When Beverly stepped into her role as Middle School Math Supervisor in a midsize school district in Louisiana, the picture in front of her was clear—and sobering.
Only 31% of students in grades 6–8 were meeting grade-level expectations, even after two years of implementing a new core curriculum. Effort was visible across the system, but it wasn’t translating into consistent instructional improvement.
The district had an inconsistent relationship with coaching cycles before. But much of that support centered on logistics—ensuring assessments were prepared, pacing guides were followed, and resources were accessible. Professional learning existed, but it often stayed at the surface.
At the same time, schools were navigating overlapping demands: state PD rubrics, mandated numeracy courses, district-led professional learning days. Planning tools and surveys lived in shared folders, partially completed. Teachers and leaders alike were asking a quiet but persistent question:
Which priorities are actually non-negotiable this year?
Buy-in to effective teaching practices varied across schools. Some teachers leaned into rich tasks and discourse. Others stayed rooted in lecture-and-worksheet routines. Central office support often revolved around assessment preparation or identifying “power standards,” without clear processes for what those standards meant instructionally or how to teach them conceptually.
The challenge wasn’t a lack of effort. It was a lack of structure.
Naming the Lever That Had to Move
Early on, one priority became clear: teacher collaboration time.
Rather than framing the work as “fixing PLCs,” Beverly named strengthening collaboration time as a key result. The reasoning was simple: without more effective collaboration, none of the other improvement efforts would hold together.
But another realization followed quickly.
There was no way one person could meaningfully support collaboration across every middle school.
That realization didn’t lead to pulling back. It led to redesigning the work.
Building Bridges Instead of Carrying the System
Instead of trying to be present in every PLC, the district identified the instructional leader at each school site responsible for facilitating math PLCs.
Those leaders became the bridges.
Rather than occasional check-ins, Beverly designed a deliberate support structure around them.
The group meets every six weeks with a clear purpose:
- establish a shared picture of effective PLC practice
- implement that work at the school level
- return together to reflect
- refine the approach
- repeat
This cycle—come together, implement, reflect, refine—became the rhythm of the work.
Just as importantly, central office leadership didn’t remain removed from implementation. PLCs were visited. School-level work was observed firsthand. Support focused on coaching the bridge leaders, not replacing them.
This shift mattered because it changed where leadership lived in the system.
Clarifying What Collaboration Is Actually For
Another important move was defining the purpose of PLC time.
Collaboration wasn’t left to interpretation. PLC work was explicitly rooted in:
- the implementation of their core curriculum
- the state standards
- effective Tier 1 planning
Together, leaders clarified what meaningful planning looks like: studying standards, analyzing module and topic assessments, and answering key instructional questions before lessons are taught.
This prevented PLC time from drifting into logistics, pacing, or compliance. Collaboration became a place where teachers studied the math they were responsible for teaching and developed a shared understanding of quality instruction inside the core resource.
Co-Constructing Practice Instead of Rolling It Out
Rather than distributing a protocol and hoping for consistency, leaders co-constructed criteria for effective PLCs.
That work unfolded through repeated cycles: practice together, test in schools, return to reflect, refine expectations.
This approach was slower—but far more durable.
When leaders co-construct practice with the people doing the work, improvement stops feeling like a district initiative and starts becoming “how we do it here.”
What Changed—and Why It Matters
This work didn’t result in a single program or event. It resulted in capacity.
Collaboration time is increasingly treated as a lever for improving Tier 1 instruction. School-based instructional leaders are clearer about their role. PLC conversations are anchored in curriculum and standards. And the work moves forward through a repeatable cycle rather than isolated efforts.
Most importantly, improvement is set up to no longer depend on one person being everywhere at once.
Leadership now moves through people, shared language, and structure.
A Lesson for District Math Leaders
This story isn’t about perfect implementation or quick results. It’s about a shift many districts need to make:
From trying to carry improvement personally to designing systems that allow leadership to scale
From broad intentions to precise, supported practice
From isolated effort to coherent action
Strengthening collaboration time isn’t about having better meetings. It’s about building the conditions where instructional improvement can actually take hold—and stay.
And that work begins not by doing more, but by getting clearer about where leadership truly belongs.
Want to Learn More?
At Make Math Moments, we help districts build and implement 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 create bridges in mathematics learning, we’d love to partner with you.👉 Learn more about the District Improvement Program.
