LOS ANGELES UNFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - lausd.k12.ca.us · Web viewProfessional Development Protocol. Collaborating on Teaching/Learning Process: # 1 – COACHING MODELS. OBJECTIVE:

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTEducational Services Division

Professional Development Protocol

C. Collaborating on Teaching/Learning Process: # 1 – COACHING MODELS

1. OBJECTIVE: To provide teachers with a model of respectful collegial reflection about instructional decisions.

2. RATIONALE: A collaborative culture leads to gains in student learning, increased teacher efficacy, and increased teacher satisfaction with personal work .

3. MATERIALS:a. Articles on coaching:

(1). Coaching Isn’t Just for Athletes Phi Delta Kappan June 2001http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0106gui.htm

(2). Peer Coaching for Improvement of Teaching and Learning Teachers Networkhttp://www.teachnet.org/ntpi/research/growth/becker.htm

(3). Peer Coaching: An Effective Staff Development Model for Educators of Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Students National Clearinghouse on Bilingual Educationhttp://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/directions/03.htm

(4). The Evolution of Peer Coaching Educational Leadership March 1996http://www.ascd.org/otb/el/96/mar/showers.html

(5). Teachers Get Help from the “Guide on the Side” Changing Schools in Long Beachhttp://www.middleweb.com/CSLB6guide.html

b. Overview of Peer Coaching

4. PROCEDURE:Timing

a. Give overview of coaching including definition and goals 5-10 min.

b. Read Coaching Isn’t Just for Athletes. In small groups, discuss how 30 min.schools are using coaches to support improved student learning.

c. Divide faculty into groups of 6-10 and jigsaw remaining articles. 45 min.Each group will read 1article, discuss and chart salient points, and reportout to entire faculty.

5. NEXT STEPS: a. Work with school’s literacy or math coaches to explore the expansion of

peer coaching at the school site.

b. Contact coaching organizations to explore coaching as part of a school site’s on-going professional development plan.

Adapted by Maria Elena Rico, Design/Trainer Certification Unit

http://www.middleweb.com/CSLB6guide.html

http://www.ascd.org/otb/el/96/mar/showers.html

http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/directions/03.htm

http://www.teachnet.org/ntpi/research/growth/becker.htm

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0106gui.htm

Coaching Isn't Just For Athletes:The Role of Teacher Leaders

By Ellen Guiney

In schools all over Boston, change coaches and content coaches are offering principals and teachers the kind of professional development that research says is most effective: ongoing, in school, high quality, focused on instruction. Ms. Guiney provides the details.

THE shapes on the students' papers look like puffy clouds with spindly legs, hardly the stuff of which strong foundations are built. But looks can be deceiving. Inside these airy structures, students in Helen O'Malley's fourth-grade class are placing their most precious words, the ones that will be the cornerstones of their writing adventures.

The words My new neighborhood find their home inside one girl's cloud. From its protruding stick-like legs, this fourth-grader hangs other phrases to help connect her thoughts: the dance studio, where the new neighborhood is, the way it is different, the places there. Each of these is a notation designed to prompt images that will emerge in her writing. Soon she writes: "I moved a couple of weeks ago. I'm kind of lonely because I haven't made any new friends yet. I used to live in Dorchester and have a lot of friends there. Now I live in Roslindale."

In Ms. O'Malley's room, now quieted by the industriousness of its occupants, Writers' Workshop is under way.

Helen O'Malley, now in her ninth year of teaching, her first in the Boston Public Schools, welcomes whatever advice Charlotte Teplow, Everett School's content coach, can offer. With Teplow's weekly guidance and instructional modeling, Writers' Workshop has become the tool that is propelling O'Malley's students to write with enthusiasm and demonstrate steady, measurable progress.

"Initially I was sort of anxious because I was not quite sure what Charlotte's role was going to be in my classroom," O'Malley says. "I thought she was going to be there critiquing my lessons, saying to me, 'We do this, this, and this in Writers' Workshop.' And it hasn't been like that at all. It has just developed into a collegial relationship. Charlotte is there to reassure me, to guide me. She offers me suggestions, but she does so in a manner that enables me, half the time, to feel that I am coming up with these wonderful ideas."

"You are!" Teplow responds.


In schools all over Boston, external coaches like Charlotte Teplow -- often former teachers with expertise in school reform (change coaches) or literacy or math (content coaches) -- are offering principals and teachers the kind of professional development that research says is most effective: ongoing, in school, high quality, focused on instruction. The one-day-a-week consultants are doing everything from leading teachers through Writers' Workshop training to helping them analyze results of newly implemented formative assessments. Each coach's work is grounded in Boston's districtwide reform effort but customized to the specific learning needs of the students and the adults in each school.

Superintendent Thomas Payzant's blueprint for standards-based, urban school reform aims to improve student performance by improving teaching, particularly for the estimated 30% of students who have routinely advanced in school without mastering the material. Boston's approach to whole-school improvement rests on two central strategies: 1) focus on instruction and on professional development to improve instruction; and 2) place an unwavering emphasis on helping teachers work together, make their work public, and end teacher isolation. In the process, teacher leadership emerges.

Coaching and Teacher Leadership

To support this kind of change, the Boston Public Schools created a new kind of professional development that integrates teachers' learning with teachers' practice, gives participants ongoing feedback, and makes these activities a whole-school, collegial endeavor. Crucial players are the coaches. They don't "teach" teachers. Instead, they do their work with teachers, helping them to imagine and create another reality, helping them to engage in regular, reflective discussions about instruction.

This is not work for the faint-hearted. To do it well requires a calm disposition and the trust-building skills of a mediator combined with the steely determination and perseverance of an innovator. Add to this mix the ability to know when to push and when to stand back and regroup in the long-term process of adopting new approaches to galvanize a school to function differently. To succeed, a coach must be a leader who is willing not to be recognized as such and, at the same time, who is able to foster leadership among teachers who rarely regard themselves as leaders.

"The crucial step in coaches' work is how they approach the faculty," says Richard Martin, who is the change coach at Everett and both the content and change coach at Hurley Elementary School. "In the beginning, coaches have to show what they can do, but the vibes they transmit must be very, very gentle. It's personal. Coaches need to engage in a number of situations that foster personal trust building. The aim is really trying to connect to the teaching soul."

Given the delicacy of these coach/teacher and coach/administrator relationships, it is encouraging that the coaching model shows early evidence of success. Student scores on standardized tests are higher at many of the schools in which coaches have been longest at this task. Several schools have had dramatic increases on parts of the state's difficult test, the MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System) -- increases that can be directly connected to teachers' work that was undertaken with their coaches. It's clear that, under the guidance of coaches, many teachers are adopting new strategies that appear to be resulting in improved student learning.

Changes are also evident in things as difficult to quantify as the culture of a school. "Teachers now come up to me and say, 'Hey, I tried this and look what the kids did!' They want to share it with me and with each other," says Joyce Campbell, an administrator at Brighton High School. Before the coaches arrived, Campbell rarely heard teachers sharing this kind of constructive information with one another. If teachers passed anything along to colleagues, it was usually in the form of complaints -- and those complaints rarely involved instructional matters. Indeed, most of the time teachers kept to themselves, isolated by


long-established patterns in which teachers were expected to pay attention only to what went on inside their own classrooms. The notion that they could -- as faculty members sharing teaching experiences -- become instructional leaders in the school is one that has taken time to sink in and seems to emerge only with the focused and gentle prodding of capable coaches.

"To me, hearing teachers talk with each other in this way is very gratifying," Campbell says. "I don't hear them complain anymore. That has really been cut down. And the coaches have really helped with all of this. That's certain."

Brighton High School: Taking Best Writing Practices Schoolwide

"Our coaches have played a leadership role in what we are doing," says Charles Skidmore, headmaster of Brighton High School. "When our school decided to put a real emphasis on writing and on developing key questions for students, it was our coaches who were able to come in and with some authority say, 'Here is a good way to do it.' They didn't say, 'This is the only way to do it' or 'We have all the answers,' but they were willing to say, 'Tell us what you are doing and let us connect you to other people and show you other practices we've seen.' So we were able to really move."

In the initial stages of their work on whole-school improvement, Brighton's teachers made progress in developing district-required "key questions" -- broad, open-ended queries that provide opportunities for students to display their writing skills while testing their knowledge of what has been taught. "What the teachers weren't able to do was come to any kind of agreement about how to judge the students' writing," Skidmore says. "It was our coaches who said, 'Well, there are some protocols you can look at for this.' These were ways to look at writing that helped us see that measuring quality was not subjective."

What followed was a lengthy, collaborative process involving teachers in the development of a schoolwide objective measurement of writing now known as Brighton High's writing rubric. Coaches are training teachers in using it as a tool to gauge how well students are able to transmit ideas through written words.

"The entire process involves a buy-in by teachers," Skidmore says. "And I think that is where the coaching really worked as coaching. If our teachers had looked at the protocol and said, 'No, we're not going to do that -- we don't want that,' then the coaches would have said, 'We'll find something else, something that works for you.'"

Even though the protocols the coaches suggested for assessing student writing have worked at Brighton, along the way there has been resistance from some teachers, says Skidmore. "Teachers were saying, 'Why should I correct the same paper that somebody else corrected? And it's not even a paper that has anything to do with me. I teach history. Why should I look at English?' But the coaches were able to explain why they should do that."

Teachers' conversations about student work might, on the surface, appear to be about coming to agreement on scores. But what actually happens -- when it is done well -- is that teachers start talking among themselves about how they can teach so that their students can begin to achieve at higher levels. "It's this thinking about their practice that helps teachers to change their practice," says Otherine Neisler, the content coach at Brighton High. Skidmore adds, "The coaches have been able to say to our faculty members, 'Give a little bit more. Do a little bit more. Dig a little bit deeper, and see if you get something better for it.'"


"What we do is similar to what an athletic trainer does," says Roseanne Bacon Meade, Brighton's change coach. "We're like the person who says, 'You might find it easier to catch a fly ball to center if you did this or that in an exercise program.'"

"And to continue the analogy further," says Skidmore, "the suggestion comes from the coach. It is not coming from the teacher's department head or from his or her evaluator or principal. No one is saying, 'You have to do this' or 'I am going to judge you on it.' Instead, somebody is saying, 'Here is an idea. Give it a try . . .' And all of this sends a message that the focus at this school is on teaching and learning."

Shaw Middle School: Getting Assistance 'Over the Shoulder'

Audrey Friedman wrote a poem this morning. It was inspired by a plant that was dying from lack of water and by an eighth-grade teacher who had asked her, as the school's content coach, to demonstrate a method for engaging students in ways to help one another improve their poetry writing. Friedman's poem is projected onto the wall of the classroom, and she and the teacher, Meredith Toth, are helping students edit it.

Toth sought out Friedman's coaching assistance when it became apparent that her students were not able to move from draft to draft when they wrote poetry. And though she tried to teach them how, her lessons were not working. "They don't believe they can change anything," Toth told Friedman after she'd reviewed the work of the students in the poetry unit she was teaching. Nor had she been able to convince them that they could help one another to do so.

This kind of instructional analysis, which results in a teacher's seeking coaching help to improve her classroom technique in order to strengthen student performance, is one of the benefits of looking at student work collaboratively and comparing that work to standards. Out of that process at Shaw, there developed teacher-to-teacher and teacher-to-coach discussions about what constitutes high-quality writing across the grades. "The only correlate between faculty planning time and improved student achievement is when teachers are talking with one another about instruction, curriculum, and assessment," says Dan French, the change coach at Shaw, where teachers have common planning sessions every day and coaches attend once a week.

"When I first started here, Shaw was at the bottom of the bottom in Stanford 9 scores for the middle schools in this district," French notes. "This year it's in the top quartile of the middle schools, and those that are above it have advanced-work classes and this school doesn't. The school is not where I think it should be, but it has made significant progress in student achievement. The teachers and coaches can see this when we analyze samples of student writing and assess their quality."

In Toth's classroom, Friedman begins modeling the poetry lesson by asking the students, "Can you make suggestions about changes I might make?" As she starts to toss out a few ideas about what she might do differently and why, the students enthusiastically offer suggestions.

One student comes up with the idea of adding "-ing" to a few of the words to vary the sounds. Another wants to add some alliteration, a term Friedman reviewed with them during this process. She makes their suggested changes, then steps back and admires the revision. "When we work together in conferencing, we ask each other for help," she explains. "I would never have come up with the '-ing' ending for those words. Thank you." The students appear pleased with the result and happy to have helped.

Friedman then shows them how another class revised the same poem. They used a similar process but arrived at a different result. And that is just her point. Poems can be revised in many different ways, but


those who write them rework their words through several drafts, and writers can help one another improve.

During the next few weeks, Friedman and Toth will teach this lesson together again, and then Toth will walk through it with Friedman observing. "Meredith is the kind of teacher who will do this with her kids tomorrow, whereas with some teachers you model for, you know it won't happen until you come back," Friedman says. "Meredith takes it, uses it, and comes back to me and says, 'Maybe we should tweak this, switch that.' And that is exactly what I want."

What Happens Next?

What happens next with coaching in Boston's schools depends on what happens in the schools. Already the original plan -- which called for change coaches to be phased out after the second year of reform -- has been shelved, as recognition grows of the continuing need for the kind of expert guidance that coaches offer. Education Matters, an independent evaluator of the first two "cohorts" of schools undertaking whole-school improvement, observed in its 1999 report that "the work of reform gets more complex as implementation proceeds" and that even at schools in which progress on reform is going well, it would "likely halt without the continuing presence of the coach."

Some schools, however, may now be ready to continue the work on their own, in part because the roles that change coaches play are being effectively internalized, and strong instructional leaders are emerging. At these schools, principals and teachers feel they have acquired the skills to take over from the coaches and continue to develop among the faculty and administrators the leadership capacity that is necessary to move reform measures ahead.

Even if the change coach is ready to be phased out of a school, Education Matters has found that "no one thinks it is time for content coaches to end their work with the schools." The ongoing, in-house professional development that these coaches provide teachers -- modeling classroom teaching strategies, spearheading collaborative engagement in evaluating student work, connecting staff to the most recent research on best practice -- turns out to be an invaluable tool in the district's commitment to improving student achievement.

Challenges abound, however. Is one day per week enough time for coaches to have an impact, especially in schools in which principals and teachers are less willing to do what it takes to become committed to the process of whole-school reform? What kind of professional development do coaches need to continue to do the work they do? How can Boston take advantage of teachers who want both to teach and to coach? How can the district sustain coaches in their work when they enter a school with high expectations and yet see few results?

One thing is clear: when a teacher confronts a situation such as Toth faced but lacks a coach to go to, it's unlikely that she will change her instructional method. "The teachers will either not try it because it is just too difficult, or they will try to do better what they have always done rather than changing," Friedman says. And when teachers aren't able to improve their teaching to reach every student, students don't learn enough to reach standards.

Standards-based reform in Boston is not only getting to scale across all schools; it is also becoming deeply rooted through improved instruction. There is momentum now, great momentum, and coaches are an indispensable part of that movement.


ELLEN GUINEY is executive director of the Boston Plan for Excellence and co-director of the Boston Annenberg Challenge. She can be reached at [email protected].

PDK Home | Site MapKappan Professional Journal Last updated 18 June 2001

URL: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/0106gui.htmCopyright 2001 Phi Delta Kappa International


http://www.pdkintl.org/

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kcopyrt.htm

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kappan.htm

http://www.pdkintl.org/pdkdir.htm

http://www.pdkintl.org/

mailto:[email protected]

TeachNet – Peer Coaching for the Improvement of Teaching and Learning

Peer Coaching for the Improvement of Teaching and Learning

Peer Coaching for Improvement of Teaching and Learning

by Jean M. Becker IntroductionIssuesComponentsWhy Peer Coaching?BenefitsSupportPolicy RecommendationsReferences/Resources

IntroductionThis past fall, the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future published a report called: "What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future." This report focused on teachers and the quality of teaching as the core of student performance. New curriculum, standards, resources/materials, assessments, methodologies, technology, and reforms will not and do not have much impact unless teachers have appropriate access, knowledge, skills and continuous learning opportunities. Teachers require time for reflection, mentoring relationships, collegial interaction, expert role models, and ongoing professional development for any of these changes to be effective.

This national report has triggered an overwhelming response, as seen in writings, at conferences, projects and grant opportunities, but most importantly in local, state and national discussions. To many education professionals there was nothing new in this report, but it provided important affirmation and meaningful


http://www.teachnet.org/ntpi/research/growth/becker.htm#refernce

http://www.teachnet.org/ntpi/research/growth/becker.htm#pol_recommend

http://www.teachnet.org/ntpi/research/growth/becker.htm#support

http://www.teachnet.org/ntpi/research/growth/becker.htm#benefits

http://www.teachnet.org/ntpi/research/growth/becker.htm#peer_coaching

http://www.teachnet.org/ntpi/research/growth/becker.htm#components

http://www.teachnet.org/ntpi/research/growth/becker.htm#issues

http://www.teachnet.org/ntpi/research/growth/becker.htm#intro

http://www.teachnet.org/docs/Network/PolicyInstitute/Research/ProfDev/profiles/becker.html

http://www.teachnet.org/


data collection to support what many have been living for their whole professional lives. Another report came out this fall which also focuses on professional development of teachers: The National Foundation for the Improvement of Education's "Teachers Take Charge of Their Learning: Transforming Professional Development for Student Success." This report "asserts that continuous teacher learning is the key to helping students achieve high standards of learning and that the profession itself must take responsibility for weaving continuous learning into the fabric of the teaching job."1

The National Commission made five major recommendations for the future of education:

1. Get serious about standards, for both students and teachers. 2. Reinvent teacher preparation and professional development. 3. Overhaul teacher recruitment and put qualified teachers in every classroom. 4. Encourage and reward teaching knowledge and skill. 5. Create schools that are organized for student and teacher success.2

An element which can be a tool to influence each of these recommendations is peer coaching. Peer coaching is a model of professional development that can be used to improve student learning by improving teaching. Peer coaching has the potential to improve existing, as well as new, teaching practices.

IssuesThe improvement of teaching practices has traditionally been left to individual teachers working in isolation. Whether learning a new practice or working to improve a current practice, teachers are expected, without appropriate support, to "work it out" on their own. Currently one-shot inservices, extended classes or workshops are rarely followed up with feedback and support or continued training.

"According to Fullan, 'The absence of follow-up after workshops is the greatest single problem in contemporary professional development.'"3

There are few vehicles and little incentives for teachers to reflect on practice, share successful practices or learn from and with colleagues. Beginning teachers, or teachers changing disciplines or grade levels rarely have a regular, reliable support system.

"After teaching for 15 years I was asked to teach Algebra for the first time. I was frustrated. I needed another set of eyes in my room to give suggestions and feedback."4

To improve professional practices, and consequently to improve student learning, teachers need accessible opportunities and models for collaboration, sharing of ideas, feedback and assistance with their practice so that students may have the most optimal situations for learning, achievement, and success in schools.

ComponentsWhat is peer coaching? Peer coaching is a process in which two or more professional colleagues work together for a specific, predetermined purpose in order that teaching performance can be improved as well as validated. The purpose may be to reflect on current practices or to expand, to refine, and build new skills. Peer coaching can be utilized to share new ideas; to teach one another; to conduct classroom observations; or to solve problems in the workplace. Peer coaching is non judgmental, and non evaluative. Peer coaching focuses on the collaborative development, refinement and sharing of professional knowledge and skills. "Both novice teachers and veterans...nearly universally reported that these interactions improved their teaching. All involved are enthusiastic, including principals...welcome the new strengths the program brings to their schools."5


http://www.teachnet.org/ntpi/research/growth/becker.htm#foot5






There are a variety of peer coaching terms and models: technical coaching, collegial coaching, team coaching, cognitive coaching, and challenge coaching are a few of the more common types of coaching used by schools.6

Each model is slightly different but all have the same end goal-to improve teaching and learning-and all involve the use of peers/colleagues to achieve this goal. Choosing appropriately which model for a situation is key, as is having all models available for use.

Why Peer Coaching?Statistical support for peer coaching comes from many sources. Perhaps the most easily understood data follows:

5% of learners will transfer a new skill into their practice as a result of theory 10% will transfer a new skill into their practice with theory and demonstration 20% will transfer a new skill into their practice with theory and demonstration, and practice within

the training 25% will transfer a new skill into their practice with theory and demonstration, and practice within

the training, and feedback 90% will transfer a new skill into their practice with theory and demonstration, and practice within

the training, feedback, and coaching

Dr. Bruce Joyce, "Staff Development Awareness Conference," Columbia, SC, January 1987.7

Purposes which have been indicated to reinforce use of peer coaching include:

increase of student learning facilitate/increase discussion between/among colleagues of professional topics/research sharing of successful practices through collaboration encouragement of and provisions for reflective practice use as a problem-solving vehicle reduce isolation among teachers promote teacher as researcher create a forum for addressing instructional problems support and assist new and beginning teachers in their practice build collaborative norms to enable teachers to give and receive ideas and receive assistance

A participant in STAR (Staff Training Assistance and Review Program) in Seattle, Washington offered,"...It has been a great relief and a great help to me to have time...to discuss my problems and to have her observations on my classes and my teaching...I feel much stronger now that I did... and am looking forward to further improvements."8 There are currently programs provided for in union contracts and state policies across the country. Some American Federation of Teachers affiliates who provide a variety of peer coaching programs for their members include Toledo, Minneapolis, Cincinnati, and Boston. The State Board of Education in Vermont provides standards for teachers that include peer coaching.

Benefits"The level of trust we developed throughout the year made it possible for us to support and listen to one another and to adapt our instruction based on individual needs."9 "Having other teachers observe my classes gives me feedback on my strengths and weaknesses without having to be evaluated by an administrator."10








"The feedback has also given me insight into what is actually taking place in my classroom through another set of eyes. I feel that my effectiveness has been greatly increased through the peer coaching process."11

"It brought to life a lot of things I know I should do and had tried, but had not continued. It gave me an impetus, having a colleague I respect critique my teaching."12

Some of the benefits reported by professionals who have been involved in peer coaching are:

improved student achievement enhanced student progress enhanced sense of professional skill increased ability to analyze their own lessons better understanding of what we know about best practices in teaching and learning wider repertoire of instructional strategies/resources deeper sense of efficacy stronger professional ties with colleagues improved teaching performance a better articulated curriculum more cohesive school culture positive school climate

SupportToday there are many teams of teachers and many schools around the country using peer coaching. There have been numerous books and journal articles, as well as workshops and training devoted to peer coaching. Studies have been conducted to document the positive impact of peer coaching on student and teacher learning. Yet they are not catching on in wide scope.

Obviously, a program like this needs certain supports in place in order to be successful. Commonly mentioned criteria are:

trusting relationships among all participants administrative support (emotional, organizational, financial) faculty/staff recognition of the need for improvement and formal ongoing learning clear expectations for engagement assessment methods for measuring the difference and outcomes for the experience release time for peer coaches funds to pay for training and personnel

Policy RecommendationsIn order for peer coaching to meet the intended purposes and realize the many benefits, specific policy components need to be in place. Peer coaching must be recognized as a legitimate and useful form of ongoing professional development. Teachers need to receive release time, pay and credit to participate in a coaching program.

1. Local schools and local and state districts must include peer coaching as a vital component of their professional development programs.

2. Peer coaching must be included as a component as the state restructures its teacher certification programs, and the curriculum in teacher preparation programs is restructured.

3. Provide opportunities for teachers to form inter and intra-school teams according to individual needs.





4. Local schools and local and state districts must provide funding for training, time and personnel to include peer coaching in professional development programs.

References/Resources

Ackland, R. (1991). A review of the peer coaching literature. The Journal of Staff Development. 12(1), 22-27.Anastos, J. & Ancowitz, R. (1987) A teacher-directed peer coaching project. Educational Leadership, 44(3), 40-42.Anderson, D. M. (1994). Professional collaboration: Empowering school personnel through peer coaching. Georgia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 371 496)Brandt, R.S. (1987). On teachers coaching teachers: A conversation with Bruce Joyce. Educational Leadership, 44(5), 12-17.Busher, L. A. (1994). The effects of peer coaching on elementary school teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 367 616)Costa, A.L. & Garmston, R.J. (1994). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.Garmston,R. (1987). How administrators support peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 44(5), 18-26.Garmston, R., C. Linder & J. Whitaker. (1993). Reflections on cognitive coaching. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 57-61.Gottesman, B.L. & Jennings, J.O. (1994). Peer coaching for educators. Lancaster - Basel, PA: Technomic.Joyce, B.R. & Showers, B. (1987). Low Cost Arrangement for Peer Coaching. The Journal of Staff Development. 8(1), 22-24Joyce, B.R. & Showers, B. (1983). Power in staff development through research on training. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Kent, K.M. (1985) A successful program of teachers assisting teachers. Educational Leadership, 43(3), 30-33. Leggett, D. & Hoyle, S. (1987). Peer coaching: One district's experience using teachers as staff developers. The Journal of Staff Development. 8(1), 16-21Munro, P & Elliott, J. (1987). Instructional growth through peer coaching. The Journal of Staff Development. 8(1), 25-28National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. (1996). What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future. New York.National Foundation for the Improvement of Education. (1996). Teachers Take Charge of their Learning: Transforming Professional Development for Student Success. West Haven, CT.Neubert, G.A. & Bratton, E.C. (1987). Team coaching: Staff development side by side. Educational Leadership, 44(5), 29-33Neubert, G.A. (1988). Improving teaching through coaching. Bloomington, IND: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.Neubert, G.A. & Stover, L.T. (1994). Peer coaching in teacher education. Bloomington, IND: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.McAllister E.A. & Neubert, G.A. (1995). New teachers helping new teachers: Preservice peer coaching. Bloomington, IND: ERIC & Edinfo Press.Robbins, P. (1991) How to Plan and Implement a Peer Coaching Program. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Showers, B. & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12-16.Sparks, G.M. & Bruder, S. (1987). Before and after peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 44(3), 54-57.United States Department of Education. (1996). The Role of Leadership in Sustaining School Reform: Voices from the Field.United States Department of Education. (1995). School-based Reform-Lessons from a National Study.Whalen, E. & DeRose, M. (1993). The Power of Peer Appraisals. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 45-48.



Wineburg, M. (1995). The process of peer coaching in the implementation of cooperative learning structures. Maryland. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 385 528)

OtherAmerican Federation of TeachersBoston Teachers Union ContractMinneapolis Teachers Union ContractStandards for Vermont Educators

Footnotes

1. National Foundation for the Improvement of Education. (1996). Teachers Take Charge of their Learning: Transforming Professional Development for Student Success. West Haven, CT.2. National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. (1996). What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future. New York.3. Leggett, D. & Hoyle, S. (1987). Peer coaching: One district's experience using teachers as staff developers. The Journal of Staff Development. 8(1), p.16.4. Griselle Gemmati, Norwood Park School, Chicago, Illinois.5. National Foundation for the Improvement of Education. (1996). Teachers Take Charge of their Learning: Transforming Professional Development for Student Success. West Haven, CT.6.

technical coaching is usually used to focus on acquiring and transferring a new teaching practice into a teacher's regular repertoire

the major goals of collegial coaching are to "refine teaching practice, deepen collegiality, increase professional dialogue" and help teachers reflect on their work.

Cognitive coaching is considered a type of collegial coaching focused on understanding and using patterns of thinking..

team coaching working in a team instead of in pairs, as are most of the other models challenge coaching is generally used to focus on a specific problem and can be used in a larger

context than the classroom (e.g. school, grade levels, dept.)

7. Joyce, B.R. & Showers, B. (1983). Power in staff development through research on training. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.8. National Foundation for the Improvement of Education. (1996). Teachers Take Charge of their Learning: Transforming Professional Development for Student Success. West Haven, CT.9. Whalen, E. & DeRose, M. (1993). The Power of Peer Appraisals. Educational Leadership, 51(2), p.46.10. Leggett, D. & Hoyle, S. (1987). Peer coaching: One district's experience using teachers as staff developers. The Journal of Staff Development. 8(1), p.19.11. Leggett, D. & Hoyle, S. (1987). Peer coaching: One district's experience using teachers as staff developers. The Journal of Staff Development. 8(1), p.19.12. Sparks, G.M. & Bruder, S. (1987). Before and after peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 44(3), p.56.




Peer Coaching: An Effective Staff Development Model

Directions in Language & EducationNational Clearinghouse for Bilingual Educationvol. 1, no. 3, Spring 1995

PEER COACHING: AN EFFECTIVE STAFF DEVELOPMENT MODEL FOR EDUCATORS OF LINGUISTICALLY AND CULTURALLY DIVERSE STUDENTS

by Paul Galbraith and Kris Anstrom

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT?

The passage of the 1994 Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), has highlighted the need for integrated, teacher-driven, long-term professional development for all staff involved in the education of linguistically and culturally diverse (LCD) students. This emphasis is exemplified in Title XIII of IASA which authorizes technical assistance and dissemination efforts that assist in "integrating into a coherent strategy for improving teaching and learning" various staff development programs and other education reform efforts (Improving America's Schools Act, Title XIII, sec. 13001, 1994). Furthermore, the Department of Education has developed a set of principles for professional development that stress not only high quality, integrated training but that also recognize the leadership role teachers must assume in their own training (TESOL Matters, Feb/March 1995).

This leadership role on the part of educators of LCD students along with interdisciplinary cooperation between bilingual/English as a Second Language (ESL) and mainstream staff is critical for the effective education of LCD students. For too long, the education of these students has been perceived as the domain of only a small group of specialized individuals, namely ESL and bilingual teachers. This perception has often led to the isolation of LCD students from the rest of the school and to the provision of a separate curriculum for those students.

WHAT TYPE OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT IS NEEDED TO IMPROVE COLLABORATION BETWEEN MAINSTREAM AND BILINGUAL/ESL STAFF?

District administrators must offer mainstream classroom teachers a wide array of staff development activities which revolve around the education of LCD students. These can include training in theoretical areas such as second language learning and bilingualism, as well as practical suggestions for sheltering English instruction, integrating the teaching of content areas and English as a second language, and cooperative learning. In addition, training should be teacher-driven, as is the case with a peer coaching model of staff development.



WHAT IS PEER COACHING?

Peer coaching is defined as a professional development method that has been shown to increase collegiality and improve teaching. It is a confidential process through which teachers share their expertise and provide one another with feedback, support, and assistance for the purpose of refining present skills, learning new skills, and/or solving classroom-related problems (Dalton and Moir, 1991). Peer coaching also refers to in-class training by a supportive peer who helps the teacher apply skills learned in a workshop. Coached teachers experience significant positive changes in their behaviors, when provided with an appropriate program that insures accountability, support, companionship, and specific feedback over an extended period of time. Coaching is an ongoing process that involves a training stage followed by various extensions of that training. One model describes five functions of successful peer coaching:

Companionship: Teachers talk about their successes and failures with a new model of teaching, reducing their sense of isolation;

Feedback: Teachers give each other objective, non-evaluative feedback about the way they are executing skills required by a new model;

Analysis: Teachers help each other extend their control over a new approach until it is internalized, spontaneous, and flexible;

Adaptation: Teachers work together to fit a teaching model to the special needs of students in the class; and

Support: The coach provides whatever support is needed as the peer teacher begins to apply a new strategy (Showers, 1984).

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF PEER COACHING?

Teachers who work with LCD students can benefit greatly from a staff development model which incorporates peer coaching (Kwiat, 1989). On the one hand, ESL and bilingual teachers often experience isolation from their mainstream classroom peers. On the other hand, mainstream classroom teachers do not have the strategies and skills necessary to reach the LCD students in their classrooms. A peer coaching program helps bilingual/ESL and mainstream teachers to form the types of relationships they will need in order to coordinate knowledge and skills needed to serve their LCD students effectively. Mainstream teachers can most easily learn new knowledge and skills and how to apply this knowledge in their classrooms from those peers who are more experienced or more trained in bilingual/ESL education. By experimenting with specific skills and experiencing success through coaching, mainstream classroom teachers are not only able to improve their teaching in such a way that all students benefit, but they also develop a more positive outlook toward having LCD students in their classrooms. (Kwiat, 1989).

Peer coaching is a positive solution to some of the problems of traditional inservice offerings that have been used to educate teachers of LCD students. Instead of one-time workshops with no follow-up, peer coaching provides the ongoing assessment of a specific skill or strategy that enables the teacher to continue his/her training in the classroom. This follow-up and continued professional dialog are particularly essential for mainstream and bilingual teachers whose educational training and philosophy may vary widely. For example, inservice pertaining to the integration of language teaching and content instruction could be followed by having the bilingual teacher observe his/her mainstream partner's classes with the objective of noting the presence or absence of particular strategies, such as the use of graphic organizers or the repetition of key phrases. In coaching conferences, peers can discuss individual and school needs as well as give and receive feedback about the specific skill being observed. Coaching reduces isolation by providing the professional dialogue that encourages teachers to generate solutions to their own problems.



When teachers collaborate for the benefit of LCD students, coaching is a natural outcome of the cooperative planning meeting. When a teacher works with others to develop an LCD student's educational plan, it is possible that s/he will suggest instructional techniques or interventions not familiar to the other teachers. By sharing instructional strategies and techniques, teachers pool not only their physical but also their intellectual resources. Such collaboration is especially important in enabling teachers from a variety of disciplines to become familiar with and value the contributions of the others. Even when a teacher is receptive to using a new technique and has good intentions for implementation, numerous obstacles may prevent its successful use. A structured approach is needed to ensure that the new instructional technique is not neglected or practiced incorrectly.

Peer Coaching has the potential for furthering a teacher's individual professional development, for improving school climate, and, ultimately, enhancing school effectiveness when a model appropriate to school goals is applied. Teaching strategies such as cooperative learning and writing across the curriculum are examples of topics which can serve as the basis for coaching sessions. (Garmston, 1987).

HOW ARE PEER COACHING PROGRAMS INITIATED?

Several approaches to intiating peer coaching are possible. Some peer coaching programs begin with two teachers jointly planning instructional segments in which new knowledge and skills will be applied. For example, a bilingual Spanish teacher and a science teacher could be paired in order to plan and teach a unit on sound that incorporates the language and culture of both English and Spanish speaking students. The school principal provides time for the teachers to observe one another as they carry out the instruction. Observation notes, videotapes, coded information, and narrative reports are prepared. The teachers review and discuss the data together. Actions that might improve the use of the skills and knowledge are explored. New applications are planned, observed, and analyzed (Ward, 1986).

Another approach assigns a teacher who is more skilled than other teachers to conduct model lessons, which illustrate the use of new skills and knowledge. The other teachers, in turn, use the model on similar lessons to practice the new instructional processes in their own classrooms. Often, this model is applied by ESL teachers to demonstrate how language can be contextualized so that LCD students can comprehend content area subject matter. Model lessons and the analysis of what occurred both take into account the classroom context and the particular needs of each teacher (Griffin, et al, 1984; Schlecty, Crowell, Whitford, and Joslin, 1984).

WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF PEER COACHING?

Four working models for coaching include: technical, collegial, challenge, and team coaching (Garmston, 1987 and Neubert and Bratton, 1987).

Technical coaching refers to the facilitation of transfer from inservice training to classroom practice. This mode promotes collegiality and the sharing of professional dialogue and gives teachers a shared vocabulary for discussing professional views. For bilingual and mainstream teachers, might include discussion of how specific methods (bilingual or ESL) would apply in their classrooms. For example, following inservice on cooperative learning, teachers could discuss how heterogenous grouping would occur given the language groups and language abilities of students.

Collegial coaching shares the common goals of refining teaching practices, promoting collegiality, and increasing professional dialogue with technical coaching. However, it also helps teachers be more analytical about what they do in the classroom. The long range goal of collegial coaching is self-perpetuating improvement in teaching. For example, a teacher to be observed may want to learn more about how to improve in a particular area. This desire becomes the focus of the



coaching sessions. The coach gathers classroom data on the teacher's priority and helps him/her analyze and interpret teaching/learning strategies while encouraging applications to future learning. An example of collegial coaching is given in The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. In implementing CALLA, teachers are advised to keep a teaching log of class activities that can be discussed when meeting with their partners. Examples of categories on the teaching log that can be used to reflect on and discuss with their partners include student activities and type of instruction. In addition, partners are advised to use a checklist when observing each other so that follow-up discussion is focused on what actually happened during the lesson. Examples of categories on the checklist include: "teacher's language somewhat simplified" and "students' prior knowledge elicited" (Chamot and O'Malley, 1994).

Challenge coaching refers to the application of coaching techniques to the resolution of problematic situations. Teams, which may include teachers, teachers' aides, librarians, and administrators, work together to resolve persistent problems in instructional design or delivery. Challenge coaching often results in a formal plan proposed by all participants for the resolution of a given problem.

Team coaching is a variation on peer coaching and team teaching. Visiting mentors or resource teachers, instead of observing classroom teachers, teach right alongside them. These resource teachers should have considerable expertise in the methodology being used by the teachers they are coaching. The coach and teacher plan, teach, and evaluate the lesson as partners. Bilingual education programs funded through Title VII may employ resource teachers skilled in ESL/bilingual methods serve as mentors to either mainstream or less-skilled bilingual/ESL staff. These teachers coach their peers intensively in their classroom settings to assist them in applying effective methodology for LCD students. The success of team teaching supports the notion that people other than regular classroom teachers can be coaches. However, the coach should always be someone who is a peer; otherwise teachers may perceive the coaching as evaluation rather than collaboration. The importance of support and facilitation by coaches cannot be emphasized enough.

WHAT FACTORS NEED TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE IMPLEMENTING PEER COACHING?

Several preconditions should be considered before implementing a peer coaching system:

There must be a general perception on the part of the people involved that they are good but can always get better--that they can always improve what they are doing. This general orientation has been found to characterize effective schools.

The teachers and administrators involved must have a reasonable level of trust; they must be confident that no one is going to distort the situation in any way.

There must be an interpersonal climate in the school that conveys the sense that people care about each other and are willing to help one another (Dalton and Moir, 1991).

HOW IS PEER COACHING IMPLEMENTED?

Once preconditions for implementation have been met, various strategies and procedures for implementing peer coaching may be used. One coaching strategy has been developed that provides a systematic way to introduce a new teaching routine to other professionals (Knackendoffel, 1988). This strategy shows the coaching teacher how to introduce a new instructional technique, gain a commitment from other teachers to try it, model the technique, and assist others in initiating the routine. Finally, the coaching strategy shows how to provide feedback and ensure maintenance and adoption of the teaching technique. Each of the coaching strategy steps as suggested by Knackendoffel are listed below.



COACHING STRATEGY STEPS

1. Set the stage for collaboration and introduce the teaching routine;2. Gain commitment to listen to the teaching routine;3. Describe the teaching routine;4. Model the teaching routine;5. Gain commitment to try the teaching routine;6. Offer assistance for initiating the routine (give choices);7. Collaborate on the effectiveness of the teaching routine in class;8. Provide for maintenance and adoption of the teaching routine.This coaching strategy provides a step-by-step procedure to facilitate the effective use of new instructional techniques by other professionals. The process can and should be reciprocal across content areas so that mainstream, ESL, or bilingual teachers all share new techniques. The combined knowledge and experience of these teachers can enrich each educator's teaching skills. This sharing can also extend to other instructional and support personnel in the school.

Peer coaches, in a study by Showers (1984), regarded their access to a consultant through weekly staff meetings as essential to their success. For this reason Showers recommends that districts provide some means of ongoing support and training for peer coaches. This training should focus on both the content they are seeking to share with their peers and on the process of coaching.

Showers (1984) also notes that teachers and administrators must be creative in organizing peer coaching systems to free up teachers' time. In schools where teachers already have preparation periods scheduled into their work days, teachers can be organized into coaching teams for collaborative planning and feedback sessions. Some schools have used specialist teachers to release teachers for observation periods, and some principals have taken classes in order to provide observation times for teachers. In other cases, teachers have had to videotape lessons for sharing at a later time when live observations could not be arranged. In the peer coaching study reported here, substitutes were provided for peer coaches one day per week in order for them to complete their observations and conferences.

Like many educational innovations, peer coaching is more complex than it appears at first glance. To implement a peer coaching program which complements staff development and helps build a community of teacher scholars, educators will want to explore the following areas:

The coaching process: Typically, peer coaching models follow the steps of pre-observation conference and establishment of observation criteria, classroom observation, collection of data, data analysis, post-conference, and establishment of subsequent observation criteria.

Coaching vs. Evaluation: Whereas traditional teacher evaluation typically implies judgement by an administrator/superior about an individual's total professional performance, coaching consists of assistance by a colleague/peer in a professional development process. Successful coaching programs can only be established in an atmosphere of trust and support, where teachers feel it is safe to experiment, fail, reflect, question, solicit help, revise, and try again.

Selection of coaching partners: To help faculty to trust in the process, teachers should be allowed to select coaching partners to form teams of approximately four colleagues who observe each other regularly. As members of coaching teams structured across departments or grade levels, colleagues become more aware of their common resources and challenges, and tend to focus their observations on the target instructional practices rather than primarily on lesson content.

Training of coaches: An effective training-for coaching program includes pre-coaching follow-up training while the program is under way. Training in coaching must empower teachers by helping them identify practices that impede movement toward collegiality and equipping them with an



extended repertoire of coaching skills (e.g., providing prompt, descriptive, nonevaluative feedback).

Administrative support for peer coaching: An effective coaching program requires an active and supportive instructional leader (Kinsella, 1993).

WHAT ARE SOME PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS?

Six strategies that provide for low-cost arrangements for peer coaching include: 1. Free teachers to observe other teachers by taking their classes. Administrators alone, teaching one period a day, can provide about one-fourth of the hours needed.

2. Schedule larger than classroom-size group instruction. By bringing students together in larger groups, teachers would have time to visit one another.

3. Arrange for independent study and research. Frequently, teachers need to locate and assemble information, study, and then practice instruction. Often these activities can take place in a library or a setting other than the classroom.

4. Enlist volunteer aides. Aides enable a number of arrangements to be made that free teachers for peer coaching.

5. Seek out student teachers. Student teachers (and aides in some states) can be given limited certificates permitting them legal responsibility for students.

6. Organize team teaching. Teachers may be paired not only for coaching but also for instruction. This would enable teachers to free one another to engage in peer-coaching observation and discussions (Showers and Joyce, 1987).

The preceeding discussion has highlighted various models of peer coaching and has offered suggestions for implementing them. Administrators and teachers interested in pursuing peer coaching as part of their staff development programs are urged to further investigate the various models proposed, keeping in mind the needs and goals of their particular school. Finally, it must be emphasized that any staff development program, including peer coaching, must have the support and leadership of teachers if it is to be successful.

REFERENCES

Casteneda, L. (1992). "Alternative visions of practice: An exploratory study of peer coaching, sheltered content, cooperative instruction, and mainstream subject matter teachers." Paper presented at the Third National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues: Focus on Middle and High School Issues, Washington, DC.

Chamot, A. and O'Malley, J.M. (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.

Dalton, S. and Moir, E. (1991). "Evaluating LEP teacher training and n-service programs." Paper presented at the Second National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues. Washington, DC.



Garmston, R.J. (1987). "How administrators support peer coaching." Educational Leadership, 44 (5), pp. 128-26.

Griffin, G.A., Barnes, S., O'Neal, S., Edwards, S. A., Defino, M.E. and Hukill, H. (1994). Changing teacher practice: Final report of an experimental study (Report no. 9052). Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.

Hamayan, E. (1990). "Preparing mainstream teachers to teach potentially English proficient students." Paper presented at the First National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Students' Issues, Washington, DC.

Hones, D. and Gee, M. (1994). "Flying by the seat of one's pants: An intensive teacher preparation program." TESOL Journal, 3 (2) pp. 8-12.

Hudson, P. (1989). "Instructional collaboration: creating the learning environment." In S. Fradd and M. J. Weismantel (Eds.), Meeting the needs of culturally and linguistically different students: A handbook for educators (pp.106-129). Boston: College Hill Press.

Improving America's Schools Act, PL 103-382. (1994). Title XIII, Section 13001.

Innovative staff development approaches.(1988). New Focus, No. 4 Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Joyce, B. and Showers, B. (1987, Spring). "Low-cost arrangements for peer coaching." Journal of Staff Development, 8 (1), pp.22-24.

Joyce, B., Murphy C., Showers, B., & Murphy J. (1989). "School renewal as cultural change." Educational Leadership, 47 (3), pp. 70-77.

Kinsella, K. (1993, Fall). "Quality staff development and peer coaching: Partners in educational change." ARC Currents, 1 (2).

Knackendoffel, A. (1988). "Teaming strategies." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Kwiat, J. (1989). "A peer coaching model for teachers of limited English proficient students." Paper presented at the annual AERA convention, San Francisco.

Leggett, D. and Hoyle, S. (1987). "Peer coaching: One district's experience in using teachers as staff developers." Journal of Staff Development, 8 (1), pp. 16-20.

Neubert, B.A. and Bratton, E.C. (1987, February). "Team coaching: Staff development side by side." Educational Leadership, 44 (5), pp. 29-32.

Showers, B. Joyce, B. and Bennett, B. (1987, November). "Synthesis of research on staff development: a framework for future study and a state of the art analysis." Educational Leadership, 45 (3), pp. 77-87.

Showers, B. (1984). Peer coaching: A strategy for facilitating transfer of training. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy and Management.



Schlecty, P. C., Crowell, D., Whitford, B. L. and Joslin, A. (1984). Understanding and managing staff development in an urban school system: Executive summary (NIE Contract No. 400-79-0056). University of North Carolina.

Smith, S. and Scott, J. (1990). The Collaborative School: A work environment for effective instruction. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.

"U.S. legislation--Title VII update." (1995, February/March). TESOL Matters, p. 6.

Valdez-Pierce, L. (1988, April/May). "Peer coaching: an innovative approach to staff development." NCBE Forum, 11 (3).

Ward, B.A. (1986). "Clinical teacher education and professional teacher development." In J. V. Hoffman and A. Edwards (Eds.), Reality and reform in clinical teacher education (pp. 65-86). New York: Random House.

NCBE Home Pagehttp://www.ncbe.gwu.edu


http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/index.htm

The Evolution of Peer Coaching

Volume 53 Number 6 1996


Beverly Showers and Bruce Joyce

Today, peer coaching study teams enhance staff development efforts and offer support for teachers implementing new strategies.

Fifteen years have passed since we first proposed peer coaching as an on-site dimension of staff development (Joyce and Showers 1980). In the 1970s, evaluations of staff development that focused on teaching strategies and curriculum revealed that as few as 10 percent of the participants implemented what they had learned. Rates of transfer were low even for those who had volunteered for the training. Well-researched curriculum and teaching models did not find their way into general practice and thus could not influence students' learning environments.

In a series of studies beginning in 1980, we tested hypotheses related to the proposition that regular (weekly) seminars would enable teachers to practice and implement the content they were learning. The seminars, or coaching sessions, focused on classroom implementation and the analysis of teaching, especially students' responses.

The results were consistent: Implementation rose dramatically, whether experts or participants conducted the sessions. Thus we recommended that teachers who were studying teaching and curriculum form small peer coaching groups that would share the learning process. In this way, staff development might directly affect student learning.

Our central concern has been helping students benefit when their teachers learn, grow, and change. In studying how teachers can create better learning environments for themselves (Joyce and Showers 1995), we noted with interest a serendipitous by-product of the early peer coaching studies: Successful peer coaching teams developed skills in collaboration and enjoyed the experience so much that they wanted to continue their collegial partnerships after they accomplished their initial goals. Why not create permanent structures, we wondered, that would enable teachers to study teaching on a continuous basis?

In working with this broadened view of peer coaching as a mechanism to increase classroom implementation of training, we evolved our present practice of organizing entire faculties into peer coaching teams. We have been convinced throughout that peer coaching is neither an end in itself nor by itself a school improvement initiative. Rather, it must operate in a context of training, implementation, and general school improvement. There is no evidence that simply organizing peer coaching or peer study teams will affect students' learning environments. The study of teaching and curriculum must be the focus.

Here we examine the history of coaching, describe changes in the conduct of coaching, and make recommendations for its future, including its role as a component of staff development that drives organizational change.



History of Peer Coaching Pre-1980. The processes of training and implementation have come under close scrutiny only in the last 25 years. Beginning in the mid-1950s, national movements to improve education focused on academic quality and social equality. By the early 1970s, educators recognized that many of those efforts, even when well-funded and approved by the public, seldom led to changes. The lack of research on how people learn teaching strategies and how schools successfully disseminate innovations contributed to our failures. Educators assumed that teachers could learn new strategies, return to a school, and implement their new learning smoothly and appropriately. The organization of the schools did not support the intensive training efforts that occurred in summer institutes or workshops during the year, however. Initial diagnoses attributed the failure to "flaws" in the motivation, effort, and attitudes of the teachers rather than to the state of the organization or the design of training.

1980-1987. We began to believe that changes in the school organization and in training design could solve implementation problems or ease them greatly, and that assigning the blame to teachers was erroneous. Our understanding of how people learn new behaviors and put them into practice has continuously evolved, as a result of work by colleagues in schools and universities and our own efforts with teachers and schools.

When we first advanced the notion of coaching, we had just completed an exhaustive review of literature on training and presented our findings as a set of hypotheses about types of training likely to produce results. The training components discussed in that early work grew from what we found in the literature: theory presentation, modeling or demonstration, practice, structured and open-ended feedback, and in-class assistance with transfer.

In 1980, we believed that "modeling, practice under simulated conditions, and practice in the classroom, combined with feedback" (Joyce and Showers 1980, p. 384) was the most productive training design. We hypothesized that teachers attempting to master new curriculum and teaching approaches would need continued technical assistance at the classroom level. For purposes of research, we distinguished between the initial development of a skill that would permit a teacher to experiment with new teaching strategies, and the classroom practice of that skill until it had become a part of the teacher's repertoire. At that time, training designs for skill development were much better developed than were designs for conditions that would lead to transfer.

In the early '80s, we formally investigated the hypothesis that coaching, following initial training, would result in much greater transfer than would training alone (Showers 1982, 1984). We confirmed this hypothesis. We assumed that the coach needed to have more expertise in the content area, and thus paired teachers with an outside consultant or an expert peer. The literature on supervisory practices and feedback influenced our thinking as we struggled to create the kind of structured feedback that appeared to facilitate skill development.

Results of our early studies showed that teachers who had a coaching relationship--that is, who shared aspects of teaching, planned together, and pooled their experiences--practiced new skills and strategies more frequently and applied them more appropriately than did their counterparts who worked alone to expand their repertoires. Members of peer-coaching groups exhibited greater long-term retention of new strategies and more appropriate use of new teaching models over time (Baker and Showers 1984).



Coaching helped nearly all the teachers implement new teaching strategies. Equally important, teachers introduced to the new models could coach one another, provided that the teachers continued to receive periodic follow-up in training settings. Thus we recommended that schools organize teachers into peer coaching teams and arrange school settings so that the teachers could work together to gain sufficient skill to affect student learning. We had moved from the '50s and '60s, where the probability of implementation was extremely low, to a very simple technology that virtually reversed the odds. The coaching process was added to the training paradigm, taking into account the two levels of skill development described above.

Current practice. We conducted the early studies with individual teachers or small groups within a school. The next stage involved faculties that volunteered as a whole, which required collaborating with staffs to determine their students' most pressing needs, selecting appropriate content, helping them design training, and assessing the impact on students. Increasingly we have found that attention to the social organization is extremely important. We now ask entire faculties to decide whether they want the school site to work with us, and we discuss at length exactly how we might work together.

Principles of Peer Coaching Numerous staff development practices are called "coaching." These include "technical coaching," "collegial coaching," "challenge coaching," "team coaching," "cognitive coaching," and uses of "peer coaching" (Garmston 1987) to refer to the traditional supervisory mode of pre-conference/observation/post-conference. None of these should be confused with, or used for, evaluation of teachers.

Similar to our approach, technical coaching, team coaching, and peer coaching (as in peer clinical supervision) focus on innovations in curriculum and instruction (Kent 1985, Neubert and Bratton 1987, Rogers 1987), whereas collegial coaching and cognitive coaching aim more at improving existing practices (Garmston et al. 1993). All except team coaching differ from our practice in that their primary vehicle for improving or changing classroom instruction is verbal feedback.

Following are our principles of peer coaching.

1. When we work with entire faculties, all teachers must agree to be members of peer coaching study teams. Teams must collectively agree to (a) practice or use whatever change the faculty has decided to implement; (b) support one another in the change process, including sharing planning of instructional objectives and developing materials and lessons; and (c) collect data about the implementation process and the effects on students relative to the school's goals.

2. We have found it necessary and important to omit verbal feedback as a coaching component. The primary activity of peer coaching study teams is planning and developing curriculum and instruction in pursuit of shared goals. Especially when they are learning teaching strategies designed for higher-order outcomes, teachers need to think through their overarching goals, as well as the specific objectives leading to them. Collaborative planning is essential if teachers are to divide the labor of developing new lesson and unit sequences and use one another's products.

When teachers try to give one another feedback, collaborative activity tends to disintegrate. Peer coaches told us they found themselves slipping into "supervisory, evaluative



comments" despite their intentions to avoid them. Teachers shared with us that they expect "first the good news, then the bad" because of their past experiences with clinical supervision, and admitted they often pressured their coaches to go beyond technical feedback and give them "the real scoop." To the extent that feedback was evaluative or was perceived as evaluative, it was not meeting our original intention.

Remarkably, omitting feedback in the coaching process has not depressed implementation or student growth (Joyce and Showers 1995), and the omission has greatly simplified the organization of peer coaching teams. In retrospect, it is not difficult to understand this finding. Learning to provide technical feedback required extensive training and time and was unnecessary after team members mastered new behaviors.

3. We have needed to redefine the meaning of "coach": when pairs of teachers observe each other, the one teaching is the "coach," and the one observing is the "coached." In this process, teachers who are observing do so in order to learn from their colleague. There is no discussion of the observation in the "technical feedback" sense that we used in our early studies. Generally, these observtions are followed by brief conversations on the order of "Thanks for letting me watch you work. I picked up some good ideas on how to work with my students."

4. The collaborative work of peer coaching teams is much broader than observations and conferences. Many believe that the essence of the coaching transaction is to offer advice to teachers following observations. Not so. Rather, teachers learn from one another while planning instruction, developing support materials, watching one another work with students, and thinking together about the impact of their behavior on their students' learning.

Recommendations for Training Sessions Continuing concerns drive our work: how best to help teachers teach students to build intellectual independence; reasoning and problem-solving capability; competence in handling the explosion of information and data; and, with the help of technology, the ability to navigate the information age. We believe that staff developers can assist educators by incorporating certain behaviors in their training sessions.

First, we can help schools and teams of teachers redesign their workplaces. Rather than simply advocating that schools provide time for collaborative planning and problem-solving related to specific plans for change, we can provide time during training to address this problem. Reviewing Raywid's (1993) research on finding time for collaboration is one way to begin such a session.

Second, staff can form peer coaching teams on the first day of training. When entire school faculties train together, they have many options for forming teams, and staff developers can facilitate discussion of those options. Faculties can also try out various formats, comparing costs and benefits of alternative plans. A school attempting to develop an integrated curriculum as part of its improvement plan may want to experiment with cross-subject or cross-grade teams. Schools with a focus on multicultural curriculums may want to spread faculty expertise on various cultures among the teams. However a school forms its teams, it is useful for teachers to have immediate practice in working together toward shared goals.



Third, we can provide examples of formats or structures for collaborative planning. Many teachers have shared with us their difficulty in jointly performing an activity they have traditionally done alone. A structured walk-through of a planning activity can allow teams to respond to questions within specific time frames, practice thinking aloud about what each person wants to accomplish, and identify overlap with their colleagues' agendas. A sample sequence might include the following.

* Think about your year's "course." What are your big, overarching goals for your students?

* Now think about the first six weeks of school. What objectives will you need to accomplish if you are to meet your year's goals? How much time can you spend in review and still meet your objectives?

* What instructional strategies are most appropriate for the objectives you've set for the first six weeks? Are they consistent with your year-end goals?

* Given the overlap of objectives in your team, can you divide the labor and develop materials that others can use?

Fourth, peer coaching study teams need to plan how they will monitor implementation of new initiatives, and how they will determine the impact of each initiative on their students. When whole schools agree on a specific change agenda, study teams may want to address in small groups how they will discover whether their efforts are having the desired effects, then combine their ideas in a whole-school session. Measuring the impact of planned change is critical to any school improvement effort. The training setting is optimal for planning mini-studies that teams can conduct throughout the year for this purpose.

Coaching and School Improvement Collaborative planning and data collection increase the time, and thus the cost, of staff development activities. To the extent that such activities result in greater clarity about means and ends, more thorough implementation of planned changes, and more immediate information about effects on students, the additional effort is well worth the investment.

Adding peer coaching study teams to school improvement efforts is a substantial departure from the way schools often embark on change efforts. On the surface, it appears simple to implement--what could be more natural than teams of professional teachers working on content and skills? It is a complex innovation only because it requires a radical change in relationships among teachers, and between teachers and administrative personnel.

When staff development becomes the major vehicle for school improvement, schools should take into account both the structures and content of training, as well as changes needed in the workplace to make possible the collaborative planning, decision making, and data collection that are essential to organizational change efforts. As we ponder ways to ensure that training/coaching fuels the school renewal process, we are also examining how the culture of the school can increasingly provide a benign environment for collective activity.

A cohesive school culture makes possible the collective decisions that generate schoolwide improvement efforts. The formation of peer coaching teams produces greater faculty cohesion and focus and, in turn, facilitates more skillful shared decision making. A skillful



staff development program results in a self-perpetuating process for change, as well as new knowledge and skills for teachers and increased learning for students.

References

Baker, R. G., and B. Showers. (1984). The Effects of a Coaching Strategy on Teachers' Transfer of Training to Classroom Practice: A Six-Month Follow-Up Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La.

Garmston, R. (1987). "How Administrators Support Peer Coaching." Educational Leadership 44, 5: 18-26.

Garmston, R., C. Linder, and J. Whitaker. (1993). "Reflections on Cognitive Coaching." Educational Leadership 51, 2: 57-61.

Joyce, B., and B. Showers. (1980). "Improving Inservice Training: The Messages of Research." Educational Leadership 37, 5: 379-385.

Joyce, B., and B. Showers. (1995). Student Achievement Through Staff Development: Fundamentals of School Renewal. 2nd ed. White Plains, N.Y.: Longman.

Kent, K. M. (1985). "A Successful Program of Teachers Assisting Teachers." Educational Leadership 43, 3: 30-33.

Neubert, G. A., and E. C. Bratton. (1987). "Team Coaching: Staff Development Side by Side." Educational Leadership 44, 5: 29-33.

Raywid, M. A. (1993). "Finding Time for Collaboration." Educational Leadership 51, 1: 30-35.

Rogers, S. (1987). "If I Can See Myself, I Can Change." Educational Leadership 45, 2: 64-67.

Showers, B. (1982). Transfer of Training: the Contribution of Coaching. Eugene, Ore.: Center for Educational Policy and Management.

Showers, B. (1984). Peer Coaching: A Strategy for Facilitating Transfer of Training. Eugene, Ore.: Center for Educational Policy and Management.

Beverly Showers is a consultant in staff development and school improvement. She can be reached at 652 St. Andrews Dr., Aptos, CA 95003 (e-mail: [email protected]). Bruce Joyce is Director of Booksend Laboratories, P.O. Box 660, Pauma Valley, CA 92061.

©The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Copyright 1997 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development


(Vol. 3, No. 2 - Fall 1999)Teachers Get Help From"The Guide on the Side"

In an effort to get more teachers on board the "standards train," LBUSD sent a cadre of teacher coaches into the field during the 1998-99 school year. The talented teachers -- and the district -- learned a lot from the first year of this promising but challenging program.

Sandy Rogers' Coaching JournalShelley Gustafson's Coaching Journal

by John Norton

Christine is a long-term substitute who's teaching math and science to sixth and eighth graders. She has a degree in video/film and almost no classroom experience.

Ed is a talented educator who became a department chair in his third year of teaching. He's expected to help lead his fellow science teachers to higher levels of performance through standards-based teaching and assessment.

Jeff went through "survival basics" his first full year as an emergency teacher, when he was given overflow classes three weeks into the school year. Now he's ready to hone his teaching skills and get kids excited about math and science.

Barbara spent nine years at Price Waterhouse before turning to teaching for more job satisfaction. Her maturity and work experience have given her the confidence to begin a new career with minimal preparation, but she needs help strengthening her students' writing skills.

Stephanie is a fifth year veteran with plenty of in-service training in English, history and reading. As her teaching becomes more standards-based, she's trying to add new "tools" to her classroom assessment toolbox.

Jason is excited about his first full-time position teaching eighth grade history, but the challenges of classroom management and the district's demanding standards-based curriculum are daunting, to say the least.

Tim knows his stuff when it comes to teaching technology, computers, and career exploration. Now his principal wants Tim to help students become better readers. He has no idea how to do it.

Mike wasn't quite ready for medical school so he took his Harvard biology degree and joined Teach for America. After four weeks of summer training in Houston, he found himself with his own classroom in one of LBUSD's top middle schools. Expectations were high and there was a lot to learn in a hurry.


http://www.middleweb.com/CSLB6guide.html#anchor4488955

http://www.middleweb.com/CSLB6guide.html#anchor4481762

http://www.middleweb.com/Reformingschools.html

In years past, Christine and Mike and Ed and the hundreds of teachers like them in Long Beach Unified could expect only marginal support as they struggled to adapt themselves to new jobs, or new roles and responsibilities.

Despite the district's many high-quality workshops, seminars and new-teacher sharing sessions, when the time came to translate all the new knowledge into teaching practice, teachers would usually find themselves alone with a roomful of kids, sinking or swimming, with little feedback or guidance from other adults.

For a group of middle grades teachers, this situation began to change in the fall of 1998. District leaders were pressing schools to move forward on a standards-based reform agenda, and principals and teachers needed more help developing the new knowledge and skills required to get the job done.

Reflecting on the success of the district's curriculum leaders (specialists in core subjects who work with schools across the district) and drawing on models in other school systems, the administration decided to create a "cadre of coaches" who could work regularly with teachers in their classrooms.

During an exciting - and sometimes challenging - first year, the coaches learned their jobs "on the fly," figuring out who to help, how to help, and how much to help. The results have been promising enough to encourage the district to expand and fine-tune the coaching program and make it a mainstay of the district's grand strategy for middle grades reform.

How the Coaching Program Works

They answer to several names - standards coaches, content coaches, teacher coaches, the "guides on the side." Some coaches are full-time; some teach half the time; some are assigned to a single school; some serve as many as eight schools. All are expert teachers with many years of experience, chosen for their demonstrated excellence and their success in adapting their teaching to the district's standards-based model.

Their roles vary according to their work situation. All coaches have an overarching responsibility to help teachers use the district content standards to raise student achievement. Last year coaches also supported the district's push to have all middle school departments create "curriculum maps" describing the who, what, when and how of teaching. Not surprisingly, every coach invested some time helping teachers and students prepare for the SAT-9 tests in the spring. Each coach was called upon to assist rookie teachers with the basics of classroom management, and many coaches arranged for new and experienced teachers to observe successful teachers in other schools.

Each of the school system's three administrative areas had its own coaching staff, and each area adopted a different coaching approach. In Area A, a full-time, four-member team (math, science, English and history) took up residence in a bungalow at Hamilton Middle School. Hamilton's large student population, rapid teacher turnover, and its high percentage of inexperienced teachers made the school a good candidate for intensive coaching support. In Area B, two teachers were selected in each middle school to coach half-time and teach half-time. Area C elected to use only two full-time coaches (one in science, one in social studies) and allowed principals to help decide how much time the coaches would spend in each of the area's eight schools.

These different coaching designs helped shape the job responsibilities of coaches in each school. For example, the four-member team at Hamilton (all outsiders assigned to the school) felt the need to "bond"


with the school family and found themselves pitching in to help with everything from lunchroom duty to ordering supplies. At Hill Middle School in Area B, the coaches supported the school's top priority - improving students' reading and writing skills. In Area C, the science coach spent nearly half her time working at DeMille Middle School, where most of the science faculty members were new.

Inventing the Job as They Went Along

The teacher-coaches began their new work with two weeks of in-service training before school began in September 1998. The teacher-coach was a relatively new concept for LBUSD, and district leaders are quick to admit they were inventing the job as they went along.

Looking back over the first year, Kristi Kahl, the superintendent's assistant for middle grades reform, speaks for most central office administrators when she says that "we've learned that we really needed to do a better job communicating the purpose of coaching, to better define the difference between evaluation and support, and to give our coaches more help in working with adult learners."

Most coaches agree with Area C science coach Connie Roth that their biggest frustration at the beginning of 1998 was a lack of clarity about their roles. Coaches were uncertain about how they should document their work, what they should share with principals and teachers, and how they could best invest their time. There was also role confusion between coaches and school department chairs - a group the district expects to become leaders of teacher development.

"There was no job description that really answered my questions about exactly what I was supposed to do," says Roth. "A lot of it was left up to the coaches to invent." Area A coach Judy Guess agrees. "When we began, it was more or less 'you're going to be a coach. Now you guys figure out what you're going to do.'"

Like Roth, each coach "did a lot of inventing" - devising observation forms, exploring the proper relationship with principals, and working to define their jobs in ways that didn't threaten teachers, many of whom assumed that if they were being observed, they were being evaluated. "Right away teachers said 'you're coming in and observing me and writing things down. So does that mean that you're doing my evaluation?'" says Roth.

"Many people saw us as lackeys for the district or spies for the principal," Hamilton language arts coach Sandra Rogers told participants at a school reform conference recently. "We had to break down those barriers, and it took most of the year. And there are still people who are not quite sure we are there just to help."

From time to time the coaches also found themselves serving as "scapegoats" for the district's aggressive reform agenda. The 1998-99 school year was filled with new teaching mandates and teachers were feeling "very stressed" says Ed Samuels, math department chair at Hamilton. "There was some tendency to blame them for the extra work, which really wasn't from them but was coming down from the (district)."

The district's decision to require teachers to work on "curriculum maps" was one example, Samuels says. "The coaches were trained in it and told to bring it to the schools, so the teachers blamed them, saying 'you guys are giving us curriculum maps.' But that was something that was going to be required of us regardless of whether we had coaches." The truth, Samuels believes, is "that they really made it easier for us than it would have been otherwise. The choice was to do it with their help, or without their help."

The suspicion about the "true" purpose of the coaching program manifested itself in different ways at different schools and among different groups of teachers. Young, inexperienced teachers were often eager


for any help they could get, says Hamilton coach Judy Guess, and their neediness helped coaches establish some instant rapport.

Most first- and second-year teachers who have had the opportunity to work with coaches (still a small minority in the district) agree that the coaching model provides more support than the "mentor" teachers who are traditionally assigned to new hires. Jeff Shidler, a second-year teacher at Hamilton last year, relied on a mentor during his rookie season. "They try to help you, but they're full-time teachers themselves." He adds that mentor teachers may have as little as three years of experience, while coaches are almost always teachers with many years of experience and a record of excellence. "A mentor with three or four years experience may be very willing to help with something like lesson planning," Shidler says, "but the lesson planning is not as good as the person who has 17 years under their belt."

Experienced Teachers More Likely to Resist

Whatever their particular situation, every coach agrees that experienced teachers have shown the most resistance to the coaching program.

"I think the basic thing that most of us had to overcome was teachers feeling like they didn't need a coach," says Judy Guess about the Hamilton team's first year of coaching. "The more experienced teachers did what I did as a younger teacher - they went in a classroom, closed the door, and did what they wanted to. Some were afraid to have someone come in and say, 'OK, can we work through this together. What is it that you would like to improve on?'"

Roth makes a similar observation. "Some people I work with are reluctant to take suggestions. Or even hear any suggestions. They're defensive, and it takes awhile. In the beginning, I do a lot of observation. I get a feel for how they work in their room and try to build a rapport before I start giving advice."

Stephanie Dunn, a five-year veteran who teaches sixth grade English and history at Hamilton Middle School, says teachers at Hamilton were "understandably suspicious" when they first learned that a team of coaches would be placed in their school. "At first there was some apprehension. Why are they coming? What's the purpose? Everybody hears the word 'coach' and thinks 'football team.' And we know what the coach's role is with a football team, so we figure that a coach coming in over the teachers has the same job. They're probably going to tell us how to teach, or tell us how not to teach. I think that was one way that people were looking at the coaching in the beginning."

Some experienced teachers, like Dunn, have welcomed the help. "I've had positive experiences from the beginning. They've helped me improve my classroom assessment and culminating activities for units," she says. Hill Middle School coach Shelley Gustafson helped math teacher Mark Egelko improve his students' ability to read and understand a difficult textbook. "That's not something I was trained in," he explains. And Hamilton science department chair Ed Samuels says Judy Guess has deepened his understanding of the standards teaching approach "and put me in a better position to help our other math teachers."

When coaches were asked at the end of the school year to identify the training they needed most - but didn't get - there was near-unanimous agreement. Judy Guess calls it "cognitive coaching;" others describe it as "adult learning theory." In plain English, Guess says, it's the question of "how do you talk to teachers about different issues? What are the best ways to get them to listen to you and get the most out of what you're trying to tell them? We didn't get enough suggestions on how to work with teachers who really don't want you there."

District leaders responded to these concerns this August when they held their second professional http://www.middleweb.com/CSLB6guide.html

development program for coaches. "The Art of Coaching," a seminar presented by Joellen Killion of the National Staff Development Council, helped coaches understand the dynamics of adult learners and offered ideas about improving communication and helping teachers "build understanding of their own needs." Killion will continue to work with the coaches throughout 1999-2000.

"I'm impressed by the district's commitment to provide the time for coaches, by the selection of coaches, and the focus on their on-going development," Killion says. "But they seem to have an enormous task to accomplish, especially in schools with large numbers of inexperienced staff and large staff turnover."

The Power of Positive Coaching

Two snapshots from Hamilton Middle School help demonstrate the potential impact of the coaching program.

Two years ago, before Hamilton's four-member coaching team took up residence, a young 8th-grade history teacher described his first year of teaching as an experience in survival. While the school's administration offered all the help it could spare, his struggles with student behavior and his lack of training in teaching methods made for "a brutal situation," he said. "I haven't talked to anyone much about the curriculum, it's mostly been about discipline. That's the challenge I'm facing." The young teacher said he was learning to teach through trial and error. "You make mistakes early. You give an assignment, read two pages, answer the questions in the textbook. No one gets the questions or the reading. So you learn by mistake."

Last spring, we heard a different story from Jason Marshall, also an 8th grade history teacher in his first year. "I go home smiling every day," Marshall said. "I don't feel frustrated. Just yesterday we spent a few hours just picking (our history coach's) brain and working with her to try to create lesson plans for the next six weeks. We've got clear ideas about how to tackle each lesson we're going to be doing. I don't feel burdened. I feel excited about coming to school."

Marshall said he had discipline problems at the beginning of the year. "Hamilton is known as a tough school to work in. For a first-year teacher at this school, it's pretty difficult. But I was able to get help from all four of our coaches. In classroom management, they all have their own style and you can choose what you like. They come in the class and model for you or give you tips. It's been an unbelievably positive year."

Coaches Battle Low Expectations

In some schools, coaches found themselves battling low expectations - not just among students, but among teachers.

"I had a couple of teachers last fall say to me - and this was one of my real downers - that 'you don't understand our students.' They really believed that their students couldn't learn very much and we were naive to think otherwise," says Ann Robertson, a highly regarded history teacher who moved from Hill to join the Hamilton coaching team.

The Hamilton coaches developed several strategies to address this culture of low expectations. "One thing that helped was providing them with examples of student work done by students very similar to their own kids," Robertson says. "I wanted them to see what was possible if you have good teaching." She and other coaches also asked teachers to visit classrooms in other schools "We were very selective about the schools we chose.


We wanted to make sure that the classes they were seeing look like their own classes, but these were classes where teachers had set high standards," Robertson explains.

Robertson quickly gained a reputation at Hamilton as a "pushy" coach who insisted on high expectations for kids. "The teachers were afraid to get in their students' faces and challenge them to learn," she says. "They didn't want to stress them out." What some see as pushiness, Robertson says, grows from her belief that kids really want to learn. "The kids at one school are no different than kids anywhere else as far as their hunger for learning. Our job as teachers is making it exciting for them to learn, so that they always want more."

"If there's anything of value we've done as a group of coaches," Robertson believes, "it is showing the teachers that they need to set a higher bar for the students. Don't accept a weak effort from students. Tell them it isn't good enough. Don't tell let students tell you that they can't do it."

Each LBUSD coach had a mandate to help teachers create standards-based classrooms and teaching styles. The task was easier in some schools than others. Although Long Beach Unified has offered professional development that promotes standards-based teaching for years, coaches often found themselves beginning with very basic concepts, like writing the standard and objective for each day's lesson - and tomorrow's homework assignments - on the board.

"I've spent a good bit of time working with teachers on teaching to the standard, having an objective, and having a method to tell whether you've gotten across what you wanted to get across," Guess says. "We urge them to close the classroom period with a summary of where you are and what you've accomplished that day. That's very important. It helps students be sure about what has happened and what you expect them to come away with."

By the end of the school year, Robertson said, the constant reinforcement of the standards-based teaching style was beginning to pay off. "I think you could walk through any of the classrooms and see a pretty good approach now to a standards-based classroom. I would say a majority of the time, you can walk in and the kids can tell you why they're learning what they're learning."

The Future of Coaching

At a national meeting sponsored by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation in early September, LBUSD administrators, coaches and principals described the progress of the coaching model and answered questions from intrigued educators in other reforming school districts.

"We're beginning a new year," Hamilton coach Sandra Rogers told participants. "We don't have all the trust issues we had before. We have more people who are ready to look at standards and see how they can improve teaching."

The middle grades standards coaches (and their supervisors) will continue to refine the coaching role as the experiment progresses, assistant superintendent Chris Dominguez told the group. "Not having a really defined description of what the coaches were supposed to do when they started the journey is something we're really working on now," she said.

LBUSD board member Karin Polacheck told participants that "coaching needs to be more closely tied to student achievement." Accomplishing that goal, she hinted, might require coaches to assume a more supervisory role - something most coaches do not relish.

Kristi Kahl, assistant to the superintendent for middle grades reform, told participants that "if we made the http://www.middleweb.com/CSLB6guide.html

coaches another set of evaluators, we might see some teachers changing actions because it is being mandated, but it might not change beliefs as well as a partner who is being supportive and is in a position to earn the trust you give to a respected colleague."

The district has decided to shift supervision of coaches from area superintendents to principals, who may be in the best position to help the coaches find a balance between the roles of "partner" and "improver." At the same national meeting, Marshall Middle School principal Penny O'Toole observed that "it's helpful to keep the roles of principal and coach separate, but there needs to be a sense in the faculty that the principal and coach are a team, so they know that this is something I expect to see them doing - that I expect to see standards-based teaching."

LBUSD's coaching program is still relatively small (about 30 coaches in the middle schools) and no one thinks it's the solution to teacher development in the Long Beach schools. But the impact of the program's first year is palpable, and the district seems likely to stick with the coaching approach for the foreseeable future. As Hamilton teacher Jeff Shidler says: "The coaches are not going to be able to turn everybody into a great teacher. It's not a miraculous process. But they can definitely help everyone make progress."

#

Back to the "Changing Schools" index

Sandy's Coaching Journal

Excerpts from the 1998-99 monthly journal of Sandra Rogers, one of four standards coaches (one in each core content area) assigned to work with new and experienced teachers at Hamilton Middle School.

November Reflections

The subtitle for this month's reflections is "Curriculum Mapping: How to Lose Friends and Create Enemies." My one learning for this month is that Long Beach teachers view curriculum mapping as a "four-letter word." I was not aware that there were such tenaciously held negative feelings about curriculum mapping until my presentation recently at (the) Carpe Diem (conference). I was prepared for some venting, but not the barrage of negative feelings hurled at me as the messenger. Comments ranged from "why are you punishing me because new teachers can't teach?" to "When am I supposed to teach if I have to write all this stuff down." Although my blood is still on the wallsthe experience has not changed my belief in the power of mapping for increasing collaboration among teachers and ultimately (I hope) improving student learning.

The experience has, however, left a mark. My coaching so far has paralleled the new teacher growth curve. I began with the anticipation of a new position at a new school. Will I like this job? Will I miss my previous position? How will the staff receive the coaches? How do I work with reluctant teachers? That has give rise to the "disillusionment" phase. I find that the more I talk with some of my colleagues and listen to their responses, the more disillusioned I become about our ability to ultimately make a difference for our students. As a district we are on the cutting edge of many reform efforts, and many teachers are with us on the edge. However, we have many who haven't made it up the mountain to be on the edge, and others who have yet to find the mountain to climb it! The winter holiday signals a phase of rejuvenation for new teachers. I look for that same rejuvenation in my coaching.


http://www.middleweb.com/CSLB6.html

March Reflections

I guess the subtitle for this month's reflections is "If I Knew Then What I Know Now" or "What a Difference a Few Months Can Make." Two experiences this month shape my new-found enthusiasm. First, I had the opportunity to attend a workshop on curriculum mapping conducted by Dr. Heidi Jacobs in San Francisco. What an eye-opener! She helped me see mapping in a new light. Rather than viewing it as an exercise in distributing our curriculum objectives across the year - which is how I previously thought of mapping - I now see it on a much larger level, one that has the potential to make dramatic changes in the culture and structure of an entire school. This insight has allowed me to give teachers a "why" for mapping and in turn has yielded more positive conversations with them about mapping.

The other experience which has me on a "high" is I actually completed a map of the objectives for grade 6. Seeing a completed one has produced more comments from my colleagues in the vein of "we can do this," and across the district more departments are beginning to collaborate to build a map. I'll have to keep in mind that when you get "baptized" into a new religion (in this case, mapping), you have to realize that not everyone will share your zeal.

Shelley's Coaching Journal

Excerpts from the 1998-99 weekly journal of Shelley Gustafson, a language arts teacher at Hill Middle School who spends every other week helping teachers sharpen their standards-based teaching skills.

Week of December 14-18

My primary focus for the week was on preparing our teachers and staff for administering the Reading Inventory.... What started out as a seemingly huge task turned out to be pretty manageable, which I'm thankful for. I've learned a lot about myself this week as I gain more experience in working in a teaching role with adults.... (A)ll teachers would get so much out of giving this inventory to their students if they only had the TIME!.... (T)hey would come to understand how important it is for them to focus on reading comprehension in their content areas.... Looking at a student's scores is one thing, but watching them struggle, ponder, question, self-correct and often times be successful in their reading is fascinating. It's like looking into a window in their brain and analyzing how they learn.

My other major observation is how our students performed on their second all-school write practice. We still have our work cut out for us in the area of responding to "prompt" language.* While our students seem to have more of the "facts" down, they still struggle with the multi-faceted instructions in the prompts. Our kids do seem to understand the need for some kind of introduction, and they're doing a better job of trying to pull out some of the words from the prompt, but I fear they still don't quite understand the directions for writing. Spelling continues to confound the masses.

Week of January 11-15

As anticipated, this week proved to be mentally draining. My reflection on the week focuses a lot on how different each department is as they struggle with what to do to improve student reading comprehension and writing skills. Ironically, though, it continues to be an amazing opportunity for department members to (talk together) about student work and "next steps."

I'm heartened to hear the positive comments from some of my colleagues about how their teaching is changing, and all for the better. I honestly sense that the staff at Hill believes in the reform measures we


are taking. Comments like, "I can't believe it worked!" and "My students have shown improvement in" are becoming more the norm than the exception. True, there is some argument about some of the specifics involved in reform, but I consider that an indication that we are passionate about what we want for our kids. Change is, indeed, sometimes painful.

Week of January 25-29

Conferenced with Tim during his conference periodwe plan to work with Thinking Maps as a way to introduce a new topic to his students: I plan to team-teach with him on Friday. I volunteered to do some research for him on appropriate reading materials for this new topic and so I spent part of the period in our library. We hope to connect Wednesday to plan for Friday.

I've come to really appreciate...the purpose of Action Research as a way of gaining insight into what a teacher does on a regular basis. It forces the issue of recognizing the needed links between teaching, assessing, evaluating and then monitoring and adjusting instruction if necessary for student success. Fortunately, I have "time" during my coaching weeks to really pay attention to this cycle as I work with the teachers hereas well as during my teaching weeks with the students in my own classroom.

Finally, the professional dialogue I have been having with my colleagues recently has been inspiring. I'm really proud of the work we do here at Hill because the content of these discussions (though I trust this is true at other schools) is filled with conviction, questioning and passion when talking about students and their potential for success.

-------------------------------

* Here's a district writing prompt used with sixth graders: "Write an essay in which you describe a relationship you have observed between a human and an animal. This can be one from a book, a movie, or from real life. Show specific details/incidents/ examples of this relationship. Conclude with your ideas/opinions on how these kinds of relationships are beneficial to the humans involved."

Back to the "Changing Schools" index


http://www.middleweb.com/CSLB6.html

Documents

LOS ANGELES UNFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - lausd.k12.ca.us · Web viewProfessional Development Protocol. Collaborating on Teaching/Learning Process: # 1 – COACHING MODELS. OBJECTIVE: