“Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.” — W. Edwards Deming
Many school districts have done the hard work of defining a vision for mathematics.
They’ve articulated what high-quality math instruction should look like.
They’ve set bold goals.
They’ve identified priorities they believe will drive improvement.
They’ve invested time, money, and energy into professional learning.
And yet, year after year, many leaders still ask the same question:
Why aren’t we seeing consistent shifts in math instruction or student learning?
The answer is rarely about effort.More often, it’s about structure.
The Reason Math Improvement Loses Traction
In most systems, support for teachers exists:
- Professional learning days are scheduled
- Coaches are assigned
- PLCs are protected on the calendar
- Staff meetings happen regularly
But despite all of this activity, instructional change remains uneven and fragile.
Why?
Because these supports often operate as isolated parts rather than a coordinated system.
Districts that make real, lasting progress don’t just provide more support. They optimize and align the systems that already exist.
How Much Professional Learning Do Teachers Actually Need?
Research gives us a clear picture of what it takes to shift instructional practice.
- A synthesis by Darling-Hammond et al. (2009) found that teachers need 30–100 hours of professional learning over 6–12 months to adopt inquiry-oriented teaching practices.
- More recently, the Learning Policy Institute found that approximately 49 hours per year of well-designed professional learning can produce measurable gains in teaching and student learning.
Now compare that to reality.
A 2021 study across 71 schools found that teachers reported receiving just 20.27 hours of math-specific professional learning per year.
Here’s what those hours often look like in practice:
- 5 hours during a full-day PD at the start of the year
- 2.5 hours during a mid-year half-day
- 12.77 hours spread thinly across PLCs, staff meetings, or curriculum sessions
That averages out to less than 20 minutes per week.
But the real issue isn’t just the number of hours.
It’s how those hours are used.
Where Professional Learning Time Actually Goes
When teachers meet, how much of that time is focused on improving instruction?
A study outlined in The Systems for Instructional Improvement analyzed how collaborative time was typically spent:
- 35% on logistics
- 8% on pacing
- 24% on surface-level strategies
- 8% on unfocused instructional talk
- Only 24% on instructional planning connected directly to lessons
Let’s pause and do the math.
If teachers receive about 20 hours of math-specific professional learning per year, but only 24% of that time is spent on instructional improvement, then teachers are really receiving about 4.9 hours of meaningful professional learning annually.
That’s not a small gap.
That’s a tenfold difference between what teachers are getting and what research suggests is needed to move instruction.
This Isn’t About Adding More PD
At this point, many leaders feel discouraged.
“Forty-nine hours per teacher feels impossible.”
But this isn’t a call to add more meetings or overload teachers.
It’s a call to optimize and coordinate the systems that already exist.
When professional learning structures are fragmented, time gets diluted. When they’re aligned, learning compounds.
The problem isn’t that districts lack commitment. It’s that the system isn’t designed to protect instructional learning time.
Many districts have clear improvement plans on paper.
They’ve named what they want teachers to do differently. They’ve identified priorities and indicators of success.
But plans stall when the surrounding systems—PLCs, coaching, PD days, walkthroughs, curriculum use—aren’t intentionally designed to support those priorities.
No matter how clear the goal, instruction won’t change if the system can’t carry the work.
The Six(6) Support Sub Systems That Actually Drive Instructional Change
Districts that see sustained improvement coordinate across a small number of essential systems. These systems don’t operate independently—they reinforce one another.
Here’s what that looks like in practice.
1. Vision and Leadership
In effective systems, the district’s math vision anchors every decision.
Senior leaders are not chasing short-term test score gains or reacting to the issue of the month. They are relentlessly steering the system toward long-term instructional improvement.
School improvement plans, coaching priorities, and professional learning all connect back to the same shared vision. Accountability comes from coherence, not pressure.
2. Coaching
In strong systems, instructional coaches are not extra helpers or compliance checkers.
They are bridges between district goals and classroom practice.
Coaches:
- Lead and shape PLCs
- Support principals as instructional leaders
- Help translate abstract goals into concrete classroom moves
When coaching is aligned to district priorities and supported with ongoing learning, it becomes one of the most powerful levers for instructional change.
3. School Leadership Support
Principals and assistant principals are not passive recipients of math reform.
When leaders engage in ongoing professional learning about effective math instruction, co-observe classrooms with coaches, and debrief using shared instructional lenses, their role changes.
Walkthroughs become math-specific.
Feedback reinforces instructional priorities.
Evaluation systems stop competing with improvement efforts.
4. Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)
At the heart of the system are PLCs that are protected, purposeful, and well facilitated.
In effective districts, PLCs are not used for pacing calendars or housekeeping. Teachers:
- Analyze student work
- Rehearse upcoming lessons
- Examine representations and models
- Deepen their understanding of math content
Always connected to the next units of instruction.
PLCs become laboratories for the practices the district is trying to scale.
5. Pull-Out Professional Development
High-quality PD days reinforce the work happening in PLCs and coaching cycles.
Instead of generic workshops, teachers experience:
- The same instructional practices they are expected to use
- Mathematics explored with depth and intentionality
- A clear connection to classroom implementation
What teachers experience in PD matches what they are supported to refine in their classrooms.
6. Instructional Materials and Intervention
Curriculum and intervention structures complete the ecosystem.
Districts that gain traction:
- Adopt a common high-quality curriculum
- Support teachers in maintaining its integrity
- Align intervention to the same instructional vision
Intervention is not disconnected from core instruction. When possible, classroom teachers lead it. When not, collaboration time ensures students experience consistent strategies and representations.
When Systems Align, Improvement Becomes Sustainable
When leadership, coaching, PLCs, professional learning, curriculum, and intervention move together, districts stop working in fragments.
Instructional change becomes realistic.
Goals become attainable.
Momentum sustains.
Right now, in many districts, teachers receive fewer than five hours of truly meaningful math-specific professional learning per year.
Five hours won’t move a system.
But coordinated systems can.
The path to lasting math improvement isn’t about doing more—it’s about designing systems that finally work together.
👉 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.
