I haven’t read a ton of Jim Knight, but what I do know is that an approach to coaching that is about developing an individual without regard to the development of the organization is a vacuous theory of action and I have no respect for it. And he is basing it on ideas about individual motivation that are baseless.
I also think that an approach to coaching that cannot accommodate for differences in expertise is pretty weak. In our work we talk about the levels of feedback from Hattie & Timperley 2007 (task, process and self-regulation) and matching those to the stage of the learner. Obviously, novices need more task level feedback, and experts benefit from self-regulation. I think coaching models that insist that coaches only ask questions are pretty pointless. I think it’s also possible that you can be direct without being directive, and I don’t know what could possibly be wrong with telling someone what you think.
But the background to all of this is that what you really want is for people to have a shared understanding of what good instruction looks like such that they can, in effect, give themselves feedback: they know what good looks like, they can self-assess relative to that target, and they can experiment with next steps.
Hi Isobel! plot twist monkey #5 reminds me of something Jim Knight said, “Love the ones you’re with”. My interpretation of this is that schools will have more success if they quit trying to replace people (within reason) and start trying to coach them instead. Because we don’t have a line out the door of people trying to get jobs as teachers. And many times (at least in my district) teachers are long-term subs. It’s difficult to expect results when they have received no preparation and little to no coaching support.
Something else that came to mind while reading… The monkey and the pedestal metaphor resonated with me in a slightly different way before I read your elaborations. This got me thinking about something happening at my school site.
Our monkey is instructional improvement, more specifically through teacher development and consistent, instructional practices across the school. But there are some leaders on the campus who only want to polish the pedestal: plan parties, student incentives, go shopping for supplies, etc. In some ways, it seems like these people understand what the monkey really is, especially when the parties are to celebrate students who’ve made academic achievements. But very little time is being spent considering HOW did the student manage to even make that academic achievement? How can we get more students to make academic achievements? How can we replicate this? What was working/what didn’t work?
But so much time and energy is being poured into the peripheral. And very little actual time and effort is being spent on the thing that really matters.
How do you get leaders on the same page about what is important?
Caroline, thanks, lots to chew on in this comment. I think the "love the one you're with" line comes originally from Dylan Wiliam. I totally agree with your interpretation, but I have lots of issues with Jim Knight's work, largely because of the issue you highlight--you can't get everyone on the same page if people have choice about, for example, whether to be coached and what to be coached on. Choice is not what Jim Knight thinks it is.
Your monkey is not instructional improvement--that is the mechanism for improving student learning. Your monkey is, I infer, getting leaders on the same page about what is important? So who is in charge of those leaders? Usually it's the system leader who has to say, the goal is improved student learning, we have a theory about how to improve student learning (which has to be about improving instruction, nothing else will get you there), and here is what we are going to do to get you there. If you are looking for a place to start in having that conversation, I recommend Cobb, P., Jackson, K., Henrick, E., & Smith, T. M. (2020). Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office. Harvard Education Press. This is the single most useful book I’ve come across in the last couple of years. Based on an eight-year research–practice partnership in four urban districts, the book outlines a coherent system of supports—pull-out PD, coaching cycles, collaborative inquiry, and strategic principal engagement—to drive achievement at scale. It has given us the research and the language to suggest a new strategy for instructional improvement, which changes the way we think about professional learning and the work of leaders. Especially the work of leaders.
But see also the part in the post about knowing what you're working towards; you need a shared understanding of what high quality, equitable instrution looks like.
One more point. People are polishing pedestals not because they are poor leaders, but because they do not have clear guidance on what they should be doing. Love the one you're with.
Yes! Dylan William, thank you. It’s interesting that Jim Knight got brought up (even though I misquoted him) because my counterpart and I have had lots of discussions about whether or not his methods are replicable in a public school setting. I found some value in trying to shift my coaching mindset, but I can’t deny that I am struggling with how to coach people the way that he espouses when they don’t believe that they need coaching, or the data is not convincing enough to make them want to enroll themselves in coaching. I see the value in the way he does talk about coaching and the way he frames it, but I do find it difficult to enact… and my counterpart would agree with you that too much choice is not always a good thing. She’s been trying to get me off the Jim Knight train for a while now, but mostly because we’re working in large part with teachers who have no preparation whatsoever and they need more directive coaching to start. But then that positions me differently than I would like to be positioned. Which maybe that is unavoidable. How do you find the balance when working with inexperienced teachers?
Thank you for the reading recommendation. I am interested in learning more about how to leverage systems at my school and I am excited to give it a read.
Also, thank you for the reminder that everyone is doing the best they can with what they have. :)
I haven’t read a ton of Jim Knight, but what I do know is that an approach to coaching that is about developing an individual without regard to the development of the organization is a vacuous theory of action and I have no respect for it. And he is basing it on ideas about individual motivation that are baseless.
I also think that an approach to coaching that cannot accommodate for differences in expertise is pretty weak. In our work we talk about the levels of feedback from Hattie & Timperley 2007 (task, process and self-regulation) and matching those to the stage of the learner. Obviously, novices need more task level feedback, and experts benefit from self-regulation. I think coaching models that insist that coaches only ask questions are pretty pointless. I think it’s also possible that you can be direct without being directive, and I don’t know what could possibly be wrong with telling someone what you think.
But the background to all of this is that what you really want is for people to have a shared understanding of what good instruction looks like such that they can, in effect, give themselves feedback: they know what good looks like, they can self-assess relative to that target, and they can experiment with next steps.
Hi Isobel! plot twist monkey #5 reminds me of something Jim Knight said, “Love the ones you’re with”. My interpretation of this is that schools will have more success if they quit trying to replace people (within reason) and start trying to coach them instead. Because we don’t have a line out the door of people trying to get jobs as teachers. And many times (at least in my district) teachers are long-term subs. It’s difficult to expect results when they have received no preparation and little to no coaching support.
Something else that came to mind while reading… The monkey and the pedestal metaphor resonated with me in a slightly different way before I read your elaborations. This got me thinking about something happening at my school site.
Our monkey is instructional improvement, more specifically through teacher development and consistent, instructional practices across the school. But there are some leaders on the campus who only want to polish the pedestal: plan parties, student incentives, go shopping for supplies, etc. In some ways, it seems like these people understand what the monkey really is, especially when the parties are to celebrate students who’ve made academic achievements. But very little time is being spent considering HOW did the student manage to even make that academic achievement? How can we get more students to make academic achievements? How can we replicate this? What was working/what didn’t work?
But so much time and energy is being poured into the peripheral. And very little actual time and effort is being spent on the thing that really matters.
How do you get leaders on the same page about what is important?
Caroline, thanks, lots to chew on in this comment. I think the "love the one you're with" line comes originally from Dylan Wiliam. I totally agree with your interpretation, but I have lots of issues with Jim Knight's work, largely because of the issue you highlight--you can't get everyone on the same page if people have choice about, for example, whether to be coached and what to be coached on. Choice is not what Jim Knight thinks it is.
Your monkey is not instructional improvement--that is the mechanism for improving student learning. Your monkey is, I infer, getting leaders on the same page about what is important? So who is in charge of those leaders? Usually it's the system leader who has to say, the goal is improved student learning, we have a theory about how to improve student learning (which has to be about improving instruction, nothing else will get you there), and here is what we are going to do to get you there. If you are looking for a place to start in having that conversation, I recommend Cobb, P., Jackson, K., Henrick, E., & Smith, T. M. (2020). Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office. Harvard Education Press. This is the single most useful book I’ve come across in the last couple of years. Based on an eight-year research–practice partnership in four urban districts, the book outlines a coherent system of supports—pull-out PD, coaching cycles, collaborative inquiry, and strategic principal engagement—to drive achievement at scale. It has given us the research and the language to suggest a new strategy for instructional improvement, which changes the way we think about professional learning and the work of leaders. Especially the work of leaders.
But see also the part in the post about knowing what you're working towards; you need a shared understanding of what high quality, equitable instrution looks like.
One more point. People are polishing pedestals not because they are poor leaders, but because they do not have clear guidance on what they should be doing. Love the one you're with.
Yes! Dylan William, thank you. It’s interesting that Jim Knight got brought up (even though I misquoted him) because my counterpart and I have had lots of discussions about whether or not his methods are replicable in a public school setting. I found some value in trying to shift my coaching mindset, but I can’t deny that I am struggling with how to coach people the way that he espouses when they don’t believe that they need coaching, or the data is not convincing enough to make them want to enroll themselves in coaching. I see the value in the way he does talk about coaching and the way he frames it, but I do find it difficult to enact… and my counterpart would agree with you that too much choice is not always a good thing. She’s been trying to get me off the Jim Knight train for a while now, but mostly because we’re working in large part with teachers who have no preparation whatsoever and they need more directive coaching to start. But then that positions me differently than I would like to be positioned. Which maybe that is unavoidable. How do you find the balance when working with inexperienced teachers?
Thank you for the reading recommendation. I am interested in learning more about how to leverage systems at my school and I am excited to give it a read.
Also, thank you for the reminder that everyone is doing the best they can with what they have. :)