“Our business is about technology, yes. But it’s also about operations and customer relationships” so says Michael Dell.  This is an interesting quote and makes me again think about technology coaches and their role supporting teaching and learning.

What is a “technology” coach and how does that differ from an instructional coach? Are there really just “technology” coaches who do not work with their teaching colleagues about implementing effective instructional practices?

While I don’t intend to step on anyone’s toes, here’s what I think… if someone is skilled in the business of technology, e.g., how to use the technology, then I think that person is a technician, someone skilled in knowing how a piece of technology is used. If someone talks about instruction and how a technology tool can help accomplish the goals of that instruction, that person is an instructional coach, not a technician. After all, a technician is “a person employed to look after technical equipment.” Many offices hire technicians to maintain computers in their offices. Would you call that technician a coach?

One of the ways to change the mindset of our teaching colleagues is to call coaches, “instructional coaches” and not specify anyone as a “technology” coach even though helping someone understand how to use a computer may be one of the coach’s responsibilities. As a coach, I may help you decide which technology tool may be appropriate to achieve the instructional goals but the conversation needs to be around what instructional goals have been identified. The instructional goals drive the conversation, not the tools that might be appropriate to use. The coaching part is recognized as the coach and teacher collaborate and plan in the “before” conversation, decide on the data to collect in the “during” visit, and engage in non-evaluative dialogue in the feedback or “after” session. The coaching does not come from helping a colleague “plug” in a computer but rather engaging in conversations that lead to changes in practice. Everyone should be called an instructional coach when the role is to engage in confidential, non-evaluative conversations with staff members helping them implement effective instructional practices.

What do you think about coaches being called instructional coaches rather than technology coaches?

“It is impossible to work in information technology without also engaging in social engineering” says Jaron Lanier, an American artist. So, if we think of information technology as the use of computers, storage, networking, infrastructure, etc., to create and store all forms of electronic data and social engineering as negative networking, how is that related to instructional coaching?

This is a scary thought… social engineering is the intrusion by a hacker, a real threat to the individual. That’s not the social engineering to which I am referring. I am thinking about “social engineering” in a positive light… I’m thinking about social engineering as referring to the social nature of learning; that is, learning is social and all the technology in the world cannot replace the human and social element of collaboration, collective problem solving, and creativity.

And yes, to some extent it is “engineering” a conversation that might not ordinarily take place. For example, teachers tend to stay in their classrooms working on their plans, marking their papers, creating assignments, etc. They don’t have time in the day to talk to one another, to engage in professional conversations on an ongoing basis. Sure, a teacher might ask a colleague in passing, “How did you explain photosynthesis to your students? Or “How do your students demonstrate their understanding of complex text” but in reality, unless time is deliberate and intentional, those conversations do not take place.

To me, information technology is not just about computers and its family members; information technology is sharing how technology works and in our world, integrating that technology into the fabric of effective instruction through our coaching model so that students can experience both new and old things shared in new ways. It’s really not about the actual technology; it’s about how coaches interact with their teaching colleagues and engage in conversations around the use of technology. It’s the conversation that drives the instruction; not the technology that drives the instruction. The integration of technology cannot be accomplished effectively if the ensuing conversations about teaching and learning are not consistent, thoughtful, and sustainable. That happens through constructive social engineering and networking. That happens through the coach’s continued support.  

How do you use positive social engineering as a way to engage your teaching colleagues in ongoing conversations?

In the January 19, 2016 Education Week Teacher blog, Elena Aguilar recognizes what has been our belief (and one of our strengths) since the inception of the Pennsylvania Institute for Instructional Coaching (PIIC) as it evolved from our days with the Pennsylvania High School Coaching Initiative (PAHSCI for those who may remember).  She shares what she’s learned from working consistently with a coach and how working with a trusted colleague has made a difference in her practice. She mentions four big ideas: 1) coaches need to be heard; 2) coaching is a give and take process; 3) coaching needs to be safe; and 4) coaches need to care.

Well, these are the things that coaches learn and practice every day with PIIC. In our world, the coach has a trusted colleague, a.k.a. an instructional mentor, who works one-on-one and helps coaches shape their practice. The mentors are experienced practitioners who care about changing the landscape of teaching and learning. Their job is tough but so is the job of a coach… coaches have so much responsibility for not only another individual’s practice but the collective practice of the community and their own practice as well. It helps to hear another person’s perspective and to think about the answers to the kinds questions needed for making changes in classroom practice. It helps to have a reflective practitioner model what reflection is and what it looks like.

So, yes, coaching is scary but it is also incredibly rewarding. Where else can a teacher work with a colleague in a non-threatening environment to talk about practice and new learnings gained from the conversation? Where else can a teacher “rehearse” with a colleague and iron out the kinks of a new lesson making the kinds of mistakes from which one learns without fear of evaluation?

Where else can a group of professionals meet regularly to just talk about what’s going on in classrooms and how they can continue to make a difference in the lives of our most precious commodity… our children?

What do you think?

Just came back from another wonderful 3-day professional learning conference with the instructional coaches, instructional mentors, regional mentor coordinators, school-based administrators, and other school leaders who participated in our PIIC statewide professional development. Wow! The sharing, collective wisdom, and learning from the group was amazing… where else can you get 160+ educators in an environment that honors teacher voice, choice, and expertise with the only goal being to share your learning???

A hot topic of conversation was the reauthorization of the ESSA act and its improved definition of professional development. The definition says that the professional development must be “sustained, (not stand-alone, 1-day, and short-term workshops), intensive, collaborative, job-embedded, data-driven, classroom focused... .” This is exactly how instructional coaches support and maintain differentiated teacher professional development… they are onsite and provide ongoing opportunities for teachers to collaborate in a no-risk environment, sharing and learning together about content that is relevant, tied to teacher practice, data driven, standards based, and student focused.

Highly skilled educators, a.k.a. coaches, who work with their teaching colleagues to exchange ideas, share effective instructional practices, and explore new technologies create an environment that shouts, “Learning is important and everyone can learn!” That learning, however, does not exist in a vacuum nor does it exist as a series of unrelated workshops or sessions where teachers are grouped together like a pick-up basketball game in the playground. No, ongoing learning is effective when teachers and coaches are resolute in their plans to regularly collaborate and strategize about ways to increase student engagement, build teacher capacity, and improve student learning. Learning is effective when it is deliberate, focused, and meaningful.

What are some of the ways you plan to provide ongoing professional development that is differentiated, relevant, and sustainable in 2016?

Happy New Year! In this time of renewed reflection and conviction, I’ve been thinking about the differences between coaching and mentoring and have come to the conclusion that while similar, there are definite differences. The differences are not so much in the qualities and attributes of the people but rather in the actual roles, responsibilities, and requirements.

A coach’s role is to help teachers implement effective instructional practices in non-evaluative ways. They help teachers identify their strengths and together, strategize ways to bolster practice. They help teachers recognize their voices and take ownership of their learning. They must coach on any given topic, not just in the coach’s area of expertise. They work directly with teachers at the level that makes a difference… the classroom. Sometimes, they are mistakenly identified as “fixers” even though they are not in the medical field! Many administrators think that coaches are the silver bullet addressing all the issues that plague our educational system. Boy, if that were true, we could bottle it and sell it! Some even think that because teachers went to college they don’t need coaches. What an ill-informed opinion!

In our instructional coaching world, mentors help coaches develop the skills necessary to support teachers in a collaborative and non-supervisory way. Mentors must be analytical and strategic in helping the coach. They need to help the coach understand adult learning and why not all teachers teach in the same way. They support the “overall” being of an individual and need to think about the coach’s learning style and how the coach can help the teachers. All of this is “from a distance” because the mentor is not on staff or “elbow partners” with the coach.

For us, a mentor is the coach’s coach, one who supports the coach’s learning and by extension, the teachers’ learning as well. They both work to ensure that effective instructional practices are implemented every day in every class; their roles are interconnected and provide an integrated approach to school wide improvement by working with the individuals and not just programs (although understanding programs and initiatives are part of coaching and mentoring). It is a multi-tiered approach with each “participant” component, i.e., students, teachers, coaches, administrators, and mentors, providing support and apprenticeship with the shared vision of building teacher capacity, increasing student engagement, and improving student outcomes.

In your experience, how are coaches and mentors similar? What are the differences in their roles and responsibilities?

The ASCD Express, Volume 11, issue 7 talks about mentoring for new teachers. In theory, that’s a very effective practice. But are they the only ones who need mentoring?

To me, that statement means that only novice teachers need the support to apply their new learnings. I disagree… we want all practitioners to go from good to great and to do that with the support of a skilled, experienced practitioner who understands adult learning, collaboration, collective problem-solving, and critical thinking. And, to do that in a non-evaluative environment where formative assessment and self-assessment are the norm and making mistakes is a rite of passage without fear of evaluation.

The article suggests that “… creating mentor programs to support new teachers can help them adjust to more than just procedures… and to help them become more confident” in their teaching. Wow… why wouldn’t we want to ensure that every staff member has the benefit of working with a trusted colleague?

In this article, the terms “mentor” and “coach” are actually interchangeable. Here, “mentor” is what we would call a “coach.” I, however, see them as two different roles with different responsibilities but both necessary for all learning communities, not just newly hired staff. Both share common qualities: being nonjudgmental, providing needed support, willing to work with different skill sets, and modeling reflective practice. While both are long-term relationships, coaching may be more performance driven while mentoring may be more development driven. Coaches tend to address the “needs of the day” in working with teachers and try to find ways to problem solve. Mentors tend to focus on being a facilitator and silent partner. Both need to ask essential questions so that the learning is with, not for and both need to provide timely and specific feedback for continuous improvement.

I’ve never met a teaching colleague who didn’t want to better his/her craft. What a shift in education if every teacher and administrator could work with a coach who works with a mentor to support the learning without risk of failure!

So, what do you think… should only new teachers have the benefit of a coach/mentor?

Best wishes for a happy and healthy New Year!

In the January 2016 issue of Educational Leadership, author Martha Sandstead compares working as an instructional coach to “cutting watermelons.” (If you are a former English teacher, you know that using a metaphor is a powerful way to illustrate a point that may seem like such an unlikely comparison at first glance.)

Ms. Sandstead reiterates what PIIC has espoused for quite some time… establishing relationships with colleagues is developmental and situational. She uses the metaphor of cutting watermelons as a way to help instructional coaches understand that the process of cutting the watermelon is almost more important than the pieces of watermelon offered to the picnic guests… don’t try to tell the host that s/he is cutting the watermelon incorrectly; engage in a conversation and explore the reasons why the watermelon is being cut in just that way.

She continues by reminding us that coaches “…begin relationships with teachers and work with them to discover their potential and bring about change in a way that respects them as professionals and as people.” The teaching colleagues with whom the coaches work have already established many things about their professional practice. The coach’s role is to help his/her colleagues identify those practices that are strong and those that need to be strengthened. They need to meet their colleagues “where they are” and talk about practices “as they are.” Those conversations morph into the heart of teaching and learning and how teachers can meet the needs of a diverse population. Effective coaching is neither a deficit model nor a “fix-it” model; teachers do not need to be “fixed.” They need an experienced, non-evaluative ear so that they can share their ideas about practice; teachers need their voices heard and their expertise validated.

“Being a coach is not about being the expert who knows it all; it’s about immersing yourself in teachers’ classrooms so you can learn about the work they have created and who they are as professionals” says Ms. Sandstead. I couldn’t agree more! Coaches need to be active listeners, supportive colleagues, and respectful learning partners.

What I don’t quite agree with in the article is the “Coaching from the Copy Room” idea. Coaches need to make time and not find time to meet with colleagues, learn about their teaching philosophies, goals, needs, and their “wish fors” as they move ahead in their own practice. While a quick “copy room” conversation may result in a definite time for the next meeting, it shouldn’t be the place where practice is discussed. Those conversations need to be confidential and deliberate, not “off the cuff” and freelance. Coaches need to help teachers think more deeply about their practices which is much more than just a quick conversation. Quick conversations are a start but they are not the “end all” or the optimum way to engage in professional conversations.

How can developing strong relationships make a difference in your coaching?