Re-Thinking Change in Ed-Tech

Re-Thinking Change in Ed-Tech

These days, just about anything you say about the pace of change in educational technology is cliche'. We all know it is fast and we realize that just about the time we understand something, the next new thing swoops in and takes its place.  As educational leaders, we need to understand the change process, but what if the change process we understand is flawed when it comes to dealing with guiding a change process that is so rapid.  Is there a way to get off this merry-go-round and focus on ed-tech change in a whole new way?  I think the answer to this is yes. 

John Kotter identifies 8 steps to leading the process in organizations...here it is:

As a change, I propose eliminating steps 1, 4 and 8.  

WHY?

• We know that there is urgency, we don't need to create it.  We may need to ignore the people who don't get it.
• 
  
• Buy-in for educational technology comes in the USE of the tool or the application of it...not through conversation.
• 
  
• We SHOULD NOT want to make it stick...We want the change to take on a life of its own and inspire the use of technology for students to become creative thinkers and producers. 

Cognitive Computing in Education

Cognitive Computing in Education

In 2011, IBM’s Watson computer system beat the top Jeopardy champions and demonstrated that computers could be programmed to understand natural language and make swift and accurate conclusions from large amounts of unstructured data.  Recently, a program designed by DeepMind, beat the world champion of the very complex game known as Go.  

While these achievements in technology have been first witnessed in the context of gaming, they will eventually make their way into applications that have more practical and economic value.  Education is a field that is primed and waiting for computing power of this type to help it solve some of its own unique problems.

Education and the Unstructured Data Problem

In order for information technology to be most effective, it needs access to information.  Watson and DeepMind offer solutions to the field of education in dealing with the “unstructured” nature of the information used and produced by education.  As much as eighty percent of all the world’s data remains in an “unstructured” condition.  Unstructured data is classified as such because it is data that “either does not have a pre-defined data model or is not organized in a pre-defined manner. It is typically text-heavy, but may contain data such as dates, numbers, and facts as well.  Unstructured data is all of the information that remains difficult to search by current computer algorithms; either because the information is not in a “search friendly” format or the information resides off the internet in libraries or in offline computers, servers, or hard copy files.

Unstructured data is a particular problem to education because the sort of information that educators use as the “raw material” is the sort of data that is not easily categorized or searchable.  For example, teacher lesson plans, and the student work that results from them, are typically not stored in cross-referenced, fielded, and tagged databases.  Educational journals may be tagged online for easy searching, but when it comes to wading through the volume of information and make sense of the research contained therein, one comes to understand how daunting the problem of making meaning from unstructured data really is.

Cognitive Computing  

Cognitive computing platforms may have an answer to the problems associated with unstructured data.  “Cognitive computing refers to systems that learn at scale, reason with purpose and interact with humans naturally. Rather than being explicitly programmed, they learn and reason from their interactions with us and from their experiences with their environment” (Kelly, 2015).

Until IBM’s Watson, computer programs conducted searches in unstructured documents primarily based on searching through data for keywords and phrases.  Cognitive computing platforms such as Watson can not only read texts, but it is able to derive meaning from from the text.  For the first time in history, Watson demonstrated that a program could be written that had the ability to not only understand natural language, but to make accurate predictions and inferences based solely on information it gained from “reading” unstructured text.          

Why Education Needs Cognitive Computing

The purpose of education in today’s world is to equip students to survive and thrive in a fast-paced, ever changing, global information society.  With those ends in mind, harnessing information and the technology that facilitates it, is of key importance in the field of education.  With the exponential growth of knowledge, and the realization that the vast majority of that knowledge is unstructured, it is critical that the field of education turn its attention to new methods of accessing and analyzing that information.  

With the power of cognitive computing systems, educators will be able to utilize the vast resources of unstructured data that they have at their disposal to help answer questions that they have never been able to answer before.  Cognitive computing provides a method by which machine learning and “big data” can begin to make important discoveries in the field of education as it has already begun to have in others.   

Cognitive Computing and Education

IBM’s Watson is already working with oncologists at leading cancer treatment hospitals to churn through the mountains of cancer research data and suggest treatment plans for patients based upon their individual situations.  It is not farfetched to imagine a cognitive computing program that has access to student data in the form of grades, attendance, test scores, and even individual work samples.  The program will analyze these datasets, compare them with other similar students, read through the existing database of studies on best practice, and then find the right lesson, video, or teaching technique to suggest to the teacher for that particular student.  The program can take this knowledge and prescribe a detailed plan for each student.  It can be used by teachers to predict which students are going to have a difficult time with a particular concept and then provide them with the resources that the teacher would need to help the student.

Cognitive Computing and Special Education

Within the field of education, the area where cognitive computing has the potential to become a powerful tool on behalf of the students is in the area of special education.  The numbers of students in the United States who qualify for special education services continues to rise each year, and the number of teachers who teach special education and those who are entering the field are also declining (Sawchuck, 2014).  This reality is placing a great strain on the system in terms of the lack of personnel and the lack of adequate professional knowledge to support this group of students.  Cognitive computing can help provide the help and expertise that is needed to bridge that gap.

By virtue of its development and focus around Individual Education Plans (IEPs), special education that has the largest amount of unstructured data as a result of the copious evaluations, assessments, and monitoring that is required to take place for all special education students.  This data is taken regularly on every student as forms a consistent core of data that is collected on every student in the program.  The program could also look at the student’s profile, compare it to the research database and the outcomes of other similar students; then recommend a plan of action for the individual student.  Cognitive computing addresses all of the fundamental aspects of special education by providing powerful insight into the unstructured data which will lead to more effective individualized education plans for the most needy students.  

Conclusions and Recommendations

Cognitive computing platforms are poised to make a major impact in the field of education due to the field’s large amount of (and reliance on) unstructured data.  IBM’s Watson has demonstrated that cognitive computing platforms can understand natural language, make predictions, and draw meaningful insight from a wide variety of unstructured data sources.  Cognitive computing creates a pathway for educators to search the existing research data, and combine it with student data to draw important conclusions, and to make individualized recommendations.  Educators and computer scientists should begin to explore this potential partnership and work together to research and create new tools based on the example of IBM’s success with Watson.  Together, they will expand the knowledge of the field of education, and provide great help to the most academically needy students.

References

Kelly, J.E.(2015). Smart Machines: Computing, cognition and the future of knowing: How humans and machines are forging a new age of understanding. IBM Global Services, Retrieved from: http://www.research.ibm.com/software/IBMResearch/multimedia/Computing_Cognition_WhitePaper.pdf

Sawchuck, S. (2014). Steep drops seen in teacher-prep enrollment numbers, Education Week 34(9), retrieved from: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/10/22/09enroll.h34.html

.

Why School Choice Is A Red Herring...and Why You Should Ignore All of the Rhetoric About It and Focus on Real Solutions

     I was reading an article today about another politician and their theory on how to improve public education and guess what?  Yep, it was the same old story about how "Choice" is the panacea for everything that is wrong with public schools.  It goes something like this:  "Our children are trapped in failing schools and deserve a chance to escape to be able to pursue their dreams.  We have no right to deny our children a good education; and besides, competition is good for everyone.  When the money follows the kids, it will force public schools to get better to compete for those dollars.  If public schools refuse to improve, then they deserve to be closed."  We have heard this for years and yet, despite all of the research that exists on effective strategies to improve education, very few people in the public arena are talking about the real issue:  The public's lack of support for the profession of teaching.  All of the talk about school choice is a "Red Herring", designed to take your attention off of the real problem which is our nation's pitiful support for our teachers.  Instead, politicians like to talk about choice because it sounds good to voters.  After all, as Americans we like choice.  We like the fact that we have ten fast food restaurants within a one-mile radius of our home.  We love the fact that we have a Walgreens and a CVS next door to each other.  We adore the fact that we have both Costco AND Sams Club in our towns.  It's all about choice for us...and the politicians know this.  Choice is also good for the political class because it taps them into the fat dollars they can get from the corporate education giants and wealthy donors who support choice initiatives.  In many states, the most vocal lobby against public education is the business lobby and the Chamber of Commerce, who steadfastly assert that public schools are turning out graduates who can't read, can't add, can't think...basically that they can't do anything.  I oppose this viewpoint and anecdotal evidence, but more on that at a later time. 

     Here is why choice is bad for education:  It ignores the real issue which is the degree to which we support the teaching profession.  By support I mean:  Respect for the profession in general, better quality and more relevant training, and increased salaries.  Let's take these factors on one at a time.

     First of all, teaching is a profession that is not revered by most of the public.  Many people do not consider teaching as a prestigious profession.  In a 2014 Harris Poll, teaching ranked 10 out of the top ten prestigious professions.  While it certainly remains higher than many other possible professions, it is clearly NOT a top choice for most people.  Some large states have lost over 50% of their teacher prep enrollments between 2008 and 2013 (Sawchuk, 2014).  Sixty percent of respondents named teaching as a prestigious profession as compared to 88% for doctors and 62% for architects (Smith, 2014).  In other surveys, teaching doesn't even make it into the top 10.  As educators, the fist thing we need to do is to stop tearing each other down and start being the champions of public education to everyone we meet.  If the people in the profession are negative about it, it's unlikely that others will perceive it in a positive light.  We know that word of mouth is the best advertising and it is an effective and cheap way to start a public relations improvement on our profession.  Bottom line, if you are an educator and you have problems with public education, you need to get out of the business.  We need to fight our battles that need to be waged within our own house and we don't need to be airing our dirty laundry.  Also, we could do a little more to clean up our own image by upholding higher professional and ethical standards...and most of all...loving every child who walks through our door like they were our own.

     Secondly, the teaching profession is in great need of high quality and relevant teacher training.  As an administrator, I have had a number of novice teachers come through my school.  Some of the best teachers I have seen have come from "alternative" certification programs.  These programs are designed for people who were in another career who then later decided to become a teacher.  I have found that many of these people do a brilliant job because they made the conscious choice to stop what they were doing, subject themselves to a year or more of constant schooling and evaluation, and then endure the bumps and lessons associated with the first year of teaching.  Conversely, I have found that many of our university graduates are theory rich and experience poor.  Much of this is not their fault, however.  Their programs are often a "cash cow" for the university and they push these students through years of theory courses and observing hours, only to release them slowly to teach as student teachers during their last semester of college.  This is a pattern that has been around for many, many years and I believe that it is a wrongheaded approach in many respects.  We need to change the way we do things by first, refusing to certify novice teachers fully until they have completed at least three years of an internship program where they receive intense guidance from coaches who are trained to help them with all aspects of classroom instruction.  I believe that we could even weave this into a Masters degree in teaching and give students credit for the work that they do in the classroom.  As a culmination activity, I would have these teachers complete the equivalent of National Board Certification, and give them a credential that would be immediately acceptable in any state in the United States.  These students will have proven that they have the respect of their peers and their administrators and are committed and trained to provide best-practice instruction to every student, every day.  

     Finally, we get to the issue of teacher pay.  The average teacher salary in the United States is $50,000/year.  Many novice teachers make far below that and this is the issue that is helping to kill the prospect of attracting quality teachers to the profession.  According to the National Education Association, the average starting salary for a novice teacher is $36,141 (NEA, 2013).  This person likely has school loan debt (Yes, I know some of this can later be forgiven, but they still have to pay until that kicks in.) and all the other costs associated with trying to make it on your own such as rent, car payments, credit card debt, utilities, food, etc..  They have spent the past four or five years striving for this dream or have quit another job to pursue their passion and they remain largely unrewarded financially for this decision.  We realize that teachers don't go into the profession for the money, but it would be nice if the public recognized their contribution to society with greater remuneration.  In 2015, the federal government will spend almost $69 billion on public education (Ed.gov, 2015).  This is ironic since the federal government essentially educated nobody.  Much of this money, $42 billion, is discretionary and not tied to Pell Grants.  Of this amount, $14 billion goes to support Title I initiatives, which are important to low-income children and are managed by the state in the form of grants (Ed.gov, 2015).  If we took the remaining $28 billion and divided it evenly among the nation's 3.1 million public school teachers, that would be $9,032 for each of them.  That could raise the starting salary for the new teachers to $45,173, and that would be a good down payment on making things right.  By the way, in 2015, the total revenue to the federal government is projected to be $3.34 trillion (Congressional Record, 2015).  A contribution of $28 billion represents only 0.08% of the total.  So, we can't spend less than one-tenth of one percent of our total revenue to help out our teachers?  Give me a break! 

So, the next time you hear politicians shouting about choice.  Plug your ears, hum a tune, and refuse to listen. It's all lies designed to confuse you and make you think that the trouble is with the lack of choice in public education; when the problem is actually the result of our inattention to the very thing that research says is THE MOST critical element in a child's education...THEIR TEACHER!  

References 

Congressional Record, 2015.  Retrieved from:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2014-03- 04/pdf/CREC-2014-03-04-pt1-PgS1278-2.pdf

Ed.gov, 2015. Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget15/summary/15summary.pdf 

NEA, 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.nea.org/home/2012-2013-average-starting-teacher-salary.html

Sawchuk, S., 2014. Steep drops seen in teacher prep enrollment numbers. EdWeek. Retrieved from: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/10/22/09enroll.h34.html 

Smith, J., 2015.  The 10 most presigious jobs in america. Business Insider.  Retrieved from: http://www.businessinsider.com/most-prestigious-jobs-in-america-2014-11

Principals as Superheroes

My Principal...A Superhero?

     When I was growing up, I had an elementary principal who may have been a superhero in disguise.  When you think about it though, the job of a principal is similar to that of a superhero. They are called upon by those in power to provide strength and leadership; and often have to fight against the system as well as the forces and situations aligned against them.  Much like the life of many superheroes, the principalship is often a lonely, demanding, and thankless profession.  A super principal must call upon not only their special "powers" in pedagogy and leadership, but also their keen instincts in working with people in order to prevail.  While often overburdened with responsibilities, and underappreciated for the work that they often do behind the scenes, principals deserve special attention due to their impact on the overall success of the school, teachers, and students.  Fullan (2001), concluded that school administrators were crucial to the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of the supported vision for the school.  

     The important role that school administrators play in the success of the educational environment was recently highlighted by a group of seminal researchers and scholars:

"In developing a starting point for this six-year study, we claimed, based on a preliminary review of research, that leadership is second only to classroom instruction as an influence on student learning, after six additional years of research, we are even more confident about this claim. To date we have not found a single case of a school improving its student achievement record in the absence of talented leadership." (Seashore Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010, p. 9)   

     When I was in elementary school, my principal did many different things for our school and district that would be done today by several different people.  One of the things he did in addition to his principal duties was to serve as the PE teacher for our school.  He started  PE class every day with calisthenics and then we usually played some type of game that involved a ball. In the spring we all participated in the Presidential Physical Fitness Test.  I never made it past the chin-ups, and I only ever knew one person to actually complete the challenge.  We thought that kid was a superstar!

     Another thing that made our principal a superhero was that in addition to teaching PE on our campus, he also taught one section of either a physics or chemistry class at the high school across town.    He taught my chemistry and physics classes.  He was very intelligent and knew Chemistry and Physics inside and out.  His tests were impossibly difficult, and in order to pass you had to know what you were doing; you couldn't fake it with him.  He also coached the math team at both the elementary and high school level and helped many students advance to regional and state competitions. 

     It would be easy to assume from the description that I have given of my principal thus far, that he was a workaholic nerd.; nothing could be farther from the truth.  In addition to his hard work ethic and his academic prowess, he was simultaneously the scariest person I have ever known and the best storyteller ever (more about the storytelling later).  In the area of discipline, we all knew we had better behave or he would paddle us and then call our parents who would paddle us again harder when we got home.  Woe to any of us who were sent to wait in the hallway by our teachers.  If our principal found us in the hallway, we were without excuse and had to accompany him on down to the office to face our punishment.  One of my classmates who had been sent to the office, chose to run out of the office and run to his grandmother's house rather than to stay and get paddled.  In discipline situations back then, the principal didn't try to reason with students or worry too much about the reaction of the parents.  Discipline at our school really simple and went something like this:  "What did you do, here's how many swats you are going to get, don't do that again, bend over, swats, now go back to class."  There were no discipline referral forms, no behavior intervention plans, and no trips to the counselor to see if they could determine why you were acting out.  I'm not saying that those things are not needed and valued today, but simply pointing out that they were not present back then. 

     Our principal was a master storyteller. He had a way of telling fantastic stories in the most deadpan style imaginable and then expecting you to believe it.  When we were younger, most of us did believe that he rode his milk cow to school every day and fought alligators at night.  By the time I made it to high school, I knew the milk cow thing wasn't true, but I didn't doubt that he could beat up an alligator.  I almost didn't mention this for fear of not being believed myself, but in addition to all of the above duties, our principal also had a regular bus route.  He got to school early and drove out in the country to pick up kids on a rural route and after school he would drop them off.  This guy was like the energizer bunny; he just kept going and going and going!  I started 1st grade in his school in 1974 and he was still the principal there when I graduated from high school in 1986.  I'm not sure when he finished his tenure as principal, but I believe he was there for almost 20 years.  The average tenure of a principal today is much, much shorter!     

     Looking back on this experience 40 years later with the hindsight of my own experience as a school administrator, I wonder how my principal was able to actually do that job. It is certainly not one that I would wish for today.  Granted, it was a small rural school with less than 200 students, but when I think of all the demands that are placed on principals these days, I wonder if he could have survived in that position for that long if the expectations were as high for administrators back then as they are now.  Back then, there were no standardized tests that were "high stakes" and schools were not subject to rigorous accountability as they are today.  Judging from the different functions that my principal had to perform, I believe that he actually ended up doing a lot of the jobs that nobody else could or would do.  Our school and our community was very poor and I assume that it was necessary for administrators to pull this kind of extra duty so that everything ran as it should.  He made a difference by showing up and using his talents anywhere they were needed.  At the end of the day, that is really all that any of us can do.  Today, principals still do many different jobs, but the stakes and the expectations are much higher than they were when I was in elementary school.  If my principal had to be a superhero to do his job, what type of superhero do I need to be and what powers do I need to be able to wield in order to do my job successfully?  While being gifted in pedagogy and leadership skills may sound like enough, I kind of wish that as a principal I could have the mind of Professor Xavier, the abilities of Wolverine, and the gadgets of Batman...now that would be a very interesting and cool combination!  Awesome!    

References

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York and London: Teachers College Press

Seashore Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning. Washington, DC: Wallace Foundation  

Coaching vs. Mentoring: What's the difference?

Many times the terms coaching and mentoring are used synonymously.  While there are some similarities between the terms as they are currently applied in the field of education, there are some important differences.  

Coaching. Coaching is a product of experienced, individualized leadership development.  The process allows leaders to build capacity and to achieve short and long-term organizational goals.  Coaching sessions are typically one-on-one, are data driven, and based on a partnership approach (Ennis et al., 2003; Stern, 2004;).  Coaching implies a sustained and deliberate approach to professional development.  For school administrators, coaching focuses on developing professional goals, strengthening leadership abilities, and applying best-practice strategies.  

Mentoring. Mentoring is the process of receiving counsel from a person who serves the role of either a personal counselor or teacher.  Mentoring occurs when someone who listens, asks pertinent questions, and helps a person figure out the correct path to take (McLaughlin, 2010).  For the school administrator, mentoring is concerned with forging a relationship between a more experienced current or former administrator and a new or less-experienced administrator.  The mentor becomes a source of support and information for the administrator.  When they have an issue they are not quite sure how to handle, the administrator can reach out to their mentor for assistance.  

Now that the distinction between the two terms has been clarified, which one is more useful to the school administrator?  The answer is that it depends on the situation.  A coach is there to build professional skill and enhance best practice, and a mentor is there to lend support and advice.  Both of these are needed by administrators on a regular basis.  Given the importance of school administrators in the success of the school, they would benefit from the ongoing and job-embedded professional development of a coach and the support and relationship of a mentor.  School districts should consider providing both types of support to school administrators in order to maximize their effectiveness as leaders and increase their positive impact on student achievement.

    Ennis, S., Stern, L. R., Yahanda, N., Vitti, M., Otto, J., Hodgetts, W., et al. (2003). The executive coaching handbook. Wellesley, MA: The Executive Coaching Forum

McLaughlin, C. (2010). Mentoring: What is it? How do we do it and how do we get more of it?. Health Services Research, 45(3), 871-884. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01090.x

Stern, L. R. (2004). Executive Coaching: A working definition. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 56(3), 154-162. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.56.3.0

A Review of the Literature Concerning Administrator Coaching andMentoring Programs

Attributes, Outcomes, and Considerations of Effective Administrator Coaching/Mentoring Programs

by

Danny Gentry

Abstract

The importance of school administrators in the operation of the school and on student achievement is evident in the literature.  Given the importance, changing nature, and increasing complexity of the job of school administrators, the current research supports contemporary forms of professional development to meet those demands.  Coaching and mentoring are professional development strategies that are now used in the field of education.  While the available research on the topic of administrator Coaching/Mentoring is small, a review of the available literature revealed several attributes of successful Coaching/Mentoring programs:  The need for a personalized approach, the importance of development of specific goals and timelines, the need for trained coaches, and the provision of relevant feedback.  Several potential impacts of successful Coaching/Mentoring programs were also highlighted in the research.   Among those common themes were:  Increased levels of confidence as an instructional leader, increased communication, and increased professional efficacy. The review of the literature revealed several factors that should be considered when designing and implementing an administrator Coaching/Mentoring program.  These considerations include:  The cost of the program, whether the program was job-embedded professional development or informal and independent, the level of support given to the program, and the use of partnership principals for coaching.

            Keywords:  coaching, mentoring, coaching program, mentoring program, executive coaching, leadership coaching, professional development

Attributes, Outcomes, and Considerations of Effective Administrator Coaching/Mentoring Programs

            Leadership coaching and mentoring have been promoted by many scholars and researchers as an effective strategy to prepare new school administrators and to carry out ongoing professional development and support (Barnett & O’Mahony, 2008).  The topic of coaching and mentoring school leaders is important for several reasons:  School administrators are important to school success and student learning, the changing and multifaceted role of the modern school administrator, and the increasing utilization of coaching and mentoring as a training and professional development strategy. 

School administrators, from superintendents to principals, play a crucial role in the success or failure of the schools, teachers, and students for which they are responsible.  Fullan (2001), concluded that school administrators were crucial to the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of the supported vision for the school.  The important role that school administrators play in the success of the educational environment was recently highlighted by a group of seminal researchers and scholars:

 In developing a starting point for this six-year study, we claimed, based on a preliminary review of research, that leadership is second only to classroom instruction as an influence on student learning, after six additional years of research, we are even more confident about this claim. To date we have not found a single case of a school improving its student achievement record in the absence of talented leadership. (Seashore Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010, p. 9)

            While the role of the school administrator remains critical to the success of the school of today, the role of administrators has changed considerably over time. Today, the modern administrator faces an ever-changing and multifaceted job description.   School administrators are required to facilitate and engage in: ensuring effective professional learning communities (Marzano, Walters, & McNulty, 2005), personnel management (Portin, 2004), student discipline (Portin, 2004), government and public relations (Hess & Kelly, 2007), finance and budgetary planning (Portin, 2004), instructional leadership (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004), cultural and strategic planning (Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006), and myriad other functions.  School administrators are expected to be competent in all of the above areas while simultaneously being responsible for the performance of the school as it relates to the increasing demands placed on it by federal, state, and local accountability (Copland, 2001).  Cruzeiro and Morgan (2006), conducted a study of 255 principals and concluded that principals spent less than 12% of their time functioning in an instructional leadership role.  This is in contrast to the findings of Leithwood et al. (2004) which suggested that instructional leadership is the most important responsibility of a principal. 

            As the roles and responsibilities of the school administrator have changed over time, so too has the preparation of individuals who seek to enter the field.  Davis and Darling-Hammond (2012) reported that while many principal preparation programs claim to be effective, the evidence for this is sparse; especially when considering the principal’s impact on such important aspects as student achievement and instructional practices of teachers.  Current research regarding administrator preparation programs suggest that coaching and mentoring can be part of an effective preparation program.  Davis, Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, and LaPointe (2005) identified seven features of effective leadership preparation programs.  Among these, the researchers identified field-based internships, situational collaboration and teamwork, and rigorous recruitment of candidates as features that could be aligned to include a coaching and mentoring component.  

            In addition to initial preparation programs, school administrators are in need of ongoing professional development in order to keep pace with changes in the field and the internal and external pressures of the position.  Leadership coaching, as a form of job-embedded professional development for school administrators, has recently been adapted from the corporate world to the field of educational administration (Elliott, 2011).   The utilization of leadership coaching is becoming part of many professional development activities for principals (Lubinsky, 2002).  A wide range of research studies have described the use of both coaching and mentoring as professional development strategies for school administrators (Albury & Hackman, 2006; Crawford & Early, 2012; Brickman, Goldring, De Andrade, Breda, & Goff, 2012; Dunbar & Kinnersley, 2011; Gettys, Martin, & Bigby, 2010; Gray & Lewis, 2013; James-Ward, 2011; Robinson, Horan, & Nanavati, 2009).  This emerging practice of providing coaching and mentoring support for administrators mirrors the use of instructional coaches for teachers to improve classroom teaching strategies and ultimately student performance (Knight, 2011).   

Definition of Key Terms

Coaching. Coaching is a product of experienced, individualized leadership development.  The process allows leaders to build capacity and to achieve short and long-term organizational goals.  Coaching sessions are typically one-on-one, are data driven, and based on a partnership approach (Ennis et al., 2003; Stern, 2004;).

Mentoring. Mentoring is the process of receiving counsel from a person who serves the role of either a personal counselor or teacher.  Mentoring occurs when someone who listens, asks pertinent questions, and helps a person figure out the correct path to take (McLaughlin, 2010).

Literature Search Strategies

            The research for this literature review was conducted using several different methods:  An EBSCO search of peer-reviewed scholarly articles, a Proquest search of dissertations and theses, and a general internet search using a search engine.

Extent and Nature of the Literature 

            There is lack of depth of research, both older and more recent, regarding the topic of administrator coaching and administrator mentoring.  However, there are a plethora of studies that have been conducted regarding executive coaching in the corporate and business environment. 

Overview

            This literature review will begin with a discussion of the connection between the effective elements for administrator coaching and mentoring, and the Theory of Transformational Leadership.  Once those connections have been discussed and established, the review will consider the attributes of a successful Coaching/Mentoring program for administrators.  These attributes of effective programs include the following elements:  Personalization, identification of goals and timelines, trained coaches, adequate time, and relevant feedback.  In addition to the attributes of successful programs, the potential outcomes of administrator Coaching/Mentoring will also be considered.  These potential outcomes are as follows:  Increased levels of confidence as an instructional leader, increased communication, and increased professional efficacy.  Finally, there will be a review of the literature related to the considerations that should be made in order to create an effective administrator Coaching/Mentoring program.  These considerations include: Cost of the program, job embedded versus independent, the level of support by the district or state, and the intended relationship between the coach and the coachee.     

Theoretical Considerations

            Bass (1991) in his seminal work on the development of the theory of transformational leadership described transformational leadership as superior leadership performance.  Bass (1991) described transformational leaders as those leaders who were able to develop and raise the interests of their employees, increase awareness of cooperation in the purpose and mission of the organization, and cause their employees to become altruistic regarding the needs of the group.  

            Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996), extended Bass’ work and proposed six dimensions of transformational leadership: Formulating a positive view of the future, providing a role model of effective behavior, fostering group goals, articulating high performance expectations, offering individualized support, and utilizing intellectual stimulation to generate innovative solutions to old and complex problems.  Smith (2015), reported that leadership coaching effectively supported key aspects of transformational leadership behavior.  Coaching and mentoring are both compatible with this leadership framework because they both deal with the goals and interests of the employees, provide role models, and give employees individualized support.  According to Augustine-Shaw (2015), transformational vision is a necessary skill for principals, and that mentors can assist in maximizing administrators’ roles as instructional leaders.  Mentors can play a critical role in helping principals achieve the transformational leadership aspects of goal-setting and generating innovative solutions (Augustine-Shaw, 2015). 

Review of the Literature

Attributes of a Successful Coaching/Mentoring Program for Administrators

            While the research literature on the topic of what constitutes a successful Coaching/Mentoring program for administrators is scant, there are a several elements of success that were prominently discussed.  Among those common themes, the research conducted on the topic of administrator Coaching/Mentoring programs highlighted the following attributes:  A personalized approach, development of specific goals and timelines, trained coaches, and relevant feedback (Elliott, 2011; Gettys, Martin, & Bigby, 2010; Turesky & Gallagher, 2011)

.           Personalized. Among the most prominently highlighted attribute in the literature regarding administrator Coaching/Mentoring was the need for personalization.  Turesky and Gallagher (2011) reported that a personalized approach is critical to the success of leadership coaches.   The researchers described how leadership coaches would benefit from the application of Kolb’s experiential learning theory to their coaching process.  The researchers synthesized the research on Kolb’s theory and adapted it to leadership coaching (Kolb, 1984).  They produced a series of highly personalized recommendations for coaches to use with their clients during coaching interactions which were based on the four types of learners described by Kolb (1984).

Research suggests that the heightened expectations of school leaders and the complexity of the task of school leadership, necessitates the use of personalized, job embedded, professional development (Crawford & Earley, 2011).  Dunbar and Kinnersley (2011), confirmed the importance of personalization, especially when Coaching/Mentoring female administrators.  The researchers concluded that female administrators responded better to Coaching/Mentoring than their male counterparts when the selection of the coaches was done informally and took into account the gender and race of the coachee. 

Greer, Anast-May, and Gurley (2014) conducted a qualitative study related to the perceived value of principal internship activities.  The researchers found a direct correlation between the amount of personalization and the level of perceived effectiveness of the internship experience.  In order to personalize the approach coaches take with their clients, Wasylyshyn, Shorey, and Chaffin (2012), suggested personalized strategies which would be helpful to coaches as they worked with clients who exhibited specific leadership behaviors.

            Specific goals and timelines.  In addition to a personalized approach, the literature also reveals that effective administrator Coaching/Mentoring programs incorporate the elements of specific goals and timelines into their design.  Elliott (2011) conducted a review of the literature on the subject of coaching for leadership development.  In this study, the researcher highlighted the need for Coaching/Mentoring programs to design interventions based on specific goals and the psychological needs of the coachee.  Also, Gatling and Harrah (2014) conducted a quantitative study of 96 business coaches who worked to increase the personal and business effectiveness of their clients.  In this study, one of the attributes of success they measured was the coaches’ perceived ability to meet the specific personal and professional goals of their clients.  In addition, Robinson, Horan, and Nanavati (2009) concluded that a program that included regular meeting times for participants and discussion of mutually defined goals was effective.  Also, Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson (2008) measured the coaches’ ability to meet with clients on a regular basis to discuss their personal and professional goals. 

            Trained coaches.  While the role of effective and personalized training as a part of transformational leadership theory is implicit, effective training is also a primary consideration for leaders (Bass, 1991).  Gettys, Martin, and Bigby (2010), demonstrated the importance of having trained coaches for an effective administrator Coaching/Mentoring program.  They conducted a qualitative study to examine the thoughts and experiences of novice principals related their participation in either district or state-created mentoring programs.  In this instance, the researchers stressed that successful mentoring programs depended on mentor training.  In addition, Alsbury and Hackman (2006) conducted a mixed methods study of a mentoring program for novice administrators sponsored by the state of Iowa.  In the Iowa study, the researchers discussed the importance of providing trained mentors and how they were carefully paired with a mentee.  James-Ward (2011), also concluded that trained coaches were an important aspect of an effective principal coaching and mentoring program.

            Relevant feedback.  The importance of coaches / mentors providing relevant feedback to their clients was highlighted by a number of studies. Bickman, Goldring, De Andrade, Breda, and Goff (2012) conducted an experimental study to determine the effectiveness of feedback and coaching on improving the instructional leadership abilities of principals.  This research indicated that both feedback and coaching had improved the performance of executives.  The authors concluded that feedback to principals about their teachers’ opinions related to their instructional leadership led to improvement.  Furthermore, the combination of feedback plus coaching led to an enhanced effect; but only when the principal was convinced of the validity of the teachers’ feedback.  Gettys, Martin, and Bigby (2010), identified six strategies for effective mentoring programs.  Among these six identified strategies, they highlighted the importance of developing techniques for providing relevant and timely feedback to the mentee. 

Potential Outcomes of an Effective Coaching/Mentoring Program for Administrators

            Aside from the attributes of an effective coaching /mentoring program for administrators, there is also evidence in the literature to support several potential outcomes that are associated with an effective program.  Several important outcomes of effective Coaching/Mentoring programs discussed in the literature are as follows: Increased levels of confidence as an instructional leader, increased communication, and increased professional efficacy (Turesky & Gallagher, 2011; Elliott, 2011; Gettys, Martin, & Bigby, 2010)

            Increased levels of confidence as an instructional leader.   Coaching and mentoring programs for administrators have demonstrated that they are able to increase the confidence of principals in relation to their role as an instructional leader.  To illustrate this, Alsbury and Hackman (2006) reported higher levels of confidence as instructional leaders in a study of principals who had recently participated in a coaching program.  Furthermore, Brickman, Goldring, De Andrade, Breda, and Goff (2012) examined the instructional leadership abilities of 76 principals in a large urban school district.  They concluded that under certain circumstances, administrator coaching could increase the perceived confidence in instructional leadership abilities among principals.

            Increased communication.  Another important outcome of effective administrator Coaching/Mentoring programs is increased communication. Effective communication has been shown to play an important role for transformational leaders (Bass, 1991).  Programs that include Coaching/Mentoring for administrators have demonstrated that they increase the level and quality of communication across a wide spectrum of interactions.  In a recent important large study of a district-wide coaching project, James-Ward (2011) presented a case study that described the creation of an infrastructure for an administrative coaching model.  The infrastructure for the program involved monthly meetings for the following groups:  Coaches and district leaders, all the coaches, and coaches and the principals.  In this case, the infrastructure of the coaching project itself greatly increased the frequency and quality of communication both within the district and between the district and its building principals. Alsbury and Hackman (2006) have also identified increased communication as a benefit of mentoring for administrators.  Additionally, Gettys, Martin, and Bigby (2010), identified effective and increased communication as one of several important aspects of effective mentoring programs. 

            Increased professional efficacy.  In addition to increased confidence as instructional leaders and increased communication, the literature also revealed that effective administrator Coaching/Mentoring programs increased the professional efficacy of participants.  Transformational leaders require high levels of professional efficacy and promote its development in those they lead (Bass, 1991).  Alsbury and Hackman (2006), reported that administrators who had gone through a mentoring program had a greater amount of professional efficacy than those who had not.   Crawford and Earley (2011) used data from a school leadership development program in England to examine the impact of personalized coaching.  They concluded that the coaching interactions gave both the coach and the coachee higher levels of professional efficacy. Coaches felt like they were doing the important work of helping the next generation of leaders, and the coachees felt that they had become stronger leaders as a result of the program.  Robinson, Horan, and Nanavati (2009), described a case study for a principal mentoring program put in place by the public schools in Ontario, Canada.  The program paired new school administrators with more experienced or retired school administrators.  The participants reported feeling a greater level of professional efficacy regarding their overall leadership of the school.

Considerations for effective administrator Coaching/Mentoring programs

            In addition to the attributes and potential outcomes of an effective Coaching/Mentoring program for administrators, there are several considerations for the implementation and of such programs discussed in the literature.  These considerations are as follows:  The cost of the program, whether the program was job-embedded professional development or informal and independent, the level of support given to the program, and the use of partnership principals for coaching (Crawford & Early, 2011; Daresh, 2004; Knight, 2011).

            Cost.  Cost is frequently cited as a reason for the lack of widespread adoption of administrator Coaching/Mentoring programs among states and local school districts (Daresh, 2004). Despite this frequent assertion, Lochmiller (2014), reported that there is actually a lack of research concerning the cost of administrator coaching programs.  Lochmiller (2014) also conducted a study that estimated the cost to provide coaching to every new principal in the state of Washington. The author’s calculations revealed that the cost would amount to a range of $12 per pupil to $4 per pupil.  The author stated that while this is important information for policy makers, its effectiveness is limited by the fact that there is limited research on what constitutes an effective coaching program for administrators.

            Job-embedded professional development or informal and independent.  Another consideration for the development of effective Coaching/Mentoring programs for administrators is whether or not the program is job-embedded or informal and independent.  Crawford and Early (2011), found that effective principal mentoring programs took advantage of personalized, job embedded professional development.  Almost all of the studies in the review of the literature included some component of job-embedded professional development.  These often took the form of coaches or mentors working with clients on personalized goals drawn from specific workplace situations (Alsbury & Hackman, 2006; Bickman, Goldring, De Andrade, Breda, & Goff, 2012;  Gatling& Harrah, 2014; Geer, G. C., Anast-May, L., & Gurley, D. K., 2014; Gettys, S. G., Martin, B. N., & Bigby, L., 2010; James-Ward, C., 2011; Robinson, J., Horan, L., & Nanavati, M., 2009).  There is also research suggesting that informal and independent Coaching/Mentoring may be appropriate in some instances.  Dunbar and Kinnersley (2011), found evidence to this effect.  The researchers conducted a qualitative study that examined the impact of mentoring on the perceived leadership success of female higher education administrators.  They concluded that informal mentoring relationships for women were more effective than formal relationships.

            Level of Support by the District or State.   A review of the literature on this topic highlights the level of local and/or state support as another consideration in the development of administrator Coaching/Mentoring programs.  Daresh (2004) reported that concerns about the potentially high cost and the perception of privileging administrators by providing them with individual coaches or mentors, often diminishes policymakers’ desire to support such programs.  Several researchers reported that high levels of support were needed from the organizing agency whether it be the state or the local school district (Gettys, Martin, & Bigby, 2010; Alsbury & Hackman, 2006; Lochmiller, 2014; James-Ward, 2011). 

            Use of the Partnership Approach to Coaching.  Transformational leadership theory as refined by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996) supports the use of partnership strategies such as those promoted by Knight (2011), for instructional coaches for teachers.  These partnership strategies include: Equality, choice, voice, reflection, dialogue, praxis, and reciprocity.  Knight (2011), reports that the partnership approach was developed from the theoretical perspective of transformational leadership and other similar theories.  Knight (2011) emphasized the importance of a partnership approach for coaches.  His research into instructional coaching for teachers has placed partnership and collaboration above emotional intelligence and communication in the toolbox of necessary skills for coaches. 

            Research for this literature review supports the consideration of the partnership approach as a design element for effective administrator Coaching/Mentoring programs.  Additionally, Dunbar and Kinnersley (2011) reported that equality was an important consideration when considering the paring of coaches and coachees.  As previously discussed, a number of studies have found that praxis, which is the application or use of job-embedded professional development, is highlighted in the literature (Knight, 2011).  Dialogue, as discussed earlier, is directly related to the finding in the literature that relevant feedback is an important attribute of effective administrator Coaching/Mentoring programs. 

Summary

            The importance of school administrators in the operation of the school and on student achievement is evident in the literature (Seashore Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010).  This high level of importance coupled with the changing nature and increasing complexity of the job of school administrators, necessitates contemporary forms of professional development (Marzano, Walters, & McNulty, 2005; Portin, 2004); Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; Copland, 2001).  Increasingly, coaching and mentoring is a professional development strategy that has been used successfully in the business world and is now widely used in the field of education (Lubinsky, 2002). 

Several attributes of successful Coaching/Mentoring programs have emerged from the literature:  A personalized approach, development of specific goals and timelines, trained coaches, and relevant feedback.  Additionally, several potential impacts of successful Coaching/Mentoring programs were also highlighted in the research.   Among those common themes were:  Increased levels of confidence as an instructional leader, increased communication, and increased professional efficacy.

Finally, the review of the literature revealed that there are some factors that should be considered when designing and implementing an administrator Coaching/Mentoring program.  These considerations should include:  The cost of the program, whether the program was job-embedded professional development or informal and independent, the level of support given to the program, and the use of partnership principals for coaching.

Discussion

 Conclusions.  While the available research on the topic of administrator Coaching/Mentoring is scant, a review of the available literature revealed that transformational leadership theory (Augustine-Shaw, 2015; Bass, 1991; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996) is a proper lens through which to view the application of Coaching/Mentoring programs as part of educational leadership induction and professional development programs.  Additionally, the literature supports coaching and mentoring of administrators as a definite benefit for the administrator, and by implication, the school and its students.  However, a settled body of research does not exist regarding the elements that are necessary for an effective administrator coaching or mentoring program.  

Implications.  The practice of coaching and mentoring administrators should become more widespread so that more administrators, schools, and students can take advantage of the benefits of a well-trained and capable administrator.

Suggestions for Future Research.  More research needs to be done in this area in order to determine what constitutes best practice for coaching and mentoring administrators (Elliott, 2011; James-Ward, 2011).  Research also needs to be done regarding the effect that administrator coaching has on teachers, students, and the school as a whole (Crawford & Earley, 2011; James-Ward, 2011).

References

Alsbury, T. L., & Hackmann, D. G. (2006). Learning from experience: Initial findings of a mentoring/induction program for novice principals and superintendents. Planning and Changing, 37, 169-189.

Augustine-Shaw, D. (2015). Leadership and learning: Identifying an effective design for mentoring new building leaders. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(2), 21-30.

Barnett, B. G., & O’Mahony, G. R. (2008). Mentoring and coaching programs for the development of school leaders. In G. Crow, J. Lumby, & P. Pashiardis (Eds.), International handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders (pp. 232-262). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bass, B. M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

Bickman, L., Goldring, E., De Andrade, A. R., Breda, C., Goff, P. (2012). Improving principal leadership through feedback and coaching. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530123.pdf

Copland, M. A. (2001). The myth of the superprincipal. The Phi Delta Kappan, (7). 528.

Crawford, M., & Earley, P. (2011). Personalised leadership development? Lessons from the pilot NPQH in England. Educational Review, 63, 105-118. doi:10.1080/00131911.2010.517606

Cruzeiro, P. A., & Morgan, R. L. (2006). The rural principal's role with consideration for special education. Education, 126(3), 569-579

Daresh, J. C. (2004). Mentoring schools leaders: Professional promise or predictable problems? Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 495-517.

Davis, S. H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Innovative principal preparation programs: What works and how we know. Planning and Changing, 43(1-2), 25-45.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). Review of research. School leadership study. Developing successful principals. Palo Alto: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute

Dunbar, D. R., & Kinnersley, R. T. (2011). Mentoring female administrators toward leadership success. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 77, 17-24.

Elliottt, R. (2011). Utilising evidence-based leadership theories in coaching for leadership development: Towards a comprehensive integrating conceptual framework. International Coaching Psychology Review, 6(1), 46-70.

Ennis, S., Stern, L. R., Yahanda, N., Vitti, M., Otto, J., Hodgetts, W., et al. (2003). The executive coaching handbook. Wellesley, MA: The Executive Coaching Forum

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York and London: Teachers College Press

Gatling, A., & Harrah, W. F. (2014). The authentic leadership qualities of business coaches and its impact on coaching performance. International Journal Of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 12, 27-46.

Geer, G. C., Anast-May, L., & Gurley, D. K. (2014). Interns perceptions of administrative internships: Do principals provide internship activities in areas they deem important?. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 9(1), 1-15

Gettys, S. G., Martin, B. N., & Bigby, L. (2010). Does mentoring assist in developing beginning principals' instructional leadership skills?. International Journal Of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 8, 91-110.

Gray, D. L., & Lewis, J. P. (2013). Lessons learned in preparing principals to become instructional leaders. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 8, 140-143.

Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2007). Learning to lead: What gets taught in principal-preparation programs. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 244- 274.

James-Ward, C. (2011). The development of an infrastructure for a model of coaching principals. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 6(1), 1-12

Knight, J. (2011). What good coaches do. Educational Leadership, 69(2), 18-22.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.

Lubinsky, L. (2002). Coaching our game. School Administrator, 59(5), 42-43.

Lochmiller, C.R. (2014). What would it cost to coach every new principal? An estimate using statewide personnel data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(55), 1-20.

Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results.  Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McLaughlin, C. (2010). Mentoring: What is it? How do we do it and how do we get more of it?. Health Services Research, 45(3), 871-884. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01090.x

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2), 259-298.

Portin, B. (2004). The roles that principals play. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 14-18.

Seashore Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning. Washington, DC: Wallace Foundation

Smith, C. L. (2015). How coaching helps leadership resilience: The leadership perspective. International Coaching Psychology Review, 10, 6-19.

Stern, L. R. (2004). Executive Coaching: A working definition. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 56(3), 154-162. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.56.3.0

Turesky, E. F., & Gallagher, D. (2011). Know thyself: Coaching for leadership using Kolb's experiential learning theory. Coaching Psychologist, 7, 5-14.

Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Wernsing, T.S., & Peterson, S.J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management 34, 89-126. doi:10.1177/0149206307308913

Wasylyshyn, K. M., Shorey, H. S., & Chaffin, J. S. (2012). Patterns of leadership behaviour: Implications for successful executive coaching outcomes. Coaching Psychologist, 8, 74-85.