Using the supervisory model as “coaching with a supervisory component.” (I don’t think we emphasized that this still has a supervisory component).
PreObservation: Help the teacher see purpose for himself/herself.
Opinion: It seems that the coach has to do some work to understand the purpose for herself, but this is inadequate if it stops there. The coach’s job is to make sure that in addition, the teacher is clear about her purpose.
Pushing Further: There is a purpose to “having a purpose.” What is it? The purpose of purpose seems to be a (if not the) key learning goal from Liz’s point of view. So, what is the purpose of purpose?
PostObservation: Coach gets teacher to reflect WITH A PURPOSE. What purpose? Improving instruction? Connecting to standard?
Debrief: Michael and Nell’s purpose was less to focus on the “purpose of purpose” and more to focus on the potential for using this traditional supervisory sequence as a coaching tool. Therefore, our debrief questions were focused on “What’s hard about implementing this as coaching in your school?”
Bayard Rustin: Seen as an obligation. Lack of faith that it serves higher purpose.
HPA: Lots of different observation modes in play / rarely need to put on supervisory hat. (Was the implication that it’s not hard at HPA…it’s already being done through a variety of mechanisms?)
Bronx Guild: Too many inputs (DoE mentors, TF mentors, etc.), Resistance from…..(fill in the blank)
Hillcrest: Not enough time.
By the way, the Autonomous Zone group has been using and studying the book
Helping Teachers Learn