When the Answers Are Right But the Learning Isn't
- Pamela Seda
- 3 days ago
- 5 min read
What school leaders need to know before — and after — a math classroom observation
Dr. Pamela Seda · Mathematics Education Consultant
Every school leader I've ever worked with has stood in the back of a math classroom and felt some version of the same quiet discomfort: something about this lesson isn't quite right — but I can't put my finger on it.
The students are working. The teacher is teaching. The curriculum is district-approved. The answers on the board are correct. And yet.
Most principals walk out of that classroom and say nothing — or say something vague — because they assume that naming what's wrong requires understanding the mathematics. You don't have a math background. Who are you to say the task isn't rigorous?
Here's what I want you to know: you don't have to understand the math to know whether the task is rigorous. You just have to know what to look for in students.
Rigor isn't in the content. It's in the demand.
When most people think about rigor in math class, they think about difficulty — harder problems, more complex numbers, higher-level content. But difficulty and demand are not the same thing.
A task can look challenging and still require nothing more than following a set of directions. And a task can involve straightforward mathematics while still demanding that students think deeply, explain their reasoning, and make genuine decisions about how to approach the work.
Rigor is not about what the math looks like. It is about what the task asks of the student's mind.
The Standards for Mathematical Practice describe what that demand looks like in action: students are making sense of problems, explaining and defending their reasoning, choosing tools and strategies, and attending carefully to precision. When these are present, students are doing the work of mathematics — not just completing it.
The Yes / No Rigor Test
This is the test: not what's written on the board, not how difficult the numbers look — but what students are actually doing.
If students are making sense of the problem, explaining their thinking, making decisions about how to approach the work, and engaging with one another's reasoning, the task is rigorous.
If they are not, it isn't.
You don't need to know whether the algorithm is correct or whether the standard is being addressed. You need to watch students and ask:
Are they thinking, or are they following directions?
What you're looking for — in plain language
You are not listening for correct answers. You are watching for evidence of thinking.
When a task is rigorous, students are doing things you can see and hear. They pause before they start, making sense of what the problem is asking. They talk to each other about their reasoning — agreeing, disagreeing, asking why. They make choices — trying a different strategy, selecting a tool, representing their thinking in multiple ways. They are careful — labeling their work, using mathematical language, checking whether their answer is reasonable.
The Standards for Mathematical Practice describe exactly what that looks like. Four of those practices belong in every math classroom, every day, regardless of grade level or content:
MP 1 | Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them — students are figuring something out, not just following steps |
MP 3 | Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others — students can explain how they got their answer and engage with someone else’s thinking |
MP 5 | Use appropriate tools strategically — students are making decisions about how to approach the work |
MP 6 | Attend to precision — students are using accurate language, checking their work, and labeling their thinking carefully |
When a task is not rigorous, the room looks different. It may still look productive — students are busy, answers are being produced, the teacher is circulating. But students are executing, not thinking. They are following a sequence of steps someone else designed rather than making decisions of their own. Remove the directions and they stop.
That is what I call GPS instruction — the teacher has provided turn-by-turn navigation so precise that students never have to build their own understanding of the route. When you follow GPS turn by turn, you arrive at your destination. But try it again tomorrow without the app, and you’re stuck. You followed instructions. You didn't learn the route.
A lot of math instruction works exactly the same way.
Compliance and rigor are not the same thing. Correct answers are not evidence of learning.
Why this matters for leadership
When leaders don't have a clear lens for rigor, they often default to what's visible and comfortable: engagement, pacing, coverage, and correct answers.
And without realizing it, they reinforce the very instruction they're trying to improve.
They leave classrooms affirming lessons where students were compliant but not thinking. They offer feedback that focuses on what the teacher did, rather than what students experienced. They miss the opportunity to shift instruction because they don't yet have a way to name what matters.
This is not a failure of leadership. It's a missing lens.
What most leaders don't realize is that teachers are often experiencing something just as complex on the other side of that same observation. And because leaders rarely have access to how their practices are experienced by teachers, this gap stays invisible. It doesn't close on its own.
The question that changes the post-observation conversation
Once you have this lens, the post-observation conversation becomes something entirely different.
You are no longer trying to evaluate the mathematics — which was never your job anyway. You are sharing what you observed in students and asking one question:
"What did the task ask students to work through and make sense of?"
That question does not evaluate the teacher. It does not require you to have a math background. It shifts the conversation from what the teacher did to what the task made possible for students.
And it opens reflection instead of defense.
If the answer is not much, the next question isn't why didn't you teach better? It's:
What would the task need to look like to give students more opportunities to think and make sense together?
That is a conversation about growth.
It is also a conversation most math teachers have never had with a school leader — because most school leaders didn't know they were allowed to have it.
You are allowed.
And now you have the lens to lead it.
You're Invited: The "I See You" Conversation
A National Listening Experience on Math Classroom Observations
What teachers experience. What leaders intend. And where the gap lives.
If you've ever walked out of a classroom knowing something needed to change — but unsure how to name it or what to say next — you're not alone.
The "I See You" Conversation is a two-part national listening experience designed to surface — and make sense of — the gap between classroom observation intentions and teacher experience.
Session 1: Math teachers from across the country share their honest experiences with classroom observations — what feels supportive, what feels unclear, and what gets in the way of meaningful growth.
Session 2: School leaders come together to examine their own intentions and engage with a synthesized report of teacher responses — revealing patterns that are often invisible in day-to-day school interactions.
This is not a training. There is no presentation to sit through.
It is a rare opportunity to see what is usually invisible — and to lead differently because of it.
You can't change what you can't see. This conversation makes it visible.
Space is intentionally limited to 20 school leaders. Selected leaders will receive a personal invitation.
→ Apply for ONE of 20 Leaders Spots ( Principals, APs, and Principal Supervisors )
→ Apply for ONE of 20 Teacher Spots ( Classroom Teachers )
About the Author
Dr. Pamela Seda is a mathematics education consultant and Co-author of Choosing to See: A Framework for Equity in the Math Classroom. Her ICUCARE® Framework supports school leaders and teachers in creating effective, high-quality mathematics learning environments for every student.
Comments