A timetable connects the whole school in many ways and on many levels (Liddicoat et al., 2018). When one change is made to the timetable it will result in a possible alteration or interaction with other components of school life (Hipkins, 2020). For example, curriculum design is impacted by the timetable because simply there needs to be a set time to teach classes (Blasco, 2015; Hipkins, 2020). Taking away time or adding time alters what can be achieved in each lesson (Blasco, 2015; Hipkins, 2020). Likewise, as changes are made to curriculum priorities the timetable will need to be altered in order to accommodate the desired changes (Liddicoat et al., 2018).  Liddicoat et al., (2018) argue that:

Timetables are structures designed to organise learning over time. While

timetables are designed to facilitate learning, they can come to be powerful

structures that shape school cultures and have an impact on what can be done

in schools. (p. 6)

Therefore, as Liddicoat et al. (2018) state the power of a timetable within the school context potentially impacts student learning and the design of curriculum. What is valued by a school will have time in the timetable (Liddicoat et al., 2018). The main structures of the school will be set by a timetable that influences learning over time (Liddicoat et al., 2018). Hence, determining what some of these structures are and how they influence timetable design and implementation will form an important aspect of this research project.  

With every decision to make changes to the timetable it will potentially impact other areas of the school system. The research project aims to identify the underlying decision-making processes that occur during a timetable change and understand to what degree they impact curriculum design. Each school will participate in a timetable change within approximately three to five years (Hipkins, 2020). The research project aims to answer the following research questions.  

Key Research Questions:

To what extent does school timetable development impact on curriculum design in secondary school/s in Victoria?

How do curriculum and school-based priorities inform and shape timetabling across the mandated Learning Areas?

Specific Research Question One:

What are the factors that influence timetable parameters within Victorian Secondary Schools?

Specific Research Question Two:

What are the key stake holder’s perspectives about implementing timetable changes within the school context?

Specific Research Question Three:

What are the decision making processes involved in the construction of a timetable and implementation of curriculum design?

Specific Research Question Four:

What are the affordances and constraints of timetable structures for teachers?

Specific Research Question Five:

How do management decisions in relation to school timetable changes impact on curriculum design?

 By interacting with key members of a school who are involved in decisions to make and implement change this research aims to find how those decisions impact on curriculum design and likewise, how curriculum design can shape the need for a change to the timetable. The first research question above looks at the Victorian Secondary School context and what generalisations can be made from this system. The following two research questions endeavour to uncover the rationale behind the decision-making process. These two questions will gain perspectives from key stake holders and their motivation to bring about change in the school context. The final two research questions aim to identify teachers’ perspectives when change is made. Teacher’s voices will be key to identify their viewpoints and processes when a change is made to the timetable. The objective behind obtaining all perspectives is to find an optimum solution for implementing change within a school.

To determine which schools will participate in the research project a survey mapping process is to be completed. The results of the survey will identify schools willing to be involved in the research project and find common timetable parameters within Victorian Secondary Schools. The survey intends to identify which schools in Victoria have undergone a change to structure within the last two years. A key criteria to participate in the study will be that a recent timetable change must be completed in the prior two years before participating in the study. Once schools have responded to the survey mapping the timetable is analysed in terms of the following parameters: start and finish times, allocations of minutes to subjects and percentage break down between core and specialist allocations. (VanTassel-Baska and Wood, 2010) identify core subjects as humanities, mathematics, science and English. From the chosen schools key stake holders will be identified to answer the research questions. Key stake holders are defined as School Management – Principals, Deputy Principals, Timetabler, Curriculum Leaders, Subject Leaders and classroom teachers. Each stake holder in the chosen school will be interviewed and surveyed according to the processes surrounding timetable changes. The research aims to investigate the relationship from senior management to classroom teacher when a timetable change is implemented. It forms the basis for identifying the decision making process. Perspectives from all key stake holders with decision making authority within the school environment will be explored. Decision making capabilities are those persons who can either decide on change to the timetable or curriculum, implementing the desired change or ultimately down to the teacher who makes decisions about curriculum design and lesson structure. All specific research questions point towards answering the key research questions. Understanding all perspectives has the potential to unpack why change is made in the school environment and what are the results from these decisions. All research questions aim to capture key perspectives in the school environment and potentially enable the examination of the relationship between school timetabling and curriculum design in Victorian Secondary Schools.

The aim of this research project is to understand the rationale behind timetable and curriculum design and determine what are the key factors or inhibitors involved when schools are making decisions to change their timetables. Hence, it is important to understand all stake holders’ perspectives when a timetable or curriculum change is implemented. The design of this research project aims to encapsulate all stake holders’ perspectives when a timetable change has occurred in select secondary schools in Victoria. A key criterion for being part of this study will be that the school must have completed a timetable change within the previous 2 years from data collection. Unlike, Gabhainn et al. (2010) Liddicoat et al. (2018), Nicholas and Ng (2010) and Wiggins et al. (2017) this research project will not implement a curriculum or timetable change, however, it endeavours to study the common themes presented by recent timetable changes in Victorian Secondary schools. It is worth noting that none of the five studies conducted by Gabhainn et al. (2010), Hipkins, 2020; Liddicoat et al., 2018; Nicholas & Ng, 2010; and Wiggins et al., 2017 incorporated all the perspectives from leadership teams to teachers in their research. They endeavoured to understand some stake holders’ perspectives but neglected to include all stake holders’ perspectives in any of their research projects. This research project aims to not look at one type of curriculum implementation as it will look to identify key stake holders’ perspectives on timetable changes in general as experienced by leadership teams and teaching staff. Therefore, giving voice to all stake holders, rather than select members of the school community. It is expected that from the research clear themes and processes will be identified in order to assist schools when making timetable or curriculum changes.

Blasco, M. (2015). Conceptualising curricular space in busyness education: An aesthetic approximation. Management Learning, 47(2), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507615587448 Hipkins, R. (2020). Beneath the surface of timetable changes. New Zealand Principal, 25–28. Liddicoat, A. J., Scarino, A., & Kohler, M. (2018). The impact of school structures and cultures on change in teaching and learning: The case of languages. Curriculum Perspective, 38(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-017-0021-y Nicholas, H., & Ng, W. (2010). Factors influencing the uptake of a mechatronics curriculum initiative in five Australian secondary schools. International Journal of Technology Design Education, 22, 65–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9138-0 VanTassel-Baska, J., & Wood, S. (2010). The Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM). Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 345–357. Wiggins, M., Parrao, C. G., Austerberry, H., Ingold, A., Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) (United Kingdom), & University College London (UCL) (United Kingdom), I. of E. (IOE). (2017). Foreign Language Learning in Primary School: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. ERIC. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=eric&AN=ED581156&site=ehost-live&custid=s2775460