In the international schools here in Shanghai, "collaboration" isn't just a practice; it’s a mantra. We’re told that sharing resources and co-planning units is the key to efficiency and consistency. But if you’ve ever spent an hour in a windowless meeting room debating the font size on a shared worksheet, you know that "collaboration" is often just a polite word for professional friction.
The Broad Debate
The school leadership view is that two teachers planning together produce better resources than one. It ensures that students in Class A get the same experience as students in Class B. It’s supposed to save time.
The counter-view, usually whispered in the staffroom, is that collaboration often feels like an attack on professional autonomy. Teachers have different styles, different backgrounds, and different ways of explaining things. Forcing them to use the same slide deck can feel like forcing two different artists to paint the same picture using only one brush.
What the Thinkers Say
School leaders often speak about collaboration as a purely structural win. They see it through the lens of management—if we just put everyone in a room together and give them a shared Google Drive, "synergy" will happen.
It’s an outlook that reminds me of the "polite bubble" Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell sometimes inhabit. They assume that if everyone is reasonable and follows a good process, the outcome will be positive. My time in London local government taught me otherwise: committees are where creativity goes to die. In a council meeting, you can lose three weeks to a debate over a comma; in a school, you lose the energy you needed for the actual lesson. Rory and Alastair advocate for "consensus-building," but consensus is often just a watered-down version of the truth.
My View
My view is that collaboration is vital, but we’re doing it the wrong way. We’ve turned it into a series of extra meetings rather than a shared industrial strategy. It only works if you agree on the outcomes (what the kids need to know) but leave the methods (how you teach it) to the individual teacher. We need to stop trying to standardise the person and start standardising the product. Truth and kindness in teaching mean respecting a colleague's unique style while ensuring the students still get the best possible deal.
Why it Goes Wrong
The Ownership Problem
Teachers invest themselves in their work. When a colleague "edits" your PowerPoint, it doesn't feel like a resource update; it feels like a critique of your thinking. If there's no clear hierarchy for who makes the final call, the most assertive personality wins, and the other person just checks out. It’s the same "Realpolitik" I saw in local government: without clear ownership, responsibility vanishes.
Training Mismatches
In a typical department, you might have a teacher trained in the UK, one from the US, and one from a local system. They have completely different instincts about differentiation or classroom management. Following a "moderate" path often just leaves everyone equally dissatisfied.
What Happens Next?
If you want collaboration that actually works, we should try a "Low-Friction" approach:
- Shared Outcomes, Flexible Delivery: Agree on the assessment and the key learning points. Then, let each teacher go and teach it their own way. Don't force shared PowerPoints.
- Asynchronous Sharing: Use a shared drive where people can upload resources if they want to. If Teacher B likes Teacher A’s work, they can use it. If not, they don’t have to.
- The "48-Hour Rule": If a team needs to make a decision, one person proposes it. If no one objects within 48 hours, it's the plan. No more circular meetings.
For teachers: Your autonomy is your greatest asset, but don't let it become a silo. Real collaboration isn't about agreeing on everything; it's about making sure the students aren't the ones paying the price for our disagreements.