This mixed methods study examines one teacher preparation program's use of Danielson's 2007 "Framework for Professional Practice," with an emphasis on how different stakeholders in the traditional student teaching triad rated student teachers, called residents, and justified their ratings. Data sources include biannual self-assessments of each resident as well as assessments by the residents' cooperating teachers and university supervisors based on the Framework, including both a numerical score for each of the 22 indicators and a written justification for the highest and lowest scores in each of the four domains. Findings show significant differences in terms of how stakeholders are rating residents' teaching practice. The variation in scores and rationales raises questions about the reliability and validity of the results of the Framework for use as a tool to evaluate student teachers. Implications for practice include the need to consider multiple and potentially conflicting roles, such as that of providing feedback while also evaluating student teachers. In addition, we consider the costs and benefits of more extensive training around the Framework within teacher preparation, if a lack of expertise with the rubric was the cause for the variation. Finally, we consider implications for student teachers around the different messages they may be receiving about what it means to learn to teach.