Mathematics Instruction Monitoring for BSICS

Based on the TRU Math Framework observation form, teacher performance in the first 5 weeks of school reveals several key insights regarding instructional quality and areas for targeted professional development. The scores provided are on a 5-point scale, where 5 represents high performance and <2 represents significant areas for improvement.

1. Lesson Objective: 3
   Teachers are generally performing at an adequate level in defining and communicating the lesson objective. A score of 3 suggests that lesson goals are clear but may need refinement in terms of alignment with rigorous math standards or differentiation to meet diverse student needs.
2. 99Math Do Now: 3.78
   The highest score observed is for the 99Math Do Now, indicating that teachers are effectively using this routine to engage students at the start of lessons. A score close to 4 shows that most teachers are incorporating effective strategies to activate prior knowledge and prepare students for the main math lesson. 99Math replaced Formative Loop to develop frequency. There are significant improvements in teacher implementation and student engagement.
3. The Mathematics: 1.67
   This low score suggests that the depth of mathematical content being taught is a significant area of concern. Teachers are not  presenting rich and/or conceptually challenging math problems, leading to limited opportunities for students to engage deeply with the mathematics. A score this low indicates an urgent need for targeted support in this area to ensure students are exposed to rigorous mathematical tasks.
4. Cognitive Demand: 1.63
   Similar to "The Mathematics," the low score in Cognitive Demand indicates that the tasks and problems being presented to students are not pushing them to think critically or engage in higher-order problem-solving. This is evidence that teachers are both simplifying tasks too much and not providing sufficient scaffolding for students to tackle more complex problems. In some cases too much scaffolding is provided for the most basic tasks.
5. Equitable Access to Math: 2.58
   Teachers are showing some progress in ensuring that all students have access to the mathematical ideas being presented. However, the score reflects that there is still work to be done in creating truly equitable math learning environments where all students, regardless of ability level, can meaningfully participate and succeed.
6. Agency, Ownership, & Identity: 1.33
   This low score suggests that students are not being given enough opportunities to take ownership of their learning or to see themselves as capable mathematicians. Teachers need to focus more on fostering an environment where students feel empowered to engage with math on a deeper level and develop a positive mathematical identity.
7. Formative Assessment: 1.38
   The score here indicates a significant gap in the use of formative assessment techniques. Teachers are not gathering enough real-time data to inform their instruction or provide timely feedback to students on their progress. Improving the use of formative assessments is critical for identifying student misunderstandings (Lesson Internalizations) and adjusting instruction accordingly.
8. Manipulative Use: 1.13
   This is the lowest score across all categories, showing a clear area for improvement. Teachers are not using manipulatives and when they do, they are not using them effectively to enhance student understanding of abstract mathematical concepts. Incorporating hands-on materials and tools will significantly improve student engagement and comprehension, especially in foundational math concepts such as the first units that they are currently working and in grades 3 - 5.

The data from the first five weeks of observations reveal that while teachers are doing reasonably well in setting lesson objectives and utilizing the warm-up, 99Math, there are significant areas that need improvement, particularly in the rigor of math content, cognitive demand, and formative assessment. Scores around 1.5 for critical areas like mathematical rigor, cognitive demand, and student agency suggest a need for more professional development focusing on increasing the complexity of tasks, fostering student engagement and ownership, and utilizing manipulatives effectively. 

Additionally, equitable access to math, while somewhat stronger, still needs attention to ensure all students are meaningfully involved in learning.