The Locus of Expertise: How Instructional Coaches Manage the Politics of Standards-Based District Reform

• In Event: Studying Early Career Elementary Teachers’ Instruction at Scale: Factors Related to Planning and Teaching Mathematics

Abstract

Objective: This paper examines how school-based instructional coaches negotiate dimensions of power related to instructional expertise when implementing standards-based reform.

Perspective: Historians of educational politics note that K-12 education has been a repeated target of accountability-based reform. Such reforms not only mandate academic content, but also specific pedagogical techniques requiring a systemic overhaul of district-wide instructional practice. Many districts have responded by turning inward, drawing on existing human capital in the educational system by hiring teachers as instructional coaches. In this role, coaches have both administrative and educative roles; many continue as part-time teachers while coaching (e.g., see Stoelinga & Mangin, 2010).
Mounting evidence indicates coaches must strike a balance between working alongside teachers, supporting and collaborating to improve instruction, and persuading teachers to reform their practice according to the goals and desires of school or district leadership. When acting as agents of district or school policymakers (i.e., district officials, principals), who hold teachers accountable to specific practices, instructional coaches often challenge the professional autonomy of teachers (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012; Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015; Obera & Sloan, 2009; Otaiba, Hosp, Smartt, & Dole, 2008). This study examines how coaches navigate the inherent conflict between standards-based accountability and the professional autonomy of teachers.

Data Sources and Methods: I purposively sampled one school district, which I call the Batali School District (i.e., “Batali”). I collected and analyzed data on Batali’s six elementary school instructional coaches over a 9-month period during the 2015-16 school year. Batali is a medium-sized suburban district in Indiana, serving mostly non-Latino white students of whom roughly 20% receive free or reduced lunch. The primary sources of data included interviews with instructional coaches and district administrators and observations of coach team meetings. I drew on Wilson (1989)’s concept of “critical tasks,” as well as pattern coding (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and constant comparative techniques (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), to analyze how the instructional coaches implemented standards-based reforms.

Findings: The findings indicate that power over instructional expertise, or the “locus of expertise,” was at the center of tensions between bureaucratic accountability to rigid curricular programs and teacher development, which calls for mutual respect, trust, and collaboration with teacher colleagues. The coaches strategically deployed and facilitated two types of expertise: policy expertise and teacher expertise. While some evidence indicated that Batali teachers resisted the high expectations for program fidelity, the coaches carefully cultivated an overall climate that generated teacher buy-in.

Significance: This study has significant theoretical and practical implications. First, this research indicates the stratification of leadership opportunities at the district level, particularly the widespread adoption of instructional coaching, augurs a significant, yet easily overlooked, institutional shift in response to accountability reforms. Second, I find coaches can be effective mechanisms for organizational change and systemic reform. At the same time, the study also unearthed the conforming effect of program fidelity. These findings suggest there is a trade-off between prescriptive curricular programs and teacher innovation. Finally, this study provides insight into the critical role of teacher expertise in district policy reform.

Author

• Sarah Hilary Galey, Michigan State University