Clinical supervision implementation strategies and behavioral changes: An ethnography of elementary school personnel

This study investigated the training, implementation, monitoring, and changes attributed to clinical supervision by elementary teachers/site administrators, central office administrators, staff developers, and teacher union presidents in a large urban K-12 school district in Southern California. Implications for implementing any innovation were also presented.

Quantitative data was collected through the use of a Likert scale survey distributed to 159 elementary administrators and 195 elementary teachers from 11 schools. Qualitative data was collected using ethnographic techniques in 30 semi-structured interviews.

The first study question examined the training process for clinical supervision, peer coaching and clinical teaching. Inequities in training among teachers and administrators were identified. Tension occurred between the district and the teacher's union due to lack of union involvement in the selection/implementation process.

The second question addressed implementation and monitoring of clinical supervision. The findings indicated that the model was implemented at a compliance level without consistent requirements and monitoring. Additionally, 37.8% of the study teachers had never been formally observed. Administrators said they observed and visited classes more frequently than was acknowledged by teachers.

Question three explored the relationship between administrators and teachers when clinical supervision is utilized. Three significant factors were identified. These were: Mentoring; Improved Teaching; and Coaching. Mentoring and Coaching were more significant for administrators while Improved Teaching was more significant for teachers. When controlling for ethnicity, as White student enrollment increased more positive attitudes toward mentoring were found. Trust was identified as a necessary condition for effective clinical supervision by teachers and administrators.

Question four revealed that school management responsibilities hinder clinical supervision implementation while understanding of the instructional process, commitment, and value of the innovation promoted implementation.

The last question asked respondents to identify changes attributable to clinical supervision. These were: personal growth; increased administrative awareness of the instructional program; opportunity to provide teachers with positive feedback; and comprehensive facilitation of coaching. Clinical supervision, as implemented, did not improve instruction.

The study suggests that complex innovations should not be reduced to simplistic check lists to better understand their complexities, flexibility of application, and develop expanded repertoires of instructional strategies.