Australian Government Department of Education
More Support for Students with Disabilities 2012-2014
Evaluation Case Study
Lead and Buddy Schools
MSSD Output 8: Assessing learning levels and adapting curriculum
South Australia
Department for Education
and Child Development (DECD)
www.phillipskpa.com.au
Lead and Buddy schools
Abstract
The South Australia government established a number of lighthouse schools prior to the
More Support for Students with Disabilities (MSSD) initiative to strengthen teachers’
abilities in assessment and curriculum adaptations. The lighthouse schools are expected
to work with other schools to share knowledge and enhance capabilities. Known within
South Australia as ‘lead and buddy schools’, the model is premised on the lead schools
having pre-existing strengths in leadership, differentiated curriculum delivery and strong
learning programmes augmented by professional learning and resources provided by
the Department of Education and Childhood Development (DECD). The overarching aim
is to support teachers in adapting curriculum at a general level for students with
disabilities, with a particular focus on students with an Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Introduction
More Support for Students with Disabilities (MSSD) Output
Output 8: Supporting school staff to assess the current learning level of students with
disabilities, adapt the teaching curriculum to suit their current level of ability and report on
student progress against adapted curriculum.
The lead and buddy schools model also has direct links with other Department of Education and
Childhood Development (DECD) MSSD outputs. Output 5 provides training for practicing teachers to
build their skills in special education where one of the online learning programmes has a specific
focus on Autism and the other on Dyslexia and reading difficulties. Output 7 supports principals
and/or school leadership teams to strengthen teachers’ abilities to assist students with disabilities.
Additionally, the underlying principles of Output 6, providing training for all school staff to improve
understanding of their obligations under the Disability Standards for Education 2005, are embedded
in DECD’s approach to implementing Output 8 through the lead and buddy schools model.
Case study methodology
This case study looks at one of the two lead buddy schools in a small network. It involved an initial
site visit to the school in early September, 2012 and included collecting background information
about the school and to refine the approach to completing the case study.
The case study report was drafted and then supplemented by material gathered through follow-up
conversations and brief site visits during Term 4, 2012. The visits included an interview with the
principal of a nearby school that is teaming with the case study school sharing the lead school role. A
further site visit is planned for Term 1, 2014.
Page 2 of 7
Description of activity
Background
The case study school is a primary school in the northern suburbs of Adelaide in South Australia. It
has an enrolment of 180 students and a socio-economic index rating of 938 against an Australian
average of 1,000. This rating reflects the complexity of the school community in which 80 per cent of
families are holders of a School Card (a scheme to support disadvantaged families), 25 per cent are
Aboriginal students, 60 per cent of students are from a non-English speaking background, 25 per
cent of students have negotiated education plans (designed to guide educational programmes for
students with disabilities in South Australian government schools), and 40 per cent are from single
parent families. Challenges arising from these characteristics are compounded by the high levels of
family mobility with a turnover of enrolments as high as 60 per cent each year over the last few
years.
Against this background, the school has established a range of innovative programmes and
strategies to engage students and their families and support students in their learning. This included
a Breakfast Club and emergency lunch programme, a homework centre for Aboriginal students, a
Drop-In Centre for parents and care givers, and a highly engaging Labs ‘n life programme where
students are trained as dog handlers.
Teaching pedagogies are modelled on the Accelerated Literacy pedagogy. Programmes are based on
success orientation, are child focused, and have a strong emphasis on inclusive curriculum,
particularly as the school has a high proportion of students with disabilities and special learning
needs. The majority of these children are in mainstream classes, with additional support from two
district special classes, one of which has an early childhood focus, the other for students from Year 3
to Year 7. All special class students spending regular amounts of time integrated into mainstream
classes.
A final and distinctive feature of both lead schools is the use of neuroscience to guide cognitive
development, learning and interpersonal relationships across all aspects of school activity:
Neuroscience is about understanding the way the brain works. Students and teachers at [the
school] explore ways that neuroscience can help them to be the best possible learners. A
Neuroscience Coordinator (shared with the[buddy school]) is working with individual teachers
and their classes on the core areas of research that apply to teaching and learning.
The two lead schools have taken a shared resource approach to professional learning and school
improvement. While serving slightly different communities, the schools share a common philosophy
regarding student engagement and learning and a strong capacity for sharing and collaboration.
Key elements and actions
Systemic arrangements
In total, 28 lead schools have been selected, either as stand-alone sites or in paired or cluster
arrangements such as the case study school. Selection was based on an expression of interest with
an expectation that lead schools have the capacity and capability to:

support buddy schools in the development of specific models and strategies for engaging
with families

collaborate with staff in buddy schools to support the online learning modules
Page 3 of 7

share strategies and programmes with buddy schools around the targeted elements of the
lead and buddy model

lead joint planning of units of work

assist buddy schools to identify approaches.
To enable lead schools to fulfil the role outlined above, DECD has provided two streams of support:
1. Resourcing. Each lead school has received a grant of $40,000 - $55,000 to cover costs
related to their own planning and activity within the school as well as the costs
associated with providing support to buddy schools though school visits and teacher
release.
2. A comprehensive package of professional learning activity, resources and direct
support. This involves:

participation in the professional learning programme delivered by international
expert Professor Barry Carpenter

additional professional learning activity including programmes delivered by DECD
personnel as well as online courses in Understanding Autistic Spectrum Disorders
and Understanding Dyslexia and Significant Difficulties in Reading

guidance and support in the use of assistive technologies as tools to aid
differentiation in teaching and learning programmes using the SETT framework
(Student + Environment + Tasks = Tools) as an approach to identifying appropriate
technologies; and the principles of Universal Design to establish flexible approaches
to curriculum delivery customised to meet the needs of individual students

access to DECD project coordinators/consultants with recognised expertise across
areas such as: Autism, curriculum differentiation, assistive technologies and special
education.
As an accountability measure, and as a means to monitor activity across the entire project, DECD
requires each lead school to complete a summary progress report on a six monthly basis detailing:

professional learning activity

nature and extent of family engagement

achievement and highlights

relevant issues or challenges that have been experienced

an outline of partnerships with other entities

supportive resources specific to the initiative.
DECD has also established an online repository of resources, templates and presentations all
designed for sharing information across schools involved in the MSSD Initiative as well as teachers in
other schools to support students with disabilities and learning difficulties.
Lead school arrangements
Each lead school has been required to undertake a series of actions as precursors to working with
their buddy schools, including:

establishing a project with a set of goals, associated professional learning and performance
measures
Page 4 of 7

developing a Family Charter in consultation with the broader school community

participating in a showcase day to share knowledge and learning

providing progress reports to DECD according to a predetermined schedule

ensuring staff contribute to DECD baseline data gathering to monitor the impact of the
initiative over time via an online survey on staff perceptions of their knowledge, skills and
confidence in supporting students with disabilities.
For the case study and its buddy school, the planning process has translated into action on a number
of fronts, with the following key elements:

Appointment of a differentiation teacher. The teacher’s role involves working in a coaching,
mentoring and team teaching mode with two teachers from each site. The role seeks to skill
the four participating teachers in strategies that are at the heart of differentiation - the how
and why of differentiation – across the learning environment, learning tasks, routines and
assessments. The differentiation teacher also has a more general role consulting with staff in
small groups on planning, working with families and delivering workshops on specific aspects
of differentiation to all school staff.

Embedding differentiation within the context of neuroscience. Differentiation is considered
a key means for fostering emotional literacy and improving learning outcomes by assisting
students to be the best learner they can be.

Training for school support staff. School Support Officers (SSOs) from the Torrens Cluster
participated in a training programme to enhance their knowledge and skills to support
students improve their reading comprehension skills. The programme involved a series of
presentations and activities to give SSOs insights into the pedagogy associated with teaching
reading.

Development of a Family Charter. The Charter was the product of close liaison with a Family
Advisory Group of governing council representatives and two parents from every class. A
diamond model was used to map family needs and family contributions as illustrated in the
diagram below.
Page 5 of 7
Source: Barry Carpenter 2012
The project was launched at a joint staff meeting where staff were given details of the lead and
buddy school project and an overview of training opportunities for teachers and support staff.
Outputs and outcomes
Within six months of initiating the project there is a clear plan of action for the lead school role with
two key elements in place:

a differentiation teacher appointed to lead the professional learning of four staff members
while supporting improvements in differentiation across both sites more generally

a Family Charter to bring cohesion to the shared roles of families and the school with each
maximising the educational outcomes for children by explicitly acknowledging needs, and
articulating the ways in which families can contribute to the educational process.
From the principal’s perspective, the project has fostered a professional learning community where
curriculum differentiation is aligned with the focus on neuroscience to individualise planning,
learning tasks and assessment.
At a systemic level, the case study school is one of a number of lead schools which is contributing
baseline information to assist in monitoring and evaluating the impact of the lead and buddy school
programme over the life of the MSSD Initiative.
Page 6 of 7
Lessons learned
Key observations
The lead and buddy school initiative is characterised by clear coordination and guidance from DECD,
and an equally clear sense ownership of activity at the school level. The DECD arranged Showcase
Day which occurred in Term 1, 2013, illustrates the point where the schools involved in the initiative
presented their experience to date. While there were areas of commonality across all the
presentations — all schools, for example, had developed a Family Charter — the sense of ownership
of the structures and process and the willingness to share the story of the learning and development
to date was both universal and uplifting. There was a consistent message of growth and
empowerment.
The background work undertaken by DECD to establish an integrated package of resources, guidance
and support has clearly paid dividends. The sense of lead schools being in control of their own
destiny with confidence in their own skills and capacity to support others clearly provides the
groundwork for them to assume a leadership role with buddy schools as the initiative continues to
unfold over the next 12 – 18 months.
Sustainability
The model established by DECD has built on the capacity of buddy schools to a level where the
support from the lead school is no longer required. Indeed, there is a strong expectation that a new
set of lead schools will emerge from the current group of buddy schools, thereby perpetuating
capacity building across a broader range of schools.
Under ideal circumstances the lead and buddy strategy would have served its purpose and approach
to bring successive groups of lead schools up to speed in all that is required of them as they make
the transition from their buddy status. Given the propensity for ‘early adopters’ and highly
motivated schools to be well-advanced in relation to participation in the lead and buddy school
initiative, the need to respond to this challenge is likely to become more important over time, rather
than less.
Potential for adoption in other contexts
Given that the lighthouse approach to supporting reforms is not new to schools or school systems,
there is strong potential for adoption or adaptation of the model in other contexts. Under a range of
contexts and different titles, the model is operating in other jurisdictions as part of the MSSD
Initiative.
Historically, the strength of the model has been subject to the quality of the lighthouse, particularly
the extent to which they have been held accountable for the support and services provided to other
settings. A weakness is the potential for ongoing dependency of schools on the lighthouse.
These strengths and weaknesses are addressed in the approach adopted by DECD. Reporting
requirements and staff surveys provide DECD with ongoing insights into activity, outputs and
outcomes. There is also a clear expectation that buddy schools will reach a point where they can
lead and take on buddies of their own.
This case study is part of a longitudinal study and will be updated in 2014.
Page 7 of 7