Use this to choose a next teaching step, never to certify Prep HPE from one public check. Credit accurate wording in a language the educator can actually understand, signed/AAC/pointed response or a private answer; do not infer translations. Record access support separately from content cues. A paper answer shows reasoning only. If a real concern arises, stop scoring and follow school policy. Outdoor and physical codes need approved, accessible, chosen, dated, actually observed activity; a family report or adult demonstration is a different source.
Day 25 · Case H
Question 1. The drawn route is START FLAG → CHECKPOINT ONE → back. The QUIET CORNER is drawn beside the path as the rest place. Credit a child who points to the exact labels and shows the return even if they do not speak. This describes only a paper route.
Question 2. The note explicitly says “No adult has checked a real route today.” Before real outdoor activity, the educator checks current school approval, date, weather, sun, surface/hazards, supervision and individual access/rest/stop options, then asks whether the child chooses a suitable activity. The map cannot replace these. A child's suggestion of a safe local check is useful; do not pretend any check occurred.
Question 3. No. Vale says “might” about a fictional preference. The sentence proves no real child enjoyed, benefited from or even joined an activity. Record a real child's optional self-report only if they freely gave it and label it self-report, not a measured health result. Record outdoor participation only if actually observed under the local gate. Otherwise OUTDOOR PHYSICAL ACTIVITY NOT OBSERVED.
Next teaching: If a learner treats a map as today's safety check, compare another blank map with an adult's real dated inspection statement. If a learner treats a puppet's possible value as a universal outcome, model “possible for this character; unknown for a real child.” Keep any actual activity record separate.
Day 30 · Case I
Question 1. Quote “One pretend maker in the clear lane at a time; pause at the agreed signal.” Credit equivalent pointing to the printed rule plus an accurate statement that another maker waits until the lane clears.
Question 2. Zed's proposal allows a suitable action, an individual level target and a fair next turn after the lane clears. Rafi's same high target and mandatory hop impose one action/height on everyone; they need changing. After “Not now; it is in use,” Rafi leaves the class object and waits or chooses another approved option; asking again does not cancel the no. Do not infer a particular child's ability or prescribe a new body action from the picture. A real person's answer about equipment and space is asked afresh.
Question 3. No. The Copper Comet Board is a paper fiction; the drawn object and printed rule do not prove child movement, physical skill, consent or fair play. Separate evidence would be a school-approved, individually accessible and chosen actual activity, with dated observation of the child's exact action, setting, rule and supports. An adult's movement is recorded as adult action. If no child activity occurs, write PHYSICAL ACTIVITY NOT OBSERVED, not failure.
Next teaching: Rehearse the paper distinction with a different broad mat, then invite an optional real activity only after local equipment and access checks. Distinguish a proposed fair rule from a rule followed in observed play. One case cannot establish the range of physical activities in the curriculum description.