instructional coaching - a policy study

Running Head: INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING – POLICY STUDY 1

Instructional Coaching – A Policy Study

Marianne McFadden

October 23, 2013

EDG 540: Education & the Common Good: Philosophical Foundations

Instructor: Keith Shively, Cabrini College

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING – A POLICY STUDY 2

Instructional Coaching: Issues Contributing to Promoting the Policy and Model

After studying the facts and implications emphasized in 1983 by A Nation at Risk, and then

following up with NCLB (No Child Left Behind) in 2001, it becomes clear that both the

document and the policy call for a much more rigorous curriculum and much more

accountability – both for student learning and teacher performance. In the thirty years since

the publishing of A Nation at Risk, the American education scene has experienced the

implementation of many revisions, innovative programs and teaching techniques, updated


curricula, more stringent performance guidelines, new policies, refocused standardized testing,

and more specific teacher evaluations. As accountability took ‘center-stage’, a more refined

focus on teacher performance and effectiveness, at every stage of his or her career, became

the emphasis in professional development and in-service programs. The rationale seemed to

be that improved and excelling teacher performance would increase effectiveness in the

classroom and therefore improve student achievement. As a result, students would more

easily attempt and be successful in their yearly standardized testing events, and likewise make

smoother transitions from middle to high school and high school to college. Since transitions

could become smoother, then it would be reasonable to assume that student effort and

interest would improve in the high school years, thus improving grades, accomplishment, and

give rise to better chances for admittance into a good college or a reputable post-secondary

program of the student’s choice. With these beliefs in mind, it seems reasonable to assume

that optimal teacher classroom performance could have a profound effect on student progress

and achievement.

In an effort to raise student achievement through improved instructional practice, Jim Knight

and the Center for Research on Learning at the University of Kansas developed, in the early

years of the twenty-first century, the Instructional Coaching Model – an initiative with a

structured framework which addresses lagging student achievement and attempts to improve

it through intense, customized ongoing one-on-one professional development strategies for

teachers at all stages of their careers (Knight, 2011). Since there is a need to improve student

achievement in order to document growth in coursework, and especially in high-stakes

standardized testing and benchmarks, this initiative aims at helping the classroom teacher in

developing strong, evidence-based methods in conjunction with raising student achievement.


The goal of this program aims towards raising the effectiveness of instructional practices

through ongoing collaboration between the highly-skilled coach and the classroom teacher.

The educator coach-classroom teacher relationship is formed and developed throughout the

school year as the coach consistently supports the teacher as they work to improve the

teacher’s knowledge, skills, and techniques within an atmosphere of collective responsibility,

collaboration, goal-setting, communication, and feedback for improved student achievement

(Knight, 2011).

Definition and Purpose for the Instructional Coaching Model

In studying several sources that describe the Instructional Coaching framework’s

development and methods of implementation (and having attended an extensive seven-day

workshop at CAIU from October 2006 to January 2007), it is evident that the coach is normally

a seasoned teacher, considered to have some expertise, but does not perform the duties

normally taken on by a mentor teacher or by a building principal. While a mentor typically

guides and evaluates a first-year teacher, and a principal supervises and evaluates all teachers

in the building, the coach is assigned to partner with colleagues in a specific discipline (one that

the coach is certified in and has a degree of expertise in teaching) and the teachers involved

with the coach can be at any point of their career – some very new and some quite

experienced (Knight, 2011). Jim Knight makes it clear that a coach is NOT an evaluator. The

coach also is NOT a teacher’s assistant or helper. Rather, the coach takes on a partnership role

with departmental teachers who want to make improvements in their techniques, style,

delivery, testing styles, time management, and lesson planning in conjunction with

standardized testing and traditional (coursework) testing results. As part of this partnership

with each involved teacher, the coach and the teacher follow some simple guidelines: open,


honest collaboration, equal status (coach is NOT viewed as having a higher status than the

teachers he or she partners with), planning of goal-setting for the teacher and his/her students,

dialogue with humility, precise and provisional explanation of teaching practices and providing

feedback (coach’s role), agreement to continually improve and grow (teacher’s role), and

coach’s openness to the teacher’s point of view in offering opinions provisionally (Knight,

2011).

Of particular interest, it should be noted that in their article, Coaches As System Leaders, Jim

Knight and Michael Fullan reiterate many of the aspects mentioned above, but clearly

emphasize one ‘requirement’ for the possibility of the coaching model’s success: the absolute

need for the building principal to be an instructional leader and the commitment from the

district to focus persistently on instructional improvement. They assert that coaches are the

most crucial “change agent” next to the principal. If professional learning (not accountability),

according to Fullan and Knight, is stressed and focused on, then the district will make strides

with the coaching model in creating, developing, and sustaining instructional improvement,

and accountability will become an issue that needs not to be addressed (Fullan & Knight, 2011).

Lastly, Cynthia Coburn and Sarah Woulfin, both of the University of California in Berkeley,

point to the instructional coach as a “chief strategist” in assisting teachers in making changes in

their classroom performance in accordance with new policies that are implemented within a

school, especially when a new program is rolled-out and the program involves innovative

teaching techniques and intense use of existing student data and new data compiled

periodically that aims in tracking student progress that results from implementing the new

program (Coburn &Woulfin, 2012).


Specific Techniques Highlighted As Effective

In her Education Week blog, Elena Aguilar – an experienced educator and transformational

leadership coach in the Oakland, California – calls for the necessity of coaching to include the

coach modeling lessons for the teacher to witness and use as a learning tool. Aguilar writes

that teachers need “to see the skills and moves of a master teacher, and they need to see those

delivered in their own classrooms, with their own students” (Aguilar, 23 Sep 2013). Aguilar

points to the fact that the teacher will learn from the expertise of the coach’s technique, but

the regular classroom teacher will add his or her own personality in presenting the same

lesson. It is the expertise, not the finesse or pizzazz (or confidence), that is being observed and

emulated when the teacher attempts the same lesson on his own. The aim here, Aguilar

asserts, is to observe good teaching style with the teacher’s actual students and not be

threatened by a master teacher or feel authority is being taken away (Aguilar, 23 Sep 2013).

In their discussion of implementing the Early Reading First project (ERF) at the Education

Development Center in Massachusetts, the project directors of the ERF program point to

videotaping as a highly effective technique, especially in teachers of the very young since it is

difficult to observe all the young students’ reactions and responses while attempting to be

successful in presenting a new program. In their article in Young Children, the directors

highlight the concerns of the teachers before being videotaped and their corresponding

reactions and feedback after the taping is complete and post-observation discussions are

finished as well. The teachers, who originally had reservations about the taping, are quoted as

stressing how valuable reviewing the tape became in learning new strategies and seeing the

whole picture – a slow motion of all aspects of the class, including every step of the teacher

and all responses made by the children during the class. Teachers in the program who


participated in the taping realized that they wanted to become better teachers and they

wanted their students to get the most from their classroom experience, so the taping,

analyzing, and feedback all helped in realizing their goals for themselves and their students.

Watching the children on tape provided additional information on learning styles, pace, and

student interest as well as ‘who did what and how often’ – a valuable piece of information in

aiding class management for future classes ((Skiffington, Washburn & Elliott, 2011).

Adjustments and Extensions to the Original Coaching Model

In addition to Knight’s description of the coach-teacher relationship, roles, and expectations,

Jane Kise, a renowned educational consultant and specialist in teambuilding, coaching, and

school staff development adds in her publication, Differentiated Coaching, the fact that

personality should come into play when a coach-teacher relationship is set up. Using the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator tool, Kise clearly emphasizes that the tool must be issued to those

involved in the instructional coaching partnerships so that each teacher’s needs can be

addressed appropriately, in accordance with what his or her personality traits find comfortable

with respect to the coach’s approach and specific teaching techniques that are suggested in the

coaching process – some techniques make some personalities uncomfortable, so the coach

should be aware of which personalities could successfully implement certain teaching styles or

techniques. The same would hold true for classroom management, creativity in assignments,

kinds of readings attempted in the class, and ways to evaluate students. Just as students and

teachers need to understand each others’ personalities in order to get along and succeed in the

classroom every day, the coach can advise and suggest techniques and programs that fit the

comfort level of the teacher’s personality. If a teaching style is ‘out of the comfort zone’ of the

teacher, then more likely than not the teacher will stumble in attempting to successfully


implement the technique. Kise outlines all sixteen of the Myers-Briggs personality types and

makes clear specific examples of styles that each personality type would be comfortable in

using in the classroom (Kise, 2006). Kise’s sensible approach can only help the coach and

teacher form a stronger, more open relationship that exercises a mutual understanding.

Additionally, throughout her book, Kise makes clear that a coach who relies on the teacher’s

strengths to effect change will enjoy success in helping the teacher to bring about the change

that is sought. Lastly, Kise also outlines common stressors that specific personalities encounter

daily and offers ways to deal with these problems as a focus for bringing about change in order

to decrease their effects (Kise, 2006).

Members of the Examining Mathematics Coaching project refined the ‘requirements’ of a

good coaching model as they included necessary components in their version of the effective

coaching structure. Their model includes: a pre-lesson conference, a lesson observation, and a

post-lesson conference. Within the pre-lesson conference, the teacher’s concerns are made

known, and within the post-lesson conference, the coach makes suggestions as to how the

concerns could be successfully addressed, and these suggestions are made in accordance with

what observations were noted during the lesson observation. Prior to establishing the teacher-

coach partnership, teachers fill out an informational teacher’s needs inventory which assesses

the teacher’s confidence in various aspects including classroom environment and students’

styles of learning. The inventory is designed to aid the coach in forming more specific

questions, comments, and suggestions during the conferencing sessions with the teacher.

Additionally, the members of the project did emphasize the importance of effective coaching

as being content-based as well as being technique or methods-based. They clearly stated that

classroom teachers need to show an interest and desire to discuss content in light of how


specific new techniques and/or strategies could improve learning and progress with specific

content (Yopp, Burroughs, Luebeck, Heidema, Mitchell, & Sutton, 2011).

While Jim Knight developed the framework for the coaching model and Jane Kise added the

personality aspect as essential in completely understanding the teacher (and coach as well) as

an individual with specific needs, Marcia Rock and her associates describe a new twist in

instructional coaching that gives the initiative a virtual capability. In their article, The Power of

Virtual Coaching, the coach is an active participant in the lesson as it is being taught. The

teacher wears an earpiece, and while he or she teaches, she is being advised from a remote

location by a coach who is viewing the entire class and lesson through Skype. The advantages

to this twist in instructional coaching are many: the teacher doesn’t continuously see the

coach in the midst of the class, the students do not see the coach (and feel they’re being

watched), and feedback is ongoing throughout the lesson since messages are delivered as the

lesson goes on. Revisions and changes can be made on the spot – no need to revise when the

next lesson is implemented. The virtual coach can decide when and if the focus of the lesson

needs to be re-directed, sometimes this comes about through observing student reactions and

evident loss of interest, and thus inform the teacher immediately. Other benefits include the

ability to coach teachers from other districts virtually, and the obvious cost and time savings in

not having to travel (Rock, Zigmond, Gregg, & Gable, 2011).

Pennsylvania’s Involvement

Pennsylvania became interested in committing to adopting the instructional coaching

practices in initiatives. The state has established a Collaborative Coaching Board (CCB) in order

to make sure that all coaching methods are aligned and supported. The CCB was created by the


Pennsylvania Department of Education in October 2006 so that instructional coaching initiatives

would align in supporting school improvement.

Pennsylvania’s coaching website (pacoaching.org) states:

The Pennsylvania Institute for Instructional Coaching (PIIC), a partnership of the Annenberg Foundation and the Pennsylvania Department of Education, provides the uniform and consistent delivery of sustained professional development around instructional coaching and mentoring, working to build teacher capacity as a means of increasing student engagement and improving student achievement. (piic.pacoaching.org, 2013)

The PIIC works through PA’s twenty-nine IUs in providing professional development to mentors,

instructional coaches, teachers, and school administrators. The Pennsylvania High School

Coaching Initiative (PAHSCI), which began providing instructional coaching to sixteen high-needs

districts in 2005, is instrumental in offering highly effective professional development exercises,

activities, and lessons to the PIIC. Additionally, the Mid-Atlantic Comprehensive Center at the

George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education (MACC) serves

state education agencies in the District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and

Pennsylvania to enable them to address the differentiated needs of low-performing schools and

districts (portal.state.pa.us, 2013).

Basic Assertions on Each Side of the Issue

Districts that have embraced instructional coaching as part of their improvement plan have

verified that the model provides a win-win situation for the teacher and the students as well.

Recent research on the PAHSCI shows evidence of successes: in 2005, PAHSCI began working in

sixteen high-needs districts, and according to pacoaching.org, research conducted over three

years in PAHSCI schools indicates (portal.state.pa.us, 2013):

http://pahsci.pacoaching.org/


In 18 of 21 PAHSCI schools, the percentage of 11th-graders reaching proficient or advanced levels in math on the Pennsylvania System of Student Assessment (PSSA) exceeded the statewide percentage of students reaching proficiency from 2004-2007.

In 15 of 21 PAHSCI schools, the percentage of 11th-graders reaching proficient or advanced levels in reading on the PSSA exceeded the statewide percentage of students reaching proficiency from 2004-2007.

91% of teachers coached regularly stated that coaches helped them understand and use new teaching strategies.

79% of teachers coached regularly said that their coach played a significant role in improving their classroom instruction and practice.

High-profile, policy initiatives have reaped the benefits from the services of coaches by

allowing the coach to thoroughly study the requirements of the policy and then help the

teachers involved with the initiative to change and revise their techniques in order to comply

with the policy. This is evident in the Reading First program that was implemented in the

primary grades in a low-performing urban elementary school, where teachers were aided the

year before the policy was effective all the way through the end of the first year of its

implementation. Initially the road was rough since the policy was multi-faceted and had many

demands on the teachers’ time outside the classroom. However, as the program got underway,

coaches became vital to proper usage of the materials and tracking tools in the program and

teachers found their help indispensible (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012).

In schools where coaching models are not well defined from the get-go, problems arise in

situating roles, purpose, and collaboration. N. L. Stevens describes a high school in which a

literacy coach is attempting to find a purpose, and finally concludes that since literacy coaching

was designed for the elementary level, it would be best to return these coaches to where they

can be effectively used. He concludes that more research is needed at the higher level for the

literacy coach’s place in the high schools (Stevens, 2011). Problems such as these arise when


roles are not clearly described and teachers and administrators are not all ‘on board’ with the

program being implemented.

Additionally, districts and schools in which instructional coaching has not become

commonplace look at the initiative as beneficial, but may not make a commitment to establish

and develop the model due to staffing concerns, monetary restrictions, and the delicate

situation of encouraging veteran teachers to ‘buy into’ being advised by highly qualified

instructional coaches who may actually have less experience (yet newer, effective methods and

approaches) than the classroom teacher being coached. These districts and schools often opt to

attempt to strengthen their existing mentoring program for first-year teachers by offering more

opportunities for professional development that are known to be highly effective and innovative

(and meet the needs of the students). In Steinbacher-Reed and Powers’ article, the authors give

suggestions and formulate ways to keep the ‘coaching concept’ but not have an actual member

titled as coach on staff. This is done in an effort to keep costs down in this troubled economy,

where school districts are scrambling to make cuts but still keep the integrity of good, effective

programs in place (Steinbacher-Reed & Powers, 2011). Likewise, David Knight describes the

cost required to keep instructional coaches on staff and additional fees incurred through

ongoing professional development in order to keep the model current and viable (Knight, 2012).

Conclusions and Remarks

This paper has explored the various aspects of instructional coaching and has shown that

many benefits can certainly be realized through proper use and whole-school or whole-district

‘buy-in’ to the program. Without full cooperation, intense professional development, strong

leaders, and collaborative partnerships, teachers will not benefit from an initiative that was


well-constructed to meet the needs of all teachers, no matter where they were professionally –

beginners, experienced, seasoned, or experts. An initiative such as this is designed with

everyone in mind, including teachers, administrators, and students, and all benefit from its

proper implementation.

BibliographyBibliography

Coburn, C. E., & Woulfin, S. L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5-30. doi:10.1002/RRQ.008

E Aguilar. (2013, Sep 23). Coaching new teachers: the importance of modeling [web blog comment]. Retrieved from http://www.blogs.edweek.org

Expanding instructional coaching in Pennsylvania schools. (2013). Retrieved from Pennsylvania Institute for Instructional Coaching website: http://piic.pacoaching.org/ index.php/piic-hom

Fullan, M., & Knight, J. (2011). Coaches as system leaders. Educational Leadership, 69(2), 50-53. Instructional coaching in Pennsylvania. (2013). Retrieved from Pennsylvania Department of Education website: http://portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/ coaching_in_pa/20748

Kise, J. A. (2006). Differentiated Coaching. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Knight, D. (2012). Assessing the cost of instructional coaching. Journal of Education Finance, 38(1), 52-80.

Knight, J. (2011). What good coaches do. Educational Leadership, 69(2), 18-22.

Rock, M. L., Zigmond, N. P., Gregg, M., & Gable, R. A. (2011). The power of virtual coaching. Educational Leadership, 69(2), 42-47.

Skiffington, S., Washburn, S., & Elliott, K. (2011). Instructional coaching: helping preschool


teachers reach their full potential. YC: Young Children, 66(3), 12-19.

Steinbacher-Reed, C., & Powers, E. A. (2011). Coaching without a coach. Educational Leadership, 69(4), 68-72.

Stevens, N. L. (2011). The high school literacy coach: searching for an identity. Journal Of Education, 191(3), 19-25.

Yopp, D., Burroughs, E. A., Luebeck, J., Heidema, C., Mitchell, A., & Sutton, J. (2011). How to be a wise consumer of coaching. Journal Of Staff Development, 32(1), 50-53.