Discussion Reply

As I reflect on my Week 1 discussion posting, I find that the foundation of my philosophy of supervision has remained the same, yet has developed more perception and depth over the course of this class. My philosophy reflects the “collegial” model as presented in the text. This model demonstrates ideas such as “focus on teacher growth, teacher collaboration, teacher reflections, coaching, and supervision being the province of teachers and supervisors alike”. (Glickman ,2018) I believe in this because my principal has led me this way, and I am a living example of the effectiveness of this philosophy. Glickman also expressed the idea that a successful school is one in which “teachers accept common goals for students and complement each other’s teaching and supervisors work with teachers in a manner consistent with the way teachers are expected to work with students”. (2018) I have developed a deeper understanding of this concept due to the presentations we have watched. For example, the idea of coaching and reflective teaching and collaboration across grade levels resonates with me as a great way to see teacher growth. Likewise, using data to guide instruction can keep the teacher focused on differentiation and filling educational gaps. In addition to these “technical” steps, I believe a strong leader will develop positive, accepting, and compassionate relationships with their staff. Just as in the classroom, a team of teachers will need guidance. Due to the learning in this course, I definitely see the supervisor as the “instructional leader” of the campus. So in addition to my first thoughts, that “supervision is the province of teachers and supervisors alike”, a good supervisor should be diligently focused on instruction, play a big part in making sure teachers know how to plan using data, differentiation, and response to intervention techniques.


Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2018). SuperVision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach.