Abstract:  These cases are based upon the clinical relationship of a coach assigned to work with four developmental reading teachers at a large Long Island high school.  The study findings suggested seven ways in which to approach the coaching relationship with teachers for optimal growth and results: 1) the crucial importance of  sustained dialogue between coach and  teacher; 2) growing leadership from within the group; 3) having the coach model classroom strategies from time to time; 4) exerting care not to usurp the power, authority or autonomy of teachers; 5) the importance of the coach’s showing genuine concern for the welfare and wellbeing of teachers; 6) interactively taking care  to extol the virtues of teachers (building up) and to eschew the making of comments that will tend to question or criticize the ability of teachers (tearing down) 7) maintenance of a clinical supervisory relationship with teachers that steers clear of the mandated evaluative relationship of teachers with their line supervisors (i.e., chair, ap)

Background:  Brendan Taylor had assumed the role of coach of four reading teachers at a large Long Island high school. Trained in the clinical supervision of teachers at Harvard Graduate School of Education, he believed  that he would  be most successful in helping to improve teacher performance by establishing a non-threatening and  sustained pattern of observation and dialogue with the teachers, not by effecting a top-down mandate of “exemplary teaching methodology.” Creating this kind of progressive relationship resided within his concept of “inner motivation ” pedagogically akin to the biblical notion of “teaching them to fish.” In his coaching role, Taylor drew upon his prior experiences in teacher training as a former secondary school assistant principal of humanities and principal of a New York Middle School complex.

   [A Note to Presenters: This case study document is comprised of 7 separate stand-alone cases for discussion. The entire work may also be considered as a chaptered, overarching case study. The intention is for the presenter to facilitate the discussion of these in a manner that emulates a thoughtful, interactive think tank. In doing so, meaning may not only be extracted, but, ideally, synthesized from these glimpses into the relationship of coach and teacher.]

Chapter One: First Meetings, First Impressions

     The reading program, such as it was, was in its third year of operation at the high school. Put in place at the outset of the new regime at the school, the program was something of a “red-headed stepchild”, technically housed within the English department, yet it was, in truth, floating alone without a defined curriculum, sustained supervision or professional development for its four teachers.

     The student body numbered about seventeen hundred and the demographic was overwhelmingly African-American, Caribbean and Latino, with strong and growing Caribbean, South and Central American representation. The English language was fast becoming the second language of the student population at the school. With low state and national testing scores, a dipping graduation rate, and with more than its share of law enforcement interventions, the high school had made it on to at least two state SURR lists. Accreditation, as well, had come under question in recent years. When the new administration had come in three years ago, its mission was clear: take control of the halls, minimize violence and  re-establish the high school as a place for learning. The reading program was instituted back then as an attempt to counter the incidence of third and fourth grade reading levels held by incoming 9^th graders. However, unreliable testing instruments such as the Terra Nova, the teachers felt, had often resulted in students being misplaced in reading for a full year, and sometimes longer, to the obvious detriment of students and teachers alike.

     When Taylor met three of the four teachers for the first time, they showed a genuine wellspring of enthusiasm for the possibility of having, at the very least, someone to dialogue with about teaching and the concomitant problems and concerns that go along with the profession at the school. The idea that he would be their “coach” seemed acceptable to the three teachers out of four who attended their first meeting. As Christine, one of the teachers, said, “just having someone to talk to would be a big improvement, even if that’s all that comes of it.” 

     Taylor told them he’d like to send a brief questionnaire to them, one which would allow them the chance to reflect on the first half year and to fairly assess their own wins and challenges. Christine offered her email address and seemed the one who would self-designate herself as “captain” or at least communicator. Taylor was heartened by her apparent willingness to take on the mantle of leadership and responsibility for the group of teachers. He acknowledged and thanked her for her willingness to help. He hoped that her generosity was indicative of a desire to learn, to grow, even at the expense of some of her valuable free time.

     Taylor decided to move the process forward with this questionnaire that would ask them to reflect, basically on what had worked in their first term’s teaching, and what had not. He formed his questions carefully so as to reinforce positivity as much as possible. The questionnaire, at its best could be a chance to validate their strengths and to build on them. By no means was he going to use the survey or any of their future talks to expose their flaws, as a means to giving them orders to change—that’s the top-down method of reform used –or abused by some very prominent urban school reform movements. He felt that most educators nowadays would agree upon the basic precepts of sound teaching-- student-centered learning, classroom collaboration, teacher-as-facilitator, multiple-intelligences, use of every square inch of the physical classroom as teaching conveyance and a balanced literacy approach—that is, every student gets the chance to read, write, speak, listen and think every day in every class. He hoped that the questionnaire would begin the process of  defining the strengths of each  as well as the unique challenges that each faced in the course of her teaching day.

     He forwarded the survey to Christine who agreed to distribute it to the others. She returned hers, answered thoughtfully and professionally. Unfortunately, none of the other three teachers ever sent theirs to him, or ever mentioned them to him. Somewhat frustrated by the teachers he had been charged with supporting

Chapter Two: Weathering First Resistance

     Taylor had touted his approach to the administration as alternative to the “top-down, one-size-fits-all” professional development running rampant throughout the nation’s schools. His claim was that he could reach his teachers through “sustained dialogue,” praise, observation and partnership, eschewing the time-honored “big brother” mentality of school supervisors. In his own prior experience as assistant principal, he had found it curious that the only reference to observation in his entire training was its usefulness in documenting “bad” teachers and getting them out of the classroom, the school and the district. Make them someone else’s problem, not yours.

      So here we are, trying to get off on the right foot with these teachers and they won’t even do what you ask them to do, he thought. Maybe they never got the assignment, and maybe they were sending a message that whatever expectations Taylor may have of them were not going to result in more work for them. He decided not to mention the questionnaire, except to the teacher who had responded to it, and his praise was effusive. He decided to get at the questions more informally in his one-on-one talks with each teacher. The last thing these teachers need to feel, he thought, was that we were going to do guilt trips and make-wrong, the misguided “motivators” of teachers and learners now pandemic in our schools.

     His notion of InnerMotivation was at the heart of his coaching, as it was of his teaching. Create a humane, respectful relationship, stimulate thought and reward creative expression. As an English teacher, he’d get the spelling and grammar across within the context of his student’s expression. As teacher, he had lived by the pronouncement of his very first mentor, a music teacher, no less, who had told him: “any class in which students have the chance to read, write, speak, listen and think has been a great class.” It had become the underpinning of the Balanced Literacy/Workshop Model put forth by Columbia University’s Teachers College and made teachers into facilitators of learning and gave students ample collaborations with other students as well as a modicum of choice. Taylor felt that the most profound learning experience of his life was his own undertaking of the reading of  complete works of Tennessee Williams in the 10^th and 11^th grades—not because anyone had told him to, but because he was intrigued by the theme of poor communication within families, a hallmark of his own upbringing. If we can validate the good work of teachers, providing them with the nurturance of support, empathy and praise—then can’t this translate into a teacher’s heightened self-confidence, dynamism and mastery? Can teachers, with help, find their own path? Can students do the same?

.

Chapter Three: Great Teachers Are More Themselves than Like Anyone Else

    Just as each of the teachers was unique in appearance, personality and background, so were they particular in strength, challenge and opportunity for growth.  Christine had trained for a career in business, with an IT major and experience on the staff of several companies large and small. She had always considered herself an introvert, and interacting with computer screens and keyboards was a perfect choice for her at the time. As her own children grew, she wanted a profession that would correspond more to her  children’s schedule, and school teaching was a likely choice. “It also took me out from behind the desk, to being out there with people. I definitely changed in the process,” she remarked. She also took an active role in coordinating several student clubs at the school, and could be seen selling muffins with members of the “Key Club” early in the morning just outside the principal’s office.

    Taylor’s visits to her class found her to be a naturally talented and engaging lecturer whose charm, wit and expression served her well in reaching her students. She was animated, expressive and energetic. And she seemed to genuinely like the youth, with pet names such as “sweetheart” and “honey” interspersed among her commands and exhortations of them.

     Her teaching style reminded the coach of his own, although he never used any of the pet expressions that seemed to come more naturally to female teachers. Her presence was very strong in the classroom dynamic, he thought—“teacher-centered” some might argue, maybe to a fault. He expected that she might bristle at the suggestion of toning down her role as a kind of ringmaster of the circus that was her classroom.

      He knew from his own years of teaching that lecturing (the charismatic, not boring kind) can be a vastly satisfying role for those that can pull it off, and letting go of that control can mean a loss of gratification in the act of teaching. He had observed that in some seasoned, talented teachers when the New York City Schools had transitioned into a “Workshop Model for All” mandate that had 30 year veteran, very successful teachers being told to radically change their methods of instruction, from teacher-centered to student-centered. However, Current research argued strongly for redefining the teacher’s role more to one of “facilitator.” It was the underpinning of the workshop style that he wanted to speak with her about and suggest that she consider incorporating into her teaching. And yet, he reminded himself to “offer” training in the workshop model to her not as an option, not as a requirement for success. He redoubled his commitment to praising Christine’s strengths and would tell her about this workshop approach and see how she felt about learning more about it. The question remained: would she be willing to reduce her activist role as lecturer in order to afford her students a more interactive and collaborative role as learners?

C. Roland Christensen, the guru of the case study method at Harvard University, was himself a teacher at the Business School for over 30 years. He was also acknowledged by Harvard as the professor "who had made the greatest contribution to the quality of teaching at Harvard in the prior 25 years." He finished his illustrious career teaching at the Graduate School of Education at Harvard.

Mr. O'Reilly studied under "Chris" Christensen at the Ed School and learned the method of constructing teachable case studies as well as how to use cases in a dynamic and highly interactive teaching mode. The accompanying document is an excerpt of one such case study series, intended for use in the training of high school reading teacher supervisors, or any clinical staff supervisor.