Same Course, Same Test, Two Different Results
At Riverside Middle School, four teachers teach the same 7th-grade math course. On the end-of-quarter common assessment, Team A's students average 81% mastery and Team B's average 52%, even though prior-year proficiency was similar (44% and 41%). Ms. Kwan, a 22-year veteran, tells the principal, "My kids are different-you can't compare us." Walkthroughs show Ms. Kwan's 80-minute block spends 55 minutes on whole-group lecture followed by independent worksheets; Mr. Ellis runs a warm-up, a 20-minute mini-lesson, and station rotations with exit tickets. The district pacing guide is three weeks behind in two of the four sections. English learners are 29% of the grade and are concentrated in Ms. Kwan's two sections.
1. Diagnose the problem. What evidence would you gather before acting, and which competing explanations must you rule out?
Read the worked answer
Rule out artifacts before you rule in a person.
- Roster effects. Were sections built by scheduling software that clustered EL students, students with IEPs, or repeaters into two blocks? If yes, the comparison is contaminated and the structure is the first problem.
- Assessment quality. Is the common assessment blueprinted to the same standards at the same cognitive demand? Item-level analysis, not just the average.
- Prior-teacher effects and attendance. Compare attendance during the math block and discipline removals from math class.
- Pacing. Two sections are three weeks behind. Behind on what-priority standards or coverage?
Then gather practice evidence: student work samples from both classes, exit-ticket data, observation notes using a shared look-for (time on student discourse, frequency of checks for understanding), and a student focus group in each section.
What the principal should not do: announce a teacher-quality conclusion in a staff meeting. That converts a solvable instructional problem into a defensive identity fight, and it invites grievances. The defensible opening is: two groups of similar students are getting different results-what explains it?
Likely finding: both a structural cause (EL clustering) and an instructional cause (uneven access to guided practice and feedback). Address both, because solving only one will not move the data.
2. What sequence of supportive and directive actions should the principal take with Ms. Kwan, and why that order?
Read the worked answer
Sequence matters because the first conversation sets whether this is learning or litigation.
Step 1 - Private, non-evaluative, evidence-first. Open with the student-work pattern, not with Ms. Kwan's teaching. "In these two sections, students missed the same three problem types. What's your read?" Ask her to interpret the data before offering a hypothesis. Her "my kids are different" claim is partly true-the EL clustering means she genuinely has more language demand-so concede it explicitly. That concession is what buys the conversation.
Step 2 - One change, not a redesign. Ask for a single, low-threat, high-leverage modification: a two-question exit ticket each day for two weeks, or one station rotation per week. Specific and short beats comprehensive and vague.
Step 3 - Peer observation, reciprocal. Pair her with Mr. Ellis to observe station rotations, and have Mr. Ellis observe her for question quality. Veteran-to-veteran feels different from administrator-to-veteran.
Step 4 - Defined checkpoint. Set a four-week review with pre-agreed data (exit-ticket mastery, observation notes). Name it in advance so the review is not a surprise.
Step 5 - If no movement, shift to the formal supervision cycle: written expectations, more frequent observation, and district-level coaching support.
Non-negotiable floor: the EL students in her room are entitled to grade-level content with language supports regardless of how long she has taught. Respect for tenure cannot become permission to delay.
In parallel, fix the structure: redistribute EL students across all four sections next term. That is within the principal's authority and removes the legitimate half of her objection.
3. How should the principal handle the pacing-guide gap without pushing staff toward coverage?
Read the worked answer
Name the distinction out loud at the team meeting: pace is a planning tool; coverage is a behavior. The goal is mastery of priority standards, and the pacing guide is a floor, not a script.
Concrete moves:
- Have the team build a one-page "priority standards by quarter" document-6–8 power standards per quarter that carry forward. Everything else is supporting material.
- Use the common formative assessments as the decision rule: if 70%+ of students miss an item, reteach in the intervention block and do not advance at full speed. If most students are secure, move.
- Protect a standing 25-minute intervention or flex block so reteaching does not have to steal new-content time.
- Revisit the pacing calendar mid-quarter with the data in hand; a calendar that ignores results is not a plan.
What to say to a teacher who feels behind: "Show me which priority standards your students have not mastered. That's the list that matters. If we cut two non-priority units, what would you keep?" This preserves autonomy while anchoring the conversation in evidence.
What to avoid: declaring the pacing guide optional. That creates four different courses again and undoes the common-assessment work that surfaced the problem.