The HTHNC / HTMMA Data ProcessIn working on this project, we had a limited timeline. We approached the research question of "how can we develop structures and a common language to support more effective collegial coaching?" by using two focus groups at each of our campuses, High Tech High North County (HTHNC) and High Tech Middle Media Arts. Each focus group comprised of six teachers who were interested in exploring this work and had a lot of ideas to contribute about the existing collegial coaching process and how to make improvements. We met with the focus groups several times to get their feedback and ideas and to help us develop a process. In addition we gathered data from the entire staff at HTHNC before beginning the process we developed. We also felt it was important to gather data from school leadership. To that end we met with the Directors of all nine HTH schools and facilitated a professional development session around the topic of collegial coaching.
Data from HTHNC beforeThe data below is from a survey we used with all teachers from HTHNC to help us capture attitudes towards collegial coaching before we began our process. The data also gave us information about perceived challenges that we should work to overcome. We used the data from the survey to guide us in developing our plans for a more effective process.
|
The HTH Data ProcessWe met as a faculty in December of 2010 to reflect on and improve our meeting structures, and we decided to implement a bare-bones collegial coaching structure during the Spring of 2011. The meetings were infrequent, however. We only met once a month, and there was no training about how to go about the coaching process. Also, because we began the process mid-year, several expressed that the process felt like “just another thing we have to do.” In response to these concerns, we agreed to try a “bigger launch” in the Fall of 2011. We led a meeting in which we asked the staff to share their hopes and fears about the collegial coaching process. The results were the following:
Hopes and Fears from HTH Teachers |
Findings from High Tech HighTwo months into the rebooted coaching process, we distributed a survey to the staff to check in on the collegial coaching process. The questions tried to gauge how well the process addresses the teachers’ initial concerns, as raised during our “Hopes and Fears Activity.”
Initial Concern: “Time Issues- Fitting It All In or Having It Turn Into a Waste of Time” Initial Approach: Coaching happens once a month, with no meeting on coaching days so that coaching teams have time to observe each other. Positive Signs: The staff, in general, saw the value in the coaching process. Most teams were meeting, and those who were had positive experiences. In response to the survey prompt, “The collegial coaching process seems like a good use of meeting time,” 80 percent of teachers responded “Strongly Agree” or “Agree.” Written responses largely concurred, with teachers writing, “I like that when we are supposed to observe we don't have a meeting. That is very helpful for planning and using time wisely” and “I love not having staff meetings so we can observe during our prep.” One, in a conversation with me, added “this is the best kind of meeting because it’s actually about the work that we do. Sometimes, I feel like we are just making up stuff to meet about, but with [collegial coaching], I get to have to have a say in what I want to focus on” (“William”, personal communication, May 02, 2012). Areas for Growth: Some coaching teams were not meeting. In response to the survey prompt, “How many times have you observed your coaching partner?” one fifth of the staff responded “none.” While none of the written comments was malicious, a couple expressed lingering concerns about time. One teacher wrote, “I like to have my coach observe me when I have a good question/lesson. I don't want to waste her time. Right now I am so buried in grading and letters of recommendation that I am struggling to think about something that I want help with.” Questions: Why were some teams still not meeting? Did staff view coaching as optional? How could I, as a fellow teacher, offer support? Next Steps: The coaching schedule remained the same, with no staff meeting on coaching days. Still, we would do more to encourage our colleagues[KW1] . We recognized the important of the staff spending time together for coaching, even if they felt stressed for time. One goal of coaching is to increase the isolation that teachers can often feel. Even in a small community like High Tech High, “too often teachers work in the isolation of their classroom without other adults aware of the incredible work their students are producing” (Wilson, 2009). This sharing is critical, even if the coaching experience itself is not perfect. As Robert J. Garmsten, a researcher on collegial coaching notes, “simply increasing the work-related communication between peers enhances teachers’ professional self-concept” (Garmsten 1987). Teachers concurred. For example, Carrie explained to me, "Just the simple act of creating a guiding question/challenge for the coaching session encourages me to reflect on my practice and improve my practice in a number of ways" (“Carrie,” personal communication, May 13, 2012). Recognizing teachers’ concerns, we resolved to do more to integrate coaching check-ins and share-outs during whole-staff meeting time. For example, at the beginning of meetings, we increasingly asked staff members to share “bright spots” from their recent coaching experiences. By asking a few teachers to share their positive experiences or new techniques that they tried as a result of coaching, we emphasized the value of the process. Part of this was based on a suggestion by Brett who explained, “You give exemplars of different success stories- of how people’s teaching practice really is transformed when they have a non-judgmental colleague in their classroom with a great pair of eyes who can help them out. And then we have a culture set up like, “who wouldn’t want that?” (B. Peterson, personal communication, February 27, 2012). We also built more time into our Friday meetings for goal setting and other check-ins with people’s collegial coaches. Some teachers explained that, without proper goal setting, they did not derive as much from the experience. As one told me, “when my partner and I don’t meet in advance to discuss what we’re looking for, we tend to look at things like classroom management- things that may not really be what we care about at that moment” (“Sandy”, personal communication, April 27, 2012). Another added, “it’s nice to set time aside to find out what your coach wants you to look for. When you can do that, it’s less uncomfortable because you know that they want help there. You’re not just forcing your own agenda (“William”, personal communication, May 02, 2012). As for the issue of why people weren’t meeting: I reached out to various staff members to gauge their feelings on the matter. Most echoed Brett Peterson’s sentiment that coaching is sometimes “like cough syrup,” they may resist it, but they know it’s ultimately “good for them” (B. Peterson, personal communication, February 27, 2012). Another staff member, who has been with the school for four years, acknowledged that she had “skipped on occasion” (“Sandy”, personal communication, April 27, 2012) but that she understood coaching’s importance and appreciated the extra time. Perhaps more troublesome was a small group of people, mostly veterans, who were either not bought into the process or who didn’t make coaching a priority time-wise. One explained to me, “we all do reflect on our work often, but being forced to sit down and do this in this manner is just a little too much” (“Jack,” personal communication, March 13, 2012). He believed that teachers had enough going on and that the process seemed artificial. Another explained, “I like to think of myself as reflective and do believe it would be helpful for the school if we had this culture, but I’m not doing it either, as formalized because it happens organically” (“Darren”, personal communication, January 30, 2012). Some teachers also mentioned that time was an issue. One articulated, “in practical terms, it’s something that has never really flown for many teachers at High Tech High. The idea of actually getting together on a regular basis has actually proved problematic. We all have such busy schedules that something like this often gets pushed back. . . the biggest problem is really finding the time for something that doesn’t really have an immense amount of benefit” (“Jack,” personal communication, March 13, 2012). Despite these difficulties, all veteran responses were not negative. One teacher, who has taught at the school for several years, expressed to me that he enjoyed collegial coaching because he was busy. He explained, “One of the best things we can do as teachers is talk to one another about our best practices and get feedback regarding our curriculum and management. Unfortunately, the busy pace of the work day does not always make these conversations possible or effective. Having designated time during faculty meetings helps make this possible” (“Jeremy,” personal communication, April 20, 2012) . Our response to the people who were not meeting was two-fold. First, we tried to speak with them directly to cajole or motivate them. This was mildly successful, in that teachers, Jack in particular, were willing to try harder as a personal favor. He admitted to me “now that I realize that it’s your grad project and you’re doing so much with it, I’ll try to give it more of a go.” He added, “Realistically, that [personal favors] is how a lot of things get done around here” (“Jack,” personal communication, March 13, 2012). While this was a temporary solution, it implied, like his conversation with me, that he thought the process itself was flawed. He was willing to do it as a favor but not because he necessarily saw the value of the process. It also made me wonder about how to create structures without the need for personal “pull.” Despite several conversations with reluctant staff members, Brett and I were not able to speak to everyone. Our system operates on a degree of trust, we were not exactly sure who was participating and who was not. These conversations were especially difficult for me, not only because of the lack of certainty, but also because of my position as a fellow teacher. As Brett acknowledged to me, “I feel very comfortable having that conversation with somebody, but a teacher [like yourself] does that person feel empowered? Would a teacher in a leadership position feel comfortable being in that position and have that conversation with a colleague? If I’m involved, it’s implicit that there’s been a conversation with me about this teacher and then it feels like tattle-tailing. You have to consider these things whenever you involve teacher leadership” (B. Peterson, personal communication, February 27, 2012). So, while I had some conversations, they were primarily with people to whom I am close. One lesson I learned from Brett was the balance between personal and whole-staff interventions. Larry Rosenstock, the school’s founder, often tells his directors to not speak about “the staff,” since it is a “collection of individuals” who have individual needs. Still, our whole-staff meetings are an opportunity to remind ourselves of our common purpose. So, on a staff-wide level, we asked for the help of Rob Riordan, the President of the GSE and perhaps the most respected person in our organization. Even though he had already spoken to us at the beginning of the year, Rob ran another whole-staff meeting on coaching. During this meeting, Rob showed a video of him coaching and then de-briefing with a High Tech Middle teacher. He also bookended the meeting by talking about the overall importance of the practice, emphasizing that coaching was more about celebration and collegiality than it was about trying to “fix” colleagues. The response to Rob’s meeting was universally positive. The exit card feedback included the following: “I feel encouraged and ready to do great work,” “Thank you for reinforcing the practice of collegial coaching,” and “I feel inspired!” The feedback also revealed that Rob reinforced and modeled the significance of positive feedback. He mentioned multiple times during the meeting that the most important coaching moments are positive ones and that a coach does not need to “fix” his or her partner. This resonated with teachers, who wrote “I like the way the conversation centered on the positive,” and “I will use celebrations and ‘boosts’ more often.” Perhaps the most positive sign was a comment that one veteran teacher made in front of the staff. This person, who previously dismissed the coaching process to me (he was the one who said “I know what I need to work on”), thanked Rob for emphasizing the power of positive feedback. Despite the many positives, some teachers focused more on Rob’s specific suggestions for the teacher he mentored than they did on the value of the process. On the exit cards, teachers were asked to write their “take-aways,” and approximately a third wrote about the lesson itself with comments such as “It is so important in all aspects of teaching to be thorough and explicit with directions and tasks so kids know what to do.” These comments, while positive, made me questions the extent to which Rob’s discussion influenced people’s attitudes about the coaching process. Initial Concern: “Need for compatible partner” Initial Approach: Teachers were able to express preferences for their coaching partners. Positive Signs: Comfort was not a major concern. Teachers also valued their coaching relationships. In response to the mid-year survey prompt, “My collegial coach is a person with whom I feel comfortable,” 84 percent of teachers responded “strongly agree” or “agree.” As one teacher added in a subsequent interview, “working with my partner is easy because [we’ve known each other for years and] we can talk honestly about some of the ways that we’re different and some of the ways that we’re struggled with each other, and it’s helped us a ton” (“Darren”, personal communication, January 30, 2012). Another added, "I like having a collegial coach who is someone who I may not interact that much with (outside my grade and discipline). This helps me feel comfortable seeking advice and reflecting on my practice with more of the staff" (“Carrie,” personal communication, May 13, 2012). There were also positive comments from teachers who used the partnership to solidify their relationship with their partner. One explained to me, “I’ve always respected [my partner], but I also felt a little weird about just going into her classroom because I didn’t know how she’d interpret it. Now, it’s clear what my reason is and I can even explain it to the kids when they ask what I’m doing there. . .I also love that she’s my coach and I can ask her for advice without feeling like too much of an imposition. It’s nice we have time set aside for it” (“William”, personal communication, May 02, 2012) Areas for Growth: Some teachers did not see collegial coaching as something that would help their practice. In response to the prompt, “the collegial coaching process will help me improve as a teacher”: 16 percent of teachers responded “neutral” or “disagree.” Additionally, some staff members worried about their own efficacy as coaches. In response to the prompt “The collegial coaching process will help my coaching partner improve as a teacher” 44 percent of teachers responded “neutral” or “disagree.” Many of these teachers feared that, as colleagues with less experience, they would have little to add. As one explained to me, “[my coach] is also my mentor, and she’s great at helping me out, but I don’t really have anything to say to her since when I see her, I’m mostly just watching and trying to take ideas for myself” (“Katrina,” personal communication, May 10. 2012). This kind of response is not uncommon. As Robert J. Garmston notes, “the requirement to evaluate tends to intimidate novices who are working with veteran teachers” (Garmston, 1987). His suggestion, one that we are trying to implement, is to repeatedly remind and train teachers in the art of reflective conversation. By eliciting reflection rather than “dumping advice,” even the most novice teacher can facilitate positive change in their partners. Questions: How can we increase buy-in for people who don’t see the value of collegial coaching for themselves? Is the concern about efficacy coming from a place of humility? Is it coming from a sense of inexperience? Next Steps: Coaches remained consistent throughout the year. We provided more staff-wide trainings, including one with Rob, to increase feelings of buy-in and efficacy. Finally, we paired collegial coaches during some staff activities, for instance, on Advisory, to build camaraderie Initial Concerns: Goals are not clearly defined,” “Facilitate other people’s problems without working on own” Initial Approach: We began the year with a few staff meetings about collegial coaching. We showed a video of Rob coaching Lori Fisher, and we handed out several coaching materials, such as prompts for debrief. We also created time in faculty-wide meeting for coaching teams to plan observations. Positive Signs: Despite concerns, many staff members reported that they were trying new things based on their coaching experience. In response to the prompt, “I have already used some ideas/techniques that my partner and I have discussed,” 56 percent of teachers chose “Strongly Agree” or “Agree.” Only 8 percent indicated “Disagree.” One explained to me, “Getting feedback from a teacher I trust and respect has helped me develop into a better teacher. I specifically remember a time when I felt that my lesson was not comprehensive enough; however, after debriefing with my coach I realized that it was too comprehensive - I was trying to fit too much into a short amount of time. We sometimes lose perspective in our own rooms and need a trusted colleague to come in and help us see things in a different way” (“Jeremy,” personal communication, April 20, 2012). Another added, “I find that I’m a better teacher just knowing that [my partner] is in the classroom . . .it turns on that critical voice in my head and makes me think of how I’m going about things through the lens of someone else” (“William”, personal communication, May 02, 2012). Areas for Growth: Many staff members still wanted more models and guidelines about how to effectively implement coaching. Some also questioned the protocols themselves. Several teachers asked for more guidelines and support. In response to the prompt, “How Can Kelly and Dan Best Support the Coaching Process?” teachers’ written comments included the following: “Review the coaching conversation itself and how to better conduct it,” “(Make time for) suggestions about how to interact/share information/reflect,” “Have a pair, on a regular basis, debrief the staff on what one of their meetings was about. Maybe even include a video. That way the staff can see what others do.” Other teachers questioned the protocols themselves. As one explained to me, “collegial coaching is fine . . . protocols are ok, but it’s a little too distant . . .I need to be kicked in the ass” (“Fred”, personal communication, April 27, 2012).). His concern was that coaching was too formulaic and polite. Another added, “these protocols don’t really work for me. I don’t mind having a conversation, but to go through these steps seems a little silly (“Jack,” personal communication, March 13, 2012). Questions: Are teachers using the coaching materials we distributed? How similar/different are the coaching conversations? How similar or different should they be? Next Steps: We conducted more spotlight sessions, in which people shared successful coaching experiences. This practice built off of Rob’s meeting and the pre-existing expertise of our teachers. Other Findings: The staff survey also highlighted issues that we did not address during the first semester. For example, several teachers believed that video observation would be beneficial to the collegial coaching process, with 68% percent responding that they would “definitely” or “probably” be open to the use of video and only 8% percent saying they would not. We had a feeling that this might be the case, but we resisted using video in the beginning because we were concerned about the staff’s fear of “feeling judged and exposed.” We actually tried to move forward with video after the second meeting led by Rob Riordan. His coaching revolved around a filmed lesson, and we hoped that the process would inspire the staff. The exit cards, however, suggested that teachers took more away from the conversation itself than the use of video. Only three teachers (approximately 10 percent of the staff) listed the use of video as a positive takeaway. Based on the feedback from Rob’s meeting and our concern about doing too much too quickly, Brett, Kelly, and I decided to make the use of video optional for the remainder of the year. We did this out of respect for teachers’ autonomy. We also wanted to make sure that teachers were increasingly comfortable with the traditionally coaching approach before they launched something new. Collegial Coaching 2.0 Throughout my meetings with Brett, he reminded me to keep perspective and to think of collegial coaching as a process; a habit that needs to be re-established. He also referred to next year as “Collegial Coaching 2.0,” saying,” Generally, Version 2.0 is better with everything. One, people will be used to it. Two, we can really make a strong push for it in August. Three, we could do more in terms of the meetings to prepare teachers and create buy-in” (B. Peterson, personal communication, February 27, 2012). Sandy, a teacher, concurred, adding, “it’s like a project. I think it can evolve to be something that’s very useful (“Sandy”, personal communication, April 27, 2012). With an eye towards Version 2.0, here are some suggestions that I will bring to Brett and the staff. I hope to present this next August, during our “staff days” training.
An Emphasis on Goal-Setting and What Collegial Coaching Can Be Through my interviews, I found that several teachers felt that collegial coaching had a tendency to focus on management and small details, rather than higher-level concerns. This perspective turned off several experienced teachers, who felt that such an approach was more appropriate for their inexperienced peers. One explained to me, “part of my difficulty with collegial coaching was that I felt like I should be asking for help with, say, my transitions, but in actuality, I don’t care about transitions. I care about ‘am I delivering this concept really clearly’ . . . It would help teachers like myself to have realistic things to work on without feeling like we’re trying to make ourselves perfect. Maybe perfection isn’t the goal” (“Sandy”, personal communication, April 27, 2012). Another, who has been with the school almost since its founding, explained to me, “collegial coaching has worked for me lately because my partner and I have taken a less traditional approach. For instance, this year, I had [my partner] read and critique a journal article that I wrote about my curriculum” (“Carrie”, personal communication, March 22, 2012). For next year, I propose that we do more around goal-setting and goal-sharing. While we did some of this during the year, the fear of “perfection” is a strong one. From the beginning, in our “Hopes and Fears” activity, teachers worried about “putting on a show.” If we emphasize that collegial coaching can be about more than the “little things,” perhaps we can alleviate this concern. A More Concerted Effort to Use Video While several teachers expressed interest in using video for collegial coaching, few actually did. For next year, we hope to utilize the expertise of Darren, a teacher at the school who has experience the use of video for coaching. As he explained to me, “I think video can be so powerful because whether you know the person or not, you can just see it for yourself, and then the person just becomes a sounding board for all of the things, good or bad, that you see yourself doing” (“Darren”, personal communication, January 30, 2012). Other teachers commented after Rob’s second meeting, “video provides a great dialogue prompt- almost like a third participant” and “videos may be a great quick way to get feedback.” Continue to Honor Teacher Time, but Also Change the Structure From the beginning, the exchange of prep time for collegial coaching was a tricky one, since teachers observed and debriefed on their own time. I suggest for next year that we continue to exchange prep time for observation time but that we have a set time during which the faculty comes together for debrief. This will create an atmosphere of collegiality and also ensure that everyone is discussing his or her practice, even if they missed the observation. It will also allow teachers to model the use of video, and hopefully encourage others to do the same. Continued Training around How to Facilitate Reflective Conversation Throughout the year, we tried to emphasize the importance of reflection, in which teachers critique themselves. Ideally, the coach in this process is a facilitator, one who provides little direct feedback. As Carrie explained to me “what I like about collegial coaching is that even when my partner isn’t necessarily listening or giving advice, I can hear myself saying what I need to work on, and just by me saying it, I remember that I need to work on that thing” (“Carrie”, personal communication, March 22, 2012). Although Rob’s trainings elicited positive feedback, we still have further work to do. |