NCCD Adjustment Levels: A Documentation Guide for Australian Schools
Last reviewed 9 min read How we review
The Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability (NCCD) classifies adjustments into four levels — Quality Differentiated Teaching Practice, Supplementary, Substantial, and Extensive. This guide details what each level looks like in practice and the documentation evidence that justifies a school's level decision under audit.
- School Counsellors
- School Psychologists
- Teachers
- Wellbeing Officers
- Education
- Compliance
On this page
Summary
NCCD adjustment levels — Quality Differentiated Teaching Practice (QDTP), Supplementary, Substantial, and Extensive — are not severity labels. They are descriptions of how much extra the school is doing beyond the usual teaching practice for students of the same age. Funding (under the SRA model) flows from the Substantial and Extensive categories, so audit teams scrutinise these closely. This guide details what each level looks like, the documentation evidence required, and the common audit failure modes.
What NCCD measures
The NCCD records, for each student with disability:
- The broad category of disability — physical, cognitive, sensory, social/emotional.
- The level of adjustment the school is providing — QDTP, Supplementary, Substantial, Extensive.
The combination is reported to the Australian Government via state/territory education authorities each August. The data feeds the Schooling Resource Standard (SRA) loadings for students with disability.
The four levels
Level 1: Quality Differentiated Teaching Practice (QDTP)
QDTP is what every teacher in Australia is already obligated to provide under the Disability Standards for Education 2005. A student is recorded at QDTP when:
- The teacher is consciously differentiating curriculum, pedagogy, or environment for them.
- The adjustments are part of the usual teaching practice — no extra resources, no specialist input.
- The student progresses with similar effort to their peers.
Example evidence: seating plan adjustment, simplified instructions, flexible timing on tasks within usual classroom practice, lesson-plan annotations showing differentiation.
Level 2: Supplementary adjustments
Supplementary adjustments occur on an as-needed basis — they go beyond QDTP but only at specific times or in specific subjects.
Example evidence:
- Visual schedule used during transition periods.
- Modified assessment task with extended time, used for major assessments only.
- Speech pathologist consultation with the classroom teacher each term.
- Group-based intervention (e.g. small-group reading support) attended 1–2 times per week.
The audit test: would these adjustments stand out as additional if observed by an external visitor? If yes — Supplementary. If they are integrated into usual classroom practice — QDTP.
Level 3: Substantial adjustments
Substantial adjustments are required most of the time for the student to access the curriculum. The student needs a person, an environment, or an arrangement that is materially different from what other students need.
Example evidence:
- Daily teacher-aide support of more than 50% of class time, with documented adjustment goals.
- Specialised individual programs (literacy, behaviour, social skills) running multiple times per week.
- Significant curriculum modification — alternative content or alternative outcomes for substantial portions of the school week.
- Consistent specialist input (OT, speech pathologist, school psychologist) acting on a written plan with measurable goals.
Level 4: Extensive adjustments
Extensive adjustments are intensive, sustained, and individualised — required at all or nearly all times for the student to participate in school. The student typically has multiple specialist providers, and the adjustments are highly personalised.
Example evidence:
- Full-time individualised support across all settings.
- Personalised curriculum substantially different from age peers.
- Daily multidisciplinary input.
- Intensive behaviour support plans with documented data collection.
What documentation must show
The Disability Standards for Education 2005, the NCCD Guidelines (revised annually), and ACARA's audit framework all require evidence that:
- The student has a disability under the broad NCCD definition (which is wider than DSM/ICD and does not require formal diagnosis).
- The school has consulted with the student and parent/carer about the adjustments.
- The adjustments are provided — not just planned.
- The adjustments are reviewed at least annually.
- The chosen level reflects the actual adjustments, not the student's diagnosis or label.
The most common audit failures all map back to point 5: schools recording a level based on the diagnostic label rather than on the actual adjustments observable in the school week.
Documentation evidence by level
| Level | Minimum evidence |
|---|---|
| QDTP | Teacher's lesson plans showing differentiation; classroom observation notes; consultation record with parent/carer |
| Supplementary | Adjustment plan with specific strategies; specialist reports cited (where relevant); review-meeting record |
| Substantial | Individual learning plan or IEP with measurable goals; data on intervention dosage (hours per week); progress data; multidisciplinary input record |
| Extensive | Comprehensive personalised plan; daily data collection; multidisciplinary case-management record; review cycle every term or more frequent |
How adjustment-level decisions are made
The decision is made by school staff — not by the school psychologist or external diagnostician. The team typically includes the classroom teacher, learning-support coordinator, and (where relevant) school psychologist or counsellor. The decision is recorded against four prompts:
- What broad category of disability does the student fall under?
- What adjustments has the school made?
- How long have the adjustments been in place?
- What level do the adjustments correspond to?
Audit teams sample these four prompts during the August NCCD validation period.
Common audit failure modes
- Diagnosis-driven level selection. A student with autism recorded at Substantial because of the label, but classroom observations show only QDTP-level differentiation.
- Plan-versus-practice gap. A detailed IEP exists but no evidence the strategies were implemented.
- Annual-review gap. Plan written in Year 1, never reviewed; student now in Year 4 and the documented adjustments don't match current practice.
- Consultation record missing. No record of the parent/carer being consulted about the adjustments.
- Specialist-report misuse. Specialist report quoted but the school never operationalised the recommendations.
Related reading
How we review this guide
Library guides reference original Australian source authorities — not secondary commentary — and are updated when source material changes. Each guide cites the regulator, item descriptor, or governing standard it draws from so you can verify it directly.
- Sources checked
- Review cadence
- Reviewed annually and whenever a cited source authority publishes a material change. Last reviewed .
- Not advice
- Reference content for Australian school staff. Not legal or medical advice — verify against your school's governing body and current source documents.