Immediate Download Leading Student Centered Coaching Building Principal and Coach Partnerships 1st Edition Diane Sweeney Ebooks 2024

Full download ebook at ebookgate.
com
Leading Student Centered Coaching Building

Principal and Coach Partnerships 1st Edition
Diane Sweeney
https://ebookgate.com/product/leading-student-
centered-coaching-building-principal-and-coach-
partnerships-1st-edition-diane-sweeney/
Download more ebook from https://ebookgate.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Principal Challenge Leading and Managing Schools in

an Era of Accountability Jossey Bass Education Series
1st Edition Marc S. Tucker
https://ebookgate.com/product/the-principal-challenge-leading-
and-managing-schools-in-an-era-of-accountability-jossey-bass-
education-series-1st-edition-marc-s-tucker/
Whole Novels for the Whole Class A Student Centered

Approach 1st Edition Ariel Sacks
https://ebookgate.com/product/whole-novels-for-the-whole-class-a-
student-centered-approach-1st-edition-ariel-sacks/
Complexity And Healthcare An Introduction 1st Edition

Kieran Sweeney
https://ebookgate.com/product/complexity-and-healthcare-an-
introduction-1st-edition-kieran-sweeney/
The Emotional Development of Young Children Building an

Emotion Centered Curriculum Early Childhood Education
Series 2nd Edition Hyson
https://ebookgate.com/product/the-emotional-development-of-young-
children-building-an-emotion-centered-curriculum-early-childhood-
education-series-2nd-edition-hyson/
Eating Disorders A Patient Centered Approach Patient
Centered Care Series 1st Edition Kathleen M. Berg
https://ebookgate.com/product/eating-disorders-a-patient-
centered-approach-patient-centered-care-series-1st-edition-
kathleen-m-berg/
The Hidden History Of Coaching Coaching in Practice

Paperback 1st Edition Leni Wildflower
https://ebookgate.com/product/the-hidden-history-of-coaching-
coaching-in-practice-paperback-1st-edition-leni-wildflower/
Vesper and Compline music for three principal voices

Jeffrey Kurtzman
https://ebookgate.com/product/vesper-and-compline-music-for-
three-principal-voices-jeffrey-kurtzman/
School Management and Multi Professional Partnerships

1st Edition Raymond Moorcroft
https://ebookgate.com/product/school-management-and-multi-
professional-partnerships-1st-edition-raymond-moorcroft/
Multidimensional Perspectives on Principal Leadership

Effectiveness 1st Edition Kadir Beycioglu
https://ebookgate.com/product/multidimensional-perspectives-on-
principal-leadership-effectiveness-1st-edition-kadir-beycioglu/
Leading Student-Centered
Coaching
This book is dedicated to the principal and coach teams
who work tirelessly each day in service of learning.
Leading
Student-Centered
Coaching
Building Principal and
Coach Partnerships
Diane Sweeney
Ann Mausbach
FOR INFORMATION: Copyright  2018 by Corwin
Corwin All rights reserved. When forms and sample documents are
A SAGE Company included, their use is authorized only by educators, local
school sites, and/or noncommercial or nonprofit entities that
2455 Teller Road
have purchased the book. Except for that usage, no part of
Thousand Oaks, California 91320 this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any
(800) 233-9936 means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
www.corwin.com recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publisher.
SAGE Publications Ltd. All trademarks depicted within this book, including
1 Oliver’s Yard trademarks appearing as part of a screenshot, figure, or
55 City Road other image, are included solely for the purpose of illustration
and are the property of their respective holders. The use of
London EC1Y 1SP
the trademarks in no way indicates any relationship with, or
United Kingdom endorsement by, the holders of said trademarks.
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd. Printed in the United States of America
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044
India Names: Sweeney, Diane, author. | Mausbach, Ann T., author.
Title: Leading student-centered coaching / Diane R.
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd. Sweeney and Ann Mausbach.
3 Church Street Description: Thousand Oaks, California : Corwin, a SAGE
#10-04 Samsung Hub Company, [2018] | Includes bibliographical references.
Singapore 049483 Identifiers: LCCN 2018008232 | ISBN 9781544320557
(pbk. : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Mentoring in education. | Teachers—
Training of. | School improvement programs.
Classification: LCC LB1731.4 .S867 2018 | DDC 370.102—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018008232
This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Executive Editor: Dan Alpert
Associate Editor: Lucas Schleicher
Editorial Assistant: Mia Rodriguez
Production Editor: Andrew Olson
Copy Editor: Deanna Noga
Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.
Proofreader: Dennis W. Webb
Indexer: Judy Hunt
Cover Designer: Anupama Krishnan 18 19 20 21 22 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
DISCLAIMER: This book may direct you to access third-party content via Web links, QR codes,
or other scannable technologies, which are provided for your reference by the author(s). Corwin
makes no guarantee that such third-party content will be available for your use and encourages
you to review the terms and conditions of such third-party content. Corwin takes no responsibility
and assumes no liability for your use of any third-party content, nor does Corwin approve, sponsor,
endorse, verify, or certify such third-party content.
Contents
Acknowledgmentsvii
About the Authors ix
Introduction1
Chapter 1: An Introduction to Student-Centered Coaching 5
Chapter 2: Connecting School Improvement to Coaching 23
Chapter 3: Defining Roles for Coaches and Principals 41
Chapter 4: School Culture and Coaching 57
Chapter 5: Setting Expectations for Authentic Participation
in Coaching 71
Chapter 6: Driving Toward High Quality Instruction 87
Chapter 7: Separating Coaching From Supervision 103
Chapter 8: Supporting the Development of the Coach 117
In Closing 133
Appendix A: Rubric for Leading Student-Centered Coaching 135
Appendix B: Rubric for Student-Centered Coaching 141
Appendix C: Sample School Improvement Plan 147
Appendix D: Student-Centered Coaching Moves 155
Appendix E: Results-Based Coaching Tool 159
Appendix F: Planner for Sharing Lessons 163
References167
Index 171
Acknowledgments
T here is nothing more powerful than a dedicated school leader. These

leaders guide their school toward serving every student. They do this
while also nurturing each staff member to grow and develop. We have been
fortunate to work with, and learn from, many such leaders. We couldn’t
have written this without them. They live in the pages of this book.
While there are too many to name, we’d like to acknowledge and thank
Kim Kazmierczak, Garry Milbourn, Mark Schuldt, Amy Glime, and Greg
James. These principals have informed the practices that we shared in this
book. We work with many dedicated coaches as well. The team from Nido
de Aguilas in Santiago, Chile, informed our work on creating powerful
principal coach partnerships. Their work is also reflected in this story.
Just as it takes a village to raise a child, it takes an amazing team to
write a book. We have been fortunate to work with Dan Alpert and the
Corwin staff who continually provide guidance and support. We also ben-
efited from feedback from our critical friends at Diane Sweeney Consulting:
Leanna Harris, Karen Taylor, and Julie Wright. They provided direction
and clarity throughout the writing process.
While it couldn’t go without saying, we can’t omit a thanks to the
people in our lives who motivate and inspire us the most: our husbands
and children. Thanks to Dan, Quinn, Eva, Tim, Jack, and Mark. Your sup-
port and presence in our lives gives our work meaning.
PUBLISHER’S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Corwin gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following
reviewers:
Amanda Brueggeman
Literary Coach
Wentzville School District
Wentzville, MO
• vii
viii • Leading Student-Centered Coaching
Timothy S. Grieves, PhD
Chief Administrator
Northwest Area Education Agency
Sioux City, IA
Kelly Neylon, PhD

Principal
Woodridge School District 68
Woodridge, IL
Nadine Norris
Director of Technology, Teaching, and Learning
Community Unit School District 201
Westmont, IL
Jeanette Westfall
Director of Curriculum & Instruction and Staff Development
Liberty Public Schools
Liberty, MO
About the Authors
Diane Sweeney is the author of Student-

Centered Coaching: The Moves (Corwin,
2016), Student-Centered Coaching: A Guide
for K–8 Coaches and Principals (Corwin,
2011) and Student-Centered Coaching at
the Secondary Level (Corwin, 2013). Each
of these books is grounded in the simple
but powerful premise that coaching can
be designed to more directly impact
student learning. Her first book, Learning
Along the Way (Stenhouse, 2003), shares
the story of how an urban elementary
school transformed itself to become a
learning community.
Diane spends her time speaking and consulting for schools and educa-
tional organizations across the country. She is also an instructor for the
University of Wisconsin, Madison. When she isn’t working in schools, she
loves to spend time outside with her family in Denver, Colorado.
Ann Mausbach is the author of School

Leadership through the Seasons: A Guide
to Staying Focused and Getting Results
All Year (Routledge Eye on Education,
2016) and Align the Design: A Blueprint
for School Improvement (ASCD, 2008).
These books provide practical guid-
ance to school leaders interested in
creating lasting reform in their schools.
Ann has served as a central office
leader in a variety of roles including
Coordinator of Staff Development,
Director of Curriculum, Director of
• ix
x • Leading Student-Centered Coaching
Elementary Education, and Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and
Instruction. She holds a PhD from the University of Kansas. She currently
works as an Assistant Professor for Educational Leadership at Creighton
University in Omaha, NE.
Introduction
“Every doorway, every intersection has a story.”

—Katherine Dunn
HOW WE CAME TO THIS WORK

As an instructional coach for over 20 years, Diane has spent her career
helping coaches develop their skills. Ann has spent over 20 years support-
ing principals in their work to improve schools. Their paths crossed when
Ann hired Diane to support the coaches in her district. This began a col-
laboration that helped them both open the door wider to understanding
how critical it is to be intentional about the intersection between the prin-
cipal and coach.
Both realized that they had approached the work from a distinct lens.
Diane’s had been about developing the skills of teams of coaches, while
Ann’s focus was on making sure large school reform was happening. In
other words Diane was advocating for coaches, and Ann was advocating
for principals. It wasn’t until they discussed writing this book that their
perspectives began to change and grow. They acknowledged that some-
times their narrow view was getting in the way of making sure that coach-
ing was working. Diane had to learn how coaching fits into the bigger
school reform picture and not think of it as an isolated practice that would
solve every problem. Ann had to learn that coaches were more than a “nice
to have” role, but were critical in helping principals meet the teaching and
learning demands in their school.
•1
2 • Leading Student-Centered Coaching
This book is a merging of both perspectives. It’s not written for an
audience of principal or for an audience of coach. It’s written for both.
While you may have previously read other books about student-centered
coaching, this book takes a new stance by addressing the importance of the
principal and coach partnership.
WHY THIS BOOK? WHY NOW?

We have encountered a variety of issues surrounding the principal and
coach partnership. And even though we have varied backgrounds, it’s
interesting that the dilemmas are consistent across the K–12 schools where
we work. If you have been involved in coaching, you’ve probably experi-
enced some of these issues as well. Coaches trying to work around the
principal, principals delegating too much to coaches, and coaches and
principals working parallel rather than with each other. So much time,
energy, and money are being expended with little impact. While this is
often frustrating for teachers, the biggest losers are the students who miss
out on deep, rich learning.
We have also found that in many districts there is a lack of support to
principals regarding how to lead a coaching effort. This may be due to the
simple fact that we haven’t paid much attention to guiding principals
through the rapid expansion of instructional coaching. We believe that
when principals lack strategies for leading a coaching effort, they will
encounter significant barriers to reaching their goal of positively impact-
ing teaching and learning.
COACHING WITH THE BIG PICTURE IN MIND

Schools are complex systems. This complexity may lead us to try to do too
many things at once. Lack of clarity results in people feeling confused,
overwhelmed, and unsupported. The antidote to this confusion is to be
thoughtful about what it is that you are going after, and then go after it
with great intensity and focus.
One way we have learned to put the pieces together is to be clear about
“the thing” we are trying to accomplish. This helps articulate how every-
thing works together for the sake of student learning. Rather than wasting
time and energy on unfocused efforts, schools can do better to align pro-
fessional learning in service of student learning.
We like to use the following construct when thinking about how all the
pieces fit together. The thing is whatever initiative your school has decided
to implement. Examples include the implementation of the Gradual
Introduction •3
“The Thing”
GRR, Reader’s Workshop,
Kagan etc.
Professional Learning
PLCs, PD, etc.
Coaching Cycles
– Facilitated by teacher
– Facilitated by the
+
leaders, the coach,
coach
or the principal
– Evaluated through
– Evaluated by the
the Results-Based
principal using
Coaching Tool
walk-throughs and
observations
Release of Responsibility (GRR), Reader’s Workshop, Kagan Strategies for

Cooperative Learning, or Authentic Intellectual Engagement (AIW). There
is no shortage of these types of initiatives in today’s schools. The key is to
select the thing that has the most potential to impact your students. What
makes the thing come to life are the two supports that rest underneath:
professional learning and coaching cycles. Both are equally important if
these efforts are going to take root.
As you read through the graphic, you’ll notice that professional learn-
ing includes collaboration (such as professional learning communities,
learning teams, and department meetings) as well as large group profes-
sional development. In these sessions, teachers are engaged in learning
that relates to instructional pedagogy. This learning is facilitated by
teacher leaders, the coach, or the principal. These efforts are evaluated by
the principal engaging in walk-throughs and observations in classrooms
throughout the school. Imagine your “thing” is to decrease lecture and
increase student discussion. It becomes apparent that professional learn-
ing must be delivered and evaluated if there is any hope of providing
what teachers need.
Coaching cycles are an additional support that are facilitated by the
coach, and may occur with individuals, pairs, or small groups. The impact
of coaching cycles is monitored based on teacher and student learning. The
in-depth support that is inherent in coaching cycles supports student
learning while also reinforcing effective practices in the school improve-
ment plan.
We have to keep in mind that coaching isn’t an initiative (and that the
coach isn’t “the thing”). Rather it is an embedded support that helps all
teachers meet the goals of the school. We view this as the intersection of
school improvement, coaching, and most important learning, underscor-
ing why the principal and coach relationship is so pivotal.
OUR INTENTIONS FOR

THE CHAPTERS IN THIS BOOK
We chose to approach this book by tackling the toughest issues that are
associated with integrating coaching into a school. Each chapter addresses
a different aspect of building, sustaining, and learning from your coaching
efforts. We provide practical ideas and solutions that can help you ensure
that coaching is getting results.
With this in mind, we would recommend that you begin by building a
solid understanding of the coaching model and strategies for school
improvement (Chapters 1 and 2). After building this foundational knowl-
edge, other chapters address common issues associated with leading
coaching. Chapter 3 provides ideas and strategies to ensure that roles are
clearly defined. In Chapter 4, you will learn how to integrate coaches in a
way that contributes to a culture of learning. Creating a no opt culture is
the focus of Chapter 5. All this rests on a clear understanding of what good
instruction looks like, which is addressed in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 focuses
on the perennial question of how to separate coaching from supervision.
Finally, Chapter 8 addresses how to support coaches so they can continue
to learn and grow.
In reading this book, we hope to create new intersections in how you
think about coaching. We understand that leading a school isn’t easy.
That’s all the more reason to learn how you can be more strategic about
student-centered coaching. The story your school will tell rests on opening
the doors and minds of your teachers and students. It is our hope that this
book helps make this happen.
1 An Introduction
to Student-
Centered
Coaching
“The work isn’t done until every child benefits from the innovation.”
—Nancy Mooney, District Leader
I nstructional coaching has grown exponentially over the past two decades.
Today there are coaches in large districts, small districts, urban districts,
and rural districts. Coaches focus on subjects like mathematics, literacy, and
technology. Others work across content areas. With millions of dollars and
countless hours being dedicated to coaching, we must be sure that it is
reaching the intended goal of increasing student and teacher learning.
Anything worth doing takes thoughtfulness, leadership, and a team
approach. The same is true for coaching. While we often attribute the suc-
cess of coaching to the skillfulness of the coach, the school leader is just as
important to get the job done. The leader is essential because coaching is
about lifting the learning of every member of the school community. We
need everyone working together, taking risks, and committing to do what
it takes to get there. At times, this may feel as challenging as lifting a
165,000 pound Space Shuttle off the ground. If you’ve seen the movie The
Right Stuff, you may remember the scene when an astronaut is invited to
join the team and he responds, “It sounds dangerous. Count me in.” This
•5
is the sense of urgency that we are looking for when it comes to leading a
coaching effort. We simply don’t have time to waste. Although the astro-
naut’s life was on the line, we are talking about the lives of our students.
We believe that their success is just as important.
WHY IT MATTERS
Coaching Matters, and We Can Do Better
It is the principal’s role to go beyond simply supporting a coaching effort.
The principal must lead it. It takes a well-informed and strategic principal
to do just that. While the principal is the key player, we recognize that
there may be other district leaders who are instrumental in leading a
coaching effort as well. For example, in a typical elementary school, the
principal often leads the coaching effort. In a large comprehensive high
school, an academic vice principal may be the one who guides the work.
Sometimes a district leader is the point person on a coaching effort. For
this reason, we will use the language school leader and principal as we speak
to the instructional leaders who will ensure that coaching reaches the
desired outcomes.
Strong leaders build partnerships with the coach, understand how to
separate coaching from evaluation, and position the coach to be a valued
resource within the school community. Yet many leaders receive very little
direction regarding how to best deploy a coach. It’s a familiar story: We
hire great teachers out of the classroom and then assume that their instruc-
tional background will be enough to get them started as coaches. Would
we hire nurses to perform complex surgeries and not train them to do so?
Of course not. So why do we take this approach with coaching?
A recent meta-analysis focusing on how coaching impacts instructional
practice makes this work all the more essential. According to Kraft, Blazar,
and Hogan (2016),
Turning to our primary meta-analytic results for instruction, we

find large positive effects of coaching on teachers’ instructional
practice. We find a pooled effect size of .58 standard deviations
(SD) across all 32 studies that included a measure of instructional
practice as an outcome. (p. 20)
As advocates for coaching, we are thrilled to see the correlation

between coaching and instructional practice. But we think there’s more to
do. We’d like to ensure that coaching directly impacts student achievement
as well. This takes leadership. In the book Reduce Change to Increase
CHAPTER 1: An Introduction to Student-Centered Coaching •7
Improvement, Robinson (2018) writes, “Leadership is the enabler of
improvement, orchestrating the various conditions, such as professional
capability, community engagement, and quality instruction, that need to
be working together if improvement in student outcomes is to be achieved
and sustained” (p. 9).
Let’s Remember: The Purpose of School Is Student Learning

It’s easy to lose perspective on the fact that the purpose of school is student
learning. This somewhat obvious notion is often lost as we develop and
deliver a coaching model. We busily create all kinds of systems and struc-
tures. We provide professional learning opportunities, and we negotiate
what we expect of teachers. With all these balls in the air, it’s easy to forget
our driving purpose. Kids don’t go to school to participate in programs,
they don’t go to school to behave, and they don’t go to school to score well
on state tests. They go to school to learn.
We can so easily make coaching about student learning. When Diane
began grappling with how to be more student-centered in her coaching,
she was also studying Understanding by Design by Wiggins and McTighe
(2005). It came together when she read, “We ask designers to start
with a much more careful statement of the desired results—the priority
learnings—and to derive the curriculum from the performances called
for or implied in the goals” (2005, p. 17). This notion of working back-
ward from the desired results became the operating principle of student-
centered coaching.
This approach accomplished a few things. It became much easier to
develop partnerships with teachers because the coach’s role was to help
the students reach the goals that had been set by the teacher. The impact
was clearer because the teacher and coach would formatively assess stu-
dent learning every step of the way. It also became easier to identify the
growth that the teacher had made instructionally because it was nested in
the context of teaching and learning.
Having a Coaching Model Is the First Step

It’s incredible how many districts have coaches and no coaching model. A
coaching model is a framework; it does not tell you how to coach or what
to coach. A coaching framework is the underlying structure that you can
use when you’re coaching someone. Rostron (2009) writes,
Coaching models help us to understand the coaching intervention

from a systems perspective, and to understand the need for “structure”
in the interaction between coach and client. Models help us to
develop flexibility as coach practitioners. They offer structure and
an outline for both the coaching conversation and the overall
coaching journey—whether it is for 20 hours, six months, a year or
more. However, although models create a system within which
coach and client work, it is imperative that models are not experi-
enced as either prescriptive or rigid. (p. 116)
When a model is lacking, nobody really knows what coaches should be

doing with their time. This can be downright confusing for members of the
school community. Some teachers may worry that coaches will report their
weaknesses back to the principal and that this information will be used in
a punitive way. Others may assume that coaching only applies to teachers
who are new or struggling. When school lacks a coaching model, the effort
may become vague and has the potential to be a waste of resources. Here
are some signs that a school is lacking a coaching model:
•• Nobody knows the purpose for having a coach.

•• Coaches aren’t sure what they should be doing on a daily basis.
•• Coaches don’t receive guidance about how to organize and sched-
ule their work.
•• Coaches aren’t provided with a clear process to follow when work-
ing with teachers.
•• Coaches aren’t sure who should participate in coaching cycles.
•• There is no plan for measuring the impact of coaching.
•• The coach is encouraged to “just build relationships” so that teach-
ers won’t be threatened.
The first step in determining the coaching model is deciding if coach-

ing will be student-centered, teacher-centered, or relationship-driven.
Figure 1.1 outlines each of these approaches based on a variety of factors.
We find that starting here helps schools home in on their purpose for
coaching.
Student-centered coaching is about partnerships where instructional
coaches and teachers work together to reach their goals for student learn-
ing. This is a departure from a teacher-centered approach where the role of
the coach is to implement a program or set of practices. Teacher-centered
coaching may make sense when a school or district is adopting a new pro-
gram or pedagogy because there are specific things a teacher may need to
learn to implement. It can also be useful when new teachers need to learn
how things are done in a school. The thing is, this approach can sometimes
set the coach up to focus on what the teacher is—or isn’t—doing. This may
lead to the perception that the coach is there to hold teachers accountable
CHAPTER 1: An Introduction to Student-Centered Coaching •9
Figure 1.1 oaching Continuum: Student-Centered, Teacher-Centered, and
C
Relationship-Driven Coaching
More Impact on Students Less Impact on Students
Student-Centered Teacher-Centered Relationship-Driven

Coaching Coaching Coaching
Role The coach partners The coach moves The coach provides
with teachers to design teachers toward support and resources
learning that is based implementing a to teachers.
on a specific objective program or set of
for student learning. instructional practices.
Focus The focus is on using The focus is on what The focus is on

data and student work the teacher is, or is not, providing support to
to analyze progress and doing and addressing it teachers in a way that
collaborate to make through coaching. doesn’t challenge or
informed decisions threaten them.
about instruction that
is differentiated and
needs-based.
Use of Data Formative assessment Summative assessment Data are rarely used
data and student work data are used to hold in relationship-driven
is used to determine teachers accountable coaching.
how to design the rather than as a tool for
instruction. Summative instructional decision
assessment data making.
are used to assess
progress toward
standards mastery.
Use of Textbooks, technology, The use of textbooks, Sharing access

Materials and curricular technology, and and information to
programs are viewed curricular programs is textbooks, technology,
as tools for moving the primary objective of and curricular programs
student learning to the the coaching. is the primary focus of
next level. the coaching.
Perception of The coach is viewed as The coach is viewed The coach is viewed
the Coach a partner who is there as a person who as a friendly source of
to support teachers is there to hold support who provides
to move students teachers accountable resources when
toward mastery of the for a certain set of needed.
standards. instructional practices.
Role of Trusting, respectful, and collegial relationships are a necessary component

Relationships for this type of coaching.
Source: Sweeney, D. (2011). Student-Centered Coaching: A Guide for K–8 Coaches and Principals. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin. Used with permission.
or “fix” them. Or coaches may experience frayed relationships, or feel
uncomfortable with being put in the position of “expert.”
While nobody would argue that relationships are foundational to
coaching, we don’t want to only focus here. Relationship-driven coaching
occurs when the coach focuses on providing teachers with resources and
support. It often feels safer because the coach’s role is about making the
lives of teachers easier. When coaches face resistance, they may back off
and settle for providing resources. We would argue that this form of coach-
ing fails to get the desired results, and isn’t a place we’d hope coaches
would occupy for too long.
Considering these different approaches is a first step in establishing a
coaching program. Does the principal want coaching to be squarely about
implementation? Are student-outcomes the focus? Is the role of the coach
to provide resources? Whatever the choice, it’s important to recognize that
over the years, coaching has been viewed with trepidation because teach-
ers felt as if coaching was something that was “being done to them.”
According to Sweeney (2011),
Coaching often centers exclusively on the actions taken by the

teacher—making the assumption that if we improve the teaching,
then student learning will improve as well. There is some logic to
this approach, but unfortunately an unintended outcome is we’ve
spent so much time thinking about what teachers should be doing
that we’ve lost touch with the most important people in our
schools . . . the students. (p. 8)
With so many schools lacking a coaching model, we thought we’d pro-

vide some ideas about how you might add clarity to a model that is being
newly developed or revamped. We’d suggest taking the steps outlined in
Figure 1.2.
WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE

In any coaching effort, it is the principal’s role to design it, define it, and lead
it. Organizational development guru Warren Bennis once said, “Leadership
is the capacity to translate vision into reality” (Booher, 1992). This certainly
applies to leading a coaching effort. Schools often start with a vision of
using coaches to provide job-embedded support to teachers. That’s a terrific
vision that we would certainly endorse. But let’s be honest that translating
that vision into reality is where things become more challenging. The fol-
lowing moves are designed to help school leaders do just that.
CHAPTER 1: An Introduction to Student-Centered Coaching • 11
Figure 1.2 Developing a Coaching Model
1. Commit to a student-centered approach to coaching.

2. Articulate your beliefs and commitments about coaching.
3. Define your process for coaching cycles.
4. Create a list of duties that coaches are engaged in on a daily or weekly basis.
5. Decide how you would like coaches to participate in teacher collaboration,
such as professional learning communities (PLCs).
6. Develop a master schedule that includes common times for teachers to meet
with the coach, a weekly principal and coach meeting, and collaboration time
for teachers.
7. Decide how coaches will measure the impact of coaching on teaching and
learning.
8. Plan how you will handle things that will potentially divert the coach’s attention
away from coaching cycles and toward administrivia (i.e., covering classrooms,
organizing data, participating in every collaboration that occurs during any
given week, etc.).
Leadership Move #1: Understand the

Core Practices for Student-Centered Coaching
It’s hard to lead something that you don’t understand. If principals have
any chance of ensuring that effective coaching is taking place, then they
need to understand what effective coaching looks like. Figure 1.3 outlines
the core practices for student-centered coaching.
Leadership Move #2: Expect Coaching Cycles

There is a real temptation to assign a laundry list of duties to coaches. This
includes organizing assessment data, creating schedules for interventions,
managing materials, or assigning other duties that don’t align with the
role of the coach. It is an especially common practice when a school has an
undefined coaching model, because nobody’s really sure what the coach
should be doing in the first place. It might be the coach who seeks out busy
work because it feels better to have something to do. The truth is, coaches
who take on the broadest array of duties will be in fewer coaching cycles
and, thus, will make less of an impact on student and teacher learning.
(Read more about defining roles in Chapter 3.)
We know that one-shot opportunities for professional development do
little to improve student learning. If coaches aren’t engaged in coaching
Figure 1.3 Core Practices for Student-Centered Coaching
Core Practice Purpose
1. Organize coaching Coaching cycles create the conditions for a coach to

through cycles make a lasting impact. If coaches work with teachers on
an informal, or one-shot, basis, then the results will be
diminished.
2. Set a standards- Coaching that isn’t standards-based often misses the

based goal for point that school should be about learning. We frame
coaching cycles coaching around learning by setting standards-based
goals for coaching cycles.
3. Use student-friendly Learning targets increase instructional clarity and provide

learning targets a mechanism for better assessment by the teacher and
throughout the more self-assessment by the students.
coaching cycle
4. Use student Student evidence is used to drive decision making

evidence to co-plan when planning lessons. This aligns with our belief that
instruction coaching ought to be built on a foundation of formative
assessment.
5. Co-teach with a Rather than modeling or observing, we advocate for

focus on effective coaches and teachers to build partnerships while working
instructional together in the classroom.
practices
6. Measure the impact It is our obligation to collect data to demonstrate how

of coaching on teachers and students are growing across coaching
student and teacher cycles.
learning
7. Partner with the Without a solid partnership, the coach will not be in the
school leader position to make the desired impact.
cycles on a regular basis, then their coaching will be far less efficacious.
We’d even go as far as to say that when coaching cycles are lacking, the
coach is most likely in a relationship-driven mode. Principals often ask
how much time should be spent in coaching cycles. We advocate for
coaches to spend most of their time in cycles because it is the most results-
based work that they will do. Coaching cycles include the following
components:
•• 4 to 6 weeks in duration
•• Can occur with individuals, small groups, or pairs
•• Include at least one weekly planning session
•• Include between one to three co-teaching sessions each week
Leadership Move #3: Ask Teachers About
Their Goals for Coaching Cycles
There may be nothing more affirming than for a school leader to understand
and support the goals that teachers are working toward with a coach. We
recommend for principals to ask teachers about their goals so that they can
be sure to create conditions for the goal to be met. A principal recently mod-
eled this during a conversation in the hallway. She said to the teacher, “I see
that you are in a coaching cycle. Can you tell me a little about your goal for
student learning?” The teacher responded, “Yes, we are working on narrative
writing that ties to our social studies curriculum. I’m working with the coach
and social studies team to make it work.” The principal responded, “That’s a
great goal, and it is very much aligned with our vision for integration. I’d love
to come into the classroom when you and the coach are working together. I
can’t wait to see what your students are able to do with their writing.”
With this simple exchange, the principal did a few things. First, she
sent a message that she valued and was interested in the work the teacher
was doing with the coach. She also gained some quick insights into the
teacher’s vision when it came to her writing instruction. Last, she used this
conversation as an opportunity to see the teacher and coach in action.
A simple conversation led to a deeper (and shared) understanding of the
work that was taking place.
It’s also important to recognize that quality goals matter. We’d hate for
a coach and teacher to spend 6 weeks on a goal that wasn’t rigorous or
aligned with the curriculum. Therefore, we seek goals that are (1) stan-
dards based, (2) valued by the teacher, (3) the right size and scope,
(4) measurable through formative assessment, and (5) robust enough to
carry a teacher and coach across a coaching cycle. Examples of goals for
coaching cycles are detailed in Figure 1.4.
You’ll notice that the examples of coaching cycle goals don’t focus on
implementing programs, such as, “Teacher will use the gradual release of
responsibility during lessons.” They aren’t at the surface (or skills) level,
such as, “Students will learn how to decode words using CVC sounds.”
Figure 1.4 Examples of Goals for Coaching Cycles
Elementary Literacy Students will use a variety of strategies to solve unknown

words in texts.
Middle School Math Students will understand and use ratios to make sense of
real-world situations.
High School Students will understand how supply and demand impacts
Economics their life as a consumer.
Goals also don’t simply focus on content, such as, “Students will learn the
important battles of the Civil War.” Rather, they are rigorous, interesting,
and aligned with the standards. This is how we ensure that coaching takes
learning deeper.
Leadership Move #4: Understand and

Promote the Use of Learning Targets
Many school districts missed the point when it came to using learning
targets to drive instruction. They focused on whether or not teachers
posted them on the board rather than on they could be used to help stu-
dents take ownership over the learning process. Moss, Brookhart, and
Long (2011) reframe the use of learning targets when they write,
Learning targets have no inherent power. They enhance student

learning and achievement only when educators commit to consis-
tently and intentionally sharing them with students. Meaningful
sharing requires that teachers use the learning targets with their
students and students use them with one another. This level of
sharing starts when teachers use student-friendly language—and
sometimes model or demonstrate what they expect—to explain the
learning target from the beginning of the lesson, and when they
continue to share it throughout the lesson. (p. 67)
Student-centered coaching embeds learning targets into every conver-

sation. This increases teacher clarity around what the students should
know and be able to do so that we can reach the goal. When teachers
understand what mastery looks like, then they are more focused and
deliberate in their teaching. Without learning targets, teachers are blind.
With them they have a clear roadmap to follow. Figure 1.5 provides an
Figure 1.5 Example of Student-Friendly Learning Targets
Coaching Cycle Goal: Students will understand and use ratios to make sense of
real-world situations.
•• I can use ratio language to describe the relationship between two quantities.
•• I can apply my understanding of unit rate to make sense of ratios.
•• I can create and manipulate tables to compare ratios.
•• I can solve unit rate problems.
•• I can solve for the whole when given a part and the percentage.
•• I can engage productively in small group work.
example of student-friendly learning targets that were used during a
coaching cycle in a middle school math class.
Leadership Move #5: Build Student

Evidence Into All Forms of Teacher Collaboration
We’ve lost sight of the types of assessment that matter. Checklists have
taken over, and many teachers may not even know how their students are
really doing. For this reason, student-centered coaching is rooted in the use
of student evidence. Examples include: writing samples, reading responses,
exit slips, open-ended math problems, anecdotal notes, and problem-
solving tasks. It is the real work that students did that very day, and it is
work that makes student learning visible.
If you were to audit collaboration and professional learning in your
school, how often would student evidence be a part of the conversation?
In most schools, the answer is rarely. While data, such as interim assess-
ments or “scores” are commonly used, student evidence is often over-
looked. This is a mistake because it means we aren’t valuing formative
assessments enough to use them during collaborative decision making.
We’d even venture to guess that without being prioritized, formative
assessment may not be happening much at all.
Carol Ann Tomlinson (2014) writes,
It isn’t really so much that these teachers use formative assess-

ments often. It’s that they do so continually—formally and infor-
mally, with individuals and with the group, to understand academic
progress and to understand the human beings that they teach. For
these teachers, formative assessment is not ancillary to effective
teaching. It is the core of their professional work. (p. 10)
We recommend for school leaders to embed student evidence into as

many collaborative conversations as possible. This sends the message that
we base our decision making on where our students are rather than on
what a colleague is doing or what the teacher may have found on Pinterest.
Leadership Move #6: Facilitate and Support Data Analysis

Student evidence is one piece of the puzzle. It serves the purpose of
improving the methods and practices we use to formatively assess stu-
dents. We also need to develop systems around higher level data, or sum-
mative assessments. Building this infrastructure is under the purview of
the principal because these forms of data are one of our strongest levers for
addressing concerns around student learning. Taking care to monitor stu-
dent performance across the school year means that no students will fall
through the cracks.
As a leading advocate for data-driven instruction, Paul Bambrick-
Santoyo (2010) argues that all schools ought to be driven by data. He writes,
Data-driven instruction is the philosophy that schools should con-

stantly focus on one simple question: are our students learning?
Using data-based methods, these schools break from the traditional
emphasis on what teachers ostensibly taught in favor of a clear-
eyed, fact-based focus on what students actually learned. (p. xxv)
There needs to be a clear distinction between the coach and principal

when it comes to data that is used for the purposes of accountability.
Coaches aren’t in the role to lead these conversations because they are a
tool for accountability rather than a tool for support. The reason for this is
if we are using data teams to their full potential, then we are naming gaps
in student performance and then taking action. Coaches aren’t in the posi-
tion to make teachers take action. Instead, they enter the picture when
support is needed. Imagine a teacher who, through a data conversation,
becomes aware that her students are at risk of not making a year’s worth
of growth as readers. Digging into this might become a meaningful goal for
a coaching cycle. The key is for the coach to support the teacher to move
student learning forward rather than looking for gaps in the teacher’s per-
formance. In this way, the coach and teacher honor their partnership and
also work to execute the gaps that were surfaced through the data analysis.
Leadership Move #7: Keep Your Eye on Impact

A coach’s biggest impact is made through coaching cycles, and coaching
cycles must be measured. Otherwise we run the risk of implementing a
coaching program with intangible results. As a school leader, expecting
that coaching cycles are occurring is the first step. The second step is
ensuring that they are being measured. We use the Results-Based Coaching
Tool to understand how student and teacher learning were impacted.
Figure 1.6 provides an overview of how we collect information when
using the Results-Based Coaching Tool. We also included a template of the
tool in Appendix E of this book.
We use the Results-Based Coaching Tool in many ways. Primarily, it is
used to name and celebrate the growth that occurred as a result of coach-
ing. If it is used as a “gotcha” tool, then teachers will begin to distrust the
coaching process and steer clear. In Chapter 8, we provide ideas regarding
Figure 1.6 Measuring the Impact of a Coaching Cycle
At the Beginning of the At the End of the Coaching

Coaching Cycle During the Coaching Cycle Cycle
Set a goal for student Engage in weekly meetings to Identify the instructional
learning using the language, analyze student evidence and practices that the teacher is
“Students will . . .” co-plan instruction. implementing on a regular
basis.
After the goal is set, it is Work side by side to Post assess to measure
unpacked into student- implement instructional student performance in
friendly learning targets. This practices that will support relationship to the goal
becomes the success criteria. students to reach the goal. for student learning. This
provides growth data.
Pre assess to determine how Continuously assess students Decide how to meet the
they are doing in relation using the learning targets. needs of students who
to the goal. This provides haven’t reached mastery.
baseline data.
Source: Sweeney, D. (2011). Student-Centered Coaching: A Guide for K–8 Coaches and Principals. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin. Used with permission.
how a school leader can use the Results-Based Coaching Tool as a center-
piece for providing feedback, support, and evaluation of coaches.
LESSON FROM THE FIELD

A Tale of Two Coaching Models
The following schools approached the launch of coaching in different
ways. As you read their stories, consider the role that the principal played
in introducing coaching to the faculty. Please note that the names of the
schools were changed for the purposes of this book.
Emerson High School

Matt had been the principal at Emerson for several years and was known
as the principal who left teachers to do their thing. He often shared that he
got out of the way so that teachers could do their best work. Several teach-
ers came to teach at Emerson because they had heard that the principal left
you alone. Scott and Becky were hired from the teaching ranks to serve as
technology integration coaches. Both were well liked by the staff. Matt
hoped that this would smooth any discontent that may occur from having
two new coaches in the school.
As they started the year, Scott and Becky reached out to Matt a few
times to set up a planning meeting. It was hard to get it on his calendar and
when they did meet, it was rushed. As new coaches, Scott and Becky felt
like they were on their own to create the coaching model that would be
used at Emerson. This was scary since they had never been coaches before.
They also worried that they’d become enmeshed in supporting technology
requests that didn’t relate to learning in the classroom.
When they did finally meet, they asked Matt for guidance on how they
would introduce themselves to the staff. He responded that they could
share that they’ll be “there for whatever the teachers needed.” While they
felt supported, it didn’t feel like a plan. They wanted a plan.
Washington High School

Hugo and Amira were hired from the teaching ranks to serve as instruc-
tional coaches. Margaret was their principal and had a track record of fair-
ness. When she learned that she would have two instructional coaches, her
first step was to make sure she hired the right people for the job. Hugo was
a well-regarded math teacher. Amira was a respected English Language
Arts teacher who had been in the school for over 10 years.
Margaret acknowledged that in the past the school had used a teacher-
centered coaching model, and she wanted the teachers to understand that
this year would be different. To support this shift, she made sure to sched-
ule regular meetings with the coaches. During these meetings, they would
discuss how coaching was going and what she could do to help them take
their work further. In their first meeting, they created a chart titled, “‘What
Coaching Is and Isn’t” (Figure 1.7). Their plan was to share what they cre-
ated at the first staff meeting.
When they introduced coaching to the staff, Margaret shared the chart,
“What Coaching Is and Isn’t.” She focused on the belief that coaching was
about helping teachers reach their goals for student learning. She also
shared that she would be working closely with Hugo and Amira and that
they would be seeking teacher feedback every step of the way. Teachers
got the message loud and clear—this was important.
What Can We Learn From These Examples?

Leaving things to chance is not the way to get coaching off on the right
foot. Margaret took ownership over the process so that there would be
clarity among teachers about what coaching is and why it’s important.
This set up the coaches for success. When coaches are left to go it alone,
they will struggle. This is not only unfair to the coaches but to the system
as a whole. Why waste this precious resource?
Figure 1.7 What Coaching Is and Isn’t
Coaching Is Coaching Isn’t
A partnership Evaluative
Focused on student learning Focused on making teachers do things
Good for our students About fixing teachers
Outcomes and standards-based A waste of time
Driven by teachers’ goals Driven by the administrator, coach, or district
Flexible and responsive Fixed and inflexible
Fun and interesting Something to avoid
WHERE ARE YOU NOW?

The following self-assessment focuses on the skills and understandings
that principals must build if they choose to implement student-centered
coaching. Each chapter includes a self-assessment of this kind. In this
chapter, we support the principal to develop an understanding of student-
centered coaching to lead the effort.
Figure 1.8 Self-Assessment for School Leaders
Understand the Philosophy and Methods for Student-Centered Coaching
Accomplished Developing Novice
The The principal The principal has some The principal is not
School understands the core knowledge of the core supportive of, lacks
Leader practices for student- practices for student- knowledge in, or takes
centered coaching, centered coaching, may a passive approach
subscribes to these question its value, or may to supporting the
practices, and provides not be actively involved implementation of the
support to move in the coaching effort. core practices for student-
coaching forward. centered coaching.
The principal provides The principal is beginning The principal focuses
the necessary pressure to find a balance on either pressure or
and support to ensure between providing the support rather than
that coaching is used to adequate pressure and finding a balance
its full potential. support to ensure that between the two.
coaching is used to its Coaching is not used to
full potential. its full potential.
(Continued)
(Continued)
Success I can . . .
Criteria
•• Support the coach to effectively use the core practices for student-centered
coaching.
•• Organize the schedule to make time for coaching to occur.
•• Facilitate data collection and use data in collaborations, such as PLCs.
•• Create the infrastructure for regular data analysis.
•• Avoid using coaching in a punitive manner.
•• Supervise and support teachers who are at risk rather than asking the
coach to do so.
Troubleshooting Around Implementation

of Student-Centered Coaching
We often hear from coaches and school leaders that they wish they had
started with more clarity around their coaching model. The saying
“Hindsight is 20/20” applies here because it’s easy to go down the
road of implementing coaching before the pieces are in place. If you
are in this situation, here are some ideas to get coaching back on track
(Figure 1.9).
Figure 1.9 Language for Supporting the Coaching Effort
If I hear . . . Then I can say . . .
“Can’t I just meet “We value coaching cycles because they provide the
with the coach a few greatest impact. It takes more than a few coaching
times?” sessions to see it pay off with the students. That’s what
we want to focus on.”
“Our teachers are “I understand that there is a lot going on. But remember
overwhelmed, so this that our coaching model is based on helping students
year we are going grow. Let’s work to find out what is causing teachers to
to focus on building be overwhelmed and then the school leadership team
relationships.” can wrestle with those issues. We want to make sure
our coaches stay focused on helping support student
learning.”
“I’m not sure what to “Coaching as a student-centered practice that is all about
expect from coaching, helping you reach your goals for student learning. Let’s talk
so I think I’ll steer about the differences between student-centered, teacher-
clear.” centered, and relationship-driven coaching. That way you’ll
know what to expect.”
THE COACH’S ROLE
While it is vital for the principal to support the use of the core practices for
student-centered coaching, it’s up to the coach to develop the skills they
need to use them. If we had to pick a few things for a coach to focus on,
these would be what we’d recommend. For more on these coaching moves,
please read Student-Centered Coaching: The Moves (Sweeney & Harris, 2016).
Set the Right Goals

The goal-setting process is how we set up coaching to be student-centered.
It is a pivotal part of the process, and we find that if the goal isn’t “just
right” then the coaching cycle may go sideways. A few areas to pay atten-
tion to when setting goals are:
Goal Setting for Coaching Cycles

•• Is the goal focused on a standard?
•• Is the goal challenging and rigorous for students?
•• Is the goal just right (not too broad and not too narrow)?
•• Does the teacher care about the goal?
Use Student Evidence in Planning Conversations

Coaches work with teachers to sort student work according to trends and
then deliver differentiated instruction that matches exactly where the stu-
dents are on any given day. Using student evidence provides the coach with
the opportunity to help teachers make informed instructional decisions. We
find it less useful to frame coaching around data such as interim or summa-
tive assessments. While assessments of this nature are important for a school
system, they don’t often inform the day-to-day decision making of teachers.
Therefore, when using student evidence, we focus on written responses,
open-ended problem solving tasks, responses to reading, anecdotal or con-
ference notes, and anything else that makes the students’ learning visible.
Remember That Coaching Also Happens in the Classroom

When we think about coaching, our first impulse is to expect the coach to
model lessons. The problem is modeling doesn’t go very far in building
partnerships with teachers. Rather, we advocate for coaches to spend most
of their time co-teaching. The following practices provide techniques that
a coach can use working in classrooms with teachers (Figure 1.10).
Figure 1.10 Co-Teaching Moves
Coaching Move What It Looks Like
Noticing and During the lesson, the teacher and coach focus on how the students are
Naming demonstrating their current understanding in relation to the learning targets.
As we work with students, we will record student evidence that we will use
in our planning conversations.
Thinking Aloud The teacher and coach share their thinking throughout the delivery of
a lesson. By being metacognitive in this way, we will be able to name
successes and work through challenges in real time.
Teaching in The teacher and coach work together to co-deliver the lesson. The lesson
Tandem is co-planned to ensure the roles are clear, that the learning targets are
defined, and that we both understand how the lesson is crafted.
You Pick Four The teacher identifies four students whom the coach will focus on when
collecting evidence. The coach keeps the learning targets in mind while
collecting student evidence. This evidence is then used in future planning
conversations.
Micro Modeling A portion of the lesson is modeled by the coach. The teacher and coach
base their decision about what is modeled on the needs that have been
identified by the teacher.
Source: Sweeney, D., & Harris, L. (2016). Student-Centered Coaching: The Moves. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Used with permission.
IN CLOSING
As coaching expands, so does the importance of garnering consistent

results across schools. While we find some schools that leverage coaching
to impact teacher and student learning, we find others that are struggling
to make the same growth. The most successful schools have developed a
strong partnership between the principal and coach. Without a solid prin-
cipal and coach partnership, the impact of coaching is minimized.
Many principals receive very little support when it comes to leading a
coaching effort. This may be due to the fact that instructional coaching has
gone through a rapid expansion over that past decade. It’s also challenging
because schools are complex and difficult places to enact change.
But even with all this complexity, we can’t leave it up to the coaches to
lift the learning of the schools on their own. This leaves coaches feeling
overwhelmed and unsupported. Give these coaches a few years, and
they’ll head straight back to the classroom. How about if instead we dou-
bled down on the principal and coach partnership? This will allow us to
get much more out of a coaching effort. When the principal and coach are
working as a team, the sky’s the limit. Much like it was for those astro-
nauts who decided to take a risk and go for it.
2 Connecting
School
Improvement
to Coaching
“Always remember, your focus determines your reality.”

—George Lucas
A clear and focused plan for improving student outcomes is as essen-

tial to principals as blueprints are to architects. Imagine building a
house and having workers (i.e., plumbers, carpenters, and electricians)
show up and do whatever they want to do. This sounds crazy, because it
is. And yet this is what we do to coaches and teachers when they work in
schools without a well-articulated school improvement plan. Builders use
a detailed blueprint that outlines what the structure will look like when it
is completed. The plan provides direction and guidance so that everyone
involved knows and understands what they are building. Building schools
is no different.
Developing a strong school improvement and professional develop-
ment (PD) plan leverages coaching efforts because it helps everyone in
the school, especially principals and coaches, stay focused on what mat-
ters most. With the plethora of information coming at a school leader
every day, it is easy to get distracted by quick fix programs or the razzle
dazzle of a new initiative. The only way to avoid this trap is to be clear
• 23
on what is being built and then to build it. Like the foreman and con-
struction worker, principals and coaches work together to make sure that
plans are implemented so student learning flourishes. Coaches make the
plan work because they help close the knowing/doing gap around the
school’s initiatives. Building a structure that stands the test of time
requires planning and skilled workers. Improving a school is no differ-
ent. What is critical in both instances is that everyone works together
around a clear focus and vision.
WHY IT MATTERS
When it comes to understanding the urgency of using focused school
improvement processes, we can take a lesson from geese. Geese fly in a V
formation because this provides each bird with additional lift and reduces
air resistance for the bird flying behind it. By flying in this formation the
whole flock can fly 70% further with the same amount of energy required
for one goose to fly alone. They can fly further, faster, and with less energy,
ensuring that they reach their destination intact. Geese have a clear desti-
nation, and they organize themselves so that they inherently help each
other make it to the finish line.
When schools have a clear picture of where they are headed, they can
align resources to make sure they reach their destination. They can make
certain the coaches are in the correct formation lifting and leading others so
students can take flight. To inspire a sense of urgency, a former superinten-
dent of Ann’s used to say, “Our students only get one chance at this school
year.” We don’t have the luxury in schools to squander our most valuable
resource, which is time. Having a clear plan that aligns to the mission,
vision, and needs of the school helps create a culture that allows everyone
to thrive because it creates a shared sense of purpose and builds a continu-
ous improvement mindset, which both lay the groundwork for coaching.
Improvement Requires a Systems Approach

The work of improving a school or district requires a systems approach.
Research has proven time and time again that sustained improvement for
all students occurs when a school or system has a tight instructional focus
(Elmore, 2004; Fullan & Quinn, 2016). When schools focus on the right
things and stay with them, lasting and remarkable success happens.
Systems that build a common language and knowledge base along with
implementing proven pedagogical practices outperform schools that do
not have this focus (Robinson, 2011).
CHAPTER 2: Connecting School Improvement to Coaching • 25
The path to improving a system requires a shared depth of under-
standing about the purpose and nature of the work by all individuals in
the system, what Fullan and Quinn (2016) call coherence. Coherence
happens when there is clarity of purpose, precision in practice, transpar-
ency, monitoring of progress, and continuous correction. Coherence
requires purposeful actions and interactions. Picture those classrooms
where teachers have clear and specific learning targets that guide their
teaching. Students know what these are, and the entire classroom is
working toward meeting these outcomes. The term well-oiled machine
comes to mind when you spend time in these environments. Schools that
experience coherence are acting in the same manner. There are clear
benchmarks for the school, and the entire staff is working together to
meet these goals through learning and collaboration. Just as learners
struggle in classrooms that are chaotic, so do teachers in schools that lack
coherence. It is hard for the work of student-centered coaching to make
a lasting impact if teachers feel fragmented and unsure of the work they
are doing.
Capacity Building Is Critical to Improving a System

To get beyond rhetoric, and get to deep levels of implementation, lead-
ers need to build collective capacity. “Collective capacity building
involves the increased ability of educators at all levels of the system to
make the instructional changes required to raise the bar and close the
gap for all students” (Fullan & Quinn, 2016, p. 57). The goal is for
everyone in the system to have the necessary knowledge and skills, not
just one or two superstar teachers. For this type of shift to occur, it
takes more than all hands on deck, it takes an all hands rowing in the
same direction. Avoiding role redundancies between the principal and
coach is necessary for moving forward. Without this, principals and
coaches can find themselves tripping over each other and wasting time
and energy.
Capacity building requires attention to both individual and collec-
tive practice. Student-centered coaches provide support at both levels
through one-on-one and small group coaching. Improving instructional
practice is difficult work, but coaches who are provided the time and
space to do the nitty gritty work of coaching (digging deep into analyz-
ing student work to adjust practice) are critical drivers in enhancing the
collective capacity of the school. Coaches aren’t “the thing” as refer-
enced in the introduction; coaches are what makes the thing happen by
helping everyone in the school improve student outcomes through
building capacity.
Metacognition Is Necessary to Improve Practice
The goal of professional learning in schools is not only to help teachers
improve practice in the here and now, but to help them understand why
the practice works so that they will use it again. To borrow from psychol-
ogy, we want to help teachers be consciously competent (Burch, 1970).
This is the third of four stages of competence that relate to the psycho-
logical states involved in the process of learning something new.
Individuals move from not knowing what they don’t know to being so
competent that the skill has become second nature. At the consciously
competent stage the individual knows or understands something; how-
ever, demonstrating the skills or knowledge requires concentration.
Executing the new learning requires heavy conscious involvement. The
reason scripted lessons and step-by-step teaching manuals don’t work is
because they dismiss this critical point. A hallmark of learning is when the
learner can apply “the stuff” they have learned to new and unique situa-
tions. This involves synthesizing new information and comparing to
existing understanding to make meaning. It requires a system of support
that helps teachers wrestle with and apply their new learning. How can
we expect teachers to get to a consciously competent stage if we don’t give
them the time they need to learn?
Higher order thinking uses more of our brain’s capacity. Analyzing,
critiquing, and redesigning all require a heavy cognitive load. This is why
we need coaches. As palpable as our brains are, the resources are limited.
When attention is paid to one thing, there is less capacity for everything
else. The more attention we pay to everything, the less discerning we
become. Focusing isn’t just efficient, it leaves us better able to use the
knowledge that we have gained. It allows us to think. Distractions impede
thinking. Schools that have clearly articulated school improvement and
professional plans outperform schools that don’t because they minimize
distractions, allowing teachers space to concentrate and think about
improving a small number of practices. Student-centered coaches are a
critical asset in cultivating a culture of thinking, learning, and growing,
but are hindered in their efforts if a school is all over the place regarding
instructional demands.
Schools Are Complex Systems

A principal we work with frequently says, “It’s not one thing, it’s every-
thing.” This may sound counterintuitive after the previous sections, but
schools are complex systems, which means they are made up of intercon-
nected parts. The interdependence inherent in a system results in a ripple
effect; one thing is touched, and other parts of the system are affected.
Mausbach and Morrison (2016) use the analogy of a garden to illustrate
this interconnectedness. A gardener avoids counterproductive practices
like putting plants that need shade in spots where they get full sun. They
figure out how to have the parts of the system (soil, seeds, and weather
conditions) work in concert rather than in competition.
School leaders must think in similar terms. Figuring out how all the
parts of the system work together to help students grow must be priority
number one for school leaders. This is why clearly discerning the differ-
ences between the coach and principal roles and responsibilities is so criti-
cal. Without this clear distinction, principals and coaches can unwittingly
engage in practices that are counterproductive and hinder system growth.
A core function of system leadership is translating the vision of the orga-
nization into a reality by setting a direction that results in whole school
consistency and high expectations (Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, &
Hopkins, 2006). This requires a keen understanding of both the whole and
the parts in the system.
WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE

Connecting coaching to school improvement efforts begins with the prin-
cipal understanding the connection between school improvement pro-
cesses. Armed with this understanding the principal can then work to
make sure that coaching efforts are connecting to and supporting school
improvement efforts so deep levels of implementation can occur. The lead-
ership moves identified in the next section provide practical guidance to
make this happen.
Leadership Move #1: Align School Improvement Processes

Just as cars veer off the road without proper alignment, so it is for schools
that fail to connect school improvement processes. Mooney and Mausbach
(2008) identify five core processes that they refer to as blueprint processes for
school improvement. These processes are as follows:
1. Establishing a mission, vision, and values that guide the general

direction of the school and it’s future actions;
2. Using data analysis, which includes both collecting and interpret-
ing data for decision making;
3. Using a school improvement plan to guide goals, strategies, action
steps, and decisions to create a working plan for the school;
4. Implementing professional development that serves as the engine
for the school improvement plan; and
5. Differentiating supervision of teaching and learning to monitor
how processes are working in classrooms.
Alignment of school improvement is when all the processes (mission

and vision, data, the plan, professional development, and supervision)
work in concert (Mooney & Mausbach, 2008). It is the interconnectedness
of these processes that determines the success of the school. Cars run best
when all the parts are in tune and working together. The same holds true
for schools, if one of the core processes is missing, for example differenti-
ated supervision of the plan, then the journey for improvement may hit a
detour or be in for a very bumpy ride. Figure 2.1 provides an overview of
the processes and their relationship.
Alignment happens when the leader has the mindset that everything
in the organization is instrumental to the achievement of collective goals.
Rather than looking outside the organization for improvement levers,
leaders look within and work to align the processes and resources in a
systematic and focused way (Elmore, 2008). Using the mission to help
determine what data to collect, identifying professional development
practices based on the strategies in the school improvement plan, and
using look fors to determine what to observe in classrooms are examples
of how these processes help leaders look from within. Each process
requires the leader to collaborate with staff to make decisions about the
direction of the school. Decisions made throughout the cycle of school
improvement have a direct impact on how resources will be used and how
staff work together.
Many times, schools and districts believe they have alignment
because they have several of these processes in place. For example, a mis-
sion statement may exist or schools may have improvement plans and
engage in data analysis. However, these processes are done in isolation
of each other and are treated as separate activities rather than as actions
that must interosculate to get maximum results. Misalignment is so det-
rimental because it perpetuates the “silo” mentality that is far too ram-
pant in many schools. Silos get created because there isn’t a shared sense
of purpose on what and how to do the work. Overcoming isolationism
requires leaders to take alignment issues head on. Figure 2.2 outlines
some common problems with alignment and actions leaders can take to
address these problems.
Alignment is a key factor to maximizing coaches’ effectiveness because
it helps create a shared mindset. It keeps the focus on promoting positive
teacher, coach, and principal relationships since everyone is working
Figure 2.1 Blueprint Processes for School Improvement
Data Development
• Where are you • What does the • What will you do • What professional • How will you
headed? data tell you? to address needs? learning is needed supervise to make
• What do you • TOOL: Data • TOOL: SIP to get everyone on sure the work gets
believe? Consult board? done?
• How will coaches • TOOL: walk-throughs
support the learning? with feedback,
• TOOL: PD PLAN look fors
Mission
The Plan The Work
Vision
Monitoring
Supervision
On-going
Walk-throughs PLCs
feedback
Source: Adapted from Mausbach, A., & Morrison, K. (2016). School Leadership Through the Seasons: A Guide to Staying Focused and Getting Results All Year. New York,
NY: Routledge.
• 29
Figure 2.2 Common Alignment Problems and Solutions
Problem Principal Actions to Address
Addressing mission and vision •• Refer to the mission and vision when engaging
only at the beginning of each in school improvement work.
school year •• Highlight examples of the mission in action
throughout the year.
•• Use the mission as a touchstone when making
decisions.
Using annual data analysis •• Distribute data as they become available

versus continuous data followed by analysis and collective interpretation.
analysis for decision making •• Clearly identify data points in the school
improvement plan that help measure impact on
student learning, and then collect this data on
an ongoing basis and share progress with staff.
•• Establish collaboration, such as professional
learning communities (PLCs), that uses student
data as the cornerstone for the work.
Treating development of a •• Use school data to determine areas for

school improvement plan as improvement.
a one-time event driven by •• Identify both implementation and impact data
compliance to an outside points, collect on an ongoing basis, and revise
source (i.e., district office, plan as needed throughout the year.
accreditation agency)
Developing professional •• Develop professional development around

development plans that are identified needs of the school from the school
selected and governed by improvement plan.
persons outside the school •• Actively participate in PD and PLCs.
Creating professional •• Create an infrastructure for learning in the
development plans that are school that promotes both large and small
loosely related to the school group learning.
improvement plan •• Resist trainings, programs, or initiatives that
are not a part of the strategies in the school
improvement plan.
Supervising teachers using •• Set clear expectations regarding frequent

daily monitoring methods classroom visitation for the purpose of
that are not connected to monitoring teaching and learning in addition to
the school improvement or evaluation of teachers.
professional development plan •• Collaboratively develop clear look fors around
the school’s initiatives so everyone understands
what implementation looks like and sounds like.
Source: Adapted from Mooney & Mausbach (2008).
toward the same desired state. Having a clear plan for improvement helps
teachers see that the coach is a partner in the journey. It also removes the
hurdle of using formative assessment data during coaching cycles because
using data and looking at student work is a common practice across the
school. An aligned system promotes a continuous growth mindset, which
is just the type of environment coaches need to thrive.
Leadership Move #2: Think Skinny When Planning

“We can’t put one more thing on their plate” is a frequent mantra in
today’s schools. As well intentioned as this sentiment is, it unwittingly
communicates one dimensional thinking. Schools are complex systems
with many parts. It is unrealistic to think that there won’t be more than one
thing on the plate. How unhealthy would it be if we just ate one thing
every day? The key isn’t taking things on or off as much as it is in portion
control. So while there may be more than one thing on the plate, the
amount of what is on the plate needs adjusting based on what is best for
the school. Think more vegetables, less starch. The trick is to boil down the
change into the smallest number of key high yield factors that have impact
on learning, Fullan’s notion of “skinny” (2009).
To get “skinny,” leaders need to think in terms of “simplexity” (Kluger,
2009). Simplexity means the plans are less than complex, but not overly sim-
ple. Three key practices aid in development of a skinny plan that integrates
coaching, engages staff, and improves outcomes for students. (See Appendix
C for an example of a student-centered school improvement plan.)
Use Clear and Deliberate Language

Schools and school systems are highly compartmentalized both by physi-
cal and organizational design. Teachers in the science wing may rarely
interact with the fine arts wing, not only because they are physically sepa-
rated, but also because the school schedule does not allow for common
planning or lunch times. This isolation hampers reform efforts and adds to
confusion or disengagement, complicating coaching efforts since they
work with a variety of teachers across the school. Because this isolation
exists it is important to use common language so that everyone is on the
same page. Figure 2.3 outlines questions and language that create shared
meaning and clarity for leaders, coaches, and teachers.
Limit the Number of Goals and Strategies

This may seem like common sense, but in our experience working with a
variety of schools in diverse settings, this tends to be one of the biggest prob-
lems with improvement plans. If the purpose of having goals is to determine
direction, then having five or more goals means five or more destinations,
which can put the school on divergent paths. One useful way to help limit
goals is to keep them centered on student outcomes. Then strategies are
Figure 2.3 uestions and Language for Developing a School Improvement
Q
Plan
Where are we
Goals
going?
What do we
need to get Strategies
there?
How do we get
Action
the work
Steps
done?
about the work of the adults to help meet the goal. For example, one goal
area may be to improve achievement. Under this goal there may be two
strategies such as to implement formative assessments and improve feed-
back practices to students. On the surface these goals and strategies seem
simple, it is in the execution that complexity enters the picture.
One of the biggest challenges of keeping the plan skinny is the multi-
tude of initiatives coming from either the district or the state. Schools must
align themselves with district initiatives; however, blindly complying with
demands from higher-ups can sabotage real reform efforts. Just as we
advocate for coaches to work closely with building principals, so should
principals work with central office staff. Central to making this relation-
ship work is the understanding that all parties want the same thing, and
that is to see progress or growth. When addressing district mandates, prin-
cipals need to work in partnership with the district office to determine
what aspects of the initiative make the most sense for the context of their
school in that moment in time. District leaders also are also wise to think
skinny when rolling out new initiatives. This means limiting both the
number and the pace of new reform efforts.
Use Professional Development Needs as the Barometer

The best indicator about whether or not the goals, strategies, and action
steps in the school improvement plan are doable is to take a close look at
the professional learning needs that stem from the plan. Listing all the
things teachers would need to know and be able to do if the strategies
were implemented by the entire staff provides a realistic picture of the
likelihood of the success of the plan. If the plan requires teachers to learn
a long list of new practices, then the plan is too big. Can every single
teacher in the school take on everything that is listed? Many times that
answer is no, so scale back. Just as the barometric meter alerts us about
changes in weather conditions so we can react appropriately, the amount
of professional learning required in plans serves as an indicator of the rea-
sonableness of improvement efforts. It alerts us to whether there will be
stormy times ahead (asking teachers to learn too many new things at once)
or sunny days (giving teachers the time and space to learn a limited num-
ber of high leverage practices).
Leadership Move #3: Collaboratively Develop the Plan

So many times the term buy-in surfaces when talking about getting staff to
engage in reform efforts. True engagement, however, requires a deeper
level of commitment, it requires ownership. Leaders can’t force this type
of commitment, rather their influence lies in the environment they create
(Senge, 2006). Staff are unable to own initiatives if they aren’t a part of the
process. This process requires principals to walk a fine line between get-
ting bogged down taking an inordinate amount of time to develop the
plan versus having staff simply sign off on the documents. Leaders navi-
gate this fine line by creating an infrastructure that allows all staff to sys-
tematically provide input and review progress.
The concept of a leadership team isn’t new to schools; however,
these teams typically address a variety of issues throughout the school.
Tapping into a leadership team enables the principal and coach to get
relevant input from teachers. In this way, school improvement and pro-
fessional learning are a priority, and in turn, create a guiding vision for
the coach.
According to Mausbach and Morrison (2016) the number of teams
will vary depending on the size of the school, but as a rule of thumb all
instructional staff need to be engaged in school improvement planning.
Teachers should be able to select a goal area and work with that team. It
is the principal’s role to ensure that all staff members are represented on
teams. For example, if a teacher is interested in math, she would serve
on the team that is spearheading the work in this goal area. A member
from each goal team would also serve on the overall school leadership
team. This ensures that information developed and reviewed during
team meetings can be shared throughout the school. The key is to have
a structure and then to put the issues of school improvement as the focus
of the agenda.
Leadership Move #4: Layer Professional Learning
Nancy Mooney, co-author of Align the Design (2008), used to say that pro-
fessional development is the engine of school improvement. It is what
makes the plan move forward. The goal for professional learning is to
improve outcomes for students. For this to happen teachers need to trans-
fer and apply learning to the real-life situations that occur in their class-
rooms. This won’t happen if professional learning is treated as an event
that is disconnected from the goals, strategies, and action steps in the
school improvement plan. We use the term layer when it comes to profes-
sional learning because it evokes a mental picture of providing more than
one thing at the same time. The key is to blanket teachers with the support
they need to learn and grow. This requires multiple opportunities to learn
in multiple ways. Figure 2.4 outlines the structures needed, benefits, and
what it looks like at each layer. Sweeney (2011) refers to these as the Three
Venues of Professional Development.
These structures have the greatest impact when the leader is intimately
involved. Observations, feedback, and active participation in collabora-
tion, such as PLCs, must be the routine work of the principal. The constant
and consistent presence in classrooms and PLCs provides a principal with
Figure 2.4 Layers of Professional Learning
Why Needed Benefits What It Looks Like
Large Group • Helps everyone hear Efficient way to share • Faculty professional
the same message at new concepts especially development
the same time when launching a new • Feedback letters to
• Helps develop shared initiative or practice entire staff providing
meaning insights from walk-
throughs
• Conferences and
workshops
Small Group Provides additional time • Promotes transfer • Grade level team
to wrestle with applying of learning from • Inquiry team
new learning in context workshop to
classroom • Planning team
• Builds collective • Interdisciplinary team

capacity • Intervention team
One-on-One Refine practice Builds self-efficacy • Coaching cycles

• Feedback
conversations with
principal
real-time information about what is working in the school and allows
them to work in partnership with the coach. This focus helps everyone but
especially coaches because it removes the burden from them being the
primary eyes and ears of instruction. Observations and feedback help the
leader discern if PD efforts are on track or if additional supports are
needed. Think of how ludicrous it would be for a football coach to try to
improve the team’s record without showing up for a game. Yet this is what
happens when principals take a hands-off approach to school improve-
ment efforts. Ensuring quality teaching is happening for every student in
the building requires a leader who is present and continually monitoring
the instructional program with an eye on coherence.
LESSON FROM THE FIELD

It was Garry’s 5th year as the principal of a high-poverty elementary
school. Student achievement had improved since his tenure, but Garry and
his staff weren’t satisfied with the results. Using their recently revised mis-
sion, which highlighted collaboration, the school improvement team dug
in and decided to take an honest look at how PLCs were working in the
school. A staff survey indicated that although student work was consis-
tently being examined, teams were getting mired in determining profi-
ciency rather than identifying actions to address the students’ needs.
These data matched what both Garry and the coaches had observed when
they attended weekly grade-level PLCs.
The focus of their plan shifted to using interim assessment data
because this would provide much needed information about students’
progress on the standards and would provide a unifying process that
everyone in the school could use to help them respond to student needs.
After determining this focus, Garry and the two coaches (one math,
one literacy) decided to provide more support to teachers so that the
assessment data generated would be used to plan instruction. To do this
they devised a two-step process for PLCs that consisted of a (1) preplan-
ning protocol and a (2) review and action protocol.
The preplanning protocol was used during the principal and coach
meetings just after the interims had been administered. Garry and the
coaches reviewed grade-level data and identified strengths and areas for
growth based on the standards that were being assessed. With this infor-
mation in mind, they strategically gathered resources that they felt might
be useful when the grade-level team unpacked the data during the
upcoming PLC. For example, when the 2nd-grade students were strug-
gling with the standard of counting up and over 100, the math coach
brought examples of ideas of how to use manipulatives while Garry
brought a short excerpt from a Van De Walle, Karp, and Bay-Williams
(2012) book on math instruction.
The Review and Action Protocol was used during the 45-minute long
PLC meeting. This consisted of the team using a timed whip around (3–5
minutes) that consisted of three rounds. During Round One, the team
identified which standards or concepts were strengths. Round Two con-
sisted of identifying areas of growth. The final round consisted of sharing
strategies teachers could use to teach the concepts that needed work. If
needed, additional time was added so they could make sure that the team
“got everything out” regarding practices that would help teach the con-
cept. Garry acted as the timekeeper during the protocol, and the coach was
an active participant, sharing alongside the teachers.
After the team had created a list of ideas, they spent the rest of the time
identifying three to four realistic strategies and actions, and then priori-
tized which ones they would implement first. During this portion of the
meeting, the coach was often asked to explain or model what the strategy
might look like in the classroom. Teachers who wanted additional support
also requested coaching cycles.
While a bit clunky at first, especially if teachers hadn’t looked at their
data prior to the meeting, after a few months, the process was clicking. As
a result, teachers felt that the PLCs were more productive because they left
with concrete ideas of things to do to address student needs, the coaches
felt embedded in the process of helping students meet standards, and best
of all student achievement improved.
WHERE ARE YOU NOW?

Developing and implementing school improvement plans that improve
outcomes for students requires attention to critical leadership practices. It
also sets the coach up for success because there is a clear roadmap to fol-
low. We suggest using the following rubric to self-assess and set goals
around these important leadership moves (Figure 2.5).
Troubleshooting Around Developing and

Connecting Coaching to School Improvement Efforts
Maintaining the focus on improving outcomes for students is difficult,
especially if the school culture is not used to having a clear plan that aligns
professional learning and resources around goals and strategies. Staying
the course requires sending a consistent message about the school’s focus
Figure 2.5 Self-Assessment for School Leaders
Develop Systems for Professional Learning and Coaching
The School The school leader The school leader is The school leader
Leader aligns professional working to establish doesn’t create a PD
development and a focus for teacher plan that is executed
coaching to schoolwide development and on. This creates an
goals and initiatives. student learning. The unfocused professional
This creates a focus for school leader may development
teacher development be challenged to environment.
and student learning. prioritize or stay the
course with the school
improvement effort.
There is a well- The PD plan isn’t used There are many topics
designed PD plan that to its full potential. covered when it comes
includes large group, It lacks connections to PD. There aren’t
teacher teams, and between large group, connections made
individualized support teacher teams, and between large group,
for teachers. individualized support teacher teams, and
for teachers. individualized support
for teachers.
Success I can . . .
Criteria
•• Work with the coach and teacher leaders to create a student-centered
SIP and PD plan
•• Execute the plan by revisiting it during the principal and coach
meetings
•• Use data to guide SIP, PD, and coaching
•• Make connections between large group, teacher teams, and
individualized support for teachers
•• Listen and adapt the plan based on student performance and teacher
feedback
and how resources will be used. Figure 2.6 provides language to support
principals through these conversations.
THE COACH’S ROLE

It’s hard to imagine how schools can improve the performance of all stu-
dents without student-centered coaches. Coaches link the schoolwide
student goals to the classroom through coaching cycles that focus on out-
comes. Their actions and interactions can help or hinder the focus of the
school, which is why they need to be cognizant of the weight their role
carries in the overall improvement of the school.
Figure 2.6 Language for Keeping School Improvement Efforts Focused on Students
If I hear . . . Then I can say . . .
“Why are we still working on this? “This was a part of the plan last year, but you
Wasn’t this a part of our plan last may remember when we took a look at both our
year?” implementation and student achievement data, we still
had work to do. The great thing about maintaining our
focus is that we can deepen our learning from last year.”
“Why are the coaches sharing “As you know the coaches’ job is varied, but one of
resources around the strategies in their roles is to support us in our efforts to meet student
our school improvement plan? I outcomes. By providing resources that support our
need help planning lessons.” strategies, the coaches are helping us meet the school’s
goals. This doesn’t mean they can’t help you meet
student goals in your classroom. This might not look
like traditional lesson planning, but together I am sure
the two of you could develop some great strategies for
helping your students be successful.”
“My sister who works in the “That’s good to know. When we review our data and
neighboring school district says make adjustments to our goals, strategies, and action
they are implementing blended steps we can consider how this might fit into our
learning. Don’t you think we should plan. Right now, however, our team spent lots of time
do that?” developing a plan that is designed to meet the needs of
our school. We don’t want to put a new initiative into the
plan until we see what impact our current plan has on
student achievement.”
Be an Active Participant
It goes without saying that coaches need to be on school improvement
and/or leadership teams. Whatever the structure that the school has for
developing the plan, coaches need to have a seat at the table. But beyond
just being on the team, coaches need to take an active role. This doesn’t
mean that they take over and lead, although having teachers and
coaches be cochairs is a good structure; it means that they contribute in
ways that help the entire team get and stay focused. They do this by
providing resources, asking difficult questions, and pointing the team
back to the mission and student data. The effective questioning tech-
niques that are a hallmark of student-centered coaching can be put to
good use in these leadership team meetings. Since coaches get an
upfront view of how students are performing across the school, they
will have insights that many others will not. Pointing the team back to
the benchmarks in the plan and discussing what this means for students
is the duty of the coach.
Be a Connector
One of the most important roles the coach plays is to serve as a connector.
It is easy for classroom teachers to lose sight of school improvement efforts
given the day to day demands in the classroom. Coaches need to help
teachers see the big picture by making the connection between classroom
practice and the overall school goals. They do this by being keenly aware
of what is in the plan, why it matters, and what impact it will have on
students. During coaching cycles, coaches can focus questions around stu-
dent outcomes identified in the plan and supported through professional
development. For example, a coach may ask a teacher how what they
learned about effective questioning made a difference on student learning
in their classroom. They also do this by making sure that they steer clear
of promoting practices that are counterproductive to the plan.
IN CLOSING
Schools are complex systems, so it is no surprise that leaders can lose their
way when it comes to identifying and implementing reform efforts.
Unwittingly we can find ourselves trying to juggle too many initiatives at
once. We work tirelessly, and yet the needle on student achievement
doesn’t move. Breaking this cycle requires clarity and collaboration. It
requires focus and follow-through. Connecting the processes for school
improvement and understanding the coaches’ role in these efforts helps
make these things happen.
Building a house that stands the test of time requires clear plans and
coordination. Leaders are wise to think in these same terms when it comes
to improving their school. Principals coordinate the planning, design, and
construction; coaches are the carpenters who build learning structures
through their work with teachers. Working together in a coordinated fash-
ion makes the hard work of improving student achievement a reality, not
just for one student, but the entire school. Aligning school improvement
processes, with a focus on clear plans, ensures that everyone in the system
knows and understands his or her role in constructing lifelong learners.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
were found in the islands of Fiji. These tiny creatures as a rule were
invisible to the naked eye and could only be seen with the aid of a
powerful magnifying glass. All of these insects were parasites either
of the leaf-hopper or its eggs. Two of them were particularly
efficacious. One, quicker in movement than the hopper, caught it
unawares and attached itself to the hopper’s body much in the same
way that a mosquito does to a human being. After catching it, the
parasite would sting the hopper and lay an egg in its body. In a few
days a young parasite was hatched from the egg, and so ravenous
was this young insect that it devoured the hopper in a short time
and then sought a fresh victim in which to lay its eggs.
The other insect was even more effective. It liked the hoppers’
eggs and for a long time found plenty in Hawaii to stay its appetite.
As soon as the leaf-hopper laid its eggs in the cane, this particular
insect would appear and lay its eggs in the eggs of the leaf-hopper.
When the little enemies hatched out, they fed on the hoppers’ eggs
and in turn laid their eggs in the eggs of the hopper. It came to pass
that the hoppers, attacked by the parasite on the one hand and by
the enemy on the other, rapidly dwindled in number until only a few
remained, and these not enough to do material damage. As the
hoppers and their eggs diminished, so did the parasite and the
enemy, for the latter could live on insect food only.
How the scientists collected these tiny animalcules, kept them
alive, transported them thousands of miles across the ocean, bred
them in Hawaii and saved the Hawaiian sugar industry, reads like a
romance.
The study of entomology is extremely interesting and the every-
day business man rarely understands its importance. The finding,
breeding and distribution of parasites of insect pests vitally affects
the world’s food supply. The entomological name of the leaf-hopper
family is Hemiptera, and Dr. Sharp, an authority on the subject, has
said: “There is probably no order of insects that is so directly
connected with the welfare of the human race as the hemiptera;
indeed if anything were to exterminate the enemies of hemiptera,
we ourselves should probably be starved in the course of a few
months.”
It has been estimated by competent authority that the damage
done in the world each year by the hemiptera, in spite of all their
parasites, is conservatively $600,000,000. Were it not for the
parasites, it would only be a year or two at most before every green
leaf and spear of grass would disappear from the face of the earth.
The direct influence of the practical application of this science to the
production of sugar is readily apparent.
Pathology is almost equally important. In former years when cane
failed to grow strong and sturdy and did not yield much sugar, the
planter usually attributed the difficulty either to lack of water, poor
soil, cool weather, too much rain or insufficient cultivation of the field
by his manager, when in fact the trouble was due to none of these
causes. He would personally oversee the operations of the following
year, but with no better results.
EXPERIMENT STATION
PLANTATION SCENE IN HAWAII—LIGHT-COLORED FOLIAGE IS SUGAR CANE
When the roots of the cane became matted, stuck together and
turned black, when a thick gum exuded from the stalk and leaves,
preventing the plant from drawing proper nourishment from the air,
it was thought that these troubles arose from climatic or local
conditions, while in reality the plant was sick and needed a doctor.
Today, under the new régime, whenever the plant shows any
symptoms of ill-health, the pathologists are called in to eradicate the
disease by scientific treatment.
Insect pests and plant diseases are generally brought into a
country through planters sending to other cane-raising countries for
new varieties of cane for seeding purposes that they think may
produce more sugar than their own. Great trouble and heavy loss
have been occasioned in this way and, as a consequence, the United
States government has established a strict quarantine, allowing plant
life to be landed only after rigid examination and when it is clear
that no danger exists.
Another example of the work of the entomologists may be of
interest:
During the visit of a well-known Hawaiian to Mexico many years
ago, his attention was attracted by a beautiful shrub that he thought
would make a splendid hedge around his home. It grew about five
feet in height and its foliage was of a rich green, with a brown, red
and yellow flower. The slips he brought to Honolulu thrived
wonderfully and cuttings of the plant were taken to the other islands
for a like purpose. Wherever planted it grew amazingly fast. It
quickly spread over the hillsides and became so dense that cattle
could not penetrate the thickets formed by it. It made valueless
large areas of land that formerly had been used for the pasturing of
cattle and plantation stock, and reduced the grazing area at an
alarming rate. Land that adjoined the plantations and that in the
course of time became needed for plantation purposes was also
over-run by it.
The curtailment of the grazing lands and the increased cost of
clearing were so great that the entomologists were finally sent for
and asked if they could not eradicate the trouble. After a careful
investigation they went to Mexico, whence the lantana, as the shrub
is called, had come. On their return journey they brought back with
them a fly. The fly laid its eggs in the bud of the lantana, and when
the young flies were hatched they fed upon the lantana seeds. The
flies multiplied rapidly and soon made away with the seeds, thus
preventing the shrub from spreading any further. When it was once
cleared from the land or the plantation it did not reappear.
These illustrations demonstrate the fact that the culture of sugar
cane involves a constant struggle between science and unrestrained
nature.
As a rule, Hawaiian sugar plantations are located close to the
seacoast, between it and the base of the mountains. The lands slope
gently toward the sea, thus insuring good drainage and easy
application of water for irrigation. Most of the cane is grown on land
less than five hundred feet above sea-level, although in a few rare
instances it is cultivated at an elevation as great as three thousand
feet. Parts of the leeward side of the islands, where it is extremely
dry and hot, and where the cane thrives best, depend entirely on
irrigation, the water being brought to the plantations by ditches or
pumped from wells. On the windward side of the island of Hawaii,
where the rainfall is abundant, irrigation is unnecessary except
during very dry periods.
In cultivating, the ground is turned with steam ploughs to depths
up to twenty-four inches. These ploughs are operated by powerful
engines that work in pairs, one on each side of a field, usually from
one thousand to fifteen hundred feet apart. One engine pulls a
gang-plough across the field and the other draws it back. By this
method the rich soil is thoroughly loosened and a wonderful
vegetable growth results. Ordinarily in California the farmer ploughs
only from four to six inches deep.
STEAM PLOUGH
PLANTING CANE
After the lands are ploughed and harrowed and all the weeds
turned under, double mould-board ploughs are used to make the
furrows in which the seed is planted. The furrows are not like those
made for planting potatoes, but are about five feet apart and
eighteen inches deep, each furrow and hill being symmetrical. They
follow the contour of the land so that the irrigation water will fill the
furrow and remain there until it is absorbed by the soil and
penetrates to the cane roots. At regular intervals of about thirty-five
feet, lateral ditches are cut, from which there is an entrance into
every furrow. These lateral ditches deliver the water from the main
ditches to the various parts of the fields. The land is now ready for
the seed.
Meanwhile, the harvesting of the ripened cane in other fields is
going on. As the laborers cut the cane, they top it, that is to say,
they cut off about twelve inches of the upper part of the solid stalk.
Sugar cane resembles bamboo, in that it is cylindrical in shape and
divided every few inches into sections by rings or joints. In every
joint there is a bud or eye, from which a shoot of cane will sprout, if
properly planted in the ground and watered.
These tops, always cut from untasseled cane, contain very little
sugar. They are carried to the newly prepared field and placed in
rows in the furrows, end to end, lengthwise, the ends overlapping a
trifle in order to guard against blank spaces in the growing cane.
They are then covered, according to the season, with one to one
and a half inches of earth, and the water is turned in until the furrow
contains from three to four inches of water. Between six and ten
days afterward, the little green cane shoots appear above the
ground. From this time forward continuous irrigation and cultivation,
together with proper fertilization, are required until the cane
matures.
Planting usually begins in March and continues until September,
sometimes later, and the cane ripens one year from the following
December.
Growing cane should be watered every seven days, and the
amount of water used for this purpose is enormous. For example: a
plantation producing thirty-five thousand tons of sugar per annum
needs twice as much water per day as the city of San Francisco.
The appearance of growing cane is much like that of Indian corn.
The whole field area is covered with a dense, jungle-like vegetation
of brilliant green. The leaves are long and narrow and hang in
graceful curves. The cane grows so thick that it is almost impossible
to crawl through it, and so seldom do the sun’s rays penetrate to the
ground that rapid evaporation of the irrigation water cannot take
place, hence the cane gets the full benefit of the moisture.
In certain varieties of cane, the great weight of the juice in the
stalks causes them to bend, droop and take fantastic shapes.
Sometimes they lie on the ground with the ends turned upward, and
in fields where the stalks grow to a length of twenty-four feet, the
average height of the tops above the ground is not over twelve feet.
In other kinds the stalks stand straight up to a height of from eight
to fourteen feet.
The production of cane per acre varies in different countries and in
different parts of the same country, according to the character of the
soil, climatic conditions, care and attention, use of fertilizer and
amount of rainfall or irrigation. In Hawaii it ranges from twenty to
eighty-five tons, and the amount of sugar obtained per acre runs
from two and one-half tons to twelve tons, the average being about
five tons.
Broadly speaking, lack of a normal amount of cane per acre, lack
of sugar in the cane, or the prevalence of disease, is primarily due to
an unsanitary or unsuitable condition of the soil. This can usually be
corrected by proper cultural methods, such as adequate aeration of
the soil, the turning under of the cane tops and leaves, application
of lime and suitable combinations of fertilizing ingredients.
Fundamentally, cane requires a well-aerated, moist, alkaline soil and
a fertilizer in which the nitrogen content is high and in excess of the
potash and phosphoric acid. It is found that nitrate of soda, when
applied alone or in combination with potash and phosphoric acid,
produces a very strong growth. The proper sanitation of the soil
tends to promote the beneficial bacterial action so essential to the
growth of the cane.
IRRIGATION DITCH—SHOWING TUNNEL
IRRIGATION DITCH
In December and January the cane tassels or flowers, which

indicates that it has about reached maturity and is ready for cutting.
Thenceforward very little irrigating is done, as additional water
applied at this time might retard ripening, which would mean a
reduced amount of sugar stored up in the cane.
It is interesting to note that while the cane is growing and in an
unripe state, there is no discernible sucrose or pure sugar in it. As
the ripening process goes on, the content of the cane juice is
changed by the action of the sun’s rays, and the amount of sucrose
as determined by polariscopic test shows when the time for
harvesting is at hand. Nature’s operation in thus changing glucose or
invert sugar into sucrose or pure sugar cannot be accomplished by
any human means.
The harvesting then begins and continues until the end of July or
August. Usually the field is set on fire before cutting. On account of
the great amount of moisture or juice in the cane, the stalks do not
burn, but the leaves are thoroughly consumed. This operation
eliminates a good deal of leaf material that is not only useless, but
which, if sent to the mill, would increase the cost of crushing,
besides absorbing a certain quantity of the juice expressed from the
cane.
Formerly men stripped the leaves from the cane in the fields, but
it was a difficult matter to accomplish such work, and the cost was
heavy. An accident changed the method of doing this work. A field
took fire and it was found that while all the leaves were consumed,
little or no damage was done to the stalks provided they were cut
promptly and sent to the mill to be crushed. The practice of burning
has since become general, although the advisability of continuing it
is now being given very careful study.
Burning eliminates the arduous labor of stripping, and no doubt
does away with many harmful insects and fungi, but at the same
time it destroys the enemies and parasites of these insects and this
loss is severely felt. Another disadvantage of burning is that the
nitrogen contained in the cane leaves is liberated and not returned
to the soil as would be the case if the leaves were stripped and
ploughed under. In the latter case the leaves rot rapidly, add humus
to the soil, help aeration, and improve the sanitary condition, all of
which tends to increase the yield of cane per acre. From recent
experience it is not improbable that burning will be discontinued in
the near future.
As soon as the field is ready, whether burned or not, the laborers
go in to cut the cane. A long, heavy knife is used. The cutter grasps
the stalk and drives the knife into it, severing it just at the ground.
He then tops it, that is, he cuts off the upper part that contains no
sugar, and, to aid in subsequent handling, the long stalks are cut
into convenient lengths.
As the burning destroys the eyes or buds, certain fields are cut
and topped for seed before the burning takes place.
There are two general methods of transporting the cane to the
mills. One is by rail and the other by flumes. On the irrigated
plantations where water is never overplentiful, railroad tracks and
locomotives are invariably employed, while on the non-irrigated
plantations, located in districts where there are copious annual rains,
V-shaped flumes are extensively used. In some cases a combination
of both systems is adopted to advantage. From the upper lands
where it is difficult to construct railroads, the cane is flumed to a
convenient point on the railroad system, at a lower elevation, and
delivered into cars, while the water is conducted into ditches and
used for irrigating the lower cane lands.
YOUNG SUGAR CANE

RIPE SUGAR CANE—SHOWING TASSELS
In the case of rail transportation, paths one hundred and fifty feet
apart are cut through the fields so that temporary railroad tracks
may be laid and cars run in and loaded on these tracks. The whole
field is then cut in the same way and the work continued until the
entire crop is harvested.
The loaders follow up the cutters. These men lay a strap on the
ground and pile the stalks on the strap until they have a bundle of
cane weighing from seventy-five to one hundred pounds. With a
dexterity born of long practice, they sling a bundle upon their
shoulders and carry it up an inclined runway to a railroad car not
over seventy-five feet away and dump it on the car. The cutting and
loading are usually done by contract, at so much per ton, and it is
remarkable how proficient the men become.
When flumes are used exclusively, much the same methods are
adopted. Paths are cut through the fields and in these paths are
placed the flumes which, like the temporary railroad tracks, are
moved from time to time as necessity demands. The mill is located
at the lowest point on the plantation and the flumes are placed so as
to insure a good grade from the cane fields on the uplands to the
mill below. The flumes are either carried on low trestles or run along
the ground, but always at a height which enables the laborers to
throw the cane into them conveniently.
Water is turned into the upper end of the flume and, rushing
rapidly down, carries or floats the cane to the mill. Cane is flumed in
this way for distances up to seven miles at low cost and with
satisfactory results.
The cars when loaded in the fields are made up into trains and
hauled by locomotives to the mill, which is generally located about
the center of the plantation, or at a point where most of the cane
can be delivered on a downward grade. Each car is carefully
weighed on a track scale and the exact quantity of its load of cane is
ascertained and recorded.
For years past the planters have been offering large rewards for
the invention of a machine to cut and load the cane, but the old
hand method is still employed, although some experimental loading
machines are meeting with more or less success, but none are in
common use.
The problems involved in cutting cane by machinery seem
insurmountable, and, while many devices have been tried, not one
has proved successful.
After the cane is cut the first time, ploughs are sent through the
fields and a furrow is ploughed along each side of the stubs of the
cane which are left in place. This ploughing opens up the ground,
aerates the soil, and affords the irrigating or rain water a means of
easy access to the cane roots. The water tenders follow up the
ploughs and the furrows are filled with water, which is gradually
absorbed by the old cane roots left in the ground. In time new
sprouts spring up from buds on the old stalks of the cane and
another growth begins. The second crop is called “first ratoons” and,
when cultivated for a single year only, it is designated “short
ratoons.” As a rule it does not yield as much sugar as plant cane, but
the saving in seed, in the preparation of the fields and in other labor
frequently makes up for the reduced amount of sugar. If allowed to
grow for two years, as is generally the case, it is called “long
ratoons” and produces proportionately more sugar. In the past a
very large percentage of the Hawaiian crop was planted with fresh
seed every year and but a small percentage ratooned. Nowadays,
however, the tendency is to ratoon the crop as long as the yield
justifies, which in many cases is from three to four times. In Cuba
the cane when once planted is ratooned for many years.
There have been specific instances in Hawaii where ratoons that
have been allowed to grow for two years (long ratoons) have shown
a better yield than the first planting. According to the best
information, this is due to the presence of poisonous matter in the
ground, turned up for the first time at the first planting.
CUTTING CANE
LOADING CANE
The object of all the ploughing, weeding, cultivating, fertilizing and

irrigating, is to produce a large number of strong, sturdy stalks of
cane, yielding a maximum amount of sugar. The sugar is contained
in solution in the sap or juice and the amount can be materially
increased by due care and attention.
As some of the elements which form the plant are absorbed from
the air through the leaves, favorable climatic conditions are essential
to its full growth and development. Proper fertilizers must be added
to the soil, and water applied regularly and in sufficient quantity.
Commercial fertilizers are used in Hawaii probably to a greater
extent than in any other country in the world. It is quite common for
plantations to use half a ton of fertilizer per acre per crop, and at
times as much as two thousand pounds per acre. The yearly fertilizer
cost per acre will probably average twenty-five dollars.
As it takes eighteen months for a crop to mature in Hawaii, it will
readily be seen that the plantation area must be at least double that
used for any one crop. While one crop is being harvested, another
crop is in the ground growing. As soon as the cane is cut, the lands
are immediately prepared for replanting or ratooning, as the case
may be. During certain periods each year, usually in June and July, a
visitor on an Hawaiian plantation can see one crop growing, one
being harvested and one being planted.
From the foregoing it will be seen that the harvesting begins in
December and ends in July or August. The planting begins from
March to June and usually ends in September, according to
plantation conditions and whether or not the land is irrigated.
THE MANUFACTURE OF RAW SUGAR
The details of the manufacture of raw sugar from cane and of
sugar from beet roots differ, but there are several processes
common to both. The operations necessary for making raw cane
sugar are as follows:
1. The extraction of the juice.

2. The purification of the juice.
3. The evaporation of the juice to syrup point.
4. The concentration and crystallization of the syrup.
5. The preparation of the crystals or grains for the market by
separating them from the molasses.
Every mill has an extensive laboratory where skilled chemists are

constantly engaged in sampling and analyzing cane, raw juices,
syrups, sugars and molasses. In fact the chemical work is a most
important feature in the raw-sugar house, beet-sugar factory or
refinery. The superintendent should be an expert chemist, as the
proper recovery of the sugar from the cane and beet juices is wholly
dependent upon the technical control of manufacturing processes.
EXTRACTION
After passing the scales, the cars containing the cane are switched
alongside the carrier which feeds the cane into the mills. Before the
cane is unloaded, however, samples are taken from each car and
sent to the laboratory, where they are carefully analyzed. The
amount of sugar present is ascertained, as well as the quantity and
quality of the juice in the cane. It is, however, impossible to get a
fair average sample of the cane in this way, and therefore the
efficiency of the mill work is determined on the basis of an analysis
of the juice and the fiber after it has passed through the crushers.
TRAIN-LOAD OF CANE READY FOR THE MILL
A MODERN MILL
The carrier just referred to is a wide slat conveyor, running

alongside the railroad tracks in the yards to a point directly over the
first set of crushers. The cane is taken from the cars by a mechanical
unloader, the arms of which reach out and with distended fingers
pull the cane stalks off and land them on the slow-moving carrier,
which takes them onward and upward to the crusher.
The crusher consists of two large rolls, with immense interlocking,
corrugated teeth on the circumference of each. These rolls are set
close together, and the cane passing through is broken into short
pieces and matted to an even layer. The juice squeezed out by this
preliminary crushing runs through a metal trough into a large
receptacle known as the juice tank.
From the crusher the mat of cane passes to the mills proper.
These mills consist of from nine to eighteen rolls, about thirty-four
inches in diameter and seventy-eight inches long, arranged in groups
of three, set in the form of an isosceles triangle, one above and two
below, one set following the other in a direct line. The lower rolls are
parted enough to allow the expressed juice to fall through them,
while the half-crushed cane is carried over by means of an iron bar
called the returner. The faces of the rolls are more or less
roughened, or grooved, so as to draw the cane through and give a
better crushing action. They are turned slowly by powerful engines,
which transmit the power to each set of rolls through a system of
gears. The rolls are forced together by hydraulic rams exerting a
pressure of from four hundred to six hundred tons. It is this
tremendous pressure that squeezes the sugar-bearing juice out of
the cane.
From the crusher the matted cane passes through the first set of
rolls, where a large percentage of the remaining juice is liberated.
This is caught in a metal trough and, after passing over a fine screen
to remove the small pieces of cane, runs to the juice tank. The cane
passes through the second set of rolls, thence to the third set, and
so on to the end of the mill. In front of the last set of rolls, hot water
is sprayed on the cane to soften the fiber and dilute the remaining
juice, thus aiding the final extraction. The adding of hot water is
termed maceration. By the time the cane has passed through the
last set of rolls, all the economically recoverable juice is out of it and
delivered into the juice tank, with the exception of the juice and
maceration water from the last set of rolls, which is always returned
to the preceding set of rolls for maceration purposes. The juice or
maceration water coming from the last set of rolls contains very little
sugar, and the object is to secure greater concentration by using it
for double maceration instead of adding that much additional water
which would have to be evaporated later on in the process.
In well-designed, modern mills, with cane carrying not over twelve
per cent of fiber, more than ninety-eight per cent of the sugar in the
cane is extracted, the remainder being left in the fiber. This is almost
perfection today. What it will be tomorrow no one can say.
The fibrous, woody part of the cane, or bagasse as it is called, is
comparatively dry as it leaves the last rolls. It is conveyed from the
mills to the boiler house on a wide slat conveyor, and fed directly
into the furnaces under the boilers that generate the steam for
power and boiling purposes. A modern raw-sugar mill requires
practically no other fuel than that obtained as a by-product from the
crushing of the cane.
The boiler plant is usually of large capacity, as a great deal of
steam is required to drive the engines that run the crusher, the rolls,
the electric lighting system, the pumps and other machinery.
Besides, a large amount is needed to evaporate the water in the
juice and to boil and dry the sugar. The ashes from the furnaces are
returned to the fields as fertilizer, so that very little is lost.
CANE CARRIER AND MECHANICAL UNLOADER

ANOTHER TYPE OF CANE UNLOADER
PURIFICATION
The juice as it comes from the mills contains impurities such as

dirt from the fields, small pieces of cane stalks and other foreign
matter, besides salts, gum, wax and albumen. It is necessary to
remove as many of these substances as possible, and this is where
the chemist’s work begins.
So long as the juice is confined in the living cells of the cane it
does not quickly ferment, but when liberated it rapidly undergoes
such change. Therefore no time is lost in arresting this action. The
juice is pumped to the top floor of the mill and there a solution of
milk of lime is added in sufficient proportions to neutralize the
acidity. The mixture is then heated in closed tanks under pressure to
215 degrees Fahrenheit. The heat causes the lime to combine rapidly
with the gums and salts in the juice, and the albumen to coagulate.
The hot juice is then run into large settling tanks, where the
insoluble solids and the albumen sink to the bottom, carrying with
them vegetable and other matter suspended in the juice. Certain
foreign substances of light specific gravity float to the surface in the
form of scum.
After settling for a time the clear juice is drawn off and the scum,
mud and cloudy liquor left in the tank. As a vast amount of liquor
must be handled every hour, it is not practicable to have tank
capacity great enough to admit of the liquor standing a sufficient
length of time for every particle of foreign matter to settle, so as an
adjunct to the settling tank, filters are used. These are cylindrical
iron tanks, packed tightly with ordinary wood fiber, known as
excelsior. The juice is conducted to these filters, and as it percolates
through the excelsior, practically all of the remaining foreign matter
is caught and retained in the fiber. The clear juice is then run to the
receiving tanks for the evaporators and the mud and scum that
remain are drawn off into mud tanks, where more lime is added and
the mass stirred up. Finally it is delivered to the filter presses, where
the mud and other impurities are taken out and the clear liquor
containing sugar is sent to the evaporators.
Another method for cleaning, called “precipitation in motion,” is to
carefully lime the juice and then heat it in closed vessels and under
sufficient pressure to carry it through a pipe to large insulated
settling tanks.
These settling tanks, usually of sheet steel, are made in the form
of truncated cones with conical bottoms, the small diameter of the
tank being at the top. Suspended in the center is a vertical cylinder
somewhat less in diameter than the upper part of the tank. This
cylinder extends downward about eight feet to a point opposite the
largest diameter, which makes the area between the circumference
of the suspended cylinder and the tank at that point very much
greater than the area of the cylinder itself. This difference in area is
necessary to retard the flow of the juice and allow the sediment,
mud and insoluble solids to be deposited at the bottom of the tank.
The juice is delivered by a pipe into the top of the cylinder which
projects a few inches above the edge of the surrounding settling
tank. It passes slowly down the central passageway, turns at the
bottom, where its speed is materially slackened, and goes out
through a pipe line connected to the side of the tank just below the
upper edge.
There are several other methods in general use, but in all of them
the principle of settling, upon which the separation or cleaning
depends, is the difference in specific gravity between the juice and
the dirt. A high and even temperature should be maintained by
preventing radiation, as lowering the temperature would increase
the specific gravity and viscosity of the juice without increasing that
of the dirt in equal proportion.
TWELVE-ROLLER MILL
MODERN CRUSHING PLANT—TWO FIFTEEN-ROLLER MILLS AND CRUSHERS.
CAPACITY, ONE HUNDRED AND FIVE TONS PER HOUR
There are many different types of filter presses, but those at

present in general use are long, oblong machines, set horizontally on
the floors, with layers of corrugated iron plates, covered with canvas
sheets, between which are hollow frames so arranged that the juice
will pass from the hollow frames through the canvas to the
corrugations in the plates.
In passing through the presses under pressure the sediment,
scum and other impurities are caught on the canvas sheets and the
clear juice passes through the canvas, down the corrugations and
out through small holes in the plates controlled by valves on the
outside of the presses, from whence it runs to the evaporator tanks.
The sugar in the mud caught in the hollow frames is washed out of
the mud with water and is sent to the evaporator, while the mud
itself is finally returned to the field, to be used as a fertilizer.
The clarified juice from the settling tanks, filters or presses, is light
brown in color, but is thin and watery, and must now be reduced to
syrup point. All the suspended impurities have been removed, but
some impurities in solution and the original coloring matter still
remain. Some of these foreign substances are subsequently
eliminated during the process of crystallization in the vacuum pans
described later on.
The object to be attained in a raw-sugar house is the production
of a sugar containing ninety-six per cent of sucrose, and there is
little or nothing to be gained by carrying the process of manufacture
beyond the stage that insures such result.
The final extraction of all the impurities and the conversion of the
impure raw into pure white granulated sugar is the work of the
refiner, which is dealt with in a subsequent chapter.
From the time the juice leaves the cane until it is crystallized it is
kept at a high temperature, as cold juices or syrups are viscous and
run slowly. High temperatures kill germs, prevent fermentation and
expedite manipulation.
EVAPORATION
Under ordinary atmospheric pressure at sea-level, water boils at a

temperature of 212 degrees Fahrenheit and sugar juice at a few
degrees higher, according to its density. This temperature if long
applied to sugar juice would tend to burn and destroy the sugar, but
the juice can be heated to 250 degrees for a short time without
deterioration.
The clarified juice contains about eighty-five per cent of water and
fifteen per cent of solid matter. A large proportion of the water must
be removed by evaporation. To accomplish this under ordinary
atmospheric conditions would require heat increasing from 212
degrees Fahrenheit, as the solution increased in specific gravity
above the standard of pure water. This would require a large amount
of fuel, and the juice would also be more or less adversely affected
by long maintenance of comparatively high temperature.
To obviate these conditions the juice is boiled in a multiple
evaporator, the invention of Norberto Rillieux, whose first
construction in New Orleans in 1840 was a double effect horizontal
submerged tube apparatus which has since undergone many
changes and improvements. The theory of evaporation in vacuo was
extended to two or more cells or vacuum bodies, using the steam or
vapor from the first to heat the juice or syrup in the second and so
on. At the present time the quadruple effect, or four-cell evaporator,
is most commonly in use, although sextuple effects are not rare. The
ordinary practice is as follows:
The juice enters cell No. 1 and covers the heating tubes, to which
is admitted sufficient steam—generally exhaust from the engines—to
cause the liquid to boil. The steam or vapor liberated from this first
boiling is conducted through the vapor pipe directly into the heating
tubes of cell No. 2, while the juice from cell No. 1 is passed into the
second, or cell No. 2, and surrounds the heating surfaces which
contain the hot vapor given off from the same juice in cell No. 1.

Immediate Download Leading Student Centered Coaching Building Principal and Coach Partnerships 1st Edition Diane Sweeney Ebooks 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Immediate Download Leading Student Centered Coaching Building Principal and Coach Partnerships 1st Edition Diane Sweeney Ebooks 2024

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Immediate Download Leading Student Centered Coaching Building Principal and Coach Partnerships 1st Edition Diane Sweeney Ebooks 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download ebook at ebookgate.

Leading Student Centered Coaching Building

Download more ebook from https://ebookgate.com

The Principal Challenge Leading and Managing Schools in

Whole Novels for the Whole Class A Student Centered

Complexity And Healthcare An Introduction 1st Edition

The Emotional Development of Young Children Building an

The Hidden History Of Coaching Coaching in Practice

Vesper and Compline music for three principal voices

School Management and Multi Professional Partnerships

Multidimensional Perspectives on Principal Leadership

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

T here is nothing more powerful than a dedicated school leader. These

Kelly Neylon, PhD

Diane Sweeney is the author of Student-

Ann Mausbach is the author of School

“Every doorway, every intersection has a story.”

HOW WE CAME TO THIS WORK

WHY THIS BOOK? WHY NOW?

COACHING WITH THE BIG PICTURE IN MIND

Release of Responsibility (GRR), Reader’s Workshop, Kagan Strategies for

OUR INTENTIONS FOR

Turning to our primary meta-analytic results for instruction, we

As advocates for coaching, we are thrilled to see the correlation

Let’s Remember: The Purpose of School Is Student Learning

Having a Coaching Model Is the First Step

Coaching models help us to understand the coaching intervention

When a model is lacking, nobody really knows what coaches should be

•• Nobody knows the purpose for having a coach.

The first step in determining the coaching model is deciding if coach-

More Impact on Students Less Impact on Students

Student-Centered Teacher-Centered Relationship-Driven

Focus The focus is on using The focus is on what The focus is on

Use of Textbooks, technology, The use of textbooks, Sharing access

Role of Trusting, respectful, and collegial relationships are a necessary component

Coaching often centers exclusively on the actions taken by the

With so many schools lacking a coaching model, we thought we’d pro-

WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE

1. Commit to a student-centered approach to coaching.

Leadership Move #1: Understand the

Leadership Move #2: Expect Coaching Cycles

Core Practice Purpose

1. Organize coaching Coaching cycles create the conditions for a coach to

2. Set a standards- Coaching that isn’t standards-based often misses the

3. Use student-friendly Learning targets increase instructional clarity and provide

4. Use student Student evidence is used to drive decision making

5. Co-teach with a Rather than modeling or observing, we advocate for

6. Measure the impact It is our obligation to collect data to demonstrate how

Figure 1.4 Examples of Goals for Coaching Cycles

Elementary Literacy Students will use a variety of strategies to solve unknown

Leadership Move #4: Understand and

Learning targets have no inherent power. They enhance student

Student-centered coaching embeds learning targets into every conver-

Figure 1.5 Example of Student-Friendly Learning Targets

Leadership Move #5: Build Student

It isn’t really so much that these teachers use formative assess-

We recommend for school leaders to embed student evidence into as

Leadership Move #6: Facilitate and Support Data Analysis

Data-driven instruction is the philosophy that schools should con-

• Builds collective • Interdisciplinary team

One-on-One Refine practice Builds self-efficacy • Coaching cycles