Many educational policy initiatives use instructional coaching to accomplish their goals. Yet we know little about the role of reading coaches in mediating the relationship between policy and teachers’ classroom practice. In this article, we investigate the role of reading coaches in mediating the relationship between Reading First policy and teachers’ classroom practice. We conducted an in‐depth, longitudinal case study of one urban elementary school in Massachusetts, starting the year before the onset of Reading First and continuing through the first year of its implementation. In our analysis, we focus on seven first‐ and second‐grade teachers, two coaches, and two school administrators. We argue that, although reading coaches were only one of multiple sources from which teachers learned about Reading First policy, teachers were much more likely to make substantial changes in their classroom practice when they learned about the policy message from a coach than from other sources. Coaches influenced teachers by helping them to learn new approaches and to integrate them into their classroom. But, they also did so by pressuring teachers, shaping how they saw and understood Reading First, and by counseling them on which aspects of the policy to focus on and which aspects to ignore. Thus, we present a vision of coaching that goes much beyond its educational roles, to highlight the political roles of the coach as well. We close by drawing implications for research on coaching, policy implementation, and practice.

Despite major changes to teacher evaluation since 2009, scant research examines how principals enact these policies. Drawing on qualitative interviews with 44 principals in 13 Connecticut districts, we use structure-agency theory to characterize how principals improvised when implementing the state evaluation model. We find that principals' use of discretion varied across the system's components, took different forms, and appeared aimed at varied outcomes. Particular forms of discretion supported the system's goals, while others likely undermined them. Principals tended to use their discretion to further the system's development aims as opposed to its accountability goals. Our findings have implications for the enactment of teacher evaluation policy, the roles of district administrators, and principals' work as instructional leaders in an accountability context.

Instructional coaching has emerged as a prevalent and much-lauded instrument for capacity building. This essay argues that coaching can be aligned with teacher evaluation systems to work toward the effective implementation of instructional reforms, including Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards. Within the current policy context, coaching can support reform by (a) developing shared understandings, (b) modeling practices, and (c) brokering ideas. We discuss examples of coaches’ leadership actions related to the evaluation process, thus illustrating the potential for coaching to promote coherence in instructional improvement. We conclude by discussing barriers to the enactment of reform-aligned coaching as well as implications for leaders positioned at multiple levels of the education system.

Purpose: Educator evaluation systems have recently undergone scrutiny and reform, and district and school leaders play a key role in interpreting and enacting these systems. This article uses framing theory to understand district leaders’ interpretation and advancement of a state’s new educator evaluation policy. Research Methods: The article draws on qualitative data from 14 Connecticut districts to highlight the relationship between state policy, district leadership, and the ideas about educator evaluation making their way into schools. We employed frame analysis to systematically analyze interview data from district leaders responsible for evaluation reform. Findings: District leaders’ frames addressed two distinct elements of the evaluation policy: accountability and development. Overall, district leaders tended to emphasize the accountability aspects of the state’s new evaluation system—SEED (System for Educator Evaluation and Development). Second, we find that district leaders’ frames predominately issued solutions and advice regarding the implementation of the evaluation policy. These leaders rarely enforced their framing of SEED. Finally, we present a vignette to highlight how one elementary school principal encountered frames within his district context and elected to respond to the ideas and rules of the new evaluation system. Implications for Research and Practice: This article’s findings encourage additional research on the role of district leaders in translating state policy into school-level change. This article also highlights the need for district-level actors to have a deep understanding of current policy as well as the skills to frame policy messages to diverse audiences.

No abstract