Stage 1 - analyse Scout

Firstly, open SPaRO and choose the self-assessment section to view the situational analysis headings and fields.

Secondly, open Scout at the School dashboard to view the 5 focus areas for your review and analysis.

Note: there is no set length for a situational analysis, as it is a school-based decision and should include as much information as needed to inform future strategic directions.

Focus area and analysis - Enrolment

  • 750 students - 78% EAL/D (English as another language or dialect), 3% Aboriginal background - consistent for last 5 years
  • Support unit - 4 classes - not expected to change
  • ICSEA - 914 - steady
  • FOEI - 115

Focus area and analysis - Student performance

Top 2 NAPLAN bands:

  • Year 7: Reading 6% Numeracy 15%. Significant proportion of students (above both state and like schools) in low bands.
  • Year 9: Reading 4% Numeracy 4%. Significantly lower than state. Large number of students in bands 5 and 6.

Strategies to improve student literacy and numeracy results need to be a priority.

Growth: In 2019 NAPLAN, the school recorded a minimum growth in Reading from Band 5 into Band 6. This growth was below both state and like school average.

Gap analysis indentifies focus areas in Reading, including comprehension, vocabulary and language features.

In Numeracy focus areas include fractions and decimals, mental and written strategies and measurement.


  • Number of students achieving top two bands in HSC is below state and like school average. 76% of students receive Band 3 as their highest band in 2019.
  • Value added has been negative and consistently below state and like school average over recent years.
  • The need for a whole school targeted HSC strategy to move more students beyond Band 3 has been identified.
  • EAL/D student's not proportionally represented – additional support and professional learning for teachers needed in this area.

The NESA RAP package, including Z-Score analysis and item analysis, identified inconsistencies in student performance.

The use of RAP data to inform practice varies between head teachers at the faculty level.

The identification of teacher and faculty strengths, expertise and areas for improvement along with additional support is critical for school improvement.

Key target areas identified were:

  • the ability of students to answer “explain” questions in science
  • the use of stimulus material in answering questions
  • understanding the language used in numeracy such as ‘interpret’ and ‘analyse’ (particularly for EAL/D students).


  • % of students achieving expected growth numeracy - baseline 58.1%, lower bound 65.5% and upper bound 70.5%
  • % of students achieving expected growth reading - baseline 56.1%, lower bound 61.5% and upper bound 66.5%
  • % of results in top 2 HSC bands - baseline 11.4%, lower bound 17.0% and upper bound 22.0%
  • % of results in top 3 HSC bands - baseline 43.5%, lower bound 48.7% and upper bound 53.7%
  • % students in top 2 Numeracy bands - baseline 11.6%, lower bound 17.2% and upper bound 21.7%
  • % students in top 2 Reading bands - baseline 6.1%, lower bound 11.7% and upper bound 16.7%

Focus area and analysis - Wellbeing

TTFM (Tell Them From Me) – areas of lowest performance in student surveys are:

  • Expectations for success, aspirations and academic self-concept. This validates staff view that students require relevant and significant classroom lessons to build self-concept and engagement, making their future more meaningful. Project Based Learning (PBL) and Curiosity and Powerful Learning (CPL) are 'hands on' educational pedagogies to facilitate this engagement.
  • Students also rated 'teaching relevance and rigour' as very low, reinforcing the lack of relevance andf engagement in the lessons being taught. PBL will better engage students.

Areas of lowest performance in teacher surveys are:

  • teacher collaboration - use of data to inform practice and setting visible learning goals. To improve teacher collaboration, the coaching and mentoring program will be enhanced and we will focus on implementing research-based high-quality collaborative practice across the school. Extensive professional learning is planned to improve teacher capabilities in data skills and use.


  • Attendance - baseline 72.3%, lower bound 75.7% and upper bound 80.3%
  • Wellbeing - baseline 72.3%, upper bound 74.1% and lower bound 79.6%.

Focus area and analysis - Human resources


  • Teaching staff FTE 46
  • Non-teaching staff FTE 12, head count 14 - steady
  • Business manager employed
  • Above entitlement head teacher secondary studies is funded through socio-economic background equity loading.

Focus area and analysis - Finance

6100 – consolidated funds

  • School budget allocation $8,651,092 + opening balance carried forward from 2019 $290,540 = $8,941,632 total funds available for 2020.
  • $8,570,322 (96%) of funds were budgeted, leaving $371,310 unplanned. Of the budgeted funds, $126,940 was unspent.
  • Total unspent funds to be carried over to 2021 opening balance = $498,290.

6100 – funded programs

  • Professional learning – spent 2020. SBAR allocation 2021 - $32,234
  • Beginning teacher support – $34,000 received. Funding fully expended.
  • Equity - 2020 funding fullt expended. The 2019 unspent funds ($80,608) will be carried forward to 2021. These funds will be targeted to support students achieve expecred growth in numeracy.
  • SBAR equity allocation 2021 - $1,373, 320.

Return to top of page Back to top