Read on Twitter
Thorny Coaching Issue: When I work with schools on setting up instructional coaching, a question I get asked A LOT is:
"But, who should coach who?"
I've found a paper with an answer: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/erictaylor/files/learning-from-colleagues-pttl.pdf
Lots of schools argue that coaching pairs should be Novice - - > Expert, or that teachers should be exclusively paired with subject specialists.
Insight:Papay and colleagues argue that coaches should be matched with teachers around specific skills. For example, a teacher that is weak in behaviour management is paired with an expert in this area.
There's significant evidence that this method has a real impact.
Papay argues that this isn't the same as classic mentoring where novice teachers are paired with general experts.
His model suggests that peer coaching is a good solution, provided peers are paired accordingly to complementary strengths and weaknesses.
His model suggests that peer coaching is a good solution, provided peers are paired accordingly to complementary strengths and weaknesses.
Strengths:I'm a big supporter of schools moving towards a peer coaching model. I think this is a major way of building a great culture of improvement AND of making coaching cost effective.
I also like how responsive this solution feels to the reality of teacher development.
Concerns:- Should / how should I evaluate my staff for strengths and weaknesses?
Papay recognises that this data is not reliable AND I think that it feels suspiciously like a formal obs.
How else could we build these pairs?
Would be v. keen to find out your thoughts!
