Overview:
From Steps and Lanes to Student Gains: How Instructional Coaching Bridges the Gap Between Teacher Growth and Classroom Impact
If you’ve been in education longer than a decade, you likely experienced (or heard legends of) the teacher compensation model that encouraged continuous learning at post-secondary institutions. This paralleled state licensing that required graduate credits as part of the license renewal process. The “steps and lanes” approach provided teachers with periodic raises based on years of service (steps) and graduate credits earned (lanes). Essentially, teachers who continued to take credits were able to renew their license and were financially rewarded for their continued commitment to the profession. During this time, instructional coaching may or may not have been available in the school district.
The apparent benefit of steps and lanes was that graduate courses provided in-depth examinations of theory and research related to learning, child development, instructional practices, or targeting specific student types (e.g., at-risk). However, this compensation model also allowed teachers to earn credits in areas that didn’t align with their content or assigned grade level. For example, a science teacher could focus on a future career path (e.g., administrative licensing) rather than furthering their content knowledge to benefit students.
Even if teachers chose coursework related to the content they taught, there was no requirement to follow through on implementation; no one was walking through teachers’ classrooms to ensure that the learning from their coursework was being applied to their practice. It’s also possible that the teaching wasn’t aligned with district instructional expectations. So, while this model may have had some benefits, there is no guarantee that it positively impacted student learning. As professionals, we should strive to grow, adapt, adjust, and modernize our approaches to ensure that our efforts have a direct and positive impact on our students.
Post-Compensation Model
Many states have eliminated the requirement for teachers to obtain additional professional development credits to maintain their licensure. Furthermore, laws like Wisconsin’s Act 10 grant districts the authority to eradicate compensation models, such as “steps and lanes,” allowing for greater flexibility within their budgets. A major perceived budget issue stemmed from teachers having partial ownership over their earnings, as they could accumulate a large number of graduate credits in a short period. Another major perceived budget issue was that teachers might prioritize salary increases over student learning. Therefore, with fewer licensing requirements and less of the budget tied up in guaranteed raises, districts could shift to merit-based pay or performance-based models.
Hence, a philosophical dilemma arose. To earn the most money for your work, it’s best to study the specific details of the performance-based evaluation and follow the instructions exactly as stated. To become a great educator, it would be best to continue learning through graduate coursework, action research, risk-taking, and collaboration. In the aftermath, school districts are left to encourage continuous learning for teachers through various incentives, contractual obligations, and the staff’s willingness to pursue opportunities for learning on their own.
There is, of course, in-house learning. This typically includes an in-service week at the beginning of the school year and in-service days that occur sporadically throughout the year. The major drawback to relying strictly on in-house professional development is the tendency towards “one size fits all” learning with varying degrees of relevance to a diverse staff. The amount of time a full staff has together is rarely enough to engage in in-depth learning about a topic or initiative. This model also tends to focus on immediate building needs that are logistical or technical in nature. Finally, there can be a lack of accountability for this learning–often based on trust–which can lead to implementation that lacks fidelity. Even with the best intentions, giving up or forgetting critical details can easily happen, and teachers revert to their familiar teaching routines.
Enter Instructional Coaching
The role of instructional coach has become more commonplace in our post-pandemic school systems. Almost half of public schools created one or more coaching positions since the pandemic began (NG, 2024)1. However, this concept isn’t new. In the 1980s, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning developed a “peer coach” model. The motivation came from earlier research that showed less than 10 percent of teachers implemented strategies learned from traditional professional development (Joyce, 19962). To combat this, they conducted weekly coaching seminars with volunteer teachers to first model and then implement new strategies using student data as feedback. “Successful peer coaching teams developed skills in collaboration and enjoyed the experience so much that they wanted to continue their collegial partnerships after they accomplished their initial goals” (Joyce, 1996).
So, why is it trending now? According to a recent EdWeek report, “districts may be increasing focus on instructional coaches as they put a new emphasis on academic recovery and the adoption of new instructional materials.” This may also be influenced by an increase in students with diverse learning needs.
In the 2012-13 school year, 6.4 million students (13% of all students in the United States) were served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); this increased to 7.5 million (15% of all students) in the 2022-23 school year (National Center for Education Statistics, 2025)3. That’s roughly 4-5 students with highly specialized learning needs in every class of 30.
Meeting the Needs of Students
The other 25 students also require increasingly differentiated instruction and alternative pathways to show their learning in inclusive classroom settings. Teachers are expected to make adjustments to their practices to accommodate each and every one. Some may view this as a “challenge [to their] their professional autonomy. Prescribed lesson-plan expectations, standardized tests, and data collection oftentimes drive instructional decisions” (Heubeck, 2023). Balancing personal teaching interests, values, and beliefs alongside new directives is a highly sensitive issue that must be addressed for long-term retention of teachers.
As previously suggested, teacher learning has been separated from compensation (i.e., it lacks external incentives) and, therefore, may only occur during limited in-service opportunities; yet, we expect teachers to grow and adapt more than ever before. This is where coaching comes in. Instructional coaches work with teachers to provide job-embedded professional development that’s data-driven, student-centered, and allows teachers to focus on the “how” of instruction in a way that best suits all learners and aligns with the teacher’s style and passion.
Coaches are trained to help mediate the thinking and nurture the mindset of an adaptive professional, collect classroom data that is meaningful to the teacher, and encourage solution-based reflection to address the unique challenges of their current students. It’s collaboration, professional development, creativity, autonomy, and accountability all in one! Utilizing an instructional coach as a partner encourages a teacher to try, and try again, as long as it takes, to successfully implement a strategy or practice that is effective. Also, since coaches are not evaluators, it alleviates stress and anxiety for teachers who want to get targeted feedback and improve their classroom practices.
Engaging With Instructional Coaching
Districts that employ coaches have numerous options when it comes to requiring (or not requiring) teachers to utilize the support offered by coaches. Some districts selectively require teachers who are new to the profession, new to the district, or teachers who are on a plan of improvement to work with a coach, while others use a voluntary model (i.e., only those who are willing to be coached work with coaches). Some districts simply require all teachers to work with coaches in some capacity. Knowing that instructional coaches can have a substantial positive impact on instructional practice, it makes sense for districts to require every teacher to work with a coach, but that can lead to other issues, namely that not every teacher wants to be coached. In our experience, some teachers are hesitant to be vulnerable and share their instructional practices with a colleague.
Some teachers may be apathetic to the process, viewing coaching as “another thing” they have to do in their already demanding schedules. Some teachers feel that being coached comes with a stigma–it indicates that there is something within their practice that needs to be “fixed” by someone else. Whether or not these things are true, they are perceptions that exist, and it’s hard for some teachers to look past them. If a teacher spends most of their professional learning time occupied by formal, structured meetings centered on site-wide initiatives, there is very little mental or physical space left for the reflective, creative work that can be fueled by a coaching cycle.
Perspectives on Coaching
Considering the need for instructional coaching as a professional learning model, it is helpful to consider how various stakeholders might view this work. Administrators should view this role as critical to the success of their school-wide mission and vision. They have active, experienced educators floating in and among the everyday controlled chaos to support, mediate, mitigate, and model best practices. Teachers should view this role as a partnership in all of the demands of their everyday work. Coaches are sounding boards, listeners, advocates, liaisons, and researchers. Students should view this role as an essential piece of their learning community.
Coaches work with both students and teachers to ensure the classroom experience is supportive, nurturing, and appropriately scaffolded and challenging. A coach is a visible, familiar helper, observer, and teacher who shows up in various learning spaces throughout their day, school year, and often K-12 journey. Parents, then, should view this role as an integral part of their child’s education. While teachers change from year to year, district-wide initiatives do not. Coaches work with parents to share, listen, and advocate for optimal learning. Lastly, the school board and larger community should view instructional coaching as a vital piece of 21st-century learning. With an intense focus on personalized, data-driven education approaches, coaches provide on-the-ground, on-demand support for all the intricate components of a high-functioning school system.
Coaching and Accountability
Aside from engaging with a coach, educators have many ways to develop professionally and increase their knowledge about content, craft, and meeting student needs. Some districts offer opportunities for book studies led by building, district, or teacher leaders. Teachers also have the option to read a text independently to expand their professional knowledge. Without the “required” continuous learning of the past, many teachers still choose to enrich themselves by taking graduate courses to enhance their knowledge and skills, obtain additional licenses, or pursue a master’s degree.
All these options have benefits, but they can still miss the accountability needed to put learning into practice and build a cohesive learning experience for students. Instructional coaching eliminates this drawback by allowing teachers the opportunity to work with an unbiased peer to help them mediate their thinking and monitor their practice or their students’ progress. This helps to ensure that measurable change toward a meaningful professional goal is happening.
About the Authors
Dan Krill is a father, educator, and songwriter. He double-majored in math education and philosophy, then earned his master’s from UW-Madison in curriculum & instruction with an emphasis on learning sciences. Krill has taught secondary and post-secondary math for over 20 years. He currently works as a 5-12 math/science coach in south-eastern Wisconsin. Outside of education, he enjoys camping, mountain biking, reading, and adventures.
Kaitlin Schumaker is an educator from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. She earned a bachelor’s degree in secondary English education as well as her master’s in curriculum and instruction with an emphasis in reading. After a decade working as teacher across three school districts, she transitioned to a full time instructional coaching and reading specialist role in 2022. She remains in this role alongside a wonderful team of coaches, teachers, and administrators. Outside of education, she enjoys spending time with her husband and pets, cooking and baking, traveling, and reading.
