Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Audit an existing curriculum for coherence and alignment
2 weeks (1–2 hrs/day)
Select a curriculum area or module from your professional context (or use a publicly available curriculum document). Conduct a curriculum audit: map the learning objectives to assessment methods, identify gaps or misalignments, and document your findings in an audit report (minimum 400 words). You do not need access to a school or institution — this milestone can be completed from published curriculum documents alone.
Proof required
Submit your curriculum audit report (minimum 400 words): audit methodology, alignment mapping, identified gaps or misalignments with specific examples.
What gets checked
- Audit identifies specific gaps or misalignments with reference to curriculum document sections
- Alignment mapping is explicit — objectives and assessments are matched and gaps are named
- Methodology is documented — not just conclusions
Common mistakes
- Audit is a description of the curriculum rather than an alignment analysis
- Gaps are stated without reference to specific curriculum sections
- Methodology is absent — just conclusions without a documented process
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- If the curriculum audit involved access to a school or institution's confidential curriculum documents, confirm appropriate data handling permissions were in place
- Verify audit identifies specific gaps with curriculum document references — not general observations
- Ask student: what is the most significant misalignment you found and what are its consequences for learners?
Design a revised or new curriculum map for a specific context
3 weeks (2 hrs/day)
Design a curriculum map for a specific subject, age group, or module addressing the gaps you identified in your audit (or for a new curriculum need). Your map must include: learning objectives, sequencing rationale, assessment checkpoints, and suggested teaching approaches. Produce a design rationale (minimum 400 words) explaining key decisions.
Proof required
Submit your curriculum map (table or diagram format showing objectives, sequence, assessments, and teaching approaches) and design rationale (minimum 400 words).
What gets checked
- Curriculum map is specific to a named subject, age group, and context
- Sequencing decisions are explicit — why this order, not just what order
- Design rationale addresses trade-offs — what was included, excluded, and why
Common mistakes
- Curriculum map is a list of topics without sequencing rationale
- Assessment checkpoints are generic rather than aligned to specific objectives
- Design rationale describes the map rather than explaining the decisions
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- If the curriculum map was designed for a specific school's use, confirm appropriate data handling permissions were in place
- Verify sequencing decisions are documented with rationale — ask student to explain why one objective precedes another
- Ask student: what is the most significant trade-off you made in this design and why?
Present curriculum map for professional critique
1 week
Present your curriculum map and design rationale to an educational professional (curriculum lead, head of department, education researcher, or experienced teacher) in a review session (minimum 20 minutes). The reviewer should challenge your sequencing, assessment alignment, or inclusion decisions. Document the specific challenges and produce a revised curriculum map or revision notes (minimum 300 words).
Proof required
Submit: (1) review session record (date, reviewer with role, specific challenges — minimum half page), (2) revised curriculum map or revision notes (minimum 300 words documenting what changed and why).
What gets checked
- Review record documents specific professional challenges to the design
- Revision notes address at least two specific changes with rationale
- Reviewer has named professional credentials in education — not a peer student
Common mistakes
- Review was a peer student rather than an educational professional
- Revision notes are cosmetic — minor wording changes rather than substantive design decisions
- Review record doesn't document specific professional challenges
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm reviewer has named professional credentials in education — not a peer student
- Verify review record documents specific design challenges
- Ask student: which criticism in the review most changed how you think about curriculum design?
- If the curriculum was designed for a specific institution, confirm appropriate data handling
Part of