Coaching makes a shift in remote schools in Western Australia

Mark Muirhead, Synergy Coaching Group

The use of coaching to unlock a person’s potential may be common in big business, where big profits justify expensive strategies to improve the bottom line, but many people would be surprised to find a coach working with school principals in outback Western Australia.

The Mid-West district of the Western Australian Department of Education and Training contains 51 schools spread over an area larger than Victoria, so most schools are remote and considered hard to staff. The distance between most schools and the district office in Geraldton makes professional development difficult, and their remoteness makes it hard to attract teachers and principals to these schools. The Directors of the educational area decided to offer coaching training to principals so support them in their difficult role.

They engaged the Australian firm Growth Coaching International (GCI), which bases much of its training on Appreciative Enquiry and Positive Psychology. During 2008-09 GCI delivered its coaching training to the two district directors and 11 principals who applied for the training.

Research conducted in late 2009 asked whether the training that principals had received had improved their instructional leadership, the quality of instruction provided by teachers and the educational outcomes for students.

The research also asked:

• In what coaching processes are principals successful? This question will identify the areas in which principals are skilled.
• In what coaching processes are principals less successful? This question indicates areas of the training that need to be improved.

• It was expected that adopting this approach could improve the outcomes for Principals, teachers and students.

The hypotheses were that:

• A significant improvement in instructional leadership is gained from the principal having a greater understanding of the behaviour and challenges of their staff
• Teachers feel more supported and are more likely to stay at a remote school if they have regular coaching from their principal
• Students are likely to have better outcomes if they are taught by teachers who are being coached on issues that they find challenging.

Methodology

In the research, a printed survey questionnaire was used to gather anonymous and confidential data. Principals were asked to complete the questionnaire in a meeting a long distance from the researcher, so this method was the only one that was financially viable. Ten principals of schools in the Mid-West district were all asked to respond to the same ten questions when they attended a meeting in Geraldton in late 2009. The questions were:

• On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate yourself as a coach?
• Before your participation in coach training?
• After your participation in coach training?
• If you rated yourself higher following the training, what things improved your rating most?
• To what extent has coaching impacted your leadership approach?
• What coaching do you give individual teachers?
• How frequently do you provide that coaching?
• How is coaching helping you to be an instructional leader?
• How do you measure the efficacy/results of your coaching?
• What topics or areas do you expect coaching to influence:
• In teachers?
• In students?
• Describe briefly one of your most successful coaching experiences? What made that so successful?
• What has been a challenging or disappointing coaching experience? What training or support could have made that experience less challenging?

• Quantitative data was gathered from the questionnaire to identify any behavioural changes due to the coaching training. Qualitative data was gathered from the questionnaire to enable the rating of behavioural change, and collated in a table in order to identify trends.

Findings

The Principal as a coach

When asked to rate themselves as a coach, all respondents rated themselves higher after the training.  Self rating increased between 2 and 6 points, with two Principals reporting an increase from 1 (unskilled) to 7. The mean improvement was 42%, which indicates that the training improved coaching skills. Most Principals rated themselves from the feedback from the coachee (8 responses) and from goal achievement (7 responses) so the ratings were based on objective opinions.

The respondents identified a wide range of topics in the training that had improved their coaching.  The most frequent responses described being given the concept and process of coaching: “key principles and clear model/ framework to follow”, “using ISMART & GROWTH”,  “awareness of role (of) coaching, its applications (and) its necessity”.

Most Principals reported that they coached their teachers “whenever necessary” (40%) with others coaching monthly (30%) or weekly (20%). The training appears to have created a coaching practice that is either needs-based or regularly scheduled.

The topics raised in coaching sessions are most often related to professional learning and growth, followed by classroom management and teaching practice. It is reasonable to expect that the coaching of teachers on these topics on a regular or needs basis will have improved the standard of teaching.

Principal as an Instructional Leader

The research seeks to identify whether coaching training improves the principal’s leadership and the quality of teaching, and the results were clear. 20% of respondents stated that their leadership had improved “to some extent”, 60% stated that their leadership approach had improved to a “considerable extent”, and 20% responded that it had improved to a “very considerable extent”. No respondents stated that their leadership had not improved. This provides evidence that the principals believe the coach training has improved their instructional leadership. .

When asked how coaching has helped them to be an instructional leader, many identified improved communication. “It provides the opportunity for me to have a meaningful conversation” stated one Principal. Some identified aspects of communication – “(I am an) Improved listener” and “Better conversations with teachers”.

Others identified what was talked about: “Focussing on successes”, “Appreciating individual and team strengths”,, and “More focused on working from positives”.  “Student learning sits at forefront of discussions” wrote another.

Some responses related improvement to how some manage their role: “Being more collaborative and able to delegate”, “Making me focus, reflect”, “Learning from others”, “It allows me to deposit to the emotional bank account of teachers”, “(An increased awareness that) regular communication is essential“ and “It gives me the confidence to touch on ‘tricky’ situations” show a positive change in management style.

The influence of coaching on teachers

When asked what topics or areas the Principals expected their coaching to influence in teachers, the most stated area was the quality of teaching. Examples were given such as “Instruction in the classroom – positive impact on teaching and learning programs”, “Teaching and learning”, “Classroom management “, “Distributed leadership”, “Performance” “Literacy outcomes improved” and “Pedagogy”.

Another area that coaching is expected to improve in teachers is self management (“Their ability to self reflect”, “Resolving interpersonal conflict”, “Use of reflection and goal setting”, “Relationship building”, “Beliefs/ practices”, and “Aspirations”).

Teachers’ approach to their work is expected to improve. Responses included “self assessment of classroom practices”, “Problem solving”,  “Setting goals for career development” , “Targeted approach to their role”,  “Positive actions”, “Communication”, “Team building” and “Collaboration”.

Organisational issues such as “Developing a coherent plan for the school”, “A shared language and purpose” and “Implementation of school-wide strategies” were cited, indicating that teachers are expected to take more initiative in the running the school.

These responses indicate that teachers are expected to benefit from coaching. A positive impact on teaching is expected; teachers are also expected to build better relationships and be more able to think objectively about their career and the school. This finding supports the hypothesis that teachers feel more supported and are more likely to stay at a remote school if they have regular coaching from their principal.

The influence of coaching on students

When asked what topics or areas Principals expected their coaching to influence in students, the responses were equally clear. Five of the Principals identified improved student outcomes or performance, with one identifying “Improved outcomes as teachers develop greater confidence/ commitment to goals etc”. Another stated “Teachers are planning collaboratively; the spin-off in terms of accountability means that the students are receiving sound instruction”. Principals believe that the coaching response is significantly contributing to improved outcomes. .

 Other responses indicated an improvement in the values of students, such as higher motivation, goal setting, positive actions, aspirations, improved communication and improved relationships.

This supports the hypothesis that Students are likely to have better outcomes if they are taught by teachers who are being coached on issues that they find challenging.

Positive Psychology at Geelong Grammar

Martin Seligman, director of the University of Pennsylvania Positive Psychology Center, is one of the world's highest profile psychologists. His work on positive psychology, learned helplessness, depression and the power of optimism is featured in many books and led more recently to ground breaking programs attacking depression and anxiety in classrooms around the globe.
His most thorough school program was in 2009 at Geelong Grammar in Victoria where for six months he worked and lived with the teaching staff, preparing them for a new style of teaching. The program is still under review, but in the meantime the US Army - concerned about an increasingly high rate of suicides, depression and post combat trauma within its own ranks - has been impressed enough with the results at Geelong Grammar so far that it has commissioned Dr Seligman to apply the same principles to its 1.1 million soldiers.
Positive psychology and positive education have four basic approaches: one is the teaching of more positive emotion, the second is the tuition toward more meaning and purpose in life, the third is about better human relationships, and the fourth focuses on accomplishment, achievement and mastery.

Positive education aims to take what has been discovered about building positive emotion and life satisfaction and merging that with the traditional education areas of discipline, conformity and literacy.
 The purpose of the program at Geelong Grammar was to teach students resilience so that when they performed poorly, they responded more with resilience and growth.

Conclusion

The research in Western Australia shows that there has been a significant improvement in the Principals’ coaching skills, as rated by their coachees and from outcomes, and the training has contributed to this by providing a coaching model. Principals also reported improvements in areas such as their communication skills and the way that they manage their role.

There was consensus among Principals that coaching would improve the quality of teaching. Improvements are expected in teaching skills, the approach of the teacher to their role and the running of the school, and the ways in which teachers behave in areas such as interpersonal conflict.

It is expected that coaching will have improved the outcomes for students due to teachers owning more accountability and working collaboratively. 

While it is too early for statistical data showing an improvement in teacher retention and student outcomes, the responses given in this research indicate that the outcomes for both teachers and students are expected to improve significantly due to coaching by Principals.

These results from such a remote area indicate how much coaching can improve the culture in schools and the education of Australian children.

References

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., Tight, M. (2007) How to research. Open University Press. Maidenhead.

Brown, C., Stroh, H., Fouts, J., Baker, D. (2005) Learning to Change School - Coaching for Systemic Reform. Mill Creek, WA. Fouts & Associates.

Delany, J., & Arredondo, D. (1998). Using collegial coaching and reflection as mechanisms for changing school culture. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, St. Louis, MO.

Greene, T. (2004). Literature review for school-based staff developers and coaches. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

Lam, S., Yim, P., Lam, T. (2002) Transforming school culture: can true collaboration be initiated? Educational Research Vol. 44 Issue 2.

Miller, P. (1983). Theories of developmental psychology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co.

Silcox, S. & Cavanagh, R. (2002) ‘Associating school principal behaviours and behavioural dispositions with proclivity for change and school renewal’, paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane, accessed October 2009 at http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/sil02239.htm

Suggett, N. (2006) Time for coaching Research Associate Report accessed November 2009 at www.ncsl.org.uk.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Whitmore J, 2002, Coaching for Performance, London, Nicholas Brealey Publishing