Coaching as a professional development strategy for school-based educators is a relatively new capacity building practice in Canadian elementary education. Teaching coaches provide direct on-site professional support and learning through their school visits on a regular basis over a period of time. Their professional support is meant to go beyond attendance at occasional workshops or seminars led by field experts, and extend to collaborating with educators to support classroom pedagogy by providing hands-on support on school premises.

In the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), the roles of learning coaches have undergone two distinct implementation phases between 2007 and 2020:

1. MSIC Central Model – a more centrally coordinated approach under the MSIC Office with 15 learning coaches serving 150 MSIC schools between 2007 and 2016 

2. Learning Centre Model – a more decentralized and autonomous approach under the four Learning Centres since the Board restructuring in 2016; with about 15 K-12 learning coaches serving both MSIC and non-MSIC schools in each Learning Centre pre pandemic.

Given the importance of paying close attention to individuals affected by educational reforms in ensuring success (Fullan, 2007; Mangin, 2009), this research is particularly timely.

Our approach

This study investigates if and how system-wide restructuring has affected the roles and experiences of learning coaches in supporting educators and leaders in local schools. The research clarifies lessons learned in terms of systemic structures and conditions from two learning coach implementation phases in enhancing the roles of learning coaches to promote local school improvement and equity. The research question used to guide this study is: What were the experiences of learning coaches under the two implementation phases, with a focus on lessons learned?

Semi-structured focus groups were held with learning coaches, along with semi-structured interviews with MSIC administrative staff members, including principals, vice principals, and central TDSB staff in 2018 and 2019. Participants varied in their level of experience in their professional roles.

What we found

Based on the qualitative thematic analysis of the focus group and interview data, the following structures and conditions were identified as important infrastructure to support learning coaches in their coaching role at local schools: 

What are the takeaways from this study?  

Participants noted that learning coaches benefit from regular peer communication and collaboration, and having infrastructure in place to support this communication and collaboration was cited as something helpful. They also shared that ongoing and integrated professional development opportunities with an equity lens would be helpful for all staff, and highlighted the importance of school leaders’ buy-in and support of the work of the learning coaches, along with mentorship for new leaders and staff. Participants noted the need for clear and consistent Board-wide messaging around the goals, responsibilities and expectations of the learning coach role, along with adequate resource allocation. Overall, coherent system level leadership was seen as essential to the aforementioned structural supports. The findings of this study have implications for equity focused educational initiatives.

Click here to read more about the study.

To read more about the TDSB’s MSIC initiative and GEEC’s research, click here.

Document citation:

Patel, S., Yau, M., & Bemister, K. (2021). Structural supports for learning coaches: Lessons learned from the Model Schools for Inner Cities. Toronto, ON: School of Early Childhood Studies, Ryerson University.

This is an ongoing study funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Partnership for Change: The RBC Immigrant, Diversity and Inclusion Project, Ryerson University, and the Toronto District School Board.

School-level leadership is key in establishing family-school-community partnerships. The present research is based on interviews with parents and school administrators from two Toronto-area MSIC schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Participants were asked about programs and services available to children and families at the school, school-family relationships, how the school acts as the hub of the community, and engagement of newcomer, refugee, and culturally diverse families. School staff and parents play key roles in fostering family-school-community relations, and trusting relationships are the foundation for future community partnerships. This research has implications for hiring in an inner-city context, as well as training in family and community engagement. Anti-oppression and anti-Black racism staff training are also vital to ensure that schools effectively support students and families.

Our approach

The purpose of this study is to identify the leadership practices and strategies that fostered family-school-community partnerships in a Toronto-based, board-wide equity initiative. The Model Schools for Inner Cities initiative strives to enhance equity in the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) by increasing access to social and educational supports for students and families in the city’s most marginalized communities. Qualitative case study techniques were used to explore leadership strategies and practices in two Toronto schools in the MSIC initiative. A descriptive analysis of secondary parent focus group and school administrator interview data were guided by the following research question: Within the context of the MSIC initiative in Toronto, Canada, what leadership strategies and practices do school administrators use to foster family-school-community partnerships? 

Semi-structured interviews were held with school administrators (principals and vice-principals) at both schools in 2014 and 2019

What we found

Seven prominent themes emerged from the descriptive analysis. These themes are bolded in the following discussion. The analysis revealed some similarities and differences between the two school sites. When no noteworthy differences were observed between time points, 2014 and 2019 data are treated as one sample.

Parents and administrators at both schools discussed the importance of creating a welcoming physical and social school environment. Parents discussed the importance of having an inviting entranceway and the important role played by all school staff, particularly front desk staff, in establishing a welcoming environment. All schools in the TDSB have automatic locks on their doors, but MS1 administrators tried to allow more open access to families. Parents and administrators at MS2 commented that their front entrance was small, not welcoming, and inaccessible for people using wheelchairs or strollers. MS2 parents spoke highly of a now-retired school custodian who was particularly approachable and involved with the school. Still, some parents at both schools did not feel welcomed.

Participants discussed ways that schools fostered a culture of care among staff and families. MS1 administrators interpreted a culture of care as demonstrating that the school cared about family and community well-being, social justice, and student achievement. MS2 administrators interpreted a culture of care as fostering caring, trusting relationships between school staff and families. MS1 administrators fostered their culture of care by including it in conversations with students and families, the school newsletter, and in school announcements. In 2014, MS2 parents and administrators referred to some distrust between families and school staff; administrators attributed this to past traumas or negative experiences with schools among parents, whereas parents said it was related to power dynamics and a lack of communication. In 2019, MS2 administrators discussed specific strategies to encourage trusting relationships, including establishing the office as a safe space for students and families and taking time to build positive relationships with each family.

Both schools encouraged communication with families using flyers, newsletters, phone calls with families, emails, social media, informal conversations, and more formal events. The parent council was a key way parents could bring concerns to the attention of the school at MS1.

Participants, especially at MS1, said that school staff, including administrators as well as other TDSB and MSIC staff, encouraged parent leadership and advocacy within the school. Schools offered opportunities for parents to serve as leaders, make decisions, and advocate for themselves and community causes. At MS1, the parent council was a key avenue for parent leadership. Parents described the MSIC Community Support Worker and administrators as co-leaders in the parent council. MS2 parents did not take on leadership roles in terms of school or community initiatives as MS1 parents did.

Parents at both schools felt that leadership presence in the community helped the school play an active role in the larger community. For example, in 2019, MS2 administrators hosted parent council nights and an intergenerational book club in a local apartment building after noticing that it was difficult for some families to get to the school in the evenings. This demonstrated to families that school staff were working to be a part of the larger community.

Participants identified several ways school staff and administrators established their schools a social and cultural broker, helping families connect with and navigate information and services in social, health, and educational systems. Parents and administrators identified Community Support Workers and TDSB Settlement Workers as key supports, particularly for newcomer families navigating Canadian health, education, and social systems. Still, some parents at both schools felt the schools could be more supportive of newcomer families, e.g., by providing translators and information about Canadian educational systems.

Finally, participants reported that administrators leveraged their community partnerships and their own social capital to address systemic inequities. For example, MS1 administrators referred to partnering with universities, hospitals, and not-for-profit organizations to address systematic racism by offering professional development focused on anti-oppression and anti-racism for staff and targeted school-based programs for racialized students and their families. MS2 administrators spoke less about specific partnerships to address systemic racism, but noted they were beginning to organize professional development for staff members focused on Black student excellence and anti-bias training as part of a larger, board-wide initiative. MS2 parents wanted more relevant parent programming to address systemic issues like unemployment, food insecurity, addiction, and teen pregnancy. They noted that programming at the school (e.g., parent events focused on literacy) were ‘band-aid’ solutions that did not address the root problems, and felt the school had the potential to help address generational cycles of poverty, addiction, and other social justice concerns. How administrators viewed social justice seemed to affect how schools addressed systemic inequities. MS1 administrators noted that equity was at the centre of their work and often referred to social justice in conversations with families. They felt that by expressing their intention to create more equitable educational and social systems, they helped parents view the school as an ally that cares about their children, family, and community.

What are the takeaways from this study? 

The leadership practices highlighted in this study are particularly important in this time of increasing advocacy for anti-racism, anti-oppression, and justice in systems such as education that can reproduce – or help combat – classism, racism, ableism, and social inequities. The findings have implications for school-family-community partnership practices, school leadership strategies in marginalized communities, system-level decision-making about the distribution of services and resources for students and families, and ultimately, how schools and education systems can create more equitable schools and communities. 

Click here to read more about the study.

To read more about the TDSB’s MSIC initiative and GEEC’s research, click here.

Document citation: 

Cummins, N. & Patel, S. (2021). School leadership and family-school-community partnerships: Knowledge mobilization summary report. Toronto, ON: School of Early Childhood Studies, Ryerson University.

This is an ongoing study funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Partnership for Change: The RBC Immigrant, Diversity and Inclusion Project, Ryerson University, and the Toronto District School Board.  

This blog post is part of the School redesign and neighbourhood redevelopment: A longitudinal study of educational success and well-being study. To learn more about the larger study, visit our projects. 

The Model Schools for Inner Cities (MSIC) initiative aims to reduce inequities and achievement gaps for students living in low socioeconomic communities by providing additional school-based supports and services (TDSB, 2017). The MSIC initiative offers a variety of in-school health and educational support services, additional staff to support student academic success and wellbeing, and additional teaching and learning resources for staff. An essential objective of the MSIC initiative is to establish the school as the heart of the community, where parents and community members are viewed as partners in students’ learning and success. To support family and community involvement in schools, MSIC schools often have partnerships with community agencies to offer programming in schools and Community Support Workers at each school act as liaisons between the community and the school. In addition, the Parent Academy, led by parents in MSIC schools, have hosted parent conferences and workshops to support the school community (Yau, Archer, & Romard, 2018). To read more about the MSIC initiative, click here.

In our research, we spoke with students and school staff in 2013 and 2014 to learn more about their perspectives on family involvement both in school and at home. We found that most students said that their parents and caregivers were involved at home and helped them with their homework. Other students said that their parents were unable to help, because they were unable to speak English or were too busy.

School staff said that families were involved with school issues. For example, at one school, parents voiced their concerns over Wi-Fi being installed in classrooms. Staff also discussed school and community-based programs that encouraged parent involvement. These programs included school-based preschool services along with free programs and activities in the community.

This research shows that culturally diverse parents may tend to focus their involvement in their children’s education at home as opposed to physically volunteering in schools Patel, 2018; Patel & Corter, 2013). The MSIC initiative continues to strengthen school-family-community partnerships through programs such as the Parent Academy, which aims to empower parents to share resources about student learning and education and provides opportunities for personal and professional development for parents. Programs such as these can foster family involvement in students’ educational success and well-being and a closer two-way communication between families and schools.

We held focus groups in 2013 and 2014 with students (ages 4 to 13) and their teachers.

References

Patel, S. (2018). Student and teacher perspectives on Model Schools for Inner Cities: Knowledge mobilization summary report. Toronto, ON: School of Early Childhood Studies, Ryerson University

Patel, S., & Corter, C. (2013a). Building capacity for parent involvement through school-based preschool services. Early Child Development and Care, 183(7), 981−1004.  DOI:10.1080/03004430.2012.701625

Toronto District School Board [TDSB]. (2017). Enhancing Equity Task Force: Report and recommendations. Retrieved on February 13, 2019 from Toronto, ON: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/Portals/0/community/docs/EETFReportPdfVersion.pdf

Yau, M., Archer, B., & Romard, R. (2018). Model Schools for Inner Cities: A 10-Year Overview. Toronto, ON: Toronto District School Board.

Click here to read more about student and teacher perspectives on the MSIC initiative.

To read more about the School Redesign and Neighbourhood Redevelopment: A longitudinal study of education success and well-being study, click here.

Document citation: Patel, S. (2018). Student and teacher perspectives on Model Schools for Inner Cities: Knowledge mobilization summary report. Toronto, ON: School of Early Childhood Studies, Ryerson University.

For further information regarding the overall project see: Patel, S. (2016). School redesign and neighbourhood redevelopment: Knowledge mobilization summary report. Toronto, ON: School of Early Childhood Studies, Ryerson University.

This is an ongoing study funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and in partnership with the City of Toronto (Children’s Services), Toronto Community Housing Corporation, Toronto District School Board, Dr. Eric Jackman Institute of Child Study (University of Toronto), Housing Services Corporation, and the Centre for Urban Health Solutions (St. Michael’s Hospital). We will continue to share more updates about our ongoing projects soon.