If you’re leading K–12 math improvement at the district level or school level, you already know the uncomfortable truth:

Teachers do the day-to-day work of changing instruction, but school leaders determine whether that change survives.

Not because principals need to be math experts—but because they control the conditions that make high-quality instruction possible: time, feedback, focus, and follow-through. When administrators are equipped to co-lead math improvement alongside coaches and teachers, the result is more than “support.” It’s coherence—shared direction, shared language, and shared accountability.

And when coherence is present, improvement accelerates.

The hidden problem: principals are expected to lead math improvement without being supported to lead

In many districts, principals are asked to “support math improvement work” while receiving:

• no math-specific professional learning,
• unclear instructional goals,
• inconsistent tools for walkthroughs and feedback,
• and little structured responsibility for progress.

That disconnect creates a fragile system: math improvement becomes dependent on teacher willpower (and heroic coaching) rather than a coordinated leadership effort.

The research base aligns with what many of us see in practice: school leadership is a major contributor to student learning, second only to classroom instruction among school-related factors (Leithwood et al., 2004). More specifically, learning-focused leadership—principals participating in PLCs, using instructional walkthroughs, and co-defining shared goals—shows meaningful impact on schoolwide improvement (Leithwood et al., 2004; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008).

But the barrier usually isn’t intent. Most principals care deeply about students and teachers. The barrier is system design: leaders are too often treated as passive recipients of mandates instead of partners in building the plan.

So the question becomes:

How do we move principals from awareness to ownership?

Awareness isn’t enough. Ownership changes everything.

Here’s what awareness looks like in a typical district:

• The district sets a math goal (if they even set one).
• Coaches and coordinators understand it.
• Principals are “informed.”
• Each building interprets the goal through its own lens.
• Teachers get mixed messages about what matters.

In that environment, leadership and interpretation drift is predictable:

• walkthrough feedback becomes generic,
• coaching priorities compete with building priorities,
• and math improvement becomes “extra work” rather than core work.

Ownership looks different. When leaders have fingerprints on the goal—and the chance to experience what high-quality math learning feels like—they stop managing the work and start leading it.

A simple but powerful move: let principals experience the learning

Two district math leaders (Rachel and Mandy) were heading into a principals’ meeting with a choice:

• deliver updates with slides and spreadsheets, or
• create an experience that rewired how leaders understood math instruction.

They chose the second option: they led with a math task.

They were nervous (because administrators don’t always expect to do math in leadership meetings), but something important happened:

Principals participated. They enjoyed it. Even the ones who claimed they “weren’t math people” became engaged problem-solvers.

And once leaders experience authentic math learning—where the task is accessible, the thinking is visible, and the conversation matters—they can’t unsee it. That moment becomes a reference point for everything that follows: walkthroughs, PLC conversations, goal-setting, and coaching support.

That’s the shift:
from “I’ve heard about the initiative” to “I understand what we’re trying to create for students.”

Why alignment in math learning is the first domino

When teachers are asked to shift instruction—try math discourse routines, emphasize representations, build conceptual understanding—they’re taking real risks:

• risk timing (“Will I get through the lesson?”)
• risk pride (“What if it flops?”)
• risk coverage (“What about all the standards?”)
• risk evaluation (“Will this be seen as ‘good teaching’?”)

Teachers take more instructional risks when they believe their principal will protect those risks—by reinforcing the focus, aligning feedback, and prioritizing learning over compliance.

That’s why administrator alignment isn’t a nice-to-have. It’s often the first domino.

What high-functioning practice looks like in a multi-school system for math improvement

One regional charter school system entered math improvement work with strong commitment: engaged leaders, active coaching, and shared urgency.

But the system still felt fragile.

On paper, everyone was aligned. In practice, something was off:

• “Math discourse” meant different things across schools,
• coaches emphasized different instructional moves,
• teachers received mixed signals about what mattered most.

A regional leader named the issue perfectly:

“We realized everyone was using the same words—but not the same definitions.”

So they paused—not to lower expectations, but to build coherence.

They clarified long-term objectives, kept the instructional vision visible, and shifted from pushing initiatives to strengthening decision-making. Over time, leaders began to:

• articulate math objectives clearly (and explain why they mattered),
• align school goals tightly to the regional direction,
• make walkthrough conversations instructional (not observational),
• develop internal capacity—leaders and “deep learners” who could sustain the work.

But the biggest shift wasn’t the tools. It was the stance:

Principals became learners first—then leaders.

They did math tasks. They unpacked what instructional terms looked like. They learned the difference between outcome goals and instructional objectives. They examined what evidence of progress should be visible during classroom visits.

And when leaders stopped reacting to the work and started leading it, coaching and administration stopped competing—and began reinforcing the same focus.

A practical mirror: a continuum of district support for school-level leaders

If your district or school system wants principals to co-lead math improvement, it helps to name where you currently are.

Here’s a simple continuum (use it as a mirror, not a mandate):

• Level 0 – No Engagement: Principals not involved; math work happens centrally or only at the teacher level.
  
• Level 1 – Awareness Only: Principals are informed, but receive no structured support; coaching operates independently.
  
• Level 2 – Occasional Involvement: Principals attend sporadic sessions; capacity-building is inconsistent.
  
• Level 3 – Coordinated Support: Principals, coaches, and central office collaborate on goals; ongoing learning supports leader capacity.
  
• Level 4 – Aligned and Accountable: Walkthrough tools align to math goals; principals are accountable for math-related Key Results; resources and time match priorities.
  

The key idea is simple:

Leaders can’t lead what they haven’t been supported to understand, experience, and own.

Red flags: passive involvement

• Math goals exist, but principals didn’t help create them (no ownership).
• Admin attendance in math learning is optional and inconsistent.
• Walkthrough tools aren’t used—or aren’t connected to math priorities.
• No protected time for instructional leadership (PLC and classrooms get edged out).

Green flags: growing co-leadership

A consistent leadership rhythm exists to monitor, celebrate, and adjust progress.

Principals co-develop school-level OKRs (Objectives & Key Results) aligned to district objectives and data.

Leaders participate as learners in math PD (not as observers).

Walkthroughs are math-specific and tied to the instructional focus.

The “old way” vs. the aligned way

When principals are treated like compliance partners, math improvement often looks like this:

• “Here’s the math goal.”
• “Here’s the initiative.”
• “Let us know if you need anything.”

But impactful systems shift to:

• “Let’s build the goal together.”
• “Let’s learn the instruction together.”
• “Let’s monitor progress together—with shared tools and shared definitions.”

That shift doesn’t require perfect principals or more programs. It requires intentional system design. It requires dedication and commitment.

The power of presence: principals don’t need to be experts

The goal isn’t to turn principals into math coaches.

The goal is to make them present—and aligned.

Even a consistent 20–30 minutes a week spent in a classroom, a PLC, or a coaching debrief sends a signal that matters more than any memo:

This is core work.

Presence creates:

• stronger teacher confidence,
• clearer instructional feedback,
• better protection of coaching time,
• and fewer off-focus distractions.

Action steps: five moves to build administrator co-leadership

If you want principals to move from compliance to co-leadership, design for it.

1) Co-create school-level goals (don’t “hand down” goals)

Bring principals into the math vision early. Co-develop school OKRs with coaches and teacher-leaders so every principal can answer:

• Which district objective are we advancing?
• What should classrooms look and feel like if we’re successful?

2) Design math learning where principals participate as learners

Don’t just tell leaders what great instruction looks like—let them experience it:

• engage in math tasks,
• analyze instruction,
• define what progress evidence looks like during classroom visits.

3) Anchor walkthroughs and feedback to a shared instructional lens

Provide math-specific look-fors and reflection prompts. Calibrate across schools so leaders reinforce the same signals—not personal preference.

4) Protect time for instructional leadership

If time isn’t protected, the work won’t happen consistently. Build a schedule where walkthroughs, PLC participation, and coaching check-ins aren’t optional leftovers.

5) Create feedback loops between coaches and administrators

Schedule regular coach–principal check-ins:

• review progress toward school goals,
• conduct joint classroom visits,
• align interpretations of instructional quality.

When this loop is strong, teachers feel clarity—not contradiction.

Why this matters: your math improvement flywheel depends on it

When principals co-lead math improvement, leadership stops being reactive.

Decisions become:

• clearer,
• faster,
• more aligned,
• and more sustainable.

And that’s when momentum builds—because every layer of the system is pushing in the same direction, using the same language, reinforcing the same priorities through daily practice.

If you want sustainable math improvement, don’t just ask principals to support the work.

Design a system that helps them own it.

If you’re ready to move your district from talk to action—and help every leader move confidently from awareness to proficiency—we’re here to help.

👉 Explore our District Support Programs to build sustainable systems for math improvement. Explore our support programs.

Want to Learn More?

At Make Math Moments, we help districts build systems for sustainable improvement through our Math Improvement Flywheel—a four-stage process that supports leaders in designing vision, aligning systems, building capacity, and inspiring growth.

If your district is ready to move beyond short-term fixes and ensure the 4 components of adoption are embedded in your system, we’d love to partner with you. 👉 Learn more about the District/School Improvement Program.