Supervision in Saudi schools
To fully understand the nature of the modern supervisory system in Saudi schools, it is useful to trace the evolution of supervision in Saudi Education. It is clear that the role of supervision has changed dramatically over the years.
The early days
Before the formation of Saudi Arabia and before the establishment of the
Department of Education, schools were private and mostly religious schools. The head teacher of the school was the person who was responsible for supervising and directing the teachers in the school. Schools were very simple, so the supervision practices were only to approve the qualification of new teachers and appoint them, to direct the teacher with general directives concerning teaching methods, and to solve any problems that might arise between the school and the community.
Classroom observation was very unusual, for the teachers were already qualified and trusted to do what they are supposed to do, on one hand, and on the other hand, their job was only to transmit information which was very easy to examine through the students’ memorization at the end of the year. Thus, there was no need at all to investigate the method of instruction.
The modern supervisory system appeared by the advent of modern Saudi
Arabia. Saudi Arabia was founded as a unified kingdom in 1932. Prior to that date, in
1925, the Ministry of Education was founded (first called the General Directorate of
Education). The Inspection Department was formed in 1957 (Al-Salloom, 1995). The literature does not provide us with any specific information about the period from
1925 to 1957. It seems that it was a continuation for the old system. According to the Supervisor Guide (Ministry of Education, 1999) educational supervision in Saudi Arabia has gone through four main stages: strict administrative inspection, “instructional” inspection, direction, and supervision.
Administrative Inspection
In 1957 inspection system was established in the Ministry of Education. This was a pure and strict inspection. Inspectors were supposed to visit each school three times during the school year. The aim was literally to inspect administrative and instructional aspects of the school and to enforce the regulations. Telling, directing, and judging characterized this type of inspection. The supervisory visits to schools were often directly related to finding mistakes or shortcomings.
Instructional Inspection
In 1964 this system was developed to be the department of technical
(instructional) inspection. The word “technical” here was made to denote the educational and scientific aspect of the inspection, and move it away from the administrative inspection. However the name, inspection, was still there. In reality, the nature of the old pure inspection did not change. Inspectors’ work in this phase was the identification of deficits in teachers’ work, which supposedly helps them, with few directions from the inspector, improve their teaching. Four sections were formed in the inspection department:
1. Arabic language
2. Foreign languages
3. Social sciences
4. Math and science. New tasks were assigned for inspectors, which concentrated more on instructional aspect, in addition to the administrative aspects. The inspectors were only in the Ministry of Education’s main office.
District Inspection
In 1967 inspection sections were established in the districts (educational directorates), and the inspection was joined to the departments of elementary, intermediate, and secondary schools. Each district inspector should submit a biyearly report about his work. The inspectors in the Ministry study these reports.
In that year, also, the Ministry of education issued a very important mandate in the history of supervision in Saudi Arabia. This mandate included four significant points:
1. The title of the inspector were changed to be “director’.
2. The director-teacher’s relationship should be strengthened and should
emphasize the human aspect of the relations.
3. Presenting the administrative and instructional consultations to the
principals.
4. Critiquing the curricula.
In 1974 another significant development took place. The Ministry mandated that:
1. The directors (supervisors) should stop regular visitation to schools.
2. Director (supervisor) visits take place only if needed, or requested by
the principal, not routinely.
3. The principal should take the responsibility of directing, supervising,
and evaluating the school staff.
4. Each district should arrange in-service activities for teachers. This decision was based on the following justifications:
1. Directing (supervision/inspection) turned to be a ritual work.
2. The directors’ visits were still similar to the inspection visits.
3. Lack of time that makes the visit influential.
4. Studying the supervisors’ reports is time consuming for the central
directors in the Ministry (Ministry of Education, 1999).
It is evident that this decision, in itself, was pioneering and visionary. But the general schools’ climate certainly was not ready for it. So in 1978 the aforementioned decision was changed, and the visits to the schools resumed again.
Instructional Supervision
In 1981 another significant development happened in supervision in Saudi
Arabia. That was the establishment of the General Department of Instructional
Supervision and Training, in the Ministry of Education. It continues its work with 11 units: Religion, Arabic Language, Social Sciences, Science, Math, English Language,
Arts, Physical Education, Principalship, Computer, and Schools’ Libraries. In 1996 the title of the directors was officially changed to “instructional supervisors”
(Ministry of Education, 1999).
Supervisory practice in Saudi Arabia has been rooted more in tradition and personal preferences than in a body of research or knowledge. Supervisors in Saudi schools do not follow a certain approach for supervision. In fact most of them do their job without even clear well-defined goals. Although the situations in schools and regions vary a lot, they all, almost, do the same, within the general guidelines that are mandated from the Ministry of Education. Thus, supervisory practices, in great part of it, are built of personal experiences and experimentations. Because supervisors usually are appointed without any prior preparation, the quality of their work heavily relies on their personal abilities and qualifications, and, in many cases, on their willingness to work. Some research studies have found a strong support from teachers and supervisors for the need to revise the supervision system in Saudi Arabia
(Adwani, 1981; Al-Tuwaijri, 1985).
Research in Saudi Arabia (Adwani, 1981; Al-Tuwajri, 1985) has shown that teachers wished to see an alternative model of supervision with emphasis on teacher- supervisor shared responsibility, more collegial rather than superordinate supervision, cooperation and trust rather than imposition and fear, and a democratic rather than an authoritarian process. Saudi teachers also support using different supervisory activities
In 1997 the new supervision practice was proposed from the Ministry of
Education, and supervisors were highly encouraged to employ it. In this new system, the collegial supervisory and staff development activities were emphasized. In addition, the co-supervisor was proposed as an on-site supervisor. Co-supervisor is an expert teacher whose load is reduced in order to arrange some professional development activities for teachers.
In a recent study (Alhammad, 2000) Alhammad surveyed the obstacles of the supervisory practice. The following is a summary of these obstacles.
1. Lack of trust between teachers and supervisors
2. The supervisor’s high load of teachers.
3. Lack of training for supervisors.
4. Lack of support for supervisors from the higher offices.
5. Weak relationship between teachers and supervisors.
6. Lack of cooperation from principals.
7. The supervisors being engaged of office and paper work. 8. Lack of information resources.
9. Supervisors are not current.
10. Emphasizing the classroom visit as the only practice of supervision.
11. The incompetency of some supervisors.
12. Lack of understanding of the modern concept of supervision, from both some
teachers and some supervisors.
The genesis of supervision and the practice of many supervisors tied its concept to classroom visits and evaluation. It is too difficult to separate supervision from these two practices, not only in the minds of teachers, but also, for the worse, in the minds of many supervisors. Supervision is confused with teachers’ evaluation.
This confusion hinders the improvement of supervision.
According to Tuwaijri (1985, p 167) “Saudi supervisors generally are of the opinion that teachers feel insecure during the supervisor‘s classroom visit.” The current literature in the field of instructional supervision does not provide us with enough information about the supervision situation in Saudi schools. Since the general issues of the instructional supervision are mostly global, an overview of the current situation of supervision in the US would be helpful in building a background for this study. In the following section the main approaches of modern supervision will be discussed.