Course name: School

Administration Level: BED, ADE

Course Code: 8616 Semester: Autumn 2022

Name: Kainat Umar

Course code : 0000146469

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 nonmonetary incentives
which can inspire the workers to work better.

5. Controlling - Controlling is an important function performed by supervisor.

This will involve

1. Recording the actual performance against the time schedule.

2. Checking of progress of work.

3. Finding out deviations if any and making solutions

4. 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 :-

1. He can be in direct touch with workers.

2. By winning the confidence of the workers by solving their problems.

3. By taking worker problems on humanitarian grounds.

4. 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

1. Higher productivity,

2. High Morale of Workers,

3. Satisfying working condition,

4. Improving human relations,

5. Higher Profits, and

6. High Stability

1. 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, dualcareer 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 longsettled
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 McQuarrie & 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 organisations or institutions. Adams & Bickey (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 Jaffer

(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 behaviours. 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 behaviours. 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 metres away from the school and 30 metres away from any groundsource.

• 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 litres 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. For more information on this subject see Policy

page Buildings are not ready.

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 Kistler,

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 Simeone, 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 Kreul, 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 Kreul. "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, Kreul 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 Lader, 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," Lader 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.