As the Senior Director of Teaching and Learning at Carmen Schools of Science and Technology, our vision for math intervention has continued to evolve over time. This year, we worked to create a stronger, more shared model for what Teach to One Roadmaps should look like in our ninth grade Algebra Lab classrooms.
Across our campuses, Algebra Lab is designed as a daily 55-minute support block connected to core Algebra 1 instruction. In that space, students use Teach to One Roadmaps as a central tool to build skills, strengthen understanding, and get the targeted support they need to succeed in Algebra. Going into the school year, we had a clear aspiration for what that time could be: a structured, purposeful intervention block where students were engaged in meaningful math work every day, teachers were using data to respond to student needs, and Teach to One Roadmaps was tightly connected to what students were learning in their core math class.
But like many schools, we started the year with real implementation challenges.
We experienced staff turnover. Some of the teachers leading Algebra Lab were new to the role, new to teaching math, or newer to teaching overall. At the same time, I stepped into an interim principal role at one of our campuses from late July through December, which limited the time I could spend directly supporting math instruction across the network. We were making progress, but by the fall it was clear that there was a meaningful gap between our vision for these classrooms and what was happening day to day.
That realization became an important turning point.
One of the biggest lessons for me this year has been that when the gap between vision and current reality feels wide, leaders cannot simply restate the vision and expect teachers to get there on their own. If we want teachers to grow into ambitious instructional practice, especially in a specialized intervention setting, we have to help make that growth visible, manageable, and attainable.
In other words, we cannot ask teachers to do everything at once.
That insight shaped how we approached coaching later in the school year. Rather than focusing only on what was not yet happening, we worked to create a clearer developmental path for what strong Teach to One Roadmaps implementation could look like over time. We asked: What are the foundational systems and routines teachers need first? What should come next? How can we identify bite-sized action steps that move teachers forward without overwhelming them?
To support that work, I developed a Teacher Arc of Development for the Teach to One Roadmaps intervention block. The tool lays out a progression from foundational classroom systems and productive independent work, to stronger use of the platform, to teacher and student ownership of data, and eventually to more differentiated instruction through small groups and mini-lessons. The goal was not to suggest that every teacher should master every part of the vision immediately. It was to help teachers and coaches name where they were, identify the next right step, and build momentum from there.
In January, we paired that developmental framework with a set of midyear data meetings. Those meetings were grounded in a few essential questions: Are students on track or off track to our weekly goals? Which students are excelling, and what is helping them succeed? Which students are struggling, and what patterns do we see in their classroom experience? What actions can the teacher take next?
That process helped us reground in some of the most important basics. Teachers needed to know how to use the tools already available in the platform to determine whether students were on track or off track to mastering two or more skills per week. They needed to be able to use the teacher dashboard regularly, look at individual student reports, and connect what they were seeing in the data to what was happening in the classroom.
But the data meetings were not just about reviewing numbers. They helped us translate the data into action.
For some teachers, one of the most important shifts was simply sharing data with students more consistently and helping students understand their own goals and progress. For others, we were ready to build a more intentional instructional structure within the week.
One example of that was the work we did to establish a weekly routine around one shared target skill and one student choice skill. In one Algebra Lab classroom, students now spend the beginning of the week working on a target skill aligned to what they are learning in Algebra 1. Later in the week, they work on a choice skill independently. Fridays can then become a space for catch-up, celebration, or incentives tied to progress across the week.
That structure made several other important shifts possible. We introduced a more consistent note-taking system so students were not just clicking through the platform, but actively engaging with videos, vocabulary, worked examples, and practice problems. We were able to align Teach to One Roadmaps work more closely to core Algebra 1 content, which helped students see the connection between what they were doing in intervention and what they were doing in their math class. From there, we could build visual tracking systems, pull small groups for additional support, and use the classroom routines as a foundation for more responsive instruction.
What I have learned is that strong implementation is deeply developmental, both for teachers and for students. Teachers, especially those who are new to teaching math or new to this kind of intervention role, need support that is concrete and sequenced. It is not enough to say, “Here is the ideal classroom.” Leaders have to help teachers close the distance between that ideal and their current practice by identifying what matters most right now, modeling key moves, and offering real-time feedback along the way.
That has been one of the most powerful parts of this work for me. In the classroom I have been directly coaching this semester, modeling has made a real difference. Sometimes teachers need to hear feedback. Sometimes they need to see what a routine looks like in action, whether that is how to teach students to use a note sheet, how to monitor independent work, or how to reinforce expectations while students are working in the platform. That kind of support can accelerate growth in a way that conversation alone often cannot.
We have already seen encouraging signs that this work is making a difference. In classrooms where structures have become more consistent, student note-taking has improved dramatically. Students are more likely to engage in the platform the way we intend them to, rather than rushing straight to Skill Challenges. Teachers are using data more confidently. And, most importantly, students are getting more of the structure, support, and aligned practice they need during this intervention block. That progress is also showing up in student pace, measured by skills mastered per week. At Carmen Southeast High School, average active pace climbed from 0.34 in early January to 2.10 by mid-February, surpassing the weekly target pace of 2.0, and reached 4.45 by February 22.
For me, the biggest takeaway is this: ambitious visions still matter. In fact, they matter a great deal. But if we want teachers to bring those visions to life, we have to pair them with coaching that makes growth possible.
That means acknowledging the gap between where things are and where we want them to be. It means resisting the urge to treat implementation as all or nothing. And it means helping teachers take the next right step, then the next one after that.
When leaders do that well, coaching becomes more than feedback. It becomes a way of turning vision into daily practice.
About the Author
Kyra VandeBunte has served students in Milwaukee, WI since 2010 as a middle school math teacher, instructional coach, and high school principal. She currently serves as the Senior Director of Teaching and Learning at Carmen Schools of Science and Technology.
