Evidence-First™ + Danielson: A Clearer, Safer, More Effective Way to Improve Instruction

Kelly Christopher
Nov 21
2 min read

Proactive instructional leadership requires more than completing evaluations. It requires turning observation into instructional improvement. Yet many districts and Educator Preparation Programs (EPPs) still struggle with the same persistent challenge: rubric language that feels interpretive, feedback that lacks clarity, and ratings that remain stagnant.

Evidence -First™ strengthens the evaluation process without requiring new frameworks, new rubrics, or disruptive system changes.

The Core Challenge: Feedback That Doesn’t Move the Needle

Even with trusted frameworks like the Danielson Framework for Teaching, evaluators often provide lengthy narrative comments that teachers and teacher candidates struggle to connect to their practice. Without a shared language of evidence, it becomes difficult to define what “effective” or “highly effective” looks like. This results in stagnant ratings, inconsistent scoring, and a limited instructional impact.

Leaders need precision. Teachers and teacher candidates need clarity. Systems need defensibility.

The Shift: Evidence-First Scoring

Evidence-First brings practical clarity to Danielson (v.2007 and v.2013) and Danielson-aligned rubrics, state frameworks, and local EPP rubrics by converting broad rubric language into specific, manageable sub-components, and then into specific, observable, research-validated evidence. For example,

Step 1: Review Original Rubric (From Domain 1-C: Developing Critical Thinking)

The teacher’s use of questioning strategies (e.g., analytical question stems, open-ended question prompts), focus techniques (e.g., Do Now/Challenge activities, video), and/or other methods of inquiry are able to elicit frequent student responses.

Step 2: Highlight Key Sub-Components.

The teacher’s use of questioning strategies (e.g., analytical question stems, open-ended question prompts), focus techniques (e.g., Do Now/Challenge activities, video), and/or other methods of inquiry elicits frequent student responses.

Step 3:Score Evidence Markers for each Sub-Component.

Example: Focus Techniques

— Choose the HIGHEST One —

No focus strategies are used
Focus strategies (e.g., teacher demonstration, surveys) elicit rote responses
Focus strategies (e.g., Do Now/Challenge activities, video) elicit complex thinking responses
Focus strategies (e.g., problem-based challenges, discrepant events) elicit student-generated questions and complex thinking responses

These markers remove ambiguity and clarify why a rating was assigned and what improvement entails.

Why Ratings Improve with Evidence-First

Precision leads to progress.

Concrete evidence markers help leaders identify specific strengths and gaps, making feedback more actionable and targeted.

Clarity builds trust.

Teachers and teacher candidates know precisely what the expectations are from their observer.

Consistency strengthens inter-rater reliability.

Evaluators use a common set of evidence markers, creating scoring consistency across classrooms, buildings, and programs.

Safe, defensible scoring.

Evidence-First aligns with district expectations, state frameworks, accreditation standards, and union agreements.

Data that drives improvement.

Aggregated evidence reveals instructional patterns and informs coaching priorities, accreditation reports, and continuous improvement cycles.

A Better System Without the Disruption

Evidence-First enhances your current evaluation model. No overhaul is required. It simply makes your existing system clearer, more consistent, and more instructionally meaningful.

See Evidence-First in Action

Evidence-First™ Q&A

Tuesday, Nov 25 | Online Zoom Meeting

Join us for a free, informal 30-minute discovery session on Evidence-First™ scoring with your teacher evaluation rubric. Explore the Evidence-First™ scoring approach, consider aligned professional growth opportunities, and review included tools for tracking annual teacher evaluation and teacher candidate priorities.