This post is so interesting to me having spent the last three years researching new teacher experience of instructional coaching. I tracked its entry into English teacher training curriculums and, as I researched, I became more confused as to how it had been rolled out, so quickly, on such a scale, without evidence to support this move. Especially because it is marketed as the most evidence-informed teacher development tool. Less confusing in a performative culture though. The issue may be that what we call 'instructional' is actually the US/Santoyo 'incremental', but it is written about as if it is US/Knight's 'instructional'. Confusing. Unsurprisingly, the new teachers in the study had a wide range of experiences, given their 'coaches' (mentors in disguise) were all working from the same model. Developing professional identity and agency; relationships with coaches; and their understanding of policy all played a part. Career changers were a key group of interest. One called instructional coaching 'the gamification of teacher training'. I could go on but I am pleased to see posts coming through over the last year questioning the 'common sense' narrative around instructional coaching. Couple of weeks to finish my thesis. I will be referencing this post and Rob Coe's article in my introduction. I predict that, by the time my thesis is published, the term 'instructional coaching' will not be in common place use in England but I hope my research will still be of interest.
I appreciated this conversation very much, and I found myself wanting to join in. I’m in the US, and I’m 25 years into education here - in the state of Florida specifically. I was never coached as a new teacher. I self-coached, but I had mentors through graduate school and professional organizations, in all of which I self-enrolled. I became a teacher educator hoping to make teacher education more practical, and I became focused on clinical teacher education. After a dozen or so years in teacher prep in higher education, I decided to go back into a high-needs school, first as a consultant (pro bono), and then as a teacher of record (after having been out of the classroom myself for over a decade). In that time the school-based coaching role had arrived. Most schools have a math and a literacy coach, some have science coaches, and secondary schools have “student success” coaches. I have since been both a literacy coach and a student success coach, (roles for former university professors don’t really exist where I am - so I take what I can get), but I had to use that opportunity to reframe coaching from the top-down to the partnership-ish model, developed responsive learning, coach coaches, engage in ongoing data collection and immediate response, double feedback loop, etc. - and it occurs to me that ultimately what I’m after is enabling all of the folks I work with to become self-coaches. As the workforce becomes younger and less experienced, there are fewer teacher mentors and models available - which makes the work of novices all the more challenging. It’s complex and messy work - but to your point about student outcomes, we have actually seen impact on student achievement in as little as a year. Can it sustain? Can it scale? If I leave, what would happen? Alas, the problem remains sustainability and scale. I’ll probably chew on that problem for the rest of my career. I don’t know if the coaching moment is the best or not, or what could or should replace it, if anything - but it’s what I came into when I parachuted out of the ivory tower - and to that coaching work I brought all of my experience and research on teacher knows for development to bear. And you’ve convinced me that my true goal all along is helping teachers become self-coaches, researchers of their own practice.
Years ago my district used consultants for curriculum mapping. They peddled learning styles. I talked about evidence that proved it was a myth. My then principal glared at me. 🤷♂️
I love this line “As a generalised principle, where prescription is too loose we get lethal mutation, where’s it’s too tight we risk perverse incentives”. Really insightful, thank you.
For me coaching is something which can drive change. It helps me to have the time and space to reflect. It provides a framework to focus on a specific element. Outside of my own reading and trialling of subject specific ideas and techniques it has been the CPD which has had the biggest impact on my practice.
Not to say that all coaching I’ve had in the past has been successful.
I think I would anecdotally agree that the person and their approach makes a difference. As well as the framework (if any) that they are following.
This is a really honest and useful take. The point about time being a school’s most contested resource really landed with me. It is easy to roll out coaching models without always thinking through the trade-offs or opportunity costs.
I’ve used Steplab and their supportive coaching frames and platform to try and counter the lack of expertise and time. What are your thoughts on their programme?
I wonder what you have found works best when trying to make coaching time feel purposeful and protected in the long term. Are there models or conditions you think make it more likely to succeed?
This post is so interesting to me having spent the last three years researching new teacher experience of instructional coaching. I tracked its entry into English teacher training curriculums and, as I researched, I became more confused as to how it had been rolled out, so quickly, on such a scale, without evidence to support this move. Especially because it is marketed as the most evidence-informed teacher development tool. Less confusing in a performative culture though. The issue may be that what we call 'instructional' is actually the US/Santoyo 'incremental', but it is written about as if it is US/Knight's 'instructional'. Confusing. Unsurprisingly, the new teachers in the study had a wide range of experiences, given their 'coaches' (mentors in disguise) were all working from the same model. Developing professional identity and agency; relationships with coaches; and their understanding of policy all played a part. Career changers were a key group of interest. One called instructional coaching 'the gamification of teacher training'. I could go on but I am pleased to see posts coming through over the last year questioning the 'common sense' narrative around instructional coaching. Couple of weeks to finish my thesis. I will be referencing this post and Rob Coe's article in my introduction. I predict that, by the time my thesis is published, the term 'instructional coaching' will not be in common place use in England but I hope my research will still be of interest.
I appreciated this conversation very much, and I found myself wanting to join in. I’m in the US, and I’m 25 years into education here - in the state of Florida specifically. I was never coached as a new teacher. I self-coached, but I had mentors through graduate school and professional organizations, in all of which I self-enrolled. I became a teacher educator hoping to make teacher education more practical, and I became focused on clinical teacher education. After a dozen or so years in teacher prep in higher education, I decided to go back into a high-needs school, first as a consultant (pro bono), and then as a teacher of record (after having been out of the classroom myself for over a decade). In that time the school-based coaching role had arrived. Most schools have a math and a literacy coach, some have science coaches, and secondary schools have “student success” coaches. I have since been both a literacy coach and a student success coach, (roles for former university professors don’t really exist where I am - so I take what I can get), but I had to use that opportunity to reframe coaching from the top-down to the partnership-ish model, developed responsive learning, coach coaches, engage in ongoing data collection and immediate response, double feedback loop, etc. - and it occurs to me that ultimately what I’m after is enabling all of the folks I work with to become self-coaches. As the workforce becomes younger and less experienced, there are fewer teacher mentors and models available - which makes the work of novices all the more challenging. It’s complex and messy work - but to your point about student outcomes, we have actually seen impact on student achievement in as little as a year. Can it sustain? Can it scale? If I leave, what would happen? Alas, the problem remains sustainability and scale. I’ll probably chew on that problem for the rest of my career. I don’t know if the coaching moment is the best or not, or what could or should replace it, if anything - but it’s what I came into when I parachuted out of the ivory tower - and to that coaching work I brought all of my experience and research on teacher knows for development to bear. And you’ve convinced me that my true goal all along is helping teachers become self-coaches, researchers of their own practice.
Years ago my district used consultants for curriculum mapping. They peddled learning styles. I talked about evidence that proved it was a myth. My then principal glared at me. 🤷♂️
I love coaching and in triads I get great results. But does it scale? Not a chance.
I love this line “As a generalised principle, where prescription is too loose we get lethal mutation, where’s it’s too tight we risk perverse incentives”. Really insightful, thank you.
For me coaching is something which can drive change. It helps me to have the time and space to reflect. It provides a framework to focus on a specific element. Outside of my own reading and trialling of subject specific ideas and techniques it has been the CPD which has had the biggest impact on my practice.
Not to say that all coaching I’ve had in the past has been successful.
I think I would anecdotally agree that the person and their approach makes a difference. As well as the framework (if any) that they are following.
This is a really honest and useful take. The point about time being a school’s most contested resource really landed with me. It is easy to roll out coaching models without always thinking through the trade-offs or opportunity costs.
I’ve used Steplab and their supportive coaching frames and platform to try and counter the lack of expertise and time. What are your thoughts on their programme?
I wonder what you have found works best when trying to make coaching time feel purposeful and protected in the long term. Are there models or conditions you think make it more likely to succeed?