Supervision & Evaluation: Current Trends

Current and Future Trends

Distributed leadership is the most current phrase to enter the realm of supervision in education (Mangin & Stoelinga, 2008).  Distributed leadership borrows heavily from both Goldhammer and Cogan’s perspective (as cited in Nolan & Hoover, 2008) regarding the separation of the evaluator versus the supervisor and suggests that one person that plays both roles effectively is extraordinary (Taylor, 2008).  The remedy proposed is to distribute the role of supervisor to those identified as instructional coaches.  The goal of the instructional coach is to positively impact a teacher’s proficiency level in the use of research-based practices that will in turn increase student achievement (Knight, 2007).

The instructional coach as the recipient of distributed leadership specifically coordinated to the role of the supervisor is to align the support that they provide to teachers in a similar manner to that of the model propose by Hunter (as cited in Glatthorn et al., 2009).  The objective of the instructional coach is to provide instructional support aligned with research-based practices to teachers to increase the teachers’ proficiency level with curriculum and instruction (Knight, 2007).  While the primary focus of supervision as outlined in a coaching model was on increasing a teacher’s skill level in using best practices (Knight, 2007; Joyce & Showers, 2002), future trends dictate the need for measuring the effects of instructional coaching as they relate directly to student achievement (Richardson, 2008).

Reference

Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., & Whitehead, B. M. (2009). Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Mangin, M. M., & Stoelinga, S. R. (2008). Effective Teacher Leadership: Using research to inform and reform. New York, NY: Teacher’s College, Columbia University.

Nolan, J. H., & Hoover, L. A. (2008). Teacher supervision & evaluation: Theory into practice (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Richardson, J. (2008). Student achievement scores prove professional learning’s merit. Journal of Staff Development, 29(1), 69-71.

Taylor, J. E. (2008). Instructional coaching: The state of the art. In M. M. Mangin, & S. R. Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective Teacher Leadership: Using research to inform and reform (pp. 10-35). New York, NY: Teacher’s College Columbia University.

Supervision & Evaluation: Emergent Themes

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 19^th 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 20^th 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.

The confusion within the emergent themes of supervision occurred when Hunter (as cited in Glatthorn et al., 2009) challenged the dichotomies that were in place.  Rather than a supervisor having to adhere to one or the other organization of themes, Hunter provided for a role that was bureaucratic and democratic, inspective and participatory, supportive with room for evaluation pending a teacher’s effective use of support (Mandeville & Rivers, 1989).  Hunter laid the foundation for future trends in supervision that revolve around distributed leadership including: peer coaching, literacy coaching, cognitive coaching, and instructional coaching.

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.