Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home

The District 75 Danielson Pilot: CRASH! Burn! Fizzle. . . .

Ohanian Comment: In this detailed and devastating critique, a New York City teacher shows why the Danielson evaluation rubric doesn't acknowledge the existence of children with severe and profound language and learning handicaps. And cites chapter and verse.

I don't think the Danielson scheme works for anybody. There is a kernel of truth in her plan, but then, through the use of rubrics, it is bureaucratized into formulaic nonsense. As Paul Hogan observes, the Danielson framework becomes a labor/management issue, not a valuable teaching tool. Teacher evaluation becomes a number on a checklist, a device to be gamed. I've said it before and I'll say it again, my first teacher evaluation came from the department chair at Grover Cleveland High School in New York City, a man who taught every day--and not the honors class. I had never taught, never had student teaching, etc. etc. He would come into my class once a week for ten minutes and then in a debriefing session, offer one little practical piece of advice. At the end of the year when he had to write up an official document of evaluation--with a zillion carbon copies to be shipped off to various places--he gave me a C (which I considered a gift). He wrote that I responded well to advice, had a good heart, reaching out to kids with handicaps, and would develop into a fine teacher.

Can you imagine having a good heart being rated as an important quality on a teacher evaluation today?

I rank it as Quality Number 1. Skill can come, but without the heart, nothing important is possible.

I would add that turning the Danielson framework into a numbers game has destroyed any possible usefulness it might have provided for teaching anybody. And the tragedy is bigger than what it does to teachers--via evaluation. The real horror is, as Hogan observes, the scheme detracts from figuring out what kids --all kids-- need to learn. This is a critical issue for all teachers, but any teacher who takes on the mission of working with irregular students does so at great risk to the possibility of having a career.

by Paul V. Hogan

Can Charlotte Danielson "cure" Down's Syndrome? Can she make it "go away" or render it educationally irrelevant? What about cerebral palsy? Fetal Alcohol Syndrome?

Ms. Danielson is the creator of the now-famous "Danielson Framework". It is a teacher observation/evaluation tool that is all the rage in those school districts around the country that are right now undergoing what is generously described as school "reform". So my admittedly loaded question is this: Can she ( or *it*; i.e. the Framework) enable a 16-year-old quadriplegic -- with irreversible birth trauma-related organic brain damage, no spoken language capacity, and profound intellectual disability -- to miraculously rise from his wheelchair and his wordlessness and lead his classmates in a grade-level discussion of, say, Shakespeare's break with Renaissance literary convention in "Romeo and Juliet"?

All reasonable people agree: no. But the NYC Department of Education, particularly in the Bloomberg era,treats "reason" as one would sensibly treat a contagious disease. And, after twenty-six years on the lookout for this sort of thing, I can recognize a truckload of DOE *stupid* from a mile away. Especially when it's headed right at me.

So when I saw this. . . this thing, "The Danielson Framework", unveiled in September of 2011 and renamed ( Why?)by the NYC DOE, "Talent Management Pilot", I recognized a code-blue situation immediately and made a bee-line to my union leader, President of the United Federation of Teachers, Michael Mulgrew.

I managed to corner him after the UFT monthly Delegate Assembly in October. I told Mr. Mulgrew that my District 75 "Network" ( group of NYC schools) was "piloting" (testing) the Danielson Framework as a teacher observation tool in D75. He exclaimed, and I quote: "They're using Danielson in D75!?" He squinted, his brow furrowed. Then he rolled his eyes. I slapped some related paperwork into his hand. (He's always in a hurry. I understand; there's a lot to do.)

I heaved a huge, audible, sigh of relief.(Where would we be without our body language? Confused, I guess.) Mulgrew used to teach in D75 and *instantly* saw the problem: Danielson's work is normed on general education teachers of general education students in general education classrooms. District 75, in contrast, serves students with severe and profound intellectual and/or behavioral handicaps, often compounded by physical disabilities, who are taught in specialized, *self-contained* (i.e. special ed only) classrooms by teachers who are trained and licensed to do this highly specialized -- and very different -- type of teaching.

In short: NO gen ed students, NO gen ed classrooms; NO gen ed teachers in D75. This being the case, it seems inarguable that mistakes were made (a lot of them) when, last year:

1. the DOE assigned 11 schools in District 75 to the so-called Talent Management Pilot (DOE-speak for its version of Danielson);

2. the UFT agreed to go along with it;

3. no one bothered to consult the Special Ed professionals (many with post-graduate degrees in Special Ed. and decades of experience working with the student population affected) in those 11 schools; the teachers whose professional lives were about to be turned upside down by the astoundingly *dumb* idea of test-driving the Danielson Framework through District 75 .

Here's the problem: Danielson doesn't work in D75. Mulgrew knows this. Alas, the rest of UFT. . . even (and I really don/t quite *get* this part) the Special Ed section of UFT. . . does not seem to understand what I'm talking about. In November of 2012, more than a *year* after my "brief encounter" with President Mulgrew at the DA and, after a lengthy and complicated correspondence with the UFT VP for CurrIculum that seems to have gone absolutely *nowhere*, I emailed said VP as follows:

"It is not a trivial issue. Evaluating teachers of severely multiply-handicapped children with a rubric that is designed to evaluate teachers in general education settings with general education students is tantamount to punishing and penalizing teachers who go into this demanding , difficult and highly *specialized* type of teaching. Our union was formed in order to protect teachers from administrative malpractice. . . not to facilitate it."

The simple fact is that the vast majority District 75 kids cannot, by definition, perform to the standards required by the Danielson Framework.(That's WHY they're in District 75!) Yet, with the "pilot" unchallenged by UFT leadership and now in its *second* year,the pedagogy of teachers of severely and profoundly handicapped kids will again be analyzed and rated according to Danielson's "spam-in-a-can" criteria. The inescapable consequence: artificially low ratings for the aforementioned Special Ed teachers. It's hard to explain to people outside of the district just how ridiculous this is; how *utterly* mismatched the tool is to the task; how blatantly unfair to the specially-trained and specially-licensed special educators who are -- along with their students, of course --its primary victims. And, one increasingly suspects, its *targets*.

Ridiculous, you say? It can't be? Well, let's look at some examples. In Danielson's "Domain 3: Instruction," the classroom teacher can earn a rating of "Highly Effective" (the highest rating possible; it corresponds to a rating of 4 on a 4-point scale) *only* if his/her students are observed by the evaluator formulat(ing) high-level questions." Additionally, said students must "assume responsibility for the success of the discussion." In short, if one's students aren't observed doing this (i.e. assuming "responsibility for the success of the discussion") the teacher cannot be rated as "Highly Effective." These behaviors are, evidently, what Ms. Danielson expects of high school students in general education.

Now. Perhaps we can excuse Ms.Danielson. (And perhaps not. Her website bio says she has experience in teaching "all" levels, which is clearly not the case.) Statistically speaking, we are talking about kids that are outside the norm: 5% or less of NYC public school enrollment. It's unlikely that Ms. Danielson understood this initially -- I told her later -- but many of the youngsters in District 75 programs cannot speak. I don't mean to say their language is "weak". Or that they don't speak *clearly*. I mean to say they literally "cannot speak". At all.

In some cases these non-verbal kids may be trained to push buttons on electronic devices to communicate basic needs. "Bathroom," for example, represented on the device by an icon or pictograph, is a basic need; as is "Hungry". There are various picture/symbol communication systems (TEACCH, PECS, etc.) that are used with some success with some students. This is the kind of thing we do in special ed. (Or should I say, "what we *used* to do.") We adapt and shape our instruction to meet the unique demands of each individual. And let me tell you: if you are talking about a non-verbal child, classified by the DOE as "untestable", who is incontinent and has struggled from birth with tripelgic or quadriplegic spastic cerebral palsy, you can take the Danielson Framework and burn it. It has no relevance to the proper education of the child I just described.

"But Ms. Danielson," (I have a recurring dream that I was somehow present when the Framework was conceived.) "if these children cannot *speak*, how can they, in any real sense, 'assume responsibility for the success of the discussion'"?

The Talent Management rubric is riddled with these glaring logical disconnects. Still in Domain 3: "Instruction": the teacher . . . to be rated "highly effective" (4) . . . must ensure that his/her students "are cognitively engaged in high level, grade appropriate thinking throughout the lesson." But 17 year-olds with measurable IQs in the 40s cannot "engage in grade-level thinking." Students with unmeasurable IQs can't either. And neither can students with severe autism and/or echolalia and/or other language processing disorders. It doesn't matter how "effective" or "ineffective" the teacher is. To claim otherwise is to announce to the world that one does not understand the population we are talking about.

There's lots more. In Domain 3c, "students (must) initiate or adapt activities and projects to enhance their understanding." Note: that's "the *student* (must) initiate and adapt." Not the teacher. Educational psychologists put the ability to "initiate" in the category of "executive functioning," a skill-set known for decades to be a key deficiency in children with intellectual disabilities. Generally, the more severe the disability, the less able the child is to "initiate." Is it fair, therefore, or even logical to expect these children to perform on par with average students in their ability to "initiate"?

My Point: The evaluation rubric doesn't acknowledge the existence of children with severe and profound language and learning handicaps. Instead, it penalizes teachers for even *working* with this population. The developmental disabilities of the children in D75 are NOT caused by the special education teachers who are trying to address them. Yet the "logic" of Ms. Danielson's DOE and UFT-endorsed teacher evaluation rubric insists that they ARE.

So given its -- let's be kind -- "limitations," how did the Danielson Framework end up in District 75, anyway? I've no idea but the notion that this is a worthy eval tool for this type of teaching is so bizarre that speculation as to how it got there is both responsible and inevitable. I initiated a short and amiable email exchange with Ms.Danielson in early 2012. She seems extraordinarily committed to her work. And anxious to defend it. So it couldn't have been easy for to acknowledge the following: "However, I also can see that it would be inappropriate to require teachers of profoundly handicapped students to create higher-order questions."

"No kidding", I muttered to no one in particular. From my POV, I felt like like a dentist extracting an impacted, wisdom tooth from an unanethesized 600-pound gorilla. Even this admission of the staggeringly obvious didn't come easy. Some analysts (blogosphere edu-sleuth Susan Ohanian, for instance: have pointed to a previous collaboration between Danielson and the Gates-funded Measures of Effective Teaching. . . . the implication being that there is Gates money behind the Danielson Framework, pushing it indiscriminately, even into places where it plainly doesn't belong. Of this I know not. I do know that the Gates Foundation has poisoned forever the public debate on public school reform [emphasis added] nationally by discretely funding front groups and 'think tanks' that then produce "data-- and "advocacy" that support Gates Foundation positions on pubic education policy.

Is something analogous happening here? It's difficult to know. But I do think it's incumbent on Ms. Danielson. . . given Gates' scuzzy history. . . to make plain the full extent of her collaboration with him and be utterly clear on the question of exactly who is paying exactly whom for exactly what.

Corporate influence aside, other disturbing questions are raised by the D75 Danielson Pilot. The public trusts that there are responsible and knowledgable adults in charge at NYC DOE who presumably SHOULD have put the kabbosh on a no-go notion like Danielson in D75 but did not, have not, and . . . apparently. . . will not. Does not the district have a Superintendent? Do not these 11 schools have a Network Leader? Do these education leaders not understand the nature and learning characteristics of the student population whose interests they purport to serve? Did they really read and really understand the Danielson Frameworks before they decided to take the education of NYC's least advantaged children out for what amounts to a two-year joy ride? Do they really know what they're doing?

Ms. Danielson has a vaguely worded -- and weirdly redundant (Three paragraphs. Paragraph 3 repeats paragraph 1, nearly verbatim. BTW,should we rate that particular writing sample 1, 2, 3 or 4 ?) -- official bio on her website. She was kind enough to send me two meatier resumes on request. Likewise, Kirsten Busch Johnson, the DOE official in charge of the aforementioned Talent Management Pilot (the Danielson Framework slightly -- and pointlessly, imprevised by NYC DOE) boasts a google-able online resume. Three years teaching experience right out of college. Before going to work for Microsoft, i.e. Gates. (Hey, she must be an expert.)

But what about the Superintendent? And the Network Leader? You know, the upper-level DOE managers who are really supposed to know these D75 kids. Who are these people, really? I know their names and their faces and have met and spoken with both. Yet I can't find an online resume for either. I'm wondering if there's a reason for that. How much do they really understand about this population? What is their training and education, exactly? How many years -- if any -- have they spent working in classrooms with these profoundly impaired kids? Did they spend enough time there to really absorb the nuances and complexities of getting these kids to learn? Frankly, one doubts it. In any case, this taxpayer wants to see the resumes.

Alas, we are kept in the dark. And, while were at it, let's look at the building administrators: our principals and their assistant principals -- the bottom rung of the ed admin ladder and consequently the paramecia, if you will, of the now-immense corporate "reform" movement food chain. These grim souls do the dirty work. Now functioning as professional nit-pickers and fault-finders, they are in fact ex-teachers (usually) with very limited (almost always) hands-on experience themselves. They nonetheless go into classrooms, (in teams, if you can believe it) observe the instruction in progress and try to make the Danielson-based Talent Management Rubric sound relevant to a situation where no objective, clear-thinking adult believes it has the slightest applicability.

One could almost feel sorry for them. It's a fool's errand if ever there was one. But, by dutifully following orders from the "big fish" in this particular bureaucratic swamp, the small fry get to keep their out-of-classroom jobs, along with the attendant perks. So they play along (or should I say "swim along"), aiding and abetting when and where they are needed. Classroom teachers, consequently,take on a serious risk by teaching profoundly impaired kids what they actually need to learn. . . as opposed to what's in Ms. Danielson's Framework. . . and doing so in ways that help those kids to actually *absorb* it. Whatever her intention, Ms.Danielson, by her own admission, has no clue as to what they need to learn. Nor how to deliver it. And her rubric reflects that. But what's really alarming is this: neither do the DOE "suits" who brought the Framework into the D75 buildings. And they've been involved with the D75 population for years. At this point, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that they just don't care. At least not about the education of handicapped kids.

So, what do they care about then? Again, I've no idea. I'm neither mind-reader nor psychiatrist. Some people don't care about anything. Let's leave that "to Dr. Freud along with the rest of it!" But instinct (and experience) tells me that the Talent Management Program's application to D75 is concerned less with education than it is with *defamation*. This being the case, it becomes more of a labor/management issue (or a legal matter) than an educational one. As to possible motive: it's a lot easier to fire people if you can manage to professionally discredit them first. . . even on the basis of such absurd evidence as that yielded by the use of the Danielson Framework as a teacher observation tool. And it's easier still to create a hostile work environment falling just short of the legal standard of "hostile work environment" by setting them up to fail. The Framework is useful for this purpose as well. Then you don't have to fire them. You can just drive them away.

So. . . where were we? OH! Right! Now our union leader is going to do. . . well. . . what exactly?

— Paul V. Hogan





This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.