QSFS Teacher Targeted Professional Development Guide (M1–M6)

Pilot draft v0.1 • October 2026 • For school review

Student understanding, independent reasoning, agency and equitable participation are the intended outcomes. Teacher capability and workable school conditions are enabling outcomes. Teachers choose needs — not personal or student diagnostic labels. No scores, badges, rankings or certification. Nothing here is collected or stored.

1. Optional self-review (about 15 minutes)

Use privately for support planning, not appraisal or a wellbeing diagnostic. For each prompt choose: “I can show this”, “I need a worked example”, “I need rehearsal/support”, “Not relevant to my planned activity”. No total score.

1. Which one thing do I want students to explain or decide independently after this activity? Show the task that will reveal it.
2. Which quantum or digital-trust idea is likely to be misunderstood? Explain it in two sentences, then name the limit of your analogy.
3. How will I tell a pupil’s own reasoning from an attractive answer they cannot explain? Show an equivalent transfer question.
4. Which feature of this activity might exclude a student? Show an equivalent way to reach the same objective without an account or home connection.
5. What decision can students genuinely influence? Show how I will report back what changed.
6. How will I respond if a pupil raises a real privacy/safety concern or does not want to discuss a scenario? Name the local support route without identifying a student.
7. What preparation is required, what existing work does it replace, and who helps if it takes longer?
8. Which school/system decision is outside my authority? Name the owner or mark that as unresolved.

2. Needs-to-module map

Select the smallest set of modules addressing observed barriers. Add another only when the planned activity needs it.

3. Supported cycle — indicative planning allowance

• 15 min: Self-review and select a concrete student-learning need
• 45 min: Chosen module with worked examples and a facilitator/peer
• 30 min: Supported adaptation of one existing-timetable activity
• 20 min: Teach-back rehearsal and revision
• Ordinary lesson: One ordinary lesson in the agreed curriculum slot (replaces or integrates with planned teaching; not additional time)
• 15 min: Inspect local student work and independent transfer evidence
• 20 min: Supported reflection, resource revision and next-step decision

Indicative additional scheduled time: 145 minutes (2 hours 25 minutes), plus locally required preparation/support. This is a planning envelope, not a proven duration or a promise that every teacher or module fits it. Agree cover/release and the cap before starting, record actual time, and reduce scope or add support when exceeded. Additional modules need a new agreement.

The 90-minute co-design workshop is a separate entry option, and 45-minute lesson-specific preparation (e.g. the digital trust staff session) is another distinct option. They are not compulsory additions to the cycle; avoid double-counting shared segments if combined.

4. Teach-back review

Rate each “demonstrated”, “revise with support” or “not yet observed”; no combined rating.

1. Accuracy: did the explanation preserve the core idea and mark uncertainty/model limits?
2. Learning: did the task require the pupil’s reasoning, and would the independent transfer question reveal a misconception?
3. Access and agency: did an equivalent route preserve the learning goal; was there a real choice or influence?
4. Safe, workable delivery: were fictional data, participation boundaries, support route and teacher time realistic?

M1: Explain a quantum claim accurately

Domain anchor: Quantum Literacy · Draft length: 45 minutes

Student barrier / teaching need: “Quantum means instant answers to everything”; a probability analogy is taken literally.

Teacher task: Annotate a misleading claim; write an age-appropriate explanation, example and explicit limitation.

Worked example

• Before: “A quantum computer tries every answer at once and instantly chooses the best one.”
• After: “Quantum computers process information using quantum states and carefully designed operations. Some algorithms may offer advantages for particular problems; they do not make every task faster. Measuring a qubit gives one outcome, not a list of every answer.”
• Why it works: The revision keeps the useful idea (quantum states and designed operations), names the condition (particular problems, particular algorithms) and removes the false claim that every answer can be read out.

Common misconception / barrier: A coin toss or spinning-coin analogy is treated as a literal qubit. A coin models outcome frequencies only; it does not capture amplitudes, phase or interference.

45-minute draft session

• 0–5 min: Read three short claims aloud; teachers mark words needing evidence (every, instantly, soon).
• 5–15 min: Study the worked example: compare before/after and name what changed.
• 15–25 min: Annotate one claim from the editable task and draft a two-sentence explanation plus one stated model limit.
• 25–35 min: Three-minute teach-back to a peer who asks the planned misconception question; peer uses the four teach-back review questions.
• 35–42 min: Revise; check the transfer question cannot be answered by copying the model wording.
• 42–45 min: Choose next step: teach, rehearse again, or request a subject reviewer.

Rehearsal: Teach a three-minute explanation to a peer who asks a planned misconception question (“So it’s just a really fast coin?”); revise after feedback.

Classroom activity: Claim, model, limitation (Activity A): students choose one of three claims, annotate it with a checked source excerpt and identify where the classroom analogy fails. Response may be written, oral or a labelled diagram.

Editable task: Claims to annotate (replace with your own): (1) “Quantum computers will replace laptops.” (2) “A qubit is just a coin spinning in the air.” (3) “Quantum computers can solve any problem instantly.” For each: underline the overclaim, write what is established, what is a model and what is a prediction.

Accessible equivalent: Glossary with icons; physical cards sorted into established / model / prediction; oral explanation to the teacher or a labelled diagram. Same objective, same recognition.

Model student responses (fictional)

• Fictional student response — developing: “Claim 3 is wrong because quantum computers aren’t real yet.” — Identifies doubt but makes a new inaccurate claim; quantum computers exist but are specialised and limited.
• Fictional student response — secure: “Claim 3 says ‘any problem’ and ‘instantly’. Quantum computers can help with some problems if there is a suitable algorithm and good enough hardware. For ordinary jobs like typing an essay they would not help.” — Corrects scope, names conditions and gives a counter-example. Meets both criteria.

Independent student transfer question: A website says: “Quantum computers will make school timetabling instant for everyone next year.” Correct the claim and give one reason.

Answer criteria:

• Rejects the universal/instant claim and states that advantage depends on the problem, algorithm and hardware.
• Gives a reason or limit in the student’s own words (not copied from the model answer); does not invent a new certainty such as a date.

Support: Sentence starters: “This claim says… The evidence shows… One thing we don’t know is…”. Provide the corrected example to compare against before writing.

Review: After teaching, sort five student transfer answers into demonstrated / partly / not yet. If the coin misconception persists, pause and re-teach the model limit before continuing.

Next support step: If explanation is secure but students copied answers, go to M3. If reading demand blocked students, go to M4.

M2: Teach digital trust proportionately

Domain anchor: Quantum-Safe Security · Draft length: 45 minutes

Student barrier / teaching need: Digital security is presented as individual blame or an alarming future catastrophe.

Teacher task: Rewrite a fear-based scenario using fictional information lifetimes, uncertainty and adult responsibility.

Worked example

• Before: “Hackers are already stealing everything and quantum computers will soon unlock it all. If your data leaks it’s your fault for not being careful.”
• After: “Some information only needs protecting for a day; some for many years. A sufficiently capable future quantum computer could weaken certain public-key methods, so organisations plan ahead — especially for long-lived sensitive information. Official 2026 guidance says such a computer does not yet exist. Protecting systems is the job of authorised adults; your job is to recognise when something seems wrong and tell a trusted adult.”
• Why it works: Replaces certainty and blame with conditions, timescales and a clear help route.

Common misconception / barrier: “Quantum breaks every password today”, or the opposite: “quantum means normal security habits no longer matter”.

45-minute draft session

• 0–5 min: Read the fear-based scenario; list the emotional words and unsupported certainties.
• 5–15 min: Study the worked rewrite and the ASD source note (conditional future risk; no cryptographically relevant quantum computer in 2026 guidance).
• 15–27 min: Rewrite the editable scenario with fictional records and lifetimes; add one adult responsibility line.
• 27–37 min: Rehearse the “Should I be scared?” response with a peer.
• 37–45 min: Check the transfer question; decide next step.

Rehearsal: Teacher models a proportionate response to “Should I be scared?” and clearly distinguishes pupil learning from authorised system work. Peer checks for blame or alarm.

Classroom activity: Information over time (Activity B): rank fictional records by how long protection might matter; separate student decisions from adult/system decisions.

Editable task: Fictional records to rank: a public sports-day timetable; a library-book due date; a research archive with private interview notes that the fictional organisation plans to keep for 25 years; a one-time lunch order code; a fictional town planning draft. Keeping a record for 25 years does not establish its confidentiality period. Distinguish useful life, retention obligation (if an applicable requirement exists) and protection need; identify missing assessments and ask the authorised owner how long disclosure could cause harm. The storage plan is not a legal retention requirement.

Accessible equivalent: Printed sorting cards with icons on a timeline strip; supported reading; oral ranking with the teacher.

Model student responses (fictional)

• Fictional student response — developing: “The archive is most important because hackers will steal it.” — Asserts a priority and theft without evidence; does not assess confidentiality lifetime or name a help route.
• Fictional student response — secure: “The archive is kept for 25 years, but that does not tell us how long it must stay private. I would ask the authorised owner how long it is useful, whether any retention obligation applies, and how long disclosure could harm people. The lunch code is useless after today; the public timetable still needs accuracy and a genuine source. If the archive needs long-lived confidentiality, future risks could matter more. The organisation’s authorised team decides how to protect it; I would tell a teacher about a real concern.” — Separates useful life, retention and protection need, identifies the missing confidentiality assessment and names an appropriate adult route.

Independent student transfer question: A fictional museum keeps donor letters private for 30 years and posts its opening hours online. Which needs earlier planning for future cryptographic change, and who should act?

Answer criteria:

• Identifies the long-lived private letters as the planning priority, with a lifetime reason; notes opening hours still need integrity/authenticity.
• Names an authorised adult/organisation owner and does not propose a technical fix outside the student’s role.

Support: Timeline strip with “one day / one year / many years” zones; two worked placements.

Review: Listen for fear, blame or personal disclosures. If a real account or disclosure appears, stop and follow the school route (see stop/adapt protocol).

Next support step: If students became anxious or disclosed, go to M6. If careers questions arose, M5.

M3: Protect thinking and assess transfer

Domain anchor: Emerging Technology Futures · Draft length: 45 minutes

Student barrier / teaching need: Students reproduce generated/model answers but cannot explain them.

Teacher task: Design first attempt → evidence/hint → critique → independent new task; decide whether a tool is needed at all.

Worked example

• Before: Task: “Use the chatbot to write a paragraph on whether the school should adopt an AI tutor.” Assessment: the paragraph.
• After: (1) Students write a 3-line first attempt unaided. (2) They receive a printed sample tool output and one evidence card. (3) They critique the sample: claim, evidence, unknown. (4) Assessed: a new, different scenario answered individually without the sample or AI, with agreed accessibility supports.
• Why it works: The assessed evidence now comes from the student’s own reasoning on an unseen case, so polished copying cannot score.

Common misconception / barrier: Assisted performance equals learning. Bastani et al. (PNAS 2025) found improved assisted practice alongside worse unaided exam performance in one context; design matters.

45-minute draft session

• 0–8 min: Review the before/after example; identify where the assessed evidence comes from.
• 8–20 min: Redesign one existing task using the four-step structure. Decide: does this lesson need a tool? Record the reason.
• 20–32 min: Copy test: a peer attempts the transfer task using only surface wording; revise.
• 32–40 min: Mark the two fictional responses with the scenario rubric.
• 40–45 min: Next step.

Rehearsal: A peer tries to answer your transfer task by copying surface wording from the sample. If they can, revise the task.

Classroom activity: Fictional learning-hub scenario (Activity C): adopt/adapt/defer/reject with printed outputs, a changed fact and an individual transfer task.

Editable task: Template: First attempt prompt: ____. Evidence/hint provided: ____. Critique prompt (claim/evidence/unknown): ____. New transfer scenario (different context, same reasoning): ____. Permitted assistance: ____. Tool needed? yes/no because ____.

Accessible equivalent: Printed pack for everyone; oral first attempt recorded by the teacher; reader support retained in the transfer task.

Model student responses (fictional)

• Fictional student transfer — developing: “They should adopt it because it is faster and more personalised.” — Repeats supplier claim; no evidence/claim distinction.
• Fictional student transfer — secure (rejection): “Reject for now. The supplier says it’s personalised but there’s no study of what visitors learn, and it hasn’t been tested with a screen reader. The printed exhibit already works. I’d change my mind if an independent test showed visitors could explain a claim afterwards.” — A reasoned rejection with a revision condition earns full marks.

Independent student transfer question: A fictional science centre is offered an AI quiz kiosk. Using a new evidence card set, recommend adopt, adapt, defer or reject, and state what would change your mind.

Answer criteria:

• Distinguishes supplier claim, evidence and unknowns in own words.
• Justifies a decision (any of the four) and gives a condition for revision.

Support: Claim / evidence / unknown three-column organiser.

Review: Compare assisted and unaided work. If unaided transfer is weaker, remove answer-giving support and reteach checking; do not diagnose “AI dependency” from one task.

Next support step: If access barriers blocked the transfer task, go to M4.

M4: Design equivalent access and meaningful voice

Domain anchor: All domains, especially Responsible Innovation · Draft length: 45 minutes

Student barrier / teaching need: Reading demand, device assumptions or public debate prevent participation.

Teacher task: Produce a glossary/accessible version, private response option and non-account route with the same learning demand.

Worked example

• Before: “Log in to the class platform, watch the video at home and present your opinion in a whole-class debate.”
• After: “In class: read the one-page brief (also available read aloud or in large print). Choose how to show your reasoning: written, a labelled diagram, or explaining privately to me. Debate is optional; you may submit privately. No login or home internet needed.”
• Why it works: Every route assesses the same reasoning. Nobody must explain publicly why they chose an alternative.

Common misconception / barrier: An accommodation means easier thinking or a lower mark. It means the same objective through a different route.

45-minute draft session

• 0–8 min: List barriers in one existing activity: reading, language, sensory/motor, unfamiliar maths, prior tech advantage, device/cost/connectivity, public speaking.
• 8–25 min: Write the glossary, a private response option and a non-account route.
• 25–35 min: Colleague tries the alternative route and compares evidence.
• 35–42 min: Add one genuine student choice and how you will report back what changed.
• 42–45 min: Next step.

Rehearsal: A colleague completes your alternative route and checks whether it gives the same evidence and recognition.

Classroom activity: Any activity card, using the student co-design protocol to let students flag unclear instructions and choose response formats.

Editable task: Barrier audit: For activity ____: Barrier / Who might be excluded (activity feature, not named students) / Equivalent route / Same evidence? (Y/N) / Change made.

Accessible equivalent: This module is itself about equivalents: print, accessible digital text, oral, diagram, tactile model or supported response.

Model student responses (fictional)

• Fictional colleague check — not yet equivalent: “The oral route only asks students to name the decision, while the written route asks for evidence.” — Routes must request the same reasoning.
• Fictional colleague check — equivalent: “Both routes ask for the decision, two pieces of evidence and one unknown. Marked with the same rubric.” — Same demand, same recognition.

Independent student transfer question: Students show the same concept through an agreed format (e.g. explain integrity vs confidentiality orally or with a diagram).

Answer criteria:

• Same rubric criteria are met regardless of format.
• Teacher records activity-level barriers only — no sensitive-data register about students.

Support: Barrier checklist from the activity design card.

Review: Was the equivalent ready on time? Which activity feature still blocked participation?

Next support step: If public discussion felt unsafe, go to M6.

M5: Open pathways without promises

Domain anchor: STEM Pathways and Careers · Draft length: 45 minutes

Student barrier / teaching need: Students see future careers as only elite programmers/physicists, or feel pressured to choose.

Teacher task: Build multiple verified routes for a fictional learner, including technical and nontechnical roles, and an “undecided” route.

Worked example

• Before: “Quantum jobs are for geniuses. Learn to code now or your job will disappear.”
• After: “Fictional learner Ari likes drawing diagrams and explaining things. Possible directions: science communication, user-experience design for technical tools, teaching, or technical documentation. A next step could be a design elective or a school science-communication project. Ari can also stay undecided.”
• Why it works: Multiple routes, no prestige ranking, no deterministic job claim, and a legitimate ‘still exploring’ option.

Common misconception / barrier: Deterministic claims (“jobs will disappear”), job guarantees and gender or cultural stereotypes.

45-minute draft session

• 0–8 min: Read the worked example; list what makes the before version harmful.
• 8–25 min: Draft three pathway cards for a fictional learner (role, skill, training route) plus an ‘undecided’ card.
• 25–35 min: Peer challenge for stereotypes or unsupported claims.
• 35–42 min: Mark which details need checking with careers staff before classroom use.
• 42–45 min: Next step.

Rehearsal: Peer challenges an unsupported employment claim or stereotype in your cards; you correct it.

Classroom activity: More than one route (Activity D).

Editable task: Fictional learner: ____ (interests, skills). Route 1 role/skill/next step: ____. Route 2: ____. Route 3 (non-technical): ____. Still-exploring next step: ____. To verify with careers staff: ____.

Accessible equivalent: Print and accessible text cards; oral matching; no personal disclosures of finances or family expectations.

Model student responses (fictional)

• Fictional student response — developing: “Sam should be a quantum physicist because Sam likes maths.” — Single route, no next step.
• Fictional student response — secure: “Sam could explore data analysis or engineering, or teaching maths. A next step is a maths extension elective. I’d need to know what courses Sam’s school offers.” — Two routes, realistic step, names missing information.

Independent student transfer question: Explain two plausible next steps for a new fictional learner and what further information is needed.

Answer criteria:

• Two distinct plausible routes linked to interests/skills.
• Identifies missing information; no guarantee or ranking.

Support: Role / skill / route matching cards.

Review: Did any card imply guarantees or stereotypes? Correct and reopen choices rather than grading aspiration.

Next support step: Return to the self-review to pick another need only if your planned activity needs it.

M6: Facilitate uncertainty and safe participation

Domain anchor: Responsible Innovation and all participation · Draft length: 45 minutes

Student barrier / teaching need: Uncertainty/debate invites personal disclosures, fear or disrespect; teacher is unsure how to respond.

Teacher task: Rehearse a fictional disagreement, an equivalent task and the school’s existing support/escalation route.

Worked example

• Before: A student says “My family got scammed last year” during a discussion. Teacher asks the class to discuss what happened.
• After: Teacher: “Thanks for telling me. Let’s keep today’s examples fictional — come and talk to me after class if you’d like.” Class continues with the fictional case. Teacher then follows the school’s existing wellbeing/safeguarding procedure as appropriate, does not record the story as lesson evidence and does not promise secrecy.
• Why it works: Protects the student, keeps learning fictional and uses the existing route without investigating publicly.

Common misconception / barrier: Teachers must resolve concerns themselves, or promise confidentiality. The QSFS facilitator is not an investigator or clinician.

45-minute draft session

• 0–8 min: Read the stop/adapt/escalation triggers; locate your school’s existing routes (names not needed here).
• 8–20 min: Rehearse three fictional moments: a disclosure, a student who wants to leave the discussion, a disrespectful comment.
• 20–32 min: Prepare an equivalent private task for any student who opts out (no explanation required).
• 32–42 min: Write the stop condition and restart condition for your lesson.
• 42–45 min: Next step.

Rehearsal: Explain participation boundaries without diagnosing, demanding disclosure or promising secrecy; peer checks your planned stop condition.

Classroom activity: Whose decision counts? (Activity E) with silent preparation and private contribution options.

Editable task: Opening boundary script: ____. Equivalent private task: ____. Stop sign for this lesson: ____. Responsible adult/route (role, not name): ____. Restart condition: ____.

Accessible equivalent: Silent individual preparation, small-group or private written/oral contribution; no student represents a demographic group.

Model student responses (fictional)

• Fictional student response — developing: “If someone is rude in a debate you should just leave.” — Identifies a problem; no respectful challenge or help route.
• Fictional student response — secure: “In the case, Jo could say ‘I disagree with the idea, not with you’ and ask the teacher for the private option. If Jo felt unsafe, talking to the wellbeing teacher is the right help.” — Respectful challenge plus an appropriate help route.

Independent student transfer question: In a new fictional case, identify a respectful challenge and an appropriate help route.

Answer criteria:

• Names a respectful way to disagree.
• Names an appropriate adult/help route; no personal disclosure required. This is learning, not a measure of mental health.

Support: Prepared phrases for disagreeing respectfully.

Review: Did any student need the alternative? Was the support route clear and available?

Next support step: Review whole-school routes with your school sponsor (Schools pathway).

90-minute educator co-design workshop (optional entry session)

• 0–10: identify one student learning problem and what an existing lesson/time allocation could accommodate.
• 10–25: experience the offline claim/model activity and examine its limits.
• 25–45: complete the adopt/adapt/defer/reject scenario as learners; compare different justified conclusions.
• 45–60: assess an independent transfer response with the draft rubric; moderate disagreements.
• 60–75: small groups fill the activity design card and role map, including access, workload and a stop rule.
• 75–90: agree one feasible next step, named support and what must be resolved before students participate. Feedback only on materials, design and implementation needs.

Outputs: one revised activity card, a draft local role map, one rubric review and an unresolved-conditions list. These demonstrate preparation, not certification.

Quantum-Safe Futures for Schools Framework (QSFS), founded by Michelle Magalona. Pilot draft v0.1 • October 2026 • For school review. Format: Markdown (.md).