Charlotte Danielson's Framework of Teaching - Research Paper Example

Introduction Charlotte Danielson is an educational consultant and President of Princeton Education Associates in Princeton, New Jersey, and Project Coordinator for the South Brunswick Township Public Schools in Monmouth Junction, New Jersey. Danielson has an extensive educational background and has developed her theoretical writings on education through an experienced and extensive career in education. Danielson has taught at all scholastic levels – kindergarten through college – and has also worked as an administrator, curriculum director, and staff developer. Her work as a teacher has extended beyond merely the New Jersey area and includes district throughout the United States of America. Currently, her role as an education advisor has brought her into contact with hundreds of schools, universities, colleges, and scholastic environments throughout the country. Originally, Danielson received a Bachelor of Arts in History from Cornell University. She has gone on to receive advanced degrees in philosophy, economics, and educational administration from Oxford and Rutgers Universities. This essay examines a number of core issues regarding Danielson’s theoretical writings on education. It specifically explores Danielson’s framework of teaching, the advantages this framework has that have given it widespread success, the push-backs the framework has received from push teaching and administrate professionals, as well as an in-depth examination of Danielson’s approach to teacher evaluations. Danielson’s Framework of Teaching One of the most fundamental aspects of Charlotte Danielson’s pedagogic theories concerns the framework she has established for teaching. In articulating her framework of teaching, Danielson divides it into four domains of teaching: 1) planning and preparation, 2) classroom environment, 3) instruction, and 4) professional responsibilities. Within these domains, there exists the further subcategory of components, of which there are 22 total. In the first domain in Danielson’s framework of teaching – planning and preparation – there is a well-elucidated understanding of what constitutes the structural components. Danielson writes that, “This domain concerns how a teacher organizes the content that the students are to learn – how the teacher designs instruction” (Danielson 1996, pg. 30). This domain goes beyond merely lesson planning; rather, it includes all aspects of curriculum development. As such, it contains within in it a deep understanding of pedagogical principles and theoretical applications, and content. It also calls for the inclusion of an understanding of the students and their expectations and specific aspects they bring to the learning environment. The last point is particularly important as Danielson indicates that instructional design goes well-beyond content knowledge, but also must necessarily incorporate how the material is conveyed to the students. In these regards, the planning and preparation domain is highly rooted in an understanding of the varying levels of knowledge and understanding of children within the specified classroom and is coupled with the successful implementation of activities, levels of appeal, and the overarching structural organization necessary to achieve these aims. Within this domain, Danielson includes six components: demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy, demonstrating knowledge of students, selecting instructional goals, demonstrating knowledge of resources, designing coherent instruction, and assessing student learning. Charlotte Danielson’s second framework of teaching domain is the classroom environment. While the first domain relates entirely to instructional design, Danielson’s second domain relates entirely to the interactions that occur within the classroom environment. Danielson writes, “The interactions are themselves non-instructional...Such activities and tasks establish a comfortable and respectful classroom environment, which cultivates a culture for learning” (Danielson 1996, pg. 31). Danielson notes that this environment should be business-like, with routines handled efficiently. The students should also act in a cooperative and non-disruptive way. Danielson believes that this domain is perhaps the most essential, as when students remember teachers years later it is often because of the effective classroom environment that was created. In these regards, it’s highly necessary for teachers to create the challenging, nurturing, and fair and equitable environment for ultimate student success. For this to occur, Danielson believes that it is necessary for teachers to view their students as real people, with special interests; the students, in-return, regard the teachers as caring, adult professionals. While the students recognize them as in-charge, they also recognize them as a special nurturing individual. Within this domain Danielson includes the following components: creating an environment of respect and rapport, establishing a culture for learning, managing classroom procedures, managing student behavior, organizing physical space. Danielson’s third domain is that of instruction. While the second domain has the most long-lasting effects on students, Danielson notes that the instruction domain is the foundational element of her framework of teaching. In identifying the necessary elements of success in the third domain, Danielson states, “Teachers who excel in Domain 3 create an atmosphere of excitement about the importance of learning and the significance of the content...Students are engaged in meaningful work, which carries significance beyond the next test...” (Danielson 1996, pg. 32). In these regards, instruction extends into the other domains, as it concerns the ability of the teaching professional to impart essential knowledge in a means that is successful and structured so that students are naturally motivated to excel. The individual components within this domain include: communicating clearly and accurately, using questioning and discussion techniques, engaging students in learning, providing feedback to students, and demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness. Danielson’s final domain is the fourth domain of professional responsibility. The fourth domain concerns the teacher’s professional responsibility; as such it is the only domain that encompasses actions that occur both inside and outside the classroom. Danielson encapsulates these professional responsibilities when she states that they consist of, “a wide range of professional responsibilities, from self-reflection and personal growth, to contributions made to the school and district, to contributions made to the profession as a whole” (Danielson 1996, pg. 32). While one might readily assume that professional responsibility refers to ethical conduct, for Danielson it goes far beyond that and requires the teacher to be engaged not only in appropriate conduct, but an active participant in community and school organizations. As a result, this domain is a sort of master teacher domain that is achieved only after a few years of teaching. The components within this domain include: reflecting on teaching, maintaining accurate records, communicating with families, contributing to the school and district, growing and developing professionally, and showing professionalism. Advantages of the Framework Charlotte Danielson’s framework of teaching has gained wide-spread acceptance among teaching professionals and administrative staff for its effectiveness on schools and overall student achievement. There is a variety of diverse reasons for this acceptance, but perhaps the most overriding of which concerns the equitable nature the framework has for professionals and students alike. Danielson’s reforms call for a more holistic and well-structured environment that allows not only students, but teachers and administrative staff to grow and collaborate in creative and healthy ways. In articulating these progressive measures there are a number of themes that consistently emerge in regards to Danielson’s framework. As already mentioned, the first theme concerns that of equity. Danielson’s framework is successful in reducing student behavior problems and creating a more suitable learning environment as it promotes the equitable treatment of students, not as simply cogs in the scholastic machine, but real human beings. As such the mutual respect and a healthier learning environment are necessary advantages of Danielson’s approach. Another highly important advantage of Danielson’s framework concerns the high levels of student expectation that are developed. In such environments, students’ success across the board is greatly improved. This advantage is creates an upbeat and highly motivating professional environment for teachers and administrative staff alike. In examining Danielson’s framework, one can clearly identify a number of components that aid in such increases in student expectations, contributing to the overall classroom and professional environments within the school. Consider for instance the components of instructional goals, levels of accomplishment established in a culture for learning, questions posed in class, and feedback students receive. When considering the advantages Danielson’s framework in regards to teaching evaluations has that have given it widespread acceptance among teachers and administrative staff they exists a number of important factors to consider. Danielson’s teaching evaluations integrate the frameworks of her teaching into distinct categories so that teaching professionals can understand at what level they fall into and the added areas they can aim to improve to become more successful teaching professionals. It’s not surprising that this methodology has gained acceptance among a wide variety of schools and administrative staff as the evaluative categories are designed in easily understandable distinctions that not only serve to note teacher shortcomings, but indicate means that they can integrate reflective practices to advance and achieve higher levels of proficiency. In great part the evaluative categories resemble psychological developmental profiles of which the individual will progress through towards achieving self-realization. Teacher and Administrative Push-backs Even as Charlotte Danielson’s framework of teaching has gained great acceptance in many schools and scholastic environments, there have nevertheless been a number of push-backs by teachers and administrative staff that reject her reforms. While there are countless perspectives on the proper means of structuring the classroom and school environment, as well as education reforms, and similar avenues of theoretical investigation, there have emerged a number of recurrent objections in regards to Danielson’s specific theoretical assumptions. One of the main objections to Danielson’s framework is that it emphasizes the equitable treatment of students across the board. While few teachers or administrative officials would outright admit that they oppose such measures, there is a tacit objection that Danielson’s framework comes at the cost of students achievement at the top of the scholastic ladder to the benefit of a more equitable playing field. One of Danielson’s key concepts is the reduction of what she terms the ‘bell-curve’ mentality. That is: When a pre-established time-frame is allotted for a given topic...student learning tends to follow the bell curve pattern. Under these conditions, a few students will excel, many others will grasp some of the material, and a few others will not understand it at all. (Danielson 2002, pg. 15) In these regards, to adopt Danielson’s criteria for student achievement across the board would require substantial infrastructure shifts in many schools. Such shifts would require increased funding and entirely changed emphasis on the core assumptions that have come to operate the learning environment. It’s not surprise then that Danielson’s proposed reforms have received objections by administrative officials either powerless or unwilling to enact such measures when faced with such stringent budgetary shortcomings. In Enhancing Student Achievement, Danielson openly challenges a number of assumptions relating to the scholastic environment. Danielson quotes a parent as stating, “We are so lucky – our children go to a very good school” and a student who states, “I want to transfer to West High; it’s a much better school than Overlake” (Danielson 2002, pg. 3). Danielson goes on to give specific recommendations as to what constitutes these good schools and environments. While view would object to their institutions overall ‘goodness’, many schools believe that Danielson’s teaching framework is merely one proscriptive element or perspective, when in actuality the school’s effectiveness should be determined by the paradigm or perspective of the individual community members. The recent success of charter schools throughout much of the nation is a testament to the effectiveness that variety and diversity can play within the scholastic landscape. Similarly, there are a number of diverse teaching methods, including the continued popularity of Montessori academies, and other experimental institutions that run counter to many of the fundamental assumptions outlined in Danielson’s framework of teaching. Even as Danielson has never been linked directly with the inclusion of merit pay among teaching professionals, her teaching framework has often been proposed as a core structural element to instituting teacher merit pay. In these regards the varying levels of Danielson’s teacher evaluations would be utilized to determine the extent to which teachers are sufficiently living up to professional standards. While there have been a broad variety of push-backs levied against merit-pay, there are a number of objections that can be directly linked to the incorporate of Danielson’s merit-pay based system into the equation. These objections include an overall lack of autonomy. Danielson’s proscriptive measures have a number of distinct components and categories that increase administrative involvement and place the act of instruction more in a set of abstract principles than in the organic and holistic interactions that occur within the classroom environment. In the overt promotion of such components, the act of instruction and learning is given over less to the teaching professional and more to Danielson’s standards. While Danielson’s framework includes components that emphasize the importance of teacher involvement, her overriding framework paradoxically could, in regards to merit pay, be used to restrict these measures. Teacher Evaluations Charlotte Danielson’s work with teacher evaluation has a number of notable benefits to the teaching professional. Danielson notes that previous teaching evaluation procedures fell short in a number of essential regards. These ill-structured teacher evaluation systems include, “(1) outdated, limited evaluative criteria and (2) the lack of shared values and assumptions about what constitutes good teaching. Both conditions create hurdles for local districts in the successful development of contemporary, effective teacher evaluation” (Danielson 2000, pg. 11). In designing a framework for teacher evaluation, Danielson notes that any good evaluation system must include the essential elements of what constitutes the domain of teaching, the techniques and procedures that are contained within the domain of teaching, and ultimately trained evaluators who are able to integrate an understanding of these concepts into evaluative practice. In these regards, teacher evaluation goes extensively beyond designing a form, but is a highly complex professional practice unto itself. Danielson’s own system incorporate her framework of teaching (the four domains and their essential components) into the principles previously outlined in articulating an evaluative system. Within the domains, there is a categorical section for each component that is further divided by rankings that range from unsatisfactory to distinguished. While teacher evaluations are traditionally a dreaded and much maligned part of the profession for teachers, Danielson’s system has a number of elements that considerably benefit teachers and aid in their development. One such instance is that Danielson’s evaluation framework places increased emphasis on self-assessment. This benefits the teacher as, “principles of adult learning show that when people use self-assessment and self-directed inquiry in professional development, they are more likely to sustain their learning” (Danielson 2000, pg. 24). Even when administrative officials are involved in the evaluation process, Danielson’s system calls for an increased emphasis, not on restrictive or judgmental evaluative measures, but on a process designed to increase teacher development. As Danielson continues her articulation of the teacher evaluation process she distinguishes a number of levels of specification designed to elucidate what constitutes a successful evaluation. While an in-depth registry of these specifications constitutes one of Danielson’s entire books, some of the specific categories include: Levels of Specificity, Feedback Options, and Levels of Performance. These categorical specifications function to ensure that the evaluation process is not only thorough but beneficial for professional development. Indeed, if there is one unifying theme throughout Danielson’s writing on the evaluation process it is that the teacher is an active participant and not merely the receptacle of criticism. Tiered Teacher Evaluation System Danielson further distinguishes her theory of teacher evaluations by introducing furthered steps tenured teachers can take to achieve professional development. Danielson refers to this as Track II and states that it includes, “flexible procedures, differentiated responses, and decentralized responsibility for judgment and action” (Danielson 2000, pg. 99). As an element of Danielson’s framework of teaching calls for the master teacher to go beyond the classroom and become integrated in school or community events, one evaluative option would be for the teacher to participate in an action research project that would meld this domain and the evaluative process. Similarly experienced teachers could participate in portfolio construction, or other self-directed activities. While this has reduced the emphasis on the administrative critique of teachers, it has nonetheless garnered some push-backs, as some teachers resent the added burden of this framework; instead they believe that direct administrative oversight or simply reduced evaluative procedures would be a more equitable policy. Conclusion As can be seen Danielson’s framework of teaching in large part constitutes practical knowledge of the educational system that should be instituted by administrative officials and teachers to achieve a more equitable and functional scholastic environment. Although there have been a number of push-backs to Danielson’s reform measures, it seems that most experienced and dedicated professional teachers can ultimately appreciate the added emphasize Danielson places on teacher responsibility and agency. Particularly Danielson’s understanding of the evaluation process removes it from a one-sided criticism session, and elevates it to a process of professional development. Ultimately, if the teacher professional is to be expected to achieve high standards in the classroom, they should be shown the same professional respect in terms of expectations and evaluations. References Danielson, Charlotte. (1996) Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. ASCD. Danielson, Charlotte. (2000) Teacher Evaluation: To Enhance Professional Practice. ASCD. Danielson, Charlotte. (2002) Enhancing Student Achievement: A Framework for School Improvement. ASCD. Read More