A significant portion of a teacher's work; and possibly, for some teachers, a majority; is done outside of school hours. One could plausibly argue that some governments pay teachers lower than their own hourly minimum wages. Would it be better to spread this burden out, amongst a wider variety of teachers, and have teaching be one slot, of one course, per teacher? This way, you can still have co-ordination between teachers of the same course but a different slot; but have much more time for said co-ordination between them. If they have a second job (which they now will have time to) then they can make up the remaining income. If their second job involves downtime (ie. portions of their schedule in which they're on "stand-by" in case anything happens) one could even mark during that time, provided adequate precautions are taken to protect the confidentiality of student work, of course. As well, there is a growing resentment toward perceived bias in universities... and seeing as how they produce most of our teachers, it's only a matter of time before people make the connection between that and the K-12 system. I'm not sure what to make of that. I know some people have pro-academia biases, others have anti-academia biases. I myself have been accused of the former when believing the medical sciences about the merit of embryonic stem cell research, and of the latter when disbelieving the social sciences about the merit of surveys. But at the very least, if a teacher has a second job, they could incorporate personal experience from that job into their work. That way, it looks less of a feedback loop of "academics teaching academics" and more like something incorporating input from sources other than academia. Last but not least, spreading the burden out amongst a wider number of teachers exposes a wider number of people to the realities of the education system, some surprisingly negative, but some surprisingly positive. From the irrationality Bill Maher's critics exhibited in response to Bill's remark about parents who "take the kids' side," I was expecting parent-teacher conferences to be a deluge of parents "taking the kids' side." Looking back, I think more often I was the one taking the kids' side, by assuring them I don't blame them for having problems with this content. I don't normally believe in relying on personal experience; hell, I don't believe other people believe in it as much as they claim to; but when it comes to "who to believe on education," sometimes it's the least awful of several awful options. Sometimes the most reasonable conclusion you could've come to based on everything else turns out to be wrong. Spreading the teaching burden out among more teachers would give them more experience with things other than teaching to invoke, give students more experience being taught by a variety of professions, and give a higher fraction of the voting public experience with teaching; and a higher fraction than that a friend or a loved one who has experience with it. I'd be hard-pressed to think of any downsides that outweigh all that. What say you?