A Superintendent Writes... Instructional Coaching - Part 1

In response to the 12/5/2013 post, “A Reader Asks... Instructional Coaching,” a LYS Superintendent writes:

LYS Nation,

It is interesting that today's blog would be over teacher coaching and evaluations, because I had this same conversation with principals today and commented that I should write up my thoughts and send them to Sean.  

First, I think Lesa is, of course, right on; coaching teachers should be specific and the principal should listen a lot and not say too much.  The coaching session should end with a measurable objective that will be looked for in the weeks that follow.  The more help a teacher needs, the fewer coaching goals should be set, in my opinion.  If you have a teacher who really needs a lot of help, focus on one thing, the deepest hole if you will.  In my opinion you have to channel your inner Schmoker when coaching teachers; if you try to fill in all holes in one coaching session, you fill in nothing.  

When I am coaching my principals, I first observe what they do.  I have noticed a certain confusion among too many principals concerning what is and what is not coaching. Coaching is NOT mentoring.  Having a 45-minute long principal-to-teacher conversation concerning philosophies of education, variations on strategies, and other such things does NOT constitute coaching; that is mentoring.  Now I suppose a principal can mentor a teacher, but I view mentoring something better done from teacher to teacher.  Long meandering conversations can build personal understanding, can build collegiality, and can be down right fun.  But keep in mind that most teachers (and all teachers who are struggling) don't need that.  A principal who engages in such mentoring practices with a struggling teacher is doing them an injustice, in my opinion.   Back away from that practice and engage in brief, specific, measurable coaching goals based upon solid (frequent) classroom observations.  If the teacher needs a mentor, assign them one.  

Principals, be the Principal.

SC Response

Your closing statement reminds me of my first Principals’ meeting with Dr. Rod Paige.  Yes, that Dr. Paige, but at that time he was my Superintendent. He closed the meeting with this:

“What I want you Principals to understand is that we are now operating under the Navy command model. Right now, as we do this Summer work, the ships are all in port.  I am the Admiral and you will follow my orders and protocols.  In September, the ships will all go to sea and as the Captains of your ship, you are responsible for a successful voyage.  I will not second-guess your decisions you make in command of your ship, because you are in command, even if I am visiting you. 

But be successful, because the oldest rule of the Navy is this - If the mission isn’t successful the Captain goes down with his ship.” 

From that point forward, I never worried about what those who I was not responsible for thought about my decisions.  Because they had the luxury of being neither accountable nor responsible. 

Captains, be the Captain. Principals, be the Principal

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5 
• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “Look at Me: A Cautionary School Leadership Tale” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/lookatmebook 
• Now at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Plans (Fundamental 5 Lesson Plan Tool); PW Lite (Basic PowerWalks Tool); PW Pro (Mid-level PowerWalks Tool) 
• Upcoming Presentations: TASSP Summer Conference (Multiple Presentations); NEASP National Conference; The Fundamental 5 National Summit (Keynote Presentation) 
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation  and like Lead Your School on Facebook

A Reader Writes... (Instructional Leadership)

In response to the post, “Instructional Leadership in Action,” a reader (and Brown Guy) writes:

“I have an alternate system that produced some fairly impressive gains in the success rate of students who were expected to fail (i.e. bubble kids). Our campus had experience with the round robin rotation method. We used it year after year without noticeable results (as a side note, we did not know how to use data, hyper-monitoring, or the foundation trinity, so of course it did not work). Anyway, I refused to allow my math and science teachers to continue with the same tried and true, unsuccessful plan (they were not happy with me).

I challenged them to develop an alternate plan and they just could not think of one. Given the absence of their alternate suggestion, we identified those students who might have a chance of passing, if they were given the proper support. Once we had those students identified (based on common assessment data), each teacher was assigned 6 students at random as their personal charge. As principal, I gave them complete freedom to work whenever they could with their students (before school, during lunch, after school, at night, on Saturdays, between classes, during electives). It was their task and challenge to figure it out how to make it work. I monitored the teachers to make sure huge complicated plans did not develop, we focused on simple and workable. In short, my charge to the teachers sounded something like this, “Bob, here are your 6 students, they must pass.”

No matter what they asked me after that, my only response was, “I understand, so, go figure it out.”

Understand, we had great teachers who really cared for the kids, and had always given 100%, but this method forced them to look at specific learning gaps for individual children, not collective masses of faceless students. They were responsible for flesh and blood children whose future hinged on their ability as a teacher to save them. I loved it, they grumbled and fussed a little, and then really went to work. It was amazing. The results were that 2 out of every 3 coached students passed the test 4 weeks later.

For many, it was the first time they had ever passed the math or science TAKS. As leaders, we sometimes sell our people short by insulting them by micromanaging. In this case, it certainly was not micromanaged.

Given what we have learned about common assessment data, and hyper-monitoring, with hindsight I wish we had used both systems, we just might have gotten that other 1/3 to pass. My suggestion: blend both methods. Your students will benefit.”

SC Response
What is key to this comment and my post is that re-teaching has to be different from original teaching. Just doing the same thing louder, watered down, or less interestingly won’t reach the students who need the most support.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn…