By Simon King and Ilham Nasser (Creative Associates)
How do these two concepts connect? Let’s describe them both and then search for a connection.
The Mandela Effect
The Mandela Effect occurs when many people believe that something occurred when, in fact, it did not. The term’s origins are from 2009, when many people seemingly recalled that Nelson Mandela died in prison in the 1980s. In fact, Mandela died on Dec. 5, 2013. I’m still not quite sure how so many people believed this of the future President of South Africa, but there you go.
The external coaching model, the standard approach to teacher support and professional development in sub-Saharan Africa, involves sending an external coach to observe teachers and provide constructive feedback. This process, often spanning an entire day, includes the coach’s visit to a remote rural school, observing the teacher’s methods and subsequent feedback. The coach’s observations are then documented for potential further analysis and improvement.
It is safe to say that it is accepted through practice and opinion in international education that coaching “works.” For example, on many organization’s websites (including our own!), it is mentioned that external coaching is supported through literature and documentation. Many frameworks, reports and “how-to” guides support best practices for external coaching.
Truthfully, limited evidence connects coaching to student learning outcomes. It seems that belief in the effectiveness of external coaching in education might well be an excellent example of the Mandela Effect. The majority believe this to be true, but there is a lack of evidence to support this idea. How did this come about?
What led to the development of the coaching model?
It is hard to follow the breadcrumbs to find the origin of the cascade coaching model. One source we spoke to said the motivation behind external coaches traveling out to schools was that it was easy to administer, provided measurable results and the implementor retained control of teacher professional development.
In most countries, coaching is not the preferred approach to teacher support.
Also, hey, it’s coaching! It’s great. Right?
The cascading coaching model is unusual outside of international development education. While training for new education programs is frequently cascaded down to teachers in many countries, the external coaching model is far less prevalent. It is more normalized in countries with heavy donors and NGO support.
So, what does literature say about coaching and teacher change?
Evidence suggests that a coaching model is not ideal for teacher change. For example, Thomas Guskey stated that what does not work is “. . . logic, reason and philosophical arguments,” which is the very essence of the external coaching model. He says that education researchers and policymakers frequently use this approach due to a flawed understanding of how effective change occurs in individuals, which almost always starts as an emotional journey.
Choose coaching or accountability, but you cannot have both.
Coaching is also believed to provide a mentoring relationship between a professional expert and teachers to improve their professional skills. Despite these good intentions, in many instances, it becomes an evaluative rather than a supportive and collaborative relationship. This happens when administrators are assigned as coaches, which requires them to wear two hats: evaluators and mentors. In this scenario, teachers mainly focus on teacher-centered curriculum delivery over student-centered learning. Poor learning outcomes always follow.
Follow the natural path laid out by the teachers.
So, what is the alternative?
One of the biggest challenges with coaching concerns “cascading,” which finishes with a coach-teacher conversation. This might be okay if schools had a single classroom and teacher. However, each school consists of a cluster of teachers and classrooms. When you survey teachers about who supports their instructional practice, the majority mention colleagues and head teachers. Coaches hardly get a look-in.
However, many attempts to introduce teacher collaboration in Sub-Saharan Africa have struggled. Why? Because individual teacher coaching is seen as the solution to teacher support, and if formal or informal teacher collaboration exists, it is often an add-on or bonus—never the central approach.
The teacher’s journey of growth is personal.
Let’s return to the definition of a “coach,” like in sports. A coach has deep experience in one type of sport and the skills needed to improve in a trainee, but is this transferable to a veteran versus novice teaching relationship?
Teacher development is a personal and contextual journey of growth. This means it takes a long-term relationship between the learner and the expert to be trusting and supportive. It also means that it is socially and culturally constructed. In constructing new knowledge, adult learning is socially motivated. A teacher needs a long-term professional relationship that offers space for trial and error and a self-paced learning process. The question is, who can play that role? One model that may be cost-effective and has shown some promise is identifying a veteran teacher in the school itself who takes the role of mentoring and coaching novice teachers. They can be compensated for taking that role. Another model that has shown promise is teacher circles, which offer novice and veteran teachers a chance to grow their skills together. In these communities of practice, teachers are equal and function as a sounding board for each other. In both models, teachers are owners of their learning, and they are also partners with others.
So, do we keep tweaking the external coaching model or try something else?
We need to consider two concepts: system strengthening and system transformation.
System strengthening would involve tweaking and improving the existing coaching model to achieve slightly better outcomes. Systems transformation is necessary when more conceptual change is needed. This process can facilitate innovative and contextualized system approaches rather than continuing to work with the system as designed.
We don’t like change
The theory of loss aversion is a cognitive bias that claims that humans are more impacted by the possibility of loss and risk than the potential of gaining. When we work with an education system, it feels far less risky to tweak what exists than to make significant changes.
Systems transformation also does not necessarily require an increase in spending. But what it does require is challenging our habits and behaviors.
Simon King serves as Senior Manager of Evaluation and Research. Simon’s technical support for education programs is multifaceted, encompassing evaluation and learning, implementation, system strengthening, and behavioral economics. Before working in development, Simon spent many years teaching middle and high school mathematics in many countries, including two years as a volunteer teacher for Volunteer Services Overseas (VSO) in Chipata, Zambia. After moving to the USA, Simon served as a department chair, high school director and school principal. Simon uses his experience in the classroom and supporting teachers as the foundation for his role at Creative Associates.
Ilham Nasser is A Senior Advisor in Creative’s Education for Development division with a focus on MENA. She has been advising on teacher training design and implementation, curriculum development, SEL and early childhood education in several of Creative’s projects. Before that, Ilham spent more than 15 years in teacher education and in-service teacher professional development, especially working with children aged 3 to 8 in social and political contexts. She worked as a classroom teacher and counselor for five years. Ilham has conducted research and published studies on teacher development, SEL in early years and education change.
This series explores education programming and suggests where system “transformation” is more necessary than system “strengthening.” We’ll examine why many components of education programs (specifically Foundational Literacy and Numeracy) are often born out of habit and gut instinct rather than evidence and practice. We’ll suggest alternative pathways supported by research and practice in education and the social sciences.
We don’t have all the answers
It’s our desire to enthusiastically encourage discourse and discussion that leads to greater collaboration and understanding of how to support students, educators and other stakeholders. But we cannot effectively support local education systems unless we have an international education sector with a culture that encourages innovation rather than just repeating habits and behaviors that have already had little impact. Join us in this conversation and be a part of the journey to critically examine education systems, our ingrained approaches and sparks of innovation with the potential to move the needle on children’s literacy.
