Danielson Cannot Be Used in Evaluation Decisions

DOE prohibited from using the Danielson Framework in evaluation decisions

The UFT filed a charge with the state Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) based on the DOE’s improper attempt to evaluate teachers under the Danielson Framework for Teaching earlier this school year. That charge alleged that the DOE failed to negotiate with the UFT over the use of the Danielson Framework in teacher evaluations. The charge has now been resolved by a stipulation which clearly affirms that the DOE may not use the Danielson Framework or HEDI ratings (highly effective, effective, developing or ineffective) for any evaluative purpose whatsoever with respect to UFT members. 

This means that no checklists or even mentions of any of the ratings or Danielson domains, components or rubrics can enter a member’s file. The stipulation also prevents the DOE from using large portions of the Danielson language describing teacher competencies in any document which is placed in a teacher’s file. While supervisors or observers may use the Danielson Framework for formative or supportive work to assist teachers, supervisors cannot use the Danielson Framework for any official teacher evaluation. 

There is a special condition for evaluations at the TEP pilot schools: supervisors or observers may use the Danielson Framework in practice observation reports and may give HEDI ratings in these practice observation reports. However, these practice Danielson observation reports and ratings may not be placed in a teacher’s file. In ANY school where a teacher believes that there has been a breach of this stipulation, the member must first ask the supervisor, in writing, to remove, rewrite or redact any HEDI rating or Danielson language from the improper observation report. If the supervisor doesn’t comply within two weeks, the member may grieve this violation. Read the full stipulation. If you have any questions, please contact your district representative or your UFT borough office.