School Timetabling Software: Nova T6 vs Bromcom wTimeTable

School timetabling remains one of the most complex operational tasks in secondary schools.

In last year's timetabling season, I wrote about my initial experiences with Bromcom’s wTimeTable while I was still forming a view. Having now completed several full timetable builds using it, I feel better placed to offer a

reflection for experienced school timetablers considering a move away from Nova T6. This is my perspective shaped by practice and by the realities of secondary school timetabling.

School Timetabling for a Straightforward Key Stage 3 to 4 Model

One of the timetables I built in wTimeTable was a straightforward secondary school timetable construction. Years 7 to 11. A one week cycle, apart from some doubles and a DT food rotation. The usual pressures of part time staff and limited specialist rooms, but no unusual structural complexity. In this context, the timetabling software coped reasonably well.

I chose to manually place most of the Year 10 and Year 11 option blocks early in the process. Experience tells me that leaving those too late increases constraint, particularly when several part time colleagues share the same preferred day off (Fridays!!). Once those blocks were evenly disributed, I moved into the rest of KS4 and then lower school scheduling.

The most significant friction arose when implementing the DT rotation. The system did not mirror weeks in the way I expected. It took time, and some manual session entry that I locked in, to get the software to keep mirroring the weeks. This was manageable, but it required patience and careful checking.

From the outset, I was conscious that in some subjects where the classes were set, the staffing allocations in Key Stage 3 would have consequences later in the timetable construction. Certain combinations of teachers would not sit cleanly alongside Year 10 and Year 11 blocks. Those implications needed to be thought through before entering them into the system.

That upfront modelling reduced split classes and preserved flexibility later on.

My concern is that a less experienced school timetabler might not immediately recognise the importance of modelling those downstream effects. At present, wTimeTable does little to make those risks visible. The system assumes a level of structural foresight that not every timetabler will yet have developed.

I did use the auto scheduling function for much of this school timetabling process. While the system allows detailed rule setting and prioritisation, it struggles once constraints begin to interact. The configuration options suggest a level of control that the scheduling engine cannot always sustain under pressure.

That said, for a timetable of this level of complexity, the outcome was good. With foresight and some manual adjustments, I was pleased with the final result.

School Timetabling in a Complex 11 to 18 Setting

The experience was very different in a second school. Years 7 to 13. A two week cycle. Complex sixth form option blocks, some co teaching, and several difficult lower school constraints.

In this case, the auto scheduling function was not usable. It repeatedly produced highly unbalanced outcomes that could not realistically be salvaged. Exploring alternative approaches was slow because of noticeable system lag when regenerating or adjusting schedules. Iterative experimentation, which is essential in complex school timetables, became disproportionately time consuming.

Eventually, we stepped outside the software. We mapped the timetable structure externally using Excel, constructed the block logic manually, and then entered that framework into wTimeTable. At that point, the system functioned more as a data repository than as a genuine school timetabling engine.

Based on that experience, I would hesitate before using wTimeTable for complex 11 to 18 secondary school timetabling in its current form.

Workflow and Efficiency in School Timetable Management

There are also workflow considerations that matter during timetabling season.

Some routine tasks take longer than expected. For example, renaming classes for one school took over two hours per year group because each change had to be made individually, with no bulk edit functionality and slow responses between actions. In more mature timetabling software such as Nova T6, this would have taken minutes.

What This Means for School Timetablers

For those responsible for school timetabling, the central issue is not simply whether the software works. It is whether it supports the level of structural complexity in your setting. If your secondary school timetabling model is relatively straightforward, and you are already embedded within the Bromcom ecosystem, wTimeTable may be a viable option. However, if you are constructing complex 11 to 18 school timetables with layered constraints, co teaching, and intricate option blocking, the current limitations are likely to increase workload rather than reduce it.

As ever in school timetabling, professional judgement remains central. The software should amplify expertise, not compensate for its absence.

Frequently Asked Questions for School Timetablers

What is Bromcom’s wTimeTable?

wTimeTable is a cloud based timetabling software module within the Bromcom MIS. It is intended as a replacement for legacy tools such as Nova T6.

Is wTimeTable better than Nova T6 for school timetabling?

The answer depends largely on structural complexity.

For relatively straightforward 11 to 16 secondary school timetabling, wTimeTable can be effective, particularly when the timetabler understands the implications of early decisions.

For complex 11 to 18 school timetable construction, it currently lacks the depth, diagnostic transparency, and scheduling resilience that experienced school timetablers may expect.

Is it suitable for school timetable management?

It is a promising option for schools with simpler timetable structures, especially those already embedded within the Bromcom MIS.

It is best suited to school timetablers who understand the mechanics of timetable construction and are prepared to intervene manually where necessary.

Pros and Cons Compared with Nova T6

Pros

• Cloud based access

• Integrated within Bromcom MIS

• Auto scheduling performs reasonably well for simpler school timetables

  
  

Cons

• Slow setup and limited bulk editing tools

• Auto scheduling struggles with complex constraint interaction

• Fewer mature diagnostics and support resources at present

  
  

If you are considering the move, the key question whether it supports the demands of your school timetabling model.