A paper describing the Instructional Coaching Initiative in PA and its impact and implications for today's teacher and learner.

1. Running Head: INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING – POLICY STUDY 1
Instructional Coaching – A Policy Study
Marianne McFadden
October 23, 2013
EDG 540: Education & the Common Good: Philosophical Foundations
Instructor: Keith Shively, Cabrini College

2. INSTRUCTIO
NAL COACHING – A POLICY STUDY 2
Instructional Coaching: Issues Contributing to Promoting the Policy and Model
After studying the facts and implications emphasized in 1983 by A Nation at Risk, and then
following up with NCLB (No Child Left Behind) in 2001, it becomes clear that both the
document and the policy call for a much more rigorous curriculum and much more
accountability – both for student learning and teacher performance. In the thirty years since
the publishing of A Nation at Risk, the American education scene has experienced the
implementation of many revisions, innovative programs and teaching techniques, updated

3. INSTRUCTIO
NAL COACHING – A POLICY STUDY 3
curricula, more stringent performance guidelines, new policies, refocused standardized testing,
and more specific teacher evaluations. As accountability took ‘center-stage’, a more refined
focus on teacher performance and effectiveness, at every stage of his or her career, became
the emphasis in professional development and in-service programs. The rationale seemed to
be that improved and excelling teacher performance would increase effectiveness in the
classroom and therefore improve student achievement. As a result, students would more
easily attempt and be successful in their yearly standardized testing events, and likewise make
smoother transitions from middle to high school and high school to college. Since transitions
could become smoother, then it would be reasonable to assume that student effort and
interest would improve in the high school years, thus improving grades, accomplishment, and
give rise to better chances for admittance into a good college or a reputable post-secondary
program of the student’s choice. With these beliefs in mind, it seems reasonable to assume
that optimal teacher classroom performance could have a profound effect on student progress
and achievement.
In an effort to raise student achievement through improved instructional practice, Jim Knight
and the Center for Research on Learning at the University of Kansas developed, in the early
years of the twenty-first century, the Instructional Coaching Model – an initiative with a
structured framework which addresses lagging student achievement and attempts to improve
it through intense, customized ongoing one-on-one professional development strategies for
teachers at all stages of their careers (Knight, 2011). Since there is a need to improve student
achievement in order to document growth in coursework, and especially in high-stakes
standardized testing and benchmarks, this initiative aims at helping the classroom teacher in
developing strong, evidence-based methods in conjunction with raising student achievement.

4. INSTRUCTIO
NAL COACHING – A POLICY STUDY 4
The goal of this program aims towards raising the effectiveness of instructional practices
through ongoing collaboration between the highly-skilled coach and the classroom teacher.
The educator coach-classroom teacher relationship is formed and developed throughout the
school year as the coach consistently supports the teacher as they work to improve the
teacher’s knowledge, skills, and techniques within an atmosphere of collective responsibility,
collaboration, goal-setting, communication, and feedback for improved student achievement
(Knight, 2011).
Definition and Purpose for the Instructional Coaching Model
In studying several sources that describe the Instructional Coaching framework’s
development and methods of implementation (and having attended an extensive seven-day
workshop at CAIU from October 2006 to January 2007), it is evident that the coach is normally
a seasoned teacher, considered to have some expertise, but does not perform the duties
normally taken on by a mentor teacher or by a building principal. While a mentor typically
guides and evaluates a first-year teacher, and a principal supervises and evaluates all teachers
in the building, the coach is assigned to partner with colleagues in a specific discipline (one that
the coach is certified in and has a degree of expertise in teaching) and the teachers involved
with the coach can be at any point of their career – some very new and some quite
experienced (Knight, 2011). Jim Knight makes it clear that a coach is NOT an evaluator. The
coach also is NOT a teacher’s assistant or helper. Rather, the coach takes on a partnership role
with departmental teachers who want to make improvements in their techniques, style,
delivery, testing styles, time management, and lesson planning in conjunction with
standardized testing and traditional (coursework) testing results. As part of this partnership
with each involved teacher, the coach and the teacher follow some simple guidelines: open,

5. INSTRUCTIO
NAL COACHING – A POLICY STUDY 5
honest collaboration, equal status (coach is NOT viewed as having a higher status than the
teachers he or she partners with), planning of goal-setting for the teacher and his/her students,
dialogue with humility, precise and provisional explanation of teaching practices and providing
feedback (coach’s role), agreement to continually improve and grow (teacher’s role), and
coach’s openness to the teacher’s point of view in offering opinions provisionally (Knight,
2011).
Of particular interest, it should be noted that in their article, Coaches As System Leaders, Jim
Knight and Michael Fullan reiterate many of the aspects mentioned above, but clearly
emphasize one ‘requirement’ for the possibility of the coaching model’s success: the absolute
need for the building principal to be an instructional leader and the commitment from the
district to focus persistently on instructional improvement. They assert that coaches are the
most crucial “change agent” next to the principal. If professional learning (not accountability),
according to Fullan and Knight, is stressed and focused on, then the district will make strides
with the coaching model in creating, developing, and sustaining instructional improvement,
and accountability will become an issue that needs not to be addressed (Fullan & Knight, 2011).
Lastly, Cynthia Coburn and Sarah Woulfin, both of the University of California in Berkeley,
point to the instructional coach as a “chief strategist” in assisting teachers in making changes in
their classroom performance in accordance with new policies that are implemented within a
school, especially when a new program is rolled-out and the program involves innovative
teaching techniques and intense use of existing student data and new data compiled
periodically that aims in tracking student progress that results from implementing the new
program (Coburn &Woulfin, 2012).

6. INSTRUCTIO
NAL COACHING – A POLICY STUDY 6
Specific Techniques Highlighted As Effective
In her Education Week blog, Elena Aguilar – an experienced educator and transformational
leadership coach in the Oakland, California – calls for the necessity of coaching to include the
coach modeling lessons for the teacher to witness and use as a learning tool. Aguilar writes
that teachers need “to see the skills and moves of a master teacher, and they need to see those
delivered in their own classrooms, with their own students” (Aguilar, 23 Sep 2013). Aguilar
points to the fact that the teacher will learn from the expertise of the coach’s technique, but
the regular classroom teacher will add his or her own personality in presenting the same
lesson. It is the expertise, not the finesse or pizzazz (or confidence), that is being observed and
emulated when the teacher attempts the same lesson on his own. The aim here, Aguilar
asserts, is to observe good teaching style with the teacher’s actual students and not be
threatened by a master teacher or feel authority is being taken away (Aguilar, 23 Sep 2013).
In their discussion of implementing the Early Reading First project (ERF) at the Education
Development Center in Massachusetts, the project directors of the ERF program point to
videotaping as a highly effective technique, especially in teachers of the very young since it is
difficult to observe all the young students’ reactions and responses while attempting to be
successful in presenting a new program. In their article in Young Children, the directors
highlight the concerns of the teachers before being videotaped and their corresponding
reactions and feedback after the taping is complete and post-observation discussions are
finished as well. The teachers, who originally had reservations about the taping, are quoted as
stressing how valuable reviewing the tape became in learning new strategies and seeing the
whole picture – a slow motion of all aspects of the class, including every step of the teacher
and all responses made by the children during the class. Teachers in the program who

7. INSTRUCTIO
NAL COACHING – A POLICY STUDY 7
participated in the taping realized that they wanted to become better teachers and they
wanted their students to get the most from their classroom experience, so the taping,
analyzing, and feedback all helped in realizing their goals for themselves and their students.
Watching the children on tape provided additional information on learning styles, pace, and
student interest as well as ‘who did what and how often’ – a valuable piece of information in
aiding class management for future classes ((Skiffington, Washburn & Elliott, 2011).
Adjustments and Extensions to the Original Coaching Model
In addition to Knight’s description of the coach-teacher relationship, roles, and expectations,
Jane Kise, a renowned educational consultant and specialist in teambuilding, coaching, and
school staff development adds in her publication, Differentiated Coaching, the fact that
personality should come into play when a coach-teacher relationship is set up. Using the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator tool, Kise clearly emphasizes that the tool must be issued to those
involved in the instructional coaching partnerships so that each teacher’s needs can be
addressed appropriately, in accordance with what his or her personality traits find comfortable
with respect to the coach’s approach and specific teaching techniques that are suggested in the
coaching process – some techniques make some personalities uncomfortable, so the coach
should be aware of which personalities could successfully implement certain teaching styles or
techniques. The same would hold true for classroom management, creativity in assignments,
kinds of readings attempted in the class, and ways to evaluate students. Just as students and
teachers need to understand each others’ personalities in order to get along and succeed in the
classroom every day, the coach can advise and suggest techniques and programs that fit the
comfort level of the teacher’s personality. If a teaching style is ‘out of the comfort zone’ of the
teacher, then more likely than not the teacher will stumble in attempting to successfully

8. INSTRUCTIO
NAL COACHING – A POLICY STUDY 8
implement the technique. Kise outlines all sixteen of the Myers-Briggs personality types and
makes clear specific examples of styles that each personality type would be comfortable in
using in the classroom (Kise, 2006). Kise’s sensible approach can only help the coach and
teacher form a stronger, more open relationship that exercises a mutual understanding.
Additionally, throughout her book, Kise makes clear that a coach who relies on the teacher’s
strengths to effect change will enjoy success in helping the teacher to bring about the change
that is sought. Lastly, Kise also outlines common stressors that specific personalities encounter
daily and offers ways to deal with these problems as a focus for bringing about change in order
to decrease their effects (Kise, 2006).
Members of the Examining Mathematics Coaching project refined the ‘requirements’ of a
good coaching model as they included necessary components in their version of the effective
coaching structure. Their model includes: a pre-lesson conference, a lesson observation, and a
post-lesson conference. Within the pre-lesson conference, the teacher’s concerns are made
known, and within the post-lesson conference, the coach makes suggestions as to how the
concerns could be successfully addressed, and these suggestions are made in accordance with
what observations were noted during the lesson observation. Prior to establishing the teacher-
coach partnership, teachers fill out an informational teacher’s needs inventory which assesses
the teacher’s confidence in various aspects including classroom environment and students’
styles of learning. The inventory is designed to aid the coach in forming more specific
questions, comments, and suggestions during the conferencing sessions with the teacher.
Additionally, the members of the project did emphasize the importance of effective coaching
as being content-based as well as being technique or methods-based. They clearly stated that
classroom teachers need to show an interest and desire to discuss content in light of how

9. INSTRUCTIO
NAL COACHING – A POLICY STUDY 9
specific new techniques and/or strategies could improve learning and progress with specific
content (Yopp, Burroughs, Luebeck, Heidema, Mitchell, & Sutton, 2011).
While Jim Knight developed the framework for the coaching model and Jane Kise added the
personality aspect as essential in completely understanding the teacher (and coach as well) as
an individual with specific needs, Marcia Rock and her associates describe a new twist in
instructional coaching that gives the initiative a virtual capability. In their article, The Power of
Virtual Coaching, the coach is an active participant in the lesson as it is being taught. The
teacher wears an earpiece, and while he or she teaches, she is being advised from a remote
location by a coach who is viewing the entire class and lesson through Skype. The advantages
to this twist in instructional coaching are many: the teacher doesn’t continuously see the
coach in the midst of the class, the students do not see the coach (and feel they’re being
watched), and feedback is ongoing throughout the lesson since messages are delivered as the
lesson goes on. Revisions and changes can be made on the spot – no need to revise when the
next lesson is implemented. The virtual coach can decide when and if the focus of the lesson
needs to be re-directed, sometimes this comes about through observing student reactions and
evident loss of interest, and thus inform the teacher immediately. Other benefits include the
ability to coach teachers from other districts virtually, and the obvious cost and time savings in
not having to travel (Rock, Zigmond, Gregg, & Gable, 2011).
Pennsylvania’s Involvement
Pennsylvania became interested in committing to adopting the instructional coaching
practices in initiatives. The state has established a Collaborative Coaching Board (CCB) in order
to make sure that all coaching methods are aligned and supported. The CCB was created by the

10. INSTRUCTIO
NAL COACHING – A POLICY STUDY 10
Pennsylvania Department of Education in October 2006 so that instructional coaching initiatives
would align in supporting school improvement.
Pennsylvania’s coaching website (pacoaching.org) states:
The Pennsylvania Institute for Instructional Coaching (PIIC), a partnership of the
Annenberg Foundation and the Pennsylvania Department of Education, provides the
uniform and consistent delivery of sustained professional development around
instructional coaching and mentoring, working to build teacher capacity as a means of
increasing student engagement and improving student achievement.
(piic.pacoaching.org, 2013)
The PIIC works through PA’s twenty-nine IUs in providing professional development to mentors,
instructional coaches, teachers, and school administrators. The Pennsylvania High School
Coaching Initiative (PAHSCI), which began providing instructional coaching to sixteen high-needs
districts in 2005, is instrumental in offering highly effective professional development exercises,
activities, and lessons to the PIIC. Additionally, the Mid-Atlantic Comprehensive Center at the
George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education (MACC) serves
state education agencies in the District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania to enable them to address the differentiated needs of low-performing schools and
districts (portal.state.pa.us, 2013).
Basic Assertions on Each Side of the Issue
Districts that have embraced instructional coaching as part of their improvement plan have
verified that the model provides a win-win situation for the teacher and the students as well.
Recent research on the PAHSCI shows evidence of successes: in 2005, PAHSCI began working in
sixteen high-needs districts, and according to pacoaching.org, research conducted over three
years in PAHSCI schools indicates (portal.state.pa.us, 2013):

11. INSTRUCTIO
NAL COACHING – A POLICY STUDY 11
In 18 of 21 PAHSCI schools, the percentage of 11th-graders reaching proficient or
advanced levels in math on the Pennsylvania System of Student Assessment (PSSA)
exceeded the statewide percentage of students reaching proficiency from 2004-2007.
In 15 of 21 PAHSCI schools, the percentage of 11th-graders reaching proficient or
advanced levels in reading on the PSSA exceeded the statewide percentage of students
reaching proficiency from 2004-2007.
91% of teachers coached regularly stated that coaches helped them understand and use
new teaching strategies.
79% of teachers coached regularly said that their coach played a significant role in
improving their classroom instruction and practice.
High-profile, policy initiatives have reaped the benefits from the services of coaches by
allowing the coach to thoroughly study the requirements of the policy and then help the
teachers involved with the initiative to change and revise their techniques in order to comply
with the policy. This is evident in the Reading First program that was implemented in the
primary grades in a low-performing urban elementary school, where teachers were aided the
year before the policy was effective all the way through the end of the first year of its
implementation. Initially the road was rough since the policy was multi-faceted and had many
demands on the teachers’ time outside the classroom. However, as the program got underway,
coaches became vital to proper usage of the materials and tracking tools in the program and
teachers found their help indispensible (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012).
In schools where coaching models are not well defined from the get-go, problems arise in
situating roles, purpose, and collaboration. N. L. Stevens describes a high school in which a
literacy coach is attempting to find a purpose, and finally concludes that since literacy coaching
was designed for the elementary level, it would be best to return these coaches to where they
can be effectively used. He concludes that more research is needed at the higher level for the
literacy coach’s place in the high schools (Stevens, 2011). Problems such as these arise when

12. INSTRUCTIO
NAL COACHING – A POLICY STUDY 12
roles are not clearly described and teachers and administrators are not all ‘on board’ with the
program being implemented.
Additionally, districts and schools in which instructional coaching has not become
commonplace look at the initiative as beneficial, but may not make a commitment to establish
and develop the model due to staffing concerns, monetary restrictions, and the delicate
situation of encouraging veteran teachers to ‘buy into’ being advised by highly qualified
instructional coaches who may actually have less experience (yet newer, effective methods and
approaches) than the classroom teacher being coached. These districts and schools often opt to
attempt to strengthen their existing mentoring program for first-year teachers by offering more
opportunities for professional development that are known to be highly effective and innovative
(and meet the needs of the students). In Steinbacher-Reed and Powers’ article, the authors give
suggestions and formulate ways to keep the ‘coaching concept’ but not have an actual member
titled as coach on staff. This is done in an effort to keep costs down in this troubled economy,
where school districts are scrambling to make cuts but still keep the integrity of good, effective
programs in place (Steinbacher-Reed & Powers, 2011). Likewise, David Knight describes the
cost required to keep instructional coaches on staff and additional fees incurred through
ongoing professional development in order to keep the model current and viable (Knight, 2012).
Conclusions and Remarks
This paper has explored the various aspects of instructional coaching and has shown that
many benefits can certainly be realized through proper use and whole-school or whole-district
‘buy-in’ to the program. Without full cooperation, intense professional development, strong
leaders, and collaborative partnerships, teachers will not benefit from an initiative that was

13. INSTRUCTIO
NAL COACHING – A POLICY STUDY 13
well-constructed to meet the needs of all teachers, no matter where they were professionally –
beginners, experienced, seasoned, or experts. An initiative such as this is designed with
everyone in mind, including teachers, administrators, and students, and all benefit from its
proper implementation.
BibliographyBibliography
Coburn, C. E., & Woulfin, S. L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy
and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5-30. doi:10.1002/RRQ.008
E Aguilar. (2013, Sep 23). Coaching new teachers: the importance of modeling
[web blog comment]. Retrieved from http://www.blogs.edweek.org
Expanding instructional coaching in Pennsylvania schools. (2013). Retrieved from
Pennsylvania Institute for Instructional Coaching website: http://piic.pacoaching.org/
index.php/piic-hom
Fullan, M., & Knight, J. (2011). Coaches as system leaders. Educational Leadership, 69(2),
50-53.
Instructional coaching in Pennsylvania. (2013). Retrieved from Pennsylvania Department of
Education website: http://portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/
coaching_in_pa/20748
Kise, J. A. (2006). Differentiated Coaching. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Knight, D. (2012). Assessing the cost of instructional coaching. Journal of Education
Finance, 38(1), 52-80.
Knight, J. (2011). What good coaches do. Educational Leadership, 69(2), 18-22.
Rock, M. L., Zigmond, N. P., Gregg, M., & Gable, R. A. (2011). The power of virtual coaching.
Educational Leadership, 69(2), 42-47.
Skiffington, S., Washburn, S., & Elliott, K. (2011). Instructional coaching: helping preschool

14. INSTRUCTIO
NAL COACHING – A POLICY STUDY 14
teachers reach their full potential. YC: Young Children, 66(3), 12-19.
Steinbacher-Reed, C., & Powers, E. A. (2011). Coaching without a coach. Educational
Leadership, 69(4), 68-72.
Stevens, N. L. (2011). The high school literacy coach: searching for an identity. Journal Of
Education, 191(3), 19-25.
Yopp, D., Burroughs, E. A., Luebeck, J., Heidema, C., Mitchell, A., & Sutton, J. (2011). How to
be a wise consumer of coaching. Journal Of Staff Development, 32(1), 50-53.