Catherine Castillo, Sr. Implementation Specialist
Claire Neely, Sr. Implementation Specialist
“When teachers reflect on their students’ learning and their practice together, it can demonstrate that teaching challenges are normal, while also providing emotional support to persevere despite the uncertainty that comes with innovation.” – Systems for Instructional Improvement, p. 103
Collaboration is an essential element of ongoing teacher learning. However, with so many competing demands on teachers’ schedules, finding dedicated time for collaboration can be challenging. To help you capitalize on the time you have together, Illustrative Mathematics created the IMplementation Reflection Tool (IRT). With an entire section dedicated to collaborative planning, the IRT outlines practices for working productively with your team, covering everything from establishing team agreements to effective lesson planning.
As mentioned in part 1 of this series, you can use Section B: Collaborative Planning in dynamic ways to identify your successes, pinpoint focus areas, align your work to your professional goals, and reflect on your practice. Begin by collaborating with your team to select an indicator or set of indicators that align with your professional goals and your school’s vision for teaching and learning. Then, use the indicator language and reflection questions to assess your starting point. Once your team has established a shared understanding of your current data, you can effectively monitor your progress along the progression during collaborative planning sessions throughout the school year.
Let’s look at how educators from Buena Vista High School use Section B of the IRT to enhance their collaboration.
Setting the Stage for Collaborative Work
Math educators at Buena Vista High School committed to engaging in collaborative work by meeting weekly to discuss teaching and learning. The principal built time into their schedules accordingly. Since the team had not previously had regularly scheduled time for collaboration, they chose to start with indicator B1.1, Team Agreements. The teachers spent the first few minutes of the meeting individually assessing the team’s position on the progression and then discussed their placements.
Team members agreed that they were at the Organizing stage. Members shared that they chose this placement based on the fact that, while the team technically had agreements, they were adopted from district meetings rather than intentionally created by the team. They decided their first step would be to generate new team agreements that would support their collaboration, applying the lenses of safety and belonging from the indicator when crafting them. They began creating the new team agreements during their first meeting and set a goal of referencing them in each subsequent meeting.
The team then used the Developing stage as a guide for their next steps so that they would have adequate time to adjust and try the new agreements during their designated collaborative time. Their intended outcome was to foster an environment where each team member’s ideas were shared and valued. At the end of the quarter, the team planned to reassess their placement within the progression and establish new goals.
Many teams find that achieving these shifts takes time and that even after several months, they may not have progressed to the next stage. If that’s the case for your team, consider dedicating more time to the same goal and exploring a new approach. For example, with indicator B1.1, teams could make great progress in inclusive collaboration, but they might decide to focus specifically on productive collaboration in future meetings.
Collaborative Planning
Prior to adopting IM Certified® Math, the third-grade teachers at Ocean View Elementary had been meeting weekly to plan in grade-level teams. The school was using a direct instruction model for mathematics, and the time spent in teams often involved discussing the standards for the upcoming unit. Meetings were spent dividing-and-conquering responsibilities for each unit—one teacher would print all the student materials for lessons, another would create answer keys to practice problems, and a third would develop a summative assessment. Having used the same curriculum for years, the teachers felt that they knew what they needed to teach and intellectually prepared for lessons individually.
The teachers realized that moving to IM’s problem-based instructional model would be a shift for their students. They also knew that they would need more support from their colleagues as they learned the new curriculum and planned for instruction. To support their implementation, the teachers turned to Section B of the IRT for guidance. Emphasizing collaborative unit and lesson planning, the team selected indicators from B2: Unit Planning and B3: Lesson Planning.
In planning for their first team meeting, they used indicator B2.1, Planning with Course and Unit Materials, to set the agenda. Since this was their first year teaching with IM Certified Math, they used the Organizing column as a starting place for their conversations. They accessed the third-grade course guide and allocated time during the meeting to read the unit narratives for each unit to gain a clearer understanding of the learning progression throughout the year. They then read the section narratives for the first unit and discussed the central concept together.
To prepare for individual lesson planning, the teachers next looked at indicator B3.1, Lesson Materials, which gave them a shared understanding of how to approach lesson preparation. They decided to use the reflection questions provided with the indicator as a springboard for discussion at their next meeting.
Conclusion
There are many ways in which teams use Section B of the IMplementation Reflection Tool. The way you choose to use it will depend on your district, school, and team goals. As you use the IRT to guide your implementation, remember that the indicators are not designed to be quick checkboxes that you quickly move through—they provide a framework from which to learn and grow together over time.
Next Steps
- Access the IRT and use the reflection questions with your team to guide your conversations toward actionable, impactful next steps.
- Subscribe to the IM Blog to receive updates on upcoming installments in our implementation series.
- Connect with your IM Certified® partner to ask about our new IRT professional learning offerings.
- Share your implementation story or insight with us here—we’d love to hear from you!
Cobb, P., Jackson, K., Henrick, E., & Smith, T. M. (2018). Systems for Instructional Improvement: Creating Coherence from the Classroom to the District Office. Harvard Education Press.
Catherine Castillo
Sr. Implementation Specialist
Catherine Castillo (she/her) has spent her career supporting students and educators as a teacher, instructional math coach, math recovery intervention specialist, and district math coordinator. Catherine now serves as a senior specialist on the Implementation Portfolio team where she creates resources that support coaches and instructional leaders with IM implementation. Catherine is passionate about cultivating positive math identities in students and teachers and supporting the implementation of problem-based teaching and learning.
Claire Neely
Sr. Implementation Specialist
Claire Neely (she/her) received an MS in educational studies with a specialization in mathematics from Johns Hopkins University. Claire has spent her career in education teaching and coaching mathematics in schools of all kinds: Title I, charter, language immersion, traditional public, Montessori, K–8, middle, and high schools. After transitioning out of schools and into professional learning, Claire now serves as a senior specialist on the Implementation Portfolio team creating resources that support math coaches, curriculum specialists, and administrators with IM implementation.
