A case study of a first year high school literacy coach

Professional development for teachers is a vital component of good classroom instruction and promises significant impact on student achievement (Yoon, et. al, 2007). Researchers have argued that the most effective professional development is long-term. Academic coaching grew out of that need. Most of the literature on coaching, however, focuses on early literacy. There is very little research on high school coaching. The purpose of this study was to add to the small, but growing body of research about literacy coaching at the high school level. Through an in-depth qualitative case study of a first year high school literacy coach, the study documents how the coach spent his time, what the goals and topics of his coaching were, what influenced those goals, and how what he did compares to the literature about coaching. The coach spent the majority of his time working individually with teachers. The next highest amount of his time was spent co-planning and giving presentations to teachers. Very little of his time was spent in classrooms observing or co-teaching. The topics of his coaching centered around instructional strategies, building an understanding of teachers and practice, and much of his time centered around data and assessment. The coach’s use of time was influenced by district initiatives, teacher needs, and the coach’s perception of teachers’ needs. His successes had to do with the teachers’ collaborative development of common assessments and keeping the teachers calm during many changes. His challenges had to do with the lack of time he spent working in classrooms side by side with teachers. The coach fulfilled the roles the teachers and the culture asked him to. He focused on the roles associated with helping and counseling. He did not take on the more intense and directive coaching roles working with teachers in the classroom. As a result, he did not move teachers out of their comfort zone or effect significant changes in teachers’ beliefs or practices. He did, however, build trust and collaboration within the department.Ed.D.Includes bibliographical referencesby Carolyn Armstron