This article looks at applying Danielson’s framework to other school-based professions. Danielson’s Framework for Teaching is the go-to set of teaching standards for the district that I work in and many others. It is a tool that goes beyond evaluation. It can and should be used for self-assessment, recruitment, peer coaching and mentoring (Alvarez & Anderson, 2011). The applicable uses of this tool are endless. As a school social worker, the Danielson is the tool used for my annual evaluations.

Danielson’s framework for teachers has four domains; (1) planning and preparation, (2) classroom environment, (3) instruction, and (4) professional responsibilities. The Danielson tool used for social workers has 4 domains as well, (1) planning and preparation, (2) the environment, (3) delivery of service, and (4) professional responsibilities. Each domain has 5-6 elements. There is a total of 22 components on which teachers and social workers are evaluated. Below are a few examples of the Danielson domains for social workers.

This article was written before my district began using the Danielson tool to evaluate social workers. The authors suggest some considerations when modifying and using the tool:

• Develop a format that closely resembles the structure of the original teacher's model.
• Use terminology that reflects what is valuable to school districts (for example, terms related to meeting annual yearly progress, the school improvement plan).
• Although the column and row headings in the rubric should be the same or similar to those in the measure of teacher effectiveness, the content of the hne items should reflect areas unique to school social work.
• Ensure that school administrators (often involved in the evaluation process) understand the terminology used in the evaluation rubric as it applies to school social work.
• When selecting student achievement measures to use in the evaluative process, consider measures of schoolwide indicators such as attendance, office discipline referrals, suspensions and expulsions, and (high school) graduation rates for the school as opposed to outcomes for individual students. (Alvarez & Anderson, 2011)

The fourth and fifth bullet points accurately define the difficulty with using the Danielson tool for many social workers in my department. The feeling among many is that building principals evaluate them more like teachers without considering the differences and intricacies of social work practice. In particular, being evaluated on student achievement and progress can be a tense process that often leads to much discussion and some contest on the side of social workers. 

Alvarez, M. E., & Anderson-Ketchmark, C. (2011). Danielson's framework for teaching. Children & Schools, 33(1), 61-63.