Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Audit a curriculum unit for inclusion barriers
2–3 weeks (3–5 hrs/week)
Select one existing curriculum unit (a scheme of work, module guide, or unit plan) and conduct a systematic audit against Universal Design for Learning principles and diversity/inclusion frameworks. Identify at least five specific barriers across three UDL dimensions (representation, action and expression, engagement) and document the evidence for each barrier with reference to learner need categories from the SEND Code of Practice or equivalent inclusivity framework.
Proof required
Submit your completed audit document: a structured table listing each identified barrier, the UDL dimension it falls under, the learner need category affected, and the evidence or rationale for why it is a barrier (minimum 600 words of analysis, plus the annotated curriculum unit or excerpt).
What gets checked
- Barriers are distributed across at least two UDL dimensions — not all concentrated in representation or materials
- Each barrier is grounded in a specific learner need category (e.g., dyslexia, EAL, ADHD, sensory) — not described in abstract terms
- Evidence is cited for at least three barriers (named research, SEND CoP section, or named inclusion framework)
Common mistakes
- Auditing a curriculum unit you designed yourself rather than an existing one — misses the critical-analysis step of evaluating others' work
- Listing cosmetic issues ('font is too small') without connecting them to specific learning barriers and learner needs
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- This outcome does not require direct learner contact — a conditional safeguarding note applies if the curriculum unit contains real learner data (e.g., worked examples drawn from real student submissions). Confirm no real learner data is included without anonymisation.
- The audited curriculum unit must be an existing, real curriculum document — not a hypothetical unit designed for this task.
- Barriers must be distributed across at least two UDL dimensions — a submission concentrated only on representation (e.g., text accessibility) is incomplete.
- Evidence citations must be specific: named publication, section, or research finding — not 'research shows' or 'best practice suggests'.
Redesign one curriculum unit applying UDL
2–3 weeks (curriculum design + rationale write-up)
Using the audit findings from Milestone 1, redesign the audited curriculum unit to address the identified barriers. Produce a revised unit plan (learning outcomes, sequence of activities, assessment tasks, and resources) that demonstrates at least three specific UDL enhancements. For each enhancement, document the design decision, the barrier it addresses, and the learner need category it serves. The redesigned unit must be implementable without specialist equipment — free or widely available tools only.
Proof required
Submit: (1) the redesigned unit plan (full curriculum document or equivalent, clearly marked up to show changes from the original); (2) a design rationale document (600–800 words) explaining each UDL enhancement with reference to the audit findings and named evidence sources.
What gets checked
- Each UDL enhancement is explicitly linked to a barrier identified in the audit — not a general improvement unconnected to the audit
- Design rationale cites at least two named evidence sources for the design decisions made
- Redesigned unit is genuinely implementable — no dependency on specialist software or equipment not available in a mainstream school setting
Common mistakes
- Making only surface-level changes (adding more images, larger font) without addressing the structural learning barriers identified in the audit
- Designing for an idealised classroom with unlimited resources — the redesign must be practical for a real mainstream setting
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Conditional safeguarding note: if the redesign was informed by real learner profiles or case data, confirm all such data is anonymised in the submission.
- Verify that each UDL enhancement is explicitly linked back to a specific barrier from the Milestone 1 audit — generic improvements don't satisfy this standard.
- The redesigned unit must be evaluable as implementable — check that it does not depend on tools or resources not available in a mainstream school.
- Design rationale must name the evidence sources — 'research supports this' without naming the source is insufficient.
Present redesign to curriculum specialists and iterate
1–2 weeks (presentation + iteration)
Present your redesigned curriculum unit to at least two people with expertise in inclusive education or curriculum design (e.g., SENCO, curriculum lead, EdTech specialist, or university lecturer in education). Use a structured presentation format: brief the audience on the original barriers, explain each design decision, and invite critical feedback. Document all feedback received and produce a written response explaining which changes you made in response and why.
Proof required
Submit: (1) presentation slides or structured notes used in the session; (2) written feedback record (notes from the critique session, minimum 300 words — attributed to 'Reviewer A' etc., not by name unless consent given); (3) an iteration note (400–600 words) explaining what you changed, what you kept, and the reasoning for each decision.
What gets checked
- At least two reviewers participated — one must hold a specialist inclusive education role (SENCO or equivalent), not just a general educator
- Feedback record captures specific, substantive critique — not generic praise; includes at least three distinct improvement suggestions
- Iteration note engages critically with the feedback — explains decisions to change or not change specific elements with reasoning, not just 'I agreed with all feedback'
Common mistakes
- Presenting to peers or family members rather than educators with relevant domain expertise — the critique must come from people who can evaluate inclusive curriculum design
- Accepting all feedback uncritically without evaluating which changes would genuinely improve the design
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- At least one reviewer must hold a specialist inclusive education role — confirm the role title in the feedback record.
- Feedback record must capture substantive critique, not only positive comments — if only positive feedback is recorded, this is a red flag that the session was not a genuine critique.
- Iteration note must show independent professional judgement — accepting all feedback without reasoning is as weak as rejecting all feedback without reasoning.
- No direct learner contact required for this milestone — safeguarding prerequisite applies conditionally only if real case data was discussed.
Part of