Opportunities to learn

An instructional coach provides many opportunities for teachers to learn. The coach's interactions with teachers permit teachers to share and reflect upon their practices. Coaches might present information about how to teach or why particular programs should be used, and teachers can ask questions.

At the same time, coaches are on a different hierarchical level than teachers. Coaches have access to different trainings and materials, as well as people- district administrators and principals. So coaches have a different bundle of social capital than teachers do. Coaches can use their position and social capital to persuade teachers to change their instructional practices.

• Does a coach persuade teachers so teachers learn about policy and instruction? Or does a coach support teacher learning to catalyze the persuasion of teachers to shift their practices?If persuasion occurs, then it seems likely that learning is happening, too--but what kind of learning?
  

• What does the coach need expertise on so they're effective at persuading and developing teachers? Can a coach serve as an outstanding teacher of teachers without being effective at persuading teachers to change? What about the reverse- how much teacher learning can occur if the coach is not persuasive?

Under pressure

Um ba ba be
Um ba ba be
De day da
Ee day da - that's o.k.
It's the terror of knowing
What this world is about

I'm always writing and talking and thinking about how schools are under pressure. Our education system is pressured from multiple policy levels, many different groups and individuals, and even from within its own schools and classrooms and employees. There's pressure to thrive on a small and uncertain stream of funding. There's pressure to prepare young people to make the world a better place in 50 years. There's pressure from community groups and parents to meet very specific needs. There's pressure from teachers to make schools better workplaces. And, of course, there's pressure from the kiddos to extend recess or provide a cupcake a day :>

Sometimes pressure is a good thing- a kick in the tail, an imposed deadline, a reminder that good enough is not good enough. Other times, pressure is a bad thing- surfacing conflict, leading organizations to pursue conflicting agendas, spreading efforts too thin, scaring people away. Many pressures seem tied to money and resources but the effects are personal and emotional. People interact differently when they're under pressure.

Who knows

I have some questions about teachers, teaching, and the burden of accountability. How personal is a teacher's practice? How individualized is instruction for each child? If the general public is supporting public schools, how can schools justify inconsistencies from lesson to lesson, classroom to classroom, and school to school? How much does the public know about what's happening in their schools?

I think coaches are an interesting link between public policy and the district and individual teachers and their teaching practices. Coaches can peer into multiple classrooms, determine what's going on, and maybe change things or encourage things, or bring back some information about implementation. Coaches deal with multiple pressures, from multiple sources, and juggle many teachers. Coaches may or many not reduce inconsistencies. What do coaches need to know- about instruction, about individual teachers, about the context of the school, about the nature of the policy- to fulfill their role? Do coaches have access to the information they need? Why or why not? Who could have the knowledge and capacity to change teachers' instructional practices?