Written by Dr. Jeff Wiechman

Where are we?
Evaluations are stressful…for the one being evaluated and for the one doing the evaluating! What’s more, we struggle in our circles to do something useful with the data we collect. And yet these don’t have to be a waste of time. Educators and researchers have lots to say on the topic.

The role of the principal as supervisor of instruction can at times be understood in a very narrow sense: an educational leader observing another teacher’s lessons and meeting with the teacher to discuss observations and offer suggestions for improvement. I’d like us to build this definition upon a much broader understanding of supervision of instruction.

What does good instruction look like?
How are we to know what good instruction looks like? Authors have written a great deal about how effective teaching should look. This is what gets the most attention in the observation of a teacher today. Mike Schmoker (2011) has compiled a list of commonly accepted effective teaching practices from popular authors like Madeline Hunter and Robert Marzano. Antonetti and Garver (2015) talk about student engagement and instructional strategies. Reflective practice is an important element of effective teaching. The same could be said of supervision.

The term “supervision of instruction” suggests the focus of instructional leadership is the teacher and his or her actions in teaching students. Yet if there is one common element in every school mission statement, isn’t it the fact that schools exist to help students learn? In the May 2002 issue of Educational Leadership, Richard DuFour relates his personal journey as an instructional supervisor who was once focused on effective teaching practices, but learned to adjust his focus toward student learning.

The observation of classroom instruction is seen to be an intimidating endeavor for some principals. How do I know what a good Kindergarten teacher does? How can I give advice to someone with more teaching experience than me? Obtaining accurate data, which allows the teacher and supervisor to get a clear picture of the specific aspect of instruction under discussion, is critical if helpful improvement objectives are to be established. However, if we instead focus our observations on student learning as opposed to teacher performance, this does not have to be so complicated. If the focus is on student learning, any well-trained teacher can help engage a colleague in professional development . . . right? Were objectives met? How can you tell? What went well? What would you do differently?

Coaching vs. Evaluating:
I believe coaching is the formative part of the work we need to be doing in our schools. Is this happening enough? Teachers need to feel they have an opportunity to improve professionally and to grow in their ministry without the residual effects of a poor rating on a form that is sent to an office and used on a call list. Principals want to create learning communities in their schools and among other local called workers. They want to create a sense of collegiality toward fulfilling their school missions. There are a variety of ways that effective coaching and formative assessment can be accomplished. No one way is best, and it doesn’t have to be done only by the principal!

Evaluating is the work we’re more accustomed to. Principals make visits to classrooms and fill out our Team Ministry forms every year (or every few years). This is summative assessment. The problem may be that the principal is doing both the formative and the summative pieces and causing great consternation among faculty members. Every time he visits, teachers may feel it’s tied to their evaluation being sent to the Commission on Lutheran Schools (CLS) for use on call lists. We get defensive about these forms, don’t we?

Now what?
All this is important work! We want to grow professionally and seek to improve. We want to have accurate data on how our teachers are performing. The balance between coaching and evaluating is delicate—especially if the principal is doing both. Can we be creative about how we do the former so that the latter can carry the importance it should?

Know this: Your CLS is working on a redesign of these processes in order to maximize teacher growth and student learning. It will be driven by the WELS teaching standards, will include a ministry development plan, and will engage our corps of teachers in a cycle of professional development second to none! Stay tuned!

Dr. Jeff Wiechman (DMLC ’92) serves as vice president for academics at Martin Luther College. He also serves as an instructor for MLC’s graduate studies program.

Bibliography

Antonetti, J. V., & Garver, J. R. (2015). 17,000 Classroom Visits Can’t Be Wrong. Alexandria: ASCD.

DuFour, R. (2002, May). The Learning-Centered Principal. Educational Leadership, pp. 12-15.

Schmoker, M. (2011). Focus: Elevating the Essentials to Radically Improve Student Learning. Alexandria: ASCD.