A good deal of the supervisor’s time was spent on administrative matters. Teacher-evaluation systems tended to be perfunctory. Present supervisory practices in schools are largely based on traditional views on supervision which relies heavily on the assumptions of Theory X. Emerging patterns of supervision combine Theory Y from human resources supervision with the belief that people are morally responsive and able to sacrifice self-interests for the right reasons. The supervisory process inescapably involves teacher evaluation. Making one’s educational platform explicit enables both supervisor and teacher to explore discrepancies between the teacher’s platform in theory and the platform in use. Supervisor and teachers then have to discuss the discrepancy and see whether such practices need to be changed to conform to their stated platform. As teachers become more reflective about their work, under the influence of exercises like platform clarification, they will grow in their sense of consistency and in their responsiveness to students as well. The supervisor’s evaluation activity is exercised with and for teachers, for the purpose of program and instructional improvement; it is exercised more by soft technology than hard technology. Using analogies with methodologies employed in connoisseurship and criticism, the proponents of the soft approaches to evaluation argues that they can capture more of the human variables through formative evaluation. Once the teacher gains self-confidence, she will be much more likely to carry on such self-corrective activities independently. The supervisor’s role in teacher evaluation is primarily to work alongside teachers as they engage in the ongoing task of reflective practice in a learning community. One of the purposes of supervision is to deinstitutionalize institution supervision and to formalize the informal supervision and formative evaluation among teachers that now takes place in schools by legitimizing it.