How one high school transformed math instruction through assessment literacy and continuous improvement—and what that work taught me about improving under real pressure.
A high school serving a predominantly low-income population was identified for Differentiated Assistance (DA) status by the California Department of Education. The math department was struggling. Standard test prep strategies weren't working. Teachers felt reactive, not empowered. And the pressure was real: either improve, or face deeper CDE intervention.
"Fix math, or we're facing CDE intervention." That's what the principal said. Not a suggestion. A directive. And the stakes were impossible to ignore.
The challenge wasn't a lack of effort. Teachers were working hard. The challenge was that everyone was operating from incomplete understanding. They knew what students needed to learn, but not why those standards were structured the way they were, or how assessment actually measured that understanding.
Rather than layering on test prep or external programs, we rebuilt the system from the ground up using a framework grounded in understanding SBAC architecture itself. This framework was first tested in Madera through custom curriculum development, then refined through six years of high-poverty classroom teaching, then pressure-tested in a DA school.
Bring secondary math teams together. Have them evaluate SBAC assessment literature—not summaries, but the actual blueprints and cognitive complexity frameworks. Ask them: What is the test actually measuring? What does mastery look like at each claim? What should we be teaching to develop this thinking?
Let the teachers build the curriculum from that understanding. Don't hand them a program. Help them see the architecture, then let them design instruction that aligns to it. This is what we did in Madera. It's what we did in Alisal. Those curriculum materials are still in use by other districts.
The difference: Test prep teaches students tricks to pass. Assessment literacy teaches teachers to understand what the test measures, then teach toward that understanding. They lead to very different kinds of learning.
Change took time. Here is what we saw at the school over those years. These describe one school’s experience; every school’s context is different.
Another sign the work mattered came from outside the school.
A Collaborative for Educational Excellence liaison reached out directly to request a meeting. When I asked why they wanted to meet, they said: "Whatever you're doing is working. We need to replicate this across the county."
It was a request to learn from the work, which is the kind of recognition that matters most to me.
Most improvement initiatives focus on adding something new: a curriculum, a test prep program, a PD workshop. This approach removes the guessing. It builds understanding. When teachers understand SBAC architecture, they don't need an external program telling them what to do. They become architects of their own instruction.
This framework was tested in a high-poverty school under CDE pressure. Not in a well-resourced district. Not with ideal conditions. With 180 students per teacher, limited planning time, and the real weight of accountability. Those are the conditions most schools face.
The goal isn't to create a dependency on a consultant. It's to build capacity so deep that the school can continue improving on its own. The system becomes part of how the school operates, not an add-on.
This work shaped the AchieveMetrics approach. Nothing about it is proprietary, and it rests on four ideas:
If you're in DA status, you need more than a consultant who reads about assessment. You need someone who has studied SBAC at the architectural level, taught in high-poverty schools, and worked through real accountability pressure alongside teachers. That’s the experience I bring to your team.
The school in this case study isn't unique. 99% socio-economically disadvantaged students, 95% free lunch, CDE pressure—these aren't anomalies in California. They're the norm for the schools that need help most. Those are the schools this work is for.
See the One-Semester Improvement Cycle → Partnering with county offices →
This case study describes historical mathematics work. Today, AchieveMetrics supports inquiry into both math and science learning through consulting and the Test Bank’s questions, diagnostics, practice plans, class evidence, and PLC improvement cycles. What connections might your team see between student thinking and the conditions for learning?