Models of Teacher Supervision: A Comparative Overview

Introduction to Teacher Supervision

Methods of teacher supervision vary widely throughout the nation. There is no uniform standard for measuring teachers that is deemed to be universally applicable to all situations. However, there has been a growing impetus to create supervision programs that are formalized and provide effective feedback to teachers on an ongoing basis throughout the school year. Three of these models include professional development plans, clinical supervision, and differentiated evaluation.

Professional Development Plans

Professional development plans are based upon the concept that by investing in and empowering professional educators, the quality of education in the classroom will improve. Professional development plans attempt to build teacher knowledge through self-accountability. The plans encourage teachers to set goals to improve teaching techniques and standards and "models preferred instructional practices or activities both in the classroom and through the professional development itself — i.e., through active learning" (Firestone et al., 2008, p. 123). In a professional development plan, teachers must set specific goals for themselves to improve in various areas, such as taking educational initiatives to improve their experience as educators, taking steps to meet state standards for students, and collaborating with colleagues.

However, professional development plans must not merely be ambitious in terms of the goals they set; they must be specific and support educators in their ability to achieve those aims. For example, one such program in New Jersey involving peer reviews of fellow teachers to monitor progress in their professional development plans was found to be unwieldy because of "the lack of time to get together, the reality of high administrator turnover rates, the daily outside demands of their jobs, and physical distance between administrators" (Firestone et al., 2008, p. 142). Without an effective mechanism to monitor development plans and encourage accountability — which requires an investment of time and money — the administrative burden of asking teachers to create such plans may not be worthwhile.

Clinical Supervision

Another method of assessment is clinical supervision. Clinical supervision is a much more structured program. It is based upon the principle of mentorship and shapes teacher development by instituting collaborative structures of exchange. Teachers set goals, as in the case of professional development plans, but their supervisors help "map" how they will meet these goals in terms of specifics and create a schema of accountability. Clinical supervision thus has more of a top-down model than professional development's focus upon personal, self-directed teacher empowerment. It is based upon an ongoing, continuously developing relationship between a supervisor and a supervisee who meet frequently and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the supervisee. Together they plan "job-related activities that reinforce supervisee strengths and systematically improve weaknesses, along with the implementation of these activities by the supervisee as observed by the supervisor" (Knoff, 1968, p. 40).

Observation and consistent, direct measurement of specific goals for improvement are critical components of this methodology. While most professional development programs tend to have relatively few check-ins, the nature of clinical supervision ensures there is a "joint analysis of these activities in a feedback conference using formative evaluations to acknowledge newly developed and observed supervisee skills and additional skills that will further improve his professional practice" (Knoff, 1968, p. 40).

Clinical supervision is intensely personalized and may be of particular benefit to a young teacher who does not yet know what he or she is capable of in the classroom. This enables the supervisor to target specific domains in which the supervisee is lacking. It also encourages the beginning teacher to set meaningful goals — which addresses yet another criticism of professional development plans, since some teachers may genuinely not know how to set useful goals for themselves and their students. However, for a more seasoned professional, the "intensive, hierarchical, interpersonally focused relationship" might seem smothering, even patronizing, and such a teacher may believe they are better able to set goals independently, based upon past experience (Knoff, 1968, p. 241). As with other models, administrative support remains essential to ensure that goals for enhancing student experiences in the classroom can truly become a reality.

Conclusion

Each of these three supervision models reflects a different philosophy about how best to support teacher growth. The most effective approach for any school will depend on its available resources, the experience level of its faculty, and the administrative capacity to sustain ongoing oversight. Professional development plans promote autonomy but require accountability structures to succeed; clinical supervision provides structured mentorship suited to novice teachers but may feel restrictive for veterans; and differentiated supervision offers the flexibility to address the diverse needs of an entire faculty. Administrative investment of time and resources remains the common thread essential to the success of any supervisory model.