TEAM OPERATING MODEL
Shared outcome
Distributed ownership
Peer review
Common standards
Coordinated execution
Data + adaptation
The challenge
The team met regularly, but planning was still largely individual. Topics were placed on a calendar and teachers prepared independently, which meant disagreements about rigor, expectations and how content should be assessed often surfaced only when a common assessment was being created—sometimes just days before it was administered.
Individual preparation
Parallel work, inconsistent expectations and late discovery of alignment problems.
→
Shared operating model
Visible work, early peer feedback, common quality standards and coordinated delivery.
Start with one unit
I proposed a small experiment rather than a wholesale process change. Each team member took ownership of one portion of the next unit and developed the core deliverable for that segment. During team meetings, we projected each draft, reviewed it together and made changes in real time until the group agreed on the quality criteria, level of challenge and expected outcomes.
Once the work had been collectively reviewed, I standardized the materials into a consistent format. Those shared outputs then became the basis for the team's common measure of performance—moving quality alignment upstream instead of trying to resolve it at the end.
What the system unlocked
The model reduced duplicated effort while increasing consistency. Because the team had agreed on what students should know and do—and was working from common materials—teachers could coordinate more easily, support one another's students and respond to learning needs without first reconstructing another person's plan.
Consistency
Students encountered comparable expectations and pacing across classrooms.
Shared support
Any team member could tutor or intervene because the work was visible and aligned.
Less duplication
Development work was distributed, reviewed once and reused by the full team.
Faster adaptation
Common work and assessment data gave the team a shared basis for adjusting instruction.
Build the conditions for self-organization
As the routines matured, the team increasingly organized its own work. A designated team lead supported agendas and surfaced issues, while members divided development tasks, reviewed one another's work and made day-to-day decisions together. My role shifted toward setting direction, removing barriers and ensuring the team had the resources and decision-making space it needed.
Decentralized access
Team leads received access to shared resources instead of routing routine needs through one person.
Resource visibility
Supply use was tracked long enough to identify real demand and improve purchasing decisions.
Reduced bottlenecks
Routine approvals and access points were pushed closer to the people doing the work.
Trust + accountability
Teams were given autonomy alongside clear expectations for quality and shared responsibility.
Scale the model
The approach spread beyond the original Algebra I team as colleagues carried the routines into other course teams. After the original team became highly effective, my principal asked me to move to the Geometry team specifically because he wanted me to help strengthen that group's collaboration and operating practices.
Learn the new environment
I immediately studied the new standards, sequencing requirements and annual roadmap so I could understand the work well enough to support the team credibly.
Arrive with something to improve
I built the first unit over the summer as a starting prototype, brought it to the team for feedback and modification, and then adapted the operating model with the group over the next two years.
What this demonstrates
Team performance improved not because everyone worked the same way or agreed all the time, but because the system made ownership, expectations, work quality and feedback visible. The model created enough structure for coordination while preserving enough autonomy for the team to solve problems together.
High-performing teams don't require constant agreement. They require clear outcomes, meaningful autonomy, visible work, shared standards, accessible resources, honest feedback and collective responsibility.