The document discusses the role of instructional coaches as effective change agents within learning communities. It reviews literature that finds coaching helps increase teachers' instructional capacity and shows professional development is most effective when contextualized within the classroom. Experts agree effective coaching is school-based, ongoing, research-based, and focused on teaching and learning, while not being evaluative or enforcing specific programs. Coaching must also be systemic and supported throughout the educational system to successfully drive reform.

1. INSTRUCTIONAL
COACHES
&
EEFECTIVE
CHANGE
Role
and
Relevance
of
Instructional
Coaches
as
Effective
Change
Agents
Within
a
Learning
Community
Independent
Research
Project-­‐Part
II
Ana
D.
Larena-­‐Avellaneda
Álvarez
EDU-­‐600
Teacher
as
a
Leader
Master
of
Science
in
Education
in
Reading
Specialist/Literacy
Coach
K-­‐12
University
of
New
England

2. INSTRUCTIONAL
COACHES
&
EEFECTIVE
CHANGE
To
coach
is
to
teach;
as
simple
and
complex
as
that
may
be.
An
instructional
coach
is
for
teachers
what
any
sports
coach
is
for
an
athlete
or
a
professional
sportsman:
on
going,
contextualized,
goal-­‐oriented,
research-­‐based,
and
systemic
guidance
for
performance
improvement.
Nobody
would
ever
doubt
of
the
essential
and
definite
role
of
Rafa
Nadal’s
coach
in
his
outstanding
and
historic
tennis
career.
So,
what
is
effective
instructional
coaching?
And,
why
is
the
role
of
an
instructional
coach
somewhat
slippery,
potentially
bumpy,
and
highly
questioned?
After
delving
deeper
into
this
fascinating
topic
of
coaching
professionals
in
education,
I
am
pleased
to
find
overwhelming
expert
consensus.
In
his
analysis
of
effective
coaching
and
the
caveats
it
may
find,
“School-­‐Based
Coaching.
A
revolution
in
professional
development—or
just
the
latest
fad?”
(2004),
Alexander
Russo
concludes
“school-­‐based
coaching
helps
educators
envision
a
world
where
professional
development
means
showing
and
not
telling;
where
teachers
can
learn
and
improve
their
practice
in
a
reflective,
supportive
setting,
and
where
coaches
serve
as
liaisons
between
research
and
practice,
bringing
the
latest
findings
to
where
they
are
most
needed—the
classroom”.
Barbara
Neufeld
and
Dana
Roper,
Education
Matters,
Inc.,
study
the
promise
of
coaching
carrying
out
a
comprehensive
dissection
of
the
role,
challenges,
and
impact
of
both
change
and
content
coaches
within
public
schools
and
conclude,
“while
not
yet
proven
to
increase
student
achievement,
research
does
support
coaching
does
increase
the
instructional
capacity
of
schools
and
teachers,
a
known
prerequisite
for
increasing
learning”.
“Organizational
Barriers
to
Effective
Literacy
Coaching”
(2007)
by
Allison
Niedzwiecki,
reflects
with
precision
what
the
role
of
an
instructional
coach
should
not
be:
district
or
principal’s
police,
enforcers
of
specific
programs,
evaluators,
outside
experts,
or
fixers
of
ineffective
teachers.
Niedzwiecki,
experienced
English
teacher
and
literacy
coach
in
Georgia
and
New
York,
makes
the
case
for
organizational
and
structural
support
for
effective
coaching:
“when
coaches
are
supported,
at
both
the
school
and
district
level,
literacy
coaches
can
help
move
a
school
community
to
significant
instructional
change”.
In
“Fulfilling
the
Promise
of
Literacy
Coaches
in
Urban
Schools:
What
Does
It
Take
to
Make
an
Impact?”
(2009),
Barbara
Steckel
successfully
appeals
to
both
our
heart
and
mind
with
the
presentation
of
solid
literature
on
what
effective
instructional
coaching
is,
as
well
the
findings
of
the
study
she
lead
in
2002
shadowing
four
instructional
coaches.
In
the
article,
we
find
the
detailed
analysis
of
two
of
those
case
studies,
focused
on
coaches
who
helped
change
instructional
practices
and
overall
school
culture.
“These
case
studies
enable
us
to
begin
to
identify
the
beliefs
and
practices
of
coaches
who
have
made
an
impact
on
urban
schools
and
the
leadership,
management,
and
organizational
systems
that
have
facilitated
their
success.”
Finally,
Michael
Fullan’s
thrilling
“Choosing
the
wrong
drivers
for
whole
system
reform”
(2011)
throws
immaculate
and
crushing
light
to
the
question
of
how
much
school
reform
impacts
student
success.
His
paper
is
an
extraordinary
review
and
evaluation
of
the
“wrong
drivers
(policies
and
strategies)
that
have
a
negative
or

3. INSTRUCTIONAL
COACHES
&
EEFECTIVE
CHANGE
ineffective
impact
on
achieving
the
desired
goals:
raising
the
bar
(for
all)
and
closing
the
gap
(for
low
performing
students)”.
The
role
of
the
instructional
coach
within
the
system
he
describes,
driven
by
the
right
drivers
of
reform,
is
explicitly
mandatory:
“capacity-­‐building
referred
to
investments
in
collaborative
practices,
coaching
technical
skill
building
and
so
on”
(pg.
10),
group
work,
pedagogy,
and
“systemness”
or
systemic
solutions.
Experts
on
the
topic
unanimously
agree
that
effective
coaching
is
school-­‐based,
relevant
professional
development,
which
is
on-­‐going,
focused
on
research-­‐based
approaches,
embedded
in
classroom
teaching
and
student
learning,
as
well
as
aligned
and
specific
to
grade
level
or
content.
I
would
also
add,
based
on
Fullan’s
analysis
of
the
right
and
wrong
drivers
for
school
reform
(2011),
that
effective
coaching
must
be
both
systemic
and
supported
by
the
system
it
is
part
of,
with
structure,
leadership,
and
specific
continuous
training.
I
particularly
connect
with
Allison
Niedzwiecki’s
definition
of
what
the
real
role
of
an
instructional
coach
is:
“support
teachers
as
they
become
self-­‐extending,
reflective
practitioners,
providing
opportunities
for
professional
collaboration,
structured
reflection,
and
team
problem
solving”
(2007).
This
definition
rings
a
bell
in
any
professional
of
education;
it
defines
teaching.
If
we
want
to
identify
the
characteristics
of
effective
coaching,
we
only
need
to
look
at
those
of
effective
teaching.
And
by
teaching
I
refer
to
what
we
understand
by
teaching
today;
not
merely
transmitting
knowledge
in
an
industrial
model
(listen,
recall,
repeat)
but,
much
on
the
contrary,
facilitating,
guiding,
fostering,
promoting
and
ensuring
learning.
Hard
work.
Instructional
coaching
or
meta-­‐teaching
(as
I
like
to
call
it),
is
a
relatively
new
tool
within
systems
to
support
improvement
of
teacher
practice
and
student
learning,
promising
not
to
commit
the
absurd
mistake
of
ignoring
what
“cognitive
psychology
has
taught
us
about
what
it
means
to
learn
and
to
know
something”
(Neufeld
&
Roper,
2003).
Instructional
coaching
is
a
new
form
of
professional
development;
an
expensive
one
because,
if
done
properly,
it
demands
consistency,
cohesion,
continuity,
and
a
school
wide
effort.
Taking
into
consideration
that
traditional
professional
development
rarely
yields
the
success
it
promises,
basically
due
to
the
faulty
design
of
potential
but
missed
learning
experiences,
coaching
logically
encounters
initial
reluctance;
a
new
form
of
school-­‐based
PD
that
demands
huge
changes
in
collective
behaviors,
facing
a
number
of
challenges.
First,
overcoming
the
disastrous
model
of
pre-­‐scripted,
decontextualized
professional
development
delivered
by
”outsiders”
in
the
exact
opposite
way
of
what
it
intends
to
teach:
conferences
and
workshops
where
attendees
(teachers
in
this
case)
sit
and
listen.
What
we
“know
and
understand
about
how
our
students
learn,
applies
to
adults
as
well;
yet,
traditional
forms
of
professional
development
do
not
take
advantage
of
this
knowledge”
(Neufeld
&
Roper,
2003).
We
ask
our
teachers
to
drop
direct
instruction
towards
research-­‐based
models
of
inquiry,

4. INSTRUCTIONAL
COACHES
&
EEFECTIVE
CHANGE
project
development,
and
problem
solving
using
collaborative
learning
approaches,
making
learning
experiences
real
and
relevant
for
the
learner,
but
schools
have
failed
recurrently
to
model
such
a
thing
for
their
staff.
“Improving
teachers’
learning
–
and,
in
turn,
their
practice
and
student
learning
–
requires
professional
development
that
is
closely
and
explicitly
tied
to
teachers’
ongoing
work
delivered
in
a
collegial
way
instead
of
directly
instructed.
Coaching
addresses
this
requirement”
(Neufeld
&
Roper,
2003).
If
a
school
is
set
to
overcome
the
obsolete,
ineffective
conception
of
traditional
professional
development
and
embrace
the
vision
of
what
effective
teacher
training
and
learning
should
be,
instructional
coaching
encounters
a
second
challenge:
understanding
coaching
as
a
part
in
the
whole,
a
tool
within
a
system
–
a
crucial
one,
but
just
a
tool.
Instructional
coaching
is
not
the
answer
to
all
the
necessary
changes
within
school
improvement,
and
it
will
fail
if
it
is
not
used
how
and
for
what
it
is
originally
designed
for:
building
individual
and
collective
capacity.
Experts
coincide
with
Alan
Richard,
a
state
policy
writer
for
Education
Week,
who
reports
the
practice
of
coaching
as
a
“promising
but
often
poorly
focused
school
improvement
tactic”
(as
cited
by
Russo,
2004,
pg.
3).
Not
only
should
coaching
be
systemic
itself,
but
also
will
be
utterly
condemned
to
ineffectiveness,
and
thus
labeled
as
useless,
when
not
conceived
aligned
to
a
school’s
system:
vision,
standards
and
curriculum,
practices,
professional
relationships,
leadership,
structure,
organization,
…
The
system
has
to
make
room
and
time
for
coaching
(structure,
organization),
develop
a
solid
case
for
coaching
(vision
and
leadership),
foster
the
collaborative,
interdependent,
learning
community
environment
it
demands
(behavior
changes),
and
support
coaches
with
competent
staff,
resources
and
specific
training.
Instructional
coaching
is
a
tool
that
fits
in
a
particular
system,
not
in
all.
Throwing
in
an
instructional
coach
in
any
given
system
will
not
produce
the
desired
effects;
much
on
the
contrary,
the
coach/coaches
will
end
up
frustrated
and
alienated.
But
then,
how?
Tremendous
challenge.
How
do
we
ask
teachers
to
open
their
classrooms,
their
grade
books,
their
practices,
their
beliefs;
their
guts?
Conquering
the
challenge
of
school
culture
can
only
be
done
addressing
precisely
what
shapes
it:
“values,
norms,
skills,
practices,
and
relationships”
(Fullan,
2011).
Change
behaviors,
and
you
will
change
culture
(DuFour,
R.
et
al.,
2008).
Yet,
the
necessary
changes
needed
here
are
based
on
none
other
than
trust
(Neufeld
&
Roper,
2003)
as
well
as
individual
and
collective
intrinsic
motivation
(Fullan,
2011).
These
two
delicate
and
vulnerable
emotions
are
crucial
to
reform
any
system,
and
thus
the
entire
teaching
and
learning
culture,
since
they
lay
at
the
core
of
changing
people’s
behavior:
willingness.
Building
individual
and
social
capital
(Fullan,
2011),
worth
and
expertise,
is
the
number
one
driver
of
change
and
improvement
towards
effective
teaching
and
effective
student
learning.
Trust
and
intrinsic
motivation
pair
up
with

5. INSTRUCTIONAL
COACHES
&
EEFECTIVE
CHANGE
transparency,
of
results
and
practice,
and
it
is
the
system’s
responsibility
to
create
these
conditions.
Steckel
(2009)
found
several
parallel
beliefs
linked
to
trust
and
intrinsic
motivation
expressed
by
the
coaches
she
included
in
her
paper,
Pam
and
Cassie:
“empowering
teachers
is
the
ultimate
goal
of
coaching”,
“cultivating
this
climate
of
respect
was
essential
to
her
becoming
a
vital
part
of
the
life
of
the
school”,
“the
best
way
to
arouse
teachers’
interest
and
willingness
to
learn
was
to
show
them
evidence
of
improvement
in
their
students’
writing
or
reading
comprehension”.
Appealing
to
teachers’
minds
is
extraordinarily
easy:
show
them
their
own
students’
improvement,
based
on
researched
practices,
facts,
and
student
data.
Win
their
hearts
with
a
candid,
consistent,
and
professional
relationship
based
on
respectful
empowerment
and
interdependence
with
peers,
coaches,
and
leaders
who
support
each
other.
Isolated
teachers
fear
comparison
and
failure.
Schools
must
bring
teachers
together,
in
a
collective
and
interconnected
effort
to
improve,
both
morale
and
achievement
(Russo,
2004).
After
examining
such
compelling
arguments
to
support
instructional
coaching,
though
research
beyond
anecdotal
evidence
is
still
scarce,
the
case
for
these
professionals
within
a
comprehensive
school
improvement
plan
and
system
is
beyond
question.
Also,
the
role
and
conditions
for
effective
coaching
are
crystal
clear.
It
is
no
silver
bullet,
but
instead
a
necessary
piece
within
a
specific
puzzle
to
complete.
In
my
opinion,
Michael
Fullan’s
analysis,
so
bluntly
clear
about
what
should
drive
effective
and
successful
school
reform
leaves
no
room
for
doubt.
“The
essence
of
whole
system
success
is
continuous
instructional
improvement
closely
linked
to
student
engagement
and
success…”
(pg.
15).
In
addition,
Neufeld
&
Roper’s
report
on
the
promises
and
practicalities
of
instructional
coaching
was
extremely
useful
in
defining
a
role
that
seems
to
be
misunderstood
and
misused
too
often.
It
is
our
responsibility
as
future
instructional
coaches
to
ensure
we
jump
on
board
of
educational
projects
that
have
or
comprehensively
plan
on
having
a
cohesive
system
that
will
support
and
enable
our
success
as
teacher
coaches.
Some
time
ago,
my
sister,
also
a
teacher,
sent
me
the
following
article
from
the
section
of
Annals
of
Medicine
of
The
New
Yorker
online
magazine:
“Top
athletes
and
singers
have
coaches.
Should
you?”
(2011).
Atul
Gawande,
a
surgeon
and
public-­‐
health
researcher,
writes
this
inspiring
reflection
after
turning
forty-­‐five
and
at
the
peak
of
his
medical
career.
I
found
it
absolutely
humbling.
If
a
surgeon
realizes
it
is
necessary
to
find
support
from
a
coach
to
avoid
getting
stale,
to
continue
improving,
to
impede
falling
into
potential
ineffective
habits
or
even
life-­‐threating
mistakes,
how
could
we
teachers
question
exactly
the
same
need
in
our
profession?
We
not
only
save
lives,
we
shape
them.
It
is
beyond
the
capacity
of
one
single
teacher,
one
single
person,
to
do
this.
One
cannot
possibly
bear
the
enormous
responsibility
and
commitment
that
education
entails.

6. INSTRUCTIONAL
COACHES
&
EEFECTIVE
CHANGE
References:
Russo,
Alexander
(July/August
2004).
School-­‐Based
Coaching.
A
revolution
in
professional
development—or
just
the
latest
fad?
Harvard
Education
Letter,
Volume
20,
Number
4.
Harvard
Education
Publishing
Group.
Harvard
Graduate
School
of
Education.
Massachusetts.
Retrieved
from:
http://hepg.org/hel-­‐home/issues/20_4/helarticle/school-­‐
based-­‐coaching_269
Neufeld,
Barbara
&
Roper,
Dana
(June
2003).
Coaching:
A
Strategy
for
Developing
Instructional
Capacity,
Promises
and
Practicalities
[Preface].
Washington,
DC:
Aspen
Institute
Program
on
Education
and
Annenberg
Institute
for
School
Reform.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.annenberginstitute.org/sites/default/files/product/268/files/C
oaching.pdf
Niedzwiecki,
Allison
(September
2007).
Organizational
Barriers
to
Effective
Literacy
Coaching
.
Journal
of
Language
and
Literacy
Education,
v3
n1
p59-­‐
64.
Retrieved
from:
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1068203
Steckel,
Barbara
(September
2009).
Fulfilling
the
Promise
of
Literacy
Coaches
in
Urban
Schools:
What
Does
It
Take
to
Make
an
Impact?.
The
Reading
Teacher,
v63
n1,
p14-­‐23.
Retrieved
from:
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ855105
Fullan,
Michael
(April
2011).
Choosing
the
Wrong
Drivers
for
Whole
System
Reform.
Center
for
Strategic
Education-­‐CSE,
Seminar
Series
204.
East
Melbourne,
Victoria,
Australia.
Retrieved
from:
http://michaelfullan.ca/wp-­‐
content/uploads/2016/06/13396088160.pdf

7. INSTRUCTIONAL
COACHES
&
EEFECTIVE
CHANGE
DuFour,
R.,
DuFour,
R.
B.,
&
Eaker,
R.
E.
(2008).
Revisiting
Professional
Learning
Communities
at
work:
New
insights
for
improving
schools.
Bloomington:
Solution
Tree.
Gawande,
Atul
(2011).
Top
athletes
and
singers
have
coaches.
Should
you?
Annals
of
Medicine,
The
New
Yorker,
October
3,
2011.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/10/03/personal-­‐best