Why August is Too Late to Have a Plan

Anyone who is in education knows that August feeling. The days start coming and they don’t stop coming and then BAM! How did it get to be September already? It’s ‘the calendar has been in control rather than me’ feeling and it’s probably not going to slow down any time soon. The problem? When it comes to instructional coaching, we can’t wait until mid- or end of September to have a coaching system in place. By then, the year has already set its own pace and coaches are busy filling it.

Here’s what we’ve seen in schools time and again: coaches running cycle after cycle, leaders with no clear window into whether any of it is working, and an end-of-year conversation where everyone agrees it was a busy year but nobody can say what actually moved.

Busy isn’t the same as effective. And that’s not a coaching problem, it’s a leadership infrastructure problem.

The good news? It’s a solvable one, and August is the perfect time to solve it. Here are 3 steps every leader in charge of instructional coaches should take before school starts.

Step 1: Determine Your Coaching Focus

Before you assign a single coach, you’ve got to know your greatest instructional need and identify who needs the most support. This step has three moves inside it, and doing all three before August is what separates intentional coaching programs from busy ones.

• Start with your data
• Identify who needs to be coached
• Inventory your coaches

Start With Your Data

Your data already shows what your school needs most. The goal here is to name it specifically enough that it becomes a coaching anchor for the whole year.

• What does your data say is your biggest instructional need this year?
• Is it a specific subject? A grade band? A skill gap that showed up in state test scores?

Identify Who Needs to be Coached

Not all teachers need the same kind of coaching. Knowing the difference before August changes how you structure the work entirely.

• In your highest-need areas, who are the teachers?
• Are there a lot of new teachers in these areas? New to the content?

Inventory Your Coaches

Coaches are often assigned based on availability. Intentional programs assign based on need.

• Who do you have and what are they equipped to coach? 
• How will you assign them with intention and not just availability?

Step 2: Build a Tracking System

Every strong instructional coaching program has a system designed to show whether coaching is working. Without one, coaches don’t know if they’re making progress  and neither do leaders.

The tracking system doesn’t need to be overly complicated. What it needs to be is consistent and shared. Use these questions to guide how you build it:

• What data will coaches collect inside their cycles?
• How will they document progress toward the instructional goal?
• What does “movement” look like and how fast do you need to see it?

Need a starting point? We built a Sample Tracker that can help you visualize all the possibilities with tracking what’s working, what’s not, and provide you with the data to make strategic adjustments.

Step 3: Pre-Plan Your Checkpoints

Here’s the step that almost never happens, and leaders recognize it immediately when we name it. If collaboration with coaches isn’t on the calendar before August, it more than likely won’t happen. The year fills up too fast.

Pre-planning the feedback loop before the year begins is a power-move for any coaching program. It’s what bridges what coaches are doing and what leadership actually knows what is happening. Before school starts, we suggest your team gets these on the calendar:

• Monthly check-ins with coaches (not optional)
• A standing agenda so that every check-in has a purpose
• A mid-year metric review date
• Clarity on who else needs to be in the feedback loop
• A process for adjusting coaching focus if data isn’t moving

Why These Steps Matter Before August

Coaching is an investment that requires a return on that investment, not just activity. And, from what we have learned from our coaching work in schools, what gets coached gets improved. But improvement doesn’t happen by accident. It happens when leaders set a clear anchor, build a system that makes progress visible, and stay in the loop all year long.

When those three things are in place, coaches have a clearer understanding of the job they must do. At the end of the year, coaches and leaders will be able to tell the story of what moved and why. The calendar is going to do what the calendar does, and it will be September before you know it. The difference is whether your coaching program is ready and moving forward when it gets there. 

What gets coached gets improved.

Click to download the 25-26 Edu20/20 Walkthrough Executive Summary Report.

August will come whether your coaches are ready or not. These three steps will make sure your coaches are.

To make it even easier, we created a free Get Your Coaches Ready Before August: Planning Checklist, a one-page tool that walks through all three steps so you don’t have to build this from scratch. Grab it, share it with your team, and go into August with a plan.

And if you want to see this full framework in action with some examples, watch the recording of our free July webinar: Get Your Coaches Ready: 3 Steps Before August That Actually Matter.

Ready to go deeper?

The Edu20/20 Instructional Coaching Institute is this November. Learn more and register, or find out how to bring the institute to YOU.

Click Here

Take a moment to picture the following two scenarios, and ask yourself the following question: Who is doing the talking? 

Scenario 1	Scenario 2
A teacher is teaching an 8th grade social studies class. The students are seated in rows and facing the front of the room. Students take about 5 minutes to read with a partner. The teacher pulls a small group of students to read with and provides guided questioning to check for comprehension. Once reading is done, the teacher reviews the critical content and explains complex topics to the whole class.	A teacher is teaching a 4th grade social studies class. The students are seated in groups of 4. Before reading the first two paragraphs of a source, the teacher sets a purpose for the reading by tasking students with finding two characteristics of the ancient civilization that will benefit survival. The teacher reads aloud the two paragraphs, and asks students to turn and talk. Partner A begins the discussion by sharing one characteristic identified in the source and explaining how that characteristic will benefit survival. Partner B adds on by providing an explanation of survival for a second characteristic.
Who is doing the talking? Other than reading to a partner, the teacher is doing all of the talking in this scenario.	Who is doing the talking? In this scenario, the teacher sets students up for collaboration with the management structure for turn and talk and by providing a reading purpose prior to reading. Students are able to express their understanding more effectively because the teacher facilitated the task and then stepped away to observe and provide feedback.

Whoever is doing the talking, is also doing the thinking. Speaking is a way we communicate understanding, but it is also a way we process, clarify, and build on new information. 

Structure is key.

Reality check…no one enjoys posing a question to a group and getting little to no response outside of blank, zombie-like stares. Or, on the flipside, you pose a question to the class, and while the discussion starts on-topic, it quickly devolves into chaos and feels like a mutiny has formed. We have all been there, right?

In order to build genuine student discourse, we have to start off small and structured (i.e. turn and talk, table talk). Once this is manageable, then we can start building in more complex conversation structures (i.e. debates, socratic seminars, open discussions). To avoid chaos (and possible anarchy), take the time to master each level consecutively before jumping into the more student-facilitated strategies. The gradual release of control from teacher to students sets clear expectations, allows time for feedback and adjustment, and intentionally transitions from a lot of teacher talk to more student voice. 

Review the following levels of structured discourse. What level are your students at? How do you plan to level up your students?

Level 1: Can students answer the question clearly? 

Start simple.   

Consider the goal: students give complete answers. 

If you want ALL of your students to … 

• respond accurately to a question/prompt, 
• communicate complete thoughts, and
• explain their thinking …

Then your teacher moves need to include … 

• a model of the expectations, 
• calling on a variety of students (not just the ones raising their hands), and
• monitor student work and share strong examples during the lesson conclusion.

This level builds confidence and gets more voices involved. 

Level 2: Can students build on ideas? 

This is where it starts to feel like a real conversation.

Consider the goal: students build on others’ ideas. 

If you want ALL of your students to level up to a more conversational vibe where students … 

• participate, 
• add-on with new thinking, 
• make connections, and 
• build understanding …

Then your teacher moves need to include … 

• a model of what this looks and sounds like (i.e. fishbowl example),
• give students sentence starters to get them thinking, and
• use simple signals for students to show they would like to add-on without interrupting the person speaking.

This level prevents the chaos that comes from unorganized verbal shares by providing students with a structure that supports them in building this conversational skill safely. 

Level 3: Are students asking questions? 

This is where we let students begin to take the lead.

Consider the goal: students ask questions to build and/or clarify their understanding. 

If you want ALL of your students to level up to a more inquisitive vibe where students ask questions to:

• clarify something they did not understand, 
• challenge someone’s perspective, and
• get more information…

Then your teacher moves need to include:

• a model of what this looks and sounds like,
• give students a list of questions to help them clarify/build understanding, and 
• monitor conversations to jump-in where needed to help with questioning. (WARNING: This is NOT the time for you to correct student understanding. This is another way to guide students to practice clarifying on their own. You can clarify anything that doesn’t get addressed during the conclusion of the lesson.)

This level gets the conversation moving. This skill helps students make connections and dig deeper into ideas rather than just sharing information and agreeing or disagreeing.

Level 4: Are students taking the lead? 

This is our goal. 

Consider the goal: students participate in student-led conversations that build and/or clarify understanding. 

If you want ALL of your students to participate in discussions by:

• sharing answers,
• explaining their understanding, 
• challenging ideas, 
• collaborating to get more information, and
• making connections across content … 

Then your teacher moves need to include:

• taking a step back from leading the discussion, 
• recording who is participating, 
• assessing understanding, and
• adding support ONLY when the conversation is not progressing.

Click here to download a quick reference guide and some example strategies to try out. 

This level will be a little uncomfortable at first. This skill helps transfer the thinking to the students. It will not be perfect, and that is okay!

Download the printable version of this table as a reference guide to level up your student discourse!

Why This Works

When students do more of the talking:

• Students are able to build their understanding through connections they make.
• Students are more engaged and willing to participate in collaborative activities. 
• Students take over the thinking.

And honestly, you get a way better idea of what your students actually know without needing to read their minds. 

Keep it realistic, and level up when your students are ready for it. Use each level as a stepping stone that will give students the skills they need to participate in big debates or seminars. 

This isn’t just a strategy. It’s a mindset shift. Just remember: whoever is doing the talking is doing the thinking.

Where To Begin

Not every class needs to start at Level 1. Some students may already be ready for Level 2, or even Level 3, based on what they’ve done in the past. Start with a quick turn and talk. Watch what your students do.

Then, ask yourself the questions for each level:

• If most students meet the goal, move to the next level
• If not, that’s your starting point

The level where students struggle is the level you start with. 

Long story, short… Less teacher talk. More student voice. Big results. 

Make sure to follow us on socials to get access to free resources that can add a little SPARKLE to your instruction. 

Facebook


Instagram


Youtube


X-twitter

The Problem: We Collect Coaching Data but Don’t Analyze the Big Picture

Most schools collect coaching data. Coaches track meetings. They log skills. They run cycles. But almost no one stops long enough to ask one important question: What patterns are showing up?

If your coaches keep working on the same skills with the same teachers, your coaching program is not the problem. Your system is.

What We Noticed: A Cohort Pattern Example

In a recent virtual meeting with a cohort of instructional coaches from multiple districts, our team asked them to step back and analyze one month of their data using just a few reflection prompts. Within ten minutes, every coach saw the same thing.

They were all coaching classroom management. The same skills.  The same teachers.  The same cycles. That was the moment we realized this wasn’t a coaching problem. It was a system problem.

Here are some other patterns that appeared:

• Coaches were repeatedly working in Priority Skills* 
• Classroom management was the most frequently coached indicator
• New skills would be started but weren’t sticking. Many teachers were staying at the same skill level in their cycles.

At first glance, these looked like a lot of individual teacher needs, but when the pattern appeared across multiple schools, it signaled something bigger was going on.

The Deeper Diagnosis: A System Problem, Not a Coaching Problem

In our conversations, we shifted the lens from individuals to systems and began to look at some possible causes behind the data:

• Lack of school‑wide classroom routines
• Inconsistent expectations across classrooms
• Limited principal reinforcement
• Initiative overload getting in the way of basics

There were other common aspects in the data too important to ignore. Coaches are supporting new teachers who enter the profession from multiple pathways. All teachers are faced with new student behaviors, new curriculum, new initiatives. This means that Priority Skill coaching is vital, but without system support, foundational practices never become “normal.” Coaches end up trying to convince teachers to do things that should already be routine practice. That is a system failure, not a coaching failure.

The Solution: Analyze, Then Act

Here are the most effective steps we have found to identify and address the data needs at a larger scale:

Step 0: Stop and Look

Most coaching data sits in spreadsheets that no one studies. If no one looks for patterns, nothing changes.

Step 1: Analyze coaching data trends

• What skills are being repeatedly coached?
• What skills are being coached with little to no transfer?
• Which teachers are repeating the same coaching cycles?

Step 2: Diagnose system issues

• What school structures are missing?
• Where are expectations inconsistent?
• What structures, if implemented across the school, would improve classroom instruction data?

Step 3: Take school-wide action

• Define non‑negotiable routines
• Determine walkthrough expectations
• Model practices in staff professional development
• Embed into onboarding for new teachers

What Pattern Analysis Looks Like in Action

Step 0	The leadership team stops and looks at the big picture in the coaching data.
Step 1	70% of teachers in coaching cycles were receiving support for Classroom Management,
Step 2	Coaching notes showed the same issue again and again. The first 10 minutes of class were chaotic. Students entered slowly. Attendance dragged on. Objectives were unclear.  Instructional time was being lost.
Step 3	Coaches and principals used collaborative planning time to co-design a school-wide entry routine with teachers. The goal: launch instruction within 6 minutes.

Notice what didn’t happen. Coaches did not start more cycles. They addressed the system. Imagine if they kept coaching classroom management to one teacher at a time.

Why This Matters: Coaching for Impact

Repeating coaching cycles on the basics drains two precious resources: time and energy. Coaching works best when it is not fighting the system. If coaches are stuck teaching the basics over and over, the problem is bigger than coaching. The patterns are already there in the data. Ignore them, and coaching stays stuck. Fix the system, and coaching accelerates.

Ahh…good ole January.

The season of fresh starts, new promises, and lofty goals.

Social media feeds are full of last year’s highlight reels alongside personal intentions and declarations of accountability for big change ahead.

Meanwhile, the immense pressure of being an educator is already hard enough without setting resolutions for a new semester. Heck, half of us don’t even remember what state of chaos we left our rooms in after the holiday party, much less what unit of the curriculum we are in.

I’m here to tell you to breathe. 

January doesn’t require a complete reinvention. Instead of trying to level up with that creative teacher TikTok idea you saved three months ago, this is the moment to return to what “just good teaching” actually is.

Not the bulletin boards.

Not the cutesy Canva designs. 

Not the TPT slideshows that cost whatever’s left of your December check (if there is anything left). 

“Just good teaching” is actually defined by a specific set of skills that every effective teacher develops over time. And that skillset is built upon a critical foundation- managing the learning environment. (Yes, that is just a fancy way of saying classroom management, but I needed to ensure your gag reflex was not initially triggered.) People feel some type of way when classroom management is mentioned because the term has been so convoluted and over-simplified that it often has a negative connotation. But this Priority Teaching Skill of Classroom Management is grossly underrated during this time of year when routines and clarity matter most.

Yes, January is a time of change, but consistency is what builds culture. 

Before you walk back into the classroom, take a minute to reflect on some of the skills a teacher possesses for solid classroom management:

• Has a signal for getting whole class attention
• Gives directions when students are all quiet and eyes are on the teacher
• Has a go-to redirection routine
• Sets up, signals, and has a very brief time limit for transitions
• Modulates voice to get attention and focus students
• Has a routine for revving students up when their energy is waning
• Greets students in the morning/top of the period and gives a task right away so they enter the classroom with purpose
• Has a simple routine for written responses
• Has a simple routine for discussion 
• Has a simple routine for partnering

 

Which one are you feeling really strong about this year? Which one would you like to strengthen?

Check out some of our staff favorites when it comes to examples of what some of these can look and sound like in your classroom:

Skill	In-Class Example
Has a signal for getting whole class attention	“If you can hear me clap once…if you can hear me clap twice…” (teacher states phrases, students clap) Teacher: “Hocus Pocus” Students: Everybody focus!
Gives directions when students are all quiet and eyes are on the teacher	Classroom scoreboard- every time students follow directions and are quiet, they get a point. When they do not follow expectations/directions, the teacher gets a point
Sets up, signals, and has a very brief time limit for transitions	Classroom timers (sometimes for the students, sometimes for the teacher) Countdowns during transitions
Modulates voice to get attention and focus students	Use a variety of volumes, accents, or accessories to grab students’ attention when needed
Greets students in the morning/top of the period and gives a task right away so they enter the classroom with purpose	Have students compare strong/weak work models when they enter the classroom- which one was stronger and why? Practice Part A/B state test-like question and justify answer Post a list of materials needed for the day and set a timer for students to get those materials out on their desks before class begins
Has a simple routine for written responses	Sticky notes Whiteboards Write, then share with a partner
Has a simple routine for discussion  Has a simple routine for partnering	Partner A: Answer, Partner B: Find evidence Group member number 1 goes first then 2, 3, 4…

Keep it simple, give yourself grace, and start where it matters most. You don’t need more strategies, more slides, or more ideas. All you need are these strong, consistent routines that free you up to teach. Choose one skill to strengthen, commit to it, and notice the difference you feel during instruction. 

Let us know if you try out any of the ideas above or if you have any you’d like to share with readers! Post in the comments below, and be sure to follow us on all the socials!

Facebook


Instagram


Youtube

In my previous blog, I argued that vaguely instructing teachers to ‘increase student engagement’ isn’t helpful feedback. This week, after a few classroom observations, I realized something else: sometimes what we call an engagement problem isn’t just about engagement.

Let’s look at an example in which I co-planned student engagement for a middle school ELA lesson. The goal was to get the students doing more of the work. We decided to have students work with partners and give them a task–Partner A would identify one character’s perspective and Partner B would identify a different character’s perspective using sticky notes. Then they would discuss their evidence with each other before completing a T-chart. 

Here’s how that looked in two different classrooms where the teachers planned the exact same engagement strategy for the exact same lesson:

Teacher A	Teacher B
Students partner-read the chapter straight through.  4 out of 28 students were off-task. 7 students didn’t have anything written on their sticky notes. 11 of them had one low-level inference of their character’s perspective written down. The longer time went on, the more restless students became, and some were finished while others were still reading.	The teacher read the entire chapter out loud. She walked around the room making sure students were reading or listening. Students were compliant with following along. There was no way to determine if students were on track or not during the duration of the read-aloud.  Students discussed what they wrote at the end of the chapter.

But wait…we added student engagement to our plans. Wasn’t that supposed to magically fix instruction? So why were the results between the two classrooms so different? Both teachers tried something new, and that’s exactly what revealed the deeper issue.

Student engagement has so many layers. It’s not just about being fun and entertaining, or just having students talk. It’s not only about motivating students and having them physically participating. True engagement is the product of teacher moves that keep learning flowing.

Neither teacher did anything wrong! In fact, their efforts revealed that “adding student engagement moves” is not a quick fix. There are other elements that critically factor into student learning. We realized the problem wasn’t engagement itself, but what surrounded it. By adjusting three key layers, everything changed.

True engagement is the product of teacher moves that keep learning flowing.

Lesson Pacing

We chunked the lesson into a little bit of teacher reading, partner reading, and independent reading. This kept the lesson pacing snappy and allowed students to engage with the text in different ways. At the end of each chunk, we gave students a quick minute to jot on their note and then turn and discuss with their partner.

Classroom Management

During partner reading and discussion, we designated which partner was to read and which partner would share first. This eliminated the awkward time lapses when students were trying to determine who was going to read and start talking first.

Clarifying Directions and Modeling

We changed the directions so that each student was collecting at least three lines of text that revealed their characters’ perspectives, and we provided a quick two-minute model. Students were way more engaged in actively writing on their sticky notes than in the first period classes.

The data changes in both classrooms during the second run were phenomenal. By making a few quick tweaks, we had built student confidence, set clear expectations, and managed the engagement so that learning could take place. The real payoff came when we had clear moments throughout the lesson where we could monitor if students were on track.

Takeaway for Teachers

Before planning for student engagement, pause and ask yourself:

• Lesson Pacing: Have I chunked the lesson so that there is a balance of teacher, partner/group, and individual work time? Where do I need to give students time to process and practice?
• Classroom Management: Do students know exactly what to do and how to engage? Are there any routines I need to shore up?
• Modeling: Are directions concise? Where will I need to model thinking expectations?

 

Takeaway for Leaders

Before giving feedback about student engagement, pause and ask yourself:

• Lesson Pacing: Was the pacing clear and varied?
• Classroom Management: Did students know exactly what to do and how to engage?
• Modeling: Were directions concise, and has the teacher modeled the expected thinking?

 

Often, what looks like an engagement problem is really a sign that one or more of these bulleted items needs tightening. In your next walkthrough or coaching conversation, don’t just look for engagement, look through it to see what is being reflected back in the lesson. 

What ‘engagement issues’ have you seen lately that might actually reveal a different instructional need? Let us know in the comments!

In the past two months alone, six school leaders have told me that ‘increasing student engagement’ is a top priority. Some have even redesigned lesson planning requirements and made it a focus in collaborative planning sessions. I’m guilty of having given that advice to schools and teachers over the past several years, as well. “Let’s all work to increase student engagement so that students can own their learning!” has been a collective rallying cry for a while now. 

But, if we are making it a priority and going so far as to add it to lesson planning requirements , why isn’t it translating to classroom practice or higher student outcomes?

It’s because educators have vastly different perceptions of what student engagement actually means. It’s because student engagement is layered. No single formula works in every classroom. And honestly, planning for student engagement can seem daunting if it’s seen as “one more thing” to add to the lesson planning list. 

Teachers already know students need to be engaged. So when a leader says, ‘increase student engagement’ after an observation, it can sting. Most teachers are already trying everything they can to keep minds active and hands raised. When that effort goes unseen, the feedback can feel deflating, like no amount of trying is ever enough.

But it’s not their fault. I’ve realized that giving general feedback to “increase student engagement” just isn’t good practice. The feedback we should be giving instead is a tailored, concrete move that the teacher could use to improve instruction in the very next lesson. It should also serve as a strategy that can be replicated into other lessons with minimal preparation. 

Instead of vague directives, here are some ways to turn a broad statement into concrete, bite-sized feedback.

Try This	Example
Identify a quick data point to be improved.	During a lesson with 26 students, the same 5 students kept raising their hands to volunteer answers to questions. The rest of the students weren’t engaging.
Develop a concrete move the teacher could incorporate the very next lesson to improve that data.	“To increase the number of students answering questions, embed a 30-second ‘turn and talk’ opportunity for students to discuss the answer with a partner. Then ask the question again whole-group.” or “During the two most important questions of the lesson, incorporate a stop-and-jot in which students quickly jot their responses on a sticky note or whiteboard, and turn and share with a partner. This will allow you to monitor student understanding while they engage in the thinking.” or If only a few students are participating in a group activity, suggest something like this: “Have students jot their answer first, then whip around the table to share out. This will ensure that 100% of students are responding.”
Make sure the move is immediately actionable and can be easily used across multiple lessons.	The examples above can easily be transferred across lessons with minimal prep and management.

But, if we are making it a priority and going so far as to add it to lesson planning requirements , why isn’t it translating to classroom practice or higher student outcomes?

This kind of feedback may feel too simplified when lack of student engagement is an overwhelming problem, but trust the process and watch the difference. Something exciting happens when a teacher can take a bite-sized action and see instant results in student engagement. As an added bonus, it establishes you as a partner in improving data and outcomes, not as someone giving a subjective review of their performance.

If you want teachers to increase engagement, start by increasing the clarity of your feedback. 

The impact will surprise you. Read our next blog in this series where we’ll break down more coaching moves that actually stick!

Traveling the state of Louisiana and visiting many different classrooms in the past two months has taught me two things. First, teachers can make any magic happen in the classroom. Second, that magic is a whole lot easier to make when instructional guidance from leaders is clear. For instance, there has been a sudden interest and requirement for teachers to post success criteria for lessons. These two words paired together have set the current educational world on fire, but many teachers are left wondering: what IS success criteria exactly, and why do my students need to know what it is?

In a two week period, I have witnessed wildly different versions of success criteria, ranging from kindergarten through high school. In one classroom, the teacher’s success criteria created four additional objectives for a lesson. Another teacher had a list of standards scripted out as their success criteria. And yet, a third teacher’s success criteria listed skills that were aligned with standards below grade-level. It is evident that someone had made it a requirement to have success criteria posted, but the guidance had obviously not been clear enough so that teachers could hit the mark. This realization brought a single question to mind–what are the expectations of posting a lesson’s success criteria? I was surprised when many leaders I spoke to during these visits were not able to definitively answer this question, and it seemed to me we had a lot of spaghetti being thrown at the wall in hopes that something stuck!

We might have an instructional mess on our hands if we allow a variety of interpretations of a single skill to be spread from class to class. Imagine if we all interpreted stoplights differently–for some people red means “stop,” and for others, red means “go.”  This would be a disaster. Without knowing the success criteria for creating success criteria, we can find ourselves in a major traffic jam. (See what I did there?)

Defining Success Criteria

First, let’s break it down. What does this mysterious phrase, success criteria, truly mean? Starting with the word success, we can infer that this phrase has to do with the accomplishment of a goal. Hmmmm … now that is starting to sound familiar. Where do teachers begin when they are lesson planning? They start with a lesson focus (or goal if you will). An effective lesson focus is written as a goal for how the students will meet the identified grade-level standard by the end of that lesson. What about the word, criteria? This term is referencing the evaluation of a goal. We know our main goal is the lesson focus, so now we have to consider what student work would look like in order to show mastery of the identified grade-level standard or task. 

DOWNLOAD OUR SUCCESS CRITERIA FLOWCHART

The Need for Success Criteria

So, why is it necessary to include success criteria during instruction? First, success criteria help students get started with a task. By providing a clear list of student-friendly expectations, teachers remove barriers by eliminating the worry of “What does the teacher want me to say or do?”

Next, success criteria are used to measure student learning toward the standard-aligned goal of the lesson. This means that success criteria will change from lesson to lesson because what is being measured is also changing. But this doesn’t have to add fifty-seven additional steps in the lesson planning process, nor does it need to include a complicated unpacking of an entire standard. The success criteria serve as a collective tool that students use to monitor their progress. It also allows teachers to give individualized, specific, and real-time feedback that help students grow toward mastery of grade-level standards. Simply put, it is a set of expectations for students to follow when expressing their understanding. Now, let’s let’s talk about how we make creating success criteria painless.

Creating Success Criteria

During planning, you should see the development of a common through-line. When the lesson’s focus standard, objective, and check for understanding are aligned, it makes creating success criteria that much easier. 

To simplify the process, it all boils down to two questions:

1. What knowledge do students need to successfully complete the task?
2. What skills do students need to successfully complete the task?

That’s it! No fancy, super-complicated process is needed. For some lessons, a teacher may only need to quickly check the knowledge students have gained. For others, they may only need to check the skill acquired or practiced during the lesson. And for an occasional few, the lesson check for understanding may measure both. The knowledge and skills you identify will correlate to all parts of the lesson and make student expectations clear.

If you or a group of teachers find yourselves staring at a blank piece of anchor chart paper not knowing where to even begin, try completing the task as if you were one of your students. Put yourself in their seat and feel the task from their perspective. Ask yourself: What do students need to know in order to complete the task (knowledge)? What do students need to do in order to express their understanding (skills)? The answers to these questions will build that lesson’s success criteria.  

Taking it to the Next Level

Once teachers and students are comfortable with implementing success criteria regularly, the next level is to turn this practice over to students, so they can begin creating success criteria on their own. One way to accomplish this is by providing students with an exemplar (that doesn’t give away an answer), and have them identify what makes the exemplar successful. This can lead to peer feedback opportunities where students take ownership and grow one another’s performance toward mastery. 

Another way to make success criteria more student-led is through task analysis. When setting students up to complete a task, show them how to break apart the task into separate parts. Prompt students with some thinking questions: What is this task asking me to do? How many answers do I need to provide? What information is provided in the question? What additional information is needed? 

Success in Success Criteria

The most important thing to remember about success criteria is that it is designed to help students understand expectations and for teachers to track student progress. At the same time, it is critical to NOT overcomplicate it. Teachers should not feel like this is yet another thing to check off of their list for the sake of compliance, but instead a tool that adds value to their instruction.

Be sure to follow us on social media to get access to free resources that can add a little SPARKLE to your instruction.

Facebook


X-twitter


Instagram

Any teacher will quickly tell you that the first few weeks of school always fly by in the blink of an eye. How did it get to be mid-September already?  As the year begins, there’s a cadence and rhythm that the majority of teachers expertly slide into: learn the students, cover expectations, and begin lessons with the content and curriculum. But for instructional leaders and coaches, the structures for back to school are often varied and widespread.

So, where should instructional leaders start? Should there be a specific structure or rhythm to begin their coaching and support?

While there are no scientifically proven answers to those questions, our team has learned firsthand some instructional leadership moves that make a massive difference in learning outcomes. Here are our top four recommendations:

1. Know the instructional goal(s) you’ll be working toward with teachers as early as possible.

The most effective, impactful instructional coaching happens when there is a clear target that a school, subject, or grade level is trying to reach. Is your school trying to improve reading scores? Decrease the number of students in math interventions? Whatever the goal, that should be the focus of any instructional support.

“But what if teacher evaluations haven’t been done yet, and I’m not sure what coaching is needed? I’m just waiting and building relationships with teachers before jumping in.” This is exactly what I used to think until I learned from Jill Jackson that trust is a byproduct of coaching support that gets real results. And it all starts with knowing where you’re heading–  the instructional goal. 

Once you know the big goal, it’s time to think about the people who need the most support reaching it.

2. Connect with new teachers right away.

This may seem pretty obvious to some, but if you haven’t gotten around to your new teachers yet, you’ll want to move this action item to the top of your list. It might seem counterintuitive to schedule time with new teachers at the beginning of the year for fear of overwhelming them. After all, they probably have a lot to learn and tons to do in a limited amount of time, and as coaches we can feel like we don’t want to “add one more thing” to their plate. However, the beauty of instructional coaching support is that, if done well, it can feel like relief. Who is better equipped to give teachers the right guidance for curriculum, explain what coaching will look and sound like, and how you will work as a team to reach instructional goals?

After connecting with new teachers, level up your coaching by widening your lens and noticing instructional patterns.

3. Begin gathering instructional trend data as soon as possible.

Besides knowing the school’s instructional goals, a clear understanding of what instruction looks and sounds like in classrooms is arguably one of the most important tools in an instructional leader’s toolbox. Informal classroom visits will provide critical data on where to begin your coaching cycles and teacher support.

Instructional trend data helps coaches and leaders plan their support for teachers in getting quick instructional wins. You’ll want to organize your instructional trend data into two categories: 

• Which teachers need support in Priority Skills (Classroom Management, Student Engagement, Behavior Management, Lesson Planning, Delivery of a Basic Lesson)?

• Which teachers are ready to jump straight into progressing toward the school’s instructional goal?

But data by itself doesn’t change instruction. The magic happens when teachers come together and reflect on that data and how they can support their students. So once you’ve gathered the trends, the next power move is turning that information into intentional planning time.

4. Begin scheduling and designing collaborative planning sessions.

One of the most critical currencies in a school is time. Because time is so limited, collaborative planning must be intentional and worth the investment. When teachers feel that planning is productive rather than “one more thing,” they lean in.

So how can leaders make that happen? By designing collaborative planning around instructional trends and school goals. Trend data can guide not only individual teacher support but also become the blueprint for planning by answering these questions:

• What should our focus be?

• How often do we need to meet?

• What data are we aiming to impact?

Intentional planning early in the year means teachers can meet student needs sooner and see progress toward goals. It’s the difference between a wish and a plan because, as one author put it, ‘a goal without a plan is just a wish.’ By setting the plan in motion now, leaders turn collaborative planning into a lever for real results.

To jumpstart your own work, grab the quick planner below and jot your thoughts. It’s your first step toward leveling up teacher support.

4 Power Moves to Level Up Your Coaching at the Beginning of the Year (Quick Planner)
Power Move	Considerations	Your Information
Instructional Goals	What are the school’s primary instructional goals for the year?
New Teachers	Who are the new teachers? When is the best time to meet with each one?
Instructional Trends	What are the top classroom instructions trends? (2-3) Which teachers need support in Priority Skills? Which teachers are ready to work on the instructional goal?
Collaborative Planning	Based on instructional trends, what is the focus for collaborative planning sessions? How frequently do teachers need to meet?

Nearly every district our team has supported this year is wrapping up the first year of a brand-new curriculum implementation. It’s been meaningful, challenging, and, at times, exhausting work. As the year winds down, our focus is shifting to helping instructional leaders reflect on progress and re-energize for the next phase of implementation, the one that drives a deeper impact for both teachers and students.

But “re-energize” can feel like a tall order when curriculum work comes with so much noise: pacing concerns, logistics, resource overwhelm, and more. It’s easy to slip into the mindset of thinking, “Next year will be better,” without a clear path for how. So the real question becomes: How can we stay strategic, stay focused, and make smart support decisions for year two implementation without drowning in the details?

Enter the Pareto Principle. 

In its most simplistic form, the Pareto Principle suggests that 80% of your problems often stem from 20% of the causes. Using that principle, we hypothesized that we could drill down the information we had from initial implementation to identify a few pain points that caused some of the greatest challenges. And guess what? We were right. 

Let’s look at one example from a district implementing a brand new 6-8 ELA curriculum. Here are the steps we took with 14 instructional leaders from various schools:

1. Stick It: Identify the Most Prominent Challenges

Sometimes the most effective strategies aren’t flashy—they’re sticky! We launched a little “sticky note audit” of implementation by giving each leader two sticky notes. On one, they wrote down one of the most prominent challenges they had observed with curriculum implementation. This could be from quantitative data collected or trends identified through instructional observations. On the other note, we had them write down a top challenge that they frequently heard from the teachers themselves. This qualitative data was the most critical.

2. Sort It: Group the Sticky Notes By Common Topics

Next, we had leaders bring their sticky notes to a table in the center of the room, discuss their challenges, and then sort them into groups based on topic patterns. While this wasn’t a clean process, it actually worked out well. Leaders had to elaborate a little more about their challenges in order to group them effectively, and the discussions of what was really happening in classrooms were powerful. There were some clear, distinct patterns that emerged from the sorting activity as the team created titles for the topic categories.

3. Solve It: Identify the Top Challenges and Identify Next Steps

Not every issue held equal weight. In fact, a few repeated concerns accounted for a large part of the feedback: lesson pacing (25%) and the need for instructional moves for lesson delivery (almost 20%) were the top two contenders. There was another close category– the need for more state test-aligned assessment opportunities– but leaders felt like lesson pacing and instructional moves for lesson delivery were practical places where they could begin designing support for year two. They began looking at how they could leverage collaborative planning structures, professional learning days, and instructional coaching for these two areas.

Making Implementation Manageable

This process wasn’t surgically precise. Honestly, the first time we ever tried this was a little nerve-wracking because we couldn’t predict the outcome and it felt, well, kind of messy. Realistically, no leader is going to have all the answers for all of the issues that arise from trying to use a brand new curriculum–and that’s ok! Every single school and classroom comes with its own set of variables and challenges, but the beauty of this process is that we recognize our limitations and choose to focus on the one or two areas where we can leverage support. In other words, we make implementation manageable.

After all, there’s never going to be a “perfect curriculum.” (Sorry, not sorry, curriculum companies.) It’s always going to come down to the knowledge and skills of the teachers using the materials. This process just helps leaders strategically decide where to spend the most vital resources of time, energy, and money on areas that support teachers in building knowledge and instructional skills as they do the incredible work of teaching students. 

This process is also adaptable. While it may not pinpoint a single obvious need that’s clearly above all others, it can be a great place to begin thinking about next steps. 

If you give this process a try or adapt it for your own team, we’d love to hear how it goes!

“Is this for a grade?”

“Why we gotta do this?”

Those were two questions I heard every single day as a classroom teacher. Early on, my go-to answers were, “Everything is for a grade” and “Because it’ll be on the state test.” As with all things in teaching, once you know better, you do better. The “knowing better” part came a little later in my career once I began to understand why the students always had to ask.

The biggest opportunity to learn came three years later. My school transitioned to a new teacher evaluation system, and along with it came new collaborative planning structures and leadership roles. What a time to be alive, right? I was somehow chosen to be part of the new leadership team, and our mission was to support our fellow teachers in understanding the new evaluation rubric. Our starting point? Lesson goals and objectives.

We began by collecting data to show the need for focusing on lesson goals and objectives. We didn’t want to hand the teachers another graph or report to analyze or a ton of research to read. Instead, we videoed a handful of students at the end of a school day and asked them what they had learned that day. As you can imagine, most of the answers were pretty generic.

“We read a story and answered questions about it.”

“We worked some math problems.”

“We played outside at recess.”

It was evident to us that, although students might have been compliant in those lessons, they definitely did not comprehend what they were learning or why they were learning it.   

Those of us on the leadership team who were still classroom teachers did a field test to try and change that data. We decided to work on framing our lessons better by introducing learning targets. Yes, that included writing them on the board in student-friendly language. It also included having students take a second to turn and talk with a partner and put those targets into their own words, giving them time to understand what they were going to learn.

We videoed the same students at the end of that week and asked them the same question.

The results were a step in the right direction.

“We used text evidence to prove a character’s traits.”

“We found different solution methods to answering a math problem.”

Students were able to articulate their learning clearly. It felt like we had done some kind of magic trick.

We still had a long way to go, but this was a promising start. I started to reflect and connect the reasons students were asking “if this was for a grade” and “why they had to do” the lesson activities. Their brains were looking for connections and patterns! The what and the why. As a school leadership team, we were eager to keep moving in a positive direction and develop a clearer understanding of what framing a lesson looks and sounds like.

Lesson Framing: An instructional strategy in which educators outline lesson objectives, communicate how learning will occur, and the criteria for success.

When I use the term “framing,” I don’t just mean that objectives, standards, or learning targets are posted somewhere during the lesson and then repeated again at the end of the lesson. (Some of us, ahem…me…liked to try to “game the system” and just write all of the standards on the board at the beginning of the year, only to have that one kid take their finger and drag it through my dry erase board’s surface. I’m still mourning the loss of my standards visual masterpiece…sniff.) 

I’m actually talking about setting the lesson up in such a way that we activate learners’ brains from the beginning so they understand what we are expecting them to learn. We help them connect learning all throughout, check their understanding, and then provide closure at the end.

It comes back to, “What are we learning today?” and, “Why are we learning this?” 

So, what are some keys to effectively framing a lesson?  Let’s check some of them out and understand how to use them in your instruction.

1. Have a clear lesson structure every day.

Every strong lesson usually includes some type of clear, daily roadmap for learning. This roadmap helps to ensure students understand expectations, time is managed well, and objectives are met. This doesn’t take a convoluted 12-page lesson plan to maintain- it can be as simple as starting the lesson with the objective and ending the lesson with a check for understanding. This keeps the most important things as the bookends of the lesson and provides students with a predictable structure that messages what they will be learning and how they will be accountable for learning by the end. 

 

What it could look like: Have a quick warm up routine (I’m talking 2-5 minutes) that either activates students’ learning and/or gets them settled into the classroom. Once the warmup is complete, introduce the learning objective and how learning will be assessed by the end. No surprises here! (Now, you may still get the dreaded, “Is this for a grade?” question, but the answer will be totally up to you!)

 

Pitfall to avoid: While a predictable lesson structure is helpful, keep it from becoming too stale of a routine. One example: There might always be a check for understanding at the end of the lesson, but it doesn’t have to look the same every day. It can be a response on a sticky note, an annotation in a text, or a response on a mini whiteboard!

 

2. Provide a visual agenda.

If you’ve gotten pretty consistent with the first key, a next great step would be to provide students with some type of visual agenda that previews the activities they will be completing to meet the lesson objectives. I don’t mean anything fancy or complicated– a few quick bullet points on the board will suffice. This creates a through-line in the lesson, showing students the “why” of the activities. The purpose of each task is to intentionally move them toward the learning targets, and having a visual for them (or you) to refer to can help students see the cohesion or intent of the tasks. Now, I can’t guarantee that it will eliminate the “Why we gotta do this?” questions, but I can say that it significantly decreased that question when I started using quick agendas with my students. As a bonus, it actually helped me with lesson pacing!

What it could look like: Bulleted list on the board, screen, or chart paper. 

Pitfalls to avoid: Keep the agenda items as short as possible and focus on the most essential activities. This will prevent students from feeling overwhelmed by the feeling of a big “to-do” list.

3. Use a lesson closure to connect the dots.

When I think about powerful lesson framing, I automatically think beginning, middle, end, and the elements mentioned above. But I remember all too well that when lesson pacing got tight, the lesson closure was often the first thing to go. It was like lesson whiplash- we would be in the thick of learning only to find out the next class was already waiting in line outside. (cue the flurry of exit tickets, packing up, and changing classes) It took me a hot minute (aka many years), but I eventually found the power of having a strong lesson closure. What do I mean by that? A lesson closure allows students to formally close the learning loop that was started at the beginning, providing time for them to reflect back on the purpose of the lesson and whether or not they moved toward their target. This small but powerful moment helps students process and store new learning in their brains instead of letting it fly out of the classroom as quickly as they do. Essentially, it allows students to connect the dots of the day’s learning.

What it could look like: Try to plan for 2-3 minutes at the end of every lesson for students to refer back to the initial learning target and internalize their progress. This can happen through a turn and talk moment, or even just having students rate themselves on a scale of 1-3 (with 3 being, “I nailed it!”) at the bottom of an exit ticket before turning it in.

Pitfalls to avoid: Spending too much time overthinking the closure or feeling like it’s “one more thing to do.” Practice lesson closures until they feel authentic and like a great use of instructional time.

Although I now lead professional development for teachers and leaders instead of students, I find that the keys of framing still apply in order to land the day’s learning. If I am in a room full of teachers and I don’t frame the learning correctly from the jump, it takes participants anywhere from 45 minutes to two hours to feel as though they have a handle on the goals of the day and the purpose of the activities in the learning session. It can be extremely disorienting (even for adults).

Next time you are in a professional development session, pay attention to the session framing. Which elements are present? Which ones help orient you to the learning goals and help you stay “in the game”? Are there any missing? What effect does that have on you as a learner?

For your own practice, which element of lesson framing are you ready to focus on next?