The search of the archive for mentor-teacher emails related to lesson-planning
and other classroom processes led to the identification of an email in which
mentor-teacher inscribed what the supervisor should expect to see. This email was
sent just prior to observations that the supervisor would undertake during student
teaching, which began approximately on May 14. On this date, Denise was to
observe Brad’s teaching in the classroom.
As indicated in the email, the mentor-teacher explained how she, and the
teacher-candidates, functioned as a team, not just in planning but also teaching.
Below she explicitly foreshadowed for the supervisor what she should expect to see
in her observations during their student teaching period.
Keep in mind that when you are observing, you might see one or two of us in“helper”
positions while one teaches. We agreed that the lead teacher would be the one who makes
these“on your feet”decisions based on the needs of the students for that particular part of
the lesson. A few students enter the room after a transition period...and are having
problems settling down and focusing on the lesson; students sometimes enter the room
needing special attention...; there often are several needy situations occurring simulta-
neously. Getting a high percentage of engagement sometimes takes a while. This is when
the lead teacher might decide to change the way the lesson is delivered and the roles of the
other two teachers. It should be noted in your plan that they function as co-teachers who
support the instruction.What she inscribed in this text was an ongoing process of planning and teaching
that had been purposefully developed among these actors to support student
learning in this urban classroom. In this email, she also inscribed the history of the
team, and processes and practices that defined what constitutes lead teaching for
this team as well as planning. In framing the fact that the supervisor may observe
changes in the plan that were reflected in“on your feet”decisions by the lead
teacher, she made visible why the“planned”lesson might be modified and that the
others on the team would respond to this modification in the moment. She also
framed how actions of students, who would be returning to the class, made such
in-the-moment modifications necessary to support these students in“settling down”
and or respond to those students who had“special needs.”
Her email, therefore, can be interpreted as making visible prior conversations
among the team about work together, and also how to communicate to the super-
visor (and by extension the university team) areas in which the supervisor had
previously raised questions of the teacher-candidates. Her email also showed that
she was experienced in communicating about her classroom processes and practices
that foregrounded how she worked with her third grade urban students, and by
extension, how she was engaging the teacher-candidates in developing a responsive
planning process in which the planned curricular activities was subject to revision
in the face of the responses and actions of students. In this email, she also inscribed
a process of lead teaching within this team as one in which the actors negotiate in
the moment as well as in preplanned ways. This process framed who would do
what, when and where, with whom, in response to what they were observing in
relationship to students in the developing activity (lesson). In her text to the
supervisor, therefore, she framed the team’s situated approach to planning–teaching
16 Researching the Intersection of Program Supervision and Field... 247