Early childhood literacy coaches' role perceptions and recommendations for change.

Kissel, Brian ; Mraz, Maryann ; Algozzine, Bob 等

In recent years, literacy coaches have emerged as an integral part of a school's literacy team. Although current research on literacy coaching examines the work of coaches at the elementary and middle/secondary school levels, little research exists on the roles and perspectives of early childhood literacy coaches. This study sought to fill that gap by examining the current priorities of 20 early childhood literacy coaches and their recommendations for enhancing their roles as literacy coaches. We found that early childhood literacy coaches identified serving as content expert, promoter of self-reflection, and professional development facilitator as high priorities for their current work. They identified facilitator of the school-wide literacy community as a low priority.

Keywords: early childhood, literacy coaching

**********

In recent years, the literacy coach has become an integral part of a school's literacy team as more educational settings recognize the need for on-site professional development. In response to new federal laws, specifically No Child Left Behind, schools have looked for on-site development that includes specialists who provide support for classroom teachers (Lynch & Ferguson, 2010). These specialists, now often referred to as "literacy coaches," help teachers build on their strengths to improve their teaching practice and increase their professional knowledge (Toll, C. A., 2006). The term literacy coach, however, has changed over the years, and the expectations of the role differ among professionals who provide and receive services (Bean, 2004; Bean, Swan, & Knaub, 2003; Dole, 2004; Mraz, Algozzine, & Watson, 2008; Shaw, Smith, Chesler, & Romeo, 2005).

The International Reading Association (IRA, 2006) stated that literacy coaches should primarily work directly with classroom teachers to improve instructional practices. Some focus specifically on supporting classroom teachers in their daily implementation of the school's literacy program (IRA, 2006). Others support teachers by working across subject areas. Most literacy coaches also provide general and specific professional development (Dole, 2004).

According to Shanklin (2007), literacy coaches should be nonevaluative; that is, they should support teachers as they reflect, analyze assessment data, and improve instructional practices. Because of this nonevaluative paradigm, it is essential for literacy coaches to position themselves in a way that teachers view them as supportive, rather than authoritative. Most researchers agree that literacy coaches should be collaborative presences who work with teachers to develop literacy skills alongside their teachers (Burkins, 2007). Therefore, building relationships and establishing trust by maintaining confidentiality and communicating effectively is the foundation of the literacy coach's work with teachers (L'Allier, Elish-Piper, & Bean, 2010).

In some ways, the recommendations for roles and responsibilities of early childhood literacy coaches are similar to those for K-12 coaches: All literacy coaches, regardless of the grade level with which they work, act as instructional leaders, provide professional development and resources to teachers, communicate with colleagues and administrators, and use assessment results to inform instruction (IRA, 2004; McLean, Mallozzi, Hu, & Dailey, 2010; Walpole & McKenna, 2004). Other roles of the early literacy coach are unique: Early childhood literacy coaches need to have specific knowledge about early literacy instruction, child development, appropriate classroom management, and effective home-school communication strategies (Blamey, Albert, & Dorrell, 2008; IRA/NAEYC, 1998; Snow, Bums, & Griffin, 1998).

Ongoing professional development for literacy coaches is essential (Stover, Kissel, Haag, & Shoniker, 2011). Early childhood literacy coaches need support to enrich their coaching skills and deepen their knowledge of early literacy development (Mraz, Vacca, & Vintinner, 2008). Effective professional development is long term and requires follow-up; it encourages collegiality and seeks consensus among participants on goals; it receives support from administrators; and it receives adequate funding for materials, consultants, and staffing (Mraz, Vacca, & Vintinner, 2008; Richardson, 2003). Our work over the past 4 years sought to apply these principles to a professional development initiative for prekindergarten literacy coaches.

Although current research on literacy coaching examines the work of literacy coaches at the elementary and middle/secondary school levels (Bean, 2004; IRA, 2006; Sturtevant, 2003; Toll, 2005; Walpole & McKenna, 2004), little research exists that examines the roles and perspectives of early childhood literacy coaches (Blamey, Albert, & Dorrell, 2008). According to Roller (2006), 86% of literacy coaches report working at the primary level, 41% at the intermediate level, and only 5% at the preschool level. The current study seeks to fill the gap of knowledge about the experiences of early childhood literacy coaches. In this article, we examine the role of early childhood literacy coaches and the suggestions coaches have for improving the effectiveness of their literacy coaching role in early childhood settings.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LITERACY COACHES

The traditional role of the reading specialist as a teacher for students described as "at risk" emerged under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and evolved into the current role under the ESEA of 2000. The reauthorized ESEA of 2000 provided funds for extra resources to local education agencies and schools with large numbers of low-income students to ensure a high-quality education (Dole, 2004; IRA, 2004). Shifting the roles of reading specialists from teaching to coaching has made a dramatic change in the way professional development is delivered to teachers. Instead of teachers passively accepting professional development from traditional conference settings, under the coaching model, professional development comes directly into their classrooms as literacy coaches work with teachers and their students (Lynch & Ferguson, 2010). The literacy specialist, now operating as the literacy coach, has shifted from teaching children to facilitating learning with adults.

Although there are suggested recommendations for the roles and responsibilities of the literacy coach (IRA, 2004), the work of a literacy coach varies from school to school. Regardless of the setting, many aspects of the coach's role remain constant. Our review of the literature examined the four broad roles of literacy coaches: content expert, promoter of reflective instruction, professional development facilitator, and builder of a school-wide learning community. These categories are discussed below.

Content Expert

With their extensive knowledge of literacy theories and instructional expertise, early childhood literacy coaches can serve as resources for teachers as they plan instruction, develop classroom management routines, select materials, and implement literacy programs. For example, early childhood literacy coaches can help teachers develop learning experiences and provide materials (such as props) to encourage the development of oral language skills in literacy play centers. In addition, they can help locate educational puzzles, rhyming games, and books for teachers' classroom libraries. Because it is often difficult for teachers to find time to search for and collect instructional resources, the early childhood literacy coach can be a resource for teachers by finding relevant articles and professional resources (Blamey, Albert, & Dorrell, 2008).

With their specialized knowledge of instructional practices for young learners, early childhood literacy coaches can help teachers prepare motivating and engaging instructional strategies, monitor and adjust instruction, and develop materials. When teachers see the early childhood literacy coach as a support and a resource, they are better able to establish collaborative, trusting relationships (Bean, Trovato, & Hamilton, 1995; Dole & Donaldson, 2006; L'Allier et el., 2010). To accomplish this, early childhood literacy coaches must continually acquire relevant content knowledge: working in conjunction with teachers to continue enriching this knowledge through reading, thoughtful inquiry, and reflection. Furthermore, it is essential for early childhood literacy coaches to understand links between theory and practice in preschool language and literacy. With this knowledge, early childhood literacy coaches can, for example, assist teachers as they brainstorm ideas for interactive read-alouds, centers, and small group differentiation (Blarney, Albert, & Dorrell, 2008). They can suggest ideas and listen to suggestions and feedback offered by teachers.

Together, the early childhood literacy coach and teacher make pedagogical decisions in the classroom. When this happens, according to C. Toll (2006), literacy coaching is "responsive to the teacher's needs and strengths and to the efforts of teachers to respond to students' needs" (p. 74).

Promoter of Reflective Instruction

Early childhood literacy coaches assist teachers in assessing the needs of students, reflecting on the effectiveness of their instructional practices, and refining those practices so the diverse learning needs of students can be met. Ideally, assessment tools, formal and informal, provide teachers with insight into a student's understanding of literacy processes and this insight, in turn, informs instructional decisions. Early childhood literacy coaches can play an essential role in helping teachers understand what the various assessments measure and how the data will be used to drive instruction (Blamey, Albert, & Dorrell, 2008).

Early childhood literacy coaches assist teachers by providing information about the various types of assessments, administration of them, and analysis of the findings. Analyzing data allows teachers to modify instruction to meet individual needs. Coaches can help teachers use formal and informal assessment tools to monitor student progress and inform instructional decisions. "The process of recording, documenting, and observing what children do and how they engage in literacy experiences should be the fundamental component in choosing and administering assessments, as well as in planning instructional practices" (Mraz, Algozzine, & Kissel, 2009, p. 78). The use of data as a tool for coaching conversations fosters reflection and change (Peterson, Taylor, Burnham, & Schock, 2009).

Professional Development Facilitator

According to Joyce and Showers (2002), professional development should occur in the space where teachers work, so that teachers can transfer their professional learning to their work with students. Teachers need more than isolated workshops or inservice sessions to be successful (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999). Creating collaborative learning experiences can prevent isolation by fostering ownership of professional development (Steckel, 2009). In turn, early childhood literacy coaches provide ongoing, teacher-centered, embedded professional development with their own teachers. As a result of working at the school level, they are able to scaffold their level of support to teachers, assistants, and other professionals by providing whole-group professional development to theories of literacy processes (Blamey, Albert, & Dorrell, 2008). From there, early childhood literacy coaches can work with individuals or small groups of teachers to help with the implementation of theory into practice through modeling, co-teaching, observation, and feedback. Observations and debriefing are valuable to ensure effective implementation (Blamey, Albert, & Dorrell, 2008).

According to Burkins (2007), "If we watch and listen to teachers more than we talk to them, we will find that they usually know what their projects need to be" (p. 70). Debriefing allows for focused conversations on strengths, areas of improvement, goal-setting, and reflection. Professional development needs to grow from the early childhood literacy coach working in conjunction with the teacher to identify areas of pedagogical interest. Coaching then becomes differentiated (Stover et al., 2011). Together, the early childhood literacy coach and teacher form a partnership to discuss instruction--collaborating as they build their knowledge of practical approaches to teaching and learning.

Builder of a School-Wide Learning Community

Early childhood literacy coaches act as instructional leaders. According to the IRA (2000), they can play an integral role developing a school-wide vision for literacy instruction. To create a shared vision of the school's literacy program and philosophy, the early childhood literacy coach must work together with teachers, administrators, and other community constituents. Conversely, coaches need support from school administrators who value their work. This support must come with clear roles as defined by the early childhood literacy coach and school administrator (IRA, 2004). By working as a team, the school's needs, goals, and steps to achieve those goals will be more attainable.

Effective early childhood literacy coaches know how to facilitate adult learning. Through leading professional development, modeling strategies, and conducting demonstration lessons, early childhood literacy coaches assist teachers and administrators in becoming more knowledgeable about literacy instruction. Coaches develop trusting relationships by knowing their teachers, administrators, and community constituents. Together, they discuss goals and engage in ongoing collaborative communication (Paramore, 2007).

Knowledge of effective adult learning practices helps to facilitate adult reflection and goal-setting: a key component of effective teaching. Therefore, it is important for early childhood literacy coaches to work with teachers, administrators, and community constituents in a manner that builds a sense of professionalism and respect (Blamey, Albert, & Dorrell, 2008).

For literacy coaches, professional development also extends to family partnerships. Coaches' knowledge of appropriate at-home experiences, and how to disseminate this information accordingly, helps build knowledgeable parents (Blarney, Albert, & Dorrell, 2008).

Research suggests that coaches can promote changes in classroom practice when they have a thorough understanding of adult learners, mastery of successful coaching techniques, specialized knowledge of effective literacy instructional practices, and clear roles and responsibilities (IRA, 2004; L'Allier et al., 2010; Toll, 2005). According to Bean et al. (2008), teachers who have worked with coaches have improved their teaching practices by incorporating more high-level thinking questions, encouraging more active engagement from students, and showing an increased ability to differentiate and adapt instructional material and skills. As C. Toll (2006) stated, "Literacy coaching supports significant instructional change and increased teacher reflection, which contributes to the reshaping of school cultures" (p. 8).

Although the need for literacy coaching has found wide acceptance in professional circles (Dole, 2004; IRA, 2004; Moxley & Taylor, 2006; Mraz, Algozzine, & Watson, 2008; Pipes, 2004; Sturtevant, 2003; Vogt & Shearer, 2003), the roles and responsibilities that professionals fill when coaching vary widely, and few studies have examined the professional behaviors of early childhood literacy coaches (Dole, 2004; Quatroche, Bean, & Hamilton, 2001; Wepner & Quatroche, 2008).

The purpose of the current study was to document the perceptions of early childhood literacy coaches concerning their professional roles and explore their recommendations for enhancing those roles. We reasoned that examining the current priorities of early childhood literacy coaches and their recommendations for their role would provide a reasonable basis for evaluating current roles of early childhood literacy coaches and improving future early literacy coaching efforts.

METHOD

We were interested in the perceptions of early childhood literacy coaches concerning their roles within schools and their ideas on ways to revise those roles in order to increase their effectiveness. We addressed a single research question from multiple perspectives with several data sources. We asked: How do early childhood literacy coaches define their roles, and what suggestions do they have for changing their roles in order to increase their contributions to the early literacy programs they serve?

Participants and Context

Twenty early childhood literacy coaches participated in the current 4-year study. All coaches worked as early childhood teachers prior to becoming a literacy coach. The coaches within the group worked in one of two school environments: Some of the coaches (n = 12) served prekindergarten classrooms in an urban public school system in a large metropolitan district in the southeastern United States serving approximately 122,000 children. Other coaches (n = 8) worked with specific subsidized preschool centers that served students from birth to age 5. Each participating setting was designated by local school administrators as "high risk" and was comparable to schools across the United States involved in efforts to support, reform, and improve literacy of low-performing students. Each preschool center and school-setting classroom represented the following general characteristics:

* Had a population of students in which more than 40% participated in the federal free and reduced-price lunch program.

* The classrooms were scattered throughout the greater urban area.

* Showed evidence of effective implementation of the district's early literacy intervention program.

* Demonstrated participation of senior administrative staff, principal, program director, and campus site-based decision-making team.

* Displayed a willingness to serve as a demonstration site and to collaborate in efforts to mentor other schools.

Procedures

The early childhood literacy coaches who participated in the study (N = 20) completed a 16-item survey that included specific behaviors (see Table 1) consistently recommended in professional literature as necessary components of effective literacy coaching (Bean & DeFord, 2007; IRA, 2004; Shanklin, 2006; Toll, C., 2006). Participants indicated their perceptions of the extent to which each behavior was currently part of the role they fulfilled as an early childhood literacy coach. We used a Likert-type scale that included four response categories: 4 (the behavior was a high priority of the current coaching job), 3 (the behavior was an action in-process), 2 (the behavior had been discussed but no action had been taken to implement it), and 1 (the behavior was not part of the participant's current coaching role).

The survey was conducted at the completion of the current 4-year study. After the end of a professional development session, the coaches were asked to complete a survey about their 4 years of experience as early childhood literacy coaches. We explained that their participation in the survey would be anonymous and they could choose to handwrite or type their responses. They were given a choice of whether to complete the survey. All 20 coaches chose to complete the survey. After completing the surveys, the early childhood literacy coaches placed their surveys in a manila envelope located at the back of the classroom. As they left the center, coaches placed their surveys within this envelope.

The survey included sets of items related to four categories of features associated with the role of a literacy coach (see Table 1): content expert (e.g., discuss and identify areas of strength relating to teaching literacy skills), promoter of self-reflection (e.g., discuss and identify students' strengths and weaknesses), professional development facilitator (e.g., observe and identify strengths and areas of need related to teaching), and school-wide learning community facilitator (e.g., work with administrators to monitor school's literacy program). Internal consistency reliability estimates adjusted using the Spearman-Brown formula (Ferguson, 1971) were moderate to high ([r.sub.total] = .91, [r.sub.content expert] = .57, [r.sub.self_reflection] = .73, [r.sub.professional development] = .70, [r.sub.learning community] = .92).

In addition to the quantitative responses, coaches were invited to provide descriptive, qualitative comments for any or all of the statements on the survey. At the end of the quantitative statements, two open-ended questions were asked of the participants: (1) Describe other responsibilities you have as a literacy coach, and (2) If you could change anything about your role as literacy coach, what would you change?

To obtain an in-depth perspective of the views of the participants, we also used naturalistic inquiry for a portion of the current study. Naturalistic research seeks to understand and describe the participants' interpretation of their environment and culture (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). Naturalistic inquiry can provide theoretically grounded accounts of events that occur in natural settings and the perspectives, insights, and descriptions of participants in ways that cannot be accomplished using quantitative methods alone (Burgess, 1985).

In applying naturalistic research methods to the current study, we completed semistructured interviews with five of the early childhood literacy coaches who volunteered to provide further in-depth descriptions of the job roles. Each interview lasted approximately 1 hour. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. Each participant was interviewed using the same protocol; follow-up probes were asked of each participant to clarify and extend her initial response to questions.

The first section of the protocol included prompts that addressed the job roles of an early literacy coach:

* Can you walk me through your typical day as an early childhood literacy coach?

* How did you prepare for your job as an early childhood literacy coach?

* Looking back on your coaching experiences, how have you changed over the course of this year or over the course of having this job?

* Tell me how you organize your time and responsibilities as an early childhood literacy coach.

* What does building a professional learning environment mean to you?

* Walk me through your typical conferring session with a teacher.

The second part of the protocol addressed opinions and experiences of the early childhood literacy coach. These questions included:

* Tell me some of the successes you've had as an early childhood literacy coach.

* Tell me some of your biggest challenges you've had as an early childhood literacy coach.

* What parts of your job do you enjoy and what parts don't you really care for?

* What do you think is the hardest part of the job?

* Finish this sentence: If I had only known....

* Finish this sentence: I wish I knew more about....

Design and Data Analysis

The study was a mixed-method inquiry. We compiled and analyzed descriptive and comparative summaries of quantitative survey results and qualitative analyses of in-depth interview responses to address our research question: How do early childhood literacy coaches define their roles, and what suggestions do they have for changing their roles in order to increase their contributions to the early literacy programs they serve? Indicators of rigor were part of the current study. We used data from multiple sources and multiple data collection methods (i.e., triangulation) so that comparisons could be made among the findings and inferences drawn from data sources. Additionally, thick, descriptive data were compiled and multiple informants were used. We evaluated findings from in-depth interviews to confirm, support, and extend outcomes of each quantitative analysis.

Survey responses were quantified to determine the frequency of responses made by the early childhood literacy coaches. First, we determined which answers were given most frequently by the early childhood literacy coaches, and these raw numbers were reconfigured into bar graphs that gave us a visual perspective of the findings. We then grouped the survey responses into two groups based on the majority of responses: (1) The job roles that the majority of participants said were a high priority or in progress and (2) the job roles in which no action was taken or was not part of the job role.

Analysis of qualitative data required that the researchers establish a conceptual framework so that emerging patterns and themes could be identified. Data reduction was part of ongoing data analysis and was intended to help the researchers discover patterns, suggest comparisons, and integrate and elaborate upon the data gathered (Miles & Huberman, 1994). We used the constant-comparative method of analysis throughout the data collection process (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). To identify potential patterns, we coded data according to the themes and sub-categories that emerged.

RESULTS

Participants identified certain aspects of the coaching role as a high priority and indicated that they were actively engaged in actions related to these roles while less active with others (Table 1). At least 80% of the participants indicated being actively engaged with four (100%) of the content area roles, two (67%) of the self-reflection roles, two (50%) of the professional development roles, and none of the four learning community roles.

The specific roles (see Figure 1) that most of the early childhood literacy coaches (n = 80%+) indicated as a high priority or an action-in-progress included: Identifying areas of strength relating to content pedagogy (100%), establishing rapport with teachers to provide support rather than evaluation (95%), discussing the district's mandated curriculum (95%), discussing with teachers how to use student data to inform instruction (90%), identifying student strengths and needs (85%), identifying teachers' professional development needs (80%), discussing classroom management techniques (80%), and identifying supports for classroom organization (80%). The specific roles (see Figure 2) that fewer early childhood literacy coaches (n = less than 80%) indicated as discussed, but no action taken or not part of their current job role, included: observing and identifying strengths and areas of need related to teaching (75%), addressing teachers'

professional development needs (65%), using conferring to promote independent thinking and purposeful reflection by teachers (60%), meeting regularly with administrators (45%), monitoring the school's literacy program (40%), working with teachers on family literacy issues (30%), and working with family literacy coaches (30%).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

High-Priority and Actionable Roles of the Literacy Coach

The results indicate that early childhood literacy coaches devote the majority of the time and energy to three different roles: the coach as a content expert, the coach as a promoter of self-reflection, and the coach as a professional development facilitator. They devote time to establishing rapport with their teachers with a desire to cultivate a supportive professional relationship, rather than an evaluative one. Other high-priority and actionable items, as indicated by the survey, included discussions between the teacher and coach that centered on literacy content and the curriculum, as established by the local school system. These discussions were often couched within a more specific context of student strengths and needs based on assessments that were periodically given throughout the year. These areas are discussed more thoroughly in the following subsections.

The Coach as a Content Expert

Early childhood literacy coaches expressed the contention that, for much of the year, they felt obligated to frame coaching conversations around guidelines established in the mandated curriculum. The components of this curricula included reading aloud, oral language development, and phonological awareness. They spent several meetings discussing these components with their teachers, explaining that "this is an ongoing part of my job" and "I need to revisit each component next year in deliberate meetings."

One early childhood literacy coach, however, explained that the sole focus on the mandated curriculum was not enough. She noted, "I feel there needs to be more focus on basic effective teaching." This sentiment was seconded by a literacy coach in an extended interview: Teaching the curriculum was not the only thing to me. We are teaching children and regardless of what curriculum you're using, you need to know how to teach. The first year of our curriculum, we were told we had to do it by the book. So it sort of felt like being under communist rule and I was part of the communist regime. But, quickly we were given freedom because many of us [literacy coaches] fought against a rigid implementation of the curriculum.

Early childhood literacy coaches often found themselves in precarious situations. Their primary job was to provide on-site professional support for teachers. Often, however, this professional support was mandated from administrators who requested specific reforms.

Initially, early childhood literacy coaches arrived in classrooms hoping to specifically influence literacy practices among their teachers. Upon entering many of their classrooms, they quickly realized other existing needs. Specifically, they saw links between well-managed and organized classrooms and literacy instruction. That is, in well-managed and organized classrooms, teachers were able to focus more on their instruction. Likewise, early childhood literacy coaches believed they could be better literacy coaches when certain management and organizational structures were set in place. This may explain why an overwhelming majority of coaches listed classroom management techniques and organization as high-priority and actionable job roles.

The Coach as a Promoter of Self-Reflection

Two job roles identified by literacy coaches as a high priority or an action-in-progress centered on identifying student strengths and needs and discussing with teachers how to use student data to inform instruction. Qualitative comments indicated that coaches spent time addressing student assessment data in an effort to match the data with instruction. One coach commented, "I discuss how assessment may be showing a snapshot of what a student knows." Another coach commented, "I don't always have enough time to do this with every teacher, but I discuss this with many of them."

The focus on assessment seemed overwhelming to many of the coaches. One coach noted, "If [the school district] is going to expect me to truly coach, then they should relieve us of many of the administrative duties we currently have to perform--assessment being one of those." Another coach requested that she be allowed to spend "less time focusing on assessments and more on supporting teachers, working with students, and enhancing professional development of teachers through collaboration." In these cases, early childhood literacy coaches viewed assessment as a hindrance to their coaching. They felt that the administration of assessments and subsequent review of results could have been time spent in classrooms, working on specific pedagogical strategies.

The Coach as a Professional Development Facilitator

Early childhood literacy coaches indicted the role of rapport as a high priority and an actionable process already in progress. Qualitative comments on the survey included such responses as, "Teachers have to view us as part of the team. We have to develop genuine, caring relationships." Another coach explained, "Rapport is very important. Establishing rapport has been a success for the majority of teachers this year."

One interviewee explained her role in this way: A coach is someone who sees herself as the team player instead of the hierarchy of the coach. When I walk in the door, I want them to know I am there to support them. I am not coming in thinking I am the greatest teacher in the world and you all just need to do what I say.

Others talked about the difficulty they have had as they attempted to establish rapport with their teachers: "This has become more complicated because I have inherited administrative tasks." And another coach admitted: "I have eight years of an evaluative role to overcome."

These comments seem to indicate that evaluation and rapport are competing interests. Potentially, evaluation is seen as a hindrance to rapport and the utterance of evaluative comments may contribute to an undermining of rapport with teachers.

Qualitative comments indicated that coaches talk with teachers about specific literacy skills, such as oral language and writing. Although some coaches have these discussions one-on-one with their teachers, other coaches indicated they do much of their discussions with small groups of teachers. One coach noted, "This is an action that is in progress for me. I do small amounts of staff development in small group meetings and will extend this next year."

One interviewee explained these discussions in this way: I am now at a place where I really try to let my teachers discover for themselves or take ownership of things. We have meetings every other week called curriculum small-group meetings. At first, I was setting the agenda and telling them what to do--(sarcastically) you know, giving them all my wisdom. And then the teachers asked if they could set the agendas. So really, the meetings are theirs now. I really think that's what it's all about--empowering them to stand on their own.

For literacy coaches, these professional development meetings morphed throughout the year. In some cases, the coach determined the topics of content to be discussed. As the year progressed, and teachers began to pursue their own content interests, coaches assumed a less authoritative stance. This allowed teachers to gain agency over their learning.

Low-Priority Roles of the Literacy Coach: The Coach as a Facilitator of the School-Wide Literacy Community

Among the items listed on the survey, two items were noted as low-priority tasks of the literacy coach, and they fell under the category of coach as a facilitator of the school-wide literacy community. These two roles were working with administrators to develop a support plan for effective coaching and working with family literacy coaches. Literacy coaches considered these two areas, which take the coach out of the classroom and into other aspects of the school environment, as not critical to their job. Our findings indicate that literacy coaches did not devote much time to addressing other constituents of the school outside of the immediate classroom.

Coaches noted that many administrators were busy with other aspects of school operations and had little time to devote to literacy coaching in the classrooms. One coach said, "There is not a lot of support and involvement from (early childhood) directors." Another coach lamented, "Administrators view me as a visitor at the school and only there to drop off and pick up materials."

Coaches expressed their belief that a lack of awareness about the role of the literacy coach in the school seemed to lead to misperceptions of the coach's job role. For example, some administrators did not understand the purpose of coaching in the classroom. Worse, some administrators thought the job of the coach was to be an evaluator of the teachers, judging their work as instructors and rating their performance. This miscommunication of the coach's role led to conflicts for some coaches. Rather than being viewed as a support for on-site professional development, some coaches believed that administrators perceived them as administrators themselves.

The majority of coaches did not devote much time to working with teachers on family literacy issues or to working with family literacy coaches. Many coaches did not believe this was part of their job, as other district personnel were assigned to this work.

One coach noted, "I have virtually no contact with family literacy coaches all year." Another frustrated coach explained, "I would, but the family coach is not reliable. She does not know my teachers' names and rarely (if ever) visits a site!"

Several coaches noted their desire to work with family literacy issues. One coach wrote, I don't work with families as much as I would like to. In the future I would like to work more closely with the family coaches next year. That's my plan. I worked with teachers around parent-teacher conference time to give helpful literature for parents about literacy.

DISCUSSION

Our 4 years of work with early childhood literacy coaches have shown us that the job role of early childhood literacy is multifaceted in its scope and requires talent in several areas. Their candor in explaining their job roles has provided insightful feedback about what they do as literacy leaders.

Through the current research study, we have learned that early childhood literacy coaches are required to be content experts: delivering and discussing literacy processes to teachers, while helping them to establish well-managed classrooms conducive for learning. In an effort to deepen their content knowledge, literacy coaches read professional books and research articles, attended and presented at conferences, and attended professional development seminars. As they built their knowledge about literacy, they also had to develop their understanding of the state-mandated curriculum to make connections between the two and discuss those connections with teachers.

As knowledge about literacy processes and the state-mandated curriculum merged or conflicted, early childhood literacy coaches helped to promote self-reflection. In this role, they encouraged teachers to ponder the whys and hows of teaching. By providing a mirror and discussing with teachers their instructional decisions, the early childhood literacy coach pushed teachers to think deeply about their instructional practices. They did this by conferring with teachers and analyzing student assessment data.

The discoveries that early childhood literacy coaches made with teachers about students and their learning processes were the basis of their professional development seminars with teachers. As a facilitator of shared knowledge, the coach needed to establish an environment of trust and rapport with teachers so that teachers could feel safe to learn from the coach and the coach from them. Delivery of this shared knowledge included honest and frank conversations about teachers' strengths and needs in a way that supported the teacher. Their perceptions of their coaching roles as supporters and collaborators sometimes conflicted with those of administrators who hoped that the early childhood literacy coaches be more evaluative in their feedback. For those who clearly communicated their expectations for their coaching role to administrators, these conflicts were quickly resolved. For those who did not communicate with administrators, their roles were, at best, misunderstood and, at worst, eliminated.

This leads us to the most enlightening finding of the current study. The majority of coaches did not view outreach beyond the classroom as a major component of their job role. That is, for many, their communication with administrators was limited. With families, communication was almost nonexistent. Probably the two potentially strongest advocacy groups for coaches were the two groups who knew the least about what the coach offered to teachers in the classroom. This missed opportunity does not allow the greater school community to understand how the early childhood literacy coach offers support and thoughtful reflection for teachers, thus affecting the quality of instruction for young children in the classroom. Because of this, coaches have few advocates for their work. In these times of economic instability, this may be one explanation for why literacy coaches are all too often viewed as expendable when school budgets are developed. And it may be a reason why literacy coaches are cut altogether.

We implore literacy coaches to become stronger advocates for their essential positions within schools. They must continue their important work of disseminating content knowledge, encouraging teachers to think reflectively, and facilitating professional development in ways that inspire and inform. However, they must also make administrators and parents aware of their influence in classrooms. They can do this by meeting regularly with parents and administrators to discuss and show changes happening as a result of their work with teachers. Without the support of administrators and advocacy from parents, the meaningful, on-site professional development collaboration provided by early childhood literacy coaches may be in jeopardy.

DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2011.580207

Submitted January 11, 2009; accepted December 3, 2010.

REFERENCES

Bean, R. M. (2004). Promoting effective literacy instruction: The challenge for literacy coaches. California Reader, 37(3), 58-63.

Bean, R. M., Belcastro, B., Hathaway, J., Risko, V., Rosemary, C., & Roskos, K. (2008, March). A review of the research on instructional coaching. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, New York, NY.

Bean, R. M., & DeFord, D. (2007). Do's and don't's for literacy coaches: Advice from the field. Retrieved from http://www.literacycoachingonline.org/briefs/DosandDontsFinal.pdf

Bean, R. M., Swan, A. L., & Knaub, R. (2003). Reading specialists in schools with exemplary reading programs: Functional, versatile, and prepared. Reading Teacher, 56, 446-455.

Bean, R. M., Trovato, C. A., & Hamilton, R. (1995). Focus on Chapter 1 reading programs: Views of reading specialists, classroom teachers, and principals. Reading Research and Instruction, 34, 204-221.

Blamey, K., Albert, L., & Dorrell, B. (2008). C is for coach: What is it like to be an early childhood literacy coach? Retrieved from http://damali2.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/c-is-for-coach.pdf

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Burgess, R. G. (1985). Issues in educational research: Qualitative methods. New York, NY: Falmer Press.

Burkins, J. M. (2007). Coaching for balance: How to meet the challenges of literacy coaching. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (1999). Teaching as a learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dole, J. A. (2004). The changing role of the reading specialist in school reform. Reading Teacher, 57, 462-471.

Dole, J. A., & Donaldson, R. (2006). "What am I supposed to do all day?": Three big ideas for the reading coach. Reading Teacher, 59(5), 486-488.

Ferguson, G. A. (1971). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

International Reading Association. (2000). Teaching all children to read. The roles of the reading specialist. Newark, DE: Author.

International Reading Association. (2004). The role and qualifications of the reading coach in the United States. Newark, DE: Author.

International Reading Association. (2006). IRA surveys coaches. Reading Today, 23(5), 1-3.

International Reading Association & National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1998). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. A joint position statement of the International Reading Association (IRA) and National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Young Children, 53(4), 75-88.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

L'Allier, S., Elish-Piper, L., & Bean, R. (2010). What matters for elementary literacy coaching? Guiding principles for instructional improvement and student achievement. Reading Teacher, 63(7), 544-554.

Lynch, J., & Ferguson, K. (2010). Reflections of elementary school literacy coaches on practice: Roles and perspectives. Canadian Journal of Education, 33(1), 199-227.

McLean, C., Mallozzi, C., Hu, R., & Dailey, L. (2010). Literacy coaching and Reading First "redelivery": A discourse analysis. Teacher Development, 14(2), 253-268.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moxley, D., & Taylor, R. T. (2006). Literacy coaching: A handbook for school leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Mraz, M., Algozzine, B., & Kissel, B. (2009). The literacy coach's companion preK-3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Mraz, M., Algozzine, B., & Watson, P. (2008). Perceptions and expectations of roles and responsibilities of literacy coaching. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47, 141-157.

Mraz, M., Vacca, J. V., & Vintinner, J. P. (2008). Professional development. In S. Wepner & D. Strickland (Eds.), The administration and supervision of reading programs (4th ed., pp. 133-143). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Paramore, T. (2007). Coaching conversations for beginners. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 3(1), 71-81.

Peterson, D. S., Taylor, B. M., Burmhan, B., & Schock, R. (2009). Reflective coaching conversations: A missing piece. Reading Teacher, 62, 500-509.

Pipes, G. (2004). What are they really doing? A mixed methodology inquiry into the multifaceted role of the elementary. reading specialist (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

Quatroche, D., Bean, R., & Hamilton, R. (2001). The role of the reading specialist: A review of research. Reading Teacher, 55, 282-294.

Richardson, V. (2003). The dilemmas of professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 401-406.

Roller, C. (2006). Reading and literacy coaches report on hiring requirements and duties surveyed. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Shanklin, N. L. (2006). What are the characteristics of effective literacy coaching? Retrieved from http://www. literacycoachingonline.org/briefs/CharofLiteracyCoachingNLS09-27-07.pdf

Shanklin, N. L. (2007). What supports do literacy coaches need from administrators in order to succeed? Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse. Retrieved from www.literacycoachingonline.org/briefs/LCSupportsNSBrief.pdf

Shaw, M. L., Smith, W. E., Chesler, B. J., & Romeo, L. (2005). Moving forward: The reading specialist as literacy coach. Reading Today, 22(6), 6.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Steckel, B. (2009). Fulfilling the promise of literacy coaches in urban schools: What does it take to make an impact? Reading Teacher, 63(1), 14-23.

Stover, K, Kissel, B., Haag, K., & Shoniker, R. (2011). Differentiated coaching: Fostering reflection with teachers. The Reading Teacher, 64(7), 498-509.

Sturtevant, E. G. (2003). The literacy coach: A key to improve teaching and learning in secondary schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from www.all4ed.org/publications/LiteracyCoach.pdf

Toll, C. (2006). The literacy coach's desk reference: The processes and perspectives for effective coaching. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Toll, C. A. (2005). The literacy coach's survival guide: Essential questions and practical answers. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Toll, C. A. (2006). Separating coaching from supervising. T3: Teachers Teaching Teachers, 2(4), 1-4. Retrieved from http://literacy.kent.edu/coaching/forcoaches/ttt/dec06.pdf

Vogt, M., & Shearer, B. A. (Eds.). (2003). Reading specialists in the real world: A sociocultural view. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Walpole, S., & McKenna, M. C. (2004). The literacy coach's handbook: A guide to research-based reform. New York, NY: Guilford.

Wepner, S. B., & Quatroche, D. J. (2008). Reading specialists: On becoming leaders of literacy. In S. B. Wepner & D. S. Strickland (Eds.), The administration and supervision of reading programs (4th ed., pp. 30-44). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Brian Kissel, Maryann Mraz, Bob Algozzine, and Katie Stover

University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina

Address correspondence to Brian Kissel, Department of Reading and Elementary Education, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223. E-mail: btkissel@uncc.edu TABLE 1 Coach-Identified Roles of Priority Perception Not High In Under Part Category/Role Priority Progress Discussion of Job Coach as content expert 1. Discuss and identify 11 9 0 0 areas of strength relating to teaching literacy content. 2. Discuss and identify 9 7 4 0 areas of strength related to establishing classroom management routines. 3. Discuss and identify 11 8 1 0 areas of need related to teaching using the district's mandated curriculum. 4. Discuss and identify 11 5 3 1 supports needed for effective classroom organization. Coach as promoter of self-reflection 5. Use conferencing to 5 7 5 3 promote the independent thinking and purposeful questioning of teachers as they reflect upon their instructional practices. 6. Discuss and identify 9 8 3 0 students' strengths and needs. 7. Discuss and 9 9 1 1 demonstrate how to use data to inform instruction. Coach as professional development facilitator 8. Establish and 15 4 0 1 emphasize rapport relating to the role of support rather than evaluation. 9. Observe and identify 8 7 5 0 strengths and areas of need related to teaching. 10. Identify teachers' 9 7 2 2 professional development needs. 11. Address teachers' 6 7 5 2 professional development needs. Coach as facilitator of school-wide learning community 12. Work with 3 5 4 6 administrators to monitor the school's literacy program. 13. Regularly schedule 6 3 7 4 meetings with program administrators or directors. 14. Work with teachers on 2 4 8 5 family literacy issues. 15. Work with family 0 6 3 11 literacy coaches. High Priority or Action in Category/Role Progress Coach as content expert 1. Discuss and identify 100% areas of strength relating to teaching literacy content. 2. Discuss and identify 80% areas of strength related to establishing classroom management routines. 3. Discuss and identify 95% areas of need related to teaching using the district's mandated curriculum. 4. Discuss and identify 80% supports needed for effective classroom organization. Coach as promoter of self-reflection 5. Use conferencing to 60% promote the independent thinking and purposeful questioning of teachers as they reflect upon their instructional practices. 6. Discuss and identify 85% students' strengths and needs. 7. Discuss and 90% demonstrate how to use data to inform instruction. Coach as professional development facilitator 8. Establish and 95% emphasize rapport relating to the role of support rather than evaluation. 9. Observe and identify 75% strengths and areas of need related to teaching. 10. Identify teachers' 80% professional development needs. 11. Address teachers' 65% professional development needs. Coach as facilitator of school-wide learning community 12. Work with 40% administrators to monitor the school's literacy program. 13. Regularly schedule 45% meetings with program administrators or directors. 14. Work with teachers on 30% family literacy issues. 15. Work with family 30% literacy coaches.