Coaching in the real world of early care and education: A consistent toolbox under highly-varied constraints

• In Event: Coaching programs in ECE to improve effective teaching: Variations in implementation

Abstract

Coaching is an important part of professional development in early care and education (ECE) because it can be tailored to meet teachers’ and family child care (FCC) providers’ needs and can positively affect instructional practices, setting quality, and children’s outcomes (Aikens & Akers 2011; Isner et al. 2011). Its use as a tool for professional development has grown as quality initiatives in ECE have proliferated (e.g., Build Initiative 2019). However, little is known about the breadth of variation in how coaching is implemented or structured, hampering efforts to maximize effectiveness.

Methods. This study focused on understanding how real-world coaching is implemented to improve instructional practice and was conducted in settings primarily serving preschool-age children from families with low incomes. We purposively selected settings from seven states across three U.S. geographic regions to ensure inclusion of a wide variety of coaching approaches. In 2019, we administered web-based surveys to coaches (n=100), center teachers (n=130), and FCC providers (n=38) to capture information about coaches; the settings they coach in; and coaching caseload, dosage, activities, and challenges.

Analysis and findings. The analysis focused on understanding (1) how coaches combine activities in their coaching approach and (2) how the factors that structure coaching vary across policy relevant groups (for example, center or FCC). First, we used cluster analyses to explore whether there were distinct profiles of coaching made up of different combinations of coaching activities. We did not find distinct profiles, because coaches reported drawing from the same wide array of coaching activities.

Despite the similarity of activities in coaches’ toolbox, coaches’ backgrounds and the factors that structure their work did vary. Coaches varied in education and experience, but most had at least a bachelor’s degree and several years of experience as an ECE coach. Coaches who worked with FCC providers had slightly lower education levels. Coaches’ race and ethnicity were similar to those of the center teachers and FCC providers they coached. Among coaches working full-time, most spent more than half their time doing coaching-related work.

There was wide variation in coaching caseload. Coaches worked with an average of 15 classrooms, 7 centers, 5 FCC settings, 16 center teachers and 6 FCC providers (Exhibit 1). Almost half of coaches had caseloads with both centers and FCCs, and those that did tended to have higher caseloads (Exhibit 2). All coaches held regular meetings. Two-thirds of coaches reported that they met with center teachers at least twice a month; only 49 percent of coaches working in FCCs reported the same. FCC providers typically met with their coach monthly. Center teachers and FCC providers said they communicated with their coach on average twice between scheduled meetings.

Implications. These and other findings provide important information about the factors that structure ECE coaching in the real world, framing the constraints and opportunities coaches faces as they try to improve instructional practice. Notably, structural factors may have important implications for how coaches draw on coaching activities for individual teachers and providers and whether they effectively implement those activities.

Authors

• Elizabeth Cavadel, Mathematica Policy Research - District of Columbia
  Presenting Author

• Emily M Moiduddin

• Yange Xue, Mathematica Policy Research - New Jersey

• Nikki Aikens, Mathematica Policy Research - District of Columbia