Switch course ▾
Session 3. Supervision, Quality Assurance and Repairing Failing Relationships
Objective. Set up coach supervision (a monthly clinic), define a few quality standards that are used for learning and not for inspection, recognise early warning signs in a coaching pair and use a five-step repair ladder, including re-matching and closing well.
Most coaching programmes lose quality quietly. A pair stops meeting, a coach starts lecturing, a coachee says 'fine' and disappears, and nobody notices until the end of term. Supervision, light quality checks and a clear repair path are the programme's immune system. This lesson goes beyond the key ideas: it shows how to run a safe clinic, how to tell a relationship problem from a competence or safeguarding one, and how to end a pair without blame.
Key ideas
Supervision: a place for the coach to think
- Coaches carry other people's worries, and without a place to reflect they drift: they give more advice, avoid hard conversations or burn out. Supervision here means regular reflective time for coaches, not appraisal of coaches by a boss.
- A workable form is a monthly 60 to 90 minute coach clinic in groups of four or five. One coach presents an anonymised case, others ask clarifying questions, the presenter reflects, and the group offers possibilities, not orders.
- Professional bodies publish supervision frameworks, such as the EMCC competence framework for supervision, which you can borrow ideas from. Keep the clinic in the timetable; if it is the first thing cancelled, the programme has no quality system.
Quality assurance without inspection
- Agree five or six standards with the coaches themselves, for example: the teacher speaks more than half the time; the goal is in the teacher's words; every meeting ends with one next step and a date; notes are factual; confidentiality is kept; meetings actually happen.
- Use light sources: a count of meetings held, a three-question anonymous note from coachees at mid-term, a coach's own self-check against the standards, and, with consent, one observed conversation per term by the coordinator with a learning conversation afterwards.
- Standards are shared at training, used for learning and never for ranking coaches in public. Count and describe; do not grade people. Once coaches fear the checklist, they perform for it and quality goes underground.
Early warning signs and the repair ladder
- Warning signs: two cancelled meetings in a row; polite 'yes' with no action; the coach talking most of the time; the coachee avoiding the coach in the corridor; the coach dreading the meeting; goals that never change. One sign is a note; three are a conversation.
- The repair ladder, one step at a time: 1 Name it kindly ('I notice we have missed two meetings'); 2 Re-contract (change the focus, time or format); 3 Involve a third person such as the coordinator or supervisor; 4 Re-match with dignity and no blame; 5 Close the relationship well, with thanks and what was learned.
- Sort the problem first: a relationship problem is repaired by this ladder; a concern about a teacher's competence goes to the head through the school process; anything involving risk to a pupil or a person follows the school safeguarding procedure at once (see course 11.2 for the three-level escalation).
Who owns the programme and what leaders see
- Name one coordinator with protected time (even two periods a week) who owns the calendar, matching, the clinics and the yearly review. A programme owned by everybody is owned by nobody.
- Write down what leaders will see and what they will never see. They see counts, themes without names and the evidence of change in practice that coachees agree to share. They never see coaching notes, a coachee's private struggles or a ranking of coaches.
- Keep coaching apart from appraisal. Hobson and Malderez found that when mentors are expected to assess, they tend to pass judgements instead of supporting. If a coach must give an assessment, the relationship is no longer coaching and the coachee must be told so.
The repair ladder
Running a clinic that is safe to use
Set ground rules at the first clinic and repeat them: cases are anonymised; the presenter owns the question and may say 'stop'; listeners ask before they suggest and never diagnose the coachee; nothing said leaves the room except general learning. The facilitator, often the coordinator, is a timekeeper, not a judge, and does not use what coaches say to rate them.
Close each case with one round: 'What will I try this week?'. If a case suggests a pupil may be at risk, the clinic stops and the facilitator and presenter follow the school procedure at once; this is explained at the start, so nobody is surprised. A clinic of only four people still works, and it is the cheapest quality system a programme can buy.
Sorting the problem before you repair it
Three kinds of problem look similar from outside. A relationship problem (mismatch, tiredness, a clash of styles) is repaired by the ladder. A competence concern (the coachee's teaching causes real worry) is not for the coach to handle in secret; the coach tells the coachee early that this will be raised with the head by the school process, as agreed in the working agreement. A safeguarding concern goes at once by the school procedure.
When a pair must end, close it well. A short final conversation covers three questions: what worked, what should continue without a coach, and what the coachee would want from a next coach. Thank both people and record only the fact that the pair ended and the date, never a reason. Re-matching then looks like the system working, not like failure.
Examples from the classroom
The coach who explained everything
Scene. In a Samarkand clinic, coach Bakhtiyor presents: 'After each visit I explain what I would do and nothing changes.' Colleagues ask clarifying questions: 'What did the teacher say?' 'What did she ask for?'. Bakhtiyor realises she has asked three times about managing group work, and he has talked about questioning. His one thing to try this week: begin the next meeting with 'What would you like to look at?' and speak for less than half the time.
Insight. Clarifying questions before suggestions help the presenter find the issue themselves.
Two cancelled meetings
Scene. A Fergana coordinator sees on the register that one pair has met twice in six weeks. She does not write a warning. She asks the coach for a five-minute chat and suggests step 1: say it kindly and ask. The coach says, 'I noticed we have missed two meetings; how has it been for you?'. The teacher admits that Tuesdays are impossible because of her second school. They move the meeting to Thursday, 20 minutes, and the pair is back on track.
Insight. A kind, early conversation (steps 1 and 2) repairs most pairs before they break.
When the concern is bigger than coaching
Scene. In a Tashkent school, coach Saodat realises that her coachee Aziz is not preparing lessons and says he is 'tired of everything'. She had agreed with him at the start that serious concerns about teaching would go to the head by the school process. She tells Aziz that she must raise it, that she will tell him what she says, and she asks what support he would like. The head then holds a supportive meeting with Aziz.
Insight. A clear working agreement lets the coach handle competence concerns honestly and without secret reporting.
Common pitfalls
- Using clinic stories to rate coaches in public or to decide their pay.
- Waiting for the end of term to count meetings, so that the first warning sign is seen in December.
- Treating a coaching pair that has stopped as a discipline matter.
- Hiding a competence concern inside coaching instead of saying openly how it will be handled.
Run a Coach Clinic and Repair a Failing Pair
- Trios (5 min): each person recalls a working relationship that went wrong. Name the first warning sign, in hindsight, without naming the person.
- Groups of four (25 min): hold a mini coach clinic using the three SAMPLE cases in the Kit. Two rounds of 11 minutes: case read (2), clarifying questions only (3), presenter reflects aloud (2), group offers possibilities beginning 'One option might be...' (4). Then 3 minutes: what did the structure do for the conversation?
- Whole group (10 min): from the clinic, write five quality standards for your programme on a flipchart. Remove any that cannot be checked by counting or by a coach's self-check.
- Part B, trios (35 min): repair-ladder role-play with the three SAMPLE role cards in the Kit. Roles: coach, coachee, observer with the ladder. Two rotations of 12 minutes (6 minutes of role-play, 6 minutes of feedback) with the reset conversation script; then 11 minutes to draft a one-page QA sheet (standards, sources, who sees what).
- Alone (10 min): write the leadership task from the Kit and name the coordinator and the first clinic date for your school.
Your facilitator will guide you through this activity in the session.
Questions to discuss
- What did the clinic structure stop you from doing, and was that useful?
- Which quality standard would your coaches find hardest to accept and how would you introduce it?
- At which step of the ladder do most schools wait too long?
Reflect
- Who supervises you as a coach or leader, and what would you bring to them?
- Which of your habits as a leader could turn a quality check into inspection?
- Think of a pair that stopped meeting. At which step could someone have helped?
Try it tomorrow
- Put one 60-minute clinic for coaches in the calendar and write three ground rules on a card.
- Check the register this week: which pair has met least, and what is the first kind sentence you could say to them?
- Write the three questions for a closing conversation and test them with a colleague.
Further reading and links
Give coaches a place to think, measure quality by counting and learning, and repair a failing pair early and kindly, step by step.