EdLd 674

Supervision and Administration

Dr. Melisa Krull, PH.D
Supervision and Evaluation: An Interview with Mr. Richard Wendorff.
Principal of Black Hawk Middle School: Eagan Minnesota
Carl Plucker
June 25, 2013

On the morning of June 24th, 2013 I sat down with Mr. Richard Wendorff, the
Principal of Black Hawk Middle School, and visited with him about the Supervision
and Evaluation of teachers at BHMS. Mr. Wendorff has been the Principal at BHMS
or 14 years and was part of the team that supervised and evaluated me as a
probationary teacher. In the past we have had a few very informal discussions
regarding Supervision and Evaluation however, this was the most formal one we
every had. He was very open to the idea regarding a more formal discussion.
Mr. Wendorff shared that he felt that BHMS had a very strong system in place
regarding the Supervision and Evaluation of probationary teachers. He was quick to
add that there is no formal supervision and evaluation of tenured staff. I will
address this later in this summary. Regarding probationary teachers, Mr. Wendorff
and his administration staff divide up the probationary teachers and schedule at
least three observations during a school year. Probationary teachers are assigned to
an administrator who has the most experience in that content area. For example,
the Assistant Principal was a former Phy-Ed teacher and worked as a Cousin, noncore area teacher. He supervises and evaluates those types of teachers, phy-ed,
band, foreign language, etc. Mr. Wendorff often takes core area classes and Special
Education assignments.
The district uses the Enhancing Professional Practice-A Framework for
Teaching, by Charlotte Danielson, as the criteria and baseline for teacher
supervision and evaluation. Mr. Wendorff whole-heartedly endorses this approach.
He indicated that since the district has moved to Danielsons Frameworks, the
conversations around goal setting and performance reflection have been much more
productive and specific in nature. He indicated that teachers are much less
defensive when they see and can read language regarding what proficient and
distinguished teaching looks like. He feels that teachers are often harder on
themselves than he would have been. He attributes this to the language in the
Danielson rubrics. When asked if he sees more value, as an administrator, in any
particular domain, he quickly indicated Domain number twothe classroom
environment as the most useful when working with new teachers. It would be a

very interesting follow-up question with the teachers who were being supervised if
that was the domain that they would have picked as the one being most important.
During these formal supervision episodes, Mr. Wendorff and his admin staff
engage in a Pre and Post interview similar to the ones described in Zepedas book
Instructional Supervision: Applying Tools and Concepts.
Our conversation then shifted to the supervision and evaluation of tenured
staff. Noticeably, his demeanor shifted slightly and I could tell he was not as
comfortable talking about this. He was very quick to say that he and the district are
waiting to see what the guidelines will be once the legislature determines the
structure of teacher evaluations that are set to be imposed the year after next.
Regarding BHMS, he uncomfortably indicated that the supervision and evaluation
was very informal unless a teacher was found to be in-want of, or in-need of
assistance. Mr. Wendorffs style is to be out in the learning areas of the school. To
walk around and listen to teachers teach and students learn. Again, paramount to
Mr. Wendorff is classroom environment. He indicated that he could very quickly
pick up when a teacher is struggling and when students are not learning. When
situations arise whether prompted from his informal visits or parent concerns, he
begins a more systematic approach to his supervision. His slight irritation with the
teachers union became evident during this phase of our conversation. Regarding
the lack of supervision for tenured staff is the obvious concern that most teachers
receive little to no supervision and mentoring after tenure is attained. Ideally, Mr.
Wendorff stated is for teachers to stay accountable to each other. However, for
obvious reasons, this is unlikely and rarely happens. He said that in his 20 years of
administration experience, he has never seen a teacher engage in Teacher to
Teacher accountability. He has teachers in his office frequently, but never willing
to go toe-to-toe themselves.
Our conversation shifted to the effectiveness of the Q-Comp Peer Leader
program that our district has adopted. He indicated he sees great potential but also
a missed opportunity in the peer coaching model. The union forbids any sharing of
data gleaned from the q-comp observations and the structure doesnt allow for any
evaluative feedback unless the teacher being observed generates it.

Mr. Wendorff was quick to say that it is truly a lack of time that prevents him
from supervision tenured staff in a more formal way. He was intrigued by the idea
of allowing staff members with an Administrative License to be a part of the
supervising team. However, he was certain that the Teachers Union would never
let non-admin staff be a part of that team.
Our conversation ended with a brief discussion on the different models used
to supervise and evaluate teachers. Mr. Wendorff was quick to pick the clinical
model as the one he is most comfortable with as it is the most efficient. He thought
that the peer review model holds he most promise for help teacher grow
professionally and that true PLC groups have lead to tremendous teacher growth
and student achievement, however, he doesnt see a way to use that as a tool to
evaluate individual teachers. He had very little to say regarding the Action Research
model other than to indicate that a supervisor and or an evaluator would have to be
a major part of the development of any action research project if it were to be a
supervision and evaluation tool.
Sustainability was the word that was used several times as the discussion
came to an end. Stay the course. Mr. Wendorff believes that teachers need to
know what the model looks like and get comfortable with it. A model that is always
changing is confusing for all. When asked if he would be willing to entertain
different models for different teachers he said no.
In summary, Mr. Wendorff seemed proud of the model used to support
probationary teachers but knew the model used to support tenured teachers was
severely lacking. It was interesting to me that he was waiting for the state to
determine how he was going to observe, supervise and ultimately evaluate teachers.
Part of this may stem from the desire to not confuse teachers with a lot of different
models. Part of it may stem from the lack of time. Regardless, a system change is on
the way and Mr. Wendorff embraces change and the Black Hawk community works
hard to meet the needs of students and be accountable to the public.