Components of an Effective Substitute Teacher Program

Abstract

How ironic that Roget's College Thesaurus's slate of synonyms for the word substitute includes double and dummy (Morehead 1985). Implicit in the term double, regarding substitute teachers, is the concept of replacing a teacher with one of equal value-an understudy. Conversely, the term dummy has a negative connotation and brings to mind the crash dummies used in car safety demonstrations-merely a stage prop. Teachers, of course, prefer to have their roles played by competent understudies. Unfortunately, due to the lack of a comprehensive, thoughtful plan, school districts may be performing with dummies. It is important to note that this term is not a reflection of the competence of substitute teachers but rather a result of the expectations and plans generated by school districts. How pervasive is the problem of inadequate substitute teacher programs? The results of a survey of thirty-eight public school districts illustrate common practices: 55 percent did not sponsor an orientation or training program for their substitute teachers, and 89 percent did not formally evaluate substitutes (Purvis 1991). These data are disturbing, especially when one considers that the typical student spends a total of approximately eighty-four days during twelve years of schooling with a substitute teacher (McIntire and Hughes 1982). The need for a comprehensive substitute teacher program, coordinated among faculty and administrators, is of paramount importance. The following discussion identifies the roles of the principal, regular teacher, substitute teacher, and the superintendent in an effective substitute teacher program.