Peer Coaching Notes and Comments: Karen:

Overall it is a very useful paper. You cover the topic of peer coaching very well and build a solid case for how it would work within various supervision models. Outside of a few pages where your editing was weak you have fairly clean paper. You might consider a few headings or subheadings to provide the reader a sense of where the paper is heading. This is not a big deal on a short paper like this but as a reader I still find a few headings to be helpful instead of guessing where the author is going.

Mark

Peer Coaching in the Clinical, Supportive and Differentiated Models Karen Southwick ED ADMIN 5030 Dr. Stock

Peer Coaching

Peer coaching and how it fits into supervisory models relate to the Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) in several ways. The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) was formed for the purpose of developing model standards and assessments for school leaders. The ISLLC Standards are designed to transform the profession of educational administration and roles of school administrators. These are the critical components to effective leadership. There are six ISLLC Standards. A school administrator must promote the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community. In order to advocate a culture of peer coaching, an administrator must develop a plan by utilizing data and effective communication with the staff. Knowledge of negotiation skills is needed to pull in any teachers that may be wary of something new (peer coaching). Peer coaching will create more effective teachers, thus promoting the success of students. All of these items fit the first ISLLC standard. The second standard plays a strong role in promoting peer coaching. A leader who promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional

Peer Coaching program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth would be supportive of peer coaching. This is a means to promote teacher growth and collaboration, which trickles down to the students. Peer coaching is a nurturing and motivational program that can be added to the supervision element. Getting building consensus by collaborative decision-making is a mix of standards two and three. Standard twos elements fit very well with improving instructional practices through clinical, differentiated, and supportive supervision. Peer coaching is a practice

that when properly developed through professional development opportunities will promote positive school culture. Time will need to be built in to allow teachers the opportunity to work in partnership. A coaching relationship also provides the opportunity for reciprocity of gifts of knowledge and skill, caring and support, feedback and celebration (Barkley, 2005). Teachers will be able to add talents learned through this peer coaching to their repertoire. The Center for Comprehension School Reform and Improvement presents research that peer coaching can promote a positive school culture and help build trust with peers and adminsistrators (2005 September). Teacher evaluation and supervision can support the improvement of instruction. (Zepeda, 2007) Research shows that not only does teacher quality matter when it comes to how much students learn, but, also, a teachers effectiveness stays with children for several years (Tucker, P.D. & Stronge J.H. 2005). Stephen Barkley (2005) is a strong advocate of implementing peer coaching in all supervision and evaluative models. He believes coaching increases the quality in a school environment, and ultimately benefits students. Our textbook (Zepeda, 2007) identifies the three stages of the peer-coaching model. Let us see how the peer-coaching model fits with various supervision models. The clinical model of supervision has five phases: pre-observation conference, classroom observation, analysis of data and strategy of supervisor, and post-observation conference. The

Peer Coaching

clinical model of supervision originated in the 1950s and has gone through a series of changes to its current form. According to Rielkoff (1981) and the group from class that discussed clinical supervision, the main strengths are professional conversations and data collection. The postobservation conference would be a perfect time to segue into a conversation about peer coaching. Glickman (1990) identified three supervisory styles. The directive style is a supervisor who serves as an authority, informing the teacher what should or should not be done. The collaborative style is a supervisor that works with a teacher and together they decide the next step. The nondirective style is a supervisor that facilitates what the action the teacher chose. The collaborative style and nondirective styles of leadership advocate open dialogue that would enable a suggestion for peer coaching. Clinical supervision develops the teachers ability to reflect on experience and apply best practices for improvement (Clinical supervision n.d.). Finally, Holifield and Cline completed research on clinical supervision and its outcomes as viewed by teachers and principals (1997). Their conclusion was that the clinical model when used with informed and supportive staff gave a potential for more collaborative ventures for improving student success (Holifield & Cline, 1997). Peer coaching and the clinical model of supervision can work together since the general goal of clinical supervision is instructional improvement through observation and feedback in relation to improving teacher practices (Glickman, 2000). The supportive model of supervision model does not seem to be a well-known model. The reason for stating this is the scarcity of information available about the subject. In addition, inquiring about this model to several other principals, this student, did not find a principal who recognized the name. It did branch off the clinical model. The supportive model came as an alternate theory from the clinical in an effort to fix problems found with the clinical model (Reilkoff, 1981). The primary goals for supportive supervision is that it is a proactive process

Peer Coaching geared to meet the childrens needs. The six elements of this model are goal setting, lesson

planning, observation, professional development, extensive professional commitment, and an end of the year evaluation. Goal setting is the first order of business in this model (Coppola & Scircca, 2004). The goals are specific to improving student success. If a math teacher, Mrs. Jones, chooses as her goal to improve classroom RIT (Natrona County School District test measurement unit) scores by ten points, a strategy to help Mrs. Jones could be peer coaching. Supportive supervision and peer coaching are closely related. Supportive supervision promotes teacher and administrator collaboration to assess and maximize student performance (Reilkoff, 1981). In their book, Coppola & Scircca, (2004) bring out the need for professional development to match the needs and goals of the individual teacher. If peer coaching is a path to help children, then with the supportive model professional development opportunities would exist. The cycle of the supportive model continues throughout the year. Collaboration is a part that binds the process together. Stephen Coveys book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, is mentioned in School Leadership That Works (2005). The the book suggests is that school leaders need to follow the same seven habits. It is clear that being proactive and seeking first to understand and then to be understood, will fit any model. Being proactive is also a reason to promote peer coaching. Clearly, peer coaching would be a good match and a valuable asset to the supportive model. Jodi Ibach on the discussion board during week one, metioned that going from the one size fits all approach to meeting individual needs was positive. She also mentioned a quote that basically notes that teachers also have different needs that should to be addressed (Ibach, 2008). Ibachs comments mirror many teachers feelings about differentiation for teachers as well as students. Our text points out that teachers should have a degree of control over their professional development and the power to make choices to support their needs (Zepeda, 2007).

Peer Coaching When teachers have in gettting their needs, there will be buy in and fidelity to the program.

Danielson and McGreal (2000) agree that differentiation is the most logical avenue to pursue. They mention how other professions have a period, like an apprenticeship to settle in and get to know the job. Education has no such internship. Danielson and McGreal (2000) suggest mentors and peer coaches. Developmental supervisions goal is to help teachers learn to increase their learning and achieve learning goals for students (Zepeda, 2007). Given the diversity of the work force, it is crucial that administrators know the principles of adult learning. A first year teachers needs may be very different form a veteran teachers needs. An administrator must be sensitive to the varied needs of students and teachers (ISLLC #2). It is clear to this student that all four models can support the use of peer coaching. In fact, it would be an extension of each models philosophy. The discussion of this option would be dependent upon the model. For example, in the supportive model, the priority is setting a goal. A teacher would have the opportunity to begin a conversation at this point. Administrators have a lot to consider before choosing a model. School climate and school culture should be factors to consider before any changes are suggested (ISLLC #2). Adult and student learning diverse needs and must be factored into the plan, ensuring a supportive learning environment for all (ISLLC #2). The ideal principal will be willing to take risks to improve a schools learning (ISLLC #3). In reviewing everything written, I omitted an ISLLC standard that is very important. A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources. Communication is a vital component of education. Everyone involved in a school needs to be drawn in to that communication piece. The

Peer Coaching more someone understands, the more willing he or she is to offer support to the agenda.

One item that was found in all the models studied was feedback. In a review of almost eight thousand studies, it was concluded that feedback is the single most powerful educational tool available to educators (Marzano,Waters & McNulty 2005). The first thing a child utters after competing an assignment is how did I do? Administrators need to realize that adult learners (teachers) need the same type of feedback. It does not matter if you are a first year teacher or have been teaching for twenty-five years. Immediate feedback is very important. Sometimes we forget as teachers and administrators the power of our response. Looking back at various principals feedback, I find it was not consistent. Trying to analyze why there were differences, my first thought was how much time the principal had been away from the classroom. However, that did not seem to be a factor. It is one lesson this future administrator does not want to lose sight of when dealing with staff. During class; trust, communication, and being transparent were mentioned as helpful tools to a new principal. Trust is a topic that Barkley (2005) devotes many pages to in his book. Without trust, growth is not a possibility. Principals must take a look at building an atmosphere of trust within a staff. Once trust is established other tasks will become easier. The goal of this paper was to relate peer coaching to some of the major forms of supervision. No matter what form of supervision is being used communication is a fundamental element in any learning environment. Peer coaching is a form of communication. The administrator should take precautions as sabotage by staff members not sold on the idea may occur. Barkley (2005) warns about this in his book. In conclusion, this soon to be principal intern sees a variety in supervision and evaluative tools to choose from when hired (ISLLC #2). Among the tools peer coaching will definitely be a consideration.

Peer Coaching

References Barkley, S.G. (2005). Quality teaching in a culture of coaching. Lanham, MD: Performance Learning Systems, Inc. Clinical Supervision. (n.d.) Retrieved July 21, 2008, from Humboldt State University Website: http://www.humboldt.edu/~tpss/clinical.html Coppola, A.J., Scircca, D.B. & Connors, G.E. (2004). Supportive Supervision. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Danielson, C. & McGreal, T.L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Glickman, C.D. (1990). Supervision of Instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Holifield, M. & Cline, D. (1997). Clinical supervision and its outcomes: Teachers and principals report. NASSP Bulletin, 81,109-113. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://online.sagepub.com.proxy.uwlib.uwyo.edu/cgi/searchresults Ibach, Jodi. (2008, June 3). The changing role of the teacher [Msg 27]. Posted to http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2982597&CPURL Marzano, R.J.,Waters, T. & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works from research to results. Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Maximizing the impact of teacher collaboration. (2007 March) Retrieved July 22, 2008, from http://www.centerforcsri.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=436&I Reilkoff, T. (1981). Advantages of supportive supervision over clinical supervision of teachers. NASSP Bulletin, 65, 28-34. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from

Peer Coaching http://bul.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/65/448/28 Siens, C.M. & Ebmeier, H (1996). Developmental supervision and reflective thinking of teachers. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 96, 299-313. Tucker, P.D. & Stronge J.H. (2005). Linking teacher evaluation and student learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. What does research tell us about teacher leadership? (2005 September) Retrieved July 22, 2008, from http://www.centerforcsri.org/index.php?option=com_content&task Zepeda, S.J. (2007). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.