GMW.csv

StartDate,EndDate,Status,IPAddress,Progress,Duration (in seconds),Finished,RecordedDate,ResponseId,RecipientLastName,RecipientFirstName,RecipientEmail,ExternalReference,LocationLatitude,LocationLongitude,DistributionChannel,UserLanguage,demo_name,demo_email,demo_role,demo_state,demo_district_1,demo_school_pub_1,demo_school_priv_1,demo_school_OLD,date of ob,o1_tchr_name,o1_tchr_grade,o1_tchr_curr,o1_tchr_mod,o1_1,o1_1_comments,o1_2,o1_2_comments,o1_3,o1_3_comments,o1_4,o1_4_comments,o1_5,o1_5_comments,o1_6,o1_6_comments,o1_7,o1_7_comments,o1_8,o1_8_comments,o1_next,resp_email,o2_tchr_name,o2_tchr_grade,o2_tchr_curr,o2_tchr_mod,o2_1,o2_1_comments,o2_2,o2_2_comments,o2_3,o2_3_comments,o2_4,o2_4_comments,o2_5,o2_5_comments,o2_6,o2_6_comments,o2_7,o2_7_comments,o2_8,o2_8_comments,o2_next,o3_tchr_name,o3_tchr_grade,o3_tchr_curr,o3_tchr_mod,o3_1,o3_1_comments,o3_2,o3_2_comments,o3_3,o3_3_comments,o3_4,o3_4_comments,o3_5,o3_5_comments,o3_6,o3_6_comments,o3_7,o3_7_comments,o3_8,o3_8_comments,o3_next,o4_tchr_name,o4_tchr_grade,o4_tchr_curr,o4_tchr_mod,o4_1,o4_1_comments,o4_2,o4_2_comments,o4_3,o4_3_comments,o4_4,o4_4_comments,o4_5,o4_5_comments,o4_6,o4_6_comments,o4_7,o4_7_comments,o4_8,o4_8_comments,o4_next,o5_tchr_name,o5_tchr_grade,o5_tchr_curr,o5_tchr_mod,o5_1,o5_1_comments,o5_2,o5_2_comments,o5_3,o5_3_comments,o5_4,o5_4_comments,o5_5,o5_5_comments,o5_6,o5_6_comments,o5_7,o5_7_comments,o5_8,o5_8_comments,o5_next,o6_tchr_name,o6_tchr_grade,o6_tchr_curr,o6_tchr_mod,o6_1,o6_1_comments,o6_2,o6_2_comments,o6_3,o6_3_comments,o6_4,o6_4_comments,o6_5,o6_5_comments,o6_6,o6_6_comments,o6_7,o6_7_comments,o6_8,o6_8_comments,o6_next,o7_tchr_name,o7_tchr_grade,o7_tchr_curr,o7_tchr_mod,o7_1,o7_1_comments,o7_2,o7_2_comments,o7_3,o7_3_comments,o7_4,o7_4_comments,o7_5,o7_5_comments,o7_6,o7_6_comments,o7_7,o7_7_comments,o7_8,o7_8_comments,o7_next,o8_tchr_name,o8_tchr_grade,o8_tchr_curr,o8_tchr_mod,o8_1,o8_1_comments,o8_2,o8_2_comments,o8_3,o8_3_comments,o8_4,o8_4_comments,o8_5,o8_5_comments,o8_6,o8_6_comments,o8_7,o8_7_comments,o8_8,o8_8_comments,o8_next,o9_tchr_name,o9_tchr_grade,o9_tchr_curr,o9_tchr_mod,o9_1,o9_1_comments,o9_2,o9_2_comments,o9_3,o9_3_comments,o9_4,o9_4_comments,o9_5,o9_5_comments,o9_6,09_6_comments,o9_7,o9_7_comments,o9_8,o9_8_comments,o9_next,o10_tchr_name,o10_tchr_grade,o10_tchr_curr,o10_tchr_mod,o10_1,o10_1_comments,o10_2,o10_2_comments,o10_3,o10_3_comments,o10_4,o10_4_comments,o10_5,o10_5_comments,o10_6,o10_6_comments,o10_7,o10_7_comments,o10_8,o10_8_comments,NCES_District,NCES_School,NCES_School_Private,LastObs
Start Date,End Date,Response Type,IP Address,Progress,Duration (in seconds),Finished,Recorded Date,Response ID,Recipient Last Name,Recipient First Name,Recipient Email,External Data Reference,Location Latitude,Location Longitude,Distribution Channel,User Language,demo_name,demo_email,demo_role,demo_state,Text,Text,Text,demo_school_OLD,"Enter a date: 
 
 




Qualtrics.SurveyEngine.addOnload(function ()
{
  if (document.getElementById('SurveyEngineBody') !== null) {
    var qid = this.questionId;
    var calid = qid + '_cal';
    var y = QBuilder('div');
    $(y).setStyle({clear:'both'});
    var d = QBuilder('div',{className:'yui-skin-sam'},[
      QBuilder('div', {id:calid}),
      y
    ]);
    
    var c = this.questionContainer;
    c = $(c).down('.QuestionText');
    c.appendChild(d);
    var cal1 = new YAHOO.widget.Calendar(calid); 
    cal1.render(); 
    var input = $('QR~' + qid);
    $(input).setStyle({marginTop: '20px',width: '150px'});
    var p =$(input).up();
    var x = QBuilder('div');
    $(x).setStyle({clear:'both'});
    p.insert(x,{position:'before'});
      cal1.selectEvent.subscribe(function(e,dates){
      var date = dates[0][0];
      if (date[1]  {that.setChoiceValue('TEXT', null, '')});
      picker.on('select', e => {that.setChoiceValue('TEXT', null, e.detail.date.toLocaleDateString())});
    },
  });
  picker.PluginManager.addInstance('AmpPlugin').options.resetButton = true;
});",o1_tchr_name,o1_tchr_grade,o1_tchr_curr,o1_tchr_mod,o1_1,o1_1_comments,o1_2,o1_2_comments,o1_3,o1_3_comments,o1_4,o1_4_comments,o1_5,o1_5_comments,o1_6,o1_6_comments,o1_7,o1_7_comments,o1_8,o1_8_comments,o1_next,resp_email,o2_tchr_name,o2_tchr_grade,o2_tchr_curr,o2_tchr_mod,o2_1,o2_1_comments,o2_2,o2_2_comments,o2_3,o2_3_comments,o2_4,o2_4_comments,o2_5,o2_5_comments,o2_6,o2_6_comments,o2_7,o2_7_comments,o2_8,o2_8_comments,o2_next,o3_tchr_name,o3_tchr_grade,o3_tchr_curr,o3_tchr_mod,o3_1,o3_1_comments,o3_2,o3_2_comments,o3_3,o3_3_comments,o3_4,o3_4_comments,o3_5,o3_5_comments,o3_6,o3_6_comments,o3_7,o3_7_comments,o3_8,o3_8_comments,o3_next,o4_tchr_name,o4_tchr_grade,o4_tchr_curr,o4_tchr_mod,o4_1,o4_1_comments,o4_2,o4_2_comments,o4_3,o4_3_comments,o4_4,o4_4_comments,o4_5,o4_5_comments,o4_6,o4_6_comments,o4_7,o4_7_comments,o4_8,o4_8_comments,o4_next,o5_tchr_name,o5_tchr_grade,o5_tchr_curr,o5_tchr_mod,o5_1,o5_1_comments,o5_2,o5_2_comments,o5_3,o5_3_comments,o5_4,o5_4_comments,o5_5,o5_5_comments,o5_6,o5_6_comments,o5_7,o5_7_comments,o5_8,o5_8_comments,o5_next,o6_tchr_name,o6_tchr_grade,o6_tchr_curr,o6_tchr_mod,o6_1,o6_1_comments,o6_2,o6_2_comments,o6_3,o6_3_comments,o6_4,o6_4_comments,o6_5,o6_5_comments,o6_6,o6_6_comments,o6_7,o6_7_comments,o6_8,o6_8_comments,o6_next,o7_tchr_name,o7_tchr_grade,o7_tchr_curr,o7_tchr_mod,o7_1,o7_1_comments,o7_2,o7_2_comments,o7_3,o7_3_comments,o7_4,o7_4_comments,o7_5,o7_5_comments,o7_6,o7_6_comments,o7_7,o7_7_comments,o7_8,o7_8_comments,o7_next,o8_tchr_name,o8_tchr_grade,o8_tchr_curr,o8_tchr_mod,o8_1,o8_1_comments,o8_2,o8_2_comments,o8_3,o8_3_comments,o8_4,o8_4_comments,o8_5,o8_5_comments,o8_6,o8_6_comments,o8_7,o8_7_comments,o8_8,o8_8_comments,o8_next,o9_tchr_name,o9_tchr_grade,o9_tchr_curr,o9_tchr_mod,o9_1,o9_1_comments,o9_2,o9_2_comments,o9_3,o9_3_comments,o9_4,o9_4_comments,o9_5,o9_5_comments,o9_6,o9_6_comments,o9_7,o9_7_comments,o9_8,o9_8_comments,o9_next,o10_tchr_name,o10_tchr_grade,o10_tchr_curr,o10_tchr_mod,o10_1,o10_1_comments,o10_2,o10_2_comments,o10_3,o10_3_comments,o10_4,o10_4_comments,o10_5,o10_5_comments,o10_6,o10_6_comments,o10_7,o10_7_comments,o10_8,o10_8_comments,NCES_District,NCES_School,NCES_School_Private,LastObs
"{""ImportId"":""startDate"",""timeZone"":""America/Los_Angeles""}","{""ImportId"":""endDate"",""timeZone"":""America/Los_Angeles""}","{""ImportId"":""status""}","{""ImportId"":""ipAddress""}","{""ImportId"":""progress""}","{""ImportId"":""duration""}","{""ImportId"":""finished""}","{""ImportId"":""recordedDate"",""timeZone"":""America/Los_Angeles""}","{""ImportId"":""_recordId""}","{""ImportId"":""recipientLastName""}","{""ImportId"":""recipientFirstName""}","{""ImportId"":""recipientEmail""}","{""ImportId"":""externalDataReference""}","{""ImportId"":""locationLatitude""}","{""ImportId"":""locationLongitude""}","{""ImportId"":""distributionChannel""}","{""ImportId"":""userLanguage""}","{""ImportId"":""QID38_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID528_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID40""}","{""ImportId"":""QID1322058168""}","{""ImportId"":""QID1322058169_1""}","{""ImportId"":""QID53_1""}","{""ImportId"":""QID292_1""}","{""ImportId"":""QID28_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID542_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID25_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID26""}","{""ImportId"":""QID27""}","{""ImportId"":""QID530_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID11""}","{""ImportId"":""QID29_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID14""}","{""ImportId"":""QID30_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID15""}","{""ImportId"":""QID31_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID17""}","{""ImportId"":""QID32_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID19""}","{""ImportId"":""QID33_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID20""}","{""ImportId"":""QID34_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID22""}","{""ImportId"":""QID35_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID23""}","{""ImportId"":""QID36_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID56""}","{""ImportId"":""QID529""}","{""ImportId"":""QID294_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID295""}","{""ImportId"":""QID296""}","{""ImportId"":""QID531_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID298""}","{""ImportId"":""QID299_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID300""}","{""ImportId"":""QID301_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID303""}","{""ImportId"":""QID304_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID305""}","{""ImportId"":""QID306_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID308""}","{""ImportId"":""QID309_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID310""}","{""ImportId"":""QID311_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID313""}","{""ImportId"":""QID314_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID315""}","{""ImportId"":""QID316_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID318""}","{""ImportId"":""QID320_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID321""}","{""ImportId"":""QID322""}","{""ImportId"":""QID532_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID324""}","{""ImportId"":""QID325_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID326""}","{""ImportId"":""QID327_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID329""}","{""ImportId"":""QID330_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID331""}","{""ImportId"":""QID332_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID334""}","{""ImportId"":""QID335_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID336""}","{""ImportId"":""QID337_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID339""}","{""ImportId"":""QID340_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID341""}","{""ImportId"":""QID342_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID344""}","{""ImportId"":""QID346_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID347""}","{""ImportId"":""QID348""}","{""ImportId"":""QID533_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID350""}","{""ImportId"":""QID351_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID352""}","{""ImportId"":""QID353_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID355""}","{""ImportId"":""QID356_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID357""}","{""ImportId"":""QID358_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID360""}","{""ImportId"":""QID361_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID362""}","{""ImportId"":""QID363_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID365""}","{""ImportId"":""QID366_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID367""}","{""ImportId"":""QID368_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID370""}","{""ImportId"":""QID372_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID373""}","{""ImportId"":""QID374""}","{""ImportId"":""QID534_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID376""}","{""ImportId"":""QID377_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID378""}","{""ImportId"":""QID379_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID381""}","{""ImportId"":""QID382_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID383""}","{""ImportId"":""QID384_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID386""}","{""ImportId"":""QID387_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID388""}","{""ImportId"":""QID389_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID391""}","{""ImportId"":""QID392_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID393""}","{""ImportId"":""QID394_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID396""}","{""ImportId"":""QID398_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID399""}","{""ImportId"":""QID400""}","{""ImportId"":""QID535_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID402""}","{""ImportId"":""QID403_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID404""}","{""ImportId"":""QID405_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID407""}","{""ImportId"":""QID408_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID409""}","{""ImportId"":""QID410_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID412""}","{""ImportId"":""QID413_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID414""}","{""ImportId"":""QID415_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID417""}","{""ImportId"":""QID418_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID419""}","{""ImportId"":""QID420_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID422""}","{""ImportId"":""QID424_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID425""}","{""ImportId"":""QID426""}","{""ImportId"":""QID536_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID428""}","{""ImportId"":""QID429_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID430""}","{""ImportId"":""QID431_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID433""}","{""ImportId"":""QID434_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID435""}","{""ImportId"":""QID436_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID438""}","{""ImportId"":""QID439_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID440""}","{""ImportId"":""QID441_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID443""}","{""ImportId"":""QID444_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID445""}","{""ImportId"":""QID446_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID448""}","{""ImportId"":""QID450_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID451""}","{""ImportId"":""QID452""}","{""ImportId"":""QID537_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID454""}","{""ImportId"":""QID455_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID456""}","{""ImportId"":""QID457_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID459""}","{""ImportId"":""QID460_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID461""}","{""ImportId"":""QID462_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID464""}","{""ImportId"":""QID465_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID466""}","{""ImportId"":""QID467_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID469""}","{""ImportId"":""QID470_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID471""}","{""ImportId"":""QID472_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID474""}","{""ImportId"":""QID476_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID477""}","{""ImportId"":""QID478""}","{""ImportId"":""QID538_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID480""}","{""ImportId"":""QID481_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID482""}","{""ImportId"":""QID483_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID485""}","{""ImportId"":""QID486_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID487""}","{""ImportId"":""QID488_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID490""}","{""ImportId"":""QID491_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID492""}","{""ImportId"":""QID493_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID495""}","{""ImportId"":""QID496_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID497""}","{""ImportId"":""QID498_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID500""}","{""ImportId"":""QID502_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID503""}","{""ImportId"":""QID504""}","{""ImportId"":""QID539_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID506""}","{""ImportId"":""QID507_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID508""}","{""ImportId"":""QID509_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID511""}","{""ImportId"":""QID512_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID513""}","{""ImportId"":""QID514_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID516""}","{""ImportId"":""QID517_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID518""}","{""ImportId"":""QID519_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID521""}","{""ImportId"":""QID522_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""QID523""}","{""ImportId"":""QID524_TEXT""}","{""ImportId"":""NCES_District""}","{""ImportId"":""NCES_School""}","{""ImportId"":""NCES_School_Private""}","{""ImportId"":""LastObs""}"
2025-10-28 13:38:41,2025-10-28 13:56:31,0,198.51.100.99,100,1080,1,2025-10-28 13:56:31,R_73hhfab6k700000,,,,,42.3601,-71.0589,anonymous,EN,Avery Calderon,avery.calderon@example.edu,Coach,CA,Willowmere School District,Glacier Peak Elementary School,,,10/28/2025,Rosa Henley,K,em2ca,1,2,"Materials were not staged ahead of time, which pulled focus away from the lesson flow.",2,Anchor chart was on the wall but not referenced during the lesson.,3,"Cognitive demand was uneven across the lesson - high during launch, lower during practice.",3,Discussion was structured but uneven across the room.,2,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,3,Feedback shifted from evaluation to questioning during the second half of the lesson.,4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,avery.calderon@example.edu,Cosmo Fairbanks,3,em2,1,2,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",1,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,1,Worksheets stayed at the recall level for the full lesson.,2,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,2,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,2,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,2,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,2,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,Kai Sorensen,1,em2ca,4,4,Closing component drew explicit connections back to the lesson objective.,4,Anchor charts were referenced repeatedly and updated live during the lesson.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,4,Teacher named which students they hadn't heard from yet and pulled them into the conversation.,4,Probing questions consistently preceded any direct correction.,4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,900137,900000031337,,
2025-04-17 12:15:27,2025-04-17 12:32:09,0,198.51.100.99,100,1062,1,2025-04-17 12:32:09,R_7xran1kcp200000,,,,,42.3601,-71.0589,anonymous,EN,Avery Calderon,avery.calderon@example.edu,Coach,CA,Willowmere School District,Glacier Peak Elementary School,,,04/17/2025,Kai Sorensen,5,em2ca,5,4,Every lesson component was facilitated with intention and clear time boundaries.,4,Curriculum-aligned routines anchored the lesson - choral counting and a number talk both appeared.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,4,"Multiple formative checks - whiteboard responses, choral counts, partner shares - were embedded.",4,"Feedback was specific, strategy-focused, and timed to keep students productively struggling.",4,Students naturally compared strategies and revised their own work after listening to a peer.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,avery.calderon@example.edu,Bella Yamamoto,5,em2ca,5,3,Teacher followed the lesson sequence with light improvisation during application.,3,Curriculum routines were partially used; one or two were swapped for teacher-created alternatives.,4,Closing questions pressed students to generalize beyond the specific numbers in the task.,4,"Multiple talk moves - revoicing, pressing for reasoning, adding on - were visible in every transition.",1,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,2,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,900274,900000062674,,
2025-10-23 09:14:22,2025-10-23 09:48:01,0,203.0.113.8,100,2064,1,2025-10-23 09:48:01,R_iqivmf22s000000,,,,,42.3601,-71.0589,anonymous,EN,Bianca Reyes,bianca.reyes@example.edu,District Lead,CA,Northfield Unified,Aspen Grove Elementary School,,,10/23/2025,Hannah Iverson,4,em2,3,2,"Materials were not staged ahead of time, which pulled focus away from the lesson flow.",2,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,3,A few extension problems were available for students who finished early.,3,Teacher used 'who can build on that?' a few times to chain student responses.,3,"Teacher tracked who shared, ensuring a broader sample over the lesson.",3,Teacher paused on one misconception and worked through it briefly with the class.,4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,bianca.reyes@example.edu,Della Markham,4,em2ca,6,1,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",1,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,1,Most questions had a single correct numeric answer with no required reasoning.,1,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,1,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",1,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,1,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,1,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,Jenna Bellamy,4,em2ca,3,1,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,1,Anchor chart was on the wall but not referenced during the lesson.,1,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,1,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,2,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,1,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,2,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,1,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,Rosa Henley,2,em2ca,2,2,"Materials were not staged ahead of time, which pulled focus away from the lesson flow.",2,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,3,"Some tasks asked students to choose a strategy, though most were single-step.",4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",2,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,3,Teacher paused on one misconception and worked through it briefly with the class.,4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,900411,900000094011,,
2025-02-04 12:16:12,2025-02-04 12:34:32,0,203.0.113.8,100,1134,1,2025-02-04 12:34:32,R_8lu9ie2air00000,,,,,42.3601,-71.0589,anonymous,EN,Bianca Reyes,bianca.reyes@example.edu,District Lead,CA,Northfield Unified,Aspen Grove Elementary School,,,02/04/2025,Penny McAllister,1,em2,3,4,Teacher used a visible agenda that helped students self-monitor pacing.,2,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,2,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,4,Teacher named which students they hadn't heard from yet and pulled them into the conversation.,2,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,2,Independent work did not match the cognitive level of the lesson launch.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,bianca.reyes@example.edu,Quincy Rosales,2,em2ca,2,1,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",4,Anchor charts were referenced repeatedly and updated live during the lesson.,2,Most questions had a single correct numeric answer with no required reasoning.,4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,2,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",4,"Teacher used student errors as instructional moments, often making them visible to the class.",1,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Pull a small group during work time to gather more diagnostic evidence.,Zara Hollister,5,em2,4,4,Transitions were tight; the launch set up the application work efficiently.,2,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,2,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,4,Teacher named which students they hadn't heard from yet and pulled them into the conversation.,2,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,2,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,900548,900000125348,,
2025-05-23 11:20:42,2025-05-23 11:47:37,0,203.0.113.8,100,1651,1,2025-05-23 11:47:37,R_10a9dihbty00000,,,,,42.3601,-71.0589,anonymous,EN,Bianca Reyes,bianca.reyes@example.edu,District Lead,CA,Northfield Unified,Aspen Grove Elementary School,,,05/23/2025,Penny McAllister,2,em2,4,4,Transitions were tight; the launch set up the application work efficiently.,2,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,2,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,4,Evidence collected during work time directly shaped the closing discussion.,2,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,2,Work time was short and many students did not produce a written response.,Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,bianca.reyes@example.edu,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,900685,900000156685,,
2025-05-20 13:50:11,2025-05-20 13:25:24,0,203.0.113.8,100,2151,1,2025-05-20 13:25:24,R_7dy33m13e200000,,,,,42.3601,-71.0589,anonymous,EN,Bianca Reyes,bianca.reyes@example.edu,District Lead,CA,Northfield Unified,Aspen Grove Elementary School,,,05/20/2025,Gabriel Ortiz-Reilly,K,em2,5,1,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,4,Teacher modeled the precise mathematical language the curriculum specifies.,1,Most questions had a single correct numeric answer with no required reasoning.,4,"Multiple talk moves - revoicing, pressing for reasoning, adding on - were visible in every transition.",2,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,4,Probing questions consistently preceded any direct correction.,1,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,bianca.reyes@example.edu,Bella Yamamoto,1,em2ca,6,3,Pacing was generally aligned to the curriculum suggested time bands.,3,"Models from the curriculum appeared in the lesson, though student work didn't always reference them.",4,Closing questions pressed students to generalize beyond the specific numbers in the task.,4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",2,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,Lila Townsend,2,em2ca,6,3,"Most components were facilitated as designed, though the closing was abbreviated.",3,Teacher pulled one signature routine into the lesson and ran it with fidelity.,4,Closing questions pressed students to generalize beyond the specific numbers in the task.,4,"Multiple talk moves - revoicing, pressing for reasoning, adding on - were visible in every transition.",1,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,2,"Feedback was mostly evaluative ('good', 'not quite') rather than specific.",4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,900822,900000188022,,
2025-03-13 13:30:37,2025-03-13 13:48:06,0,203.0.113.8,100,1128,1,2025-03-13 13:48:06,R_8bqyw5br0t00000,,,,,42.3601,-71.0589,anonymous,EN,Bianca Reyes,bianca.reyes@example.edu,District Lead,CA,Northfield Unified,Aspen Grove Elementary School,,,03/13/2025,Camille Voss,3,em2,4,4,Closing component drew explicit connections back to the lesson objective.,4,Multiple representations were used in tandem; students chose between models when solving.,2,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,2,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,3,"Teacher tracked who shared, ensuring a broader sample over the lesson.",3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,3,Group norms were posted and referenced once during the lesson.,3,Independent task was aligned to the lesson objective; engagement was steady.,Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,bianca.reyes@example.edu,Fiona Drummond,K,em2,3,4,Closing component drew explicit connections back to the lesson objective.,2,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,2,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,4,Teacher named which students they hadn't heard from yet and pulled them into the conversation.,2,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,2,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Use the next observation to focus on cognitive demand of student tasks.,Hannah Iverson,3,em2,5,2,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,2,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,3,A few extension problems were available for students who finished early.,4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",3,A quick fist-to-five check happened at the midpoint of the lesson.,3,Feedback shifted from evaluation to questioning during the second half of the lesson.,4,Students naturally compared strategies and revised their own work after listening to a peer.,4,Every student produced written work that the teacher can use diagnostically.,Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,Mateo Aguilar,5,em2,5,4,Transitions were tight; the launch set up the application work efficiently.,4,Anchor charts were referenced repeatedly and updated live during the lesson.,2,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,2,A small group of students answered most questions while others were quiet.,4,Teacher captured specific evidence on a clipboard and used it to sequence student shares.,3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,2,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,4,Every student produced written work that the teacher can use diagnostically.,Use the next observation to focus on cognitive demand of student tasks.,Yusuf Pritchard,5,em2ca,6,2,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",3,"Models from the curriculum appeared in the lesson, though student work didn't always reference them.",3,A few extension problems were available for students who finished early.,3,Teacher used 'who can build on that?' a few times to chain student responses.,3,Some student work was photographed for later review.,3,Some feedback pointed to specific strategy choices; some stayed at the praise level.,3,Some groups produced shared work while others split the task.,3,Independent task was aligned to the lesson objective; engagement was steady.,Layer in one new formative check at the lesson midpoint.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,900959,900000219359,,
2025-03-19 13:20:56,2025-03-19 13:46:48,0,192.0.2.198,100,1571,1,2025-03-19 13:46:48,R_237ficxj9d00000,,,,,35.2271,-80.8431,anonymous,EN,Caleb Whitfield,caleb.whitfield@example.edu,District Lead,GA,Stonebridge USD,Crescent Cove Elementary School,,,03/19/2025,Vivian Crowe,5,em2,4,3,Pacing was generally aligned to the curriculum suggested time bands.,3,Curriculum routines were partially used; one or two were swapped for teacher-created alternatives.,4,Teacher held the rigor of the curriculum task without funneling students to a single method.,4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,1,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,3,Some feedback pointed to specific strategy choices; some stayed at the praise level.,4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,4,Every student produced written work that the teacher can use diagnostically.,Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,caleb.whitfield@example.edu,Isaac Quintero,1,em2,5,2,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,2,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,2,Worksheets stayed at the recall level for the full lesson.,2,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,2,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",1,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,2,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,2,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,901096,900000250696,,
2025-01-27 14:39:44,2025-01-27 14:57:37,0,192.0.2.198,100,1105,1,2025-01-27 14:57:37,R_4rdhkztjfu00000,,,,,35.2271,-80.8431,anonymous,EN,Caleb Whitfield,caleb.whitfield@example.edu,District Lead,GA,Stonebridge USD,Crescent Cove Elementary School,,,01/27/2025,Xavier Boone,2,em2,5,3,Pacing was generally aligned to the curriculum suggested time bands.,3,Visual models were referenced briefly during the share-out.,4,Teacher held the rigor of the curriculum task without funneling students to a single method.,3,"Some turn-and-talks took place, with a brief whole-group share afterward.",3,Some student work was photographed for later review.,4,"Teacher used student errors as instructional moments, often making them visible to the class.",3,Partner work was structured with a brief protocol; about half the pairs followed it.,3,"Teacher provided an extension for early finishers, used by some students.",Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,caleb.whitfield@example.edu,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,901233,900000282033,,
2025-06-18 13:18:44,2025-06-18 13:37:43,0,192.0.2.198,100,1141,1,2025-06-18 13:37:43,R_6zthq3end000000,,,,,35.2271,-80.8431,anonymous,EN,Caleb Whitfield,caleb.whitfield@example.edu,District Lead,GA,Stonebridge USD,Crescent Cove Elementary School,,,06/18/2025,Rosa Henley,3,em2ca,4,2,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,2,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,3,"Cognitive demand was uneven across the lesson - high during launch, lower during practice.",4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,2,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,3,Some feedback pointed to specific strategy choices; some stayed at the praise level.,4,Students naturally compared strategies and revised their own work after listening to a peer.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,caleb.whitfield@example.edu,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,901370,900000313370,,
2025-01-10 08:41:35,2025-01-10 08:58:52,0,192.0.2.198,100,1044,1,2025-01-10 08:58:52,R_80bn2csesr00000,,,,,35.2271,-80.8431,anonymous,EN,Caleb Whitfield,caleb.whitfield@example.edu,District Lead,GA,Stonebridge USD,Crescent Cove Elementary School,,,01/10/2025,Umberto Barnett,1,em2,1,4,Teacher used a visible agenda that helped students self-monitor pacing.,4,Anchor charts were referenced repeatedly and updated live during the lesson.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,4,"Multiple formative checks - whiteboard responses, choral counts, partner shares - were embedded.",4,"Teacher used student errors as instructional moments, often making them visible to the class.",4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,4,Every student produced written work that the teacher can use diagnostically.,Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,caleb.whitfield@example.edu,Zara Hollister,4,em2,4,4,Every lesson component was facilitated with intention and clear time boundaries.,2,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,2,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,4,Evidence collected during work time directly shaped the closing discussion.,2,"Feedback was mostly evaluative ('good', 'not quite') rather than specific.",4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,2,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Use the next observation to focus on cognitive demand of student tasks.,Cosmo Fairbanks,3,em2,6,2,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,1,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,1,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,2,A small group of students answered most questions while others were quiet.,2,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",2,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,2,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,2,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Layer in one new formative check at the lesson midpoint.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,901507,900000344707,,
2025-05-27 12:25:17,2025-05-27 12:45:04,0,192.0.2.198,100,1215,1,2025-05-27 12:45:04,R_7ss2mjf4us00000,,,,,35.2271,-80.8431,anonymous,EN,Caleb Whitfield,caleb.whitfield@example.edu,District Lead,GA,Stonebridge USD,Crescent Cove Elementary School,,,05/27/2025,Umberto Barnett,3,em2ca,3,4,Teacher used a visible agenda that helped students self-monitor pacing.,4,Anchor charts were referenced repeatedly and updated live during the lesson.,4,Closing questions pressed students to generalize beyond the specific numbers in the task.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,4,Evidence collected during work time directly shaped the closing discussion.,4,"Feedback was specific, strategy-focused, and timed to keep students productively struggling.",4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,caleb.whitfield@example.edu,Hannah Iverson,2,em2,3,2,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",2,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,3,"Questions occasionally pressed for justification, especially during the closing share.",4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",3,Some student work was photographed for later review.,3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Layer in one new formative check at the lesson midpoint.,Zara Hollister,4,em2,2,4,Every lesson component was facilitated with intention and clear time boundaries.,2,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,2,A small group of students answered most questions while others were quiet.,4,Teacher captured specific evidence on a clipboard and used it to sequence student shares.,2,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,4,Students naturally compared strategies and revised their own work after listening to a peer.,2,Independent work did not match the cognitive level of the lesson launch.,Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,901644,900000376044,,
2025-05-23 09:21:02,2025-05-23 09:52:48,0,203.0.113.92,100,1871,1,2025-05-23 09:52:48,R_8lp48tji2r00000,,,,,41.8781,-87.6298,anonymous,EN,Dahlia Okonkwo,dahlia.okonkwo@example.edu,Assistant Principal,IL,Silverwood Unified,Birchwood Elementary School,,,05/23/2025,Della Markham,4,em2,6,1,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",1,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,1,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,1,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,1,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,1,"Feedback was mostly evaluative ('good', 'not quite') rather than specific.",1,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,1,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,dahlia.okonkwo@example.edu,Amari Salgado,5,em2,5,2,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",4,Anchor charts were referenced repeatedly and updated live during the lesson.,2,Worksheets stayed at the recall level for the full lesson.,4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",1,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,4,Probing questions consistently preceded any direct correction.,2,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,4,Every student produced written work that the teacher can use diagnostically.,Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,901781,900000407381,,
2025-04-08 13:39:17,2025-04-08 13:57:00,0,203.0.113.92,100,1105,1,2025-04-08 13:57:00,R_5tyiof5u7j00000,,,,,41.8781,-87.6298,anonymous,EN,Dahlia Okonkwo,dahlia.okonkwo@example.edu,Assistant Principal,IL,Silverwood Unified,Birchwood Elementary School,,,04/08/2025,Aiden Cabrera,5,em2ca,1,4,Every lesson component was facilitated with intention and clear time boundaries.,4,Teacher modeled the precise mathematical language the curriculum specifies.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,4,Evidence collected during work time directly shaped the closing discussion.,4,"Feedback was specific, strategy-focused, and timed to keep students productively struggling.",4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,dahlia.okonkwo@example.edu,Della Markham,1,em2,3,1,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,1,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,1,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,1,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,1,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,1,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,1,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,1,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,901918,900000438718,,
2025-02-28 12:18:09,2025-02-28 12:51:38,0,203.0.113.92,100,2013,1,2025-02-28 12:51:38,R_3m3j9659nn00000,,,,,41.8781,-87.6298,anonymous,EN,Dahlia Okonkwo,dahlia.okonkwo@example.edu,Assistant Principal,IL,Silverwood Unified,Birchwood Elementary School,,,02/28/2025,Soren Vidal,K,em2ca,4,2,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",1,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,2,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,2,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,2,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,2,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,2,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,2,Independent work did not match the cognitive level of the lesson launch.,Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,dahlia.okonkwo@example.edu,Lila Townsend,2,em2ca,1,3,"Most components were facilitated as designed, though the closing was abbreviated.",3,Visual models were referenced briefly during the share-out.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,4,"Multiple talk moves - revoicing, pressing for reasoning, adding on - were visible in every transition.",2,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",2,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,Della Markham,3,em2ca,6,1,"Materials were not staged ahead of time, which pulled focus away from the lesson flow.",1,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,1,Most questions had a single correct numeric answer with no required reasoning.,1,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,1,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",1,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,2,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,1,Independent work did not match the cognitive level of the lesson launch.,Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,Oscar Delaney,1,em2ca,6,3,"Most components were facilitated as designed, though the closing was abbreviated.",3,Curriculum routines were partially used; one or two were swapped for teacher-created alternatives.,3,A few extension problems were available for students who finished early.,3,Teacher used 'who can build on that?' a few times to chain student responses.,3,"Teacher tracked who shared, ensuring a broader sample over the lesson.",3,Teacher paused on one misconception and worked through it briefly with the class.,3,Group norms were posted and referenced once during the lesson.,3,"Quiet, focused work happened for the bulk of the independent block.",Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,Quincy Rosales,3,em2,4,1,"Materials were not staged ahead of time, which pulled focus away from the lesson flow.",4,Curriculum-aligned routines anchored the lesson - choral counting and a number talk both appeared.,2,Most questions had a single correct numeric answer with no required reasoning.,4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,1,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,4,Written and verbal feedback both pointed students toward a clear next move.,1,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Layer in one new formative check at the lesson midpoint.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,902055,900000470055,,
2025-02-07 14:44:51,2025-02-07 14:00:43,0,203.0.113.92,100,972,1,2025-02-07 14:00:43,R_jumwjg6tv000000,,,,,41.8781,-87.6298,anonymous,EN,Dahlia Okonkwo,dahlia.okonkwo@example.edu,Assistant Principal,IL,Silverwood Unified,Birchwood Elementary School,,,02/07/2025,Esme Larkin,1,em2ca,1,3,"Most components were facilitated as designed, though the closing was abbreviated.",2,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,3,A few extension problems were available for students who finished early.,3,Sentence stems were posted; about half the students used them.,3,"Teacher tracked who shared, ensuring a broader sample over the lesson.",3,Feedback shifted from evaluation to questioning during the second half of the lesson.,3,Partner work was structured with a brief protocol; about half the pairs followed it.,3,"Teacher provided an extension for early finishers, used by some students.",Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,dahlia.okonkwo@example.edu,Della Markham,5,em2ca,4,1,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,1,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,1,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,1,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,1,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,1,"Feedback was mostly evaluative ('good', 'not quite') rather than specific.",1,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,1,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,902192,900000501392,,
2025-07-19 14:48:18,2025-07-19 14:19:56,0,203.0.113.92,100,1869,1,2025-07-19 14:19:56,R_9qx9pcowlm00000,,,,,41.8781,-87.6298,anonymous,EN,Dahlia Okonkwo,dahlia.okonkwo@example.edu,Assistant Principal,IL,Silverwood Unified,Birchwood Elementary School,,,07/19/2025,Mateo Aguilar,4,em2ca,2,4,Teacher used a visible agenda that helped students self-monitor pacing.,4,Anchor charts were referenced repeatedly and updated live during the lesson.,2,Worksheets stayed at the recall level for the full lesson.,2,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,4,Teacher captured specific evidence on a clipboard and used it to sequence student shares.,3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,2,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,dahlia.okonkwo@example.edu,Zara Hollister,1,em2,4,4,Teacher used a visible agenda that helped students self-monitor pacing.,2,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,2,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,4,Evidence collected during work time directly shaped the closing discussion.,2,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,2,Independent work did not match the cognitive level of the lesson launch.,Layer in one new formative check at the lesson midpoint.,Lila Townsend,1,em2,4,3,Pacing was generally aligned to the curriculum suggested time bands.,3,Teacher pulled one signature routine into the lesson and ran it with fidelity.,4,Closing questions pressed students to generalize beyond the specific numbers in the task.,4,"Multiple talk moves - revoicing, pressing for reasoning, adding on - were visible in every transition.",1,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,2,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,4,Students naturally compared strategies and revised their own work after listening to a peer.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,902329,900000532729,,
2025-03-13 08:11:21,2025-03-13 08:35:27,0,198.51.100.56,100,1455,1,2025-03-13 08:35:27,R_9c1z6jaot000000,,,,,47.6062,-122.3321,anonymous,EN,Elena Bishop,elena.bishop@example.edu,Instructional Specialist,WA,Willowmere School District,Marigold Elementary School,,,03/13/2025,Camille Voss,4,em2ca,5,4,Teacher used a visible agenda that helped students self-monitor pacing.,4,Anchor charts were referenced repeatedly and updated live during the lesson.,2,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,2,A small group of students answered most questions while others were quiet.,3,Teacher checked a sample of students during work time and adjusted the share-out accordingly.,3,Feedback shifted from evaluation to questioning during the second half of the lesson.,3,Teacher modeled what a strong collaboration looked like before releasing students.,4,Every student produced written work that the teacher can use diagnostically.,Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,elena.bishop@example.edu,Gabriel Ortiz-Reilly,5,em2ca,1,1,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,4,Teacher modeled the precise mathematical language the curriculum specifies.,1,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,4,"Multiple talk moves - revoicing, pressing for reasoning, adding on - were visible in every transition.",2,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,1,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,Bella Yamamoto,4,em2ca,3,3,Transitions between components were visible but a bit long; students stayed mostly on task.,3,Visual models were referenced briefly during the share-out.,4,Teacher held the rigor of the curriculum task without funneling students to a single method.,4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",2,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,2,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Pull a small group during work time to gather more diagnostic evidence.,Nora Whitman,1,em2ca,2,3,Pacing was generally aligned to the curriculum suggested time bands.,3,Teacher pulled one signature routine into the lesson and ran it with fidelity.,4,Teacher held the rigor of the curriculum task without funneling students to a single method.,3,Discussion was structured but uneven across the room.,3,Teacher checked a sample of students during work time and adjusted the share-out accordingly.,4,"Teacher used student errors as instructional moments, often making them visible to the class.",2,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,3,"Quiet, focused work happened for the bulk of the independent block.",Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,Lila Townsend,3,em2,4,3,Transitions between components were visible but a bit long; students stayed mostly on task.,3,Teacher pulled one signature routine into the lesson and ran it with fidelity.,4,Teacher held the rigor of the curriculum task without funneling students to a single method.,4,"Multiple talk moves - revoicing, pressing for reasoning, adding on - were visible in every transition.",1,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,2,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Use the next observation to focus on cognitive demand of student tasks.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,902466,900000564066,,
2025-07-05 13:46:21,2025-07-05 13:14:00,0,198.51.100.56,100,1715,1,2025-07-05 13:14:00,R_31zutx4esv00000,,,,,47.6062,-122.3321,anonymous,EN,Elena Bishop,elena.bishop@example.edu,Instructional Specialist,WA,Willowmere School District,Marigold Elementary School,,,07/05/2025,Talia Kessler,1,em2,2,1,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",1,Anchor chart was on the wall but not referenced during the lesson.,1,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,1,A small group of students answered most questions while others were quiet.,1,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,1,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,1,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,1,Work time was short and many students did not produce a written response.,Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,elena.bishop@example.edu,Lila Townsend,2,em2,1,3,Pacing was generally aligned to the curriculum suggested time bands.,3,Teacher pulled one signature routine into the lesson and ran it with fidelity.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,1,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,2,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,Fiona Drummond,2,em2ca,3,4,Every lesson component was facilitated with intention and clear time boundaries.,2,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,4,Teacher held the rigor of the curriculum task without funneling students to a single method.,2,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,4,Teacher captured specific evidence on a clipboard and used it to sequence student shares.,2,"Feedback was mostly evaluative ('good', 'not quite') rather than specific.",4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,2,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,Esme Larkin,2,em2,2,3,Pacing was generally aligned to the curriculum suggested time bands.,3,Visual models were referenced briefly during the share-out.,3,"Some tasks asked students to choose a strategy, though most were single-step.",3,Sentence stems were posted; about half the students used them.,3,"Teacher tracked who shared, ensuring a broader sample over the lesson.",3,Some feedback pointed to specific strategy choices; some stayed at the praise level.,3,Group norms were posted and referenced once during the lesson.,2,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,902603,900000595403,,
2025-05-09 14:02:05,2025-05-09 14:31:33,0,198.51.100.56,100,1788,1,2025-05-09 14:31:33,R_2dhvgunxzk00000,,,,,47.6062,-122.3321,anonymous,EN,Elena Bishop,elena.bishop@example.edu,Instructional Specialist,WA,Willowmere School District,Marigold Elementary School,,,05/09/2025,Bella Yamamoto,2,em2,2,3,Teacher followed the lesson sequence with light improvisation during application.,3,Visual models were referenced briefly during the share-out.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",2,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,2,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,elena.bishop@example.edu,Aiden Cabrera,K,em2ca,3,4,Teacher used a visible agenda that helped students self-monitor pacing.,4,Teacher modeled the precise mathematical language the curriculum specifies.,4,Closing questions pressed students to generalize beyond the specific numbers in the task.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,4,"Multiple formative checks - whiteboard responses, choral counts, partner shares - were embedded.",4,"Teacher used student errors as instructional moments, often making them visible to the class.",4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,902740,900000626740,,
2025-09-09 09:50:23,2025-09-09 09:09:44,0,198.51.100.56,100,1141,1,2025-09-09 09:09:44,R_4twirpr6ta00000,,,,,47.6062,-122.3321,anonymous,EN,Elena Bishop,elena.bishop@example.edu,Instructional Specialist,WA,Willowmere School District,Marigold Elementary School,,,09/09/2025,Yusuf Pritchard,4,em2ca,1,3,Transitions between components were visible but a bit long; students stayed mostly on task.,3,"Models from the curriculum appeared in the lesson, though student work didn't always reference them.",3,"Cognitive demand was uneven across the lesson - high during launch, lower during practice.",3,Sentence stems were posted; about half the students used them.,3,A quick fist-to-five check happened at the midpoint of the lesson.,3,Feedback shifted from evaluation to questioning during the second half of the lesson.,3,Teacher modeled what a strong collaboration looked like before releasing students.,3,"Teacher provided an extension for early finishers, used by some students.",Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,elena.bishop@example.edu,Penny McAllister,2,em2,5,4,Teacher used a visible agenda that helped students self-monitor pacing.,2,Anchor chart was on the wall but not referenced during the lesson.,4,Closing questions pressed students to generalize beyond the specific numbers in the task.,2,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,4,"Multiple formative checks - whiteboard responses, choral counts, partner shares - were embedded.",2,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,2,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,Camille Voss,4,em2,2,4,Every lesson component was facilitated with intention and clear time boundaries.,4,Teacher modeled the precise mathematical language the curriculum specifies.,2,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,2,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,3,"Teacher tracked who shared, ensuring a broader sample over the lesson.",3,Feedback shifted from evaluation to questioning during the second half of the lesson.,2,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,902877,900000658077,,
2025-05-03 09:07:10,2025-05-03 09:38:09,0,192.0.2.77,100,1914,1,2025-05-03 09:38:09,R_9tyb3zurd300000,,,,,32.7767,-96.7970,anonymous,EN,Felix Ng,felix.ng@example.edu,Assistant Principal,TX,Brookhaven District,Sunflower Ridge Elementary School,,,05/03/2025,Lila Townsend,2,em2,2,3,Transitions between components were visible but a bit long; students stayed mostly on task.,3,Curriculum routines were partially used; one or two were swapped for teacher-created alternatives.,4,Closing questions pressed students to generalize beyond the specific numbers in the task.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,1,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",2,"Feedback was mostly evaluative ('good', 'not quite') rather than specific.",4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,Every student produced written work that the teacher can use diagnostically.,Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,felix.ng@example.edu,Kai Sorensen,3,em2,6,4,Every lesson component was facilitated with intention and clear time boundaries.,4,Curriculum-aligned routines anchored the lesson - choral counting and a number talk both appeared.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,4,Teacher named which students they hadn't heard from yet and pulled them into the conversation.,4,"Teacher used student errors as instructional moments, often making them visible to the class.",4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,Xavier Boone,K,em2,4,3,Pacing was generally aligned to the curriculum suggested time bands.,3,Visual models were referenced briefly during the share-out.,4,Closing questions pressed students to generalize beyond the specific numbers in the task.,3,Sentence stems were posted; about half the students used them.,3,"Teacher tracked who shared, ensuring a broader sample over the lesson.",4,"Teacher used student errors as instructional moments, often making them visible to the class.",2,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,3,Independent task was aligned to the lesson objective; engagement was steady.,Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,Esme Larkin,3,em2ca,2,3,"Most components were facilitated as designed, though the closing was abbreviated.",2,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,3,"Cognitive demand was uneven across the lesson - high during launch, lower during practice.",3,"Some turn-and-talks took place, with a brief whole-group share afterward.",3,Teacher checked a sample of students during work time and adjusted the share-out accordingly.,3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,3,Partner work was structured with a brief protocol; about half the pairs followed it.,2,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,Nora Whitman,2,em2,1,3,"Most components were facilitated as designed, though the closing was abbreviated.",3,Teacher pulled one signature routine into the lesson and ran it with fidelity.,4,Teacher held the rigor of the curriculum task without funneling students to a single method.,3,"Some turn-and-talks took place, with a brief whole-group share afterward.",3,A quick fist-to-five check happened at the midpoint of the lesson.,4,"Teacher used student errors as instructional moments, often making them visible to the class.",3,Teacher modeled what a strong collaboration looked like before releasing students.,3,"Teacher provided an extension for early finishers, used by some students.",Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,903014,900000689414,,
2025-03-10 11:45:49,2025-03-10 11:11:39,0,192.0.2.77,100,1568,1,2025-03-10 11:11:39,R_zlage5bsm000000,,,,,32.7767,-96.7970,anonymous,EN,Felix Ng,felix.ng@example.edu,Assistant Principal,TX,Brookhaven District,Sunflower Ridge Elementary School,,,03/10/2025,Mateo Aguilar,2,em2ca,2,4,Every lesson component was facilitated with intention and clear time boundaries.,4,Curriculum-aligned routines anchored the lesson - choral counting and a number talk both appeared.,2,Most questions had a single correct numeric answer with no required reasoning.,2,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,4,Teacher named which students they hadn't heard from yet and pulled them into the conversation.,3,Teacher paused on one misconception and worked through it briefly with the class.,2,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,felix.ng@example.edu,Beatrix Donnelly,4,em2,2,2,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,2,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,3,"Questions occasionally pressed for justification, especially during the closing share.",4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,2,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",3,Teacher paused on one misconception and worked through it briefly with the class.,4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,Talia Kessler,4,em2ca,5,1,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,1,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,1,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,1,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,1,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,1,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,1,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,1,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,Della Markham,4,em2,3,1,"Materials were not staged ahead of time, which pulled focus away from the lesson flow.",1,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,1,Worksheets stayed at the recall level for the full lesson.,1,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,1,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",1,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,2,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,1,Independent work did not match the cognitive level of the lesson launch.,Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,903151,900000720751,,
2025-06-28 08:25:00,2025-06-28 08:01:14,0,192.0.2.77,100,2217,1,2025-06-28 08:01:14,R_22chlot0su00000,,,,,32.7767,-96.7970,anonymous,EN,Felix Ng,felix.ng@example.edu,Assistant Principal,TX,Brookhaven District,Sunflower Ridge Elementary School,,,06/28/2025,Umberto Barnett,4,em2ca,4,4,Closing component drew explicit connections back to the lesson objective.,4,Curriculum-aligned routines anchored the lesson - choral counting and a number talk both appeared.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",4,Teacher captured specific evidence on a clipboard and used it to sequence student shares.,4,Probing questions consistently preceded any direct correction.,4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,felix.ng@example.edu,Jenna Bellamy,2,em2,5,1,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,1,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,1,Worksheets stayed at the recall level for the full lesson.,1,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,1,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,1,"Feedback was mostly evaluative ('good', 'not quite') rather than specific.",2,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,1,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,Beatrix Donnelly,K,em2ca,2,2,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,2,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,3,"Cognitive demand was uneven across the lesson - high during launch, lower during practice.",4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,2,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,3,Some feedback pointed to specific strategy choices; some stayed at the praise level.,4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,Cosmo Fairbanks,K,em2,4,2,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,1,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,1,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,2,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,2,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,2,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,2,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,2,Independent work did not match the cognitive level of the lesson launch.,Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,903288,900000752088,,
2025-01-07 13:11:19,2025-01-07 13:50:28,0,192.0.2.77,100,2375,1,2025-01-07 13:50:28,R_9m0bkh1yof00000,,,,,32.7767,-96.7970,anonymous,EN,Felix Ng,felix.ng@example.edu,Assistant Principal,TX,Brookhaven District,Sunflower Ridge Elementary School,,,01/07/2025,Esme Larkin,K,em2,4,3,"Most components were facilitated as designed, though the closing was abbreviated.",3,Visual models were referenced briefly during the share-out.,3,A few extension problems were available for students who finished early.,3,Discussion was structured but uneven across the room.,3,A quick fist-to-five check happened at the midpoint of the lesson.,3,Feedback shifted from evaluation to questioning during the second half of the lesson.,3,Some groups produced shared work while others split the task.,3,"Quiet, focused work happened for the bulk of the independent block.",Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,felix.ng@example.edu,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,903425,900000783425,,
2025-09-04 14:47:05,2025-09-04 14:03:38,0,192.0.2.77,100,1015,1,2025-09-04 14:03:38,R_5fwe1c4cdj00000,,,,,32.7767,-96.7970,anonymous,EN,Felix Ng,felix.ng@example.edu,Assistant Principal,TX,Brookhaven District,Sunflower Ridge Elementary School,,,09/04/2025,Yusuf Pritchard,3,em2ca,2,3,Pacing was generally aligned to the curriculum suggested time bands.,3,Curriculum routines were partially used; one or two were swapped for teacher-created alternatives.,3,"Questions occasionally pressed for justification, especially during the closing share.",3,Teacher used 'who can build on that?' a few times to chain student responses.,3,"Teacher tracked who shared, ensuring a broader sample over the lesson.",3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,3,Some groups produced shared work while others split the task.,3,Independent task was aligned to the lesson objective; engagement was steady.,Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,felix.ng@example.edu,Darius Pemberton,2,em2ca,4,3,Pacing was generally aligned to the curriculum suggested time bands.,3,"Models from the curriculum appeared in the lesson, though student work didn't always reference them.",4,Teacher held the rigor of the curriculum task without funneling students to a single method.,3,Discussion was structured but uneven across the room.,3,A quick fist-to-five check happened at the midpoint of the lesson.,4,Probing questions consistently preceded any direct correction.,3,Partner work was structured with a brief protocol; about half the pairs followed it.,3,Independent task was aligned to the lesson objective; engagement was steady.,Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,Hannah Iverson,3,em2ca,3,2,"Materials were not staged ahead of time, which pulled focus away from the lesson flow.",2,Anchor chart was on the wall but not referenced during the lesson.,3,A few extension problems were available for students who finished early.,3,Discussion was structured but uneven across the room.,3,"Teacher tracked who shared, ensuring a broader sample over the lesson.",3,Teacher paused on one misconception and worked through it briefly with the class.,4,Students naturally compared strategies and revised their own work after listening to a peer.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,903562,900000814762,,
2025-04-28 09:40:48,2025-04-28 09:19:49,0,192.0.2.198,100,2364,1,2025-04-28 09:19:49,R_682dvebt1500000,,,,,32.7767,-96.7970,anonymous,EN,Greta Holloway,greta.holloway@example.edu,Assistant Principal,NC,Greenleaf Unified,Sunflower Ridge Elementary School,,,04/28/2025,Kai Sorensen,4,em2ca,3,4,Closing component drew explicit connections back to the lesson objective.,4,Multiple representations were used in tandem; students chose between models when solving.,4,Closing questions pressed students to generalize beyond the specific numbers in the task.,4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,4,"Multiple formative checks - whiteboard responses, choral counts, partner shares - were embedded.",4,Written and verbal feedback both pointed students toward a clear next move.,4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,greta.holloway@example.edu,Vivian Crowe,5,em2ca,3,3,Transitions between components were visible but a bit long; students stayed mostly on task.,3,"Models from the curriculum appeared in the lesson, though student work didn't always reference them.",4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",1,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,3,Some feedback pointed to specific strategy choices; some stayed at the praise level.,4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,903699,900000846099,,
2025-05-22 10:45:37,2025-05-22 10:05:25,0,192.0.2.198,100,1230,1,2025-05-22 10:05:25,R_4bwherws9w00000,,,,,32.7767,-96.7970,anonymous,EN,Greta Holloway,greta.holloway@example.edu,Assistant Principal,NC,Greenleaf Unified,Sunflower Ridge Elementary School,,,05/22/2025,Vivian Crowe,4,em2,5,3,Teacher followed the lesson sequence with light improvisation during application.,3,"Models from the curriculum appeared in the lesson, though student work didn't always reference them.",4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,2,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,3,Some feedback pointed to specific strategy choices; some stayed at the praise level.,4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,greta.holloway@example.edu,Quincy Rosales,K,em2ca,3,1,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,4,Multiple representations were used in tandem; students chose between models when solving.,2,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,2,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",4,Written and verbal feedback both pointed students toward a clear next move.,1,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,Rosa Henley,3,em2,6,2,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",2,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,3,"Cognitive demand was uneven across the lesson - high during launch, lower during practice.",4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,2,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,3,Feedback shifted from evaluation to questioning during the second half of the lesson.,4,Students naturally compared strategies and revised their own work after listening to a peer.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,903836,900000877436,,
2025-06-24 10:04:50,2025-06-24 10:34:37,0,192.0.2.198,100,1855,1,2025-06-24 10:34:37,R_1oa073xu2t00000,,,,,32.7767,-96.7970,anonymous,EN,Greta Holloway,greta.holloway@example.edu,Assistant Principal,NC,Greenleaf Unified,Sunflower Ridge Elementary School,,,06/24/2025,Quincy Rosales,K,em2ca,1,1,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,4,Curriculum-aligned routines anchored the lesson - choral counting and a number talk both appeared.,2,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,2,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,4,Probing questions consistently preceded any direct correction.,1,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,greta.holloway@example.edu,Nora Whitman,2,em2,3,3,Teacher followed the lesson sequence with light improvisation during application.,3,Visual models were referenced briefly during the share-out.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,3,Discussion was structured but uneven across the room.,3,Some student work was photographed for later review.,4,Written and verbal feedback both pointed students toward a clear next move.,2,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,3,Independent task was aligned to the lesson objective; engagement was steady.,Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,903973,900000908773,,
2025-05-03 14:50:32,2025-05-03 14:26:00,0,198.51.100.56,100,2161,1,2025-05-03 14:26:00,R_9a9nyi8an300000,,,,,47.6062,-122.3321,anonymous,EN,Hiro Tanaka,hiro.tanaka@example.edu,District Lead,CA,Greenleaf Unified,Sequoia Elementary School,,,05/03/2025,Darius Pemberton,5,em2,4,3,"Most components were facilitated as designed, though the closing was abbreviated.",3,Visual models were referenced briefly during the share-out.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,3,"Some turn-and-talks took place, with a brief whole-group share afterward.",3,A quick fist-to-five check happened at the midpoint of the lesson.,4,"Feedback was specific, strategy-focused, and timed to keep students productively struggling.",3,Some groups produced shared work while others split the task.,3,Independent task was aligned to the lesson objective; engagement was steady.,Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,hiro.tanaka@example.edu,Kai Sorensen,4,em2ca,1,4,Teacher used a visible agenda that helped students self-monitor pacing.,4,Curriculum-aligned routines anchored the lesson - choral counting and a number talk both appeared.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,4,"Multiple formative checks - whiteboard responses, choral counts, partner shares - were embedded.",4,"Teacher used student errors as instructional moments, often making them visible to the class.",4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,Mateo Aguilar,3,em2ca,4,4,Closing component drew explicit connections back to the lesson objective.,4,Curriculum-aligned routines anchored the lesson - choral counting and a number talk both appeared.,2,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,2,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,4,"Multiple formative checks - whiteboard responses, choral counts, partner shares - were embedded.",3,Some feedback pointed to specific strategy choices; some stayed at the praise level.,2,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,3,"Teacher provided an extension for early finishers, used by some students.",Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,Aiden Cabrera,1,em2,5,4,Closing component drew explicit connections back to the lesson objective.,4,Multiple representations were used in tandem; students chose between models when solving.,4,Closing questions pressed students to generalize beyond the specific numbers in the task.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,4,Teacher named which students they hadn't heard from yet and pulled them into the conversation.,4,Probing questions consistently preceded any direct correction.,4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,904110,900000940110,,
2025-07-11 08:21:44,2025-07-11 08:58:42,0,198.51.100.56,100,2249,1,2025-07-11 08:58:42,R_ebefiygov000000,,,,,47.6062,-122.3321,anonymous,EN,Hiro Tanaka,hiro.tanaka@example.edu,District Lead,CA,Greenleaf Unified,Sequoia Elementary School,,,07/11/2025,Hannah Iverson,4,em2,1,2,"Materials were not staged ahead of time, which pulled focus away from the lesson flow.",2,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,3,A few extension problems were available for students who finished early.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,3,Teacher checked a sample of students during work time and adjusted the share-out accordingly.,3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,hiro.tanaka@example.edu,Della Markham,5,em2ca,4,1,"Materials were not staged ahead of time, which pulled focus away from the lesson flow.",1,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,1,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,1,A small group of students answered most questions while others were quiet.,1,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",1,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,2,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,1,Independent work did not match the cognitive level of the lesson launch.,Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,Quincy Rosales,K,em2ca,2,1,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,4,Curriculum-aligned routines anchored the lesson - choral counting and a number talk both appeared.,2,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,2,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,4,Written and verbal feedback both pointed students toward a clear next move.,1,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Use the next observation to focus on cognitive demand of student tasks.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,904247,900000971447,,
2025-09-22 09:48:26,2025-09-22 09:25:12,0,198.51.100.56,100,2220,1,2025-09-22 09:25:12,R_8t94bx4v9o00000,,,,,47.6062,-122.3321,anonymous,EN,Hiro Tanaka,hiro.tanaka@example.edu,District Lead,CA,Greenleaf Unified,Sequoia Elementary School,,,09/22/2025,Wren Saavedra,4,em2ca,1,4,Transitions were tight; the launch set up the application work efficiently.,4,Teacher modeled the precise mathematical language the curriculum specifies.,2,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,2,A small group of students answered most questions while others were quiet.,4,Teacher captured specific evidence on a clipboard and used it to sequence student shares.,3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,2,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,3,"Most students worked independently for the full block, with a few needing redirection.",Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,hiro.tanaka@example.edu,Nora Whitman,3,em2ca,3,3,Transitions between components were visible but a bit long; students stayed mostly on task.,3,Visual models were referenced briefly during the share-out.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,3,Sentence stems were posted; about half the students used them.,3,"Teacher tracked who shared, ensuring a broader sample over the lesson.",4,"Teacher used student errors as instructional moments, often making them visible to the class.",3,Some groups produced shared work while others split the task.,3,"Teacher provided an extension for early finishers, used by some students.",Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,Talia Kessler,3,em2ca,4,1,"Materials were not staged ahead of time, which pulled focus away from the lesson flow.",1,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,1,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,1,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,1,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,1,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,2,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,1,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Use the next observation to focus on cognitive demand of student tasks.,Darius Pemberton,K,em2ca,6,3,Transitions between components were visible but a bit long; students stayed mostly on task.,3,"Models from the curriculum appeared in the lesson, though student work didn't always reference them.",4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,3,Discussion was structured but uneven across the room.,3,Teacher checked a sample of students during work time and adjusted the share-out accordingly.,4,Written and verbal feedback both pointed students toward a clear next move.,3,Teacher modeled what a strong collaboration looked like before releasing students.,3,"Most students worked independently for the full block, with a few needing redirection.",Use the next observation to focus on cognitive demand of student tasks.,Penny McAllister,4,em2,4,4,Closing component drew explicit connections back to the lesson objective.,2,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,2,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,4,"Multiple formative checks - whiteboard responses, choral counts, partner shares - were embedded.",2,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,2,Work time was short and many students did not produce a written response.,Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,904384,900001002784,,
2025-08-05 09:18:46,2025-08-05 09:44:54,0,198.51.100.56,100,1586,1,2025-08-05 09:44:54,R_2q62y1ejqx00000,,,,,47.6062,-122.3321,anonymous,EN,Hiro Tanaka,hiro.tanaka@example.edu,District Lead,CA,Greenleaf Unified,Sequoia Elementary School,,,08/05/2025,Penny McAllister,4,em2,4,4,Transitions were tight; the launch set up the application work efficiently.,2,Anchor chart was on the wall but not referenced during the lesson.,4,Closing questions pressed students to generalize beyond the specific numbers in the task.,2,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,4,Teacher captured specific evidence on a clipboard and used it to sequence student shares.,2,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,2,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,hiro.tanaka@example.edu,Kai Sorensen,4,em2,5,4,Transitions were tight; the launch set up the application work efficiently.,4,Multiple representations were used in tandem; students chose between models when solving.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,4,"Multiple talk moves - revoicing, pressing for reasoning, adding on - were visible in every transition.",4,Evidence collected during work time directly shaped the closing discussion.,4,Written and verbal feedback both pointed students toward a clear next move.,4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,Darius Pemberton,5,em2,5,3,Teacher followed the lesson sequence with light improvisation during application.,3,Curriculum routines were partially used; one or two were swapped for teacher-created alternatives.,4,Closing questions pressed students to generalize beyond the specific numbers in the task.,3,Teacher used 'who can build on that?' a few times to chain student responses.,3,A quick fist-to-five check happened at the midpoint of the lesson.,4,Probing questions consistently preceded any direct correction.,3,Partner work was structured with a brief protocol; about half the pairs followed it.,3,"Teacher provided an extension for early finishers, used by some students.",Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,904521,900001034121,,
2025-10-21 12:07:10,2025-10-21 12:23:09,0,192.0.2.15,100,981,1,2025-10-21 12:23:09,R_817vk73wrs00000,,,,,47.6062,-122.3321,anonymous,EN,Imani Sutherland,imani.sutherland@example.edu,Assistant Principal,NC,Brookhaven District,Periwinkle Elementary School,,,10/21/2025,Camille Voss,2,em2,6,4,Every lesson component was facilitated with intention and clear time boundaries.,4,Anchor charts were referenced repeatedly and updated live during the lesson.,2,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,1,A small group of students answered most questions while others were quiet.,3,A quick fist-to-five check happened at the midpoint of the lesson.,3,Some feedback pointed to specific strategy choices; some stayed at the praise level.,2,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,3,Independent task was aligned to the lesson objective; engagement was steady.,Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,imani.sutherland@example.edu,Bella Yamamoto,5,em2ca,3,3,"Most components were facilitated as designed, though the closing was abbreviated.",3,"Models from the curriculum appeared in the lesson, though student work didn't always reference them.",4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,2,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",3,Some feedback pointed to specific strategy choices; some stayed at the praise level.,4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,Rosa Henley,2,em2,2,2,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,2,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,3,"Questions occasionally pressed for justification, especially during the closing share.",4,"Multiple talk moves - revoicing, pressing for reasoning, adding on - were visible in every transition.",2,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,3,Teacher paused on one misconception and worked through it briefly with the class.,4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,Esme Larkin,2,em2ca,5,3,Pacing was generally aligned to the curriculum suggested time bands.,3,Visual models were referenced briefly during the share-out.,3,"Some tasks asked students to choose a strategy, though most were single-step.",3,Sentence stems were posted; about half the students used them.,3,"Teacher tracked who shared, ensuring a broader sample over the lesson.",3,Some feedback pointed to specific strategy choices; some stayed at the praise level.,3,Teacher modeled what a strong collaboration looked like before releasing students.,3,"Quiet, focused work happened for the bulk of the independent block.",Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,Jenna Bellamy,2,em2,2,1,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,1,Anchor chart was on the wall but not referenced during the lesson.,1,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,1,A small group of students answered most questions while others were quiet.,1,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,1,"Feedback was mostly evaluative ('good', 'not quite') rather than specific.",2,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,1,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,904658,900001065458,,
2025-04-09 11:41:38,2025-04-09 11:57:40,0,192.0.2.15,100,1007,1,2025-04-09 11:57:40,R_4bzb2k5rzp00000,,,,,47.6062,-122.3321,anonymous,EN,Imani Sutherland,imani.sutherland@example.edu,Assistant Principal,NC,Brookhaven District,Periwinkle Elementary School,,,04/09/2025,Umberto Barnett,3,em2ca,6,4,Transitions were tight; the launch set up the application work efficiently.,4,Curriculum-aligned routines anchored the lesson - choral counting and a number talk both appeared.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,4,"Multiple formative checks - whiteboard responses, choral counts, partner shares - were embedded.",4,"Teacher used student errors as instructional moments, often making them visible to the class.",4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,imani.sutherland@example.edu,Aiden Cabrera,2,em2ca,2,4,Transitions were tight; the launch set up the application work efficiently.,4,Curriculum-aligned routines anchored the lesson - choral counting and a number talk both appeared.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,4,"Multiple talk moves - revoicing, pressing for reasoning, adding on - were visible in every transition.",4,Evidence collected during work time directly shaped the closing discussion.,4,Written and verbal feedback both pointed students toward a clear next move.,4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,Every student produced written work that the teacher can use diagnostically.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,904795,900001096795,,
2025-08-08 13:48:16,2025-08-08 13:10:24,0,192.0.2.15,100,1333,1,2025-08-08 13:10:24,R_dawomggvp000000,,,,,47.6062,-122.3321,anonymous,EN,Imani Sutherland,imani.sutherland@example.edu,Assistant Principal,NC,Brookhaven District,Periwinkle Elementary School,,,08/08/2025,Rosa Henley,1,em2ca,6,2,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,2,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,3,"Questions occasionally pressed for justification, especially during the closing share.",4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,2,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,3,Feedback shifted from evaluation to questioning during the second half of the lesson.,4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,imani.sutherland@example.edu,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,904932,900001128132,,
2025-04-02 10:29:38,2025-04-02 10:56:40,0,192.0.2.15,100,1671,1,2025-04-02 10:56:40,R_7jt5aavlb100000,,,,,47.6062,-122.3321,anonymous,EN,Imani Sutherland,imani.sutherland@example.edu,Assistant Principal,NC,Brookhaven District,Periwinkle Elementary School,,,04/02/2025,Zara Hollister,K,em2,2,4,Every lesson component was facilitated with intention and clear time boundaries.,2,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,4,Closing questions pressed students to generalize beyond the specific numbers in the task.,2,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,4,Teacher named which students they hadn't heard from yet and pulled them into the conversation.,2,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,4,Students naturally compared strategies and revised their own work after listening to a peer.,2,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,imani.sutherland@example.edu,Gabriel Ortiz-Reilly,2,em2,6,1,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,4,Curriculum-aligned routines anchored the lesson - choral counting and a number talk both appeared.,1,Worksheets stayed at the recall level for the full lesson.,4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",2,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",4,"Teacher used student errors as instructional moments, often making them visible to the class.",1,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,905069,900001159469,,
2025-01-14 11:13:08,2025-01-14 11:44:39,0,192.0.2.15,100,1884,1,2025-01-14 11:44:39,R_66bxic7ztx00000,,,,,47.6062,-122.3321,anonymous,EN,Imani Sutherland,imani.sutherland@example.edu,Assistant Principal,NC,Brookhaven District,Periwinkle Elementary School,,,01/14/2025,Amari Salgado,1,em2ca,1,2,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",4,Multiple representations were used in tandem; students chose between models when solving.,1,Worksheets stayed at the recall level for the full lesson.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,2,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,4,Written and verbal feedback both pointed students toward a clear next move.,2,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,imani.sutherland@example.edu,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,905206,900001190806,,
2025-09-28 09:02:07,2025-09-28 09:26:26,0,198.51.100.56,100,1471,1,2025-09-28 09:26:26,R_1n4szstfmf00000,,,,,33.7490,-84.3880,anonymous,EN,Jude Fernandez,jude.fernandez@example.edu,Principal,MN,Cedar Hills USD,Heritage Pines Elementary School,,,09/28/2025,Darius Pemberton,2,em2,3,3,"Most components were facilitated as designed, though the closing was abbreviated.",3,"Models from the curriculum appeared in the lesson, though student work didn't always reference them.",4,Closing questions pressed students to generalize beyond the specific numbers in the task.,3,Sentence stems were posted; about half the students used them.,3,Teacher checked a sample of students during work time and adjusted the share-out accordingly.,4,Probing questions consistently preceded any direct correction.,3,Some groups produced shared work while others split the task.,3,"Teacher provided an extension for early finishers, used by some students.",Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,jude.fernandez@example.edu,Amari Salgado,K,em2,3,2,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",4,Teacher modeled the precise mathematical language the curriculum specifies.,2,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",1,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,4,Probing questions consistently preceded any direct correction.,2,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,Cosmo Fairbanks,4,em2ca,1,2,"Materials were not staged ahead of time, which pulled focus away from the lesson flow.",1,Anchor chart was on the wall but not referenced during the lesson.,1,Worksheets stayed at the recall level for the full lesson.,2,A small group of students answered most questions while others were quiet.,2,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,2,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,2,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,2,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Use the next observation to focus on cognitive demand of student tasks.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,905343,900001222143,,
2025-02-06 13:15:38,2025-02-06 13:31:16,0,198.51.100.56,100,960,1,2025-02-06 13:31:16,R_1f0n8vn2lj00000,,,,,33.7490,-84.3880,anonymous,EN,Jude Fernandez,jude.fernandez@example.edu,Principal,MN,Cedar Hills USD,Heritage Pines Elementary School,,,02/06/2025,Penny McAllister,2,em2ca,4,4,Closing component drew explicit connections back to the lesson objective.,2,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,2,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,4,Teacher named which students they hadn't heard from yet and pulled them into the conversation.,2,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,4,Students naturally compared strategies and revised their own work after listening to a peer.,2,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,jude.fernandez@example.edu,Isaac Quintero,5,em2,3,2,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",1,Anchor chart was on the wall but not referenced during the lesson.,2,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,2,A small group of students answered most questions while others were quiet.,1,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",2,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,2,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,2,Independent work did not match the cognitive level of the lesson launch.,Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,Wren Saavedra,4,em2ca,3,4,Teacher used a visible agenda that helped students self-monitor pacing.,4,Teacher modeled the precise mathematical language the curriculum specifies.,2,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,2,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,4,Evidence collected during work time directly shaped the closing discussion.,3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,2,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,3,"Quiet, focused work happened for the bulk of the independent block.",Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,905480,900001253480,,
2025-10-13 11:07:30,2025-10-13 11:43:08,0,198.51.100.56,100,2178,1,2025-10-13 11:43:08,R_4tkbod96xs00000,,,,,33.7490,-84.3880,anonymous,EN,Jude Fernandez,jude.fernandez@example.edu,Principal,MN,Cedar Hills USD,Heritage Pines Elementary School,,,10/13/2025,Xavier Boone,4,em2,3,3,Teacher followed the lesson sequence with light improvisation during application.,3,Visual models were referenced briefly during the share-out.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,3,"Some turn-and-talks took place, with a brief whole-group share afterward.",3,Some student work was photographed for later review.,4,"Teacher used student errors as instructional moments, often making them visible to the class.",3,Teacher modeled what a strong collaboration looked like before releasing students.,3,"Quiet, focused work happened for the bulk of the independent block.",Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,jude.fernandez@example.edu,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,905617,900001284817,,
2025-05-18 11:22:14,2025-05-18 11:49:02,0,198.51.100.56,100,1676,1,2025-05-18 11:49:02,R_cdhym3a05000000,,,,,33.7490,-84.3880,anonymous,EN,Jude Fernandez,jude.fernandez@example.edu,Principal,MN,Cedar Hills USD,Heritage Pines Elementary School,,,05/18/2025,Beatrix Donnelly,2,em2ca,3,2,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",2,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,3,A few extension problems were available for students who finished early.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,2,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",3,Feedback shifted from evaluation to questioning during the second half of the lesson.,4,Students naturally compared strategies and revised their own work after listening to a peer.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,jude.fernandez@example.edu,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,905754,900001316154,,
2025-10-15 11:37:55,2025-10-15 11:58:06,0,203.0.113.51,100,1281,1,2025-10-15 11:58:06,R_471mzvli5500000,,,,,39.7392,-104.9903,anonymous,EN,Kira Vasquez,kira.vasquez@example.edu,Principal,FL,Northfield Unified,Sequoia Elementary School,,,10/15/2025,Della Markham,1,em2ca,3,1,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,1,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,1,Most questions had a single correct numeric answer with no required reasoning.,1,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,1,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,1,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,2,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,1,Work time was short and many students did not produce a written response.,Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,kira.vasquez@example.edu,Jenna Bellamy,1,em2ca,6,1,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,1,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,1,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,1,A small group of students answered most questions while others were quiet.,1,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",1,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,2,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,1,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Pull a small group during work time to gather more diagnostic evidence.,Isaac Quintero,1,em2ca,3,2,"Materials were not staged ahead of time, which pulled focus away from the lesson flow.",2,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,2,Worksheets stayed at the recall level for the full lesson.,2,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,2,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,1,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,2,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,2,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,905891,900001347491,,
2025-04-09 10:19:24,2025-04-09 10:35:39,0,203.0.113.51,100,1013,1,2025-04-09 10:35:39,R_6wwst04wy000000,,,,,39.7392,-104.9903,anonymous,EN,Kira Vasquez,kira.vasquez@example.edu,Principal,FL,Northfield Unified,Sequoia Elementary School,,,04/09/2025,Fiona Drummond,4,em2ca,2,4,Every lesson component was facilitated with intention and clear time boundaries.,2,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,2,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,4,Teacher captured specific evidence on a clipboard and used it to sequence student shares.,2,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,2,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,kira.vasquez@example.edu,Della Markham,1,em2,3,1,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,1,Anchor chart was on the wall but not referenced during the lesson.,1,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,1,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,1,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,1,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,1,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,1,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,Lila Townsend,4,em2ca,4,3,Transitions between components were visible but a bit long; students stayed mostly on task.,3,Curriculum routines were partially used; one or two were swapped for teacher-created alternatives.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,4,"Multiple talk moves - revoicing, pressing for reasoning, adding on - were visible in every transition.",2,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,2,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,4,Students naturally compared strategies and revised their own work after listening to a peer.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Layer in one new formative check at the lesson midpoint.,Umberto Barnett,4,em2,1,4,Closing component drew explicit connections back to the lesson objective.,4,Multiple representations were used in tandem; students chose between models when solving.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",4,Evidence collected during work time directly shaped the closing discussion.,4,"Teacher used student errors as instructional moments, often making them visible to the class.",4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,Gabriel Ortiz-Reilly,2,em2,2,1,"Materials were not staged ahead of time, which pulled focus away from the lesson flow.",4,Multiple representations were used in tandem; students chose between models when solving.,1,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",2,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",4,Probing questions consistently preceded any direct correction.,1,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,4,Every student produced written work that the teacher can use diagnostically.,Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,906028,900001378828,,
2025-04-02 10:12:05,2025-04-02 10:35:39,0,203.0.113.51,100,1405,1,2025-04-02 10:35:39,R_81h90ybxg100000,,,,,39.7392,-104.9903,anonymous,EN,Kira Vasquez,kira.vasquez@example.edu,Principal,FL,Northfield Unified,Sequoia Elementary School,,,04/02/2025,Amari Salgado,1,em2ca,4,2,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,4,Teacher modeled the precise mathematical language the curriculum specifies.,1,Most questions had a single correct numeric answer with no required reasoning.,4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",2,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,4,Probing questions consistently preceded any direct correction.,2,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,kira.vasquez@example.edu,Hannah Iverson,1,em2ca,2,2,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,2,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,3,"Questions occasionally pressed for justification, especially during the closing share.",4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",3,Some student work was photographed for later review.,3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,Xavier Boone,K,em2,1,3,Pacing was generally aligned to the curriculum suggested time bands.,3,"Models from the curriculum appeared in the lesson, though student work didn't always reference them.",4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,3,Sentence stems were posted; about half the students used them.,3,Teacher checked a sample of students during work time and adjusted the share-out accordingly.,4,Written and verbal feedback both pointed students toward a clear next move.,3,Group norms were posted and referenced once during the lesson.,3,Independent task was aligned to the lesson objective; engagement was steady.,Use the next observation to focus on cognitive demand of student tasks.,Wren Saavedra,1,em2,3,4,Every lesson component was facilitated with intention and clear time boundaries.,4,Anchor charts were referenced repeatedly and updated live during the lesson.,2,Most questions had a single correct numeric answer with no required reasoning.,2,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,4,Teacher captured specific evidence on a clipboard and used it to sequence student shares.,3,Some feedback pointed to specific strategy choices; some stayed at the praise level.,2,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,3,"Quiet, focused work happened for the bulk of the independent block.",Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,Bella Yamamoto,3,em2ca,2,3,"Most components were facilitated as designed, though the closing was abbreviated.",3,Visual models were referenced briefly during the share-out.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,2,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",2,"Feedback was mostly evaluative ('good', 'not quite') rather than specific.",4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Pull a small group during work time to gather more diagnostic evidence.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,906165,900001410165,,
2025-03-25 11:20:55,2025-03-25 11:36:54,0,203.0.113.51,100,968,1,2025-03-25 11:36:54,R_7dunnmkkri00000,,,,,39.7392,-104.9903,anonymous,EN,Kira Vasquez,kira.vasquez@example.edu,Principal,FL,Northfield Unified,Sequoia Elementary School,,,03/25/2025,Xavier Boone,4,em2ca,4,3,Pacing was generally aligned to the curriculum suggested time bands.,3,"Models from the curriculum appeared in the lesson, though student work didn't always reference them.",4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,3,Sentence stems were posted; about half the students used them.,4,Teacher named which students they hadn't heard from yet and pulled them into the conversation.,4,Probing questions consistently preceded any direct correction.,3,Teacher modeled what a strong collaboration looked like before releasing students.,3,"Quiet, focused work happened for the bulk of the independent block.",Use the next observation to focus on cognitive demand of student tasks.,kira.vasquez@example.edu,Mateo Aguilar,3,em2ca,3,4,Teacher used a visible agenda that helped students self-monitor pacing.,4,Anchor charts were referenced repeatedly and updated live during the lesson.,2,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,2,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,4,Teacher named which students they hadn't heard from yet and pulled them into the conversation.,3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,2,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,3,"Quiet, focused work happened for the bulk of the independent block.",Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,Jenna Bellamy,K,em2ca,4,1,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,1,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,1,Most questions had a single correct numeric answer with no required reasoning.,1,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,1,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,1,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,2,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,1,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Pull a small group during work time to gather more diagnostic evidence.,Beatrix Donnelly,3,em2ca,1,2,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,2,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,3,"Questions occasionally pressed for justification, especially during the closing share.",4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",2,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,3,Feedback shifted from evaluation to questioning during the second half of the lesson.,4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,Lila Townsend,2,em2,1,3,Pacing was generally aligned to the curriculum suggested time bands.,3,Visual models were referenced briefly during the share-out.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,2,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,2,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,906302,900001441502,,
2025-05-17 12:00:23,2025-05-17 12:19:44,0,203.0.113.166,100,1155,1,2025-05-17 12:19:44,R_6mx8pxveoo00000,,,,,44.9778,-93.2650,anonymous,EN,Leo Petrov,leo.petrov@example.edu,District Lead,GA,Highmont District,Periwinkle Elementary School,,,05/17/2025,Della Markham,5,em2ca,3,1,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,1,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,1,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,1,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,1,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,1,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,2,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,1,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,leo.petrov@example.edu,Lila Townsend,K,em2,4,3,Transitions between components were visible but a bit long; students stayed mostly on task.,3,Teacher pulled one signature routine into the lesson and ran it with fidelity.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,4,"Multiple talk moves - revoicing, pressing for reasoning, adding on - were visible in every transition.",1,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,2,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,4,Students naturally compared strategies and revised their own work after listening to a peer.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Layer in one new formative check at the lesson midpoint.,Rosa Henley,1,em2,1,2,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,2,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,3,A few extension problems were available for students who finished early.,4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,2,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,3,Some feedback pointed to specific strategy choices; some stayed at the praise level.,4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,Darius Pemberton,1,em2,1,3,"Most components were facilitated as designed, though the closing was abbreviated.",3,"Models from the curriculum appeared in the lesson, though student work didn't always reference them.",4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,3,"Some turn-and-talks took place, with a brief whole-group share afterward.",3,A quick fist-to-five check happened at the midpoint of the lesson.,4,"Feedback was specific, strategy-focused, and timed to keep students productively struggling.",3,Partner work was structured with a brief protocol; about half the pairs followed it.,3,"Most students worked independently for the full block, with a few needing redirection.",Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,Yusuf Pritchard,2,em2ca,5,3,Teacher followed the lesson sequence with light improvisation during application.,3,Teacher pulled one signature routine into the lesson and ran it with fidelity.,3,"Cognitive demand was uneven across the lesson - high during launch, lower during practice.",3,"Some turn-and-talks took place, with a brief whole-group share afterward.",3,Some student work was photographed for later review.,3,Some feedback pointed to specific strategy choices; some stayed at the praise level.,3,Group norms were posted and referenced once during the lesson.,3,"Most students worked independently for the full block, with a few needing redirection.",Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,906439,900001472839,,
2025-06-12 14:44:40,2025-06-12 14:59:18,0,203.0.113.166,100,920,1,2025-06-12 14:59:18,R_3mku7mo9gu00000,,,,,44.9778,-93.2650,anonymous,EN,Leo Petrov,leo.petrov@example.edu,District Lead,GA,Highmont District,Periwinkle Elementary School,,,06/12/2025,Amari Salgado,3,em2ca,1,2,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,4,Teacher modeled the precise mathematical language the curriculum specifies.,1,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,2,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,4,"Feedback was specific, strategy-focused, and timed to keep students productively struggling.",2,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,leo.petrov@example.edu,Isaac Quintero,4,em2,6,2,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",1,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,2,Most questions had a single correct numeric answer with no required reasoning.,2,A small group of students answered most questions while others were quiet.,2,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,2,"Feedback was mostly evaluative ('good', 'not quite') rather than specific.",2,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,2,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Layer in one new formative check at the lesson midpoint.,Lila Townsend,1,em2,4,3,Teacher followed the lesson sequence with light improvisation during application.,3,Teacher pulled one signature routine into the lesson and ran it with fidelity.,4,Teacher held the rigor of the curriculum task without funneling students to a single method.,4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,1,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,2,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,4,Students naturally compared strategies and revised their own work after listening to a peer.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,Yusuf Pritchard,1,em2,1,3,Pacing was generally aligned to the curriculum suggested time bands.,3,Visual models were referenced briefly during the share-out.,3,A few extension problems were available for students who finished early.,3,Teacher used 'who can build on that?' a few times to chain student responses.,3,Some student work was photographed for later review.,3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,3,Group norms were posted and referenced once during the lesson.,3,Independent task was aligned to the lesson objective; engagement was steady.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,Della Markham,5,em2,3,1,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",1,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,1,Worksheets stayed at the recall level for the full lesson.,1,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,1,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",1,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,1,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,1,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,906576,900001504176,,
2025-07-07 09:24:19,2025-07-07 09:55:45,0,203.0.113.166,100,1887,1,2025-07-07 09:55:45,R_2znhobn7vc00000,,,,,44.9778,-93.2650,anonymous,EN,Leo Petrov,leo.petrov@example.edu,District Lead,GA,Highmont District,Periwinkle Elementary School,,,07/07/2025,Umberto Barnett,4,em2,5,4,Every lesson component was facilitated with intention and clear time boundaries.,4,Curriculum-aligned routines anchored the lesson - choral counting and a number talk both appeared.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,4,Teacher captured specific evidence on a clipboard and used it to sequence student shares.,4,Written and verbal feedback both pointed students toward a clear next move.,4,Students naturally compared strategies and revised their own work after listening to a peer.,4,Every student produced written work that the teacher can use diagnostically.,Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,leo.petrov@example.edu,Quincy Rosales,5,em2ca,5,1,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,4,Curriculum-aligned routines anchored the lesson - choral counting and a number talk both appeared.,2,Most questions had a single correct numeric answer with no required reasoning.,4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",2,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,1,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,906713,900001535513,,
2025-08-27 11:03:23,2025-08-27 11:35:11,0,203.0.113.92,100,1975,1,2025-08-27 11:35:11,R_5kckdgj6d000000,,,,,41.8781,-87.6298,anonymous,EN,Mira Castillo,mira.castillo@example.edu,Coach,GA,Greenleaf Unified,Crescent Cove Elementary School,Magnolia Hall Academy,,08/27/2025,Nora Whitman,1,em2,2,3,Teacher followed the lesson sequence with light improvisation during application.,3,"Models from the curriculum appeared in the lesson, though student work didn't always reference them.",4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,3,Discussion was structured but uneven across the room.,3,"Teacher tracked who shared, ensuring a broader sample over the lesson.",4,Written and verbal feedback both pointed students toward a clear next move.,3,Teacher modeled what a strong collaboration looked like before releasing students.,3,"Quiet, focused work happened for the bulk of the independent block.",Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,mira.castillo@example.edu,Soren Vidal,5,em2,1,2,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",1,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,2,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,2,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,2,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,2,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,2,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,2,Work time was short and many students did not produce a written response.,Use the next observation to focus on cognitive demand of student tasks.,Quincy Rosales,3,em2,1,1,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,4,Multiple representations were used in tandem; students chose between models when solving.,2,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,2,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,4,Probing questions consistently preceded any direct correction.,1,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,3,"Most students worked independently for the full block, with a few needing redirection.",Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,906850,900001566850,A9000003550,
2025-03-27 12:36:54,2025-03-27 12:13:40,0,203.0.113.92,100,2256,1,2025-03-27 12:13:40,R_7npjiwz1hd00000,,,,,41.8781,-87.6298,anonymous,EN,Mira Castillo,mira.castillo@example.edu,Coach,GA,Greenleaf Unified,Crescent Cove Elementary School,Magnolia Hall Academy,,03/27/2025,Bella Yamamoto,K,em2,4,3,Teacher followed the lesson sequence with light improvisation during application.,3,Curriculum routines were partially used; one or two were swapped for teacher-created alternatives.,4,Teacher held the rigor of the curriculum task without funneling students to a single method.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,2,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,2,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Pull a small group during work time to gather more diagnostic evidence.,mira.castillo@example.edu,Xavier Boone,4,em2ca,5,3,Teacher followed the lesson sequence with light improvisation during application.,3,Teacher pulled one signature routine into the lesson and ran it with fidelity.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,3,"Some turn-and-talks took place, with a brief whole-group share afterward.",3,Teacher checked a sample of students during work time and adjusted the share-out accordingly.,4,Written and verbal feedback both pointed students toward a clear next move.,3,Group norms were posted and referenced once during the lesson.,3,"Most students worked independently for the full block, with a few needing redirection.",Use the next observation to focus on cognitive demand of student tasks.,Vivian Crowe,2,em2ca,3,3,Teacher followed the lesson sequence with light improvisation during application.,3,Teacher pulled one signature routine into the lesson and ran it with fidelity.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,2,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,2,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Use the next observation to focus on cognitive demand of student tasks.,Zara Hollister,K,em2ca,3,4,Transitions were tight; the launch set up the application work efficiently.,2,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,2,A small group of students answered most questions while others were quiet.,4,Teacher captured specific evidence on a clipboard and used it to sequence student shares.,2,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,2,Independent work did not match the cognitive level of the lesson launch.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,Umberto Barnett,2,em2,6,4,Transitions were tight; the launch set up the application work efficiently.,4,Multiple representations were used in tandem; students chose between models when solving.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,4,"Multiple talk moves - revoicing, pressing for reasoning, adding on - were visible in every transition.",4,Teacher named which students they hadn't heard from yet and pulled them into the conversation.,4,Written and verbal feedback both pointed students toward a clear next move.,4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,906987,900001598187,A9000003621,
2025-03-13 11:05:31,2025-03-13 11:28:02,0,203.0.113.92,100,1410,1,2025-03-13 11:28:02,R_1q9bxdfcoy00000,,,,,41.8781,-87.6298,anonymous,EN,Mira Castillo,mira.castillo@example.edu,Coach,GA,Greenleaf Unified,Crescent Cove Elementary School,Magnolia Hall Academy,,03/13/2025,Jenna Bellamy,3,em2,5,2,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,1,Anchor chart was on the wall but not referenced during the lesson.,1,Worksheets stayed at the recall level for the full lesson.,1,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,1,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",1,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,2,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,1,Independent work did not match the cognitive level of the lesson launch.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,mira.castillo@example.edu,Soren Vidal,K,em2,4,2,"Materials were not staged ahead of time, which pulled focus away from the lesson flow.",1,Anchor chart was on the wall but not referenced during the lesson.,2,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,2,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,2,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,2,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,2,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,2,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,Oscar Delaney,K,em2,2,3,Pacing was generally aligned to the curriculum suggested time bands.,3,"Models from the curriculum appeared in the lesson, though student work didn't always reference them.",3,"Questions occasionally pressed for justification, especially during the closing share.",3,Teacher used 'who can build on that?' a few times to chain student responses.,3,Teacher checked a sample of students during work time and adjusted the share-out accordingly.,3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,3,Partner work was structured with a brief protocol; about half the pairs followed it.,3,"Teacher provided an extension for early finishers, used by some students.",Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,Talia Kessler,5,em2,3,1,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,1,Anchor chart was on the wall but not referenced during the lesson.,1,Most questions had a single correct numeric answer with no required reasoning.,1,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,1,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,1,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,2,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,1,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Layer in one new formative check at the lesson midpoint.,Hannah Iverson,5,em2,1,2,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,2,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,3,A few extension problems were available for students who finished early.,4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",3,Some student work was photographed for later review.,3,Teacher paused on one misconception and worked through it briefly with the class.,4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,907124,900001629524,A9000003692,
2025-06-11 09:49:41,2025-06-11 09:14:03,0,203.0.113.92,100,1527,1,2025-06-11 09:14:03,R_52st3f0bjm00000,,,,,41.8781,-87.6298,anonymous,EN,Mira Castillo,mira.castillo@example.edu,Coach,GA,Greenleaf Unified,Crescent Cove Elementary School,Magnolia Hall Academy,,06/11/2025,Wren Saavedra,5,em2ca,4,4,Transitions were tight; the launch set up the application work efficiently.,4,Multiple representations were used in tandem; students chose between models when solving.,2,Worksheets stayed at the recall level for the full lesson.,2,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,4,"Multiple formative checks - whiteboard responses, choral counts, partner shares - were embedded.",3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,2,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,3,"Teacher provided an extension for early finishers, used by some students.",Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,mira.castillo@example.edu,Fiona Drummond,1,em2ca,1,4,Teacher used a visible agenda that helped students self-monitor pacing.,2,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,4,Teacher held the rigor of the curriculum task without funneling students to a single method.,2,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,4,Teacher named which students they hadn't heard from yet and pulled them into the conversation.,2,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,2,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Use the next observation to focus on cognitive demand of student tasks.,Isaac Quintero,4,em2,1,2,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",2,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,2,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,2,A small group of students answered most questions while others were quiet.,2,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",2,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,2,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,2,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,907261,900001660861,A9000003763,
2025-04-19 11:06:38,2025-04-19 11:23:41,0,203.0.113.92,100,1029,1,2025-04-19 11:23:41,R_1n8fulmkxv00000,,,,,41.8781,-87.6298,anonymous,EN,Mira Castillo,mira.castillo@example.edu,Coach,GA,Greenleaf Unified,Crescent Cove Elementary School,Magnolia Hall Academy,,04/19/2025,Talia Kessler,4,em2ca,1,1,Lesson skipped the planned launch activity and went straight into independent work.,1,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,1,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,1,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,1,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,1,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,1,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,1,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,mira.castillo@example.edu,Aiden Cabrera,1,em2,2,4,Teacher used a visible agenda that helped students self-monitor pacing.,4,Anchor charts were referenced repeatedly and updated live during the lesson.,4,Teacher held the rigor of the curriculum task without funneling students to a single method.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,4,Teacher named which students they hadn't heard from yet and pulled them into the conversation.,4,"Feedback was specific, strategy-focused, and timed to keep students productively struggling.",4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Layer in one new formative check at the lesson midpoint.,Amari Salgado,2,em2,3,2,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",4,Teacher modeled the precise mathematical language the curriculum specifies.,2,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,4,Teacher acted as a facilitator while students drove the mathematical discussion.,1,Exit ticket was given but not reviewed during the lesson.,4,"Feedback was specific, strategy-focused, and timed to keep students productively struggling.",2,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Layer in one new formative check at the lesson midpoint.,Della Markham,2,em2ca,1,1,"Materials were not staged ahead of time, which pulled focus away from the lesson flow.",1,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,1,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,1,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,1,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,1,"Feedback was mostly evaluative ('good', 'not quite') rather than specific.",1,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,1,Several students were off-task during independent work and were not redirected.,Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,Darius Pemberton,1,em2,6,3,Teacher followed the lesson sequence with light improvisation during application.,3,Teacher pulled one signature routine into the lesson and ran it with fidelity.,4,Closing questions pressed students to generalize beyond the specific numbers in the task.,3,Sentence stems were posted; about half the students used them.,3,A quick fist-to-five check happened at the midpoint of the lesson.,4,Probing questions consistently preceded any direct correction.,3,Partner work was structured with a brief protocol; about half the pairs followed it.,3,Independent task was aligned to the lesson objective; engagement was steady.,Layer in one new formative check at the lesson midpoint.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,907398,900001692198,A9000003834,
2025-02-23 14:08:59,2025-02-23 14:44:23,0,192.0.2.198,100,2211,1,2025-02-23 14:44:23,R_1782ji179s00000,,,,,39.7392,-104.9903,anonymous,EN,Naveen Singh,naveen.singh@example.edu,Instructional Specialist,MN,Brookhaven District,Quartz Creek Elementary School,,,02/23/2025,Mateo Aguilar,2,em2ca,1,4,Every lesson component was facilitated with intention and clear time boundaries.,4,Teacher modeled the precise mathematical language the curriculum specifies.,2,Worksheets stayed at the recall level for the full lesson.,2,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,4,Evidence collected during work time directly shaped the closing discussion.,3,Individual conferring during work time addressed two or three students' approaches.,2,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,4,Independent work showed clear evidence of the strategies developed earlier in the lesson.,Pull a small group during work time to gather more diagnostic evidence.,naveen.singh@example.edu,Gabriel Ortiz-Reilly,K,em2ca,6,1,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,4,Multiple representations were used in tandem; students chose between models when solving.,1,Higher-rigor problems in the curriculum were skipped.,4,"Students consistently restated, agreed with, or pushed back on one another's reasoning.",2,"Only one or two students were called on to share, limiting the evidence base.",4,"Feedback was specific, strategy-focused, and timed to keep students productively struggling.",1,Materials were shared but conversation between partners was minimal.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Plan a coaching cycle focused on closing-component facilitation.,Camille Voss,2,em2,6,4,Every lesson component was facilitated with intention and clear time boundaries.,4,Anchor charts were referenced repeatedly and updated live during the lesson.,2,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,1,Wait time was very short; teacher typically filled in the answer.,4,Teacher captured specific evidence on a clipboard and used it to sequence student shares.,3,Some feedback pointed to specific strategy choices; some stayed at the praise level.,2,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,3,Independent task was aligned to the lesson objective; engagement was steady.,Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,907535,900001723535,,
2025-02-13 08:26:02,2025-02-13 08:54:48,0,192.0.2.198,100,1686,1,2025-02-13 08:54:48,R_75hioih5du00000,,,,,39.7392,-104.9903,anonymous,EN,Naveen Singh,naveen.singh@example.edu,Instructional Specialist,MN,Brookhaven District,Quartz Creek Elementary School,,,02/13/2025,Amari Salgado,5,em2,3,2,"Materials were not staged ahead of time, which pulled focus away from the lesson flow.",4,Curriculum-aligned routines anchored the lesson - choral counting and a number talk both appeared.,1,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,4,Sentence stems were used naturally; discourse felt routine rather than performed.,1,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,4,Probing questions consistently preceded any direct correction.,2,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Layer in one new formative check at the lesson midpoint.,naveen.singh@example.edu,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,907672,900001754872,,
2025-03-07 11:05:48,2025-03-07 11:31:07,0,192.0.2.198,100,1589,1,2025-03-07 11:31:07,R_7pojrsmj6200000,,,,,39.7392,-104.9903,anonymous,EN,Naveen Singh,naveen.singh@example.edu,Instructional Specialist,MN,Brookhaven District,Quartz Creek Elementary School,,,03/07/2025,Umberto Barnett,1,em2ca,6,4,Teacher used a visible agenda that helped students self-monitor pacing.,4,Curriculum-aligned routines anchored the lesson - choral counting and a number talk both appeared.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,4,"Multiple talk moves - revoicing, pressing for reasoning, adding on - were visible in every transition.",4,Teacher captured specific evidence on a clipboard and used it to sequence student shares.,4,"Feedback was specific, strategy-focused, and timed to keep students productively struggling.",4,Partner work was structured with clear roles and accountable talk stems.,4,Students were visibly invested - working through tough problems without quitting.,Layer in one new formative check at the lesson midpoint.,naveen.singh@example.edu,Yusuf Pritchard,3,em2,2,3,"Most components were facilitated as designed, though the closing was abbreviated.",3,Teacher pulled one signature routine into the lesson and ran it with fidelity.,3,"Cognitive demand was uneven across the lesson - high during launch, lower during practice.",3,Discussion was structured but uneven across the room.,3,Teacher checked a sample of students during work time and adjusted the share-out accordingly.,3,Feedback shifted from evaluation to questioning during the second half of the lesson.,3,Some groups produced shared work while others split the task.,3,"Teacher provided an extension for early finishers, used by some students.",Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,Zara Hollister,5,em2,1,4,Every lesson component was facilitated with intention and clear time boundaries.,2,Anchor chart was on the wall but not referenced during the lesson.,4,Closing questions pressed students to generalize beyond the specific numbers in the task.,2,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,4,Teacher captured specific evidence on a clipboard and used it to sequence student shares.,2,Errors were corrected immediately by the teacher rather than surfaced for the class.,4,Group protocols were embedded in routines; transitions in and out of pairs were efficient.,2,Students who finished early had no clear next step.,Pull a small group during work time to gather more diagnostic evidence.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,907809,900001786209,,
2025-05-19 14:35:04,2025-05-19 14:03:51,0,198.51.100.144,100,1732,1,2025-05-19 14:03:51,R_5i42q4o2u500000,,,,,32.7767,-96.7970,anonymous,EN,Olivia Brennan,olivia.brennan@example.edu,Assistant Principal,MN,Brookhaven District,Lantern Hill Elementary School,Linden Academy,,05/19/2025,Talia Kessler,1,em2ca,1,1,Pacing left limited time for the closing component; students did not get to a debrief.,1,Lesson leaned on direct telling; few of the curriculum's signature routines were visible.,1,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,1,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,1,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,1,No follow-up was visible after a student misconception was noted.,2,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,1,Work time was short and many students did not produce a written response.,Revisit the curriculum's signature routines in next week's PLC.,olivia.brennan@example.edu,Mateo Aguilar,4,em2,3,4,Closing component drew explicit connections back to the lesson objective.,4,Curriculum-aligned routines anchored the lesson - choral counting and a number talk both appeared.,2,Worksheets stayed at the recall level for the full lesson.,2,A small group of students answered most questions while others were quiet.,3,A quick fist-to-five check happened at the midpoint of the lesson.,3,Teacher paused on one misconception and worked through it briefly with the class.,2,Collaboration time was short and ended before most pairs were finished.,3,"Most students worked independently for the full block, with a few needing redirection.",Pull a small group during work time to gather more diagnostic evidence.,Oscar Delaney,2,em2,4,3,Transitions between components were visible but a bit long; students stayed mostly on task.,3,Visual models were referenced briefly during the share-out.,3,"Some tasks asked students to choose a strategy, though most were single-step.",3,Sentence stems were posted; about half the students used them.,3,"Teacher tracked who shared, ensuring a broader sample over the lesson.",3,Feedback shifted from evaluation to questioning during the second half of the lesson.,3,Teacher modeled what a strong collaboration looked like before releasing students.,3,Independent task was aligned to the lesson objective; engagement was steady.,Pull a small group during work time to gather more diagnostic evidence.,Xavier Boone,K,em2ca,2,3,Transitions between components were visible but a bit long; students stayed mostly on task.,3,Visual models were referenced briefly during the share-out.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,3,Discussion was structured but uneven across the room.,3,"Teacher tracked who shared, ensuring a broader sample over the lesson.",4,Probing questions consistently preceded any direct correction.,2,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,3,"Quiet, focused work happened for the bulk of the independent block.",Pull a small group during work time to gather more diagnostic evidence.,Jenna Bellamy,4,em2,4,1,"Components ran together without clear transitions between fluency, application, and concept development.",1,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,1,Worksheets stayed at the recall level for the full lesson.,1,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,1,Teacher circulated briefly but did not record observations of student thinking.,1,"Feedback was mostly evaluative ('good', 'not quite') rather than specific.",2,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,1,Work time was short and many students did not produce a written response.,Continue building out student-led discourse routines; consider a sentence-stem refresh.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,907946,900001817546,A9000004118,
2025-04-25 11:40:45,2025-04-25 11:19:17,0,198.51.100.144,100,2358,1,2025-04-25 11:19:17,R_8yg2mbsvtl00000,,,,,32.7767,-96.7970,anonymous,EN,Olivia Brennan,olivia.brennan@example.edu,Assistant Principal,MN,Brookhaven District,Lantern Hill Elementary School,Linden Academy,,04/25/2025,Esme Larkin,2,em2,5,3,Teacher followed the lesson sequence with light improvisation during application.,2,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,3,A few extension problems were available for students who finished early.,3,Discussion was structured but uneven across the room.,3,"Teacher tracked who shared, ensuring a broader sample over the lesson.",3,Teacher paused on one misconception and worked through it briefly with the class.,3,Partner work was structured with a brief protocol; about half the pairs followed it.,3,Independent task was aligned to the lesson objective; engagement was steady.,Use the next observation to focus on cognitive demand of student tasks.,olivia.brennan@example.edu,Nora Whitman,4,em2ca,5,3,"Most components were facilitated as designed, though the closing was abbreviated.",3,Teacher pulled one signature routine into the lesson and ran it with fidelity.,4,Open-ended prompts produced multiple valid solution paths in student work.,3,Sentence stems were posted; about half the students used them.,3,"Teacher tracked who shared, ensuring a broader sample over the lesson.",4,Written and verbal feedback both pointed students toward a clear next move.,2,Partner work was assigned but most students worked individually next to each other.,3,"Quiet, focused work happened for the bulk of the independent block.",Try a low-stakes student-led share at the close.,Penny McAllister,5,em2ca,5,4,Closing component drew explicit connections back to the lesson objective.,2,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,4,Teacher held the rigor of the curriculum task without funneling students to a single method.,2,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,4,Teacher captured specific evidence on a clipboard and used it to sequence student shares.,2,"Feedback was mostly evaluative ('good', 'not quite') rather than specific.",4,Students naturally compared strategies and revised their own work after listening to a peer.,2,Work time was short and many students did not produce a written response.,Co-plan the next module's launch lesson to tighten transitions.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,908083,900001848883,A9000004189,
2025-02-13 10:47:02,2025-02-13 10:10:40,0,198.51.100.144,100,1436,1,2025-02-13 10:10:40,R_6nwxlenaag00000,,,,,32.7767,-96.7970,anonymous,EN,Olivia Brennan,olivia.brennan@example.edu,Assistant Principal,MN,Brookhaven District,Lantern Hill Elementary School,Linden Academy,,02/13/2025,Zara Hollister,K,em2,1,4,Closing component drew explicit connections back to the lesson objective.,2,Number line / array model from the curriculum was not used during the discussion.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,2,Discussion was mostly teacher-to-student; few student-to-student exchanges happened.,4,Evidence collected during work time directly shaped the closing discussion.,2,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,4,Teacher visibly redirected groups using collaborative norms rather than reasserting control.,2,Work time was short and many students did not produce a written response.,Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,olivia.brennan@example.edu,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,908220,900001880220,A9000004260,
2025-08-21 13:18:02,2025-08-21 13:49:56,0,198.51.100.144,100,1898,1,2025-08-21 13:49:56,R_5chy7gj5b300000,,,,,32.7767,-96.7970,anonymous,EN,Olivia Brennan,olivia.brennan@example.edu,Assistant Principal,MN,Brookhaven District,Lantern Hill Elementary School,Linden Academy,,08/21/2025,Kai Sorensen,1,em2,5,4,Every lesson component was facilitated with intention and clear time boundaries.,4,Teacher modeled the precise mathematical language the curriculum specifies.,4,Tasks required students to compare strategies and defend their choices.,4,"Multiple talk moves - revoicing, pressing for reasoning, adding on - were visible in every transition.",4,"Multiple formative checks - whiteboard responses, choral counts, partner shares - were embedded.",4,Written and verbal feedback both pointed students toward a clear next move.,4,Students naturally compared strategies and revised their own work after listening to a peer.,4,"Students self-monitored, checked their work, and revised before submitting.",Plan for one targeted extension problem for early finishers.,olivia.brennan@example.edu,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,908357,900001911557,A9000004331,
2025-09-24 14:46:50,2025-09-24 14:22:55,0,198.51.100.144,100,2198,1,2025-09-24 14:22:55,R_2sqib139yt00000,,,,,32.7767,-96.7970,anonymous,EN,Olivia Brennan,olivia.brennan@example.edu,Assistant Principal,MN,Brookhaven District,Lantern Hill Elementary School,Linden Academy,,09/24/2025,Talia Kessler,K,em2ca,2,1,"Materials were not staged ahead of time, which pulled focus away from the lesson flow.",1,Manipulatives were available but not introduced into the work.,1,Tasks were procedural; students replicated a worked example with little decision-making.,1,Talk moves like restating or adding on were not prompted.,1,No formative check happened between the launch and the independent work.,1,Students who struggled were given the answer without a probing question first.,1,Group roles were not assigned; one student typically did the work for the pair.,1,Work time was short and many students did not produce a written response.,Try a paired observation focused specifically on accountable talk.,olivia.brennan@example.edu,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,908494,900001942894,A9000004402,