Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Outsourcing for school outcomes: a multi-case study examination of outsourced and in-house literacy coaching models
(USC Thesis Other)
Outsourcing for school outcomes: a multi-case study examination of outsourced and in-house literacy coaching models
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
OUTSOURCING FOR SCHOOL OUTCOMES: A MULTI-CASE STUDY
EXAMINATION OF OUTSOURCED AND IN-HOUSE LITERACY COACHING
MODELS
by
Noemi Donoso
_________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2008
Copyright 2008 Noemi Donoso
ii
DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to my children, Deven and Ava, as well as all of the students
I have learned and grown with over the past fifteen years. Through their resilience,
complexity, and optimism, these young people inspire me to innovate, remind me to
take risks, and challenge me daily to reach them. Every day, I feel accomplished
because of their life-changing journeys.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to extend my deepest admiration and appreciation for the thoughtful
guidance of my dissertation chair, Dr. Priscilla Wohlstetter. Since the day I met her
almost a decade ago, I was impressed by her brilliant analytic perspectives and
welcomed opportunities to work with her and learn from her. I feel fortunate to have
worked with her on this study. She guided me through several rounds of re-
organization and refinement that deepened my understanding of the data. I look
forward to future collaborations with her. I would also like to thank my dissertation
committee members, Dr. Peter Robertson and Dr. Amanda Datnow, whose advice,
careful analysis and attention to detail assisted greatly as I completed this study.
This study would not have been possible were it not for the wisdom and
leadership of Dr. Sylvia Rousseau. I would like to thank her for challenging me both
in the field and in my studies. I gained tremendous insight from Dr. Rousseau’s
instructional prowess, tenacious leadership and deep commitment to eradicating
achievement gaps.
Yet, the person I owe the greatest gratitude for completing this study is my
husband, David Esselman. He knew just how to motivate me when my focus
wandered. He often convinces me of my own limitless potential and reminds me to
trust myself. Even though he understands my life’s work and supports my
obsessive-compulsive need to realize my BHAGs, he has also opened up for me a
full, rich world filled with tender family memories and wild adventures.
iv
Finally, the most difficult people to acknowledge are my family members.
My mother and father made many sacrifices to ensure my brother, sister and I
benefited from an excellent education, all the while exposing us to the reality of
hardship, poverty and injustice. When I became a mother half way through this
study, I had flashbacks of my mother taking evening classes at Cal State Los Angeles
after 12 hour shifts throughout my high school and college days, and knew giving up
was a luxury she did not have. I completed this study for my parents, my
grandparents, my children and others who will follow in our footsteps, understanding
as my parents taught me that through a profound commitment to learning and
personal growth, one will continue to open new doors.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION …………………………………………………………………… ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ……………………………………………………….. iii
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………… vii
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………... viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION …………………………………………… 1
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERACY COACHING LITERATURE ….. 11
CHAPTER THREE: REVIEW OF OUTSOURCING LITERATURE ………… 28
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODS ………………………………….. 55
CHAPTER FIVE: CASE STUDY: OUTSOURCED LITERACY COACHING
AT TWO MIDDLE SCHOOLS …………………………………………………. 72
CHAPTER SIX: CASE STUDY: IN-HOUSE LITERACY COACHING AT
TWO MIDDLE SCHOOLS …………………………………………………….. 126
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION AND POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS ……………………………………………………….. 163
REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………. 186
APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………….. 197
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Cost Benefit Analysis ………………………………………………… 39
Table 2. Framework to Determine When and How to Outsource ……………... 53
Table 3. Case Study Respondents ……………………………………………… 61
Table 4. Overview of Research Methods ………………………………………. 63
Table 5. Sample Interview/Focus Group Questions ……………………………. 65
Table 6. Outline of Emergent Themes, Ideas, and/or Categories ………………. 67
Table 7. 2002 API and AYP for Local District Secondary Schools ……………. 73
Table 8. API Data 2001-2006: Outsourced Literacy Coaching Schools ………. 109
Table 9. ELA Mean Scores 2002-2006: Outsourced Literacy Coaching
Schools …………………………………………………………………………..110
Table 10. API School Data 2001-2006: In-House Literacy Coaching Schools .. 150
Table 11. ELA Mean Scores 2002-2006: In-House Literacy Coaching Schools .151
Table 12. Top Ten Literacy Coaching Activities ……………………………… 166
Table 13. Efficacy of Outsourced and In-House Literacy Coaching ………….. 169
Table 14. Effectiveness of Outsourced and In-House Literacy Coaching …….. 179
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. ELA Score Growth 2002-2005 …………………………………… 176
Figure 2. API Scores by School 2002-2006 ………………………………… 177
viii
ABSTRACT
The study examined two different literacy coaching models- outsourced and
in-house- implemented in one Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) local
district. Research questions addressed in the study included: What factors influenced
a local district superintendent to outsource literacy coaching? How were two
different literacy coaching models implemented in a local district’s middle schools?
What criteria were used to measure the efficacy of the two literacy coaching models?
Which of the two literacy coaching models was more effective and under what
conditions?
The study consisted of two case studies, one on how outsourced literacy
coaching was implemented in two middle schools and another on how in-house
literacy coaching was implemented at two other middle schools within the same
LAUSD local district. Data sources included interviews with the local
superintendent and principals, focus groups with teachers and literacy coaches, and
archival data that included contracts, job descriptions, monthly logs and test results.
Two frameworks were used to analyze the outsourcing dynamic in the
LAUSD local district and another framework was used to determine the
effectiveness of each literacy coaching model. First, a decision-making framework
was used to analyze the local superintendent’s decision to outsource literacy
coaching. Second, a framework that identified key strategies for successful
outsourcing was applied to assess the outsourcing arrangement between an LAUSD
local district and the provider, in an attempt to inform future management decisions
ix
about outsourcing educational support services. Third, a literacy coaching
framework was used to describe the implementation of two literacy coaching models
and assess the effectiveness of each model.
Findings from the study indicated the need to focus on accountability with
both outsourcing and literacy coaching, clearly communicating performance-based
goals and expectations at all levels- from providers, to administrators, literacy
coaches and teachers. Other key findings included the need to create coherent job
descriptions for literacy coaches to protect coaching time with teachers and the
importance of properly training administrators and literacy coaches to drive
instructional reform.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Tired of disappointing results from traditional professional development
efforts and under more public scrutiny than ever before to deliver improved student
achievement, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) decided to
implement a literacy coaching program district wide that focused on improving
student performance in reading and writing. By 2002, literacy coaches were placed
at every elementary, middle and high school in the District, radically changing past
approaches to teacher training (Sass, Rivera and White, 2002).
The National Assessment of Educational Progress exams revealed that 25%
of the country’s eighth graders are reading at “below basic” levels (Sturtevant,
2003). Unfortunately, the majority of secondary schools today do not provide
systematic literacy instruction in core content areas or extra support for struggling
readers. As a result, secondary teachers in all core content areas are expected to
require students to improve skills like reading, writing, problem-solving and critical
thinking along with mastery of content knowledge. Schools have turned to literacy
coaches to guide and support teachers in a continuous learning process that focuses
on the teaching of literacy and content at the secondary level. The major role of
secondary literacy coaches is to work with content teachers across the curriculum to
help them utilize strategies designed to improve their students’ ability to read, write,
and succeed in content courses (Sturtevant, 2003).
2
Many large urban school districts throughout the country have implemented
secondary literacy coaching programs to promote improved literacy (Russo, 2004;
Snow et. al, 2006). The Annenberg Foundation committed $31 million to teacher
coaching in Pennsylvania; Florida devoted over a third of its $90 million literacy
initiative to coaching. New York City’s public schools have assigned experienced
coaches to schools as part of a large-scale staff development effort to support
reading, writing and math programs. Literacy coaches were also used as part of a
district-wide reading plan in Dallas, an initiative that significantly improved student
reading performance and led to the removal of all participating schools from the
state’s low performing list (Russo, 2004). A group of schools in Philadelphia were
chosen to pilot a coaching program in 2002-03, contracting with the Princeton
Review to train 500 school-based instructional leaders and 130 coaches. In 2002,
Jerry Weast, Superintendent of Montgomery County Schools in Maryland,
substantially re-organized the district office and invested $10 million in 200 “staff
development teachers” charged with ensuring a skillful teacher in every classroom
(Richard, 2003). One year later, Boston spent almost $6 million on its coaching
program, placing 75 coaches in 97 schools (Russo, 2004; Hall, 2004; Guiney, 2001).
Researchers cite numerous challenges with implementing school-based
coaching on a large scale, including: difficulty finding good coaches; potential drain
of effective teachers from schools; lack of clear expectations of the coach;
insufficient training and support for coaches; inadequate time provided in the school
day to engage teachers in coaching; and, overall costliness of coaching programs
3
(Russo, 2004; International Reading Association, 2006; Richard, 2003).
Recognizing the reality of these challenges, one LAUSD local district superintendent
made a decision to outsource literacy coaching in her middle and high schools.
Over the last decade, public and private sectors alike have increasingly turned
to outsourcing to achieve long term strategic competitive advantage in its chosen
marketplace. Outsourcing is a phenomena in which a company or organization
delegates a part of its in-house operations to a third party, with the third party
gaining full control over the operation. Previously a cost-cutting tactic for back-
room functions, outsourcing has become a critical management tool for more
strategically significant business functions (Brown and Wilson, 2005; Johnson, 2003;
Craumer, 2002b; Linder, Sawyer and Hartley, 2001; Pint and Baldwin, 1997).
According to a 1997-98 survey by Yankelovich Partners, nearly two-thirds of the
304 top executives interviewed worldwide said they outsourced a business process
(Amega Group, 1999-2001). A study conducted by Accenture in 2003 quoted
statistics that showed outsourcing in government growing by as much as 17 percent
through 2004 (Healy and Linder, 2003).
The countrywide interest in outsourcing was piqued by high profile success
stories in the mid 1980’s. In 1986, New York City’s Mayor, Edward Koch, accepted
an offer from a real estate developer, Donald Trump, to take over the renovation of
the skating rink in Central Park. The City of New York had already invested six
years of effort and nearly $13 million in expenditures to rebuild the rink. Trump was
given six months and appropriated $3 million to complete the job, with the
4
understanding that cost overruns would come out of his own pocket. The renovation
was completed over a month ahead of schedule and approximately $750,000 under
budget (Wilson, 1989). Wilson cites several “bureaucratic problems” that enabled a
private investor to deliver services more effectively than the government. Generally,
most governments fail to ensure accountability, equity, responsiveness, efficiency,
and fiscal integrity. Due to government constraints and safeguards, some
governments turn to outsourcing as a means to achieve remarkable results (Healy
and Linder, 2003; Wilson, 1989).
Despite the current widespread popularity of outsourcing alternatives, some
companies find themselves struggling to maximize benefits. A study by Cap,
Gemini, Ernst & Young shows that only 54 percent of companies were satisfied with
outsourcing in 2002, down from more than 80 percent a decade ago (Craumer,
2002b). Craumer claimed that outsourcing was not living up to its promise,
“…companies were outsourcing the wrong things for the wrong reasons and going
about it the wrong way.” Furthermore, Craumer finds that if CEO’s make the
decision to outsource before a proper analysis has been conducted, they may
experience short-term gains that are negated by a weakening of corporate culture and
commitment from employees, or drain of intellectual property.
5
Outsourcing requires top-notch management skills to clearly identify:
1. What functions and processes to outsource, such as technology
infrastructure, business applications, business process, business
transformation (Brown and Wilson, 2005; Healy and Linder, 2003;
Craumer 2002a);
2. Why outsource these functions, such as a desire to address resource or
skills gap, increase value, control high risk ventures, access systems
solutions (Brown and Wilson, 2005; Murphy, 2004; Craumer, 2002b;
Dunn, 2000);
3. How to manage the third-party relationship--in a conventional,
collaborative, or transformational arrangement (Brown and Wilson,
2005; Linder, Sawyer, and Hartley, 2001; Pint and Baldwin, 1997);
and,
4. How to encourage and measure desired performance (Brown and
Wilson, 2005; Linder, Sawyer, and Hartley 2001).
Purpose of the Study
The study compares two different literacy coaching models found in one
LAUSD local school district in an attempt to inform future management decisions
about outsourcing educational support services. The purpose of the study is
threefold: First, the study will explore the decision to implement two different
coaching models designed to improve student achievement in the local district’s
middle schools; outsourcing coaching services at some schools while providing in-
6
house coaching services at other schools. Second, the study will provide an in-depth
description of how the local district implemented the two coaching models. Third,
the study will propose and apply criteria to evaluate the efficacy of the two coaching
models.
Importance of the Study
As standards-based instruction has become increasingly high-stakes,
particularly under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), urban school districts have turned
to school-based approaches for professional development that create more
collaborative and job-embedded opportunities for teachers, as opposed to previous
one-size-fits-all approaches to professional development. In 2001 the
Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, Roy Romer, marked a
clear commitment to school-based professional development in his Five Year
Strategic Plan that established “improving teacher skills” as central to student
learning. Instructional coaching and banked time for professional development
became two key initiatives the District identified to improve instruction.
Some researchers have evidence that suggests classroom-based coaching is
superior to a traditional, one-shot training approach to professional development
(Hall, 2004; International Reading Association, 2006; Russo, 2004; Galbo, 1998;
Showers, Joyce, and Bennett, 1987). However, recent studies concede that evidence
demonstrating positive coaching results is largely anecdotal and that the research
base in support of coaching is small (Poglinco et al., 2003; Richard, A., 2003).
Without adequate research, says Neufeld, “there isn’t any way of knowing in fact
7
whether [coaching] is worth the money” (Neufeld and Roper, 2003, p.13). Little is
known about the impact classroom-based coaching has on instruction and student
achievement.
Furthermore, minimal research exists to analyze the effectiveness of
outsourcing in education. RAND studied outsourcing in education as a means to
promote large-scale school reform. In an evaluation about the effectiveness of the
New American Schools (NAS) design, RAND found that external third-party
providers offered a broader range of consumer choices, assisted schools with
capacity issues and tailored services to meet the needs of NAS schools. However,
the evaluation also concluded that adopting an external model (outsourcing) did not
lead to improved performance (Berends, M., Bodilly, S., and Kirby S.N., 2002). In
the last decade, state and federal grants, such as High Priority Grants in California
and federal Comprehensive School Reform grants, encourage schools to contract
with outside providers when undergoing comprehensive school improvement efforts.
However, existing literature has not concluded that the outsourcing of school
services leads to improved student performance.
In other industries, more and more executives are using outsourcing as a way
to deliver value while reducing costs. With greater pressure to perform, executives
hope the expertise, experience and performance capabilities of an outsourced partner
can complement the in-house competence of high-end, strategic functions (Johnson,
2003; Craumer 2002b). CEOs find themselves conducting thorough investigations to
determine whether outsourcing is feasible and right for their companies.
8
Business management literature suggests that outsourcing is preferred to
vertical integration except in the area of core competencies (Johnson, 2003;
Craumer; 2002a; Craumer, 2002c). The literature focuses on how to: determine
which activities should be outsourced; make source selection decisions; structure the
buyer/supplier relationship; and, monitor supplier performance (Brown and Wilson,
2005; Murphy, 2004; Craumer, 2002a; Dunn 2000). According to Pint and Baldwin
(1997), the business management literature is based on anecdotal evidence,
generalizations and informal surveys using simple descriptive statistics rather than
more sophisticated and rigorous statistical methods. While the literature seems to
make a consistent set of recommendations regarding the choice of activities to
outsource and how to select and manage outside providers, the ultimate value of
outsourcing in increasing organizational effectiveness remains to be proven (Pint and
Baldwin, 1997).
Research Questions
The study will address the following specific research questions:
1. What factors influenced a local district superintendent to outsource
literacy coaching?
2. How were two different literacy coaching models implemented in a
local district’s middle schools?
3. What criteria were used to measure the efficacy of the two literacy
coaching models?
9
4. Which of the two literacy coaching models was more effective and
under what conditions?
The study will assess the value of outsourcing in the context of a critical
school service, teacher coaching. The ultimate goal is to understand how the
decision to outsource an important school function, like professional development,
impacted service-delivery and to provide key district and school decision-makers
information about the potential benefits and challenges of such a strategy.
The dissertation is divided into seven chapters. This chapter provided a
statement of the problem. Chapter Two reviews the research of literacy coaching and
provides a summary of essential elements found in effective literacy coaching
programs. Chapter Three presents the relevant research in outsourcing and presents
two models, an outsourcing decision-making model and a model for successful
outsourcing, that will serve as a theoretical framework to analyze the decision to
outsource literacy coaching and its effectiveness. Chapter Four describes the
research methods used in the study, including procedures used in collecting,
analyzing, and reporting the findings.
Chapters Five and Six each present a case study summarizing the findings,
based on the data collected. The case study in Chapter Five describes an outsourced
literacy coaching program implemented at two urban middle schools and analyzes its
effectiveness using the theoretical frameworks discussed in Chapters Two and Three.
The case study in Chapter Six presents data on an in-house literacy coaching
10
program implemented within the same school district at two local middle schools,
and assesses its effectiveness using the same theoretical frameworks.
Chapter Seven concludes the study with a cross-case analysis of the findings,
comparing the essential elements found in each literacy coaching model and
discussing the implications for the outsourcing of core school functions.
11
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERACY COACHING LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter is the first of a two-part literature review, focusing on literacy
coaching. The review begins with an overview explaining why literacy coaching for
teachers has become more prevalent at the secondary level and provides best
practices in designing and implementing secondary literacy coaching programs. The
chapter concludes with a framework that will be used to assess the case studies on
outsourced and in-house literacy coaching programs (Chapters Five and Six).
Chapter Three presents the second part of the literature review focused on research
about outsourcing and providing a framework to assist executives in making
potential decisions to outsource functions important to the company’s success.
According to the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), fewer than a third of the country’s eighth-graders read at or above grade
level. In fact, students who leave third grade as struggling readers continue to have
difficulties reading when they reach high school (Hasselbring and Goin, 2004). Even
though students face more complicated texts as they advance through school, they
receive little if any reading instruction past the fourth grade (Deussen and Riddle
Buly, 2006; Taylor et al., 2007).
To ensure that students at the secondary level improve their literacy skills,
many states and districts have created literacy coach positions for middle and high
schools (Taylor et al., 2007). Research on the importance of ongoing, job-embedded
12
professional development for teachers supports the decision to hire literacy coaches
in order to strengthen reading instruction (Deussen and Riddle Buly, 2006; Snow et.
al, 2006). Guskey (2000) outlines four common elements found in successful
professional development initiatives:
1. Focus on learning and learners
2. Emphasis on individual and organizational change
3. Small changes guided by a grand vision
4. On-going professional development that is procedurally embedded.
However, neither evaluations of secondary coaching models nor systemic
studies about implementation of coaching exist (Snow et. al, 2006), other than an
extensive review of secondary literacy coaching written by Sturtevant in 2003.
Fisher (2008) identifies a number of best practices to consider in designing a
literacy coaching program:
1. Clearly communicate the purpose and expectations of literacy
coaching.
2. Identify specific measurable goals connected to desired change in
student and/or teacher behaviors.
3. See coaches as a “vehicle for professional development”, more
concerned with teachers’ learning and growth than with that of
students.
4. Identify a research-based theoretical foundation for the literacy
coaching approach.
13
5. Ensure literacy coaches understand adult learning and possess
appropriate qualification aligned to the program’s purpose.
6. Foster a collegial, supportive, and non-evaluative relationship
between teachers and literacy coaches.
7. Create mechanisms to provide literacy coaches with on-going support.
8. Encourage teachers to provide feedback about coaching and create
opportunities for coaches to reflect on their work.
The literature review in this chapter will elaborate on the design elements
listed above as best practices in developing results-driven literacy coaching
programs.
Transparent Communication and Leadership
Kral (2008) asserts, “An often unwritten expectation for literacy coaches in
schools is that they function as change agents.” Therefore, researchers have found
principal support essential in the success of literacy coaching, especially literacy
coaching requiring a shift in a school’s culture and/or a shift in teachers’ beliefs
about learning (Kral, 2008; Shanklin, 2007). It is important that principals provide
teachers with good information about the purpose of coaching, desired expectations,
and organization structure (Kral, 2008), emphasizing the coach’s role to support
teachers, not to evaluate teachers (Shanklin, 2007; Snow et al., 2006). Ensuring a
culture of collegiality and collaboration is key to literacy coaching. Principals play a
major role in ensuring coaches develop positive, trusting relationships with teachers
by being up-front about the purpose, expectation and plan to launch a successful
14
literacy coaching program. As with any change initiative, transparency and
communication are critical (Fullan, 1999).
Teachers watch the principal to see how the principal responds to literacy
coaching and picks up on cues from the principal to reach a conclusion about
whether or not literacy coaching is a priority, and to make a final decision whether or
not to opt in to literacy coaching (Kral, 2008). Principal leadership is the key to
results-driven coaching. In schools that experience literacy gains, principals and
assistant principals consistently participate in professional development training
provided by literacy coaches, sending a powerful message to teachers about the value
of the training and expectations for incorporating the new literacy strategies into the
classroom (Taylor et. al, 2007).
Kral (2008) presents a list of principal behaviors that demonstrate real
involvement in literacy coaching:
• Giving teachers time in their schedule to work with the literacy coach
• Participating in professional development facilitated by the coach
• Encouraging teachers to try new strategies
• Demonstrating a commitment to personal and continuous learning
• Keeping professional learning time sacred
Furthermore, regular communication between principals and literacy coaches
is essential and provides for on-going examination of the literacy learning needs of
the faculty (Taylor et. al, 2007). Administrators who are transparent about the
purposes of the coaching program and provide clear support for coaching through
15
their words and actions are more likely to reassure staff members who are committed
to improvement (Steiner and Kowal, 2007).
Aligning Goals to Desired Change
A critical first step in designing an effective coaching program is to analyze
individual and school-wide data to set measurable literacy goals for students, and to
target learning gaps for students and teachers (Steiner and Kowal, 2007; Shanklin,
2007). An effective instructional coaching program requires school leaders to play
an active role in selecting trained coaches with a tailored job description based on the
school’s culture and needs. Secondly, schools benefit from developing a targeted
coaching strategy aligned to established benchmarks for student achievement and
evaluating coaches based on desired impact (Steiner and Kowal, 2007; Kral, 2008;
Shanklin, 2007). Literacy coaching efforts are far more effective when achievement
goals are clearly communicated to teachers and coaches from the beginning and an
accountability system is in place to provide teachers and coaches with relevant data
to measure progress periodically throughout a school year. Identifying measurable
achievement goals at the beginning of the school year gives literacy coaches an
opportunity to adjust work with teachers during the school year and allows principals
to make data-based decisions about the literacy coaching plan and personnel at the
end of the school year.
Powerful Professional Development Tool
For many decades, scholars found positive benefits of professional
development programs in which teachers provided in-class assistance for one another
16
(Joyce & Showers, 1998). More recently, studies have concluded that combining
coaching with staff development greatly increases the likelihood that teachers will
implement new methods. Coaching fulfills many of the standards established by the
National Staff Development Council (2001): organizing educators into “learning
communities” with clear goals; providing effective leadership to support “continuous
instructional improvement”; applying research to school and classroom strategies
and decision-making; and, supporting teacher collaboration. Toll (2007) notes a
number of reasons coaching programs are initiated, such as improving test scores,
mentoring new teachers, ensuring implementation of a new curriculum, or
cultivating professional learning communities.
The concept of literacy educators is not new at the secondary level, former
titles include secondary reading specialist, reading resource teacher, or peer coach
(Sturtevant, 2003). While there is little scientific evidence that specifically addresses
the impact of literacy coaches, substantial research suggests that coaching can be an
effective means of strengthening teachers’ instruction (Deussen and Riddle Buly,
2006). A few studies found that teachers were more likely to adopt and “own” new
practices and strategies when they had coaching and in-class feedback to accompany
their professional development (Showers and Joyce, 1998; Neufeld and Roper,
2003).
While research suggests that classroom modeling of literacy strategies is
most effective, literacy coaches often admit it is the activity they engage in the least.
In a study conducted by Boulware to examine the experience of 27 high school
17
literacy coaches in Florida, coaches who perceived they spent the most time in
professional development-related service with teachers had the greatest gain in
student achievement, as measured by 10
th
grade reading on the Florida
Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT). On the other hand, literacy coaches who
reported that they spent the majority of their time on non-professional development
activities, such as student supervision and assessment and monitoring data, had the
least gain in student achievement on the same standardized test (Taylor et al., 2007).
The more removed coaches are from the actual work of teachers in the classroom,
the less likely they are to have an impact on student learning (Steiner and Kowal,
2007).
Research-Based Approach
Students at the secondary level come to school with a wider variety of
literacy deficits than in the earlier grades (RAND Reading Study Group, 2002).
Middle school students are often overwhelmed by the multiple comprehension
demands of various content areas (Snow et. al , 2006). According to Snow and
colleagues (2006), research does not provide teachers with adequate knowledge
about how best to respond to the wide range of literacy needs of adolescent students.
Essentially, the wide range of student literacy needs pose a challenge for the
secondary literacy coach (Snow et. al, 2006). While some teachers may resist the
mandated nature of coaching, others may be uneasy about being observed or judged,
especially when student challenges require them to teach “below grade level” skills
or content (Steiner and Kowal, 2007). Taylor and colleagues (2007) conclude that
18
literacy coaches are most effective when they “support the implementation and
monitoring of research-based literacy intervention that classroom teachers can infuse
into their instruction to develop students’ vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension”
(2007, p. 22)
Debate exists among experts about whether literacy coaching should be
directive, focusing on program implementation and compliance, or collegial,
encouraging teacher capacity for self-reflection (Costa & Garmston, 2002; Joyce &
Showers, 1998). Research suggests that the “directive” compliance-driven model is
less likely to change teachers, although newer teachers may be more open to this
type of coaching (Gersten, Morvant, & Brengelman, 1995; Deussen and Riddle Buly,
2006). Steiner and Kowal (2007) refer to this type of coaching as a more
confrontational model where coaches are talking to teachers about performance
problems and providing prescriptive remedies, or concrete advice and modeling
about how to improve instruction with a particular program or approach.
While researchers argue that the confrontational approach is more likely to
have an immediate impact on student learning, the collaborative coaching model, or
consultant model allows teachers and coaches to share equally in decisions about
instruction and self-reflection (Steiner and Kowal, 2007). Coaches provide
personalized support based on goals and needs identified by individual teachers.
Researchers found this form of coaching more effective at promoting the use of
targeted instructional strategies (Mallette, Maheady, & Harper, 1999), positively
impacting school culture (Edwards, Green, Lyons, Rogers, & Swords, 1998), and
19
encouraging teachers to reflect and deepen their understanding of reading instruction
(Edwards & Green, 1999). According to the consultant model proposed by Steiner
and Kowal (2007), coaches focus first on changing teachers’ thoughts and beliefs
about their practice by asking teachers to reflect on their decisions about instruction
and then jointly examine data about teachers’ instructional practices. Sturtevant
(2003) describes the role of the literacy coach as highly collaborative, where coaches
are viewed as advisors or mentors who understand teachers’ goals, frustrations, and
visions, and who facilitate teachers’ abilities to help students achieve at high levels.
Coaches are seen as supporting, not replacing, teacher knowledge.
Coaching Qualifications and Responsibilities
In defining literacy coaching, Snow and colleagues (2006) distinguish from
roles and responsibilities of coaches and required qualifications. Walpole &
McKenna (2004) identify coaches’ roles as: learner, grant writer, school-level
planner, curriculum expert, research, teacher, and school leader. Snow and
colleagues (2006) identify two “requisite roles” as fundamental in defining literacy
coaching: guiding improved literacy instruction and serving as a liaison between
instructional and administrative groups. Roles identified by Walpole & McKenna
(2004), like grant writer, school-level planner, and researcher, are classified by Snow
and colleagues (2006) as discretionary roles, roles not crucial to literacy coaching but
roles that clearly enhance a coach’s functioning. Literacy coaches fulfill one or more
of the following roles: assist teachers in implementing new curricular programs
(Poglinco et al., 2003); consult with and mentor teachers (Costa & Garmston, 2002);
20
support teachers as they apply knowledge, develop skills, and deepen their
understanding (Lyons & Pinnell, 2001); facilitate study and book groups (Walpole
&McKenna, 2004); coordinate student reading assessments and provide group
professional development (Taylor et al., 2007).
Snow and colleagues (2006) expand on the responsibilities embedded within
each role, such as modeling instruction in teachers’ classrooms, leading teacher
inquiry groups, reviewing local assessment data, and helping create literacy plans for
the school. Sturtevant (2003), Greenleaf and colleagues (2002), and Grossman and
colleagues (2000) also define literacy coaching in terms of the critical
responsibilities coaches engage in regularly, such as facilitating literacy teams,
facilitating professional development, encouraging dialogue and reflection, and
helping teachers transfer new knowledge into classroom practice.
According to an informal survey conducted in all 50 states (Dole et al.,
2006), responsibilities of literacy coaches vary greatly from school to school, district
to district, and state to state. Of the twenty states that authorize reading coaches,
most reported a number of professional activities conducted by literacy coaches.
One state reported that coaches, “spend 100% of their time working with teachers,
providing professional development, modeling instruction, planning with teachers,
and analyzing student test results” (Dole et. al, 2006, p.196). While the majority of
reading coaches work primarily with teachers, some states reported that coaches
worked with students. One state reported that reading coaches should spend 80% of
21
their time with other teachers and the remainder with students; another reported that
coaches should spend 75% of their time with teachers and 25% with students.
Literacy coaches are typically experienced, effective teachers who step out of
the classroom and into the role of supporting or mentoring other teachers to
strengthen their reading instruction (Deussen and Riddle Buly, 2006; Tayler et al.,
2007). Snow and colleagues (2006) identify the following requisite qualifications
for literacy coaches: strong foundation in literacy, strong leadership skills, familiarity
with adult learning, familiarity with the target student age groups, and skilled
classroom teacher. These align with coaches’ qualifications also identified by the
International Reading Association (2006) and Neufeld & Roper (2003). The
International Reading Association (2006) asserts that “literacy coaches must be
excellent classroom teachers with a strong knowledge base in both content area
teaching and literacy teaching, and must be able to promote adult learning” (p.7).
An ideal coach is skillful at: collaborating with secondary teachers; serving as
instructional coach for teachers in all core academic areas; interpreting and using
assessment data to drive instruction; and, implementing instructional strategies to
improve academic literacy in specific content areas (International Reading
Association, 2005). Discretionary or secondary qualifications include credentialing,
literacy and communication skills, presentation skills and interpersonal skills (Snow
et. al, 2006).
Taylor and colleagues (2007) discuss the importance of clearly and
collaboratively defining the coach’s roles and responsibilities and communicating to
22
the people who will provide, receive, and monitor the literacy coaching. Literacy
coaches must become experts in literacy learning, teacher leadership and
professional development. Newly recruited literacy coaches have varying degrees of
expertise in literacy and often have little experience working with adults (Taylor et
al, 2007; Kamil, 2006). Moreover, researchers point out that many coaches lack the
knowledge, preparation or credentials needed to help teachers improve reading
instruction (Manzo, 2005; Kamil, 2006). Kamil (2006) explains the complexity
created when good teachers become coaches. Often, they were good teachers of
children but know very little about adult learning. Uncertainty about what coaches
should be doing further contributes to performance issues for literacy coaches
(Manzo, 2005).
Trust and Rapport
Research has documented a long history of difficulty in convincing content
teachers to use content “literacy” strategies, particularly in high schools (O’Brien,
Stewart & Moje, 1995; Sturtevant & Linek, 2007). Teachers frequently seem to
resist trying new methods, claim time constraints, have problems meeting
standardized testing requirements, and other issues. Teachers at the secondary level
may no longer see teaching reading and writing as one of their primary roles,
focusing instead on specific content knowledge and skills (Sturtevant, 2003).
Finally, teachers may find it distracting or frustrating to spend time on literacy
development when they feel the need to focus on content area skills (Snow et. al,
2006).
23
Skepticism with literacy coaching is further complicated when teachers
perceive literacy coaches as “policing” school or district mandates. Rainville &
Jones (2008) described a literacy coach’s “identity negotiation” as she worked with a
teacher reluctant to implement the school’s assessment system. The teacher resented
the role of the literacy coach because the teacher would have preferred to see
resources provided directly to students and did not want to take on the role of
learner. In following the literacy coach’s experience with two other teachers, the
study reveals a couple of lessons learned. When the coach and teacher have some
kind of informal relationship, there are fewer power struggles. Secondly, when a
teacher and a coach have little consensus around of the coach’s role,
misunderstanding and miscommunication can lead to a counterproductive power
struggle. Literacy coaches must understand how power operates in their work and
must be able to position themselves in ways that produce the best long-term
outcomes (Rainville & Jones, 2008).
Casey (2006) underscores the important role literacy coaches play in showing
teachers what good instruction looks like and sounds like. Coaches gain credibility
as an educator when they allow other teachers to watch them teaching students. By
modeling risk-taking and a willingness to learn and grow, the literacy coach
establishes himself or herself as a capable teacher and gains teacher trust. The work
of literacy coaches is complicated, requiring organization, flexibility, a breadth and
depth of content knowledge, an ability to develop trust and rapport while fostering
collaboration and individual professional growth (Lyons & Pinnell, 2001; Toll,
24
2007). Literacy coaches are tasked to draw out the best in individual teachers and, at
the same time, inspire them to change their mindsets and teaching practices
(Rainville & Jones, 2008).
Giving Literacy Coaches Support and Feedback
Since coaches spend most of their time working directly with adults (Dole et
al., 2006), school and districts often have to invest in professional development for
literacy coaches so that they can effectively communicate with and teach adults.
Some large districts have created a cadre of literacy coaches who study, collaborate
on professional development and coaching, and resolve issues together while smaller
districts may encourage literacy coaches to join a professional community of learners
regionally, nationally, or online (Taylor et al., 2007).
Research cites the importance of intentionally creating forums for literacy
coaches to also examine individual effectiveness, seek out needed professional
development, and stay current with best practices in the field. Examples of efforts
focused on supporting literacy coaching include the Reading Success Network
(RSN), designed by the Southern California Comprehensive Assistance Center
(SCCAC), providing nine days of intensive professional development to coaches,
training coaches to analyze school data and to “build the coaching conversations.”
Coaches remain part of the RSN and reconvene regularly (Sturtevant, 2003). In
Chicago, each high school created a literacy team to implement literacy in the four
core subject areas. Over 450 teachers received forty hours of professional
25
development from literacy specialists, which included demonstration of classroom
strategies, data interpretation and small-group coaching sessions (Sturtevant, 2003).
Other problems noted in the research literature include coaches who are
responsible for multiple school sites, have burdensome administrative
responsibilities (e.g., test administration) and take on student tutoring responsibilities
(Steiner and Kowal, 2007; Ai and Rivera, 2005; Neubert and Bratton, 1987; Poglinco
et al., 2003). In a survey of 1,100 randomly selected teachers in the Los Angeles
Unified School District, Ai and Rivers (2005) found that a high percentage of
respondents did not think there was enough time scheduled for participating in
coaching activities. While classroom observation time was less difficult to arrange,
many schools struggled to find time outside of the classroom for teacher-coach
discussions and reflections to take place. The study suggests that many
administrators fail to set aside regular and sufficient time for coaching tasks.
Furthermore, when literacy coaches are expected to take on administrative duties,
they encounter more difficulty positioning themselves as teacher allies or advocates.
Conclusion
While there is little exploration of what coaches do to make a difference
(Greene, 2004), preliminary studies have made connections between coaching and
changes in student outcomes (Grinder, 1996; Swartz, 2003; Lyons and Pinnell, 2001;
Lapp et al, 2003; Steiner and Kowal, 2007). A three-year study of the impact of
Cognitive Coaching showed student scores improved on the Iowa Test of Basic
Skills in treatment schools compared to control groups (Grinder, 1996). Lyons and
26
Pinnell (2001) found a connection between literacy coaching and increased
achievement in reading and writing. Lapp and colleagues (2003) showed increased
student literacy achievement when reading specialists provided half-time peer
coaching and half-time student tutoring in three high-poverty schools.
After reviewing the literature on literacy coaching, the following elements
surface as the basis for a framework used to analyze the design and implementation
of a literacy coaching model:
1. Transparency and administrative leadership about the purpose,
expectations, and plan to implement literacy coaching program.
2. Coherent integration of literacy coaching into the school’s overall
professional development focus.
3. Clearly identified research-based model to guide literacy coaching
model.
4. Alignment among coaching qualification, responsibilities and goals.
5. Explicit system to train, support and evaluate literacy coaches.
For the purpose of this study, the effectiveness of the outsourced and in-
house literacy coaching models presented in Chapters Five and Six will be analyzed
applying the framework above, largely borrowed from Fisher’s (2008) literacy
coaching design elements.
The review of the literature presented in this chapter provided information
about the prevalence of literacy coaching as a vehicle for professional development
in secondary schools and identified key design elements of effective literacy
27
coaching programs. The following chapter will discuss outsourcing literature,
focusing on how and why executives make decisions to outsource important business
functions and essential components of effective outsourcing arrangement.
28
CHAPTER THREE
REVIEW OF OUTSOURCING LITERATURE
The previous chapter expanded on research about literacy coaching. This
chapter will provide a review of literature on outsourcing, as a means to better
understand the case study of an outsourced literacy coaching program in Chapter
Five. The review of outsourcing literature begins by providing a definition and a
brief historical overview of outsourcing. The remainder of the chapter elaborates on
the essential elements of two models. The first, pages 32-45, is a model useful in
considering whether or not to outsource a business function and the second, pages
45-52, is a model that supports effective outsourcing. The two models will serve as a
theoretical framework to understand and analyze the subsequent case study
describing an outsourced literacy coaching program.
Defining Outsourcing
Outsourcing can be described as, “the practice followed by management of
contracting out in-house functions that companies do not do particularly well to
outside firms that do” (Snder, 2005, p.50). Outsourcing is generally defined as the
operation of shifting a transaction previously managed internally to an external
supplier through a long-term contract, and involving the transfer of staff to the
vendor (Lacity and Hirschheim, 1993; Barthelemy, 2001; Quelin and Duhamel,
2003). Perry (1997) defines outsourcing as, “another firm’s employees carrying out
tasks previously performed by one’s own employees” (p.523). Gilley and Rasheed
(2000) take a broader perspective of the definition and position outsourcing as
29
contracting out activities that an organization has internal capabilities to perform but
would rather outsource for strategic purposes. Outsourcing is generally considered a
means to increase competitiveness, reduce costs, maximize economies of scale, and
add value to the organization, its investors and its customers (Murphy, 2004).
One of the misperceptions of outsourcing is the belief that it only includes the
shifting of production overseas. In fact, the opposite is true, a majority of companies
prefer domestic outsourcing to international outsourcing, particularly in industries
requiring high levels of research and development (Tomiura, 2006). Outsourcing
can give organizations access to capacity, capability, skills and technologies that they
do not want to invest in themselves (Kumar and Eickhoff, 2005). This enables
companies to free-up resources and capital that can be re-deployed to core
competencies (Prahalad and Hamel 1990; Hendry 1995; Arnold 2000). By investing
additional resources into these areas, companies are able to create advantages in the
marketplace, leverage economies of scale and achieve higher rates of return on
invested capital.
Kumar and Eickhoff (2005) suggest that, “adopting an outsourcing approach
can be a major enabler to improve financial metrics of an organization” (p. 248). For
instance, in 2005, Dell supported $55.9 billion in annual revenues with $2.0 billion
of fixed assets. It produced $28 dollars in sales for every dollar invested in plant and
equipment. In 2005, IBM supported $91.1 billion in annual revenues with $13.8
billion of fixed assets, generating only $6.50 for every dollar invested in plant and
equipment.
30
In the case of Microsoft, the company hired Flextronics to manufacture the
Xbox gaming system in 2000, the largest outsourced manufacturing of electronics in
the world. Microsoft did not have experience developing computer hardware, known
for complex supply chains and high production risks. The company wanted to focus
on its strengths of software title development and marketing the new system. The
decision to outsource resulted in Microsoft’s ability to successfully compete against
Sony’s Playstation 2 and Nintendo’s Gamecube (Kumar and Eickhoff, 2005).
History of Outsourcing
Outsourcing dates back to the first century, when the Roman Senate
outsourced tax collection through a competitive bidding process (Duffy, 2001). In
modern society, outsourcing gained impetus in the 1970s when large corporations
were considered to be underperforming (Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 2000). At the
time, many firms sought to internally manage all aspects of business including
research and development, production, operations, sales and marketing. This
resulted in large corporate bureaucracies which were characterized as highly
inefficient.
In the 1980s, with the onset of a global recession corporate executives
changed their strategy to focus on executing fewer activities more efficiently (Peters
& Waterman, 1982). A new generation of “bottom line focused CEO’s”, such as
Jack Welch at General Electric, sought to adopt Nobel Prize winner Milton
Friedman’s philosophy on maximizing shareholder value by focusing on efficiency
31
and profitability (Alexander & Young, 1996). Outsourcing was a key strategy
adopted to achieve this.
By the 1990s, the growing belief was that strategic “quick wins,” where
corporate profitability increases in relatively short periods of time, could be achieved
by pursuing core strategies and outsourcing other functions (Prahalad & Hamel,
1990; Hogan, 2004). Businesses generally began to re-think their business model,
focusing on determining areas of strength within the company in order to improve
critical areas of performance such as cost, quality, service and speed (Gamble, 1995).
The identification of core strategies led to the recognition of core competencies,
defined as portions of the business chain that provide benefits to consumers and are
difficult to imitate by competitors, which could be leveraged to many products and
markets (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Firms quickly decided to concentrate on these
competencies and hired outside firms to handle all other business activities (Peters &
Waterman, 1982). As a result, corporate leaders sold off “peripheral” businesses and
outsourced non-core business functions (Grant, 1991). More recently, various
businesses, from home-based small businesses to multinational corporations,
regularly outsource business functions, including research and development,
accounting, human resource recruitment, sales, marketing and all aspects of
operations. By 2000, information technology (IT) became the most prevalent
outsourcing service (Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 2005).
Today, with the widespread adoption of outsourcing across all industries,
firms continue to seek competitive advantage against rival firms through
32
outsourcing. Recently, research is beginning to indicate that firms may even
outsource core competencies (Brown and Wilson, 2005) if the resources or
knowledge of an outside vendor supplements the firm’s available resources. It is
clear that as markets become more and more efficient, companies experience
increasing pressure from the market to increase value for customers and shareholders
(Quelin & Duhamel, 2003) and outsourcing is a strategy companies are turning to
increase a company’s overall productivity.
Outsource Decision-Making Model
When making outsourcing decisions, managers commonly focus on short-
term gains and not long-term consequences of outsourcing a portion of operations.
Before deciding to outsource managers must conduct a thorough investigation to
determine whether outsourcing is feasible and right for the organization. Mistakes in
identifying core and non-core activities can lead organizations to involuntarily
outsource functions where they possess competitive advantages (Harland et al.,
2005). If an organization is outsourcing a core competency, the literature suggests
leaders should take extra steps to be sure they cannot do the function themselves and
they should have a plan to become capable as soon as possible (Kumar and Eickhoff,
2005). Several studies cite the outsourcing of a core competency as a bad practice,
or at the very least a high-risk endeavor (Kumor and Eickhoff, 2005; Quelin &
Duhamel, 2003) because the organization runs the risk of dependence on the service
provider (Quelin & Duhamel, 2003). In addition, it is often difficult to bring
activities back in-house after an outsourcing contract is terminated.
33
Offodile and Abdel-Malek propose a model to help organizations make a
decision to outsource, including the decision of whether or not to outsource a core
competency. While the original model focuses on helping manufacturing industries
make decisions about outsourcing, Kumar and Eickhoff (2005) modified the model
to make it applicable across all types of business functions, including: core
competencies, costs, time-to-market, quality, availability of willing providers, and
buy-in from employees.
The Offodile & Abdel-Malek model suggests outsourcing a core competency
is acceptable, despite conventional wisdom that core activities should stay in-house
(Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 2005, Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Kumar and Eickhoff
(2005) state that a core competency should only be outsourced if an organization’s
internal capacity cannot be brought up fast enough to meet market demands or
corporate access to capital is limited, therefore necessitating short-term contractors to
provide marginal production capacity. Kumar and Eickhoff (2005) propose the
following five steps, in the closed-loop decision-making framework, to help
organization’s make decisions about outsourcing:
Step One: Determine if outsourcing function is a core competency.
Step Two: If it is considering outsourcing a core competency, use three
tests to assess whether or not to outsource.
Step Three: Ensure the company and the outsource provider have the
capabilities and infrastructure needed to optimize outsourcing gains.
34
Step Four: Conduct cost-analysis.
Step Five: Establish metrics to evaluate the outsourcing relationship.
This section will elaborate on Steps One through Four of the Kumar and
Eickhoff model and provide additional research to support the outsource decision-
making model. Since Step Five is more applicable after a decision has been made to
outsource, it will be elaborated upon in the next section of this chapter.
Step One: Determine the Company’s Core Competency
When considering whether or not to outsource, organizations are faced with
several questions: Does the company perform this task particularly well with
sufficient resources? What are the risks to no longer provide the service internally?
Is the purpose and goal of outsourcing this function clear? Will the firm be able to
evaluate the effectiveness of the external provider and determine its level of success?
(Brown &Wilson, 2005)
The first step an organization takes when considering the outsourcing of a
business function is to identify the organization’s strategic goals and core
competencies (Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 2005; Kumar & Eickhoff, 2005; Pint &
Baldwin, 1997). According to a survey conducted by Quelin & Duhamel (2003),
managers first articulate a thorough assessment of their strategic direction and
appraise relevant competencies to determine whether or not the outsourcing function
falls under the organization’s core business strategy. A review of the literature
emphasizes the need to know what is core to the organization so that peripheral
activities can be transferred to an external service provider (Kakabadse &
35
Kakabadse, 2005; Siems & Rather, 2003; Chalos & Sung, 1998). May (1998) poses
the following questions when an organization is assessing its core competence:
• Does the activity have a direct effect on satisfying customer needs?
• Would outsourcing achieve comparable quality more cheaply?
• Would re-allocation of resources to other activities earn a superior
return?
• Would other benefits arise from outsourcing, such as lower inventory
cost, reduced management time, or improved production flow?
An organization must consider why it wants to outsource and what it expects
to gain through outsourcing (Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 2005; Costa, 2001;
Alexander & Young, 1996). According to a survey conducted by Deloitte
Consulting (2007), business executives identified the following as the top five
reasons for outsourcing: reduce operational costs, leverage technology expertise,
lower labor costs, supplement a lack of internal resources and improve customer
value. Over 70% of executives that were surveyed by Deloitte responded that they
were satisfied or very satisfied with their companies outsourcing results. However,
the survey raised the reality of the learning curve that outsourcing requires. Thirty-
nine percent of respondents stated that they had prematurely terminated a major
contract within the past twelve months. Over one-third of all respondents stated they
would now spend more time on the evaluation and selection of outsourcing
candidates.
36
Although there has been a major emphasis on costs savings, today more and
more organizations are looking for the outsourcing arrangement that yields the
greatest value, not necessarily the lowest cost (Craumer, 2002b; Murphy, 2004).
Organizations find that outsource partners can add significant value by bringing in
the expertise, experience and performance capabilities to complement in-house
competence (Murphy, 2004). Yet, research cautions companies to consider whether
an outsourcing arrangement can be sustained over the long-run, since failed contracts
can become costly and cumbersome for the organization (Harland et al, 2005).
Step Two: Determine What to Outsource
Once a company’s core competencies are identified and its strategic direction
is clear, firms can then begin to consider what business functions to outsource. Once
these functions are identified, Brown and Wilson (2005) suggest the company’s
leadership then evaluate the business functions under consideration by understanding
the key drivers for the decision. The authors ask that companies identify the causes
and the constraints of the problem within the function and, while considering the big
picture, know how business objectives will be affected based on the outsourcing
decision.
If a company is considering outsourcing a function that is a core competency,
Kumar and Eickhoff (2005) recommend using the following three tests to determine
whether or not to outsource the function:
1. Are processes, equipment, capital and employees in place internally to
deliver to customer needs? If so, there is no need to outsource.
37
2. Is the quality sufficient to meet customer demand? If so, there is no
need to outsource.
3. Are the needs short-term or long-term? If long-term, then the
organization should consider investing in internal capacity.
If a company does not have the internal capacity to deliver the function or is
not sufficiently meeting customer demand, and the function is a short-term need,
then Kumar and Eickhoff (2005) suggest continuing with the model to determine
whether or not outsourcing is the best decision. The general rule of thumb is not to
launch an outsourcing process for functions core to the company (Brown and
Wilson, 2005; Prahalad, 1999). Researchers have generally reasoned that it is more
appropriate for companies to begin outsourcing functions that are necessary to the
company, but are not a core function, that can be run more effectively by an
outsource provider (Weidenbaum, 2005; Johnson, 2003). The following are
common areas recommended for outsourcing:
• Gain access to a high skill set needed that is not available in-house
(e.g. product design);
• Release tactical functions so management has more time for strategy-
related issues (e.g. payroll, benefits, accounting);
• An area where another firm can perform function better (sometimes
even a function considered key to survival) (e.g. a tool and dye shop
or information technology);
38
• avoid major investment in modernization, common when firms are
low on net working capital;
• assist with a fast-growth situation or handle an overflow situation, to
allow companies to provide needed marginal production beyond a
company’s current capacity;
• improve financial ratios or reduce cost;
• launch a new strategic initiative;
• enhance credibility;
• improve overall performance.
Step Three: Conduct Cost Benefit Analysis
To understand the benefits of outsourcing a business function, Brown and
Wilson (2005) emphasize the need to conduct a thorough cost benefit analysis.
Included in the analysis are both quantitative and qualitative measures that not only
deduce the cost savings, but the overall net value created by outsourcing the
function. Brown and Wilson (2005) noted that most outsourcing partnerships do not
result in major reductions in cost over the long term. Instead, the partnership often
provides some financial benefit, but also other intangible benefits such as increased
production capacity, new equipment or expertise leveraged from the outside firm or
improvements in product or service quality (Magnuson, 2003; Pint & Baldwin,
1997). Estimating these factors helps to prove, or disprove, most effectively that an
outsourcing project supports corporate goals and outcomes.
39
In the table listed below there is summary of the analysis needed to estimate
the cost and the benefits of an outsourcing partnership. Since benefits are as
important as costs, both need to be examined thoroughly.
Table 1. Cost Benefit Analysis
Quantitative Indirect Costs
Labor, supplies, training, equipment, rent, utilities, travel
Quantitative Direct Benefits
Staff time saved, new operating efficiencies
Quantitative Indirect Costs
Administrative and divisional overhead
Quantitative Indirect Benefits
Administration, service improvements, flexibility of solution
Qualitative Project Benefits and Costs
Availability, service quality, project time, operational risk
According to Brown and Wilson, a company should only decide to proceed
with an outsourcing partnership if the total expected value created by the partnership
exceeds the total costs. Understanding the expected value provides the company
with baseline data to measure the actual benefits of the partnership once it is
underway (AmegaGroup, 2005; Johnson, 2003). Without this data it is challenging
for a company to measure the value and performance of the contract partnership or
understand how the partnership is working to support corporate goals (Wang et. al,
2005; Magnuson, 2003).
40
Step Four: Ensure Capacity to Maximize Outsource of Function
Kumar and Eickoff (2005) stress that companies must ensure that they and
the outsource provider possesses capabilities and infrastructure needed to maximize
the outsourcing relationship. The following questions are proposed to assist
companies in determining outsourcing readiness of both the company and the
outsource provider:
1. Does the vendor have the processes, equipment, manpower, and
technological capabilities in order to qualify? If not, can they be
developed cost-effectively?
2. Are information systems in place for the organization to communicate
properly with the provider? If not, can communication systems be
developed and integrated cost effectively?
3. Are there concerns about the intellectual property (IP) or of the
provider becoming a competitor? If so, can agreements and work
processes be structured to protect IP?
4. Is provider quality going to meet customer needs? If not, can the
provider improve quality in a cost-effective and timely manner?
5. Will the provider significantly effect cycle time and inventory? If so,
can the provider supply chain be developed cost effectively and in a
timely fashion or should the organization consider conducting
improvement internally and performing function in-house rather than
bringing up a provider’s capabilities?
41
6. Is there employee management and buy-in? If not, there will be
resistance and long-term difficulties, the following activities are
suggested:
• Improve education on benefits of outsourcing to company
• Employ compensation systems to reward employees and
management for cost reduction and customer satisfaction
Since no single provider specializes in all business capabilities, it is important
to be selective about outsource providers. According to Quelin & Duhamel (2003),
the service provider must be equipped to: handle the magnitude of the contract, make
a strong commitment, make investments needed to actualize the contract, evolve
over-time, and support clients in future initiatives. Essentially, companies must
develop a planned approach to outsourcing, taking into account the interests of
employees and customers (Kumar and Eickhoff, 2005, Johnson, 2003). Identifying a
capable provider is key to the success of outsourcing.
A major consideration for companies is how to structure the relationship with
a contract provider. In recent years, a spectrum of arrangements have emerged, from
short-term project-based contracts to joint developments to mergers between
organizations and providers (Hill, 2004; Murray & Kotabe, 1999). Strategic
alliances, shared-service agreements involving a growing number of the
organization’s functions that contribute substantially to its added value, have become
popular recently (Gulen, 2007; Craumer, 2002a; Hurley, 2001). Strategic alliances
allow organizations to benefit from partnerships with providers, sharing
42
“complimentary assets” (Harland et. al, 2005). When forming a strategic alliance,
transparency between partners is critical (Gulen, 2007; Kakabadse & Kakabadse,
2001). Strategic alliances are best managed when partners are committed to
information sharing, key competencies are protected and trust is sustained (Hurley,
2001).
For instance, in 2002, the leadership of the investment bank JP Morgan
Chase, entered into a seven-year outsourcing deal with IBM, totaling $5 billion
(Costa, 2001). IBM was charged with making internal IT costs more flexible for the
bank by aligning computer needs with internal and external demands. As part of the
deal, IBM took ownership of a major part of JP Morgan’s data processing
infrastructure, along with 4,000 of the bank’s employees to IBM. The deal was
intended to help the bank centralize its IT operations and allow customers to access
IT resources on a pay-as-you-use basis (Quelin & Duhamel, 2003).
As organizations outsource more mission-critical operations, the outsourced
relationship becomes more complex. More stakeholders are influenced by the
decision, selection criteria are no longer limited to cost savings, contracts become
more sophisticated, more complex information must be exchanged between the
organization and the provider, and performance reporting metrics become more
critical (Wang et. al, 2005; Quelin & Duhamel, 2003). Managers should be able to
conduct negotiations for large-scale contracts that provide clear guidelines about the
scope of services to be delivered, suppliers to be selected, pricing schemes to be
followed, service levels and measurement, risks and liabilities, rewards, termination
43
provisions and the consequences of termination (Quelin & Duhamel, 2003; Johnson,
2003).
Intellectual property (IP) risks is a consideration when deciding to outsource
(Hunter, 2004). Sharing information necessary for successful outsourcing may
require an organization to reveal trade secrets or business-critical information. This
creates the potential market risk of a outsource provider taking the ideas of the
outsourcing organization and steal the market share from the IP holder. Similarly,
the outsourcing organization may learn the processing methods of the provider and
share them with another provider or use them themselves (Kumar and Eickhoff,
2005). Both organizations need to have thorough IP agreements explicitly identified
in the contract prior to starting the business relationship. Organizations must also
consider how much they trust one another, as they move forward (Gulen, 2007;
Dunn, 2001).
A failed outsourced relationship can also result from a lack of understanding
of what is needed to outsource and an inability to make changes in the ‘home’
business to cope with changes resulting from the outsourced arrangement
(Magnuson, 2003; Kumar and Eickhoff, 2005; Dunn, 2001). Companies frequently
struggle to properly document their needs to the prospective provider (Porter, 2000).
Outsourced relationships can also weaken the corporate culture of the organization
and raise fear of uncertainty among existing employees, which leads to higher
employee turnover, absenteeism, and a lack of organizational leadership (Gulen,
2007). Employees desire stability and honesty in the work environment, an
44
organization must assess the “costs related to corporate culture” incurred by
outsourcing (Dunn, 2001; Pint & Baldwin, 1997). Outsourcing enables top
managers to share risk with contracted providers and avoid making large investments
that bring with it additional market risk (Quelin & Duhamel, 2003).
According to Deloitte Consulting (2007), nearly 30% of all outsourcing
customers are dissatisfied with their outsourcing experience. Nearly 40% of
companies report having renegotiated a contract within the first twelve months of
service, and in nearly one-quarter of the renegotiations, the providers lost the
account. Research shows that the success of outsourcing is highly correlated with all
interested parties viewing the outsourcing relationship as a long-term alliance.
Common risk factors that correlate with the rate of failure are associated with parties
focused on short-term benefits, lack of formal decision –making processes,
weakening of corporate culture, lack of commitment from employees, drain of
intellectual property and increased complexity are all cited as dynamics that
negatively impact outsourcing gains (Gulen, 2007; Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 2005).
Brown and Wilson (2005) set forth a model for successful outsourcing.
Making the decision to outsource is identified in Brown and Wilson’s model as the
“strategy” stage of outsourcing- the first step. Brown and Wilson (2005) identify the
following as critical stages in the outsourcing process:
• Create a strategy
• Define the scope of work
• Negotiate and sign the contract
45
• Implement the outsource project
• Manage the outsource provider
• Complete the contract and deliver results
• Maintain and support the outsourced function
Since the previous section elaborated on a decision-making model, the
remainder of the literature review will focus on a second model to ensure successful
outsourcing: determining a scope of work, negotiating a performance-based contract
and frequently reviewing performance metrics.
Defining the Scope of Work
Prior to identifying an outsource provider, Brown and Wilson (2005) stress
the importance of understanding the company’s need. If the company’s intention is
to have an outsource provider attend to everyday operations while in-house staff
focuses on core competencies, then a full-service vendor is recommended. However,
if the company’s goal is to incorporate an outsource provider into business situations,
than a smaller, or selective vendor makes more sense. Some projects, moreover,
may be too large for one vendor and therefore require multiple outsource providers.
A company’s outsource priorities are key in making the best choice for an outside
provider.
The next step is to create a long list of vendor candidates, which can come
from a company’s existing list of current suppliers or a list of “suitable” providers
gathered through a research process. Brown and Wilson (2005) recommend putting
all vendors on the long list through a bidder conference to clarify outsourcing
46
requirements and to evaluate the capability of a given provider prior to issuing a
request for proposals (RFP) to two to three outside providers on the short list, which
includes presentations to see how the vendor operates and site visits to double-check
vendor fit. When selecting an outside provider, company’s focus on functionally and
cost, as well as viability, service and support capabilities of the outsource provider
(Wang et. al, 2005; Hill, 2004; Beasley et. al, 2004; Pint & Baldwin, 1997). Brown
and Wilson (2005) recommend selecting a vendor with the “bench strength” to
complete the project on time and on budget.
In defining the scope of work, a company must first understand what it hopes
to achieve from outsourcing the function then work backward to identify the
potential issues or problems along the way. A scope of work includes clear
expectations and timeline about outsourcing functions, clarifies outsourcing
governance and specifies expected results and measures by which the company can
assess the performance of the outsource provider (Magnuson, 2003; Kakabadse &
Kakabadse, 2000). A scope of work typically begins by describing standard
requirements such as start and end dates for the service, the schedule for reviewing
performance, and documentation to be used in measuring the service. Scope of
services include types of services to be provided, decisions to be made by the
provider, decisions to be made by the client, volume of work to be covered, quality
of work to be provided, and provision for over- and underperformance. Even when
parties agree to a clearly predefined scope of work and service level agreements, it is
recommended that flexibility is built into the agreement since it is often not possible
47
to define the scope of work in totality (Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 2000). A too
rigidly structured agreement may work against both the company and the outsource
provider. On the other hand, outsourcing relationships with the tightest service
definitions often produce the most successful partnerships.
Negotiating a Performance-Based Contract
While cost reduction is often an important consideration for outsourcing,
literature warns that this should not be the only determining factor (Johnson, 2003;
Brown and Wilson, 2005; Pint & Baldwin, 1997). Brown and Wilson (2005) suggest
thinking about the short and long term cost benefits. Typical short-term benefits
may include a company’s ability to focus on core competencies, reduction in
headcount, reallocation of remaining core staff, or refinement of project
management. Typical long-term benefits may include reduced expenses for the
outsourced function over the life of the agreement, joint innovative practices,
experience outsourcing management, or enhanced career opportunities as a result of
sophisticated management or outsourcing integration skills.
Generally, outsourcing agreements are drafted either on a fixed-price or
variable price arrangement (Beasley et. al, 2004). Fixed-price arrangements ensure
that the outsource provider takes on the risk of absorbing cost variability, which
helps reassure clients of predictable final costs but may weaken the outsourcing
provider’s flexibility and incentive if price is set too low (Brown and Wilson, 2005).
Opportunities for flexibility and stability may be greater under variable pricing, in
48
which price may be based on use of services, sophistication of services delivered, or
risk sharing.
In long-term relationships, Brown and Wilson (2005) conclude that
successful outsourcing relationships are established during the negotiation stage.
The objective is to measure the success of the outsource provider in meeting the
company’s business needs (Wang et. al, 2005). Therefore, Brown and Wilson
(2005) recommend negotiating performance-based pricing where the vendor is
expected to meet or exceed client expectations, specifying requirements in terms of
outcomes rather than inputs. Performance metrics may include outcome-based
metrics, metrics for quality assurance, or key indicator metrics (Healy and Linder,
2003; Kakabadse & Kakabase, 2000). Furthermore, it is important to set incentives
when performance is met or exceeded and compulsory penalties when performance
falls short.
The contract negotiation process should drive both parties to a thorough
understand of their respective roles in the outsourcing relationship (Brown and
Wilson, 2005). Because outsourcing providers will have sensitive information about
the company’s strengths and weaknesses, it is recommended that a negotiation team
is identified and that all questions and inquiries from the potential outsource provider
should be directed to the negotiation team. Brown and Wilson (2005) stress the
importance of competition as a method to keep outsource providers “honest” and
therefore recommend that new contracts span only two years.
49
One of the pitfalls of outsourcing is the company’s loss of control over the
outsourced function (Magnuson, 2003; Dunn, 2000; Linder et. al, 2001). Once a
function has been handed over to an outside provider, it is difficult and costly to
bring it back in-house. In addition, managing outsourcing requires time and may
negatively impact employee morale (Magnuson, 2003). Therefore, it is important to
define the governance structure from the beginning: clearly stating the company’s
goals; understanding the service provider’s goals; understanding the deal (service
goals and pricing model); engaging in problem prevention; articulating roles and
responsibilities of both parties; establishing service management program; and
launching a communication program to leverage the benefits of outsourcing (Beasley
et. al, 2004; Dunn, 2000). Essentially, the contract negotiation process ensures that
both parties agree on goals, benchmarks, incentives, monitoring and communication
procedures, and costs.
Most partnership arrangements involve shared risk and benefit (Linder et. al,
2001; Miles & Snow, 1997). Most companies who successfully manage outsourced
relationships develop long term business relationships that result in a “shared fate” of
business success or failure between both firms (Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 2005). If
mutual benefit of both companies is not reflected in the contract and implementation
of the outsourcing partnership, then outsourcing success is unlikely (Beasley et al.,
2004; Gulen, 2007).
Challenges to consider regarding outsourcing is whether or not the service
provider has the capacity to deliver on its obligations. Organizations run the risk of
50
having to absorb the service provider’s deficient capabilities, such as scarcity of
financial resources and insufficient understanding of the client-base (Harland et al.,
2005; Quelin & Duhamel, 2003; Linder et al., 2001). Other challenges may include
the outsourcing organization’s loss of control over its process and current employees
in the organization feeling threatened due to outsourcing of work (Beasley et al.,
2004; Magnuson, 2003; Kumar and Eickhoff, 2005).
Assessing Performance Metrics
Since outsourcing has become such a substantial influence on business, the
effective management of an outsourced contract is critical to the future success of an
organization (Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 2005). Alexander & Young (1996) suggest
that effectively managing outsourced relationships has become a core competence
itself, since poor management of outsourced relationships negatively impact
expected competitive gains and do not leverage competencies of the provider (Costa,
2001). A general manager within the energy sector explains, “If a company chooses
to utilize outsourcing as a lever for achieving competitive advantage, then it has to
build core competencies around the skills of finding the right partners and
management of external relationships” (Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 2005, p.197).
Managing an outsourcing contract requires a combination of in-house expertise, such
as finance, corporate processes, technical expertise with new technologies or
business processes, and sometime legal council. If oversight staff lacks these diverse
strengths, the company may not be in a position to identify emerging problems or
ensure a successful outcome (Marshall, 2001, Brown & Wilson, 2005). It is critical
51
that managers ensure there is no doubt about what constitutes success or failure in
the outsourced relationship (Harland et al., 2005; Magnuson, 2003).
Outsourcing, itself, has evolved into a critical management tool. Success is
more likely to be achieved for those organizations that have the competence to:
rearrange ways of working with outsource providers; integrate current processes and
activities around outsourced activities; facilitate ongoing relations with providers;
and, effectively apply total quality management, without micromanaging outsource
providers (Harland et al, 2005; Craumer, 2002c). Research reveals that there is a
general lack of skills and expertise in organizations to manage strategic,
collaborative relationships since top managers are better equipped to deal with short-
term, adversarial contracting negotiations (Harland et. al, 2005; Linder et. al, 2001).
Overseeing an outsourcing contract requires that adequate controls and
communication systems are in place to surface and resolve any performance issues
that may arise (Brown and Wilson, 2005). The outsourcing project team responsible
for evaluating the success and performance of the outsourcing contract must possess
the resources, support, and flexibility necessary to deal with unforeseen issues that
arise during the course of the contract (Healy and Linder, 2003).
Brown and Wilson (2005) stress the importance of identifying outsourcing
objectives that are quantifiable, with established criteria, at the start of the contract.
They recommend well-defined performance criteria with quantifiable purposes,
service quantities, quality, and satisfaction, measurable against other vendors and
internal standards. Metrics should align with the business goals of the service,
52
enhance the ability to diagnose problems, escalate attention, and remedy
performance issues (Wang et. al, 2005; Linder et. al, 2001). Metrics should also
include a few measurements (two or three) that encompass higher stakes. Brown and
Wilson (2005) also caution against micromanaging the outsource provider,
recommending frequent formal review meetings where deliverables are recurring
agenda items, while giving the outsource provider enough latitude to determine best
practices that will result in desirable results for both parties.
Kumar and Eickhoff’s Closed Looping Decision Framework (2005), also
stresses the importance of re-evaluating the outsource contract regularly. If a
provider is not performing well, then the manager must make a decision whether or
not to continue doing business with that specific provider. Research identifies the
importance of creating a well-defined exit strategy during contract negotiations,
when the organization still has negotiating power and the provider is accommodating
its wishes (Auer, 2001). Taking this extra step can prevent chaos and expenses when
it comes time to part company with an outsource company.
Conclusion
The review of outsourcing literature led to two models used in the remainder
of this study as a theoretical framework to analyze both the decision to outsource
literacy coaching and the implementation of the outsourced literacy coaching model.
The first model, presented by Kumar and Eickhoff (2005) assists key leaders to
determine whether or not to outsource a key business function. The second model,
developed by Brown and Wilson (2005), identifies key activities and deliverables to
53
successfully implement and manage an outsourced relationship. The table below
summarizes a framework, consisting of essential components of both models, to
assist executives make and implement effective outsourcing decisions:
Table 2. Framework to Determine When and How to Outsource
Strategy Make decision to outsource:
! Identify core competence
! Determine if outsourcing is advantageous
! Ensure capacity of company and outsource provider
! Conduct cost analysis
! Assess risk
Scope Define scope of work
Negotiation Negotiate performance or outcome-based agreement
Implementation Launch project
Conduct regular budgeting and forecasting
Plan for transition
Management Monitor performance metrics
Integrate service delivery
Manage partnership
Oversee cost
Completion Deliver results
Maintenance Support on-going maintenance of service
The above framework will be used to analyze the first case study about an
outsourced literacy coaching model, presented in Chapter Five. The case study
begins by studying the reason that a LAUSD local superintendent made the
unprecedented decision to outsource literacy coaching, applying the Closed Loop
Decision Framework (Kumar and Eickhoff, 2005). The case study then provides an
54
in-depth analysis of the outsourced literacy coaching model, elaborating on the
negotiated scope of work, management of the outsource provider and overall
evaluation of the outsourced literacy coaching program.
Before delving into the literacy coaching case studies, the next chapter will
describe research methods used to gather data about the two literacy coaching
models- outsourced and in-house- implemented in an LAUSD local district.
55
CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH METHODS
Study Design
This chapter will focus on the research methods used to develop two case
studies about literacy coaching—an outsourced model and an in-house model. The
purpose of the study was to examine two models of literacy coaching in the Los
Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), a traditional in-house literacy coaching
program employed by the majority of schools in the District and an outsourced
literacy coaching program launched by one local district within LAUSD. A
qualitative descriptive case-study approach was used to produce two case studies of
literacy coaching, one focusing on an outsourced literacy coaching model and the
other examining an in-house literacy coaching model. A quantitative analysis of
school performance data on English Language Arts provided insight about the
potential impact the two literacy coaching models had on student achievement.
Finally, emerging themes and patterns across the two case studies were compared in
order to better understand the efficacy of each literacy coaching model.
The case study design was selected to offer an in-depth understanding of the
implementation of two literacy coaching models. Yin (1994) defines a case study as
“an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-
life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are
not clearly evident.” A case study researcher gathers a great deal of information
about the problem with the intent of analyzing, interpreting, or theorizing about the
56
phenomenon (Merriam, 1998). According to Merriam (1998), case studies provide
holistic “thick” descriptions and explanations that may be used to directly influence
policy, practice and future research. The intention was to capture the initial decision
and subsequent implementation of an innovation—the complete outsourcing of
school-wide literacy coaching (during its first three years of roll-out)—compared to
the implementation of the District’s in-house approach to literacy coaching.
Case studies are “intensive descriptions and analysis of a single unit, such as
an individual, program, event, group, intervention or community (Merriam, 1998).
Each case study will consist of two sample schools implementing the same literacy
coaching model.
In developing the study, it was essential to:
1. Select schools fully implementing an in-house or outsourced model of
literacy coaching for the duration of the study, serving a similar
demographic of students.
2. Identify schools where key staffing position were consistently filled,
and turn-over was minimal, during the duration of the study, such as
school principal and literacy coach.
3. Select interview participants who had adequate knowledge of the
implementation of literacy coaching programs at the schools.
Sample
Four urban middle schools located in the same local district within LAUSD
were selected for the study. Prior to the on-set of the study, LAUSD was organized
57
into 11 local districts. When literacy coaching was officially launched by LAUSD in
2002, the superintendent of the local district made an unprecedented decision to
implement an outsourced model of literacy coaching in all five of the local district’s
middle schools. The local superintendent identified a provider to recruit, hire, train,
place and manage content literacy coaches. All other local districts implemented the
in-house literacy coaching model designed by LAUSD whereby teachers were
generally identified to serve as full-time (out-of-classroom) literacy coaches,
managed by a local district Literacy Coordinator. In 2006, LAUSD consolidated the
local districts into eight larger districts. As a result of the LAUSD reorganization, the
local district gained an additional three middle schools within its jurisdiction; all of
these schools were implementing the LAUSD in-house literacy coaching model. In
the Fall of 2006, five of the eight middle schools in the re-organized local district
were implementing an outsourced model of literacy coaching while the other three
middle schools were implementing the traditional LAUSD in-house literacy
coaching model.
Of the eight middle schools in the local district, four were selected for this
study: two schools that were implementing an outsourced model of literacy coaching
and two schools that were implementing the traditional in-house model of literacy
coaching. Two case studies were produced, one case study was based on the two
schools outsourcing literacy coaching and the second case study focused on the two
schools implementing an in-house literacy coaching model. All four middle schools
selected for the sample were similar in terms of size, student demographics and
58
consistency of school-based administrative leadership in implementing literacy
coaching.
Data Collection
Merriam (1989) cites the importance of using multiple sources of evidence to
establish validity in a case study. This study drew on three primary methods to
gather qualitative and quantitative data: interviews, document reviews, and test score
analysis. Data were collected from November 2005 to April 2007 through several
phases. The first round of structured interviews was used to gather information about
implementation of literacy coaching models at the four school sites in a consistent
and systematic manner, but with the flexibility to allow the interviewer to digress or
probe when necessary (Berg, 1989). The first phase of data collection began with an
in-depth interview of the local district superintendent, focused on key considerations
in the decision to outsource literacy coaching and essential design elements of both
the outsourced and in-house literacy coaching model, context for implementation of
each model, and overall satisfaction with both literacy coaching models.
For the second phase, individual interviews took place with, separately, with
at least one literacy coach and principal from each school (except at the one school
where the principal was new, a veteran assistant principal was interviewed). All
literacy coaches and principals interviewed implemented literacy coaching for at
least two years at the same school. School site administrators (principals or assistant
principals overseeing literacy coaching program) were interviewed to provide insight
about key decisions and design elements and to understand the context of the two
59
literacy coaching models implemented at the four middle schools. With regard to the
outsourcing literacy coaching model, further exploration investigated client
expectations, third-party responsiveness and overall third-party evaluation.
The third phase of data collection involved one literacy coach focus group
and one teacher focus group at each of the four school sites, for a total of eight focus
groups. Each literacy coach focus group consisted of 3-4 literacy coaches and each
teacher focus groups ranged from 7-12 participating teachers at each school. This
phase was less formal and was designed to follow up on findings about
implementation identified in previous interviews, such as understanding how the
design elements were implemented with each literacy coaching model, perceived
effectiveness of each model, and overall impact of literacy coaching at each school.
The informal approach allowed interviewees to offer their interpretations of reality
without preconceived ideas developed by the researcher (Tierney, 1991). These
focus groups provided many valuable insights and opinions from those receiving and
those delivering the services that helped develop the researchers’ understanding of
different respondents’ concepts (Wilson, 1997).
The purpose of interviews and focus groups with school administrators,
literacy coaches and teachers was to gain a deeper understanding of how each
literacy coaching model was implemented at the four schools, to capture the
perception of the effectiveness of each model and to gather information about the
impact the two literacy coaching models had on the schools. The pool of interview
respondents included individuals who had been instrumental in the implementation
60
of the literacy coaching model or who had actively participated in the literacy
coaching program at each of the four schools in the study.
Document analysis took place prior to and between each round of interviews.
Literacy coaching documents like job descriptions, coaches’ logs, correspondence
between literacy coaches and school/district personnel and professional development
modules provided additional information about the expectations, implementation and
management of the two literacy coaching models.
Finally, archival data was used to provide demographic data about the school
as well as to assess student achievement gains during the duration of the study.
School test results, such as overall school performance on the California Standards
Test and analysis of English Language Arts test results, were analyzed to understand
each school’s academic performance prior to literacy coaching and to gain insight
about the possible impact of each literacy coaching model on student achievement.
61
Case Study Respondents
Table 3. Case Study Respondents
School Administrator(s) Literacy Coach(es) Teacher(s)
Local District Superintendent
Middle School A Principal or Asst. Principal 3 8
Middle School B Principal 4 12
Middle School C Principal 1 9
Middle School D Principal 3 7
Total 6 11 36
Prior to initiating the data collection phases, the research proposal was
submitted to the University Park Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University
of Southern California to ensure human research protocols were in accordance with
federal regulations, State laws, and local and University policies. In addition, the
local district superintendent provided written approval to conduct the study in the
local district with the four middle schools identified in the study. Prior to the formal
interview/focus group period, letters of introduction to the study and requests for
participation were sent to the local superintendent, administrators, literacy coaches,
and teachers at each school site. All school site administrators, literacy coaches and
teachers were provided information about the study in advance and provided oral
consent to participate in the study. Efforts were made to involve all literacy coaches
at each of the four sites. All teachers at the four sites were also provided a written
invitation to participate in the focus groups. Teachers were not selected, they
62
voluntarily chose to participate in the focus groups and represented three of the four
core academic disciplines: English Language Arts, science and social studies.
Protocols were used during the interviews and focus groups (see Appendices
A-D). Each protocol consisted of questions designed by the researcher to gather
information about the design and decision-making context for each literacy coaching
model, the implementation of the two models, and the overall efficacy of each
coaching model. There were 6-8 general background questions asked of each
respondent, and 35-40 program questions (a subset appropriate to each respondent
was used). The interview with the local district superintendent lasted approximately
two hours. Interviews with school administrators lasted approximately 60-90
minutes. Focus groups with literacy coaches and teachers lasted an average of 45
minutes to one hour. All interviews and focus groups were done in person and were
tape recorded.
63
Table 4. Overview of Research Methods
Research Question Focus Data Source
What factors influenced a
local district
superintendent to
outsource literacy
coaching?
• Strategic goal(s)
• Short-term and long-
term expectations
• Selection of third-party
provider
• Costs
• Political implications
• Internal communication
Interviews with:
• Local District
Superintendent
• Site Administrators
How were two different
literacy coaching models
implemented in a local
district’s middle schools?
• Common coaching
activities and literacy
practices
• Management, training
and accountability of
coaches
• Coach responsiveness
to school and local
district needs
Document Analysis
Interviews with:
• Local District
Superintendent
• Site Administrators
• Site Teachers
• Literacy Coaches
What criteria were used
to measure the efficacy of
the two literacy coaching
models?
• Capacity
• Fixed and variable costs
• Efficiency
• Effectiveness
• Political implications
• Responsiveness
• Accountability and
control
• Future impact
Literature Review
Document Analysis
Student Achievement
Indicators
Interviews with:
• Local District
Superintendent
• Site Administrators
Which of the two literacy
coaching models was
more effective and under
what conditions?
• Application of criteria
proposed
• Impact on student
achievement
• Impact on classroom
instruction
Document Analysis
Site Test Score Analysis
Interviews with:
• Local District
Superintendent
• Site Administrators
• Site Teachers
64
Data Analysis
As noted earlier, all interviews and focus groups were tape recorded. Before
and after interviews, the researcher recorded field notes, reflections, analytic memos,
interpretations and preliminary organization of data in an on-going data journal into
one database. All data were transcribed and constant comparison was used in a
recursive analysis process on the responses (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss &
Corbin, 1990; Tierney, 1991). The researcher summarized the information gathered
at each of the four schools independently prior to identifying themes that emerged
across the two schools within each case study. Emerging patterns and themes were
identified separately for the two schools outsourcing literacy coaching and the two
schools implementing the in-house literacy coaching model. Table 5 provides the
content of specific interview questions and indicates the research questions for which
they provided data.
65
Table 5. Sample Interview/Focus Group Questions
What factors influenced
a local district
superintendent to
outsource literacy
coaching?
How were two different
literacy coaching models
implemented in a local
district’s middle
schools?
What criteria were
used to measure the
efficacy of the two
literacy coaching
models?
Which of the two
literacy coaching
models was more
effective and under
what conditions?
Local District
Superintendent
What factor(s) were
most significant in your
decision to outsource
literacy coaching?
Who else was involved
in the decision?
How did you choose a
provider?
Why did you opt to
implement two different
literacy coaching models
(after re-districting)?
What were the goals of
each coaching model?
Did you face any
challenges with either
coaching model?
Did the re-districting
change the scope or
expectations of the
outsourced model?
Were the goals of the
two literacy coaching
models different in any
way?
Were your
expectations met?
Did the outsourced
middle school literacy
coaching provider
respond to your needs,
requests, feedback?
How did you measure
the effectiveness of the
each middle school
literacy coaching
model?
Are there any changes
you would
recommend in either
middle school literacy
coaching model?
Did either literacy
coaching model have
an impact on
teachers’ skills and
knowledge?
Have you learned any
lessons regarding
literacy coaching?
Outsourcing of key
school services?
Principals Why did your school
decide to outsource
literacy coaching?
Why did your school
decide to provide
literacy coaching in-
house, rather than choose
an outside provider?
What did you want
literacy coaching to
accomplish?
How do you select your
literacy coach?
What are the most
critical functions of your
literacy coach?
What is/is not working
about your literacy
coaching program?
How do you evaluate
your literacy coach?
Are you satisfied with
the results of your
literacy coaching
model?
Have you considered
changing your
literacy coaching
model?
Have there been any
benefits of literacy
coaching at your
school site?
Has literacy coaching
improved teaching?
Teachers What do you think about
the decision to
(outsource or in-house)
literacy coaching?
What do literacy coaches
do?
How did you hear about
literacy coaching?
How often do you see
your literacy coach per
month? Per year?
How does your school
measure the
effectiveness of
literacy coaches?
Is literacy coaching
effective? How can it
be more effective?
Does literacy
coaching benefit
teachers?
Has literacy coaching
impacted you?
What has benefited
you the most? Least?
Is literacy improving
at your school?
Literacy
Coaches
Please describe a
“typical coaching day.”
What services do you
provide teachers?
Do you receive any
training?
How was coaching
communicated to
faculty?
How often do you meet
with administrators?
How does the faculty’s
respond to you?
On average, how many
teachers do you serve?
How much time do you
spend in classrooms?
What kind of
evaluative information
do you receive?
How do you measure
your success?
Have you seen
instructional changes
in the classroom?
What can be done to
further improve
literacy instruction?
Do you have any
evidence that literacy
is improving at your
school?
66
The transcriptions and analytic memos were analyzed using Atlas Ti (Muhr,
1997), a qualitative data analysis program. Codes and categories regarding key
themes were identified, verified, collapsed and modified by the researcher of this
study (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). Relevant and pertinent data were then logged into a
computer program, Atlas Ti, to assist in organizing and coding the data for analysis.
After a preliminary read of each transcript, the researcher created a running list of
categories and each category or code was attached to relevant responses in the
transcripts. The researcher then assessed the relevance of particular categories and
arrived at a set of codes for further transcript analysis (Guba and Lincoln, 1981): 1)
number of people who mention something or frequency with which something is
mentioned; 2) importance of something based on emphasis by various audiences; 3)
uniqueness of a category; and 4) unique response to a common situation. In addition
to organizing narrative descriptions of the literacy coaching models, categories or
themes were constructed to cut across the data (Merriam, 1998). In constructing each
case study, similar data was grouped together in categories. Patterns in data were
arranged in relationship to each other. Table 6 identifies key themes that emerged
from the data and provides samples of ideas or categories used as transcript codes for
each theme.
67
Table 6. Outline of Emergent Themes, Ideas, and/or Categories
Sample Themes Related Ideas and/or Categories
Decision to
Outsource
• Local superintendent rationale
• Selection of provider
• Negotiated contract
• Scope of work
• Expectations and perception of provider
• Administrative perception of outsourcing
• Teacher perception of outsourcing
Administrative
Leadership and
Communication
• Communication about coaching expectations
• Goals of literacy coaching
• Communication with literacy coaches
• Presence and involvement in coaching activities
• Management of literacy coaching
Alignment between
Coaching and PD
• School-wide professional development focus
• Coaches’ role in professional development
Coaching
Qualification and
Responsibilities
• Literacy coach criteria
• Literacy coach selection process
• Literacy coach job description
• % coach time spend on activities
• Essential elements of literacy coaching
• Expectations of literacy coaches
• Role of coaches inside and outside the classroom
• Teacher perceived benefit
Training and
Evaluation
• Performance expectations and evaluation of provider
• Training opportunities for literacy coaches
• Day-to-day management of literacy coaches
• Literacy coach evaluation process
• Accountability for performance goals
• Feedback about performance
Implementation
Challenges
• Administrative leadership
• Communication
• Clear expectations
• Coaching time
• Coaching responsibilities
• Reluctance to coaching
• Management and oversight
• Rapport and trust
68
Also, school level test score data on the California Standards Test in Reading
and Language Arts were analyzed for each of the four middle schools. School level
year-to-year progress was measured, using baseline data gathered the year prior to
the implementation of literacy coaching. Two methodological limitations of this
study impact the generalization of its findings. Producing two case studies of four
schools limits the scope of the study and makes it impossible to generalize about the
findings. In addition, the fact that the schools implemented the two literacy coaching
models to varying degrees and in conjunction with other curricular reform initiatives
makes it difficult to disaggregate the exact impact of each literacy coaching model
on student achievement. This study does not serve as an evaluation of each literacy
coaching model or a definitive study to identify one model as superior to another, it
does provide an in-depth analysis of each literacy coaching model in similar middle
schools and highlights elements, conditions, and actions that improved the possible
impact of each model at the four case study schools.
Multiple methods and sources of data were used to triangulate data and
confirm emerging findings. Several respondents were interviewed who played
different roles in implementing the two literacy coaching models. In addition to the
qualitative data gathered from interviews and focus groups, documents were
analyzed and quantitative student achievement data were reviewed to add insight
about the implementation of each literacy coaching model.
69
Contextual Background for Case Studies on Literacy Coaching
In January of 2002, the LAUSD Board of Education approved Superintendent
Romer’s standards-based Secondary Literacy Plan (SLP), with the overall goal of
improving literacy for middle and high school students in English Language Arts.
The SLP had three primary goals:
1. Improve the reading skills of students in grades 6 to 9 who were
diagnostically assessed to be reading below third grade level by
implementing a Developing Reader and Writer Course (DRWC) in a
double period instructional block.
2. Implement a system of instructional guides and periodic assessment to
provide middle and high school teachers and administrators with “a
tool for determining what to teach and assess and when to do it” (from
Foreword by Roy Romer in English Language Arts Instruction Guide,
2004).
3. Provide secondary teachers with on-going professional development
to ensure the delivery of consistent standards-aligned instruction.
Secondary teachers of all core content areas, including English
Language Arts, social studies, science and math teachers were
expected to meet regularly as a “literacy cadre” at the local district
level. Literacy coaches participated in literacy cadres and were
expected to meet regularly at their schools to continue professional
development (Valdes and Brown, 2006).
70
The Secondary Literacy Plan was part of the superintendent’s five-year
strategic plan, implemented from 2002-2006. The design of the SLP was guided by
Lauren Resnick’s Principles of Learning and intended to improve the literacy skills
of middle and high school students by integrating language arts into content areas
(Valdes & Brown, 2005; Resnick, 1999). The local district superintendent, in her
former capacity as the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary School Services,
contributed significantly to the SLP. She believes content-based literacy is critical to
student success and advocated adding content literacy coaches to support teachers.
She stresses the importance of ensuring teachers know how to apprentice students to
read text.
Consequently, each secondary school in LAUSD began receiving an
allocation to support literacy coaching, based on student enrollment. Typically each
middle school is allocated sufficient funds for the equivalent of one full-time coach.
The configuration of literacy coaches varies from site to site. Some schools use
literacy coaching funds to provide identified teachers with one or two additional
conference period(s). These teachers were expected to use the additional conference
period(s) to coach teachers, coordinate the work of the literacy cadre across
disciplines, and assist with the implementation of instructional guides and periodic
assessments. Other schools identify one teacher, typically an English Language Arts
teacher, to take a full-time out-of-classroom position to support literacy development
with teachers in all content areas.
71
The local district superintendent was appointed into her position just before
the official implementation of the Secondary Literacy Plan. As a major contributor
to the drafting of the SLP, she understood the core tenets of the plan and made a bold
decision no other local district superintendent made at the time—to outsource
secondary literacy coaching with SLP allocations. Understanding the state of
literacy performance in her local district, she approached SLP implementation with
an aggressive and unorthodox strategy to emphasize to schools her vision for literacy
development and standards-based instruction.
In summary, this chapter provided an overview of the research methods used
to compile and analyze data presented in the case studies found in Chapters Five and
Six. The chapter concluded with a contextual summary of the Los Angeles Unified
School District and its decision to overhaul its previous approach to secondary
literacy. The next chapter consists of a case study about two schools within an
LAUSD local district that outsourced literacy coaching. The chapter begins with an
analysis of the local district superintendent’s decision to outsource literacy coaching,
applying the theoretical frameworks presented in Chapter Three. The chapter also
describes the way each school implemented the essential design elements of literacy
coaching identified in Chapter Two and evaluates the effectiveness of the outsourced
coaching program by applying the model for successful outsourcing presented in
Chapter Three. The chapter concludes with an analysis of emerging themes across
both school sites.
72
CHAPTER FIVE
CASE STUDY: OUTSOURCED LITERACY COACHING AT
TWO MIDDLE SCHOOLS
This chapter presents a case study about two schools in an LAUSD local
district that outsourced literacy coaching. It begins by detailing how and why an
LAUSD local superintendent made the bold decision to outsource secondary literacy
coaching when all other local districts managed their own literacy coaching
programs, hiring teachers from within to serve as literacy coaches. The case study
outlines the local superintendent’s strategy to outsource and provides information
about the scope of work and negotiation process used to develop a contract with the
outsourced provider. The remainder of the case study provides a description of how
outsourced literacy coaching was implemented at two middle schools, analyzing the
presence or absence of literacy coaching “best practices” identified in Chapter Two.
The chapter concludes by sharing perceptions regarding the efficacy of the
outsourced model and summarizing strengths and challenges associated with
outsourced literacy coaching.
Decision to Outsource Secondary Literacy Coaching
Prepared to implement the Secondary Literacy Plan for the 2002-2003 school
year, an LAUSD local superintendent confronted her schools’ middle and high
school achievement data. Based on student performance on the 2001-2002 California
Standardized Test (CST), Academic Performance Index (API) scores of secondary
schools in her local district ranged from 410-443, with the percentage of students
73
scoring proficient or advanced in English Language Arts ranging from 4-10% and
the percentage of student scoring proficient or advanced in Math ranging from 1-5%.
Secondary schools in the local district scored approximately 150 API points below
the District average, with the number of students proficient in English Language Arts
almost 10% below the District average and students proficient in math more than
15% below the District average:
Table 7. 2002 API and AYP for Local District Secondary Schools
School
Academic
Performance
Index (API)
Academic Yearly
Progress (AYP)
ELA %
Proficient
Academic Yearly
Progress (AYP)
Math %
Proficient
Middle School #1 433 4% 5%
Middle School #2 443 6% 5%
Middle School #3 426 6% 3%
Middle School #4 435 4% 4%
Middle School #5 410 4% 4%
High School #1 432 10% 3%
High School #2 440 4% 1%
High School #3 N/A 6% 3%
LAUSD Average 595 14% 18%
In addition, secondary schools experienced high teacher turn-over with
approximately 30% of teachers emergency-credentialed. According to the local
superintendent, her district had a very difficult time retaining high caliber teachers.
Secondary schools in her district struggled to staff schools with high quality, high
74
performing teachers. She wrestled with the possibility that an in-house literacy
coaching program might create a “brain drain” on her schools. Identifying at least
eight to ten top-notch teachers to become literacy coaches, would require her to take
them out of the classroom. “That’s hard to do,” she explained, “that’s hard to find
that many people who have that level of knowledge in each of those areas.” When
she set forth to launch a literacy coaching program that targeted reading
apprenticeship in all core classes, she wanted to avoid the negative impact of stealing
strong teachers away from the classroom. She, therefore, designed a literacy
coaching model that relied on outside providers to attract, hire, train and manage
literacy coaches in her secondary schools.
The local superintendent cited two primary objectives in her decision to
outsource literacy coaching: 1) to find people with a strong combination of content
knowledge and literacy knowledge, and 2) to have experts at the table with teachers
as they collaboratively planned instruction around rigorous learning standards with a
strong focus on literacy. She explained, “I didn’t want to pull my best teachers out
of the classroom, so I looked for a resource that could assist our schools, strong
coaches with good knowledge, but they would be value-added.”
Money allocated under LAUSD’s Secondary Literacy Plan (SLP) gave her
flexibility to make creative decisions about her literacy coaching program. She
petitioned the District to implement an outsourced model of literacy coaching. The
model involved hiring talented content experts that were well-versed in literacy
techniques and content knowledge. Rather than assign one full-time “literacy coach”
75
to each site, she pulled together resources to assign three part-time coaches to each
site in English Language Arts, Science and Social Studies. Consequently, each
school received the equivalent of one-and-a-half literacy coaches with expertise in
three content areas, rather than one full-time coach with expertise in one content
area. She explained, “I took the equivalent number of dollars that would have been
allocated for whatever that position was, and converted it to the outsourced coaching.
We essentially had one and a half coaches for each school by outsourcing.”
However, she did admit that this model required schools to augment funds to pay for
the total cost of the outsourced coaching contracts. Even though she described it as a
minimal amount for the additional coaching support, she remembered it was a
difficult “sell” initially. Once the program was implemented, however, she met less
resistance from school administrators.
Thinking ahead about the potential long-term impact of the outsourced
relationship, the local superintendent knew from the beginning that she did not want
to stretch any one organization too thin by contracting one organization to implement
coaching at all eight middle and high schools. She decided, instead, to find one
organization to coordinate literacy coaching for the five middle schools and another
organization to coordinate literacy coaching for the three high schools. She
approached two organizations she had previously worked with to consider the
literacy coaching model. She explained her choice of providers, “I knew these
people. I had worked with them years before, and I had some confidence in their
knowledge. I knew they could provide what I was looking for.” At the time, she
76
was not outsourcing any other local district functions. She cautioned, “I think that
districts have to recognize when they don’t have the resources needed to get the job
done.” Essentially, the local superintendent made the decision to outsource based on
two primary reasons:
1. She believed the program would create a drain on her existing talent
pool- high quality teachers.
2. She was concerned with the array of challenges her local district
faced. She feared it did not have the capacity to adequately
implement the program.
Below is an analysis of the local superintendent’s decision to outsource using
the theoretical framework presented at the conclusion of Chapter Three.
Step One: Determine if function is a core competence
One could argue that literacy coaching was a core competency of the local
district, a large-scale school support program essential in improving literacy within
schools. However, ensuring quality teaching (and protecting the existing pool of
qualified teachers) appeared to be the local superintendent’s primary concern. In
addition, the local district staff was consumed with a myriad of basic support
functions required at the schools to address academic performance and school
operations. Therefore, for this local district, literacy coaching was not core to its
work.
77
Step Two: If function is core, decide if advantageous to outsource
While the effective delivery of literacy coaching services would effect
schools’ satisfaction with the local district, the local superintendent designed an
outsourced model that delivered comparable (or improved) quality more cheaply,
enabled existing resources (quality teachers) to remain in the classroom for a
superior return, and reduced the local districts need to spend time managing literacy
coaching, thereby freeing local district time to improve school productivity in other
ways. The local superintendent did not believe that her local district had the internal
capacity to deliver a high quality literacy program that would sufficiently support
school literacy needs, nor did she believe that she had sufficient talent to draw from,
without negatively impacting classrooms, in order to adequately staff the literacy
program. Those two factors were instrumental in her ultimate decision to outsource
literacy coaching. The local superintendent, therefore, turned to two providers she
knew and trusted to implement an outsourced version of the LAUSD literacy
secondary model.
Step Three: Assess the provider’s capacity to effectively deliver services
Based on the local superintendent’s prior relationship with the outside
provider, she felt confident that the provider had the capacity to recruit and train high
caliber coaches to deliver literacy coaching aligned with her vision. More
importantly, she trusted the provider to partner with her in this work.
78
In retrospect, the local superintendent may have benefited from conducting a
more rigorous analysis of the outside provider, prior to final selection, considering
such questions as:
• Does the provider have the staff to provide quality services?
• Can the provider increase staff in a timely and cost-effective fashion?
• Is there sufficient buy-in (internally) to outsource the function?
The local superintendent believed the outside provider could provide superior
coaching services. In addition, through the outsourced model schools would receive
additional coaching services (than in the LAUSD model) at a significantly reduced
cost. However, the local district superintendent and the outside provider may not
have invested sufficient time, at the strategy phase, ensuring the provider had the
time and staff to deliver services consistently throughout school sites. Also, more
may have been done to increase internal buy-in and adequately prepare schools for a
seamless integration of coaching services.
Step Four: Conduct Cost-Benefit Analysis
The local superintendent proposed a literacy coaching model that exceeded
LAUSD allocation of funding for the service because she proposed three half-time
coaches in three core content areas (English Language Arts, social studies, and
science) rather than one full-time coach to serve all content teachers. She negotiated
aggressively with outside providers to provide coaching services for less than the
District average and then convinced school sites to absorb the minimal financial
difference in exchange for an additional half-time coach.
79
Structuring the Scope of Work
The local district contracted with an outsource provider to hire the full-time
equivalent of 7.5 literacy coaches for its five middle schools: 2.5 English Language
Arts coaches, 2.5 social studies coaches, and 2.5 science coaches. The local
superintendent explicitly forbade the provider from hiring local district teachers as
literacy coaches. During the second year of contract negotiations, LAUSD requested
the provider not hire teachers from any LAUSD school. The outosurce provider
became responsible for attracting, screening, hiring, training and managing all
outsourced literacy coaches. Literacy coaches were employees of the provider, not
LAUSD employees.
The outsourced literacy coaching scope of work read as follows:
1. Provide 7.5 (FTE) coaches for five middle schools. Each school will
be assigned three half-time coaches in ELA, science and social
studies.
2. Train coaches to develop standards-based lessons with teachers that
promote content literacy.
3. Work under the direction of the outside provider, in collaboration
with the local district.
4. Administer a teacher self-assessment to measure the impact of
coaching on teacher ability to develop standards-based lessons that
promote content literacy.
80
Each outsourced literacy coach was either assigned to one school on a half-
time basis, or assigned to two schools (half-time at each school). Outsourced
coaches were expected to implement the local district’s vision for literacy and
curriculum development using tools designed by the local district.
The local superintendent described her relationship with the outside provider
as a partnership where “there is a neutral, shared interest in the outcomes.” She
believed that the outsourced provider was not just providing a service, but is invested
in the outcome. She explained, “The outside provider or the agency increasingly
demonstrated a sense of commitment, a level of pride, a passion for the work that I
think I saw emerge that I, as a superintendent, couldn’t put in people, it had to come
from something intrinsic, with those persons who were responsible for the work of
the agency.”
According to the local superintendent, the partnership between the local
district and the outsourced provider was carefully cultivated. She believed the
outsourced provider made a commitment to the local district and that together, they
partnered to transform student achievement at the schools. In her opinion, the
outsourced provider made extra commitments to make sure the literacy coaches were
on the same page with the local superintendent, “whatever we were trying to do to
transform these schools, we were doing it in sync with one another.” Outsourced
literacy coaches sat down during professional development trainings with principals,
learning with them and imparting knowledge with them. The local superintendent
81
viewed the outsourced contract as a mutual commitment her local district made with
the outsourced provider to make her schools better.
Due to their prior relationship, the local superintendent placed a great deal of
trust in the outsourced provider when drafting the scope of work. The scope of work
outlined in the contract described the standard requirements but did not elaborate on
other essential elements of a scope of work described in Chapter Three, such as clear
expectations, timeline, governance structure, and performance measures. The quality
of expected services were not clearly defined. Moreover, the contract did not include
the “tight service definitions” recommended by Brown and Wilson (2005) to ensure
a successful partnership.
Negotiating the Contract
Each year the local superintendent negotiated a preliminary contract with the
outside provider. Before the contract was finalized to submit to the LAUSD Board
of Education for official approval, LAUSD’s contract division contacted the provider
and engaged in further negotiations. Each year, the provider was required to justify
the cost of each coach, as well as explain charges included to coordinate and
supervise the program. In order for the outsourced literacy coaching contract to
move to Board approval, the outside provider’s overall budget for the contract could
not exceed LAUSD’s average cost per coach. Cost for the provider’s overhead and
management costs were included in the provider’s cost per coach.
The contract emphasized the outsourced provider’s need to guarantee 7.5
(FTE) literacy coaches, to train and manage the coaches, and to focus coaching on
82
teacher delivery of standards-based instruction that promotes content literacy. The
contract did not stipulate consequences if trained literacy coaches were not placed at
schools during the term of the contract (i.e. reduction of contract amount, required
make-up hours). The contract did not clearly identify a timeline for services, nor did
it detail the quantity or quality of services desired. Finally, the only performance
measure indicated in the contract was a teacher self-assessment to determine teacher
comfort in delivering standards-based instruction promoting content literacy.
“Standards-based instruction promoting content literacy” was not defined in the
contract and it was not clear how the outsourced provider would be held accountable
for this outcome, other than teacher self-reflections that did not evaluate satisfaction
with coaching services.
Implementation of the Outsource Literacy Coaching Program
In the Fall of 2002 the local superintendent made an unprecedented decision
to outsource secondary literacy coaching instead of identifying in-house staff to
serve as literacy coaches. She selected a local education non-profit organization to
provide literacy coaching services to the five middle schools in the local district.
This case study will describe the implementation of the outsourced literacy coaching
program from the Fall of 2002 to the Spring of 2006 at two LAUSD local district
middle schools. Two middle schools were selected for this descriptive case study
because both schools had consistent principal leadership in place during the time of
the study. The other three middle schools had a new principal almost every year of
83
this study. Administrative turn-over made it challenging to analyze the
implementation and impact of literacy coaching during this time.
Middle School A served Hispanic and African-American students from low
socio-economic households. In the 2002-2003 school year 2,674 students were
enrolled at the school, 78% of whom were Hispanic and 22% of whom were African
American. From 2002-2006, 88-93% of students qualified for the federal Free or
Reduced Lunch program. During the time of the study, the principal was in her 17th
year as the school’s principal, since 1985.
Middle School B predominately served Hispanic students of low socio-
economic households, with 85-89% of students qualifying for the federal Free or
Reduced Lunch program during the time of the study. In the 2002-2003 school year,
2,489 students were enrolled, with 93% Hispanic students and 6 % African-
American students. The same principal was in place from 2001-2005. In December
2005, the principal was promoted to a director position within the local district and a
new principal was named to Middle School B.
Outsourced content literacy coaches were not employees of LAUSD and did
not report to the local district literacy coordinator, as did LAUSD secondary literacy
coaches. The outsourced provider employed a Literacy Director who oversaw
literacy coaches placed in the local district middle schools and served as the liaison
between the provider and the local district. Outsourced literacy coaches were hired,
placed in schools on a part-time basis and trained by both the provider and the local
district. Outsourced literacy coaches were first assigned to schools in the 2002-2003
84
school year. Together, the provider and the local superintendent identified school-
based professional development topics for the year. The outsourced literacy coaches
began delivering professional development services in schools while developing new
relationships with teachers and administrators at the schools.
By September 2003, the outsourced literacy coaching program expanded in
scope and size. Every middle school in the local district was assigned a half-time
English Language Arts, Science and Social Studies literacy coach from the
outsourced provider, the equivalent of 1.5 (FTE) coaches at each site. The same
year, Los Angeles Unified School District rolled-out its new Instructional Guide and
Periodic Assessment system for English Language Arts in grades 6-9. The local
superintendent also formalized a system-wide approach to curriculum and instruction
that involved explicit planning tools to “un-pack” California content standards and
the use of Bloom’s taxonomy to scaffold instruction. Outsourced literacy coaches
were given explicit direction to focus on providing classroom-based coaching to
ensure implementation of the LAUSD English Language Arts Instructional Guide
and school-wide use of the local district curriculum tools. Outsourced literacy
coaches were directed to observe and conference with teachers, provide professional
development sessions in same-subject groups to support implementation of the local
district curriculum tools, model demonstration lessons in the classroom, and co-
plan/co-teach lessons with teachers.
The local superintendent described her expectations of coaches as follows, “It
takes that combination in a coach, they have to be well trained in content, well
85
trained in literacy, and either intuitively or through training, have an ability to really
coach.” She explained the importance of building trust with teachers so that they
could see the knowledge of coaches and allow themselves to be coached into gaining
that level of knowledge. She applauded the tremendous skill outsourced coaches
demonstrate in winning the confidence of teachers, learning how to do things that
build trust for the school as well. She remembered, “Not all teachers were standing
at the front door applying and welcoming in [coaches], so that was a tough road. But
it wasn’t a lasting one, and again, it goes back to leadership. In those places where it
worked well, I think that those coaches became part of the fabric of the school, and
teachers viewed them as another one of the faculty.” The local superintendent
identified “toughness” as a pre-requisite for coaches, the need for outsourced
coaches to stand their ground and be prepared for “teachers to throw everything in
the book at you.” Essentially, she saw outsourced literacy coaches as primarily
responsible for literacy development, supplementing content-knowledge as needed.
According to the local superintendent, outsourced coaches were expected to build
rapport with teachers, solicit buy-in for the local district’s vision of curriculum
reform and promote individual teacher growth to positively impact student
achievement.
Administrative Leadership for Literacy Coaching
Both schools expressed dissatisfaction with overall communication about
literacy coaching. Middle School A created a more formal structure for
communication with the administration, including outsourced literacy coaches on the
86
school’s Instructional Cabinet. Even though Middle School B did not report a
formal structure in place for literacy coaches to meet regularly with the
administrative team, the relationship between the administrators and outsourced
coaches appeared stronger. Furthermore, the work of literacy coaches was more
systemically integrated into school-wide professional development activities and
connected to the principal’s vision for school improvement.
Outsourced literacy coaches were largely tasked with the job of introducing
themselves to teachers and publicizing their role at both schools. One coach
explained, “I’m trying to explain it [literacy coaching program], in some cases it took
me months to be able to get across what our role is with teachers. I think that was
the missing component in the coaching program, the [local] district didn’t come
forward and have a plan to present us. We suggested ways to do it often, it was
mostly just us doing it.” Outsourced coaches described a communication process
where they had to introduce themselves at the first faculty meeting of each year and
then they were responsible for following up with teachers to begin establishing a
coaching relationship. It was up to coaches to communicate to teachers what
coaching services were about. Outsourced coaches pointed out that because they did
not receive formal introductions regarding their roles as coaches, teachers often
confused them with local district employees and expected them to do things outside
of their responsibilities, like scan periodic assessments. Coaches found themselves
constantly reminding teachers who they worked for and what their role was at the
school. Frustrated, one coach commented, “We went into the school very low key,
87
very low profile. I wouldn’t do it that way again.” Another coach described the
process, “The role was communicated to the faculty by us, whether it was through
letters that we sent, verbal communication when we had the teachers in groups, an in
some cases through word of mouth by teachers we had worked with previously.”
Teachers at both schools confirmed this dilemma, “I don’t think it’s ever
been presented to the staff… here’s this program, here are the goals, here are the
objectives, this is the purpose…” Teachers complained that there was not a clear
picture of the purpose and goals of the literacy coaching program. Some recalled
simply being introduced to their coach. Others claimed they met their coach with a
knock on the door and a stranger introducing themselves as the school’s literacy
coach. Administrators at both schools informally conveyed the message about
coaches, but did not explicitly explain why outsourced coaches were at the school,
what coaches were charged to do with teachers, and what teachers were expected to
do with coaches.
The local superintendent supported current research about literacy coaching
when she identified administrative leadership as one of the single most important
factors that influenced the effectiveness of literacy coaching at her local district
middle schools. She stated that her expectations for literacy coaching were met in
the places where there was a strong leader and strong people who understood the
concept, or were at least willing to explore it. While she recognized that the “soil
was more difficult in some places,” she saw a difference where leaders were
committed to literacy coaching, requiring their teachers to work with coaches and
88
coached their schools to successfully implement the literacy coaching program. She
recalled, in the beginning, some teachers were reluctant to “get into the work, but
you’ve got to have a fireball of a principal who says, this is the work, and we’re
doing it, and I’m gonna be in your classes looking for it, now I’ll give you all the
resources I can, but this is the work.”
Principals who understood the significance of the local district curriculum
tools and faithfully implemented the tools with teachers were more likely to see
coaching as a key element in making sure the tools were implemented throughout the
school. The local superintendent pointed out that in schools where administrators
were involved and who took the time to meet with outsourced coaches, literacy
coaching were taken much more seriously by teachers. In addition, she added that
she also found less teacher turnover in those places.
Outsourced coaches said they took the initiative to communicate with school
administrators. Middle School A ensured that coaches met monthly with the
school’s administration. Outsourced literacy coaches were invited to monthly
instructional team meetings and expected to provide an update report. The school
principal said this gave her an opportunity to understand the kind of support she
needed to put in place to compliment the work. The school administrator of Middle
School A reported a very professional and collaborative relationship with coaches
and UEP, “We look to the coaches as a source of strength for our school, so our
relationship with the provider is very important to us.” The outsourced coaches and
89
administrators at Middle School A had a monthly communication system to share
monthly updates, discuss challenges and note progress.
While Middle School B did not report monthly meetings between the
school’s administration and outsourced literacy coaches, both coaches and the school
principal referred to a “structure” or “protocol” that was followed to administer
coaching services. Both the school’s principal and outsourced coaches discussed a
“trust” that existed between the two. However, the coach noted that because there
was not a system set up for the principal to observe her work, she took it upon
herself to drop notes updating the principal. She said, “I think there’s a lot of trust
between the administration and outsourced coaches that we are doing our job, and
that we are providing something positive that, you know, will make a difference in
their teaching.” Another coach at Middle School B suggested that administrators
may have stayed away from coaches’ work because “they understand that there’s the
confidential relationship between the coach and the teacher... at the same time,
there’s, you know, that trust that we are doing some good work.” The principal at
the school emphasized the need to listen to coaches “because they really do have
their eyes and ears out. Not that they’re divulging confidential information, but, you
know, without naming names, they help us see where things are being implemented
or not.” Even though the outsourced coaches and administrators at Middle School B
did not have a formal communication structure, they demonstrated enormous trust
and respect for one another and appeared to communicate when needed.
90
Integrating Literacy Coaching into Professional Development Plan
Outsourced coaches described themselves as a “bridge to the administration.”
Coaches understood the importance of communicating to principals their experiences
in the field “because we are in the classrooms every day, we know what teachers
need as far as professional development, and in some cases we are a consultant for
what teachers need to do.” Outsourced coaches saw strong communication with
principals as a pivotal component that contributed to the effectiveness of their work.
By shaping and aligning the focus of professional development time at the schools,
they were able to deepen their classroom work with teachers and maximize coaching
time. For instance, when coaches were given time to provide an overview of the
local district curriculum tools or conduct a demonstration lesson on an instructional
scaffolding strategy to an entire department, coaching time could then be used to
provide hands-on examples in the classroom and work with teachers to apply the
concepts.
Professional development was one area where school administrators and
outsourced coaches reported the need to work together. An outsourced coach at
Middle School B described the school administration as “very approachable, and
very supportive, and very verbal in terms of how they want us to be involved in
professional development.” She recalled the first year as a coach where her work
was primarily guided by “directives from [the outsourced provider]” as opposed to
the following year where the administrators were more involved in the literacy
coaching program and involved the coaches in common planning time and
91
professional development. Middle School B viewed the outsourced literacy coaches
as a critical component of school-wide professional development, asking coaches to
facilitate training aligned to professional development goals and ensuring coaches
took professional development strands into the classroom in their daily work with
teachers.
Professional development was the forum schools used to communicate
curriculum expectations. Whether directed by the principal, or not, outsourced
coaches tried to align professional development with classroom-based support.
However, communication and overall management sometimes prohibited this from
taking place, particularly at Middle School A. At Middle School A professional
development and literacy coaching efforts were sometimes at odds. Whenever
possible, outsourced coaches attempted to support professional development efforts
with teachers but even though coaches participated on the Instructional Cabinet, the
approach appeared disjointed.
At Middle School B there was evidence that the administration intentionally
invited coaches to lead professional development and ensured coaches understood
the principal’s curriculum vision for the school. The principal of Middle School B
described the goals of the literacy coaching program as her own curriculum vision
for the school, “Implement curriculum mapping and differentiate instruction. Also to
work on the Understanding by Design piece, getting the teachers to do some
backwards planning, essential questions.” She explained how helpful it had been to
have coaches as part of the “buy back” days when teachers are trained. Coaches
92
provided additional support to teachers struggling with some of the ideas. She
internalized the role literacy coaches could contribute to her vision for classroom
instruction. She purposely had literacy coaches report to her Assistant Principal of
Instruction where together they had conversations with literacy coaches about where
they wanted to see teachers go and what they wanted to see teachers accomplish in
order to move students to the next performance level. Literacy coaches appeared to
appreciate the principal’s instructional leadership and appeared to align their efforts
to her plan, even if it was sometimes a different focus than the one articulated by the
local district.
While Middle School B was more deliberate about how outsourced literacy
coaches impacted whole school reform, administrators and coaches from both
schools expressed the importance of aligning professional development with literacy
coaching. Likewise, coaches at both schools believed more could be done to involve
administrative leadership in the coaching program and thus strengthen the school-
wide professional development focus on literacy.
Literacy Coaching Model
Outsourced literacy coaches described an explicit coaching model that
required informal classroom observations, reflective conversations, demonstration
lessons, co-planning and co-teaching, dissemination of content-specific strategies,
facilitation of common planning time, and professional development, “in order to get
everyone on the same page and focused on student achievement”. A coach
elaborated on the coaching model, “At the beginning of the year, most of it’s
93
[coaching] observing and conferencing, by the middle of the year it’s mostly
demonstrating and co-teaching, and toward the end of the year it’s mostly co-
teaching, so it really depends upon the time of the year.” Outsourced literacy
coaches received specific directions that their first task was to introduce themselves
to faculty and begin to build rapport with teachers. Coaches were expected to serve
a minimum number of teachers and conduct a certain number of demonstration
lessons. The outsourced provider’s Literacy Director thoroughly reviewed coaches’
monthly logs before forwarding copies to local district and school administrators.
Coaches were expected to account for their time and defend time spent on tasks
extraneous to coaching.
One coach recalled a relatively easy transition since he formerly served as a
teacher at one of the middle schools, “I had already been there and proved myself at
the school. I had no difficulty at all, the coaching process was easy.” Another coach
also perceived his experience as “a bit easier to navigate” since he was not hired
from within LAUSD. He believed it was helpful that teachers saw him as a separate
entity, rather than a “watchdog” for the local district.
A coach pointed out the importance of really getting to know the teachers on
an individual basis first, “and not get so caught up in your purpose.” In other words,
the process of nurturing the relationship and building trust with teachers needed to
happen before true coaching could begin. Outsourced coaches also described the
delicate balance between giving teacher’s constructive feedback and not criticizing
teachers. A coach cautioned, “Everyone, in order to get better, needs some type of
94
criticism, but you have to really understand who you’re working with and how you
apply that criticism, and that’s what makes a great coach.”
Coaches emphasized the importance of listening, “Teachers love to be able to
talk to us, to listen to them, often times we don’t even have to give any suggestions,
but just listen to them and be there for them. In the schools that we work at with so
many new teachers especially, they don’t have anybody to talk to.” Another coach
explained that coaches were an “ear” for teachers to be able to sit down and talk
about how they were coping. One coach recalled feedback a teacher gave her, “I
love … for you to listen to me, being able to talk to you, and have somebody that I
can share my problems with, and you’re affirming that I’m not a bad person.”
Outsourced coaches talked about their “outsider” positions as a strength and a
challenge. On the one hand, they were able to distance themselves from problems
with the school or District. On the other hand, they had to prove themselves and
reach out to teachers while learning about the school in a way other LAUSD coaches
did not.
Coaches were also seen as a guide, guiding teachers in the classroom and
guiding the department focus. Outsourced literacy coaches described literacy
development as their primary responsibility, “A lot of teachers, when they get to
middle school say they’re not reading teachers, that they’re content teachers. So
really our mission, our focus, is to try to show them how they can be reading
teachers in the content areas.” An administrator described demonstration lessons, the
modeling of effective instructional strategies, as a powerful professional
95
development experience for teachers. She found it particularly powerful when
literacy coaches did demonstration lessons, invited other teachers beside the host
teacher, and debriefed with all teachers to highlight best practices, discussed
challenges and created a follow-up plan for each of those teachers.
Demonstration lessons were key to the outsourced literacy coaching program.
When coaches planned lessons with teachers, teachers wanted to see how effective
the lesson was and wanted to see coaches carry out the lesson in the classroom. The
science coach at Middle School B talked about how important “how-to”
demonstrations were for her teachers, especially sixth grade teachers. Since sixth
grade teachers needed to do hands-on investigations with students, many teachers
went to the science coach asking for help to set up labs and integrate literacy
strategies into the labs.
When outsourced coaches were asked about the balance between content and
literacy support, coaches responded emphatically that the majority of their time was
focused on literacy development. Teaching teachers how to teach reading and
writing was a priority for them. The science coach at Middle School A mentioned
that she responded to teachers’ requests to explain rock formation or weathering but
that she was careful to couch this support with strategies to improve student literacy
skills.
Other coaches at Middle School B discussed the importance of “unpacking
standards” before delving into literacy training. Teachers at Middle School B
explained the explicit focus of content-knowledge revolving around underlying
96
concepts or “big ideas” embedded within a standards. Coaches spent considerable
time with teachers making sure they had a strong grasp of the content knowledge and
skills expected within each standard before exploring the appropriate English
Language Arts (literacy) standards to bundle with the content standard.
The majority of teachers at both schools spoke positively about the
outsourced provider’s philosophy to be supportive. They said outsourced literacy
coaches wanted to ask questions more than tell teachers what to do. They asked
about how teachers thought their lesson worked, where they would like to go with
their lesson. One teacher summarized the philosophy, “It’s more cognitive coaching,
versus the LAUSD literacy coach where they are telling you what to do and you have
to give them [a lesson] this way.” Administrators believed coaches were valued by
teachers, “When the teachers can’t find the coaches, they’re asking me, is the coach
coming today or is the coach gonna be on our campus…and the coaches are very
accessible, they give the teachers their email addresses, their cell phone numbers, so
even if they’re not here physically on campus, they do make themselves available to
the teachers, and so I appreciate that, and the teachers appreciate that as well.”
In conclusion, the work of outsourced literacy coaches was described by an
administrator at Middle School B as “organic, it’s more natural to help a teacher
while they [are] doing the work, as opposed to pulling them and sitting them down in
a room to do a six-hour professional development outside.” Outsourced literacy
coaches demonstrated a commitment to providing teachers with on-the-job training
that was sensitive to the dynamic needs of each teacher. In order to change teacher
97
practice, outsourced coaches cited the need to give them support. An administrator
described outsourced literacy coaches as the support teachers needed to change,
“Teachers need coaches to demonstrate what the new model should look like.
Teachers need critique based on classroom instruction and need assistance to
improve. Getting feedback from a coach is different from getting it from an
administrator.” Key ingredients in the outsourced literacy coaching model were: 1) a
focus on building trust, rapport and credibility with teachers, especially veteran
teachers; 2) demonstrating strategies, often, in teachers’ classrooms; and, 3) using
reflective tools, such as cognitive coaching and Critical Friends Group protocols, to
encourage teachers to introspectively realize the need to more effectively target
student literacy skills.
Qualifications and Responsibilities of Outsourced Literacy Coaches
Teachers at both schools used the following words to describe outsourced
literacy coaches as, “A model… mentor, consultant, friend… a shoulder or an ear.”
The outsourced provider’s literacy coaching program emphasized inter-personal
skills as an essential element of an effective coach. One coach stated emphatically,
“The bottom line is that to summarize an effective coach, you have to know your
content and you have to be a good teacher, but what separates it is personality.” The
coaches attributed “being personable” to the ability to get into teacher’s classrooms,
the ability to not get turned away from classrooms, and the ability to adapt to
different personalities. The local superintendent, schools administrators and
98
outsourced coaches all acknowledged the ability to build trust and encourage
professional growth as an essential criteria of a coach.
Literacy coaches were also flexible and worked with a variety of people, such
as administrators, department chairs, support staff, teaching assistants, resource
teachers, and, of course, new and veteran teachers. Outsourced literacy coaches
were expected to be adaptable. Both schools mentioned how important it was that
coaches did not operate with a “one size fits all” mentality. School administrators
applauded the fact that outsourced literacy coaches had strong content knowledge
and instructional pedagogy to adapt their work based on teacher needs, teacher
interests, and teacher responsiveness.
Outsourced literacy coaches were described by teachers and administrators as
the thread that created cohesion and collaboration at the school site. Since both
middle schools were on year-round calendars, where teachers were constantly
coming on-track and going off-track, literacy coaches connected the departments
during track transitions and provided continuity. Also, due to the unique vantage
point of coaches, who were coming in and out of classrooms all day, coaches were in
the best position to capture best practices and share information among teachers and
between teachers and administrators. One coach stated, “I find myself doing a lot of
information sharing since teachers have no time to communicate.”
One teacher described the job of a literacy coach as “just to make sure the
curriculum is being implemented according to the guides and that the periodic
assessments are being administered.” Another teacher described the literacy
99
coaches’ responsibility to make sure teachers are using local district curriculum
tools, unpacking content standards, using Bloom’s taxonomy, and developing
culminating tasks. Teachers described the important role coaches played in
observing, helping, and doing demonstration lessons in their classrooms. A new
teacher cited her literacy coach as the first person who taught her what a standard
was and how to design standards-based lessons in her science class.
While administrators at both schools cited new teachers as the majority of
coaches’ case load, they said coaches also worked with veteran teachers who were
not performing at the expected level in the classroom. They also cited work with
department chairs as important work for coaches, to disseminate information or get
out resources for teachers. Teachers saw new teacher support as the primary role of
literacy coaches. Due to increased teacher turn-over at both schools, teachers
seemed to understand the need for literacy coaches to focus on new teachers.
Coaches were seen as great resources. The science coach at Middle School A
said, “I’ve been labeled as a really good resource and I get asked for additional
resources a lot, and how to use them... materials for investigations… articles that
supplement the textbook… activities is the biggest request. I want an activity that
covers weathering that the kids can interactively do in cooperative learning groups.”
Teachers were clearly appreciative of the additional resources supplied by
outsourced coaches. One teacher at Middle School A stated, “I have a coach who
comes twice a week to visit and supply me with pretty much whatever, anything, if
it’s questions about my textbook, questions about lesson planning, questions about
100
materials, whatever my needs are.” During department meetings, coaches often took
current information to teachers and shared techniques that promoted increased
student achievement. A school administrator at Middle School A underscored the
fact that coaches accessed additional resources for teachers, even going outside for
resources if coaches themselves did not have them. She said coaches went to the
local district staff, central district staff, other schools to find the resources their
teachers need.
Unlike LAUSD secondary literacy coaches, outsourced literacy coaches were
not expected to coordinate the administration, scoring or collection of periodic
assessments. They were, however, expected to analyze the results of periodic
assessments, use results to shape on-going work with teachers, and occasionally
facilitate teachers in the analysis of student data.
While the job of “content literacy coach” was a new position for most
outsourced coaches, they adapted to the new role with varying degrees of ease based
on previous experiences. Many of the coaches voiced a need to “prove myself”
when starting at a new school. Initially, coaches spent time getting to know
administrators, department chairs, and key teachers at the school site. Coaches
gradually found opportunities to demonstrate their expertise and strategically placed
themselves in demand amongst content teachers. Since most coaches were not
formally introduced to the faculty, they created ways to get to know teachers and
established working relationships with them.
101
One coach stated, “We wear different hats and so we do different things for
different people depending on their needs.” Outsourced content literacy coaches
described their top ten responsibilities as follows:
1. Raise the awareness of literacy to encourage teachers to be more
conscientious about including reading and writing in the content areas
2. Inform teachers about components of the LAUSD Secondary Literacy
Plan- instructional guides, secondary periodic assessments, literacy
cadres and CST preparation, including data analysis
3. Increase English Language Arts (ELA) test scores on the California
Standards Test (CST) through rigorous instruction, literacy
development and test prep
4. Support all teachers in implementing standards-based curriculum
5. Distribute research and materials. A coach explains, “If a teacher is
struggling with a specific skill or they’re trying to prepare the students
for the English periodic assessment, and they don’t feel like what they
have already satisfies the need of their students, then I will try to find
something or create something that would be more suitable.”
6. Model demonstration lessons and lesson plan with teachers
individually, and in small and large groups
7. Foster a shared vision for instruction and promote teacher
collaboration using Critical Friends protocols
102
8. Promote reflective dialog with teachers, utilizing cognitive coaching
tools to help adult learners make meaning of their work
9. Design engaging and relevant or hands-on activities with teachers,
with a focus on checking for understanding
10. Assist teachers in establishing a student-centered classroom
Literacy coaches most often worked with sixth grade teachers, new teachers,
department chairs, and anybody who would work with them. Outsourced literacy
coaches from Middle School A reported spending approximately 70-80% of their
time working directly with teachers, in their classrooms or in small groups. When
the Assistant Principal was asked how much time literacy coaches spent working
directly with teachers, she confirmed the literacy coaches’ estimation, “I’d say at
least 70 -80% of their time is in the classroom.” The literacy coaches said they
spent, on average, 12-40 hours per year working with each teacher in their
department. A few teachers in the focus groups reported working with coaches twice
a week. Others reported a more sporadic working relationship with their coaches,
reaching out to their coach when they needed something.
Outsourced literacy coaches from Middle School B reported a slightly lower
figure, they estimated that 60-65% of their time was spent working directly with
teachers. Teachers, especially veteran teachers, expressed concern that the literacy
coaching did not benefiting them directly and wondered if it was the best use of
school funds. It appeared that the majority of outsourced literacy coaching time was
spent with new teachers. Teachers at Middle School B also complained that even
103
though they spent time with their outsourced literacy coaches, the time could have
been more wisely spent if it was more cohesively tied to other major school-wide
initiatives like interdisciplinary team teaching. The principal at Middle School B
believes outsourced literacy coaches are far better trained and much more focused on
improving instruction than LAUSD coaches. She says that her math coach, an in-
house coach, is often pulled away from coaching duties and “given operational duties
that push the district’s agenda, not necessarily the school’s agenda.”
Even though outsourced literacy coaches at both middle schools hoped to
spend more time coaching teachers in their classrooms, and complained about last-
minute local district meeting and trainings, principals greatly appreciated their level
of focus. Teachers had mixed responses about outsourced literacy coaches, teachers
who worked closely with coaches appeared to benefit greatly from the support and
teachers who spent less time with coaches were uncertain about the value-added of
literacy coaching.
Management and Evaluation of Outsourced Literacy Coaches
Outsourced literacy coaches agreed that they received “enough” training for
their position, as in just enough to get started. One coach from Middle School A
noted, “I feel like I’ve been trained sufficiently… enough, not when I started, but
throughout the time.” Another coach remarked, “After like a year I really got it.”
Another coach from Middle School A explained, “For the position I would say none
[training], but in the position, I would say a great deal of training.” Coaches referred
to each other as the greatest source of learning for their roles as content literacy
104
coaches, often identifying their school team of three content literacy coaches as the
greatest source of information and support. As one coach stated, “We’re all at the
same school, and we talk a lot.” At school sites, the team of three outsourced
coaches met regularly to strategize and debrief on implementation of literacy
strategies or to trouble-shoot problems.
Coaches also described monthly coach meetings/trainings with the
outsourced provider as helpful in understanding how to improve their effectiveness
at school sites. As one coach put it, “During our monthly meetings we have the
more experienced coaches or other people come in and demonstrate literacy
strategies, and cognitive coaching, so I did receive training throughout the year.” A
coach from Middle School B agreed, “I felt like I’ve received numerous, extensive
training opportunities. I’ve been sent to lots of training… both in terms of literacy
strategies and in terms of coaching itself.” During monthly outsourced coach
meetings, all coaches reported on progress at school sites and shared pressing
challenges. The remainder of the day was dedicated to the training of a local district
curriculum tool, literacy strategy, or a coaching tool. Trainings are conducted by
literacy coaches themselves or an outside expert. Outsourced coaches described this
interaction as a professional learning community.
In terms of managing and evaluating outsourced literacy coaches, the local
superintendent, along with the middle school directors working in the schools,
reported the importance of having hard conversations with the outsourced provider
that involved a high degree of honesty and led to a stronger attentiveness to day-to-
105
day performance and accountability. The local superintendent emphasized,
“Oversight is essential for change, particularly in places where the expectations and
level of performance had been pretty dismal.”
The local district superintendent communicated the important relationship
between strong implementation on behalf of the outside provider and strong
leadership from school site administrators. She pointed out that her expectations of
the coaching program were met in places where strong leaders had committed
themselves to the process. She said her expectations were not fully met in more
difficult places. Overall, however, she said that schools experienced reasonable
statistical rates of growth at all of her middle schools.
The local superintendent also emphasized the on-going communication she
had with the outside provider. She recalled having difficult discussions about
specific coaches in schools where the coaches were still viewed as outsiders because
they were not able to develop closer relationships with teachers. She recalled the
receptiveness and vigilance on the part of the provider to recognize when a coach did
not have either the skill set, commitment or rapport required of this work. She
recalled the positive transition that was made in her relationship with the provider
when they began having really hard conversations, with a high degree of honesty,
which resulted in stronger attentiveness to day-to-day happenings in the schools,
improved performance on behalf of the coaches, increased level of commitment by
the provider, and overall increased accountability for the outsourced literacy
coaching program.
106
In terms of reporting structures, outsourced literacy coaches were managed
and supervised by the provider’s literacy director. The provider’s literacy director
worked closely with the local district superintendent and school administrators to
gather expectations, provide updates and ensure client satisfaction. Both schools
stated that on a day-to-day basis, coaches reported to the school’s Assistant Principal
of Curriculum and Instruction. The Assistant Principals at both schools stated that
they communicated regularly with the provider’s literacy director and recalled
providing end-of-the-year feedback about coaches to the provider’s literacy director.
If a problem arose with a literacy coach, the Assistant Principal contacted the
provider’s literacy director, in addition to communicating the problem with the
principal and local district administrator. There was a general consensus that issues
with outsourced literacy coaches were resolved appropriately and in a timely
manner.
The outsourced provider relied primarily on three sources of information to
evaluate coaches:
1. Pre- and Post-Teacher Surveys administered at the beginning and end
of each year. Language from the surveys focus gave teachers an
opportunity to reflect on their comfort level in implementing literacy-
rich, standards-based lessons. Surveys did not specifically ask
teachers to evaluate their coach. Teachers refered to teacher surveys
as one way they were able to provide feedback about the performance
of literacy coaches. Most teachers seemed to know that teacher
107
surveys were in some way linked to literacy coach performance and
teacher satisfaction with literacy coaches. Teachers at both schools
voiced a lack of commitment to completing the surveys. This fact
was confirmed in the dwindling numbers of surveys collected by site
each subsequent year.
2. Annual Evaluations completed by the UEP literacy director. Coaches
said that the rigor of these evaluations varied from year to year. One
coach stated, “The first year we had a director who worked very
closely with us, and she went out and did two observations of our
work, and one post conference with us…the second year that didn’t
happen, but we did fill out monthly summaries and monthly logs.”
Overall, coaches were not able to consistently communicate clear
performance standards to evaluate them, either by the outsourced
provider or the local district.
3. Monthly Summaries and Logs were submitted, documenting coaching
hours and key accomplishments and challenges for the month.
Outsourced coaches expressed an expectation that they must conduct
a certain number of demonstration lessons and teacher conferences
per week. They described these directives as the “accountability”
built into their logs.
Outsourced literacy coaches at both schools referred to informal teacher
feedback and peer feedback as powerful sources of communication about their
108
performance. Coaches reported using teacher evaluation forms when they facilitated
professional development sessions and after they conducted demonstration lessons in
teachers’ classrooms. Coaches found it helpful to gauge from teachers whether or
not their efforts were impacting teachers. Coaches also reported their peers as a
valuable source of feedback. One coach stated, “I think most of our evaluation is
peer evaluation We all do a demonstration lesson, or we all facilitate a professional
development training, and we sit down and always debrief afterward.”
One teacher recommended on-going focus groups or surveys that were
student-centered in nature as a way to measure if literacy coaching efforts were in
fact making their way into student learning experiences. Teachers at both schools
agreed that they did not know how outsourced coaches were managed or evaluated.
Some teachers took a guess at criteria used to evaluate outsourced literacy coaches,
“I imagine they look at test scores.” The local superintendent mentioned student
achievement scores in English Language Arts as a specific tool used to measure
effectiveness of the literacy coaching program, but not as a measure of individual
coaches. Neither school administrators, the outsourced provider’s literacy director,
nor outsourced coaches referenced test scores as an evaluation measure for literacy
coaches or the literacy coaching program. Even though test scores were not
identified as a significant factor in evaluating coaches or the outsourced literacy
program, both schools experienced more than a 100 point gain on the Academic
Performance Indicator (API) over the five-year period. Most of the gains were
during the first three years literacy coaching was implemented. The local
109
superintendent’s focus on the reorganization in LAUSD from 2005-2006 may have
partially contributed to the less impressive gains during that time. The future
leadership of the local district was very much in question in the Spring of 2005. The
following year, LAUSD officially reorganized the local district requiring the local
superintendent to focus on issues related to the newly acquired schools.
Table 8. API Data 2001-2006: Outsourced Literacy Coaching Schools
Middle School A Middle School B
API Improvement API Improvement
2001 410 433
2002 461 51 460 27
2003 505 44 506 46
2004 545 40 542 36
2005 547 2 545 3
2006 534 -13 546 1
Total 124 113
Overall school achievement increased at both middle schools upon the on-set
of the outsourced literacy coaching model. The first year (2002) outsourced literacy
coaching was implemented, the Academic Performance Index (API) at both schools
significantly increased, with gains from 27 points to 51 points. Both schools also
experienced school improvement the two years following initial implementation,
with gains ranging from 36-46 points at one school and 40-44 at the other school.
The last year of the study showed mixed results, with Middle School A decreasing
110
by 13 points and Middle School B increasing by only one point, the year the local
superintendent retired from LAUSD.
Table 9. ELA Mean Scores 2002-2006: Outsourced Literacy Coaching Schools
School Year/Grade 6th 7th 8th
Middle School A 2002 284 279 279
2003 291 289 287
2004 297 293 291
2005 291 298 292
2006 291 297 294
Improvement 7 18 14 39
Year/Grade 6th 7th 8th
Middle School B 2002 278 274 285
2003 288 288 288
2004 298 295 294
2005 294 299 297
2006 296 299 301
Improvement 18 25 16 59
While there was insufficient data to attribute outsourced literacy coaching to
increased school performance, disaggregated English Language Arts scores showed
that students were making advances in literacy and that increased achievement in
literacy contributed to an overall increase in each school’s API scores.
111
Impact of Outsourced Literacy Coaching Program on Teaching
When asked if literacy coaching impacted teaching, the local superintendent
responded without hesitation, “Oh yes, definitely. More in some schools than others,
but definitely… I think we carved out some change, and it has to be sustained. The
hardest thing is sustainability.” She said she saw a difference in the kinds of tasks
teachers are designing to ensure students demonstrated their understanding of
content standards. She heard a difference in the language teachers are using, with a
knowledge and awareness she had not seen before. While some teachers resisted the
changes, she believed that a good core of teachers in the schools were changing their
practice as a result of literacy coaching. She concluded, “I saw change in teachers
and in the summative realm, we saw change in scores.” The local superintendent
believed that the positive impact of literacy coaching was attributed to three primary
factors:
1. Local district created curriculum tools to support and clearly
communicate expectations around student achievement goals
2. Principal faithfulness to local district goals and tools
3. Principals’ ability to see literacy coaching as a key element in
successfully meeting expectations
The administrators at the two middle schools agreed that literacy coaching
had made a difference at their schools. School administrators pointed to increased
collaboration, lesson planning with hands-on cooperative learning activities that
challenged kids to think critically, more rigorous culminating tasks, the use of
112
vocabulary development strategies and the implementation of scaffolding strategies
as evidence that teachers were improving instruction as a result of literacy coaching
support.
Administrators also acknowledged that some teachers, particularly more
experienced staff, continued to resist coaching. They recognized the need to ensure
teachers understood that coaching was not “optional.” Administrators voiced a need
to have more coaching time allotted, particularly in English Language Arts, so that
coaches could work more frequently with more teachers. Even with this perceived
reluctance to receive coaching services, approximately 83% of both teacher groups
said they met with their literacy coach every week or every other week, a couple of
other teachers said they met with their literacy coach monthly, and a few others said
they worked with their coach three to five times a year. Only three teachers said they
see their literacy coach once a year.
The principal of Middle School B stressed the importance of credibility,
“Coaches really have to show their expertise and be flexible enough to lead a horse
to water.” She explained how teachers came to her to complain about the coaches
even though, in her opinion, the coaches were absolutely correct in what they were
trying to get teachers to do. She suggested that one of the greatest challenges for
literacy coaches was to gain credibility amongst the more veteran, sometimes
resistant teachers.
Administrators spoke with high regard about the “top-notch people” that the
outsourced provider assigned to them. A principal at Middle School B explained,
113
“It’s the quality of the people that they send us that makes the difference. I think if
our own in-house people were trained like the outsourced coaches were trained, I
think it would be a lot better.” She described outsourced coaches as good
professional developers and team players without hidden agendas. She also spoke
positively about the ability for outsourced coaches to remain very focused on teacher
coaching, explaining that other LAUSD coaches are often pulled from their coaching
duties and given operational duties to push the District agenda. She appreciated that
her outsourced literacy coaches were vested at the school level and stayed focused on
the work in the classroom. “My math coach is not an outsourced coach, she’s an
LAUSD coach,” she says, “and mostly what I hear from her is not instructional, it’s
not teacher practice, it’s about what LAUSD wants her to do.”
A handful of teachers, at both schools, complained that they did not see their
content literacy coach enough. One 6
th
grade English Language Arts and social
studies teacher at Middle School A said that her ELA coach only came to see her
twice a year and her social studies coach had only come once. She did point out,
however, that her science partner saw his coach frequently. One teacher said that no
one offered to do a demonstration lesson in her classroom. Another English
Language Arts teacher explained that the literacy coach “will help if you need help,
he will come and work with you- he also works with new teachers.” One teacher
described her literacy coach as helpful, as long as she sought him out for help. An
English teacher at the same school, who subbed a science class for six weeks,
worked with the science coach more in those six weeks than she had seen her
114
English Language Arts coach all year. Teachers at both schools voiced a need to see
more structure and organization in the literacy coaching program so that coaches did
not just “float” in and out of classrooms without a purpose or schedule.
A teacher at Middle School B explained the importance of reaching out to
coaches and taking the initiative to benefit from coaching, “They’re [literacy
coaches] stretched thin as it is, so I think a lot of times we have to use them as a
resource and access them. I’ve had literacy coaches who’ve offered me their home
phone number… if I ever needed anything. I try to use them as much as a resource
as possible, so I think that’s part of us having to be proactive about our jobs too.”
Another teacher offered a different perspective, “I think too that they feel like they
don’t want to step on anybody’s toes, you know, because a lot of the coaches in the
past have been met with adversity or resistance, and so I think they want to leave it
up to the teachers to decide how best they can serve us.” Other teachers agree,
“Yeah, we have to make the effort.”
Newer teachers voiced a more positive experience with content literacy
coaches than veteran teachers. One teacher at Middle School A recalled, “I came in
the middle of my year, so that was already a stressful situation and there were a lot of
things I missed, that were not told to me. My literacy coach helped me a lot through
my transition from non-teacher to teacher.” Another teacher said her literacy coach
helped with “anything that she sees I am missing… when you’re first beginning, you
don’t even know what to ask for… .” The teacher described her coach as someone
who was able to assess her situation and make decisions about what tools she needed
115
and how to support her, even though she was not able to articulate her needs to the
coach.
More experienced teachers at Middle School B acknowledged the value-
added for new teachers but were not satisfied that literacy coaches were helping them
grow professionally, “As a second year teacher my feeling about the literacy coaches
is they’re here to help me. I’m not sure everything that they’re saying is new to me.
A lot of it I’ve heard before, and a lot of it I already do in my classes. It’s not
irritating, but it’s also not helpful.” Another teacher at Middle School B suggested
the need for a more rigorous coaching relationship. She did not perceive
observations and conferencing as the most helpful methods to improve her
effectiveness. Instead, she wanted to see the coach incorporate a more theoretical
approach to the work. She herself had a masters degree but struggled to apply
curriculum theories research-based methods into her classroom, with her student
population. “It’s not her [coach’s] fault…but what I need help with doesn’t fit into
her realm.”
Teachers at Middle School B complained that the literacy coach put together
good “packets and posters,” that they had not asked for, but that she was not at the
school enough to show teachers how to implement the resources. A teacher
explained the coaching experience she had with former outsourced coach a couple
years ago when she and the coach planned a unit together, developed a culminating
task, planned out the lessons, went over the instructional strategies, giving each other
ideas. In essence, she valued the process of co-planning a high stakes (expository)
116
unit with her literacy coach, more than being given a packet, which she was expected
to implement it on her own.
A few more teachers in Middle School B expressed a more hostile
perception, “OK, so the mean word I want to use is lackeys, who are forced to put a
cheerful spin on things they know, and we know, are un-implementable and poorly
designed. So their job really is to help with these programs that none of us have any
input on creating.” A teacher called the outsourced coach the “enforcer of the
periodic assessments.” Yet another teacher described literacy coaches as “cops,
running out giving tickets the last days of the month… I think they have a number. I
think they come and harass the teachers, like they have so many they have to
observe, and they’re rushing to get them all done, like they’ve got to meet a quota or
something. It’s just meeting the guideline of what they’re given by the district.”
One teacher referred to the literacy coaching program as “invisible.” She explained,
“We have her come, what, twice a week and then we don’t see her forever, and then
she’s here again twice a week. She’s at a different school other times, and it seems
very disorganized…”
Overall, administrators at the two middle schools were positive about the
outsourced literacy coaching program. They appreciated the support extended to
teachers through outsourced literacy coaching and saw the work connected to their
school-wide improvement plans. Teacher perceptions, however, varied greatly.
Teachers reported tremendous support provided by outsourced literacy coaches or
expressed suspicion and doubt about the role of outsourced literacy coaches.
117
Ironically, all teachers expressed a need to have outsourced literacy coaches on full-
time basis rather than a part-time basis. It appears that the perception of outsourced
literacy coaches may have been negatively effected by their “outsider” status, the
fact that part of their charge was to implement unpopular LAUSD mandates
(instructional guides and periodic assessments), and, to some extent, the impact weak
leadership has on their ability to genuinely support teachers.
Strengths of Outsourced Literacy Coaching Program
Teachers and administrators at both schools reported the following as
strengths of the outsourced literacy coaching model:
Focus on coaching. On average outsourced coaches spent 60-80% of their
time working directly with teachers, freed from distracting operational duties, such
as testing and supervision. Teachers who worked with literacy coaches were grateful
to have on-going coaching support to make adjustments to lessons based on student
skill levels. Teachers talked about the importance of having a designated person
helping them, rather than simply putting information in their box, taking the extra
step to show teachers how they can grow in their practice.
Top-notch quality literacy coaches. According to administrators and a
majority of teachers, outsourced literacy coaches demonstrated content mastery,
strong grasp of effective literacy strategy of adolescents, and the ability to build trust
and rapport with teachers—three essential ingredients of a content literacy coach.
Outsourced provider’s training of literacy coaches. Even though literacy
coaches did not always feel adequately trained to start their assignment as literacy
118
coaches, monthly training sessions by the provider give literacy coaches information
and support to better serve teachers. Provider’s trainings also modeled for literacy
coaches the kind of collaboration and facilitation they were expected to promote at
their school sites.
Support of new teachers. New teachers were most often served by
outsourced literacy coaches, partly because they may have been more receptive to
the assistance and partly because they may have had greater need. Teachers and
administrators at both schools spoke highly of the wide-spread support of new
teachers provided by outsourced literacy coaches.
Modeling of instructional strategies and co-teaching. When outsourced
literacy coaches conducted demonstrations lessons, teachers saw strategies in action
with their own students. Even after observing literacy coaches conduct
demonstration lessons in their room, some teachers were still hesitant to experiment
with new strategies on their own. Literacy coaches stressed co-teaching as a tool to
get teachers to internalize strategies. When literacy coaches and teachers sat down to
plan lessons together and deliver the lessons together, sharing responsibility for both
the teaching of the lesson and the student deliverables, teachers gained a much
deeper understanding of the strategies and tools.
Curriculum development. Literacy coaches sat down with teachers to
develop tangible lesson plans, with resources needed to effectively deliver the lesson.
Teachers refered to the “great lesson plan” literacy coaches often shared with them.
119
Increased collaboration. Many teachers, even teachers who refused to work
individually with coaches, voiced appreciation for the time provided to plan lessons
collaboratively and discuss results of culminating tasks. Both schools committed
additional time for literacy coaches to convene small groups of teachers to plan
lessons with local district curriculum tools. Teachers responded positively to the
opportunity to work with other teachers, share ideas, and learn from one another.
Challenges of Outsourced Literacy Coaching Program
Administrators, teachers and outsourced literacy coaches reported the
following difficulties with the outsourced literacy coaching program:
Trust and credibility. The local superintendent recalled a “tough road” when
secondary literacy coaching began in her local district. She stated, “Not all teachers
were standing at the front door applying and welcoming coaches in.” She explained
the tremendous skills literacy coaches had to show in order to win the confidence of
teachers, and assured teachers that they were not going to come in and simply tell
teachers what to do. A handful of veteran teachers at both sites reported negative
experiences with the “outside” coaches coming in and telling them what to do, or
policing the implementation of mandated curriculum, or not showing enough respect
to classroom teachers and the expertise classroom teachers possess. Many teachers
who participated in focus groups, however, established productive working
relationships with outsourced literacy coaches and saw value in literacy coaching for
themselves and their school. The challenge of being an outsider became a strength
for literacy coaches, as they proved themselves to teachers.
120
Teacher buy-in. During one of the teacher focus groups, a couple of teachers
adamantly voiced concerns over the literacy coaching program. One teacher said it
was not worth the money. Another teacher said that the literacy coaching program
was throwing money at a problem that could not be solved by paying for it. Teachers
wanted outsourced literacy coaches to approach teachers more as peers, where
learning was two-way and where veteran teachers may have employed best practices
that could be shared with newer teachers. Teachers referred to the need to be
“equal” to coaches and the importance of coaches trusting the teacher. “I felt like our
creativity is being stifled, like there’s this kind of feeling like it’s our way or the
highway… I don’t think there’s one way to teach a lesson and I feel like it’s being
thrown at me, and I’m not saying that I know everything, because I don’t, you learn
until you die, but I think that there needs to be a little bit more respect for our
profession.”
Several teachers, and one school principal, suggested the possibility of
supplementing the outsource literacy coaching program with effective off-track
teachers. Since the literacy coaching allocation did not sufficiently meet all the
coaching needs of a school, and since some veteran teachers adamantly refused to
work with outside coaches, off-track teachers were suggested as a way to bridge the
gap. The outsourced literacy coaching program at both schools might have also
benefited from better communication about literacy coaching and stronger, more
public administrative support.
121
Communication and administrative leadership. Literacy coaches and
teachers complained about a lack of transparency and direction given about the role
of literacy coaches at school sites. Teachers did not have clarity about the purpose
and responsibilities of literacy coaches and literacy coaches did not have clarity
about administrative expectations and accountability of teachers in the coaching
process. In addition, confidentiality promised and needed, in the teacher-coach
relationship made it difficult for literacy coaches to communicate problems honestly
with school and district administrators. The local superintendent expressed the
challenge as follows, “We found ways to communicate when things weren’t
happening, without betraying the trust of teachers… it became our job to kind of
smoke it out, but we had to make sure to got signals early.” One of the school
principals also underscored the importance of taking the time to listen to coaches
who were the “eyes and ears” of the school, to better understand how to move the
school forward.
Outsourced literacy coaches found the lack of teacher accountability created
an obstacle for their work. They did not believe it was appropriate to have to tell
administrators which teachers were and were not present at required meetings or who
had slammed the door to coaching. Literacy coaches suggested that increased and
consistent administrative presence at required meetings and in classrooms would
have allowed administrators to better understand the challenges and communicated
to teachers the importance of literacy coaching.
122
Distributed leadership. Outsourced literacy coaches appeared to have mixed
feeling about being “outsourced.” One coach noted the benefit of providing teachers
with an “outsider’s view,” removed from school politics and previous baggage, a fair
and objective perspective of a department’s strengths and weaknesses. However,
coaches also highlighted the difficulty of empowering teachers to take ownership and
leadership within their department or school. Since UEP coaches were only at each
school 2-3 days a week, they voiced concern about the consistency of instructional
leadership at the two schools. Literacy coaches who remained at sites over multiple
years also cited the difficult reality of high teacher turn-over, “Nothing sticks and
nothing grows.” Coaches were concerned that there was not a critical mass of
teachers and administrators at each school pushing forward the curriculum vision of
the local superintendent, instead school were comfortable relying on the coaches to
drive reforms.
Data-driven culture. Since outsourced literacy coaches were not LAUSD
employees, they did not have access to student data the way LAUSD literacy
coaches did. Outsourced coaches had to rely on someone else to access data for
them—this hindered a culture of on-going data analysis. Also, teachers, coaches and
administrators all agreed that they needed to find more time throughout the year to
analyze results of the periodic assessments and create action plans to implement in a
timely manner.
Part-time, multiple site assignment of literacy coaches. The local
superintendent purposefully designed a content literacy coaching program where
123
coaches were not assigned full-time to school site, partly to provide schools with
literacy coaches who had expertise in all three content areas and partly to make sure
coaches did not get too entrenched at school sites. One coach acknowledged the
advantage of working at multiple sites, claiming that it gave him the opportunity to
take an idea from one school site and apply it to his other school site. Teachers and
outsourced literacy coaches at both schools voiced concerns about the part-time
capacity of literacy coaches. Outsourced coaches suggested that they could be more
effective at one site, where they were seen every day and could “get a lot more
accomplished in the teachers’ minds.” In addition, they voiced difficulty in building
an empowered department when they were divided between two schools that met at
the same time.
Outsourced literacy coaches also cited time as a constant challenge. Coaches
were expected to attend literacy cadre meetings and district meetings or lead
professional development sessions on short notice, without regard to previously
scheduled meetings with teachers. While this impacted their credibility with
teachers, it also took up valuable time they need with teachers.
Contract Execution. The local superintendent and the outsourced provider
pointed to difficulty in executing the coaching contract each year. The local
superintendent felt that since the outsourced literacy coaching model was different
than the LAUSD model, the School Board did not always believe it was the most
effective way to go. Each year, she spent time convincing LAUSD’s Superintendent
and School Board members about her decision to outsourced literacy coaching. She
124
stated, “So many times it felt that there were undue number of obstacles.” The
provider’s literacy director described the contracting process as long and tedious,
which resulted in difficulty hiring and training coaches in a timely manner. Often,
contracts were not finalized until August or late September, when schools had
already begun the school year on July 1
st
. Therefore, “We train on the fly,” says an
outsourced literacy coach.
Lessons Learned from Outsourced Literacy Coaching Program
Lessons learned from administrators, teachers and outsourced literacy
coaches were voiced as follows:
1. Need to get all teachers to embrace their responsibility to facilitate
student literacy.
2. Coaches need to be well trained in content and literacy as well as the
ability to really coach other teachers.
3. It is critical to nurture and cultivate the relationship with the
outsourced partner. Holding regular meetings with the outsourced
partner, exchanging information, and staying focused on the goals
were key to creating a strong partnership that was about transforming
schools.
Conclusion
The local district superintendent made a bold decision to outsource secondary
literacy coaching, despite the fact that all other local districts were identifying in-
house teachers to serve as literacy coaches. This case study provided an in-depth
125
snapshot of how outsourced literacy coaching was implemented in the local district.
The local district superintendent and school principals celebrated the 113-124 point
API gains made at their schools between 2002-2006, and saw the outsourced literacy
coaching program as a contributing factor to school-wide growth. While outsourced
literacy coaches and teachers believed improved administrative leadership and
communication would have improved the effectiveness of outsourced literacy
coaching, many teachers welcomed the support and saw outsourced literacy coaches
as skilled and knowledgeable individuals who helped improve the professional
development opportunities at their school. Even though the contract negotiated with
the outsourced provider was vague, both the local district superintendent and the
outsourced provider demonstrated a genuine commitment and partnership to ensure
increased literacy achievement in the local district middle schools. The following
chapter will provide an in-depth look at how two middle schools within the same
local district implemented an in-house literacy coaching model.
126
CHAPTER SIX
CASE STUDY: IN-HOUSE LITERACY COACHING AT TWO MIDDLE
SCHOOLS
While the previous chapter presented a case study for the implementation of
an outsourced model of literacy coaching in LAUSD, the case study in this chapter
examines how middle schools within the same LAUSD local district implemented an
in-house literacy coaching model. Like the previous case study about outsourced
literacy coaching, this chapter draws on the theoretical framework presented in
Chapter Two to analyze the design, implementation and effectiveness of literacy
coaching. The chapter begins with an overview of the in-house coaching model and
explains why two literacy coaching models existed within the same local district,
followed by a description of the in-house model with a focus on administrative
leadership, integration of coaching and professional development, theoretical
coaching model, role and oversight of in-house literacy coaches. The chapter
concludes by sharing perceptions regarding the efficacy of the in-house model and
summarizing strengths and challenges associated with in-house literacy coaching.
In the Fall of 2005, Los Angeles Unified School District restructured and
consolidated its configuration of local districts. The District went from eleven local
districts to eight. Therefore, the local district in this study expanded to represent
eight middle schools, serving an additional 5,300 middle school students. The newly
incorporated middle schools were not outsourcing literacy coaching, instead they
were implementing the District literacy coaching model mandated under the
127
Secondary Literacy Plan (SLP) that identified teachers from within schools to serve
as full-time or part-time literacy coaches, outside of the classroom.
Two of the three newly added middle schools were selected for this case
study. Of the three middle schools added to the local district in 2005, one of them
was a K-12 magnet school with a middle school enrollment of approximately 375
students. Since the magnet school was not comparable in size or demographic to the
other two middle schools, it was not included in this study. The case study in this
chapter, therefore, describes the implementation of an in-house literacy coaching
program at the other two middle schools added to the local district. Even though
these schools were only in the local district for the last year of the study, teachers and
principals of the two middle schools were at the schools when the SLP was first
implemented in 2002. Both middle schools implemented an in-house literacy
coaching program since the inception of the SLP.
Decision to Maintain In-House Secondary Literacy Coaching Program
By Fall 2005, the local district began implementing two literacy coaching
models, an outsourced literacy coaching model in the five former middle schools,
and an in-house literacy coaching model in the three newly added middle schools.
When asked about maintaining the in-house model in the newly adopted middle
schools, the local superintendent reflected on her decision, “I may not have if I had
stayed as superintendent… I called it the marriage, they were very suspicious of me,
like who is she, and who does she think she is… and does she think we’re gonna
dance to this tune.” She recalled that even though they did not change the coaching
128
model, some schools paid close attention to how the outsourced schools were doing.
She explained, “I think we would have evolved to that… we were hanging by a
thread on trust anyway… I saw them embracing the model and working toward it, I
think that we would have moved toward outsourcing the coaching.” One principal
explained the decision to continue with in-house literacy coaching, even though
fellow middle schools were outsourcing, “We had choices on personnel and I like
that. When we became part of [the local district], we wanted to keep it the same
way.” The local superintendent led the newly expanded local district for one full
school year, from 2005-2006, before formally retiring from LAUSD.
Implementation of the In-House Literacy Coaching Program
While the local superintendent reconciled the need to leave the pre-existing
coaching model in place at her newly acquired middle schools, she also observed
challenges with the in-house model. She noted deficits in the knowledge capital of
in-house literacy coaches and teachers at the schools. Since people were on-edge
about local district restructuring, she wanted schools to feel comfortable moving
ineffective people out of positions while giving them time to buy-into her literacy
goals and outsourced literacy coaching model. She stressed, “I didn’t have time to
interview and assess the knowledge of those people the way the outsourced provider
did with the coaches they brought on… I wanted value-added, I didn’t want to
subtract from classroom instruction by pulling out good teachers. The [in-house]
coaches were not always being as well prepared, I think, for this work as maybe the
coaches we had on an outsource basis.” While she observed a difference in “what
129
the work was” for in-house coaches, she also saw the new middle schools slowly
buying into her goals.
Middle School C is a K-12 span school that serves students from low socio-
economic households. In the 2002-2003 school year, 3,742 students were enrolled at
the school with 2,673 students in middle school (grades 6-8), 75% who were
Hispanic and 23% who were African American. From 2002-2006, 73-82% of
students qualified for the federal Free and Reduced Lunch program. When the SLP
was implemented in 2002, the principal had just been promoted (having served many
years as Assistant Principal for the school) and continued as the principal throughout
the duration of the study.
Middle School D also serves students of low socio-economic households,
with 84-89% of students qualifying for the federal Free and Reduced Lunch program
from 2002-2006. In the 2002-2003 school year, 2,259 students were enrolled in the
school, with 69% Hispanic students and 31% African-American students. The same
principal was in place from 2001-2006, before retiring from LAUSD.
Middle School C identified two teachers to serve as full-time literacy coaches
each year, serving the elementary, middle and high school. Middle School D
employed a full-time teacher to leave the classroom and serve as a literacy coach.
Both middle school principals were primary decision-makers regarding literacy
coach assignments, and always selected teachers from within the school to serve as
literacy coaches. LAUSD in-house literacy coaches were technically hired and
trained by LAUSD’s Secondary Literacy Division, expected to be managed and
130
supported by the local district’s Secondary Literacy Coordinator, but worked full-
time at the school sites. On the one hand, in-house coaches reported to three parties
(school principal, local district literacy coordinator, and LAUSD literacy director).
On the other hand, in-house literacy coaches received very little direction because
they rarely saw their supervisors.
Administrative Leadership for In-House Literacy Coaching
Administrators, teachers and in-house literacy coaches agreed that improving
test scores was the number one goal of literacy coaching. When asked about literacy
coaching goals, one teacher responded, “I think the implied goal of the literacy
coaches is to improve test scores, and certainly with the status of this school, and
needing desperately to improve our test scores, that would be implied. I don’t know
if that [is] the goal… it doesn’t necessarily seem to be that they had planned and
charted their course, it seems like they’re working on a more day to day basis to take
care of different responsibilities.” Multiple coaches across both schools also cited
test score improvement as a major objective of their work. An in-house coach
explained, “I’m tired of looking at low test scores… no more mediocrity… I want to
see our students begin to master material.” In order to improve test scores, a coach
identified the importance of training teachers on the instructional guide and
emphasizing critical thinking skills with academic vocabulary.
Since the local superintendent helped draft the LAUSD SLP in her former
role as Associate Superintendent of Instruction, she understood the goals of the SLP
and knew what in-house literacy coaches were expected to accomplish. She wanted
131
content experts recruited who also understood how to approach content-based text,
build vocabulary, equip students with skills to synthesize information from various
sources, and had an intuitive ability to coach teachers.
The local superintendent developed concrete tools to help principals, literacy
coaches, and teachers visualize and understand what standard-based, literacy-rich
instruction looked like and to support the process of how learning takes place and
how literacy is acquired. She wanted teachers to learn together and plan together,
using the tools, with an expert at the table to ensure curriculum development and
embed a strong emphasis on literacy. She highlighted the need for strong, focused
school leaders who understood how to embrace and manage literacy coaching,
motivate teachers to accept coaches and work collaboratively to implement local
district tools and improve literacy. She identified three factors as critical to the
success of literacy coaching, “…the kind of expectations and tools that we created as
a [local] district sent a clear message, principals’ faithfulness to that, and principals
seeing that the coaching was a key element in making that happen.”
Teachers at both middle schools, however, complained about lack of clarity
regarding coaching responsibilities and numerous assignments that went beyond
coaching, such as school-wide professional development and administration of
periodic assessments. One teacher at Middle School D voiced her discontent, “They
are pulled in all these other directions with professional development… it [takes] a
lot of time to sit in meetings… somewhere they’re gonna lack on their job
description, which I’m sot sure what it is yet, and I don’t know where we can go to
132
get that description.” A teacher at Middle School C expressed a similar concern,
“For me, it would be nice if there was an articulated goal, this is what we’re here to
do, this is what we’re not here to do, this isn’t really our bailiwick, and then
everybody would feel more comfortable about asking certain questions, and having
certain expectations, and feeling like, well, that really valuable asset… at least
everybody would be like, I could get aligned with that, this is great, I feel like this is
a really good part of our school.”
Like outsourced literacy coaches, in-house coaches at both middle schools
described a communication process whereby they, themselves, decided to go to
teacher meetings and introduce themselves, let teachers know how to contact them,
and provided an overview of how coaches supported teachers. In-house literacy
coaches shared concerns that the program was only as good as they made it, with
little to no input from school administrators. They gave the impression that they
were self-directed and held themselves accountable with little support from
administrators at any level (school, local district or central).
Literacy coaches at both middle schools reported working most closely with
the Assistant Principal of Instruction. They also worked with the English Language
Learner coordinator, department chairs and instructional coordinators. At Middle
School C, literacy coaches worked closely with the librarian because their office is in
the library. In addition, in-house literacy coaches were expected to participate on the
local district’s literacy cadre, depending on whether or not the local district
organized literacy cadres a given year. At the school site, in-house literacy coaches
133
at both schools spent the majority of their time with new teachers and teachers that
took the initiative to seek them out. It appeared that in-house literacy coaches often
decided for themselves what to focus on, and with whom. They received little
structure from the local district or school administration, so they often found
themselves designing the literacy agenda for their schools and informing
administrators how to move forward.
Literacy coaches at both middle schools reported open lines of
communication with school principals. Since principals generally appointed the in-
house literacy coach, both schools reported strong rapport between in-house literacy
coaches and principals, even when administrative leadership for literacy was weak or
insufficient. However, neither school had a system for communicating regularly
about literacy coaching updates or challenges. Literacy coaches at middle School C
set up monthly meetings with the principal, but ultimately the meetings never took
place.
Once the middle schools were added to the local district, an in-house coach
from Middle School C recalled a mandate to establish an Instructional Leadership
Team, consisting of lead teachers for every subject, special education and English
Learner coordinators, literacy coaches, and administrators. There was a list of
approximately 17 people that needed to serve on this team in order to roll-out the
local superintendent’s vision of unpacking standards, backwards mapping, and
developing culminating tasks. While that would have been a forum to communicate
with the school’s leadership, in-house coaches at Middle School C said the team
134
never really materialized. Middle School D did not mention the existence of an
Instructional Cabinet either. Administrative leadership for literacy coaching at both
schools seemed almost non-existent. If literacy was emphasized at either school it
was generally a result of vocal leadership from strong in-house coaches.
Integrating In-House Literacy Coaching into Professional Development Plan
Both middle schools relied on in-house coaches to design and facilitate
professional development activities at their school. Rather than take direction from
the principal regarding professional development, literacy coaches were largely
responsible for planning school-wide professional development, which took place
two to three times a month. Even though professional development initiatives often
focused on the local superintendent’s vision for standards-based instruction and
therefore supported literacy coaching, it was time-consuming and significantly
reduced the number of hours coaches spent providing classroom-based support.
Literacy coaches at Middle School C referred to quality professional
development as a key component of their work as coaches. Literacy coaches met
with the English Language Learner coordinator and other out-of-classroom teachers
to plan quality professional development activities that maximized and respected
teacher time and needs. Even though professional development offerings were not
always directly related to literacy, coaches focused on improving the quality and
organization of professional development as an important step to compliment
literacy coaching. “I think we saw ourselves as wanting to bring professionalism to
135
professional development, and some sense of responsibility [to teachers],” said an in-
house coach from Middle School C.
In-house coaches at both middle school identified “unpacking content
standards” as an important part of their work; the breaking down of the standards so
teachers have a clear understanding of what the standards are asking teachers and
students to do. Teachers at Middle School D went through a process of putting the
standards into “kid-friendly” terms so students could also understand what they were
supposed to do. The coach demonstrated techniques teachers could use to build
vocabulary and “scaffold” instruction, taking students from wherever they were with
a given standard and planning small steps along a continuum of Bloom’s taxonomy
for students to eventually demonstrate understanding of the standard. Finally, in-
house coaches at both schools discussed spending considerable time helping teachers
develop “culminating tasks,” or end-of-the-unit projects aligned with standards.
The in-house coach at Middle School D described data analysis as an
important component of her work, “After every periodic assessment I’ll go over data
with the teachers. I’ll do this school-wide and then I’ll focus on ELA in getting them
to see where their students are. From school-wide, grade level, to individual
students. So data definitely drives instruction.” She clearly saw LAUSD periodic
assessments as a vehicle to get all teachers to understand standards-based instruction.
An in-house literacy coach at Middle School C echoed the sentiment, “I tried to get
the English department to look critically at the data to inform instruction.” She
described a process where she attempted to have teachers look at student data before
136
determining the culminating task for a unit. She challenged teachers to identify
weak areas for students, based on data, and then develop culminating tasks requiring
students to demonstrate mastery on those weaker skill sets. Teachers then worked
backwards to identify scaffolding strategies that helped students develop improved
skills. Principals at both middle schools agreed that data analysis was an important
component of the literacy coaching job. Middle School C carved out time for
coaches to look at data with grade level teams while Middle School D did this by
departments. In-house coaches at Middle School C were expected to use data to
facilitate a lesson-design approach in getting teachers to re-design lessons, develop
intervention plans, and re-teach standards as necessary. The principal of Middle
School C stated, “Theoretically the idea of the benchmark assessments is to improve
our instruction, see where we’re not getting through, continue to do the areas we’re
doing well, and work on the areas we’re not doing well, where the kids need more
help.” Despite this vision communicated at both schools, principals, coaches and
teachers agreed that data analysis did not take place consistently enough to drive
change.
The principal at Middle School C identified the individualization of
professional development as an important component of literacy coaching. She
discussed the importance of literacy coaches differentiating professional
development for teachers; addressing, for example, teachers relying on the textbook
to plan lessons, as well as teachers needing help to pace and manage lessons within a
block schedule. Recognizing that the faculty is large and teacher capacity varied,
137
literacy coaches were expected to target teacher support depending on teacher needs
and teacher realities. The professional development structure and schedule, gave in-
house literacy coaches the flexibility they needed to offer multiple professional
development choices for teachers. While the principal ensured the structure, in-
house coaches at Middle School C shaped and implemented the vision for
professional development at their school, sometimes at the expense of one-on-one
coaching time with teachers.
In-house literacy coaches at both schools initiated and delivered most of the
school-wide professional development offerings. The focus at both schools revolved
around the local superintendent’s vision to improve standards-based instruction using
local district curriculum tools. In addition, literacy coaches from Middle School C
attempted to improve the overall perception and culture of professional development,
taking steps to differentiate professional development offerings and ensuring
activities were meaningful and directly applicable for teachers. In-house literacy
coaches at both schools complained that these responsibilities were very time
consuming and often pulled them away from one-on-one work with teachers.
In-House Literacy Coaching Model
Neither middle school articulated the implementation of a specific literacy
coaching model. Since in-house literacy coaches received little direction from their
supervisors at the central and local district offices, they largely relied on school
administrators for direction. Either because school administrators did not “own”
literacy coaching as their program or because they did not have the time or capacity
138
to shape the program, school administrators did not appear to invest much time in
developing a systemic approach to literacy coaching. This reality left the in-house
literacy coaching model to the discretion of in-house literacy coaches.
For instance, Middle School C recalled that the first literacy coaches at the
school in 2003, created a systemic approach to content literacy. The coaches
identified seven literacy strategies that were mapped out in a multi-year plan to train
all teachers to implement literacy strategies in core classes. The school focused on
implementing two to three concrete literacy strategies per year. The principal spoke
highly of the plan developed by the school’s first two literacy coaches, “… it
[literacy coaching program] was at its best because the foundation that they laid was
easy for them to build on it the next year… knowing they were going to stay
together… I don’t know how we were able to do that, but we were…” She explained
how the coaches monitored the school-wide implementation of each new strategy,
and then decided when it was appropriate to introduce the next strategy. The
principal, teachers and literacy coaches referred to the approach to increase literacy
skills as impressive and effective, even though the process ended when those coaches
ceased to serve as literacy coaches. The principal and teachers viewed this plan as
something entirely in the hands of the literacy coaches and something special about
those particular literacy coaches, not as a plan the school took ownership of and built
upon in future years.
The literacy coach from Middle School D talked about the reflective process
she used when coaching teachers. She described an instance where she did a
139
demonstration lesson in a classroom with the primary purpose of having the host
teacher observe her students, talk to her students about the work they were doing,
and encouraged the teacher to reflect on the outcomes she was having with her
students. She claimed that this was the coaching model she preferred but admitted
she did not have sufficient time to do this will all her teachers.
There was little evidence that the LAUSD secondary division trained literacy
coaches to implement a specific research-based model to deliver coaching services.
If such training took place, principals and in-house coaches were not able to
articulate an agreed-upon model. Schools were clearly implementing the local
superintendent’s vision and tools for standards-based instruction using Bloom’s
taxonomy. However, this was not a specific model for literacy coaching. By and
large, each in-house literacy coach determined how to support school-wide literacy
based on his or her knowledge, experience and skill set.
Qualifications and Responsibilities of In-House Literacy Coaches
The principal at Middle School C stressed the importance of selecting the
right coach who already had a good working relationship with teachers, in addition
to strong areas of expertise. She said that when teachers who had a trusting
relationship with their peers became coaches, they did not have to spend time
cultivating relationships because they were already recognized by the faculty as
expert teachers and good people. Principals at both middle schools reported teaching
expertise and likeability as core qualifications of an in-house literacy coach. They
described the importance of selecting coaches who already had a good relationship
140
with teachers as a key qualification. Even though the position was created by
LAUSD, there was not evidence that schools employed universal selection criteria
when identifying a teacher to serve as a literacy coach. In-house literacy coaches
had not demonstrated previous experience working with adults, delivering
professional development, or successfully implementing “research-based” literacy
strategies in the classroom.
In-house literacy coaches revealed a lack of clarity and focus about what they
were expected to do. A teacher at Middle School C stated, “I don’t know if there
was a design, people just make the jobs their own when they get into it… as far as
what the school expected, or what the district expected… it was never clear.” An in-
house coach at the same school expanded on the same idea, “I don’t think the school
necessarily stated a goal, like we never sat down with the principal and the principal
said these are the things we’d like you to do… I think we came into it with our own
goals.” Another coach at Middle School C added that they did have to make sure
they were in compliance with district mandates and initiatives related to the SLP.
The in-house coach at Middle School D, on the other hand, said her job was to
increase student literacy skills through teachers. Therefore, her job was to train
teachers on different literacy skills that could be used across content areas.
Literacy coaches and teachers at both middle schools reported the
administration of LAUSD periodic assessments and facilitation of professional
development as primary responsibilities. An in-house coach from Middle School D
admitted, “I would love to say coaching teachers, but it became administering,
141
distribution and collection and scanning and compiling data from the periodic
assessments.” Another in-house coach from Middle School C went a step further
and explained, “We called ourselves the test police, and that’s what we felt like.” In-
house literacy coaches at both middle schools spoke with accomplishment about the
fact that they were able to get tests collected, scanned and submitted to LAUSD on
time. Both teachers and literacy coaches complained that the time required for these
two primary tasks left little time for one-on-one teacher coaching.
An in-house coach at Middle School C recalled, “I know when we were
coaching in July and early August, we got to get into teachers’ classrooms and see
what was going on… after that it was mostly just professional development, a lot of
meetings, dealing with the period assessments and other forms of testing, and then it
kind of became a catch-all job for ‘who’s gonna do this, oh give it to the literacy
coaches.’ We ended up doing all kinds of weird jobs that had nothing to do with
coaching or literacy.” Her co-partner shared a few examples of the “million things
that didn’t have anything to do with our job” coaches were asked to do, like putting
up school bulletin boards, hosting visitors, or coordinating school assemblies. Other
coaches confirmed that once the periodic assessment season begun in August,
coaching teachers was rare for the remainder of the school year.
An in-house coach at Middle School C summarized the job, “I guess you
have to be a multi-tasker… you have to wear many hats because you’re not looked
upon just as a literacy coach, but you’re really looked upon as one of the
instructional leaders of the school.” The literacy coach at Middle School D
142
explained the balance of her responsibilities with the department chair, “We have an
excellent department chair… he’ll do more lesson planning… show us how it
works… and I do theory and how to improve literacy in the classroom.”
Teachers confirmed this reality, “She’s there, we can walk in her office any
time. I just think she’s always… her whole job is getting tests in, hounding teachers
to do the tests… she could be so much more helpful, especially with all her skills,
she could be much more useful than this paperwork stuff.” One teacher remembers
receiving a handbook explaining the job of a literacy coach, but thought the real job
of a literacy coach should fall into two primary categories: serve as a liaison with the
local district and provide support and resources inside the classroom. Some teachers
referred to curriculum planning as a helpful service of literacy coaches. Other in-
house literacy coaching activities included: demonstrating sample lessons,
developing poetry lessons, hosting school literacy nights, making sure students are
tested and placed in the correct classes, working with teachers on structuring lessons
within a block schedule, supporting teachers as they implemented student projects,
putting classroom management systems in place, helping teachers with silent reading
strategies and walking hallways to make sure students were in class.
However, teacher focus groups at both schools revealed that English
Language Arts teachers were more likely to receive literacy coaching support, than
science and social studies teachers. This may result from the fact that most coaches
previously served as English Language Arts teachers. Even though in-house literacy
coaches were expected to serve teachers in ELA, science and social studies, it
143
appears that literacy coaches at both schools still spent the majority of their time
working with teachers from the English Language Arts department. One social
studies teacher at Middle School C claimed, “We don’t really have a history coach,”
even though the literacy coach was charged to work with all content teachers.
Another teacher added her experience, “I was told that the literacy coaches are not
under a specific department… they say that they’re part of all departments, but I’ve
never seen them in our department…”
When asked about the amount time in-house coaches spent working with
teachers in the classroom, an in-house coach from Middle School D said, “I haven’t
gotten into the classrooms this year… my goal was to get in there actually this week,
I haven’t done it yet, but I do want to spend a lot more time with teachers… I
actually have a demo lesson planned with a new teacher for tomorrow. With older
teachers I focus on observations and conferencing.” An in-house coach at Middle
School C admitted that of all the things she did, working with teachers took the least
amount of her time. Another coach at Middle School C said she worked closely with
three to four teachers a month. In-house coaches from both schools estimated
spending 10% of their time working directly with teachers in the classroom.
Later in the interview, the in-house coach from Middle School D said she
spent 50% of her time working with teachers, even though she previously said she
had not been in many classrooms during the school year. She said she was serving
five new teachers and was satisfied if she could take one week a month to get into
each classroom. However, she cautioned, that her plan to dedicate an entire week to
144
classroom-based coaching was “a little over the top” because of her busy schedule.
Her principal made it clear that he expected her to spend at least 50% of her time
working directly with teachers, but said he did not “follow her around with a
stopwatch”. One teacher at Middle School D said she saw her coach approximately
ten minutes a month, a ten-minute observation without follow-up. Teachers at both
schools complained that they did not see their coaches very often and concluded it
was because they were “pulled out and off campus a lot.”
Based on feedback from both literacy coaches and teachers, the job of in-
house literacy coaches was not clearly defined, aligned to a school-wide focus nor
communicated clearly to the school community. Principals, in-house literacy
coaches and teachers at both middle schools all agreed about the importance of
working with teachers one-on-one in the classroom. Many even cited classroom-
based coaching as a priority. However, it did not appear that a single in-house
literacy coach spent the majority of time coaching teachers. In fact most in-house
coaches estimated a total of 10% of the time spent working directly with individual
teachers. It appeared unrealistic to expect in-house literacy coaches to focus on
classroom-based coaching when they were also expected to coordinate quarterly
periodic assessments for three departments and school-wide professional
development activities each month.
Management and Evaluation of In-House Literacy Coaches
Teachers applied to LAUSD’s Secondary Literacy Division to become a
literacy coach. Ultimately, the District officially approved the hiring of literacy
145
coaches, often with input from principals. Literacy coaches were supervised by
LAUSD’s Secondary Literacy Director and the Local District Literacy Coordinator,
not by school principals. LAUSD’s Secondary Literacy Division expected the Local
District Literacy Coordinator to evaluate school-based literacy coaches. Coaches at
Middle School C recalled that the local district literacy coordinator visited them once
or twice during the year and completed evaluations of them. One year, their
evaluation was based on a demo lesson the literacy coordinator observed. But
overall, the feeling was that the evaluation process “didn’t necessarily shape or guide
your work as a literacy coach.” Literacy coaches at both schools were not able to
identify specific criteria from the evaluation. The in-house coach at Middle School
D said she received the best feedback from teachers directly, “I listen more to those
I’m coming in contact with very closely, like the teachers. I demand that they be
honest with me. If it [professional development workshop] was terrible, tell me it
was terrible. I want to know the truth… I am not perfect, and I know some of these
professional developments are not worth it, so just be honest, and most of the time
they are.” In-house literacy coaches at both middle schools discussed accountability
as something they took upon themselves. They tried to continuously improve as
coaches in order to better serve teachers.
Principals at both middle schools recalled that the local district literacy
coordinator contacted them at the end of each year for input on the evaluation of
their literacy coaches. The principal of Middle School D remembered notifying the
literacy coordinator that the school’s literacy coach was not welcome to return,
146
“After three years I said I could not have her back as a literacy coach, she was
destroying my department.” The principal noted that the literacy coordinator asked
him to complete a literacy coach’s evaluation, “They’re paid for by the local district,
and they’re supposed to evaluate them. I did the evaluation last year ‘cause they
didn’t have time, I was willing to do that…” It seemed that the evaluation process of
in-house coaches was loosely defined. As long as LAUSD or the local district did
not hear of problems, they left literacy coaches alone. In-house literacy coaches
reported minimal accountability and little support. They were not stretched to
strengthen their effectiveness and they were not provided a forum to reflect with
other literacy coaches. If the evaluation process was taken more seriously, it may
have led to questions about how coaches spent time and why day-to-day activities
were not aligned to SLP goals.
In-house literacy coaches claimed they received minimal training for their
positions. They were required to attend local district training but referred to the
training as “pretty shallow.” The local district hosted a two to three day training
each year with sessions about reading and literacy. However, coaches did not think
the training related to what they actually did as literacy coaches. Nothing was
discussed at meetings about the tasks that consumed the majority of their time, such
as coordinating periodic assessments and designing professional development. One
in-house coach at Middle School C summarized the experience as follows: “The
stuff we actually end up doing, I don’t feel like we have any training for, and the
stuff they did train us for, we never have time to do.” Literacy coaches also cited
147
local district meetings as a source of training and support, “every now and then we
have a really rich experience… they are trying to motivate us, to provide us with
some tools.” For instance, all LAUSD literacy coaches were sent to a Los Angeles
County Office of Education literacy academy. An in-house coach at Middle School
D identified other trainings she pursued on her own to equip herself for the position,
such as Kate Kinsella’s workshop. In-house literacy coaches did not see an
alignment between the trainings or information they received and the work they were
expected to do at schools.
Coaches at both schools reported meeting regularly with the Assistant
Principal of Instruction, rather than the school’s principal. A coach from Middle
School C said, “We didn’t have a scheduled meeting, but at least once a week I was
dropping by his office, informing him of training that I had to go to, my schedule,
this is what’s going on… I think because I felt this was his job… then he could be
charged with taking that information to the principal. So I looked to him as my
direct supervisor.” Another coach at the same school described a slightly different
perspective, “He gave us the support that we needed, we didn’t really need a lot of
support ‘cause it wasn’t clear what our goals were anyway. He was the only
administrator who came and met with us regularly. But I definitely didn’t feel like
we were answering to anybody. I felt like if anything it was the opposite, they were
having to answer to us because we had all this stuff the local district wanted us to do
that we took seriously. They wanted us to set up model classrooms… we invited the
district to come in and look at them… then we would just inform the administrators
148
that the district is gonna be here to look at our model classrooms and they’d like to
meet with you [principal] in your office. We were the leaders. When you don’t have
effective leadership, then you drive the bus.”
The principal at Middle School C commented on the positive effects literacy
coaching has had on literacy across the curriculum, “It was perceived as something
for the English teachers, an now it’s not, it’s the social studies teacher, the science
teacher… A lot of our math teachers use writing strategies and that’s from the work
that the math coach has done with the literacy coach to bring that in. And then
different strategies on actually how to read and interpret their math information.”
Teachers from science and social studies departments complained that they did not
receive the literacy support they wanted but they appeared to definitely understand
the importance of literacy support in their content area. In that sense, the principal
concluded teacher mindset appeared to be shifting from an over-reliance on English
Language Arts to serve as the ones responsible for literacy development to a more
widespread recognition that all teachers have a role to play in improving the reading
and writing skills of their students.
According to an in-house coach at Middle School D, “English Language Arts
and science are on the ball with literacy [at our school]… Now its time to focus on
history and math… math doesn’t really get the fact that math is language.” She said
she saw gradual change but cautioned that it would likely take another three to five
years to see a big difference. She said the important thing is that she saw teachers
coming out of their comfort zone. She also discussed a slow change in the quality of
149
student work, which she said resulted from the discussions she had with teachers.
She noted, “I’m looking at the lessons, they’re changing… some assignments I was
seeing would be like, why do you have them doing that, what’s the point of that,
where is the rigor in that? You know, I still have to ask that question to certain
teachers, but I’m starting to see a more rigorous curriculum coming down the
pipeline.”
Principals at both middle schools were hesitant to directly connect the work
of literacy coaches to improved student achievement. The principal at Middle
School C concluded, “I’m just trying to look at certain teachers and look at them
how they were a couple of years ago and how they are now… I’m just gonna be
honest, that’s hard to answer.” She cited improvement in seventh grade English
Language Arts where they the school has gone from 14% advanced to 16% advanced
to 20% advanced over a three year period, and then she concluded, “the teachers are
getting stronger.”
The Academic Performance Index (API) of each school implementing the in-
house literacy coaching model did increase, with the largest gains experienced in
2002 after the first year of implementation, when API scores increased by 38 and 52
points. Both schools had less of an increase the second year, with gains of 16 and 9
points. School API scores increased significantly again the third year, with 27 and
42 point gains. By Year 4, Middle School C experienced a drop in its API score and
Middle School D increased its API by another 10 points. In Year 5, Middle School
C regained lost ground and Middle School D increased its API by another 5 points.
150
Table 10. API Data 2001-2006: In-House Literacy Coaching Schools
In-House Coaching
Middle School C Middle School D
API Improvement API Improvement
2001 528 428
2002 566 38 480 52
2003 582 16 489 9
2004 609 27 531 42
2005 600 -9 541 10
2006 610 10 545 5
When disaggregating student performance on the English Language Arts
section of the California Standards Test it appears that gains in literacy did contribute
to API gains the first three years implementing the in-house literacy coaching model.
However, gains in 6
th
grade literacy were relatively small over a five-year period at
both schools. In addition, both schools experienced an overall drop in literacy
achievement Year 4 of literacy coaching before slightly increasing again in Year 5.
151
Table 11. ELA Mean Scores 2002-2006: In-House Literacy Coaching Schools
Year/Grade 6th 7th 8th
Middle School C 2002 296 294 295
2003 301 302 301
2004 309 308 304
2005 301 307 300
2006 306 308 309
Improvement 10 14 14 38
Year/Grade 6th 7th 8th
Middle School D 2002 286 287 283
2003 287 289 286
2004 296 297 294
2005 292 300 298
2006 287 301 302
Improvement -5 14 19 29
Even though principals, teachers and literacy coaches at both middle schools
cited improved achievement (as measured by test score) as the primary goal of
literacy coaching, not one person identified data analysis (using state, district or
school assessments) as a component in evaluating literacy coaches. The
management and evaluation of literacy coaches appeared undefined and
disconnected with the articulated goals of the literacy coaching program. In-house
literacy coaches were supervised by personnel they rarely saw but reported to
school-level administrators who largely relied on literacy coaches for direction.
Therefore, school principals provided evaluative feedback on literacy coaches
152
without explicitly defined criteria. There was little evidence that school data was
used to evaluate or focus the work of literacy coaches, as in-house literacy coaches
claimed the majority of their time was spent collecting and scoring periodic
assessments.
Impact of In-House Literacy Coaching
While all teachers appeared appreciative of the caliber of literacy coaches
assigned to them and seemed to have developed good working relationships with
coaches, many teachers were suspicious of the hidden agenda behind the literacy
coach position. A teacher at Middle School D described the alignment between
standards, literacy, instructional guides and tests as a “standardization of what we’re
teaching.” She implied the literacy coach was charged with ensuring this
standardization took place, overseeing what teachers were individually teaching and
making sure the instructional guide was implemented. She described the process as
one that was disempowering and concerning for teachers. Another teacher described
the literacy coaches’ work from a more positive perspective, “You have a person
who is making sure everybody has what they need, that they’re meeting the
standards, or they’re teaching, and they’re doing all these different things so that
their student can take the test and be successful.” Another teacher further explained,
“Having that literacy position and having that test focuses your instruction and it
makes us accountable for what we are teaching.” It appeared that when teachers and
coaches embarked on a classroom-based coaching experience where teachers
received ideas from coaches, reflected on their practice, and learned new techniques,
153
teachers were generally satisfied with the arrangement. However, unveiling the
literacy coach position with the controversial top-down system of instructional
guides and periodic assessments created a suspicion or hostility among teachers that
may have prevented teachers from being receptive to the concept of coaching.
The literacy coach at Middle School D discussed the importance of being
sensitive and strategic with teachers, “I think when teachers feel appreciated by the
people who come into their classroom, I think they’re very open to new ideas.” An
in-house coach at Middle School C expanded on this notion, “I think teachers really
want feedback because it’s really isolating in your classroom. Like you’re master of
your own little universe, but there isn’t another adult to appreciate you, the kids can
be appreciative, but it’s not the same thing as a peer or supervisor coming in and
looking at what you’re doing, and then giving you genuine feedback that’s gonna
help you do something even better.”
By and large, teachers at both schools spoke positively about their
relationship with literacy coaches. Some of the benefits of literacy coaching cited by
teachers included:
Serving as liaisons between the District and the school. Teachers benefited
when literacy coaches were trained by the District and then came back to the school
to conduct professional development with the department. Teachers expressed that
literacy coaches did a good job of communicating the teacher voice and getting the
District to understand the teacher perspective as they made decisions. A teacher said
the following about her literacy coach, “she smoothes out the problems between the
154
local district and the school.” Many of these problems revolve around the
scheduling of periodic assessments with a multi-track calendar.
Helping teachers with planning. Teachers ran ideas by literacy coaches and
got ideas from coaches, particularly regarding struggling students and literacy
genres. One teacher described the coaching process at length and explained how
valuable it had been for her. She talked about planning with the coach and then
having the coach come in and observe her teach the lessons. The feedback and
continual follow up helped her apply new strategies, “I think a lot of what teachers
want is a sounding board, an audience, a participant, a partner, and I think coaches
can be all of those things.”
Pushing for school collaboration and cohesion. An increased culture of
collaboration was cited by an in-house coach from Middle School C as a positive
impact, “Everyone wants feedback, and so you have another person to give feedback
in a non-evaluative way, so it becomes more collegial. So it just fosters the whole
collaboration of working together and it has really helped… like two of our
departments work a little bit more closely together, our social studies and English
departments.” Another teacher liked the literacy coach’s vision to take teachers on a
retreat and create an overall plan for the English department. Even though the coach
met resistance from teachers, many in his department thought it was a good idea and
believed the literacy coach would be able to make this happen. Teachers from both
schools spoke positively about opportunities to work collaboratively with literacy
coaches and cited the need to do more of this.
155
Sharing of resources. A teacher appreciatively recalled getting useful writing
materials from his literacy coach. Another teacher spoke highly of the resources
literacy coaches provide to teachers. He remembered asking his literacy coach for a
good website for graphic organizers and was amazed when his coach gave him an
electronic disc full of excellent graphic organizers that he could use whenever
needed. He found the support timely and applicable to his work.
Not all teachers found in-house literacy coaches very useful. For example,
one teacher identified grammar as a component of her teaching she wanted to
improve, “I requested some help finding materials, and they weren’t quite able to do
that up to this point.” Another teacher complained that when he asked his literacy
coach for help regarding classroom management, her response was that she never
had those problems.
An in-house coach at Middle School C stated, “I don’t know if they
necessarily saw it as, this is the literacy coach coming to my classroom, so much as,
it’s [Jane] and we’ve known her for nine years… of course come in… she’d say my
kids aren’t doing so well with X, and I’d say I could come in and work on X.” The
in-house coach at Middle School D explained how she won a favorable perception
amongst teachers, “They’re ok with me. I get things done as quickly as I can for
them, and they love that, if an issue arises, I try to handle it within the same week it
comes up, and get whatever they need to make their experience a lot easier.” It was
apparent that in-house literacy coaches at both schools leveraged their relationships
to push forward a literacy agenda.
156
In-house literacy coaches were hesitant, however, to describe their impact on
teaching, “I think it varies from teacher to teacher depending on how long they’ve
been in the classroom, how confident they are, how they’ve emerged in terms of
feeling comfortable with their teaching philosophy and teaching style, it just really
varies.” An in-house literacy coach at Middle School C talked more in terms of the
impact coaching had on her, “I think that I feel most effective and really good about
myself when I’m able to see a teacher really needing support, and being open to
being observed and receiving feedback, and maybe having a demonstration lesson
done in their classroom, and then watching them stand up, seeing them grow and
develop, it’s just very rewarding.” At the same school, another coach described the
impact their instructional leadership has had on the school, more than the impact on
teachers directly. She said literacy coaching at the school helped with, “profile
raising, professionalism raising, and student achievement raising… I feel like the
literacy coach position, because this has become a catch-all to help the school run
better, has made a definite impact on a lot of things, but not necessarily on literacy…
I feel like it’s helped in a more holistic sense.” She insisted, “But if the job could be
scaled back, so that it was really about literacy, and about coaching, I feel like it
could have such a tremendous impact.”
Strengths of In-House Literacy Coaching Program
The following is a summary of strengths observed of the local district’s in-
house literacy coaching model:
157
Selecting excellent teachers to become literacy coaches. Choosing excellent
teachers with proven success serving similar students resulted in high quality
coaches who could model best practices in the classroom and empathize with teacher
pressures and demands.
Providing protocols for best practices. Local District strategies and tools for
standards-based instruction created a common language about how to scaffold
instruction. The tools helped all teachers, new and resistant teachers, understand the
focus and expectations of LAUSD Secondary Literacy Plan and provided teachers
with a step by step process to teach standards and assess student proficiency.
Planning professional development. Personalizing and differentiating
professional development based on teachers’ instructional needs, either from the
teachers’ viewpoint or the coaches’ viewpoint, provided teachers with choices and
multiple opportunities to grow. Having literacy coaches plan and develop school-
wide professional development ensured that professional development initiated and
complimented literacy coaching efforts.
Serving as a sounding board. Many teachers expressed the view, “I think
just having someone to go talk to… so you’re not going into someone else’s
classroom and saying, hey I need some help, you have someone who’s there in her
office. She’s always there when I need her.” Students have school counselors,
teachers have literacy coaches. Identifying a person on campus who has the general
duty to mentor and “support teachers” created a formalized outlet for teachers to seek
158
council. Literacy coaches often found themselves playing the role of sounding board
and advisor, listening to teachers, strategizing with them and offering feedback.
Supporting new teachers. Literacy coaches helped new teachers understand
the curriculum from the beginning so that new teachers did not have to spend the
first year putting the pieces together. Literacy coaches also provided hands-on
support to teachers, in the classroom, based on their individual issues, for some this
included classroom management support, for others this was a focus on techniques to
promote hands-on relevancy or cooperative learning. One teacher stated, “The
literacy coach is the person that helps guide them [a first year teacher] through the
first year process, when they’re trying to stay afloat.”
Challenges of In-House Literacy Coaching Program
Challenges observed in the in-house literacy coaching program were:
Brain drain. The local superintendent expressed a commitment to assigning
literacy coaches who were content-experts to the schools, instead of a full-time
literacy experts with expertise in one content area, assigned to work will all content
teachers. In-house literacy coaches were often English Language Arts teachers who
spent most of their time with that department rather than helping content teachers
from other departments integrate literacy. The local superintendent explained, “I
think you need a variety of coaches who have the literacy and content pieces, and
that’s hard to do, that’s hard to find that many people who have that level of
knowledge in each of those areas… It would require heavy investment to do that, for
schools that are struggling and challenges and low performing… You would have to
159
make a much stronger financial commitment, you would have to do your master
schedule in some very creative ways to be able to get that expertise. I would never
pull my best teachers to be those people, I’d go shopping in somebody else’s district
or somebody else’s school. Because it does no good to have a coach who’s great and
you don’t have any strength in the classroom.”
Invested and effective school leaders supporting and reinforcing literacy
coaching. At one of the two sites, the local superintendent cited leadership as the
major factor that limited effectiveness of any literacy coaching program. She said, “I
knew that even outsourcing would not have the impact without my getting that
principal more into a leadership role.” Literacy coaches echoed this problem but
they also saw a personal responsibility in compensating for this problem, as one
coach stated, “When you don’t have effective leadership, then you drive the bus.”
Establishing and prioritizing model for literacy coaching. Schools did not do
a good job of protecting literacy coaching time. Teachers at both schools
complained that neither literacy development nor teacher coaching appeared to be
the primary responsibilities of literacy coaches. They were pulled in a variety of
directions, with periodic assessments consuming the majority of their time. Another
challenge cited amongst teachers and coaches at both schools was a lack of clarity
about the goals of the literacy coaching program. More clearly stated goals could
perhaps better clarify the key responsibilities of literacy coaches, and therefore
dictate how coaches spend their time.
160
Variation in quality of literacy coaches. One school reported three to four
groups of literacy coaches over the past seven years and cited some literacy coaches
as far more helpful than others. Similarly, a principal spoke adamantly about the
need to screen literacy coaches for their ability to build rapport with teachers, “A
coach is supposed to be nurturing, she was like a bull in a china closet, she was
aggressive, and in addition, she didn’t know her role as a coach… she wanted to
assume a lot more responsibility than she had, in short, she called the director and
said she should be the assistant principal here, she was a megalomaniac, and
therefore she drove people nuts, and after a couple of years of working with her and
trying to say your role is to help and nurture, not to run the school… finally, it was
becoming impossible.”
Lessons Learned from In-House Literacy Coaching Program
The following are lessons learned about in-house literacy coaching by
administrators, teachers and literacy coaches:
1. Focus literacy coaches on coaching. Identify someone else on
campus to coordinate periodic assessments, such as a testing
coordinator, so that literacy coaches are freed to provide teachers with
consistent and frequent classroom-based support to strengthen student
performance in reading and writing.
2. Hire literacy coaches who are nurturing, with strong inter-personal
skills and a research-based instructional foundation with the capacity
to help teachers reflect and have crucial conversations about
161
instruction. Teachers want genuine feedback but they want it
delivered in a way that acknowledges them as professionals and
recognizes the good things that are happening in the classroom.
3. Ensure literacy coaches facilitate data analysis, rather than the current
focus on collecting and scoring periodic assessments. Teachers may
become more invested in LAUSD’s SLP if they have the time and
support to look at assessment results and develop meaningful plans to
re-teach or refine curriculum.
4. Train administrators to effectively guide and support literacy coaches.
Ensure administrators understand the explicit duties of a literacy
coach, share ideas about how to effectively work with literacy
coaches, and provide guidelines or tools to help administrators
communicate with literacy coaches more effectively and consistently.
Create opportunities for in-house literacy coaches to receive on-the-
job training and forums to regularly reflect on their effectiveness.
5. Ensure alignment among in-house coaching goals, responsibilities and
accountability. If schools expect literacy coaches to improve literacy
achievement, literacy coaching time needs to be focused on this and
literacy coaches need to understand exactly how this improvement
will be measured each year.
162
Conclusion
In-house literacy coaches at Middle School C and Middle School D came
across as knowledgeable, self-driven educators who wanted to make an impact on
school-wide literacy achievement. They communicated with clarity the goals of both
the SLP and the local superintendent’s vision for standards-based instruction.
However, literacy coaches and teachers at both schools also expressed frustration
with in-house literacy coaching and its inability to realize these goals, citing weak
leadership, lack of school-wide focus, and time-consuming distractions as core
problems preventing the delivery of more authentic and powerful coaching services.
While Middle School C and Middle School D both experienced achievement gains
the first couple of years of literacy coaching, gains were inconsistent thereafter. An
overall vagueness about how in-house literacy coaches were selected, trained,
managed and evaluated may have weakened the impact of in-house literacy
coaching.
The next chapter will conclude the study with a cross-case analysis,
comparing themes, findings and recommendations across both case studies, about
outsourced and in-house literacy coaching models. Finally, the chapter will discuss
policy implications and conclude with possible areas for future research about
outsourcing in education and effective approaches to literacy coaching.
163
CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUSION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The study examined two literacy coaching models implemented within an
LAUSD local district from 2002-2006. One model outsourced literacy coaching,
relying on an outsourced provider to deliver literacy coaching services to content
teachers. The outsourced model assigned English Language Arts, science, and social
studies literacy coaches to work at each school part-time (50% FTE). The other
model identified in-house teachers to become full-time literacy coaches. One school
had one full-time literacy coach serving all English Language Arts, science, and
social studies teachers (grades 6-8) and the other school had two full-time coaches
serving all English Language Arts, science, and social studies teachers (grades K-
12).
This chapter will conclude the study with a cross-case analysis to answer the
research questions in Chapter One and discuss policy implications, recommendations
and areas for future research.
LAUSD Local Superintendent’s Decision to Outsource
According to the local superintendent, the following factors were
instrumental in her decision to outsource: insufficient talent pool within the
organization to fully staff the literacy coaching program; potential brain-drain on
existing classrooms; and, need to ensure sufficient management, training, and
oversight of literacy coaches. Using the Kumar and Eickhoff (2005) outsource
decision-making model, it appears that the decision to outsource literacy coaching
164
was advantageous to the local district even though it was a key function of the
district. The local district superintendent expressed doubts in her ability to identify
sufficient number of content-literacy experts from within to effectively launch the
new literacy coaching program in her middle schools. She had confidence that the
outsource provider had the capacity to recruit, train and oversee the caliber of
literacy coaches she deemed necessary to impact teaching in her middle schools.
She also negotiated a contract with the outsource provider that yielded 50% more
coaching time per school, for almost the same funding allocation as the LAUSD in-
house model.
The local superintendent expressed great satisfaction with the outsourced
literacy coaching program at her middle schools, despite the fact that the scope of the
project was vague and did not include a performance based contract. Research on
outsourcing underscores the importance of clearly defining the scope of the work
from the onset, identifying timelines, clarifying governance, specifying outcomes,
and making provisions for over and underperformance (Brown & Wilson, 2005;
Magnuson, 2003; Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 2000). In addition, research warns
against determining an outsource provider based solely on cost (Johnson, 2003; Pint
& Baldwin, 1997), but to negotiate a contract that measures the success of the
outsource provider’s ability to meet the company’s needs, specifying requirements in
terms of outcomes rather than inputs (Wang et. al, 2005; Brown & Wilson, 2005;
Healy and Linder, 2003; Kakabadse & Kakabase, 2000).
165
The local superintendent relied on a trusting, mutually beneficial relationship
with the outsource partner to deliver the services proposed. She often referred to the
trust she had in the outsource partner as a reason for the success of the literacy
coaching arrangement and felt comfortable addressing performance gaps when
needed. Despite an overall sense of satisfaction with the outsource provider, the
outsource arrangement between the LAUSD local district and provider may have
been strengthened by: a thorough analysis of the provider’s capacity to consistently
deliver the caliber and number of coaches needed each year; a clearly defined
performance-based contract that more explicitly communicated expectations in terms
of numbers of teachers served and performance outcomes desired; and, an agreed
upon management structure that delineated the distinct roles of the local district
office, school administration, and outside provider in implementing and evaluating
the effectiveness of literacy coaching.
Implementation of Outsourced and In-House Literacy Coaching
The case-studies in Chapters Five and Six summarized how outsourced and
in-house literacy coaching models were implemented at LAUSD middle schools.
Literacy coaching positions for both models derived from the LAUSD Secondary
Literacy Plan (SLP) and were therefore created toward the same end, to significantly
improve literacy achievement throughout secondary schools by supporting teachers
to implement the LAUSD instructional guides, periodic assessments, and literacy
cadres. However, differences surfaced, particularly in terms of how literacy coaches
spent their time at school sites. Below are the top ten literacy coaching activities of
166
each model, in order of perceived priority and according to the percentage of time
consumed by each activity (from highest to lowest), as articulated by literacy
coaches:
Table 12. Top Ten Literacy Coaching Activities
Outsourced Literacy Coach In-House Literacy Coach
1. Raise awareness of literacy to increase
literacy development across content areas.
Deliver, collect, score and submit periodic
assessments.
2. Inform teachers about LAUSD Secondary
Literacy Plan- instructional guides,
secondary periodic assessments, literacy
cadre and CST preparation.
Plan and deliver professional development
(school-wide or by department).
3. Conduct data analysis and provide test
prep strategies to increase English
Language Arts scores.
Analyze data from periodic assessments,
and meet with teachers to look at student
data.
4. Support all teachers to implement
standards-based instruction.
Place students in appropriate English
classes.
5. Distribute research, materials and other
resources as requested by teachers.
Work with teachers to unpack content
standards.
6. Work with teachers to develop culminating
tasks.
Plan and conduct demonstration lessons in
teachers’ classrooms.
7. Foster a shared vision for instruction and
promote teacher collaboration, using
Critical Friends protocols.
Talk to teachers about ideas and strategize
with teachers around problems.
8. Engage teachers in reflection and cognitive
coaching.
Engage teachers in reflection and cognitive
coaching.
9. Design engaging and relevant hands-on
activities with teachers, helping teachers
check for understanding.
Train teachers on vocabulary development.
10. Assist teachers establish a student-centered
classroom.
Help teachers scaffold instruction.
In analyzing key activities based on coaching time dedicated by each model,
it appears that outsourced literacy coaches focused more on literacy and curriculum
167
development than in-house literacy coaches. When in-house literacy coaches did
coach teachers, they emphasized standards-based instruction more than literacy
development. However, the majority of in-house literacy coaching time was spent
on administering the LAUSD secondary periodic assessments. Outsourced literacy
coaches were not responsible for periodic assessments, and therefore had
significantly more time dedicated to classroom-based coaching.
In-house literacy coaches also shouldered a much greater burden for
designing and delivering school-wide professional development, than outsourced
literacy coaches. Professional development was another task that ate into in-house
teacher-coaching time, and the second greatest responsibility of an in-house literacy
coach. For outsourced literacy coaches, frustration around professional development
stemmed more from last-minute requests and an overall fragmented approach to
professional development that did not complement the goals of the literacy coaching
program. When possible, outsourced literacy coaches preferred to deliver
professional development initiatives because they saw it as an opportunity to
complement their work, help them gain credibility amongst skeptical teachers, and
increase their client-base. In essence, both outsourced and in-house literacy coaches
expressed dissatisfaction with the last minute and haphazard nature of professional
development planning by administrators and within the local district office, that
interfered with pre-arranged teacher activities and distracted from coaching time.
Both outsourced and in-house literacy coaches said they regretted not
spending more time analyzing student data, particularly results from the secondary
168
periodic assessments. Therefore, annual literacy goals were not established each
year and learning gaps for students and teachers were unclear (Steiner & Kowal,
2007; Stanklin, 2007). In-house coaches reported conducting data analysis with
teachers more often than outsourced coaches. Outsourced coaches, on the other
hand, appeared to take more ownership of English Language Arts (ELA) California
Standards Test (CST) scores, than in-house coaches. Outsourced literacy coaches
emphasized ELA scores on the CST as a primary measure of their performance,
which was less the case with in-house literacy coaches. In addition, the outsourced
provider and the local district superintendent, stressed the importance of increased
ELA scores as a major indicator of future contracts.
The framework presented in Chapter Two will be used as criteria elements to
determine the efficacy of each literacy coaching model studies. Table 13 represents
criteria used to assess the effecicacy of each model and the degree to which each
literacy coaching model implemented these effective design elements.
169
Table 13. Efficacy of Outsourced and In-House Literacy Coaching
Outsourced
Literacy Coaching
In-House
Literacy Coaching
Administrative Leadership • Poor communication to
teachers
• Frequent meetings with
principal
• Monthly time logs of
coaching
• Monthly local district and
outsourced provider
meetings
• Monthly literacy coach
trainings
• Poor communication to
teachers
• Infrequent meetings with
principal
• No evidence of time logs
• Irregular meetings with
local district
• Little training by central or
local district
Integrating Literacy Coaching
into Professional Development
Plan
• Professional development
rarely aligned to coaching
focus
• Sometimes asked to
facilitate PD, with short-
notice
• Little support from school
leadership
• Professional development
complemented coaching
• Spent considerable time
facilitating school-wide
professional development
• Little support from school
leadership
Research-Based Literacy
Coaching Model
• Explicit research-based
model: observe, demo, and
co-teach
• Cognitive coaching
• Critical friends and lesson
design
• No explicit coaching model
identified
Literacy Coach Qualifications
and Responsibilities
• Majority time spent
coaching teachers
• 60-80% time coaching
teachers
• 60% coaching time spent on
literacy development
• Trained teachers to
implement LAUSD
instructional guide
• Majority time spent on
periodic assessments and
PD
• 20-50% time coaching
teachers
• 20% coaching time spent on
literacy development
• Trained teachers to
implement LAUSD
instructional guide
Literacy Coach Management
and Evaluation
• Reported to Outsourced
Literacy Director
• Evaluation system with
observations and feedback
• Immediate response to poor
performance
• Contract loosely based on
test score gains
• Reported to central
Secondary Literacy Director
and local district literacy
coordinator
• Vague evaluation process
• Little accountability
170
Administrative Leadership in Literacy Coaching
Both literacy coaching models did a poor job of communicating goals,
expectations, and programmatic elements of literacy coaching to faculty. Teachers
within outsourced and in-house literacy coaching models complained about a lack of
clarity and transparency in terms of the roles and responsibilities of literacy coaches
as well as the expectations regarding teacher participation. Administrators with the
in-house coaching model communicated less often with literacy coaches than
administrators of outsourced coaching. Clear communication about the purpose,
goals, and expectations of literacy coaching is critical to the success of the program
(Fisher, 2008; Sturtevant, 2003)
Middle schools outsourcing literacy coaching reported consistent, structured
meetings between school principals and literacy coaches. In accordance with
research on literacy coaching, literacy coaches of both models suggested that
increased administrative presence would improve overall faculty involvement in
literacy coaching. In addition, outsourced literacy coaches submitted monthly
documentation to substantiate teacher-coaching time, to school principals and local
district administrators. The local district superintendent met regularly with the
outsourced literacy director to ensure effective implementation and oversight. The
outsourced literacy director then met monthly with outsourced coaches to review
progress, trouble-shoot, and train coaches. In-house literacy coaches reported far
less support, oversight and feedback, often taking the initiative themselves to shape
literacy agendas at their schools.
171
Integrating Literacy Coaching into Professional Development Plan
Designing and facilitating professional development was an explicit
expectation of in-house literacy coaches but not outsourced literacy coaches. In-
house literacy coaches spent a great deal of time planning and delivering
professional development each month. While this detracted from their ability to
provide teachers with classroom-based coaching, it did enable literacy coaches to
strengthen the connection between professional development and literacy coaching.
In-house literacy coaches were seen as a “vehicle for professional development,”
thus strengthening their relationship with teachers (Kral, 2008; Shanklin, 2007;
Taylor et. al, 2007)
Outsourced literacy coaches, by contrast, were less involved in professional
development. At one school, outsourced coaches felt their efforts were completely
disconnected from the school-wide professional development focus. At another
school, the outsourced coaches were sometimes asked to lead professional
development activities but often at the last-minute and with minimal guidance. Both
in-house and outsourced literacy coaches agreed that school-wide professional
development activities could significantly compliment and accelerate their efforts but
complained that disorganization or weakness at the leadership level often prevented
such an impact.
Research-Based Literacy Coaching Model
The local superintendent complimented the outsourced provider’s coaching
model. The local superintendent, outsourced literacy coaches, and teachers were all
172
able to articulate a literacy coaching model that began with teacher observations,
evolved to demonstration lessons conducted by literacy coaches, sometimes led to
teachers and outsourced coaches co-teaching lessons, and then circled back to
classroom observation. Teachers spoke highly of opportunities to watch literacy
coaches conduct demonstration lessons in their room, with their students (Casey,
2006; Snow et. al, 2006). They also complimented the reflective and non-
threatening nature reflected in the conversations they had with their coaches, which
outsourced coaches say resulted from the training they received in cognitive
coaching (Costa & Garmston, 2002; Joyce & Showers, 1998). In addition,
outsourced literacy coaches were trained to lead critical friends groups and lesson
design study, all proven techniques to promote teacher reflection and collaboration.
In-house literacy coaches did not report a consistent model of coaching
across school sites. It appeared that in-house coaches used best practices and
training techniques that worked for them as teachers or that they picked up along the
way. While the central district trained many coaches in cognitive coaching, not all
of the in-house coaches received such training and there did not seem to be an
expectation that cognitive coaching norms guided their work.
Qualification and Responsibilities of Literacy Coaches
Outsourced literacy coaches spent significantly more time engaging regularly
on critical coaching responsibilities, such as working one-on-one with teachers in the
classroom (Grossman et. al, 2000). Outsourced coaches reported 60-80% of their
time providing teachers classroom-based support on curriculum development and
173
instructional delivery. In-house coaches reported spending the majority of their time
administering the District’s periodic assessments and conducting school-wide
professional development. In-house coaches reported spending 20-50% of their time
working directly with teachers in the classroom. Nevertheless, teacher focus groups
at schools implementing both outsourced and in-house coaching models revealed
that teachers felt like they rarely saw their literacy coach. New teachers, or teachers
who took the initiative to seek out literacy coaches, received the most attention from
both outsourced and in-house literacy coaches.
When working with teachers, outsourced literacy coaches were far more
likely than in-house literacy coaches to dedicate their time to literacy development.
Outsourced literacy coaches reported spending at least 60% of teacher time working
on literacy development, in-house coaches reported approximately 20% of teacher
time focused specifically on literacy development. The majority of in-house teacher-
coaching time was spent on general teaching strategies, like classroom management.
Teachers with both outsourced and in-house literacy coaching identified
coaches as the “testing police”, even though outsourced literacy coaches were not
involved in the administration of LAUSD periodic assessments. In-house literacy
coaches were actually responsible for the administrations of the periodic
assessments; they distributed, collected, scored and disseminated results.
Nevertheless, outsourced and in-house literacy coaches were both expected to spend
time supporting teachers to implement the LAUSD instructional guides, in
preparation for the periodic assessments. Teachers may have perceived both
174
outsourced and in-house coaches as “enforcers” of the tests because they were both
responsible for teaching standards, as sequenced in the LAUSD instructional guides,
often equated with “teaching to the test.”
Management and Evaluation of Literacy Coaching
Outsourced literacy coaches reported far more training and oversight than in-
house literacy coaches. Outsourced literacy coaches submitted monthly logs to
document teacher-coaching time, challenges, and accomplishments. Outsourced
literacy coaches met monthly to review logs, brainstorm solutions, and engage in
professional development to more effectively coach teachers (Taylor et. al, 2007).
The outsourced provider reported an in-depth evaluation process that included
observations of demonstration lessons, teacher conferences, and delivery of
professional development training. The local superintendent said she was satisfied
with the outsourced provider’s quick and noticeable response received when she
raised performance issues about literacy coaches. Even though the outsourced
contract was not performance-based and did not explicitly identify performance
goals for the year, both the local superintendent and the outsourced provider
expressed a mutual understanding around performance expectations, according to
test score gains.
Management and oversight was less clear within the in-house literacy
coaching model. In-house literacy coaches reported to a Secondary Literacy
Director at LAUSD’s central office, in addition to a literacy coordinator at the local
district. However, they rarely interacted with these people and indicated that the
175
Assistant Principal of Instruction served as a day-to-day check-in person but were
hesitant to identify these administrators as their “supervisors.” In-house literacy
coaches and their principals were unable to provide specific criteria for how their
performance was measured. In-house literacy coaches also complained that they
rarely received training or performance feedback relevant to their work.
Both outsourced and in-house literacy coaches communicated the importance
of school test gains and understood such improvement was the impetus of the
literacy coaching program. However, neither experienced consequences as a result
of increased or decreased test results.
Effectiveness of Outsourced and In-House Literacy Coaching Models
The local superintendent cited four primary goals of literacy coaching: to
increase literacy achievement (as measured by the English Language Arts portion of
the California Standards Test and the schools Academic Performance Index); to
strengthen the literacy development in core content classes; to provide teachers with
classroom-based support; and, to increase teacher collaboration within her middle
schools. Progress made toward the stated goals will be assessed to determine the
effectiveness of each model.
176
Figure 1. ELA Score Growth 2002-2005
Increasing achievement. The local district superintendent and principals
implementing outsourced literacy coaching identified increased English Language
Arts (ELA) scores on the California Standards Test (CST) as the most significant
impact of the outsourced literacy coaching program. Principals and literacy coaches
implementing in-house coaching were more hesitant to conclude that literacy
coaching led to increased ELA scores at their schools. When disaggregating CST
data to look at English Language Arts scores, it appeared that outsourced literacy
coach contributed to more aggressive gains in literacy scores (totaling 98 point
increase) than gains at schools implementing in-house literacy coaching during the
177
same time (totaling 57 point increase). During each year of the study, schools
implementing outsourced literacy coaching experienced greater gains than schools
implementing in-house literacy coaching. Schools with outsourced literacy coaching
increased ELA scores by 39 and 59 points in grades 6-8 from 2002-2006, while
schools with in-house literacy coaching increased by 23 and 34 points. While it is
difficult to attribute ELA gains to literacy coaching, local district and school
principals hypothesized that there was a connection between the work of outsourced
literacy coaches and increased achievement.
Figure 2. API Scores by School 2002-2006
178
Both middle schools experienced strong increases in Academic Performance
Index (API) scores from 2002-2006, with three of the four schools improving student
achievement by over 100 points during the time of the study. Schools outsourcing
literacy coaching increased API scores by 113 and 124 points, while schools with in-
house literacy coaching increased API scores by 76 and 115 points. The middle
school with leadership challenges reported by literacy coaches, teachers and the local
superintendent had the smallest API increase of the four schools.
Increasing literacy focus and rigorous, standards-based instruction.
Teachers at both outsourced and in-house coaching schools cited an increased
literacy focus within content instruction as a perceived impact of literacy coaching,
as evidenced by more rigorous culminating students tasks, increased focus on
vocabulary development, and the increased use of reading strategies throughout the
schools. All schools reported that the local district instructional tools provided
guidance on how to improve standards-based instruction, increase expectations, and
scaffold learning to provide more students access to difficult content.
Increasing classroom-based support of teachers. Outsourced literacy
coaches spent 60-80% of their time coaching teachers in the classroom compared to
20-50% of time in-house literacy coaching spent working with teachers directly. The
outsourced literacy coaching program clearly prioritized teacher coaching over all
other tasks and held outsourced coaches accountable for modeling proven
instructional strategies within teachers’ classrooms. Outsourced coaches were much
more involved in school-wide learning activities and spent more time working one-
179
on-one with teachers to promote professional growth and ensure teachers implanted
the local district tools and employed effective instructional practices.
Increasing collaboration. Both in-house and outsourced literacy coaching
models increased faculty collaboration and provided new teachers with support at
their school sites. Promoting teacher collaboration was clearly instrumental to the
success of literacy coaching. Teachers at all schools spoke positively about the
opportunity to work with fellow content teachers to develop curriculum together,
learn about effective reading strategies together, and discuss ways to more
successfully teach the standards. Teachers at all schools cited the need to create
more time for this work and saw outsourced and in-house literacy coaches as key
facilitators of this work.
Table 14. Effectiveness of Outsourced and In-House Literacy Coaching
Criteria tied to Goals of Literacy
Coaching Program
Outsourced
Literacy Coaching
In-House
Literacy Coaching
Increased CST ELA Scores 98 Points Combined 57 Points Combined
Increased literacy focus and
standards-based instruction
YES SOMEWHAT
Classroom-based support of
teachers
60-80% of Coaching Time 20-50% of Coaching Time
Increased collaboration YES YES
Based on the literacy coaching goals of the local superintendent and the
LAUSD Secondary Literacy Plan, the outsourced literacy coaching model produced
greater outcomes than the in-house literacy coaching model. The model provided
180
schools with content-literacy experts and produced increased ELA scores on the
California Standards Test from 2002-2006. Outsourced literacy coaches spent more
time than in-house literacy coaches working one-on-one with teachers developing
curriculum and modeling instructional strategies. Outsourced literacy coaches also
fostered a professional learning community amongst content groups, engaging
teachers regularly in training and reflection. The local district leveraged outsourcing
flexibility to maximize budget allocations, providing outsourced schools with more
cumulative coaching time by assigning the equivalent of 1.5 coaches to each site
(three half-time coaches in ELA, socials studies and science). Outsourced literacy
coaches also received more supervision than in-house literacy coaches, reporting to
the outsourced provider’s literacy director who observed literacy coaches at least
twice a year, collected and reviewed monthly coaching logs, forwarding coaching
logs to principals, talked to principals regularly about outsourced literacy coaches,
administered annual teacher surveys, and completed annual evaluations. The
outsourced provider demonstrated a vested interest in ensuring the work outsourced
literacy coaches produced results. Contracts were renewed annually and CST ELA
school test scores were reviewed and discussed at-length prior to the renewal of each
contract. Both the local district superintendent and the outsourced provider
expressed concern that if the local district lost confidence in outsourced provider’s
ability to produce increase student achievement gains, the partnership and therefore
the contract, would be called into question.
181
In-house literacy coaches were seen as literacy experts but not necessarily
viewed as content-experts. In-house literacy coaches struggled less than outsourced
literacy coaches to establish their credibility with teachers, but had a similar degree
of teacher resistance experienced by outsourced literacy coaches. In-house literacy
coaches did not spend nearly as much time as outsourced literacy coaches providing
classroom-based coaching, since their primary responsibilities involved
administering periodic assessments and delivering professional development. In-
house literacy coaches were loosely managed by the central district Secondary
Literacy Division and the local district literacy coordinator. This system did not
provide sufficient support or oversight. Communication with superiors was focused
on compliance issues, particularly with the administration of periodic assessments.
Training was provided on literacy development but coaches claimed they spend the
majority of their time on other unrelated responsibilities. In-house coaches took it
upon themselves to shape their work and lead school improvement efforts at their
school sites, but this was not systemic. In-house literacy coaches were often shaping
the instructional vision of the school and leading their administrators, rather than the
other way around- but this approach has definite limitations when the overwhelming
majority of literacy coaches’ time was consumed by management tasks.
Policy Implications
Increase time for one-on-one coaching between literacy coaches and
teachers. In-house literacy coaches need to be freed up to spend the majority of their
full-time assignment providing classroom-based coaching support, rather than
182
conducting activities that are not directly aligned to goals outlined in the Secondary
Literacy Plan. Outsourced coaching model needs to consider alternative staffing
models that would allow outsourced coaches to be assigned to one school full-time,
providing more day-to-day continuity and increased teacher support. Merging the
full-time assignment of the in-house model with the content-specific assignment of
the outsourced model could create a coaching assignment that has a specific content
focus, as opposed to the generalist-nature of current in-house literacy coaches, such
as two full-time content coaches at each site (each with one or two assigned
departments).
Increase the focus on student literacy development. While other forms of
teacher support are appreciated, the purpose of literacy coaches is to increase student
literacy achievement. All literacy coaches need to spend more time equipping
teachers with specific tools to improve student literacy skills in all content areas,
based on analysis of student data and research-proven strategies, rather than simply
working with the English Language Arts department. The in-house coaching model
needs to re-think the qualifications of a literacy coach to ensure all content teachers
receive appropriate support to embed literacy development into the content.
Train administrators to support the LAUSD Secondary Literacy Plan and
literacy coaching. Administrators must provide clear communication about literacy
coaching, followed by well-published systems to create high visibility, transparency
and high expectations for coaches and teachers alike. Administrators may benefit
from protocols and structures to encourage more frequently and effective
183
communication with literacy coaches. Administrators need to play a more active
role in monitoring literacy coaches throughout the year and in measuring the
effectiveness of literacy coaches based on annual performance goals.
Identify performance metrics for literacy coaches and outsourced providers.
Job descriptions and contracts need to more explicitly outline the goals of literacy
coaching and identify performance measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of
individual literacy coaches and of the literacy coaching model.
Identify a literacy coaching model to be implemented throughout LAUSD.
LAUSD outlined a theory of change in its Secondary Literacy Plan (SLP), however
LAUSD did not identify a research-based coaching model to serve as a foundation
for literacy coaching across the District. Seeking clarity about expected coaching
outcomes and identifying a model to support those outcomes would provide literacy
coaches with common language and shared expectations about how to approach their
new roles as literacy coaches.
Ensure strong training component exists to provide literacy coaches with
opportunity to reflect on their effectiveness and build critical coaching skills. In-
house literacy coaches received little job-specific training, support, and supervision.
Literacy coaches, who are expected to use cognitive coaching tools with teachers,
would also benefit from formalized and regular opportunities to reflect on their
effectiveness and learn from others, in addition to getting training and support
directly tied to the challenges they are facing with teachers in the classroom.
184
Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research
Little has been published about how outsourcing impacts the delivery of key
services in education. The research on outsourcing is largely focused on its role
within business sectors, and to a lesser degree within government structures. Over
the past fifteen years, New Public Management has been the euphemism for bringing
private-sector outsourcing models into public service agencies. The Reinventing
Government movement, led by Osborne and Gaebler (1992), underscored the need to
increase efficiency and effectiveness of public agencies. However, more recent
research cautions against viewing outsourcing as a sweeping remedy to improve
public service delivery. Alford and Hughes (2007) argue for the use of “public value
pragmatism” rather than assume there is one best approach suitable for all
circumstances. They recommend public sector leaders make case-by-case
assessments using a variety of tools, such as classical contracting, in-house
production, strategic partnership, or provision by a service agency. Further research
is recommended to explore the conditions that produce optimal results with such
tools and identify exemplars for applications of different decision models for public
service delivery.
With more robust decision-making tools and resources, public school
executives can leverage new management models to deliver unprecedented
achievement gains with limited capacity and resources. Further studies on how these
models can be used to strategically meet demand for increased achievement, could
185
greatly benefit public school executives who need to be flexible and able to draw
upon an array of solutions to turn-around low-performing schools.
Furthermore, literacy coaching has grown as a preferred strategy to promote
professional growth, particularly at the secondary level. Research is available on
how large public schools have established and implemented district-wide literacy
coaching program but less is known about the effectiveness of such programs. While
research stresses the importance of identifying concrete literacy goals, more research
is needed to understand how to design a highly accountable system that creates
urgency and alignment among administrators, literacy coaches and teachers. Despite
the costly nature of literacy coaching, to date there is little direct correlation between
literacy coaching programs and increased student achievement, necessitating a value-
added model for literacy coaching that determines its effectiveness at improving
instruction and increasing student literacy.
186
REFERENCES
Ai, X. and Rivera, N. (2005). Linking ideas to practice: Effectiveness of coaching in
teacher practice.
Alexander, M. and Young, D. (1996). Outsourcing: Where’s the value? Long Range
Planning, 29, 728-730.
Alford, John and Hughes, Owen (2007). Public value pragmatism as the next phase
of public management. Paper presented to International Research Society for
Public Management XI Conference, Aprial 2-4, 2007, Potsdam.
Amega Group. (2003). Strategic outsourcing: Analyzing the cost benefits. Retrieved
April 15, 2007, from
http://www.amegagroup.com/reference/strategicoutsourcing.html.
Arnold, U. (2000): New dimensions of outsourcing: a combination of transaction
cost economics and the core competencies concept. European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, 6, 23-29.
Auer, Peter, Cazes, Sandrine, and Spieza, Vincenzo (2001). Stable or unstable jobs:
Has job stability decreased in industrialized countries? International Labour
Office, Geneva, 26.
Barthelemy, Jerome (2001). The hidden cost of IT outsourcing. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 42 (3), 60-69.
Beasley, Mark, Bradford, Marianne, and Pagach, Don (2004, June). Outsourcing?
At your own risk. Strategic Finance, 23-29.
Berends, Mark, Bodilly, Susan J., and Kirby, Sheila N. (2002). Facing the
challenges of whole-school reform: New American schools after a decade.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Berg, B.L. (1989). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. (3
rd
ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bogden, R.C. and S.K Biklen (1992). Qualitative research for education: an
introduction to theory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
187
Brown, Douglas and Wilson, Scott (2005). The Black Book of Outsourcing: How to
manage the changes, challenges, and opportunities). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Casey, K. (2006). Literacy Coaching: The Essentials. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chalos, P. and Sung, J. (1998). Outsourcing decisions and managerial incentives.
Decision Sciences, 29 (4), 901-919.
Chen, C. (2005). Teachers as change agents: A study of in-service teachers’
practical knowledge. Action in Teacher Education, 26(4), 10-19.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and
evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21.
Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (2002). Cognitive Coaching: A foundation for
Renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Costa, G. (2001). Information technology outsourcing in Australia: A literacy
review. Information Management and Computer Security, 9(5), 1-14.
Craumer, Martha (2002a, May). How to think strategically about outsourcing.
Harvard Management Update, 7(5).
Craumer, Martha (2002b, May). Outsourcing: It’s not just about cost cutting.
Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, 7 (5).
Craumer, Martha (2002c). Taking a strategic look at outsourcing. South Florida
Sun-Sentinel, June 24.
Deloitte Consulting (2007). Why settle for less? Deloitte consulting 2008
outsourcing report. Deloitte Development LLC.
Deussen, Theresa and Marsha Riddle Buly (2006, Fall). Research Brief: Connecting
coaching and improved literacy. Portland, OR: Northwest Education
Regional Educational Laboratory.
Dole, J.A., Liang, L.A., Watkins, N.M., & Wiggins, C.M. (2006). The state of
reading professionals in the United States. The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 194-
199.
Duffy, J. (2001). The tools and technology needed for knowledge management.
Information Management Journal, 35 (1), 64-67.
188
Dunn, Sandy (2000). Maintenance outsourcing: Critical issues. Terre Haute, IN:
TWI Press.
Edwards, J.L., & Green, K.E. (1999, April). Growth in coaching skills over a three-
year period: Progress toward mastery. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Edwards, J.L., Green, K.E., Lyons, C.A., Rogers, M.S., & Swords, M.E. (1998,
April). The effects of cognitive coaching and nonverbal classroom
management on teacher efficacy and perceptions of school culture. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
San Diego, CA.
Fisher, D. (2008). FAQs useful in the development of literacy coaching. Denver:
CO: Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse. Retrieved May 21, 2008, from
http://www.literacycoachingonline.org/briefs.html.
Fullan, Michael (1999). Change Forces: The Sequel. London, UK: Falmer Press.
Galbo, C. (1998, May/June). Helping adults learn. Thrusts for Educational
Leadership, 27(7), 13-17.
Gamble, R.H. (1995). Inside outsourcing. Corporate Cashflow, 16(8), 2-14.
Geertz, Clifford (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture.
The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gersten, R., Morvant, M., & Brengelman, S. (1995). Close to the classroom is close
to the bone: Coaching as a means to translate research into classroom
practice. Exceptional Children, 62(1), 52-66.
Gilley, K. & Rasheed, A. (2000). Making more by doing less: An analysis of
outsourcing and its effects on firm performance. Journal of Management,
26(4), 763-790.
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago:
Aldine.
Grant, R. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage. California
Management Review, 33, 114-135.
189
Greene, T. (2004). Literature review for school-based staff developers and coaches.
Oxford: OH: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved May 21, 2008,
from www.nsdc.org/library/schoolbasedlitreview.pdf
Greenleaf, C.L., Jiménez, R.T., & Roller, C.M. (2002). Reclaiming Secondary
Reading Interventions: From Limited to Rich Conceptions, From Narrow to
Broad Conversations. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(4), 484–496.
Grinder, M. (1996). Envoy: Your personal guide to classroom management. Battle
Ground, WA: Michael Grinder Associates.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher
community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942–1012.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the
usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic
approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Guiney, Ellen (2001, June). Coaching isn’t just for athletes: The role of teacher
leaders. Phi Delta Kappan.
Gulen, Kemal (2007, June). Supplier selection and outsourcing strategies in supply
chain management. Journal of Aeronautics and Space Technologies, 3(2),
1-6.
Guskey, T (2000). Evaluating Professional Development, New York: Corwin
Press/Sage.
Hall, Barbara (2004, Fall). Literacy coaches: An evolving role. Carnegie Reporter,
3(1).
Harland, Christine, Knight, Louise, Lamming, Richard and Walken, Helen (2005).
Outsourcing: Assessing the risks and benefits for organizations, sectors and
nations. International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
25(19), 831-850.
Hassel, B., and Steiner, L. (2004). Guide to working with external providers.
Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
Hasselbring, T. and Goin, L. (2004). Literacy instruction for older struggling
readers: What is the role of technology? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20.
190
Healy, Thomas J. and Linder, Jane C. (2003). Outsourcing in government: Pathways
to value. Accenture: Government Executive Series (2003).
Hendry, David (1995). Dynamic econometrics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Hill, Tichakorn. (2004, November). The surprising success of competitive sourcing.
Federal Times, November 1, 2004, 1.
Hogan, Jane. (2004). Managing strategic outsourcing. Medical Device Technology,
15(10), 12-13.
Hunter, Ian and Saunders, Jane (2004). Transforming HR: How to get shared
services, outsourcing and business partnering to deliver what you want,
London, UK: Thorogood Publishing Ltd.
Hurley, Margaret (2001). IT outsourcing: Managing the key asset. Information
Management and Computer Security, 9(5), 243-249.
Information Systems Outsourcing. Geocities.com.
International Reading Association. (2006). Standards for middle and high school
literacy coaches. Newark, DE: Author.
Isaac, Stephen and Michael, William B. (1995). Handbook in research and
evaluation. (3
rd
ed.). San Diego, CA: Education and Industrial Testing
Services.
Johnson, Lauren Keller (2003, December). A crash course in outsourcing. Harvard
Management Update, 8(11).
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development.
White Plains, NY: Longman Press.
Kakabadse, Andrew and Kakabadse, Nada (2000, March/April). Outsourcing:
Current and future trends. Thunderbird International Business Review,
47(2), 183-204.
Kamil, Micheal (2006, Fall). What we know and don’t know about coaching: A
conversation with Professor Michael Kamil. Portland, OR: Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory.
191
Kral, C. (2008). Principal Support for Literacy Coaching. Denver: CO: Literacy
Coaching Clearinghouse. Retrieved May 21, 2008, from
http://www.literacycoachingonline.org/briefs.html.
Kumar, Sameer and Eickhoff, Jason (2005). Outsourcing: When and how should it
be done? Information Knowledge Systems Management, 5, 245-259.
Lacity, M.C., Hirschheim, R. (1993). The information system outsourcing
bandwagon. Sloan Management Review, 34(3), 73-86.
Lapp, D., Fisher, D., Flood, J., & Frey, N. (2003). Dual role of the urban reading
specialist. Journal of Staff Development, 24(2), 33-36.
Linder, Jane C., Sawyer, Joseph, and Hartley, Alice (2001, September). Metrics and
incentives in outsourcing: Driving peak performance. Accenture
Management Report.
Lyons, C.A., & Pinnell, G.S. (2002). Systems for change in literacy education.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Magnuson, Peter (2003, October). Why outsourcing is in. Communicator, 27(2),
1-2.
Mallette, B., Maheady, L., & Harper, G.F. (1999). The effects of reciprocal peer
coaching on preservice general educators’ instruction of students with special
needs. Teachers Education and Special Education, 22(4), 201-216.
Manzo, K. (2005, July 25). States and districts send literacy coaches to the rescue:
But experts worry that some of them lack know-how to help teachers with
reading. Education Week.
Marshall, D.J. (2001). The outsourcing process: From decision to relationship
management. School of Management, University of Bath.
May, A.S. (1998). Business process outsourcing: A new test of management
competence. Career Development International, 3(4), 84-91.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, E., Snow, C.G. (1997). Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
192
Moxley, D.E., & Taylor, R.T. (2006). Literacy coaching: A handbook for school
leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Muhr, Thomas (1997). User's Manual for ATLAS.ti 5.0. Berlin: Scientific Software
Development.
Murphy, Aengus (2004). Strategic decision-making on treasury outsourcing. GT
News.
Murray, J.Y., Kotabe, M. (1999). Sourcing strategies of US service companies: A
modified transaction-cost analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 20(9),
791-809.
National Staff Development Council. (2001). NSDC standards for staff
development. Oxford, OH: Author. Retrieved May 21, 2008, from
www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm.
Neubert, Gloria and Bratton, Elizabeth (1987). Team coaching: Staff development
side by side. Educational Leadership, 44(5), 29-32.
Neufeld, B. and Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional
capacity: Promises and practicalities. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute
Program on Education and Annenberg Institute on School Reform.
O’Brien, D.G., Stewart, R. A., & Moja, E.G. (1995). Why content literacy is
difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum,
pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442-463.
Osborne, David and Gaebler, Ted (1992). Reinventing government : How the
entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research. (2
nd
ed.). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Perry, C. (1997). Outsourcing and union power. Journal of Labour Research, 18(4),
521-34.
Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from
America’s best-run companies. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Pint, E.M. and Baldwin, L.H. (1997). Strategic sourcing: Theory and evidence from
economics and business management. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
193
Poglinco, S.M., Bach, A.J., Hovde, K., Rosenblum, S., Saunders, M., and Supovitz,
J.A. (2003) The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America’s Choice
schools. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education,
University of Pennsylvania.
Porter, Michael E. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: Local
clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15-
34.
Prahalad, C. (1999). Changes in the competitive battlefield, Financial Times,
Beilage Mastering Strategy, 2-4.
Prahalad, C., Hamel, G. (1990). The core competences of the corporation. Harvard
Business Review, 3, 79-91.
Quelin, Bertrand and Duhamel, Francois (2003). Bringing together strategic
outsourcing and corporate strategy: Outsourcing motives and risks.
European Management Journal, 21, 647-661.
Rainville, K.N. & Jones, S. (2008). Situated identities: Power and positioning in the
work of literacy coach. The Reading Teacher, 61(6), 440-448.
RAND Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards an R&D
program in reading comprehension. Retrieved March 12, 2007, from
http://www.rand.org/multi/achievementforall/reading/readreport.html.
Readence, J.F., Kile, R.S., & Mallete, M.H. (1998). Secondary teachers’ beliefs
about teaching. Emerging Voices in D.E. Alvermann, K.A. Hinchman, D.W.
Moore, S.F. Phelps, & D.R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in
adolescents’ lives (pp., 129-148). Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.
Resnick, L. B. (1999, June 16). Making America smarter. Education Week Century
Series, 18(40), 38-40.
Richard, A. (2003, February). Making our own road: The emergence of school-
based staff developers in America’s public schools. New York: Edna
McConnell Clark Foundation.
Russo, Alexander (2004, July/August). School-based coaching: A revolution in
professional development- or just the latest fad? Harvard Education Letter.
194
Sass, James S., Rivera, Noelle V., and White, Jeffrey A. (2002, June). Professional
development in the reorganized LAUSD: First-year evaluation report (2000-
2001). Planning, Assessment and Research Division Publication Number
118. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Unified School District.
Schalock, Robert (1995). Outcome-Based Evaluation. New York, NY: Plenum
Press.
Schwandt, Thomas A (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry. (2
nd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shanklin, N. (2007). What supports do literacy coaches need from administrators in
order to succeed? Denver, CO: Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse.
Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational
Leadership, 53(6), 12-16.
Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff
development: A framework for future study and state-of-the-art analysis.
Educational Leadership, 45(3) 77-87.
Siems, T. and Rather, A. (2003, November/December). Do what you do best,
outsource the rest? Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Southwest Economy, 13-
14.
Snow, C., Ippolito, J., and Schwartz, R. (2006). What we know and what we need to
know about literacy coaches in middle and high schools: A research synthesis
and proposed research agenda. Boston, MA: Harvard Graduate School of
Education in Standards for Middle and High School Literacy Coaches.
Snyder, D.P. (2005, July/August). Extra-preneurship: Reinventing enterprise for the
information age. The Futurist, 47-51.
Spradley, James P. (1979). Interviewing an informant, and locating an informant.
Ethnographic Interview, 45-68. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Stake, Robert E. (1988). Case studies. Strategies of Inquiry.
Strategic outsourcing: Analyzing the cost benefits (1999-2001). Amega Group, Inc.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. London: Sage.
195
Steiner, Lucy and Kowal, Julie (2007, September). Principal as instructional leader:
Designing a coaching program that fits. Naperville, IL: Learning Point
Associates.
Sturtevant, E.G. (2003). The literacy coach: A key to improving teaching and
learning in secondary schools. Washington, D.C.: Alliance for Excellent
Education.
Sturtevant, E.G. and W.M. Linek (2007). Secondary literacy coaching: a
Macedonian perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51, 240-
250.
Swartz, S. (2003). The foundation for early literacy learning (2003) research report:
1994-2003. Retrieved March 9, 2007, from
www.stanswartz.com/foundationresearchreport1.html.
Sweeney, D. (2003) Learning along the way: Professional development by and for
teachers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Taylor, R.T., Moxley, D.E., Chanter, C., and Boulware, D. (2007, February). Three
techniques for successful literacy coaching. Principal Leadership, 7 (6), 22-
25.
Tierney, William G. (1991). Utilizing ethnographic interviews to enhance academic
decision making. New Direction for Institutional Research, 72, 7-21.
Toll, C.A. (2007). Lenses on literacy coaching: Conceptualizations, functions and
outcomes. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
Tomiura, E. (2006). Foreign versus domestic outsourcing: Firm-level evidence on the
role of technology. Department of Economics, Yokohama National
University.
Valdes, Rosa Maria and Brown, Terran L. (2005, March). Secondary Literacy Plan
Evaluation: 2004-2005 report. Planning, Assessment and Research Division
Publication Number 301. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Unified School
District.
Walpole, S., & McKenna, M.C. (2004). The literacy coach’s handbook: A guide to
research-based practices. New York: NY: Guilford Press.
196
Wang, Mark, Moore, Nancy, Hunter, Sarah and Nicosia, Nancy (2005). Improving
contracting at the city of Los Angeles airport, port, and department of water
and power. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Infrastructure, Safety and
Environment.
Weidenbaum, Murray (2005). Outsourcing: Pros and cons. Indiana University
Business Horizons, 48, 311-315.
Wilson, James Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies to and why they
do it. USA: Basic Books, Inc.
Wilson, Valerie (1997). Focus groups: A useful qualitative method for educational
research. British Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 209-24.
Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. (2
nd
ed.) Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 1994.
197
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT FOR
LOCAL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT
OUTSOURCING LITERACY COACHING IN LAUSD
INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT FOR LOCAL DISTRICT
SUPERINTENDENT
DATE
Name: ____________________________ Title: _______________________
I am conducting a study on the different middle school literacy coaching models
being implemented in LAUSD Local District 7. I have asked for your participation
in this study because you play/have played a key role in the development and
implementation of the middle school literacy coaching models in Local District 7.
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. Today’s interview should take no
longer than one and a half hours.
With your permission, I will be audio-taping our interview today. Please read the
“Written Informed Consent” form. If the interview terms are acceptable to you, I
would like to ask you to sign the consent form prior to beginning the interview.
Please do not hesitate to ask any questions or express any concerns you may have
regarding this interview.
" Signed Written Informed Consent Form
" Did not sign Written Informed Consent Form
We will now begin the interview with general questions about middle school
literacy coaching in your local districts:
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4
1. During what time period were you a LAUSD Local
Superintendent?
2. Which middle schools did you oversee as a Local
Superintendent?
3. Was literacy coaching in place at the middle schools
when you became the local superintendent?
!
198
4. Why does literacy coaching exist at the middle school
level?
!
5. How long has literacy coaching been in place in the Local
District’s middle schools?
!
I will now ask you questions specifically about the outsourced middle school
literacy coaching model:
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4
6. While you were the Local Superintendent for Local
District I, why did you decide to outsource literacy coaching in
the middle schools?
!
7. What factor(s) played the most significant role in your
decision to outsource literacy coaching?
!
8. Who was involved in the decision to outsource middle
school literacy coaching for Local District I?
!
9. What factors did you consider when choosing a literacy
coaching provider?
! !
10. How was an outside provider for literacy coaching chosen? ! !
11a. Do you outsource any other school functions? !
11b. If so, what? !
12. Were there any middle schools in Local District I that did
not outsource literacy coaching?
!
13. What were the goals of the outsourced middle school
literacy coaching model?
! !
14. What did you want literacy coaches to do at the schools? !
15. Were your expectations met? ! !
16. Have your literacy coaching goals changed over time?
Please explain.
! ! !
17. Did you face any challenges implementing the outsourced
middle school literacy coaching model?
!
18. Has the outsourced middle school literacy coaching
provider responded to your needs, requests, etc.?
! ! ! !
19. Which of the following terms best describes the
relationship between the literacy coaching provider and your
local district? Please explain
! !
199
a) service provider
b) collaborator
c) partner
d) transformational agent
20. Who manages the outside provider for literacy coaching? ! !
21. How do you evaluate your outsourced middle school
literacy coaching provider?
! ! !
22. How do you measure the effectiveness of the outsourced
middle school literacy coaching model?
! ! !
23a. Are you satisfied with the results of the outsource middle
school literacy coaching model?
! !
!
23b. Are you satisfied with the effectiveness of the literacy
coaching provider?
! !
!
24. Are there any changes you would like to see made in the
outsourced middle school literacy coaching model?
! ! ! !
I will now ask you questions specifically about the in-house middle school literacy
coaching model:
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4
25. Did the re-districting that took place for the Fall of 2004,
when your local district became Local District 7, change the
scope or expectations of the outsourced literacy coaching
model in the middle schools?
!
26. How many new middle schools were added to your
portfolio as a result of the re-districting?
27. How did you decide which literacy coaching model to use
in your new middle schools?
!
28. Why did you opt, at this time, to implement two different
literacy coaching models, an outsourced and an in-house
model, in the middle schools?
!
29. What factors were considered when choosing to implement
two different middle school literacy coaching models?
!
30. What were the goals of the in-house middle school literacy
coaching model?
! !
200
31. Has the in-house middle school literacy coaching model
met your expectations?
! ! !
32. Did you face any challenges implementing the in-house
middle school literacy coaching model?
!
33. Has the in-house middle school literacy coaching program
responded to your needs, requests, etc.?
! ! ! !
34. Who manages the in-house middle school literacy coaches? ! !
35. How do you evaluate the in-house middle school literacy
coaches?
! ! !
36. How do you measure the effectiveness of the in-house
middle school literacy model?
! ! !
37. Are you satisfied with the results of the in-house middle
school literacy coaching model?
! !
!
38. Are there any changes you would like to see made in the
in-house middle school literacy coaching model?
! ! ! !
I will conclude the interview with questions about both middle school literacy
coaching models:
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4
39. Were the goals of the two middle school literacy coaching
models different in any way?
! !
40. Is either middle school literacy coaching model having an
impact on teachers’ skills and knowledge? Please explain
!
41. Have you learned any lessons regarding literacy coaching at
the middle school level?
! ! ! !
42a. Would you consider outsourcing literacy coaching in all of
your middle schools?
!
42b. Would you consider using the in-house literacy coaching
model for all of your middle schools?
!
42c. If so, what information would convince you to do so?
! !
43. Have you learned any lessons regarding the outsourcing of
district/school functions, like literacy coaching? Please
explain.
! !
44a. Would you consider outsourcing any other school/district
functions?
!
201
44b. If so, what functions and under what circumstances?
!
44c. If not, why not?
!
45. Do you have any other comments or thoughts you would
like to share at this time?
That concludes our interview. Thank you so much for your time. I will now
interview principals, teachers, and literacy coaches at each of the four school sites
chosen for case studies. If needed, would it be possible to schedule a follow-up
interview with you?
When the study is complete, I will forward a draft of the report to you with time built
into the process for you to respond with questions, edits, or thoughts.
Thanks again.
202
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT FOR SCHOOL SITE PRINCIPAL
OUTSOURCING LITERACY COACHING IN LAUSD
INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT FOR SCHOOL SITE PRINCIPAL
Name: _____________________________ Title: ______________________
School Site: _________________________ Date: ______________________
I am conducting a study on the different middle school literacy coaching models
being implemented in LAUSD Local District 7. I have asked for your participation
in this study because you play/have played a key role in the development and
implementation of the middle school literacy coaching models in Local District 7.
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. Today’s interview should take no
longer than one and a half hours.
With your permission, I will be audio-taping our interview today. Please read the
“Written Informed Consent” form. If the interview terms are acceptable to you, I
would like to ask you to sign the consent form prior to beginning the interview.
Please do not hesitate to ask any questions or express any concerns you may have
regarding this interview.
" Signed Written Informed Consent Form
" Did not sign Written Informed Consent Form
We will now begin the interview with general questions about middle school
literacy coaching at your school site:
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4
1. How long have you been the principal of
_____________(school site)?
2. Was literacy coaching in place at _____________(school site)
when you became the principal?
!
3. How long has the literacy coaching program been in place at
_____________ (school site)?
!
4. Why does literacy coaching exist at the middle school level?
! !
203
5. What factors were considered when deciding to provide
literacy coaching?
!
6. Were you involved in the selection of a literacy coaching
program at your school?
!
7. Is literacy coaching at your school provided internally or by
an outside provider?
! !
If literacy coaching is outsourced, I will ask the following questions:
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4
8. Why did your school decide to outsource literacy coaching?
!
9a. Do you outsource any other school functions?
!
9b. If so, what?
!
10. What factors were considered when deciding to outsource
literacy coaching?
!
11. What factors were considered when choosing a literacy
coaching provider?
! !
12. How was an outside provider for literacy coaching chosen?
! !
13. What did you want your literacy coaching provider to
accomplish at your school site?
! ! ! !
14. Were your expectations met?
! ! ! !
15. Who manages the outside provider for literacy coaching?
! ! !
16. Which of the following terms best describes the relationship
between the literacy coaching provider and your school?
! ! !
a) service provider
b) collaborator
c) partner
d) transformational agent
17. Have your literacy coaching goals changed over time? Please
explain.
!
18. Did you face any challenges implementing the outsourced
literacy coaching model?
!
19. Does the outsourced literacy coaching provider respond to
your needs, requests, etc.?
! ! ! !
204
20. How do you evaluate your literacy coaching provider? ! ! !
21. Are you satisfied with the results of the outsourced literacy
coaching model? Please explain.
! ! !
22. Would you recommend changes in the outsourced literacy
coaching model? Please explain.
! !
23. Have you learned any lessons about literacy coaching? Please
explain.
! ! !
a) Lessons about outsourcing school/district functions? Please
explain.
! ! !
24a. Would you consider providing literacy coaching internally?
!
24b. If so, what information would convince you to do so?
!
24c. If not, why not?
!
25a. Would you consider outsourcing any other school/district
functions?
!
25b. If so, what functions and under what circumstances?
!
25c. If not, why not?
!
If literacy coaching is internal, I will ask the following questions:
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4
26. Why did your school decide to provide literacy coaching in-
house, rather than choose an outside provider?
!
27a. Do you outsource any school functions?
!
27b. If so, what?
!
28. What factors were considered when deciding to implement an
in-house literacy coaching model?
!
29. How long has your school been using internal literacy
coaches?
!
30. How is your literacy coach chosen each year? ! !
31. Who does your literacy coach report to on campus? ! !
32. What did you expect your literacy coach to accomplish?
! ! !
33. Have your expectations been met?
! ! !
34. Have your literacy coaching goals changed over time? Please
explain.
! ! !
205
35. Did you face any challenges implementing the literacy
coaching model?
!
36. Does your literacy coach respond to your needs, requests, etc.?
! ! !
37. How do you evaluate your literacy coach? Please explain.
! ! !
38. Are you satisfied with the results of the in-house literacy
coaching model? Please explain.
! ! ! !
39. Have you learned any lessons about literacy coaching? Please
explain.
! !
40. Would you recommend changes in the internal literacy
coaching model?
! ! !
41. Would you recommend literacy coaching to other districts?
Please explain.
! ! !
42a. Would you consider outsourcing literacy coaching?
!
42b. If so, what information would convince you to do so?
!
42c. If not, why not?
!
43a. Would you consider outsourcing any other school/district
functions?
!
43b. If so, what functions and under what circumstances?
!
43c. If not, why not?
!
I will now ask questions about the implementation of literacy coaching at your
school site:
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4
44. How many literacy coaches do you have on campus? ! !
45. How many are full-time? Part-time? ! !
46. What are the most critical functions of your literacy
coach(es)?
! ! !
47. What are the responsibilities of a literacy coach? ! ! !
48. Who do(es) the literacy coach(es) work most closely with? ! ! !
49. On average, what percentage of time do(es) the literacy
coach(es) spend in the classroom with teachers?
! ! !
50. What do(es) the literacy coach(es) do in the classroom? ! ! !
51. What do(es) the literacy coach(es) do with teachers? ! ! !
206
52. Are you satisfied with the performance of your literacy
coach(es)?
! !
53. What do you think is working well about your literacy
coaching program?
! !
54. What would you like to see change about your literacy
coaching program?
! ! !
I will conclude this interview by asking you questions about how literacy coaching
has impacted your school site.
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4
55. Has literacy coaching impacted your school site? Please
explain.
! !
56. Have there been any benefits of literacy coaching at your
school site? Please explain.
! !
57. Has literacy coaching influenced teaching? Please explain. !
58. Has literacy coaching improved teachers’ skills? Please
explain.
!
59. Has literacy coaching improved teachers’ content knowledge?
Please explain.
!
60. Do you have any other comments or thoughts you would like
to share at this time?
That concludes our interview. Thank you so much for your time. I will now
interview teacher and literacy coaches at each of the four school sites chosen for
case studies. If needed, would it be possible to schedule a follow-up interview with
you?
When the study is complete, I will forward a draft of the report to you with time built
into the process for you to respond with questions, edits, or thoughts.
Thanks again.
207
APPENDIX C: FOCUS GROUP INSTRUMENT FOR
SCHOOL SITE TEACHERS
OUTSOURCING LITERACY COACHING IN LAUSD
FOCUS GROUP INSTRUMENT FOR SCHOOL SITE TEACHERS
Name: _______________________________ Title: ___________________
School Site: ___________________________ Date: ___________________
I am conducting a study on the different middle school literacy coaching models
being implemented in LAUSD Local District 7. I have asked for your participation
in this study because you play/have played a key role in the implementation of the
middle school literacy coaching models in Local District 7. Thank you for agreeing
to participate in this study. Today’s focus group should take no longer than one and
a half hours.
With your permission, I will be audio-taping the focus group discussion today.
Please read the “Written Informed Consent” form. If the terms are acceptable to
you, I would like to ask you to sign the consent form prior to beginning the focus
group. Please do not hesitate to ask any questions or express any concerns you may
have regarding this focus group.
" Signed Written Informed Consent Form
" Did not sign Written Informed Consent Form
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4
1. I’d like to start the focus group by doing a round of
introductions. Please introduce yourself to the group by
providing your:
a) name
b) grade and subjects taught
c) number of years teaching
d) brief overview of your teaching experience
208
2. Why does literacy coaching exist at the middle school
level?
! !
!
3. Were any of you involved in the initial decision to
implement literacy coaching at _____________ (school site)?
!
4. How long has the literacy coaching program been
implemented at ___________ (school site)?
!
5. Can you please describe the literacy coaching program at
___________ (school site)?
! !
6. Is literacy coaching provided internally or by outside
providers?
! ! !
7. What do you think about the decision to ___________
(outsource/provide in-house) literacy coaching?
!
8. Were/are you involved in the design of the literacy
coaching program?
!
I will now ask questions about how literacy coaching is implemented at your
school site:
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4
9a. What are the goals of the literacy coaching program at
___________ (school site)?
!
9b. What do you think the goals of the literacy coaching
program are?
!
10. What are the most critical functions of literacy coach(es) at
___________ (school site)?
! ! !
11. What are the major responsibilities of literacy coach(es) at
___________ (school site)?
! ! !
12. What services do literacy coaches provide at ___________
(school site)?
! ! !
13. How many literacy coaches do you have at ___________
(school site)?
! !
14. Who do(es) the literacy coach(es) report to on campus? ! !
15. How did you hear about the literacy coaching services
available to you?
!
16. How many of you have worked directly with your literacy
coach(es)?
! !
209
17. What do literacy coaches do in a teacher’s classroom? ! ! !
18a. Has a literacy coach come to work with you in your
classroom?
! !
18b. If so, what did the literacy coach do? ! !
19. Have any of you worked one-on-one with a literacy coach?
Please explain.
! !
20. Have any of you worked with literacy coaches outside the
classroom? Please explain.
! !
21. How often do you see your literacy coach? ! ! !
22. On average, how much time have you spent working with a
literacy coach over the course of a year? Please explain.
! ! !
23. Are you involved in evaluating literacy coach(es) at
___________ (school site)?
! !
24. How does your school measure the effectiveness of literacy
coach(es) at ___________ (school site)?
! ! !
I will now ask questions about how literacy coaching has impacted your school
site:
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4
25. Do services provided by literacy coach(es) benefit
teachers? Please explain.
! !
26. What is working well about the literacy coaching program
at your school site?
! ! !
27. What are the strengths of the literacy coaching program at
your school site?
! ! !
28a. Can the literacy coaching program at your school site
improve its effectiveness?
! ! !
28b. If so, how? ! ! !
29a. What should literacy coaches do more of? ! ! !
29b. What should literacy coaches do less of? ! ! !
29c. What should literacy coaches do that they may not be
doing at all?
! ! !
30. Has literacy coaching impacted your teaching? Please
explain.
!
210
31a. On a scale of 1-4 (1=not at all, 2=a little 3=some and 4=a
lot), how much has literacy coaching helped you improve your
teaching?
!
31b. If answered with a 3 or 4, what assistance has been most
beneficial?
! !
31c. If answered with a 1 or 2, why? ! !
32a. Did you develop new skills as a result of working with a
literacy coach? Please explain.
!
32b. Would you like to develop new skills with assistance from
a literacy coach? Please explain.
!
33a. Did you gain content knowledge as a result of working
with a literacy coach? Please explain.
!
33b. Would you like to gain content knowledge with assistance
from a literacy coach? Please explain.
!
34a. What kind of assistance have you benefited from the
most?
! !
34b. What kind of assistance have you benefited from the
least?
! !
35. Are there any activities that may have had a greater
influence on your teaching?
! ! !
36. Do you think literacy coaching is impacting teaching at
___________ (school site)?
!
37. On a scale of 1-4 (1= not satisfied, 2=somewhat satisfied,
3=satisfied, 4=very satisfied), how would you rate your
satisfaction with the literacy coaching program at ___________
(school site)?
!
38. Has literacy coaching benefited your school site? Please
explain.
! !
!
39. Has literacy coaching improved teachers’ skills? Please
explain.
!
!
40. Has literacy coaching increased teachers’ content
knowledge? Please explain.
!
!
41. Do you have any recommendations about literacy coaching
at ___________ (school site)?
! ! !
211
42. Do you have any other comments or thoughts you would
like to share at this time?
That concludes our focus group. Thank you so much for your time. I will now
conduct focus groups with literacy coaches at each of the four school sites chosen
for case studies. If needed, would it be possible to schedule a one-on-one follow-up
interview with you?
When the study is complete, I will forward a draft of the report to you with time built
into the process for you to respond with questions, edits, or thoughts.
Thanks again.
212
APPENDIX D: FOCUS GROUP INSTRUMENT FOR LITERACY COACHES
OUTSOURCING LITERACY COACHING IN LAUSD
FOCUS GROUP INSTRUMENT FOR LITERACY COACHES
Name: _____________________________ Title: ______________________
School Site: _________________________ Date: ______________________
I am conducting a study on the different middle school literacy coaching models
being implemented in LAUSD Local District 7. I have asked for your participation
in this study because you play/have played a key role in the implementation of the
middle school literacy coaching models in Local District 7. Thank you for agreeing
to participate in this study. Today’s focus group should take no longer than one and
a half hours.
With your permission, I will be audio-taping the focus group discussion today.
Please read the “Written Informed Consent” form. If the terms are acceptable to
you, I would like to ask you to sign the consent form prior to beginning the focus
group. Please do not hesitate to ask any questions or express any concerns you may
have regarding this focus group.
" Signed Written Informed Consent Form
" Did not sign Written Informed Consent Form
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4
1. I’d like to start the focus group by doing a round of
introductions. Please introduce yourself to the group by
providing your:
a) name
b) coaching content focus
c) # of years coaching at current school site and #of total
years coaching
d) # of years teaching in content focus
e) brief overview of teaching experience
2. How did you hear about the literacy coaching position? ! !
213
3. Why did you become a literacy coach? ! !
a) How did you become a literacy coach? ! !
b) If outsourced, why did you choose to become a literacy
coach with an outside organization rather than within the
district?
!
!
4. Can you please describe the literacy coaching program at
_____ (school)?
! !
5. What are the main components of literacy coaching? ! ! !
6. What do you think about the decision to ___________
(outsource/provide in-house) literacy coaching at ___________
(school)?
!
7. Were/are you involved in the design of the literacy
coaching program?
! !
8. What kind of training have your received for your
position as a literacy coach?
! ! !
I will now ask questions about how literacy coaching is implemented at your
school site:
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4
9. What are the goals of the literacy coaching program at
___________ (school)?
!
!
10. What does ___________ (school) hope to accomplish
through literacy coaching?
!
!
11. What are the most critical functions you fulfill at
___________ (school)?
! ! !
12. How was your literacy coaching role communicated to the
school’s faculty?
! ! !
13. How has the faculty’s responded to your presence? ! !
14a. Please describe your coaching responsibilities. ! ! !
14b. What do you do? ! ! !
14c. Do you have these responsibilities in writing (ie. job
description)?
! !
14d. What services do you provide teachers at your school site? ! ! !
15. What do you hope to accomplish at ___________ (school)? ! ! !
214
16. Who do you work most closely with at your school site? ! !
17. Who do you report to? ! !
18. On average, how many teachers do you serve? ! ! !
19. What percentage of the faculty do you work with on a
regular basis?
! ! !
20. On average, what percentage of your time is spent in
classrooms?
! ! !
21a. What do you spend most of your time doing in the
classroom?
! ! !
21b. What do you spend most of your time doing outside the
classroom?
! ! !
22. What kind of technical assistance do you provide teachers? ! ! !
23. Please describe a “typical coaching day.” !
24. If I were to walk into one of your typical classrooms, what
would I see you doing? Please give me specific examples.
(follow up if necessary)
!
25. On average, how much time have you spent working with a
teacher over the course of a year?
! !
26a. On average, how much of your time is spent helping
teachers build content knowledge?
! !
26b. How much of your time is spent helping teachers build
literacy knowledge?
! !
26c. How much of your time is spent helping teachers improve
instructional skills?
! !
27. How do teachers respond to this assistance? ! !
28. What percentage of the faculty is resistant to your
assistance? Please explain.
! !
29. What percentage of the faculty is reluctant to change their
instructional practices? Please explain.
! !
30. Please describe communication between literacy coaches
and school administration.
! !
31. How do you communicate challenges or obstacles to your
school’s administration?
! !
215
32. What challenges or obstacles have you faced at
___________ (school)?
!
33a. What kind of evaluative information do you receive about
your coaching?
! !
33b. How are you evaluated as a literacy coach? ! !
33c. Do you find this process helpful? Please explain. ! !
34. How do you measure your success with a teacher? ! !
I will now ask questions about how literacy coaching has impacted your school
site:
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4
35a. What services do you believe benefit teachers the most? ! ! !
35b. What services do you believe benefit teachers the least? ! ! !
36. What is working well about literacy coaching at
___________ (school)?
! ! !
37. What are the strengths of literacy coaching at ___________
(school)?
! ! !
38a. Have you seen instructional changes in the classroom
during your time coaching at ____________ (school)? Please
cite specific examples.
! !
38b. If not, why do you think that is? ! !
39. What can be done to bring about greater instructional
changes in the classroom?
! ! !
40a. What aspect of coaching are you most proud of? Please
explain.
! !
40b. What aspect of coaching are you struggling with? Please
explain.
! !
41a. Is literacy coaching impacting teaching at ___________
(school)?
! ! !
41b. If so, how? ! ! !
42. Has literacy coaching benefited your school site? Please
explain.
!
!
43. Has literacy coaching improved teachers’ skills? Please
explain.
!
216
44. Has literacy coaching improved teachers’ content
knowledge? Please explain.
!
45. How can the literacy coaching program improve its
effectiveness?
! ! !
46. What would you like to see changed about literacy
coaching at ___________ (school)?
! ! !
47. Do you have any recommendations about literacy coaching
at ___________ (school)?
! ! !
48. Do you have any other comments or thoughts you would
like to share at this time?
That concludes our focus group. Thank you so much for your time. If needed, would
it be possible to schedule a one-on-one follow-up interview with you?
When the study is complete, I will forward a draft of the report to you with time built
into the process for you to respond with questions, edits, or thoughts.
Thanks again.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The study examined two different literacy coaching models- outsourced and in-house- implemented in one Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) local district. Research questions addressed in the study included: What factors influenced a local district superintendent to outsource literacy coaching? How were two different literacy coaching models implemented in a local district's middle schools? What criteria were used to measure the efficacy of the two literacy coaching models? Which of the two literacy coaching models was more effective and under what conditions?
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Instructional coaching, educational technology, and teacher self-efficacy: a case study of instructional coaching programs in a California public K-12 school district
PDF
Districtwide instructional improvement: a case study of a high school in the Los Coyotes High School District
PDF
Latino parental aspirations and literacy practices related to children's reading engagement
PDF
An examination of response-to-intervention as a framework for school improvement: educators' perpectives regarding implementation
PDF
Do we really understand what we are talking about? A study examining the data literacy capacities and needs of school leaders
PDF
Instructional coaching and educational technology in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools with educational technolo...
PDF
Instructional coaching in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs in elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher self-efficacy with educational...
PDF
Implementation of the PLC coaching model at American Community School
PDF
Improving and sustaining math achievement in urban high schools: a case study of a southern California high school
PDF
How and why does a district network schools?
PDF
Creating connections: an implementation study of promising practices for mentoring in California charter schools
PDF
Charter schools, data use, and the 21st century: how charter schools use data to inform instruction that prepares students for the 21st century
PDF
Backing each other up "like in basketball": an examination of literacy and the forms of capital among peers in an elementary school classroom community of practice
PDF
How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement
PDF
Supporting the professional development of early childhood educators: a case study of an emergent literacy intervention project
PDF
A community struggling to create a charter school: a rural case study
PDF
An examination of outsourcing student services for online graduate students
PDF
School to Work Program as a contributor to adult literacy skill development
PDF
School leaders' use of data-driven decision-making for school improvement: a study of promising practices in two California charter schools
PDF
Traditional and nontraditional urban school superintendents in the age of accountability
Asset Metadata
Creator
Donoso, Noemi
(author)
Core Title
Outsourcing for school outcomes: a multi-case study examination of outsourced and in-house literacy coaching models
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Policy, Planning and Administration)
Publication Date
11/10/2008
Defense Date
10/28/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
administrative leadership,literacy coaching,OAI-PMH Harvest,outsourcing in education,outsourcing literacy coaching,professional development,secondary literacy,secondary literacy coaching,secondary school improvement
Place Name
California
(states),
school districts: Los Angeles Unified School District
(geographic subject)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Wohlstetter, Priscilla (
committee chair
), Datnow, Amanda (
committee member
), Robertson, Peter John (
committee member
)
Creator Email
donoso@greatgains.net,ndonoso@greatgains.net
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1756
Unique identifier
UC1121959
Identifier
etd-Donoso-2535 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-134719 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1756 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Donoso-2535.pdf
Dmrecord
134719
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Donoso, Noemi
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
administrative leadership
literacy coaching
outsourcing in education
outsourcing literacy coaching
professional development
secondary literacy
secondary literacy coaching
secondary school improvement