Why Retain a Supervision Model From the 1860s?

My View

Our current practice of supervising teachers once or twice a year is the same model used in America’s one-room schools of the 1860s. In those days, the county superintendent usually visited every teacher once a year.

The superintendent’s yearly report would include references to these classroom visits. One account, filed by C.R. Coburn in his 1863 “Report of the Superintendent of Common Schools of Pennsylvania,” stated: “243 visits have been made to 190 schools. 35 of the schools were visited twice.”

In today’s supervision model, the principal typically visits each teacher’s room once or twice a year. Such a model had little impact back then, and it has little effect on teachers now.

Trained Observation

Many school districts nationwide have adopted Charlotte Danielson’s framework to evaluate teachers. This is a comprehensive model that can improve teaching strategies and student learning. And I am not unaware of the tremendous time commitment required of principals who supervise dozens of teachers and write yearly evaluations. So what’s the problem?

One or two classroom observations a year have little impact on teaching. It is almost impossible for principals to accurately observe and evaluate teacher performance while trying to address Danielson’s framework and its 22 subcategories.

The word “supervision” implies that the observer has had sufficient training in evaluating classroom behaviors associated with Danielson’s teacher evaluation categories that range from basic to distinguished. For example, in Danielson’s subcategory 3b, a teacher who asks high-quality questions and provides adequate time for students to respond, formulate questions, and participate in classroom discussions, can be rated as distinguished.

Yet determining whether a question is high quality or low quality is not a simple task. Much depends on the context in which the question was delivered and the kind of student response it elicits. A principal might conclude that the teacher asked a lot of good questions simply because the students seemed involved in the discussion when the questions actually asked for no more than simple recall of facts. If responses to questions require no critical thinking, no problem analysis or no judgment, the question is not high level.

But even with adequate training, a supervisory model with only one or two observations per year is unlikely to influence instruction. Most of the teachers I’ve worked with over the past 25 years tell me their principals’ comments are just too general to be helpful.

Self-Analysis

An effective supervisory model could shift some supervisory responsibility from the principal to the teacher. Teachers could observe their own classes at least a half dozen times, using easy-to-operate video cameras supplied by the school district. This process would enable every teacher to assess his or her own instructing strengths and areas for improvement. Teachers who have videotaped their lesson usually are more critical of performance than the building principal.

School districts could improve the use of in-service days by offering training on observation and supervisory techniques, in addition to workshops on the Danielson framework. Through a journal, teachers could record what they learned from each video and could share these reflections with their colleagues or the principal.

A good starting point for introducing this process can be found on The Teaching Channel. In a high-quality video, Sarah Brown Wessling, an English teacher in Johnston, Iowa (www.teachingchannel.org/videos/improve-teaching-with-video), describes how taping her own classes helps her to reflect on her strengths and weaknesses.

Related topics include innovative coaching models and using video to improve practice. Jim Knight’s book, Focus on Teaching: Using Video for High-Impact Instruction, helps teachers reflect on their own teaching strategies.

A Better Climate

The long-term goal would be to develop a collaborative network for improved performance. Principals and teachers would have input into the yearly evaluations required by most states. The collaboration itself ought to have a positive impact on organizational climate.

Ultimately, it is only the teacher, not the principal, who can change the quality of instruction. It is time we devise a supervision model that really helps teachers do that.