Too often the image of an instructional coach is that of an overworked and stressed educator with frizzy hair and coffee stains dotting their wrinkled outfit. Their schedules are maxed out and often double booked and, often removed from their personal working space, they navigate busy hallways filled with kids while balancing their computer, notebook, resources and an empty water bottle that they committed to filling during the day but have had no time for even the briefest moment of self-care. Full time coaches often have a large caseload of teachers spanning across grades, content areas and sometimes even different school sites and teacher leaders are tasked with managing both the significant responsibility of creating and model classroom and building the capacity of their peers while juggling a number of semi-administrative tasks. School administrators often and incorrectly look for instructional superheroes who can become coaches as a way to scale the success that the coach had as an instructor by spreading them around the building. Coaches, in turn, become overworked and their schedule does not allow for them to maximize the strengths that allowed them to be coaches in the first place. Coaches are or were great teachers and they have a desire to develop their peers as instructors but their schedules and their tasks take them away from that core and spread them far to thin to be effective.
This image of a coach as
an instructional superhero is too often a true representation of individuals
who are given too many tasks to accomplish and teachers to sufficiently
develop. When the individual is the system, no system exists at all and for
coaching to become truly effective in a school building it must be developed in
layers starting with administration, moving to coaches and most importantly
finishing with buy in from teachers being coached during the school year.
Layer One: Administrators
Build the Conditions for Coaching
School administrators must
trust instructional coaching is the key to lasting instructional improvement.
There has been a movement towards “principal as instructional leader” in the
school building which often becomes a convoluted idea that the principal must
know instruction at the nuanced level rather than the principal knowing how to
create conditions that support long-term school improvement (Katzenmeyer &
Moller, 2009). For an administrator to create the conditions for instructional
coaching to be effective it means that time for coaching must be built into the
master schedule and an instructional leadership team, including coaches, must
have time to share problems of practice and best practices to improve
instruction in the school. The principal is the instructional leader in that he
or she creates conditions for teachers to grow not that they shoulder the
burden for coaching all teachers. A clear coaching model that includes who is
coaching, who is being coached and how coaching impacts how teachers interact
in professional learning communities is essential if coaching is to be truly
effective (Dufour, Dufour & Eaker, 2006). Once the conditions are created
by the school leader then the coaches themselves are the ones that must work
together to create a culture of coaching with their peers.
Another key element of
great conditions for coaching is that all members on a staff have a coach and
are receiving coaching throughout the year. To create a climate of continuous
learning administrators, coaches themselves and teachers must deserve to have a
coach and the value of coaching must be continually discussed throughout the
building. Principals must be transparent about the coaching they’re receiving
and model the way as a leader who still has countless areas to grow in their
profession. For a culture of coaching to exist, principals, assistant
principals and members of an instructional leadership team must be willing to
talk about their particular problems of practice and instructional coaches
themselves must be willing to acknowledge the work they are doing to improve
their craft. Coaching is layered, not flat, and a culture of continuous
learning happens when all members of a community commit to growth through
collaboration.
Layer Two: Coaches Create
the Culture with the Colleagues.
Once the conditions and
systems for coaching are created by school leaders, it becomes essential that
the coaches themselves create a culture in which coaching is constructive and
collaborative. All too often coaches are seen as or portray themselves as
master teachers with knowledge to share. While this is part of being a coach,
legitimacy in coaching comes from modeling great classroom instruction while
communicating that there is no holy grail of instruction and that even the best
teachers have difficult days. Coaches, working in a great structure with time
devoted to coach their peers, build confidence and develop skills in their
teachers. If coaching becomes punitive or if a teacher feels as if they are
being talked down to instead of built up then the structure of coaching does
not matter.
This idea must be broken
down one step further and it must become clear to teachers how coaching and
evaluation are aligned. When the line between coaching and evaluation is
blurred then teachers do not trust the coaching process. If a coach is also an
evaluator and a teacher does not know if they are in the classroom for an
observation that will lead to coaching or for an evaluation then the integrity
of the coaching system is compromised. Evaluation and coaching must work in
tandem. A coach must co-construct outcomes with their teachers and use
evaluations as a data point for teachers to grow from. If an instructional
coach consistently works with a teacher and that teacher’s evaluation is flat
or decreases then the coach must look in the mirror and determine how to more
closely align their coaching and evaluation cycles with that teacher.
Otherwise, a teacher will not trust that the coaching they are receiving will
manifest in improved evaluations through clear feedback and proper action
steps.
As difficult as the task
may sound, the culture of coaching is up to those doing the work with the
teachers. Coaches in a building must be aligned on their goals, thoughtful on
their strategies and aware of how teachers are receiving coaching in the
building. Administrators can build the foundation but coaches must put up the
walls of a great coaching system. The last, and potentially most integral part
comes from those receiving coaching in themselves. If they are encouraged and
pushed to grow and are supported in their growth then they will spread the good
word of coaching to their peers and to new staff members in a building.
Layer Three: Teachers
Receive Coaching and Provide Feedback in Return.
Last year, on the first
day with staff after the winter vacation, I was giving a presentation on shifts
to our school’s coaching model to the teaching staff. I planned an engaging and
model session on the value of collaboration and continuous growth. At the very
end of the session when I was giving myself a mental pat-on-the-back for a
session well-run, one of my coachees came up to me and said, “I really loved
our work today but the graphic organizer would have been more useful for
teachers if it were a digital document and not a paper document because we
could put it in our online planning portfolios.” This feedback was surprising
to me because I had unrightfully assumed that, as the instructional leader in the
building, I was immune to feedback or that I could have gaps in my own
instruction. Let me first note that I too have a long way to grow as an
instructional leader and I am working to be more receptive to real-time
coaching as I hope my teachers would be. I quickly came to appreciate the
feedback both because the teacher was right in his assessment and also because
I knew that the teacher I was coaching saw our relationship as reciprocal -
which was what I had hoped for all along. Once the teacher realized that I
could benefit from feedback he would be more willing to hear my feedback and
accept my coaching. This reciprocity is the crux of a great teacher-coach
relationship.
By no means am I saying
that coaches should not use their expertise to inform the practice of another
teacher. Also, it is essential to communicate that sometimes coaches must
consult on or even drive a teachers practice so kids do not suffer poor
instruction for a second longer than they have to. What I am saying is that
coaches must be willing to communicate gaps in their expertise and ask for
feedback themselves both as an instructor and as a coach if teachers are going
to take their coaching to heart.
Teachers are a coach’s
best public relations team. If a teacher receives quality coaching and if it is
seen as a value add to their practice and not as an extra duty then they will
proselytize coaching to their peers. To accomplish this outcome coaches must
consistently refine their practice as a coach both from the feedback that they
receive from their teachers as well as from their own coach. This systems
brings me back to the notion that coaching is not a flat structure but a
layered and supported system in which every instructional staff member has a
someone spotting them as they climb the mountain that is teaching and
instructional coaching.
Conclusion
Instructional coaching is
an evolving role in today’s educational landscape. Some schools and districts
have a strong teacher leadership and instructional coaching framework while
others still rely on a core of coaches that travel building to building to
provide instructional support. Regardless of the structural differences in
coaching the layers stay the same. A system for and time to receive coaching
must be cultivated and protected by administrators. Coaches must then work to
cultivate relationships and a culture of reciprocity with their teachers.
Finally, teachers themselves will promote and receive coaching when they know
that their coaches are continually refining their craft. If these layers are
created then educators will meet their ultimate potential and, in turn,
students will grow and develop (Hall and Simeral, 2008).
References
Hall, P., & Simerall,
A. (2008) Building Teachers’ Capacity for Success: A Collaborative Approach
for Coaches and School Leaders. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.
Katzenmeyer, M., &
Moller, G. (2011) Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Helping Teachers Become
Leaders. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R.
& Eaker, R. Learning By Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning
Communities at Work. Bloomington, In.: Solution Tree.
Comments
Post a Comment