In the 1980s, buoyed by research showing that effective teachers displayed some common characteristics, school administrators across the United States went into classrooms to see how their teachers measured up.
Now, some experts believe, confidence in such efforts has ebbed, and the field is re-examining the issue of how best to foster good instruction. The pattern of the 1980s—when principals were encouraged to be "instructional leaders" and teacher evaluation and staff development programs were built on "effective teaching" research—is being challenged. So is the appropriateness of principals' serving dual roles, supervising teachers in the administrative sense (evaluating their performance, for example) while also trying to help them improve their instruction. As a result, experts say, traditional forms of supervision are being questioned; newer avenues to teacher growth are more peer-oriented and less likely to fit comfortably under the mantle of supervision.
Symbolic of the field's turmoil is that the aspect of supervision most recognizable to teachers—having a lesson observed by a principal, followed by a brief conference—is under increasing attack. In such situations, "you have an outside person coming in and saying: `Here, you should be doing these things better,'" notes Jim Nolan, an associate professor at Pennsylvania State University. As a result, Nolan and others say, teachers sometimes "put on a show" or dust off a tried-and-true lesson that will satisfy administrative requirements. In such cases, supervisory consultations are seen as disconnected from "real" teaching—and unlikely to promote teacher growth. "Is the time well-spent or is it a ritual?" Noreen Garman, professor of education at the University of Pittsburgh, asks about such practices. "I would argue that, too often, it's a ritual."
`Effective' Teaching
Although experts have long contended that brief, episodic supervisory encounters do little to promote teacher growth, a number of developments over the past decade have increased the uneasiness with common supervisory practices. For example:
- In its heyday during the 1970s and '80s, research on effective teaching practices became the centerpiece of staff development programs and teacher evaluation in many states and districts. Teachers were "inserviced" in Madeline Hunter's Essential Elements and then evaluated on their ability to exhibit common characteristics of effective teaching. Many educators assumed "that there is such a thing as a generic teacher, or generic teaching skills, and that a supervisor could go in and observe these skills," notes Garman. But more recent research on instruction casts some doubt on generic models of teacher effectiveness. Stanford University's Lee Shulman, for example, has coined the term "pedagogical content knowledge" to describe how skill in pedagogy and mastery of a subject are intertwined. Teachers may need help learning how to teach specific content more effectively, Shulman has argued. As a result, questions are being raised about the extent to which a "generalist" administrator can help teachers improve their teaching of specific subjects.
- The move toward teacher empowerment and greater staff involvement in governance appears to conflict with hierarchical supervisory models in which the "expert" administrator shares knowledge with, and judges the performance of, teachers. After being told they should be "instructional leaders," school principals have been left pondering what role they should play with an "empowered" staff. Carl Glickman, director of the Program for School Improvement at the University of Georgia, notes that some faculties are taking more responsibility in making decisions and conducting "action research." When they do this, he writes in the 1992 ASCD Yearbook, Supervision in Transition, the term supervisor or supervision "has little meaning to staff members. Instead, they think of enhancing education through shared leadership and collegiality; through their own plans for staff development and curriculum development; and through their own goal setting, actions, and research. A supervisor with hierarchical control of these activities—whether a principal or a central office member—is antithetical to them."
- Supervisors at the district level find themselves increasingly vulnerable to budget cuts and the assignment of other duties, says Gerald Firth, professor of educational leadership at the University of Georgia and a past president of ASCD. As a result, building principals have taken on more responsibility for instructional supervision, replacing district staff whose primary goal was the improvement of instruction.
In addition to these newer developments, experts say, basic disagreements about what constitutes supervision linger. Garman and others have long contended that the "educative" dimension of supervision (improvement of instruction) needs to be kept separate from the "evaluative" dimension (evaluation of teachers for accountability). Some, like Firth, say that supervision is best carried out by district supervisors whose chief goal is improving instruction, not managing teachers. In practice, however, many building administrators end up being both evaluators and coaches. But they must walk a fine line to avoid appearing to be "a barking dog whose tail is wagging," notes Robert Garmston of the Institute for Intelligent Behavior.
Helpful Eyes
Although experts disagree on the nature and extent of changes needed in supervision, most cite at least two trends.
One is a move toward transforming the routine of classroom observation and follow-up. Sessions where administrators or peers help teachers reflect on their instruction are replacing brief drop-in visits by "experts bearing answers." Despite some of the deficiencies of classroom observations in the past, experts say that most teachers can benefit from being observed and then discussing in some depth their actions and how they fit into larger issues of instruction. Regardless of who is doing the observing, "we need to get caring educators in to watch the performance of other caring educators and to help them see what's going on" in the classroom, says Lee Goldsberry, associate professor of education at the University of Southern Maine.
Garmston favors a method known as "cognitive coaching," in which the coach serves as a mediator to help teachers refine their decision making in the classroom. The format includes several cycles of pre-conferences, observations, and post-conferences. By asking non-evaluative, open-ended, probing questions, the mediator elicits what teachers were thinking as they made instructional choices. As teachers talk about their decisions, Garmston says, their rationales and theories become more explicit, and they are better able to refine their actions.
Cognitive coaching—like other strategies that support reflective teaching—requires some adjustment from teachers used to very direct suggestions and advice. Christina Linder, a teacher at Marina Valley Middle School near Sacramento, Calif., who participated in a cognitive coaching arrangement with Garmston, said she initially thought the coach would provide answers. "I hoped he was going to come into my classroom and make me a better teacher," she says. "I wanted answers—I didn't think I had it in me to figure it out." Only gradually did she realize that, in response to Garmston's probing questions, some answers were emerging from within. Linder says that, as a result of her experience, she's much more aware now of how she questions her students, she's more concerned with sequence and focus in her lessons, and she's more aware of areas she needs to continue to work on.
More Options
The second trend is a move toward giving teachers options—letting them choose among peer coaching arrangements, self-directed professional development, or more traditional supervision by a principal. The ASCD book, Differentiated Supervision, by Allan Glatthorn, advocated more flexible supervision models as early as 1984. Options are important because the needs of a novice teacher may be very different from the needs of a veteran skilled in effective teaching strategies.
The Central Dauphin School District in Harrisburg, Pa., has successfully used a differentiated supervision model for several years, says Gary Wendt, the district's administrative assistant for personnel evaluation. Teachers choose among Colleague Consultation, Administrative Consultation, and Self-Directed Development. (Novice teachers and others needing special help participate in a program called Focused Assistance.) "There's no reason why 95 percent of the [teachers] must go through the same regimen that needy teachers go through," points out Bill Beaver, principal of the district's Mountain View Elementary School.
Each of the options has its adherents, says Wendt. Colleague Consultation allows teachers to see how other teachers approach instructional issues or decisions about curriculum. Administrative Consultation is a more traditional clinical supervision model. Self-Directed Development appeals to teachers interested in exploring topics such as cooperative learning and brain research in some depth. Teachers often move from one type of supervision to another in different years, says Wendt, and the district encourages this practice.
One benefit of differentiated supervision is that, because teachers themselves conduct some of the classroom observations, principals don't have to observe every teacher, says Wendt. In addition, he says, some of the teachers in Self-Directed Development have drawn upon what they learned to play leadership roles in district staff development.
Beaver says the differentiated staffing model took years of effort to set up and will require regular modification. But he says the costs are worth it. "Just as all teachers have different teaching styles, their learning styles are different," he says, explaining the need for flexibility. Through the program, "teachers have the options—they are in far greater control of their professional development than they ever were before."
ASCD Resources
ASCD Resources
ASCD has numerous resources on various aspects of supervision. Among them:
ASCD's 1992 Yearbook, Supervision in Transition. Edited by Carl Glickman, this Yearbook examines shifting views on supervision, with examples drawn from school districts exploring new practices. The Yearbook (stock no. 610-92000) costs $19.95 (add $2.50 handling fee unless prepaid). Contact ASCD Order Processing, 1250 N. Pitt St., Alexandria, VA 22314; Tel.: (703) 549-9110; Fax: (703) 549-3891.
ASCD's scholarly journal, the Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, regularly features articles exploring how supervisory practices are changing. Subscriptions to the quarterly are $25 for ASCD members and $35 for nonmembers. Write the Journal of Curriculum and Supervision at ASCD's address (above).
ASCD also sponsors an Instructional Supervision Network. Benefits include a newsletter and sessions at ASCD's Annual Conference. For information, contact: J. McClain Smith, Hilliard City Schools, 5323 Cemetery Rd., Hilliard, OH 43026; Tel.: (614) 771-4273; Fax (614) 777-2424.