1. Specifically, the researchers define each term as follows: “(a) individualized — coaching sessions are one-on-one; (b) intensive — coaches and teachers interact at least every couple of weeks; (c) sustained — teachers receive coaching over an extended period of time; (d) context-specific — teachers are coached on their practices within the context of their own classroom; and (e) focused — coaches work with teachers to engage in deliberate practice of specific skills.” (return to story)
What Monday’s Supreme Court Ruling in Trinity Lutheran Preschool Case Could Mean for School Vouchers
House Reauthorizes Career and Tech Ed Bill While Members Speak Out Against Trump Funding Cuts
Weekend Education Reads: 8 Important Stories on Students & Schools You May Have Missed This Week
Analysis: The Fierce Fight Over Mayoral Control Reflects De Blasio’s Weakness on Education
Delaware Lawmakers Mull Nixing State Board of Ed to Help Ease Budget Crisis
College Presidents Slowly Becoming More Diverse but Still Mostly White Men in Their 60s
Report: For $42 Per Pupil, Districts Can Build Principal Pipelines and Get Better School Leaders
Come Together: New Poll Finds High Bipartisan Support for Improving Early Education
When Communities Secede From School Districts, Inequity & Segregation Follow. But 30 States Let It Happen Anyway
Georgia Special Election Makes American History; Voters’ Education Marks the Race’s Significance
Bror Saxberg, All-Star Learning Scientist, Joins Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
Los Angeles School Board Bars Charter Schools From Being Included in New Unified Enrollment System
N.M. Ed Chief Hanna Skandera Leaves Office and Shares Tenure Highlights; Still ‘a Lot of Work to Do’
You Are What You Eat (at School): Report Shows Healthy School Lunches Tied to Higher Student Test Scores
New Census Numbers: Per-Pupil Spending Rose 3.5% in 2015; Same-Year NAEP Scores Dropped
As Charter Fans Fret About Trump’s Support, Leaders Warn Funding Boost Not a Done Deal
ESSA Takes Shape: Feds Give Surprisingly Strong Feedback on Delaware, Nevada & New Mexico Plans
South Carolina Announces $250,000 Fellowships for Educators to Launch Top-Notch Charter Schools
In D.C.’s Revamped ‘Opportunity Academies,’ There Are No Forgotten Students on Graduation Day
Montessori Was the Original Personalized Learning. Now, 100 Years Later, Wildflower Is Reinventing the Model
A Form of Professional Development That Research Shows Might Actually Help Teachers: Coaching
April 16, 2017
Sign Up for Our Newsletter
“Professional development” is a four-letter word to some teachers, calling to mind all-staff lectures promising quick fixes, often from consultants who appear on inservice day and are never seen again.
Similarly, researchers have generally been unable to find strong evidence on what forms of teacher professional development work or even whether the estimated billions of dollars districts spend on it annually are worthwhile.
Now a new study points to one promising strategy for helping current teachers improve: one-on-one coaching.
“The results of [our analysis] suggest that teacher coaching programs hold real promise for improving teachers’ instructional practice and, in turn, students’ academic achievement,” the authors conclude.
Sounds good, but the researchers note two big catches: It’s likely quite expensive to carry out, and delivering it to large numbers of teachers may diminish the quality.
The coaching study was presented as a working paper at the Association for Education Finance and Policy research conference in Washington, D.C., in March and is what’s referred to as a “meta-analysis,” meaning a comprehensive summary of past research.
The authors — Matthew Kraft and Dylan Hogan of Brown University and David Blazar of Harvard University — note that there are “multiple, sometimes conflicting, working definitions of coaching.” They settle on the idea that teacher coaching involves “instructional experts work[ing] with teachers to discuss classroom practice in a way that is” individualized, intensive, sustained, context-specific, and focused.1
The researchers examined 37 past studies meeting this definition that looked at how coaching directly affected teachers’ performance, their students’ achievement, or both.
The overall results were quite encouraging.
“We find large positive effects of coaching on teachers’ instructional practice,” the authors write, relying on 25 studies that measured teachers’ classroom performance.
Similarly, the 21 papers that looked at student achievement found notable positive results, on average. Again, the effects were pretty big — the impact on students was comparable or even a bit larger than a reduction in class size of 10 students.
Based on this study, the temptation, then, might be for districts to start scrapping traditional professional development and go on a spree of hiring coaches. The researchers acknowledge the caution flags of scaling, implementation, and cost.
“Decades worth of research have documented the significant challenges of taking education programs and reform initiatives to scale,” the study states. “Given the fundamental importance of implementation quality, major questions still remain about the feasibility of expanding teacher coaching across schools and districts.”
Indeed, when the research examines large-scale programs (with more than 100 teachers involved), the benefits, relative to small coaching initiatives, are cut roughly in half. That suggests that expanding coaching may still yield positive results, but that quality will suffer to some extent in far-reaching programs. A particular challenge could be recruiting effective educators to serve as coaches, though one recent study suggests that simply pairing a struggling teacher with a more effective colleague can work.
There’s also the issue that existing research often relies on teachers who volunteer to participate in the coaching program. Perhaps they are most amenable and open to feedback, and the benefits would not extend to the types of teachers who don’t volunteer to be coached.
“I would be very pessimistic about the notion that teacher coaching is a professional improvement program that will work well for all teachers,” said Kraft, one of the Brown researchers. “Coaching is a two-way process.”
Another limitation is cost.
“Any way you design a coaching program, it’s going to have a large sticker price,” Kraft said. “The question is what you get from that investment.”
The benefits might justify the expense, but the analysis is unable to test this because many of the reviewed studies don’t reliably document the costs of the coaching program.
One way to make coaching more affordable and specialized would be to do it virtually rather than in-person. Encouragingly, the researchers did not find a major difference in effectiveness between the two approaches, suggesting that online coaching might be a good alternative. Another approach, the study highlights, would be to focus coaching on the subset of teachers who most need to improve.
Regardless, the researchers argue that districts should not use the cost of coaching as an excuse not to explore the practice.
“Given the billions of dollars districts currently spend on [professional development], coaching should not be seen as prohibitively expensive from a policy perspective,” they write. “Instead, policymakers and administrators must judge whether their current expenditures on [professional development] could be maximized more effectively.”
“It’s not that there’s no money out there,” said Kraft, pointing out that districts often spend on professional development programs with little or no evidence. He thinks it might be worth it to try something new, like coaching, that at least has some research base.
“Why not in some districts take a leap of faith?”