Collaborative/Planning (Step 0): Preparing Teams to Collaborate
1 - Beginning
Are staff members
Staff members are not assigned
organized into PLC teams to collaborative PLC teams.
that will be most effective
for maximizing adult and Staff members are encouraged
student learning?
but not required to work with
grade level or content/coursespecific teams.
2 - In Progress
Staff members are assigned to
PLC teams based upon location
and/or proximity with other
classrooms.
Do staff members have
protected time in the
schedule to collaborate
on a weekly basis
(during school hours)?
Staff members have no protected
time to collaboratively plan with
common grade level or course
specific PLC teams on a weekly
basis.
Do teams understand the
compelling why and
purpose behind their
collaborative work?
Most team members prefer to
work in isolation and have little
awareness of common
instructional strategies, pacing,
or assessments. Team members
do not understand how their
collaborative efforts will impact
teaching and student learning.
Most teams lack protocols for
collaboration/decision-making.
Do teams have explicit
protocols for
collaboration that are
shared and understood?
3 - Developing
Staff members are organized
into meaningful course-specific
or grade level PLC teams.
Teaming structures allow for
discussion around common
grade level standards and the 5
driving questions of
PLCs/collaborative planning.
4 - Developed
Staff members are organized into meaningful
course-specific or grade level PLC teams.
Teaming structures allow for discussion around
common grade level standards and the 5 driving
questions of PLCs/collaborative planning.
Multiple opportunities are also available for other
PLC teaming structures based upon school needs
(e.g., vertical teams, interdisciplinary teams,
electronic teams). Support staff members are
included on teams, as appropriate.
Staff members have protected
time built into the schedule on a
weekly basis to collaborate but
this time is primary used for
vertical conversations or
dissemination of information
(e.g., planning for field trips etc).
Team members primarily meet
to share instructional practices or
resources. There is ambiguity
around the expectations and
purpose of meeting.
Staff members have sufficient
protected time into the schedule
to meet to collaboratively
develop lesson/unit plans on a
weekly basis.
Staff members have sufficient protected time
built into the schedule to collaboratively develop
lesson/unit plans and to engage in deep reflection
about student learning after instruction.
Team members understand that
working together
interdependently towards a
common goal using a
collaborative planning process
will improve teaching practices
and student achievement.
Team members understand that working together
will have an impact on teaching and learning.
Evidence of this is seen through collaborative
planning and instructional delivery, professional
conversations, and student achievement.
Teams have protocols for
collaboration/decision-making.
However, these protocols are
implicit and/or unknown to
others’ outside the team.
Teams have explicit norms and
protocols for decision-making.
However, many teams lack a
protocol for dealing with conflict
and/or when a team member(s)
violates team norms.
Team members consistently
utilize the 5 guiding questions of
PLCs during collaborative
planning.
Teams understand the expected outcomes of their
collaborative work. Teams have explicit roles,
norms, and protocols for working together and
dealing with conflict.
Teams are not content/coursespecific or grade level.
Do teams collaborate on
the “right work” and ask
the “right questions”?
Team members meet to
disseminate information or to
plan for school events (e.g.,
planning for field trips, parent
nights, important dates, etc).
Team members meet to engage
in collaborative planning.
However, the process that is
used is inconsistent and/or does
not follow a specific format (e.g,
the 5 PLC/collaborative planning
questions, template, etc).
Do teams have a
common data source to
use for instructional
decision-making?
Teams have not
selected/developed common
assessments that link to desired
outcomes, and an agreed upon
schedule of administration for
grade level And/Or the PLC
team only uses Benchmark/EOC
assessments.
Teams have selected/developed
at least one common assessment
that link to desired outcomes,
and an agreed schedule of
administration for grade level.
This common assessment occurs
more frequently than
benchmark/ EOC.
Teams have selected/developed
multiple common assessments
that link to unpacked standards
and an agreed schedule of
administration for selected grade
levels.
The school’s prioritized focus areas are
embedded into the collaborative planning
process. The 5 guiding questions of
PLCs/collaborative planning are utilized as the
framework for driving conversations and school
improvement. There is visible evidence of
PLC/collaborative planning work (e.g., scales,
common assessments)
Teams have selected/developed multiple common
assessments that link to unpacked standards and
student expectations for learning for all grade
levels/content areas.
Collaborative Planning Rubric
1 – Beginning
2 - In Progress
3 – Developing
4 - Developed
Question # 1:
What do we want
students to learn?
Participants may discuss
expected outcomes of
unit/chapter/quarter learning
goals in response to assessment
results
Participants analyze end of
unit/chapter/quarter
assessments prior to
administration
Participants discuss end of
unit/chapter/quarter
standards for students prior
to instruction.
Participants identify end of
unit/chapter/quarter learning goals for
students utilizing unpacked standards and
learning scales and ensure that learning goals
match prioritized standards
Question #2:
How will we know if
and when they have
learned it?
Participants analyze common
assessments data after
administration
Participants may modify
instructional practices to
match format of end of
unit/chapter assessments
Participants analyze end of
unit/chapter assessments to
ensure that they match
standards
Participants analyze end of unit/chapter
assessments and are modified to ensure
connections to standards
Question #3:
"How will we design
learning experiences
for our students?"
Participants share ideas about
instructional practices
Participants develop lesson
plans detailing what standards
will be covered, by when, and
discuss some activities that
they will implement
Participants develop weekly
lesson plans to ensure
mastery of standards. These
lesson plans may include
activities for students, and
some instructional strategies
Participants design Unit and weekly lesson
plans to ensure mastery of standards. Lesson
plans include chunks of content and evidence
of intentional planning for desired effects and
CCSS instructional shifts/practices
Participants attempt to ensure
that similar content is covered
and with similar pacing
PLC discussions/learning and
decisions indirectly impact
classroom instruction.
Participants develop common assessment
prompts to measure learning in increasing
rigor according to unit student learning scales
(2.0, 3.0 and 4.0).
Instructional practices (Marzano and CCSS
instructional shifts) are explicitly included in
lesson plans
Classroom instruction reflects PLC
decisions/discussions
Question #4:
How will we respond
when some students
do not learn?
Question #5:
How will we respond
when some students
have already learned?
Participants analyze data, but
do not develop clear action
plans that translate into
different instructional practices
in the classroom
Participants analyze data, and
develop action plans but
implementation
unintentionally varies
significantly across grade
level/department
Student response to
instruction is analyzed and
action plans are developed to
address needs. Action plans
directly impact instruction in
the classroom.
Participants reflect on which instructional
strategies are most likely to impact student
learning and reach the intended desired effect
Student response to instruction is anticipated
while planning
Action plans to support at-risk students and
students in need of enrichment are created
proactively using problem solving. These
students are identified early and are
supported through action plans