Making Curriculum Matter: How to Build SEL, Equity, and Other Priorities into Daily Instruction

Dedication

Most educators who are familiar with the Framework for Teaching think of it in terms of the four domains of teaching and the 22 components that define them (see Figure 1). Many also associate the Framework with the rubrics that describe four levels of teacher practice (Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, and Distinguished) and provide teachers, coaches, and school leaders with guidance they can use for self-assessment, reflection, and professional conversations.

Figure 1. The Framework for Teaching at a Glance

Domain 1: Planning and Preparation

1a. Applying Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy

1b. Knowing and Valuing Students

1c. Setting Instructional Outcomes

1d. Using Resources Effectively

1e. Planning Coherent Instruction

1f. Designing and Analyzing Assessments

Domain 2: Learning Environments

2a Cultivating Respectful and Affirming Environments

2b. Fostering a Culture for Learning

2c. Maintaining Purposeful Environments

2d. Supporting Positive Student Behavior

2e. Organizing Spaces for Learning

Domain 3: Learning Experiences

3a. Communicating About Purpose and Content

3b. Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques

3c. Engaging Students in Learning

3d. Using Assessment for Learning

3e. Responding Flexibly to Student Needs

Domain 4: Principled Teaching

4a. Engaging in Reflective Practice

4b. Documenting Student Progress

4c. Engaging Families and Communities

4d. Contributing to School Community and Culture

4e. Growing and Developing Professionally

4f. Acting in Service of Students

The Framework for Teaching is a common language for instructional practice, yes, but it is also a philosophical approach to understanding and promoting great teaching and learning. It is simultaneously a vision of instructional excellence, a roadmap for pursuing it, and a set of discrete practices that describe it. Developed to anchor a comprehensive approach to teacher professional learning across the career continuum, the Framework's four domains, with their methodical arrangement and descriptions of complex professional practices, easily lend themselves to growth-focused observation, research and analysis, and performance evaluation. Districts have used these domains to assess preservice teachers, recruit and select educators, evaluate performance, and, in some cases, grant tenure.

Since its initial release in 1996, the Framework has evolved along with the education profession to reflect new learning and important shifts in the field, including the adoption of more rigorous college- and career-ready standards across the United States and the increasing availability and use of high-quality instructional materials. Finally, the Framework has been extensively studied and validated as an accurate measure of the connection between teacher performance and student learning (Kane & Cantrell, 2010; Kane & Staiger, 2012; Kettler et al., 2019; Lash et al., 2016; Sartain et al., 2011).

Both the Framework and its use rest on assumptions related to the nature and purpose of learning and teaching (see Chapter 2). The Framework's 22 components, organized into four domains (see Chapters 3–6), identify those aspects of a teacher's responsibilities that have been documented through empirical studies and theoretical research (see Appendix B) as the keys to improved student learning. These defined responsibilities offer educators a holistic definition of what teachers should know and be able to do in the exercise of their profession.

The Development of the Framework for Teaching

Frameworks of professional practice are not unique to education. Indeed, other professions—medicine, accounting, and architecture, among many others—have well-established definitions of expertise as well as procedures to certify novice and advanced practitioners. Such procedures are the public's guarantee that the members of a profession hold themselves and their colleagues to high standards of practice.

The Framework for Teaching functions similarly, communicating that educators, like doctors, accountants, and architects, are members of a professional community who abide by the standards of quality articulated in its domains, component statements, and rubrics. In this way, the Framework's initial publication in 1996 was part of a long and respectable tradition of attempting to definitively describe good practice. We can trace modern work toward this end to the early systems of state-developed teaching standards that arose in the 1980s and 1990s, which tended to identify specific instructional behaviors (such as writing learning objectives on the board where students could see them during a lesson) supposedly derived from the research on effective teaching. Teachers were rated on the degree to which they demonstrated these practices during observation. Later, systems of standards began to adopt more complex views of teaching and consider the quality of a teacher's judgment. These developments reflected an increasing recognition of the complexity of teaching and the role of professional autonomy.

Nationally prominent organizations also proposed sets of standards during this time. Initially, these focused primarily on student teachers and their preparation and initial licensure. For example, in 2011, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) developed standards for new teachers and created a portfolio system designed to permit assessment of those standards, which served as the foundation of standard-setting efforts in many states. Similarly, the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) both proposed standards for beginning teacher competencies around this time, and in 2014, Educational Testing Service (ETS) designed the Praxis series of assessments for states to adopt for licensing. Like the Framework, many of these standards and assessments—as well as the systems and policies they were developed for—still exist in evolved forms.

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) has made an enormous contribution to teaching standards. Through rigorous assessments, NBPTS offers teachers the equivalent of advanced board certification in medicine. The National Board asserts that just as a medical doctor earns an initial license to practice medicine and then passes a test for board certification in a specialty (e.g., pediatrics), teachers should be able to earn advanced certification in any of multiple disciplines or levels (e.g., early childhood education, high school mathematics).

Other educational organizations have worked to define excellence in teaching, just as we have done at the Danielson Group. Some publish comprehensive views of the work of teachers (or administrators and other school-based professionals). Similar to the Framework, these overviews provide a deeper examination of a particular aspect of pedagogy, such as students' social-emotional development and the needs of diverse learners. If anything, the number of education-focused frameworks developed over the past few decades reflects the complexity of educators' work and the need to define it clearly.

Teachers know that articulating clear standards for student learning and illustrating them with examples of exemplary student work is a strategy that elevates both the quality of learning outcomes and the students' sense of purpose and pride. Providing, for example, the specific criteria that will be used to evaluate a science project helps students work with more purpose and greater focus toward the ends they want to achieve. Similarly, access to standards helps students see what success looks like and how to pursue it. The Framework for Teaching functions in the same way. When teachers are beginning their careers, the challenge of becoming a skilled practitioner is daunting, overwhelming even. The Framework was developed partly to provide a structure for teachers to reflect on and assess their practice in order to organize their efforts to grow as professionals.

A Reflection of the Complexity of Teaching

It's worth pausing to consider just how complex the work of teaching is. First, and sometimes overlooked, teaching is a physically demanding job; teachers are constantly moving around the classroom and from one part of the school to another. Teaching is also emotionally demanding and becomes increasingly so the more caring and responsive a teacher is to their students' needs. It is cognitively demanding work as well; a teacher makes hundreds of nontrivial decisions daily, from deciding how to approach a lesson to determining how to respond to students' questions and caregivers' concerns. In other words, teaching is a thinking person's job; it is not simply a matter of following a script. Setting a clear purpose for a lesson or unit of study; planning activities and tasks that will challenge students as they work toward that purpose; and ensuring that the social, emotional, and academic needs of students will be met so they can all achieve the established purpose require a significant investment of time, thought, and energy. And that is just what happens before the class begins and the students enter the room.

Some educators flourish as curriculum designers, but even those who do rarely feel they have sufficient time to engage fully in the process. One of the most significant developments over the past decade has been the creation and increased availability of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) vetted by experts and aligned to college- and career-ready standards of learning. Certainly, widespread adoption of HQIM lightens teachers' load when it comes to instructional planning, but teachers must still intellectually engage with the curriculum, understand its features, and make thoughtful adjustments that reflect the needs of their students, who are different from year to year and from period to period. Even with high-quality instructional materials, teaching will always be a thinking person's job.

On a more general level, it is useful to consider the ways in which the work of teachers combines the skill sets prominent in other professions. For example,

In business, executives and managers set goals for their teams and lead them toward accomplishing these goals. They work with their teams to allocate time and other scarce resources as well as balance task-related and social-emotional considerations. They may review the performance of their reports and provide feedback. Similarly, teachers motivate students to engage in learning, set goals and subgoals, manage time and other resources, and are held accountable for the results.
Human resource work involves understanding and facilitating the dynamics among individuals within a larger group, such as senior leaders, supervisors, and administrative assistants, all of whom have an individual and complex set of expectations, needs, and desires. A teacher, too, must consider the range of individual personalities that make up their class and take advantage of any, and all, opportunities to create the conditions for each student's success. A teacher must be able to connect with all students and establish caring relationships with every one of them. In addition, when interacting with parents and colleagues, teachers must demonstrate sensitivity to the dynamics and multiple aspects of those relationships—personal, professional, and cultural.
Theater arts include many types of professionals, among them directors, stage managers, actors, lighting and set designers, and playwrights who collaborate on creative, technical, and practical tasks to achieve often ambitious and impressive ends in high-pressure situations. A career in teaching means engaging with an equivalent range of professionals—from administrators to specialists—and working collaboratively under similar circumstances toward an end goal. But unlike a director, who can, for example, delegate responsibility for props and sets to the stage manager, a teacher must manage all of the curricular materials and resources while simultaneously attending to the needs of 25–30 students.

Additional metaphors come to mind. Teachers have been likened to orchestra conductors, gardeners, engineers, and artists, and depending on which aspect of the job one is considering, any of these parallels may be appropriate. They remind us of the intellectual, physical, and emotional complexity of teaching and the myriad and often competing aspects of the job. One critical way to support teachers as they navigate and orchestrate their daily work with students is to provide them with a complete description of what effective teaching is, what it involves, and a roadmap for navigating their professional growth and development. That is exactly what the Framework for Teaching was developed to do.

A Common Language for the Profession

Although attendance at courses and workshops is an important vehicle for professional learning, so too is time spent in practice-focused conversation with colleagues. The Framework's structured and coherent description of excellent practice captures teaching's most important concepts and understandings. Serious professional conversations about the Framework's components are the means through which teachers gain a better understanding of particular instructional practices and how they might be applied in particular settings and content areas.

Clear and commonly held descriptions of practice also support teachers' efforts to self-assess and reflect on their own teaching. It is virtually impossible for teachers to read statements of what effective teachers do and how those actions appear when they are done well without "finding themselves" in the descriptors. It is natural to read the statement at the higher level on the continuum of practice and to think to oneself, "Oh, I could do that." In this way, the Framework can support professional growth and development throughout a teacher's career and anchor an approach to professional development that puts students (and what they need) and teachers (and what they might do) at the center.

An Enduring Design: Features of the Framework for Teaching

The Framework was purposefully and intentionally developed with certain features in mind, which is part of the reason it continues to be so widely used as a tool for talking about teaching and supporting teachers' growth and development. Collectively, these features ensure the Framework is valid and applicable in a wide range of contexts, from preservice preparation to the final year of one's career:

It is comprehensive in its description of the complex work of teaching—not only those aspects of teaching that occur in the classroom with students but also the many "behind the scenes" parts of teaching that take place during collaboration with colleagues, interaction with families, or engagement with the broader community.
It is straightforward and coherent, avoiding overly technical or jargon-laden descriptions of practice and organized in a way that makes sense to educators. The language and structure of the Framework remain focused on established aspects of practice that are not subject to shifts in curricula or expectations.
It is research-based. Many studies have confirmed that students of high-performing teachers demonstrate greater learning gains than students of lower-performing teachers. The Framework is grounded in extensive research on teaching and in the research-supported view of learners as active and eager participants in the learning process.
Finally, it is nimble and flexible. The Framework promotes a set of fundamental beliefs about the nature of teaching and learning that are independent of any particular teaching methodology, context, content, or grade level. It has evolved over the years as our understanding of teaching and learning has evolved. With consideration of how its components might manifest in specific contexts, the Framework can be applied as a tool for reflection, observation, and collaboration in myriad settings.

The Framework for Teaching honors and validates the wisdom of practitioners and the work that they do every day—work that requires critical thinking, curiosity, courage, autonomy, resourcefulness, gratitude, and compassion, and that is focused on making decisions that will best serve each and every student.

The Evolution of the Framework for Teaching

The Framework for Teaching has undergone important updates since its original release in 1996. Revisions in 2007, 2011, and 2013 were undertaken in the interest of clarity and with the aim of making the Framework more useful for a variety of purposes.

The Framework first appeared in the book Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 1996) and was an outgrowth of the research compiled by Educational Testing Service (ETS) for the development of Praxis III: Classroom Performance Assessments, an observation-based evaluation of first-year teachers used for the purpose of licensing.

An enhanced iteration of the Framework, released in the second edition of Enhancing Professional Practice (Danielson, 2007), reflected the findings of educational research conducted during the intervening decade. It maintained the structure (22 components organized into 4 domains), but some of the language was changed, and a few of the components were renamed for greater clarity. The 2007 update also added frameworks for nonclassroom or "specialist positions," such as school librarians, nurses, and counselors, which reflected the recommendations of relevant professional organizations, such as the American Association of School Librarians.

We also want to mention the Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument, developed in the wake of the Framework's inclusion in the 2009 Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) research study funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Kane & Cantrell, 2010; Kane & Staiger, 2012). Released in 2011 and updated in 2013, the evaluation instrument provides support for the challenging work of applying the Framework to actual classroom teaching. As with the 2007 iteration, there were no changes to the architecture of Framework that appears in the 2011 and 2013 instruments. The key features of both are tighter rubric language and performance descriptors written at the component level (rather than at the element level). Both identify the "critical attributes" for each component at every level of performance to make it easier to distinguish between levels during observation and to support subsequent feedback and coaching. To illustrate what practice might look like in a range of settings, both the 2011 and 2013 instruments also include examples for every level of performance for each component.

What's New in the Current Iteration of the Framework for Teaching

The version of the Framework for Teaching presented in this third edition of Enhancing Professional Practice was released online in 2022.

Educators who have been using the Framework for years will quickly realize that the basic architecture of the domains and components, as well as the aspects of teaching they represent, remains the same. Longtime users will notice some changes, however—many of which were made to renew attention to the underlying philosophy of the Framework. In this updated version, you will also find a more explicit emphasis on equity, increased attention to students' identities and social-emotional development, a more expansive view of family and community engagement, and recognition of the importance of high-quality instructional materials. And we should note that for the first time, the number of elements has increased from 76 to 77.

Here are a few representative changes from each domain:

Changes to Domain 1: Planning and Preparation

The change in the name of Component 1b: Knowing and Valuing Students (from "Knowledge of Students") signals the critical importance of maintaining an asset-based stance when thinking about our students and the value each and every one adds to a community of learners. Changes to Components 1d: Using Resources Effectively and 1e: Planning Coherent Instruction reflect an important shift in thinking about planning and preparation that results from the availability of high-quality instructional materials. These components previously emphasized the role of teachers as curriculum designers, often responsible for planning lessons from scratch. When high-quality curricula are in use, however, teachers might be better described as curriculum adapters. We should not expect or assume that teachers plan lessons from scratch; however, we know teachers must do more than follow a script. The teacher's judgment and instructional decision making are what makes strong instructional resources relevant for students.

Changes to Domain 2: Learning Environments (previously "The Classroom Environment")

The new verbs used in the names of Component 2a: Cultivating Respectful and Affirming Environments (previously "Creating Respectful and Affirming Environments") and Component 2b: Fostering a Culture for Learning (previously "Establishing a Culture for Learning") signal an increased emphasis on students' role in the ultimate success of the classroom environment. A teacher cannot simply create or establish a strong culture in a classroom; they must co-create it with students and help students take ownership and responsibility for various aspects of the learning environment. The changes to Component 2c: Maintaining Purposeful Environments (previously "Managing Classroom Procedures") and Component 2d: Supporting Positive Student Behavior (previously "Managing Student Behavior") better reflect the important role teachers play in ensuring that classrooms are safe and productive. Supporting positive student behavior can be thoughtfully done through establishing clear expectations and routines, encouragement, collaboration, and redirecting unproductive behavior to support cooperative behavior.

Changes to Domain 3: Learning Experiences (previously "Instruction")

The latest update made the fewest changes to the third domain, and most of these are at the level of the elements of success. Like shifts in other places, the updated elements of success in Component 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques, for instance, focus more on the intended outcome of the component—that students are learning through discourse. This end supports the ultimate goal of questioning and discussion—that the questions promote critical thinking, deeper learning, reasoning, and reflection.

Changes to Domain 4: Principled Teaching (previously "Professional Responsibilities")

The work of teachers is complex, intellectually challenging professional work. But even more so, it is principled work. Teachers are leaders who are in service to students. The shifts in the fourth domain emphasize the incredibly complex nature of teaching but also call attention to the dispositions, mindsets, and actions that make teachers great and reflect their essential role in our society. The shift from tasks and compliance to purpose and decision making is most notable in Components 4b: Documenting Student Progress (previously "Maintaining Accurate Records") and 4f: Acting in Service of Students (previously "Showing Professionalism").

Changes to the Rubrics

We have modified the presentation of the rubrics slightly in this latest iteration of the Framework. They are still set up at the component level, with performance descriptions at four levels and critical attributes called out to further define those components, but in this version, those critical attributes are directly aligned to the elements of success. Note that we continue to recommend using the critical attribute language for professional development and coaching conversations. The full set of rubrics is presented in Appendix A.

Other Changes

Finally, our latest update removes two features from previous editions and resources.

Despite their popularity with educators, the examples included in the 2011 and 2013 evaluation instructions have been removed—in both a capitulation to the impossibility of capturing a large enough set of examples to describe all the contexts in which teachers do their work and a reflection of how quickly possible examples become outdated in relation to technological advances and shifting priorities. Most important, we recognize that because the way the components manifest in practice varies across contexts and evolves over time, the work of developing examples is best done by educators in local contexts through conversation with colleagues, which is a powerful professional learning experience in itself. The Danielson Group continues to work with schools, districts, and state partners to collaboratively define appropriate possible examples based on their unique context.

The specialist rubrics added in the 2007 update that appear in the second edition of Enhancing Professional Practice have also been removed. In the intervening years, our experience with educators at all levels has clarified for us that the work of applying the Framework rubrics to nonteaching positions, specific content areas, or the like, is best done at the local level by staff with internal expertise.

We believe all changes reflected in the current iteration of the Framework are important and will further support teacher professional learning and, ultimately, student success. Perhaps the most rewarding aspect of undertaking these 2022 updates was the number of educators who, after reviewing and considering the updates, have reported that the changes accurately reflect what they know and do and how their own practices have evolved.

Although the Framework for Teaching has and will continue to evolve, it remains a research-based and effective "definition of teaching" resource for teacher professional learning and can be used in multiple powerful and empowering ways. The Framework will always reflect the complexity of teaching and provide a common language to anchor professional conversations and growth. We will begin our detailed exploration with a closer consideration of its theoretical and philosophical underpinnings.

Printed by for personal use only