Agency in Teacher Supervision and Mentoring

Reinvigorating the Practice

Alisa Bates, Mary D. Burbank, Mary Burbank

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9780415788212
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351847056
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Offering an in-depth examination of field supervision and the role of the university supervisors in preparing teachers, this book addresses the challenges of providing novice teachers with quality supervision through the support and guidance of teacher education programs. Through a research-based lens, Bates and Burbank discuss the role, responsibilities, and opportunities of the university supervisor. Critically examining the supervisor as an agent of change who is positioned to empower early career teachers, the authors dissect the necessary preparation and support new teachers need in contemporary K-12 classrooms.

1 Teacher Preparation in the United States

Teacher supervision in the 21st century is influenced by daily work in classrooms and an ever-present focus on accountability compliance for schools, districts, and states. Within both teacher preparation and P–12 settings, program operations are impacted by a range of factors linked to accreditation and quality control for curricula, assessment, and supervisory practices. Tethered to these dimensions of school communities are understandings of the purpose of school and role of education. The implications for supervisors and mentors in their work with beginning teachers are far-reaching.

This chapter examines teacher preparation, including varied viewpoints on the purposes of schools. We consider the impact of contemporary views on mentoring and consider the role of supervision and actions designed to support the growth of teachers. We also explore the contexts of evolving and dynamic communities that acknowledge individual histories, the status of the profession, and the roles of increasingly diverse communities. School communities are complex and multifaceted. A recognition of the realities of educators’ work and the roles of contexts illuminates the factors that impact decision-making and teacher empowerment. We situate a range of variables that impact reflective practice and their impact on the work of supervisors and those working in classrooms and schools.

Background

With few exceptions, varying viewpoints on the purpose(s) of schools remain central to professional discussions, opinion polls, and the increasingly frequent political rant! For most, personal perspectives on education are informed by the subtle and embedded factors within individual lives. Individual expertise regarding public education is influenced by myriad factors, including personal experiences and the range of national and local community perspectives and agendas on education. Coupled with beliefs regarding the purposes of schools are opinions on what constitutes teachers’ work. For example, perspectives on the purposes of school may include generic descriptions of teaching and learning (Lortie, 2002). What we know from research and teachers’ narratives is that life in classrooms is much more complex. To truly understand classrooms and schools requires an awareness of the inextricable linkages between education and the sociopolitical, economic, and bureaucratic features of communities. Mentors who acknowledge these dynamics are better informed in their efforts to create opportunities that foster agency when working with beginning teachers’ holistic understandings of P–12 education.

Perceptions of education in the United States vary. For example, the purpose of school may reflect diverse beliefs regarding the roles of teachers, the influence of community insights on curriculum and assessment, and values regarding who is educated and in what formats (e.g., urban and rural communities, technology, children with diverse needs) (Langer Research Associates, 2016; Phi Delta Kappa, Gallup Poll, 2017). A 2011 survey of the public’s attitudes on education found that 70% of Americans believed the ability to teach was more the result of innate talent rather than explicit training (Roth, 2014). Media portrayals fuel a profile of educators as either heroic martyrs (e.g., Mr. Holland’s Opus) or bumbling villains (e.g., The Simpsons). Further, educators’ work is sometimes viewed as so formulaic to the point where the teacher is practically irrelevant (Tucker, 1997). Components often overlooked in teachers’ work include the nuances of pedagogy and assessment, recognizing learner differences, and understanding how these components impact teaching and learning.

Because teaching has been described as a melding of both the art and the science (e.g., Green, 2015), the technical components of teaching are one variable used to determine quality. Equally critical are dispositions among educators that inform relationship building and nuanced knowledge of learners (Danielson, 2007). Taken together, technical components of teaching and educator attitudes inform best practices and allow educators to facilitate student learning. Supervisors are in the unique position of supporting daily teaching and guiding professional development in ways that straddle the need for both data-based decision-making and reflection on practice. This goal is particularly challenging within a climate that narrowly defines profiles of quality teaching and its impact on evaluation of teachers’ work, even when the national focus reflects an espoused commitment to educating every child (Brasel, Garner, Kane, & Horn, 2015; Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015; National Council on Teacher Quality, 2013, 2017).

For supervisors, the process of navigating contemporary educational terrain begins by building professional relationships that encourage reflection on practice. This task requires an understanding by mentors about the role of contexts, the climate of evaluation, and candid analyses of what is necessary for student learning in P–12 classrooms. Supervisor actions stemming from these broad-based understandings include oversight on professionalism, guiding and informing how educators approach curriculum and assessment, and facilitating how teachers respond to the ever-present changes in student demographics.

Complexities of Evaluating Teacher Quality in P–12 Classrooms

Similar to varied perspectives on the purposes of school, the assessment and evaluation of teachers’ work is complex (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling, 2009). Since the early 2000s, calls for preparing teachers have required greater specificity and rigor when determining quality. For organizations such as the National Council on Teacher Quality (2017), conversations on programs quality further narrow measures of accountability for those preparing future teachers. Dedicated attention to content area competencies and linkages between preparation and student performance are additional trends that delineate features of quality (Dillon & Silva, 2011; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Sawchuck, 2011).

Across time, various initiatives have been designed to offer seemingly fail-safe tactics for improving education quality by increasing standards, strengthening evaluation, and transforming curricula. The parameters of more recent legislation (e.g., Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015) illustrate attempts to ensure quality education for all learners with a specific focus on data-driven performance indicators (Heller, 2016). What is less clear are agreements on what constitutes quality and what these indicators might ensure.

Theoretically, efforts to measure teaching quality (e.g., knowledge of curriculum, assessment, and pedagogy) are designed to predict long-term impact of teachers’ work on P–12 student performance. Further, measures such as content knowledge evaluations or classroom observations appear relatively appropriate for measuring quality (Eaton, 2011; National Council on Teacher Quality, 2013; Valli & Buese, 2007). However, beyond the nuances of content area preparation, effective programs must also include a defined program vision, attention to field experiences, and an established curriculum with attention to critically reflective practices (Ball & Forzani, 2010; Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2009; Burbank, Ramirez, & Bates, 2016; Darling-Hammond, 2006, 2010; Harris & Sass, 2011). It is clear that determining teacher preparation programmatic impact is complicated, as assessment emphases and priorities are dependent upon a number of variables and stakeholders (Desimone & Long, 2010; Harris & Sass, 2011).

Research on teacher effectiveness highlights the complexities of assessment practices used to determine teacher quality (e.g., Donaldson & Papay, 2015; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005). For example, contemporary accreditation requirements recommend teacher preparation programs evaluate their graduates’ impact on P–12 student performance using multiple measures such as performance data or perceptions of teacher effectiveness. These indicators are believed to demonstrate indicators of a preparation program’s impact on teacher quality and effectiveness (e.g., Council for Accreditation in Education Preparation, 2017). While informative, these data points are also limited in that a range of factors impact P–12 student performance are outside the purview of teacher preparation. Features of instrumentation used to gather student performance data, assessment policies of districts and states, and characteristics of students and schools are among the variables. Data-based decision-making of teacher quality must also include examinations of how and why data are gathered for both teachers and students, with close reviews of the implications for daily practice (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).

The challenge for teachers and their mentors is providing support that addresses both the philosophical and the practical demands of assessment and subsequent demonstrations of teaching “quality” (i.e., test scores). At times, these potentially conflicting demands may leave teachers and their mentors in the position of having to navigate disparate goals (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Voltz, Sims, & Nelson, 2010). These tensions are particularly challenging as supervisors search for greater clarity in their roles (e.g., university supervisor, mentor, coach, leader, or evaluator) and the related demands that blur lines between mentoring, supervising, and evaluating. Further complicating this work is keeping central the goals of fostering teacher agency and encouraging professional decision-making. A review of teacher preparation efforts provides an early look at the foundations from which educators begin their careers and offers supervisors a baseline in terms of how preparation impacts teachers’ daily work.

Teacher Preparation Trends

Historically, gatekeeping responsibilities for teacher preparation have operated under the auspices of colleges and universities while coordinating with state departments of education. The traditional canon for teacher preparation has typically included a university-based curriculum and classroom-based experiences informed by standards and requirements for credentialing, as well as research on teaching and learning (Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heilig, 2005; Lincove, Osborne, Mills, & Bellows, 2015). Contemporary accreditation mandates seek to further document teacher preparation through factors to include but not limited to: learner development and varied needs related to language, culture, and ability; assessment and data-based decision-making; managing classroom environments; and lesson planning and instruction (CAEP, 2017; NCTQ, 2017; NEA, 2011a, 2011b).

In a climate where teacher shortages have changed the landscape in teacher preparation, challenges have been heightened in new and unexpected ways to ensure that preparation is comprehensive (Rich, 2015a, 2015b; Sutcher, Darling-Hammond, & Carver-Thomas, 2016).

These differences are noted when comparisons are made between traditional teacher preparation and contemporary alternative programs. Emphases on how teachers’ work is viewed, the role of community engagement, and teacher leadership as professional decision makers are among the nuances within varied programs. For supervisors, varied goals and program efforts in teacher preparation bring a unique set of demands in their work. While these expectations for preparation are seemingly straightforward, educational communities must also consider whether the burgeoning number of alternative routes to teacher preparation abide by these beliefs and goals.

Custodial shifts in who prepares and ultimately monitors teacher preparation and teacher professional development have widened the preparation pool within the past 30 years. For example, alternative routes to teaching have emerged in response to market need, emphases on content area of specializations (e.g., math and science), and changes in the profiles of public education (e.g., charter and privatized P–12 education) (Lincove et al., 2015; Wayman, Foster, Mantle-Bromley, & Wilson, 2003). Alternate routes to licensure (ARL) have grown in popularity. To date, nearly all states have ARL programs; in 2016, reportedly up to 20% of teachers nationwide entered the field through an alternative route (DeMonte, 2015; Woods, 2016; Teacher Certification Degrees, 2017). While some practitioners, policymakers, and scholars have suggested that ARL programs are a valuable solution to address teacher shortage, others have decisively criticized them.

Empirical studies of ARL programs nationwide have reported wide variation in program requirements, implementation, and effectiveness (e.g., Scherer, 2012; Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002; Goldhaber & Brewer, 1999; Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Kee, 2012; Qu & Becker, 2003), which may make program design and implementation comparisons difficult (Boyd et al., 2009). Limited pedagogical preparation within ARL programs is among the biggest criticism of many of these nontraditional routes (Wayman et al., 2003; Zeichner, 2016). Inadequate time in classrooms is also cited among many ARL programs and is a consistent concern, particularly because first-year teachers who arrive to the classroom underprepared are less effective and less likely to remain in the field (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2006; Goldrick, Osta, Barlin, & Burn, 2012). Finally, for ARL program graduates, differences are manifest in retention rates, areas of expertise informed by their programs of study, and the ability to work with a range of students (Lincove et al., 2015).

Regardless of preparation experiences, the varied needs of beginning teachers create a unique set of challenges for supervisors, particularly because teacher preparation programs are not equal (Lincove et al., 2015). One issue is the need to provide teachers with the explicit support that effectively guides their skill development while encouraging the autonomy and agency necessary for quality teaching and professional advancement. In addition to support for teaching successfully, myriad factors impact how and why educators continue, and prosper, in their work. Without dedicated preparation, strong supervisory support, and ongoing attention to address the realities of today’s classrooms, retention remains a challenge (Aragon, 2016; Papay, Bacher-Hicks, Page, & Marinell, 2017).

Classroom Diversity

Contemporary educators’ work has ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Contributor Biographies
• Introduction: Reinvigorating the Practice of Supervision
• 1 Teacher Preparation in the United States
• 2 The Role of the University Supervisor and Teacher Mentor
• 3 Supervision as an Informed Craft
• 4 Technology Integration in Supervision
• 5 Leadership and Professional Development
• 6 Agency as a Means for Building Resilience
• 7 Supervision and Mentoring: Applications for Teacher Educators and Administrators
• 8 Conclusion
• Index