaching Project, funded by the Joyce Foudation)
- “designed to drive instructional improvement by providing teachers with evidence-based feedback on their strengths and weaknesses
- consisted of training and support of principals and teachers, principal observations twice a year and conferences between principals and teachers to discuss evaluation results
- Danielson’s Framework for Teaching rubrics utilized

1st finding: classroom observation ratings were valid measures of teaching practice
- classroom observation ratings were reliable measures of teacher practice
- principals and teachers said that conferences were more reflective…

There is a strong relationship between observation ratings and VAM (CCSR)
- “standardized value-added measure” = VAM
- this value added model was factored for mobility, demographics and attendance

From Danielson Framework Presentation: Value Add Metrics for Teach Evaluation

2nd finding was that classroom observation ratings were valid measures of teaching practice
- higher levels of reliability at the lower and middle levels of performance
- principals and teachers aid conferences were more reflective and objective than in the past and were focused on instructional practice and improvement

MET Study: 23,000 classroom videos from 3000 teachers across 6 districts
- have been 1 report so far, there will be another report
- $45 million from Gates foundation funded this

MY COMMENT: I WANT TO SEE UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR EVALUATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF THE MET STUDY RESULTS, PUBLISHED IN REFEREED JOURNALS. WHERE ARE THOSE STUDIES AND PUBLICATIONS?

MET Findings:
- all five instruments were positively associated with student achievement gains

Next study was from Cincinnati by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2010
- teachers have substantial effect of student achievement
- more…

Components needed….

MY COMMENT: THIS SLIDE WAS ON THE SCREEN FOR LESS THAN 10 SECONDS… NO WAY TO EVEN READ THE SLIDE, MUCH LESS PROCESS, THINK, AND TAKE NOTES ON IT… :-(

2011 version of the framework is different from the 2007 version published by ASCD
- rubrics written at the component rather than element level
- tighter rubrics

SLIDE WAS ADVANCED TOO FAST TO READ OR TAKE NOTES ON….

MY COMMENT: I AM EXTREMELY FRUSTRATED AT ‘THE NORM’ IN NOT PROVIDING DIGITAL COPIES ONLINE OF PRESENTER POWERPOINT / SLIDE DECKS IN ADVANCE. NO WIFI IS AVAILABLE IN THIS CONFERENCE ROOM, IF I DIDN’T HAVE MY OWN PHONE WITH TETHERING I WOULD NOT BE ONLINE AT ALL. IF WE ARE GOING TO EXPECT STUDENTS TO BE 21ST CENTURY LEARNERS, AS SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND STATE LEADERS WE HAVE TO START BY MODELING. TO GET THIS INFORMATION I NEED IT DIGITALLY NOW. I AM CONSISTENTLY ASKING AT MEETINGS (LIKE LAST WEEK’S SNU COMMON CORE CONFERENCE) AND TODAY, “ARE THESE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY,” AND THE ANSWER HAS BEEN, “WE CAN MAKE THEM AVAILABLE.” THAT ANSWER IS NOT ADEQUATE. THEY SHOULD BE AVAILABLE ONLINE, IN ADVANCE OF THE PRESENTATION, AT THE VERY LATEST AVAILABLE WHEN THE PRESENTATION BEGINS VIA A LINK SHARED AT THE START OF THE SESSION.

EI Program is very good for PD, has 3 modules
- Self-Directed Learning
- now we’ll hear about software support and only 8 minutes allotted for this

Now hearing from a person from TeacherScape (?)

APPARENTLY SHE IS A VENDOR, SHE DID NOT INTRODUCE HERSELF, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHO SHE IS OR HER CONTACT INFO

Showing us some webpages which show the model’s rubric
- you really have ‘gallons of sample videos’ for each level

MY COMMENT: WHAT THIS VENDOR IS PROVIDING IS COMPLETELY INADEQUATE FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO ASSESS AND EVALUATE THIS EVALUATION SYSTEM. I THINK THE DEMO OF WHAT WE SAW LAST WEEK WITH THE MARZANO MODEL IN YUKON PS WAS BETTER, BUT REALLY THE ONLY WAY TO ASSESS THIS IS TO EXPERIENCE LESSON EVALUATION FULLY USING THE DIGITAL VERSION. FLASHING UP A FEW WEBPAGES AND SOME LINKS TO SOME VIDEOS ISN’T GOING TO CUT THE MUSTARD IN OKLAHOMA OR ANYWHERE ELSE.

I’M GLAD TO FINALLY HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR SOME THINGS ABOUT THE DANIELSON MODEL. WHAT I’VE HEARD FROM OTHERS IS THAT DANIELSON’S GROUP DOESN’T HAVE THE EMPLOYEES AND BANDWIDTH TO PROVIDE MUCH IN OKLAHOMA. SOME PEOPLE HAVE SAID THEY DON’T THINK DANIELSON IS A VIALBE MODEL FOR OKLAHOMA SCHOOLS, THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THIS LIST OF TLE OPTIONS BUT

Proficiency tests are 3.5 hours each, there are two required for administrators who are getting certified as evaluators under the Danielson Model

Now Kerri Smith: After hundreds of years of learning about what makes good teaching, this year we are finally putting reforms in place to evaluate quality teachers
- questions about cost: We (SDE) will be providing you with tickets to training, some online and some F2F
- we are putting out RFP for contracts to know exactly what that training will look like
- some training in addition to required training leading to the certification process may be available, your district may want to purchase those add-ons as a bonus

Cost isn’t a deciding factor for you regarding that initial training
- RFPs have not been written, we don’t know yet what will be an add-on and what will be included

Just to use each framework that we will hear about is free
- anything additional you want to use will cost money

MY THOUGHTS: IT APPEARS OUR STATE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP IS CONTINUING TO MAINTAIN THE SAME TIMELINE FOR TRANSITIONING TO COMMON CORE AND A NEW TLE MODEL THAT THEY WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED IF WE’D BEEN SELECTED / WON A RTTT GRANT. WE DIDN’T, AND IT’S AMAZING TO SEE THE TIMELINE DIDN’T CHANGE. ABSENT ADEQUATE FUNDING, OKLAHOMA DISTRICTS ARE BEING REQUIRED TO MAKE HUGE CHANGES IN CURRICULUM, TEACHER EVALUATION, AND ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION. WHY DO OUR STATE LEADERS (AND MANY LEADERS IN OTHER STATES) THINK WE CAN IMPROVE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY CUTTING FUNDING RATHER THAN INCREASING IT AND REFOCUSING IT? WHAT IS THE PROFILE OF THE COLLEGE STUDENT TODAY WHO WANTS TO BECOME A PUBLIC EDUCATOR IN TODAY’S TOXIC POLITICAL CULTURE FOR EDUCATION? I THINK THERE ARE IMPORTANT, VALID AND IMPORTANT REFORMS WE NEED AND SOME OF THESE ARE HIGHLIGHTED BY REPORTS LIKE “THE WIDGET EFFECT.” MANY GREAT IDEAS ARE INTEGRATED INTO ALL 3 PROPOSED TLE MODELS: MARZANO, DANIELSON, AND TULSA. THE CONNECTION OF 50% OF TEACHER EVALUATION TO STUDENT TEST SCORES, WHICH HAS BEEN MANDATED BY THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE, IS NOT A PART OF ANY OF THESE FRAMEWORKS AND DOES NOT HAVE A SUPPORTING RESEARCH BASE. WHILE WE HEAR PRESENTERS LIKE THOSE TODAY SPEND CONSIDERABLE TIME AND ENERGY EMPHASIZING THE RESEARCH BASES FOR THEIR MODELS, WHAT IS NOT BEING SAID IS THAT THERE IS NO RESEARCH BASIS/SUPPORT FOR HIGH STAKES TEACHER EVALUATION AS IT’S BEEN WRITTEN INTO STATE LAW IN OKLAHOMA.

Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Informational Meeting

MY CLOSING THOUGHT: I REALLY LIKE THE ‘PRIORITIES OF THE FRAMEWORK’ FROM PAGE 19 OF THE PDF I LINKED AT THE START OF THIS POST FOR THE DANIELSON MODELF. THOSE ARE:
- COGNITIVE ENGAGEMENT
– “PROFICIENT = STUDENTS MUST BE ENGAGED COGNITIVELY
– DISTINGUISHED = COGNITION, META-COGNITION, AND STUDENT OWNERSHIP OF THEIR LEARNING
- CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING
– PROFICIENT PRACTICE MUST HAVE EVIDENCE OF LEARNING EXPERIENCES DESIGNED TO FACILITATE STUDENTS CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE
– DISTINGUISHED PRACTICE HAS STUDENTS TAKING THE INITIATIVE TO SUGGEST / DESIGN LEARNING EXPERIENCES

THESE ARE ELEMENTS THAT ARE INTEGRATED INTO CCS. THE MARZANO MODEL USES “PROFICIENCY SCALES” FOR STUDENTS AND THESE ELEMENTS OF TOP-LEVEL LEARNING/TEACHING ARE CONSIDERED ‘LEVEL 4′ IN THOSE SCALES. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF OVERLAP IN THE TLE MODELS AVAILABLE TO OKLAHOMA SCHOOLS, AND SPECIFICALLY HIGHLIGHTS HOW THIS ‘NEW FRAME’ FOR EVALUATING TEACHING AND TEACHERS GOES BEYOND MINIMUM STANDARDS AND SPECIFICALLY ASKS TEACHERS TO PROVIDE LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS AT THE TOP OF THE NEW BLOOM’S TAXONOMY / THE CREATION LEVEL.

Our next presenter is Robert La Grassa about the Marzano TLE model. See my post from February 21, “Marzano Causal Teacher Evaluation Model by Robert La Grassa,” for information about it. Robert is used many of the same slides he used for that presentation in Yukon PS on Feb 21. He did show several interview videos of Florida principals and teachers which were very good and I didn’t get to see on February 21st because I had to leave a little early. Unfortunately those are not available online, they were really good… especially discussion about the importance of a ‘shared instructional vocabulary’ among teachers and administrators.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,


Check out Wesley's new ebook, "Mapping Media to the Common Core: Volume I." (2013) It's $15!

If you're trying to listen to a podcast episode and it's not working, check this status page. (Wes is migrating his podcasts to Amazon S3 for hosting.) Remember to follow Wesley Fryer on Twitter (@wfryer), Facebook and Google+. Also "like" Wesley's Facebook pages for "Speed of Creativity Learning" and his eBook, "Playing with Media." Don't miss Wesley's latest technology integration project, "Mapping Media to the Common Core / Curriculum."

On this day..

Share →
  • Jonmusolf

    What’s scarier is administrators who have little understanding of the Danielson system, using it to evaluate teachers based upon one in class observation.  Michigan’s legislation has made the teaching environment absolutely toxic emboldening administrators and boards of education to employ draconian methods to “thin the herd” so to speak. 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Made with Love in Oklahoma City