A Summing Up. Robert Eaker

The supervisor reviews the data with the teacher regarding what took place during the lesson. The teacher might ask questions, or the supervisor might ask for the teacher’s view of what the data indicate. The important point is that the supervisor and teacher agree that the data portray an accurate representation of what occurred during the lesson.

      2. Identify patterns of behavior from the recorded data: Patterns are defined as recurring behavior. A pattern may be verbal or physical. A pattern may be a teacher pattern or a student pattern. Often a pattern is a combination of behaviors. The point is, in this part of the post-observation conference, the supervisor is leading the teacher in the identification of actions that recurred during the lesson.

      Ideally, the teacher will identify the most obvious patterns first. However, the supervisor may also point out a pattern that the teacher has failed to identify. This is a joint dialogue in which two professionals are doing their best to identify recurring patterns of behavior during the lesson.

      3. Restate the content and process objectives for the lesson from the pre-observation conference: At this point, the supervisor quickly restates the objectives the teacher had for the lesson. The supervisor is setting the stage for a discussion of each pattern that occurred in relation to the teacher’s objectives, rather than to any preconceived notion the supervisor has about good teaching.

      4. Compare the patterns that have been identified with the stated objectives: Together, the supervisor and the teacher assess the effects of each identified pattern on the teacher’s objectives for the lesson. The patterns either supported the attainment of or were detrimental to the lesson objectives. In many cases, it will be determined that some had no effect. It is important to emphasize that this discussion is a joint discussion. Ideally, the teacher will readily state his or her view regarding pattern effectiveness, but often the supervisor needs to take a more active role, pointing out effects that perhaps the teacher has not seen. Likely, there will be a good deal of anxiety during the first observations, but after being participants in the clinical process a few times, teachers become much more comfortable and trusting, active partners—providing, of course, the supervisor performs the role well.

      5. Use the analysis for future teaching: Once the supervisor and the teacher have agreed on patterns that supported the attainment of the teacher’s objectives, the continued use of those patterns should be recommended and supported. There should also be agreement regarding detrimental patterns that need to be changed or modified.

      For example, the supervisor might ask, “If you taught this or a similar lesson again, what would you do differently?” Such questions hopefully will cause the teacher to reflect not only on teaching behavior but also on how it might be improved. And, of course, the supervisor might offer suggestions on how to improve patterns.

      At its core, the post-observation conference creates a mirror in which the teacher, along with the supervisor, reflects on the effectiveness of each pattern of teacher behavior in light of the stated objectives for the lesson and serves the purpose of enhancing purposeful reflection regarding teaching effectiveness, not only with individual teachers, but over time also with the entire teaching staff.

       Phase 4: Evaluation of Teaching

      In the early 1970s, we discouraged linking teacher evaluation and the clinical supervision process. Occasionally, a district administrator would ask, “Why not use the notes from the clinical classroom observation as a major aspect of the evaluation of teachers?” Our response was that we believed it was very difficult to develop and maintain a high level of trust between the supervisor and teachers if evaluation became part of the process.

      The latter part of the 1970s witnessed an increased focus on accountability and evaluation across the United States. Increasingly, districts were including classroom observations as part of their teacher evaluation programs. Districts consulting with Jerry Bellon and his associates (including me) asked how they could connect what they were doing within the clinical supervision process with their emerging teacher evaluation programs. So we began to assist them and offered the following suggestions:

      a. The observational data should only be used in the part of the evaluation process that deals with classroom instruction.

      b. The evaluation program should be based on the assumption that the major purpose of evaluation is to gather information for decision making that will improve the instructional program.

      c. All aspects of the evaluation program should be philosophically and procedurally in harmony with the clinical supervision approach.

      d. Agreement should be reached about which important behaviors will be evaluated.

      e. Evaluation forms should be congruent with gathering objective data that can be used for decision making. Rating sheets that are heavily laden with value statements that require subjective judgments should be avoided.

      f. And, given the fact that each school district is different, each district should engage in an inclusive process to develop its own unique evaluation program. (Bellon, Eaker, Huffman, & Jones, 1976, pp. 24–25)

      I find it amazing that the clinical supervision process that I experienced in the late 1960s is so prominent in the 21st century. While not referred to as clinical supervision, classroom observation has become a feature of virtually every state evaluation system. Palimpsest indeed!

A Summing Up

      Clearly, the decade of the 1970s was a seminal period in my life. In retrospect, this was the time that I seriously and purposefully began to delve into issues related to both instructional improvement and, toward the end of the decade, school improvement.

      The consulting work with Jerry Bellon gave me the confidence to work in schools and school districts of all shapes and sizes. I increased my understanding not only of instructional improvement but also of the importance of appreciating each school and school district’s unique history and culture. I also acquired valuable experience handling the political issues that often accompany any attempts at change.

      I was fortunate to work in all types of schools. Most were upper-middle-class suburban schools, but because I worked in so many different schools in a wide variety of districts, I was able to gain insights into rural schools, inner-city schools, wealthy schools, and poor schools, as well as schools of all sizes.

      This period was also important in that I made new and enduring friendships, both personal and professional. My relationship with Jerry evolved from being his graduate assistant to being close friends with both him and his family. Also during this period, my friendship with Rick DuFour grew and deepened. We realized we viewed the world through the same lens, including things beyond educational issues. We found humor in many of the same things. Not all who knew Rick had the opportunity to witness his sharp sense of humor. Boy, did they miss out! He was one of the wittiest people I ever met. Simply put, for four decades, we had great fun together.

      Working in schools also gave me the opportunity to make new friends, especially in the districts of suburban Chicago and Long Island, such as Hinsdale, Illinois, and West Islip, New York. I often traveled with Jim Huffman, who also was a graduate assistant of Jerry’s and after receiving his doctorate joined me on the faculty at Middle Tennessee State University. In the evenings, we would have dinner with friends, such as Roger Miller from Hinsdale and, of course, Rick.

      My experiences in these schools sharpened my belief in the critically important role leadership plays in regard to district, school, team, and classroom effectiveness, particularly the quality of superintendent and principal leadership. I realized quickly that the defining difference between success or lack thereof was leadership. Programs, regardless of how well they may be conceived or supported by research, will have limited impact in districts and schools in the absence of strong leadership. It is ironic that teacher empowerment, ownership, and improvement depend on strong top-down leadership.

      I also gained a greater appreciation of the role that attitudes play in instructional improvement. In many ways, attitudes are the lubrication that makes things work—or not. In Kid by Kid, Skill by Skill (Eaker & Keating,