Describing Implementation of Characteristics of Practice-Based Coaching Within a State’s ECE Programming

• In Event: Attaining Equitable Quality Improvement at Scale: Variation in Coaching and Curriculum Uptake

Abstract

Introduction. Coaching improves preschool programming (Kraft et al., 2018) and enhances children’s school readiness skills (e.g., Conroy et al., 2014; Hemmeter et al., 2021). In particular, use of practice-based coaching (PBC) to improve teaching practices has a strong evidence base (e.g., Lipscomb et al., 2021; Pianta et al., 2008). PBC includes the foundation of a collaborative partnership between the coach and coachee and use of shared goals and action planning, observations, and reflection and feedback to improve teaching practices (Snyder et al., 2022). Due to the research-base, Head Start Performance Standards (45 CFR §1302.92) include use of coaching that follows the PBC model. Yet, even within Head Start, coaching still varies by program characteristics (e.g., size) and national data indicate that many Head Start teachers do not have a coach (20%; Harding et al., 2019). This paper describes use of PBC practices at the state-level, focusing on differences by program type (e.g., Head Start funds) as one way to identify disparities in use of PBC to promote effective teaching, ultimately supporting young children and their families.


Method. In spring 2022, an online survey was sent to all registered early care and education (ECE) providers in one state in the pacific northwest who served children 0-5 years of age; 2,166 ECE professionals completed the survey. This paper focuses on the 28% (n = 605) who reported that they had ‘received coaching in the past year’. Of note, we defined a coach as an individual with specialized adult learning knowledge and skills, who takes a strength- and relationship-based approach to focus on supporting the development of a professional through collaborative goal setting to improve teaching practices (NAEYC & NACCRRA, 2011). Sixteen questions assessed characteristics of coaching (e.g., dosage) and coaching activities, which align with the PBC structure (e.g., reflect on progress toward goals). Respondents to these questions are diverse in their ethnicities, languages spoken, roles, settings, and experience (Table 1).


Results. Initial descriptive results indicate that the components of PBC, as reported by those who experience coaching, are not consistently practiced (Table 2). The foundation of any coaching relationship, the collaborative partnership, displays the lowest likelihood across the items (e.g., 29.6%; Table 2), yet most do work with a goal or plan. However, the characteristics of role (i.e., teacher or assistant teacher) or funding (i.e., Head Start center or non-Head Start center) do not appear to influence the likelihood, with one exception: Head Start programs may be more likely to work with a structured meeting, compared to child care centers. Follow-up analyses will continue to examine significant differences in PBC characteristics (and other aspects of coaching) by program and individual characteristics to identify disparities and support implementation. Through the understanding of at-scale practices of PBC, we can uncover how to promote effective use to best support children’s development in ECE programming.

Authors

• Bridget E Hatfield, Oregon State University - Corvallis
  Presenting Author

• Hillary Ross Lewis, Oregon State University - Corvallis

• Katherine C Pears, Oregon Social Learning Center

• Michael Connor, Oregon Early Learning Division

• Jordan Moore, Oregon State University

• Maya Johnson, Oregon State University - Corvallis