Perverse incentives? A cautionary tale about coaching evaluation 

Teacher evaluation has been a hot topic in education research over the past decade (Berliner, 2018; Close, Amrein-Beardsley, & Collins, 2019; Darling-Hammond et al., 2012). However, few studies have examined how best to evaluate the instructional coaches who support teachers. While practitioner-focused books (Killion & Harrison, 2006) and reports (Kowal & Steiner, 2007) have begun to address this important topic, additional empirical research is needed.  

In our recent coaching study, we partnered with two instructional coaches (Meg and Claire, both pseudonyms, like all names in this article) and five teachers to understand the kinds of discursive learning opportunities that teachers engage in during one-on-one coaching (Saclarides & Lubienski, 2018b, Saclarides & Lubienski, 2018c). As we conducted our study, it became apparent that several administrative policies and expectations exerted a powerful influence on the coaches (Saclarides & Lubienski, 2018a; Saclarides & Lubienski, in press). Here, we focus on one such policy — the Evaluation Tool (ET) — which was a new evaluation system for both teachers and coaches in our partner district.  

Our study took place in a midsize urban district — which we will call Midtown — serving a socioeconomically and racially diverse student population (35% White/non-Latinx, 36% Black, 12% Latinx, 9% Asian, and 8% other). One full-time instructional coach was assigned to each school, and their primary responsibility was to provide individual as well as group professional development that would help teachers improve their instruction.