Providing evidence of adjustments for students with a disability
Providing evidence of adjustments for students with a disability
The 2005 Disability Standards for Education (Commonwealth of Australia, 2006), which was made to “provide a framework to ensure that students with disability are able to access and participate in education on the same basis as other[s]’ ” sets out clear expectations for Australian teachers about how learners with disability should be supported in schools. It is not just a matter of good practice, because it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of disability and teachers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for learning, like tailoring the learning pathways. In practice these reasonable adjustments help students with disability take part in learning experiences and then show what they know and those skills in assessments when needed.
NCCD and Evolving Teacher Responsibilities
In more recent years, the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability (NCCD) (Education Services Australia Ltd, n. d.) has increased expectations for Australian educators regarding the documentation and evidence of adjustments provided to students with disabilities. Student support needs are classified into four categories: Quality Differentiated Teaching Practice, Supplementary, Substantial, and Extensive. Each category attracts varying levels of federal funding for analysing data in schools (Education Council, 2019). While making reasonable adjustments has long been part of teaching practice, the requirement for formal evidence to support funding has introduced additional complexity and accountability for teachers and schools.
School Experience: Strengthening Adjustment Practices
In a recent middle leadership role, I worked in a secondary school in Brisbane where almost half of the student population attracted NCCD funding due to the level of adjustments required. Students required support for a variety of reasons and represented all NCCD categories, including physical, cognitive and social/emotional needs (Education Council, 2019). Although reasonable adjustments had always been part of teaching practice the documentation and reporting expectations under NCCD represented a significant shift for staff.
Teachers were generally confident in supporting students with physical, sensory and social/emotional needs however they were less confident when it came to supporting cognitive disabilities. This highlighted a professional learning gap in how differentiation could be practically applied
Differentiation for Cognitive Learning Needs
Tomlinson and Allan (2006) describe differentiation as occurring through content, process, product and learning environment. In practice, many teachers found it challenging to apply these principles when making cognitive adjustments, particularly in relation to product, process and content. As this was the first time teachers were required to systematically evidence adjustments, uncertainty was common.
It also became clear that while teachers were comfortable adapting formative tasks, they were less confident applying adjustments to summative assessments. Concerns were largely focused on maintaining fairness for students requiring adjustments while also ensuring equity for other students who were not receiving modified support.
Curriculum Review and Whole-School Approach
To address these challenges the school implemented a whole-school strategy to make adjustments more explicit across teaching and assessment practices. A key issue identified was that many students were struggling to meet Australian Curriculum achievement standards because learning content had often been pitched above the required level.
As a result curriculum units were reviewed and realigned with achievement standards to ensure clarity around essential learning. Content was streamlined to reduce unnecessary complexity while extension opportunities were clearly labelled. This helped distinguish between core learning and enrichment activities.
A further consideration was ensuring that students capable of working above the achievement standards still had opportunities to be extended appropriately. Depending on individual needs and strengths students could work “at” or “above” the standard across different subjects.
By the end of 2017 all Years 7–10 curriculum units had been revised. Content and skills were clearly marked as “at” or “above” standard ensuring greater clarity for teachers and consistency across learning areas.
Assessment Structure: Expected and Modified Tasks
Following curriculum refinement attention turned to assessment design. A key whole-school decision was introduced requiring every learning area to develop two versions of each assessment task: an “expected” task and a “modified” task.
The “expected” task assessed content at and above the achievement standard allowing students to achieve grades from C to A. The “modified” task focused only on content aligned with the achievement standard limiting outcomes to a C grade. However this provided students with accessible opportunities to demonstrate success and build confidence in their learning.
Through individual curriculum planning and collaboration with the inclusive education team, students requiring adjustments were identified and allocated to either the expected or modified tasks. This allocation was flexible and regularly reviewed based on student progress, strengths, parental input, and future aspirations. In some cases students completed different task types across subjects depending on their abilities.
Implementation and Professional Learning
The implementation of these changes across 2018 and 2019 required significant time collaboration and professional commitment. Middle leaders played a crucial role in redesigning curriculum documents and supporting staff through department meetings and planning sessions.
Dedicated planning time was provided including offsite collaboration days and structured departmental release time. This ensured teachers had space to develop units and assessments while managing workload demands.
Although the process evolved over time and was not perfect initially, continuous reflection and adjustment helped refine the approach. Teachers became more confident in aligning curriculum with achievement standards and in documenting adjustments for NCCD requirements.
Impact and Reflection
Over time the approach strengthened consistency in curriculum delivery and assessment practices across the school. It also enhanced teacher understanding of inclusive education responsibilities and improved the quality of evidence collected for NCCD reporting.
Most importantly the changes ensured that all students had meaningful access to learning that matched their individual level of ability. Students were better supported to experience success, while teachers developed stronger capability in differentiation and curriculum alignment.
FAQ
1. What is the Disability Standards for Education (2005)?
The Disability Standards for Education (2005) is Australian legislation that ensures students with disability have the right to access and participate in education on the same basis as their peers. It outlines the legal obligations of schools and teachers to provide reasonable adjustments so students can engage in learning and demonstrate achievement.
2. What are reasonable adjustments in schools?
Reasonable adjustments are changes made to teaching, learning activities or assessment conditions to support students with disability. These may include modified tasks, assistive technologies additional time simplified instructions or changes to the learning environment.
3. How does the NCCD affect teachers’ responsibilities?
The NCCD requires schools to formally document the adjustments provided to students with disability. Teachers must now provide evidence of these adjustments and classify support levels into four categories which also influence school funding and accountability.
4. What are the four NCCD categories?
The four categories are Quality Differentiated Teaching Practice, Supplementary, Substantial, and Extensive. These categories reflect the level of adjustment required by students and determine the level of support and funding provided to schools.
5. What is the difference between “expected” and “modified” assessment tasks?
Expected tasks assess students at and above the achievement standard and allow achievement from C to A grades. Modified tasks focus only on the achievement standard and provide a more accessible pathway, with achievement typically capped at a C grade.
Conclusion
Providing data of tweaks under the Disability Standards for Education (2005) and the NCCD framework sort of strengthens inclusive practice in schools. While teachers are increasingly required to put everything down in writing about support, actual implementation still depends on how well the curriculum is lined up, plus differentiated assessment and regular collaboration with others. When you use data analysis and show information on adjustments, it helps make sure there is accountability, and it also tends to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. This way, access to learning becomes more steady and meaningful, not just sort of on paper, and it feels a bit more consistent across classrooms.
