Source: Image light, Public Domain, http://tinyurl.com/p4pfjr7, Marzano Framework info graph, http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/evaluation/four_domains/
Welcome. I'm Trisha Fyfe. And in today's video lesson we will look at the lesson titled Danielson and Marzano in Action. As we learn about this topic, we will work towards two main learning objectives in this video lesson. And we'll use the following two questions to guide our learning. What are the tools that incorporate the Danielson and Marzano evaluation frameworks? And what are state models that incorporate the Danielson and Marzano evaluation frameworks?
As teachers, we learn quickly the importance of understanding the requirements and elements in which we will be evaluated on. Because of the specific expectations and requirements of No Child Left Behind, Title I, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and Title II, the evaluation models that are used state by state can look very similar. Fortunately, this helps ensure that the alignment is there for expectations on what will be evaluated. It's no different for the models of Marzano and Danielson.
We can use the tools available, as well as opportunities to examine these models in action, especially in different states. So that we can compare, and understand the similarities, and those subtle differences across the states in the models. We will talk more about these tools, as well as some of the similarities and differences as we move through this video lesson.
Let's first take a look at some tools to help us as educators and evaluators carry out the Danielson model. This model in particular's designed in a way that's extremely supportive to the teacher. It offers many resources and tools both in the evaluation process, as well as for coaches and mentors. It can be downloaded for the ease of use, and districts have the option of purchasing multiple different copies of the framework.
Rubrics have been included for use as the teacher evaluation tool. And Danielson also includes a tool that takes the ideas and principles from UDL, or Universal Design for Learning, and aligns these to the Danielson evaluation model. This alignment greatly supports the teacher's ability to reach each and every student in their classroom. There's an online observation tool and online feedback tool as well. And a document that's available to download for use to take observation notes. The Danielson group creates a bridge between the interstate teacher assessment and support consortium standards and framework.
For the Marzano model there's a fantastic informational graphic that provides a helpful overview of each of the four domains. And it can be found by following this link listed here. This is one I would definitely recommend taking the time to look over. It's a very helpful and useful resource, especially if your district uses this model. So let's take some time to look at some of the state and districts that use these models in particular. We'll start with Danielson teacher evaluation model.
In New York, New York Department of Education has fully adopted the Danielson model for their teacher evaluation system. In Chicago public schools they have adopted the Danielson framework in their teaching practices section of their teacher evaluation. And this was done because the connections to the common core standards, and focus on high standards for teachers and students were there. In Chicago public schools these teachers are evaluated on the four different domains, and the 22 different elements in the Danielson model. As well as teacher practice, student growth, and student feedback. All of these are defined by their district. Expectations for good teaching or outline, and a consistent framework is used as a guide for administrators to follow during their observations. Teachers are then given valuable constructive feedback.
The Danielson framework was adapted in Rhode Island, creating a teacher evaluation system that's aligned to Rhode Island professional teaching standards. In Rhode Island teachers are evaluated using a number of criteria and components, including growth plans. Both teacher and student growth, using state assessments and student learning objectives, or SLOs, that the teacher has met, observations, teacher feedback. Three versions are available in Rhode Island, evaluations for classroom teachers, support teachers, and administrators.
Next, we'll look at some state and district examples of the Marzano teacher evaluation model. First, New Jersey. In this model both Danielson and Marzano models are combined. And domains and elements are used from both to look at teacher practices, student achievement, and student growth. In Florida, VAMs, or Value Added Teacher Evaluation Models are used to take a deeper look at student growth on the state assessment year to year. They also consider characteristics such as student classroom and school that might impact students' learning.
In Broward County in particular, Marzano rubrics are required components of the observation of teacher practices. This model is a state approved model in Florida. In Oklahoma there are multiple models, three to be exact. And the Marzano evaluation model is just one of these. Teacher effectiveness, and the ability to increase student learning gains are at the core of the models that Oklahoma uses. Connections are made between the elements in the evaluation model, and student learning and achievement, by using the Marzano teacher evaluation model.
Let's talk about what we learned today. We looked at the following two questions. What are tools that incorporate the Danielson and Marzano evaluation frameworks? And what are state models that incorporate the Danielson and Marzano evaluation frameworks? In today's lesson we discussed the tools available, as well as opportunities to examine these models in action, especially when looking at different states. So that we can compare and understand the similarities and subtle differences across states and models. I also gave you some specific examples of states and districts that have adapted or used the models from Marzano and Danielson's evaluation models.
Now that you're more familiar with these concepts, let's reflect for a moment. Consider your school, or your district's evaluation model, or one that you have observed in the past. What connections can you make back to Marzano and Danielson's teacher evaluation models?
Thanks for joining me today in discussing the lesson Daniel and Marzano in Action. I hope you found value in this video lesson, and are able to apply these ideas about Danielson and Marzano's frameworks, and their connections to teacher evaluation models in your own teaching. For more information on how to apply what you've learned in this video, please see the additional resources section that accompanies the video presentation. The additional resources section includes hyperlinks that will be useful for applications of course material, including a brief description of each resource.
(00:00- 00:28) Introduction/Objectives
(00:29- 01:23) Teacher Evaluation and Requirements
(01:24- 02:47) Tools and Resources Available for Danielson and Marzano Models
(02:48- 04:17) Examples of Danielson’s Model
(04:18- 05:21) Examples of Marzano’s Model
(05:22- 06:00) Recap
(06:01- 06:52) Reflection
The Danielson Group: The Framework
This page has important and useful tools to carry out the Danielson Model. These tools include templates and connections to the Common Core State Standards.
Four Marzano Teacher Evaluation Domains
This is a helpful Marzano infographic that provides a detailed overview of the four domains.
Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument
This report from the New York Department of Education details how the NYDOE fully adopted the Danielson Model for its teacher evaluation system.
Recognizing Educators Advancing Chicago Students
Chicago Public Schools adapted the Danielson Framework in the Teaching Practices section of the teacher evaluation because of its connections to the Common Core State Standards and focus on high standards for teachers and students. Teachers are evaluated on the four domains and 22 elements of the Danielson Model. In addition, teachers are evaluated on teacher practice, student growth, and student feedback.
Rhode Island Department of Education: Educator Evaluation
The Rhode Island Model adapted the Danielson Framework. The Model includes teacher observation, professional growth plans, student growth based on both state assessment data and the achievement of teacher established Student Learning Objectives (SLOs), and teacher feedback.
AchieveNJ: Teacher Evaluation
The New Jersey Model combines the domains and elements from the Danielson and Marzano Models. The evaluation model includes teacher practices, student achievement, and student growth.
Broward Instructional Development And Growth Evaluation System
Florida uses a Value Added Teacher Evaluation Model. This means it considers year-to year student growth on the state assessment model, as well as student, classroom, and school characteristics that impact student learning. Broward County has a state approved model that incorporates the Marzano rubrics as a required component of the observation of teacher practices.
Oklahoma Teacher Evaluation
Oklahoma has approved three different teacher evaluation models. The Marzano Evaluation Model is one of the three approved models. Oklahoma believes teacher evaluation should improve teacher effectiveness and increase student learning gains. The Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model connects elements in the evaluation model to student learning and achievement.