What Your Math Teachers Need You to Know About Time
If you are responsible for observing math classrooms and providing feedback, I know you've felt it. The constant pressure to do more with less time. Chronic absenteeism means students miss critical learning sequences. District initiatives fill planning periods with meetings that leave little room for actual planning. Teachers face 60 to 90 minutes of daily math instruction and feel paralyzed by the impossible task of covering every standard with equal weight, especially when some students arrive with gaps and others don't.
In this environment, something has to give. Too often, what gives is the very foundation of what math teachers are being told is the priority: student reasoning.
Teachers feel forced to cut the warm-up estimation activity because they're "behind." Or skip processing opportunities like turn-and-talk because there's "no time." They slowly begin to tell, instead of ask, because direct instruction FEELS faster. But here's what research and classroom reality both confirm: when we sacrifice reasoning to save time, we don't actually save time at all. We increase reteaching needs, create more gaps, and more frustration for everyone involved.
Here is what every math teacher wants you to know: The solution isn't to add more to teachers' plates. It's to help them focus on what truly builds mathematical proficiency and to protect that focus when everything else competes for attention. This post provides three research-backed strategies that instructional leaders can implement to keep math instruction steady, even when time feels scarce.
Strategy 1: Encourage Teachers to Identify and Teach Through Big Ideas
One of the most significant sources of instructional stress comes from treating every standard as equally important and entirely separate. Teachers feel overwhelmed trying to cover dozens of discrete topics, often introducing a new strategy or representation for each one. Students experience math as a disconnected series of procedures to memorize rather than a coherent system of ideas that build on each other.
The research on learning progressions and cognitive load theory is clear: students develop deeper understanding and better retention when instruction focuses on big, unifying concepts rather than fragmented coverage. In grades 6-8, two major big ideas typically anchor the curriculum: the development of number sense (with emphasis on rational and real numbers) and the development of proportional reasoning. When teachers understand these big ideas, they can make strategic instructional decisions that build coherence rather than confusion.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Consider how different this approach feels for both teacher and student.
Class A:
Without a big idea focus, a seventh-grade teacher might teach ratios using ratio tables one week, then introduce an entirely different method for unit rates the next week, followed by yet another approach for percent’s, and a separate strategy for scale drawings. Each topic feels like starting over. Students struggle to see connections and teachers feel like they're constantly reteaching "the same thing" without understanding why students aren't transferring their learning.
Class B:
When teaching through the big idea of proportional reasoning, a different seventh-grade teacher uses consistent representations (like double number lines, ratio tables, and tape diagrams) across all of these topics. More importantly, they ask focusing questions that help students see the underlying structure: "What relationship are we comparing here? How does that relationship stay constant? Where do you see that same pattern in what we learned last week?"
Notice the distinction? In class B the teacher is intentional about saving instructional time by helping students see connectedness. This intentionality is what transforms a collection of standards into coherent mathematical learning.
Your Role as an Instructional Leader
If you haven't already done so, you need to work with your math teachers to identify the one or two big ideas that anchor each grade level's content. This isn't about ignoring standards, it's about organizing them around the conceptual throughlines that make those standards meaningful.
Start by facilitating a collaborative session where teachers map standards to big ideas. Ask them: "Which standards in our curriculum are really about developing number sense? Which are about proportional reasoning? What are the key representations and reasoning strategies that apply across multiple standards and across grade-levels?" When teachers can articulate these connections, their instruction naturally becomes more focused and less frantic.
This work also clarifies what students should already know versus what teachers need to teach them. So many instructional minutes are lost to uncertainty about prior knowledge. When teachers understand learning progressions tied to big ideas, they can quickly diagnose whether a student struggle represents a gap in foundational understanding or a developmentally appropriate next step in their reasoning.
Strategy 2: Prioritize Affirming Learning Walks
Teachers are drowning in negative feedback. They know what's not working because students tell them every day through confused looks and incorrect answers. What teachers often don't know is what they're doing well, what's worth holding onto when the pressure mounts to reteach more than they anticipated.
This is where your observation and feedback practices become critical. Both traditional instructional walkthroughs and affirming learning walks aim to improve the quality of math instruction through observations. Both collect data that highlight strengths and areas for refinement. Both influence school culture. But affirming learning walks do something additional: they build a shared vision and collective responsibility. They create the conditions for teachers to collaborate on planning next steps rather than feeling isolated in their struggles.
What Affirming Feedback Sounds Like
Feedback generated from affirming learning walks isn't superficial praise. It's specific recognition of instructional moves that are working, tied to student reasoning outcomes. It can sound like this: "I noticed when you asked students to compare their solution strategies at the end, three different groups referenced the number line you used during the warm-up. That consistent representation is helping them see the connections you want them to make." This type of feedback serves multiple purposes. It tells the teacher what to keep doing. It reinforces the big idea focus. And it normalizes that not everything will be perfect—some students will still struggle—but the teacher is building the right instructional foundation.
Affirming learning walks also collect data that guide collaborative planning. When you observe across multiple classrooms, you can identify patterns: "I'm noticing that our sixth-grade team is really strong at using visual models for fraction operations, but we're less consistent in asking students to explain their reasoning verbally. How were they able to build that unified strength for visual models? What would it look like if we used that same process for increasing student voice?”
The power is in creating a culture of replicating success, not hyperfixating on what's wrong.
Balancing Affirmation with Growth
Affirming feedback doesn't mean avoiding conversations about necessary growth. It means those conversations happen in a context where teachers feel secure enough to reflect honestly. Feedback can come from self-reflection, from peers, or from administrators. The key is creating the structures (time, protocols, safety, trust) that make meaningful feedback possible.
When teachers know what they're doing well, they can handle hearing about growth areas without becoming defensive or overwhelmed. When they don't know what's working, every suggestion feels like criticism, and they're more likely to abandon effective practices in their anxiety to "fix" everything at once.
If you want to learn more about implementing affirming learning walks as part of a comprehensive observation framework, read about my work on my website, book a call with me, and/or attend one of my free webinars where I share deeper protocols and planning tools.
Strategy 3: Protect Sense-Making Routines as Foundational Instruction
Here's a truth that might be hard for your time-strapped teachers to accept: sense-making routines are not the extras you cut when you're short on time. They are the cornerstones on which high-quality math instruction is built.
Routines like warm-up estimation activities, Notice and Wonder protocols, and "explain your thinking" discussions do more than fill time, they develop the reasoning habits that make all other learning more efficient. When students develop strong estimation skills, they catch computational errors before submitting work. When they're practiced at explaining their thinking, they can articulate their confusion more precisely, making teacher feedback more targeted. When they regularly engage in mathematical conversations, they develop the vocabulary and confidence to participate more fully in lessons.
What Routines Protect Instructional Time
During your planning sessions with teachers, encourage teams to discuss and commit to instructional routines for how they start and end each lesson. Routines like a warm-up or bell work at the start of class help students get to work quickly and reduce lost instructional minutes. When students know what to expect, they can transition smoothly between activities without waiting for directions. It must be clear that the routines are not about compliance, they're about cognition. Sense-making routines create the conditions for reasoning to develop. They are not separate from instruction, they are preparing students' minds for the lesson ahead while building essential sense-making skills. Closing routines that ask students to synthesize or reflect don't just wrap up a lesson, they consolidate learning. When students answer "What's one thing you learned today and one question you still have?" teachers get formative assessment data that's far more useful than a stack of worksheets. And students develop metacognitive awareness that helps them become more independent learners.
The Hidden Efficiency of Routines
Teachers might worry that routines take time away from content coverage. The opposite is true. Routines create predictability that reduces the need for constant behavioral redirections and procedural explanations. They distribute cognitive work across the year rather than cramming everything into direct instruction. And they build the reasoning infrastructure that makes future lessons more efficient. When you emphasize to your teams that these routines must continue even when time feels tight, you're giving them permission to trust the research over their anxiety. You're helping them see that ten minutes spent on estimation and discussion isn't ten minutes lost, it's ten minutes invested in making the other fifty minutes more productive.
Addressing Common Obstacles: A Reasoning-First Lens
Even with clear strategies, obstacles will arise. The key is evaluating every decision through a reasoning-first lens: Does this support or undermine students' development of mathematical reasoning?
Obstacle 1: "We don't have time for discussions because we have to get through the curriculum. Besides, my kids don’t speak anyway."
Reasoning-first response: Getting through content without building reasoning creates the illusion of progress. Students who can't reason through problems will struggle on assessments no matter how many topics you cover. The discussions aren't separate from curriculum, they are how students make sense of the curriculum that is being taught.
Obstacle 2: "Our students are too far behind. We need to focus on procedures first, then maybe add reasoning later."
Reasoning-first response: Research consistently shows that reasoning and procedures develop together, not sequentially. Students who only learn procedures struggle to apply them flexibly or remember them over time. The students who are "behind" are often behind precisely because they've only experienced procedural instruction without sense-making opportunities.
Obstacle 3: "Chronic absenteeism means different students miss different lessons. How can we build coherent reasoning when attendance is inconsistent?"
Reasoning-first response: This is actually an argument for big ideas and routines, not against them. When instruction is organized around big ideas, students who miss lessons can more easily reconnect to the throughline. When routines are consistent, absent students know exactly what to expect when they return. Fragmented, procedure-focused instruction is much harder to catch up on than coherent, reasoning-based instruction.
Obstacle 4: "District initiatives and meetings are taking time away from instructional planning."
Reasoning-first response: This requires advocacy. As an instructional leader, part of your role is protecting the conditions teachers need to plan high-quality instruction. When planning time is consumed by meetings, instruction suffers and that affects students. Ask district leaders: "How does this initiative support reasoning development in math classrooms?" They may have additional insight that is not apparent.
The Observer's Checklist: Facilitative Questions for Math Observations
Whether you're observing another teacher's classroom or reflecting on your own instruction, these seven questions can guide your attention toward what matters most: student reasoning. What to look for during any math lesson:
1. Big Ideas & Connections
Are students encountering consistent representations or reasoning strategies that connect to previous learning? Can I identify the big idea this lesson is building toward? Can students?
2. Focusing vs. Funneling Questions
Are teacher questions opening up student thinking ("What do you notice?" "How do you know?") or narrowing it toward a single answer? Do questions help students make connections across concepts?
3. Common Errors vs. Misconceptions
When students struggle, does it reflect an execution error or a fundamental gap in understanding? How is the teacher distinguishing between these two?
4. Sense-Making Routines
Are there predictable routines for starting the lesson, engaging with content, and closing the lesson? Do these routines position students as mathematical thinkers, not just answer-producers?
5. Student Reasoning Visibility
Are students explaining their thinking, not just showing their work? What evidence do I see or hear as students making sense of mathematics for themselves?
6. Instructional Coherence
Do students know how this lesson connects to what students learned yesterday and what they'll learn tomorrow? Or does it feel isolated and disconnected from the larger learning arc?
7. Time Use
Are instructional minutes spent on activities that build reasoning (justification, explaining, estimation, problem-solving) or primarily on procedural practice?
This list works equally well for classroom observers and for teachers engaging in self-reflection. The questions are designed to be short, practical, and impactful. Intentionally focusing attention on the elements of instruction that research tells us matter most for student learning, this list can be used to guide instructional planning and delivery.
Moving Forward: Building Sustainable Practice
Working harder does not aid in keeping math instruction steady when everything competes for time. It's about working with clarity and focus. When you help teachers identify big ideas, when you provide affirming feedback that builds their confidence, and when you protect the routines that develop reasoning, you create the conditions for sustainable, high-quality instruction.
This work takes time and ironically, that time investment is what ultimately saves time. Teachers who understand big ideas spend less time confused about what to prioritize. Teachers who receive affirming feedback spend less time second-guessing effective practices. Teachers who implement consistent routines spend less time managing behavior and reteaching content.
Your role as an instructional leader—whether you're a coach, administrator, or teacher leader—is to create and protect these conditions. Not through top-down mandates, but through collaborative inquiry and shared commitment to what students need most: opportunities to reason, make sense, and build genuine mathematical understanding.
The obstacles are real. The competing demands won't disappear. But when everyone in the building shares a reasoning-first commitment, math instruction can remain steady even in turbulent times.
And that steadiness? That's what allows students to develop the deep, flexible mathematical thinking they'll need long after they've left our classrooms.
