coaching2013

Coaching 2013

Coaching involves having higher order conversations that are quite unlike most other professional conversations in school. Effective coaching demands a way of thinking and talking that draws from the fields of curriculum, instructional practice, and psychology. It involves a significant amount of research (e.g. investigating an area of need for a teacher) and research design (e.g. getting baseline and post-coaching data).
 * Why Coaching is a Leadership Role**

In essence, coaching is about working with teachers who are at the limits of their current practice, and supporting them to go beyond these limits. As such, it involves having a sensitive awareness of their current skill set, their capacity, and their self-efficacy beliefs. It may involve challenging their assumptions and values. It is always about supporting them to make a cognitive shift. All this is done with a respect for their professionalism, and prior learning and experience, and a sensitivity to their emotional needs while they engage with this very challenging and rigorous professional development experience.

Coaching involves both responsive, active listening, as well as a form of ‘meta-listening’ – where while engaging with what they are saying, we are also asking, Where are they at now? What’s stopping them from being where they want to be? What supports could help them get there? What cognitive shifts do they need to make? and, What haven’t they imagined for themselves yet?

Coaches must have an understanding about the specific learning needs of adults, as well as an awareness of the learning styles of the individuals they are working with. While of course we can draw from our knowledge of how our students learn, we must also reflect on the assumptions embedded in this knowledge and be responsive to the very different social and collegiate environment that adults must learn in, which involves different power relations and different modes of authority. Looking at the difference between how learning goals are established for students and for adult coachees highlights this (where usually we decide what students need to learn, whereas with coachees we support them to clarify what they want to achieve).

Coaching also involves an understanding of the longer term goals and needs of both the school and the teachers, as well as navigating the immediate pressures within the school. For example, a teacher’s stated goal may be to use the notebooks in their classrooms, and may want a strong practical focus, but we also bring to the coaching conversations questions of how do we embed ICT in learning, how do we build students’ critical literacy, how do we develop their language and social skills so they use ICT more effectively in groups, how do we support them to transfer organisational strategies across into their use of ICT? , etc.

Just like the executive leadership, coaches need both a theoretical understanding of change processes and strategies to manage the practical challenges of this. All professional growth involves change, so coaches, in their role of embedding professional growth, are change agents who need to support teachers in the complex and dynamic ways they deal with change.

It’s important to reflect on the whole school shifts that have come about from the work of coaches in the past two and a half years. We now have an ongoing commitment to collect longitudinal data on students’ literacy and numeracy levels, and teachers are beginning to use this data in meaningful ways. We did not have this before 2010, but this will continue to support the school well into the future. We have an after school professional development program that is highly responsive to the needs of staff. And in engaging staff in coaching cycles, we have embedded professional growth in the school.

It needs to be mentioned that coaching is one of the best ways of embedding change in instructional practice. This is because it is individualised and responsive, it works with the knowledge that professional growth is incremental, and it takes as its core that the change that comes with professional growth can only be effectively embedded when a cognitive shift takes place.

There is a tendency in teaching to undervalue what we do, and I think we risk falling for this trap. Once we can do something well we think anyone can do it, which may come from not fully appreciating the significant professional growth we have achieved ourselves as coaches. The way we’ve taken on the task of providing a rotating selection of professional development sessions for staff highlights this. Five years ago, would we have seen ourselves doing this? Now, we plan ahead to provide a balanced and rigorous program, as well as being responsive enough to have a conversation on the Monday about what staff may need, and provide it on the Wednesday.

I’ve mentioned lots of things that coaching is, and you may be thinking, but we’re not doing all that. It’s worth adding “yet” to the end of that sentence. Because what I’ve described is what coaching could be, and what we should be moving towards. We have that capacity. But I would ask, are we likely to get there if we conceptualise coaching as being less than a leadership role? I don’t believe so. In fact, I think we risk watering down the rigour of the role, reducing it to a set of semi-scripted conversations. In this case, we’re not only undervaluing ourselves, we’re undermining the coaching process.

The TLC team is greater than the sum of its parts. I believe that the achievements we’ve made have been because of the way we have worked together. We’ve shared responsibilities based on capacity, time, interests and passion. This has allowed us to balance out the demands of the role as well as support each other to extend our skills. In this way, we’ve learnt more from each other than we may have, had these initiatives been attached to specific roles, and the changes we’ve made in the school are more likely to be longer term, sustainable changes, rather than initiatives dependent on specific individuals.

It’s for all the above reasons, that I think we shouldn’t automatically link the coaching role with another leadership responsibility. It may be that the practicalities of the school necessitate coaches take on something else. But it’s essential to understand that coaching is, in and of itself, leadership. Making our leadership status conditional on doing something else is like apologising for asking to be considered leading teachers. It is flagging that maybe we don’t really consider what we do as worthy or important, which I know we don’t think when we look at each other’s practice. Perhaps we think this will protect us from the hostilities and exclusions that may be directed towards us from some of our peers, but while I think this is understandable, I think it’s also naïve.

To summarise, I feel that coaching in 2013 and beyond should look very similar to how it does now. It should be a leadership role; the focus should remain on the team working together on initiatives; we should continue our focus on embedding professional development through the coaching cycles and the after school PD program; and the team should be supported by an assistant principal.

Rai

Looking towards 2013 I need to concede first of all that I have not been part of the program from its debut and have also been in and out so my perspective will need to be viewed through that lens.

There is no doubt that when working with individuals on their professional growth a coaching model is more likely to enable professionals to make changes and embed change in their practice. It is widely recognised for its success and impact rates across all industries. As a new member of staff I was so excited and impressed to see that the school had chosen to head in this direction - it was cutting edge and the priority that it placed on staff professional growth was inspiring.

Over the last three years we have seen in pockets the impacts of coaching work on professionals committed to making changes or reflecting and refining their practice at EHS. I have no doubt that this is a program that has professional growth at its heart and it should remain part of the fabric of EHS. There are individuals who have benefited greatly from the program and this is reflected in both anecdotal data and in the review data that has been collected to date. It also speaks volumes about the priorities of the school and the importance of quality teachers and the need to support their development.

The issue of how many individuals are currently involved in the program is critical in terms of how we envisage the future. At present we can confidently say that we have engaged 25% of the staff in meaningful professional development through the coaching model.

The leadership and school improvement work that the coaches have engaged in has been significant and critical in terms of moving the school forward with its strategic direction. This work however, has sat alongside the instructional coaching role. An awareness of the school strategic plan and current directions/tensions in the school is important to inform some of the work of coaching but only where relevant. I do not see the roles as one and the same.

Instructional coaching is time dependent and requires highly skilled individuals to work with engaged professionals. There must be an incentive for instructional coaches to engage with the role. It is a difficult role that requires professionals with a range of impressive skills that should be acknowledged and remunerated. Without such a draw card - teachers who might be keen to take these roles in schools might rightly look to other arenas to find the status and financial rewards that their skill set would allow them to engage in. We really need to keep these individuals in schools as this is where they will be able to affect the greatest change and everyone stands to benefit - the students who they teach directly as well.

If the numbers of staff engaging with the instructional coaching program is to increase there needs to be an incentive for teachers too to engage with the program. To extend the reach of the program beyond the existing 25% I suggest that in a climate where people are time poor - allocating time to coachees to engage with the program is imperative. Perhaps having fewer coaches might enable more teachers to engage in the process as there might be more time in the pool. I see this as the next stage - to reach a broader audience and to do this we must make time.

Melissa


 * Some thoughts about the coaching role at EHS....**

I think it is too soon to change the role of coaches. I think we have only just embedded the role of the coach into the school. The coaching team over the last three years have relentlessly worked towards breaking the perception of what coaching is and isn't by others through dedication to the coaching process. Teachers have now got a greater understanding of the role of the coaches and are now more likely to work with a coach and see it as part of the their improvement process. Coaching is also a way of supporting teachers across the school with a wide range of issues. The data shows that support is there for coaching at out school. I think the school is really lucky to have a leadership structure that supports staff professional growth so thoroughly. The approach is very innovative and sets us apart from other schools. On every PD I attend and I explain what my role is there is a huge amount of interest from those around me especially at the principal level.

I think the initial work that has been completed in putting in structures to support coaching is there to be built upon. I see the next cycle having much more focused goals on how teachers are engaging with coaching and how we embed the process completely in the schools DNA. If there is one area to improve it is the areas of resourcing for the school that the coaches had attached to the roles. In most cases these did not work well as they were left too open. I think that the strategic plan will show some key areas for work over the next 3 years. These key areas should be aligned with the role of the coaches.

I also think that all leading teachers and principal class should be supporting the role of coaches by engaging with the process themselves. This may not be always around the area of teaching and learning it could be engaging with a coach within their leadership role. This would also greatly benefit the individual as they would be working towards pushing the boundaries of their roles or practice. The aim should be that everyone understands when they should engage with a colleague for some coaching whether this be a coaching cycle or a one off coaching conversation/observation.

The area of ICT being linked to coaching has worked and not worked in equal measure. Having a clear area to resource has worked well, however the amount of resourcing that has been undertaken has had an impact at times on the amount and quality of coaching that has been offered by those in that role. In the future I believe the role of ICT should be a separate leadership role with that leading teacher taking on opportunities to coach others through a planned program of ICT PD.

Craig

I’d like to start by acknowledging the above comments, with all of which I agree, to some extent.
 * The role of coaching at EHS in 2013 and beyond**

As I’ve made clear in the past, I was uncertain about the initial decision to make the coaching roles Leading Teacher positions. My reasons for this revolved around the potential conflict between the expectations of a Leading Teacher in terms of the educational hierarchy within the school (distributed leadership or not), and the necessity of developing one-on-one coaching relationships from a position of equality with the coachee. I believe this was an issue of perception, and I believe this issue has added to some of the difficulties the TLC team have encountered when attempting to embed the coaching process into the common practice of the staff at this school.

Having said that, I feel that significant headway has been made with the understanding of our role, and the engagement of the staff in general. This, I feel has in no small part been due to the In-house Professional Development Staff Meetings – this support by the school administration has been invaluable, as it has allowed the TLC team to have regular and sustained contact with the staff. The need for confidentiality within the coaching relationship has previously prevented a sharing of much of our work with the wider school community.

In recognition of the vast range of skills needed, and the vital role of instructional coaches within the change agenda of the school, along with the precedent already set by the leadership profile of the current roles, I believe that this role should remain a leadership position. I also feel that having fewer coaches in the school would diminish the importance of the role, as well as possibly discouraging staff from engaging with the process. However, I do think that the school has missed an opportunity to embed the process more firmly into the school by not providing specific time for all Leading Teachers and Principal class staff to employ coaching skills in their daily work (in a formal way).

I do think another factor that has inhibited the engagement of some members of staff with the coaching process is that it is time-consuming process, and many staff are struggling with workload issues without undertaking this work. An important consideration for the future of this program is the provision of time for staff to engage with the coaching process.

That’s it for now.

Chantalle

My suggestion is to have 2 LT coaches each with 2 non-LT mentee coaches. This would provide a "career structure" for teachers who also wish to be coaches and would allow experienced coaches to share their coaching knowledge and experience. It would also generate greater acceptance and understanding of the coaching program amongst staff if their colleagues were coaches. The LT coaches could have another defined LT role as well, but this should be limited in scope. There could be other LTs with other more major roles, but limited coaching responsibility. In terms of time allowance, LT Coaches could have 15 period allowance, and the non-LT coaches could have 7- 8 periods allowance. This would be about the same time commitment as at present. Marian

The questions as I see them are- Should coaching be Leadership Teacher position? I am not convinced that all coaches need to be Leading Teachers. Personally I can see the advantages in being part of the pulsating heart of the school through an involvement in curriculum and strategic planning that inclusion in discussion groups and decision making teams provides. As a Leading teacher there is also all that comes with setting the tone, role modelling and a deep sense of responsibility for the broad range of individuals and teams within the school. Teacher's perception that Leading Teachers have a level of accountability t can affect the trust relationship upon which coaching is based. However coaches who are not Leading teachers may not have the same sense of inclusion or the same knowledge of processes and structures. This also may affect their ability to move discussion towards school improvement.

Should coaches have a defined leadership role attached to the position? Once again I have conflicting views on this. I can see that an identified and defined role would give a coach a sense of direction and purpose. During the past few years coaches have done this by adopting up an area of responsibility. The danger is that it can be questioned whether this has added to or been a distraction from the core business of coaching? Personally I have felt a bit adrift without the clarity of a specified role. Coaches may feel more comfortable with concrete work to do when not coaching. The risk is a coach may become the 'go to' for a particular issue or need or that a coach's work load becomes unbalanced so that the coaching becomes a minor part of the role and responsibility.

How many coaches? The team of six coaches has allowed for a diversity of approaches and capabilities. It has been a successful mix. Individual's strengths have been recognised, appreciated and shared with purposeful attention to building each and the knowledge and skill of each coach. As a consequence all coaches can administer ODT, chair a meeting, use ICT and run PD (for example). The opposite view is that, working through anything has been time consuming at times frustrating. Separation of roles may go some ways to improving this, but consideratin of what may be lost is also necessary.

What time allowance is required for to coach? The time allowance of 10 periods has meant that coaches have been available to meet with teachers and observe classes. Only occasionally has a coach been unavailable to work with a teacher. But it does and can happen. Reduction in time allowance may change the rate of access and availability. Greater time allowance could mean less coaches and more availability.

How is succession planned? As Leading Teachers it is important that we consider how we can set up structures and processes to develop capacity in others. Discussion about how this can be done have begun in the coaching meeting.

Linda

It is agreed that instructional coaching should continue at EHS. The Executive Leadership agree with this as do the TLC team. I believe that the role should be at Leading Teacher and endorse comments made above by others in relation to this. I also believe that the number of Coaches and time allowance must be similar to current levels to enable the access and availability to more staff than are currently engaged.

The loading of extra Leading Teacher type responsibility to Coaches could be a distraction from the core business of Coaching but, depending on the role, could also compliment the work Coaches do. I am in two minds about whether these should be distinct to individuals to enable expertise and give a focus, or a shared responsibility so that expertise is developed and strengthened through the team. I think there are pros and cons for both and in any case, we currently have situations where individual TLCs have taken responsibility for selected areas of responsibility.

John

Not added.