Written by Glen Dawursk, Jr., April 13, 2007
As
students seeking knowledge in supervision and evaluation, it is essential that
we be offered an unbiased, realistic understanding of the role of the principal
and the role of the teacher. One
significant source of this understanding is the textbook. In this article, Ulrich C. Reitzug, an Associate Professor at the University of
Wisconsin – Milwaukee, suggests that most textbooks portray “the principal as
expert and superior, the teacher as deficient and voiceless, the teaching as
fixed technology, and supervision as discrete intervention.” (Reitzug, 2) He came
to this conclusion through a thorough study of ten supervision textbooks
copyrighted from 1985 to 1995. In
addition, he suggested that aspects of this textbook bias are in direct
contrast to current research.
Reitzug
states that according to the textbooks, school improvement is done primarily
through a superior-subordinate hierarchical and nonreciprocal approach:
“top-down, one-to-one relationship between the principal and the individual
teacher.” (2) He suggests that a
principal’s expertise is only conditioned by their status. This principal-teacher dyad isolates teachers
and “severely restricts opportunities for educative discourse.” (9) He argues that the interpretation of what is
in the best interest of a student and what is the appropriate developmental
stage of a teacher are often inappropriate.
“Frequently those in power (e.g., principals, supervisors) position
their interpretation of reality as the correct interpretation, and alternative
interpretations are viewed as inappropriate, counterproductive, or wrong.” (2)
He further suggests that this textbook image equates to professional teachers being
“pawns in achieving instructional goals.” (2)
He uses the Latin derivative for supervision to demonstrate that the
term’s negative origins (“a process or scanning a text for errors or deviations
from the original text”) are still being focused on by most textbooks today.
(3) He contends that supervision textbooks focus on teacher’s deficiencies and
that the principal’s role as a dictorial expert. He
states that teaching is not shown as a “complex endeavor that requires
continual study” or that teachers can work in collaboration with the principal
toward improvement. (3) Instead, he
suggests that supervisory textbooks portray teachers as clueless robots who are
given little or no voice in their growth, over-all school plan, or improved
school instruction. They are simply
conditioned by the principal.
Next,
the author states that supervisory textbooks assume that teaching is a “fixed
technology” which comes primarily from process-product research where “teaching
is understood as a linear activity in which particular teacher actions (such as
direct instruction, higher-order questions, or responses to misbehavior)
produce particular pupil responses (high standardized test scores or
‘appropriate’ classroom behavior).” (5) It is an applied science. Therefore,
problems are fixed by the principal in a linear or causal approach. Reitzug strongly
disagrees with the fixed-technology approach and contends that current research
is in contradiction as well.
The
final image Reitzug purports is prevalent in
supervisory textbooks is that supervision is an “intervention with a specific
beginning and ending time that is imposed upon teachers.” (6) He states that most textbooks contradict
themselves by suggesting that supervision is a service to the teachers, but
equating teachers to “sinners who must be saved.” (6) He suggests that the clinical method of
supervision is an example of how supervision is bound in time rather than process
and how it is only the opinion of the administrator that “serves the
teacher.”
Needless-to-say,
Reitzug has approached a sensitive area. As a student seeking to know the truths about
being an effective principal, it is clear that their really are no absolute
truths in supervision. His debate
demonstrates that just as the pendulum of education swings from one trend to
another, recycling the same ideas in new packages every few years, supervision
is also evolving. What he may have perceived as a bias, I often considered
simply a tension in the swing of the pendulum.
I strongly agree with his assessment about how images are limiting. If a teacher is portrayed as simply being a
puppet, manipulated by the administration, new principals may justify and
approach their role as the dictator boss rather than the collaborative team
leader. Having written my masters thesis
on media’s influence on youth, I understand how the images (visual and figualtively) can influence a person. Reitzug’s
discussion about current research conducted by Judith Warren Little offered
credible arguments toward textbook images which encouraged increased
collaboration between administration and staff, encouragement for school-based
professional communities, an understanding that “educating (teaching) is
problematic and professional development (supervision) as sustained and
ongoing.” (9) Finally, I appreciated Reitzug’s comment that even principal’s need to be open to
improvement. He suggested that “collaboration for principals means not only
working with teachers in critiquing teaching theories but also subjecting their
own principal leadership practice to critique.” (8) After all, no one is perfect.
While
a difficult read due to the significant coverage of material from multiple
sources, it offers important considerations for any new or existing
principal. Too often we simply accept
what we read or are taught. Reitzug not only is bringing that into contention, but more
importantly he is allowing for discourse, discussion and debate. He is promoting the need for considering more
than one perspective. Just as there are
multiple modalities for learning, there are also multiple means of supervision
and evaluation. Our task as students of principalship is to find the method which works best in our
individual situations and then tweak them toward the greatest potential for
excellence amongst our administrators, teachers, and most importantly our
students. That is the greater role of the principal.