Instructional Supervision

Staff development programs involving in–service training are essential in each school, province or region where this Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm will be used. Since teaching skills are mastered only through practice, teachers need not only and explanation of methods, but also opportunities to practice them. Over time staff development programs can equip teachers with an array of pedagogical methods appropriate of Ignatian pedagogy from which they can use those more appropriate for the needs of students whom they serve. Staff development programs at the province or local school level, therefore, are an essential, integral part of the Ignatian Pedagogy Project.

(Ignatian Pedagogy, A Practical Approach, 91)

To show “what I have learned” during this course I will structure this reflection in three parts.

First of all, I will try to establish three foundations of instructional supervision. These are “foundations” because they, as I see it, have to permeate the whole process of supervision and evaluation. Secondly, I will focus my reflection on the clinical supervision. According to “what I have learned”, a good understanding of the entire process of clinical supervision becomes the clue to change the common vision of supervision and evaluation. Ultimately, I will comment, as a conclusion, the relationship between supervision and professional development. I will show that supervision must be included in a wider professional development program.

During the semester I had the chance to speak with some teachers about supervision. I will include the main insights gotten from these conversations along this essay. Besides, I will include some ideas collected from the bibliography suggested during the course, part of “what I learned”, and some additional readings I did.

  1. Foundations of Instructional Supervision

I really believe that the first foundation of Instructional Supervision have to be the active participation of teachers in the process of supervision. To help others growth and thus fulfill the school’s mission, one must be actively involved in one’s own growth. The big mistake made by many schools and principals is to implement a supervision process without consulting the main actors of the play, the teachers. As Sergiovanni and Starrat say,

Much of the discomfort concerning evaluation can be eliminated if it is treated as a community exercise in self–governance, as a way for the school community to maintain and strengthen its identity as a entity committed to learning, rather than as a mechanism of bureaucratic control exercised over subordinates.[1]

Many times supervision is considered only control over teachers by principals or academic deans. In order to succeed, this vision must be changed. The more teachers are involved in the process of supervision, the more any kind of school reform or improvement will take place.

In my conversations with teachers, I could realize that they really want to improve their teaching–skills and be better teachers. However, they think that they must have a voice in the Instructional Supervision process. Most of the times, they think, evaluators do not have the enough educational and pedagogical background to perform evaluations or supervisions.

The second foundation that I considered crucial for Instructional Supervision is the starting point of the process. In fact, most of the times administrators focus on the weaknesses instead of the strengths of teachers. I think that Instructional Supervision must pay attention, first of all, to the gifts of teachers. The main objective of Instructional Supervision is to empower the job of teachers. Sergiovanni and Starrat remark this issue saying that supervisor’s job is to help the teacher to select goals to be improved and teaching issues to be illuminated, and to understand better his or her practice.[2]

According to this approach, teachers’ weaknesses are considered only one issue to be addressed but not the only one. Instructional Supervision will succeed if teachers feel that their strengths are also valued and taken into account in the entire process.

Teachers I spoke with desire a more positive approach to the evaluation process. They think that if evaluators or supervisors paid more attention to their strengths, the whole process would be completely different. As adults, they would react more cooperatively if they were encouraged to develop their strengths.

The last foundation that must be taken into account is the fact that adult learning succeeds in a context of community. Teachers can improve their skills if they are motivated to work collaboratively. Peer coaching, mentorship, etc. are examples of what can be done as a part of Instructional Supervision. As Charlotte Danielson and Thomas L. McGreal conclude,

The power of the new evaluation systems lies in their ability to focus attention on the importance of teaching and learning for students and teachers; to provide the means and the incentive for quality assurance, based on legitimate teaching standards; and to serve as the catalyst for encouraging and supporting professional learning through focused, collaborative activities.[3]

Instructional Supervision must encourage working, supervising and evaluating in teams. Sharing of responsibility, in the work situation and in the evaluation process, leads to more imaginative and creative involvement on the part of each faculty member. In this sense, teachers would like to be treated more like adults. They say that administrators should trust more in them, especially in supervision issues. However, it seems to me that most of the times working in teams becomes very difficult among teachers. In many schools, especially in Chile, there are some internal problems that avoid working collaboratively.

  1. Clinical Supervision

Clinical Supervision becomes one of the most important parts of the entire Instructional Supervision process. It is so because Clinical Supervision does not mean “observation”, the word that incommodes many teachers and administrators. Danielson and McGreal remark that,

Classroom observation is a critical evaluation methodology for those aspects of teaching that may be directly observed. Some important aspects of instruction, however —even those involving a teacher’s work with students, such as providing feedback to students— are not necessarily easily observed in a classroom episode.[4]

Even though “the culture of supervision and evaluation” is changing, many teachers and administrators consider that observation and supervision are the same. That was my experience in the conversations I had. However, I think that must be stressed that observation is one step within the whole process and it does not mean evaluation. It is a source of data for use in collecting evidence and for use as a focus for professional discussion and reflection on teaching and learning[5].

By Clinical Supervision I mean the practice of helping teachers to modify existing patterns of teaching in ways that make sense to them. It refers, according to Sergiovanni and Starrat, to a face–to–face contact with teachers with the intent of improving instruction and increasing professional growth.[6] It is the teacher who decides the course of a clinical supervisory cycle, the issues to be discussed, and for what purpose. Teachers really think that if they were encouraged to do so, they would improve more effectively their teaching–skills.

The supervisor’s job, consequently, is to help the teacher select goals to be improved and teaching issues to be illuminated, and to understand better his or her practice. One of my classmates who is a principal told me once that this is “a very optimistic approach and the real world is different at all”. Most of the times, teachers see supervisors as people who go to their classrooms to detect their mistakes. I think that the Clinical Supervision process must start with a change of perspective in this issue. Supervisors must be seen as collaborators, consultants or advisors. Consequently, they also must be “re–educated”. They have a great responsibility in the new approach to the Clinical Supervision.

What is object of supervision? Teachers I spoke with emphasized, first of all, that what must be supervised are their teaching skills. They really believe that they do not have enough time to reflect on their performance and a supervisor could help them to teach better. It is interesting that they did not mention the students in their insights. They only focus their attention on their performance.

However, I think that besides the teacher’s performance, it is also object of supervision the student’s performance. Supervision is not only teacher–centered but also student–centered. After I observed a class I realized that I had paid attention only to the teacher and not to the students. This is a common tendency among supervisors and it must be changed. The second time I observed a class I paid much more attention to the students and I realized that it was more effective in order to help teachers to improve their teaching.

  1. Professional Development

As I said in the introduction, I firmly believe that the Instructional Supervision process must be included in a wider professional development program. First of all, teachers need to be recognized as professionals. Historically, teachers have suffered a loss of esteem in the eyes of society which often results in a loss of esteem in their own eyes. Clinical Supervision will not succeed if teachers do not feel administrators and the whole community value them enough.

My experience working in Chile has showed me that teachers do not value themselves and that they are considered second–class professionals. Therefore, strategically, Instructional Supervision must be labeled as Professional Development and Clinical Supervision (especially observations) has to be seen as one particular means to improve teaching. Surprisingly, my conversations with American teachers revealed me that in the United States teachers share same condition.

On the other hand, Clinical Supervision gives the opportunity to teachers and administrators to recognize strengths and weaknesses. In this sense, Clinical Supervision allows teachers to identify their own needs and, therefore, to prepare a Personal Professional Development plan. Many of the Professional Development plans in Chile, especially among Jesuit schools, have not succeeded because they have been homogeneous, establishing the same path for all teachers. Teachers I talked with in Boston also think that Professional Development plans should be more personalized, emphasizing the individual strengths and weaknesses. As Starrat points out,

Empowerment has to be individualized. Although all teachers may be invited to develop new skills, such as using computers in classrooms instruction or developing debate formats within classrooms, each teacher should be expected to bring his or her own creative insight to the exercise of those generic skills.[7]

More fundamental, however, than particular skills, Clinical Supervision in a context of Professional Development must encourage and support the vocation of teaching. After my conversations with teachers I came to the conclusion that this is the most important goal of any kind or supervision or evaluation. Teachers need motivation to do their job. They need to be considered as professionals and with an important social role. As a result, if teachers are happy with their vocation, they will be able to perform better and they will desire to acquire more specific skills.

Sergiovanni and Starrat[8] remark that when first thinking about professionalism, attention is drawn to issues of competence. But expertise is not enough to earn one of the mantle of professionalism. Being a professional has to do with something else besides being competent: the professional virtue, they call it. Four dimensions are involved in this professional virtue: a commitment to practice in an exemplary way; a commitment to practice toward valued social ends; a commitment not only to one’s own practice but to the practice itself; and a commitment to the ethic of caring. This is what must be encouraged and supported first of all. This is, as I see it, the future of Professional Development and Clinical Supervision.

-1-

[1] Thomas J. Sergiovanni and Robert J. Starrat. Supervision: A Redefinition. (Sixth Edition) McGraw Hill: Boston, 1998. P.297.

[2]Idem. P.232

[3] Charlotte Danielson and Thomas L. McGreal. Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice. ASCD: Alexandria, VA 2000. P.20

[4]Idem. P.47.

[5] Cf. Idem. P.84.

[6]Thomas J. Sergiovanni and Robert J. Starrat. Op. Cit. P.232

[7] Robert J. Starrat. Leaders with Vision: The Quest for School Renewal. Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995. P.42.

[8] Cf. Thomas J. Sergiovanni and Robert J. Starrat. Op. Cit. P.75.