The Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching, widely adopted for teacher evaluations across the United States, has come under scrutiny for its incompatibility with many contemporary curricula that teachers are required to implement with fidelity. This misalignment creates a paradoxical situation where educators must choose between adhering to mandated instructional methods and achieving high ratings on their evaluations.
Consider the case of HMH's Into Reading program, which emphasizes explicit instruction through mini-lessons at the beginning of each session, followed by a gradual release of responsibility as students work towards independent mastery. This structured approach contrasts sharply with the Danielson Framework's expectations for highly effective teaching, which prioritize student autonomy and even requires learners to drive the direction of the lesson. Ironically, Charlotte Danielson herself never intended her framework to be used for systemic teacher evaluations. In a 2016 article, she stated, "I'm deeply troubled by the transformation of teaching from a complex profession requiring nuanced judgment to the performance of certain behaviors that can be ticked off on a checklist". This disconnect between the framework's original purpose and its current application exacerbates the challenges faced by educators.
The conflict between curriculum fidelity and evaluation criteria places teachers in an untenable position. To receive a "highly effective" rating under the Danielson Framework, educators must demonstrate that students are driving the lesson's direction and exhibiting significant autonomy. However, this approach often contradicts the explicit instructional methods prescribed by adopted curricula like HMH's Into Reading. As a result, teachers find it nearly impossible to simultaneously follow mandated curriculum guidelines and achieve top evaluation scores, which often impact factors such as their tenure and salaries.
It is worth noting that there is significant financial incentive in curriculum adoption and assessment. The educational materials and evaluation systems market is a multi-billion dollar industry, with companies vying for lucrative contracts with school districts. This economic reality often influences decision-making processes and can lead to the implementation of systems that may not always align with best teaching practices or the needs of individual classrooms.
To address these issues, teachers need greater autonomy in curriculum implementation and flexibility in lesson delivery. Educators should be encouraged to "adapt, not adopt" curriculum materials to better support their students' unique needs and learning styles. This approach would allow for a more organic integration of student-driven learning while still maintaining the core elements of adopted curricula.
Furthermore, the overall teacher evaluation system requires a comprehensive overhaul. Much has changed in the educational landscape since the Danielson Framework's inception, including advances in our understanding of effective teaching methods and the increasing diversity of student populations. A more nuanced and flexible evaluation system that accounts for these changes and the complexities of modern classrooms is essential for fostering genuine teacher growth and student success.