Bodies, Boundaries & Consent

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band A.

I name some body parts but use inaccurate words for private parts, or I avoid naming private body parts altogether in the scenario response.

I use correct terminology in most parts of the task but revert to an informal or inaccurate word for at least one private body part.

I can name private body parts using correct terminology in a short scenario-response task.

I use the correct terminology in the scenario and also recognise when an adult in the scenario uses an incorrect term.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band A.

I name one trusted adult but cannot name a second, or I name two adults from only one setting (only home, or only school).

I name two trusted adults from across home and school but I hesitate and need prompting to decide which adults actually count as trusted.

I can identify at least two trusted adults in my specific context — one from home and one from school.

I identify more than two trusted adults across home and school and I give a short reason why each one is trusted (for example, 'she always listens', 'he keeps what I tell him safe').

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band A.

I say I would 'tell someone' in general but I cannot name a specific situation in which I would.

I name a specific situation (for example 'if someone hurt me') but I confuse it with situations where I would handle it myself, such as small disagreements.

I can state one specific situation in which I would tell a trusted adult.

I state more than one specific situation and can distinguish situations where I would tell an adult from situations where I would first try to sort it with a friend or teacher.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band B.

My analysis of the scenario says whether the person said yes or no but does not judge whether the yes was freely given, unclear, or pressured.

I identify whether consent was freely given or overridden but confuse 'unclear' and 'overridden,' or my reasoning does not point to the specific detail in the scenario that made the difference.

I can complete a written scenario analysis identifying whether consent was freely given, unclear, or overridden by pressure.

I identify a detail in the scenario (a smaller cue, a silence, a change of tone) that tipped the situation from freely given into unclear.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band B.

I describe something someone said in a consent situation but my description does not distinguish a clear request from a vague or pressured one.

I describe either a clear request or a clear answer but not both, or my description leaves out the specific language that makes the request or answer clear.

I can describe what a clear request and a clear answer sound like in a consent situation.

I describe a request-and-answer pair and note what would change if either side became less clear.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band B.

I say someone should get help when consent has been overridden but do not describe what the help-seeking response sounds like in words.

I describe what a help-seeking response sounds like, but it is the same in all cases rather than adjusted to whether consent was unclear or overridden.

I can describe what a help-seeking response sounds like when consent has been overridden or is unclear.

I distinguish a help-seeking response for 'unclear' from one for 'overridden' and can say why they are different.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band C.

I apply consent reasoning to one of the three scenario types (non-sexual, physical, or online) but not to the others, or I use very different reasoning for each.

I apply consent reasoning to all three scenario types but the reasoning for one of them (usually online) is weaker or less specific than for the others.

I can complete a scenario-response task that applies consent reasoning to non-sexual, physical, and online scenarios.

I apply consent reasoning across the three scenarios and note which scenario type makes consent hardest to read, and why.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band C.

I state a boundary in the roleplay but the statement is vague ('that's not OK'), or I address the person's behaviour rather than naming the specific limit.

My boundary statement is specific but delivered as a complaint or explanation rather than as a clear limit, or I soften it with 'maybe' or 'sorry.'

I can state a specific clear boundary to a peer in a structured roleplay.

My boundary statement is specific and names what I will do if the peer continues, not only what I am asking them to stop.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band D.

My analysis of the pressure scenario describes what happened but does not name any power or peer-pressure dynamic.

I name a power or peer-pressure dynamic but do not connect it to specific features of the scenario (who had authority, who had an audience, who had information).

I can complete a written analysis of a pressure scenario that names the specific power and peer-pressure dynamics at play.

I identify a power dynamic that is not obvious on first read — for example, whose silence is giving the pressurer cover.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band D.

I describe helping the peer but do not describe how I would support them to access confidential help specifically, or I describe telling an adult on their behalf.

I describe supporting the peer to access help but miss the confidentiality dimension — I name who they should tell but not how to protect their privacy.

I can describe how I would support a peer to access confidential help when they face pressure or safety concerns.

I distinguish between the support the peer needs right now and the confidentiality decisions that are theirs to make, not mine.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band D.

I say 'no' but only after hedging, or I soften the refusal so much that my intent is ambiguous to the other person in the roleplay.

I state a refusal in direct language on the first try but my tone drops or I apologise for refusing, which weakens the message.

I can state a refusal in direct language in response to a pressure scenario.

I state a direct refusal and hold it without escalation when the roleplay partner pushes back with a second round of pressure.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band D.

I say I would 'leave' but do not specify where I would go, who I would go to, or what I would say to exit the situation.

I describe an exit plan that names a destination or a person to contact, but I have not thought through how to leave if the other person blocks the first option.

I can describe a prepared exit plan in direct language for use in a pressure scenario.

I describe a primary exit plan and a backup if the primary is blocked, and I identify at least one person I will tell afterwards.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band E.

I state that 'it is illegal' without naming which law, age-of-consent rule, or safeguarding duty applies.

I name a relevant law but misapply it to the scenario (for example, applying adult-consent rules to a minor).

I can apply the relevant legal framework to a coercion, grooming, or exploitation scenario (online or institutional).

I apply the relevant legal framework accurately and identify where the legal frame leaves the situation unresolved and where safeguarding duties take over.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band E.

I treat the scenario as one-on-one, ignoring the institutional setting (school, club, online platform) that enables or constrains it.

I identify the institutional setting but only describe its role in general, not how it shaped this particular scenario.

I can evaluate the institutional context surrounding a coercion, grooming, or exploitation scenario.

I evaluate the institutional context including power asymmetries, reporting routes, and past handling of similar cases, and I name where institutional features made disclosure harder.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band E.

I draft a response that tells the friend what to do or promises to keep it secret.

I draft a response that is supportive but directs the friend toward one specific action rather than offering options.

I can draft a non-directive, trauma-aware response to a friend disclosing a coercion, grooming, or exploitation situation.

I draft a response that centres the friend's agency, names safe adults and services without telling them to use one, and explicitly distinguishes support from secret-keeping.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band F.

My facilitation uses language pitched above or below the audience (jargon with younger students, or vague euphemism with peers).

My language is mostly age-appropriate but I code-switch inconsistently when sensitive words come up.

I can facilitate a 20-minute structured discussion about consent, power, and boundaries with peers or younger students using age-appropriate language throughout.

I calibrate language across the full session, introducing specific terminology where needed and pitching examples to what the audience would plausibly meet.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band F.

I state a correct position but do not surface the underlying myth or offer evidence.

I surface one myth and correct it but the second myth I handle goes uncorrected, or I correct without evidence.

I can surface and correct at least two common myths about consent, power, or boundaries using evidence during the discussion.

I surface at least two myths, correct each with named evidence, and invite the group to engage with where the myth came from.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band F.

I close with a moral instruction ('be kind') rather than a rights-based framing.

I name rights in the closing but do not tie them to the specific content of the session.

I can close the discussion with a rights-based framing of consent, power, and boundaries.

I close with a rights-based framing that names the specific rights covered in the session and points the group to next steps, services, or people they could turn to.