Best Practices in Supervision and Professional Development

Rabbi Jeffrey (Yosef) Glanz, Ed. D.

Excerpted from an Azrieli Paper at the Azrieli Graduate School of Jewish Education and Administration published in 2012.

“In short, supervision is not so much a view of a teacher by a superior viewer; it is a super-vision, a view of what education might mean at this moment, within this context, for these particular people. Perhaps more accurately, the process of supervision is an attempt by a segment of the community of learners to gain this super-vision of the educational moment within their reflective practice, so that their insight into the possibilities of the moment can lead to the transformation of that moment into something immensely more satisfying and productive for them.” – Thomas Sergiovanni and Robert Starratt, 2007, p. 145

Supervision is a process that engages teachers in instructional dialogue for the purpose of improving teaching and promoting student achievement. Principals should view themselves, and be seen, as “teachers of teachers.” This notion is predicated on the condition that principals have adequate teaching experience themselves and possess the knowledge and skills to communicate good teaching practice to teachers. Principals as instructional leaders understand how to work with teachers in order to improve teaching and promote student learning.

It should be pointed out that the work of supervision affects students and teachers alike. Educational leaders are in a unique position to transform a school community to embrace the value of providing a nurturing, positive and safe environment for its students. Through instructional supervision, principals and teachers can model mutual respect, and through collaborative efforts, principals can be attuned to the pulse of the school climate. Children then will have exemplary role models, and in a pro-social and emotionally safe environment they will have opportunities to participate as active community members in which they, too, can experience mutual respect and tolerance, acquire good problem-solving skills, actively learn and achieve, and become caring, compassionate individuals.

Administrators are very good at compiling reports, engaging with parents, and writing reports. Although these activities are sometimes urgent, it is essential to remember to attend to important concerns. Serving as instructional leaders is paramount to positively affecting teaching and learning. Engaging teachers in instructional dialogue and meaningful supervision (not evaluation) is axiomatic. Writers in the field also recommend the following ideas:

• Get out of the office into classrooms and save report writing for downtimes and after school.
• Strive to encourage good pedagogy and teaching.
• Faculty and grade meetings should focus almost exclusively on instructional issues.
• Avoid quick-fix approaches that presumably guarantee high student achievement.
• Take reasonable and intelligent steps to establish an instructional milieu in the school.
• Emphasize instruction at every turn, e.g., at grade and faculty conferences, email and memo correspondences, parent workshops, etc.

Supervision is not Evaluation

Principals can implement a variety of instructional improvement strategies including clinical supervision that incorporates purposeful classroom observation of teachers in action, not for evaluative purposes but to engage teachers in instructional dialogue about classroom practice. In fact, no discussion of evaluation is found in this monograph because the chief purpose of evaluation is accountability, not instructional improvement. Moreover, I particularly frown upon the use of checklists. They are more reminiscent of inspectional practices of the past than they are of mechanisms generated, shared, and used by teachers and supervisors (or peer coaches or partners) for the purpose of encouraging dialogue and reflection in order to examine study/analyze teaching practices and their impact on student learning. In my view, supervision in most schools relies on antiquated practices involving inspection and teacher evaluation (Shulman, Sullivan, & Glanz, 2008) that offer little, if any, opportunities for professional growth and improvement. In my view, reliance on such conceptions of supervision, a relic of the past (see, e.g., Glanz, 1998), is unethical because teachers are not considered professional partners or colleagues worthy of collaboration (Emihovich & Battaglia, 2000; Fullan, 2003b; Sergiovanni, 1992). When hierarchical relationships predominate (e.g., power and politics), teachers are reluctant to scrutinize their instructional practices in meaningful ways (Blumberg, 1980; Pajak, 2008).

Strategic Vision

Programs and practices that aim to improve instructional excellence through supervision are often developed and initiated without anchoring them within the context of the overall school strategic plan or vision (Duffy, 2000; Fullan, 2008a; Glanz, 2010b; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). Instructional supervisory initiatives are not likely to succeed unless strategically contextualized (Glanz, 2010b). Episodic walk-throughs, poorly planned observations, occasional supervisory conferences, superficial email correspondences, and a lack of alternatives to traditional supervision characterize supervisory programs in many schools (Shulman, Sullivan, & Glanz, 2008). Similarly, top-down supervisory mandates (e.g., requiring teachers to undergo a specified number of formal evaluative observations) or bottom-up initiatives (e.g., teachers who form critical friends groups) are likely to fail unless strategically planned, implemented, and assessed (Fahey, 2008; Fullan, Hill, & Crevola, 2006). Instructional supervision is not likely to succeed in schools without careful attention to strategic leadership initiatives.

Supervision as Instructional Dialogue

Today, theorists of supervision (Pajak, 2008; Sullivan & Glanz, 2009; Zepeda, 2007) understand that meaningful supervision involves treating teachers as professionals worthy of engaging in intellectual and practical discussions of classroom interactions. Supervision, as cutting-edge practice, is conceived as a collaborative process in which teachers and supervisors engage in instructional dialogue through critical reflection in order to align teacher behavior in the classroom with practices best suited to promote student learning and achievement (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2008; Sullivan & Glanz, 2009; Zepeda, 2007). Predicated on a conceptual framework of justice and an ethic of caring, supervisors encourage teachers, who have been historically politically disenfranchised from playing an active role in their own professional growth, to participate in various options including peer coaching, intervisitations, critical friends groups, lesson studies, action research, mentoring, and peer assessment.

Differentiated Supervision

Differentiated supervision means that teachers are not treated the same; one size does not fit all (Glatthorn, 1997; Pajak, 2008). A three-tiered approach to supervision might include the following: Tier I reserved for an induction and mentoring program (Breaux & Wong, 2003) in which new and inexperienced teachers are paired with a mentor for professional education and the teacher is well-integrated into the school culture (Anthony, 2009). Tier II in which tenured, competent teachers are not evaluated regularly, as are Tier I and Tier III teachers, but are given individualized or group professional growth plans involving some of the strategies mentioned above such as action research projects, (Fenwick, 2001, 2004); Tier III reserved for teachers in need of improvement due to teaching deficiencies and other issues. Similar to Tier II teachers, these teachers also develop professional growth plans by working closely with peers and supervisors to improve teaching skills if possible, but unlike Tier II, they are monitored closely to ensure success (Glickman, 2002).

Recommended Supervisory Approaches

A variety of supervisory approaches are advocated including, among others, cognitive coaching (Costa & Garmston, 2002), mentoring (Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1998), and peer coaching (Showers & Joyce, 1996). Action research, quietly emerging as a popular alternative to traditional supervision, is often teacher-initiated in the sense that the teacher identifies a problem, collects and interprets data, and arrives at some conclusion to improve practice (Glanz, 2003; Sagor, 2008). These supervisory approaches are identified as best practices (see, e.g., Coppola, Scricca, & Connors, 2004; Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2008; Pajak, 2008; Zepeda, 2003), and are much favored over a checklist approach to supervision that is perfunctory, evaluative, and not very useful for teachers.

Research-Based Practices in Supervision and Professional Development

• One Size Does Not Fit All –Differentiating supervisory approaches is recommended. Given teachers’ levels of experience and expertise, establish a variety of supervisory options for teachers in order to improve and grow professionally.
• Professional Development – is a process of supporting teachers’ work and student learning by systematic, continuous, meaningful, knowledge-based workshops and seminars around collaboratively developed topics.
• P.C.O.W.B.I.R.D.S. – All good principals work with teachers on instructional activities that include planning, conferences, observations, workshops, sharing bulletins and research, intervisitations, providing resources, demo lessons, and staff development. (See below.)

Collaboratively Planning and Implementing Professional Development

What is the relationship between supervision and professional development? Although some disagreement exists (e.g., Glanz, & Neville, 1997, Issue #8), many in the field now concur that supervision reconceived as a process that is non-evaluative and integral in terms of promoting instructional dialogue about teaching and learning is congruent with professional development. In fact, professional development can be seen as a way of delivering supervision. By providing professional development workshops, principals provide opportunities for teachers to engage in instructional conversations about relevant issues affecting teaching and learning. Professional development may include, among others, sessions on teaching strategies, studying latest theory and research on practice, receiving feedback on teaching, providing resources for practice, coaching (peer or otherwise), etc.

The literature on professional development is vast (Reeves, 2010; Speck, 1998). Almost all schools provide some sort of professional development learning opportunities for teachers. Although professional development workshops have been offered, many individuals criticize the manner in which professional development is planned and delivered. Potentially, professional development is undoubtedly an invaluable learning activity to support teachers and to improve student learning. However, much of professional or staff development is content weak, episodic, and at its worst, irrelevant to the needs of teachers.

Principals as instructional leaders realize that professional development, well-conceived, planned, and assessed, is vital to improving teaching and student learning. Best practice in professional development points to several components as necessary (Griffin, 1997; Lieberman, 1995).

• Purposeful and articulated – Goals for a professional development program must be developed, examined, critiqued, and assessed for relevance. These goals must be stated in some formal way so that all educators concerned with the professional development program are clear about its intent and purpose.
• Participatory and collaborative – Too often professional development is top-driven, even at times by administrative fiat. Such programs are less effective because teachers, for whom professional development serves the greatest benefit, are not actively involved in its design, implementation, and assessment. Best practice in professional development requires wide participation by all stakeholders.
• Knowledge-based and discipline-based – Professional development must be based on the most relevant and current research in the field. Also, teachers will not value professional development unless it contains, in the words of one teacher, “some substance, . . . something I can take back to the classroom.” Moreover, professional development should be, at times, targeted by discipline. Often high school English teachers may want and need a workshop on a topic quite different from, say, a Jewish studies rebbe.
• Focused on student learning – According to Speck (1998), “Educators must never forget that the objective of professional development is to increase student learning” (p. 156). Principals and committees that are responsible for planning professional development programs should consider first and foremost the teacher behaviors or activities that most directly impact student learning and then “work backward to pinpoint the knowledge, skills, and attitudes educators must have” (p. 157).
• Ongoing – Too much professional development is of the one-shot variety. A leader delivers a workshop, for instance, then leaves without any follow up. Such efforts have marginal value at best. Professional development opportunities must be made on a continuous basis so that ideas and practices are sustained. Professional development cannot impact classroom practice in a significant way unless workshops and programs are continually offered.
• Developmental – Professional development must not only be ongoing but developmental, i.e., building gradually on teacher knowledge and skills in a given area or topic.
• Analytical and reflective – Professional development opportunities must promote instructional dialogue and thinking about teaching practice and purposefully address ways of helping students achieve more. Also, professional development must be continuously assessed in terms of its relevance and value to teachers.
  Research findings on PD indicate, among other interesting things, that for PD to have significant effects on student achievement, teachers need at least 49 hours on a given topic (see http://www.nsdc.org/news/nsdcstudytechnicalreport2010.pdf).

Promoting Instruction through PCOWBIRDS

Leaders can incorporate best practice by following a mnemonic known as PCOWBIRDS (a strategy I learned from Dr. Thomas Monterro in workshops leading to my certification as a principal in New York City many years ago.) Competent instructional leaders should attend to PCOWBIRDS:

• P = Plans: Planning is integral to instructional success and the principal as an educational leader should help a teacher develop appropriate and meaningful instructional activities and learning experiences. Checking plans, offering suggestions, co-planning, reviewing procedures, and framing thought-provoking questions, among other important aspects, are essential. Supervision then involves assisting teachers to better plan their lessons and units of instruction.
• C = Conferences: Conferencing with teachers, formally and informally, in order to share ideas and develop alternate instructional strategies is an essential supervisory responsibility. Meeting and talking with teachers throughout the day and school year on instructional matters are essential. Focus as an instructional leader must be on teaching and learning. Sharing insights, reviewing recent research (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001), and engaging in reflective practice are very important. Formal and informal conferencing must be continuous and should involve teachers in the planning and agenda of conferences. The key to establishing a school culture that fosters instructional dialogue for the purpose of improving teaching and learning is to consider such activity the number one priority and, thus, devoting time and energies to ensuring and nurturing it.
• O = Observations: An educational leader should offer her/his expertise by both formally and informally observing classroom interactions. A skilled principal who utilizes various observation systems (Sullivan & Glanz, 2009; Acheson & Gall, 1997; Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2008) can facilitate instructional improvement by documenting classroom interaction so that a teacher might reflect upon and react to what has been observed. Providing teachers with evidence of classroom interaction is fundamental to begin helping them understand what they are doing or not doing to promote student learning. Observations play a key role in supervision.
• W = Workshops: Principals as educational leaders should conduct or organize various workshops for teachers on relevant instructional topics such as cooperative learning, alternative teaching strategies, and multiple intelligences. Sometimes principals will feel comfortable conducting a workshop. Principals are not expected, of course, to be conversant in all areas. Sometimes they may ask an outside consultant or expert in a particular field to conduct a workshop on a topic of interest to teachers or even ask one of the more experienced teachers to do so. In fact, utilizing in-school talent is highly recommended (Hunefeld, 2009). The bottom line here is that effective principals realize the importance of instruction as the main focus of their work. Realizing the importance of instruction, they plan and coordinate varied and continuous workshops for teachers. These workshops may be conducted as a part of professional development days designated by the school, as part of a grade or faculty conference, or as an after/before school or, even, summer activity.
• B = Bulletins: Bulletins, journals, reports, and newsletters can be disseminated to interested faculty. One of my teachers became interested in cooperative learning after attending a reading conference. I sustained her interest by placing several articles about cooperative learning in her mailbox. Principals should be conversant with the literature of various fields and subscribe to various journals including Educational Leadership, Kappan, Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, Elementary School Journal, Instructor, Teaching K-12, Journal of Learning Disabilities, etc. Principals should always be on the alert for relevant articles, bulletins, and publications that encourage and support instructional improvement.
• I = Intervisitations: Teachers rarely have the opportunity to visit and observe colleagues. A principal can facilitate intervisitations by rearranging the schedule so that teachers might observe one another and then share common instructional strategies or discuss common problems. Intervisitations, to be effective, must be voluntary and non-judgmental. Shared dialogue about instructional practices goes a long way towards promoting instructional improvement.
• R = Resources: Principals should make available for teachers a variety of instructional materials and technologies to enhance instructional improvement. Purchasing textbooks, trade books, computers, LCD projectors, and other relevant resources are important to support an instructional program.
• D = Demonstration Lessons: A principal presumably is a teacher-of-teachers. A principal is not necessarily the foremost teacher in a school, but s/he should feel comfortable in providing “demo” lessons for teachers when appropriate. Providing such lessons enhances supervisory credibility among teachers and provides instructional support. (I once noticed during a formal observation that the teacher was not using wait time effectively. He posed good questions but waited only about 2 seconds before calling on someone. I suggested that he watch me teach a lesson and notice how long I wait after posing a question before calling on a pupil. These observations were the basis for a follow-up conference at which we discussed the research on “wait time” and the advantages of waiting before calling on a pupil. As the saying goes, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” Having this particular teacher watch me demonstrate effective use of “wait time” was more valuable than had I merely told him what to do. Competent supervisors not only “suggest” how to do something, they also must “demonstrate” how it should be done.)
• S = Staff Development: Principals can aid instructional improvement by providing staff development that is “purposeful and articulated”, “participatory and collaborative”, “knowledge-based”, “ongoing”, “developmental”, and “analytic and reflective” (Griffin, 1997). Although I addressed workshops above, staff development means a series of collaboratively planned and implemented workshops on single or varied topics over time. Understanding the relationship between staff development and instructional improvement is critical. Teachers need continued and sustained instructional support. A good principal will plan for such meaningful staff or professional development.

Best Practices in Supervision and Professional Development: Conclusion

Providing instructional leadership by focusing on best practices in supervision and professional development is an important responsibility of the principal. Unfortunately, much of what currently takes place as supervisory practice and professional development activities is not very useful for teachers. Supervisors can contribute greatly to meaningful supervision and professional development by engaging in these leadership behaviors:

• In word and deed, place emphasis on improving teaching and promoting learning.
• Involve teachers in planning, implementing, and assessment supervision and professional development.
• Utilize experts in supervision and professional development as consultants.
• Provide options or alternatives to traditional practices of supervision and professional development.
• Draw links between supervision and professional development and student achievement. 

Rabbi Dr. Jeffrey Glanz is former Silverstein Chair in Professional Ethics and Professor of Jewish Education at Yeshiva University, and currently, living in Eretz Yisroel, serves as head of the master’s degree program in Educational Administration at Michlalah Jerusalem College. Contact him and learn more at jeffreyglanz.com.

• Print
• Email