A history teacher and a biology teacher decide they want to build a joint unit on the history of epidemics, half the standards academic history, half public health science. It's a great idea in a planning meeting. Then someone has to actually reconcile two sets of standards, two grading systems, two different unit lengths, and a shared calendar that has to work for both classes at once. This is where most interdisciplinary ideas quietly die.
Start with the overlap, not the whole curriculum
The instinct is to try to merge entire units. Don't. Find the smallest genuine overlap between what both classes are already covering or about to cover, and build the joint piece only there. If biology is already doing a unit on disease transmission and history is doing 20th century world events, the overlap might only be three or four class periods' worth of real content, not a month-long mega-unit. That's fine. A tight, well-built joint unit beats a sprawling one that both teachers privately resent by week two.
Reconcile standards before you plan a single activity
This is the step people skip because it's the least fun part, and it's the reason joint units fall apart mid-year. Before planning any lesson:
- List the specific standards each class needs to hit during the shared window, separately.
- Identify which standards can genuinely be assessed through the same shared activity or product, and which ones still need a subject-specific piece even during the joint unit.
- Agree on who grades what. A shared project can still have a history-specific rubric and a science-specific rubric scoring the same student work from two angles.
A simple structure that actually survives two schedules
1. Shared launch: one joint session that frames the question both classes are exploring, taught together if schedules allow, or via a shared video/reading if they don't.
2. Parallel work: each class does its own subject-specific work for most of the unit, on its own timeline, no forced synchronization.
3. Shared culmination: one final product or presentation that draws on both classes' work, assessed with both subject-specific rubrics.
This keeps each teacher in control of their own pacing for 80% of the unit, while still delivering something that genuinely feels interdisciplinary at the start and end.
Where AI actually saves real planning time
The tedious part is cross-referencing two sets of standards to find genuine overlap instead of a forced connection. Paste both standard lists in and ask: "Here are standards from a history unit and a biology unit. Identify any that could reasonably be assessed by the same student project, and flag ones that only look connected on the surface." That second half matters, it's easy to convince yourself two standards overlap because the topic sounds similar, when the actual skill being assessed is unrelated.
Once you've settled the shared question and the split responsibilities, building out the actual [unit plan](/unit-plan) for the joint piece is much faster, since you're no longer negotiating scope while also trying to write objectives. If the joint piece is built around students investigating an open question rather than following a fixed sequence of lessons, structuring it as a proper [PBL unit](/pbl-unit) with a real driving question gives both classes a stronger shared culmination than a generic "presentation day."
The honest trade-off
Interdisciplinary units take real upfront negotiation time that a single-subject unit doesn't. They're worth it when the overlap is genuine and both teachers are actually invested, not when it's being done because it sounds good in a newsletter. Pick the smallest real overlap, protect each class's own pacing, and let the shared moments be the parts that are actually shared.
