# Teaching charity as a system: start here

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.

## Choose a starting point

- One meeting: use the facilitator guide and print the student worksheet separately. The taster needs 50 minutes and no advance reading.
- University: use the eight-session syllabus; it maps all ten chapters without changing the existing course.
- Beginner club: use the four-meeting starter, editable invitation, proposed constitution and handover card.
- School: use the educator-adapted school pack, suggested for ages 14–18, with local supervision and access arrangements.

Materials are editable Markdown, not a registration or submission. Keep facilitator answers apart from the learner handout. Read the case limitations alongside its figures; do not reuse only the attractive numbers.

## 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.

## 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.

## What remains untested

The lesson’s intended outcomes, proposed timings and feedback rubric have not been evaluated with learners. The six-source framework is a hypothesis. Classroom participation, correct arithmetic and feedback are not accreditation, professional competence or measured charitable impact.

## 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.