The purpose of this research is to identify the policy and structural gaps of educational supervision and therninfluence these gaps have on its practice in the Ethiopian general education system. It addressed issuesrnrelated to the policy, structure and practice of educational supervision in Ethiopian general educationrnsystem. The supervisory functions, the contributions of supervision to the education system and challengesrnrelated to the practices of supervision were also described. The research suggested ways of improving thernpolicy provision, structure and existing practice in educational supervision in the general educationrnsystem. Mixed research design was used and both quantitative and qualitative data were collectedrnsimultaneously, analyzed, interpreted and merged to give meaning. The target population of this researchrnconsisted of teachers, school principals, supervisors, experts and education leaders. In the research onernhundred fourteen individual participants, three regions, five Zones, five woreda`s, six schools werernparticipated. Random and purposive sampling was used to select the participants of the study. The datarncollection instruments were document analysis, questionnaire, focus group discussion, and interview. Thernquantitative information obtained through questionnaire was analyzed by using frequency count,rnpercentage, mean and standard deviation. SPSS version 23 was used for data analysis. On the other hand,rnthe qualitative information obtained through document analysis, interview and FGD were analyzedrnthematically and merged with the quantitative data. The mean value of 2.88 and 2.82 respectively,rnconfirmed there is no policy guide to be used by supervisors working at national, Regional EducationrnBureau and Zones/Sub-city levels. On the other hand the mean score of 1.91 and qualitative data indicatedrnthat the understanding of implementers on the policy of supervision to guide primary schools in a clusterrnmodality was found low. Exception Oromia there is no policy provision for secondary schools supervision.rnThe mean value of 2.67 and qualitative indicated that, there is no clear supervision structure to addressrnsupervisory practices at national level. At REBs, supervision is structurally under TDP department, notrnindependently established and this has resulted in unclear line of accountability between different levels ofrnthe system. The awareness of implementers about cluster center and schools supervision was found lowrn(mean score of 1.62 and 1.80). Supervisory functions are found to be non-supportive (mean value of 2.3)rnand supervisors have no sufficient training to conduct supervisory activities (mean value of 2.38). Therntraining given to teachers and principals was not need based (mean 2.1), no training impact assessmentrn(mean 2.86) and supervisors do not make exam analysis (2.78). Based on the findings it was concludedrnthat the policy provision in the cluster center has disparity across regions and there is no governing policyrnto be used by the supervisors at national and regional levels. The lack of structure at national level andrnlack of independent structure at Regions and Zonal levels in the general education system has negativelyrnaffected the feedback systems. Insufficient training of the supervisorâ€™s and lack of capacity of supervisorsrnhas been followed by non supportive supervision and failure to improve the quality of education. Based onrnthe finding it was recommended that the policy document to guide educational supervision need to berndeveloped and the supervision structure should be restructured by MoE and REBs to improve the quality ofrnsupervision practices and in turn quality of education.rnKeywords: supervision policy, supervisory functions, structure of supervision,rnsupervision practice