The Heart of the Matter: The Coaching Model in America… · The Heart of the Matter: The Coaching Model in America’s Choice Schools iii About the America’s Choice Design The

The HearThe HearThe HearThe HearThe Heart of the Mattt of the Mattt of the Mattt of the Mattt of the Matter:er:er:er:er:The CoacThe CoacThe CoacThe CoacThe Coaching Model in America’s Choice Sching Model in America’s Choice Sching Model in America’s Choice Sching Model in America’s Choice Sching Model in America’s Choice Schoolshoolshoolshoolshools

Susan M. PoglincoAmy J. BachKate Hovde

Sheila RosenblumMarisa Saunders

Jonathan A. Supovitz

May 2003

Consortium for Policy Research in EducationUniversity of Pennsylvania

Graduate School of Education

© Copyright 2003 by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education

The Heart of the Matter: The Coaching Model in America’s Choice Schools

i

ContContContContContentsentsentsentsentsList of Figures and Tables ............................................................................................................ iiAbout the America’s Choice Design ......................................................................................... iiiAbout CPRE’s Evaluation of America’s Choice ...................................................................... ivAdditional Reading on America’s Choice ................................................................................ vIntroduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

The Research Base on Coaching .......................................................................................... 1Structure and Focus of the Report ....................................................................................... 2

The America’s Choice Coaching Model and Research Design .............................................. 3The America’s Choice Coaching Model ............................................................................. 3Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................................... 8

The Coach’s Role .......................................................................................................................... 9Defining the Role of the Coach ............................................................................................ 9Who are the Coaches? ......................................................................................................... 12Summary ............................................................................................................................... 13

The Rollout of the Literacy Workshops ................................................................................... 13Rollout ................................................................................................................................... 13Fidelity of Rollout to Literacy Workshop Structures ...................................................... 15Factors that Influenced the Rollout of the Literacy Workshops.................................... 17

Contextual Structures and Constraints ...................................................................... 17Scheduling and Coverage Issues ................................................................................. 18Teacher Resistance ......................................................................................................... 18Deviations Mandated by Districts or Schools ........................................................... 18Concerns about Training .............................................................................................. 18Principals’ Knowledge about Rolling Out America’s Choice ................................. 19

Summary ............................................................................................................................... 19Technical Coaching: In-class and Individual Coaching Modalities .................................... 20

Coaching Modalities ............................................................................................................ 21Instructional Modeling ................................................................................................. 21Joint Planning................................................................................................................. 21Co-teaching..................................................................................................................... 22Formal Observation and Feedback ............................................................................. 23Informal One-on-One Coaching ................................................................................. 25Mentoring ....................................................................................................................... 25

Reactions to In-class Coaching and Individual Support ................................................ 26Summary ............................................................................................................................... 27

Group-focused Professional Development Activities at America’s Choice Schools ........ 27Group-focused Professional Development ...................................................................... 28

Teacher Meetings and Study Groups ......................................................................... 28All-staff Meetings .......................................................................................................... 29

Identified Problems with Group-focused Professional Development Activities ....... 29Summary ............................................................................................................................... 30

The Influence of Coaching on Standards-based Instruction ................................................ 31The Content of Coaching: Where do the New Standards Performance Standards Fit

In? ..................................................................................................................................... 31Monographs and Genre Studies .................................................................................. 31New Standards Performance Standards .................................................................... 32

Fidelity to Literacy Workshop Structures as Vehicles to Deliver Standards-basedInstruction....................................................................................................................... 33

Critical Connections Between Group-focused Professional Development Activitiesand Technical Coaching ................................................................................................ 34


ii

Comparing and Connecting Approaches to Professional Development .............. 34Creating Professional Learning Communities .......................................................... 35

Summary ............................................................................................................................... 35Summary of Factors that Influenced Coaches’ Implementation of the America’s Choice

School Reform....................................................................................................................... 36Human Relations Skills ....................................................................................................... 36Coach Accessibility .............................................................................................................. 37Individual Interaction with Coach .................................................................................... 37Inclusiveness ......................................................................................................................... 37Timeliness and Relevance of Information ........................................................................ 37Flexibility and Willingness to Innovate ............................................................................ 37Teacher Resistance ............................................................................................................... 38Understanding of Literacy Workshop Structures ........................................................... 38Background and Experience of the Coaches .................................................................... 38Degree of Administrative Support and Involvement ..................................................... 39Sufficiency and Timeliness of NCEE Training ................................................................. 40Degree of Perceived NCEE Support .................................................................................. 40Perception of the Coaches’ Role: Issues and Uncertainties ........................................... 41Time ........................................................................................................................................ 41

Conclusion and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 41Influencing the Quality of Those Who Would be Coaches ............................................ 44Better Preparing Coaches to do the Work of Standards-based Reform ....................... 44Threading the Major Tasks of the Coach .......................................................................... 45Better Support for the Work of Coaches ........................................................................... 46

References .................................................................................................................................... 47

List of Figures and TList of Figures and TList of Figures and TList of Figures and TList of Figures and TablesablesablesablesablesFigure 1. Coach’s Role in America’s Choice Professional Development ............................. 8Table 1. Rollout of Literacy Workshops Across the Three School Levels ........................... 14


iii

AAAAAbout the America’sbout the America’sbout the America’sbout the America’sbout the America’sChoice DesignChoice DesignChoice DesignChoice DesignChoice Design

The core of the America’s Choicedesign contains a set of principles aboutthe purpose of schooling and howschools should operate, and it provides aset of tools for building a program basedon those principles. These essentialprinciples and tools include:

• High expectations for all students,with communication of those expecta-tions through explicit performancestandards that are aligned to assess-ments and include examples ofstudent work which meet the stan-dards.

• The implementation of standards-based literacy and math blocks, whichhappen every day for every child, anddramatically change teaching andlearning in every classroom. Thedesign’s initial focus on literacyfeatures the five key elements ofreading instruction (phonemic aware-ness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency,and comprehension) using suchstrategies as oral language, sharedbooks, and guided and independentreading. Writing instruction includesboth daily and independent writing.The rituals and routines associatedwith these blocks are designed toprepare students to deal with de-manding content and become inde-pendent learners.

• Ongoing assessment of students inorder to inform daily instruction.

• School-embedded, ongoing, teacherprofessional development led by afull-time literacy coach designed tostrengthen teachers’ knowledge of theAmerica’s Choice approach to teach-ing and learning. This includeslearning how to conduct a closeanalysis of their students’ work in

relation to standards, and using thisknowledge to develop lessons cali-brated to the needs of different stu-dents.

• Standards-based curriculum andinstructional strategies that helpstudents develop key skills, conveycore concepts, and apply what theyknow.

• A school leadership team, led by theprincipal and subject-matter coaches,that coordinates implementationthrough a variety of means. Theseinclude setting performance targetsand analyzing student work on avariety of measures, training teachers,adjusting school schedules, andimplementing safety-net programs toprovide time for students to receiveadditional instruction.

• “Safety nets,” including tutoring andcourse recovery programs, that arestructured into the school day andyear, and that provide students withextensive support and multipleopportunities to achieve the stan-dards.


iv

AAAAAbout CPRE’s Evbout CPRE’s Evbout CPRE’s Evbout CPRE’s Evbout CPRE’s Evaluationaluationaluationaluationaluationof America’s Choiceof America’s Choiceof America’s Choiceof America’s Choiceof America’s Choice

The Consortium for Policy Researchin Education (CPRE) at the University ofPennsylvania was contracted by theNational Center on Education and theEconomy (NCEE) in 1998 to conduct theexternal evaluation of the America’sChoice school design. Each year, CPREdesigns and conducts a series of targetedstudies on the implementation andimpacts of the America’s Choice design.This report is one of this year’s evalua-tions, and coincides with the publicationof three separate studies by CPRE on theimpact of America’s Choice in a numberof districts across the country using avariety of quantitative and analyticapproaches. Those impact analyses and astand-alone piece on classroom observa-tions conducted in Cohort 4 schools canbe viewed as separate pieces or ascomplements to the information pre-sented in this report. Another recentCPRE publication from fall 2001 is awidely distributed report entitled, In-structional Leadership in a Standards-basedReform, a companion piece to both theimpact reports and this report.

The purpose of CPRE’s evaluation isto provide formative feedback to NCEEand America’s Choice schools aboutemerging trends in the implementation ofthe design, and to seek evidence of theimpacts of the design using accepted highstandards of evaluation design andanalysis methodologies.

CPRE’s evaluation of America’sChoice is guided by three overarchingquestions. First, is America’s Choicebeing carried out in the manner envi-sioned — that is, how are teachers andschool administrators understanding andimplementing the many facets of thereform design? Second, as a result of theirimplementation of America’s Choice, arethe instructional practices of teacherschanging in ways that would improve

student learning? Third, to what degreecan improvements in student achieve-ment be attributed to the design? Withinthis framework, annual evaluation stud-ies target specific aspects of the America’sChoice design for more in-depth investi-gation. To address these questions, theCPRE evaluation team gathers a broadarray of qualitative and quantitative datato develop a rich and valid picture of theimplementation process over time and tocapture the impacts of the design onstudents and teachers. Our data sourcesinclude:

• Surveys of teachers and administra-tors in America’s Choice schoolsnationwide.

• Site visits to schools across the coun-try to observe classroom instruction,examine implementation artifacts,and interview teachers, students, andschool administrators.

• Telephone interviews with NCEEstaff, school faculty members, andschool and district administrators.

• Document reviews.

• Observations of national, regional,and school-level professional devel-opment.

• Collection of student performancemeasures, including state and localtests, the New Standards ReferenceExamination, and more authenticsamples of student work products.

After data collection, CPRE researchteam members analyze the data usingappropriate qualitative and quantitativeresearch techniques in order to identifypatterns of intended and unintendedconsequences and to detect effects of thedesign on students, teachers, and schools.The results are presented in a series ofthematic evaluation reports that arereleased each year.


v

AAAAAdditional Rdditional Rdditional Rdditional Rdditional Reading oneading oneading oneading oneading onAmerica’s ChoiceAmerica’s ChoiceAmerica’s ChoiceAmerica’s ChoiceAmerica’s Choice

The following evaluation reports arecurrently available from CPRE. Printcopies are available at no cost by [email protected], or by calling (215)573-0700. Copies can also be downloadedat www.cpre.org.

• The Relationship Between TeacherImplementation of America’s Choiceand Student Learning in Plainfield,New Jersey (Jonathan Supovitz andHenry May, January 2003)

• Impact of America’s Choice onStudent Performance in DuvalCounty, Florida (Jonathan Supovitz,Brooke Snyder Taylor, and HenryMay, October 2002)

• Implementation of the America’sChoice Literacy Workshops(Jonathan Supovitz, Susan Poglinco,and Amy Bach, April 2002)

• Instructional Leadership in a Stan-dards-based Reform (JonathanSupovitz and Susan Poglinco, Decem-ber 2001)

• Moving Mountains: Successes andChallenges of the America’s ChoiceComprehensive School ReformDesign (Jonathan Supovitz, SusanPoglinco, and Brooke Snyder, March2001)

• America’s Choice ComprehensiveSchool Reform Design: First-yearImplementation Evaluation Sum-mary (Thomas Corcoran, MargaretHoppe, Theresa Luhm, and JonathanSupovitz, February 2000)


vi


1

IntrIntrIntrIntrIntroductionoductionoductionoductionoduction

In this report, the Consortium forPolicy Research in Education (CPRE)explores the role of coaching in first-year(Cohort 4) America’s Choice schools ingrades K-8 as it relates to the implemen-tation of readers and writers workshops,referred throughout this report as theliteracy workshops. The reasons CPREdecided to concentrate on the coach/teacher relationship within the America’sChoice design are two-fold. First, giventhat a coaching model was chosen by thedesigners of America’s Choice as themain strategy to introduce standards-based instruction into the classroom, itfollowed logically that CPRE learn moreabout the challenges and benefits thatsuch a model entails for America’s Choiceschools. For the purposes of this report,then, other important pieces of theAmerica’s Choice design are not dis-cussed in depth. That is not to say thatthe instructional leadership of a principalor the school design team in an America’sChoice school is not an essential elementof the overall design; they are simply notcovered in detail in this report in theinterest of addressing the heart of thematter, the coaching model in America’sChoice schools.

Second, as a mechanism for theprofessional development of teachers,coaching is increasingly relied upon byschools and districts across the nation totrain teachers on a particular set of in-structional techniques and practices. Byfocusing on coaching, we hope that someof our findings regarding coaching inAmerica’s Choice schools may be helpfulto other schools and districts experiment-ing with coaching models.

The RThe RThe RThe RThe Researesearesearesearesearch Base onch Base onch Base onch Base onch Base onCoachingCoachingCoachingCoachingCoaching

The rationale behind having a coachin America’s Choice schools is informedby and rooted in research on creating an

effective professional developmentenvironment, one characterized byproviding ongoing support to teachersand creating a community of practicewith permanent structures focused oninstruction and curriculum. The conceptof coaching fills a particular, and promis-ing, niche in the range of strategies toimprove the capacity of teachers toprovide high-quality instruction to theirstudents. Supovitz (2001) assembled aframework, based on emerging research,of what effective professional develop-ment might consist. These includedshowing teachers how to connect theirwork to specific standards for studentperformance, immersing participants inquestioning and experimentation, provid-ing intensive and sustained experiences,engaging teachers in concrete teachingtasks based on their experiences withstudents, focusing on subject-matterknowledge and deepening teachers’content skills, and connecting to otheraspects of school change. The America’sChoice school capacity-building strategy,with coaching at its center, fits snugglyinto this framework.

Coaching is a form of inquiry-basedlearning characterized by collaborationbetween individual, or groups of, teach-ers and more accomplished peers. Coach-ing involves professional, ongoing class-room modeling, supportive critiques ofpractice, and specific observations. Wedistinguish coaching from mentoring,which is usually used in reference toinduction programs for new teachers.

Joyce and Showers (1982) are com-monly attributed as the first researchersto seriously explore the promise of coach-ing. Calling their model “peer coaching,”Joyce and Showers envisioned pairs ofteachers coaching each other in a recipro-cal way. They argue that coaching pro-vides companionship and technicalfeedback, prompts the analysis of appli-cations of knowledge to instruction,encourages the modification of instruc-tion to meet students’ needs, and facili-tates the practice of new methods.


2

There does not seem to be a standardmodel of coaching, and its application inparticular reforms and contexts vary. Theliterature describes a variety of forms ofcoaching. Technical coaching is typicallyused to transfer new teaching practicesinto teachers’ regular repertoires. Collegialcoaching is used to increase teachers’professional dialogue and help themreflect on their work. Peer coaching iscommonly defined as two or more profes-sional colleagues working together toimprove their professional knowledgeand skills. Mentoring relationships be-tween experienced and novice teachersare also often described as coaching.

Despite its promise, the evidencearound the effectiveness of coaching as acentral strategy for increasing the instruc-tional quality of teaching and improvingstudent learning is in its incipient stages.Most studies reinforce the notion thatcoaching is a promising strategy forinstructional improvement. Joyce andShowers (1996) found that teachersinvolved in a coaching relationshippracticed new skills and strategies morefrequently and applied them more appro-priately than did teachers who workedalone. Gamston, Linder, and Whitaker(1993) conducted a small study of a coachworking with two teachers, and foundthat the experience fostered teachers’collegiality and deepened teachers’reflectivity. Kohler and Crilley (1997)studied a small sample of primary-gradeteachers and found that teachers weremore effective in their use of questioningstrategies and facilitating students’interaction with their peers. Edwards(1995) studied 153 teachers and foundthat they had a deeper understanding oftheir classroom practices.

The evidence of the influence ofcoaching on teaching practices is by nomeans unanimous. Other studies havefound no effects associated with coach-ing. Gutierrez, Crosland, and Berlin(2001) analyzed videos, surveys, andinterviews of 12 teachers and 8 coaches

and found that most coaching experi-ences did not help teachers to changetheir classroom activities and lessons insubstantive ways. Veenman, Denessen,Gerrits, and Kenter (2001) examined theeffects of a coaching program to trainteachers in a Dutch primary school. Theyfound that while the prospective teachershad significantly higher perceptions oftheir skills, experienced teachers did notrate them as more effective than teacherswho did not participate in the program. Itshould also be noted that few, if any,studies provide evidence that coachingstrategies, in whatever form, lead togreater student learning. In our review ofthe literature, we could find no researchthat provided evidence of the relationshipbetween coaching and student learning.

Structure and FStructure and FStructure and FStructure and FStructure and Focus ofocus ofocus ofocus ofocus ofthe Rthe Rthe Rthe Rthe Reporeporeporeporeporttttt

As mentioned above, this reportfocuses on the coaching model inAmerica’s Choice as it relates to theimplementation of the literacy work-shops. Although the America’s Choicedesign also employs a coaching model inthe implementation of math standards,the literacy workshops are the main focusof rollout during the first year ofAmerica’s Choice and seemed a logicalfocus for this study. We next describe theAmerica’s Choice coaching model for theliteracy workshops in detail, and presentour research design and data collectionstrategies. The remainder of the reportfollows from our understanding andinvestigation of different aspects of thecoaching model: the role of the coach, therollout of the literacy workshops inCohort 4 America’s Choice schools, thevarious ways in which coaches work inclass and individually with teachers, thecoach’s role in facilitating group profes-sional development, coaching inAmerica’s Choice schools in relation tothe overall objective of fostering stan-dards-based instruction, a summary offactors influencing coach effectiveness,


3

and a conclusion raising some largerissues emerging from the research, aswell as recommendations for theAmerica’s Choice design team. We alsoprovide a summary of findings at the endof each section.

Given that CPRE’s role is to provideformative evaluation information to theNational Center on Education and theEconomy (NCEE), an overarching ques-tion throughout the report asks, “Is themodel being implemented as designed? Ifnot, why not, and what can be learnedfrom any departures from the model?”We were also interested in sheddingadditional light on a number of areaswhere the design is not specific, andinterpretation of roles and responsibilitiesis left largely open to individual coachesand schools. We hope this report mayprovide a window into what coaching inAmerica’s Choice schools actually lookslike, as well as the challenges thatcoaches, principals, and teachers face intrying to implement the model. From thispicture, we then draw conclusions re-garding a range of factors which seem toinfluence the effectiveness of coaches.Finally, we raise a number of issues thatare intrinsic to the model itself.

The America’s ChoiceThe America’s ChoiceThe America’s ChoiceThe America’s ChoiceThe America’s ChoiceCoaching Model andCoaching Model andCoaching Model andCoaching Model andCoaching Model andRRRRResearesearesearesearesearch Designch Designch Designch Designch Design

CPRE researchers began this study byreviewing all available written materialsproduced by NCEE about the literacyworkshops, implementation strategies,and the role, training, and responsibilitiesof the coach. We supplemented thisinformation with interviews of key NCEEliteracy workshop designers and trainers,and our own previous knowledge of thedesign. We also attended a coach trainingsession. From this body of information,we developed a model, or theory ofaction, of what coaches were supposed tobe doing and how coaching was sup-

posed to work in America’s Choiceschools. With this model in mind, we setout to gauge the extent to which actualimplementation in the schools mirroredthe theory.

The America’s ChoiceThe America’s ChoiceThe America’s ChoiceThe America’s ChoiceThe America’s ChoiceCoaching ModelCoaching ModelCoaching ModelCoaching ModelCoaching Model

As indicated in the introduction, inthe America’s Choice design, coaches arethe primary means for conducting teacherprofessional development and introduc-ing the New Reference PerformanceStandards and literacy workshop struc-tures into the classroom (see sidebar onpage 4). In theory, every America’sChoice school is required to appoint atleast one full-time literacy coach (one formiddle schools, and two at the elemen-tary level). NCEE is responsible forproviding both coach and principaltraining, which is conducted separatelybut is meant to be mutually reinforcing.Coach training is organized into severalmultiple-day training sessions spreadthroughout the year, although the timingof the training is such that most coachesbegin their work with teachers after onlyone such session. Coaches receive addi-tional support and oversight from clusterleaders, who in most cases are NCEE staffworking with groups of schools at theregional level. Unless a coach or principalrequests additional help or needs addi-tional help in the view of the clusterleader, support from cluster leadersusually takes the form of monthly meet-ings at one of the schools forming part ofthe cluster. Cluster leaders and schoolsare also expected to conduct a joint“quality review” of implementation twicea year.

Coaches bear primary responsibilityfor the rollout of the literacy workshopsin their schools although principals areexpected to support and advise coachesin making school-level decisions abouthow rollout should proceed. NCEEprescribes a rollout process for both


4

Structure of the America’s Choice LitStructure of the America’s Choice LitStructure of the America’s Choice LitStructure of the America’s Choice LitStructure of the America’s Choice Literacy Weracy Weracy Weracy Weracy Worororororkshopskshopskshopskshopskshops

The literacy workshops — readers and writers workshops — are organizedaround a sequence of activities that encompass group and individual work periodsof either reading or writing. The workshops feature elements on phonics, orallanguage, shared books, guided reading, independent reading, daily writing instruc-tion, and independent writing. Ideally, elementary schools should have a two ortwo-and-a-half-hour literacy block, one hour for writers workshop, one hour forreaders workshop, and a half-hour skills block. Middle schools have less timeallotted for their workshops because of the school schedule. Within the time periodallotted for readers or writers workshop, there are certain rituals and routines thatthread together and anchor the sequence of activities that occur in the workshoptime period. Both the readers and writers workshops follow the basic structure of ashort mini-lesson followed by an independent work period where students aregiven the opportunity to practice the topic of the mini-lesson. Workshops concludewith a closure session that ties back to the mini-lesson.

More specifically, writers workshop opens with a short mini-lesson of about 7-10minutes. There are three kinds of mini lessons: procedural, craft, and skills. Proce-dural mini-lessons specifically focus on the rituals and routines of the writers work-shop. Craft mini-lessons are geared to teach the elements of good writing like tech-nique, style, and genre. Students learn the strategies that authors use to produceeffective writing. Skills mini-lessons address the conventions of English like spell-ing, capitalization, punctuation, and paragraphs. Skills mini-lessons often incorpo-rate student writing by using examples of student written work where conventionsneed to be reviewed. An independent work period, lasting 35-45 minutes, shouldfollow in which students are engaged in the writing process, including planning,drafting, revising, editing, and polishing/publishing. Students work either indi-vidually or in small groups. Response groups provide students an opportunity toelicit feedback on drafts from a partner or small group of peers. Writers workshopends with a short (five-minute) closure session, frequently author’s chair, in whichindividual students share selections of their work in progress.

Readers workshop is structured to begin with a whole-class meeting in whichthe class might do a shared reading and have a mini-lesson in a 15-20 minute timeperiod. The mini-lesson can cover phonics-based skills, decoding word analysis,comprehension skills, or procedures. This mini-lesson is usually followed by aperiod of independent/guided reading and/or reading conference period in which anumber of activities like partner reading or book talks occur for about 45 minutes. Inindependent reading, students focus on reading appropriately leveled texts for enjoy-ment and understanding. Partner reading allows students to work with slightly moredifficult texts, practice reading aloud, and model “accountable talk” and “think-aloud” strategies. Reading aloud provides an opportunity for the teacher or otherproficient reader to introduce authors or topics and model reading for the wholeclass. Shared reading allows the teacher to work with smaller groups of readers onreading strategies. Readers workshop may end with a book talk in which studentsshare reactions to books read independently or to a book read aloud to the group.


5

writers and readers workshops. Thisprocess differs for each of the schoollevels: the lower-elementary level, gradesK-2; the upper-elementary level, grades 3-5; and the middle-school level, grades 6-8.1 According to the Cohort 4 design,schools are expected to roll out writersworkshop in the fall, and continue withreaders workshop by spring of the firstyear, at least in the model classrooms.According to the design, lower-elemen-tary coaches are expected to begin withthe second grade, then move to the firstgrade followed by kindergarten; upper-elementary coaches are expected to beginin the fourth grade and then move to thethird grade followed by the fifth grade;the middle-school coaches are expected tobegin in eighth grade and continue therollout in seventh and then sixth grades.

Each school is to begin the rolloutprocess by creating a model classroomwhere the coach “models” the implemen-tation of the workshop components (bothstructure and content) for approximatelysix weeks. During this time, coaches areable to practice and hone their skills andknowledge of the America’s Choicemodel, and at the same time form apartnership with the model-classroomteacher.2 It is expected that the model-classroom teacher will gradually assumemore responsibility for the workshop.The process differs somewhat withmiddle schools where teachers haveseveral different classes in the course of aday. In middle schools, the coach isexpected to model for one period, co-

teach for another period, and then ob-serve the partnering teacher teach thelesson in a third period. Thus, the modelclassroom becomes the safe haven forcoaches to hone their standards-basedinstructional skills.

After approximately six weeks in themodel classroom, the demonstrationphase begins. Coaches move to a demon-stration classroom in the same grade andspend about three weeks conducting theworkshop. Other teachers at the samegrade level observe the demonstrations inorder to learn how to lead the workshopsthemselves in their own classrooms thatday or the next. Coaches are then ex-pected to observe those teachers andprovide feedback on whether teachers areimplementing the workshops appropri-ately. The number of days for observationare not specifically prescribed and thisvaried significantly in Cohort 4 schoolsfrom 1 day to 20 days, largely because ofthe difficulty in getting coverage soteachers could be freed up to observe thedemonstration classroom. At all threeschool levels, the design distinguishesbetween the model classroom and dem-onstration classroom. The model class-room serves as the coaches’ trainingground, while the demonstration class-room serves as the teachers’ trainingground. Although demonstrations are notexpected to take place in the modelclassroom, NCEE suggests that the modelclassroom be available for viewing soteachers can see what an America’sChoice classroom should look like. NCEEmakes clear that the demonstrationsshould not extend beyond three weeks sothere is adequate time for teachers toparticipate in a combination of demon-strations, teacher meetings, study groups,and school-wide professional develop-ment.

The America’s Choice design explic-itly requires that coaches take an activeinstructional role working with teachers,not only passing along information aboutthe model and generally being support-

1. We do not report on high schools in this report.Also, because school configurations and availabil-ity of coaches may vary across sites, the gradesserved at each level may also vary.

2. According to NCEE, the classroom chosenshould be representative of other classrooms in theschool in terms of student ability. In our sample,approximately one-quarter of the model class-rooms (7 of the 27) were chosen by the principal orassistant principal. About one-fourth of the model-classroom teachers believe they were selected bythe coaches and about one-fourth were not surehow or why they were selected.


6

ive, but actually modeling instructionaltechniques in the classroom. In theAmerica’s Choice design, the coach startsworking with teachers from a position ofgreater expertise and exposure to theAmerica’s Choice instructional formatand techniques. We refer to the kind ofcoaching envisioned in the America’sChoice design as “technical” coachingbecause the coach has more technicalknowledge of the America’s Choiceinstructional design. While the design isvery explicit about the coach’s role inmodeling of instructional techniques andeven provides model lessons to help thecoach get started, the design offers farless guidance about exactly how best towork with teachers, or what these rela-tionships should ideally look like. Deci-sions on how to work with individualteachers are left to the judgment of thecoach.

Coach-led or facilitated professionaldevelopment activities in the America’sChoice model are not limited to demon-strations and individual work withteachers. Also contemplated are school-wide, group-focused professional devel-opment activities, which are organizedinto three distinct types: teacher meet-ings, study groups, and all-staff meetings.All-staff meetings may be led by thecoach, but are more often led by theprincipal with coach input. These activi-ties are defined and distinguished byNCEE as follows:

Teacher Meetings

• Teaching and learning teams• Data-driven and standards-based• Action-focus[ed] (e.g., using content

to analyze student work, settingstudent performance targets)

Study Groups

• Focus on acquiring content knowl-edge (e.g., monographs, texts)

• Discussion/presentation guides

All-staff Meetings

• Key pieces of the design• Action-focused

The purpose of teacher meetings is todeepen teacher understanding andconfidence in using the standards andworkshop structures in the classroom.This is accomplished through assign-ments (i.e., teachers are asked to try out alesson, deadlines are provided) andthrough the analysis of student work incomparison to standards. The purpose ofstudy groups is to acquire further contentknowledge which is usually achievedthrough a review and study of researchand through a review and study ofcurriculum materials, such as writersworkshop lessons and monographs,genre studies, and other America’sChoice materials. Finally, the purpose ofall-staff meetings is to acquire newknowledge regarding the overallAmerica’s Choice design. As with techni-cal coaching, a shared goal of these threetypes of meetings is to create professionallearning communities within the school:

In order to create professional learningcommunities, all teachers must belong toteams that meet regularly with a coach forteam meetings focused on student workand student learning. They need toparticipate in study groups that focus onthe acquisition of new content knowledge.They need to be able to observe newapproaches to teaching. Above all else,they need to receive support in theclassroom as they themselves seek toimprove their classroom practice.3

In addition to providing anoverarching professional developmentstructure, NCEE provides America’sChoice schools with a timetable forholding group-focused activities and withdiscussion/presentation guides forleading these activities. According to the

3. NCEE, National Principals Academy, Summer2001.


7

America’s Choice model, for example,teacher meeting #1 should be held inNovember and should focus on“Conferencing.” The stated purpose forteacher meeting #1 is “to reflect on thewriting conferences that have taken placein the classroom thus far, and to identifyand practice effective strategies forconferring with students during thewriters workshop” (NCEE, 2001, p. 7).Five suggested activities are provided, aswell as materials that will be needed (inthis example, the materials are the mono-graph on Writing Conferences). Similarly,study group #1 should be held in August-September and should focus on “Ritualsand Routines of the Writers Workshop.”The stated purpose of study group #1 is“to become familiar with the rituals androutines of the Writers Workshop,” and“to be able to implement and teach therituals and routines that allow the WritersWorkshop to function smoothly in theclassroom” (NCEE, 2001, p. 7). Themonographs are also used in studygroups (study group #1 requires the useof Rituals, Routines, and Artifacts: Class-room Management for the Writers Work-shop). A total of eight teacher meetingsand five study groups are recommendedin year one. Presentation and discussionguides are provided for all suggestedteacher meetings and study groups.

The distinction between teachermeetings and study groups is sometimessubtle. In some instances, a suggestedtopic may be targeted for discussion inboth study groups and teacher meetingsas the following excerpt makes clear:

The America’s Choice professionaldevelopment is theoretically based andpractically situated, and it is provided toschool staff throughout the year. Teachersaccess professional development throughregularly scheduled Study Groups thatfocus on the acquisition of new contentknowledge (e.g., the America’s Choicemonographs on reading and writing) andthrough Teacher Meetings within gradelevels or subject areas that center on

applying new knowledge to classroompractice. In addition, all-staff meetingshelp build school-wide understanding ofstandards-based reform and planning forresults.4

For example, study group #2 andteacher meeting #1 encompass the topicof “Conferencing.” For both activities, themonographs are referenced. However, theguide for study group #2 focuses on adiscussion of the material and provides a“script” of sorts for the literacy coach(e.g., offer a general introduction, refer toa page in the monograph, etc.), while theguide for teacher meeting #1 provides anumber of activities that focus on thesame topic (e.g., ask teachers to respondin writing to a prompt, ask teachers tobreak into groups and hold discussions,record responses on chart paper, etc.).Study groups are centered on a discus-sion of a given topic and focus on thedissemination of information that teach-ers are expected to bring back to theclassroom. Teacher meetings, on the otherhand, are action-focused and attempt tolink information to and from the class-room through the use of student work.Teacher meetings create a two-way flowof information wherein student workfrom the classroom informs teachers’knowledge (through an analysis ofstudent work) and knowledge flows fromteacher meetings back to the classroom.

Figure 1 illustrates the CPRE researchteam’s best visual representation of theAmerica’s Choice coaching model, part ofthe theory of action for deliveringAmerica’s Choice professional develop-ment in schools. For the purposes of thisreport, the coach is placed at the nexus(A) between what we called the in-classtechnical coaching model (C), and groupprofessional development (D), definedhere as teacher meetings, study groups,and all-staff meetings. The technicalcoaching model is comprised of in-classand individual-level support provided by

4. NCEE, LAUSD Institute 1, Summer 2001.


8

the coach to teachers. The arrows belowthe coach (B) represent the rollout strat-egy and lead to different waves of teach-ers who work with the coach to imple-ment the literacy workshops: the model-classroom teacher (MCT), the demonstra-tion-classroom teacher (DCT), the first-wave teacher (FWT) (meaning a teacherwho was part of the first wave of imple-mentation of the workshops), and thesecond-wave teacher (SWT) (a teacherwho was part of the second wave ofimplementation of the workshops). Wealso include dotted arrows betweenteachers because we posit that some peer-to-peer coaching might evolve throughgrade-level meetings or other profes-sional development activities related toAmerica’s Choice. The bottom portion of

the figure represents the purpose of thissystem, which is to produce standards-based instruction in classrooms (E) andlead all students to meet the standards.NCEE training and other support tocoaches is represented by the rectangle atthe top right, but as an area outside thecoach’s direct responsibilities and sphereof influence is not given a letter, and isdiscussed within this report as one ofseveral factors influencing the coach’sability to implement the model as de-signed.

Data Collection and AnalysisData Collection and AnalysisData Collection and AnalysisData Collection and AnalysisData Collection and Analysis

To collect the evidence to produce thisreport, we visited America’s Choiceschools across the nation and collected

Figure 1. Coach’s Role in America’s Choice Professional Development

Training and Support

In-class and IndividualTechnical Coaching (C)

Standards-based Instruction (E)

Group ProfessionalDevelopment (D) Teacher Meetings Study Groups All-staff meetings

Literacy Coach (A)

All Students Meeting Standards

MCTDCT

SWTFWT

LEGEND:LEGEND:LEGEND:LEGEND:LEGEND: MCTMCTMCTMCTMCT = Model-classroom Teacher; DCTDCTDCTDCTDCT = Demonstration-classroom Teacher;FWFWFWFWFWTTTTT = First-wave Teacher; SSSSSWWWWWT T T T T = Second-wave Teacher

[ B ]


9

data on teachers’ and coaches’ implemen-tation and understanding of theAmerica’s Choice literacy workshops, aswell as their views regarding criticalaspects of the design and training, andthe coaching model itself. We observedboth teachers and coaches in the class-room, and rated observations based on animplementation scale we developed(please also refer to Implementation of theAmerica’s Choice Literacy Workshops, aCPRE report on classroom observationsof coaches and teachers in Cohort 4). Weconducted post-observation interviewswith teachers and coaches whose classeswe observed, and interviewed the princi-pal in each school.

We sought a sample to serve as arepresentative set of classrooms andschools from across Cohort 4 elementaryand middle schools. At the time of thestudy, there were about 400 schools in allfour cohorts of the America’s Choicedesign. We decided to focus our resourceson the most recent cohort of America’sChoice schools because the design hadundergone substantial modificationssince its first year. The schools in Cohort 4were implementing the design for thefirst time in 2001-2002.

Our sampling procedure followedseveral steps. First, we purposefullyselected six locales in which America’sChoice was being implemented (Califor-nia, the District of Columbia, Georgia,Illinois, New Jersey, and New York). Fromwithin these locales, we sought regions inwhich America’s Choice schools were nottoo dispersed so that we could costeffectively visit multiple schools duringthe same site visit. These regions in-cluded rural areas as well as urbandistricts. From within these regions werandomly sampled 27 schools to visit fora day-and-a-half each. Schools weredesignated lower-elementary schools,upper-elementary schools, and middleschools, and visited between March andMay, 2002. A school’s designation dic-

tated which grade levels would be thefocus of the observations and interviewsconducted in that school with teachersand coaches. In the nine lower-elemen-tary schools, CPRE targeted second-gradeclassrooms, interviewed second-gradeteachers, and the lower-elementary coach.In the nine upper-elementary schools, thefocus was on the fourth-grade class-rooms, fourth-grade teachers, and theupper-elementary coach. In the ninemiddle schools, CPRE focused on eighth-grade classrooms, eighth-grade teachers,and the literacy coach.

Although our design called for threeobservations in each school, there were afew sites where we were not able toconduct all three observations and insome cases conducted interviews andobservations outside of the target grades.Our final sample included 71 observa-tions in 27 schools. From these inter-views, we organized and analyzed thedata into broad thematic areas and wereable to see if our theory of action relatedto the different forms of professionaldevelopment for teachers within thecoaching model held up. We then refinedand reviewed areas of the theory of actionthat did or did not hold up based on ourdata sources.

The Coach’s RThe Coach’s RThe Coach’s RThe Coach’s RThe Coach’s Roleoleoleoleole

DefDefDefDefDefining the Rining the Rining the Rining the Rining the Role of theole of theole of theole of theole of theCoachCoachCoachCoachCoach

Despite the importance of the coach’srole, there does not appear to be one“official” written job description forcoaches that is shared by all America’sChoice schools. Some coaches had neverseen a written job description, or hadseen an abbreviated one in the form of ajob advertisement posted by the state,school district, or the school itself. Severalcoaches felt that the lack of a clear defini-tion of their role from the outset madetheir job difficult, and contributed to


10

misunderstandings with the schooladministration and/or teachers. Thesecoaches also felt that America’s Choiceneeds to work harder to ensure thatcoaches, principals, and cluster/teamleaders have a mutual understanding andshared expectation of the role and respon-sibilities of the coach. Conflicting expec-tations were apparent regarding theamount of support and dedicated timecoaches needed to get America’s Choiceworkshops up and running in class-rooms.

Most coaches came to understandtheir role through a combination ofexperience and training they receivedthrough America’s Choice literacy insti-tutes. Most coaches understood their jobsto include: setting up a model classroom,modeling America’s Choice instructionaltechniques to teachers with students in aclassroom setting, conveying informationto teachers about America’s Choicethrough teacher meetings, and generallyserving as a resource to teachers imple-menting writers and readers workshopsin their classrooms. As discussed in moredetail later in this report, there wassubstantial variation among coaches as tothe degree to which joint planning,teacher observation, and feedback werepart of their role. Coaches also varied inwhat they felt to be the appropriatebalance between being a help and being a“crutch” for teachers. Coaches differed inthe initiative or confidence they dis-played in adjusting the America’s Choicemodel, rollout plan, and materials to theirschool setting. There was also consider-able variation between the actual organi-zation and content of group-focusedprofessional development (teacher meet-ings, workshops and study groups) andthat suggested by NCEE. To some degreethis variation was dictated by localcircumstances (such as time constraints),while in at least a few cases, coachesstated that they simply did not under-stand that they were supposed to berunning regular teacher meetings on

America’s Choice until well into theschool year.

A number of explicit and implicitexpectations about the role and skills ofthe coach emerged from interviews withNCEE staff, principals, coaches, andteachers. When principals were askedabout their criteria for the selection ofcoaches (not all of the coaches wereselected by principals), those mentionedmost often were teaching ability, reputa-tion in the school, and personality. In thewords of one principal:

My selection of the coach was based onmy observations in the classroom and aninformal school leadership survey. Also itwas based on conversations between meand other individuals at the school. Iselected her because her expertise wasrecognized by the staff, she had“followers” already, and showedflexibility in working with me.

Because the coach is expected tomodel instructional techniques in theclassroom, it makes sense that teachingability would be an important skill. As astaff developer for adults and a point-person for a major reform, the America’sChoice model also implicitly expects thecoach to have leadership, communica-tion, and facilitation skills, which ininterview responses were often lumpedinto a broader category of “personality”or “people skills.”

When coaches were asked what skillsthey thought were needed to be aneffective coach, they tended to emphasizethe importance of teaching experienceand thorough knowledge of subjectmatter, as well as a host of people-ori-ented skills, including tact, patience, goodcommunication abilities, and flexibility.Interestingly, although principals andcoaches both mentioned the importanceof teaching ability and subject-matterknowledge, rarely did they get morespecific. For example, only three coaches


11

mentioned the importance of a thoroughknowledge of standards despite thecentrality of standards-based instructionto the coach’s role. Similarly, no onementioned the ability to run effectivemeetings, although two coaches men-tioned administrative experience asextremely useful, but this specific skillmay be covered under more generalcomments regarding good communica-tion skills. As members of the schoolleadership team, coaches are also implic-itly expected to work with the principaland/or other school administrators andexercise both strategic planning andprogram monitoring skills.

Among the coaches’ multiple rolesand responsibilities, we detected someinherent tradeoffs and tensions. As notedby several principals, it is not alwayswise or accurate to assume that an exem-plary teacher of children can also qualifyas an effective adult educator or staffdeveloper. Some coaches seemed tospend a lot of time demonstrating theliteracy workshops in the classroom inpart because they obtained most of theirjob satisfaction from working with stu-dents rather than from working withresistant teachers in the workshops.Similarly, while there are advantages toselecting a coach who is a teacher alreadyrespected in the school, that teacher maybe less likely to possess well-honedadministrative and facilitation skills anda specific knowledge of standards-basedreform than someone hired through abroader search process.

Interviews with teachers, principals,and coaches also indicated that there wasconfusion about how to manage theinherent tension between being a teacherand a colleague of teachers, and being aquasi-administrator or manager. Thistension was particularly acute in Califor-nia and Georgia. In California, coachesmostly rotated between being coachesand in-class teachers during the sameschool year; former coaches were not sure

to what degree they were responsible forresponding to teacher requests for coach-ing when they were in their in-classteaching capacity. In Georgia, at least onecoach per school had been hired by thestate rather than the school, and was inthe awkward position of both being aschool “outsider” and simultaneouslyreporting to the school administrationand the state supervisory team.

Most coaches and principals saw thecoach’s role as different from that of anadministrator, and several thought thattaking on an administrative role withinherent evaluative responsibilitieswould diminish the coach’s effectiveness.For example, one principal stated:

I think that person [the coach] mustremember that although they are thelanguage arts literacy person, they mustnot take the persona of an administrator. Ihave seen in my experiences that whenthat persona is taken on, it is not effective.

Several coaches also made it clear thattheir approach to coaching depended ontheir being seen as a colleague by otherteachers. In the words of one coach:

It is important to take the position as acoach and know what that is, and realizethat you’re not a director, directing peoplewhat to do. And if that relationship isestablished, where you both [the coach andthe teacher] make decisions, that thecoaching is just suggesting [but] it’s theteacher’s classroom, and the teacher cansee where it fits in, and you can worktogether for the benefit of the students.

Nonetheless, the coach’s role in theAmerica’s Choice design does appear tobe evaluative at least in an informal way.For example, coaches are responsible forobservation and giving feedback toteachers regarding their classroom imple-mentation of the workshop components.For good or ill, coaches made judgmentsabout who was implementing the work-


12

shops and who was not. Some coacheswere reluctant to push their own author-ity unduly, and looked to the principal forsupport and “follow-through” withteachers with whom they were havingtrouble. Many principals also acknowl-edged that follow-through with resistantteachers was a form of support theyprovided to coaches. Yet coaches’ relianceon administrative support could backfireif the administrative response was heavy-handed and if teachers felt that the coachhad not communicated expectationsclearly. In at least two schools, teacherresistance to the coach increased dramati-cally after teachers felt themselves to beunfairly rebuked by the principal for non-compliance to the America’s Choicemodel.

Who are the Coaches?Who are the Coaches?Who are the Coaches?Who are the Coaches?Who are the Coaches?

Given the expectations of the coach’srole and skills outlined above, how do theformal qualifications of coaches workingin America’s Choice schools compare?The coaches in the sample of schoolsCPRE visited were a diverse group andcame from a variety of backgrounds.There were both “insiders” and “outsid-ers” in the schools, and varied along anumber of dimensions like prior experi-ence in administrative or quasi-adminis-trative roles, prior experience in staffdevelopment or school-wide programs,and previous experience with standards-based reform. While the background ofcoaches demonstrated effort by America’sChoice and district personnel to recruitpeople with experience relevant to thejob, the diversity also illustrated howdifficult it is to find a single person whoseprofile matches the combined expecta-tions of the role.

The most consistent qualificationamong the coaches interviewed was priorteaching experience. All of the coacheshad classroom teaching experience,ranging from 4 years to 32 years. Mostwere seasoned teachers with 8 or more

years of teaching experience. In addition,a substantial number of coaches (12 out of29) had also held out-of-class programcoordination, staff development, orinstructional support positions prior toassuming the literacy coach role. Twocoaches had held assistant principal and/or administrative positions. Thus, almosthalf of the coaches came straight from theclassroom, and half had some additionalschool-wide or out-of-classroom experi-ence, which many found to be helpful ascoaches. One coach commented, “Ialready had a relationship with them [theteachers]. I’ve done workshops here aspart of my job, so it was a natural flow.”

In contrast, at least one of the coacheswho was having trouble said that theAmerica’s Choice coaching position hadbeen her first experience teaching adultsand that the role may not have been agood fit for her. Four coaches had eitherbilingual certification or spoke Spanish;one coach had prior experience workingin adult education. Five coaches hadspecific knowledge of, or experiencewith, reading, literacy, and/or balancedliteracy programs.

With regard to standards-basedreform, while 19 of the 29 coaches re-ported that they had some familiaritywith standards-based reform prior toimplementing America’s Choice, 8 ofthese classified their knowledge as“limited” or said they were only “some-what” familiar with such reforms orapproaches. Very few had any knowledgeof the specifics of the America’s Choicemodel prior to agreeing to serve asliteracy coach. Given that America’sChoice coaches are specifically expectedto model and promote standards-basedinstructional practices in the schools, thefact that almost two-thirds had only verylimited exposure to standards based-reform presented a major challenge forcoach training and full implementation ofthe America’s Choice literacy workshops.


13

The vast majority of coaches (20 of the29) were “insiders” — that is, they hadprevious experience in the school inwhich they were coaching; some wereclassroom teachers, while others haddifferent roles in the school. In mostcases, schools had insufficient budgets tohire a coach from the outside. Moreover,many principals felt teacher resistance tothe America’s Choice model could beminimized by selecting teachers re-spected by their peers to serve as coaches.Also, coaches stressed the importance ofstrong collegial relationships in helpingto ease the difficulties and frustrations oftrying out innovations in the classroom.While several coaches reported thathaving had a previous relationship withteachers was an asset, in some casesassuming the role of coach strainedrelationships as teachers perceived thecoach to be more of an administrator orsupervisor than a colleague.

Nine coaches were new to theirschools, appointed by America’s Choicestaff at the state level. Most of these werein Georgia, where the current policy is tolet the school select one of the coacheswhile the state appoints the other. Whileseveral of these coaches had particularlystrong formal qualifications (prior staffdevelopment and administrative experi-ence, for example), as mentioned earlier,their “outsider” status within the schoolwas often an additional barrier to beovercome. Several principals were con-cerned about their lack of say in theselection of the coach and attributedproblems to their exclusion from thehiring process. Others stated that theyhad been able to develop a cooperativerelationship with the coach irrespective ofthe assignment process and that “whenyou are given a glove, you make it fit!”

SummarSummarSummarSummarSummaryyyyy

There is no single, detailed job de-scription for coaches, and our interviewspicked up a good deal of uncertainty in

the minds of principals, teachers, andcoaches about the role and responsibili-ties of the coach. In particular, there was aperceived tension regarding whether thecoach was more of a teacher/colleague oran administrator. This tension was par-ticularly acute in California, wherecoaches rotated between coaching and anormal teaching position. The positionand implicit expectations of the coachingrole also demand a very wide range ofskills — probably more than can be easilyfound in a single person. There are alsoimplicit tradeoffs in the selection ofcoaches: although the choice of a re-spected teacher in a school may diminishteacher resistance, it is also less likely thatsuch a person has a strong background instandards and/or staff development.Although all coaches had teaching experi-ence, few had extensive experience withstandards-based reform and only one ortwo had previous familiarity withAmerica’s Choice.

The RThe RThe RThe RThe Rollout of the Litollout of the Litollout of the Litollout of the Litollout of the LiteracyeracyeracyeracyeracyWWWWWorororororkshopskshopskshopskshopskshops

RRRRRolloutolloutolloutolloutollout

Based on site visits to schools andinterviews with coaches, principals, andteachers, CPRE researchers learned thatthe actual rollout of the America’s Choiceliteracy workshops did not necessarilyfollow the process envisioned by NCEEin the design and incorporated in thecoaching model described earlier. Therewas substantial variation in the processranging from almost complete fidelity tothe prescribed rollout sequence in 4 of the27 schools, to broader deviation from thesequence in many schools. There wasconsiderable deviation from the modelwith regard to coach demonstration of theliteracy workshops to teachers. While allcoaches started in a model classroomwith the model-classroom teacher,5 many

5. One school did not have a model classroombecause there was no literacy coach at that site.


14

coaches demonstrated for individualteachers in their classrooms even if theyalso had an official demonstration class-room. According to our data, 6 of the 27schools did not have an official demon-stration classroom, and in two designateddemonstration classrooms, coachesreported that no one ever came to observewriters workshop. On the other hand,one middle school required teachers toobserve 10 times, and one elementaryschool required teachers to observe everyday for over three weeks. In one district,teachers were expected to observe forfour weeks.

There were somewhat differentpatterns of rollout for each of the threelevels (lower elementary, upper elemen-tary, and middle schools) on a variety ofdimensions. Some of these differenceswere both between levels and withinlevels. The different patterns of rollout foreach level are presented in Table 1.

Elementary schools, in both the lowerand upper grades, were more successfulthan middle schools in rolling out writersworkshops. The upper-elementary level

was particularly successful, completingrollout to all but two of the nine schools.Upper elementary also had the mostschools where there was a demonstrationclassroom at each grade level, which mayexplain their greater success at rollout.There were more opportunities for teach-ers to observe the writers workshoprelatively early in the rollout process, aswell as to have demonstrations in theirown individual classrooms. As oneupper-elementary coach described:

I began in fourth grade in a modelclassroom and spent six weeks. I thenmoved into demo class for four weeks. Allthird- and fifth-grade teachers werebrought into the demo at least twice. Asother teachers began to implement, I didat least one lesson in each classroom andmore upon request.

In many schools at all three levels,coaches found they had to do most of thedemonstrating for individual teachers intheir classrooms, rather than in a demon-stration classroom, and this took a signifi-cant amount of time. Elementary schoolsat both levels were also more successful

Table 1. Rollout of Literacy Workshops Across the Three School Levels

Dimensions Lower Elementary Schools(N=9)

Upper Elementary Schools(N=9)

Middle Schools(N=9)

Complete rollout ofwriters workshop

4 schools 7 schools 1 school

Number of weeks coachwas in model classroom

6-8 weeks (8 schools) 4 weeks (3 schools)6 weeks (3 schools)8 weeks (3 schools)

4 weeks (4 schools)4-6 weeks (2 schools)8 weeks (3 schools)

Model classroom alsoserved as demonstrationclassroom

2 schools 1 school 3 schools

Demonstrationclassroom in each gradelevel

3 schools 5 schools 2 schools

Coach began rollout ofreaders workshop

4 schools 3 schools 1 school

Note: These data reflect what was learned at the time of the CPRE visits, which took place between mid-March and earlyMay of 2002.


15

in beginning the implementation ofreaders workshops. This took place in 7of the 18 elementary schools, and in only1 of the middle schools. In one school, thecoach moved on to readers workshopwithout successfully implementing thewriters workshop first because of resis-tance from teachers.

As shown in Table 1, literacy coachesin our sample spent from four-to-eightweeks in the model classroom, but not ona daily basis. Coaches also spent a sub-stantial amount of time at their owntraining sessions, network meetings, andattending to other demands from theschool and district. Across the threelevels, there were six schools in which themodel classroom also served as a demon-stration classroom, which is a deviationfrom the prescribed rollout process.

The middle schools had the greatestchallenge in implementing readers andwriters workshops and only one of thenine schools in our sample managed tocomplete the rollout to all the intendedclassrooms. Furthermore, unlike bothelementary school samples, only onemiddle school began to implementreaders workshop during the school yearby the time they were visited by CPREresearchers.

In four of the middle schools, therewas not a designated demonstrationclassroom. In one of the schools, insteadof having a demonstration class, thecoach modeled the America’s Choicemodel lessons for three eighth-gradeteachers during an in-service workshop.In another middle school with a demon-stration classroom, no teacher ever cameto observe. Overall, in middle schools, theprimary rollout strategy was for theliteracy coach to demonstrate for eachteacher individually. This time-consum-ing strategy may explain why rollout waslagging in most middle schools. A typicalexample was seen in one middle schoolwhere the coach spent almost eight weeks

in the model classroom and then demon-strated for six weeks each for othereighth-grade teachers. She found thatbringing teachers into a single demon-stration classroom did not work becauseof scheduling, and because teachers wereat different stages and working on differ-ent content.

Fidelity of RFidelity of RFidelity of RFidelity of RFidelity of Rollout tollout tollout tollout tollout to Lito Lito Lito Lito LiteracyeracyeracyeracyeracyWWWWWorororororkshop Structureskshop Structureskshop Structureskshop Structureskshop Structures

To examine the fidelity of rollout, weconducted 65 observations of teachersand literacy coaches in our site visits tothe 27 Cohort 4 schools. To assess theselessons, CPRE researchers developed aholistic rubric to measure their fidelity tothe America’s Choice writers workshopstructures. Applying the rubric, classroomobservations were rated largely accordingto the presence of the three key structuresthat make up writers workshop: the mini-lesson, the independent work period, andthe closing session as well as the artifactspresent in each classroom and theteacher’s description of the purposes andgoals of the lesson. The holistic ratingscale is as follows:

Stage 1: Absent or minimal struc-tures of readers or writers workshop.Lessons with a rating of 1 showed little orno resemblance to the literacy workshopstructures. In these classrooms, teachersessentially avoided the workshop struc-ture in favor of other instructional ap-proaches.

Stage 2: Partial implementation ofworkshop structures. Lessons with a 2rating had some evidence of implementa-tion of the structure of the America’sChoice workshop, but were missing somemajor component(s). The absence ofworkshop structures suggested that theteacher had only a superficial under-standing of the purpose of the work-shops.


16

Stage 3: Solid adherence to work-shop structures. Lessons that received a 3rating were faithful to the America’sChoice literacy workshop structures.These classrooms had evidence of allthree parts of the literacy workshop(mini-lesson, independent work period,and closing session) and each part wasexecuted in proper order. While theseclasses showed solid adherence to theworkshop structures, they lacked evi-dence of details (i.e., conferencing, stan-dards) that would indicate that theteacher had a deeper understanding ofthe purposes underlying the workshopstructures.

Stage 4: Exemplary implementationof workshop. Lessons that received arating of 4 were exemplary lessons thatnot only adhered to the workshop struc-tures, but also contained evidence thatthe teacher had a deep understanding ofthe purposes behind the structures.

The results of our ratings indicate thatin 2002, 62% of teachers at the end of theirfirst year of implementation of writersworkshop were at least solidly (stage 3 or4) implementing the writers workshopdesign. About a quarter of the teacherswe observed were partially implementingthe writers workshop design. Just over10% of the observations showed little orno resemblance to the writers workshopdesign. Ratings were generally higher inthe elementary school grades (1-5) than inthe middle school grades (6-8).

We compared the ratings of the 45Cohort 4 teachers and the 20 Cohort 4literacy coaches that we observed. Ingeneral, we observed two teachers in theschool of each coach, although circum-stances sometimes dictated fewer. Basedon these observations, Cohort 4 literacycoaches performed somewhat better thanthe teachers they were instructing andguiding. In only one literacy coach class-room observation did CPRE researchershave difficulty detecting evidence of thewriters workshop structures, whereas in

six, or 13%, of the Cohort 4 teacher les-sons there did not appear to be evidenceof the workshop structures. About aquarter of both the teachers’ and literacycoaches’ classes evidenced only partialimplementation of the writers workshopstructure. Just over half (51% of teachers’and 55% of coaches’) of the classes exhib-ited solid adherence to the workshopstructures. In just over 10% of the classesof both teachers and literacy coaches,there was evidence of exemplary imple-mentation of the writers workshopstructures. A Fisher’s Exact6 test of differ-ences in the distributions indicates thatthere is no statistical difference betweenthe ratings of Cohort 4 teachers andliteracy coaches (p=.83). This indicatesthat, on average, coaches were imple-menting the workshops with no greaterfidelity than were teachers after one yearof America’s Choice.

We were further interested in therelationship between teacher and coachratings within the same schools. It seemsto make sense that a teacher’s ability toimplement a new form of instructionwould be no greater than their coach’sability to effectively model that form ofinstruction. To explore this line of inquiry,we developed a structural equationmeasurement model to examine thecorrelation between the ratings of teach-ers and coaches, taking into account thegrouping of teachers within schoolsunder a coach. We found that the correla-tion between coach ratings and teacherratings was strongly statistically signifi-cant (r=.75, p<.0001) after accounting forthe relationship between teachers andtheir coach. This confirms that there is astrong link between the quality ofcoaches’ implementation of writersworkshop and teachers’ abilities toimplement the writers workshop struc-tures. As goes the coach, so go the teach-ers.

6. A statistical test used to determine if there arenon-random associations between two categoricalvariables.


17

FFFFFactactactactactororororors that Influenced thes that Influenced thes that Influenced thes that Influenced thes that Influenced theRRRRRollout of the Litollout of the Litollout of the Litollout of the Litollout of the LiteracyeracyeracyeracyeracyWWWWWorororororkshopskshopskshopskshopskshops

There was substantial modification tothe rollout design across all three schoollevels, and several factors influenced theapproach that coaches took in orchestrat-ing the rollout. The following factorswere not necessarily issues in everyschool, and each school was influencedby a different combination of factors.However, the factors discussed belowwere of concern in a sufficient number ofschools to warrant discussion here.7

ContContContContConteeeeextual Structures andxtual Structures andxtual Structures andxtual Structures andxtual Structures andConstraintsConstraintsConstraintsConstraintsConstraints

The rollout process was often con-strained by contextual conditions beyondthe control of America’s Choice coachesand other personnel. Interruptions be-cause of year-round schooling and differ-ent scheduling tracks are a prime ex-ample. In California, all the schoolsvisited by CPRE were “Concept 6,” multi-track, year-round schools which havethree tracks, with 167 days of instruction,rather than the usual 180 days that mostcalendars provide. Tracks are in sessionfor 81 instructional days and then out for43. At any one time, two tracks are insession and one track is on vacation.Given this scheduling, Concept 6 schoolswere faced with numerous complexitiesin implementing the America’s Choicemodel.

Since at any one time, approximatelyone-third of a grade level was “off-track,”providing demonstrations (and group-focused professional development) androlling out to an entire grade level de-pended upon what classes were “on-track” and what classes were “off-track.”For example, schools began rolling out to

the first or third grades prior to complet-ing the second or fourth grades becauseclasses in these grades were not “on-track.” Coaches found they needed to“return” to grade levels or were forced tomove on to another grade level andcomplete the previous grade level atanother time.

Time constraints forced coaches tohold off rolling out to new teachers untila new session began or an old sessionended to avoid disrupting a demonstra-tion for a two-month period of time. Afew coaches said they made the decisionnot to begin new demonstrations becauseit was too close to a track change, and lostvaluable time in rolling out the design. Inone instance, teachers attended demon-strations prior to vacation, and began toimplement writers workshop in theirown classroom for a week before goingon vacation for two months. A thirdproblem experienced in Concept 6schools was coach availability. A numberof these schools did not have a full-timeAmerica’s Choice literacy coach, andmade the decision to use teachers duringtheir off-track time to act as the coach. Atthese schools, demonstrations could notoccur when the “coach” was back “on-track,” and this slowed down the rolloutprocess.

Another example of a constraint wasa middle school that was divided intothree houses. Rather than try to roll out toall eighth graders in three houses, andmoving down the grades, the coach madethe decision to include the three grades inone house in order to take advantage ofthe meeting time available within thehouse for America’s Choice discussions.This slowed down the process of rollingout to all eighth graders, followed byseventh and then sixth graders. At thetime of the CPRE visit, only a third of theclasses were implementing America’sChoice writers workshops because upuntil then the coach had concentrated allher efforts in one house in that school.7. The order in which the factors are discussed

does not reflect their order of importance.


18

Scheduling and CoScheduling and CoScheduling and CoScheduling and CoScheduling and Covvvvverage Issueserage Issueserage Issueserage Issueserage Issues

The prescribed process assumed thatteachers would have the opportunity toobserve the coach in a demonstrationclassroom and that, based on thoseobservations, materials distributed, andwhat one learned in the group-focusedprofessional development, teacherswould move to implement the workshopsin their classrooms. As it turned out, therollout process proceeded in this mannerin only a few schools. In many schools,coaches found that they had to demon-strate for individual teachers in their ownclassrooms because teachers were notable to observe the coaches’ demonstra-tions, in large part due to scheduling andcoverage problems. Teachers were notfreed from their classrooms, either be-cause there were insufficient substitutesavailable, not enough creative schedulingsolutions to provide coverage, or lack ofsupport or interest by teachers andadministrators. This caused a substantialdeviation from the rollout design.

TTTTTeacher Reacher Reacher Reacher Reacher Resistanceesistanceesistanceesistanceesistance

Teacher resistance was another factorthat caused rollout variation. Not allcoaches followed the prescribed rolloutbecause they chose teachers who weremost interested in implementing theliteracy workshops and least resistant tothe idea, even if they were not in thetarget grade. Coaches reported that bydoing so, resistors would see success andenthusiasm and were more likely to buyin to the reform. The following exampleillustrates this point:

I chose teachers who expressed interestrather than do a rollout grade by grade. Iworked with a seventh-grade teacher whohad trouble with discipline, and anothereighth-grade teacher. I later worked withtwo sixth-grade teachers. I am nowworking with a third sixth-grade teacherand two seventh-grade teachers, one ofwhom hasn’t bought in and has a negativeattitude.

DeDeDeDeDeviations Mandatviations Mandatviations Mandatviations Mandatviations Mandated bed bed bed bed by Districtsy Districtsy Districtsy Districtsy Districtsor Schoolsor Schoolsor Schoolsor Schoolsor Schools

In at least three of the schools in oursample, the district or school leadershipchose to concentrate on other priorities,such as upcoming standardized testing,and requested that coaches spend time inthe grade levels that would be tested,working on “test prep” with the students.This diverted the coaches’ time from therollout design and slowed the rolloutprocess considerably. A number of teach-ers said there were times when theycould not concentrate on implementingliteracy workshops because they neededto concentrate on teaching the skills likelyto appear on the standardized tests. Inthese cases, teachers were not aware thatthey could work on the required testpreparation skills in the context of theliteracy workshops, and coaches wereunclear how to convince them that thiswas possible.

Concerns about TConcerns about TConcerns about TConcerns about TConcerns about Trainingrainingrainingrainingraining

Some coaches attributed their strugglewith the rollout process to their ownincomplete understanding of what theywere expected to do. Coaches struggledwith the idea of being just one chapterahead of the teachers, and not alwayshaving the knowledge to respond toquestions teachers posed. This was due tocoaches’ stepped preparation coupledwith the pacing of their training from anational and regional standpoint. Thecoaches’ perspective on concerns abouttraining is summed up in the words ofone coach:

If the training for everyone is veryexplicit and people have answers to alltheir questions and concerns, let’s sayover the summer, I think it is possible toroll out writers workshop from day one.Our problem was that we weren’t reallyclear on the big picture of it. Yes, we gotthe training on this and that, but to betrained on it today to roll it out tomorrow


19

when you don’t understand it yourself isvery difficult.

This concern was also expressed by afew principals. As one principal noted:

The literacy coaches are just one stepahead of the teachers. It diminishes theircredibility and there is the danger of nofollow-up. This needs to be emphasizedbecause we are still in the process ofrolling it out.

Principals’ KnoPrincipals’ KnoPrincipals’ KnoPrincipals’ KnoPrincipals’ Knowledge aboutwledge aboutwledge aboutwledge aboutwledge aboutRRRRRolling Out America’s Choiceolling Out America’s Choiceolling Out America’s Choiceolling Out America’s Choiceolling Out America’s Choice

Principals’ knowledge of the initiativewas tied to most of the factors notedpreviously in this report as was theirunderstanding of the model, its assump-tions, and requirements. Teacher concernsabout principals’ knowledge of what ittakes to roll out the literacy workshopswere justified since principals helped toprovide coverage for teachers to observedemonstrations, maintained a highprofile with an emphasis on America’sChoice implementation, and let resistorsknow that the literacy workshops were apriority.

Overall, principals were enthusiasticabout the rollout process. They werepositive about coaches demonstrating toteachers as a training strategy, but theyhad some general concerns about themodel. As one principal commented:

Being able to watch someone demonstratehow the workshops should be taught is aninvaluable way to learn how to implementthe America’s Choice workshops. Havinga coach provides a support system forteachers that helps them implement theworkshops. The weakness is that it is verytime consuming. A lot of time is spent intraining.

Some principals had concerns aboutthe efficacy of the “train-the-trainermodel” itself and some doubts about the

dependence on coaches for rollout andimplementation. The following commentby one principal reflects what was echoedby several others:

The coaches are very capable people, butbecause we are rolling out in theclassrooms, it would be great to have theclassroom teachers themselves get thistraining. That would be the ideal modelfor me with coaches there as a collectiveeffort supporting what everyone has seen.A possible weakness in the model is thecoach getting the information and notrolling it out as they were taught to do.But if everyone is there to see it together,teachers get to hear some things first-hand. In the current model, the coachesbecome the messenger. What we all shouldhave is an expectation because of front-end discussions.


Major elements of the America’sChoice design were successfully rolledout in all 27 schools that CPRE visited inthe spring of 2002. All of the schools weresuccessful in rolling out writers work-shops in at least some of the grade levelsand classes. However, less than half ofthe schools (12 of the 27) that CPREvisited completed the rollout of writersworkshops to all target classrooms. Themost complete rollout of writers work-shop was accomplished in seven of thenine upper-elementary schools. Lower-elementary schools were somewhat lesssuccessful with the rollout of writersworkshop in four of the nine schools.Middle schools had the biggest challenge,with only one school completing rolloutof writers workshop.

NCEE expected readers workshops tobe rolled out in the spring of the first yearin Cohort 4, at least in the model class-rooms. In fact, the rollout of readersworkshops had begun in eight schools, orless than a third of the schools visited. Atthe time of the CPRE visits, implementa-


20

tion of readers workshop was beginningin model classrooms in lower- and upper-elementary schools and in only onemiddle school.

There was significant variation inhow the rollout occurred in the differentschools, although most schools followedthe prescribed sequence of grade-levelrollout. All but one school started with amodel classroom (the one exception wasa school without an assigned coach). Theschools varied in how much time thecoaches spent in the model classroom.The biggest variation was in the use ofdemonstration classrooms. The originalintent was to have groups of teachersobserve in demonstration classrooms andthen be able to implement the workshopsin their own classrooms. But, a number ofschools did not have a demonstrationclassroom. Instead, coaches rolled out byproviding multiple demonstrations inindividual teachers’ classrooms. Even inschools where a demonstration classroomexisted and teachers did observe, manycoaches spent time going to individualclassrooms to demonstrate further. Thiswas time consuming, and, for this reason,more than half the schools did not com-plete the rollout of the writers work-shops, and even fewer began implemen-tation of readers workshop. However, themore closely the schools followed theprescribed rollout process, the more likelythey were to begin readers workshop inthe first year.

Overall, the fidelity to the workshopstructures was generally solid. Sixty-twopercent of the lessons that we observedwere rated as at least solid on our four-point implementation scale, while only10% of the observed lessons showed littleor no resemblance to the workshopdesign. Importantly, there was a highcorrelation between the fidelity of coachand teacher lessons within schools. Thisreinforces the notion that the success ofteachers in modifying their instructional

routines is highly dependent on theircoaches’ ability to model the new rou-tines for them.

There are a number of factors thatinfluenced modifications to the rolloutprocess. These included contextualconstraints (which were especially impor-tant in California), teacher resistance,principal knowledge of America’s Choice,and the limitations of coaches’ training.The America’s Choice model expectsschools can free teachers up to observedemonstrations, and participate in meet-ings to learn about and discuss elementsof the workshops. While these conditionsmay help maximize rollout of the work-shops and school-wide implementationin a compressed period of time, suchconditions did not exist in all schools inour sample.

TTTTTechnical Coaching:echnical Coaching:echnical Coaching:echnical Coaching:echnical Coaching:In-class and IndividualIn-class and IndividualIn-class and IndividualIn-class and IndividualIn-class and IndividualCoaching ModalitiesCoaching ModalitiesCoaching ModalitiesCoaching ModalitiesCoaching Modalities

As noted earlier, the America’s Choicecoaching model is explicit with regard tothe expectation that the coach will do in-class, instructional modeling for teachers.How coaches should approach and workwith individual teachers, however, is leftlargely to the discretion of the coach. Inaddition to investigating to what extentcoaches were doing such modeling, anobjective of this study was to provide aconcrete notion of what technical coach-ing on an individual and in-class level inAmerica’s Choice schools actually lookedlike. The following section discussesseveral coaching modalities gleaned fromour interviews, along with coach andteacher perspectives on each. In additionto instructional modeling, these modali-ties include joint planning, co-teaching,formal observation and feedback, infor-mal coaching support, and mentoring.


21

Coaching ModalitiesCoaching ModalitiesCoaching ModalitiesCoaching ModalitiesCoaching Modalities

Instructional ModelingInstructional ModelingInstructional ModelingInstructional ModelingInstructional Modeling

Quite a few respondents equatedAmerica’s Choice in-class coaching withinstructional modeling — that is, thecoach demonstrating America’s Choiceinstructional techniques and materials forteachers in a classroom setting withstudents present. While the America’sChoice coaching activities encompassed abroader range of activities, it was clearthat instructional modeling was consid-ered a central piece, and, in large part,what distinguished the America’s Choiceapproach to professional developmentfrom other approaches. In the words ofone teacher:

Over the years, in professionaldevelopment activities, I have alwayssaid, “I’d like to see it with children.” It isdifficult to grasp something if you don’tsee it, if someone is just talking to you.

Almost all teachers in the schoolsCPRE visited were exposed to a coachdoing instructional modeling, although intwo schools, modeling was done exclu-sively in a meeting rather than a class-room setting.8 The amount of modeling towhich teachers were exposed variedconsiderably. First-wave teachers whoattended demonstrations in a demonstra-tion classroom appeared to have the leastexposure to the coach’s instructionalmodeling, particularly when coachfollow-up on an individual basis waslimited. In schools where the coach rolledout the model to teachers individually,exposure to instructional modeling washigher. Model-classroom teachers gener-ally spent the longest time with coachesin their classrooms, and therefore had thegreatest exposure to instructional model-ing by them. Most teachers received little

additional modeling after the initialdemonstration period (coaches wereoften busy modeling for other teachers),although in a number of cases, teacherssaid their coaches would continue tocome into the classroom to model asneeded or at the teacher’s request.

As discussed earlier in this report, theimportance of instructional modelingrests on the fact that it appears to be aneffective teaching tool. Classroom obser-vations conducted by CPRE have estab-lished a close correspondence betweenthe fidelity to the literacy workshopsstructures, as demonstrated by the coach,and the fidelity demonstrated by theteachers who had worked with thatcoach. Seeing the coach demonstrate inthe classroom had an important effect onhow teachers subsequently modifiedtheir practice, confirming earlier researchon coaching and teacher training, andNCEE’s rationale for including instruc-tional modeling as part of the coaches’role. On the other hand, the close rela-tionship between coach and teacherfidelity to workshop structures alsohighlighted the vital importance of thecoaches’ own skills and understanding ofthe America’s Choice design and instruc-tional goals. This underscores the needfor coaches who deeply understand themodel and who are committed to instruc-tional modeling in the classroom.

Joint PlanningJoint PlanningJoint PlanningJoint PlanningJoint Planning

In speaking with coaches and teach-ers, it was clear that some coaches ac-tively involved teachers in planning forthe America’s Choice workshop lessonswhile others did not, or were hindered indoing so by the structure of rollout. Jointplanning with teachers in a group-dem-onstration class was clearly more difficultthan planning with an individual teacher.In one example, a teacher in a group-demonstration class complained:

8. Note that some coaches modeled in bothmeeting and classroom settings.


22

We haven’t worked on things together yet.She comes into my class, does the demo,uses my students, and we ask questions ifwe get a chance…I don’t get a chance towork one-on-one. I feel there isn’t enoughdirection right now…We haven’t satdown and had an overview…We do havea chance to ask questions after the demo,but that is all we get right now.

Yet even when demonstrating for anindividual teacher, some coaches failed toinvolve the teacher in planning, relyinginstead on pure instructional modeling toconvey how the America’s Choice work-shops should be put together. In one suchschool, a teacher remarked that the coach“was so good [at modeling], she made itlook incredibly easy.” Yet when the coachleft the classroom, the teacher felt com-pletely “lost.” In another example, ateacher stated:

It bums me out the way it [writersworkshop] was presented. The in-classpiece was wonderful, but some of my kidsphased out. The language used was toosophisticated for English LanguageLearner kids. Literacy coaches need toadjust for students and talk to teachersabout their kids. I could see where thecoach was losing them.

In contrast, in a number of schools,there appeared to be a lot of joint plan-ning between teachers and coaches. Onecoach noted:

[It is important for coaches] to work outsituations together with teachers, to dolesson plans together. The teacher andcoach must become each other’s righthand. I’m here to guide, but the coach andthe teacher have got to do it together.

Another coach who mainly relied onindividual meetings with teachers to rollout the America’s Choice model gave theopinion that:

Giving [teachers] the support in terms ofdoing those model lessons…is important.After those first lessons, I think themeetings are what is important, ratherthan the modeling…the meetings interms of planning are important.

In describing her in-class work withthe coach, a teacher at another schoolcommented on joint planning:

We worked on presenting writersworkshop to the students. We talkedabout what literature to use and how towrite up the charts. We also askedstudents to be part of the process. Thecoach and I decided how best to do this…

Interestingly, with the exception offirst-wave teachers attending group-demonstration classes run by the coach(i.e., demonstrations outside of their ownclassroom), it did not seem to matterwhere a teacher fell in the rollout processas to whether coaches and teachersplanned together or not. The extent ofjoint planning seemed to depend muchmore on coach personality, style, andoverall approach to coaching.

Co-tCo-tCo-tCo-tCo-teachingeachingeachingeachingeaching

Another aspect of the in-class coach-ing that took place in some America’sChoice schools was co-teaching. In someinstances, the relationship between coachand teacher sounded much more like“peer” than “technical” coaching becauseboth individuals approached the work asco-constructors of the lessons they gavetogether. A rollout strategy used by anumber of coaches (particularly in work-ing with model-classroom teachers) wasfirst to model for a teacher, then to “co-teach” the class, and finally to observe theteacher giving the lessons. There was ahigh degree of overlap between thesecoaches and those who also practicedjoint planning. In one example, a model-classroom teacher reflected on her coach:


23

[She] taught me a lot one-on-one,including setting up my room, explainingthe program, showing me the materials,modeling the first few workshops. Thefirst week or two she modeled the firsthour, we team taught the second class,and I taught the third class alone.

In another example, a first-waveteacher stated:

We had a really good experience workingtogether. I felt very comfortable with her. Ithink we could have sat down and workedthings out if there had been a problem. Wewere both very serious about it, but wehad fun. The two of us were modelingtogether. She modeled for me, andtogether we modeled for them and taughtthem [the students].

In a number of instances, coaches andmodel-classroom teachers formed a team,coaching one another as both learnedmore about the America’s Choice model.A model-classroom teacher describedworking with the coach in what wasobviously a joint effort:

We worked on the standards. We focusedon writing them for kids to understand.We didn’t really work on the genres, notone-on-one. We decided to start onnarrative writings. We sat down and readthe monographs one day. We also decidedtogether to do the procedures the firstweek. He would ask my opinion a lot andI would tell him what I thought could useimprovement. We were overwhelming thekids at first and we worked together onslowing things down.

Another model-classroom teacherstated that she had initially found it “verystressful” to have the coach come into theclassroom and reorganize it, but that overtime she and the coach had figured thingsout together:

And you do have a lot of questions butonce you get into it and you see itworking, I could do it. And I think [thecoach] felt the same way about it, becauseI don’t think she felt comfortable being theknowledge base…There were days whenwe would look at each other and think,“What are we doing?” But then therewould be days when we would think,“Wow! Okay, that was good.”

This more mutual, collaborativeapproach to coaching seemed to occur intwo distinct situations. In the first, thecoach lacked knowledge or confidenceand felt personally comfortable solicitinghelp from another teacher. In the second,the coach had a “team” or inclusiveorientation and felt comfortable andconfident enough to give teachers anactive role and ask their opinions. Co-teaching also seemed to occur more oftenbetween coaches and the model-class-room teacher.

FFFFFormal Obserormal Obserormal Obserormal Obserormal Observvvvvation andation andation andation andation andFFFFFeedbackeedbackeedbackeedbackeedback

There was a wide range in the studysample between coaches who observedteachers in the classroom every day, andthose who observed very little. Severalcoaches provided an observation periodfor individual teachers during whichteachers taught and the coach observedand gave feedback. Factors that appearedto constrain coaches’ observations ofteachers included the stage of rollout(those still doing individual demonstra-tions had less time to observe others),lack of time, teacher resistance, andscheduling conflicts. Most coaches wereresponsive to requests for observationsfrom teachers.

In terms of frequency of observations,coaches tended to spend more timeobserving model- and demonstration-classroom teachers, teachers who wereless resistant to the America’s Choice


24

model (several coaches stated that theyobserved more where they felt morewelcome, not necessarily where the needwas greatest), new teachers, and teacherswho had just rolled out writers work-shop. Teachers tended to be observed andreceived feedback more often in schoolsthat conducted regular “focused walks”of classrooms. In only a few schools didongoing classroom observation seem tobe a critical component of how coachesdefined their jobs; in one school, thecoach observed in each classroom at leasttwice a week on a rotating basis and keptan observation log. Several coaches statedthat they felt they should be observingmore, but they just didn’t have the timeand/or scheduling conflicts made it verydifficult. Two coaches substituted regularchecks on student work and teacherlesson plans in lieu of observations, andgave teachers feedback based on whatthey saw.

Most coaches gave feedback to teach-ers based on their classroom observa-tions. While most coaches gave feedbackorally, often directly after an observation,some wrote notes and a couple usedobservation forms or sheets to givewritten feedback. This was not used forevaluative purposes associated withrating a teacher or contributing to theirpersonnel file. Coaches emphasized theimportance of staying positive, beingtactful, and thinking about each particu-lar teacher’s personality, strengths, andweaknesses. Several coaches said theyinitially erred on the side of being too“honest” with or critical of teachers, andthat teachers felt threatened. According toone coach:

My approach [now] is to try and createopenness. I want to make sure they canask me questions and I want them to likeit. If I see something (in an observation)that I really like, I’ll leave them a Post-it.If I see a problem, I will discuss it withthem. But I try to ask questions aboutwhat they were doing rather than comeout with criticism.

Another coach also found that askinga lot of questions often led into theteacher’s questions and concerns, atwhich point she felt she had an openingto provide suggestions or additionalmaterial. One coach was careful to ensurethat teachers understood her feedback tobe a suggestion rather than a mandate:

I tell them ahead of time, “I’m going togive you some feedback, and tell you whatthings you did that were really right onand then give you some suggestions, andeven though they’re my suggestions, itdoesn’t mean that they’re the end all.”And I found that to be very positive forthem. I call it collegial feedback…it’s notlike I’m a supervisor or anything, andusually the suggestions I give, when I goback I see them trying it…

Several coaches found providingformal feedback to teachers to be thetrickiest part of coaching, and one forwhich they felt ill-prepared. In oneexample, a coach said:

Providing feedback is the toughest part. Iwant to be considered non-threatening…Iwould say, “Maybe next time, we’ll dothis”…I wanted to provide them [theteachers] with opportunities to reflect. Iwish I was more adept at conveyinginformation positively.

Another coach mentioned he wasuncomfortable with the “policing” aspectof observation, and did not give feedbackto teachers on lessons unless they specifi-cally asked for it. One coach felt uncom-fortable observing in classrooms andproviding feedback because as a fellowteacher (she dropped her coach role whenoff-track), she felt like she did not havethe authority to do so. Moreover, shenoted the giving of feedback as an areawhere her training had been deficient:

I think we need training on effectivecoaching. I think presenting feedback issomething an effective coach needs to be


25

able to do. I think an effective coach needsto make teachers feel comfortable,comfortable to get help and receivefeedback. America’s Choice hasn’tprovided us with this type of training…

An important question for NCEE iswhether the training for coaches shouldaddress this topic directly.

InfInfInfInfInformal One-on-One Coachingormal One-on-One Coachingormal One-on-One Coachingormal One-on-One Coachingormal One-on-One Coaching

One of the surprises we found inlooking at coaching was how muchinformal and out-of-class individualcoaching seemed to be occurring, andhow important that was for teachers.Particularly because formal coach timewas perceived to be quite limited, theability to catch the coach at a sparemoment and raise a question or concernwas often given as an example of ongoingcoach “support” to teachers. This kind ofinteraction with the coach happenedbefore school, after school, at lunch, atrecess, over coffee, in a few minutes ofclassroom time, or just “walking around.”Most often, this type of contact wasteacher-initiated, but many coaches alsoinformally checked in with teachers. Ademonstration-classroom teacher shared:

[My coach] was asking me today how Ifelt about what she did during the demo.She gets ideas from me and other teachersduring the demo…I would approach herwith a problem…we always meet on theplayground and we talk a lot.

A model-classroom teacher reported:

I can always talk to [coach] after alesson…We meet regularly and there isongoing support; these are not alwaysformal meetings but informal feedbacksessions and ways to get resources.

Several teachers stated that the coachhad an “open-door” policy with regard toteacher questions, and several also men-tioned that the coach would “pop into”

their classrooms whenever possible tocheck in on them. These visits wereneither formal demonstrations nor obser-vations, but rather a brief chance forcoach and teacher to exchange informa-tion and quickly gauge comfort levelsand possible needs.

MentMentMentMentMentoringoringoringoringoring

The CPRE sample of schools includedquite a few with a high percentage of newand inexperienced teachers. In theseschools, coaches, in effect, doubled asmentors. A few principals regarded thisdual function as a particular strength ofthe coaching model, as evidenced by thefollowing comment:

It provides an opportunity forapprenticeship. Half our staff is onemergency credentials…this is anopportunity for half of those teachers towork with a master teacher.

While mentoring a new teacher didnot seem to influence the modalities ofcoaching used (i.e., demonstration,observation, joint planning, co-teaching,and informal contact), it did have aninfluence on coaching time and content.Several coaches spent additional timewith new teachers because they felt it wasnecessary, and several also felt thatworking with new teachers was easierthan working with veteran teachersbecause they were more responsive:

I try to work on relationships andeveryone requires something different.The more experienced teacher demandsmore, the newer teachers are easierbecause they have nothing to compare itto. I find the teachers with 10-plus yearsof experience are needy in terms ofAmerica’s Choice…it is presenting a lotof things differently and change is hardfor them…the new teachers have to beshown [reading strategies] and needclassroom management.


26

RRRRReactions teactions teactions teactions teactions to In-classo In-classo In-classo In-classo In-classCoaching and IndividualCoaching and IndividualCoaching and IndividualCoaching and IndividualCoaching and IndividualSupporSupporSupporSupporSupporttttt

Overall, teacher reactions to the in-class coaching and individual supportprovided by coaches were positive. Thiswas particularly true with regard to theinstructional modeling or demonstrationcomponent of the in-class coaching. Thefact that the coach demonstrated writersworkshop in the classroom was seen asenormously helpful to the overall under-standing and implementation of theAmerica’s Choice design. Several teacherswho had received little modeling ex-pressed the desire for more. Interestingly,many teachers had positive reactions tothe instructional modeling even in caseswhere they were more broadly critical ofthe coach and/or the America’s Choiceprogram, materials, or design. Someexamples of reactions include:

A strength of this coaching strategy is thefact that teachers have a model to worktowards. Being able to watch someonedemonstrate how the workshops should betaught is an invaluable way to learn howto implement the America’s Choiceworkshops…

—Principal

[The modeling was] very helpful. It washard for me to grasp what it was at first,but to see someone do it, it just puts thethings that you read together…it justmakes so much more sense.

—Model-classroom teacher

Nonetheless, there were some impor-tant caveats about instructional modelingthat came through in several of theresponses. A couple of teachers confessedto at least initially finding the coachcoming into the classroom to model as“intrusive.” This reaction was particu-larly strong in situations where the coachhad not taken the time nor had the

opportunity to sit down and plan withthe teacher prior to coming into theclassroom. The pace and timing of rolloutalso affected teacher perceptions of theusefulness of modeling. Several teachersmentioned that it was hard to have thecoach come into their classrooms tomodel (or introduce America’s Choicematerials) later in the year, once they hadalready gotten to know their class andestablished their own rituals and rou-tines. Unfortunately, given the America’sChoice training schedule for coaches, itwas not possible for coaches to beginrollout to most teachers at the beginningof the year.

Several teachers were also keenlyaware that the modeling they had re-ceived was only as good as the coach asone model-classroom teacher noted:

I think if the right people do the modeling,then I would have so many positive thingsto say about it. [Her first coach] didn’t doa great job. She is a teacher, not a coach.She has classroom managementdifficulties. She couldn’t control the class.She could be really good, and I got a lotout of her being in my class, but otherpeople could do it better.

A second teacher pointed out that,although the coach talked about stan-dards a great deal in meetings, the lessonshe modeled for her that day had notincorporated any reference to standards.A teacher who appreciated the in-classcoaching exclaimed:

I must say that this is the first time in 32years that I have someone in class withme who knows what she is doing!

Coaches and principals, althoughvery positive about the modeling overall,also raised some concerns, includingthose about teachers who viewed themodeling as “free time” for themselves,rather than an active and participatory


27

learning opportunity, and the risk ofcreating teacher dependency on thecoaches. According to one coach:

I never did take over a classroom tocompletely model or demonstrate. Iworked with teachers; I did model lessons.I believe that teachers have to takeownership early on or they will notimplement it. They will continue to relyon the coach. I learned this from problemsother coaches were describing at thecoaches’ network meeting.

This risk of teacher dependency oncoaches also came through in teacherresponses to a question about how teach-ers determined the source of a lesson onany particular day. Quite a few teachersexpected the coach to provide the lessonor lesson ideas, although it should also benoted that several of them were still at anearly stage of implementing writersworkshop and were working with themodel lessons provided by America’sChoice.

Teachers who had done joint planningor co-teaching with their coaches weregenerally more positive about theircoaching experience and the America’sChoice model overall than those who hadnot. It also seemed that frequent informalcontact with coaches went a long waytoward making teachers feel supportedand increasing their general comfort levelwith the America’s Choice workshops.Teacher reactions to feedback fromcoaches were more difficult to discern,but of those teachers who specificallymentioned coach feedback, most found itpositive and helpful. One model-class-room teacher thought more feedback andconstructive criticism from the coachwould have been helpful. In general,teacher reactions to coach feedbackappeared to be subsumed into the largerissue of how supportive they found theircoaches.


Coaches employed a number ofdifferent techniques that fell under theterm “technical coaching” when provid-ing in-class and individual coachingsupport to teachers. These included:instructional modeling, joint lessonplanning with teachers, co-teaching,formal observation and feedback, infor-mal one-on-one contact/conversations,and mentoring of new teachers. Whilealmost all coaches did some instructionalmodeling (as mandated by the coachingmodel), the extent to which they em-ployed other techniques varied consider-ably. Factors that appeared to influence acoach’s use of these techniques includedthe structure of the school and rollout,time, experience and personality ofindividual teachers, coach personality,and perception of the coaching role.Teacher reactions to the in-class coachingwere generally very positive, more sowhen the coach engaged in joint planningor co-teaching and was perceived to beavailable for frequent one-on-one contact.

GrGrGrGrGroup-foup-foup-foup-foup-focusedocusedocusedocusedocusedPrPrPrPrProfofofofofessional Deessional Deessional Deessional Deessional DevvvvvelopmentelopmentelopmentelopmentelopmentAAAAActivities at America’sctivities at America’sctivities at America’sctivities at America’sctivities at America’sChoice SchoolsChoice SchoolsChoice SchoolsChoice SchoolsChoice Schools

Group-focused professional develop-ment activities were an important compo-nent of the America’s Choice model andof the rollout process for most Cohort 4school sites, but again, these activities didnot always parallel the structure pre-scribed by NCEE. Further, these activitiesnot only differed from those set by NCEE,they differed across states, districts andschools. The scheduling of group-focusedprofessional development activities wereoften influenced by state, district, orschool policy that determined how andwhen these meetings took place.


28

GrGrGrGrGroup-foup-foup-foup-foup-focused Procused Procused Procused Procused ProfofofofofessionalessionalessionalessionalessionalDeDeDeDeDevvvvvelopmentelopmentelopmentelopmentelopment

TTTTTeacher Meeeacher Meeeacher Meeeacher Meeeacher Meetings andtings andtings andtings andtings andStudy GrStudy GrStudy GrStudy GrStudy Groupsoupsoupsoupsoups

According to interview data, all of theschools held teacher meetings.9 However,teacher meetings differed in format fromone school to the next, and rarely didteacher meetings follow the timetable orguidelines recommended by NCEE.Many schools used already establishedmeeting times (e.g., grade-level meetings,psyco-motor time, department meetings,house meetings) to conduct teachermeetings. As such, the frequency ofteacher meetings did not correspond tothe eight teacher meetings outlined byNCEE. Most schools reported holdingteacher meetings either weekly or twicemonthly. Holding teacher meetings morefrequently than prescribed did not,however, provide assurance that thecontent to be addressed in NCEE’s sug-gested framework of meetings wascovered and/or understood by thoseattending. Using the example of thesuggested topic and purpose of teachermeeting #1 (“Conferencing”), it is inter-esting to note that in a few schools,teachers and literacy coaches reportedthat they did not address the monographsin teacher meetings (the literacy coachesin two schools reported not having anyknowledge about the monographs at all).The discussion and presentation guide for

teacher meeting #1 prepared by NCEE,however, revolves around the monographentitled Writing Conferences. Thoughclearly teachers could grasp the conceptof conferencing without referencing themonographs, and a literacy coach couldteach the concept without adhering to thediscussion/presentation guide, it isdifficult to imagine a case wherein adher-ence took place without some reliance onthe monograph mentioned.

While teacher meetings were report-edly taking place in all schools, studygroups were taking place in only 5 of the27 schools we visited. Most schoolsreported that study groups were not held,and many teachers and literacy coachesconfessed to lacking knowledge of thestudy group structure and/or purpose.But many of the teacher meetings de-scribed by teachers and literacy coachesfell closer to the researchers’ understand-ing of a study group than a teachermeeting.

For example, teacher meetings weredescribed by many teachers as a placewhere information is provided anddiscussed. Many teacher meetings (espe-cially when held on a weekly basis)lacked the data-driven and action-fo-cused characteristics that distinguishthese meetings from study groups. Teach-ers brought student work and analyzeddata in some teacher meetings, but notconsistently in all teacher meetings.Teachers and literacy coaches reportedthat teacher meetings resembled what weconsider to be a combination of teachermeetings and study groups. In otherwords, teachers, coaches, and principalsused the term “teacher meeting” toreference many of the activities NCEEwould define as a “study group.” In oneschool, for example, the teacher explainedthat teacher meetings were held twice aweek and covered standards, materials,the use of folders, mini-lessons, andmonographs. Some of these are topics tobe covered in study groups. This same

9. Interview data collected from teachers, coaches,and principals regarding group-focused profes-sional development activities (teacher meetingsand study groups) conflicted at times. Perhaps dueto a lack of understanding regarding the definitionof a teacher meeting versus a study group, onesource of information from a school site wouldreport contradictory information regarding thescheduling or availability of group-focusedprofessional development activities. In these cases,interview data were reviewed to determine whichsource(s) of information should be reported.Observational data of group-focused professionaldevelopment activities were not collected.


29

teacher, however, stated that her schooldid not hold study groups. Other teachersmade clear that they did not understandthe distinction between the two types ofmeetings:

[We have] teacher meetings once a weekby grade level. We do professionaldevelopment and America’s Choiceplanning and the coach presents us withreadings and writing techniques. We canask questions based on classroominstruction experiences.

There are no study groups that aredistinct from the grade-level teachermeetings or school staff meetings.

The lack of reported study groups inmany schools may be due to a shortcom-ing in understanding the distinctionsbetween these distinct group-focusedprofessional development activities. Mostteachers reported attending group-focused professional development activi-ties covering a range of topics.

All-stafAll-stafAll-stafAll-stafAll-staff Meef Meef Meef Meef Meetingstingstingstingstings

All-staff meetings were easier forteachers, coaches, and principals toidentify. All schools reported holding all-staff meetings, and, in most cases thesemeetings reviewed the content prescribedby NCEE. These “whole-school” meet-ings were often run by the principal, andfocused on “more general” America’sChoice items. Because all-staff meetingsdiscussed topics in addition to thosepertaining to America’s Choice, and wereoften run by someone other than theliteracy coach, a number of teachers andliteracy coaches reported that thesemeetings were not as informative or ashelpful as teacher meetings or studygroups. Further, many teachers com-plained that the large size of these meet-ings — attendance by the entire staff —lessened their opportunity and ability togain new knowledge.

IdentifIdentifIdentifIdentifIdentified Pried Pried Pried Pried Problems withoblems withoblems withoblems withoblems withGrGrGrGrGroup-foup-foup-foup-foup-focused Procused Procused Procused Procused ProfofofofofessionalessionalessionalessionalessionalDeDeDeDeDevvvvvelopment Aelopment Aelopment Aelopment Aelopment Activitiesctivitiesctivitiesctivitiesctivities

As discussed earlier, the America’sChoice coaching model places literacycoaches in a pivotal role while they areoften just one step ahead of the teachersin terms of their knowledge of andexperience with the design. While mostteachers found the group professionaldevelopment activities to be useful, manyteacher complaints reflected a lack offaith in the coaches’ knowledge ofAmerica’s Choice. Teachers who felt thatgroup-focused professional developmentactivities were “a waste of time” oftenhad complaints about the person leadingthese activities.10

Some teachers also felt that whiletheir literacy coach was well-qualified towork with students in demonstrations orin a model classroom, the coach did nothave the experience or qualifications toeffectively lead, manage, organize, andteach teachers. This perception reinforcedteachers’ beliefs that in-class and indi-vidual coaching was more useful thangroup-focused professional developmentactivities. A principal at one schoolidentified overall reliance on the literacycoach as a problem and suggested thatNCEE provide direct training to teachersas a means of lessening this dependenceon the literacy coach.

Another difficulty identified withgroup-focused professional developmentactivities was related to the sequence andcontent of the teacher meetings and howthat was sometimes out of sync with

10. A few teachers and literacy coaches stated thatmeetings run by individuals other than the literacycoach were inferior than those administered by theliteracy coach due to lack of knowledge or experi-ence. As an example, one teacher reported, “Themeetings run by the coaches help supplement theclassroom piece. The meetings run by the principaladd to the confusion.”


30

where a teacher fell in the rollout process.Teachers and literacy coaches believedthat group-focused professional develop-ment activities made little or no sensewhen a teacher had not yet received anyin-class technical coaching. This situationpresented teachers and coaches withsome discontinuities or mismatches ofinformation provided in one venue andnot reinforced or reviewed in the mostessential location — the classroom. Bothcoaches and teachers identified anddiscussed the problem of teachers atdifferent stages of implementation at-tending the same group-focused profes-sional development activity:

We have been working on rubrics andstandards [in teacher meetings] and they[some teachers] don’t think it is related toAmerica’s Choice. Maybe it is because wehaven’t started doing it on our own that itis hard to see the connection. Maybe whenwe get going it will become clearer.

Teacher meetings complement what goeson in the demos. It would be ineffectivewithout the demos. And, I think teachermeetings for those who haven’t rolled outincreases their frustration level — theyshould be excluded [from teachermeetings].

The problem is that so many teachershaven’t had the in-class coaching that thetwo don’t fit for many teachers.

This sequencing problem had theeffect of diminishing both the informa-tive/instructive role of these activitiesand the “supportive” role identified byteachers.

A third problem discussed primarilyby literacy coaches was the lack of princi-pals’ support for the model, in general,and for group-focused professionaldevelopment activities, in particular. Anumber of literacy coaches stated that theprincipal had to support these activities,encourage attendance, and provide“trust”:

…I think the relationship had to be one oftrust…That can be a big issue between acoach and a principal. And that issomething I feel that is lacking to someextent in the program…For it to besuccessful, the coach needs tremendoussupport from the principal in terms oftime resources, and understanding thecomplexity of what is required.

Some principals cited the provision oftime and space for group-focused devel-opment activities as a major means ofsupport for the program and for thecoach.


Teachers in America’s Choice Cohort4 schools were meeting on a regular basis— whether in study groups or in teachermeetings, and/or all-staff meetings. Inmany of the schools, teachers, literacycoaches, and principals met on a morefrequent basis than recommended by theoverall design. Nonetheless, there wassubstantial deviation from the America’sChoice model in terms of the content andfocus of such meetings as well as theterminology used to describe them. Mostteachers, for example, stated that therewere no study groups in their schools.

According to interview data, mostteachers felt that group-focused profes-sional development activities were useful.Yet, teachers also made it clear that somemeetings were more useful than others,and that their position in the rolloutsequence at their school had an impact ontheir perception of the utility of thesemeetings. Teachers who felt that themeetings were far less useful than the in-class demonstrations tended to feel eitherthat the meetings and demonstrationswere not well connected, or that thecoach was far more competent at demon-strating than at doing the kind of staffdevelopment that the meetings weresupposed to facilitate.


31

The Influence of CoachingThe Influence of CoachingThe Influence of CoachingThe Influence of CoachingThe Influence of Coachingon Standaron Standaron Standaron Standaron Standards-basedds-basedds-basedds-basedds-basedInstructionInstructionInstructionInstructionInstruction

A persistent concern that emergesfrom CPRE’s research on the coachingmodel in America’s Choice schools is therole coaching may or may not play ingetting teachers to implement standards-based instructional practices within thestructures of the literacy workshops. Thestructures of the literacy workshops arethe starting point, and a delivery mecha-nism, for the desired instructional ap-proach that is the ultimate goal — stan-dards-based instruction. The connectionscoaches make for teachers between thetechnical coaching portion of the modeland the group-focused professionaldevelopment activities can lay thegroundwork for a standards-basedinstructional approach if teachers andcoaches clearly identify the overlapbetween the two distinct activities, linkthem to the standards, and build uponthem to reach the goal of standards-basedinstruction. Certainly this is a multi-yearprocess, and the schools we visited werelikely to be in the preliminary stages sincethey were in their first year of implemen-tation. Nonetheless, conversations aboutmaking instruction more standards-basedshould be ongoing among coaches andteachers.

The ContThe ContThe ContThe ContThe Content of Coaching:ent of Coaching:ent of Coaching:ent of Coaching:ent of Coaching:Where do the NeWhere do the NeWhere do the NeWhere do the NeWhere do the New Standarw Standarw Standarw Standarw StandardsdsdsdsdsPPPPPerererererffffformance Standarormance Standarormance Standarormance Standarormance StandardsdsdsdsdsFit In?Fit In?Fit In?Fit In?Fit In?

In interviews with teachers andcoaches, we asked a general questionabout what they had worked on in classand in meetings, as well as follow-upquestions regarding the use of America’sChoice monographs on writers work-shop, the America’s Choice genre studiesmaterials, and the New Standards Perfor-

mance Standards. Since effective profes-sional development necessitates showingteachers how to connect their work tospecific standards for student perfor-mance, the New Standards PerformanceStandards must be central to these activi-ties. Additionally, the America’s Choicemonographs and genre studies weredeveloped to assist teachers in deepeningtheir understanding of the America’sChoice approach, and, according to thecoaching model, these materials shouldbe addressed in group-focused profes-sional development activities.

Monographs and Genre StudiesMonographs and Genre StudiesMonographs and Genre StudiesMonographs and Genre StudiesMonographs and Genre Studies

Most teachers stated that they hadworked with the coach individually and/or in class on setting up the classroomand on at least some aspects of the basicstructure, rituals, and routines of writersworkshop. Most teachers were alsofamiliar with the America’s Choicemonographs that describe the differentpieces of writers workshop, althoughinitial exposure to the monographs mostoften took place in a meeting or work-shop setting with the coach subsequentlymodeling the different pieces in a class-room setting. In the words of one coach:

[I] address the monographs through[group-focused] professional development,like the sourcebooks, what they are, whatgoes in it…Every teacher has a genre bookwith the lessons laid out for them in it.

Middle school teachers’ familiaritywith America’s Choice genre studiesmaterials was more limited, and thoseteachers who had actually worked on thegenre studies with a coach in the class-room were fewer still, a fact that may bereflective of the slower-than-anticipatedrollout in many schools:

We have addressed the monographs inteacher meetings and we have includedthe monographs in a series of 20 lessonsthat we pass out to the teachers every six


32

weeks. We haven’t tackled the genrestudies at all…

Group-focused professional develop-ment activities, according to interviews,played a critical role in providing teach-ers with information on both genrestudies and the monographs, but did notnecessarily achieve widespread adoptionof this content by teachers in their lessonplanning.

NeNeNeNeNew Standarw Standarw Standarw Standarw Standards Pds Pds Pds Pds PerererererffffformanceormanceormanceormanceormanceStandarStandarStandarStandarStandardsdsdsdsds

With regard to the New StandardPerformance Standards, most teacherswere familiar with at least some elementsof the standards, either through havingthem discussed in meetings, or modeledin the classroom. According to interviewdata, some coaches clearly placed a lot ofemphasis on demonstrating how to usethe New Standards Performance Stan-dards in the classroom, while others didnot. According to one coach:

During the demonstrations, I did this[modeled the New Standards PerformanceStandards] every day…the NewStandards Performance Standards is thebasis of the entire rollout. I get all myinspiration from the New StandardsPerformance Standards.

A teacher who had worked with thiscoach confirmed that although they hadcovered the New Standards PerformanceStandards in meetings, “We mostly wentover standards in class…for example,with narrative writing he pointed out theelements of the standards to focus on. Wewould take it apart.”

In contrast, another coach stated thather co-coach “covers the New StandardsPerformance Standards in staff develop-ment, but it really isn’t modeled. I don’tmodel that.”

In all but two of the schools, teachers,coaches, and principals reported intro-ducing and/or reviewing the New Stan-dards Performance Standards in group-focused professional development activi-ties. At least in some cases, teacher meet-ings also provided the opportunity todiscuss and analyze New StandardsPerformance Standards-based work goingon in the classroom.

There were indications in both inter-views and classroom observations,however, that both coach and teachercomprehension and use of the standardswas limited. One teacher confessed that,“I’m not sure we fully understand whatstandards are, but it is starting to makesense.” A coach acknowledged that herteachers needed more work in this area:

With the New Standards PerformanceStandards, they have to be incorporatedinto teacher lesson planning. I amprobably a little weak on standardsmyself. For example, what I see in therooms is the personal narrative standardsare posted, but it is in teacher language,and teacher language and studentlanguage are distinct. In the primarygrades, we need to see the elements of eachstandard bullet a writing lesson thataddresses each standard.

While most principals articulated asolid understanding of the centrality ofthe New Standards Performance Stan-dards to the America’s Choice design,most were aware that some teachers werestill struggling to understand the stan-dards. In one school, the principal esti-mated that about half the teachers were“getting it.” Two other principals com-mented:

Teachers are still learning the standardsand some of them are slow learners —they can’t figure them out. They thinkthey are different from the statestandards…We discuss the New


33

Standards Performance Standards duringboth of these times [group-focusedprofessional development], but someteachers are getting it and others are not.Working with standards is a new processfor the teachers. Real understanding ofstandards and rubrics will take anotheryear. It will take a lot of modeling andreview.

Some are, some aren’t [understanding theimportance of the New StandardsPerformance Standards] — it is about 50/50.

Principals pointed out that group-focused professional development activi-ties are critical to increase teachers’understanding of the New StandardsPerformance Standards. Teachers andcoaches concurred that the New Stan-dards Performance Standards were oftendiscussed in group-focused professionaldevelopment activities and deepenedtheir understanding of standards. Allparties, however, indicated that time wasan important variable in increasingteacher understanding of standards. It isreasonable to expect that, with time ontask, teachers will gain a deepened andnuanced grasp of what standards-basedinstruction looks like. A lingering ques-tion, however, is to what extent teacherknowledge is dependent on the coach’sown mastery of standards-based instruc-tion.

Fidelity tFidelity tFidelity tFidelity tFidelity to Lito Lito Lito Lito Literacy Weracy Weracy Weracy Weracy WorororororkshopkshopkshopkshopkshopStructures as VStructures as VStructures as VStructures as VStructures as Vehicles tehicles tehicles tehicles tehicles toooooDelivDelivDelivDelivDeliver Standarer Standarer Standarer Standarer Standards-basedds-basedds-basedds-basedds-basedInstructionInstructionInstructionInstructionInstruction

As discussed above, interview ques-tions with teachers, coaches, and princi-pals about the New Standards Perfor-mance Standards indicated some uneven-ness of understanding during this firstyear of implementation. As a complement

to the interviews, CPRE conductedclassroom observations of coaches andteachers implementing the literacy work-shops in the schools. Teachers andcoaches were rated on where they fell ona four-point scale designed to indicatefidelity to the literacy workshop struc-tures. This scale enabled CPRE research-ers to gain an idea of how much of theskeleton of the literacy workshops was inplace since these structures provide theframework from which to develop astandards-based instructional approach.

One key point to take away fromCPRE’s report, Implementation of theAmerica’s Choice Literacy Workshops is thatit is necessary to distinguish betweenteachers and literacy coaches who simplycomply with the basic structures of theliteracy workshops and those who under-stand the possibilities that fidelity to themodel can bring. There are a variety ofteaching and learning opportunities thatfidelity unleashes and these are exploredin more detail in that report. Other keypoints that surface in this report are thatteachers were most likely to closelymodel the level of fidelity to the struc-tures that are demonstrated to them bytheir coach in their school. This wasconsistent across all three levels observedin the schools: early elementary, upperelementary, and middle school observa-tions. This finding affirms the centralityof the role a coach plays in a school interms of modeling the structures andinstructional techniques that teachers areexpected to adopt in their classrooms. Asa result, the importance of training thecoach properly so that teachers, in turn,may be trained according to the specifica-tions of the design cannot be underscoredenough. Additionally, those coaches whoreferred to standards in their demonstra-tions to teachers increased the likelihoodthat teachers would carry that practiceover into their work with students.


34

Critical Connections BeCritical Connections BeCritical Connections BeCritical Connections BeCritical Connections BetwtwtwtwtweeneeneeneeneenGrGrGrGrGroup-foup-foup-foup-foup-focused Procused Procused Procused Procused ProfofofofofessionalessionalessionalessionalessionalDeDeDeDeDevvvvvelopment Aelopment Aelopment Aelopment Aelopment Activities andctivities andctivities andctivities andctivities andTTTTTechnical Coachingechnical Coachingechnical Coachingechnical Coachingechnical Coaching

In order for standards-based instruc-tion to develop and evolve, the existenceof connections between the array ofprofessional development activities isessential. In effect, standards-basedinstructional practices are in great mea-sure contingent upon the connectionsteachers and coaches make betweentechnical coaching and group-focusedprofessional development. These activi-ties provide the venues for the discussionof the standards among teachers andcoaches, and the eventual development ofprofessional learning communities. Thereare implications for the connectionsmade, or the lack of those connections, interms of how readily standards-basedinstruction moves forward in a school.

ComComComComComparing and Connectingparing and Connectingparing and Connectingparing and Connectingparing and ConnectingApprApprApprApprApproaches toaches toaches toaches toaches to Pro Pro Pro Pro ProfofofofofessionalessionalessionalessionalessionalDeDeDeDeDevvvvvelopmentelopmentelopmentelopmentelopment

Teachers, coaches, and principals inthe schools in our sample were able toarticulate a critical connection betweenthe various group-focused professionaldevelopment activities held at theirschool and technical coaching (in-classand individual coaching). Most teachers,coaches, and principals felt that bothforms of professional developmentactivities were essential components ofthe model:

Both are needed — they go hand-in-hand.Both have contributed to my comfortlevel. I couldn’t do it with just coachingor with just the teacher meetings —couldn’t do it without both. They areequally needed. They target two differentareas.

Teachers, coaches, and principals alsoconsidered group-focused professionaldevelopment activities important becauseof their parallel connection to the in-classtechnical coaching focused on instruc-tional practice. A number of literacycoaches reported that teachers’ classroomneeds influenced the topics coveredduring group-focused professionaldevelopment activities. This two-wayflow of information was meant to deepenteachers’ understanding of America’sChoice design and content by analysis ofstudent work as well as teachers’ needs.

Everything covered in teacher meetings iscoordinated with something that has beendone or will be done in the class — theyhave to be connected.

They parallel each other — they go overthe same things…We go into more depthin teacher meetings…the coaching piece isabout me.

Everything that we talk about, we try tomake sure that it relates to somethingthey can do in the classroom.

Nonetheless, many teachers andliteracy coaches indicated that group-focused professional development activi-ties did not play as crucial a role in theirability and preparation to implement theliteracy workshops as the technicalcoaching piece. Instead, group-focusedprofessional development activitiesoccupied the position of a reinforcingactivity, a complement to the technicalcoaching work done in an individualclassroom. One teacher offered the opin-ion that teacher meetings did not contrib-ute to her comfort level in implementingthe America’s Choice literacy workshopsbecause she had already received in-classtraining and had implemented the les-sons modeled for her in the classroom.Other teachers reiterated the value ofinstructional modeling in the classroomby placing an emphasis on the impor-tance of the individualized contact withthe coach:


35

In-class coaching is much more useful tome. Teacher meetings often turn intoQ&A and that isn’t productive foreveryone.

If she [coach] never came into theclassroom, it [professional development]would not be as effective.

Many respondents felt group-focusedactivities were supposed to provide“support,” or to “supplement” the in-class technical coaching piece, and couldnot work as a stand-alone professionaldevelopment tool.

The meetings mostly supplement andinform and in that sense they are usefuland contribute to the comfort level [inimplementing].

Therefore, many teachers acknowl-edged that they considered the technicalcoaching piece to be more useful and“central” to their ability to implement themodel in their classrooms.

[In-class] coaching is indispensable. Icouldn’t have done it without thedemonstrations…teacher meetings havehelped a bit in my comfort levelimplementing writers workshop in myclass, just not as much as the in-classcoaching.

Creating PrCreating PrCreating PrCreating PrCreating Profofofofofessional Learningessional Learningessional Learningessional Learningessional LearningCommunitiesCommunitiesCommunitiesCommunitiesCommunities

Many teachers and coaches felt theprimary role of group-focused profes-sional development activities was sharingand support; the acquisition of newknowledge and techniques was viewedas a secondary function. Teachers re-ported that sharing information and ideaswith other teachers was a critical compo-nent and a principal reason why theyvalued group-focused professionaldevelopment activities. This might be anearly indicator of the creation of profes-sional learning communities in America’sChoice schools.

The other teachers in meetings, they aremy support, my backbone. I get a lot fromother teachers in my grade-level meetings.

Teachers compare experiences…and youwill try something and say, “This is whatI tried and either it worked or didn’twork”…And they’ll say, “That’s okay,that’s all right” or “Well, maybe whydon’t you try it like this”…

…meetings are valuable because you canshare ideas and plan. It benefits thestudents and it helps us. Many heads arebetter than one, and it does make me feelmore comfortable in class, but not likemodeling.

A few teachers stated that they wouldfind a way to meet informally with otherteachers outside of teacher meetings (i.e.,in the lunchroom, on the playground, inthe hall) because of the value they placedon these exchanges. Overall, many teach-ers felt a constant source of support fromboth the literacy coach and from peersthrough group-focused professionaldevelopment activities — a “continua-tion” of the in-class technical coachingpiece.


Interviews with teachers, coaches,and principals indicated that the under-standing and use of the New StandardsPerformance Standards in planning forinstruction, as well as supplementalAmerica’s Choice materials (specificallythe writers workshop monographs andgenre studies), is still at an early stage.While this finding among teachers is notsurprising given that all schools were intheir first year of implementation, the factthat coach understanding and use ofstandards also varied considerably is anissue of greater concern. CPRE’s class-room observations indicate that teachers’ability to faithfully reproduce the struc-tures of the literacy workshops closelytracks that of their coaches; if one makes


36

the large but not unreasonable assump-tion that closer fidelity to structure alsoimplies a more standards-based approachto instruction, then the coach’s knowl-edge of standards and ability to modelstandards-based instruction in the class-room may have a strong effect on teach-ers’ ability to do the same.

Although teachers, coaches, andprincipals for the most part saw a connec-tion between the in-class technical coach-ing and group-focused professionaldevelopment elements of the coachingmodel, teachers’ perception of teachermeetings as a source of “support” and as“supplemental” versus “primary” couldalso be a cause for concern. If group-focused professional development activi-ties are the primary means to createprofessional learning communities inAmerica’s Choice schools, they areserving that purpose. However, if theseactivities are one of the vehicles forteachers to capitalize on the connectionsbetween what gets discussed in thesemeetings and classroom instruction, thenteachers and coaches may need moreguidance and assistance from America’sChoice on how to maximize the utilityand connection of these activities tostandards-based instructional practiceand the broader design. Ironically, asmentioned earlier in this report, the verydetailed guides for teacher meetings andstudy groups developed by America’sChoice did not seem to be in use in mostof the schools visited.

SummarSummarSummarSummarSummary of Fy of Fy of Fy of Fy of Factactactactactororororors thats thats thats thats thatInfluenced Coaches’Influenced Coaches’Influenced Coaches’Influenced Coaches’Influenced Coaches’ImImImImImplementation of theplementation of theplementation of theplementation of theplementation of theAmerica’s Choice SchoolAmerica’s Choice SchoolAmerica’s Choice SchoolAmerica’s Choice SchoolAmerica’s Choice SchoolRRRRRefefefefeformormormormorm

While this study was not designed tomeasure the effectiveness of individualcoaches, we were able to draw on ourdata to compile a list of factors that

seemed to influence coaches’ effective-ness in implementing the America’sChoice model. There are two kinds ofinformation from school visits that can beconstrued as indicators of effectiveness.The first is a review of responses fromteachers and principals as to how theyvalued the work of the coaches and whatfeatures they particularly appreciated.These data are somewhat subjective, butthere are sufficient patterns among theresponses to suggest some preliminaryindicators of coach effectiveness. Thesecond type of information is moreobjective. How successful were thecoaches in rolling out the reform elementsand workshops in the schools? And indoing so, was there reasonable fidelity tothe model? By examining these two typesof data, we were able to gain insight intoa set of factors that influence coaches’effectiveness in implementing theAmerica’s Choice model. Each of thesefactors is discussed below.

Human RHuman RHuman RHuman RHuman Relations Skillselations Skillselations Skillselations Skillselations Skills

One of the most frequently citedfactors as a facilitator or barrier to coacheffectiveness was the human relationsskills of the coaches, and their individualpersonality or approach to coaching.Overall in the interviews, there seemed tobe almost more concern about processthan content and expertise. This emphasison personality may reflect the assump-tion that teachers will not change theirpractice or listen to coaches (no matterhow good) if their personalities are off-putting. Coaches relied on human rela-tions skills to soothe, persuade, and getteachers comfortable enough to adopt theAmerica’s Choice model. The importanceof these qualities or skills was mentionedrepeatedly by coaches and principals(with teachers it tended to be rolled intowhether they felt “supported” andwhether they considered the coach“approachable”). Coaches who werefriendly, funny, diplomatic, thick-skinned,flexible, and went out of their way to


37

make teachers feel like they were beinglistened to or made part of a team,seemed to have fewer resistance prob-lems than those who did not. An impor-tant consideration, however, is whetherthese skills are innate, and what skills canbe taught, and might therefore be anappropriate focus of coach training.

Coach ACoach ACoach ACoach ACoach Accessibilityccessibilityccessibilityccessibilityccessibility

Coach accessibility was of greatimportance to teachers (as reflected intheir interviews) and had considerableinfluence on the degree to which they feltsupported and comfortable in implement-ing the America’s Choice literacy work-shops in their classrooms. Coaches whohad an “open-door” policy or went out oftheir way to check in with teachers on aregular basis were generally perceivedmore positively.

Individual IntIndividual IntIndividual IntIndividual IntIndividual Interaction witheraction witheraction witheraction witheraction withCoachCoachCoachCoachCoach

Teachers’ ability to have individualinteraction with the coach, even if briefand informal, also seemed particularlyvalued by teachers. Teachers who hadworked with the coach individually intheir classrooms often cited this experi-ence as the most effective part ofAmerica’s Choice professional develop-ment.

InclusivInclusivInclusivInclusivInclusivenessenessenessenesseness

Teachers appeared to be more positiveabout coaches who solicited their opin-ions or who had included them in eitherjoint planning or co-teaching of America’sChoice workshops. An inclusive ap-proach by the coach both served as aleveler (establishing the coach as a col-league rather than a supervisor) and aconfidence builder for teachers. In thewords of one model-classroom teacher:

The coach made me feel like I was part of ateam. He would have teachers go into myclass and observe. I felt I really knew whatI was doing. He made me feel good aboutthat.

Timeliness and RTimeliness and RTimeliness and RTimeliness and RTimeliness and Releeleeleeleelevvvvvance ofance ofance ofance ofance ofInfInfInfInfInformationormationormationormationormation

Quite a few teachers complainedabout the timeliness, consistency, andrelevance of information they receivedfrom their coaches concerning America’sChoice. In many cases these complaintsappear to be related to the coaches’training schedule which took place atseveral points in time during the schoolyear. Some coaches appeared more skilledthan others in organizing the content ofthe meetings in such a way that teachersfelt that the information directly rein-forced what they were doing in theclassroom. In particular, the needs ofthose teachers already implementingAmerica’s Choice workshops in theirclassrooms appeared to be quite differentfrom those of teachers who had not yetstarted implementation.

FleFleFleFleFlexibility and Willingness txibility and Willingness txibility and Willingness txibility and Willingness txibility and Willingness toooooInnoInnoInnoInnoInnovvvvvatatatatateeeee

An indicator of coach effectivenessmentioned in interviews was the coach’swillingness and ability to adjust themodel to local circumstances. For ex-ample, one principal praised her coachesfor the extensive “scaffolding” work theyhad done in order to make the literacyworkshops work with an English Lan-guage Learner population. On the otherhand, too much of a departure from themodel raised fidelity issues and thequestion of whether America’s Choiceworkshops were being implemented atall.


38

TTTTTeacher Reacher Reacher Reacher Reacher Resistanceesistanceesistanceesistanceesistance

For principals, an important indicatorof coach effectiveness seemed to be howmuch resistance the coach encountered orgenerated in the course of rolling out theAmerica’s Choice workshops in theschool. The importance of coach “person-ality” echoed throughout interviews withboth principals and coaches. The underly-ing assumption appeared to be that if thecoaches were not able to get teachers ontheir side, it did not matter what they toldthem or how good they might be. Forprincipals, a large group of unhappyteachers also constituted an administra-tive headache. In one example, a princi-pal stated:

Personality and presentation make adifference. You have to be flexible and nottake things personally. And in this schoolalmost half the teachers she [the coach]works with have not bought into theproject. She’s not communicating withthem very well.

UUUUUnderndernderndernderstanding of Litstanding of Litstanding of Litstanding of Litstanding of LiteracyeracyeracyeracyeracyWWWWWorororororkshop Structureskshop Structureskshop Structureskshop Structureskshop Structures

As discussed in Implementation of theAmerica’s Choice Literacy Workshops, theCPRE study included classroom observa-tions of coaches and teachers implement-ing the literacy workshops, and a subse-quent rating of how faithful these were tothe America’s Choice model. Theseanalyses showed that there was a highdegree of correspondence between thecoaches’ fidelity to the America’s Choicemodel, and the fidelity demonstrated bythose teachers who the coach instructed.This is a particularly important findingbecause if fidelity of implementation is adesired outcome, these analyses supporthow central the coach’s role is to achiev-ing that goal. In other words, teachers areunlikely to implement workshops accord-ing to the model unless the coach’smodeling is also faithful to the model.

The more faithfully the coach adhered tothe workshop structures, the more faith-ful teachers were likely to be, althoughthere were some exceptions. If an obser-vation of a coach indicated little fidelityto the model, it might follow thatAmerica’s Choice literacy workshopswould not be implemented in the in-tended manner by all teachers in thatschool.

BackBackBackBackBackgrgrgrgrground and Experienceound and Experienceound and Experienceound and Experienceound and Experienceof the Coachesof the Coachesof the Coachesof the Coachesof the Coaches

Different aspects of a coach’s back-ground and experience appeared to act asfacilitators or barriers to coach effective-ness. Some coaches reported that theythought having an administrative orinstructional support background washelpful to them in their coaching becausethey already had some experience sup-porting adults. Prior experience in theschool building or having been selectedby the principal (and staff) also seemed togive coaches a slight advantage. InGeorgia, being an “outsider” seemed toplace an additional burden on the coach,especially since principals were notinvolved in selecting the coaches whowere assigned to their school by the state.On the other hand, coaches’ prior experi-ence as a colleague of teachers in theschool was double-edged. In severalcases, this experience was reported to behelpful because the coaches already had arapport with teachers and were liked orrespected by them. Yet in other cases, itstrained some relationships as the coachmoved into a new role in which theywere no longer seen as peers or col-leagues, but were considered to be moreof an administrator or supervisor. Mas-tery of subject knowledge and teachingskills were two areas mentioned by bothprincipals and coaches as being impor-tant to coach effectiveness, although asmentioned earlier, only rarely was there aspecific reference to the importance ofexpertise in either literacy or standards.


39

The limited exposure of coaches to eitherbalanced literacy or standards-basedreform prior to implementing America’sChoice can be seen as a significant barrierto coach effectiveness and a particularchallenge for NCEE training.

Degree of ADegree of ADegree of ADegree of ADegree of AdministrativdministrativdministrativdministrativdministrativeeeeeSupporSupporSupporSupporSupport and Int and Int and Int and Int and Invvvvvolvolvolvolvolvementementementementement

The amount and type of supportprovided to the coach by the principalappeared to be a critical facilitator orbarrier to coach effectiveness. There werea range of situations documented byCPRE in the school visits: the principalwas not supportive of the America’sChoice model or coach, the principal wassupportive of the model but not thecoach, the principal had a good relation-ship with the coach but was not support-ive of the model, and the ideal situationwhere the principal was supportive ofboth the coach and the model. The morethe principal took ownership of theAmerica’s Choice model, worked tounderstand it thoroughly, and translatedthat ownership into specific school-levelaction and follow-up with teachers, theeasier the coach’s job appeared to be.

Most principals recognized the needfor a strong, collaborative relationshipand good communication with the coachin order to make the America’ Choicemodel work. Beyond good communica-tion and recognition of the demands ofthe model on the coach, several princi-pals’ involvement in the implementationof America’s Choice workshops wentfurther. In one school, the principalorganized and ran the focused walks, anddesigned a rubric for use on the focusedwalks and as feedback to the teachers. Inanother school, the coach ran teachermeetings, but the principal always at-tended the meetings and was briefed onthe content because of the “need to beable to back her up.” This same principalstated:

Teacher meetings are participatory. I wantto hear from every teacher. The oneteacher who hasn’t participated has askedfor a transfer. She says she is doing this orthat, but can’t back anything up. Theteachers need the New StandardsPerformance Standards for their plansand they need to be able to discuss it. Ifthey can’t, I know they aren’t doing it. Imake sure that the standards and the taskgo up on the wall. You can see work isn’tfocused when the task goes up firstinstead of the standard first. The work isso different.

This example indicates both a sophis-ticated understanding of the America’sChoice instructional goals and a highdegree of follow-up on those goals withinthe school.

In quite a few cases, however, therewas a division between how principalsdescribed their support of coaches versushow the coaches perceived the principal’slevel of support. Two comments bycoaches about the principals in theirschools are illustrative (note that these donot correspond to the principals ofschools quoted above):

I don’t think he believes in America’sChoice. He talks the game but I don’tbelieve it. He’s never been in classroomswhen I have been there. It was his job[according to NCEE] to present themodules on the standards to the teachers.They took him for training on presentingthe standards. The teachers didn’tunderstand it and I had to do it overagain later. There is some conflict on whathe is given and what I am given fromNCEE and that is not good. There is someresistance in the school about America’sChoice and I think he divided the faculty.

I think [the relationship] requires theprincipal having the instructionalbackground, and really having a grasp ofthe concepts we’re required to fan out topeople, and also kind of patience to know


40

that it’s not going to be rolled out thesame to everyone because everyoneinternalizes things differently. It’s beenkind of hard with my particular principalbecause that hasn’t been the case…so a lotof it has been almost like the blind leadingthe blind…

Yet even when principals were sup-portive of the coach and the model anddeeply involved in implementation, styleseemed to make a difference. As men-tioned earlier, principal rebukes of teach-ers for non-adherence to the America’sChoice model appeared to increaseteacher resistance to the coach in at leasttwo schools that CPRE visited. In bothcases, the coach was seen to have failed tocommunicate expectations sufficientlyprior to the principal’s heavy-handedfollow-up with teachers.

SufSufSufSufSufffffficiency and Timeliness oficiency and Timeliness oficiency and Timeliness oficiency and Timeliness oficiency and Timeliness ofNCEE TNCEE TNCEE TNCEE TNCEE Trainingrainingrainingrainingraining

There were numerous complaintsabout the timing of NCEE training, andthe difficulty of rolling out a model whencoaches felt they did not yet understandit themselves. According to both coachesand principals, training happened in bitsand pieces and coaches felt like they wereonly one step ahead of teachers. Manycoaches felt like they needed to havebegun their training well before the startof the school year. A few principalsexpressed the view that it would be betterto have NCEE train all teachers, and havecoaches as backup. Several coaches alsoraised the issue of conflicting informationarising from principals’ and coaches’training, and the need to have everyoneon the same page, with similar expecta-tions, from the beginning of rollout. Interms of the content of training, coachesmentioned that their training should notassume people have a balanced literacybackground, and felt that training andmaterials did not cover certain key issues.These included: how to deal with English

Language Learners and special educationstudents; “change management” training,including how to deal with teacherresistance, motivation, and team build-ing; more training on basic knowledgeabout writing; and more training oneffective coaching, including providingfeedback to teachers. Two coaches wereunclear about whether NCEE was plan-ning to provide additional model lessons,and did not seem confident about imple-menting the workshops without addi-tional instructional materials.

Degree of PDegree of PDegree of PDegree of PDegree of Perererererceivceivceivceivceived NCEEed NCEEed NCEEed NCEEed NCEESupporSupporSupporSupporSupporttttt

Most coaches believed that the levelof ongoing support from NCEE andregional personnel was adequate to good.Coaches in Georgia had the strongestinstitutional support, with team leadershabitually visiting the schools once aweek. Coaches in Georgia had alsoformed support networks among them-selves. One coach in Georgia expressedher overall satisfaction with this multi-layered network of support as follows:

I couldn’t ask for better support. The firstline of support, when I need help or havequestions is the team leader who is incharge of the six schools in this county. Ialso get support from peers in the[literacy coach] network meetings andthrough email. Our regional director is agood business person but never loses sightof the fact that we are working withchildren.

Coaches in schools outside of Georgiamost often saw cluster leaders once amonth. According to one coach, contactwith NCEE on a monthly basis was not asufficient level of institutional support toimplement the model:

I am not happy with the support we havereceived. That to me is the weakest part ofthe program. They [NCEE] need to be


41

staff developers and not just a person whocomes into the school and chats. We needmore substantive and extensive contactwith the cluster leader. I need somethingto be modeled for me, to redirectsomething that needed correction in aprofessional development session. In thesame way that I would at the school levelwith the teachers, we need NCEE to workwith us. In the building once a month isnot enough to do something somonumental in a school.

Support also depended heavily on theskills, personality, availability, and com-mitment of cluster leaders. While somecluster leaders appeared to be workingovertime to meet school needs, oneschool stated they “basically never saw”their cluster leader. Several coaches notedthat NCEE trainers had given out emailaddresses and phone numbers, but therewas hesitation on the part of the coachesin contacting them as they were per-ceived to be very busy. One coach foundtrying to get help from NCEE staff to beparticularly confusing, remarking, “It’snobody’s department” and “Seems oftenthat the right hand doesn’t know whatthe left hand is doing.” Some coachesresented the fact that cluster leaders weregiven information that was not necessar-ily shared with them, and viewed thisinformation gap as impairing their abilityto perform all their tasks. The degree towhich communication from NCEE wascoherent and credible was an issue for anumber of coaches and principals.

PPPPPerererererception of the Coaches’ception of the Coaches’ception of the Coaches’ception of the Coaches’ception of the Coaches’RRRRRole: Issues andole: Issues andole: Issues andole: Issues andole: Issues andUUUUUncerncerncerncerncertaintiestaintiestaintiestaintiestainties

Perhaps one of most important factorsthat impinged on the coaches’ ability tobe effective was one that may be hardestto resolve. That is, the ambiguity of thecoach role and the uncertainty of whatthe relationship should be to the teachers,the principal, and the leadership team.

How much initiative can a coach take?How much flexibility is there in theimplementation process? In what ways isthe coach accountable and to whom?Both prior experience and individualpersonality have factored into how thecoaches addressed these issues, but for amajority of coaches the stress of theseconcerns has taken a toll. A key questionwe pose is how can NCEE provide sup-port in this area and better prepare thecoaches for the role? How can the expec-tations for the role of coach be sharedwith teachers and supervisors?

TimeTimeTimeTimeTime

If one was to ask America’s Choicecoaches what they thought was the singlemost significant barrier to effectivecoaching, they might answer “time.” Theoverall lack of coach time was a powerfultheme across both coach and teacherresponses. Coaches were pulled in manydifferent directions. In some schools,principals recognized the problem andtried to give them fewer administrativeduties. In other schools, coaches still woremultiple hats and were struggling underthe weight of their numerous responsi-bilities. The problem seemed particularlypronounced at the middle school level,where there is one literacy coach ratherthan two. Contributing to the lack of timewere a number of external barriers —multiple programs taking place at theschool, the track problem in California,and the relentless focus on testing thatled to coaches frequently getting pulledaway from America’s Choice rollout infavor of test preparation. In addition,NCEE training during the year alsorequired coach time on a regular basis,which in turn affected the pace of rollout.

Conclusion andConclusion andConclusion andConclusion andConclusion andRRRRRecommendationsecommendationsecommendationsecommendationsecommendations

The America’s Choice school model isa far-reaching and ambitious reformstrategy to bring about dramatic changes


42

in the way that teaching and learningoccurs in schools. Making the challengeeven more formidable is the fact thatAmerica’s Choice is generally adopted inlow-performing schools with seriouschallenges in terms of organizationalcapacity, leadership, student and teachermobility, etc. America’s Choice combinesboth a broad philosophy of standards-based schooling and more specific strate-gies for teaching and learning in thedifferent content areas. To bring aboutthese central changes, America’s Choicehas opted to rely heavily on full-timecoaches at each America’s Choice school.The job of the coach is to introduceteachers to the concept of standards-based reform in general, to work initiallyon changing literacy instruction in par-ticular, and to work in concert with theschool’s principal to modify the support-ing organizational structure in order tofacilitate the reforms. Coaches are thelinchpins of the America’s Choice reformstrategy.

In this report, we have examined themultiple aspects of the coach’s role in theimplementation of America’s Choice,including in-class and individual supportfor teachers and group-focused profes-sional development activities. To producethis report, we visited 27 schools (18elementary schools and 9 middleschools), interviewed principals, coaches,and teachers, and observed classroominstruction. We also attended NCEEtraining for coaches, interviewed relevantNCEE staff, and reviewed NCEE trainingmaterials. Overall, we interviewed 130people and observed 71 classes of coachesand teachers. Our school visits occurredbetween March and May of 2002. Thisreport is limited to an examination ofcoaching in Cohort 4 of America’s Choice.We chose this cohort because it repre-sented the latest refinement of thecoaches’ role at the time of the design ofthe study. One implication of this studydesign is that our report is limited tocoaching in the first year of implementa-tion of the design.

Based on our research, there can be noquestion that the America’s Choicedesign, spearheaded by the coach, hasinfluenced the way that teachers andadministrators in the majority of schoolswe visited think about teaching andlearning. There is evidence that theAmerica’s Choice philosophy of stan-dards-based reform has begun to perco-late through the participating schools andthat instruction in most schools looksdifferent than it did prior to the imple-mentation of America’s Choice. While wedid not examine the impact of theseefforts on student learning as part of thisstudy, other CPRE studies have looked atthe impact of America’s Choice on stu-dent performance and found evidence ofimproved student learning in placeswhere the design is implemented.

Yet, the burden placed on the coach todeeply implement America’s Choice isonerous. Given the demands placed onthe coaches, the ongoing challenges thatface the schools within which they labor,and the preparation provided for coaches,one has to wonder about the ability of allbut the most skilled and dedicated indi-viduals to play this role effectively. Ittakes a special person to carry out theAmerica’s Choice design consistent withNCEE’s vision. In the words of oneprincipal:

Coaching provides ongoing consistentsupport for the implementation andinstructional components [of theAmerica’s Choice design]. It is non-threatening and supportive — notevaluative. It gives a sense of how goodprofessional development is. It also affordsthe opportunity to see it work withstudents. But, it hinges on the skills of thecoach, and that is a weakness.

In order to carry out their work,America’s Choice coaches must makethree major conceptual shifts — transfor-mations, if you will — in their own viewsabout education and instruction beforethey can even begin to think about teach-


43

ing others about these three domains.First, they must understand and conveythe concept of standards. Using a sophis-ticated set of performance standards as aliving, breathing, three-dimensionaldocument — one to wrestle with and tobe provoked by — is a very different, andsometimes subtle, way of re-thinkingabout how to educate students. Second,they must master and communicate thestructures of, and the concepts underly-ing, writers and readers workshops,which are very different way of teachingliteracy involving a variety of sophisti-cated assessment techniques and pur-poseful instructional strategies. Third,they must understand and engage othersin the formation of a professional learn-ing community in order to commit othersto their ongoing growth as learners aswell as teachers.

America’s Choice has made twostrategic design changes with Cohort 4that are clearly helping. First was thedecision at the elementary level to elimi-nate the position of design coach in favorof having two literacy coaches. Thepresence of two literacy coaches at theelementary level means that coaches havemore time to spend in the classroom withteachers, and that they can potentiallydraw upon the support and counsel of acolleague who has had the same trainingand is trying to do the same job. The factthat most elementary schools got furtherthan middle schools in rolling out theAmerica’s Choice workshops is likely inpart attributable to the fact that middleschools have a single literacy coach.While there may be some drawbacks tohaving eliminated the design coachposition at the elementary level, theywere not picked up by this study.

Second, the design has increased therole of the principal in carrying moreformal authority for the implementationof the design. While this is a muchneeded redistribution of responsibility,we saw in our research that many coaches

still did not feel sufficiently supported byor in sync with their principal. We sug-gest that it may be helpful to havecoaches and principals participate insome training together. While this iscritical early on, it should be sustainedthroughout the year in a subset of train-ing. Principals and coaches particularlyneed to be in sync with each other aboutthe development of professional learningcommunities in their schools.

A third design change for Cohort 4schools served to increase pressure oncoaches. This was the decision to increasethe pace of implementation by expectingschools to roll out both writers andreaders workshops in the first year. Whileit is good to be ambitious about theexpectations for implementation, realisti-cally only a few teachers were getting toreaders workshop by the end of the firstyear, and overly ambitious expectationscontributed to the coaches’ sense of beingoverwhelmed.

Despite refinements to the America’sChoice design, we nonetheless observed awide variation in Cohort 4 schools acrossa number of areas. These included:progress made in their rollout of thedesign, the fidelity to literacy workshopstructures of the observed instruction ofboth coaches and teachers, the qualityand influence of group-focused profes-sional development, and the problemsthat coaches encountered. Some of thisvariation, no doubt, can be traced back tothe fact that schools come to the designfrom different places, with differentcapacities, and with different levels ofcommitment to standards-based reform(or any substantive change, for thatmatter). Other variation in schoolprogress is attributable to the effort andquality of work done by the coach. Someof this variability can be reduced bybetter recruitment and preparation ofcoaches and better specification of theirroles. As NCEE considers how to furtherimprove the America’s Choice design, we


44

encourage further attention to influencingthe selection, preparation, support, andmonitoring of coaches.

Influencing the Quality ofInfluencing the Quality ofInfluencing the Quality ofInfluencing the Quality ofInfluencing the Quality ofThose Who WThose Who WThose Who WThose Who WThose Who Would beould beould beould beould beCoachesCoachesCoachesCoachesCoaches

One of the ironies of NCEE’s role asan external provider of educationalassistance is that their influence is weak-est at the crucial early junctures whendecisions are made that have a greateffect on the probability that the modelwill be successful in a particular school.One such decision is the choice of thecoach. NCEE has learned in past experi-ences that they often cannot influence theselection of the coach, which is made in aprincipal’s or district administrator’soffice often before America’s Choice startsworking with the school. But there areseveral ways that NCEE can influencethis important decision. One would be toprovide a much more robust descriptionof the responsibilities of the coach inorder to guide those doing the hiring andinfluence and inform prospective appli-cants. Another might be to provide schooland district leaders with descriptions orvignettes of successful coaches to give abetter sense of what the life of a coach islikely to be like. Both of these wouldpossibly influence the people chosen tobe coaches. Our data suggest that certaincharacteristics and factors influence theeffectiveness of coaches. These include:strong human relations and communica-tion skills, including, if possible, demon-strated success in training adults insituations where authority is collegial,rather than managerial; excellent teachingskills; a background in or at least stronginterest in standards-based reform; theability to be flexible and innovative inadapting the design to local circum-stances (such as a lot of “scaffolding”done by two coaches to make the literacyworkshops work for English LanguageLearners) and overcoming foreseeable

problems, including teacher resistance;respect of the faculty; and strong, in-formed, and ongoing support and in-volvement of the principal. Writing aclear job description of what makes aneffective coach and making it clear howimportant is this decision to the ultimatesuccess of the reform, might help to guidedecision makers in this crucial task.

BeBeBeBeBetttttttttter Preparing Coaches ter Preparing Coaches ter Preparing Coaches ter Preparing Coaches ter Preparing Coaches tooooodo the Wdo the Wdo the Wdo the Wdo the Wororororork of Standark of Standark of Standark of Standark of Standards-ds-ds-ds-ds-based Rbased Rbased Rbased Rbased Refefefefeformormormormorm

There are many things that a schoolneeds to do when it embarks on stan-dards-based reform with America’sChoice. Capitalizing on this early periodis hampered by the fact that coaches weregenerally not well versed in standardsupon taking on their new role. One of thestriking things we observed in our obser-vations and interviews was how faint thepresence of standards was in Cohort 4schools. This is perhaps not surprisinggiven that schools were in their first yearof implementation and that two-thirds ofthe coaches reported to us that theirexposure to standards-based reform waslimited upon taking the job of coach. It isno wonder that coaches felt they werebarely one step ahead of the teachersbecause they were. Given the constraintsof lead time and the pressures to imple-ment America’s Choice from the get-go,what can America’s Choice do to improvethe knowledge of coaches in the criticalearly period of implementation? How canNCEE get coaches two steps ahead of thefaculty of their school? There are severalways to think about this problem. Onesuggestion is to provide coaches with acrash course on standards in the summerbefore their school begins participating inAmerica’s Choice, although there may becases where coaches are not in place atthis juncture. Another option is to pro-vide the crash course in the summerbetween the first and second years of thedesign. It is clear, however, that given the


45

centrality of the coach’s role in promotingthe development of standards-basedinstruction in America’s Choice schools,coaches themselves need a better com-mand of standards.

If a solid understanding of standardsis the “what,” or content of the coach’sjob, we also detected some gaps incoaches’ training as to the “how” ofworking with teachers to implementstandards-based instruction — in otherwords, how best to be an effective coach.Although NCEE provides coaches withmodel lessons and detailed implementa-tion plans and workshop guides, thetraining materials do not necessarily givespecifics regarding how best to work withteachers. Quite a few coaches were at aloss regarding how to give feedback, orhow to work with resistant teachers. Thisissue also arose during the coach literacyworkshop training we attended. Indesigning future coach training sessions,NCEE could consider devoting a sessionto the issue of team building and over-coming resistance. Additional possibili-ties would be to put together an onlinecollection of problem-solving strategiesgleaned from the coaches themselves,and/or facilitate an online supportnetwork for America’s Choice coachesworking in different parts of the nation.

Threading the Major TThreading the Major TThreading the Major TThreading the Major TThreading the Major Tasks ofasks ofasks ofasks ofasks ofthe Coachthe Coachthe Coachthe Coachthe Coach

The underlying premise of the threemajor tasks of a coach — modelinginstruction, leading teacher meetings, andfacilitating study groups — is that thesethree experiences will provide mutuallyreinforcing experiences for teachers. Thecombination of direct practice (teachingwriters and readers workshops), strategyacquisition (teacher meetings), andreflection (study groups) are together apromising strategy to build teachers’capacity to learn how to apply high-quality standards-based instruction.

In our visits to Cohort 4 schools, wefound that most teachers, coaches, andprincipals saw a connection betweengroup-focused professional developmentactivities and in-class technical coaching.Nonetheless, we also found that fewrespondents could distinguish betweenteacher meetings and study groups andtheir intended purposes (most claimedthat there were no study groups at theirschools), almost no schools were usingthe very detailed guides for coach facilita-tion of meetings and study groups, andthat group professional development wasoften perceived as not being as helpful tounderstanding the literacy workshops asthe instructional modeling. Implementa-tion schedules of teacher meetings andstudy groups were often out of sync withthe actual rollout of writers and readersworkshops. Thus, teachers were often notstudying in teacher meetings the activi-ties they were trying to implement intheir classes. Although most teachersreported that at least one teacher meetinghad included a discussion of studentwork, regular, ongoing discussion ofstudent work in relation to standards wasclearly not yet occurring in the majorityof Cohort 4 schools.

What should NCEE take from this?Should they try to tighten the connectionsbetween these three capacity-buildingstrategies? Should they loosen the sched-ules so that coaches have more flexibilityto match activities and practice? Shouldthey make materials more generic so thatoverlaps from experiences are more likelyto occur? Given the large variation in thespeed of design rollout that we observed— which is a function of a number offactors, including school size, schoolcapacity, and external events — it doesnot seem likely that tightening the se-quences and overlap of the three experi-ences would resolve this problem. A farmore promising solution would seem tobe to allow the coach to modulate theintroduction of activities for grade-levelgroups within the school, depending on


46

their depth of implementation at a giventime. Of course, this just increases reli-ance on the coach to understand thelarger picture of the design enough tomake smart decisions about the introduc-tion of new materials. This leads to ourfinal point — how to provide moresupport for coaches.

BeBeBeBeBetttttttttter Supporer Supporer Supporer Supporer Support ft ft ft ft for the Wor the Wor the Wor the Wor the Worororororkkkkkof Coachesof Coachesof Coachesof Coachesof Coaches

The other aspect of the design thatNCEE might want to think about is themechanism for supporting and monitor-ing coaches’ implementation of thedesign. This report suggests that there isno question that the quality and pace ofschool implementation varied. But thereare no easy answers as to how to reducethat variation. Several mechanisms doexist that could be used to support andmonitor quality. First, NCEE could de-velop a robust observation tool thatcluster leaders can use to assess thequality of the classroom instruction ofcoaches in the model classroom (andwhich coaches can use in the classroomsof teachers as well). The development ofsuch an observation tool would not onlyhelp cluster leaders monitor quality, butwould provide important support forcoaches in that it would articulate ingreater detail the distinctions betweendifferent levels of implementation depth.Further, if we assume that a coach’sability to facilitate implementation isgreatly influenced by their own ability toimplement the design, then an assess-ment of the quality of their implementa-tion would give important insight intothe progress of the work at a school.

Second, NCEE could revisit thedistribution of cluster leader support forschools to confirm that the time thatcluster leaders commit to each school isused most effectively. The ways thatcluster leaders supported schools was nota major focus of this study, and, as men-

tioned earlier in this report, most coachesbelieved the level of support providedwas adequate. Taken as a whole, how-ever, our interviews with, and observa-tions of, coaches suggest a great deal oflingering uncertainty about what theyshould be doing despite the NCEE train-ing — a problem that more proactivesupervision could help to solve. Wesuggest that it could be helpful to havecluster leaders actually modeling instruc-tion in their schools in addition to visitingclassrooms in focused walks. We alsosuggest that some of the coach trainingoccur in schools during school days sothat coaches can receive experiencessimilar to those they are intended todeliver. We recognize that, at present costlevels, there are constraints as to the timethat cluster leaders can allocate to eachschool, and we are suggesting that NCEEconsider a redistribution of support,rather than providing additional support.

Third, NCEE could consider offeringto train one or a few district-level admin-istrators on the design with the purposeof having them support the America’sChoice schools. The marginal cost ofadding a few people to training sessionsin each region would be minimal and thebenefits could be substantive. This wouldserve several purposes. First, it wouldexpand knowledge of America’s Choicein the district, sowing the seeds fordistrict support once the America’sChoice contract is over. Second, as princi-pals and coaches within districts oftencomplain about lack of district under-standing and support, it would providean advocate for the design within thedistrict. Third, over time, it would pro-vide advocacy for district resources.


47

RRRRRefefefefeferenceserenceserenceserenceserences

Edwards, J. L., & Newton, R. R. (1995,April). The effects of cognitive coachingon teacher efficacy and empowerment. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Associa-tion, San Francisco, CA.

Gamston, R., Linder, C., & Whitaker, J.(1993). Reflections on cognitivecoaching. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 57-61.

Gutierrez, K., Crosland, K., & Berlin, D.(2001, April). Reconsidering coaching:Assisting teachers’ literacy practices in thezone of proximal development. Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Associa-tion, Seattle, WA.

Kohler, F., & Crilley, K. (1997). Effects ofpeer coaching on teacher and studentoutcomes. Journal of Educational Research,90(4), 240-251.

National Center on Education and theEconomy. (2001). Elementary LiteracyInstitute training materials. Washington,DC: Author.

Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1982). Thecoaching of teaching. Educational Leader-ship, 40(1), 4-10

Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). Theevolution of peer coaching. EducationalLeadership, 53(6), 12-16.

Supovitz, J. A. (2001). Translating teach-ing practice into improved studentachievement. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.),From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states (pp. 81-98).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Veenman, S., Denessen, E., Gerrits, J., &Kenter, J. (2001). Evaluation of a coachingprogram for cooperating teachers. Educa-tional Studies, 27(3), 317-340.

Documents

The Heart of the Matter: The Coaching Model in America… · The Heart of the Matter: The Coaching Model in America’s Choice Schools iii About the America’s Choice Design The