Recent research finds that one-on-one coaching programs "hold real promise for improving teachers' instructional practice and, in turn, students' academic achievement." And it appears as if the field agrees, as it's hard to find a school or district that is not engaged in some sort of instructional coaching. But if coaching is so effective, why are we struggling to see the impact?
When we dig into the research, we can quickly see where the disconnect begins. For coaching programs to be effective, it is suggested that they must be "individualized, intensive, sustained, context-specific, and focused." This is a tall order: If even one of these attributes is neglected, we will likely struggle to see coaching having the impact it is designed to yield. And if you work in a school or district, you know precisely how challenging it can be to implement coaching programs that hit all these marks.
Instructional coaching, although a straightforward concept, is more complicated than we typically admit. Implementing models of instructional coaching requires us to both acknowledge and address a number of complex and interrelated issues. Deploying coaching initiatives requires attending to logistical issues such as pairing coaches with teachers and scheduling coaching sessions; structural issues such as the coaching model to be used (for example, cognitive coaching, 90-day coaching intensives, lesson study models); and human capital issues such as the quality of coaches, the training the coaches will receive, the evaluation and support of coaches, and calibrating feedback that coaches provide to teachers. Given the complexity of launching and sustaining high-quality coaching initiatives, what will it take for coaching to be an effective strategy for improving practice?
To address this question, let's first address the central challenges to effective instructional coaching.
The Challenges
In our work with schools, we've observed well-intentioned coaching programs struggle to gain traction almost immediately upon implementation. Schools budget for the coach, hire a great teacher to serve in the role, and tell teachers they can expect instructional coaching and support. But in many cases, coaches are then left to their own devices to figure out how to get the school's coaching "model" up and running. And without thoughtful and strategic implementation planning, many questions—for example, Who gets coaching and when? What is the expectation for coaching cycles? and How will we know if it's working?—go unaddressed. Consider the following challenges schools commonly face.
Lack of alignment
Oftentimes, schools and districts rely on coaching as a silver bullet to solve all problems related to instruction. In reality, there are a number of interrelated issues that lead to good or poor instruction, such as recruitment of high-quality candidates, professional development for new and veteran teachers, school leadership, clear instructional expectations, and curriculum. Effective coaching must be positioned within each of these variables as part of a larger solution. Coaches, school leaders, and teachers need to know how the coaching initiative aligns to and directly supports the school and district improvement strategy.
Time constraints
It's no secret that time is the Achilles heel of almost all initiatives in schools. However, for coaching to really work, understanding how much time is needed to move practice is critical. In short, teachers aren't spending enough time engaging in the activities related to coaching, so they aren't likely making significant changes in their instructional practice. The New Teacher Center, which has an established track record of improving practice via coaching and mentoring, suggests teachers need 1.25–2.5 hours per week of support.
If you're currently managing a coaching program, you're probably thinking, There's no way we can provide coaching to every teacher, every week! And you're probably right: That model may be difficult to sustain, particularly when we know that content and context matter.
Matching coaches and teachers
Pairing teachers with the "right" coach is critically important. While it might be easy to pair a few new teachers with the right coach, scaling coaching programs across multiple grade levels and content areas can be challenging, if not impossible. For coaching to be most effective, it must not only focus on more general instructional strategies, but also on the content. Thus, pairing teachers with a coach who knows the content is important. And if we truly want to provide a coach to every teacher, we'll need to think differently about the one-on-one relationship typically utilized by coaching programs.
Scaling while maintaining quality
It's one thing to have a few great coaches support a handful of teachers. It's a completely different endeavor to scale a coaching program across a school or district. Scaling any initiative in schools requires thoughtful and deliberate planning and structures that not only ensure consistency but provide for feedback on the quality of coaching. Initially, this might be through brief surveys of teachers who are receiving coaching, observations of coaching sessions by the principal or coach's supervisor, and formative assessment data. Getting enough great coaches who can consistently provide high-quality feedback to teachers is one of the central challenges of this work.
Management of coaches and quality of feedback
To my previous point, the only way to ensure quality coaching is to provide effective management. Questions as simple as, Who manages the coaches? and Who provides feedback to coaches? must be explicitly addressed. For example, we often see coaching programs that are designed by the central office but that put school leaders in charge of hiring and managing those coaches. This can create an impossible model that relies on the hope that each school leader will take the same approach to managing and supporting the coach on their campus. I hate to sound pessimistic, but this will never happen without a centralized management structure or very deliberate reporting structures between the district and the schools they support.
Steep expenses
Coaching programs can be expensive. Salaries for coaches and substitute costs for giving teachers release time to observe their peers' classrooms alone can render a coaching initiative cost-prohibitive. For schools to overcome these obstacles, they have to get creative about how they're spending the money and ensuring it's a good use of funds. For example, some schools share coaches with specific content knowledge across campuses, reduce course loads so teachers can teach part-time and coach part-time, and leverage video to allow coaching to happen outside of the school day.
Lack of data to drive coaching or assess effectiveness
Schools rarely (if ever) have solid data to assess the effectiveness of coaching programs or to see where there are opportunities to improve. We may rely on student achievement or teacher evaluation data to see if instruction is improving, but these are likely imperfect measures that are more summative in nature. Without formative data that helps us examine effectiveness, we lose valuable time during the school year to ensure the coaching initiative is responsive to the needs of the teachers it supports.
The Solutions
So how do we address these challenges if we're serious about providing coaching that really works?
While there is no one way to ensure the perfect coaching process, there are some key actions leaders can take to set coaching up to be more successful. When schools pay attention to the following, they are likely to see coaching that results in better instructional practice.
Broaden the definition of coaching
When we think about instructional coaching, we likely envision a single coach observing a teacher and providing feedback. Perhaps we've been short-sighted. What if instead we broadened our definition of coaching to include several engagement points for teachers? After all, coaching is really about targeted and supported reflection of practice. To help alleviate some of the logistical pain points mentioned previously, we could include multiple interrelated activities as part of a system of coaching, such as:
- Self-reflection.
- Peer-to-peer observation and feedback.
- Individual coaching sessions between a teacher and instructional coach.
- Facilitated PLC coaching conversations addressing instructional practices, lesson study, and so forth.
- Observation and nonevaluative feedback from a school leader.
Making this shift is easier said than done, but it's much more feasible to engage teachers in frequent reflection and coaching if the school isn't relying on a single coach to carry the entire system. The activities must be coordinated, and a coach can be the one managing the process, but we need to think beyond the traditional coaching structure.
Develop a tiered system of coaching
Establish a tiered coaching model that divides teachers into three levels: Intensive, flexible, and facilitative. Those in the intensive level require the greatest amount of support and time and those in the facilitative level require the least (see fig. 1). This prioritization is not permanent, but rather can be used as a flexible model to support educators as they grow and move between levels. The prioritization helps mitigate the challenge of time and provides a concrete structure to regularly evaluate who requires coaching, what type of coaching they need, and at what level of intensity.
Figure 1. Prioritizing Coaching Support
Source: Culbertson, J., Stricker, J., & Suba, T. (2019). Coaching for change: A playbook for school & district leaders. Retrieved from www.insighteducationgroup.com/playbooks
Involve more people in the coaching process—as coaches
You don't have to have the word "coach" in your title to be an instructional coach. In fact, almost everyone in the building can play a role in the coaching process—and there's a lot to be said for engaging staff. We should all see ourselves as coaches. Grade-level or content-area colleagues, administrators, instructional aids, and instructional coaches can all provide insights and feedback on instruction. As previously mentioned, the key is creating the right structures and processes for this to happen.
Leverage tech to help
Technology can be crucial to supporting a more effective coaching structure, particularly one in which multiple individuals provide support. Platforms that leverage the use of video immediately remove some of the barriers that kill coaching before it starts. As an example, by using video, feedback can happen at any time of day and be provided by a number of people, some of whom might be at a different school or in a different state. Projects such as Visibly Better from Harvard's Center for Education Policy Research (CEPR) are challenging the field to transform how we think about deepening reflection, improving feedback, and changing the culture to ensure effective supports for educators through the use of video observation. In short, there is ample evidence that using video allows both teachers and coaches to not only watch and discuss instructional practice together, but to do it at a mutually convenient time. Engaging in reflection such as this would be impossible without technology.
Support your coaches—and anyone else who supports teachers
We sometimes forget that everyone in the school building is a learner. We focus so much on student learning and teacher PD, but those supporting teachers (like coaches, school leaders, or mentor teachers) need continuous support (and coaching) as well. Building a PLC among coaches can be an effective way to engage them in their own continuous learning. I've also worked with coaches who take video of their coaching sessions and then share the footage with other coaches for feedback.
Manage your coaches
Establish clear expectations for coaches from the beginning, watch them work, give them feedback, and provide opportunities for them to reflect on their own practice. We must coach the coaches—and manage their performance. If they're not effective, none of this work will matter.
Collect data and reassess throughout the school year
There are several data points that can be used to assess the effectiveness of your coaching program. Student achievement data and teacher evaluation data are two obvious ones, but they are limited and don't provide actionable information in real time. To provide ongoing feedback, we must find ways to collect formative data to improve coaching practices. Survey teachers and ask them for feedback on the coaching they are receiving or look at formative student assessment data. As you learn about what's working and what isn't, make changes.
Stay the course!
These things take time, and every school or district is different. As you launch a new (or newly improved) coaching program, there is going to be room for improvement. Be honest about what needs to improve, then continue to refine the work until it's having the impact you desire. And don't give up too quickly. There are always things that can be tweaked that will have a significant impact. Give the work time to have its effect.
Building Systems of Support
It's been a long time since we had evidence that a specific approach to professional development actually works. So, if we know instructional coaching can work, then it's critically important that we pay attention to the factors that make it effective and build systems to accommodate for these factors.
Reflect & Discuss
➛ Do you believe the traditional one-on-one coaching model is sustainable? Does your school have the capacity for every teacher to be coached every week?
➛ Which "challenge" that Moody outlines resonates the most? Is there a feasible solution?
➛ How might your instructional coach(es) begin to "manage" a system of reflective practice?
