Supervision in the elementary school.

Bartky, John A.

doi:10.1037/13211-013

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…State statutes, rules, regulations, and courts rarely distinguish between formative and summative teacher assessment (Hazi, 1998). As a result, interactions between educators that involve assessment are narrowly prescribed and generally defensive, and thus neither administrative nor supervisory functions in schools are particularly effective (Areglado, 1998).…”

Section: Instructional Supervision and Democratic Professionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Teachers may be reluctant to admit deficiencies or even disclose minor concerns to someone who will eventually decide whether they are awarded a contract or granted tenure. Indeed, principals themselves experience difficulty and stress from trying to balance these conflicting duties (Areglado, 1998;McLaughlin, 1984). Many experts (e.g., Joyce & Showers, 1988) advise, therefore, that the supervisory function should be assigned to someone other than the principal, such as an individual or group charged exclusively with making formative assessments and providing necessary professional support.…”

Section: Instructional Supervision and Democratic Professionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Empowering a Profession: Rethinking the Roles of Administrative Evaluation and Instructional Supervision in Improving Teacher Quality

Pajak

Arrington

2004

Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the complex environment of 21st-century public education, a consensus has emerged among policymakers, researchers, and educational practitioners that the single most important factor contributing to student learning is the quality of teaching. Despite this unanimity in principle, the practical matter of guaranteeing high-quality instruction for every student in every classroom poses a serious challenge with no simple solution in sight. Embedded in conversations about teacher preparation, induction, and professional development are dilemmas about how to properly support teachers and develop their capacities and skills while holding them accountable so that the best will stay and the worst are persuaded to leave.Calls for evidence of a more effective teacher workforce from policymakers, federal agencies, state departments of education, and local school districts have resulted in a trend of increasingly stringent accountability measures. Some fairly recent formulations-for example, the "report card" requirements for teacher preparation programs included in the 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the "highly qualified teacher" provision of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001-emphasize punitive consequences for weak results. In the case of the Higher Education Act, teacher preparation programs that are judged to be "low performing" lose their accreditation. Similarly, No

show abstract

Section: Instructional Supervision and Democratic Professionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Instructional Supervision and Democratic Professionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%