Supervision of Instruction

¶ … Teachers Benefit from Supervision? Yes," Lee Goldsberry offers an answer to Professor Waite's contention that teachers do not benefit from supervision and that supervision can be harmful to the educational process. Goldsberry is correct in his view that teachers benefit from supervision when it is good supervision and in any case need many of the processes which supervision brings, such as evaluation and direction. He is also right to point out the flaws in Waite's argument and to answer critics who would find fault with his view as well.

Goldsberry cites two primary reasons why teachers benefit from supervision -- because it makes them better teachers, and because it introduces accountability, which includes an assessment that contributes better definitions of what good teaching is. Of course, these are related, since accountability as Goldsberry describes it is part of the process of helping teachers become better. He begins by pointing out the shortcomings in Waite's argument. Waite says that teachers should not have supervision because supervision is often ineffective.

It is true that much supervision is inferior, but this is not a reason for no supervision at all but rather a reason to work to make supervision better. Virtually everything can be ineffective if it is not done properly, and following Waite's view, we would have to do nothing at all for fear that doing something might be imperfect.

Goldsberry rightly notes that supervision is effective when done properly, so what should be done now is to develop clear guidelines and standards so supervision in the future can do the job right and achieve the benefits desired. Waite, of course, says that there is "no evidence that good supervision is widely practiced" (44), which again may be true, but this is still not a reason not to try to see that good supervision is practiced.

As Goldsberry states, there is evidence that some teachers have benefited from good supervision, making it apparent that good supervision is something to be desired. Of greater importance is the question of what benefits could be gleaned from good supervision, and much of what Goldsberry writes relates to this question. Goldsberry finds that a major reason for supervision is the need for accountability, which he calls "a rightful function of all supervision, and the only reason an organization needs to evaluate performance" (45).

Such an evaluation provides the teacher with information as to his or her virtues and shortcomings, allowing for "reasoned enhancement of performance" (45) and to give others the assurance that performance is meeting standards. One concern Goldsberry finds is characterized by him as semantic, for many people resist the idea of being "evaluated" though they might not object if a different word were used.

For that matter, some object to the word "supervision" as well, for in both cases the words have acquired a sense of something being imposed on unwilling participants. What would be preferable would be a system where the people being assessed understand the need and recognize that they can learn from the process, which includes both self-evaluation and outside evaluation. The teacher can learn from both and can compare the two to decide strengths and weaknesses for him or herself.

Goldsberry suggests the term "professional collaboration" as one that clearly links the supervisor and the worker in a mutually beneficial relationship rather than in one where the supervisor imposes and the employee resents the imposition. Indeed, Goldsberry finds fault not only with the terminology but with the way supervision and evaluation are structured and undertaken. He says that who does the evaluation is a distraction, while most supervisors believe that who does the evaluation is a critical issue.

The person doing the evaluation need not be a superior, for the teacher can learn from the criticism of colleagues, friends, parents, and even students. This does not mean that every idea offered in an evaluation has to be taken at face value or accepted as the absolute truth, but it does mean that the teacher should have a range of views from different perspectives so he or she can consider their value and thus be made to think about his or her performance in a critical way.

It is the process itself that generates valuable insight which can help the teacher become a better teacher. This is the way supervision should be viewed, not as a matter of controlling teachers but as a way of helping teachers improve. In a real sense, the teacher supervises him or herself and engages others in the process. Good supervision of the sort considered by Goldsberry involves the.