We've known what high-quality feedback requires for decades: So why isn’t math instruction improving?
In 2022–2023, the NAEP assessment results showed that 13-year-olds experienced the largest drop in math achievement in 50 years. That means an entire generation's relationship with mathematics is getting weaker on our watch. To address this, we’ve done what schools are wired to do: we’ve added more intervention, more technology, more programs, and more initiatives.
Yet, math achievement is not improving at the rate we desire.
We must consider that securing “more” is only half of a viable solution. The other half of the solution is to build teacher capacity.
When math teachers have capacity, they have the pedagogical skill and flexibility to respond to student needs in real time, not just deliver content. They can identify misconceptions as they happen, then seamlessly adjust instruction without abandoning rigor.
The most effective way to build that capacity is through observation and feedback. But not just any feedback; high-quality feedback.
So what does high-quality, affirming feedback actually require?
The research gives us a clear answer.
Most school leaders are familiar with John Hattie’s Visible Learning work. In it, he tells us that feedback is one of the strongest levers we have for raising student achievement, but what leaders are less often told is that the same conditions that make feedback effective for students make feedback effective for teachers.
Feedback must be specific, actionable, timely and connected to the learner’s current level of understanding.
Kraft, Blazar, and Hogan (2022) confirmed what most of us suspect: when teachers receive high-quality feedback their practice improves and in turn, so do student outcomes.
To be clear, giving feedback and giving high-quality, affirming feedback are not the same thing. And in math classrooms specifically, most of what gets called feedback never mentions how students engage in mathematical reasoning. A recent Rand Corporation study found that while most school leaders believe they are providing strong instructional feedback, fewer than 25% of math teachers report receiving feedback that actually improves their practice.
The gap here isn’t knowledge, it’s the application of the knowledge.
A Framework Worth Borrowing
Hattie's Visible Learning framework describes three phases of student learning: Surface, Deep, and Transfer.
At the Surface phase, students are first exposed to new ideas.
At the Deep phase, they begin making connections.
At the Transfer phase, they apply their learning to new context.
The insight that changes everything for instructional leadership is knowing that teachers move through these same phases of learning as they build capacity. Which means the feedback they receive should be calibrated to where they are and not prepackaged as a one-size-fits-all message.
By borrowing from Hattie’s framework, we can think about feedback in three levels:
Surface Feedback → build trust and a shared understanding of foundational practices
Surface feedback is descriptive and affirming. Its purpose is not to fix anything; it is to create professional safety. This is not about avoiding hard conversations or lowering expectations; it’s about creating the conditions where teachers are open to refining their practice based on the feedback you provide.
Strategy Feedback → connect instructional moves to student thinking
Strategy feedback is where the work shifts. This is where leaders connect what the teacher is doing to what students are experiencing. Its purpose is not to get the teacher to answer “What strategy did you use?”, it is to get them to answer “How did your strategy allow students to understand, and where did it fall short?” This positions the teacher as the thinker, not just the doer.
Self-Driven Feedback → supports teacher ownership and long-term growth
Self-driven feedback is for teachers who are ready to take ownership of their own instructional growth. Its purpose is to cultivate an asset-based mindset while encouraging self-reflection. A teacher who leaves with ownership will continue the work after the feedback is given. A teacher who leaves without ownership will wait for the next directive.
Together, these form a system designed to build math teacher capacity by moving beyond simply documenting teacher performance.
Why This Matters for Your School
Understanding these three levels of feedback is the first step to building a system that delivers feedback that is consistent in quality. If the primary function of observation in your school is to rate teachers as effective or ineffective, the feedback will reflect that purpose. It will be broad, evaluative, and disconnected from student thinking.
Continuing to operate like this creates a predictable pattern.
Teachers stop expecting feedback to be useful, leaders feel stuck between support and accountability, and student outcomes remain inconsistent across classrooms.
So the solution becomes to observe more classes and collect more data.
But the observation data won't tell you what the disconnect is, so you will buy a new program or a new resource, and the cycle will start all over again.
Building an observation system that develops math teachers rather than documenting them is the only way to fix the system. It requires a shared language for what high-quality math instruction looks like, a feedback framework calibrated to each teacher's growth journey, and a leadership team that operates from the same lens and knows what to do with what they see in math classrooms.
That is the work that will turn observations into a lever for overall math improvement.
It will not happen in a single conversation or a single PD session. It happens when a leadership team commits to building the system together.
The Question Worth Asking
The question for your school is not whether your leaders are giving feedback.
They are. Every observation produces some version of feedback.
The question you should answer:
Is your observation system designed to develop math teachers who can consistently produce strong student outcomes?
If the answer is unclear, that’s the gap.
If you are ready to answer that question for your school, I would love to be in that conversation with you.
Let’s chat!
