Sample C - Large Primary School 1

Developing your situational analysis.

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

Enrolment of 560 which has declined by 5% in the last 3 years.

Language backgrounds other than English (LBOTE) students represent 88% of student cohort, consistently across all year levels. 78% of students require some level of EAL/D support. Vietnamese and Indian languages are the most predominant languages spoken at home, and these languages are supported through the Community Languages program. Newly arrived students and Refugee students requiring support have been steady over the last 4 years, however, during 2020 this trend declined markedly. Post-COVID, we anticipate this trend may pick up again.

4% Aboriginal student background is steady.

FOEI currently at 139 and has increased from 115 from the start of the previous plan.

Focus area and analysis - Student performance

Value-add - K-3 is Sustaining and Growing. Year 3-5 is Delivering. Year 5-7 is Sustaining and Growing.

Expected growth in 2019 NAPLAN - 62% in numeracy. 71% for EAL/D students. 72% in reading. 80% for EAL/D students. These figures are off track for achieving lower bound target in 2022.

Internal growth progressions data is higher than external data. This has questioned the validity of teacher judgment.

NAPLAN Top 2 bands- 2019

  • Numeracy: Year 3 - 62.5% and Year 5 - 57.3%
  • Reading: Year 3 - 47.3% and Year 5 - 40.2%

This extends the upward trend of previous two years and is on track to reach target in 2022, as well as being above state average and above SSG.

Gap Analysis - Prioritised by percentage incorrect at school, difference from state and outcome level.

From the findings of the gap analysis in Reading, the focus areas include:

  • read, view and comprehend texts
  • features including punctuation conventions and vocabulary.

From the findings of the gap analysis in Numeracy, the focus areas include:

  • measurement and geometry
  • fractions and decimals
  • place value and additive strategies.

Focus area and analysis - Wellbeing

Attendance - 95%. This has been steady over the last 3 years.

Attendance above 90%-94%. This has declined by 1% in the last three years and is of no concern to us as a school

TTFM (Tell Them From Me) in the areas of Advocacy, Sense of belonging and High expectations shows a decline over the last three years but still sits above state average.

Suspension rate remains below 2%.

Focus area and analysis - Human resources

SBAR 2020 – we are anticipating similar in 2021.

Staffing entitlement - base

Teacher/Exec FTE: 27 - a low turnover in 2019, however significant numbers of part-time permanent staff have led to temporary engagements. Job shares for classes have been minimised through careful planning, and successful class teacher partnerships have provided models for best practice.. There are no3 beginning teachers currently (1st year), althoughand several5 more are still considered early career. There is sStability within the leadership team.

All permanent staff are accredited as proficient, and none are HALT. 15% hold post-graduate degrees. Opportunities for developing leadership through deputy principal instructional leadership roles is an area for development, and this process will commence with expressions of interest for role(s).

For budgeting above entitlement, we used Standard rates and costs.

Staffing - other

QTSS (FTE 1.233)

2x APs were funded off class half a day a week to model explicit teaching in literacy and numeracy as well as lead data meetings with their teams. Although teacher evaluations of this practice indicate benefit, teachers also indicated need for collaborative practices such as more lesson observation and joint teaching opportunities. Consider an additional instructional leadership position be funded through equity loadings linked to SD1 in 2021 with QTSS linked to collaborative practices in SD2 in 2021-2024 SIP.

Literacy and Numeracy Intervention (FTE 0.42) – 0.5 FTE Reading Recovery for Year 1 students currently in place and well established (supplemented by LLAD equity loading). To be reviewed in 2021 considering: Primary Literacy Consultant, Literacy & Numeracy Strategy, school benchmarking practices, recent L3 review, phonics diagnostics and curriculum review.

Primary – Community language (FTE 1.6) 1.0 Vietnamese CLP teacher (current temporary teacher, position vacant), 0.6 Indian languages (Hindi) CLP teacher. Teacher survey indicated timetabling disruptions; exec staff and temporary teacher recently completed CLP training indicating need for improvement with curriculum integration.

Equity staff

EAL/D staffing teacher (FTE 3.2) with focus on Beginning (95) and Emerging (148) students. In class regular timetabled support for Kindergarten classes, and withdrawal for other grade Beginning. EAL/D Evaluation Tool indicates school is at Delivering level.

LLAD staffing teacher (FTE 1.5) - 0.3 LLAD with focus on small group intervention in previous School Plan. Continue in 2021 with a greater focus on data driven practices in literacy and numeracy across all stages.

Socio-economic background – flexible (FTE 3.0 teachers, 7.0 SLSO) current focus on small group intervention. Teacher survey and executive review suggests change mix in 2021 with additional instructional leader ($167,335)

Targeted funding

Refugee student support $47,565 for staffing only: 0.5 FTE SLSO bilingual support flexibly delivered, 0.2 wellbeing teacher weekly check-ins and coordinating homework support – balance $5,400 funded through socio-economic background equity loading). Highly effective due to availability of flexible SLSOs with prerequisite language backgrounds. Annual evaluation in 2021+ through Other funded activities.

Integration funding support $96,970 for staffing only: ($66,442 standard cost 1.0 FTE) 2 full time SLSOs employed. 1.5 FTE IFS, + 0.5 FTE LLAD flexible – evaluation as per 2020 Key initiative impact statement. Annual evaluation in 2021+ through Other funded activities.

Non-teaching staff

FTE 4.062, head count 6 – steady + 7.0 SLSO above entitlement (equity) + (2.5 SLSO targeted funding)

Effectiveness of over-entitlement SLSO (7.0) funded through flexible equity loadings was evaluated through teacher surveys. Teachers reported that SLSOs were beneficial to support group learning (reading and maths rotations) and individual support, especially in writing. 100% of all teachers surveyed indicated that SLSOs should be retained, however, additional trained teachers would provide a higher quality support for student need.

Survey results showed the additional spend on SLSOs was a necessity for students with integration funding and ‘extremely’ helpful for LLAD students; continue in 2021.

Focus area and analysis - Finance

School budget allocation $721,729 + opening balance carried forward from 2019 $29,000 = $750,729 total funds available for 2020. 97% of funds were budgeted, leaving $48,672 unplanned. Of the budgeted funds, $26,940 was unspent. Of the unplanned funds, $13,599 was unspent. Total unspent funds to be carried over to 2021 opening balance = $40,539.

Targeted funding- see HR above

  • Refugee student support $47,565
  • Integration funding support – $96,970

Flexible equity loading funds

Socio-economic background– $835,340 (stable) - $793,246 used on staffing – 7 x SLSO @ $66,442 = $465,094 + 3 teachers @ $109,384 = $328,152 – (staffing mix to change in next plan – more teachers, fewer SLSOs, additional instructional leader).

Aboriginal background – $7,212 (stable) – used to develop PLPs. To continue 2021 with greater emphasis on collaborative and streamlined practices.

English language proficiency – $40,242 (decreasing) – expended on above entitlement part-time teacher providing in class support.

Low level adjustment for disability – $ 86,209 – previously expended on SLSO to support students in class; evaluation indicated redirection of this flexible loading to above entitlement teacher providing learning support.

2020 funding fully expended and evaluated as per 2020 Key initiative impact statement. The 2019 unspent funds ($29,000) will be carried forward to 2021.

Flexible initiative funds

  • Professional learning – $55,701 (stable) – expended as per 2020 milestone evaluation and AR.
  • Literacy and numeracy - $26,625 – expended as per 2020 milestone evaluation and AR.
  • Flexible Funding for Wellbeing Services $40,060 – expended as per 2020 milestone evaluation and AR.
  • School support allocation- $35,240 – expended as per additional SASS support.

Flexible

Operational Funding:

  • Per capita $37,038. Expended on technology resources and K-2 reading resources - see 2020 key initiative impact statement

Staffing other- see HR above

QTSS – $134,870 – see HR above

Unplanned funds in the eFPT $48,672.

Developing your situational analysis.

Stage 2 - analyse SEF S-aS and EV

Note - in SPaRO, the 'Focus themes' column will already be prepopulated with the data schools added to their SEF S-aS. Also, for this school sample, the external validation (EV) column is empty, as EV occurred before 2018 or will occur in coming months.

Legend:

  • WTD = working towards delivering
  • D = delivering
  • S&G = sustaining and growing
  • E = excelling
  • NA = not applicable.


Element 2018 2019 EV panel report Focus themes
LEARNING



Learning culture S&G S&G NA High expectations
Wellbeing S&G S&G NA Planned approach to wellbeing
Curriculum S&G S&G NA Teaching and Learning programs
Differentiation
Assessment D D NA Formative assessment
Whole school monitoring of student learning
Reporting S&G S&G NA
Student performance measures S&G S&G NA Student growth
Internal and external measures against syllabus standards
TEACHING



Effective classroom practice S&G S&G NA Feedback
Data skills and use D D NA Data use in teaching
Data use in planning
Professional standards S&G S&G NA Literacy and numeracy focus
Learning and development S&G S&G NA Collaborative practice and feedback
LEADING



Educational leadership S&G S&G NA Instructional leadership
High expectations culture
School planning, implementation and monitoring S&G S&G NA Continuous improvement
School resources S&G S&G NA Staff deployment
Management practices S&G S&G NA

Reflections on SEF S-aS and EV

Delivering in assessment and data skills and use for the past 2 years. Theme level drilldown shows assessment data is not being used consistently to inform teaching. There is also a lack of valid and comparable teacher judgment across the school. Data use in teaching and data use in planning have been highlighted as areas for further development.

Within the domain of learning, in the element of learning culture, high expectations will become a focus. In curriculum, teaching and learning programs and differentiation will be called out for improvement. There will be a clear focus on assessment and improving student performance data particularly in growth and value add.

Although we are sustaining and growing in effective classroom practice and learning and development in the themes of feedback and collaborative practice and feedback we are delivering. These will become a focus moving forward.

Leading domain focus will be educational leadership, school planning implementation and monitoring and using school resources effectively

The school will undertake external validation later in 2020.


Developing your situational analysis.

Stage 3 - analyse internal school data, research and literature

Analysis of 2018-2020 School Plan improvement measures

The key projects under the current school plan included PBL, improvement in writing and developing a better structure for wellbeing support and monitoring. There has been significant improvement in behaviour data with more consistency across the school. Structures and processes to identify students needing additional support have been streamlined with increased school resources provided to support individual students writing achievement, as measured from the school rubric. This has resulted in improvement, particularly with Year 3 girls. Our other improvement measures have not been achieved though, as our work we did didn’t target maths and reading as much as was needed. We are disappointed to see we have dropped in our results in both areas.

Future work needs to maintain and grow our gains in writing while targeting reading and numeracy.

Forums/survey

A positive from our writing professional learning from teachers asked us to keep the supportive structure including collaborative planning of lessons, peer and IL feedback, the use of the IL to do demonstration and team teaching lessons and the work to date on understanding and interpreting the data to match what each student needs next.

Teachers indicated that trained teachers in supporting or co-teaching roles were able to support students in their learning needs to a greater depth than through SLSOs. With an emerging trend for greater teacher collaboration and to lift results in reading and numeracy, the balance of SLSOs/ support teachers using needs-based funding should be realigned to deliver maximum benefit to students.

Other assessment data

Internal assessment data does not reflect external data. Our internal reading and comprehension assessments are showing students are being judged as working at a higher level than they are showing in external assessments such as PAT and NAPLAN. Further to this, consistency in analysing assessment data, such as running records, was not evident. Mathematics assessments have traditionally included SENA and class-based assessments. These rely heavily on the assessment of computation and there was little evidence of assessing problem solving strategies. Consistency across the stages is needed. A structured assessment schedule is not in place. Consistency across the stages is needed.

EAL/D and Community Languages

A self-assessment against the EAL/D School Evaluation Framework determined a baseline level of Delivering for Learning, Teaching and Leading domains, with some success criteria in Sustaining and Growing. The framework indicated that systematic collection and analysis of EAL/D student assessment data, (including sliced NAPLAN data for EAL/D students), professional learning and collaborative practice were key areas for development to improve student outcomes.

Executive staff, Community language teacher and Classroom teachers reviewed structure of CLP program. The temporary CL teacher and an executive member of staff recently completed CLP training and this highlighted the need for improvement particularly with curriculum integration and supporting the school to achieve Excellence on the EAL/D School Evaluation Framework with regards to Leading domain, Parent and community engagement. Given the value of this training, attendees have recommended a focus in the next planning cycle, more widespread teacher training, greater teacher collaboration and possibilities for curriculum integration.

Student voice

Sadly, though TTFM is reporting students feeling positive about success, most are reporting being ‘bored’ the majority of time in class. A significant percentage of students (40%) are disengaged. Most report not knowing what and why they are learning certain things and don’t see the relevance.

Literature and research

  • SEF
  • What Works Best – Collaboration and feedback
  • Student-Centred Leadership Viviane Robinson
  • WWB High expectations, CESE – effective leadership and 5 essentials for effective evaluation
  • Vivianne Robinson: The impact of leadership on student outcomes: Making sense of the evidence
  • Literacy and Numeracy Strategy 2018-2020 (and updated strategy once available)
  • Curriculum review
  • English and Mathematics Syllabus documents
  • Simon Breakspear’s learning sprints
  • What Works Best to Improve Student Performance including use of data to inform practices.

Developing your situational analysis.

Stage 4 - consider all evidence

2019 AR evaluation of improvement measures indicated that further consolidation of pl in relation to data informed teaching, collaborative practice and feedback is required. The validity of teacher judgment needs to be a focus based on student outcomes analysis.

Focus area 1

Increase the number of students achieving expected growth in Numeracy and Reading NAPLAN through data use and explicit teaching.

Assessment

  • formative assessment
  • whole school monitoring of student learning

Student performance measures

  • student growth
  • internal and external measures against syllabus standards

Data skills and use

  • data use in teaching.

Implications/problem of practice

2019 TTFM (Tell Them From Me) student survey says 34% of children are confident of their skills but don’t find the work challenging. The state comparison is 26%. Year 5 Numeracy expected growth is significantly lower than the target. There is a decline from K-3 results to Year 3-5 results in both Reading and Numeracy in NAPLAN. The trend over the past 3 years shows Value-add - K-3 is Sustaining and Growing (S&G), Y3-5 is Delivering, Y5-7 is S&G. Using data in teaching and data use in planning will also be a focus of strategic direction one, ensuring teachers clearly understand and develop the full range of assessment strategies, and use them to determine teaching directions, assess progress and reflecting on teaching practice.

Lack of challenge could be part of the Year 3-5 Numeracy decline in top 2 bands. This needs further investigation through a document analysis of assessment data and Numeracy programs, NAPLAN gap analysis, focus groups with students and interviews with teachers to fully understand problems of practice and investigate the best way forward in relation to best pedagogical practice. Structures need to be put in place to identify students who need intervention within and beyond the classroom. Students not showing growth will be identified every 5 weeks (including those students working at higher levels), referred to LaST for a 5 week intensive learning program, provided a PLSP targeting specific needs and monitored for improvement.

The instructional leadership model delivered through the QTSS release will be improved upon. While QTSS release will focus on collaborative practices in SD2, an additional instructional leadership position at DP level (2 x 0.5 FTE – K-2 & 3-6) will be funded through equity loadings. This structure will enable development of school leadership capabilities required for SD3 by providing class teacher to AP and AP to DP higher duties through EOI.

Focus area 2

Improve teacher practice and effectiveness through explicit systems for collaboration and feedback.

Effective classroom practice

  • feedback

Learning and development

  • collaborative practice and feedback

Implications: Using data in teaching and data use in planning will also be a focus of strategic direction two ensuring teachers clearly understand and develop the full range of assessment strategies and use them to determine teaching directions and assessing progress and reflecting on teaching practice. We need specificity around what a quality reading or numeracy lesson looks like, as in modelled, shared, guided and independenrt. We also need to provide opportunity for teachers to collaborate on lesson design and provide feedback through supportive peer observations. The QTSS staffing release will be dedicated to collaborative practices.

Focus area 3

High expectation and continuous improvement culture.

Data skills and use

  • data use in planning

Educational leadership

  • instructional leadership
  • high expectations culture

School planning, implementation and monitoring

  • continuous improvement

School resources

  • staff deployment
  • financial management.

Implications: It has been difficult to determine the impact of strategies across the school due to limited evaluative practices. This has resulted in missed opportunities to review, revise and refine processes as well as missed opportunities to celebrate and grow successful strategies across the school. Effective processes for benchmarking school performance are necessary for the school to move forward.

The leadership team needs to ensure resources are allocated to provide significant time for teachers to learn, plan and work together. Clear and accurate monitoring and analysis of student achievement data on a regular basis will inform whole school resource allocation for maximum impact and improvement. Continual monitoring of student performance data will determine areas of need and success at a whole school level. The involvement of the whole school community in this process will be essential and work across the learning community should be utilised if possible.

The leadership team will participate in action research on evaluative practices for continual school improvement. This action research will provide a ‘narrow and deep’ focus on evaluative practices, a deeper understanding of the SPaRO software and the School Excellence Policy and guidelines.

Developing your situational analysis.

Stage 5 - prepare for community consultation

Draft strategic directions for community consultation

Draft Strategic Direction 1 Draft Strategic Direction 2 Draft Strategic Direction 3
Student growth and attainment Explicit systems for collaboration and feedback High expectations and continuous improvement culture
Return to top of page Back to top