ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY

Student ID
0000202945

Submitted to
MISS SEHER UN
NISA

Course code
8616

Program
B.ED

Question.1
What do you know about the function of supervision
discuss in detail?
ANS
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 a profit 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.

Question.2
What are dual focus, joint effort and growth orientation and
how they
interlink synergistic supervision?
ANS
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 Couples”). 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 couples, 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.

Question.3
 Introduce different approaches of supervision
focusing the authoritarian and developmental approach of
supervision.
ANS
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.

Questiojn.4
Analyze the supervisory process of physical
infrastructure and Administrative practices for school
improvement.
ANS
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

Question.5
Justify that technology is vital instrument for school
administration and Supervision.
ANS
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.