Problem Background
Instructional coaches help build teacher confidence by providing the resources, tools, and support needed for success. The increase in confidence may contribute to a more effective, positive classroom atmosphere, enabling educators to create meaningful learning experiences for their learners (Kasemsap, 2017). An instructional coach must work with teachers to enhance the quality of their lessons and that of their learners’ education. The essay presents a critique of the article titled “Assessing the Cost of Instructional Coaching” by David S. Knight.
Summary of the Article
School-based instructional coaching has emerged as a popular professional development strategy, supporting and facilitating in-service learning for educators. Nonetheless, little attention has been given to this area of instructional coaching costs, and this article aims to fill the gap.
First, this article describes the structure for determining the cost of an instructional coaching initiative. The cost structure is then employed in three schools with instructional coaching programs during the 2009-2010 school year (Knight, 2013). Despite the model developers proposing a cost of $2,298 per educator, the research revealed that the average cost per educator across three schools ranged from $3,260 to $5,220 (Knight, 2013). Further, the cost structure is established and applied across three schools using conventional professional development methods, and average costs are provided for comparison.
Consequently, the article found that instructional coaching costs 6 to 12 times more than conventional professional development methods. As schools invest substantial funds in coaching programs, the study must examine whether instructional coaching is a cost-effective approach. Therefore, by presenting a structure for determining and reporting the expenses of a given program, the article lays the foundation for cost-effectiveness research. The report presents a professional development model for the cost of instructional coaching, which is currently applied to support in-service education for educators (Knight, 2013). When the coaching model is effective and its effectiveness is measurable, the cost structure can be used to assess the coaching program’s effectiveness, helping justify the costs.
The Rationale for the Study
The appropriateness of the research problem lies in the rising cost of in-service coaching for teachers. The article presents the rationale for this study in four sections. The issue is that people have a limited understanding of the cost of coaching. The cost of instructional coaching is high and should be reviewed to determine an effective cost, as it currently ranges from $3,260 to $5,220 per teacher, compared to the suggested $2,298 (Knight, 2013). It implies that the cost of coaching is higher, ranging from $962 to $ 2,922, which is approximately double the proposed cost structure per teacher.
In line with these findings, Pas et al. (2020) also found that the cost of coaching in a school was approximately $3,028 per teacher. It is also higher than the $ 2,298 model developers have proposed. The findings further indicated that coaches did not spend substantially more time in schools that used fewer evidence-based practices (EBPs) than in those that used more EBPs, suggesting inefficiency in the use of coaches’ time (Pas et al., 2020). Hence, these results highlight the often-neglected resources required to implement EBP in schools.
Furthermore, there is a strong rationale for this study: exploring the cost of coaching will help schools save money. Through this study, schools will be able to understand how to implement their instructional coaching programs based on the cost-effectiveness of the cost structure developed. Changes in the system may result in high costs for districts and schools in terms of obtaining accurate, fair-priced coaching programs (Knight & Skrtic, 2020). It will help schools to save on the significant investments they make in coaching programs.
School leaders often view budgetary constraints as a barrier to implementing extensive professional development, such as instructional coaching, despite evidence that these strategies can increase student achievement. Conventional teacher professional development strategies are ineffective in improving student accomplishments (Pas et al., 2020). Therefore, the use of cost-effective instructional coaching programs will support many schools in implementing them and enhancing student outcomes through the cost-effectiveness of alternative methods to teacher professional growth.
Literature Review Used in the Study
The instructional coaching model is based on the philosophy of collaboration, which values teachers’ views and choices in teaching and coaching as equals in the system of enhancing instruction. The underlying concept informs coaches when they associate with educators through five stages. The literature reviewed shows that while researchers have disagreed on the activities that should be included as expenditures on teachers’ professional growth, they share a common objective: to describe the investment in professional growth as a proportion of total district costs.
Nonetheless, the study has not compared the costs of optional practices with those of professional growth due to its design and the underlying theory. Furthermore, the literature on expenditure focused on the price of goods purchased rather than the cost, which determines the value of the resources utilized. Further, the studies on expenditure focused more on models of accounting cost, which generally depict the price of a product (Knight, 2013). Therefore, the existing literature has failed to compare the costs of optional methods with the costs of professional growth. The literature review lacked clarity and quality in framing the study and its contribution to the theory.
Research Design Appropriateness and Clarity
The research design is based on a cost analysis in three steps: first, listing all resources used to generate the desired results; second, valuing each resource; and lastly, assigning costs to the party that incurred them. The method has been applied in several cost analyses (Knight, 2013). Hence, this research design was appropriate and clear in obtaining the required results on the cost of coaching based on the instructional coaching model.
Results and Conclusions
The results obtained are related to the study design and, to a large extent, to the scholarly literature. The results focused on the model and reviewed how past studies addressed the cost of coaching in schools. This comparison enabled the study to develop a model based on earlier evidence-based practices and experience in implementing instructional coaching programs in schools.
The findings, therefore, focused on understanding the factors contributing to increased coaching costs in schools and on identifying an alternative, cost-effective approach to coaching. The conclusions were based on valid facts and figures, presenting accurate alternative cost-effectiveness analyses of the coaching cost (Knight, 2013). The study laid a foundation for cost-effectiveness studies, such as those carried out by Pas, E. T., Lindstrom, Johnson, S., Alfonso, Y. N., and Bradshaw, which followed some of its guidelines.
References
Kasemsap, K. (2017). Teacher education and teacher professional development. Handbook of Research on Teacher Education and Professional Development, 112-137.
Knight, D. S. (2013). “Assessing the Cost of Instructional Coaching. Journal of Education Finance Summer, 38(1), 52-80.
Knight, D. S., & Skrtic, T. M. (2020). Cost-effectiveness of instructional coaching: Implementing a design-based, continuous improvement model to advance teacher professional development. Journal of School Leadership, 31(4), 318-342.
Pas, E. T., Lindstrom Johnson, S., Alfonso, Y. N., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2020). Tracking time and resources associated with systems change and the adoption of evidence-based programs: The “Hidden costs” of school-based coaching. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 47(5), 720-734.