Bridging the Gap: Combining Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches for Lasting Change in Schools

When it comes to professional development in schools, many leaders default to a top-down approach. They create a clear vision of effective instruction, conduct workshops to disseminate those ideas, and implement checklists and walkthroughs to monitor compliance. While well-intentioned, this approach often undermines morale and silences teacher voices, leading to mere compliance rather than genuine commitment. Teachers may go through the motions of implementing strategies they don’t believe in, resulting in half-hearted efforts and minimal impact on student learning.

Research shows that commitment to change comes when educators have an emotionally compelling reason to act. Without follow-up support, such as coaching, and collaborative problem-solving, even the most promising strategies often fail in practice. Additionally, success in top-down models is typically measured by strategy implementation, rather than what truly matters: student engagement, achievement, and well-being.

An alternative is a bottom-up approach that starts with students. Coaches and teachers work together to identify student needs, set goals, and implement strategies collaboratively. This approach prioritizes student outcomes and empowers teachers to adapt strategies to their unique contexts. However, it isn’t without challenges. Without a shared, evidence-based instructional framework, educators might struggle to identify effective strategies. Additionally, this approach will likely lead to a lack of coherence across classrooms.

The most effective solution combines both approaches. A top-down framework, like Bryan Goodwin’s The New Classroom Instruction That Works, provides research-based guidance on how students learn best and how teachers can maximize their impact. Simultaneously, a bottom-up process, such as the Impact Cycle described in The Definitive Guide to Instructional Coaching, empowers teachers to set meaningful goals, adopt evidence-based strategies, and adapt them to their needs with the support of a coach.

By integrating these approaches, schools can achieve both coherence and individualized support. Coaches become the bridge, helping teachers translate research into impactful classroom practices guided by the needs of their students. In February, I’ll be leading a four-day institute with Bryan, where participants will learn how to use personalized instructional coaching practices, skills, beliefs and processes to support implementation Goodwin’s comprehensive instructional model to create lasting change in schools—change that centers on what matters most: student success.