Across classrooms, educators are asking the same question: how do we better support all students in making sense of mathematics? The need for instruction that is both rigorous and accessible has never been clearer. So we set out to design a workshop grounded in real classroom practice.
Math achievement scores continue to decline. Conversations about instruction are ongoing and often urgent. We knew this couldn’t be just another top down delivery. If our time with educators was going to matter, it had to feel relevant right away. Practical. Actionable. Something teachers could use immediately. Not just inspiration, but tools. Strategies they could try the very next day.
That meant being intentional. Time was limited, so we focused on what we believe has the greatest impact on a student’s math journey: addressing math anxiety, building true conceptual understanding, and exploring depth of knowledge. Surprisingly, depth of knowledge is still less familiar to many educators than you might expect.
We also prioritized discourse. Purposeful questioning. Getting students to think, talk, and make meaning together. We tackled fact fluency, always a challenge, and explored what meaningful differentiation looks like in classrooms with a wide range of learners. And throughout it all, one question kept surfacing: how do we actually do this within the time and resource constraints educators face every day?
That question became our anchor.
It pushed us to design a workshop that was active and grounded in real classroom application. Educators did not just hear about strategies, they experienced them.
And they were eager to engage.
Some of the most meaningful takeaways came from hands-on activities. These were not just abstract ideas, but were experiences teachers could bring back to their classrooms immediately.
One standout moment was the Depth of Knowledge activity. Educators began with a Level 1 task and worked collaboratively to elevate it to Levels 2, 3, and 4. What followed was rich conversation, collaborative problem solving, and real engagement.
A powerful reminder: we emphasize student collaboration all the time, yet educators do not always get the same opportunity to learn and grow together.
Another highlight centered on parallel and open tasks within our differentiation work. Too often, differentiation is interpreted as creating multiple versions of the same lesson, trying to meet every student with a different task. But that approach is not sustainable. Who has time to design ten pathways for a single lesson?
Instead, we explored differentiation through one rich task with multiple entry points which are more manageable and more effective. It allows all learners to engage in meaningful mathematics while keeping expectations high, rather than lowering them for some students.
The feedback reinforced much of what we hoped. Many ideas connected to work educators were already doing, but helped validate and strengthen that thinking, especially the shift toward conceptual understanding and helping students make sense of the why behind the math.
There was also strong appreciation for the small, intentional moves that can make a big difference. Using guiding questions instead of giving answers. Reframing how we respond to student thinking. Adjusting questions within a single task to reach a range of learners.
The conversations about math anxiety stood out, too. They were a reminder of how deeply student identity and confidence shape learning.
At the same time, activities like increasing the depth of knowledge of a task and rethinking fact fluency pushed thinking in new directions.
If there was one thread throughout the day, it was this: we do not need to change everything to make an impact.
Sometimes it’s the small shifts, grounded in the belief that all students are capable and growing as mathematicians, that matter most.