Compliance and review
NCCD audit checklist: who checks evidence and what they look for
Who reviews NCCD evidence, from the principal to the Department's post-enumeration checks, what they look for, a four-question note test and the audit checklist.
Updated 25 September 202614 min read
On this page
This NCCD audit checklist is for the coordinator preparing for a review: your approved authority's quality assurance, or the Department of Education's post-enumeration validation of non-government schools (also called the post-enumeration check, and often called an NCCD audit). A reviewer asks one thing: can each counted student be traced to evidence that supports the decision? Run these checks on your own sample files first.
Quality assurance is Step 6 of the official NCCD Quick Guide, which strongly encourages schools to moderate their NCCD data internally. The checks below are ours: a practical way to apply the NCCD Guidelines to a sample of files before anyone else reads them.
New to the NCCD? Start with What is the NCCD?
Who checks NCCD evidence
A thick folder does not mean strong evidence. Strong evidence lets someone who was not in the room understand the student's need, the adjustments provided, the consultation behind them and whether the support helped.
So it helps to know who that someone is. This article covers who checks NCCD evidence, what they check it against, what they look for in a file, and a four-question test a teacher can run on a note before saving it.
NCCD quality assurance happens at several levels, and each looks at the evidence for a different reason.
The principal
The principal is responsible for the accuracy of the school's data, and the evidence behind it, before it is submitted. In practice the principal rarely reads every file. They rely on the coordinator's summary, spot-check samples and ask about the cases still open. Principal sign-off covers what the coordinator brings.
Your school's own moderation
Before anything leaves the school, staff compare evidence and agree that inclusion, level and category decisions are consistent. NCCD moderation is where a weak file should be caught.
Approved authorities
The approved authority (the state or territory for government schools, and the relevant approved body for non-government schools) quality-assures its schools' data through moderation and by checking for anomalies.
The Department of Education
Each year the Department runs a post-enumeration check, often called an NCCD audit, on a sample of non-government schools. It reviews the counts and sights NCCD evidence in whatever form the school already holds it. Nobody expects new documents made for the check.
What they check it against
They all work from the same two documents: the NCCD Guidelines and the Department's evidence fact sheet. Everything in this article follows those, not an unofficial "auditor checklist".
The Guidelines ask for evidence in four general areas: assessed need, consultation, adjustments over at least 10 weeks with the level justified, and ongoing monitoring and review. They can sit in one document, such as an individual learning plan, or across several. Schools are not required to create new evidence for the NCCD. The Evidence centre has weak and strong examples in each area.
What a reviewer looks for in a file
In plain terms, a reviewer asks three things: what did the school know, what did it do, and how did it check the support was working? In a file, that looks like:
- A clear need: the functional barrier at school, not only a diagnosis. Where there is no diagnosis, the grounds for an imputed disability: the evidence, the consultation and, from 2026, the team's check that the adjustments are due to disability, not academic performance, learning difficulties or external factors.
- A category that fits: the category of disability reported is the area that mainly drives the adjustments, not a label read off the diagnosis.
- A link: each adjustment connects to that need.
- A pattern over time: dated evidence across at least 10 weeks, consecutive for Extensive.
- A justified level: how often and how intensively the student was supported matches the level reported.
- Consultation: a record of it, or of the reason parents were not consulted.
- Review: evidence that the school checked whether the support helped.
- Findability: the records can be found quickly, in the form they already exist.
If this teacher left tomorrow, could a colleague understand why this student was included, what was provided and why the level makes sense?
A four-question test for a note
A reviewer reads a note in four parts, and a teacher can run the same test before saving it. It is the reviewer's reading of the four-part note (need, adjustment, context and impact) set out in how to write NCCD evidence notes.
- Need: what student need is being addressed? Reading fluency, sensory overload, processing speed, anxiety in assessment.
- Action: what adjustment was provided? A visual checklist, a reduced written load, extra processing time, a different way to respond.
- Reason: why was that adjustment reasonable? It should connect to a disability-related impact, not a general preference.
- Review: what happened next? Progress, a changed strategy, family feedback, the student's response.
Not every note has to answer all four. The file does. One entry may show the adjustment, a meeting note the consultation, a progress note the review. The problem starts when nothing in the file makes the connection.
Fix the gaps that matter most first
Some gaps matter more than others because they make evidence hard to interpret. A missing date can usually be clarified. A missing link between need and adjustment makes the support look generic. Fix in this order:
- Vague adjustment language. Replace "support given" with the actual adjustment.
- No reason. Connect the adjustment to the student's functional need.
- Missing consultation. Add the conversation where it happened, or the reason parents were not consulted.
- No review point. Add what changed, what helped or what to try next.
- Level mismatch. Check that the evidence supports the reported level.
Start with the students whose files look uneven: strong adjustment notes but no consultation, a plan but little monitoring, or a level that looks higher than the support recorded. Before a review, the audit checklist later in this guide, based on the NCCD Guidelines' evidence requirements, sets out seven steps to prepare, including a sample check run the way a reviewer would. When a reviewer does ask, NCCD audit readiness shows how a school can export each sampled student's evidence from Superadjust as one pack, built from what teachers have already logged.
The NCCD audit checklist at a glance
Run it on five sample files, then widen the sample. Each line is done when the right-hand column is true. The seven steps below explain how to test each one.
| Check | Done when |
|---|---|
| Inclusion | Every counted student has a one-line reason: the disability, diagnosed or imputed, and its functional impact |
| Imputed disability | The grounds, the consultation and the 2026 confirmation that the adjustments are due to disability are recorded |
| Category | It is the main driver of the adjustments, not the diagnosis |
| The 10 weeks | Dated adjustments in at least 10 school weeks in the 12 months before Census Day; consecutive weeks, at all times, for Extensive |
| Four areas | Evidence of need, consultation, adjustments, and monitoring and review |
| Consultation | Consultation with the student or their associate is on file, with a brief reason recorded where parents, guardians or carers were not consulted |
| Link to need | Each adjustment says why it is there, not only what it was |
| Level | The reported level matches how often and how intensively support was given |
| Moderation | Level and category decisions, and their reasons, are written down |
| Follow the file | Someone who does not know the student can follow it without asking |
| Records | Kept where they can be found, for 7 years or longer if state rules require |
Who reviews NCCD data, including post-enumeration validation
Quality assurance happens at several levels. The principal, or an executive member, approves the school's data and is responsible for its accuracy, including verifying there is enough evidence to support each student's inclusion (Quick Guide, Steps 1 and 7). Approved authorities quality-assure their schools' data through moderation. State and territory authorities run assurance for government schools. For non-government schools, the Department runs annual quality assurance, examining school-held records and data anomalies, and its post-enumeration validation, often called an NCCD audit, samples non-government schools, reviews their counts and sights NCCD evidence in the form the school already holds it.
None of them expects new paperwork made for the occasion. What they need is to follow each counted student from the reported level back to the records behind it. For the reviewers and their questions in more depth, see the opening sections of this guide.
1. Confirm which students are included, and why
Start with the student list. For each student, the team should be able to explain these in plain English:
- The functional impact of the disability on schooling
- Whether the disability is diagnosed or imputed, and where the grounds are recorded
- The category of disability being used
- The current level of adjustment being reported
Problems often begin with unclear inclusion logic, not missing paperwork. If staff cannot explain why a student is included, the file usually becomes weak everywhere else.
2. Check that the 10 weeks are visible
The evidence must show adjustments for at least 10 school weeks in the 12 months before Census Day (consecutive weeks, at all times, for Extensive). A strong file shows a visible trail across the term or the year: dated lesson records, support plans, meeting notes, review notes, adjusted tasks or progress entries. If the evidence all clusters in one week before the review, it will look weak even if the support was real. The NCCD 10-week rule covers what counts as a week.
An NCCD evidence tracker shows the weeks of evidence for each student, so you can spot support that is real but unevenly recorded.
3. Verify all four areas are covered
Test whether each sample file covers the four areas of NCCD evidence, rather than one strong document and several gaps. You should be able to point to evidence of:
- Need: the student's assessed, disability-related needs
- Consultation: with the student or their associates, parents, guardians or carers, and collaboration with relevant professionals
- Adjustments: provided for at least 10 weeks, with the level justified
- Monitoring: review of the impact over time
4. Test whether the evidence links adjustment to need
A strong record does more than list supports. It explains why they are there, which is one of the fastest ways to strengthen a file.
| Weak | Strong |
|---|---|
| Given extra time. | Extra processing time provided during written tasks due to slowed reading and written output. |
| Uses visuals. | Visual schedule used to reduce transition anxiety and support predictable task completion. |
| Parent contacted. | Parent consulted about the adjustment plan and confirmed current support remains appropriate. |
5. Review the level of adjustment against the evidence
Compare the reported level with the frequency and intensity shown in the file. The school reports the highest level provided for the minimum 10 weeks. If a student is reported at Supplementary, Substantial or Extensive, the evidence should show that level clearly. If the file only shows light classroom differentiation, the level needs rechecking. Settle those calls through NCCD moderation, and record the reason, so the decision can be explained to a reviewer who was not there.
6. Run a sample check the way a reviewer would
Sample files across year levels, disability categories and levels of adjustment, and time how long it takes to answer the same questions for each:
- Why is this student included?
- What adjustment is being made?
- Where is consultation recorded?
- Where is the 10-week pattern visible?
- Where is monitoring or review shown?
If an answer takes too long to find, the file is not ready. Note what you find, one row per student, against the checks at the top of this page. When a reviewer asks for records, it helps to export an evidence pack for the review per student or for the whole school.
7. Fix system gaps, not only student gaps
If the same weakness appears in several sample files, treat it as a systems issue rather than a teacher issue. Common school-wide gaps include:
- Consultation logged informally but not stored consistently
- Adjustments happening in class but not dated
- Strong teacher evidence with no shared coordinator view
- Progress monitoring recorded in separate places with no clean trail
- Evidence uploaded in a rush the week before the review
The process fixes for each are in common NCCD compliance mistakes.
A sample file, checked
Ruby N., Year 5, Supplementary, cognitive. A composite, not a real student. Her file passes five checks and needs one fix.
| Check | What the file shows | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Inclusion | A reading assessment shows decoding well below expected, and a speech pathologist's report is on file | Clear |
| The 10 weeks | Dated adjustments in Weeks 2 to 9 of Term 1 and Weeks 1 to 4 of Term 2 | Clear: 12 weeks |
| Consultation | A parent meeting on 14 February agreed text-to-speech for reading tasks | Clear |
| Link to need | "Text-to-speech for reading tasks because of decoding difficulty" | Clear |
| Monitoring | No review note since March | Gap: add the Term 2 review, and who did it |
| Level | Support at specific times, for reading tasks | Supplementary is supported |
What the 2026 Guidelines mean for a review
A reviewer reads files against the NCCD Guidelines: Effective 2026 Onward. Three of the points they clarified show up in sample files. They are clarifications, not a new model.
- Extensive: adjustments must be in place at all times, over consecutive weeks. A file that shows support at most times on most days, but not at all times, points to Substantial. See the NCCD Extensive level.
- Imputed disability: before imputing, the team confirms the adjustments are due to disability, not academic performance, learning difficulties or external factors. The file should say so.
- Consultation: where parents, guardians or carers were not consulted, the reason is documented. A brief explanation is enough, and agreement is not required.
For everything the 2026 Guidelines clarified, see what changed in the 2026 NCCD Guidelines.
Common mistakes before a review
These are predictable, and a calm preparation process prevents most of them.
| Mistake | Why it creates risk |
|---|---|
| Treating preparation as a one-day clean-up | Leaves no time to fix gaps properly |
| Reviewing quantity instead of quality | A full folder can still have weak evidence |
| Assuming a diagnosis letter is enough on its own | The NCCD needs evidence of adjustments, not only disability |
| Missing consultation because it happened verbally | Unrecorded consultation cannot be verified |
| Reporting a level that the file does not justify | Creates moderation and review risk |
| Rewriting or reformatting records for the review | Evidence is sighted in the form it already exists, so the time is better spent making records findable |
Why this matters
NCCD data is used to calculate the student with disability loading, so reviews look for inclusion and level decisions the evidence cannot support. An unsupported decision means the loading was calculated on data the school cannot defend. A school that has tested its own sample files first rarely meets a surprise.
For the national context, see the Department of Education's data on school students with disability.
What to do next
Pick five sample files this week and run the checklist on them. Fix what you find, then widen the sample. If you would like to talk it through, book a 20-minute Audit Readiness Session with the founder.
Sources
Approval, quality assurance and record keeping: the NCCD Quick Guide (2026 edition, Steps 1, 5, 6 and 7), published by Education Services Australia for the Australian Government Department of Education, and the NCCD Guidelines: Effective 2026 Onward, which take precedence. What evidence is sighted, and in what form: the Department's evidence requirements fact sheet. Record keeping: the Australian Education Regulations 2023, s 37. The checklist and the sample file are ours, not an official template.