By Ellen Eisenberg

By Ellen Eisenberg, Executive Director of The Professional Institute for Instructional Coaching (TPIIC)

Monday, April 15, 2019

In continuing the conversation from our April 1st blog, this study states that “teacher coaching is able to improve student outcomes because of the interventions’ specific attention to teachers’ core classroom practices” ( Teacher Coaching, Kraft & Blazar).

That’s the good news! 

Yet, I find the word “intervention” antithetical to my thinking. An intervention is something that interrupts or disrupts a practice or routine – maybe even an invasion of sorts. That is quite negative and very often is single focused. The purpose may be positive – to change a behavior – but the connotation and even the practice is pretty grim from my perspective.

Instead, I think coaching is a positive introspective and reflective process that does not have a beginning and end. Rather, it is an ongoing, persistent involvement and connection to something that becomes more and more effective as time goes on. While the coaching interaction begins with the end in mind, e.g., increase student engagement, the process gets stronger each day and reinforces the notion that professional learning is continual.

Teacher engagement and school climate: Bringing coaching to scale likely would include a prescriptive approach, requiring teachers who may be hesitant or resistant to engage in the coaching process to take part. This may be understandable given an expanded emphasis on linking scores from classroom observation rubrics to high-stakes job decisions. However, coaching is unlikely to be successful without teachers’ openness to feedback and willingness to adapt their practice. Here, school leaders have a key role to play in creating a culture of trust and respect among administrators and staff in order to ease teachers’ concerns and increase their willingness to actively engage. 

Absolutely… if coaching is mandated, the resistance will be insurmountable. The administrative team and the coach need a shared vision of what instructional coaching is and isn’t. This must be shared with the staff so that everyone is on the same page. When the vision and expectations are explicit, the goals are clear and misunderstanding is minimized. Of course, the administrative team, coaches, and staff must uphold the parameters of the instructional coaching model and remain supportive, confidential, and working towards the same goal – building teacher capacity and influencing student growth.

Coaching interactions are not “fixit” situations. Coaches and their teaching colleagues work together to find the balance that works for them. A blended approach, e.g., F2F and virtual, has merit, especially if the stakeholders meet together and plan what support is F2F and what support is virtual. Either way, I stand strong… coaching is not an intervention; it’s a way of life to help all stakeholders, students and their teachers, to go from “good to great!”

How is coaching in your building more than just an intervention for increasing student engagement and changing school climate?

No comments:

Post a Comment