supervision for teacher development: a proposal for...

International Institute for Educational Planning

Trends in school supervision

Supervision for teacherdevelopment: a proposalfor Pakistan

Mehrunnisa Ahmad Ali

The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout

this review do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the

part of UNESCO or IIEP concerning the legal status of any country, territory,

city or area or its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries.

The publication costs of this study have been covered through a grant-

in-aid offered by UNESCO and by voluntary contributions made by several

Member States of UNESCO, the list of which will be found at the end of the

volume.

Cover design: Pierre FinotComposition and printing: IIEP Publications.

International Institute for Educational Planning7 - 9 rue Eugène-Delacroix, 75116 Paris

© UNESCO May 1998

v

CONTENTS

Page

List of abbreviations vii

Presentation of the series ix

Introduction 1

I. The current context 3

1. Teachers and teaching 3

2. Supervisors and supervision 7

II. An alternative model 15

1. Theoretical underpinnings 15

2. Proposed changes and potential challenges 17

(a) External supervision 18

(b) Inter-school supervision 21

(c) In-school supervision 23

Conclusion 27

References 31

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AEPAM Academy for Educational Planning andManagement

BPS Basic Pay Scale

BCE Bureau of Curriculum and Extension

DEO District Education Officer

GCET Government College for Elementary Teachers

IIEP International Institute for EducationalPlanning

LC Learning Co-ordinator

NWFP North West Frontier Province

PTC Primary Teaching Certificate

SDEO Sub-Divisional Education Officer

vii

PRESENTATION OF THE SERIES

This publication forms part of a series on ‘Trends in school supervi-

sion’, which accompanies the implementation of an IIEP project on

‘Improving teacher supervision and support services for basic education’.1

The project, which began in 1996, is one of the main research components

of the Institute’s Medium-Term Plan for 1996-2001. The Institute wishes to

express its sincere thanks to BMZ (the German Federal Ministry for

Technical Co-operation) and to UNICEF for their support in the

implementation of this project.

Earlier research, at the Institute and elsewhere, has pointed to the need,

in an era of increased decentralization and school autonomy, to strengthen

the skills of personnel involved in supervision and support at local level

and in schools.

Two related points are worth mentioning here, as they form both the

background to and the rationale for the IIEP’s concern with this area of

management. Firstly, professional supervision and support services for

teachers, although long existing in almost every country, have been ignored,

increasingly so since resources have become more scarce. This neglect has,

until recent times, been reflected by a similar indifference among

researchers. Secondly, one important reason why the quality of basic

education has deteriorated in many contexts is precisely related to the

weakening of these services.

The IIEP project, developed against this background, consists of

research, training and dissemination activities. Its specific objectives are

to assist countries in diagnosing and reforming the existing services of

ix

1 Other titles in the series include:• Carron, G.; De Grauwe, A. 1997. Current issues in supervision: a literature review.

Paris: UNESCO/International Institute for Educational Planning.• Perera,W. J. 1997. Changing schools from within: a management intervention for

improving school functioning in Sri Lanka. Paris: UNESCO/International Institutefor Educational Planning.

• Khaniya, T. R. 1997. Teacher support through resource centres: the Nepalese case.Paris: UNESCO/International Institute for Educational Planning.

Supervision for teacher development: a proposal for Pakistan

supervision and support, and to identify promising strategies for their

reorganization and strengthening. The series of publications, of which this

monograph forms a part, is the result of research, implemented in several

regions, to address a number of questions, such as:

• How is supervision and support organized in different countries? What

have been the major trends in their recent evolution?

• What are the principal problems which supervision and support servi-

ces are presently facing in terms of: organizational structures, overall

management and daily functioning?

• To what extent and under what conditions do these services have a

positive impact on the quality of the teaching-learning processes in

schools?

• What are the major innovations taking place, mainly in respect of the

devolution of supervision and support to the school-site level? How do

these innovations operate? What are the main results?

In order to formulate answers to these questions, the project elaborated

the following operational definition of school supervision and support ser-

vices: all those services whose main function is to control and evaluate,

and/or advise and support school heads and teachers. The focus of the

project is on external supervision and support, that is to say on the work of

inspectors, supervisors, advisers, counsellors, etc. located outside the

school, at local, regional or central levels. A common characteristic of these

officers is that regular visits to schools are an essential part of their man-

date.

However, many countries, in their attempts to reform and innovate su-

pervision, are increasingly relying on in-school or community-based

strategies (such as resource centres, school clusters, in-school supervision

by the principal or by peers, school-based management) to complement, if

x

Presentation of the series

not to replace, external supervision and support. The project therefore

also pays attention to a number of such innovations and, in more general

terms, the strengths and weaknesses of strategies, aiming at the

reinforcement of internal quality-control mechanisms.

This series of ‘Trends in school supervision’ thus consists of a variety of

titles: national diagnoses on supervision and support, comparative analy-

ses of the situation by region, case studies on innovative experiences,

monographs and discussion papers on specific management issues. It is

hoped that the series will not only fill a gap in educational research, but

will also inspire supervisors who want to improve on their practice and, in

particular, policy-makers intending to reform supervision.

xi

1

INTRODUCTION

Supervisory practices in any context reflect the predominant views

about the nature of teaching, the roles of teachers and how they learn to

teach. Until the 1980s teaching was viewed basically as transmission of

predetermined knowledge to students. Teachers were charged with the

responsibility of transmitting this knowledge in as uncontaminated a form

as possible, through scientifically tested procedures thought to be

immutable and universally applicable. Learning to teach was largely a matter

of mastering these procedures. Supervisors were employed as objective

evaluators to check if teachers were indeed using the prescribed methods

in their classrooms and to take corrective measures, if needed.

The more recent concept of teaching is based on the assumption that

knowledge is constructed, dynamic and conditional (Nelson and

Hammerman, 1996), and teaching is intellectually and morally complex

work (Lampert, 1985; Ball and Wilson, 1996). The role of the teachers is to

facilitate student learning on the basis of morally defensible grounds, while

managing the multiple and conflicting social, political and economic agen-

das played out in schools (Britzman, 1986). Teachers learn to teach by

emulating their own teachers (Lortie, 1975), generalizing from their own

experiences as learners (Holt-Reynolds, 1991), and also by being socialized

in schools, communities and education systems in which they work

(Zeichner and Gore, 1990; Fullan, 1991, 1993; Wasley, 1991). Supervision

in this paradigm is directed towards helping teachers become smarter at

making professional judgements, not only about curriculum, students and

pedagogy, but also about the structures and cultures in which their work is

located. Darling-Hammond and Berry (1988, p.11) describe the theories

that underpin these two models of supervision, in the following words:

“One theory, which may be called bureaucratic in orientation, assu-

mes that knowledge for teaching is unnecessary because techniques,

tools, and methods can be prescribed from above; they need not be

crafted by teachers themselves. The other theory, which may be


2

called professional in orientation, assumes that pedagogical

preparation is essential, because teachers must be capable of making

complex educational decisions on behalf of the diverse students.”

This paper claims that the current practice of supervision in Pakistan is

based on the bureaucratic view of teaching and argues that, as such, it does

not contribute to the professional development of teachers. It begins with

the characterization of the current teaching and supervisory practices to

identify the need for change, then presents an alternative supervisory model

consisting of three tiers: external supervision, inter-school supervision and

in-school supervision. It calls for formal assessment of student and teacher

learning, while broadening the concept of student outcomes and teachers’

roles. It refocuses supervision on schools and school clusters rather than

on individual teachers. Finally, it contends that this model has the potential

to shift the locus of control for professional development closer to schools,

and thereby address some of the issues that plague teacher development

in Pakistan.

3

I. THE CURRENT CONTEXT

This section describes teachers and supervisors, their professional

preparation, selection and work. This background provides reasons why

supervision in Pakistani schools needs to be re-structured and re-cultured.

1. Teachers and teaching

As in many other developing countries, school teaching in Pakistan is a

poorly paid and flatly structured profession, employing a larger number of

women than any other salaried profession.2 Women enter this profession

because schools offer a ‘safe’ environment where they only interact with

children and other women, and because school teaching allows them to

continue meeting their responsibilities as homemakers. Men enter this pro-

fession when nothing else is available to them. Almost every male teacher

holds another job, teaching as a private tutor, running a small business or

working on the land. Female teachers typically do not hold other jobs, but

serve their large, extended families after school hours.

Schools are categorized as primary (Grades 1-5) and secondary (Gra-

des 6-10). 3 However, middle schools in Pakistan are attached either to

primary schools (mostly in the province of Punjab), or to secondary schools,

and are not separate physical or administrative entities. According to the

most recent available approximate figures, teachers’ distribution by gender

and by level taught is shown in Table 1 below.

The credentials required for a primary-school teacher are a matriculation

certificate, which represents 10 years of schooling culminating in a public

examination, and a Primary Teaching Certificate (PTC), which represents

2 The share of women in all professions is low in Pakistan. Women form about a third ofthe teaching force, in part because public schools include many single-sex schools, where bothstudents and teachers are recruited from among the same sex.

3 In the State of Punjab, there are three types of schools: primary (Grades 1-5), middle(Grades 6-8) and secondary (Grades 9-10). However, middle schools are attached to primary orto secondary schools and are not separate physical or administrative entities.


4

one academic year of professional training at a Government College for

Elementary Teachers (GCET). The matriculation certificate can be earned

by taking the public examination as a private candidate, without attending

a regular school at all. The PTC can also be earned through distance

education, or as a private candidate by taking a written examination and

presenting a certificate that the candidate has worked in a school.

The credentials for teaching in middle schools and high schools

represent an additional two and four years of general education, but the

duration of the professional education and the routes for certification

remain the same. There is widespread public agreement that none of these

certificates are valid or reliable measures of academic or professional

competence. Moreover, it is claimed that cheating in written examinations

and false certification of teaching experience are common practices. The

certification, therefore, does not ensure understanding of school-level

subject matter content, or the development of principled pedagogical

practices.

The limited influence of pre-service teacher education has already been

well documented (Lortie, 1975; Jackson, 1986). In Pakistan this problem is

exacerbated by the abysmal quality of teacher education programmes. A

draft report prepared by the World Bank (1994, p. 8) states:

Table 1. Teachers’ distribution by gender and by level taught

Male Female Percentage Total

of females

Primary schools 311,500 100,700 24.4% 412,200(Grades 1-5)

Middle schools 62,500 40,400 39.3% 102,900(Grades 6-8)

Secondary schools 160,800 57,100 26.2% 217,800(Grades 6-10)

Source: Pakistan Statistical Yearbook 1995. Federal Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan.

The current context

5

“GCET staff are usually transferred, often against their wishes, from

secondary schools and have neither first-hand experience with

primary teaching, nor the incentive to gain knowledge of primary

schools... Since 1988 four major studies have been done on teacher

training. The essence of the findings is that the staff of the GCET are

poorly trained and under-motivated, use inappropriate methods,

have poor facilities and do not supervise the teaching practice of

student teachers in a way likely to enhance teaching skills.

Assessment of the students depends entirely on rote performance

...”

Commenting on the curricula of pre-service education programmes,

Smith et al. (1988), in their survey of teacher education in Pakistan, state

that they did not see any evidence of:

• differentiated objectives for children of different ages;

• consideration of the interaction between child development and

learning environments;

• the management of multi-grade schools in villages or large classes in

cities, both of which are key characteristics of Pakistani schools.

They go on to claim that the courses were “heavily theoretical with little

evidence of the use of simulations, micro-teaching or practical activities

related to the craft of teaching”. Their illustrative example of how the 39

weeks of a PTC programme were spent, shows that 58.3 per cent of the

time was used for actual teaching contact, 18.2 per cent for teaching

practice, and 23.5 per cent for examination-related activities. Smith and

his colleagues report that they did not find any standardized evaluation

instruments which could provide evidence of linking theory to practice in

the teacher training programmes. The published curricula for the

professional courses require six weeks of teaching practice with 40 formally

assessed lessons, but certified teachers claim that no more than two of their

lessons were ever observed and assessed.

Teacher recruitment in Pakistan is a highly political process (Smith et

al., 1988; Ahmed and Ali, 1989). It is claimed that some politicians gain


6

votes by securing government jobs for residents of their constituency.

Teaching jobs are favoured in this respect, partly because of the laxity of

the entry requirements, and partly because the teachers’ performance,

indeed their presence in school, is difficult to monitor.

New teachers do not go through an induction programme but all

teachers, in theory, are supposed to undergo some form of in-service

training once every five years. In practice, the only teachers who receive

in-service training do so because their schools happen to be located in the

geographic area selected for donor-funded projects. Thus some teachers

may be trained repeatedly, while others may never encounter any new

curricula, materials or instructional practices throughout their teaching

careers. The preliminary analysis of a recent study of a large-scale in-service

programme shows that there is no evidence of change in teachers’

understanding of subject matter or in their practice as a result of the

programme (Farah, 1997).

Gaps in teachers’ subject matter knowledge have been well documented

in other parts of the world (Ball, 1988; Ball and McDiarmid, 1990), but this

issue has not been systematically studied in Pakistan. However, reports

addressing other matters and anecdotal evidence bear testimony to the

gravity of the situation. One anecdote, from a personal contact, concerns

a test based on Grade 5 science, mathematics and English language given

to 400 applicants for teaching positions in an area in northern Pakistan;

not one teacher scored more than 30 per cent, the pass mark for students.

Other examples include the following: a Grade 4 teacher, selected by the

head for her perceived competence as a science teacher, who classified a

butterfly as a bird; a teacher who informed her Grade 3 students that the

republic day and independence day of Pakistan were anniversaries of the

same event (Ali, 1992); and a secondary-school teacher who was unable to

differentiate between the values of 0.1 and 0.01 while planning a lesson

with other colleagues during an in-service course.

Teachers’ instructional styles in Pakistan have changed little in the last

few decades. Both primary- and secondary-school teachers typically begin

The current context

7

a lesson in most subjects by reading aloud from the textbook, and then ask

students to read aloud extracts from the text. The teachers then ‘explain’

the text and follow this by writing a few questions, along with the answers,

on the blackboard for students to copy into their notebooks. Students are

expected to memorize the questions and answers and their accurate recall

is counted as evidence of having learned the lesson.

2. Supervisors and supervision

The organisational chart below represents the official supervisory

relationships in secondary and primary schools.

The external supervisors of secondary schools are the District Educa-

tion Officers (DEOs) who have the Basic Pay Scale (BPS) of Grade 18. Their

duties include: regular inspection of schools, checking the maintenance

and repair of the building, ensuring adequate supplies, writing annual re-

ports about their district, posting secondary teachers and appointing

primary teachers, and helping the Director of the Bureau of Curriculum

and Extension with in-service teacher training programmes.

Selected secondary schools with a large student population and a good

reputation are labelled ‘pilot’ or ‘comprehensive’ schools, and have princi-

pals (BPS 18), while others have heads (BPS 17). Both are supervised directly

by the DEOs because the principals and heads do not recognize the

supervisory authority of any officers below that level. Most teachers in a

Figure 1. Supervisory structure in secondaryand primary schools

Secondary schools Primary schools

DEO DEO

Principal/Head SDEO

Teachers Supervisor/LC

Teacher


8

secondary school are in BPS 15, which is at least two levels below that of

the designated head.

Sub-Divisional Education Officers (SDEOs, BPS 17) and/or Supervisors

(BPS 16) or Learning Co-ordinators (LCs, BPS 11) supervise primary schools.

All teachers in a primary school ordinarily have the same grade level (BPS

7), but some qualify for a higher grade (BPS 9) on the basis of their years of

service. The most senior teacher in terms of length of service is responsible

for administrative tasks, but does not qualify for extra benefits for this

additional responsibility. More importantly, the most senior teacher is not

officially responsible for the supervision of other teachers in the school,

although various researchers (Farah, 1996; Simkins et al., in press; Warwick

and Reimer, 1995) have recorded the supervisory roles assumed by the

most senior teacher in primary schools.

DEOs can be responsible for 100 to 175 secondary schools; the SDEOs

or supervisors for about 20-25 primary schools; and, in districts where

learning co-ordinators have been appointed, they are responsible for

supervising 10-15 primary schools. Officially, DEOs are selected for the

post on the basis of the number of years they have served in the education

department as teachers and as principals. Unofficially, ‘having a voice’ in

the Department of Education is their most important qualification.

Consequently, teachers who may have distinguished themselves in the

classroom or in the staff room, but who lack this ‘political’ asset, may never

be appointed as supervisors of secondary schools. Supervisors of primary

schools (except learning co-ordinators) have a background in secondary

school teaching. Not only is their knowledge of primary schools inadequate,

they also have a disparaging attitude towards primary-school teachers, based

on their lower levels of education, salaries and social status. Experienced

as well as novice primary teachers, in the absence of an explicit official

differentiation between the two categories, are supervised by them.

The World Bank financed ‘First Primary Education Project’, a new tier

of education officials for the external supervision of primary schools,

created in 1979. Primary-school teachers with 10 or more years of

The current context

9

experience were hired as learning co-ordinators (LCs) to provide on-the-

job instructional support to other primary teachers. Warwick and Reimer

(1995, p. 98) state that some of the LCs hired for the project received one

type of training, others received another type, and some received no trai-

ning at all. An early evaluation of the project showed that teacher

absenteeism was reduced in areas where LCs were deployed. On the basis

of this evaluation, LCs were employed in selected districts in all four pro-

vinces of Pakistan. However, the authors claim:

“[LCs] have not lived up to their promise as leaders. Many make so

few visits to schools that they are not in a position to have any long-

term influence on teachers. Even if they come one day a month,

which most do not, their suggestions to teachers may be forgotten

between visits. Teachers are most likely to change their classroom

practice when they are not only given a suggestion about what to

do, but a chance to carry it out over several days or weeks.”

Subsequent reports show that LCs focused almost exclusively on moni-

toring teacher attendance and school records, rather than helping teachers

improve classroom instruction (World Bank, 1988). Other studies (e.g.

Farah, 1996; Memon and Mithani, 1996; Smith et al., 1988) underscore the

fact that supervisory personnel and practices have made no difference to

the quality of instruction in schools.

Supervisors are not responsible for identifying teachers’ professional

needs, responding to them in a sustained manner, or communicating them

to another organization that can do so. The Bureau of Curriculum and Ex-

tension (BCE), which is responsible for designing the curriculum of primary

and middle school teacher certification programmes, is supposed to provide

off-site support to teachers through short in-service courses, but is not

responsible for monitoring the outcomes of their pre-service or in-service

training programmes. There is no evidence of co-ordination between the

work of the BCE and DEOs or LCs, or among the other governmental and

non-governmental organizations that offer in-service courses to

schoolteachers. In the absence of a systematic analysis of teachers’ needs,


10

government organizations, NGOs and donor agencies are guided by the

personal views of decision-makers, or their inadequately informed advisers,

about what teachers need to learn. Thus none of the provisions are based

on a systematic analysis of what teachers need to learn, or evaluations of

what they have learned through particular interventions.

A secondary-school teacher with 13 years of teaching experience

described a typical supervisory visit to his school thus:

“Typically, the supervisor arrives five minutes before school starts

and as soon as the bell rings, he gets hold of the register (where

teachers sign in every morning to record their presence). He then

has ‘explanation call’ of all the teachers who are late. They beg and

plead, and the lady teachers especially, they cry, and tell him that

that was the only day they were late. The bus tyre got punctured, or

their child was sick. One excuse after another …”

Asked if the supervisor visited the classrooms, the teacher said:

“Yes, he goes into the classes sometimes. He will ask for the class in

which his own subject is being taught. For example, a supervisor

with a background as an Urdu teacher, will go into an Urdu class

and ask the students to explain the meaning of a verse. Even if the

students know, they and the teacher are all so nervous, they forget.

Then he asks the teacher, ‘How long have you been teaching?’ She

will say ‘Ten years, sir’, and he replies, ‘How come the students don’t

even know this? What rubbish have you been teaching them for so

long?’ All this in front of the students! Sometimes he also goes

through a few copybooks. All he wants to see is the teacher’s signa-

ture on the copybook, to make sure she checks it. He doesn’t know

or care what is written in there ....”

The teacher was asked what happened after the visit. He replied:

“Nothing happens afterwards. For that, [the supervisor] would have

to enter it into the ‘service book’, which is the official record of a

The current context

11

teacher’s career. Nobody does that. They don’t want to hurt the

teacher’s chances of promotion. Who knows how many children he

or she is bringing up on that salary?”

The teacher also commented that, on the one hand, it was very difficult,

if not impossible, for teachers to be fired or demoted, which therefore meant

they need not be afraid of supervisory visits. On the other hand, if any

other superior officer or a teacher with the appropriate political connec-

tions wanted a particular teacher to be replaced by someone else, there

was nothing he/she could do, no matter how professionally competent he/

she was. As for the head of the school, he added that he/she would make

sure that there was a gift for the supervisor, such as ‘a crate of mangoes in

the summer’. This is to ensure that complimentary remarks are written

about the school in the official record of the supervisory visit, at least until

the next visit. No official reports of the visit are recorded in the DEO’s

office or sent elsewhere. The teacher claimed that the visit did not form

the basis of efforts to provide further support to teachers or the school. He

remarked that nobody had the time, mandate or motivation to help teachers

learn anything.

Although sporadic efforts have been made to train supervisors, they

invariably draw upon their own experience of being supervised to

construct their practice. Historically their role has been defined by the

colonial tradition of inspection, where the inspector represented exper-

tise as well as authority. He tried to ensure that the ‘correct’ methods and

materials were being used in schools, often by identifying mistakes by

teachers and demonstrating model lessons in class. The inspector had the

authority to transfer teachers to their preferred schools, promote them, or

suspend them for negligence of duties. While many of the social practices

associated with the hierarchical relationship between teachers and

supervisors have survived, supervisors no longer feel that they represent

authority or expertise.

The report of a training workshop for supervisors (AEPAM, 1994) states

that supervisors are not able to perform their duties adequately because


12

administrative action against teachers cannot be taken because of political

pressure. Supervisors participating in this workshop also claimed that they

had too much paper work, no transport facilities and too many schools to

inspect, many of which were built in inappropriate locations. Furthermore,

they found the curricula overloaded and complex and asked for ‘the set

theory to be eliminated’ from the primary curriculum, most likely because

they themselves did not understand it. Evidently, supervisors find

themselves ill prepared and powerless to perform their perceived duties.

The internal supervision of a secondary school is the responsibility of

the principal or head, but primary schools have no designated internal

supervisors. However, what the principal/head of a secondary school, or

the senior teacher in charge of a primary school, can or cannot do is

determined more by local norms and the individuals themselves, than by

the official powers given to them (Farah, 1996). In their study of manage-

ment styles of head teachers, Simkins et al. (in press) found that the per-

ceptions of their roles varied a great deal among heads of government

schools. One head of a secondary school said: ‘I consider myself only as a

chowkidar (gatekeeper)’. Another stated: ‘I see my role more as an

accountant than an administrator or academic’. Yet another told the

researchers that she blocked the transfers of teachers she wanted to keep

and had others unofficially transferred to her school while they continued

to draw salaries from elsewhere, despite the fact that she had no official

powers for making teacher transfers. In his study of primary schools, Farah

(1996) found that senior teachers, or teachers ‘in charge’ of primary schools,

not only made major changes in the curriculum, such as the introduction

of English language as a subject, but also coached other teachers and raised

funds for their schools. Warwick and Reimer (1995, p. 99) also highlight

the ambiguous role of the head teacher in Pakistani primary schools:

“Their titles suggest authority — headmasters, headmistresses, head

teachers — but they usually have none. They become school heads

because they happen to be the most senior teacher in the school. If

they move to another school where they are younger than another

teacher, they will no longer be heads. Most are full-time teachers

The current context

13

who handle some administrative tasks, such as sending in attendance

records to the district education office. They rarely supervise other

teachers, help them develop greater self-confidence and better

teaching skills, or work with them in other ways ... They were not

trained to be leaders, did not see themselves as leaders and did not

act like leaders.”

The authors go on to state that in the few primary schools where they

found heads supervising other teachers, their work had a positive impact

on the achievement levels of students in Grade 5 in mathematics and

science. Using the example of Thailand, where stricter gate-keeping,

professional education and system-wide adjustments in power and resource

distribution redefined the role of the school head, the authors argue for

similar efforts to be made in Pakistan. Prouty et al. (1993), on the basis of

their research in Thailand, Burundi and Zaire, also recommend that teacher

supervision should be an explicit part of the head’s responsibility. Govinda

and Varghese’s (1993) finding that a significant number of Indian teachers

perceived heads and colleagues to be sources of professional help, would

also support this recommendation. In Pakistan, the potential of the head

as a leader in developing successful schools has been underscored by Farah

(1996) in his comparative study of ‘successful’ and ‘control’ schools,

designed to find out how rural primary schools improve. The main conclu-

sion of this study was that “critical causal factors in the process of positive

school change are a combination of (1) a competent head teacher, and (2)

a vigilant and supportive community.”

II. AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL

The deep and pervasive problems of poor teaching in Pakistani schools

are unlikely to be resolved simply by changing the supervisory system.

Nevertheless, the existence of the supervisory system offers an opportunity

to re-direct its work in support of systemic school reforms. To do this, su-

pervision in Pakistani schools needs to be re-conceptualized, keeping in

view what we now know about teacher knowledge and learning and

professional development in school settings.

The alternative supervisory model described here is an ambitious one

which may appear unfeasible in the context described above. While

acknowledging the potential problems in implementing it, this model offers

something to work towards in light of research evidence, experiences of

countries similar to Pakistan4 and recent initiatives within Pakistan, which

suggest that it is a promising alternative. The next section begins by

articulating the model’s theoretical underpinnings. This is followed by an

elaboration of the three components of the suggested supervisory system:

external supervision, inter-school supervision, and in-school supervision.

The likely challenges arising from the proposed structures are then

identified, so that they can be studied further in order to make the

realization of this model possible.

1. Theoretical underpinnings

Eraut (1995) locates the areas of teachers’ professional knowledge in

three categories, i.e. subject-matter knowledge, educational knowledge and

societal knowledge that may have overlapping or distinct subdivisions.

Other researchers may use different categories, but educators now generally

agree that teachers need to know about the following: subject-matter con-

tent, learners and their contexts, learning and learning environments, cur-

riculum and materials, and pedagogical-content knowledge which helps

4 Presentations made at a seminar, ‘Improving teacher supervision and support servicesfor basic education in Seoul, Republic of Korea’, 6-8 May 1997, organized by IIEP, UNESCO, aremy major sources of information.

15


them design appropriate learning experiences for their students (e.g.

Shulman, 1986; Grossman, 1990; Borko and Putnam, 1995).

Researchers have also investigated how teachers learn various aspects

of their professional knowledge. Memories and observations about their

own teachers (Lortie, 1975) and their own experiences of ‘studenting’ (Holt-

Reynolds, 1991), are still acknowledged to be deeply influential on teachers’

practice. Teachers who have not had powerful learning experiences in pre-

service programmes acquire much of their professional knowledge through

experience in their own classroom (Hargreaves and Goodson, 1996), and

through the ‘folkways of teaching’ which they encounter in schools

(Buchmann, 1987). Their experiential learning and socialization in schools

induces habitual meanings and actions in the classroom. They also begin

to see their practice not as one among a number of possibilities, but as the

only way to teach (Buchmann and Schwille, 1993). Opportunities that help

teachers to appreciate the limitations of personal experience, re-examine

their practice and offer viable alternatives are necessary for them to learn

to teach according to the changing needs of students.

Some powerful ways of providing teachers with the opportunity to

change their practice have also been identified. Action research by teachers

(Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1993; Glickman, 1990; Hopkins, 1989),

‘mentoring’ relationships between experienced and novice teachers

(Feiman-Nemser and Parker, 1992; Little, 1993), and coaching by experts

and peers which includes cycles of scaffolded planning, demonstration,

observation and feedback (Joyce and Showers, 1982, 1988; Sparks, 1986),

are now considered fairly powerful forms of professional development.

Educational researchers have also studied the relationship between

teacher-learning and school settings. The general conclusions emerging

from these studies are:

• heads of schools play a pivotal role in teacher development (Leithwood,

et al., 1994; Chapman and Burchfield, 1994; Farah, 1996);

• teachers need support as well as pressure from colleagues and mana-

gers (Fullan, 1991, 1993; Hargreaves, 1992);16

An alternative model

• internal as well as external resources are needed by schools to sustain

teacher development efforts (Rosenholtz, 1989; Fullan, 1993);

• internal as well as external criteria and mechanisms for monitoring

progress are necessary for teachers (Hopkins et al., 1997);

• cultural norms engender resistance to change (Corbett et al., 1987);

and

• the political and social aspects of teaching need to be addressed as an

essential component of professional development programmes (Smyth,

1995; Hargreaves, 1995).

Keeping in mind the significance of and the differences in school cul-

tures, Waite (1995) developed the notion of the ‘situationally contexted

approach’ to advocate much more attention to the local culture by

supervisors. He contends that this approach can be used effectively in

multiple contexts because it allows participants in the dialogue to negotiate

goals, objectives and actions, and their meanings, within the framework of

their contexts. Sergiovanni (1992) claims that as long as teaching is viewed

as individual enterprise, then bureaucratic, psychological and technical-

rational sources of authority will be used in supervision. He advocates

instead the use of professional and moral sources of authority, but warns

that this is possible only if teaching is viewed as a collective rather than an

individual practice. Hopkins, Ainscow and West (1997) underscore the

necessity of directing supervisory efforts at the whole school rather than

at individual teachers.

2. Proposed changes and potential challenges

This section discusses the potential and the limits of an alternative model,

consisting of three tiers: external supervision, inter-school supervision and

in-school supervision. The structural and cultural adjustments to be made

and the problems and dilemmas likely to be encountered are pointed out

for each component. In conclusion, the reasons why this model, despite

its many constraints, holds great promise for the professional development

of teachers in Pakistan are presented.

17


(a) External supervision

In this model, external supervisors, for both primary and secondary

schools, would be responsible for supervising 20 to 25 schools. They would

have three major roles to fulfil.

First, they would represent standard criteria, measures and mechanisms

for assessing the performance of various schools. This aspect of their role

would be used to pressure schools to meet the expectations of their various

stakeholders. Reactions in the media to the recent release of the ‘Third

International Maths and Science Study’ findings show, once again, that a

comparative analysis of students’ academic performance remains the most

powerful measure of the educational success of individuals, institutions

and nations. Such comparisons, it seems, can motivate decision-makers,

from the national to the school level, to give greater attention to improving

education. Even illiterate rural parents in Pakistan use their children’s ability

to read and write and pass school examinations as fundamental criteria for

assessing school quality (Farah, 1997).

While academic learning is widely acknowledged as the foremost

purpose of schooling, it is by no means the only one. The school’s influence

in socializing a child into ‘a civilized person’ is often mentioned by parents

in rural communities of Pakistan (Stromquist, 1996). What parents actually

mean by this, what schools actually do, and how they can do it better, remain

unasked questions. However, a school’s contribution to the appropriate

socialization of its students is obviously an important criterion for judging

its success. Other practices, generally associated with ‘good schools’, once

their significance is established, can be investigated further and used as

criteria for assessing schools.

Once the common criteria and performance indicators have been

selected, and information systems have been set up, supervisors would be

responsible for assessing schools on a regular basis and processing the in-

formation with the help of the district office of the Education Manage-

ment Information System. Instead of processing only enrolment data as at

present, this office would process information about school performance,

18


enabling the supervisor to present it to parents and teachers, heads and

other education officers, researchers and politicians.

The second role of the external supervisors would be to introduce new

instructional strategies, learning materials or management approaches into

the whole school. They would introduce innovations such as the integrated

primary curriculum, the teaching kit and the formation of parent-teacher

associations. The supervisors would provide the professional support that

teachers and heads of the school need for trying out new ideas in schools

and classrooms. This support might be offered in the form of

demonstrations, facilitation of action research, workshops or other activities

negotiated among teachers, heads and supervisors. The role of the

supervisors would be to act as guides and mentors, especially to the head

of the school. Whether they worked with groups of teachers or with

individuals, their purpose would be to support the school, rather than

individual teachers, as a unit. Moreover, the head would be actively involved

in this effort.

The third major task of the external supervisor would be to

systematically document and communicate schools’ needs for external as-

sistance to appropriate agencies. A joint analysis of the supervisor’s previous

report by all the stakeholders could form the basis of requests for external

assistance. Other specific needs may be identified by students, parents,

teachers and heads or by the supervisors themselves, but they would be

communicated directly by the external supervisors to those who could

respond to them.

The implementation of this model would require undertaking some

additional research, strengthening the information management systems

and identifying appropriate measures for recruitment and training of

supervisors.

In several, especially developed, countries, research has been

undertaken to develop performance indicators for schools and tools for

measuring these. These results will need to be adapted to the Pakistani

19


context. Supervisors could play a role in this regard, in collaboration with

universities, the Department of Education, non-governmental agencies and

individual consultants. Others’ experiences, for example, studies from South

Asian countries that have a similar education system, would also be useful

to help clarify what is possible and worthwhile to assess.

Several related measures would be needed to prepare external

supervisors to undertake the kind of work described above. First, a more

stringent gate-keeping system would be needed for their recruitment. This

implies an unwavering application of the existing rules. Evidence of good

performance as a head, and prior teaching experience at the school level

at which the supervisor will be operating, would be criteria for candidacy.

Given that the positions of supervisors would be fewer and more visible,

the entry and performance requirements more demanding, and fewer peo-

ple would have the power to influence recruitment at this higher level, the

scale of malpractice in their appointments is likely to be less than for that

of teachers.

The above measures would require some additional resources, new

institutional arrangements and a structural reorganization. However, the

most challenging of all will be the cultural adjustments to be made by

everyone involved. The change of supervisory focus from isolated ins-

tances of teacher’s practice to processes of teacher learning, from

individual teachers to whole schools, and from administrative to

developmental matters will need to be carefully prepared. External

supervisors will indeed be asked not just to evaluate schools but also to

take responsibility for their development. This may prove too difficult to

accomplish in the face of habits of meaning and action (Buchmann and

Schwille, 1993).

Some supervisors may protest against the more stringent requirements

for their appointment, although their status as a group should increase.

They may resent the additional demands of their new job descriptions and

the loss of power over individual heads and teachers. Heads and teachers,

on the other hand, may resist providing vital information to supervisors,

20

The current context

who typically represent power and authority. They might feel too vulnerable

to expose gaps in their own knowledge and skills. The anticipation of these

problems, efforts to understand them better and measures to minimize their

negative impact would be needed to make the model work. Most

importantly, a continuous and coherent staff development programme,

combining quality induction training with regular in-service opportunities,

would be very useful. Such training should involve teachers, head teachers

and supervisors as a group, rather than supervisors as individuals.

(b) Inter-school supervision

This model proposes that all rural and urban schools be grouped into

school clusters. Each school cluster would consist of about five primary or

secondary schools within a defined perimeter. In addition, each primary

school cluster would have a special relationship with at least one secondary

school. The purpose of this arrangement is to facilitate the development

and use of resources for inter-school supervision. Its most innovative feature

would be the creation of a special cadre of supervisory teachers, who would

combine ‘situationally contexted’ supervision (Waite, 1995) in

neighbouring schools with regular teaching in their own school, albeit with

a reduced load.

The supervisory teachers would assist the external supervisors in tasks

where their special strengths were needed. Their participation in action

research initiated by external supervisors would help to establish local stan-

dards that students and teachers in similar schools may reasonably be

expected to work towards. By trying out new ideas, brought to them by

the external supervisors, they would test their feasibility in the local context.

Their knowledge of local children’s needs and capacities, parents’ aspira-

tions, teachers’ competencies and concerns, and availability of human and

material resources in the schools, would guide the external supervisor’s

decisions about what to expect from and what support to provide to

particular school clusters.

The supervisory teachers would demonstrate ‘good teaching’, establish

‘mentoring’ relationships with teachers in neighbouring schools, and share

21


information, materials and experiences with them. They would visit

neighbouring schools, perhaps one day a week, in order to support study

groups, action research projects, development of learning materials, or cy-

cles of planning and coaching for classroom instruction. They would be

available for consultation in ways that the peripatetic external supervisors

would not. Their relatively greater accessibility, familiarity with local con-

ditions and relevant classroom experience would make them, potentially,

a very important resource for teachers working in neighbouring schools.

In secondary schools the nature of instructional supervision is

constrained by the subject specialization of the supervisor. Supervisors who

have been teachers of languages cannot assess the students’ performance

in mathematics, nor offer teachers of mathematics the kind of professional

support they need. Assigning some supervisory tasks across schools to

competent subject teachers, instead of employing external supervisors for

each of these subjects, makes educational as well as financial sense. The

supervisory teachers would combine their teaching and supervisory

responsibilities in a manner similar to that of heads of departments in large

private secondary schools, but instead of confining their supervisory tasks

to only one school, they would supervise teachers of their subject in a cluster

of schools.

Since secondary-school teachers generally have higher levels of

education, they are likely to have a better understanding of some of the

content of school subjects than their primary school colleagues.

Supervisory teachers in secondary schools would help teachers of primary

schools with whom they have a special relationship learn subject-matter

content.

Similarly, primary supervisory teachers with particular strengths in

various aspects of teaching, such as maintaining a high level of student

attendance, or effectively organizing multi-grade classrooms, or ensuring

that all of their students can read and write to a high standard, would help

other teachers in their cluster learn from their experience.

22


Teachers aspiring to supervisory teacher positions would take qualifying

examinations and then be interviewed and observed by a panel of educators

(which would include subject specialists for secondary school appoint-

ments). Following that, the candidates would go through a rigorous trai-

ning programme to prepare them for their new roles. Upon qualification

they would be given appropriate titles, as well as additional facilities and

remuneration. A higher position in the school hierarchy, indicated by the

special title, would be necessary for the supervisory teachers to have some

credibility. The additional facilities would enable them to travel and

purchase stationery, books and other materials. The additional

remuneration would provide the incentive for them to take on additional

responsibilities.

The creation of new positions associated with special ‘expertise’ and

the provision of higher remuneration will not be easy in a context where

all teachers typically have the same responsibilities and rewards. At present,

in Pakistani schools, increments in salary are earned only on the basis of

long service. Even the ‘unofficial’ positions of heads of departments in

some government secondary schools are routinely assigned to teachers

with the longest teaching experience. While some people may see the

elevation of particularly successful teachers to supervisory positions as

the creation of a career ladder for teachers, others may see it as a source of

friction among colleagues who previously had no reason to compete with

each other (Little, 1987).

Part-time supervisors loyal to one school may not be keen to support

teachers in other schools if they see them as competitors. The inevitable

comparison between schools when they are formally assessed by the

external supervisors may put pressure on the supervisory teachers not to

invest time and energy in the development of teachers other than those

who work in their own schools. An evident solution lies in comparisons

between school clusters rather than schools. This would motivate school

staff within the same cluster to work together. However, even in such a

scenario, or where supervisory teachers from a secondary school work

23


with primary-school teachers, there will be competing demands made on

their time and energy. Balancing the work of teaching and supervision,

especially when there may be different psychological, social and financial

rewards associated with one or the other, may prove to be difficult for the

teacher-supervisor.

(c) In-school supervision

According to this model, school heads would become institutional lea-

ders in the fuller sense of the term. They would be as responsible for teacher-

learning as much as student-learning in their schools. Heads of schools very

often do some classroom teaching. In the new supervisory system, they

would also undertake teacher education as part of their role. They would

be responsible for creating the opportunities for teachers to undertake

joint planning, to observe each other’s lessons, and to visit neighbouring

schools for workshops offered by supervisory teachers.

The heads would also play a leadership role in extending teachers’

professional horizons beyond their own classrooms. The pursuit of goals

such as increasing girls’ enrolment, raising funds to buy textbooks, or

promoting water conservation in the village may also be a legitimate part

of their professional activities. They would do this work through individual

and group meetings, workshops, projects, study groups, coaching and

teamwork. Although they themselves may not always be a direct source of

help to teachers, they would be responsible for enlisting appropriate sup-

port from others, within and outside their school. They would be expected

to establish networks with local communities, supervisory teachers in the

cluster to which the school belongs and other accessible individuals and

institutions, for the exchange of ideas, information or resources. Having

identified sources of help, they would also have to provide time for teachers

to make use of the available learning opportunities and help them to obtain

funds.

Heads of schools would not only support but also monitor teachers’

professional development. The data collected about their school for the

external supervisors might be used as one source of information for moni-

24


toring teachers’ work. In addition, they might observe teachers’ classes,

examine their plans or records of work, and periodically review their

students’ work. Like the heads of some private schools and corporate bo-

dies, they would regularly help teachers to identify areas of professional

competence needing improvement and negotiate with them the processes,

resources and assessment criteria to be used. The heads would help teachers

to make realistic plans and monitor the implementation of these plans. They

would maintain records of teachers’ performance and their development,

share them with the external supervisors and seek their advice, if needed.

Thus the head would be as accountable for teachers’ development as for

students’ development in the school.

For heads to take the responsibility of ensuring the quality of teaching

and learning in their schools, they would have to be entrusted with the

authority to make important decisions about the school. They could, for

instance, be given a role in the recruitment and discipline (reward or

punishment) of teachers. It could be argued that unless head teachers have

a voice in teacher selection and some control over them, these same teachers

would not be motivated to try to meet their expectations. Another, more

positive aspect, would be that they have some autonomy in the use of

financial resources to support teachers’ development activities. With access

to funds to allow teachers to visit neighbouring schools, or to buy stationery

for materials, heads will be able to work towards the professional

development of their teachers and thus gain in stature.

It is obvious that important changes would be required to redefine

heads’ roles in Pakistani schools. A first one concerns the legal framework.

Permanent positions of heads, which entitle the incumbents to additional

facilities and remuneration, would have to be created in primary schools.

Placing them on a higher level in the bureaucratic hierarchy would be

necessary for the teachers to feel accountable to them. The minimum

requirements for their selection may include successful experience as

supervisory teachers, and satisfactory performance in a qualifying

examination specially designed to assess their capacity for their new roles.

To become fully qualified, it might be useful for the aspiring heads to serve

25


a period of apprenticeship with experienced heads.

As always, the greater challenge would be to make changes in the cultu-

ral norms that define heads’ roles. Teachers, especially those working in

primary schools, might resist attempts to make them accountable to the

head. For those who do not even explain their absence from school to the

head teacher, being accountable for the quality of their teaching to someone

based in their own school would be very difficult. Education officers, such

as DEOs, will need to be made aware of the need for the change towards

greater school autonomy. At present, they exercise a great deal of power

over teachers’ appointments and transfers and are unlikely to support a

move to transfer this power to heads of schools. Heads of schools

themselves, who have typically had very little institutional responsibility,

may not want to be held accountable for the performance of students and

teachers in their schools. These different resistances will need to be

overcome. This is not impossible if there is a strong political will to make

the model work.

26

CONCLUSION

The creation of multiple levels of supervisory structures with coherent

goals but somewhat different mechanisms and foci is a distinctive feature

of this model.

• External supervisors would carry out the following: assess the per-

formance of schools and make information about them available to

other stakeholders; provide professional support to heads of schools;

and form schools’ links with ‘the outside world’, both in the form of

introducing innovations conceptualized elsewhere, and communica-

ting schools’ needs to institutions that can respond to them.

• Supervisory teachers would test new ideas in their classrooms and

provide ongoing, ‘situationally contexted’ support to teachers in a

cluster of schools, based on their subject-matter expertise and their

familiarity with local conditions.

• Heads of schools would provide institutional leadership, by

demanding better performance from teachers in the school and

creating an enabling environment for them to do so.

This model would address several problems inherent in the current

supervisory system in Pakistan. It would do the groundwork for developing

a system of mutual accountability by creating information and making it

available to the public and to those who can influence the development of

schools. It would help all stakeholders to focus on the outcomes in the

shape of the performance of students, teachers and schools, rather than on

the number and description of professional activities. This model has the

potential to improve the entire school, rather than individual teachers. It

provides opportunities for teachers in one school to learn from each other,

from teachers in neighbouring schools, and also from external sources. A

teacher could learn about classroom management from a colleague in the

same school, subject-matter content from a supervisory teacher, and inno-

27


vations in the curriculum from the external supervisor. The frequency of

contact, modes of interaction and novelty of ideas in each of these arrange-

ments would vary, but collectively they could provide a rich learning

environment. The model would create a career ladder for teachers,

introduce rigour into their selection and training, and eventually develop

a larger pool of professional teachers and supervisors.

However, it is also important to foreshadow some of the factors that

may impede the realization of this model. Power conf licts among

individuals, groups and institutions would be the most difficult to deal with.

Senior officers in the education department who, along with politicians,

have controlled appointments and transfers of teachers might not want to

share this power with heads of schools. Adapting to a culture of

accountability would be another major challenge. Some teachers, heads,

supervisory teachers and external supervisors might resist attempts to make

the work of schools transparent to the public and to superior officers in

the education department. Competition among schools when they are

formally evaluated may lead to a narrow curriculum and exclusion of

academically weaker students. The higher expectations from everyone

involved may lead to a loss in confidence and low morale among some

teachers, which could make professional growth difficult. While all of these

are risks, recent initiatives in Pakistan and the experience of countries with

very similar problems provide reason for optimism.

In the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), one of the four provinces

of Pakistan, the performance of a representative sample of third and fifth

grade children from schools in all districts, has been tested in mathematics,

science and language since 1992. The results are communicated not only

to the schools, their supervisors and officers in the education department,

but also to local politicians. The information generated is also used to

prepare training materials and programmes, such as ‘How to teach fractions’

(Ahmad, 1996). The ‘Mentor Teacher Programme’ has recently been

initiated in another province, Balochistan. This programme places

experienced primary teachers, who have successfully completed an eight-

28

Conclusion

week training programme at the Institute of Educational Development, Aga

Khan University, in schools from where they serve as mentors to teachers

in their own and in neighbouring schools.

While the two examples above are from formally structured projects,

similar practices are being tried out spontaneously and informally by groups

of teachers. Farah (1996) found some such examples in his sample of

‘successful’ schools. For example, teachers in five Punjab schools were

getting together regularly to prepare their students for scholarship

examinations. Teachers from a girls’ school in NWFP were sending their

students’ examination papers to a neighbouring boys’ schools for

verification of criteria used for the marking. Another group of teachers

from a primary school in Sindh received regular support from a teacher in

a middle school when introducing the teaching of English to the school.

Changes in supervisory systems in South Asian countries with similar

histories, cultures and education systems support the suggestions made

above. Nepal has recently reorganized schools into clusters and set up

resource centres for their support services. Since 1992 heads of schools in

this country have been empowered to evaluate the performance of teachers,

make recommendations for their promotion and transfer, and to stop their

increments, if necessary. In Sri Lanka the position of Master Teacher has

been created to focus exclusively on academic supervision. In Bangladesh

the position of Assistant Thana Education Officer has been created to bring

supervision closer to schools. A careful study of initiatives such as these

would provide helpful guidelines for managing the problems associated

with the proposed supervisory model. In the final analysis, as Corbett et al.

(1987, p. 57) suggest, “Managing change, like politics, is the art of the pos-

sible.”

29

REFERENCES

AEPAM. 1994. Second workshop on the planning, management and

supervision of education for District Education Officers. Islamabad.

Ahmad, I. 1996. Northwest educational assessment programme: report on

testing in NWFP schools, 1995-96. Peshawar: Directorate of PrimaryEducation.

Ahmed, W.; Ali, M. 1989. Primary education management: NWFP and

Balochistan. Islamabad: USAID.

Ali, M. 1992. Training needs of teachers in government schools with

reference to Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development.Karachi: Aga Khan Foundation.

Ali, M.; Farah, I.; Ostberg, S.; Penny, A.; Smith R.L. 1998. Impact Assessment

of NORAD funded projects in Pakistan (document in draft form).

Ball, D. 1988. Research on teaching mathematics: making subject matter

part of the equation (Research Report No. 88-2). East Lansing, MichiganState University: National Center for Research on Teacher Education.

Ball, D.; McDiarmid, G.W. 1990. ‘The subject-matter preparation of teachers’.In: R. Houston, Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. New York:Macmillan.

Ball, D.; Wilson, S. 1996. ‘Integrity in teaching: recognizing the fusion ofthe moral and intellectual’. In: American Educational Research Journal,33 (1), pp. 155-192.

Borko, H.; Putnam, R. 1995. ‘Expanding a teacher’s knowledge base: acognitive psychological perspective on professional development’. In: T.Guskey and M. Huberman, Professional development in education: new

paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Britzman, D. 1986. ‘Cultural myths in the making of a teacher: biographyand social structures in teacher education’. In: Harvard Education Review,56 (4), pp. 442-456.

Buchmann, M. 1987. ‘Teaching knowledge: the lights that teachers live by’.In: Oxford Review of Education, 13, pp. 151-164.

Buchmann, M.; Schwille, J. 1993. ‘Education, experience and the paradoxof finitude’. In: M. Buchmann and R. Floden, Detachment and concern:

31


conversations in the philosophy of teaching and teacher education. NewYork: Teachers’ College Press.

Chapman, D.; Burchfield, S. 1994. ‘How headmasters perceive their role:a case study in Botswana’. In: International Review of Education, 40(6), pp. 401-409.

Cochran-Smith, M.; Lytle, S. 1993. Inside/outside: Teacher research and

knowledge. New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Corbett, H.D.; Firestone, W.; Rossman, G. 1987. ‘Resistance to plannedchange and the sacred in school cultures’. In: Educational Administration

Quarterly, 23 (4), pp. 36-59.

Darling-Hammond, L.; Berry, B. 1988. The evolution of teacher policy. SantaMonica: Rand Corporation.

Eraut, M. 1995. ‘Developing professional knowledge with a client-centeredorientation’. In: T. Guskey and M. Huberman, Professional development

in education: new paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers’ CollegePress.

Farah, I. 1996. Roads to success: self-sustaining primary school change in

rural Pakistan. Washington DC: World Bank.

Farah, I. 1997. Roads to success (RTS) Phase 2: stakeholder consultation on

how primary schools change in rural Pakistan. Unpublished report. WorldBank.

Feiman-Nemser; Parker, M. 1992. Los Angeles mentors: local guides or

educational companions (Research Report 92-10). East Lansing: NationalCenter for Research on Teacher Learning.

Fullan, M. 1991. The new meaning of educational change. New York:Teachers’ College Press.

Fullan, M. 1993. Change forces: probing the depths of educational reform.New York: Falmer.

Fullan, M. 1995. ‘The limits and potential of professional development’. In:T. Guskey and M. Huberman, Professional development in education: new

paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Glickman, C. 1990. Supervision of instruction: a developmental approach.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

32

References

Goodson, I. 1992. Studying teachers’ lives. London: Routledge.

Govinda, R.; Varghese, N. V. 1993. Quality of primary schooling in India: a

case study of Madhya Pradesh. Paris: IIEP.

Grossman, P. 1990. The making of a teacher: teacher knowledge and teacher

education. New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Hargreaves, A. 1992. ‘Cultures of teaching: a focus for change’. In: A.Hargreaves and Fullan, Understanding teacher development. New York:Cassell.

Hargreaves, A. 1995. ‘Development and desire: a postmodern perspective’.In: T. Guskey and M. Huberman, Professional development in education:

New paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Hargreaves, A.; Goodson, I. 1996. ‘Teachers’ professional lives: aspirationsand actualities’. In: I. Goodson and A. Hargreaves, Teachers’ professional

lives. London: Falmer.

Holt-Reynolds, D. 1991. The dialogues of teacher education: entering and

influencing pre-service teachers’ internal conversations (Research Report91-4). East Lansing: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.

Hopkins, D. 1989. A teacher’s guide to classroom research. Milton Keynes:Open University Press.

Hopkins, D; Ainscow, M.; West, M. 1997. ‘School improvements —propositions for action’. In: A. Harris, N. Bennett and M. Preedy,Organizational effectiveness and improvement in education. Buckingham:Open University Press.

Jackson, P. 1986. The practice of teaching. New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Joyce, B.; Showers, B. 1982. Student achievement through staff development.New York: Longman.

Joyce, B.; Showers, B. 1988. ‘The coaching of teaching’. In: Educational

Leadership, 40(1), pp. 4-10.

Lampert, M. 1985. ‘How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives onproblems in practice’. In: Harvard Education Review, 55, pp. 178-194.

Leithwood, K.; Begley, P.; Cousins, J. 1994. ‘The nature, causes andconsequences of principals’ practices: an agenda for future research’. In:Journal of Educational Administration, 28 (4), pp. 5-31.

33


Lieberman, A.; Miller, L. 1990. ‘Teacher development in professionalpractice’. In: Teachers’ College Record, 92(1), pp. 105-122.

Little, J. W. 1993. ‘Teachers’ professional development in a climate ofeducational reform’. In: Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(3),pp. 129-151.

Little, J. W. 1987. ‘Teachers as colleagues’. In: V. Richardson-Koehler,Educators’ handbook: a research perspective. New York: Longman.

Lortie, D. 1975. Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Memon, M.; Mithani, S. 1996. Evaluation of learning modules developed

under the second primary education project in Sindh (Phase II). Institutefor Educational Development, Aga Khan University.

Mitchell, D.; Scott, L.; Hendrick, I. 1996. California mentor teacher

programme evaluation. Riverside, CA: California Educational Research Co-operative.

Nelson, B.; Hammerman, J. 1996. ‘Reconceptualizing teaching: movingtoward the creation of intellectual communities of students, teachers andteacher educators’. In: M. McLaughlin and I. Oberman, Teacher learning:

new policies, new practices. New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Prouty, R.; Eisemon, T.; Schwille, J. 1993. ‘Teacher appraisal: the case for adevelopment approach’. In: Educational Research, 33 (2), pp. 85-92.

Rosenholtz, S. 1989. Teachers’ workplace: the social organization of schools.New York: Longman.

Sergiovanni, T. 1992. ‘Moral authority and the regeneration of supervision’.In: C. Glickman, Supervision in transition. ASCD Yearbook. Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Development (USA), Alexandria (Va.).

Sergiovanni, T.; Starratt, R. 1993. Supervision: a redefinition. New York:McGraw-Hill Inc.

Shulman, L. 1986. ‘Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching’.In: Educational Researcher, 15 (2), pp. 4-14.

Simkins, T.; Garrett, V.; Memon, M.; Nazir-Ali, R. The role of headteachers in

government and non-government secondary schools in Pakistan: demands,

constraints and choice (in press).

34

References

Smith, R.; Hough, J.; Thomson, G.; Underwood, M. 1988. Pakistan teacher

training survey. The British Council.

Smylie, M. 1995. ‘Teacher learning in the workplace: implications for schoolreform’. In: T. Guskey and M. Huberman, Professional development in

education: new paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers’ CollegePress.

Smyth, J. 1995. ‘Teachers’ work and the labor process of teaching: centralproblematics in professional development’. In: T. Guskey and M. Huberman,

Professional development in education: new paradigms and practices. NewYork: Teachers’ College Press.

Sparks, G. 1986. ‘The effectiveness of alternative training activities inchanging teaching practices’. In: American Educational Research Journal,23(2), pp. 217-225.

Stromquist, N. 1996. Levelling the playing fields: giving girls an equal

chance for basic education — three countries’ efforts. Washington: TheWorld Bank.

Waite, D. 1995. Rethinking instructional supervision: notes on its language

and culture. London: Falmer Press.

Warwick, D.; Reimer, F. 1995. Hope or despair? Westport, CT: Praeger.

Wasley, P. 1991. ‘Stirring the chalk dust: changing practices in essentialschools’. In: Teachers’ College Record, 93, pp. 28-58.

World Bank. 1994. Mission appraisal (draft report). lslamabad.

World Bank. 1988. Mission appraisal report. Islamabad.

Zeichner, K.; Gore, J. 1990. ‘Teacher socialization’. In: R. Houston,Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. New York: Macmillan.

35

IIEP publications and documents

More than 1,200 titles on all aspects of educational planning have been

published by the International Institute for Educational Planning. A

comprehensive catalogue, giving details of their availability, includes

research reports, case studies, seminar documents, training materials,

occasional papers and reference books in the following subject categories:

Economics of education, costs and financing.

Manpower and employment.

Demographic studies.

Location of schools (school map) and micro-planning.

Administration and management.

Curriculum development and evaluation.

Educational technology.

Primary, secondary and higher education.

Vocational and technical education.

Non-formal, out-of-school, adult and rural education.

Disadvantaged groups.

Copies of the catalogue may be obtained

from IIEP Publications on request.

The International Institute for Educational Planning

The International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) is an internationalcentre for advanced training and research in the field of educational planning. It wasestablished by UNESCO in 1963 and is financed by UNESCO and by voluntarycontributions from Member States. In recent years the following Member States haveprovided voluntary contributions to the Institute: Denmark, Germany, Iceland, India,Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Venezuela.

The Institute’s aim is to contribute to the development of education throughoutthe world, by expanding both knowledge and the supply of competent professionalsin the field of educational planning. In this endeavour the Institute co-operates withinterested training and research organizations in Member States. The Governing Boardof the IIEP, which approves the Institute’s programme and budget, consists of amaximum of eight elected members and four members designated by the UnitedNations Organization and certain of its specialized agencies and institutes.

Chairman:Lennart Wohlgemuth (Sweden)

Director, The Nordic Africa Institute, Uppsala, Sweden.

Designated Members:David de Ferranti

Director, Human Development Department (HDD), The World Bank,Washington, USA.

Carlos FortinDeputy to the Secretary-General, United Nations Conference on Trade andDevelopment (UNCTAD), Geneva, Switzerland.

Miriam J. HirschfeldDirector, Division of Human Resources Development and CapacityBuilding, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland.

Jeggan SenghorDirector, African Institute for Economic Development and Planning (IDEP),Dakar, Senegal.

Elected Members:Dato’Asiah bt. Abu Samah (Malaysia)

Corporate Adviser, Lang Education, Land and General Berhad,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Klaus Hüfner (Germany)Professor, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Faïza Kefi (Tunisia)President, National Union of Tunisian Women, Tunis, Tunisia.

Tamas Kozma (Hungary)Director-General, Hungarian Institute for Educational Research, Budapest,

Hungary.Teboho Moja (South Africa)

Special Adviser to the Minister of Education, Pretoria, South Africa.Yolanda M. Rojas (Costa Rica)

Professor, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica.Michel Vernières (France)

Professor, University of Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France.

Inquiries about the Institute should be addressed to:The Office of the Director, International Institute for Educational Planning,

7-9 rue Eugène-Delacroix, 75116 Paris, France.

supervision for teacher development: a proposal for...

Documents