Part-time Model Scenario

When levy resources provided networking and equipment for Mary’s school, the staff realized they needed help in learning to integrate these new tools into their classrooms. The school’s leadership team looked for funding to make a Peer Coaching Program work in their school. They discovered that in the No Child Left Behind legislation Congress had allocated money for each state to improve teacher quality. Checking with district staff, they found that they could access Title IIa funds to release someone in their building to coach half-time. Mary was chosen to coach because she was recognized as an outstanding teacher who used technology to enhance and enrich her lessons. Mary served as a reading specialist in the morning, but in the afternoon she coached others to integrate technology. The same funding source provided Mary with two release days each year to use as she needed. (Other schools have used the school’s operating budget to release coaches, and still others have used district professional development funds for this same purpose.)

As a technology coach, Mary met with teachers from each grade level before the school year started to get a sense of what projects they would be working on that year. Mary developed ideas of how technology might enrich some of these projects and then began to gather teaching resources. The school leadership team supported Mary’s coaching efforts by rearranging schedules so that all of the teachers who taught at the same grade level had a common planning time. They also provided two days of release time for each participating teacher so they could plan and develop learning activities. One afternoon a week, Mary met with each grade-level team to jointly plan an upcoming lesson or unit. At these meetings Mary might have provided a PowerPoint template, pointed the teachers toward a useful Web site, or taught a technology skill needed to complete the unit. Initially, Mary provided most of the resources, but as the year progressed many of the teachers Mary was working with began to share ideas and Web resources that were valuable for projects planned by their grade level. The weekly planning meetings changed to include debriefing and reflection as well as planning. In addition to working with grade level teams during the afternoon, Mary used some of the release time provided by the building to bring in a substitute so she could meet with teachers that had morning planning times.

Mary also routinely provided coaching outside of the scheduled planning meetings. Most days she had a chance to talk to collaborating teachers before or after school, in the staff room, or in the hallways. Teachers often used these informal meetings to seek advice, guidance, or get support for the projects they were teaching. In these impromptu meetings Mary provided the teachers with a sense of confidence because they knew they had immediate support to successfully complete their projects.

In addition to planning and providing resources, Mary played an active role in helping to implement projects. She modeled technology integration lessons, demonstrated classroom technology management, and team-taught parts of lessons in teachers’ classrooms. In some cases the classroom teacher planned and led the lesson while Mary assisted. By working closely with Mary, teachers could reflect about their work and receive immediate feedback. The teachers and Mary reported that they felt energized by this type of collaboration.

Sometimes Mary worked with groups of teachers after school or on staff development days. She frequently used these events to showcase some of the work being done by teachers in the school. Twice a month Mary offered “Tech Time” for 30 minutes after school so teachers could create one small project for immediate use.