Updated on
October 9, 2026
Danielson Framework: Four Domains and 22 Components
A practical teacher guide to the Danielson Framework, with four domains, 22 components, four performance levels, observation evidence and review limits.
The Danielson Framework is a rubric for describing good teaching. It sorts the job into four domains and 22 components, each scored at one of four levels. Charlotte Danielson first published it as Enhancing Professional Practice in 1996. This guide uses the 2013 evaluation instrument and labels the later 2022 names separately. Check the edition named on your own observation form.
Use the framework as a shared language for observation, coaching and self-review. Match the edition and purpose specified by your school.
In practice it works like this. A Year 8 history teacher picks component 3b, questioning and discussion, and records one lesson. She counts how many questions she asked and how many learners asked.
Learners then write one question of their own on the source before the next lesson. The rubric turns a vague "improve questioning" target into something she can see and count. That is the framework at its best, and this guide shows how to use it that way for your own professional development.
Key Takeaways
- Four domains, 22 components, four levels. Planning and Preparation, the Classroom Environment, Instruction and Professional Responsibilities, each scored Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient or Distinguished.
- Two domains are visible in a lesson, two are not. Domains 2 and 3 are what an observer sees. Domains 1 and 4 live in plans, records and conversations, so bring that evidence with you.
- Each component has its own performance descriptors. In questioning and discussion, examine the quality of reasoning and how learners contribute. Read other components against their own criteria.
- Evaluation and growth are different uses. One observer watching one lesson is not a measurement. As a shared language for coaching and self-review the framework earns its place; as a single score it does not.
Origins of the Framework
Charlotte Danielson created the Framework for Teaching at ETS in the mid-1990s. She used Praxis III criteria and teacher effectiveness research. The first edition appeared in 1996, with 22 teaching components in four domains.
The framework has undergone several revisions. The book first appeared in 1996 and a second edition followed in 2007. The evaluation instrument was revised in 2011 and 2013. The 2013 instrument explains that its 2011 predecessor retained the earlier architecture.
So 2007, 2011 and 2013 share the same four domains and 22 components and differ only in their descriptors. The 2022 Framework for Teaching keeps four domains, four levels and 22 components but renames three domains and most components. Its print form is the third edition of the book, Danielson, Furman and Kappes (2024). Use the edition specified by your school or district. The comparison table distinguishes the 2013 and 2022 names.
Danielson's framework caught on because it solved a real problem. Many US districts had judged teachers by checklists or by gut feeling. A principal might call a lesson "good" but could not say why. The framework gave teachers and leaders a shared language for talking about teaching.
Danielson's Four Teaching Domains
Each domain captures a distinct aspect of teaching. Domains 1 and 4 happen outside the classroom. Domains 2 and 3 are what you see during a lesson observation. Together they describe planning, the room, the teaching itself and the professional work around it.
All four work together. Strong planning (Domain 1) makes effective teaching (Domain 3) possible. A well-run classroom (Domain 2) gives learners the safety to take risks with their thinking during a lesson.
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Domain 1 involves pre-lesson preparation. Teachers need subject and teaching knowledge. They must know their learners and plan clear lesson goals. Teachers design lessons that flow well.
Assessments are also designed (Danielson, 2013). A Year 8 science teacher shows this by tackling chemical reaction misconceptions. They choose misconception-busting activities and use exit tickets (Shulman, 1986).
Danielson (2013) sets out six parts to Domain 1. Two of these are knowing your subject and knowing your learners. Teachers also set learning goals and know what resources they can use.
The last two parts are planning lessons and planning how to assess learners. "Knowledge of learners" means understanding how children develop (Vygotsky, 1978) and where they come from.
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
Danielson (2013) describes Domain 2 as setting the scene for learning. Teachers build respect and rapport with learners. They also manage classroom routines and learner behaviour.
For example, look for a transition in which learners know the next task and can begin with limited prompting.
| Level | What It Looks Like | Learner Experience |
|---|---|---|
| Unsatisfactory | The teacher does not understand the concepts or apply the component | Learners are confused, disengaged, or unsafe |
| Basic | The teacher understands the concepts but application is inconsistent | Some learners learn some of the time |
| Proficient | The teacher clearly understands and consistently applies the component | Most learners are engaged and learning |
| Distinguished | The teacher leads; learners take ownership of learning | Learners drive inquiry, self-assess, and support peers |
At the Distinguished level, Domain 2 shows learners correcting their own behaviour. They hold each other to account for effort (Danielson, 2013). Peer feedback with no prompt from the teacher is a clear sign of this.
One learner might ask another to explain their reasoning (Danielson, 2013). At this point, the culture of learning has grown beyond the teacher's authority.
Domain 3: Instruction
Teaching means talking with learners and asking them questions. Good discussion techniques keep learners involved in the lesson (Danielson, 2013). Teachers check what learners know and use that to shape the next step. They adapt when a lesson needs to change. Domain 3 is where teaching happens in the room.
A Proficient teacher in Domain 3 asks questions that promote thinking rather than simple recall. Instead of "What year did the Great Fire of London start?" they ask "Why did the fire spread so quickly?" and "What does that tell us about how London was built?" The second question requires learners to connect facts and reason about cause and effect. It asks for understanding rather than memory. At the Distinguished level, learners themselves formulate high-quality questions, essentially taking over the intellectual work of the lesson.
Danielson's Domain 3 puts a spotlight on using assessment to shape teaching. The 2013 Framework for Teaching evaluation instrument spells this out in component 3d, which covers using assessment in instruction. Teachers check what learners understand, give feedback and adjust their teaching in response (Danielson, 2013). So formative assessment sits at the heart of the framework, not as an extra bolted on later.
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
Domain 4 covers the work that happens beyond lessons, such as reflecting on your teaching and communicating with others. Danielson (2013) also places professional conduct and involvement in the school community here. Almost all of it happens outside the lesson, so an observer never sees it. That makes it a hard area to assess.
In Domain 4, Distinguished teachers lead staff training rather than just attending it. They look closely at data and spot patterns. A maths teacher might notice, for example, that learners keep struggling with fractions.
That teacher then plans a way to help, shares it with colleagues, and checks whether it worked. This is Domain 4 at its best (Hattie, 2009).
Mechanism · Build It · Danielson Framework
How four domains hold 22 components
One accent. Four quadrants. Every component named. Domains 1 and 4 happen outside the lesson; Domains 2 and 3 are what a visit can see. This page already lists the domains. This map is the 22 names in one frame, drawn by us, because the Danielson Group gates theirs.
1Planning and Preparation
Before the lesson · six components
- 1a Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
- 1b Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
- 1c Setting Instructional Outcomes
- 1d Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
- 1e Designing Coherent Instruction
- 1f Designing Student Assessments
Walk in with 1b evidence. A visit cannot see this quadrant.
2The Classroom Environment
In the room · five components
- 2a Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport
- 2b Establishing a Culture for Learning
- 2c Managing Classroom Procedures
- 2d Managing Student Behavior
- 2e Organizing Physical Space
No classroom posts named 2b in either country.
3Instruction
What a visit can hear · five components
- 3a Communicating with Students
- 3b Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
- 3c Engaging Students in Learning
- 3d Using Assessment in Instruction
- 3e Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
US principals run optional PD on 3b, 3c and 3d. Distinguished here is still written as learner-led.
4Professional Responsibilities
After the lesson · six components
- 4a Reflecting on Teaching
- 4b Maintaining Accurate Records
- 4c Communicating with Families
- 4d Participating in a Professional Community
- 4e Growing and Developing Professionally
- 4f Showing Professionalism
High-stakes use pushes work here. Wiliam, UK, 2025.
2013 component names, the language this article and most US district forms still use. Wisconsin DPI adopted the 2022 titles from 2024-25 (Learning Environments, Learning Experiences, Principled Teaching).
The four performance levels
Every component is scored at one of four levels. The descriptors change from component to component, but the line between them is the same each time: who is doing the thinking. The table paraphrases the 2013 instrument; it does not quote it.
| Level | What it describes | Who is doing the thinking | What moves a teacher up |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unsatisfactory | The teacher does not yet understand the component, or the practice does harm. Learners are confused or off task. | The teacher | Understand what the component asks for and try it once, with a colleague watching. |
| Basic | The teacher understands the component and applies it some of the time, with uneven results. | The teacher | Make the practice consistent: every lesson, not the observed one. |
| Proficient | The teacher applies the component consistently and well. Most learners are engaged and learning. | The teacher, with learners joining in | Hand parts of the work to learners: they ask the questions, check the work, set the next step. |
| Distinguished | Learners take responsibility for their own learning and for each other. The teacher has built a culture that runs without prompting. | The learners | Keep it going. Distinguished is not expected in every lesson and every component. |
Two cautions on the levels. Averaged component scores are more stable, and predict learner growth better, than the four-band rating on its own (Kettler and Reddy, 2019). And the same instrument gave different score distributions in three different school systems, so a Proficient in one district is not a Proficient in another (Liu et al., 2019).
How the levels move up
The four-level rubric helps teachers see their own progress. It shows growth, unlike simple pass/fail grades. Danielson (2013) says "Basic" teachers see what "Proficient" looks like. They can then aim for that level with clear goals. "Distinguished" is not always needed but shows top practice, says Danielson (2013).
Moving from Proficient to Distinguished means learners take on more of the thinking. Proficient teachers ask good questions. Distinguished teachers set things up so that learners ask, refine and explore questions for themselves.
This is the same shift that the research on metacognition and self-regulated learning describes: learners doing more of the monitoring themselves. Even so, it still needs clear teaching, modelling and feedback from you.
The infographic above puts the four domains and the four levels on one page. The two-page practice table offers eight classroom routines to consider. Choose a routine that fits the lesson, collect specific evidence and discuss it against the framework edition your school uses.
Teacher Evaluation and Implementation
Danielson's Framework is used to guide lesson observations. Teachers also use it to think about how they teach, and schools use it to plan staff learning. Most English schools meet it through observation cycles and appraisal, so it is worth knowing how each domain is used.
Formal observations involve a pre-meeting (Domain 1), a visit (Domains 2 & 3), and reflection (Domain 4). Observers and teachers use rubrics to discuss evidence. For example, instead of "good questioning," try something you counted. "You asked six open questions. Four needed learners to justify reasoning, aligning with Component 3b."
Self-assessment works best for teachers. Use Component 3c to gauge learner engagement, as per Danielson (2013). Does learner work meet basic, proficient, or distinguished levels? This targeted reflection, with clear indicators, is more useful than generic training.
Use the framework to target professional development. Schools can address each teacher's needs. For example, some teachers need help with Component 1e, others 3d. This makes "improvement" specific and measurable.
Danielson vs Alternative Teaching Frameworks
Danielson and Marzano offer different ways to discuss teaching practice. Danielson uses 22 components to describe professional responsibilities. Compare a framework against the purpose of your observation, the edition in use and the evidence you need for a useful coaching conversation.
Rosenshine (2012) gives clear, practical guidance for lessons. Danielson's framework covers the whole job of teaching, including planning and professional development. Turn to Rosenshine for Domain 3 lesson planning. Look to Danielson for your wider professional growth.
For a UK school the framework sits beside two documents it does not replace. Ofsted inspectors do not grade individual lessons, and Ofsted does not expect schools to use its evaluation schedule to grade teaching (Ofsted, 2018). So a Danielson score has no place in an inspection. The honest UK use is coaching and self-review.
The Teachers' Standards (DfE, 2011) are the statutory baseline in England. Their Part Two, personal and professional conduct, covers much of what Danielson puts in Domain 4. Map the two once and keep one list.
| Framework | Focus | Structure | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danielson | Teaching quality across all aspects | 4 domains, 22 components, 4 levels | complete evaluation and growth |
| Marzano | Research-based instructional strategies | 4 domains, 60 elements, 5 levels | Detailed strategy-level coaching |
| Rosenshine | 10 principles of effective instruction | 10 principles, no formal levels | Lesson design and delivery |
| Ofsted (UK) | Curriculum and teaching, attendance and behaviour, leadership and governance, and other evaluation areas | Report card: 5-point scale per evaluation area; safeguarding met or not met | Whole-school accountability |
Teacher Self-Assessment Using Danielson
The most valuable use of the Danielson Framework is not being observed by someone else; it is observing yourself. Here is a practical self-assessment process you can use immediately. It takes one component, one recorded lesson and about 20 minutes. It gives you a specific target rather than a vague resolution.
Step 1: Choose one component. Don't try to assess all 22 at once. Pick one that you suspect is a growth area. For example, Component 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques.
Step 2: Read the descriptors for your edition. In the 2013 component 3b rubric, Basic includes uneven questioning and limited participation. Proficient describes questions and discussion that develop reasoning and involve most learners. Distinguished includes learners generating questions and taking responsibility for participation (Danielson, 2013).
Step 3: Record one lesson. Use a phone propped on your desk or ask a colleague to observe for 15 minutes. Count the number of open vs closed questions you ask. Note how many seconds you wait after asking a question.
Count how many different learners contribute. This gives you data, not impressions.
Step 4: Rate yourself honestly. Most teachers find they are Proficient in their strongest areas and Basic in one or two areas they haven't thought about. This is normal and expected. The point is not to achieve Distinguished everywhere; it is to have a clear, specific target for growth.
Step 5: Set one micro-goal. If you rated yourself Basic in questioning, your micro-goal might be: "In every lesson this week, I will ask at least three questions that require learners to explain their reasoning, and I will wait at least five seconds before accepting an answer." That is specific, observable, and achievable. It moves you from Basic towards Proficient in one measurable step.
Common Criticisms and Limitations
No framework is perfect, so it is worth using the Danielson Framework with an open but questioning mind. The four criticisms below come from the research on observation reliability, cultural fit, sampling and the cost of doing it properly.
Reliability depends on the observation design. In a Dutch study of 198 observations involving 69 teachers at eight schools, van der Lans and colleagues found that their feedback reliability criterion required three visits by different observers. Their summative criterion required more than ten visits (2016). These are findings from that study, rather than a universal Danielson rule.
The MET project reached the same conclusion. One observer watching one lesson is not a measurement, and scores only steadied when several observers watched several lessons (Kane & Staiger, 2012). A school that attaches pay or capability to a single Danielson score is claiming a precision the instrument does not have.
The framework carries a cultural bias. It was built in the US, so it may not fit every culture. Its Distinguished descriptors reward discussion and learner-led inquiry.
Yet direct instruction gets results in some settings (Kirschner, Sweller and Clark, 2006). So the framework could favour one teaching style over another. Observers also agree least on the quality of instruction, which is the domain most in need of improvement (Gitomer et al., 2014). The same bias reaches Domain 2.
Its "respectful environment" descriptors assume one picture of what engaged behaviour looks like: eye contact, hands up, sustained talk. An autistic learner may follow the whole lesson while looking at the desk. A learner from a home culture where interrupting an adult is rude may stay quiet. To an observer scoring the room, both can look switched off.
Observers need to score what learners produce, not how compliant the room looks.
A single lesson observation samples little of teaching. Danielson (2013) says her framework needs wider use. It should include learner work analysis, planning, and talks. Observation alone is not enough.
Proper use needs observer training and conference time. Calibration sessions help maintain reliability. An instrument is not a system: scoring design, rater training and certification decide how reliable the scores are (Hill et al., 2012). Teachers also improve faster in supportive professional environments (Kraft and Papay, 2014).
Generic rubrics tend to produce surface-level feedback rather than subject-specific advice (Hill and Grossman, 2013). Change that stays at the surface is unlikely to move learner outcomes.
Danielson's framework has its limits, but teachers use it widely. Used as a shared language for reflection rather than as a score, it earns its place.
For related guidance, see our article on AI and EdTech Tools for Teachers.
The four limits above are the research view. The block below is the teachers' view, taken from public posts. We looked for UK classroom teachers comparing Danielson with the Teachers' Standards or Ofsted, and for anyone posting a Year 9 or Key Stage 3 scene, and did not find them, so the voices are American teachers and one UK researcher.
Putting it into practice · Build It · Danielson Framework
The questions teachers raise
Use the questions below to test whether the framework captures strong teaching or rewards visible compliance.
Question
“I observed the best lesson the other day - I got literal goosebumps- and it was completely teacher-led. I’m sure the evaluation rubric would have penalized her if the principal follows what it says in the “Distinguished” box.”
What the replies and the evidence say. The next day, @yepronsaidit reports an assistant principal offering Distinguished if learners help write class rules. @didier_paul, same thread window, parodies the Distinguished box as learner-devised entry tasks and self-selected groups. Wisconsin DPI’s 2022 FFT teacher overview still writes Distinguished 3b as learners formulating questions and initiating discussion, so the box the posts are fighting is current state language, not a rumour.
Question
“It’s so absurd we’re still using the Danielson model in so many places. It’s like a bad diner menu, so much stuff listed you know it’s not any good”
What the replies and the evidence say. Charlotte Danielson, Education Week, excerpt fetched via the Hunt Institute: “I’m deeply troubled by the transformation of teaching from a complex profession requiring nuanced judgment to the performance of certain behaviors that can be ticked off on a checklist.” The replies do not all want the framework gone. @AmberBHaven is mapping one component at a time to science of learning, which treats the 22 as a project rather than a diner menu.
Question
“They're not just useless; they are counterproductive, because in high-stakes settings they incentivize teachers to work on the things that are the easiest to improve (e.g., Danielson FFT domains 1 and 4)”
What the replies and the evidence say. Wiliam is a UK researcher, not a classroom teacher, and he is the only recurring UK voice. The same account, still calls FFT the best validated observation schedule he knows, while saying it captures only a slice of teacher quality; that 10 to 30 per cent figure is his calculation. English maintained-school appraisal is assessed against the Teachers’ Standards, not Danielson (NASUWT guidance, fetched; DfE appraisal page, updated 29 Jul 2024).
Question
“Admin can promote direct instruction as part of the institutional culture, but they're still operating w/ a statewide teacher evaluation rubric that prizes "guide on the side," student-centered teaching.”
What the replies and the evidence say. @MsVBLitCoach: “Can’t have guide on the side without the prep work of direct instruction.” The replies try to dissolve the fight; the statewide rubric does not. Wisconsin DPI says the 2022 language “shifts learning from teacher-driven to student-driven” as you move up the levels, which is the contradiction Raquel is naming.
Question
“During a post-observation meeting for my teaching evaluation last school year, I was marked down in Danielson’s 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students. I asked for evidence.”
What the replies and the evidence say. She was told it was not observed. She handed a seating chart and offered to talk any learner; the mark moved. @BDailey222 disagrees with the premise: teachers should not have to prove their worth from the framework, because leadership used to know the teacher without a rubric defence. The split is walk-in evidence versus “the observer should already know”, not whether 1b can be seen in 40 minutes.
Question
“The Danielson Framework which almost all teachers are trained and evaluated in, is an exercise in measuring performative engagement. i have sat through three-day lessons where it is ALL we talked about.”
What the replies and the evidence say. @teachbk disagrees: “The Danielson rubric has many issues but promoting student engagement is not one of them.” @Principal_DBES still runs optional PD on 3b, 3c and 3d questioning. The live split is intellectual engagement versus a showpiece lesson a principal can see, which is the same circus @SamMacD86958750 named.
@dylanwiliam is a UK researcher. @BDailey222 is cited only as the 13 Jul 2026 reply on the 1b thread. UK classroom teachers did not post these questions.
Evidence-Based Teaching with Danielson
Teaching practices in the Danielson Framework align with research. Some practices, like those in Hattie (2009) and in Dylan Wiliam's 2011 book on formative assessment, are linked to better learner outcomes. Black and Wiliam (1998) showed assessment for learning works well. Shulman (1986) explored pedagogical content knowledge deeply.
Kettler and Reddy (2019) compared scoring approaches in 12 high-poverty charter schools, using data from 156 teachers and 34 administrators. Averaged component scores were more stable over time and more predictive of reading and mathematics growth than traditional scores. This association does not establish that adopting the framework causes an attainment gain.
Component 3b directs attention to the quality of questions, reasoning in discussion and participation. For planning, read it alongside Rosenshine's principles as a separate resource. Use the two to identify a question to improve and evidence to discuss with a colleague.
Framework scaffolding runs through every domain. In Domain 1, teachers plan the support they will give. In Domain 3, they adjust that classroom scaffolding as the lesson unfolds, which fits Vygotsky's zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978).
Domain 4 asks teachers to reflect on how well those scaffolds worked. As teachers move from Proficient to Distinguished, they hand more of the work to learners and take the scaffolds away.
Dylan Wiliam's 2011 book makes the same case as Component 3d: teachers use assessment evidence to change what they teach next. For instance, re-teaching a topic after a quick check shows proficient 3d.
Implementing Danielson in Your Classroom
This week, choose the edition used by your school and read one component through the publisher's current access route. Pick an aspect of your practice to examine. Bring a plan, a short classroom example or learner work to a coaching conversation.
Use the rubric descriptors to rate yourself honestly. Write down one specific action you will take in your next lesson to move one level up. That single, targeted change is worth more than a year of unfocused professional development.
Practice table · Build It · Danielson Framework
What it looks like in practice
Compare eight routines for presenting evidence after an observation, interpreting learner-led practice and narrowing the framework to manageable priorities.
| Routine, as teachers describe it | What you would notice | What the evidence says |
|---|---|---|
| Walk in with 1b evidence After a 40-minute observation marks 1b down as “not observed”, take a seating chart with pictures into the post-conference. Offer to talk any named learner: prior knowledge, scaffold, home contact.
|
A grades 5 to 8 STEM teacher with a chart on the table, not a year-long binder. The mark moves only when the evidence is in the room. | This is one teacher's account, not trial evidence. Knowledge of learners sits in Domain 1, which a visit cannot see. Take a one-page evidence pack into the observation meeting. |
| Three live competencies, not 22 International school: adopt the Framework, then pick three competencies as the school’s north star. Do not switch the whole 22-component rubric on at once.
|
Lead learners naming a handful of live components. No 22-row checklist on the staffroom wall. | Mark Hillman, Director of Teaching and Learning, Georgetown International Academy, Guyana, TIE Online, 15 Jan 2025. The school selected three interrelated competencies after finding 22 overwhelming. No classroom teacher at that school posted the cut. Vendor promo of the same story is flagged separately. |
| Do not spend the year on 1 and 4 If the framework is used at high stakes, refuse to let planning folders and professionalism paperwork soak up the improvement plan. Put the live work on Domain 2 and Domain 3, the parts a lesson can show. |
A school development plan that names questioning, discussion and feedback, not a Domain 4 concert-attendance list. | Dylan Wiliam, UK researcher, not a classroom teacher. His 10 Apr 2025 post says the schedule is the best validated one he knows, and that it still captures only a slice of teacher quality. That 10 to 30 per cent figure is his calculation, not a trial we fetched. High-stakes use is his objection, not a finding that Domains 2 and 3 are easy. |
| Distinguished if learners write the rules US pre-conference: when asked whether learners help make class rules, a no is accepted, then the assistant principal offers Distinguished if they are part of the process. |
The book open at the Distinguished column. A teacher-led room being coached toward learner-written rules to move the box. | Wisconsin DPI, 2022 FFT teacher overview: from 2024-25 the state uses the 2022 edition; “The rubric language shifts learning from teacher-driven to student-driven as you move from the basic level to the distinguished level.” Distinguished 3b in that PDF: learners formulate questions and initiate discussion. That is policy language, not a classroom trial. The article already defines Distinguished as learner ownership. This row is the pre-conference bargain. |
| Teacher-led sequence scored Basic objection Teach a direct-instruction lesson with gradual release. The write-up still lands at Basic because the lesson is “too teacher centered”. |
A tight, teacher-led sequence that the class can follow. The form still wants learner-run groups. | The live US fight, not a trial. @MrZachG describes a teacher-led lesson that would be penalised if the principal follows the Distinguished box. Replies disagree about whether that box can ever describe a teacher-led room. Direct instruction is not scored as excellent on the 2022 Distinguished descriptors we fetched from Wisconsin DPI. |
| Optional 3b questioning PD Run optional staff PD on questioning and discussion plans, named against 3b, 3c and 3d. Photograph the board, not a scored form. |
A maths room with “Designing Questions and Discussion Plans” on the board. Chairs up. Staff talking about questions, not filling 22 boxes. | Leader practice, not a classroom teacher’s observation write-up. No teacher posted a scored 3b form. Component 2b (culture for learning) returned no posts. The article already explains 3b. This row is the PD middle leaders actually run. Photo redrawn as our diagram, not republished. |
| One component, mapped to how learning works Take one FFT component at a time. Map it to a science-of-learning move (retrieval, spacing). Do not wait for a 22-component project to finish. |
A 1a card on disciplinary expertise, not a full binder. Twenty-one still to go, treated as a project, not as “too many”. | Classroom teachers did not object that 22 components is too many. Amber uses 22 as a science-of-learning project. Official language is 22 components, not “sub-domains”. Tom Sherrington is credited in the post; we do not copy the photographed card. |
| Read the class before you read the score Before treating a Distinguished or Basic rating as a verdict on the teacher, ask who is in the room. A top set and a bottom set will not look the same on the same rubric.
|
The same teacher looking stronger with higher prior attainment. An EAL teacher whose exit scores moved with the school, not with a sudden leap in skill. | Steinberg and Garrett (2016), Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 38(2), 293 to 317, DOI 10.3102/0162373715616249 (Crossref and abstract fetched): “The context in which teachers work, most notably, the incoming academic performance of their students, plays a critical role in determining teachers’ measured performance.” Wiliam’s “over six times” figure is his claim on 16 Dec 2025; we did not fetch the paper’s tables, so the multiplier stays his. @genkimachina, same day, is an EAL teacher’s own career numbers, not a trial. |
@dylanwiliam is a UK researcher, not a classroom teacher. @Principal_DBES is a US middle-school principal. The Guyana row is international, not UK or US.
The 22 components at a glance
Every district form scores the same 22 components, but the names on it depend on the edition. The table gives each code with its 2013 wording and its 2022 wording, so you can read either form. The names are quoted as the Danielson Group prints them.
| Component code | 2013 name | 2022 name | Domain |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1a | Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy | Applying Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy | 1 Planning and Preparation |
| 1b | Demonstrating Knowledge of Students | Knowing and Valuing Students | 1 Planning and Preparation |
| 1c | Setting Instructional Outcomes | Setting Instructional Outcomes | 1 Planning and Preparation |
| 1d | Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources | Using Resources Effectively | 1 Planning and Preparation |
| 1e | Designing Coherent Instruction | Planning Coherent Instruction | 1 Planning and Preparation |
| 1f | Designing Student Assessments | Designing and Analyzing Assessments | 1 Planning and Preparation |
| 2a | Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport | Cultivating Respectful and Affirming Environments | 2 The Classroom Environment |
| 2b | Establishing a Culture for Learning | Fostering a Culture for Learning | 2 The Classroom Environment |
| 2c | Managing Classroom Procedures | Maintaining Purposeful Environments | 2 The Classroom Environment |
| 2d | Managing Student Behavior | Supporting Positive Student Behavior | 2 The Classroom Environment |
| 2e | Organizing Physical Space | Organizing Spaces for Learning | 2 The Classroom Environment |
| 3a | Communicating with Students | Communicating About Purpose and Content | 3 Instruction |
| 3b | Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques | Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques | 3 Instruction |
| 3c | Engaging Students in Learning | Engaging Students in Learning | 3 Instruction |
| 3d | Using Assessment in Instruction | Using Assessment for Learning | 3 Instruction |
| 3e | Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness | Responding Flexibly to Student Needs | 3 Instruction |
| 4a | Reflecting on Teaching | Engaging in Reflective Practice | 4 Professional Responsibilities |
| 4b | Maintaining Accurate Records | Documenting Student Progress | 4 Professional Responsibilities |
| 4c | Communicating with Families | Engaging Families and Communities | 4 Professional Responsibilities |
| 4d | Participating in a Professional Community | Contributing to School Community and Culture | 4 Professional Responsibilities |
| 4e | Growing and Developing Professionally | Growing and Developing Professionally | 4 Professional Responsibilities |
| 4f | Showing Professionalism | Acting in Service of Students | 4 Professional Responsibilities |
Three domain names changed in 2022 as well. The Classroom Environment became Learning Environments, Instruction became Learning Experiences, and Professional Responsibilities became Principled Teaching. Planning and Preparation kept its name. The four domains and 22 components did not move.
The 22 components, domain by domain
The four domains are the headline. The 22 components are what an observer actually scores. The table above gives every name in both the 2013 and the 2022 wording. Here each domain gets one classroom example you can copy on Monday.
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation has six components, 1a to 1f. All of it happens before learners arrive. In a Year 6 fractions unit, the teacher lists the three Year 5 misconceptions she expects. She writes one diagnostic question for each.
Learners answer on whiteboards in the first five minutes. She now has evidence for 1b and 1f, and she has changed the next lesson before it starts.
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment has five components, 2a to 2e. This is routines and relationships, not displays. A KS3 science teacher runs a practical with named roles: one learner collects, one records, one checks the method card.
Learners produce a completed results table with no teacher prompting. That is 2c and 2e in one lesson, and it is visible to any observer.
Domain 3: Instruction has five components, 3a to 3e. This is the lesson itself. In a Year 9 English lesson the teacher asks one open question about a character and then says nothing for ten seconds. Pairs must agree an answer and one piece of evidence.
Learners then write a two-sentence claim with a quotation. The wait time and the pair talk are 3b; the written claim is 3d. The strategies behind these components have a large evidence base (Hattie, 2009).
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities has six components, 4a to 4f. Most of it is invisible in a lesson. A Year 2 teacher keeps a one-page tracker of which learners have met each phonics phase.
She brings it to every parent meeting and to the phase leader. Parents leave with one thing to practise at home. That tracker is 4b and 4c, and it is the evidence an observer will never see in a lesson.
How Schools Successfully Implement the Danielson Framework
Start small and start with teachers, not with a policy. Schools that get value from the framework introduce it through shared CPD sessions, not as a top-down mandate. Teachers explore the components together.
They work out what each one looks like in their own subject and phase. That conversation is the point; the rubric is only the prompt.
For a peer learning walk, agree one component and one question beforehand. Watch the lesson together with its context and discuss the evidence afterwards.
Decide how often colleagues can observe and discuss practice within the time available. Keep the question specific and record the evidence needed for the next conversation.
Train school leaders to use the framework for coaching, not for judging. Good headteachers hold short, regular coaching conversations in the framework's language. Teachers name their own next step.
For example, devote a staff meeting to one component. Watch a lesson clip, compare the evidence and identify one adjustment to try.
Use Danielson alongside the documents relevant to your school. In England, the initial teacher training and early career framework (ITTECF) replaced the Early Career Framework from September 2025. Compare one chosen component with your training priorities. Treat any crosswalk as a school-made planning aid, rather than an official equivalence with ITTECF standards or Ofsted evaluation areas.
Put the relevant documents side by side when planning. Choose one component for a department discussion and connect it with your actual priorities. A comparison can simplify the conversation without claiming an official equivalence.
Consider how the purpose of an observation may influence what teachers choose to show. For coaching, agree the question in advance and discuss how representative the lesson was.
Further authoritative guidance on metacognition: EEF guidance report on metacognition and self-regulation, EEF Teaching and Learning Toolkit on metacognition and self-regulation.
From the board · Build It · Danielson Framework
From their board to your printer
Three posts whose photos show a card, a board or a performance chart. The picture stays on social media. The useful words come off as a strip you can print and pin.
@teacherhead inspired me to dive into the FFT (Danielson Framework For Teaching), connect it to the SoL, and provide practical implementation ideas. 1/22 sub-domains done 21/22 to go!
@AmberBHaven, 2025-06-25
The useful bit is the 1a Disciplinary Expertise card, one component at a time.
Pin under any board · one component
1a, then the next
- Dive into the FFT (Danielson Framework For Teaching).
- Connect it to the SoL.
- Provide practical implementation ideas.
- 1/22 sub-domains done. 21/22 to go.
This optional PD focused on how to utilize questioning strategies to create more student-centered & student-driven lessons & the strong impact these strategies have on 3B, 3C, & 3D in the Danielson Framework for Teaching.
@Principal_DBES, 2025-10-30
The useful bit is the board title Designing Questions and Discussion Plans, named against 3B, 3C and 3D.
Pin under any board · questioning PD
Designing Questions and Discussion Plans
- Optional PD on questioning strategies.
- Create more student-centered and student-driven lessons.
- Name the impact on 3B, 3C and 3D in the Danielson Framework for Teaching.
I got 3 distinguisheds on charlotte danielson, which if you aren’t in education is HARD, if not impossible. it’s very common for teachers to never move past proficiency in their entire careers.
@todallyanika, 2025-03-01
The useful bit is the performance-level chart that pairs Distinguished with student-directed success.
Pin under any board · the top box
Performance Levels: Key Words
- Teacher-directed success.
- Student-directed success.
- Highly Effective DISTINGUISHED. Students. Always.
The strips use the teacher’s own words, in their order.
Frequently asked questions
What are the 4 domains of the Danielson Framework?
The four domains are Planning and Preparation, The Classroom Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities. Domains 2 and 3 are what an observer sees in a lesson. Domains 1 and 4 happen before and after it, so they are evidenced through plans, records and conversations rather than observation.
Is there a Danielson Framework PDF?
The Danielson Group lists current access options for the 2022 framework, including the published book, professional learning and licensed platforms. Check the edition and permitted use before downloading publisher material. The original practice table on this page is a separate resource.
How is the Danielson Framework used in teacher evaluation?
The 2013 instrument describes four performance levels for each component. Before using it for evaluation, check the requirements and purpose of your local system. For a coaching conversation, use specific evidence and the descriptor for the component being discussed.
What are the 22 components of the Danielson Framework?
Six in Domain 1 (1a to 1f), five in Domain 2 (2a to 2e), five in Domain 3 (3a to 3e) and six in Domain 4 (4a to 4f). The table in the section "The 22 components at a glance" lists every code with its 2013 name and its 2022 name. The codes have not changed between editions; most of the names have.
What are the four performance levels in the Danielson rubric?
Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient and Distinguished. Each component has its own descriptors. Use those descriptors to interpret evidence rather than applying one rule about learner ownership across the whole framework.
What changed in the 2022 Danielson Framework for Teaching?
The 2022 edition keeps four domains, four levels and 22 components. It renames three domains (Learning Environments, Learning Experiences, Principled Teaching) and most of the components, and it appeared in print as the third edition of Enhancing Professional Practice in 2024. Wisconsin adopted the 2022 wording from 2024 to 25. If your district form still carries the 2013 names, use the table above to read across.
Which edition of the Danielson rubric should I download: 2011, 2013 or 2022?
Match the edition specified by your school or district. The South Dakota Department of Education hosts the 2013 evaluation instrument. For the current 2022 framework, consult the Danielson Group's access options. A circulating June 2022 draft is not a substitute for the final edition.
Is the Danielson Framework reliable enough to grade a teacher on one observation?
Treat one visit as a sample for discussion. Reliability depends on the instrument, observers, lessons and the decision being made. The study described above shows why repeated observations matter, but it does not set one universal minimum for every Danielson use.
Does the Danielson Framework apply in UK schools?
As a shared language, yes; as a grade, no. Ofsted inspectors do not grade individual lessons and do not expect schools to grade teaching with the inspection schedule (Ofsted, 2018), and the Teachers' Standards (DfE, 2011) remain the statutory baseline. UK schools that use Danielson tend to use it for coaching, peer observation and self-review, one component at a time.
Who is Charlotte Danielson?
Charlotte Danielson is the American educator who wrote Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching for ASCD in 1996 (Danielson, 1996). The Danielson Group, which carries her name, has published the later editions of the framework and its evaluation instruments, including the 2022 Framework for Teaching.
AI Integration and the Evolving Framework
Schools can consider how AI use affects professional judgement, learner relationships, safeguarding, data protection and the quality of teaching decisions. Treat this as a discussion prompt for professional development, rather than a new official Danielson requirement.
Domain 1 (Planning and Preparation) can be supported by AI when teachers use it to draft options, surface misconceptions or adapt resources. The teacher then checks the output against curriculum goals and learner needs. For example, a Year 7 geography teacher might use a generative AI tool to draft differentiated worksheet variations for a climate change unit. The professional work remains in refining objectives, checking accuracy, protecting learner data and anticipating misconceptions.
Automated feedback can be useful as a prompt, but it should not be treated as an observation judgement. DfE guidance is clear that teachers, leaders and staff remain responsible for checking AI-generated content for appropriateness and accuracy. In Danielson terms, evidence for Domain 3 still needs to come from what teachers and learners actually do in lessons. That includes responsive teaching and flexibility.
Schools may need to adapt professional development conversations as AI tools become part of planning, feedback and administration. Teachers can now generate lesson materials quickly. They still need to show a deep understanding of how learners think, so the framework's emphasis on reflective practice matters more, not less. Evaluation criteria should therefore ask when AI use improved professional judgement, and when it created risks or weak shortcuts.
Take one component this week. Pick the one you feel least sure of, read its 2013 descriptors, and rate yourself honestly against the Proficient line. Then bring one piece of evidence, a plan, a piece of learner work or a two-minute clip, to a colleague and ask which level they see. That conversation is the framework doing its job.
References
Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument (2013 ed.). Princeton, NJ: The Danielson Group. ISBN 978-0-615-59782-9. South Dakota Department of Education copy.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. ISBN 978-1-4166-0517-1. ERIC ED509067.
Danielson, C. (2011). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument (2011 ed.). Princeton, NJ: The Danielson Group.
Danielson Group. (2022). The framework for teaching: A guide for reflection, observation, and conversation. Princeton, NJ: The Danielson Group.
Danielson, C., Furman, J. S. and Kappes, L. (2024). Enhancing professional practice: The framework for teaching (3rd ed.). Arlington, VA: ASCD. ISBN 978-1-4166-3342-6.
Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7 to 74.
Department for Education (DfE). (2011). Teachers' standards. London: DfE. Updated December 2021.
Gitomer, D. H., Bell, C. A., Qi, Y., McCaffrey, D. F., Hamre, B. K. and Pianta, R. C. (2014). The instructional challenge in improving teaching quality: Lessons from a classroom observation protocol. Teachers College Record, 116(6), 1 to 32.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y. and Kraft, M. A. (2012). When rater reliability is not enough: Teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability study. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56 to 64.
Hill, H. C. and Grossman, P. (2013). Learning from teacher observations: Challenges and opportunities posed by new teacher evaluation systems. Harvard Educational Review, 83(2), 371 to 384.
Jones, E. and Bergin, C. (2019). Evaluating teacher effectiveness using classroom observations: A Rasch analysis of the rater effects of principals. Educational Assessment, 24(2), 91 to 118.
Kane, T. J. and Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, MET Project.
Kettler, R. J. and Reddy, L. A. (2019). Using observational assessment to inform professional development decisions: Alternative scoring for the Danielson Framework for Teaching. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 44(2), 69 to 80.
Kimball, S. M., White, B., Milanowski, A. T. and Borman, G. (2004). Examining the relationship between teacher evaluation and student assessment results in Washoe County. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 54 to 78.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J. and Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75 to 86.
Kraft, M. A. and Papay, J. P. (2014). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher development? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 476 to 500.
Liu, S., Bell, C. A., Jones, N. D. and McCaffrey, D. F. (2019). Classroom observation systems in context: A case for the validation of observation systems. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 31(1), 61 to 95.
Milanowski, A. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 33 to 53.
Ofsted. (2018). Ofsted inspections: Clarification for schools. Manchester: Ofsted.
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12 to 19, 39.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4 to 14.
Steinberg, M. P. and Garrett, R. (2016). Classroom composition and measured teacher performance: What do teacher observation scores really measure? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(2), 293 to 317.
van der Lans, R. M., van de Grift, W. J. C. M. and van Veen, K. (2016). Once is not enough: Establishing reliability criteria for feedback and evaluation decisions based on classroom observations. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 50, 88 to 95.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
