Title: Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Teacher Supervision:
1Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Teacher
Supervision
- What the Research Indicates
- What Principals Can DoAbout It
- Dr. Ronald M. Wilder
- EARCOS Administrators Conference 2007
2A few thoughts before we begin
- Background and limitations of this research
- Know that we dont know
- Dialogue and participation
- Focus on improvement
- The workshop handbook
- Our schedule
3Challenges of Purpose
- Why do we assess teachers?
4Review of the literature on purposes of evaluation
- There are two main purposes to evaluation
quality control and improvement of practice - The history of teacher evaluation and current
policy makers have demonstrated a tendency
towards quality control - Recent trends in teacher evaluation methods have
emphasized the improvement of practice
5Popham (1988) asserts an insurmountable conflict
between the two evaluation purposes and between
summative and formative evaluation
6Most still see the dual purpose accountability
and improvement of practice as inseparable
(Danielson, 2001 Holland and Garman, 2001
Naugle et al., 2000)
7There is no direct link between teacher
evaluation and student achievement. Nor is there
any specific research demonstrating that one kind
of assessment process has more of an impact on
student learning than another. The connections
are indirect and correlational.
8The research has demonstrated that the
implications of teacher evaluations done poorly,
inconsistently, or by untrained and unqualified
evaluators can have devastating repercussions for
teachers, administrators, and community culture
and morale.
9A growing body of research shows that the
quality of the teacher in the classroom is the
most important schooling factor predicting
student outcomes. (Goldhaber Anthony, 2004,
p. 4)
10the most important factor affecting student
learning is the teachermore can be done to
improve education by improving the effectiveness
of teachers than by any single factor.(Wright,
Horn, and Sanders, 1997, in Marzano)
11leadership is second only to classroom
instruction among all-school-related factors that
contribute to what students learn at
school.Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and
Wahlstrom (2004) in Klump and Barton (2007)
12Challenges in Training
- Are we qualified to assess teacher performance?
13Areas of study for highest degree held
14University training in assessment
- Training in evaluation is not a significant part
of administrator training programs (Jordan,
Phillips, and Brown, 2004) - Jordan (2004) and Protheroe (2002)most
university administrative training programs are
inadequate in training administration in what
good teaching looks like, instructional
strategies that are effective, and pedagogy
15- University training in administration has been
widely criticized (Levine Tirozzi) as inadequate
to the demands of the jobadditional
responsibilities of instructional leadership as
well as management are time consuming and
physically overwhelming - Unless university administrative programs are
deliberate in their administrative preparation
program, formal training in evaluation in a
degree program is unlikely
16Principal training in clock hours over past three
years
17Other Training
- Training outside official programs is critical
but most report that it does not occur 20
reported having no training at all in the past
three years - Administrators who have been away from
administrative training programs more than 8
years are not likely to have current practice in
specific aspects of assessment training, or most
current understanding of pedagogy and best
instructional practices
18 It is incumbent upon principals to insist upon
adequate and ongoing professional development in
curriculum and instruction alongside preparation
in their own schools evaluation system. Without
professional development in specific evaluation
models and in the analysis of specific data
sources, principal feedback to teachers will lack
depth and credibility.
19Glanz (2000) argues that supervisors will need
specialized knowledge and skills to meet
organizational challenges in the twenty-first
century. Acheson and Smith (1986) contend
that supervision should be done by a supervisor
who is knowledgeable, specially trained,
trustworthy, and experienced. Teachers wanted
their supervisors to have knowledge about
effective teaching, have training in supervisory
techniques, establish a trusting relationship
with them, hold a post-observation conference to
provide feedback as soon as possibleand provide
for reflective discussion (Dollansky, 1998)
20Apart from the principal, others involved in the
teacher evaluation process
21Multiple Assessors
- Even involving other evaluators does not end the
problem of training unless it is made systemic - Each evaluation source requires
understandingunderstanding requires training.
This is the case for every person involved in the
evaluation process - Glatthorn (1997) asserted that teachers who
have not been trained to observe do not make
reliable data sources, teachers in conference
with each other tend to give excessive praise,
and many teachers find the experience
threatening (p. 59).
22Estimate of time, in , of school year as
principal spent on evaluation of teaching using
current school model
23Time for Assessment
- An evaluation policy recommended by Frase and
Streshly (1994) suggested that 40-50 of a
principals time on the job should be devoted to
staff evaluation. However, only 3 of the
principals reported spending more than 30 of
their time evaluating teachers, and none
indicated spending more than 40...58 reported
spending no more than 10 of their administrative
time on the evaluation of teachers for formative
and summative purposes.
24Challenges in Application
- What barriers or obstacles are there to effective
evaluation?
25Current State of Evaluation in EARCOS Schools
(2006)
- 83 of principals spent less than 20 of time on
evaluation - 13 of schools have no standards or no evaluation
process - Evaluation is done primarily by administration
- In some cases, a system may exist but is not
being followed - Despite philosophical leanings elsewhere, there
is a heavy reliance on clinical supervision - Specific training in supervision is lacking
- 31 of administrators do not have certification
or licensure
26Considerations in Effectively Assessing Teacher
Practices
- Constructivist theory
- Holistic education
- Cooperative learning
- Brain research
- Differentiated instruction
- Backwards planning (Understanding by Design)
- Student learning outcomes
27Challenges of Perception
- How do we see ourselves as evaluators?
28Perception of Competence
- Self-perception of principals regarding
qualifications is quite high - Almost ¾ of principals believe that teachers
perceive principals as competent and qualified - Principals perceive themselves as qualified and
that teachers perceive them this way as well - There is a strong philosophical leaning toward
formative and away from summative evaluation
processes by principals
29Perception of Competence
- Principals in this study rated evaluation for
accountability purposes low, yet the primary
means of evaluation continued to reflect an
approach that emphasized summative evaluation
over formative evaluation, a process that has
traditionally been a means of evaluating for
accountability.
30Perception of Competence
- Principals in this study believed that their own
knowledge and understanding were sufficient for
them to be conducting holistic,
constructivist-based, learner-centered,
effective, and credible teacher evaluations.
31Challenges of Reality
- What are our limitations as assessors and
evaluators of teacher performance?
32Reality of Limitations
- Data suggested that principals may have lacked
knowledge grounded in differentiated supervision,
a training background in the methods and data
sources involved in a differentiated model, and a
school evaluation model consistent with their own
evaluation philosophy.
33Reality of Limitations
- Also of note is the number of principals who
received no in-service training in their schools
method. This is a particularly salient issue when
one observes that 78 of schools reported using
in-house developed standards. - The data suggest a lack of training on the part
of principals that is likely to confirm the
suspicions by teachers and some researchers that
most principals are not as qualified or competent
to evaluate teachers as they believe they are.
34Reality of Limitations
- with 12 hours as a minimum training standard
(Glatthorn Danielson and McGreal Stronge and
Tucker) fewer than half the principals meet this
standard - previous research is skeptical about the degree
to which principals are qualified to give fair
and effective evaluations - unfamiliarity with differentiated evaluation
models calls into question its application
35Reality of Limitations
- 1/3 of principals received no more than OJT for
the method used at their school - 78 had in-house models but only 5 reported
receiving in-house training
36From expert to lead learner know what you
dont know
- We believe that students should become critical
thinkers and curious problem solvers, but if
teachers and principals present themselves as
expertspriding themselves on knowing, not
learninghow can we expect students to learn how
to learn and become resourceful leaders? - Kohm and Nance (2007)
37Challenges of Relationship
- How do we construct an effective teacher
assessment program?
38Effective evaluation is first and foremost about
relationship. (Bolman and Deal, 1997
Sergiovanni, 1992)
39Schools and school districts can get tough about
student learning, can use their minds to identify
new and better ideas, and can establish
mechanisms of development. But successful
strategies always involve relationships,
relationships, relationships, relationships.Ful
lan (2001) in Kohm and Nance (2007)
40although the rhetoric of supervision espouses
collaboration and colleagueship as essential to
supervision, teacher isolation remains the result
of life in most schools. Holland and Garman
(2001)
41Teachers and principals who are willing to
dialogue openly and honestly about their own
strengths and weaknesses may participate in
meaningful evaluation.
42A Shift in ThinkingAligning Philosophy of
Teacher and Student Assessment
- Assessment for and assessment of
- Backwards Design to Assessment
- Standards, Assessment, Strategies
- Differentiation
- Self-assessment
- Peer review
- Feedback, feedback, feedback
- Formative processes are descriptive,
non-evaluative - Summative processes are evaluative against the
standardsthey measure performance and
achievement (for teacher assessment, that means
student outcomes)
43Conclusions
- Schools (administration and teachers) must be
clear on their purposes in teacher assessment - Assessment processes should be developed in
concert with teachers - Administrators are lead learners in the process,
not expertswe simply do not know all that we
need to know - Evaluators (principals and others) must insist on
adequate training in their schools assessment
system - Schools must move from strictly summative, single
data source processes to formative,
differentiated, multiple data source processes - Schools may want to consider involving colleagues
in most of the formative processes and assigning
summative responsibilities to the principals - Administrators must be deliberate in scheduling
time into their daily schedule for teacher
supervision duties (drop-ins, walk-throughs,
informal conversations, providing feedback) - Remember that teachers are, first and foremost,
colleagues rather than subordinatesinvesting
time in building collegial relationships is
probably the most effective way of meeting the
purposes of assessment
44Discussion