# Plan one next move together Published 2026-10-13 · Version 1.0 By the ChatwithGPT editorial project. Prepared with AI assistance. Use a focused, non-evaluative 25-minute conversation to improve one small part of an upcoming lesson. For: Instructional coaches · Teachers Suggested time: 25 minutes. Planning estimates, not measured completion times. Published October 13, 2026. Times are suggested planning estimates, not measured completion times. These workflows have not been classroom-tested, and no learning gains or time savings are claimed. Public primary-source guidance informs selected design choices; it does not establish this toolkit’s effectiveness. Process measures help an educator decide whether to keep or revise a workflow. They are not student-outcome measures or teacher-performance scores. ## Before you begin - Use school-approved tools and follow local policy. Keep student work, names, identifiers, photographs, voices, disability information, behavior records, and staff or personnel records out of prompts. Removing a name does not necessarily make a record anonymous. - Use the supplied synthetic inputs when trying a prompt. If you consider a real aggregate later, have an authorized person check that it cannot identify anyone and that the intended tool and use are permitted. Small groups and unusual details can identify people. When unsure, keep the evidence offline and use a fictional pattern. - Teachers decide what to teach and how to respond. Do not use these workflows for automated grading, placement, discipline, eligibility, teacher evaluation, or other consequential decisions. - Do not record lessons or coaching conversations for these workflows. Keep planning notes brief, teacher-owned, and separate from personnel evaluation. Do not score teachers or monitor individual participation. - Treat every AI answer, answer key, citation, and standards claim as an unchecked draft. Verify facts and calculations using sources you can inspect. Standards alignment requires the exact official standard and a teacher review; it is not claimed here. - Use only materials you have permission to share with the tool. A public web page is not permission to upload or reproduce its entire contents. ## Inputs - A teacher-chosen planning question and one small lesson artifact - A teacher-created or fictional description without student or staff records - Agreement on what, if anything, is written down and who keeps it ## Output to keep One teacher-selected change, a brief rehearsal, and an agreed opportunity to reflect on the plan. ## Try the workflow ### 1. Agree on purpose and ownership (3 suggested minutes) The teacher chooses the focus. Agree that this is collaborative planning, not appraisal. Make no audio or video recording. Decide together whether to keep a brief note; the teacher controls any voluntary sharing. ### 2. Look closely at one artifact (5 suggested minutes) Read the task or directions together. Ask what learners need to do and where the directions may make that harder. Discuss the artifact without inferring teacher competence, personality, or student characteristics. ### 3. Compare two small revisions (6 suggested minutes) The coach asks permission before offering an idea. Generate two alternatives together or use the prompt with safe inputs. Discuss what each changes, requires, and leaves unresolved. ### 4. Rehearse the chosen move (6 suggested minutes) The teacher chooses a revision and tries the directions aloud or walks through the task. The colleague describes where the task became clearer and asks one question. Adjust once; no score is assigned. ### 5. Choose a next use and reflection (5 suggested minutes) The teacher decides whether to use the move and what would make it useful. Agree on a voluntary check-in or a private reflection after the lesson. Keep only the chosen change, the unresolved question, and the reflection plan. ## Copy-ready prompt ```text Help two adult educators prepare a non-evaluative planning conversation. Teacher-chosen question: [one question] Safe-to-share artifact description: [original or fictional task] Constraints: [time, materials, general access needs] Suggest two small revisions, with a trade-off for each. Provide three neutral coaching questions, a two-minute rehearsal instruction, and a minimal note template containing only chosen change, unresolved question, and next reflection. Work on the artifact, not on judging a person. Do not score a teacher, infer competence or emotions, process student/personnel records, recommend surveillance, or request a recording. The teacher chooses the focus, the change, and whether to share any note. ``` ## Synthetic worked example Context: A fictional teacher and coach are planning a science discussion. No observation or personnel information is used. Input: Teacher question: “How can my directions make it clearer that an explanation needs evidence?” Draft direction: “Discuss what happened and write a conclusion.” Learners will have a small, teacher-checked table of temperatures from an imaginary cooling task. Example output: - Option A: replace the direction with “State a pattern, cite two values from the table, and explain how they support your statement.” This is concise but assumes learners know how to connect values to a claim. - Option B: briefly model one claim-evidence connection using a different fictional table before learners attempt the task. This provides an example but uses more lesson time. - Neutral questions: “What would a useful response show?” “Which part of the task needs clarification?” “Which option best fits the time you have?” - Rehearsal: the teacher gives the revised directions; the colleague uses them to produce a sample response and identifies any ambiguity in the directions. - Teacher-owned note: chosen change, use the concise direction plus one sentence stem; unresolved question, is “pattern” clear enough?; reflection, after the lesson privately note whether the direction needed a second explanation. Human decision: The teacher selects the revision and may decline both options. The conversation produces no observation rating, teacher score, or evaluation record. ## Teacher-owned checks - Did the teacher choose the focus and agree to the purpose of this conversation? - Are suggestions directed at the artifact and task rather than judgments about people? - Was the selected move rehearsed and checked for subject accuracy? - Is the note minimal and teacher-owned, with no recording, student data, or personnel assessment? - If this meeting is formally evaluative, have we stopped and used the institution’s appropriate process instead? ## Measure this attempt Record actual meeting duration, whether the teacher selected a usable next move, and whether a rehearsal occurred. These are voluntary process notes. Do not combine them into coach or teacher rankings, compliance dashboards, or personnel evidence. ## Repeat deliberately At the next agreed conversation, the teacher decides whether to revisit, revise, or drop the move. Begin with their reflection, then choose one new focus only if useful. Do not turn an optional check-in into monitoring. ## Adapt the method - For a peer pair, alternate who brings a planning question. For a subject team, use one shared, fictional task and avoid naming individual teachers or learners in notes. - Low-prep version: bring only one direction, question, or worked example. No slide deck or observation data is needed. - Optional support: use written rehearsal or task walkthrough if speaking aloud is not useful or accessible. ## Check-and-repeat log Keep this optional log privately, on paper or in an approved teacher-owned file. Record process details only. Do not add names, student work, response-level data, coaching transcripts, recordings, or personnel judgments. A few lines are enough; no submission or score is required. - Date and workflow used: ____________________ - Small planning task and intended output: ____________________ - Actual minutes spent, including checking: ____________________ - What I independently checked and where: ____________________ - One correction or unresolved issue: ____________________ - Decision: keep / revise / drop / hold - One change to try next time: ____________________ - Optional next reflection point: ____________________ ## Public sources and their limits - [Guidance for generative AI in education and research](https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research) — UNESCO Supports: UNESCO emphasizes human agency, data protection, and educational and ethical review of generative AI use. These principles inform the toolkit’s adult-led use and verification boundaries. Limit: Policy guidance does not validate these prompts, certify a particular tool, or establish compliance with local rules. - [Effective Professional Development](https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/effective-professional-development) — Education Endowment Foundation Supports: The guidance addresses deliberate design of professional development and its demands on educators’ time. The linked recommendations discuss practice, feedback, and planning to use a change. Limit: The original 25-minute agenda here is a proposed planning routine, not an evaluated coaching model or a substitute for a professional development program. Published October 13, 2026. Times are suggested planning estimates, not measured completion times. These workflows have not been classroom-tested, and no learning gains or time savings are claimed. Public primary-source guidance informs selected design choices; it does not establish this toolkit’s effectiveness. Process measures help an educator decide whether to keep or revise a workflow. They are not student-outcome measures or teacher-performance scores. Read online: https://chatwithgpt.net/educators/collaborative-planning/ An independent AI field journal. Not affiliated with or endorsed by OpenAI.