Quick answer: an anti-bias development plan is a 2,500-word, evidence-led evaluation of your own ECEC service against two of Derman-Sparks and Edwards’ goals (identity and justice), followed by three strategies and an analysis of your own role. Spend 600 words judging practice, 800 on strategies linked to law and theory, and 700 on your role.

You have a placement room you know well, a brief that names two anti-bias goals, and a word count that looks generous until you try to fit an introduction, an evaluation, three strategies, a role analysis and a conclusion into it. The students who lose marks on the CHEV011 development plan rarely lack ideas. They describe their service instead of evaluating it, and they list legislation without showing how it changes what they do on a Tuesday morning.

If you are working on this brief, the live page is CHEV011 Equity, Diversity and Inclusion: anti-bias development plan. This guide explains how to plan the anti-bias development plan, section by section. If you want to see the structure on a page first, there is a model extract, for reference only using a fictional service.

For wider support with this kind of coursework, our early childhood education assignment help page explains what we do and do not do.

Where the marks are

The brief gives you a word allocation, and markers read it as a marking scheme. The two heavy sections are the strategies and the role analysis, but the evaluation is where most weak submissions fall apart, because every later section depends on it.

The word count is 2,500 with a 10% margin, so aim for 2,250 to 2,750. Check your college’s rules on whether references count.

Know the two goals before you write

Derman-Sparks and Edwards (2019) describe four core goals: identity, diversity, justice and activism. Your brief uses goals 1 and 3. Goal 1 is about nurturing each child’s knowledgeable, confident personal and social identities. Goal 3 is about fostering each child’s capacity to critically identify bias and nurturing empathy for the hurt it causes (Derman-Sparks and Edwards, 2019).

Quote the goals from the source rather than from a student summary. Markers notice when the wording has drifted, and it is easy to confuse goal 3 (justice) with goal 2 (diversity), which is about comfortable interaction with people from different backgrounds. If your examples would fit goal 2 equally well, they are probably not goal 3 examples.

How to evaluate anti-bias goals 1 and 3 in your service

Evaluation means judging, not describing. A description says: “We have multicultural dolls and a welcome sign in several languages.” An evaluation says: “The dolls and sign support goal 1 for children from the two main language groups, but the range excludes Traveller and lone-parent families, and the sign is not used in conversation.”

A reliable way to build the 600 words is to use a promoted / not yet promoted / evidence table in your notes, then write it up as prose. Take each goal separately and ask three questions: what happens, who benefits, and who is missing?

The policy link is a specific requirement, so do not skip it. Under the Child Care Act 1991 (Early Years Services) Regulations 2016, services must hold the policies listed in Schedule 5, which includes an inclusion policy, and must review policies annually (Government of Ireland, 2016). Ask whether yours is current, whether staff can describe it, and whether it shapes anything you actually observe. Many students find the honest answer is “it exists but nobody uses it”, and that is a perfectly good finding.

Use your own observations: dated, anonymised and brief. Never name children, staff or the setting if your college asks for anonymity.

Choosing your three strategies

Each strategy should grow out of a gap in your evaluation. If you evaluated nothing about book corners, a strategy on book corners will look bolted on. Choose three that differ in kind, for example one about the environment, one about adult-child interaction, and one about policy or partnership with parents.

That table is a menu, not an answer. Your strategies must match what you found.

Linking strategies to legislation, standards and theory

The brief asks how the strategies “support adherence to and engagement with” legislation, standards and theory, so write it into every strategy paragraph. A simple pattern works: the gap, the action, the legal or standard link, the theory link, and how you will know it worked.

Be careful with legislation. The Equal Status Acts prohibit discrimination on nine grounds, including race, disability and membership of the Traveller community, in areas including education (IHREC, n.d.). That is a legal duty to avoid discrimination. The Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Charter and Guidelines (DCYA, 2016) is national guidance for services. The two are different things, and treating them as one is a common error.

Be careful with theory too. Do not name Bronfenbrenner and move on. Explain it: if the child sees only one kind of family in the room, the microsystem tells them some families do not count. That sentence shows you understand the theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). A parent workshop on bias does the same job at the level of home and setting links.

Many students find Aistear’s equality and diversity principle useful because it explicitly asks adults to help children recognise and challenge injustice (NCCA, 2009), which is close to the wording of goal 3.

For help with how to structure these links for a specific learning outcome, the QQI assignment help page explains how we support learners on QQI programmes.

Analysing your own role

This section is personal, so a generic “educators should be role models” paragraph loses marks fast. The brief names four lenses: language, participation, communications and relationships. Give each roughly 175 words and one real example.

• Language: the words you choose, how you name difference, and how you respond to a biased comment.
• Participation: how children influence activities and routines. UNCRC Article 12 gives children the right to express views on matters affecting them (United Nations, 1989).
• Communications: notices, daily conversations and handovers with families, including parents with limited English or literacy.
• Relationships: with children, with colleagues and with parents. The trust that lets a child tell you something hurt.

Write in the first person here and be honest about limits. “I realised I had been saying ‘mum and dad’ to every child” is more convincing than a statement that you always use inclusive language. A short reflection with one personal target will do more than three paragraphs of general principles.

If you would like a quote for support with your own brief, you can submit your assignment details and a subject specialist will respond.

Mark-maximising checklist

• Both goals 1 and 3 are quoted from Derman-Sparks and Edwards (2019) and kept distinct.
• The evaluation names at least two specific, anonymised examples per goal.
• You make a judgement on each example: promoted, partly promoted or not promoted.
• The service’s policies are named and their effect on practice is explained.
• Three strategies, each traced back to a gap you identified.
• Each strategy names legislation, a national standard (Aistear or Síolta) and a theorist, with an explanation.
• The role analysis covers language, participation, communications and relationships.
• The conclusion adds no new sources.
• Harvard referencing is consistent; every citation appears in the reference list and vice versa.
• AI use follows your brief’s Level 1 “AI for Support” rule, and your declaration matches what you did.

Common mistakes

• Writing 600 words describing the setting, then 100 words judging it.
• Treating anti-bias as a “multicultural week” rather than daily practice.
• Choosing strategies that do not follow from the evaluation.
• Listing Acts and frameworks without saying what they require of the educator.
• Confusing goal 2 (diversity) with goal 3 (justice).
• Using outdated or unchecked policy references, or skipping the Regulations on inclusion policies.
• Leaving the role analysis without a single concrete example.

What students actually struggle with

Three problems come up again and again. The first is being critical of a placement service you are fond of; the fix is to evaluate the practice, not the people. The second is evidence: if you did not record observations on placement, use your reflective journal or a documented policy. The third is the word count. Strategy sections run long because each strategy needs a legal link, a standard and a theory, so draft them in a table first, then compress into prose.

For a similar placement-based task, see the CA1 play-based experiences and Aistear play plans question, which also asks you to link placement evidence to national frameworks.

Frequently asked questions

How should I split the 2,500 words?

Follow the brief: 200 introduction, 600 evaluation, 800 strategies, 700 role analysis, 200 conclusion. A 10% margin is allowed, but stay close, because markers check that each section received its stated share.

Do I have to use my real placement service?

The brief asks you to evaluate your ECEC service, so yes, use one you know well. Anonymise children, staff and families, and follow your college’s rules on naming settings.

What is the difference between goal 1 and goal 3?

Goal 1 is identity: helping each child build a confident sense of self and group. Goal 3 is justice: helping children recognise unfairness and bias and feel empathy for those hurt by it (Derman-Sparks and Edwards, 2019).

Which legislation should I cite?

Choose what you can explain. The Equal Status Acts, the Child Care Act 1991 (Early Years Services) Regulations 2016 and the UNCRC are strong choices, alongside the Charter, Aistear and Síolta. Explain what each requires of the educator in your setting.

Can I present it as a narrated PowerPoint instead?

The brief allows a 16 to 20 minute narrated presentation as an alternative to the essay. The same content and references are expected, so plan the script first and build slides afterwards.

Can I use AI tools for this assignment?

The brief sets AI use at Level 1, “AI for Support”, which normally means help with brainstorming or checking, not writing the submission. Check your college’s guidance and declare any use accurately. Model answers, such as our extract, are for reference only.

Further help

For a childcare-specific overview of the support we offer, see childcare assignment help. You remain responsible for your own work and your college’s AI-use rules; we provide guidance and model answers, not a submission for you.

About the expert

Dr. Niamh Kavanagh has spent over 12 years supporting students on Irish Early Childhood Education programmes. Her profile lists child development, play-based learning, inclusive education, observation reports, reflective practice and curriculum planning, aligned with QQI learning outcomes, Aistear and Síolta.

References

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education (CECDE) (2006) Síolta, the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education: handbook. Dublin: CECDE.

Department of Children and Youth Affairs (DCYA) (2016) Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Charter and Guidelines for Early Childhood Care and Education. Dublin: Government of Ireland. Available at: https://www.gov.ie/ga/an-roinn-leana%C3%AD-m%C3%ADchumais-agus-comhionannais/foilseachain/diversity-equality-and-inclusion-charter-and-guidelines-for-early-childhood-care-and-education/ (Accessed: 26 October 2026).

Derman-Sparks, L. and Edwards, J.O. (2019) ‘Understanding anti-bias education: bringing the four core goals to every facet of your curriculum’, Young Children, 74(5). Available at: https://www.naeyc.org/node/3210 (Accessed: 26 October 2026).

Government of Ireland (2016) Child Care Act 1991 (Early Years Services) Regulations 2016, S.I. No. 221 of 2016. Available at: https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2016/si/221/made/en/print (Accessed: 26 October 2026).

Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) (n.d.) Equal Status Acts. Available at: https://www.ihrec.ie/guides-and-tools/human-rights-and-equality-in-the-provision-of-good-and-services/what-does-the-law-say/equal-status-acts/ (Accessed: 26 October 2026).

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) (2009) Aistear: the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework. Dublin: NCCA.

United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child (Accessed: 26 October 2026).

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner and E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.