Must every teacher have a specialism in every subject they teach?

Denmark's target is 95% competence coverage (Ministry 2024), where 'competence' covers specialism, teaching competence and CPD. The workbench shows the five levels separately, so you can document the effort — including for the remaining 5%.

How does the system handle teacher wishes?

Each teacher fills wishes per subject, class and hours in their own self-view. Leadership sees wishes as a layer over the allocation, and hit rate is logged as a KPI year over year.

Can the union rep get insight without leadership losing control?

Yes. The rep has read access to the whole allocation plus per-staff negotiation threads, but only leadership can change assignments. The whole dialogue is logged as an audit trail (DLF union handbook 2022).

How is allocation linked to timetable and budget?

Once sign-off is set, the allocation feeds the timetable designer (?autofill=fagfordeling), the substitute matcher and the yearly-plan seed automatically. Budget is computed continuously from subrole rates with per-staff overrides.

Subject allocation

Subject allocation with competency overview

Assign subjects to teachers based on specialism, experience and FTE. The research is unambiguous: Darling-Hammond (2000), Coe et al. (2014) and Hattie (2009/2023) show that subject-qualified teachers are the single largest factor in pupil attainment. Our subject allocation makes that factor visible before the decision is made.

Contact

FTE calculation live

Each teacher's full FTE shows live as you allocate — no surprised teachers later.

Specialism matching

Subjects auto-match against teachers' specialisms — coverage in percent, matching national reporting.

AI suggestions

AI suggests a starting allocation based on last year's data, FTE and specialisms.

Visual comparison

Compare with last year — see which teachers got more or fewer hours.

Lock individual choices

Lock a teacher's subjects when agreed — AI suggestions don't shift what's fixed.

Ready for the timetable

Once the allocation is locked, it feeds straight into the timetable — no double data entry.

In the classroom

Head in spring

Allocate next year's subjects in an hour instead of two days — with full fairness.

Middle leader

Ensures the language specialist gets the language — and a new teacher isn't left alone with Year 11.

Union rep

Sees the allocation transparently — no suspicion of favouritism.

For school leadership and for union reps / teachers

For school leadership

Subject allocation is the academic cornerstone — it shapes both competence coverage and next year's salary spend. EVA (2018) finds that leaders who work structurally with allocation achieve markedly higher teacher wellbeing and coverage. The workbench brings competence, wishes, FTE and budget into one view.

Live KPI for competence coverage — the figure the quality report requires
FTE and budget update as you allocate — no spreadsheet afterwards
Sign-off with signature is archived as evidence for the municipality

For union reps & teachers

Union reps see the full allocation openly — not just the final list. Teacher wishes, unanswered wishes, overload and annual-norm deviations are visible together, so co-determination happens on numbers, not rumour. Every teacher sees their own self-view before sign-off.

Teacher self-view before sign-off — no August surprises
Wish status (granted/partial/rejected) is documented
Negotiation round locks with digital signature (DLF union handbook 2022)

Works with

Timetable designer Staff roles Teaching hours ledger Teacher mastery

Research base

Subject allocation is grounded in international research on teacher quality and Danish legislation on competence coverage.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1) source
Coe, R., Aloisi, C., Higgins, S., & Major, L. E. (2014). What makes great teaching? Review of the underpinning research. Sutton Trust / Durham University source
Hattie, J. (2009/2023). Teacher subject-matter knowledge (d ≈ 0.11) and teacher credibility (d ≈ 1.09). Visible Learning MetaX source
Ingersoll, R. M. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26–37
Børne- og Undervisningsministeriet (2024). Mål om fuld kompetencedækning i folkeskolen (95 %) — opfølgningsrapport. uvm.dk source
Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut (EVA) (2018). Skoleledelsens arbejde med fagfordeling og kompetencedækning. EVA source
KL & Lærernes Centralorganisation (2020). Arbejdstidsaftale 2020 (A20) — Bilag 1: Den årlige planlægning af opgaver og tid. kl.dk source

Frequently asked questions

Ready to try it?

Get a free demo for your school — we'll show you the whole platform in 30 minutes.