
Introduction
The Study of Coaching in Early Care and Education Settings (SCOPE) was designed to examine the variations in coaching in ECE. The sample was recruited across seven geographically dispersed states that demonstrated active implementation of coaching in at least one ECE setting. The centers and family child care (FCC) provider homes in the SCOPE sample served children from families with low incomes primarily through a Head Start grant and/or with Child Care and Development Fund subsidies (though many settings had other sources of revenue as well). Surveys were provided to ECE coaches and to a sample of ECE center-based teachers and FCC providers who participated in coaching. Surveys were collected in 2019, and a set of follow up surveys was collected in 2022 from respondents to the 2019 survey. The initial surveys examined a wide range of coaching features and processes, program context and supports provided to coaches. The follow up surveys explored the impact of COVID on coaching implementation for ECE. Data from the SCOPE study is available for secondary analyses at the Child and Family Data Archive.
Coaching is an especially important part of professional development because it can be tailored to meet teachers’ and FCC providers’ needs and can positively affect instructional practices, the quality of the setting, and children’s outcomes (Aikens and Akers 2011; Isner et al. 2011). The use of coaching as a tool for professional development has grown as quality initiatives in early childhood have proliferated, particularly with Continuous Quality Improvement Systems; Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRISs; Build Initiative 2019) and state-level preschool development grants.
The ECE field has not established evidence for what features of coaching are essential to the success of ECE professional development efforts (Isner et al. 2011) and what features could or should vary based on staff and setting characteristics. Given the lack of evidence, it is challenging for ECE programs to select and use the most effective coaching practices for their settings and staff (Artman-Meeker et al. 2015). Therefore, coaching features—or the components of the coaching structure and the strategies used in coaching—are thought to vary by programs, by coach, or by the coaching approaches or models.
Purpose
This report focuses on survey findings from coaches, center teachers, and FCC providers; structural and process features of coaching; and perceptions of the coach—teacher or coach—FCC provider relationship from SCOPE 2019. It answers the following questions, using SCOPE 2019 data:
- What are the characteristics of coaches, center teachers, and FCC providers?
- How are meetings between coaches and center teachers or FCC providers structured, and how often do they communicate between meetings?
- What kinds of approaches or models, resources, and strategies do coaches use in the coaching process?
- How big are coach caseloads, and what do coach—teacher and coach—FCC provider relationship building and collaboration look like?
- What challenges do coaches, center teachers, and FCC providers face?
Key Findings and Highlights
- Most coaches in SCOPE were well-educated and experienced. About one-quarter (23 percent) of coaches in FCC settings had not earned a bachelor’s degree, compared with 2 percent of coaches in Head Start-funded centers and 7 percent in other center-based settings. Coaches across settings had an average of at least 15 years of experience working with preschoolers in ECE settings and at least 7 years of experience teaching and training adults (Exhibit II.3)
- Most center teachers and FCC providers in SCOPE worked with their coach for at least a year; FCC providers reported longer tenures with their coaches than center teachers.
- Most coaches met one-on-one at least monthly with center teachers and FCC providers. Coaching meetings with FCC providers tended to be longer than meetings with teachers in centers. Both center teachers and FCC providers usually communicated with coaches a few times between coaching meetings, most often via email.
- Coaches used a variety of approaches or models, and coaches frequently reported using many types of resources in their work with center teachers and FCC providers.
- Almost all coaches worked with center teachers and FCC providers to set goals, using center teacher or FCC provider input.
- Coaches most often reported challenges with teacher and provider time and readiness to engage. Specifically, the top challenges were that center teachers and FCC providers (1) were reluctant to participate in coaching, (2) often worked under stress, and (3) did not have enough time for coaching. Center teachers and FCC providers reported fewer coaching challenges overall and said they had positive, respectful, and helpful relationships with coaches.