Ratios: Why I Don’t Start with Checking for Understanding

In 2003 I began working for a professional development company. The work resembled what I hear described today by educators like Adam, Tom, Ollie, Craig, and others. Consultants would visit a school, observe classrooms throughout the day, and then deliver professional development focused on common issues they had seen.

The most consistent issue? Teachers were not sufficiently or consistently checking for understanding (C4U).

The Problem Wasn’t Awareness

Teachers had already been told they should be checking for understanding. They knew it was important. Administrators expected to see it. So why wasn’t it happening more frequently or effectively?

As I began working with teachers, I noticed many were using C4U techniques, but their questions lacked real instructional substance. Their explanations were often unclear. Modeling was insufficient. Guided practice was a mess. Cognitive load wasn’t a visible consideration in planning or delivery.

Yet they were still expected to implement C4U strategies pulled from blogs, books, and podcasts—as if doing so in isolation would fix the issue.

The Breakthrough

Over time, I noticed something that changed my approach.

Teachers did know how to check for understanding—at least in non-academic contexts where clarity really mattered. At the end of a class or school day, I would often observe a teacher suddenly become incredibly effective at checking for understanding:

“Class, Monday is our field trip. All permission slips must be turned in tomorrow. When are the permission slips due? Everybody—when are they due? Marie, when are they due? Joel? Turn to the person next to you and tell them. What happens if you don’t turn it in?”

Were they experts in C4U technique? No. But they were using it intuitively and effectively—because the content mattered to them, and they wanted students to really get it.

That told me everything.

They Had the Schema, Not the Application

These teachers weren’t lacking in C4U strategies. They simply didn’t know how to apply their existing schema for checking understanding to academic content.

So I changed my coaching approach. Instead of focusing on the techniques of C4U right away, I helped teachers improve lesson design first. I asked them to:

• Identify what students needed to know at key points in the lesson.

• Design questions that would allow students to demonstrate that knowledge meaningfully.

The Shift That Changed Everything

Once we made that shift, everything improved:

• Instruction became clearer and more purposeful.

• The quality of the questions teachers asked improved.

• Students were more engaged and successful.

• And most importantly, we could talk about increasing ratios (the proportion of students responding correctly) in the context of real content—not just surface-level techniques.

Content Before Technique

Expecting teachers to execute C4U strategies in weak lessons is like asking students to apply skills without understanding the concept. It just doesn’t work.

C4U is powerful, but only when embedded in well-designed instruction. That’s why I don’t start with checking for understanding anymore. I start with content, clarity, and lesson design—because that’s where meaningful learning begins.