Quality Differentiated Teaching Practice (QDTP): A Documentation Guide

Where QDTP sits in the NCCD

The NCCD records, for each student with disability, the level of adjustment provided most of the time alongside the imputed category of disability (physical, cognitive, sensory, or social/emotional). The four levels — QDTP, Supplementary, Substantial, Extensive — are not a severity scale. They describe *how much extra* the school is doing beyond the teaching ordinarily provided to students of the same age.

QDTP is the base. It captures the active, conscious differentiation a teacher makes for a student whose functional needs can be met inside the normal flow of the classroom. Crucially, recording a student at QDTP is not "doing nothing" — it is documenting deliberate, responsive teaching that addresses a disability-related barrier.

For the full ladder of all four levels and their audit failure modes, read our companion guide on NCCD adjustment levels. This article goes deep on QDTP alone.

What actually counts as QDTP

A student belongs at QDTP when all of the following hold:

• The teacher is consciously differentiating curriculum, pedagogy, or environment for that student in response to a disability-related need.
• The adjustments are part of usual teaching practice — no extra staffing, no specialist program, no materially different arrangement from what's available to the class.
• The adjustment addresses the functional impact of disability, not an academic gap, a behaviour issue in isolation, attendance, or home circumstances.

That last point matters more under the 2026 guidance, which sharpened the expectation that adjustments map to the functional impact of disability. A child who is simply behind in reading, with no imputed or diagnosed disability driving it, is not an NCCD student. A child whose attention or sensory-processing difference makes whole-class instruction inaccessible — and for whom the teacher restructures delivery — is.

QDTP in the everyday classroom

Real QDTP examples a coordinator will recognise:

• A seating plan placing a student with a hearing difference at the front, away from the air-conditioner.
• Breaking multi-step instructions into single steps and checking back in, for a student with an executive-function or communication difference.
• Flexible timing on a task within usual classroom routine for a student who fatigues.
• Pre-teaching key vocabulary or providing a visual reference for a student with a language disorder.
• Allowing a movement break or fidget tool that any student could access but that is deliberately enabled for one.

The audit test for distinguishing QDTP from the next level up: would these adjustments stand out as additional to an external observer? If they are woven into ordinary practice and need no extra resources, they are QDTP. If they would be visibly different — a separate program, an aide, a specially modified task — you have likely crossed into Supplementary.

Why QDTP sits below Supplementary

The dividing line is resourcing and conspicuousness, not student need or kindness of intent.

A student is at Supplementary when adjustments occur on an as-needed basis that goes beyond QDTP — a visual schedule used through transitions, extended time reserved for major assessments, a small-group intervention attended one or two times a week, a termly speech-pathologist consult with the teacher. The student still spends most of their time in the regular program, but specific, identifiable supports are layered on.

The honest reason this distinction is scrutinised: under the Schooling Resource Standard, the disability loading flows from the top three levels of adjustment — Supplementary, Substantial and Extensive — while QDTP attracts no loading. That makes it tempting to round a student *up* a level. Don't. The principal attests, at census, that there is evidence for every student's inclusion, category and level — and moderation exists precisely to keep judgements consistent. An overstated QDTP-to-Supplementary jump with no extra-resource evidence behind it is a classic audit finding. (Note: this is general guidance, not funding advice — Grounded Scribe never promises a funding outcome.)

What to document at QDTP

QDTP students need evidence across the same four evidence areas as every other NCCD student:

1. Assessed individual need — what is the functional impact of disability? A note imputing a cognitive/attention difference from classroom observation and work samples is enough; a formal diagnosis is not required (imputed disability is valid where adjustments are being made).
2. Adjustments provided — the actual differentiation, named and dated. Lesson-plan annotations, a seating-plan note, a class differentiation register, or a line in a planning document all qualify.
3. Consultation and collaboration — evidence you consulted parents/carers (and the student where appropriate). Consent is *not* required to count a student; consultation *is*. The 2026 guidance asks you to record a reason if consultation did not precede an adjustment.
4. Monitoring and review — a short record that the adjustments are working or being revised.

Two practical reminders. First, schools reuse existing records — NCCD does not require new bespoke paperwork. A class differentiation grid, a teacher's planning notes, an email to a parent, a wellbeing check-in already in your system: all valid evidence. Second, the 10-week rule still applies — you need evidence the reasonable adjustments were provided for at least 10 weeks in the 12 months before the census (the first Friday in August).

For a fuller treatment of building and storing this evidence, see our NCCD evidence collection guide.

Worked example

*Year 4 student, imputed cognitive disability (attention, executive function & self-regulation domain).*

• Assessed need: teacher observation + work samples noting difficulty sustaining attention through whole-class instruction; impact on task initiation.
• Adjustments: instructions chunked and visually posted; preferential seating; movement breaks scheduled within the lesson. All within usual practice — no aide, no withdrawal program.
• Consultation: parent meeting in Term 1 recorded in the wellbeing log; strategies agreed.
• Monitoring: Term 2 note — task initiation improved with chunked instructions; continue.

Category: cognitive. Level: QDTP. Evidence: complete across all four areas. This is a clean, defensible QDTP record — and it took no new forms.

Deciding when a student moves up a level

Record the level provided most of the time, then review it deliberately. A move from QDTP to Supplementary is warranted when, over a sustained period, the everyday differentiation is no longer enough and you begin adding identifiable, resourced supports — for example:

• The student now needs a specific, recurring intervention (small-group or individual) rather than in-class differentiation alone.
• Assessment or curriculum tasks are being modified, not just delivered flexibly.
• A specialist (speech, OT, psychologist) is consulting on the student's program, even intermittently.
• Adjustments are becoming visible as "additional" to an external observer.

Anchor the decision in the eight domains of functioning (the organising layer over category × the five areas of personalised learning and support). If a student's needs are deepening within a domain — say, Social, Emotional & Behavioural Wellbeing, or Safety & Risk Management — and your response is escalating in resource intensity, that is your signal to revisit the level at the next moderation point. Use the annual cycle to your advantage: Planning in Term 1, Implementation in Term 2, Validation and submission in Term 3, Reflection in Term 4. The reflection phase is exactly when level changes should be tested against the year's evidence, not retrofitted the week before census.

Moderate these judgements as a team. Consistency across teachers and year levels — not individual generosity — is what makes a level decision hold up.

A note for coordinators

QDTP is easy to under-record and easy to over-claim, and both are risks. The fix is the same in either direction: capture the differentiation as it happens, in the records you already keep, mapped to functional impact and the four evidence areas. Grounded Scribe is built to make that low-friction — AI-assisted documentation that turns a quick consult or observation into NCCD-ready, evidence-aligned notes, Australian-hosted and handled under the Australian Privacy Principles, with as much processing as possible done in Australia. If you coordinate this work across a team, see how we support Disability Inclusion Coordinators, and pair this guide with our companion pieces on adjustment levels and evidence collection. Document QDTP well, and every level above it gets easier to justify.

*This article is general guidance aligned with the national NCCD framework and data standards. It is not legal or funding advice.*