This paper examines the role of supervision and evaluation in public education and professional teacher training. It begins by contextualizing the current teacher shortage and the rise of alternative certification pathways such as Teach for America. The paper then analyzes three models of supervision — directive, non-directive, and collaborative — assessing the strengths and limitations of each. It next distinguishes between formative and summative evaluation, explaining how each method serves a different organizational purpose. Finally, it argues that supervision and evaluation are interdependent processes that, when used together, support teacher growth, accountability, and program improvement. An appended literature review summarizes the three key sources cited throughout the paper.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
The teaching profession is different from what it was several years ago. Teachers face more challenges as schools contend with overcrowding, low salaries, and budget cuts. This is especially true in urban areas where many public schools reside. These issues alone have made the teaching profession less attractive for many would-be teachers. Being a teacher is an important career choice because teachers play a major role in shaping children — including what and how they learn. Teachers spend as much time with students as parents do, if not more, so their role and profession is vital. Because so many people have decided against a career in public education, a teacher shortage now exists.
To fill the gap and make up for the shortage, alternative methods of training leading to a teaching career have become popular, if not necessary. The traditional route calls for a four-year bachelor's degree in education. During the final year of school, teachers are required to complete student teaching and log a certain number of hours, in addition to gaining certification, in order to prepare for their careers. Grossman and Loeb state that alternative pathways to teaching have increased over the past two decades, and programs such as Teach for America and the New York Teaching Fellows have helped thousands of people without a degree in elementary education become certified teachers (2010).
There are several forms of supervision: directive, non-directive, and collaborative. Each of these methods has its own merits. With directive supervision, the supervisor directs teaching in a manner that is to be modeled and then evaluates the teacher's performance. One drawback of this form of supervision is that the supervisor alone determines which teaching methods should be used, leaving no room for teacher input. Although the supervisor presumably knows the job well, there is always room for improvement, and this method does not allow for that kind of exchange.
Non-directive supervision is essentially the opposite of directive supervision. With this approach, the supervisor allows the teacher to generate ideas and suggestions about teaching methods. The supervisor is available for feedback or to answer questions but is otherwise hands-off, granting the teacher greater autonomy in the classroom. The non-directive approach does not work for everyone, however. While some teachers are more independent in their thinking about how they wish to run their classrooms, others seek more guidance and feedback from a supervisor to ensure they are on the right path.
The collaborative supervision approach appears to be the best of the three options. With collaborative supervision, there is more of a partnership between the supervisor and the teacher. Rather than the supervisor exerting complete control over classroom decisions, or allowing the teacher completely free rein to test any idea that comes to mind, the collaborative approach takes both perspectives into account. The supervisor and teacher work together to develop ideas to test in the classroom in order to determine what works and what does not. This method is most conducive to a favorable outcome because both parties are permitted to contribute. Gebhard states that the supervisor's role in this model is to work with the teacher rather than simply telling the teacher what to do (1984).
Formative and summative evaluation are two distinct methods used in educational settings. Formative evaluation within a teaching environment is designed to help improve the processes already in place. This method examines what is working well with current processes alongside what is not. Formative evaluation is conducted in-house — meaning it is carried out by the supervisor or another administrative official of the school. It is more research-oriented because it focuses on what is working rather than on how a program has already performed.
Summative evaluation, on the other hand, is concerned with the effectiveness of a particular program. A common measure used in summative evaluations is some form of test administered to teachers. This type of evaluation focuses on how a group of teachers performs within a given program, gauging how much a teacher has learned by assigning a letter grade or numerical score as a form of assessment. According to Kaye, both methods of evaluation help determine what is working and what is not (2004).
Both evaluation methods are useful because one focuses on the organization itself while the other focuses on the people within it. The two should go hand in hand. A strong teaching program cannot succeed if the teachers within it are not performing at an acceptable level. By the same token, a school with excellent teachers but a poor curriculum will not produce the desired results either. Both dimensions must be addressed to ensure overall success.
"Supervision and evaluation work together for teacher growth"
"Annotated summaries of three key sources cited"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.