Lesson Planning & Design

Proof required

Submit your annotated lesson plan (using your school or university template, or the DfE model format) including the mentor teacher's written annotations or review comments, plus a 250-word note explaining how you incorporated the feedback before delivery.

What gets checked

• Differentiation is genuinely tiered — not the same task with different word counts; each profile has distinct activity, support, or outcome expectation
• At least two assessment-for-learning checkpoints are built into the plan with a specified technique (e.g., mini-whiteboards, exit ticket, cold-call questioning) and the criterion for progress
• Mentor annotations are substantive and visible in the submitted document — not just a signature confirming the plan was seen

Common mistakes

• Writing differentiation as only resource-level variation (e.g., printed vs. digital) without differentiating the cognitive demand of the task
• Treating mentor review as a formality — submitting the plan without genuinely acting on the feedback before delivery

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Current enhanced DBS clearance is a prerequisite for this outcome — the lesson was delivered to real learners. Confirm this is documented before accepting.
• Recognised safeguarding training module completion must be documented in the submission — verify module name and date.
• Mentor teacher must have reviewed and annotated the plan before delivery — not after the fact. Annotations must be visible in the submitted document; a post-hoc sign-off is not sufficient.
• Peer attestation is never acceptable — the reviewer must be the placement mentor teacher or a qualified university supervisor.
• Differentiation must be genuinely tiered in cognitive demand — check that the three learner profiles receive qualitatively different tasks, not just different formats of the same task.

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

Proof required

Submit: (1) completed mentor observation notes from the lesson (your copy — showing the observer's structured feedback using the school/university observation framework); (2) three anonymised evidence samples of learner progress (exit tickets, work samples, or field notes); (3) your immediate post-lesson reflection (300–400 words, written before the mentor debrief).

What gets checked

• Mentor observation is structured — uses a named framework with specific criteria, not free-form notes
• Learner evidence is genuinely anonymised and shows actual in-lesson learning or struggle — not prepared work from outside the lesson
• Immediate reflection captures specific moments from the lesson linked to the learning objective — not a general summary of 'how it went'

Common mistakes

• Collecting only work that went well and omitting evidence of learners who did not meet the objective — honest evidence collection is non-negotiable
• Writing the reflection after the mentor debrief rather than before — the pre-debrief reflection must capture your own analysis before it is shaped by external feedback

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• All SAFEGUARDING prerequisites apply — direct learner contact occurred. Enhanced DBS, safeguarding training, and mentor attestation must all be documented.
• Learner evidence must be fully anonymised — names removed from all work samples; exit tickets with identifiable handwriting should be photographed with identifying details cropped or obscured.
• Mentor observation must use a named, structured framework — free-form observer notes do not provide the professional benchmark this milestone requires.
• Immediate reflection must be date-timestamped or otherwise demonstrably written before the mentor debrief — order matters here.
• Peer observation is not acceptable — the observer must be the qualified mentor teacher or university supervisor.

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

Proof required

Submit: (1) revised lesson plan (track-changed or annotated to show what changed and why); (2) written evaluation (600–800 words) addressing learning objective achievement, differentiation effectiveness, and your next development step — with reference to specific lesson evidence from Milestone 2.

What gets checked

• Revised plan changes are specific and connected to the debrief findings — not generic improvements; each change has an explanatory annotation
• Evaluation uses the collected learner evidence to make claims — not assertions about how the lesson felt; 'three of four exit tickets showed X' not 'learners seemed to understand'
• Next development priority is specific and personally grounded — not 'I need to improve differentiation' but 'I need to differentiate my questioning technique for [specific learner profile]'

Common mistakes

• Revising the plan to reflect what you wish you had planned rather than what the evidence showed learners actually needed — the revision must be evidence-driven
• Writing an evaluation that discusses the teaching rather than the learning — the evaluation must centre on learner progress evidence, not teacher actions

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• All SAFEGUARDING prerequisites apply — learner data and evidence from the delivery session underpin this milestone.
• Enhanced DBS and safeguarding training documentation must remain current and in place.
• Named mentor teacher must have conducted the post-lesson debrief — this is not a self-directed reflection exercise; peer feedback does not satisfy this standard.
• Evaluation must centre on learner progress evidence — a submission focused on teacher actions without reference to learner evidence is incomplete.
• Revised plan changes must be traceable to the debrief findings — check that each change has a stated rationale connected to lesson evidence, not general improvement intentions.

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