This came from a New Jersey administrator who heard
Charlotte Danielson speak about how to use her rubric: “At the
NJAFPA Conference on May 29, Charlotte Danielson (creator of the
Danielson Frameworks for Teaching evaluation system that so many
states and districts have adopted) said in her keynote: “Using
standardized test scores to assess teachers is indefensible.” Very
strong words, considering her audience included members of the
NJDOE. Danielson went on to say: “What counts as evidence? How will
we use it? People are calling me for information on this; I don’t
know; NO ONE KNOWS! Rather than standardized tests, we need to look
at classroom/teacher’s learning evidence.”
A site to discuss education and democracy
47 Comments
Leave a reply to Rocío Rosado Cancel reply
-
Diane Ravitch's Blog by Diane Ravitch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at dianeravitch.net.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
WOW! Thank you for sharing this information. Perhaps, I need to rethink some of my earlier concern about her. In South Dakota (SD), she is the prime educational consultant. This state tends to follow her every suggestion or “mandate.” Let’s now see what SD does now.
It’s all insane. You can’t know what a child will become until they become it, until they grow up and set out into the world themselves. There are far too many other influences, 1000 more than the standardized bubble in test which will determine a persons influence (good or bad) in the world.
When somebody makes such a logic statement and silent follows we need to ask ourselves about the purpose. What is exactly what they want with this testing?!?!
I’ve never felt it was Danielson who is behind the evil that has become teacher evaluations; it’s more what people have done TO her work that is worrisome. I kind of feel sorry for her because of the difficult spot she’s in.
I totally agree with you, TeacherFromTheWest. My thoughts exactly! I’m from New Jersey and my district is using a modified version of Danielson, which she approved. Her heart is in the right place; it’s just the state DOEs and school administrators (not mine, TG!) who are using her work as a hammer.
I don’t think the evaluations are to improve teachers. I think they are to punish teachers pure simple. In our evaluation this year, we will be penalized for missing more than two days of school. How does that improve our teaching?
Is this a new trend? Our district is giving us “merit pay” this year. But only if you have less than 3 absences. Ha!
Less than 3 absences?! OMG we are humans and many have families! Our district tried this but didn’t pull in merit pay with it — it didn’t fly.
WOW that seems very unfair to mothers (and fathers) who stay home with sick children. I missed 16 days of teaching when my child – who attends daycare- was sick. I’d be interested in learning if men, or teachers without children (men and women), earned merit pay more often than moms/ parents…
In my district, the “student growth” component of our evaluations is based on our own evidence, whether we choose to show standardized results, or classroom evidence. It’s up to us (so far) but we have to give at least 5 “artifacts” that show evidence of student growth. It is a tremendous amount of work (mine amounted to a 16 page paper last year) but at least I have control over it. Until the MI legislature forces our evals to be tied to SBAC, that is.
>>>“What counts as evidence? How will
we use it?>>>>
But the same questions attend the Danielson Framework itself. And there is no answer. The test-scores she decries are no more or less a fair metric on which to base APPR than the Framework alone….. which is limitlessly elastic and completely subjective — thus an ideal tool with which to corrupt the Performance Review process.
I blogged about it here: paulvhogan.wordpress.com/
Alas, that ( i.e. corrupting the Performance Review process) seems to be unacknowledged (and unacknowledgeable) aim here
I dunno, I guess it’s good that she’s speaking up, but I still can’t hear her. Her rubric is being used all over the place to justify using tests to evaluate teachers, and this is hardly a new phenomenon. If my work were being so badly misused in such punitive, unhealthy ways, I’d be traveling the country shouting from the rooftops.
I’ve run across a few districts who use her rubric as their job description of what a prospective teacher needs to demonstrate.
I really don’t understand this woman. She sees how her work is being used, and is permitting it to be used in these ways. She can say “oh don’t use it that way!” all she wants – but until she’s willing to sacrifice a paycheck (that she doesn’t need) to support teachers, the rhetoric is cheap.
I agree totally and until the UFT has a new contract,The Danielson method of teaching cannot be implemented nor demanded!!
Agreed, she’s just trying to have it both ways, raking in the bucks, while issuing weak cover-your-butt sound bites. The woman should be publicly repudiated for her hypocrisy.
By the way, Danielson always refers to her extensive K-12 teaching experience, but I’ve yet to see where she taught or for how long.
As I have said before, you are going to have a hard time beating something with nothing.
I found this summary of the situation by Prof Susan Moore Johnson which I think lays out the issues in a way that comports to my take of the situation.
Click to access Why%20Teachers%20Must%20Have%20an%20Effective%20Evaluation%20System.pdf
Recently, several states have passed laws requiring districts to base a large component of teachers’ evaluations—40 to 50 percent—on student achievement. In part, reliance on test scores has increased because so few districts use their evaluation systems to identify and dismiss ineffective teachers. If local districts do not develop and support meaningful systems for evaluating teachers’ instructional performance, value-added scores will play an ever greater role in determining who stays and who goes.
….
Remarkably few teachers—whether probationary or tenured—are dismissed. This is true despite clear evidence that some teachers’ students fail to learn. Moreover, both teachers and administrators report that some teachers in their school should not be teaching. These are the ones who read the newspaper during class, insult children, do not know their subject, or can’t manage their class. They annoy and embarrass their colleagues, shortchange their students, and infuriate parents. They give teachers a bad name.
Administrators and teachers explain this incredibly low dismissal rate in various ways: Principals have too many responsibilities. Evaluation procedures are too detailed and daunting. Administrators are reluctant to confront poor teachers. The effort is wasted since unions will protect teachers facing dismissal with costly arbitrations or court cases. Such explanations, often untested, become weak excuses for not taking action. Inevitably, however, underlying this low dismissal rate is a poor—or poorly used—evaluation system. Teachers who repeatedly fail to do a good job should be given detailed feedback and advice about how to improve. If they don’t make rapid and steady progress, they should be dismissed. This can only be done in an evenhanded way when there is a system for observing and assessing their practice.
The use or misuse of standardized tests to evaluate teachers is, as Dr. Johnson, notes a reaction to the absence of a meaningful alternative. I would be very interested if someone can point me to a teacher evaluation system that they believe has worked over a period of years.
Well, given that well over 90% of teachers have consistently been rated as “effective” or better, I’d say the previous systems were all adequate. It used to be an old Hoosier saying, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Saying that we need to do “something” rather than “nothing”, implies that there is a problem because nothing was done before, but that simply isn’t true.
Dienne:
I agree that if it isn’t broken there is no need to fix it. Can you point me to where your 90% number comes from? What happens with the other 10%?
Diane has had various posts about how the rephormy crowd is upset that even under the insane new evaluations systems the vast majority of teachers are being rated as effective. They’re convinced there’s an epidemic of bad teachers out there and they’re going to create, er, I mean, find the data to prove it, dammit!
If I’m feeling so motivated, I’ll try to dig up such a post.
“Moreover, both teachers and administrators report that some teachers in their school should not be teaching…”
Wouldn’t the PAR system be an adequate solution since teachers and administrators are part of the process? RttT has kept this model from being implemented on a larger scale since test scores are not a formal part of the process.
mbturner:
RttT refers to what or to whom?
I am trying to find out more about the PAR system. The initial data on it from Montgomery County looked promising, but it is unclear to me how it is doing currently. Does anyone have more up to date information on the PAR system?
RttT = Race to the Top.
Thanks, Dienne.
>>>>Remarkably few teachers—whether probationary or tenured—are dismissed. >>>>
What’s the source for this assertion? If it’s AFT statistics can you please tell me how I can access same? ( I’ve been trying to get into UFT/AFT data…..esp on issues like grievances filed, # of chapters w. elected Chapter Leaders, membership satisfaction w. union bureaucracy… for some time but haven’t figured out a way. I’d thought that UFT/AFT might be “sitting” on it ( for reasons known only to them, naturally) but your post gives me hope.
Also: can you, or AFT define “remarkably few”?
>>>..This is true despite clear evidence that some teachers’ students fail to learn.>>>
This might be due to factors other than the efforts or abilities of the teacher. For instance, the child could be what we used to refer to as , “mentally retarded.” A “profoundly” retarded child is unlikely to show improvement on a standardized test. ( I’m surprised that more education reformers do not realize this. I’m assuming that they DO know , correct me if I’m wrong, that there are children like this in the world and that US public schools are required by federal law to educate them.) Said retarded child’s teacher… to follow the logic of the article… (excerpted from AFT publication; naturally!) will be professionally evaluated by the degree to which the child “fails to learn.” Bad news for teacher…. but what are ya gonna do.”
>>>>Moreover, both teachers and administrators report that some teachers in their school should not be teaching. These are the ones who read the newspaper during class, >>>>
Can you point to an item in the Danielson Framework that is concerned w. teachers “reading newspapers”? Can Professor Moore?
i>>nsult children,>>>
Ditto “insulting children”? ( Come on, now>)
>>>>> do not know their subject, or can’t manage their class. They annoy and embarrass their colleagues, shortchange their students, and infuriate parents. They give teachers a bad name.>>>
I’ll give you that teachers of general subjects should have a solid generalist education. But Danielson doesn’t measure that. And subject-area specialists should be , well, expert, or close to it. But does Danielson measure THAT? If so, show me where.
Paul:
I do not know from when Prof. Johnson obtained the data for her generalization. Data for North Carolina is here:
Click to access 2011-12turnoverreport.pdf
In 2011-12, NC had 97,184 teachers
147 resigned in lieu of dismissal
17 were dismissed
Data on teacher dismissals appears to be very hard to track down. Data for the study of multiple PAR sites is helpful though not definitive largely because it is unclear as to the coverage in a district and what other personnel actions were taken outside of the PAR framework. Regardless the numbers appear to be less than 1% of experienced teachers in the system.
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/par/resources/outcome.html
Bernie, you seem to lust to know that teachers are being fired.
Here is what you refuse to acknowledge.
Nationally–and I assume that North Carolina is part of the data–40% of teachers leave the profession within five years of entering it.
As Linda Darling-Hammond once memorably said, “We can’t fire our way to Finland.”
How many lawyers and doctors are fired every year?
How many lawyers and doctors leave their profession within their first five years?
Give it up, and start respecting the people who work hard every day in school.
Diane:
With respect, Paul Hogan asked a question.
Bernie, I have received over 100,000 comments. I found Paul Hogan’s last comment and it related to the inappropriateness of the Danielson Framework for evaluating teachers of special education. It was a statement, not a question. I hope readers link to his blog.
Diane:
I do not envy you the task of following all the comments.
Paul’s comment is at
August 26, 2013 at 3:14 pm
“>>>>Remarkably few teachers—whether probationary or tenured—are dismissed. >>>>
What’s the source for this assertion? If it’s AFT statistics can you please tell me how I can access same? ( I’ve been trying to get into UFT/AFT data…..esp on issues like grievances filed, # of chapters w. elected Chapter Leaders, membership satisfaction w. union bureaucracy… for some time but haven’t figured out a way. I’d thought that UFT/AFT might be “sitting” on it ( for reasons known only to them, naturally) but your post gives me hope.
Also: can you, or AFT define “remarkably few”?
…”
This morning, I asked members of Prof Susan Moore Johnson’s team, via email, for more data on their PAR tracking project. I cannot find anything after 2008.
Here is an excellent analysis of teacher attrition rates: http://shankerblog.org/?p=4534
Bernie, here is another excellent article on the subject of teacher attrition: http://intl.kappanmagazine.org/content/92/2/59.full
Diane:
Many thanks for the link. It helped in a number of a ways. First, I absolutely agree with Ken Futernick’s main point and yours that a 5 year 45% attrition rate is a huge problem in itself. Second, I agree that the 45% attrition rate is indicative of systemic issues. The loss of more academically accomplished teachers is a long-tailed problem, that is, its ramifications increase the likelihood that future Principals and Superintendents are not as accomplished as we might hope. The misassignment of teachers is a total travesty but then I believe the whole teacher assignment process within a district is a problem. Why are inexperienced teachers assigned to the most challenging schools and classrooms? I would add that my apparent fixation on the low forced turnover rate is because I see it also as indicative of systemic issues and not a simplistic knock on teachers.
Where I disagree with Futernick is his implicit definition of the system as the School DIstrict. I would argue that it needs to be expanded to include in addition the teacher education pipeline and the teacher certification process. Here I think Finland’s approach to teacher preparation can provide some important lessons.
See post below:
Mets2006
The link that you provided was very helpful. I very much liked the “Ed in the Apple” site. I like the way Ed uses data to support his points and provides a balanced perspective. He also recognizes that there are indeed issues in the classroom and schools besides those due to social ills. I have already found 3 or 4 interesting additional sources data.
And Washington State is in trouble with the Feds because we don’t use student test scores in teacher evals.
http://www.king5.com/news/education/3-states-get-federal-warning-on-teacher-evaluation-219804781.html
I have also heard Danielson speak quite negatively about how the NYS agreement has perverted the intent of her evaluation system to enhance student learning. One critical point was her insistence that an observer should leave the classroom with factual observations and QUESTIONS based on them. Not answers and opinions already formed. Before the formal observation report is written, a conference should be held to discuss the entire lesson and unit as well as individual students who might have misbehaved. Both the teacher and observer should have used her rubric to evaluate the lesson. An email instead of a post-observation conference makes a mockery of her entire system. But the CSA won all their points from King except being allowed to restrict the use of the Danielson evaluation system to just a few selected points from the entire rubric.
Sorry in advance if this was already posted. The video of Charlotte Danielson saying these things can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo8EyEdubkA
Wow. I wonder what Robert Marzano thinks of standardized test scores and evaluations. In Florida, 31 of the state’s 67 school districts are using Marzano’s framework. However, a few are using Danielson’s, including Hillsborough County, home of the Gates experiment.
GENERAL COMMENT – DANIELSON METHOD
My sister is an asst princ at a large upstate-NY h.s. She walked me through some of the Danielson ppwk she was buried in this summer– part of the lengthy evaluation questionnaire teachers fill out. Far from being innovative or even particular to education, it was exactly like the specious sort of projections our clients used to have us fill out 30+ yrs ago when I worked for a power engrg&construction co.
They would use these things as a way to measure “% complete”, in order to determine how much to pay us each month against our lump-sum estimate of total project cost. Essentially it’s a statistical device purporting to inject scientific measurement into payment of monies due. Its ultimate use by the client was to ‘prove’ to the public utility why they should be reimbursed for what they paid their contractor. Both sides would manipulate the system in a monthly power struggle over how much gets paid when.
A great deal of bean-counting overhead could have been eliminated from project cost by simply paying against a negotiated contract schedule– the time-honored method used when the money at stake is private. In privately-funded projects, cost overruns are borne by the contractor; changes by the client cost extra, etc. The whole point of the cumbersome & expensive alternate method is to justify all expenses to the rate-paying public.
Every job needs periodic assessment of actual vs projected accomplishments. They are broad-brush estimates hiding myriad unpredictables–helpful on-the-job guidelines only. Mandate them as legal prerequisites for payment & they will explode into reams of manipulable detail– an expensive sop thrown to taxpayers/rate-payers to provide “transparency”.
The bottom line is that all endeavors are risky. One attempts to balance the risks between employer & employee through a contract, but inevitably the greater risk will be borne by the weaker party as dictated by the current economy.
I don’t mean to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. The Danielson package is replete with thoughtful suggestions and guidelines which teachers can use to self-assess; it seems valuable as a guide for principals & dept supervisors as they evaluate & develop their subordinates. As usual, the devil is in the details of how you choose to use the tool.
Part of the complexity of the feedback documentation may well be driven by contractual due process requirements and the need for audit trails.
Charlotte has been saying the same thing for a number of years … at public meetings. Three years ago at a meeting of principals she said she couldn’t wait until a court had to rule on a dismissal based on test scores … which she said are deeply flawed as a teacher assessment metric.
Harking back to Hogan’s comments on teacher firings, can it be that California is unique in the vast numbers of trained, long term teachers, who have been fired in the past few years? The number we have been repeatedly told is over 30,000.
In LA, I just learned minutes ago, that a Deasy-led (Broad Academy/Gates industry) high school has fired even more teachers, and now wants to establish an equestrian charter on their campus of mainly low income families.
How much does this non-agricultural community need horse breeders and trainers, rather than good public high school subject matter, and voc ed, leading to real jobs and a genuine ability to enter colleges and the workforce?
The madness in this community is ever increasing.
The ‘parent trigger’ schools which are now open for business (first in the nation) have a preponderance of TFA kids (funded by the Walton Family Foundation) going into the inner city areas where the best, most well trained, long term teachers should be the rule.
How can sincere parents who have little education themselves be the ones to create new methods of education? The combination of mendacity by the billionaires’ toadies (e.g.
Ben Austin) who manipulate these well meaning parents, the lack of a free press to inform the public of the real situations, and the huge funding by these billionaires which is pouring into the LA area to influence our school board elections and the methods of running our public schools, has clearly shown anyone willing to do their homework, that this is a push for profit, not education. It was no accident that Austin went into Adelanto, the poorest community in the state with mainly none English speaker parents, to manipulate them into this charter onslaught.
These charters are set up to fail despite the glorious media reports about them. Time will certainly tell!
In my district we use the Marzano rubric. Sixty percent of our APPR is based on this rather cumbersome yet superficial document. The same rubrics are applied to every grade level and every subject, with no distinctions. Incredibly, it fails to address some of the most common student complaints about poor teaching.
Missing from the Marzano rubric:
1) Implementation of an objective/fair grading system
2) Teacher knowledge in content area(s)
3) Rigor and quality of classroom activities and tests
4) Teacher efficiency/time management/organization
5) Clarity of instruction
6) Student feedback
About time the babies have to work. I’m sick of paying for their retirement and health insurance with my property tax It is said they work 24/7 24 hours a week 7 months a year. Get a life teachers about time you take the binky out of your mouth.
Learning “evidence”? What is school a crime show? A forensics lab? Spy cameras in classrooms? What, are our kids forced to learn as You want them to? And observed like rats in a skinner box? Or monkeys in a med lab? With surprise visits from capo’s or just camera’s surveilling teachers at all times? Aldous Huxley called, he wants his gulag back. Seriously this is no 21st century idea and it is wrong. Danielsons ideas are monstrous
From what I see in the New Jersey school systems the Danielson Evaluation along with the common core is used to bully and intimidate the teachers. rampant favoritism is blatantly obvious. school boards that only care about $ and the children’s educations suffer since the teachers now spend 70-80% of there time documenting teaching methods rather then teaching . Horrible what has become of the education system . attacked by politicians to privatize and profit