25
"Distinguished" FFT rating according to the rubric.
I then ask if we need to collect evidence for any
of the Components in Domains 1 and 4. Do we need
evidence of content knowledge, pedagogy, child
development, learning process, special needs of the
students, student skills or knowledge or proficiency,
student interests or cultural heritage, setting
instructional
outcomes,
designing
coherent
instruction, reflecting on teaching, maintaining
accurate records, communicating with families,
participating in professional learning communities,
growing and developing professionally or showing
professionalism? They almost always say no when
answering this question. They just want to rate the
teacher Distinguished/Excellent.
I then show the participants several additional
teaching videos, one of average teaching, one of poor
teaching and one of good teaching. In each of these
videos we also just look for 3c Engaged Learning but
the participants always write additional evidence
related to any of the other 21 components because
they do not see an excellent lesson.
The main point I am trying to convey is that if the
teacher evaluator looks for Engaged Learning, the
evaluator is concentrating on what students are
intellectually learning and this gives them insight into
what actual learning is occurring in the classroom
Danielson states that this is "minds-on" not "hands-
on." It is what students are "learning" not what
students are "doing."
Please encourage your building administrators to attend the IPA
Principals Professional Conference. Click
or more information.
