The Plan Is Not the Learning

 

Why collaborative planning and responsive teaching need each other

There is a tension in teaching that I keep returning to. We need to plan well. We need coherent curriculum, shared learning intentions, thoughtful assessment, and collaborative decisions about how we will design learning. Yet once students enter the room, the plan cannot become the thing we are trying to protect. The plan is not the learning.

Perhaps a better way to think about it is that the plan is our best shared hypothesis about how learning might happen.

Then teaching begins, and we find out.

Planning matters

This distinction matters because responsive teaching should not be an argument for everyone doing their own thing.

Collaborative planning is fundamental to creating a coherent experience for students. Teams need shared clarity about what students are learning, the conceptual understandings that matter, what successful learning might look like and the experiences likely to help students get there.

Marschall and French's work on Concept-Based Inquiry places this coherence around concepts and transferable understanding at the centre of curriculum design. The intention is not simply that students complete a sequence of activities, but that those experiences deliberately build towards deeper understanding that can transfer beyond the immediate context.

Similarly, Novak's The UDL Shift emphasises proactive design. Learner variability is not an exception that we respond to after planning. We should expect it from the beginning, establishing firm goals while designing flexible ways for learners to reach them.

Planning, then, is not administrative documentation. Done well, it is intellectual work. It is where we create coherence, anticipate barriers, and make deliberate choices together.

But then we have to notice

Black and Wiliam's formative assessment work reminds us that what matters is not simply what we intended students to learn, but the evidence of learning that emerges during teaching. Formative assessment/assessment of learning becomes meaningful when information about student understanding changes what teachers or learners do next. Their Inside the Black Box work positioned this responsive use of evidence as central to classroom practice.

This is where professional autonomy becomes particularly important.

Different classes will not respond identically to the same carefully designed learning experience. One class might need another example case study. Another might be ready to move forward. Some students might need a barrier removed. Others might need us to remove a scaffold because it is now limiting the thinking.

The professional judgement is not necessarily in deciding independently what should be taught. It is often in noticing what is happening to learning and deciding how best to respond while staying connected to the shared intention.

That is a different conception of autonomy.

Design together. Respond responsively. Learn collectively.

Perhaps we need to think about curriculum coherence and teacher autonomy not as opposing forces, but as parts of the same cycle.

Design together.
Agree the intended learning, conceptual direction, success criteria, assessment expectations, and important design decisions.

Respond responsively.
Notice understanding, misconceptions, barriers, readiness, and the effect our teaching is actually having. Adjust questioning, explanation, grouping, pacing, modelling, scaffolding, or challenge accordingly.

Learn collectively.
Bring what we notice back to the team. If one teacher encounters a misconception, it may be particular to that class. If several teachers see it, there may be something in the shared design worth reconsidering.

The unit plan therefore becomes a living professional document rather than something to simply be completed before teaching begins.

Three provocations for teams

When planning, we might ask:

• What must remain connected?
• What do students across our classes have a right to experience and understand?
• What should remain responsive?
• Where do teachers need freedom to adapt in response to the learners in front of them?
• What are we learning from our classrooms?
• What are we noticing that should influence what the team does next?

Perhaps the goal is neither perfect fidelity to a plan nor complete individual autonomy. It is something more demanding: Collective clarity about where we are going, alongside professional responsiveness to what we notice along the way.

The question is not simply, Did we teach what we planned? It is: What did students learn, how do we know, and what should we do next?

References

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment. King's College London.

Marschall, C., & French, R. (2018). Concept-Based Inquiry in Action: Strategies to Promote Transferable Understanding. Corwin.

Novak, K. (2026). The UDL Shift: Designing Inclusive Learning That Works. IMPress.