Roadblocks to Coaching: Getting Past "Why" to Get to "What" and "How"

by Laura R. Lipsett

The number of districts employing instructional coaches is growing, as many district leaders recognize that professional development built around traditional in-service sessions for teachers doesn’t have much effect on student achievement. By offering ongoing support, feedback, and intensive, individualized professional learning, coaching promises to be a better way to improve instruction in schools. Preliminary research suggests that effective coaching programs make a difference (Knight, 2006, 2007).

However, instructional coaching, like other school reforms, is not challenge-free. Roadblocks can get in the way of implementing this strategy that has great promise for raising student achievement while breaking down cultures of isolation in which ineffective practices continue and where effective practices are never shared. As a result, the coaching program from the start needs to be intentional and well envisioned. The importance of establishing the "why" of the coaching program before getting to the "what" and "how" cannot be undervalued.

Closing Gaps

Districts understand that large-scale improvements in teaching and learning require them to support schools in new ways. District support has often produced inequities: Some schools and teachers receive the help they need, and as a result, some students do well while other students continue to struggle (Neufeld & Roper, 2003). Enabling all students to learn at high levels requires professional development on a large scale and calls for districts to use data to target where need is greatest and to establish priorities for supporting those schools and teachers who need it most. This priority is especially important when considering that finances may be tight and need to be directed a priori. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) provides real leverage for districts that are trying to bring about change. NCLB, though not perfect, has strengthened the hands of those who are working to boost overall achievement and close achievement gaps. Quite simply, schools will not close gaps in achievement until they close gaps in teacher quality (Haycock, 2006; Haycock & Peske, 2006; Sturtevant, 2003). Research gives evidence that teacher quality and distribution matter most in student achievement and that poor and minority students often have the least access to high-quality teaching.

In my district, instructional coaches have been in place at the elementary school for two years. Whereas I’ve had little to do with this aspect of implementation, I became involved with the coaching program this past fall when instructional coaches were introduced at the middle school level. I’ve been familiar with the literature on coaching since the early 2000s when I was engaged in curriculum development and evaluation of the Ohio Department of Education’s Literacy Specialist Project; however, I hadn’t been involved in crafting district vision and implementation. Now I write from the district perspective and from the lens of one who provides support and guidance for coaches’ enactment of their roles. My purpose here is to share some roadblocks articulated in the professional literature on coaching and by our middle school coaches in this first year of implementation. Themes in both refer to what the literature states is fundamental: Articulation of vision that refers to the "end in mind," expectations for systematic enactment, and ongoing support and training for the coaches.

Not Just a Fad

Pressure is what you feel when you don’t know what’s going on.
     — Chuck Knoll

Without a clear understanding of why a coaching model is being implemented in their buildings, teachers, parents, and other constituents may believe that coaching is merely a waste of district dollars and is yet another educational fad that will eventually fade with lack of follow-through and expectations for enactment. Yet coaching does increase the instructional capacity of schools and teachers, a known prerequisite for increasing learning (Sturtevant, 2003). Instructional coaching isn’t a fad: In fact, it has been around in some form or another since the 1920s (Hall, 2004). Improving teachers’ learning and their practice as well as their students’ learning requires professional development that is closely and explicitly tied to teachers’ ongoing work. Coaching addresses this requirement and is tied to essential features of teacher professional development (Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Russo, 2004; Sturtevant, 2003):

• It is grounded in inquiry, reflection, and experimentation that are teacher driven.
• It is collaborative, involving a sharing of knowledge among educators and a focus on teachers’ communities of practice rather than on individual teachers.
• It is ongoing and intensive and is supported by modeling and by collectively solving specific problems of practice.
• It is connected to and derived from teachers’ work with their students.
• It engages teachers in concrete tasks of teaching, assessment, observation, and reflection that make light the processes of learning and development.

Coaching also brings together teachers and administrators by involving administrators in developing priorities for the coaches’ work as it relates to school improvement plans and specific reform efforts. Coaching serves to value effective instruction as data indicate and to make this transparent to others in the district, creating venues for sharing and for mentoring of teachers and administrators. Implementing a coaching program doesn’t mean giving up other approaches to teacher learning, such as large-group instruction or seminars that introduce new concepts or activities. However, if teachers are to develop and improve their practices and student learning, they have to learn new instructional strategies that are specifically tied to what they are doing in the classroom, much like students in their classrooms need to be instructed the way they learn best: Teaching for understanding involves teachers as guides or coaches who facilitate learning by posing questions, challenging students’ thinking, and leading them in examining ideas and relationships. Instructional coaching supports teachers in this same manner (Neufeld & Roper, 2003).

Intentional Vision

Although coaching is a localized form of professional development, its success at the school level depends on the district—how the district shapes the coaches’ roles, focuses the coaches’ work around district instructional goals, and articulates the connection between that work and the overall reform strategies of the schools. Before implementing a coaching program, a district needs to consider all aspects of the program and be very clear as it communicates value and expectations to all constituents, including parents and other taxpayers (Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Richard, 2003; Sturtevant, 2003). In doing so, there should be plans for ongoing support and training of coaches and even building principals, who will enfold the coaches’ work in their school improvement efforts (Knight, 2006, 2007; Neufeld & Roper, 2003). Here are some major questions that should be addressed:

• What is the purpose of the coaching program?
• What do we value as a district regarding effective instruction and student learning?
• What criteria were used to select coaches? What are the coaches’ roles and responsibilities?
• What is the process (data) for how coaches are assigned to buildings or specific teachers?
• How do you allocate (prioritize) coaches to buildings in order to have maximum impact on instruction? How can coaches be used in a systematic way? How many days should a coach be in a school?
• With whom should the coaches work? Should coaches be assigned to schools in which they recently taught?
• Should coaches retain part-time teaching assignments? And if this is the case, how will coaches find time to do the work? How can coaching be organized as the demand for it outstrips the time available?
• How should schools find time for small-group, coach-provided professional development? Should teachers have to attend, or should this be voluntary?
• What should coaches say in response to teachers who say the coaching program is merely another fad? What should be the response to teachers who are unmotivated to change or unwilling to learn anything new? What about teachers who overtly resist them?
• What can coaches do when they work in schools where leadership is weak?

Facing Challenges

After conducting interviews and observations at local schools and reviewing coaching literature, Richard (2003) describes the practice of coaching as promising but as an often poorly focused school improvement practice. He warns of leaders who expect coaching alone to solve a variety of problems from low test scores to poor student-teacher relationships (Richard, 2003). Coaches can help a school improve, but not alone and not without attention to other pressing issues, such as broader efforts in professional development, the learning environment, leadership, allocation and use of resources, use of technologies, community involvement in the school, and well-developed and thoughtful curricula. Further, changes in instruction can take a long time. Coaches may be dismayed by how little change in instruction can be seen. District administrators can help manage expectations for coaching by acknowledging that change takes time—and often more time than you’d generally expect.

The middle school instructional coaches in my district were hired based in part on demonstration of content-area knowledge and district-supported training that included quality formative assessments and instructional and learning strategies to support differentiated instruction. In the previous school year, all the coaches attended district-sponsored training in Assessment for Learning (Battelle for Kids) and the State Institute for Reading Instruction: Adolescent Literacy (Ohio Department of Education). As well, this past August, all attended a week-long workshop on Jim Knight’s framework for instructional coaching (Knight, 2007), led by a trainer from the University of Kansas Center for Research and Learning.

In this first year of implementation, persistent themes resonate that speak to the need for better-focused leadership and support from both district and building levels:

• There’s a strong desire by teachers to understand better the district’s philosophy regarding curriculum and instruction and how the coaching program fits with this; currently, clarity is lacking. Both district and building-level leaders need to clearly communicate over and over again how this strategy is one of many that are being used to attain building goals as outlined in their school improvement plans. [
• Before hiring the coaches, it would have been beneficial if aligned expectations (curriculum, "best practices"/instructional, learning and assessment strategies) had been articulated and communicated to teachers. This first year a lot of attention has been given to curriculum and assessment alignment across the district’s four middle schools. The coaches have been instrumental in helping to accomplish this although alignment wasn’t part of their job description. This has added to their frustration and their feelings of ineffectiveness and lack of support that would help them frame their work to teachers.
• There’s a need for "press" from both the top and grassroots levels of the district organization for why coaching is a strategy and why buildings are required to fold it into their school improvement plans. Expectations for "being coached" need to be present. Without this support, there is a good possibility that the efforts of the coaches will merely be greeted with voluntary "submission" by the teachers. Building principals should have a formal plan that includes a scheduling format and is organized by building and grade level. Further, what are the expectations for the building principal? What is the building principal’s role in making full use of the coaching services, and how do the services to be rendered align with individual building reforms and goals (which also need to be articulated clearly to the teachers)? What are the expectations for the "team players"—teachers and principals? How are they expected to embrace coaching as a strategy to be aligned with school improvement plans?

Communicating Worth

There are many implementation issues and challenges. If district administrators are not knowledgeable about what they ask schools to do, they cannot support implementation. Likewise, if the district neither supports nor holds principals and others accountable, no program will be effectively implemented. There’s also the issue of communicating the worth of the coaching program. Data suggest that teachers, after some initial trepidation, come to value their work with coaches and colleagues (Neufeld & Roper, 2003). Coaching offers long-term follow-up, long-term consistency, and a sense of trust, so that coaches can be a supportive agent for the classroom teacher. If teachers’ skills are sharpened, the teachers are going to apply those skills in their classroom. Both their practice and their students will benefit.

With spotty track records of the success of traditional professional development, coaching stories being published demonstrate this strategy as one with great potential (Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Richard, 2003; Sturtevant, 2003). At least in theory, instructional coaching helps educators envision a world where professional development means showing, not telling; where teachers can learn and improve their practice in a reflective, supportive setting; and where coaches serve as liaisons between research and practice, bringing the latest findings to the classroom. Coaching can provide mentoring and safe spaces for teachers to ask questions, admit to struggles, and share efforts for how they are effectively instructing students.

Resources

Here are some useful resources on literacy coaching. See also the resources cited in the References section below.

Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse
NCTE and IRA have partnered to put together resources to inform coaching programs to include journal articles, qualification guidelines, a professional development checklist, and case studies.

Instructional Coaching: Kansas Coaching Project
This site features aspects of the Kansas Project located at the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning and includes research, upcoming conferences/institutes, coaching tools, and a blog.

Prosocial Learning Communities: One Step at a Time
Three school districts are working at the process of reform, using coaching to bring about change. The importance of honest conversations and realistic goal setting in order for systemic change to occur is described.

Standards for Middle School and High School Literacy Coaches
Provides standards for secondary literacy coaches with standards in math, science, and social studies and describes some high schools that have literacy coaches.

References

Hall, B. (2004, Fall). Literacy coaches: An evolving role. Carnegie Reporter, 3(1). Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.carnegie.org/reporter/09/literacy/index.html.

Haycock, K. (2006). No more invisible kids. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 38–42.

Haycock, K., & Peske, H. (2006). Teacher inequality: How poor and minority students are shortchanged on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Education Trust.

Knight, J. (2006). Eight factors for realizing better classroom teaching through support, feedback and intensive, individualized professional learning. The School Administrator. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.aasa.org/publications/saarticledetail.cfm?ItemNumber=5874&snItemNumber=&tnIteNumber.

Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity—promises and practicalities. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute/Aspen Program on Education. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.edmatters.org/webreports/CoachingPaperfinal.pdf.

Richard, A. (2003). Making our own road: The emergence of school-based staff developers in America’s public schools. New York: Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.emcf.org/pdf/oldprog_sap_makingownroad.pdf.

Russo, A. (2004, July/August). School-based coaching. Harvard Education Letter. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/2004-ja/coaching.shtml.

Sturtevant, E. G. (2003). The literacy coach: A key to improving teaching and learning in secondary schools. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.all4ed.org/publications/LiteracyCoach.pdf.

Dr. Laura R. Lipsett is the secondary curriculum and instruction coordinator for Westerville City Schools. She works with grades 6–8 instructional coaches, grades 6–12 teachers, administrators, and intervention specialists. Her work focuses on curriculum alignment, instructional improvement, and the closing of achievement gaps. Prior to this, she was an administrator for the Office of Reading Improvement, Ohio Department of Education; a college professor and administrator for three universities; a grades 7–12 teacher and administrator; and a writer for daily and weekly newspapers.

Return to top