Both sides of the line, in your hands.

The sample cycle: “Actionable feedback students use”. Everything below is invented for demonstration; the structure is the real product.

Join notice (aggregate-only): “Your school chose aggregate-only visibility for this cycle: it sees group patterns from five or more teachers and wins you explicitly share — never your name next to participation or inactivity, and never anything you write.”

Join notice (named participation): “Your school chose named participation for this cycle: it can see your name with whether and when you last checked in — never your reflections, your goal in your words, or your coach's replies.”

One check-in: The teacher’s goal is “Make feedback specific enough that students can act on it.” The coach asks: “What did students do with the feedback today?” The teacher writes: “Tried the two-comment cap in third period. A few students actually revised their intros before turning in — first time that's happened. The quieter students still skipped the second read, though.” The coach replies: “Revision before submission is the goal behaving like a habit — worth noticing that it started in third period specifically. For the students who skipped the second read: what would make that first move obvious enough to start without you standing there?” Next move: Next class: keep the two-comment cap; write the first move into the comment itself.

Week three history: Day 15 · Monday: “Skipped the second written round entirely and did one live pass during drafting. Faster, and nobody waited a week to hear back.” (Coach: You've adapted the practice, not abandoned it — worth naming which classes the live pass fits and which still need the written round.) · Day 17 · Wednesday: “Rubric language is the wall. They read 'develop your analysis' and hear 'write more.'” (Coach: That's a criteria problem wearing a feedback costume. What would 'develop' look like in a sentence a ninth-grader would write?) · Day 19 · Friday: “Rewrote two rubric rows with the class. Loud period, but they argued about quality — which is the first time this term.” (Coach: Arguing about quality is students using success criteria. That's the goal working.)

Leader view: 21 invited, 18 activated, 15 active in week 3. In aggregate-only mode no names appear anywhere; in named-participation mode the leader additionally sees each teacher’s name with join status and last check-in date — never any writing. Themes: Trying — Feedback tied to one next action; Adapting — Shorter feedback cycles during class; Needs support — Helping students interpret success criteria (teacher-reported; each theme shown with how many teachers’ entries support it, never fewer than three, within a cohort of at least five).

Day-30 report (illustrative): Willow Creek Middle School, “Actionable feedback students use”, Mon 5 Oct – Tue 3 Nov, aggregate-only. Participation (product activity): Invited 21; Joined (accepted the invitation, saw the privacy notice) 19 of 21 invited (90%); Chose a goal (activated) 18 of 19 joined (95%); Active in week 1 (≥1 check-in) 17 of 18 activated (94%); Active in week 2 17 of 18 activated (94%); Active in week 3 15 of 18 activated (83%); Active in week 4 13 of 18 activated (72%); Completed the Day-30 reflection 13 of 18 activated (72%); Check-ins per active teacher per week (median) 2.7. Themes (teacher-reported): Trying — Feedback tied to one next action, 11 of 18 teachers; Adapting — Shorter feedback cycles during class, 7 of 18 teachers; Needs support — Helping students interpret success criteria, 6 of 18 teachers. Confidence (teacher-reported self-rating): Day 1 3.1 (n = 17); Day 15 3.4 (n = 15); Day 30 3.6 (n = 13). Withheld: Goal revisions: 3 teachers changed their goal during the cycle. Where those revisions went isn’t described here — fewer than five teachers changed a goal, and a direction drawn from that few would point at the individuals who made it. Week-4 check-in rate for the 6th-grade team: withheld — fewer than five eligible teachers. Suggested leadership action (interpretation): Give the “success criteria” stuck point 15 minutes at the 9 Nov staff meeting: ask three volunteers to bring one rubric row they rewrote in student language. Do not call on quiet teachers — participation data is not a list of who to talk to. Next cycle (interpretation): Sustain — single-next-step feedback — most-tried, still rising. Adjust — shorten the written round further where in-class passes worked. Support — co-write student-facing success criteria in departments before the next cycle. If you run a second cycle, keep the focus and change the support, rather than changing the focus. The platform records participation and synthesizes teacher-reported implementation patterns. It does not observe classrooms, score teachers, or claim student-outcome impact. Self-report is not observation, and thirty days is thirty days.