Canonical Tag Script

Thursday, June 15, 2023

Different Approaches to Supervision | School Administration and Supervision

 

QUESTION 

What are the different approaches to supervision? Discuss all in detail.

CourseSchool Administration and Supervision

Course code 8616

Level: B.Ed Solved Assignment 

ANSWER  

The process of supervision can take on one or a combination of styles, and one particular style may not be appropriate for every supervisory situation. A supervisor must be aware of his or her predominant approach to supervision so that the style may be adapted as the situation or the staff member requires it. Winston and Creamer (1994) provide an instrument to identify supervisory approaches. The four approaches included in the instrument are:

  Authoritarian - based on the belief that staff members require constant attention

  Laissez Faire  -  based on the desire to allow staff members freedom in accomplishing job responsibilities

  Companionable - based on a friendship-like relationship

  Synergistic - a cooperative effort between the supervisor and the staff member

Authoritarian

The school's contributions to authoritarian orientations cannot be overlooked or in some instances overstated, even if its function is often more one of reinforcement than creation. While many youngsters experience authoritarianism before entering school, the school nonetheless introduces different forms and adds a social sanction to previous experiences. One’s obligation to comply with the dictates of attendance requires no understanding, not unlike saying the pledge to the flag as a first grader. The important thing is to conform to the mandate. This is not to suggest that a strong rationale for compulsory attendance cannot exist; rather it is to underline how expectations for compliance begin early and are, in the main, beyond discussion or question from the learner's vantage point.

The pattern of having little say or choice in school continues for an entire education. The authoritarian teacher places firm limits and controls on the students. Students will often have assigned seats for the entire term. The desks are usually in straight rows and there are no deviations. Students must be in their seats at the beginning of class and they frequently remain there throughout the period. This teacher rarely gives hall passes or recognizes excused absences. Often, it is quiet. Students know they should not interrupt the teacher. Since verbal exchange and discussion are discouraged, authoritarian students do not have the opportunity to learn and/or practice communication skills. This teacher prefers vigorous discipline and expects swift obedience. Failure to obey the teacher usually results in detention or a trip to the principal’s office. In this classroom, students need to follow directions and not ask why.

The authoritarian values order for order's sake. In classrooms, the order is generally claimed as a condition for pursuing the intellectual development of the young. But if this means having ownership over one's mind and moving in the direction of becoming an independent being, then schools are obligated to provide learning settings and experiences that make these desired ends possible and visible. The misplaced focus of the 'open' movement of the 70s helped bring to light the understanding that openness is first and foremost an intellectual notion rather than a problem of school architecture. In a reaction against the often controlling, boring, and authoritarian nature of schools, the open concept became associated with unleashing the young by removing structural barriers seen as too restraining. The rearrangement of desks and the absence of walls may speak to a dimension of openness, but it is entirely possible to have a traditional setting with desks in rows that is nonetheless genuinely intellectually open as well as intellectually opening in its effects. But order in the classroom, while offered as a prerequisite to learning, is too often for the benefit of the teacher and the system. There is a constant danger in schools that authority will degenerate into authoritarianism because a good portion of those attracted to teaching and school administration consciously or (more commonly) unconsciously wish to exercise authority to satisfy some unfulfilled need within themselves.

It brings to mind the story of the high school principal showing his school to parents newly arrived in town. As they approached a long corridor of classrooms, at the far end sounds of students could be heard emanating into the hallway. Somewhat irritated the principal excused himself to inspect the situation and find out what was happening in the classroom. But to reach the room that displayed signs of life, he had to pass thirteen others from which not a peep could be heard. The likelihood is far less that quiet classrooms will be questioned for what may or may not be occurring in them than classrooms that depart from the desired institutional norm of tranquility.

Silence is rarely a vehicle for opening young minds. Students are 'put in their place' intellectually in part because they are put in their place behaviorally. This grows from the assumption previously cited that a certain orderliness is necessary for learning to occur. While this makes perfect sense in a particular context, it reflects a series of subsidiary assumptions among which include learning as an essentially passive act, learning equates with knowledge acquisition and transfer, and sounds are disruptive to learning unless the sounds are voices of experts and authority. Further, achieving order through repression presents no moral dilemma to the authoritarian. The often-held view that children are evil (original sin) or are the enemy removes any moral restraints to their intellectual mistreatment. To truly own one's thoughts requires the intellectual freedom to interrogate one's experiences and this is not possible in settings characterized by distrust of those who are to be intellectually empowered. The roots of modern education are considerably connected to notions of the child as naturally evil who can be saved by control, denial, and authority. It is this view of the young which explains why education has been regarded as a moral discipline. Avoidance of anything smacking of authority is at the heart of the age-old child-centered versus subject-centered debate. The avoidance of imposition in the name of freedom frames the issue incorrectly at the outset.

Freedom was first and foremost an intellectual consideration rather than the sheer absence of external authority. Freedom was something to be achieved, an accomplishment of the educational process. Implicit is the belief that much of what constituted the traditional curriculum, albeit in differing forms and methods, was necessary along the path to intellectual freedom. Freedom was not achieved by merely discarding existing forms of external authority. Embedded in this realization is the obligation of schools to actively promote intellectual independence in democratic settings. There is a danger in relativizing authority when opposing authoritarianism that in itself may invite a collapse into authoritarianism: It is not that alternative free schools promote authoritarianism; it is more a question of whether values of freedom, equality, and

Individual-centeredness, when made the starting point of the educational process, is allowed to overpower curricular and pedagogical practices that develop the intellectual discipline necessary for resisting authoritarianism in its more modern forms.

Since the world is constantly changing and at a very rapid rate, no child should be educated for any fixed end. Instead, schools have to educate to give the learner all that is necessary both to adapt to change and have the power to shape and give direction to those changes.

The purpose of underlining the point that authority and control cannot be expunged from social settings is to eliminate the implication that by somehow obliterating any form of authority, ala Summer Hill, a Utopia of freedom will instantly appear. It is not the absence of controls or authority that gives us freedom. In the school environment, it is how the sources of authority are defined, to what ends the group aspires, what means are employed to establish authority and desired ends, and finally who has a voice and role in governing all of it. It is not a question of whether a social system will organize itself but one of who participates in the construction of that system and vision—since they also then participate in any vision change that may be desired—and to what extent that vision is characterized as democratic. It is almost axiomatic to assert that students are essentially silent in their educational roles. They subsist in a system where the transmission of subject content into their waiting containers remains the dominant educational form. Recent trends obligate students to give performances as evidence they acquired ascribed knowledge and skills. The 'outcomes-based approaches or the more current term 'results-oriented' education are further examples of the students' alienated position in the system since these newer schemes are imposed by bureaucrats residing at great distances from where youngsters experience their daily tutelage. There is no need to quibble about the efficacy of this or that educational approach. From the student's perch, they all have certain elements in common: someone else decided these were good educational approaches, important pieces of knowledge, vital subjects of study, etc.

 In each instance, the student is to once again demonstrate the capacity to comply with the mandates or suffer the institutional consequences. The system appropriates the language of individualized instruction yet contemporary reforms are driven primarily by state departments of education acting as extensions of legislatures desperate to make the system more economically efficient and productive. The result is a school program devised without any knowledge of any single student yet is termed individualized education. A more apt description is individually paced but paced toward the same ends and outcomes for all. Missing are ends that have democratic experiences at the center.

There are occasional references to citizenship education along with the dispositions required of the good citizen. But this is a view of citizenship that is primarily passive and lacks an articulated concept of the active, participatory citizen and citizenry. Even the most repressive political systems have expectations of good citizenship. To be realized democratic learning must be something more than an academic exercise, important as that may be. There must be experiences that are truly democratic in their character and they in turn must permeate the school culture. If absent the young will be prone to confuse democracy with simply exercising the right to vote—something enjoyed by citizens under Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini but not to be confused with democratic citizenship. This illustrates how far today's school encounters are from what Dewey desired. To a large extent, the system has simply become more efficient and top-heavy in carrying out what Dewey saw as a major problem to begin with, namely that the traditional school imposed its agenda on the young and in the process missed important educational and democratic opportunities

Laissez Faire

Since the authoritative teacher places limits and controls on the students but simultaneously encourages independence. This teacher often explains the reasons behind the rules and decisions. If a student is disruptive, the teacher offers a polite, but firm, reprimand. This teacher sometimes metes out discipline, but only after careful consideration of the circumstances.

The authoritative teacher is also open to considerable verbal interaction, including critical debates. The students know that they can interrupt the teacher if they have a relevant question or comment. This environment offers students the opportunity to learn and practice communication skills. Whereas, the indifferent teacher is not very involved in the classroom. This teacher places few demands, if any, on the students and appears generally uninterested. The indifferent teacher just doesn’t want to impose on the students and often feels that class preparation is not worth the effort. Things like field trips and special projects are out of the question.

This teacher simply won’t take the necessary preparation time and may use the same materials, year after year. Also, classroom discipline is lacking. This teacher may lack the skills, confidence, or courage to discipline students. However, the laissez-faire teacher places few demands or controls on the students. “Do your own thing” describes this classroom. This teacher accepts the students’ impulses and actions and is less likely to monitor their behavior. The teacher strives not to hurt the students’ feelings and has difficulty saying no or enforcing rules. If a student disrupts the class, the teacher may assume that the student is not getting enough attention.

When a student interrupts a lecture, the teacher accepts the interruption with the belief that the student must surely have something valuable to add. When discipline is offered, it is likely to be inconsistent. In order to understand laissez-faire decision-making, we need to have an idea about authoritarian decision-making first.

Leaders who use authoritarian decision-making, make all the major group decisions and demand compliance from the group members. Authoritarian leaders typically make decisions on their own and tell other group members what to do and how to do it.

Authoritarian leadership can be beneficial when a decision needs to be made quickly or when a project or situation is particularly stressful. While authoritarian leadership can be beneficial at times, it is often the case that it's more problematic. This type of decision-making is easily abused, and authoritarian leaders are often viewed as bossy and controlling. Because authoritarian leaders make decisions without consulting the group, many group members may resent the leader because they are unable to contribute ideas.

Whereas in French laissez-faire loosely translated means 'to leave alone'. Therefore, leaders who use laissez-faire decision-making let the groups make their own decisions. They are only minimally involved, basically sitting back and letting the group function on its own. Laissez-faire is usually the least effective style of leadership decision-making.

Characteristics of Laissez-Faire Supervision

Laissez-faire supervision is characterized by:

  Very little guidance from leaders

  Complete freedom for followers to make decisions

  Leaders provide the tools and resources needed

  Group members are expected to solve problems on their own

  Power is handed over to followers, yet leaders still take responsibility for the groups' decisions and actions

Benefits of Laissez-Faire Supervision:

Like other supervision approaches, the declarative style has both several benefits and shortcomings. It can be effective in situations where group members are highly skilled, motivated, and capable of working on their own. Since these group members are experts and have the knowledge and skills to work independently, they are capable of accomplishing tasks with very little guidance.

The delegation style can be particularly effective in situations where group members are actually more knowledgeable than the group's leader/supervisor. Because team members are the experts in a particular area, the laissez-faire style allows them to demonstrate their deep knowledge and skill surrounding that particular subject.

This autonomy can be freeing to some group members and help them feel more satisfied with their work. The laissez-faire style can be used in situations where followers have a high level of passion and intrinsic motivation for their work. While the conventional term for this style is 'laissez-faire' and implies a completely hands-off approach, many leaders still remain open and available to group members for consultation and feedback.

Downsides of Laissez-Faire Supervision

Laissez-faire supervision is not ideal in situations where group members lack the knowledge or experience they need to complete tasks and make decisions. Some people are not good at setting their own deadlines, managing their own projects, and solving problems on their own. In such situations, projects can go off-track and deadlines can be missed when team members do not get enough guidance or feedback from leaders. In some situations, the laissez-faire style leads to poorly defined roles within the group.

Since team members receive little to no guidance, they might not really be sure about their role within the group and what they are supposed to be doing with their time. Laissez-faire supervisors are often seen as uninvolved and withdrawn, which can lead to a lack of cohesiveness within the group. Since they seem unconcerned with what is happening, students sometimes pick up on this and express less care and concern for the project. Some might even take advantage of this style as a way to avoid personal responsibility for the group's failures.

If group members are unfamiliar with the task or the process needed to accomplish the task, supervisors are better off taking a more hands-on approach. Eventually, as followers acquire more expertise, leaders might then switch back to a more delegative approach that gives group members more freedom to work independently.

Synergistic Supervision

Synergistic supervision has been described as having the greatest utility for working with student affairs professionals. Its cooperative nature allows joint effects to exceed the combination of individual efforts. Important characteristics of synergistic supervision include:

Dual Focus - Staff members need to feel that they have a significant influence on selecting and defining the goals of the unit and in devising strategies to accomplish them. If staff members perceive goals as being imposed on them, they may not make a personal investment in trying to achieve the goals of the unit.

Joint Effort - Supervision is not something done to staff but rather a cooperative activity in which each party has an important contribution to make. Plans for accomplishing tasks such as determining unit priorities, scheduling and distributing work, and coordinating the efforts of the division are worked out jointly between the supervisor and the staff member.

Two-way Communication - In the synergistic model of staffing practices, supervision is dependent upon a high level of trust between staff members and supervisors. Staff members must be willing to allow supervisors to learn personal information about them. Staff members must also feel free to give their supervisors honest, direct feedback. Communication is key to developing this trust.

Synergistic supervision can be defined as a cooperative effort between the supervisor and supervisee with a focus on a joint effort, two-way communication, and competency and goals (for the betterment of the organization and individual). Emergent Themes Compared with Characteristics of Synergistic Supervision are as follows:

•   Supervisor Accessibility (Helping Process)

•   Meaningful Interaction with Supervisor (Cooperative Effort)

•   Utilization of Formal Evaluations (Focus on Competence / Goals)

•   Providing Unique Supervision (Joint Effort / Two-way Communication)

•   Providing Professional Development Opportunities

The learning-teaching synergy happens when teachers are thinking, observing, and focusing in all sorts of ways on learning—when we are constantly asking, “What’s going to help students learn this?” This focus on learning and attempts to understand how it’s happening for students drives decision-making about teaching. It is what determines whether students will work in groups, whether they need to write or speak answers, whether their understanding of a concept should be tested, and on and on. Teachers become learners of learning. We have always been learners of content, but now in every class, we seek to better understand the relationship between the learning experiences of students and the instructional approaches we are using.

The teaching-learning synergy happens when students are focused on learning—what they are learning (the content and skills of the course) and how they are learning it. Both are important. Students need to develop an understanding of themselves as learners. Synergy happens when students are learning from and with others. They are learning from a teacher who has relevant experience and expertise. They are also learning from classmates who offer explanations that make sense to novice learners and use examples that beginners find meaningful. When classmates act as teachers, their confidence grows, as does the confidence of those learning from them. Through this synergy, students discover that they can figure things out for themselves.

The synergy happens when teachers are open to learning from students. Sometimes (not all the time) a student asks a question, offers an example, or shares an insight and the teacher learns something new about the content. More often students are instructing the teacher about learning—what content causes them confusion, what examples aren’t meaningful, and what assignments don’t generate much engagement. On the other side, they’re also able to help us understand the things that inspire them to learn and the tactics that help them to do so.

Synergy Education Solution works directly with educators, professional and parent organizations, and publishers to improve student’s learning and achievement in our nation’s schools. Synergy offers services that focus on the integration of evidence-based assessment and instructional programs, professional development for teachers and educational leaders, and strategies for the implementation of effective programs. Synergy works closely with educational leaders at state and federal levels in developing initiatives and policies that are informed by current research and assists institutions of higher education in building graduate programs that enhance the teaching graduate programs in turn enhance the teaching effectiveness and leadership abilities of educational professionals.

Developmental Approach

A developmental approach to teaching and learning is simply put catering to the needs of the individual learner through an individualized program that works with their development long a range of measures:

  Cognitive – their brain readiness for mastery of existing concepts and introduction to new Australian Curriculum challenges

  Physical – the physical gross and fine motor skills needed for a range of learning and social skills

  Moral Development – developing empathy and compassion

  Ego Development – understanding of the self in the world (e.g. time, space, self-reflection)

  Faith Development  – belief in how their world is controlled (Ghosts and monsters or logical reasoning)

  Emotional and Social Development – self-awareness and self-management of emotions and working with others

  Self-Direction – understanding of learning needs and ways of working (learning styles and organizational skills)

Development cannot be forced or ignored. If we try and work more than one level of development beyond where the child is at it will just sound like nonsense and they won’t understand.  If we try to push them to the next level they will keep returning to the previous one whenever they are stressed.

You cannot skip a level, you need to be in it explore it, and find out that there are better ways to think and do what you can see others do. When your level stops working you move to the next one. Experiential learning is key to the process. So we look at the individual child’s readiness to identify where they need to be within the BIS cultural expectations for moral development and community participation and where they need to be to fit societal expectations of the Australian Curriculum.

This Means in Practice:

  We don’t race children through when they are not ready – we wait and support them but always show them the next level for them to aspire

  We work with them to develop the areas they need to and harness those that they excel within, giving them time to master skills

  We learn to understand them as they will have the same teacher for much of their schooling who gets to understand their idiosyncrasies and learns how to motivate and extend them

  We find out about your learning preferences and use them actively in your learning program

  We put in limits when they need it and take them away when they need to stretch their wings and fly

  We listen to their body patterns and physical needs, allowing them to eat when hungry and go to the toilet whenever they need

  We have four basic school rules to follow and know that depending on your age, developmental level, and understanding those rules will need different explanations and consequences process of supervision can take on one or a combination of styles, and one particular style may not be appropriate for every supervisory situation. A supervisor must be aware of his or her predominant approach to supervision so that the style may be adapted as the situation or the staff member requires it. Winston and Creamer (1994) provide an instrument to identify supervisory approaches. The four approaches included in the instrument are:

  Authoritarian - based on the belief that staff members require constant attention

  Laissez Faire  -  based on the desire to allow staff members freedom in accomplishing job responsibilities

  Companionable - based on a friendship-like relationship

  Synergistic - a cooperative effort between the supervisor and the staff member

Authoritarian

The school's contributions to authoritarian orientations cannot be overlooked or in some instances overstated, even if its function is often more one of reinforcement than creation. While many youngsters experience authoritarianism before entering school, the school nonetheless introduces different forms and adds a social sanction to previous experiences. One’s obligation to comply with the dictates of attendance requires no understanding, not unlike saying the pledge to the flag as a first grader. The important thing is to conform to the mandate. This is not to suggest that a strong rationale for compulsory attendance cannot exist; rather it is to underline how expectations for compliance begin early and are, in the main, beyond discussion or question from the learner's vantage point.

The pattern of having little say or choice in school continues for an entire education. The authoritarian teacher places firm limits and controls on the students. Students will often have assigned seats for the entire term. The desks are usually in straight rows and there are no deviations. Students must be in their seats at the beginning of class and they frequently remain there throughout the period. This teacher rarely gives hall passes or recognizes excused absences. Often, it is quiet. Students know they should not interrupt the teacher. Since verbal exchange and discussion are discouraged, authoritarian students do not have the opportunity to learn and/or practice communication skills. This teacher prefers vigorous discipline and expects swift obedience. Failure to obey the teacher usually results in detention or a trip to the principal’s office. In this classroom, students need to follow directions and not ask why.

The authoritarian values order for order's sake. In classrooms, the order is generally claimed as a condition for pursuing the intellectual development of the young. But if this means having ownership over one's mind and moving in the direction of becoming an independent being, then schools are obligated to provide learning settings and experiences that make these desired ends possible and visible. The misplaced focus of the 'open' movement of the 70s helped bring to light the understanding that openness is first and foremost an intellectual notion rather than a problem of school architecture. In a reaction against the often controlling, boring, and authoritarian nature of schools, the open concept became associated with unleashing the young by removing structural barriers seen as too restraining. The rearrangement of desks and the absence of walls may speak to a dimension of openness, but it is entirely possible to have a traditional setting with desks in rows that is nonetheless genuinely intellectually open as well as intellectually opening in its effects. But order in the classroom, while offered as a prerequisite to learning, is too often for the benefit of the teacher and the system. There is a constant danger in schools that authority will degenerate into authoritarianism because a good portion of those attracted to teaching and school administration consciously or (more commonly) unconsciously wish to exercise authority to satisfy some unfulfilled need within themselves.

It brings to mind the story of the high school principal showing his school to parents newly arrived in town. As they approached a long corridor of classrooms, at the far end sounds of students could be heard emanating into the hallway. Somewhat irritated the principal excused himself to inspect the situation and find out what was happening in the classroom. But to reach the room that displayed signs of life, he had to pass thirteen others from which not a peep could be heard. The likelihood is far less that quiet classrooms will be questioned for what may or may not be occurring in them than classrooms that depart from the desired institutional norm of tranquility.

Silence is rarely a vehicle for opening young minds. Students are 'put in their place' intellectually in part because they are put in their place behaviorally. This grows from the assumption previously cited that a certain orderliness is necessary for learning to occur. While this makes perfect sense in a particular context, it reflects a series of subsidiary assumptions among which include learning as an essentially passive act, learning equates with knowledge acquisition and transfer, and sounds are disruptive to learning unless the sounds are voices of experts and authority. Further, achieving order through repression presents no moral dilemma to the authoritarian. The often-held view that children are evil (original sin) or are the enemy removes any moral restraints to their intellectual mistreatment. To truly own one's thoughts requires the intellectual freedom to interrogate one's experiences and this is not possible in settings characterized by distrust of those who are to be intellectually empowered. The roots of modern education are considerably connected to notions of the child as naturally evil who can be saved by control, denial, and authority. It is this view of the young which explains why education has been regarded as a moral discipline. Avoidance of anything smacking of authority is at the heart of the age-old child-centered versus subject-centered debate. The avoidance of imposition in the name of freedom frames the issue incorrectly at the outset.

Freedom was first and foremost an intellectual consideration rather than the sheer absence of external authority. Freedom was something to be achieved, an accomplishment of the educational process. Implicit is the belief that much of what constituted the traditional curriculum, albeit in differing forms and methods, was necessary along the path to intellectual freedom. Freedom was not achieved by merely discarding existing forms of external authority. Embedded in this realization is the obligation of schools to actively promote intellectual independence in democratic settings. There is a danger in relativizing authority when opposing authoritarianism that in itself may invite a collapse into authoritarianism: It is not that alternative free schools promote authoritarianism; it is more a question of whether values of freedom, equality, and

Individual-centeredness, when made the starting point of the educational process, is allowed to overpower curricular and pedagogical practices that develop the intellectual discipline necessary for resisting authoritarianism in its more modern forms.

Since the world is constantly changing and at a very rapid rate, no child should be educated for any fixed end. Instead, schools have to educate to give the learner all that is necessary both to adapt to change and have the power to shape and give direction to those changes.

The purpose of underlining the point that authority and control cannot be expunged from social settings is to eliminate the implication that by somehow obliterating any form of authority, ala Summer Hill, a Utopia of freedom will instantly appear. It is not the absence of controls or authority that gives us freedom. In the school environment, it is how the sources of authority are defined, to what ends the group aspires, what means are employed to establish authority and desired ends, and finally who has a voice and role in governing all of it. It is not a question of whether a social system will organize itself but one of who participates in the construction of that system and vision—since they also then participate in any vision change that may be desired—and to what extent that vision is characterized as democratic. It is almost axiomatic to assert that students are essentially silent in their educational roles. They subsist in a system where the transmission of subject content into their waiting containers remains the dominant educational form. Recent trends obligate students to give performances as evidence they acquired ascribed knowledge and skills. The 'outcomes-based approaches or the more current term 'results-oriented' education are further examples of the students' alienated position in the system since these newer schemes are imposed by bureaucrats residing at great distances from where youngsters experience their daily tutelage. There is no need to quibble about the efficacy of this or that educational approach. From the student's perch, they all have certain elements in common: someone else decided these were good educational approaches, important pieces of knowledge, vital subjects of study, etc.

 In each instance, the student is to once again demonstrate the capacity to comply with the mandates or suffer the institutional consequences. The system appropriates the language of individualized instruction yet contemporary reforms are driven primarily by state departments of education acting as extensions of legislatures desperate to make the system more economically efficient and productive. The result is a school program devised without any knowledge of any single student yet is termed individualized education. A more apt description is individually paced but paced toward the same ends and outcomes for all. Missing are ends that have democratic experiences at the center.

There are occasional references to citizenship education along with the dispositions required of the good citizen. But this is a view of citizenship that is primarily passive and lacks an articulated concept of the active, participatory citizen and citizenry. Even the most repressive political systems have expectations of good citizenship. To be realized democratic learning must be something more than an academic exercise, important as that may be. There must be experiences that are truly democratic in their character and they in turn must permeate the school culture. If absent the young will be prone to confuse democracy with simply exercising the right to vote—something enjoyed by citizens under Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini but not to be confused with democratic citizenship. This illustrates how far today's school encounters are from what Dewey desired. To a large extent, the system has simply become more efficient and top-heavy in carrying out what Dewey saw as a major problem to begin with, namely that the traditional school imposed its agenda on the young and in the process missed important educational and democratic opportunities

Laissez Faire

Since the authoritative teacher places limits and controls on the students but simultaneously encourages independence. This teacher often explains the reasons behind the rules and decisions. If a student is disruptive, the teacher offers a polite, but firm, reprimand. This teacher sometimes metes out discipline, but only after careful consideration of the circumstances.

The authoritative teacher is also open to considerable verbal interaction, including critical debates. The students know that they can interrupt the teacher if they have a relevant question or comment. This environment offers students the opportunity to learn and practice communication skills. Whereas, the indifferent teacher is not very involved in the classroom. This teacher places few demands, if any, on the students and appears generally uninterested. The indifferent teacher just doesn’t want to impose on the students and often feels that class preparation is not worth the effort. Things like field trips and special projects are out of the question.

This teacher simply won’t take the necessary preparation time and may use the same materials, year after year. Also, classroom discipline is lacking. This teacher may lack the skills, confidence, or courage to discipline students. However, the laissez-faire teacher places few demands or controls on the students. “Do your own thing” describes this classroom. This teacher accepts the students’ impulses and actions and is less likely to monitor their behavior. The teacher strives not to hurt the students’ feelings and has difficulty saying no or enforcing rules. If a student disrupts the class, the teacher may assume that the student is not getting enough attention.

When a student interrupts a lecture, the teacher accepts the interruption with the belief that the student must surely have something valuable to add. When discipline is offered, it is likely to be inconsistent. To understand laissez-faire decision-making, we need to have an idea about authoritarian decision-making first.

Leaders who use authoritarian decision-making, make all the major group decisions and demand compliance from the group members. Authoritarian leaders typically make decisions on their own and tell other group members what to do and how to do it.

Authoritarian leadership can be beneficial when a decision needs to be made quickly or when a project or situation is particularly stressful. While authoritarian leadership can be beneficial at times, it is often the case that it's more problematic. This type of decision-making is easily abused, and authoritarian leaders are often viewed as bossy and controlling. Because authoritarian leaders make decisions without consulting the group, many group members may resent the leader because they are unable to contribute ideas.

Whereas in French laissez-faire loosely translated means 'to leave alone'. Therefore, leaders who use laissez-faire decision-making let the groups make their own decisions. They are only minimally involved, basically sitting back and letting the group function on its own. Laissez-faire is usually the least effective style of leadership decision-making.

Characteristics of Laissez-Faire Supervision

Laissez-faire supervision is characterized by:

  Very little guidance from leaders

  Complete freedom for followers to make decisions

  Leaders provide the tools and resources needed

  Group members are expected to solve problems on their own

  Power is handed over to followers, yet leaders still take responsibility for the group's decisions and actions

Benefits of Laissez-Faire Supervision:

Like other supervision approaches, the declarative style has both several benefits and shortcomings. It can be effective in situations where group members are highly skilled, motivated, and capable of working on their own. Since these group members are experts and have the knowledge and skills to work independently, they are capable of accomplishing tasks with very little guidance.

The delegation style can be particularly effective in situations where group members are actually more knowledgeable than the group's leader/supervisor. Because team members are the experts in a particular area, the laissez-faire style allows them to demonstrate their deep knowledge and skill surrounding that particular subject.

This autonomy can be freeing to some group members and help them feel more satisfied with their work. The laissez-faire style can be used in situations where followers have a high level of passion and intrinsic motivation for their work. While the conventional term for this style is 'laissez-faire' and implies a completely hands-off approach, many leaders still remain open and available to group members for consultation and feedback.

Downsides of Laissez-Faire Supervision

Laissez-faire supervision is not ideal in situations where group members lack the knowledge or experience they need to complete tasks and make decisions. Some people are not good at setting their own deadlines, managing their own projects, and solving problems on their own. In such situations, projects can go off-track and deadlines can be missed when team members do not get enough guidance or feedback from leaders. In some situations, the laissez-faire style leads to poorly defined roles within the group.

Since team members receive little to no guidance, they might not really be sure about their role within the group and what they are supposed to be doing with their time. Laissez-faire supervisors are often seen as uninvolved and withdrawn, which can lead to a lack of cohesiveness within the group. Since they seem unconcerned with what is happening, students sometimes pick up on this and express less care and concern for the project. Some might even take advantage of this style as a way to avoid personal responsibility for the group's failures.

If group members are unfamiliar with the task or the process needed to accomplish the task, supervisors are better off taking a more hands-on approach. Eventually, as followers acquire more expertise, leaders might then switch back to a more delegative approach that gives group members more freedom to work independently.

Synergistic Supervision

Synergistic supervision has been described as having the greatest utility for working with student affairs professionals. Its cooperative nature allows joint effects to exceed the combination of individual efforts. Important characteristics of synergistic supervision include:

Dual Focus - Staff members need to feel that they have a significant influence on selecting and defining the goals of the unit and in devising strategies to accomplish them. If staff members perceive goals as being imposed on them, they may not make a personal investment in trying to achieve the goals of the unit.

Joint Effort - Supervision is not something done to staff but rather a cooperative activity in which each party has an important contribution to make. Plans for accomplishing tasks such as determining unit priorities, scheduling and distributing work, and coordinating the efforts of the division are worked out jointly between the supervisor and the staff member.

Two-way Communication - In the synergistic model of staffing practices, supervision is dependent upon a high level of trust between staff members and supervisors. Staff members must be willing to allow supervisors to learn personal information about them. Staff members must also feel free to give their supervisors honest, direct feedback. Communication is key to developing this trust.

Synergistic supervision can be defined as a cooperative effort between the supervisor and supervisee with a focus on a joint effort, two-way communication, and competency and goals (for the betterment of the organization and individual). Emergent Themes Compared with Characteristics of Synergistic Supervision are as follows:

•   Supervisor Accessibility (Helping Process)

•   Meaningful Interaction with Supervisor (Cooperative Effort)

•   Utilization of Formal Evaluations (Focus on Competence / Goals)

•   Providing Unique Supervision (Joint Effort / Two-way Communication)

•   Providing Professional Development Opportunities

The learning-teaching synergy happens when teachers are thinking, observing, and focusing in all sorts of ways on learning—when we are constantly asking, “What’s going to help students learn this?” This focus on learning and attempts to understand how it’s happening for students drives decision-making about teaching. It is what determines whether students will work in groups, whether they need to write or speak answers, whether their understanding of a concept should be tested, and on and on. Teachers become learners of learning. We have always been learners of content, but now in every class, we seek to better understand the relationship between the learning experiences of students and the instructional approaches we are using.

The teaching-learning synergy happens when students are focused on learning—what they are learning (the content and skills of the course) and how they are learning it. Both are important. Students need to develop an understanding of themselves as learners. Synergy happens when students are learning from and with others. They are learning from a teacher who has relevant experience and expertise. They are also learning from classmates who offer explanations that make sense to novice learners and use examples that beginners find meaningful. When classmates act as teachers, their confidence grows, as does the confidence of those learning from them. Through this synergy, students discover that they can figure things out for themselves.

The synergy happens when teachers are open to learning from students. Sometimes (not all the time) a student asks a question, offers an example, or shares an insight and the teacher learns something new about the content. More often students are instructing the teacher about learning—what content causes them confusion, what examples aren’t meaningful, and what assignments don’t generate much engagement. On the other side, they’re also able to help us understand the things that inspire them to learn and the tactics that help them to do so.

Synergy Education Solution works directly with educators, professional and parent organizations, and publishers to improve student’s learning and achievement in our nation’s schools. Synergy offers services that focus on the integration of evidence-based assessment and instructional programs, professional development for teachers and educational leaders, and strategies for the implementation of effective programs. Synergy works closely with educational leaders at state and federal levels in developing initiatives and policies that are informed by current research and assists institutions of higher education in building graduate programs that enhance the teaching graduate programs in turn enhance the teaching effectiveness and leadership abilities of educational professionals.

Developmental Approach

A developmental approach to teaching and learning is simply put catering to the needs of the individual learner through an individualized program that works with their development long a range of measures:

  Cognitive – their brain readiness for mastery of existing concepts and introduction to new Australian Curriculum challenges

  Physical – the physical gross and fine motor skills needed for a range of learning and social skills

  Moral Development – developing empathy and compassion

  Ego Development – understanding of the self in the world (e.g. time, space, self-reflection)

  Faith Development  – belief in how their world is controlled (Ghosts and monsters or logical reasoning)

  Emotional and Social Development – self-awareness and self-management of emotions and working with others

  Self-Direction – understanding of learning needs and ways of working (learning styles and organizational skills)

Development cannot be forced or ignored. If we try and work more than one level of development beyond where the child is at it will just sound like nonsense and they won’t understand.  If we try to push them to the next level they will keep returning to the previous one whenever they are stressed.

You cannot skip a level, you need to be in it explore it, and find out that there are better ways to think and do what you can see others do. When your level stops working you move to the next one. Experiential learning is key to the process. So we look at the individual child’s readiness to identify where they need to be within the BIS cultural expectations for moral development and community participation and where they need to be to fit societal expectations of the Australian Curriculum.

This Means in Practice:

  We don’t race children through when they are not ready – we wait and support them but always show them the next level for them to aspire

  We work with them to develop the areas they need to and harness those that they excel within, giving them time to master skills

  We learn to understand them as they will have the same teacher for much of their schooling who gets to understand their idiosyncrasies and learns how to motivate and extend them

  We find out about your learning preferences and use them actively in your learning program

  We put in limits when they need it and take them away when they need to stretch their wings and fly

  We listen to their body patterns and physical needs, allowing them to eat when hungry and go to the toilet whenever they need

  We have four basic school rules to follow and know that depending on your age, developmental level, and understanding those rules will need different explanations and consequences


Related Topics


Supervising Teaching and Learning


Supervising School Environment

Developing Accounting and Auditing Systems

 Synergistic Supervision improves the performance of Students and Teachers

Theory and Function of Supervision, Monitoring and Evaluation

Different Approaches to Supervision 

Financial Audits and Academic Audits

School Heads’and Academic Head’s Responsibilities

Concept and Levels of Administration 

Central bodies of Educational Administrate

Difference between the Administrative structure of public, government and private schools

Areas of Educational Administration 

School Heads and Responsibilities as a School Admin

Define Administration and School Administration and different levels of Administration

No comments:

Post a Comment

If you have any question related to children education, teacher education, school administration or any question related to education field do not hesitate asking. I will try my best to answer. Thanks.

New BISE Gazzets of the Current Year

All Punjab Gazzets Sargodha Board Gazzet 2024 10th class Lahore Board 10th Class Gazzet Part 1 Lahore Board 10th Class Gazzet Part 2