The Irony of Charlotte Danielson's Framework

Charlotte Danielson's Framework for Teaching is aptly named.  It's easy to see that in retrospect.  If you missed the title, re-read it.  You didn't blink and omit it.  The en vouge framework for teacher evaulation, soon to be used in districts across the country (including my own), didn't start and wasn't conceived out of spite for bad teachers.  Instead, Danielson began the framework as a rubric for what makes up the practice of teaching - mostly what constitutes "the standards of practice for regular teachers".  I find it extremely ironic then that this assessment for teaching is now going to be used to assess teaching.

This is no rant on what teachers do and do not deserve.  Instead it is a reaction to a conversation Danielson had with Education Week blogger Rick Hess in June, an ironic conversation that shed new light on many other conversations I've been involved in, and surrounded by over the course of the last school year.

I was introduced to Danielson's Framework, and told the implications of her model during a district wide articulation session last September.  Teachers from my high school district, as well the grade school district in our community watched in terror as representatives from our state teacher's association rambled through the new form of assessment soon to be used to evaluate a teacher's performance.  Blood was in the water that fall day - in the form of percieved big shots, from a big association, giving big edicts.  But in reality, the writing had been on the wall for awhile.  The idea of teacher evaluation being (somewhat) tied to student performance and systematic observation is as un-suprising as the recent e-mail I recieved that told of how No Child Left Behind has been found to fundamental errors.  This is like telling audience members not to watch, that in fact Charlie Brown will not get to kick the football.  This is not new information.  Yet, teachers from mine and the other districts figuratively stormed the stage with questions and accusations, refusing to believe that an organization that was supposed to have their best (bargaining) interests at heart would turn their back on them in their time of need. 

But, ironically, what Charlotte Danielson had in mind when she created her framework was the needs of teachers.  More specifically, it seems as if she thought teachers needed to see that although there may not be one correct way to teach a student, there certainly is a "continuum of performance" on which all teaching falls.  Why not reveal these insights through a framework to benefit the profession, instead of letting the practice of "what works for me is mine, and I might share it if I see fit" continue?  Why not try to lead those teachers whose practices, for whatever reason, fall low on the continuum?  This seems like what we want for our students who struggle, why not ask the same of our "struggling" teachers?

This idea of a "continuum of performance" really strikes a chord with me.  I started out as a television reporter, and after failing to secure the ever-illusive second job, I began to rethink my life and career goals.  Moving home to consider alternatives, I discovered that what I missed the most from the profession was something that I could do everyday (to a different, perhaps more exciting extent) in the classroom.  I loved to read.  I reveled in writing and wordplay.  But my real passion was in the performance.  The rush of a red button above a camera pointed squarely at my head sent the shivers of excitement down my back.  Just they way every bell does now that I'm a secondary English teacher.  The performance was the thing.  And while it might not be the thing for all teachers, it is certainly one of my favorite aspects of my job.  My comfort in saying this reveals how I feel about being judged by the Danielson Framework...I'm really not.  Part of that is my confidence in my abilities of managing a classroom, keeping my students engaged and involved, and feeling comfortable in front of that audience.  But part of it stems from knowing that there is always improvement to make and being on a continuum grounds me in that knowledge.

I also know that I will have to be evaluated by a trained professional - who has been specifically, and intensively trained in the Danielson model.  This training assures me that no grudges or feuds will ultimately lead to my ouster, if that does indeed happen as a result of a poor set of evaluations.  To my understanding, the model is intensive, which theoretically would lead to a more involved evaluation, which theoretically would lead to more pertinent and useful commentary on the performance continuum.  I know that others will not welcome this scrutinity, but if we look at it as Danielson originally intended it to be used, then the model should help much more than it hurts, right?