For district leaders responsible for teacher evaluation and instructional leadership, the Marzano framework is a shared language and set of evaluation models for planning, instruction, classroom conditions, and professional practice that support both formal evaluations and teacher growth.
The most important starting point is identifying which Marzano model a district uses. The current Focused Teacher Evaluation Model comprises 23 competencies across four domains, whereas the earlier Teacher Evaluation Model comprises 60 elements.
Understanding that difference helps leaders set clear expectations, collect neutral evidence consistently, and use observations to improve instruction rather than reduce walkthroughs to compliance checks.
This guide explains the current structure, distinguishes formal evaluations from supportive walkthroughs, shows what neutral evidence can be gathered during classroom visits, outlines how repeated observations can build a teacher growth story, and highlights district implementation practices and how Education Walkthrough software supports consistent use of the framework.
Key Takeaways
- Name the model first: The current Focused Teacher Evaluation Model and the earlier 60-element model use different domain names and structures.
- Keep purposes separate: A formal evaluation follows adopted policy and scoring rules. A coaching walkthrough captures a narrow sample of evidence for feedback and follow-up.
- Write neutral evidence: Record observable teacher actions, student responses, counts, quotations, and sequences instead of praise or conclusions.
- Revisit the same focus: Repeated observations can show whether a selected practice is emerging, becoming consistent, or producing a different student response over time.
- Use district data carefully: Patterns can guide coaching and professional learning, but they should not be treated as proof of teacher quality or causation.
What Is the Marzano Framework?
The phrase “Marzano framework” is often used broadly to refer to several related bodies of work developed by Robert J. Marzano and partner organizations, including a research-based instructional framework and teaching framework grounded in educational research.
For teacher observation, district leaders are usually referring to either the earlier Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model or the current Focused Teacher Evaluation Model. These are related, but they are not interchangeable.
It is based on over 5,000 studies conducted over 50 years, and a study of 12,000 teachers validated the Marzano framework’s effectiveness.
The current Marzano Focused Teacher Evaluation Model organizes 23 competencies into four domains and uses teacher and student evidence within a five-level performance scale to support effective teaching, strengthen teacher effectiveness, and improve student learning.
The older model organizes 60 elements into four differently named domains. District documents, templates, training, and evaluator calibration should therefore identify the adopted version rather than using “Marzano” as a generic label.
The Current Four Domains and 23 Competencies
The current model simplifies the earlier framework, moving from standards-based planning to instruction, learning conditions, and professional responsibilities. The official model distributes the 23 competencies as follows, with competencies that describe teacher practice and support evaluating teaching across the four domains.
| Domain | Count | Evidence source |
|---|---|---|
| Standards-Based Planning | 3 | Plans, resources, data use, and pre-observation discussion |
| Standards-Based Instruction | 10 | Teacher actions, student thinking, tasks, and responses during instruction |
| Conditions for Learning | 7 | Formative information, feedback, engagement, expectations, routines, and relationships |
| Professional Responsibilities | 3 | Policy adherence, expertise, leadership, collaboration, and year-long records |
Source: Marzano Focused Teacher Evaluation Model.
How the Earlier 60-Element Model Differs
The earlier model contains 60 elements across the domains of Classroom Strategies and Behaviors, Planning and Preparing, Reflecting on Teaching, and Collegiality and Professionalism. Reflecting on Teaching is domain three and consists of five elements.
Marzano Resources still describes the model as a teacher-development tool that can guide growth across a school year.
Marzano has 60 elements, while the Danielson Framework has 22 components organized through detailed Danielson performance rubrics across broad teaching domains. Marzano also emphasizes monitoring student impact and, at the top performance levels, checking whether a strategy is effective, while Danielson is more focused on describing practice.
A district using this version should retain its adopted terminology and should not replace its 60-element forms with the current 23-competency structure without a formal implementation decision.
Where the Nine Instructional Strategies Fit
The nine specific instructional strategies associated with the first edition of Classroom Instruction That Works are another related resource, not the four-domain evaluation rubric.
McREL’s 2010 research report updated the evidence base behind those categories by synthesizing primary studies published after the original review. After the first edition of Classroom Instruction That Works, Marzano identified them as nine high-yield strategies and assigned measurable effect sizes to each.
Current McREL materials have since developed a newer set of 14 strategies, so district leaders should avoid presenting the historic nine as the current Marzano evaluation structure or confusing them with the broader teaching practices and teaching methods used for educator evaluation.
Formal Evaluation and Supportive Walkthroughs Serve Different Purposes
A district may use Marzano language in both settings, but the process and stakes are different, and that distinction matters for ongoing professional growth, not just process differences.
Formal evaluation follows the district’s adopted model, state requirements, evaluator training, evidence rules, conferences, and personnel procedures.
A supportive walkthrough is a shorter coaching activity focused on a limited number of observable practices. It should support professional growth and genuine professional growth rather than compliance.
| Decision Point | Formal Evaluation | Supportive Walkthrough |
|---|---|---|
| Primary purpose | Produce an official evaluation record under the adopted rules | Generate timely evidence for reflection, feedback, and follow-up |
| Scope | Uses the required competencies, evidence sources, and scoring process | Samples one or two observable look-fors that fit the visit |
| Use of evidence | May contribute to consequential ratings and personnel records | Supports coaching unless the district has explicitly defined another authorized use |
The boundary should be stated before visits begin. Teachers should know whether the observation is formal or formative, what evidence will be captured, how it will be shared, and whether any part of it can be included in the official evaluation record. When the visit is formative, they should also expect feedback, follow-up, and targeted support.
Turn Marzano Competencies Into Neutral Look-Fors
A useful look-for is narrow enough to observe and neutral enough to discuss effective instruction and effective teaching practices without jumping to conclusions. It records what happened without assigning intent, effectiveness, or a performance level from a brief snapshot. The examples below illustrate evidence language rather than official scoring guidance.
| Focus | Neutral Evidence Note | Coaching Question |
|---|---|---|
| Critical content | The learning target remained posted. Two students described the target using different words when prompted. | What helped students explain the target in their own language? |
| Processing new content | After a short explanation, students compared notes in pairs for two minutes while helping students process how students process new information. Four pairs revised at least one response. | Which prompt produced the most useful revision? |
| Monitoring learning | The teacher checked five student responses, grouped two common errors, and changed the next example. | What did the response pattern tell you to adjust? |
| Student engagement | During the task, 18 of 22 students wrote or discussed the assigned problem during both observation checks. | What might increase access for the four students not yet participating? |
Neutral notes make follow-up possible because the teacher and observer can return to the same event. “Students were engaged” is a conclusion. A count, quotation, or sequence gives both people something concrete to interpret and test. Research on Marzano strategies also shows a positive impact on student engagement, which makes this kind of evidence useful for connecting observed participation to student outcomes rather than to a score alone.
Build a Growth Story Across Repeated Observations
One visit produces a snapshot. A growth story emerges when leaders revisit the same instructional focus, connect evidence to an agreed-upon action, and compare what changes over time as part of continuous improvement aimed at improving student outcomes. The cycle can remain simple.
- Choose one focus. Select one observable competency or locally approved look-for connected to a teacher goal, instructional priority, or specific instructional practices tied to classroom needs.
- Capture a baseline. Record teacher actions and student responses without assigning a walkthrough score.
- Agree on one action. Turn the evidence into a manageable adjustment the teacher can test before the next visit, and make the feedback process clear enough to guide what will be reviewed next time.
- Re-observe the same focus. Return after the teacher has had a reasonable opportunity to apply the adjustment.
- Review the pattern. Compare several pieces of evidence and decide whether to continue, adapt, or close the coaching focus; across visits, that pattern can guide specific, data-driven professional development and support teacher growth.
Why Multiple Evidence Points Matter
A 2024 study of classroom-observation scores found that rater and time effects can influence results and that accounting for multiple sources of measurement error changed which teachers were identified as below standard. The finding does not validate any specific Marzano score, but it supports caution when interpreting a single observation.
A separate 2024 review concluded that rubric-based observations can support teacher learning when educators use the rubric to examine concrete practice and instructional decisions, rather than treating it solely as a scoring device.
The broader professional-learning evidence also supports follow-through. A 2025 meta-analysis of 46 randomized studies in PK–12 mathematics and science found an average positive impact of 0.52 standard deviations on teacher-level outcomes.
Programs with stronger effects on classroom instruction also tended to have stronger effects on student achievement, although that relationship was correlational rather than evidence that the instructional change caused the student outcome.
District Implementation Practices That Protect the Growth Focus
A Marzano teaching model becomes more useful when district teams define how the framework will be used before collecting data, and successful implementation depends on administrative support from district teams and school leaders.
These practices keep short visits focused and reduce the risk of overinterpreting evidence. For systems using it, the District Leader Evaluation Model aligns expectations from the superintendent to the student.
- Identify the adopted version: Put the model name, year, domain language, and local modifications on every official form and training document.
- Separate scored and unscored workflows: Use distinct labels, forms, permissions, and communication so a coaching note is not mistaken for a formal rating.
- Limit the walkthrough’s focus: Select one or two observable practices rather than trying to represent an entire lesson or domain in a brief visit.
- Calibrate evidence language: Have leaders observe the same lesson segment, write independently, and compare notes for inference, omission, and inconsistent terminology, then use the same language across the school community and broader school community.
- Support implementation through collaboration: Use professional learning communities for continuous calibration, instructional coaching, and collaborative professional development around the framework.
- Interpret patterns with context: Use repeated evidence to frame questions and professional-learning priorities, not to rank teachers or claim causation.
How Education Walkthrough Supports Marzano-Aligned Growth
Education Walkthrough supports Marzano-aligned and custom templates, mobile observations, shared workflows, same-day feedback, and district-level reporting within an evaluation system centered on continuous improvement, teacher performance, and teacher growth. These capabilities can help leaders consistently capture evidence, maintain a coaching focus across visits, and review patterns over time.
The platform does not certify evaluators, determine legal compliance, or automatically convert a short walkthrough into an official Marzano rating.
District leaders can use a single shared template for a selected focus, connect it to routines such as lesson planning or classroom management, document teacher and student evidence during a visit, provide feedback, and return to the same look-for. The teacher evaluation software page explains the approved framework, observation, feedback, and reporting capabilities available to district teams.
Shared templates can also help improve teacher effectiveness and improve student achievement by keeping evidence collection and follow-up consistent across teams.
Start Your Instructional Growth Trial
Frequently Asked Questions
Still sorting through the Marzano models? These quick answers clarify related questions that district teams often encounter.
What Are the Five Marzano Performance Levels?
The current Focused Teacher Evaluation Model uses Not Using, Beginning, Developing, Applying, and Innovating. These are formal performance levels with model-specific evidence expectations, not labels that should be assigned casually during a brief coaching walkthrough.
Is the Marzano Framework the Same as High Reliability Schools?
No. The Marzano High Reliability Schools framework is a five-level school-improvement framework. The teacher evaluation models focus on professional practice and observation. A district may use both, but they serve different organizational purposes.
Is the Marzano Model Still in Use?
Yes. As of August 2026, the Marzano Evaluation Center reports that the Focused Teacher Evaluation Model is active in 30 states. Districts continue to use it to support effective teachers, student success, and academic achievement, and many adopt it as a tool for higher student achievement and improving student outcomes, though actual approval and implementation requirements still vary by state and district, so local policy remains controlling.
Can a District Customize Its Marzano Walkthrough Template?
A district can create a formative walkthrough template based on locally selected priorities, provided it does not misrepresent the template as the official Marzano evaluation rubric. Formal evaluation documents should remain aligned with the adopted model, licensing terms, state requirements, and district policy. If a district’s priorities call for it, a walkthrough might include a focus such as cooperative learning without making that emphasis mandatory in every template. Local customization should protect the instructional core and preserve alignment to classroom rules, instructional practices, and evidence expectations.
