Whole-school reform models frequently include instructional coaching, yet instructional coaches typically spend relatively little time working with teachers on instruction. Using survey and interview data from district leaders, school administrators, and instructional coaches in one urban school district, this mixed-methods analysis asks how district- and school-level policies and expectations were related to coaches’ time use. Coaches accountable to district leaders spent more time working with teachers on instruction than their school-hired counterparts, who devoted more time to administrative and teaching duties. However, all coaches had limited opportunities to work with teachers in ongoing ways. Also, as district accountability systems became more robust, all coaches engaged in more administrative work. Implications for school and district policy are discussed.
ApplebeeA. N.LangerJ. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. English Journal, 100, 14–27.
2.
BallD.CohenD. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In Darling-HammondL.SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3.
BeanR. M.DraperJ. A.HallV.VandermolenJ.ZigmondN. (2010). Coaches and coaching in Reading First schools: A reality check. Elementary School Journal, 111, 87–114.
4.
Booher-JenningsJ. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas Accountability System. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 231–268.
5.
BorkoH. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
6.
CamburnE. M.KimballS. M.LowenhauptR. (2008). Going to scale with teacher leadership: Lessons learned from a districtwide literacy coach initiative. In ManginM. M.StoelingaS. R. (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform (pp. 120–143). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
7.
CoburnC. E.RussellJ. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 203–235. doi:10.3102/0162373708321829
8.
CobbP.JacksonK. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(1), 6–33.
9.
CohenD. K. (2011). Teaching and its predicaments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
CostaA. L.GarmstonR. J. (2015). Cognitive coaching: Developing self-directed leaders and learners (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Rowan & Littlefield.
11.
CreswellJ. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
DesimoneL.PorterA. C.BirmanB. F.GaretM. S.YoonK. S.SukK. (2002). How do district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of the professional development that districts provide to teachers?Teachers College Record, 104, 1265–1312.
13.
DesimoneL. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.
14.
DeussenT.CoskieT.RobinsonL.AutioE. (2007). “Coach” can mean many things: Five categories of literacy coaches in Reading First (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 005). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?projectID=47
15.
DuFourR. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”?Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6–11.
16.
GallucciC.Van LareM. D.YoonI. H.BoatrightB. (2010). Instructional coaching building theory about the role and organizational support for professional learning. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 919–963.
17.
GibbonsL.WilhelmA. G.CobbP. (2019). Coordinating leadership supports for teachers’ instructional improvement. Manuscript submitted for publication.
18.
GibbonsL. K.CobbP. (2017). Focusing on teacher learning opportunities to identify potentially productive coaching activities. Journal of Teacher Education, 68, 411–425.
19.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
20.
GrossmanP.McDonaldM. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 184–205.
21.
HawleyW. D.ValliL. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In Darling-HammondL.SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22.
HornI. S.KaneB. D.WilsonJ. (2015). Making sense of student performance data: Mathematics teachers’ learning through conversations with assessment reports. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 208-242. doi:10.3102/0002831215573773.
23.
JacksonK.HornI. S.CobbP. (2018). Overview of the teacher learning subsystem. In P. Cobb, K. Jackson, E. Henrick, T. M. Smith, & the MIST teamSystems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office (pp. 65–75). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
24.
KaneB. D. (2014, June). Interactional expertise and the facilitation of math teacher workgroups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of the Learning Sciences: Boulder, CO.
25.
KaneB. D. (2016). Developing preservice writing teachers’ professional judgment: Design conjectures for supporting equitable and rigorous writing instruction. Teaching/Writing, 5(1), Article 3.
26.
KaneB. D. (2019). Facilitating sensemaking in teacher workgroups: Concept development through representations of practice. Manuscript in preparation.
27.
KaneB. D.CobbP.GibbonsL. (2018). Supporting ambitious instruction at scale: The role of instructional coaching. In CobbP.JacksonK.HenrickE.SmithT. M. & the MIST team. Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office (pp. 113–133). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
28.
KnightD. S. (2012). Assessing the cost of instructional coaching. Journal of Education Finance, 38(1), 52–80.
29.
KraftM. A.BlazarD.HoganD. (2018). The effect of teaching coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88, 547–588.
30.
LakeR.BowenM.DemerittA.McCulloughM.HaimsonJ.GillB. (2012). Learning from charter school management organizations: Strategies for student behavior and teacher coaching. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
31.
LampertM.GrazianiF. (2009). Instructional activities as a tool for teachers’ and teacher educators’ learning. Elementary School Journal, 109, 491–509.
32.
ManginM. M.DunsmoreK. (2015). How the framing of instructional coaching as a lever for systemic or individual reform influences the enactment of coaching. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51, 179–213.
33.
MarshJ. A.McCombsJ. S.MartorellF. (2010). How instructional coaches support data-driven decision making policy implementation and effects in Florida middle schools. Educational Policy, 24, 872–907.
34.
MatsumuraL. C.GarnierH. E.ResnickL. B. (2010). Implementing literacy coaching: The role of school social resources. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32, 249–272. doi:10.3102/0162373710363743
35.
MatsumuraL. C.SartorisM.BickelD. D.GarnierH. E. (2009). Leadership for literacy coaching: The principal’s role in launching a new coaching program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 655–693.
36.
McDonaldM.KazemiE.KavanaughS. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 378–386.
37.
McLaughlinM. W.TalbertJ. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
38.
MilesM.HubermanM. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London, England: Sage.
39.
NeufeldB.RoperD. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity, promises and practicalities. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute Program on Education and Annenberg Institute for School Reform.
40.
NeumerskiC. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here?Educational Administration Quarterly, 49, 310–347.
41.
OddenA.GoertzM.GoertzM. (2008). The cost of instructional improvement: Resource allocation in schools using comprehension strategies to change classroom practice. Journal of Education Finance, 33, 381–405.
42.
PoglincoS. M.BachA.HovdeK.RosenblumS.SaundersM.SupovitzJ. A. (2003). The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America’s Choice schools. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
43.
RosenquistB. A.HenrickE. C.SmithT. M. (2015). Research–practice partnerships to support the development of high quality mathematics instruction for all students. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 20(1–2), 42–57.
44.
SailorsM.ShanklinN. L. (2010). Growing evidence to support coaching in literacy and mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 1–6.
45.
SmithA. T. (2007, November). The middle school literacy coach: Considering roles in context. In RoweD. W. (Ed.), 56th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 53–67). Oak Creek, WI.: National Reading Conference.
46.
SmithT. M.SchmidtR.BerebitskyD.GarrisonA.Larbi-CherifA.CobbP. (2012, April). Relationship between school and district supports for adopting an inquiry-oriented curriculum and change in the quality of teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
47.
Snow-RennerR.LauerP. (2005). Professional development analysis. Denver, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
48.
SpillaneJ. P.HalversonR.DiamondJ. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.
49.
WilsonS. M.BerneJ. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–210.
50.
WindschitlM. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72, 131–175.
51.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
York-BarrJ.DukeK. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74, 255–316.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
