社区黑料

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

A few years ago, our district saw something we hadn鈥檛 experienced before: Math proficiency climbing from roughly 70% to over 85%.

But the most important question wasn鈥檛 how we got there, it was why it hadn鈥檛 happened sooner.

Like many districts, we weren鈥檛 lacking a curriculum, effort or committed teachers. What we were missing was something far less visible and far more important.

We had reached a point where math performance wasn鈥檛 where we wanted it to be. Teachers were frustrated, and our instinct was to look outward for a solution. We began searching for a new math program 鈥� something that would finally move the needle.

We approached the process thoughtfully. A committee was formed, programs were reviewed, and alignment to standards was carefully analyzed. On paper, many options looked promising. But the more we evaluated, the more uncomfortable the truth became: The issue wasn鈥檛 the program.

Across our elementary schools in Pennsylvania鈥檚 Abington Heights School District, we were hearing the same concerns. Students were progressing without a solid grasp of foundational concepts. Skills that had supposedly been mastered weren鈥檛 transferring. Teachers were reteaching content, often with the same results. It forced us to confront a difficult question: If the curriculum is aligned and the content is there, why isn鈥檛 the learning sticking?

That question led us to take a closer look at our own practices. Like many elementary schools, we had invested heavily in literacy, and our teachers felt confident in reading instruction. Math, however, was a different story.

Many teachers did not feel that same level of confidence in mathematics. That lack of confidence shaped instruction in ways we hadn鈥檛 fully recognized. Lessons often leaned toward procedures or steps to follow rather than deep conceptual understanding.

Students could sometimes arrive at the correct answer, but they struggled to explain why. And when students cannot explain their thinking, the learning rarely lasts.

We also realized we weren鈥檛 fully leveraging the data available to us. While we had assessments and performance metrics, we were not consistently analyzing student work to understand how students were thinking. Without that insight, instruction remained generalized rather than responsive to individual needs.

What changed was not just the amount of data we had, but how we used it and how we used it together. Through our professional learning program, our teams developed a shared approach to analyzing student work, identifying patterns in thinking and using that insight to guide instruction.

In practice, this meant teachers coming together with student work by sorting responses, discussing strategies and identifying where understanding broke down. These conversations made student thinking visible in a way we hadn鈥檛 experienced before.

Data conversations became a regular part of our collaboration, not an isolated event tied to testing windows. Teachers met to examine student strategies, anticipate misconceptions and align next instructional moves. 

Instead of continuing the search for a new program, we made a different decision 鈥� one that required more commitment but ultimately led to more meaningful change. We chose to invest in our teachers.

We implemented across our elementary schools, focusing on building teachers鈥� conceptual understanding of mathematics and how that understanding develops over time. From the outset, this was not a passive experience. Teachers were actively engaged in solving problems, analyzing strategies and grappling with concepts themselves.

That experience was, at times, uncomfortable and that was precisely why it worked. Teachers began to experience math as a process of reasoning and sense-making rather than simply applying procedures. That shift deepened their understanding and created a new level of empathy for student learning.

As teacher understanding grew, instruction began to evolve. Educators became more intentional about the questions they asked and more attentive to student thinking. They created space for multiple approaches and encouraged students to explain their reasoning. Over time, that shift led to something just as important as instructional change: increased teacher confidence.

That created a shift in student mindset. Math is no longer viewed as a set of rules to follow, but as something to explore. We now have students who ask for more math time 鈥� something that would have been difficult to imagine just a few years ago.

This transformation has also reshaped how our teachers work together. Teachers regularly examine student work, identify patterns in thinking and determine next instructional steps. Conversations are grounded in evidence and a shared understanding of how students learn mathematics.

We have moved away from asking, 鈥淲here are we in the program?鈥� and toward asking, 鈥淲here are our students in their understanding?鈥�

The results followed and they were significant. Within a few years, math proficiency rose from roughly 70% to over 85% across key grade levels, alongside strong gains in student growth. Just as important as the numbers is what we now see in classrooms every day: instruction focused on understanding and students actively engaged in meaningful mathematical thinking.

This experience has reinforced a belief that feels more important than ever: programs do not change outcomes, people do. When we invest in teacher knowledge and give educators the tools and confidence to truly understand their content, everything else begins to align.

Of course, this kind of change requires ongoing commitment. We continue to train new teachers and prioritize collaboration to sustain the work.

If there is one lesson we would share with other district leaders, it is this: Before searching for a better program, take a closer look at how your system supports teaching and learning. You may find, as we did, that the most powerful solution isn鈥檛 something new; it鈥檚 a deeper investment in how teachers understand and teach mathematics.

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 社区黑料鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.