The 10-Week NCCD Evidence Window, Explained

What the 10-week rule actually says

The NCCD model has four steps: (1) Is an adjustment being provided? (2) What level is it? (3) What category of disability does it address? (4) Record it with evidence. The 10-week rule sits underneath step 4 — it sets the *minimum duration* of evidenced adjustment needed before a student can be included.

In plain terms: to count a student, you need to be able to show that reasonable adjustments to address the functional impact of their disability were provided for at least 10 weeks within the 12 months before the census reference date (the first Friday in August). That window deliberately spans more than a single term, because the NCCD is interested in *ongoing* support, not a one-off accommodation in week three.

Two clarifications that matter:

• The 10 weeks need not be one continuous block. Adjustments delivered across, say, Terms 1 and 2 with a quiet patch in between can still add up — provided each period is evidenced.
• "Provided" means delivered, not planned. An Individual Education Plan written in January and never touched again is not 10 weeks of adjustment. It's one day of planning.

If you only ever document at census time, you're trying to reconstruct ten weeks of practice from memory in July. That's the failure mode the rule is designed to catch.

The "at all times" rule for Extensive

The four levels of adjustment — Quality Differentiated Teaching Practice (QDTP), Supplementary, Substantial, and Extensive — describe *how much* the school is doing beyond usual teaching practice for students of the same age. You record the level provided most of the time.

Extensive is the exception that tightens the duration test. Because Extensive adjustments are, by definition, intensive, sustained and highly individualised, the framework expects them to be in place at all times the student is at school — not "most of the time", and not for a 10-week minimum. If a student genuinely needs full-time individualised support, daily multidisciplinary input, or a substantially personalised curriculum, the evidence should show that level of support running continuously, not intermittently.

This is also why Extensive draws the closest scrutiny during moderation. A claim of "at all times" support that's only backed by a plan and one term of aide timetables invites the question: where's the rest of the year? For a level-by-level breakdown of what each tier looks like in practice, see our NCCD adjustment levels documentation guide.

"Most of the time" is a level test, not a duration test

It's easy to confuse two different "amount" questions, so it's worth separating them cleanly:

• Duration (the 10-week / "at all times" rule): *Over the year*, how long were adjustments provided? This determines whether the student can be counted at all.
• Frequency / intensity (the "most of the time" rule): *Within a typical school week*, how much extra is the school doing? This determines which of the four levels you record.

A student can clear the 10-week duration window comfortably and still sit at Supplementary, because within the week the extra support is occasional rather than constant. Conversely, a student receiving Substantial support every day will clear the duration test almost automatically. Keeping these two questions distinct stops teams from over-claiming a level just because adjustments have been in place for a long time.

How to evidence consistency across the year

The NCCD framework explicitly tells schools to reuse existing records — it does not require bespoke NCCD paperwork. The trick is making your ordinary records *legible* as evidence of consistency. The four evidence areas are your checklist:

1. Assessed individual need — what is the functional impact of the disability, and on which of the five areas of personalised learning and support (curriculum and teaching; communication; participation including social competence and safety; health and personal care; movement and mobility) does it land? Imputed disability is fine here: the team can impute a disability from available evidence without a formal diagnosis, provided adjustments are being made.
2. Adjustments provided — dated, specific records that an adjustment actually happened. This is where consistency lives or dies.
3. Consultation and collaboration — records of consulting parents/carers (and the student where appropriate). Parental *consent* is not required to count a student, but consultation is. The 2026 guidance tightened this: if an adjustment was made before consultation occurred, record the reason. Note too that adjustments must address the functional impact of disability — not academic gaps, behaviour, attendance, or home circumstances on their own.
4. Monitoring and review — evidence the adjustments were checked and adjusted over time.

The most defensible evidence base is one where each of these areas shows *multiple dated touchpoints spread across terms*, rather than a cluster in July.

A worked example of a consistent trail

Imagine a Year 5 student receiving Substantial adjustments for the cognitive category, addressing curriculum access and self-regulation. A trail that comfortably evidences the 10-week window across the year might look like:

• Term 1, week 2: Consultation meeting note with the parent/carer agreeing the support approach (consultation + assessed need).
• Term 1, weeks 3–10: Weekly teacher annotations and small-group intervention attendance records showing the adjustments delivered (adjustments provided).
• Term 2, week 5: Review-meeting record adjusting the goals after progress data (monitoring and review).
• Term 2, weeks 6–9: Aide timetable and modified-task samples (adjustments provided).
• Term 3, before census: Short moderation note confirming the level still reflects practice.

That's well over 10 weeks of *evidenced* adjustment, distributed across the year, with all four evidence areas represented — and not a single bespoke NCCD form among them. For more on what counts as good evidence in each area, see our NCCD evidence collection documentation guide.

Where the annual cycle helps

The NCCD year is built to make the 10-week window achievable rather than stressful: Planning in Term 1, Implementation in Term 2, Validation and submission in Term 3, and Reflection in Term 4. Moderation across the team builds consistent judgements about category and level, and the principal ultimately attests that there is evidence for every student's inclusion, category and level.

If your evidence is captured progressively through Planning and Implementation, validation in Term 3 becomes a matter of confirming what's already there — not manufacturing it. Coordinators who treat census week as a deadline rather than a checkpoint are almost always the ones reconstructing the window after the fact.

What to document — a quick checklist

For every student you intend to include, before census you want to be able to point to:

• At least 10 weeks of dated, delivered adjustments within the prior 12 months (continuous *at all times* for Extensive).
• A clear link from each adjustment to the functional impact of the imputed or diagnosed disability — not to academic, behavioural, attendance or home factors alone.
• A consultation record with parents/carers (and the student where appropriate), plus a reason noted if an adjustment preceded consultation.
• Monitoring/review entries showing the level still reflects current practice.
• A level decision (QDTP / Supplementary / Substantial / Extensive) recorded as the support provided *most of the time* within a typical week.

Remember the plan name varies by state — IEP, ILP, PLSP, ICP, NEP, PLP — but it's just a container for the same NCCD-aligned content.

A note on building the trail year-round

The hardest part of the 10-week window isn't understanding it — it's the discipline of capturing small, dated entries while the term is busy. This is where lightweight, structured note capture earns its keep: a 60-to-90-second dictated note straight after a support session, turned into clean, dated, NCCD-aligned documentation, builds the consistency trail naturally instead of in a July panic. Grounded Scribe is built by a school-psychologist-founded team to do exactly that — capture evidence as it happens, hosted in Australia and aligned with the Australian Privacy Principles, with as much processing as possible done onshore.

This article is general guidance aligned with the national framework and data standards, not legal or funding advice, and it makes no promises about funding outcomes — always work from your sector's current NCCD guidelines and your school's moderation process. If you'd like to see how year-round, NCCD-ready evidence capture fits your team's workflow, explore Grounded Scribe for Disability Inclusion Coordinators.