- Email: [email protected]
Principal and coach as partners
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
MATBEH-569; No. of Pages 8
Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Journal of Mathematical Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmathb
Principal and coach as partners Lucy West Metamorphosis Teaching Learning Communities, Inc., United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 29 July 2016 Received in revised form 7 December 2016 Accepted 7 February 2017 Available online xxx
a b s t r a c t This paper explores the roles and responsibilities of mathematics coaches and principals. It suggests that principals need to equilibrate power by treating the coach as a partner, even if the coach is subordinate in the educational hierarchy. It posits that coaching would benefit all parties if they worked together across roles to enhance the capacity of educators at every level in the school hierarchy—teacher, coach, principal—to design, analyze, and implement mathematics instruction that results in deeper student learning. It briefly describes the model of Content Coaching. It questions some of the prevailing norms of interaction among educators, and it offers coaching scenarios that demonstrate that the initial design and implementation of coaching initiatives can lead to resistance and misunderstanding of the power and benefits of coaching for all educators and administrators. It goes on to challenge some of our assumptions regarding potential barriers (e.g. confidentiality) in relationships among coaches, teachers, and principals, and suggests that teacher learning goals be public and collaboratively engaged. It posits that positional authority is not a particularly strong lever for improving teacher practice, particularly if the principal lacks facility or interest in mathematics. It argues that if we want to enhance mathematics education in this country (as evidenced by robust student understanding of mathematics and its application in the world), there is great power in working collaboratively and inclusively, using coaching to support educators at every level. © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction What if principals and coaches were truly partners on the journey to shape and define ways that mathematics coaching can uplift mathematics instruction and, perhaps, the teaching profession? How might coaching be used to transform our schools from places where people tend to work in isolation, under pressure to cover the curriculum and get high test scores, into vibrant, multi-generational learning communities where everyone from principal, to teacher, to coach, to student is an active learner? How would the principal and coach relate to each other if they understood that their most important role was as partners on a journey as public learners? How might seeing the principal and coach as learners, engaged in thinking about lesson design, trying on instructional techniques, and questioning their own practice, make it safe and attractive for teachers to open their doors to the same kind of exploration? What would it take for teachers to invite the coach and principal in as colleagues engaged in studying the science and art of teaching? I am describing an image of a coaching culture in which adults are engaged in learning mathematics and the pedagogy that fosters collaborative mathematics learning as a matter of course, no matter their title; in which they collaboratively plan engaging experiences for students (whether from prescribed units of study or from self-created ones) and observe them being implemented by principals, colleagues, and coaches, then
E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003 0732-3123/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: West, L. Principal and coach as partners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
MATBEH-569; No. of Pages 8
L. West / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
2
refine them and try them again in other classes, and, finally, archive them with notes for future use by all teachers. How would coaching be defined, designed, and implemented to support this type of professional community? 2. Facing old and new challenges While a good number of schools are on a journey towards becoming learning organizations, others are caught in a quagmire of policies, relationships, patterns of interaction, and attitudes that make it difficult for them to break free of the historical status quo—command and control bureaucracies, teachers working solo in silos, and principals pressured to show rapid results, no matter the circumstances. Bureaucracies where the principal is charged with maintaining order and following orders—enforcing mandates, crafting school improvement plans, evaluating teachers. This environment is especially difficult for coaches who understand the importance of slowing things down so teachers and administrators can think and breathe and learn. How might coaching be a lifeline for these schools? How might the principal and coach in an impoverished school forge a mutual learning relationship while facing the challenges of poverty, a history of distrust between administrators and teachers, and the challenges of 16 years of misguided federal polices? Despite the pressures, how might the coach and principal interact to co-create a culture that advances camaraderie among the adults and enhances student learning? How might the principal and coach in an affluent school who believe that it is time to move to more engaging ways of teaching, cultivate a coaching culture when teachers believe that everything is fine the way it is? How might a principal use coaching to open the faculty’s eyes to new possibilities and overcome the fear that changes in practice might result in lower test scores? It is no small irony that schools at the socioeconomic extremes are the hardest to impact through coaching initiatives, albeit for different reasons. In all schools, but especially in these schools, it is critical for coaches and principals to establish a partnership in which both feel they can speak honestly, ask questions that help them sort through challenges, invite new possibilities, and respectfully challenge one another when they disagree. This relationship between a principal and an organization-chart subordinate marks a change in almost every school culture and requires thinking differently to open up the possibility of achieving better results. 3. Learning about content coaching Content coaching first emerged in the mid-nineties, in collaboration with the Institute For Learning at the University of Pittsburgh (http://ifl.pitt.edu), from coaching teachers and principals in dozens of schools. It developed further in public schools in various parts of the country and is now used in public, private, and charters schools, grades K-12. It uses the Guide To Core Issues (West and Staub, 2003; West and Cameron 2013), a core research-based tool, to improve lesson design by focusing on the ‘What’ (big mathematical ideas, strategies, and models), ‘Why,’ ‘Who,’ and ‘How’ components of lesson planning. For example, it asks teachers to consider who their students are and what each child brings to the table in order to provide all students access to a lesson, from those who are struggling to those who are ready to go beyond the main objective. While content coaching was initially focused on mathematics instruction and learning, it has spread into all content areas. Content coaching is a specific model of coaching that is rooted in knowledge-based constructivism, a learning theory named by Lauren Resnick, which builds on Piaget and Vygotsky. Resnick suggests that in order to construct knowledge one has to have something worth thinking about and some prior knowledge to build on. (Resnick and Williams, 2003). Resnick’s theory is put into practice using the effort-based Principles of Learning identified by Resnick and others (Resnick and Williams, 2003; Dweck, 2006; Boaler, 2016). It is generally practiced with one teacher or a small group of teachers using a three-part coaching cycle—preconference, lesson implementation, and post conference. The pre- and post-conference conversations center on the instructional core of planning, implementing, reflecting on, and refining lessons based on evidence of student learning. It requires three class periods of time (e.g. 45–60 min for each segment of the cycle, depending on the length of the periods in the school). In general, content coaching is offered over an extended length of time (e.g. a unit of study; a semester, a year) and occurs at least once a week during that time with the same teacher or cohort of teachers (West and Staub, 2003; West and Cameron, 2013). Content coaching’s essential insight, which has been supported in the context of mathematics by Deborah Ball, Hyman Bass, and many others, is that in order to improve instruction teachers not only need to understand mathematics deeply, but also need to understand how people learn mathematics. Without both skills, it is impossible to effectively teach students the conceptual underpinnings of mathematics as well as the skills and strategies more commonly addressed in mathematics instruction (Ball, Hill, & Bass, 2005). Experience suggests that if principals are going to lead the charge to upgrade mathematics instruction, they, too, need to understand more mathematics content and pedagogy. By partnering with content coaches, who are steeped in both, principals can develop confidence and expertise in evaluating mathematics instruction. By working with principals and teachers, coaches can assist both in improving mathematics instruction. In the process, they can facilitate the transition from a hierarchical model of interaction to a partnership model that engenders inquiry, reflection, and informed action by teachers and administrators. Experience indicates that it is not yet common practice for principals to engage with coaches as equals and as learners. Nor is it common for principals to carve out the time to learn mathematics alongside their teachers. It is still rare for principals to sit in on mathematics coaching sessions. Principal time constraints are real. However, if the principal does not Please cite this article in press as: West, L. Principal and coach as partners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003
G Model MATBEH-569; No. of Pages 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS L. West / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
3
invest in publicly learning math, and engage in conversations that question present practice, or worse, expresses a desire for mechanical solutions to ineffective mathematics instruction and shallow learning (e.g. a particular lesson format, rigid pacing calendar), it is less likely that coaching will have the desired impact on instruction and learning. 4. Crafting a mathematics coaching initiative Often, principals select coaches because they were effective classroom teachers. This selection process is problematic when it fails to consider the content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge of the coach or when it fails to consider the different skill set involved in coaching adults. If, for whatever reason, the coach lacks some of the necessary knowledge and skills, the principal should encourage the coach to engage in appropriate professional learning (e.g. coaching training). The first job of the principal and the coach is to engage in a number of in-depth conversations aimed at understanding each other’s beliefs, goals, and images related to effective mathematics instruction. Calibrating their lenses regarding effective mathematics instruction up front is an important step in insuring the success of mathematics coaching, not least because it avoids the frustration that teachers feel when they receive mixed messages. The coach and principal also need to co-create an understanding of coaching that includes an honest appraisal of the time commitment involved (e.g. 3 periods per teacher or small team of teachers, per week) and the support needed to shift the culture from one in which lesson design is about following a book or pacing calendar to one focused on developing deep understanding of important mathematical ideas as evidenced through student mathematical discourse and writing. This requires acknowledging and creatively playing with the inherent tension of diving deeply into concepts while also trying to cover the overcrowded curriculum. Learning to negotiate this inherent tension more thoughtfully can lead to better outcomes. The coach and principal should also explore the purpose of coaching and the hoped-for outcomes, as well as the duration of a coaching commitment to any given teacher and how they will provide coverage. In addition, they need to establish protocols for inviting teachers into the coaching process, teacher selection criteria, scheduling, and benchmarks of progress (West and Cameron, 2013; Chapter 3). After the principal and coach have discussed these matters, they should invite the entire faculty into the discussion. They could begin by reflecting with the faculty on the same questions they reflected on with one another. They could then offer possible scenarios based on the discussions had by the principal and coach and solicit input from teachers. If the principal and coach take the time to engage teachersp in the design of the coaching work, they are likely to find that teachers are not only more amenable to coaching, but that the teachers can help them refine the plan. A tuning protocol (National School Reform Faculty http://www.nsrfharmony.org/system/files/protocols/tuning plan 0.pdf) can be used to solicit warm and cool feedback, as well as suggestions for improvement. One important consideration that is too often neglected is the respective role and responsibilities of each participant—coach, principal, and teacher. Although this paper focuses on the roles and relationship of the coach and principal, all three roles are crucial. Both coach and principal would do well to recognize the ambiguity and complexity of this work; the fact that there is little agreement in the field about their respective responsibilities in relation to coaching, and varying definitions of what coaches do and don’t do. This ambiguity opens an opportunity for them to craft a coaching initiative that attends to their context. This does not mean they should invent coaching from scratch–we know a great deal about effective coaching in schools. 5. Creating a learning community: everyone benefits A principal who understands the limitations of positional authority knows that influence is a stronger lever than mere authority. Such a principal uses her influence to seed and cultivate the leadership capacity in those around her. In designing a coaching initiative, she selects a coach who is respected, has credibility, and takes a learning stance. She then partners with the coach to think deeply about and with each teacher, just as she wants teachers to think deeply about and get to know each student. When a principal knows her teachers well, personally and professionally, and makes inquiries into their passions, challenges, and goals, she can co-create an individualized support plan with the coach and the teacher. When a principal knows that leaders are not loners but learners, interested and curious about what others think and need, she takes on the choreography of a learner and begins the dance of collaboratively building a learning organization. Learning requires us to become comfortable with feeling inadequate, inept, or unskilled. Teachers (and all learners) must be willing to be vulnerable, to fail, experience confusion and frustration, and keep on trying with the help of a coach or colleague as they approximate new practices and work to master them while simultaneously teaching their students. This requires new thinking on the part of a teacher, who may fear that her students will not respect her if she is willing to show that she doesn’t already know something she is expected to teach—a courageous act in the high-stakes, hurry-up-and-succeed world into which we have plummeted. Respect for the learning process is at an all-time low in a culture where results are all that seem to matter. Coaching can ameliorate this kind of pressure if the coach and the principal invest the time and create the space for teachers to learn together. This means that the principal is able to slow down, breathe, and make it safe for teachers to take intelligent, informed risks when teaching. The coach is the principal’s partner in this work, and works alongside teachers as they take tentative and then more confident steps on their journey to more effective teaching. The coach strives to understand the principal’s thinking, strategies, and beliefs. She simultaneously does the same with teachers. She asks the principal, as Please cite this article in press as: West, L. Principal and coach as partners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003
G Model MATBEH-569; No. of Pages 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS L. West / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
4
well as the teachers, how she can assist and if it would be okay to ask lots of questions about the principal’s thinking, the teacher’s thinking and planning, and her ideas for reaching her goals in order to fully understand and to offer appropriate guidance. These are the earmarks of successful coach-principal and coach-teacher relationships. Coaches are often seen as experts; however, this perception is a pitfall for coaches, who will be more successful in the long run if they take the stance of a learner. When principal and coach walk alongside each other as learners rather than tellers, teachers become curious. Principals and coaches who are learners take public risks, like volunteering to teach a class using a new technique and asking for feedback from teachers. Teachers see that learning collaboratively is valued. When the principal and the coach acknowledge the limits of their knowledge and say, “I don’t know. Let’s find out together,” in response to teachers’ challenges, teachers start to believe that everyone is in this together. This acknowledgment is difficult because authority figures feel pressure to have all the answers. Yet, as Brene Brown has so eloquently expressed in her books and TED talks, exposing our vulnerability is much more galvanizing than having all the answers (Brown, 2010). By modeling collaborative interaction and learning publicly, the coach and the principal can invite teachers to transform a performance culture into a learning culture. When students, in turn, see the adults in the school being public learners, they become invested in their own learning because they have role models for how learners behave.
6. Building collegial relationships Every coaching model emphasizes the importance of building collegial relationships, developing trust, and setting mutual goals with teachers. Most coaching models emphasize the partnership aspects of coaching and stress that coaches need to meet teachers where they are and assist them in expanding their pedagogical repertoire (Costa and Gormston, 2002; Knight, 2007). The centrality of lesson planning and implementation in both one-on-one or group work is also widely acknowledged. In many places the coach also facilitates learning communities and/or study lessons and workshops. Many people have written about the importance of the coach-teacher relationship and acknowledge the role of the coach as an instructional leader. You may be thinking that the principal is the instructional leader, but leadership is not limited to one person. Leadership needs to be defined broadly and decoupled from positional authority and hierarchal thinking. To my way of thinking, anyone who takes on a challenge and works with others to address that challenge is a leader, no matter that person’s position in the hierarchy. Such leaders emerge, rather than being appointed. There are plenty of people in positions of authority who are not leaders, just as there are many leaders who do not hold positions of authority. Principals and coaches may choose to see coaches as leaders and behave accordingly. How they define this leadership is something they will uncover as they build their working relationship. For more than two decades, we have emphasized the role of principals as instructional leaders. However, this role has been difficult to enact because it has been layered on top of their existing role as building managers. Moreover, many principals are more comfortable with school management than instructional leadership. Even for those principals who embrace instructional leadership, most have expertise in a specific discipline (e.g. literacy) and feel more confident leading in that area. In addition to providing time for teachers to meet and plan together (part of the managerial role), principals are expected to evaluate the quality of teaching and learning in each classroom (part of the instructional leadership role). Tools like those created by Charlotte Danielson (Danielson, 2013) and others have been adopted by many states to assist principals and districts. However, tools alone do not develop a common understanding of effective practice. In many cases, with the advent of State and Federal mandates regarding teacher evaluation, principals are expected to visit classrooms regularly and provide useful feedback (which could be seen as coaching) to teachers based on their observations of lessons. Many principal training programs do not yet include coaching as part of principal development, leaving many principals underprepared for this responsibility. When coach and principal take the time to align their images of effective instruction and evidence of student learning, the coaches can assist the principal with the non-evaluative instructional leadership aspects of the job. Coaches who have been adequately trained in coaching skills, those who know their content deeply and flexibly and understand how students learn content, can help principals analyze classroom practice. Coaches and principals together can observe classes or analyze videotapes of teaching episodes and discuss them in ways that reveal where and why they agree and differ in their appraisals. Where neither coach nor principal has received adequate training in observing and analyzing classes, their first job would be to assist each other in learning these skills: What are the high-leverage aspects of teaching? On what should we focus our lenses when observing a class? What aspects can use improvement but are not as critical? Whether or not coaches and principals come to their partnership knowing how to analyze lessons, they need to develop a common lens and mutual understanding of effective instruction in mathematics in order to work as a team in assisting teacher development. This does not mean that the coach formally evaluates teachers. On the contrary, this means that the coach and principal are aligning themselves pedagogically so that the coach and principal understand each other when a principal evaluates a teacher and asks the coach to support that teacher. Few things are more counterproductive than a principal giving a teacher a negative evaluation for implementing something the coach suggested. You’d be surprised how often this happens in schools. When principals treat coaches as equal partners in upgrading teaching and learning, coaching can become a valued part of the school culture, while principals can receive valuable assistance in supporting teachers, especially those who Please cite this article in press as: West, L. Principal and coach as partners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003
G Model MATBEH-569; No. of Pages 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS L. West / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
5
teach in domains outside the principal’s expertise. The coach and the principal can discuss with each teacher individualized professional learning goals, collaboratively designing a coaching schedule, and plan to help each teacher meet her goals. 7. Rethinking confidentiality Our present notions of confidentiality constrain what coaches, principals, and teachers can accomplish. We tend to overgeneralize and underexplore what should and should not be confidential. School communities would do well to discuss to what degree the faculty, principal, and the coach are in agreement that setting mutual professional goals, working toward them, and keeping each other in the loop is not a breach of confidentiality, but rather smart organizational learning. I am not talking about teachers on probation or those instances where principals are documenting for poor teaching, but rather in the regular day-to-day environment. In general, principals should have a right to know how the coaching work is progressing in each class It makes sense for there to be a short list—no more than three big, public, schoolwide goals (e.g. increasing student academic discourse; lesson designs that focus on big ideas and habits of mind) that everyone is working on based on data analysis and thoughtful conversation among faculty and administration. In addition, each teacher should have a professional learning goal that is tailored to her learning style and teaching mathematics. Consider what would happen if everyone on staff committed to learn something from a short menu, and if the school posted a list of teachers and topics in the teachers’ lounge or principal’s office. How might making the list public change attitudes about professional learning and increase the likelihood that teachers interested in learning similar things would reach out to one another to assist in that learning? How might the principal carve out time for teachers to meet? How might the coach be deployed to assist these teachers in exploring their respective topics? Transparency is the hallmark of a healthy learning organization, yet we educators seem to continue to value secrecy over transparency, much to our detriment. The taboo against principals coaching teachers or coaches speaking to principals about issues related to improving teaching in classrooms needs to be examined closely and rethought. 8. Handling concerns and complaints Teachers, principals, and coaches should also take the time to discuss and develop protocols for handling disagreements between the coach and teacher and/or in instances when the coach or principal do not feel that an individual teacher is making progress. Let me be clear. I am not advocating that coaches run to the principal every time they have a disagreement with a teacher. I think it is incredibly important that coaches and teachers trust one another enough to speak candidly about their differences, what is and isn’t working in the classroom and/or in the coaching process. If a coach, for example, realizes that the teacher says she will try a pedagogical practice between sessions and it is clear that she has not done so, then the coach needs to respectfully ask why. She and the teacher can then renegotiate their expectations and agreements and work in ways that honor them. Many coaches have confessed to me that they do not generally raise issues with teachers directly because they are afraid of hurting the relationship. While this fear is understandable, the coach is actually violating trust by failing to raise the issue. Think about it. If something is not working and we don’t address it, then we continue to feel frustrated or angry and begin judging. Sometimes we complain to others about the teacher or we start telling ourselves stories about the teacher’s motivation or lack thereof, rather than addressing the issue. This kind of avoidance behavior does not build trust. However, when the coach has raised the issue and renegotiated and still the problem persists, it is incumbent on the coach to speak with the principal and request a three-way meeting to resolve the issue. The implication here is that the principal is someone both the teacher and the coach believe will handle the matter fairly and assist them in finding a satisfying resolution. This does not always happen, but when it does, it goes a long way in building a collaborative, trusting culture, because that teacher will talk to her colleagues. The teacher has the same rights and responsibilities as the coach. If the teacher feels that the coach is not helpful and she has raised the issue with the coach to no avail, then the teacher has a right to involve the principal. The intermediary step is critical. Teachers rarely confront the coach. Instead, teachers tend to bypass the coach and complain to the principal. When this happens the principal should call for a three-way meeting (perhaps after speaking to each party privately). I’ve seen a number of instances where the teacher never said a word to the coach and went directly to the principal. In some cases, the principal then removed the coach without really investigating the issue. This kind of behavior inhibits rather than cultivates true learning communities and collaboration, and it is exactly the kind of behavior that hierarchal, patriarchal structures engender. For most of us, the communication I’m advocating is difficult to enact because most of us react to such disagreements with either avoidance or aggression (Patterson et al., 2006). For example, when teachers complain to principals about the coach, it is the rare principal who encourages the teacher to speak directly to the coach first, with the assurance that if the teacher cannot resolve the issue with the coach on her own, then the principal will step in to assist. In my experience principals often act on the complaint without much investigation and act in ways that can undermine coaching. They might decide that the coach should just work with other teachers and not the one who complains, thereby circumventing the problem (avoidance). Or they might call the district or company who provided the coach and ask for a new coach, much to the surprise of the Please cite this article in press as: West, L. Principal and coach as partners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003
G Model MATBEH-569; No. of Pages 8
6
ARTICLE IN PRESS L. West / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
coach (avoidance and, in some cases, aggression). These actions may have many unintended repercussions, not the least of which is starting all over again with someone new, to say nothing of signaling to teachers that all they need do is complain to disrupt the coaching initiative. Similarly, coaches generally do not confront teachers when teachers are not keeping their end of the agreement, and seldom complain to principals (avoidance). It is particularly rare for a coach to raise an issue with a principal that involves the principal’s behavior (avoidance). We generally avoid confrontation because we are afraid of what might happen—the other person might get angry, file a complaint, fire us, and so on. We often think we will only make things worse. In truth, however, the capacity to engage in crucial conversations for the sake of everyone’s growth and development is critical to the success of any coaching initiative. Districts need to invest in both coaches’ and principals’ capacity to engage in productive, crucial conversations if they are serious about developing school cultures in which honesty, transparency, and the responsibility to interact in ways that promote collaboration are the norm. Communication skills are often considered ‘soft’ and thus undervalued, a serious error and an outdated attitude that needs re-examination. Whether or not districts invest in training coaches to have critical conversations, I urge coaches and principals to invest. Learning to say difficult things in ways that can be heard is a critical component of effective coaching and leadership. The capacity to discuss real issues and concerns openly and respectfully is the most important aspect of the principal/coach relationship. Both parties share the same goal—to upgrade teaching and learning school-wide and cultivate a learning culture. This means that the coach will need to find a way to ‘speak up’ to the principal when there are differences in perception or direction. The principal, in turn, needs to see the coach as a valued partner, even though she may be subordinate in the hierarchy, and do her best to hear and consider the coach’s point of view as they design the work of the coach. This is often not easy for either party. It is not only that we are all indoctrinated into a hierarchical way of interacting, hierarchical positioning creates real power imbalances that have real consequences for those who are subordinate. When the principal and the coach do cultivate a partnership, however, amazing and wonderful possibilities open up for both parties and for the school. When the principal and the coach are learners, practice humble inquiry, and engage collaboratively, they set the stage for teachers being open learners willing to engage with the coach openly and collaboratively as well—and this leads students to replicate the same behaviors. 9. Adapting to different styles of leadership: some examples Every school culture is unique, though many school cultures share similar attributes. To be successful, the coach needs to make sense of the culture and the principal’s role in shaping it. The principal may have inherited a staff with fixed practices that are different from the practices she would like to see implemented. Or the principal may have a laissez-faire philosophy that results in a wide variety of pedagogical approaches and use of curriculum materials among the faculty, but little coherence. If the principal is the founding principal of a school, she may have had the opportunity to select the faculty based on a shared philosophy that may or may not be shared by the coach (especially if the coach was assigned to the school by the district). The coach may be working in a ‘turnaround school’ under a great deal of pressure and scrutiny. Or she may be employed by a high-performing school (according to test scores) in which teachers appear to have no incentive to improve. In general, however, the principal is held accountable for the success of the school and, these days, test scores determine success or failure. Therefore, it is imperative that the coach invest in learning the culture and history of the principal/faculty relationship in order to successfully and collaboratively shape the work in the school. Below I provide several scenarios to highlight the principal’s important role in supporting successful coaching initiatives. Scenario 1: Coaching is the principal’s idea. It’s a new idea in the school. The principal is in her second year at the school and is attempting to bring to the school something she implemented in her previous school. She sees that the pedagogy in the school is rather limited and more teacher-centered than student-centered and wants to introduce new techniques and lesson-design processes. She selects a teacher she sees as effective and well-respected by the staff and appoints her coach. The teacher is honored and a bit anxious. She has never been a coach and she is not sure how she can support her colleagues. She also wonders how her colleagues will react to this new role, especially since she has many friends on the faculty who were not invited into a coaching role. In this case the principal and the teacher respect one another, like one another, probably have similar views about teaching and learning, and are open to thinking together about shaping the work. The principal is still the coach’s evaluator and the coach is still on a teacher line. It is highly likely that the newly appointed coach will take direction from the principal, who would like her to work with certain teachers to help them change their practice. They discuss the plan and then announce it to the faculty at the start of the new school year. Can you imagine what issues are likely to emerge from this scenario? What might the principal and coach do differently to ensure that coaching would be well received and effective? Scenario 2: The coach is assigned to a school from the district, which has just implemented a coaching initiative. The coach has received some training at the district level—mostly in the content area. The principal is not sure she wants or needs a coach in her school and isn’t quite clear what to do with her. In fact, there was only one district meeting with principals laying out the new coaching model. Principals were given guidelines and assigned coaches. The coach is part time because the position is shared between two schools. She reports to someone at the district. Principals were not happy with this plan and raised several concerns, which the district superintendent spoke to, without significantly altering the plan. In order to make the best of the situation, the principal suggests that the coach introduce herself to the staff and ask the teachers if they want to work with her. The teachers are cordial when the coach comes knocking, but none of them volunteer to work Please cite this article in press as: West, L. Principal and coach as partners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003
G Model MATBEH-569; No. of Pages 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS L. West / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
7
with the coach, except for one or two new teachers who are hungry for support. Can you imagine what issues are likely to emerge from this scenario? What might the district, principal, and the coach have done differently to ensure that coaching would be well received and effective? Scenario 3: A principal hires an outside consultant as coach for X number of days a year because her school is failing in math and she is desperate to improve mathematics teaching and learning. She is under pressure from the district to make yearly progress. She assigns the coach to specific teachers that she believes are not good teachers. The math consultant is one of several different consultants coming into the school to support various initiatives that she is launching. The consultants sometimes work with the same teachers, but not on the same days, and have never met each other. The teachers are ‘mandated’ to work with the coaches. Dates for coaching are determined by the coach and the principal and given to the teachers. Since the school is in a poor neighborhood and is not easily accessible by public transportation, substitutes are hard to come by, so sometimes the coach has no preconference (a lesson planning session prior to actually entering the math class) with a teacher, and just shows up in her class to help out. What issues are likely to emerge from this scenario? What might the coach and the principal have done differently to ensure that coaching would be well received and effective? Scenario 4: A principal is in her third year running a low-performing school where there is a high rate of teacher turnover. Apparently the teachers feel that they are disrespected and bullied by the principal, who seems unaware of this perception. The coach has witnessed an instance where the principal yelled at a teacher. The teachers in turn can be heard yelling at kids and treating them punitively. An unhappy situation all around. The coach working in this school is also leaving because every teacher she has worked with has improved children’s math achievement and then moved on to another school, leaving the coach to start again with different teachers each year. She has not yet figured out how or whether to approach the principal about her interactions with teachers as a possible cause for the extensive teacher turnover. It is clear that the principal is trying everything she knows to improve the school performance, including bringing in several different consultants to address each academic area and making clear her expectations for instruction. How might a coach in this situation build a relationship where a crucial conversation with the principal is possible? Scenario 5: The principal meets with a group of teachers, and identifies teacher concerns about the teaching of mathematics (e.g. they don’t understand the content deeply) and the new curriculum materials adopted by the district (which they have had only one day to look through when the publisher provided an introductory session). The principal proposes they hire a coach part-time to help them unpack the new units of study. The principal hires a coach and introduces her to the faculty. Then the coach and the principal meet to think through how to schedule the work and inform the teachers of the schedule. The principal provides time for each grade level team (or department) to meet with the coach to work through the curriculum. There is no talk of planning lessons together, co-teaching or modeling lessons, observing each other teach, etc. There is no discussion of long-term goals. The teachers work in isolation from one another and rarely collaborate when planning lessons. What issues might emerge in this scenario? What might the principal and coach have done differently to ensure that coaching would be well received and effective? All of these scenarios (and many more like them) are common in the schools we partner with around the country. All of them are problematic, though the last one is less problematic than the first four. How can coaching take root in ways that are sustainable and welcomed by teachers, when the purpose, focus, design, and implementation of coaching are not thought through more carefully by the district or principal? When those chosen to coach may have no training in designing and implementing coaching initiatives that work, how can they advise principals about how best to utilize their services? When the principal’s role and responsibilities in relationship to coaching are unclear, how can she ensure that coaching will contribute to the improvement of teaching and learning across the school? When the principal does not afford teachers voice and choice in the design of the coaching initiative, how can we expect that they will be eager to participate?
10. The resilience of principals and coaches Despite the challenges I’ve described in this article, I’m amazed at how much coaches accomplish in schools. I’m happy to say that many principals do treat coaches as partners, or at least try to. At the very least, coaches establish productive relationships with individual teachers and help them improve their practice. Whether those teachers stay or go to another school, they take that learning with them. When schools can be stabilized and principals and coaches collaborate, they learn to think more systemically and work to improve instruction across an entire school. They begin to understand that the school is a living organism, completely interdependent and interrelated. At some point they work to include the whole faculty into a coaching culture where they all recognize that they have something to learn and something to contribute. Experience shows that whether schools are at the beginning of the coaching journey or further down the road, more often than not, coaches make a difference in the lives of teachers, their students, and the principal. Many teachers and leaders write unsolicited testimonials to their coaches expressing their gratitude for the improvements that coaching helped them to incorporate into their practice. Despite severe pressures and limited resources, many principals try very hard to remove barriers and support teachers. In some schools, principals join our Principal Learning Communities and visit one another’s schools. During those visits they work to develop their individual and collective capacity to provide fruitful feedback to teachers in mathematics—a subject most of them do not feel confident about. They do this publicly in front of their peers, putting themselves in the shoes of learners. Please cite this article in press as: West, L. Principal and coach as partners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003
G Model MATBEH-569; No. of Pages 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS L. West / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
8
Similarly, in our Teaching Learning Communities, teachers from very challenging schools open their doors to teachers from around New York City for the purpose of learning from practice. Groups of up to 25 teachers and coaches plan a lesson together, and watch it being co-taught by a coach and a host teacher who offers her classroom as a learning laboratory. All of the teachers publicly commit to ways they can share something they learned with colleagues in their schools. When the home school doesn’t have a coach, often the participating teacher takes a lead and shares her new learning with colleagues at grade level meetings. I share these examples because I firmly believe that we are making progress toward collaborative teaching cultures that focus on studying the complex act of teaching and becoming more sophisticated in identifying evidence of student learning. We are doing our best to get out from under poorly implemented and misguided initiatives of the past 16 years thanks to many visionary and courageous principals, coaches, and teachers. When we co-create coaching and professional learning models together, we take back our power to create a truly supportive learning culture for ourselves and our students one teacher, one coach, one school, and one district at a time. References Ball, D., Hill, H., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematic for teaching: who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, Boaler, J., (n.d.) Youcubed at Stanford University. https://www.youcubed.org. Brown, B. (2010). The power of vulnerability. In TED talk. https://www.ted.com/talks/brene brown on vulnerability?language=en Costa, A., & Gormston, R. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools (2nd ed.). Boston: Christopher-Gordon Publishing. Danielson, C. (2013). Rubrics from the framework for teaching, evaluation instrument. Princeton: The Danielson Group. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books. Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. California: Corwin press. National School Reform Faculty. (2017). The tuning protocol: Tuning a plan. http://www.nsrfharmony.org/system/files/protocols/tuning plan 0.pdf Patterson, K., et al. (2006). Crucial conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high. New York: McGraw-Hill. Resnick, L., & Williams, M. (2003). Principles of learning for effort-based education. http://ifl.pitt.edu/index.php/educator resources/principles of learning West, L., & Cameron, A. (2013). Agents of change: How content coaching transforms teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. West, L., & Staub, F. (2003). Content-focused coaching: Transforming mathematics lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Please cite this article in press as: West, L. Principal and coach as partners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
MATBEH-569; No. of Pages 8
Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Journal of Mathematical Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmathb
Principal and coach as partners Lucy West Metamorphosis Teaching Learning Communities, Inc., United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 29 July 2016 Received in revised form 7 December 2016 Accepted 7 February 2017 Available online xxx
a b s t r a c t This paper explores the roles and responsibilities of mathematics coaches and principals. It suggests that principals need to equilibrate power by treating the coach as a partner, even if the coach is subordinate in the educational hierarchy. It posits that coaching would benefit all parties if they worked together across roles to enhance the capacity of educators at every level in the school hierarchy—teacher, coach, principal—to design, analyze, and implement mathematics instruction that results in deeper student learning. It briefly describes the model of Content Coaching. It questions some of the prevailing norms of interaction among educators, and it offers coaching scenarios that demonstrate that the initial design and implementation of coaching initiatives can lead to resistance and misunderstanding of the power and benefits of coaching for all educators and administrators. It goes on to challenge some of our assumptions regarding potential barriers (e.g. confidentiality) in relationships among coaches, teachers, and principals, and suggests that teacher learning goals be public and collaboratively engaged. It posits that positional authority is not a particularly strong lever for improving teacher practice, particularly if the principal lacks facility or interest in mathematics. It argues that if we want to enhance mathematics education in this country (as evidenced by robust student understanding of mathematics and its application in the world), there is great power in working collaboratively and inclusively, using coaching to support educators at every level. © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction What if principals and coaches were truly partners on the journey to shape and define ways that mathematics coaching can uplift mathematics instruction and, perhaps, the teaching profession? How might coaching be used to transform our schools from places where people tend to work in isolation, under pressure to cover the curriculum and get high test scores, into vibrant, multi-generational learning communities where everyone from principal, to teacher, to coach, to student is an active learner? How would the principal and coach relate to each other if they understood that their most important role was as partners on a journey as public learners? How might seeing the principal and coach as learners, engaged in thinking about lesson design, trying on instructional techniques, and questioning their own practice, make it safe and attractive for teachers to open their doors to the same kind of exploration? What would it take for teachers to invite the coach and principal in as colleagues engaged in studying the science and art of teaching? I am describing an image of a coaching culture in which adults are engaged in learning mathematics and the pedagogy that fosters collaborative mathematics learning as a matter of course, no matter their title; in which they collaboratively plan engaging experiences for students (whether from prescribed units of study or from self-created ones) and observe them being implemented by principals, colleagues, and coaches, then
E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003 0732-3123/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: West, L. Principal and coach as partners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
MATBEH-569; No. of Pages 8
L. West / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
2
refine them and try them again in other classes, and, finally, archive them with notes for future use by all teachers. How would coaching be defined, designed, and implemented to support this type of professional community? 2. Facing old and new challenges While a good number of schools are on a journey towards becoming learning organizations, others are caught in a quagmire of policies, relationships, patterns of interaction, and attitudes that make it difficult for them to break free of the historical status quo—command and control bureaucracies, teachers working solo in silos, and principals pressured to show rapid results, no matter the circumstances. Bureaucracies where the principal is charged with maintaining order and following orders—enforcing mandates, crafting school improvement plans, evaluating teachers. This environment is especially difficult for coaches who understand the importance of slowing things down so teachers and administrators can think and breathe and learn. How might coaching be a lifeline for these schools? How might the principal and coach in an impoverished school forge a mutual learning relationship while facing the challenges of poverty, a history of distrust between administrators and teachers, and the challenges of 16 years of misguided federal polices? Despite the pressures, how might the coach and principal interact to co-create a culture that advances camaraderie among the adults and enhances student learning? How might the principal and coach in an affluent school who believe that it is time to move to more engaging ways of teaching, cultivate a coaching culture when teachers believe that everything is fine the way it is? How might a principal use coaching to open the faculty’s eyes to new possibilities and overcome the fear that changes in practice might result in lower test scores? It is no small irony that schools at the socioeconomic extremes are the hardest to impact through coaching initiatives, albeit for different reasons. In all schools, but especially in these schools, it is critical for coaches and principals to establish a partnership in which both feel they can speak honestly, ask questions that help them sort through challenges, invite new possibilities, and respectfully challenge one another when they disagree. This relationship between a principal and an organization-chart subordinate marks a change in almost every school culture and requires thinking differently to open up the possibility of achieving better results. 3. Learning about content coaching Content coaching first emerged in the mid-nineties, in collaboration with the Institute For Learning at the University of Pittsburgh (http://ifl.pitt.edu), from coaching teachers and principals in dozens of schools. It developed further in public schools in various parts of the country and is now used in public, private, and charters schools, grades K-12. It uses the Guide To Core Issues (West and Staub, 2003; West and Cameron 2013), a core research-based tool, to improve lesson design by focusing on the ‘What’ (big mathematical ideas, strategies, and models), ‘Why,’ ‘Who,’ and ‘How’ components of lesson planning. For example, it asks teachers to consider who their students are and what each child brings to the table in order to provide all students access to a lesson, from those who are struggling to those who are ready to go beyond the main objective. While content coaching was initially focused on mathematics instruction and learning, it has spread into all content areas. Content coaching is a specific model of coaching that is rooted in knowledge-based constructivism, a learning theory named by Lauren Resnick, which builds on Piaget and Vygotsky. Resnick suggests that in order to construct knowledge one has to have something worth thinking about and some prior knowledge to build on. (Resnick and Williams, 2003). Resnick’s theory is put into practice using the effort-based Principles of Learning identified by Resnick and others (Resnick and Williams, 2003; Dweck, 2006; Boaler, 2016). It is generally practiced with one teacher or a small group of teachers using a three-part coaching cycle—preconference, lesson implementation, and post conference. The pre- and post-conference conversations center on the instructional core of planning, implementing, reflecting on, and refining lessons based on evidence of student learning. It requires three class periods of time (e.g. 45–60 min for each segment of the cycle, depending on the length of the periods in the school). In general, content coaching is offered over an extended length of time (e.g. a unit of study; a semester, a year) and occurs at least once a week during that time with the same teacher or cohort of teachers (West and Staub, 2003; West and Cameron, 2013). Content coaching’s essential insight, which has been supported in the context of mathematics by Deborah Ball, Hyman Bass, and many others, is that in order to improve instruction teachers not only need to understand mathematics deeply, but also need to understand how people learn mathematics. Without both skills, it is impossible to effectively teach students the conceptual underpinnings of mathematics as well as the skills and strategies more commonly addressed in mathematics instruction (Ball, Hill, & Bass, 2005). Experience suggests that if principals are going to lead the charge to upgrade mathematics instruction, they, too, need to understand more mathematics content and pedagogy. By partnering with content coaches, who are steeped in both, principals can develop confidence and expertise in evaluating mathematics instruction. By working with principals and teachers, coaches can assist both in improving mathematics instruction. In the process, they can facilitate the transition from a hierarchical model of interaction to a partnership model that engenders inquiry, reflection, and informed action by teachers and administrators. Experience indicates that it is not yet common practice for principals to engage with coaches as equals and as learners. Nor is it common for principals to carve out the time to learn mathematics alongside their teachers. It is still rare for principals to sit in on mathematics coaching sessions. Principal time constraints are real. However, if the principal does not Please cite this article in press as: West, L. Principal and coach as partners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003
G Model MATBEH-569; No. of Pages 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS L. West / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
3
invest in publicly learning math, and engage in conversations that question present practice, or worse, expresses a desire for mechanical solutions to ineffective mathematics instruction and shallow learning (e.g. a particular lesson format, rigid pacing calendar), it is less likely that coaching will have the desired impact on instruction and learning. 4. Crafting a mathematics coaching initiative Often, principals select coaches because they were effective classroom teachers. This selection process is problematic when it fails to consider the content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge of the coach or when it fails to consider the different skill set involved in coaching adults. If, for whatever reason, the coach lacks some of the necessary knowledge and skills, the principal should encourage the coach to engage in appropriate professional learning (e.g. coaching training). The first job of the principal and the coach is to engage in a number of in-depth conversations aimed at understanding each other’s beliefs, goals, and images related to effective mathematics instruction. Calibrating their lenses regarding effective mathematics instruction up front is an important step in insuring the success of mathematics coaching, not least because it avoids the frustration that teachers feel when they receive mixed messages. The coach and principal also need to co-create an understanding of coaching that includes an honest appraisal of the time commitment involved (e.g. 3 periods per teacher or small team of teachers, per week) and the support needed to shift the culture from one in which lesson design is about following a book or pacing calendar to one focused on developing deep understanding of important mathematical ideas as evidenced through student mathematical discourse and writing. This requires acknowledging and creatively playing with the inherent tension of diving deeply into concepts while also trying to cover the overcrowded curriculum. Learning to negotiate this inherent tension more thoughtfully can lead to better outcomes. The coach and principal should also explore the purpose of coaching and the hoped-for outcomes, as well as the duration of a coaching commitment to any given teacher and how they will provide coverage. In addition, they need to establish protocols for inviting teachers into the coaching process, teacher selection criteria, scheduling, and benchmarks of progress (West and Cameron, 2013; Chapter 3). After the principal and coach have discussed these matters, they should invite the entire faculty into the discussion. They could begin by reflecting with the faculty on the same questions they reflected on with one another. They could then offer possible scenarios based on the discussions had by the principal and coach and solicit input from teachers. If the principal and coach take the time to engage teachersp in the design of the coaching work, they are likely to find that teachers are not only more amenable to coaching, but that the teachers can help them refine the plan. A tuning protocol (National School Reform Faculty http://www.nsrfharmony.org/system/files/protocols/tuning plan 0.pdf) can be used to solicit warm and cool feedback, as well as suggestions for improvement. One important consideration that is too often neglected is the respective role and responsibilities of each participant—coach, principal, and teacher. Although this paper focuses on the roles and relationship of the coach and principal, all three roles are crucial. Both coach and principal would do well to recognize the ambiguity and complexity of this work; the fact that there is little agreement in the field about their respective responsibilities in relation to coaching, and varying definitions of what coaches do and don’t do. This ambiguity opens an opportunity for them to craft a coaching initiative that attends to their context. This does not mean they should invent coaching from scratch–we know a great deal about effective coaching in schools. 5. Creating a learning community: everyone benefits A principal who understands the limitations of positional authority knows that influence is a stronger lever than mere authority. Such a principal uses her influence to seed and cultivate the leadership capacity in those around her. In designing a coaching initiative, she selects a coach who is respected, has credibility, and takes a learning stance. She then partners with the coach to think deeply about and with each teacher, just as she wants teachers to think deeply about and get to know each student. When a principal knows her teachers well, personally and professionally, and makes inquiries into their passions, challenges, and goals, she can co-create an individualized support plan with the coach and the teacher. When a principal knows that leaders are not loners but learners, interested and curious about what others think and need, she takes on the choreography of a learner and begins the dance of collaboratively building a learning organization. Learning requires us to become comfortable with feeling inadequate, inept, or unskilled. Teachers (and all learners) must be willing to be vulnerable, to fail, experience confusion and frustration, and keep on trying with the help of a coach or colleague as they approximate new practices and work to master them while simultaneously teaching their students. This requires new thinking on the part of a teacher, who may fear that her students will not respect her if she is willing to show that she doesn’t already know something she is expected to teach—a courageous act in the high-stakes, hurry-up-and-succeed world into which we have plummeted. Respect for the learning process is at an all-time low in a culture where results are all that seem to matter. Coaching can ameliorate this kind of pressure if the coach and the principal invest the time and create the space for teachers to learn together. This means that the principal is able to slow down, breathe, and make it safe for teachers to take intelligent, informed risks when teaching. The coach is the principal’s partner in this work, and works alongside teachers as they take tentative and then more confident steps on their journey to more effective teaching. The coach strives to understand the principal’s thinking, strategies, and beliefs. She simultaneously does the same with teachers. She asks the principal, as Please cite this article in press as: West, L. Principal and coach as partners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003
G Model MATBEH-569; No. of Pages 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS L. West / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
4
well as the teachers, how she can assist and if it would be okay to ask lots of questions about the principal’s thinking, the teacher’s thinking and planning, and her ideas for reaching her goals in order to fully understand and to offer appropriate guidance. These are the earmarks of successful coach-principal and coach-teacher relationships. Coaches are often seen as experts; however, this perception is a pitfall for coaches, who will be more successful in the long run if they take the stance of a learner. When principal and coach walk alongside each other as learners rather than tellers, teachers become curious. Principals and coaches who are learners take public risks, like volunteering to teach a class using a new technique and asking for feedback from teachers. Teachers see that learning collaboratively is valued. When the principal and the coach acknowledge the limits of their knowledge and say, “I don’t know. Let’s find out together,” in response to teachers’ challenges, teachers start to believe that everyone is in this together. This acknowledgment is difficult because authority figures feel pressure to have all the answers. Yet, as Brene Brown has so eloquently expressed in her books and TED talks, exposing our vulnerability is much more galvanizing than having all the answers (Brown, 2010). By modeling collaborative interaction and learning publicly, the coach and the principal can invite teachers to transform a performance culture into a learning culture. When students, in turn, see the adults in the school being public learners, they become invested in their own learning because they have role models for how learners behave.
6. Building collegial relationships Every coaching model emphasizes the importance of building collegial relationships, developing trust, and setting mutual goals with teachers. Most coaching models emphasize the partnership aspects of coaching and stress that coaches need to meet teachers where they are and assist them in expanding their pedagogical repertoire (Costa and Gormston, 2002; Knight, 2007). The centrality of lesson planning and implementation in both one-on-one or group work is also widely acknowledged. In many places the coach also facilitates learning communities and/or study lessons and workshops. Many people have written about the importance of the coach-teacher relationship and acknowledge the role of the coach as an instructional leader. You may be thinking that the principal is the instructional leader, but leadership is not limited to one person. Leadership needs to be defined broadly and decoupled from positional authority and hierarchal thinking. To my way of thinking, anyone who takes on a challenge and works with others to address that challenge is a leader, no matter that person’s position in the hierarchy. Such leaders emerge, rather than being appointed. There are plenty of people in positions of authority who are not leaders, just as there are many leaders who do not hold positions of authority. Principals and coaches may choose to see coaches as leaders and behave accordingly. How they define this leadership is something they will uncover as they build their working relationship. For more than two decades, we have emphasized the role of principals as instructional leaders. However, this role has been difficult to enact because it has been layered on top of their existing role as building managers. Moreover, many principals are more comfortable with school management than instructional leadership. Even for those principals who embrace instructional leadership, most have expertise in a specific discipline (e.g. literacy) and feel more confident leading in that area. In addition to providing time for teachers to meet and plan together (part of the managerial role), principals are expected to evaluate the quality of teaching and learning in each classroom (part of the instructional leadership role). Tools like those created by Charlotte Danielson (Danielson, 2013) and others have been adopted by many states to assist principals and districts. However, tools alone do not develop a common understanding of effective practice. In many cases, with the advent of State and Federal mandates regarding teacher evaluation, principals are expected to visit classrooms regularly and provide useful feedback (which could be seen as coaching) to teachers based on their observations of lessons. Many principal training programs do not yet include coaching as part of principal development, leaving many principals underprepared for this responsibility. When coach and principal take the time to align their images of effective instruction and evidence of student learning, the coaches can assist the principal with the non-evaluative instructional leadership aspects of the job. Coaches who have been adequately trained in coaching skills, those who know their content deeply and flexibly and understand how students learn content, can help principals analyze classroom practice. Coaches and principals together can observe classes or analyze videotapes of teaching episodes and discuss them in ways that reveal where and why they agree and differ in their appraisals. Where neither coach nor principal has received adequate training in observing and analyzing classes, their first job would be to assist each other in learning these skills: What are the high-leverage aspects of teaching? On what should we focus our lenses when observing a class? What aspects can use improvement but are not as critical? Whether or not coaches and principals come to their partnership knowing how to analyze lessons, they need to develop a common lens and mutual understanding of effective instruction in mathematics in order to work as a team in assisting teacher development. This does not mean that the coach formally evaluates teachers. On the contrary, this means that the coach and principal are aligning themselves pedagogically so that the coach and principal understand each other when a principal evaluates a teacher and asks the coach to support that teacher. Few things are more counterproductive than a principal giving a teacher a negative evaluation for implementing something the coach suggested. You’d be surprised how often this happens in schools. When principals treat coaches as equal partners in upgrading teaching and learning, coaching can become a valued part of the school culture, while principals can receive valuable assistance in supporting teachers, especially those who Please cite this article in press as: West, L. Principal and coach as partners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003
G Model MATBEH-569; No. of Pages 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS L. West / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
5
teach in domains outside the principal’s expertise. The coach and the principal can discuss with each teacher individualized professional learning goals, collaboratively designing a coaching schedule, and plan to help each teacher meet her goals. 7. Rethinking confidentiality Our present notions of confidentiality constrain what coaches, principals, and teachers can accomplish. We tend to overgeneralize and underexplore what should and should not be confidential. School communities would do well to discuss to what degree the faculty, principal, and the coach are in agreement that setting mutual professional goals, working toward them, and keeping each other in the loop is not a breach of confidentiality, but rather smart organizational learning. I am not talking about teachers on probation or those instances where principals are documenting for poor teaching, but rather in the regular day-to-day environment. In general, principals should have a right to know how the coaching work is progressing in each class It makes sense for there to be a short list—no more than three big, public, schoolwide goals (e.g. increasing student academic discourse; lesson designs that focus on big ideas and habits of mind) that everyone is working on based on data analysis and thoughtful conversation among faculty and administration. In addition, each teacher should have a professional learning goal that is tailored to her learning style and teaching mathematics. Consider what would happen if everyone on staff committed to learn something from a short menu, and if the school posted a list of teachers and topics in the teachers’ lounge or principal’s office. How might making the list public change attitudes about professional learning and increase the likelihood that teachers interested in learning similar things would reach out to one another to assist in that learning? How might the principal carve out time for teachers to meet? How might the coach be deployed to assist these teachers in exploring their respective topics? Transparency is the hallmark of a healthy learning organization, yet we educators seem to continue to value secrecy over transparency, much to our detriment. The taboo against principals coaching teachers or coaches speaking to principals about issues related to improving teaching in classrooms needs to be examined closely and rethought. 8. Handling concerns and complaints Teachers, principals, and coaches should also take the time to discuss and develop protocols for handling disagreements between the coach and teacher and/or in instances when the coach or principal do not feel that an individual teacher is making progress. Let me be clear. I am not advocating that coaches run to the principal every time they have a disagreement with a teacher. I think it is incredibly important that coaches and teachers trust one another enough to speak candidly about their differences, what is and isn’t working in the classroom and/or in the coaching process. If a coach, for example, realizes that the teacher says she will try a pedagogical practice between sessions and it is clear that she has not done so, then the coach needs to respectfully ask why. She and the teacher can then renegotiate their expectations and agreements and work in ways that honor them. Many coaches have confessed to me that they do not generally raise issues with teachers directly because they are afraid of hurting the relationship. While this fear is understandable, the coach is actually violating trust by failing to raise the issue. Think about it. If something is not working and we don’t address it, then we continue to feel frustrated or angry and begin judging. Sometimes we complain to others about the teacher or we start telling ourselves stories about the teacher’s motivation or lack thereof, rather than addressing the issue. This kind of avoidance behavior does not build trust. However, when the coach has raised the issue and renegotiated and still the problem persists, it is incumbent on the coach to speak with the principal and request a three-way meeting to resolve the issue. The implication here is that the principal is someone both the teacher and the coach believe will handle the matter fairly and assist them in finding a satisfying resolution. This does not always happen, but when it does, it goes a long way in building a collaborative, trusting culture, because that teacher will talk to her colleagues. The teacher has the same rights and responsibilities as the coach. If the teacher feels that the coach is not helpful and she has raised the issue with the coach to no avail, then the teacher has a right to involve the principal. The intermediary step is critical. Teachers rarely confront the coach. Instead, teachers tend to bypass the coach and complain to the principal. When this happens the principal should call for a three-way meeting (perhaps after speaking to each party privately). I’ve seen a number of instances where the teacher never said a word to the coach and went directly to the principal. In some cases, the principal then removed the coach without really investigating the issue. This kind of behavior inhibits rather than cultivates true learning communities and collaboration, and it is exactly the kind of behavior that hierarchal, patriarchal structures engender. For most of us, the communication I’m advocating is difficult to enact because most of us react to such disagreements with either avoidance or aggression (Patterson et al., 2006). For example, when teachers complain to principals about the coach, it is the rare principal who encourages the teacher to speak directly to the coach first, with the assurance that if the teacher cannot resolve the issue with the coach on her own, then the principal will step in to assist. In my experience principals often act on the complaint without much investigation and act in ways that can undermine coaching. They might decide that the coach should just work with other teachers and not the one who complains, thereby circumventing the problem (avoidance). Or they might call the district or company who provided the coach and ask for a new coach, much to the surprise of the Please cite this article in press as: West, L. Principal and coach as partners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003
G Model MATBEH-569; No. of Pages 8
6
ARTICLE IN PRESS L. West / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
coach (avoidance and, in some cases, aggression). These actions may have many unintended repercussions, not the least of which is starting all over again with someone new, to say nothing of signaling to teachers that all they need do is complain to disrupt the coaching initiative. Similarly, coaches generally do not confront teachers when teachers are not keeping their end of the agreement, and seldom complain to principals (avoidance). It is particularly rare for a coach to raise an issue with a principal that involves the principal’s behavior (avoidance). We generally avoid confrontation because we are afraid of what might happen—the other person might get angry, file a complaint, fire us, and so on. We often think we will only make things worse. In truth, however, the capacity to engage in crucial conversations for the sake of everyone’s growth and development is critical to the success of any coaching initiative. Districts need to invest in both coaches’ and principals’ capacity to engage in productive, crucial conversations if they are serious about developing school cultures in which honesty, transparency, and the responsibility to interact in ways that promote collaboration are the norm. Communication skills are often considered ‘soft’ and thus undervalued, a serious error and an outdated attitude that needs re-examination. Whether or not districts invest in training coaches to have critical conversations, I urge coaches and principals to invest. Learning to say difficult things in ways that can be heard is a critical component of effective coaching and leadership. The capacity to discuss real issues and concerns openly and respectfully is the most important aspect of the principal/coach relationship. Both parties share the same goal—to upgrade teaching and learning school-wide and cultivate a learning culture. This means that the coach will need to find a way to ‘speak up’ to the principal when there are differences in perception or direction. The principal, in turn, needs to see the coach as a valued partner, even though she may be subordinate in the hierarchy, and do her best to hear and consider the coach’s point of view as they design the work of the coach. This is often not easy for either party. It is not only that we are all indoctrinated into a hierarchical way of interacting, hierarchical positioning creates real power imbalances that have real consequences for those who are subordinate. When the principal and the coach do cultivate a partnership, however, amazing and wonderful possibilities open up for both parties and for the school. When the principal and the coach are learners, practice humble inquiry, and engage collaboratively, they set the stage for teachers being open learners willing to engage with the coach openly and collaboratively as well—and this leads students to replicate the same behaviors. 9. Adapting to different styles of leadership: some examples Every school culture is unique, though many school cultures share similar attributes. To be successful, the coach needs to make sense of the culture and the principal’s role in shaping it. The principal may have inherited a staff with fixed practices that are different from the practices she would like to see implemented. Or the principal may have a laissez-faire philosophy that results in a wide variety of pedagogical approaches and use of curriculum materials among the faculty, but little coherence. If the principal is the founding principal of a school, she may have had the opportunity to select the faculty based on a shared philosophy that may or may not be shared by the coach (especially if the coach was assigned to the school by the district). The coach may be working in a ‘turnaround school’ under a great deal of pressure and scrutiny. Or she may be employed by a high-performing school (according to test scores) in which teachers appear to have no incentive to improve. In general, however, the principal is held accountable for the success of the school and, these days, test scores determine success or failure. Therefore, it is imperative that the coach invest in learning the culture and history of the principal/faculty relationship in order to successfully and collaboratively shape the work in the school. Below I provide several scenarios to highlight the principal’s important role in supporting successful coaching initiatives. Scenario 1: Coaching is the principal’s idea. It’s a new idea in the school. The principal is in her second year at the school and is attempting to bring to the school something she implemented in her previous school. She sees that the pedagogy in the school is rather limited and more teacher-centered than student-centered and wants to introduce new techniques and lesson-design processes. She selects a teacher she sees as effective and well-respected by the staff and appoints her coach. The teacher is honored and a bit anxious. She has never been a coach and she is not sure how she can support her colleagues. She also wonders how her colleagues will react to this new role, especially since she has many friends on the faculty who were not invited into a coaching role. In this case the principal and the teacher respect one another, like one another, probably have similar views about teaching and learning, and are open to thinking together about shaping the work. The principal is still the coach’s evaluator and the coach is still on a teacher line. It is highly likely that the newly appointed coach will take direction from the principal, who would like her to work with certain teachers to help them change their practice. They discuss the plan and then announce it to the faculty at the start of the new school year. Can you imagine what issues are likely to emerge from this scenario? What might the principal and coach do differently to ensure that coaching would be well received and effective? Scenario 2: The coach is assigned to a school from the district, which has just implemented a coaching initiative. The coach has received some training at the district level—mostly in the content area. The principal is not sure she wants or needs a coach in her school and isn’t quite clear what to do with her. In fact, there was only one district meeting with principals laying out the new coaching model. Principals were given guidelines and assigned coaches. The coach is part time because the position is shared between two schools. She reports to someone at the district. Principals were not happy with this plan and raised several concerns, which the district superintendent spoke to, without significantly altering the plan. In order to make the best of the situation, the principal suggests that the coach introduce herself to the staff and ask the teachers if they want to work with her. The teachers are cordial when the coach comes knocking, but none of them volunteer to work Please cite this article in press as: West, L. Principal and coach as partners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003
G Model MATBEH-569; No. of Pages 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS L. West / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
7
with the coach, except for one or two new teachers who are hungry for support. Can you imagine what issues are likely to emerge from this scenario? What might the district, principal, and the coach have done differently to ensure that coaching would be well received and effective? Scenario 3: A principal hires an outside consultant as coach for X number of days a year because her school is failing in math and she is desperate to improve mathematics teaching and learning. She is under pressure from the district to make yearly progress. She assigns the coach to specific teachers that she believes are not good teachers. The math consultant is one of several different consultants coming into the school to support various initiatives that she is launching. The consultants sometimes work with the same teachers, but not on the same days, and have never met each other. The teachers are ‘mandated’ to work with the coaches. Dates for coaching are determined by the coach and the principal and given to the teachers. Since the school is in a poor neighborhood and is not easily accessible by public transportation, substitutes are hard to come by, so sometimes the coach has no preconference (a lesson planning session prior to actually entering the math class) with a teacher, and just shows up in her class to help out. What issues are likely to emerge from this scenario? What might the coach and the principal have done differently to ensure that coaching would be well received and effective? Scenario 4: A principal is in her third year running a low-performing school where there is a high rate of teacher turnover. Apparently the teachers feel that they are disrespected and bullied by the principal, who seems unaware of this perception. The coach has witnessed an instance where the principal yelled at a teacher. The teachers in turn can be heard yelling at kids and treating them punitively. An unhappy situation all around. The coach working in this school is also leaving because every teacher she has worked with has improved children’s math achievement and then moved on to another school, leaving the coach to start again with different teachers each year. She has not yet figured out how or whether to approach the principal about her interactions with teachers as a possible cause for the extensive teacher turnover. It is clear that the principal is trying everything she knows to improve the school performance, including bringing in several different consultants to address each academic area and making clear her expectations for instruction. How might a coach in this situation build a relationship where a crucial conversation with the principal is possible? Scenario 5: The principal meets with a group of teachers, and identifies teacher concerns about the teaching of mathematics (e.g. they don’t understand the content deeply) and the new curriculum materials adopted by the district (which they have had only one day to look through when the publisher provided an introductory session). The principal proposes they hire a coach part-time to help them unpack the new units of study. The principal hires a coach and introduces her to the faculty. Then the coach and the principal meet to think through how to schedule the work and inform the teachers of the schedule. The principal provides time for each grade level team (or department) to meet with the coach to work through the curriculum. There is no talk of planning lessons together, co-teaching or modeling lessons, observing each other teach, etc. There is no discussion of long-term goals. The teachers work in isolation from one another and rarely collaborate when planning lessons. What issues might emerge in this scenario? What might the principal and coach have done differently to ensure that coaching would be well received and effective? All of these scenarios (and many more like them) are common in the schools we partner with around the country. All of them are problematic, though the last one is less problematic than the first four. How can coaching take root in ways that are sustainable and welcomed by teachers, when the purpose, focus, design, and implementation of coaching are not thought through more carefully by the district or principal? When those chosen to coach may have no training in designing and implementing coaching initiatives that work, how can they advise principals about how best to utilize their services? When the principal’s role and responsibilities in relationship to coaching are unclear, how can she ensure that coaching will contribute to the improvement of teaching and learning across the school? When the principal does not afford teachers voice and choice in the design of the coaching initiative, how can we expect that they will be eager to participate?
10. The resilience of principals and coaches Despite the challenges I’ve described in this article, I’m amazed at how much coaches accomplish in schools. I’m happy to say that many principals do treat coaches as partners, or at least try to. At the very least, coaches establish productive relationships with individual teachers and help them improve their practice. Whether those teachers stay or go to another school, they take that learning with them. When schools can be stabilized and principals and coaches collaborate, they learn to think more systemically and work to improve instruction across an entire school. They begin to understand that the school is a living organism, completely interdependent and interrelated. At some point they work to include the whole faculty into a coaching culture where they all recognize that they have something to learn and something to contribute. Experience shows that whether schools are at the beginning of the coaching journey or further down the road, more often than not, coaches make a difference in the lives of teachers, their students, and the principal. Many teachers and leaders write unsolicited testimonials to their coaches expressing their gratitude for the improvements that coaching helped them to incorporate into their practice. Despite severe pressures and limited resources, many principals try very hard to remove barriers and support teachers. In some schools, principals join our Principal Learning Communities and visit one another’s schools. During those visits they work to develop their individual and collective capacity to provide fruitful feedback to teachers in mathematics—a subject most of them do not feel confident about. They do this publicly in front of their peers, putting themselves in the shoes of learners. Please cite this article in press as: West, L. Principal and coach as partners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003
G Model MATBEH-569; No. of Pages 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS L. West / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
8
Similarly, in our Teaching Learning Communities, teachers from very challenging schools open their doors to teachers from around New York City for the purpose of learning from practice. Groups of up to 25 teachers and coaches plan a lesson together, and watch it being co-taught by a coach and a host teacher who offers her classroom as a learning laboratory. All of the teachers publicly commit to ways they can share something they learned with colleagues in their schools. When the home school doesn’t have a coach, often the participating teacher takes a lead and shares her new learning with colleagues at grade level meetings. I share these examples because I firmly believe that we are making progress toward collaborative teaching cultures that focus on studying the complex act of teaching and becoming more sophisticated in identifying evidence of student learning. We are doing our best to get out from under poorly implemented and misguided initiatives of the past 16 years thanks to many visionary and courageous principals, coaches, and teachers. When we co-create coaching and professional learning models together, we take back our power to create a truly supportive learning culture for ourselves and our students one teacher, one coach, one school, and one district at a time. References Ball, D., Hill, H., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematic for teaching: who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, Boaler, J., (n.d.) Youcubed at Stanford University. https://www.youcubed.org. Brown, B. (2010). The power of vulnerability. In TED talk. https://www.ted.com/talks/brene brown on vulnerability?language=en Costa, A., & Gormston, R. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools (2nd ed.). Boston: Christopher-Gordon Publishing. Danielson, C. (2013). Rubrics from the framework for teaching, evaluation instrument. Princeton: The Danielson Group. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books. Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. California: Corwin press. National School Reform Faculty. (2017). The tuning protocol: Tuning a plan. http://www.nsrfharmony.org/system/files/protocols/tuning plan 0.pdf Patterson, K., et al. (2006). Crucial conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high. New York: McGraw-Hill. Resnick, L., & Williams, M. (2003). Principles of learning for effort-based education. http://ifl.pitt.edu/index.php/educator resources/principles of learning West, L., & Cameron, A. (2013). Agents of change: How content coaching transforms teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. West, L., & Staub, F. (2003). Content-focused coaching: Transforming mathematics lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Please cite this article in press as: West, L. Principal and coach as partners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.02.003