Course: School Administration and Supervision (8616)

Level: B.Ed (1.5 Years) Semester: Autumn, 2022

ASSIGNMENT No. 2
Q.1 What do you know about the function of supervision discuss in
detail?
Supervisor, being the manager in a direct contact with the operatives, has got
multifarious function to perform. The objective behind performance of these
functions is to bring stability and soundness in the organization which can be
secured through increase in profits which is an end result of higher productivity.
Therefore, a supervisor should be concerned with performing the following
functions –

1. Planning and Organizing

Supervisor’s basic role is to plan the daily work schedule of the workers by
guiding them the nature of their work and also dividing the work amongst the
workers according to their interests, aptitudes, skills and interests.

2. Provision of working conditions

A supervisor plays an important role in the physical setting of the factory and in
arranging the physical resources at right place. This involves providing proper
sitting place, ventilation, lighting, water facilities etc. to workers. His main
responsibility is here to provide healthy and hygienic condition to the workers.

3. Leadership and Guidance

A supervisor is the leader of workers under him. He leads the workers and
influences them to work their best. He also guides the workers by fixing
production targets and by providing them instruction and guidelines to achieve
those targets.
4. Motivation
A supervisor plays an important role by providing different incentives to
workers to perform better. There are different monetary and non-monetary
incentives which can inspire the workers to work better.

5. Controlling
Controlling is an important function performed by supervisor. This will involve
i. Recording the actual performance against the time schedule.
ii. Checking of progress of work.
iii. Finding out deviations if any and making solutions
iv. If not independently solved, reporting it to top management.

6. Linking Pin
A supervisor proves to be a linking pin between management and workers. He
communicates the policies of management to workers also passes instructions to
them on behalf of management. On the other hand, he has a close contact with
the workers and therefore can interact the problems, complaints, suggestions,
etc to the management. In this way, he communicates workers problems and
brings it to the notice of management.

7. Grievance Handling
The supervisor can handle the grievances of the workers effectively for this he
has to do the following things:-

. He can be in direct touch with workers.

i. By winning the confidence of the workers by solving their problems.
ii. by taking worker problems on humanitarian grounds.
iii. If he cannot tackle it independently, he can take the help and advice of
management to solve it.
8. Reporting
A supervisor has got an important role to report about the cost, quality and any
such output which can be responsible for increasing productivity. Factors like
cost, output, performance, quality, etc can be reported continually to the
management.

9. Introducing new work methods

The supervisor here has to be conscious about the environment of market and
competition present. Therefore he can innovate the techniques of production. He
can shift the workers into fresh schedules whenever possible. He can also try
this best to keep on changing and improving to the physical environment around
the workers. This will result in
. Higher productivity,
i. High Morale of Workers,
ii. Satisfying working condition,
iii. Improving human relations,
iv. Higher Profits, and
v. High Stability

10. Enforcing Discipline

A supervisor can undertake many steps to maintain discipline in the concern by
regulating checks and measures, strictness in orders and instructions, keeping an
account of general discipline of factory, implementing penalties and
punishments for the indiscipline workers. All these above steps help in
improving the overall discipline of the factory.
Q.2 what are dual focus, joint effort and growth orientation and
how they interlink synergistic supervision?
Camille and Pierre met in their early forties after each one’s marriage had
ended. Both were deeply committed to their careers and to their new
relationship. Camille, an accountant, had felt pressured by her ex-husband to
slow her progress toward partnership at her firm. Pierre, a production manager
at an automotive company, was embroiled in a bitter divorce from his wife, who
had given up her career to accommodate the geographic moves that his
required. (As with the other couples I’ve profiled in this article, these aren’t
their real names.) Bruised by their past experiences, they agreed to place their
careers on an equal footing. Initially things went smoothly, but two years in,
Camille began to feel trapped on a professional path that she realized she had
chosen because “that was what the smart kids did.”

Mindful of their pact, Pierre calmly listened to her doubts and encouraged her to
explore alternatives. But as the months wore on, he began to feel weighed down
as he juggled providing emotional support to Camille, navigating their complex
family logistics (both had children from their former marriages), and succeeding
in his demanding job. When he began to question his own career direction, he
wondered how the two of them could manage to change course.

They couldn’t afford to take time out from work, nor could they take much time
to reflect and keep their family and relationship afloat. Frustrated and
exhausted, both wondered how they could continue to find meaning and
fulfillment in their lives.

Dual-earner couples are on the rise. According to Pew Research, in 63% of

couples with children in the United States, for example, both partners work (this
figure is slightly higher in the EU). Many of these are dual-career couples:
Both partners are highly educated, work full-time in demanding professional or
managerial jobs, and see themselves on an upward path in their roles. For these
couples, as for Pierre and Camille, work is a primary source of identity and a
primary channel for ambition. Evidence is mounting from sociological research
that when both partners dedicate themselves to work and to home life, they
reap benefits such as increased economic freedom, a more satisfying
relationship, and a lower-than-average chance of divorce.

Because their working lives and personal lives are deeply intertwined, however,
dual-career couples face unique challenges. How do they decide whose job to
relocate for, when it’s OK for one partner to make a risky career change, or
who will leave work early to pick up a sick child from school? How can they
give family commitments—and each other—their full attention while both of
them are working in demanding roles? And when one of them wants to
undertake a professional reinvention, what does that mean for the other? They
must work out these questions together, in a way that lets both thrive in love and
work. If they don’t, regrets and imbalances quickly build up, threatening to
hinder their careers, dissolve their relationship, or both.

Many of these challenges are well recognized, and I’ve previously written in
HBR about how companies can adapt their talent strategies to account for some
of them (“Talent Management and the Dual-Career Couple”). But for the
couples themselves, little guidance is available. Most advice treats major career
decisions as if one is flying solo, without a partner, children, or aging parents to
consider. When it’s for couples, it focuses on their relationship, not how that
intersects with their professional dreams, or it addresses how to balance
particular trade-offs, such as careers versus family, or how to prioritize partners’
work travel. What couples need is a more comprehensive approach for
managing the moments when commitments and aspirations clash.

My personal experience in a dual-career couple, and my realization that little

systematic academic research had been done in this area, prompted a six-year
investigation into the lives of more than 100 dual-career couples, resulting in
my forthcoming book, Couples That Work. The people I studied come from
around the world, range in age from mid-twenties to mid-sixties, and represent a
range of professions, from corporate executive to entrepreneur to worker in the
nonprofit sector. (See the sidebar “About the Research.”) My research revealed
that dual-career couples overcome their challenges by directly addressing
deeper psychological and social forces—such as struggles for power and
control; personal hopes, fears, and losses; and assumptions and cultural
expectations about the roles partners should play in each other’s lives and what
it means to have a good relationship or career.

I also discovered that three transition points typically occur during dual-career
couples’ working and love lives, when those forces are particularly strong. It is
during these transitions, I found, that some couples craft a way to thrive in love
and work, while others are plagued by conflict and regret. By understanding
each transition and knowing what questions to ask each other and what traps to
avoid, dual-career couples can emerge stronger, fulfilled in their relationships
and in their careers.

Transition 1: Working as a Couple

When Jamal and Emily met, in their late twenties, trade-offs were the last thing
on their minds. They were full of energy, optimistic, and determined to live life
to the fullest. Jamal, a project manager in a civil engineering firm, traveled
extensively for work and was given increasingly complex projects to lead, while
Emily, who worked at a clothing company, had just been promoted to her first
management role. They saw each other mostly on weekends, which they often
spent on wilderness hiking adventures. They married 18 months after their first
date.

Then, in the space of three months, their world changed dramatically. While
Emily was pregnant with their first child, Jamal’s boss asked him to run a
critical infrastructure project in Mexico. Jamal agreed to spend three weeks out
of every month in Mexico City; designating some of his pay raise to extra child
care would allow Emily to keep working in Houston, where they lived. But
when their daughter, Aisha, was born two weeks early, Jamal was stuck in the
Mexico City airport waiting for a flight home. Soon Emily, who was single-
handedly managing Aisha, her job, and their home, discovered that the
additional child care wasn’t enough; she felt overburdened and unappreciated.
Jamal was exhausted by the relentless travel and the stress of the giant new
project; he felt isolated, incompetent, and guilty.

Dual-career couples move from independent to interdependent careers and

lives
After many arguments, they settled on what they hoped was a practical solution:
Because Jamal earned more, Emily took a smaller project role that she could
manage remotely, and she and Aisha joined him in Mexico. But Emily felt
disconnected from her company’s head office and was passed over for a
promotion, and eventually she grew resentful of the arrangement. By the time
Jamal’s boss began talking about his next assignment, their fighting had become
intense.

The first transition that dual-career couples must navigate often comes as a
response to the first major life event they face together—typically a big career
opportunity, the arrival of a child, or the merger of families from previous
relationships. To adapt, the partners must negotiate how to prioritize their
careers and divide family commitments. Doing so in a way that lets them both
thrive requires an underlying shift: They must move from having parallel,
independent careers and lives to having interdependent ones.

My research shows two common traps for couples negotiating their way
through their first transition:

Concentrating exclusively on the practical

In the first transition in particular, couples often look for logistical solutions to
their challenges, as Jamal and Emily did when they arranged for extra child care
and negotiated how many weekends Jamal would be home. This focus is
understandable—such problems are tangible, and the underlying psychological
and social tensions are murky and anxiety provoking—but it prolongs the
struggle, because those tensions remain unresolved.
Instead of simply negotiating over calendars and to-do lists, couples must
understand, share, and discuss the emotions, values, and fears underlying their
decisions. Talking about feelings as well as practicalities can help them mitigate
and manage them.

Basing decisions primarily on money

Many couples focus on economic gain as they decide where to live, whose
career to prioritize, and who will do the majority of the child care. But as
sensible (and sometimes unavoidable) as this is, it often means that their
decisions end up at odds with their other values and desires.

Few people live for financial gain alone. In their careers they are also motivated
by continual learning and being given greater responsibilities. Outside work,
they want to spend time with their children and pursue personal interests.
Couples may be attracted to a location because of proximity to extended family,
the quality of life it affords, or their ability to build a strong community. Basing
the decision to move to Mexico on Jamal’s higher salary meant that he and
Emily ignored their other interests, feeding their discontent.

Couples who are successful discuss the foundations and the structure of their
joint path forward. First, they must come to some agreement on core aspects of
their relationship: their values, boundaries, and fears. Negotiating and finding
common ground in these areas helps them navigate difficult decisions because
they can agree on criteria in advance. Doing this together is important; couples
that make this arrangement work, I found, make choices openly and jointly,
rather than implicitly and for each other. The ones I studied who had never
addressed their core criteria struggled in later transitions, because those criteria
never go away.

Next, couples must discuss how to prioritize their careers and divide family
commitments. Striving for 50/50 is not always the best option; neither must one
decide to always give the other’s career priority.

There are three basic models to consider: (1) in primary-secondary, one

partner’s career takes priority over the other’s for the duration of their working
lives. The primary person dedicates more time to work and less to the family,
and his or her professional commitments (and geographic requirements) usually
come before the secondary person’s. (2) In turn taking, the partners agree to
periodically swap the primary and secondary positions. (3) In double primary,
they continually juggle two primary careers.
My research shows that couples can feel fulfilled in their careers and
relationships whichever model they pursue, as long as it aligns with their values
and they openly discuss and explicitly agree on their options. Couples who
pursue the third option are often the most successful, although it’s arguably the
most difficult, precisely because they are forced to address conflicts most
frequently.

To work past their deadlock, Emily and Jamal finally discussed what really
mattered to them beyond financial success. They identified pursuit of their
chosen careers, proximity to nature, and a stable home for Aisha where they
could both actively parent her. They admitted their fears of growing apart, and
in response agreed to an important restriction: They would live in the same city
and would limit work travel to 25% of their time. They agreed to place their
geographic boundaries around North America, and Jamal suggested that they
both draw circles on a map around the cities where they felt they could make a
home and have two careers. Their conversations and mapping exercise
eventually brought them to a resolution—and a new start in Atlanta, where they
would pursue a double-primary model. Three years later they are progressing in
their careers, happy in their family life, and expecting a second child.

Transition 2: Reinventing Themselves

Psychological theory holds that early in life many people follow career and
personal paths that conform to the expectations of their parents, friends, peers,
and society, whereas in their middle years many feel a pressing need for
individuation, or breaking free of those expectations to become authors of their
own lives. This tends to happen in people’s forties, regardless of their
relationship status, and is part of a process colloquially known as the midlife
crisis.
We tend to think of a midlife crisis mostly in personal terms (a husband leaves
his wife, for example, and buys a sports car), but in dual-career couples, the
intense focus on professional success means that the partners’ job tracks come
under scrutiny as well. This combined personal and professional crisis forms the
basis of the second transition. Camille and Pierre, whose story began this
article, were in the midst of it.

As each partner wrestles with self-redefinition, the two often bump up against
long-settled arrangements they have made and the identities, relationship, and
careers they have crafted together. Some of those arrangements—whose career
takes precedence, for example—may need to be reconsidered to allow one
partner to quit a job and explore alternatives. It may be painful to question the
choices they made together during the previous transition and have since built
their lives around. This can be threatening to a relationship; it’s not uncommon
for one partner to interpret the other’s desire to rethink past career choices as an
inclination to rethink the relationship as well, or even to potentially end it.
Couples who handle this transition well find ways to connect with and support
each other through what can feel like a very solitary process.

The second transition often begins—as it did for Camille and Pierre—when one
partner reexamines a career or life path. That person must reflect on questions
such as: What led me to this impasse? Why did I make the choices I made?
Who am I? What do I desire from life? Whom do I want to become? He or she
should also take time to explore alternative paths, through networking events,
job shadowing, secondments, volunteer work, and so forth. Such individual
reflection and exploration can lead couples to the first trap of the second
transition:

Mistrust and defensiveness

Living with a partner who is absorbed in exploring new paths can feel
threatening. Painful questions surface: Why is my partner not satisfied? Is this a
career problem or a relationship problem? Am I to blame? Why does he or she
need new people? Am I no longer enough? These doubts can lead to mistrust
and defensiveness, which may push the exploring partner to withdraw further
from the relationship, making the other even more mistrustful and defensive,
until eventually the relationship itself becomes an obstacle to individuation,
rather than a space for it.

In such a situation, people should first be open about their concerns and let their
partners reassure them that the angst is not about them or the relationship. Next,
they should adopt what literary critics call suspension of disbelief—that is, faith
that the things they have doubts about will unfold in interesting ways and are
worth paying attention to. This attitude will both enrich their own lives and
make their partners’ exploration easier.

Finally, they should understand their role as supporters. Psychologists call this
role in a relationship the secure base and see it as vital to the other partner’s
growth. Originally identified and described by the psychologist John Bowlby,
the secure base allows us to stretch ourselves by stepping outside our comfort
zone while someone by our side soothes our anxieties about doing so. Without
overly interfering, supporters should encourage their partners’ exploration and
reflection, even if it means moving away from the comfortable relationship
they’ve already established.
Q.3 Introduce different approaches of supervision focusing the
authoritarian and developmental approach of supervision.
Any jobs can be evolved in terms of their responsibilities and requirements as
time goes due to political, social and technological trends. It is evident in the
field of supervision as it faces reforms throughout its history. The evolution of
schools has become the main input in quality improvement policies and
strategies. This led to the necessity to evaluate schools which focused on
accountability, quality control, organizational efficiency and quality assurance.

To ensure the minimum standard of academic, teaching, resources and

administration are achieved, governments that provide public schooling take
steps to make the system in schools is monitored. In the United States, during
the period of 1600’s to late 1800’s local officers, religious leaders and
committee members visited schools to inspect and make judgments on teachers
and curricular standards. At this time, supervision focused on overseeing the
teachers and how schools were maintained. In the late 19th century,
professional educators took over the administrative responsibilities where they
focused on instructional improvement for the first time. Knowledge of teaching
transformed successfully from administrators to teachers.

In the twentieth century, school administrators consist of principals, assistant

superintendents, curriculum coordinators, and consultants shared the
responsibility of supervision and evaluation. During this time, the scientific
management theory which consists of inspection, domination and quality
control influenced supervision and evaluation. Many new systems were
introduced in supervision claimed that standard for teaching was introduced and
the relationship between teacher and supervisor was hierarchical. In the late
1980’s, research showing that teacher quality was the primary variable to
determine student achievement. This, lead to improving teacher supervision
process became the primary concern which aimed to improve instruction.

Concept of Supervision
Supervision is mainly focused on improving teachers’ instructional practices
and classroom practices to benefit students. Beach & Reinhartz (1989) claimed
that the purpose of instructional supervision is to offer sufficient information
regarding their teaching that enhances their instructional skills for performance
improvement. This is supported by Macquarie & Wood (1991) who mentioned
that supervision is aiming to guide and support teachers so that they can learn
and develop instructional practices. There are many different definitions of
supervision proposed by researchers as some focus on its nature and others
focus on the function it entail.

The term ‘supervision is derived from the Latin words which bring the meaning
as ‘over and ‘see’. Hornby (1962) defines supervision as a process that involves,
watching, and directing work, workers and organizations or institutions. Adams
& Bicker (1966) defines supervision as “A planned programme for the
improvement of instructions". Nwokafor (1984) define supervision as "that
phase of school administration which focuses primarily upon the achievement
of the appropriate instructional expectations of the educational system". Ireland
(1994) defines that supervision is a process which enables the individuals’ goals
are met and interconnected that ultimately allows them to meet the
organizational goal. Austin (1981) defines supervision as a process that has
chosen functions involving relationships that provides the best services.
Meanwhile, Kadushin (1985) classified supervision as a pathway that consists
administrative, supportive and educational where the supervisor is responsible
in delivering all these tasks to his supervisee.
Sergiovanni & Starratt (1993) see supervision as a focal point that intent to
improve teacher’s knowledge, skills, and abilities to make informal decisions
and solve problem effectively. Other researchers also claim that supervision is
an act of motivating teachers, enhancing human relation and facilitating
teachers to attempt new techniques in a more comfortable environment.

Every school may have their own goals to achieve which will differ from others
however, all supervisors have the same goal that is ‘improving teachers’
performance .Initially supervision is known as inspection which aimed to judge
the performance of institutions and teachers rather than improvement. Even
though supervision and evaluation are related in terms of their processes, the
objective can be different between accountability and improvement. Inspection
as the evaluation method has been practiced to ensure the quality of system and
strategies implemented and maintain academic performance to be paralleled
with educational goal.

Inspection tends to receive criticism as it is more on judgmental. This can be

proofed as Jeffery (2007) also pointed that inspection judges the performance of
school only at one point with legal requirements rather than considering the
progression of the school. In another study done by Burnham (1976) found that
the process of inspection of school supervision used to make judgments of the
management of the school and the teachers than of focusing on their teaching
and student learning. This type of evaluation is known as Administrative
Inspection in these days. Due to this, inspection went through reforms where the
term ‘supervision’ replaces it gradually. To overcome the criticism on
inspection, the concept of supervision is being introduced in certain countries
like Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh. It is also because, to understand the
purpose of ongoing support and guidance for school improvement. In the 19th
century, supervisors were being strict in supervising the teachers as they were
having strict requirement for their teachers. They visited classroom to observe
to identify how closely the teachers obey the specific instructions. They also
found that the supervisors carried out their tasks using authoritarian approach.

As mentioned before, in early days supervision was knows as inspection where

the external parties who were appointed would inspect teachers in schools. The
formal activity of instructional supervision by professional personnel started in
the second half of the nineteenth century as there was a development in school
system due to population growth in main cities. At this time, supervision of
school shifted from bureaucratic to individual superintendent who was being
responsible in controlling and supervising instruction in school. Supervisor
would inspect classroom teaching and correct teacher behaviors. The existence
of scientific management would change the administration of schools. This
would change the supervisory processes to be more skilled professional.
Moreover, teaching profession became scientific process due to the emergence
of educational theories.

Even though changes occurred in supervision, there was still the existence of
observation and evaluation as Gordon (1997) called as ‘control supervision’ that
was compressed with inspection, oversight and judgment of classroom
instruction. This is because; more information is collected regarding teacher
performance through observation and evaluation information. Criteria included
in evaluation forms enable to judge teachers quality of instruction, classroom
management and teaching behaviors. Observation and evaluation involves face-
to face visits that are carried out by supervisors to offer direct assistance. In the
process of direct assistance teachers are provided feedback for improvement
through classroom observation based on the data of formative and summative
evaluation.
At the same time, collaborative approaches to instructional supervision began to
appear in the form of clinical supervision which gave a room for administrators
and teachers to work together during the observation in the notion improvement.
This provided chances of existence of other form of clinical supervision like
peer observation, self-assessment and action research and other models of
supervision. The development of school supervision has been a long and
ongoing process which taking place since the late nineteenth century up to the
present day.

Moreover, the growth of formative approach in supervision has widespread and

commonly used than the previous model of inspection and evaluation. This
approach enable teacher needs has been taken into consideration which
emphasize supervisors to enhance their techniques of supervising to meet those
needs. The aim of formative evaluation is to improve teacher’s instructional
skills. The system of evaluation is carried out into two ways they are formative
and summative assessment. In summative evaluation, teachers are judged on
their performance by ranking and rating their professional competency.

Glickman et al. (2001) claimed Summative teacher evaluation is an

administrative function intended to meet the organizational need for teacher
accountability. It involves decisions about the level of a teacher’s performance.
Summative evaluation seeks to determine if the teacher has met minimum
expectations. If the teacher has not met his or her professional responsibilities,
the summative process documents inadequate performance for the purpose of
remediation and, if necessary, termination. Formative evaluation is intended to
shape, support and improve teacher instruction.

This form of evaluation is recognized as supervision as it has the function of

helping and supporting. Kleitman & Costa (2014) claimed that formative
assessment refers to a specific type of assessment which is not ‘marked’
(judged) by the trainer. This assessment provides extensive feedback towards
the performance of trainers which they feel non-threatening.

Q.4 Analyze the supervisory process of physical infrastructure and

administrative practices for school improvement.

Essential physical infrastructure facilities

Interactions between students, teachers and pedagogical content, and thus,
education, generally take place within a school’s physical infrastructure.
Ensuring an adequate and sufficiently equipped infrastructure is key, so that
teaching ‘takes place in acceptable conditions and that learning can flourish’.
Indeed, physical infrastructure has significant impact on children’s enrolment,
attendance, completion rates and even learning achievements (e.g. the World
Bank found that investments in school facilities in Peru increased students’
attendance rates. Physical infrastructure can also protect the lives of teachers
and pupils, as well as investments in education various considerations must be
taken into account when developing the physical infrastructure of schools.

For instance, adapting facilities to children’s size and physical abilities is

indispensable. Cultural sensitivity and local customs must also be considered,
such as toilets that are intended for use by Muslims should not face Mecca.

Adequate water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) facilities in schools ‘improve

access to education and learning outcomes, particularly for girls, by providing a
safe, inclusive and equitable learning environment for all’. Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG) 6 and 4 aim for universal access to WASH and
inclusive and effective learning environments. The following essential physical
infrastructure facilities must be taken into account to reach those goals:

 Sanitation facilities: Privacy, cleanliness, safety, and easy-to-use

sanitation facilities are important. Toilets should be close to classrooms,
cubicle doors should open inwards, toilets should have covers, and
facilities should have an appropriate ventilation system and regular
maintenance. Latrines, on the other hand, should be at least 50 meters
away from the school and 30 meters away from any ground-source.

 Hygiene facilities: Sinks should be provided with water and a cleaning

agent. The minimum standard is 1 washing point per 100 children.

 Safe water: Schools must offer adequate access to potable water. This can
be done through proper plumbing infrastructure, a borehole, well or a
water stream. Planners must set their own standards based on their
national circumstances and international standards (SDG 6 targets
universal access to drinking water, sanitation and hygiene for all by 2030;
The Sphere Standards annex states that 3 liters of water per pupil per day
for drinking and hand washing is the survival minimum required in
schools.

Electricity-wise, SDG 7 aims to ensure universal ‘access to affordable, reliable

and modern energy for all’. Electricity-based lightning improves teaching and
therefore learning outcomes. Every school should have electricity to provide
lighting and energy for teaching as well as for the equipment –computers and
radios– and appliances such as refrigerators and stoves. Multiple
recommendations for school electrification programmes exist, such as
leveraging ‘innovative financing streams and public-private partnerships to fund
electrification efforts’ and ensuring ‘technical reliability of grid connections and
equipment through standards and certification’, among others.

As for having a secure physical environment, a fence should be constructed

around the school to demarcate the school grounds, prevent children from
leaving school and keep out intrusions. Fences can be made from galvanized
line wires, vegetation or mud walls. Additionally, it is essential to make sure
buildings are built to resist different natural hazards, such as seismic resistant
school infrastructure in earthquake zones, proper drainage and plumbing
infrastructure in flood zones, and securely attached roofs in wind-prone areas.

Finally, for garbage disposal, it is essential to have a designated area for

garbage disposal at schools, with dustbins and brooms included. Children
should participate in cleaning and maintaining the classroom (e.g. Standards
used in the SWASTHH Project, Jharkhand India.

Q.5 Justify that technology is vital instrument for school

administration and supervision.

Teachers often come under fire for their failure to fully integrate technology
into their classrooms. Until recently, however, very little has been said about the
role of school administrators in technology integration. This month, the
Education World Tech Team discusses how they think principals and other
administrators can optimize technology use in their schools.

"The most effective way school administrators can promote technology use is to
themselves be knowledgeable and effective users of technology," says Betty
Kastler, computer technology coordinator at Tuckahoe School in Southampton,
New York.

"Principals play a big role in setting the climate of a building," agrees Cathy
Chamberlain, a technology consultant in the Oswego (New York) City School
District. "Teachers who are on the fence -- or think they don't have time to get
involved with technology -- think twice when they sense a positive attitude on
the part of the administration.

"I work in five elementary schools," Chamberlain explains. "In my experience,

technology integration is highest in buildings in which the principal is involved
and excited about technology and its possibilities and is lowest in buildings in
which the principal doesn’t demonstrate technology use while encouraging
others to use it too. Modeling technology usage is key if administrators want
teachers to play an active role in technology integration."

John Someone, Webmaster at Beach Street Middle School in West Islip, New
York, adds, "Staff members are more apt to use technology if administrators
feel strongly about technology use for reasons that are based in fact -- not
merely on the assumption that they need to 'keep up' with other schools or
districts."

MODEL! MODEL! MODEL!

"Administrators need to model, model, model," stresses Marcia Reed, media
center coordinator at St. Pius X School in Toledo, Ohio. "They can do that by
using technology for administrative functions and by knowing how to use the
hardware and software they expect teachers to use."
Mary Kraal, a technology specialist at Richards Elementary School in Whitefish
Bay, Wisconsin, agrees. "Weekly memos to staff members, schedule changes,
meeting minutes, and so on, can all be handled via e-mail. School news can be
broadcast over the school cable system. Attendance records, grading, and
reporting can be technology-based -- with a system that’s intuitive, practical,
and accessible. A school Web page can feature administrators providing brief
descriptions of the school and its mission, school highlights, or upcoming
events."

"Principals can encourage the use of technology in their schools in other ways
as well," says Caroline Salerno, a fifth-grade teacher and Internet trainer at
Bretton Woods Elementary School in Hauppauge, New York. "They can
 Support and encourage teachers who want to go to conferences and
participate in staff development.
 E-mail notices and agendas to staff, rather than printing and distributing
them. ∙ ask that lesson plans be submitted through e-mail or on disk.
 Foster technology growth by asking parents to write e-mail addresses on
medical forms. ∙ insist that all teachers create a class Web page.
 Attend technology conferences to see what other schools are doing, what
other teachers are doing to integrate technology, and what principals are
doing to encourage the use of technology in their schools and
classrooms.

"District administrators need to do their jobs as well," Salerno adds, "by

providing technology training for principals!"

ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT

School administrators, according to Fred Holmes, Webmaster at Osceola
(Nebraska) Public Schools, can easily promote technology integration. They can
encourage teachers' curiosity about what can be done using technology, provide
incentives for teachers to attend workshops and conferences, persuade teachers
who use technology in the classroom to model that use for others, set up a
mentoring system so teachers have someone to go to for help and ideas, and
provide time for teachers to experiment with technology. "Administrators can't
give teachers computers a week before school starts and say, 'Here they are. Use
them!'" Holmes says.

Providing opportunities for staff development is an important part of the

administrator's role, agrees Patrick Greene, a professor of education at Florida
Gulf Coast University in Fort Myers, Florida. "There's a two-step process to
integrating technology into the curriculum," Greene explains. "First, teachers
must learn the hardware and software; then they must learn to integrate it.

Administrators should institute weekly training sessions for all teachers. The
training should inculcate an understanding level for each piece of software in a
teacher's virtual toolkit, including a word processor; spreadsheet, database, and
presentation software; organization software; a Web editor; and Internet tools.
The culminating activity should be the development of a comprehensive plan
that each teacher writes for implementing technology-enhanced lessons in his or
her own classroom. When the training is complete, then -- and only then --
should teachers be given computers for their classroom."

"There must be a strong focus on staff development, on helping teachers learn to

use technology as a tool for teaching and learning," agrees Mary Kraal.
"Technology courses should not simply provide hardware or software training,
but should help teachers learn how to use technology in the classroom to
support students and extend learning opportunities. A technology integrator
should be available in each building to train and support teachers as they learn
to use technology effectively in the classrooms."

In addition, Kraal notes, "administrators should make budget and personnel

decisions that ensure that the school's technology is up-to-date and in good
working condition. They should make sure that the focus of technology is to
enhance student learning and that technology decisions are made by teachers
who use technology, know the curriculum, and are cognizant of the needs of the
students."
"Assuming hardware, software, networking, and training needs have been met,"
adds Art Ladder, Webmaster at Aiken (South Carolina) High School,
"principals can promote technology integration by providing time for planning,
collaboration, and implementation of technology based activities. In the end, it's
often a lack of time that prevents good ideas from being realized as valuable
activities," Ladder notes.

Jennifer Wagner, technology coordinator at Crossroads Christian School in

Corona, California, best summed up the comments of all the Tech Team
members. In response to the question, “What do school administrators need to
know, do, and provide to promote technology integration among their staff and
students?" Wagner replies

What do they need to know?

 How to use word processing.
 How to use the Internet.
 How to use e-mail.
 The status of technology on their campus.
 Which teachers are -- and are not -- using technology.
 What they need to do?
  Support the technology coordinator.
 Reward teachers using technology.
 Encourage teachers who are not using technology.
 Visit classrooms to see computer use.
 Take an active role in using technology.

What do they need to provide?

 Opportunities for staff development.
 Sufficient up-to-date, workable computer equipment.
 Funds for computer improvements.
 Time and resources for troubleshooting programs and future planning. ∙
Internet access.

The Education World Tech Team includes 40 dedicated and knowledgeable

educational technology professionals who have volunteered to contribute to
occasional articles that draw on their varied expertise and experience. Stay
tuned in the months ahead as members of the Tech Team share their thoughts on
a wide variety of topics.