Play-Based Learning Planning & Delivery

Proof required

Submit your activity plan (300–400 words) using these headings: EYFS area and development statement; play type and rationale; adult role description; environment and materials list; observation and recording method. Include a note confirming setting manager or lead practitioner approval with their role stated.

What gets checked

• EYFS area of learning and the specific Development Matters statement are named — not a general claim that the activity 'supports development'
• Adult role is described in terms of what you will do and not do — explicitly states whether you are observer, co-player, or extender, and how you will avoid over-directing the play
• Observation and recording method is specified — names the format (e.g. sticky-note running record, photo with annotation, learning journey entry) and what you are looking for

Common mistakes

• Designing an activity that is teacher-directed rather than play-based — a worksheet activity called 'play' because children are sitting on the floor does not meet the standard; the child must lead the exploration
• Not specifying the adult role, leading to either over-direction (turning free play into a guided lesson) or under-support (missing key moments to extend learning)

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Current enhanced DBS clearance (enhanced, not standard) is a prerequisite — this outcome involves direct work with young children. Confirm documentation is in place and current.
• Recognised safeguarding training must be documented — the early years context requires awareness of safeguarding responsibilities. Verify module name and completion date.
• Setting manager or qualified lead practitioner (Level 5 or above in early childhood, or equivalent) must have approved the activity plan before delivery — retroactive approval does not satisfy this standard.
• EYFS area of learning and specific Development Matters statement must be named in the plan — a plan without a specific curriculum link cannot be verified against professional standards.
• All child references must be anonymised from the first document — age-band and play type descriptions are fine; individual child descriptors are not.

Proof required

Submit: (1) three anonymised in-the-moment child observations in your chosen format (sticky-note transcripts, running records, or annotated photographs with descriptive captions — a minimum of 150 words of observation text in total); (2) a brief implementation note (150 words) on how the session ran, any deviation from the plan, and one specific moment you would change.

What gets checked

• Child observations are written in the moment or within minutes — not retrospectively after the session; contemporaneous observations have a different texture (specific words, specific actions) than reconstructions
• Each observation links to the EYFS developmental statement from the plan — not a general 'the child was engaged' but 'the child explored cause and effect by...' with the specific action
• Implementation note names one specific moment to change — not general impressions of the session; a concrete, revisable moment

Common mistakes

• Collecting only observations of children doing things well — honest observation includes moments of disengagement, frustration, or unexpected behaviour, all of which are valid assessment evidence
• Writing observations as learning journey entries after the session from memory — reconstructed observations lose the specific spoken language and action detail that makes them valuable assessment evidence

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• All SAFEGUARDING prerequisites apply — direct work with young children has occurred. Enhanced DBS, safeguarding training, and setting manager attestation required.
• All child observations must be fully anonymised — no names, and descriptions must not combine physical characteristics, sibling details, or other information that could identify a child to a third-party reader.
• Setting manager or lead practitioner must have been present during the session — this is not a solo student activity.
• Observations must be contemporaneous — check whether the format and content of the observations are consistent with in-the-moment capture (specific language, specific micro-actions) rather than post-session reconstruction.
• Photographs, if used, must not show children's faces — back-of-head, hands-only, or described-in-text formats are acceptable.

Proof required

Submit: (1) your written evaluation (400–500 words using the three headings above, fully anonymised); (2) a 150-word documented summary of the setting manager or lead practitioner discussion (attributed to role not name, capturing their evaluation of the session and their view on your proposed next steps).

What gets checked

• Developmental interpretation of each observation uses language from Development Matters — not 'they were learning' but 'this child is showing early [specific statement]' with the specific evidence
• Next-step for each child is specific and individuated — three different children get three different next experiences based on what you observed, not one blanket continuation activity
• Manager discussion summary captures their evaluation of the session design and adult role, not just the children's responses — their professional critique is the verification layer

Common mistakes

• Writing next steps as identical for all three children — if your next steps are the same regardless of what you observed, your observation analysis is not driving the planning
• Framing the adult role reflection as what you would do differently in future rather than what the specific moments show about how the adult role affected children's learning in this session

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• All SAFEGUARDING prerequisites apply throughout — enhanced DBS, safeguarding training, and setting manager attestation.
• Setting manager or lead practitioner must have conducted the evaluation discussion — room leaders without Level 5 qualification do not meet the supervisor standard for this milestone.
• All child references in the evaluation must be fully anonymised — pseudonyms (Child A, Child B) are fine; any combination of descriptors that could identify a child is not.
• Developmental interpretations must use EYFS language and link to Development Matters statements — generic developmental claims without curriculum grounding are insufficient.
• Manager discussion summary must capture substantive professional evaluation — a summary that only records praise is incomplete; the manager must engage with the student's proposed next steps.