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.
Two views
School leadership says two teachers planning together produce better resources than one. It ensures 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 feels like an attack on professional autonomy. Teachers have different styles, different backgrounds, different ways of explaining things. Forcing them to use the same slide deck is like forcing two different artists to paint the same picture with one brush.
The management fantasy
School leaders often see collaboration as a purely structural win. Put everyone in a room together, give them a shared Google Drive, and synergy will happen.
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. Consensus sounds nice. But consensus is often just a watered-down version of the truth.
What actually works
Collaboration is vital. But we're doing it wrong. We've turned it into a series of extra meetings rather than a shared strategy.
It only works if you agree on the outcomes — what the kids need to know — but leave the methods to the individual teacher. Stop trying to standardise the person. Start standardising the product. Respect a colleague's unique style while making sure 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. 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 leaves everyone equally dissatisfied.
How to fix it
If you want collaboration that actually works, try a low-friction approach:
Shared outcomes, flexible delivery. Agree on the assessment and the key learning points. Then let each teacher 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 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.
Your autonomy is your greatest asset. 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.