QUESTION
What are the different approaches to supervision? Discuss all in detail.
Course: School Administration and Supervision
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
