The paper exposes the main conclusions of a funded research project about the role of the coach in a small-group device for school principals’ preparation based on feedback and group coaching.
School principals’ training has been receiving wider attention in Spain in the framework of the current legislation that promotes wider autonomy for schools and principals (Barrios, Iranzo y Tierno, 2013). Such autonomy is said to be needed for transforming principals in key agents for school improvement, which will imply the adoption of new competencies oriented towards a more instructional and more distributed leadership profile (Pont, Nusche y Moorman, 2008).
The training program of our study adopted a group-coaching model (Flückiger, Aas, Nicolaidou, Johnson y Lovett, 2017) in which is the group the main agent for building knowledge in a highly structured environment designed to facilitate reflection on both members’ leadership profiles and practice. The coach does not act in this model as an expert but as a facilitator who promotes and manage communication, helping the group to progress throughout a successful learning sequence (Hargrove, 2008; O´Mahony y Barnett, 2008; Wise y Jacobo, 2010; Ass y Flückiger, 2016).
Training program main features included: (a) a small group –seven principals, one of them acting as a coach; (b) a highly structured working sequence that leads group and individual learning; (c) a coach specifically trained to lead the learning process; (d) two diagnosis tools: the Competence Profile School Management (CPSM) and the School Profile (SP); (e) the in-focus procedure, in which the whole group analyses a problematic case described by one of the participants; and (f) the individual improvement plans designed by the trainees. The learning sequence expected for the sessions in focus included the following steps: (a) information by means of both the diagnosis tools and questions from participants; (b) analysis of the case posed by leader under the spotlight; (c) leader´s behaviour assessment; (d) advices from the rest of the group; and (e) synthesis.
These features try to meet the new expectations about more practical approaches in the preparation of school principals in order to actively get involve them in the analysis of the sort of problems they face in their daily work (Hallinguer y Snidvongs, 2005). As new training strategies –as coaching– focus on facilitating contextualized learning (Neufeld y Roper, 2003; Bean, 2004), trainers’ role becomes more oriented to providing opportunities to reflect about the practice and develop improvement plans (Bean, 2004; Coburn y Woulfin, 2012).
Coaching has been described, in that context, as a strategy that helps school principals to feel more recognized as professionals, increasing their commitment in the development of their responsibilities (Creasy y Paterson, 2015). It also helps them to change from a “reactive” approach to their practice to a “proactive” one, creating the appropriate framework for reflection and planning of future improvements in their schools in collaboration with other members of the community (Wise and Jacobo, 2010).
Good coaches can help principals to improve their schools by means of promoting analysis and reflection on contextualized strategies of leadership and management. Their critical view may impulse school principal to new ways of thinking and acting, promoting sustainable changes (Hargrove 2008; Reeves, 2009; Huber, 2013). Considering the relevance of the coach in the dynamic of the training process, a deeper knowledge of their role, competencies and patterns of interaction with the coaches in needed, which constituted one of the main targets of our study.