There is ample evidence that current public education institutions, as designed, are producing predictable inequitable outcomes.

Some people (including some educators) will pivot and blame families, society, or the students themselves, but the reality is that the charge of the public school is in a certain sense to disregard the external. We are to welcome each child, see them for who they are, and craft a path toward educational attainment (presently measured by assessment scores and diploma achievement). We don’t get a “pass,” and nor should we, if the child’s external life throws down obstacles to this forward movement.

There are several entry points to the examination of equity in education: some look at teacher behavior (does the adult express implicit bias toward specific children in offering opportunity, praise, or punishment), some look at curriculum (does the subject matter represent multiple perspectives and reveal diverse experiences), and some look at systems (do policies result in disparate treatment or disparate outcome, predictable by demographic).

All are necessary angles for examining whether we are serving all kids equitably. However, as a classroom teacher myself, and as someone who cares intensely about eliminating the inequities perpetuated by the system I am complicit in, I am noticing a serious problem. It is the same problem that consistently gets in the way of every single effort to move and improve what school systems do.

To produce changes in student outcomes, we have to examine our system. For too many leaders, this ends up being about the surfaces of our system: the policies, the routines, the protocols. These are important for change, but are not enough.

If we want to change the outcomes of our system, we need to radically redesign how the machinery is organized, not just the protocols the machine follows. As a cog in the machine myself, I can tell you what I need if you want meaningful, lasting change:

Time.

I don’t mean a few months to do research, conduct professional learning, or participate in book studies. I mean time during my day to do the work that must occur without students present in order to serve them better when they walk in the door. I can study plenty of theory and explore countless curricula during my unpaid time in July, but that won’t do me any good unless I have time in August through June to assess, react, design, and research in the moment to serve the kids that I’ll see that day, not the hypothetical kids I might see next term.

Until we consider that the single biggest obstacle to systems change for schools is how we design teacher work time, we will never see lasting and meaningful changes in outcomes.

Time is a barrier in our system that no one is willing to devote resources to changing. It’s off the table, untouchable. Yet, it is the aspect of our system that teachers consistently say, again and again, gets in the way of implementing change.

When I consider an outsider perspective, I understand why it is difficult to accept the premise that teachers should have more time during the work day for planning, assessment, collaboration and research. It says it in the job title, I’m a teacher. My job is to teach. There’s also the public perception: on one hand teachers are saints and martyrs; on the other hand we’re lazy and greedy. I can see how someone not familiar with the realities of teaching (or someone unwilling to consider the perspectives of a mere teacher) would see less student contact as less work. Even in my own district, which in the past was very supportive of teachers, talk of less student contact time and more planning time is met with resistance because of administrative perception that this means “less work” for teachers. I’d frame it differently: It’s not about less work for teachers, it’s about better work from teachers.

My proposed solution: a 1:1 ratio. For each minute that a teacher is expected to facilitate instruction during the workday, there should be one minute during the workday designated for teacher-directed work time: detailed planning, deliberately designing instruction, collaborating with peers, conducting research, making home contact… intentionally constructing student-centered experiences for the students they are expected to serve, not supervising passing time, lunch or recess. Buying a new curriculum notebook or adopting a new discipline policy will never accomplish what a 1:1 day could.

Unfortunately, I doubt this will never happen. Our systems are too entrenched in the way we’ve always done things. Besides that, it would cost more than taxpayers are currently willing to pay.

I wonder, though, if there aren’t some bold educational leaders out there who might find ways to experiment with that heretofore untouchable part of our behemoth system: teacher time.

If we really want to change student outcomes, let’s rebuild the machine.