Principals\u27 and teachers\u27 perceptions of teacher supervision

The purpose of this study was twofold: to determine the extent to which professional and bureaucratic approaches are used in schools around the country and to describe to what extent the elements of instructional supervision, professional development, and evaluation are used to supervise teachers. Survey research was used to ascertain the use of these methods. Data collected indicated that professionalism, instructional supervision, and professional development techniques were the dominant approaches to supervision as indicated by administrators and teachers. When disaggregated by elementary and secondary schools and the degree held by the principal, groups were similar in overall use of professionalism, instructional supervision, and professional development, but secondary schools and principals with master\u27s degrees used more bureaucratic and evaluation techniques. Examination of individual questions shows that different approaches are favored in professionalism, instructional supervision, and professional development, according to the demographic. A lack of collaboration, inside and outside the school, was reported. Clinical supervision was used, but, on average, it was only used one to two times yearly, and different aspects of the process were implemented more frequently than others. Most respondents reported differentiation in supervision methods, usually based on tenure and need, and a prescribed evaluation tool was used. More research needs to be done to conclude if professionalism is the dominant approach, or if bureaucracy is making headway because of No Child Left Behind. There are differing perceptions and uses of the techniques based on administrator and teacher, level of the school, and degree held by the principal