Separate completion from quality

Placing every lesson proves feasibility only. Two schedules with the same lesson load may differ greatly if one creates unnecessary gaps, overloaded days or very short working days. Ask first whether the timetable is complete, then whether it is good.

Review teacher gaps

Unnecessary gaps increase the total time a teacher spends at school. Quality analysis should consider not only the number of gaps but where they occur. A single-period gap and a long multi-period wait should not be treated as identical costs.

Evaluate dense and short days together

A teacher with eight or ten lessons on one day and only one or two on another has an unbalanced schedule. Daily maximum lessons may be a hard constraint, while density below that limit can be optimized as a quality objective.

Check weekly lesson distribution

A five-hour weekly lesson spread as 2+2+1 may have a different quality profile from a 4+1 concentration. Block requirements, subject weight, repetition interval and class daily load should be considered together.

Evaluate student-centered placement

Optimization should not focus on teacher convenience alone. Lesson weight, the student’s total cognitive load on a day and suitable lesson periods can be part of the quality model, balancing teacher and student objectives.

Understand teacher-specific daily limits

Different teachers may have different daily maximum lesson limits. These limits directly shape the solution space. Spreading a teacher over three days or respecting a six-lesson daily maximum can be desirable, but the effect on other teachers must also be tracked.

Check school-wide fairness

Quality optimization should not perfect a few teacher schedules at the expense of the rest. The goal is to reduce gaps and workload pressure while maintaining balance across the school. Review both averages and the worst affected teachers.

Read duty day together with teaching intensity

Duty should not be considered independently of that day’s teaching load. Whether selected automatically or assigned administratively, the teacher’s capacity and lesson intensity should be part of the quality judgment.

Compare trials using the same metrics

One trial may reduce gaps while increasing short days or daily density. Compare trials using the same indicators: gaps, daily load, short days, distribution, school-wide fairness and duty compatibility where relevant.

Make quality problems explainable

The answer to “why did this teacher’s timetable get worse?” should not be “the solver did it.” Review workload, unavailable days, daily maximum, shared lessons, class time windows and competing resources to identify the source of quality pressure.

Tune quality objectives gradually

Do not change gap, short-day, density or distribution penalties by very large amounts all at once. Adjust gradually and compare not only the total score but teacher-level outcomes after every change.

Apply only after a quality review

Before selecting the applied timetable, review completion, teacher daily limits, gaps, density, short days, lesson distribution, school-wide fairness and duty compatibility together. The final choice is an administrative quality decision.

Two 100% complete timetables do not have to be equally good.

Do not judge a timetable by a single score.

Gaps

Density

Short day

Distribution

Student load

Fairness