1. A Guided Review and Discussion
Applying the Danielson Framework for Teaching to Specialists and Licensed Professionals
A Guided Review and Discussion

2. Project Goal
To develop educator effectiveness models that will reform the way we evaluate school professionals as well as the critical components of training and professional growth.
Play video first – click on link – humorous you tube teacher evaluation clip – 2 minutes (can download the video from You Tube).
Although this video showcases classroom teacher interacting with their supervisor, there are many connections you can make to specialists and licensed professionals. many educational specialists have suggested that their supervisors do not understand their roles and functions.
TRAINER:
Ask-Do you agree that this has been somewhat typical of the evaluation process? As principals/supervisors do you struggle giving specialists and licensed professionals formative feedback on their practice? What has been your experience?
Share your experience to date with your elbow partner.
PA as well as most states has been in the process of re-evaluating and redesigning its evaluation system for educators.
What we want you to think about today are the implications of this effort relative to your own actions and future in the profession.
The term “educator” includes teachers, education specialists, and principals.

3. Educator Effectiveness http://www. portal. state. pa. us/portal/server
The purpose of today is to provide an overview of the how Pennsylvania has modified the Danielson Framework for Teaching for Specialists and Licensed Professionals. The url above will take you to PDE’s overall educator effectiveness page where you will find resources for teachers and principals. 3

4. Background
A multi-phase project that began with $800,000 Gates Foundation grant to facilitate the development of statewide policy, tools and processes to evaluate teachers and principals in which student achievement is a significant factor affecting performance ratings
PDE is closely following the work of the Pittsburgh Public Schools, recipients of a $40 million Gates Foundation grant that is more comprehensive in scope but similar in redesigning evaluation policy, tools and processes
A University of Pittsburgh researcher is conducting a qualitative analysis regarding the effectiveness of principal training and the comprehensiveness, validity, transparency, practicality, and quality of the teacher evaluation system
A third party researcher is conducting a quantitative analysis evaluating the relationships between professional practices as measured by classroom observation scores and teacher contributions to student achievement
This slide speaks to the evolution to date – we are a Race to the Top state and those states were all required to reform their evaluation systems. We have done this in phases with RTT and SIG schools to date as well as some volunteer schools.

5. Phase III Sites
293 Local Education Agencies, including School Districts, CTCs, Charter Schools and IUs
1,255 Schools
1,972 Supervisors
20,360 Teachers in PSSA tested subjects
3,771 Teachers in non-PSSA tested subjects
The number of LEA”s participating in Phase III implementation for Teachers (Instructionally Certified Staff).

6. Teacher Effectiveness System in Act 82 of 2012

7. With the passing of Act 82 this summer – these are the proposed changes in the evaluation process and criteria for educational specialists and licensed professionals – let’s give you a few minutes to independently review and then we will go over it together….
Please be aware that these criteria are specific to you as educational specialists and licensed professionals – the criteria changes for those who hold an instructional certification in PA. Our purpose today is to focus on specialists and licensed professionals – if you want to learn more about the criteria for those with instructional certificates, please visit the PDE website.

8. Who are Educational Specialists?
Educational Specialists are defined in Pennsylvania School Code with the scope of their certificates and assignments described in Certification and Staffing Polices and Guidelines (CSPGs).
Currently CSPG 75 through 81 list the following specialist certifications:
Dental Hygienist
Elementary School Counselor
Home and School Visitor
Instructional Technology Specialist
Secondary School Counselor
School Nurse
School Psychologist

9. What about other Licensed Professionals hired under Teacher Contracts?
Given that many LEAs hire licensed professionals under teacher contracts who are not certificated as specialists under Pennsylvania School Code, PDE has made a decision to develop revised Danielson Framework for Teaching rubrics for the following roles:
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Social Workers
Behavior Specialists
Typically these professionals are licensed through other agencies. They are not specialists as per school code.

10. Framework Development for Specialists and Licensed Professionals
PDE recruited practitioners from across the Commonwealth and formed stakeholder workgroups to revise the Danielson Framework for Teaching to reflect their specific roles and functions.
These workgroups consisted of:
Practitioners- specialists and licensed professionals working in their respective fields in LEA’s
Representatives from State-wide professional organizations
Higher Education
PSEA representatives
IU representatives

11. The Stakeholder Workgroups utilized the following guiding principles
Each of the specialist (modified) rubrics must reflect and preserve the fundamental tenets of the Danielson Framework For Teaching (the official language of instruction for ALL educators across PA).
The stakeholder groups were trained by the Danielson Group in the Framework for Teaching and constructivist learning theory.
Must closely align with best-practices and national standards for the respective specialists/licensed professionals.
Within this framework, the evaluation rubric was developed to so that it is closely congruent with national standards. Therefore, all specialists and licensed professionals will be evaluated holistically, yet with appropriate attention to nationally identified standards within their unique discipline. In this way, all PA school professionals will have the opportunity to advocate for and justify their unique contributions no matter their current role and function and respective employment setting....the intent of the modifications and the framework in general is to acknowledge, share and build on those unique contributions toward enhanced outcomes for the field at large."

12. Next Steps: Project Initiation (Feedback Phase) (Spring 2013)
Small scale pilot of the modified rubrics
Recruitment via IU regions Mid-December to Mid January.
Online tool will be ready by December 17th
Districts will be recruited based on their participation in the Phase III implementation
Review of feedback and development of professional development ( June 20th and 21st and throughout Summer, 2013)
Large Scale pilot (Fall, 2013)
Full-scale implementation per Act 82 (Fall, 2014)

13. Clarifying Questions and Feedback
1) Will Specialists/Licensed professionals utilize the same evaluation process as the Danielson Framework for Teaching?
Pre-conference (evidence collection)
Observation (evidence collection)
Post-conference (evidence collection)
YES!
2) Who should evaluate specialists and licensed professionals?
This is a local decision, typically, Principals, IU Supervisors, Directors of Pupil Personnel, Directors of Special Education evaluate non-teaching professional employees
3) How will participants be recruited for the small-scale pilot in the Spring of 2013?
IU regions will make recommendations based on implementation and Pre-requisite background knowledge of the Danielson Framework for Teaching
4) How are Specialists and Licensed professionals going to oriented to the instrument?
WE NEED YOUR FEEDBACK! How should they be?
4) How are Specialists and Licensed professionals going to oriented to the instrument?
Some considerations/recommendations; online portal, professional organizations exc
Supervisors orient specialists and licensed professionals to the instruments.
IU trainers
Professional organizations

14. The Danielson Framework for Teaching component review
The modified rubrics for specialists and licensed professionals are based on the Danielson Framework for Teaching. Let’s do a quick warm up and the domains and components of the Framework for Teaching. 13

15. Recall the Categories: Talk with a colleague and label each bucket.
Allow 2-3 minutes. Go to next slide.
Trainer (This could be done formally or informally- use of graphic organizer or not) IU feedback?
What is the name of each the domains?
What are the components of each domain? 15 15

16. Domain Focus— Adapted from Danielson’s Framework for Teaching
Planning and Preparation
Professional
Responsibilities
Classroom
Environment
Instruction
Professional responsibilities and behavior in and out of the classroom.
What a teacher knows and does in preparation for teaching.
Here they are – how did you do with your recall?
All aspects of teaching that lead to a culture for learning in the classroom.
What a teacher does to engage students in learning. 16 16

17. The Framework for Teaching
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
a. Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
b. Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
c. Setting Instructional Outcomes
d. Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
e. Designing Coherent Instruction
f. Designing Student Assessments
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
a. Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport
b. Establishing a Culture for Learning
c. Managing Classroom Procedures
d. Managing Student Behavior
e. Organizing Physical Space
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
a. Reflecting on Teaching
b. Maintaining Accurate Records
c. Communicating with Families
d. Participating in a Professional Community
e. Growing and Developing Professionally
f. Showing Professionalism
Domain 3: Instruction
a. Communicating With Students
b. Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
c. Engaging Students in Learning
d. Using Assessment in Instruction
e. Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
Directions for I Do- We Do- You Do/Jigsaw Activity _ IU Feedback?
Trainer Notes- Before we review the modified rubrics for specialists and licensed professionals it is important that we engage in an activity that will help us conceptualize the Danielson Framework for Teaching through the unique roles and functions of specialists and licensed professionals. To do this we are going to engage in an I Do- We Do- You Do with an embedded jigsaw activity.
Trainer “As you know the modified rubrics will constitute a significant percentage of specialists and licensed professionals evaluation with the components that need to be further operationalized given their unique role and function ….so, let’s take a moment to engage in an I do-We do- You do to further develop our shared knowledge about these modified rubrics and to mirror for you what the teams of specialists and licensed professionals engaged in in their stakeholder groups as they modified the rubrics
I DO- I am going to begin by looking at Domain 1/Planning and Preparation for Teaching and specifically 1 a – Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy and think through what that might look like for a social worker. Just as in teaching I would expect that a social worker would provide evidence of proficiency in this domain and component by having a strong foundation of the research, standards, theories of practice and essential components of the techniques necessary to practice and that the rubric evaluating me should reflect evidence of this.
Using a flip chart- generate a list of your components, evidence and examples for a social worker and dialogue with the participants as to how this demonstrates alignment with the Danielson Framework for Teaching as well as reflecting -the unique role and function of social workers.
Now let’s do a WE DO Focus on 1 b – Demonstrating knowledge of students – do a think-pair-share or a table share to discuss what this component might look like for social workers. Give pairs/table teams time to discuss. 
Now it’s time for a YOU DO jigsaw teams, we’ll begin by dividing our group into nine small teams based on specialist and licensed professional roles
Divide the participants in the room into nine discrete parts based on specialist and licensed professional roles – you may do this by having participants count off 1-9 and then gathering in nine separate areas that you throughout the room.
Dental Hygienist -1
Elementary and Secondary School Counselor-2
Home and School Visitor- 3
Instructional Technology Specialist-4
School Nurse-5
School Psychologist -6
Physical Therapist/Occupational Therapists-7
Behavior Specialists-8
Social Workers-9
TRAINER- “For this activity we’ll focus on Domain 3 Service Delivery and component a- 3a 3a: Communication with students, families and other stakeholders
Activity #2- Think-Pair-Share
TRAINER- What would best prepare you for evaluating personnel whom you many not have historically evaluated in this way?
The Framework for Teaching Charlotte Danielson 17

18. A Deeper Dive into the Domains
Activity
Identifying the Domains
in Daily Practice….
Use the one-pager of the framework to do this along with the handout
(10 minutes)
The goal of this activity is to conclude the initial learning about the Framework by having participants match scenarios to the correct Domain of the Framework.
Now, invite participants to extend their learning about the Domains of the Framework, and direct them to Worksheet #2.
Instruct them to work as a table group and to place the number of the Domain in the space beside each statement, indicating which Domain is most closely related to that statement.
Only one domain number per items is permissible.
minutes, then process chorally: facilitator says letter of the item and the class calls out the letter. If there is dissonance, stop and discuss.
Answers to WORKSHEET #2:
A. 2
B. 3
C. 1
D. 4
E. 1
F. 2
G. 4
H. 1
I. 3
J. 4
K. 2

19. The Framework for Teaching
A research-based definition of good teaching
A roadmap to, and for navigating through, the complex territory of teaching
A framework for novice-level practitioners, through accomplished teaching
The Framework for Teaching Charlotte Danielson

20. A Peek at Customized Danielson Rubrics for… Educational Specialists and Licensed Professionals17

21. Customizing Danielson: Review/respond to the rubric that matches your unique role and function
TRAINER- The following questions can be used to facilitate a dialogue with principals/supervisors. (This can be done formally or informally based on the needs of the IU regions)
Desired outcomes of this activity
Principals/supervisors will
generalize information to other experiences
understand how overarching principles apply to different situations and will apply new learning to real world situations
TRAINER- Compare 3a of the Framework for Teaching with (pick a specialists/licensed professional rubric)
Do you see a pattern here? How do you account for ______? What was significant about ______? What connections to you see? What does ________ suggest to you?
What can we infer/conclude from _______? Does _____ remind you of anything? What principle do you see operating here? What does this help you explain? How does this relate to other experiences or things you already knew?
How can you use that information? What does this new information say about our own actions/lives? What are the consequences of doing or not doing _____? How can you adapt this information to make it applicable to you?

22. Danielson Framework, Domain 3: Instruction
Component
1. Failing
2. Needs Improvement
3. Proficient
4. Distinguished
3a: Communicating with students
Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are unclear or confusing to students. Teacher’s use of language contains errors or is inappropriate to students’ cultures or levels of development
Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are clarified after initial confusion; teacher’s use of language is correct but may not be completely appropriate to students’ cultures or levels of development.
Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are clear to students. Communications are appropriate to students’ cultures and levels of development.
Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are clear to students. Teacher’s oral and written communication is clear and expressive, appropriate to students’ cultures and levels of development, and anticipates possible student misconceptions.
3b: Using questioning and discussion techniques
Teacher’s questions are low-level or inappropriate, eliciting limited student participation, and recitation rather than discussion.
Some of the teacher’s questions elicit a thoughtful response, but most are low-level, posed in rapid succession. Teacher’s attempts to engage all students in the discussions are only partially successful.
Most of the teacher’s questions elicit a thoughtful response, and the teacher allows sufficient time for students to answer. The students are engaged and participate in the discussion, with the teacher stepping aside when appropriate.
Questions reflect high expectations and are culturally and developmentally appropriate. Students formulate many of the high-level questions and ensure that all voices are heard.

23. Certified School Nurse

24. Counselor

25. Home School Visitor

26. Occupational Therapist/ Physical Therapist

27. School Psychologist

28. Social Worker

29. Customized Rubric Review
Activity: Take minutes and review the rubric that aligns with your unique role and function. Pay attention to what constitutes “proficient” versus other categorical ratings. ***Share your thoughts with a colleague.
10-15 minutes- IU INPUT!
IU TRAINERS- this can be adapted for your particular region/audience.
Considerations:
Could focus on just one component or one domain.
Could conduct a scaffolded Jigsaw (I do, We do, You do) activity where you model the activity and then have the same jigsaw groups (from slide 19)- however note that we do not have a rubric for ITS so unlike the activity on slide 19, you would have to remove ITS.

30. Just as a refresher….

31. Questions
1. Given your role, what is most significant about these modified rubrics?
Could be an optional activity. Differentiate between principals, assistant principals, director of pupil personnel services, IU Supervisors, directors of special education.
Find like colleagues and answer the questions that follow at your table.

32. 2. What connections do you see to your role and function?

33. your role and function in terms of….
3. What does this rubric suggest for
your role and function in terms of….
a. Your practice?
b. Collaboration?
c. Your evaluation?

34. One Strength/Positive One Challenge
Written Reflection
One Strength/Positive One Challenge

35. Videos Currently being formatted to work across different platforms….
Example
rtsp://stream.pattan.net/wmvhd/2012/nov/2_physical_therapists_occupational_therapists.mp4

36. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Department of Education
Contact Information
Joe Mahoney, MSW, LSW
(724) ext. 125
Kristin Szewczyk,
Ed. D./CCC-SLP, CBIS
(724) ext. 716
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Tom Corbett, Governor
Pennsylvania Department of Education
Ronald J. Tomalis, Secretary
Carolyn C. Dumaresq, Ed. D., Deputy Secretary
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
John J. Tommasini, Director
Bureau of Special Education
Patricia Hozella, Assistant Director