Learning Elevation Framework Part 2: Flexible Instructional Delivery

The Power of Defined Autonomy in Instruction

In our previous LEF blogs, we explored why alignment between curriculum, instruction, and assessment is essential for improving student outcomes. We examined how Firm Learning Expectations provide a structured foundation, ensuring clarity in what students should learn. But once we define what students need to learn, the next challenge is ensuring that instruction effectively meets their needs.

This is where Flexible Instructional Delivery comes in. Without it, instruction becomes rigid, disconnected from student needs, and unable to truly support mastery. Flexible Instructional Delivery balances defined autonomy with a clear instructional priorities model, ensuring that teachers can make professional decisions while staying anchored in a framework that leads to high-quality instruction.

At EES Innovation, we’ve seen how schools that implement this approach experience stronger core instruction, leading to fewer students needing intervention and more students working on enrichment opportunities.

Why Instructional Inconsistency is Holding Students Back

Misconception #1: Flexible Instructional Delivery Means Every Teacher Does Whatever They Want

Some schools mistakenly believe flexibility means no structure, leading to major inconsistencies in what students experience in different classrooms. When every teacher operates with their own interpretation of best practices, students receive vastly different instructional experiences. This creates gaps in learning progression, making it difficult for students to build on prior knowledge as they advance through grade levels. Adopting an Instructional Priorities Model (IPM) prevents instruction from becoming a patchwork of individual strategies and creates a cohesive approach to student learning. 

Misconception #2: Teacher Evaluations Ensure Good Instruction

Many leaders assume that if teachers are evaluated, they know what is expected—but EES Innovation’s work in schools proves otherwise. When we ask teachers what their leadership values in instruction, their answers are almost never aligned. Why? Evaluation models focus on compliance and ratings rather than growth and instructional improvement.

Traditional evaluation systems often reduce teaching to a single rating or checklist, which does little to enhance instructional effectiveness. The focus is on meeting a standard rather than continuous improvement, leaving teachers unsure of how to refine their practice. Evaluations are often conducted infrequently, with a couple formal observations per year, failing to capture the day-to-day instructional nuances that determine student success.

Additionally, because evaluations are tied to compensation and job security, they can create a culture of fear rather than a culture of learning. Teachers might perform for the evaluation rather than implement innovative, research-based strategies that drive long-term student achievement.

Interesting Finding: According to data from the 2023-24 school year provided by the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE), the distribution of teacher evaluation ratings is as follows: Highly Effective (56.93%), Effective (31.46%), Needs Improvement (1.05%), Ineffective (0.17%), and Not Rated (10.39%) (Indiana Department of Education, n.d.). This data highlights that nearly 90% of Indiana teachers received ratings of either Highly Effective or Effective, while a small percentage required improvement or were deemed ineffective.

Misconception #3: Intervention Will Solve the Learning Gaps

Many schools pour resources into Tier II and Tier III interventions without addressing the root cause—weak core instruction. This misstep creates a cycle where intervention becomes the primary solution, rather than improving Tier I instruction to prevent learning gaps from forming in the first place. 

Intervention services are necessary for some students, but over-reliance on them signals that core instruction is not meeting the needs of most learners. Schools might find themselves redirecting significant resources into remedial programs instead of investing in strengthening daily instruction. This often leads to a system where struggling students are frequently pulled from grade-level instruction, further widening the achievement gap rather than closing it.

Additionally, interventions often take place outside the general education classroom, leading to fragmented learning experiences. Students may receive help in isolated sessions but struggle to transfer those skills back to the regular classroom setting, making the intervention less effective in the long run. The reality is that no amount of remediation can fully replace strong, high-quality instruction at Tier I.

By implementing Flexible Instructional Delivery, districts can create a system where Tier I instruction is so strong that intervention becomes the exception rather than the norm, ensuring all students receive high-quality instruction within their regular learning environment.

The Four Pillars of Flexible Instructional Delivery

To implement Flexible Instructional Delivery, schools need both structure and flexibility—a system where teachers can use their strengths while staying anchored to research-based instructional priorities. This framework consists of four critical components that ensure instructional quality while allowing adaptability based on student needs.

Instruction Anchored in the District’s Instructional Priorities Model

Instruction Anchored in the District’s Instructional Priority Model

A strong Instructional Priorities Model (IPM) is the foundation for consistent, high-quality instruction. Without a well-defined IPM, instructional decisions become disjointed, leading to inconsistent learning experiences for students. The IPM sets clear expectations for what effective teaching looks like while allowing educators to tailor their instruction to meet student needs. It provides the structure necessary for alignment across classrooms while ensuring teachers maintain the flexibility to deliver engaging and responsive instruction.

The EES Innovation IPM guides instructional excellence by emphasizing Clear & High Expectations as a fundamental principle. This means ensuring instruction meets the rigor of grade-level standards and that students engage in deep learning experiences rather than surface-level exposure to content. When students are consistently challenged with appropriately rigorous instruction, they build the skills necessary for long-term academic success.

Responsive, Differentiated, and Adaptive Instruction

Instruction must be dynamic, continuously adjusting to meet the diverse needs of students. A rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to teaching fails to address the varying levels of background knowledge, learning styles, and pacing differences among learners. Scaffolding & Access, a key component of the EES Innovation IPM, plays a critical role in this pillar by ensuring that every student, regardless of their skill level, has the supports they need to engage with grade-level content.

Effective teachers use formative assessment strategies to monitor student understanding in real time, allowing them to adjust instruction immediately. Instead of waiting for summative assessments, educators incorporate frequent checks for understanding, student discussions, and targeted questioning to identify misconceptions and make timely adjustments. This ensures that students are not left behind, and learning gaps are addressed before they widen.

Differentiation is equally important. Students must be provided multiple pathways to engage with content, ensuring that instructional delivery aligns with their individual strengths while still pushing them to think critically. Whether through small-group instruction, inquiry-based learning, or hands-on projects, differentiation allows students to experience instruction in a way that maximizes their engagement and deepens their understanding.

Ultimately, responsive instruction means students are consistently challenged at the right level, ensuring that they develop a strong foundation while receiving the necessary supports to succeed. When scaffolding is done effectively, it fades over time, promoting independence and ensuring students take ownership of their learning progression.

Ensuring Student Ownership & Learning Transfer

Effective instruction is not just about what the teacher does—it’s about what students are doing, saying, and thinking. For students to develop higher-order thinking skills, they must be actively engaged in their learning rather than passively receiving information. This requires a learning environment where students take ownership of their progress, engaging in critical discussions, problem-solving, and collaboration with peers.

Collaborative Inquiry, another essential component of the EES Innovation IPM, is central to this pillar. Students should not merely answer teacher-generated questions; they should be asking their own questions, leading discussions, and engaging in inquiry-based learning. By shifting the role of the teacher from knowledge-giver to facilitator, classrooms become spaces where students actively construct knowledge rather than just consume it.

Ownership of learning is also demonstrated when students can apply their knowledge in new and unfamiliar contexts. True mastery is not about rote memorization—it’s about being able to transfer skills and concepts to solve real-world problems. Instruction must provide opportunities for students to engage in project-based learning, interdisciplinary tasks, and performance-based assessments that require them to apply their knowledge in meaningful ways. When students are responsible for their learning and see its relevance beyond the classroom, engagement and retention increase dramatically.

By fostering a culture where students are active participants in the learning process, schools ensure that students are not just learning for a test but developing the skills needed to thrive in an ever-changing world.

Coaching & Professional Collaboration to Strengthen Instruction

Sustainable instructional improvement requires more than just occasional professional development sessions—it demands a culture of continuous coaching and collaboration. Many schools still rely on traditional evaluation-based classroom visits, which often fail to provide meaningful feedback that drives instructional growth. Instead of a compliance-driven model, schools must shift to a growth-focused, non-evaluative coaching system that prioritizes real-time, actionable feedback.

The EES Innovation AI-powered walkthrough tool allows instructional leaders to provide customized, high-quality feedback aligned with the Instructional Priorities Model. By leveraging real-time data collection, leaders can identify strengths, highlight areas for growth, and offer instructional suggestions that teachers can immediately implement. This ensures that feedback is not only frequent but also targeted, directly impacting classroom practice.

A coaching culture is only effective when it is embedded in daily routines. Schools that succeed in this area set expectations for frequent, low-stakes classroom walkthroughs, ensuring that teachers receive ongoing, supportive feedback. These short, focused observations allow instructional leaders to see trends across classrooms, provide meaningful professional development, and ensure that instruction is aligned to the district’s priorities.

Professional collaboration further strengthens instruction by creating shared learning experiences among educators. When teachers have structured opportunities to analyze student data, reflect on instructional practices, and co-develop lesson strategies, they build a collective expertise that enhances instruction across the entire school. Schools that incorporate collaborative coaching cycles and instructional rounds see stronger peer-to-peer learning, increased professional engagement, and higher instructional quality across classrooms.

By fostering continuous coaching and collaboration, districts move away from compliance-based evaluation models and instead create a system where instructional excellence is continuously refined and strengthened.

How We Know This Works

The effectiveness of Flexible Instructional Delivery is evident in the transformative shifts we have witnessed in districts across Indiana. Schools that have embraced this system have reshaped their instructional culture, shifting from compliance-based evaluations to meaningful coaching that strengthens teaching and learning.

One key success story comes from our partner districts, where the number of non-evaluative walkthroughs has increased substantially. By setting clear expectations for how many classrooms principals visit each day, schools have ensured that teachers receive far more actionable feedback than they ever did through traditional evaluations.

Our AI-powered walkthrough tool, which incorporates our Instructional Priorities Model, has empowered leadership to provide customized, high-quality feedback that moves instruction forward. Instead of a vague "effective" or "highly effective" rating, teachers now receive real insights into their instructional practices and tailored suggestions for improvement.

Additionally, we have seen a direct correlation between improving core instruction and reducing the number of students needing intervention. When Tier I instruction improves, fewer students require additional support, leading to a shift where more students can engage in enrichment rather than remediation.

The Impact: What Happens When Flexible Instructional Delivery is Done Right?

• More students move into enrichment instead of intervention because core instruction is stronger.

• Instructional alignment improves—teachers have defined autonomy, ensuring flexibility within a structured framework.

• Teacher self-efficacy increases—they feel supported, not judged, leading to more confident instructional decisions.

• Professional development is more effective because it's based on real classroom data, not generic training sessions.

• Student engagement and achievement grow as ownership of learning shifts from teachers to students.

Is Your District Ready for Flexible Instructional Delivery?

Book a strategy session to start building a Flexible Instructional Delivery system that moves the needle for students.

References

Indiana Department of Education. (n.d.). Educator evaluations. Retrieved March 13, 2025, from https://www.in.gov/doe/educators/educator-evaluations/