Emergent Themes from Past to Present:
The historical foundations of the supervision of curriculum and instruction identified through seminal texts throughout the history of American Education provide for the emergence of six themes: Bureaucratic, Democratic, Inspection, Participation, Evaluation, and Support (Glanz & Behhar-Horenstein, 2000). These themes have historically been diagramed as dichotomies. The earliest introduction of supervision dating back to the late 19th century was introduced as bureaucratic. The role of supervision was easily confused with the role of evaluation and an autocratic administrator was responsible for the identification and reformation of those teachers that were either proficient or inefficient (Nolan & Hoover, 2008). A bureaucratic approach to supervision was easily paired with the theme of the inspector that was ultimately evaluative. The primary goal was to increase student achievement by removing or reforming the weakest teachers with a heavy emphasis on removal (Nolan & Hoover, 2008).
The historical foundations of the supervision of curriculum and instruction identified through seminal texts throughout the history of American Education provide for the emergence of six themes: Bureaucratic, Democratic, Inspection, Participation, Evaluation, and Support (Glanz & Behhar-Horenstein, 2000). These themes have historically been diagramed as dichotomies. The earliest introduction of supervision dating back to the late 19th century was introduced as bureaucratic. The role of supervision was easily confused with the role of evaluation and an autocratic administrator was responsible for the identification and reformation of those teachers that were either proficient or inefficient (Nolan & Hoover, 2008). A bureaucratic approach to supervision was easily paired with the theme of the inspector that was ultimately evaluative. The primary goal was to increase student achievement by removing or reforming the weakest teachers with a heavy emphasis on removal (Nolan & Hoover, 2008).
The alternate dichotomy
that emerged in the mid 20th century was one that introduced
supervision as democratic, participatory, and supportive (Glanz & Behhar-Horenstein,
2000). The role of the supervisor
was to be removed from that of the evaluator and the primary objective was to
have the supervisor and teacher work in a coordinated fashion that was
collegial, cooperative, and focused on the improvement of curriculum and
instruction (Glanz &
Behhar-Horenstein, 2000). The
presumption was that teachers who were not performing at an appropriate
proficiency level would be more open to becoming more proficient if they felt
less threatened by punitive measures.
References
Glanz, J., & Behhar-Horenstein, L. (Eds.).
(2000). Supervision: Don’t discount the value of the modern. Paradigm debates in curriculum and
supervision: Modern and Postmodern perspectives (pp. 70-92). Westport, CT:
Greenwood Publishing.
Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., & Whitehead,
B. M. (2009). Curriculum leadership:
Strategies for development and implementation (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Mandeville, G. K., & Rivers, J. (1989, May).
Is the Hunter model a recipe for supervision? . Educational Leadership, 46(8),
39-43.
Nolan, J. H., & Hoover, L. A. (2008). Teacher supervision & evaluation: Theory
into practice (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
No comments:
Post a Comment