Systemic intervention | about 40 minutes | free
Distinguish permission, participation and legitimacy, then design a reversible intervention with an accessible challenge route.
A generic ethical reasoning exercise. It cannot establish compliance with sector-specific law, safeguarding or professional requirements. Those require qualified, contextual checks before real action.
This is original learning material, not a reproduced official course. Mechanical checks have determinate answers within the stated case. Worked comparisons for open judgements show defensible reasoning, not the only possible model. Specialist pedagogical review is not recorded.
Fictional case: a sponsor asks an analyst to rank families for extra support using attendance records. The sponsor controls the project budget but does not control the schools' data. Families have not been told about the proposed use. The analyst suspects that absence may reflect transport barriers, caring responsibilities or illness, but no inquiry has tested those explanations. The sponsor says consultation will slow delivery and asks for a hidden pilot.
Use paper, your own drawing tool or the notes below. Attempt each step before opening its comparison. Describe a diagram in words when that is more accessible.
Produce: A distinction between budget authority, data rights and effects on people.
The sponsor's budget authority does not automatically authorise access to school data or a new use of it. Families are affected even if they do not control the project. Identify the actual accountable organisations and required data, professional and safeguarding checks rather than inventing legal permission.
Produce: Three typed statements and alternative explanations.
Recorded attendance is an observation with possible data-quality limits. 'Disengaged family' is an interpretation. 'Low attendance means low motivation' is a causal claim not established here. Transport, caring and illness are competing hypotheses, not facts about any family.
Produce: A narrower action with permission, safeguards and a stop condition.
First clarify lawful authority and purpose with the relevant professionals. Seek a proportionate, transparent inquiry that includes affected families and does not determine support from an untested proxy alone. Use minimised or synthetic data for the modelling rehearsal. Establish how people can correct information or challenge an interpretation. A hidden pilot is not made acceptable by being small.
Produce: A short statement that names the risk and a workable alternative.
For example: 'We can test the model with synthetic cases now. Using identifiable attendance to rank families needs authority and a way to test the proxy with affected people. Otherwise the model may direct support away from the people facing the largest barriers.' Keep the challenge specific; do not accuse the sponsor of a motive the evidence does not establish.
These checks test the supplied case, not your overall competence. Open answers and model variants still need your judgement.
The ethical review says 'all stakeholders consulted' because the sponsor approved the model.
Name who actually participated, who was affected but absent, what could be changed through participation, and who had decision rights. Approval and legitimacy are not interchangeable.
Families agree to discuss barriers but decline automated ranking. What follows?
Consent to one activity does not imply consent or authorisation for another. Redesign the inquiry and decision process within applicable obligations. Their refusal is evidence about the intervention's acceptability, not a modelling error to overcome.
A different model can be defensible when its purpose, assumptions and reasoning are explicit. A contradiction, incorrect unit, invented fact or unacknowledged change of purpose needs repair. Keep both your first attempt and revision.
No sign-in or submission is required. Notes are not sent by this practice tool. Use fictional information, not identifiable client or learner data. Saving stores this page's attempt only in this browser; clearing browser data can remove it. Export a copy to keep it elsewhere.
The complete original case above is free. Links below distinguish exercises from explanations, recordings, software and paid study. Reading a page or drawing in a tool is not itself a model check.
Use the twelve categories to challenge your is/ought table and your treatment of affected people. Follow the linked primer for depth.
Author's HTML guide and linked introduction inspected. It supplies boundary critique, not a unique correct policy answer.
Select the named tool, try the associated template and compare with the example. Use the pack's explicit checks where the toolkit provides no answer key.
HTML toolkit inspected, including mapping, stock-flow, theory of change and evaluation sections. Its examples are not automatic validation of a learner's model.
Ask for practice with feedback in the named approach, rather than assuming every recording includes assessment.
The page lists coverage including CONAN, INFORMED and multi-methodology. Availability and individual tutor feedback require an enquiry.
Choose another practice area · Task-only version · Worked-answer version