Comparing peer coaching and clinical supervision for school principals

Clinical Supervision and Peer Coaching

Peer coaching for principals and clinical supervision are the two strategies to be compared and contrasted in this paper.

Peer Coaching

Peer coaching is a professional development model in which a formal, collegial process takes place; in this model pairs of faculty members volunteer to team up together to "…improve or expand their approaches to teaching,": according to a peer-reviewed article in the journal Innovations in Higher Education (Huston, et al., 2007). One interesting aspect of peer coaching is that each partner in the pair may actually serve "…as coach to the other," Huston explains. And yet it can also be just one way, with one of the partners playing the role of coach and the other the learner, or recipient of the coaching experience (Huston, 6).

Peer coaching, also known as "peer mentoring," offers several potential benefits, Huston continues on page 6. Those benefits include: a) improved morale and motivation for the faculty (or in this case, for the principal and other administrators in addition to the faculty); b) "increased collaboration" with members of the school administration; and c) more "thoughtful attention" to one's leadership position in a school environment (Huston, 6). And while this article zeros in on faculty peer coaching, the principles set forth relate seamlessly to the administration side of the school, the principals in particular.

It is important to remember that peer coaching -- when it is reciprocal and grounded in "mutual respect and trust" -- can "virtually guarantee the positive approach essential for constructive change" in a school environment (Huston, 7).

There are three steps that generally take place in a peer coaching situation, Huston explains. Those steps include: a) consultation in order to identify the "focus of the coaching"; b) open-minded observation by the coach; and c) a session where the coach is debriefed and relates to his or her observations of what took place (8).

Clinical Supervision and its Strengths and Weaknesses

Annie Pettifer and colleague Lynn Clouder explain in the peer-reviewed journal Learning in Health and Social Care that clinical supervision is commonly used in professional contexts as a way to "guide reflection with the purpose of advancing practice" (Pettifer, 2008, 169). Clinical supervision "…enables critical practice and development of personal knowledge, professional expertise and competence" (Pettifer, 169).

Pettifer mentions that there is no hard and fast rule as to how the clinical supervision model should be presented. There are many interpretations, the author explains, and there is "conceptual ambiguity" as well; but the ambiguity can be explained because there can be no single model that meets all the professional needs of principals. But that said, there is a basic definition of clinical supervision that is presented by the authors:

"…[clinical supervision] is a formal process of support and learning which enables individual practitioners to develop knowledge and competence, assume responsibility for their own practice…it is central to the process of learning and to the expansion of the scope of practice and should be seen as a means of encouraging self-assessment and analytic and reflective skills" (Pettifer, 169).

How does it actually work? The Reclaiming Journal explains that the "Circle of Courage" is a tool in a clinical supervision session that evaluates a series of lies that students sometimes come up with. Instead of degrading the child, the "circle" helps to view a different reason for the lies. Perhaps the student lacks a sense of "belonging" and hence lacks trust of adults; a student might feel inadequate and tells lies to "gain friends"; also a lying student may be covering for other peers; or he may be lying for "personal gain" (Pfeifer, 2011).

In a clinical supervisor session, the supervisor is encouraged to use "Socratic questions" because those kinds of questions help the staff "…think and be quick on their feet," which helps their level of confidence and competence, Pfeifer explains on page 33. The answers to the questions help the supervisor more fully engage with the staff, and this process is a way of moving from a situation where the supervisor is telling staff what to do and towards a situation that encourages staff to think for themselves and be eager to seek solutions (Pfeifer, 33).

Clearly the strength of clinical supervision is that it digs down deep into the attitudes and motivations of staff members; it gives staff members a chance to honestly interact with supervisors in a give-and-take that is structured so that both sides are there to strengthen the relationships that exist in the school or other environment. The weakness in this approach is that unless the supervisor / principal is well qualified to lead a session -- or if staff are unable to openly engage with the process -- it can come down to a "bitch session" where little if anything is accomplished.

Conclusion

In conclusion, each model offers something of value to the supervisory process, if carried out professionally according to models that have proven value. The peer coaching model, in this writer's opinion, contributes more in terms of learning on the job for principals. To have a pair of principals of high schools teaming up as coaches for each other is a powerful and potentially very valuable strategy for supervision. On the other hand, clinical supervision also has huge potential to improve relationships between supervisors and staff, but because there so many models of clinical supervision, and the empirical studies that are available vary widely, it's difficult to judge their actual value.