(Disclaimer : The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the policies of RIVER.)
I will not comment on how supervisions are being done in educational institutions as neither have I done an in depth study of them in those institutions nor am I an expert in these matters. What is written is a seat of the pants suggestions which, hopefully, some MGML practitioner will read and follow or, at least, try out when in that capacity.
Supervision, per se, has the connotation of one who is on a fault finding mission. Certain best practices have been worked out and communicated for all teachers to follow and the role of the supervisor is to ensure that what has been stipulated is being implemented. The supervisor, thus, enters a classroom with the aura of a bogie-man who is going to find any number of mistakes made by a person who is sincerely (so everyone things about himself!) doing his job. I daresay that such a scenario does exist but I will not say that it exists in all schools all the time.
In the implementation of the MGML Methodology the words ‘Supportive Supervision’ takes on a more than normal understanding of those two words. The situation in an MGML classroom is totally different to that of a traditional one – different in modus operandi, different in classroom culture, different in capability and capacity of persons running these classrooms and, in fact, there is no similarity between the two except the four walls of the room. To understand this let us list out the differences:-
a. The MGML classroom has 5 grades in one room as against the 1 grade in one room in the traditional classroom.
b. One Teacher handles 5 grades at the same time in MGML situation whereas there is one teacher for every grade in the traditional one.
c. The MGML Methodology does not use textbooks unlike the traditional one which does.
d. Activity based learning is the forte of MGML children as against the rote method in the traditional system.
e. The rural MGML classroom teacher is not a big B.Ed or well qualified Teacher like the traditional system one.
It must, therefore, be obvious that the Teacher in the MGML methodology needs to be ‘supported’ in executing this system instead of being ‘corrected’. The supervisor thus, coming from a higher formation, must enter a classroom with an attitude of ‘How can I help you’ instead of putting the fear of God into that Teacher and getting all the wrong answers out of sheer nervousness.
A supervisor opens a notebook in a classroom. The child misspells the word father as ‘fother’ throughout the copywriting exercise being done. The teacher has put one big correct tick mark in red across the page! A huge mistake! A memo to the teacher is warranted and justified for being careless and casual. The Supportive Supervisor does not recommend such action The Supportive Supervisor finds out why such mistakes are being done. Is the Teacher overworked? Stressed out? What time of the day are corrections being done? Is the quantum of homework given too much for the Teacher to check? Oh, there are so many reasons for making mistakes. And that is where the caliber of the supervisor comes in.
There is the supervisor who has been with the system right from its inception. The person has been involved right from the first step of production to the final finished product. Knows every teacher implementing this methodology, knows their strengths and weaknesses, knows their capabilities and their limitations after having been with them for decades. Such a supervisor would be more supportive than corrective as against one who has scant knowledge of the methodology itself and yet, being put in that position, is under the terrible notion that great supervision is being done, taking umbrage against every overheard comment that may never have been directed at that person. To be effective in supportive supervision one needs to understand the methodology itself and, more importantly, understand teachers practicing this methodology.
Glaring mistakes are not to be condoned. The stick and carrot method is also required but to be used in an analyzed and calculated manner. A systems analysis is required to arrive at the root cause of why such mistakes are done and support is to be given there. That is supportive supervision.
I will not comment on how supervisions are being done in educational institutions as neither have I done an in depth study of them in those institutions nor am I an expert in these matters. What is written is a seat of the pants suggestions which, hopefully, some MGML practitioner will read and follow or, at least, try out when in that capacity.
Supervision, per se, has the connotation of one who is on a fault finding mission. Certain best practices have been worked out and communicated for all teachers to follow and the role of the supervisor is to ensure that what has been stipulated is being implemented. The supervisor, thus, enters a classroom with the aura of a bogie-man who is going to find any number of mistakes made by a person who is sincerely (so everyone things about himself!) doing his job. I daresay that such a scenario does exist but I will not say that it exists in all schools all the time.
In the implementation of the MGML Methodology the words ‘Supportive Supervision’ takes on a more than normal understanding of those two words. The situation in an MGML classroom is totally different to that of a traditional one – different in modus operandi, different in classroom culture, different in capability and capacity of persons running these classrooms and, in fact, there is no similarity between the two except the four walls of the room. To understand this let us list out the differences:-
a. The MGML classroom has 5 grades in one room as against the 1 grade in one room in the traditional classroom.
b. One Teacher handles 5 grades at the same time in MGML situation whereas there is one teacher for every grade in the traditional one.
c. The MGML Methodology does not use textbooks unlike the traditional one which does.
d. Activity based learning is the forte of MGML children as against the rote method in the traditional system.
e. The rural MGML classroom teacher is not a big B.Ed or well qualified Teacher like the traditional system one.
It must, therefore, be obvious that the Teacher in the MGML methodology needs to be ‘supported’ in executing this system instead of being ‘corrected’. The supervisor thus, coming from a higher formation, must enter a classroom with an attitude of ‘How can I help you’ instead of putting the fear of God into that Teacher and getting all the wrong answers out of sheer nervousness.
A supervisor opens a notebook in a classroom. The child misspells the word father as ‘fother’ throughout the copywriting exercise being done. The teacher has put one big correct tick mark in red across the page! A huge mistake! A memo to the teacher is warranted and justified for being careless and casual. The Supportive Supervisor does not recommend such action The Supportive Supervisor finds out why such mistakes are being done. Is the Teacher overworked? Stressed out? What time of the day are corrections being done? Is the quantum of homework given too much for the Teacher to check? Oh, there are so many reasons for making mistakes. And that is where the caliber of the supervisor comes in.
There is the supervisor who has been with the system right from its inception. The person has been involved right from the first step of production to the final finished product. Knows every teacher implementing this methodology, knows their strengths and weaknesses, knows their capabilities and their limitations after having been with them for decades. Such a supervisor would be more supportive than corrective as against one who has scant knowledge of the methodology itself and yet, being put in that position, is under the terrible notion that great supervision is being done, taking umbrage against every overheard comment that may never have been directed at that person. To be effective in supportive supervision one needs to understand the methodology itself and, more importantly, understand teachers practicing this methodology.
Glaring mistakes are not to be condoned. The stick and carrot method is also required but to be used in an analyzed and calculated manner. A systems analysis is required to arrive at the root cause of why such mistakes are done and support is to be given there. That is supportive supervision.
Aviator
No comments:
Post a Comment