Overall, I give it two thumbs up. I'm really excited about the comprehensive and equitable criteria. They are well researched and mesh with what I consider good teaching. Here are my favorite components in no particular order:
1. I love that this model mandates teacher feedback. There is ALWAYS room for improvement in pedagogy. I prefer that it is the norm to receive constructive criticism. I know that my lessons are not perfect and welcome another set of eyes to assist me in my quest to be the best I can be. I also welcome the chance to open discussion between myself and my administrators. The fact that both the evaluator and teacher rate the lesson allows for and encourages communication. Often, when an admin explains why something was or wasn't right, I'll think, "Wow, I never thought of it that way before." Which leads me to the question, why aren't teachers required to take a supervisory course as well? It might improve their pedagogy.
2. I love the fourth quadrant. It revolves around teacher reflection, professionalism, and individual growth. The suggestion is that teachers who are truly distinguished from their colleagues are the ones who network and seek to further their education and skills. I would imagine that Twitter will receive a large influx of teachers seeking to reach proficiency in this category.
3. I love the fact that we "live in effective, but visit highly effective." I'm not type A; I'm type AA. If I was told I had to be highly effective all of the time, I'd probably bow out rather than set such unrealistic expectations for myself. Teaching is such a difficult profession and it requires many components to come together for a "highly effective" lesson.
4. I like Charlotte Danielson. I've seen quite a few video interviews with her at this point, and I find her trustworthy and genuine. I like what she proposes, and I'm pleased that we have adopted her model of teacher evaluations.