Format · Full interactive lesson
S7
Media, Research and Policy: Can You Trust the Claim?
You will learn to
- Evaluate headlines, statistics and evidence quality.
- Explain under-reporting and limits without manufacturing prevalence claims.
- Recognise ethical risks in publishing identifiable safeguarding information.
Book and story connection
The book is taught as narrative, not prevalence evidence.
Important: fiction creates safe distance and insight. It is not evidence of prevalence.
Teacher View · unique guidance for S7
Audience, time and preparation
Prepare
Audience: Stretch, ages 15–18. Learner time 60–70 minutes; facilitated time may include discussion and pauses.
Prior learning: Core consent, evidence, safer-help and law concepts.
Resources: This online lesson, a projector or individual device, optional printed scenario cards, a private question route and the current Help page. Every selection activity has a non-drag alternative.
Before you teach: Establish a no-disclosure climate, confirm the school safeguarding route and DSL readiness, explain confidentiality boundaries, and ensure nobody contacts or mediates with family where forced-marriage risk is suspected.
Teach
Purpose: Teach source evaluation, under-reporting limits and privacy ethics.
Opening baseline: What is wrong with the claim?
Ask: What does this source establish, and which inference goes beyond it?
Listen for: Definitions, denominators, source hierarchy, uncertainty and mosaic risk.
Four distinct activities: baseline, explanatory teaching, application practice, changed-information reassessment and novel transfer.
Respond
Misconception: Administrative figures equal prevalence or a story proves scale.
Explanatory correction: Require a shows/does-not-show statement for every statistic.
Protect
Safeguarding: Never use real identifiable case details without a lawful and ethical basis.
Avoid: Sensational headlines or invented prevalence.
Disclosure response: Thank you for telling me. I’m going to take what you’ve said seriously. I can’t promise secrecy if somebody may be unsafe. I will share only with people who need to help keep you safe.
Adapt & assess
SEND/EAL and reduced-text: Use a short source ladder and de-identified fictional data.
Stretch: Ask what evidence would show an intervention works.
Evidence of learning: Deep work identifies unsupported inference, privacy risk and an evaluation gap.
Assessment: Emerging identifies relevant ideas; Secure applies evidence and safer help with a reason; Deep acknowledges ambiguity and revises proportionately.