Crystallizing Coaching: An Examination of the Institutionalization of Instructional Coaching in Three Educational Systems

Abstract

Background

Instructional coaching has gained popularity as a reform instrument, yet it varies widely across contexts. This variability plays a role in weak implementation or even rejection of coaching within schools. Further, there are gaps in our understanding of how coaching is adopted and accepted in different educational systems. Purpose: This article uses concepts from organizational institutionalism to gauge the legitimacy and taken-for-grantedness of coaching in two charter-management organizations and one public school district. It surfaces the processes as well as the outcomes of the institutionalization of coaching.

Research design

I collected qualitative data for this study in three systems to draw out comparisons in the structures, practices, and norms regarding coaching: This included 38 interviews, over 20 observations, and over 30 documents. I coded and analyzed the interview, observation, and document data to answer questions about how and why coaching was institutionalized in each system.

Findings

My findings reveal that coaching was more highly institutionalized in the two charter-management organizations than in the public school district. In particular, coaching was deemed appropriate and desirable by most educators in the charter systems. Additionally, coaching was embedded in system-level policies and school-level routines in the charter systems. My findings also indicate that organizational structures, actors’ role definitions, and artifacts were associated with the institutionalization of coaching.

Conclusions

This study sheds light on how and why coaching, as a counternormative lever for instructional reform, is institutionalized in various educational systems. It points to the importance of system and school leaders’ routines for increasing the legitimacy and taken-for-grantedness of coaching.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aguilar

(2013a). The art of coaching: Effective strategies for school transformation. Jossey-Bass.

Aguilar

(2013b, April 29). “How can I coach a resistant teacher?” (Part 1). Education Week Teacher. http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/coaching_teachers/2013/04/how_can_i_coach_a_resistant_te.html

Battilana

Leca

, & Boxenbaum

(2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Annals, 3 1, 65—107.

Bean

R. M.

(2004). The reading specialist. Guilford Press.

Betts

J. R.

, & Tang

Y. E.

(2011). The effect of charter schools on student achievement: A meta-analysis of the literature. National Charter School Research Project, Center on Reinventing Public Education. http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/pub_NCSRP_BettsTang_Oct11_0.pdf

Bifulco

, & Ladd

H. F.

(2006). The impacts of charter schools on student achievement: Evidence from North Carolina. Education Finance and Policy, 1 1, 50—90.

Coburn

C. E.

(2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32 6, 3—12.

Coburn

C. E.

(2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43 3, 343—49.

Coburn

C. E.

, & Russell

J. L.

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

10.

Coburn

C. E.

, & Woulfin

S. L.

(2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47 1, 5—30. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.008

11.

Cohen

D. K.

(2011). Teaching and its predicaments. Harvard University Press.

12.

Colyvas

J. A.

, & Jonsson

(2011). Ubiquity and legitimacy: Disentangling diffusion and institutionalization. Sociological Theory, 29 1, 27—53.

13.

Colyvas

J. A.

, & Powell

W. W.

(2006). Roads to institutionalization: The remaking of boundaries between public and private science. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 305—353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27008-4

14.

Creswell

J. W.

(1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. SAGE.

15.

Daly

A. J.

, & Finnigan

(2011). The ebb and flow of social network ties between district leaders under high stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 48 1, 39—79.

16.

Deephouse

, & Suchman

(2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In Greenwood

Oliver

Suddaby

, & Sahlin

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49—77). SAGE.

17.

Deussen

Coskie

Robinson

, & Autio

(2007). “Coach” can mean many things: Five categories of literacy coaches in Reading First (Issues & Answers, REL 2007-No. 005). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest.

18.

DiMaggio

(1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In Zucker

(Ed.), Institutional patterns and organization (pp. 3—21). Ballinger.

19.

Emerson

R. M.

Fretz

R. I.

, & Shaw

L. L.

(1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press.

20.

Farrell

C. C.

(2015). Designing school systems to encourage data use and instructional improvement: A comparison of school districts and charter management organizations. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51 3, 438—471.

21.

Fiss

P. C.

Kennedy

M. T.

, & Davis

G. F.

(2012). How golden parachutes unfolded: Diffusion and variation of a controversial practice. Organization Science, 23 4, 1077—1099. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0685

22.

Gardiner

(2012). Coaches’ and new urban teachers’ perceptions of induction coaching: Time, trust, and accelerated learning curves. The Teacher Educator, 47 3, 195—215.

23.

Golann

J. W.

(2015). The paradox of success at a no-excuses school. Sociology of Education, 88 2, 103—119.

24.

Goldstein

(2003). Making sense of distributed leadership: The case of peer assistance and review. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25 4, 397—421.

25.

Goodrick

, & Salancik

G. R.

(1996). Organizational discretion in responding to institutional practices: Hospitals and cesarean births. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 1, 1—28.

26.

Honig

M. I.

(2012). District central office leadership as teaching: How central office administrators support principals’ development as instructional leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48 4, 733—774.

27.

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.

28.

Huguet

Marsh

, & Farrell

(2014). Building teachers’ data-use capacity: Insights from strong and developing coaches. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22 52. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1600/1315

29.

Jabbar

(2016). Selling schools: Marketing and recruitment strategies in New Orleans. Peabody Journal of Education, 91 1, 4—23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1119554

30.

Johnson

(2007). What is organizational imprinting? Cultural entrepreneurship in the founding of the Paris Opera. American Journal of Sociology, 113 1, 97—127. https://doi.org/10.1086/517899

31.

Joyce

, & Showers

(1980). Improving inservice training: The message of research. Educational Leadership, 37 5, 379—385.

32.

Kellogg

K. C.

(2011). Challenging operations: Medical reform and resistance in surgery. University of Chicago Press.

33.

Kersten

, & Pardo

(2007). Finessing and hybridizing: Innovative literacy practices in reading first classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 61 2, 146—154.

34.

KIPP. (2018). KIPP leadership. https://www.kipp.org/approach/highly-effective-teachers-and-leaders/kipp-leadership/

35.

Knight

(2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Corwin.

36.

Kraft

M. A.

, & Blazar

(2017). Individualized coaching to improve teacher practice across grades and subjects: New experimental evidence. Educational Policy, 31 7, 1033—1068. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904816631099

37.

Kraft

M. A.

Blazar

, & Hogan

(2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88 4, 547—588.

38.

Kutash

Nico

Gorin

Rahmatullah

, & Tallant

(2010). The school turnaround field guide. FSG Social Impact Advisors. http://wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/district-policy-and-practice/Pages/The-School-Turnaround-Field-Guide.aspx

39.

Little

J. W.

(1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91 4, 509—536.

40.

Lortie

D. C.

(1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. University of Chicago Press.

41.

Lubienski

(2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40 2, 395—443.

42.

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.

43.

Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., & Martorell, F. (2010). How instructional coaches support data-driven decision making: Policy implementation and effects in Florida middle schools. Educational Policy, 24 6, 872—907.

44.

Matsumura

L. C.

Garnier

H. E.

, & Resnick

L. B.

(2010). Implementing literacy coaching: The role of school social resources. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32 2, 249—272.

45.

Miles

M. B.

, & Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE.

46.

Nichols

(2020, August 14). Organic Chemistry Lab Techniques, 3: Crystallization. LibreTexts. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Organic_Chemistry/Book%3A_Organic_Chemistry_Lab_Techniques_(Nichols)/3%3A_Crystallization

47.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE.

48.

Scott

W. R.

(2001). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. SAGE.

49.

Seashore Louis

Leithwood

Wahlstrom

K. L.

, & Anderson

S. E.

(2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, University of Minnesota. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/pages/investigating-the-links-to-improved-student-learning.aspx

50.

Suchman

M. C.

(1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20 3, 571—610.

51.

Teemant

(2014). A mixed-methods investigation of instructional coaching for teachers of diverse learners. Urban Education, 49 5, 574—604.

52.

Torres

, & Weiner

(2018). The new professionalism? Charter teachers’ experiences and qualities of the teaching profession. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26 19. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3049

53.

Wei

R. C.

Darling-Hammond

Andree

Richardson

, & Orphanos

(2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. National Staff Development Council.

54.

Wohlstetter

Smith

, & Farrell

C. C.

(2015). The choices and challenges of charter schools, revisited. Journal of School Choice, 9 1, 115—138.

55.

Woulfin

S. L.

(2017). Coach professional development in the urban emergent context. Urban Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085917714513

56.

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

57.

Woulfin

S. L.

, & Jones

(2018). Rooted in relationships: An analysis of dimensions of social capital enabling instructional coaching. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 3 1, 25—38.

58.

Woulfin

S. L.

, & Rigby

J. G.

(2017). Coaching for coherence: How instructional coaches lead change in the evaluation era. Educational Researcher, 46 6, 323—328.

59.

Yin

R. K.

(2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). SAGE.

60.

Zilber

(2008). The work meanings in institutional processes and thinking. In Greenwood

Oliver

Suddaby

, & Sahlin

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 151—169). SAGE.