Collaborative planning is not the same as shared planning

And confusing the two is costing schools more than they realise.

Over the past few years, one message has come through consistently from educators. They want support, guidance and clarity around planning. Not more documents. Not more resources. Clarity.

They want time together.
Time to talk.
Time to think.
Time to use their professional judgement alongside others who understand their context.

That is collaborative planning.

What collaborative planning actually looks like

True collaborative planning is dynamic and relational. It is not about splitting tasks. It is about building shared understanding.

Collaborative planning gives teams time to:

• discuss and debate unit intent and direction

• review curriculum alignment and assessment design

• moderate expectations and standards

• explore strategies together

• ask, what will best meet the needs of our students

It values professional discernment.
It builds collective clarity.
It strengthens confidence.

Most importantly, it supports educator wellbeing by reducing uncertainty and isolation.

What often happens instead

In many schools, planning time looks very different.

A meeting begins with questions like:
Who is doing Maths?
Who is doing English?
Who is writing Term 1? Term 2?

Tasks are divided.
People leave.

One person goes away and writes a unit plan alone. Often at home. Often after hours. Often without clear guidance or shared decision making.

The plan is uploaded to a shared drive.
The rest of the team downloads it.
They adapt what they can.
They default to what they have always done.
They make it work.

This is not collaboration.

This is divide and conquer planning.
This is shared planning.

Why shared planning quietly erodes wellbeing

Shared planning does not build capacity.
It does not strengthen professional judgement.
It does not create clarity or confidence.

It does not allow teams to pause and ask, is this actually the best approach for our students?

Over time, shared planning in isolation chips away at:

• role clarity

• engagement

• professional confidence

• autonomy

• connection

• productivity

• a shared understanding of what a good job looks like

And when those foundations erode, wellbeing follows.

Collaboration is not a nice to have

Somewhere along the way, we started calling shared planning collaboration.

It is not.

If schools want to genuinely support teacher wellbeing, collaboration is not optional. It is a non negotiable.

Collaboration supports educators to meet the demands of their role with clarity and confidence. It reduces cognitive overload. It strengthens collective efficacy. It creates alignment instead of fragmentation.

This is not about doing more.
It is about doing the work differently.

So what does this mean in practice?

The first step is developing a shared understanding of what collaboration actually means in your context.

Before any divide and conquer planning occurs, teams need time to:

• align on purpose and intent

• clarify expectations

• agree on standards and priorities

• build shared understanding

Only then does shared planning have a place.
Only then does it support, rather than undermine, wellbeing.

A final thought

Collaborative planning is not a timetable issue.
It is a wellbeing strategy.

When educators are given time to think together, decide together and build clarity together, wellbeing becomes a natural outcome, not another item on the list.