# Year 10 English · ten 25-minute lessons · Days 11–20

Use the [original age-respectful texts](ORIGINAL-TEXTS.md), clean [learner choices](LEARNER.md), [optional extras/home routes](EXTRAS-AND-HOME.md), [three A4/text/tactile aids](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md) and [teacher-targeted answer/next-move guide](TEACHER-KEY.md). The two [fresh checks](ASSESSMENT.md) 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](ORIGINAL-TEXTS.md#text-a-the-paper-index-question-and-method-log), [source-scope map](print/source-scope.pdf), [Day 11 choices](LEARNER.md#day-11).

1. **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**.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **Choose · 6 min.** Learners use [11 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-11) to make a source-to-claim account. Every route must state the counted unit, five-pair denominator and one untested real-reader claim.
5. **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.
6. **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](ORIGINAL-TEXTS.md), [method chain](print/method-chain.pdf), [Day 12 choices](LEARNER.md#day-12).

1. **Notice · 2 min.** Read “the new tabs are faster” and ask which procedure a sceptical reader would need before trusting it.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **Choose · 6 min.** Learners take [12 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-12) to produce a four-part method explanation with the same evidence target. They may direct cards, speak/AAC with transcript or write.
5. **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.
6. **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](ORIGINAL-TEXTS.md), [claim audit](print/source-scope.pdf), [Day 13 choices](LEARNER.md#day-13).

1. **Read · 2 min.** Display Text B once. Each learner marks a quantifier, an outcome word and a requested action.
2. **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.
3. **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”.
4. **Choose · 6 min.** [13 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-13) create a source-cited correction for an archive reader, identifying two overreaches and one defensible line.
5. **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.
6. **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](ORIGINAL-TEXTS.md#text-d-the-pencil-beside-the-blank-line), a two-column evidence/position note, [Day 14 choices](LEARNER.md#day-14).

1. **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.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **Choose · 6 min.** [14 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-14) defend an interpretation of Mara or Ivo using two precise details and one fair alternative. There is no required personality label or personal confession.
5. **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.
6. **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](ASSESSMENT.md#check-a-day-15-new-paper-route), [teacher-targeted worked guide](TEACHER-KEY.md#check-a-day-15-worked-guide), [Day 15 routes](LEARNER.md#day-15). Give the prompt on the day without modelling its numbers first.

1. **Frame · 2 min.** Explain that this is a fresh practice transfer, not a secure exam. Allow usual access tools and record any interpretive hint.
2. **Exact source · 5 min.** Give Check A or read it verbatim. Do not suggest which sentence is overstated.
3. **First response · 6 min.** Learner marks question, method, unit, missing record and report claim. Preserve first work.
4. **Choose · 6 min.** [15 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-15) provide equivalent target evidence in annotation, restructured note or quiet oral/AAC transcript.
5. **Self-audit · 4 min.** Prompt only “Which source line supports your strongest sentence?” Retain revision and note support.
6. **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](ORIGINAL-TEXTS.md), [report frame](print/report-frame.pdf), [Day 16 choices](LEARNER.md#day-16).

1. **Recall · 2 min.** Ask what “of how many?” did for five complete paper routes in Week 3.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **Choose · 6 min.** [16 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-16) produce a reverse outline or source-to-report comparison with both denominator labels and the effect of where qualification sits.
5. **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.
6. **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](ORIGINAL-TEXTS.md), [report frame](print/report-frame.pdf), [Day 17 choices](LEARNER.md#day-17).

1. **Question · 2 min.** Read Text E's route-unreadable row. Ask which field remains known: finish status.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **Choose · 6 min.** [17 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-17) write, arrange or speak/AAC a two-sentence comparison: both valid scoped figures, omitted row, no cause claim.
5. **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.
6. **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](ORIGINAL-TEXTS.md), [Day 18 choices](LEARNER.md#day-18).

1. **Hear · 2 min.** Compare “Unreadable tags failed us” with “Six tags have unreadable route labels.” Ask what the first makes readers assume without evidence.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **Choose · 6 min.** [18 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-18) identify one implied value/effect in F or G and craft a fair alternative sentence with group, number and limit.
5. **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.
6. **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](ORIGINAL-TEXTS.md#text-e-fictional-artefact-tag-register), [report frame](print/report-frame.pdf), [Day 19 choices](LEARNER.md#day-19).

1. **Audience · 2 min.** A hypothetical reader wants to know what the made-up register says; nothing will be sent to a real organisation.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **Choose · 6 min.** [19 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-19) 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.
5. **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.
6. **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](ASSESSMENT.md#check-b-day-20-new-category-report), [teacher-targeted worked guide](TEACHER-KEY.md#check-b-day-20-worked-guide), [Day 20 routes](LEARNER.md#day-20).

1. **Frame · 2 min.** Explain the fresh transfer and access choices; it is not a secure exam or a full English standard decision.
2. **Exact source · 5 min.** Give or read Check B verbatim without explaining which report is preferable.
3. **First response · 6 min.** Learners mark totals, category omitted from each sentence and the position of qualifications. Preserve original response.
4. **Choose · 6 min.** [20 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-20) produce the same comparison, sourced revision and limit in written, rearranged or oral/AAC form.
5. **Audit · 4 min.** Ask “Can your first sentence be read as a claim about all records?” Learners revise if needed; record prompts.
6. **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.

**Original resource rights:** © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, SubjectNest, [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Credit author, source, licence and changes. Exact ACARA wording is separately attributed in the crosswalk.