Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bambino, D. (2002). Critical friends. Educational Leadership 59(6), 25–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cogan, M. (1973). Clinical Supervision. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, A. & Garmston, R. (2002). Cognitive Coaching: A Foundation for Renaissance Schools, 2nd edn. Norwood, Massachusetts: Christopher-Gordon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (1989). Accountability for professional practice. Teachers College Record 91(1), 59–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Davis, D., Ellett, C., & Annunziata, J. (2002). Teacher evaluation, leadership and learning organizations. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 16(4), 287–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Gitlin, A., & Smyth, J. (1989). Teacher Evaluation: Educative Alternatives. London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glatthorn, A. (1997). Differentiated Supervision, 2nd edn. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2003). Supervision and Instructional Leadership: A Developmental Approach. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldhammer, R., Anderson, R., & Krajewski, R. (1980). Clinical Supervision, 2nd edn. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, S. (1992). Paradigms, transitions, and the new supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 8(1), 62–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, S. (Ed.) (2005). Standards for Instructional Supervision: Focus on Professional Development. Larchmont, New York: Eye on Education.

  • 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 

  • Heartel, E. (1991). New forms of teacher assessment. Review of Research in Education 17, 2–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1988). The Personnel Evaluation Standards. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15(2), 129–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Nolan, J. (1989). Can supervisory practice embrace Schon's concept of reflective practice? Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 5(1), 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schwandt, T. (2002). Evaluation Practice Reconsidered. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Smylie, M. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: the importance of teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher 25(9), 9–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, J. (ed.) (1986). Learning about Teaching through Clinical Supervision. London: Croom Helm.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Stufflebeam, D. (1998). Conflicts between standards-based and postmodernist evaluations: Toward Rapprochement. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 12(3), 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Wise, A., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1985). Teacher evaluation and teacher professionalism. Educational Leadership 42(4), 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yinger, R., & Hendricks-Lee, M. (2000). The language of standards and teacher education reform. Educational Policy 14(1), 94–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Leadership and Cultural Studies, College of Education, University of Houston, 401 Farish Hall, Houston, Texas, 7204-5028, USA

    Patricia Holland

Authors
  1. Patricia Holland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia Holland.

Additional information

Patricia Holland is Associate Professor in Educational Leadership and Cultural Studies at the University of Houston. Her research in the areas of instuctional supervision and teachers’ professional development emphasizes the interpretive nature of practice in these areas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holland, P. The Case for Expanding Standards for Teacher Evaluation to Include an Instructional Supervision Perspective. J Pers Eval Educ 18, 67–77 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-006-9009-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-006-9009-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation