Quality Assurance

This is a reflection highlighting the important aspects discussed in Acheson and Gall's text on the teacher evaluation process used by successful administrators, chapters seven and eight.

Can quality be measured? Within the education profession, there are certain core beliefs that drive an educator, one of them being the intention of providing a service of the highest quality to each client under his or her care. In the process of teacher evaluation, the professional service provider is observed for the purpose of quality assurance and professional development. The purpose of the criticism seems benign enough, but once coupled with the variable factors that the subjective experience presents, the unsteady and fallible flaws of human nature can shake a positive opportunity for self-improvement until it turns into a dreaded magnifying glass that no sane person would ever want to find themselves under. Knowing the anxiety and stress surrounding the evaluation experience, supervisors must follow procedures that make the topic of improvement objective, free of bias, useful and from a competent source. Once comfortable, a true and valid observation can occur and the outcome will result in a positive influecne for change to make a good service become outstanding.

Using the information obtained in chapters seven and eight in Acheson and Gall's text, combined with the approaches of Glickman and the domain components of Danielson, it becomes apparent that supervisor/teacher conference time must not take a back seat to mundane activities and inability to prioritize effectively. The supervisor's relationship with the subject under scrutiny sets the tone for the evaluation, and if the purpose of evaluating is not punitive in nature, then any supervisor that is accountable for his or her team's performance would want the observation to be used for corrective improvement in order to maximize desireable performance. All three sources focus on the importance of conferencing in clinical supervision through discussing its direct connection to the reliability of the observed practices and decision making (Danielson). Supervisory behaviors during the pre-observation conference such as listening, clarifying, encouraging and reflecting (Glickman) signal a safe environment where the educator feels in control of how the actual evaluation will transpire and what will be focused on for improvement. Once the teacher feels they are going to be judged in a safe and secure environment, they are more apt to identify areas of instruction where they feel they need improvement, instead of resorting to 'safe' concerns that try to cover the weaknesses that are hiding beneath the surface (Acheson and Gall). If a supervisor is to assess with the aim to improve, they need to be focused on a true concern in an environment where the teacher will be receptive to alternative suggestions and change, and the structure and relationship between supervisor and faculty and the evaluation process set the direction the observation will follow.

Without feedback, the evaluation is useless. Post-observation conferences are a time for reflection, review, constructive feedback and reinforcement (Danielson). Instead of the supervisor forcing the teacher to make changes he or she may not understand or internalize, the goal is to bring the teacher to a stage of autonomous thinking where he or she interprets the observed behavior and works reciprocally with the supervisor in creating an alternative approach for the future (Acheson and Gall). This relates directly to Glickman's 'nondirective interpersonal' approach that highlights routine self-awareness and empowers teachers to make necessary changes to improve instruction on a regular basis, instead of waiting for random and seldom supervisory evaluative opportunities for feedback. If quality is the goal, continuous improvement is the means to the end.