The Processes and Educational Issues Involved In Timetable Construction

Introduction

One of the most crucial aspects in the life of a school is the careful planning and implementation of its timetable. A timetable is the realisation of a school's curriculum (and therefore its educational philosophy) in concrete terms. It sets out the best efforts of the timetabler to organise the curriculum into manageable blocks, in an attempt to co-ordinate an array of various, often conflicting variables. A timetable will never be perfect: according to Brookes,

"The best that can be done is to satisfy as many necessary conditions as one can think of, since this increases one's chances of producing a timetable without too many ad hoc compromises."

Timetabling, often described as 'the art of the possible', can be said to be a conflict between what is desirable from a timetabler's point of view and an educational point of view. It is not a process which conforms to fixed variables, but one in which these variables change. The process demands constant consultation between the timetabler, Heads of Departments, and hopefully main-scale teachers and may necessitate revision of one or more of several factors, which go to make up the timetable. There are no hard and fast rules of how a school timetable should operate and the whole construction process is a time of learning for the timetabler him / herself. No two school timetables can be the same, since all contributing factors differ from school to school. There are, however, similarities in terms of the issues involved, and it is these issues which are to be discussed in this essay.

Firstly, It is worth considering the task of the timetabler, who somehow has to convert a school curriculum into an operational timetable. All things considered, this is no easy task. In a school of 1300 pupils, it is likely that there will be approximately 2400 teaching periods per week. Each of these periods has to relate five variables:

1. the class
2. the subject
3. the teacher
4. the room
5. the time

This means that the timetabler has to make 12000 decisions in the construction of such a timetable. In addition to the actual difficulties in compiling the timetable, the timetabler is faced with the wrath of disgruntled heads of department and teachers, who find themselves teaching a bottom set class, last lesson on a windy Friday afternoon.

The Epistemological Perspective

Distancing ourselves somewhat from the practicalities of timetable construction, we must consider the more theoretical aspects of curriculum planning. The question must be asked, whether the aim of the school's curriculum is the provision of building blocks and the necessary tools with which children may experiment, under teacher supervision, thereby actively learning through their own experiences, or the formation of pupils with 'tried and tested', already established, knowledge. It is clear from research that constructive learning can only occur when a pupil is aware of his / her development, i.e. when he or she realises where they have been successful and where they have failed. Pupils must be able to take responsibility for and make decisions relating to their own learning process if they are to develop intellectually. This pragmatist view necessitates great flexibility in the school curriculum and clearly highlights the conflict between what pupils require for their own intellectual development and what the school is able to offer in terms of its resources.

It could be argued that since the implementation of the National Curriculum, the education system has taken a big step towards a more centralised, more uniform education system, as opposed to a decentralised one. It is clear that each model has its own advantages and disadvantages (compare the centralised system of France with the federal, decentralised system of Germany), although here would not be an appropriate place to discuss the merits and failures of each. What is evident, is that pupils in England and Wales now have less chance to concentrate on areas of personal interest or excellence than they had before the introduction of the National Curriculum. It is of global benefit, if a pupil with a flair for a certain subject is able to pursue this subject with greater depth at school, whilst still having the possibility of advancing in other areas of knowledge: such natural talent should be nurtured. However, whilst particular talents in certain fields of learning may be hereditary in a child, knowledge is not. The rationalist viewpoint does not seem to take into account learning environment or learner motivation, which are clearly essential to intellectual development. The empiricist viewpoint does not take into account knowledge which the learner must accept, without being able to prove or disprove the validity of such knowledge for him / herself.

What can be said is that it is unreasonable and indeed foolish to condemn somebody with learning difficulties in a certain intellectual area to the lower echelons of society: such people may have great hidden talents in other areas and surely the rôle of the school is to bring such talents to the fore and to develop them. A clear example of the validity of this statement is evident in autistic children, who often have incredible memories, or in the foreign languages classroom, where an illiterate child is able to speak better in the target language than the other children.

These factors aside, education should not provide merely for the cognitive development of the individual. At the risk of sounding collectivist, a school must balance the needs of the individual with those of society. An enforced formation of pupils displaying talents in certain areas à la communist model is not meant here, but rather that should there be a national shortage of scientists, for example, ways must be found to encourage pupils to study science, so that the nation is able to compete in the future: a long-term outlook is required. Could not certain subjects be made more interesting, thereby attracting pupil interest?

A further aspect which must be recognised from the educational viewpoint is that teachers do themselves have personal vested interests, in terms of the advancement of their professional life, their personal opinions in general and in relation to the education system, and their working conditions. It is the teacher, at the end of the day, who is the most important component in the execution of the curriculum and the furthering of knowledge.

Curriculum Planning

Before any actual timetable construction can take place, the school's curriculum must first be clear. Decisions need to be made concerning subjects to be offered, allocation of periods to subjects, distribution of periods allocated to subjects, type of teaching organisation, e.g. class based (streams, bands, sets, mixed-ability groups) or student based (options). Such decisions need to be made months in advance, especially when the size of the school increases, since there will probably be different forms of organisation in different subjects at different levels.

The curriculum is determined in the first place by the National Curriculum, then by the headteacher, the governors and possibly the teachers. The headteacher usually has a five year long-term plan. The first priority has to be the inclusion of the core subjects of the National Curriculum. Only then can other subjects be considered, many of which will play an important rôle in boosting the school's prestige.

The factors involved at the curriculum planning and timetable construction stage may be illustrated in the following way: any constraints in any stage of this process may necessitate a revision of one or more of the other stages, with the exception of the National Curriculum stage.

• National Curriculum
• Staff number and qualifications
• School curriculum
• Number of rooms available
• Equipment available
• Time available on timetable cycle
• Number of pupils
• Class size

The curriculum audit states that the curriculum review should include teachers, governors, parents, pupils, and possibly LEA advisors / inspectors. The curriculum should address all the necessary concerns, including the existence of a whole curriculum policy in the school which meets local and national government requirements. Curriculum review will have to identify any weak spots in the school's curriculum, such as a lack in a cross-curricular approach at the school. The audit consists of a whole series of questions which are designed to evaluate the curriculum and indicate where changes will need to be made under whole curriculum development plans. Such plans will be implemented through INSET training days, staff discussion and the appointment of co-ordinators.

In the final stages of the curriculum planning stage, a curriculum sheet is prepared, which summarises the number and types of classes in different subjects at various levels. Next, a school staff layout sheet is prepared, which allocates periods in subjects to teachers, before departmental extracts can finally be sent to Heads of Department, so that they may indicate their requirements.

Staffing

A main priority in timetable construction has to be to ensure that all staffing demands can be met at the start of the school year. Staff numbers will have to reflect the school's curriculum and there have of course had to be some changes in staff numbers since the introduction of the National Curriculum. At this stage, there will be new appointments and redundancies, which can be a very traumatic time.

Staffing forms are compiled in the following way. Firstly, whoever is responsible for completing the forms fills in the form as best he / she can from the available teachers in the appropriate department, ensuring that the teachers' skills match the groups they are to teach, e.g. a French teacher with no knowledge of Spanish should not be timetabled to teach a Spanish class. This may seem obvious, but is easily forgotten at staff form stage. Any shortfall in staff numbers will have to be met either by staff from other departments who have a knowledge of the subject, or by part-time staff or the employment of more permanent staff. Serious problems may require a revision of the school curriculum.

Once the staffing form has been completed and checked for any mistakes, teacher teams are created to facilitate timetabling. Such teams will need to be disjoint, i.e. not clashing in any way with each other. If clashes were to occur at this stage, the teams could not be timetabled in the week. The easiest way to ensure that teams are disjoint is to create combing charts.

In the above combing chart, three teaching teams have been created: team 1 consists of teachers 1 and 2, team 2 consists of teachers 2 and 3, team 3 consists of teachers 1 and 3. It is clear from the chart that the teams are not disjoint, and that it will be impossible to timetable the teams selected in a forty period week.

"A lot is to be said for opening up the relationship between heads of department and timetablers for the edification of both parties."

It is imperative that the timetabler always has quality (accurate) information with which to work and this is best ensured if there is a liaison between the timetabler and each head of department. If the head of department is not willing to become involved, then he / she must recognise that the way in which his / her department is timetabled may not necessarily be desirable. In this way, heads of department are able to appreciate why their department can not be timetabled in a certain way.

"Heads of department are, quite understandably, more likely to mend the error of their ways if the timetabler is able to offer convincing proof rather than stating mystically 'it can't be done!'"

Points which in all cases should be borne in mind are:

• Newly qualified teachers should not be timetabled with bottom sets or groups with behavioural difficulties.
• Classes should, where possible, be timetabled with one member of staff, thereby ensuring continuity and the development of a group rapport.
• Teachers should be reasonably adaptable.

Group Sizes

Group sizes for each subject should be negotiated between the headteacher, timetabler and teachers, according to guidelines set out by the government and the Local Education Authority. There is no official ceiling on class size in England and Wales, but the size should relate to the Overall Pupil-Teacher Ratio (R), which can be calculated as follows:

R = number of pupils (Z)
number of full-time equivalent teachers (T)

The average class size (n) can be calculated as follows:

n = number of pupils' appearances timetabled
number of teacher appearances timetabled

Group sizes may vary between subjects, e.g. in potentially hazardous situations a small number of pupils is preferable. This naturally means that more staff, rooms and equipment are needed to cater for the number of groups and can cause problems for the timetabler.

Option Numbers

Options have been restricted since the introduction of the National Curriculum. Schools are obliged in Key Stage 3 to teach nine subjects which pupils studied at primary school, plus a modern foreign language and Religious Education. In Key Stage 4, pupils are obliged to continue with English, Mathematics, Science, Technology, a foreign language and P.E. Before the National Curriculum was introduced, often the only compulsory subjects from the age of fourteen were English and Mathematics, with the result that pupils had a much freer choice of study plan, resulting in many pupils abandoning subjects they disliked completely in favour of those they liked or were skilled in. The National Curriculum has led to much greater restrictions on the school curriculum and reduced the amount of options available to pupils in Key Stage 4, whilst necessitating great increases in the numbers of staff in areas such as Modern Foreign Languages and Science.

Resources

As has already been illustrated, when constructing teaching teams the main priority is that they are disjoint. The same principle applies to all resources: teachers, classes, and equipment. This is the Principle of Compatibility. In practice it will often be difficult to apply the Principle of Compatibility, due to imbalances in the distribution of resources: e.g. if there are seven teachers, these can not be divided into two equal teams: the question is whether they need to be.

Educational requirements may restrict the principle, but it is best to enforce it as far as possible. The timetabler has to be aware of where subjects can be taught. It is of course unwise to timetable a class across a break or a lunchtime, and there is a limited set of compatible combinations of multiple periods in a week. Other problems which may arise include incompatibility between or within years due to different levels of time division (which can be largely resolved by 'block timetabling', albeit with possible educational drawbacks) and the issue of part-time staff in teaching teams, who restrict the time the team (and other teams) can be timetabled.

Scheduling Priorities

Scheduling the timetable poses the greatest challenge to the timetabler. Not only is the task of assembling the timetable in itself a mammoth task, but when the educational preoccupations are introduced, the task is further compounded. If teaching teams have been thoroughly combed, scheduling will be greatly facilitated. However, as with staffing forms, if insurmountable difficulties are encountered it may be necessary to amend staffing calculations. Certain points which should be borne in mind are:

Certain subjects, such as Science, will prefer double periods: others, such as Modern Languages, will prefer single periods.
Continuity may suffer if there are large time gaps between lessons.
Nobody wants to teach last period on a Friday afternoon, but somebody has to!
Senior Management Team members should not teach last period on a Friday afternoon, since their services are most likely to be required at this time.
There are different forms of group organisation: English may be in sets, Religious Education may not be.
Year 11 and then Year 10 will take priority at scheduling stage, because Year 11 are approaching exams and also because the curriculum can not be changed between years 10 and 11.

Unfortunately, the timetabler will not know that the timetable will work (in theory at least!) until the last piece of the 'jigsaw' is in place. Moreover, any decisions made at the scheduling stage will have to be justified.

The Use of Information Technology

Attempts at using computers in timetable construction have been ongoing for several years. However, although timetabling software may take into account the material factors involved, i.e. the resources at the school's disposal, it will not take other, more human and personal factors into consideration, such as teacher personality and how he / she copes with certain teaching groups at certain times of day. Nevertheless, as in many situations, computers are bound to be a useful tool for the timetabler as a complementary aid, and they may provide a veritable plethora of timetable solutions, which the timetabler can then adapt where possible. At Waltham Toll Bar School, the software allows the timetabler to indicate the amount of time he / she wishes the computer to work on the problem: the more time the computer has, the better the outcome is likely to be. At Waltham, the computer is generally left to run the software for two weeks. When a timetable is finished and has undergone any modifications, the final version can easily be printed and the timetable is available on computer for consultation. For example, a teacher, group or pupil can be located instantly with the help of the software.

Conclusion

As has been demonstrated, the task of timetabling a modern school is by no means easy. Following its completion, the timetable should be thoroughly checked to ensure that there are no potential problem areas. Here again, negotiation between all parties involved will provide for a well constructed and generally accepted timetable. Evaluation is an essential part of the process. Although it is difficult to tell whether or not a timetable does in fact work until it is in operation, there are obvious ways in which one may spot an obviously flawed version before it is implemented. After the start of school, questions should be posed on the efficiency of the timetable. There should be an even spread of different subjects across the week. Each HoD's original requests should be adhered to as close as is possible - it is he / she who has the best knowledge of how the staff in his / her department work best. All resources in the school should be put to their utmost use, without exerting excessive demand on any one resource at any one time. The timetable should reflect the National Curriculum and the school's own curriculum and educational philosophy. Finally, it is worth making notes of any problems encountered throughout the implementation of the timetable, which may then be used during compilation of the timetable in the following year.

For the lowly timetabler, a smooth running of his / her masterpiece will allow at least some form of respite, before planning of the following year's timetable must begin. In the meantime he / she will have to bare the brunt of any imprudent decisions. It could be said that a clear indication of the success of failure of a timetabler is the number of staff who talk to him / her in the staffroom!

Bibliography

Brookes, J E, Timetable Planning (Heinemann, 1980)
Hymes, C, The National Curriculum: A Guide for Parents (Chapmans, 1993)
Johnson, K, Timetabling (Hutchinson, 1979)
Salt, F B, Timetabling Models for Secondary Schools: A Practical Handbook (NFER, 1978)
Walton, J, The Secondary School Timetable (Ward Lock Educational, 1972)
NCC 3 - The Curriculum Audit
OFSTED Handbook (Part 5, September 1993)

Dated: 27/11/1994

Professional

Academic

Music

Miscellaneous

Family

Rants

Media