SSRN Id3549264

Running head: A PROPOSED SUPERVISION MODEL
ed
iew
Re-conceptualizing Evaluation and Supervision in the Light of Educational Reform
in Public Schools in Egypt
r ev
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3549264
ed
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to propose an integrative, differentiated supervisory and evaluative
model in which instructional leaders whether principals or supervisors are engaged in all its academic
instructional supervisory and evaluative roles. The intended model addresses the shortcomings of
iew
school-based supervision and evaluation by introducing an external, out-of-school mentor whose
duties incorporate supervision and evaluation along with the school principal. It also aims to present
a supervision and evaluation model for public schools in Egypt which views instructional leaders not
as mistake-finders or as fault reporters who can do nothing to develop teachers. The study provides
ev
an overview about the problem of deeply rooted implementation of evaluation and supervision which
reflects the ‘chalk and talk’ teaching techniques (Johnson, Monk, & Swain, 2000), and absence of
r
ongoing follow-up (Warschauer, 2002). The study literature reviews support the World Bank (2018)
document about the Egyptian educational current reforms represented in Education 2.0 practices
er
which transforms inspectors’ roles into “mentors”. The proposed differentiated supervision model in
which evaluation is embedded empowers teachers’ capacities, removes performance measurement
pe
agitation, and turns them into a self-exploratory mission. For Egyptian reform purposes and the need
to integrate both supervision and evaluation, differentiated supervision will be the suggested
supervisory model in which evaluation will be embedded.
Key Words: Supervision; Inspectors; Mentoring; Peer Coaching; Inspirational Leadership;

ot
Evaluation
tn
rin
ep
Pr
Introduction
ed
Inspirational supervision is one of the pillars of the current educational reform in Egypt. This
reform is represented in a recent plan to metamorphose educational supervisors from inspectors to
iew
mentors (World bank, 2018). Such reform efforts were initiated in 2004 and called for reinforcing
professional development for the sake of improving teachers’ pedagogies (El Baradei & El Baradei,
2004). Also, another reform was introduced in 2007 when “school-based reform [was] at the core of
all education reforms in Egypt, consisting of important integrated quality targeted areas and allowing
ev
schools exposure to a continuous improvement cycle, like self-evaluation” (Handoussa, 2010, p. 67).
This paper has five main sections: the first section entails literature reviews about not only
supervision, but also evaluation, the second section provides an overview about the problem, the third
r
section explains the proposed model, the f theth section tackles the selected strategies, and the last
section elucidates on the operationalization of the selected strategies.
The Study Context and Background

er
pe
Even though teachers in public schools in the Egyptian Ministry of Education are supervised
and evaluated, their performance is below the Ministry of Education’s mandated level. What has been
more alarming is the fact that government inspectors’ main goals have been for years to pay regular
class visits and oblige teachers to follow the syllabus distribution daily and literally (Loveluck &
ot
East,2012). The deeply rooted misunderstanding and implementation of evaluation and supervision
coincides with ‘chalk and talk’ teaching techniques (Johnson, Monk, & Swain, 2000); low teacher
tn
quality (Hargraves 2001); memorizing texts, inactive learners (Sewilam, McCormack, Mader &
Raouf, 2015); absence of ongoing follow-up (Warschauer, 2002); deficit of support from school
administration (Johnson, Monk, & Swain, 2000); and lack of both teacher autonomy, and school
rin
competition (Badr, 2012).

An illustrative example was having “over 800,000 teachers actually sat for the tests [screening
tests] in August 2008” (Handoussa, 2010, p. 69), but none was reported incompetent, or dismissed.
ep
This policy and its unsatisfactory results stem from the widely spread culture that exams are means
to control schools, students, and teachers (Gebril & Brown, 2014).
Since 2018, the Egyptian Ministry of Education has embarked on multi-faceted reforms
Pr
including teacher evaluation and supervision. The study literature reviews support the World Bank
(2018) document about the Egyptian educational current reforms represented in Education 2.0
ed
practices which transforms inspectors’ roles into “mentors”.
Problem Statement
iew
Unsuccessful teacher supervision and evaluation systems are due to diverse and crucial
factors. For one thing, teachers are obligated to implement teacher-centered strategies, which are a
mixture of “chalk and talk with several questions and answer elicitation” because of the congested
classrooms (Johnson, Monk & Swain, 2000, p. 12). In addition to overcrowded classrooms, strenuous
ev
syllabi, lack of support from the administration, and resistant students hinder teachers to put into
effect student-centered techniques. As a result, traditional teacher supervision and evaluation systems
rely on passive, outdated techniques (Sewilam, McCormack, Mader & Raouf, 2015).
r
For other reasons, teachers resist the idea of the dual administrators’ roles of supervisors and
evaluators, as it results in the absence of trust, rapport and support (Scime, 1984). Moreover, teachers
er
do not harness any advantages from the archaic evaluation, and supervision processes (Sagor, &
Rickey, 2012). They fail to link “the efforts exerted in the classroom and the bureaucratic requirement
pe
of producing two goals for a rubber-stamp evaluation system” (p. 2). Hence, when teachers are
informed with the day and time of evaluation, they put on a good show in front of evaluators; thus,
treating evaluation as theatrical performance rather than coaching.
In such a centralized system, the Ministry of Education heavily controls syllabi and creates
ot
lesson plans, leaving teachers no freedom to structure the progress of their classes (El Baradei & El
Baradei, 2004). Furthermore, inspectors often conduct class visits to ensure teachers’ abidance to
tn
curricula, and lesson plans in each school (Loveluck & East, 2012).
As for instructional leaders, principals’ hectic schedules, and managerial duties hinder them
from executing their instructional leadership tasks (Marshall, 2005). These principals always lack
rin
content and pedagogical knowledge in subjects, which they supervise or evaluate (Torff & Sessions,
2009; Sagor, & Rickey, 2012). This results in shallow feedback provided to teachers which fails to
alert them about their areas of improvement, or guide them to remedy their weaknesses (Sagor, &
ep
Rickey, 2012).
Consequently, supervision and evaluation enc theage teacher isolation since both are
conducted in one-on-one, private meeting; thus, hindering collegial development (Scime, 1984).
Pr
Additionally, adult learning is hindered due to high-stake evaluations; they augment teachers’
agitation and fear, which make it hard for them to admit their mistakes (Sagor, & Rickey, 2012).
ed
Hence, such factors negatively impinge teachers’ performance in public schools.
Purpose of the Study
iew
The aim of this paper is to propose an integrative supervisory and evaluative model in which
instructional leaders whether principals or supervisors are engaged in all its academic instructional
supervisory and evaluative roles. It also aims to present a supervision and evaluation model for public
schools in Egypt which views instructional leaders not as mistake-finders or erroneously regards them
ev
as fault reporters who can do nothing to develop teachers. The study highlights new reforms in
education 2.0 reform policies and practices in the areas of instructional supervision which are
currently ongoing and in the light of the World Bank (2018) document about the Egyptian educational
r
current reforms represented in Education 2.0 practices which transforms inspectors’ roles into
“mentors”. The study also sheds light on some practical and best practice teacher supervision and
er
evaluation models which can be applied in Egypt and elsewhere.
pe
Study Questions:
This study answers the following questions in the light of all the literature reviews embedded
and documented in support of most successful teacher supervision and evaluation models:
1. What are principals’ new roles in a new conceptualized integrative supervisory and evaluative
ot
model?
2. How can professional growth, collegial development groups, peer coaching, self-directed
tn
professional development, mentoring, and portfolios be employed for both evaluation and
supervision?
rin
Study Theoretical Framework and Guiding Theory

Constructivism represents this study’s conceptual framework addressing how teachers as
adults learn like students by means of constructing beliefs, knowledge and practices, sharing
ep
knowledge with others, reflecting on their own practices, and self-mentoring their performance
(Bada & Olusegun, 2015; Senge, et al., 2000). Constructivists regard teachers as active learners
who make use of professional learning communities of practice (Kinnucan-Welsch, 2007), and
Pr
view modelling, coaching and mentoring as teachers’ techniques for learning (Day, 1999).
Constructivism in education regard instructional leadership as a responsibility partnership with
ed
teachers (Kennedy, 2014; Rhodes & Beneicke, 2003).
iew
r ev
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
Literature Review
ed
Evaluation and Supervision
In worldwide literature reviews, Nolan (1997) notes teacher supervision is a process, which
is concerned with enhancing teachers’ performance, and in turn students’ learning. Pajak (1990) states
iew
that supervision, is the venue with which instructional excellence is attained. Mainly, supervisors’
effective roles are to eradicate teachers’ sense of helplessness, especially when change goes beyond
their aptitudes, via collaboration and dialogue (Grimmett, Rostad, & Ford, 1992). By contrast, teacher
evaluation is a process, which is intended to assess teachers’ performance for major purposes, like
ev
tenure (Nolan, 1997).
Doing supervision and evaluation simultaneously leads less-experienced teachers to view
supervisors as mistake-finders and mistakenly think supervisors as fault reporters who can do nothing
r
to develop teachers (Tesfaw & Hofman, 2014). According to Tesfaw and Hofman, inspection and
evaluation are considered as measures of educational accountability but applied differently; in the
er
UK and US, the focus is on inspection more than supervision; and in Malawi and Uganda supervisors
are called advisors. As cited in the World Bank (2018) Egyptian reform document and implemented
pe
in Education 2.0 reform practices, inspectors’ roles are transformed into “mentors”.
Principals
Effective principals are regarded as “maverick school leaders [who] let go of the current
ot
model of supervision and evaluation, and launch a more powerful learning dynamic, close the
achievement gap and get all students achieving at high levels” (Schmoker, 1999, p. 735). Besides,
tn
Purinton (2013) considers principals as the forefront leaders of teachers. Stronge, Richard, and
Catano’s (2008) argue that principals as effective instructional leaders play crucial rules in
orchestrating a collegial mentoring and coaching supervision model that places trust as a priority,
rin
ensuring that instructional practices are up-to-date; and collecting evidence-based data on teachers’
performance to provide professional development to whoever needs and evaluating their performance
for employment, promotion, tenure or termination.
ep
In their study, Stronge, Richard and Catano (2008) refer to principals’ influence as second to
teachers’ effect on student learning outcome and indispensable in building school learning and
teaching capacities. Therefore, principals need to be equipped with quality content and instructional
Pr
knowledge, supportive emotional skills, constructive feedback, and organizational skills that have no
conflict of interest between supervision and evaluation (Louis et al., 2010).
Principals possess the needed experience to assess teachers’ performance, since they were
ed
former teachers, who had profound knowledge and expertise in the teaching profession (Torff &
Sessions, 2009). With out-of-school mentors, they support their presence, facilitate their visits,
arrange for their teachers’ release on days of training, and convene with them at least twice a year
iew
and once at the end of the year to finalize teachers’ evaluation. High quality principals do not affect
their own supervision and evaluation, but they are keys to supporting other differentiated and
developmental school-based and out of school models.
ev
Principals as Instructional Leaders
Schmoker (1999) states that the principal’s role is pivotal for meeting weekly for 90
minutes with teacher teams and study groups to discuss a bunch of educational issues; establishing
r
basics of effective teaching to be followed, evidenced, and evaluated. Principals can conduct five- to
15-minute mini-observations for competent teachers to end up with 12 to 1 5 "snapshots" of every
er
teacher's performance annually and form an overall performance "photo album". In addition, they can
manage short "showing the flag" popping up, a few minute "walkthroughs” and complete period
pe
observations. The aim of all these tasks is providing teachers with short face-to-face feedback
immediately after observations on one or two points as much better than many pages emailed to
teachers after a long time, and having study groups determine their lesson big ideas and assessment
tools before planning content delivery.
ot
Furthermore, Schmoker (1999) holds that principals need teachers and study groups to
conduct interim assessment for the effectiveness of their instruction on student results and ways of
tn
addressing drawbacks. Principals can get engaged in a culture of informal give-and-take with study
groups and teachers on how to help. Moreover, principals can help teachers reflect on their practice
ideally by supporting the initiation of peer coaches or by videotaping their classes and reflecting on
rin
them. Additionally, they can create a professional learning community by following their examples
of being the “chief learner” who orchestrates study groups, peer coaching and lesson study. Thus,
principals can use the 12 or so short class observations for evaluation, and not waiting for the end of
ep
year evaluative observation. They can also document students’ progress with evidence in their
portfolios; and utilize an informative, fair, descriptive rubric in evaluating teachers to give them clear
feedback with definite scales and descriptors of how better they can do.
Pr
In the integrative supervisory and evaluative model, principals are engaged in all its forms.
Besides their academic instructional supervisory and evaluative roles, they participate in all the
collegial development and differentiated models. They attend study group meetings, get copies of
ed
their agendas as well as action plans and get briefed after each team meeting along with its findings
and intended future targets or recommendations. Getting principals on board with all the study group
plans and implementations guarantees better coordination among different groups, and provides all
iew
required logistics, data, or even schedule adjustment. They arrange, support, follow-up and assess
peer coaching, lead mentoring and personal professional development plans to guarantee effective
implementation, fair distribution and future improvement.
Yet, principals meet several challenges during their supervisory and evaluative duties, such
ev
as getting busy doing demanding discipline and administrative tasks, taking time to be tuned to
supervisory and evaluative instruments, having difficulty being updated with latest pedagogies and
subject matter content, and leading their evaluation as “saints, cynics, and sinners” (Marshall, 2005,
r
p. 729).
As suggested above, mini-observation visits help principals compile a photo album for every
er
teacher’s performance. Well-disciplined principals, who delegate some of their roles to vice
principals, head teachers, out of school mentors and even teachers in study groups or individually,
pe
raise the standard of their performance and manage their time effectively. Principals need to attend
content and pedagogy workshops side by side with their teachers as happens in the Discovery
Education STEM Now Egypt professional development program, which results in their full
acquaintance and familiarity with what happens in classrooms. In addition, principals need to outline
ot
the required criteria and rubrics from all the collegial development models to support, follow-up, and
use their outcome in evaluation.
tn
rin
ep
Pr
the Model Structure
ed
For Egyptian reform purposes and the need to integrate both supervision and evaluation,
differentiated supervision will be the suggested supervisory model in which evaluation will be
embedded. The reasons for opting for differentiated supervision in which evaluation is embedded and
iew
integrated are showcased in Glickman’s (2010) words that “many teachers are functioning at
developmental levels or in situations in which self-direction is not feasible means that the supervisor
often must use collaborative, directive information or, in rare cases directive control behavior” (p.
133).
ev
In the model, evaluation is embedded in detecting the scale and number of professional growth
plans and items, the number of required action research, the amount of evidence from collegial
development groups, peer coaching and mentoring. In addition, the principal is the conductor who
r
orchestrates all the differentiated models and monitors all other evaluation forms. Also, the model
addresses the shortcomings of school-based supervision and evaluation by introducing an external,
er
out- of-school mentor whose duties incorporate supervision and evaluation along with the school
principal. In a nutshell, the proposed differentiated supervision model in which evaluation is
pe
embedded empowers teachers’ capacities, removes performance measurement agitation, and turns
them into a self-exploratory mission.
ot
tn
rin
A Conventional Model (Schmoker, 1999)

ep
Pr
ed
iew
r ev
er
pe
ot
tn
Proposed Model (Schmoker,1999)

rin
ep
Pr
The proposed model strategies
ed
the presented model entails professional growth teams, professional growth plans outlined by
tutors and a cooperative model which includes study groups, peer coaching, mentoring, dialogues,
class visits, collegial consultations as detailed below.
iew
Study Groups
Study groups are teams of voluntary teachers who aim to unearth and experiment innovative
practices and ideas (Nolan & Hoover, 2005). These study groups are instrumental for student high
ev
achievement and in order for the public school system to use such collaborative teams which aim to
enhancing instruction and increasing learning outcome, the whole system needs to change its
evaluative and supervisory approaches (Marshall, 2005).
r
Study Group Rationale
er
Study groups are of vital importance for individual teachers because sharing beliefs with
others fosters “a reexamination and rethinking of those beliefs, a process which serves as a powerful
pe
impetus for teacher growth (Nolan & Hoover, 2005, p. 173), and they do not only benefit individuals,
but they also have the potential to impact the culture of the school. According to Spillane and Louis
(2002), research has proved that collaborative, collegial learning built on positive interpersonal
relationships is key to amend teachers’ performance and students’ achievement (as cited in Nolan &
ot
Hoover, 2005). The outcomes of these study groups are evident in their reflections on new
instructional strategies, insights on most creative content, experimentation with updated formative
tn
assessment tools, creation of a professional learning community, support to each other, risk-taking,
motivation, and collaboration (Nolan & Hoover, 2005).
Marshall (2005) holds that the rationale beyond adopting study groups is the major change in
rin
the process of evaluation and supervision from focusing on principals to a more vigorous process
managed by teacher teams. Also, a lot of routinely done supervision and evaluation tasks will be
revolutionized from a snapshot evaluation to never-ending reflections; from individually conducted
ep
inspection to collaborative collegial development efforts; from evaluative, unscheduled class

observation to informal, mutual class visits; from focusing on novice or marginal teachers to
enhancing learning and teaching; and from filling out and signing observation forms for evaluation
Pr
purposes to exchanging face to face conversations.
Teacher study groups capitalize on reflective thinking in which a reflective teacher creates its
ed
own repertoire of teaching experiences which are examined and experimented on the spot (Schon,
1988). Also, these individuals and shared reflections benefit the whole team, as they result in a
repository of actions, examples, and practices. The study group strategy is also built on the notion
iew
that teachers can survive the authoritative and hierarchical relationship coated with collegiality with
their principal, head teacher or mentor supervisor, however their interactions with their colleagues
are more empowering and positively impactful than their relationship with their principals (Grimmett,
Rostad, & Ford, 1992).
ev
Study group strategy
This model is not linear and according to Grimmett, Rostad, and Ford (1992), it varies based
r
on teachers’ interpersonal skills, their scope of collaboration, teachers’ choices and readiness, their
attitudes towards reflection and dialogues and school or Idara capacity to provide professional
er
development sessions. Thus, some teachers may prefer working in study groups at the beginning
during which or even after them, they may select peer coaching and exchange class visits and
pe
feedback with a colleague or work on their own.
For study groups to be effectively employed towards a supervisory collegial development
model that replaces summative evaluation, the need arises for a newly-required and negotiated
evaluative and supervisory criteria “that replaced the mandatory formal evaluation of all teachers with
ot
a collaborative model and each teacher was expected to come up with a professional growth plan by
November 1 of each year” (Grimmett, Rostad, & Ford, 1992, p. 196). Besides, they claim that the
tn
professional growth plan, negotiated, outlined and agreed upon by team members interdependently,
mirrors their commitment to put it in action for fear of failing their individual or collective trust at
times of evaluation.
rin
In line with the required criteria mandated by the evaluative and supervisory system, and
Nolan and Hoover’s (2005) view, study groups need to establish norms in terms of meeting places,
team meeting schedules, roles of its members, like facilitators, organizers, timer, planners, and minute
ep
recorders and agreeing on a shared goal plan. Having a structure built on the consensus of the whole
team members, their weaknesses, strengths, needs, and the data driven criteria mandated by the
system or Idaras along with rotating roles ensures a better study group implementation.
Pr
Novice teachers who are involved in study groups have their evaluation annually conducted
along with marginal teachers. A mentor will be assigned to each novice teacher in the initial year and
during the second year, a lead mentor will be responsible for a group of second-year novice teachers
ed
and during the third they will be working with peer coaches.
iew
Novice and Marginal Teachers
ev
Experienced teachers can opt a three-year cycle of two years of the usual clinical supervision,
or evaluation process and an “off year” supervision to do team action research or peer coaching (Sagor
& Rickey, 2012). At the end of the third year, teachers, engaged in action research, will debrief the
r
whole school community with their results. Besides, they will create portfolios, which entail all their
three year artifacts to showcase their performances.
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
Experienced Teachers
Supervisors or mentors’ roles with a study group are to provide the needed res theces, draw
up the schedule, and mobilize psychological support (Grimmett, Rostad, & Ford, 1992). As noted by
ep
Grimmett, Rostad, and Ford, study groups can be conducted according to the next phases:
Study group Phase 1: A collaborative dialogue between study group members is initiated to
enc theage interdependent collegiality where teachers are enabled to work together to spot and solve
Pr
their own issues. In study groups, teachers are self-directed towards their own fruitful practices
without being decided, or imposed by supervisors. Besides, Shulman (1987) highlighted that the
ed
teachers are enabled to begin their learning process by tackling practical issues, while the supervisor’s
role is to ignite discussions and ensure mutual ‘wisdom of practice’ (as cited in Grimmett, Rostad, &
Ford, 1992).
iew
Study group phase 2: Following the study group meeting, teachers come up with action plans
to apply the agreed upon practices in their classes.
Study group phase 3: Teachers exchange class visits and feedback during implementing or
experimenting their action plans or videotaping their performanceto collect data on their own ways
ev
of tackling certain problems, pedagogies or tools discussed during their previous study group
meeting.
Study group phase 4: Teachers meet during their next study group to share their
r
implementation outcome, discuss its effectiveness, and get feedback. They come up with salient, best
practices that can be applied, reported to supervisors, presented in their school communities of
er
practice and included in their portfolios for end of year evaluation.
In order for such a model to be actionable, teachers need provisions of material or data res
pe
theces, suitable schedules on the part of the administration and professional development programs
that are based on data driven from teachers’ practical needs or new applications (Grimmett, Rostad,
& Ford, 1992).
ot
tn
rin
ep
Study group phases

Peer coaching
In peer coaching, teachers work collaboratively in pairs, learn from one another, exchange
Pr
class visits. It is deemed by Sullivan and Glanz (2000) as a process, where teachers aid each other to
amend their current teaching practices and employ new teaching techniques (as cited in Tesfaw &
Hofman, 2014). This peer coaching is reciprocal, built on respectful and trustful relationships and in
ed
most cases left for individual teachers to decide their peers, but principals’ or mentors’ intervention
might be of benefit and help.
Galbraith and Anstrom (1995) suggest that peer coaching has the following forms: technical
iew
coaching, in which equal partners try, share and develop the best ways to implement newly learnt
strategies; challenge coaching, in which disparate subject matter partners attempt to remedy
instructional problems; cognitive coaching, in which partners assist each other reflect on their
practices; or team coaching between highly experienced and novice teachers.
ev
Peer coaching strategy
In peer coaching, teachers work collaboratively in pairs to learn from one another and
r
exchange class visits. Teachers of equal relationship tend to opt each other for peer coaching, but if
principals or mentors notice that some peers yield nothing, they can change their partners for their
er
own and student advantage. To make peer coaching more workable, principals or mentors set yearly
average outcome from each peer by requiring their portfolios to include evidence for six peer visits
pe
annually, and two broad school action research topics. This evidence can be images or videotapes for
their reciprocal class visits and reflections. These mandated procedures make them take peer coaching
seriously, not as a give or take compliment. Moreover, these requirements and interventions ensure
that the culture of mutual compliment has no place and these peers are doing peer coaching, not for
ot
critiquing but for developing and learning (Scime, 1984).

According to Galbraith and Anstrom (1995), peer coaching in all its forms: technical
tn
coaching, challenge coaching; cognitive coaching, or team coaching has three basic phases:
Phase 1 Pre-observation: In which the observed teacher is in control to recount how the
observation can be focused, how it will be like and what the observation tool might be.
rin
Phase 2 Observation: In which a teacher is observed by another and the observation data is
collected
Phase 3 Post-observation: Based on the observer’s evidence, the observed teacher reflects on
ep
it and they reach a consensus about what has or has not worked and why.
It is monumental that teachers are oriented on how coaching works, and on listening,
Pr
communication, collaborative and other pivotal skills. The school culture and administration need to
address peer coaching challenges. At the top of these challenges are teachers’ busy schedules and the
difficulty of coordinating non-teaching periods between peers. Hence, the role of the school
ed
administration and instructional leaders is crucial so as to work out this issue with innovative
solutions such as, administrators’ teaching instead of hiring coaches or adjusting the schedule to
ensure peers have more than a chance of exchanging visits or meetings.
iew
r ev
Peer coaching phases
Professional Growth Plans

er
pe
Brandt (1996) deemed personal professional plans as “individual goal-setting activities, long
term projects teachers develop and carry out relating to the teaching” (as cited in Tesfaw & Hofman,
2014, p. 87). In this form of self-directed professional development and supervision, experienced
teachers reflect on their practices and set plans for their own improvement. School or Idara
ot
supervisors must provide an accessible package of professional development items, like training
workshops, instructional brochures or books, and online c theses, for teachers to elect from. These
tn
plans tend to balance accountability and autonomy and increase teachers’ ownership of their own
development. They enc theage teachers to experiment with and reflect on their instructional practices
and come up with differentiated approaches that fit learners’ modalities and keep pace with latest
rin
pedagogies instead of waiting for supervisors’ arrangements.
Professional growth strategy

ep
No doubt the non-directive supervisory model lies entirely on teachers’ choices. However,
leaving these selections broad might be misleading and unproductive. Thus, professional growth
plans need to have minimum mandated requirement lists. Each teacher needs annually to share,
Pr
review, attend and present at least two professional development workshops, two educational book
reviews, two online c theses, or conferences, two class videotapes, and an internet-based platform
with recorded class performance. In the meantime, for professional growth plans to be applicable,
ed
teachers need to have several choices available for them to select from, so Idaras or schools need to
make the list of requirements available and accessible for teachers all over the year.
iew
Mentoring
Goldstein (2005) argues that a conflict of interest arises whenever supervision is mingled with
evaluation and it weakens interpersonal relationships and distorts collegial development forms, such
as study groups or coaching. Thus, Goldstein calls for out-of-school supervision and evaluation in
ev
the form of mentoring or ‘Peer Assistance Review.’ It is a process, which counters the conflict-of-
interest argument by stressing the role of coaches in helping novice and marginal teachers and
conducting summative evaluations.
r
Another broad interpretation for mentoring is elucidated by Sullivan and Glanz (2000). They
regard it as a process, in which a teacher works collaboratively with novice or struggling teachers to
er
amend and enhance their instructional techniques (as cited in Tesfaw & Hofman, 2014). the
mentoring model covers experienced teachers as well.
pe
Goldstein (2005) perceives mentors, peer assistance reviewers or coaches as outstanding
teachers, who receive a less workload, to mentor novice and struggling teachers, and conduct
evaluations. Mentors’ duties are comprised of conducting data driven training workshops dispersed
over the year according to teachers’ needs and their non-teaching schedules, visiting schools to assist
ot
teachers by implementing each training content in their lessons, motivating teachers, helping teachers
with curricular issues, and joining principals in their class observations and teachers’ evaluation.
tn
Mentors, who are originally experienced teachers released from teaching duties and given
extra stipend, are assigned a certain number of schools from 12 to 15 to visit once every 1 to 2 weeks
with 3 evaluative formal observations during the year (Goldstein, 2005).
rin
Mentoring Phases
Phase 1: It starts off with delivering data driven training workshops to all the teachers under
ep
mentors’ supervision or delegates from each school if teacher numbers are huge. This training will
be dispersed over the year according to teachers’ needs and their non-teaching schedules, but the first
session will acquaint teachers with the mentoring process, how it works and why mentors visit
Pr
schools. Each training module focuses on specific strategies or tools that need to be put in an action
plan and mentored till the next module.
Phase 2: Mentors visit the twelve schools once, or twice weekly in scheduled and unscheduled
ed
visits to support teachers, follow up on their action plans after each module, and provide them
feedback. They also meet with the principal and head teachers, or preferably attend school meetings
to recognize experienced and marginal teachers and identify the suitable differentiated or
iew
developmental supervision tools that suit every teacher.
Phase 3: Mentors pick three observations to be used for summative evaluation and join the
principal in evaluating teachers’ performance. They will come up with an agreement on teachers’
level and feedback according to their rubric, and whenever there are any discrepancies, they can resort
ev
to teachers’ portfolios or mini observations all over the year.
Phase 4: Mentors attend school observation debriefing and report the agreed upon teachers’
evaluation to an Edara panel twice yearly. Then, the panel is informed about teachers, who continue
r
employment and marginal teachers, who might be weeded out, since teacher evaluation aims at
dismissing low performers (Nolan, 1997). Such recommendations, which are presented by mentors,
rely on evidence and continuous assessment. er
pe
ot
tn
Mentoring phases
rin
During mentoring induction training sessions, the mentoring panel signs a verbal contract
between mentors and their mentees and establishes trust to create a healthy environment for quality
teaching. Thus, Goldstein (2005) highlights that “trust is a strong predictor of reported help received,
ep
and in turn reported likelihood to continue teaching” (p. 248). Mentors might be of different
disciplines and might not be able to address content issues; hence, the need arises for subject matter
instructional supervision as explained below.
Pr
Subject Matter Instructional Supervision
In order to bridge the gap in all forms of supervision, and evaluation with regard to lacking
ed
subject matter supervision due to the multitude of school subjects, and the difficulty to provide posts
for instructional and content mentors, subject-area instructional supervision is introduced; it is a
brand-new approach to supervision, performed by subject-area supervisors, principals, senior
iew
teachers, and department heads. They are hired as tenure staff to provide continuous help, and support
to teachers (Tesfaw & Hofman, 2014). In the Egyptian context, all subject matter head teachers can
do this job as is happening currently but excluding the unnecessary paperwork, required from them.
Instead, teachers’ portfolios will be the most suitable forms of their supervisory achievement
ev
presented to out of school mentors and principals or quality assurance reviews.
Portfolios
r
Riggs and Sandlin (2000) deem teaching portfolios as “a process in which a teacher compiles
collection of artifacts, reproductions, and testimonials that represent the teacher’s professional growth
er
and abilities” (as cited in Tesfaw & Hofman, 2014, p. 86). In their hard or soft copy portfolios,
teachers collect evidence and artifacts for their instructional practices to capture and form a photo
pe
album of their performance that helps them in reflection, and growth and helps principals or mentors
evaluate them based on documented evidence.
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
ed
Conclusion
In conclusion, differentiated supervision will be the presented supervisory model in which
evaluation will be embedded. The model encompasses professional growth, collegial development
iew
groups, peer coaching, self-directed professional development, mentoring, and portfolios. It is safe to
say that such a model, if integrated correctly, will amend both teachers’ performance and students’
achievements.
The presented model entails professional growth teams, professional growth plans outlined
ev
by tutors, and a cooperative model which includes dialogues, class visits, and collegial consultations.
The suggested study groups can capitalize on reflective thinking, in which a reflective teacher creates
a repertoire of teaching experiences. Also, these individuals and shared reflections benefit the whole
r
team, as they result in a repository of actions, examples, and practices. The study group strategy is
also built on the notion that teachers can survive the authoritative and hierarchical relationship, coated
er
with collegiality with their principal, head teacher, or mentor supervisor.
Peer coaching helps pairs learn from one another, exchange class visits. It is a process, where
pe
teachers aid each other to amend their current teaching practices and employ new teaching techniques.
Peer coaching is reciprocal, built on respectful and trustful relationships and in most cases left for
individual teachers to decide their peers, but principals’ or mentors’ intervention might be of benefit
and help.
ot
With self-directed professional development and supervision, experienced teachers

contemplate on their instructional practices and set plans for their own improvement. School or Idara
tn
supervisors should provide a package of professional development items, like training workshops,
instructional brochures, or books, and online c theses, for teachers to select from.
Mentors, or peer assistance reviewers are outstanding teachers, who receive less workload, to
rin
mentor novice and struggling teachers, and conduct evaluations. In addition, mentors’ duties are
comprised of conducting data driven training workshops dispersed over the year according to
teachers’ needs and their non-teaching schedules, visiting schools to assist teachers by implementing
ep
each training content in their lessons, motivating teachers, assisting teachers with curricular issues,
and joining principals in their class observations and teachers’ evaluation. Mentors can be assigned
a less workload, to mentor novice and struggling teachers, and conduct evaluations. Mentors can be
Pr
experienced teachers, released from teaching duties, given extra stipend, and assigned a certain
number of schools from 12 to 15 to visit once every 1 to 2 weeks with 3 evaluative formal
ed
observations during the year.
Whether hard or soft copy portfolios, teachers collect evidence and artifacts for their
instructional practices to capture and form a photo album of their performance that helps them in
iew
reflection, and growth and helps principals or mentors evaluate them based on documented evidence.
In addition, principals are engaged in such a model in a way or another.
Besides their academic instructional supervisory and evaluative roles, they take part in
collegial development and differentiated models. They attend study group meetings, get copies of
ev
their agendas and action plans and get briefed after each team meeting along with its results and
intended future targets or recommendations.
Also, the model addresses the shortcomings of school-based supervision and evaluation by
r
introducing an external, out- of-school mentor whose duties incorporate supervision and evaluation
along with the school principal. In a nutshell, the proposed differentiated supervision model in which
er
evaluation is embedded empowers teachers’ capacities, removes performance measurement agitation,
and turns them into a self-exploratory mission.
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
References
ed
Badr, M. (2012). School effects on educational attainment in Egypt. Retrieved from
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/65450/1/725572728.pdf
iew
Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and
learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70. Retrieved October 26,
2018 from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1c75/083a05630a663371136310a30060a2afe4b1.pdf
ev
Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. Philadelphia, PA;
London; Falmer Press.
r
El Baradei, M., & El Baradei, L. (2004). Needs assessment of the education sector in Egypt.
Retrieved from https://www.zef.de/fileadmin/webfiles/downloads/projects/el-
mikawy/egypt_final_en.pdf er
pe
Galbraith, P., & Anstrom, K. (1995). Peer coaching: An effective staff development model for
educators of linguistically and culturally diverse students. Directions in Language and
Education, 1 (3), 3-15.

ot
Gebril, A., & Brown, G. T. (2014). The effect of high-stakes examination systems on teacher
beliefs: Egyptian teachers’ conceptions of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles,

tn
Policy & Practice, 21 (1), 16-33.
Glickman, C.D. (2010). SuperVision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (8th
rin
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Goldstein, J. (2005). Debunking the fear of peer review: Combining supervision and evaluation and
ep
living to tell about it. J thenal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18 (4), 235-252.
Grimmett, P. P., Rostad, O. P., & Ford, B. (1992). Supervision in transition. UK: ASCD Press.
Pr
Handoussa, H. (2010). Situation analysis: Key development challenges facing Egypt. Retrieved
ed
from
http://www.eg.undp.org/content/dam/egypt/docs/LegalFramework/2010Sit%20Analysis_K
iew
DCFE_English.pdf
Hargreaves, E. (2001). Assessment in Egypt. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &
Practice, 8 (2), 247-260.
ev
Johnson, S., Monk, M., & Swain, J. (2000). Constraints on development and change to science
teachers' practice in Egyptian classrooms. J thenal of Education for Teaching: International
r
Research and Pedagogy, 26 (1), 9-24.
er
Kennedy, A. (2014). Models of continuing professional development: A framework for analysis.
Professional Development in Education, 40(3), 336-351. Retrieved October 26, 2018 from
doi:10.1080/19415257.2014.929293
pe
Kinnucan-Welsch, K. (2007). Reconsidering teacher professional development through
constructivist principles. The Praeger handbook of education and psychology, 271-
282.Retrieved October 27, 2018 from
ot
http://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=edt_fac_pub
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., Anderson, S. E., Michlin, M., & Mascall, B. (2010).
tn
Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Educational
Research, 42, 1-50.

rin
Loveluck, L., & East, M. (2012). Background paper education in Egypt: Key challenges. Retrieved
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.371.671
ep
Marshall, K. (2005). It's time to rethink teacher supervision and evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 86
(10), 727-735.
Pr
Nolan, J. F. (1997). Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controversies. UK:
Technomic Press.
Nolan, J., & Hoover, L. A. (2005). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into practice.
ed
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Pajak, E. (1990). Dimensions of supervision. Educational Leadership, 48 (1), 78-81.
iew
Puriton, T. (2013) Is instructional leadership possible? What leadership in other knowledge
professions tells us about contemporary constructs of school leadership. International J
thenal of Leadership in Education, 16 (3), 279-300.
ev
Sagor, R. D., & Rickey, D. (2012). The relentless pursuit of excellence: Lessons from a
transformational leader. UK: Corwin Press.
r
Schmoker, M., (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Alexandria:
er
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for matching and
pe
learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schon, D.A. (1988). Reflection in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
ot
Scime, J. (1984). The conflict between evaluation and supervision: A study of a clinical supervision
program designed to link instruction, supervision, and evaluation to staff development

tn
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University, USA.
Singh, R. (2013). Professional development of teachers: The need of the hour. Young Lives.
rin
Retrieved October 27, 2018 from https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/pubs:647980
Sewilam, H., McCormack, O., Mader, M., & Raouf, M. A. (2015). Introducing education for
ep
sustainable development into Egyptian schools. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 17 (2), 221-238.

Pr
Spillane, J. P., & Louis, K. S. (2002). School improvement processes and practices: Professional
ed
learning for building instructional capacity. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study
of Education, 101 (1), 83-104.
iew
Stronge, J. H., Richard, H. B., & Catano, N. (2008). Qualities of effective principals. USA: Oxford
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2000). Alternative approaches to supervision: Cases from the field. J
thenal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15 (3), 212-35.
ev
Tesfaw, T. A., & Hofman, R. H. (2014). Relationship between instructional supervision and
professional development. International Education J thenal: Comparative Perspectives, 13
r
(1), 82-99.
er
Torff, B., & Sessions, D. (2009). Principals' perceptions of the causes of teacher ineffectiveness in
different secondary subjects. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36 (3), 127-148.

pe
Warschauer, M. (2002). A developmental perspective on technology in language education. TESOL
Quarterly, 36 (3), 453-475.

ot
World Bank. (2018). Supporting Egypt education reform project. Retrieved from
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/346091522415590465/Egypt-Supporting-Egypt-
tn
Education-Reform-Project
Starks, H., & Brown Trinidad, S. (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology,
rin
discourse
ep
Pr

SSRN Id3549264

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SSRN Id3549264

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: A PROPOSED SUPERVISION MODEL

Key Words: Supervision; Inspectors; Mentoring; Peer Coaching; Inspirational Leadership;

The Study Context and Background

competition (Badr, 2012).

Purpose of the Study

Study Theoretical Framework and Guiding Theory

Constructivism in education regard instructional leadership as a responsibility partnership with

the Model Structure

A Conventional Model (Schmoker, 1999)

Proposed Model (Schmoker,1999)

The proposed model strategies

inspection to collaborative collegial development efforts; from evaluative, unscheduled class

purposes to exchanging face to face conversations.

Study group phases

critiquing but for developing and learning (Scime, 1984).

Professional Growth Plans

pedagogies instead of waiting for supervisors’ arrangements.

Professional growth strategy

Subject Matter Instructional Supervision

With self-directed professional development and supervision, experienced teachers

Retrieved from https://www.zef.de/fileadmin/webfiles/downloads/projects/el-

educators of linguistically and culturally diverse students. Directions in Language and

Education, 1 (3), 3-15.

beliefs: Egyptian teachers’ conceptions of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles,

Policy & Practice, 21 (1), 16-33.

ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Hargreaves, E. (2001). Assessment in Egypt. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &

Practice, 8 (2), 247-260.

teachers' practice in Egyptian classrooms. J thenal of Education for Teaching: International

Research, 42, 1-50.

Nolan, J. F. (1997). Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controversies. UK:

Pajak, E. (1990). Dimensions of supervision. Educational Leadership, 48 (1), 78-81.

professions tells us about contemporary constructs of school leadership. International J

thenal of Leadership in Education, 16 (3), 279-300.

transformational leader. UK: Corwin Press.

program designed to link instruction, supervision, and evaluation to staff development

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University, USA.

Retrieved October 27, 2018 from https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/pubs:647980

sustainable development into Egyptian schools. Environment, Development and

Sustainability, 17 (2), 221-238.

of Education, 101 (1), 83-104.

thenal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15 (3), 212-35.

professional development. International Education J thenal: Comparative Perspectives, 13

different secondary subjects. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36 (3), 127-148.

Quarterly, 36 (3), 453-475.

You might also like