Child Development Observation

Proof required

Submit: (1) observation plan approved by supervisor (child pseudonym, developmental domain, method, observation setting — minimum half page), (2) observation record (contemporaneous notes using your chosen method). Fully anonymised.

What gets checked

• Observation plan was approved by supervisor before beginning — not retrospectively documented
• Observation record uses a specific named method consistently
• Full anonymisation — pseudonyms used throughout, no school or setting names

Common mistakes

• Observation began without supervisor approval
• Observation method is inconsistent — mixed approach without a single framework
• Identifying information present in observation records

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm current enhanced DBS/background check clearance is documented — enhanced DBS required for early childhood placement with children under 5
• Confirm completion of a recognised safeguarding training module is documented — paediatric first aid documentation also expected for under-5s in most jurisdictions
• Verify qualified supervisor attestation is present — named setting manager or lead practitioner (EYFS Level 5 or equivalent) — peer verification is NEVER acceptable for this outcome
• Check all observation records are fully anonymised — pseudonyms used, no setting name, no parent names, no combinations that identify children
• Verify observation plan was approved before the observation began — not retrospectively signed

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your development analysis (minimum 400 words, anonymised) with specific observation evidence for each developmental claim and referenced developmental framework.

What gets checked

• Analysis cites specific moments from the observation — not general impressions
• Each developmental claim is linked to the named framework
• Analysis identifies specific next steps, not general 'continue supporting development'

Common mistakes

• Analysis makes developmental claims without citing specific observation evidence
• Framework is referenced in general rather than linked to specific claims
• Next steps are generic rather than specific to what was observed

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Verify anonymisation is maintained throughout the analysis document
• Check analysis cites specific observation moments — ask student to read back one specific piece of evidence
• Ask student: what specific activity would you plan next for this child based on what you observed?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) discussion record (date, supervisor name and role, specific observations on your analysis — anonymised, minimum half page), (2) reflective note (minimum 300 words).

What gets checked

• Discussion record documents specific feedback on your observation analysis — not general praise
• Reflective note identifies specific improvements for the next observation
• Anonymisation is maintained throughout

Common mistakes

• Discussion was general rather than specifically about the observation and analysis
• Reflective note describes the discussion rather than identifying development
• Identifying information appears in discussion record

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Verify qualified supervisor sign-off is present — named setting manager or lead practitioner with EYFS Level 5 or equivalent
• Confirm all submitted materials are fully anonymised
• Confirm enhanced DBS and safeguarding training documentation are on record
• Ask student: what would you observe differently in a second observation of the same child?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.