8 Misconceptions about Directive Coaching
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.” - Maya Angelou
I have a deep belief that teachers are doing the best job that they can. Just like the quote above, I believe that if teachers knew how to do better, they would. This is where good coaching comes in: the space where teachers develop their skill and capacity to not only talk about doing better, but to actually do better.
Directive coaching has a fairly negative reputation, while concession is often given that this stance works in certain situations or with new teachers. But most critiques that I hear don’t apply to the directive coaching process that I’ve seen work effectively in hundreds of partnerships across the country with very high rates of teacher satisfaction. Here I’m going to address the misconceptions about directive coaching and reframe what it should look like.
One of the primary purposes of coaching should be to develop a teacher’s expertise in order to make sure every one of their students can be successful in school every day. Here’s what I envision excellent directive coaching (or coaching in general) looks like: it’s grounded in a meaningful relationship where the coach works to understand the teacher, their students and their context. In the coaching meeting, there should be a rich and focused conversation based on class data, from a class observation and student work, which both celebrates the teacher’s strengths and looks at just one area to grow in. For this growth area,the coach shares a strategy to support growth, they collaboratively adapt it for the teacher’s needs, and then the bulk (half or more) of the coaching meeting should be practicing the new skill together. We learn best by doing, not just talking. The teacher should walk away from the coaching feeling empowered to do something differently in their class the next day.
The reason why I would call this type of coaching “directive” is because the coach typically names the focus area for growth, gives a strategy to grow, and plans for the practice session. This is not a reflection session guided by the question “How did that lesson go?” Notice that good directive coaching is rooted in connection, is highly collaborative, leans on the teacher's strengths, is non-judgemental and is active.
Not every coaching meeting can have a directive stance. For example, a different stance is needed when a teacher is struggling emotionally, a bias needs to be addressed, or to provide space for the teacher to reflect after a period of growth. But directive coaching should be our default, instead of more conversational or questioning based approaches.
Here I address 8 misconnections about directive instructional coaching, especially several brought up in these pieces by Jim Knight and Elena Aguilar.
Addressing 8 Directive Coaching Misconceptions
“It’s not student-centered.” I often hear that directive coaching is model-centered, strategy-centered, or coach-centered. However, all good coaching should be student-centered. If students aren’t positively impacted by coaching, we’ve lost our way. Directive coaching uses (many types of) student data to inform the direction of coaching.
“The coach does all of the thinking or talking.” In directive coaching, coaches and teachers should share the “air time” at least 50/50, or lean more heavily on teacher talking and action. Good coaching should be practice-oriented, where the teacher is the primary active participant.
“The coach’s expertise is centered.” False. In directive coaching, developing the teacher’s expertise is central. The coach certainly shares their expertise to build teachers’ skills, but the teacher’s strengths, ideas and expertise inform coaching.
“It’s not flexible.” Directive coaching is often perceived as best used when adopting a new model or technology, or that it’s a “one-size-fits-all” approach that doesn’t meet the unique needs of students. Since teachers take the data they’re seeing from their class and the coach’s suggested strategy and collaborate to make it their own through practice, directive coaching is highly flexible. It meets each teacher where they are at and responds to specific students actions and needs based in various forms of student data.
“It’s deprofessionalizes teaching.” The perception is that directive coaching minimizes teacher autonomy. However, directive coaching is highly effective in developing teachers’ skills and capacity, and therefore their agency to impact their classroom as they desire. Highly skilled professionals - musicians, athletes and doctors - across many fields receive highly-specific and directive feedback to help them grow.
“It creates resistance.” I have rarely found this to be the case. When done in a context that honors teacher’s strengths and personalities, I’ve found teachers want specific strategies to grow through coaching. As a new teacher, I was very frustrated by long coaching meetings that asked me to try to figure out how I could do better when I really just needed more tools in my toolbox.
“It’s about telling teachers what to do.” Or directive coaching is perceived to be about telling teachers they have to do something a certain way. Quite the contrary: after learning to do something a specific way, teachers adapt it for their students and their own style. In directive coaching, they build discrete skills, and then are empowered to change and use them however they want. Again, coaching is about building expertise, not about making every fit in a given mold.
“Learning won’t be internalized, or won’t last.” Many in the coaching world claim that if teachers don’t arrive at the answers themselves, the learning won’t last. As I argue in this piece with my colleague Rashaida Melvin, that’s just not the case. Research shows that we learn by doing, and we build new habits one step at a time, not through wandering conversations where we try to guess the best way forward. Directive coaching is about building new habits in teaching.