The Australian Education Union Victoria has proposed trialling a four-day week for teachers. At first glance, the idea sounds radical. But before parents imagine schools closing on Fridays, it’s important to clarify what is actually being suggested.

Students would still attend school five days a week. Classroom teaching time would remain unchanged. The proposal is not about reducing education; it’s about giving teachers greater flexibility in how they use their non-teaching time, including the option to work from home.

The proposal arrives at a critical moment. Victoria, like many jurisdictions, faces significant teacher shortages, with schools struggling to recruit and retain experienced staff.

At the same time, the Victorian government is considering legislation to enshrine a right to request working from home. In most professions, flexibility is increasingly standard. Teaching, however, has remained largely tied to a physical workplace for the entirety of a 38-hour week.

Yet teaching has never been only about what happens in front of students.

Teachers’ work is divided between “contact time” – face-to-face classroom teaching – and “non-contact time”.

In Victorian government schools, teachers spend roughly 55% of their 38-hour week in direct teaching. The remainder is devoted to lesson planning, assessment, reporting, communication with parents and carers, professional collaboration, meetings and administration.

Currently, teachers are generally required to be onsite for all of those hours. Non-contact time is distributed across the week through timetabling.

In secondary schools, it appears as scheduled free periods. In primary schools, it often occurs while students attend specialist classes such as physical education, art or music.

The four-day week proposal would not eliminate non-contact time. Instead, it would reorganise it. Schools could cluster non-teaching hours into a single day, allowing teachers the option to complete that work remotely.

Different teachers would take different non-teaching days, ensuring schools remain fully staffed for students throughout the week. Schools already manage complex timetables to accommodate part-time staff; this would be an extension of existing practices.

Why does this matter?

Teacher workload has intensified over the past decade. Administrative demands have grown. Expectations regarding data collection, reporting and communication have increased. Many teachers report that work-life balance is deteriorating, particularly during mid-career stages when professional and personal responsibilities often collide.

While research on four-day models specifically for teachers is still emerging, it’s not without precedent.

Evidence from parts of the United States suggests that flexibility can influence recruitment. There, a number of schools already operate a four-day school week. In 2025, there were more than 2100 schools across 26 states running some version of a four-day program.

Even here, in Australia, there are some schools already operating four-day models.

The push for a four-day trial is also gaining momentum in Britain, with the 4-Day Week Foundation urging the government to trial the idea in England and Wales. This comes shortly after the Scottish government announced proposals for teachers to work a flexible four-day teaching week, with the fifth day dedicated to remote work.

More broadly, our own research indicates that teachers strongly value flexibility, with a majority indicating that a four-day arrangement could support high-quality teaching and improve retention in the profession.

This is an issue that is particularly prominent for those in their mid-career.

When teachers leave, schools lose experience, mentoring capacity and stability. Replacing them is costly and disruptive. If modest structural adjustments, such as allowing some non-contact work to be completed at home, can improve professional satisfaction and extend careers, the benefits compound over time.

This flexibility does not eliminate collaboration. Online meetings, shared planning platforms and scheduled in-person sessions are already embedded in schools’ operations.

The proposal does not suggest teachers work remotely full-time. It offers an option for designated non-contact time, work that often requires sustained concentration, such as marking assessments or preparing detailed lesson sequences.

Many teachers report that completing these tasks offsite, free from interruptions, can actually enhance productivity.

What might be the impact on students and families?

Students would still attend school five days a week, taught by qualified teachers. Our study found that 65% of teachers felt that a four-day week model would support high-quality education.

The limited research on four-day weeks from the US has produced some mixed results, but a key emerging finding is that when overall instruction time is maintained (as would be the case in Victoria), student achievement is stable.

Innovation in education policy doesn’t have to mean sweeping reform. Sometimes it involves rethinking how existing structures operate. Schools already timetable non-contact periods. They already coordinate diverse staffing patterns.

A trial of clustered non-contact time – carefully evaluated and adapted – would be a measured step, not a leap into the unknown.

A four-day week for teachers isn’t about reducing commitment or diminishing educational standards. It’s about aligning the profession with contemporary work practices and acknowledging the full scope of teachers’ labour.

By allowing some non-contact work to be completed from home, schools may improve morale, strengthen retention and ultimately provide greater continuity for students.

In a period of workforce pressure and changing expectations about work, the question is not whether schools can afford to trial new ideas. It may be whether they can afford not to.