“What reforms do teachers believe will be most effective in helping them manage their time? At a Glance Policy makers have proposed reforms to help save educators’ time, yet teachers rarely have a voice in which reforms are most effective. In a survey, teachers rated the following reforms (listed from highest to lowest): Additional paraprofessional support Database of lesson plans Release time from teaching to take on leadership roles Opportunities to work more hours, with no additional student time, for more pay Flipped classrooms, in which students learn new material outside class In focus groups, teachers explained that the benefits of some reforms could be outweighed by hidden costs. American teachers may be among the busiest in the world. They spend most of their time providing direct instruction to students, averaging 28 hours per week — more than in every other economically developed country except Chile (Boeskens & Nusche, 2021). Yet successful teaching requires more than presence in the classroom. At the most basic level, lessons need to be planned, classroom materials prepared, and student work graded. Great teachers also cultivate relationships with students and their families, work with colleagues, and invest in their own ongoing professional development. All of these tasks take time. Without adequate time to perform their full range of responsibilities during the school day, teachers are forced to cut corners or bring work home with them. They often work through their lunches, grade papers before bed, and devote part of their weekends to prepping for the week. As a result, teachers tend to experience high levels of job-related stress, anxiety, and burnout (National Education Association, 2022; Prilleltensky, Neff, & Bessell, 2016). And, as expectations of them continue to expand, teacher job satisfaction has slipped to an all-time low (Kraft & Lyon, 2024). Few policy leaders have suggested reducing the number of hours teachers spend with students. Many, however, have recognized that teachers have too much to do in too little time and have offered a wide range of proposals to address the issue. In recent years, for instance, the number of paraprofessionals in schools has expanded significantly, often with the explicit goal of alleviating teachers’ workloads (Bisht et al., 2021). The return of scripted lessons, while also rooted in mistrust of teachers, is a significant time-saving reform. Similarly, the use of technology has been championed by many as a solution to the challenge of time (Gallup & Walton Family Foundation, 2025). Rarely, however, have we heard the views of teachers on the matter. A better understanding of which reforms teachers are most open to is an important next step in identifying viable approaches. Historically, teachers have resisted reforms that ignore the realities of their work (Payne, 2008; Tyack & Cuban, 1997). Their resistance could serve as important feedback about the feasibility of proposed reforms. Seeking the teacher perspective We set out to gain a deeper understanding of teacher support for various time-saving reforms. First, we conducted a nationally representative survey through a standing panel of American teachers (RAND, 2024). We asked 1,000 teachers to rate these five time-saving reforms on their potential to improve teaching and learning. A searchable database of high-quality, educator-created, standard-aligned lesson plans Additional support from paraprofessionals Career ladders that would release educators from some of their teaching to take on additional roles A longer contractual school day (but no additional student contact hours) in return for more pay The “flipped classroom” model, in which students learn content before class and apply it in class We selected these reforms because each represents a distinct school of thought on how to solve the issues of teacher time. A searchable database of high-quality lesson plans provides resources that teachers can use independently. Paraprofessionals represent more human support. Career ladders provide the option of spending time away from the classroom. A longer school day with higher pay yields more income. The flipped classroom offers more tightly defined roles. Reform Average level of teacher support (1-5 scale) Additional support from paraprofessionals 3.61 Searchable database of lessons 3.51 Longer school day, with more pay 3.14 Career ladders 2.99 Flipped classroom 2.25 Table 1. Teachers’ ratings of time-saving reforms What teachers told us Table 1 lists teacher ratings for each initiative. To understand why the various reforms received the level of support they did, we also convened a focus group of 15 teachers representing diverse backgrounds and experiences. These teachers offered important context and considerations for each of the reforms. Our findings indicate that each reform approach offers benefits that teachers find attractive, as well as drawbacks that concern them. Teachers reminded us that reforms often sound simpler than they turn out to be in practice. They suspected that some time-saving reforms could actually create more work and require more time. For example, they questioned whether paraprofessionals would just be another person for them to manage, thus eating up any time having an extra adult in the classroom would save. A second theme that emerged from our data is that teachers are concerned with retaining their professional creativity and autonomy. Reforms that undermine those values raised red flags. In a discussion about lesson banks, for instance, teachers wondered whether they would be “restricted” to using only lesson bank materials and cited concerns about the move toward scripted lessons in some districts. During talks about extending the school day for more pay, teachers questioned whether they would maintain autonomy over the extra hours or if they would become prisoners to poorly designed professional development during the newfound time. Paraprofessionals: Extra help, extra management Growing the corps of paraprofessionals received the highest level of support from survey respondents. Teachers in our focus group saw the benefits of having “another set of hands” to help with daily tasks. They noted that paraprofessionals would be useful for “smaller tasks,” like making photocopies and tidying the classroom. They also observed that paraprofessionals would help with student management. For example, paraprofessionals could “help keep students on task” in the classroom and “help move students from place to place” throughout the school. In addition to these “smaller tasks,” teachers suggested that paraprofessionals can help support students’ academic and social-emotional needs. Some educators discussed emotional regulation and the need for “additional support … to help with the growing number of dysregulated students.” Teachers also proposed that paraprofessionals could provide additional support for “students with accommodations,” particularly those who “require constant monitoring of behaviors and tracking of individual data.” Teachers are expected to perform a considerable amount of multitasking in the classroom: deliver high-quality instruction, maintain a positive learning environment, differentiate instruction based on student needs, track data, and manage a variety of other tasks, including preparing materials and resources. An extra adult can lessen the load. But some teachers worry that increased numbers of paraprofessionals might be too onerous to manage. “I spend a huge amount of time coaching the paraprofessionals in how to support students as well as the content my students are learning,” one teacher told us. And, because many teachers and paraprofessionals don’t have common planning time, teachers must “explain in the moment,” which takes time and attention away from students in the classroom. As one focus group participant put it, additional paraprofessionals “could be effective if, and only if, you had the time to prepare and work together as partners.” Shared lesson banks: Saves time, costs autonomy A searchable database of high-quality lesson plans scored just behind additional support from paraprofessionals. Teachers in our focus group told us that in addition to saving time, a database of lessons might “spark some creativity” in their practice or “inspire an educator with a new resource.” They were hopeful that access to lesson plans would free up time for individualized instruction and differentiation. However, many supported this approach only if teachers maintained professional discretion. As one participant put it, “teachers like their curriculum to feel personal to them and their students,” and any top-down mandates would inhibit that. One teacher expressed skepticism that administrators who are “sticklers to follow scripted curriculum” would allow teachers to exercise judgment about which lessons to use. Others echoed this concern, saying that this approach would lose its appeal if using the lessons became mandatory, which would “limit teachers’ ability to use their skills and understanding.” Career ladders: More opportunities, more to juggle Career ladders, which performed in the middle of the pack, allow teachers to spend some time away from the classroom to take on school leadership roles. Focus-group participants noted that the current school-day structure leaves little time for them to act as leaders or diversify their skills. Career ladders would enable them to advance their career without using their personal time. Teachers were enthusiastic about having designated time to coach, mentor, and observe peers. They were also optimistic that such leadership opportunities could mean greater access to “the room where decisions are made,” and thus a more significant voice in school policies. However, teachers were wary of taking on more responsibilities, because these would likely add to, not reduce, their overall workload. They doubted that reducing their teaching hours would be enough to offset the additional leadership work or help them keep up with their existing teaching tasks. Instead, they said, this reform “seems to be a way to just get more work out of teachers” and “add many things that could make our job harder.” Concerns also arose about the destabilizing effect of reducing the time of veteran and experienced teachers in the classroom. “I struggle with the time away from students and how that will impact them,” one teacher said. Teachers also worried about how this reform would impact colleagues, who might be required to teach and plan additional classes. Pay incentives: More money, less control Teachers in our focus group struggled to understand why anyone would support pay incentives, in which teachers would stay longer at school each day in exchange for more pay. As one teacher put it, “I believe that teachers chose this option specifically so that they could get paid for the extra work that they are [already] doing.” Women, many of whom are the primary caretakers of children and aging parents, were particularly concerned about the lack of flexibility and how such a shift would complicate their home and family lives. As one focus-group participant observed: “Some teachers enter the profession not only because it’s their passion but also because of the school hours that help balance work and personal time. A longer day would hamper their ability to do other things, such as picking up their own kids. A longer school day, while paid, would also create a cost for childcare. The ability to use the afternoon hours for home chores or to take children to appointments was important to teachers whose professional work does not otherwise allow for much flexibility. Teachers also questioned what the extra hours would be used for, signaling concern about “micromanagement” of their time or being “trapped” in useless professional development sessions. For teachers to consider such an option, they stated that they would need control and flexibility over how time is used: “It MUST be time that is at the purview of the teacher.” Flipped classroom: Promising in theory, burdensome in practice In a flipped classroom, students learn material independently and then come to class prepared to discuss and build on their learning. This model empowers students to take on greater responsibility for their learning and allows teachers to use class time for discussions, projects, and hands-on activities. Teachers were quick to point out that many students would not complete the independent or at-home work, which would result in more work for teachers: “Half your students won’t do the at-home work, and you still are required to teach them the content.” Others echoed this sentiment, adding that: “If some students come in prepared and others don’t, it’s a waste of everyone’s time.” Teachers were clear that the complexity of this process would ultimately take more time than it would create. Teachers also noted that this model could be unsuitable for younger students, students with certain disabilities, or students whose parents work into the evening. One teacher shared, “This is not a system that can be sustained in a district where there is a high prevalence of low-income, high-needs students.” Another stated, “Some students may not learn well on their own, and special ed students may find this a difficult style of teaching and learning.” They noted that not everyone would have the technology and supplies at home, which makes the model “inequitable for students who don’t have the time, technology necessary, adult support, or the skills to even access those lessons/videos.” They also noted that students would receive differing levels of parental support, creating further inequities. No simple fixes The belief that simple fixes can alleviate the problem of time misunderstands the nature of teachers’ work. Instructing students, supporting student emotional needs, communicating with families, planning engaging lessons, and collaborating with colleagues are time-consuming by nature, and when teachers spend most of their days providing direct instruction, there simply aren’t enough hours to go around. Reforms that appear straightforward on paper, such as incorporating more paraprofessionals or lengthening the school day, often create new layers of coordination and oversight, sometimes costing teachers more time than they save in the end. Other reforms, such as databases of lesson plans, raise questions about professional autonomy and creativity — important factors that sustain effective instruction and make teaching enjoyable. While time-saving reforms can offer some benefits, truly transformative policies will rethink how much time teachers spend providing direct instruction to students. For too long, reformers have focused on shuffling the small pebbles at teachers’ feet. We know that teachers who spend all their time on direct instruction have less time to devote to other teaching tasks that support high-quality instruction. And we know that teachers who go above and beyond often do so at the expense of their personal time and mental health. To transform time in schools, then, we must be willing to walk past the pebbles and put our hands on the boulder. So, what might it look like to move the boulder? One place to look for inspiration is international education systems that structure teachers’ time differently. In Finland, teachers spend fewer hours in direct classroom instruction and have more frequent breaks, prioritizing collaboration, planning, and well-being (Petrie, 2021). Singapore has formalized a career ladder system in which advanced teachers are allocated time to mentor colleagues, lead professional learning, and develop pedagogical resources, redistributing responsibility beyond the individual classroom teacher (NISL, 2019). Japan takes yet another approach by gradually inducting new teachers into full professional practice, providing lighter workloads and structured support in the early years to create protected time for mentoring, observation, and reflection (Ahn, 2016). Across these systems, teacher time is deliberately structured to reflect what each education system prioritizes. Moving the boulder, then, requires a rethinking of what is valued in education and how those values are operationalized through time. When policy priorities center narrowly on tested subjects such as mathematics and English, instructional time becomes increasingly concentrated on direct instruction in those areas, crowding out opportunities for collaboration, reflection, and professional learning. In contrast, systems that value teacher development, instructional quality, and sustainability deliberately allocate time to those purposes. Reframing time as a lever for educational improvement — not merely a constraint — creates space for more creative and equitable approaches to organizing teachers’ work. References Ahn, R. (2016). Japan’s communal approach to teacher induction: Shokuin shitsu as an indispensable nurturing ground for Japanese beginning teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59 , 420-430. Bisht, B., LeClair, Z., Loeb, S., & Sun, M. (2021). Paraeducators: Growth, diversity and a dearth of professional supports (EdWorkingPaper No. 21-490). Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University. Gallup & Walton Family Foundation. (2025). Teaching for tomorrow: Unlocking six weeks a year with AI . Kraft, M.A. & Lyon, M.A. (2024). The rise and fall of the teaching profession: Prestige, interest, preparation, and satisfaction over the last half century. American Educational Research Journal , 61 (6), 1192-1236. National Education Association (NEA). (2022). Poll results: Stress and burnout pose threat of educator shortages [Press Release]. National Institute for School Leadership (NISL). (2019). Singapore’s career ladder system. Boeskens, L. & Nusche, L. (2021). Not enough hours in the day: Policies that shape teachers’ use of time (OECD Education Working Papers No. 245). Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Payne, C.M. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools . Harvard Education Press. Petrie, C. (2021). Could 2-minute ‘brain breaks’ and LESS planning help Scottish schools catch up with Finland? The Press & Journal. Prilleltensky, I., Neff, M., & Bessell, A. (2016). Teacher stress: What it is, why it’s important, how it can be alleviated. Theory into Practice , 55 (2), 104-111. RAND (2024). 2024 Fall omnibus survey of the American Teacher Panel (Data set). Tyack, D.B. & Cuban, L. (1997). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform . Harvard University Press. This article appears in the Spring 2026 issue of Kappan, Vol. 107, No. 5-6. The post Time well spent? Teacher perspectives on time-saving reforms appeared first on Kappan Online .
Original story
Continue reading at Phi Delta Kappan
kappanonline.org
Summary generated from the RSS feed of Phi Delta Kappan. All article rights belong to the original publisher. Click through to read the full piece on kappanonline.org.