A New Practice in Adult Education

Posted on by

 Systemic flexibility and freedom in Adult Education come at a cost: Extended operating hours mean that teachers work asynchronously, multiple intakes create an inconsistent student body, adapted instruction impedes accountability, lack of support for professional development and working spaces denies planned efforts for school improvement, and balanced communication is a constant concern.

MA ELM 580, January 2013

 Questions for Supervision: A New Practice in Adult Education 

Adult Education (AE) at the Vancouver School Board offers BC Ministry of Education accredited courses leading to high school graduation in a flexible system distinguished for delivering relevant content that accommodates real need by teaching to the student first and the curriculum second. Schools are open from morning until night and some open on Saturdays. Classes begin five times a year, and self-paced intake is continual. Minimal instructional oversight encourages teachers to think and act independently.  Systemic flexibility and freedom come at a cost, however. Extended operating hours mean that teachers work asynchronously, multiple intake points create an inconsistent student body, adapted instruction impedes accountability, lack of support for professional development and working spaces denies planned efforts for school improvement, and balanced communication is a constant concern.

In May 2012, changes to the Education Guarantee (British Columbia) significantly decreased AE funding and increased accountability measures. In June 2013, layoffs were issued in AE for the first time, leaving no teacher with less than seven years seniority. It is time for AE to take stock of its strengths and develop a plan for improved outcomes. The challenge will be to encourage the current culture, with its long-standing de facto emphasis on autonomy, to collaborate for school improvement. This paper will consider these challenges and propose a supervision initiative that will admit these attributes and lead to improved student outcomes through improved instruction.

Challenges

Few supports for teachers. AE at the VSB has many attributes of schools that Frase describes as alarming: “overcrowded classrooms, inadequate materials, noncompetitive salaries, poor working conditions, and a sense of distrust (2005, p.5).” Nevertheless, attrition is not an ongoing issue in AE because teachers have considerable professional latitude and the absence of high stakes testing sidesteps associated problems (Economic Policy Institute, 2010). Organized efforts for school improvement must entice by connecting to the rewarding aspects of AE because “the attitude of the teacher will be determined by the kind of supervision that is attempted (Newlon, 1923 in Frase, 2005, p.7)”. A prescriptive top-down implementation will likely be unsuccessful (Frase 2005, p.7), particularly because the rewards in AE are linked to the perceived relationship between relevant learning and professional autonomy.

Trust. There is no formalized system of instructional improvement in AE despite the fact that “a consensus has emerged among policymakers, researchers, and educational practitioners that the single most important factor contributing to student learning is the quality of teaching (Pajak & Arrington, 2004, p. 228).”  AE teachers, principals, and administrators must work together to learn about, develop, and support a meaningful and sustainable system for improved teaching practices. Principals are in a position to lead such improvement, but with no history of formal supervision, teachers will need to trust that the goal of supervision is to improve instruction, not to evaluate it. “Adults need to feel a sense of belonging and safety. Without a quality learning relationship between teachers and supervisors, professional and/or personal growth is not likely to be forthcoming. Open discussion is critical in developing a learning environment (Zepeda, p.97)”.

Full participation. Shared participation in development by all stakeholders will also work to diminish mistrust in the motives of administration, which teachers may interpret as veiled evaluation. Administrators should go one step further than sharing leadership and take part in being supervised themselves, thereby indicating the best purpose of supervision: reflective practice that leads to improved student outcomes. Such participation will be a novel and motivational example of best practice.

Funding. Limited funding will be a constant consideration in initiating a program of supervision. Teachers will need to be supported in their learning about the benefits of supervision. AE limits professional development to two organized days and one optional self-directed day per year. Teachers will need to be approached with sound argument to dedicate these days to a supervision initiative. Principals and administration will need to be prepared for a long list of reasonable rebuttal from the teachers. An open, well-informed, and transparent approach by principals and administration to the teachers’ union is required. Enticement of additional funding by the Board would also be prudent given that AE has little experience with organized supervision, is challenged by effective communication, creates working conditions that build resistance to volunteerism, and teachers may or may not trust the skills or motivations of administration. The cost of additional funding could be offset by partnerships such as the one the Board has with the BCTF Teacher Inquiry program.

Communication. If a district-wide initiative is to be implemented, communication within and between schools needs to be addressed. A technology-mediated environment is an obvious solution for ongoing issues of asynchronous communication. At this time, many teachers do not feel comfortable using the internet, so paper-based communication will also be required if the Board will not support teacher learning in this area. A clear plan for face-to-face communication would also help increase accuracy, consistency, and impact of other forms of communication.

Possibilities

It is clear that working conditions in AE make leading the implementation of supervision a challenging prospect. Recent layoffs of nearly 25% of teachers (Hyslop, May 24, 2013) and increased accountability measures that directly affect funding can work to create teacher readiness to embrace change for improvement. AE teachers are veteran practitioners in spite of their working conditions, so improvement measures must focus on the source of their job satisfaction: student achievement. Supervision is an obvious approach to this improvement, but “the practical matter of guaranteeing high-quality instruction for every student in every classroom poses a serious challenge with no simple solution in sight (Pajak & Arrington, 2004, p.228)”. This is because teaching is a complex process (Danielson, 2012). It is also why I recommend supervision through self-directed inquiry and facilitates open reflection.

An initiative such as Alberta’s teacher professional growth plans (TPGP), which guides personalized goal setting, monitoring, and reflection seems a good fit and remedy for heavy handed autonomy because it offers the benefits of “greater authenticity and teacher commitment to their own professional development; increased teacher focus, accountability, and collegiality; and teachers’ self-affirmation (Fenwick, 2004, p. 259). It is not ideal, however, because it is an annual goal and teacher reflections are accounted to a supervisor. AE teaching assignments and students change as often as every nine weeks, so goals need to be short term if they are to be relevant and feasible. Quarterly in-depth discussions is not a reasonable expectation. If the initiative is to be successful, the process must be rewarding yet not burdensome and be oriented to learning, not accountability.

I propose a four-part strategy for supervision, with each part occurring over a quarter and including both teachers and principals. Although principals are not intended to be the main drivers of this supervision initiative, they are in a position to guide it and to continually encourage open informal debate and reflection. Principals should take care to avoid judgment or evaluative comment and be willing to share their reflections about their own question. Morale among AE teachers (and principals) could be boosted if executive administration also took part in this process.

First quarter. Learn about supervision

  • A short reading list with optional supplemental readings (developed by university faculty and vetted by teacher, principal, and administration representatives) is posted online and available on paper if necessary.
  • Discussions about readings organized according to each centre’s preference of time(s) and media (discussions open to all participants)
  • A professional development day could be used to support this learning

Second quarter. Develop a question

  • Can be done alone, in pairs, or small groups
  • This question should be intended as possible to address within 9 weeks.
  • The question should relate to improved instruction.
  • Second professional development day could be used.

Third quarter. Seek the answer to the question

  • Work can be done alone or with a colleague(s)
  • Answers are not necessarily successful

Fourth quarter. Reflect on the question and share

  • Reflections shared with colleagues orally or in writing.
  • Third professional development day could be used.

These four steps are embedded in the following timeline, which indicates required supportive action and indicators of success.

 

Date Supportive Action Indicator of Success
August Principals develop proposal to use professional development to learn about how supervision and reflective practice can improve teaching and learning outcomes. 

Preparations begin on communication plan.

 Union accepts proposal in early September meeting and is willing to participate in the process
September 15 Strike joint committee All parties feel confident of equal representation
September 30 Communication plan finalized in consultation with teachers Plan includes ongoing online, paper, face-to-face balanced and reciprocal communication that leads to learning about supervision and reflective practice
September 15 Share reading list Participants engage in informal, open communication
September & October Discuss readings 

PD day

 Open, reciprocal communication emphasized 

Participants make relevant observations, ask searching questions.

 

Mood is lively.
November – January Develop a question 

PD day

 Participants engage in informal communication and connect their question to readings.
February -April Seek answers Participants practice sound professional reflection when seeking this answer.
April – June  Share reflections on both the answer and the process 

PD day

 Participants feel acknowledged and more proficient. 

“Failure” and “success” are celebrated equally because focus is learning through reflection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 British Columbia. Retrieved December 28, 2013 from: https://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/graduation/adult_courses.htm

British Columbia Teachers Federation (n.d.). BCTF Teacher Inquiry Program. Retrieved Dec.29, 2013, from http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/ProD/TeacherInquiry.pdf

Danielson, Charlotte  (2012).  Making Teacher Evaluations Meaningful. Retrieved December 29,  2013 from http://youtu.be/KzDcYuSsU2E

Economic Policy Institute. (2010, August 29). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers (Issue Brief no. 278). Washington, DC.

Fenwick, Tara J. Journal of Curriculum & Supervision. Teacher learning and professional growth plans: implementation of a provincial policy. Retrieved December 29, 2013, from: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=74bb421a-6f3c-428b-ba7f-a4718773ae21%40sessionmgr4005&vid=2&hid=4214

Hyslop, Katie. The Tyee. Retrieved December 29 from http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2013/05/24/VSB-issues-first-lays-off-notices-ever-for-adult-ed-teachers/

Frase, L. (2005). Refocusing the purposes of teacher supervision. In F.W. English (Ed.), The Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research and practice (pp. 430-462).

Pajak, E., & Arrington, A. (2004). Empowering a profession: Rethinking the roles of administrative evaluation and instructional superision in improving teacher quality. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 103(1), 228-252. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.royalroads.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2004.tb00035.x

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.