Curriculum, Cost and Capacity: The Role of a School Timetable Consultant in ICFP

In many secondary schools, curriculum design and financial planning have traditionally been viewed as parallel but largely separate processes. Curriculum structures are developed in response to pedagogical priorities, while financial planning is conducted to ensure affordability across the staffing budget. In practice, however, the two are deeply interdependent. Decisions about class size, subject offer, set structure, staffing expertise and pupil pathways directly influence staffing expenditure. Integrated Curriculum and Financial Planning (ICFP) attempts to make these relationships transparent. Rather than treating curriculum ambition and budgetary sustainability as competing forces, ICFP enables leaders to construct models that are both educationally and financially coherent.

This blog has four purposes. First, it explains why ICFP is helpful for secondary schools seeking to protect curriculum breadth while achieving financial sustainability. Second, it outlines how schools can approach ICFP using simple, accessible models requiring only basic data. Third, it describes the more detailed approach, which incorporates comparisons with national benchmarks. Finally, it highlights the role of a timetable consultant in supporting schools to design curriculum and staffing models that are both sustainable and deliverable, particularly where internal expertise or capacity is limited.

Why ICFP matters

Secondary schools operate within a set of unavoidable constraints: annual pupil numbers, staff contracts, national pay scales, timetable structures and building capacity. The curriculum sits at the intersection of these constraints, but its financial implications are not always immediately visible. For example, a seemingly minor decision such as reducing class size in Year 9 from 30 to 25 may feel pedagogically desirable, yet when multiplied across a full year group and 25 timetabled lessons per week, the additional staffing demand can be substantial. Similarly, protecting a small subject at Key Stage 4 or 5 may at first appear affordable, but on closer inspection may necessitate a number of classes to be taught by non-specialists, or may cause issues if staffing is tighter in the second year.

ICFP provides a structured way of seeing these issues earlier and more clearly. It supports school leaders to ask not only “What curriculum do we want?”, but also “What are the financial and operational implications of delivering it?” When used well, ICFP is not a tool for restriction. Instead, it offers leaders confidence that their curriculum is ambitious, fair and sustainable.

A simple, accessible approach

For many schools, getting started with ICFP does not require specialist software. A pragmatic starting point involves five straightforward steps:

1. Project pupil numbers for the next three years This establishes the likely scale of curriculum demand and helps identify future pressure points early. As the numbers of pupils on roll have a significant impact on budgets, you may want to run best- and worst-case scenarios.

2. Map the current curriculum model Number of lessons per subject per week, by year group. Even a simple matrix offers clarity about where teaching time is concentrated.

3. Estimate staffing requirement Using class size assumptions and the curriculum model, leaders can calculate how many groups are required in each subject and compare this with existing staffing.

4. Identify mismatch Understaffing in one subject or overstaffing in another becomes visible. Leaders can explore whether this results from class size decisions, inefficiencies or structural issues.

5. Evaluate potential adjustments Small structural changes, such as moving from five sets to four in some subjects, consolidating low-uptake options or adjusting class size assumptions, can release significant staffing capacity. Similarly, a thorough knowledge of your staff team and their specialisms can also create additional capacity.

At this stage, precision is not the objective. Instead, the goal is to develop a clearer view of where curriculum design creates financial pressure and where there may be opportunities to redistribute resources more equitably.

The more complex approach

A more developed ICFP model enables schools to forecast their curriculum while examining whether their plans are financially viable. Although it will not resolve an existing deficit, it can illuminate possible directions of travel and is particularly valuable when a school is considering changes to the curriculum, seeking efficiencies or managing a falling or growing roll. Planning ahead in an integrated way supports early and informed strategic decision-making, especially in relation to staffing.

Importantly, ICFP does not require schools to remove opportunities for pupils or narrow the curriculum offer. Instead, it provides a transparent method for evaluating whether current choices are sustainable and, where necessary, how they might be redesigned fairly and equitably.

A more advanced model also allows schools to benchmark their position against similar schools nationally, drawing on a range of metrics. There is no single standard that all schools should aim for; however, this comparative analysis can help leaders understand their current performance and consider whether their curriculum is affordable in the longer term.

Context remains essential. Schools operate in diverse circumstances and hold different priorities, so benchmarks should prompt professional reflection rather than prescribe action. Comparisons should be made between genuinely similar schools, taking into account factors such as the proportion of pupils eligible for FSM, overall size, and whether the school is rural or urban. Geography generally has limited impact, although London schools do differ due to the additional weighting applied there.

Commonly reviewed metrics include:

• Cost per lesson or teaching period

• Pupil-to-teacher ratio

• Teacher contact ratio

• Average teacher cost

• Leadership costs as a percentage of total teaching costs

• Management costs as a percentage of total teaching costs

• Expenditure per pupil

Why a school timetable consultant adds value

For many schools, the principal challenge is not the concept of ICFP itself, but the time, expertise and confidence required to construct accurate models and interpret the metrics. For example, a leader might ask: What does it mean if our contact ratio is much lower than similar schools, and what can we do about it?

As a timetable consultant, I can analyse your current curriculum structure and staffing model and make suggestions for where you could make optimisations. This might mean highlighting where there are resources that could be better utilised to provide better support for students, or it might mean highlighting where efficiencies can be made.

I can then support your future planning, creating accurate calculations for the number of teachers required, modelling different scenarios and illustrating the financial implications of each, and testing timetable feasibility before decisions are finalised. Many schools find that relatively small structural adjustments, such as altering the number of sets, merging low-uptake subjects or reworking guided options blocks, can release significant staffing capacity. Working with a timetable consultant enables leaders to identify these opportunities quickly and with confidence.

Another frequent challenge lies in curriculum proposals that are affordable in theory but not timetable-feasible in practice. For example, too many classes running concurrently in an option block, or needing more specialist teachers of a subject to teach in a block than you have available. I can help you to identify these issues early to prevent expensive surprises and support leaders to make informed, sustainable decisions.

I also provide clear reports for governors, trustees and finance committees, ensuring that complex information is presented accessibly and can inform strategic decision-making.

Conclusion

ICFP enables schools to view curriculum design and financial planning as integrated, rather than separate, processes. By modelling the relationship between curriculum ambition and staffing sustainability, leaders gain clarity about where their structures work efficiently and where they require adjustment. Whether using a simple model or a more detailed approach, ICFP provides the transparency needed to make strategic decisions in the best interests of pupils.

For schools that require specialist expertise, working with a timetable consultant can ensure that curriculum models are both ambitious and financially viable. At Curriculum Solutions, we support secondary schools to design timetables and curriculum structures that are sustainable, equitable and deliverable. Through detailed modelling, feasibility testing and scenario analysis, we help leaders align staffing, finance and curriculum intent with confidence.