1703 North Beauregard St.
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
Tel: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723)
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday
Local to the D.C. area: 1-703-578-9600, press 2
Toll-free from U.S. and Canada: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723), press 2
All other countries: (International Access Code) + 1-703-578-9600, press 2
October 2011 | Volume 69 | Number 2
Coaching: The New Leadership Skill
Many popular education programs, although thoughtfully conceived, have missed their mark.
On September 23, 1999, the Mars Climate Orbiter spacecraft approached Mars, where it was expected to fire its rockets, enter the Red Planet's orbit, and send data to scientists back on Earth. But something went wrong. Despite careful planning and countless checks and double checks from teams of engineers, the orbiter fired its rockets too late, glanced off the Martian atmosphere, and hurtled into space, lost forever.
On review, NASA found that one mistake, one tiny overlooked detail, caused the loss of the $125 million spacecraft: One team of engineers used English measurements for navigation, whereas another used metric measurements. That rocket scientists can overlook something so obvious serves as a stark reminder that in many endeavors, the devil truly is in the details.
Like NASA's ill-fated spacecraft, many popular education programs, although thoughtfully conceived, have also missed their mark. A recent spate of gold-standard research studies from regional education laboratories funded by the U.S. Department of Education has yielded the following disappointing findings:
At first blush, one might conclude that these programs and approaches all belong on the trash heap of education reform ideas. Yet we mustn't be too hasty to kick these programs to the curb on the basis of a single study (no matter how scientific), especially in light of a recurring finding in the research—namely, all the programs evaluated were poorly implemented. For example,
This inconsistent adoption makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether to fault the programs themselves or the way they were implemented for their lackluster effects, especially as none of the studies parsed their data to determine whether classrooms with better implementation achieved better results. We're left asking why, in study after study, something got lost in translation from program design to implementation.
The problem doesn't seem to be that teachers received no professional development: In most cases, teachers attended 2–3 days of whole-group training followed by 2–3 more days of classroom coaching and observation, arguably a generous level of support. The fine print of some studies, however, suggests another crucial variable: leadership support. In the Project CRISS study, for example, researchers discovered that of the 23 schools in the experimental group, only three held 20 or more teacher study group meetings during the school year (as recommended); nine held five or fewer meetings. These differences, coupled with nearly one-third of teachers reporting that principals never conducted required classroom walkthroughs to monitor program adoption (Kushman, Hanita, & Raphael, 2011), suggest high variability in principals' levels of attention and support for program implementation.
It's worth noting that one recent study did find significant results, and the program under scrutiny took a slightly different approach to coaching support. The study of Kindergarten PAVEd for Success (K-PAVE), an approach that aims to improve early reading through explicit vocabulary instruction and other strategies, found positive effects equivalent to one additional month of learning per school year (Goodson, Wolf, Bell, Turner, & Finney, 2010).
As in the other studies, teachers received training in whole groups as well as classroom observation and coaching, but with an important twist: Coaches didn't give equal levels of support to all teachers. Rather, they provided more intense support to teachers who seemed to be struggling with implementation. Although researchers still found some inconsistencies in program implementation, teacher coaches actively worked to reduce those variations (Goodson et al., 2010).
It would be a leap, of course, to conclude that this single variation alone accounts for the better results of the K-PAVE program. Nonetheless, these findings suggest that when adopting new programs, principals should be aware of the wide variation that will inevitably exist in implementation. The best strategy may well be to provide coaching and support where it is most needed to ensure that all teachers implement the program effectively.
Drummond, K., Chinen, M., Duncan, T. G., Miller, H. R., Fryer, L., Zmach, C., & Culp, K. (2011). Impact of the Thinking Reader software program on grade 6 reading vocabulary, comprehension, strategies, and motivation (NCEE 2010-4035). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Goodson, B., Wolf, A., Bell, S., Turner, H., & Finney, P. B. (2010). The effectiveness of a program to accelerate vocabulary development in kindergarten (VOCAB). (NCEE 2010-4014). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Hitchcock, J., Dimino, J., Kurki, A., Wilkins, C., & Gersten, R. (2010). The impact of Collaborative Strategic Reading on the reading comprehension of grade 5 students in linguistically diverse schools.(NCEE 2011-4001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Kushman, J., Hanita, M., & Raphael, J. (2011). An experimental study of the Project CRISS reading program on grade 9 reading achievement in rural high schools.(NCEE 2010-4007). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Randel, B., Beesley, A. D., Apthorp, H., Clark, T. F., Wang, X., Cicchinelli, L. F., & Williams, J. M. (2011). Classroom assessment for student learning: The impact on elementary school mathematics in the Central Region. (NCEE 2011-4005). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Wijekumar, K., Hitchcock, J., Turner, H., Lei, P. W., & Peck, K. (2009). A multisite cluster randomized trial of the effects of Compass Learning Odyssey Math on the math achievement of selected grade 4 students in the Mid-Atlantic Region (NCEE 2009-4068). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Bryan Goodwin is vice president of communications, McREL, Denver, Colorado; . He is the author of Simply Better: What Matters Most to Change the Odds for Student Success (ASCD, 2011).
Copyright © 2011 by ASCD
Subscribe to ASCD Express, our twice-monthly e-mail newsletter, to have practical, actionable strategies and information delivered to your e-mail inbox twice a month.
ASCD respects intellectual property rights and adheres to the laws governing them. Learn more about our permissions policy and submit your request online.