Coaches and Teacher-Leaders Should Travel a Two-Way Street

pinnable

Note: Most Sherlocks should never be coaches or teacher-leaders — no matter how well they understand educational theory.

We had mentor programs in the past. Mentor programs were pretty straightforward. An experienced teacher picked up a little extra money helping a new teacher learn to manage a classroom. The mentor might teach other skills as needed, such as workload control. I support mentor programs. I love mentor programs. I think we might open them up, too, so that teachers who would LIKE  advice can ask for a mentor even when they have considerable classroom experience. We can all improve.

That said, I’d like to voice a few concerns about the money are we spending on academic coaches and teacher-leaders in a time when many districts are cash-strapped. Where are we finding these people? I spent my last few years before retirement being coached off and on by three people. I give one an A, another a C-, and the third a,”You have got to be kidding me!”

Hello? I cannot be the only one out here thinking that coaches ought to have at least three or four years of solid classroom experience before we inflict them on experienced, working teachers. The absence of any experience in special education or bilingual education ought to disqualify wannabe coaches from “improving” teachers within these areas, too. Surely our coaches and teacher leaders should walk the walk before we cut them loose to carve large swaths of fear and distress throughout a school. For that matter, if enough teachers are tearing up in meetings, maybe we should just drop these putative coaches and leaders. I hugged too many crying teachers during my last years in education.

Just because coaches and teacher-leaders are in fashion, must districts automatically find bodies to thrust into these roles? The right coaches and teacher-leaders represent positive forces for the good in education. But I am certain some positions ought to be left unfilled. If a district could not find a person who knew geometry, administrators would not go out to grab a random guy off the street to teach geometric proofs.

I’d like to make a  suggestion to educational administrators and teachers advocating for themselves. As part of any coaching program, staff members should regularly evaluate the effectiveness of their coaches and teacher leaders. The coach/teacher relationship should be a two-way street. 

I would happily have given one of my coaches five out of five stars. She was experienced, insightful and dedicated to her craft. Her suggestions helped and she knew how to manage people.

I could have suggested improvements for another, much younger coach who was copying her fellow coaches as she tried to figure out how to do her job. This coach had moments, but she was not improving the school climate. She also could not answer simple questions such as, “What if they cannot read the test?”

Favorite quote from this young coach from when I suggested giving teachers a few more excellents on her long checklist, just to help boost morale: Find praise, I said, even if it’s the room set-up or the clarity of the standards written on the whiteboard.

“I don’t do that,” she replied. “I am still learning how to do this job and none of the others do that.”

This young coach had potential. Her observations seemed sound, even if her people skills were a bit scary. She meant well.*

But inept coaches help no one. 🦉Bad coaching is worse than no coaching. Coaches can add to a workload while adding little or no insight whatsoever about what is going on in the classroom. Teachers can identify these coaches. They should be given the opportunity. Given their impact on a school, coaches and teacher-leaders should not be lightly scrutinized. They should be continuously evaluated.

The process does not have to be demanding. A simple, short form should suffice. Ask teachers, “How did the coach help you?” Ask them to rate the usefulness of the advice they received. Ask them why they agree or disagree with advice received. Etc,

Well-intentioned does not necessarily equal helpful.

Eduhonesty: I recommend we watch the watchers.

*Anytime I write a phrase like ‘she meant well,’ I wonder if I have gone Fluffy Bunny. Fluffy Bunnies try to make excuses for people because they don’t want to be mean. Too Fluffy can quickly become dishonest. The truth is that girl made my heart sink every time she entered the room. Even when I won, education itself mostly lost. Watching games made her happy because students were “engaged.” Watching instruction made her pick out every kid who was not listening to the 7th grade Common Core math I was required to present, whether kids were operating at a second or fourth grade level mathematically or not. My best tactical move might have been endless Jeopardy etc. games, especially since that was the only format where giving remediation did not risk getting me in trouble. If I explained items off the common lesson plan, such as the order of operations that some needed to review, I risked trouble for deviating from the grade’s common plan. But if I buried that lesson inside a game, I was safe. My best bet that last year just might have been a forever classroom Jeopardy marathon,