English · ten 25-minute lessons… | Year 10 English · T1 W3–4 · Lessons

Use the original age-respectful texts, clean learner choices, optional extras/home routes, three A4/text/tactile aids and teacher-targeted answer/next-move guide. The two fresh checks are unfamiliar relative to the lessons, not secure exams: the published checks and key are publicly accessible, so replace prompts locally if prior access matters. This continuation moves from the opening fortnight's headline and provisional recommendation to method explanation, source scope and report structure. All data, people and settings here are invented. A 25-minute period follows 2 + 5 + 6 + 6 + 4 + 2 minutes; the teacher samples focus evidence rather than conducting 30 individual conferences. Read-aloud and AAC are valid access/response routes, but an exact adult reading is not evidence of independent print decoding. Record any interpretive hint separately from access. No identifying learner work should be published.

Week 3 Day 11 What did the source actually count?

Codes: AC9E10LY05, AC9E10LY04. Goal: distinguish a constructed method and count from the conclusion a reader may reasonably draw. Prepare: Text A, source-scope map, Day 11 choices.

Retrieve · 2 min. Recall the opening fortnight's difference between a striking claim and a tested one. Ask for the noun after “counted” in Text A: instructed page turns.
Read · 5 min. Read Text A exactly or let learners read. Mark question, construction, counted unit and missing sixth B endpoint; do not supply a sixth value.
Model · 6 min. Trace route 4: both drawings say 4 turns, so “B is better in every route” is unsound. Show first-five totals A30/B22 and explicitly name the five complete pairs.
Choose · 6 min. Learners use 11 A/B/C to make a source-to-claim account. Every route must state the counted unit, five-pair denominator and one untested real-reader claim.
Probe · 4 min. Ask whether 1.6 fewer instructed turns on average proves faster retrieval. No time or human access was observed. Keep mathematical average distinct from reader experience.
Exit · 2 min. “The source supports ___ for ; it cannot tell us .” If the learner calls missing B zero, revisit the unreadable-route note.

Week 3 Day 12 A method paragraph readers can repeat on paper

Codes: AC9E10LA05, AC9E10LA08, AC9E10LY06. Goal: explain question, construction, count and missing-data decision in coherent precise sentences. Prepare: Texts A/C, method chain, Day 12 choices.

Notice · 2 min. Read “the new tabs are faster” and ask which procedure a sceptical reader would need before trusting it.
Model · 5 min. Work through Text C's first paragraph: question → matched prompts → traced route → page-turn unit → missing endpoint. Point to “because” as a causal link for excluding a pair, not evidence of a real-life effect.
Guided · 6 min. Compare “We tried B” with “We traced six matching paper routes for each drawn layout.” Ask what the second sentence lets someone reproduce on paper and which verb avoids a false human trial.
Choose · 6 min. Learners take 12 A/B/C to produce a four-part method explanation with the same evidence target. They may direct cards, speak/AAC with transcript or write.
Audit · 4 min. Partner/teacher reads it without Text A. Can they name the unit and explain why the sixth pair is absent? Repair missing detail without changing the data.
Exit · 2 min. Submit one precise sentence beginning “Because the B endpoint for route 6 , I .”

Week 3 Day 13 A headline can outrun provenance

Codes: AC9E10LY03, AC9E10LY04, AC9E10LA03. Goal: evaluate Text B's ordering, evaluative language and source reach against Texts A/C. Prepare: Texts A/B/C, claim audit, Day 13 choices.

Read · 2 min. Display Text B once. Each learner marks a quantifier, an outcome word and a requested action.
Model · 5 min. Map title → “six routes” → “every time” → “order today”. Contrast Text C's question/method before its result. Explain why Text B's structure can put an untested promise first.
Source audit · 6 min. Cross-check Text B: only five complete pairs; route 4 ties; the source has page turns, not speed or purchasing evidence. Name each source detail, rather than merely calling the notice “biased”.
Choose · 6 min. 13 A/B/C create a source-cited correction for an archive reader, identifying two overreaches and one defensible line.
Reader test · 4 min. Read the new first sentence alone. Does it identify the paper model and five pairs before promising a real outcome? Fix order or scope if needed.
Exit · 2 min. Complete “The word ___ implies ; Text A actually records .”

Week 3 Day 14 The ethical position in a quiet fiction scene

Codes: AC9E10LE04, AC9E10LY05. Goal: evaluate a defensible social or ethical position in the original scene through action, placement and quotation. Prepare: Text D, a two-column evidence/position note, Day 14 choices.

Orient · 2 min. Say this is a fictional scene, not a real archive report. Invite a private judgement about which moment changes the proposed notice.
Read · 5 min. Read or hear Text D. Mark Mara's first heading, Ivo's question and the action of moving the second heading up.
Model · 6 min. Offer one possible reading: moving “Fewer instructed turns in five paper routes” to the top makes uncertainty visible before a promise. Cite the exact action and admit that Mara also wants a real test, a defensible motive.
Choose · 6 min. 14 A/B/C defend an interpretation of Mara or Ivo using two precise details and one fair alternative. There is no required personality label or personal confession.
Discuss · 4 min. Ask whether the blank card's placement changes the moral force of the scene even though no count changes. Accept differing positions tied to the text.
Exit · 2 min. “The scene may ask readers to value ___; the action/line ___ supports that reading.”

Week 3 Day 15 Fresh source-and-method check

Codes: AC9E10LY04, AC9E10LY05, AC9E10LY06. Goal: use an unfamiliar constructed method source to state what was compared, what can be claimed and what remains untested. Prepare: publicly accessible Check A, teacher-targeted worked guide, Day 15 routes. Give the prompt on the day without modelling its numbers first.

Frame · 2 min. Explain that this is a fresh practice transfer, not a secure exam. Allow usual access tools and record any interpretive hint.
Exact source · 5 min. Give Check A or read it verbatim. Do not suggest which sentence is overstated.
First response · 6 min. Learner marks question, method, unit, missing record and report claim. Preserve first work.
Choose · 6 min. 15 A/B/C provide equivalent target evidence in annotation, restructured note or quiet oral/AAC transcript.
Self-audit · 4 min. Prompt only “Which source line supports your strongest sentence?” Retain revision and note support.
Collect · 2 min. Use criterion-specific next moves; if the learner has seen this public prompt before, use a locally authored parallel prompt for the observation.

Week 4 Day 16 The denominator a report puts in view

Codes: AC9E10LA03, AC9E10LY04. Goal: compare how two reports organise the same table and how their denominators change the headline's reach. Prepare: Texts E/F/G, report frame, Day 16 choices.

Recall · 2 min. Ask what “of how many?” did for five complete paper routes in Week 3.
Read · 5 min. Read Text E's row/column labels, then titles and first paragraphs of F/G. Say a “tag” is a fictional item record, not a person.
Model · 6 min. Trace 21/30 in F and 22/36 in G. Both calculations are accurate for their stated group; only the latter includes route-unreadable tags. Map title, first paragraph and end note for each.
Choose · 6 min. 16 A/B/C produce a reverse outline or source-to-report comparison with both denominator labels and the effect of where qualification sits.
Probe · 4 min. Ask “If F's end note disappears, what may a reader wrongly infer from its unspecific title about all 36 tags?” Name the scope, not the writer's hidden intention.
Exit · 2 min. “F says ___ of ; G says ___ of ; the placement of ___ matters because ___.”

Week 4 Day 17 An unreadable category is still in the total

Codes: AC9E10LA04, AC9E10LY03. Goal: write cohesive comparison that keeps the route-unreadable row visible without inventing why it exists. Prepare: Texts E/F/G, report frame, Day 17 choices.

Question · 2 min. Read Text E's route-unreadable row. Ask which field remains known: finish status.
Model · 5 min. Write “Although their route is unreadable, all six tags have a finish status; therefore they belong in an all-tag total.” Point to “although/therefore” as a cohesion chain, then the 1 same-day/5 later counts.
Guided · 6 min. Compare F's end note with G's second paragraph. Ask what each paragraph makes easy to find. Clarify 21/30=70% and 22/36≈61.1% are different reference groups, not competing measurements.
Choose · 6 min. 17 A/B/C write, arrange or speak/AAC a two-sentence comparison: both valid scoped figures, omitted row, no cause claim.
Audit · 4 min. Replace any “unknown people” with “tags whose route is unreadable”; remove claims about why labels failed. Keep a table reference beside each number.
Exit · 2 min. “Unknown route does not mean unknown ; we can still count .”

Week 4 Day 18 Evaluation words imply values

Codes: AC9E10LA05, AC9E10LY03. Goal: analyse how sentence choices frame a group or result and rewrite a claim without hiding the table. Prepare: Texts E/F/G, Day 18 choices.

Hear · 2 min. Compare “Unreadable tags failed us” with “Six tags have unreadable route labels.” Ask what the first makes readers assume without evidence.
Model · 5 min. Show how “a clear majority” in F foregrounds 70% before an end note. This may value a simple, positive account; it does not prove the author intended deception. Use table rows to keep inference bounded.
Guided · 6 min. Try two sentence openings: “For the 30 tags with legible routes...” and “Across all 36 tags...” Explain what a reader can predict from each before the number arrives.
Choose · 6 min. 18 A/B/C identify one implied value/effect in F or G and craft a fair alternative sentence with group, number and limit.
Peer test · 4 min. A partner identifies the reference group from the first clause alone. If unclear, move the denominator forward. No one diagnoses a real person's literacy or intent.
Exit · 2 min. State one evaluative word and the table detail that prevents it becoming an unearned causal claim.

Week 4 Day 19 Two paragraphs for an honest reader

Codes: AC9E10LA04, AC9E10LY06, AC9E10LA08. Goal: draft and edit a short public-facing fictional report that makes the full register and a limited comparison navigable. Prepare: Text E, report frame, Day 19 choices.

Audience · 2 min. A hypothetical reader wants to know what the made-up register says; nothing will be sent to a real organisation.
Model plan · 5 min. Paragraph 1: all-tag result 22/36 and source. Paragraph 2: named-route 21/30 comparison, why denominator differs, no causal claim. Table caption or transcript carries the same essential information.
Plan · 6 min. Learners choose a headline, order of the two figures and an explicit route-unreadable note. Check the 12+9+1=22 same-day total from Text E.
Choose · 6 min. 19 A/B/C produce a short article, complete audio/AAC script transcript or visual storyboard with full captions. Every route includes source, both denominators, unknown category and model limit.
Edit · 4 min. Read the first sentence to someone who has not seen the table; correct any implication that 70% describes all 36. Keep a visible edit.
Exit · 2 min. Submit the revised report and a one-line note explaining where the limit appears for a reader.

Week 4 Day 20 Fresh report-structure check

Codes: AC9E10LA03, AC9E10LY03, AC9E10LY06. Goal: evaluate two unfamiliar reports of one constructed categorical source and revise a misleading first sentence. Prepare: publicly accessible Check B, teacher-targeted worked guide, Day 20 routes.

Frame · 2 min. Explain the fresh transfer and access choices; it is not a secure exam or a full English standard decision.
Exact source · 5 min. Give or read Check B verbatim without explaining which report is preferable.
First response · 6 min. Learners mark totals, category omitted from each sentence and the position of qualifications. Preserve original response.
Choose · 6 min. 20 A/B/C produce the same comparison, sourced revision and limit in written, rearranged or oral/AAC form.
Audit · 4 min. Ask “Can your first sentence be read as a claim about all records?” Learners revise if needed; record prompts.
Collect · 2 min. Use the criterion next moves. If prior access is plausible, substitute a fresh locally authored parallel case before using the response as assessment evidence.