Puberty, Health & Safe Choices

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

I name some physical changes of puberty but fewer than five, or I name changes without distinguishing physical from emotional.

I name five physical changes and one or two emotional ones, but the emotional changes are generic ('moody') rather than specific.

I can complete a written or oral explanation identifying at least five physical and two emotional changes of puberty.

I describe a puberty change that is less commonly discussed (e.g. changing sleep needs, body image, energy patterns) in addition to the standard list.

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

I describe a hygiene routine but it is a pre-puberty routine, or my description skips the changes puberty brings that require new steps.

My routine includes puberty-specific steps but misses one (e.g. covers body but not hair or teeth changes), or the steps are listed without any reasoning.

I can describe an appropriate personal hygiene routine in writing or speech.

My description notes how the routine has to adapt when a puberty change (sweat, acne, menstruation) actually starts, not only in anticipation.

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

I name one source for puberty questions but not a second, or I name two but one is not reliable (a friend, a random site).

I name two reliable sources but they are the same type (both websites, or both adults), or I cannot say why I count them as reliable.

I can name two reliable health information sources for puberty questions.

I can say what kind of puberty question each source is best suited to, and why I would not use the same source for everything.

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

My description is about puberty hygiene in general rather than relevant to my own development, or I describe steps I do not currently need.

I describe my relevant hygiene routine but miss a step that applies to my current stage, or my reasoning for each step is generic rather than personal.

I can describe the hygiene routines relevant to my own pubertal development in writing or speech.

My description notes which part of my routine I expect to change next as my development continues.

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

I say which source I trust more but do not apply the stated criteria, or I apply them but only to one of the two sources.

I apply the stated criteria to both sources but the reasoning is thin on one criterion — for example, I check who wrote it but not what evidence it cites.

I can apply stated criteria to distinguish a trusted health source from an unreliable one in a short source-comparison task.

I apply the criteria and identify a case where two criteria disagree (a well-credentialed author on an unreliable platform) and handle the conflict.

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

My explanation names part of reproduction (one system, or the act only) without covering how the process works end to end at my level.

I explain reproduction at an age-appropriate level but one step is missing or oversimplified in a way that could mislead, or the language slips between technical and vague.

I can complete a written explanation of human reproduction at an age-appropriate level.

My explanation covers the process and also notes something it does not explain on its own — for example, what decides when reproduction is biologically possible.

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

My response names a risk but does not assess it, or covers only one of the three scenario types (STI, pregnancy, substance-use).

I assess risk across the three scenarios but my reasoning applies the same logic everywhere, rather than what is specific to each kind of risk.

I can complete a written scenario-based risk-assessment task covering STI, pregnancy, and substance-use scenarios.

I identify how risks across the three types can compound (e.g. how substance use changes the likelihood of unprotected sex) and factor that into my assessment.

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

I list protection methods but do not match them to the scenarios, or I match only one scenario to a method.

I match protection methods to each risk scenario but do not distinguish methods that reduce risk from methods that prevent it, or I over-attribute what a single method can do.

I can identify the relevant protection methods for each of the risk scenarios.

I identify a scenario where a single method is not enough and more than one protection is needed, and say why.

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

My steps are generic ('go to a doctor') rather than specific to this jurisdiction, or I describe access without noting the confidentiality conditions.

I describe the access steps for this jurisdiction but confuse the confidentiality conditions (e.g. what can be shared at what age), or the steps miss a gatekeeper a young person would actually meet.

I can describe specific steps for accessing confidential health advice in this jurisdiction.

I name a condition under which the default confidentiality in this jurisdiction would not apply, and what a young person could do then.

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

I name 'a doctor' in general rather than identifying the specific service that would handle the question (GP, sexual health clinic, pharmacy, helpline).

I name a specific service but pick one that does not actually offer the relevant care for this question.

I can identify the relevant healthcare service for a reproductive or sexual-health question.

I identify a primary service and a backup service, and distinguish which kinds of question each can and cannot handle.

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

I state I would 'just go' to the service without naming how to access it (appointment, walk-in, referral) or what it costs.

I name the access pathway but state confidentiality in general terms ('it's private') without the jurisdiction-specific rules for minors or disclosure.

I can state the access pathway and confidentiality conditions for the identified service in this jurisdiction.

I state the access pathway and the specific confidentiality rules, including where confidentiality can be breached (risk of harm, age thresholds) in this jurisdiction.

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

I compare two sources on presentation style or familiarity rather than against guideline criteria.

I apply one guideline criterion (for example, does the source cite a named guideline?) but miss criteria such as currency or authorship qualifications.

I can evaluate at least two information sources on a reproductive or sexual-health question against stated evidence-based guideline criteria.

I evaluate multiple sources against several guideline criteria and state which source I would rely on for this question and why.

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

I present one side's evidence only, or I treat all evidence as equally valid.

I present both sides but I do not distinguish strong evidence from weak within each side.

I can weigh the quality of evidence on each side of a contested sexual-and-reproductive-health claim.

I weigh evidence on each side using named quality criteria and explain why a given piece of evidence settles or fails to settle the point in question.

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

I treat the discourse as interest-free, as if only the evidence is in play.

I identify interests on one side but not the other, or I identify interests in general terms without naming who or what.

I can identify the ideological, cultural, or commercial interests shaping the discourse around a contested SRH claim.

I identify specific interests on each side and discuss how those interests shape what evidence gets foregrounded and what gets omitted.

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

I write as if the evidence settles the claim, acknowledging no uncertainty.

I acknowledge uncertainty in generic terms but do not locate where in my argument the uncertainty bites.

I can acknowledge what remains uncertain in my written evaluation of a contested SRH claim.

I name specific claims in my evaluation that remain genuinely uncertain, and distinguish uncertainty that more research could resolve from uncertainty that it cannot.

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

I refuse to take a position, or I take one without tying it to my evaluation.

I state a position and give reasons but the reasons do not engage with the strongest counter-evidence I presented.

I can articulate my reasoned personal position on a contested SRH claim.

I articulate a position that explicitly addresses the strongest counter-evidence and states what considerations carry most weight in my conclusion.