Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Get observed and establish your baseline
2–3 weeks to arrange and complete
You cannot improve what you have not measured. Arrange to be observed teaching or facilitating a session by someone who can give honest, specific feedback — a colleague, department head, teaching coach, or peer with genuine teaching experience. Before the observation, write down two specific aspects of your teaching you believe are your current weaknesses. After the observation, compare your self-assessment to the observer's feedback. Document both. This creates your baseline — the gap between where you think you are and where the observer sees you.
Proof required
Share: (1) the date, subject, and student or participant group of the observed session, (2) the name and role of your observer, (3) your pre-observation self-assessment naming two specific weaknesses, and (4) a summary of the observer's written or verbal feedback covering at least three specific observations.
What gets checked
- Observer is named with a role that establishes their credibility — a colleague who also teaches, a department head, a coach, or a mentor with teaching experience; a friend who attended the session as a participant does not meet the standard
- Observer feedback contains at least three specific observations — not 'good energy' but named moments: 'when you asked the whole class a question without waiting, only the same three students answered'
- Pre-observation self-assessment was written before the observation, not after — the gap between prediction and feedback is the diagnostic; writing both at the same time defeats the purpose
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Ask for the observer's name and role and confirm they have genuine teaching or facilitation experience — a student or a peer who has never taught does not provide a qualifying observation
- Ask to see the pre-observation self-assessment with its date stamp — if the file creation date is later than the observation date, the self-assessment was written retrospectively
- Ask the submitter to name the most surprising thing their observer said — a genuine observation almost always contains something the teacher did not expect to hear
- Choosing an observer who will only give positive feedback — a colleague who is also a close friend, or a student who admires you, will not give the honest critical observations that make an observation useful
- Writing the self-assessment after seeing the feedback — the self-assessment is only useful as a baseline if it predates the observation; write it the day before
- Treating the observation as a performance rather than a diagnostic — the goal is to see your real teaching, not a prepared showpiece; teach a routine session, not a specially rehearsed one
Implement two evidence-backed changes and measure their effect
4–8 weeks of deliberate practice across multiple sessions
Teaching improvement requires deliberate practice against specific targets. Based on your M1 baseline, choose two specific aspects of your teaching to improve and implement a concrete technique for each. After at least four further teaching sessions using these techniques, collect evidence that the changes had an effect — student responses, work quality, engagement data, or a second observer's notes. The evidence does not need to show dramatic improvement; honest measurement of a modest change is more credible than a dramatic claim without evidence.
Proof required
Share: (1) the two specific techniques you implemented (named, if possible — e.g. 'cold call for equitable participation' or 'no hands up during questioning'), (2) a brief description of how you applied each technique across at least four sessions, (3) evidence that each technique had a measurable effect — student work samples, observation notes from a second session, or feedback data, and (4) one thing that did not work as expected and what you tried instead.
What gets checked
- Two techniques are named specifically enough that another teacher could replicate them — 'I asked better questions' is not a technique; 'I wrote three higher-order questions before each session and waited 8 seconds after asking before taking responses' is
- Evidence of effect is from an external source or from student output — self-reported impressions without supporting data are the weakest form of evidence; student work samples or a second observation are the strongest
- One failure or unexpected outcome is described honestly — a professional development narrative with no failures is either incomplete or dishonest
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter to name the two techniques specifically and explain how they applied one in a concrete session moment — a vague description ('I tried to ask better questions') indicates the practice was not deliberate enough
- Review the evidence section: student work samples and second observations are stronger than self-assessment; if only self-assessment is provided, ask whether any external evidence was collected
- Ask about the thing that did not work — a genuine practitioner who tried something new across four sessions will have a clear answer about what went wrong
- Choosing too broad a technique — 'be more engaging' cannot be measured; 'increase the percentage of students who answer questions by using cold call rather than hands up' can be tracked in a simple tally
- Implementing a technique for one session and claiming mastery — the proof requires at least four sessions; teaching habits take weeks of deliberate repetition to change
- Collecting only satisfaction data as evidence — 'students said they enjoyed the lesson more' is not evidence that a specific technique improved learning; work quality, quiz results, or observation notes are stronger
Get re-observed and document measurable improvement
1–2 weeks to arrange and complete
Improvement is proven by comparison, not by claim. Arrange a second formal observation — ideally by the same observer as M1, or someone with equivalent credibility — and share your M1 baseline with them before the session so they can specifically assess the same two areas you have been working on. After the observation, compare the M3 feedback to the M1 feedback explicitly: what changed, what improved, and what remains a work in progress. This comparison is the proof of growth.
Proof required
Share: (1) the date and observer for the second observation (note if it is the same observer as M1 or a different person), (2) a summary of the M3 observer feedback on the two specific areas from M1, (3) a direct comparison between M1 and M3 feedback on those two areas showing what changed, and (4) one aspect of your teaching that you know is still a development area beyond this outcome.
What gets checked
- Second observation covers the same two specific areas targeted in M2 — a general 'you're doing well' observation without reference to the M1 targets does not meet the standard
- Comparison between M1 and M3 feedback is explicit and shows at least one specific change — not 'I improved overall' but 'in M1 the observer noted that I only took responses from the front rows; in M3 the observer noted that I used cold call across all rows and waited for the student to formulate a full answer'
- One remaining development area is named — teaching is never finished; naming an honest remaining gap is more credible than claiming the process is complete
Resources
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Ask for the M3 observer's name and confirm they were briefed on the M1 targets before the session — an unbriefed observer cannot assess progress against specific targets
- Review the M1 vs. M3 comparison section: ask the submitter to read out the specific change in one of their two areas — the comparison should be concrete and cite the observer's words, not the submitter's self-impression
- Ask what the remaining development area is — a teacher who cannot name one ongoing development target either has not reflected seriously or is not being honest about their practice
- Re-observation by an observer who did not see the M1 session and has not been briefed on the M1 feedback — without that context, the M3 observation cannot assess whether the specific targets improved
- Comparison that describes overall improvement without connecting to the two specific M1 targets — the value of the milestone is the targeted comparison, not a general impression
- Omitting the remaining development area — a reflection that presents teaching practice as complete is implausible; honest professionals always have ongoing development areas