Supervision for Instructional Improvement - Essay Example

Supervision for Instructional Improvement 1 Supervision for Instructional Improvement “The critique of standard-issue staff development is quite-damning, and it is not new. Dennis Sparks, the president of the National Staff Development Council, has been calling for serious changes for years, deerying the fact that, “only a small portion of what is known about quality staff development is regularly used in schools” The key to replace a belief in ‘experts’ who deliver knowledge of good teaching in workshops’ with communities of teachers who learn through “ongoing collaboration and practice”(Sparks 2001). For sometime now, Bruce Joyce and his colleagues have been saying that typical staff development “probably will not generate the amount of change necessary to affect student achievement”. Instead they advocate along with Sparks, Fullan and others---the creation of the kind of “Communities of teachers” who engage in focused, recurring cycles of instruction, assessment, and adjustment of instruction”.(Joyce and Showers 2002) “Research emphasizes that coaching is a prerequisite for the implementation of new skills strategy”( Showers, Joyce and Bennett 1987). Leaders must be aware that the provision of ongoing support is crucial to the successful attainment of an innovation. Therefore, one of the first staff development initiatives to be offered to teachers in the classroom, is peer coaching. For staff development expert Thomas Guskey, the promise of professional development has gone “largely unfulfilled”. The solution in staff development is build around “collaborative exchange”, in which “teachers work together, reflect on their practice, exchange ideas, and share strategies”(Guskey 2003) Richard Stiggins writes that 2 “assessment literacy”, is so integral to the ongoing improvement of instruction in “learning teams” “Work shops”, he says “will not work”, they “do not” permit the application of and experimentation with new assessment ideas in real classrooms, and sharing that experience with other colleagues in a team effort”(Stiggins 1999). There is broad base acceptance within the research community on the many positive effects which come forth, as a result of teams which are carefully structured and their impact on the overall improvement of instruction. Additionally, we can also assert that the structures have a high probability of being the least expensive, most practical, and presents the most amenities towards solidifying professional dignity within the school setting. Consider the gravity with which Fullan refers to Judith Warren Little research, “no words’, he writes, “could sum up this discussion on school level factors [that affect achievement] more accurately than those of Judith Little”. He then quotes her as saying, “School improvement is most surely and thoroughly achieved when teachers engage in frequent, continuous and increasingly concrete and precise talk about teaching practice…adequate to the complexities of teaching, is being capable of distinguishing one practice and its virtues from another”. In this simple but some what radical scheme, so different from the elaborate machinations of reform and improvement planning, “teachers and administrators teach each other the practice of teaching”(Little 1990) Direct Assistance The process of direct assistance is that the supervisor can provide or facilitate one- on-one feedback with the teacher, and the purpose of this process is to improve instruction. As stated by Senge and Knapp, there are two critical requirements for 3 success. First, the building leader assumes responsibility for the supervision. Second, the building leader separates the supervision from summative evaluation. The tool is designed to provide the teacher with a framework for planning and implementing the clinical supervision model. The model consists of five steps: (1) pre-conference, (2) observation of classroom, (3) interpertating the observation, (4) make an instructional improvement plan and (5) review the plan. This is a one-on-one process between the teacher and the supervisor. This clinical supervision provides the classroom teacher with an objective comprehensive assessment, while the teacher is also a participant, of how the prepared plan is impacting the students. Through the trained and objective eye of the supervisor the sessions can be synthesized and critiqued, and the plus of the on-on-one collaboration, the plan can be retrofitted to better suit the learner. Research by Dornbush and Scott (1975) and Natriello (1982) has shown that teachers who receive the most classroom feedback are also most satisfied with teaching. Other research studies have shown that teachers in need of assistance tend to seek out first, fellow teachers and second, supervisory or administrative personnel” (Lortie, 1975) The negative side is when the building “leader” is not the observer and has designated a proxy to carry out the cycle. The building “leader” has ostensibly set the tone and the personality for the clinical supervision, and the leader must be accessible. Whenever contact times are established and not followed thru, this debases moral. If doing the process, whenever a teacher needs additional assistance, one should not hesitate to refer them to a peer coach. If appropriate referrals go undone, two critical elements of the cycles is broken; the teacher does not receive the specialized attention needed, and the purpose of the process, which is based upon corroboration, is muted. 4 Group Development If one is to expand the base which is required to improve instructional practice in ways which will ultimately improve student outcomes, the group learning must encompass a broader range and focus on instructional content. Central to the work of Group development are continous opportunities for the teacher/learner to increase their knowledge of subject matter; solidify their strategies for their personal instruction and subsequent assessment; sparking an interest in research, correlated with district policies which support instruction; opportunities to analyze, observe, and to coach and be coached by peers, and most importantly, provide feedback and exchange ideas among themselves. Wenger 1998 believes, “Individuals and groups are better able to learn through and build on the collective experience of their peers, and leverage existing practices to develop knowledge that is ‘owned’ in practice”(Wenger 1998) The dynamics of the group development cycle as described by Gordon 2002, “A sense of rational trust—linking the notions of respect, competence, personal regard, and integrity with academic achievement, also strengthens the community and makes shared decision-making possible”(Gordon). The negative side of this cycle is that if leaders (who also share a vested interest) do not pay attention to key facets of both school culture and structure – such as supportive and shared leadership, and place a strong emphasis on improvement and promote the idea that the teachers are supported, the tone for the improvement is not established. As stated by Zepeda 1999; Lambert 1998,”the leaders set the tone for improvement by modeling active learning, investing time in the process, showing respect for the ideas of others, and empowering teachers as leaders”(Zepeda 1999) Professional Development 5 It has been shown that one of the most important factors in improving academic achievement is to increase the instructional capacity in the classroom. Senge 1990 and Knapp 2003, point out that the kinds of professional development that improve instructional capacity display four cultural characteristics”(Senge Knapp). These characteristics are ; ongoing, embedded within the context specific needs of a particular setting, aligned with reform initiatives and grounded in a collaborative, inquiry based approach to learning”(Senge and Knapp) The negative of this cycle is it thrives on levels of efficiency, and they must be enhanced both individually and collectively. If not, then immediate retrofitting of the process must be done. The emphasis on content knowledge must be sustained. Isolation is contagious, and potentially harmful to the entire process. A network must be established to keep everyone in the loop. Again on efficiency, it is critical to keep attrition at a minimum. A lack of enthusiasm can severly cripple or even dismantle the cycle. Curriculum Development The supervisor can provide for changes in teacher content and instructional materials. This process for curriculum can be viewed as curriculum enhancement. The flexibility or retrofitting allowed in this process allows for a positive reinforcement of the three previous tasks. Nothing is set in stone. If the lesson is not meeting its target, it provides a exemplary opportunity to exhibit how well the entire task oriented process is functioning. This provides an opportunity for the teacher and the supervisor to collaborate on their individual and collective analysis of a lesson, to make changes which will prove to be most effective, in reaching the learner. This is the cornerstone of the entire task process and it must not be rigid. The relationship which have been fostered 7 along the way, will prove beneficial to all parties concerned when it comes time to make the analysis and come up with recommendations for change. Works Cited Corcoran, C.,( Aug/ Sept 2003), “Rethinking Scale”, Moving Beyond Numbers to Deep Lasting Change”, Educational Research 32 (6) pp 3-12 Darling-Hammind, L. and McLaughlin, M., (1995) Policies that support Professional Development in an Era of Reform” Phi Delta Kappan 76 (8) 597-604 Elmore, R. (2002) Bridging the Gap between Standards and Achievement: The Imperative for professional Development in Education: New York: Albert Shanker Institute Gordon, D., ( July/ Aug 2002) “Fuel for Reform. The Importance of trust in Changing Schools” Harvard Education Letter 18 (4) Guskey, Thomas (2003) What makes Professional Development effective, Phi Delta Kappan, June 2003 p.289 Joyce, B., Showers, S. B., Student Achievement through Staff Development; Alexandria, Virginia, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2002 (p.35) Knapp, M. S., et al (April 2003), District support for Professional Learning: What Research says and has yet to establish. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Research Association, Chicago April 21-25, 2003 Lambert, L., (1998) Building Leadership Capacity in Schools: Alexandria, Virginia, Association for Supervision and Curriculum development Little, J., ( 1995) The Persistency of Privacy: Autonomy and Initiative in Teachers Professional Relations. Teacher College Record 91, 509-536 Senge, P. ( 1990), The Fifth Discipline, New York, Doubleday Showers, Joyce & Bennett, (1987) Synthesis of Research on Staff Development: A Framework for Future Study and State of the Art Analysis; Educational Leadership, 45 (3) 77-87 Sparks,, Dennis, (2001) The real Barrier to Improved Professional Development, Results Newsletter Stiggins, Richard (1999) Assessment Student confidence, and School Success: Phi Delta Kappan, November 1999 p.198 Warren, Judith, The Persistence of Privacy: Autonomy and initiative in Teachers Professional Relations, teachers College Record, Summer 1990 pp. 509-536 Wenger, E., ( June 1998) communities of Practice: Learning as a social System. Systems Thinker Zepeda, S. J., (1999) Staff Development: Practices that Promote Leadership in Learning Communities; Larchmont, New York; Eye on Education Read More