Recently, I’ve had the opportunity to conduct classroom walkthroughs and spend time with school and district leaders in more than half a dozen states. After we walk classrooms together, I often hear the same thing:

“You made this feel so much simpler and more manageable.”

That response sticks with me because observation and feedback cycles shouldn’t feel overwhelming. But for many leaders (and teachers), they do.

Why observation feels so hard

Consider the reality of a typical elementary school. A principal might be responsible for 20 classrooms and at least as many teachers. At the same time, they’re managing operations, supporting families, responding to student needs, and putting out daily fires. Finding time for long, comprehensive observations can feel nearly impossible.

Then there are the tools we give them.

Many teacher evaluation rubrics are incredibly comprehensive and require considerable expertise in content and content pedagogy to use effectively. Take the Danielson Framework, for example. It includes 76 critical attributes across 22 components and 4 domains. To use it effectively, an evaluator must be able to determine whether a teacher’s lesson plans:

• “include a variety of strategies and representations of content appropriate to the discipline,”
• “use a range of pedagogical approaches,” and
• “demonstrate understanding of prerequisite relationships among topics and concepts.”

Or whether planned or adapted instructional strategies are:

• “chosen wisely and explicitly for their suitability to the content” and
• able to “foster high levels of intellectual engagement, skill development, and critical thinking.”

I’ve spent more than two decades working in K–12 education, and I would still struggle to make these determinations consistently and confidently in a brief classroom visit.

So it’s no wonder that many principals—who, statistically, have often been in their role for just 2–4 years—feel overwhelmed.

The result? Observation and feedback too often become tied exclusively to formal evaluation, rather than functioning as a regular, low-stakes part of continuous improvement.

A simpler way to focus

When I go into classrooms, I don’t start with a long rubric. I start with four questions:

1. Are the key components of the HQIM present? (class sets of texts, student workbooks, teacher’s manual, manipulatives, etc.)
2. Is the teacher using the materials as designed? (I don’t have every HQIM memorized, so I never answer this without following along in the teacher’s manual)
3. Who is doing the cognitive lifting—the teacher or the students? And which students?
4. Is the pacing generally on track? (within the lesson, across a unit, and over a year)

These questions are a blunt instrument. They are far less nuanced than something like Danielson or even Instructional Practice Guides (IPGs). But they are remarkably effective.

They help leaders, especially those who are still building content and pedagogical expertise, focus on what matters most:

• the content students are engaging with,
• how students are engaging with it, and
• how well the teacher is facilitating that experience.

And importantly, you can get meaningful answers to these questions in 10–15 minutes.

To be clear: I’m not suggesting anyone should base high-stakes evaluations on a 10-minute observation. But that is enough time to take a pulse and identify one small, meaningful next step that could improve teaching and learning tomorrow.

Making it manageable

Let’s do the math.

If a principal has 20 teachers and spends about 10–15 minutes in each classroom—rounding up to 20 minutes to account for transitions—they can visit two classrooms in about 40 minutes.

That means with just 40 minutes a day, a principal could see all 20 teachers over the course of two weeks. That is a reasonable amount of time, especially given that the quality of teaching and learning is arguably the most important factor for a school’s instructional leader to focus on.

And it creates something powerful: a steady rhythm of low-stakes, high-frequency observation focused on helping teacher make the most of their instructional materials.

From observation to action

Once a leader has seen most or all classrooms in a two-week cycle, patterns start to emerge.

For example, imagine a principal notices that many teachers are spending too long on the number talk portion of their Illustrative Mathematics lessons. These routines are designed to build fluency and number sense in 5–10 minutes. However, the principal notices teachers are often using them to diagnose and reteach unfinished learning. As a result, students rarely get to the on-grade-level core of the lesson.

Now the principal has a clear, actionable focus.

She sends a quick, collegial email:

• naming the trend,
• clarifying the purpose of the math talk routine,
• asking teachers to rehearse it in their next PLC.

She also sets a simple goal for the next two-week cycle: she’ll pop into classrooms specifically looking for how teachers use number talks.

Her feedback system is just as simple:

• A Post-it note with a ✔️ if the teacher used the routine as intended
• A Post-it note with an ✖️ if she didn’t use it as intended

If the principal didn’t happen to catch the math talk part of a lesson? No stress. She’ll use what she does see to inform the next area of focus.

Why this works

This approach works because it is:

• Quick:  It fits into a principal’s actual schedule
• Focused: It prioritizes a small number of high-leverage improvements that draw teachers back to, not away from, their HQIM 
• Non-evaluative: It lowers the stakes for teachers
• Actionable: It leads to immediate, tangible improvement

Most importantly, it creates the conditions for continuous improvement, rather than episodic evaluation. Teachers aren’t waiting months for formal feedback. They’re getting regular signals about what’s working and practical ways to adjust, all connected to the daily instructional materials they’re expected to use. Leaders aren’t trying to master a 76-attribute rubric in every visit. They’re building clarity and consistency around what it means to implement HQIM “with integrity.”

And students? They benefit from faster, more focused improvements in daily instruction.

The bottom line

HQIM-focused observation and feedback cycles don’t have to be overwhelming.

They don’t require perfect expertise or exhaustive rubrics.

They require clarity, consistency, and a willingness to focus on the few things that matter most—again and again.

When we simplify the work, we make it more sustainable for leaders and more impactful for teachers and students.