How to Free up 106 Million Hours for Teaching

Teachers need some changes to be made if the workforce is to be kept stable and intact. However, recommendations from the government are barking up the wrong tree.

The idea for a central bank of resources has been floated by the recent Productivity Commission investigation into education which should, the Commission feels, free up teachers’ time and take some of the slog out of their work.

While the Commission’s interim report recognises the complexity of teachers’ jobs and the pressures of managing classrooms and delivering a national curriculum, its recommendations miss the source of the burden.

Teachers have overwhelmingly said that administration, compliance requirements and a lack of support staff have made their workloads unsustainable, yet the interim report focuses on lesson planning as the area to overhaul.

Draft Recommendation 1.1 from the Productivity Commission states:
'The Australian Government should invest in a single online national platform that houses a comprehensive bank of high-quality, curriculum-aligned lesson planning materials. These materials should be publicly available to teachers in all states and territories and across all school sectors, including Catholic and independent schools.'

The McKell Institute and probably many teachers feel that this is taking on the tasks that teachers like and value while ignoring the real bugbear for many: administration. Shifting administrative tasks from teachers to administrative staff will save teachers time and considerably boost their classroom productivity.

Even optional shared lesson plans risk limiting the professional autonomy of teachers, particularly those working in under-resourced, low socio-economic schools. Treating ready-made lessons plans as the solution to easing teacher workloads must be avoided if we are to address the key reasons why teachers are leaving.

And while there is merit in exploring the potential for AI to be used effectively in schools and as a way to reduce the administrative burden for teachers, it would be counter-productive to introduce new systems and technology for an already over-burdened workforce unless it comes with plans to address the administrative burden teachers face.

The commission’s work does not factor in broader concerns with artificial intelligence. Already, early research has shown that using AI can reduce cognitive capacity, creativity and critical thinking. What’s more early adopters of AI in the corporate space are reversing course and reengaging with real people to perform work.

Specially resourced administrative staff in schools would save teachers time. The McKell Institute’s analysis finds that reallocating some of the existing administrative and communications workload from teachers to administrative staff specifically resourced for these tasks could provide between 67 million and 106 million hours per year of additional time nationally for teachers to plan, collaborate and to restore work/life balance.

Lesson planning is core professional work, not red tape. Teacher surveys have shown teachers want more time for planning, not less. But the Commission’s interim report has conflated lesson planning with administration. Treating lesson risks devaluing the intellectual and creative aspects of teaching.

By proposing a central, digital lesson bank and AI tools, the Commission risks narrowing teachers’ roles to delivering of pre-prepared content, rather than skilled educators who design and adapt learning to their students. This management consultant-style and efficiency-driven approach threatens to hollow out the role of teaching.

The best way to meet the challenges that the education system faces is to invest in people. In the lead up to the 2026-27 Budget, the Government must collaborate with the education unions to deliver the $16 billion of new Commonwealth funding promised under the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement to directly benefit students and supports teachers.

Lesson design and planning are core aspects of professional teaching practice and must be supported, not replaced. Teachers consistently call for more time to focus on planning and instruction. Genuine productivity gains will come from reducing and reallocating unnecessary administration, improving systems, and targeting reforms that allow teachers to devote more of their time and expertise to teaching. Including teachers in this process is essential.

The latest developments in educational technology (EdTech) are full of potential and may improve efficiency but are not without risks. This is still an emerging area and impacts are still under investigation and research. By collaborating with educators and drawing on best practice, a new educational technology policy should be developed which prioritises EdTech and AI as tools to assist teachers and cut down on administration, rather than deskilling teachers.

Read the McKell Institute report here