Learning Map for Chapter 1

The Partnership Principles

Equality

Choice

Voice

is about

A way of being for mutually humanizing conversation

grounded in

Dialogue

16

Reciprocity

Praxis Reflection

1

Chandra Edwards was an accomplished, award-winning teacher who chose to become an instructional coach so she could have a bigger impact on stu- dents’ lives. “If I work with all the teachers in the school,” she reasoned, “I can make a difference for a lot of kids.”

Chandra didn’t receive much professional development on how to be a coach, but she felt she knew quite a bit about effective instruction. She’d gone to workshops based on Marzano’s and Hattie’s work and even felt a bit nerdy on the subject, since she actually enjoyed reading their research summaries. In her classroom, she used cooperative learning structures like Mix-Pair- Share and Numbered Heads Together, as well as learning maps from my own book High-Impact Instruction (Knight, 2013). She had also attended a lot of training based on Charlotte Danielson’s book Enhancing Professional Prac- tice (2007), which her district used to evaluate teachers. Looking ahead to her first year as an instructional coach, she was excited to share what she knew.

Once she got started, however, Chandra was surprised to discover that teachers weren’t all that keen to work with her despite all she had to share. She knew teachers were busy—after all, she’d been in the classroom for 18 years herself—so she decided to focus on relationship building with a few of her closest work colleagues. When she asked them if they’d do her a big favor and work with her, they gladly agreed because they liked Chandra.

Chandra was kind of relieved that she was able to ease into coaching. She wasn’t sure what she should do once she had people willing to work with her. But she had been a successful teacher, and she assumed coaching would be a similar process. Since she knew about the power of feedback, she decided to observe teachers, share her observations about what seemed to be working well in their classrooms, and possibly suggest one or two areas for improve- ment. In other words, she’d share “a glow and grow” with every teacher she observed and then maybe talk about strategies they could use to grow their practice further.

17

The Partnership Principles

When [people] cannot choose, [they] cease to be [people].

—Anthony Burgess

18 The Definitive Guide to Instructional Coaching

Right away, Chandra realized the conversations she was having didn’t feel right. For one, she was doing most of the talking, which she knew wasn’t the way to coach. But most troubling was the fact that these teachers, who had gone out of their way to support her, didn’t seem to want to hear what she had to say. “It feels like they’re looking right through me when I talk,” she told a friend.

From there, things got worse. Her friends thanked her for her time, but they didn’t implement her suggestions and said they didn’t have time to work with her anymore. At the same time, Chandra’s principal expected to see results and wanted her to work with some teachers who were really struggling. “Those teachers need to get better quickly,” the principal told her, “because they are letting down their students and the school with their inef- fective teaching.”

The principal was right to say the teachers were struggling. The classes Chandra observed were boring and confusing. But how could she help the teachers if they didn’t want to work with her? Sometimes they wouldn’t even look her in the eye when she gave them feedback. Chandra came to hate hav- ing these conversations, yet she also felt pressure to show results. Her posi- tion was grant-funded, and when the grant was gone, her job would be gone, too, if she didn’t clearly show that she was making an impact.

In an effort to turn things around, Chandra asked her principal to make teachers attend workshops she was holding before school every other Wednesday. But these compulsory workshops turned out to be agony for both the teachers and Chandra. The teachers made it clear that they didn’t want to be there, and their comments during sessions all seemed to be about why the strategies wouldn’t work. Chandra pushed harder, explaining why everyone should do what she was saying, and the teachers pushed back. “Why are these teachers so resistant?” she kept asking herself.

Chandra tried other techniques. She created a weekly email for teachers about effective teaching practices. She conducted walkthroughs of teachers’ classrooms, leaving observation notes in teachers’ mailboxes. She sat in on meetings of professional learning communities (PLCs). Soon she began to suspect that the teachers didn’t like her—and worse still, that she was having no lasting impact on instruction and student learning in her school.

The Partnership Principles 19

Though Chandra Edwards is fictional, the anecdote above reflects com- ments I have heard from dozens of instructional coaches about their experi- ences working with teachers. People go into coaching with enthusiasm, eager but unprepared for the realities of their new role, and then are surprised to find that teachers are less than excited about working with them. If coaches then become more direct in their approach, teachers become even less inter- ested, and eventually the coaches give up.

Teachers like the ones in Chandra’s school aren’t resisting ideas but, rather, poorly designed professional development. The problem doesn’t lie with them, but with underprepared coaches who treat their teachers the way they treat students. Thankfully, by learning about the seven Partnership Principles that are the focus of this chapter, coaches can help ensure that teachers welcome rather than resist the coaching process.

The Partnership Principles are probably the most impactful of all the coaching ideas I’ve shared over time. I created them by synthesizing theories from education, business, psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology, and philosophy of science—in particular, the works of Richard Bernstein (1983), Peter Block (1993), David Bohm (1996), Riane Eisler (1987), Paulo Freire (1970), and Peter Senge (1990).

I’ve written about the principles in several other publications, includ- ing Partnership Learning Fieldbook (2002), Instructional Coaching (2007), Unmistakable Impact (2011), and The Impact Cycle (2018), and I’ve summa- rized them in many articles and books. The truth is, I’ve written about the principles so much that I can’t blame you if you thought, “What? The princi- ples again?” when you saw what this chapter was about. But our conception of the principles has been transformed in recent years by both ICG’s own research and new insights gained from the literature. In this chapter, then, I describe a new way of understanding the principles.

What Is a Principle?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a principle as a “fundamental source from which something proceeds . . . the ultimate basis upon which the exis- tence of something depends” (Oxford University Press, 1981, p. 2303). In other words, principles guide our actions whether we are conscious of them

20 The Definitive Guide to Instructional Coaching

or not. For example, a person who lives by the principle “I want to live a life of service” will act differently than a person who adheres to the principle “I’m only interested in what’s good for me.” And principles are revealed in our actions more than our words: though you might think you live by the princi- ple “I’m always honest,” for example, you may prove otherwise when some- one asks, “Did you like my presentation?”

Principles provide us with a theoretical framework for being, but they are also very practical. They help us determine what to do in new or ambiguous situations. For example, if we embody the Partnership Principle of voice (see below) in our behavior, we do our best to talk and act in ways that show our conversation partners we believe their opinions matter.

Principles also help us describe both the person we are and the person we want to be. Though stating aloud that others matter doesn’t magically turn us into people who listen with empathy, it does provide us with a starting point, a way to reflect on our practice, and, often, a way to diagnose where we need to do more work so that others see that we respect them, believe in them, and have their best interests at heart.

The Partnership Principles Equality

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins with this statement: “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalien- able rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. . . .” That same principle drives the approach that I think coaches should take when partnering with teachers. When coaches work from the principle of equality, collaborating teachers feel seen, valued, and respected and believe they are afforded the status they deserve as professionals.

To embrace equality is to believe that no one person is more valuable than any other. As Nelson Mandela said, “The world’s problems begin with the notion that some lives are more valuable than others” (Hatang & Venter, 2011). However, this doesn’t mean that everyone should be treated the same. People are as unique as their fingerprints, with their own individual sets of strengths, needs, characteristics, and histories, so it would be unfair and

The Partnership Principles 21

ineffective to treat them interchangeably. Indeed, if we work from the belief that everyone is equally valuable, we should feel compelled to support poli- cies and practices that differentiate for each person.

Equality and resistance. In their landmark book Motivational Inter- viewing (2013), about an approach to therapy that is grounded in the prin- ciple of equality, William Miller and Stephen Rollnick write that few people “appreciate... the extent to which change talk and resistance are substan- tially influenced by counseling style. Counsel in a directive, confrontational manner, and client resistance goes up. Counsel in a reflective, supportive manner, and resistance goes down while change talk increases” (p. 9). When we work from the principle of equality, we see the unique aspects of each per- son. We don’t see others as stereotypes—a new teacher, a special education teacher, a resistant teacher; instead, we see Keysha, Suzanne, or Kurt. We affirm, we show respect, we listen, and, perhaps most important, we remain fully present in conversations because we believe the other person counts.

Saying we believe in equality is easy, but our words can give us away if we don’t live up to them. In the many workshops I’ve led, the way people talk suggests that they are only able to pay lip service to equality as a prin- ciple. Questions like “What if the teacher doesn’t take my advice?” “What if the teacher’s opinion is wrong?” and “What if the teacher picks the wrong strategy to move toward the goal?” are really telegraphing that their sugges- tions are always superior to the teachers’ and that the teachers should always implement them.

While our experience and expertise may enable us to see things that oth- ers don’t, research suggests that our observations aren’t as accurate as we think. Most of us of tend to overestimate the value of our insights, for exam- ple (Buckingham & Goodall, 2019). Further, telling people what to do creates dependency by communicating that we don’t think they are capable of solv- ing problems on their own.

Equality and moralistic judgment. We violate the principle of equality when we moralistically judge collaborating teachers, thinking or even claim- ing that they are not as good as we are. In his book The Six Secrets of Change (2008), Michael Fullan describes moralistic judgment, which he calls judg- mentalism, as follows:

22

The Definitive Guide to Instructional Coaching

Judgmentalism is not just seeing something as unacceptable or ineffective. It is that, but it is particularly harmful when it is accompanied by pejorative stigma, if you will excuse the redundancy. The advice here, especially for a new leader, is don’t roll your eyes on day one when you see practice that is less than effective by your standards. Instead, invest in capacity building while suspending short-term judgment. (p. 58)

Moralistic judgment contradicts equality by placing others below us. That creates a gap between us and them that kills intimacy and prevents learning. We don’t run to get help from someone who will roll their eyes when we talk (and as I’ve heard Michael Fullan say in his presentations, there are many ways to “roll your eyes” without using your actual eyes).

Avoiding moralistic judgment does not mean avoiding reality. A clear pic- ture of reality is essential for growth and learning. We can talk about reality and avoid judgment by communicating that we respect and believe in the teachers with whom we work. During a conversation based on equality, there is energy, openness, and a mutual sharing of ideas in part because the coach believes teachers should choose their paths for themselves.

Choice

When coaches embrace the principle of choice, teachers make most, if not all, of the decisions about changes to their classrooms. There is freedom in the conversation that isn’t possible when coaches try to control what teach- ers do. When a conversation feels “off ” or “out of sync,” it is often because col- laborating teachers don’t feel they are free to say, do, or think what is on their minds.

What the research says about choice. Working from the principle of choice is not just a nice thing to do but a practical necessity. More than three decades of research has shown that telling professionals what to do without giving them a choice almost always results in failure. Researchers such as Teresa Amabile, Regina Conti, Heather Coon, Jeffrey Lazenby, and Michael Herron (1996); Edward Deci and Richard Ryan (2017); and Martin Seligman (2011) all consider autonomy to be essential for motivation. Deci and Ryan characterize the conclusions they’ve drawn from decades of research as social determination theory—namely, the idea that people feel motivated when they

The Partnership Principles 23

(1) are competent at what they do, (2) have a large measure of control over their lives, and (3) are engaged in and experience positive relationships. The theory posits that the opposite is also true: when people are controlled and told what to do, are not in situations where they can increase their compe- tence, and are not experiencing positive relationships, their motivation will be “crushed” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 68).

A report from the Institute of Educational Sciences (Malkus & Sparks, 2012) summarizes research showing the importance of teacher autonomy:

Research finds that teacher autonomy is positively associated with teach- ers’ job satisfaction and teacher retention (Guarino, Santibañez, and Daley 2006; Ingersoll and May 2012). Teachers who perceive that they have less autonomy are more likely to leave their positions, either by moving from one school to another or leaving the profession altogether (Berry, Smylie, and Fuller 2008; Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff 2008; Ingersoll 2006; Ingersoll and May 2012). (p. 2)

Yet despite the important role of choice, research suggests that autonomy is decreasing for almost all teachers (Malkus & Sparks, 2012).

Why choice is important. Choice is essential for at least three reasons. First, top-down models of change usually do not work. Telling professionals what they have to do might yield compliance, but not commitment (Deci & Flaste, 2013). Many educators have experienced top-down initiatives that were rolled out with a lot of fanfare but wound up having little impact on how teachers teach and how students learn.

Second, controlling other people is dehumanizing. As Donald Miller has written, “the opposite of love is . . . control” (2015). Our ability to make choices largely defines our humanity. When we tell people they have no choice, we take away their ability to choose to commit—and, more important, to think for themselves. “Saying no is the fundamental way we have of differentiating ourselves,” writes Peter Block. “If we cannot say no, then saying yes has no meaning” (1993, p. 29).

Finally, choice is essential for accountability. We might think that accountability refers to people doing what they are told, but I refer to this as irresponsible accountability because it leaves out the crucial factor of per- sonal responsibility. A few years back, at our intensive coaching institute in

24 The Definitive Guide to Instructional Coaching

Kansas, one instructional coach painted a vivid picture of what irresponsible accountability can look like in our schools: “Our principal went to a teacher to talk about her students’ low achievement scores,” she said. “When the princi- pal raised the topic of the scores, the teacher pointed out that she was imple- menting the program the district had told her to implement. ‘I did everything I was told to do, and I did it with fidelity,’ she said. ‘If my students aren’t doing well, I’m not the problem—it’s your program.’”

Responsible accountability is different. When educators are responsi- bly accountable, their professional learning has an unmistakable impact on student learning, making them accountable to students, parents, fellow educators, and other stakeholders. Further, at the individual or school level, responsible accountability represents a genuine commitment, both individu- ally and collectively, to professional learning and growth—a recognition that, to have learning students, we need to also have learning teachers, learning coaches, and learning administrators. In short, responsible accountability is essential for professional learning—and it isn’t possible without choice.

What choice is not. Research suggests that choice is essential, but that’s not the same as saying “anything goes.” Choice does not mean that teachers can bully students, lose assignments, or be toxic members of a team. Choice also does not mean that teachers can choose to ignore district initiatives, skip over nonnegotiables, or stop learning. Choice need not lead to incoher- ence, either. Indeed, true coherence requires commitment, and commitment requires choice. There will be better implementation and deeper commit- ment to coherence when teachers have an authentic voice in making the decisions that matter most to them.

Instructional coaching done well produces measurable improvements that lead to better learning and better lives for students. It also ensures that teachers set their own goals, choose the strategies they’ll use to meet those goals, monitor progress, and determine for themselves when their goals have been met. Further, coaches honor teacher autonomy by ensuring that teach- ers’ voices are heard.

Voice

When coaches work from the principle of voice, they listen to teachers because they believe that their opinions matter. Teachers’ thoughts, words,

The Partnership Principles 25

ideas, and emotions genuinely shape the conversations and actions that occur during coaching.

Voice is the natural outcome of a commitment to equality and choice. If coaches truly see their collaborating teachers as important, and if they are truly committed to teachers making the decisions about what happens in their classrooms, then naturally coaches need to hear what teachers think. As Quaglia and Corso (2014) have noted, teachers should be “the subject of their activities, not the object of someone else’s” (p. 2).

Unfortunately, truly hearing someone else has become increasingly rare. The famous people we watch communicating on our various screens rarely listen carefully, and interruptions are the norm. Too often it’s the loudest voice, not the wisest, that wins the argument. This is because people associ- ate the loudest voice with confidence. And if we are struggling to hold things together ourselves, we can be drawn to confidence, even arrogance, because it makes us feel like those who exhibit it have a way out of whatever complex challenge we are facing. But arrogance often leads to simplistic thinking, and the complex work of inspiring students to learn and grow is rarely addressed with clichés and quick fixes.

Unfortunately, evidence suggests that most of us aren’t really interested in hearing others’ opinions. Despite social media’s potential for democratiz- ing discourse around important topics, in reality, it often seems more about pushing out a carefully crafted message than taking in what others are saying. It is about voice, but only my voice.

Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman (1999) surveyed more than a mil- lion employees and interviewed more than 80,000 managers to create a short list of factors that ensure an engaged, successful, happy, and productive staff. One of those factors was voice. Successful employees, they found, answer yes to the question “At work, do you feel like your opinions count?”

Gallup researcher Shane Lopez explored the idea of voice further. He sur- veyed doctors, nurses, truck drivers, restaurant employees, miners, teachers, and other workers to find out whether they felt their voice mattered at work. The day before Gallup released his research, Shane and I happened to meet at a little restaurant in Lawrence, where we both lived. When I asked him about his findings, he leaned across the table and said, “You won’t believe who felt that their voice counted the least. Teachers.” As Shane and Preety Sidhu write

26 The Definitive Guide to Instructional Coaching

in their paper about their research on voice, “Despite having higher engage- ment than the national average, teachers are the least likely of all occupations to say ‘at work my opinions seem to count’” (Lopez & Sidhu, 2013, para. 7).

And teachers are not alone in feeling like they don’t have a voice in school. As Quaglia and Corso (2014) have noted, student voice is also “not yet a real- ity in most classrooms and schools.” Quaglia and Corso partnered with Pear- son Education to conduct a national survey of over 56,000 students in grades 6 through 12. The results showed that only 46 percent of students felt they had “a voice in decision making at their school” and only 52 percent believed “that teachers are willing to learn from students.” A mere 45 percent of stu- dents considered themselves “valued members of their school community . . . even though 94 [percent believed they could] succeed and 67 [percent saw] themselves as leaders” (p. 2). Quaglia and Corso summed up their findings as follows:

There may be thousands of students in our schools, maybe hundreds in any particular school, who, confident in their ability to succeed and ready to lead, feel shut out by adults they perceive as unprepared to listen to or value their ideas. (p. 2)

When I asked Russ Quaglia if there was a relationship between teacher voice and student voice, he was unequivocal: “Absolutely. When teachers don’t have a voice, students don’t have a voice, but when teachers do have a voice, students do, too—and when they do, they are five times more likely to feel engaged in school.”

Honoring others’ voices is essential, but that doesn’t mean coaches can’t share what they are thinking during a conversation. It just means they need to communicate in a manner that honors the thinking ability of their collaborating teacher. This ability to share ideas in a way that opens up conversation—to engage in a dialogue where people think together creatively—is an essential part of coaching.

Dialogue

Working from the principle of dialogue means the coach and teacher really hear each other and ideas flow so fluidly between them that both are

The Partnership Principles 27

energized by the thrill of learning, reflection, and creation. In this way, dia- logue is life-giving.

When we commit to the principle of dialogue, we embrace a way of inter- acting that is grounded in respect for others. We enter into conversations intent to learn from our conversation partners. In doing so, we let go of the need to force our truth onto others and choose instead to critically explore our ideas with them. Dialogue involves genuine curiosity and an authentic commitment to learning, and it is only possible when we let go of the need to be right so that we can do what is right.

Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline (1990) helped me see the potential of dialogue as a mutually humanizing form of communication in organizations. Through dialogue, Senge writes, “people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where peo- ple are continually learning how to learn together” (p. 3). Later, he adds that “all of us have had some taste of dialogue—in special conversations that begin to have a life of their own, taking us in directions we could never have imag- ined nor planned in advance” (p. 239).

The book that has most focused my thinking about dialogue is Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), in which Freire describes love, humility, faith, trust, hope, and critical thinking as necessary conditions for love.

Love. “Love,” Freire writes, “is the foundation of dialogue . . . [because dialogue] cannot exist... in the absence of a profound love for the world and for [people]” (p. 77). This is a challenging statement, in part, because the word love has been so trivialized that it has lost much of its meaning. My definition is shaped particularly by Thomas Oord, who writes that “to love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic response to others... to promote well- being” (2005, p. 919). Simply put, when people “act intentionally... to pro- mote well-being” of others, the opportunity for dialogue presents itself. Love is a prerequisite for dialogue.

Humility. “Dialogue,” Freire writes, “cannot exist without humility” (p. 78). Since dialogue is a back-and-forth form of conversation, we need to enter it open to changing, perhaps even expecting to change, our opinions. People

28 The Definitive Guide to Instructional Coaching

who are sure they are right and who aren’t interested in learning from others won’t experience genuine dialogue.

To be humble doesn’t mean we choose to have low self-efficacy (or worse, that we pretend to have low self-efficacy). We should believe in our ideas and be open to learning and willing to be wrong. When we approach others with a desire to hear what they have to say rather than with a desire to put them in their place, then we are moving toward a more dialogical way of being.

Faith. “Faith in [people],” Freire writes, “is an a priori requirement for dialogue; the dialogical [person] believes in other [people] even before he meets them face to face” (p. 79). Simply put, if we are going to have dialogue with people, we need to believe in them. If we dismiss them as having nothing to teach us, then dialogue is pretty much impossible.

One way to understand what it means to believe in people is to consider what it looks like when we don’t. If we see conversation as a one-way inter- action with the goal to give advice, tell people what they’ve done right and wrong, and dictate what their next steps should be, we won’t experience dia- logue. A school where professional development is designed to tell teachers what to do is often one where teachers eventually stop thinking for them- selves and say to the coach, “Just tell me what to do, and I’ll do it.” When we believe in others, we see them as people who want to do good and who can teach us something. We approach them from the perspective of learners, not judgers.

Trust. When we approach others with love, humility, and faith, trust is the natural outcome. As Freire writes, “it would be a contradiction in terms if dialogue—loving, humble, and full of faith—did not produce this climate of mutual trust” (p. 80). Trust is established by dialogue, but it will be dimin- ished or destroyed without love, humility, and faith. “False love, false humil- ity, and feeble faith in [people] cannot inspire trust” (p. 80).

Hope. “Dialogue,” Freire writes, “cannot exist without hope” (p. 80). If people have given up believing that a situation can improve and blame oth- ers or simply complain, they are not engaging in dialogue. A constructive dia- logue is about what we can do, not why we can’t do things. “Hopelessness is a form of silence,” writes Freire, “of denying the world and fleeing from it” (p. 80). Dialogue, by contrast, is a conversation about a better possible future, and consequently not only requires but also nurtures hope.

The Partnership Principles 29

Critical thinking. Finally, dialogue involves critical thinking. Drawing on the work of Bohm (1996), Peter Senge (1990) writes that the purpose of dialogue “is to go beyond any one individual’s understanding” (p. 241). Such learning involves critical thinking and conversations that push us to reflect deeply on our current reality, surfacing what Bohm calls “the incoherence in our own thought” (p. 81).

We can’t succeed at this kind of thinking on our own. We learn about our incoherence by talking with other people, through the back and forth of ideas at the heart of dialogue. It is in dialogue, Senge writes, that “people become observers of their own thinking” (p. 242)—a process we refer to as reflection.

Reflection

Coaches who work from the principle of reflection empower teachers to think deeply about what has happened in the past, what is happening in the present, and what will happen in the future. As educational consultant Lou Mycroft has said, coaching is where teachers should “do their best think- ing.” As I first wrote in Unmistakable Impact (Knight, 2011), reflection can be described as having three dimensions: looking back, looking at, and looking ahead.

1. Looking back is reflection focused on considering how something went. Many coaching conversations involve this kind of conversation, looking back on a lesson or an event to consider what went well, what didn’t go so well, and what the collaborating teacher might want to change before the next lesson.

2. Looking at is reflection that occurs in the moment. For example, a teacher might decide to spend more time on a classroom discussion than planned after realizing that the discussion is leading students to some new insights. Most teachers do this kind of thinking all day, adjusting lessons as they teach so that students learn more and experi- ence greater well-being.

3. Looking ahead means considering how an idea, a strategy, or a tool might be used in the future. For example, a science teacher partnering with a coach might “look ahead” to plan how students will create con- cept maps that deepen their knowledge, to decide which students will

30 The Definitive Guide to Instructional Coaching

work best together in which groups, or to determine how to differenti-

ate learning for individual students.

To ensure that teachers do a lot of thinking, coaches need to resist the temptation to give advice. When coaches take a top-down approach, telling teachers what to do, they create dependency and rob teachers of the chance to think for themselves.

Praxis

When coaches work from the principle of praxis, learning is grounded in and shaped by the realities of the collaborating teacher’s classroom and life. Teachers are usually fully engaged in the learning because it addresses some- thing important to them—typically better student learning or well-being. As such, praxis is learning in action.

The word praxis has been in use ever since Aristotle (1961) coined it more than 2,000 years ago to identify one of what he considered to be the three basic human activities: (1) theoria (thinking), (2) poiesis (doing), and (3)praxis (acting). The term has been used in many ways since then, but almost always to describe an experience that combines reflection and action. As I use it, praxis describes any experience that combines reflection, learn- ing, and action. It is the creative act of applying an idea to an important, real situation. Praxis compels people to bring their true selves to whatever they are doing because what they are doing is authentic. You can’t fake it—either the learning is real, or it isn’t praxis.

This may all sound a little highfalutin, but praxis is by definition grounded in reality. People’s hands should be dirty, so to speak, from wrestling with ideas. Thus, praxis, as I describe it, is usually driven by a real issue a person is addressing. For example, a teacher might identify that many of her students don’t feel psychologically safe in her classroom and partner with a coach to address this by establishing and reinforcing classroom norms for safety.

Authors like Paulo Freire (1970) and Hannah Arendt (1958) have described praxis as an essential part of our humanity. In contrast, systems that take away our ability to creatively interact with ideas and apply them to our work and personal lives—that is, to what Arendt calls the “vita activa”— are dehumanizing.

The Partnership Principles 31

Teachers who are engaged in praxis are learning and thinking through how to apply some new knowledge to real-life classroom experiences. According to Freire (1970), praxis should lead us to analyze our lives and the world around us so we can change both ourselves and the world. That is why Freire considers praxis revolutionary. “[I]t is reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it,” he writes. “To speak a true word is to trans- form the world” (p. 75).

Too often, we design professional development without considering the concept of praxis—we tell teachers what to do and how to do it, leaving lit- tle room for the creativity and knowledge teachers bring to school. To bring about the schools our children deserve, we need to ensure that teachers don’t turn their brains off when they walk into our buildings. To that end, profes- sional development that is designed with praxis in mind brings the creative thinking of teachers to life. Teachers don’t unthinkingly implement what they’ve been told to implement; rather, they draw upon all they know to cre- ate something important—a great learning experience for their students.

Reciprocity

When coaching is grounded in the principle of reciprocity, coaches and teachers learn together. Coaches seek out and value the ideas teachers share, and teachers learn from coaches. The way coaches talk, listen, and act reveals that coaches are truly learning from teachers.

Some learning requires at least two people; it requires the second set of eyes or hands that a coach brings to our work and life. I see this during our workshops on coaching when I ask participants to coach each other on some issue. For the activity, which Michael Bungay Stanier developed and which he has generously allowed me to use, I post some of the questions from Michael’s book The Coaching Habit (2016) and then have partners ask them of each other. The main rule of the activity is that those asking the questions can’t speak after they have asked the questions. Each person takes turns ask- ing questions and listening, moving back and forth through five questions.

What fascinates me about these micro-coaching sessions is that even though the coach does nothing more than ask a question and listen, partic- ipants almost always report that they find the conversations very valuable.

32 The Definitive Guide to Instructional Coaching

This has led me to wonder whether people would arrive at the same conclu- sions if they asked themselves the questions without a partner. But when I ask my workshop participants if people could just coach themselves, they always answer that they need another person to act as a sounding board, to listen, to nonverbally communicate concern, and to serve as an audience for their learning. The kind of learning that comes from coaching, it seems, is less likely to happen without a learning partner.

Coaches who work from the principle of reciprocity get as much as they give during coaching conversations. When they enter into these conversa- tions curious and expecting to learn, they are usually rewarded. Everyone has something to teach us, and one of the joys of the partnership approach is that it makes it much more likely that we will learn from and with teachers. When the coach and teacher learn together, they share the joy of discovery, mutual exploration, and learning—and students reap the benefits.

To Sum Up

The Partnership Principles represent one possible set of principles to guide instructional coaching. Since one of the principles is choice, it would be stag- geringly hypocritical of me to suggest that coaches must work from this spe- cific set alone, but our research and experience do suggest that coaches will be more successful if they ground their work in the following seven beliefs:

• Equality: I don’t believe any person or group is more valuable than any other, and I recognize and honor the dignity of every individual.

• Choice: I communicate in a way that acknowledges the professional discretion of others by positioning them as decision makers.

• Voice: I want to hear what others have to say, and I communicate that clearly.

• Dialogue: I believe conversations should consist of a back-and-forth exchange, with all parties hearing and responding to one another’s opinions.

• Reflection: I engage in conversations that look back, look at, and look ahead.

• Praxis: I structure learning so that it is grounded in real life.

• Reciprocity: I enter each conversation open and expecting to learn.

Reflection Questions

Equality

1. Whatcanyoudotobefullypresentinconversations?

2. How easy is it for you to avoid moralistic judgment? What can you do

to be less judgmental?

3. What are some subtle ways that you might be communicating that

you don’t see your collaborating teachers as equals? Do you think you engage in any of these behaviors? Do you want to change this?

Choice

1. Towhatextentdoteachersmakethedecisionsaboutwhathappensin their classrooms when you coach?

2. Howdoyougoaboutexplainingstrategieswhilealsohonoringteacher choice?

Voice

1. Whodoesmostofthetalkingwhenyouarecoaching?Doyouneedto change anything?

2. What do you do to ensure that you deeply understand the emotions and needs of your conversation partners?

3. What do you do to ensure that your collaborating teachers know that they have been heard?

Dialogue

1. Do you think dialogue is necessary for coaching? Why or why not?

2. Do you think it is important to demonstrate love, humility, and faith to collaborating teachers during coaching? If so, how do you demon-

strate those qualities?

3. In your experience, what are the characteristics of a life-giving

conversation?

4. In your organization, are teachers irresponsibly or responsibly

accountable? What do you see in teachers’ behavior that supports your answer?

The Partnership Principles 33

34 The Definitive Guide to Instructional Coaching

Reflection

1. How easy is it for you to let your teachers make the decisions about what happens in their classroom?

2. Whenareyoumostreflective?Howmuchtimedoyousetasidetolook back, look at, and look ahead?

3. What difference would it make if you spent more time reflecting on your personal and professional life?

Praxis

1. Whatcanyoudotoensurethattheprofessionaldevelopmentyoupro- vide genuinely addresses teachers’ real-life concerns?

2. What does it look like when teachers enthusiastically implement the ideas you discover and create together? What can you do to ensure that happens more often?

3. Whatcanyoudotoensurethatprofessionaldevelopmentisguidedby teachers’ concerns?

Reciprocity

1. Doyoubelieveyoucanlearnfromeverysingleteacherwithwhomyou partner?

2. Are your collaborating teachers energized by your coaching conversa- tions? Are you?

Going Deeper

• I first read Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire, 1970) in a philosophy of education class when I was 19 years old. The book changed my view of the world then, and it continues to shape my thinking now. It isn’t an easy read, but it is worth the effort because it might change your life, too.

• Peter Block’s Stewardship (1993) started me thinking and talking about partnership as a model for human interaction. I now use the term part- nership just about every time I talk with groups of people.

• Daniel Pink’s Drive (2009) is a must-read if you want to understand why telling people what to do almost guarantees they won’t do it. Pink’s

The Partnership Principles 35

book offers an accessible and useful overview of more than 30 years of

research on human motivation.

• Ryan Holiday’s Ego Is the Enemy (2016) is an inspiring treatise on why

ego almost always stands at the heart of the messes we experience in life and work—a strong argument for the partnership approach to human interaction. Holiday explains why ego is so destructive and then explains what we can do to keep ours under wraps.

• Adam Grant’s Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success (2014) offers an evidence-based argument for reciprocity. Chances are it will encourage you to be more generous in all aspects of your life. At least, that’s how it has affected me.

What’s Next?

The Partnership Principles are deceptively easy to accept. Most people find it easy to acknowledge that everyone should have a voice and that we should all learn from each other. The challenge lies in understanding our relationships as involving an equal distribution of power. As Peter Block (1993) writes, “Partnership means to be connected to one another in a way that the power between us is roughly balanced” (p. 28).

When you consider adopting the Partnership Principles, ask yourself, “Am I really willing and able to give up control? Am I committed to letting my collaborating teachers make the decisions about what they do in their class- rooms?” Answer these questions by deeply examining your thoughts, words, and actions. Video can be a huge help with this kind of learning because it allows us to watch our coaching conversations and see if we listened more than we talked, gave advice, or balanced telling with asking.

Partnership can seem like a paradox, but that doesn’t make it any less true that the more we stop trying to influence others, the more influence we likely will have.