If instructional coaches keep reteaching the same priority skills, that is not a coincidence. It is a system signal. This post explores how to analyze coaching data trends, diagnose root causes, and move from isolated teacher support to school-wide solutions.
In my previous blog, I argued that vaguely instructing teachers to ‘increase student engagement’ isn’t helpful feedback. This week, after a few classroom observations, I realized something else: sometimes what we call an engagement problem isn’t just about engagement.
“Let’s all work to increase student engagement so that students can own their learning!” has been a collective rallying cry for a while now. But, if we are making it a priority and going so far as to add it to lesson planning requirements , why isn’t it translating to classroom practice or higher student outcomes? I’ve realized that giving general feedback to “increase student engagement” just isn’t good practice. Here are some feedback strategies that will get you the results you want to see.
Where should instructional leaders start at the beginning of the school year? Should there be a specific structure or rhythm to begin their coaching and support? While there are no scientifically proven answers to those questions, our team has learned firsthand some instructional leadership moves that make a massive difference in learning outcomes. Here are our top four recommendations.
First-year curriculum implementation can feel like drinking from a firehose for teachers and leaders alike. But buried in the chaos are clues to what’s working and what needs a reset. During a reflection activity with instructional leaders, we asked one simple thing: write down two implementation challenges you’ve seen and heard from teachers.
Fill in your information below and select the options to request a proposal for Jill Jackson training (Part One, Part Two, or both).
