Financial sustainability
Is our surplus healthy and resilient, and where is money leaking or being left on the table?
The most common finding in our diagnostic is a gap between a school's funding entitlement under the Schooling Resource Standard and what it actually receives. The second most common is a discount or concession policy that costs $100 to 200k a year with no evidence it influences enrolment decisions. This service examines the economics per student: funding accuracy, fee and revenue strategy, and cost structure benchmarked against schools genuinely like yours. Enrolment volume is covered in Growth. The operational redesign of delivery cost is covered in Delivery model. This is the financial view.
The framework
What we examine
Funding and revenue
| Subdriver | What we look at | What excellence looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Government funding (SRS, loadings) | Whether the school captures its full entitlement under the Schooling Resource Standard, including loadings. | All eligible loadings claimed accurately and in full; enrolment and census data reviewed against entitlements before submission; entitlement modelled and reconciled to what is actually received. |
| Fees and fee structure | The level and structure of fees relative to comparable schools and capacity to pay. | Fees benchmarked annually; a transparent schedule communicated early in the enrolment process; fee elasticity understood; a structured, defensible annual increase process. |
| Discounts and concessions | Sibling discounts, staff concessions, scholarships, and hardship provisions, and whether they are costed and working. | Total cost quantified annually as a percentage of gross fee revenue; each concession tested against its strategic intent; scholarships evaluated for enrolment impact. |
| Ancillary and other revenue | Non-fee income: facility hire, OSHC, international students, grants, and philanthropy. | Non-fee revenue actively managed and grown; facility hire priced and reviewed annually; international and philanthropic streams run with a dedicated plan. |
Government funding (SRS, loadings)
- What we look at
- Whether the school captures its full entitlement under the Schooling Resource Standard, including loadings.
- What excellence looks like
- All eligible loadings claimed accurately and in full; enrolment and census data reviewed against entitlements before submission; entitlement modelled and reconciled to what is actually received.
Fees and fee structure
- What we look at
- The level and structure of fees relative to comparable schools and capacity to pay.
- What excellence looks like
- Fees benchmarked annually; a transparent schedule communicated early in the enrolment process; fee elasticity understood; a structured, defensible annual increase process.
Discounts and concessions
- What we look at
- Sibling discounts, staff concessions, scholarships, and hardship provisions, and whether they are costed and working.
- What excellence looks like
- Total cost quantified annually as a percentage of gross fee revenue; each concession tested against its strategic intent; scholarships evaluated for enrolment impact.
Ancillary and other revenue
- What we look at
- Non-fee income: facility hire, OSHC, international students, grants, and philanthropy.
- What excellence looks like
- Non-fee revenue actively managed and grown; facility hire priced and reviewed annually; international and philanthropic streams run with a dedicated plan.
Cost structure (the financial view)
| Subdriver | What we look at | What excellence looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Staff cost ratio | Total staff cost as a share of revenue, the largest line, benchmarked. | Staff cost ratio benchmarked against comparable schools and understood by driver; movements explained and managed; connected to the operational levers in Delivery model. |
| Non-staff and facilities cost | Non-staff operating and facilities cost per student. | Costs benchmarked per student; procurement leverage used; planned (not reactive) maintenance and an energy plan; capital prioritised through a transparent, needs-based process. |
| Surplus position and resilience | Surplus per student and its resilience to enrolment or cost shocks. | Surplus per student known and benchmarked; sensitivity to enrolment and cost shifts modelled; a clear line of sight from financial decisions to the surplus that funds the mission. |
Staff cost ratio
- What we look at
- Total staff cost as a share of revenue, the largest line, benchmarked.
- What excellence looks like
- Staff cost ratio benchmarked against comparable schools and understood by driver; movements explained and managed; connected to the operational levers in Delivery model.
Non-staff and facilities cost
- What we look at
- Non-staff operating and facilities cost per student.
- What excellence looks like
- Costs benchmarked per student; procurement leverage used; planned (not reactive) maintenance and an energy plan; capital prioritised through a transparent, needs-based process.
Surplus position and resilience
- What we look at
- Surplus per student and its resilience to enrolment or cost shocks.
- What excellence looks like
- Surplus per student known and benchmarked; sensitivity to enrolment and cost shifts modelled; a clear line of sight from financial decisions to the surplus that funds the mission.
Data used
A funding-and-surplus model covering 2,675 Australian non-government schools, calibrated against actual My School financial data. It benchmarks your position against schools matched on enrolment, ICSEA, location, level, and sector, not generic business averages.
Illustrative opportunities
What this looks like in practice
A fee-discount policy costing $180k a year with no evidence it influences enrolment decisions.
Restructured at the next fee cycle, surplus restored.
Loadings under-claimed against SRS entitlement.
A funding review that recovers recurrent income.
Facility hire and OSHC run without a pricing strategy.
A managed non-fee revenue plan.
How we help
A funding, revenue, and cost-structure diagnostic, then targeted strategies for the priority levers, with an implementation plan. Where the issue is operational cost, the work passes to Delivery model.
What we stay out of
This is the financial diagnosis and the money levers. The operational redesign that changes the cost base lives in the Delivery model service.