How this learning target compares
REAL leads with practised disposition. Three comparable frameworks lead with different things. For this learning target, here is how each one approaches the same ground — and where the divergences are.
At secondary, RSHE specifies physical health and healthy eating: "the characteristics of a healthy lifestyle, including physical activity and maintaining a healthy weight" and "how to maintain healthy eating and the links between a poor diet and health risks". [rshe-pilot-extracts §26, §27] REAL's LT 3.1 starts at Band A and adds a structural-conditions layer at Band E: students identify social determinants — income, neighbourhood, food access, cultural norms — that shape what habits are realistically available. [real-framework-overview §37]
Welsh CfW
leads with understandingWorth saying plainly: on day-to-day physical literacy, Welsh CfW is more comprehensive than REAL. WM1 carries diet and physical activity through every Progression Step, from PS1's basic connections [cfw-pilot-extracts §17] to PS5's adjusted-for-context nutrition planning. [cfw-pilot-extracts §21] REAL's LT 3.1 adds a structural-factors lens at Bands E–F that CfW doesn't, [real-framework-overview §37] but on practical physical literacy that families and primary teachers most use, CfW is more systematic.
CASEL's five competencies cover self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills and decision-making. [casel-framework-definition §3, §4] Physical health habits — nutrition, sleep, movement — sit outside this scope. REAL's LT 3.1 develops both: at Band B, students set healthy-habit goals based on how sleep, food and movement affect how they feel; by Band E, they're evaluating health-claim sources alongside the social factors that shape habit access. [real-framework-overview §37]
This per-LT view is one of three lenses. The whole-framework essay sets each framework's centre of gravity; the by-theme view shows where overlaps and gaps cut across LTs.
See the broader comparison →