How would teacher supervision change if the "Alberta Teaching Quality Standard" was revised to consider Charlotte Danielson's four teaching domains: Planning and Preparation, the Classroom Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities?

When or if this evaluation procedure is instituted, I believe hooking them on to the Professional Growth plans would be beneficial. It would be a concrete method of looking at teacher improvement.

Simplification of the domains may actually create an environment where teachers become cognizant of the teaching quality standard and make it part of what they do everyday.

What I like the most about Danielson's framework is that it collects authentic data based on observation and direct contact with the teacher.

I really believe that a principal, to be an educational and instructional leader, must have effective supervision practices.  Being in the classroom will send a message to teachers that the principal cares, and that he/she is there to assist the teacher in improving teaching practices.  Ongoing dialogue is critical to foster levels of trust.  Teachers must believe thqt the principal is, in fact, the leader.  Maintaining status quo is no longer acceptable, especially in attempting to teach 21st century learners.  Students deserve the best!

To begin with, I believe there would be an opportunity for some coherence to the practice of the classroom being connected to a framework that is more understandable and applicable to teacher practice.  Presently, the KSA's are so vague, and poorly articulated that they are neither understood by teachers, nor applied to the science and art of teaching.  I believe we have a decade of teachers who have "put up" with the KSA's and even tried to understand them and apply them to their teaching.  I fear that for the most part, it has been through compliance rather than a passion for improved practice, or any solid connection to student learning.

Frankly, anything that can be done to simplify the KSA framework, and connected it to the vernacular of teaching would be a welcome change.  Danielson's work is certainly a step in the right direction.

Supervision is a process where Charlotte's areas should be closely examined, but it must be an agreed upon process between the Principal and the teacher and must be focused over a period of time, not just one visit.

This is a great list, can we have an electronic copy.  As I look through the items under the four headings it seems to be a thorough list for what I would consider characteristics/requirements of a good teacher/good teaching.  Many are items that are done intuitively, others good reminders of what we do, or need to do more of.

I agree with Ken's statement about the KSA's.  They are very difficult to understand.  In addition to observing what kids are learning, it would be interesting to look at what students are producing.  We should be looking at the quality of student work after they are taught in class.

I also feel the common language that defines good pedagogy is presently missing from the vernacular of many “regular” teachers vocabulary. If you can’t define it—how can you measure if you have accomplished it? If we expect teachers to be able to collaborate with each other (PLC) they need common language around which to center professional conversations and individual reflection. By shifting the focus of supervision from the teacher to the student we enable “supervisors” to gauge teacher effectiveness in the classroom—which is the purpose of ongoing supervision. While not “formal” evaluation—supervision is, in essence, a judgment of a teacher’s effectiveness in regard to student learning. (Are the kids actually learning/accomplishing the learning outcomes identified for the lesson—are they learning what the teacher is teaching? Which begs the question, if the student does not learn—did teaching really occur?) (John Antonetti)

I agree with Nolen on this one big time!!!  With emotions and behavior, research says if you cant describe a behavior, you cannot understand it.... If you cant understand it, you cannot change it..... I think this applies to teaching.... If we cannot describe good practice, we may have difficulty understanding it. If we cannot understand it, we will have real difficulty modifying or changing it.

A greater separation of supervision and evaluation will bring a more cohesive view of improving teaching practice, as well as greater collaboration among teachers in their practice.  We need to do some work at the PDC level early in the fall of 2010, generate some discussion at the Principal Board Networking session, and then schedule some serious time with Principals to get this baby off the runway!!!