For the first time in several years, I am not beginning the academic year in a school. Although it is admittedly a little bittersweet not to be planning my first lessons or decorating my classroom right now, I am also enjoying this "reset" and the chance to focus on priorities that are (literally) closer to home. (Adjusting to life outside of academic rhythms has been interesting -- and something I will no doubt share my thoughts on separately at some stage.)
Having the freedom and mental space to reflect is a luxury that we don't often have time for when we're in the thick of it. Lately I've been thinking about some of the many lessons I learned during my time as MYP Coordinator -- particularly about the difference between coordination as a finished product and coordination as an ongoing process.
When I first stepped into the coordinator role, I had a clear vision of what successful curriculum coordination would look like: perfectly aligned units across departments, seamless interdisciplinary connections, assessment practices that spoke to each other in harmonious consistency. I imagined my job was to create these systems once, document them thoroughly, and then maintain them.
I was thinking about coordination all wrong.
Early in my coordination work, I operated from what I now recognise as a "product mindset." I believed that successful coordination meant creating polished, finished systems that would function smoothly with minimal ongoing adjustment. I spent enormous energy developing comprehensive planning documents, detailed assessment frameworks, and elaborate interdisciplinary mapping exercises. The underlying assumption was that if I could just design the right structures, coordination would become automatic. But curriculum coordination isn't a product you complete -- it's a process you facilitate. It's a verb, not a noun.
Curricula evolve constantly. New standards emerge, student populations shift and teachers develop new expertise. Teacher collaboration is dynamic, depending on relationships and shared understandings that develop over time. External pressures -- administrative priorities, budget constraints, staffing changes -- constantly affect how curriculum can be coordinated.
The product mindset treats these realities as problems to be solved once. The process mindset treats them as ongoing conditions that coordination needs to accommodate.
Effective coordination is fundamentally relational, not transactional. It can't be reduced to completed documents or perfectly aligned systems. It requires ongoing relationship-building, trust development and a collective sense of purpose that emerges through sustained collaboration.
Through trial and error, (mostly error) I now see three essential elements for sustainable curriculum coordination:
- Regular rhythms over perfect plans: Sustainable coordination depends more on consistent meeting schedules and established communication patterns than on comprehensive planning documents. Teachers need predictable spaces to connect, collaborate and problem-solve together.
- Flexible frameworks over rigid systems: The most useful coordination tools are adaptable templates rather than detailed requirements. Teachers need structures that support their planning process without dictating their approach. Agency is as important to adults (if not more so) than it is to students.
- Responsive adjustment over static implementation: Effective coordination includes built-in mechanisms for feedback and adaptation. The system needs to expect that changes will be necessary and make those changes manageable rather than disruptive.
As you think about coordination in your own context, consider where you might be operating from a product mindset when a process mindset would serve you better:
- Are you spending more energy perfecting planning documents than establishing regular planning conversations?
- Are you focused on creating comprehensive systems or sustainable practices?
- Are you measuring success by the elegance of your frameworks or by the quality of ongoing teacher collaboration?
The shift from product to process thinking doesn't make coordination easier -- it makes it more realistic and ultimately more effective. It acknowledges that curriculum coordination, like teaching itself, is ongoing work that gets better with practice, reflection and adaptation. When coordination becomes an ongoing process, the coordinator's role shifts from designer to facilitator, from implementer to supporter, from maintainer to responder.
The most important lesson from my coordination experience is that sustainability comes from building capacity for change, not from preventing the need to change.