PERSONAL SUPERVISORY PLATFORM
JAZZ0102
SupervisionandInstructionalLeadership.pdf
chapter 4 Adult and Teacher Development Within the Context of the School
Learning Outcomes for This Chapter
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
List the implications of any of the theories of adult learning discussed in this chapter for
instructional supervision.
Explain why the notion of a universal model of adult development has been challenged.
Discuss what the authors mean by the “ebb and flow” of adult development.
Questions to Reflect On as You Read This Chapter
As you read the chapter, reflect on learning about each of the following concepts:
Andragogy
Transformative learning
Self-directed learning
Experiential learning
Situated cognition
Informal learning
How do you think adult thinking differs from that of younger learners? To what do you
attribute these differences?
Two different teachers may approach the same teaching challenge in markedly different
ways. In what ways do you think adult development may explain this?
As you read the various models of adult development, which resonate with your own
experience?
What ways do you see that knowledge of adult development might be applied in
supervision and professional development of teachers?
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
This chapter will serve as a core for thinking and practicing supervision in a
developmental framework. So far, we have defined “a cause beyond oneself” as a
demarcation between the collective, thoughtful, autonomous, and effective staffs of
successful schools and the isolated, unreflective, and powerless staffs of unsuccessful
schools. Knowledge of how teachers can grow as competent adults is the guiding
principle for supervisors in finding ways to return wisdom, power, and control to both the
individuals and the collective staff in order for them to become true professionals. With
the understanding of how teachers change, the supervisor can plan direct assistance,
evaluation of teaching, professional development, curriculum development, group
development, and action research at an appropriate level to stimulate teacher growth
and instructional improvement.
The research on adult learning and development has been prolific. We have attempted
to distill the knowledge of adult and teacher development that has direct applications for
supervision and supervisors. Readers who desire more detail should refer to the
references cited. The use of such readily available and potentially rich knowledge about
human growth can be extremely valuable to those who work with adults. If schools are
to be successful, supervision must respond to teachers as changing adults.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
figure 4.1 Adults as Learners
Unfortunately, many schools do not foster collaborative action, reflection, critical
thinking, or teacher empowerment. Rather, the hierarchical structure of many
school systems—as well as the environmental problems of isolation,
psychological dilemma, and lack of a shared technical culture discussed in
Chapter 2—tends to work against the type of growth described in the adult
learning literature. Conversely, Drago-Severson’s (2007) qualitative study of
principals as professional development leaders found that those who
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
successfully exercised their leadership to promote adult learning consistently
employed four strategies, which she refers to as “pillar practices”:
Encouraging various forms of teaming/partnering with colleagues within and
outside school (e.g., teaching teams, curriculum teams, technology teams,
diversity teams, developing partnerships with other organizations)
Providing opportunities for teachers to serve in leadership roles (e.g., mentoring
graduate student interns, knowledge-based management, technology leaders,
sharing decision making, leading accreditation teams)
Promoting collegial inquiry (e.g., reflection through writing and dialogue)
Mentoring
According to Drago-Severson, these pillar practices, particularly when adapted to
teachers’ developmental stages, foster transformative rather than informative
learning (Drago-Severson, 2007; Drago-Severson, 2009).
Adult and Teacher Development
Literature on adult development can be seen as reflecting several distinct but
related approaches. Just a few decades ago, the study of human development
focused on children, and adulthood was either not a consideration or was thought
to represent a period of stability. Theory and research on adult development for
several decades emphasized development as an orderly progression. Because
developmental psychologists did much of the work in this area, there was an
emphasis on the change processes occurring in the individual with relatively little
consideration of his or her interaction with the environment. Early approaches to
adult development were rooted in such a tradition. Over time, alternative views of
adult development evolved, with less concern for a universal progression and
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
greater interest in the interaction between the individual and the social
environment. Subsequent sections of this chapter will discuss adult development
according to these five subtopics: (1) stage development, (2) life cycle
development, (3) transition events, (4) role development, and (5) sociocultural
influences on adult development.
Stage Theories of Adult and Teacher Development
We will begin discussion of adult development by focusing on developmental
stage theories. Levine (1989) delineated the characteristics of stages:
First and foremost is their structural nature. Each stage is a “structured whole,”
representing an underlying organization of thought or understanding. Stages are
qualitatively different from one another. All emerge in sequence without variation;
no stage can be skipped. Finally stages are “hierarchically integrated”; that is,
progressive stages are increasingly complex and subsume earlier stages.
Individuals always have access to the stages through which they have passed.
Under ordinary circumstances or with proper supports, people will generally
prefer to use the highest stages of which they are capable. (p. 86)
It may be helpful to look more closely at several specific stage theories.
Cognitive Development
Piaget described four stages of cognitive development: sensorimotor,
preoperational, concrete operations, and formal operations (Blake & Pope,
2008). The person at the formal operations stage has already progressed beyond
reasoning only for the “here and now” and can project into and relate time and
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
space. A person at the formal operations stage uses hypothetical reasoning,
understands complex symbols, and formulates abstract concepts.
Some researchers have found that formal thought is not demonstrated by all
adults. There has also been considerable exploration of characteristic adult forms
of thinking that go beyond Piaget’s fourth stage to a postformal operations stage
(Cartwright, Galupo, Tyree, & Jennings, 2009; Merriam & Bierema, 2014; Wynn,
Mosholder, & Larsen, 2014). Terms like postformal thought (Sinnott, 2009),
integrative thought (Kallio, 2011), and epistemic understanding (Baxter-Magolda,
2004) have been used to describe the highest stage of cognition observed in
adults. Figure 4.2 represents the adult cognitive developmental continuum.
igure 4.2 Adult Cognitive Development Continuum
Source: Adapted from Stephen P. Gordon (1990). Assisting the entry-year
teacher: A leadership resource. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.
Used with permission.
Ostorga (2006) provides insight into connections between teachers’ cognitive
development and their reflective thinking. Part of a larger study of student
teachers, the two participants selected as the focus of this article were both adult
learners, ages 28 and 35, who had previous experience in the classroom as
paraprofessionals. Ostorga analyzed interview protocols and Measurement of
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Epistemological Reflection (MER) questionnaires developed by Baxter-Magolda
(2004), as well as 15 weekly reflective journal entries. Neither participant
exhibited epistemic stances at either end of the epistemological spectrum
presented by Baxter-Magolda—absolute knowing and contextual
knowing—rather, they exhibited adjacent stances in the middle of
Baxter-Magolda’s spectrum. Nonetheless observable differences were
demonstrated in the nature of reflective statements made in their journals, coded
according to Mezirow’s (1981) taxonomy of reflectivity, developed as part of his
work on transformational learning. Elena, the participant exhibiting a transitional
epistemological stance, exhibited content level reflection in most of her journals,
the most basic of Mezirow’s levels of reflection, and only once engaged in a
combination of content and process reflection. Shakira, the participant exhibiting
an independent thinking epistemological stance, wrote at least one journal entry
exhibiting premise reflection—the highest of Mezirow’s levels of reflection—when
she critiqued a response provided by her supervising teacher.
Moral Development
Kohlberg & Kramer (2006) identified three broad categories of morality: the
preconventional level, the conventional level, and the postconventional level.
They further delineated two stages of development within each of these levels,
with the second stage more advanced and organized than the first. Across the
three levels, reasoning shifts from a self-centered perspective to one that
increasingly considers the perspectives and rights of others. The individual at
Level I makes decisions from a self-centered orientation. At Level II, individuals
“do the right thing” because that is what is expected according to social norms.
Finally, at Level III, moral decisions serve to recognize the social contract and to
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
uphold individual rights. Although conflicts between these principles and legal
mandates are recognized as problematic in the lower stage of Level III, moral
principles come to take precedence by the time an individual reaches the highest
stage of moral development. Kohlberg (Kohlberg & Armon, 1984; Kohlberg &
Kramer, 2006) sees the higher stages as superior, and he sees enhancing
development as an appropriate aim for education. Figure 4.3 represents the
moral development continuum.
figure 4.3 Moral Development Continuum
Source: Adapted from Stephen P. Gordon (1990). Assisting the entry-year
teacher: A leadership resource. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.
Used with permission.
It is important here to also mention the work of Carol Gilligan (1982). Gilligan
compared conclusions from Kohlberg’s model of moral development with
conclusions from her own research with women discussing personal decisions.
People at the top of Kohlberg’s stages worry about interfering with others’ rights,
whereas those at the top of Gilligan’s stages worry about errors of omission, such
as not helping others when possible. At Gilligan’s highest stage, morality is
conceived in terms of relationships, and goodness is equated with helping others.
Gilligan (1979) proposed that a different conception of development emerges
from the study of women’s lives:
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
The shift in women’s judgment from an egocentric to a principled ethical
understanding is articulated through their use of a distinct moral language, in
which the terms “selfishness” and “responsibility” define the moral problem as
one of care. Moral development then consists of the progressive reconstruction
of this understanding toward a more adequate conception of care. (p. 442)
Several small-scale studies have investigated relationships between teachers’
moral development and their understandings of teaching and learning. Johnson
and Reiman (2007) explored the relationship between teacher dispositions in the
moral/ethical domain and their actions in the classroom through a case study of
three beginning teachers, all of whom were described as “lateral entry” teachers
(entering without a teaching degree or specific training in education). All three
teachers were found to operate primarily from a moral schema aimed at
maintaining norms and emphasizing rules that are clear, consistent, and apply to
everyone, which the authors reported is typical of beginning teachers. The three
teachers varied, however, in the degree to which they also exhibited a personal
interest schema (in which decisions are primarily based on the personal interest
of the decision maker) or a postconventional schema (based on alterable social
norms, with ideals that are open to justification and scrutiny). Using the Flanders
Interaction Analysis System (also known as the Guided Analysis System, or
GIAS) to document teacher actions, they found:
When the teachers used more postconventional reasoning and less personal
interest judgments, the percentage of direct instruction decreased. Teachers
spent less time providing information and giving direction and more time
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
prompting inquiry, accepting and using students’ ideas and offering
reinforcement. (Johnson & Reiman, 2007, p. 683)
Johnson and Reiman concluded that with increased percentages of
postconventional reasoning teachers became more open to learner perspectives
and engaged in more indirect interactions. They also found that in response to
mentoring provided as part of the study, beginning teachers were able to move
toward more complex levels of judgment, although they remained primarily at a
below average level of complexity. In an earlier study, Reiman and Peace (2002)
found an increase in moral/ethical development as well as a shift from
self-concern to concern for the learners in eight teachers involved in peer
coaching using a framework of social role-taking and guided reflection, as
compared to a control group. Both these studies suggest that moral dispositions
are linked to teaching practice, and that both dispositions and actions are
amenable to tailored mentoring and coaching programs.
Levels of Consciousness
Robert Kegan (1994, 2009), a self-acknowledged neo-Piagetian, is a more recent
entrant on the scene of adult developmental psychology with his theory of levels
of consciousness. As with the Piagetian shift from concrete to formal operations,
the development of abstract thinking is a key characteristic of movement from
Kegan’s adolescent stage of durable category level to a more mature
cross-categorical (or third-order) consciousness. The person functioning at the
cross-categorical level is capable of thinking abstractly, reflecting on his or her
own emotions, and being guided by beliefs and values that ensure loyalty to the
larger community. At this stage the adult experiences a new construction of
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
reality, with the needs, wants, and desires of others figuring as prominently as his
or her own (Albertson, 2014; Bridwell, 2013; Taylor & Marienau, 1995).
Only with the transition from cross-categorical to systems (or fourth-order)
consciousness, however, does the individual move beyond defining oneself in
terms of those duties, devotions, and values to become a truly independent and
autonomous person. At this level we can look objectively at our own perspective,
compare it with that of others, and work to reconcile differences—a process
associated with transformational learning (Bridwell, 2013; Kegan, 2009). It is the
systems level of consciousness that is said to be necessary to meet the various
demands of modern adult life (parenting, partnering, working, continued
learning), but Kegan contends that many do not reach this stage until their 30s or
40s, if at all. Finally, as is common with stage theories, Kegan posits a level
rarely achieved, trans-systems (or fifth-order) consciousness. Dialectical thinking
is associated with this level of consciousness, said to be rare before midlife.
Kegan’s model suggests that our expectations may be too high, both for
ourselves and others. In the preface to his book In Over Our Heads: The Mental
Demands of Modern Life (1994), he especially appeals to those who provide
education, training, and supervision for other adults to be mindful of the mental
demands we place on others. An example would be our expectation that
teachers, even those recently graduated as traditional-age students, exhibit high
levels of critical thinking and metacognitive skills, as he speculates these skills
may not be fully evolved for many until their 30s and 40s. The emphasis Kegan
places on continuing adult learning in the workplace, as well as in other domains
of adult life, along with his suggestion that teaching/coaching can stimulate
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
developmental growth, makes this a promising model for future examination with
practicing teachers. It is this model upon which Drago-Severson (2009, 2012;
Drago-Severson, Blum-DeStefano, & Asghar, 2013) bases her four-pillar model
of leadership for adult growth. Kegan’s model also provides a framework that is
consistent with the principles of developmental supervision. Figure 4.4 depicts
the continuum of adult consciousness.
figure 4.4 Adult Consciousness Continuum
Stages of Concern
In the 1960s and early 1970s, Frances Fuller (1969) conducted pioneer studies
of teacher concerns. In analyzing both her own studies and six others, she found
that the responses by hundreds of teachers at various stages of experience
showed different concerns.
Teachers at the self-adequacy stage focus on survival. They are concerned with
doing well when a supervisor is present, getting favorable evaluations, and being
accepted and respected by students and other teachers (Adams & Martray,
1981). Their primary concern is making it through the school day.
With survival and security assured, teachers think less of their own survival
needs and begin to focus on teaching tasks. At this stage, teachers become
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
more concerned with issues related to instructional and student discipline. They
begin to think about altering or enriching the classroom schedule, the teaching
materials, and their instructional methodology. Instructional concerns include the
pressures of teaching, routinization and inflexibility of the teaching environment,
student load, workload, and lack of academic freedom. Discipline concerns
include class control, conflict between student and adult values and attitudes,
and disruptive students (Adams & Martray, 1981). Concerns at this stage can be
characterized as focused on the teaching environment and teaching
responsibilities.
Superior teachers are at the highest stage of concern, referred to as the teaching
impact stage. At this stage, teachers are most concerned with the impact on
students’ learning and students’ well-being, even if it means departing from rules
and norms. Academic concerns at this stage include diagnosing and meeting
individual needs, sparking unmotivated students, and facilitating the intellectual
and emotional development of students. The teacher with mature concerns also
tends to be interested in the whole child, including interest in student health and
nutrition, use of drugs by students, and dropout prevention (Adams & Martray,
1981). The unfolding of teachers’ concerns evolves on a continuum reflecting a
shifting perspective, from “I” concerns to concerns for “my group” to concerns for
“all students.” Figure 4.5 represents the continuum of teacher concerns. Although
Fuller’s initial studies linked stages of concern with stages of teacher experience,
more recent studies indicate a complex relationship between teacher concerns
and level of experience. Based on results of a six-month study of hopes and
fears of intern teachers, Conway and Clark (2003) posit that with experience
teacher concerns may shift both outward—from self to tasks and students as
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
predicted by Fuller–and inward, as beginning teachers engage in a progression
toward greater reflexivity and self-awareness of themselves as teachers. Basing
his conclusions on a two-year longitudinal study of beginning teachers, Watzke
(2007) takes a more critical stance toward Fuller’s suggestion of a chronological
progression in the development of teacher concerns. Findings from his study
involving six repeated administrations of the Teachers Concerns Checklist over
the span of the first two years of teaching showed that impact-related concerns
were rated highest across all applications, while all categories of concerns
related to self and selected categories of task level concerns (classroom conduct,
instructional deterrents to teaching, and professional freedom) decreased as
teachers progressed through their second year.
figure 4.5 Teacher Concerns Continuum
Source: Adapted from Stephen P. Gordon (1990). Assisting the entry-year
teacher: A leadership resource. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.
Used with permission.
Integrating Stage Development Theories
Investigators of adult and teacher development have postulated that the various
developmental characteristics are related (Oja & Pine, 1984; Sullivan,
McCullough, & Stager, 1970). Although still somewhat speculative, these findings
suggest that many teachers at a given level (low, moderate, or high) in one
developmental characteristic may operate at the same general level in another
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
developmental characteristic. The probable relationship of various developmental
characteristics allows one to make tentative composite descriptions of teachers
of generally low, moderate, and high levels of stage development. Figure 4.6
reviews the four adult/teacher development continuums.
figure 4.6 Teacher and Adult Stage Development
Source: Adapted from Stephen P. Gordon (1990). Assisting the entry-year
teacher: A leadership resource. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.
Used with permission.
The majority of teachers appear to be in relatively moderate to low stages of
cognitive or moral development or levels of consciousness—probably no different
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
from the adult population at large (Oja & Pine, 1981). So what? What difference
does it make that many teachers are not complex thinkers or autonomous?
Perhaps one does not need higher-order thinking to teach. One could argue that
if teaching were a simple enterprise with no need for decision making, then it
would make little difference. In fact, if most teachers were autonomous and
abstract, then trying to do a simple job would create great tension, resentment,
and noncompliance. If teaching is a simple activity, schools need people who can
reason simply. If teaching is complex and ever changing, however, then higher
levels of reasoning are necessary. A simple thinker in a dynamic and difficult
enterprise would be subjected to overwhelming pressures.
Sociologists have documented the environmental demands posed by making
thousands of decisions daily, by constant psychological pressure, and by
expectations that the teacher must do the job alone—unwatched and unaided. A
teacher daily faces up to 150 students of various backgrounds, abilities, and
interests, some of whom succeed while others fail. Concrete, rigid thinking on the
part of the teacher cannot possibly improve instruction. As Madeline Hunter
(1986) has noted, “Teaching . . . is a relativistic situational profession where there
are no absolutes” (italics in original).
Teacher improvement can only come from abstract, multi-informational thought
that can generate new responses toward new situations. Glassberg’s (1979)
review of research on teachers’ stage development as related to instructional
improvement concluded:
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
In summary these studies suggest that high stage teachers tend to be adaptive in
teaching style, flexible, and tolerant, and able to employ a wide range of teaching
models. . . . Effective teaching in almost any view is a most complex form of
human behaviour. Teachers at higher, more complex stages of human
development appear as more effective in classrooms than their peers at lower
stages.
The problem with the need for high-stage teachers is that, although the work by
its nature demands autonomous and flexible thinking, teachers in most schools
are not supported in ways to improve their thinking. The only alternative for a
teacher in a complex environment who cannot adjust to multiple demands and is
not being helped to acquire the abilities to think abstractly and autonomously is to
simplify and deaden the instructional environment. Teachers make the
environment less complex by disregarding differences among students and by
establishing routines and instructional practices that remain the same day after
day and year after year. Research on effective instruction (Biggers, Forbes, &
Zangori, 2013; Davis & Smithey, 2009; Glatthorn, 2000; Hargreaves & Moore,
2000; Marzano, 2007; Tieso, 2001) indicates that it is based on adaptation of
curriculum and materials to local settings and particular learning goals. In other
words, effective teachers think about what they are currently doing, assess the
results of their practice, explore with each other new possibilities for teaching
students, and consider students’ perspectives. Effective teaching has been
misunderstood and misapplied as a set and sequence of certain teaching
behaviors (review previous day’s objectives, present objectives, explain,
demonstrate, provide guided practice, check for understanding, etc.). This
explanation of effectiveness is simply untrue. Rather, successful teachers are
thoughtful teachers (Elliott & Schiff, 2001; Fairbanks et al., 2010; Ferraro, 2000).
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Evidence of the relationship between high-stage attainment of teacher
development and effective instructional practice can be found in several research
studies. The works of Oja and Pine (1981), Phillips and Glickman (1991), and
Thies-Sprinthall and Sprinthall (1987) are particularly important because they
suggest that teachers, when provided with a stimulating and supportive
environment, can reach higher stages of development. Yet, other research
indicates that most teachers do not reach those higher stages.
Life Cycle Development, Teachers’ Life Cycles, and the Teaching Career
The next area of adult development to be discussed is research on age-linked life
cycle development. These theorists, too, have sought to define sequential and
normative patterns of development. The pioneering theorists in this tradition
tended to look at very broad age periods and the patterns or issues for resolution
associated with them (Erikson, 1963), whereas later theorists have tended to
posit a greater number of specific age periods (Levinson et al., 1978).
The study by Daniel Levinson and his colleagues (1978) of 40 men aged mid-30s
to mid-40s is among the most frequently cited studies of life cycle development.
This research described how individuals alternate through periods of stability and
transition in a life structure whose critical components typically revolve around
work and family. An occupational dream is said to be formed during young
adulthood and nurtured, frequently with the assistance of the spouse and a
mentor. Levinson’s work is a coherent treatment of changes in a person’s life but
has limitations in that the subjects were all middle-class males from a limited set
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
of occupations. A number of subsequent studies of women have substantiated
the model in part, but differences have been found in the timing and quality of
transitions and the ages associated with transitional periods among women
(Levinson & Levinson, 1996).
Occupational development of teachers appears to run counter to the needs of
teachers as they progress through the adult life cycle. The work of Levinson
(1978) and Neugarten (1977) has pointed to early adulthood as a period of
bravado, romance, and the pursuit of dreams. The young adult aged 20 to 35 is
on an exciting search for status, comfort, and happiness in work, family, and
friends. The middle years, ages 35 to 55, provide some disillusionment,
reflection, and reordering of priorities according to a reassessment of one’s
capabilities and opportunities. In teaching, however, the young adulthood period,
which should be one of romance, quickly becomes one of disillusionment. The
person age 24 or 25 who has entered teaching to pursue his or her dreams often
finds after 3 years that work life is going nowhere. The job does not excite; the
advancements do not exist; and the variety of work is nonexistent. The result can
be intense boredom, leading to resignation—either from the job or on the job.
What does it mean to education when a young teacher’s natural inclination
toward excitement and idealism is bound by a straitjacket of repetition?
Let’s ask the next question: What happens when the natural inclination of the
middle-aged teacher to reflect and reorder his or her teaching priorities confronts
the same six periods of 30 students that he or she has faced for the past 20
years? One might expect a further despair of any impulse to change and to
improve. Finally, what about the older teacher who is perceived by many as an
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
anomaly, a relic who has remained in teaching because of inability to advance
into administration or supervision? The acquisition of 30 years of experience
coincides with the natural time for consolidating achievements and identifying
one’s remaining career objectives. Instead, there is only the same job—the same
job as that of the new teacher down the hall, who might be the age of the older
teacher’s grandchild. Where is the sense of responsibility, generativity, and
accomplishment in seniority? Old and new teachers are treated the same,
accorded the same status, and expected to conform to the same routines.
Teaching appears to be a topsy-turvy occupation, running against the natural
adult life cycle. Those who continue to make lasting improvement and enhance
their students’ educational lives should have our utmost respect. If not fortunate
enough to be in a school that responds to and supports phases of the adult life
cycle, the effective teacher truly transcends the system and educates in spite of,
not because of, the school.
A growing body of literature focuses on the links between teacher development
and issues related to the adult lifespan. Levine (1987) encourages placing midlife
teachers in situations permitting “a combination of teaching and administrative
responsibilities that expands an adult’s authority and mobility without sacrificing
his or her expertise with children”(p. 16). Work on decision-making committees
and mentorship of younger colleagues can provide such an outlet. Krupp (1987)
argues that lack of career centrality and on-the-job retirement can be countered
by bringing the older teachers’ interests into the school. For instance, older
teachers’ interests in computers, photography, and gardening can be brought into
the curriculum or extracurricular programs for students. Gehrke (1991) argues
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
that we should more fully incorporate our understanding of adult development in
developing programs for new teachers. This means both fostering the generative
motivations of mature teachers and being sensitive to the fact that many young
teachers are dealing with needs for intimacy. More recently, Drago-Severson,
with several coauthors, has published a series of books linking adult learning and
development theory, with a particular emphasis on Kegan’s (1994, 2009) work on
levels of consciousness and transformational learning, to a range of topics
including teacher growth and development, models of professional development,
and leadership development (Drago-Severson, 2009, 2012; Drago-Severson,
Blum-DeStefano, & Asghar, 2013). Her work also points to ways in which the
learning and growth of teachers at differing developmental stages can be best
supported through varying support structures and strategies.
Transition Events
A third approach to adult development focuses more explicitly on the kinds of
events associated with life transitions. Some theorists resist accepting the study
of what are variably called life events, critical events, or marker events as part of
the rubric of adult development because such a focus does not attempt to
describe a universal, orderly sequence of development. However, Fiske and
Chiriboga (1990) note that just as the assumption of adult stability gave way to
models of adult development “as a progression of orderly transformations over
time,” more recent models have emphasized the role of transition events in our
lives.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Life events have been typologized in a variety of ways. One typology, offered by
Willis and Baltes (1980), seems to relate directly to the salience of the event for
the individual. They talk about normative age-graded events—events that occur
in many people’s lives and that are anticipated around certain ages (such as
marriage, birth of first child, and widowhood), normative history-graded
events—those that affect large numbers of people in a given age cohort
simultaneously (such as World War II and the Depression), and nonnormative
events—those personal events that are not anticipated as part of the life course
even though they may occur for many (such as divorce, unemployment, and
unexpected illness). Events can be positive or negative, anticipated or
unanticipated. Although events associated with expected transitions in adult lives
are often the impetus for adult growth, it appears to be the unanticipated event,
even if negative, that may provide the greatest opportunity for change and growth
(Fiske & Chiriboga, 1990; Hogan, 2014; Napolitano, 2013).
Neugarten (1977, 1987) studied the timing of events such as childbearing,
occupational advancement and peaking, children leaving home, retirement,
personal illness, and death of a spouse or close friend. Many of these events are
common to all or most adults, and the time of their occurrence, according to
Neugarten, influences how the person responds and continues with life.
Neugarten’s interpretation of these differential responses relates to the
experience of the events as “on time” versus “off time”—that is, occurring at an
age considered socially appropriate or not. Certainly, recent years have seen
increasing variability in the timing of many common events, and perceptions
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
regarding the correct timing of life transitions have been found to be influenced
culturally by race, class, and gender (Setterson, 1996). As Merriam and
colleagues (2007) observed, not having children, returning to school in later life,
and beginning a new career in midlife are all more viable options today than
decades ago. The growing number of teacher preparation programs aimed at
adults choosing teaching as a second career gives testimony to her claim. Yet,
the authors note that timing still matters when it comes to many life events, given
the powerful influence age norms exert on our thinking.
Both personal transition events (marriage, birth of a child, divorce, death of a
loved one) and professional transition events (entry into the profession, tenure,
transferring schools, becoming a lead teacher or department chairperson) can
have a significant impact on a teacher’s career and teaching. Traditionally,
personal and transitional events have been ignored and professional transitions
have been given pro forma recognition by the school organization. Krupp (1987)
has suggested that staff development programs providing an environment of trust
and collegiality, as well as adult transition support networks within schools, can
be an important means of assisting teachers as they prepare for anticipated
change events, such as retirement, or cope with unanticipated changes, such as
the sudden dependency of a parent. The support networks and professional
development recommended by Krupp to assist teachers have been largely
nonexistent in schools.
One exception in recent years has been the emergence of beginning teacher
assistance programs, including the assignment of support teams and mentors to
novice teachers. Hopefully, beginners’ assistance programs will become the
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
foundation on which career-long support for personal and professional transitions
becomes available. Beyond formal support programs, schools need to become
the type of collegial, caring, growth-oriented communities that sustain teachers in
times of transition.
Role Development
Yet another strand of research has emphasized adult social roles, generally
examining how adult lives are characterized by interacting roles related to work
or career, family life, and personal development. Juhasz (1989) developed a
model of adult roles that incorporates each of three major roles: family, work, and
self. These roles are depicted as intertwining, sometimes in synchrony,
sometimes with different momentum and force. This model emphasizes the
active involvement of adults who take roles and choose which roles they will
place emphasis on at given points in their lives, with self-esteem as the driving
force “directing energies toward roles that will best enhance feelings of worth”(p.
307).
Merriam and Clark (1993) designed a questionnaire to study the relationship
between life events in the domains of “work and love” (here broadly defined as
the instrumental and expressive components of life) and adult learning. In
essence, people graphed their life patterns, using two separate lines to show the
ups and downs in these two domains of life. Respondents were asked next to list
major events occurring in the last 20 years of their adult life (age 18 or older) and
to describe learning experiences. From their analysis of 405 respondents, they
found evidence for three different models used to characterize linkages between
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
work and family life: (1) segmentation—when there is little or no connection, (2)
compensatory—where individuals seek in one area the satisfaction or activities
that are lacking in the other, and (3) generalization—where attitudes formed in
the work setting spill over into family life or vice versa.
One of Merriam and Clark’s most significant findings was the predominance of
work-related learning for both men and women and the evidence that more
learning occurs when things are going well in both arenas (work and family life).
However, learning that led to a real perspective transformation most often was
associated with coping with the difficult times in either work (e.g., being fired) or
family life (e.g., losing a parent). Since much of the most significant adult learning
appears to be from life experience, the role of the supervisor may be critical in
helping teachers to experience growth as an outcome of unsettling life
experiences in the professional, personal, or family domain. Although the
supervisor need not and should not assume the role of therapist, one implication
of the social role models of adult development is that a teacher’s personal, family,
and professional roles interact with and affect each other and need to be
addressed holistically by supervision.
School systems and supervisors traditionally have been concerned only with
teachers’ professional roles, ignoring their personal and family roles. The few
efforts intended to address the relationship of the three domains have been
criticized as being beyond the scope of supervision, an inappropriate use of
school resources, and superfluous to the improvement of teaching and learning.
Yet, the literature on adult role development tells us that we cannot
compartmentalize the personal, family, and professional aspects of a teacher’s
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
life. Put succinctly, teachers’ other adult roles have direct effects on their
instruction. Supervision, however, has largely failed to provide teachers with
support to help them understand the interaction of their various adult roles, cope
with role conflict and resulting stress, and develop the proper balance and
synergy among alternative roles.
Beyond Universal Conceptions of Development: The Sociocultural Context of
Adult Development
From the 1980s and through the present, a significant body of research has
emerged examining the impact of social structural variables (e.g., race, class,
gender, disability, or sexual orientation) on adult development, with greatest
emphasis on the effects of gender and race/ethnicity. The intent of some
researchers has been to develop more robust and inclusive theories, describing
a broader range of people than earlier theories. In other cases, especially for
researchers informed by the postmodern resistance to “grand” theories, there
has been no such attempt at “umbrella” theories of adult development (Kilgore,
2001). The latter researchers have been interested in offering previously
unavailable pictures of adult development for individuals from groups
marginalized in the construction of knowledge about adult development, as well
as in illustrating how structural variables like gender, race, and class intersect in
the construction of our identities (Bridwell, 2013; Graue, 2005; McDerMott &
Schwartz, 2013; Sheared, 1999; Syed & Mitchell, 2013; Tisdell, 2000).
The Role of Gender in Adult Development
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Much of the literature examining the relationship of gender and adult
development has looked specifically at women, in response to the initial claim
that their lives and experiences were not accounted for in the early development
of adult development theory. Emerging theory and research have taken two
forms, in some cases extending or adapting earlier work based primarily on men
and in other cases starting afresh with female or mixed gender samples.
In the first strand is the work of Gilligan (1982), challenging Kohlberg’s model of
moral development (Kohlberg & Turiel, 1971). Her work suggests men and
women base their moral decisions on different criteria, with women using an ethic
of care and men an ethic of justice. Similarly, Josselson (1987) reexamined
Erikson’s stage theory of psychosocial development, postulating four potential
outcomes of Erikson’s identity stage for women. Primary among her findings was
that maintaining a sense of connectedness and affiliation with others is crucial for
women.
The second strand of research consists of studies based specifically on the lives
of women. One of the most cited sources in this strand is Women’s Ways of
Knowing, by Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986). Resisting the
notion of hierarchical stages, Belenky and colleagues point to the development of
voice as central to women’s development and delineated five positions or
categories in the development of women’s knowledge: silence, received
knowledge, subjective knowledge, procedural knowledge, and constructed
knowledge. The developmental ideal is the integration of all five categories. Also
representing this strand of research is the work of Peck (1986). She theorized
women’s lives as consisting of three contiguous layers, including an outermost
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
core of sociohistorical context; a flexible, bidirectional “sphere of influence,”
consisting of the sum of multiple relationships; and a center core of
self-definition. These spheres are presumed to be constantly interacting as
women move through their lives.
Models of adult development, whether based on men’s or women’s lives, have
been critiqued for their universalizing character, tending to ignore or discount
diversity among men and women, and the degree to which individuals of each
gender exhibit patterns described as typical of the opposite sex. For example,
Anderson and Hayes (1996) found that both men and women value achievement
as well as relationships, derive self-esteem from similar sources, and struggle
with ongoing issues of holding on (connection) and letting go (separation). The
tendency of these models to ignore diversity related to race, class, and culture
has also been criticized. Harris (1996) examined how men from different
subcultures viewed each of 24 cultural messages about masculinity and
described differences related to class, race, sexual orientation, and community of
origin (city, urban, rural). McDermott & Schwartz (2013) investigated gender role
journeys among emerging adult men, examining the influence of differences in
age, education, race, relational status, and sexual orientation. The construct of
gender role journey has been developed to conceptualize how men construct
and adapt to their gender role identities (O’Neil & Carroll, 1988). Four subgroups
were identified: (1) men not questioning/accepting of traditional gender roles, (2)
“pro-feminist activists,” (3) men questioning with strong ambivalence, and (4)
men questioning with weak ambivalence. The research findings suggest that
men’s gender role journeys differ by race, sexual orientation, relational status,
and age. This literature may help to explain why some men are more willing to
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
break mainstream cultural norms that discourage their entry into the elementary
education teaching force.
The Role of Race and Ethnicity in Adult Development
Just as early models of adult psychosocial development were critiqued by those
who did not find them to be inclusive of women’s experiences, so too concerns
were raised about the applicability of supposedly universal models of adult
development to members of racial and ethnic groups typically not included as
participants in research exploring these models (Sneed, Schwartz, & Cross,
2006). Chavez and Guido-DiBrito (1999) provide an excellent overview of models
of racial and ethnic identity, grounded in research exploring the impact of race
and ethnicity on adult learners. Cross developed nigrescence theory, one of the
earliest of these models (1971, 1995). According to early versions of this model,
Blacks move from a pre-encounter stage of limited awareness of race or racial
self-hatred through three stages (later revised to five stages) that reflect an
increasingly positive Black identity (Sneed et al., 2006). The model was further
revised and proposed as an expanded nigrescence model (NT-E), retaining the
names of the initially proposed three stages, but reconceptualizing the stages as
nonhierarchical frames of reference (Worrel, 2008). According to Worrell, the
three frames of reference are seen as representing differentiated clusters of nine
different racial attitudes that may be present to varying degrees in the same
individual:
(a) three Pre-Encounter attitudes (Assimilation, Miseducation, and Self-Hatred),
(b) two Immersion-Emersion attitudes (Intense Black Involvement and
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Anti-White), and (c) four Internationalization attitudes (Nationalist, Biculturalist,
Multiculturalist Racial, and Multiculturalist Inclusive). (p. 158)
Chavez and Guido-DiBrito (1999), on the other hand, posited that immersion in
one’s own racial group acts as the primary trigger for such identity development.
Similarly, they take issue with the focus on perceptions of other groups inherent
in the most prominent model of White racial identity development, that of Helms
(1993, 1995). Helms stresses interracial exposure as a powerful trigger for the
development of a White racial identity that moves beyond a dominant group
assumption of White superiority toward a nonracist frame. Chavez and
Guido-DiBrito argue that Helms’s model places inordinate emphasis on the
intersection of racial perceptions of others and racial perception of self. They are
more intrigued by models of ethnic identity development.
A model of White ethnic identity by Katz (1989) identified values and
perspectives of White American cultural identity. These values include autonomy,
competitiveness, and a linear sense of time and can be contrasted with values
such as harmony, balance, and respect for the wisdom of elders identified in
Garrett and Walking Stick Garrett’s (1994) model of Native American identity.
Phinney (1990), on the other hand, developed a model describing an ethnic
identity process that can be applied more broadly. She emphasized two issues
faced by members of nondominant group members: (1) dealing with stereotyping
and prejudicial treatment by the dominant group and (2) resolving the clash
between the value systems of their own ethnic culture and that of the dominant
culture by negotiating a bicultural value system.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Several implications for adult learning can be drawn from these models. The
models generally suggest that although most individuals from White ethnic
groups typically experience learning that is grounded in their own cultural norms,
they may struggle with or resist learning in less familiar multicultural
environments. This has implications for efforts in the area of diversity training. On
the other hand, persons from nondominant cultural groups often have to learn to
be at least bicultural in their learning if they are to succeed in mainstream
learning environments. For instance, Alfred (2001) has pointed to the
development of bicultural competence as a factor in the career development of
successful (tenured) Black women faculty. She also has pointed to the assistive
role that White male mentors played in some cases. Similarly, teachers from
nondominant groups are likely to find that they must learn to successfully
navigate two or more cultures, and their mentors need to remain sensitive to the
challenges this presents. In the inverse, Alston (2014) examined cross-cultural
mentoring relationships between White female doctoral student mentees and
their Black female mentors. She found that these mentoring relationships
provided a space for learning and self-reflection for the mentees with regard to
the significance of their own Whiteness. She also discovered cultural points of
connection were often shared around gender and motherhood, and that age
differences (with mentors who were younger than mentees) sometimes provided
an unanticipated challenge. Both mentors and mentees stressed the importance
of trust while participating in cross-cultural mentoring relationships.
Current research on women’s development and research on the place of race
and ethnicity in identity development have challenged our thinking about the
degree to which any single theory of adult development can adequately describe
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
all adult lives. Yet, these models can still provide a useful heuristic for thinking
about the many ways in which adults continue to change throughout the course
of their lives and the myriad forces that come to influence these changes. For
those who seek to provide assistance to teachers, familiarity with this literature
serves as a reminder of the tremendous degree of difference that exists among
the adult learners who constitute the teaching force.
Review of Adult/Teacher Development Models
Table 4.1 presents a schematic review of the five conceptual frameworks for
adult development. One thing all five approaches have in common is the
supposition that adult lives are characterized by change and adaptation. For
teachers, as with all adult learners, the one thing we can be certain of is that
things will not remain the same; thus, individuals will need to cope with changes
as they arise. Supervision provides the opportunity for ascertaining the levels,
stages, and issues of adult development in schools and assisting the teacher’s
professional development in the context of these realities.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Development: Ebb and Flow
Cognitive researchers have shown that stages of thinking vary according to the
domain or topic Gardner, 2006; Sternberg, 1988). Fred loves to teach art to his
second-grade youngsters. He’s constantly looking for ideas, finding materials,
and expending energy to improve his art program. Yet, when it comes to teaching
mathematics, he puts in the required time, uses the worksheets, and muddles
through the material. He never liked mathematics as a student and doesn’t care
to spend extra time on it. Suffice it to say that teachers, like all humans, are not
static in their levels of thinking and commitment about all endeavors.
Furthermore, development can regress, recycle, or become blocked. Because
one has reached a high level of development in one arena does not mean that
level of development is consolidated eternally. Experience is a relative term—a
teacher (or supervisor) with 30 years of teaching (or supervising) can still be
inexperienced in many ways. Change the expectations of the job and/or change
the clientele served, and suddenly there is an inexperienced person trying to
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
figure out how to survive. Likewise, a first-year teacher may, after only a few
months, be experienced and able to reason according to concerns beyond his or
her own survival.
Alterations to a person’s personal or professional situation can usher in
regression in levels of thinking and levels of motivation. For instance, a highly
committed and thoughtful faculty, who had made their school an exciting and
successful place, were jolted when negotiations between the teachers’ union and
the school board resulted in a bitter strike. The immediate result on the school
was that teachers retreated within their four walls, carrying out the letter of their
contract and removing themselves from involvement in school curriculum and
instruction issues. Most teachers retreated to a self-survival stage.
Teacher or adult development is not monolithic, linear, or eternal. The research
on developmental stages provides lenses for viewing teachers individually and
collectively as to their current levels of thinking and commitment. Through such
lenses, we can explore possible interventions to assist teachers individually and
collectively to move into higher stages of development.
chapter 5 Reflections on Educational Beliefs, Teaching, and Supervision
Learning Outcomes for This Chapter
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
Describe a supervision platform.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
List different beliefs about the purpose of education described in this chapter.
Identify different beliefs about the purpose of supervision described in this
chapter.
Describe the key elements of any of the superphilosophies presented in this
chapter.
Explain in general terms any of the supervisory approaches presented in this
chapter.
List three different broad combinations of decision-making power that might be
present in supervisor–teacher interaction.
Discuss the effects of educators’ cultural background on their educational beliefs
and actions.
Questions to Reflect On as You Read This Chapter
What are the relationships among educational beliefs, teaching, and instructional
supervision?
This chapter describes the educational platforms of three teachers: Joan
Simpson, Bill Washington, and Pat Rogers. Which of these three teachers’
platforms most closely reflects your own educational platform? If a group of
educational experts observed you teaching for several days, which of the three
teachers would the experts say you most resemble?
What are some beliefs you would include in your supervisory platform?
Which of the three superphilosophies discussed in this chapter most closely
represents your own beliefs about education and supervision?
Which of the supervisory approaches introduced in this chapter would you be
comfortable using as a supervisor working with individual teachers or groups?
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
As we seek ways to improve school and classroom instruction, we need to
understand how present thinking, beliefs, and practices in the field of supervision
interact with instruction and assumptions about students and teachers as
learners. In this chapter we look at how one’s supervisory beliefs are related to a
particular educational philosophy or platform. An instrument will then be provided
to help clarify each person’s own supervisory beliefs, and we will examine how
one’s own supervisory beliefs fit along a control continuum. Finally, we will
discuss how an educator’s cultural background is an important factor in their
beliefs about education.
How do we reconcile the uncertainties of supervision, teaching, and instructional
improvement? How do we know whether we are progressing in the desired
direction? Unless we reflect on our own beliefs, there is little to steer us.
Sergiovanni and Starratt (2007) note the importance of understanding one’s own
supervisory beliefs:
What is needed is some firm footing in principle. Some have called our often
unexpressed constellation of principles a platform. Just as a political party is
supposed to base its decisions and actions on a party platform upon which it
seeks election, so, too, supervisory personnel need a platform upon which, and
in the light of which, they can carry on their work. With a clearly defined platform,
they can begin to take a position relative to educational practices, looking beyond
the surface behavior to probe for the real consequences of a variety of school
practices. (pp. 243–244)
Knowing oneself as a supervisor is necessary before considering alternative
practices and procedures. To move from a platform, we must first know where we
are standing. Let’s look at the human decisions that a supervisor must make
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
about school improvement, teaching effectiveness, and one’s purpose in working
with teachers.
Beliefs, Goals, and Effective Teaching
Let’s continue this reflection on practice by taking an innocuous statement about
supervision that virtually no one would take issue with: The goal of supervision is
to improve instruction. It sounds nice, until we ask for a definition of what type of
instruction we wish to improve. Effective teaching, to a large extent, depends on
what you believe should be taught. Different educational beliefs lead to different
instructional goals that require different teaching strategies. Consider the
following examples:
If the goal is for students to master basic skills, then effective teaching might
involve explanation, demonstration, practice, feedback, and more practice.
If the goal is for students to learn classical culture, then effective teaching might
consist of reading the great works, lecturing, and fostering Socratic discussion.
If the goal is for students to become problem solvers, then effective teaching
might call for exposing students to real-world problems and actively involving
them in testing possible solutions and reaching resolutions.
If the goal is social development, then effective teaching might consist of
structuring cooperative learning and community-building activities.
If the goal is personal development, then effective teaching might mean
facilitating students’ self-directed learning and self-assessment.
If the goal is critical inquiry, then effective teaching might require the teacher to
challenge students’ current values and assumptions and to ask students to
critique dominant belief systems, social structures, and power relationships.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
In the final analysis, what constitutes instructional improvement and successful
teaching can be defined only within the context of particular educational beliefs,
instructional goals, local learning environments, and individual students. This
means that the search for a single instructional model—effective for all learning
content, students, and situations—is futile.
A more productive course of action is to identify various instructional strategies
that are effective in relation to identified instructional goals and individual
students. If this proposition is accepted, then the supervisor’s role becomes one
of assisting teachers to clarify school and classroom instructional goals, develop
a variety of instructional strategies (e.g., direct instruction, constructivist teaching,
cooperative learning, classroom dialogue, service learning), “mix and match”
instructional strategies to learning goals and students, and assess the effects of
instruction for the purpose of continuous improvement. With such a supervision
emphasis, effective instruction is seen as the teacher’s ability to use various
ways of teaching according to the school’s learning goals and students’ learning
styles.
Beliefs About Education
Teachers’ and supervisors’ educational philosophies have a significant impact on
instruction and instructional improvement efforts. The following are summaries of
educational platforms of three teachers with different beliefs about education:
Joan Simpson believes that the purpose of education should be to transmit a
prescribed body of basic knowledge, skills, and cultural values to students. To do
this effectively, the teacher must exercise control over the classroom, lesson
content, and students. Content should be broken first into discrete academic
areas and then into small elements, and learning should take place in a series of
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
small, sequential steps. All students should be expected to master the same
content. Grades and other types of external motivation are necessary to ensure
student learning.
Bill Washington believes that the purpose of education should be student growth,
especially in inquiry and problem-solving skills. To promote such growth, the
teacher conveys existing knowledge but also encourages students to experiment
in order to test old ideas and find solutions to new problems. Bill believes that
since inquiry is most successful in a democratic environment, the teacher should
share control of the learning environment with students. Because problem
solving often takes place within a social context, students should learn social
skills as well as academic content.
Pat Rogers believes that each child is unique and that the primary purpose of
education should be to meet students’ individual needs. The teacher should
foster the development of each student toward his or her fullest potential. This
means addressing students as whole persons by fostering their physical,
emotional, cognitive, moral, and social development. Such holistic education
includes facilitating student self-inquiry. Pat believes that students should have as
much control over their own learning environment as their maturity level permits.
Teachers should base lessons on students’ experience, concerns, and interests.
Students should be allowed to participate in assessing their own learning.
The three educational platforms just described do indeed represent contrasting
beliefs. Based on their educational beliefs, Joan Simpson, Bill Washington, and
Pat Rogers no doubt have quite different definitions of instructional improvement
and effective teaching! Role Play 5.1 allows three members of a group to bring
Joan, Bill, and Pat to life by assuming their identities in a teachers’ lounge
conversation.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
You may view Joan, Bill, or Pat’s platform as quite similar to your own, you may
agree with parts of each, or you may have an entirely different set of beliefs. In
any case, it is important for you to clarify your own educational beliefs. By
reflecting on the following questions, you can begin to build your educational
platform:
What should be the purpose of education?
What should be the content of the school curriculum?
Who should control the learning environment?
What should be the relationship between teacher and students?
Under what conditions is student learning most successful?
What motivates students to do their best in school?
What is your definition of effective teaching?
What personal characteristics are possessed by a successful teacher?
How should the teacher assess student learning?
What is your definition of a good school?
role play 5.1
A Conversation in the Teachers’ Lounge
Three participants agree to play the roles of Joan Simpson, Bill Washington, and
Pat Rogers, and are provided time in advance of the role play to plan the details.
The role play begins with the three teachers sitting at a table in the teachers’
lounge. Each participant assumes the role of one of the three teachers, and each
time they speak, what they say is consistent with the educational philosophy of
the character they are playing as described in in this chapter. Topics that the
three might discuss include:
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
A lesson they taught earlier that day
A student who is having difficulty in their class and how they plan to address that
problem
How they assess student learning
The types of progress they are hoping their students make by the end of the
school year
How they hope the new curriculum that the faculty is developing will be organized
Supervisory Beliefs
Most supervisors, of course, are former teachers. As a result, their views about
learning, the nature of the learner, knowledge, and the role of the teacher in the
classroom influence their view of supervision. After all, supervision is in many
respects analogous to teaching. Teachers wish to improve students’ behavior,
achievement, and attitudes. Supervisors similarly wish to improve teachers’
behavior, achievement, and attitudes.
The supervisory platforms of three supervisors are described next. As you read
these platforms, note the relationship between the beliefs they contain and the
teacher beliefs present in the three educational platforms discussed earlier in this
chapter.
Bob Reynolds believes that the purpose of supervision is to monitor teachers to
determine if their instruction includes the elements of effective instruction. If those
elements are observed, the supervisor should provide positive reinforcement to
ensure that they continue to be included in the teacher’s lessons. Bob believes
that if a teacher is not using or is incorrectly using the elements of effective
instruction, the supervisor has a responsibility to provide remedial assistance by
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
explaining and demonstrating correct instructional behaviors, setting standards of
improvement, and monitoring and reinforcing the teacher’s improvement efforts.
In short, the supervisor should have primary responsibility for instructional
improvement decisions.
Jan White believes that the purpose of supervision is to engage teachers in
mutual inquiry aimed at the improvement of instruction. The supervisor and
teacher should share perceptions of instructional problems, exchange
suggestions for solving those problems, and negotiate an improvement plan. The
improvement plan becomes a hypothesis to be tested by the teacher with the
supervisor’s assistance. Thus, Jan believes that supervisors and teachers should
share the responsibility for instructional improvement.
Shawn Moore believes that the purpose of supervision should be to foster
teacher reflection and autonomy and to facilitate teacher-driven instructional
improvement. The supervisor should be concerned with the teacher’s
self-concept and personal development as well as the teacher’s instructional
performance. It is critical for the supervisor to establish a relationship with the
teacher characterized by openness, trust, and acceptance. Shawn believes that
the supervisor should allow the teacher to identify instructional problems,
improvement plans, and criteria for success. The supervisor can assist the
teacher’s self-directed improvement through active listening, clarifying,
encouraging, and reflecting. Thus, the teacher should have primary responsibility
for instructional improvement decisions, with the supervisor serving as an active
facilitator.
These descriptions show that supervisory platforms can be as varied as
educational platforms. Role Play 5.2 allows three members of a group to bring to
life supervisors Reynolds, White, and Moore as they are interviewed for a new
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
supervisory position by the other members of the group, who assume the roles of
teachers.
When we compare the educational platforms of Joan Simpson, Bill Washington,
and Pat Rogers with the supervisory platforms of Bob Reynolds, Jan White, and
Shawn Moore, we can see that both types of platforms reveal basic beliefs about
knowledge, human nature, and control. By answering the following questions,
you can begin the process of clarifying your own beliefs about instructional
supervision. We suggest that you write responses to the questions, save your
responses, and reassess your supervisory platform after you have finished
reading this text.
What is your definition of instructional supervision?
What should be the ultimate purpose of supervision?
Who should supervise? Who should be supervised?
What knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values are possessed by successful
supervisors?
What are the most important needs of teachers?
What makes for positive relationships between supervisors and teachers?
What types of activities should be part of instructional supervision?
What should be changed regarding the current practice of instructional
supervision?
role play 5.2
Three Interviewees for a Supervisory Position
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Three members of the group volunteer to play the roles of Bob Reynolds, Jan
White, and Shawn Moore as they are interviewed for a supervisory position. The
remaining members of the group assume the roles of teachers who have been
asked by the administration to participate in separate question-and-answer
sessions with each of the three candidates. The questions that the “teachers” ask
should be those that will elicit information about various aspects of the
candidate’s supervisory platform. In providing answers to the questions they are
asked, the group members playing the roles of Bob, Jan, and Shawn should
strive to reflect the beliefs of the supervisor they are playing.
Supervisory Platform as Related to Educational Philosophy
Many educators view discussions of educational philosophy as overly abstract
and irrelevant to the real world of supervisors and teachers. Yet, a supervisor’s
actions in working with teachers are based on supervisory beliefs, which in turn
reflect a broader educational philosophy. Many different philosophies exist.
Some, such as idealism and realism, date back to ancient times. Others, such as
pragmatism and behaviorism, have been developed within the last century. Even
more recent has been the emergence of progressivism, reconstructionism, and
existentialism. Philosophies are numerous and overlapping, and many have
historical roots in each other.
To unravel the major philosophical trends in education, one must decipher how
philosophies differ from each other and then build overriding conceptual
categories. Each conceptual category or superphilosophy is created by grouping
various philosophies that have central agreement on the type and scope of
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
education. In other words, there may be disagreement on the specific nature of
knowledge, truth, and reality, yet they hang together as a general educational
philosophy because they are in agreement on the purpose and treatment of
education.*
*The descriptions of philosophy are taken from C. D. Glickman and J. P.
Esposito, Leadership Guide for Elementary School Improvement: Procedures for
Assessment and Change (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1979), p. 20.
With educational application in mind, divergent philosophies can be simplified
and classified. Three major educational superphilosophies have direct relevance
to supervision. These superphilosophies are essentialism, experimentalism, and
existentialism.
Essentialism
Essentialism as a philosophy is derived from idealism and realism. Idealism,
which dates back to Plato, espouses a belief in absolutes: The world we live in is
merely a reflection of reality. Reality, truth, and standards of morality exist beyond
our common ways of knowing. Only by training the mind do we glimpse the
ultimates. Yet training the mind is not sufficient in itself; it only brings the mind
nearer to grasping reality. Divine revelation, insight, and faith are the necessary
elements for ultimate knowledge of what exists. Therefore, idealism emphasizes
truth and reality existing outside of people. It is absolute and unchanging.
Realism, developed at the onset of the industrial age, places a similar emphasis
on truth and reality being outside of people. Instead of humankind and the outer
environment being separated from each other, realism maintains that humanity is
part and parcel of that environment. The world is a preordained, mechanistic
reality. All of existence operates according to scientific, cause-and-effect
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
relations. It is as if existence is a clock that always runs according to mechanical
principles governing levers, gauges, and gears. Humans have no existence apart
from this clock; they are a part of the predetermined machine. Knowledge is
learning how the machine works; truths are the scientific laws of regulation.
Nothing exists outside the principles of nature. The purpose of education is to
condition the mind to think in a natural, logical way. The mind should be trained to
become consciously aware of the predetermined nature of the world.
Essentialism, created by William L. Bagley in 1938, encompasses the
educational philosophies of idealism and realism. He took the ideas of knowledge
being eternal and outside of humankind (idealism–absolutes; realism–natural
laws) to form pedagogy. Essentialists emphasize that there is a body of timeless
knowledge, both historical and contemporary, that is of value to the living (Gross,
2014; Parkay, Hass, & Anctil, 2010).
Essentialism in terms of supervision emphasizes the supervisor as the person
who teaches truths about teaching to teachers. Supervisors are those most
knowledgeable about those absolute standards. Teachers are then handled
mechanistically to systematize and feed content to students. As teachers digest
these teaching truths, they move closer to being good teachers.
Experimentalism
As Western society became more industrialized, optimism and confidence in
human ability to control nature emerged. The philosophy of pragmatism,
developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James, emphasized what people
can do to nature rather than what nature does to humankind. John Dewey, circa
1920, further expanded on the writings of James by putting the individual
squarely in the context of society. Humans can both reform and be reformed by
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
society. Dewey’s philosophy is, of course, the well-known school of progressive
thought (Gross, 2014). Reconstructionism is a further offshoot of both
pragmatism and progressivism. Richard Pratte (1971) cited the pamphlet Dare
the School Build a New Social Order?, written by George S. Counts in 1932, as a
guiding document for the then-radical notion that schools and students were the
reformers of society.
Experimentalism emerges from the philosophies of pragmatism, progressivism,
and reconstructionism. They hold in common a historical break from the more
traditional philosophies of realism and idealism. The essentialist idea that
knowledge, truth, and morality exist as absolute and outside humans was
rejected. The emerging faith in the scientific method; the ability of humans to
create their own laws, principles, and machines; and the fact that such
human-made inventions would work for them demanded an accompanying
philosophy. Experimentalism provided that philosophy: Reality was what worked.
If a person could form a hypothesis, test it, and find it to work, then it was
regarded as tentatively true. On repeated experimentation with the same results,
it became real. Yet experimentalists would never claim an absolute truth. The
human environment was believed to be constantly changing, so that what one
can do and prove today may not be probable tomorrow. A new situation and a
different approach may alter yesterday’s reality. Experimentalists point to the
historical
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Checking your own Supervisory Beliefs
Let’s step back and watch ourselves at work. First, we’ll consider how we act with
individual teachers, and then with groups. Read the Supervisory Interpersonal
Behaviors Questionnaire for Working with Individuals (Box 5.1), and select the
approach you most often take.
Next, take a look at the Supervisory Interpersonal Behaviors Questionnaire for
Working with Groups (Box 5.2), and select the interpersonal behaviors you
typically use when meeting with groups of teachers.
The supervisory approaches in these questionnaires correspond to the
philosophies of essentialism, experimentalism, and existentialism and are labeled
directive supervision, collaborative supervision, and nondirective supervision.
Glickman and Tamashiro (1980) wrote:
Directive Supervision is an approach based on the belief that teaching consists of
technical skills with known standards and competencies for all teachers to be
effective. The supervisor’s role is to inform, direct, model, and assess those
competencies.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
BOX 5.1
Supervisory Interpersonal Behaviors Questionnaire for Working with Individuals:
A Scenario
The school day has just ended for students at Whichway School. Just as the
teacher sits down at the desk, you (the supervisor) appear at the door and the
teacher invites you in. “How is everything going?” you ask. Looking at the large
stack of papers to correct, the teacher predicts a number of them will reflect that
the students did not understand the work. “It’s very frustrating working with this
class. They have such a wide range of ability!” Then the teacher mentions
another source of frustration: “Some of the students are discipline problems and
their behavior results in class disruption.”
After further discussion, the teacher and you agree that you will come into the
classroom to observe what is going on, followed by a conference to discuss the
classroom visit.
A few days later, after you have observed in the classroom and carefully
analyzed the collected information, you begin to plan for the conference. You
consider a number of approaches to use in the conference to help the teacher.
Approach A
Present what you saw in the classroom and ask for the teacher’s perceptions.
Listen to each other’s responses. After clarifying the problem, each of you can
propose ideas. Finally, you will agree on what is to be done in the classroom. You
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
will mutually identify an objective and agree to an action plan that both of you will
work together to carry out. The plan is for both of you to make.
Approach B
Listen to the teacher discuss what is going on in the classroom. Encourage the
teacher to analyze the problem further, and ask questions to make sure the
teacher is clear about his or her view of the problem. Finally, ask the teacher to
determine and detail the actions he or she will take and find out if you might be of
further help. The plan is the teacher’s to make.
Approach C
Share your observations with the teacher and tell the teacher what you believe to
be the major focus for improvement. Ask the teacher for input into your
observations and interpretations. Based on your own experience and knowledge,
carefully delineate what you believe are alternative actions to improve the
classroom and ask the teacher to consider and select from the options. The plan
to follow is chosen by the teacher from the supervisor’s suggestions.
Approach D
Present your beliefs about the situation and ask the teacher to confirm or revise
the interpretation. After identifying the problem, offer directions to the teacher on
what should be done and how to proceed. You can go into the classroom to
demonstrate what you are telling the teacher to do, or tell the teacher to observe
another teacher who does well in this particular area. Praise and reward the
teacher for following the given assignment.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Response
Most often, I use Approach .
Interpretation
Approach A: A cluster of collaborative behaviors in which the supervisor and
teacher share the decision making about future improvement.
Approach B: A cluster of nondirective behaviors in which the supervisor helps the
teacher formulate his or her own decisions about future improvement.
Approach C: A cluster of directive informational behaviors in which the supervisor
frames the teacher’s choices about future improvement.
Approach D: A cluster of directive control behaviors in which the supervisor
makes the decision for the teacher.
Source: Adapted from an instrument developed by Katherine C. Ginkel (1983).
“An Overview of a Study Which Examined the Relationship between Elementary
School Teachers’ Preference for Supervisory Conferencing Approach and
Conceptual Level of Development,” a paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, April. Used with
permission of Katherine C. Ginkel.
BOX 5.2
Supervisory Interpersonal Behaviors Questionnaire for Working with Groups: A
Scenario
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
You (the supervisor) have just called on the science teachers to decide on a
policy for allowing students to use laboratory equipment outside of regular class
time. Many students have complained about not having enough class time for
doing their experiments. The issue is how and when to free up more laboratory
time for students (before school, at lunchtime, during study hall, after school)
under the supervision of certified teachers. How would you work with the science
teachers to make a decision?
Approach A
Meet with the staff and explain that they need to decide what to do about this
issue. Present the information you have about the problem and ask for
clarification. Paraphrase what they say and, once the teachers verify your
summary, ask them to decide among themselves what they are going to do.
Remain in the meeting, helping to move the discussion along by calling on
people, asking questions, and paraphrasing, but do not become involved in
making your own position known or influencing the outcome in any conscious
way.
Approach B
Meet with the staff by first explaining that you have to make a decision that will
meet the needs of students, teachers, and supervisor. Either by consensus or, if
not, then by majority vote, make a decision. You should listen, encourage, clarify,
and reflect on each staff member’s perception. Afterwards, ask each member,
including yourself, to suggest possible solutions. Discuss each solution; prioritize
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
the list; and, if no consensus emerges, call for a vote. Argue for your own
solution, but go along with the group’s decision.
Approach C
Meet with the staff and explain to them that there are several permissible actions
that you have thought about that could remedy this situation. You would like them
to discuss and agree on which of these actions or combinations of actions they
would like to implement. Lay out the alternatives, explain the advantages and
disadvantages of each, and then allow the group to discuss and decide among
your alternatives.
Approach D
Meet with the staff and tell them you want their feedback before you make a
decision about the issue. Make it clear that the staff’s involvement is to be
advisory. Ask for their suggestions, listen, encourage, clarify, and paraphrase
their ideas. After everyone has had a chance to speak, decide what changes
should be made. Tell them what you are going to do, when the changes will be
made, and that you expect them to carry out the plan.
Response
Most often, I would use Approach .
Interpretation
Approach A: A cluster of nondirective behaviors in which the supervisor assists
the group to make its own decision.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Approach B: A cluster of collaborative behaviors in which the supervisor works as
part of the group in making a group decision.
Approach C: A cluster of directive informational behaviors in which the supervisor
works as the framer of choices among which the group is to decide.
Approach D: A cluster of directive control behaviors in which the supervisor
makes the decision for the group.
Source: Adapted from an instrument developed by Katherine C. Ginkel (1983).
“An Overview of a Study Which Examined the Relationship between Elementary
School Teachers’ Preference for Supervisory Conferencing Approach and
Conceptual Level of Development,” a paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, April. Used with
permission of Katherine C. Ginkel.
Collaborative Supervision is based on the belief that teaching is primarily
problem solving, whereby two or more persons jointly pose hypotheses to a
problem, experiment, and implement those teaching strategies that appear to be
most relevant in their own surroundings. The supervisor’s role is to guide the
problem-solving process, be an active member of the interaction, and keep the
teachers focused on their common problems.
Non-Directive Supervision has as its premise that learning is primarily a private
experience in which individuals must come up with their own solutions to
improving the classroom experience for students. The supervisor’s role is to
listen, be nonjudgmental, and provide self-awareness and clarification
experiences for teachers. (p. 76)
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
What Does Your Belief Mean in Terms of Supervisor and Teacher Responsibility?
Beliefs about supervision can be thought of in terms of decision-making
responsibility (Table 5.2). An essentialist philosophy is premised on the
supervisor being the expert on instruction and therefore having major
decision-making responsibility. A situation of high supervisor responsibility and
low teacher responsibility is labeled directive supervision. An experimentalist
philosophy is premised on the supervisor and teachers being equal partners in
instructional improvement; equal supervisor and teacher responsibility is labeled
collaborative supervision. Existentialist philosophy is premised on teachers
discovering their own capacities for instructional improvement. Low supervisor
responsibility and high teacher responsibility is labeled nondirective supervision.
As we clarify our own educational philosophy and supervisory beliefs, we rarely
find a pure ideological position. Therefore, Sergiovanni’s idea of a supervisory
platform becomes helpful. What combination of various philosophies and beliefs
do we consider important? Perhaps our beliefs are mainly essentialist and
directive yet contain parts of experimentalism and collaboration; or perhaps we
have another combination of beliefs. A particular platform is not right or wrong;
rather, it is an assessment of the beliefs we use to create the floor we stand on.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Educational Philosophy, Teachers, Supervisors, and Supervisory Approach
Thus far in this chapter we have discussed the beliefs of three teachers—Joan
Simpson, Bill Washington, and Pat Rogers; the beliefs of three supervisors—Bob
Reynolds, Jan White, and Shawn Moore; three superphilosophies—essentialism,
experimentalism, and existentialism; and three supervisory
approaches—directive, collaborative, and nondirective. Clearly there are some
patterns present here, as summarized in Table 5.3. Teacher Joan Simpson and
supervisor Bob Reynolds both embrace essentialism, teacher Bill Washington
and supervisor Jan White’s beliefs are based on experimentalism, and teacher
Pat Rogers and supervisor Shawn Moore’s beliefs reflect existentialism. As
stated earlier, most supervisors were once teachers, and teachers tend to carry
their most deeply held beliefs from the classroom to their supervisory roles. Many
educators may have never articulated their beliefs in formal platforms, but they
nonetheless possess those beliefs—and those beliefs are reflected in their
everyday actions as teachers and supervisors, hence they are of vital importance
to the students under their responsibility.
Where You Stand Depends on Where You Sit: Effects of Culture on Beliefs
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
A person’s cultural background is an important aspect of what he or she believes
about education. There is a natural tendency for members of the dominant
culture to support curriculum and instruction that will transmit that culture to
students. Students from minority cultures, however, may find it difficult to adapt to
curriculum and instruction intended to convey the dominant culture and may
resist (sometimes passively, sometimes actively) the transmission of that culture.
This is not just a question of an unfortunate mismatch between dominant and
minority cultures that eventually will be overcome as minority cultures are
assimilated. Schools that marginalize the cultures of particular students
marginalize those students as well. What is especially insidious about such
marginalization is that educators may not realize they are partly responsible for
its occurrence.
Educators’ beliefs about education often are influenced by cultural assumptions
they may not be aware of because the assumptions are so deeply ingrained and
taken for granted. These assumptions can influence the curriculum that
educators design, their relationships with students and parents, the lessons they
plan, how they assess students, and so forth. Because of the influences of our
cultural assumptions and beliefs on students, it is not sufficient for us simply to
articulate our beliefs and then base educational goals and practices on those
beliefs. Rather, we should attempt to identify and critically examine our cultural
assumptions. Such critique, often done in dialogue with others, can cause us to
change assumptions that have negative effects on colleagues and students.
Identifying and critiquing cultural assumptions is not easy for individuals and
schools to do. It usually is necessary to begin with an examination of our actions,
cultural artifacts, and espoused beliefs and then to begin to search below the
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
surface of those actions, artifacts, and beliefs for underlying assumptions. At the
individual level, this might mean reflecting on questions such as the following:
Do I have more difficulty working with some cultural groups than others? If so,
why?
How congruent are my espoused beliefs and actions when working with cultural
groups different from my own?
How does my cultural background influence my expectations of and interactions
with parents?
How does my cultural background contribute to my perceptions of effective
teaching?
How does my cultural background affect my expectations of students in general?
My expectations of different student groups?
These questions provide entry points for critical reflection that can expand our
understanding of cultural assumptions. Questions such as the following can
assist groups to critically examine cultural effects on the school as an
organization:
How does the dominant culture inform our goals as a school? How do other
cultures contribute to our goals?
How is the dominant culture represented in our curriculum, including textbooks
and curriculum materials? Are other cultures reflected positively in our
curriculum?
How do our cultural beliefs affect the way students are grouped and placed in
various programs in our school?
How do our cultural beliefs affect the school’s disciplinary practices?
How do our cultural beliefs affect the way we assess student learning?
How do our cultural beliefs affect the way we interact with our students’ families?
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Another catalyst for changing beliefs is a better understanding of cultures
different from our own. This can be done by reading literature about other
cultures and about multicultural education, talking with students and colleagues
from other cultures, interacting with parents and community members from
different cultures in various community settings, and sharing educational and
leadership roles within the school with representatives of various cultures. Better
understanding of cultures, especially when achieved through interaction with
those cultures, can overcome personal bias, change educational beliefs, and
ultimately inform a different and more diverse educational practice.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
chapter 16 Evaluation of Teaching
Learning Outcomes for This Chapter
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
Recount the authors’ rationale for their stance that the results of high-stakes
achievement tests should not be a measure used in the evaluation of teaching.
Explain three ways to separate summative and formative evaluation of teaching.
Identify the first priority for dealing with the low-performing teacher.
List at least five methods for assisting with the formative evaluation of teaching.
Describe what is assessed in schoolwide evaluation of teaching.
Questions to Reflect On as You Read This Chapter
Consider a school you are familiar with where student achievement is part of the
evaluation of teaching. What have been the effects of this policy on teachers and
teaching? On students?
If you had a choice, would you prefer to be an educator at a school that
combines summative and formative evaluation of teaching, or a school where
they are separate? What are the reasons for your preference?
Choose any of the domains of teaching in Figure 16.2. What specific types of
teaching performance within the chosen domain should be the subject of
summative evaluation of teaching?
Which of the methods for assisting with the formative evaluation of teaching that
you have not been involved with would you like to try out at some point in the
future? Why do you believe the chosen structure is promising?
A teacher portfolio can be used either for formative (improvement) or summative
(decision on future employment) teacher evaluation. How would the development
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
and contents of a portfolio used for summative teacher evaluation differ from the
development and contents of a portfolio used for formative evaluation?
Think of a team of teachers who you are familiar with that would benefit from
team evaluation of teaching. What, specifically, would the team evaluate? What
types of data would be gathered? What types of assistance would the team need
during the evaluation?
There is considerable support among experts on the evaluation of teaching for
the proposition that, historically, things have not gone well in this area (Danielson,
2010/2011; Kowalski & Dolph, 2015; Marshall, 2006; Marzano, 2012; Maslow &
Kelley, 2012; Toch, 2008). One problem with traditional evaluation systems is that
their expectations for teachers have not been clear. Customarily, evaluation of
teaching has centered on checklists with overly general performance categories
such as “satisfactory” and “unsatisfactory,” or “excellent,” “acceptable,” and
“needs improvement.” Also, many of the criteria in conventional evaluation
systems have nothing to do with teaching.
Another problem with traditional evaluation is a lack of evaluator preparation for
using the system. Consequently, evaluators may lack understanding of the
overall evaluation process or how to use the evaluation tools. Evaluators who are
not properly prepared are more likely to perform biased evaluations. The
evaluator may be biased in terms of what constitutes quality teaching, or worse
yet, in regard to a teacher’s age, race, ethnicity, or gender. A long-standing
problem for principals and assistant principals who are assigned to evaluate
teachers across the curriculum is that they are likely to lack knowledge in some
content areas.
School administrators are usually pressed for time, which means that they may
not be able to do as many evaluations as necessary to properly evaluate
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
teaching. Marshall (2006) notes that even a principal who makes frequent visits
to a teacher’s classroom observes less than 1% of that teacher’s instruction. This
means that what the administrator observes may not be a fair representation of
the teacher’s instruction from day to day. Although having more evaluators would
go a long way toward addressing the problem of time, multiple evaluators
represent a different (but not a new) problem: a lack of consistency among
evaluators. The lack of clarity in traditional evaluation systems combined with
inadequate preparation of evaluators means that one evaluator may well interpret
the evaluation criteria differently than another; two teachers in the same school
who demonstrate the same quality of instruction may be assigned different
ratings. When we move beyond the individual school, the disparity in teacher
ratings is likely to become worse.
All of the problems with traditional evaluation have left a sour taste in the mouths
of teachers and school administrators. In a national survey of teachers, only 26%
of the respondents believed that their last evaluation had been “useful and
effective” (Duffett, Farkas, Rotherham, & Silva, 2008, (pp. 3). Kim Marshall
(2006), a former principal, reflects on conversations with fellow principals:
We ruefully observed that the whole process is often a meaningless ritual.
Administrators observe; we do our write-ups and fill out the evaluation forms;
teachers sign them, sometimes with pro forma objections; occasionally we use
evaluations to make serious criticism, which may or may not be heeded; very
occasionally we use them to make a case for firing a chronically ineffective
teacher; but most of the time, our evaluations are accepted with a shrug and
have virtually no impact on student learning. (p. 3)
The New Wave of Evaluation Systems: From the Frying Pan to the Fire?
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
In the 1980s, Thomas McGreal stated, “One of the few enduring initiatives in
education is the often strident call for ‘new and improved’ teacher evaluation
systems” (McGreal 1988, (p. 1). McGreal’s words ring as true today as when he
wrote them. Spurred on by the promise of federal dollars, over the last several
years states have mandated evaluation systems intended as “levers” for
improved teaching and student achievement. These new accountability systems
typically include standards for effective teaching, state or district rubrics to assess
compliance with the standards, and multiple classroom observations to rate
teaching performance based on the rubrics. Many of the new state evaluation
systems also include what they refer to as a “value added” component, meaning
that part of a teacher’s evaluation is based on student performance, often
measured by the state’s high-stakes achievement test. Teachers who are rated
poorly on the rubric or whose students do poorly on performance measures
usually are placed on an individual growth plan, and ultimately can be fired for
not meeting standards (Behrent, 2016; Bolyard, 2015; Derrington & Campbell,
2015; Dodson, 2015; Morgan, Hodge, Trepinski, & Anderson, 2014; Schachter,
2012).
Research on the new evaluation systems, and especially on tying student test
scores to individual teacher evaluations, has not been positive. Test scores of
students taught by the same teacher tend to be unstable, meaning they change
from group to group in the same subject in the same year, and from year to year
as new groups of students taught by the same teacher take different versions of
the same test (Darling-Hammond, Amrein-Beardsley, Haertel, & Rothstein, 2011;
Morgan et al., 2014; Murphy, Hallinger, & Heck, 2013). Another problem with
linking student test scores to teacher evaluation is that, as important as the
individual teacher is, there are many other things that influence student
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
achievement. Some of these factors include past learning, other teachers, class
size, other students, the school environment, the curriculum, instructional
resources, and a host of social and economic factors. Moreover, attempts to
separate a teacher’s effects on student learning from other factors have been
unsuccessful (Behrent, 2016; Darling-Hammond et al., 2011; Noddings, 2007;
Murphy et al., 2013; Toch, 2008).
Evaluators’ ratings of teachers also tend to be unstable over time, and the ratings
of the same teacher by different evaluators often are inconsistent (Morgan et al.,
2014; Murphy et al., 2013). The type of observation most often conducted by
evaluators is the classroom walkthrough, found in one study to be inversely
related to student achievement (Grissom, Loeb, & Master, 2013). Murphy and
associates (2013) review the evidence on the new wave of teacher evaluation
systems and conclude that it raises serious questions about the stability of
value-added measures, the validity of administrator evaluations, and the capacity
of teacher evaluation to improve teaching.
In most districts, school administrators are the ones who must implement the
new evaluation system, and for the most part principals’ reports on the systems
are negative. School leaders report they did not have sufficient time to put the
new system in place, and that neither they nor the teachers in their school
received adequate training on the system. Principals complain that it takes too
much time to carry out the tasks associated with the new evaluation system,
including multiple observations, working with teachers on individual growth plans,
and all of the paperwork they must complete. In some states principals report
problems with the technology used to submit evaluation reports. Many school
administrators report dissatisfaction with the use of student test scores as part of
teacher evaluation, and difficulty converting teacher performance described in
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
complex rubrics to one- or two-word ratings. Numerous principals do not believe
that the new evaluation systems are accurately measuring teacher performance
or improving teaching and learning, and they are concerned that the new
systems are damaging their relationships with teachers (Dodson, 2015; Kowalski
& Dolph, 2015).
Beyond the research on the new wave of evaluation systems there are
philosophical and moral issues to be considered. Croft, Roberts, and Stenhouse
(2016) argue that high-stakes testing and the new wave of teacher evaluation
systems “represent a confluence of systematic and orchestrated education
reform efforts” that together “comprise a perfect storm that is eroding the bedrock
of public education in the United States” (p. 70). Murphy, Hallinger, and Heck
(2013) maintain that teacher evaluation in its current state is “an instrument of
industrial-age management” that “privileges organizational architecture
(bureaucracy, hierarchy, and institutionalism) under a very thin layer of
professionalism” (p. 352).
If we reflect for a moment on some of the language used by proponents to
describe the new wave of evaluation systems, it does give us cause for concern.
Advocates talk about the need for “levers” or “drivers” for improving schools. One
applies pressure at one end of a lever to force something at the other end to
move. One definition of a driver is “a tool, such as a screwdriver or hammer, that
is used for imparting forceful pressure on another object” (The Free Dictionary,
n.d.). This language is definitely not the language of partnership or collaboration.
Noddings (2007) examines the term accountability, the foundation for the new
evaluation systems. She notes that the term comes from the corporate world,
and that people are accountable to those above them. Noddings suggests that a
more appropriate word for teachers would be responsible, as teachers are
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
responsible for their students. Whether teachers carry out their myriad
responsibilities to their students is far too complex a question to be answered by
a single achievement test or a set of one-word performance ratings.
Noddings (2007) points out the dangers of using student test scores as a
measure of accountability. A teacher who teaches different subjects and is faced
with the prospect of an evaluation based on test results is likely to focus more on
the tested subjects than the other subjects. A teacher teaching a tested subject is
more likely to focus on the content in that subject that will tested at the expense
of other, sometimes important content within the subject. Teaching to the test
means that students will not develop an understanding of the broader meaning
and value of the subject. Moreover, teachers evaluated on content-area test
results are less likely to teach important concepts that cut across content areas
and are not measured by any of the subject-area tests.
As Behrent (2016) points out, a focus on individual teacher performance ratings
fosters competition rather than the collegiality and collaboration associated with
improving schools. More broadly, when the focus is exclusively on teacher
ratings, “issues in education are individualized and removed from the broader
social, economic and political context in which education takes place” (p. 51).
Champ (2015) concludes that when a new-wave evaluation system contradicts
what teachers know about teaching and learning, and teachers realize that an
evaluation system is inconsistent, unreliable, and does not improve student
achievement, one result is resistance and conflict. The results of the new wave of
evaluation systems can lead educators to drastic career decisions. Dodson
(2015) reports that many principals are considering retiring early because of their
dissatisfaction with the evaluation systems, and that, “[a]cross the country,
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
teachers are retiring, quitting, or getting fired in districts where new teacher
evaluation instruments include student test scores” (p. 54).
In the final analysis, all of the money, time, and effort invested in new-wave
evaluation is probably not worth it. Murphy et al. (2013) conclude,
. . . if school improvement is the goal, school leaders would be advised to spend
their time and energy in areas other than teacher evaluation. . . . school
administrators will be more likely to positively impact instructional quality if they
allocate their direct efforts with teachers into facilitative channels. (p. 352)
Summative and Formative Evaluation
Summative and formative are two broad categories of teacher evaluation.
Summative teacher evaluation is an administrative function intended to meet the
organizational need for teacher accountability. It involves decisions about
whether a teacher should be granted tenure, placed on probation or terminated,
and in some cases, whether a teacher should receive a bonus or salary increase
for outstanding performance. Summative evaluation is based on policies that
mandate its purpose, frequency, and procedures. Teacher performance is usually
documented on an evaluation form. On the form, an administrator completes
checklists, rating scales, or narratives indicating the extent to which the teacher
has met performance criteria. Evaluation forms usually are standard (same
criteria for all teachers) and global (general enough to apply to teachers with
different responsibilities). Summative evaluations typically judge teachers on the
quality of their instruction as well as other areas, such as compliance with school
regulations, cooperation with administration and colleagues, completion of
extracurricular assignments, and so on.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Formative teacher evaluation is a supervisory function intended to assist and
support teachers in professional growth and the improvement of teaching. It is
focused on the needs of teachers rather than on the organization’s need for
accountability. While summative evaluation is concerned with a summary of
performance over a specific time period, formative evaluation is ongoing and
concerned with continuous improvement. Rather than relying on standardized
evaluation instruments that gather data on all essential performance criteria,
formative evaluation is usually based on a selected focus for instructional
improvement (e.g., questioning techniques, student participation, classroom
movement, implementing a new instructional model), with the focus changing
over time. Thus, the observation systems described in Chapter 12 are well suited
for formative evaluation.
Table 16.1 summarizes our comparison of summative and formative teacher
evaluation.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
One historical issue in the field of instructional supervision is whether summative
and formative evaluation of teaching should be integrated or kept separate.
Indeed, many on the “keep-them-separate” side of the argument say that
summative evaluation of teaching should not even be considered part of the field
of supervision—that it is a “management” or “administrative” function. Those in
favor of integrating formative and summative evaluation say that integration is
necessary for a coherent evaluation system, and that the professionals
conducting formative evaluation need to also possess summative power in order
to have the “clout” necessary for teachers to take their recommendations
seriously. We take a different view, that we explain in detail in the next section.
First, allow us to provide an overview on our stance on the summative–formative
issue. We hold that:
both summative and formative evaluation of teaching are necessary.
summative and formative evaluation of teaching should be separate.
the primary emphasis should be placed on formative evaluation of teaching.
Why Summative and Formative Evaluation of Teaching Should Be Separate
Most school districts have a single evaluation system and maintain that their
system meets both summative and formative needs. However, when schools
attempt to carry out summative and formative evaluation simultaneously, they
tend to place primary emphasis on summative goals, and formative evaluation is
reduced to secondary status. Indeed, when we closely examine the evaluation of
teaching in districts and schools that purport to have combined systems that
emphasize formative evaluation, in most cases the structures, processes, and
time commitments in those systems actually focus on summative evaluation.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Evaluation systems that attempt to combine summative and formative evaluation
while relying on rating scales alone are particularly suspect. “A school system
that relies solely on periodic evaluations of teacher performance through rating
scales may capture data suited for in-system summative purposes but will be
handicapped in pursuing formative/developmental objectives” (Allison, 1981, p.
15 emphasis in original). One reason for this is that summative rating scales are
designed to be standardized, global, legally defensible, efficiently completed and
processed, and often include many noninstructional criteria. Also, although most
would agree that the context of teaching (the school environment, students’ prior
learning, instructional time, and so on) should be considered in evaluation, the
need to use standardized, global instruments means that context cannot be fully
considered in summative evaluation. On the other hand, context is an important
aspect of formative evaluation. In short, much of the meaningful data for
formative assessment are precluded when only summative instruments are used
in the evaluation system, but such data can be gathered and utilized in a
separate formative process.
It is widely recognized by principals and teachers that summative evaluation,
while necessary to make employment decisions, does not lead to instructional
improvement for most teachers. Successful formative evaluation depends on
trust and open communication between the teacher and evaluator. Yet
summative evaluation is potentially punitive. The possibility of a bad performance
rating is always lurking in the background. It is human nature to avoid being
totally open with an evaluator about problems one is experiencing when the
evaluation might lead to a poor performance rating—and possible termination.
Many principals believe that they are exceptions to the rule and can successfully
integrate summative and formative evaluation. One of the foremost experts on
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
evaluation, James Popham (1988) disagrees: “Many administrators who have
been thrust into the formative-summative evaluator role will protest that they can,
having ‘earned the trust’ of their teachers, carry out both teacher evaluation
functions simultaneously. They are deluding themselves” (p. 59).
We’re not arguing that summative evaluation should be eliminated in favor of
formative evaluation. Both types of evaluation are necessary. Like Popham
(1988), we maintain that since they have entirely different purposes, they need to
be kept separate. With McGreal (1982), we argue that the likelihood that either
type of evaluation system will succeed is greater if both systems are internally
consistent, which can be accomplished only by the two systems being kept
separate. If separated, can the two systems coexist? Yes, but only if the
purposes of both systems are clearly defined, the systems are perceived by
teachers as distinct, and the integrity of both systems is protected (Allison, 1981).
Most scholars and practitioners agree that the evaluation of teaching by itself is
not likely to improve instruction; the evaluation must be tied to professional
development. However, as Smylie (2014) points out, the linkage between the
evaluation of teaching and professional development is weak in most schools.
Although the emphasis in most schools is on summative evaluation, formative
evaluation better informs and improves the professional development that is
necessary for improved teaching (Young, Range, Hvidston, & Mette, 2015), thus
it makes sense to place the emphasis on formative evaluation, while maintaining
summative evaluation as a necessary but separate component of the overall
evaluation system.
How to Separate Summative and Formative Evaluation
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
One way to separate the two types of evaluation is to use different evaluators.
For example, first-year teachers (who clearly need to have both types of
evaluation) could have their summative evaluation carried out by an administrator
and formative evaluation by an experienced teacher assigned as their mentor.
Experienced teachers could receive summative evaluation from the principal and
formative evaluation from an assistant principal for instruction, lead teacher, or
peer coach. Also, there are successful evaluation systems in place in which
teacher leaders carry out summative evaluations of beginning (Young et al.,
2015) and even experienced (Darling-Hammond et al., 2011) teachers, thus
administrators doing formative evaluation and teachers doing summative
evaluation, while unusual, is a viable option. There are many different ways for
summative and formative evaluation to be done by different evaluators. The
important things are to make clear to everyone who is responsible for each type
of evaluation, to provide both types of evaluators with adequate preparation, and
to have evaluators with different roles carry out their evaluations separately.
Another way to separate summative and formative evaluation relates to the time
period when each is carried out. For example, all summative evaluations of
returning teachers could be carried out in the fall of each school year, leaving the
remainder of the year for formative assessment. When this strategy is used, the
same person or persons can perform both types of evaluation. This strategy does
not work as well if formative evaluation is carried out in the fall and summative
evaluation takes place throughout the rest of the year, because the teacher
involved in formative evaluation during the fall realizes that summative evaluation
is looming on the horizon. That knowledge may affect the willingness of the
teacher to engage in open and honest communication about his or her need for
instructional improvement. It’s better to get the summative evaluation out of the
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
way early in the year, give the teacher his or her “seal of approval,” and then
allow the teacher and supervisor to engage in nonjudgmental assessment for the
remainder of the school year. A long-term variation of the “separate time periods”
strategy is to conduct summative evaluation throughout the first year of a
multiyear cycle and then focus on formative evaluation for the next two to three
years, returning to a summative year at the beginning of the next three- to
four-year cycle. Should serious problems with a teacher’s performance develop
during a formative assessment year, that teacher could be shifted back to a
summative evaluation-remediation track until the problem is resolved.
A third way of separating summative and formative evaluation (that admittedly
runs counter to the current heavy emphasis on summative evaluation) has been
suggested by Thomas McGreal (1983). Under McGreal’s model, a clear and
visible set of minimum performance expectations would be developed, including
administrative, personal, and instructional expectations. Teacher performance
regarding these minimal expectations would be continuously, informally
monitored, but no special procedures or evaluation instruments would be
established. If a problem occurred with a teacher’s performance, the
administrator would remind the teacher of minimum expectations. If the problem
continued to occur, the administrator would issue to the teacher a written notice
of the teacher’s deficiency, with a copy placed in the teacher’s file. If serious
violations continued even after the formal notice, the administrator would
recommend more serious administrative action. Beyond these contingencies,
there would be no standard summative evaluation process or annual write-up.
This would take care of summative evaluation. Most of the time and energy spent
on evaluation would be for formative assessment, including goal setting, a focus
on teaching,
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Suggestions for Summative Evaluation
How much flexibility districts and schools have in designing summative
evaluation systems, of course, depends on state laws and policies. If given the
leeway to do so, the first step is to identify the domains of teaching in which
teachers are expected to demonstrate knowledge, skills, and behaviors. Wheeler
and Scriven (2006), Marshall (2006), the National Institute for Excellence in
Teaching (2012), and Danielson (2015) have each suggested several domains
that we have listed in Table 16.2, with similar domains listed across the same
rows in the table (Danielson’s domain of instructional purpose and accuracy of
content cuts across the first two rows). As you can see from reviewing Table
16.2, there is a great deal of similarity across the four sets of proposed domains.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Simply identifying broad domains, of course, is not sufficient. Specific types of
expected knowledge, skills, and behaviors must be identified within each domain,
and ratings must be established to indicate the extent to which the teacher is
displaying those expectations. In the Danielson (2015) framework, for example,
each domain is broken down into “components,” which in turn are broken down
into “elements.” Many school districts have adopted or modified rubrics such as
the one developed by Danielson, which includes performance levels
(unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, or distinguished) and observable criteria
indicating the teacher’s performance level for each element. Finally, teacher
ratings (based on performance levels) and evidence supporting those ratings
must be summarized in a written evaluation report. The identification of domains
of teaching; expected knowledge, skills, and behaviors within those domains;
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
performance levels; and performance criteria all contribute to a more valid and
reliable summative evaluation only if those doing the evaluation have a clear
understanding of the system and the skills to use it. Teachers being evaluated
also need to understand the system, including performance expectations and
performance levels as defined by the system.
Other key components of effective summative evaluation include the data to be
gathered and data gathering methods. Nearly all experts agree on the need to
gather multiple types of evaluation data. Any data gathered should be directly
related to one or more of the performance indicators established within the
selected domains of teaching. Systematic classroom observations; discussions
with the teacher about observed lessons; written teacher self-evaluations; review
of teaching artifacts like unit plans and student work products; examination of
evidence of student growth over time; and collaboration with colleagues, parents,
and the community for the improvement of student learning all may be
appropriate, depending on performance expectations and indicators. In some
districts, teachers submit performance portfolios including artifacts and reports as
evidence of meeting criteria in each teaching domain. For reasons discussed
earlier in this chapter, we do not recommend that the use of students’
performance on high-stakes achievement tests be part of the summative
evaluation of teaching.
Whatever data gathering methods are used in summative evaluation of teaching,
it is essential that evaluators be well trained in those methods. Teachers also
need to be provided information on what data will be gathered, who will gather
the data, how the data will be gathered, and how often the data will be gathered
(Tucker & DeSander, 2006). Evaluators need to give frequent and timely
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
feedback to teachers on the results of evaluation activities (Darling- Hammond et
al., 2011).
This brings us to the topic of working with the low-performing teacher. The first
priority in such cases, which are far more rare than detractors of our schools
would have us believe, should be to assist the teacher to raise her or his
performance to a satisfactory level. If the teacher continues to perform poorly, the
possibility of a mismatch between a teacher with unfulfilled promise and the
school should be considered. No incompetent or uncommitted teacher should be
transferred to another school to “get rid” of the teacher, but we know a number of
teachers who were poor matches for one school who then became successes in
other schools with contexts more congruent with their abilities.
Teachers who are not improving and are not open to career counseling must be
notified of deficiencies and the evidence of those deficiencies. The teacher
should be given the opportunity to respond in writing to that notice. The teacher
must be provided a remediation plan including improvement goals, assistance
that will be provided, how progress toward improvement goals will be measured,
and how feedback on improvement efforts will be provided (McGrath, 2006). The
remediation plan should be viewed and treated by the administration as a real
effort to assist the teacher, not merely as steps in the termination process. For an
in-depth discussion of this topic, we recommend Sally Zepeda’s (2016) book, The
Leader’s Guide to Working with Underperforming Teachers.
Suggestions for Formative Evaluation
In this section we discuss several different methods that can be used for the
formative evaluation of teaching. Actually, one expert or another has
recommended each of these methods as a way of gathering summative
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
evaluation data; however, each method is used in a very different way for
formative evaluation. Also, provided they are different from the evaluators doing
summative evaluation, evaluators using any of these methods for formative
evaluation are in a different relationship with the teacher than evaluators
engaged in summative evaluation. In summative evaluation, like it or not, the
evaluator has a level of power over the teacher; in effective formative evaluation
the evaluator and teacher are coequals in the evaluation process. Indeed, in the
remainder of this discussion we will refer to the professional assisting the teacher
in the formative evaluation process as the “facilitator” rather than the “evaluator.”
Using Rubrics
It might surprise readers that we recommend rubrics as a part of formative
evaluation after discussing them as a part of summative evaluation in many
schools. However, rubrics like those designed by Danielson (2013) can be used
selectively in formative evaluation. In summative evaluation the teacher is judged
on all performance indicators on the rubric; in formative evaluation the teacher
and facilitator can cooperatively choose particular domains and components, and
assess teacher performance within those domains and components with an eye
toward improvement.
Classroom Observations
Observation and conferral in clinical supervision and peer coaching (Chapter 15)
are forms of formative evaluation. In formative observation, the observer does
not need to gather data on all instructional performance indicators in the
summative evaluation system, nor does the teacher necessarily need to be
assigned performance ratings. Observation can focus on a particular area of
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
instruction that the teacher is concerned about and be the basis for conferral on
how the teacher can improve practice in that area.
Videos
In most summative evaluations that include video recordings of teachers’
lessons, the primary reason the teacher submits the videos is to provide
evidence of satisfactory teaching. In formative evaluation, the purposes of
recording lessons are to reflect on the videos, identify areas for improvement,
and engage in dialogue about how to achieve that improvement. The facilitator
can assist the teacher in video recording lessons, but with modern video
cameras, that will not always be necessary. The observer and facilitator can view
the video together or separately, but it is important for them to meet to confer on
the video and how what was learned from the video can improve the teacher’s
instruction.
Review of Student Work
Teachers submitting student work as part of summative evaluation, if they have
good self-preservation instincts, will submit work that the students did well on. In
formative evaluation, the teachers benefit the most when they and their
facilitators review student work reflecting a range of student performance. The
teacher and facilitator can analyze student work to identify underlying causes of
problems students are experiencing, and discuss ways of addressing those
problems.
Peer, Student, and Parent Feedback
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Peers can observe the teacher teaching, examine teaching artifacts, and review
measures of student achievement, then give feedback to the teacher and
facilitator. In formative peer review, the teacher should be allowed to request
teachers who they respect and trust to provide peer feedback.
Some principals and teachers are reluctant to gather student feedback,
especially from younger students; however, educators who know that feedback
will not be part of a summative evaluation or be placed in teachers’ files are more
likely to consider student perceptions, and age-appropriate methods of gathering
student feedback can be built into the data collection process.
Even parents who do not regularly visit schools and classrooms can provide
selective feedback to their children’s teachers. Parents can inform teachers if
their children feel welcome at school, understand how to do their homework, and
so forth. The teacher and facilitator can review feedback from peers, students,
and parents, and identify relevant feedback that can be the basis for instructional
improvement efforts.
Visits to Other Teachers’ Classrooms
Facilitators can arrange for teachers being evaluated to visit the classrooms of
expert teachers in order to (1) compare their teaching to the expert teaching they
are observing as a way of assessing their own performance, and (2) identify
expert teaching behaviors that they may wish to incorporate into their own
teaching. Visits to classrooms where the same students, grade levels, or content
areas are being taught are typically the most helpful. After observing a peer’s
instruction, the teacher should meet with the facilitator to discuss what was
learned and how the teacher can use that learning to improve her or his own
instruction.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Individualized Improvement Plans
A facilitator can assist a teacher with an individualized instructional improvement
plan that is not part of the school’s summative evaluation system. Such a plan
calls for three types of formative assessment. First, the teacher completes an
initial self-assessment that can include the analysis and synthesis of data
gathered through several of the methods already discussed. The
self-assessment is the basis for the teacher’s plan for instructional improvement
(often a year-long plan). Second, the teacher and facilitator gather and analyze
data as the plan is being implemented to assess progress. Third, at the
completion of implementation (usually at the end of the school year), outcome
data is gathered.
Self-Reflection
As a method of formative assessment, self-reflection can contribute to all of the
methods previously discussed as well as stand on its own as a method for
assessing and improving teaching. There are several aids to self-reflection,
including reflective logs, reflective journals, and audio journals. The teacher can
use a reflective log to record observations on student learning, describe
instructional problems, and track improvement efforts, and also discuss log
entries with the facilitator. Reflective journals can be used for more personal and
deeper reflections, with the teacher selecting which journal entries to share with
the facilitator. Despite the significant potential of reflective writing, keeping
reflective logs and journals does not appeal to some teachers; an alternative for
those teachers is audio recording of oral reflections.
Portfolio Development
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Teacher portfolios can be used for either summative or formative evaluation, but
each type of evaluation requires a different type of portfolio. Teachers who are
developing a portfolio that will be used as part of their summative evaluation are
concerned with providing evidence of effective teaching tied to the school’s
expectations, and ultimately tied to the performance ratings they will receive from
whomever completes their evaluation report. Teachers developing formative
portfolios can identify problems they wish to work on or new teaching strategies
they wish to explore; use portfolios as vehicles for developing, recording, and
reflecting upon self-directed improvement efforts; and share their portfolios with
colleagues. Teachers can incorporate ideas from each other’s portfolios into their
own professional development.
One type of annual portfolio recommended for formative evaluation is divided into
four sections. Section 1 includes the teacher’s self-assessment of teaching
during the first several weeks of the school year. The content of this section
includes data from peer observations, student work products and achievement
records, student surveys, and so on. Teacher reflections on the meaning of the
data and implications for instructional improvement also are displayed in section
1.
Section 2 of the portfolio includes a plan for individual improvement to be
implemented throughout the remainder of the school year. The plan includes
instructional improvement goals and actions intended to meet the goals. Planned
actions might be attending professional development workshops, joining a study
group, trying out new teaching strategies, and so on. Section 2 also contains a
plan for evaluating the results of the improvement activities. Reflections on why
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
the planned actions were chosen and anticipated results also can be included in
section 2.
Section 3 of the portfolio is developed over the remainder of the school year.
Entries in this section include illustrations of and reflections on improvement
activities. Agendas from professional development programs attended, feedback
from coaches who observed new teaching strategies, samples of student
performance over time, and myriad other entries document improvement efforts
and measures of growth. Artifacts and reflections in section 3 tell the story of the
teacher’s improvement journey.
Although measures of progress toward improvement goals are present
throughout section 3 of the portfolio, it is section 4 where the teacher enters
year-end summary data on progress toward improvement goals. Final reflections
on the school year and judgments about the success of improvement activities
are entered. General reflections on personal and professional growth also may
be included. The teacher probably will have new students the following school
year and may even be teaching different courses, so the end of the school year is
not the appropriate time for developing a detailed improvement plan for the next
year; however, the teacher may wish to conclude section 4 of the portfolio with a
general discussion of some potential new improvement goals.
Although summative and formative portfolios both can include artifacts and
reflections on professional growth, the different purposes of the two types of
portfolios make both the overall spirit and many specific entries in one type of
portfolio very different from the other. The time and effort needed to develop
either type of portfolio necessitate that districts and schools wishing to use
portfolios choose between the two types. Either type of portfolio is appropriate,
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
but if the primary purpose is to improve teaching and learning, our bet is on the
formative portfolio.
Contextualizing and Personalizing Formative Evaluation
One complaint that educators make about state and district summative
evaluation systems is that they do not consider the teaching context, including
factors like community socioeconomic factors, the school’s resources, and
students’ prior learning. Since formative evaluation is free of the legal
requirements attached to summative evaluation, it can consider and even be
tailored to the school and classroom context. In formative evaluation, schools
and teachers can be allowed a great deal of flexibility in choosing what aspects
of instruction to assess, the methods of evaluation, and improvement goals.
Indeed, formative evaluation can be individualized to match each teacher’s
professional context and needs.
Beyond Evaluation of Individual Teaching
A core proposition of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
(NBPTS) is, “Teachers are members of professional learning communities”
(2014, n.p.). In its seminal document What Teachers Should Know and Be Able
to Do, NBPTS states, “Teachers contribute to school effectiveness by
collaborating with other professionals” (1989, p. 18). If we are going to take
seriously the premise that teachers need to work together in teams and
schoolwide for the improvement of teaching and learning, then it makes sense to
evaluate teaching at the team and school levels.
Team Evaluation of Teaching
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
There are a variety of instructional teams in schools, including grade-level,
looping, multi-age, content-area, inclusion, and interdisciplinary teams, to name a
few. Formative, self-evaluation by team members facilitated by a supervisor or
teacher leader is the most meaningful approach to team evaluation. The focus of
the evaluation will depend on the purpose of the team and students the team is
responsible for, but many of the same data collection methods used for formative
evaluation of individual teachers can be used by the team. The difference here is
that the evaluation is focused on the team’s instructional performance and effects
on student learning. Teachers on the team can observe each other and the
students they are responsible for in each other’s classrooms, develop common
rubrics for assessing student progress, and meet together to analyze students’
work. Collaborative data gathering and analysis should lead to collaborative
design and implementation of an improvement plan, and continued evaluation to
assess and modify improvement efforts.
Schoolwide Evaluation of Teaching
In Chapter 2 we talked about dynamic schools having a “cause beyond oneself.”
Such a cause beyond oneself is centered on teaching and learning, and schools
have a responsibility to evaluate the teaching going on throughout the school to
determine if it is consistent with the school’s vision and mission. The evaluation
we are talking about goes beyond student performance on the state’s high-stakes
achievement test; it includes examining the school’s learning environment,
instructional programs, classroom instruction, and a variety of student outcomes.
This is such a major endeavor it should not be left to a “one-shot” visit by an
external evaluation team. Rather, schoolwide evaluation of teaching should be an
ongoing process with educators collecting school data through curriculum
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
mapping, collaborative learning walks, and review of a variety of student
achievement measures. The school also should seek continuous input from
parents, community members, and critical friends. Collective analysis of data and
discussion of improvement needs should alternate between small-group and
whole-faculty meetings. Schoolwide evaluation of teaching can inform
instructional improvement efforts built around professional development (Chapter
18), curriculum development (Chapter 19), action research (Chapter 20),
changing the school culture (Chapter 21), addressing diversity (Chapter 22), and
building community (Chapter 23).
chapter 18 Professional Development
Learning Outcomes for This Chapter
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
Identify the focus of successful professional development.
Explain how a school can integrate schoolwide, group, and individual
professional development.
Enumerate the steps in individually-planned professional development.
Name the three stages of learning in professional development.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
List the five evaluation levels in Guskey's system for evaluating professional
development programs.
Recall the two dimensions upon which the authors maintain commitment to a
professional development program is premised.
Questions to Reflect On as You Read This Chapter
Professional development in K-12 schools has a poor reputation among
teachers. Why do you believe this is so? Do you believe that the ideas presented
in this chapter, if implemented, would change teachers' attitudes about
professional development? Which ideas in this chapter do you believe would
have the greatest positive impact on professional development and teachers'
attitudes about professional development?
One characteristic of successful professional development is the integration of
schoolwide, group, and individual goals. Why do you think this is the case?
This chapter describes several alternative professional development formats.
Think of a schoolwide professional development goal. How could several
professional development formats be connected in a program designed to meet
the goal you have identified?
This chapter describes three stages of professional development: (1) orientation,
(2) integration, and (3) refinement. The authors maintain that many professional
development programs never move beyond the orientation stage. As you read
about the three stages, think of a professional development program you
participated in that never got past the orientation stage. What were the results of
the program moving through the orientation stage only? If the program would
have continued through all these stages of professional development, what
activities could have been carried out at the integration stage? At the refinement
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
stage? How might have the effects of the program been more positive if all three
stages had been addressed?
Why do you think teachers historically have not been more involved in planning,
delivering, and assessing their own professional development? What needs to
change to make teachers authentic agents in professional development? How
would professional development change if teachers played the primary role in its
planning, delivery, and assessment?
Bob Jeffries, director of professional development, calls six school principals into
his office to plan for the upcoming in-service day. He begins by explaining that
the in-service program will start with a morning session, attended by the entire
school system faculty, in the high school auditorium. The afternoon will consist of
individual school activities, with the principal being responsible for whatever
transpires. Mr. Jeffries asks the principals, “What might we do for the morning
session?” One principal suggests that at this time of year teachers could use an
emotional lift and that an inspirational speaker would be good. Another principal
adds that she had heard a Dr. Zweibach give a great talk, entitled “The Thrill of
Teaching,” at a national principals' conference last summer. She thinks he would
be a terrific speaker. Bob Jeffries likes these suggestions and tells the principals
he will call Dr. Zweibach and make arrangements for his appearance.
On the in-service day, 238 teachers file into the auditorium and fill all but the first
eight rows of seats. Mr. Jeffries makes a few introductory remarks about how
fortunate “we” are to have Dr. Zweibach with “us” and then turns the session over
to Dr. Zweibach. A rumpled, middle-aged university professor walks to the
microphone and launches into his talk on the thrill of teaching. Within 10 minutes,
signs of restlessness, boredom, and bitterness are evident throughout the
audience. It seems that 12 of the teachers are sitting through a talk they had
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
heard Dr. Zweibach deliver verbatim two years earlier at a teacher convention; 15
others are thinking about the classroom work they could be doing to prepare for
next semester and wondering, “Why in the world are we sitting through this talk?”
Another 22 teachers have become impatient with Dr. Zweibach's continual
reference to the academic high school settings where he found teaching thrills.
Their own work settings are vocational, special education, and elementary; they
can’t relate what he is saying about high schools to their world. Eventually, some
teachers begin to correct papers, read, or knit; a few appear to fall asleep. On the
other hand, nearly half the members of the audience remain attentive and give
Dr. Zweibach a rousing ovation when he concludes. The other half appear
relieved that the talk is finally over and they can return to their own schools. Upon
leaving the auditorium, one can overhear such remarks as, “What a great talk!”
and “Why do we have to put up with all this staff development crap?”
This depiction of an in-service day is typical of many school systems. Some
teachers find it valuable, but many do not. Professional development is often
viewed by supervisors, administrators, and teachers as a number of days
contracted for in the school calendar that simply need to be endured.
Professional development, if properly planned and implemented, can be a
powerful force for teacher development and the improvement of teaching and
learning. In this chapter we will discuss what good professional development
looks like, how to evaluate professional development, and why teachers should
be agents in professional development.
Characteristics of Successful Professional Development Programs
Reviews of research on professional development (Comas & Barufaldi, 2011;
Gordon, 2004; Guskey, 2003; Reeves, 2012) identify a number of characteristics
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
associated with successful professional development programs. These
characteristics include the following:
Involvement of teachers in planning, implementing, and evaluating their own
professional development
A focus on teaching and learning
Integration of professional development goals with school improvement goals
Coherence of individual, group, and schoolwide professional development
Administrative support, including provision of time and other resources
Relevant, job-embedded professional development
Collegiality and collaboration among teachers and between teachers and
administrators
Active learning
Inquiry
Self-reflection
Inclusion of content on diversity and cultural responsiveness
Follow-up to support application of learning
Ongoing, data-based program assessment
Continuous professional development that becomes part of the school culture
Development of leadership capacity
As you review these characteristics, reflect on a professional development
program with which you are familiar. How many of the 15 characteristics are
present in the program?
Integrating Schoolwide, Group, and Individual Professional Development
One characteristic of effective professional development is the integration of
schoolwide, group, and individual goals. How does a school go about doing this?
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
To begin, it is critical that all members of the school community provide input into
schoolwide professional development goals. The schoolwide goals should be
broad enough to allow groups and individuals to set their own goals, consistent
with school goals.
For an example of integrating schoolwide and group professional development,
let us assume that a middle school has identified improved student discipline as
a schoolwide professional development goal. Different grade-level or instructional
teams, all committed to improved discipline, might identify different group goals
relative to the school goal. One group might decide that they need to focus their
professional development on improving students' respect for others. Another
group might determine that their primary need is to improve students' on-task
behavior during class. A third group may wish to focus on finding ways to
encourage self-discipline so that students take more responsibility for completing
their homework, studying for tests, and asking for assistance.
Different groups also may decide that they prefer different professional
development formats. One group may decide that they prefer to form a study
group that will share readings, visit other schools to see how they address
student discipline, and discuss how exemplary practices can be adapted to their
students. The second group may decide that they wish to attend a training
program on effective discipline, followed up by peer coaching at the classroom
level. The third group might prefer to follow an action research format, gathering
classroom data to find out more about the problem, designing an action plan,
implementing the plan, and gathering evaluation data to determine effects.
Although it is important that various groups within the school be allowed to adapt
schoolwide goals to group needs, it also is important that each group show how
its particular goals relate to and support the schoolwide goals.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
A faculty is made up of individuals, and schoolwide professional development
cannot take place without individual development. Thus, it is important to
integrate individual professional development goals with group and schoolwide
goals. Let us return to our example of the schoolwide goal of improved student
discipline. You will recall that one possible group goal was improving students'
respect for others. Even this more focused goal would have different meanings to
different teachers within the group that chose the goal. For one teacher it might
mean helping students work together in cooperative groups. For another teacher
it could mean students respecting other students from different cultures. For a
third teacher it might mean working with students who are disrespectful to
authority figures. Thus, even within the group goal of increased respect for
others, there should be opportunities for teachers to identify individual goals
consistent with group and school goals.
Since adults, like students, have different experiences and learning styles,
teachers within the study group might pursue different learning activities and
make different contributions to the group. One teacher might bring to the group
reports from visits to other schools, another teacher might share journal articles
related to the topic of student respect for others, and so forth. The individual
teacher can connect individual goals to group and schoolwide goals in a manner
that allows individual professional development activities to serve all three types
of goals.
Alternative Professional Development Formats
We are rapidly moving away from the era when professional development usually
means either a 60-minute speech by an outside consultant or a “one-shot”
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
workshop. A variety of new formats for professional development have emerged
over the last several years. Some examples follow:
Beginning teacher assistance programs. The new teacher is provided ongoing,
intensive assistance throughout at least the first year of teaching. This support
includes such things as an assigned mentor; an orientation to the school and
community; assistance from a support team including the mentor, other teachers,
and a supervisor; training in classroom management and effective teaching; and
support seminars focused on beginning teachers' concerns (Bullough, 2012;
Lambeth, 2012).
Skill development programs. This consists of several workshops over a period of
months, and classroom coaching between workshops to assist teachers in
transforming new skills to their daily teaching.
Teacher centers. Teachers can meet at a central location to engage in
professional dialogue, develop skills, plan innovations, and gather or create
instructional materials.
Teacher institutes. Teachers participate in intensive learning experiences on
single, complex topics over a period of consecutive days or weeks.
Professional learning communities. Groups of teachers develop a set of common
beliefs, share leadership, engage in collective learning, and collaborate on
curriculum and instructional improvement efforts, with all of these activities
focused on the improvement of student learning. We provide a more detailed
discussion of professional learning communities in Chapter 23.
Lesson study. A group of teachers identify a long-term goal for improved student
learning, review research on how to best achieve that goal, and use the research
as a basis for a collaboratively-planned unit of instruction. The teachers select a
single lesson from the unit of instruction and create a detailed lesson plan that
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
exemplifies teaching consistent with the long-term goal. One member of the
group teaches the lesson while the other teachers in the group observe and
gather data on various aspects of the lesson. After the lesson, the teachers meet
to share and analyze data and discuss how the lesson could be improved.
Another teacher in the group may use the improved lesson plan to teach the
lesson a second time to a different class, with the group again observing and
holding a post-lesson discussion (Howell & Saye, 2016; Lewis, 2009; Lieberman,
2009).
Networks. Teachers from different schools share information, concerns, and
accomplishments and engage in common learning through computer links,
newsletters, and occasional seminars and conferences.
Teacher leadership. Teachers participate in leadership preparation programs and
assist other teachers by assuming one or more leadership roles (workshop
presenter, cooperating teacher, mentor, expert coach, instructional team leader,
curriculum developer). The teacher-leader not only assists other teachers but
also experiences professional growth as a result of being involved in leadership
activities (Poekert, 2012).
Teacher as writer. This increasingly popular format has teachers reflect on and
write about their students, teaching, and professional growth. Such writing can be
in the form of private journals, essays, or reaction papers to share with
colleagues, or formal articles for publication in educational journals.
Individually planned professional development. Teachers assess their own
professional needs, set individual goals and objectives, plan and carry out
activities, and assess results.
School visits. Teachers from schools that are considering adopting an
instructional innovation can visit other schools where the innovation has been
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
implemented successfully, to both observe the innovation being applied in
classrooms and discuss the innovation with teachers who have developed
expertise in its use.
Partnerships. Partnerships are affiliations between schools and universities,
community agencies, or businesses, in which both partners are considered
equal, have mutual rights and responsibilities, make contributions, and receive
benefits (Holen & Yunk, 2014). Partnerships can take myriad forms. For example,
a school and community agencies might collaborate on a needs assessment of
community educational needs, with data gathered from the assessment informing
both the school curriculum and community services. Or, a corporation might offer
summer internships to teachers, who then incorporate what they have learned
over the summer into their teaching.
Stages of Professional Development
Professional development typically involves three stages of learning: (1)
orientation, (2) integration, and (3) refinement. To illustrate these three stages,
we will relate them to staff development on the cooperative learning instructional
model.
In the orientation stage, benefits, responsibilities, and personal concerns about
involvement in staff development are addressed. Next, participants engage in
learning necessary for initial real-world application. In our cooperative learning
example, orientation topics might include the following:*
*Outlining a complete professional development program on cooperative learning
is beyond the scope of this text. Some critical topics are listed to provide
examples of the types of learning in each stage of professional development.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Sources of cooperative learning professional development topics are Johnson
(2009) and Kagan and Kagan (2009).
Differences among cooperative, competitive, and individual learning
Differences between cooperative learning and traditional group work
Research on cooperative learning
Basic elements of cooperative learning (teaching social skills, positive
interdependence, face-to-face interaction, individual accountability, group
processing)
Forming cooperative groups
Standard cooperative learning structures (think–pair–share, jigsaw, student
teams achievement divisions [STAD], teams–games–tournaments [TGT], group
investigation, and so on)
Planning cooperative lessons
Failure to take teachers beyond the orientation stage is one reason why many
staff development programs are ineffective: Teachers are given rudimentary
knowledge or skills and then are left to fend for themselves.
In the integration stage, teachers are assisted as they apply previous learning in
their classrooms and schools. One aspect of integration is learning to adapt
general learning to specific situations. In the cooperative learning example, this
would mean learning to alter cooperative teaching strategies to make them
appropriate for different learning content and students. A related aspect of
integration is regular and effective use of the new learning. This would mean, for
example, that the teacher develops enough competence and confidence in
cooperative learning methods to make them part of his or her standard repertoire
of instructional strategies.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
In the refinement stage, teachers move from basic competence to expertness
through continuous experimentation and reflection. In the refinement stage of
staff development on cooperative learning, teachers would become experts at a
wide range of cooperative learning strategies and at mixing and matching those
strategies for optimal student learning. Teachers in the refinement stage
synthesize different types of previous learning in order to create new learning. In
our cooperative learning example, a teacher at this stage might combine aspects
of two or more standard cooperative learning structures to create a more
complex structure. For another example, a teacher at the refinement stage might
synthesize whole language and cooperative learning strategies to create an
entirely new teaching strategy. Perhaps the best thing that a supervisor can do
when teachers have reached this stage is to sign them up as teacher–staff
developers!
Evaluating Professional Development
The evaluation form in Figure 18.1 is intended to evaluate a single professional
development session. A more complex system is needed to evaluate the overall
professional development program. Guskey (2002) has proposed a system
designed specifically to evaluate professional development that is consistent with
our discussion of the evaluation of instructional improvement efforts in Chapter
14. Guskey's system includes gathering data on five different levels: participants'
reactions, participants' learning, organization support and change, participants'
use of new knowledge and skills, and student learning outcomes. For each level,
Guskey proposes questions to be addressed, methods of data gathering, what
should be measured, and how information gathered at that level should be used.
Table 18.1 summarizes Guskey's system.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
figure 18.1 Professional Development Session Evaluation
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Teachers as Objects or Agents in Professional Development
A superintendent remarked that he had been at a national conference and
attended a presentation on “Elements of Effective Instruction.” He decided that
this was exactly what the teachers needed. As a result, the district was off and
running with a three-year commitment to training all principals and teachers in
“elements.” Highly paid national consultants were brought in; personnel were
identified for advanced training and traveled during the summer to faraway sites;
and virtually all contracted in-service time and school supervision was devoted to
“elements.”
It was not long before a new evaluation instrument was established to check that
every teacher was using the training in effective instruction in the same
prescribed manner. Over the three years, expenditures by the school district
exceeded $300,000, not including the cost of human time. What have been the
results? No appreciable gain in student achievement, considerable grumbling by
a core of “malcontent” teachers, enthusiasm by the chosen core of teachers who
received special training and compensation, and a firm claim by the
superintendent that “We now have focused long-term professional development
on scientifically derived principles, and our teaching is more effective.”
In recent years, education has been bombarded by packaged programs on
“effective teaching,” “effective schools,” “effective supervision,” and “effective
discipline.” All claim to be derived from research and to have documented
success, and all use the components and sequence of transfer of training that
have been sorely lacking in traditional professional development programs. The
programs provide for explanation, demonstration, modeling, role playing,
practice, and coaching. They are not one-shot programs—they are focused and
they are classroom based.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
The only problem is that the people who think these programs are worth the cost
and effort are the same people who have a personal investment and commitment
to use them. If the programs are not as successful as predicted, the decision
makers do not blame the program but rather the lack of enough training to
ensure that teachers “do it right.” Schools, districts, and states that have
committed themselves to such programs come to the ludicrous conclusion that
they need more training, more money, and greater enforcement to see that all
teachers will finally learn to teach as prescribed more frequently and correctly.
This is an incredible rationalization by policy makers that their initial decision was
right, regardless of the effect that the program is having on teachers.
This rationale underscores the point that commitment is premised on two
dimensions: one is choice and the other is responsibility to make knowledgeable
decisions about one's work. That's why the superintendent wants so badly to see
this program on “effective elements” work. The superintendent had the choice
and took responsibility for making the decision. The selected core of teachers
also want to see this program work, because they were given choice and
responsibility in making decisions
on how to train others. Yet most teachers and principals were not given any
choice or responsibility in these decisions about the needs of their students and
themselves. Instead, they were treated as objects rather than as agents of
professional development, without due regard for their capacity to make wise
decisions in the interest of students and teaching. Without choice or responsibility
to make knowledgeable decisions about their work, they have little motivation or
commitment to somebody else's program.
To use knowledge about characteristics, formats, and stages of professional
development, without an awareness of the need to truly involve teachers as
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
decision makers in professional development, will leave us where we currently
are. We will be more sophisticated in teaching teachers how to follow someone
else's program, but we will find little commitment on the part of teachers or little
stimulation to increase teachers' own collective and critical capacities to make
lasting changes.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
chapter 22 Addressing Diversity
Learning Outcomes for This Chapter
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
Describe the assets-based approach to teaching low-socioeconomic and
racial/ethnic minority students.
Provide examples of gender inequity.
Define heteronormative.
State the four disability rights goals summarized by McLaughlin (2010).
List overarching causes of the inequity experienced by the four broad cultural
groups discussed in this chapter.
Explain how the technical tasks of supervision relate to diversity.
Questions to Reflect On as You Read This Chapter
Kirsch and associates predict that if we do not act to close the widening gaps in
skill levels among different cultural groups there are “a number of predictable and
dire implications for future generations” (Kirsch, Braun, Yamamoto, & Sum, 2007,
p. 7). What do you believe some of these implications are?
As you read this chapter, contemplate what needs to be done at the school level,
school-community level, and societal level to close the achievement gaps among
diverse groups of students.
Reflect on cultural clashes in PK-12 education that you have been part of or
observed. Based on your experiences and observations, does this chapter’s
discussion of the reasons for and effects of cultural clashes ring true?
What can culturally responsive supervisors and teachers do to help colleagues
become more culturally responsive? To develop culturally responsive schools?
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
If a school was going to develop public statements centered on (1) the treatment
of students from diverse racial and ethnic cultures, (2) gender equity, (3) the
treatment of LGBT students, and (4) students with disabilities, what critical
elements should be included in each of the four public statements?
A major problem facing the nation-state is how to recognize and legitimize
differences and yet construct an overarching national identity that incorporates
the voices, experiences, and hopes of the diverse groups that compose it. What
groups will participate in constructing a new national identity, and what factors will
be used to motivate powerful groups to share power with marginalized groups,
are also issues that have to be addressed. Power sharing is an essential
characteristic of a nation-state that reflects the culture of its diverse population.
(Banks, 2000, p. 28)
Given the growing diversity in the United States, and the continuing achievement
gap between different student groups, addressing diversity in our schools is an
increasingly critical need. People are not born with the prejudice and bias that
contribute to the achievement gap. These attitudes are taught, and schools can
teach future citizens different attitudes about those who belong to different
cultures. Also, students from diverse cultures do not underachieve because they
are less intelligent or less interested in learning than students from the dominant
culture, but because of the incompatibility between their culture and traditional
schooling in U.S. society. If we need to change schools and the way we teach to
close the achievement gap, then addressing diversity should be a task of
instructional supervision.
In this chapter, we will examine teaching and learning in relation to marginalized
economic, racial, and ethnic groups; gender; sexual and gender minorities; and
students with disabilities. We will examine how the conventional school culture
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
and conventional teaching practices impede the learning of students who are not
members of the dominant culture, and we will discuss strategies for making
schools and teaching more responsive to diverse cultures.
Achievement Gaps Among Economic, Racial, and Ethnic Groups
Despite the espoused commitment in the United States to equal opportunity for
all, there exists a wide gap in educational outcomes among various economic,
racial, and ethnic groups. Table 22.1 shows percentages of students in selected
economic, racial, and ethnic groups that demonstrated at least basic skill levels
in reading, writing, math, and science on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP). Compared to students below the poverty level, far more
students above the poverty level demonstrated basic skills across the various
grade levels and content areas. Much higher percentages of Whites than African
Americans and Latinos scored at a basic level or higher (National Center for
Education Statistics, n.d.).
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Less than 60% of students starting high school in high-poverty districts are likely
to graduate, compared to over 75% of students in low-poverty districts (Swanson,
2004a, 2004b). Between 70% and 80% of Whites who start high school graduate
in 4 years, compared to between 50% and 60% of African American and Latino
students (Amos, 2008; Hoff, 2008; Swanson, 2004a, 2004b). The negative
effects of not completing high school in the United States are serious. High
school dropouts not only have less earning power than graduates, but they are
also more likely to live in poverty and become involved in criminal behavior
(Boisjoly, Harris, & Duncan, 1998; Kim, Chang, Singh, & Allen, 2015; Neild,
Balfanz, & Herzog, 2007).
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
We all should ponder the reality that it is our society, our institutions, and our
schools that have let so many lower-socioeconomic and racial/ethnic minority
students down—that have failed to address the learning needs of so many bright
young people with so much potential—in large part because of their family
income, their ethnicity or race, or their first language. National shame is in order
here. Rather than dwell on that shame, we need to transform it into an urgent
moral imperative to change the way we educate low-income and racial/ethnic
minority students.
As the educational and economic gaps between the haves and have-nots in our
society increase, the United States is becoming increasingly diverse.
Demographers suggest that by the year 2050, non-Hispanic Whites will be a
minority in the United States, comprising about 47% of the population (Passel &
Cohn, 2008). Kirsch and associates (2007) warn that our nation’s increasing
diversity, the widening gaps in skill levels among different groups, and changes in
the economy due to technology and globalization are all combining to create
what they call “the perfect storm”:
We are in the midst of a perfect storm in which these three powerful forces are
combining to generate waves that already have had a considerable impact on
our nation. Unlike the perfect storm chronicled in the novel written by Sebastian
Junger, the forces behind this storm continue to gain strength, and calm seas are
nowhere in sight. We can’t hope to ride this one out. If we continue on our
present heading and fail to take effective action, the storm will have a number of
predictable and dire implications for future generations. with consequences that
extend well beyond the economic realm to the ethos of our society. (Kirsch et al.,
2007, p. 7)
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
The aforementioned moral imperative to correct the inequalities in education
should be the primary reason that supervisors and teachers respond to diversity
as they work to close achievement gaps between student groups. The storm on
the horizon, a storm whose winds we already feel, provides additional impetus for
addressing issues of diversity.
A Societal or a School Problem?
Classism and racism have negative effects on the quality of life for many of our
nation’s poor and racial/ethnic minorities, and these negative effects extend to
the quality of education for these groups. Rothstein (2004) has shown how
inadequate wages, substandard housing, and poor health care create living
conditions that place many poor and racial/ethnic minority students at a
disadvantage right from the beginning of their formal education. Moreover, many
lower-socioeconomic children have fewer out-of-school educational opportunities
than middle- and upper-class students. For example, middle- and upper-class
students are more likely to have access to a variety of books, go to summer
camps or on family vacations, visit museums and zoos, take dance or music
lessons, and so on. Rothstein (2004) argues that half or more of the variation in
student achievement between lower-socioeconomic students and other students
is due to nonschool factors such as family income, housing conditions, health
care, and out-of-school educational opportunities.
Educational policy in the United States—at the federal, state, and local
levels—tends to reinforce the inequities present in society at large. For instance,
the federal courts have ended many of the nation’s most successful
desegregation plans (Goldring, Cohen-Vogel, Smrekar, & Taylor, 2006; Wells,
Duran, & White, 2008). There are now, once again, many public schools in the
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
United States that have virtually 100% racial/ethnic minority students
(Frankenberg, Lee, & Orfield, 2003; Orfield & Frankenberg, 2014). On average
across the nation, if local and state expenditures are combined, states spend
less money on their highest-poverty districts than their lowest-poverty districts
(Adamson & Darling-Hammond, 2012; Wiener & Pristoop, 2006). Funding
inequities also exist at the federal level. Because the federal government’s Title I
formula factors in the state’s average per-student expenditure, high-spending
states get more Title I money per poor child than low-spending states. “The net
effect is that Title I does not reduce, but rather reinforces, inequality among
states” (Liu, 2006, p. 2). Additionally, schools with many students who are poor or
racial/ethnic minorities have higher percentages of out-of-field teachers (teachers
without a major or minor in the subject they teach), are more likely to be assigned
novice teachers, and have teachers with lower salaries than schools that serve
wealthier students and lower numbers of racial/ethnic minority students (Peske &
Haycock, 2006).
How are educators to respond to the systemic problems in U.S. society, as
reflected in educational policy, that place lower-socioeconomic and racial/ethnic
minority children at such a disadvantage? Some analysts say that unless our
society addresses problems such as inadequate housing, poor health care,
segregation, and inequitable school funding, schools will never be able to bridge
the achievement gap. These experts admit that schools can make some
difference but argue that many of the conditions that cause the gap are beyond
the schools’ control. Other analysts believe that schools can bridge the
achievement gap. They point to the effective schools and school improvement
research and say that if some schools serving low-socioeconomic and
racial/ethnic minority students can do it, then all schools can. These experts tell
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
educators to forget about social conditions they cannot control and focus on
increasing the achievement of poor and racial/ethnic minority students and on
preparing them to overcome the barriers of poverty, classism, and racism present
in U.S. society.
Our own position is that PK-12 educators need to take a two-tiered approach to
the issue of inequitable treatment of diverse groups. First, supervisors and
teachers need to examine their own cultural identities, develop competencies for
working with cultures different from their own, and create culturally responsive
classrooms and schools. Second, supervisors and teachers need to become
directly involved in efforts to change public policy that works against
lower-socioeconomic and racial/ethnic minority children. Educators in PK-12
should become involved in local and national efforts to ensure that all families
have access to living wages, adequate housing, and basic health care. Moreover,
supervisors and teachers need to work to end segregation, inequitable school
funding, and state and national educational policies that hurt
lower-socioeconomic and racial/ethnic minority children. Supervisors and
teachers will not be able to do it alone; rather, they will need to become part of a
coalition of PK-12 educators, university educators, parents, businesspersons,
and policy makers who recognize the critical need for change. Members of this
coalition will need to help educate the general public, the corporate world, and
politicians on the need for change and to push for new legislation at the state and
federal levels.
Gender Equity
Conventional schools tend to foster gender inequity, in which female students are
subject to considerable sexual harassment and discrimination. In many textbooks
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
and other curriculum materials, females are depicted as needy, passive, and
subordinate to males. In conventional classrooms, teachers interact more with
boys than with girls, and boys tend to control the classroom discussion. Girls are
made to believe they are unable to solve problems on their own, yet they are less
likely to receive helpful feedback. Thus, girls often become “invisible students” in
the classroom (Bauer, 2000). The vast majority of females experience some form
of sexual harassment at school and often find it difficult to get assistance if they
report the harassment (Fry, 2003; Ormerod, Collinsworth, & Perry, 2008).
The inequitable treatment of females in schools can have devastating effects.
Gruber and Fineran (2007) found that the chief effects of sexual harassment on
both middle and high school girls were lower self-esteem, poorer mental health,
worse physical health, and higher levels of trauma symptoms, with high school
girls having more severe effects than middle school girls in each category. Girls’
self-confidence often drops dramatically during early adolescence (Mullen &
Tuten, 2004; Kommer, 2006). Mullen and Tuten (2004) note that “resiliency,
optimism, curiosity, and risk-taking all seem to take a nosedive. . . . Those
teenagers who live such disablement have been viewed as passive,
self-conscious, low in self-esteem, preoccupied with looking attractive and
appearing unintelligent, and non–goal oriented” (p. 294). To make matters worse,
teachers in conventional schools who attempt to address gender inequities often
encounter hostility from colleagues and parents (Fry, 2003).
Although girls suffer the most from gender inequity, boys are affected as well. For
example, boys are more likely to need supplemental reading instruction, receive
a discipline referral, be identified as a special education student, be suspended
or expelled, and drop out of school (Taylor & Lorimer, 2003; Kommer, 2006). “The
fact that boys lag behind girls with respect to a variety of important educational
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
outcomes has been called the ‘Silent gender gap”’ (Dee, 2007, p. 531).
Moreover, we are beginning to realize that boys have many of the same
problems with self-esteem as girls, although they are socialized to hide their
feelings of inadequacy (Kommer, 2006). Boys, too, then, have been mistreated
by traditional schooling (Kommer, 2006).
The goal of efforts to address gender issues in schools “is not to treat boys and
girls equally, but to create equity by purposely addressing the particular needs of
each gender” (Kommer, 2006, p. 250). A good place for supervisors to start
efforts toward gender equity is to open a dialogue on the effects of such inequity
on students. Research and other readings on gender issues can inform that
dialogue. Fry (2003) suggests that schools develop a gender equity plan that has
goals, guidelines, and benchmarks. Although such a plan would vary from school
to school, some nonnegotiables would be in order. For example, one goal for all
schools should be eliminating from the school all forms of sexual harassment.
Sanders and Cotton Nelson (2004) describe a process that involves teachers in
working for gender equity. During an all-day workshop at the beginning of the
process, teachers are presented data on girls’ underachievement and discuss
gender-related problems they observe in their classrooms. After the initial
workshop, participants meet periodically for half-day workshops focused on
topics such as gender stereotypes and teacher expectations, interpersonal
dynamics among different groups, gender bias in the curriculum, and so on.
Between workshops, teachers engage in a variety of learning activities. They
observe gender issues being played out in public places and popular media and
search for gender bias in their own schools and classrooms. They also do gender
experiments, such as having colleagues observe their teaching for bias and
trying out new strategies to make their classrooms more equitable. At the next
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
workshop, teachers bring data they have gathered and share their learning
experiences. Sanders and Cotton Nelson have found that this process helps
teachers to realize that gender bias does exist—in society, in schools, and even
in their own classrooms. In the workshops, teachers also develop knowledge and
skills to promote gender equity.
Kommer (2006) suggests additional strategies that teachers can use to create
gender equity, including balancing competitive and cooperative activities,
considering gender when forming student groups, providing equal response
opportunities, inviting gender role models to the classroom, and providing a
gender-neutral learning environment. Another important thing teachers can do to
promote gender equity is to facilitate dialogue among girls and boys in which they
talk about inequity, its effects on them and their peers, and how students can
work together with teachers to develop equitable classrooms and schools.
Equity for Sexual and Gender Minorities
Consider the following statistics:
An estimated 10% of students in U.S. schools are gay or lesbian (Weiler, 2003).
Over 80% of gay and lesbian students have been verbally abused. Ninety
percent have heard antigay remarks, and 25% of those remarks have been
voiced by school staff (Glimps, 2005; Whelan, 2006).
Twenty percent of gay and lesbian youth have been physically assaulted at
school (Whelan, 2006).
In a third or more of the incidents in which gay and lesbian students have been
harassed at school, adults witnessed the abuse and did nothing to help (Birkett,
Espelage, & Koenig, 2009; Weiler, 2003).
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Nearly two out of three gays and lesbian youth have reported that they felt
unsafe at school (Birkett et al., 2009; Weiler, 2003; Goodenow, Szalacha, &
Westheimer, 2006).
The grade-point averages of students reporting frequent harassment are over
10% lower than those of other students (Whelan, 2006).
Gay and lesbian youth commit suicide at a rate two to three times that of other
youth. Issues of sexual identity play a role in 30% of youth suicides (Hansen,
2007; van Wormer & McKinney, 2003).
Payne (2007) reminds us that most schools are heteronormative, which means
popularity and group membership are equated with heterosexuality. Youth who
do not conform to the expectations of heterosexuality are subject to ridicule,
gossip, and isolation. Moreover, Payne notes, “Current school practices are
invested in preserving the heterosexist structure of schools and continuing to
reinforce heterosexuality as the norm” (p. 77). Payne cites school rituals like
electing cheerleaders, prom kings and queens, and “cutest couple” as examples
of the institutional support for heterosexual popularity and power. Many
educators support the heteronormative nature of schools by ignoring the
harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students or even
by joining the ridicule of these minorities. Even sexual minority teachers often
remain silent as LGBT students are abused (van Wormer & McKinney, 2003).
How sexual and gender minority students are treated in schools creates a
serious dilemma for these students:
The instinct for many is to hide their identity, which deepens their sense of
confusion, isolation, and self-doubt. On the other hand, LGBT youth who do
come out face the very real risk of violence, harassment, prejudice,
discrimination, and stigmatization. (Weiler, 2003, p. 11)
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
The stress and lack of support eventually take their toll on many LGBT students:
The stressors related to either hiding or revealing one’s sexual identity place
sexual minority students at a higher risk for developing mental health, physical,
and educational problems. Because survival at school is the priority, many LGBT
students experience academic and learning problems. (Weiler, 2003, p. 11)
Such problems include more frequent absences, less involvement in school
activities, worse grades, and a higher dropout rate than heterosexual students
(Birkett et al., 2009; Glimps, 2005; Hansen, 2007; Walls, Kane, & Wisneski,
2010; Weiler, 2003; Whelan, 2006).
Problems resulting from the abuse of sexual and gender minority students go
beyond academics. LGBT students are more likely to engage in high-risk
behaviors such as drinking, drug abuse, and unsafe sex (Espelage, Aragon,
Birkett, & Koenig, 2008; Glimps 2005; van Wormer & McKinney, 2003). It is not
the fact that they are sexual and gender minorities but the abuse they receive
that leads LGBT students to engage in such risky behaviors (Glimps, 2005).
Many LGBT students are homeless, having been thrown out of their homes by
their parents because of their sexual orientation or gender identity (van Wormer
& McKinney, 2003; Weiler, 2003). And as noted earlier, the suicide rate of lesbian
and gay students is far higher than that of heterosexual students (Hansen, 2007;
van Wormer & McKinney, 2003; Goodenow et al., 2006).
The fact that many schools do nothing about prejudice and discrimination against
LGBT students—indeed, that they contribute to the prejudice and
discrimination—means that they are miseducating both sexual and gender
minority and heterosexual students.
Grayson (1987) discusses this reality:
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
The failure of school officials to provide protection from peer harassment and
violence reflects only a portion of the harm caused by the hatred of gay males
and lesbians in schools. Homophobia hinders the development of all school
children from growing into tolerant and compassionate members of a harmonious
and cohesive pluralistic society. Acceptance of prejudice against lesbians and
gay males contributes to the authority of privileged groups, validating prejudice
and discrimination against others. It reinforces rigid sex role behavior and the
imposed silence and misinformation keeps people ignorant of accurate
information and facts. (p. 136)
Equity for Students with Disabilities
Although concern for educating children with special needs in America’s public
schools can be traced back to the early 1800s, the modern era of special
education began with the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act (EAHCA, Public Law 94–142) in 1975 (Spaulding & Pratt, 2015). This
legislation, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
(2004), requires all schools receiving federal funding to provide disabled students
with free, appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment
(LRE) possible. More specifically, the purposes of IDEA relative to K-12
education are
to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free
appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related
services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further
education, employment and independent living
to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children
are protected
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
to assist states, localities, educational service agencies and federal agencies to
provide for the education of all children with disabilities
to ensure that educators and parents have the necessary tools to improve
educational results for children with disabilities…
to assess, and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with
disabilities (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Sec.
601).
As of the 2012-2013 school year, 6.4 million, approximately 13% of all U.S. public
school students, were receiving special education services (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2015). The percentage of students with disabilities in each
of 13 disability types is shown in Figure 22.1.
figure 22.1 Percentage of Students in Each Disability Type
Source: National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp
Highest Percentages
Specific disability (such as dyslexia or dysgraphia)—35%
Speech or language impairment —21%
Other health impairment (such as asthma or epilepsy) —12%
Lower Percentages
Autism— 8%
Intellectual disability—7%
Developmental delay—6%
Emotional disturbance (such as depression or schizophrenia)—6%
Lowest Percentages
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
Multiple disabilities—2%
Hearing impairment—1%
Orthopedic impairment (such as those caused by cerebral palsy)—1%
Deaf-blindness—less than 0.5%
Traumatic brain injury—less than 0.5%
Visual impairments—less than 0.5%
Despite federal legislation, and the approximately $100 billion per year spent by
public schools to educate students with special needs (IDEA Funding Coalition,
n.d.), these students’ academic achievement lags behind their peers. Schifier
(2011) found that, on average, special needs students take 5 years to complete
high school; 72.4% graduated within 8 years of beginning high school, and 25%
dropped out before earning a diploma. Additionally, McLaughlin (2010) reports
that special needs students are significantly less likely to attend postsecondary
schools than the population at large; those who do make the leap to higher
education are much more likely to attend 2-year or vocational schools, as
opposed to 4-year or professional schools. McLaughlin also cites studies
showing that only 37% of disabled adults are gainfully employed, and 22% of
those adults claim that the cause for their unemployment is a lack of job training.
Furthermore, the work typically done by this population consists of part-time,
low-wage jobs that provide few, if any, benefits such as health insurance.
Given federal law mandating equitable treatment of students with disabilities, why
does the achievement gap continue? Some blame inadequate funding by the
federal government to carry out federal mandates. Others lament that there is an
ongoing shortage of certified special education teachers in this nation, and that
both general and special education teachers are not consistently receiving the
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
training necessary to adequately meet the needs of special education students
(Smith, Robb, West, & Tyler, 2010). Some authors speak of the lack of specific
skills, such as collaboration, as particular areas of concern, pointing to studies
that suggest that teacher education programs that teach such skills produce
teachers who feel better prepared to address the complexities involved in
educating students with special needs and are less likely to leave the profession
(Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2014).
Another problem, one that relates directly to our earlier discussion of equity for
racial and ethnic minorities, is the disproportionate representation of students
from racial and ethnic minorities in special education. For example, a
disproportionate number of African Americans are identified as having intellectual
disabilities and emotional disabilities, and English language learners are
disproportionately represented in groups identified as learning disabled and
intellectually disabled (Zhang, Katsiyannis, Ju, & Roberts, 2014). Skiba et al.
(2008) point out: “Disproportionate representation is greater in the judgmental or
‘soft’ disability categories of MR, ED, or LD than in the nonjudgmental or ‘hard’
disability categories, such as hearing impairment, visual impairment, or
orthopedic impairment” (p. 269).
We have already discussed many of the factors responsible for
disproportionality—lack of cultural responsiveness, cultural conflicts, bias in
referral and identification, and so forth. Another, self-perpetuating, factor is that
when minority students are inappropriately placed in special education classes it
limits their access to instruction that truly meets their needs. Disproportionality
conflates issues of disability and social equity; many students who currently
receive special education services would be better served by correcting the
inequitable conditions in which they live.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
What can teachers and supervisors do to address the problems we have been
discussing and ensure equity for students with disabilities? McLaughlin (2010)
summarizes four disability rights goals that are the basis for IDEA and the
individualized improvement plan that it requires:
. . . a student with a disability who is being treated equitably is being considered
as an individual, is given full access to those aspects of life available to persons
without disabilities, has opportunities to make decisions about both mundane and
important life events, and has opportunities to become independent and self
sustaining. (p. 269)
Overarching Patterns
Although our discussions of (1) economic, racial, and ethnic minorities, (2)
gender inequity, (3) sexual and gender minorities, and (4) students with
disabilities in our schools are based on different bodies of literature, overarching
patterns can be identified. Many of the problems faced by students in diverse
groups are the result of cultural clashes between their culture and the dominant
culture. These cultural clashes, in turn, result from a lack of understanding or an
inability to respond to cultural differences.
To move forward, it is necessary for members of the dominant culture to learn
about their own culture, other cultures, cultural clashes, and the negative effects
of cultural clashes on diverse groups. This learning, especially if it involves
teachers, seems to happen as a result of being confronted with data that are
incongruent with one’s beliefs about other cultures, reflecting on the data,
engaging in dialogue with colleagues on the meaning of the data, and making a
commitment to change the way diverse groups are treated. New knowledge
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
gained through experiential learning leads to forming new attitudes, which leads
to taking action on behalf of diverse groups.
Connecting the Technical Tasks of Supervision to Cultural Responsiveness
Our discussion on responding to diversity provides a good opportunity to show
how the technical tasks of supervision cannot really be separated from the
cultural tasks. Rather, the technical tasks can be used as vehicles to complete
the cultural tasks. All six technical tasks (direct assistance, evaluation of
teaching, group development, professional development, curriculum
development, and action research) can be integrated in responding to diversity.
Action research can be a framework for integrating the other technical tasks of
supervision into a comprehensive program to address diversity. Early in the
action research process, teachers can gather data on the achievement gap
between various student groups, cultural clashes, and the negative effects of
cultural clashes on diverse student groups. The task of group development is
carried out through each phase of action research but is especially vital in the
early phases of action research for addressing diversity. Early in the process,
teachers are involved in critical discussions of the negative effects of schooling
on students from marginalized groups and confronting their own role in
maintaining the status quo. These group discussions require balancing task and
personal roles, dealing with some dysfunctional behaviors, managing conflict in
constructive ways, and facilitating small- and large-group decision making.
Once teachers have made a commitment to addressing diversity and selected a
focus within that broad area, it is time for action planning. The remaining
technical tasks of supervision all can be included in the action plan. Professional
development can provide teachers with the knowledge, skills, and strategies to
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
address the needs of diverse students. Curriculum development can enable
teachers to critique the status quo and to develop a curriculum that is culturally
responsive and informs social action. Direct assistance can help teachers to
apply culturally responsive teaching through clinical supervision, peer coaching,
demonstration teaching, mentoring, and so on. And formative evaluation of
teaching (more appropriate for this purpose than summative evaluation), can
provide individual teachers and instructional teams feedback on their progress
toward becoming more culturally responsive.
After implementing the action plan for a period of time, teachers can continue
action research by gathering data to assess the effects of the action plan on the
school and its diverse groups and to plan future actions to increase the school’s
cultural responsiveness. In summary, the technical tasks of
supervision—powerful processes for improving instruction by themselves—can
also contribute to broader cultural tasks such as addressing diversity.
Glickman C. D., Gordon S. P., & Ross-gordon J. (2017). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership.
[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134521916/
