Re‑Thinking the Defaults
May 17th, 2026
Introduction
-2.png)
State education is, by necessity, education delivered at industrial scale. Schools operate within fixed funding models, regulatory frameworks, and workforce constraints, serving hundreds or thousands of pupils at once. To make this work, the system relies on standardisation.
This is not a criticism. One‑size‑fits‑all structures are what make large‑scale provision possible, and schools work exceptionally hard within those constraints to personalise learning where they can. However, the reality is that most curricula, timetables, and staffing models vary far less than we sometimes believe.
Integrated Curriculum Financial Planning (ICFP), particularly when supported by tools like WafflePlanner, creates an opportunity to step back and ask a different kind of question: what if some of our default assumptions are not inevitable — just untested?
The ideas below are not recommendations, nor suggestions that schools should change what they do tomorrow. They are thought experiments.
Do All Pupils Need the Same Amount of Time in School?
One of the strongest assumptions in the system is that pupils of the same age should spend the same number of hours in school, following broadly similar daily structures. Yet we know pupils respond differently to learning environments, group sizes, and intensity.
With robust modelling, a trust could explore what might happen if some pupils attended fewer lessons but in smaller groups, while others spent longer in larger classes. This is not about reducing entitlement, but about understanding how time, class size, staffing cost, and outcomes interact.
Why Do We Allocate Core Lesson Time So Uniformly?
Another deep‑rooted assumption is that most pupils should receive the same quantity of curriculum time in core subjects, regardless of prior attainment, confidence, or need.
Yet schools already personalise support informally through intervention, withdrawal, or additional sessions. ICFP allows leaders to ask what would happen if this variation were designed deliberately instead. Could higher‑need pupils benefit from more time in certain subjects, while others progress with less direct instruction? What does that mean for staffing, class structures, and cost?
These are difficult questions, but they are easier to ask when the consequences can be modelled rather than guessed.
Not All Subjects Make the Same Demands on Teachers
Schools tend to treat teaching responsibilities as broadly equivalent across subjects. Timetables may be balanced by lesson count, but the hidden workload beneath those lessons is far from equal.
Some subjects demand heavier marking, more complex preparation, or greater emotional labour. Others carry strong expectations around performances, fixtures, or productions. Yet PPA and leadership allowances often remain uniform.
Extended ICFP makes it possible to explore what happens if these differences are acknowledged more explicitly. Allocating time and responsibility based on actual workload, rather than perceived equivalence, could have significant implications for staff wellbeing — and these implications deserve to be properly understood.
Extra‑Curricular Activity and the Cost of Goodwill
Meanwhile, subjects such as PE, music, and drama often come with an implicit expectation of extra‑curricular contribution. Performances, fixtures, rehearsals, and competitions are vital to school life, but are frequently sustained through informal goodwill rather than formal planning.
ICFP can help trusts explore what it would look like if extra‑curricular commitment were treated as part of the staffing model rather than an invisible add‑on. This is not about removing enrichment, but about understanding its true cost and sustainability.
Why Modelling Matters
These ideas feel radical not because they are extreme, but because they challenge long‑held defaults. Without good modelling, such conversations quickly become uncomfortable or ideological.
WafflePlanner exists precisely to support this kind of thinking. By linking curriculum, staffing, time, and finance in a single model, it allows leaders to explore “what if?” scenarios safely. No changes are required. No decisions are forced. Insight is gained without risk.
Good ICFP widens the space for informed thinking. It allows trusts to understand not just what they do, but why they do it — and which assumptions are real constraints, and which are simply conventions.
In a system built on scale and standardisation, that understanding is a powerful thing.