Supervision for Learning: A Performance-Based Approach to Teacher Development and School Improvement by James MAseltine and Judith O Faryniarz

In Supervision for Learning, the authors reaffirm the latest research on teacher accountability and the impact on student learning. They advocate a system entitled, “Performance-Based Supervision & Evaluation (PBSE).”

In this system, the place to begin the process each year is with the students, rather than some cold, objective criteria constructed in a lab or ivory tower. The authors’ contend that the teacher should find their instructional focus by first knowing the learning issues of their respective students.

There are a number of tests that should be utilized by the accomplished teacher. They should familiarize themselves with the essential teaching and learning for their respective disciplines as outlined by research. In conjunction with this, they should familiarize themselves with the schoolwide and district data. For example, in 2006-07 our school engaged in writing interventions because the standardized testing data yielded a weakness in this area.

Third, the teacher should engage in classroom assessments, to confirm the need for this instruction focus for their particular classes. Finally, they should include the school’s or district’s improvement plan as part of the orientation that focus their instruction.

With this information, the teacher is then ready for targeted instruction. The authors contend the process of “preparing to target improvement” engages teachers in work that is meaningful and invigorating. It encourages them to take an active leadership role in designing professional development plans that help them acquire what they need to know in order to address specific and targeted student learning needs. Moreover, this process results in a major change in both the supervision and evaluation paradigm by shifting the relationship between the teacher and the supervisor from one primarily led by the supervisor to one in which the teacher takes the lead to improve student learning (p. 35).

The authors claim that in PBSE, educators do not simply think they know where they are in their progress; they use evidence to delineate where they actually are.

They categorize teachers into three primary categories. One they term as the data-anemic teacher. This teacher does not use, and cannot apply research data to their practice. The second, they term the data-rich teacher. This person has ample resources of performance data, and can analyze the numbers with the best analysts. However, this person cannot apply the numbers into a strategy that improves student learning. The final category is the data-strategic teacher. They can not only understand performance data, they can use it wisely to enhance student learning and development.

The system is very much a scientific method, whereby the teacher poses a problem based upon reliable data. Next, they hypothesize a potential solution to the problem. Third, they provide a treatment to improve student learning. Fourth, they collect data to measure student progress from a baseline. Finally, they draw conclusions about the efficacy of the instructional interventions.

As such, the author’s contend that when teachers and supervisor fully implement the concepts of PBSE, each one becomes an action researcher.

Resource for the analysis provided by Supervision for Learning by James M. Aseltine, Judith O. Faryniarz, and Anthony J. Rigazio-DiGilio (ASCD, 2006).