NYC schools – New York City Public Schools is expanding executive coaching—including AI-supported options—to help central-office teams build clarity, agility and stronger culture after the pandemic.
New York City is built on connections: when central office teams function smoothly, school classrooms feel the impact.
In New York City Public Schools. where nearly 1 million students are served across more than 1. 800 schools. the distance between a central office desk and a second grade classroom can feel enormous—until it isn’t.. Miscommunication can slow down decisions; uncertainty can show up in how resources are allocated; and culture can either stabilize or strain the system.. That’s why NYC education leaders are leaning into a less visible but increasingly influential strategy: coaching for staff whose work largely happens out of public view.
The district’s approach. described by Tracie Benjamin-Van Lierop. Executive Director of Organizational Development. Talent and Culture. reflects a central tension in large urban systems after COVID-19: school-based staff have been in the spotlight. but the people behind the scenes still carry the operational weight.. In her view. the most significant pre-coaching challenge was not simply workload—it was the feeling that many central employees weren’t being “seen” during a period of shifting priorities and persistent uncertainty.
That context matters because central office teams are the engine room for budgets, policies, staffing systems and internal support.. When those teams lack stability or confidence in how to navigate difficult conversations, it doesn’t stay contained.. It can ripple outward into the tools school leaders rely on and the processes teachers depend on.. Coaching. in this frame. is less about fixing an individual problem and more about building organizational capacity—helping people develop skills that keep systems resilient when the next disruption arrives.
NYC’s coaching initiative began as a pilot partnership with BetterUp. offering both human- and AI-powered coaching options to central office employees.. In Benjamin-Van Lierop’s account. the early experience was mixed: she initially saw the time commitment as “just one more thing.” But her perspective changed after trying a few sessions and witnessing how coaching could be more than a checklist of skills.
A key shift. she says. was reframing coaching from something that could feel remedial or corrective to something people chose because it supported improvement in culture.. One employee story she highlighted followed a similar path—colleagues talked up their positive experiences. the employee tried coaching. and later saw professional momentum.. Role-playing. she explained. became especially important: it offered a “safe” space to practice respectful communication for difficult conversations. which can be hard to rehearse in real time—particularly in complex organizations where employees may feel stretched or cautious.
There are also practical signals that coaching was landing.. Benjamin-Van Lierop pointed to what she called “people vote with their feet,” suggesting participation shifted from obligation to preference.. She tied the change to observable work outcomes as well—stronger work products and tighter connections between central offices and schools. supported by clearer understanding of why the work matters.
Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) became part of the early coaching circle, according to the district.. For ERG leaders. who often balance leadership duties on top of full-time roles. coaching offered time for reflection and skill-building in a setting that can be emotionally demanding.. In human terms. that matters because ERG leadership frequently requires translating lived experience and advocacy into workplace communication that can influence policy culture and internal trust.. Coaching, in this sense, becomes a capacity tool for voice—helping leaders amplify perspectives while navigating organizational complexity.
The initiative also foregrounds a modern question many districts are grappling with: where does AI fit into coaching?. Benjamin-Van Lierop described an approach guided by comfort and generational preferences rather than ideology.. Some leaders tried AI coaching and preferred human sessions; others chose AI because it felt easier or less intimidating.. Even role-playing preferences differed—one colleague, for example, used an AI coach specifically for practice because it felt nonjudgmental.
Rather than treating AI as a replacement. NYC’s stance appears pragmatic: the district sees AI coaching as helpful when it supports the work that ultimately touches schools.. The implication is that districts may need to design coaching ecosystems that respect different learning styles, not just different devices.
Coaching, in her account, also changed her leadership style.. She described a more holistic transformation—especially in decision-making and intentionality—paired with a habit of questioning the stories people tell themselves.. That “curious” stance. she argued. helps leaders get closer to the heart of the matter rather than relying on assumptions built from incomplete information.
For districts considering similar investments, she offered three core recommendations.. First, make coaching voluntary, because programs that feel like correction can trigger resistance.. Second, treat coaching as effort, not a passive benefit—coaching requires partnership and action between sessions.. Third, use data from coaching relationships to track progress and adjust.
At a time when many school systems treat staff development as a “nice-to-have,” NYC’s experiment reframes coaching as infrastructure.. And in large districts. that idea may be hard to ignore: if the central office is part of the student experience. then stabilizing and strengthening its people isn’t extra—it’s operational.
College aid offers: the hidden cost math families can’t easily see
Free AI Classroom Tools: Quizzes, Listening Practice & Text-to-Image