Where does the time actually go?

Curriculum alignment takes 2-3 hours, week-by-week allocation takes 2-3 hours, resource identification takes 1-2 hours, writing the document takes 2-3 hours, and review and adjustment takes about 1 hour. Most of the frustration is with transcription and formatting, not the planning itself.

Can a tool really reduce scheme of work creation time?

A tool that starts with curriculum data, suggests pacing based on topic density, links to available resources, and generates the output in the school's required format can significantly reduce the time spent on transcription and formatting. The thinking and planning still require educator judgment.

Why do different schools have different scheme of work formats?

There is no national standard format for schemes of work. Each school or school network defines its own template. This means tools need to support multiple output formats or allow customization.

How Teachers Create Schemes of Work

Q: How long does it take to create a scheme of work?

Based on our research with 47 educators across 4 states, the average is 8.5 hours per subject per term. A teacher handling three subjects spends approximately 25 hours per term on scheme of work creation alone.

A scheme of work is the operational backbone of teaching. It maps the curriculum to a weekly schedule, specifying which topics will be covered in which weeks, what resources are needed, and when assessments will occur.

Every teacher creates one. Every term. For every subject they teach. And for most teachers, it takes between 8 and 12 hours per subject per term.

We studied this process across 47 educators in Lagos, Enugu, Kano, and Rivers states through structured interviews and time-tracking in August 2026. Here is where the time actually goes.

Step 1: Curriculum Alignment (2-3 hours)

The teacher opens the NERDC curriculum document (or a photocopy of it) and locates the relevant section for their subject and level. They read through the topics for the term and identify which learning objectives apply.

This sounds straightforward. It is not.

The curriculum document is organized differently from how teachers work. The curriculum lists topics by subject and level. But a teacher teaching JSS1 Mathematics, JSS2 Mathematics, and SSS1 Mathematics in the same school needs to see all three levels simultaneously to ensure coherence. There is no tool that presents the curriculum this way.

Many teachers print the relevant pages and highlight them. Others copy topics into a notebook. Some create spreadsheets. The format varies, but the work is the same: translating a government document into a personal planning document.

Step 2: Week-by-Week Allocation (2-3 hours)

The teacher takes the aligned topics and distributes them across the weeks of the term. This requires judgment calls that the curriculum does not make explicit:

How many weeks should "Introduction to Algebraic Expressions" get? The curriculum says it is a "first term" topic. It does not say whether it needs two weeks or four.
Should assessment week count as a teaching week? Most schools have a dedicated assessment week. Should the teacher allocate topics to that week or plan around it?
How do public holidays and school events affect the schedule? A teacher in Kano needs to account for different holidays than a teacher in Lagos.
What happens when a topic takes longer than expected? The scheme of work is a plan, but reality does not follow plans.

Experienced teachers develop intuitions for these decisions. New teachers struggle. They either allocate too little time (rushing through content) or too much time (leaving no room for revision).

Step 3: Resource Identification (1-2 hours)

For each topic in the scheme, the teacher identifies what resources are needed. Textbooks (which ones, which chapters). Materials for practical work. Visual aids. Assessment items.

This is where the process becomes most fragmented. A teacher might have a good textbook for some topics but not others. They might have practical materials for science experiments but not for mathematics activities. They might have assessment questions from past years but need new ones for topics they have not taught before.

The resource identification step often reveals gaps. "I need a diagram of the human circulatory system but I do not have one. I need practical materials for the acid-base titration experiment but the school lab does not have the equipment. I need assessment questions for probability but my question bank does not cover that topic."

Step 4: Writing the Document (2-3 hours)

The teacher takes all of this planning and writes it into the school's scheme of work format. Different schools have different formats. Some use spreadsheets. Some use printed templates. Some use notebooks. The format varies, but the content is essentially the same: week number, topic, learning objectives, activities, resources, assessment.

This step is pure transcription. The thinking has been done. The teacher is copying their plan into a format that satisfies the school administration. It is tedious, repetitive work that adds no pedagogical value.

Step 5: Review and Adjustment (1 hour)

The completed scheme goes to the Head of Department for review. The HOD checks whether the scheme covers all required topics, whether the pacing is reasonable, and whether it aligns with the school's assessment calendar.

Feedback often requires revisions. A topic needs to be moved. An assessment needs to be rescheduled. A resource that was assumed available turns out not to be. The teacher adjusts and resubmits.

The Total Cost

Across the 47 educators we studied, the average total time was 8.5 hours per subject per term. A teacher handling three subjects spends 25+ hours per term on scheme of work creation alone. That is three full working days devoted to planning that produces a document most teachers describe as "necessary but painful."

The frustration is not about the planning itself. Teachers recognize the value of planning. The frustration is about the transcription and formatting. The thinking, deciding what to teach and when, is valuable. The copying into a spreadsheet format is not.

What Curriva Can Do

Imagine a scheme of work tool that starts with the curriculum data. The teacher selects their subject and level. The system pulls the relevant topics from the NERDC database and presents them with their learning objectives, suggested pacing, and prerequisite links.

The teacher drags topics into a weekly schedule. The system flags conflicts: "Topic X typically requires 3 weeks based on curriculum density, but you have allocated 1 week." It suggests adjustments based on patterns from other educators teaching the same subject.

For each topic, the system links to available resources: textbook chapters, assessment banks, media libraries. The teacher confirms or adjusts, but the resource identification is largely automated.

The final output is generated in the school's required format. No transcription. No reformatting. The thinking is preserved; the busywork is eliminated.

This is not a fantasy. It is a specific feature we are designing based on the workflow data we are collecting. Our research is filling in the details: which schools have which formats, which decisions are hardest for teachers, which resource gaps are most common.

The 8-12 hours per subject per term is not inevitable. It is a symptom of tools that do not understand the work educators do. Better tools can significantly reduce that time, freeing educators to spend the remaining time on what actually matters: thinking about their students.

How Teachers Actually Create Schemes of Work (And Why It Takes So Long)