In schools, differentiation is our most sophisticated "playbook." Yet coaching on Tier 1 differentiation strategies during back-to-school season is often relegated to only new teacher orientation, while experienced teachers are left to rely on what they learned in teacher preparation programs or one-and-done "drive-by PD" from an in-service day a few years ago (Tomlinson, 2014). The result: inconsistent Tier 1 instruction at a time when student needs have never been more varied (Brown-Chidsey & Bickford, 2016).
According to the 2024 NAEP results, fewer than half of students are proficient in reading or math. Only 31% of 4th graders are proficient in reading, while 39% of 4th graders and 28% of 8th graders meet proficiency in mathematics (NCES, 2024a; NCES, 2024b). This year, our teachers will face a plethora of unexpected challenges on the instructional gridiron. For principals taking charge of schools this month, their faculty teams resemble NFL rosters—rookies, veterans, and specialists—all in need of tailored Tier 1 coaching to meet the needs of their students.
Without consistent coaching, teachers default to one-size-fits-all instruction. Students struggle, Tier 2 interventions multiply, and principals wonder why MTSS isn't working. The answer isn't more programs—it's more precise and frequent principal coaching.
Principals as Sideline Coaches, Not Evaluators
Great NFL coaches don't sit in the press box grading film while the game unfolds. They're on the sidelines, reading defenses, adjusting calls, and encouraging players in real time.
For two decades, The Wallace Foundation's research has evidenced this approach: student achievement rises when principals focus on instruction, climate, and teacher development rather than evaluation (Grissom et al., 2021). Every minute spent in compliance meetings is a minute not spent coaching teachers—who are the difference makers in student growth and proficiency. Districts must protect principal time for the work that actually moves student achievement.
The Scouting Report
The 2024 NAEP data paints the picture: Only 31% of 4th graders are proficient in reading, while 39% of 4th graders and 28% of 8th graders meet proficiency in mathematics (NCES, 2024a; NCES, 2024b; Hattie, 2023).
For an average 2025 classroom of 25 students, teachers may encounter 9 students below grade level proficiency, 8 on grade level, and 8 above. Like an NFL roster, every classroom has different positions, skills, and readiness levels. Running the same play for every student is like calling the same offensive formation against every defense. Differentiation becomes the playbook that principals and teachers must study and execute together.
Four Coaching Questions Every Principal Should Ask Teachers
Research demonstrates that differentiated instruction requires specific strategies with proven effect sizes—reciprocal teaching (d = 0.74), project-based learning (d = 0.71), and comprehensive differentiation approaches when multiple elements are combined (Hattie, 2023; Chen & Yang, 2019). Great coaching happens in conversations, not evaluations. In my experience, we need to stop relying on formal observations and post-observation conferences to try to have an impact on Tier 1. These four non-evaluative coaching questions empower principals to transform how teachers think about their mixed-level classrooms.
1. "What's the composition of your classroom right now?"
Help teachers study their roster using universal screening data, language proficiency reports, and social-emotional indicators. This comprehensive analysis reveals not just academic readiness but also interests, learning profiles, and cultural backgrounds that inform differentiation decisions (Brown-Chidsey & Bickford, 2016).
I once sat with a 5th grade teacher whose roster looked challenging—ten students two grade levels behind, six on level, and a handful already mastering middle school math. She sighed and said, "I don't even know where to start."
Instead of focusing on lesson planning and a daunting scope and sequence, we mapped her students by readiness levels and created three entry points into the same standard. By the next unit, she said it felt less like teaching three separate classes in one room and more like coaching one team with different positions.
Spend 15 minutes with one teacher each day reviewing their class composition data. Ask: "If this were a sports team, what positions would your players fill?" Create a simple visualization together that communicates the true composition of her classroom.
2. "How are you grouping students, and what are you basing those decisions on?"
Strategic grouping represents one of the most powerful differentiation tools, but only when based on clear data and purpose (Tomlinson, 2014). Skills level and scaffolding needs should fundamentally influence grouping decisions. As Shanahan (2025) posits in Leveled Reading, Leveled Lives, rigid ability grouping based solely on reading level can inadvertently limit students' exposure to grade-appropriate content and complex thinking. However, strategic homogeneous grouping for targeted skill instruction allows teachers to provide precise scaffolding—struggling readers working with decodable texts while developing the same comprehension strategies that advanced readers apply to complex literature (Hattie, 2023).
For collaborative problem-solving and content exploration, heterogeneous grouping leverages peer learning and diverse perspectives while ensuring no student carries the entire cognitive load (DuFour et al., 2016). The key is matching grouping decisions to learning objectives: skills-based instruction benefits from homogeneous groups with appropriate scaffolds, while conceptual understanding and application thrive in heterogeneous configurations. Coach teachers to use homogeneous grouping for targeted skill scaffolding and heterogeneous grouping for collaboration, grade-level text experience, and problem-solving.
I'll never forget a 7th-grade ELA classroom where one group had quietly become "the low table"—same kids, same spot, every day. When we looked at formative data, several students were ready for grade-level work.
We redesigned the lesson using flexible grouping: first moving students into skill-based groups for scaffolding, then into mixed groups where every student encountered grade-level text. Students who had been stuck at the low table were suddenly teaching peers.
Walk into one classroom and observe groupings. Ask the teacher: "How did you decide on these groups? When will they change?" Help them plan a flexible grouping strategy for this week. Design a jigsaw lesson together that leverages heterogeneous and homogeneous groups.
3. "How are you differentiating for content, process, and product?"
Tomlinson's (2014) framework provides structure for systematic differentiation across three critical dimensions. Coach teachers to vary instruction through multiple ways to access content, different processes to engage with learning, and varied ways to demonstrate mastery.
Focus on four high-impact strategies with proven effect sizes:
- Station Rotation: Targeted small-group instruction while others work independently and/or collaboratively—research shows positive effects when implementing explicit instruction principles (d = 0.57) in small group settings (Hattie, 2023; Tucker, 2025).
- Jigsaw Method: Students flex between expert and home groups, doing a deep dive into content and skills, and eventually teaching others. Meta-analysis shows moderate positive effects but with significant variability across contexts (d = 0.20-0.59 depending on implementation), emphasizing the importance of proper structure and teacher facilitation (Stanczak, 2023).
- Reciprocal Teaching: Peer-led text encounter strategies (d = 0.74) that work in all content areas using predicting, questioning, and summarizing techniques (Palincsar & Brown, 1984).
- Project-Based Learning: Students tackle authentic problems (d = 0.71) through varied approaches and demonstrate learning mastery through varied products of learning (Chen & Yang, 2019).
During a classroom walk-through, I watched a teacher launch station rotation for the first time. Within five minutes, two groups were humming and one was stuck. She glanced at me like a quarterback looking to the sideline for the next play. We made a quick adjustment: cut the task in half and add sentence starters. Within minutes, the group was back in the game.
Pick one strategy and model it with a teacher. Don't just explain it—do it together. Debrief what worked and what needs adjusting. Ask the students about the experience.
4. "How is your differentiation strengthening relationships?"
Push for reflection on how instructional choices affect classroom trust and belonging. Effective differentiation communicates to every student: "I see you, I believe in you" (Hammond, 2014).
Coach teachers to reflect on how their differentiation choices demonstrate care and high expectations (Hattie, 2023). When teachers provide scaffolded materials for struggling readers, they communicate belief in student potential. When they offer choice in demonstration methods, they honor student strengths.
A principal once told me about a student who had never raised her hand in math. When the teacher offered a choice—solve through a diagram, written explanation, or short video—the student picked the video. She not only solved the problem, she taught it. The teacher said, "That was the first time I saw her believe she was good at math."
Ask a teacher to identify one student who seems disengaged. Brainstorm together how differentiation choices communicate to students a sense of belonging and that they can each succeed. How do lesson activities develop relationships between students and between the student and the teacher?
Creating Time for the Sideline
NFL coaches schedule daily player-centered film sessions, position drills, and scheme walk-throughs. Too often, our principals' calendars are filled with compliance meetings instead of coaching and practicing alongside their players— the teachers. Research from the Visible Learning MetaX (2024) database shows that teacher estimates of achievement (d = 1.29) ranks among the most powerful influences on learning when combined with differentiated and formative assessment practices.
To build winning teams, districts need to protect principal time for coaching cycles, classroom visits, and PLC huddles. Principals cannot celebrate teachers who adapt instruction based on student data if they are never around to see it executed (Brown-Chidsey & Bickford, 2016).
When principals coach in real time—helping a teacher regroup during station rotation or refine questioning—the impact multiplies. This is sideline coaching, not clipboard evaluation.
Sample Principal's Tier 1 Coaching Plan
- Monday: Map one teacher's classroom composition together. Create a visual of student readiness levels.
- Tuesday: Observe and adjust one grouping strategy with a teacher. Focus on making groups flexible and purposeful to target skills.
- Wednesday: Model one differentiation strategy (content, process, product) alongside a teacher. Station rotation is a great starting point.
- Thursday: Have relationship-focused conversations. Huddle with a grade-level PLC and ask how differentiation is helping every student feel seen and capable?
- Friday: Review non-academic (attendance, behavior, and engagement) trends and ask teachers to relate how these trends are manifesting in their classrooms. Discuss how PBL may help address areas of concern.
- Every Week: Protect at least 60 minutes for coaching conversations. Ask teachers to invite you to stop in for a visit to be a second set of eyes as they try out a new strategy. This informal coaching is where real change happens. It's also how teachers feel supported by a Principal Coach who leads with empathy and models instructional leadership.
The Promise of What's Possible
The NAEP data isn't a judgment—it's the scouting report. Every mixed-ability classroom represents a chance for coaching breakthroughs.
Districts like Chicago and Houston show dramatic gains when leaders make differentiation of their core playbook. Chicago saw Black male proficiency jump 10.7 percentage points, leading Harvard and Stanford researchers to recognize CPS as tops among large urban districts in pandemic reading recovery. Houston reduced failing schools from 121 to 18 in just two years—an 85% improvement that state officials called "historic."
NFL coaches don't win by running one scheme; they win by adjusting, motivating, and coaching relentlessly. The same applies to principals.
This back-to-school season, let's stop treating principals as evaluators in the press box. Put them on the sidelines, calling plays with teachers, adjusting in real time, and coaching every classroom toward Tier 1 excellence.
Dr. Robert R. Zywicki is the Superintendent in Residence at Rutgers University's Center for Effective School Practices and a Senior Director with Renaissance Learning. He is the author of the forthcoming All Paths Lead to Graduation: Fulfilling the Promise of an Education in America, published by the MTSS Leadership Network.
References
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Bickford, R. (2016). Practical handbook of multi-tiered systems of support: Building academic and behavioral success in schools. Guilford Press.
Chen, C. H., & Yang, Y. C. (2019). Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students' academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educational Research Review, 26, 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.12.001
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T. W., & Mattos, M. (2016). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (3rd ed.). Solution Tree Press.
Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. The Wallace Foundation.
Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin Press.
Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel: A synthesis of over 2,100 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2024a). 2024 NAEP reading assessment: Results at grades 4 and 8 for the nation, states, and districts. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/reading/2024/g4_8/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2024b). 2024 NAEP mathematics assessment: Results at grades 4 and 8 for the nation, states, and districts. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/mathematics/2024/g4_8/
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
Shanahan, T. (2025). Leveled reading, leveled lives: How students' reading achievement has been held back and what we can do about it. Harvard Education Press.
Stanczak, A. (2023). Effects of the Jigsaw method on student educational outcomes: systematic review and meta-analyses. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1216437. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1216437
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD.
Tucker, C. R. (2025). The Station Rotation Model and UDL: Elevate Tier 1 Instruction and Cultivate Learner Agency. Impress.
Visible Learning MetaX. (2024). Global database of educational research effect sizes. Corwin Visible Learning.
