Region 7 ESC · Virtual Academies · Entry Survey, August 2026
The single clearest signal in this dataset, and it should reshape how the first weeks of training are spent.
Core teachers rate their content knowledge for the grade levels they are about to teach at an average of 0 out of 6. Seventy-two percent put themselves at a 5 or 6.
The same teachers rate their familiarity with the Bluebonnet materials at an average of 0. Forty-two percent sit at 2.5 or below, and 0 of them rated their ability to locate a specific lesson a flat 1.
That is not a content problem. It is an access and orientation problem, and it is much faster to fix.
Every teacher segment in this survey named the same top priority: increase student engagement. It ranked first among teachers who know the materials cold and first among teachers who have barely opened them.
That makes engagement the safest thing to build training around, and also the least diagnostic. The write-in comments say what the checkbox could not: attendance is inconsistent, lesson pages arrive as blank open-ended space, and the materials were designed for a room, not a screen.
Two very different populations answered this form. Only core math teachers were routed to the substantive questions, so all analysis below is based on that group.
All four items used the same 1 to 6 scale, so they can be read side by side. Bars show how many of the 81 core teachers chose each point. The violet needle marks the mean.
For each teacher, materials familiarity is the average of the two materials items. Subtracting that from content knowledge gives a per-person gap. A positive gap means they know the math better than they know the book.
Pearson correlations across the 81 core teachers. These are descriptive only, not causal, and the sample is small.
The two materials items track each other closely, which is expected. Technology competency is essentially unrelated to everything else. Teachers who cannot find a lesson are not the same people who struggle with their devices.
Any plan for these materials has to fit inside this. The structure is remarkably uniform on time and remarkably varied on caseload.
Expected average synchronous class size. This is the variable that decides which instructional routines are actually usable.
Teachers were asked to select their two highest priorities. Sixty-nine of 81 selected exactly two. Percentages are of the filtered group, so they sum to roughly 200%.
The most common two-item combinations across all 81 core teachers. Pairing tells you which sessions can be taught together.
Six teachers added their own priority instead of, or alongside, a listed option. These are the most useful sentences in the dataset and are reproduced in full.
Cross-tabulating materials familiarity against content knowledge splits the cohort into groups that need genuinely different support. Whole-group PD will underserve at least three of them. Click any cell to see that group's top priorities.
Materials familiarity is the average of the navigate and understand items. Content knowledge is the single self-rating for the grade levels being taught.
One group should not wait for a scheduled session.
0 teachers rate content knowledge at 3 or below and materials familiarity at 2.5 or below. That is roughly one in six of your core teachers, and they are about to open a curriculum they do not know to teach content they are not yet confident in, to a synchronous class that averages 51 to 125 students.
This is a coaching caseload with names attached, not a PD topic. The survey carries email addresses, so the list already exists.
Each finding is tied to the specific numbers behind it. The suggested moves are sequenced for the weeks before and just after launch.