Capacity-Building for District Reform: The Role of Instructional-Coach Teams

Abstract

Background/Context

This study contributes to our growing understanding of coaches’ role in district reform by introducing instructional-coach teams as a potentially important concept for understanding coaching activities that support systemic reform. Prior research shows that instructional coaches leverage their position between the district office and schools to coordinate policy implementation. This study builds on that analysis by adding a group dimension to instructional coaching at the district level. No other study to date has focused on the collective behaviors of coaches that facilitate reform efforts.

Purpose/Objective/RQ/Focus of Study

The purpose of this study is to examine the practices of effective instructional-coach teams and conceptualize the role of coach teams in district reform.

Research Design

I used cross-case analysis that relied on social-network, questionnaire, interview, and observational methods as sources of evidence to analyze how instructional coaches work together to build capacities for district reform. I identified two successful district-level coach teams with an explicit mandate to support reform efforts that were, however, operating in very different district contexts. The focus of this analysis was to identify and compare the circumstances that present in both cases and help explain why these districts have effective coach teams.

Findings

My findings describe how coach teams develop institutional capacities that enable districts to respond to policy demands. I find that differences in curriculum policy, district reform context, and professional collaboration are associated with differences in the teams’ relational structures. I link these differences to common process gains resulting from the collective working of coach teams. I found three important process gains: intranet systems, collaborative problem-solving, and collective expertise. Although both teams produced all three, they implemented process gains in very different ways.

Conclusions/Recommendations

This comparative study demonstrates the conceptual utility of instructional-coach teams for understanding the link between coaching and systemic district reform. More theory and research are needed to better understand the behaviors of teams of educators, and particularly instructional coaches, engaged in collective work to support district reform.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ancona

D. G.

, & Caldwell

D. F.

(1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 4, 634—666.

Biancarosa

Bryk

A. S.

, & Dexter

E. R.

(2010). Assessing the value-added effects of literacy collaborative professional development on student learning. Elementary School Journal, 111 1, 7—34.

Brandes

, & Wagner

(2004). Analysis and visualization of social networks. In Jünger

, & Mutzel

(Eds.), Graph drawing software (pp. 321—340). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Bright

, & Hensley

(2010). A study of the effectiveness of K–3 literacy coaches. National Reading Technical Assistance Center. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/support/effectivenessfinal.pdf

Bryk

A. S.

Gomez

L. M.

Grunow

LeMahieu

P. G.

(2015). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better. Harvard University Press.

Bryk

A. S.

, & Schneider

(2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.

Burt

R. S.

(1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.

Coburn

C. E.

(2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19 3, 203—235.

Coburn

C. E.

Choi

, & Mata

(2010). “I would go to her because her mind is math”: Network formation in the context of a district-based mathematics reform. In Daly

A. J.

(Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 33—50). Harvard Education Press.

10.

Coburn

C. E.

, & Russell

J. L.

(2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30 3, 203—235.

11.

Coburn

C. E.

, & Woulfin

S. L.

(2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47 1, 5—30.

12.

Contractor

N. S.

Zink

, & Chan

(1998). IKNOW: A tool to assist and study the creation, maintenance, and dissolution of knowledge networks. In Ishida

(Ed.), Community computing and support systems (pp. 201—217). Springer.

13.

Corbin

, & Strauss

(2015). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE.

14.

Creswell

J. W.

, & Miller

D. L.

(2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39 3, 124—130.

15.

Daly

A. J.

, & Finnigan

K. S.

(2011). The ebb and flow of social network ties between district leaders under high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 39—79.

16.

Daly

A. J.

Finnigan

K. S.

Moolenaar

N. M.

, & Che

(2014). The critical role of brokers in the access and use of evidence at the school and district level. In Daly

A. J.

, & Finnigan

K. S.

(Eds.), Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill. Springer International.

17.

Darling-Hammond

, & McLaughlin

M. W.

(1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 8, 597—604.

18.

Domina

Lewis

Agarwal

, & Hanselman

(2015). Professional sense-makers: Instructional specialists in contemporary schooling. Educational Researcher, 44 6, 359—364.

19.

Elmore

R. F.

(2004). School reform from the inside out. Harvard University Press.

20.

Finnigan

K. S.

Daly

A. J.

, & Liou

Y.-H.

(2016). How leadership churn undermines learning and improvement in low-performing school districts. In Daly

, & Finnigan

K. S.

(Eds.), Thinking and acting systematically: Improving school districts under pressure (pp. 183—208). American Educational Research Association.

21.

Fiore

S. M.

Salas

, & Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

(2001). Group dynamics and shared mental model development. In London

(Ed.), How people evaluate others in organizations (pp. 309—336). Lawrence Erlbaum.

22.

Frank

K. A.

Penuel

W. R.

, & Krause

(2015). What is a “good” social network for policy implementation? The flow of know-how for organizational change. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34 2, 378—402.

23.

Frank

K. A.

Zhao

, & Borman

(2004). Social capital and the diffusions of innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77 2, 148—171.

24.

Frank

K. A.

Zhao

Penuel

W. R.

Eliefson

, & Porter

(2011). Focus, fiddle, and friends: Experiences that transform knowledge for the implementation of innovations. Sociology of Education, 84 2, 137—156.

25.

Garet

M. S.

Porter

A. C.

Desimone

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.

26.

Glaser

B. G.

, & Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.

27.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 6, 1360—1380.

28.

Hackman

J. R.

(1987). The design of work teams. In Lorsch

(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315—343). Prentice-Hall.

29.

Hopkins

Spillane

J. P.

Jakopovic

, & Heaton

R. M.

(2013). Infrastructure redesign and instructional reform in mathematics: Formal structure and teacher leadership. The Elementary School Journal, 114 2, 200—224.

30.

Hüffmeier

, & Hertel

(2011). Many cheers make light the work: How social support triggers process gains in teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26 3, 185—204.

31.

Huguet

Marsh

J. A.

, & Farrell

(2014). Building teachers’ data-use capacity: insights from strong and developing coaches. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22 52, 2—31.

32.

Kanawattanachai

, & Yoo

(2007). The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly, 31 4, 783—808.

33.

Katz

, & Lazer

D. M. J.

(2003). Building effective intra-organizational networks: The role of teams. Center for Public Leadership.

34.

Kogut

, & Zander

(1996). What do firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7 5, 502—518.

35.

Lazer

D. M. J.

, & Katz

(2000). Putting the network in teamwork. Center for Public Leadership.

36.

Lofland

Snow

Anderson

, & Lofland

(2006). Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

37.

Mangin

M. M.

, & Dunsmore

(2015). How the framing of instructional coaching as a lever for systemic or individual reform influences the enactment of coaching. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51 2, 179—213.

38.

Marsh

J. A.

McCombs

J. S.

, & Martorell

(2010). How instructional coaches support data-driven decision making: Policy implementation and effects in Florida middle schools. Educational Policy, 24 6, 872—907.

39.

Murnane

R. J.

, & Nelson

R. R.

(2007). Improving the performance of the education sector: The valuable, challenging, and limited role of random assignment evaluations. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16 5, 307—322.

40.

Newman

Smith

Allensworth

, & Bryk

A. S.

(2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Elementary School Journal, 111 3, 455—476.

41.

Otner

S. M. G.

(2010). Most different systems design. In Mills

A. J.

Durepos

, & Wiebe

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 571—572). SAGE.

42.

Penuel

W. R.

, & Cohen

A. L.

(2003). Coming to the crossroads of knowledge, learning, and technology: integrating knowledge management and workplace learning. In Ackerman

Pipek

, & Wulf

(Eds.), Sharing expertise: Beyond knowledge management (pp. 57—76). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

43.

Penuel

Frank

K. A.

Sun

, & Kim

C. M.

(2012). Teachers’ social capital and the implementation of schoolwide reforms. In Kelly

(Ed.), Assessing teacher quality: Understanding teacher effects on instruction and achievement. Teachers College Press.

44.

Penuel

Krause

, & Frank

(2009). Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers College Record, 111 1, 124—163.

45.

Penuel

W. R.

Sun

Frank

K. A.

, & Gallagher

A. H.

(2012). Using social network analysis to study how collegial interactions can augment teacher learning from external professional development. American Journal of Education, 119 1, 103—136.

46.

Peurach

D. J.

, & Neumerski

C. M.

(2015). Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround. Journal of Educational Change, 16 4, 379—420.

47.

Russell

J. L.

Bryk

A. S.

Dolle

Gomez

L. M.

LeMahieu

, & Grunow

(2017). A framework for the initiation of networked improvement communities. Teachers College Record, 119 7, 1—36.

48.

Schulman

L. S.

(1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 1, 1—21.

49.

Spillane

J. P.

(2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Harvard University Press.

50.

Spillane

J. P.

(2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.

51.

Spillane

J. P.

, & Kim

C. M.

(2012). An exploratory analysis of formal school leaders’ positioning and information networks in elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 119 1, 73—102.

52.

Spillane

J. P.

Parise

L. M.

, & Sherer

J. Z.

(2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48 3, 586—619.

53.

Swinnerton

(2007). Brokers and boundary crossers in an urban school district: Understanding central-office coaches as instructional leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 17 2, 195—221.

54.

Tsai

(2001). Knowledge transfer in interorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 44 5, 996—1004.

55.

Wölfer

Faber

N. S.

, & Hewstone

(2015). Social network analysis in the science of groups: Cross-sectional and longitudinal applications for studying intra- and intergroup behavior. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19 1, 45—61.

56.

Woulfin

S. L.

(2014). Charting research on the policies and politics of coaching. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22 50, 2—7.

57.

Woulfin

S. L.

(2015). Catalysts of change: An examination of coaches’ leadership practices in framing a reading reform. Journal of School Leadership, 25 3, 526—557.

58.

Woulfin

S. L.

(2016). Duet or duel?: A portrait of two logics of reading instruction in an urban school district. American Journal of Education, 122 3, 337—365.

59.

Woulfin

S. L.

(2018). Mediating instructional reform: An examination of the relationship between district policy and instructional coaching. AERA Open, 4 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418792278