Instructional coaching became widespread as a result of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which was passed in 2002. For the first time, federal funding was allocated to coaching, therefore increasing coaching positions nationally. While NCLB itself was fairly light on prescribing how coaching should work, many coaches at the time were tasked by their districts with ensuring that teachers implemented specific, research-validated instructional strategies and curricula with fidelity.
While we applaud supporting teacher development, the NCLB era created some dynamics that damaged teacher trust in coaching. The most common effect was teachers associating the coach with evaluation and compliance, rather than seeing them as a collaborative colleague. In other words, coaching often felt like it was being done ‘to teachers’ rather than ‘with teachers’.
Since the very beginning, Student-Centered Coaching was designed to mitigate against this sense of ‘coach as evaluator’. Our focus is on partnering with teachers to reach their goals for student learning, rather than fixing what they are doing wrong. Taking this stance is necessary if we hope to create a culture for coaching in our schools. Here’s how we get there.
Start by Building Trust
Trust is the foundation of establishing a culture for coaching. Cultures where coaching fails usually break trust early, often by blurring the line between coaching and evaluation. If trust is missing, teachers will close the door to the classroom and avoid working with a coach. Bryk and Schneider (2003) found this to be true in their research of over 400 schools in Chicago, explaining that when we talk honestly about what’s working (or not working) in our classrooms, we make ourselves vulnerable. Without trust, genuine conversations can be hard to come by. Trust is earned through day-to-day actions that are taken by the principal and coach. This includes:
- Clearly defining the coach’s role as being about partnering with teachers to reach their goals for student learning.
- Messaging that coaching is for all teachers, rather than just for those who are new or struggling.
- Connecting coaching to a clearly articulated focus for school improvement that includes all members of the school community.
- Consistently taking an asset-based stance toward all teachers and students.
Principal Advocates for Coaching
Principals are our most important advocates for coaching. Without their support, coaches may feel like they are left to create a culture for coaching on their own. As we have learned from the work of Simon Sinek, advocacy always starts with the ‘why’. For us, the message is simple – coaches are here to partner with teachers to focus on student learning, rather than to evaluate the teaching practice.
The next step is to connect the ‘why’ to a broader mandate for learning in the school. As we wrote about in Student-Centered Coaching: The Moves (2nd edition), the more we connect our purpose for coaching to an overall focus for school improvement (or, ‘The Thing’) the more aligned our work will be. For example, let’s imagine that a school is focusing on implementing the strategies for teacher clarity from the Visible Learning research. Defining this as the schoolwide goal makes advocating for coaching much easier. The language used by the principal might sound something like, “Since we are all working on the practices for teacher clarity, I’d expect that at some point you’ll partner with the coach to implement the clarity practices to boost your students’ learning.” You can see how this message advocating for coaching connects to teacher and student learning, while being both simple and clear.
It’s also important for teachers to understand exactly what coaching is and isn’t. In most schools, there is a history of coaching that needs to be recognized. Perhaps it was more teacher-centered in the past, or maybe it was anchored in implementing a program. If we hope to create a student-centered approach, then it may be important to clearly define where we are headed with the coaching work. For example:
Coaching is…
- A partnership between the teacher and coach
- Focused on student learning
- Based on the standards
- Fun!
Coaching isn’t…
- Connected to evaluation
- Looking for what teachers are doing wrong
- About making teachers do things
- A waste of time
From: Student-Centered Coaching: The Moves (2nd edition) by Sweeney and Harris
Protect the Role of the Coach
Coaching can never be seen as an arm of the administration. Therefore, leaders must protect coaches from being pulled into certain non-coaching duties so they can stay focused on their coaching work. We recommend that coaches avoid the following actions that may feel to teachers like they are taking on an administrative role:
- Coaches only participate in walk-throughs if teachers are also a part of the process.
- Coaches avoid popping into classrooms without having a clear purpose for being there.
- Coaches refrain from reporting struggling teachers to the principal.
- Coaches avoid holding teachers accountable for completing administrative tasks that are required by the school or district.
- Coaches aren’t put in the position of being the ‘trainer’ or ‘rep’ for a new curriculum adoption.
The last point is particularly relevant right now with so many districts adopting new resources like CKLA and Eureka Math. When this is the case, it can be easy for coaches to take on an expert role in the adoption process. This can quickly diminish the coach’s influence because their role as collaborator will be compromised. Rather, we suggest that coaches maintain the stance of a partner whose role is to help teachers use the new resource to ensure that their students are reaching the desired standards. This keeps coaching aligned with the ‘why’ and protects the coach from trapping themselves in tasks that aren’t student-centered.
In Closing
There is no doubt that what has happened in the past with coaching has created considerable headwinds for building a culture where coaching thrives. It can be disappointing to think that two decades later, there is still distrust among teachers toward a process that supports both their learning as well as the learning of their students. But there is hope. If we take the steps outlined here and maintain a student-centered approach, the culture can and will change.
Bryk, A.S., & Schneider, B.L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Sinek, S. (2009). Start with Why. New York: NY: Penguin Group.
Sweeney, D. & Harris, L.S. (2026). Student-Centered Coaching: The Moves. Corwin Press.