Teacher Leader Training in a Regional School District

• In Event: Roundtable Session 90
  In Roundtable Session: Teacher Leader Model Standards and Teacher Leader Preparation Programs

Abstract

This paper describes how one regional district developed a Literacy Coaches Network (LCN) to provide literacy coach training to teachers in its 20 constituent districts. The training consisted of ten, six-hour days spaced out across the school year. Written descriptions of the training indicated three main goals: increasing knowledge of effective literacy instruction; building skills and practices for supporting teacher learning; and creating opportunities for practitioners to talk with one another and build a resource and support network. However, observations and analysis of the instructional content revealed that a primary focus of the training was to support participants in developing beliefs and practices related to providing non-evaluative feedback to teachers.

Our analysis of the LCN is informed by three domains of The Teacher Leader Model Standards (2011). Domain II indicates that teacher leadership should be informed by educational research. Domain IV posits instructional improvement as a primary focal point of teacher leadership. Domain V contends that teacher leadership should be informed by assessments and data on student learning. We looked for evidence of these three domains in the content and delivery format of the LCN training sessions and found that the LCN’s focus on delivering non-evaluative feedback largely displaced these domains, significantly weakening the coaches’ ability to provide learning supports for teachers.

Foremost, the LCN failed to consider or incorporate the goals that schools or districts had set for student learning. The few LCN activities that aimed to connect coaching to student learning goals were framed as individual interactions with willing teachers, greatly limiting the scope of teachers who would benefit from such coaching. Similarly, the LCN training sessions gave little attention to how literacy coaches might use data to make decisions about their work or to guide the work of their teacher colleagues. Coaches were frequently reminded that defining effective practice in any way that differed from teachers’ notions of effective practice would undermine the coach role and its effectiveness. Finally, research on effective teacher leadership was discussed only insofar as it provided evidence that might support the notion of non-evaluative teacher leadership, that is, evidence that conversations between teacher leaders and teachers should be devoid of references to research or the teacher leaders’ expert knowledge.

Ultimately, the practices promoted by the LCN placed the coaches in positions of expertise but made it unacceptable for coaches to share that expertise. As a result, the coaches in this study spent a great deal of time trying to find ways to share their knowledge with their teacher colleagues. Because coaching was presented as “voluntary” and “non-evaluative” and distinct from the work of organizational change, coaches often felt confused about how to meet district expectations for supporting systemic improvements and adhering to the philosophy advocated in LCN sessions. This led the coaches to construct identities that were often fragmented, reflecting both their school and district goals as well as the LCN philosophy.

Authors

• Melinda M. Mangin, Rutgers University - New Brunswick/Piscataway

• Kai Lonnie Dunsmore, The Ball Foundation