Transcript Literacy Coaching: Where are we? What’s next?

Nancy L. Shanklin, EdD
Director, Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse,
- a joint project of IRA and NCTE –
www.literacycoachingonline.org
What are you thinking about?
 Glad I had put aside money for this trip….
 I wonder if I can attend any conferences next
year….
 Will I have to let anyone go?
 Is my position okay?
 What must we cut to our program?
 How can I use our moneys most efficiently and
effectively?
Instead, let’s take this time
to think boldly and creatively to:
 Network practitioners & researchers
 Analyze and share what is working
 Problem-solve difficulties
 Dream about the future
 Plan next steps
 Stay positive & hopeful
What do we know from the most
recent research on coaching?
 Biancarosa & Bryk (2008)
 Elish-Piper & L’Allier (2008)
 Chicago Community Trust (2008)
 Rubin (2008)
 Sailor (2008)
 Timperley et al (2007)
 Others – Please see LCC website
http://www.iisrd.org/program_inquiry/publications.shtml
 Assessed all students (K-3) attending 18 public schools
across 8 states in the Eastern U.S.
 Literacy assessments on all students (K-3) in both fall &
spring for 4 years to assess change over time in literacy
 Year 1 treated as a baseline
 Systematic observation of teacher practice in years 2
through 4 to document changes
 Monthly coach log reports on PD activities-who, what,
and how
 Teacher surveys yrs 1 and 4 to assess individual agency,
school organizational properties, possible changes
The Literacy Collaborative
Student Assessments
 Used parts of DIBELS in fall and spring,
grades K-2, and fall 3rd grade
 Terra Nova in spring, grades 1-3
The Literacy Collaborative
Results
 Value-added analyses demonstrate an overall
positive effect on children’s literacy learning
across schools
 Considerable variability exists between schools
 Some schools show 50% additional learning
over usual growth
 Some show substantial increments to
average growth after two years
The Literacy Collaborative
Results
 18.8% improvement at end of 2nd Year (.25 Effect Size)
 27.5% improvement at end of 3rd Year (.37 Effect Size)
 33.4% improvement at tend of 4th Year (.44 Effect Size)
 By final year, 33.4% average increase in learning across
children, grades, teachers, and schools in that year over
baseline year.
L’Allier & Elish-Piper, (2007)
Elish-Piper & L’Allier, (2008)
Does Literacy Coaching Make a Difference?
 12 LCs, 121 teachers, 3029 students
 Data: Coaching logs and student test scores
 Coaches spent 48% of time working with Ts
 Total gains on DIBELS were significant for K-3
 Number of coaching hours focused on
conferring was found to be statistically
significant in relation to students’ total gain for
K, 1, and 2
Relationship between LC & Student Reading
Achievement at the Primary Level
 Appears Ss who need only some additional
support benefit more from coaching than
students who require substantial intervention
 Results suggest that schools need BOTH
literacy coaches and reading specialists
(see Reading Teacher, May 2008, pp. 674-80)
 Developed the Advanced Reading Development
Demonstration Project (ARDDP)
 Target: Schools at low levels of reading achievement
 Each university partnered with up to 10 schools
 Focused on increasing teachers’ knowledge, assessments
that can inform instruction, infrastructure for T leaders
and T teams to work on building K-8 coherence
 CPS committed to resources for positions and for PD in
the form of coursework leading to ILL Rdg Credential
 Thus schools created school Lead Literacy Teachers (LLT)
 By the end of Yr 5, there were better schools, higher Ss
performance, and a cadre of new school literacy leaders
Timperley et al, Coaching Through Feedback: A Close
and Critical Analysis
 This New Zealand program has shown very positive
student achievement results reported in effect sizes
 Assumption: The purpose of one-to-one coaching
conferences IS to improve teachers’ practices
 Coaches were provided with training in principles and
practices off effective feedback process using
protocols of learning conversations
 “Cycles of feedback” from the embedded research
iterations
Rubin, R. (2008). Literacy in Ingles y Spanish:
Professional development in early childhood on the
Texas-Mexico border
 140 educators & 600 children
 12 all-day PD sessions & a minimum of 24 hours of
individual on-site mentoring
 Significant differences found when compared to a control
group that did not receive professional development or
mentoring
 Significant differences on standardized assessments of
educator knowledge, classroom environment, instruction,
& educator behavior
 Improvements passed on to children in the classrooms of
educators who participated in the program
Sailor, M. (2008). Support for Improvement of
Practices through Intensive Coaching (SIPIC)
 2 year study of 120 classroom teachers (grades 2-8) in 4




school districts in a metropolitan area in South Texas
Teachers learned to teach sub-routines involved in cognitive
reading strategies
One group received a traditional workshop and the treatment
group received classroom-based PD & support by reading
coaches
Used pretest-posttest control group design and a multilevel
modeling analytic strategy
The treatment group outperformed the traditional workshop
group in all teacher observation and student achievement
measures
LCs can Change Teacher Practice &
Student Achievement:
Middle and High School Level
 Boatright, E. (2007)
 Marsh, J. et al (2008)
 Cantrell & Hughes et al (2008)
Boatright, E. (2007)
 External coach’s work with English/LA teachers of one HS
that became 3 small schools
 Observed 3 coaching cycles at each school for a total of
18 days, 6 additional days observed Ts
 Coach worked with Ts to examine student data; did
modeling in classrooms
 Ts changed their views about students’ intellectual
abilities
 Veteran teachers were hesitant to coach beginning
teachers; all more receptive to critical comments from
external coach
Marsh, J. et al, (2008). Supporting Literacy
Across the Sunshine State: Florida MS Coaches
 MS reading coaches from 8 districts over 06-07
 While coaches were asked to work with all teachers,
they worked extensively with reading teachers in the
MS
 Coaches indicated a need for PD around adult
learners, working with special education & English
Language Learners, & literacy across content areas
 A coach was associated with small but significant
improvement in average annual gains in reading for 2
of the 4 cohorts analyzed
Cantrell, S & Hughes, H. (2008). Teacher Efficacy
& Content Literacy Implementation
 Measures the self-efficacy and group efficacy of 22
6th and 9th grade content Ts
 Quantitative results show the largest gain occurred in
Ts’ sense of personal efficacy
 Collective efficacy was significantly related to the
spring implementation
 A primary barrier to teachers’ sense of efficacy was
time: to develop skills, to implement, and to
collaborate with colleagues
 Ts affirmed feedback and support from coaches was
essential
What elements seem to be in place in
effective coaching programs?
 Use observation forms or self-assessments to
track improvements in teacher instruction
 Use measures of student achievement and
examine the data frequently
 Use logs of how coaches spend their time
 Time spent conferring between teacher and
coach makes a difference
What elements seem to be in place in
effective coaching programs?
 Administrative support is important
 Coaches and teachers need to believe
that they can impact students’ learning
 Results are not always found in the FIRST
year; takes 3-5 years
Importance of Principal Leadership
to Coaching Efforts
 Principals need to set the stage for literacy
coaches
 Principals & coaches need to present clear
descriptions of coaches’ roles to faculty
 The need to think about “phase-in” models of
coaching programs
 Helpful to have PLC-like structures to support
looking at data and having critical talks about
instruction
What are problems encountered
in much of the research?
 Teacher Turnover
 Student Turnover
 Administrative Turnover & Support
 “Silver Bullet” Mentality
What do we need to do?
(as practice)
 Get the word out more about positive results
 Offer better training for coaches
 Offer more support at the building and district levels
 Accept that accountability measures are appropriate
 Help districts to evaluate and refine their coaching
programs
What do we need to do?(in research)
 Better assessments of teacher change in instruction
 Better assessments of student learning
 Studies that compare different coaching programs
used to enact evidenced-based literacy instruction
 Studies that demonstrate the important role of
building and district administrators to coaching
initiatives
 Studies that allow for cycles of iteration to improve
coaching programs, teacher instruction, and student
learning
8 Criteria for Literacy Coaches
 Foundations of Literacy
 Assessment
 Instruction in the Content Disciplines
 Writing
 Differentiated Instruction
 Classroom Coaching
 Facilitating Adult Learning
 Building Capacity Within a School
Emphasis in these areas
will continue to increase
 Increasing student achievement
 Improving teacher quality
 Creating, using, and analyzing literacy
assessments
 Developing and working toward higher state
standards
 Adding more early childhood education
 Increasing adolescents’ literacy and workforce
readiness
What are IRA & NCTE trying to do?
 Track where there may be moneys for coach
positions – especially watch Title I
 A comprehensive education bill is being introduced
 IRA and NCTE are working to see that wording
about the need for literacy coaches gets into new
legislation
 There will also be wording about the criteria that
good literacy coaches need to meet
To keep informed go to:
 http://sites.google.com/site/iralatupdate/
What are the education elements of the
economic stimulus package?
 Over $100 billion for two years
 $48.6 billion to governors to be used for substitution
of state support for local schools
 $13 billion for Title I ($10 for Part A and $3 for school
improvement)
 $12 billion for IDEA
 $ 5 billion for Secretary’s fund
 Funds for Higher Education and teacher programs
 27 months in which to use
Wording in Title I
 Establishing a system for identifying and
training highly effective teachers to
serve as instructional leaders in Title I
schoolwide programs and modifying the
school schedule to allow for collaboration
among the instructional staff
Wording in Title I
 Establishing intensive, year-long teacher training for
all teachers and the principal in a Title I elementary
school in corrective action or restructuring status in
order to train teachers to use a new reading
curriculum that aggressively works on improving
students’ oral language skills and vocabulary or, in
some other way, builds teachers’ capacity to address
academic achievement problems
More wording in Title I
 Providing professional development to
teachers in Title I targeted assistance programs
on the use of data to inform and improve
instruction for Title I-eligible students
 Using reading or mathematics coaches to
provide professional development to teachers
in Title I targeted assistance programs
How to take advantage of these funds?
IRA suggestions:
 Build longer term programs around main
purposes of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
 Tell administrators how these funds will work
 Collect information on how long-term
professional development can make a
difference
“Coaching” as a Verb
 Doing Professional
Development Sessions
 Organizing Peer-Coaching
 Leading Data Analysis
Research
 Doing Modeling and
Demonstration Teaching
 Leading Teaching Labs or
Lesson Study
 Coaching Cycles: Pre,
During, Post
Sessions
 Leading Study Groups
 Finding Resources
 Conversations “On-theFly”
 Assisting with Action
Schools as settings for
intergenerational learning
 50% of teachers drop out within the first 5
years
 Seem not to work well if all are beginning
teachers or if all are seasoned teachers
 Planning for reflection, growth, and change
IS the norm
 Career Ladders that includes coaches
Urgency to keep pace in a
changing, world environment
 So, is coaching nice, but not necessary?
OR
 Is coaching crucial and works best when
schools can have well qualified people in
the role?
Our time here in Corpus Christi
 I hope that we can engage in honest, important
dialogue over the next few days
 IRA & NCTE are working hard to support coaching
 New briefs and tools – Would you like to submit?
 Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse resources
http://www.literacycoachingonline.org
 How can the LCC continue to best serve your needs?