In five scaled early learning coaching systems, coach-to-site ratios averaged about 1 coach per 22 sites, dosage varied widely, and participants perceived benefits in educator satisfaction, practice, and program quality¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · qualitative r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Across the five studied systems, the average ratio of coaches to sites was approximately 1 coach for every 22 sites, regardless of primary coaching recipient. → Schachner 2024 q2 i? There was no standardized dosage model; frequency varied from multiple sessions per week to two sessions per year based on perceived need. → Schachner 2024 (2) q2 i? Participants across all systems described perceived improvements in educator practice and program quality, including higher ratings on observational quality tools. → Schachner 2024 (3)

Evidence¶

Schachner 2024¶

Schachner, A., Yun, C., Melnick, H., & Barajas, J. (2024). Coaching at scale: A strategy for strengthening the early learning workforce. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/984.909

q2 · i? · qualitative · r?

Cross-case synthesis of the five case studies (interviews, focus groups, observations) reports the average coach-to-site ratio as "approximately 1 coach for every 22 sites," with individual systems ranging from 1:17 to 1:29 in Table 2.

"The average ratio of coaches to sites was similar across the five systems, regardless of primary recipient, at approximately 1 coach for every 22 sites."

Schachner 2024 (2)¶

Schachner, A., Yun, C., Melnick, H., & Barajas, J. (2024). Coaching at scale: A strategy for strengthening the early learning workforce. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/984.909

q2 · i? · qualitative · r?

The cross-case synthesis of coaching approaches found "no standardized model for the frequency and duration of coaching," with frequency based on perceived need and varying from multiple sessions per week to two sessions per year.

"There was no standardized model for the frequency and duration of coaching. Frequency was based on the perceived level of need and varied from multiple sessions per week to two sessions per year."

Schachner 2024 (3)¶

Schachner, A., Yun, C., Melnick, H., & Barajas, J. (2024). Coaching at scale: A strategy for strengthening the early learning workforce. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/984.909

q2 · i? · qualitative · r?

Qualitative case-study findings from interviews and focus groups: participants "described a perceived improvement in educator practice and, in turn, children's learning." Administrators also connected improvements to higher ratings on tools such as the Classroom Assessment Scoring System and Environment Rating Scales, attributing high ratings to coaching.

"Study participants across all the coaching systems described a perceived improvement in educator practice and, in turn, children’s learning."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Pairing coaching with group trainings is associated with larger effects on instruction and achievement; instructional materials with larger, and video libraries with smaller, effects on instruction — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• No specific coaching dosage is established as necessary; coaching outcomes appear more sensitive to coaching quality than dosage, with sustained duration favoring comprehensive coaching — related
• In one survey, coached teachers more often report sustained, followed-up professional development than non-coached peers, and more than 81% received at least 30 minutes of one-on-one coaching a week — related
• Fidelity of implementation of early language curricula varies widely across teachers and studies — related
• Frequency of coaching field support varies across California induction programs and is positively related to administrators' ratings of program effectiveness — related