In addition to sitting on the Tech committee for our district, I also sit on the professional development committee. A new teacher assessment rubric is rolling out in PA, as the State Department of Ed is figuring out how to have a teacher accountability system that looks at all aspects of teaching, beyond just test scores, but keeping a portion of that in the overall mix as well. (Needless to say, this has a lot of people jumpy.) Interestingly, as you look at the boxes based on Danielson's model, ranging from failing to needs improvement to proficient to Distinguished, as components move more towards "Distinguished" what is being described looks more and more like differentiated instruction and the responsive classroom. I'll be the first to say much of DI is about good, solid teaching, and forming a learning community with the students, knowing how they learn, and scaffolding skills to independence, while asking them more in depth questions, and pushing them up Bloom's towards analysis and creativity and away from mere regurgitation. My question to you is whether resistance to DI and the responsive Classroom is more about the labels and weariness of teachers to try yet another "program" that's supposed to miraculously solve all school problems, or whether it's a lack of knowledge about the data, or where to begin. What's happening in your neck of the woods? What do your teacher assessments look like? What's most effective? how should teachers be evaluated?