Why Effort Isn’t Translating into Results in Math Classrooms

Pamela Seda
1 day ago
3 min read

What Our Systems Are Rewarding—and Why It Matters

January is often a moment of reset.

Leaders return from winter break with fresh resolve. Teachers come back ready to try again. PLC calendars are updated. Professional learning plans are revisited.

And yet, many principals are carrying a quiet frustration:

There’s a lot of effort in the building, but results hinge on a small number of teachers.

If that resonates, it’s important to name something clearly at the start:

When effort isn’t translating into consistent results in math classrooms, the issue is rarely commitment. More often, it’s what the system is rewarding.

Effort Isn’t the Problem

In schools across the country, teachers are planning carefully. They’re meeting in PLCs. They’re responding to feedback. They’re adjusting lessons in real time.

Leaders are doing their part too—conducting walkthroughs, offering support, approving professional learning, and encouraging instructional risk-taking.

And still, when leaders walk classrooms, a familiar pattern emerges:

In some rooms, students are explaining their reasoning; in others, they are quietly taking notes
In some classrooms, students are working through worksheets; in others, they are engaged in performance tasks that require reasoning
Instruction often shifts back toward procedures, despite ongoing professional learning

That inconsistency can feel puzzling—until we look at the system more closely.

What Systems Quietly Teach Us to Prioritize

Every school has leadership systems. Walkthrough routines. PLC structures. Professional learning cycles. Assessment practices.

These systems send messages—sometimes louder than our vision statements.

They tell teachers:

What matters
What counts
What is safest to prioritize when time is tight

And here’s the hard truth many leaders don’t hear often enough:

What our leadership systems reward is what shows up in classrooms.

Even when leaders value student reasoning and sensemaking, systems can unintentionally reward something else.

When Systems Reward Coverage and Correctness

In many schools, the most consistently reinforced signals are:

Did you cover the content?
Did students get the right answers?
Did the lesson stay on pace?

These signals show up in subtle ways:

Walkthrough feedback prioritizes fidelity to the curriculum over evidence of student reasoning and sensemaking
PLC conversations center on performance data, pacing, and compliance rather than examining how students are making sense of the mathematics
Assessments privilege speed and correctness over reasoning and explanation

None of this happens because leaders don’t care.

It happens because systems were designed to efficiently sort results, not to sustain deep learning over time.

And when systems reward coverage and correctness, teachers respond rationally. They protect pacing. They reduce risk. They do more of the thinking themselves.

The result? Instruction looks orderly—but student learning depends on the classroom.

When Systems Reward Reasoning and Sensemaking

In other schools, leaders notice something different.

Across classrooms, students are expected to:

Explain their reasoning
Justify their approaches
Make sense of ideas, even when it takes time

The difference isn’t a better staff or a better curriculum.

The difference is that leadership systems consistently reinforce those expectations.

In these schools:

Walkthroughs focus on evidence of student thinking
PLCs examine student work, not just lesson plans
Assessments signal that explanation and reasoning matter

Teachers don’t have to guess what counts. The system makes it clear.

And because the system carries the work, improvement doesn’t depend on individual teachers. It becomes predictable across classrooms.

A Question Worth Sitting With This January

As leaders think about resetting this semester, the most important question may not be:

What do we want teachers to do differently?

But rather:

What are our leadership systems currently rewarding—and what are they unintentionally pulling us away from?

This is the same question many leaders are sitting with right now. For those who want a clearer way to reflect, I’ve created a brief Mini Diagnostic that surfaces how leadership systems are shaping math instruction across classrooms.

Why This Matters Now

When leadership systems reward the wrong things—even subtly—improvement doesn’t spread. It depends on heroic teachers. It resets every year. It struggles to survive turnover.

But when systems consistently reinforce reasoning and sensemaking, something changes.

High-quality math learning becomes: