Coaching in the State Systemic Improvement Plan: State and Local Educational Agency Considerations Welcome Introductions – Session facilitator; who is in audience? Session duration NCSI Cross-State Learning Collaboratives Part B Meeting November 29 and December 1, 2016 Dallas, Texas

State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Phase II Analysis: Focus on Coaching Upwards of 74% of states have chosen to implement a coaching model as way to achieve their State-identified Measurable Result goals. This suggests that we are drawn to the use of coaching as a way of improving teacher practice, learner outcomes, and even how our system operates. Perhaps these data not surprising to those of us in this room. After all, coaching is powerful; it has the ability to improve teacher practice and learner outcomes. Research shows a significant increase in the uptake of new innovations when professional development is partnered with job-embedded coaching (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Research, primarily research related to the implementation of positive behavioral interventions and supports, also suggests coaching can have an impact on system operations (e.g., use of resources, school procedures for using data). Sources: Barrett, S. B., Bradshaw, C. P., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2008). Maryland statewide PBIS initiative systems, evaluation, and next steps. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10(2), 105-114. Hershfeldt, P. A., Pell, K., Sechrest, R., Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2012). Lessons learned coaching teachers in behavior management: the PBIS Plus coaching model. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 22(4), 280-299. Newton, J. S., Algozzine, B., Algozzine, K., Horner, R. H., & Todd, A. W. (2011). Building local capacity for training and coaching data-based problem solving with positive behavior intervention and support teams. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(3), 228-245. Stormont, M., & Reinke, W. M. (2012). Using coaching to support classroom-level adoption and use of interventions within school-wide positive behavioral interventions and support systems [Online Submission].

Coaching Caveat Coaching will not necessarily lead to improved teacher/leader practice and learner outcomes unless it is put into place with a well-thought-out approach. However, coaching is often implemented with a lack of: Clearly defined job duties Clarity about the nonevaluative nature of the role Data about the impact of coaching on teacher practice But although we know coaching can lead to improved outcomes among teachers and learners, we cannot simply assume coaching will be a fail-safe way to improve teaching and learning. In fact, decades of coaching research suggests that coaching is often put into place in an unstructured, unsystematic manner. For example, we tend to hire coaches without concrete plans for what they will do, how we will know if coaching looks like we expect it to look, and how we can ensure that coaching continues to last over time. Sources: Denton, C. A., & Hasbrouck, J. (2009). A description of instructional coaching and its relationship to consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19(2), 150–175. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Raab, M. (2013). An implementation science framework for conceptualizing and operationalizing fidelity in early childhood intervention studies. Journal of Early Intervention, 35(2), 85-101. Pierce, J. D. (2015). Teacher-coach alliance as a critical component of coaching: Effects of feedback and analysis on teacher practice (Doctoral dissertation). Sources: Denton & Hasbrouck, 2009; Dunst, Trivette, & Raab, 2013; Pierce, 2015

Stakeholder Engagement Training, Fidelity Measure Coaching Training, Fidelity Measure But like any other innovation, how we use coaching--that is, how we implement it--matters. This means that if we expect coaching to achieve its intended outcomes, then we must not only ensure that we rely upon an effective coaching model, but also that we put coaching into place with a systematic, methodical approach, with explicit attention to principles of effective implementation (e.g., drivers, stages, teams; Fixsen, Blase, Naoom, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). For example, have we considered our training for coaches? Our fidelity measures? How we select coaches? How we engage with stakeholders to create an environment that is supportive of coaching? Sources: Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., & Friedman, R. M. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Retrieved from http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN-MonographFull-01-2005.pdf Van Dyke, M. K. (2013). The science and practice of integrating science into practice: Active implementation frameworks [Slide presentation]. Retrieved from http://gic.globalimplementation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015-presentation-slides/IA_Van_Dyke_Melissa_Full.pdf SiMR Note: SiMR=State-identified Measurable Result Source: Van Dyke, 2013

Session Overview This session will provide a venue to discuss coaching, including states and local educational agencies (LEAs): Definitions of coaching, and why a clear definition of coaching matters Improvements to infrastructure and system operations as a pathway to promoting an effective coaching model Approaches to measuring the fidelity of coaching    Resources to support coaching   With this formula in mind--that we must ensure we are using an effective model of coaching; and that how we implement coaching matters--this session will provide a venue for states and LEAs to discuss coaching, particularly the system-level considerations that are critical to the use of coaching models.

Guiding Questions What is the difference between systems coaching and teacher-level coaching? Between a coach and a trainer? What is the expected impact of coaching on teacher practice, learner outcomes, and system operations? How can we organize our infrastructure and resources at the state educational agency (SEA)/LEA level to promote the development of an effective coaching model? What is the best way to measure fidelity of coaching and demonstrate its effectiveness? What resources exist to support these models? These are the questions that will guide our discussion today. I’ve posed these questions here, but please know that I do not plan to respond to them; we hope that you will do so. We want states to learn from each other, to share their work related to coaching. Given this point, if you have a question that you have addressed as part of the SSIP, please feel free to share that, ask others for their guidance or thoughts, or share your insight.

Guiding Question 1 What is the difference between systems coaching and teacher-level coaching? Between a coach and a trainer? What is the expected impact of coaching on teacher practice, learner outcomes, and system operations? Discussion Points: Draw connections between definitions of coaching and achievement of intended outcomes of coaching: What precisely does the coach do? How do we know these coaching practices are effective? What are the expected outcomes of coaching? If the SEA/LEA does not use effective coaching practices, can that SEA/LEA expect coaching to achieve its intended outcomes?

Guiding Question 2 How can we organize our infrastructure and resources at the SEA/LEA level to promote the development of an effective coaching model? Discussion Points: Consider aspects of infrastructure: policies, governance systems, resources, technical assistance mechanisms, and so on. How do we need to change our policies to support coaching? What type of technical assistance do we need at the LEA/SEA level to support coaching? What lessons have we learned about making these changes?

Guiding Question 3 What is the best way to measure fidelity of coaching and demonstrate its effectiveness? Discussion Points: Have you considered the fidelity of coaching? How are SEA/LEA staff reacting to the idea of the fidelity of coaching? What tools are you using? How are they working? How do you define fidelity? If staff have negative connotations of fidelity, have you considered this strategy?: Cocreate a fidelity tool for coaching

Guiding Question 4 What resources exist to support these models?

Resources NCSI Coaching Resources: https://ncsi.wested.org/resources/tools- publications/

Brief and Infographic: Effective Coaching Practices Link to tool: https://ncsi.wested.org/resources/tools-publications/ Pierce, 2015, p. 27

Brief and Infographic: Effective Coaching Practices Link to tool: https://ncsi.wested.org/resources/tools-publications/ Source: Pierce, J. D. (2015). Teacher-coach alliance as a critical component of coaching: Effects of feedback and analysis on teacher practice (Doctoral dissertation).

Fidelity Tool: Elements of Fidelity Adherence to Essential Ingredients Quality Dose (Frequency and Duration) Participant Responsiveness Fidelity Link to tool: https://ncsi.wested.org/resources/tools-publications/ This fidelity tool allows you to capture more than just the presence of those critical, effective coaching practices (observation, modeling, performance feedback, and alliance strategies). The tool also allows for the observer to collect data on the quality of coaching, the dose, and the responsiveness of the teacher to coaching. This is because fidelity consists of all of these elements. https://ncsi.wested.org/resources/tools-publications/

Implementation Guide Link to tool: https://ncsi.wested.org/resources/tools-publications/ Turn to your third NCSI resource, the Implementation Guide. This graphic is shown on page 2. The purpose of this guide is to help practitioners systematically implement effective coaching practices. That is, the guide is structured such that you can think about implementation drivers in relation to effective coaching. For example, we suggest that your coaching framework consists of ongoing cycles of observation, modeling, providing performance feedback, and the use of alliance-building strategies. With these established, your team can then start to think about the implementation drivers, which include competency drivers, leadership drivers, and organization drivers. For example, what do we need to think about for the selection of coaching? How are we selecting coaches? How are we training coaches? How are we coaching coaches? Selection, training, and coaching are three competency drivers or supports we need to put into place to build the skills of our personnel. Sources: Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., & Friedman, R. M. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Retrieved from http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN-MonographFull-01-2005.pdf Pierce, J. D. (2015). Teacher-coach alliance as a critical component of coaching: Effects of feedback and analysis on teacher practice (Doctoral dissertation).

Implementation Guide Link to tool: https://ncsi.wested.org/resources/tools-publications/ This is page 3 of the guide. Note that the drivers are listed in the left column. In this case, we can see the competency drivers of selection, training, and coaching. The middle column outlines key questions to consider when using coaching as a pathway toward improving teaching and learning. Consideration of these questions and completion of these actions may help coaching achieve its intended goals and become a sustainable component of the learning environment.

Systems Coaching Implementation Resource Link: to resource https://www.pbis.org/Common/Cms/files/Forum14_Presentations/D1_H3_SISEP-PBISCoachingInventory.pdf Now, for those of you implementing systems coaching, you may find this resource to be helpful.

Resources: Active Implementation (AI) Hub Lesson 4: Creating a Training Plan Lesson 5: Coaching System Development Worksheet Lesson 8: Coaching Service Delivery Plan These resources include many of the topics we just covered. You also may find the following helpful. Note that many of these lessons include videos and tools (e.g., documents) to support your work. Source: AI Hub. (n.d.). Modules and lessons. Retrieved from http://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/modules-and-lessons Source: AI Hub, n.d.

References AI Hub. (n.d.). Modules and lessons. Retrieved from http://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/modules-and-lessons Barrett, S. B., Bradshaw, C. P., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2008). Maryland statewide PBIS initiative systems, evaluation, and next steps. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10(2), 105–114. Duda, M. A., & Barrett, S. (n.d.). Systems coaching: Coaching for competence and impact. Coaching inventory discussion tool. OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports and OSEP Center on State Implementation & Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., & Friedman, R. M. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Retrieved from http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN- MonographFull-01-2005.pdf Hershfeldt, P. A., Pell, K., Sechrest, R., Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2012). Lessons learned coaching teachers in behavior management: The PBIS Plus coaching model. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 22(4), 280–299.

References Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Newton, J. S., Algozzine, B., Algozzine, K., Horner, R. H., & Todd, A. W. (2011). Building local capacity for training and coaching data-based problem solving with positive behavior intervention and support teams. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(3), 228–245. Pierce, J. (2015). Alliance-building strategies as a critical component of coaching: Effects of feedback and analysis on coach practice, teacher practice, and alliance. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Washington. Stormont, M., & Reinke, W. M. (2012). Using coaching to support classroom- level adoption and use of interventions within school-wide positive behavioral interventions and support systems (Online submission).

Jennifer Pierce (jpierce@air.org) and Sarah Arden (sarden@air.org) For additional information, support, and technical assistance: •  Contact your NCSI TA facilitator •  Submit your question on Ask   the NCSI Presenters: Jennifer Pierce (jpierce@air.org) and Sarah Arden (sarden@air.org)

THANK YOU! http://ncsi.wested.org | @TheNCSI