Advertisement

Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 67–77 | Cite as

The Case for Expanding Standards for Teacher Evaluation to Include an Instructional Supervision Perspective

  • Patricia Holland
Article

Abstract

Despite the concerns of scholars in the field of instructional supervision, teacher evaluations continue to emphasize bureaucratic accountability and standardization. This article presents an argument for extending the Joint Committee on Standards' Personnel Evaluation Standards to include standards related to the practice of supervision. The proposed standards call for differentiated procedures, collaborative identification of teachers' professional development goals, multiple sources of data, emphasis on formative evaluation processes, consideration of both teachers' personal development goals and school/program improvement goals, and the formalization of formative evaluation processes to achieve clear and shared understanding of their purpose and goals. These standards would align teacher evaluation with aspects of instructional supervision namely,clarification and shared understanding of the process and purpose of evaluations, interpretation of teaching performance in the context of teachers' classrooms and professional values, and deliberation with teachers about how evaluation evidence depicts and informs their work.

Keywords

instructional supervision teacher evaluation evaluation standards 

References

  1. Bambino, D. (2002). Critical friends. Educational Leadership 59(6), 25–27.Google Scholar
  2. Cogan, M. (1973). Clinical Supervision. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  3. Costa, A. & Garmston, R. (2002). Cognitive Coaching: A Foundation for Renaissance Schools, 2nd edn. Norwood, Massachusetts: Christopher-Gordon.Google Scholar
  4. Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  5. Darling-Hammond, L. (1989). Accountability for professional practice. Teachers College Record 91(1), 59–80.Google Scholar
  6. Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Teacher evaluation in transition: emerging roles and evolving methods. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (eds.), The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation: Assessing Elementary and Secondary School Teachers. Newbury Park, California: SAGE.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, D., Ellett, C., & Annunziata, J. (2002). Teacher evaluation, leadership and learning organizations. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 16(4), 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunne, F., Nave, B., & Lewis, A. (2000). Critical friends groups: teachers helping teachers to improve student learning. Phi Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development and Research Bulletin, No. 28.Google Scholar
  9. Garman, N. (1982). The clinical approach to supervision. In T. Sergiovanni (Ed.), Supervision of Teaching. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  10. Gitlin, A., & Smyth, J. (1989). Teacher Evaluation: Educative Alternatives. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  11. Glatthorn, A. (1997). Differentiated Supervision, 2nd edn. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  12. Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2003). Supervision and Instructional Leadership: A Developmental Approach. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  13. Goldhammer, R., Anderson, R., & Krajewski, R. (1980). Clinical Supervision, 2nd edn. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  14. Gordon, S. (1992). Paradigms, transitions, and the new supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 8(1), 62–76.Google Scholar
  15. Gordon, S. (Ed.) (2005). Standards for Instructional Supervision: Focus on Professional Development. Larchmont, New York: Eye on Education.Google Scholar
  16. Hazi, H. (1994). The teacher evaluation–supervision dilemma: a case of entanglements and irreconcilable differences. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 9(2), 195–216.Google Scholar
  17. Heartel, E. (1991). New forms of teacher assessment. Review of Research in Education 17, 2–29.Google Scholar
  18. Holland, P., & Garman, N. (2001). Toward a resolution of the crisis of legitimacy in the field of supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 16(2), 95–111.Google Scholar
  19. Holland, P., & Adams, P. (2002). Through the horns of a dilemma between instructional supervision and the summative evaluation of teaching. International Journal of Leadership in Education 5(3), 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1988). The Personnel Evaluation Standards. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.Google Scholar
  21. Little, J. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15(2), 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McGreal, T. (1988). Evaluation for enhancing instruction: linking teacher evaluation and staff development. In S. Stanley & W. Popham (Eds.), Teacher Evaluation: Six Prescriptions for Success. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  23. McLaughlin, M. (1990). Embracing contraries: implementing and sustaining school reform. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (eds.), The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation: Assessing Elementary and Secondary School Teachers. Newbury Park, California: SAGE.Google Scholar
  24. Natriello, G. (1990). Intended and unintended consequences: purposes and effects of teacher evaluation. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation: Assessing Elementary and Secondary School Teachers. Newbury Park, California: SAGE.Google Scholar
  25. Nolan, J. (1989). Can supervisory practice embrace Schon's concept of reflective practice? Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 5(1), 35–40.Google Scholar
  26. Nolan, J. (1997). Can a supervisor be a coach? In J. Glanz & R. Neville (Eds.), Educational Supervision: Perspectives, Issues and Controversies. Norwood, Massachusetts: Christopher-Gordon.Google Scholar
  27. Schwandt, T. (2002). Evaluation Practice Reconsidered. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  28. Scriven, M. (1988). Evaluating teachers as professionals: the duties-based approach. In S. Stanley & W. Popham (Eds.), Teacher Evaluation: Six Prescriptions For Success. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  29. Smylie, M. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: the importance of teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher 25(9), 9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smyth, J. (ed.) (1986). Learning about Teaching through Clinical Supervision. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  31. Starratt, R. (1997). Should supervision be abolished? In J. Glanz & R. Neville (eds.), Educational Supervision: Perspectives, Issues And Controversies. Norwood, Massachusetts: Christopher-Gordon.Google Scholar
  32. St. Maurice, H. (2004). Toward Standards for Instructional Leadership: a geneology of standards. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, California, April 12, 2004.Google Scholar
  33. Stufflebeam, D. (1998). Conflicts between standards-based and postmodernist evaluations: Toward Rapprochement. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 12(3), 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stufflebeam, D., & Sanders, J. (1990). Using the personnel evaluation standards to improve teacher evaluation. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation: Assessing Elementary and Secondary School Teachers. Newbury Park, California: SAGE.Google Scholar
  35. Waite, D. (1997). Do teachers benefit from supervision? In J. Glanz & R. Neville (Eds.), Educational Supervision: Perspectives, Issues and Controversies. Norwood, Massachusetts: Christopher-Gordon.Google Scholar
  36. Wise, A., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1985). Teacher evaluation and teacher professionalism. Educational Leadership 42(4), 28–33.Google Scholar
  37. Wolff-Michael, R., & Tobin, K. (2001). The implications of coteaching/cogenerative dialogue for teacher evaluation: learning from multiple perspectives of everyday practice. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 15(1), 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yinger, R., & Hendricks-Lee, M. (2000). The language of standards and teacher education reform. Educational Policy 14(1), 94–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Leadership and Cultural Studies, College of EducationUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations