Clayton Early Learning
7Nov/12Off

Coaching to Improve Quality – in Search of the Evidence

Lynn Andrews

Posted by Lynn Andrews

By

Lynn Andrews

Here at Clayton, we always strive to use “evidence-based” practice, whether we are teaching children, supporting families, training teachers, or developing programs and policy with community partners.  Sometimes, the evidence-base doesn’t yet exist in current research findings and we are helping to create it.  An example of this is our coaching work.  We have been privileged to engage in a number of research projects that use coaching as a key professional development strategy.

To some extent, our coaching work is still an act of faith.  There is a small body of research on coaching in early childhood education that is beginning to shed light on whether it is effective in helping teachers make sustained changes in their practice (generally, so far the answer is yes) but there are still many unanswered questions. Is there a minimum “dosage” to be effective?  How should coaching hours be distributed over time?  Is on-line coaching as effective as face-to-face coaching?  Is there a difference between coaching in a supervisory relationship and coaching from a peer? Is time for shared reflection between the coach and teacher important or is simply giving teachers feedback and recommendations enough? Do the answers to these questions vary depending on what skills or dispositions you are trying to teach?  And of course, the million dollar question, does an approach that works in one situation – teaching specific content related to a specific knowledge and skill base, such as language and literacy, using specific incentives for participants – transfer to a different situation?

These are not just important questions for those of us who are on the giving and the receiving end of coaching, they have important policy implications.  Compared to other forms of professional development and supports to improve teacher practice, coaching is expensive.  Funders and policy makers want to know where they can get the best return on their investment.  At the same time, the randomized control trial studies that are the standard for providing evidence of what works and what doesn’t are also quite expensive and the results often take years to reach publication. So as much as I wish we had the answers to these questions about coaching now, in trying to make a difference for teachers and children now, I have to ask – what are we willing to accept as “evidence”?  Where does our experience – carefully documented and examined – fit in?  And what does it tell us? At Clayton we have been using coaching as a professional development strategy for over 10 years, working with more than 200 programs.  Here are a few things that we believe are true based on our particular experience that I suspect eventually will be supported by further research:

  1. Coaching combined with training is more effective in changing practice than training alone.
  2. It’s important for the “coachee” to trust the coach.
  3. Coaching should focus on specific, well-defined changes in practice, not global concepts.
  4. Coachees need to see examples of effective practice and have opportunities to practice with feedback AND opportunities to reflect on their efforts to implement new practice.
  5. Given the realities of teaching schedules and limited planning time, accomplishing #2-4 requires more than a few hours of coaching over a couple of months time.
  6. What the teacher believes about her work is as important as what she does – changing practice based on values (such as behavior management) takes more time than changing practice based on knowledge (bleach sanitizes better than soap).
  7. The coaching time required to help teachers achieve a desired level of proficiency depends on her starting point and the level of cognitive processing required – supporting children in math reasoning is more complex than figuring out a daily schedule.
  8. If coaching isn’t voluntary on the teacher’s part, creating change will take longer or may not happen at all.

As you can see, these are not sweeping generalizations – our sense is that the answer to the questions about coaching is often “it depends”.

Many states and communities now include coaching in their early childhood Quality Rating and Improvement Systems, and there are numerous, smaller professional development initiatives using coaching paired with training.  If we can gather what is learned from the experience of all these efforts, we will make a huge contribution to the evidence-base for coaching to accompany emerging research findings.  Formal research may be able to inform future professional development efforts with some broad principles for coaching, but I believe we will always need to rely on the evidence of our experience in real-time, in continuously evolving environments, to guide us in deciding how to design effective coaching interventions.  If you have been involved with coaching, what insights can you add from your experience bank?

1Oct/12Off

Closing the Writing Achievement Gap

Lynn Andrews

Posted by Lynn Andrews

By

Lynn Andrews

Test: Most student writers still not proficient, Denver Post, 9/14/2012

Only 27% of 8th and 12th graders in the U.S. scored proficient last year on a computerized writing test, according to a recent article in the Denver Post. Students who had regular access to computers, and particularly those who were able to use built-in editing tools like spell check, did the best. This makes sense, but it’s also been found that when students have access to computers in the classroom, they write more. Maybe this shouldn’t be surprising given how much of our written communication these days happens through text messages, tweets, and e-mail – even for pre-teens.

But has this technology really helped children learn how to write? A 27% proficiency rate is pretty dismal. Our desire to be efficient and trendy and for “instant messaging” doesn’t lend itself to high quality writing. I have to admit I have a bias as someone who would rather read an elegantly written novel than watch a You-Tube video, but when there are radio ads quoting business leaders who say they can’t find job candidates who can communicate effectively with customers in writing, we have a serious problem. There are wider implications. How much does our ability to write reflect our ability to think – to generate and organize ideas into a coherent and logical whole? If we can’t do that, we can’t invent new solutions to problems, or negotiate conflicts, or change attitudes, or teach.

I’m sure that if it doesn’t already exist, we will soon have technology that really can help students learn how to write well. Even then, for technology to be an effective teaching tool for writing, we would need to address the technology gap that still exists between affluent and poor schools and families. And, as Kathleen Yancey from Florida State University states in the Denver Post article, “Digital technology is a technology. Paper and pencil is a technology. If technology were the answer, it would be pretty simple.”

For those of us in early childhood education, there truly are very simple, low-tech strategies to help children learn how to think, and eventually, how to write. Rich conversations with children and interactive reading can greatly increase children’s oral language skills that are precursors to writing skills. Stringing words together to make full sentences using correct syntax and grammar, and assembling sentences together to make paragraphs that describe and explain and sequence ideas, provides children with models both to think and to communicate. Asking children questions that encourage them to reason things out and to talk about their ideas lays the foundation for organizing thoughts in writing. Seeing words organized in print helps them make the connection between the spoken and written word. And then, of course, encouraging young children to “write” their thoughts using pencil and paper further develops these skills and a comfort level with written expression. I am amazed at how capable children as young as three years old can be in using computers, but let’s not forget what they have to learn to communicate effectively with human beings.

15May/12Off

Early Childhood Educators: Claiming our Name

Lynn Andrews

Posted by Lynn Andrews

By

Lynn Andrews

Once again, the inability of our field to clearly define itself is getting us in trouble.  This time it’s with the US Dept. of Labor.  Recently, their Wage and Hour Division has been conducting audits on early childhood education programs around Colorado – checking that programs are compensating employees for overtime according to the law.  This includes paying employees for attending required training after hours and evening parent meetings.  This rule assumes that classroom staff in early childhood programs should not be classified as exempt employees because for the most part, they don’t meet the Dept. of Labor’s definition of “professionals.”  Here is what they have to say about Preschool Teachers:  www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs46.htm. (link opens new window)

“Bona fide teachers in preschool and kindergarten settings may qualify for exemption from the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements as “professionals” under the same conditions as a teacher in an elementary or secondary school. Teachers are exempt if their primary duty is teaching in (an) educational establishment. It should be noted that, although a preschool(s) may engage in some educational activities, preschool employees whose primary duty is to care for the physical needs for the facility’s children would ordinarily not meet the requirements for exception as teachers under the applicable regulations.”

In addition, to be considered a “professional”, the employee must make at least $455 per 40-hr. week (about $11.37 per hour), and be doing work that requires “advanced knowledge” gained through a combination of experience and “intellectual instruction” beyond high school.

In programs that have been audited, the two points of contention are whether ECE teachers are really teaching, and if so, whether they are teaching in an “educational establishment.”

Certainly, we know that our teachers are focused on children’s development and learning, not just their physical care.  Of course, we have yet to adequately address the compensation issue for ECE teachers – so many working today would not meet the wage test.  We are however making strides in requiring ECE teachers to have more formal education at the college level.  Despite these attempts to professionalize our field, we are still viewed by many outside as providing primarily custodial care – strike two on the “educational establishment” test.

Now, I realize that advocating for our teachers to be recognized as professionals, and therefore eligible to be classified as exempt employees, doesn’t come without its challenges.  Many programs do not have sufficient income to pay teachers the required minimum salary, or to give teachers the paid time off that generally comes with a professional position. We need to continue to work on this issue. But there is a lot of energy going into how to legitimately work around the issues identified in the audits – such as making ongoing training requirements the responsibility of the individual rather than of the program that employs them.  But what message are we sending to our teachers, to the government, and to the public with this approach?  Do we not want our programs to be considered educational establishments?  Do we not want families, and other educators, and policymakers to see us as professionals?  Is our best defense to try to change our system to fit ourselves into the current definitions, or should we be working to change the rules - to define ourselves in a way that truly reflects the value of the work we do?

19Oct/11Off

Teachers and Coaches: Radical Learners?

Lynn Andrews

Posted by Lynn Andrews

By

Lynn Andrews

What will it take to make early childhood programs the best that they can be? Jim Knight, director of the Kansas Coaching Project at the University of Kansas, believes that Radical Learners will be the people to “save our schools” – and I think his ideas apply to our field as well. He describes radical learners as people who, among other qualities:
• believe we are here on earth to learn, so they are turned on by every chance they get to discover something new
• have hope because they know that to teach without hope is to damage, but to teach with hope can save the world
• have mentors and coaches
• mentor and coach others
• are brutally honest about what is really happening in their classroom and would welcome any visitor who could help them improve
• don’t blame others but accept personal responsibility
• infect everybody with their love of learning, most importantly the children they teach

His list includes passion for learning as a key quality for creating educational change, but I was also struck by his inclusion of mentoring and coaching. There is growing evidence that coaching improves performance and job satisfaction for new teachers, but Knight suggests that more experienced teachers (and, I would suggest, any early childhood professionals) can benefit from coaching, as well. Knight’s description of Radical Learners implies that both people in a coaching relationship have to demonstrate these qualities for coaching to be effective.

Regardless of how much expertise we have gained, there is always room to grow. And it is difficult to observe our own behavior objectively – we often “don’t know what we don’t know.” Knight teaches coaches to observe, attending to several critical learning environment dimensions that translate well to early childhood settings: whether the teacher has an effective plan for instruction, whether the students are engaged and interact respectfully, and whether there are intentional conversations taking place. Then coaches initiate conversations designed to help the teacher observed reflect on her practice (perhaps with the help of video), mainly by asking questions such as “What worked well?” “What didn’t work so well?” and “What did you notice?” before pointing out what the coach has seen. Usually, this is followed by a problem-solving conversation in which both coach and teacher brainstorm ways to address the issues identified. The coach needs to be a willing learner and a non-judgmental and caring reporter who can help the teacher focus on the children’s experience and learning, and the teacher needs to be open to seeing where there is room for improvement and taking responsibility to change her practice. This can be a challenge on both sides when it’s just part of our nature to think our ideas are right and to want to be seen as competent professionals.

In his Radical Learners blog, Knight states “The real joy of teaching is learning how to reach all the students we teach.” Perhaps for coaches, it should be “The real joy of coaching is learning how to help all the teachers we coach.” So whether you’re a teacher, or a program director, or any other early childhood professional, are you feeling it? Do you consider yourself a Radical Learner?

27Jul/11Off

What Would Geri Do?

Lynn Andrews

Posted by Lynn Andrews

By

Lynn Andrews

This week we are saying farewell to our dear colleague and friend Geri Mendoza as she begins her new life in Salt Lake City.  Geri will be directing a lab preschool and teaching at the University of Utah.  They don’t know how lucky they are to have her.  Throughout her more than 10 year affiliation with Clayton Early Learning, Geri has been a tireless champion for children and a model of servant leadership.  Geri  was part of the team that created the first Qualistar Rating and Improvement System for Colorado, with a lofty goal of increasing children’s access to high quality child care and early childhood education throughout the state.  She then took what we learned about supporting early childhood programs in assessing and improving their quality to integrate in-depth training with coaching into a highly effective professional development system for early childhood professionals.  Always willing to experiment to push the envelope of best practice, Geri took a lead role in developing and testing these professional development efforts through federal ly funded research and demonstration projects such as Early Reading First for preschool children and Learning Through Relating for infants and toddlers.

Fortunately, Geri is not just packing up everything she has learned and all her expertise and taking them with her.  She has mentored numerous teachers, coaches, and program administrators and has always been a strong proponent of building capacity – not only by sharing what she has learned but also by helping others recognize their own strengths and expertise.  And she would be the first person to say that the success of her projects has always been a team effort.   Collaboration could be her middle name.

Underneath it all is an admirable sense of humility, a good dose of humor, and a passion for creating equity for the underserved and underrepresented.  When she is not encouraging teachers and administrators to reflect on and take their practice up a notch, she is organizing donations for women’s shelters.

We can’t replace Geri here at Clayton and in the Denver community, but we can try to emulate her leadership and teaching.  We just need to find some of her courage, compassion and willingness to learn.  I’m thinking about some of the changes that I feel need to be made to support children and families here in Denver – changes I haven’t taken any action on for one reason or another – too risky, too time-consuming, too complicated, too entrenched, etc.  Does this sound familiar? 

Now that Geri is leaving, to honor her legacy I intend to stop making excuses when I see an opportunity to help a teacher inspire a child, or to improve services to families, or to expose a wrong that needs to be righted.  Instead, I’ll ask myself – What would Geri do?

Filed under: Uncategorized 1 Comment
20Jun/11Off

Blue Is for Boys and Pink Is for Girls – Changing the Rules for Gender

Lynn Andrews

Posted by Lynn Andrews

By

Lynn Andrews

Gender bias is alive and well.  While driving to work last week, I heard a disturbing exchange between a popular local radio host and another staff person at that station.  The station has a daily promotional give-away in which a caller who correctly answers a trivia question receives a prize such as concert tickets or week-end getaways.  On this day, the give-away was an American Girl doll, and the radio host announced that only children could respond to the trivia question that morning.  The other staff person’s response was approximately “You mean only girls should call in, right?”  The host (a woman) countered that there might be boys who would be interested in calling in, and that there was a little boy in her neighborhood who played with dolls.  The other person (a man) was horrified, and continued to express his dismay at the possibility that a boy might want a doll, even after a little girl won the contest.  He was certain that no boys would call in, and he was certain that dolls were inappropriate toys for boys.

I was horrified that children would likely be listening to these comments.  Clearly, this man is unaware of how many young boys enjoy playing with dolls and what they can learn from this play.  It’s common to find preschool boys bathing dolls in a water-table in an early childhood education program, for example, or dressing dolls in a dramatic play area.  It gives them practice in nurturing and caretaking behavior that can stand them in good stead as they grow older and learn to be good friends, partners, and fathers.  But of more concern to me was the message he was communicating that there are rules about what it means to be a boy – and playing with dolls breaks the rules.  It is increasingly socially acceptable for girls to take an interest in activities that used to be the province of boys only – sports, science, careers in construction, law enforcement, and the military.  These public comments, and other examples such as the recent controversy over the J. Crew online ad showing a boy with pink nail polish on his toes, show that there is still considerable bias against boys taking an interest in traditionally female interests, including child care.  When adults react to children who express an interest that crosses traditional gender lines with derision or disgust, children get the message that they are not OK at the very core of their being, and they feel shame.  And shame limits our choices and therefore our potential as human beings.

I’m working on composing a response to the comments that were made on this radio program.  If you were to respond, what would you say?

Filed under: Uncategorized No Comments
4May/11Off

Effective Teaching – More to Learn

Lynn Andrews

Posted by Lynn Andrews

By

Lynn Andrews

If you’ve been following efforts to ensure that young children receive high quality early childhood education experiences, you know that a lot of emphasis is being placed on teacher education and creating good learning environments for children.  But, what about the learning and work environment for those teachers?  Those of us who are working to support teachers in learning and applying effective practices know from our experience that factors other than teachers’ formal professional development affect their ability to implement and sustain what they are learning, and even whether they continue to work in the early childhood field.  In fact, one study in North Carolina found that teachers who worked in programs that provided a positive work environment were twice as likely as teachers  who worked in less supportive environments to report that they expected to still be working in the field in three years.

When we see teachers who are frustrated, unmotivated, or who simply quit, it’s easy to sense what might be going wrong, and it isn’t just inadequate compensation.  These teachers report feeling isolated and unsupported, burned out from having no time to plan or take a break, being worried about getting sick because they have no health insurance, or feeling powerless to make changes in their day-to-day work.

These are the stories we hear and we assume that if these conditions could be fixed, things would be better, but there are few tools available to assess what is going right in programs that are able to achieve and sustain high quality with effective teachers.  We don’t have much research evidence of the impact of the work environment on teacher effectiveness.  The Program Administration Scale (PAS), developed by Teri Talan and Paula Jorde Bloom, looks at 10 areas of program management, including human resources development, personnel costs and allocation, program planning and evaluation, and staff qualifications.  Several states are now including the PAS in their Quality Rating Improvement Systems.  The Early Childhood Work Environment Survey, developed by The McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership, assesses center worker perceptions and attitudes about such things as co-worker relations, supervisor support, decision-making influence, goal consensus, and the physical setting.  These tools should offer some good information to support program quality improvement but they have not yet answered the question of how the work environment affects what happens in the classroom for children.

Recently, I was privileged to sit in on a conversation between Dr. Marcy Whitebook of the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment and members of the Colorado P-3 Professional Development Advisory Group to discuss this issue.  Building on her previous work in creating model work standards for those employed in child care, she and her colleagues are now developing an assessment of the work environment domains that they believe support effective teacher learning and practice, including (1) participating in a professional learning community, (2) job-crafting, which relates to teacher autonomy, (3) adult well-being, and (4) program and family supports.  The Center plans to begin piloting this measure in the Fall of 2011 and to assess the relationship of these work environment domains to other aspects of program quality.  This will give policy makers and program managers a better understanding of where to invest their quality improvement dollars –to evaluate the relative impact of more classroom materials, more professional development, and more supportive work environments in helping teachers achieve and sustain program quality that fosters good child outcomes.   Let us know your thoughts on what supports teacher effectiveness – we’ll pass it along!

Filed under: Uncategorized No Comments
9Feb/11Off

Stepping Up and Speaking Out – a New Year’s Resolution for Children and Families

Lynn Andrews

Posted by Lynn Andrews

By

Lynn Andrews

Here it is February and I am just getting clear about my New Year’s resolution for this year.  I knew that the usual losing weight and getting more exercise type of resolution would be futile based on my past history so I’ve been pondering how I can make a difference for other people.  What I’ve decided is that I need to do better at keeping current with proposed policy changes that affect children and families, and staying on top of the latest research in early childhood development and education and family engagement.  Of course, these should inform each other, but that doesn’t always happen – so the third leg of this resolution is to speak up more, to use my voice to educate policymakers about the potential impact of their decisions, and to ensure that those of us in the field are making the best use of our time and effort in our work with children and families. 

The economy may be inching toward recovery, but local, state, and federal lawmakers are grappling with huge budget deficits and considering funding cuts to programs and services that could have dire consequences for families: reductions in Head Start funding, child care subsidies, full-day kindergarten, quality improvement funds for early childhood programs, and school meal subsidies – to name a few.  There also is increasing emphasis on using limited resources to fund programs that are effective, that demonstrate concrete benefits for children in terms of academic, social-emotional, and health outcomes.  Decision-makers need to know what works, and so do we who are providing services directly to children and families.

Here are some resources that I am using to stay current in what is happening at the policy level and for the latest research in early care and education:

National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER): http://nieer.org/resources/facts and

Online News http://nieer.org/resources/newsletter/

Every Child Matters: www.everychildmatters.org

Center for the Child Care Workforce: www.ccw.org

National Women’s Law Center Update: www.nwlc.org

Colorado Children’s Campaign: www.coloradokids.org

Marsico Institute for Early Learning and Literacy: www.du.edu/marsicoinstitute

UNC Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute: www.fpg.unc.edu

National Association for the Education of Young Children: www.naeyc.org/policy

SEDL: www.sedl.org/ (search “early childhood”)

Doing What Works: http://dww.ed.gov

So my resolution is to subscribe to the sites that send e-mail updates and alerts and actually take the time to read them, check at least one other site weekly for new information, and then DO something with the information I learn. I might share it with a colleague or friend, write to a legislator, e-mail the media – whatever I can do to help create more and better informed voices for children.  So check out some of these resources.  If you need a more meaningful New Year’s resolution – you can be one of these voices, too.  Let us know what you’re concerned about this year.  If we all speak up, we can make a difference.

Filed under: Uncategorized No Comments
17Nov/10Off

Quality Trumps Cost for Parents Needing Child Care

Lynn Andrews

Posted by Lynn Andrews

By

Lynn Andrews

Those of us in the early childhood field concerned about the quality of child care often feel like we are a voice crying in the wilderness – we plead our case to the universe and all that comes back to us is an echo.  I have been in many conversations in which someone has stated that we need to get parents more involved in our efforts to improve services for children.  In these same conversations, I have also heard the opinion that parents don’t seem to care about quality.  Now there is some good news on this front.

There are more than 11 million children under the age of 5 in child care every week, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.  In a survey of 1000 parents conducted by the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies  (NACCRA) this year, 57% reported that child care was an economic necessity.  This percentage has increased over the past four years.   And while cost of child care continues to be a critical factor for most families in the study to “make it in this economy”, quality of care ranked as their single greatest concern.  In fact, almost three-quarters of the parents surveyed were willing to support tax increases that would be invested in improving child care quality. This is good news for those of us in the early childhood field who have been working hard to convince parents, the public, and policy makers of the importance of high quality child care for young children’ development and learning.

The other good news is that parents seem more informed about some basic elements of quality.  They identify criteria such as regular inspections by a monitoring agency, background checks for prospective employees, and training for teachers in health and safety and child development, along with ongoing professional development opportunities for staff.  They expect that their children will have opportunities for learning while in child care.  The bad news is that parents assume that most child care providers already meet these criteria.  So we have been successful in educating parents about what’s important for quality and why it’s important, but we need to do better at getting the message across that there is still much work to be done.

While Colorado regulations meet NACCRA’s suggested standards for health and safety and in requiring a variety of learning opportunities for children, we are missing the mark in some key areas.  In 2008, child care centers in Colorado were inspected only once every two years, on average.  Center directors and teachers, and licensed family home providers are not required to have a college degree.  Center staff is required to have only 15 hours of ongoing training per year.  Required ratios of staff to children are not optimal given what we know about the central role of teacher-child interactions in children’s learning.  To be fair, the Colorado Dept. of Human Services Division of Child Care has been working hard to strengthen licensing requirements for both centers and family home providers, while being sensitive to the systemic and economic implications of raising the bar – for families, for the providers, and for the government agencies responsible for child care oversight and funding. 

In today’s economy, deciding where to invest our more limited resources is more fraught than usual with politics and rhetoric.  But I think it’s still true that the strongest collective voices will be heard.  If there are 11 million children in child care, there are probably at least 3 million parents of children in care.  So now that parents are on board with the importance of quality child care, and they know what to ask for, how can we enroll their voices to ensure that as a state and as a nation we are making the right choices for our children?

Filed under: Uncategorized No Comments
8Sep/10Off

5 Rules for Coaching in Early Childhood Programs Rule # 5: Imagine

Lynn Andrews

Posted by Lynn Andrews

By

Lynn Andrews

Have you ever had the experience of brainstorming solutions to a problem with someone and suddenly landing on an idea that neither of you thought of before?  It can be one of those exhilarating “aha” moments in coaching.  Imagining such solutions that “harmonize” very different perspectives can be a challenge.  Harmonizing is an approach to problems that integrates the interests of each person involved.  As I described in my last blog, it really requires suspending judgment and opening a space in your thinking to allow creative solutions that address both perspectives to emerge. It requires imagination.  When two people disagree, we may think that what’s needed is a compromise, in which each person gets something that satisfies their interest but also has to give something up.  When the problem or conflict is about how children are treated, or how quality is defined, a compromise is not likely to satisfy anyone.  Creating that "3rd space" can result in truly novel solutions that don’t require a compromise – sort of like when you blend yellow and blue to get green, or when you combine several musical notes to make a chord.

In the scenario I presented in my last blog, the coach and the teacher disagreed on the need to comfort babies when they cried.  To initiate 3rd space brainstorming in this case, the coach might ask “What are some things we can do to insure that babies are feeling safe and secure, AND learning to deal with frustration and to do things for themselves?”  Some examples of more focused coaching questions might be:

“What do you already do to help babies feel safe?” (You might need to ask this just to get some background information, but it may open up ideas that can be applied to times when children are feeling frustrated.)

“How do you assess what babies are ready to learn next as a developmental task?  Let’s take Penelope as an example.  What might she be ready to do more independently?  What is she able to do now?”

“What kinds of opportunities and support could you provide to her to learn this higher level task so she can feel successful?  If you see that she’s getting frustrated, how might you comfort her AND encourage her to keep trying?”

If you’re in brainstorming mode, try to avoid evaluating the solutions proposed until all the ideas are on the table because this can cut the harmonizing process and the creativity short.  Novel ideas may take some time to get used to and trying them out has to feel safe for the person being coached, as well.  Modeling this process for the teacher may even help her try harmonizing with her children.  Imagine that!

Since I’m up to Rule #5, this blog completes the series.  I’ll continue to blog on coaching from time to time, as I’m still learning about what works and what our challenges are.  I’m sure there are more “rules” that those of you who are coaching or being coached could propose.  Let me know what they are and we can discuss them, too.

Filed under: Uncategorized No Comments