Teacher Supervision & Evaluation

Marshall’s (2005) article evaluates the conventional model of teacher supervision and evaluation and proposes a new model. This is because he found the conventional model to be flawed and ineffective in improving teaching and learning. At the same time, it was also inefficient and failed to maximize the use of the principal’s time. As conventional supervision and evaluation is not “the best way to truly change what happens in the classrooms” (p.731), he has suggested a new process – one that shifts the process from being owned by the principal to a “more dynamic, informal process owned by the teacher teams” (p.732).

I can identify with conventional model of teacher supervision and evaluation that Marshall has outlined which entails the following: pre-conservation conference, lesson plan, lesson observation, evaluation write-up, post-observation conference with teacher and occasional walkthrough as I was taught how to use this model when I became a Head of Department. In Singapore, this is generally the most popular model used by nearly all schools at the present moment. Like Marshall, I do agree that this model is to some extent ineffective. As Marshall has observed, teachers who have been supervised and evaluated using this model “rarely changes what they do in their classrooms” (p.731). I concur with this observation made as well. Only a relatively small number of teachers do make an attempt to change what they do in their classrooms and often these are the teachers who are always looking for ways to improve their classroom practice. Hence, they welcome the feedback given by their school leaders. But, what about the others? How can teacher supervision and evaluation help to move them to impact student achievement in the classrooms?

Marshall’s proposed model of shifting the process from being owned by the principal to a more dynamic, informal process owned by the teacher teams is worth considering. This is because his model enables the principals to quickly and efficiently keep tabs on what is going on in the classroom, give teachers constant feedback, make fair judgments about teacher performance and get teams invested in improving student learning and focused on results (p.735). But this will require the school leaders to have courage to let go of the current model and launch into a more “powerful learning dynamic” (p.735). However, I wonder how many will have moral courage to do so? Many school leaders are answerable to their respective cluster superintendents back home and it may require them to have a lot of moral courage to convince their cluster superintendents to allow them to try out Marshall’s model in their schools as it is a marked departure from the conventional model. As courage is linked to moral purpose, school leaders with intense moral purpose, a mindset which Kaser and Halbert (2009) have deemed important for school leaders to have, will persist to get approval so as to give this model a go in their schools as they know that this is what will help close achievement and get their students to perform at high levels. According to Day et.al. (2008), persistence is one of the many traits which successful leaders possess and they will demonstrate it when they encounter challenging situations. This I believe they will as they are motivated by intense moral purpose.

While I see merits in Marshall’s model, I do wonder if this model will however work well for school leaders who have to head a large school of about 1,200 students and have about 70 - 80 staff or even a mega sized school where the school student population is over 2,000 and the staff size is twice the size of a large size school. I can see this new model being carried out with ease in a small or medium sized schools. For a large or mega sized school, the principal may need to carefully work out his schedule in order to, as suggested by Marshall, take 12 to 15 “snapshots” of every teacher’s performance in the course of the year and compile a “photo album” of each one’s overall performance. In a most likely scenario, I believe most principals in such schools may cut down the number of snapshots to make it more manageable. To make evaluation more objective, school leaders who practice distributed leadership, can also have his Vice-Principal take a number of snapshots of the staff and then compare notes concerning the performance of the individual staff. This perhaps is more objective and fair than just having the Principal to do the annual staff appraisal by himself.

My other concern with this model has to do with the need for the Principal to give feedback on unit plans and assessment developed by the teacher teams. It assumes that the Principal is well versed in curriculum and assessment. While school leaders are expected to be instructional leaders, it is unfortunate that not all school leaders are as knowledgeable as they should be to provide guidance regarding current curricula, instructional and assessment practices that impact their student learning and achievement. According to Leithwood et. al (2006), a leadership model that is based on content knowledge is something of the past (p.10). From my experience, the school leaders who I have worked with are good administrators but not good instructional leaders. Hence, how do such leaders add value to the unit plans and assessment developed by the teacher teams?

To conclude, supervision and evaluation should indeed be aligned to staff professional development that will contribute or impact student learning and achievement. As Marshall has so rightly pointed out, it is the school principal that needs to be the “’chief learner’ in this regard, reaching out to the knowledge base and orchestrating study groups, article and book groups, peer observations, and lessons videotapes” (p.734). In modeling this, they would as Blase and Kirby (1992) have observed, bring out the best in their teachers. And by setting the tone, they will also encourage the Vice-Principal, Heads of Department and senior teachers in the school to do likewise – engage in professional conversations with their colleagues. As one who will someday enter into school principalship, I see this model as a promising one to implement as it not only foster a culture of inquiry and learning but it will allow the school principal to spend quality time in doing what will make the most difference in his school and in student learning and achievement.