Some Thoughts About Blended Coaching and Principal Supervision

Fourteen years ago AASA published an article by me and my colleague Barry Vitkov entitled A New Vision for the Supervision of Principals. To the best of my knowledge, this was the first time an article had been published addressing the need to focus attention upon principal supervision, and to call for targeted training and support for those who supervise principals. We stated that “The time is right for us to focus on principal supervision. We now know that principal leadership is second only to teacher quality in influencing achievement.”  At the time, again to the best of my knowledge, our organization, the New Teacher Center at the University of California Santa Cruz, was the only organization in the country offering training specifically designed to support principal supervisors. 

Things have come a long way over the course of the last fourteen years. Model Principal Supervisor Professional Standards, were published in 2015 by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Those standards reflect Vitkov and my 2010 recommendations that “the primary focus of principal supervision should be on improving principal performance” and that “principal supervision should be grounded in a coaching relationship.” 

“Principal supervision should be grounded in a coaching relationship.” 

The Wallace Foundation, in its groundbreaking work in support of school leadership, has nurtured principal pipelines, and coaching-based support of principals in dozens of districts around the country. Wallace published, with the New Teacher Center, Coaching Based Supervision for Principal Supervisors in 2018 (Bloom & Wilson). 

The attention brought to principal supervision has resulted in a number of organizations, including AASA and the Center for Educational Leadership offering training specifically designed for principal supervisors. My colleague Jackie Wilson and I have worked with dozens of school districts and state departments of education providing training and resources in support of Coaching-Based Supervision of principals.  

So what are some of my thoughts and observations about principal supervision, Blended Coaching, and Coaching-Based Supervision at this point in time? 

Blended Coaching has been our foundational model as we have helped folks to develop principal supervision around the country. In brief, Blended Coaching suggests that we need to support folks as they grow in their Ways of Doing (their professional knowledge and skills) and their Ways of Being (their dispositions and social/emotional skills). Both are essential to educators. 

Blended Coaching is not scripted; it is a more fluid and organic process that allows the coach/supervisor to put on a “teacher hat” when, for example, a novice school administrator is up against a technical challenge. And a coach practicing the model recognizes that when a coachee is struggling with emotional intelligence challenges, the coach needs to have the courage to address those issues as well. 

Principal supervisors are not only coaches, they are “the boss”, and as “the boss” they may have to give direction to principals, and feedback that carries more weight than most anybody else in the system.

Principal supervisors are not only coaches, they are “the boss”, and as “the boss” they may have to give direction to principals, and feedback that carries more weight than most anybody else in the system. A supervisor using the Blended Coaching model follows feedback and/or direction with coaching. “This is what I expect of you and this is why….. Let’s work together to think through our next steps in helping to get through this.” 

Here is a quick taste of what Coaching-Based Supervision might look like, based upon a case study recently shared in a community of practice:  

Carolyn is supervising a first-year principal, Mike, who has transitioned to an elementary school setting after years of experience in secondary education, most recently as an Assistant Principal. This school is small and has experienced frequent leadership turnover—cycling through a new principal every two to three years. The staff is understandably apprehensive about yet another change in leadership, and morale is low due to a lack of consistent vision and support. Carolyn observed some challenges in Mike's transition, relationships, and knowledge.  Here are some examples of activities Carolyn engaged in with Mike: 

• Carolyn helped Mike to develop school and personal goals for the year, and to share them in an effective way with staff and community.
  
  
• As Carolyn visited classrooms with Mike, she shared resources and her own expertise with him as he developed  his knowledge and experience around elementary instruction.
  
  
• Carolyn observed Mike doing several post-observation conferences with teachers, and helped him to reflect upon those meetings afterwards.
  
  
• Mike was perplexed by one teacher on the staff that he felt was  undermining his leadership. Carolyn talked this through with Mike and role-played several conversations with Mike in preparation for meetings with that teacher.
  
  
• Carolyn has brought Mike as a case study to her principal supervisor community of practice a few times this year, where she has received feedback and suggestions from her colleagues. He colleagues have helped her to think through ways in which she can support Mike’s growth.
  
• Carolyn will meet with Mike and visit classrooms with him about once every two weeks. When Carolyn writes Mike’s summative evaluation at the end of the year, it will almost be an afterthought.

So, we’ve come a long way, at least in Carolyn’s district. Twenty years ago, Mike would have only seen Carolyn at meetings, her rare drop-ins, and if  there was a major problem. Mike, in today’s world, is not dodging bullets in isolation. He feels understood, supported, and like a learner rather than merely a survivor.