Danielson Framework 2013 vs 2022: what actually changed

It is a revision, not a replacement. Four domains, 22 components and the four performance levels all survive, and component numbering stays consistent from 1a through 4f. A district that knows the 2013 instrument will recognise the 2022 one.

Three things did change, and the third matters far more than the first two.

Three of the four domains were renamed

Most component titles were updated. Component 1b moved from Demonstrating Knowledge of Students to Knowing and Valuing Students. Domain 2 language shifts toward affirming environments and supporting positive student behavior. The numbering did not move, so crosswalking is straightforward.

The Distinguished bar moved. This is the change that has consequences.

Under the 2013 instrument, Proficient described skilled teacher practice and Distinguished described practice that lifted the whole class. Under 2022, Proficient still belongs to the teacher, but Distinguished largely requires evidence that students are carrying the practice: asking their own questions, monitoring their own work, shaping norms.

The practical consequence is the part districts underestimate:

A teacher who earned Distinguished under 2013 can score Proficient under 2022 without changing anything about how they teach.

Why that is a district problem, not a rubric problem

If you switch editions mid-stream and say nothing, ratings across the district drop in the transition year and it looks like performance declined. It did not. The measure moved.

That matters more in some states than others. Where evaluation ratings feed a career ladder or a pay decision, as they do in Idaho, a structural rating shift is a compensation issue and an association issue before it is a professional growth issue.

It also breaks year-over-year comparison. A longitudinal report spanning the switch is not comparing like with like unless you know which edition each year used.

What we would suggest

1. Calibrate before you switch, not after. Score the same lesson against both editions with your evaluators and see where they land differently.
2. Choose the transition year deliberately, and avoid switching in a year that carries high-stakes decisions for staff already on a plan of improvement.
3. Tell staff the bar moved before ratings come out, not after somebody sees their score.
4. Keep prior evaluations readable in their original terms. Records written against 2013 should still show 2013 component names and language.

Where states currently stand

• Washington requires the 2022 edition from the 2025-26 school year
• South Dakota administrative rule still names the 2013 edition
• Idaho adopts Danielson as the state minimum standard, and evaluations feed the career ladder
• Michigan lists Danielson as one of several approved evaluation tools

State requirements change. Confirm current rules with your own state department before you plan a transition.

How we handle both editions

We maintain both the 2013 and 2022 editions for all 14 staff roles, so a district can keep running 2013 while it prepares evaluators and move to 2022 on its own schedule rather than on ours.

And because a completed evaluation keeps its own copy of the component names, rubric language and domain weights that were used, changing editions does not rewrite history. Evaluations written under 2013 still read as 2013 evaluations.

Planning a move to the 2022 edition?

Tell us where your district is in the transition and which roles you evaluate. We are happy to talk it through even if you are not shopping for software. Talk with us about the transition → See our rubrics for all 14 staff roles