The Framework for Teaching by Charlotte Danielson

Teacher Evaluation: Postings and Assurances

Per MCL 380.1249: Beginning with the 2016-2017 school year, a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall post on its public website specific information about the evaluation tool(s) used for its performance evaluation system for teachers. See the complete language (including requirements) for MCL 380.1249. The contents of this documents are compliant with the law laid forth, specifically pertaining to The Framework for Teaching by Charlotte Danielson.

Research Base for the Evaluation Framework, Instrument, and Process [Section 1249(3)(a)]

First published by ASCD in 1996, Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching was an outgrowth of the research compiled by Educational Testing Services (ETS) for the development of Praxis III: classroom Performance Assessments, an observation-based evaluation of first-year teachers used for the purpose of licensing.  The Framework extended this work by examining current research to capture the skills of teaching required not only by novice teachers but by experienced practitioners as well.

Each component of the Framework for Teaching has been validated by the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) study. The Framework for Teaching has been found to have predictive validity. Further research around the FfT can be found on the The Danielson Group's website. See the Chicago and Cincinnati studies.

Identification and Qualifications of the Author(s) [Section 1249(3)(b)]

The Framework for Teaching was developed by Charlotte Danielson, a recognized expert in the area of teacher effectiveness. Her work focuses on the use of a framework, a clear description of practice, to promote professional conversations and learning. She advises State Education Departments and National Ministries and Departments of Education, both in the United States and overseas.

Charlotte Danielson graduated from Cornell with a degree in history, and earned her master's in philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford University. In 1978, she earned another mater's from Rutgers in educational administration and supervision. After college, she worked as a junior economist in think tanks and policy organizations. While working in Washington, D.C., she got to know some of the children living on her inner-city block - and that's what motivated her to choose teaching over economics. She obtained her teaching credentials and worked her way up the spectrum from teacher to curriculum director, then on to staff developer and program designer in several different locations, including ETS in Princeton. She has developed and trained extensively in the areas of teacher observation and assessments.

Evidence of Reliability, Validity, and Efficacy [Section 1249(3)(c)]

https://www.danielsongroup.org/research/

Evaluation Framework and Rubric [Section 1249(3)(d)]

https://www.danielsongroup.org/framework/

Description of Process for Conducting Classroom Observations, Collecting Evidence, Conducting Evaluation Conferences, Developing Performance Ratings, and Developing Performance Improvement Plans [Section 1249(3)(e)]

An evaluation process is determined by local guidelines and decisions. The Danielson Group trains observers to collect non-biased, quality evidence that is aligned to FfT components. Observers, working jointly with teachers, examine the evidence against critical attributes that distinguish levels of performance. This collaborative process supports the determination of a rating based on the preponderance of evidence. The Danielson Group promotes the use of evidence in collaborative pre- and post-observation conferences focused on growth.

The Danielson Group offers training in facilitating evidence-based conversations to support the development of reflective practice and professional development plans, encouraging focused action and peer-to-peer learning. Our practice is based on research that points to the importance of evaluator training.

Description of Plan for Providing Evaluators and Observers with Training [Section 1249(3)(f)]

The Danielson Group specializes in full-day, on-site training. We will also lead distance or remote consultation and follow-up webinars with large or small groups. All offerings can be customized to address gaps and needs. We also organize regional conferences and encourage school districts to pool resources and work together to arrange ongoing professional learning. We are available for keynote talks and large group overviews as well. Via email and phone, we remain available to Framework adopters.

To respond to scheduling and budget considerations, The Danielson Group offers a number of training sequences. Clients contract the DG; we assess needs and discuss possible plans; clients propose training dates; and then we draft an agreement for review. A member of our national team of experienced consultants will contact the client to enhance their understanding of district needs and to individualize the training design as appropriate.

Free resources can be found on the Danielson Group website.

Multidimensional Leadership Performance System
Administrator Evaluation: Postings and Assurances
State Approved Evaluation Tool

Per MCL 380.1249b: Beginning with the 2016-2017 school year, a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall post on its public website specific information about the evaluation tool(s) used for its performance evaluation system for school administrators. See the complete language (including requirements) for MCL 380.1249b.

This evaluation tool has been approved by the district, as the result of a review process implemented with fidelity. The contents of this document are compliant with the law laid forth, specifically pertaining to The Multidimensional Leadership Performance System (Formally the Reeves Model).

Research Base for the Evaluation Framework, Instrument, and Process [Section 1249b(2)(a)]
Evidence of Reliability, Validity, and Efficacy [Section 1249b(2)(c)]

The research base, evidence of reliability, validity and Efficacy is found in The Reflective Leader: Implementing a Multidimensional Leadership Performance System in Appendix A: Multidimensional Leadership Performance Domains Cross-Referenced to Contemporary Leadership Research.

Identification and Qualifications of the Author(s) [Section 1249b(2)(b)]

• Dr. Raymond Smith - Served as Senior Professional Development Associate with the Leadership and Learning Center. Dr. Smith holds a doctorate in educational leadership and innovation from the University of Colorado in Denver, a master’s degree in educational administration, and a bachelor’s degree from the University of Northern Colorado at Greeley.
• Karen Brofft - Served as a Professional Development Associate with The Leadership and Learning Center and the Assistant Superintendent of Learning Services and Communications for Englewood Schools in Colorado. In addition to her Ed. S. in administrative leadership and policy studies, Karen holds a master’s degree in curriculum and instruction and a bachelor’s degree in communications.
• Nicole Law - Served as a Professional Development Associate with The Leadership and Learning Center. Nicole uses her experience to present on decision making for results, Data Teams, case studies for the 90/90/90 Schools Summit, and accelerating academic achievement of English learners. Nicole trains and supports administrators, teacher leaders, site coordinators and school improvement teams in the decision making for results and Data Teams processes.
• Dr. Julie Smith - Served as a Professional Development Associate with The Leadership and Learning Center. In addition to receiving her Ph. D. in leadership and innovation from the University of Colorado Denver Health Sciences Center, she holds a master’s degree from the University of Northern Colorado at Greeley, as well as a bachelor’s degree from the University of Arizona.
• Dr. Douglas Reeves is one of the most noted experts on education and school reform. As a researcher, reformer, educator, and the author of over 20 books, he has received some of the most noteworthy awards in his respective fields. Dr. Reeves founded The Leadership and Learning Center, an international organization dedicated to improving student achievement and educational equity. He is the author of the bestseller Making Standards Work: How to Implement Standards-Based Assessments in the Classroom, School, and District, now in its third edition.

Evaluation Framework and Rubric [Section 1249b(2)(d)]

Step 1: Orientation
Two-day (12 hour) district provided orientation and training from ICLE on the evaluation model that includes district expectations that are subject to the evaluation system. An annual orientation or refresher orientation should occur. All leaders and evaluators have access to the content and processes that are subject to the system. Each school leader is expected to engage in personal reflection on the connection between practice and the domains/sub-domains in the system.

Step 2: Pre-Evaluation Planning
After the orientation process, the leader and the evaluator prepare for a formal conference. The leader’s self-assessment moves to a more specific identification of improvement priorities. The leader will complete the MLP Reflection Guide, consider the results of the prior year evaluation process, and, if collected reflect on perception data. From this analysis the leader will prioritize three to five leverage areas (sub-domains) of focus. This will serve as the basis for creating the preliminary professional growth plan.

Step 3: Initial Meeting between Leader and Evaluator
The Evaluator will be responsible to hold a meeting with the Leader to discuss the results of the self-evaluation, rating levels, supporting documents, artifacts, focus areas, data, and preliminary professional growth plan and to determine the leader’s current level of performance.

Step 4: Monitoring, Data Collection and Application to Practice
During the span between the initial meeting, the mid-year evaluation and the year end evaluation meeting, the leader will collect the data agreed upon in step 3, as well as any additional data. The supervisor will engage the leader in reflective dialogue using the Coaching Protocol to support the leader.

Step 5: Midyear Evaluation
Leaders will meet individually with their evaluator to discuss the formative progress toward achieving annual goals. This meeting provides the leader an opportunity to share the connections, or not, of his/her targeted leadership actions, the deliberate practice identified within the professional growth plan, and most importantly the impact of these actions on student achievement.

Step 6: Prepare a Consolidated Performance Assessment
The leader will synthesize the information obtained in Steps 4 and 5. This summary of data and artifacts will be used to judge the overall performance of the leader. This will be provided one-month in advance of the final meeting to the leader’s evaluator at which the performance levels will be discussed.

Step 7: Year-End Meeting/Summative Assessment
The leader will meet with the evaluator at the end of the year to discuss the progress in completing the evaluation process. At this meeting the leader and the evaluator will discuss the degree of goal attainment, performance levels and recommendations for the professional growth plan. The Summative Assessment will be kept in the leader’s personnel file.

The Multidimensional Leadership Performance System Matrix, process for training and the Research Base Documentation is provided on the Educator Evaluation Page of the Michigan Department of Education website.

Description of Process for Conducting Classroom Observations, Collecting Evidence, Conducting Evaluation Conferences, Developing Performance Ratings, and Developing Performance Improvement Plans [Section 1249(2)(e)]

Leaders and Evaluators will be trained on the Matrix and utilize the Self-Reflection Guides provided at the training and included with all necessary forms to include:

• Self-Evaluation Forms
• MLP Questionnaire
• Professional Growth Plan
• MLP Domain Matrix
• Coaching Protocol
• Reflection Questions
• Mid-Year & Summative Evaluation Forms
• Scoring Guide
• Implementation Rubric

All Domain and Sub-Domain Guides, examples of evidence to support ratings are based on 4 categories in the Matrix: Highly Effective, Effective, Minimally Effective and Ineffective. Rate each sub-domain as HE, E, ME, or I. The evaluator locates the level by utilizing the Matrix and supporting evidence listed on Self-Evaluation Forms.

The rating rubrics provide criteria that distinguish among the proficiency levels on the sub-domain. The rating for each sub-domain is the lowest rating for which the descriptors are representative of the leader’s performance. The ratings on the domains aggregate to a rating on the Domains using Tables 1 through 4 on page 48-49 of The Reflective Leader. The ratings on the domains aggregate to an overall leadership performance rating using tables and formulas from the scoring guide.

The rubrics are designed to give leaders formative as well as summative assessments of where they stand in all leadership performance areas and detailed guidance on how to improve. Moreover, these will be the foundation of the leader and evaluator coaching and mentoring protocols. When you have a rating for each sub-domain, then you generate the Domain Rating.

The final step is the domain ratings are translated into a point scale in Table 5 on page 50 of The Reflective Leader. At the MLP Scoring stage the model shifts to a weighted point system. Points are assigned to weight ratings, direct weights are employed, and scored are converted to a numerical scale.

• A Domain Rating of Highly Effective is 3 points
• A Domain Rating of Effective is 2 points
• A Domain Rating of Minimally Effective is 1 point
• A Domain Rating of Ineffective is 0 points

Once all of the above are scored to receive the MLP System Score based on this scale:

• 240-300 Highly Effective
• 151-239 Effective
• 75-160 Minimally Effective
• 0-74 Ineffective

The Professional Growth Plan comprises the essential elements on the template to include:

• Problem of Practice Statement
• SMART Goals
• Theory of Action
• Strategy in Action
• Results Indicator
• Desired Benefit
• Timeline
• Sources of Data to Monitor

This plan also includes:

• Scheduling a frequent system of classroom observations.
• Work with staff to create a series of targets to use as a classroom observation guide.
• Create a common reading comprehension rubric.
• Provide staff professional development in the use of the rubric.
• Schedule distributed practice sessions in teacher use of the rubric to achieve a high level of inter-rater reliability.
• Provide staff professional development in focus areas
• Provide follow-up coaching and mentoring of teachers to support the implementation of the professional development.