Core Assessment 5 Part III:

Professional Development Study Group Report

Elaine Vázquez

Saint Xavier University

 For the 2010-2011 school year we began experimenting with possibilities for individual

teacher coaching and “action research” options. In this section I’d like to review some of the

work accomplished, and then reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the program to better

inform the planning of next year’s program.

In the 2010-2011 school year 12 teachers received 48 hours of coaching total with an

average number of hours per teacher being 4. The coaching sessions spanned from November

through April, a total of 6 months. There is an estimated half-hour’s worth of additional time for

typing up meeting notes and preparing materials for follow-up meetings per 2 hours worked with

a teacher. Considering all work hours, there was an average of 10 hours per month and 2.5 hours

per week out of a total of 14 hours available per week to the Literacy Coach/Coordinator. This

means that approximately 18% of the Literacy Coach’s time was spent working individually with

teachers to improve literacy instruction in the classroom. The amount of time each teacher got

with the literacy coach varied widely with the teacher who received the most coaching having 10

contact hours and the teacher having the least coaching receiving only 2 contact hours.

Unfortunately this is far fewer visits than I would have liked, and many teachers never got

beyond the first post-observation.

The structure for literacy coaching this year was fairly loose. I met with all teachers for a

pre-observation discussion to talk about their goals and what they wanted me to observe in their

class. I observed one of each teacher’s classes and checked for the presence of the “10 PACHS

Literacy Strategies.” Then we would meet for a post-observation session to talk about what I

saw and how the teacher felt the lesson went, and to set goals for the future. There were

prepared forms for each of these three sessions (See Appendix A) but after that the format was
fairly loose. I was able to do continued work beyond these first three sessions with seven out of

twelve teachers. Of these seven three wanted to work on vocabulary, two wanted to work on

math word problems, and two wanted to work on improving writing instruction.

Finding time to meet was difficult. Generally teachers did not respond to email requests

for meetings, and almost without exception all meetings were scheduled face-to-face.

Scheduling meetings in person was difficult because different teachers have different planning

times and lunches and not all teachers plan in the same place every day. Our campus has four

different buildings, so many times if I wanted to schedule a meeting with someone I had to hop

from building to building. Meetings were often cancelled because last-minute planning was

needed on the part of the teacher or on the part of the literacy coach (to prep a last-minute PD

session, for example). Meetings were successfully rescheduled about half the time, but half the

time they would not be rescheduled until much, much later (over a month). In planning for next

year, a more regular coaching structure should be considered.

The most successful teacher-coaching relationships used a kind of action research

approach. Three of the relationships reflected this model. Generally each of these three

relationships was characterized by the following activity: We would set a goal and a timeline,

make a list of the things the teacher and literacy coach each had to do between meetings, and

check back in with these things at the next meeting. There was a lot of review of student work to

evaluate whether or not student comprehension was improved. There was discussion of

strengths and weaknesses of each strategy or plan implemented, and time spent brainstorming

how to improve upon or accentuate these strengths and weaknesses. There were classroom

observations planned to provide a second pair of eyes to see whether or not strategies were
working. Everything was thoroughly documented on a shared google doc that both the teacher

and the literacy coach made changes to.

Next year I would like to see two major changes. The first change I’d like to see is the

inclusion of study groups as a part of teacher professional development. This would provide a

mid-level source of teacher development: a level of development that is larger than one-on-one

but smaller than full instructional team. The study groups can draw from material covered in

large group sessions and supplement work done one-on-one. It can provide research-based

strategies for implementation in the classroom that would otherwise go unknown.

The second major change is that I would like to see is greater organization of meeting

times and clearer communication of expectations for teachers and for the process in general.

Ideally I think it would be great if we documented the process thoroughly enough that each

teacher would have a journal-article quality collection of information at the end of the year that

could potentially be written up and published as qualitative classroom action research.

Consideration should be given for teacher buy-in and expectations must be clear from day one,

beginning when we discuss contracts for the 2011-2012 school year, or when new hires are being

made. Study group organization should begin as soon as teachers arrive for work in August.

Planning for 2011-2012

Speaking from personal experience, I know that I am in the full swing of my best

practices as a teacher and educator when I am immersed in the latest research available in my

field. I have had the rare opportunity of obtaining BOTH my teaching certification and my

certification as a reading specialist while actively working as a teacher and a literacy coach and

coordinator, respectively. Being in a constant state of application, reflection, and revision, I have

become a better practitioner of both of my crafts because I have been a student of those crafts as
I learn to play-- and take on-- the role of master. The obvious drawback to this is that there will

be mistakes made, and there is time when knowledge falls short of what may be needed in the

moment. The not-so-obvious advantage is that in the real world, a mistake is something you can

choose to ignore or forget, but when you are in the role of the student a mistake is always an

opportunity for learning, and a weakness is always an opportunity for growth.

For this reason, I’d like to ensure that there is a model in place in our school next year

that places teachers in the role of the student in order to provide regular opportunities for growth,

regardless of circumstance. This year study groups were absent as a form of Professional

Development in our school. I’d like to have a sturdy plan for Study Groups in place that can be

reviewed and revised by teachers this year so we can hit the ground running with full teacher

buy-in for the 2011-2012 school year. In this paper I will propose several different models,

resources, timelines and schedules to present to my staff so we can make the best selection for

the upcoming year. I will present this information in a “menu” format so teachers can feel free

to mix and match possibilities. It is my hope that this model will offer a lot of “buy-in” since

there is such a wide range of choice:

Time
Schedule Frequency Length
Before school starts (7:30- Once per week 30 minutes
8:30) Once every two weeks 45 minutes
During common planning Once a month 60 minutes
time Once a quarter As long as it takes, baby!
During lunch Every time an “issue” of a
After classes let out (3:15- journal arrives.
4:00)
On weekends
Over dinner or drinks

Expectations
Completion of Readings:
Done at home
Done during school hours
Done during meeting time
Number of Groups:
As many as you want!
At least one, not more than three
One each from 2-3 categories
An interest based and content area group

Materials/Resources
A book
An academic journal (with a
meeting every new issue)
One another’s in-class findings
Internet articles

Topics
Content-area literacy
Comprehension
Teaching Writing in the Content
Area
Vocabulary
RESPECT framework and literacy
Data Driven Instruction
Pick your own related to literacy

Group Size and Composition

Interest-based (Whole group to
small group to pair)
Content-area teams (content area
only)
Learning-buddy based (pair only)

Accountability
Documentation Report Back/Sharing
(any combination of the options below) Report back every curriculum team meeting
...of meeting times Report back every literacy meeting
...of meeting notes Report back once per month
...of material covered Report back once per quarter
...of findings or suggestions
...journaling of takeaways and implications in
your work and practice

Integration of Study Group Learning with Individual Coaching

On future Pre-Observation, Observation, Post-Observation and Check-In forms I will

make sure that there is a spot on the form where I ask what study groups the teacher is a part of

and whether or not they would like to include the information they are learning in their study

group with their own personal learning goals. In the “accountability” section I would like to

suggest that at the very minimum study groups must record their meeting notes on a shared

google doc that is common among all members of the group and the literacy coach. This way I

can be sure to stay in touch with what teachers are learning so there is a context for my

discussions with individual teachers.

Scheduling for Individual Coaching

To ensure that each teacher gets regular, meaningful, equally distributed coaching

sessions, there needs to be a framework in place before the teaching year begins. I believe in

order for coaching to be meaningful there must be at least four to five sessions of coaching per

quarter (which includes observations and co-teaches) with a total of 16-20 sessions per year. I

would like to suggest the following guidelines for the scheduling of coaching sessions:

1) It is the shared duty of the literacy coach and the teacher to ensure coaching sessions take

place.

2) Literacy coaching sessions will be scheduled once every other week either during the

teacher’s prep period, over lunch, or between final dismissal and 4:00. These sessions will be

scheduled in advance on a shared Literacy Coach calendar.

3) Meetings will happen regularly as scheduled unless either the teacher or the Literacy Coach

cancel.

4) In the event of a cancellation the meeting will automatically be rescheduled for one week

from the date previously scheduled unless teacher and literacy coach make other arrangements.

5) In the event that either the regular meeting or the amended meeting fall on a date on which

there is no school or on which it is not possible for them to meet during that time it is the

responsibility of the literacy coach to initiate a reschedule with the teacher.

6) In the event that a suitable meeting time cannot be found between the cancellation date and

the next regularly scheduled meeting date, the next meeting time will default to the next

regularly scheduled time.

7) Both teacher and literacy coach are responsible for being aware of their scheduled meeting

time. Both should come prepared to the meeting.

8) Observations and co-teaches can either be scheduled during a class time on the date of a

regular meeting in place of that meeting, or can be scheduled in addition to regular meeting

times. This will be up to the teacher and literacy coach to decide together.

With these guidelines, I can meet with each teacher individually in August to determine

our regular “meeting time” (for example, every other Thursday, 5th period) and once that is

determined I can enter it into my shared google calendar as a regularly occurring meeting. This

will help ensure that all teachers get regular coaching services. Since the calendar is shared, both

parties are aware of the upcoming meeting. A reminder email can be scheduled as well to ensure

that both parties are aware of the meeting if they do not get the chance to review the calendar.
 We will work together as a staff to determine expectations for data collection and

possible publication of work done within the school. Projects like this are very contingent on

teacher buy-in, so I will have to wait and see what teachers will be willing to invest in once

2011-2012 rolls around.

With all of these components in place I believe we will have a strong teacher professional

development program in place, from the whole-group to the one-on-one level that is engaging,

data-driven, organic, and that accounts for individual teacher strengths, weaknesses, and areas of

interest.