If, like me, you’re a public school teacher then measuring your effectiveness as an educator is most likely tied to your ability to maintain employment. In some districts, perhaps it’s even tied to your pay. In New York City our effectiveness is evaluated, in part, using the Danielson Framework for Teaching. And it matters because our jobs quite literally depend on our understanding of how our teacher evaluation framework…works. You don’t need to adopt your evaluation framework as the ultimate teaching philosophy, but a basic understanding of its principles and how it is being used to assess your competency as an educator is necessary. 

Let’s be real, though. Teacher evaluation relies on having an administrator that follows the rules and knows how to use, for example, the Danielson Framework for Teaching--which we know isn’t always the case. There are definitely administrators who don’t see the breadth offered by the Framework, and, in fact, there are teachers who don’t either. There is a great deal of talk about the DFfT being “reductive.” This is a totally valid counterpoint. In considering the DFfT as an evaluation tool, it’s necessary to take into consideration a number of factors that administrators may often overlook. Teachers and administrators agree that neither are trained well enough (Sound familiar?) on the nuances of the rubric to truly distinguish mediocre teaching from great teaching. These nuances demand flexible thinking about what this assessment tool looks like in a variety of subjects and at different levels of teaching and learning. All of these totally valid concerns are present in every school district nationwide, regardless of the framework being used. 

But it’s misunderstandings like these that lead to confusion about what administrators and teachers should focus on during classroom observations. Administrators might be asking teachers to run their arts classrooms more like a traditional core classroom or incorporate more writing and reading into their classes. But the Framework for Teaching, at least, isn’t about academic rigor. It’s not about literacy. And all too often, those become the focus of the conversation. 

As I continue to collaborate with teachers around rigorous arts curricula, I’m often told “My administrator just doesn’t understand what Danielson looks like in a theatre classroom.” And there are definitely a number of administrators that very well may not. But I’d like to propose another possibility here... Maybe the reason their administrators aren’t seeing Danielson at work in their classrooms is that it just isn’t there. 

I know. I know. 

But hear me out. 

There is no doubt that arts teaching is different than science teaching. That arts classrooms are different than math classrooms. But good teaching is good teaching, regardless. A principal doesn't need to have taught social studies to recognize a successful social studies lesson. An A.P. who never taught math can still see the strengths of a math teacher who inspires their students. So why do we assume that an administrator has to know how to teach theatre or orchestra or painting in order to recognize good teaching in a drama, music, or art classroom? If your practice demonstrates “good teaching,” then your administrator, assuming they have a working understanding of what good teaching looks like, will see it in your classroom--even if they have no idea what it is involved in teaching your specific art area. 

I challenge you, as you embark on this exploration with me, to set aside your existing frustrations with a system that seems to add more weight to an ever-burdened teaching load. Open your mind to how your imposed teacher effectiveness framework can enhance your own teaching philosophy and build on the good work you already do in order to improve our students’ experiences in our classrooms. 

After all, when Charlotte Danielson developed her framework, she wanted to break the cycle of “passive educators” who are told by administrators how to improve, and instead “engage teachers in... self-assessment, reflection on practice, and professional conversation.” This way teachers can be continually improving their practice through what we know to be true about learning; that it “is done by the learner through a process of active intellectual engagement.”