Practice data

The 15 councils of 60,000–120,000 residents, plus Kiama. A different population band from the Penrith task’s comparison group.

Data table

● Six-council teaching table. Shaded row: Kiama, outside the band.
council	population_2024	total_circulation	total_expenditure_aud	members_65plus	members_under65	members_young_adult	members_junior	members_community_groups	total_members	total_stock	library_visits	visits_how_collected
Blue Mountains	78,891	542,822	4,744,817.48	8,355	15,799	854	3,097	42	28,755	128,679	349,807	Counters
Canada Bay	92,255	507,381	6,836,611.95	4,944	24,623	1,918	2,242	3	33,730	155,988	459,230	Counters
Cessnock	69,352	183,561	2,663,282.63	3,420	6,003	0	3,398	130	12,951	69,840	122,758	Counters
Coffs Harbour	81,248	364,686	3,804,043.74	12,658	29,557	1,632	3,600	289	48,260	140,765	366,998	Counters
Hawkesbury	68,704	279,438	3,490,422.16	3,007	13,000	275	1,555	87	18,112	198,017	123,860	Counters
Maitland	98,163	379,356	4,457,577.66	3,972	19,332	1,410	2,463	113	27,741	117,554	194,750	Counters
MidCoast	98,582	674,916	6,039,284.13	12,228	12,577	1,374	1,413	165	27,799	154,356	289,329	Counters
North Sydney	72,909	610,479	4,914,643.0	5,769	13,174	564	1,150	31	20,849	196,057	315,540	Counters
Port Macquarie-Hastings	90,835	688,257	4,236,421.51	11,043	17,517	1,658	3,552	217	33,987	128,692	299,093	Counters
Queanbeyan-Palerang	66,855	216,594	2,242,689.85	2,033	6,077	527	1,161	26	9,824	67,166	125,732	Counters
Shellharbour	81,566	626,151	3,866,680.53	6,986	15,769	1,773	2,115	157	26,800	147,201	205,806	Counters
Shoalhaven	110,803	423,947	4,830,092.71	0	27,140	0	3,287	140	34,299	113,353	305,244	Counters
Wagga Wagga	68,951	284,990	2,992,483.0	3,790	10,743	2,029	2,260	364	19,186	90,798	138,730	Counters
Waverley	72,857	380,489	6,579,898.17	4,882	19,809	1,413	1,350	0	27,454	185,637	483,249	Counters
Willoughby	79,634	852,256	8,125,164.11	9,513	31,597	3,612	5,499	19	50,804	202,765	832,292	Counters
Kiama	23,173	149,453	1,551,088.43	0	8,838	0	2,218	4	11,114	67,616	89,289	Counters

Calibration pair

Criterion statementRelation & benchmarkAnomaly checkDecision & defenceLimitation

Sample A · Band C~105 words

This report analyses Cessnock City Council's library performance against the other councils in the dataset.

The average loans per resident across all six councils is 5.27, while Cessnock's figure is 2.65, so Cessnock's libraries are underperforming and need improvement.

Cessnock reports zero young-adult members, which shows that young people in Cessnock rarely use their library.

It is recommended that the council invest more in youth outreach programmes and purchase more books to attract more visitors.

Sample B · top band~210 words

Library performance is assessed on two criteria: community reach (loans per resident, relative to a justified peer group) and cost efficiency (operating cost per loan).

Kiama (population 23,173) sits below the 60,000-resident floor of this regional-city band and is excluded: its figures reflect a different service scale, not poorer performance. Of the five comparable councils, the median reach is 3.86. Cessnock, at 2.65 loans per resident, falls 31% below that benchmark. Its cost per loan, $14.51, is the band's highest, while Wagga Wagga delivers comparable reach at $10.50.

Two councils in this band report zero young-adult members, Cessnock and Shoalhaven, although both report thousands of junior members. Neighbouring Maitland, similar in size, reports 1,410. A zero that appears in more than one council and sits alongside healthy junior figures points to how membership categories are configured, not to how young people behave.

Before any funding decision, the registration configuration should be verified, because the youth-programme case currently cannot be assessed: the data that would justify it is exactly what the category breakdown fails to provide.

One limitation: loan counts measure borrowing, not people, so active membership is the better guide to reach; and one year of data cannot show a trend.

1Hand out both paragraphs in mixed order, labels removed (“Paragraph one”, “Paragraph two”). Keep the teacher sidebars back until step 3.

2Students mark each paragraph independently with the band language of Marking Criteria 1–2 and write one sentence of reasoning.

3Reveal: the teacher’s marking and the sidebars. Students compare their reading with the teacher’s and note the gap.

4Close with one question: “The second error in Paragraph one — did you make it yourself in your Section 2?”

Practice data

Data table

Calibration pair

Blind-mark protocol · 5 minutes