Towards an Instructional Model

In my previous blog entry, I wondered, “What would an instructional model look like that had the components in a classroom that couldn’t rely on technology except that which had been approved by the State? More importantly, if technology wasn’t the key engagement tool, or distraction depending on your point of view, what would the instructional model be?”

Building a Model

Putting together an instructional model with Gen AI isn’t difficult. Ask Gen AI to analyze existing systems, then put them together with evidence-based practices. What follows below is intended to be a replicable model that Texas schools could use IF (a BIG, HUGE if) they wanted to follow the plans of the Texas Education Agency.

This would be a centralized, evidence-aligned instruction model that centralized accountability but also relied on evidence-based practices. Curious to see what that might look like? I am, too. More curious is how such a system would be implemented successfully. We’ve already heard that schools taken over by TEA have experienced less than desirable results, with over a thousand educators resigning from Houston ISD, Ft. Worth ISD, and less than successful experiences with smaller districts if reports on this Children At Risk podcast are accurate.

Right now, it feels like, to me at least, that finding the right instruction model is critical. If that model varies by district, then what uniform path to success is there available? If I, as someone external to schools as a consultant on instructional practices (including technology and Gen AI), don’t know what the formula for success is according to the State of Texas, then how is anyone else supposed to know that?

For me, “success in K-12 schools” is a big, black box. It varies by district, by leadership, and a million other variables.

Centralized Evidence-Aligned Instruction Model

Purpose

This model places evidence-aligned instructional practices inside a centralized accountability system without reducing instruction to script compliance.

The system centralizes:

• Curriculum quality
• Learning expectations
• Assessment schedules
• Intervention requirements
• Observation procedures
• Data-review routines
• Reporting expectations

The system protects teacher judgment in:

• Selecting examples and representations
• Adjusting lesson pacing when students need more time
• Choosing response strategies
• Providing scaffolds
• Forming small groups
• Reteaching misconceptions
• Extending learning for students who demonstrate mastery

The governing principle is:

Centralize what must be consistent. Preserve flexibility where professional judgment improves student learning.

1. Establish the Instructional Non-Negotiables

Required instructional ingredients

Every classroom should consistently include the following evidence-aligned elements.

Instructional ingredient	Central expectation	Teacher flexibility
Grade-level curriculum	Teach adopted grade-level standards and curriculum	Adjust examples, representations, and supporting resources
Clear learning purpose	Identify what students should know or do	State or display the purpose in a format appropriate to the lesson
Explicit instruction	Model new knowledge and processes clearly	Select explanations, examples, analogies, and worked problems
Active student response	Require all students to think and respond	Use writing, discussion, whiteboards, response cards, polling, or demonstrations
Checks for understanding	Collect evidence during instruction	Choose the method and frequency based on lesson complexity
Guided practice	Practice with feedback before independent work	Adjust group size, prompts, and scaffolds
Independent application	Require students to demonstrate learning individually	Select an appropriate product, response, or task
Feedback	Provide specific information students can use	Deliver orally, in writing, through conferencing, or through digital tools
Retrieval and review	Revisit previously taught content	Select spacing, cumulative review, and retrieval formats
Reteaching and extension	Respond to evidence of learning	Determine grouping, duration, materials, and instructional approach

Prohibited substitutions

The following actions do not count as evidence of effective instruction by themselves:

• Posting an objective
• Following district slides
• Completing every lesson component
• Maintaining silence
• Keeping students visibly busy
• Reaching the final slide
• Administering an exit ticket
• Producing a high number of student responses
• Entering assessment data
• Completing an observation checklist

These may support instruction, but they do not demonstrate that students learned.

2. Use a Common Lesson Architecture

Standard instructional cycle

Schools may require a common lesson cycle while allowing variation in how each part is carried out.

Phase	Teacher action	Student action	Evidence collected
Prepare	Activate prior knowledge and clarify the learning purpose	Recall, predict, or connect	Responses revealing readiness and misconceptions
Model	Explain and demonstrate new learning	Observe, question, annotate, and explain	Student questions and brief checks
Practice	Guide students through examples or tasks	Respond, discuss, solve, write, or demonstrate	Errors, partial understanding, and successful strategies
Check	Gather individual evidence of learning	Complete a brief independent response	Student work tied directly to the learning target
Respond	Reteach, scaffold, extend, or continue	Revisit, practice, or apply learning	Improved performance or evidence that a different approach is needed
Review	Retrieve prior learning over time	Recall and apply earlier content	Retention and transfer across lessons

Lesson design rule

Teachers must implement every phase when it is instructionally appropriate, but they are not required to spend equal time on each phase or follow a fixed minute-by-minute script.

3. Define Fidelity Correctly

Three levels of fidelity

Fidelity level	What must remain consistent	What may vary
Curriculum fidelity	Standards, sequence, essential content, and assessment intent	Examples, supplemental resources, grouping, and pacing
Instructional fidelity	Modeling, active response, checking, feedback, and student practice	Specific strategies and classroom routines
Intervention fidelity	Target skill, frequency, duration, group size, and progress monitoring	Examples, materials, and delivery methods approved for the intervention

Acceptable adaptation protocol

Teachers may adapt district materials when they can answer four questions:

1. What evidence shows that an adaptation is needed?
2. What specific change will be made?
3. How will the change preserve the intended standard and cognitive demand?
4. What evidence will show whether the adaptation worked?

Adaptations should be documented briefly rather than requiring a lengthy approval process.

4. Build a Multiple-Measure Assessment System

Assessment layers

Assessment layer	Primary purpose	Typical frequency	Stakes
In-lesson checks	Adjust instruction immediately	Several times per lesson	None
Exit evidence	Identify who needs reteaching or extension	Daily or several times weekly	Low
Common formative assessment	Identify patterns across classrooms	Every one to three weeks	Moderate
Unit assessment	Measure cumulative learning	At the end of a unit	Moderate
Benchmark assessment	Monitor progress toward annual standards	Two to four times yearly	Higher
State assessment	Meet state accountability requirements	Annually	High

Decision rule

No major decision about a student, teacher, or school should depend on one assessment.

Decisions should combine:

• Student work
• Classroom assessments
• Common assessments
• Progress-monitoring data
• Observation evidence
• Attendance and opportunity-to-learn information
• Teacher professional judgment

Daily assessment guardrail

A brief exit ticket may trigger further investigation or short-term reteaching. It should not, by itself:

• Label a student as having mastered or failed a standard
• Determine a teacher’s effectiveness
• Require immediate acceleration to the next standard
• Replace analysis of student explanations and work
• Become a graded high-stakes event

5. Create a Standard Response-to-Evidence Cycle

The response cycle

Evidence pattern	Required response	Timeframe
Most students demonstrate understanding	Continue and include spaced review	Next lesson
A small group has a shared misconception	Provide targeted small-group instruction	Within one to two school days
Many students share a misconception	Reteach using a different representation or explanation	Before advancing
Students know procedures but cannot explain reasoning	Add discussion, comparison, explanation, and justification	During the current learning sequence
Students demonstrate secure understanding	Provide extension, application, or transfer tasks	Within the same lesson or next lesson
Students continue to struggle after reteaching	Begin or intensify intervention and progress monitoring	According to MTSS procedures

Reteaching rule

Reteaching should not mean repeating the same explanation more slowly.

A valid reteach should change at least one of the following:

• Representation
• Example
• Group size
• Level of scaffolding
• Teacher explanation
• Student response method
• Practice sequence
• Feedback method

6. Separate Coaching from Evaluation

Two observation systems

Feature	Coaching visit	Evaluation observation
Purpose	Improve instruction	Make a formal performance judgment
Frequency	Frequent	Limited and scheduled according to policy
Duration	Brief or extended	Long enough to collect representative evidence
Feedback	Immediate and focused	Formal and documented
Compensation impact	None	May contribute only as one of several measures
Personnel impact	None by itself	Governed by formal evaluation procedures
Observer	Coach, administrator, or instructional leader	Trained and calibrated evaluator
Teacher vulnerability	Encouraged	Protected through clear procedures and appeal rights

Coaching cycle

1. Identify one improvement goal
2. Observe for evidence related to that goal
3. Provide specific feedback
4. Model or rehearse the strategy
5. Revisit the classroom
6. Review changes in student evidence
7. Select the next goal

Evaluation safeguard

Brief walkthroughs may identify patterns and coaching needs. They should not independently determine:

• Employment
• Compensation
• Formal effectiveness ratings
• Campus sanctions
• Teacher placement

High-stakes judgments should require multiple observations, more than one source of evidence, and calibrated evaluators.

7. Use an Evidence-Focused Observation Rubric

Observation domains

Domain	Evidence to collect	Avoid rating based only on
Learning purpose	Students understand what they are learning and why	Whether an objective is posted
Content quality	Tasks match the standard and maintain appropriate cognitive demand	Whether district slides are visible
Explanation and modeling	Students receive clear examples, demonstrations, and worked reasoning	Whether the teacher follows a script
Student thinking	Students explain, solve, write, compare, question, or create	Number of hands raised
Checks for understanding	The teacher gathers representative evidence from the class	Presence of an exit ticket
Instructional response	The teacher adjusts based on student evidence	Completing every planned activity
Feedback	Students receive information that improves their work	Amount of praise
Access and support	Scaffolds help students reach grade-level learning	Giving different students easier work
Learning evidence	Students demonstrate progress during the lesson	Visible compliance or quiet behavior

Observation score rule

An instructional practice should receive credit only when the observer can identify:

1. What the teacher did
2. What students did
3. What evidence of thinking or learning resulted
4. How the teacher responded

8. Create a Central Curriculum Quality Process

Curriculum review criteria

Every district-created or adopted unit should be reviewed for:

• Standards accuracy
• Grade-level cognitive demand
• Coherent sequencing
• Accurate content
• Worked examples
• Multiple representations
• Opportunities for student explanation
• Guided and independent practice
• Cumulative review
• Multilingual learner supports
• Accessibility
• Assessment alignment
• Opportunities for extension and transfer

Curriculum revision process

Step	Action
Review	Teachers and content specialists inspect the unit before implementation
Pilot	Selected classrooms use the materials
Collect	Gather student work, teacher feedback, pacing evidence, and assessment results
Revise	Correct content, improve scaffolds, and remove unnecessary requirements
Publish	Release the revised version with clear change notes
Reassess	Review the unit annually or when standards change

District curriculum should be treated as a maintained instructional product, not a finished document.

9. Establish a Centralized MTSS Structure

Tier expectations

Tier	Students served	Core features
Tier 1	All students	Grade-level curriculum, explicit instruction, differentiation, checks for understanding, and responsive teaching
Tier 2	Students needing targeted support	Small-group intervention focused on specific skills, delivered in addition to Tier 1
Tier 3	Students needing intensive support	More frequent, explicit, individualized intervention with close progress monitoring

MTSS non-negotiables

• Tier 2 and Tier 3 must supplement rather than replace grade-level instruction
• Intervention must target a diagnosed skill need
• Group size, frequency, and duration must be specified
• Progress must be monitored regularly
• Students must move between tiers based on evidence
• Intervention time must not permanently remove students from science, social studies, the arts, physical education, or other required learning
• Special education referral must not be delayed when a disability is suspected

10. Build Central Data Routines Without Creating Data Theater

Required meeting structure

Data meetings should answer five questions:

1. What were students expected to learn?
2. What evidence shows what they understood?
3. What misconceptions or unfinished learning appear?
4. What instructional response will occur?
5. When will the team check whether the response worked?

Required outputs

Each meeting should produce:

• One or two priority learning needs
• Named student groups
• A specific instructional response
• An assigned staff member
• A follow-up date
• The evidence that will be reviewed

Practices to avoid

• Reading scores aloud without planning a response
• Ranking teachers publicly
• Creating color-coded spreadsheets with no instructional action
• Treating one assessment as definitive
• Requiring teachers to defend every low score
• Spending more time entering data than analyzing student work
• Using data meetings primarily to enforce pacing

11. Use a Balanced Accountability Scorecard

School-level scorecard

Domain	Suggested weight	Evidence
Student growth and achievement	30%	Multiple assessments, disaggregated by student group
Quality of classroom instruction	20%	Calibrated observations and student work
Curriculum implementation	15%	Standards alignment and use of required instructional ingredients
Intervention effectiveness	15%	Progress-monitoring results and movement between tiers
Student opportunity and engagement	10%	Attendance, course access, discipline, and student surveys
Professional learning and improvement	10%	Coaching participation, implementation progress, and improvement cycles

Teacher-level scorecard

Domain	Suggested weight	Evidence
Instructional practice	35%	Multiple formal observations by trained evaluators
Student learning evidence	25%	Multiple classroom measures and growth evidence
Professional growth	20%	Coaching goals, implementation, and reflection
Contribution to team practice	10%	Planning, collaboration, and shared problem solving
Professional responsibilities	10%	Required duties, communication, and ethical practice

No single test, walkthrough, or metric should account for more than one-third of a formal rating.

12. Define Central and Local Decision Rights

Decision-rights matrix

Decision	Central office	School leadership	Teacher or team
Standards and adopted curriculum	Leads	Implements	Advises
Essential unit sequence	Leads	Monitors	Implements
Common assessment windows	Leads	Schedules	Administers and analyzes
Daily lesson pacing	Sets general range	Supports	Adjusts based on evidence
Instructional examples	Provides options	Supports	Selects or develops
Student grouping	Provides guidelines	Monitors equity	Decides
Reteaching method	Provides approved resources	Supports	Decides
Intervention entry criteria	Defines	Applies	Recommends
Coaching focus	Defines broad priorities	Coordinates	Co-selects individual goal
Formal evaluation	Defines system	Conducts	Provides evidence and response
Curriculum revision	Maintains process	Submits feedback	Provides evidence and recommendations

13. Establish an Earned-Flexibility System

Flexibility levels

Level	Conditions	School flexibility
Directed support	Weak outcomes, poor implementation, or serious inequities	Required curriculum, frequent coaching, structured intervention plans, and close monitoring
Supported implementation	Mixed results or inconsistent practices	Required curriculum and assessments with moderate local adaptation
Demonstrated reliability	Strong outcomes across student groups and sound implementation	Greater flexibility in pacing, materials, intervention design, and professional learning
Innovation status	Sustained results and documented capacity	Permission to pilot alternatives with an approved evaluation plan

Equity safeguard

Schools should not earn autonomy solely from overall test scores. Decisions must consider:

• Outcomes for student groups
• Access to grade-level instruction
• Special education compliance
• Multilingual learner progress
• Disciplinary disparities
• Attendance
• Student mobility
• Evidence that strong results are not produced by exclusion or narrowing opportunity

14. Create a Compliance Safeguard Review

Quarterly review questions

District leaders should examine whether the accountability system is producing unwanted behavior.

Warning sign	Possible system problem	Corrective response
Teachers rush through lessons	Pacing is valued over understanding	Permit documented pacing adjustments
Objectives are posted but students cannot explain them	Visible compliance has replaced meaning	Observe student understanding rather than wall displays
Every classroom looks identical	Fidelity has become scripting	Define required principles and adaptation boundaries
Students take excessive quizzes	Assessment volume is being mistaken for formative practice	Reduce testing and improve use of evidence
Teachers hide problems during observations	Coaching feels punitive	Separate coaching records from evaluation
Intervention replaces core subjects	Accountability pressure is narrowing opportunity	Protect a broad instructional program
Data meetings focus on blame	Accountability has displaced improvement	Require action planning and follow-up evidence
Staff turnover increases	The model is producing unsustainable working conditions	Review workload, observation frequency, and leadership practice
Scores rise while student explanations remain weak	Procedural performance may be masking shallow learning	Add explanation, writing, reasoning, and transfer measures

15. Implementation Sequence

Phase One: Define

Duration: Four to eight weeks

• Identify the instructional non-negotiables
• Define central and local decision rights
• Select or review the core curriculum
• Establish assessment purposes
• Create coaching and evaluation protocols
• Publish adaptation rules
• Train observers and school leaders

Phase Two: Pilot

Duration: One semester

• Select representative schools
• Train teachers in the common instructional cycle
• Conduct low-stakes coaching visits
• Pilot common assessments
• Test data-meeting routines
• Collect workload and implementation feedback
• Revise tools before expansion

Phase Three: Implement

Duration: One school year

• Expand the model across schools
• Provide content-specific coaching
• Monitor curriculum quality
• Use the balanced accountability scorecard
• Publish school-level implementation reports
• Provide additional support to schools with persistent needs

Phase Four: Evaluate

Duration: Annual

Evaluate:

• Student achievement and growth
• Retention and transfer
• Student work quality
• Teacher turnover
• Student engagement
• Opportunity gaps
• Intervention effectiveness
• Observation reliability
• Staff perceptions
• Unintended consequences

Phase Five: Revise

Use evaluation findings to:

• Remove low-value compliance tasks
• Improve curriculum
• Adjust pacing expectations
• Strengthen observer calibration
• Modify accountability weights
• Expand or reduce local flexibility
• Replace ineffective interventions
• Protect teacher and student workload

16. Required System Artifacts

A school system implementing this model should maintain:

• Instructional non-negotiables guide
• Curriculum quality rubric
• Common lesson architecture
• Assessment map
• Assessment decision rules
• Reteaching and extension protocol
• MTSS handbook
• Coaching rubric
• Formal evaluation rubric
• Observer calibration process
• Data-meeting template
• Adaptation documentation form
• Balanced accountability scorecard
• Decision-rights matrix
• Earned-flexibility criteria
• Quarterly compliance safeguard report
• Annual public evaluation report

17. Model Evaluation Questions

The district should answer these questions each year:

Student learning

• Are students learning more?
• Are gains sustained over time?
• Can students explain, apply, and transfer what they learned?
• Are gains shared across student groups?

Instruction

• Are teachers using evidence-aligned practices?
• Are teachers responding to student evidence?
• Is curriculum quality improving?
• Are interventions producing measurable progress?

Accountability

• Are ratings based on multiple reliable measures?
• Are observations calibrated?
• Are schools improving rather than merely appearing compliant?
• Are low-value compliance tasks being removed?

Workforce

• Do teachers understand the model?
• Do they receive useful coaching?
• Can they exercise professional judgment within clear boundaries?
• Is the workload sustainable?
• Is turnover increasing or decreasing?

Student experience

• Do students receive grade-level instruction?
• Do students have opportunities to discuss, explain, write, inquire, and solve problems?
• Are students experiencing excessive testing?
• Are electives and enrichment protected?
• Do students perceive the classroom as orderly, challenging, and supportive?

18. Final Design Principles

1. Centralize curriculum quality, standards, assessments, and intervention expectations
2. Require evidence-aligned instructional ingredients rather than one rigid teaching script
3. Judge instruction through student thinking and learning evidence
4. Separate developmental coaching from high-stakes evaluation
5. Use multiple measures for consequential decisions
6. Permit documented adaptations based on student evidence
7. Require a different instructional approach when reteaching
8. Protect grade-level instruction and a broad curriculum
9. Use accountability to identify support needs, not merely rank schools
10. Monitor the system for compliance theater and unintended consequences
11. Expand flexibility when schools demonstrate reliable and equitable results
12. Evaluate the full model independently rather than assuming that each component works because some ingredients are research-aligned

• Texas Education

Share This Post