# data[].attributes.body
We agree that instructional coaching should not be connected with evaluation. Separating coaching from formal evaluation helps teachers feel comfortable taking risks and trying something new.

# data[].attributes.body
How can we align educators across grade levels on how anyone walking in the room can tell what students are learning? Should it be the discussions, the worksheet, the participation or the group work?

# data[].attributes.body
"In many classrooms, students may seem "engaged" by being quiet and compliant, yet the actual work they perform may not demand much cognitive engagement" Pg. 26

# data[].attributes.body
All texts assume that learning from formative data is superior to learning from summative data.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that an effective IC must come in with an open mind, yet understand that they know nothing when they first meet teachers. Each teacher is different; therefore, they must be treated individually and not generalized.

# data[].attributes.body
The parts that stood out to me were about building an equal partnership. I aspire to keep the students in mind at all times, but never lose sight of the person before the profession.

# data[].attributes.body
I'd argue that while much of the work falls on the IC, it is important to recognize that it doesn't fall solely on them. Our last two modules have allowed us to recognize and reflect on how we may respond to a less favorable situation. Additionally, I'd argue that a lot is put on how the students interpret learning, but not much is discussed about how the teachers interpret what is being taught to them.

# data[].attributes.body
"They (IC) are affirmative, humble, and deeply respectful of teachers, but they are unwilling to rest unless they achieve significant improvement in teaching and learning in their schools" (Knight, 2007, p. 53)

# data[].attributes.body
Marshall acknowledges that "teachers.. don't have the luxury to slow down and work with the students.. who haven't mastered the material" (Marshall, 2024, p. 180), and yet, despite how recent his writing is, this is an issue that has been raised for many years. Teachers are being asked to make the impossible, impossible, often taking them away from their personal lives. How, as current/future instructional coaches, can we best support our teammates so they can maintain a work-life balance?

# data[].attributes.body
"It took over a hundred years to build the current dysfunction instructional culture of American schools; it won't be transformed by taking a three-day or six-week course in supervision and evaluation." (City et al., 2009, p. 33)

# data[].attributes.body
I really loved the 'Enroll' section of the reading. In my school, we recently had a new leader step into an IC role, who did not focus on the 'Enroll' steps that Knight suggests, damaging relationships and trust. A question that I have is how to back track to this stage while relationships are strained?

# data[].attributes.body
Knight argues that time is an integral part of instructional coaches helping improve program success; they need protected time to actually coach and not get pulled into clerical work. What does a reasonable and practical balance of those two look like for an administrator, assuming most instructional coaches have to deal with some level of administrative work? Is it possible to allocate these instructional coach roles more flatly across more teachers? If so, how do you balance teacher workload (let's say teaching four or five classes) with giving the proper time and attention to the duties of an instructional coach?

# data[].attributes.body
Knight (and other authors that we have read throughout this course) ˇemphasize the importance of reflection in teacher growth. I'm wondering how instructional coaches and other instructional leaders can help teachers to grow in their ability to self-reflect if it is not already a strength. In my opinion, this can (sometimes) be a slightly different dilemma than supporting a teacher who is uninterested in improving their practice. What does it look like to build this skill? What are some strategies or exercises that a coach could use in this scenario?

# data[].attributes.body
"...above all, it doesn't matter whether everyone else is doing it. What matters is whether you can see it in the core. If you can't, it's not there." (City et al., 2009, p. 27)

I think this just re-emphasizes the importance of visible practice over policy. If it actually impacts student learning, then it's going to be seen in the quality of the work students produce. This is from section three discussing the differences in the actual work being done across classes, notably showing that the quality of the work was similarly strong across those classes. Improved practice should be visible not through the product but the quality of the product.

# data[].attributes.body
"When a teacher teachers, no matter how well he or she might design a lesson, what a child learns is unpredictable. . Children do not always learn what we teach.That is why the most important assessment does not happen at the end of learning—it happens during the learning, when there is still time to do something with the information." (Marshall, pg. 166)

# data[].attributes.body
I would pushback on the idea that student outcome is a direct reflection of the individual teacher's skill. While increased teacher efficacy should have an impact on student performance, there are so many other factors that contribute to a child's education that cannot be accounted for

# data[].attributes.body
It seems like using Marshall's method of mini observations and feedback would be a useful tool in implementing instructional rounds.

# data[].attributes.body
How can you maintain teacher autonomy and the equal partnership for teachers that are underperforming and/or unwilling to implement feedback?

# data[].attributes.body
"It is the relationship between the teacher, the student, and the content- not the qualities of any one of them by themselves- that determines the nature of instructional practice" (City et al., 2009, p. 23).

# data[].attributes.body
A question I have after reading Knight is one that I think we have tried to address throughout our coursework. How do instructional coaches partner with teachers who are stuck in their ways and are unwilling to change? How might they partner with a school where the culture is largely to stick with what works?

# data[].attributes.body
Across all texts, the authors assume that improvement in teaching requires adult learning. Improvement requires opportunities to examine practice, receive support, collaborate, study data, and continually adjust.

# data[].attributes.body
When reflecting on my instructional vision, I aspire to create a culture where student learning is a shared responsibility and teachers maintain meaningful agency.

Marshall's emphasis on collective responsibility for student learning and Knight's partnership principles of equality, choice, voice, dialogue, and reciprocity especially support this part of my vision (Knight, pp. 31-33; Marshall, pp. 173-174).

I also want evidence to be used to create curiosity and action rather than blame. This will allow teachers and leaders to examine what students are experiencing, identify what isn't working, and learn from one another (City et al., 2009, pp.23-30; Marshall, 2024 pp. 184-185).

Ultimately, I see my role as an instructional leader as one where I build the trust, structures, resources, and high expectations that allow teachers to continually strengthen their practice together (City et al., 2009, pp. 36-37; Knight, pp.49-52; Marshall, 2024, pp.184-190).

# data[].attributes.body
Across the readings, I would push back against the tendency to place responsibility for student outcomes too narrowly on the individual teacher.

While I certainly agree that instructional practices matter tremendously, leaders must also examine the systems surrounding the instructional core. Teacher skill, student engagement, and task quality absolutely matter, but so do the conditions that determine whether teachers and students have equitable access to the time, resources, supports, and opportunities needed to be successful. Ultimately, I buy into their focus on instruction; I just want the leadership lens to remain wider than the classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
Across the readings, I agree most with the idea that we cannot equate implementation with impact. It is not enough to know that a curriculum or intervention strategy is being used; leaders have to look closely at what students are being asked to do, what they are actually learning, and how instruction changes in response to that data.

# data[].attributes.body
The question the Knight reading raised for me, and a question that I frequently think about during my experiences at work is: How do instructional leaders protect teacher agency while simultaneously maintaining non-negotiable expectations such as equitable access and student learning?

# data[].attributes.body
"If you can't see if in the core, it's not there." (City et al., 2009, p.27)

This quote stuck with me because over this year and next our District is mandating that all schools adopt district chosen curricula. With out well planned and continued systematic role out, schools may spend significant amounts of time on professional learning with the potential that it won't actually change the student's instructional experiences. Our instructional coaches and leadership will have to continually ask what is actually changing for the teacher and students, not just if the curricula is being implemented.

# data[].attributes.body
How might instructional coaching work across departments at the high school level?

# data[].attributes.body
"Few teachers have the man-

date, the training, or the tools to pause when significant numbers of

students are below mastery and fix what they don’t understand before

the gap widens even more. (Marshall 2024, p. 180)

# data[].attributes.body
This is not necessarily something I would argue about, but rather forsee being a challenge is that sometimes older teachers are hesitant to change and new curriculum so how to we foster these trustful relationships with teachers who are hesitant? Like exactly forms these trustful and effective collaborative partnerships.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that the relationship between coaches and teachers is very important and stems from equitable collaboration and trust.

# data[].attributes.body
The authors are assuming that improved student learning stems from improving teacher practices which is a result of the relationship between teachers and coaches.

# data[].attributes.body
Oftentimes when a school is trying to make a change, it comes with more work from the teachers and staff. How do we strengthen the instructional core without putting more stress on teachers and encourage them buy into the process?

# data[].attributes.body
"One of the most important aspects of Instructional Coaching, as I define it,

is the theory behind the approach" (Knight, 2007, p. 31).

# data[].attributes.body
The authors are assuming that instructional coaching and observations should have the goal of improving student learning. While teachers and instructional coaches should have very deep knowledge of instruction and to be willing to share it to their coworkers.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that instructional coaching and evaluations are important. I agree that they should be used to improve the overall learning, not to rank and compare teachers. I also agree that it is important to have the understanding that all teachers are different. So each classroom and the way the subject material is taught will be different.

# data[].attributes.body
These texts aspire me to have feedback opportunities with the intention of improving student learning. As well as to build a community of trust and a culture of growing with each other. I want my staff to know they are needed and can improve with the help of each other.

# data[].attributes.body
When adjusting the curriculum, what is the best way to get the teachers input?

# data[].attributes.body
"Learning how to give direct, specific, nonattributive feedback is a skill

that every IC should develop and one that can be practiced and developed

daily until it becomes a habit of thought" (p.49)

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with City et al. (2009) that what students actually do at their desks predicts learning far better than written lesson plans (p. 30). I also share Marshall’s (2013) view that formal yearly evaluations rarely lead to better teaching (pp. 41–42), along with Knight’s (2007) point that real instructional change depends on teacher agency and choice (pp. 24–25). Where I hesitate is Marshall’s (2013) heavy reliance on 2–3 minute drop-ins, since visits that brief can easily produce shallow, surface-level feedback (pp. 42–43). I also question how easily schools can roll out Knight’s (2007) video reflection model (p. 89) or City et al.’s (2009) instructional rounds (p. 24), given the high levels of time and relational trust required. Moving forward, I aim to combine City et al.’s (2009) emphasis on non-judgmental observation (pp. 23–24), Marshall’s (2013) vision for collaborative teacher teams analyzing student work (p. 112), and Knight’s (2007) partnership coaching model to support meaningful professional growth (pp. 24–25).

# data[].attributes.body
The assumptions these authors make are centered on how teachers grow, how instruction changes, and how schools actually improve. City et al. (2009) assume that student learning depends directly on the instructional core (the dynamic relationship between teacher skill, content difficulty, and student involvement) and that what students are actually asked to do at their desks is what truly predicts how well they perform (p. 23). Building on this, Marshall (2013) assumes that traditional once-a-year teacher evaluations do not work, suggesting instead that short, unannounced classroom visits and teacher team meetings help everyone focus on whether students are actually learning rather than just covering material (pp. 41–43). Finally, Knight (2007) assumes that teachers need choices and a voice in their own growth rather than being told what to do, which is why video recordings of their lessons help them see their classrooms clearly and set better goals for their students (pp. 24–25).

# data[].attributes.body
"The primary purpose of supervision and evaluation is to improve student learning, not to rate and rank teachers." (Marshall, 2024, p. 15)

# data[].attributes.body
"When coaches adopt a partnership approach, they see teachers as equal partners in the coaching process, respecting their professionalism and expertise." (Knight, 2007, p. 24)

# data[].attributes.body
"There are only three ways to improve student learning at scale: increase the level of knowledge and skill that the teacher brings to the instruction; increase the level and complexity of the content that students are learning; and change the role of the student in the instructional process." (City et al., 2009, p. 24)

# data[].attributes.body
leKnight (2007) – Instructional Coaching: A Partnership Approach to Improving Instruction

Main Point:
Knight (2007) argues that instructional coaching is most effective when it is grounded in a partnership philosophy that values equality, choice, dialogue, reflection, praxis, and reciprocity. Teacher learning occurs through collaborative relationships rather than top-down supervision.

Quote: "I describe the theoretical framework for Instructional Coaching as a partnership approach, seeing coaching as a partnership between coaches and teachers" (Knight, 2007, p. 30).

# data[].attributes.body
I aspire to create a school culture where teachers view feedback and collaboration as opportunities for growth. By combining Knight’s partnership philosophy, City et al.’s focus on the instructional core, and Marshall’s emphasis on continuous improvement, I hope to lead a school where teachers and students are lifelong learners.

# data[].attributes.body
A challenge with these approaches is implementation. Coaching, instructional rounds, and frequent observations require time, resources, and trust. When leaders are also evaluators, teachers may hesitate to be vulnerable about their challenges, which can limit the effectiveness of coaching.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that instructional leadership should extend beyond evaluation and focus on teacher growth. Knight’s partnership model builds trust, City et al.’s focus on the instructional core keeps attention on student learning, and Marshall’s emphasis on ongoing feedback supports continuous improvement. As City et al. state, "task predicts performance" (p. 30), reminding leaders that what students actually do in classrooms shapes what they learn.

# data[].attributes.body
Knight (2007), City et al. (2009), and Marshall (2024) assume that improving teacher practice is essential for improving student learning. Knight emphasizes that coaching should be "a partnership between coaches and teachers" (p. 30), based on trust and collaboration. City et al. argue that "increases in student learning occur only as a consequence of improvements in the level of content, teachers' knowledge and skill, and student engagement" (p. 24). Marshall assumes that continuous feedback and reflection are necessary for teachers to improve.

# data[].attributes.body
Marshall (2024) argues that supervision should shift from infrequent, high-stakes evaluations to frequent mini-observations, coaching conversations, and continuous formative feedback that keeps student learning at the center of instructional improvement , "It's not enough for a teacher to teach; students need to learn" (Marshall, 2024, p. 159).

# data[].attributes.body
City et al. (2009) argue that school improvement depends on strengthening the instructional core—the relationship among the teacher, the student, and the content. Instructional rounds provide a structured process for educators to observe classrooms, analyze evidence, and improve instruction collectively "Task predicts performance" (City et al., 2009, p. 30).

# data[].attributes.body
Knight (2007) argues that instructional coaching is most effective when it is grounded in a partnership philosophy that values equality, choice, dialogue, reflection, praxis, and reciprocity. Teacher learning occurs through collaborative relationships rather than top-down supervision, "I describe the theoretical framework for Instructional Coaching as a partnership approach, seeing coaching as a partnership between coaches and teachers" (Knight, 2007, p. 30).