Common sense in school supervision

Introduction

These chapters on Supervision of Instruction have grown out of classroom experience and out of supervisory experiences of all kinds; routine supervision, conferences of teachers and supervisors; conferences of supervisors and superintendent ; public lectures and private discussions of the principles of supervision; actual experimentation with the supervisory practices herein recommended.

If speaking from experience be regarded a valid reason for speaking at all on a subject, then these chapters have the fullest possible warrant ; thirty years of practicing, of speaking, and of writing the ideas presented.

The order of presentation has been determined by experiment. Following the discussion of a topic different groups of persons were asked to tell, "What question about Supervision of Instruction arises from the discussion just ended?" Either a unanimous or a majority opinion would then choose the topic which is next treated in the text. Thus the order of the chapters is entirely a psychological order.

A closely consecutive reading of the chapters may arouse the feeling that certain ideas have been stated more than once. Usually the restatement seemed necessary to complete the discussion of the topic under consideration and was, therefore, made unhesitatingly. Usually, too, the desire to make a lasting impression of the ideas repeated was part of the actuating motive. Moreover, the restatement is always a new statement.

4 INTRODUCTION

The wish of the author has been that the order of presentation and the unbiased treatment may lead to two definite results: First, interest, sympathy, and enthusiasm for the right kind of supervision ; second, clearness and adequacy of perception of the relations discussed. If these two hopes shall be realized even to a slight degree, the writer will feel fully repaid for his "labor of love" in writing these chapters.

Chas. a. Wagner.

Chester, Penna., December 15, 1920.

Table Of Contents

Chapter Page

I — Do Teachers Like Supei'vision? 7

II — Supervision of Instruction in Operation 19

CHAPTER I. Do Teachers Like Supervision?

About all the knowledge obtainable on this topic is a series of individual opinions, mostly the opinions of teachers who give expression to their dissatisfaction with supervision as they have experienced it. No statistical study appears to have been made at any time. Obviously it is impossible to give the statistical reply. The mere existence of school supervision in cities, in towns, in counties, and in even smaller school units, is not a proof that teachers like supervision nor that they believe in it, even if this wide prevalence be admitted as proof that somebody believes supervision of instruction a necessity.

Starting from the purely individual basis the statement seems warranted that some teachers like supervision and say little about it, and others do not like it and proclaim their dislike to all the world that will lend a listening ear. Experience proves the truth of this assertion, whether statistics have or have not been gathered. Of any teaching corps under consideration it will probably be found that some teachers like one supervisor, some another supervisor. Few supervisors are liked by all their teachers, and similarly, probably few supervisors are disliked by all their teachers.

The use of liking or disliking as terms at once discloses the fault in the relation; it is expressed in a term that shows the feeling to be personal rather than professional. Professional difference would be expressed in "disagreement" or an equivalent term.

This being so, what is indicated ? That supervision should be abolished? Supervisor and supervised must rise above personality to the professional level, and must meet each other in their teaching relationship in the impersonal, judicial, professional attitude which the judge on the bench feels for the accused. No purely personal consideration should be allowed to enter into the relationship of supervisor and supervised.

The advancement of the pupil is the single end aimed at by teacher and supervisor. Both and each must see in supervision the effort to secure unity, sequence, completeness of instruction, and equality of opportunity for each child. The constantly changing requirements of education, changes within the school system, entrance of new teachers into the system, and the application of newer pedagogical truths, each and all require that a system of schools be directed by a single intelligence.

If each teacher chooses for her classes what shall be the course of study, chaos and disorder will ensue in the system. All other considerations are secondary to the demand for unity, continuity, sequence of instruction and for equivalence of opportunity for all the children of a school system.

Probably no other demand would be strong enough to sustain supervision against the opposition of some teachers and their friends and against the clamors of directors and taxpayers because of its high cost. The objections to supervision as voiced by some teachers should clear the way for a considerate treatment of objections and appraisement of the commendations. From the notes of an acting superintendent the following objections have been extracted as typical.

"/ ivas caught unprepa7'ed. What I did is not a fair example of my real work." Generally such a statement is entirely true. That a good teacher might make

CONDEMNATION VS. FAILURE 9

it and not be deserving of condemnation can be quite frankly admitted. That will be no condemnation of supervision nor of the supervisor any more than it is of the teacher. The supervisor judges what he sees. He calls what he sees by its real name, but takes circumstances into consideration. If not fit nor at her best, the teacher has a right to say so. Probably it would have been better for the teacher not to go to school that day, and yet she can not be severely blamed for taking a chance if the entire supervisory system is on a chance basis. Having undertaken to teach in her condition of fatigue or non-preparation, she has assumed all responsibility for the work, and she now has left to her merely the right to offer an explanation in justification of her course.

No right to condemn supervision can possibly be drawn from having taken the chance and lost. The supervisor may accept the explanation and treat it as an extenuating circumstance. If the teacher does not seek to excuse herself for poor work every time that supervisor comes, the teacher will be given the benefit of a lenient judgment. It is only repeated and continual excuses for not doing well by a teacher that dispose the supervisor to conclude that the teacher has an unawakened sense of responsibility and is making an inferior effort. No teacher can fairly nor continuously base her objection to supervision to a claim that it is disclosing her slackness ; that would be confession and self-condemnation.

If the teacher really feels that she has been caught unprepared, she should at once request a special visit from the supervisor at a fixed time to do similar work and thus demonstrate that she is capable of more suecessful teaching. Every professional spirited supervisor will be very ready to consent to such an arrangement. If under such a prearranged trial the teacher does good work, she has given the supervisor sufficient reason for excusing the first shortcoming, but she has also shown that the supervisor will be right in the future if he demands that the teacher key herself up to good work all the time.

The outcome of the arranged trial has demonstrated that not lack of ability but absence of steady and even determination was the real shortcoming. For such a shortcoming there can be no permanent excuse, and the supervisor will be justified in refusing to excuse repetitions of the fault. Put into language stripped of "polite fiction" this objection means, **Supervision prevents loafing on the job."

'7 get fairly sick on the days when I know a supervisor is coming and dread to go to school." This is a clear case of misunderstanding and of maladjustment to the purposes of supervision. The teacher thinks the supervisor a spy. When supervision and criticism of practice have become an integral part of the training of all young teachers, such an expression will never be heard from a teacher in service. If the experiences of the training course do not deter so sensitive a soul from becoming a teacher, they will accustom her to the process and will give her a taste of the benefits of supervision to the earnest and striving teacher.

The teachers who raise the loudest and most resentful objections to supervision are usually those who have taught longest. These teachers of long experi- 'ence know certain textbooks in certain subjects, and they may know children better than the supervisor.

EXPERIENCED TEACHERS 11

Therefore they suppose they do not need supervision, especially should they be excused from supervision by a mere "chit" of a girl who has just graduated from the normal school.

When forcibly and vehemently iterated and reiterated, this contrast between the experience of teacher and supervisor does appear to favor the teacher's expectation to be free from supervision. Notice, please, the statement says "appear to favor." It is pure appearance, no more, no less. Really the mature woman with her wealth of teaching experience believes that because of her experience she can win and hold the children to conformity, to effort and to obedience.

If the point be conceded, has the case been lost for supervision? Has it been lost even for the young supervisor just fresh from the normal school? If the experienced teacher had wisely directed some of her energy and had prudently used her opportunities for growth and breadth of knowledge, she should and would now be the supervisor in place of the young graduate. If with all her fine experience she failed to grow, and just went on year after year doing what she did each previous year, she has shown her inherent incapacity to become a supervisor, a leader, and has equally proved her need of supervision, which has among its foremost duties to carry the newer and better to teachers who otherwise fail to secure them.

Moreover, if the experienced teacher grew at all but failed to attain the growth needed to become supervisor, she will surely have grown enough to be able to appreciate as supervisor a person who has had a broader training and a wider outlook than can be acquired in a single grade or school or subject in any number of years.

The experienced teacher who chafes under a competent "young" supervisor is more than likely the one who rested satisfied with her attainments when she too was a young graduate, and she now resents supervision on "personal" grounds, although perhaps rather unready to admit this. Because her way has been regarded successful so long, she does not admit any need for trial of new ways. This state of mind is the best reason for supervision.

The child under instruction is living now and must go into the world of to-morrow. His work must face the future. As against the children, no teacher has any right to demand that she be permitted to continue her plan and methods just because she is familiar with tliem and dislikes the discomfort of a readjustment. The school is supported for the child, and it is the business of the school to fit the child for the future and to enable him to fit into that future as a participating, contributing unit. Baldly put this objection says: "You have no right to disturb my slumbers."

Objections of teachers to supervision on the ground of their own greater experience have as much right to consideration as would the same teacher's claim to be allowed to go on teaching out-of-date textbooks in history and geography because she is already familiar with them.

If we do not excuse the teacher from revising her knowledge of facts as facts change, why shall she be excused from changing her plans or her methods, even if the changes be directed by a young supervisor ? The chances are that the longer the teacher has been in

HELPFUL SUGGESTIONS 13

one place doing- the same work, the more necessary is supervision. If such a teacher has grown regularly and constantly, she may not need supervision so much as she will be glad for it, since it is sure to bring new knowledge and suggestions for further growth.

"/ am so glad on the days when no supervisor comes to visit my room." This may be a very fair cause for rejoicing. If supervisors follow each other through the rooms of a building in an almost constant stream, then the rejoicing is warranted. Without conceding any reality to this objection to supervision, it may be admitted as a justified objection to haphazard or to unregulated routine of supervisors' visits. We must even admit that no one knows anything authoritatively as to the right frequency of supervisors' visits. There are both rules and opinions about it, but practically no facts.

Whether a particular supervisor should come once a month or once a week has not been experimentally determined, nor whether more than one supervisor should visit a teacher in one day. Teachers are very certain they do not want two a day, nor do they want to have one supervisor each day of the week. This rejoicing on the day when no supervisor comes is then the expression of the teacher's feeling that she wants some days in which her pro|>Tam need not be disarranged, nor her plans spoiled. If supervisors' visits are arranged and timed with that purpose in view, the routine of procedure will be much smoother.

The nature of the study or branch supervised, the temperament of teacher, pupils and supervisor, the training and experience of the teacher, and other considerations must be reckoned with in making out the schedule of visits. Generally the determining factor of frequency is the calendar divisions of weeks and months ; that is, so many visits per week or per month.

If not one supervisor each day, what does seem a justifiable or permissible frequence? As a proposal for discussion it would seem safe to suggest that there should be at least the time of two school days between the visits of any two supervisors and one or two weeks between the visits of the same supervisor. To this frequence good teachers would not seriously object, hence it may be assumed to represent the average opinion.

The use of the word opinion discloses the whole trouble ; we have opinions but no facts, as has already been stated. The removal of the objection, "We are supervised to routine staleness," is easy if all the supervisory work is scheduled and co-ordinated in the office of the superintendent. Nothing but that can prevent the annoyance of teachers by too much supervision crowded into a short time.

Supervisors moving as free lances or each making an individual schedule to suit conveniences of train or trolley are sure to produce the crowding and conflict of which teachers complain. A university postgraduate department should study this problem experimentally in the supervisory units lying all about the university.

In that way facts can displace mere opinion. Having admitted all this it is still permissible to say that real supervision is not objectionable. Real supervision will not crowd the teacher, will not assign two or three supervisors to visit the same building and rooms on one day, and real supervision can afford to work

GRADING WORK 15

according to a schedule so the teacher may know when the supervisor is coming.

"My work is graded successful and another teacher who does better work is credited with hut fair results." The teacher who makes this statement believes it true, of course. The supervisor who sees both teachers conduct the work has a basis of comparison which teachers lack. Assuming that the supervisor is working in true professional spirit, his judgment must be accepted. The vivacity, the enthusiasm of the teacher count for much, hence a mere comparison of lesson plans, even if accompanied by a discussion of the contemplated plans, is not conclusive proof that the teacher with the better plan will teach the better lesson.

Nor must it be overlooked that the best teachers have poor or "off" days. Should the supervisor see a good teacher conduct a poor recitation, it will be necessary to call that recitation poor, or the entire work of supervision is discredited. When a supervisor finds poor results he must say so. An explanation or even a justification of poor work may be possible. It should be offered by the teacher and should be considered by the supervisor.

The fact that the supervisor found the work poor and said so should root supervision in that teacher's professional affections rather than incline the teacher to dislike supervision. That on a given day an average teacher may be adjudged to have taught more successfully than a more gifted teacher is indubitable evidence of the fairness and the competency of the supervisor.

The teacher who has not received the degree of credit which she thinks she deserves, should at once ask the supervisor to point out the ways in which the work might have been improved if such suggestions did not accompany the supervisor's opinion. To admit that supervisors may err is not to condemn supervision ; supervisors have all the frailties of our human nature, and are no more infallible than teachers.

"/ tvish you would give me another trial. Lam confident that I have done better on days when you did not see my wo7'k than I have done today." This is the expression of the large-visioned, fine-spirited teacher who understands the aims and purposes of supervision, who has fathomed the real friendliness of the supervisor, and who has on former occasions experienced the worth of the advice which the trusted supervisor can supply.

In such a case the supervisor will be glad to suspend judgment until the next visit, or, if possible, will at once fix a time for the demonstration. Some supervisors have the notion that it is fair to try to catch the teacher in an "off" lesson. There is no ethical correctness nor professional fairness in that kind of supervision. Supervision is not playing detective. From teachers, as from pupils and from humanity in general, we get according to our expectations. If in the arranged demonstration lesson the teacher shows that she can do very well, both teacher and supervisor have reason to decide that in the future only good work can be accepted.

The teacher should not be allowed nor should she allow herself to do poor work. Having taught the one lesson well and satisfactorily, the teacher has an experience which will help her in all future lessons, the sense of having succeeded. Here supervision has performed its proper function, namely, made the teacher

SUPERVISION JUSTIFIED? 17

a better and more confident teacher and has pitched effort in the key of "success."

"Come to see me now. I have corrected my fault." Like the former, this expression reveals a correct conception and attitude; the conception that supervision is to make the good better, to remedy the remediable, to condemn the condemnable ; and the attitude of readiness to co-operate with supervisor for ever better work.

This teacher has worked her way out of her difficulty and has done it herself; can supervision have completer justification? Many teachers under supervision work in this spirit, though it is not always easily apparent nor discernible. The beneficiaries are aware of their benefits, are quietly grateful and say nothing publicly. The malcontents are dissatisfied and are ceaselessly telling their grievances. The latter thus seem a multitude and the former seem non-existent.

"The supervisor's judgments of my toork have helped me to get my present position." This teacher has kept and studied her supervisor's criticisms and suggestions. The commendations on the supervisor's reports, when shown to the superintendent to whom application was made for the new and better position, were more effective than the best recommendation could possibly have been.

Did that teacher believe in supervision? Did she complain about supervision? That not all nor more teachers have such an experience with supervision is largely due to the fact that during the process of being supervised they behave so differently about supervision and toward the supervisor. To profit by suggestions of the supervisor, and to incorporate them in the procedure of instruction and drill would be shrewd policy if it were nothing more, but it is more, it is open-mindedness, it is the spirit of learning the better way, it is the desire to become a better teacher. Is it not easy to see and understand why one teacher profits by supervision and why another may deteriorate under it?

"Your supervision and your criticisms have made me such a teacher as I am." No more generous acknowledgment can be made to a supervisor, and it is more frequently made than either outsiders or teachers suppose. Even if such a generous-hearted teacher is properly acknowledging the helpfulness of the supervisor, helpfulness because the supervisor's faith and expectation of good work have been an ever-present stimulus to effort, the teacher's reaction to suggestions and criticism must also be remembered and taken into account. That reaction too was indispensable in making the teacher what she has become.

The principles of supervision may be unformulated, and the practice may not be standardized as yet, none the less is there need for supervision, a justification for it, even if present objections and protests of some teachers be justifiable. Lifted from the plane of personality into the higher regions of detachment and impersonality, and maintained on the level of purely professional work, conducted in the atmosphere of judicial procedure, there is a large field for supervision of instruction. These truths are rapidly disclosing themselves, and teacher's protests and objections to this supervision are mightily opening the way for their emergence.

CHAPTER II. Supervision of Instruction in Operation

Among the superintendent's duties the supervision of instruction is usually counted as one, and in many cases it receives but little of the superintendent's time and attention. Therefore a statement of the ordinary routine of the procedure will be helpful for this discussion. Mention must also be made of the fact that supervision of instruction is performed as a part of the duty of principals, special teachers, and supervisors of special branches.

The observance of teaching, criticism and conference v^ith teachers for the purpose of the improvement of the instruction, is the aspect of supervision to be discussed, and the official or person in any school system w^ho performs that duty is to that extent the supervisor. Therefore the term as used in this discussion may mean any person or official w^ho oversees for the purpose of guiding instruction.

The supervisor is the officer who has charge of the work of instruction as a whole, whether it be an assistant superintendent, a principal, a special teacher or the supervisor of a special subject. The officer is not absent in the one room school for there the teacher is her own supervisor, comparing her work with that of other teachers by conversation or by reading accounts in books and journals.

Whether the supervisory official has one or the other title, actually he is supposed to have had special training for the work, to have had long and varied experience in it, to have a well-balanced judgment, a^ tactful manner and an agreeable, winning personality. No office in any organization calls for so much diplomacy and finesse as the office of supervisor of instruction. It requires ability to form correct judgments instantly, skill to render the judgment effectively but inoffensively if it be unfavorable, and graciously but unfiatteringly if it be favorable. The supervisor must be the master of the "right word fitly spoken."

The teacher will need less direction from the supervisor if she too has had preparation and experience. Whether a recent addition to the staff or whether a continuing member of it, the teacher needs especially the quality called "open-mindedness," readiness to learn. The better her education has been the greater the likelihood that the teacher will find it easy to be or to become open-minded, and to welcome the supervisor's efforts to keep the instruction fresh and the methods abreast of every progressive move.

In fairness to teachers as a class it must be said that little difficulty is generally found in securing the introduction and adoption of newer ways and better plans, if there is a reasonable ground for belief that the new is better than the old. The percentage of teachers who are open-minded is certainly as large if not larger than of supervisors who are open-minded.

The supervisor is under a double temptation to become fixed in his mental attitude. He finds certain plans working well and becomes unwilling to change for fear the new way will not be as good as the old. Also the mere fact that he is clothed with final authority of choice results in his readiness to decide from inclination that he will "let good enough alone."

The arrangement of supervisory visits becomes the next problem. How frequently shall the supervisor visit the teacher ? Shall it be once a week, once a month.

FREQUENCE OF VISITS 21

once a term or year? Almost every superintendent has his work on an individual basis as to frequence and sequence of visits.

The best statement on this point is that of the superintendent who "visits his teachers as often as possible." County superintendents do well indeed when they get to see their teachers twice a year or term. This variation of frequence of visits shows quite unmistakably that there is no demonstrated frequence which is known to be best, and proves, if any fact can prove it, that supervisors have not pressed very hard to impress boards with the necessity of more frequent visits.

Should supervisors agitate and demand greater frequence than is now possible, school boards would rather readily accede to the request, especially if the greater frequence of the right kind of supervisor's visit yielded invigorated life and procedure in the schoolroom. Mere frequence of visits will not do, but frequence which evokes from teachers expressions of approval and of desire to see the supervisor more frequently will dispose boards favorably. Assistant county superintendents were rather easy to add to the legal machinery for supervision after a few counties had proved the system advantageous.

Ideal frequence and system of supervisory visits should permit the supervisor to visit all the teachers at every hour of the day within the school term, so that all of the teacher's work may be observed and valued, and so that she may be seen at every hour of the day. Practically no supervisor can attain this ideal frequence, although it is the logical and professional limit of frequence and limit to the time variation of visits. To keep this maximum in mind will make it easy to see that few supervisors have time enough and freedom enough to supervise as they ought and as many of them wish to supervise.

The supervisor visits the teacher's room, notes conditions of all kinds, observes the work of instruction and the direction of seat work and study. From these observations many inferences are made as to relation of teacher and pupils and as to general conditions of the school. Sometimes these observations are noted for later reference, sometimes they lead to an opinion as to the quality of the work, and this opinion may be communicated to the teacher, or it may be reported to the board before it is told to the teacher.

Practice in this matter is as various as are school systems and supervisors. In some systems nothing is said to the teacher except suggestions of different ways of doing the work, impliedly ways that are better. In some systems an elaborate list of questions has been prepared on a sheet, and the supervisor checks up the work on as many as from sixty to one hundred forty questions, marking "yes" or "no" or some qualifying word which records the supervisor's judgment and saves the labor of writing the word.

Objection is made and has been made to this procedure, but say what anyone may, it does inform the teacher of the supervisor's opinion, and it leaves a tangible reminder of the visit.

In a few school systems the transmittal of the supervisor's judgment is further followed up by a conference between the supervisor and the teacher. The conference-after-visit is one of the best ways of making supervision helpful and significant. Did supervis-

TRANSMITTAL OF JUDGMENT 23

ors generally recognize this importance and rightly esteem its value, we should ere now have had a much more insistent demand for time for this conference during school hours.

Mostly these conferences are hurried, are pressed into a moment or two at recess or after school. The supervisor has no fair chance to make clear what he has in mind and the teacher has no time to compose her mind to assimilate what the supervisor would communicate.

Proper supervision will provide school time for these conferences and will not impose them as a burden and expense upon teachers and supervisors. Their purpose is the betterment of the teaching and that benefits the child. It means that the child's effort shall be made more productive and his time shall be more profitably spent ; he shall learn more in less time.

If the conference of supervisor and teacher can and will bring such a gain to pass no trouble will be found to secure the consent of school authorities to provide the necessary relief teachers while the regular teacher is called into the supervisory conference.

In many ways more important than the after-visit conference is the before-visit conference, especially with teachers who are new in a system or with young inexperienced teachers. There is nowhere a condition to which the old saying applies more completely than this condition of the new and of the inexperienced teacher ; here indeed "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."