Instructional coaches are often described as support, but that description does not fully capture the reality of the role. In most school organizational charts, the instructional coach is often represented by a dotted line, positioned somewhere between leadership and teaching without clearly defined authority. However, if you look at how schools actually function, the role looks very different. Instructional coaches sit between vision and implementation. They influence teaching and learning across an entire building, shaping instructional decisions and guiding practice. And yet, that leadership is rarely named.
One of the most important shifts we need to make is how we define leadership in schools. Coaching is not support work. It is leadership work. Instructional coaches shape instructional decisions, guide teacher practice, and support change across classrooms and grade levels. They hold the connection between what leaders want to see and what actually happens in practice. They are often the drivers of change, even when that leadership is not formally recognized. When leadership is defined only by title, we overlook the individuals who are actively moving the work forward.
This misunderstanding exists because many systems define leadership through positional authority. Titles such as principal, assistant principal, and district leader are often used as the primary markers of leadership. When leadership is tied only to title, it becomes difficult to recognize leadership that operates through influence rather than authority. Instructional coaches lead without formal authority. They influence without direct control. They guide change while maintaining relationships. This work is complex, and because it does not fit traditional definitions of leadership, it often goes unseen.
For many Black women instructional coaches, this dynamic becomes even more layered. In my research, I found a recurring pattern of hyper-visibility and invisibility. Coaches are often highly visible when there is a problem to solve or when immediate support is needed. However, when it comes to strategic conversations, decision-making, and high-level planning, that same level of visibility is not always present. This creates a tension between being relied on and being overlooked, between being trusted in practice and not always recognized in leadership.
This is exactly why I developed the BWIC Leadership Framework. Through my research on the lived experiences of Black women instructional coaches, five key dimensions emerged: identity, resilience, intellectual contribution, change agency, and community and belonging. These dimensions are not tasks to complete, but ways of understanding how leadership actually shows up in this role. They reflect how coaches navigate leadership, sustain themselves in complex environments, and continue to influence instruction in meaningful ways. More importantly, they provide language and structure for a role that is often left undefined.
When leadership is not clearly defined, it cannot be effectively supported. When instructional coaching is misunderstood, its impact is limited before the work even begins. Schools invest in coaching with the expectation that it will improve teaching and learning, but without clarity, alignment, and recognition of the role as leadership, that investment does not reach its full potential. Naming this work matters because when we name it, we can begin to support it more intentionally.
Instructional coaches are leading from the middle of our schools every day. The question is not whether leadership is happening. The question is whether we are willing to recognize it, support it, and build systems that allow it to thrive.
