Introduction
A recent report by the OECD claims that Finnish education is the
best in the world (Guardian Unlimited, Dec. 7, 2004 ) based on a survey of
15-year olds in 41 countries in reading, math and science. Among other factors,
two were sighted as explanations for this success in Finland Caribbean , but the lesson
to be learned here is that the professional development of teachers is of
utmost importance if we are to enhance education in this nation. It is clearly
impossible at this time to demand that all teachers obtain University training
as a requirement for teaching in our schools. However, it is crucial that
educational leaders focus on providing in-service training for all teachers
regardless of qualifications; one of the ways to accomplish this is through
clinical supervision of teaching.
The need for clinical supervision was highlighted in the 1950s when
students in a Master of Arts program at Harvard University
Defining Clinical
Supervision
General supervision of teaching occurs when all aspects of teaching
are examined outside the classroom such as curriculum development, teacher
involvement in extra-curricular activities, punctuality, adherence to
regulations etc.
Clinical supervision is involved with activities in the classroom
primarily while a teacher is conducting a lesson – what is being taught and how
it is being taught. The term “clinical” conjures images of pathology, requiring
medical procedures involving diagnosis and prescription usually in a clinic!
Other ideas from the clinical (medical) path are used to define the clinical
aspects of supervision such as face-to-face up close examination, collection of
information (data), focus on professional practice – what the teacher does and
the reaction of the students. The intent of clinical supervision here is to
increase a teacher’s desire for improvement and movement towards
self-supervision, autonomy, analysis and critique of professional
practice.
Too often supervisory behaviour is mutually punitive because it has
been random, residual, archaic and negatively eclectic; supervision has been
seen as sanctions such as performance rating, promotion, tenure, and firing.
This is the domain of summative evaluation, not clinical supervision; instead
clinical supervision may be seen as formative evaluation where the emphasis is
on improvement of instruction and increasing learning and not as an instrument
for career enhancement. It is important that teachers are aware of this so as
to allay fears of being evaluated.
The supervisor is obligated to conduct supervision in an ethical
manner. This means that the supervisor must conduct supervisory activities
without prejudgment of teacher performance, must not allow personality traits
to bias data collection, approach the supervisory function with a mindset to
improve instruction and exercise empathetic understanding.
Mosher and Purpel (1972) define clinical supervision as “the
improvement of instruction” (p.78). They go on to indicate what is meant by
this general statement : “planning for, observation, analysis and treatment of
the teacher’s classroom performance”. Clinical supervision is systematic,
analytical and direct – it addresses the practice of teaching. The basic cycle
of clinical supervision then includes systematic planning, observation and critical
analysis.
For our purposes we will
define clinical supervision as: the professional activity of improving
instruction by analyzing data collected through observation in the classroom;
analysis should be done empathically, in most part collaboratively with the
teacher, taking into consideration the teacher’s professional developmental
level and the conditions of teaching. Supervision should be supportive,
and constructive not punitive.
Who Should Supervise?
Since the domain of clinical supervision is “disseminating and
implementing new practices and improving teacher performance” (Cogan, 1973.
p.3.), it is imperative that supervisors be persons with commitment to the
improvement of education. If supervisors see their responsibilities as merely a
“job”, teachers become aware of this and will have no respect for the
supervisor or what he/she may have to say. The exercise of clinical supervision
is then futile, and a waste of time and resources (the supervisor should find
employment elsewhere!).
In small Caribbean States persons who normally supervise teaching
are Education Officers, Principals, Assistant Principals, Department Heads,
Subject Co-ordinators, Master Teachers Consultants and Specialist Teachers.
These are all persons who are charged with this responsibility because of
status and sometimes not because of expertise. Qualifications of the supervisor
include:
(a) Certification in pedagogy
and academic subject
(b) Several years of
experience at that level and in that subject area
(c) A demonstrated commitment
to teaching (e.g. participation in professional development)
(d) Must be empathetic
towards teachers
(e) Must be fair and just in
professional judgement
(f) Generally seen by
colleagues as an exemplary educator
(g) Should have training in
clinical supervision
This list is not exhaustive and each of the above can be expanded or
modified to fit the conditions of education in your community. Clinical
supervision of teaching is labour intensive, complex and sometimes messy; for
successful implementation it requires adequate funding, concentrated energy,
and expertise focused on the improvement of instruction.
General Considerations
(1) Clinical supervision must be sustainable; sporadic visits do not
help teachers to develop their expertise. Scattershot supervision only tinkers
with the process hoping that something positive will hit the target.
(2) Clinical supervision must
be a mutually supportive partnership; it is an interaction of peers
and colleagues – it is not
unilateral action.
(3) Clinical supervision must be seen as authoritative assistance
not authoritarian directives.
(4) Clinical supervision assists teachers to reach specified levels
of performance and as such may be perceived as attempts to maintain quality
control.
(5) Supervisors must be clear about the goals of education and
communicate these to teachers so that there is no misunderstanding about what
is acceptable practice.
One of the major purposes of schooling is to transfer the
accumulated wisdom of a society to the young; equally important is the creation
of new knowledge for the survival of citizens. These two goals can only be
accomplished by committed leadership that is visionary and practical at the
same time. Yet schooling is not the soul preserve of schools because civil
society is created by many stakeholders, hence leadership in all aspects of
progressive society must play their part to humanize our bureaucratic systems –
especially schooling and government.
Schooling cannot be improved or be effective unless we provide inter alia adequate training for our
teachers. The Principals in schools must see themselves as educational leaders
first and managers second. Hence the Principals must shoulder the
responsibility of providing professional development of teachers through
clinical supervision and other relevant in-service activities.
No comments:
Post a Comment