# data[].attributes.body
There are sections for both as you highlight through Danielson

# data[].attributes.body
For me is more constructivism view of learning: for improvement of teaching;teachers become more thoughtful practitioners.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the Danielson Framework does allow teachers to see areas of improvement, but it is sometimes hard to be evaluated all the time.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that Danielson tries to be more progressive, but isn't quite totally there. The struggle is that it does't paint a picture of the effectiveness of the teacher.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe you have to be creative with the way your build your lessons to incorporate the progressive approach.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the Danielson Framework and Educator Effectiveness are both progressive thinking, but want students to understand the content as well as if teaching were solely traditional. Through blended learning, a happy medium can be reached. That being said, I still struggle with and have frustrations with the system.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Danielson meant for it to be progressive but it became more traditionalist as people began to interpret it for their own use.

# data[].attributes.body
We are always "ranking" students and people...it's just the American way!  This leads to more Traditional, but it missed the "application" and real life skills.  So, we need both...balance. Oops...didn't actually read the subtitle...my response had nothing to do with Danielson.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the Danielson Framework has both elements: Progressive and traditional but now it's being used just to evaluate teachers.

# data[].attributes.body
We are evaluated in a traditional format with a rubric and specific criteria but with a progressive "choice" element of what we showcase--and told "no one lives in the land of 4" yet so much is on the line to gain a 4

# data[].attributes.body
Gives the illusion of choice!

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think the Danielson is progressive. It doesn't allow flexibility within the curriculum.

# data[].attributes.body
EE is a traditional method to evaluate the teachers' methods however progressive

# data[].attributes.headline
I think the pendulum swings both to progressive and traditionalists.  Danielson was never designed as an evaluative tool but it is being used as an evaluative number assigning your work to a simple number

# data[].attributes.subject
I think the pendulum swings both to progressive and traditionalists.  Danielson was never designed as an evaluative tool but it is being used as an evaluative number assigning your work to a simple number

# data[].attributes.body
Danielson seems like it's more traditional. The standards are all set for the evaluator. There is very little choice.

# data[].attributes.headline
I think the framework looks for both traditional and progressive elements.

# data[].attributes.subject
I think the framework looks for both traditional and progressive elements.

# data[].attributes.body
I think

# data[].attributes.body
I don't believe that Danielson is a progressive movement at all. We are starting to teach to the test!!!! Making sure we cover each criterion to get that 4.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel that initially Danielson rubric was to be used as a tool to help to create best practice in classrooms, but is now being used as and a tool to evaluate. Danielson does not like how her rubric is now being used in a traditional way.