In a system serving nearly 1 million students across more than 1,800 schools, the distance between a central office cubicle and a second grade classroom in New York City Public Schools can feel immense — yet they are inextricably linked. When the central office works, schools get the resources and support they need. When it does not, the friction and challenges can ripple directly into classrooms.
Supporting that system requires thousands of central office staff whose work rarely makes headlines but directly shapes how schools function, from budgets to policies to resource allocation. Recently, the district tried something unusual: offering executive coaching — including human- and AI-powered options — to those behind-the-scenes employees.
The move came as staff navigated shifting priorities and persistent uncertainty in the years after the pandemic, raising questions about how best to provide a stable foundation for schools. Through a partnership with the digital coaching and workforce development company BetterUp, central office staff are developing skills such as agency, agility and clarity — capabilities district leaders see as essential to sustaining and stabilizing the nation’s largest school system.
EdSurge spoke with Tracie Benjamin-Van Lierop, New York City Public Schools’ executive director of organizational development, talent and culture, about what this coaching looks like in practice and why investing in the people outside the classroom supports the success of the people inside it.
EdSurge: What was the climate like for central staff before coaching began?
Benjamin-Van Lierop: Coming out of the pandemic, there was a lot of uncertainty. I would say the biggest challenge was feeling seen.
A lot of focus is rightfully on supporting school-based staff, but the people behind the scenes — the ones making sure schools run smoothly — also need development and support.
How did you view coaching at first?
At first, my schedule was just crazy, and I thought, “This is just one more thing I have to do.” One colleague attended the orientation, came back excited and said, “I think this is something we should really look into.” I tried one session, then a second, and three years later, I’m with the same coach.
Sometimes coaching can be seen as punitive — maybe that isn’t the right word — but it’s like it’s there to fix something, and that’s not what I wanted. I wanted us to see coaching as a lever to improve the culture in the organization. We want people who want to work here, and if the environment has room for improvement, we want to hear that.
What shifts have you seen in how people approach coaching?
One person’s story was very similar to mine. They kept hearing colleagues talk about their positive experiences with coaching and said, “Let me try it out.”
They tried it and ended up getting a promotion because they learned to speak up in a respectful way. A lot of that newfound confidence and professionalism came from role-playing with their coach. Role-playing felt like a safe way to prepare for difficult conversations. That person said, “I don’t know that my supervisor would have seen me in the light that they see me in now had I not been able to do those role-play activities with my coach.”
Other signs of success are easy to see: People vote with their feet. If they did not want to continue, they wouldn’t. We’ve gone from “This is something that I have to do,” to “This is something I want to do.”
This affects the work itself. We’re seeing stronger work products and stronger connections between offices and schools as we develop a clearer understanding of why we do this work.
Employee Resource Group (ERG) leaders were among the first central-office staff invited into the coaching pilot. Several describe it as an important source of support as they work to amplify employee voice and strengthen culture across the system. Because ERG leadership is layered on top of full-time roles, coaching has offered space for reflection and skill-building in a complex and demanding environment. The benefits carry into the teams and schools they serve.
How does AI coaching fit in alongside human coaching?
It depends on comfort level and sometimes generation. I’ve tried my AI coach and thought, “No, thanks. I need a human.” But some of our [younger] leaders choose AI because that’s their comfort level. One colleague will only do role-plays with their AI coach because they feel it’s a safe, nonjudgmental space.
At the end of the day, if that tool is supporting what is happening in schools, then it’s helpful. I see that as an area that will continue to grow.
How has coaching shaped your own leadership?
It has changed me — or I would say transformed me — in a holistic way. It’s not just at work; it has transformed my whole approach to decision-making, my sense of impact and my intentionality.
It has also made me a more curious leader. Sometimes I make judgments based on a story I’ve created in my head, and that story may not be true. I’ve learned to recognize that tendency and ask, “How am I getting to the heart of the matter?” Nine times out of ten, when I take that curious stance, it elevates the work in ways I wasn’t able to three and a half years ago.
What advice would you give to districts thinking about coaching?
First, make it voluntary. Coaching can be seen as, “You’re getting a coach because you’re not doing your job well,” but that’s not what it is. People who opt in often become the biggest supporters later.
Second, coaching requires effort. It’s not just about meeting for 45 minutes. It’s a partnership — a two-way street — and you have to put in the work. It won’t work if you don’t.
Third, really use the data from your coaching partner to track progress and refine your approach.
Coaching is often seen as a nice-to-have, and I understand that, especially with all the demands right now. But this is an investment in your people. If your people are going to do the job well, they need to feel invested in, and this is one of the best investments I’ve experienced in my career.
Discussion about this post