Framework for Teaching

Product or Programme · All products and programmes
Evidence · 16 claims (9 for, 6 mixed, 1 against) · 5 studies (4 associational, 1 design), q2 · 1 of 5 report an effect size · 15 claims rest on one study

Description

The Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching is a framework developed by Charlotte Danielson for evaluating and supporting classroom teaching through observable components across four domains and four performance levels.

Components

• Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching as a classroom-observation evaluation tool: The Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching divides teaching into four domains—Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities—with principals rating observable components in the Classroom Environment and Instruction domains at four performance levels: unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and distinguished. Chicago adopted it to replace a 30-year-old checklist, aiming to establish "a common definition of good teaching along a developmental continuum" and structure principal-teacher conversations about instruction. (Lauren Sartain et al. (2010))
• Framework for Teaching (FFT) observation instrument with 22 components scored into four domains and an overall Professional Practice Rating: The Framework for Teaching of Charlotte Danielson is an observation-based teacher performance measure whose "22 components" each "is designed to capture a separate teaching practice." The pilot used observation data to estimate four domain scores and one overall Professional Practice Rating (PPR) score, which were merged with value-added measures based on student test scores for analysis. (Stephen Lipscomb et al. (2015))
• The Framework for Teaching observation rubric with 22 components in four domains: The Framework for Teaching is a classroom-observation rubric used by principals to evaluate teaching practices. The report describes it as "a rubric that includes 22 components grouped into four broad teaching practice domains": planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities. It served as the observation instrument in Phase 2 of the Pennsylvania evaluation pilot. (Elias Walsh (2013))

Claims

• Principals rated some instruction components inconsistently, rating communicating with students, using assessment in instruction, and organizing physical space lower than observers, and student engagement higher [~W]
• Principals and trained external observers gave aggregate-consistent Danielson Framework ratings in matched observations [+W]
• The Danielson Framework identified far more teachers as low-performing than the prior CPS checklist (8 percent vs 0.3 percent) [+W]
• Principals inflated ratings at the high end of the scale, more often identifying instruction as distinguished than observers [-W]
• Fifty-seven percent of principals were highly enthusiastic about the Framework-based evaluation process while 43 percent held mixed to negative attitudes [+W]
• Danielson Framework observation ratings are valid measures of teaching practice, with higher ratings corresponding to higher student test-score growth in reading and math [+W]
• Differences between principal and observer ratings at the high end of the scale were explained largely by teachers' previous evaluation ratings [~W]
• Rating distributions and FFT-VAM relationships were broadly similar across the two pilot phases, though top-two-category ratings decreased somewhat in Pittsburgh [+M]
• FFT scores showed acceptable-to-good internal consistency, with the overall PPR score more internally consistent than any single domain score [+M]
• FFT-based teacher ratings in Pennsylvania's pilot were overwhelmingly concentrated in the top two performance categories, with less than 0.1 percent rated failing [+M]
• FFT scores correlated positively with value-added measures, with domain correlations ranging from 0.19 to 0.22 and generally statistically significant [+W]
• Professional practice ratings, student surveys, and value-added measures each have the potential to differentiate teacher performance in Pittsburgh Public Schools [+M]
• Principals in the pilot did not typically use all 22 rubric components when observing teachers [~W]
• Variation across schools in principal-assigned professional practice ratings suggests principals' standards may not be fully consistent across schools [~W]
• Fairness of overall observation scores may not be substantially compromised by principals using different sets of rubric components [~W]
• Principals were far more likely than trained external observers to rate the same instruction Distinguished rather than Proficient [~W]

Related Products and Programmes

-

Key Sources

• Lauren Sartain, Sara Ray Stoelinga, and Emily Krone. (2010). Findings From the First Year of the Excellence in Teaching Project in Chicago Public Schools: Rethinking Teacher Evaluation. Consortium on Chicago School Research, University of Chicago. http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/Joyce_TE_yr1_finaldoc.pdf
• Stephen Lipscomb, Jeffrey Terziev, Duncan Chaplin. (2015). Measuring Teachers' Effectiveness: A Report from Phase 3 of Pennsylvania's Pilot of the Framework for Teaching. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/measuring-teachers-effectiveness-a-report-from-phase-3-of-pennsylvanias-pilot-of-the-framework
• Elias Walsh, Stephen Lipscomb. (2013). Classroom Observations from Phase 2 of the Pennsylvania Teacher Evaluation Pilot: Assessing Internal Consistency, Score Variation, and Relationships with Value Added. Cambridge, MA: Mathematica Policy Research. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/classroom-observations-from-phase-2-of-the-pennsylvania-teacher-evaluation-pilot-assessing-internal-consistency-score-variation-and-relationships-with-value-added

Page metadata

Field	Value
type	product
id	framework-for-teaching
title	Framework for Teaching
description	The Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching is a framework developed by Charlotte Danielson for evaluating and supporting classroom teaching through observable components across four domains and four performance levels.
status	review
moved_from	element/danielson-framework-for-teaching-observation-tool, element/fft-22-component-observation-instrument, element/framework-for-teaching-22-component-rubric
product_kind	framework
generated	by process:sweep-kinds on 2026-10-10
trust	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources	3 — lauren-sartain-2010, stephen-lipscomb-2015, elias-walsh-2013

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.