SoTrust is often described as the glue that holds school communities together. Yet, there’s a common misconception that trust must exist before collaborative problem-solving can begin. Learning science tells us otherwise: trust emerges through the joint work of solving complex educational challenges together (Bryk & Schneider, 2002).

Relational Trust in PLCs

Relational trust, as conceptualized by Bryk and Schneider (2002), is a foundational element that supports meaningful collaboration and sustained school improvement. It consists of four key components: mutual respect, personal regard, competence in core responsibilities, and integrity.

Mutual Respect refers to recognizing the inherent value and strengths that each member of the school community brings to the table. It means listening actively to diverse perspectives and acknowledging others’ contributions.

Personal Regard involves genuine care for the well-being of others. This is demonstrated through empathy, kindness, and a willingness to support colleagues—not only professionally but also on a human level.

Competence in Core Responsibilities focuses on each individual’s ability to consistently fulfill their professional duties. Trust grows when individuals can rely on each other to follow through, deliver quality work, and uphold the standards of their roles.

Integrity reflects alignment between words and actions. It involves honesty, ethical behavior, and maintaining commitments, especially when doing so may be challenging.

Relational trust is not static—it is developed and deepened through ongoing interactions and shared experiences. The tone of daily conversations, the actions taken under pressure, and the collective commitment to student success all contribute to strengthening or eroding trust in a school environment. High levels of relational trust create a safe space for vulnerability, risk-taking, and constructive dialogue, which are essential conditions for effective collaboration and systemic change.

Relational Trust Self-Assessment

This short reflection tool is designed to help educator teams assess and monitor their level of relational trust across the four key components. Use the prompts below for discussion or anonymous feedback. Consider using a scale of 1 (not evident) to 5 (consistently evident).

1. Mutual Respect

  • Do team members actively listen to each other and acknowledge diverse viewpoints?
  • Is everyone’s perspective considered when decisions are made?
  • Are disagreements handled with professionalism and openness?

2. Personal Regard

  • Do colleagues show empathy and care during moments of stress or challenge?
  • Are people supportive of one another’s well-being, both personally and professionally?
  • Is there a culture of encouragement rather than judgment?

3. Competence in Core Responsibilities

  • Do team members follow through on commitments and contribute meaningfully?
  • Are responsibilities distributed equitably based on skills and expertise?
  • Is there confidence in each team member’s professional capacity?

4. Integrity

  • Do colleagues follow through on what they say they’ll do?
  • Are actions aligned with shared values, especially during difficult times?
  • Is honesty a norm even in challenging conversations?

Reflecting on the patterns that emerge from this self-assessment can provide valuable insights into the health of relational trust within your team. Rather than seeking perfection, the goal is to identify areas of strength to celebrate and areas where intentional growth is needed. By revisiting these elements regularly, teams can build a culture of trust that fuels collaboration, innovation, and a shared commitment to student success.

Teams can:

  • Identify strengths and areas for growth.
  • Set targets for building trust (e.g., “We will work on improving how we handle disagreements.”).
  • Reassess quarterly to track progress and keep relational trust as a central team value.

The Power of Joint Work in Building Trust

Joint work refers to the intentional, collaborative engagement of educators in solving complex, meaningful problems of practice — not simply working side by side, but working interdependently on shared tasks that require coordination, dialogue, and collective decision-making (Coburn & Turner, 2011). Unlike routine collaboration or task division, joint work involves the co-construction of knowledge, the shared ownership of both process and outcomes, and a deep reliance on each other’s expertise, insights, and contributions. It is task-centered, grounded in core instructional goals, and designed to move teaching and learning forward.

Bryk and Schneider (2002) emphasize that relational trust is most powerfully cultivated through joint work, where educators are not merely cooperating, but co-laboring toward a shared purpose. It is in this space — confronting real challenges, exchanging honest feedback, and leveraging diverse strengths — that trust becomes more than a value; it becomes a lived, observable dynamic. Here, educators signal competence, demonstrate reliability, and express care for one another not just through words, but through the work itself.

Building this level of trust doesn’t happen by accident. Educators foster it intentionally through shared commitments and cycles of collaborative inquiry. This includes identifying persistent challenges in student learning, analyzing data and evidence to diagnose root causes, and testing actions aimed at improvement — not alone, but together. Certainly! Below is a continuation of your paragraph that provides specific examples of “puzzles of practice” related to agency—ones that students and educators can solve together. These examples illustrate how the Evidence-Analysis-Action (EAA) protocol can serve as a powerful tool for developing both relational trust and student agency through joint work.

One clear example of this process in practice is Impact Teams’ Evidence-Analysis-Action (EAA) protocol (Bloomberg et al., 2025), which structures joint work around authentic instructional problems in partnership with students. By working shoulder-to-shoulder through the EAA cycle, teams deepen their understanding of student needs, affirm each other’s expertise, and cultivate trust not simply through conversation, but through purposeful, sustained action. When students are included as partners in identifying and addressing learning challenges, trust becomes reciprocal and agency flourishes. Together, educators and students can engage in solving instructional puzzles such as:

How do we know when our reflections on learning are meaningful and actionable?

Examine current student reflection practices (e.g., journals, exit tickets, self-assessment tools). Co-develop criteria for what quality reflection looks like.

Use student work to analyze patterns and determine which approaches most effectively promote metacognition and ownership.

What makes goal-setting effective for different types of learners?

Explore how students currently set learning goals. Analyze samples with students and co-design more personalized, impactful goal-setting templates. Investigate: Are student goals specific, challenging, and tracked over time?

How can we monitor learning progress together more effectively?

Partner with students to examine how they currently track their progress (e.g., learning portfolios, feedback loops, rubrics). Use the EAA protocol to analyze what’s working and what isn’t. Try co-creating monitoring tools or progress check-ins where students take an active role.

What does feedback that fosters agency really look and sound like?

Collect examples of teacher and peer feedback. Convene focus groups or learning labs with students to identify which types of feedback help them reflect, act, and grow—and which fall flat. Use these findings to co-design feedback protocols that promote student voice and agency.

How can we build routines where students regularly co-lead inquiry cycles?

Identify points in the EAA process—like analyzing formative evidence or designing actions—where students can lead. Experiment with “student facilitators” in team meetings or class discussions. Reflect on how this influences engagement, trust, and responsibility for learning.

These puzzles aren’t simply technical issues to fix—they are opportunities for authentic joint work where adults and students co-construct solutions. As students and educators engage in this kind of evidence-informed inquiry together, they shift the culture of learning from compliance to co-agency, and from trust as assumption to trust as outcome.

Here is a practical reflection activity designed to help educator teams deepen their practice of joint work and relational trust. This activity promotes metacognitive awareness and aligns with collaborative inquiry methods, encouraging teams to reflect critically on their interactions and collective problem-solving.

Relational Trust Reflection Activity

This tool isn’t just for team meetings—it can also guide schoolwide conversations about trust, leadership, and culture. Instructional coaches, department chairs, and school leaders can use this reflection to surface patterns, spotlight strengths, and identify areas for targeted support. By embedding this self-assessment into regular PLC check-ins or leadership retreats, trust becomes a shared responsibility and a visible part of continuous improvement.

Purpose: To help educator teams assess the quality of their joint work and identify concrete ways to build stronger relational trust through collaborative problem-solving.

Materials Needed:

  • Large sticky notes or index cards
  • Markers
  • Chart paper

Steps:

1. Silent Individual Reflection (5 minutes)

  • Each team member considers a recent collaborative task where the group engaged in joint work (e.g., co-planning a lesson, analyzing student data, implementing new instructional strategies).
  • On a sticky note, write a brief response to these prompts:
    • What was our shared task?
    • How did we rely on each other’s strengths and expertise?
    • Where did I experience trust growing—or being challenged?

2. Small Group Sharing (10 minutes)

  • In pairs or small groups, share your reflections.
  • Discuss:
    • Which aspects of our process reflected true joint work?
    • Where did we demonstrate mutual dependence and collective accountability?
    • What actions or behaviors built trust? What undermined it?

3. Whole Team Debrief (10 minutes)

  • On chart paper, create two columns: “Strengths” and “Opportunities.”
  • As a team, identify and record:
    • Specific behaviors or moments that strengthened trust and exemplified joint work
    • Areas where relational trust and shared responsibility could be improved

4. Commitment to Action (5 minutes)

  • Each member writes one commitment: What will I do differently to strengthen joint work and trust in our next collaboration?
  • Share commitments aloud or post them publicly in a shared team space.

 

Solving Puzzles of Practice to Forge Bonds

Schools consistently face puzzles of practice—persistent, complex issues impacting student outcomes and educator effectiveness. Addressing these challenges requires deep collaboration, vulnerability, and open communication. The Impact Team Model exemplifies this approach through structured inquiry cycles where educators analyze student evidence, co-create strategies, and refine practices collaboratively, positioning students as active partners (Bloomberg et al., 2025).

Solving puzzles of practice together:

  • Encourages vulnerability through open discussion of challenges.
  • Demonstrates commitment and reliability through consistent collective action.
  • Builds mutual respect by valuing diverse perspectives and expertise.

Viviane Robinson (2011) and Michael Fullan (2001) further emphasize how collaborative inquiry transforms relationships, with trust naturally emerging from collective success.

 

From Collective Effort to Sustainable Trust

Sustainable trust depends on continuous joint work. Trust isn’t static; it’s dynamic, continually reinforced or weakened through daily interactions and collaborative problem-solving (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Schools that embrace collaborative problem-solving foster a resilient culture where trust thrives, enabling meaningful and enduring improvements. Research from Gallimore and Ermeling (2010) reinforces the value of structured inquiry cycles, underscoring how sustained professional growth and trust develop through deliberate and reflective joint work.

 

Trust as an Outcome, Not Just a Prerequisite

Trust is not only a foundation for effective teams—it is a powerful outcome that emerges when educators engage deeply in true collaboration. When we reframe trust as an outcome, not just a prerequisite, we open the door to transformational growth, innovation, and stronger school communities. Through the Impact Team movement, educators are joining forces to make trust a tangible result of shared inquiry, collective problem-solving, and continuous learning.

Let’s move beyond conventional collaboration: as we tackle real challenges and celebrate shared successes, trust grows—and so does our collective capacity to impact students’ lives. Be proactive. Be connected. Make trust your team’s legacy through meaningful joint work with fellow educators who are committed to continuous improvement and deeper relationships.

Join the Impact Team movement and become part of a network dedicated to building trust through evidence-based action and collaborative inquiry.

References:

  • Bloomberg, P. J., Pitchford, B., & Wells, I. (2025). Elevating Collaborative Expertise: Advancing Agency Through the Impact Team Collaborative Inquiry Model. Mimi and Todd Press.
  • Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Coburn, C. E., & Turner, E. (2011). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and future directions. Educational Policy, 25(1), 1–30.
  • Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. Jossey-Bass.
  • Gallimore, R., & Ermeling, B. A. (2010, April 14). Five keys to effective teacher learning teams. Education Week.
  • Robinson, V. (2011). Student-Centered Leadership. Jossey-Bass.