Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Research AT options for a specific learner need profile
2 weeks (1–2 hrs/day)
Identify a specific learner need profile present in your SEND placement (e.g. dyslexia, visual impairment, autism spectrum, physical disability — anonymised and with SENCO/supervisor approval). Research a minimum of three assistive technologies relevant to that need. For each, document: the specific need it addresses, evidence base, cost and accessibility, and any relevant accessibility standards (e.g. WCAG 2.1 for digital tools). All learner information must be anonymised.
Proof required
Submit your AT options research document: three AT tools with need profile, evidence base, cost and accessibility, and standards compliance notes (minimum one page per tool). Anonymised learner need profile included.
What gets checked
- Three distinct AT tools covering the specific named need profile — not generic AT lists
- Evidence base is cited for each tool — not manufacturer claims alone
- Anonymisation is complete — no learner names or identifying details
Common mistakes
- AT research is not specific to the identified need — generic 'technology in education' resources
- Evidence base is from manufacturer marketing rather than published research or practitioner guidance
- Learner information is not fully anonymised
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm current enhanced DBS/background check clearance is documented — enhanced DBS with children's barred list check required for SEND placement
- Confirm completion of a recognised safeguarding training module is documented with module name and completion date
- Verify qualified supervisor attestation is present — named SENCO or SEN Coordinator — peer verification is NEVER acceptable for this outcome
- Check all learner information is anonymised — no names, year groups combined with need, or other identifying combinations
- Verify AT research is specific to the identified need profile — ask student to explain why each tool was selected
Trial AT in practice and document learner response
3–4 weeks (placement-dependent)
With SENCO and supervisor approval, trial one or two selected AT tools with the relevant learner(s) in supervised sessions. Document minimum three sessions: for each, note the specific task, which AT was used, what was observed about the learner's engagement and progress, and any adjustments made. All documentation must be anonymised.
Proof required
Submit session documentation for minimum three AT trial sessions (task, tool used, observations, adjustments — anonymised throughout). Include SENCO/supervisor sign-off statement.
What gets checked
- Three or more sessions documented with specific observations — not general notes
- Documentation includes observations of learner response, not only tool operation
- SENCO/supervisor sign-off is present confirming the sessions took place
Common mistakes
- Fewer than three documented sessions — insufficient for pattern observation
- Documentation describes the tool rather than the learner's response to it
- No supervisor sign-off present
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Verify SENCO/supervisor sign-off is present for the trial sessions
- Check all documentation is anonymised — no learner names or identifying details
- Check documentation contains specific learner response observations, not tool descriptions
- Ask student: what specific change in learning behaviour or engagement did you observe across the three sessions?
Produce AT evaluation report with recommendations
1 week
Produce an AT evaluation report (minimum 600 words) for the SENCO or placement supervisor, covering: the need profile (anonymised), the AT trialled, what the session observations showed, and a recommendation for whether to adopt, modify, or discontinue each tool — with specific rationale. The report should also recommend any additional AT not trialled that merits investigation.
Proof required
Submit your AT evaluation report (minimum 600 words, fully anonymised) with signed SENCO/supervisor review statement confirming the report was reviewed with them.
What gets checked
- Recommendations are supported by specific session observations — not general AT literature
- Report is structured for a professional audience (SENCO/placement supervisor) — not a student reflection
- SENCO/supervisor review is documented
Common mistakes
- Recommendations are based on AT literature rather than the observed trial sessions
- Report is written as a personal reflection rather than a professional recommendation document
- No SENCO/supervisor review documentation
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm enhanced DBS and safeguarding training documentation are on record for the placement
- Verify SENCO/supervisor signed-off the evaluation report
- Check report is fully anonymised — no learner names, institutions, or identifying combinations
- Ask student: what would you do differently in a second trial based on what you observed?