In Part One of my series on how to unlock the potential of transformational coaching, I described an eye-opening conversation I had with Principal Navarro, a former instructional coach, now a rock star middle-school principal North Texas school district.

Principal Navarro (not her real name) was frustrated that the instructional coaches on her campus—trained and assigned by the district—were not making the kind of positive impact on teaching and learning that she wanted them to make and knew they could make.

I shared my first of five ways that instructional coaching programs can have the tremendously powerful and positive impact that we want and need  them to have:

1. As a system, intentionally, deliberately, collaboratively and mindfully develop and communicate a comprehensive model for instructional coaching. There must be an answer at a system level for the question, “When you say ‘coaching’ what exactly do you mean?”

Lack of clarity and confusion abounds.  Is coaching simply telling—and in some cases showing–people what they need to do to get better? What mindset, skillset, tools and approaches truly work?  Are there different ways to coach in different situations and how do we know when to do what?

My next two suggestions for unlocking the potential of transformational coaching are:

2. Guarantee that all professional development and evaluation of coaches is based on a set of professional competencies that reflect industry standards for coaching ethics and effectiveness.

3. Provide intensive and effective on-boarding training for coaches and on-going professional learning for coaches.

Now, as we move on with our story and see why these two principles will lead to transformational coaching, consider these two scenarios:

Scenario #1: The coach meets with the teacher at the beginning of the school year and together they co-create three goals that the teacher wants to work on over the course of the school year. Getting her students to be able to ask higher order questions is one of her macro-goals. During the discussion, the coach asks, “What are some of your strategies to develop your students’ capacity for asking higher order questions?” The teacher responds that she wants to explicitly instruct students on what makes a question a higher order one. She wants to amplify that learning by going meta and regularly asking her students to assess the questions that she asks. So, one of her strategies for getting her students to ask higher order questions is to be an effective questioner herself. In this case, the coach comes into the teacher’s classroom in the context of a trusting relationship and awareness of the teacher’s goals and she provides feedback that connects to what the teacher is working toward in terms of her own professional growth. The coach might very well ask: “So, how does my feedback about questioning fit in with your big goal that you’re working on?”

Scenario #2: The coach is one of a group of coaches, some based at the campus and some from the central office, who regularly come into classrooms to observe. This coach has not had any goal-setting discussion with the teacher; in fact, he has not put much effort or energy into developing a trusting relationship with the teacher at all. The coach, who was apparently quite an effective teacher when he was in the classroom, has observed the teacher three times since the beginning of the year and has given feedback each time.

In this scenario, the feedback after the first observation had to do with being aware of both sides of the room and to ask questions of the students sitting on the left side of the room as well as to students sitting on the right side. In that first feedback session, the coach also suggested that the teacher time the activities in the classroom in order to keep good pacing, as well as to speak in a stronger tone of voice.

The feedback given after the second observation had to do with classroom efficiency and the coach suggested that the teacher develop a system for picking up and handing out papers; the coach also suggested that some activities do not lend themselves to group work and that she should consider utilizing more direct instruction.

Finally, comes the third observation and the subsequent feedback on the questioning protocol. We could certainly characterize this as ‘drive-by coaching,’ it seems to me. As Elena Aguilar notes in The Art of School Coaching, on-the-spot coaching “can be very useful, but it is also tricky.” Trust must be present between coach and client and the feedback should be limited to one, discrete technical skill. So, this type of on-the-spot coaching has the potential to do some good coupled with the possibility of doing some damage.

The coach in the first scenario does some good; the coach in scenario two likely does some damage. One must wonder what will be the impact of the feedback in these two very different scenarios? On the teacher? On the relationship between the teacher and the coach? On how the campus instructional coaches are viewed by the teachers in general? On the effectiveness of the coaching program? On the culture of the campus?

Jim Knight, who has spent more than two decades studying professional learning, effective teaching and instructional coaching, says that the first principle of effective coaching conversations is to see your conversation partner, your coachee, as your equal. He writes, and I fully agree, that a great way to get people to resist the change you, as a coach or a leader, want to see is to take a top-down approach to communication.

In his book Better Conversations, Knight cites six “advocacy responses” on the part of the coach that engender resistance, either actively or passively. Three of these are:

A. Arguing for Change

B. Assuming the Expert Role

C. Being in a Hurry

The question is not especially about what is right and just (though that certainly comes into play for me), but mostly about what is effective, about what works.

So, this leads me to my second and third principles for unlocking the potential of transformational coaching:

2. Guarantee that all professional development and evaluation of coaches is based on a set of professional competencies that reflect industry standards for coaching ethics and effectiveness.

As I asked before, is coaching simply telling—and in some cases showing–people what they need to do to get better? What mindset, skillset, tools and approaches truly work?Are there different ways to coach in different situations and how do we know when to do what?

The International Coach Federation (ICF), the gold standard in coaching, has a set of eleven coaching competencies organized under four domains, including Setting the Foundation, Co-creating the Relationship, Communicating Effectively and Facilitating Learning and Results.

Of course, instructional coaching—like executive coaching, career coaching and life coaching—has its own unique content, the competencies remain the same. These competencies are solidly grounded in foundational best practices of adult learning, psychology of change, neuroscience and human development.

Shall we not, then, expect that instructional coaches coach at a level of effectiveness where they are meeting and/or actively working toward meeting these descriptors from the ICF:

o Employing a style that is open, flexible and confident

o Understanding the meaning of what is said in the context of the client’s desires, and supporting client self-expression

o Asking questions that reveal the information needed for maximum benefit to the coaching relationship and the client

o Creating with the client opportunities for ongoing learning, during coaching and in work/life situations, and for taking new actions that will most effectively lead to agreed-upon coaching results.

o Holding attention on what is important for the client, and leaving responsibility with the client to take action.

o Creating a safe, supportive environment that produces ongoing mutual respect and trust.

What a difference a competency makes!

My third way to turn the key on coaching’s transformational potential is:

3. Provide intensive and effective on-boarding training for coaches and on-going professional learning for coaches.

Aguilar writes in her 2018 National Coaching Day blog, that in her “fantasy world, an aspiring coach would spend three years in a rigorous, master’s level program—including a yearlong apprenticeship under the guidance of a master coach— before stepping into a position as a coach”.

This sounds like a way to truly unlock the potential of transformational coaching.

With excellent training centered around a set of competencies, instructional coaching can be a highly sought out and enriching experience for all coaches and teachers who want to learn and grow.