Week 3: Supervision Vs Evaluation
First of all, let me start with a confession..
As a Kuwaiti, the word “supervision” used to scare me a lot. Whenever I heard this word, the only image that crossed my mind was that of an inspector whose job is searching for mistakes. When I was teaching at a public kindergarten back home in Kuwait, supervision, which is used as a synonym to evaluation, was always threatening and overwhelming. All I remember is that the notes I received as a teacher were meaningless because I couldn’t find such connections with the provided suggestions and recommendations. Indeed, the impact these supervision/evaluation processes had on me is the feeling of dehumanization. One might say that this is an exaggerated description. Well, you tell me, how does it feel when you find yourself deprived of your power, voice, and ownership? As other teachers did and I believe they still do, I came to find out what the supervisors/evaluators wanted to see and I just endued it to them. It was like what Nolan and Hoover (2011) mention, “hit me with your best shot”. Do I feel good about it? No! But it is part of who and where I am today. This is my confession and this is what made me feel hungry to study supervision in depth to unfold its hidden truths and myths.
Now let’s highlight the big wrestling moments I lived while engaged with this week’s readings. The efforts of Nolan and Hoover (2011) in clarifying some confusing terms and roles are highly recognized and appreciated. It is very important to always start with defining terms to make sure that readers and/or listeners are always with us on the same page in regards to what we mean by particular terms. Nothing could be more helpful than reading the story of supervision and evaluation throughout history and be able to view how this story connects to what we experience today. I finally found someone who could clearly state the thoughts I hold and who could simply tell me that what I’ve been through is completely normal. I totally agree that supervision and evaluation are different terms and that they complement each other. At the same time, I believe that holding both functions would cause a dilemma not only for teachers, but also for the person in charge of both.
Supervision is no longer threatening; indeed, it is desirable and needed. According Nolan and Hoover (2011), It’s an approach that aims to promote teachers professional growth and to enhance students’ learning. It’s the process of shared power and expertise between the supervisor and the teacher. Supervision is simply a lens that views teachers “as part of the solution rather than as the problem” (p. 3). Speaking of problem, let’s move to evaluation and its definition in the book. According to our authors, evaluation, is basically a judgment for teachers’ competence and performance and it’s a way of “forcing” teachers to improve their performance. To me, it’s actually a way to force them resist change. This is similar to asking teachers to use the evaluator’s eyes and forget about their own when viewing the classroom teaching and learning. Also, it’s a way of making carbon copies of one teacher instead of appreciating and valuing each individual’s differences and uniqueness.
So do I mean that we do not need evaluation? Of course not because we need to assure that every student has qualified and competent teachers. According to Tschannen-Moran and Tschannen-Moran (2011), “each function has a valuable place in schools, and schools would do well to learn how to do both better” (p. 10). I agree with this statement and at the same time I stress the idea of making a clear distinction between the two functions. Indeed, I simply give my vote to those who call for separating supervision and evaluation because I believe that both functions cannot be carried out “effectively” by the same person.
Reading the two chapters by Glanz and Neville (1997) was so interesting. They provided a great lens to view multiple perspectives around different aspects of both evaluation and supervision. First of all, this shows the confution between terms which existed at that time. I was shocked to read that James Nolan believed that a supervisor cannot be a coach. However, after reading his rational, all my surprises were gone. It’s again the ambiguity of terms we think that they have an agreed or maybe unified definition. Based on his definitions, I agree that an "evaluator" cannot be a coach. Power and force can never be aspects of coaching which implies shared power and expertise between the coach and the teacher and which doesn't have a place for "force". Also, the other question posted in chapter 7, Is a collegial relationship possible between supervisors and teachers, got me think deeply about both presented perspectives. Since supervision here includes evaluaiton, my anser to the question is no. When it comes to evaluation, it's the hierarchy that controls relationships. Collegiality to me, doesn't have that boarder and it cannot be attached to any type of "judgement" because if these two things exists, then I believe that collegiality is either "shallow" and "weak" or it even could be "pretended". I know that this might sound a bit sharp, however, I truly wish to encounter more real life examples as I countinue this learning journey.
In terms of practice, I found the chapter that is co-authored by Burns and Badiali (in press) very relative as it provides a great existing example of supervision/evaluation (hybrid supervision) within PDS context. The idea of “professional learning community” for the supervisors caught my attention. I started thinking of initiating something similar within our program, or at least with my Early Childhood colleagues enrolled with me in Supervised Teaching II. What is common between the three of us is novelty; we all are engaged in the process for the first time and we all are new to the systems of both contexts, the university and school. Having weekly or even bi-weekly meetings would be a wonderful space for us “to ask questions, raise problems, and offer suggestions to support each other’s growth and development” (p. 10). All my other colleagues in the program who have a level of expertise in supervision are always found ready to provide help and support whenever they are asked for. However, I believe that we need to set this model of collaboration between supervisors as a “routine” and as an aspect of the supervision framework.
Let’s move now to the most motivating part of my practice, which is inquiry. Last week, my colleague Suzanne and I had a conversation about our passions and the questions we have under these passions. I remember using the word “balance” several times. My initial questions at that time were: how could I balance the support I provide to my interns with independence? How could I ensure that I provide the appropriate support at the right time to my interns? After this week’s readings, my questions shifted a little bit to my dual role, supervisor and evaluator. I found myself still in the circle of balance and my wondering became: to what extent could I balance my role as a supervisor and an evaluator? How do my students perceive these two functions? Also, now after I have done my first observations and debriefings with my students, I started to be interested in my relationship with them. How could I develop a strong and balanced relationship with mutual trust and respect?
Finally at this point, I have one more new wondering to the list, how could I meet and exceed the supervision expectations of my interns? I am leaning more towards this last one so far. I have started writing reflective journals after each field visit and I have also asked my interns today to reflect on our first debriefing and the whole supervision process until this point in time. I encouraged them to be honest and open as much as possible, and to focus on not only the things they liked, but also the things that they didn’t feel comfortable with as well as the things that they were expecting to see or want to see in the upcoming visits and debriefings. I do not want to be over excited because I’m not expecting a high level of openness from the first time, however, I am so glad to have this process started. I am looking forward to the development of this experience of “shared reflective practice” which will ultimately guide me as a supervisor to provide a high quality work.
References:
Burns, R. & Badiali (in press). When Supervision is Conflated with Evaluation: Teacher Candidates’ Perceptions of Their Novice Supervisor.
Hoover, L.A., & Nolan, J.F. (2011). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (3rd edition)
McGreal, T. L., & Nolan, J. F. (1997). Issue 5: Can a supervisor be a coach? In J. Glanz & R. F. Neville (Eds.), Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controversies, pp. 91-112. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
Pavan, B.N & Harris, B.M. (1997). Issue 7: Is a Collegial Relationship Possible between Supervisors and Teachers? In J. Glanz & R. F. Neville (Eds.), Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controversies, pp. 135-154. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
Tschannen-Moran, B., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2011). The Coach and the Evaluator. Coaching: The New Leadership Skill, pp. 10-16.
