University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Coaching year 1 and year 2 teachers for equity and diversity using the Danielson framework

(USC Thesis Other)

Coaching year 1 and year 2 teachers for equity and diversity using the Danielson framework

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Coaching Year 1 and Year 2 Teachers for Equity and Diversity Using the Danielson Framework
by
Hector Luciano Alegria

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2020

Copyright 2020 Hector L. Alegria

Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
5

Abstract
The opportunity gap persists between historically minoritized student populations and their
white student counterpart at Rocky Unified School District. As part of the strategic plan, Rocky
Unified adopted The Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) as the cornerstone tool for
supporting year one and year two teachers in completing their tier two California clear credential.
Utilizing the Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007), new teachers are mentored and coached
for their first two years of teaching under the Rocky Unified inhouse induction program. This
study interviewed seven teachers across the school district in their first two years of teaching
receiving coaching support. Teachers were asked to describe their perceptions on the Framework
for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) and the coaching as it readied them to teach culturally and
ethnically diverse classrooms. Data collected during the interviews was transcribed and analyzed
consistent with Creswell’s (2014) process of thematic content analysis using a deductive
approach. The themes that emerged as a result of this process were systems of support, coaching,
and professional learning. The findings in this study can assist researchers, school district, and
induction programs in designing or implementing a teacher coaching model that focuses on
preparing new teachers to teach in culturally and ethnically diverse classrooms.

Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
6

Table of Contents
Chapter I: Overview of the Study 8
Background 9
Statement of the Problem 14
Research Question 17
Purpose of the Study 17
Delimitations 18
Summary 18
Definitions 19
CHAPTER II 20
Historical Background 21
No Child Left Behind and Common Core 23
History of California Teacher Credentialing 26
Teacher Induction Programs 29
Coaches and Training 31
Pedagogy 32
Equity in the Classroom: Culturally Responsive and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies 35
Constructivism 37
Dewey 38
Jean Piaget 39
Lev Vygotsky 42
Madeline Hunter 43
The Framework for Teaching 45
Charlotte Danielson 46
Summary 51
CHAPTER III 53
Methodology 54
Setting 56
Selecting Participants (Sampling) 57
Interviews 58
Data Analysis 59
Summary 60
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
7

CHAPTER IV 61
Context of the Study 62
Participants 63
Setting 64
Findings 65
Systems of Support 65
Coaching 69
Professional Learning 80
Summary 86
Chapter V: Discussion 89
Coaching 91
Professional Learning 94
Recommendations 95
References 97
Appendix A 105
Appendix B 112
Appendix C 115
List of Tables 117

Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
8

Chapter I: Overview of the Study
Large urban school districts in California continually face the need to hire new teachers
annually. A large number of the new teachers hired are just starting out their careers and have yet
to complete the required Tier Two of their professional teaching credential. Since the passage of
California Assembly Bill 2042 (1998), which created a two-tier professional teaching credential,
new teachers in California have been required to enroll in an induction program which includes
two years of classroom support in order to fully complete their Tier Two and obtain a California
teaching credential. Many large urban school districts, like the one in this study - Rocky Unified
School District (RSD), are able to provide induction programs for newly-hired teachers that allow
for completion of the requirements for Tier Two of the California teaching credential. A
significant benefit of assisting new teachers with the completion of Tier Two of their credentials
lies in the opportunity for districts to train and acculturate teachers to the expectations and vision
of the district. By providing Tier Two induction programs, districts such as RSD can better
ensure that its teaching force is better prepared to support student learning in the classroom.
Providing appropriate teacher training and support during the first two years of a new teacher’s
career is part of the RSD’s proactive measures in reducing the opportunity gap among minoritized
groups within the school district. Because of their role in administering the teacher induction
program in RSD, the district’s teacher preparation and staff development department is then an
integral part of a district’s effort to minimize the opportunity gap between minoritized students
and their white counterparts
Much has been documented about the performance gap between students of color and
White students, not only in RSD but nation-wide. Since the implementation of No Child Left
Behind in 2004, the achievement gap between Black and Hispanic (this is the demographic term
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
9

used by the local school district) students has persisted, with Black and Hispanic students
continue to score significantly lower on standardized assessments (CA. Dept. Ed., 2017). This
continual gap has led many districts to reexamine their systems of instruction, including their
internal professional department which supports teaching and instruction. This study will closely
examine how RSD supported its Two-tier induction program in elementary schools and explored
new teachers’ and coaches’ views on the effectiveness of the program.
Background
On January 8, 1987, the Bergeson Act (CA SB148, 1987), was signed into law. It was a
comprehensive measure aimed at changing how teachers in the state of California are
credentialed. Its mission was to change teacher credentialing and to improve the public image of
the profession of teaching in California. The Bergerson Act (CA SB 148, 1987) was aimed to
eliminate what was perceived as an erosion of teacher quality due to the shortage of teachers
during the late eighties. The Bergerson Act’s primary premise was to revamp an existing system
that was perceived by the public as credentialing teachers by simply verifying “course credits”
(CA, SB148, 1987). It is important to note that up to this point, teacher credentialing occurred at
the college and postgraduate levels where teachers completed all requisite coursework to become
fully credentialed. The Bergerson Act stated, “it is the intent of the Legislature that assessments
emphasize skill and knowledge attainment, rather than course credits.” (CA, SB148, 1987). The
legislature established the need for teaching standards, an entry assessment, and teacher field
practice which included evaluations of subject matter and the “ability to work with pupils” (CA,
SB148, 1987).
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
10

Three years later, Estes (1990) published The Assessment Report of the New Teacher
Project: First Year providing what would become the model for the California Teaching
Credentialing program. The report included recommendations on assessments and classroom
observation protocols which would lead to the implementation of the Beginning Teacher Support
and Assessment Program (BTSA) for new practicing teachers. With the directive from the state
legislature to improve teacher preparation and increase the level of professionalism, the BTSA
program had ambitious goals:
(1) provide an effective transition into the teacher career for 1st-year and 2nd-year
teachers in California;
(2) improve the educational performance of pupils through improved training,
information, and assistance to new teachers;
(3) enable beginning teachers to be effective in teaching pupils who are culturally,
linguistically, and academically diverse (Fletcher, S., Letcher, M., and Strong, A., 2008).
The legislative directive was, in effect, designed to create a more rigorous credentialing
program. However, while guiding criteria were established, the actual program development was
left up to colleges or school districts who submitted applications to be approved to provide
teacher induction programs and Clear teacher credentialing practicum. Colleges and school
districts were free to create their own program as long as it met the criteria from California
Teacher Credentials (CTC). This approach created a large inconsistency in the accrediting of new
teachers across the state and led to the creation of and implementation of differing frameworks
and strategies used to support new teachers.
Prior to the Bergerson Act (CA SB 148, 1987), Madeline Hunter, who was the principal at
University Elementary School at the University of California Los Angeles and a professor at
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
11

UCLA, had begun her work on a system of instruction centering around the teacher, not school
administration or districts, as the primary decision maker in the classroom (1979). Hunter’s work
and research highlighted the need for better teacher preparation and for ongoing staff
development rooted in clinical observations of classroom instruction (1979). In Teaching is
Decision Making, Hunter (1979) outlines the four elements necessary for good professional
development. She describes the need to ensure that teachers are able to discern between
instructional decisions, combine the art and science of teaching, be given film study sessions to
understand these decisions in context, and finally to have an evaluative tool of instruction to
measure the effectiveness of instruction. Since Hunter’s seminal work (1980), preservice teacher
programs have been trying to provide a structured and measured approach to teaching that would
help teachers directly in the classroom. While Hunter’s seven lesson step plan (1980) has
continued to have a direct effect on the preparation of pre-service teachers over the decades since
she first introduced her work, her principles of theory to practice have not been fully
implemented. Patricia Wolf (1987) advocated for looking at Hunter’s lesson planning holistically
and promoted the need for teachers to make instructional decisions or what she called developing
“executive control” of the classroom and instruction (1987).
During the last decade, however, the emphasis has shifted from viewing the teacher as the
controlling agent in the classroom to a more prescriptive curriculum with the passing of No Child
Left Behind (NCLB, 2002) and California’s adoption of Reading First initiative, a plan approved
by the U.S. Department of Education (2002) aimed at ensuring all students can read by the end of
the 3rd grade. NCLB’s progressive goal of improving ten percent per year in all subject areas and
with all subgroups (NCLB, 2002), with punitive or negative implications for schools districts that
do not meet prescribed goals, placed a great deal of pressure on school districts to focus on
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
12

assessment and on performance on the state assessment. Starr (2012) iterated that many of the
goals of instruction during this time were based on performance on standardized assessments. No
Child Left Behind coupled with California Assembly Bill 466 (2002), which provided
professional development for all teachers in research-based instruction favoring direct instruction
as an instructional framework, underlined Wolf’s (1987) position of overemphasis on curriculum
and stripped teachers of their roles as decision makers in the classroom.
In 2010, when Common Core State Standards were adopted in California, the curriculum
in K-12 changed to meet these standards. As the demands of Common Core were being
implemented throughout the state to supplement the state standards, the new California
assessments and expectations placed the instructional emphasis on critical thinking skills and the
ability of students to express their understanding of their learning. This shift in the rigor of the
new curriculum created a contrast between the prescribed curriculum preferred during NCLB to
much more subtle, nuanced, and in-depth instruction needed for teaching critical thinking skills.
California revised the Teaching Standards (2009, 2013) and districts across California
continue to implement the new curriculum, the achievement gap persists across the state.
Currently, California is poised to see a large turnover of its teaching workforce. Ingersoll (2012),
describes the stagnant number of credentials being given at the state level while demand and open
teaching positions continue to increase, which means that California is poised to see a large
turnover in its working ranks. This creates an important opportunity for California, as it has the
opportunity of providing systematic training to a new generation of classroom teachers that can be
qualified in addressing the complexities of an ethnically and culturally-diverse classroom. As
California begins to transition its new teaching force, it behooves districts to take a closer look at
the effectiveness of their new teacher induction programs.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
13

The mission of teacher induction programs has not changed since the Bergeson Act,
California Senate Bill 148 (CA SB148, 1987). It is to provide teachers field practice and coaching
prior to fully “clearing” their teaching credential (CA Dept. Ed 2018). The Commission of
Teacher Credentialing has set forth criteria as to what is expected from the induction programs of
educational agencies who want to institute their own programs. The program in order to be
accredited by the Commission must:
provide systematic opportunities for the application and demonstration of the
pedagogical knowledge and skills acquired in the preliminary credential program.
The program design includes intensive individualized support and assistance to
each participant, collaborative experiences with colleagues and resource personnel,
and an inquiry-based formative assessment system that is built upon the California
Standards for the Teaching Profession (CTC.CA.Gov, 2019).
The mission and goals of BTSA (1990) have, at its core, remained unchanged. Additionally, the
Estes Report and ensuing recommendations and The Assessment Report of the New Teacher
Project: First Year (1990), have withstood the test of time. The importance of providing adequate
guidance to year one and year two teachers is as critical now as ever, especially in light of the
varied preliminary teaching credentialing processes across the various colleges and accredited
school districts. The pre-service credentialing courses are helpful to future teachers and provide
background knowledge and context for teaching; however, they cannot substitute for the
complexities of teaching. The inconsistent approaches to training preservice teachers add to the
instructional disparities reflected in classrooms and on state assessments. Well-defined and
effective induction programs can make a significant difference for school districts in the training
and retraining of new teachers; but possibly more importantly, school districts would benefit by
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
14

having effective teachers who can support their students’ success.
Statement of the Problem
The importance of teacher quality and the impact a good teacher can have in the classroom
is widely known and accepted as an integral component of public education, yet the idea of how
to train effective teachers is difficult. Stone (2002) points to the larger context of the problem,
which is how teachers are being prepared to meet the diverse needs of students in the classroom.
Stone (2002) contends that the problem of teacher quality is not the lack of training or
“insufficient training for teachers, insufficient regulation, and inadequate standards.” (2002, p.48)
but rather that the teacher training is “misdirected” (2002, p.48). Stone (2002) reminds us that
generations of teachers were trained under the whole language approach of the late seventies and
eighties and later, driven by No Child Left Behind legislation, teachers were trained in the direct
instruction approach. Stone (2002) further reminds us that “best practice teaching is the open-
ended, facilitative, guide on-the-side type of teaching that is extolled by professors of education”
(2002, p. 39). More importantly, an opportunity to provide teachers with the training they need to
teach culturally and ethnically-diverse classrooms.
Furthermore, Django Paris (2012) argues that classroom instruction needs to shift to a
culturally sustaining pedagogy, in which instruction “supports[s] young people in sustaining the
cultural and linguistic competence of their communities while simultaneously offering access to
dominant cultural competence.” (2012, p.95). However, this shift in pedagogy is something that
must be worked towards not just with teachers but with the institutions themselves (Paris, 2012).
As Common Core has made its way into the classroom over the past five years, it has
become clear to school districts that teachers will need to be trained in facilitating open-ended
activities that allow the learner to create their own meaning and learning. In Southern California,
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
15

many large urban school districts, including Rocky School District (RSD) have taken advantage
of the California induction program for Tier Two teacher credentialing to train and coach all
incoming new teachers to meet the new demands of Common Core and as a way to address in a
systematic way how teachers plan for a cultural and ethnically-diverse classroom. RSD has been
a participant and a BTSA provider since 1999. It has at its disposal a large professional
development department led by an assistant superintendent, several directors, and a cadre of well-
trained staff developers. And while the professional development department has been covering a
wide variety of topics over the years , very little training and support was conducted
systematically to address the proficiency gap between English Learners, students of color and
their white counterparts, while the proficiency gap has and currently stands at over fifty
percentage points difference (CDE, 2018). As the district’s demographics continue to change,
with Hispanics currently accounting for 65% of the student population, African American 12%,
and English Learners accounting for 20% (CBEDS, 2016), it is clear that the district must look at
its systems to make a change. And while the district has an experienced teaching workforce, with
over 70% of its teachers with fifteen years or more of experience (CBDS, 2016), a retirement
incentive approved by the district’ board of education in 2019 has brought about the retirement of
one hundred and thirty-five teachers. The combined needs of systematically improving
instruction and undergoing a large change in its workforce create an opportunity for the district to
invest in a quality induction program as the district and its induction program Tier two ready to
onboard a large cohort of new teachers into its ranks.
In 2017, the Rocky School District Board of Education adopted The Framework for
Teaching (Danielson, 2007) as its cornerstone for the induction program for year one and year
two teachers as a way to invest in its new teachers’ coaching, training during Tier Two, but
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
16

ultimately to ensure the quality of instruction needed in the classroom while making positive
changes in the classroom. The Board set forth a new expectation for professional development
and teacher support creating a new department with the funding and resources needed to meet this
obligation. Additionally, the plans extend to have all teachers in the school district fully trained
and evaluated utilizing The Framework for Teaching Evaluation Tool (Danielson, 2013). In a
large district, it requires a substantial commitment across the organizations, which means that as
an organization it is committed to see the new systemic approach work.
The use of The Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2013) meets the California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2018) mandate to provide “systematic opportunities for
the application and demonstration of the pedagogical knowledge” (CTC 2018) for new teachers
and teachers with a preliminary credential. However, more importantly, the success or failure of
RSD’s new initiative could have long-lasting effects on teachers, the quality of instruction and the
culture of the district. So, the question is: is it effective and is it effective in training new teachers
to support a culturally and ethnic diverse classrooms with the rigors of common core and still
address Paris educational challenge of “sustaining the cultural and linguistic competence of
[student’s] communities while simultaneously offering access to dominant cultural competence?”
(2012, p.95).
In short, is the induction program accomplishing its intended goal of providing
“candidates with opportunities to both experience issues of diversity that affect school climate and
to effectively implement research-based strategies for improving teaching and student learning”
(CTC, 2015). The need to have not only an instructional competent teacher but also a culturally
sensitive teacher is paramount for a district like RSD. With a diverse student population and
ever-changing demographics, its teaching faculty must be able to adapt instruction to suit the
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
17

needs of its student population and to develop the requisite skills students will need to meet the
demands of a twenty-first-century classroom.
Standard 6 of the California Teacher Commission Teacher Induction Program, Universal
Access: Equity for All Students, requires that all year one and year two teachers participating in
the induction program must “design and implement equitable and inclusive learning
environments…for all ethnic, race, socio-economic, cultural, academic, and linguistic or family
background; gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation; students with disabilities and
advanced learners” (CTC, 2018).
Research Question
This study used a qualitative approach to answer the following question:
Do year one and year two elementary school teachers, receiving coaching support under
Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) through Tier 2 induction, perceive the Rocky School
District program to be adequately preparing them to teach culturally and ethnically diverse
students?
Purpose of the Study
Reducing the opportunity gap in the classroom for students from underprivileged and
historically minoritized backgrounds is at the crux of what good instruction hopes to do. Ensuring
new teachers are receiving the support and the “cultural sustaining” (Paris, 2012) coaching they
need has the potential to provide students with academic success throughout their academic
career. Asking and providing insights from these questions is important because as a district
many resources are being spent restructuring the teacher induction program. Furthermore,
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
18

providing the appropriate training and support to new teachers will have a direct impact on
classroom instruction, student academic success and the culture of the school district.
Delimitations
This study has several delimitations; this study relied on candidates that were willing to be
interviewed for an hour and share their teaching experience for the past one or two years in the
induction program. Additionally, this study was limited to year one and year two teachers at
Rocky School District. The sample size is small, and the findings can only be generalized to the
population from which the sample was drawn.
Summary
This study is qualitative in nature. This study aimed at identifying the effectiveness of the
teacher induction program implemented in RSD under the new Danielson (2014) framework.
Given the subtleties and complexities of the program, I settled on a qualitative approach as the
most appropriate method to gather information (Brown, and Creswell, 1992). The research
utilized semi-structured interviews, allowing for a more conversational style of an interview
which it hoped assisted in creating a relaxed atmosphere for the participants. Teachers in year
one and year two, as well as teacher coaches for the induction program, were interviewed
individually. Interviews were transcribed, and the resulting data were used to identify emerging
themes from their perspectives. The semi-structured interviews provide a platform for the
participants to share their candid thoughts and ideas on how the program succeeds and/or how it
could be improved to provide new teachers a stronger chance of being successful in the
classroom. The qualitative methodology provides appropriate tools for this study because it brings
to light “the meaning that the participants hold about the problem or issue, not the meaning that
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
19

the researchers bring to the research or that writers express in the literature” (Brown, and
Creswell, 1992). As an educator of twenty-three years, I am aware of personal biases that may
arise during the interviews and will ensure that my beliefs and held separate from those of the
participants.
Definitions
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA)- The BTSA Induction program provides
standards-based, individualized advice and assistance that combines the application of theory
learned in the preliminary teacher preparation program with mentor-based support and formative
assessment feedback (CTC, 1998).
Coach- In this study, a coach is a master teacher who has been assigned to provide guidance and
support to a new teacher as part of the induction program. A coach assists with lesson planning,
classroom instruction, and serves as a model for the new teacher.
Mentor Teacher: Also can be called an instructional coach or master teacher
Preliminary Credential: Tier 1 of the California credentialing program focusing on coursework
and fieldwork (CTC, 2012).
Preservice Teacher- In this study, a preservice teacher is defined as a person who wants to teach
however they have not completed all coursework and do not currently hold a teaching credential.
Professional Development (PD): Professional development is defined as any teacher training
given to any teacher in the service of a school district. It may be provided by the school district or
an outside agency such as the local county school district.
Teacher Induction Program- The second tier of a California Teaching Credential focusing on
intensive and extensive coaching for year 1 and year 2 teachers (CTC, 2012).
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
20

CHAPTER II
This study addresses the teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of elementary teacher
coaching and support through the induction program at Rocky School District and its
implementation of the Framework for Teacher Improvement (Danielson, 2007) at the time of the
study. The study of the perceptions of year one and year two teachers who were currently
participating in the induction program is important since the district invested a great deal of
resources, including time, personnel, and money in developing an induction program intended to
ready teachers and improve classroom instruction while reducing the opportunity gap between
historically minoritized groups of students and their white student counterpart. It was essential to
identify whether new teachers in year one and year two in the induction program felt supported
and if the program addressed their needs. At the center of this new initiative was the need to
reduce the opportunity gap for historically minoritized students at Rocky School District. RSD
identified teacher preparation and teacher evaluations as a way to systematically reduce the
opportunity gap for historically minoritized students.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness and the implementation of
coaching and support system through the induction program at RSD and gather data from current
participants as to how they perceive its effectiveness, which includes coaching, staff development
opportunities and feedback on classroom observation. Moreover, this study investigated, through
teachers’ perceptions, if RSD was preparing new teachers to be successful in an ethnically,
culturally, and linguistically diverse classroom. This study was framed by the following research
question: Do year one and year two elementary school teachers, receiving coaching support under
Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) through tier 2 induction, perceive the RSD program
to be adequately preparing them to teach culturally and ethnically diverse students?
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
21

This chapter begins by briefly exploring the history of the opportunity gap students of
minoritized groups have encountered over the years, the attempts to mitigate the gap, and its
persistence in U.S. public schools over the years. Additionally, it will address the
implementation, and the impact that No Child Left Behind had on highlighting the needs to
address minoritized students and how it changed the role of the teacher in the classroom. I will
also address how teacher credentialing has been impacted and how it has attempted to improve
instruction in the classroom historically, which impacted schools at the district and college levels.
I will explore the constructivist theory since RSD relies heavily on The Framework for Teaching
(Danielson, 2007) for its induction program. Additionally, I will explore the role of induction,
various methods of andragogy aimed at professional learning, coaching for year one and year two
teachers as systems of support for new teachers through the induction program, and culturally
responsive and culturally sustaining pedagogies (put citation here for CRP; Paris, 2012). Finally,
this chapter will address the theoretical framework of the Charlotte Danielson framework in detail
(2007).
Historical Background
Academically, the opportunity gap of students of color has been persistent. Farkas and
Beron’s (2004) study demonstrated that children from lower socio-economic backgrounds had
less exposure to the language of schooling as they enter the school systems. This language gap
between children of low social-economic status and students of higher economic means becomes
predictive of the student’s later performance in the classroom. However, as educators and
government leaders continue to find solutions and continue to try to understand how to identify
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
22

ways to address the educational opportunity gap, we have seen the accountability movement take
hold of educational institutions.
A significant marker of legislated inequality in this country was Plessy v. Ferguson
(1896). A case in which Plessy, a man of mixed race, challenged Louisiana's Separate Car Act of
1890 which segregated white and black passengers train cars. Plessy refused to sit in the Black
only car and challenged the state law. The case made its way to the supreme court where the law
was upheld 7 to 0, thus creating a legally mandated policy of segregation. These discriminatory
practices have played a significant role in the schooling and education of African American
students creating generations of inequalities in access and funding for schools of all students of
color. These practices continued as constitutional law for over sixty years.
With segregation deeply entrenched in the social-cultural fabric of the United States,
students of color were not afforded the same opportunities to education (cite: Oakes et al., 2018).
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) successfully overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) case
law and mandated desegregation of the nation’s public schools. However, school desegregation
alone was not the solution that it was first thought to be. At the time, the decision was noted to be
in response to international pressure. Bell (2004) describes how Du Bois responded to the
decision as, “simply impossible for the United States to continue to lead a ‘Free World’ with race
segregation kept legal over a third of its territory.” (2004, p. 105). Du Bois added that the South
would not comply with the decision for many years, “long enough to ruin the education of
millions of black and white children.” (Bell, 2004, p. 105). And while these factors alone have
not created the current academic gap, it is impossible to talk about equity without acknowledging
the complexities of race as part of the history of the United States of America as they are still
reflected in the schools today.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
23

Adding to the opportunity gap, The National Assessment of Educational Progress (1996)
results indicated that the academic gap had continued to widen over the decades. As the
sentiments of the country moved to one of accountability, it led to the passing of No Child Left
Behind (2001) bringing about an era of accountability to schools with high stakes assessments
and school report cards that made public how students performed. This new era highlighted the
striking disparities within the different schools and communities.
No Child Left Behind and Common Core
In 2002, George W. Bush reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) under the name No Child Left Behind (NCLB). At the time, it was billed as a step
forward on Clinton’s era Improved America’s School Act (1994) which was not perceived to
have any impact since it did not carry any consequences or penalties for schools and districts that
continued to struggle. The Bush administration ushered in the era of accountability into
American schools by requiring an annual, high-stakes student assessment. NCLB was not just
about creating school reform but ensuring schools were held accountable if they did not meet the
targeted “Annual Yearly Progress” growth (AYP). Each school was expected to make ten percent
growth annually of all students tested grade two through eighth grade, elementary and middle
school and in the eleventh grade in high school in the state assessments. This AYP growth was
also applicable to all the subgroups in the school: Asians, Hispanic, African American, students
with disabilities, and English language learners. State assessments were now high stake
assessments with schools being labeled a Program Improvement (PI) school if targets were not
met (ESEA, 2001, Pub. L. 89-10, Sec. 101).
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
24

Additionally, the new law also required local educational agencies (LEA) to identify the
low performing schools and notify the community (ESEA, 2001, Pub. L. 89-10, Sec. 101).
NCLB added a great deal of pressure to increase test scores at the school and district levels. As
schools began to be identified as Program Improvement schools due to low scores, school districts
began to ratchet up the instructional assistance to the schools and teachers. Fritzberg (2004) stated
that “the advocates of high-stakes testing believe that the prospect of public praise or shame is the
most effective motivator for large bureaucratic institutions,” (2004, p. 8). Seemingly the law
would get school districts to ensure all students received a good education.
The law certainly got the attention of schools ensuring special attention was paid to the
various students' subgroups. However, the unintended consequences of NCLB have had a lasting
effect on instruction and teaching and how teachers were trained for over a decade. School
districts moved to more restricted curricula based narrowly on the skills being tested. In
California, there were only two state-adopted curricula to choose from in elementary schools,
Open Court and Houghton Mifflin. Both curricula were heavily scripted, limiting the professional
decision made by the classroom teacher. Adding to the unintended consequences of NCLB,
assessment measures were left up to each state to decide (Fritzberg, 2004). The assessment
chosen by most states focused on fundamental skills which were easy to test and score. Soon, the
scope of instruction began to narrow as schools were focused on scoring high enough to stay out
of program improvement; teaching to the test became a necessity. While schools showed success
in meeting AYP goals over the years, questions were asked early on about “transferability”
(Amrein and Berliner, 2002) of learning as measured by state testing. The concept of
transferability is (Amrein & Berliner, 2002; Wiggins & McTighe, 2001) is essential since it goes
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
25

to the heart of learning. With the emphasis on teaching to pass the test, students were only able to
recall skills but unable to apply those very same skills in a meaningful way to new contexts.
NCLB accountability had its most acute impact on teachers as test scores were used to
connote the effectiveness of the teachers. As the curriculum and resources narrowed to maximize
test scores, teachers lost professional control of designing and measuring learning in the
classroom (Pennington, 2007). Pennington (2007) notes that in elementary schools that
implemented Reading First as part of NCLB, an initiative that focused on ensuring all students
could read by third grade, teachers were expected to read scripts off the teacher manual. Teachers
with years of experience were limited by the expectations of utilizing the curriculum and were no
longer able to make adjustments in the classroom. Test scores became the guiding curriculum in
the classroom. In a study conducted by Menken (2006, the researcher observed teachers devoting
more time on preparing English language learners to take state testing than acquiring English
literacy skills. Menken’s (2006) teacher interviews give a glimpse as to the effect that NCLB
had on the curriculum and how teachers were expected to teach. A generation of teachers was
trained to follow the script, and teaching was done at a basic level. Currently, districts are
witnessing the effects of such policies as they struggle to revamp their curriculum and teaching
methods to meet the rigorous demand of Common Core State Standards.
On December 10, 2015, Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA) was signed into law
by President Barak Obama. The authorization of ESSA required that: states set high college and
career standards, maintain accountability by directing resources towards schools that require
improvement, empowers states and local education agencies to use appropriate, evidence-based
interventions that foster school improvement and maintains the need for annual assessments,
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
26

finally provide preschool programs (United States Department of Education [U.S. DOE], n.d.;
Sharp, 2016).
Adding to the changes in education, the Common Core State Initiative was launched in
2009 with the support of 48 states to introduce the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). It was
meant to bring about the parity of instruction across all states and make state assessment
comparable. Two consortiums, Partnership for Assessment or Readiness for College and Careers
(PARC), and Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium (CASPP) worked closely together to
create comprehensive state standards that would ready students for college or career (Gonzales,
2015). The CCSS were seen as a welcome emphasis on critical thinking and a move to conceptual
teaching and learning for transferability.
History of California Teacher Credentialing
In the early 1980s, California recognized that the teaching profession was changing and
that the demands of new teachers were increasing. As the population grew in California, school
districts began to hire new teachers, in 1988 – 1989, “more than 25,000 teacher candidates were
enrolled in collegiate training programs” (Gomez, 1989). However, the researcher found that up
to half of new teachers quit the profession within the first five years. College courses were not
preparing new teachers for the demands of actual classroom instruction. The high turnover of
new teachers and lack of teacher preparation, unavoidably, places school districts in stressed
situations where students were not getting adequate instruction.
In 1988, the Commission (CTC) and the California Department of Education (CDE)
charged Estes, with the California New Teacher Project. The project was to look at designing a
way to train and retain new teachers coming into the profession. Estes’ (1990) pilot study and
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
27

later work concluded that in order to increase beginning teacher success and effectiveness,
policies should include an induction program that provided new teachers with the
gradual introduction to the norms and responsibilities of teaching, an extension
of each teacher’s professional learning as initiated during his/her prior
preparation, advice and assistance from experienced colleagues, evidence-based
information about each teacher’s performance compared to established
expectations for what beginning teachers should know and be able to do.
(Bartell, 1995, p.2)
In his pilot study, The California New Teacher Project, Estes (1990) identified three
major problems new teachers face, “technical, socioemotional, and institutional” (p.16). This
study focuses on the technical aspects with which new teachers often grapple. The technical
aspect of teaching refers to understanding how new information is transferred to students: the
pedagogy involved in instruction. It also means how teachers manage their classroom, student
behavior, and communicating with parents. The technical information is what most teachers get
from their pre-service college credentialing courses. However, teachers get very little support in
the actual implementation of the learned strategies. New teachers are often left to fend for
themselves. Corbell, Osborne, and Reinman (2010) found that the importance of a school’s
administration to help new teachers deal with everyday needs to run a classroom. This study
highlights the need for a strong induction program to support new teachers.
Estes’ (1990) report also points out that new teachers struggle with understanding the
institutional objectives and policy of the district, which directly impacts their pedagogy. The
culture of every school and every district is very different and understanding how things work at
the particularly assigned school can have an impact on how new teachers view their working
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
28

environments. Estes (1990) points to the need for mentoring for new teachers in an organized and
systematic way that would support new teachers in making the transition into the “community of
educators” (p. 16) smoother, which they suggest would in turn support teacher retention. Quinn
and Andrews (2004), in their interviews with new teachers, encountered very similar results.
Teachers reported that even when they had a good year, they had still struggled with “information
about policies and procedures at their schools.” (Quinn & Andrews, 2004, p.166).
Estes’ (1990) findings would become the basis for CA Assembly Bill 2042 (1998) which
created a two-tier teacher credentialing and new professional teaching standards. This study
linked The Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Grant Program (BTSA) to a statewide
professional teacher induction program. BTSA had already been adopted as part of the California
Education Code in 1997; now it was part of teacher accreditation, which followed teachers from
their initial credentialing beyond their training and into their practice, creating two tiers of
credentialing. The mission of BTSA was to improve “student educational performance through
improved training, support, information and assistance for new teachers.” (Ed. Code,1997, Sec.
44279.2b). In a report on the implementation of the new credentialing SB 2042, which was
adopted in January 2009 (CTC, 2009) requiring new teachers to participate in the new BTSA
induction program, Russell (2006) noted that school and district administrators in the Los Angeles
basin had concluded that new teachers that had participated in the BTSA pilot program had
benefited greatly from the induction program and that new teacher demonstrated an “ability to
reflect on their practice and diagnose and assess children’s learning.” (2006, p.47). The
communication between the university and school districts showed improvement through having
to extend “their networks of communication to ensure that candidates in the two tiers are
appropriately served.” (2006, p.47). While the communication component between school
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
29

districts and universities was an unexpected consequence, it served new teachers well in
developing their instructional skills. The BTSA pilot and induction programs proved that it
would assist new teachers in developing their skills as professionals and their performance in the
classroom. Additionally, the BTSA program had a direct impact on the classroom (Estes, 1990).
Teacher Induction Programs
Teacher induction programs refer to the time a new teacher is provided with structured and
systematic help during the beginning of their teaching careers so as to “initiate, shape, and sustain
teachers in the profession.” (Addison, Barry, and Nielsen, 2007, p.15). Teacher inductions are
relatively new to the profession of teaching. In the early 1980s, 31 states had induction programs
in place to assist with the teaching shortage and the large influx of new, often minimally trained
teachers. However, the majority of these programs were shut down due to budgetary
consequences during the economic recession of the 1990s. As researchers began to point out the
success induction programs had with teacher retention and teacher effectiveness, states began
implementing and instituting induction programs as part of their credentialing system, including
California.
Addison, Barry, and Nielsen (2007) discuss the major elements of an induction program:
“orientation, adjustment of working conditions, release time, professional development,
opportunities for collaboration with colleagues, teacher assessment, program evaluation, follow-
up, and mentoring” (p.15). However, Horn, Sterling, and Subhan (2002) concluded that a
rigorous teaching induction program that focuses on orientation, professional development,
program evaluation, follow up, and mentoring has the highest success rates. Orientation is,
typically, the time before the start of the school year. New teachers are brought in and given
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
30

information regarding the school district, the community, and the curriculum. Professional
development and release time are essential to a new teacher as it provides an opportunity for new
teachers to continue their learning and deepen their understanding of the curriculum and
classroom management strategies. Additionally, professional development for new teachers
focuses on addressing common challenges which teachers face in the classroom, such as
classroom management, lesson design, and becoming acculturated in the profession and the
district. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the California Department of
Education (1997) also require induction programs to self-evaluate and address the needs of its
participants on a constant basis. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the
California Department of Education (1997) also requires induction programs to include its
participants in the improvement of the program. The follow-up or continuous support is for year
two teachers. It refers to added but differentiated support provided to year two teachers (Horn,
Sterling, & Subhan, 2002) to ensure teacher success since teachers need a change after the first
year of teaching. For year two teachers, questions may be more about the subtleties of instruction
rather than questions about policies and procedures.
When exploring how mentors are used in various districts, Addison, Barry, and Nielsen
(2007) noted that mentors could mean a variety of things. A mentor can be an assigned buddy
teacher that serves informally to answer any questions new teachers may have, but in “other
cases, the mentor is trained to support teachers on a full-time basis.” (Addison, Barry, and
Nielsen, 2007). However, the importance of the mentor teacher or teacher coach cannot be
understated. It is vital that the mentor receive training in coaching techniques and has a wealth of
knowledge not only about the district but also in pedagogical instructional strategies. The mentor
must not only be able to provide instructional guidance but also know how to collect data through
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
31

various forms of observations. Additionally, mentor teachers must-have release time to be able to
observe new teachers under them providing feedback as well as the opportunity to meet to discuss
any concerns the new teacher may have.
Yopp and Young (1999) surveyed new teachers and they found that a key component of
an induction program was how responsive the program was to its participants, how they saw their
pairing with their teacher support provider, having an opportunity to meet with peers, and finally
ensuring the professional development or workshops were relevant to their needs.
Coaches and Training
As the teacher-coach, the mentor has a difficult job to create and build a relationship with
the new teacher while at the same time provide effective feedback and have reflective
conversations about the new teacher’s practice. Yet, most mentor teachers receive very little
training. Bradburya and Koballa (2015), in their review of 46 studies, discovered that only in four
of the studies reviewed had the mentoring teachers been provided with any training centered
around coaching. As the relationship between mentor and mentee must be built around trust, the
authors highlighted the need for training. In their study, Hoffman, Wetzel, Maloch, Greeter,
Taylor, DeJulio, and Vlach (2015), mentors and student teachers shared how they “struggled to
build productive partnerships.” (2015, p. 102). Hoffman, et al. (2015) conclude that some of the
struggles come from having “different expectations for how to mentor and be mentored around
their work together.” (p. 103). So, it is important for the induction program to provide parameters
for both the mentors and the student teachers and delineate the expectations for both mentor and
mentee about what the expectations are for the program.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
32

Adding to the difficulties of mentoring is the past practice of teachers working in isolation.
Experienced teachers do not often have professional conversations to discuss their own teaching
practices with their peers. This can lead veteran teachers, who later become mentor teachers, to
struggle in sharing their experience with new teachers (Stanulis, 1995). This is important since a
mentor needs to be able to provide corrective feedback and openly share experiences that may
support the student-teacher. Hawkey (1997), in her study, notes the reluctance of both mentor
and student teacher to disagree or question ideas for fear of creating strife and risking the
relationship.
True mentorship happens when both parties come to the table with their own experiences
and ideas about the work. When both parties see each other as “sources of knowledge” (Hoffman,
et al., 2015, p. 103), the mentee is able to reflect on the teaching and learn from his/her
experience. It is this open dialogue that builds the trust needed for the mentee to learn from the
mentor (Hoffman, et al., 2015). Once this trust is in place, the mentor can provide crucial
feedback to the mentee so that they may reflect on their practice. The literature points to the need
to ensure mentor-mentee receives appropriate training around coaching so as to have the tools
needed to support year one and year two teachers. For this study, teachers in the induction
program will be asked about their relationship with their coaches/mentors, and how that
relationship may have impacted their ability to take up the Danielson Framework.
Pedagogy
As changes have been made to the curriculum over time, so too has the pedagogical
approaches used to implement it changed. The movement away from teacher-centered instruction
has had an impact on the preferred instructional strategies used in the classroom. As noted earlier
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
33

in this study, No Child Left Behind curriculum favored skills driven instruction. During this time,
direct instruction gained prominence as the preferred instructional method in the classroom across
California (US. Dept. of Ed., 2002). Teachers were trained as part of California’s Reading First
initiative (US. Dept. Ed., 2002) on utilizing direct instruction which consisted:
1. Teach[ing] an explicit step-by-step strategy (When this is not possible or necessary, model
effective performance)
2. Develop mastery at each step in the process
3. Develop strategy (or process) corrections for student errors
4. Gradually fade from teacher-directed activities toward independent work
5. Use adequate, systematic practice with a range of examples
6. Use the cumulative review (Darch, Gerstein, and Woodward, 1986, p. 19)
While direct instruction provided a concrete instructional model to teachers, the teacher does all
the work. Direct instruction does have a place as an effective teaching strategy, especially with
more minoritized and marginalized students who have been shown to need more explicit
instruction (Au, 1998). In those circumstances, it is an effective teaching strategy. It requires
teachers to identify the learning skill and provide highly structured activities that support the
learner, which demonstrate success, especially in a limited skills-based curriculum. However,
direct instruction has limitations. Direct instruction does not promote the learner, the students, to
take ownership of their learning. Students can become over-reliant on the teacher for their
learning, and it does not leave much room for exploration (Moreno, 2004).
As educational practices continue to evolve, pedagogical practices have moved from direct
instruction (DI), which places the teacher at the center of the classroom, to a more student-
centered instructional approach such as gradual release approach. The gradual release approach
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
34

has as its primary components a focused lesson, guided instruction, collaborative learning, and
independent work (Fisher, 2008). A focused lesson provides the learner the understanding of
what is expected to learn; guided instruction follows a structure demonstration or modeling of the
skills or objectives. However, a major difference between direct instruction and gradual release is
collaborative learning. Gradual release, derived from a constructivist view, believes that the real
learning is done by the learner when he/she begins to interact with the objective in collaborative
groups, receive feedback from peers, and/or the teacher (Fisher, 2008). Gradual release
instruction has a constructivist approach and acknowledges that the learner must make meaning of
the material. By having structured conversations with peers and making connections to prior
learning, the learner can cement and internalize the objective of the lesson.
Allington (2002) discusses the importance of student talk and how “exemplary teachers”
create and foster the environment in the classroom which supports students’ learning. Allington
(2002) notes that skillful teachers create an environment where students’ “talk was purposeful
talk,..., not simply chatter. It was problem-posing, problem-solving talk related to curricular
topics.” (2002, p. 744). The purposeful talks are an essential component of gradual release as the
learner cements his ideas and has the opportunity to explore his/her understanding of the learning
objective. The gradual release pedagogy is rooted in Dewey’s constructivist approach to learning
(1916), Piaget’s stages of learning (1952), and Vygotsky’s zone of approximation work (1978).
Helping teachers understand these principals can support classroom instruction and help new
teachers in lesson planning and delivery.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
35

Equity in the Classroom: Culturally Responsive and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies
Having new teachers trained on how to teach and support students from a wide range of
cultural and ethnic backgrounds is essential in a state like California. A constructivist approach,
as described by Danielson’s Framework (2007) to instruction, relies on the teacher being able to
make decisions about instruction that will engage students in their own learning. Nevertheless,
teaching with equity in mind is not something that just happens in the classrooms. Teachers must
make a conscious effort to create an environment that fosters trust and student engagement while
respecting student’s backgrounds. Brown (2007) defines culturally responsive teaching as “the
assumption that when knowledge and academic skills are situated within the lived experiences
and frames of reference of students, they are personally more meaningful” (p.60). This requires
teachers to prepare lessons that ensure students’ diverse perspectives and lived experiences are
included in the lessons. A large component of culturally responsive teaching lies in the planning
stages of lesson development. Cochran-Smith, Grudnoff, Haigh, Hill, and Ludlow (2016)
identified six major components of a culturally responsive curriculum:
● Selecting worthwhile content and designing and implementing learning
opportunities aligned to valued learning outcomes
● Connecting to students' lives and experiences
● Creating learning-focused, respectful, and supportive learning environments
● Using evidence to scaffold learning and improve teaching
● Adopting an inquiry stance and taking responsibility for professional engagement
and learning
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
36

● Recognizing and challenging classroom, school, and societal practices that
reproduce inequity (2016).
Culturally responsive instruction requires the classroom teacher to know their students and what
activities mostly would benefit their students. Lattuca (2006) correlates culturally responsive
instruction with a constructivist approach by identifying the teacher’s role in delivering
information to his/her students. Lattuca (2006) notes that constructivism does not “relieve the
teacher of the responsibility to teach. Teaching is not about delivering content. It is the act of
designing experiences that encourage and enable learning.” (2006, p.356). At the core of
culturally proficient teaching, the teacher is aware of his/her students and skillfully creates an
environment where diverse ideas are valued. Additionally, the teacher finds ways to construct
socially and culturally relevant lessons that affirm the learners’ experiences.
Django Paris builds on prior work of cultural relevance and responsiveness. Paris (2012)
questions the use of terms of “relevancy and responsiveness” as he concludes these terms do not
“explicitly enough support the linguistic and cultural dexterity and plurality” (2012, p.95) of the
modern classroom. Paris offers “culturally sustaining pedagogy” (2012, p.95) as an alternative
term one which he hopes provides a clearer and actionable practice for pre-service and current
teachers. Paris sees the job of teachers as one that “support(s) young people in sustaining the
cultural and linguistic competence of their communities while simultaneously offering access to
dominant cultural competence” (2012, p.95). Cultural sustaining pedagogy hopes to “perpetuate
and foster—to sustain—linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism students’ repertoires in the
process of extending their practice to include dominant language, literacies, and other cultural
practices” (Paris, 2012, p.95). This Paris proposes will further the pedagogical practice in which
the dominant practice is included but not the only requirement of instruction.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
37

The work of seminal constructivist theorists Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky place the
students’ learning in the larger social construct of making meaning by engaging with peers,
teacher and by solving problems. It is up to the skillful teacher to connect the learning in a
culturally and socially responsible way.
Constructivism
We conclude, accordingly, that the use of language to convey and acquire
ideas is an extension and refinement of the principle that things gain meaning by
being used in a shared experience or joint action; in no sense does it contravene
that principle. When words do not enter as factors into a shared situation, either
overtly or imaginatively, they operate as pure physical stimuli, not as having a
meaning or intellectual value. They set the activity running in a given groove, but
there is no accompanying conscious purpose or meaning. (Dewey, 1916, p.328).

This study will utilize Charlotte Danielson’s Framework (2007) as a conceptual
framework when collecting and analyzing data. Danielson’s Framework (2007) is based on the
fundamental work of Dewey, Piaget and Vygotsky’s constructivist theory. Constructivism has
had a resurgence as pedagogical practice as it places the student or learner in the center of
instruction and as an active participant in the process of learning (Dewey, 1916). Dewey (1916)
notes that in order for the learner to construct new learning, the learner must experience the
learning through various social interactions that allow the learner to attach the new learning to
previously understood concepts. Additionally, the learner and the teacher work together actively,
with both sharing in the conversation and in the activity as a co-constructed experience. And it is
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
38

that shared experience, combined with the new teaching, that creates an appropriate environment
for the student to be able to learn (Dewey, 1916). Constructivism was later influenced by
Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist, who noted that learning is as much an unconscious social
construct as is a conscious interaction (1978). Vygotsky (1978) built on the idea that the learning
of new information relies on previous interactions. Piaget’s (1952) stages of intellectual
development have continued to have an impact in the classroom and in designing learning that is
child-centered. Constructivism theory plays an essential role in how year one and year two
teachers are trained at Rocky Unified School district through a lens of culturally proficient
instruction.
Dewey
The work of Danielson (2007) is heavily influenced and builds on the constructivist theory
of learning developed by Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky. Dewey (1916) describes learning as
something that happens in a social context. Learning is an active process in which the learner
lives and experiences the world around learning through a series of activities and failures. It is
through these activities and a series of failures that the learner is able to construct new knowledge
in a way that is meaningful to them. Dewey (1938) asserted that “there is an intimate and
necessary relation between the processes of actual experience and education” (p. 7). Dewey
believed that education required not only that teachers have a strong general knowledge base, but
also that they know their students well, so as to build learning experiences based on students’
prior learning. Dewey (1938) believed that when these experiences happened in a social setting,
such as a classroom, students actively communicated and built knowledge as a community of
learners. To Dewey, language plays a direct role in learning. He argues that it is not merely the
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
39

sounds of language but the words and the context of the language, by connecting actions to the
words. Dewey (1916) argues that “a child gets the idea of, say, a hat by using it as other persons
do; by covering the head with it, giving it to others to wear, having it put on by others when going
out, etc.” (1916, p. 305). So, to Dewey, the idea of social interaction of a child is just as
important as the formal education being received in the classroom. He goes on to say that “play
tends to reproduce and affirm the crudites, as well as the excellencies, of surrounding adult life.”
(Dewey, 1916, p.3158). And while in another time, play would be the primary source of learning
for the child, in modern times, the school, or formal education as Dewey puts it, has taken the
place of the primary source of learning. Thus, it is incumbent upon the educator to know their
students and select activities that would provide the desired outcome.
In the classroom, the teacher creates activities that help the student connect language to
new meaning. Dewey (1996) contends that the words are meaningless, easily forgotten or
misunderstood if they are not attached to a schema. Furthermore, the words which are concepts
only have meaning to the learner when they are able to experience the words and action through
play or action. This is crucial in the classroom; students who are able to make meaning through
the interaction of the new skill, language, and peer/teacher feedback can then create a new schema
which will be internalized and not just memorized.
Jean Piaget
Dewey’s theory sets the backdrop for Piaget’s (1952) “cognitive development” theory to
emerge. Piaget (1952) argues that “human cognitive development is a continually adaptive
process of assimilation, accommodation, and correction” (p. 21). Piaget’s theory has had a
pronounced influence in the classroom of today. Piaget (1952) not only built on Dewey’s social
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
40

constructivism but also recognized that a child learning experience is a continuum. A critical
component of Piaget’s theory is that children create problem-solving strategies relying on
previous experiences to make new meaning. Piaget’s stages (1952) can be seen in the classroom
and how teachers and curriculum select what is appropriate to teach. Furthermore, Piaget (1952)
points to how the child makes meaning and learns from the child's perspective and not from the
adult. Inskeep (1972) noted that Piaget’s “theory takes into consideration and accounts for the
interaction of the child with his environment. The environment of a classroom situation includes
the subject matter to be learned. The interaction of method, content, and child is vital in the
development.” (1972, p. 257).
Piaget is most notably known for his developmental stage theory which categorized
cognitive a child's development into four stages:
1. Sensorimotor (birth-2): the stage when a child is starting to interact with their world.
Everything is felt, and children begin their interaction with other objects and people.
2. Preoperational (2-7): the child begins to understand that language is a symbol of things.
The perspective of the child is very narrow and driven only by their experiences.
3. Concrete operational (7-11): this period marks when a child is able to start problem-
solving in his head without physically encountering the problem. However, the child still may
depend on the concrete physical world.
4. Formal operational (adolescence -adulthood) the learner can now think abstractly and
theorize utilizing symbols/language to identify various solutions to the problem.
As the child progresses through these four stages, the child has the ability to construct a more
complex understanding of the world around them (Piaget, 1952). According to Piaget (1971), “the
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
41

essential functions of the mind consist in understanding and inventing, in other words building up
structures, by structuring reality” (p. 27).
Kamii and Ewing (1996) describe Piaget’s three kinds of knowledge: “physical, social,
and logico-mathematical” (1996, p. 262). The physical knowledge refers to the observable nature
of the environment, the physical properties of the objects the learner encounters. Social
knowledge is the social convention of saying good morning and how people interact on a day to
day basis. The logico-mathematical is a far more abstract concept as the logico-mathematical
construct lives in the person’s mind. Kamii and Ewing (1996) explain that Piaget logico-
mathematical knowledge refers to the connection that concepts and knowledge have in the
learner’s mind. So new knowledge is constructed in the “child's mind by creating new
relationships out of previous relationships” (1996, p. 262). Kamii and Ewing (1996) conclude
that true learning happens when the learner is able to create and construct new relationships in a
social environment, understanding what is and what is not, become part of the learner's schema
allowing them to internalize new information.
The stages of development are a significant part of Piaget’s contributions and expand on
constructivist theory. Piaget believed that “learning is possible if you base the more complex
structures on simpler structures, that is, when there is a natural relationship and development of
these structures and not simply an external reinforcement.” (1964, p. 184). Piaget’s (1964)
concludes that “learning is subordinated to development and not vice-versa.” (1964, p. 184).
Following Piaget’s (1964) theories, a skillful classroom teacher will utilize the learner's previous
experiences to support the new learning ensuring the activities are organized for the appropriate
developmental stage of the student.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
42

Lev Vygotsky
Whereas Piaget focused on how individuals build knowledge, Vygotsky (1978) focused
on the influence society plays in the development of knowledge within an individual. While still
part of the constructivism movement, Vygotsky’s influence on a modern classroom is echoed in
Danielson’s (2007) framework. Derry (2013) explains that socialization was “independent of the
child’s own internal processes of intellectual development” (2013, p. 74). Derry (2013)
concludes that Vygotsky’s theory is relevant to modern educational theory in that “formal
intervention has productive and unique consequences for development” (2013, p.74), meaning
that teaching and the interaction a child has with his environment can have an effect on learning
as the child matures in age. For Vygotsky, there is no separation between the mind and the world.
The world is a major component of the learner and has a major influence on how learning occurs.
To Vygotsky, learning happens at two different levels: learning can be a passive action and it can
also happen at a conscious level (Derry, 2013). Thus, the social development, passive learning,
exist prior to the child’s cognitive capacities, leaving the conscious level learning to be done
formally and with the learner making meaning of the learning.
Vygotsky concluded that “human learning presupposes a special social nature by which
children grow into the intellectual life of those around them” (Vygotsky, 1978, p.88). By
separating the learning into two classifications, every day and scientific, Vygotsky argued that
scientific learning required intentionality from the learner (Vygotsky, 1978). From this theory,
Vygotsky developed his concept of the “zone of proximal development” (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978).
Vygotsky explains the ZPD as “the distance between the actual developmental level as
determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
43

through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers”
(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). This is a huge concept in current modern classroom instruction.
Understanding the importance of Piaget’s constructivism, Vygotsky’s zone of proximal
development and the distinctions between the “every day and academic” (Vygosky, 1978)
concepts in learning as hierarchical order for academic and conscious learning as key ideas that
every new teacher needs to acquire (Gredler and Shilds, 2007). The need for preparation and
intentionality in the classroom is essential in providing the learner with the definitions of what is
being learned, creating a conscious awareness of the learner thinking, and finally the relationship
(Gredler and Shilds, 2007; Vygosky, 1978).
Constructivist concepts are integral components of instruction that are needed in the
current classroom. A skillful teacher is able to design activities that build on students’ prior
knowledge and give students age-appropriate “structures” (Piaget, 1964). Piaget and Vygotsky
understood that the learner could not create new learning from isolation, but rather depended on
their developmental stage and prior knowledge to construct new meaning. So too, a teacher must
take these ideas during the planning of the lesson and provide students with activities that build
on prior knowledge and socially engage the learner on the new learning. The classroom teacher
places the student at the center of the learning activity and guides the student to learn by engaging
on problem-based learning, having time to question and theorize, receiving feedback from
peers/teacher, and develop a deeper knowledge of the language needed to create new meaning
(Lattuca, 2006).
Madeline Hunter
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
44

It is difficult to talk about classroom instruction and best teaching practices without
looking at the contributions made by Madeline Hunter. Her insights into classroom instructions
are currently in practice in a variety of ways in the classroom to this day. Teacher and teacher-
training continue to integrate her studies and recommendations, which have endured the test of
time and the varied curriculum changes made over the decades. Her studies at University
Elementary School at California University Los Angeles has deeply affected how teachers
continue to be trained. Hunter believed that the most influential variable in the classroom was the
teacher. Hunter (1976) asserted that “the human who teaches the student has the human's power
to make a learning difference [and that difference] lies in professional decisions and the behaviors
that result from those decisions” (1976, p. 162).
At the center of Hunter’s studies was the teacher. She believed it is the responsibility of
the teacher to ensure critical and purposeful decisions are made which keep the needs of the
students in his/her classroom front and center. Hunter (1976) classified teaching into two
categories, the “science of teaching and the non-tangible, intuitive, extrasensory perceptions
which still reside in the category of the unarticulated artistry" (1976, p. 162) of teaching. It is
these two key ingredients that in the hand of a skilled teacher can create opportunities for learning
to occur. Hunter (1976) defined learning as “a series of decisions, and the implementation of
those decisions, which increases the probability of [the] intended learning” (1976, p.162). In
keeping with Piaget and Vygotsky, Hunter also points to the importance that careful planning
plays in teaching and the effect of the lesson on the learner. The planning extends beyond the
content or the intended objective. It also included the form in which the content would be
presented to the learner.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
45

For Hunter (1976), how information is presented to the learner is another decision that
needs to be made by the teacher. At times, Hunter critics minimized her work as a prescriptive
direct instruction approach. However, Hunter (1976) argued that classroom instruction could take
a variety of forms depending on the desired outcome. Once again, in a constructivist fashion, the
teacher is responsible for creating an activity that would suit students and the objective of the
lesson. The delivery of the lesson could take the form of “discovery, experimentation,
cooperative learning, concept attainment, or computer-assisted instruction” (Hunter, 1976, p.
163).
As part of her ongoing research, Hunter (1976) identified three observable behaviors
which demonstrate learning in the students: teaching and learning are focused on the learning
objective, the learning objective is at the appropriate level of difficulty, and monitoring and
adjusting are occurring throughout the lesson. Danielson’s (2007) framework for teaching falls in
line with these key findings. Having a clear and well-defined teaching objective is at the heart of
any good lesson plan. While Hunter is widely known for her lesson plan outlining the
components of an effective lesson (Appendix A), it is the deeper understanding and linear
progression and careful selection of activities which Hunter concluded were at the heart of good
instruction.
The Framework for Teaching
This study will utilize Danielson’s The Framework for Teaching, Enhancing Professional
Practice (2007) as its theoretical framework. It relies heavily on constructivist tenets of teaching
students with the learner in mind. The teacher builds on student’s prior knowledge, age-
appropriate instruction, collaboration activities to support making meaning, and finally, that
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
46

student’s learning is done by the learner. The framework which is composed of four domains,
planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities
(2007), also provides a performance rubric which measures teacher’s proficiency in each domain.
The rankings unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, distinguished (2007) provide descriptors and
further the understanding of what is expected. Furthermore, this study will utilize a culturally
responsive lens when interviewing year one and year two teachers in the induction program.
Charlotte Danielson
Danielson began to work with teachers as part of a program called The Praxis Series:
Professional Assessments for Beginning Teachers in 1987. Danielson work with ETS began in
large part as the training developer for Praxis III: Classroom Performance Assessment and later as
the trainer of assessors for the Praxis III. During her work with ETS as a trainer for assessors of
new teachers and through her experiences talking to trainers of new teachers, Danielson identified
the need to expand the assessment into a framework that would support professional
conversations not just for new teachers but for all teachers in the profession.
Danielson (2007), Enhancing Professional Practice. A Framework for Teaching, is broken
into four domains: Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instruction, and
Professional Responsibilities. Each domain is then divided further with 22 sub-components
making up the total framework. Danielson believes that the framework is important as it provides
a “road map through the territory, structured around a shared understanding of teaching.” (2007,
p.2). The notion of frameworks is not new and other frameworks have supported the work of
Danielson. The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) is a
national organization that has proposed to set national teaching standards for all new teachers.
Danielson (2007) draws on INTASC to provide a framework for teachers new and experienced
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
47

with a road map of the subtleties of teaching and the skills needed in the classroom. Much like
INTASC, Danielson’s sees the need for new teachers to have a clear framework from which they
can audit their practice and receive feedback from their evaluators (Danielson, 2007).
Danielson’s (2007) framework aims to be comprehensive. It is grounded in the
assumption of “what is important for students to learn, the nature of learning, and how to promote
it, the purposeful nature of teaching and the nature of professionalism.” (Danielson, 2007, p.25).
The framework does not prefer a teaching style but rather identifies the “tasks” (Danielson, 2007)
required for the learning to happen. The approach may change depending on the circumstances
and the needs of the learner. The teacher may need to have small groups in one instance and
prefer direct instruction for another activity. It is the desired outcome that would dictate the
instructional decision that a teacher may utilize.
Danielson (2007) framework is deeply rooted in constructivist theory in that it starts with
the premise that “it is the learner who does the learning: adult as well as children.” (2007, p.15).
Danielson (2007) sets her framework from the learner’s perspective which is to say the student in
the classroom is what drives the instructional decisions during lesson planning and lesson
delivery. Therefore, it is up to the teacher to carefully craft and create an environment that
facilitates the learning allowing students to derive the meaning from the classroom activities and
the interaction with peers. The framework “assumes that the primary goal of education is for
students to understand important concepts and develop important cognitive skills and it is each
teacher’s responsibility, using the resources at hand, to accomplish those goals.” (Danielson,
2007, p.17). Danielson (2007) places the instructional responsibility on the teacher. The teacher
must approach each lesson with a sense of intentionality, following on the constructivist seminal
works of Vygotsky (1978) scientific learning and Piaget's (1958) developmental theories.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
48

Danielson (2007) constructivism is based on the theory that students will gather different aspects
of the learning given by their varied experiences. Therefore, it is up to the teacher to create the
environment and the experiences necessary for the learner to acquire the desired information.
Utilizing a constructivism approach, Danielson (2007), places the importance of knowledge
acquisition on the conversation created by the teacher and the learner. Once more this
conversation and/or experience is created purposefully by the teacher.
The framework itself is composed of four domains Planning and Preparation, Classroom
Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities; additionally, each domain is divided
into five or six components, depending on the domain, adding up to a total of 22 components in
the framework (Danielson, 2007). The first domain of Planning and Preparation are key if a
teacher is to have success in the classroom. While planning is not observed in the classroom, it is
manifested by how the lessons and the instructions are demonstrated in the classroom. Danielson
(2007) notes that teachers “provide evidence of their knowledge of content and pedagogy through
performance in the classroom.” (Danielson, 2007, p. 46), meaning preparation can be observed
through the instructional choices the teacher made. The evidence of good preparation can be
found by the activity that was selected and the level engagement the activity has on students. It is
this preparation that sets the stage for lesson delivery.
Classroom Environment, domain two, is how teachers demonstrate their skills in
promoting a classroom environment that respects students, their voice, as well as promotes a
classroom that is well organized and conducive to learning. However, at the heart of domain two
is the responsibility of the teacher to learn “to respect the wide variety of backgrounds represented
by their students and learn to see the world through their students’ perspective.” (Danielson, 2007,
p. 64). This is a crucial component of a culturally responsive curriculum. Danielson (2007)
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
49

describes a proficient teacher in domain two as a teacher whose interactions with students are
“appropriate to age and culture of the students.” (2007, p. 66). Once more, the classroom teacher
must be aware of his/her students and be sensitive to their needs and be willing to learn from them
so as to provide a classroom environment that promotes healthy discussions and where students
feel safe to share their voice.
Domain three is Instruction and Danielson (2007) calls it the heart of the framework. It is
here that the teacher puts in practice the many instructional decisions that are being made prior to
and during the lesson. For Danielson (2007), instruction is the sum total of teacher directions and
explanations, skillful questioning and discussions, assessments, and finally being able to
demonstrate “flexibility and responsiveness” (2007, p. 77) during the lesson delivery. Danielson
(2007) echoes Hunter (1978) on lesson delivery as a decision that must be made depending on the
teaching objective. A skillful teacher will connect new ideas to students “background,
knowledge, interests, and school culture.” (Danielson, 2007, p. 78). The teacher must have an
end in mind and prepare an activity that promotes the learning of the desired outcome.
The last domain, Professional Responsibilities, represents the work done behind the scenes
but more importantly, the work done by teachers to improve their own practice. Reflecting on
practice is a skill that every teacher needs to develop. Because of all of its complexities of
teaching (domain three), it can never be perfect. In domain four, Danielson (2007) looks at
teacher reflections, participation in professional conversations, communicating with the
community, managing students’ records, and growing professionally as part of the many
professional duties an experienced teacher must comfortable with as they move through the
profession.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
50

Each component of the four domains has a possible one of four ratings: unsatisfactory,
basic, proficient and distinguished. The ratings are meant to provide feedback to the teacher and
assist in areas of potential growth. The rubric also provides areas of focus for coaches,
administrators and evaluators when observing in the classroom. A rating of unsatisfactory
demonstrates that the teacher “does not yet appear to understand the underlying components”
(Danielson, 2007, p.39). The rating, Danielson explains, of not “yet” is important as new teachers
starting out in the profession are developing their understanding of teaching strategies and how
they are applied in the classroom. It is up to the coach or evaluator to have the conversation and
provide feedback on how to improve instruction. A rating of basic demonstrates implementation
that is “sporadic, intermittent, or otherwise not entirely successful.” (Danielson, 2007, p.39). In
the basic rating, the teacher is partially successful but is not consistent in the instruction. A
proficient rating is given to a teacher who “clearly understands the underlying components and
implements them well.” (Danielson, 2007, p.40). The proficient rating typically denotes an
experienced teacher who knows the curriculum and has a “broad repertoire of strategies and
activities to use with students.” (Danielson, 2007, p. 40). Finally, the distinguished level rating is
reserved for master teachers who “make contributions to the field, both in and outside their
school.” (Danielson, 2007, p. 40). The distinguished performance level is very high and it may
not be attained with consistency. It is a “very good place to visit but don’t expect to live there.”
(Danielson, 2007, p.41). Danielson’s rubric provides the language and the roadmap for
supervisors to have constructive conversations around classroom instruction. It gives new
teachers a perspective on what it means to be an accomplished teacher while also providing
experienced teachers with room for growth.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
51

Summary
The literature in this chapter points to the complexities of teaching as a skillful practice
requiring an understanding of content, pedagogical knowledge, and awareness of the students
being taught in the classroom. The literature makes it clear that new teachers benefit from a well-
defined and articulated induction program that assists new teachers in honing their understanding
of teaching. Additionally, new teachers benefit greatly from direct coaching and engaging in
professional conversations about their practice (Hoffman, et al., 2015). These conversations
assist new teachers in developing their awareness about instruction but more importantly
understanding the needs of the students they teach. Utilizing a culturally sustaining lens is crucial
for teachers in the modern classroom who want to create a thriving and engaging classroom;
however, it requires the teacher to make conscious decisions about instruction, presentation of
materials, and design of activities (Cochran-Smith, Grudnoff, Haigh, Hill, & Ludlow, 2016).
Finally, the seminal works Dewey (1916), Piaget (1052), and Vygotsky (1978) serve as the
foundational understanding of Danielson work (2007) which provides a measuring tool for new
teachers to challenge and identify areas of potential growth in their practice.
It is clear that new teachers, especially year one and year two of their probationary status,
benefit greatly from having a coach or a mentor. However, the quality of the coaching is
dependent on the relationship between the coach and the coachee and the skillfulness of the coach
in being able to identify areas of growth while being able to support the new teacher (Hawkeye,
1997; Stanulis, 1995). The literature points to clear and well-defined conversations around the
practice of teaching. Having a framework that guides the conversations in combination with the
professional learning support for both the coach and coachee around the framework used in the
induction program, such as The Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007), provides a guide or
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
52

place to point to and give clear coaching or instructional assistance to new teachers. This study
will explore how new teachers in year one and year two of the induction program at Rocky
Unified school district perceive the implementation and the support of the coaches.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
53

CHAPTER III
At the time of the study, a large portion of Rocky School District’s human and financial
resources have been allocated each year to the recruitment and training of new teacher candidates
to fill vacant teaching positions within the district. While there were many reasons for the
continuing need to hire new teachers, some of the predominant reasons included the replacement
of retiring teachers and teachers moving to other districts, as well as increases in student
enrollment. The Human Resources department of the RSD worked diligently to hire the most
qualified teacher candidates. However, hiring the best candidates was only the beginning step in
ensuring that RSD classrooms were staffed with qualified and prepared teachers.
Providing appropriate onboarding, ongoing support, and staff development were crucial
components to ensuring that new teachers preparing for their clear Tier Two of their California
credentialing process are successful in the classroom. In order to ensure that new teachers were
successful, the district’s professional development department formed a program called
Professional Growth System (PGS) to ensure that these teachers got the coaching and training
they needed during their first two years in the district. As part of this program, the districts’ staff
development department and PGS was charged with developing and managing the Tier Two
credentialing requirement for all teachers who were beginning their teaching careers and who
needed to clear their teaching credentials with the school district induction program (CCTC,
2012).
At the beginning of each school year, new teachers were brought in by the staff
development department for training and provided with relevant information regarding the school
district, the community, and the curriculum. This study investigated how the use of the
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
54

Danielson’s Framework (2007), which was mandated by the district, supported new teachers as
part of RSD’s teacher induction program. As part of this study, I conducted interviews with year
one and year two teachers using the Danielson Framework, as well as program coaches in an
effort to understand their perspectives on the effectiveness of the program. This chapter provides
a description of the methods used to collect and analyze data from study participants, as well as a
description of the participants, including population size and demographics.
This study utilized a qualitative approach to research the following question: Do year one
and year two elementary school teachers receiving coaching support under Framework for
Teaching (Danielson, 2007) through tier 2 induction, perceive the RSDspell out here program to
be adequately preparing them to teach culturally and ethnically diverse students?
Reducing the opportunity gap in the classroom for students from historically
underprivileged backgrounds was central to the mission of the Rocky School District (RSD).
Ensuring new teachers were receiving the support they need to successfully teach instructional
programs has the potential to improve academic outcomes for all students. Understanding the
needs and the successes of new teachers as they enter and exit the induction program at RSD was
important to the district as a great deal of resources, both human and financial, are allocated to the
preparation of teachers participating in the induction program. Furthermore, providing adequate
training and support to new teachers had the potential to directly impact classroom instruction
academic success of students in the district.
Methodology
This qualitative study researched the perceptions of year one and year two elementary
teachers participating in the induction program at Rocky School District. This study was
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
55

concerned in understanding the new teachers’ perspectives, their experiences with the induction
program, the implementation of the Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007), and finally, the
support they received through the coaching sessions. Because this study was focused on the
participants' experiences, a qualitative approach was most appropriate (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Qualitative methods lend themselves to understanding “the meaning that the participants hold
about the problem or issue, not the meaning that the researchers bring to the research or that
writers express in the literature” (Brown & Creswell, 1992, p. 53). The data were collected
through semi-structured interviews with current participating teachers receiving coaching and
support of the induction program at RSD. The semi-structured interviews allowed time for new
teachers to become comfortable with the topic and express their views on the use of the
Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) and their experiences as new teachers in the induction
program. Additionally, the use of the low-stress environment allowed participants to be open in
describing their experiences and reflecting on the professional development they had or were
currently receiving while also providing their personal insights into the effectiveness of the
support systems.
The interview protocol (see Appendix C) was meant to be used as a guide throughout the
conversations. The open-ended nature of the questions was meant to guide conversations and
answer the primary research question:
Do year one and year two elementary school teachers, receiving coaching support
under Danielson Framework for Teaching through tier two induction, perceive the
Rocky School District program to be adequately preparing them to teach
culturally and ethnically diverse students?
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
56

This study is an inductive investigation case study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), as it has
provided opportunities to explore the implementation of the induction program from the teachers’
perspectives. Additionally, this methodology provided a platform for participants to share their
candid thoughts and ideas on how staff development/professional learning has succeeded,
providing insights where the program missed opportunities to have a broader impact on the
participants, and finally, giving some logical recommendations of where and how it can improve.
Setting
The study took place in a semi-urban school district in southern California. The district is
a large school district with a very diverse student population of 56% Latino, 27% white, 8%
Asian and 7% African American. As a school administrator in the school district, I applied to the
research and data department to have this study approved and given permission to recruit
participants for the research study. After some conversations with the director of Professional
Growth Systems and of the induction program, it was agreed that the best way to recruit
participants would be at the monthly induction meetings held by the induction program
coordinator at the induction central district offices. All induction participants were expected to
come to the meetings and check-in regarding their progress in the completion of the program. It
granted me the opportunity for a quick introduction to the study and a chance to hand out a flyer
with details to the study (Appendix B) and with contact information for those who might be
interested in participating in the study. As a school administrator in the school district, any
participant under my direct supervision would be and was excluded from the participating pool.
As a large school district, the participants who chose to participate were selected from four
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
57

different school sites. None of which were near or had participated in any way with my staff or
direct supervision.
Selecting Participants (Sampling)
At RSD, the coordinators of the induction program hold monthly meetings for all teacher
participants. I attended the October 30
th
and November 13
th
Professional Learning induction
meetings. At these meetings, I introduced myself, this study and its purpose, and asked for
volunteers who met the criteria of being in the induction program, who would be willing and able
to participate in interviews of approximately one hour in length. Seven teachers volunteered, all
of whom eventually participated in the study. All seven elementary teachers were in the
induction program at the time of the study and were receiving coaching in utilizing Framework
for Teaching (Danielson, 2007). Three participants were currently starting year two of the
induction program and four teacher participants were just starting their first year as a full-time
elementary teacher.
Participants were from four different elementary school sites within the RSD and were
assigned to various grade levels from Kinder to six grade, which also included two teachers in a
full special education day class setting. Year one teachers provided a fresh perspective on how
new teachers were on-boarded into the district and the program. Additionally, year one teachers
shared their own expectations and their perceived needs as they entered the first year of teaching.
Year two teachers provided their reflections on services, coaching, expectations, and overall
experiences of their first year in the program as well as how it changed over the course of the
year. Additionally, year two teachers shared what their expectations and needs were as they
entered their second year of teaching.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
58

Interviews
This is a qualitative case study; as such, the use of semi-structured interviews with all
participants was selected. Semi-structured interviews provided opportunities for participants to
have conversations with the researcher and allowed the researcher to explore their understanding
and their perceptions of the induction program (Merriam and Tsdell, 2016). As part of the study,
I tried to determine if any specific trainings or experiences were perceived by participating
teachers to aid in meeting the challenges that affect minoritized students in the classroom. The
study also explored how participants coped with such challenges, what systems of support were
available to the participant, how culturally sustaining teaching might support student engagement
in the classroom, and how coaching provided opportunities to explore and reflect in their
instruction.
Interviews were conducted in the participants’ classroom, at the induction program
offices, or at an off-site location as requested by individual participants. The intent of providing
alternate locations was to ensure that participants feel comfortable sharing their honest thoughts
and experiences about the program. Each participant was presented with a flyer with information
about the study in the form of frequently asked questions. All questions were answered, and
participants were provided with an opportunity to review the information. If the participant were
interested in participating, they were also provided with the opportunity to review and sign the
consent form prior to all interviews. Interviews lasted between 35 minutes and 52 minutes
depending on the responsiveness of the individual participants. Because interviews began in mid-
December, year one teachers had ample time to be acclimated to the district and their classes, the
support services from the induction program and their individual sites.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
59

All interviews were recorded with the participants’ permission and transcribed using
NVivo 12 and Rev transcription services, which are software tools that support researchers with
data collection, transcription, memos, and various forms of coding. Additionally, each transcript
was checked for accuracy and compared with the researcher's personal notes taken during the
interview. Memos and notes were maintained prior to and after each interview so as to collect as
much data as possible from each interview session.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted simultaneously to data collection, as well as after the data set
has been completely transcribed. Each interview transcript was reviewed and analyzed, during
which time preliminary codes were assigned and data reduction was conducted. As this was a
qualitative study, it was crucial to analyze data and begin the process of analysis by identifying
potential themes (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). All interviews were transcribed and coded for
potential themes using NVivo software, Deddose as well as by hand. Transcriptions of interview
data were analyzed using a thematic content analysis method with the aim of finding common
themes and patterns across the data set (Creswell, 2009). The process of thematic content
analysis included the following steps: becoming familiar with collected data through reading and
re-reading of the transcripts, notes and memos, coding text to identify patterns, searching for
themes with patterns of meaning, reviewing themes to make sure they were consistent with
transcripts and data, defining and naming themes, and the creation of a narrative or write-up
(Creswell, 2009).
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
60

Summary
This study investigated Rocky School District’s teacher coaching and support systems
used during the two years of the induction program from the perspective of teachers and gathered
some insights on the use of the Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) as part of the
induction program. More importantly, it gathered data on how new year one and year two
teachers are supported while starting their teaching careers in an urban, ethnically and culturally
diverse classroom. All information gathered is presented in chapter four in full detail with
chapter five providing an analysis of the data.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
61

CHAPTER IV
Teacher training is an integral component of an educational organization. Onboarding
new faculty, acculturating to the ways of the organization, and providing coaching guidance are
crucial components to the success of new teachers (Horn, Sterling, and Subhan, 2002). This study
looked at year one and year two teachers who are receiving coaching support through the RSD
always spell out the first time used in a new chapter inhouse induction program under the
district’s adopted Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007). At the time of the study the
framework was newly adopted. The hiring of new teachers in an educational organization is an
opportunity to provide training and provide support that is specific to the organization ensuring
that new faculty is prepared to serve its student population.
As a large urban school district in southern California, RSD was actively seeking to
reduce the proficiency gap between English Learners, students of color and their white
counterparts, as the gap currently stands at over fifty percentage points (CDE, 2018). The
district’s demographics continue to change, and at the time of the study, Hispanic students
accounted for 65% of the student population, English Learners accounted for 20% (CBEDS,
2016), and African American students accounted for 12% (CBDS, 2016). With the adoption of
the Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) as a coaching and evaluation tool, RSD was
hoping to change its pedagogical approach towards historically minoritized student groups. With
a large cohort of new teachers being coached utilizing the Framework for Teaching (Danielson,
2007), this study gathered data on year one and year two teachers’ perceptions of the coaching,
onboarding, and the support received which supports students from historically minoritized
backgrounds. This study asks:
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
62

Do year one and year two elementary school teachers, receiving coaching support
under Danielson Framework for Teaching through tier two induction, perceive the
Rocky School District spell out program to be adequately preparing them to teach
culturally and ethnically diverse students?
This chapter will review the findings of the research question as well as provide information on
the participants in the study.
Context of the Study
This study looked at the participants who are currently completing tier two of the
California Teaching Credential. In 2006, California adopted a two-tier credentialing program
which includes a two-year mentoring program (Senate Bill 1209, Chap. 517, Stats. 2006) that
went into effect on January 1, 2007. The new credential requirement includes the completion of a
Individual Learning Plan (ILP) over the course of two years (CTC.CA.Gov, 2006). The ILP is a
collaborative effort between the new teacher and the school district. The new teacher creates a
new plan at the start of the candidate’s enrollment in the Commission-Approved Program of
Beginning Teacher Induction (CTC.CA.Gov, 2006). In the case of Rocky School District, the
district had its own induction program, which teachers could use to clear their credentials while
they worked on their current assignment. The ILP is intended to “comprehensively document the
candidate’s growth and learning during the beginning teacher induction experience”
(CTC.CA.Gov, 2006). The ILP is intended to support and mirror the needs of the participating
teacher’s assignment. It also serves as a record for the mentoring and support provided by the
induction program during the two years. The ILP and the mentoring are expected to address all
six California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CTC.CA.Gov, 2006). All seven of the
participants who were interviewed for this study had an ILP at the time of the study, which they
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
63

regularly reviewed with their coach and the induction program coordinator. For Rocky School
District, the coaching component of the induction program used the Framework for Teaching
(Danielson, 2007) a guide during the coaching conversations.
Participants
Participants in the study were recruited over the expanse of two months. Recruiting was
done at the various new support meetings held for all new teachers who were receiving coaching
services as part of the induction tier two program. During the interview, participants provided
their current years of service, grade taught, and their ethnicity.
Table 1.1
Participant Demographics
Participants School Years of
Service
Race/Ethnici
ty
Gender Grade
Taught
Interview
Duration
LT Thomas Year 1 Hispanic F 4th 52 minutes
KT Hamilton Year 2 Philippian F 6th 28 minutes
JM Mulberry Year 1 White/ F 1
st
54 minutes
BH

Hamilton

Year 1
Mexican
White/
F 5
th
– 6
th

SDC

48 minutes
VH

Eastside

Year 1
Mexican
White/
American
F 2
nd
– 3
rd

SDC
46 minutes
BT Thomas Year 2 White/ F 6th 34 minutes
AC

Thomas

Year 2
Cuban
White/
American

F

6th

44 Minutes

The participants taught at four different sites within the same district. While demographics
changed at their particular school sites, all schools were ethnically and culturally diverse in their
makeup. The participants’ classroom also represented varied ethnicities, age groups, and grade
levels ranging from 1
st
grade through 6
th
grade including special education day classes. All
participants taught at the elementary level since in Rocky School District, 6
th
grade was at the
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
64

elementary school sites. All participants self-selected to participate in the study and signed a
release form which was pre-approved by the Rocky School District research department.
Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview protocol with multiple probes
relating to the participants’ views on the Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007), coaching
and opportunities that the participants had for any form of training or support they received that
could support instruction in a culturally and ethnically diverse classroom.
Setting
The interviews took place at each participant’s school site. The seven participating
teachers were assigned to four different school sites: Thomas Elementary, Hamilton Elementary,
Mulberry Elementary, Eastside Elementary (names have been changed). Elementary schools at
Rocky School District were Transitional Kinder to sixth grade. All four elementary schools were
culturally and ethnically diverse in their student population. Hamilton Elementary was also
considered a special education school site housing various programs such as special day classes
for K-2 students as well as students with an emotionally disturb diagnosis in Kinder - 2
nd
and 3
rd
–
6
th
. Mulberry Elementary was situated in a semi-suburban neighborhood with some affluent
sections of its boundary lines. Additionally, Mulberry has 76 students who were bussed each day
from the east side of the town which was historically considered the low social-economic side of
the city. Thomas Elementary was a typical neighborhood school serving its suburban working-
class neighborhood. Finally, Eastside Elementary was located in a semi-suburban neighborhood
that served a working-class neighborhood while also having 65 students bussed for special
education services from various parts of the city. The four schools are representative of the
school district’s demographics. They are all very culturally and ethnically diverse which is why it
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
65

is crucial for the school district to provide equitable instruction that addresses students’
diversities.
Table 2.1
School Demographics
School Hispanic African
American
White English
Learner
Economically
Disadvantaged
Mulberry 65% 9% 23% 12% 65%
Hamilton 64% 7.7% 22% 18% 67%
Thomas 67% 11% 19% 24% 70%
Eastside 75% 5% 16% 19% 78%
Findings
As a new teacher, the support the educational institution provides is crucial in the
development and onboarding (Addison, Barry, and Nielsen, 2007). New teachers are bombarded
with multiple responsibilities and learning how to manage a variety of responsibilities seemingly
all at once which can be overwhelming to a new teacher. An induction program that focuses on
professional learning, coaching and developing an orientation plan for new teachers have a high
rate of success with new teachers (Horn, Sterling, and Subhan, 2002). Here, note the major
themes the data revealed
Systems of Support
A major theme that arose from the data were Systems of Support, which included the
training new teachers received before the start of the school year. The systems of support that
were put in place and provided by the induction program in conjunction with central office’s
professional development department included orientation and onboarding meetings, a support
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
66

teacher mentor or coach, and finally, support that was made available to new teachers at their
individual school sites in the form of professional learning opportunities and un-official coaching
by lead teachers at the school site level.
All seven participants reported a high level of satisfaction with the organization providing
new teachers with orientation meetings and new teacher training. These trainings included
classroom management and how to use the district’s adopted state curriculum in language arts and
math prior to the start of the school year. These meetings were held at the induction program
central offices and were prior to the start of the school year during the summer. Some of these
meetings were voluntary, while other trainings were mandatory. All teachers who are part of the
induction program were paid for their off-contract time to attend.
JM, a year-one teacher hired in early June, expressed her fears about the induction
process. She recalled the induction meeting as one in which she was relieved from her “anxiety”
since “they went over all the aspects of induction and how many years it would take and so forth.”
Likewise, LT, a year one teacher, who was hired mid-summer, recalled the months leading up to
the start of the school year as useful. She recalled using this period of time as preparation prior to
the start of the school year. It afforded her the opportunity to take advantage of district-provided
trainings for the district-adopted curriculum:
Um, yes, there was a, uh, some type of orientation, um, before school started.
And there were, also some classes that they offered where we could select, um,
what our needs were because I knew I was only specializing in math. I only
took the math courses and the Danielson ones that were mandatory…it was
during the summer.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
67

Providing an orientation meeting is a major tenant of a good induction program. The time before
the beginning of the school year affords the organization the opportunity to support new teachers
with technical aspects for the upcoming school year. It is also an opportunity to lower and ease
anxieties about the program’s expectations (Addison, Barry, and Nielsen, 2007).
All seven participants expressed their satisfaction with the opportunities provided prior to
the start of the school year. For participants, a major stressor was knowing how to teach the
district’s adopted curriculum since this was not something the credentialing course can cover.
Four of the seven participants had some level of experience with English Language Arts and math
programs, depending on the district where they completed their service hours, but that was not a
guarantee since districts adopt different curricula. All participants noted some level of personal
concerns about using the adopted curriculum and were happy to attend the trainings they thought
would serve them best. Here, put one data point that is strong to provide evidence for this claim,
and then explain the data point as it relates to this finding.
Participants were also appreciative that they had several opportunities to attend
professional trainings on the adopted curriculum for the varied levels taught during the summer.
LT, a year one teacher describes it as “[PD] was self-selecting. So, I did one of the Eureka ones
(trainings) and the Danielson ones.” In addition to the curriculum professional training, new
teachers could also take a course on developing a classroom management system which can be an
obstacle for new teachers in their first years. Provide more data here from different participants –
not much just maybe two more participants’
All seven participants, at four different school sites, also reported being able to have
various levels of support from veteran teachers and with their particular grade level’s lead
teachers as sources of support. Three of the seven also included the principal as a major source of
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
68

support and as a major component in feeling successful during their first or second year. A first-
year participant, BH, spoke about how she felt supported by the tenured staff and by her principal
at her particular school site. BH noted that while the job was a lot at times, she was excited to be
there and to continue to learn. BH shared:
I feel like the staff, like my principal, in particular, has been very supportive.
Even if it is just like a little note in my box like they've just been super supportive,
so it helps. So, I like what I do.
Like BH, AC, a year two teacher, describes the support she received from team members at her
grade level and from the team leader in the special education department:
Both of my teams have been super, super helpful. I mean I'm so thankful to the
sixth-grade team because they welcome myself and my aide and my one-on-one
and all of my into their class…my team leader for special ed, she's definitely like
the biggest help because, when I first started, there was a lot of like IEP aspects
and a lot of like legality parts of when you mainstream kids and when you don't.
And she sat down and helped me figure out how to calculate it for the IEP
because you can't just, you know, take the students and leave.
Having a supportive team at the school site was perceived as beneficial by AC.
While the support at the school-site, which included tenured teachers and site
administration, did not officially fall under the induction program, unofficial school-site mentor
teachers are a crucial component in assisting new teachers when dealing with school culture and
community (Stanulis, 1995). The support varied from teacher to teacher and from site to site. JM
reported that her principal had provided release time for her to observe other classrooms using
Wonders (district adopted curriculum) since she did not feel comfortable using the curriculum at
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
69

the start of the school year. Some support was much more direct and technical, as was the case
with AC, who relied on her team leader to ensure the appropriate forms and protocols were used
when completing EIPs.
Table 3.1
Teacher Site Support
Teacher Grade Level Team
Support
Team Leader Support Site Level
Administration
LT X X
KT X
JM X
BH X X
VH X
BT X
AC X X

All these support opportunities are not part of the induction program. However, there is an
expectation from the central office at the district level that all new teachers be supported in some
way at their assigned schools. Additionally, these supports are an unofficial system of support for
new teachers, which can assist in the professional development of new teachers supporting the
work of the coach and the induction program.
Coaching
Connecting all these support components was the support provider teacher or coach. As a
coach or support provider, the coach gave assistance in real-time in struggling areas of need and
provided support throughout the school year. Year one teachers, as well as year two teachers, had
a variety of questions ranging from the very technical aspects of conducting Individual Education
Plan (IEP) and responding to requests from parent advocates, to the very basics of classroom
management and student engagement.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
70

VH, a special education teacher with a 2
nd
– 3
rd
grade combination class, relied on her
coach, who had many years of experience as a special education teacher, which assisted her in
navigating a very difficult IEP with a student who needed instructional and medical support. VH
explained how her coach helped with very difficult situations:
with [an] IEP, um, in regards to parents and then recently with a difficult, um,
advocate…I didn't really know, um, I didn't really quite understand how to go
about it and how to like formulate certain emails and things to them. And so, she's
helped me a lot with like, what parts to include and other parts that it's better to
talk in person and how I should present the information
VH expressed how the “in the moment” coaching and having someone to rely on was invaluable
to her feeling supported in a tough situation. This was a sentiment shared by all participants who
were interviewed. Another participant, LT shared how her coach was there to help her. She
shared,
I felt like her whole intentions have been to, to provide any support I need, no
matter. Sometimes she would come in with some ideas or some type of tips that
she had thought of, but then if all of a sudden I had something else on my mind
or something else I was dealing with, she would put that aside. It's okay, we'll
pick up on that later. You need this now. This is what we're going to do with so
deal with. So just very, very helpful.
In this case, LT describes how coaching was not something that could be prescribed or directed
each time. LT’s coach, while they might have something prepared for her to further her practice,
had to attend to the perceived professional or pedagogical needs of the participating teacher. The
coach prioritized problem-solving for LT. The coach understands that LT might not quite have
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
71

all the technical skills yet, and she might not be ready to move forward in her practice because of
her day to day problems that need immediate attention.
AC, a second-year teacher, also noted how supported she felt with her interactions with
the coach. The participant, AC, described how the coach allowed her to “steer the conversation.
Um, she'll tell me what needs to be done, and then she'll just open it up for what are my
struggles.” This was important to AC as the coach allowed her to set her own goals and improve
her practice, where she needed it the most (Hudson and Hudson, 2016).
A major component of an induction coach is building rapport and trust with the
participating teacher. In previous studies, Hoffman, Wetzel, Maloch, Greeter, Taylor, DeJulio,
and Vlach (2015) argue that a major hurdle is having explicit expectations about the work that
both coach and mentee are engaged in during their coaching conversations. The work of coaching
in this district was anchored in the four domains of the Framework for Teaching (Danielson,
2007): planning, classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities. All seven
of the participants interviewed commented positively on the use of the Framework for Teaching
(Danielson, 2007) by their coach when having coaching conversations. The use of the framework
with their coaches allowed the coaching conversation to be centered around the four domains of
teaching practice. Utilizing the framework allows the coach to guide the conversation with the
mentee around a question of improvement while maintaining the trust and relationship needed
between the coach and mentee (Hawkey, 1997). BT, a second year teacher, describes her
experience working with the framework:
I think it's really, um, well laid out, really easy to look through and
connect with. Everything's pretty straight forward. Okay. Um, I do love
that we have been doing those, uh, frame those staff meetings. Um, we've
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
72

only gone through two domains. So being able to get through all of the
four domains just to have that extra perspective on my teaching
BT noted that she feels like she is ahead of her peers because she has spent time with her coach
going over the different domains in the framework. She also explained that she spent time with
her coach connecting her practice to all four domains.
LT, a year one teacher, also noted that the framework provided opportunities for her to
reflect on her practice. She shares that “my mentor teacher and I go through it and say, okay, so
what do you, what your focus on, um, for your ILP this year? Where would that fall in the
Danielson?” LT’s comments point to the reflective nature of the conversations with her coach.
BH, a year one teacher, also noted how she used the framework with her to help her with lesson
planning and lesson delivery:
Well, I think mainly just like first in the planning portion, like really going
through each of the domains and then like being able to self reflect after
like were all those things present in your lesson and if not, why not? Cause
I guess, sometimes they can't always all be there, but I think just being
able to reflect and make sure like you're reaching all the learners.
BH noted that she had worked with her coach, in the beginning, to reflect how good
lesson planning can help solve many problems with instruction.
Five of the seven participants shared that they reflected on their practice because their
coach helped model the process. The coaching provided the opportunity to slow down and reflect
on daily instruction. The implication is that perhaps without the presence of the coach, new
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
73

teachers would not have had the time or space to reflect on her lessons to identify whether they
were effective or not in their daily instruction.
Additionally, participants shared how the coach used the framework to guide them with
their work as they continued the process of completing their tier two requirements for clearing
their professional teaching credential. Three of the four teachers in year one of their induction
spoke about the support they received in creating their own Individualized Learning Plan (ILP)
for their professional credentials with their coach and the use of the framework (CCTC.gov,
2016). BH, a year one teacher, was representative of these three when she explained:
We go through all of those domains. Um, my mentor teacher [coach] and I
go through it and say, okay, what [is] your focus on, um, for your ILP this
year? Where would that fall in the Danielson? So, we talk about it in the
Danielson a lot. And a lot of this stuff that I talk about, she'll say, Oh, that
relates to this part of Danielson.
BH described the work with her coach in aligning the Individual Learning Plan for her
credentialing to The Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) four domains of planning,
classroom culture, instruction, and professional responsibilities (2007).
The comments shared by the participants spoke to their perceptions of their coaches’
influence. The evidence pointed to the consistent use of The Framework for Teaching
(Danielson, 2007) to guide reflective conversations between coaches and participant teachers.
Nevertheless, some inconsistencies arose when participants were asked about how the
coaches used the framework to support the participants in teaching a culturally and ethnically
diverse classroom. When participants were asked to share about their conversations with their
coaches about equity, opportunity and how teachers were supporting cultural diversity in the
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
74

classroom, the participants had three responses: participants and coach did not engage in any
dialogue about diversity in the classroom; the participant teacher and the coach had some general
conversations but it was never brought up again, and the participant and coach had clearly
articulated a mission to ensure students feel represented within the classroom.
Four of the seven participating teachers when asked: how often does the topic of cultural
or ethnic diversity come up in your conversations with your coach or your support provider?
responded by saying: “I do not recall,” (KT) “Not really discussed it,” (JM) “um, not a lot,” (BT)
and “Honestly, not really.” (LT). This is not to say that conversations about students’ needs were
not happening. When probed further about interaction with the coach and supporting students
from minoritized backgrounds, LT expanded, expressing that perhaps the coach had “um, our
main focus was [on] how to build relationships with the students in order to change their
behavior.” However, LT did not connect the conversation or coaching as a topic used for the
purpose of bringing equity in her classroom. A major tenant of culturally responsive pedagogy is
developing relationships with students (Gay, 2018), which is essential when teaching students
from minoritized backgrounds. Moreover, there is no evidence that LT or the coach made the
connection to cultural relevance and that the importance of building relationships with students is
to demonstrate an interest in student’s story and culture (Gay, 2018). And in so doing, the teacher
demonstrates that all students’ cultures and backgrounds are valued and have a voice in the
classroom (Bergerone, 2008).
BT responses were very similar. She had been working with her coach on the domain 1b,
“getting to know your student” (Danielson, 2007, p. 33). BT explains that she had been working
on her classroom management and that her coach had supported her in establishing classroom
routines for management purposes. However, when asked if the topic of “getting to know your
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
75

students” (Danielson, 2007, p. 33) was discussed in her coaching sessions, she responded that “I
guess they do ask us to reflect like how this is connecting to the students. I mean, I guess they do
ask us to reflect like how is this connected to the student’s home life?” BT had not made the
connections between the Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) of “getting to know your
students” (2007, p.34) and the larger concept of seeing students’ culture and experiences as assets
that could help support her instruction in the classroom. While the coach had guided her to see
students beyond the classroom, BT may not been able to make the broader connections yet. BT
may not have been ready to benefit from the guidance or coaching as to how she could draw from
students’ life examples and experiences in her teaching, while also seeing past possible
stereotypes (Moll, Amanti, Neff, and Gonzalez, 1992) of perhaps seeing students from
minoritized backgrounds through a deficit lens.
JM, another year one teacher, shared that “I think that it comes in terms of thinking of
English language learners, but even though they might be understanding [what you are saying]
that they experience different things, they have different backgrounds, and it's interesting.” JM
missed the opportunity to connect her understanding of students with teaching for equity and
inclusion in mind. JM’s response could be interpreted as “otherizing” students’ differences by
noting they were “interesting.” A possible explanation was that she was unable to see the
importance of cultural competence in interacting with her students or valuing their difference as
something more complex than “interesting.” The teacher and the coach did not make the
connection as to why it was important to recognize that students whose primary language was not
English might have a different point of view (Brown, 2007), and how the teacher might validate
the “different experience.” More importantly, the idea of understanding your students is
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
76

important because the classroom teacher should not impose their views on their students (Edmin,
2016).
Further probes uncovered the work being done by the coaches with the participating
teachers in building rapport and getting to know your students, which is a component in domain
one, Planning, in the Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007). Danielson addresses her
perspective on equity and how her framework supports equity in the classroom,
Implicit in the entire framework, particularly those domains relating to interaction
with students (Domains2, and 3), is a commitment to equity. In an environment of
respect and rapport, all students feel valued. When students are invited and
encouraged to participate.” (2007, p.32)
Additionally, Danielson addresses “Cultural Competence” by noting that teachers “who are
sensitive to...students pay particular attention to Component 1b (demonstrating knowledge of
students)” (2007, p. 33). However, there is no direct connection or mention of culturally
responsive pedagogy (Paris, 2012). In domain two, the section “knowing your student”
(Danielson, 2007, p.33) might be interpreted in an academic sense or in terms of performance
levels. New teachers might not make the connection to culturally sustaining pedagogy unless
directed or coached to expand their understanding of knowing their students beyond the
classroom academic expectations and the social, cultural and linguistic differences. This was
evident in both responses by LT and JM in which they had some level of “knowledge,” but it was
guided towards understanding students’ performance and not cultural differences. While the
Framework for Teaching (2007) is steep in reflection, there is no direct guidance within the
rubrics to guide the teachers to cultural proficiency.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
77

Before a teacher can begin to implement a culturally sustaining classroom, the teachers
must make efforts to know students’ needs, cultural, linguistic, and lived backgrounds and how to
best provide opportunities for students to engage in the classroom (Cochran-Smith, Grudnoff,
Haigh, Hill, and Ludlow, 2016). Additionally, building rapport and getting to know your students
is crucial in a culturally responsive and sustaining classroom (Brown, 2007). However, the data
shows that six out of the seven participating teachers were not making the connection between the
importance of knowing your students for the purpose of developing culturally responsive lessons
(Brown, 2007) and using students’ background knowledge to bridge to academic learning in order
to sustain their cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Gay, 2018).
Two of the seven participants, on the other hand, had conversations with their coaches
about classroom diversity and equitable instruction in the classroom. BH shared that she had
chosen to attend the Equity Symposium earlier in the school year and that she had gotten a great
many ideas to bring back to her classroom. Additionally, BH shared that conversations with her
coach after attending an equity conference helped her to know what and how to implement some
of the new learning. Both she and her coach, engaged in developing a plan of action for the
classroom. Nevertheless, BH described the conversations as something that happened at the start
of the school year but had not since been revisited:
Um, we talked a lot about it towards the beginning of the year. We actually both
went to the equity conference this year and, um, gosh, whenever that was... And
so, we were actually able to like come back and debrief afterward together. Like,
what can you implement in your classroom and what does that gonna look like in
here?
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
78

Here was another opportunity to connect the Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) and
culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2016). Also, this was a great opportunity for her coach to
help BH develop a plan of “getting to know your students” (Danielson, 2007, p.33) and sustain
the effort throughout the school year. Quick check-ins might have supported the participating
teacher in keeping up her level of awareness with her students’ needs.
Another participant, BT, recalled her conversations with her coach regarding equity and
diversity as something that did happen, but not often. She explained:
Um, not a lot, but we do talk about, um, some of the kids that are, um, different
like cultural or ethnic diversities in the classroom. We sometimes, we talked about
it, and how we're pulling them into the classroom and incorporating their ethnicity
and their cultures into the classroom.
While BH and BT mention that they had had direct conversations with their coach about equity
and cultural diversity in the classroom, the conversations and the reflection on teaching practice
lacked directness or intentionality in making the connections to the Framework for Teaching
domains 1b, knowledge of your students or 1e, choice of instructional materials (Danielson, 2007,
p.50, p.60), which Danielson points to as the components that support “cultural competence”
(2007, p.33) in the framework.
Only one of the seven participants commented that the topic of cultural and ethnic
diversity was consistently brought up by her coach. VH’s response stood out as it provided a stark
contrast and clear answer to the question of how often does the topic of diversity and equity come
up in your conversations. She said, “Um, I wanna say like fairly often just because my particular
coach is all about equity, and she is all about making things accessible for all of my
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
79

students.” When probed further to discuss what were some of the topics that had come up during
her conversations with her coach, VH expanded:
We were talking about how there are certain students who need to develop, offer
different relationships with and bond with because of maybe their
backgrounds. I have a student in my class whose mom, um, she does like
seasonal work I think like with crops and stuff… and, she wasn't like, able to
take time off. So, I think it’s kind of just being respectful [of] that and like
understanding that well, maybe the student isn't able to complete their homework
at home because sometimes like a language barrier or parents are like things
students have to overcome.
VH perceived how she could validate this student’s work inside the classroom and not place any
punitive or judgment on things like homework or perceived parental negligence. In this case,
getting to know your student (Danielson, 2007) had a direct impact on how VH would
communicate with parents and what supports she could implement in the classroom (Bergeron,
2008, Brown 2007). VH continued to share that her coach consistently focused the attention on
the varied opportunities that VH had as a teacher to make her students feel valued in the
classroom. She went on to share how her coach encouraged her to keep the focus on students of
minoritized backgrounds, and stated her coach mentioned that “your students have to see
themselves represented somewhere in your classroom.” VH acknowledged that it was daunting
and that she was working at it with the help of her coach. For new teachers, culturally responsive
and culturally sustaining pedagogy may not come easily or naturally, even when they have
received training.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
80

The reflective conversations of a coach might guide a new teacher to make connections
between students and their instructional practice. Unpacking the implications of “knowing your
students” in the Framework (Danielson, 2007, p. 50) are not obviously directed at culturally
sustaining pedagogy (Brown, 2007, Paris, 2012). The Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007)
relies on the teachers knowing how to make those connections between the real-world application
and the framework’s rubric. The coach in this instance, as perceived by VH, provided an example
of helping her make connections with culturally responsive pedagogy in mind.
Professional Learning
The second theme was teacher preparation and the participating teachers’ ability to
participate in various forms of professional learning and the different forms of learning
experiences that were available to new teachers. Three of the seven participants mentioned their
prior learning experiences in their own preservice coursework as sources of support and were
currently utilizing ideas or materials used in the preservice credentialing courses. While at the
local district level, the term professional development was commonly used to refer to any learning
opportunities teachers and staff are given, in this study I will use the broader term of continued
professional learning (Webster-Wright, 2009) to encompass all professional learning
opportunities, which also included prior training experiences, current training experiences, and
any self-selected or self-guided training the participant received prior to or during the time of the
study. While conducting this study, all seven participants reported attending a variety of
professional learning opportunities beyond the district/induction program. Some of the training
opportunities were optional while others were not; some trainings were held at the individual
school sites where participating teachers were assigned or by attending trainings by field experts
on a topic offsite.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
81

All seven participating teachers reported the benefit of receiving training prior to the start
of the school year, and all seven participants mentioned various training that they were attending
at the time of the study or that had benefited them while in their current teaching position during
the past year. The importance of ongoing professional learning is important as it guides teachers
in the complexities and intricacies of teaching. Moreover, professional learning for new teachers
also relieves new teachers’ anxieties about their role in the classroom (Bess, 2015). Five of the
seven participants shared their fears about teaching the adopted curriculum, expressing
reservations about not knowing how to teach the curriculum. Bress (2015) documents the fears
teachers face at the start of their careers. The fear of not being able to perform all their
responsibilities is one to be expected, and it is a major concern for new teachers as they begin
their teaching careers.
Participants noted that the professional development opportunities provided by the school
district prior to the school year, starting on the technical knowledge of the adopted curriculum,
had mitigated their fears. JM, a year one teacher, discussed her apprehension about teaching
language arts and especially writing, which was something that she did not get a lot of experience
in her pre-service hours. She explained that she had mostly helped with the math in her student
teaching hours of pre-service. When it came to teaching the English language arts program, she
did not have a great deal of experience; JM explained her apprehensions at the start of the school
year:
They were more personal concerns, as my ability to teach new curriculum. I was
familiar with the Eureka (math curriculum). But I knew the Wonders (ELA
curriculum) were similar, but I didn't have a lot of opportunities to teach
language arts since they do rotations in second grade. So, I wasn't very
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
82

comfortable, and then the writing was also something I didn't have a lot of
practice on watching or teaching...
JM attended several trainings before the start of the year, which helped alleviate her fear of the
curriculum when she started the school year. However, JM shared that she was still apprehensive
when teaching Wonders, the ELA adopted curriculum, so she shared her concerns with her
administrator. Her administrator was able to arrange additional training support for her in the
area of ELA and writing. JM explained that her school site principal offered her an opportunity to
observe other teachers using the adopted curriculum and have release time to sit with other
teachers and plan together. The informal opportunity of release time, which was used to observe
and have conversations with other teachers, falls under the umbrella of professional development
(Sparks, 2002) since it provides opportunities for teachers to work on their practice. It also serves
as a way to develop confidence in the new teacher. Danielson (2007) places it as domain four d,
participating in a professional community (2007). As a new teacher, formal and informal
coaching are just as important. New teachers are still learning the district adopted curriculum and
how to present state-mandated standards to their students (Warford, 2011).
BH, a year one teacher teaching in a special education day class for students with
moderate and severe disabilities, also expressed many concerns and fears about her ability to
teach her students and meet their varied needs. She shared that:
I didn't know what class I was going to get. Cause you know, in mod severe
(moderate to severe classroom designation includes, but not limited to,
developmental disabilities, intellectual disability, severe behavior, and
emotional disturbance, autism, and multiple disabilities), you never know, you
know, what your children's disabilities are going to entail or, and they don't
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
83

teach you everything in school. A lot of it's just on the job training. Um, so
yeah, I was afraid, was I going to be able to implement a curriculum that was
differentiated for all of my students' individual needs and all their individual
goals. And I'm learning as I go.
BH expressed how much the curriculum had to be adopted to serve each individual
students’ individual educational program. BH shared that there were many components
that she was just not aware of and did not know how to use yet. BH explained that
most of the trainings she had signed up for were ongoing throughout the school year.
She was making due by asking her coach but was looking forward to several trainings
that were coming up.
Besides the pedagogical aspects of teaching the curriculum or procedural trainings,
participants also shared that they had other professional learning opportunities related to cultural
proficiency. One of the school sites had begun a book reading club after school on cultural bias.
Participation was voluntary at their individual school site. The professional development was
open for anyone at the school site interested in learning more about cultural proficiency. The
group met once per week and discussed a chapter per week dealing with implicit bias. Two of the
participating teachers, BT and BH, shared their participation with ongoing equity training at their
school site in a small book reading club. BT explained:
It was a little cohort that [the school principal] started with a staff
developer, I believe is her name. And, it's here at T/Elementary, it's once a
month. Um, we have readings and then discussions about that [cultural
diversity and equitable instruction]. It's mostly becoming aware of those
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
84

unconscious biases that we may, unfortunately, have just because of
society and culture and upbringing.
BT shared how much she appreciated going to the meeting and being able to have honest
conversations about her expectations and hear from tenured teachers’ various points of
view. While in her coaching sessions, BT shared that her coach was not addressing cultural
proficiency, the administrator was addressing the need to put teachers in control of their own
professional learning through a book club at her school site.
At Hamilton Elementary, teachers were given the opportunity to attend an equity
symposium that was organized by an outside organization. Once more the opportunity had been
open to the entire staff. BH had the opportunity to attend the symposium with several teachers at
her school site and described the productive conversations about how equity and Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy could be applied in the classroom. BH described her experience:
what we took away from the speakers is just like being able to share your story
with others and like how it's gotten you to where you're at. And so we actually
did an activity [in my classroom]. And we kind of shared like as a class, as a
community circle, like our past experiences with school and kind of how, um,
like how we got to where we are. So each kid got to say like, well, this is how I
feel about school because, and kind of their past experiences. And I think the
biggest thing that we also discussed was just kind of making the class a
community where [students] feel safe and like this is another home.
Opportunities like attending the Equity Symposium are great learning experiences; however, there
is no systematic approach to who attends or if the school site decides to send anyone at all. The
literature points to a systemic approach to training staff (Fullan, 2005). At the site level, many
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
85

professional opportunities are left as voluntary, creating inequities in professional teacher
proficiencies. Professional learning opportunities are a mixture of technical support as well as
professional growth needed for teachers, which support the varied aspects of teaching. Ongoing
professional learning provides a chance for new and tenured teachers to engage in ongoing
conversations that can lead to teaching and school culture change, achieving long and lasting
change (Fullan, 2005).
Year one and year two teachers expressed the benefit of having opportunities to
continually grow professionally. For a new teacher, clearing their credential course work
provides entry-level knowledge to teaching and provides a foundation for their work (Brouwer,
and Korthagen, 2005). And while some participants like KT, who were not having conversations
with their coach about cultural diversity in the classroom, were, nevertheless, relying on previous
graduate credentialing course work. KT shared that she took a class on “what I think it was called
diversity in the classroom.” KT goes on to share that she had the opportunity to observe some
schools which were very diverse during her credentialing coursework. This opportunity, she
believed, was helping her as she settled in her classroom this year. She commented,
So for example, like when I was setting up my classroom library, I wanted to
make sure that I had like different cultures represented just for all of the
students to be able to read. But I think that experience in [the course] kind of
helped ease my fears here just because it is so diverse there. And seeing like
what a fantastic job they did there was helpful.
Mlyniec (2011) found that many year one and year two teachers rely on graduate and credential
work at the beginning of their career until they are able to establish themselves. While new
teachers may not be proficient instructors yet, as their experience level continues to grow they
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
86

find ways to incorporate the various elements of cultural relevant and sustaining pedagogy. It is
unclear how the participants might continue to pursue information on enacting equitable
pedagogical approaches in their classrooms. The literature is hopeful that they will.
Summary
This study explored the perceptions of teachers receiving coaching during their induction
program at Rocky School District, a large semi-urban school district in Southern California. The
following is a summary of the data collected and the answer to the research question:
Do year one and year two elementary school teachers, receiving coaching support
under Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) through tier 2 induction,
perceive the Rocky School District program to be adequately preparing them to
teach culturally and ethnically diverse students?
The data collected during the study was organized into three major themes: Systems of Support,
Coaching, and Professional Learning. The data collected indicated that new teachers entering the
induction program at Rocky School District were satisfied with the many services provided prior
to the start of the school year. All seven participants pointed to a beneficial onboarding program
that included introductions and varied opportunities to attend professional development training,
which increased their confidence at the start of the school year. Additionally, the data points to
the use of a wide range of professional learning that increased participants’ pedagogical
knowledge and provided learning opportunities for culturally relevant teaching strategies.
Connecting all of these findings was the coaching support for new teachers provided by the
induction program. The participants shared their perceptions that the coaches provided guidance
with pedagogical aspects of teaching, district or state guidelines, provided at the moment
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
87

coaching about perceived individual difficulties and gave direct guidance as to how to implement
a culturally responsive classroom.
The data suggest that the Framework for Teaching (Danileson, 2007) provided a common
language between the coach and coachee. All seven participants had positive comments and
shared their experiences reflecting on their practice utilizing the framework. Danielson points to
domains 1b,” knowledge of your students” (Danielson, 2007, p.50) or 1e, “choice of instructional
materials” (2007, p.60) as the domains that support “cultural competence” (2007, p.33) in the
Framework for Teaching. In an assay entitle The Framework for Teaching Clusters (2019),
Danielson addresses diversity and expands on her definition of cultural competence by noting that
“teacher conveys an essential caring, a sense that each student, regardless of background or family
circumstances is important and has potential” (Danielson, 2019, p.16). The research points to a
gap between the Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) and teaching for a culturally
sustaining pedagogy. The coaching conversations are not clearly directed toward teaching for a
culturally sustaining pedagogy but rather open-ended and left for the new teacher to reach a
conclusion as to how to use the information. The data pointed to a lack of focus on students from
minoritized backgrounds. Only one out of the seven participants describe how she was
consistently coached for cultural relevance in her classroom, while two other participants shared
some coaching conversations in which teaching for equity was the main topic. These two
participants shared how the coaching for cultural relevance was done early on in the school year
and the effort was not continued. Finally, four out of the seven could not remember having any
conversations where teaching for equity or cultural diversity in the classroom was the main topic.
In further probing questions, the participating teachers described the language of the Framework
for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) of getting to know your students. However, the coach did not
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
88

make the connection to culturally relevant pedagogy (Brown, 2007) perhaps revealing limited
understanding of what CRP was. Moreover, the coaching of new teachers on getting to know
their students was never connected to a major tenant of culturally responsive pedagogy.
The coaching for equity and diversity of year one and year two teachers is very important
because the first years of teaching are overwhelmed with the variety of tasks teachers are asked to
do on an everyday basis (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005). All seven participants expressed a great
deal of fear and anxiety when asked about their concerns in their first or second year of teaching.
Five of the seven participants shared their fear about teaching the adopted curriculum, three of the
seven shared fears about being observed and having someone observe them at the start of the
school year, and four of the seven explained their struggles when dealing with classroom
management and dealing with students’ behaviors in class. All of these are factors that new
teachers experience within the first five years of teaching (Bress, 2015). The data show that in
this study, new teachers needed direct coaching and professional learning support for equity and
inclusion of historically minoritized students. The use of the Framework for Teaching
(Danielson, 2007) provided a common language for the coach and coachee; nevertheless, without
the coach providing year one and year two teachers with structured opportunities to reflect and
see the connections between the framework and their practices for equity.

Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
89

Chapter V: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore year one and year two elementary school
teachers’ perceptions of the Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) coaching through tier two
induction program at Rocky School District. This study explored the coaching and other systems
of support provided to new teachers as it prepares them to teach culturally and ethnically diverse
students. Rocky School District has invested resources to create a new teacher induction program
that focuses on bridging the opportunity gap within the school district. This study interviewed
seven participants in their first and second year of teaching to get a first hand understanding of
how resources were used to prepare them to teach historically minoritized students.
The literature reviewed in this study points to teacher preparation but also coaching
training as a key component in reducing the opportunity gap. Teacher preparation, during their
preservice and during their credentialing, guides teachers be “guides on the side” (Stone, 2002).
New teacher training recognizes that teaching to a culturally diverse classroom requires
preparation and intentionality (Cochran-Smith, Grudnoff, Haigh, Hill, and Ludlow, 2016). On the
other hand, the literature also points to a gap in training and preparation for assigned coaches
(Stanulis, 1995). Coaches' close connection to new teachers can help new teachers make
connections between their pre-service training and the overwhelming realities of the job. School
districts, such as Rocky School District, want to close the opportunity gap between historically
minoritized student populations and their white student counterparts by training new teachers to
engage and embrace the many multiple ethnic and cultural voices found within the classroom. At
Rocky School District, the use of the Framework For Teaching (Danielson, 2007) was meant to
anchor the reflective coaching conversations between new teachers and their coaches while also
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
90

providing a road map for new teachers at the start of their professional careers and beyond. This
study sought to explore the perspective of new teachers in year and year two of how the use of the
Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) with their coach supported them in teaching to their
culturally and ethnically diverse classrooms. A total of seven teachers in their first two years of
teaching were interviewed using a qualitative method, and the data were used to arrive at three
thematic findings: Systems of Support, Coaching, and Professional Learning. The use of
culturally sustaining pedagogy and the Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) was used as a
theoretical framework in understanding how teachers were supported in their first two years in the
induction program at RSD.
Culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2012) maintains that the goal of teaching in a
culturally and ethnically diverse classroom is to “support[s] young people in sustaining the
cultural and linguistic competence of their communities while simultaneously offering access to
dominant cultural competence.” (2012, p.95). In conjunction with culturally responsive teaching
(Brown, 2012), it is a powerful pedagogical approach to support students from diverse linguistic
and cultural backgrounds. However, it is not something that is added on to the existing curricula
or lessons, but the driving force of how to approach planning, teaching, and assessment. The
Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) provides a road map or a guide to “proficient” and
“distinguished” (2007) levels of teaching. While equitable instruction framed by culturally
responsive and sustaining pedagogies is not spelled out, Danielson addresses it briefly in her
description of domain two of her framework. For Danielson, domain two, the classroom
environment addresses the interactions between teacher and student, describing them as “friendly
and demonstrate general warmth, caring, and respect. Such interactions are appropriate for
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
91

developmental and cultural norms.” (2007, p.42). The language in the frameworks does not
expand beyond those two lines and much is left to the interpretation of the teachers.
School districts and induction programs have a significant influence on the training of new
teachers. Additionally, the coaching that a new teacher receives can influence for years how a
teacher views their role in the classroom. This study provides the perspective of new teachers and
can be used to refine the induction of teachers in tier two and the coaching model for equitable
instruction in the classroom. This chapter includes a discussion of the findings to the research
question:
Do year one and year two elementary school teachers, receiving coaching support under
Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) through tier 2 induction, perceive the RSD program
to be adequately preparing them to teach culturally and ethnically diverse students?
This chapter also provides a discussion of the implications for practice and recommendations for
future research on this topic. The findings are organized by themes that were the result of
thematic content analysis of the transcriptions of original interviews and notes taken by the
researcher during the interviews (Creswell, 2015). The data collected from the seven participants
provided insights into the induction program at RSD and generated three themes: Systems of
Support and Coaching, Professional Learning, and Teachers’ Affect.
Coaching
Of all the different forms of support provided by the induction program, all seven
participants in the study noted that the essential component of the induction program was their
coach. The coach supported the participating teachers in real-time and maintained lines of
communication throughout the school year. When the participating teachers had a question about
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
92

a sensitive matter, they relied on their coach for advice and guidance. It was evident that the
coach and mentee built trust and created a strong bond over the course of the school year. This
strong relationship was built through productive conversations about what was happening in the
classroom as expressed in the data collected. For example, BT described her relationship with her
coach as someone who “who knows everything I am going through,” or JM who “bonded right
away” with her coach and had constant communication (Hawkey, 1997). The importance of
coaches is not just the emotional support provided to new teachers but having an observer in the
classroom providing new teachers with feedback on their instruction, helping create systems of
organizations, and helping teachers with professional conversations with peers and other
professionals (Hoffman, Wetzel, Maloch, Greeter, Taylor, DeJulio, and Vlach, 2015). The seven
participating teachers in the study also noted the usefulness of the Framework for Teaching
(Danielson, 2007) in providing general guidance of the professional competencies. The
framework provided the coach and the participating teacher with an opportunity to have
conversations centered about the professional responsibilities of teaching (Hoffman, 2015) using
the framework as a starting point for difficult conversations.
However, there were missed opportunities for discussions about teaching with an equity-
focused and ensuring instruction was adjusted to engage students from ethnic and culturally
diverse backgrounds. Four of the seven participants could not remember having any
conversations about equity, or how to teach to engage students from historically minoritized
backgrounds. Two of the seven participating teachers remembered having conversations about
culturally responsive classroom strategies at the start of their school year; however, there had
been no follow up to the conversations since the start of the school year. Only one of the seven
participating teachers, VH, was engaged in ongoing coaching discussions about how to create a
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
93

culturally responsive classroom. Only VH was able to articulate different strategies that she was
using to ensure her students saw the classroom as their own.
These were lost opportunities to engage teachers in dialogue about the critical role they
play in ensuring students from minoritized backgrounds become engaged in the classroom, and
student voices are heard in the classroom for optimal learning opportunities. Additional training
for coaches would ensure direct conversations are had about building a culturally relevant
classroom. Moreover, the discussions, if focused on providing instruction for equity as the
expectation and not as an afterthought, would perhaps have better supported the teachers in their
teaching approach to meet all students’ needs. The expectation is to have teachers who are able to
create a culturally responsive classroom practice and develop lessons with students of historically
minoritized backgrounds in mind. New teachers need to be supported and guided in the process
(Cochran-Smith, Grudnoff, Haigh, Hill, and Ludlow, 2016, Lattuca 2006) to make the critical
connections between the curriculum, school culture, and culturally relevant pedagogy. Coaches
need to have further training, ensuring new teachers are making the connections in the classroom
between the curriculum, their students, and their roles as the person responsible for the
environment inside the classroom. While the Danielson framework calls for teachers to
understand their students, the language in the framework is not placed in the context of culturally
relevant or culturally sustaining pedagogy. It is up to the coach to help new teachers make those
critical connections between their pre-service training, professional development, and the
overwhelming realities of the classroom. It is clear the Framework for Teaching (Danielson,
2007) is not explicit enough in supporting teachers who are in culturally and ethnically diverse
classrooms.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
94

Professional Learning
Professional learning and the various sources of training teachers are provided as they
begin their careers in education serve a critical role at the start of a new teacher’s career. New
teachers rely on professional training opportunities to ease their anxieties as they take control of
the classroom for the first time. All seven of the participants looked to professional opportunities
as support for self-identified needs. Five of the seven participants shared their fear about teaching
the adopted curriculum, three of the seven shared fears about being observed and having someone
observe them at the start of the school year, and four of the seven explained their struggles when
dealing with classroom management and dealing with students’ behaviors in class. Additionally,
the district also imposes mandatory trainings that supports the school district’s vision, such as
Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007). The mandatory staff development provides the
district with onboarding and begins the process of acculturating new teachers to the district’s
leadership expectations (Addison, Barry, and Nielsen, 2007). In the context of this study, it is
important to note these fears are very real and typical of new teachers (Bress, 2015); however, the
professional training lacks continuity. While some of the professional learning opportunities are
available to all new teachers, many of these training opportunities are optional. Additionally, all
the staff development opportunities that dealt with a culturally proficient classroom were not
available to all new teachers. New teachers are often overwhelmed in their first years of teaching
by the amount of information and tasks that are required to master as a classroom teacher.
Therefore, they may not see many of the culturally relevant staff development as a necessity or
the value it has in their classroom. Many new teachers are focused on learning the curriculum and
learning how to establish a positive classroom culture and as new teachers they often see these
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
95

teaching components in isolation, failing to make the connection of how sustaining cultural
pedagogy supports those tenets of education.
Furthermore, teachers are also expected to fully engage parents, their colleagues, and other
demands that might be placed on them depending on their assignments. For two of the
participants, as Special Day Class teachers teaching students with special needs who are under
Individualized Education Plans (IEP), it is expected that they facilitate the IEP meeting with
parents, other special education specialists, and school administration. These meetings can be
very intimidating experiences that detract from reflecting or making a connection between the
Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) and teaching with cultural relevance. A cohesive
professional development plan that connects the tenets of Danielson's framework (2007) and the
expectations of teaching for cultural relevance would support new teachers with their classroom
instruction.
Recommendations
The research indicates that more training for coaches would be beneficial. The training
for coaching should focus on helping coaches make the connections between the Framework for
Teaching (Danielson, 2007) and implementing culturally relevant pedagogy. The training
protocol would benefit from a systemic approach to coaching and mentoring with culturally
sustaining pedagogy in mind. The data in this study show that new teachers were overwhelmed
by the complexities of teaching. Without the support of the coach, opportunities to assist the new
teachers in understanding and implementing and culturally responsive and sustaining pedagogies
were missed. The expectations of knowing the district adopted curriculum, having ownership of
the classroom and the culture of the classroom, as well as communicating with the different
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
96

stakeholders, makes it difficult for new teachers to stop and reflect on their own practice. As to
be expected, new teachers tend to focus on the daily tasks that are required to run the classroom.
New teachers may not be focused on larger pedagogical aspects of culturally sustaining pedagogy
and missed opportunities to engage and support students from historically minoritized
backgrounds unless they are supported and guided in their instruction. While The Framework for
Teaching (Danileson, 2007) has endured over the past two decades, a credit to its approach to the
professional growth of new and tenured teachers, it would benefit in expanding its rubric to be
inclusive of culturally, ethnic, and gender diversity. The expectations of getting to know your
students has braden over the decades since its inception. By expanding its definition, new and
tenured teachers can reflect on their culturally sustaining pedagogy as they make connections
between the framework and their practice. The coaching and mentoring that year one and year
two teachers receive provides the chance for new teachers to begin reflecting on their practice,
and it is this reflective practice that helps new teachers make the connection between theory and
practice.

Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
97

References
Adey, P., Hewitt, G., Hewitt, J., & Landau, N. (2004). The Professional Development of
Teachers: Practice and Theory. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48518-4 Bartell, C. (1995). Shaping Teacher Induction
Policy in California. Teacher Education Quarterly22(4), 27–43.
Bradbury, L., & Koballa, T. (2008). Borders to Cross: Identifying Sources of Tension in Mentor-
Intern Relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of
Research and Studies, 24(8), 2132–2145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.03.002
Brown, M. R. (2007). Educating all students: Creating culturally responsive teachers, classrooms,
and schools. Intervention in school and clinic, 43(1), 57-62.
Beginning Teachers’ Perceptions of the California Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA).
Teacher Education Quarterly, 43(2), 51–71.
Bergeron, B. S. (2008). Enacting a Culturally Responsive Curriculum in a Novice Teacher’s
Classroom: Encountering Disequilibrium. Urban Education, 43(1), 4–28.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907309208
Bress P. Face your fears! (Teacher Development). English Teaching Professional. 2015;(99).
Brouwer, N., & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American
educational research journal, 42(1), 153-224.
Campbell, C., Ayala, C., Railsback, G., Freking, F., McKenna, C., & Lausch, D. (2016).
Ca Department of Education California Assessment of Practice and Performance scores, 2017
Coded Correspondence 19-04.http://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/commission/coded/
2019/coded-19-04.pdf?sfvrsn=66853b1_2
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
98

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Wood, A. M., Weinfield, F. D., et
al.. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, National Center for Education.
United States Government Printing Office
Conklin, H. G. (2008). Modeling compassion in critical, justice-oriented teacher
education. Harvard Educational Review, 78(4), 652-674
Danielson, C. (2011). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. ASCD.
Danielson, C. (2011). Evaluations that help teachers learn. Educational leadership, 68(4), 35-39.
Danielson, C. (2019), The Framework for Teaching Clusters, Version 2.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Derry, J. (2013). Vygotsky philosophy and education. Hoboken: Wiley.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Dole, J. A., Hosp, J. L., Nelson, K. L., & Hosp, M. K. (2010). Second Opinions on the Reading
First Initiative: The View from Utah. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(1), 27–48.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960903583277
Dunn, K., & Rakes, G. (2010). Producing Caring Qualified Teachers: An Exploration of the
Influence of Pre-Service Teacher Concerns on Learner-Centeredness. Teaching and
Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 26(3), 516–521.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.013
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007, May). Evaluating ―no child left behind. The Nation. Retrieved
from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/darling-hammond on: 4/27/2010.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
99

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 8, 1. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392
Emdin, C. (2016). For White Folks who teach in the hood... and the rest of y'all too: Reality
Pedagogy and urban education. Beacon Press.
Estes, G. D. (1990). Assessment Component of the California New Teacher Project: First Year
Report.
Evans, R. (2005). A special section on the achievement gap--reframing the achievement gap. Phi
Delta Kappan, 86(8), 582. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/62146140?accountid=14749
Evers, Williamson F., and Lance T. Izumi. Teacher Quality, Hoover Institution Press, 2002.
ProQuest Ebook Central, Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-stakes testing,
uncertainty, and student learning Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (18). Retrieved
May 3, 2013. Bell, D. (2004). Silent covenants Brown v. Board of Education and the
unfulfilled hopes for racial reform. Oxford; Oxford University Press
Fletcher, S., Strong, M., & Villar, A. (2008). An Investigation of the Effects of Variations in
Mentor-Based Induction on the Performance of Students in California. Teachers College
Record, 110(10), 2271–2289.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Fritzberg, G. J. (2004). No Child Left Behind? Assessing President Bush's Assessment
Law. Educational Foundations, 18, 7-24.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & Sustainability: System thinkers in action. Corwin Press.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
100

Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice.
Teachers College Press.
Gredler, Margaret E., and Carolyn Claytor Shields. Vygotsky's Legacy: A Foundation for Research
and Practice, Guilford Publications, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/detail.action?docID=320593
Hawkey, K. (1998). Mentor pedagogy and student-teacher professional development: a study of
two mentoring relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(6), 657e670
Hunter, M. (1976). Teacher Competency: Problem, Theory, and Practice. Theory Into Practice,
15(2), 162-171. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/1475787
Hoffman, J., Wetzel, M., Maloch, B., Greeter, E., Taylor, L., Dejulio, S., & Vlach, S. (2015). What
can we learn from studying the coaching interactions between cooperating teachers and
preservice teachers? A literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52(C), 99–112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.09.004
Horn, P. J., Sterling, H. A., & Subhan, S. (2002, February). Accountability through "best practice"
induction models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education, New York City. Retrieved June 25, 2006, from
http://tip.coe
Huling-Austin, L. (1992). Research on Learning To Teach: Implications for Teacher Induction and
Mentoring Programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 173–180.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487192043003003
Hudson, P., & Hudson, S. (2016). Mentoring beginning teachers and goal setting. Australian
journal of teacher education, 41(10), 48-62.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
101

Hunter, M. (1979). Teaching is Decision Making. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 62–64. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1290193854/
Ingersoll, R. M. (2012). Beginning teacher induction what the data tells us. Phi Delta
Kappan, 93(8), 47-51.
Inskeep, J. (1972). Building a case for the application of Piaget's theory and research in the
classroom. The Arithmetic Teacher,19(4), 255-260. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/41190668
Izumi, L., & Evers, W. (2002). Teacher quality. Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press.
Kearney, S. (2014). Understanding Beginning Teacher Induction: A Contextualized Examination
of Best Practice. Cogent Education, 1(1), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2014.967477
Labone, E., Cavanagh, P., & Long, J. (2014). Critical Design Features of Pre-Service Education
Programs to Enhance Teacher Capacity to Effectively Work in Schools with Indigenous
Students. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 43(3), 121–133.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2014.22
Long, J., McKenzie-Robblee, S., Schaefer, L., Steeves, P., Wnuk, S., Pinnegar, E., & Clandinin, D.
(2012). Literature Review on Induction and Mentoring Related to Early Career Teacher
Attrition and Retention. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(1), 7–26.
Oughton, H. (2010). Funds of knowledge—A conceptual critique. Studies in the Education of
Adults, 42(1), 63-78.
Mlyniec, W. (2012). Where to begin? Training new teachers in the art of clinical pedagogy.
Clinical Law Review, 18(2), 505–591.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
102

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). ‘Funds of knowledge for teaching:
using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms’. Theory into Practice, 31,
pp.132-141
Nation at Risk (1983). Washington D.C. 20 USC 1233 a. National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES). (2005, June). The condition of education 2005. Washington, DC: U.S.;
Department of Education.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and
practice. Educational researcher, 41(3), 93-97.
Piaget, J. (1971). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Viking Press.
Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget’s development and learning.
Journal of research in science teaching, 2(3), 176-186.
Quinn, R. J., & Andrews, B. D. A. (2004). The struggles of first-year teachers: Investigating
support mechanisms. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues
and Ideas, 77(4), 164-168.
Ravitch, D. (2011). National standards in American education: A citizen's guide. Brookings
Institution Press.
Roach, R. (2001). In the Academic and Think Tank World, Pondering Achievement-Gap
Remedies Takes Center Stage. Black Issues in Higher Education, 18(1), 26–27.
Roach, R. (2004, Nov 18). Getting to the heart of the achievement gap. Black Issues in
Higher Education, 21, 24. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/194216560?accountid=14749
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
103

Rockoff, J. (2004). The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from
Panel Data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–252.
https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041302244
Russell, S. E. (2006). Reforming Urban Teacher Education: SB 2042 Implementation Five Years
Later. Issues in Teacher Education, 15(1), 37-51.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International
Universities Press.
Schulte, P. (1996). A Definition of Constructivism. Science Scope, 20(3), 25–27.
Starr, J. (2012). A Lack of Depth: One Preservice Teacher’s Experiences in a Post-NCLB World.
Social Studies, 103(6), 241–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2011.630698
Stanulis, R. N. (1995). Classroom teachers as mentors: possibilities for participation in a
professional development school context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(4),
331e344
Tedford, J. (2007). BTSA and California’s beginning teachers: how technology affects
California’s teacher induction process. Los Angeles, California [Place of publication (of
the original version)].
Yopp, R. H., & Young, B. L. (1999). A model for beginning teacher support and assessment.
Action in Teacher Education, 21(1), 24-36.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Wagner, L., & And Others. (1995). The California Mentor Teacher Program in the 1980s and
1990s: A Historical Perspective. Education and Urban Society, 28(1), 20–39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124595028001003
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
104

Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and teacher
education, 27(2), 252-258.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of educational research, 79(2), 702-739.
White, E., & Jarvis, J. (2013). School-Based Teacher Training: A Handbook for Tutors and
Mentors (pp. 1–88). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473915176
Wilson, B., Ireton, E., & Wood, J. A. (1997). Beginning teacher fears. Education, 117(3), 396401.
Wiggins, G., and McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design, 2/e. Alexandria, VA
Wolfe, P. (1987). What the “seven-step lesson plan” isn’t! (Madeline Hunters’ educational
model). Educational Leadership, 44(5).

Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
105

Appendix A
Madeline Hunter’s Lesson Plan
Objectives
Before the lesson is prepared, the teacher should have a clear idea of what the teaching objectives
that will used. What, specifically, should the student be able to do, understand, care about as
a result of the teaching? One way to think about objectives is to consider the audience, what behaviors
you would like them to adopt (or skills you would like them to demonstrate), how you will measure
whether they have adopted these behaviors, and the degree to which they have adopted them. This is
sometimes called the ABCD method.
A. Audience — Who is the audience? What is their background, education level, and skill set?
What are their interests? What do they expect to gain from this lesson? Are they more or less
homogeneous?
B. Behavior — What the learner will be able to do? What the learner choose to do? What is the
product or result of the doing? The verb used to describe a desirable behavior in an instructional
objective must be an action verb that is observable. Here are some examples.
1) Given a map of the United States, a student will be able to label the state capitals with 90%
accuracy.
2) Given a diagram, the student will be able to trace the flow of blood through the heart.
3) Given a function, a student will be able to calculate its slope at a given point by differentiating
the function, and then evaluating it at this point.
4) Given an assortment of EMS equipment to pick from, the paramedic will be able to identify
all of the equipment necessary to perform rapid sequence intubation without error.
C. Condition—What are the circumstances under which the objectives must be completed? What
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
106

will the instructor allow the student to use in order to complete the instruction? To what equipment
or tools will the student have access? What will the learner be denied? Here are some
examples.
1) Given a problem of the following type the student will . . .
2) Given a list of . . .
3) Without the aid of a calculator the student will add pairs of improper fractions (numerator
and denominator are one or two digit numbers) with non-common denominators.
4) Given any reference of the learner’s choice . . .
5) Without the aid of references, the student will name 40 of the 48 presidents of the United
States.
6) With the aid of references the student . . .
7) Given a matrix of intercorrelations the student will . . .
8) Given a recipe and access to the school kitchen,the student will bake a cherry pie that meets
the red ribbon standard as discussed in Lesson #21.
9) Given speed and distance, the student will calculate the time needed to reach Des Moines
correctly.
10) Given an oxygen wrench, regulator and D tank with oxygen . . .
D. Degree – What is the acceptable standard for performance? What degree of accuracy does the
learner have to achieve in order that his/her performance be judged proficient?
Here are some examples.
1) Given a globe, the student will correctly identify the seven continents.
2) Without using a calculator, the student will solve 10 one variable algebraic equations involving
whole number coefficients in 5 minutes or less.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
107

3) Given a sentence written in the past or present tense, the student will be able to rewrite the
sentence in future tense with no errors in tense or tense contradiction.
4) Given a list of thirty five chemical elements, the learner will be able to recall and write the
valences of at least thirty.
Once the overall objectives are considered the Hunter model proposes six elements.
1. Anticipatory Set
Anticipatory set: sometimes called a “hook” to grab the student’s attention: actions and statements
by the teacher to relate the experiences of the students to the objectives of the lesson. This
refers to a short activity that draws the students’ attention before the lesson begins. This can be
a handout, an example problem, or a simple question. The idea is to put students into a receptive
frame of mind. The idea is . . .
• to focus student attention on the lesson.
• to create an organizing framework for the ideas, principles, or information that is to follow
(c.f., the teaching strategy called “advance organizers”).
• to extend the understanding and the application of abstract ideas through the use of example
or analogy...used any time a different activity or new concept is to be introduced.
2 Objective: Purpose
The purpose outlines the objective of the day’s lesson. Here the teacher emphasizes how students
will benefit from the session and how they will go about learning from it. This section should
describe the specific outcomes and how they will be measured as determined when preparing the
lesson plan.
3 Teaching: Input
Input refers to the vocabulary, skills and other concepts the teacher intends to incorporate in
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
108

the session. It basically summarizes what students need to know in order to successfully master
the lesson. This is more or less a list of steps the teacher will follow to present the materials. You can
provide this information (or knowledge needed to develop a skill) through lecture, film, tape, video,
pictures, demonstrations, etc. This section is often prepared as an outline.
4 Teaching: Modeling
Here the teacher reinforces the basic input with visual or tactile examples. You use the material
you have presented to show students examples of what is expected as an end product of their work.
The teacher shows the students how it is done. Students are taken to the application level (problem
solving, comparison, summarizing, etc.). For example, the teacher might work a new problem on
the board showing how to add 74 + 65 , commenting on each step. Or the teacher might show a
slide with a number of ovals and then label the various intersections as an example of using Venn
diagrams.
5 Teaching: Checking for Understanding
This section determines whether students have “got it” before you proceed. It is essential that
students practice doing it right so that you know that students understand before proceeding to
practice. For example, use some type of 90 second simultaneous visual response mechanism that will
indicate what percent of the students can demonstrate mastery of the concept.
Here are a couple of examples.
• Ask each student to take out a blank sheet of paper and draw a diagram of .
• Ask which of the following words a) b) c) d) is the best synonym for
sustainable? Say the four words and then have students close their eyes and hold their hands
up when you repeat the one they think is closest. Or have them write it on piece of paper.
• Do a thumbs up, thumbs middle, thumbs down check. Thumbs up if you get it, thumbs
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
109

middle if you kind of get it, and thumbs down if you don’t get it at all.
• Use a hat or cup to randomly pull a name. Ask that person to explain the assignment to the
rest of the class in their own words. If the assignment has more than 3 parts, call on one
student per part.
Use questions that go beyond mere recall to probe for the higher levels of understanding to
ensure memory network binding and transfer. One way to describe this is the back rubric.
• repeat-back
• think-back or refelect-back
• paraphrase-back
• teach-back (or to each other)
• play-back (as in role play)
• report-back (as in write)
This step determines if the teacher moves to Guided Practice or reteaches the skill. If there is
any doubt that the class has not understood, the concept/skill should be retaught before practice
begins.
6 Guided Practice
This is an opportunity for each student to demonstrate grasp of new learning by working
through an activity or exercise under the teacher’s direct supervision. The teacher leads the students
through the steps necessary to perform the skill emphasized using what is called the tripodal
approach, or see/hear/do. The teacher moves around the room to determine the level of mastery
and to provide individual remediation as needed. As necessary, the teacher pauses and shows the
students how to successfully work through problems as they attempt to do it themselves.
7 Independent Practice (may be outside of class)
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
110

Allow the students to practice completing lessons on their own, offering assistance when necessary.
Be sure all students understand the lessons of the day, including any homework assignments.
The idea is that once pupils have mastered the content or skill, it is time to provide for reinforcement
practice. It is provided on a repeating schedule so that the learning is not forgotten. It may
be home work or group or individual work in class. It can be utilized as an element in a subsequent
project. It should provide for decontextualization: enough different contexts so that the
skill/concept may be applied to any relevant situation . . . not only the context in which it was originally
learned. This last point is important in preventing students from saying during a test, “this is
not like the examples you worked in class”.
8 Closure
Use a series of actions or statements to bring a lesson presentation to an appropriate conclusion.
Help students bring things together in their own minds, to make sense out of what has just been
taught. “Any questions? No. OK, let’s move on” is not closure. Closure is used . . .
• to cue students to the fact that they have arrived at an important point in the lesson or the end
of a lesson
• to help organize student learning,
• to help form a coherent picture, to consolidate, eliminate confusion and frustration, etc.,
• to reinforce the major points to be learned . . . to help establish the network of thought
relationships
that provide a number of possibilities for cues for retrieval.
Closure is the act of reviewing and clarifying the key points of a lesson, tying them together into a
coherent whole, and ensuring their utility in application by securing them in the student’s conceptual
network.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
111

5 Motivational Strategies
1. Alarming statistics
2. Interesting fact
3. Story
4. Personal experience
5. Literature
6. Exaggeration
7. Picture
8. Recording
9. Map
10. Data
11. Graphic organizers such as KWL1, a spider map, or a Venn diagram.
12. Questions
13. Example
14. Artifact
15. Riddle
1What I KNOW, What I WANT to know,What I LEARNED

Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
112

Appendix B
Interview Protocol
Research Question
Literature – use APA
citation even though
example does not….
Interview Questions
Do year 1 and year 2
elementary teachers
perceive the RUSD
induction program as
adequate in preparing
them to teach students
from minoritized
backgrounds by the
RUSD induction
program?

However, Horn,
Sterling, and Subhan
(2002); the major
components of an
effective induction
program:
Orientation,
professional
development, follow
through, evaluation
and mentoring
How would you describe your introduction to
RUSD induction program?
● Was there an orientation?
● Were you given an overview of the
district and expectations?
● Do you know who/where to call if you
need help with paperwork or if you
have any questions?
● Were all your concerns/questions
covered?

What are some concerns that you have as you
start the school year?
● Have you had an opportunity to
express your concerns?
● Have you met with your coach yet?
● Has your coach talked to you about
your concerns?
● Who else, besides you coach, can you
talk about your concerns?
● Were your concerns addressed in
Danielson at all?

Yopp and Young
(1999), literature noting
the importance of
pairing new teachers
with mentors/coach
Describe your first impressions and your
relationship with your coach?
● How often do you meet?
● What are some topics that you have or
are currently covering?

Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
113

Can you describe a typical meeting?

What would be something that you would
improve on? Or What is something that could be
to your benefit in the meetings?

Is that something that concerns you as you
teach?

How do you think Danielson help you
How often do you reflect as a teacher?

Danielson’s Frame
Work (2007)
Describe your training on Danielson’s
Framework?

Describe what you understand about Danielson’s
Framework?

Do you feel it will help you improve your
practice?

What are some of the concerns you might have
about Danielson’s Framework?

Cochran-Smith,
Grudnoff, Haigh, Hill,
and Ludlow (2016),
Has your coach talked to you about equity in the
classroom?

Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
114

culturally responsive
classroom
How often does the topic of cultural and ethnic
diversity come up in your conversations?

Can you tell me about the last time you and your
coach talked about equity in the classroom?

Has there been any training dealing with equity
in the classroom?

Do you feel ready to teach from a minoritized
background?

How do you plan with cultural diversity in mind?

As a new teacher, is diversity something that you
think about as you teach?

Year Two Candidates How is year two different than year one for you?

What are you expecting to get from your coach?

Has your coach discussed your expectations?

What is your level of comfort with Danielson as
you enter year two?

What could help you understand Danielson’s?

Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
115

Appendix C

Induction Program for Year 1 and 2 Teachers; The Use of Danielson’s Framework
at RUSD in Coaching
Researcher: Hector Alegria, 909-728-XXXX halegria@usc.edu

Why is this research being done?
In this study, I want to find out more about your perceptions on the use of the Danielson’s Framework
during coaching sessions at RUSD and how it helps/doesn’t help you prepare to teach in an ethnically and
culturally diverse classroom.

What will happen if I join the study?
If it is okay with you and you agree to join this study, you will be asked to answer various questions
relating to the induction program, on boarding in the district as a year 1 teacher, and your views on the
use of Danielson’s Framework as part of your coaching conversations.

How long will the research last?
Your participation in this research will last between 45 minutes to 1 hour depending on how you answer
the questions during the interview.

Why am I being asked to take part in a research study?
A research study is done to find a better way to treat people or to understand how things work. You are
being asked to take part in this research study because you are a participant in year 1 or 2 on the
induction program at RUSD.

Is there any way being in this study could be bad for me?
There will be no risk to you. All answers will be strictly confidential and your name will be redacted. No-
one will know your answers or that you have participated in the study.

What should I know about being in a research study?
You do not have to be in this study if you do not want to. It is up to you. You can choose to participate
now and change your mind later if you want, or you can say no right now. It is your decision to make. You
can also ask all the questions you want before you decide.

What else do I need to know?
If you agree to be part of this study, it will be helping gather information as to how best improve the
induction program at RUSD.

What happens to the information collected for the research?
Efforts will be made to limit the use of your personal information, including study records, to people who
have a need to see the information. Your name and other identifiable information about you will never
be published or presented as part of the research. After the study is completed, all personal information
will be destroyed.
Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
116

Who can I talk to?
If you have any questions about the research, talk to the research team at (909)728-XXXX or
halegria@usc.edu.

I have read the above information. I have been given an opportunity to ask questions and my questions
have been answered to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in this research. I will be given a copy of this
signed and dated form.

Signature Date

Printed Name

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date (must be same as subject’s)

Hector Alegria
Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Running Head: COACHING YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2
117

List of Tables
Table 1.1: Participant Demographics
Table 2.1: School Demographics
Table 3.1: List of Site Support

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The opportunity gap persists between historically minoritized student populations and their white student counterpart at Rocky Unified School District. As part of the strategic plan, Rocky Unified adopted The Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) as the cornerstone tool for supporting year one and year two teachers in completing their tier two California clear credential. Utilizing the Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007), new teachers are mentored and coached for their first two years of teaching under the Rocky Unified inhouse induction program. This study interviewed seven teachers across the school district in their first two years of teaching receiving coaching support. Teachers were asked to describe their perceptions on the Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007) and the coaching as it readied them to teach culturally and ethnically diverse classrooms. Data collected during the interviews was transcribed and analyzed consistent with Creswell’s (2014) process of thematic content analysis using a deductive approach. The themes that emerged as a result of this process were systems of support, coaching, and professional learning. The findings in this study can assist researchers, school district, and induction programs in designing or implementing a teacher coaching model that focuses on preparing new teachers to teach in culturally and ethnically diverse classrooms.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom

PDF

Enacting ideology: an examination of the connections between teacher ideology, classroom climate, and teacher interpretation of student behavior

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms

PDF

Transformative justice in California’s public schools: decreasing the education debt owed to California’s Latino students through collaboratively-developed professional learning for secondary teachers

PDF

Critical pedagogy as a means for student learning and empowerment

PDF

Multimodal composing and teacher preparation

PDF

Evaluation of New Teacher Induction (NTI) mentor practice for developing NTI teachers capable of differentiating instruction to address cultural diversity, equity, and learner variability

PDF

Answering the call for shared leadership - the missing conditions for successful implementation of English language teacher leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

The opportunity gap: culturally relevant pedagogy in high school English classes

PDF

Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices used by teachers in kindergarten through second grade in Los Angeles County urban elementary schools

PDF

The role of secondary mathematics teachers in fostering the Algebra 1 success of African American males

PDF

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

PDF

Coaching for equity: deconstructing whiteness in suburban classrooms

PDF

Noncredit programs: catalyst for development of social capital in adult students

PDF

Critical media literacy in K-5 classrooms: three teachers' commitment to equity and access

PDF

How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?

PDF

Defying odds: how teachers perceive academic language growth despite high poverty

PDF

The perception of teachers’ pedagogy of technology integration: a case study of second‐grade teachers

PDF

Staying power: new teacher retention and educator preparation

PDF

Equity and access for veteran's students in the California community colleges

Asset Metadata

Creator Alegria, Hector Luciano (author)

Core Title Coaching year 1 and year 2 teachers for equity and diversity using the Danielson framework

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/13/2020

Defense Date 05/04/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Coaching,Credential,Danielson,Education,induction program,minoritized students,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Carbone, Paula (committee chair)

Creator Email alegriahl@live.com,halegria@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-307334

Unique identifier UC11663417

Identifier etd-AlegriaHec-8508.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-307334 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AlegriaHec-8508.pdf

Dmrecord 307334

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Alegria, Hector Luciano

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA