Active Bystander & Anti-Discrimination

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

I say 'someone was mean' without describing what actually happened or who was involved.

I describe the situation in general terms but miss a specific action or moment that marks where it became exclusion or unkindness.

I can describe a situation where someone was left out or treated unkindly and name what I saw.

I describe the situation with specific detail and distinguish what I saw happen from what I guessed or imagined.

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

I say 'an adult' in general but I cannot name a specific person.

I name a specific adult but I hesitate or pick someone because they are near me, not because they are trusted for this kind of telling.

I can identify a specific trusted adult I could tell about an exclusion or unkindness I witnessed.

I identify a primary trusted adult and a backup adult, and I can say a short reason why each is a good person to tell.

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

I say 'something bad happened' without describing who did what to whom.

I describe the main action but miss details such as the setting or who was watching.

I can describe what happened when someone was excluded or treated unfairly.

I describe the scenario with enough specificity (who, what, where) that another reader could picture it, and I distinguish what I saw from what I am inferring.

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

I say the person felt 'bad' or 'sad' without considering a plausible range of feelings.

I suggest one feeling but my choice is more about what I would feel than about cues from the scenario.

I can suggest how the excluded or unfairly-treated person might have felt.

I suggest more than one plausible feeling and point to cues in the scenario (the words, the setting, the actions) that support each guess.

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

I pick an option without giving a reason, or my reason is simply 'it is the best one'.

I pick an option with a reason, but the reason does not connect the action to the situation I described.

I can select one helpful action from a short list of options with one-sentence reasoning for my choice.

I pick an option with a reason that connects the action to who was hurt, what was happening, and why this action fits rather than another.

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

I say the scenario is 'mean' or 'unfair' without naming a specific form of exclusion or discrimination.

I name a form (for example, exclusion on gender, race, or disability) but miss that more than one form may be at play.

I can identify the form of exclusion or discrimination present in a scenario.

I name the specific form and acknowledge when more than one form is operating at the same time.

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

I decide it is or is not safe to intervene without considering who is present, how outnumbered I would be, or whether the person targeted wants my intervention.

I consider one safety factor (who is present) but miss others (the kind of harm, whether I could exit, whether the targeted person would want this).

I can assess whether it is safe to intervene directly in a discrimination scenario.

I assess safety by weighing who is present, the kind of harm, whether I could exit, and whether the targeted person would want direct intervention or something else.

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

I name a choice but do not reference the four bystander options or give a reason.

I name my choice from the four options and give a reason, but the reason does not connect to my earlier identification or safety assessment.

I can name and justify my choice from the four bystander options.

I name my choice and justify it with explicit reference to the form of discrimination, the safety assessment, and what the targeted person is likely to need.

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

I treat the scenario as simple unkindness and do not recognise discrimination.

I identify one form of discrimination but miss overlapping forms (for example, gender and race) in the same scenario.

I can identify the forms of discrimination present in a bystander scenario.

I identify multiple overlapping forms of discrimination and distinguish them from behaviours that look similar but are not discriminatory.

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

I describe the scenario at the level of individuals only, without naming group or power dynamics.

I name one group or power dynamic but treat it as background rather than showing how it shaped what happened.

I can name the specific group and power dynamics at play in a bystander scenario.

I name specific group and power dynamics and show how they shaped who could speak, who got believed, and who had to carry the cost of the incident.

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

I propose a response and defend it on one criterion (usually safety) without engaging proportionality or what the targeted person needs.

I engage two of the three criteria but miss the third.

I can justify a proposed response based on safety, proportionality, and what the targeted person is likely to need.

I justify my response on all three criteria and show how the criteria can pull against each other, explaining which one I prioritised and why.

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

I evaluate only the response I would pick, with no comparison.

I compare two responses but I do not distinguish what each would and would not achieve.

I can compare two or more possible responses to a discrimination scenario.

I compare multiple responses across what they would achieve, what they risk, and who bears the cost or the benefit of each.

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

I describe what I would ideally do, not what I would actually default to under pressure.

I identify a default response but treat it as purely personal, not naming its probable sources in upbringing, past experience, or group norms.

I can identify my own likely default response to a discrimination scenario and its probable sources.

I identify my default response honestly, including the parts I would rather not claim, and trace it to specific sources (upbringing, peer group, past incident, media).

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

I treat bystander effectiveness as a function of individual courage, not of group norms or institutional context.

I name one group norm or institutional factor but do not explain how it changes which interventions work.

I can explain how group norms and institutional context factors shape which bystander interventions are possible or effective.

I explain how multiple group-norm and institutional factors (what is said about incidents, how reports are handled, whose accounts get believed) change which interventions are possible in this context.

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

I describe the incident as a story without analysing the bystander dynamics at work.

I analyse the incident but my account is weighted toward what should have happened rather than what actually did.

I can construct a written or presented analysis of a real bystander success or failure, self-selected from my own experience or another's.

I analyse the incident with careful attention to the sequence of choices made, the information available at each point, and the constraints the bystanders were actually operating under.

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

I attribute the outcome to individual courage or cowardice, ignoring contextual factors.

I name one contextual factor but I do not show how it specifically enabled or blocked intervention in this case.

I can evaluate what made effective intervention possible or impossible in a specific bystander context.

I evaluate multiple contextual factors (group norms, power asymmetry, institutional response, visibility) and show how each factor shaped what was possible or impossible at specific moments.

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

I propose conditions based on personal hunches without reference to bystander research.

I cite bystander research but my proposals apply it in generic terms rather than adapting it to the specific context.

I can propose specific group, school, or community-level conditions that would make active bystander response more likely, with reasoning grounded in bystander research.

I propose systemic conditions that adapt named findings from bystander research to the specific context, and I state what would count as evidence that the proposed conditions were working.