Reflections on my first year as a literacy coach #OntEd

It’s the first week of July, and it’s hard to believe the school year is over. Time, like sand, has slipped through my fingers. I’m reflecting on how much more I could have done — the conversations I didn’t have, the students I didn’t reach, the teachers who were left unsupported, the fires I didn’t stoke.

I know, more than anything, that this process of reflection, despite being excruciating, is critical to doing better next year.

And so here it is, in all its gruesome, unfiltered, guilt-laden, patchwork glory — some lessons I have learned from my first year as a literacy coach.

• Always listen. Even if it is hard or scary.

Feedback is important. It transforms practice and cultivates our growth as practitioners and as humans. Listening must happen at all levels and information should rise from the ground up to support self-efficacy, motivation and engagement of students and staff.

• Respond with action.

Trust and sharing will only ensue if concerns are responded to with action. This is the case for students and teachers. So take it one step at a time and follow through. With students, show them you are invested in their growth by lifting the veil on their strengths and struggles and responding to their needs with action. Never assess students if you aren’t going to shift instruction to respond to it.

The same goes for teachers. I have seen many teachers disengage from feedback processes after taking the vulnerable step of sharing concerns without acknowledgement or response. A residual “What’s the point?” is the result of non-action, complacency ensues and this ultimately harms students. We need to foster community where we are gaining the trust of educators so they feel valued and supported. So it is our job to listen (to what’s being said & to what’s not being said) and to take action.

• Have tough conversations with colleagues.

Power dynamics can hinder important conversations. But the role of a coach is to channel and amplify lived experiences of students and teachers to foster responsive board practices. We feel the pulse of the schools, the students, and we have to use our positions to cultivate institutional change.

Two things have helped me to wade into these rough waters of challenging conversations. The first is to remind myself of my purpose (to support equity through literacy). When I tap into this, it doesn’t matter who I am speaking with or what power dynamic is present; it is about students and equity. With this in mind, I can engage in tough conversations with teachers, principals, superintendents, other coaches, even if there is a power imbalance.

The second is to set the conditions for conversations by following protocols.

Protocols are effective because:

(1) they allow participants to give and receive safe and honest feedback;

(2) they support the analysis of complex problems without rushing to judgment;

(3) they target the focus of feedback of complex dilemmas or texts (McDonald et. al, 2013).

Protocols disrupt power dynamics and create a space for focused ego-free collaboration & inquiry.

• Always model the pedagogy.

If we are not walking the walk, we can’t talk the talk. This is the case at every level of the system. If we are asking teachers to be responsive in their practice and to differentiate based on student needs, then we, as coaches, administrators and boards, need to do the same. This means meeting educators where they are and responding through intentional and well thought out PD that harnesses and builds on background knowledge & cultivates growth and engagement.

• Learning to read is empowerment.

When students can’t read, they suffer socially, economically, psychologically. The Right to Read Inquiry Report has made this abundantly clear. But, I’ve seen this first hand — the small “t” trauma that students experience daily when they are unable to read — the collapsing into themselves when asked to put pen to paper, spending silent reading time pretending to read, or just walking out of class.

But when an educator forms a learning partnership with those same students and responds to their learning needs using explicit, systematic instruction through one-on-one or in small differentiated groups, students start coming to class. Some even stay after class to keep working. And after a while, they read. Out loud! Among their peers! And you can see the joy. In this moment, there is no doubt that literacy is empowerment. And depriving them (whether consciously or unconsciously) is a violation of their humanity and selfhood.

• We learn more from each other than from “experts.”

Coaching is relational and reciprocal. And dynamic and interpanel and cross-classroom visits are key to supporting capacity building and reflective practitioners. As a coach, I have benefitted so much from being able to experience in-the-moment teacher “moves.” To see how interactions, activities, routines, and responses unfold dynamically in different settings.

Good teaching is not about a lesson or a plan, it’s about being a responsive practitioner. Earlier this year, I was in a classroom where a teacher of small stature and with a quiet nature was able to engage a rambunctious group of ELD students without raising her voice. Instead, she would wait, make eye contact and then gesture *before* she spoke (i.e. she would bring her palms together then slowly open them to indicate it was time to open their books). This responsive move of “wait time” and gesturing first, helped students to easily process the instructions. It is easier for multilingual learners to process visual gestures than oral language spoken in a second or third language. The teacher, however, had not planned this teacher “move” but had developed it intuitively as it suited her demeanor and was responsive to her students.

The experience of observing the dynamic ecosystems of different classrooms should not be limited to coaches. Building capacity means providing opportunities for all teachers to observe and reflect on teacher moves. By observing others, we have the opportunity to observe responsive practice and shift our focus from lesson plans to “teaching moves.”