0.6 Ward, c. (july 2009). implementing success against all odds:  (Page 7/9)

Principals attributed the growth in student math scores to the implementation of the RM ² model. Both stated that they were expecting over 70% of their students to score at proficient or above on the California content standards test in 2009 and indicate students are more engaged in math and appear excited about learning. Furthermore, principals reported that strategies from the RM ² model are being implemented in other curricula areas.

Principals reported that having instructional coaches and principal coaches was very helpful. Coaches were focused, organized, and knew the approaches and strategies. The principals stated that the instructional coaches modeled, planned, analyzed data, and discussed next steps with teachers.

The administrator coaches met with principals once every 4 to 6 weeks depending on the site. Principals reported that during those visits, the principal and administrator coach visited classrooms, analyzed data, and planned next steps for implementation and teacher support. It was reported that both the RM ² administrator and instructional coaches were approachable and had extensive experiences with the populations of students.

Conclusions and recommendations

Most components of the math model were used routinely with the student engagement components being used less frequently (see Tables 2 and 3). Both teachers and principals reported that the math model provided more structure and continuity. As one teacher noted, “The consistency of having this model each year will solidify the way students learn math. They will know what to expect. We appreciate that as teachers.”

Although there is no direct way to determine the impact of coaching on the schools, the principals reported that administrator coaches helped to keep them focused on classroom instruction and assessment results. These comments are similar to other school leaders who have coaches. Killion (2002) points out that school leaders with coaches repeatedly remarked that because of the coaching they were able to remain focused and stand firm on issues related to the academic success of their students.

Teachers reported receiving support from instructional coaches generally on a monthly basis and having instructional coaches was useful. More importantly, teachers reported implementing the instructional practices of the math model on a regular and consistent basis. According to Kowal and Steiner (2007), more relevant than teacher’s opinions of their coaches are the changes made in teachers’ practices and strategies in the classroom as a result of the coaching. The emerging body of empirical research on coaching indicates that instructional coaching has great potential to influence teacher practice and, ultimately student performance (Kowal&Steiner, 2007).

Findings suggest teachers routinely used the assessment results to inform instruction after implementing the model, and teachers assessed students frequently. Structured grade level teams, called professional learning communities (PLCs), met regularly to analyze results and discuss next steps. When asked about the success of PLCs, one principal reported, “1) They have focused the teachers on student results, 2) They have made practice more public. 3) They have made our planning sessions more focused.” Another principal stated, “the teachers indicated they have found the meetings extremely helpful in guiding their instruction, for reteaching content in which their students struggled and to be on the “same page” as the other grade level teachers.”