In this article for ASCD, Lauren Vargas and Rashaida Melvin promote “choreographed coaching”, which they define as “a model of instructional coaching that is equity-centered, data-backed, directive, and practice-based.”
The rub here is “directive”, and the critique Vargas and Melvin make about Cognitive Coaching prompted Art Costa and Bob Garmston to write this response in defense of their approach, which supports teachers’ capacity for renewal and self-directedness. (Full disclosure: My book is heavily influenced by Cognitive Coaching.)
What are your thoughts - should coaching be more directive and immediate, especially when a school has a history of low student achievement?
Efforts to improve instruction immediately can have short term benefits (somewhat like test prep). But long term impact is not observed with this approach, according the studies Goodwin cites. For sustainable change, teachers need to be empowered with some authority and voice and feel like a true partner in schoolwide improvement efforts.
For me, this debate calls back to an article Bryan Goodwin wrote, also for ASCD: "To Go Fast, Direct. To Go Far, Empower" (http://www1.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb15/vol72/num05/To-Go-Fast,-Direct.-To-Go-Far,-Empower.aspx).
Efforts to improve instruction immediately can have short term benefits (somewhat like test prep). But long term impact is not observed with this approach, according the studies Goodwin cites. For sustainable change, teachers need to be empowered with some authority and voice and feel like a true partner in schoolwide improvement efforts.