evaluation of school-based
TRANSCRIPT
EVALUATION OF SCHOOL-BASED
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (2002-03)
Noelle V. Rivera
Kimberly Burley
James S. Sass
Los Angeles Unified School District
Program Evaluation and Research Branch
Planning, Assessment and Research Division Publication No. 187
February 18, 2004
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................... iii
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1
Organizational Context ............................................................................................... 1
Instructional Coaching ................................................................................................ 2
Professional Development Banked Time Days .......................................................... 3
Research Questions ................................................................................................... 4
METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................ 5
Sampling ..................................................................................................................... 5
Data Collection............................................................................................................ 6
Data Analyses ............................................................................................................. 7
ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT.......................................................................................... 8
Vision........................................................................................................................... 8
Planning Professional Development........................................................................... 9
Systems and Structures............................................................................................ 11
Support for Professional Development..................................................................... 13
Summary and Conclusions....................................................................................... 13
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING ........................................................................................ 14
Coaching Activities ................................................................................................... 16
Classroom Visits ....................................................................................................... 16
Conferencing............................................................................................................. 22
Developing/Maintaining Rapport .............................................................................. 25
Assessment............................................................................................................... 26
Managing Materials................................................................................................... 27
Additional Training Responsibilities .......................................................................... 28
Summary................................................................................................................... 28
Coaching Experiences.............................................................................................. 30
Roles and Expectations ............................................................................................ 31
Challenges ................................................................................................................ 35
Rewards and Successes .......................................................................................... 38
Summary................................................................................................................... 39
Effects of Coaching................................................................................................... 39
Literacy Coaches ...................................................................................................... 40
Math Coaches........................................................................................................... 43
ii
Conclusions and Implications ................................................................................... 47
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT BANKED TIME DAYS ............................................ 48
Characteristics of Banked Time Sessions ................................................................ 49
Support for Banked Time Sessions.......................................................................... 52
Summary and Conclusions....................................................................................... 53
CASE STUDIES OF SCHOOL-BASED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ................. 54
Tower Elementary – Case 1 ..................................................................................... 54
Evans Elementary – Case 2 ..................................................................................... 77
Merrick Elementary – Case 3 ................................................................................... 94
Cross-Case Discussion .......................................................................................... 112
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ........................................................ 118
REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 121
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report contains findings from the evaluation of school-based professional
development as it occurred during the 2002-03 school year. The schools’ organizational
context, instructional coaching, and Professional Development Banked Time sessions
provided a constellation of issues for studying professional development based at the
school site. A two-level methodological approach was used to provide the most
comprehensive picture of school-based professional development. Analyses of data
collected through interviews and direct observations from twelve representatively sampled
schools constituted the first level. The second level involved in-depth case studies of three
purposively sampled schools. The analyses and cross-case discussion allowed for a deeper
look at school-based practices as they existed and functioned within their respective
contexts.
The following research questions guided this study:
? What is the role of a school’s organizational context in professional development?
? What are the common activities of instructional coaches?
? What are the common experiences of instructional coaches?
? Are teachers making changes to their practice as a result of instructional coaching?
What is the nature of these changes?
? What are the common characteristics of Professional Development Banked Time
sessions?
? To what extent do teachers and administrators support Professional Development
Banked Time sessions as effective professional development for instructional
learning?
Findings
The organizational context of the school provided strong indicators of the quality
and effectiveness of school-based activities. The following list presents a summary of the
context-related findings across the 12 schools:
? Shared or common visions within a school suggested efforts toward a coordinated,
coherent foundation for professional development. Likewise, the use of teams for
planning activities provided further evidence of collaborative efforts.
iv
? In contrast, schools that lacked common visions faced obstacles in their planning of
relevant and coordinated activities and in their efforts toward professional growth
and learning.
? Positive characteristics of communication were seen most often in schools that also
expressed shared or similar visions. Moreover, these schools also showed evidence
of clear understanding and consistent expectations of roles, which was a strong
indicator of quality in coaching. Staff support for professional development was
also greater in schools that demonstrated these positive contextual aspects.
? Conversely, schools in which there was no evidence of common visions, or
displayed negative characteristics of communication also expressed inconsistent
expectations and low levels of support for professional development activities.
The impacts of organizational context on instructional coaching were virtually
inextricable from the effects of coaching at the school sites. Presented below are the
overall findings on coaching across the 12 schools:
? Increased levels of direct coach-teacher interaction and ongoing engagement in
coaching activities were strong predictors of instructional changes in the classroom.
? Inconsistent and unclear perceptions of roles and expectations not only led to
confusion and conflict among the coaches, but also demonstrated adverse effects
on the quality of the coaching practice.
? The tasking of coaches with extraneous duties, paperwork, and clerical assignments
was not uncommon and took significant time away from direct coach-teacher
activities.
? Organizational contexts that exhibited collaborative characteristics were more
likely to have coaches who were able to focus their efforts on classroom support,
direct interaction, and the growth of their schools as sites for professional learning.
Professional Development Banked Time sessions were intended to provide
opportunities for professional learning at the school site that were job-embedded and
sustained over time. However, observed banked time sessions often mimicked the “one-
shot” workshops that they were intended to replace. Across the 12 schools:
v
? A pattern of low participant engagement and low support for these school-based
activities emerged in schools that exhibited negative, non-collaborative contexts.
? This pattern was observed regardless of quality of presentation or content of the
banked time sessions.
? Schools that engaged in collaborative planning and utilized teacher input appeared
to be more successful in their banked time sessions.
The above findings were strengthened by the in-depth analyses of the three case
study schools. The finding that the three schools operated in different organizational
contexts enhanced our ability to see just how strongly, and differently, the context
impacted these school-based practices and the staff involved.
? The collaborative context led to activities and practices performed with greater
quality and effectiveness than the other two. Schools that functioned within
collaborative contexts demonstrated greater quality of coaching practice and
promoted greater levels of sustained instructional change.
? The somewhat disjointed context partnered a desired path toward change and
growth with inconsistent perceptions, limited guidance, and at times, ineffective
practices.
? The overburdened context presented a picture of the struggle and resulting
consequences of multiple program implementation. The quality of the activities and
practices performed was often surrendered to the demands imposed by this context.
? Schools that functioned in contexts that were somewhat disjointed or overburdened
endured the effects of inconsistent expectations, role conflicts, and minimal
instructional improvement.
? In all three cases, the leadership demonstrated by the school administrators was a
contributing factor to the contexts and its impacts.
vi
Implications
The findings from this study led to implications regarding the impact of the
organization on the implementation of school-based activities, particularly instructional
coaching. The establishment of clear roles and expectations will provide coaches with
adequate amounts of time and attention to devote to direct teacher interaction and
professional learning activities. Both outcomes would allow for a stronger focus on
instructional support and facilitating changes in classroom practice. District and school
administrators should also consider means to apply other on-campus resources to prevent
the misuse of coaches as substitutes, secretaries, and yard supervisors.
The improvement of the organization must be addressed to achieve successful and
effective implementations of the many reforms, initiatives, and programs, whether
mandated by the district or originated by the school. The overall implication of not
addressing context is that continued and subsequent professional development efforts will
not foster professional learning at the schools and limit the instructional changes that are
sought by these efforts.
1
INTRODUCTION
While the ultimate goal in LAUSD is increasing student achievement, the path to
that goal is through improved classroom practice. This goal of improved classroom
practice can only occur through the effective professional development of educators.
Contemporary professional development theorists and designers, both within and outside
LAUSD, advocate a more school-based approach to professional development rather than
the traditional, lecture-hall presentation. Professional learning for educators should be job-
embedded and collaborative, and school-wide in focus. This approach emphasizes both
school-wide improvement and increasing the school’s capacity for providing learning
opportunities to best meet its needs. Professional development activities that involved the
collective participation of teachers within the same level (i.e. school, grade, or subject
area) have been shown to promote active learning among the teachers involved (Garet,
Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001).
The Superintendent’s Five-Year Strategic Plan (March 2001) marked a clear
commitment to school-based professional development in LAUSD. After establishing that
“improving teacher skills” was central to student learning, the Plan offered four key
characteristics for effective professional development. Effective professional development:
? “is embedded in the local school and classroom;”
? “is focused on collaborative analysis of student work and classroom practices;”
? “enables teachers to learn from each other through joint inquiry, reflection and
sharing;”
? “is lead [sic] and supported by a principal who has the skills to be an
instructional leader.” (p. 6)
The implications of this approach undertaken by the district were seen in two major
professional development initiatives, instructional coaching and Professional Development
Banked Time Days, and in how these initiatives functioned within the organizational
context of the school as a site for professional learning.
Organizational Context
The initiation of instructional coaching and Professional Development Banked
Time Days drew attention to the school as a site for adult learning. Although the most
obvious and important role for schools is to promote learning by children and youths,
2
professional learning by educators is necessary for increasing student learning. This new
role is one for which most schools are woefully under prepared (Elmore, 2002).
Publications addressing professional development (Guskey, 2000; National Staff
Development Council, 1995), school reform (Elmore, 2002), leadership (Fullan, 2001),
and organizational learning (Preskill & Torres, 1999) present many similar themes
regarding the characteristics of organizations in which adults learn. At the organizational
(school) level, this involves an integrated focus on the organization’s ultimate goals
(student achievement); organizational capacity for ongoing improvement; an
organizational culture that promotes inquiry, reflection, and challenging the status quo; and
structures and systems that foster the generation and sharing of information. In terms of
leadership, there should be a focus on instruction as the school’s core activity,
administrators should promote opportunities for staff learning, and leadership should be
distributed among staff members. At the interpersonal and personal levels, important
characteristics are trust, a commitment to learning, positive relationships, listening and
dialogue, and using mistakes as learning experiences.
The role of the organizational context on the effectiveness of school-based
professional development is one that must be addressed. The study of contextual factors
(e.g., vision, communication, understanding of roles, etc.) can provide explanation and
insight into how programs (or initiatives) are implemented, whether or not they are
effective, and why they work in some schools and not others. These factors do not exist in
isolation from each other or from the implementation of school-based efforts. As Fullan
(2001) asserted in The New Meaning of Educational Change, “To put it positively, the
more factors supporting implementation, the more change in educational practice” (p. 71).
Instructional Coaching
The district’s commitment to instructional coaching was formalized in the Plan. At
the time of the strategic plan (2000-01), the district was in the process of hiring 250
coaches for K-2 language arts programs (Open Court, Success For All, Reading Mastery).
Since that time, the district had added coaches for language arts in grades 3 though 5 and
coaches for math in grades K through 5. These coaches were “to be the vanguard of
change” (p. 6). The Plan described the role of coaches as “working with teachers in the
classroom, and bringing teachers together for reflection, inquiry, sharing, and focus on
3
student work” (p. 3). The hiring and use of these coaches was described “an unprecedented
effort to improve instruction” (p. 3). This initiative was consistent with the research that
established coaching as superior to the traditional, workshop-only mode of professional
development (Galbo, 1998; Showers, Joyce, & Bennett, 1987).
Language arts and math coaches were at the center of the district’s professional
development strategy. Other forms and models of coaching, which complemented this
initiative in the content areas, were also implemented at the district, local district, and
school levels. These other forms included principal mentors, coaches from local
universities, National Board Certified (NBC) teachers, and the Peer Assistance and Review
(PAR) program. Critical Friends Groups, content- focused coaching, and cognitive
coaching were among the many coaching models implemented within LAUSD by the
2002-03 school year.
Although various coaching models are available, the coaching literature identifies
core concepts that are common to most models (Joyce & Showers, 1988; Showers, 1985).
These concepts, necessary for effective coaching, are based on support and training
through collaborative, non-judgmental effo rts. Observation, feedback, and support are the
common threads for most coaching models. Demonstration and opportunities for practice
may also become part of the coaching relationship. In addition, many models have
incorporated reflection, interpretation, and self-analyses (Lyons, 2002; Costa & Garmston,
1994). Used as a professional development process for teachers, coaches may be
considered exemplary pedagogues, having an abundance of experience and demonstrating
excellence in their field. Coaches may also be fellow teachers, or teachers specifically
trained in the content to be coached. Typical coaching models afford ongoing support
provided by on-site peers, follow-up activities, and the opportunities for observation,
collaboration, and non-evaluative feedback, which are all prominent distinctions between
coaching as a professional development tool and the traditional one-shot training approach.
Professional Development Banked Time Days
Professional Development Banked Time Days were established at the beginning of
the 2001-02 school year. Announced in May 2001 (Memorandum #M-72), this initiative
responded to the priorities for professional development to occur in the schools and enable
4
educators to learn from each other. The initiative represented a shared commitment by
LAUSD and UTLA to improving student achievement.
The logistics of banked time Tuesdays involved an exchange of teacher preparation
time for common professional development time. Schools, depending on level and
calendar, added 8 to 11 instructional minutes to each school day. On thirty Tuesdays per
track, elementary students were to be released 60 minutes early to provide school-wide
professional learning activities.1 The central district office determined the specific dates of
the sessions.
The local districts and their schools each shared in the determination of content.
The local district determined the content for half of the banked time sessions. Each school,
through the appropriate planning structure (e.g., SBM or LEARN council) determined the
content for the remaining fifteen Tuesdays. Consistent with the goals of decentralization,
local districts have chosen their own methods of identifying appropriate content and
supporting schools in providing their own professional development opportunities.
Research Questions
The schools’ organizational context, instructional coaching, and Professional
Development Banked Time sessions provide a constellation of issues for studying
professional development based at the school site. These areas led to the following
research questions that guided this project for the 2002-03 school year:
? What is the role of a school’s organizational context in professional development?
? What are the common activities of instructional coaches?
? What are the common experiences of instructional coaches?
? Are teachers making changes to their practice as a result of instructional coaching?
What is the nature of these changes?
? What are the common characteristics of Professional Development Banked Time
sessions?
? To what extent do teachers and administrators support Professional Development
Banked Time sessions as effective professional development for instructional
learning?
1 Secondary schools, which were not the focus of this study, released students 90 minutes early on 16 Tuesdays.
5
METHODOLOGY
This study applied a two-level approach. The first level was designed to provide
information on school-based activities, the outcomes of these activities, and the effects of
organizational context across a sample of schools. Twelve schools, selected via probability
sampling, were the focus of this level of data collection. This level allowed for a broad, yet
representative, view across the district. Thus, findings from the analyses of the 12 schools
were generalizable to the district as a whole.
The second level provided a more in-depth examination of school-based
professional development through case study. Three schools, selected via purposive
sampling, were the focus of this level of data collection. 2 The goal in utilizing the case
study approach was to promote a richer understanding of professional development at the
school site. Case studies focus on the dynamics of a single instance of a phenomenon
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Merriam, 1998). A case study involves detailed description and analysis
of a phenomenon within a relatively bounded context. The advantage of this approach is
capturing the phenomenon as it occurs in its natural environment. Case studies answer
questions of “what,” “how,” and “why” (Russ-Eft & Preskill, 2001; Stake, 1995; Yin,
1989). Although case studies usually are not designed to test theories or generalize to other
populations, procedures can be used to develop theories and/or conclusions that can be
transferable to other contexts (Eisenhardt, 1989; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Yin, 1989).
Therefore the case study findings, while not generalizable to the district at large, do afford
us with the in-depth information necessary to examine the phenomena as it exists and
provide a strong framework for future study.
Sampling
This project applied two complementary sampling strategies. The first strategy,
representative sampling, was used to select 12 schools. To facilitate making connections
between this project’s school-based professional development data and classroom data
collected by PERB, the 12 schools were sub-sampled from the samples for the District
Reading Plan (DRP, Slayton, Oliver, & Burley, 2003) and District Mathematics Plan
(DMP, Ai, 2002) evaluations. Six schools were randomly selected from the larger DRP
2 The very limited amount of data collected at one case study school resulted in eliminating this school from the case study reporting and analyses.
6
sample and six schools from the DMP sample. This sampling strategy was designed to
provide representative information on specific program features and practices as they
occurred across the district.
A process of purposive sampling was used to select the three schools profiled in the
case studies (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Yin, 1989). The case studies were designed to
provide richer information on professional development activities, and their
interrelationships, within a specific context. While not representative of the district as a
whole, the case study schools provided rich examples of professional development
activities and characteristics. These schools were selected for their potential to exemplify
successful school-based professional development in LAUSD. Four activities were used to
identify schools potentially notable for their effectiveness in professional development
and/or instruction: reviewing relevant data from recent PERB studies, consulting an
Assistant Superintendent of Instruction, consulting PERB project directors for DRP and
DMP evaluations, and reviewing 2001-02 SAT/9 matched gain scores. The specific
reasons for examining each of the schools will be addressed in the beginning of each
school’s case study report.
Data Collection
A team of data collectors was hired and trained to go out to the selected schools.
With the exception of the case study schools, one data collector was responsible for
gathering data from four assigned schools. Each case study school had only one data
collector whose sole assignment was that school. Overall, data collection activities ran
from mid-April to mid-June 2003.
Data collectors were trained on interviewing and observational techniques, field
note composition, and rapport-building strategies. They were also trained on the use of
structured protocols for interviews and for observation of training sessions. Interviews
conducted using structured protocols were audiotaped and transcribed for clarity.
Because three of the data collectors were spread out across the 12 schools, they
were directed to gather data broadly, that is, to cover as wide a range of activities as
possible. Major emphasis was placed on gathering information from the school principals,
the instructional coaches, and school-based professional development activities (i.e.
Professional Development Banked Time Days, grade-level meetings). Minor emphasis was
7
placed on gathering information related to teachers.3 Despite these emphases, data
collectors were directed to utilize all opportunities and resources provided to gather in-
depth, detailed information. Specifically, “shadowing” coaches (accompanying them
throughout their daily activities) was encouraged. At the case study schools, emphasis on
data collection was more comprehensive. Data collectors were also expected to spend as
much time as possible at their assigned school site.
There was some degree of inconsistency across the data collected at the selected
schools, including the case study schools. Although data collection did begin late in the
school year, other problems arose throughout the process. These problems were mainly
due to: (1) the school’s STAR testing schedule, (2) cancellations and postponements of
professional development activities (i.e. banked time sessions, grade- level meetings), (3)
school staff vacations, and (4) communication issues among administrators and data
collectors. Overall, the data collected was substantial and relevant. In spite of the obstacles
presented, the research team performed their responsibilities thoroughly and efficiently.
Data Analyses
All interviews, observations, and descriptive field notes were coded and analyzed
using qualitative methods. These methods included data reduction and the creation of
categories and themes that emerged from the data. Cross-comparisons of schools were
conducted, where possible, and were presented in the findings. The approach used for the
analyses of the individual case studies and the cross-case analyses were drawn from the
works of Merriam (1998), Stake (1995), and Yin (1994). Data and findings from both the
DRP and DMP evaluations were synthesized with the current study’s findings to present
an overall picture of the effects of school-based activities on the participants.
The findings of this study are presented in three sections in the order of the
research questions posed. These sections are as follows: (1) Organizational Context, (2)
Instructional Coaching, and (3) Professional Development Banked Time Days. The case
study section, Case Studies of School-Based Professional Development, addresses the
research questions within individual case reports and subsequent cross-case analyses.
Conclusions and implications drawn from the findings will complete the report of the
present study.
3 The majority of these data was collected through the DRP and DMP evaluations.
8
ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT
According to Elmore (2002), the organizational contexts or structures of many
schools are not adequate to promote or sustain improvement, particularly in the area of
instruction. Furthermore, the effects of professional development activities, even those that
are based at the school site, will be minimal to none if the context in which they function is
inadequate to sustain them. Several aspects of organizational context and their connections
to school-based professional development efforts were studied across the schools in order
to address this first research question:
? What is the role of a school’s organizational context in professional development?
School-based professional development activities, such as buy back days,
Professional Development Banked Time Days,4 and grade-level meetings, were ongoing
across the district throughout 2002-03. The schools’ visions for professional development
provided the foundation for how these activities were planned and implemented. Across
the schools, administrators and coaches were interviewed regarding their vision for
professional development. In addition, they described the planning processes involved in
determining the content and format of these school-based activities. Components of the
systems and structures at work in the schools, communication among the staff and
understanding of roles, were also studied as a means for understanding the context.
Finally, discussion of support for professional development provided us with the
participants’ view of the quality and effectiveness of these school-based activities. Patterns
of similarities emerged across some of the schools that shed some light on why some
schools may have been more successful than others in their professional development
efforts.
Vision
Current literature on professional development supports the idea that school
environments reflecting a common or shared vision foster school learning and educational
change (Fullan, 2001). Shared visions reflect a commitment to coherence and collaborative
decision-making (Silins, Zarins, & Mulford, 2002). Shared visions were expressed among
the administrators and the coaches in over one-third of the schools. As many coaches had
responsibilities for both planning and implementing several professional development
4 A more comprehensive discussion of Professional Development Banked Time Days begins on page 48.
9
activities, the coaches’ vision was viewed as particularly relevant. These shared visions
focused on instruction, the desire for professional development activities to be ongoing and
coordinated, and greater collaboration among teachers. Administrators and coaches from at
least three schools also focused their visions on the teachers. These visions included
meeting the needs of the teachers through greater teacher collaboration and teachers
working within grade levels. Aspirations of increased teacher input, increased academic
rigor, and greater use of assessment data were also expressed as part of the overall visions
by some administrators, although not as prominently.
Situations in which administrators and coaches reported similar visions for
professional development varied across the other schools. In three of the schools, the
coaches expressed visions of professional development that were more directly focused on
their respective content areas rather than more global visions, common to most
administrators. Nonetheless, these visions were all positive and proactive focusing on
instructional support and the provision of learning opportunities for teachers. In the
remaining four schools, the coaches indicated a lack of awareness of their school’s vision
for professional development. Two of these coaches did not even articulate visions for
their specific content areas. This lack of shared vision suggested that these schools would
be less likely to promote coordinated and positive professional development opportunities.
Planning Professional Development
School-based professional development should perform a vital function in insuring
high quality instruc tion within LAUSD’s classrooms (Price & Burton, 2003; Romer,
2001). Effective professional development supports ongoing professional learning. The
planning of school-based activities should be a collaborative endeavor to best address the
needs of the school, teachers, and students (Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, n.d.). The planning processes, and the methods employed, can also provide
insight into the organizational contexts in which the planning occurred.
The content and structure of school-based professiona l development activities such
as banked time sessions, grade- level meetings, and buy back days were largely planned at
the school site. Ten of the 12 schools engaged in the use of school teams to determine and
plan much of the structure and content of school-based activities. Specific names for these
teams included: leadership team, administrative team, professional development team, and
10
school-site council. Of these ten schools, six identified specific team members, which
often included the principal, assistant principal, coaches, UTLA chapter chair, and
coordinators. Administrators from the two remaining schools referred to the planners as
“we,” which may have also reflected some type of team approach. There was evidence to
suggest, however, that the administrators from one school conducted most of the planning.
This was consistent with the lack of shared vision also demonstrated at this school.
The solicitation of teacher input, often through staff surveys or “needs
assessments,” was reported across all the schools as a standard part of the planning
process. The use of information gathered through assessment data or test scores was a
prominent part of the planning process for six schools. Half of the schools also reported
using observations, visitations, or variations of “learning walks” for planning content.
Additional responses indicated the use of information gathered from outside trainings,
principal trainings, collaboration with district staff in developing workshops, and visits to
other schools.
As part of the planning process, school administrators were asked questions
regarding timelines and schedules for planning. At six schools, planning regularly occurred
on a short-term or ad-hoc basis. The planning process utilized by these schools typically
involved the practices of continual monitoring of instructional learning and responding to
needed areas of improvement. Administrators also stated that current or unanticipated
needs modified many pre-planned activities. These modifications were most often in
response to the specific instructional needs of the school, rather than be wedded to topics
or activities that were not immediately relevant. Four of these six schools demonstrated
many of the characteristics of collaborative organizational contexts. Three schools reported
combinations of both short and long-term planning. In these cases, however, there was an
apparent lack of coherence that suggested planning was somewhat haphazard. This
interpretation was consistent with the lack of shared visions at these schools.
Administrators from the remaining three schools indicated that their activities were the
results of long-term planning.
The planning of professional development activities at the school sites employed a
variety of different processes. Overall, team approaches that involved more ongoing
11
responses to the needs of the schools were more likely to have shared or similar visions
among those involved in the planning processes.
Systems and Structures
The systems and structures of a school, like any organization, have considerable
influence on the extent to which staff interact, communicate, and collaborate. Furthermore,
the staff members’ level of understanding of their roles and how these roles relate to others
in the organization, are also components of the structure. Structures that exhibit greater
levels of these characteristics are likely to promote professional learning among their staff
(Preskill & Torres, 1999). As part of this discussion of organizational context, two
components provided some indication of the systems and structures at work in the schools:
communication among the staff and the understanding of roles.
Communication among staff. Observations and interviews with school
principals, coaches, and teachers were used to depict variations in communication among
staff. In half of the schools, there was evidence of positive communication among the
school staff. Positive characteristics included ongoing conversations that reflected candor,
an attitude of support, and a willingness to share both information and feelings.
In two schools, there was little evidence of positive or collaborative
communication. The communication among the staff exhibited negative characteristics.
For example, the principals’ communications to both the coaches and teachers were more
directive than collaborative. Moreover, issues of mistrust limited communications between
coaches and teachers. These issues stemmed from teachers’ perceptions that such
communications would be reported to the administration. In some instances, it also
appeared that teacher-to-teacher communication was less than positive.
Communication among staff was not always demonstrated by only positive or only
negative characteristics. The remaining four schools displayed various combinations of
both positive and negative characteristics of communication. Indications of strained
communications were often due to issues of inconsistency and misunderstanding of the
organizational roles of staff members, particularly coaches.
Understanding of roles. A school’s path toward a collaborative context can be
facilitated when staff members understand their roles and how these roles impact the
organization. In addition, the administrators’ expectations of roles and functions should be
12
clear and consistent with those of the staff. When misunderstanding or inconsistency
occurs, the emergence of role conflict is likely. Experiences of role conflict, ambiguity,
and confusion have been found to negatively impact job performance (Katz & Kahn, 1978;
Bauer, 2002). Themes related to inconsistent expectations between school administrators
and coaches emerged as the most influential aspect of organizational context across the
schools.
In one-half of the schools, principals and coaches expressed consistent or similar
expectations regarding the role of the coach. The various coaches at these schools also
shared similar perceptions of their roles, particularly with reference to providing support
for teachers and modeling effective instruction. Moreover, teacher interviews revealed
common perceptions of the importance and effectiveness of the coaches at their schools.
Differences in understanding and expectations emerged from the data on the other
six schools. The extent of these inconsistencies varied, as did the outcomes of these
inconsistencies. In many cases, negative perceptions of coaching were triggered by these
inconsistencies. An assortment of principals and teachers across these schools did not
perceive coaching as effective in terms of contributing to the professional growth of
teachers. One coach even believed that coaching was a “waste of time.” The
misunderstanding of roles and expectations also impacted coaching activities. Some
coaches were overburdened with additional responsibilities that were either unrelated to
their content area or unrelated to the coaching program. Part-time coaches, in particular,
were expected to perform the duties of full-time coaches in half the time. Other coaches
were excluded from collaborative activities, such as professional development planning or
facilitating meetings/sessions at their schools. For example, one part-time coach was
excluded as a member of the school’s leadership team. The principal stated that the staff
could not “count on” the part-time coach because of her limited availability and other
responsibilities.
Understanding of roles and consistency in expectations, as components of a
structure that promotes professional learning, were highly influential in determining the
success and effectiveness of school-based professional development activities. The extent
of this influence is presented and discussed throughout subsequent sections of this report.
13
Support for Professional Development
Support for school-based professional development activities was largely
established by staff perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of these activities. Support,
like communication, varied on a continuum from high to low, with the majority of schools
falling somewhere in between. Six schools exhibited variations of mixed support that
typically included high support for some activities and limited support for others. For
example, in some of these schools, there was high support among teachers and coaches for
grade-level meetings, as they provided a collaborative forum for teachers, but less support
for banked time sessions, which were often viewed as irrelevant and a waste of time.
The staff from four schools expressed higher levels of support for professional
development activities, particularly in the forms of grade- level meetings, the valuable
assistance of coaches, and relevant banked time sessions. Many staff members also
believed these activities had influenced instruction at their schools. Descriptions of these
influences included improved program implementation, better identification of students’
needs, and greater utilization of strategies in the classroom.
The staff from two schools expressed low levels of support. One coach commented
that professional development was sporadic and lacked coherence. She further expressed
her view of professional development at this school in the following comment: “It’s
always the new, do this, do that, oh jump over here, and do a cartwheel.” Regarding the
effectiveness of banked time sessions, teacher support was very low. Irrelevant content,
redundant sessions, and limited opportunities for collaboration were the primary issues
related to low support.
Summary and Conclusions
The study of organizational contexts across the schools in this study provided the
foundation for understanding specific aspects that strongly influenced the effectiveness of
school-based professional development activities. These aspects included visions of
professional development, the planning processes involved, systems and structures that
incorporated communication and understanding of roles, and support for school-based
activities.
Shared or common visions within a school suggested efforts toward a coordinated,
coherent foundation for professional development. Likewise, the use of teams for planning
14
activities provided further evidence of collaborative efforts. In contrast, schools that lacked
a common vision would likely be hindered in their planning of relevant and coordinated
activities and in their efforts toward professional growth and learning. Positive
characteristics of communication were seen most often in schools that also expressed
shared or similar visions. Moreover, these schools also showed evidence of clear
understanding and consistent expectations of roles, which was a strong indicator of quality
in coaching. Staff support for professional development was also greater in schools that
demonstrated these positive contextual aspects. Conversely, schools in which there was no
evidence of common visions, or displayed negative characteristics of communication also
expressed inconsistent expectations and low levels of support for professional
development activities.
The discussion of organizational context and the effects on school-based
professional development continues throughout this report. Examples of the direct effects
of context are presented as they apply to instructional coaching and banked time sessions
at specific schools. Finally, the case studies and cross-case analyses provide an in-depth
description of how different contexts bring about different effects.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING
Consistent with national trends and wisdom regarding teacher professional
development, LAUSD has made a strong commitment to instructional coaching. This
commitment began in 1999 with the hiring of Open Court coaches and Success for All
facilitators. Two years later the district expanded this initiative to include math coaches.
The Superintendent’s Five-Year Strategic Plan (March 2001) established coaching as a
foundational strategy to promote effective instruction and student achievement. As with
any new and major initiative, the introduction of coaching led to questions about its
implementation and usefulness.
In various projects, PERB has studied instructional coaching in LAUSD since
1999. The spring of 2003, two years after the wide-scale introduction of coaching,
provided an appropriate time to expand that effort and examine the implementation of
instructional coaching in more detail. To examine specifics of implementation, trained data
collectors contacted and visited 12 LAUSD elementary schools between early April and
15
early June of 2003.5 Applying strategies and techniques for conducting qualitative research
in organizations,6 they gathered data from multiple sources in each school. Their data
collection activities included observing coaches’ classroom demonstrations and
observations; shadowing coaches; observing Professional Development Banked Time
Tuesday sessions and grade- level meetings; interviewing coaches, administrators, and
teachers; and collecting school documents, including professional development agendas
and coaching materials.
To facilitate the presentation of findings and subsequent discussions of the practice
of coaching and related activities across individual schools, each school was labeled with
either an “R” (from the DRP sample) or an “M” (from the DMP sample). The associated
number was randomly placed and was not meant to represent a ranking or other such
indication. Table 1 shows the distribution of content-specific coaches across the 12 sample
schools and their respective assignments for the 2002-03 school year. The table only refers
to the coaches of interest to this study. The focus of this study was only on math coaches
for “M” schools and literacy coaches for “R” schools, although it was likely that an “M”
school concurrently employed a literacy coach and vice versa.
Table 1. Distribution of Coaches Across Sample Schools
Schools Literacy Coaches Schools Math Coaches
R1 1 full time M1 1 part time
R2 1 full time M2 1 full time
R3 2 (1 FT/1PT) M3 1 part time
R4 2 (1 FT/1PT) M4 1 full time
R5 3* M5 No Math Coach
R6 2 (1 FT/1PT) M6 1 part time
* This school had 1 full time Literacy Coach and 2 full time writing coaches
5 As mentioned previously, these schools were randomly selected from the current samples for the DRP evaluation (six schools) and the DMP evaluation (six schools). 6 Resources for data collection strategies and techniques included Bantz (1993), Becker (1992), Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Spradley (1979, 1980).
16
This section on instructional coaching directly responded to the research questions
as outlined in the introduction of this report:
? What are the common activities of instructional coaches?
? What are the common experiences of instructional coaches?
? Are teachers making changes to their practice as a result of instructional
coaching? What is the nature of these changes?
The following subsections include general descriptions, findings, and specific
examples of a full range of coaching activities, experiences of coaching, and effects of
coaching as gathered from the data collected at the 12 schools. In addition, the impact of
organizational context is addressed in specific instances to further explain various findings.
Finally, conclusions and implications drawn from these findings rega rding the
implementation of instructional coaching in LAUSD are discussed.
Coaching Activities
Instructional coaches enact their role within a web of policies, procedures,
expectations, “best practices,” and constraints. Both in the professional development
literature and in district offices, there are many guidelines for what coaches should do.
This section provides a broad picture of the prominent activities of instructional coaches as
they were carried out across the sample schools. These activities include conducting
classroom visitations, observations and demonstration lessons; conferencing; developing
and maintaining rapport; managing assessments and materials; and conducting training
sessions.
Classroom Visits
To provide classroom support and improve instructional practice, the work must
begin and be sustained in the classroom. Coaches visited classrooms to demonstrate
lessons, observe teacher practice, and keep current on classroom activities and needs.
Although coaches and teachers often spoke of demonstrations and observations as separate
activities, observations could sometimes evolve into demonstrations. Classroom visits, in
their various forms, were the primary vehicle for direct coach-teacher interaction.
Demonstration lessons. Demonstrations involved modeling lessons in
classrooms for the benefit of teachers. These lessons provided a wealth of opportunities for
teachers. They enabled the teachers to take on the role of student in her or his own
17
classroom, observe the coach teach a lesson, and study both the coach-student interaction
as well as the interaction among students during instruction. In the best case, the teacher
could learn about the lesson itself, effective instructional strategies, and classroom
management. Demonstration lessons also provided opportunities for teachers to learn new
or different ways to practice or reinforce content that students may have difficulty grasping
as well as opportunities for the coach and teacher to collaborate and engage in a teamwork
approach.
Direct observations of 16 demonstration lessons across 11 schools were conducted
during the data collection process.7 These demonstrations were conducted by literacy
coaches, math coaches, and in one instance, a coach for a school writing plan. Qualitative
coding and analyses of the field notes led to a number of informative and relevant findings.
This first group of findings is related to teacher engagement during the demonstrations.
Overall,
? Six teachers assisted during demonstration lessons by distributing materials and/or
helping to monitor student progress.
? Two teachers took notes during demonstration lessons while two other teachers did
not engage in any activity other than observing.
? Two coaches were observed conducting demonstration lessons without the teacher
present in the classroom.
In terms of the content of the observed 16 demonstration lessons:
? Half of the demos involved activities for practice and/or reinforcement of
previously taught content and the other half consisted of lessons connected to
“new” concepts.
? One-third of the coaches engaged students in questions that focused on developing
comprehension and critical thinking. Two-thirds of the coaches engaged students in
questions that only focused on one correct answer.
? All five math coaches used materials or manipulatives as part of their
demonstrations.
7 M5 did not employ a math coach during 2002-03.
18
The coaches from three schools engaged in practices that extended beyond the
practices observed from the other eight schools:
? Coaches from R3, R4, and M2 engaged the teachers in active dialogue about the
teaching process during the demonstration lessons.
? The coaches from these same schools also debriefed with the teachers and
scheduled follow-up lessons and/or observations with teachers before leaving the
classrooms.
? The math coach from M2 provided opportunities for teachers to “practice”
strategies within the demonstration lessons.
? R3 and M2 coaches provided opportunities for additional teachers to observe
lessons in other classrooms.
The use of effective coaching practices and the engagement of teachers in
collaborative processes were evident in this summarized example of one math coach’s
demonstration lesson on using arrays 8 in multiplication problems within a 2nd grade
classroom (M2). The teacher and the coach had conferred in advanced and discussed in
detail the content that would be covered during the demonstration lesson. A teacher from a
neighboring classroom entered just before the demonstration, with the goal of watching
and then using the same lesson in her classroom. The coach put a grid on the board and
told the students to put everything away. She explained that they were going to use shapes
to signify numbers. Using questions, she led the students through converting mathematical
expressions (e.g., 5x3) into shapes on a grid. “Can anyone tell [me] how we put numbered
circles on the grid? Do we start by going across or going down?” With students giving
directions through hand signals, she used black construction paper to cover sections of the
grid. The coach had the students use hand signals to indicate whether they agreed with a
fellow student’s answer. When students disagreed with an answer she asked them to
explain why. The coach then momentarily stopped to talk with the classroom teachers and
discussed strategies, and explained the rationale for their use. This type of coach-teacher
dialogue was continuous throughout the demonstration. All worked as a team throughout
the lesson, with the coach at the helm and the two teachers monitoring the progress of the
8 An array is a rectangular arrangement of numbers in rows and columns.
19
students, checking for student understanding, and reflecting on the lesson. Towards the end
of the lesson, the coach asked one teacher, “Would you like to try it?” and watched as the
teacher practiced the strategies she had just demonstrated. After the lesson, the coach and
both teachers debriefed, reflecting on both the lesson and the students’ performance.
Together, they discussed ways to improve instruction and further reinforce student
learning.
Two literacy coaches were also observed engaging in these same practices at their
schools. In this example of an Open Court lesson, one literacy coach at R3 consistently
walked two teachers through the process of the lesson:
We’re doing day 2 of the red, it’s the same for both of you. Then, [Teacher 1],
you’ll come into [Teacher 2]’s classroom this afternoon and we’ll do the other
section with her classroom. We are going to try to activate prior knowledge. It’s
also a good time to go to the concept question board.
This literacy coach, like the aforementioned math coach, also debriefed with the
teachers and scheduled follow-ups before leaving the room. In the second example, after
completing a demonstration lesson on descriptive paragraphs, the literacy coach (R3) told
the teacher, “Next, you’ll use a selected criteria chart and do it with them. Go over what a
good paper would look like. I’ll come to your class later and do a follow-up tomorrow
afternoon.”
A classroom visit by a math coach (M1) illustrated the way in which an
observation can become a demonstration when necessary. The coach entered the classroom
in the midst of a lesson on months, dates, and days. She walked around the room and
scanned for objects and manipulatives that could be used in the lesson. She sat in the back
and prepared materials, telling the data collector that this “allows me time to observe and
not feel threatening. I look busy, but I’m still observing. She already knows what I came
here to do.” The lesson moved to the topic of subtraction and the coach stopped to observe
at a key moment. Eventually she stood to walk and observe what the children were doing.
The lesson temporarily stalled when the teacher had trouble getting students to correct the
incorrect answer of another student. The coach, speaking to the class for the first time,
20
asked: “Did anybody use pictures? Raise your hands if you used pictures.” A student went
to the board and demonstrated using pictures to solve the problem correctly. The coach
asked a follow-up question about how to solve a problem quickly. Soon she (the coach)
was at the board, leading the students through solving the problem by counting, thus
demonstrating another strategy for the teacher. The teacher quieted the class and
encouraged attention. The coach concluded her portion of the lesson. Later she noted to the
data collector that she had a good relationship with this teacher, who didn’t mind being
interrupted. She continued by noting that not every teacher was so receptive; she (the
coach) had “to know when to back off.”
Though demonstration lessons have the potential for promoting effective
instruction, a few of the observed demonstrations were not examples of modeling effective
practices. A demonstration in a 5th grade classroom (R1) on decimals and fractions led to
much confusion for the students. As the coach presented various exercises, the students
appeared to experience difficulty following along. Student responses to her questions were
minimal and at various points students expressed confusion by asking questions such as,
“What?” or “What do you mean?” Several students requested help. In another classroom
(M4), the math coach spent most of the class time on worksheets, both a pre-test version
and one with computation exercises. Although a very small portion of time was spent on
review of material, no time was spent on correcting or reviewing the answers from the
worksheets. In at least three other observed demonstrations, the teachers did not utilize the
opportunities provided for collaboration and interaction with either the coach or the
students. During one literacy demonstration (R4), the teacher left the room to have a
conversation, worked on construction paper cutouts, and when prompted by the coach to
engage, she “glances up and continues to draw.” In two other classrooms (M3 and M4),
the teachers were out of the room for all or most of the demonstrations.
Observations. Classroom visits also served other purposes. These included
observations of teacher practice. Observations varied from scheduled time slots to observe
instruction of specific content to short 10-minute visits. Many times these observations
were conducted to watch student performance. Typically this involved walking around the
classroom and looking to see what students were doing. Some coaches sat, unobtrusively,
in the back of the room to observe. Observations were also conducted to monitor particular
21
aspects of teacher practice. The following example, taken directly from the data collector’s
field notes, was from a series of observations conducted by the literacy coach (R4) while
making her morning rounds:
First, [the literacy coach] stops off in Ms. [Name]’s class. The kids are gathered
around the teacher on the floor with books in their laps, while she reads from the
anthology and uses a pointer to point out words on a board. The two set up a
schedule for the coach to come in and finish talking to the class about reality versus
fantasy and dictation.
We enter the next teacher’s classroom. [Coach] asks, “Do you have everything you
need?” They talk for a few minutes. As we leave [the coach] tells me, “See both
teacher were doing what they were supposed to be doing. They both had their
anthologies out and the kids were reading along. They were doing it differently
(one on the floor, one at the desks) but they’re doing what they should be doing.”
At another school (M4), a math coach visited five classrooms in about 30 minutes.
Upon leaving each room she shared her thoughts with the data collector. The coach noted,
for example, that one teacher should have been grouping by ability, that another was a
good teacher, and that a third should have been using differentiated work. In this instance,
upon entering a 3rd grade classroom, the math coach (M2) noted to the data collector that
she was concerned because this teacher had cleaned up her room two weeks prior and it
was too early in the year for the teacher to be doing this. “It could mean that she has
slowed down or stopped instruction.” She went on to say that because the teacher did not
know exactly when she (the coach) was coming, it would be a good opportunity to observe
for herself what was going on. “I want to see if she’s still doing what she should be doing.”
Through questioning, the coach discovered that the teacher had stopped teaching math
after standardized testing.
The question of context is raised in considering these coaching practices.
Classroom visits, in the form of both demonstration lessons and/or observations, were the
coaches’ most intensive opportunities to observe teacher practice, provide classroom
22
support, and promote effective instruction. Although classroom support was central to the
coach’s designated assignments, the organizational contexts of the schools contributed to
the varying levels of actual classroom support provided by the coaches. For some, the
expectations placed upon the coaches by the administrators limited these opportunities.
This was particularly true for three part-time and two full-time literacy coaches whose
responsibilities overemphasized assessments.
The coaches from M3 functioned in a context that demonstrated a lack of shared
vision for professional development and negative characteristics of communication among
the staff. Both the literacy and math coach reported limited administrator support and
guidance in their roles. The literacy coach, specifically, seemed to be unclear of her role in
supporting classroom instruction, which was evident in her interview during which she
admitted that she wasn’t very “aggressive” about engaging teachers in direct interaction
like demonstration lessons.
Another notable example was a school that was concurrently implementing a
writing program that also employed two full-time writing coaches (R5). The literacy (Open
Court) coach did not visit any classrooms during the data collection period. This coach
spent the school days in her office working with assessment data. She explained to the data
collector that the school’s focus was on the writing program and that, as a result, she had
finished doing demonstrations and observations by this point in the school year (mid-
April). As will be shown in the case study section of this report, this is a direct outcome of
an organizational context that is overburdened.
A key pattern that emerged through the data was that the schools that functioned in
contexts with negative characteristics were likely to experience low frequency and quality
of direct teacher interaction. In two cases (M2, R3) however, the coaches demonstrated
classroom practices and instructional support that extended beyond those demonstrated in
other schools, despite the non-collaborative characteristics at work in their respective
contexts. Our time spent at these schools did not enable us to closely examine the
underlying reasons for these exceptions to the otherwise consistent pattern.
Conferencing
Coaches imparted information, skills, and encouragement to teachers in various
ways and in different formats. Informal conferences were a key forum for supporting
23
teachers’ classroom practice. These conferences ranged from impromptu visits from the
teacher seeking out the coach (or vice-versa) to a scheduled meeting planned by both
parties.
Teachers were observed, at various times, visiting a coach’s office to ask questions.
While answering specific questions, some coaches used the interaction as a teachable
moment. A teacher seeking emotional support and advice on setting up her classroom also
received suggestions on literacy instruction from her coach. Another teacher visited a
coach’s office to schedule a classroom demonstration on storytelling. The coach provided
advice on teaching storytelling and added an additional topic for the demonstration. Also,
when a teacher came to a coach seeking a specific item for one of her students, the coach
engaged her in a conversation about strategies for English language development. The
teacher left the coach’s office with many materials and activities. Opportunities to plan
demonstration lessons, discuss the use of instructional strategies, share assessment results,
and reflect on instructional practice were also provided within the context of informal
conferences.
Coaches’ classroom visits also created opportunities for informal conferencing.
Literacy coaches were observed answering questions and sharing information when briefly
dropping into classrooms. Topics for these conversations included submitting assessments,
professional development events, and materials. Informal conferences have also taken
place in classrooms after observations and/or demonstration lessons. This type of
conferencing was more commonly referred to as debriefing.
Debriefing/Feedback. Two factors relevant to this description of conferencing
between coaches and teachers involved debriefing and feedback. Debriefing between
coaches and teachers sometimes occurred immediately after demonstrations or practice of
activities. Other debriefings occurred one-to-one during conferencing or were directed at
larger groups during trainings. Some observed debriefings were reflections of what
transpired during the activity. After one demonstration lesson, for example, the literacy
coach (R4) and teacher proceeded to the back of the classroom while the students were
working independently. They discussed issues that arose during the lesson. The teacher
said that at one point, she had to “restrain myself from fixing one of the words on a
student’s paper as they wrote a sentence. My first instinct would be tell him to remember
24
the rules and fix it immediately instead of waiting until everybody is done and then
correcting it.” The coach instructed her to wait until the rest of the words were on the page,
or they’d never get through the lesson. The coach said, “Word by word would take too
long. Also, it’s important to make them go step by step and go through the entire process.”
[Teacher] remarked that she liked the way [coach] used her fingers to count the sounds out
first and the way she requested that the students to first watch her do this. The teacher also
acknowledged that although this lesson was a bit time consuming, she believed that it was
worthwhile if it helped the students with their spelling.
In another example, the math coach (M2) debriefed with the teacher after
demonstrating a lesson on addition using tens frames. Afterwards, the coach shared the
discussion with the data collector. She (the coach) asked the teacher what she planned on
teaching next week. She knew the next lesson was on substitution, but was interested in
seeing if the teacher picked up on the fact that she could incorporate this lesson with tens
frames (like the coach did with tens frames and addition). According to the coach, she
didn’t tell the teacher this directly because she wanted the teacher to reflect on her own and
ask herself, “How can I do the next skill incorporating tens frames?” The coach explained
to the data collector that when she debriefed with a teacher, she would ask the teacher to
reflect on what she saw during the demonstration. As was her practice, she (the coach)
facilitated the discussion, not controlled it.
Limited time was a barrier that some coaches spoke about as hindering their
abilities to effectively debrief with teachers. After one math demonstration lesson, a
teacher was called out of her classroom abruptly. On the way out, the math coach reported
that she hardly had any time to debrief. The coach added that she had to be flexible and
grab whatever time teachers could afford.
One way that coaches swiftly communicated with teachers regarding instructional
practice was through feedback. Coaches used a variety of formats to provide feedback to
teachers. These formats included written notes, oral responses to the teacher, and general
comments offered within a group context (e.g., grade- level meetings). In one case, a
literacy coach (R2) described her feedback process that typically took place as part of a
conference:
25
I come in the next week to observe a lesson, and I write down notes. I ask
them what they want me to observe. Sometimes the teachers say they don’t
know, so I give them some examples. In the post meeting, I just show them my
notes and give them feedback.
During another classroom observation, a literacy coach (R4) showed the data
collector her written feedback to the teacher:
Great discussion on sentence fluency-not writing choppy sentences. Went back to
topic sentence. Catchy topic sentence discussed importance of that. Was it okay
that I chimed in about the second sentence? Please let me know if it’s okay-thanks.
Your ability to share your story and write well help students think about their story
and write it!
Although not all coaches engaged in the process of regularly giving feedback
and/or debriefing, those coaches who did engage seemed to receive greater support from
the teachers with whom they worked.
Developing/Maintaining Rapport
A common theme running through the coaches’ many interactions with teachers
was that of developing trust, rapport, and relationships. Many coaches took active steps to
develop rapport and establish trust with teachers. Some of these efforts were highlighted
during interviews conducted with several coaches. One literacy coach (R4) explained,
“Typically what I do is I eat lunch with the teachers every day that I’m here . . . to improve
relationships and let them know that I’m still considered to be an out-of-classroom
teacher.” Another coach (M1) summarized the efforts made by the coaches at her school,
“We’re on site and we’re here and we’re available. So whether it’s before school, after
school, during lunch hours, there’s always someone that the teachers can come to if they
need help and assistance.”
Efforts at developing and maintaining rapport were observed across the schools in
one-to-one conversations between teachers and coaches, classroom visits, and training
sessions. In schools that displayed positive characteristics of communication among staff,
26
instances of teachers approaching the coaches with the goals of seeking instructional
support were observed. For example, one teacher came to her coach’s office to discuss
instruction on storytelling and to schedule another classroom demonstration. Another
teacher indicated that she was worried about setting up the bulletin board in her classroom.
The coach offered many suggestions related to literacy. The teacher told the coach: “I’m so
tired, but I really appreciate your help. I’m gonna really try to guide them through the
writing. The coach reassured: “You’ll be great.”
Classroom visits provided additional opportunities to maintain rapport with
teachers. In one example, a literacy coach briefly visited four classrooms. In each visit, the
coach asked the teachers how they were doing and if they needed anything. The teachers
responded positively, some striking up conversations with the coach. These visits, the
coach told the data collector, were conducted to check on the teachers’ needs and to
maintain rapport. Many times coaches visited teachers to remind them of available
resources and materials that the coach could provide. Some coaches also indicated that this
was how they worked to develop rapport with teachers who were resistant to coaching.
Assessment
Assessment-related activities formed an important, and sometimes overwhelming,
part of the coach’s work. These activities often involved administering and managing
assessments. This included storing and distributing forms, administering assessments to
children, collecting forms, and entering data. In addition to managing the forms and data,
coaches often used the results for instructional purposes. They used results to confer with
individual teachers and to facilitate instructional planning at grade- level meetings.
Data collectors observed two literacy coaches during their office time, engaged in
entering assessment data. One literacy coach (R4) laughingly referred to this activity as
“SOARing.”9 She also went through the records to determine which teachers had turned in
their assessments and which had not. When asked what she would do with the scores, the
coach replied that she used it “to drive instruction and introduce it at grade- level
meetings.” Along with extensive data entry, coaches sometimes were able to correct
discrepancies in student records and/or the databases.
9 SOARing referred to working with the Student On-line Assessment Records (SOAR).
27
Observations of a math coach leading a meeting with teachers provided one
example of how assessment results were presented to the teachers. She distributed packets
indicating the percentage of students in each class with a passing grade and led a
discussion of the scores’ meanings. While explaining the generally low scores, she told the
teachers not to be discouraged, the material was becoming more difficult. This coach noted
accomplishments among the classrooms and stressed the importance of preparing the
students “for what comes next” [the next grade]. Although not addressing classroom-level
implications of the results, she noted to the teachers: “The test is used to inform
instruction. It’s not supposed to make anybody feel bad or like they’re not doing a good
job.”
Many coaches reported that assessment-related responsibilities consumed too much
of their time. Although this was evident during the portion of the school year that was
devoted to standardized testing, three part-time and two full- time coaches from five of the
six reading schools reported ongoing emphases on assessment responsibilities. The
coaches reported that more than 50% of their duties involved assessments, data, and
managing assessment-related materials. They also reported that their assessment-related
duties limited their engagement in more direct coach-teacher activities.
Managing Materials
As with assessment, coaches’ work with materials was both clerical and
instructional. All the observed math coaches were responsible for the manipulatives used
for math instruction. They kept track of materials that teachers used and stored in their
classrooms. The math coaches also promoted the use of manipulatives and used them in all
of the observed demonstration lessons. During a classroom observation, one math coach
(M2) scanned the classroom for manipulatives. She later explained to the data collector
that she preferred to use materials already in the room so that teachers could use the same
materials in follow-up lessons. The coach also observed the teachers’ and students’ use of
the manipulatives during the math lessons.
Through the management of materials and resources, the coaches could provide
resources for teachers who were seeking the right tools for specific lessons. For example, a
lower-grades teacher came to her literacy coach (R3) seeking materials to assist her new
student who spoke very little English. The coach went into her storage bin and conversed
28
with the teacher about how different materials might be used. She found some workbooks
that would be helpful for the teacher. She said to the teacher, “Maybe you want to start her
off with this.” The teacher then asked for teaching suggestions. The coach suggested that
the teacher show the student vocabulary and sounds at the same time.
Overall, the math coaches seemed to have greater responsibilities for managing
materials (manipulatives) than the literacy coaches. Unlike the assessment responsibilities
reported by almost half of the literacy coaches, there was little evidence to suggest that
material management affected the math coaches’ levels of direct teacher interaction.
Additional Training Responsibilities
Coaches worked in many contexts to transfer information and develop skills. Many
coaches across the district were responsible for providing additional school-based
professional development opportunities at their schools. These opportunities—such as
grade-level meetings, buy back days, and banked time Tuesdays—provided other
important avenues for coaches to foster instructional support and improvement. Coaches’
responsibilities for providing these trainings varied across the sample schools. Five reading
schools had at least one literacy coach whose responsibilities included facilitating grade-
level meetings and/or banked time sessions. In R1, the relationship between the literacy
coach and the principal limited this coach’s additional professional development
responsibilities. The data also suggested that literacy took precedence over math in more
than half of the sample schools, thereby limiting the math-related presentations by some
math coaches. However, this was not the case in all schools. The writing program that was
implemented at one school (R5), alongside Open Court, took precedence over both reading
and math content-related trainings. In that school, the writing coaches had greater
responsibilities for these trainings. Overall, schools that engaged in team planning for their
professional development activities, expressed sha red visions, and displayed positive
characteristics of communication, appeared to have coaches that were regularly involved in
these additional trainings. Limited or inconsistent involvement was seen most often in
schools that exhibited less collaboration.
Summary
The daily work of instructional coaches was multidimensional. In general, coaches
provided professional development opportunities in classrooms, offices, and meeting
29
rooms. Coaches worked with students as well as teachers. Many coaches engaged in
effective coaching practices that promoted instructional practice. As we have shown, some
coaches were weighted with responsibilities that hindered their engagement in practices
involving direct coach-teacher interaction. This was particularly evident in schools whose
contexts were overburdened with the implementation of multiple programs and schools
that lacked the collaborative contexts necessary for effective coaching practice. While the
most prominent activities included providing classroom support in terms of demonstrations
and observations, the overall implementation of research-based effective coaching
practices varied across the sample schools. These findings have been summarized and
displayed in Table 2 to depict of the levels of coaches’ implementation of direct teacher
activities across the 12 schools.
At its most challenging, coaching could involve the demonstration and modeling of
effective instructional practices, facilitating change in the classroom, and promoting
student achievement. Conversely, this position also involved a substantial number of
activities, largely due to the organizational contexts of the schools, which took coaches
away from the direct teacher interaction that is necessary to effect change.
30
Coaching Experiences
Descriptions of activities provided important insights into how instructional
coaches spent their time and enacted their responsibilities. The meaning and usefulness of
these activities must be understood in the context of coaches’ experiences. The work of
Table 2. Summary of Coaching Activities Across Sample Schools
Implementation of Direct Coach-Teacher Activities
Description of Activities Schools/Coaches
High
Engagement in the following practices: ? Performance of demonstration
lessons and/or modeling ? Observation (includes classroom
visits and observation of practice after demos)
? Conferencing w/ teachers (includes planning and debriefing
? Feedback
R3/FT Coach
R4/FT Coach
M1/PT coach
M2/FT Coach
Moderate
May include performance of all or most activities listed above but not conducted regularly
R2/FT Coach
R5/FT Writing Coach
R6/FT Coach
M4/FT Coach
M6/PT Coach
Low
Very little to no performance of direct coach-teacher activities
R1/FT Coach
R3/PT Coach*
R4/PT Coach*
R6/PT Coach**
R5/FT Coach*
M3/PT Coach
Note: FT = full time, PT = part time *Primarily due to overemphasis on other activities **Coach is also classroom teacher
31
coaches involved performing a role for which different stakeholders, particularly
administrators, often had very different expectations.10 Coaches themselves spoke of their
role in different ways. This complex set of role perceptions and expectations led to
experiences of frustration and conflict for various coaches, particularly those coaches who
functioned in less collaborative contexts. Other challenges, including part-time positions
and teacher resistance, also contributed to frustration. Positive experiences of coaches
included job-related rewards and successes. Clear, consistent role expectations had a
stronger influence on positive coaching experiences than did conflict or frustration.
Roles and Expectations
The instructional coach performed a relatively novel role on the school campus.
The title of “coach” was adapted from sports, where coaches are usually experienced
players who have ceased playing and now are on the sidelines with the goal of supporting
performance in the game. Sports coaches can offer new information, model skills, and
provide feedback to players. Similarly, in LAUSD, instructional coaches were teachers
who had left the classroom to engage in activities designed to strengthen performance in
the classroom.
Although the role of a sports coach was generally well established, the role of
instructional coach in LAUSD was much less clear and concrete. This role was
continuously defined and re-defined in the everyday interactions of coaches, teachers, and
administrators and the contexts of the schools in which they worked. In interviews,
coaches described their roles and expectations and the importance placed on non-
evaluative relationships.11
Coaches’ perceptions of roles. Overall, coaches described their roles in terms of
fostering classroom improvement and curricular implementation. Coaches mostly spoke in
terms of responsibilities to “improve instruction,” “develop skills in teachers,” “really
make classroom practice/instruction better for the kids,” “assist [teachers] in anything that
would strengthen their language arts program,” and “assist and support teachers in fully
implementing the Open Court Reading program.” A literacy coach brought together the
10 This report’s treatment of roles and role expectations draws on the concepts of Katz and Kahn (1978, chapter 7). 11 These role aspects, derived from self-report data, greatly cohered with data from observations of coaches’ work.
32
themes of implementation and improvement by describing the role as “a support person for
the teachers in helping them implement the program as best we can for good student
achievement.”
These larger priorities of improving instruction and ensuring curricular
implementation were enacted through many supporting activities. These supporting
activities tended to focus on providing guidance and information. A literacy coach
described the role in terms of imparting information: “My role is to improve instruction,
and to make teachers aware of the best strategies, best practices, to help them implement it,
and to offer feedback and suggestions for improvement.” Similarly, a math coach
described the role as to “observe, take notes, and create accommodations and give
recommendations. I also try to give teachers tips that might be beneficial to their students.”
In addition to offering content-related learning opportunities for teachers, there was
a relational dimension to the work of coaching. Coaches provided support to teachers as
people. They spoke of a priority to “support new teachers” and “trying to make teachers’
jobs easier.” Coaches were observed making copies for teachers, ensuring that teachers had
supplies, eating lunch with teachers, and even voicing teacher frustrations to the
administration.
In one-half of the schools, the staff reported consistent and similar perceptions and
expectations of the coaches’ role. Coaches from the other six schools spoke of issues
regarding role conflict and confusion. The degree to which these issues affected the
coaches and their practice was connected to the level of negative contextual characteristics
present at these schools.
Coaches sometimes needed to create or identify their own roles within their
schools. In at least one school (M3), the lack of role definition led to coaching practices
that provided little classroom support. Teachers’ unclear or inconsistent perceptions of the
coaches’ role added to the confusion. These issues provided obstacles to collaboration, as
exemplified by this literacy coach’s (R3) statement:
As I approached the job in the beginning of the school year, I really thought that I’d
be really well received. I thought I would be this, you know, valuable mentor.
And you know that was what I really just embraced . . . for being able to work
33
together with teachers. I find I really had to defend the program, defend my
position.
Clear understanding of roles, as described in the organizational context section of
this report, emerged as a strong contributing factor to the quality and implementation of
coaching practices. The issues of role confusion and conflict that emerged in half of the
sample schools were often due to the ambiguous and often inconsistent expectations
placed upon them by administrators. These expectations of the coaches’ role, whether
consistent with the coaches’ perceptions or not, greatly influenced the effects of coaching.
Administrators’ expectations. Not all school administrators’ expectations were
inconsistent with those of the coaches’ regarding the promotion of effective instruction. As
previously mentioned, administrators from half of the schools shared clear expectations
with the coaches and supported their roles at the school site. One principal exemplified
common perceptions by defining the coaches’ role as helping “to develop skills in
teachers, and to help them become better facilitators for their peers and other groups.” She
continued to say that coaches should help teachers become more independent, and help
them be more assertive in asking for help for materials. She added that teachers should be
able to stand “on their own two feet” after being coached continuously. This principal
acknowledged that coaches were not administrators, but that they had administrator
qualities to them. She said, “For example, they don’t do evaluations of teachers, but they
do evaluation of assessment results.” Another principal spoke of how she worked with her
coach, in a non-evaluative way, to address instructional needs. She explained, “Since I’m
in the classroom, I don’t need them to be the eyes and ears. I know what’s going on. If I
see a need, I confer with the coach about strategies, and then address these issues at grade-
level meetings.” When administrators and coaches shared common perceptions of roles
and expectations, coaching at the school site represented a more effective, collaborative
experience. Coaches engaged in higher levels of direct teacher interaction and had more
active roles in planning professional development activities.
Coaches and administrators (usually principals) came into conflict when they had
different perceptions and expectations for the role of coach. Across the six schools where
role conflicts and confusion arose, administrators typically had very different expectations.
34
One area of inconsistency was the integrity of the non-evaluative relationship between
coaches and teachers.
One of the most basic foundations of effective coaching is that it should transpire
in a non-evaluative and non-judgmental environment. In at least three schools (R1, R2,
M2) principals expected coaches to monitor teacher practice and report specifics on
individual teachers. Coaches spoke of explicit efforts to be seen as a coach rather than an
evaluator. They spoke about their teacher relationships as being confidential and
independent of the principal’s role of teacher supervision. M2’s math coach described the
pressure at her school to provide administrators with information on the practices of
individual teachers. She noted that this was not her role and that being a “snitch” would
interfere with teachers’ trust in her. Another math coach spoke of being asked by
administrators “to like tell on teachers.” This coach responded that her conversations with
teachers were “confidential.” “It’s not for me share with [the principal] and I don’t even
wanna be put in that position.”
Principals at these schools have also expected coaches to engage in substitute
teaching in classrooms and other responsibilities that were outside of coaches’ designated
role, such as lunch supervision. One math coach (R1) spoke of being required to assume
duties “that I know are not for the betterment of the school.” This statement from a coach
(R4) provided another example of how administrators added to her overburdened
workload, “My workload seems to be a little bit more in-depth at the moment, because
number one, [administrator] doesn’t type. He’s not computer literate. So, I’m making all
the memos.” Managing assessments and materials were also components of the principals’
major expectations for coaches’ responsibilities. As described earlier, an overemphasis on
assessment could be detrimental to other aspects of the coaching role.
Perceived lack of administrator support also affects the quality of the administrator-
coach relationship, thereby contributing to an ongoing cycle of non-collaboration.
Conflicts occurred when these perceptions of limited administrator support were strong.
One coach (R1) described her situation in terms of a struggle for “control” with the
principal. With the support of her coach coordinator, she was trying to become more
“independent.” The effects of role confusion, conflict, and limited support were evident in
the following statement from this coach:
35
So whatever the administrator says, you do it. If you don’t like it you talk about it
later. But if you don’t do what they say that’s like insubordination. That’s not what
I . . . so it’s like always a fight. It’s always like, you know, trying to get her to see
things with a different perspective. I don’t feel like our roles were ever clearly
defined. I feel like, you know, the coaches . . . the principals heard one thing, we
heard another thing. Our bosses heard something else and no one really has a clear
cohesive description. But definitely I don’t feel that the administrator sees me as
providing a service to the teachers.
Another coach (R4) described frustrations specific to her unsupportive relationship
with the school administrators. This example also illustrated the barriers toward
collaboration that stemmed from unclear expectations:
One of the assistant principals is . . . doesn’t have a good knowledge base of
reading. And I find that to be a barrier. You know, I’m always having to explain or
defend myself. I do a lot of things alone right now. And I feel that they are not
aware . . . administration is not aware of what kind of work I do with the teachers.
And that becomes a barrier for me. I tried to invite them in, and to have them be
more a part and see. But it doesn’t always happen.
Themes of conflict and confusion that emerged in this study stemmed largely from
contexts that lacked consistent expectations among administrators and coaches. For the
most part, these schools also demonstrated unshared visions of professional development
and characteristics of negative communication among the staff. Overall, these schools
displayed low to moderate support for the professional development activities at their sites.
These themes were not emergent in the data from schools that shared expectations and
visions.
Challenges
Two particular challenges for coaches emerged through the data of the sample
schools. The first challenge was specific to the six part-time coaches that were part of this
36
study. This challenge involved the splitting of assignments between two schools. The
second challenge, which was handled in various ways by all of the coaches, was teacher
resistance.
Part-time coaches. The challenges coaches faced seemed especially difficult for
those whose time was split between two schools. The part-time assignment often meant
extra work for the coach in trying to fulfill roles and meet expectations at two schools.
One literacy coach (M3) who worked in two different schools explained the difficulty with
working in different organizational contexts:
The principal prefers that I not be there. I can’t approach her for conversations. I
have to be careful what I select to talk to her about. It’s just the way it is, her
personal communication style. My other school is much more receptive; they see
the value of a coach more. Over here, I have to be very careful not to step on the
administrator’s toes. I’ve had varying degrees of success and comfort on carrying
out certain missions.
Differences in organizational contexts also led to experiences of marginality and
issues of equity for these coaches. The experience of marginality, or feeling like an
outsider looking in, was expressed by half of the part-time coaches. They were expected to
perform the same duties at the same level of quality as their full- time counterparts, yet they
did not perceive themselves as an integral part of the school team. As described earlier,
instances of coaches’ exclusion from collaborative practices were attributed by
administrators to the part-time coaches’ schedules and availability. In one of these
instances, the R3 coach stated, “I feel that he (principal) has not made any effort to make
me part of the instructional team at this school.”
A second challenge involved perceptions of equity. Part-time coaches reported that
they did at least as much work as full-time coaches, but did not always receive the same
amount of administrator support, clarity in role expectations, teacher respect and trust, and
job satisfaction. As with the example above, a part-time literacy coach reported being
valued at one school but not at the other. The second school didn’t seem to “see a need in
having a coach” and the K-1 teachers made a minimal attempt to implement Open Court.
37
Most importantly, part-time coaches reported that one school could receive substantially
less of their services than did the other. Another coach (R1) spoke of trying to keep up
with all of the paperwork in addition to providing an extra Math Family Night at each
school. Although she was supposed be part-time at each school, it hadn’t been “equitable.”
She stated, “It’s not really fair, because then you know that the school that needs the most
help isn’t getting it.” She recommended that the two schools be required to work together
and make concessions. This statement from one part-time math coach exemplified the
dissatisfaction expressed by the part-time coaches: “What I don’t like is the splitting of
positions. You don’t want to be a half- time position. It’s like you’re full time, times two, in
half the time. It’s a complex question. It makes me guilt-ridden.”
Overall, the data suggested that the practice of splitting coach positions requires a
more thorough examination in order to determine the implications specific to the effective
practice of coaches. As shown in the previous sections, activities that invo lved direct
teacher interaction were one of the primary areas that were impacted by splitting positions.
Teacher resistance. Through the coaches’ interviews, almost all of the coaches
reported varying levels of teacher resistance to the practice of coaching. Both
administrators and coaches alike reported that this resistance was most prevalent among
“veteran” teachers. When asked how resistance was handled, over three-fourths of the
coaches explained that they were directed by both district and school administrators to not
focus on “those teachers” and to direct their efforts toward where they would be most
effective. These coaches stated that they were directed to only work with new teachers, as
they were more open to assistance. Two coaches (R4, M3) specifically reported that
difficult teachers were left for the administrators to work with. Five coaches also reported
that they waited for veteran teachers to approach them. The sentiment among these
coaches seemed to be acceptance. One coach’s statement exemplified this acceptance:
“People don’t like change. I’ve just gotten used to it by now.”
This sentiment was not common to all coaches, despite the directives given. Data
on one-fourth of the coaches showed efforts made toward resistant teachers, developing
rapport and offering support, with the hopes of opening them up to the coaching
experience. The connections to organizational context were also evident. Persistent
38
coaches who worked within schools with limited collaborative characteristics reported the
difficulties in developing trust and promoting change in classroom practice.
Rewards and Successes
Coaches not only experienced frustrations and challenges in their work roles.
Across the sample, coaches described aspects of their roles they defined as rewarding
and/or successful. These aspects involved student performance, teacher interaction and
feedback, and personal growth. Changes in teacher practice at the sample schools are
discussed in greater detail in the subsequent section titled “Effects of Coaching.”12
Student performance. Student involvement and achievement were important
indicators of success for coaches. In response to interview questions regarding successful
experiences on the job, coaches spoke of seeing students actively involved in learning. For
one literacy coach, this included having students ask “thinking type questions.” For a math
coach, it involved seeing students use manipulatives. A literacy coach noted: “I get to
know the students, and they’re very involved in what we’re doing, so that’s the number
one reward for me.” Another coach spoke of test scores as “a sign of success, not just if
you do well but if you show progress over time.”
Teacher feedback. Teachers often provided feedback for coaches. Sometimes it
was explicit and verbal; other times it was expressed through their actions. These
responses from teachers let the coaches know when they had been successful in fulfilling
their role. One coach shared, “People thank me and tell me I’m doing well.” Many coaches
expressed similar perceptions of success when teachers actively sought them out to ask
questions or request demonstration lessons.
One math coach described his own success as when teachers came directly to his
training sessions and did not correct papers. For many, success involved seeing positive
changes in teachers’ approaches to the curriculum. As one math coach explained, “When
teachers actually feel comfortable with the subject of mathematics, I feel that I’ve been
successful.” In this example, a literacy coach shared her version of success:
When there is an elevation in enthusiasm for a part of the program that they’ve
never done. And you know, we’ve talked about that. It’s kind of not cool to do
12 “Effects of Coaching” begins on page 39 of this report.
39
Open Court here. But when teachers kind of start to see that Open Court is cool,
they start to see the value in the lesson mostly through modeled lessons that are just
time to sit with the teacher, and help her implement, or him implement a part of the
program, then that’s exciting.
Teachers’ enthusiasm for the program, content, and the coaching experience
constituted the type of teacher feedback that coaches perceived as greatly rewarding. This
was consistent across all variations of organizational contexts.
Personal growth. The fundamental purpose of the instructional coach is to
improve student performance through improving teachers’ classroom practice. Although
this role emphasizes fostering improvement in others, coaches themselves can learn and
improve through their work. The following comments from two coaches emphasized these
rewarding aspects of their experience: “This job has definitely been a personal growth
opportunity for me.” “I get to really expand my horizon. This year I know I’ve learned a
lot, so much more about literacy.”
Summary
Several emergent themes connected the experiences of different coaches across the
12 schools. Positive themes involved developing positive relationships, feelings of success
through seeing improvement in others, and personal growth. Negative themes, expressed
as challenges faced by coaches, involved role conflicts and confusion, burdensome
demands, and limited support. The coaches’ experiences contributed to and were often
outcomes of the schools’ organizational contexts. These experiences also had the potential
for impacting the quality of the coaching practice and the effects on teacher practice. The
following discussion on the effects of coaching on instructional practice, and the case
studies of professional development,13 provided greater insight into the impact of the
coaches’ experiences.
Effects of Coaching
In response to the research questions relating to changes teachers were making to
their practice as a result of instructional coaching and the nature of these changes, this
study utilized data and findings from the DRP and the DMP evaluations. These data were
13 Case Studies of School-Based Professional Development begin on page 54 of this report.
40
comprised of classroom observations and teacher interviews. The findings specific to the
coaches and organizational context of the schools from the present study were also
synthesized into this discussion of effects. The labeling of schools (e.g. R1, M1) is
consistent with the previous sections.
Literacy Coaches
Six randomly sampled schools employed full-time literacy coaches during the
2002-03 school year. Four of these schools employed more than one coach. Second and
third grade classrooms were selected for study as part of the DRP evaluation. These
classrooms were observed for three days each and were rated for quality of pedagogy. The
components that were analyzed for this study were Reading and Responding (the reading
component of the Open Court program), and Integrating the Curriculum (the writing
component of Open Court). These ratings were based on classroom observations that were
conducted in fall 2002. The ratings ranged from low to medium-high on each component.
The first school, R1, employed one full-time literacy coach. This coach
implemented low levels of direct-coach teacher activities.14 In other words, the practice of
activities that focused on direct coach-teacher interaction such as demonstration,
observation, and feedback were limited. The findings of this school’s organizational
context revealed an environment of non-collaborative characteristics. The coach’s practice
was likely affected by the limited administrator support and the coach’s performance of
extraneous responsibilities, such as substituting for teachers in their classrooms. In
addition, a poor administrator-coach relationship was evidenced through the coach’s
interview and the principal’s observed behavior toward the coach. This behavior strongly
suggested an unfavorable perception of this coach. With regard to coaching activities, the
literacy coach did report that she sometimes engaged in the practice of observation and
feedback but that she did not receive many “requests” for demonstration lessons. The two
teachers in the sample both indicated that they experienced little to no direct coach-teacher
interaction. Observations of the 2nd grade classroom revealed that no reading for
comprehension took place at all over the three days. The 3rd grade teacher provided a
medium-low quality of pedagogy on this component. Both teachers engaged their students
in some writing but with no evidence of writing process (medium-low quality). These
14 Refer to Table 2 on page 30 for an explanation of implementation levels of direct coach-teacher activities.
41
respective ratings of pedagogical quality reflected that both teachers would have benefited
from active participation in coaching.
The literacy coach from R2 implemented moderate levels of direct coach-teacher
activities. This coach spent large portions of time on assessments and related activities,
thereby limiting the focus to teachers more in need of support. This was consistent with the
reports of the two teachers in the sample. In addition to providing demonstration lessons,
the 2nd grade teacher reported that the coach specifically provided support in the area of
differentiated instruction for the lower ELD level students in her classroom. The classroom
observation supported the teacher through observed efforts in differentiating instruction.
Although this teacher provided a low (reading) and medium-low (writing) quality of
pedagogy at the beginning of the school year, the ongoing coach-teacher interaction
strengthened the potential for change in instructional practice. The 3rd grade teacher
participated in coaching but through less direct activities such as coach-facilitated
meetings and banked time sessions. Nonetheless, this teacher did specifically report that
the coach had provided assistance through sample lessons in vocabulary development.
Classroom observation data suggested possible instructional improvement in these
particular skills but not in areas that would lead to more fundamental changes in practice.
This teacher provided a medium-low quality of pedagogy in the reading component and a
medium quality in writing, which might explain why the 2nd grade teacher received more
direct attention. Increased direct coach-teacher interaction would most likely have
facilitated improvement in the practice of this 3rd grade teacher.
The third school, R3, employed both a full-time and a part-time literacy coach. The
part-time coach focused specifically on writing assessments and worked one-to-one with
4th and 5th grade teachers. The full- time coach implemented high levels of direct coach-
teacher activities. The two teachers in the sample reported different experiences of coach
interaction as well as provided different levels of quality in their pedagogy. The 2nd grade
teacher reported coach support in several areas including fluency instruction. This teacher
provided medium-high quality of pedagogy in both components, as evidenced through
classroom observations of instruction. Evidence included teacher modeling of
comprehension skills and strategies and active student engagement in the writing process.
42
The 3rd grade teacher, on the other hand, reported that the only area of coach support was
in setting up the Concept Question Board, a tool used as part of the reading curriculum.
This 3rd grade teacher provided medium-low quality of pedagogy in both components of
the curriculum. Classroom observation data suggested that there was little reason to expect
change in instructional practice. The lack of shared vision for professional development at
this school and the varied leve ls of communication among staff may have contributed to
these mixed findings.
R4 also employed full- time and part-time literacy coaches. Similar to R3, the part-
time coach spent a large portion of time on assessments and related duties and the full- time
coach implemented high levels of direct coach-teacher activities. The 2nd grade teacher
reported no interaction with this coach and provided low and medium-low quality of
pedagogy for the reading and writing components respectively. There was no clear
indication from the teacher of the reason for this lack of interaction. The coach, however,
reported that her teacher interaction was primarily based on requests and that she didn’t
approach certain classrooms because “I’m not wanted.” Conversely, the 3rd grade teacher
reported more active coach support in the form of strategies for teaching spelling, unit
planning, and fluency. The potential for continued improvement was evident. Classroom
observation data revealed that this teacher was in need of instructional support in writing.
This was reflected in the absence of writing instruction over the observation period. It was
clear that this teacher was in need of stronger support in the writing component of the
curriculum. The similar organizational context of this school to R3 provides the same
interpretation of findings.
In R5, there was a literacy coach and two writing coaches as part of the local
district mandated writing program implemented at this school. Similar to the last two
schools described, responsibilities specific to assessments took up the majority of the
literacy coach’s time. The 3rd grade teacher’s interaction with this coach was primarily
through indirect coach-teacher activities such as meetings and banked time sessions.
Although the 3rd grade teacher reported that the coach influenced his practice in
vocabulary building, comprehension, and decoding, the influence was indirect and not
supported in the observations of classroom instruction. Despite the 2nd grade teacher’s
report of no coach interaction, it was likely that the teacher had also participated indirectly
43
with the coach in a group context. The need for instructional support in the reading
curriculum was reflected by the low and medium-low respective qualities of pedagogy
provided by both teachers in the reading component. The presence of two writing coaches
increased the likelihood for improvement in writing and was supported by the 3rd grade
teacher’s provision of medium quality of pedagogy in this component. Although this
school displayed positive contextual characteristics, it was likely that the concurrent
implementation of a writing program created an imbalance of responsibilities and content
focus in the coaching practice.
R6 employed a full- time coach and a part-time coach who also worked with the
kindergarten teacher. Similar to many of the previous examples presented, the teachers’
respective qualities of pedagogy, as observed through classroom observation, indicated the
need for instructional support. The 3rd grade teacher in the sample reported the desire for
more interaction with the coach. The moderate level of implementation of direct coach-
teacher activities mostly took the form of classroom observations and short visits, which
may explain this teacher’s request for more demons tration and feedback. As with R5, the
potential for improvement is also made evident through the collaborative aspects of this
school’s organizational context.
Summary. Overall, the findings indicated that direct coach-teacher interactions
were more likely to lead to changes in instructional practice. Areas of coach support that
were ongoing and directly related to instruction provided greater evidence of actual and
potential improvement in the classroom than did sporadic interactions or those that
occurred solely in large group settings. In addition, schools that demonstrated collaborative
aspects within their organizational contexts also showed potential for greater effects.
Math Coaches
Only five of the six sampled schools employed math coaches during the 2002-03
school year. Three of the five schools had part-time math coaches. These part-time math
coaches divided their responsibilities between schools. Four classrooms (1st, 2nd, and 4th
grades) were randomly selected for study as part of the DMP evaluation. These classrooms
were observed twice, in the fall and spring, for three days each. The observations were
rated for quality of math instruction. Three dimensions of instructional quality were
utilized in the current study, the What and Why which concerned the focus of the math
44
lesson, and the Overall Challenge of the mathematics tasks. The What dimension captured
the extent to which teachers were very clear and specific about the mathematical concepts,
skills, and knowledge students were to learn, as well as the degree of emphasis on
mathematical thinking. The Why dimension was related to the teachers’ articulation of the
rationale for learning. The Overall Challenge was a composite dimension that included
examination of critical thinking opportunities and engagement. The classrooms were
observed and subsequently rated in both fall 2002 and spring 2003.
The math coaches from M1 and M2 both implemented high levels of direct coach-
teacher activities. These activities involved one-to-one interaction between the coach and
the teacher in the forms of demonstration lessons, observations, conferences and feedback.
Each of the four teachers from M1 and the four from M2 reported interactions with their
math coaches that were consistent with these levels.
All four teachers in M1 exhibited improvements in the overall challenge of the
mathematics tasks presented in the classroom. In other words, the tasks presented required
greater critical thinking from the students and showed an increased engagement of students
with substantive content materials. In addition, the performance expectations placed more
emphasis on inventing new solutions, new ways of thinking, and/or applying concepts in
new situations. These changes in instructional practice, although modest, reflected the
teachers’ efforts in changing behaviors used in teaching mathematics. As described earlier,
the math coach from this school engaged in active dialogue with teachers regarding the
teaching process during the demonstration lessons. The changes in observed behavior
provided supporting evidence for the effectiveness of this coaching practice. The
contextual factors of M1 were consistent with these positive findings.
Similarly, the four teachers in M2 exhibited improvements in the extent to which
they were clear and specific about the concepts, skills, and knowledge students were to
learn. There was greater focus on the student learning of mathematics with more emphasis
on mathematical skills, such as how to solve specific kinds of problems and use of
standard formulas. Unlike M1, the organizational context of M2 exhibited overall negative
characteristics. As reported earlier, these findings may speak more to the abilities of this
coach as rising above the non-collaborative context of the school in which she works.
45
The math coach at M3 implemented low levels of direct coach-teacher activities.
Interviews with and observations of this coach revealed that she (the math coach) did not
actively pursue teachers for observations and demonstrations; rather, she spent the
majority of her time managing and creating materials and games for the teachers. She also
believed that maintaining relationships was most important. This information was
consistent with the reports of interaction from the four sampled teachers. Among these
teachers, only one reported receiving a demonstration lesson. No other coach-teacher
interaction was reported. Two of the teachers indicated that they would be open to more
participation in coaching activities but did not express a need for greater support. Based on
the DMP findings, the four teachers exhibited no changes in observed instructional
practice. Information gathered from the principal indicated that there were underlying
factors that contributed to the limited effectiveness of the coaching at this school. The
primary issue involved the combination of the coach’s inexperience in this role and the
principal’s self-reported inexperience in working with coaches. The principal recognized
the need to be more “directive” in the future. A noteworthy finding was that before the
arrival of this math coach, the sampled teachers rated slightly higher than the average on
the focused dimensions of instructional practice and the student scores reflected greater
than average performance in math. This finding, coupled with the fact that the teachers and
students maintained these levels throughout the school year, provided supporting evidence
that having a math coach contributed very little to the school’s growth during 2002-03.
Furthermore, the lack of shared vision and mixed levels of communication at this school
suggest that the continued practice of coaching may have limited effects.
The teachers at M4 also exhibited little change in instructional practice. However,
inconsistent with the findings from the three aforementioned schools, the one teacher that
exhibited improvement also reported no direct coach-teacher interaction during the school
year. The other three teachers reported frequent interactions in the forms of demonstrations
and observations with feedback. Nonetheless, there were no changes along the observed
dimensions of practice. In addition, the four teachers expressed strong desires for greater
coach support in direct coach-teacher activities. In addition, as reported earlier, this coach
was observed conducting a demonstration lesson with the teacher absent from the
classroom. These findings raised the question of the quality of the activities performed by
46
the coach, particularly since it was evident that the frequency of activities was not the
primary issue. Since our data collection did not take place over the course of the school
year, we were not able to fully examine the coach’s quality of practice. Both the coach and
administrator did express consistent expectations; however, it would be advantageous for
these expectations to be revisited.
M5 was the only school in this sample that did not have a math coach during the
2002-03 school year. The principal explained, during an interview, that there had been a
math coach in place the year before, but she had not returned. Neither the principal nor the
teachers understood why they did not have a coach. The teachers reported that the previous
coach was inexperienced and not very helpful. One teacher referred to the situation as “the
blind leading the blind.” Nevertheless, the four sampled teachers at this school all
exhibited improvements in their clarity and specificity of the concepts, skills, and
knowledge students were to learn and on their emphasis on mathematical skills. The data
revealed that the school had engaged in professional development activities that
compensated for the lack of coaching support in math. The data also revealed that the
teachers and administrators pulled together and made strong collaborative efforts to fill in
the gaps in terms of resources, content, and support. The teachers reported that they
extensively supported each other at grade- level meetings, did ongoing assessments of their
needs, and received strong instructional support by the administrators. Although the
principal believed in the potential effectiveness of the coaching role as providing “effective
modeling and effective delivery of instruction,” the teachers perceived that having a coach
would relieve them from taking on the extra responsibilities of gathering necessary district
information and resources. Ultimately, they believed having a coach would allow them to
focus more on teaching. This school provided a good example of the positive effects of a
collaborative organizational context, despite the absence of coaching.
The last school, M6, provided another context in which strong administrative
instructional support and perceptions of coaching appeared to supersede the effects of
coaching. Although the math coach at this school implemented moderate levels of direct-
coach teacher activities, it became apparent that the focus was on a limited pool of
teachers. The principal believed in the high quality of instruction that her teachers
provided and acknowledged that there was not a strong need for coaching at her school.
47
The principal explained during an interview that she was very much “in touch” with the
teachers’ needs and utilized many resources, both inside and outside the school, to address
those needs on an ongoing basis. She did not push her teachers to engage in coaching. This
context provided an explanation for why all four teachers in the sample chose not to
participate in coaching activities. There did not appear to be resistance, only the perception
of coaching as an option that they chose not to accept. Three of the four teachers exhibited
improvement in their observed instructional practice. One of the three, in particular,
showed improvement across all three dimensions including greater articulation of the
rationale for learning and mastery in mathematics. These improvements were most likely
attributable to the school-based activities that occurred throughout year rather than to
participation in coaching.
Summary. Overall, the findings presented here demonstrate both the positive
effects of coaching and how contextual factors limit its effectiveness. The first two schools
provide examples of how high implementation of direct coach-teacher activities
contributed to instructional changes. The third school demonstrates an opposite effect. The
last three schools provide examples of different contexts that impacted the coaching
practice, such as the quality of the practice, the absence of a coach, and the contribution of
strong administrative instructional leadership.
Conclusions and Implications
This presentation of the coaching practice, as captured through observations and
interview responses, conveys the complex network of activities, experiences, expectations,
and relationships of coaches across the district. Based on the findings from the sample
schools, some general conclusions have been drawn:
? Increased levels of direct coach-teacher interaction and ongoing engagement in
coaching activities were strong predictors of instructional changes in the
classroom.
? Inconsistent and unclear perceptions of roles and expectations, not only led to
confusion and conflict among the coaches, but also demonstrated adverse
effects on the quality of the coaching practice.
48
? The tasking of coaches with extraneous duties, clerical assignments, and
excessive assessment responsibilities was not uncommon and took significant
time away from direct coach-teacher activities.
? Organizational contexts that exhibited collaborative characteristics were more
likely to have coaches who were able to focus their efforts on classroom
support, direct interaction, and the growth of their schools as sites for
professional learning.
These conclusions lead to implications about the role of the instructional coach and
its implementation in LAUSD. Clearly, consistency across expectations and understanding
of roles must be achieved. This should take place at the central and local district levels as
well as the school level. Although a seemingly straightforward task, this consensus has yet
to be reached. The effects of these inconsistencies as demonstrated in the schools (and the
subsequent case studies) will continue to be a barrier to coaching’s effectiveness. District
and school administrators should also consider means to apply other on-campus resources
to prevent the misuse of coaches as substitutes, secretaries, and yard supervisors. The
establishment of clear roles and expectations will provide coaches with adequate amounts
of time and attention to devote to direct teacher interaction and professional learning
activities. Both outcomes would allow for a stronger focus on instructional support and
facilitating changes in classroom practice.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT BANKED TIME DAYS
As negotiated through the contract between LAUSD and United Teachers of Los
Angeles (UTLA), thirty Professional Development Banked Time Tuesdays were
designated “in recognition of the critical role of professional development to bring about
improved student achievement.”15 These professional development activities were to take
place at the school site. Although students in both elementary and secondary schools were
scheduled for early dismissal on these Tuesdays, the required number of yearly
instructional minutes for the students remained the same. The content for one half of these
15 From June 25, 2003, LAUSD Educational Services Memorandum No. M-163.
49
sessions was to be determined at the local district level. The other half was determined at
the school level.
In their study on effective professional development, Garet et al. (2001) recognized
“the growing interest” in professional development that was specifically school-based and
designed for specific groups of teachers. Included in their findings, from a national sample
of teachers, were factors of professional development that affected teacher learning.
“Collective participation of teachers from the same school, grade, or subject” emerged as
significantly related to the active learning of the teachers involved.
Two research questions were posed regarding banked time sessions:
? What are the common characteristics of Professional Development Banked
Time Tuesday sessions?
? To what extent do teachers and administrators support Professional
Development Banked Time Tuesday sessions as effective professional
development for instructional learning?
The subsequent sections responded to the research questions by presenting
characteristics of observed banked time sessions, and findings regarding support for
banked time sessions at the school site.
During the period of data collection, 13 banked time sessions were observed across
10 schools. A full collection of banked time observations was not obtained across all 12
schools for different reasons. Since each data collector was assigned to four schools, the
ability to attend more than one session during the time of data collection was constrained.
Also, in more than one school, banked time sessions had concluded for the school year.
According to one principal, they had completed their Tuesdays and the teachers wanted to
use the remaining Tuesdays for classroom planning. In other cases, access issues precluded
observations of these sessions. For example, in one school, the principal postponed
communication with the data collector until after the banked time sessions were concluded
for the year.
Characteristics of Banked Time Sessions
Trained data collectors used structured observation protocols, rating scales, and
field notes to gather data from the sessions. Notes and protocols were qualitatively coded
and analyzed across several characteristics: (1) topics presented, (2) format and style of
50
presentation, (3) social organization, (4) relevance, and (5) engagement. The applications
of adult learning principles were also discussed, as they were relevant to the characteristics
studied.
Topics. The session topics varied across the schools. Eight of the observed
sessions offered topics that focused on classroom instruction in specific content areas.
Three of these sessions were about writing, specifically, the writing process and planning
instruction based on writing prompts. Four sessions involved math, two of which included
the use of word problems in developing understanding and strategies for teaching
fractions. The other two math-related sessions were devoted to categorizing math problems
by standard and charting the math standards by grade levels. One session was devoted
tointegrating social studies into Open Court Reading.
Data collectors also observed two banked time sessions that discussed the STAR
program. 16 These sessions basically covered testing procedures, plans for the next year,
and the erasing of stray marks on tests. Two sessions conducted by outside presenters were
observed, one titled Portfolios and Student-Led Conferences and the other Cog Lab:
Applications for the Classroom. Finally, an observed session was devoted to differentiated
instruction. Coaches, teachers, or other school staff (e.g. assistant principal, EL
coordinator) facilitated the majority of observed sessions.
Format/Style. Field notes and protocols used during the observations were coded
for the different formats and presentation styles of the banked time sessions. These were
initially coded into five main categories. These were (1) presentation of information, (2)
activity/practice, (3) debriefing/feedback, (4) administrative time, and (5) school business.
The first category, presentation of information, was sub-categorized if accompanied by a
group discussion, the use of videos, and/or demonstration of a skill or activity. Debriefing
of the activity and feedback were coded separately from the activity/practice category to
distinguish the proportion of time spent on two areas that are essential in facilitating adult
learning (Brookfield, 1986). Administrative time consisted of time spent filling out forms,
handling other paperwork, or discussing non-content-related material. School business
denoted time spent presenting information to staff that was not related to the session topic,
but rather, other school-related information (e.g. upcoming fire drills).
16 Standardized Testing and Reporting Program.
51
Presentation of information (or theory) alone within the training context has very
limited impact on skill attainment and application by the participants. The addition of
practice and feedback into the training has been shown to increase levels of skill
attainment (Showers & Joyce, 1996). Of the 13 sessions observed, five (38%)
demonstrated a balance of presentation of information, activity/practice, and
debriefing/feedback. Four other sessions (31%) offered few opportunities to debrief after
activities but did supplement the presentation of information with much group discussion.
Three sessions (23%) provided little to no opportunities for debriefing or feedback at all.
One session did not incorporate any opportunities for activity or practice at all.
Social organization. The grouping of participants is an integral component of
adult learning. Working and engaging in groups builds on the prior experience of the adult
learner, as well as influencing the readiness and motivation to learn. Opportunities for
group discussion facilitate reflection of learning. Through reflection, adult learners are able
to incorporate new ideas, counter previously formed biases and opinions, and explore new
ways of interpretation and problem solving (Brookfield, 1986). Of the observed sessions,
ten (77%) were presented with participants organized by groups, most often by grade
level.
Relevance. Schedules and agendas give the adult participant the opportunity to
assimilate what will be covered, how much, and for how long. This goes along with the
adult participants’ understanding of the training’s goals and objectives. Adult participants
need to be aware of what they can be expected to learn and that the content and structure
are relevant to them. Only four banked time sessions (31%) shared agendas with or
provided goals to the participants.
Engagement. The levels of participant engagement varied across the observed
banked time sessions. A checklist was used to document the presence of off- task or
disengaged behaviors (e.g. grading papers, talking with neighbors). The frequencies of
these behaviors served as the basis for three categories of engagement: high, moderate, and
low.
Three sessions (24%) were categorized as demonstrating high engagement, five
(38%) demonstrated moderate engagement, and five (38%) demonstrated low engagement.
Moderate engagement typically involved periodic off- topic chatting, late arrivals/early
52
departures, and doodling. Low engagement involved excessive frequencies of the
aforementioned behaviors as well as attention to non-school paperwork, persistent off-
topic talking with others, and non-participation in session activities. The data revealed that
the low engagement observed in these sessions was not a result of the quality of these
presentations. In fact, these sessions did not differ significantly from those with high
engagement. However, the low-engaged sessions took place in schools that also
demonstrated non-collaborative contexts. This was the most distinguishing factor between
these sessions and the others. On the other hand, the contextual characteristics of the
schools with highly and moderately engaged sessions were similar to each other. In other
words, these schools all demonstrated positive characteristics, to varying degrees, in their
organizational contexts.
Support for Banked Time Sessions
During the interviews conducted with teachers, coaches, and administrators across
the 12 schools, questions were asked regarding the effects of banked time on instruction
and learning at the school site. Support for the effectiveness of banked time ranged from
generally positive (six schools) to fairly low (three schools), with mixed opinions falling in
the middle (three schools). Common themes emerged through the responses of staff
members that supported banked time sessions. The first theme involved the collaborative
opportunities for groups of teachers (particularly grade- level groups) to work together. The
outcomes of these opportunities included “increased grade- level articulation,” “team
problem-solving,” “exposure to methods of other teachers and strategies,” “increased
coordination across grade levels.” A second theme that emerged involved practical
applications. School staff, particularly teachers, perceived banked time as most effective
when the content and strategies presented were applicable in the classroom. Teachers
spoke of these sessions as contributing to “how I do things in my classroom” and helping
to “understand the direction we are going in.” Two school administrators also attributed
improved test scores and student performance to the banked time sessions. These findings
were consistent with the research cited earlier in the section (Garet et al., 2001), which
reported significant relationships between active teacher learning and collective school-
based participation among teachers from same grade or subject levels.
53
Common reasons for moderate to low support included little to no teacher “buy-
in,” repetitiveness of content, information not “translated into action,” and not enough
practical applications. Teachers, who were less supportive, indicated that the sessions
would be more meaningful if more opportunities for grade- level activities were provided.
In five of these schools, it was the principal that was the most supportive while the coaches
and teachers offered very little support for the banked time opportunities provided at their
schools. In one school, the principal also indicated low support by reporting that there was
almost no implementation in the classroom.
Consistent with the findings of organizational context presented earlier in this
report, the six schools that expressed higher levels of support for banked time sessions
were the same schools that shared common visions, exhibited positive characteristics of
communication, and conveyed similar expectations of roles. Conversely, the three schools
that were not supportive of the banked time sessions at their schools seemed to all display
the same negative, non-collaborative characteristics within their organizational contexts.
Summary and Conclusions
Professional Development Banked Time Tuesdays were professional development
opportunities that were school-based and 50% school-determined. Thirteen sessions across
10 schools were observed and data were analyzed to describe characteristics of these
sessions and speak to the overall quality. Overall, the sessions varied in the quality of
presentation, as determined mostly through their alignment to adult learning principles.
Levels of support for banked time as having an effect on instructional learning were also
studied through interviews of school staff across the sample schools. However, the success
of Professional Development Banked Time Days was not assured solely by its presence at
the school site. Oftentimes banked time sessions mimicked the “one-shot” workshops that
they were intended to replace.
Consistent with the findings on instructional coaching, contextual characteristics of
the schools also influenced banked time sessions. Comparisons between characteristics of
observed banked time sessions and expressed levels of banked time support led to the
finding that schools that engaged on collaborative planning and utilized teacher input
appeared to be more successful in their banked time sessions. Conversely, staff from three
of the six “low support” schools also demonstrated low engagement within the observed
54
sessions. However, as referred to in the previous section on engagement, there was no
connection between format/style characteristics of these sessions and engagement. The
findings suggested that low support and engagement would be the typical response
regardless of content, format, or presenter.
CASE STUDIES OF SCHOOL-BASED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The case study approach was employed to promote a richer understanding of
school-based professional development activities and their interrelationships, within their
specific organizationa l context. Purposive sampling was used to select the three schools
profiled in the case studies (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Yin, 1989). One data collector for each
school was assigned to gather data. Overall, data collection activities ran from mid-April to
mid-June 2003. All interviews, observations, and descriptive field notes were coded and
analyzed using qualitative methods. These methods included data reduction and the
creation of categories and themes that emerged from the data.17 Fictional names were
given to the schools and all staff members to ensure confidentiality. A cross-case
discussion follows the presentation of the three case reports.
Tower Elementary – Case 1
Tower Elementary School is a large, single-track school located in the greater
downtown area. During the 2002-03 school year, Tower employed an assistant principal
and two full-time coaches for literacy and math. The majority of students were classified
as “Hispanic,” with no other group constituting more than one-fourth of the student
population. Approximately one student in five was an English Learner. Less than a quarter
of the students participated in a meal program. The vast majority of teachers at Tower were
credentialed, classified as “continuing/permanent.” There were no emergency-credentialed
teachers in Tower’s classrooms. Among the returning teachers, the median range of years
at this school was 6 to 10.
This school was chosen from a sample of schools participating in the larger District
Math Program Evaluation. Its selection for case study was based on its high math scores
on the SAT/9. In 2002 Tower scored well above the LAUSD averages on each of the four
17 For a more detailed explanation, refer to the Methodology section on page 5.
55
subject areas for all grades. Ranked a “10” among similar schools on the API, Tower met
its growth target for 2001-02.
The focus of this case study was to understand how the three primary components
of school-based professional development functioned at Tower. These components were
the school’s organizational context for professional learning, instructional coaching, and
Banked Time Professional Development Tuesdays.
Organizational Context
The climate of this school was very open and friendly. Staff members were
accessible during both scheduled and impromptu visits to the school. The assistant
principal, Ms. Chambers, was ve ry receptive to our presence at Tower and provided us
with much of the information we needed to begin our data collection. The principal, Mrs.
Walker, though always on the run, was also very open to our presence at her school.
Collaboration was the phrase used by both administrators and the coaches to
describe how the school functioned to serve the needs of both the teachers and the
students. The overall vision for professional development was built on having teachers
“take ownership” of their own development. Principal Walker’s vision included expanding
professional development at Tower not just by including teachers in the collaborative
process, but also by encouraging them to become more self-directed in their development.
She wanted to increase articula tion across the grade levels. Assistant Principal Chambers
was pleased with the collaboration effort made thus far by teachers, administrators, and
coaches.
Although Principal Walker expressed happiness with the level of teacher
involvement, she did acknowledge that only half of the teachers were actively involved in
their own professional development. She believed this problem was primarily with veteran
teachers who were reluctant to actively participate because “they think they know
everything.” In response to participation in various activities, one teacher replied, “I’m at
the top of the pay scale, so I’m not taking extra enrichment classes right now.” Another
teacher expressed dissatisfaction with the content of professional development they
experienced this year. He said, “You know, we’re always working on literacy. We’re
always working on math. If we had a little bit more, even if it was just every now and then
to keep, you know, to keep it exciting.”
56
Despite the obstacles that resistance and dissatisfaction may have presented, the
staff at Tower continued to move forward in their efforts. Coaches continued to make
themselves available, in any way they could, to “resistant” teachers. Teachers
acknowledged and supported the administrators and coaches. Here, a “veteran” teacher
described changes she has witnessed in the school over the last ten years:
We didn’t have what we do now. Teachers now go above and beyond; they are
very motivated. I’ve seen how the school has changed and what’s available to us
now that wasn’t. We had to buy the manipulatives ourselves and if you couldn’t
you couldn’t. (Principal Walker) is good about money. She says, ‘If you need
something we can buy it for you.’
Professional development opportunities. The major professional development
opportunities offered to teachers at Tower during the 2002-03 school year consisted of
banked time Tuesdays, Open Court Passport meetings, and grade- level meetings. A major
portion of the professional development that took place in Tower was determined, planned,
and facilitated by the core team of principal, assistant principal, and coaches. The bilingual
coordinator and “head” of the special education department also played supporting roles.
Grade- level chairpersons often planned the agenda/focus for the grade- level meetings.
Teachers’ opinions varied in how they perceived these professional development
opportunities, particularly with respect to format and content (lecture style banked time
session vs. grade- level articulation meetings). The more relevant and “hands-on” the
professional development became, the more support and engagement it elicited from the
teachers. Overall, teachers wanted more professional development that involved practical
content that could be directly applied in their practice and in their classrooms. Much effort
was made to work together to make this happen. In combination with the strong presence
of the coaches, it appeared that Tower was progressing toward a collaborative and coherent
framework of school-based professional development.
Instructional Coaching
During the time of data collection, Tower had two coaches, Ms. Holmes (math
coach) and Mrs. Dean (literacy coach). Ms. Holmes was finishing her second year as the
57
full-time math coach at Tower. Prior to being the math coach, she taught for a little over
three years at Tower. She was scheduled to leave at the end of the 2002-03 year due to
budget cuts and the increased math test scores of the students. She would be relocated to a
school that was considered low performing in math. Mrs. Dean had been at Tower for
three years as a literacy coach. Before that she spent close to thirty years teaching and
coordinating reading and bilingual programs throughout the district.
Roles of the coaches. Ms. Holmes believed that she did not have the role of an
evaluator when she was in the classrooms. Rather, she was there to provide teachers with
alternative methods and suggestions, which were largely determined by observing classes.
She explained that her position as a math coach required sensitivity in that she did not
want to impose herself as “the expert.” She felt she was most effective when she was
“brainstorming with the teachers.” She was there to provide support to teachers, and
importantly, to learn from teachers. When she learned from teachers, she shared new
methods with others. Put simply, her role involved “supporting the teachers so that they
can support the children.”
Mrs. Dean’s perception of her role as a literacy coach was very similar to the math
coach’s perceptions. Her belief was that “coaches are in classrooms to learn as much as to
teach.” She affirmed that 99% of her job was to improve instruction. In order to facilitate
this, Mrs. Dean explained that her goals were to “map out what teachers want,” and assess
what teachers needed based on test scores and their recommendations. In addition, she saw
a function of her role to “empower the teachers” and “enable them” to use new and
effective teaching strategies. Like the math coach, she did not consider herself an expert
and believed that she was learning just as much as coaching.
Mrs. Dean believed very strongly in the effectiveness of coaching, not just in her
school but across the district:
If we didn’t have coaches here our reading program would be diminished
significantly. LAUSD will need coaches for a long time to come to be able to
sustain the gain, and to continue to grow. I think that the minute they pull out
coaches will be the minute that the schools will go into a sharp decline.
58
Ms. Holmes believed the teachers in her school saw her more as a “collaborator, as
a kind of team teacher.” She believed her prior experience as a teacher at this school had
helped her because she had worked with many of these teachers before. One teacher
acknowledged Ms. Holmes’ familiarity with the process of being a teacher and the amount
of work that they have. “She knows,” she said, “she’s been a teacher.” Ms. Holmes used
the term “veteran teachers” for those who had been teaching for many years as opposed to
“new teachers” who were in their first, second, or even third year of teaching. There were a
few veteran teachers who were not receptive to her as an instructional coach. There were
others who were collaborative and asked for materials for lessons, stopped by her office to
ask how to do lessons, etc. Ms. Holmes stated that there was a “continuum of how teachers
receive [her] as a coach” and her approach was specific to the individual teacher. She
walked “a line between being supportive and getting the job done.”
Both the math and literacy coaches believed that the principal saw their roles the
same way the teachers did and was very supportive. It was clear in the way the principal
talked about her coaches that she believed them to be exceptional and was extremely
supportive of them. Principal Walker made a point to say that they had received “lots of
training” and if she had any suggestions to make the district’s coaching initiative more
effective, she would say “pay them what they’re worth.” Both coaches attributed local
district support, school administrator support, and the other coaches they collaborated
with, as helping them to be effective in their roles.
Visitations. Both coaches conducted classroom visitations regularly. Ms. Holmes
said she visited every class at least once a month, depending upon the teacher. Part of her
job as a math coach was to “target” teachers who were struggling in any particular area.
These teachers she visited more frequently. In some cases, the “targeted” teachers were
those who identified for themselves problems they were having with instruction and
requested extra support, assistance, and/or feedback. In other cases, “targeted” teachers
were identified by administrators as those who were in need of extra support. These
teachers may also have been identified based on assessment data or through the visitations
Ms. Holmes made during her rounds.
The visitations typically lasted about 10 to 20 minutes and occurred in the
mornings from 8:45 am to 12:30 pm when math was being taught. Typically, dur ing this
59
time Ms. Holmes slipped into the classroom and took a seat in the back or side of the
room. She noted where in the textbook the teachers were and often anticipated what
materials (i.e. games, manipulatives, overheads, etc.) would be helpful for upcoming
lessons. She entered this into a chart that she designed indicating the teacher, date of
visitation, and chapter/lesson. This allowed her to keep track of their “pacing.”
Ms. Holmes stated that the teachers she visited took different approaches to her
entry into their classrooms. Some teachers did not stop their lesson while others became
very aware that they were being watched. It was in these cases that she tried to be as
unobtrusive and invisible as possible. Other teachers would ask for materials for the
current lesson as soon as she arrived. She was then happy to run to her office and retrieve
them. Ms. Holmes confided that it was difficult for her personally to refrain from helping
the students while she was in the classroom. She stated that it was in her nature to help
them, but did try to refrain as much as possible. Most of the teachers interviewed were
very positive about the visitations. One teacher consistently mentioned the availability and
presence of the math coach and how she often approached the teachers with suggestions
and questions. The teacher said, “She comes to us and asks ‘Are you okay?’ She’s
everywhere and that really helps.”
The literacy coach conducted and used the information from classroom visitations
and observations in the same way as the math coach. Mrs. Dean said that a teacher who
was looking for advice and feedback sometimes requested these visitations, or sometimes
the principal requested them. Some teachers would claim that everything was fine,
contrary to reports or tests. These were classrooms in which she believed were important
to observe.
During our time at Tower, the data collector was able to accompany Mrs. Dean on
several classroom visitations. The field notes reflected that teachers greeted her warmly
upon her entrance into their classroom. Some just said “Hi” while others stopped and
spoke with her. Mrs. Dean would often quietly say hello to a few students while she
walked around the room. She sometimes assisted them with their work. Additionally, when
a student was not sitting properly in her/his seat she would correct him/her.
Common to both coaches, the initiative was often taken to offer help and support
even if not particularly sought after by the teachers themselves. Principal Walker described
60
her coaches as “self-starters and hard workers.” She believed that their initiative played a
major role in their effectiveness.
Demonstrations. Both coaches routinely conducted demonstration lessons for the
teachers. The data collector had the opportunity to sit in on various demonstration lessons
performed by both coaches.
Both math demonstration lessons were in 3rd grade classrooms, the first a bilingual
class of 14 students and the second an EL class of 17 students. The teachers in both the
observed classrooms were welcoming toward Ms. Holmes. It was obvious by the
introductions of the teachers and the responses of the students that all have had positive
experiences with her. In the first classroom, Ms. Holmes put her things down and was
introduced by the teacher, “You remember Ms. Holmes.” and all the students responded,
“Yes!” The second classroom teacher introduced Ms. Holmes as the surprise she had told
them about the previous day. “Remember the surprise I told you we were going to have
today? Here she is! Ms. Holmes is the surprise!” Ms. Holmes laughed and said, “I’m the
surprise?”
The first demonstration lesson was on strategies for solving long division problems
in the 3rd grade bilingual class. As Ms. Holmes began the lesson, the teacher spent some
time making sure all the students had the proper materials, after which she sat and
observed. Throughout the lesson, the coach and the teacher seemed very comfortable in
their roles. As the students were working on a worksheet of multiplication facts, both the
coach and the teacher moved about the room monitoring their progress. The students
quietly took the quiz. Some were counting out loud in a whispering tone. Many were
counting on their fingers. The teacher and Ms. Holmes walked around the room and
looked at the papers as the students were filling in the answers.
During the lesson, evidence of coach-teacher interaction was observed. The teacher
and Ms. Holmes exchanged questions and comments about the lesson and/or the students.
The following are excerpts taken from the data collector’s field notes:
Ms. Holmes then writes the steps on the board:
Division
Multiplication
61
Subtraction
Compare
She turns to the teacher and asks, “Did you do this yet?” The teacher replies, “That
is something new for them,” referring to ‘Compare.’ Ms. Holmes explains that the
next step is ‘Compare’ and the students need to compare 3 and 2 to make sure that
2 is smaller. After she says, “Now we bring down the 8.”
She walks around the room as the students are writing. She says, “Good job.” She
and the teacher talk together in hushed voices. Then Ms. Holmes says, “When
you’re finished copying, close your journals.” She turns to the teacher and asks,
“You know the ‘buzz’ where you practice the multiples?” The teacher says, “No.”
Ms. Holmes says, “I’ll do it with the kids and then I’ll have you do it. Does that
sound good?” The teacher says enthusiastically, “Yes, yes! I’d like to see it done.”
After the demonstration lessons, Ms. Holmes typically engaged in follow-up
conversations with the teachers. These were scheduled most often during non-instructional
time. Here, the teacher described the effects of the above demonstration lesson:
Now when I review the lesson I use the family thing she showed us. What was it?
Dad, Mom, Sister, Cousin, Brother. They don’t know it perfectly but the kids refer
back to it. They’re still struggling but they’re using it and so I think they really
benefited from it. I needed a new way to teach them long division; they’re not
getting it. I also wanted to do it for the tests, as a review for the testing. I knew she
had another way.
The second demonstration lesson observed was on the use of manipulatives in
comprehending and solving problems of probability. Ms. Holmes arrived with
manipulatives (bag of marbles, spinner) and also utilized what was already in the
classroom (vocabulary charts). In this classroom, the students were more restless and
fidgety than in the other classroom. Both Ms. Holmes and the teacher made several
comments to them and reprimanded the students throughout the lesson:
62
Ms. Holmes asks, “What does it mean when something is ‘certain’?” There is no
response from the students. She gives them a short exercise and tells them to close
their eyes. She asks if they can see anything and if they know what is happening.
The students say no and so she asks them to open their eyes. At this point she goes
to a student who is not paying attention. She puts her arm around him and says,
“You don’t know me very well, but,” and turns to another student, “[Name], do I
allow a lot of fooling around?” The student answers, “No.”
The volume of the students’ voices gets high and Ms. Holmes says in a gradual
lowering of her voice, “You know what? I’m going to lower my voice because
when the volume gets high I like to talk quietly.” The students become quiet.
Again, the students become restless. The teacher says, “Please stop,” and Ms.
Holmes says, “I can move you guys.”
Similar to the teacher in the first demonstration lesson, the teacher not only
observed but participated when possible:
Ms. Holmes moves on. “What do you think is an outcome?” The students do not
answer. The teacher says, “You might want to look at your Data Vocabulary.” The
teacher refers to a chart that is hanging towards the front of the room. Ms. Holmes
then incorporates some of the data vocabulary when talking about probability.
During a discussion of fractions and probability of occurrence the teacher interjects
and says, “Ms. Holmes, when we were talking about fractions. . . ” and she goes to
the white board on the wall by the reading area to draw a long bar divided into 13
parts. She says, “Children, out of all of these only 2 are yellow. What’s the
chance?” The students then arrive at the answer, “unlikely.”
63
Ms. Holmes asks another question. The teacher walks around the room to watch the
students writing down their answers. She tells them, “You’re getting it. You’re
getting it.”
After the observation, Ms. Holmes confided to the data collector that the kids were
well behaved compared to usual. She mentioned that this particular teacher had a tendency
to stand still and talk while her students got fidgety. She said she tried to model ways to
involve the children. She went on to say that this teacher was a veteran, “resistant” teacher
and that she had to be “very tactful” when approaching her.”
Ms. Holmes’s opinions about demonstration lessons were positive. In addition to
learning a “new” or “different” way of instruction, she believed that it was important for
the teacher to observe their students in ways that they couldn’t while they were teaching.
The demonstration lesson enabled the teacher to observe their students interacting with
other teachers and amongst themselves. Both Ms. Holmes and the teachers viewed these
opportunities as beneficial. During a post-demonstration interview, a teacher was asked if
the demonstration provided them the opportunity to watch their children:
Oh yeah! You know, I was so embarrassed yesterday because I had a whole row of
kids asleep! You know, usually they’re more attentive when someone else is
present but maybe it was the three-day weekend, but there was a whole row asleep.
But it really helps to see. It was surprising to see who’s really following along and
who’s fidgety.
Mrs. Dean also conducted demonstration lessons. Often times (like the math coach)
she volunteered to do demonstration lessons rather than waiting for the teacher to request
one. Mrs. Dean said that her techniques varied according to teacher and content. She gave
an example of a demonstration lesson in which she collaborated with an EL teacher. They
“team taught” the students by taking turns teaching parts of the lesson. She said that the
students enjoyed this sort of interaction between the teacher and herself. Mrs. Dean also
explained how she sometimes combined visitations with an informal demonstration lesson
to aid instruction:
64
If there’s a procedural problem, then I will sometimes step in and try and team
teach. I’ll say, ‘Do you mind if I do?’ and then they know I’m demo’ing. The
teachers will say ‘Sure.’ If the teacher is not doing anything involving Open Court
then I will wait until after and say, ‘What were you doing?’ Well, I don’t say it like
that but you know,” and she laughs. “Like what that teacher was just doing wasn’t
in OC. Sometimes they have a very legitimate reason why they’re doing what
they’re doing so I’ll ask, ‘Why did you do that? What were you doing?’
Mrs. Dean conducted a demonstration lesson on the “green part” of Open Court
(Preparing to Read) in a 3rd grade classroom. As previously witnessed in demonstration
lessons with the math coach, the teacher often assisted and participated with the students to
reinforce the lesson:
A student says, “T-R-A-D-I-N-G.” Mrs. Dean says, “Okay, let’s look at our word.
Let’s look at our word structure.” The teacher says, “Children, look up here.
What’s the word?” and she points to “trade.” The teacher and coach work to show
how “trading” comes from the root word “trade.”
Another example of how the teacher and coach worked together during the
demonstration lesson:
Mrs. Dean and the teacher work together to demonstrate a concept to the students.
The teacher initiates. She goes up to the coach with an object and says, “Here’s
your piece of metal and here’s mine.” She asks the students, “Which one of us has
more ‘worth’?” The students answer the teacher has more worth. The teacher asks,
“Why?” and the students answer because the teacher’s is bigger. Mrs. Dean says,
“Thank you!”
Both the teachers and administrators expressed positive beliefs about the value of
demonstration lessons. Teachers appeared to rely on the coaches as having new and
65
different approaches to instruction. After the Open Court demonstration lesson, the teacher
had a few minutes available to comment on the demonstration and her perceptions of the
literacy coach’s role as it applied to her teaching.
Just watching her model I know my way isn’t as good. She just showed an extra
way of presenting. That’s helpful. It’s really helpful with the writing. It’s helpful
when she shows us different ways to present or if I’m struggling with a kid. She’s a
wealth of information. She’s such a creative mind. She’s the type of approachable
where you can ask her if you need help.
This teacher went on to describe another way the literacy coach has specifically
helped her. “I had a girl from Mexico in my classroom and she didn’t understand me and I
didn’t understand her. So (Mrs. Dean) did some sort of testing and she was placed in a
classroom where the teacher was fluent in Spanish. She’s helpful for that sort of thing too.”
The administrators’ support for the coaches was evidenced by their perceptions of
the coaches’ effectiveness and how they impacted teacher practice and student
performance through activities such as demonstration lessons. In an interview with the
assistant principal, she said, “The coaches are giving us new strategies. You have to model
techniques and lessons to show how they work.” She believed that it was important for
coaches to provide these demonstrations. “Teachers get tired of theory and want practical.
They want to know, ‘How is this going to help me in the classroom?’ Additionally, the
teachers are more at ease with the material and therefore it becomes more meaningful to
students.”
Overall, the teachers at Tower were open to the demonstrations performed by the
coaches. This willingness to participate, accompanied by the coach-teacher interaction and
teacher engagement observed in the examples, provided supporting evidence of the
effectiveness of coaching. Teacher reports also supported the likelihood of sustained
improvements in instructional practice as an outcome of coaching. It was clear that the
coaches reached out to the teachers in this school.
Conferencing. Conferences between teachers and both coaches were often
informal. They both regularly debriefed with the teachers to whom they provided
66
demonstration lessons and could be seen all over the school engaged in informal
conferencing with teachers. For Ms. Holmes, conferences sometimes began with teachers
dropping in to her office looking for manipulatives or a quick word of advice. She also
held after-school meetings with various teachers where they brainstormed about how to
help certain students. Mrs. Dean often used opportunities presented within her rounds of
classroom visitations to conference informally with teachers.
Planning. Planning lessons for the teachers was also an area in which the coaches
devoted some of their time. Mrs. Dean, for example, spent a lot of time planning lessons
and strategies and other “time-saving” techniques for the teachers in her school. She
mentioned that during these planning times her goal was to make sure the teachers
understood the Open Court units so that they could effectively teach it to the students.
Specifically she described what she called a “unit opener” that she had developed. “Each
time you start a new theme, you have to learn how to open it up. Many teachers don’t
know how to. Some think that they do know, but they don’t. I do all the thinking and
planning so that the teachers don’t have to as much,” referring to the content of lessons.
She referred to the binder that contained many handouts and showed what sort of planning
she did. She demonstrated with a planning worksheet entitled “Unit Planner” and
explained that this was what she used when planning a unit with a teacher during unit
opener meetings. She described how she planned a unit opener with a particular teacher.
Pointing to various parts of the lesson, she explained, “This is the unit that I go over with
the teacher.” Mrs. Dean then opened up a binder that contained the material she went over
with the teacher. “This is an introduction letter to the parents telling them about the unit
and what the students will be studying.” The content of the planning meeting, as Mrs.
Dean explained, included the curriculum of the unit, and what needed to be covered. “I
also showed the teacher some group activities that she can provide in order to enforce the
material.”
In addition to planning coaching activities with the teachers, the coaches monitored
their own activities to ensure that adequate amounts of time were spent in appropriate
areas. To demonstrate this, Ms. Holmes shared a “Mathematical Coach Activities Record”
handout on which she regularly monitored her activities. She said she focused most of her
time on the activities listed in the first five columns: Planning w/Teacher; Observation;
67
Coaching Conversation; Demo Lesson; and Visitations. Her perception was that if too little
time was spent in those areas, the coach was seen as not doing their job. In explaining the
schedule, she stated that there was a gray area in “planning” versus “coaching” and she
sometimes found it difficult to distinguish between the two activities. Observation time
could go from 10 to 15 minutes, however the time could be longer for those visits that
were targeted. Assessment Data was another area on the schedule. She described this as
time spent going over quarterly tests: the time when teachers and the coach could look at
data to drive instruction and assess what needed to be addressed.
Materials. The coaches worked with instructional materials in various ways. Ms.
Holmes conveyed that she spent a lot of time “organizing, making and distributing math
materials, getting together, keeping the manipulatives organized, keeping them in different
classrooms, and organizing them so that I present them to the teachers.” Ms. Holmes
emphasized that manipulatives, such as games and objects for counting, were key in
helping children learn mathematical concepts by providing hands-on learning and
visual/physical stimuli.
Ms. Holmes’s office area was filled with many instructional materials, workbooks,
and manipulatives. These objects were found on and around her desk. She had shelves and
boxes that housed the materials, some of which were on display at the front of her desk.
She liked to leave these materials out so that teachers could stop by the office to take a
look at or to use in their classroom lessons. Many games were ones that she had created
herself, drawn from her own experiences as a teacher. There were also games she had
received from other coaches at trainings/meetings in the district and altered them to be age
or grade-appropriate. Her afternoons were often spent putting together materials for
lessons, looking at assessments, and general paperwork. She also spent time putting
together supplemental resources for teachers.
Before Ms. Holmes’s arrival, there were very few manipulatives available to the
teachers at Tower. Since then, teachers had grown very confident that if they needed
manipulatives, the math coach had them, could find them, or would make them. As one
teacher reported:
68
She (math coach) bought all new manipulatives. And she’ll ask ‘What
manipulatives do you need? The manipulatives teachers used were ones that
we bought ourselves; the money came out of our own pocket. And if we
didn’t have the money, we couldn’t buy manipulatives. Ms. Holmes has
them all in her office. She creates and makes all of her own manipulatives
and she manages them and keeps track of them. She knows what to use for
each lesson. She’s very quick too. You can go to her office and describe a
worksheet or anything and she will know right away and will pull it out for
you.
The literacy coach’s office also contained many books on shelves lining the
perimeter of the room, along with posters, pictures, and classroom materials like folders
and binders. Mrs. Dean’s coaching materials often included lesson or resource packets
with sample lessons for teachers, worksheets, and related activities. She, like the math
coach, created many of these materials herself, drawn from her many years as a classroom
teacher and her experience as a coordinator of both reading and bilingual programs.
Handling resistant teachers. As mentioned earlier, not all teachers were
receptive to being coached or having the coach in their classrooms. Mrs. Dean explained
that the district emphasized that they (coaches) made their time “profitable,” in other
words, they needed to be both efficient and effective. If there was a teacher “who is totally
closed to the idea of wanting to grow and wanting to learn, then don’t waste your time
there.” Despite this, the coaches made continuous efforts to engage these teachers. Ms.
Holmes was asked to describe how she “reached out” to resistant teachers. She used her
materials and manipulatives to try and initiate connections.
I try to bring them things. But one of the ways that I’ve done that, kind of broken
through, is to make sure I give the teacher any support materials that might be
useful. Sometimes they don’t know about them or sometimes they don’t have
enough time to make overheads or maybe they’re just too lazy or maybe they just
don’t think it would effective, I don’t know, but that’s one way. I’ve previously
tried to copy some things for them; then they may be okay with that.
69
Ms. Holmes also touched upon the progress she had made over time with resistant
teachers and the balance and tactfulness that she employed in building and maintaining
these connections.
My second year as a coach, most of the teachers have been a lot more receptive
because they know that I’m not going to – that it’s not gonna go badly with them if
I work with them or something like that. There are some who are still defensive or
don’t like to have me in their classroom because they just don’t let people in the
classrooms. I try to – I offer demonstrations lessons – I offer to come in and do
demonstration lessons. By this time I know them pretty well so I know certain
topics they don’t like to do, so I will offer to do a demonstration lesson on that
particular topic. Sometimes that breaks down barriers. Sometimes it’s a
management issue, so if I go in there and model techniques that help management,
sometimes that helps. It’s delicate, though; you have to strike a balance between
trying to help improve things, and at the same time being extremely careful with
the teacher.
Data analysis and assessments. Both coaches spent a large portion of their
time working with assessments, testing students, entering and analyzing data, and using the
information in helping teachers to guide instruction. Assessment data and results were also
used in grade- level meetings and banked time sessions. Results were compiled and
analyzed collectively by grade level. Ms. Holmes used data from the assessments to help
her decide which teachers needed her assistance.
I take a look at the scores myself and decide if I have. . . if the Stanford 9 scores are
relatively high and their achievement on the 1st quarter assessments is fairly low,
then I try to spend a lot of time in that classroom. Because there’s a discrepancy
there and I want to know what is the reason, you know, it could be the teacher, it
could be something else.
70
Mrs. Dean helped get testing material ready, assisted in the administration,
gathered up all information, input data into the computer and analyzed it with the teachers.
As with the math coach, the literacy coach placed a lot of emphasis on the data analyses
and used this data to help her decide which teachers needed her support. She stated that
analyzing the data collaboratively with the teacher determined if the next step should be a
team teaching effort or a demonstration lesson. She explained that her practice was to
“delve beneath the test scores” to try and understand things that didn’t make sense. Action
plans were often the result of these analyses. These were created with the individual
teachers based on his or her instructional goals. The following example from time spent
together with the data collector and Mrs. Dean further demonstrated how the literacy coach
used assessment data in her work:
Mrs. Dean showed me the results of a specific teacher. She says, “So here she
made a significant jump. We worked together on how to do reading and fluency.”
She shows me the percentages. She says, “So us teaming didn’t have as much of an
effect on fluency but a significant effect on reading comprehension.” Mrs. Dean
explains, “If a teacher did not make any gains I will go back to their action plan
and look at their goals. That’s a big part of my job is to help them focus on their
goals.” She then writes a brief note to the teacher and hands it to me to read. She
says, “This is a typical note I would write to a teacher.” It is very positive and
contains phrases like “Keep it up!” and “I like how. . . ” She also writes down
specific scores.
Professional development activities. Both coaches attended meetings and
trainings for instructional coaches. One example was the Professional Development
Committee (PDC), which consisted of a group of coaches that met every month. Ms.
Holmes stated that she presented several methods of teaching math lessons at the last PDC
meeting and intended to present them to the teachers during future professional
development sessions.
The coaches, as part of their professional development responsibilities, also
periodically facilitated grade- level meetings and buy back days. The principal stated that
71
teachers determined one quarter of the content for all of Tower’s buy back days. She and
the coaches determined the remaining three-quarters of the content. Overall, the number of
meetings and the time coaches spent on organizing professional development activities
was reflected by the schedule of activities that Mrs. Dean had conducted throughout the
year. She said as she looked at the list, “Twenty-nine. And that doesn’t include private
grade-level meetings. Wow! I didn’t realize how many I’ve done. So I’ve done at least 50
of these sorts of things.”
In response to recent EPQR18 findings that determined Tower’s need to standardize
writing, the literacy coach implemented the use of writing portfolios for each student. Mrs.
Dean brought our data collector into a classroom to display some of these portfolios. The
teacher was more than happy to accommodate them:
She [Mrs. Dean] asks, “You want one of the students to show you their writing
portfolio? And they can also explain it to you.” Almost every student immediately
raises his or her hand to volunteer. The teacher calls on a student and she goes over
to a small bookshelf at the back of the classroom and retrieves her binder. The
student spends about 3-5 minutes going through her binder slowly and explaining
some of the writing assignments. She also shows the rubric and how she graded her
own assignment.
One of the literacy coach’s staff development responsibilities was to lead the
Passport meetings. Passport meetings were Open Court-based meetings that took place
after school every other Wednesday at the school site. Teachers received a stipend of $500
for their participation at these voluntary trainings. A certain number of hours of
participation were required for teachers to receive the stipend. Mrs. Dean helped teachers
to monitor their hours as well as provided them with opportunities to meet the other
requirements of the program. She also organized the agenda and content of these meetings.
Topics generally included performance assessment of students (tests), content
recommended by teachers, and recommendations based on EPQR findings. Mrs. Dean also
participated in and, on occasion, facilitated districtwide Passport meetings.
18 Enhanced Program Quality Review.
72
Teachers who participated in these Passport meetings, at least during the 2002-03
school year, expressed very strong feelings about the support and guidance these meetings
provided them for their Open Court instruction. Our data collector attended the last
meeting of the year where teachers were encouraged to publicly share their experiences.
One of the prominent themes that spanned these teachers’ experiences was the opportunity
to reflect on their practice and have clearer understandings of their own strengths and
weaknesses. One teacher specifically referred to a demonstration “unit opener” performed
by the literacy coach. “The unit opener was all typed up and I’m bad at saving my good
ideas but now I type everything up. And typing it up, it forced me to think about it more
carefully. I take the time and it really pays off.”
According to Mrs. Dean, there would not be Passport meetings for the 2003-04
school year. They would try to have a similar type of meeting but she did not seem
encouraged about the attendance, especially since there would not be any credit or money
given to the teachers for their participation. Mrs. Dean believed that banked time in the
following school year would become more essential because of the ending of the Passport
meetings. Her concern was tempered by her belief in the effectiveness of the banked time
sessions. She believed that the banked time sessions had impacted the writing scores of the
students at Tower.
Effects of Coaching
This case study provided the opportunity to examine the relationship between
coaching activities and changes in teacher classroom practice as they related to student
learning and achievement. First, we looked at how the coaches described themselves as
successful in their own practice. Success was defined in terms of changes made as a result
of engaging in coaching, either directly by teachers in their instructional practice, or
indirectly by students in their assessments. Second, we looked more specifically at the
effects of the coach-teacher interaction on the instructional practices of four teachers. To
accomplish this, we drew from classroom observation data collected for the DMP
evaluation.
The coaches at Tower characterized changes in teachers’ behaviors as evidence of
success in their roles. Ms. Holmes shared that as the math coach, “I know when I’m
successful in my work is when I see the children achieve better in their work, and also I
73
know I’m successful when I see the teachers being more effective teaching math and being
happy to teach.” Ms. Holmes believed she was successful when she observed teachers
implementing recommended practices and ideas in their classrooms, incorporating
material, or engaging in strategies and techniques presented during her banked time
sessions. One such example occurred during the demonstration lesson that she did with the
3rd grade class on probability. When the students did not respond to a question the math
coach posed, the teacher had students refer to a “Data Vocabulary” chart to help them with
choosing the correct term. While leaving the classroom, Ms. Holmes said to the data
collector, “I was glad to see the Data Vocabulary. That was something I had done in a
demo lesson with her last year.”
In response to how Mrs. Dean knew she was successful in her work as the literacy
coach, she described movements the students had made, particularly in their writing. She,
like Ms. Holmes, felt successful when she saw techniques and strategies and ideas that she
had presented during staff development in use within the classrooms.
Both coaches expressed similar descriptions of success in their jobs. To take a
closer look at changes teachers may have made in their practice as a result of coaching, we
looked specifically at data on coach-teacher interactions and quality of instruction for four
teachers at Tower.
The effects of coach-teacher interactions were studied by first examining the level
of interaction between the coaches and the teachers. Descriptions of direct coach-teacher
interaction varied across the four teachers. One teacher, Ms. Blaine, specifically stated that
she did not “need” math coaching and therefore did not engage in any coaching activities.
Another teacher reported only interacting with the math coach during grade-level meetings
or banked time sessions. The remaining two teachers reported several classroom
observations and demonstration lessons by the coach. One of these teachers specifically
stated that the math coach worked one-to-one with a particular student that needed extra
help. This assistance to the teacher also provided support to the teacher in demonstrating
individualized strategies.
Each of the four teachers was asked to describe what the coach had done to
facilitate changes in their practice.19 Providing manipulatives and other materials was the
19 These teachers were only asked about the math coach.
74
common response to the assistance the coach gave them. Because the responses of the
teachers were very broad, it became difficult to detect evidence of change during the
classroom observations of these four teachers. Also, it was possible that the observed
lessons did not call for the use of manipulatives.
Findings from the DMP evaluation consisted of ratings assigned to dimensions of
quality in the instructional practices of the four teachers.20 The three teachers who
participated in coaching activities exhibited improvement in their ability to clearly and
explicitly articulate both the math concepts and skills to be taught, and the knowledge the
students were expected to gain. The three teachers were also observed as placing greater
emphases on mathematical thinking during instruction. For Ms. Blaine, the teacher who
did not “need” coaching, there was no observed change in her instructional practice.
The above findings allowed for a comparative look at the effects of coaching
between teachers who did engage and a teacher who reportedly chose not to engage. While
the improvement demonstrated by these teachers did not extend across all three
dimensions of quality as determined by the DMP evaluation, change over time was
observed for the three participating teachers. The reported levels of direct coach interaction
by the three teachers in the sample, together with the math coach’s implementation of
direct coach-teacher activities (observation, feedback, demonstration), provided supporting
evidence for the effectiveness of coaching in promoting instructional change.
Professional Development Banked Time Tuesdays
Professional Development Banked Time Tuesdays were mandatory one-hour
sessions held every Tuesday afternoon for all teachers and administrative faculty. The
local district provided scripts, overheads, and binders for one-half of the Tuesday sessions.
Principal Walker believed that Tower’s professional development was more advanced in
some of the areas the local district covered. She stated they didn’t want to waste time
going over things just because it was covered in the binders. However, she believed that
short of tailoring the content to each individual school, the local district supported them as
much as they could. The content for the other half of the sessions (that the school could
determine) was based on the needs of the staff. Coaches worked in collaboration with
administrative faculty to determine this content. The coaches often planned the agendas
20 Refer to page 43 for descriptions of DMP ratings.
75
and presented the sessions. The challenge coaches reported in planning and facilitating
banked time sessions was in trying to actively engage the teachers and make them feel as
though their time spent at the sessions was worthwhile. Ms. Holmes stated that doing
banked time was difficult because teachers often felt that it was forced upon them and they
simply “put up with it.” For this reason she worked “hard to make banked time not a waste
of time” for the teachers. However, she did acknowledge that there was a “certain amount
of resentment about banked time.” The teachers did not like “to have their time wasted, so
you really must have something to say to them.”
The sessions typically began between 1:45 and 1:50 P.M. and ended approximately
one hour later. They were held in the “multi-purpose” room that resembled a cafeteria with
a pull-out wall. Long tables were pulled away from the wall at which the teachers sat. The
first few minutes of the session typically consisted of teachers entering, signing in and
taking the appropriate agendas and handouts. Next, a few announcements were usually
made by the principal, assistant principal and teachers. Introductions were made and the
presenter would take over. Both coaches regularly attended banked time sessions even
when the presenter was an outside resource. Faculty meetings often followed once the
banked time sessions had concluded.
According to both teachers and coaches, content relevant to standards, curriculum,
and testing were typically presented at banked time sessions. Discussions surrounded
grade-level specific content regarding test scores, rubrics, and criteria charts. For these
reasons, grade-level meetings were often embedded in banked time sessions. The teachers
interviewed appeared to have favorable thoughts about the embedding of grade- level
meetings within the banked time sessions. One teacher remarked, “It gives us a chance to
talk about our curriculum. Those are most valuable instead of when we meet as a whole
group. We appreciate that it’s during banked time.” Not all grade- level meetings took
place within banked time sessions. Periodically they took place after school, which made it
difficult for some teachers who may have had other commitments during that time.
During the time spent at Tower, the data collector attended four banked time
sessions. School staff facilitated all but one. The sessions took place over the span of four
weeks. These included a session on vertical articulation in math (facilitated by Ms.
Holmes), a session presented by the Blue Palm Theater Group (invited to present based on
76
Tower’s efforts toward integrating the arts into the curriculum), a session on autism
(facilitated by the head special education teacher), and a session about group motivation
(facilitated by teachers).
The session on vertical articulation provided an example of how grade- level
meetings were embedded within the banked time sessions. In this example, the math coach
explained the purpose of the session and took the opportunity to encourage teachers to
“use” her services:
An agenda was passed out at the beginning of the meeting. Ms. Holmes
says, “What we’re going to be doing today, we’re going to have the
opportunity to talk to teachers in other grades. This is a chance for vertical
articulation. I put that note in your boxes that should be able to help us plan
and prioritize. You’ll go over what you’d like to tell your 4th grade teachers
what you would like incoming 5th graders to know.” Ms. Holmes adds,
“Use me as a resource. When I come to your classes, please, please ask me
if I have any ideas to review this lesson. I brought some resources here (she
shows some books and games). This is another kind of curriculum you can
use.”
The teachers worked through this session in small groups and were actively
engaged. Small groups and active engagement were typical in the observed sessions.
Interviews with a few teachers sometimes revealed more negative perceptions of the
banked time sessions, particularly those specific to assessment data and testing. One
teacher commented, “It’s boring; if they would just do something different. It gets to the
point where we dread seeing those charts. The numbers and data don’t really mean
anything.” Sometimes banked time sessions were presentations or lectures that the teachers
didn’t always find as useful. Another teacher stated:
When we get hands-on lessons and examples of how those different teachers do it
differently in their classroom, and what has worked for them. That’s when it’s
really good. I mean, I understand that it shows growth and everything, but I like to
77
see something hands-on that we can actually take from the Tuesday meetings,
instead of always just looking at overheads of typed up, you know, printed scores
and how exactly everyone’s doing. That kind of makes a few of us feel like we’re
going backward a little. It’s not as productive as when we just meet and share what
works, instead of comparing all the numbers.
The content and activities for banked time sessions differed for each session but
remained an ongoing challenge for instructional coaches and administrative faculty to keep
them interesting and worth the teachers’ time.
Summary
Tower functioned within the context of collaboration, clear definitions of roles and
expectations, and support. Unburdened with extraneous responsibilities and the
implementation of multiple programs, the instructional coaches focused on their practice
and the activities involved to support instructional changes in teacher practice. The
demonstrated initiative taken by the coaches to engage all teachers added to the
effectiveness of instructional coaching at this school. The specific examples presented in
this case study of changes in teacher practice provided further evidence. Other professional
development activities, particularly banked time sessions, suggested the need for continued
improvement in quality and relevance to the classroom. However, the potential for
improvement was supported by the observed willingness of the teachers and the focus
placed on meeting their needs.
Evans Elementary – Case 2
Evans Elementary School is a large, multi- track school located in the San Fernando
Valley. During the 2002-03 school year, Evans employed an assistant principal, two full-
time coaches for literacy and math, and coordinators for categorical programs. The vast
majority of Evans’ students were classified as “Hispanic.” Approximately three-quarters of
the students were English Learners. Almost all students participated in a meal program.
The majority of the teachers were credentialed. Among returning teachers, the median
range of time spent at this school was 2 to 5 years.
78
This school was chosen for a case study based on its progress in math as indicated
by SAT/9 scores, and its identification by the DMP evaluation as a school offering quality
instruction in math. In 2002, Evans scored clearly below the LAUSD averages on each of
the four subject areas for all grades, but showed above average gains in most subjects.
Although Evans ranked below “5” among similar schools on the API, the school met its
API growth target for 2001-02.
The focus of this case study was to provide an understanding of the primary
components of school-based professional development at Evans. The three primary
components were organizational context, instructional coaching, and Professional
Development Banked Time Tuesday sessions. The description of the organizational
context provided the framework for understanding how Evans functioned as a site for
professional learning.
Organizational Context
Evans, under the direction of Principal Fernández and Assistant Principal Ulrich,
had seen substantial change in recent years. Test scores and the school climate had
improved. Professional development had become an important focus in the administrators’
campaign for school-wide change. Principal Fernández described professional
development as a having “a significant role” in the school’s current success.
Principal Fernández came to the school with an agenda for improvement. She
described the school as being “pretty dysfunctional” at the time of her arrival. Since then,
the school had made important gains. As Principal Fernández and Assistant Principal
Ulrich told the story, the school had undergone a “renaissance” in recent years. Test scores
were rising and the educational climate was becoming more positive. They spoke of the
school in terms of an “Old Evans” and a “New Evans.” The administrators attributed the
emergence of the New Evans to a number of factors. These included a cluster-wide reform
effort, support from the local district, community support, parent involvement, and outside
funding. They also placed importance on the school’s leadership committees of parents
and staff members. The experience of the school’s turnaround was reflected in this
statement from a member of the school’s leadership team. “When I first came here, I
thought ‘I am in hell?’ But now things really have changed. Teachers like talking to each
79
other about what needs to be done. And it’s working. The [API] improvement was a
shocker.”
Teamwork appeared to be central to Principal Fernández’s vision of professional
development. She and Assistant Principal Ulrich, who spoke of himself as a “cheerleader”
for the school, complemented each other’s strengths and interests. Principal Fernández met
on a weekly basis with the assistant principal, the coaches, two coordinators, and the office
manager to plan banked time sessions and address other school matters. Nevertheless, the
data suggested that the principal carried out most of the planning and decision-making.
Her choices for professional development content involved balancing teachers’ needs with
district priorities. She made content decisions through surveying faculty members,
analyzing student data, and meetings with an advisory council that included coaches and
categorical program coordinators. As expressed in an interview, her focus was on the
teachers in the “middle,” not the “highly motivated” or the “unmotivated.”
Despite the “teamwork” approach reported by Principal Fernández, a theme of
inconsistency emerged. While the push was for teamwork, the needs of “unmotivated”
teachers seemed to be left out of the equation. Furthermore, the principal spoke of the
coaches as members of the team but did not see that the differing perceptions of roles and
expectations interfered with their work as part of the team, seeking the same common end,
Overall, what emerged was a mismatch between administrator perceptions and the actual
implementation of the professional development activities. Although, as stated earlier,
Evans had made great efforts toward change and growth, the inconsistencies in
perceptions, expectations, and focus reflected the difficulties of transition.
Professional Development Opportunities at Evans
The school’s professional development strategy involved curricular initiatives
(reading and math), banked time Tuesday sessions, grade- level meetings, the cluster-wide
initiative (which included recurring professional development on curriculum, classroom
practices, and parent involvement), and administrator visits to classrooms. Principal
Fernández also spoke of converting funds, raised through grants and community
involvement, into resources for professional learning, including materials, release time,
and pacing books/calendars.
80
Supplementing these school-directed professional development activities were a
cluster-wide whole school reform program and a local district-sponsored program to
strengthen under-performing schools (ERSI).21 These various initiatives combined to
provide many opportunities and burdens for the school. To a certain extent, there was
coherence among programs. Content and strategies from specific professional
development activities carried over into other activities. For example, the conversation on
portfolios carried on across multiple forums, including banked time sessions and an ERSI
meeting. In planning for the next school year, teachers worked on the connections between
their literacy curriculum and their science curriculum. On the other hand, staff members
continued to report on the irrelevancy of the activities and the limited effort to sustain
professional development over time.
A staff retreat that took place during our time spent at Evans, evidenced Principal
Fernández’s efforts toward teamwork and collaboration. This activity, an afternoon on
campus, focused on pacing and alignment in language arts. The principal noticed that
during a similar gathering sponsored by the cluster-wide reform initiative, teachers began
to think more positively about professional development. She decided to schedule this
school’s retreat shortly after class assignments for the next school year. Along with snack
and drinks, she provided next year’s instructional materials for language arts. Teachers
joined in grade- level groups and worked on pacing plans. Ms. Fernández circulated and
listened. This was consistent with her reserved approach in other professional development
meetings. She often provided guidance in these meetings through questions and brief
comments: “Does anyone remember what we accomplished in our last meeting in terms of
format?” “I can’t visualize what it is supposed to look like from what we discussed so far.
That’s why I am asking for he lp.” “I have two ways [of approaching this activity], but I
need input from the group.”
Systems and structures outside of school-based professional development activities
also provided support for professional learning at Evans. These included off-campus
events. Highly motivated teachers pursued their own professional development outside of
the workday. Also, these highly motivated teachers could fulfill their own interests: “Most
of the best professional development opportunities happen where we have the option to go
21 Enhanced Review of School Improvement.
81
there on our own time, unfortunately.” This allowed Principal Fernández to focus school-
based activities on the teachers who were in the “middle,” as consistent with her vision of
professional development. The provision of support for these two groups of teachers
(highly-motivated and those in the middle), without indication of a focus on “unmotivated”
teachers, contributed to the somewhat disjointed context that emerged throughout this case
study.
Faculty responses to professional development opportunities varied at Evans.
Positive comments often focused on cooperative learning with other teachers and gaining
new strategies for the classroom. Nonetheless, many teachers also expressed a sense of
skepticism, sometimes noting that they already knew the content or that the limited
structure detracted from the value of the offerings. Even Principal Fernández noted that
teachers initially saw the Principles of Learning as “a waste of time.” Some teachers spoke
of professional development activities as not being consistent from session to session
and/or not having follow up after the sessions. Another theme that emerged through
negative comments about professional development addressed applicability to real- life
situations. Teachers questioned the practical relevance of sessions created and/or presented
by persons who were not in classrooms (e.g., consultants, coordinators).
Evans had made many efforts toward coherence. Teachers were more likely to buy
into opportunities that presented classroom applications and engaged teachers
collaboratively. Evidence of collaboration was present in some activities such as the staff
retreat. There were no indications, however, of any focus on the “unmotivated” teachers,
or of any efforts made toward their professional growth. Overall, many teachers perceived
the professional development opportunities as inconsistent in terms of content and not
sustained over time.
Instructional Coaching
During the data collection period, Evans had two full- time coaches, one for literacy
and one for math. Although the literacy coach, Ms. Mattson, and the math coach, Mr.
Thomas, had similar formal responsibilities, they used their time in very different ways.
Ms. Mattson devoted the majority of her time to implementing and interpreting
assessments. Mr. Thomas focused on classrooms and instruction. He estimated that 50% of
his time was spent on classroom observation, 30% went toward classroom demonstrations,
82
and the remaining 20% toward other activities (such as presenting at meetings and working
with assessment data). Both spent their weeks engaged in a variety of tasks, both inside
and outside the classroom.
Perceptions of roles and expectations. As described earlier, perceptions of the
coaches’ roles and the expectations placed upon them were not always clear and consistent
across the school staff. The coaches described their own confusion regarding their roles.
Mr. Thomas revealed that when he first began as the math coach at Evans he constantly
volunteered to perform demonstration lessons. “I thought it was my job to demo all the
time,” he shared. It wasn’t long after that some teachers came forward to inform him that
others were taking advantage and using the demo time to relax. He was advised to spend
more time observing the teachers teach.
Mr. Thomas believed that teachers expected him to “work with the kids.” His role,
he said, was to work with the teachers, but he had a vague understanding of how the school
administrators perceived his role. Mr. Thomas was not provided with a clear definition of
his role upon becoming the math coach but had to continuously work out his role through
time and experience. One thing that was made very explicit by the administrators, he stated
during his interview, was their expectation that he made sure teachers spent enough time
engaged in math instruction.
Similar to Mr. Thomas, Ms. Mattson recalled her role confusion during her
beginning days, “When you first arrive in this position, you have to determine what gets
done during the day and there is no guidance. That is the hardest part.” Ms. Mattson’s ideal
version of her role involved modeling instructional practices based on higher levels of
Bloom’s taxonomy. She believed that these activities should comprise the majority of her
duties as a coach. Instead, her actual role involved the coordination of the technical aspects
of the school’s reading program, including assessment and data management. This was
supported by Assistant Principal Ulrich’s description of Ms. Mattson’s role, which was to
“see that the person (teacher) is following the lesson plan for the day.” All those
interviewed perceived the literacy coach’s role as inflexible and scripted. Even Principal
Fernández reported, “I don’t know how she assigns time to get into the classroom.”
Principal Fernández spoke of the coaches at Evans as providing “the things I am
not able to do.” Part of their function, she stated, was to “help the principal in the
83
principal’s vision.” Aside from being her “ears” and “eyes,” she acknowledged them as
“instructional leaders” who provided direct services to the teachers. Ideally, Principal
Fernández believed the coaches should “be following up to see what is happening in the
classroom, providing more assistance, and doing demos with intensive feedback.” They
were also to be an extension of the administration, observing classroom trends and
reporting them to her. In general, her ideal vision was “that the coach and the administrator
work hand- in-hand in the process of providing guidance and assistance to the teachers.”
This expressed vision was not consistent with the coaches’ perceptions or experiences.
Rather, the inconsistency shed some light on the underlying reasons for the role confusion
experienced by the coaches.
The teachers interviewed believed that the coaches functioned as support for them
in the classroom. According to the teachers, this support typically entailed providing
materials, ideas, and suggestions. They voiced the desire for more direct interaction with
the coaches (e.g. demonstration lessons) but acknowledged the constraints on the coaches’
time due to additional multiple responsibilities (e.g. coordinating reading program,
attending trainings).
Overall, at Evans, there were inconsistencies in the perceptions of the coaches’
roles among the coaches, administrators, and teachers. Despite these inconsistencies, the
coaches endeavored to incorporate into their roles what they believed was expected by the
administrators, teachers, local districts through training, and the programs they served. The
organizational context and efforts toward coherence at Evans added to the role confusion.
The notion of “teamwork” did not extend to a collaborative understanding of the
expectations related to the coaches’ responsibilities. As previously reported, Ms. Mattson
found her work as the literacy coach to be dominated by assessments, especially those
mandated as part of the cluster-wide reform. Consequently, many coaching activities had
to be scheduled around various assessment and data management activitie s. Mr. Thomas,
along with attending meetings required by district, attended regular meetings and trainings
required by the cluster-wide reform. One teacher noted that he was often off campus and
the Math Lab was locked when he was out. For both coaches, the reform effort and other
initiatives took them away from their official responsibilities as coaches.
84
Observations and classroom visits. Both Mr. Thomas and Ms. Mattson talked
about observations as being an important aspect of coaching. For Mr. Thomas, there was
no clear distinction between a classroom visit and observation. He estimated that 50% of
his time was devoted to these activities. Ms. Mattson “worked in” classroom visits and
observations around her many assessment activities. Many times both coaches used this
time to monitor performance. With the encouragement of Principal Fernández, Mr.
Thomas often dropped into classes briefly to ensure that teachers actually taught math.
“Math is like a step-child for the teachers; they only do it ‘if I have the time.’ That is why I
need to do more drop- in inspections.” Ms. Mattson also enacted this role. Before one
classroom visit, she explained to the data collector: “This is another class I’d like to
observe. This class is ready to go off track, but there still needs to be teaching going on.”
Ms. Mattson utilized checklists and evaluation forms, some required by the school’s
reading program and some self-created, when she conducted these observational visits. Her
tasks also involved keeping record of teachers’ progress since earlier observations. Mr.
Thomas created a log to document all of his coaching activities and keep track of his
teacher interactions. He noted that the log was for his own use and not to be shared with
administrators.
Aside from monitoring the time spent on math instruction and alignment to the
pacing plan, Mr. Thomas shared his purpose in conducting classroom observations:
Well, you know, I look at what . . . just however the teacher is teaching. I look at
her to see whether the kids are understanding what it is the teacher is teaching.
I just basically look at what the teacher is doing to see that the teacher’s actually
making a connection with the students. Are the kids learning? Looking at the type
of questions that the teacher is asking. You know, just looking at everything.
The purposes of his observations and visits were not always clear to the teachers.
Some teachers who were interviewed noted that he didn’t always provide feedback after
observations. One teacher commented, “He’s been in maybe twice and I guess he observed
but I didn’t get any feedback.” Another teacher reported, “No, no feedback. He just
observes. There’s nothing he gives in writing either. It is probably because he doesn’t find
85
anything that he needs to comment on.” Similarly, some of his visits were short
interactions that did not involve observation of practice. For example, during a visit to a
2nd grade classroom, Mr. Thomas shared with the data collector that the teacher had
previously come to him for help on teaching the concepts of perimeter and area to her
class. After five minutes of observing the class from the back of the room, Mr. Thomas
was approached by the teacher. Mr. Thomas explained to the teacher that he had created a
sample math problem for the class. He walked the teacher through the stages of how to
lead the students through the problem. He asked her for questions, and she replied that she
had none. After this very brief interaction, the visit was concluded. Mr. Thomas
commented afterward to the data collector that he often just dropped by the classrooms to
answer questions raised by teachers, as opposed to scheduling demonstration lessons.
However, he did not mention whether or not he utilized any opportunities to observe the
teacher perform a previously demonstrated lesson or to give feedback to teachers.
Ms. Mattson took a more involved approach to classroom visits. The use of
feedback was central to the process of observation. Her mode was to walk around the
room, look over students’ shoulders, and make notes. She used her checklists for her own
notes and later provided the teacher with a brief feedback form. She stressed the
importance of the feedback forms as a tool to facilitate better communication during her
meetings with the teachers. The forms addressed strengths exhibited in the observed
instruction and plans for the future. In an interview, a teacher noted that Ms. Mattson gave
“actual feedback and it was very useful. I have followed her suggestions, and they work.”
Ms. Mattson explained that the observational process was not complete until she also
received feedback from the teacher on the accuracy of her observations.
Demonstrations. Conducting demonstration lessons was another aspect that both
coaches believed was important to coaching. As presented earlier, Mr. Thomas had tried to
reduce the number of demonstration lessons he performed. He reported that
demonstrations took up about 30% of his time (including planning). These demonstrations
were performed mostly for the newer teachers, who took priority. At times, the principal
would recommend teachers or very rarely, a teacher would approach him. Although this
was not a common occurrence, he stated that he was very open to any teacher asking for
help.
86
During one observed demonstration, Mr. Thomas was to model the use of “head
problems” in a classroom, which he defined as “working with facts in the students’ head
without needing to write them down,” and to demonstrate some long division problems.
The following excerpt was taken from the data collector’s field notes:
For a short time (two minutes), when Mr. Thomas approached the board, the
teacher left to do something, perhaps talk to another teacher as she closed the door
in the front of the class. During this time Mr. Thomas did not start his block of
instruction. Once the teacher closed the door, he began the problem. He used words
as he spoke to the children when he did the problems so that she (the teacher) could
see the topics he wanted to cover. For example, he said, “Okay boys and girls, now
we are going to do a head problem.” When he was done, he then said, “Now we are
going to debrief.” This was the head problem: “First take the number of days in a
week, then multiply by two, then add three.” He instructed the students not to take
down any notes. After walking the students through these steps, he asked which
digits went into the tens place and the ones place. Then, in the debriefing process,
he asked students to tell him the first thing he said to do, then the second, and so
on. Since they had worked on two homework problems that morning, Mr. Thomas
moved on to three more problems from the same assignment, which they had not
covered in class. As he did this, the teacher interjected, after the first problem, that
Mr. Thomas should bring the students up to the board to do the problems. He did
so.
The coach-teacher interaction that occurred during this lesson was very minimal.
Although Mr. Thomas waited for the teacher to return to the classroom before beginning
the lesson, there were no attempts on his part to interact with the teacher or to engage in
any dialogue of the teaching process.
The teacher’s attitude toward the coach was not positive. Her behavior at the start
of the lesson indicated that she did not place much importance on the demonstration.
During a follow-up interview with this teacher, she shared her belief that she was the one
providing the assistance to the coach: “Today, I was the one who said let’s have kids go to
87
the board. I’ve been giving him ideas. I guess I’ve been looking for ways to make his ideas
better.”
Other teachers who were interviewed also expressed their opinions concerning Mr.
Thomas’ demonstrations. For the most part their opinions were not unfavorable. These
teachers did report the desire for greater interaction than they had received. One teacher
said that he would like twice as much contact with the math coach, specifically with more
time devoted to observations and demonstrations. Another teacher said, “He has come in
before and said, ‘I want to teach a class.’ I am open to that.” After a subsequent
demonstration lesson in his classroom, however, this same teacher reported that no
debriefing had occurred. He added that Mr. Thomas was “just in and out.” The comments
made by these teachers suggested that perhaps Mr. Thomas’ focus on new teachers and his
limited offerings of feedback led to a breakdown in communication with teachers who may
have wanted to participate more fully in coaching.
Due to the priority of managing data and assessment of the reading program, Ms.
Mattson had significantly less time to perform demonstration lessons than the math coach.
When demonstrations did occur, they were largely outcomes of her classroom visits and
observations. Although a few teachers referred to past demonstration lessons performed by
Ms. Mattson during the interviews, no demonstrations were observed during the period of
data collection.
Assessments. The coaches were responsible for assessing student performance in
their respective content areas. However, the distribution of time spent on assessments was
disproportionate between the two coaches. Mr. Thomas estimated that less than 5% of his
time was devoted to assessments. This primarily involved “number crunching” with the
results of quarterly assessments. He provided professional development for teachers by
addressing results with teachers and offering strategies to improve student achievement.
For example, after a quarterly assessment late in the school year, he met with upper-grade
teachers to assist them in the use of math kits and to provide them with strategies for group
work in math.
Ms. Mattson’s work, on the other hand, revolved around assessment. Her work
involved preparing materials and test rosters, giving them to teachers, and then entering
scores into the computer. She also personally administered each of the assessments for the
88
students in one grade. Based on this data, she determined the reading level of each child.
Her assessment responsibilities sometimes negatively affected her other coaching
responsibilities. For example, in order to complete her assessment tasks, Ms. Mattson
indefinitely postponed an appointment to demonstrate “meaningful sentences” in the
classroom of a teacher who the coaches regarded as needing support. When the data
collector was able to accompany the coach during a classroom observation, a voice over
the intercom called her out to administer an assessment in another room. As Principal
Fernández explained in an interview: “The district has put so many demands on the
coaches. Well, for the literacy coach, there is just one assessment after the other. It is an
ongoing challenge.”
Consulting. Along with their responsibilities in classrooms and training rooms,
these coaches served as informal resources for teachers at Evans. Mr. Thomas, drawing on
his training in Cognitive Coaching, said that he was “consulting” when he approached
teachers with questions about techniques and practices. As in this example from an
interview, he used questioning as a way to suggest classroom strategies: “I would say,
‘You know, [Name], there’s certain techniques for like class control, and certain
techniques for eliminating echoes, and things, that I think would be of interest to you. Do
you have your chart?” He would then go over the designated techniques with the teacher.
He also noted that he used opportunities to consult when he dropped by classrooms to
answer teachers’ questions. Yet, there was very little evidence provided through
observation or teacher reports to indicate that this was a common practice for Mr. Thomas.
Ms. Mattson reported that teachers often approached her with questions: “I would
say 15 to 20 times a week or more teachers ask me a little question here or a little question
there about something or another.” Prompted fo r more detail, she explained: “Which test to
use for a child. But these are short questions. It’s like ‘tell me what to do, don’t train me
for three hours.’ But they can always ask me for more assistance.”
The process of consulting appeared to be very much like short question/answer
sessions between the coach and the teacher. Although the coaches, and some teachers,
expressed a willingness to engage in more interactive conversation, the coaches did not
take these opportunities proactively. There was no indication that there was time devoted
to post-demonstration or post-observation conferencing or debriefing by either coach.
89
Managing materials. Among his many responsibilities, Mr. Thomas ordered and
distributed instructional support materials for math (i.e. manipulatives). This involved a
multi-step process of investigating teacher needs, identifying materials to meet those
needs, developing a justification, gaining approval from grade- level chairs and Principal
Fernández, placing and tracking the status of the ordered materials, receiving,
warehousing, and distributing the materials. Although these tasks did not absorb major
portions of his time, they sometimes interfered with his other responsibilities. Observations
and interviews with Ms. Mattson did not reveal any specific responsibilities related to
material management.
Parent trainings. As part of the cluster-wide initiative, Ms. Mattson and Mr.
Thomas participated in training sessions for parents. The goal of this program was to assist
parents in tutoring their own children. A parent advocate described the sessions as
“professional development for parents.” In late April, Mr. Thomas led a session on
mathematical operations. He used manipulatives and other strategies to demonstrate ways
of working with addition and subtraction. In the same session, Ms. Mattson participated in
a skit, playing a child working on reading comprehension. In the skit, a mother who only
spoke Spanish modeled questioning strategies and positive parent-child communication
skills.
Effects of Coaching
This case study provided the opportunity to examine the relationship between
coaching activities and changes in teacher classroom practices as they related to student
learning and achievement. First, we looked at how the coaches described themselves as
successful in their own practice. Success was defined in terms of changes made as a result
of engaging in coaching, either directly by teachers in their instructional practice, or
indirectly by students in their assessments. Second, we looked more specifically at the
effects of the coach-teacher interaction on the instructional practices of four teachers. To
accomplish this, we drew from classroom observation data collected for the DMP
evaluation.
90
The coaches at Evans characterized changes in teachers’ behaviors as evidence of
success in their roles. Mr. Thomas, during his interview, broadly described his success as a
coach:
Well, you know you’re successful at what you do when you go in and see the
teachers doing what you tell them to do. So, I guess, you know, I mean more or
less, you know, you have to take it with a grain of salt. I mean, if I don’t see them
doing what I tell them to do, I can’t say that I’ve actually failed. I don’t think
there’s any . . . I wouldn’t say there’s any really failure or winning, but I will say
that the more teachers are doing what you’re doing, what they’re supposed to do,
and of course, the success is actually based on how the kids improve. So if the
teachers are doing what they’re supposed to do, and the kids are doing better, and
standardized tests, like what we’re doing here, then that’s success also. And even if
it’s a small movement, but at least there’s some movement.
To emphasize his description of success as teachers doing “what they’re supposed
to do,” Mr. Thomas pointed out a specific teacher during his rounds of classroom
visitations. She was teaching math to the students as we entered, which visibly pleased Mr.
Thomas. He explained:
This is a unique teacher because she loves to teach the students math. She usually
spends at least one-and-one-half-hours per day on the subject. Now, according to
the schedules that are posted in the classrooms, all teachers are supposed to be
spending at least one hour per day on math. But many don’t. I check in on them
and find them doing administrative things, or they tell me that they just didn’t have
time to get around to the math lesson for that day. But she is an exception.
For Ms. Mattson, she described success as seeing her feedback and suggestions put
into practice during her follow-up observations with teachers. Ms. Mattson explained that
91
she often used her initial observation form22 during her follow-up observations to
determine whether or not the teachers had improved. During an observation of one
classroom teacher, Ms. Mattson shared her impressions with the data collector:
Right now the kids are working independently doing their reading. Before, when I
came here last time, I saw that the children were working with partners. Too many
of them were off- task when she did it that way. So, I said just have them work
independently because they are too noisy when they work as partners. And it
works. The difference in the number of kids that are actually reading is clear.
Another example involved a brief visit in a 4th grade classroom. Ms. Mattson
explained how before, this teacher was not really providing much direction, but that had
changed more recently after Ms. Mattson’s initial visits.
This looks like the first time [Name] is doing some things. Instead of reading, she
is taking things a step further by bringing the children up in front of the class.
I am trying to get her to expand on meaningful sentences with the class. You know,
some sentences can get very detailed going into who did what, when, where, and
how. It can get ridiculous how far you can take it. But the kids will be facing some
of those sentences in their testing and in other situations. I think I’ll do a demo for
her so she can see how to do this. Otherwise, she’s doing better. The kids knew
exactly where to sit, so you can see she’s been doing the reading on a regular basis.
You can see that the kids enjoy it and she enjoys it too.
Both coaches expressed similar descriptions of success in their jobs. To take a
closer look at changes teachers may have made in their practice as a result of coaching, we
looked specifically at data on coach-teacher interactions and quality of instruction for four
teachers at Evans.
The effects of coach-teacher interactions were studied by first examining the level
of interaction between the coaches and the teachers. Each of the four teachers was asked to 22 The coaching forms used by Ms. Mattson reflected the components of the reading program being implemented at Evans during the period of data collection.
92
describe what the coach had done to facilitate changes in their practice.23 Providing
manipulatives and other materials was the common response to how the coach assisted
them in their classrooms. Two teachers mentioned being shown a “multiplication game.”
However, classroom observations of these four teachers did not provide any supporting
evidence of resulting changes in practice. This may have been due to two factors: (1) the
teachers’ responses were too broad to see evidence of actual changes, and (2) the particular
lessons observed did not involve the use of manipulatives or the “multiplication game.”
The teachers all reported similar instances of direct, one-to-one coach-teacher interaction.
This interaction included at least two opportunities of demonstration lessons and classroom
observations. Two of the teachers still requested greater availability and access to their
math coach.
Findings from the DMP evaluation consisted of ratings assigned to dimensions of
quality in the instructional practices of the four teachers.24 All four teachers exhibited
improvement in their ability to clearly and explicitly articulate the math concepts and skills
to be taught, and the knowledge the students were expected to gain. The teachers were also
observed as placing more of an emphasis on mathematical thinking during their lessons.
There were no observed changes in the teachers’ articulation of relevancy of the tasks or in
the overall challenge of mathematical tasks presented to the students, which would have
reflected greater emphasis on problem solving. The influence and support provided by the
direct interaction with the math coach, albeit, limited to demonstrations and observations,
were reflected in the observed improvement in teacher practice. As noted earlier, the math
coach rarely engaged in feedback with the teachers. Changes in the math coach’s practice,
particularly greater time and attention to feedback, debriefing, and greater coach-teacher
interaction would greatly benefit these teachers whose potential for change was evident.
Professional Development Banked Time Tuesdays
Evans conducted eight banked time sessions during the data collection period.
Many involved multiple topics and presenters/facilitators, sometimes within the same
session. Coaches sometimes led sessions on their content specialties. Topics included
truancy (presented by a representative of the District Attorney’s office), math assessment
23 These teachers were only interviewed about the math coach. 24 Refer to page 43 for description of DMP ratings.
93
(Mr. Thomas), matriculation standards (bilingual coordinator), portfolios (Assistant
Principal Ulrich, a consultant, and grade chairs), CAT/6 testing and planning for next
year’s classes (bilingual coordinator), science pacing (the school’s science specialist), and
the matrix (Assistant Principal Ulrich, the science specialist, and the Title I coordinator).
These sessions ran between 35 minutes and two hours in length.
The variety of topics seemed to come from both plan and necessity. In interviews
Principal Fernández spoke of meeting both district requirements and teacher needs.
Sometimes this involved postponing a scheduled topic in favor of another one to meet
immediate needs. In terms of continuity, only one topic was addressed across multiple
meetings during the data collection period. “Portfolios,” a topic integral to the ERSI
process, was the subject of two consecutive Tuesday sessions and some additional
meetings.
Along with offering a variety of topics, the banked time sessions featured different
presentation formats. Most commonly, teachers divided into groups during the session,
usually by grade level, to participate in discussions and activities. Other formats were
lecture-style presentations topics, such as the sessions on truancy and CAT/6 testing.
Banked time discussions generally went through phases during the sessions that
were less structured and more interactive. This process reflected the phases in classic
theories of group discussion. The discussions usually began with an introductory phase in
which teachers expressed skepticism, assigned responsibilities, and faced the ambiguity of
the task. This was followed by an exploratory phase of offering opinions and information,
acknowledging differences in personal classroom practices, developing a sense of
ownership in the activity, managing differences of opinion, and evaluating possible
solutions against relevant criteria. This was followed by an emergence phase in which
decisions/solutions were determined and sometimes shared outside the group. Re-
assessment of the decisions/solutions from the emergence phase sometime led the group
back to the introductory phase.
Banked time sessions sometimes evolved into different groups of teachers
participating in different activities. During an April session, a sub-group of teachers and
administrators participated in an ERSI meeting addressing truancy and assessments instead
of participating in the banked time session. In May, during a session on CAT/6 testing,
94
teachers on the track that had already completed CAT/6 were sent to another room to plan
for next year. In an interview, a teacher who had been off-track lamented having to hear
about a particular banked time session second-hand from other teachers. She concluded:
“You see [my] track has not heard it; chances are we’ll never hear it.”
Overall, among the teachers interviewed, the responses were most often positive
toward banked time sessions that allowed for grade-level groupings. However, some felt
that the lack of coherence across sessions was disadvantageous. One teacher commented,
“There isn’t any real structure to it. It just seems that we’ll do one thing one week and
something the next. Every Tuesday it’s something else.” Efforts toward coherence made
by the administration in planning banked time sessions appeared to have been undermined
by inconsistency in content and by the simultaneous occurrences of unrelated meetings.
Summary
At Evans, instructional coaching and banked time Tuesdays occurred in a complex
context. This context involved efforts toward change and progress, already evident through
the favorable reports of many staff members, major reform initiatives that supported
professional development, and the administrators’ promotion of a teamwork approach.
However, there were other contributing factors to the context at Evans that produced a
somewhat disjointed effect. The absence of professional development efforts toward
“unmotivated” teachers, and the inconsistencies in expectations between the principal and
the coaches, were two such factors. These factors affected the performance of the coaches,
which were evidenced by limited coach-teacher interactions and minimized potential for
change in instructional practice.
Merrick Elementary – Case 3
Merrick Elementary School is a multi-track school located in the East Los Angeles
area. During the 2002-03 school year, the core staff included the principal, assistant
principal, two coaches for literacy, two for the writing program, and one for math. Over
99% of the students were classified as “Hispanic.” English Learners comprised about 75%
of the student population. Over 99% of the students participated in the free lunch program.
Approximately 47% of the teachers were fully credentialed. The remaining teachers were
classified as probationary (19%), emergency credentialed (22%), and district intern (11%).
The average number of years of teaching experience within LAUSD was six years.
95
Merrick was chosen for the case study of professional development from a sample
of schools participating in the District Reading Plan (DRP) Evaluation. The selection was
based on the increased percentage of students who made gains in reading scores on the
SAT/9. Although in 2001-02 it had a statewide rank of 3, it was ranked at 9 among similar
schools, and exceeded its API growth target for 2001-02.
The focus of this case study was to provide an understanding of the primary
components of school-based professional development at Merrick Elementary. The three
primary components were organizational context, instructional coaching, and Professional
Development Banked Time Tuesday sessions. The discussion of themes that emerged
through the examination of the organizational context provided a framework for
understanding how Merrick functioned as a site for professional learning.
Organizational Context
In 2002-03, the local district in which Merrick resided mandated the use of a
writing program in addition to the Open Court Reading program utilized by the majority of
elementary schools across LAUSD. Two writing coaches, in addition to the two literacy
coaches already in place, accompanied this mandated implementation. Responsibilities
were divided by grade level between both sets of coaches. Two significant themes
emerged through data analyses that were direct results of the concurrent implementation of
these programs. The first theme involved role conflict, frustration, and confusion
experienced by the coaches. The second theme, the way in which time was allotted or
spent, impacted both the quantity and the quality of the professional development based at
Merrick.
Conflicting expectations and role confusion among the coaches stemmed from the
overburdening of coaches with a substantial number of responsibilities caused by the
multiple programs. The effects on the coaches were evidenced by their engagement in
activities that extended beyond their expected roles. Many times these activities, such as
yard duty, were outside of their roles. The math coach was often charged with
responsibilities, outside of math, in support of the co- implementation of reading and
writing programs. The principal also conducted demonstration lessons in classrooms when
necessary. In addition to the already overwhelming workload of the coaches, they each
concurrently held a coordinator position at the school (i.e. bilingual, Title I, GATE, and
96
Standards-based). The multiple programs, activities, and roles were the primary source of
the coaches’ frustration and confusion.
The issue of time also emerged as a theme in the examination of professional
development at Merrick. The effects on professional development activities (i.e. grade-
level meetings, banked time sessions) were largely the result of the excessive time devoted
to one program to the detriment of the others. This imbalance produced an atmosphere of
“competition” among these programs. Observed meetings and sessions that were
overscheduled and rushed often detracted from the quality of such activities.
An additional, although not prominent, theme contributed to the organizational
context. This involved the very forthright opposition by the school’s UTLA representatives
to the continued employment of the writing program coaches. The crux of this opposition
was budgetary. Union opposition affected the coaches’ perceptions of the support they
received from the school in which they functioned and, at times, from the teachers they
worked to support.
Professional development vision and efforts. Principal Lenox communicated
her vision of professional development by describing how it related to her own persona l
philosophy:
Well, my philosophy before I go into my vision is that the only thing that makes a
difference in the student instructional program is the training that the teachers have.
Can’t expect them to do a standards based, for example, curriculum, or
environment, without giving them the tools to work with in the training. And so, I
feel that if a teacher has all the tools she needs and the training, then they’ll know
exactly what to teach. So staff development is centered around this thought that I
have. It’s that they need to know and have a clear vision of what the children
should be learning and what they should be teaching.
Ms. Gautier (K-3 literacy coach) added her own vision of professional
development that valued the input of teachers. She described teachers as “the greatest
asset.” She added that “when they [teachers] become part of what you’re doing” and
97
“when we start to tap into their knowledge, and having them be part of the professional
development,” teachers and students would both be successful.
Professional development efforts and activities at Merrick were guided by this
shared vision. These efforts were largely under the control of the leadership team
(principal, assistant principal, all coaches and three teachers). The leadership team
endeavored to provide professional development that they believed best met the needs of
their teachers. Principal Lenox spoke of the school’s efforts toward actualizing the overall
vision and the encouraging results of those efforts:
We worked very hard at it and had a very focused professional development. And it
made a big difference. And I learned a lot from it, and I learned that, you know,
teachers don’t especially want to leave their classrooms. But every time teachers
went out and got staff developed and they came back, I could see a difference in
their teaching. I could see the difference in our classrooms immediately, and that’s
what I was going for all year long.
Although the principal spoke of “focused” professional development and the
results that ensued, other members of the team desired greater collaboration across the
programs and greater cohesiveness of Merrick’s professional development. This was
evident through interviews and informal conversations with various team members. One
coach spoke of the importance of time to “sit together and discuss from across the table to
help each other.” A greater sense of balance, or “equity,” as another team member
described, was also desired. However, despite the principal’s perceived success of the
professional development efforts and activities put forth by the team, greater collaboration
and program cohesion seemed unlikely. Although the desire was present, many of the team
members simply did not have the time.
Instructional Coaching
Merrick had five coaches: two full- time literacy coaches (Open Court), one full-
time math coach, and two part-time writing coaches. All coaches, except for math, were
assigned to work with teachers of specific grade levels. The activities of all five coaches
were very similar. They all visited classrooms and observed instruction, conducted
98
demonstration lessons, conferenced with teachers, worked with assessment data and
results, and facilitated or presented grade- level meetings or banked time sessions. The
differences among the coaches became evident in their performance of these activities. For
instance, the literacy and math coaches were expected to fulfill all of their specific
responsibilities with limitations placed on the time allotted to fulfill them. This was
because they were also expected to take on responsibilities outside of their assignments.
The writing coaches were also affected. The quantity and duration of writing
demonstration lessons, referred to as roll-outs, were so burdensome at times that the
assistance of other staff members was often required.
The differences in the coaches’ responsibilities contributed greatly to the role
confusion and frustration experienced by the coaches. Also affected was the quality of the
coaches’ performances as they struggled to fulfill all of their responsibilities. In spite of
this, the coaches were consistent in their perceptions of their roles as supportive to the
teachers, the students, and each other as they struggled to carry out their responsibilities.
Role perceptions and expectations. All of the coaches perceived their primary
roles as supportive toward the teachers. Ms. Gautier (K-3 literacy coach) stressed that it
was important that the teachers felt comfortable in coming to her when they had any
concerns, whether or not it was program-related, and that her role was never evaluative.
She believed that teachers saw her as a “helping force.” This was reflected in the following
comment made by a second grade teacher: “She gives us packages on reading material,
how children learn vocabulary more effectively. And she’s always given us resources,
writing suggestions.” Mr. Townshend (4-5 literacy coach) likewise indicated that he would
like to spend most of his time working with teachers and providing support. Ms. Fane
related that her purpose as a math coach was to make teachers’ lives as easy as possible. “I
try to help them how I would have liked to have been helped when I was teaching.” Ms.
Varelli (K-2 writing coach) expressed her frustration over not always being able to enact
the supportive role: “I do extra work and/or delegate. This is to the detriment of the
teachers. I’m not always able to meet their needs because I am overwhelmed.”
Principal Lenox’s overall view of the supportive nature of coaching was in
accordance with the coaches’ perceptions. She described an idealized view of coaches as
role models for teachers, and used a sports analogy to make her point:
99
I think we need to recruit the best teachers to be the coaches, because like on any
athletic team, a coach makes the difference in how they motivate and how they
strategize and how they get their team to be on top. And I feel it’s exactly the same
way. Our teachers are like team members and they’ve got a coach and the coach is
just right there giving them the strategies and planning with them an supporting
them and motivating them.
However, this idealized view or vision of coaching was not always reflected in the
additional activities the coaches were required to perform or in the expectations placed
upon them. The literacy and math coaches were expected to “cover” the classrooms of
teachers who went out to observe writing demonstrations or attend writing grade- level
meetings. The writing coaches also covered classes for each other. All coaches were
expected to serve on committees, as one coach explained. She, herself, participated in
Student Study Team (SST) meetings. A writing coach sometimes covered for other staff
by doing yard supervision.
In addition to the multiple expectations placed upon them, one coach specifically
appeared to be experiencing what was identified in the organizational literature as role
conflict. Katz & Kahn (1978) defined role conflict “as the simultaneous occurrence of two
or more role expectations such that compliance with one would make compliance with the
other more difficult.” Ms. Gautier, the K-3 literacy coach, was given the added
responsibility of conducting kindergarten demonstration lessons for the writing program
along with her Open Court responsibilities. Ms. Gautier spoke of the frustration of not
having had a choice with respect to taking on this task. She felt it was very inconsiderate
on the part of the principal, that it was a matter of “Okay. You’re it.” She felt slighted, but
complied, “I’ll do any task for my teachers. I could have fought it. It’s not part of my
duties.” This task also took time away from her primary responsibilities in that she had to
actively seek training to teach the writing program to other teachers. She took it upon
herself to go to other schools and observe teachers, as well as seek out specific training
materials.
100
What emerged through the data was the coaches’ intent to collaborate in order to
make the programs work regardless of the conflicting expectations. These intentions
mirrored those of the leadership team in their desire for greater collaboration and cohesion.
The coaches were aware of the obstacles and what needed to be done to overcome them.
Though frustrated at times, one coach stated that she worked hard to “do anything that
needs to be done.” Mr. Rodney, the 4-5 writing coach, added, “We need to get together
with the OC coaches to coordinate. We know we have to. Just have to find the time.” Ms.
Gautier spoke of how she proposed to ameliorate the effects of the multiple program
implementations:
The issue of [the writing plan] and Open Court in many schools, and even here I’d
say, it has been kind of like pull us apart, you know. Because teachers feel like
they’re doing double work. And that’s because it wasn’t ever clarified to them what
it is that needed to be done. So, what you asked me earlier what I would perceive
the future goals. Well, one of my goals this year is to make sure that all the teachers
have a very good clear understanding of how [the writing plan] and Open Court
works. So they don’t feel like they’re doing two jobs. But yeah, we’re doing two
things, but it’s under the same umbrella. So that is really my job.
A more comprehensive discussion of the specific activities and responsibilities of
the coaches are presented in the subsequent sections.25 In addition, the impact of the
organizational context on the performance of these activities is included.
Demonstrations. All the coaches at Merrick conducted demonstration lessons in
their content area. Ms. Fane, the math coach, conducted demonstrations primarily for the
new teachers about once a week. She also demonstrated sample lessons during banked
time sessions. The writing coaches (Mr. Rodney and Ms. Varelli) conducted their
demonstrations in the form of roll-outs, which typically involved a series of interconnected
lessons over a specified time period. These lessons were conducted in one teacher’s 25 As this school was chosen as a study site for its achievement gains in reading/language arts, data collection efforts were focused primarily, although not exclusively, on the two literacy coaches. Specific opportunities to observe the other three coaches were also limited due to both time constraints and the part-time positions of the two writing coaches.
101
classroom while four or five other teachers observed. Ms. Gautier used her Open Court
demonstration lessons to support K-3 teachers by demonstrating strategies and lessons that
improved the connections between the two programs (Open Court and writing).
Demonstrations were also based on assessment results and teachers’ needs as observed
through classroom visitations. In addition to her responsibilities as a literacy coach, Ms.
Gautier was tasked with conducting writing demonstrations for the kindergarten teachers.
For Mr. Townshend, demonstration lessons were typically responses to specific requests or
attempts to focus on areas for improvement that had been identified through assessment
data.
During the data collection period, both literacy coaches were observed conducting
demonstration lessons. According to Mr. Townshend, he required a day or two advanced
notice for a teacher-requested demonstration lesson. This provided adequate time to
prepare and gather materials before entering the classroom. The data collector had the
opportunity to observe the second part of a Concept/Question Board demonstration lesson
in a 5th grade classroom. As part of his Open Court responsibilities, Mr. Townshend
explained that it was his practice to devote two demonstration lessons for the introduction
and development of the Concept/Question board. Prior to the demonstration, Mr.
Townshend explained that this teacher had “wanted to see the CQ board more developed.”
The lesson lasted approximately one hour, during which the coach actively engaged the
students in the lesson. The teacher, however, was noticeably absent for almost half of the
demonstration. For the first quarter of the lesson, Mr. Townshend taught without the
teacher present in the room. Approximately 20 minutes after the teacher returned, another
staff member subsequently called her out of the room. The following excerpt was taken
from the data collector’s field notes:
An adult came to the door and requested that [Teacher] come to the office. She
looked at Mr. [Townshend], who encouraged her to go. She left, though saying, “I
want to listen to you.” He returned his attention to the class and instructed them on
using the concept cards.
102
Subsequent to the teacher’s return, the coach-teacher interaction was limited to a
discussion of books for her class. The teacher occasionally walked around to monitor
student progress. She shared with the data collector that, although it was hard to “just sit
and observe,” she learned a lot from observing. This was clearly not established by this
example. Before concluding the lesson, Mr. Townshend told the students, “Maybe
[Teacher] will give you time to work on concepts, so that when I come back, the Concept
Question Board will be done.” Although Mr. Townshend inferred that he planned to return
later that afternoon, no follow-up or debriefing with the teacher was scheduled. Earlier,
Mr. Townshend had shared with the data collector that he usually tried to debrief with
teachers on the same day of the demonstration lesson, either immediately after, if time
permitted, or later in the day when doing classroom visitations. However, he noted that this
particular teacher was going off track in a week and that his own schedule was very full.
This example clearly showed how limited time and availability affected the quality of this
basic coaching activity.
Two demonstration lessons given by Ms. Gautier were also observed. The first
demonstration lesson involved an Open Court lesson on fluency for a class of third grade
students with low fluency scores. Ms. Gautier chose this target area for demonstration.
Throughout the lesson, Ms. Gautier actively engaged the students in reading aloud and
answering questions. Ms. Gautier concluded the demonstration lesson by showing students
various ways they could clap for one another to indicate praise for good reading. As with
the previous example, the teacher briefly monitored student progress but had very little
interaction with the coach. There was no indication of debriefing or scheduling of follow-
up with the teacher.
The second demonstration provided an example of a kindergarten writing lesson
that Ms. Gautier conducted as part of her additional responsibilities. The focus was on
sentence construction. As was the usual practice for writing demonstrations, five additional
teachers were present in the classroom. Their purpose in observing her was to learn the
finer points and details related to the teaching of this lesson for their students. For many of
these teachers, this was their first exposure to this material. Before beginning, Ms. Gautier
gave each teacher an outline of the lesson. Ms. Gautier actively engaged the teachers
throughout the lesson by including explanations of the teaching process. For example, she
103
explained to the teachers how if a story contained one element of the standard, it would
receive a particular color-coded arrow. She related each element to a different color. While
students were writing, Ms. Gautier further explained color-coding of standards and
published folders. Several of the teachers asked questions. At other times during the
demonstration, the teachers were observed taking notes and conversing with each other
about the lesson. Near the end of the demonstration, Ms. Gautier spoke to the teachers
about managing time, integrating the material with Open Court, and the importance of
planning. Because this lesson was only one in a series, debriefing and/or follow-up
activities were limited.
Overall, demonstration lessons were a common activity among the coaches. The
three examples of demonstrations presented varied in their quality, specifically in the
observed levels of coach-teacher interaction. The third example presented a greater level of
coach-teacher interaction in the demonstration lesson than the previous two and was more
likely to have a sustained effect on teacher practice. It was also likely that lessons with
absent teachers and lack of time for follow-up or debriefing with teachers were
consequences of the organizational context.
Conferencing. The coaches conferenced with teachers to provide feedback, make
suggestions, present information, monitor performance, provide materials, or just to touch
base. Informal conferences were generally one-to-one conversations between the teacher
and the coach. They occurred at different times throughout the day, usually because of full
or conflicting schedules. Coaches spoke of having these informal conferences in a variety
of contexts including unplanned classroom visitations, planned demonstrations, while
having breakfast in the cafeteria, and during office hours. For example, Ms. Gautier was
observed checking up on student progress and giving feedback to teachers while
conducting classroom visitations. Ms. Fane spoke of informal conferencing with her seven
new teachers in particular: “I check in with them about the pacing plan, assessment, if
they’re giving homework, and anything else they need.” Many of Mr. Townshend’s
conferences with teachers often focused on creating action plans based on assessment data.
As for the writing coaches, although they spent much time working with teachers (i.e. roll-
outs, grade- level meetings), there was no indication that they had one-to-one conferences
with teachers in the same ways as the other coaches. This may have been a function of the
104
writing program’s structure, since demonstrations and meetings were predominantly
conducted in groups.
Ideally, conferences with teachers are effective when occurring after observations
and/or demonstrations of instruction, giving the coach and the teacher an opportunity to
debrief. Mr. Townshend stated that he tried to schedule time in the afternoons to have
“post-conferences” with the teachers he had worked with in the mornings. However, these
efforts were subject to time or a call to other duties. Ms. Gautier believed that conferencing
with teachers was “extremely important” but also added that she did not set appointments
because of time.
Conferencing, in the form of coach-teacher interaction, also occurred during
demonstrations, however to varying degrees. As described earlier in the first demonstration
example, Mr. Townshend and the teacher had a very brief conversation regarding books
for her classroom. In the third example, Ms. Gautier’s lesson on sentence construction, the
level of coach-teacher interaction was significantly greater and was directly related to the
lesson and instructional practice.
Coaches also used informal conferencing to provide feedback, build trust, and
maintain their ongoing coach-teacher relationships. This use of conferencing was
consistent with the coaches’ role perceptions as supportive to teachers. For instance, Mr.
Townshend said he always let teachers know when they had done a “fabulous job,” when
they had done a good job of providing instruction. Ms. Gautier’s efforts at building and
maintaining positive relationships were observed in the way teachers interacted with her as
she conducted unannounced classroom visits and engaged in informal conversations.
Although not always directly observed during data collection, it became clear
through the observations of other activities and conversations with the coaches that the
importance of working directly, one-to-one, with teachers was understood and the
intention to do so, whenever possible, was present. However, it may be said that
conferencing was a coaching activity that was often sacrificed to the greater charge of co-
implementing the reading and writing programs.
Assessment. Assessments also played a role in the coaches’ daily activities.
Specifically, the literacy and math coaches most often used assessments to determine the
content of a demonstration, which teachers to observe, and as a source of feedback to
105
teachers. For example, Ms. Gautier often distributed unit assessment reports to the teachers
during grade- level meetings as a means of feedback, offering such comments as “your
fluency overall was good” and “you’ve shown continuous growth.” Ms. Fane talked about
assessments during her early morning visitations with new teachers. Mr. Levin, the 4-5
writing coach, planned some of the school’s professional development activities (i.e.
banked time sessions) around data from performance assignments.
The literacy and math coaches noted that part of their time was used for entering
and analyzing assessment data. Although Ms. Gautier viewed entering data as taking time
away from other activities, she stressed that the data enabled her to look at the needs of the
school, as well as the specific needs of teachers. Besides using the data to work
individually with teachers, she spoke of having used banked time sessions to target
widespread or common needs identified from the data. Mr. Townshend used data analyses
for two purposes: first, to go over the data and identify problem areas for teachers, and
second, to conduct conferences with teachers to develop specific action plans based on the
assessment results.
Time spent on assessments was not always for the purpose of working with
teachers. For instance, Ms. Varelli (K-2 writing coach) reported that a portion of her time
was spent entering SIS26 data. Furthermore, there was no indication that the writing
coaches used assessment data to work with individual teachers on instructional practice.
Grade-level meetings. Grade- level meetings, a school-based professional
development activity, were primarily the responsibility of the coaches at Merrick. Grade-
level meetings provided opportunities for teachers and coaches to collaborate and develop
action plans, to communicate various types of information through presentations, to
participate in group activities, to share and discuss assessment results, and to give updates
on new initiatives. Ms. Gautier, during an interview, reiterated the importance of these
aspects of grade- level meetings: “The transmission of information from one colleague to
other colleagues within each grade level is a key point for success. It doesn’t always have
to be the coach up in front.” Like Ms. Gautier, the other coaches believed that grade- level
meetings were an effective form of professional development.
26 School Information System.
106
During the 2002-03 school year, the writing coaches served as the predominant
planners and facilitators of the vast majority of grade-level meetings. Writing based grade-
level meetings, on the average, took place weekly, although at times there were several in
the same week. As described in previous sections, the literacy and math coaches regularly
covered classrooms for teachers to attend the abundance of writing meetings. The
frequency of grade- level meetings for both reading and math were negatively affected by
the attention and time given to the writing program. Moreover, when these meetings did
occur, they seemed to be rushed for time and exhibited few elements that would constitute
an effective meeting. For example, in one particular 2nd grade meeting, the literacy coach
used articles for group reading but rushed through the activities, limiting time for
discussion and reflection. This rush for time was not limited to the literacy coaches. As
Ms. Varelli stated about her grade- level writing meetings, “I stopped having written
agendas. At the beginning of a meeting, I tell the purpose and the goals, and then go.”
Ms. Gautier explained, during her interview, that not being able to meet with
teachers on a consistent basis through grade- level meetings was the primary obstacle she
faced in her work. She estimated that she had conducted three grade-level meetings over
the course of the entire school year. She attributed the cancellations and postponements of
literacy grade-level meetings to both the emphasis placed on the writing implementation
and her additional responsibilities for working with kindergarten teachers on the writing
program. Similarly, Ms. Fane indicated that she was also unable to conduct grade- level
meetings due to the amount of time devoted to the writing program. During her interview
she stated, “I did two this year and I’m not happy with that. I blame [writing program] for
me not getting to grade- level groups. I’m bitter, but supportive.”
Overall, grade-level meetings were usurped by the implementation of the writing
program. This led to the frustration of the literacy and math coaches and their perceived
incapacity to fulfill their responsibilities effectively. Furthermore, there were limited
opportunities for teachers to receive professional development in other curricular areas.
Effects of Coaching
This case study provided the opportunity to examine the relationship between
coaching activities and changes in teacher classroom practices as they related to student
learning and achievement. First, we looked at how the coaches described themselves as
107
successful in their own practice. Success was defined in terms of changes made as a result
of engaging in coaching, either directly by teachers in their instructional practice, or
indirectly by students in their assessments. Second, we looked more specifically at the
effects of the coach-teacher interaction on the instructional practice of two teachers (2nd
and 3rd grades). To accomplish this, we drew from classroom observation data collected
for the DRP evaluation.
The coaches described their success as change in teachers’ and students’ behavior,
evidence that teachers followed advice and suggestions, and improved scores on
performance assignments and CAT/6 scores. In her interview, Ms. Gautier described her
feelings of success with respect to her coaching role:
The way that I feel like I’m successful in my work is I look at the success of the
children in their assessments; the success of the teacher to feel free when they’re
not doing well to come to me and ask me for extra help. That’s how I see if I’m
successful. Because I look at the data, and how are these kids growing. Where are
their weaknesses, and where are their strengths? What teacher I need to give more
assistance [to], and what teachers are becoming more self- independent.
In general, the literacy and math coaches expressed similar descriptions of success
in their jobs. To take a closer look at changes teachers may have made in their practice as a
result of coaching, we looked specifically at data on coach-teacher interactions and quality
of pedagogy for two teachers at Merrick.
The effects of coach-teacher interactions were studied by first examining the level
of interaction between the coaches and the teachers. In an interview, the first teacher (3rd
grade) stated that the literacy coach was a “lifesaver.” Conducting demonstrations, giving
comprehension and writing tips, and breaking down the pacing plan were some of the
various ways in which he reported that the coach provided him with lesson assistance. He
also spoke of how Ms. Gautier assisted him with strategies for integrating the Open Court
material with the writing program. He described how he changed specific teaching
practices as a result of the modeling provided by Ms. Gautier:
108
A lot of times I was skipping steps in the beginning of my lessons, and she made
it—she gave us like a little chart where for example, for the sound blending, at first
we would skip certain steps and for the sound blending, we weren’t quite sure how
many steps to follow and she came out with a little chart that would tell us exactly
what steps to follow for the sound by sound blending. So that, that’s what I mean
by they’re [the lessons] more thorough because I’m not skipping as many steps.
This teacher indicated he had frequent and positive interactions with Ms. Gautier.
Nevertheless, there was very limited direct one-to-one interaction. The majority of his
interaction with Ms. Gautier occurred within the context of group meetings.
During the data collection period, Ms. Gautier did conduct one demonstration
lesson on fluency for this teacher. She stated that she chose to do the fluency lesson for
this teacher because his students had scored low on the unit fluency exam. However, data
from classroom observations showed that nothing the teacher said or was observed doing
indicated a change in teaching practice with respect to fluency.
Findings from the DRP evaluation revealed that this teacher provided a medium-
low quality of pedagogy in the context of reading comprehension. 27 Although, as described
by this teacher, there had been changes to specific instructional areas, the quality of
pedagogy rating did not reflect much improvement in reading comprehension. The one-
shot demonstration lesson and limited one-to-one interaction between the coach and the
teacher decreased the likelihood that any changes would be sustained. This same teacher
provided a medium-high quality of pedagogy rating in the context of the writing
component of the curriculum. This higher rating was most likely the result of the increased
emphasis on professional development activities devoted to the writing program. The
experiences of this 3rd grade teacher supported the assertion that coaching should be
ongoing (as with the writing program) and involve direct coach-teacher interaction to
sustain change.
The second teacher (2nd grade) reported, in her interview, that Ms. Gautier had
assisted her primarily by providing materials and giving writing suggestions. She indicated
27 Research staff from the DRP evaluation conducted the coding and quality ratings. See the 2002-03 report titled Evaluation of the District Reading Plan (Slayton, Oliver, & Burley, 2003) for details of this study.
109
that Ms. Gautier had conducted two demonstration lessons earlier this year in her class, but
that “other than that [they] haven’t worked together.” She stated that her teaching had been
influenced with respect to planning assessments, engaging students, and managing the
classroom. Unlike the first teacher, there were no references made to specific changes in
instructional practice. In addition, she was apparently unaware of the school’s efforts
toward integration of Open Court with the school’s writing program. This was reflected in
the following interview excerpt:
Data collector: “Do you work on the writing process everyday?”
Teacher: “Yes. However this is not with Open Court. We don’t use at this school
Open Court for writing.”
Data collector: “What do you use?”
Teacher: “We use [the school’s writing plan] and we have a book. We have a book
on many lessons on what we can teach the children. I would say this is a weaker
part of Open Court that the school has found and that’s why we opted to choose
another writing.”
It was obvious from the above excerpt that there had been no coach-teacher
interaction at all pertaining to the integration of Open Court and the writing program.
Although this teacher indicated positive experiences with Ms. Gautier, she noted that their
interaction within the classroom was limited. The demonstration lessons that took place in
her classroom were clearly not effective as the teacher was not able to articulate specific
content or how the lessons affected her practice. As with the previous teacher, any other
interaction occurred in a group context.
Findings from the DRP evaluation revealed that this teacher provided medium-low
quality of pedagogy in both the reading comprehension and writing components of the
curriculum. For this teacher, the direct coach-teacher interaction consisted of two
demonstration lessons. In addition, the teacher gave no indication of understanding the
purpose and structure of the writing curriculum. This teacher’s comments regarding the
writing program reflected the fact that she and the literacy coach had not worked together
110
for a considerable portion of the school year. The low rating she received in the context of
writing also reflected this fact.
Unlike the previous teacher, the considerable emphasis of the writing program on
the school’s professional development activities did not have as great an impact on this
teacher’s quality of pedagogy. One possible explanation may have been the overburdened
workload of the K-2 writing coach. As discussed earlier, Ms. Varelli had various
extraneous responsibilities. In addition, her overloaded schedule resulted in Ms. Gautier
having to take over her kindergarten writing demonstrations. It was possible that this 2nd
grade teacher was not exposed to the same quality of writing coaching as the previous
teacher. It was also possible that this teacher chose not to fully engage in the coaching
process. Regardless, the experiences of this 2nd grade teacher with both coaches did not
appear to lead to positive or sustained changes in instructional practice.
Professional Development Banked Time Days
Professional Development Banked Time Days were mandatory sessions held every
Tuesday afternoon for all teachers and administrative staff. The local district determined
the content for 15 of the 30 sessions. Merrick’s leadership team worked together to
develop the content for the remaining sessions. The team, according to Principal Lenox,
primarily used assessment data and teacher feedback to determine session content. Like
many of their professional development activities, the planning process was often very
rushed. Ms. Gautier stated, “It seemed like everything was like, let’s get it done, let’s get it
done, let’s get it done, let’s get it done. There were no times to reflect. I think the
reflecting part kind of got left out because we were so wanting to meet these deadlines.”
This was likely a contributing factor of the imbalance of content presented in these
sessions.
Similar to grade- level meetings, the sessions were not equally distributed across the
content areas or the coaches. Although Ms. Varelli believed that math and literacy coaches
each presented one session per month, these coaches reported that fewer sessions were
devoted to math and reading than to the writing program. The math coach, for example,
presented only six sessions during the 2002-03 school year. Mr. Rodney, the 4-5 literacy
coach, gave no indication of having conducted any banked time sessions at all.
111
During the time spent at Merrick, data collectors observed four banked time
sessions. These sessions ran between 1 and 2 hours each and were very condensed. In one
observed session, several presenters were scheduled. Many of the presenters made multiple
comments regarding the need to stick to the allotted time. The data collector reflected in
the field notes that one presenter “went so fast we couldn’t even understand him.” One
teacher stated that she just “wasn’t getting it [subject matter].” Administrative activities
such as announcements, passing out forms and completing paperwork also occurred at
every session, and took up anywhere from 20 minutes to 80 minutes of the session time.
The observed sessions were most often presented in a lecture-type format with
some activities involving small groups arranged by either track or grade-level. Staff
members presented at three of the sessions. An outside vendor promoted science textbooks
at the other session. Additional topics included a Book of the Month task, a discussion of
Reading First initiative, matrix construction, and STAR testing. One example of an
observed activity was referred to by the principal as a “staff learning walk.” The principal
divided the staff into teams by track and directed them to visit classrooms (of other tracks)
and record evidence of “current standards-based student work,” “standards based
feedback,” and “standards clearly identified.”28 Once the teams reconvened, Principal
Lenox and Ms. Varelli compiled the information. This led to a discussion of areas where
the school was behind and the next steps for improvement. The purpose of this activity
was not to promote professional learning among the staff; rather, it was to prepare for an
upcoming evaluation by district staff regarding the writing program implementation.
Banked time sessions, at times, resembled faculty meetings rather than focused on
professional development and activities relevant for instruction. During another observed
session, time was given to the UTLA representative to make union-related announcements.
This led to a full-blown discussion of the union representative’s refusal to sign the school
budget, the garnering of support for opposition of the writing program, and the
unnecessary presence of multiple coaches, particularly the writing coaches.
The coaches varied in their opinions about the effectiveness of the banked time
sessions. The majority of the coaches believed that the success of banked time sessions
28 The principal gave each team member a school-designed observation form to record the evidence of standards-based work.
112
depended on the teachers’ ability and willingness to apply the information within the
classroom environment. As may be seen in the examples provided, the content of banked
time sessions were not always devoted to promoting instructional change. Ms. Varelli, the
K-2 writing coach, reported banked time as “a one-shot deal . . . it doesn’t allow
triangulation with practice.” She added that the leadership team was considering
restructuring the sessions into grade- level meetings and rotating the focus each week.
Summary
The organizational context of Merrick Elementary strongly impacted how the
school functioned as a site for professional learning during the 2002-03 school year. The
co-implementation of Open Court and the local district mandated writing program formed
the basis of this context. An overemphasis on the writing program over other content areas
resulted in an imbalance across professional development activities. Two prominent
themes emerged from this context, conflicting role expectations of the coaches and issues
related to time. These recurring themes surfaced throughout all of the school’s professional
development efforts. The quantity and quality of instructional coaching activities, grade-
level meetings, and banked time sessions were also impacted. All of the coaches were
overburdened by the co-implementation, particularly the literacy and math coaches who
were often tasked with extraneous responsibilities. There was little evidence of sustained
effects of coaching. Insufficient one-to-one coach-teacher interaction, inadequate exposure
to coaching, and overwhelming workloads of coaches all contributed to these limited
effects.
Despite the effects of the organizational context on Merrick’s professional
development, there was potential for growth. Staff members recognized the need for
greater collaboration and program cohesiveness. Both the school’s vision for professional
development and the coaches’ perceived roles focused on supporting and meeting the
needs of the teachers. The leadership team sought to include teacher input into determining
professional development content.
Cross-Case Discussion
The effects of the organizational context on school-based professional development
activities strongly emerged through the course of the analyses of the three case studies.
113
The primary activities studied, instructional coaching and Professional Banked Time
sessions, varied along such dimensions as frequency of engagement and quality of practice
among the three schools. The case studies provided evidence that these variations were the
direct result of the organizational context in which these schools functioned.
Cross-case analyses revealed three substantially different organizational contexts.
These differences provided us with the opportunity to study how these contexts impacted
the school-based professional development at these schools. Based on these differences,
the three contexts were classified as collaborative (Tower), somewhat disjointed (Evans),
and overburdened (Merrick). Prominent themes and issues emerged from the individual
case studies that were specific to each context. Ultimately, the issues emanating from these
contexts must be addressed to promote the effectiveness of the professional development
activities and efforts at these schools.
Descriptions of Organizational Context
The collaborative context at Tower was clearly demonstrated by the reciprocal
support of the administrators, coaches, and teachers. The shared vision of professional
development, clear and consistent perceptions of roles and expectations, and the collective
dedication to ongoing improvement contributed to this collaborative context. As positive a
picture as was painted by the case report, it was likely that there were issues present that
were either unobserved or undetected through our data collection. However, the more
positive aspects clearly outweighed the pressures and struggles common to most schools.
The somewhat disjointed context at Evans was demonstrated by inconsistent
perceptions of roles, limited guidance and support provided by the administration, and the
many unmet needs of the teachers. What prevented this context from being classified as
fully disjointed was the indication that Evans had undergone many positive changes and
was continuing in these efforts. Many staff members spoke of the desire to move toward a
more collaborative context. Efforts to place greater emphasis on the needs of the teachers
were also mentioned. The principal referred to a “teamwork approach” toward professional
development. Yet the data suggested that the administrators continued to play the greatest
role in planning and that teachers’ needs were often not met. The potential for strong
leadership was circumvented by this break in the collaborative process. Overall, the
endeavors made toward change and growth alongside the many inconsistencies and
114
sometimes ineffective practices observed, produced the somewhat disjointed context at
Evans.
Merrick provided a good example of how multiple initiatives and programs
operating concurrently within a school could negatively impact school-based professional
development. The result was the overburdened context. This was evidenced in the
overburdened staff members, frustration, and imbalanced curricular emphasis. The effects
of this context overshadowed the efforts made by the staff toward collaboration. There was
little evidence to suggest that the administrative leadership at Merrick made any
substantial efforts to balance the competing demands. The effects on the quantity and
quality of the professional development activities, particularly coaching, were substantial.
Role confusion experienced by the coaches and time issues were direct consequences of
this overburdened context.
Effects of Context on Instructional Coaching
Tower’s collaborative context allowed for clear definitions of the coaches’ role and
consistent perceptions of how this role should be enacted. The math and literacy coaches
were afforded the time to carry out their responsibilities and devote their attention to
supporting the teachers. The principal’s description of them as “self-starters” was
supported by their pursuit of their own professional development and how they actively
worked to engage resistant teachers. The coaches’ effectiveness was demonstrated by
observed changes in classroom practice and instruction. Unfortunately, improvement in
student math scores led to the relocation of the math coach at the end of the 2002-03
school year.
The somewhat disjointed context at Evans led to unclear definitions of role, limited
guidance, and inconsistent expectations that affected the performance of both coaches. The
literacy coach exercised her responsibilities as outlined within a structured reading
program implemented at Evans that school year. Her conflict arose between what she
believed she should be doing as an effective coach and what the reading program (and the
principal) required of her. Her struggle was mostly about finding the time do it all. The
math coach, however, did not have a structured math program to fall back on. He
performed a lot of trial and error in figuring out how to best fulfill his role as a coach. His
ambitions in promoting quality math instruction and supporting teachers were well
115
intentioned while his practices were not particularly successful. The inconsistent
perceptions and expectations expressed by the principal left the coaches to figure things
out on their own.
The overburdened context at Merrick had several effects on coaching. It began
with the presence of five coaches at the school due to the simultaneous implementation of
two programs. First of all, the school’s overemphasis on one particular program led to the
coaches having to perform many additional and extraneous duties, including substituting in
classrooms and yard duty. The five coaches also concurrently held coordinator positions
and were expected to serve on committees. One coach, whose responsibility was lower
grade Open Court coaching, was tasked with performing activities specific to the writing
program, of which she had not received prior training. Second, the rushed atmosphere of
many of the observed activities reflected the emergent issue of time. Overfilled schedules
affected the quality of many basic coaching activities. The administrators offered little
support to alleviate these burdens; in fact, the extraneous tasks assigned to the coaches
indicated that the administrators’ greatly contributed to this context. As was shown in
Merrick’s case study, the effects included a demonstration lesson with minimal teacher
presence and very limited opportunities for coach-teacher conferencing and feedback.
Changes in instructional practice. All three case studies provided opportunities
to examine the effects of coach-teacher interaction on instructional practice. As described
earlier, we utilized information comprised mostly of classroom observations and assigned
ratings for quality of instruction and pedagogy from both the DRP and DMP evaluations.
Combined with case study data, our findings revealed that across all three cases direct
coach-teacher interaction was a strong contributing factor in determining changes in
teacher practice. Increased coach performance of research-based effective practices also
contributed to the likelihood of sustained change. These practices included observa tions of
instruction, demonstration lessons, and feedback. Also, active coach-teacher dialogue
about the teaching process greatly influenced change. These effective practices were most
strongly exemplified by the school operating within the collaborative context (Tower).
Although some changes were seen in the other two schools, the changes were reflective of
specific instances of direct coach-teacher interaction. It was shown that limited, or no
coach-teacher interaction offered little connection to change.
116
Effects of Context on School-Based Activities
Consistent with both the professional development literature and findings from this
study, teachers in all three schools perceived the most effective activities as those that
involved direct application into their classrooms and their instructional practice. Across all
three cases, activities that were perceived as most effective were those that allowed
teachers to work together in grade- level groups. This allowed for greater articulation and
reflections of practice. Opportunities that allowed for practice of skills and discussion were
also highly preferred. School-based professional development activities that encompassed
these components were perceived as effective by most staff members and are consistent
with principles of adult learning as necessary for facilitating the transfer of knowledge and
skills.
Professional Development Banked Time sessions were a mandated initiative across
all schools in LAUSD. A major similarity in their implementation across the three cases
was their tendency to revert to the “one-shot workshop.” Many of the observed sessions
lacked coherence from one to the next. This seemed to work against the goal of school-
based professional development activities as being sustained over time. Tower and Evans
recognized the need for coherence and discussed efforts toward meeting this need.
Merrick’s banked time sessions experienced a slightly different problem. In this case, the
overemphasis of one program over the others resulted in a narrowing of the content base
for their sessions. The incorporation of extraneous activities into the banked time sessions
also affected the quality of the sessions. Although this was not an observed problem that
occurred at Tower, Evans allotted excessive amounts of time to administrative information
and Merrick was observed engaging in union-related business during their sessions.
The planning and facilitation of grade- level meetings also varied across the three
cases. Teachers were very supportive of this type of activity. At Tower, the coaches often
facilitated grade-level meetings. Grade- level chairpersons often planned the agenda for
these meetings. This allowed for presentation of content that more directly served the
needs of the teachers and the students. At Tower, grade- level meetings were often
embedded into the banked time sessions. Data gathered from Evans indicated that these
coaches had very little responsibility for grade- level meetings. The data also suggested that
grade-level meetings might not have been as regular an occurrence as in the other two
117
cases. Administrators recognized the need for more grade- level groupings in their banked
time sessions as well. At Merrick, grade- level meetings were predominantly the
responsibility of the coaches. As was shown in Merrick’s case study, however, the content
of the grade- level meetings was unequally distributed. The writing program and its
coaches took over the vast majority of these meetings. Although this produced increased
knowledge and application levels among the teachers in the writing process, it limited the
development of teachers in other necessary curricular areas.
Conclusions and Implications
Overall, of the three contexts presented, the collaborative context led to activities
and practices performed with greater quality and effectiveness than the other two. The
somewhat disjointed context partnered a desired path toward change and growth with
inconsistent perceptions, limited guidance, and at times, ineffective practices. Finally, the
overburdened context presented a picture of the struggle and resulting consequences of
multiple program implementation. The quality of the activities and practices performed
was often surrendered to the demands imposed by this context. In all three cases, the
leadership demonstrated by the school administrators was a contributing factor to the
contexts and its impacts.
Although individual case studies are not sufficient to develop or test a model of
school-based professional development in LAUSD, multiple case studies can be used to
develop a model that applies to schools across the district. Case study researchers offer a
logic of comparison and/or replication as a means for developing transferable knowledge
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1989). Each case provides potential components for transferable
models and raises questions about such models. These specific case studies enabled us to
take a deeper look at school-based practices as they existed and functioned within their
respective contexts.
The finding that the three schools operated in different organizational contexts
enhanced our ability to see just how strongly, and differently, the context impacted these
school-based practices and the staff involved. The assertion that the programs, initiatives,
and activities at work in schools do not function in a vacuum was strongly supported by
the case study findings. The question of whether or not similar effects were caused by
similar contexts across the district is raised by these findings and should be addressed by
118
subsequent research. Examination of the impact of context provides the necessary
foundation for determining the effectiveness of school-based professional development
programs and activities.
Limitations of the Case Study Analysis
The data collection process at the case schools led to two minor limitations in the
analyses. Firstly, case study data was collected in the spring of 2003 during which
standardized testing was scheduled, thereby limiting the quantity of available activities to
observe. Secondly, the assignment of one data collector per school did not allow for the
observation of all possible activities, as there may have been activities simultaneously
scheduled. However, the amount of time spent at each school, the rapport between the data
collectors and the staff, and the vast amount of information obtained, ensured that the
emergent themes were not based on isolated occurrences and descriptions of context were
well formed.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
This study focused on school-based professional development activities and their
effectiveness during the 2002-03 school year. Observations and interviews conducted at 15
schools formed the basis of our findings. Organizational context, instructional coaching,
and Professional Development Banked Time Days were the primary components of this
undertaking. Several conclusions and implications were drawn from the findings and
present a comprehensive picture of what these activities looked like, the impact of the
context in which they functioned, their implementation, and their outcomes.
Our examination of the organizational context and its impact across the schools led
us to one very significant conclusion. As Elmore (2002) stated in his article titled Bridging
the Gap Between Standards and Achievement, “context matters.” Since school-based
professional development is just that, based at the school site, the organizational context of
the school provides strong indicators of the quality and effectiveness of such activities. As
we have shown, the impact of context on instructional coaching was considerable.
Presented below are the overall findings on coaching across the schools:
119
? Increased levels of direct coach-teacher interaction and ongoing engagement in
coaching activities were strong predictors of instructional changes in the
classroom.
? Inconsistent and unclear perceptions of roles and expectations, not only led to
confusion and conflict among the coaches, but also demonstrated adverse
effects on the quality of the coaching practice.
? The tasking of coaches with extraneous duties, paperwork, and clerical
assignments was not uncommon and took significant time away from direct
coach-teacher activities.
? Organizational contexts that exhibited collaborative characteristics were more
likely to have coaches who were able to focus their efforts on classroom
support, direct interaction, and the growth of their schools as sites for
professional learning.
All of the above were direct outcomes of the organizational context. These findings
were strengthened by the in-depth analyses of the case study schools. Schools that
functioned within collaborative contexts demonstrated greater quality of coaching practice
and promoted greater levels of sustained instructional change. Schools that functioned in
contexts that were somewhat disjointed or overburdened endured the effects of
inconsistent expectations, role conflicts, and minimal instructional improvement. These
findings were consistent across both literacy and math coaching programs.
Many of the schools exhibited variations in their contexts. However, the schools
that expressed shared visions, planned activities collaboratively, and displayed consistent
understanding of roles and expectations, also showed greater levels of support for school-
based professional development and demonstrated greater quality and effectiveness in their
coaching activities. As was expected, the converse was also true. Nonetheless, schools that
showed positive characteristics and efforts at improving their context increased their
potential for change.
The effects of the organizational context were not limited to coaching. Banked time
sessions also demonstrated these effects. In general, many schools continued to employ the
120
“one-shot” format to their sessions and often used the allotted time for other school
concerns.
However, the format/style characteristics did not appear related to the varying
levels of engagement observed in these sessions. Furthermore, low support for banked
time, as well as low engagement was more a factor of the context and culture within the
school and less related to the quality of the observed sessions. Sessions that were perceived
to be effective were those that allowed for grade- level collaboration and involved content
that was applicable in the classroom. Schools that engaged in collaborative planning and
utilized teacher input appeared to be more successful in their banked time sessions.
As previously mentioned, the findings from the case study analyses substantiated
the findings from the 12 representatively sampled schools. This substantiation of findings
presents a strong justification for subsequent case study research. The improvement of the
organization must be addressed to achieve successful and effective implementations of the
many reforms, initiatives, and programs, whether mandated by the district or originated by
the school. The overall implication of not addressing context is that continued and
subsequent professional development efforts will not foster professional learning at the
schools and limit the instructional changes that are sought by these efforts.
121
REFERENCES
Ai, X. (2002, November). District Mathematics Plan evaluation: 2001-2002 evaluation
report. Unpublished manuscript. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Unified School District.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (n.d.). Retrieved January 30,
2004, from the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Website:
http://websaver3.ascd.org/ossd/planning_definitions.html.
Bantz, C. R. (1993). Understanding organizations: Interpreting organizational
communication cultures. Columbia: University of South Carolina.
Becker, C. S. (1992). Living & relating: An introduction to phenomenology. Newbury
Park: Sage.
Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 532-550.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington,
D.C.: Albert Shanker Institute.
Fullan, M. G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Galbo, C. (1998, May/June). Helping adults learn. Thrust for Educational Leadership,
27(7), 13-17.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What
makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. White
Plains, NY: Longman Press.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New
York: Wiley.
122
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lyons, C. A. (2002). Becoming an effective literacy coach: What does it take? In E. M.
Rodgers & G. S. Pinnell (Eds.), Learning from Teaching in Literacy Education (pp.
93-118). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education
(Rev. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Staff Development Council (1995). Self-assessment and planning tool. Oxford,
OH: National Staff Development Council.
Preskill, H., & Torres, R. T. (1999). Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Price, M., & Burton, J. (2003, March). Professional development for LAUSD teachers: An
overview and a look to the future. Unpublished presentation. Los Angeles: Los
Angeles Unified School District.
Romer, R. (2001, March). Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent’s five-year
strategic plan. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Unified School District.
Russ-Eft, D., & Preskill, H. (2001). Evaluation in organizations: A systematic approach
for to enhancing learning, performance and change. Boston, MA: Perseus Books.
Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 45(7), 43-48.
Showers, B. & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership,
12-16.
Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development:
A framework for future study and a state-of-the-art analysis. Educational Leadership,
42(4), 48-54.
Silins, H., Zarins, S., Mulford, B. (2002). What characteristics and processes define a
school as a learning organization? Is this a useful concept to apply to schools?
International Educational Journal, 3(1). [On-line]. Available: http://iej.cjb.net.
Slayton, J., Oliver, D., & Burley, K. (2003, October). Evaluation of the District Reading
Plan. Unpublished manuscript. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Unified School District.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holy, Rinehart and Winston.
123
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (Rev. ed.).Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Response to the Evaluation of School-Based Professional
Development
April 29, 2004
Leadership Roles Defined for Effective School Site
Professional Development
• Local District Superintendents• Principals and Assistant Principals• Literacy Coaches• Teachers
The Role of the Local District Superintendents
• Communicating to all Directors and Local District Administrators the urgency for, and effectiveness of creating a collaborative context at school sites to improve student achievement
• Insuring that competing programs are not creating an overburdened context for teachers struggling to implement the core curriculum with integrity and coherence
The Role of the Local District Superintendents (Cont.)
• Mandating grade level meetings at schools across the local district
• Providing models and professional development for:
1) Effectively assigning and using coaches at school sites
2) Ensuring that the core materials are utilized in culturally relevant and culturally sensitive ways
3) Developing the collaborative context
Role of the Principals and School Site Administrators
A Principal’s leadership defines collaboration by:• Sharing a clear, focused and common vision for
the school• Defining the role of the coaches and teachers
relative to improving teaching and student learning in ways that are culturally relevant and culturally sensitive
• Visiting classrooms frequently, if not daily, and assuming the role of instructional leader
Role of the Principals and School Site Administrators (Cont.)
• Providing time for grade level meetings and collaboration between coaches and teachers
• Insuring that banked-time professional development is related to daily classroom instruction and is planned with an all-inclusive instructional leadership team
• Releasing coaches from all extraneous roles and responsibilities on campus
The Role of the Literacy Coaches• Visiting classrooms daily• Following-up demonstrations with a debrief
that provides feedback to teachers and setting a date to return to the classroom to support implementation of strategies learned
• Helping teachers use culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy through rigorous, standards-based instruction for all students
• Aligning the vision for the content area with the shared vision of the school
The Role of the Literacy Coaches(Cont.)
• Reaching out to teachers resistant to coaching with the support of the principal
• Focusing on target areas identified in grade level meetings
• Leading or facilitating grade level meetings• Planning/delivering professional
development as an integral member of the leadership team
Role of the Teachers• Participating in grade level meetings for the
purpose of analyzing data, sharing best practices, and planning “next step” actions
• Providing input toward banked-time agendas by expressing their needs for improving classroom practice and supporting professional development practices that connect to improved instruction
Role of the Teachers (Cont.)
• Observing coaching demonstrations and debrief sessions with the coaches and with peers
• Replicating strategies demonstrated• Co-teaching with the coach• Inviting the coach into the classroom for
feedback and support