Detroit Community Schools · 2026–2027
Mathematics Coaching Manual
A living reference for the K–8 Principal & District Mathematics Coach. Grounded in McGatha, Bay-Williams, Kobe & Wray (2018) and Bambrick-Santoyo's Get Better Faster 2.0. Built for a school at 0% proficiency — and committed to changing that.
Year at a Glance
0%
2024-25 Math Proficiency
K-8 M-STEP & HS SAT
--
Days to M-STEP
April 2027 window
2
CSI Designations
K-8 Yr 1 • HS Yr 2
20%+
Aspirational Goal
M-STEP & MME June 2027
School Year Progress
Aug 2026Loading...Jun 2027
Calculating...
Theory of Action
When a highly skilled mathematics coach uses a research-based coaching framework (McGatha et al., 2018) and a rapid-development action-step system (Bambrick-Santoyo GBF 2.0) to systematically support teachers through differentiated coaching cycles, aligned professional learning, and data-driven instruction anchored to Michigan's high-leverage standards, students experiencing significant academic gaps will accelerate growth and achieve proficiency on state assessments.
Partnership Agreement Obligation
High Stakes: DCS signed a legally binding Partnership Agreement on April 23, 2026 with MDE, Wayne RESA, and Bay Mills Community College. If DCS achieves 33.33% or fewer of 36-month end targets, accountability measures including possible reconstitution may be imposed by 2029-2030. Math proficiency growth is a mandatory, measurable obligation.
Six Goals for 2026-2027
Goal 1 — Proficiency
Move from 0% to 15%+ on M-STEP/MME by spring 2027
Goal 2 — Coaching Reach
100% of teachers in at least one coaching cycle by October 2026
Goal 3 — Standards Fidelity
High-leverage standards taught with fidelity across all grade bands
Goal 4 — ILC Quality
All ILC meetings produce actionable next steps; documented weekly
Goal 5 — Teacher Support
All teachers tiered 1/2/3 by September 2026; support plans in place
Goal 6 — Professional Learning
8 PD sessions with pre/post data; follow-up coaching cycle within 2 weeks
📝 Coach's Notes — HomeSaved ✓
Section 9 — Partnership Agreement
CSI Milestones & MDE Partnership Targets
DCS operates under a legally binding Partnership Agreement signed April 23, 2026 with MDE, Wayne RESA, and Bay Mills Community College. These are official obligations, not aspirational goals.
Accountability: If DCS achieves 33.33% or less of 36-month end outcomes, accountability measures including possible school reconstitution must be imposed by 2029-2030 (MCL 388.1622p).
Official Math Targets
| # | School | Measure | Baseline | 18-Month (2026-27) | 36-Month (2027-28) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | DCS K-8 | NWEA Math MAP Growth | 33% | 38% | 40% |
| 4 | DCS K-8 | M-STEP Math Proficiency (FAY) | 2.40% | +4% (to ~6.4%) | +8% (to ~10.4%) |
| 6 | DCHS | SAT Math Proficiency (FAY) | 0% | 8% | 16% |
| 3 | DCS K-8 | MI School Index Growth | 4.02% | 7.02% | 9.02% |
| 8 | DCHS | MI School Index Growth (overall) | 23.53% | +2 pts | +3 pts |
Real Baseline Data
| Grade | Reading % | Math % | Math Priority Standards |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 3 | 2% | 2% | 3.OA.C ⭐ mult/div; 3.NF.A ⭐ fractions |
| Grade 4 | 0% | 0% | 4.NBT.B ⭐ multi-digit; 4.NF.B ⭐ fractions |
| Grade 5 | 3% | 0% | 5.NF.A ⭐ unlike denominators; 5.NBT.B ⭐ |
| Grade 6 | 1% | 0% | 6.RP.A ⭐ ratio concepts (highest-leverage) |
| Grade 7 | 1% | 4% | 7.RP.A ⭐ proportional relationships; 7.EE.B ⭐ |
| Assessment | ELA Benchmark | Math Benchmark | Both Met |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAT (Grade 11) | 8% | 0% | 0% |
| PSAT 10 (Grade 10) | 22% | 1% | 1% |
| PSAT 9 (Grade 9) | 21% | 0% | 0% |
| PSAT 8 (Grade 8) | 9% | 0% | 0% |
| Grade | Math % Met Growth | Math CGP | Reading % | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K | 34% | 29 | 69% | K.CC.A, K.OA.A |
| 1 | 17% | 15 | 11% | 1.NBT.B ⭐, 1.OA.C ⭐ |
| 2 | 22% | 9 | 10% | 2.NBT.A ⭐, 2.OA.B ⭐ |
| 3 | 13% | 10 | 30% | 3.OA.C ⭐, 3.NF.A ⭐ |
| 4 | 22% | 23 | 25% | 4.NBT.B ⭐ |
| 5 | 31% | 23 | 37% | 5.NF.A ⭐ |
| 6 | 51% | 49 | 48% | 6.RP.A ⭐ (strongest grade) |
| 7 | 42% | 30 | 44% | 7.RP.A ⭐, 7.EE.B ⭐ |
| 8 | 18% | 17 | 31% | 8.F.A ⭐, 8.EE.B ⭐ URGENT |
| 9 | 41% | 37 | 37% | HSA-REI.B ⭐, HSF-IF.B ⭐ |
| 10 | 38% | 40 | 54% | HSF-BF.A ⭐, HSS-ID.A ⭐ |
| 11 | 51% | 50 | 53% | All HS standards ⭐ |
📝 Coach's Notes — PA MilestonesSaved ✓
Section 8
Teacher Tracker
All DCS math teachers are tiered monthly. Tier informs coaching intensity, not evaluation.
Confidential. Tier 3 teachers with 3+ months of support and no growth will trigger a conversation with Superintendent Petty per Partnership Agreement requirements.
Tier Definitions
Tier 1 Light Touch
Strong practices. Students growing.
McGatha: SUSTAIN • GBF: Phase 4
1x/month + ILC
McGatha: SUSTAIN • GBF: Phase 4
1x/month + ILC
Tier 2 Targeted
Developing practices. Minimal growth.
McGatha: GROW • GBF: Phase 2-3
2x/month + check-in
McGatha: GROW • GBF: Phase 2-3
2x/month + check-in
Tier 3 Intensive
Significant gaps. No growth.
McGatha: BUILD • GBF: Phase 1-2
Weekly + principal loop-in
McGatha: BUILD • GBF: Phase 1-2
Weekly + principal loop-in
Tracker
| Teacher / Grade | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | Avg | Tier | GBF | Action Step |
|---|
📝 Coach's Notes — TrackerSaved ✓
Coach's Space
My Coaching Notes
Document reflections, wins, and your growth as a coach. All notes save in your browser.
📝 Monthly ReflectionSaved ✓
🏆 Wins & CelebrationsSaved ✓
📚 Professional Learning LogSaved ✓
📋 Superintendent Update LogSaved ✓
🎓 Dr. Weir / CS Partners Collaboration NotesSaved ✓
Expandable
Add New Section
Create custom sections as your practice grows. Each section you add appears in the sidebar.
Create a New Section
Section 1
Executive Summary & Theory of Action
Detroit Community Schools faces one of the most critical academic improvement moments in its history. With 0% math proficiency for two consecutive years and CSI designations at both the K–8 and High School levels, every instructional decision this year must be intentional, strategic, and relentless.
Urgency: 0% Math Proficiency — Two Consecutive Years (2023 & 2024). High School: CSI Year 2. K–8: CSI Year 1. Students are severely below grade level across all grade bands. Curriculum Resource: HMH. State Assessments: Michigan M-STEP, MME, SAT (Grades 3–11).
Theory of Action
When a highly skilled mathematics coach uses a research-based coaching framework (McGatha et al., 2018) to systematically support teachers through differentiated coaching cycles, aligned professional learning, and data-driven instruction — anchored to Michigan’s high-leverage standards — students experiencing significant academic gaps will accelerate growth and achieve proficiency on state assessments.
Coaching Framework Foundation
This plan is grounded in Everything You Need for Mathematics Coaching (McGatha, Bay-Williams, Kobe & Wray, Corwin, 2018), alongside Get Better Faster 2.0 (Bambrick-Santoyo), which provides the sequenced action-step system for rapid teacher development.
BUILD
Relationships, trust, and shared vision with teachers
COMMIT
A focused coaching cycle with clear learning targets
GROW
Through co-planning, co-teaching, observation, and reflection
SUSTAIN
Progress through data cycles and collaborative professional learning
Key Goals for 2026–2027
| # | Goal | Success Indicator |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Move from 0% to 15%+ proficiency on M-STEP/MME by spring 2027 | M-STEP/MME/SAT results show measurable growth in all grade bands |
| 2 | 100% of teachers engaged in coaching cycles by October 2026 | Teacher Tracker shows all teachers in active coaching tier |
| 3 | Implement high-leverage standards instruction with fidelity | Walk-through data shows targeted standards being taught |
| 4 | All ILC meetings produce actionable instructional next steps | ILC agendas and minutes filed weekly with superintendent |
| 5 | Tier 1/2/3 support differentiated for all teachers | Teacher Tracker updated monthly; support plans documented |
| 6 | Professional Development calendar completed with 8 sessions | PD sign-in sheets, pre/post surveys, and follow-up notes on file |
📝 Coach’s Notes — Executive SummarySaved ✓
Section 2
CSI Designation — Context & Compliance
Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools are identified under ESSA for being among the lowest-performing schools in the state. For DCS, this designation triggers mandatory improvement requirements and creates both accountability and access to additional resources.
HIGH SCHOOL — Year 2 of CSI
CRITICAL: Must show measurable progress
• Entering 2nd year — risk of state intervention if no growth
• 0% MME/SAT proficiency in 2024 — must achieve at minimum 0.01% growth
• Focus: Algebra 1 foundations, linear functions, statistics
• Bridge supports: address pre-algebra gaps in 9th/10th grade
• Senior cohort: SAT Math prep is urgent priority
• Entering 2nd year — risk of state intervention if no growth
• 0% MME/SAT proficiency in 2024 — must achieve at minimum 0.01% growth
• Focus: Algebra 1 foundations, linear functions, statistics
• Bridge supports: address pre-algebra gaps in 9th/10th grade
• Senior cohort: SAT Math prep is urgent priority
K–8 SCHOOL — Year 1 of CSI
URGENT: First year — establish strong foundation
• 0% M-STEP proficiency in 2024 — all grades must show minimum growth
• Focus: Number sense, operations, algebraic thinking K–5
• Grades 6–8: ratio, proportional reasoning, expressions
• Diagnostic data must drive every instructional decision
• Strong Tier 2/3 teacher support to build instructional capacity
• 0% M-STEP proficiency in 2024 — all grades must show minimum growth
• Focus: Number sense, operations, algebraic thinking K–5
• Grades 6–8: ratio, proportional reasoning, expressions
• Diagnostic data must drive every instructional decision
• Strong Tier 2/3 teacher support to build instructional capacity
Michigan State Assessment Overview
| Grades | Assessment | Window | Math Focus Areas |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3–8 | M-STEP | Apr–May 2027 | Number & Operations, Algebra, Geometry, Data/Measurement |
| 11 | MME (SAT + M-STEP) | Mar–Apr 2027 | Heart of Algebra, Problem Solving, Advanced Math |
| 9–10 | PSAT (informational) | Oct 2026 | Algebra, Functions, Data Analysis |
| K–2 | NWEA | Quarterly | Number sense, counting, early operations (no state test) |
Partnership Agreement — Signatory Partners
Signed April 23, 2026. Partners: Detroit Community Schools (Supt. Seth Petty Sr. / Board Pres. Patrick Devlin) • Wayne RESA (Dr. Daveda Colbert) • Bay Mills Community College (Katherine Tassier) • MDE (Cassandra Benion-Guidry, OPD) • Additional Partner: CS Partners / Dr. Lisa Weir.
Accountability Measure if targets not met: “Reorganize the high school leadership structure, including but not limited to changing the organizational chart, job description and/or job duties.”
Accountability Measure if targets not met: “Reorganize the high school leadership structure, including but not limited to changing the organizational chart, job description and/or job duties.”
📝 Coach’s Notes — CSI ContextSaved ✓
Section 3
High-Leverage Standards by Grade Band
⭐ = HIGHLY TESTED / PRIORITY STANDARD. These standards appear most frequently on M-STEP, MME, and SAT. Given 0% proficiency, gap-closing and grade-level instruction must occur simultaneously.
K–2 M-STEP begins at Grade 3. Build the foundation NOW — every K–2 gap compounds into M-STEP failure at Grade 3.
| Standard | Description | Why High-Leverage | HMH Resource |
|---|---|---|---|
| K.CC.A ⭐ | Count to 100 by 1s and 10s; count objects with one-to-one correspondence | Foundation for all number work; gaps here cascade into every subsequent grade | HMH K, Unit 1–2 |
| K.OA.A ⭐ | Understand addition and subtraction within 10 | Gateway to all operations | HMH K, Unit 3–4 |
| 1.NBT.B ⭐ | Understand place value: tens and ones; compare two-digit numbers | Critical for Gr2–3 work; place value misconceptions persist to algebra | HMH Gr1, Unit 2 |
| 1.OA.C ⭐ | Add and subtract within 20; understand relationship between addition and subtraction | Fluency gap is most common K–1 issue | HMH Gr1, Units 1,3 |
| 2.NBT.A ⭐ | Understand place value to 1,000; read, write, and compare three-digit numbers | Directly tested at Gr3 M-STEP and prerequisite for multiplication | HMH Gr2, Unit 2 |
| 2.OA.B ⭐ | Fluently add and subtract within 20 using mental strategies | M-STEP Grade 3 assumes fluency — if not built by end of Gr2, Gr3 teacher inherits the gap | HMH Gr2, Unit 1 |
3–5 Highest M-STEP impact. Fractions, multiplication, and multi-step problem solving are the three dominant test domains.
| Standard | Description | Why High-Leverage | HMH Resource |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.OA.C ⭐ | Multiply and divide within 100; fluency with all products of 1-digit numbers | #1 tested skill at Gr3 M-STEP; gateway to all upper elementary math | HMH Gr3, Units 3–4 |
| 3.NF.A ⭐ | Understand fractions as numbers; represent on a number line | Fractions are #1 statewide weakness at Gr3–5 | HMH Gr3, Unit 5 |
| 4.NBT.B ⭐ | Multiply multi-digit whole numbers; find whole-number quotients with 4-digit dividends | Heavily tested at Gr4; prerequisite for Gr5 fraction operations | HMH Gr4, Units 2–3 |
| 4.NF.B ⭐ | Build fractions from unit fractions; multiply fractions by whole numbers | Critical M-STEP domain — 20%+ of Gr4 test content | HMH Gr4, Units 5–6 |
| 5.NF.A ⭐ | Add and subtract fractions with unlike denominators including mixed numbers | Most-missed M-STEP questions at Gr5; must master for Gr6 ratio work | HMH Gr5, Unit 3 |
| 5.NBT.B ⭐ | Multiply and divide decimals to hundredths using concrete models and algorithms | Extends directly to Gr6 ratios and proportions | HMH Gr5, Unit 2 |
| 4.OA.A ⭐ | Interpret and solve multi-step word problems using the four operations | Problem solving appears across ALL M-STEP items | HMH Gr4, Unit 1 |
| 5.MD.C ⭐ | Measure volumes and relate volume to multiplication and addition | Geometry strand tested annually at Gr5 | HMH Gr5, Unit 6 |
6–8 Gateway to high school. Ratio, proportional reasoning, and functions are the three pillars. Gr8 standards overlap directly with Algebra 1.
| Standard | Description | Why High-Leverage | HMH Resource |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6.RP.A ⭐ | Understand ratio concepts and use ratio reasoning; unit rates; percent | #1 tested domain at Gr6 M-STEP; foundational for all middle school math | HMH Gr6, Units 1–2 |
| 6.EE.A ⭐ | Write and evaluate algebraic expressions; apply properties of operations | Algebra readiness — heavily tested; gateway to equations | HMH Gr6, Unit 4 |
| 7.RP.A ⭐ | Analyze proportional relationships; solve real-world problems; percent change | Most critical Gr7 standard; connects ratio to algebra | HMH Gr7, Units 1–2 |
| 7.EE.B ⭐ | Solve multi-step real-life problems using equations and inequalities | Direct pathway to Gr8 and Algebra 1 | HMH Gr7, Unit 4 |
| 8.EE.B ⭐ | Analyze and solve systems of two linear equations | Heavy MME/SAT weighting; Algebra 1 content embedded in Gr8 | HMH Gr8, Unit 4 |
| 8.F.A ⭐ | Define, evaluate, and compare functions; use functions to model relationships | #1 Gr8 M-STEP strand; direct gateway to high school math | HMH Gr8, Unit 5 |
| 8.EE.A ⭐ | Work with radicals and integer exponents; scientific notation | M-STEP and Algebra 1 prerequisite | HMH Gr8, Unit 3 |
| 8.G.B ⭐ | Understand and apply Pythagorean theorem; volumes of cylinders, cones, spheres | Geometry section of Gr8 M-STEP | HMH Gr8, Unit 7 |
9–12 CSI Year 2 — CRITICAL. MME includes the SAT. Heart of Algebra is the largest single SAT Math category.
| Standard | Description | Why High-Leverage | HMH Resource |
|---|---|---|---|
| HSA-CED.A ⭐ | Create equations and inequalities; create equations in two or more variables | Heart of Algebra — largest SAT Math category | HMH Alg1, Units 2–3 |
| HSA-REI.B ⭐ | Solve linear equations and inequalities; solve systems | Most-missed SAT items; Algebra 1 prerequisite for all subsequent HS math | HMH Alg1, Unit 3 |
| HSF-IF.B ⭐ | Interpret functions; calculate and interpret average rate of change; domain and range | #1 MME math strand for 11th grade | HMH Alg1, Unit 5 |
| HSF-BF.A ⭐ | Build a function that models a relationship; write explicit and recursive definitions | Functions appear in 30%+ of SAT Math | HMH Alg1/2, Unit 6 |
| HSS-ID.A ⭐ | Summarize and represent data; interpret box plots, histograms, scatter plots | Problem Solving & Data — SAT Math second largest category | HMH Statistics Unit |
| HSA-SSE.A ⭐ | Interpret and rewrite expressions; identify structure of algebraic expressions | Advanced Math — SAT Category 3 | HMH Alg2, Unit 1 |
| HSG-SRT.B ⭐ | Prove and apply theorems using similarity and trigonometry | Geometry strand on MME | HMH Geometry, Unit 7 |
| HSN-RN.A ⭐ | Extend properties of exponents to rational exponents; use radical notation | SAT Advanced Math; frequently tested | HMH Alg2, Unit 5 |
📝 Coach’s Notes — StandardsSaved ✓
Section 4
Year-Long Pacing Guide
August 2026 through June 2027. ALL instruction incorporates diagnostic-driven acceleration — meeting students where they are while building toward grade-level standards. HMH is a resource, not a script — supplement with targeted gap-closing activities as identified through data.
| Month | Coaching Focus | K–5 Standards ⭐ | Gr 6–8 Standards ⭐ | Gr 9–12 Standards ⭐ | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 2026 | Diagnose & Build Relationships McGatha Ch.1–2 / GBF Phase 1 | Baseline diagnostic K.CC, K.OA ⭐ / 1.NBT, 2.OA ⭐ | Baseline diagnostic 6.RP.A ⭐ / 6.EE.A ⭐ | Baseline diagnostic HSA-CED.A ⭐ / HSA-REI.B ⭐ | Diagnostic |
| Sept 2026 | Coaching Cycles Begin (Tier 1–3) McGatha Ch.3–4 / GBF Phase 2 | 3.OA.C ⭐ mult/div 4.NBT.B ⭐ place value | 6.RP.A ratios ⭐ 7.RP.A proportions ⭐ | HSA-REI.B ⭐ Linear equations / Algebra 1 | — |
| Oct 2026 | Co-Teaching Cycles; ILC Data Review McGatha Ch.5 / GBF Phase 2 | 3.NF.A ⭐ / 4.NF.B ⭐ 5.NF.A ⭐ | 7.EE.B equations ⭐ 6.EE expressions ⭐ | HSF-IF.B functions ⭐ Domain & range / Rate of change | Q1 CFA |
| Nov 2026 | Observation & Feedback Cycles McGatha Ch.5 / GBF Phase 3 | 4.OA.A word problems ⭐ 5.NBT.B decimals ⭐ | 8.EE.A exponents ⭐ 7.RP.A percent ⭐ | HSF-BF.A building functions ⭐ Linear models | Mid-Q |
| Dec 2026 | Reflection & Mid-Year Prep McGatha Ch.6 / GBF 90-Day Review | 5.MD.C volume ⭐ 3.OA review ⭐ | 8.F.A functions ⭐ 7.EE.B review ⭐ | HSA-SSE.A ⭐ Expression structure / Review Alg1 | Q2 CFA |
| Jan 2027 | Mid-Year Diagnostic & Acceleration McGatha Ch.6 / GBF New Cycle | Fractions deep dive 3.NF–5.NF ⭐ / Decimal operations | 8.EE.B systems ⭐ 8.F.A functions ⭐ | HSS-ID.A data ⭐ Statistics / SAT prep intensifies | Mid-Year |
| Feb 2027 | SAT/M-STEP Prep Intensifies McGatha Ch.6 / GBF Stretch It | 4.NF–5.NF ⭐ Mixed numbers / Word problems | 8.G.B Pythagorean ⭐ 8.EE.B systems ⭐ | HSA-CED.A ⭐ Systems / Word problems | PSAT Review |
| Mar 2027 | Test Prep Mastery / Tier 3 Intensive | Multi-step review Grades 3–5 all ⭐ | Proportional reasoning Grades 6–8 all ⭐ | MME/SAT WINDOW HSF-IF / HSA-REI ⭐ | MME/SAT |
| Apr 2027 | M-STEP Window — Maintain Instruction | M-STEP WINDOW Gr 3–8 tested ⭐ | M-STEP WINDOW Gr 6–8 tested ⭐ | Post-MME: HS acceleration HSG-SRT.B ⭐ | M-STEP |
| May 2027 | Reflect & Sustain McGatha Ch.7–8 / GBF Phase 4 | 5.MD; 4.OA review End-of-year spiral | 8.G.B; 8.EE review Summer bridge prep | HSN-RN.A ⭐ Exponents / Next-year readiness | Q4 CFA |
| Jun 2027 | Year-End Review / Coaching Portfolios | K–5 celebration Achievement data / Summer packets | 6–8 celebration Data portfolios / Transition planning | 9–12 celebration Credit review / Next year plan | EOY Data |
📝 Coach’s Notes — Pacing GuideSaved ✓
Section 5
Grade-Band Teaching Plans
These plans are guides for teachers — NOT rigid scripts. Given severe below-grade-level performance, teachers must: (1) meet students where they are, (2) build toward grade-level standards, and (3) use formative data to adjust daily.
K–2: Building Foundational Number Sense
| Component | Recommended Approach | HMH + Supplemental |
|---|---|---|
| Daily Number Routine (10–15 min) | Number of the Day; counting routines; ten frames; subitizing. Builds fluency through repeated practice (P6) | HMH Number Talks; ten frame cards; rekenrek |
| Mini-Lesson (15–20 min) | Direct instruction on priority standard; concrete-pictorial-abstract (CPA) sequence; manipulatives always used first (P3) | HMH Core lesson; base-ten blocks; linking cubes; number lines |
| Guided Practice (15 min) | Teacher works with small groups while others work independently; match group to diagnostic tier (P8) | HMH Differentiated lessons; Grab-and-Go activities |
| Student Work Time (10 min) | Partner or independent practice on the standard; low-stakes application (P7) | HMH Practice worksheets; station activities |
| Exit Ticket (5 min) | 1–2 question formative check on learning target; used to plan next day (P8) | Teacher-created aligned to standard; analyze daily |
Grades 3–5: Operations, Fractions & Problem Solving
| Component | Recommended Approach | HMH + Supplemental |
|---|---|---|
| Fluency Warm-Up (5–8 min) | Multiplication/division fact practice for Gr3–5; fraction of the day for Gr4–5; timed or untimed based on student need | HMH fluency builders; multiplication chart work; whiteboard practice |
| Problem Solving Launch (10 min) | Rich word problem using priority standard; 3-read protocol; students make sense before solving (P1, P2, P5) | 3-Act Math tasks; HMH problem of the day; MARS tasks |
| Conceptual Lesson (20 min) | Teach concept using CPA — manipulatives → pictures → numbers; fraction bars, area models, number lines (P3) | HMH core lesson; fraction tiles; grid paper; interactive tools |
| Collaborative Practice (10 min) | Partner work with accountable talk; explain thinking; justify answers (P4) | HMH Partner activities; Think-Pair-Share structures |
| Independent Practice (8 min) | M-STEP style problems; mixed review; require written explanation (P5) | HMH practice pages; released M-STEP items embedded |
| Exit Ticket (4–5 min) | Standard-aligned check; sort next day: Got It / Almost / Not Yet; plan reteach | HMH assessment tools; teacher-created 2-question checks |
Grades 6–8: Ratios, Algebra & Functions
| Component | Recommended Approach | HMH + Supplemental |
|---|---|---|
| Algebra Warm-Up (5–8 min) | Estimation 180; Would You Rather Math; Clothesline Math; equation of the day (P1, P6) | HMH daily warmups; Desmos activities; Number Talks |
| Standards-Based Task (10–12 min) | Open Middle or three-act task connected to priority standard; productive struggle encouraged (P2, P7) | Illustrative Math tasks; MARS; Open Middle; Desmos |
| Direct Instruction (15 min) | Concept-first teaching; connect representations (tables, graphs, equations, contexts); then procedures (P3, P6) | HMH core lesson; graphing tools; coordinate plane activities |
| Structured Discussion (10 min) | Gallery walk, Socratic seminar, or fishbowl; students present and defend solutions (P4) | HMH discussion prompts; Math Language Routines |
| Practice & Application (10 min) | M-STEP-style multi-step problems; real-world context; students write explanations | HMH practice; released M-STEP items; performance tasks |
| Formative Check (5 min) | Exit slip or whiteboard check; data drives next day grouping and reteach (P8) | HMH quick checks; exit tickets |
Grades 9–12: Algebra, Functions & SAT Preparation
| Component | Recommended Approach | HMH + Supplemental |
|---|---|---|
| SAT/MME Spiral (8–10 min) | 3 SAT-style warm-up problems daily; timed; discuss strategies not just answers; build stamina (P1) | Khan Academy SAT; College Board released items; HMH Alg1/2 |
| Standards Task (10 min) | Rich task requiring reasoning about functions, algebra, or data; real-world context; student choice of approach | Desmos teacher activities; MARS tasks; Illustrative Math HS |
| Conceptual Instruction (15–18 min) | Teach the WHY before the HOW; connect algebra to graphs and contexts; visual representations always (P3, P6) | HMH Algebra 1/2/Geometry core lessons; Desmos graphing |
| Collaborative Problem Solving (10 min) | Group work on complex problems; assign roles; present and justify; connect to test context (P4) | Performance tasks; Algebra Nation; HMH group activities |
| Independent Test Prep (8 min) | Students work independently on released SAT/M-STEP items; score and discuss strategies | College Board; Khan Academy; MDE released items |
| Data Check (4–5 min) | Exit ticket tied to standard; track by student; Tier 3 students flagged for intervention (P8) | Teacher-created; maintain student progress data tracker |
📝 Coach’s Notes — Teaching PlansSaved ✓
Section 6 — Dual Framework
Coaching Model
DCS uses two complementary frameworks. McGatha et al. (2018) provides the overarching coaching cycle and Eight Mathematics Teaching Practices. Bambrick-Santoyo’s Get Better Faster 2.0 provides the sequenced action-step system for rapidly developing new and struggling teachers.
McGatha Coaching Cycle — Four Phases
| Phase | Coach Actions | Teacher Actions | DCS Application |
|---|---|---|---|
| BUILD Trust & Vision | Conduct get-to-know conversations; identify teacher strengths; share student data collaboratively; establish coaching agreement | Share concerns, goals, and classroom context; review diagnostic data; set learning goals with coach | Aug–Sept 2026: All teachers. Coaching Agreements signed by Sept 15, 2026. |
| COMMIT Focus & Plan | Co-identify instructional focus; select high-leverage standard; co-plan lesson using 8 Teaching Practices | Bring student work samples; co-plan; articulate learning target; commit to trying something new | Sept–Oct 2026: Priority standards identified per grade; HMH lesson mapping completed. |
| GROW Observe & Learn | Co-teach or observe; take detailed notes on student thinking; provide specific evidence-based feedback; model when needed | Implement planned lesson; try new strategies; reflect on student understanding; be open to feedback | Oct 2026–Mar 2027: Weekly cycles for Tier 3; bi-weekly for Tier 2; monthly for Tier 1. |
| SUSTAIN Reflect & Data | Analyze student work post-lesson; celebrate growth; plan next cycle; share at ILC; update Teacher Tracker | Review CFA data; set new goals; share strategies with colleagues; build independence | Monthly: Data review at ILC. Teacher Tracker updated. Tier adjustments documented. |
Eight Mathematics Teaching Practices (NCTM/McGatha, 2018)
| # | Practice | Look-For in Classroom | Coaching Question |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Establish mathematics goals to focus learning | Learning target posted; referenced throughout lesson | What do you want students to know/be able to do by the end? |
| P2 | Implement tasks that promote reasoning and problem solving | Tasks require more than recall; students explain thinking | How does this task require students to think mathematically? |
| P3 | Use and connect mathematical representations | Multiple representations: concrete, pictorial, abstract | Where do students see the connection between the model and the equation? |
| P4 | Facilitate meaningful mathematical discourse | Student-to-student talk; accountable talk stems posted | How are you getting ALL students to talk about math? |
| P5 | Pose purposeful questions | Questions probe understanding, not just answers | What questions will you ask when students are stuck? |
| P6 | Build procedural fluency from conceptual understanding | Concepts taught before procedures; not just steps | Do students know WHY the procedure works? |
| P7 | Support productive struggle in learning mathematics | Wait time; hints not answers; effort praised | How do you respond when students say ‘I don’t get it’? |
| P8 | Elicit and use evidence of student thinking | Exit tickets, CFAs, turn-and-talks used; data drives next steps | How will you know what students learned today? |
Get Better Faster 2.0 — 90-Day Action Step Sequence
Bambrick-Santoyo’s key insight: feedback without practice doesn’t stick. Every debrief ends with the teacher PRACTICING the action step before leaving the room. This is non-negotiable for Tier 2 and Tier 3 teachers.
| Phase | Days | Focus | Key Math Action Steps | Coach’s Role |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 Pre-Teaching | 1–30 | Culture & basic lesson structure | Post and state learning target daily • Use exit ticket every lesson • Establish 3-before-me rule • Circulate during all work time | Observe 2x/week; give ONE action step per debrief; model the target behavior |
| Phase 2 Instruction | 31–60 | Lesson execution & questioning | Cold-call by name, not just volunteers • Ask ‘why’ and ‘how do you know’ • Use turn-and-talk with a prompt • Circulate and read student work | Co-plan one lesson/week; give feedback within 24 hours |
| Phase 3 Rigor | 61–85 | Cognitive demand & discourse | Launch with high-demand task • Sequence student work concrete→abstract • Use student error as public teaching moment • Facilitate student-to-student talk | Shift to collaborative feedback; teacher leads more of the debrief |
| Phase 4 Stretch | 86+ | Ownership & leadership | Lead ILC segment on own learning • Identify own next action step • Design own CFA and analyze results • Mentor a Tier 2 peer | Coach steps back; teacher drives coaching conversations |
GBF 2.0 — The 6-Step Debrief Protocol
| Step | What the Coach Does | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Praise | Name one specific thing anchored in student evidence: “When you asked Marcus to explain his thinking, three other students immediately looked back at their work” | 1 min |
| 2. Probe | Ask one question that surfaces the teacher’s own awareness of the gap: “What did you notice about the students in the back row during work time?” | 2 min |
| 3. Action Step | Name ONE specific, concrete, observable action step — not “be more engaging” but “After a student answers, immediately ask: Who agrees? Who can add to that?” | 2 min |
| 4. PRACTICE IT NOW | Teacher practices the action step right now. Coach plays a student. Teacher runs the move 2–3 times. Never skip this step — it is the most important. | 5–7 min |
| 5. Plan | Teacher identifies exactly where in tomorrow’s lesson the action step will appear: “I’ll use it right after the warm-up during the first check for understanding.” | 1 min |
| 6. Follow Up | Coach schedules next observation within 3–5 days to look specifically for this one move. Does NOT introduce a new action step until this one is habitual. | 1 min |
How the Two Frameworks Work Together at DCS
| Teacher Tier | Primary Framework | GBF Phase | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | McGatha SUSTAIN phase; advanced practice; peer leadership | Phase 4 — Stretch It | 1x/month + ILC |
| Tier 2 | McGatha GROW phase; targeted cycles on 1–2 Teaching Practices | Phase 2–3 — Instruction & Rigor | 2x/month + bi-weekly check-in |
| Tier 3 | McGatha BUILD & COMMIT; intensive co-planning; ONE action step at a time | Phase 1–2 — Pre-Teaching & Instruction | Weekly + monthly principal loop-in |
📝 Coach’s Notes — Coaching ModelSaved ✓
Section 7 — Coaching Binder Supplement (Tabs A–E)
Foundational Skills Framework
Gaps in foundational skills are NOT a reason to lower the ceiling. They are a reason to build the floor while teaching at grade level simultaneously. “If we never teach fractions because students can’t multiply, when will they ever learn fractions? What is the cost of that decision for their future?”
❌ Watered-Down Approach
• Spend weeks drilling multiplication before fractions
• Avoid integers until students “are ready”
• Use only simple, small numbers
• Skip word problems — too hard
• Remove rigor to reduce frustration
RESULT: Students fall further behind each year
• Avoid integers until students “are ready”
• Use only simple, small numbers
• Skip word problems — too hard
• Remove rigor to reduce frustration
RESULT: Students fall further behind each year
✅ Acceleration Approach
• Teach grade-level standards with just-in-time scaffolds
• Embed foundational skill work inside rich tasks
• Use manipulatives to bridge gaps
• Address prerequisite skills when students need them — in context
• Give students access to hard math every day
RESULT: Students access grade-level learning AND close gaps
• Embed foundational skill work inside rich tasks
• Use manipulatives to bridge gaps
• Address prerequisite skills when students need them — in context
• Give students access to hard math every day
RESULT: Students access grade-level learning AND close gaps
What ‘Shut Down’ Really Means
Key Insight: When students shut down on a hard task, it is almost never because the content is too hard. It is because they don’t have a way in — and they have learned that when math gets hard, the safest move is to disappear. That is a response to years of math feeling impossible. It is not a ceiling. It is armor. And armor can be removed with the right conditions.
Your North Star Sentence
“I believe your students can do this — and I want to help you believe it too, and prove it to them.”
Say this out loud in any coaching conversation that gets stuck. It resets the entire frame — from deficit to possibility, from argument to partnership.
Say this out loud in any coaching conversation that gets stuck. It resets the entire frame — from deficit to possibility, from argument to partnership.
The Coaching Question That Starts Every Pushback
| Teacher Says | Coach Responds With |
|---|---|
| “They can’t multiply, so I can’t teach fractions.” | “If we skip fractions this year because of multiplication, what happens when they hit 6th grade ratios? And 7th grade proportions? What is the cost of that decision over time?” |
| “I’m just being realistic about where they are.” | “Let’s define realistic. I think it means: these students haven’t had strong math instruction yet. That’s fixable. What does your version say about what’s possible for them?” |
| “They shut down when I try grade-level work.” | “Shutting down is armor, not inability. The fix isn’t easier work — it’s a better entry point. Let me show you the 3-read protocol.” |
| “I’ve tried. It just doesn’t work with these kids.” | “Tell me about the last lesson where something worked, even a little. What was different about it?” |
| “You don’t have these kids every day.” | “You’re right. You know them better than I do in important ways. Show me their work — let’s look at it together and figure out what they actually know.” |
Just-in-case remediation: Teach prerequisite skills BEFORE the lesson hoping students will need them later. Just-in-time scaffolding: Provide prerequisite support exactly WHEN students hit that moment in a rich task. Research consistently shows just-in-time is more effective.
The 5-Step Just-In-Time Cycle
| Step | Action | What the Teacher Does | What the Student Experiences |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Launch with access | Begin with a low-floor entry point — a visual, a context, a question with no wrong first answer. Every student can engage before any gaps surface. | I can start this. I have something to say. Math isn’t immediately impossible. |
| 2 | Surface the gap when it appears | When students hit a multiplication or fraction wall mid-task, that is the moment to address it — not two weeks earlier in isolation. | I need this skill right now, for something I’m actually working on. It matters. |
| 3 | Provide a scaffold, not the answer | Offer the tool that bridges the gap: multiplication chart, fraction bar, number line, integer chips. Model using it — don’t take over the thinking. | I have a way through this. The tool helps me get unstuck without giving up. |
| 4 | Follow up with targeted mini-practice | After the lesson, note which students needed which scaffolds. Use that to plan a 5-min warm-up the next day or a small-group session. | Tomorrow’s warm-up is connected to something I actually struggled with. It makes sense. |
| 5 | Track fluency growth separately | Keep a simple class fluency tracker. Celebrate when students no longer need the chart — without shaming those who still do. | I’m getting better at this specific thing. I can see my own growth. |
Non-Negotiable Scaffolds — Always Available in Every DCS Math Classroom
| Tool | What It Addresses | Who Uses It | How to Normalize It |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multiplication chart (desk copy) | Fact fluency gaps; multi-digit operations | Any student who needs it — no permission required | “The chart is a tool, like a ruler. Using it means you’re working smart.” |
| Fraction bar strips (laminated) | Fraction comparison, equivalence, benchmark sense | Grades 3–8 especially; HS when fractions reappear | Post fraction benchmarks (½, ¼, ¾, ⅓) on wall and reference them constantly |
| Number line (−20 to 100) | Integer operations; negative numbers; decimals | Grades 5–12; K–4 for positive number sense | “Point to where −3 is. Now where does −3 + 5 land?” |
| Integer chips (two-color counters) | Adding and subtracting signed numbers | Grades 6–8 introduction; HS review | Students build the problem before writing anything symbolic |
| Base-ten blocks or drawings | Place value; decimal operations | K–5; Grade 6 for decimals review | Students sketch the block model before operating |
| Area model grid paper | Multiplication, fractions, polynomial multiplication | Grades 3–12 across topics | “Before you write the algorithm, draw what it looks like” |
Skill Gap 1: Multiplication Facts
Root cause: Students learned by rote without understanding what multiplication means — equal groups, arrays, area. Facts stored without structure are fragile and non-transferable.
What works: Daily 3–5 minute number talks using arrays and area models. Connect facts to structure: 6×7 = 6×5 + 6×2. Allow charts during tasks and remove gradually. NEVER use timed tests as the primary fluency method — they build math anxiety, not fluency.
For the teacher: “Let’s put a multiplication chart on every desk and normalize it. In your warm-up for the next two weeks, we’ll do a 3-minute number talk that builds those specific facts. You’ll teach fractions AND build fluency — not one or the other.”
What works: Daily 3–5 minute number talks using arrays and area models. Connect facts to structure: 6×7 = 6×5 + 6×2. Allow charts during tasks and remove gradually. NEVER use timed tests as the primary fluency method — they build math anxiety, not fluency.
For the teacher: “Let’s put a multiplication chart on every desk and normalize it. In your warm-up for the next two weeks, we’ll do a 3-minute number talk that builds those specific facts. You’ll teach fractions AND build fluency — not one or the other.”
Skill Gap 2: Fractions
Root cause: Students were taught procedures (butterfly method, invert-and-multiply, keep-change-flip) without ever building meaning. They don’t know what a fraction IS as a number on a number line.
What works: Fraction bars and number lines BEFORE any algorithm — always. Students must place ½, ⅓, ¾ on a number line before they add fractions. When adding ½ + ⅓, students draw it first — the algorithm comes after they can see WHY common denominators matter.
Daily routine: Post one fraction each day. Students: (1) draw it 3 ways, (2) place on a number line, (3) compare to ½. Takes 4 minutes. Done daily, it builds fraction sense that no algorithm can replace.
What works: Fraction bars and number lines BEFORE any algorithm — always. Students must place ½, ⅓, ¾ on a number line before they add fractions. When adding ½ + ⅓, students draw it first — the algorithm comes after they can see WHY common denominators matter.
Daily routine: Post one fraction each day. Students: (1) draw it 3 ways, (2) place on a number line, (3) compare to ½. Takes 4 minutes. Done daily, it builds fraction sense that no algorithm can replace.
Skill Gap 3: Integers & Signed Numbers
Root cause: Students were taught “two negatives make a positive” as a rule with no meaning. They apply it randomly and cannot explain why.
What works: Integer chips (two-color counters) for addition and subtraction — always before symbolic work. Number line movement for addition. Real-world contexts: temperature, sea level, debt, yards gained/lost.
Multiplication insight: Use a pattern table — students extend a pattern (4×3, 4×2, 4×1, 4×0, 4×−1, 4×−2) and discover the sign rule themselves. They own the rule because they built it.
What works: Integer chips (two-color counters) for addition and subtraction — always before symbolic work. Number line movement for addition. Real-world contexts: temperature, sea level, debt, yards gained/lost.
Multiplication insight: Use a pattern table — students extend a pattern (4×3, 4×2, 4×1, 4×0, 4×−1, 4×−2) and discover the sign rule themselves. They own the rule because they built it.
Skill Gap 4: Place Value & Decimals
Root cause: Students can read a number but don’t understand what each digit means. They line up decimal points as a rule without knowing why.
Diagnostic question: “Is 0.5 bigger or smaller than 0.50?” Students who say 0.50 is bigger reveal the gap. Follow with a hundredths grid.
Embed estimation: “Does your answer make sense? Could you have 12.3 people?”
Diagnostic question: “Is 0.5 bigger or smaller than 0.50?” Students who say 0.50 is bigger reveal the gap. Follow with a hundredths grid.
Embed estimation: “Does your answer make sense? Could you have 12.3 people?”
Skill Gap 5: Algebraic Thinking & Variables
Root cause: Students see a letter and shut down. They were never taught that a variable is simply a placeholder for a number they don’t know yet.
Entry point: Guess-and-check as a gateway: “What number makes this true: ___ + 5 = 12?” Students already know how to do this — x is just a name for the blank.
Pan balance/hanger diagrams: Both sides must be equal. Students can see the balance and reason about what must be true before any formal solving procedure is introduced.
Entry point: Guess-and-check as a gateway: “What number makes this true: ___ + 5 = 12?” Students already know how to do this — x is just a name for the blank.
Pan balance/hanger diagrams: Both sides must be equal. Students can see the balance and reason about what must be true before any formal solving procedure is introduced.
The daily warm-up (5–8 minutes) is the single most powerful embedded skill-building routine. Done consistently across 180 school days, these routines produce compounding results.
| Routine | Grades | What It Builds | How to Implement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number Talks | K–12 | Multiplicative reasoning, mental math, number sense, justification | Post a problem — no pencils. Students solve mentally. Share strategies — focus on HOW, not just the answer. 5–8 min max. |
| Estimation 180 | 3–12 | Number sense, proportional reasoning, reasonableness | Show a photo. Too Low / Best Estimate / Too High. No calculators. Discuss reasoning. Free at estimation180.com. Use 3x per week. |
| Which One Doesn’t Belong? | K–12 | Flexible thinking, justification, vocabulary, discourse | Post 4 numbers, shapes, or graphs. Students justify which doesn’t belong. Every choice is valid with good reasoning. |
| Fraction of the Day | 4–8 | Fraction sense, benchmark fractions, number line placement | Post one fraction. Draw 3 ways. Place on number line. Compare to ½. 4 minutes. Daily repetition is the mechanism. |
| Fluency Sprints | 2–6 | Targeted fact fluency — focused, not random | 2-minute practice on ONE fact family only. Students track personal best — never compete publicly. |
| Integer of the Day | 6–10 | Signed number operations, real-world connection | Post one integer equation in context. Students solve, draw number line model, and write a real-world story. |
| SAT/M-STEP Problem of the Day | 8–12 | Test literacy, strategy, high-stakes skill building | One released item per day. Students solve independently (3 min), then discuss. 180 days = 180 real test items analyzed. |
| Would You Rather Math | 3–12 | Justification, proportional reasoning, communication | Two mathematical choices — students pick one and justify mathematically. Free at wouldyourathermath.com. |
Weekly Routine Map
| Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday | Thursday | Friday | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K–2 | Number Talk (addition facts) | Counting routine + ten frames | Number Talk (subtraction) | Estimation (How many?) | Fluency Sprint (celebrate!) |
| 3–5 | Number Talk (multiplication) | Fraction of the Day | Estimation 180 | Which One Doesn’t Belong? | Fluency Sprint + data check |
| 6–8 | Number Talk (proportions) | Estimation 180 | Fraction/Integer of the Day | Would You Rather Math | M-STEP problem of the day |
| 9–12 | SAT problem of the day | Estimation / Number Sense | SAT problem of the day | Which One Doesn’t Belong? | SAT problem + debrief |
The 3-Before-Me Rule (Student Independence Protocol)
Before a student can ask the teacher for help, they must: (1) Re-read the problem — all the way through, slowly. (2) Check their notes, the anchor chart, or a posted scaffold. (3) Ask a partner — and listen to the explanation. Only after all three steps may they raise their hand.
Why this matters: It builds independence, reduces learned helplessness, eliminates the queue of 15 students waiting for the teacher, and gives the teacher time to work with students who truly need intensive support. Post this rule visibly and practice it explicitly for 2 weeks.
Why this matters: It builds independence, reduces learned helplessness, eliminates the queue of 15 students waiting for the teacher, and gives the teacher time to work with students who truly need intensive support. Post this rule visibly and practice it explicitly for 2 weeks.
The 5-Component Math Block (All Grade Levels)
| # | Component | Time | Teacher Role | Student Role |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Warm-Up / Number Routine | 5–8 min | Pose the routine; listen to student thinking; call on multiple strategies | Write, partner-talk, share — NO passive sitting |
| 2 | Task Launch | 5–10 min | Read problem together (3-read protocol); ask sense-making questions; do NOT solve for students | Make sense of the context; estimate; ask questions — no solving yet |
| 3 | Student Work Time | 15–20 min | Circulate; ask probing questions; take notes on student thinking; pull small groups | Work individually or with a partner; use scaffolds; struggle productively; use 3-before-me rule |
| 4 | Discussion / Share Out | 8–10 min | Select and sequence student work (concrete → abstract); facilitate student-to-student talk; connect representations | Explain thinking; respond to peers; ask questions; make connections |
| 5 | Exit Ticket | 3–5 min | Post 1–2 standard-aligned questions; collect all tickets; sort: Got It / Almost / Not Yet | Work silently and independently; show thinking, not just answers |
What Must Be on the Walls — Non-Negotiables
| Wall Item | Why It’s There | How the Teacher Uses It |
|---|---|---|
| Learning Target (daily) | Students must know what they are learning and why — every single day | Teacher points to it at start, references mid-lesson, asks students to self-assess at close |
| Number Line (−20 to 100) | Integer operations, fraction placement, decimal comparison all benefit from visual anchoring | “Point to where −3 is. Now where does −3 + 8 land? Move your finger.” |
| Fraction Benchmark Chart | Students need a constant visual reference for ½, ¼, ¾, ⅓, ⅔ with models | “Is your answer closer to 0, ½, or 1? Look at the chart and convince me.” |
| Multiplication Chart | Normalizes tool use; reduces math anxiety; allows grade-level task access | Chart is available at all times. Teacher never says “you should know this by now.” |
| Accountable Talk Stems | Students need sentence frames to engage in mathematical discourse | “Before you share, look at the wall. How can you start your sentence?” |
| Vocabulary Wall | Math language is a barrier for many DCS students — academic vocabulary must be visible | Teacher references when introducing a term; students use it when writing explanations |
✓ Teachers DO
Circulate during student work time • Use exit tickets every lesson • Call on students who haven’t volunteered • Ask ‘why’ and ‘how do you know’ • Post the learning target before students arrive • Use the 3-read protocol for word problems • Give wait time (at least 10 seconds)
❌ Teachers DO NOT
Sit at the desk during work time • Re-teach the whole lesson when one student is confused • Call on the same 3 students every time • Give answers without asking why the steps work • Skip the exit ticket because “we ran out of time” • Tell students “this will be easy” • Remove productive struggle by jumping in too quickly
📝 Coach’s Notes — Foundational SkillsSaved ✓
Section 8 — Coaching Binder Supplement (Tabs F–H)
Coaching Scripts Library
The same pushback script lands completely differently depending on the teacher’s emotional state. Read the teacher BEFORE you speak. Golden rule: You are not trying to win an argument. You are trying to shift a belief.
Use when: Teacher first says students are “too far behind” for grade-level math. This is the first time you are addressing it. Lead with curiosity and care — challenge comes second.
Teacher says:
“I just can’t teach fractions yet — they can’t multiply. I’d be setting them up for failure. I’ve been spending the week reviewing multiplication so they have what they need.”
Step 1 — Acknowledge the Reality
“I hear you, and I want you to know I take that seriously. Watching students struggle when you’re trying to teach something new is genuinely hard. You’re clearly paying close attention to what they know — that matters.”
⚡ COACHING NOTE: Don’t rush this. Let it land. A teacher who feels heard is far more open to what comes next. If you skip this step and go straight to the challenge, you will lose them.
Step 2 — Name the Tension
“Here’s what I want to think through with you, because I think we both want the same thing for these kids. If we spend this week on multiplication review, and then next week something else is missing, and the week after that something else — when do we actually get to fractions? And if they never get fractions, what happens when they hit 6th grade ratios? Or 7th grade proportions?”
⚡ COACHING NOTE: You are not attacking the teacher. You are walking them down the logical road of their own decision and letting them feel where it leads. Pause after this. Let the question sit.
Step 3 — Offer the Alternative Frame
“What if the goal isn’t ‘fix multiplication first, then teach fractions’ — what if we taught fractions in a way that builds multiplication along the way? I can show you exactly how to do that. The fraction lesson becomes the context that makes multiplication meaningful. Students learn both — but now they have a reason to care about the facts.”
Step 4 — Make a Specific, Concrete Offer
“Can we sit down Thursday and co-plan the first fraction lesson together? I’ll bring the fraction bars and show you how I’d open it. You tell me what you know about these specific kids and we’ll build it around them. If it doesn’t work, we adjust — but I want us to try it before we decide they can’t handle it.”
⚡ COACHING NOTE: End with a specific date and plan — not an open invitation. “Let me know if you want help” gives the teacher an exit. “Can we meet Thursday at 3pm?” does not.
Type 1 — The Exhausted, Well-Meaning Teacher
Profile: Not resistant — depleted. Lowered the bar because they didn’t know what else to do. Lead with care — challenge comes after trust.
“I tried the grade-level stuff and they completely shut down. Nobody was doing anything. I felt terrible. I backed up and at least they were engaged. I know it’s not ideal but I didn’t know what else to do.”
Coach — Validate fully: “That moment you’re describing — when you try something and the room goes silent — that is one of the hardest things in teaching. The fact that you noticed and tried to respond tells me you’re paying close attention to your students. I want you to know that.”
Coach — Reframe ‘shut down’: “Can I offer a different way to think about what happened? When students shut down on a hard task, it’s usually not because the content is too hard — it’s because they don’t have a way in. That is not a ceiling — it is armor. And armor comes off with the right conditions.”
Coach — Name the trap gently: “Here’s the thing about backing up to easier work — and I say this with real care — it can create engagement short-term, but it also confirms for students that they belong in easy math. Some part of them knows it.”
Coach — Give a tool, not a lecture: “What if we changed the entry point instead of the content? The content stays grade-level. But we open with something every student can touch. I’ll show you the 3-read protocol — it takes 5 minutes to learn and it completely changes how students engage.”
Coach — Reframe ‘shut down’: “Can I offer a different way to think about what happened? When students shut down on a hard task, it’s usually not because the content is too hard — it’s because they don’t have a way in. That is not a ceiling — it is armor. And armor comes off with the right conditions.”
Coach — Name the trap gently: “Here’s the thing about backing up to easier work — and I say this with real care — it can create engagement short-term, but it also confirms for students that they belong in easy math. Some part of them knows it.”
Coach — Give a tool, not a lecture: “What if we changed the entry point instead of the content? The content stays grade-level. But we open with something every student can touch. I’ll show you the 3-read protocol — it takes 5 minutes to learn and it completely changes how students engage.”
Type 2 — The Ideologically Resistant Teacher
Profile: Genuinely believes certain students have a ceiling. This is the most serious type and requires patient, persistent, evidence-based work.
“Look, I’ve been teaching for 12 years. These kids come in so far behind. I’m being realistic. I can’t just pretend they’re going to suddenly get algebra.”
Coach — Don’t take the bait on ‘realistic’: “I respect that 12 years and I know you’re not making this up — these kids do have gaps. But I want to push back on one word: realistic. My version of realistic is: these are kids who haven’t had strong math instruction yet. That’s fixable. What would your version say about what’s possible for them?”
Coach — Find the crack: “Have you ever seen a student surprise you — someone you thought couldn’t do something and then they did? [Wait.] What made that possible?”
Coach — Bring in the PA data: “Here’s what I know: we have 0% proficiency and a legally binding Partnership Agreement that requires us to show measurable growth. If we continue simplifying, we will not meet our targets — and the consequences are real for this school. Are we willing to try something different?”
Coach — Close with the smallest ask: “I’m asking for one lesson. Come in, co-teach with me, and let’s see what these students can do when the task is set up differently. If I’m wrong, tell me.”
Coach — Find the crack: “Have you ever seen a student surprise you — someone you thought couldn’t do something and then they did? [Wait.] What made that possible?”
Coach — Bring in the PA data: “Here’s what I know: we have 0% proficiency and a legally binding Partnership Agreement that requires us to show measurable growth. If we continue simplifying, we will not meet our targets — and the consequences are real for this school. Are we willing to try something different?”
Coach — Close with the smallest ask: “I’m asking for one lesson. Come in, co-teach with me, and let’s see what these students can do when the task is set up differently. If I’m wrong, tell me.”
Type 3 — The Defensive Teacher
Profile: Feels surveilled or threatened by coaching. Using ‘students are behind’ as a shield. Don’t break through the defense — go around it.
“I know what you’re going to say. But you don’t have these kids every day. You come in for 20 minutes and you don’t see what I see.”
Coach — Absorb, don’t deflect: “You’re right that I don’t have them every day. You know these students better than I do in important ways. I’m not here to tell you what you’re doing wrong — I want to understand what you’re seeing. Can you show me some of their work? Not to evaluate you — I just want to see what we’re working with together.”
Coach — When looking at student work: “Look at this one. See what they did here? They got partway. They understood the setup — they just didn’t know where to go from here. That’s a strategy problem, not a content ceiling. What if we posted a ‘What do I know / What do I need’ anchor chart and practiced it this week?”
Coach — If teacher stays defensive: “I want to say something directly, and I hope you’ll hear it as coming from respect: I think you care a lot about these students. What would make this feel more like collaboration and less like oversight?”
Coach — When looking at student work: “Look at this one. See what they did here? They got partway. They understood the setup — they just didn’t know where to go from here. That’s a strategy problem, not a content ceiling. What if we posted a ‘What do I know / What do I need’ anchor chart and practiced it this week?”
Coach — If teacher stays defensive: “I want to say something directly, and I hope you’ll hear it as coming from respect: I think you care a lot about these students. What would make this feel more like collaboration and less like oversight?”
Use ONLY when: You have had the conversation 2–3 times with no change • You have offered co-planning, co-teaching, resources, and time • Teacher still consistently delivering below-grade-level instruction • CFA data shows no growth.
BEFORE this conversation: You must have documentation — coaching cycle logs, walk-through notes, student work samples, CFA data showing no growth. This cannot be opinion vs. opinion.
BEFORE this conversation: You must have documentation — coaching cycle logs, walk-through notes, student work samples, CFA data showing no growth. This cannot be opinion vs. opinion.
Opening — Honesty and Care
“I want to have an honest conversation today, and I want to start by saying I’m having it because I respect you and I believe you can make this shift — not because I’m building a case against you. I need to name what I’ve been seeing, and I need us to make a plan together that looks different from what we’ve been doing.”
Name the Pattern — With Evidence
“Over the past [X weeks], I’ve consistently seen [below-grade standard] being taught instead of [grade-level standard]. Our CFA data shows students in your class are at [X%] on [standard], and that hasn’t moved since [month]. I’m not saying this to make you feel bad. I include myself in this — I haven’t supported you enough to get a different result.”
⚡ NOTE: Own part of the failure. A teacher who hears “I haven’t done enough” stops being able to blame you and must sit with their own part.
State the Expectation Explicitly
“Starting [specific date], I need to see grade-level standards being taught here. Not perfectly — present, even if messy. Here is what I am committing to do to support you: [specific list]. Is there something getting in the way that we haven’t talked about?”
Name the Stakes — Without Threatening
“I also want to be honest about where this goes if things don’t change. We are a CSI school with a legally binding Partnership Agreement. I am accountable to Superintendent Petty for what happens in these classrooms. I don’t want to have a different kind of conversation. I want this to be the last hard one we have to have. But I need you with me.”
After This Conversation
| Action | Detail |
|---|---|
| Brief principal within 24 hours | Share what was discussed, what was agreed to, and the timeline. |
| Document in Teacher Tracker | Update tier designation. Log the date, content, and outcome. |
| Schedule 3-week check-in | Put it on the calendar before you leave the conversation. |
| Continue coaching with intensity | A direct conversation is the beginning of a new, more structured cycle. Tier 3 means weekly. |
| If no change after 3 weeks | Return to the principal for a joint conversation. The coach alone cannot be the only accountability structure. |
| Remember: you are not HR | Your role is to document coaching support and be honest with leadership. Document both support and evidence. |
“The coach is never the last line of accountability for instruction. But the coach is the first line of support. Document both.”
The GBF 2.0 Debrief Protocol — Use after every observation for Tier 2 & Tier 3 teachers. Bambrick-Santoyo’s most powerful insight: feedback without practice doesn’t stick. The debrief ENDS with the teacher PRACTICING the action step. Never skip this step.
| Step | What the Coach Does | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Praise | Name one specific thing anchored in student evidence: “When you asked Marcus to explain his thinking, three other students immediately looked back at their work. That was effective because it connects to P4.” | 1 min |
| 2. Probe | Ask one question that surfaces the teacher’s own awareness of the gap: “What did you notice about the students in the back row during work time?” | 2 min |
| 3. ONE Action Step | Name ONE specific, observable behavior — not “be more engaging” but: “After a student answers, immediately ask: Who agrees? Who can add to that?” ONE step only. Never two. | 2 min |
| 4. PRACTICE IT NOW | Teacher practices the action step right now. Coach plays a student. Teacher runs the move 2–3 times. This is the step most coaches skip. It is the most important step. Do not leave the room without it happening. | 5–7 min |
| 5. Plan | Teacher names exactly where in tomorrow’s lesson the action step will appear: “I’ll use it right after the warm-up during the first check for understanding.” | 1 min |
| 6. Follow Up | Coach schedules next observation within 3–5 days to look specifically for this one move. Does NOT introduce a new action step until this one is habitual. | 1 min |
📝 Coach’s Notes — ScriptsSaved ✓
Section 9
Coach’s Toolkit
Seven tools for planning, executing, documenting, and reflecting on coaching work. All tools are grounded in McGatha, Bay-Williams, Kobe & Wray (2018) and organized by coaching phase.
Tool 1 — Coaching Conversation Protocol (BUILD Phase)
Use at the start of every coaching relationship and at the start of each new cycle.
OPENING: What is going well in your math classroom right now?
STUDENT FOCUS: Tell me about your students. What do they know? What are their biggest struggles?
DATA QUESTION: When you look at [diagnostic data], what stands out to you?
GOAL SETTING: If you could improve ONE thing about your math instruction this month, what would it be?
COACHING AGREEMENT: Based on our conversation, I’d like to support you with ________. Does that feel right? What do you need from me to make this work?
Coach Notes: ________________________ Follow-Up Date: ________________
OPENING: What is going well in your math classroom right now?
STUDENT FOCUS: Tell me about your students. What do they know? What are their biggest struggles?
DATA QUESTION: When you look at [diagnostic data], what stands out to you?
GOAL SETTING: If you could improve ONE thing about your math instruction this month, what would it be?
COACHING AGREEMENT: Based on our conversation, I’d like to support you with ________. Does that feel right? What do you need from me to make this work?
Coach Notes: ________________________ Follow-Up Date: ________________
Tool 2 — Lesson Planning Template (COMMIT Phase)
| Planning Element | Teacher/Coach Response |
|---|---|
| Standard (⭐ Priority) | |
| Learning Target (P1) | Students will be able to ________________________ |
| Prior Knowledge Needed | |
| Opening Task (P2) | |
| Key Questions to Ask (P5) | 1. 2. 3. |
| Representations to Use (P3) | Concrete: ___ Pictorial: ___ Abstract: ___ |
| Anticipated Misconceptions | |
| Productive Struggle Plan (P7) | If students are stuck, I will: |
| Discourse Plan (P4) | Turn & Talk prompt: |
| Formative Check (P8) | Exit ticket question: |
| HMH Lesson Reference | Unit ___ | Lesson ___ | Pages ___ |
Tool 3 — Classroom Observation Look-For Tool (GROW Phase)
| Teaching Practice | Evidence Seen | Partial Evidence | Not Observed |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1: Goals posted and referenced | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| P2: Rich/reasoning task used | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| P3: Multiple representations | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| P4: Student-to-student discourse | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| P5: Purposeful questioning | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| P6: Concept before procedure | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| P7: Productive struggle honored | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| P8: Formative data collected | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Tool 4 — Post-Observation Feedback Protocol (GROW Phase)
Every piece of feedback must be anchored in student evidence — not teacher behavior alone.
STEP 1 — TEACHER REFLECTION: What did you notice about student understanding today?
STEP 2 — AFFIRM with EVIDENCE: I noticed that when you _________, students ___________. This was effective because it connects to [Teaching Practice].
STEP 3 — REFINE with EVIDENCE: One thing to consider: I noticed students struggled with ___. What if you tried _________? I think it would help because __________.
STEP 4 — NEXT STEPS: For our next cycle, let’s focus on ___________. I will support you by ___________. When can we meet to co-plan?
STEP 1 — TEACHER REFLECTION: What did you notice about student understanding today?
STEP 2 — AFFIRM with EVIDENCE: I noticed that when you _________, students ___________. This was effective because it connects to [Teaching Practice].
STEP 3 — REFINE with EVIDENCE: One thing to consider: I noticed students struggled with ___. What if you tried _________? I think it would help because __________.
STEP 4 — NEXT STEPS: For our next cycle, let’s focus on ___________. I will support you by ___________. When can we meet to co-plan?
Tool 5 — Student Data Tracking Wall
Coach maintains a data wall updated monthly.
• Row = Each teacher / Grade • Columns = Priority Standards (⭐ marked)
• GREEN = 70%+ proficiency • YELLOW = 40–69% • RED = below 40%
• Data source: CFA results, exit tickets, HMH assessments, M-STEP/MME
• Row = Each teacher / Grade • Columns = Priority Standards (⭐ marked)
• GREEN = 70%+ proficiency • YELLOW = 40–69% • RED = below 40%
• Data source: CFA results, exit tickets, HMH assessments, M-STEP/MME
Tool 6 — Coach’s Weekly Schedule Template
| Time | Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday | Thursday | Friday |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7:30–8:00 | Prep / Email / Coach Notes | Co-plan with Tier 3 Teacher | Data Review / Planning | Prep / Feedback Write-Up | Weekly Reflection + Tracker Update |
| 8:00–9:00 | Tier 3 Observation (HS) | Co-teach with Tier 3 (K–8) | Tier 2 Observation | Tier 2 Co-Planning | PD Prep / Resource Gathering |
| 9:00–10:00 | Debrief w/ Teacher | ILC Prep | Post-Obs Feedback Meeting | Tier 3 Support (HS) | Tier 1 Check-In |
| 10:00–11:30 | Tier 2 Co-Plan | Tier 1 Coaching Cycle | Classroom Visits (Walks) | Co-Teach Tier 2 | Student Work Analysis |
| 12:00–1:00 | Student Work Protocol Prep | ILC Meeting (Gr 3–5) | ILC Meeting (Gr 6–8) | ILC Meeting (Gr 9–12) | ILC Meeting (K–2) |
| 1:00–2:30 | HS Coaching Cycle | Tier 3 Feedback Meeting | Tier 2 Cycle (K–8) | HS Co-Plan or Model | Walk-Throughs / Data |
| 2:30–3:30 | Teacher Check-Ins | PD Planning | Admin Check-In / Report | Tracker Update | Week Ahead Planning |
Tool 7 — Coaching Cycle Log
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Date of Cycle | |
| Teacher / Grade | |
| Coaching Phase (Build/Commit/Grow/Sustain) | |
| GBF Phase (1–4) | |
| Priority Standard Addressed ⭐ | |
| Teaching Practice Focus | |
| GBF Action Step Assigned | |
| What did the teacher try? | |
| Evidence of student learning | |
| Feedback given | |
| Teacher’s next step | |
| Coach’s follow-up action | |
| Tier (1/2/3) | |
| Date of Next Cycle |
📝 Coach’s Notes — ToolkitSaved ✓
Section 10
Professional Development Plan 2026–2027
All PD is grounded in McGatha et al. (2018) and tied directly to the Eight Mathematics Teaching Practices. Given DCS’s 0% proficiency and CSI status, PD is urgent, practical, and immediately applicable. Each session includes: Pre-survey | Explicit instruction | Practice | Classroom application | Post-survey.
| Date | Session Title | Content / McGatha Reference | Teaching Practice Focus | Facilitator | Duration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 12–13 2026 | Kickoff: Math Vision & Data Story | Share 0% data; establish shared urgency; intro McGatha framework Ch.1; set norms for coaching year | Practice 1: Goals to focus learning | Math Coach + Principal | Full Day (6 hrs) |
| Sept 18 2026 | Diagnostic Data Deep Dive | Analyze baseline assessments by grade band; identify priority standards; intro HMH pacing; McGatha Ch.2 | Practice 8: Evidence of student thinking | Math Coach | 3 hours (AM) |
| Oct 16 2026 | High-Quality Math Tasks | What makes a task rich? Low-floor/high-ceiling tasks; McGatha Ch.4; M-STEP item analysis | Practice 2: Tasks that promote reasoning | Math Coach + Guest | 3 hours |
| Nov 13 2026 | Mathematical Discourse | Accountable talk; student-to-student discussion; discussion stems; McGatha Ch.5 | Practice 4: Meaningful discourse | Math Coach | 3 hours |
| Jan 15 2027 | Mid-Year Data Analysis & Pivot | Analyze Q1–Q2 CFAs; adjust pacing; acceleration strategies for CSI growth | Practice 8: Evidence of thinking | Math Coach + Data Team | 3 hours |
| Feb 12 2027 | M-STEP & SAT Math Prep Strategies | Item analysis; test-taking strategies; released items; writing in math; McGatha Ch.6 | Practice 5: Purposeful questions | Math Coach | 3 hours |
| Mar 5 2027 | Productive Struggle & Equity | Reaching all learners; scaffolding without removing challenge; McGatha Ch.7 | Practice 7: Productive struggle | Math Coach | 3 hours |
| May 7 2027 | Year-End Reflection & Sustainability | Celebrate growth; analyze EOY data; plan for Year 2; teacher goal-setting; McGatha Ch.8 | All 8 Practices Review | Math Coach + Admin | 3 hours |
PD Design Principles (McGatha et al., 2018)
Job-Embedded
Every PD connects to what teachers will do in their classroom the following week
Data-Driven
Each session begins with student data — not theory disconnected from practice
Collaborative
Teachers work in grade-band teams; no one is isolated in their learning
Followed-Up
Coach schedules follow-up coaching cycle within 2 weeks of each PD session
Documented
Pre/post surveys, sign-in sheets, and teacher reflections filed after every session
GBF-Aligned
Each session assigns a specific GBF action step teachers will practice in the following 2 weeks
📝 Coach’s Notes — PD PlanSaved ✓
Section 11
Weekly ILC Meetings
ILC meetings are the weekly engine of instructional improvement at DCS. These are NOT administrative meetings — they are collaborative professional learning sessions focused exclusively on improving math instruction and student outcomes. Grounded in McGatha et al. (2018) SUSTAIN phase.
ILC Meeting Structure (60 Minutes Weekly)
| Time | Component | Description | McGatha Connection |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–5 min | Norm-Setting & Focus | Review group norms; read the learning target for today’s meeting; quick check-in | Ch.1: Building trust and collaborative culture |
| 5–20 min | Student Work Protocol | Bring 3–5 student work samples; look at misconceptions, partial understanding, mastery; sort and discuss | Ch.4 & 5: Using evidence of student thinking |
| 20–35 min | Instructional Planning | Co-plan next week’s lesson for the priority standard; identify the task, questions, and anticipated misconceptions | Ch.3: Lesson planning with Teaching Practices |
| 35–50 min | Data Review / CFA Analysis | Look at CFA or exit ticket data from the prior week; identify who needs reteach vs. extension | Ch.6: Eliciting and using evidence |
| 50–58 min | Action Planning | Each teacher states their one instructional commitment for next week; coach notes in Tracker | McGatha: Coaching Agreements & follow-up |
| 58–60 min | Closing Reflection | One word or sentence: what are you taking back to your classroom? | Ch.8: Sustaining the work |
Monthly ILC Focus Calendar
| Month | ILC Focus | Student Data Source | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|---|
| August | Norms, expectations, coaching agreements, data overview | Baseline Diagnostic | Signed Coaching Agreements; Priority standard map |
| September | Analyzing baseline data by grade band; HMH pacing check | Diagnostic + HMH Placement | Grade-band data walls; Action Plans |
| October | Student work protocol — fractions/ratios focus; co-planning | Q1 CFA | Co-planned lessons on file; Misconception list |
| November | Purposeful questioning; discourse look-fors | Exit tickets | Observation look-for tool completed by all teachers |
| December | Mid-year data prep; gap analysis; holiday spiral review | Q2 CFA | Mid-year data summary to superintendent |
| January | Mid-year diagnostic debrief; acceleration planning; Tier 3 focus | Mid-Year Assessment | Intervention plans for Tier 3 students by class |
| February | Test prep strategies; released M-STEP/SAT items; writing in math | Practice Tests | Item analysis completed; targeted reteach plan |
| March | MME/SAT week — support teachers and students; monitor data | MME/SAT Results | Post-test debrief notes; early M-STEP prep |
| April | M-STEP window support; maintain high-quality instruction | M-STEP in Progress | Observation notes; student encouragement data |
| May | Analyze EOY data; celebrate growth; sustainability plan | EOY CFA + M-STEP prelim | Teacher reflection portfolios; Year 2 goals |
| June | Transition planning; summer learning packets; coach portfolio | End-of-Year Data | Coach annual report to superintendent |
ILC Agenda Template
DETROIT COMMUNITY SCHOOLS — Math ILC Meeting
Date: __________ | Grade Band: __________ | Facilitator: Math Coach | Time: 60 min
LEARNING TARGET: By the end of this ILC, teachers will be able to ________________________
[5 min] NORMS CHECK-IN: Review norms; quick round-table check-in
[15 min] STUDENT WORK PROTOCOL: Share samples — what do you notice? What do students understand?
[15 min] CO-PLANNING: Plan ___[standard]___ lesson — task, questions, anticipated misconceptions
[13 min] DATA REVIEW: Analyze CFA/exit tickets — who is proficient? Who needs intervention?
[8 min] ACTION PLAN: Each teacher states instructional commitment for next week
[4 min] REFLECTION: One takeaway from today’s meeting
Coach Notes: ________________________ Next Steps: ________________________
Date: __________ | Grade Band: __________ | Facilitator: Math Coach | Time: 60 min
LEARNING TARGET: By the end of this ILC, teachers will be able to ________________________
[5 min] NORMS CHECK-IN: Review norms; quick round-table check-in
[15 min] STUDENT WORK PROTOCOL: Share samples — what do you notice? What do students understand?
[15 min] CO-PLANNING: Plan ___[standard]___ lesson — task, questions, anticipated misconceptions
[13 min] DATA REVIEW: Analyze CFA/exit tickets — who is proficient? Who needs intervention?
[8 min] ACTION PLAN: Each teacher states instructional commitment for next week
[4 min] REFLECTION: One takeaway from today’s meeting
Coach Notes: ________________________ Next Steps: ________________________
📝 Coach’s Notes — ILC MeetingsSaved ✓