This resonates deeply with the families we serve at the Appleberry Prison Foundation. Families with incarcerated loved ones experience similar nervous system depletion — constant emotional processing, financial strain, navigating complex systems, and caregiving responsibilities. The reminder that ‘nothing is wrong with you, the conditions are wrong’ is something we share with our families regularly. Thank you for this framework that applies far beyond the classroom.
The diagnosis is right. The prescription undercuts it.
If the conditions are the problem, then "here are the levers teachers can pull" is a category error. It relocates the design failure back inside the individual. That's optimized compliance.
The logic here mirrors what systems do to students: name the structural constraint, then ask the person inside it to manage around it more skillfully. The structure stays intact. The burden shifts back.
"Do less to teach better" is a reasonable heuristic. It's not a design argument. What would actually change if we stopped asking teachers to adapt to unsustainable conditions and started asking who built those conditions and why they persist?
We are dealing with multiple factors, though. You’re right that there are structural constraints that need to be addressed, but it’s incorrect to suggest that teachers have no power at all. It’s true that we don’t want to blame teachers for systemic issues, and it’s also true that it’s unfair to ask teachers to “manage around it” in a more skillful way.
But the reality is that it’s also necessary for teachers to find ways to manage around it if they want their jobs to be more sustainable.
Whether we like it or not, the burden is partially on teachers to identify what is not sustainable—and then take steps to change it. The alternative is simply resolving to the idea that “the system is broken” and “there’s nothing I can do about it.” This prompts teachers to wait until the system is fixed for anything to change. That’s not a plausible option.
We need to do two things at once—advocate for systemic change and find work-arounds until is has changed.
You’re describing a real tension, and I don’t think anyone arguing for structural change is suggesting teachers resign themselves to waiting. The critique isn’t “do nothing.” It’s “be precise about what we’re calling what.”
When workarounds get rebranded as sustainability strategies, two things happen. Teachers who are coping get told they’ve solved the problem. And institutions get cover to leave the conditions unchanged, because the evidence suggests people are managing.
The “do both at once” frame sounds balanced. But in practice, individual adaptation moves faster than systemic change, and systems are rational. If the load is being carried, there’s less pressure to redistribute it. The workaround becomes load-bearing. That’s not a bridge to change. That’s how the current design reproduces itself.
Nobody is arguing teachers have zero agency. The argument is that framing agency as the solution misidentifies where the problem lives. Teachers making skillful adjustments inside a broken design isn’t sustainability. It’s evidence the design is still broken.
How are you defining workaround? I am not suggesting teachers implement "workarounds" that aren't meant for long-term implementation. I suggest they implement long-term solutions grounded in evidence-based practice. Some of these solutions can be implemented without systemic change in a grassroots manner.
How do you propose teachers go about enacting change when they can't change the systems themselves?
Fair distinction on workarounds. If the argument is that evidence-based practice can be implemented at the classroom level without waiting for systemic permission, that’s true and worth saying clearly. The concern isn’t grassroots practice. It’s when grassroots adaptation gets cited as proof the system is working.
On how teachers enact change: naming the problem accurately is the first move. Not to administrators in a meeting, but publicly, precisely, and repeatedly. Systems change when the gap between official narrative and lived reality becomes too visible to ignore. Teachers who document, publish, and connect with others doing the same are doing structural work, even without formal authority.
"The concern isn’t grassroots practice. It’s when grassroots adaptation gets cited as proof the system is working." --> excellent clarification and distinction
"Systems change when the gap between official narrative and lived reality becomes too visible to ignore." --> this is a great point, too. I think there is a lot of "narrative building" happening in schools that undermines just how necessary and urgent changes are
This resonates deeply with the families we serve at the Appleberry Prison Foundation. Families with incarcerated loved ones experience similar nervous system depletion — constant emotional processing, financial strain, navigating complex systems, and caregiving responsibilities. The reminder that ‘nothing is wrong with you, the conditions are wrong’ is something we share with our families regularly. Thank you for this framework that applies far beyond the classroom.
I bet! I appreciate that it apples beyond the classroom! Truly, what we do in our classrooms should be relevant to our everyday lives, too.
I love the “curriculum minimalism” phrase, and your analogy to the cognitive load of air traffic controllers. Great essay!
Thanks so much! The air traffic controller analogy belong to Chris, but yes, I agree it really resonated.
The diagnosis is right. The prescription undercuts it.
If the conditions are the problem, then "here are the levers teachers can pull" is a category error. It relocates the design failure back inside the individual. That's optimized compliance.
The logic here mirrors what systems do to students: name the structural constraint, then ask the person inside it to manage around it more skillfully. The structure stays intact. The burden shifts back.
"Do less to teach better" is a reasonable heuristic. It's not a design argument. What would actually change if we stopped asking teachers to adapt to unsustainable conditions and started asking who built those conditions and why they persist?
We are dealing with multiple factors, though. You’re right that there are structural constraints that need to be addressed, but it’s incorrect to suggest that teachers have no power at all. It’s true that we don’t want to blame teachers for systemic issues, and it’s also true that it’s unfair to ask teachers to “manage around it” in a more skillful way.
But the reality is that it’s also necessary for teachers to find ways to manage around it if they want their jobs to be more sustainable.
Whether we like it or not, the burden is partially on teachers to identify what is not sustainable—and then take steps to change it. The alternative is simply resolving to the idea that “the system is broken” and “there’s nothing I can do about it.” This prompts teachers to wait until the system is fixed for anything to change. That’s not a plausible option.
We need to do two things at once—advocate for systemic change and find work-arounds until is has changed.
You’re describing a real tension, and I don’t think anyone arguing for structural change is suggesting teachers resign themselves to waiting. The critique isn’t “do nothing.” It’s “be precise about what we’re calling what.”
When workarounds get rebranded as sustainability strategies, two things happen. Teachers who are coping get told they’ve solved the problem. And institutions get cover to leave the conditions unchanged, because the evidence suggests people are managing.
The “do both at once” frame sounds balanced. But in practice, individual adaptation moves faster than systemic change, and systems are rational. If the load is being carried, there’s less pressure to redistribute it. The workaround becomes load-bearing. That’s not a bridge to change. That’s how the current design reproduces itself.
Nobody is arguing teachers have zero agency. The argument is that framing agency as the solution misidentifies where the problem lives. Teachers making skillful adjustments inside a broken design isn’t sustainability. It’s evidence the design is still broken.
How are you defining workaround? I am not suggesting teachers implement "workarounds" that aren't meant for long-term implementation. I suggest they implement long-term solutions grounded in evidence-based practice. Some of these solutions can be implemented without systemic change in a grassroots manner.
How do you propose teachers go about enacting change when they can't change the systems themselves?
Fair distinction on workarounds. If the argument is that evidence-based practice can be implemented at the classroom level without waiting for systemic permission, that’s true and worth saying clearly. The concern isn’t grassroots practice. It’s when grassroots adaptation gets cited as proof the system is working.
On how teachers enact change: naming the problem accurately is the first move. Not to administrators in a meeting, but publicly, precisely, and repeatedly. Systems change when the gap between official narrative and lived reality becomes too visible to ignore. Teachers who document, publish, and connect with others doing the same are doing structural work, even without formal authority.
"The concern isn’t grassroots practice. It’s when grassroots adaptation gets cited as proof the system is working." --> excellent clarification and distinction
"Systems change when the gap between official narrative and lived reality becomes too visible to ignore." --> this is a great point, too. I think there is a lot of "narrative building" happening in schools that undermines just how necessary and urgent changes are
Great points! Thanks for the convo