The classic instructional coaching cycle is a cornerstone of professional growth: a trusted coach observes a lesson, they meet for a reflective post-conference, and together they plan next steps. This model is valuable, but it often leaves one critical gap: the gap between the conference room and the classroom. Even with the best intentions, the teacher is often left alone to translate that new strategy into practice.
This is where a good system can stall. The result can become a “compliance trap” where the structures of coaching are in place, but instructional reality doesn’t change. In co-taught classrooms, for instance, we often see this manifest as the persistent “one teach, one assist” model—not from a lack of will, but because teachers haven’t had a supported, real-time opportunity to try something new.
This implementation gap is exactly what I’ve been focusing on in my own coaching. I recently worked with a teacher on a new digital literacy lesson, and we moved through the entire GRR cycle in one lesson. We co-planned and then taught the lesson together through co-teaching. to begin the lesson, I started by modeling (“I do”) of how to access the listening comprehension activity and then conduct a choral chant on the computer themed vocabulary before they began listening to the vocabulary words uses in phrases. We quickly transitioned to a “One Teach, One Support” model where he took the instructional lead, and I assisted, giving him a low-stakes way to practice in real-time the same instructional sequence. This time, he re-taught that same sequence of the lesson.
Ultimately, the gradual release was clear. I used a similar, single-session approach with another teacher supporting multilingual learners. I first modeled how to use the curriculum (“I do”). Then, we immediately shifted into our “We do” phase, using “Team Teaching” for several active listening activities. By the end of that same lesson, he was confidently leading the instruction (“You do”), with me stepping back into a “One Teach, One Support” role to assist students and observe
The How: Rehearsal through Co-Teaching
So, how do we close that implementation gap? We do it by introducing a critical, often-missing component: rehearsal. Teaching, like acting or athletics, is a performance. To master a new move, professionals need a structured, safe environment to practice with an expert, receive immediate feedback, and refine their technique before the “live performance” with students. This is precisely what a coach can provide by being in the room not just as an observer, but as a teaching partner.
What if we moved coaching from the sidelines to the shoulder? I advocate for an instructional coaching model that does just that: positioning co-teaching as the primary vehicle for instructional coaching. This does not replace the coaching cycle; it supercharges the implementation phase by building rehearsal directly into the lesson. It reframes the well-known Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) model as a coaching framework delivered inside the classroom, not just discussed outside of it.
The GRR Coaching Framework
In a teaching context, the Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) is a time-tested framework for moving from teacher-led instruction to student independence (Fisher & Frey, 2013). When adapted for coaching, it becomes a powerful scaffold for building teacher capacity and confidence, echoing mentorship models like the Gradual Increase of Responsibility (GIR) framework (Collet, 2012).
The coaching cycle looks like this:
- “I Do” (The Coach Models): The instructional coach models a full lesson or strategy while the teacher observes.
- “We Do” (Coach and Teacher Co-Teach): The coach and teacher plan and teach the lesson together, sharing instructional responsibility.
- “You Do” (The Teacher Leads): The teacher takes the lead on instruction, having internalized the new strategies, while the coach steps back to provide support or observation .
The “We Do” phase is the most critical and, in traditional coaching, the most underdeveloped. It’s where trust is built through shared work and where the deepest on-the-job learning occurs. But what does this “We Do” phase actually look like?
This is where we fuse coaching with specific, defined co-teaching strategies.
The “We Do” in Action: Coaching Through Co-Teaching
Instead of just talking about a strategy, the instructional coach steps into the classroom as a true partner. Here are three co-teaching strategies that are perfect vehicles for the “We Do” coaching phase.
1. Graze-and-Tag Teaching This is the ideal entry point for the “We Do” phase. In this model, one educator leads instruction while the other “grazes” the room, monitoring student understanding. The magic happens with the “tag”: the educators shift roles, with the grazing teacher “tagging in” to add a new concept, ask a clarifying question, or model the next step. For example, the instructional coach can start the lesson (“I do”). Then, at a planned transition, they “tag” the teacher to take over for the next segment. This allows the teacher to practice a small, manageable chunk of the new strategy with immediate, in-the-moment support from the coach, who is still actively engaged in the lesson.
2. Parallel Teaching This is the ultimate “We Do” strategy. After co-planning the lesson, the coach and teacher divide the class into two heterogeneous groups and deliver the same lesson simultaneously. This co-teaching strategy is a powerful rehearsal tool. It immediately lowers the stakes for the teacher, who is now working with a smaller, more manageable group, providing more opportunities for student participation. Both educators share the “live performance,” and because they delivered the same content, their post-lesson debrief is incredibly rich. They can compare notes, discuss what worked, and refine the lesson from a place of shared, immediate experience.
3. One Teach, One Support This strategy serves as the bridge from “We Do” to “You Do.” In this model, one educator takes the primary instructional lead while the other provides targeted support to individuals or small groups (Karge, 2015). As the teacher becomes more confident (“You Do”), they take on the lead teaching role. The instructional coach then intentionally transitions into the “One Support” role. This is far more effective than simply observing. The instructional coach is still an active participant, providing “just in time” support, modeling for small group instruction, or gathering formative assessment data that the partnership can analyze together immediately after the lesson.
Besides these co-teaching strategies, there are a wide variety of co-teaching strategies that can be incorporated into this instructional coaching framework. They are highlighted in Dr. Karge and my book Co-Teaching Evolved. We apply them directly to co-teaching, in general. However, they can be utilized as outlined above for the gradual release of instructional co-teaching using co-teaching as the delivery method of the instructional coaching.
How to Start: A Practical Guide for School Leaders and Coaches
For instructional coaches and school leaders, implementing this model requires a significant cultural and structural shift. It begins with culture: publicly and persistently reframing the coach’s role. We must move them from perceived evaluators or consultants to genuine partners in practice. This isn’t just semantics; it’s the foundation of trust.
But trust alone doesn’t get the work done. The shift must be supported by the school’s very structure for instructional improvement. This model is impossible without shared planning time. As school leaders, we must be willing to engineer a master schedule that provides regular, protected, and sacred co-planning time for our coaching partnerships.
With time and trust established, the conversation can change. We must be explicit with our teacher partners about the process. Frame the partnership using the Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) model . A coach can now say, “My goal is to support you, not just observe. Let’s plan this new unit together. For the first lesson, how about I model it (the ‘I do’)? Then, for the next one, we can try Parallel Teaching (our ‘We do’). By the end of the cycle, you’ll be leading it, and I’ll be here to support (the ‘You do’) .”
Conclusion
This form of instructional coaching champions the idea that teaching is a performance that, like any high-skill profession, requires rehearsal. The “We Do” phase is the rehearsal. It’s the low-stakes, supported opportunity for a teacher to practice new or the refinement of instructional strategies with the instructional coach right there, building competence and confidence.
As leaders, we must therefore encourage our coaches to focus on the “We Do”—to spend less time observing from the back and more time teaching alongside their colleagues. This active, collaborative phase, facilitated by dynamic strategies like Graze-and-Tag or Station Teaching, is the true engine of professional growth. Furthermore, it reminds us that the most effective, lasting instructional coaching doesn’t happen in a conference room. It happens “in the moment,” shoulder-to-shoulder with a trusted partner, in the complex and dynamic environment of the classroom teaching together in tandem through a variety of co-teaching strategies to ultimately then release the teacher to teach independently with a high degree of proficiency and confidence.
Key Takeaways for School Leaders and Instructional Coaches
- Reframe the Role: Shift the perception of instructional coaches from observers or evaluators to active co-teachers and partners in practice.
- Structure for Success: This model cannot be an add-on. It requires leaders to intentionally engineer master schedules that provide regular, protected, and shared planning time for coaching partnerships.
- Use GRR as the Coaching Model: Explicitly frame the coaching cycle as “I do (coach models), We do (we co-teach), You do (teacher leads)” to create a clear, scaffolded path for teacher growth .
- Make Rehearsal the Norm: Treat teaching as a performance. Use the “We Do” phase as a low-stakes, job-embedded rehearsal to build teacher competence and confidence with new strategies before they implement them independently .
- Use Co-Teaching as the Vehicle: The “We Do” phase is best implemented through specific co-teaching strategies. Use “Graze-and-Tag” or “Parallel Teaching” as the practical way to share responsibility and provide in-the-moment feedback.
- Build Trust Through Shared Work: The ultimate goal is to accelerate teacher development. This happens most effectively when trust is built through shared work in the classroom, not just through conversation in a conference room.
References
Collet, V. S. (2012). The gradual increase of responsibility model: Coaching for teacher change. Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27–47.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2013). Gradual release of responsibility instructional framework. ASCD.
Rhoads, M., Karge., B. (2025). Co-Teaching Evolved: Partnership Strategies for an Equitable, Inclusive, and Tech Powered Classroom. Solution Tree Press
Karge, B. D. (2015). Engage co-teach: Eleven co-teaching strategies. Discovery Source.
Navigating the Present and Future of Education 