Field Supervision Matters. High-Impact Coaching & Feedback Matters Even More.

Focusing on What Matters Most for Candidate Readiness

Every child deserves an excellent educator. Let’s give them one.

During my time at Teaching Excellence at YES Prep Public Schools as an instructional coach and program leader, we were relentless about quality coaching & feedback for teacher candidates. We applied the same principles we used in coaching teachers to the feedback we provided to one another as coaches and leaders. Every observation and coaching cycle was hyper-focused on developing candidates and moving them along a structured developmental trajectory. There wasn’t a moment or opportunity wasted.

We drew heavily from the work of coaching experts like Jim Knight, Elena Aguilar, and Paul Bambrick-Santoyo—ensuring our coaching was:

• Focused, with clear criteria and modeling.
• Immediately actionable by the candidate.
• Tied to clear developmental goals.

Andrew Kwok's recent article in Education Week reinforces something we already knew: Field supervisors are critical, but often overlooked, players in candidate development. His article highlights that effective supervision isn’t just about providing feedback; it’s about providing the right feedback, at the right time, in a targeted and actionable way. That’s when feedback becomes “quality.”

Why So Many Programs Struggle

Despite the progress made by programs and states adopting coaching models like the Texas Instructional Leadership (TIL) Initiative, too many programs still struggle to implement these processes consistently. It comes down to operationalization.

Far too often, programs lack systems and structures that promote consistent development, implementation, and progress monitoring of coaching and feedback processes. This leads to inconsistency in the quality of feedback provided by coursework faculty and field supervisors.

What’s Needed

• Shared Vision & Coherent Program Design: Programs must establish a stakeholder-driven vision that aligns coursework, clinical experiences, and feedback cycles to create seamless candidate development trajectories​.
• Shared Instructional Frameworks: Faculty, supervisors, and mentor teachers must model and reinforce consistent instructional expectations across all candidate experiences, this includes both the instructional expectations for candidates (e.g. pedagogical practices, content-pedagogy practices) and teacher educator practices (e.g. coaching & feedback practices, labeling, modeling, establishing criteria, rehearsals, etc.)​.
• Structured Coaching & Feedback Cycles: High-impact observation and coaching models are essential to ensuring candidates receive consistent, evidence-based, and timely feedback that drives their growth​. 



EdPrep Partners’ Approach

At EdPrep Partners, we help educator preparation programs build emulatable, effective, and streamlined systems and structures that ensure every teacher educator—whether coursework faculty or clinical/field supervisors—provides quality oral & written feedback via structured observations & coaching cycles. These systems do not need to be complicated, rather effective and consistent. 

Our EPP Performance Framework and  14 Levers for Quality Teacher Preparation provide a comprehensive roadmap for strengthening teacher educator practices, enhancing coherence, and embedding sustainable systems for continuous improvement​.

If you haven’t already, be sure to read Andrew Kwok’s article in Education Week here: Preservice Teachers Need Better Feedback. Here’s How.

Let’s make teacher preparation better together.

Calvin J. Stocker 

Founder & CEO, EdPrep Partners