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

  • 654 students - 78% NESB (non English speaking background), 20% EAL/D (English as another language or dialect), 5.8% Aboriginal background - consistent for last 5 years.
  • Support unit - 4 classes - not expected to change
  • ICSEA - 914 - steady
  • FOEI - 140

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

Staff: 2020 (see SBAR 2020 for full detail)

We are anticipating similar allocations in 2021 as enrolments are stable, including for support classes. All permanent staff are accredited as proficient, and none are HALT. 12% hold post-graduate degrees.

With a 15% turnover of staff in 2020, retention and development of quality teaching staff is a priority. For budgeting above entitlement, we used standard rates and costs.

Total staffing allocation (>75) includes:
  • Teaching/exec staff above entitlement
    • Head Teacher Secondary Studies $143,320 was funded through socio-economic background equity loading (flexible). This will be evaluated through Strategic direction 2 in 2021-2024
  • Teaching staff FTE 7.8 – Equity loadings (included in total, and anticipated in 2021)
    • 1.6 Socio-economic background with focus on in-class learning and wellbeing support and small group intervention. Continue in 2021 with a greater focus on data driven practices in literacy and numeracy across all faculties.
    • 3 .0 ELP (1 ESL trained) with focus on withdrawal intervention. Moving in 2021, focus on integration and other strategies as indicated in EAL/D Evaluation Framework.
    • 1.6 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 faculties.
  • Targeted staff for support classes
    • 10.8 FTE for 4 support classes (SD3 for 2021-2024 SIP)
  • Non-teaching staff FTE 12, head count 14 - steady
  • Business manager employed ($100,997 – Clerk 7/8 2020) funded through Principal Support ($26,601), Operational and 6300. Essential to fund this initiative 2021+
  • Effectiveness of over-entitlement SLSOs who were funded through flexible equity loadings was evaluated. Results showed little impact on student growth compared to specialist teacher intervention. SLSOs in future plan will form part of more effective collaborative support teams.

Focus area and analysis - Finance

6100 – Summary - SBAR + opening balances + budget adjustments

  • 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.

SBAR 2020 - we are anticipating similar in 2021

Targeted funding:

  • Refugee student support $11,131 overspent by $1,500 (taken from flexible ELP) as per 2020 Key initiative impact statement (in 2021, we will link to SD3)
  • Integration funding support $61,092 – 1.5 FTE SLSO with overspend supporting LLAD students by $33,221 (taken from LLAD flexible) – evaluation as per 2020 Key initiative impact statement (in 2021, we should link to SD3)
  • No newly arrived students in 2020, however, several arrived in 2018-19 (now Emerging)
  • 2020 funding fully expended and evaluated as per 2020 Key initiative impact statement. The 2019 unspent funds ($80,608) will be carried forward to 2021.
  • Equity loadings – flexible (FTE staffing in HR above). In our SIP from 2021, we will link these loadings to initiatives in our strategic directions.
  • SBAR equity allocation 2021 – estimating similar to 2020 of approx. $1,500,000 – includes staffing & flexible – see SBAR when published.
  • Flexible:
    • Socio-economic background $666,667 (Above entitlement Head Teacher Secondary Studies $143,320 – to continue and evaluate through SD2, $65,000 funding for extra-curricular fees, homework centre and uniform costs - to continue and evaluate through ‘Other funded activities’)
    • Aboriginal background $32,018 – AEO 0.4 employed to work with Aboriginal students developing PLPs. To continue 2021, linked to SD1
    • English Language Proficiency $41,806 – expended on casual teachers during COVID to support all teachers develop online learning resources for EAL/D students
    • Low Level Adjustment for Disability $88,567 – expended on SLSOs to support students in class; see above for future directions for SLSOs
Operational funding:
  • Per capita $179,696 – $40,000 expended on upgrades to fitness and sporting equiptment - see 2020 Key initiative impact statement
Initiative funding:
  • Professional learning – $85,034 spent as per 2020 milestone evaluation and including professional learning (TELL) for non ESL-trained EAL/D teachers.
  • Beginning teacher support – $34,000 received as a budget adjustment. Funding fully expended as per 2020 Key initiative impact statement. 2 teacher vacancies anticipated through graduate recruitment program in 2021.
  • Flexible Funding for Wellbeing Services $35,610 funding fully expended on 0.2 community liaison officer. Evaluated in AR, Wellbeing strategic direction.
Return to top of page Back to top