Twenty-Nine Minutes Left and the Projector Is Dead
Mr. Patel's world history period runs 9:05 to 9:52. He has planned a 10-minute warm-up, a 12-minute video clip, and a 20-minute document analysis in pairs. The warm-up runs to 14 minutes because three students want to keep arguing about the previous night's reading. The projector fails at 9:18 and will not restart. With 29 minutes left, he has printed copies of two of the three documents, roughly half the class has not read the textbook section assigned the night before, and the principal is scheduled to observe at 9:30 for a summative evaluation. Two students have 504 plans for extended time on written assignments, and the exit ticket requires a written paragraph.
1. You are Mr. Patel at 9:19. What do you do in the next five minutes, and what is your reasoning?
Read the worked answer
Decision: cut the scope, keep the reasoning task, change the medium.
In the next five minutes I need one thing settled - what the class is doing - before the principal walks in, because a class that is waiting for a teacher to fix a projector looks worse than a class doing a smaller version of the intended task.
- Announce the change as a decision, not a malfunction. "The clip is out. We're doing the document work now with two documents instead of three, and the comparison question is the same."
- Solve the unread-textbook problem in 90 seconds by giving a three-sentence context box on the board or a half-sheet. Half the class cannot analyze documents about a section they did not read, and the gap will show up as off-task behavior that gets attributed to me.
- Convert the third document into my own oral read-aloud of the two or three key lines, so the comparison still has a second voice. This keeps the cognitive demand and drops the logistics.
- Protect the exit ticket. With 504 extended-time plans in the room, the paragraph needs the full last eight minutes, so the pair work gets 15, not 20.
- Tell the principal what changed and why in one sentence as he sits down, so the observation is of the adaptation rather than of a plan that visibly did not happen.
The warm-up overrun is the real root cause, not the projector, and that gets addressed later - not at 9:19.
2. The exit tickets show that 11 of 27 students identified each document's position but only 4 explained how the two documents disagree. What does this tell you, and what is your next-day plan?
Read the worked answer
What it tells me.
The 11 who got the positions right confirms the documents were readable and the task was accessible - so this is not a reading failure or a materials failure. The 4 who explained the disagreement is where the lesson actually broke.
The likely cause is that the comparison was the part of the task I cut. With 15 minutes, pairs had time to read and identify but not to argue the relationship between the two positions. Identifying each side is a prerequisite; articulating the conflict between them is the objective. I removed the objective to save time and then tested it.
It is also possible the prompt was doing the work: "How do these documents disagree?" invites listing, not reasoning. I cannot separate these two explanations from the exit tickets alone, so the next lesson should test both.
Next day:
- Start with two anonymous exit-ticket responses, one that lists and one that explains, and have the class name the difference. Ten minutes, no lecture.
- Give a comparison frame - claim / evidence / what the other author would say back - with one completed model and one to finish together.
- Re-run the same two documents in pairs with 20 protected minutes and the frame. Do not introduce new content; the point is to reattempt the reasoning.
- End with a three-sentence exit ticket that repeats the original question, so I can compare the same measure before and after.
Then address the warm-up structure separately: three students dominated 14 minutes because the question had no written entry point or time limit.
3. In the post-observation conference the principal says, "The lesson didn't follow your plan." How do you respond?
Read the worked answer
Agree with the fact and reframe the question.
I would not defend the original plan - it did not happen, and pretending the video was optional would damage credibility. I would say plainly what changed at 9:19, why, and what I was trying to protect: the comparison task and the exit ticket.
Then I would move to the more useful question: was the adapted lesson good? The relevant evidence is that 11 of 27 students could identify each document's position but only 4 could explain the disagreement. That is a partial success and a specific failure, and it points at a planning problem the observation could not see - I had budgeted 20 minutes for a task that needed 25, and I had no plan for half the class not having read.
What I would bring to the conversation:
- A one-page note on the timing, the adaptation, and the exit-ticket data.
- A specific change for the next observation: a 10-minute cap on the warm-up with a written entry question, and a designated cut point if a resource fails again.
- A question back to the principal: from where he sat, when did the class look least engaged? That is information I cannot get from my own vantage point.
What I would avoid: blaming the students for the warm-up overrun, or treating the projector as the cause. The projector was a trigger; the unbuilt contingency and the open-ended warm-up were the causes.