This paper reports on an ongoing 3-year study of the current status of instructional supervision within New York City public schools. Under the influence of a centralized and bureaucratically managed system (i.e., top down initiatives), educational reform in New York City has had serious consequences for both the theory and practice of instructional supervision. Supervision, for the most part, remains a monitoring or inspectional task reminiscent of older forms of supervision. Although reform measures address the need for increased supervision and professional development, principals and their assistants perform predominantly non-instructional duties and evaluative functions. Supervision, as a means to promote instructional dialogue to improve teaching in the classroom, has been the responsibility primarily (although unofficially) of coaches (a position created in the restructuring of schools). Results from this descriptive study indicate that these coaches have little, if any, formal training in supervision. An underlying motif or question of this study is the extent to which supervision as improvement of instruction has been abdicated by principals or usurped by coaches (not personally but as a result of bureaucratic and administrative fiat) given their charge to work with teachers in the classroom. Factors that precipitated such a situation are explored by reports from interviews with New York City public school teachers (previous research study), coaches (previous research study), principals, and assistant principals. To shed a realistic light on these and related matters, the presenters have invited a former coach and current assistant principal to offer first-hand experiences. She will offer first-hand testimony regarding reform efforts and the status of instructional supervision in New York City. The final phase of the study will ensue over the course of the next year by assessing the impact of reform measures and supervisory practices on classroom teaching and student achievement.