In Collaborative Response, we are always striving to deepen collaboration and ensure our structures serve every educator and student across the school. One powerful way to enhance this work is by intentionally mixing up team members for collaborative team meetings (CTMs).
To understand why mixing up teams works so effectively, it helps to first ground our thinking in two foundational concepts: the four layers of collaborative teams and the key issue process. Every school implementing Collaborative Response operates across four distinct layers of collaborative teams, each serving a specific purpose.
The first layer, collaborative planning, brings together teachers who share common grade levels, divisions, or subject areas to align curriculum, assessments, and instructional practices. The second layer is the collaborative team meeting (CTM), where multi-disciplinary teams gather to celebrate student growth and brainstorm actionable strategies around a shared key issue. The third layer, the school support team, consists of a core team that coordinates school-wide, targeted interventions and specialized supports for students needing assistance beyond Tier 1. Finally, case consults are targeted meetings focused on an individual student with complex needs, bringing together the specific staff and specialists required to support them. Because collaborative planning already satisfies the need for grade-level or subject-specific alignment, the collaborative team meeting does not need to duplicate those same groupings.
Historically, many schools kept CTM groupings restricted to grade partners or departments because conversations were centered on specific students, meaning everyone in the room needed to know the student being discussed. However, when a CTM focuses on a refined key issue, such as strategies for supporting students who struggle with initiating independent tasks, the conversation shifts from a single student to a shared instructional challenge. Suddenly, it no longer matters whether every teacher in the room teaches that particular student. Anyone can contribute a strategy, and every teacher can take those ideas back to their own classroom.
Intentionally mixing up CTM teams opens up a powerful new layer of school-wide connection. At the secondary level, placing humanities, math, science, and elective teachers in the same CTM breaks down departmental silos. Teachers discover innovative strategies and resources created by other departments that can immediately benefit their own classes. At the elementary level, mixing teachers across grades allows educators to leverage insights from colleagues who have previously taught those students, while giving upper-elementary teachers access to foundational literacy or numeracy strategies from primary colleagues.
Schools can also vary their approach depending on the focus. For example, a school might keep division-level groupings for literacy or numeracy CTMs, but mix teams across the entire building when focusing on social-emotional supports or executive functioning key issues. Ultimately, mixing teams elevates overall networking across the building. Conversations in hallways shift naturally toward instructional practice, and relationships flourish among colleagues who might otherwise rarely interact.
When designing mixed CTM teams, school leaders can establish intentional criteria to balance expertise, experience levels, and department representation across each group. Some schools intentionally distribute new staff across groups to ensure access to veteran mentorship, while others use thinking profiles or strengths assessments to assemble diverse perspectives. By separating collaborative planning groupings from collaborative team meetings and maintaining fidelity to the key issue process, schools build a deeply connected adult culture focused on continuous instructional growth.
Please reach out to share your insights, challenges, and triumphs along with your questions, resources, or suggestions related to this topic. Connect with us at or .
