The State of Supervision Discourse Communities: A Call for the Future of Supervision to Shed Its Mask

This article reviews the various discourse communities that can be found throughout the field of supervision. Over the last several decades, the field has largely struggled with its identity. The struggle to define supervision, as well as supervision scholarship being forced to travel incognito to survive (Glanz & Hazi, 2019), has largely been due to a lack of an academic journal to serve as a publishing venue dedicated solely to issues of educational supervision. As the Journal of Educational Supervision continues to evolve from inception to fruition (Mette & Zepeda, 2019), it is important to keep supervision discourse communities vibrant and growing, as well as to help the field move forward. Additionally, supervision scholars must acknowledge the realities of policies facing practitioners in order to better bridge the research-practice-policy gap. The continual development of these five discourse communities – as well as any cross-pollination among them and preparation for emergent discourse communities – is paramount to the future of supervision

Turnaround schools as a U-turn for student achievement : the rotary of school reform efforts

Title from PDF of title page (University of Missouri--Columbia, viewed on October 29, 2012).The entire thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file; a non-technical public abstract appears in the public.pdf file.Dissertation advisor: Dr. Jay P. ScribnerIncludes bibliographical references.Vita.Ph. D. University of Missouri--Columbia 2012."July 2012"This case study presents data to support the notion that turnaround school policy can improve the efficiency of how traditionally low-performing schools function. The schools that were successful in implementing the UVA Turnaround Program training developed a clear understanding of the expectations for participating in the UVA Turnaround Program training, developed a clear process of communication between the UVA personnel and RPDC staff, openly promoted the school turnaround process within the community, and developed a strong relationship between the district and building leaders. However, the successful schools seemed to make sense of the policy by developing a school culture based on the notion of shared leadership and shared accountability. Thus, the two participating schools that were successful implementing turnaround efforts went beyond technical change and transformed the intentions of the turnaround school policy by supporting cultural change that involved the community in the process.Includes bibliographical reference

MEPRI Survey Study of Maine School Administrators

This study sought to identify and a) describe current demographic patterns of school administrators and make relative comparisons to national trends, b) understand daily/weekly workload expectations, c) examine job satisfaction and consider the impact of COVID-19, and d) examine available training and supports for principals, the perceived impact as a school administrator, the challenges facing school administrators, and the supports needed to thrive in the profession

School Turnaround: A Rural Reflection of Reform on the Reservation and Lessons for Implementation

Rural communities traditionally enjoy an intimate relationship between stakeholders and the local school system. While preliminary research exists to suggest rural school turnaround might be more likely to occur when a strong communal connection exists (Mette, 2014), little is known about rural school turnaround efforts serving predominantly Native American students. This article reports findings of a School Improvement Grants (SIG) funded effort to digitize curriculum and deliver instruction through the use of tablets in Yellow Pine, a school district on a Native American reservation in a rural, Upper Midwestern state. Data were collected through interviews with school and district leaders, as well as through teacher focus groups. Findings highlight the failure to engage a historically disenfranchised community from the beginning of the improvement process, particularly the lack of involvement of students, parents, and teachers, which in turn led to little impact on student achievement

A Thirty State Analysis of Teacher Supervision and Evaluation Systems in the ESSA Era

We analyzed teacher supervision and evaluation policy systems in 30 states since the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 in the United States (US). This qualitative study of state ESSA policy documents and legislation examined how teacher supervision and evaluation systems (TSES) models have been developed under ESSA, specifically regarding how the construction of TSES models conflated formative feedback with summative evaluation. Despite evolving federal-level and state-level education accountability policies spurred by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001, we argue that TSES systems are influenced by state-level historical political culture (Elazar, 1994; Fowler, 2013), workplace behaviorism (Hazi, 2019), decision-making structures (Hazi & Arredondo Rucinski, 2009; Ruff, 2019), and policy rationalism (Louis et al., 2008; Orr, 2007). Data were analyzed inductively (Wolcott, 2009) to investigate how 30 states developed TSES models and from this we analyze the messages conveyed about improvement. Thus, while ESSA intended to provide states and local districts with more political control to develop and implement TSES models, our analyses shows how ESSA has extended and reinforced state-level TSES policy development and reduced districts’ local control and authority to supervise and evaluate instruction

A Thirty State Analysis of Teacher Supervision and Evaluation Systems in the ESSA Era

We analyzed teacher supervision and evaluation policy systems in 30 states since the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 in the United States (US). This qualitative study of state ESSA policy documents and legislation examined how teacher supervision and evaluation systems (TSES) models have been developed under ESSA, specifically regarding how the construction of TSES models conflated formative feedback with summative evaluation. Despite evolving federal-level and state-level education accountability policies spurred by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001, we argue that TSES systems are influenced by state-level historical political culture (Elazar, 1994; Fowler, 2013), workplace behaviorism (Hazi, 2019), decision-making structures (Hazi & Arredondo Rucinski, 2009; Ruff, 2019), and policy rationalism (Louis et al., 2008; Orr, 2007). Data were analyzed inductively (Wolcott, 2009) to investigate how 30 states developed TSES models and from this we analyze the messages conveyed about improvement. Thus, while ESSA intended to provide states and local districts with more political control to develop and implement TSES models, our analyses shows how ESSA has extended and reinforced state-level TSES policy development and reduced districts’ local control and authority to supervise and evaluate instruction