Nolan & Hoover Understanding the Components of a Comprehensive Teacher Supervision and Evaluation System
Nolan, J., & Hoover, L. A. (2005). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Chapter 2: Understanding the Components of a Comprehensive Teacher Supervision and Evaluation System
Teacher Supervision and Evaluation: Historical Roots
• In the 19th Century, supervisors were more like inspectors. Their job was more of evaluation than supervision in that their task was to eliminate unsatisfactory teachers.
• In the early 20th Century, there was great emphasis on efficiency and scientific quantification as a valid means of evaluation. Consequently the era brought about an abundance of rating scales as evaluative mechanisms. This obsession with scientific quantification was the catalyst behind evaluation.
• The growth of Progressivism brought the beginnings of a shift in mindset from supervisor as evaluator to supervisor as supervisor.
• "The Progressive era, with its philosophy of inquiry, democratic processes, and scientific investigation, led to a supervisory process that was seen as helpful, improvement oriented, and collaborative (p. 23)."
• "Progressive supervision, while downplaying teacher evaluation, emphasized collaboration, group processes, inquiry, and experimentation (p. 23)."
• "...teachers were seen as part of the solution rather than as the problem (p. 23)."
• "...we find a scholarly literature that advocates collegial improvement and practitioners who find themselves unable to accept the collegial role owing to the hierarchical superiority that is implied - indeed necessitated - by the role of teacher evaluator (p. 25)."
• The end of the 20th Century saw great tension between the desire to set professional goals with teachers, functioning in collegial roles and acting as true supervisors, and the shackles of the bureaucratic functions of teacher evaluation.
Teacher Supervision and Evaluation: Separate, Essential, Complementary Functions
• Scholars and practitioners alike are confused by the terms supervision and evaluation. Discrepancies in definitions and practices feed this confusion. In addition, the tensions fet in the dual role of supervisor and evaluator also contribute to the confusion because these double headed monsters (my language) either have trouble making the distinction or do not understand the distinction themselves and are, therefore, perceived as one in the same.
• The question then becomes - what does an effective practitioner of both supervision and evaluation look like?
• DEFINITION: "'Teacher evaluation' is an organizational function designed to make comprehensive judgments concerning teacher performance and competence for the purposes of personnel decisions such as tenure and continuing employment...the process as a whole is aimed primarily at making a summative judgment about the quality of the teacher's performance in carrying out instructional duties and other responsibilities...(it) is a state-mandated function carried out only by persons properly certificated by the state (p. 26)."
• DEFINITION - "'Teacher supervision' is an organizational function concerned with promoting teacher growth, which in turn leads to improvement in teaching performance and greater student learning...The function can be carried out by multiple individuals who find themselves in multiple roles within the school system (p. 26)."
• Supervision and evaluation differ on seven dimensions:
o Basic purpose
Evaluation Supervision
Imposed Teacher selected topics based on interest
Limited impact Promotes individual growth
Measured against a standard - Meets the individual teacher as his/her level
a minimal level of competence as a starting point and grows from there
Practices of tenured teachers Can be very motivating
cannot be forced to changed
Makes judgments Nonjudgmental
o Rationale for existence
Evaluation Supervision
Has legal and bureaucratic "It is a professional, community-building activity
implications - these governing that recognizes that teachers are motivated
bodies have the moral obligation by internal drives such as a desire
to ensure that students are not to improve their professional competence
harmed under the care of a and a desire to maximize
teacher. student learning (p. 29)."
o Scope
Evaluation Supervision
Broad focus looking at painting Narrow focus looking at a teacher-selected,
a global picture and passing particular aspect where growth is the
judgment on competence goal
o Inherent nature of the relationship between teacher and administrator
Evaluation Supervision
Neutral stance On the teacher's side
Dis-empowering Empowering
Unequal power Equal power/shared power
Separate, unequal roles Blended roles
Could lead to mistrust and a Shared leadership, responsibility,
sense of wariness trust, and mutual vulnerability
o Focus of data collection procedures
Evaluation Supervision
Derived from criteria and Derived from the individual teacher
standards
External judgments in that the Internal judgments in that the individual
evaluator makes the judgment teacher looks at the data presented
about the teaching and passes judgment
Data is universal and standard Data is individualized and differentiated
o Whose professional expertise counts
Evaluation Supervision
Resident expert Both parties bring expertise to the table
Must make a summative Is not required to make a
judgment at some point summative judgment
o Teacher's perspective on the overall process
Evaluation Supervision
Environment of fear - fear of Positive environment based on
negative judgments trust and absent of external judgments
Does not promote risk taking and Promotes risk taking and
experimentation experimentation
Dog-an- pony show and New, untried lessons
"showcase" lessons
Fear of failure environment Failure as opportunity environment
• Essentially, but Fundamentally Different
o Both evaluation and supervision are necessary. Evaluation is needed to protect children and allow competent teachers to remain members of the professional education community. Whereas supervision is needed to promote the expectation of eternal growth and help teachers reach individual expectations.
o It is possible for one person to wear both hats, but that person's actions must clearly communicate the distinction between the two. Otherwise, the teacher will maintain that the supervisor is always the evaluator, and the relationship of trust and collegiality will be broken down.
Criteria for High-Quality Supervision and Evaluation Systems
• The Processes for Judging Competence (Evaluation) are Clearly Differentiated from Processes for Promoting Growth (Supervision)
o Two Models:
Model 1 Model 2
Evaluators Separate, different people Same person (Administrator)
(Administrator)
Supervisor Peers Administrator
Time and Procedures Separate, distinct acts Separate, distinct acts in order
to preserve the fragile relationship
Resources Very extensive - more Less extensive since the same
personnel & training needed person is wearing both hats
Administrators usually like to Allows the administrator to fulfill
help teachers grow. In this bureaucratic responsibilities while
model, their sole role is also engaging in the rewarding
evaluation and not growth. acts of helping teachers grow
• Supervision and Evaluation are High Priorities for the District
o Developing, implementing, and maintaining a system of supervision and evaluation is complicated, but when done well, it can reap great reward for all stakeholders involved including districts, teachers, and students.
• The District Provides Opportunities for Differentiated Supervision
o "A single model of supervision for all tenured teachers does not make any more sense than a single model of instruction for all children (p. 40)."
o "The deeper tragedy of this (single model of supervision for all tenured teachers) failure to meet individual teacher needs is that many models of supervision and evaluation are designed with the case of the marginal teacher in mind. The entire system consists of regulations and practices designed to force marginal teachers to improve (p. 40)."
• The Process for Evaluation Makes Clear the Criteria by which Performance is Judged.
o Evaluation criteria need to be clear and communicated clearly to teachers. Professional development is essential for obtaining and maintaining evaluator reliability and avoiding "observer drift."
o "Observer drift is a phenomenon in which researchers initially trained to achieve a high degree of reliability gradually drift into individualized interpretation once they start observing on their own (p. 41)."
o "Unlike teacher supervision, which is optimized by a differentiated, individualized approach, teacher evaluation demands consistency and uniformity across evaluators (p. 41)."
• The Organizational Climate is Conducive to Effective Supervision and Evaluation
o "The most well intentioned and carefully crafted system of teacher supervision and evaluation will sputter and die in an organizational climate marked by distrust, animosity, and cynicism (p. 42)."
o Because evaluation is not based on relationships, the impact of a negative organizational climate is limited. Supervision, on the other hand, depends on relationships and is, therefore, extremely vulnerable to organizational climate.
o Evaluation offers limited growth potential. Supervision offers unlimited growth potential.
• The Entire System of Supervision and Evaluation is Aimed at Enhancing Student Learning.
o Documenting the impact of the supervision and evaluation program on student learning is difficult because "the causal chain from a system of supervision and evaluation to improved test scores for an individual student is very long. The opportunity for interferences form a large number of intervening variables (teacher effort, student motivation, test-curriculum match, etc.) is huge (p. 43)" but essential for communicating successes to all stakeholders involved and for refining practices within the program itself.