This is not to say that educators are not working hard or making positive impacts. Much of public education is, in fact, doing fine, and dedicated teachers and administrators deserve credit for their great work. However, this book is about getting even better. School improvement has been a serious topic since the 1970s and has received much attention and support with a significant amount of resources (Edmonds, 1982; Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). And yet, if you were to travel across the country, drop into a hundred random schools, and visit five classrooms in each of those schools, much of what you would see is similar to the classrooms of the 1950s. While this might seem to contradict the history of constant change discussed in the previous section, the reality is that individual teachers are slow to change (Weimer, 2016). There is, of course, a group of cutting-edge teachers who follow the literature and create their own change to meet the needs of a changing student body. Each of us can reflect on our own experiences as a student and pick out a small group of our favorite teachers who exemplified the best of teaching. However, a large portion of teachers teach as they were taught, relying heavily on direct, teacher-driven instruction. And even the best can get better. This truth is the very reason we need coaching.
We know more now: we know more about how the brain works (Jensen, 2008); we know more about how students learn (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010); we know more about what works in schools (Marzano, 2017). Leaders speak clearly of how effective instruction can improve learning (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010). Effective models and strategies define how to teach, how to assess, how to engage, how to build knowledge, how to differentiate, and how to work together. Comprehensive models of instruction from Charlotte Danielson (2013), Robert J. Marzano (2017), and others are well known. Carol Tomlinson (2014) has spent decades defining and refining differentiation. James Popham (2018), Peter Airasian and Michael Russell (2008), Thomas Guskey (2014), and many more are instructive about assessment. Richard DuFour and Robert Eaker (1998) defined professional learning communities to help teachers work together. We have national and international experts on every aspect of teaching and learning and every type of school who are published and active in the school improvement arena. We understand the problem and the solutions. So why is positive change so elusive?
Change Is Hard
Knowledge is available in the literature, in thousands of hours of professional development, and in the collective practice of millions of teachers. And yet change does not occur, or if it does it is at a glacial speed. Sharing knowledge with every administrator and every teacher and operationalizing it in every classroom for every student is the issue. In many cases, educators understand current best practices but struggle to apply the practices in their schools and classrooms. How do we get educators to change their teaching and learning strategies? It’s about teaching the teachers—through both preservice teacher preparation programs and in-service professional development.
As the requirements for rigor and standardization of curriculum have increased, many teachers, administrators, schools, districts, and states have struggled to keep up. Teacher training failed to keep pace and teachers started to fall behind as soon as they graduated. Professional development expanded; many great presenters provided learning opportunities for teachers. We live and work in an era of great knowledge about teaching and learning. We know what works in teaching, learning, assessment, and collaboration (Hattie, 2009, 2012; Marzano, Warrick, & Simms, 2014). Districts have worked diligently to provide current and effective professional development for teachers and administrators. Teachers leave conferences with folders full of tried and true ideas on how and what to teach. For many educators, speakers in their districts and at conferences are terrific sources of resources and ideas. But alas, even as professional development has increased, it falls short of keeping teachers and the system on the cutting edge (DeMonte, 2013). The transfer from the stage to the classroom remains weak. Classrooms look the same before and after the presentation. Frequently, faculty and administrators read, go to conferences, and attend workshops, and, though temporarily inspired, still continue practices with which they are familiar and comfortable.
Why do teachers continue to use a few teacher-centered teaching tools when so many effective strategies are available to them? The first reason is that teaching is complex, and using a new skill or strategy requires new language, new interaction with students, new procedures, new management, and perhaps new assessment. It takes time and practice to implement each of these in an orchestrated application. Think about any new skill and how one progresses from novice to expert—knitting, riding a bicycle, hitting a baseball, ironing. All of these require practice—a lot of practice—to become competent and more yet to become an expert. We cannot expect professional development that relies on low-retention methods like lecture, reading, and audio-visual presentations (DiPiro, 2009) to provide teachers with all the learning that they need in order to improve their work in the classroom.
The second reason change in the classroom comes about slowly is actually about the students. A teacher’s new instructional strategy is unfamiliar to the students. They need to practice also. For example, if a teacher tries to implement cooperative learning for the first time, students will need several trials of getting into groups and interacting with each other before the strategy will be effective. The teacher might need to develop a procedure, devote a lesson to learning the procedure itself (without content), provide guidance on polite interactions, and so on. Even with all this support, students need multiple iterations to get used to the new method of learning.
Other barriers include normal resistance to change, isolation, lack of time with colleagues, not being able to watch ourselves work, limited oversight, and so on (Vander Ark, 2014). Creating positive change in professional practice is difficult. As noted previously, outside professional development doesn’t bring about change. So what does work? How can we bring about change? The answer is coaching.
Coaching Is the Solution
Coaching is embedded, ongoing professional development that creates significant and sustained change in teaching skills and the use of effective strategies. Coaches help teachers improve by teaching them new skills and strategies, giving feedback, introducing new knowledge and techniques, guiding practice, and monitoring progress. The coach can support change, reduce feelings of isolation, add time with colleagues, help educators gain awareness of their own teaching, provide feedback, and provide other supports to reduce or eliminate barriers to change.
Where other methods of professional development fail to engender change, coaching supports teachers in putting knowledge into practice. According to research by Bruce Joyce and Beverley Showers (2002), coaching is the vehicle to accomplish change in the teaching-learning process in the classroom, where it counts (see table 1.1).
Table 1.1: Training Components and Attainment of Outcomes
Source: Adapted from Joyce & Showers, 2002.
Joyce and Showers (2002) studied four typical components of professional development for teachers. They reviewed the outcomes to ascertain whether the teachers had a thorough knowledge of the training components,