Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 101–123 | Cite as

Moving the center of expertise: Applying a communities of practice framework to understand coaching in urban school reform

  • Anysia Mayer
  • Sarah Woulfin
  • Larisa Warhol
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Intermediary organizations’ coaches are utilized to support and develop principals and teachers as they seek to bring about substantive school improvement. This study presents a qualitative case study of one coach engaged as an intermediary of a school reform organization, the Together Initiative (TI). To investigate how this coach enacted TI reform, we utilized a communities of practice framework and found that although coaches were initially viewed as the leaders of the reform effort, it was actually the teachers who enacted key aspects of the reform. We also surfaced the coach’s critical role in helping staff come to understand that they were capable of instituting new practices. This paper provides new perspectives on the complexity of the coaching role in supporting organizational change in urban schools.

Keywords

Coaching School improvement Implementation Urban schools Communities of practice 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allen, D. (2008). Coaching whole school change: Lessons in practice for a small high school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  2. Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Barab, A., Sasha, B. M., & Squire, K. (2002). Developing an empirical account of a community of practice: Characterizing the essential tensions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 484–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bean, R., Swan, A., & Knaub, R. (2003). Reading specialists in schools with exemplary reading programs: Functional, versatile, and prepared. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 446–455.Google Scholar
  5. Borman, K., Carter, K., Aladjem, D., & LeFloch, K. (2004). Challenges for the future of comprehensive school reform. In C. Cross (Ed.), Putting the pieces together: Lessons from comprehensive school reform research (pp. 110–133). Washington, DC: George Washington University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bulkley, K. E. (2010). Introduction: Portfolio management models in urban school reform. In K. Bulkley, J. Henig, & H. Levin (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 3–26). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  7. Calkins, A., Guenther, W., Belfiore, G., & Lash, D. (2007). The turnaround challenge: Why America’s best opportunity to dramatically improve student achievement lies in our worst-performing schools. Boston, MA: The Mass Insight Education & Research Institute.Google Scholar
  8. Christenson, G. (1996). Toward a new leadership paradigm: Behaviors of Accelerated Schools principals. In C. Finnan, E. St. John, J. McCarthy, & S. Slovacek (Eds.), Accelerated schools in action: Lessons from the field (pp. 185–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cobb, P., McClain, K., de Silva Lamberg, T., & Dean, C. (2003). Situating teachers’ instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school and district. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coburn, C. E. (2005). The role of non-system actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of teacher professional community in policy implementation. In M. Honig (Ed.), Confronting complexity: Defining the field of education policy implementation (pp. 25–46). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  12. Coburn, C. E., & Woulfin, S. L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Creasy, J., & Paterson, F. (2005). Leading coaching in schools. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.Google Scholar
  14. CUREE. (2005). Mentoring and coaching for learning: Summary report of the mentoring and coaching CPD capacity building project 2004–2005. Coventry: CUREE.Google Scholar
  15. Datnow, A. (2006). Connections in the policy chain: The case of Comprehensive School Reform. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 105–123). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  16. Datnow, A., Borman, G. D., Stringfield, S., Overman, L. T., & Castellano, M. (2003). Comprehensive school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts: Implementation and outcomes from a four-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elmore, R., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in community school district #2. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future & the Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  20. Feldman, J., & Tung, R. (2001). Using data-based inquiry and decision making to improve instruction. ERS Spectrum, 19(3), 10–19.Google Scholar
  21. Grant, A. M., Cavanagh, M. J., & Parker, H. M. (2010). The state of play in coaching today: A comprehensive review of the field. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 25, 125–167.Google Scholar
  22. Guiney, E. (2001). Coaching isn’t just for athletes: The role of teacher leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(10), 740–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heckman, P., & Montera, V. (2009). School reform: The flatworm in a flat world: From entropy to renewal through indigenous invention. Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1328–1351.Google Scholar
  24. Holme, J. J., & Rangel, V. S. (2012). Putting school reform in its place: Social geography, organizational social capital, and school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 49(2), 257–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Honig, M. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Honig, M., & Ikemoto, G. (2008). Adaptive assistance for learning improvement efforts: The case for the Institute for Learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 328–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Honig, M. I., & Rainey, L. R. (2012). Autonomy and school improvement: What do we know and where do we go from here? Educational Policy, 26(3), 465–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hubbard, L., Mehan, H., & Stein, M. K. (2006). Reform as learning: School reform, organizational culture, and community politics in San Diego. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  29. Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (Eds.). (2006). Knowledge creation and management: New challenges for managers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kampa-Kokesch, S., & Anderson, M. Z. (2001). Executive coaching: A comprehensive review of the literature. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 53(4), 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krasnoff, B. (2008). How five schools made big jumps in student achievement: Training the school improvement coach. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Education Laboratory.Google Scholar
  32. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levin, H. M. (1998). Accelerated schools: A decade of evolution. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change, Part two (pp. 807–830). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levinson, B., & Brantmeier, E. (2006). Secondary schools and communities of practice for democratic civic education: Challenges of authority and authenticity. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34(3), 324–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Malen, B., & Rice, J. K. (2004). A framework for assessing the impact of education reforms on school capacity: Insights from studies of high-stakes accountability initiatives. Educational Policy, 18(5), 631–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marsh, J. A., Kerr, K. A., Ikemoto, G. A., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., Zimmer, R., et al. (2005). The role of districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districts partnered with the Institute for Learning. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  37. Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H., & Resnick, L. B. (2010). Implementing literacy coaching: The role of school social resources. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mayer, A. P., Donaldson, M. L., LeChasseur, K., Welton, A. D., & Cobb, C. D. (2013). Negotiating site-based management and expanded teacher decision making: A case study of six urban schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(5), 695–731.Google Scholar
  39. Maynard, T. (2001). The student teachers and the school community of practice: A consideration of “learning as participation”. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(1), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McLaughlin, M. (2006). Implementation research in education: Lessons learned, lingering questions, and new opportunities. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 209–228). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  41. McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  43. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Mitra, D. (2009). The role of intermediary organizations in sustaining student voice initiatives. Teachers College Record, 111(7), 1834–1870.Google Scholar
  45. Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2002). Off to a good start: Year 1 of collaborative coaching and learning in the effective practice schools. Cambridge, MA: Education Matters Inc.Google Scholar
  46. Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching—A strategy for developing instructional capacity: Promises and practicalities. Cambridge, MA: Education Matters.Google Scholar
  47. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, J. S., Marino, N., Ford, D., & Brown, N. (1998). Designing a community of practice: Principles and practices of GISNL community. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2008). Collaborative assistance in a highly prescribed school reform model: The case of Success for All. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 400–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Poglinco, S. M., Bach, A. J., Hovde, K., Rosenblum, S., Saunders, M., & Supovitz, J. A. (2003). The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America’s choice schools. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  51. Pugach, C. M. (1999). Success, access and the promise of communities of practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(4), 269–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1985). School reform: The district policy implications of the effective schools literature. The Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 353–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Richard, A. (2003). Making our own road: The emergence of school-based staff developers in America’s public schools. New York, NY: Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.Google Scholar
  54. Rowan, B, Correnti, R., Miller, R., & Camburn, E. (2009). School improvement by design: Lessons from a study of comprehensive school reform programs. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  55. Rust, F. O., & Freidus, H. (2001). Guiding school change: The role and work of change agents. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  56. Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor the challenge of leading 21st-century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22(1), 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sleeter, C. E. (2003). Reform and control: An analysis of SB 2042. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(1), 19–30.Google Scholar
  58. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.Google Scholar
  60. Stein, M. K., Silver, E. A., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematics reform and teacher development: A community of practice perspective. In J. Greeno & S. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 17–52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  61. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. Supovitz, J. (2002). Developing communities of instructional practice. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1591–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tansly, J., & Cohen, D. (2001). The relationship between organizational support, employee development, and organizational commitment: An empirical study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(3), 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Watson, A. (1998). Why situated cognition is an issue for mathematics education. In A. Watson (Ed.), Situated cognition and the learning of mathematics (pp. 161–177). Oxford: Centre for Mathematics Education Research.Google Scholar
  66. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wood, D. (2007). Teachers’ learning communities: Catalyst for change or a new infrastructure for the status quo? Teachers College Record, 109(3), 699–739.Google Scholar
  68. Yang, B., Zheng, W., & Viere, C. (2009). Holistic views of knowledge management models. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(3), 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretative policy analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Neag School of EducationStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options