The Coach in the Classroom

Helping teachers be all that they can be, a cadre of instructional coaches are "embedded" in classrooms throughout Spokane—placing them at the front lines of the school district's strategy to improve student achievement.

By Mindy Cameron
Photos by William Berg

Spokane, Washington—Jerry Bock, a veteran art teacher at Spokane's Glover Middle School, has just completed a unit on pottery. Students have created a variety of clay figurines and now the teacher wants them to think more deeply about what they have accomplished and the artistic impulses from which these creatures emerged.

Not so many years ago, Bock would have been on his own in developing a writing assignment to wrap up the pottery unit. This time he has help, and so does every other teacher at Glover.

In fact, most teachers in the Spokane Schools District now have access to instructional coaches. All six of Spokane's middle schools, 29 of its 35 elementary schools, and two of five high schools have instructional coaches. The coaching model is a key element of the district's strategic plan for increasing student achievement.

Nancy Stowell, associate superintendent for teaching and learning, explains Spokane's emphasis on coaching. "The place to impact teaching is in the classroom—not in conferences and professional development sessions," she said. Putting that belief into practice means that coaches are "embedded in classrooms."

At Glover Middle School, Charlene Hombel is one of four instructional coaches embedded in classrooms. She arrives at Bock's class after spending about 15 minutes working with a teacher and several students in a language arts class. Bock tells Hombel he wants students to respond to a question something like this: "What did you learn that I haven't already asked about?"

Teacher and coach talk about the assignment and how to phrase a question that will elicit what Bock is seeking. In the pottery unit students made three pieces—a creature, a functional piece, and a nonfunctional shape. Their assignment is to write about the project. The first part of the assignment directs them to be descriptive about the creature they made—body type, facial expression, color, size, features, and texture. The second question is about the process and construction techniques of the other two pieces.

As Hombel and Bock discuss how best to phrase a third question, the one that's still puzzling the art teacher, some clarity begins to emerge.

"This is exciting, working with Jerry on this," Hombel says as she leaves the art class to drop in on yet another classroom. During the next few days they will finalize a question that meets Bock's goal, she explains. Then they will look at the student responses and use them to model future assignments. "Close examination of student work is the best way to learn how to teach," Hombel says, saying once again how exciting her work is.

The Spokane Public Schools District has been focused on school-improvement strategies for more than a decade, a focus that has led to many changes and some notable successes. Most recently it has established what is readily acknowledged as a "stretch goal"—90 percent of students will meet standards by 2007.

For a district of nearly 30,000 students and considerable poverty (46 percent are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches), it is indeed an ambitious goal. Also, Washington state has some of the toughest testing standards in the nation. In its steady drive to improve schools and learning outcomes for students, the Spokane district has developed a nine-point strategy:

Use a systems approach
Raise expectations
Collaborate and build relationships
Use data to drive instruction
Provide professional development
Provide leadership development
Implement districtwide curricula
Build community support
Celebrate success

Instructional coaching grows out of the third imperative, collaborate and build relationships. Most teachers, and others who have spent time in and around schools for many years, probably would agree with Stowell, who describes teaching in the past as "an isolating experience. You'd go into your classroom, close the door, and do your thing.

"Getting all kids to standards," she said, "provides an opportunity to come out of the classroom and talk to each other." For Spokane teachers it is more than an opportunity; it is a necessity. Two years ago during contract negotiations, the district and the teachers' association agreed to set aside time—one hour each Thursday—for every teacher to engage in collaboration around student learning.

Not every teacher, however, is eager to collaborate. Stowell acknowledges some foot-dragging, but said she is seeing changes as the district has provided more training. "It's evolutionary. We are changing thinking a little bit at a time."

At Glover Middle School there is no evidence of foot-dragging. Asked what is most challenging about their role, Glover's team of instructional coaches lists lack of time, changing state and federal mandates and, more recently, possible changes in the state curriculum. Teacher resistance is not on the list. Relationships among coaches, Glover Principal Roberta Kramer, and the 55-member teaching staff are strong.

Joe Slauson, instructional coach in science, calls it luck. The coaching model has been used for more than four years at Glover without resentment or resistance. He thinks it helped that before coaching was instituted teachers worked in teams so teacher-to-teacher relationships were already a part of the school's culture.

Glover Middle School sits in the center of a modest neighborhood in the northwest corner of Spokane. It has 811 students in seventh and eighth grades. Its 62.5 percent poverty level puts it well above the district average. "As a staff we are not stuck in the reality of the school's poverty level," said instructional coach Hombel. "We believe all these kids can learn." Teachers and coaches focus on "What can we control? What do we influence?" said math coach Diane Floyd.

Glover principal Principal Kramer is deeply committed to the coaches and their integral role at her school. "I think back to when we didn't have coaching," said Kramer. "It was a different place."

Conversation among the coaches and Kramer is animated and focused. They gather around the table in the "cave," a windowless room in the center of the school where each coach has a highly personalized work space. Coaches and principal talk enthusiastically about how Glover has become a true learning community. They also agree that the Spokane district is a learning community. This is not by accident, of course. Building professional learning communities, or PLCs, is part of Spokane's strategy for improvement.

Essential to a high-performing learning community is access to data and thoughtful use of all available information. Kramer, who came to the Spokane district five years ago, said she was "amazed by the access to data and the skilled use of data. The combination of good thinking and good computer tools—"depth with data"—is powerful, she said. It drives decisions, planning, and teaching.

Kramer said Glover coaches are skilled at working with data. It enables them to have "data-driven dialogues" with teachers. A data-driven dialogue means asking questions before decisions are made and reflecting on available data.

Professionals at Glover are using data to align curricula and professional development. They are in the early stages of learning how to do that, and it is a shift for teachers who are not accustomed to using data to determine how to instruct.

"Everything is a research base," said Hombel. "If something doesn't work, that's OK; we learn from it. More teachers are willing to take risks and learn from what works and doesn't work. This is new. Seven or eight years ago, it wouldn't have happened."

What do the data say about instructional coaching at Glover? It's too early for conclusions, but everyone is digging into the numbers. In 2003-2004, literacy scores increased 17 points, but math scores were less impressive. "We're working on that," said math coach Diane Floyd.

One of the things that must change to create professional learning communities within the school is the role of the principal. "We've moved away from the idea of the principal in total control," Kramer said. Instead, principals are seen as instructional leaders and are held accountable for that role by district administrators such as Associate Superintendent Stowell. To ease that transition for principals, Stowell said, the district provides support services to individual schools, taking care of mundane building management tasks once left to principals.

Kramer has apparently made a good adjustment to the role. Coaches say she is a frequent "dropper-in" to classes. Social studies coach Moleena Harris praises the principal. "Roberta is aware of the vibes of the school. She knows when to push, when to pull back." Slauson sums up the creative tensions at Glover: "Coaches are like cartilage. Teachers are grinding on one side and the principal on the other. Sometimes it hurts."

"We need that to make it work," adds Hombel.

The current widespread use of instructional coaches in the Spokane schools district grows out of earlier successes using Title I funds to hire instructional facilitators. During six or seven years, the district experienced significant achievement results with a strategy of instructional facilitators for Title I students. The results were noted by Washington State's Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), which highlighted the district and the instructional facilitator practice as a model for success.

OSPI recognized the following as primary elements of improvements in high-need schools in Spokane:

Embedded professional development
School-based facilitators
Use of assessment data
Principal leadership
Active learning
Coordinated central office support

The district embarked on a major research effort to learn more about instructional coaching. The research led to large districts, including San Diego and New York, where instructional coaching programs were in place. In April 2004, Spokane formed an Instructional Coaching Work Team to guide a districtwide transition from instructional facilitators to a coherent instructional coaching model for use in all schools.

"Data-driven" and "research-based" are mantras at Spokane Public Schools. Research into instructional coaching is clear and compelling. A June 2004 district report, Instructional Coaching Model, cites studies by Bruce Joyce and Beverly Showers that showing that teachers who participate in standard inservice models apply less than 20 percent of what they learned back in their classrooms. (The report is available at www.spokaneschools.org/ProfessionalLearning/.) The district report concludes: "Given the diverse needs of students and the expectation that students learn an increasingly rigorous curriculum, most teachers need ongoing, side-by-side support as they attempt to incorporate effective instructional practices into their classroom routines."

Spokane launched its districtwide coaching program using Title I money and state funds from the Learning Assistance Program (a state version of Title I). Now, Stowell said, the coaching model is "central to what we do as we change what happens in the classroom to make sure kids learn."

To be successful over time with the coaching model, the Spokane district will face a new challenge—finding enough good coaches. Good teachers, even great teachers, may not necessarily be good instructional coaches. "Not everyone who works well with children can work well with adults," Stowell said.

Besides being able to work well with adults—teachers, principals, other coaches—instructional coaches must demonstrate a deep knowledge of their content area. They must be curriculum experts. They must be willing to learn, a trait best demonstrated by having lots of professional development on their résumé, and they must be able to model a wide range of good teaching practices in the classroom. It is, as Stowell said, a "fairly sophisticated set of skills." One thing that coaches do not do is evaluate other teachers. Nor do they provide information to be used in evaluations, serve as substitute teachers, or fill in for the principal. Instructional coaches are not mentors. Mentors focus on support for new teachers; coaches work with all staff members, creating a safe environment in which to ask for assistance.

The overarching role of the coach, as stated in the June 2004 report, is to "build teacher capacity to implement effective instructional practices to improve student learning and performance." The teacher role is to be a learner who is "continually engaged in the study of teaching and curriculum."

When both teacher and coach fulfill their roles they engage in an ongoing conversation about what happens in the classroom. Spokane district lingo for this conversation is "reflective discussion." Glover coaches say reflective discussion is a new emphasis at the school this year, which means teaching strategies are discussed before and after they are used in the class.

Bock, the art teacher, and Hombel, the coach, engaged in reflective discussion as they collaborated on getting the "right" question on the pottery-unit review. Here's what they finally came up with:

Consider all the elements, principles, experiences, and processes that we have explored during this unit. Write a well-developed paragraph about something you have learned that was not covered in either of the first two questions.

The process of collaboration and reflection helped Bock to come up with an additional question.

Picasso said, "Art just looks like fun, but it's a lot of work." Write your own quote about art that shares an insight into the creative and artistic work you have experienced so far.

Bock and Hombel were especially pleased with student responses to that assignment. Here are two examples:

"Art may take time but you are rewarded by making someone's day."

"Art is like a healing process. It makes your mind go into a different world, forgetting everything that pains you."

Bock and Hombel will review student responses in detail in the never-ending search for better understanding of how to help students learn.

Editor's Note: As part of its national leadership in re-engineering schools, the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory developed an online case study of the Spokane Schools District, documenting its strategies leading to success. Visit www.nwrel.org/scpd/reengineering/SpokaneSD/index.asp.

Washington: Rethinking the Rules for More Flexibility

It is clear by now that many, if not most, school districts eventually will fall short of meeting adequate yearly progress as defined in No Child Left Behind, the federal law mandating strict accountability measures in public schools across the country.

That realization is prompting anger, frustration—and creative thinking—among education leaders.

Washington state, a leader in establishing standards and accountability systems, is now in the process of rethinking its systems for measuring student progress. There are both positive and negative impacts of NCLB, said Mary Alice Heuschel, deputy superintendent for learning and teaching in the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI).

One good change, she said, is the requirement to sort data in different ways. “We are looking at kids in different groupings,” she said, “and facing the reality of underperforming groups.” Instead of seeing students by school groups and grade levels, under NCLB states and districts and schools must look at students in demographic clusters—by poverty, race, ethnicity, disabilities, and limited English language proficiency. Examining the new data forces questions about why certain groups persistently under perform and what can be done to change outcomes for those students.

But the negative impact of NCLB, Heuschel said, is a huge distraction from what should be the central focus: student learning. NCLB requires schools to make adequate yearly progress toward statewide goals. In states like Washington, which set the bar very high prior to passage of NCLB, the result for many schools is a goal that is not achievable in one year. It’s a guarantee of failure and that is a “word we don’t use,” she said.

To be fair, accountability standards should measure progress from where a school or group of students are. Expecting all schools and clusters of children to meet the same goal is not realistic. Heuschel and her counterparts in other states are working with people in the federal Department of Education to make the rules more flexible. “We are making progress, but it’s slow,” she said. [In April 2005, U.S. Department of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announced a new approach in Raising Achievement: A New Path for No Child Left Behind (www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/raising/new-path.html), offering more options to states if they are in fact raising student achievement and closing the achievement gap.]

Meanwhile, Washington is revamping its own rules to build in the flexibility it feels is missing at the federal level. The original state standards were established with the help of hundreds of stakeholders working in teams. So, to develop the accountability plan for NCLB, a similar structure was developed and more than 200 stakeholders participated in the development of Washington’s NCLB plan. The debates were long and often intense, said Heuschel. The result was a system with a “straight trajectory” toward a goal that Heuschel describes as “out there”—reasonable, but challenging.

That was before NCLB’s stringent regulations. The federal law, signed by President Bush in January 2002, raised the stakes on existing state standards with its AYP calculation requirements. The state moved from a straight trajectory toward goals to a stair-step model that emphasizes yearly growth and progress with time built in to reach the goals rather than meeting a singular goal each year.

The stair-step model, said Heuschel, “gives us time to support changes in our system. It builds in flexibility and time to implement the changes in schools and districts as we move toward our goal.” All without losing sight of yearly progress, she added.

Particularly troubling to Heuschel and many other educators is the expectation built in to NCLB that students in special education programs and those with limited proficiency in English will meet the same standards as the larger population of students. “How can we expect those kids to meet the same standard?” Heuschel asked. After all, they are in special programs because learning is more challenging for them, a reality recognized by the federal government, which provides additional dollars (through Title I, Title III and special education) to help them learn. Requiring these students to meet achievement standards on a par with the larger student population is inherently unfair and leads to the “failure” label.

Across the state, Heuschel said, there is a fear of labels. “We must alleviate that fear to focus on learning. If we don’t get to that level, then this is just a public way to criticize public education.”

The key to progress with low-performing student groups is research. Thanks to NCLB, the state and districts know more about who the students are, but still don’t know enough about how to overcome the achievement gaps. “We don’t yet know enough about what interventions will work,” Heuschel said.

As Washington’s OSPI strives to achieve balance between fairness and high standards, it is working with other states to send a common message to the national level for the same balance.

It is essential to have collaboration and teamwork between state and federal education officials to make this work, said Heuschel. “It takes everybody, starting with the president.”