# Educator-adapted school pack: four beginner meetings

Version 0.1 · review: draft · untested editorial teaching proposal

These original, AI-assisted materials are for educator review and adaptation. The activities, timings and rubric have not been tested with learners. They supply no accreditation, academic credit, recognition or evidence of teaching effectiveness. Correct classroom arithmetic is not measured charitable impact.

Use paper and fictional examples. No donation, payment, account, public post or personal story is required. Do not ask learners to disclose finances, giving history, beliefs or experiences of receiving help. This pack does not rank named charities or judge people’s motives. It does not change the existing ten-unit course, stored progress or completion criteria.

## Access and local arrangements

Propose a reading group, class or extracurricular activity through the institution’s own process. Using this pack does not register a chapter or establish university, school or Charitology recognition.

Confirm physical and digital access, language, materials, quiet participation and a private route to request an adjustment. Essential figures and readings should be available on paper. Do not require a smartphone, public profile, Values Compass result, account or disclosure of a diagnosis. For a school group, an educator sets age-appropriate supervision and follows the institution’s existing rules.

Learners can pass on speaking, use assigned perspectives and keep their work. If a correction is shared publicly, make it optional, sanitized and subject to the normal editorial process and appropriate permission. Do not collect private learner contact details for this kit.

## Four beginner meetings

Each meeting totals 50 minutes. The proposed ages 14–18 school adaptation requires an educator to adapt language, pace, access and supervision; this is not a validated age-suitability claim. A beginner club can use the same sequence. No prior knowledge, outside speakers, accounts or donations are needed.

### 1. Follow the chain

Timing: 5 welcome; 10 case reading; 15 map; 15 sort claim cards; 5 exit (50 minutes).

Activity: Build the five-stage map. Sort cash, workshops, check results and unmeasured claims. “Unknown” is a useful answer.

Output: A map with one missing link.

### 2. Check the comparison

Timing: 5 revisit; 10 fractions and costs; 15 counterfactual cards; 15 headline repair; 5 exit (50 minutes).

Activity: Calculate output costs and observed change, then compare cards A and B. Use fractions or the worked table if percentages are a barrier.

Output: A corrected headline and a question about evidence.

### 3. Ask who decides

Timing: 5 setup; 10 depth descriptions; 15 assigned moral roles; 15 feedback design; 5 exit (50 minutes).

Activity: Describe depth without grades. Compare welfare and rights/justice questions. Design an accessible route to disagree.

Output: A decision-rights and feedback diagram.

### 4. Revise and hand over

Timing: 5 revisit; 15 fictional proposal; 15 peer questions; 10 revision and handover; 5 exit (50 minutes).

Activity: Use the brief template, hear a challenge and change one part. Retain an unresolved question instead of inventing certainty.

Output: A one-page proposal and a handover card for the next organizer.

Facilitation prompts:

- Ask what the record tells us before choosing an option.
- Ask what else could explain a change.
- Offer assigned perspectives rather than requesting religious, political or family beliefs.
- Discuss an inaccessible invitation without assigning a personal history to a learner.
- Return discussion of motives to mechanisms, missing information and decisions.
- Use exit responses to adapt the next meeting; do not call them evidence of retained learning or charitable impact.

## Working definitions

- **Input:** A resource used, such as cash or staff time.
- **Activity:** Something the project does, such as running a workshop.
- **Output:** A count of delivered work, such as workshops held or people attending.
- **Outcome:** A change in a specified condition or ability. A check result is closer to the activity than an outcome such as being able to make a real journey.
- **Counterfactual:** What would have happened to the same people, over the same period, without the program or decision being considered. It is not directly observed for those people.
- **Impact claim:** A claim about the difference made compared with that counterfactual. An observed outcome alone does not establish it.
- **Proxy:** A measured stand-in for something we care about. Passing a timetable check is not the same as successfully making a journey.
- **Percentage point:** The difference between two percentages: 70% minus 40% is 30 percentage points.
- **Moral lens:** A way of asking what matters and why. The project uses editorial sketches of welfare, rights, justice, care, faith and tradition, future generations, all life and flourishing. These are prompts, not complete accounts of every tradition.
- **Depth:** A description of where an activity aims to act: relief, repair, prevention, structure or source. It is not a grade. A larger number does not mean better or more effective; every level may be needed.
- **Six-source hypothesis:** Story, coordination, vision, attention, status and gatekeepers are proposed sources adopted from Humanity’s Checklist. Their explanatory and practical reach remains a hypothesis, not an established causal map.

## Fictional case: The Riverbend journey-planning project

All details are fictional. Riverbend is an invented town. A community project wants adults who choose to attend to find usable journey information. Its workshops aim to help people plan future journeys. It has not measured whether people reach appointments, find work or experience better wellbeing.

| Recorded item | Fictional record |
| --- | --- |
| Recorded cash spent | $600, including space, printed materials and facilitation |
| Workshops held | 6 |
| People at each workshop | 5 |
| Unique attendees | 30; each attended exactly one workshop |
| People completing both checks | The same 30 attendees |
| Passed the check before the workshop | 12 of 30 |
| Passed the check one week afterward | 21 of 30 |

### Limits of the fictional record

- Unpaid preparation time was not recorded. The $600 is recorded cash spending, not the full economic cost.
- There is no comparison group. A before/after change does not establish how much the workshops caused.
- The check uses a printed fictional timetable. Its accuracy as a measure of practical journey-planning ability has not been established.
- No actual journeys, employment or wellbeing outcomes were measured. Classroom numeracy is not measured charitable impact.
- Invitations were available only in small print. Organizers do not know who wanted to attend but could not access the invitation or session. The figures describe the participating group, not everyone in Riverbend.
- No personal journeys or private difficulties are needed for the exercise. A particular gift’s effect is not identified; other funders and other actors’ responses have not been modeled.

### Card A: an assumption, not evidence

Suppose 18 of these same 30 people would have passed the later check without the workshops, perhaps through other practice or information. This is an imagined alternative, not an observed comparison group. Calculate what follows only if the assumption were true.

### Card B: an assumption, not evidence

Suppose 21 of these same 30 people would have passed the later check without the workshops. This is another imagined alternative, not an observed comparison group. The case gives no basis for choosing A or B as correct.

Neither card establishes what a donor’s gift caused. Do not choose an assumption because its answer looks useful.

## Depth describes; it does not grade

Apply a description to an activity and explain its proposed causal chain. A larger number does not mean better, more effective or more deserving. Every level may be needed. All examples below are fictional.

| Level | Name | Question | Example |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Relief | Does it meet a need now? | Help someone plan a journey they must make today. |
| 1 | Repair | Does it restore something lost? | Help restore route-planning skills after a disruption. |
| 2 | Prevention | Does it aim to stop a future harm for these people? | Teach route planning to try to prevent future missed journeys. |
| 3 | Structure | Does it change a rule or institution producing a barrier? | Change a transport authority’s timetable-access policy. |
| 4 | Source | Does it address something feeding several kinds of problem? | Try to change whose knowledge institutions respect across transport, education and public services. That proposed connection needs evidence. |

Charitology adopts the proposed sources story, coordination, vision, attention, status and gatekeepers from [Humanity’s Checklist](https://humanityschecklist.org/). They prompt questions about shared narratives, working together, imaginable futures, what gets noticed, what gets admired and who gets to participate or build. Their explanatory and practical reach remains a hypothesis. Naming a source does not establish that an activity changes it.

## Make moral disagreement fair

The project uses editorial sketches of welfare, rights, justice, care, faith and tradition, future generations, all life and flourishing. They are prompts rather than complete descriptions of traditions. Use assigned roles instead of asking learners to disclose beliefs or speak for a group.

A welfare role might ask what additional practical benefit the work creates compared with an alternative use of resources. A rights/justice role might ask who cannot access small-print invitations and who has authority to change that barrier. A check score can inform this disagreement without settling duties, fair access or authority. More than one next step can be well reasoned.

## Student worksheet

Work alone or with a partner. Write, draw or explain answers aloud. You do not need to put your name on the sheet. You may keep it; no account, public submission or personal example is required.

### W1. Draw the chain

Use the Riverbend case to complete givers → signals → channels → work → outcomes. Write “unknown” where the case does not tell you something.

1. Label $600 recorded cash spending as input, output, measured outcome or not measured.
2. Label six workshops and 30 unique attendees.
3. Label 21 attendees passing the later check.
4. Label attendees making more successful real journeys.

Answer: ______________________________________________________________

### W2. Count the cash costs

Calculate the recorded cash costs. Keep the units visible.

1. $600 ÷ 6 workshops = ______ per workshop.
2. $600 ÷ 30 unique attendees = ______ per attendee.
3. Does either calculation include the unrecorded unpaid preparation time?

Answer: ______________________________________________________________

### W3. Describe the observed change

Use the same 30 people for the before and later denominators.

1. 12 ÷ 30 = ______% before; 21 ÷ 30 = ______% later.
2. 21 − 12 = ______ more people passing.
3. The pass rate changed by ______ percentage points.
4. Does this before/after change by itself show how much the workshops caused? Explain.

Answer: ______________________________________________________________

### W4. Make the assumptions visible

Treat both counterfactual cards as assumptions, not additional observations.

1. Card A assumes 18 later passes without workshops. Calculate 21 − 18 and $600 divided by that conditional additional number.
2. Card B assumes 21 later passes without workshops. Calculate 21 − 21. Can a cost-per-additional-pass ratio be calculated with this denominator?
3. Name one design or evidence need that could support a more credible comparison and one limitation it would still have.

Answer: ______________________________________________________________

### W5. Repair a headline

An invented report says: “Nine people benefited because of our workshops, proving that the project worked.” Rewrite it in two sentences. Keep the observed result and say what the records do not establish.

Answer: ______________________________________________________________

### W6. Describe the work and a disagreement

The workshops aim to prevent future missed journeys. Describe the intended mechanism and compare two assigned perspectives. You need not disclose your own beliefs.

1. Which depth description might fit that aim? Explain why it is not proof or a moral grade.
2. Write a welfare question about additional practical benefit.
3. Write a rights/justice question about access and decision authority.
4. Propose one next step, explaining its evidence, values and limits. More than one recommendation can be well reasoned.

Answer: ______________________________________________________________

### W7. Close part of a feedback loop

Design a fictional route to disagree and a decision that could change. No private story is needed.

1. How could a participant disagree in an accessible way?
2. Which role would read and respond?
3. What decision could change?
4. How would participants learn what changed or why no change was made?
5. Write one rule for pausing or revising the next workshop before seeing its results.

Answer: ______________________________________________________________

### W8. Exit prompt

Write one output, one measured outcome and one sentence beginning “We still cannot conclude…”. Add the next piece of evidence or feedback you would seek.

Answer: ______________________________________________________________

## Fictional capstone brief

Use a short brief of up to two pages, a diagram with an explanation or an equivalent oral presentation. For the beginner club meeting, use the shorter one-page version. Include:

1. A fictional choice and plausible alternative, intended outcome and time period.
2. A causal chain, weakest link, cash costs and missing resource costs.
3. Recorded fictional values, counterfactual assumptions and unknowns.
4. Two fairly represented moral lenses and a disagreement that survives calculation.
5. Missing voices, proposed decision authority and a route for feedback to return.
6. A measure, comparison, review date and revision rule, including how to report inconclusive results and harms.
7. A peer challenge and revision note, with reasons for any challenge not adopted.

Use supplied fictional material unless an educator has prepared and checked another case. Do not interpret worksheet completion, meeting attendance or this rubric as an automatic completion event in the existing course.

## Keeping answers separate

Use the separate facilitator guide for worked answers. Offer fractions, a calculator or the worked table when useful. Do not require every learner to speak publicly or complete every calculation at the same pace. Use this proposal only after adapting it to the group and the institution’s existing supervision and access arrangements.

## Optional fictional Charity OS demonstration

The complete activity works on paper. An educator may instead show paper record shapes or an already-authorized fictional demonstration workspace. Do not ask learners to create accounts or enter real student, participant or donor data. This material creates no records, invitations, payments or messages.

- Projects and tasks: manually describe “Review the Riverbend check,” an owner role, completion condition and review date. Completing a task does not show that a program worked.
- Evidence and outcomes: mark 12/30 before and 21/30 later as fictional observations. A stored observation is not a causal conclusion or independently approved finding.
- Evaluation and learning: retain the comparison question, proposed method and unresolved counterfactual. A report or approval does not manufacture evidence or settle values.

Use the ordinary permissions of the existing demonstration setup; no automatic import is implied. Continue on paper if it is unavailable. Service scope: https://charitology.org/for-charities/os-plan/

## Attribution and reuse

Credit: [Charitology (charitology.org)](https://charitology.org/). Original editorial content and authored data are [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). You may share and adapt them with attribution and a note of changes. Cited sources retain their own rights.

Teaching hub: https://charitology.org/learn/
Existing ten-unit course: https://charitology.org/programs/principles-course/
Textbook: https://charitology.org/record/principles/

The chapter links are reading routes. This pack does not claim an independent review of every chapter’s external citations. Educators should read the selected chapter and check cited originals before teaching its empirical examples.