These changes to teaching AE are significant for teachers in the classroom, but the most significant change factor for VSB adult education is the operational reorganization that has resulted from the Comptroller General’s 2010 Review of the Vancouver School Board.
MA ELM 580, December 2013
Since its inception, the Adult Education (AE) program at the Vancouver School Board (VSB) has grown largely unimpeded by bureaucratic oversight. This has changed in recent years. Ministry funding reductions and fair pay for teachers have meant that AE, once a source of subsidy for the K-12 system, has become an expense to the school board. AE gained further attention when teaching qualifications became mandatory throughout BC and the Ministry of Education developed a curriculum for adult upgrading. These changes to teaching AE are significant for teachers in the classroom, but the most significant change factor for VSB adult education is the operational reorganization that has resulted from the Comptroller General’s 2010 Review of the Vancouver School Board.
AE has now been brought into the fold of the VSB’s Human Resources department. This change may curtail autonomy, but it increases administrative support of AE. Revised relationships with the VSB mean that AE concerns are now a contributing factor to decisions made within the board’s management systems. While the average AE teacher is yet to feel significant benefit from this change, I believe increased integration of AE in the VSB will result in a higher professional standard as adult educators are required to account for their practices to the world outside their own context. Such discussions can only be made possible by increased awareness and understanding of instructional practices within AE. The time is ripe for AE to increase its engagement with instructional improvement measures.
The occasion, process, and criteria of evaluation in AE is determined by the collective agreement. The agreement includes a fair division of power between teachers and administration as well as a clear format that facilitates feedback intended to improve student outcomes. Despite these benefits, evaluation is employed inconsistently. The comprehensive format of evaluation is criticized because it can limit contextual response and create unintended results that work against accurate and meaningful communication (Marshall, 2005, p.728- 731). Further challenging evaluation is its ties to discipline and dismissal. Dire consequence to unsatisfactory reports limits productive response to feedback and “destroys an golden opportunity for professional growth” (p. 730). High stakes can also foil cooperation between union and administration. Resulting grievances and protracted conflict affect morale and take time away from other school improvement needs. These challenges may explain the inconsistent use of and trust in formal evaluation.
If indeed the objective of evaluation is to improve instruction, the process often falls short of its goal. Evaluation provides a clear account of teaching practice, but it does not guarantee opportunity for the teacher to be an active participant. Because of this, standard evaluation practice inadequately supports instructional improvement (Danielson, 2012). “People learn best through active involvement and becoming articulate about what they have learned” (Lieberman in Sullivan & Glanz, 2013, p.38). Evaluation falters where supervision remains steady because ongoing collaboration, reflection, and personalized content that support learning are more achievable in a supervisory approach to improved teaching and learning. Because ongoing instructional supervision is not yet part of the AE culture, principals stand in an enviable position of developing effective supervisory practices without the challenge of overcoming change to established processes. They will, however, need to subdue the current culturally engrained teacher attachment to professional autonomy. This can only be achieved by creating supervisory processes that are relevant, productive, and rewarding to everyone involved. Further challenging the implementation of supervision is limited support for professional development. Implementation of any model of supervision will increase demand on resources of time and money. The new relationship with the VSB will prove beneficial as professional development opportunities for administration are increasingly tailored to the AE context. Increased awareness of AE has also been made apparent by the BCTF, who this year made its Teacher Inquiry program available to adult educators.
Marshall’s proposed 12 step model of supervision (2005, p.732-735) would go a long way to creating a productive learning environment. As such, it would make sense for principals to adopt this model, but the teachers cannot reasonably be expected to adopt practices they have not developed. In the word of John Dewey, “There is no point in the philosophy of progressive education which is sounder than its emphasis upon the importance of the learner in the formation of purposes which direct his activities in the learning process” (Zepeda, 2000, p.95).
Because AE has no established culture of instructional supervision, foundational work must occur before such practice is adopted. Education about the value of reflection and analysis of instruction is required for meaningful discussion leading to establishing supervision processes will occur. Honebein’s attributes of constructivist learning (Zepeda, 2000, p.96-97), would be doubly effective as they engage teachers as adult learners and model relevant instructional practices. Teachers and administrators need ongoing access to relevant, active, and diverse learning opportunities that motivate increased understanding of how supervision can improve student outcomes. A reasonable approach would be for principals to share readings about supervision and facilitate open communication about the readings and how they relate to the AE context. Job-embedded learning and trust will be strengthened if teachers are encouraged to suggest readings and take part in designing feedback strategies. As teachers and principals become versed in supervision, communication should become more formal and balanced as committees are struck to develop learning related to supervisory practices relevant to AE.
References
British Columbia Teachers Federation (n.d.). BCTF Teacher Inquiry Program. Retrieved Dec. 6, 2013, from http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/ProD/TeacherInquiry.pdf
Danielson, Charlotte (2012). Making Teacher Evaluations Meaningful. Retrieved December 6, 2013 from http://youtu.be/KzDcYuSsU2E
Marshall, K. (2005). It’s time to rethink teacher supervision and evaluation. Phi Delta Kappa, 86(10), 727-735.
Office of the Comptroller General Ministry of Finance. (2010). Report on The Vancouver School Board (School District 39). Retrieved Dec.6, 2013, from: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/pubs/2010-
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2013). Supervision that improves teaching and learning: Strategies and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Zepeda, S.J. (2000). Supervisory practices: Building a constructivist learning community for adults. In J. Glanz, & L. Behar-Horensein (Eds.), Paradigm debates in curriculum & supervision: Modern & postmodern perspectives (pp.93-107).Westport,CT: Greenwood Press.