Scott County presents instructional coaching pilot after early data showing classroom gains

Superintendent Mr. Parker opened a discussion of an instructional coaching pilot run this year at Garth Elementary and Stamping Ground Elementary to provide classroom coaching and intervention support.

The pilot team — led in presentation by district staff members Wendy (instructional staff), Damon (instructional staff) and Stephanie (curriculum staff) — described a coaching model built around cognitive coaching and short- and long-term coaching cycles. "When you have someone coach you on that practice, there's a 95% transfer to the classroom," the presenters said, citing internal training materials used to justify the approach.

Nut graf: The district presented early student-level diagnostic gains from teachers who participated in coaching cycles and proposed a three-year cost-sharing model for schools that choose to adopt dedicated coaching positions.

Presenters said the model was tailored to each school's needs. Garth used the coach largely for new-teacher support; Stamping Ground configured the role differently based on local needs. Donna Marshall, identified in the meeting as an instructional coach who participated in the pilot, and several administrators and teachers offered in-meeting testimonials. Sam Strickland (identified as a staff member from Garden Elementary) read teacher comments praising the coaching for classroom management, implementation of reading programs, and confidence-building for newer teachers.

District data shown in the meeting indicated declines in the share of students two grade levels below benchmark and increases in students scoring on grade level in classrooms where teachers completed coaching cycles. Presenters reported examples including an increase in on-level reading percentages (examples cited: 26% to 61% in one classroom) and math on-level gains (examples cited: 5% to 41% in one classroom). When asked whether similar gains occurred among teachers who did not participate, the presenter said district-wide comparison data exist and that increases in coached classrooms were larger than typical gains, though specific comparison percentages were not provided during the meeting.

District staff outlined a three-year rollout framework: year 1 is school-funded and requires training and district PLC attendance; year 2 shares the coach cost (school pays one-third, district two-thirds); year 3 shifts the cost to the district if the program is successful. Presenters repeatedly emphasized flexibility: schools could design the coach role (interventionist plus coach, or pure coach) to meet local needs, and the district plans to create training materials and a pathway for future coaches.

Board members asked about staffing, sustainability, and the risk that success depends on a single strong individual. One board member warned that extracting a strong classroom teacher to be a full-time coach can reduce the pool of high-performing classroom teachers; another asked how the model would translate to middle and high school settings, where content-area specialization complicates the coach role. Presenters acknowledged those concerns and said the pilot was intentionally limited to elementary settings this year and that training and succession materials are part of their development plan.

The discussion included operational questions (for example, whether coaches were drawn from existing staff or were new hires) and finance questions; presenters said schools managed the year-1 funding through their existing allocations and that the plan was deliberately staged to allow evaluation before larger district commitments.

Ending: Board members thanked staff for the presentation and asked to receive additional comparative data and clarifications about operational expectations before any district-level funding decision.