AJE Feature | The Labor Market Trajectories of Tennessee Instructional Coaches and Teacher Peer Observers by Christopher Redding & Seth B. Hunter

The full-length American Journal of Education article by Redding & Hunter can be accessed here

Opportunities for formal teacher leadership roles have increased in recent years, including forms of teacher leadership explicitly focused on instructional improvement (Donaldson et al. 2008; Wenner and Campbell 2017). Two prominent teacher leadership roles include instructional coaches (ICs) and teacher peer observers (TPOs). Though IC and TPO programs have spread widely throughout the United States (Coburn and Woulfin 2012; Desimone and Pak 2017), hurdles remain in their ongoing scale-up. 

One underexamined challenge to scaling up IC and TPO programs concerns their labor market conditions (Kraft et al. 2018). Despite the theoretical importance of labor markets to the effective scale-up of IC and TPO programs, we are unaware of any large-scale quantitative study documenting mobility patterns. This study’s purpose is to fill this gap by describing the extent to which ICs and TPOs remain in their school, move schools, leave teaching, or become a school administrator relative to classroom teachers.

While this topic has not been the explicit focus of previous studies, there are reasons to believe IC or TPO mobility patterns differ from classroom teacher patterns (Smylie and Denny, 1990). Yet, competing conceptual frameworks characterizing IC and TPO mobility patterns make the direction of these a priori relationships somewhat ambiguous. Filling an instructional coaching or peer observer role might provide talented teachers the opportunity to make broader contributions to their school outside of their classroom, thereby improving job satisfaction and the likelihood they remain in the same school and teacher labor market (we characterize ICs and TPOs as belonging to the teacher labor market; Donaldson et al. 2008; Johnson and Donaldson 2004; Wenner and Campbell 2017). Alternatively, ICs and TPOs may move schools at higher rates than classroom teachers if holding these roles adds stress from having to negotiate competing professional responsibilities (Galey, 2016; Mangin 2009; Mudzimiri et al. 2014). District leaders might also move coaches within a district strategically to share instructional expertise across schools equitably. Finally, while some teachers may take on IC or TPO roles to maintain their connection to classrooms and their school, others may treat these opportunities as a step toward school administration (Goldring et al. 2021); principals may even use these roles to foster talented teachers whom they think will become effective school leaders (Myung et al. 2011). 

The scholarly significance of this study is threefold. First, it describes the mobility patterns of ICs and TPOs in Tennessee, a state at the forefront of recent efforts to broaden coaching opportunities. Second, by exploring transitions into school administration, this study expands our understanding of the conditions affecting the principal pipeline and how instructionally oriented teacher leadership roles may be an important policy tool to diversify the principalship. Finally, we bring large-scale quantitative evidence to bear upon theories regarding IC and TPO mobility patterns and how they differ from classroom teacher mobility patterns.  

Research Methods

Using five years of administrative and survey data from Tennessee, we document the mobility of classroom teachers, ICs, and TPOs from one year to the next. These outcomes identify if a teacher, IC, or TPO remains in the same school, moves to a new school, becomes a school administrator, or leaves teaching. We conduct two sets of parallel analyses; one for ICs and one for TPOs.

To accomplish our primary aim of describing the ways in which IC and TPO labor market mobility patterns differ statistically from classroom teacher patterns, we begin with a descriptive analysis that analyzes overall mobility rates. We then disaggregate mobility rates by instructional role (i.e., full-time classroom teachers, ICs, and TPOs) and racial/ethnic-gender subpopulations (i.e., White female, White male, non-White female, and non-White male). Finally, we estimate a series of linear probability models controlling for observable differences among teachers and schools.

Findings

Our study yielded three overarching findings regarding the mobility of ICs and TPOs. First, ICs have a five-percentage point higher chance of moving schools than classroom teachers. Descriptively, TPOs move schools at similar rates as classroom teachers. However, when comparing TPOs to teachers in the same school in the same year, we find that TPOs have a one and a half percentage point higher chance of moving schools than classroom teachers. Second, the evidence did not consistently suggest that the rates by which ICs or TPOs exit teaching differs from classroom teachers. 

Third, ICs and TPOs were much more likely to become school administrators than classroom teachers. Indeed, TPO and IC trajectories into school administration were significantly and substantively different than classroom teachers, pointing to the ways in which IC and TPO roles might transform school administration pipelines. Descriptively, ICs and TPOs are more than 12 times more likely to become a school administrator (i.e., principal or assistant principal) than classroom teachers—an astounding difference. Moreover, regressions show that ICs and TPOs have at least a 5.5 percentage point higher chance of becoming a school administrator than staying in their current school relative to classroom teachers.

Although all coaches were more likely to become administrators than classroom teachers, there were notable differences by race and gender. Non-White female ICs and TPOs are roughly twice as likely to become a school administrator than White female ICs. Non-White male ICs and TPOs enter school administration at very high rates—15% of non-White male ICs and 19% of TPOs become an administrator in the next year.

Implications

Although the data preclude us from identifying the specific mechanisms driving this mobility, our literature review suggests some plausible explanations for these findings. The stress associated with negotiating competing professional responsibilities (Galey 2016; Mangin 2009; Mudzimiri et al. 2014), voluntary or involuntary sorting of ICs across schools to share their instructional expertise, and funding may all contribute to the higher rates of moving schools. 

Counter to the assertion that redesigning teachers’ work has the potential to retain talented teachers (Smylie and Denny 1990), we found little evidence of differences in leaving teaching between ICs, TPOs, and classroom teachers.

Our findings also imply that policymakers may be able to use ICs and TPOs to shape the principal pipeline, including strengthening the instructional expertise and increasing the racial diversity of the administrator corps. In addition to providing empirical evidence about the growing importance of these roles as a stepping stone into administrative positions, this finding raises larger questions about the theory of action behind the activities filled by ICs and TPOs (Galey 2016; Galey-Horn and Woulfin 2021; Mangin 2016; Mudzimiri et al. 2014). Though instructional coaching and peer observation have historically been conceived as a way to help improve teacher instruction in a non-supervisory, non-evaluative capacity (Smylie and Denny 1990; Showers and Joyce 1996), ICs and TPOs may increasingly fill quasi-administrative roles that make it easier to become school administrators.