Washington lawmakers see evaluation of the teacher as the “lynchpin to educational reform” in the state. The legislature in SB 6696 established several guidelines to develop the new Teacher and Principal Evaluation System, and legislation governing this system has passed. The state is now in the process of piloting three different frameworks, through the Educational Service Districts (ESDs), for potential use in the system: Danielson, Marzano, and 5D+. In the state law and on the Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot (TPEP) website the term “instructional framework” is used to build the case for and to describe the three frameworks. The use of this term to describe these three evaluation models has proven to be confusing for many educators across the state, and the purpose of this post is to explore the source of the confusion and to suggest a solution.
At the heart of the confusion is the mixing of terms. The primary issue is that there is a difference between the word “teacher” and the word “teaching.” Teacher is a noun. Teaching is a verb. Teaching (v) is just one part of being a teacher (n). Charlotte Danielson makes sure that followers of her model clearly understand this difference: “The framework for professional practice represents all aspects of a teacher’s responsibilities that are reflected in daily work.” She goes on, “The framework is comprehensive, referring not only to what occurs in the classroom, of course, but also to what happens outside the walls (p.14, Enhancing Professional Practice, 1996).” The things that happen outside the classroom walls are not necessarily teaching, although they are still part of what makes up a good teacher. SB 6696 is concerned with evaluating the teacher, not just the teaching.
At the heart of the confusion is the mixing of terms. The primary issue is that there is a difference between the word “teacher” and the word “teaching.” Teacher is a noun. Teaching is a verb. Teaching (v) is just one part of being a teacher (n). Charlotte Danielson makes sure that followers of her model clearly understand this difference: “The framework for professional practice represents all aspects of a teacher’s responsibilities that are reflected in daily work.” She goes on, “The framework is comprehensive, referring not only to what occurs in the classroom, of course, but also to what happens outside the walls (p.14, Enhancing Professional Practice, 1996).” The things that happen outside the classroom walls are not necessarily teaching, although they are still part of what makes up a good teacher. SB 6696 is concerned with evaluating the teacher, not just the teaching.
Consider the following analogy: Wendy was asked to put together a comprehensive exercise program. She decided to call this comprehensive exercise program “Yoga” and have the sessions consist of cardio work on the treadmill, swimming, strength conditioning using free weights, diet/nutrition, and Yoga. When class started, Wendy discovered there was lots of confusion among the attendees.
It's easy to see why the attendees might have been confused and even frustrated. They thought they were attending a Yoga class, but instead found out there was a lot more to it. Calling the comprehensive exercise program “Yoga” was inaccurate. A more accurate title might have been something like “Comprehensive Exercise Program” and Yoga could have been listed as just a part.
Similarly, the language used in the development and implementation of SB 6696 has caused confusion among educators. We would like to offer a suggestion for clarification. The frameworks being piloted for the Teacher Evaluation System should, in our opinion, be called Professional Practices Frameworks, rather than Instructional Frameworks, because they are dealing with more than just instruction. Each one contains instruction, just like a comprehensive exercise program might contain Yoga, but is not limited to instruction. For this reason, calling them Instructional Frameworks is not accurate whereas calling them Professional Practices Frameworks would be accurate, since it is a broad name that encompasses all aspects of a teacher's duties (see Figure 1). For example, Parent Communication is an important part of being a good teacher, but it is not instruction (see Figure 2). This is true of many of the things that make up a good teacher.
It's easy to see why the attendees might have been confused and even frustrated. They thought they were attending a Yoga class, but instead found out there was a lot more to it. Calling the comprehensive exercise program “Yoga” was inaccurate. A more accurate title might have been something like “Comprehensive Exercise Program” and Yoga could have been listed as just a part.
Similarly, the language used in the development and implementation of SB 6696 has caused confusion among educators. We would like to offer a suggestion for clarification. The frameworks being piloted for the Teacher Evaluation System should, in our opinion, be called Professional Practices Frameworks, rather than Instructional Frameworks, because they are dealing with more than just instruction. Each one contains instruction, just like a comprehensive exercise program might contain Yoga, but is not limited to instruction. For this reason, calling them Instructional Frameworks is not accurate whereas calling them Professional Practices Frameworks would be accurate, since it is a broad name that encompasses all aspects of a teacher's duties (see Figure 1). For example, Parent Communication is an important part of being a good teacher, but it is not instruction (see Figure 2). This is true of many of the things that make up a good teacher.
 Figure 1: Professional Practices Framework |  Figure 2: Parent Communication is not instruction. |
Note: The figures presented are for illustration purposes only. They are not intended to mirror the Washington State new teacher evaluation criteria. They are simply a picture of some general teacher duties that could be included in a teacher evaluation system and a Professional Practices Framework that would reflect that.
There are three main problems with giving what are actually Professional Practices Frameworks the title of Instructional Frameworks:
There are three main problems with giving what are actually Professional Practices Frameworks the title of Instructional Frameworks:
- They are not Instructional Frameworks; they are bigger than that;
- Districts need to have an actual Instructional Framework but might not develop one if they think they already have it; and
- Educators may not understand the differences between their Professional Practices Framework and their Instructional Framework, let alone the Instructional Models used in the district, and the Instructional Strategies that are being focused on in the district (We will discuss the differences among these four terms in an upcoming post).
