Instructional Coaching: Navigating the Complexities of Leadership

The Struggle Begins

In the first few weeks of school, Sam felt strange. With no classroom to prepare, students of her own to welcome, or particular schedule to follow, the school year started very differently from her previous 15 years as a classroom teacher. Sam was excited to begin her work building relationships as a first step to improving teaching and learning across the district’s elementary schools per the recommendation of the new superintendent. John had communicated with district principals about Sam and Judi’s new roles, but had left the process of how they would work in each school to the new coaches. Sam and Judi were keenly aware of their responsibility for the success of this important initiative.

The coaches spent most of the first week getting to know each other, and by the end of the week, they decided on a schedule for introducing themselves in the schools to which they were assigned. In each school, Sam and Judi would meet with principals, attend as many faculty meetings as possible, and announce their plans to visit classrooms to familiarize themselves with programs, teachers, and administrators. From school to school, Sam and Judi encountered markedly different responses and levels of engagement from principals. In several schools, principals were excited and proactive, presenting the pair with entry plans for leading workshops, facilitating one-on-one coaching cycles with teachers, and collaborating with leadership and grade-level teams. Yet, in other schools, Sam and Judi felt humored and tolerated, but not welcomed. In those cases, they struggled to find any time at all to meet with faculty, much less a focused sense of purpose from the building administration. Despite an uneven start across the district, both were optimistic about their potential impact on teaching and learning in the months ahead.

Shortly after starting her classroom visits, Sam met with a teacher at one elementary school who shared her building was strongly opposed to the teaching structure called “workshop model” that was highly recommended by a consultant who visited the district the previous year. The workshop model included four key components of lesson design: a mini-lesson, student work time, conferring with individuals and small groups, and whole-class sharing time. She warned Sam that strong resistance to the workshop model should be anticipated in her building.

Later, while visiting with the principal at the same school who was new to the building, Sam and Judi were asked to craft some professional development that focused on improving reading. The two set out carefully planning an experience that would avoid being seen as instilling a workshop structure. However, when the time came for the professional development session, the building principal introduced the two coaches as “workshop experts.” Even though they tried to correct the potentially problematic “workshop” label, the damage had been done. Teachers became disengaged in the professional development session and sought no additional support from either Sam or Judi in the months that followed.

During the next few months, Sam and Judi were invited into a few specific classrooms over their eight schools. Some of these invitations were teacher initiated, while others were initiated by principals wanting them to work with struggling teachers on behavior management practices. Sam and Judi developed close relationships with several teachers that created some “heavy” coaching opportunities. Sam had learned during her previous coaching training that these “heavy” coaching experiences held “all adults responsible for student success and engages them as members of collaborative learning teams to learn, plan, reflect, analyze, and revise their daily teaching practices based on student learning results” while “light” coaching opportunities occur when coaches engage “in tasks that have limited potential for impact on teaching and learning” (Killion, 2008, pp. 1-2). In contrast, other teachers they spent time with were resentful of being “assigned a coach,” and little was accomplished. As time went on, Sam and Judi began to question how they were ever going to improve teaching and learning across the district’s elementary schools at scale. Although they saw areas of opportunity for improvement, they kept hearing from principals and teachers that the district does not need anything “new,” leaving these new instructional coaches with more questions than answers.

CFG

In the month of November, Sam and Judi were given the opportunity to attend a CFG training with a select group of teacher leaders from the district, including two at the elementary level. The two elementary teachers included Eric, known in the district as a high performer who acted as an “embedded” coach with a small amount of release time and a stipend, and Lexi, who held additional coordinator responsibilities. Both Eric and Lexi taught at two of the largest schools not assigned to Sam and Judi.

Sam and Judi had heard rumors that two district-level leaders, but not John, initiated this training in the hopes that CFGs would be started at each level in the district. A CFG is a professional learning community that consists of “. . . 5-12 members who commit to improving their practice through collaborative learning and structured interactions (protocols), and meet at least once a month for about 2 hours” (Mattoon, 2015, p. 1). Sam and Judi were excited to initiate the district’s first elementary CFG because the reflective structures of protocols closely mirror instructional coaching and suggested a slow cultural shift in support of their positions. At the very least, CFGs appeared to offer pathways to build relationships with a broader network of teachers potentially open to coaching.

However, Sam and Judi’s excitement was tempered by the ironic suspicion of “new” district initiatives that felt like a headwind in establishing their work. During a planning meeting with Judi, Sam wondered aloud whether the benefits of CFGs as peer coaching outweighed the potential confusion and initiative fatigue that had likely arisen among faculty. Judi shared Sam’s doubts, but the two resolved to participate in good faith and to ask John at their next meeting to clarify the district leadership’s vision for how instructional coaching and CFGs would support each other in the pursuit of enhanced student achievement scores. Would these initiatives be communicated as separate exercises or as a combined effort to improve teaching and learning through guided reflection?

In the months following, a middle and a high school CFG began to meet, and word traveled across the district of their success. Meanwhile, John suggested that Sam and Judi work with Eric and Lexi, the two highly respected teacher leaders from the CFG training, to create a CFG of elementary teachers from across the district.

From Idea to Implementation

After receiving reassurance from John, Sam and Judi invited Eric and Lexi to meet about creating an elementary CFG. Finding a common meeting time was a challenge because Eric and Lexi had minimal release time and held other responsibilities. Both had asked their principals for extra release for CFG planning and were denied. Nevertheless, they met in December to begin planning, with Sam and Judi taking the lead.

The first obstacle involved whom to invite. Sam and the others discussed hand-selecting the strongest instructional teachers in the district, but worried about creating the impression that only top teachers could be a part of the CFG. They did not want to inadvertently create an “in group, out group” dynamic. Judi wondered aloud whether invitations to join CFGs might help identify teachers more likely to engage in coaching within the other eight schools. Both Sam and Judi were wary of appearing overly involved in the three largest schools, especially when Eric declared, “I do not think my principal is in favor of this initiative” at their last meeting.

The four discovered that the district had a list of teachers who were interested in serving as lab hosts—teachers willing to open their classrooms to colleagues as a form of in-house professional development (Houk, 2010). Sam noticed the listed participants were spread across all eleven elementary schools. This list offered potential inroads into each school, even those schools where the coaches had previously struggled to make connections. As lab host volunteers displayed favorable dispositions for CFG work and instructional coaching, Sam and Judi agreed to invite each teacher on the list.

Sam and Judi developed an informational flyer and sent out invitation emails to the 14 people on the list. At the end of the 2 weeks, four had not replied, three declared interest in future groups while declining this year, and six teachers replied that they were interested—all from the three largest schools not assigned to Sam or Judi. So much for making inroads into the other eight elementary schools, Sam thought. Judi was particularly deflated and viewed this response as a setback. Sam was more optimistic because a core of engaged teachers might well create a critical mass to begin spreading excitement about instructional coaching and CFGs.

Between the coaches, Eric, Lexi, and six teachers, they had enough to create a 10-person CFG representing three schools. As plans were set for their first meeting, Sam increasingly wondered how teachers at the eight schools she and Judi were assigned might perceive this group. Would CFGs seem like coaching for the largest schools and instructional coaching a manipulative prescription for the other schools? Was this initiative working for or against her instructional coaching role? How did the principals really feel about this initiative? They were taking steps to improve teaching and learning across elementary schools, but without buy-in from all the schools, Sam worried progress would be slow or might halt entirely.

Sam, Judi, Eric, and Lexi settled on a bi-monthly meeting schedule, and the CFG participants began familiarizing themselves with one another and with protocols. By the end of the third meeting, the room was filled with positive energy as the group reflected on learning they felt was immediately applicable in their classrooms. Although the impact of their CFG was yet to be determined, Sam and Judi left the third meeting hopeful that they were building better relationships with teachers across the district. Both coaches hoped this would create opportunities to increase their own impact as instructional leaders. Still, as they shared tales of success with the eight principals from the other schools, none showed interest in promoting the work of instructional coaches or CFGs.

One day, while driving between schools, Sam vented to Judi that she had finally finagled an invitation to a “walking meeting” held weekly by one principal, Mary, to update her on the success of the CFG, only to show up and find it had been held hours earlier than planned.

“Sorry,” her assistant principal had said, “We usually hold these meetings whenever it works for both of us on a Thursday. We didn’t even think to update your invitation. Nothing personal!”

Sam responded professionally, but asked to be invited again in 2 weeks as she felt meeting with Mary was an essential first step in building a working relationship with her. She let the assistant principal know she would plan to be on campus all day in order not to miss the meeting, and she hoped no sarcasm had snuck into her voice. Sam concluded her venting to Judi by wondering how they were ever going to work their way into eight existing school leadership cultures? Sam was feeling like an afterthought.

Without consultation from John, Sam and Eric decided to initiate classroom visits with teachers involved in the CFG. Judi did the same with Lexi. Sam and Judi felt it was important to see the learning happening in their classrooms. During one of the visits to Eric’s school, Sam shared her feeling of renewed energy as an instructional coach and excitement for the CFG’s work with the charismatic building principal, Tom, who invited her to share an update at the next elementary principal’s meeting. “Finally,” Sam thought, “a building leader who shares our vision about the power of instructional coaching!”

The Principals’ Meeting

Sam and Judi had worked for days developing a presentation for the 11 elementary principals and their boss, John. Both coaches were excited to share the initial work of the CFG group and its potential to help improve teaching and learning across the district. Maybe other principals would buy into the idea and promote the coaches’ work in their buildings. As they set up for their presentation, principals filed into the room. They noticed that Tom, the principal who invited them, sat next to Mary, the principal who had held the “walking meeting” without Sam a few weeks prior. John introduced Sam and Judi to the group of principals along with their mandate to improve teaching and learning, and the presentation began. During the presentation, Sam could not help but notice that Tom and Mary were not paying attention. Instead, she saw them checking their phones and chatting.

Once the presentation was finished, the principals began to discuss the topic of cross-building collaboration, and John asked them to brainstorm ways to increase these types of opportunities. Sam and Judi felt awkward. Was it their place to join in the discussion? They thought CFGs could help, but did not want to lose focus on their core mission to serve as instructional coaches. The discussion never broached coaching as a topic, and Sam tried unsuccessfully to jump in several times to mention it. Before long, the principals agreed on in-house teaching labs as a starting structure. John then suggested Sam and Judi organize a formal schedule for teachers to serve as lab hosts, starting with teachers involved in the CFG.

In the parking lot, Sam and Judi wondered if they had just been handed a third initiative to compete along with coaching and CFGs. Judi pointed out that there was still no mechanism to increase participation in any initiative across the eight schools for which they were responsible. How likely were teachers who had not responded to the CFG invitation to respond now? Would their principals promote this new effort if they had not promoted earlier efforts? To Sam, the lack of a district-wide understanding of their roles, or even what instructional coaching entailed, meant that building principals might not even be clear themselves about what they would be promoting. Judi asked Sam how many definitions she thought there might be of “enhancing teaching and learning” between their eight elementary schools? “Eight,” Sam said.

More Conflicting Messages

Over the next 2 weeks, Sam and Judi set out soliciting sign-ups for lab hosts and defining the structure of the lab process to explore the “problems of practice” of the participants. Eric volunteered to be a lab host, and Lexi was the only person to sign up to participate in the lab. They realized that holding the first meeting directly before Spring Break was an inopportune time, so they decided to move ahead anyway with one of the “problems of practice” that both Eric and Lexi shared. The group agreed to hold the first in-house teaching lab in Eric’s classroom on two separate days to kick start the initiative. The group ran the idea by Tom, the principal that had invited them to present at the principal’s meeting, as the teaching lab was planned to take place in his building. Tom offered to send the invitation to the other principals for distribution to their teachers. Sam felt hopeful that they were cracking the communication code from within—Tom was an ally who could get the attention of his principal colleagues.

The time came for individuals to visit Eric’s class for the first in-house teaching lab session, but only Lexi showed up. Sam and Judi began to wonder what was going on. Had Tom sent the invitation to the other principals? Had their descriptions of the event been clear enough? Why did no one from nine of 11 elementary schools participate even though the principals from these buildings had agreed upon this method during the principal’s meeting a few weeks prior?

Two days later, Sam overheard Tom talking to Mary when she signed in at the main office: “I’m fine if Eric keeps collaborating with Lexi and the coaches, but my teachers cannot be responsible for helping other teachers improve; that’s the two full-time instructional coaches’ roles. The teachers need to be in the classroom working with their kids. We only have a month before testing,” Tom said. “Besides, we tried working with those other buildings a year ago when my teachers ran professional development on the workshop model across the district,” Tom added.

“We are collaborating across buildings. Lexi joined the teaching lab on Monday, but the other schools just didn’t hear about it,” added Mary.

“We are just too busy to start something new right now,” Tom sighed. Sam’s heart sank as she walked to Eric’s classroom, ready to launch the second teaching lab day. Reality had set in; no one would show up for today’s teaching lab.

The following week, Sam and Judi were called to a meeting at the district office with John. He shared that several of the elementary school principals and two district leaders were concerned about their effectiveness as instructional coaches and the structure of both the recently formed CFG and teaching labs. Before Sam and Judi could describe the details about their approach, how they used the lab hosts lists to reach out to potential teachers in all schools, their aim to use the CFG group to help build relationships with teachers across the district, the timing of introducing teaching labs, and their wonderings about principal buy-in for any of these initiatives, John shared:

The superintendent and I have fielded several complaints from the elementary principals. They know you two are trying a variety of approaches, but I’m seriously concerned about how we can build a culture which embraces cross-building collaboration to improve teaching and learning at scale if you two cannot find opportunities to get more teachers involved beyond those in Tom and Mary’s schools.

John’s words shocked Sam. On one hand, she believed that she and Judi needed to help build a culture of collaboration. But on the other, how could they help foster collaboration as instructional coaches—especially across 11 buildings spread throughout the district—without principal support? What should they have done differently? Why were they meeting such resistance from principals? Did John know something they did not about Tom and Mary’s leadership styles that shaped their lack of interest in cross-district collaboration? Sam’s mind was on fire with questions. What now? Was the district ever going to be prepared for teachers to collaborate across the district to improve teaching and learning?

Teaching Notes

This case illustrates one district’s struggle in leveraging instructional coaching at scale across several school sites. During Sam and Judi’s first year as instructional coaches, they worked with individual teachers, conducted school specific workshops, and organized both a CFG and cross-district teaching lab experiences. In pockets, Sam and Judi found success; however, they were not well supported or positioned to promote instructional improvement across the district.

Coaching, as a development tool, positively effects instructional practice and student achievement despite variations in the ways coaches (as instructional experts) work with teachers to improve classroom practices and student learning outcomes (Kraft, Blazer, & Hogan, 2018). In addition, coaches may be positioned within systems to develop common language and facilitate change (Kane & Rosenquist, 2018; Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015). Yet, given the sizable human and capital investment associated with quality coaching, “major questions still remain about the feasibility of expanding teacher coaching across schools and districts” (Kraft et al., 2018, p. 570). Among these questions are ones associated with leadership, such as how coaches and other leaders work together in supportive systems to catalyze improvement and build teacher capacity (Jackson, Cobb, Rigby, & Smith, 2018; Sharpe, Larbi-Cherif, Henrick, Cobb, & Smith, 2018; Woulfin & Rigby, 2017).

This case encourages educators to explore complex relationships between district and school site leaders, and instructional coaches. Specifically, the case illustrates tension arising from introducing instructional coaching across school sites without consistently supportive leadership. Certainly, specific communication about the role and purpose of introducing instructional coaching across the Lakeview School District would help leaders, including instructional coaches, better leverage this form of professional development. However, as this case highlights, the capacity for instructional and leadership development is influenced by larger professional community context. In these Teaching Notes, we suggest instructors and students unpack the concepts of leadership and contextual conditions to support instructional improvement using the case as an entry point.

Phase 1: Supportive Leadership

The choice to begin with leadership is intentional. Leadership actions have the potential to promote coherent instructional improvement: “Yet, oftentimes, coaching is only loosely tied to existing structures of districts and schools” (Woulfin & Rigby, 2017, p. 323). In this case, instructional coaches were not systemically positioned alongside leaders in the Lakeview School District.

This is not surprising given the incomplete understanding of how leadership directly connects to improvements in instructional practice and learning outcomes (Crawford, 2012; Eckert, 2018; Jackson et al., 2018; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008; Mangi & Dunsmore, 2015; Neumerski, 2013; Sebastian, Allensworth, & Huang, 2016; Sharp et al., 2018). To gain appreciation for the complexity inherent in organizing the joint work of many leaders working together to support instruction improvement, have students review one to two of the resources below:

Eckert, J. (2018). Collective leadership development: Emerging themes from urban, suburban, and rural high schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(3), 477-509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18799435

Kane, B. K., & Rosenquist, B. (2018). Making the most of instructional coaches. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(7), 21-25.

Mangin, M., & Dunsmore, K. (2015). How the framing of instructional coaching as a lever for systemic or individual reform influences the enactment of coaching. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 51, 179-213.

Neumerski, C. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here? Educational Administration Quarterly, 49, 310-347.

Sebastian, J., Allensworth, E., & Huang, H. (2016). The role of teacher leadership in how principals influence classroom instruction and student learning. American Journal of Education, 123, 69-108.

Phase 2: Supportive Cwt for Leadership

To enable students to best understand the struggles the rapidly growing Lakeview School District experienced in this case, invite students to examine the notion of building professional communities for learning. In Kruse, Seashore Louis, and Brky’s (1994) Building Professional Community in Schools, conditions and resources needed to support strong professional communities focused on student learning are presented. For example, lack of clear Communication Structures—a structural condition—left little opportunity for exchange between instructional coaches, school site leaders, and district leadership. In addition, when John asked the principals to brainstorm ideas for how to increase cross-building collaboration, Sam and Judi did not feel honored for their expertise. This led to their feeling a lack of Trust and Respect—a social condition needed for collaboration and shared decision making.

After students have read the case once, have them read Kruse et al.’s piece:

Kruse, S., Seashore Louis, K., & Brky, A. (1994). Building Professional Community in Schools. Issues in Restructuring Schools 6, 2-6. Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, University of Wisconsin—Madison. Retrieved from http://archive.wceruw.org/cors/Issues_in_Restructuring_Schools/ISSUES_NO_6_SPRING_1994.pdf

Next, have students analyze the case through the lens of the conditions and resources listed on pages 5 and 6 of Kruse et al.’s piece as an entry point to consider some of the practical ways individuals, including the instructional coaches, can be better positioned and supported to build a strong professional community focused on student learning within the Lakeview School District.