Coaching Should Develop Judgement, Not Just Practice

If coaching changes a teacher’s practice but does not strengthen their professional judgement, what has it really developed?

I have often heard several misconceptions about coaching in schools: that it is mainly for struggling teachers, that it is a form of evaluation, that the same approach should work for everyone, that it sits separately from school priorities, or that its impact should be immediate.

Although these ideas are different, they share an assumption that can quietly undermine the work. They position the teacher as the recipient of improvement rather than as a professional who actively contributes to it.

Teacher agency is not simply about motivation or giving people more choice. It is part of teacher professionalism.

Professionals are expected to exercise informed judgement, engage with evidence, collaborate with others, respond to feedback and take responsibility for the impact of their decisions. Agency is the capacity to do that work. Professional judgement cannot develop if teachers are only expected to implement someone else’s answer.

That does not mean teachers work independently, decide whether shared priorities apply to them or choose practices according to personal preference. Professional agency sits within curriculum expectations, agreed school priorities and responsibility for student learning.

Effective coaching gives teachers a genuine role in identifying the problem worth working on, examining evidence, setting goals, testing strategies and deciding what to refine next. It combines agency with challenge, support and accountability.

A strong coach does not simply affirm whatever a teacher already believes. Coaching should introduce evidence, question assumptions, provide feedback and help teachers confront the gap between intention and impact. But that is very different from arriving with a predetermined answer and steering the teacher towards it.

Daniel Pink’s ideas about autonomy, mastery and purpose provide a useful lens. People are more likely to remain motivated when they have meaningful influence over their work, can see themselves becoming more capable and understand why the work matters.

When coaching is experienced as surveillance, remediation or the implementation of someone else’s preferred technique, teachers may comply. But compliance is not the same as professional growth.

When coaching combines shared direction with meaningful teacher agency, teachers are supported to understand a practice, test it in context, evaluate its impact and take responsibility for their continued improvement.

Every coaching model carries an implicit view of teachers.

Does yours treat teachers as professionals capable of examining evidence, exercising judgement and improving their own practice, or as implementers waiting to be shown the “right” way?