Coaching can have a positive impact on teachers’ instruction and students’ outcomes, research shows. But there is meaningful variability in both the scope and specifics of coaching initiatives that can lead to differences in impact. Is coaching scalable and effective with broad populations of schools?

A recent study took up this question as part of a larger five-year study of Michigan’s Read by Grade Three law enacted in 2016 to address concerns over students’ performance on state and national reading assessments. The study examined how literacy coaching was implemented and the extent to which it supported improvements in teachers’ instruction.

The study’s findings and recommendations are relevant far beyond Michigan, since more than half of U.S. states have adopted literacy coaching as part of their statewide reading reforms. The findings also add to the general body of research that increasingly demonstrates the power of coaching for instructional improvement.

The study

Wright, T.S. & Bruner, L. (2026). From policy to practice: Examining the implementation and impact of Michigan’s early literacy coaching initiative. American Educational Research Journal.

Michigan’s Read by Grade Three law, which the authors call “one of the most comprehensive literacy reform efforts in the United States,” put in place a broad set of resources and initiatives to support research-aligned instructional practices in K-3 classrooms and boost educator retention and support. It included an initial $3 million investment in early literacy coaching that was strategically expanded, reaching $42 million annually by 2023-24 and supporting 362 coaching positions statewide.

One goal of this research was to understand how coaching and implementation across districts aligned with the state’s best practice guidelines for evidence-based literacy instruction as developed by a Michigan early literacy task force. As outlined in the guidance, the coaching should be content-specific, classroom-based, and focused on improving instructional practices with the goal of increasing student achievement.

 Methodology

The researchers used a multimethod design to examine the implementation of literacy coaching during the 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23 school years. Data sources included 1,300 weekly coaching logs, interviews with coaches, and approximately 316 hours of videos of classroom instruction. Observations were coded using two rating scales, a commonly used research measure called the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO K-3) and one developed by the researchers to align with the state’s Essential Practices in Early Literacy guide.

The study included 89 K-3 teachers from 18 public school districts across the state (urban, suburban, and rural) who had an average of 13.3 years of classroom experience. Teachers were matched in pairs by grade level and teaching experience, with one teacher in each pair randomly assigned to engage in literacy coaching and the other assigned to a waitlist comparison group (delayed coaching). The 18 participating early literacy coaches were funded through the state law and working as part of 16 intermediate school districts, which are geographically based administrative structures that provide specialized support and services to districts. Coaches had an average of nine years of classroom teaching experience and 7.8 years of coaching experience and participated in ongoing professional learning and collaboration with other coaches.

The research questions included:

• To what extent did coaching enhance teachers’ use of research-aligned literacy instructional practices compared to a waitlist comparison group?
• What did coaches report regarding the content, processes, and dosage in their work with teachers?
• What opportunities and challenges did coaches encounter?

Findings

Instructional practices

Teachers in the coaching group made significantly more improvement in literacy practices than the waitlist control group on both measurement tools and all subscales. The effect sizes were modest, but the findings were statistically significant.

On the literacy essentials protocol, coached teachers gained an average of 1.3 points from fall to spring while teachers in the control group showed no improvement. On the ELLCO K-3, coached teachers increased their scores by an average of 0.3 points from fall to spring while the control group showed no change.

The effect size for the ELLCO K-3 classroom environment subscale was small but significant, which suggested coaching had a modest positive influence on classroom organization and materials, instructional routines, and responsiveness to diverse learning needs. The effect size for the ELLCO K-3 literacy and language subscale was medium, which suggested coaching accounted for a meaningful proportion of teachers’ increased implementation of strategies related to letter-sound relationships, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and writing.

Coaching processes, content, and structure

Understanding the implementation of the coaching is key to making sense of the positive impacts.

The average individual coaching time reported was 1,370 minutes (22.8 hours) during the school year. However, the total amount of time coaches dedicated to individual teachers varied from 220 minutes (3.7 hours) to 3,555 minutes (59.3 hours) over the year.

According to coaching logs, coaches spent almost 75% of their time working directly with teachers rather than on indirect or administrative tasks. The logs reported coaches observing, modeling, and co-teaching 38.1% of the time, conferencing with teachers 30.2% of the time, and engaging in relationship-building activities 5.2% of the time. They used multiple coaching processes in the same coaching session 56% of the time. 

Coaching sessions focused primarily (78.3% of the time) on content aligned with the state’s Essential Practices in Early Literacy guide. This work with teachers included small-group instruction (e.g., reading or writing lessons delivered in small groups; 28.4%) and writing instruction (24.7%). Coaches were least likely to work on supporting vocabulary and content knowledge (3.9%), building phonological awareness (2.5%), or collaborating with families (0.5%). Of note, coaching processes that did not align with practices in the essentials guide were minimal.

Conditions that enabled coaching

Coaches reported almost unanimously that ongoing professional learning and collaboration with colleagues was beneficial for their implementation of high-quality literacy coaching practices, with many noting it helped them continuously improve.

Coaches reported that research-aligned, high-quality instructional materials supported and enhanced their coaching. Conversely, “scarce or insufficient” materials created challenges.

They also identified the presence (or absence) of school- or districtwide literacy goals, administrator support, and role clarity as key factors in implementation. Many reported a challenge of being pulled into other roles and tasks, taking away from their coaching focus and time. The researchers emphasize, in both the framing of their study and the analysis, that “clearly defining coaching processes is essential in large-scale initiatives to ensure a cohesive and coordinated set of actions for coaches to implement.”

System-level support from school personnel such as curriculum directors enabled coaches to focus their time and resources on instructional improvement. School and district culture regarding coaching likewise either enabled or restricted the ability of coaches to focus on instructional improvement. Sites with experience in supporting the coaching relationship, aligning to professional learning, and incorporating coaching cycles fared better.

Alignment with the Standards for Professional Learning

The study’s findings align with and lend further support to Learning Forward’s Standards for Professional Learning. The instructional practice findings are consistent with the Learning Designs, Implementation, and Professional Expertise standards, which describe the types of high-quality professional learning that lead to improved outcomes. Findings about the specific factors that enhance or hinder coaching are highly consistent with the Leadership, Culture of Collaborative Inquiry, and Curriculum, Assessment, and Instruction standards. All the findings underscore the importance of drawing on research, as outlined in the Evidence standard, and of making strategic investments, as described in the Resources standard.

The researchers sum up the findings by saying, “Instructional change is possible when coaching support is well aligned with research and clearly defined.” Their study makes an important contribution by showing that coaching can be effective at scale with the right resources and research basis, while highlighting the nuances and conditions of implementation that make positive impact possible.

Download pdf here.