Two weeks ago, PIIC provided a wonderful three-day professional learning experience to coaches, mentors, administrators and other school/IU staff members. After great discussions about practice and the evolution of instructional coaching in their respective buildings, participants were asked to reflect and think about how coaching has helped move teachers from “information sharing” to “professional learning.”  You know the song, “It’s all about the bass?” Our PLO was “all about the practice!”

One coach remarked, “I have seen a shift from teachers just talking to each other to a major change in conversation being about strategies and ideas to use in the classroom.  This is a welcomed change in my building.” 

Professional development refers to the “staff development” that is typically offered to teachers. Been there; done that… we all know what happens when professional development in isolation is offered.  That’s not enough; providing PD means just sharing information and if the information is not relevant, that’s another issue.

The content offered in professional development may inform practice but it doesn’t change the practice. Practice changes when teachers talk together, plan together, and debrief together about what works well in classrooms; change occurs when the professional development is followed up with coaches and becomes professional learning that is consistent, ongoing, tied to teacher practice, standards, and research.

When coaches create a culture of collaboration and conversation, change occurs. And it is the coaches who are the first practitioners to notice those changes.

In what ways have you seen teachers move from information sharing to implementation of new information?

When talking about instructional coaching, very often the first thing mentioned is the cost to the district to hire a coach, especially in districts where the student population is plummeting and teachers may be furloughed. After all, how can a district justify hiring a coach who isn’t teaching his/her own students when the teaching staff is reduced and class size might increase as a result?

That’s a tough question and takes some very deliberate time to think about the needs of the school, talk through some options, and discuss the existing programs that are supported by the school and district leadership.

Instructional coaching is not an intervention or an “add-on.” Implemented well and effectively, it’s one of the only ways to ensure that “collaboration, inquiry, and reflection” (JSD, Apr 2015 vol. 36, No. 2.) are regularly integrated into the fabric of the school culture. Where else can teachers be honored for what they know and encouraged to work together for the purpose of improved learning for each other and their students? Where else can teachers’ learning be visible, meditative, and non-evaluative?

How to do coaching, however, is always the question.

Restructuring a school day and revising teachers’ schedules are ways to offer opportunities for schools to have instructional coaches on staff. The teachers are already there. Looking at schedules and a variety of responsibilities may yield some options. Yes, this is peer coaching… every instructional coaching model is a peer coaching model because colleagues work together and share their learning. A critical difference in coaching models, however, is the training, preparation, and support. Many peer coaches are not trained to be coaches; they offer to participate in a “peer coaching” initiative because they understand the benefits of working with their teacher partners. They want to support their colleagues as much as they want to be supported by them.

And, as we know, making time to meet with colleagues is critical for any coaching to be successful. That is one of the most challenging obstacles to overcome for colleagues working together without having daily release time devoted to working with each other. Without the identified time to do so, life intervenes and collaboration is not a priority.

What does your coaching schedule look like in your school?

Supervision vs. coaching… how many times has the question emerged… can a coach be a supervisor or principal of the school?

That’s a really important question and deserves some discussion. While it is true that some principals do coach, they still have the responsibility for holding teachers accountable for making changes that the principals suggest.

Cathy Toll has a clear distinction between coaching and supervising. She says that a coach is “One who helps teachers to recognize what they know and can do, assists teachers as they strengthen their ability to make more effective use of what they know and do, and supports teachers as they learn more and do more.”  Her definition of supervisor is also to the point. A supervisor is, “One who ensures that teachers meet the requirements of their positions at a satisfactory level and continue to do so over time.”

Here’s where I disagree with Cathy. She also says that when supervisors move teachers beyond satisfactory demonstration of their work, they are coaching. I’m not convinced… whether they are evaluating the teacher’s work in real time or helping them understand ways to improve their practices for future work, a supervisor “tells” more than “listens” and that differs greatly from how coaches work with teachers.

Yes, I think principals can give sage advice about teaching and learning. However, they still wear the hat of evaluator and know that whatever they suggest to teachers needs to be followed. Coaches are more likely to help teachers make their thinking visible and discuss what worked well in classrooms. The coach’s influence is more subtle and grows over time, helping teachers take ownership of their learning and building confidence, skills, and content knowledge; a principal or supervisor’s influence may be more observable, requiring the teacher to make immediate changes as “suggested” by the principal.

Have you experienced any situations where the coach is also a supervisor as well? How are those two roles kept separate?

The second semester is always a challenge for teachers and instructional coaches. T’is the season for testing… enough said!

Well, maybe not enough said! School communities know the pressure placed on the stakeholders for students to be successful in these standardized tests, even if the scores only reflect a snapshot in time for the actual test taking procedures. Certainly, the tests are supposed to reflect the students’ knowledge base and how they can apply their learning. We know that increased testing does not always accurately indicate what the students know and are able to do. And, I can’t help to think that if I wanted to lose weight, getting on the scale five times a day would not help me do that… portion control and exercise would.  Testing should adopt the same philosophy… increased testing doesn’t equate to better scores for students; it just creates more frustration, fear, and anxiety.

Helping teachers become highly qualified practitioners and helping them use effective instructional practices with their students are ways that coaches become the lifeline of support. You are the ones helping teachers think about their goals and objectives, their practices, their instructional delivery, and their reflections about what worked well in classrooms. You are the ones having ongoing conversations and collectively problem-solving with teachers to help them make data driven instructional decisions. That’s your role and why it is so important. You are a change agent working with teachers to change practice; meeting regularly with teachers to talk about practice is the only way to accomplish that goal.

So, if you are inundated with the testing administration and other test prep kinds of things, think about “inviting” others from the school to join you on a testing committee. The responsibilities could be shared among several people if they are on staff, i.e., counselors, librarians, coordinators, curriculum support folks, etc.  In fact, I’m wondering if there are folks at the IU that might be able to help out as well and become part of the testing committee.

At any rate, you’ve probably tried this already. But if not, try to ask for some help so the process doesn’t all fall on your shoulders and prevent you from working with teachers whose instructional practices in classrooms have the impact of helping students become more successful learners. That’s what makes the difference, not increased testing situations.

How is the testing process handled in your building?

In a recent Educational Leadership discussion forum, the discussion thread focused on teacher evaluation. The initial article, “Overcome Obstacles to Teacher Evaluation: High-Reliability Practices,” addressed the issue by proposing ways to defeat everyday challenges in implementing teacher evaluation systems along with some recommendations to avoid implementation snags. We know this topic is ever-present and ever-challenging.

Here are the common obstacles that need to be tackled and resolved in some way in order for implementation to be successful: develop a consistent definition of educator effectiveness; create a district-wide approach to instruction; provide adequate training for evaluators; and set and monitor standards for system implementation. So, what does Tony Davis, Consulting Director, The Center for Educator Effectiveness (McREL), suggest?

1. Fidelity, intensity, and consistency are critical. Effectiveness cannot be measured until we know
    what it looks like; everyone has to be evaluated using the same definition and objectives;
2. A district-wide approach to instruction ensures consistency in language and practice; this is
    necessary both within and across schools. (According to OECD in 2008, there was a 2.6 times
    great variation in student achievement across classrooms in the same schools than from school
    to school);
3. All evaluators must be properly trained to use the evaluation system and provide the appropriate
    feedback to educators; they must offer ways to strengthen practice;
4. Successful implementation of an evaluation system is a process and requires ongoing support
    and consistency to make it valuable.

As instructional coaches, you are in the position to help provide consistency, ubiquity, and fidelity to an instructional coaching process that builds teacher capacity, increases student engagement and improves student learning, all pieces of an effective evaluation system.

What are some of the strategies you implement to ensure consistency in practice and language in your coaching work?

So, I continue to reflect about how coaches can begin the BDA cycle of consultation. I know it sounds simple but it is far from simplistic. It’s a great framework to help begin the process of ongoing support. With the BDA cycle, the process is not just about the implementation of a specific concept or chapter analysis; it’s more about talking with colleagues and discussing instructional practices that are effective and make sense. That cannot occur in a quick hallway conversation although the start of it can certainly occur there. You know the song, “It’s all about the bass”… this time “It’s all about the conversation!”

There are several ways to start the process. For starters, I might do the following to build awareness about the BDA cycle of consultation:

1. At a faculty/grade level/department meeting, reiterate your role as a non-evaluative classroom supporter and are on the side of helping teachers implement effective instructional practices. Share the BDA cycle of consultation, collaboration, and collective problem solving, all in a confidential setting; build awareness of why each part of the process is so important for achieving goals; (Coaches for athletes, performers, artists, even for weight control must “see” what happens and offer feedback about the practice.) If you don’t “see” what is practiced, you can’t offer valuable feedback;
2.  Go around to your friends and ask what they think needs to happen for school wide improvement; this is a needs assessment kind of activity; once you get some ideas, go around again and see who will work with you to implement some of the ideas; as soon as you see something about classroom implementation, ask if you can co-plan with the teacher (before) and generate the “look fors,” model or co-teach (during) in the class using one of those ideas as the content, and then meet to debrief (after);
3. Offer to model a “piece” of the lesson; in this case, the coach and teacher still co-construct the “look fors” (before) and the teacher watches how the coach teaches (during); and the conversation that follows is the debriefing (after).

Implementing the BDA cycle of consultation is much like planning an event. All the elements of the event are critical to the overall success of that event. The planning is essential so the “content” is carefully crafted and the event runs smoothly; participating in the event gives a clear picture of what worked well and what needs attention in real time; and the final stage is to reflect on the event to see if the initial goal and purpose of the event were accomplished, especially when the event is recurrent.

Just remember, coaching is situational. Not every teaching colleague is ready to pursue all three stages of this process. A coach’s role, however, is to make the process visible, inviting, and collaborative so that all participants are beneficiaries.

What are some of the successes as an instructional coach you have experienced around the BDA cycle of consultation?

As a coach, it is important to recognize that coaching is situational and differentiated. While the BDA cycle of consultation is critical for transparency, transformation, and talking about instructional practice, not every teacher needs all three “prongs” of the BDA cycle of consultation each time they meet with the coach. The three “pronged” approach, however, should be followed at least a few times per quarter with each teacher.

The BDA cycle is a conversation between a coach and teacher to collaborate and communicate about their work together. It is an agreement for working together as partners. A new teacher may need more support than an experienced teacher or an experienced teacher may want more support because s/he is teaching new content. Either way, the coach and teacher must collaborate and decide the kind of support needed: intensive support means working multiple times with the same person; strategic support means working with teachers on a variety of specific instructional practices; and independent support means that the coach and teacher may work together less often because the needs can be met with less frequent time together.

The starting point for the process is the “B” or before conversation. Here the coach and teacher co-plan and discuss the goals for the class and how those goals will be achieved. The coach is a good listener here, asking probing or clarifying questions without giving an unsolicited opinion. The object is to ask the questions that encourage the teacher to think about why these goals are important and if the instructional delivery and resources identified will help the teacher meet the needs of the students. The teacher and coach co-construct the plan to collect evidence that reflect the agreed upon goals and they schedule a date to discuss that classroom visit giving themselves time to process the actual classroom visitation.

The during or “D” part of the cycle is where the action takes place. The coach may visit and collect the agreed upon data, may model a segment of the lesson, or may co-teach with the teacher. Regardless of the activity, the coach and teacher need this visit so they can reflect in, on, and about classroom practice. This is where the coach and teacher can “see” if what they wanted to do was accomplished.

The after or “A” part of the cycle is critical for transformation. This is the time where the coach and teacher are reflective and give timely, specific, descriptive, and non-judgmental feedback to determine what worked well and what practice needs additional support.

No matter how often coaches and teachers work together, following the BDA cycle of consultation is critical for ongoing communication and collective problem solving to take place.

Which phase of the BDA cycle is the most comfortable for your colleagues? Why do you think this is so?