# Ten teacher scripts · 25 minutes each

Every session uses **2 + 4 + 5 + 7 + 4 + 3 = 25 minutes**. Prepare the named [fictional practice cards](CASE-CARDS.md), [learner task](LEARNER.md), [switchable routes](DAILY-CHOICES.md) and linked [A4 aids](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md). Say at first use that a production model is useful for asking questions but does not describe real prices, demand or preferences. On Days 5 and 10, give the [new public check](STUDENT-CHECKS.md) without the separate worked key; record content prompting. Seven minutes is an initial response window, so adjust locally without changing the reasoning target.

### Day 1 · A choice needs a constraint

**Target:** distinguish relative scarcity from an absolute absence and identify who chooses and what is forgone. **Prepare:** Cards B/D and scarcity ledger aid.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Read B's two Saturday tasks. Ask whether eight staff-hours can be assigned to both tasks in full.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Write `available: 8 staff-hours`; `possible uses: catalogue or help`; `constraint: same hours cannot do both at once`. Relative scarcity means limited resources against competing uses, not that there are zero books or zero helpers.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** In D, identify the council as chooser, one project of crew capacity and the alternative project. Check that learners do not infer which project users prefer.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Choose Day 1 route. Produce two constraint/chooser/alternative triples, one from B and one from D.
5. **Audit · 4 min.** Partner claims “the council has no resources.” Repair to “enough crew time for one small project; choosing one forgoes the other.”
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Does scarcity mean nothing exists?” Key: no; the available inputs are insufficient for all competing uses at once.

### Day 2 · Count the next-best alternative

**Target:** state opportunity cost precisely and avoid treating every possible alternative as an additive cost. **Prepare:** Card B and scarcity ledger.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Ask what using B's final two hours for digital help prevents in the stated case.
2. **Model · 4 min.** The stated *next-best feasible* alternative is cataloguing 24 books. So the opportunity cost, expressed in that output, is **24 returned books catalogued**. The card does not tell whether digital help is worth more.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Invite a second imagined alternative, such as shelf labels. Explain that it cannot replace the stated next-best alternative without new ranking evidence.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Choose Day 2 route; write the decision, feasible alternative, opportunity cost and one value limit for B. Compare D without inventing a numeric cost.
5. **Audit · 4 min.** Partner adds both 24 books and an invented shelf-label count. Learner removes the unsupported addition and names the next-best alternative criterion.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Is the 24-book cost the same as a $24 expense?” Key: no, it is the forgone output in this model.

### Day 3 · What, how and for whom?

**Target:** ask the three basic allocation questions and keep efficiency separate from equity. **Prepare:** Card D and decision lens aid.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Show D's two projects; ask whether completing one tells us who gets access.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Record: `what/how much: one shade project or seat refurbishment`; `how: crew method and inputs, not specified beyond weekend capacity`; `for whom: which users/neighbourhoods, unknown`. A fully used crew can be technically efficient while resource ownership/control and distribution of benefits remain untested.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Learners identify one missing fact about who owns/controls the inputs or has access to the benefits, and explain why “more projects” alone cannot answer it.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Choose Day 3 route; make a three-question decision note for D with one efficiency statement and one equity question.
5. **Audit · 4 min.** Partner says “the shade project is equitable.” Learner marks it unproven and names the required access evidence.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “What question asks who benefits?” Key: *for whom to produce*; this is not determined by total output.

### Day 4 · Four inputs, four income categories

**Target:** classify land, labour, produced capital and entrepreneurial ability, and associate their model income categories without asserting payments. **Prepare:** Card C and factors mat.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Ask whether a reusable printer is a natural resource simply because it contains metal.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Sort site space as land, typesetters as labour, produced printer as capital, coordinator's combination/risk role as entrepreneurial ability. Paper stock is manufactured, so it is not the land example. Pair the textbook income words rent, wages, interest and profit in that order; C reports no actual amounts.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Discuss why *capital* here means produced productive equipment, not a household cash balance. Separate the coordinator's labour time from the distinct organising/risk role.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Choose Day 4 route; classify the four C examples and write one “category does not prove payment” sentence.
5. **Audit · 4 min.** Partner claims “the printer earned interest.” Learner corrects: interest is the abstract income category associated with capital; no financing arrangement is reported.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Which factor is the produced printer?” Key: capital in this production classification.

### Day 5 · Public fresh check A: Festival Repair Tent

**Target:** independently transfer scarcity, next-best cost, factors and basic questions to [new File G](STUDENT-CHECKS.md#day-5-check-a--festival-repair-tent-file-g). **Prepare:** blank scarcity ledger and factors mat; log access support.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** State that a fresh fictional case, not personal finances, is the whole evidence base.
2. **Source access · 4 min.** Give File G alone and read its exact units if needed without explaining the answer.
3. **Independent plan · 5 min.** Learner marks the chooser, scarce input, next-best alternative, factor examples and one unknown distribution issue.
4. **Independent response · 7 min.** Choose Day 5 route; retain the first answer before content prompts.
5. **Self-audit · 4 min.** Learner checks that the opportunity cost is the *forgone* 15 signs, not 15 dollars, and flags any unsupported impact claim.
6. **Submit · 3 min.** Collect response/support log. Teacher uses the separate public key to pick the next instruction.

### Day 6 · Draw a frontier with assumptions attached

**Target:** construct and read Card A's discrete PPF; identify both axes and its fixed-input assumption. **Prepare:** Card A and frontier aid. Use words/raised strips if graph access is difficult.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Ask whether a table of *maximum feasible* pairs is a record of what people demand.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Horizontal axis = repair workshops (0–4); vertical axis = reading circles (0–12). Plot (0,12), (1,11), (2,9), (3,6), (4,0) and join for a classroom sketch. Name *ceteris paribus*: other relevant inputs and the technique are held constant in this model. Say the smooth line between discrete pairs is illustrative, not observed in-between output.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** At 2 workshops, maximum circles = 9. Ask why (2,6) can occur but is not on the maximum frontier; discuss underused modeled capacity, not an observed cause.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Choose Day 6 route; graph or order all five coordinate pairs and attach an assumption label.
5. **Audit · 4 min.** Partner labels circles on the horizontal axis or calls (3,9) feasible. Learner repairs axes and points to the maximum 6 circles at 3 workshops.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “What does a point on this frontier mean?” Key: maximum combination given stated fixed inputs/technique, not a value judgement.

### Day 7 · Move, underuse or exceed?

**Target:** distinguish movement along, inside and beyond a fixed PPF and quantify one trade-off. **Prepare:** Cards A/F and frontier aid.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Compare F1 (2,9) with F2 (3,6). Ask if the move creates capacity.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Both are on the old frontier. Moving F1→F2 gains one workshop and forgoes **three circles**. It is a choice along, not an outward shift. (2,6) is inside; (3,9) exceeds the model's current maximum.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Compare 0→1 workshop (one circle forgone) with 2→3 (three circles forgone). Ask why a single constant opportunity cost would misread this table.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Choose Day 7 route; classify F's three proposals and annotate one computed cost with units.
5. **Audit · 4 min.** Partner calls inside point “unemployment proven.” Learner narrows to underuse in the model; a specific cause cannot be inferred.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “From 3 workshops to 4, how many circles are forgone?” Key: 6−0=6 circles, conditional on Card A.

### Day 8 · A new possibility is not a whole new economy

**Target:** explain a possible productivity-driven outward opportunity in one direction, while separating model evidence from an economy-wide claim. **Prepare:** Cards A/E and frontier aid.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Ask if old Card A allows (4,6).
2. **Model · 4 min.** Old maximum at 4 workshops is 0 circles, so (4,6) is beyond old frontier. E's hypothetical technique offers that one new point with same stated inputs. The evidence does not define every new frontier point; training cost/reproducibility remain unknown.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Contrast E's new possible point with Day 7's movement (2,9)→(3,6) and inside point (2,6). Name what is unchanged and what is claimed to change.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Choose Day 8 route; draw old point (3,6), proposed new point (4,6) and a cautious annotation: `possible workshop-side expansion if the trial generalises`.
5. **Audit · 4 min.** Partner announces national economic growth or zero unemployment. Learner explains why a single fictional studio point cannot establish either.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “What must be checked before claiming the new method works reliably?” Key: repeated result under comparable inputs and costs, among other evidence.

### Day 9 · Efficient output is not a distribution decision

**Target:** compare F1/F2 by a declared criterion and distinguish efficiency from equity. **Prepare:** Cards D/F, decision lens and the [current-source slot](CURRENT-SOURCE-SLOT.md).

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Ask whether both F1 and F2 can be technically efficient despite different mixes.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Both are on Card A's frontier, so both are efficient *in that production model*. F1 has three more circles and one fewer workshop than F2. Neither is automatically fairer or better: beneficiary, accessibility and preference evidence is absent.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Ask learners to state a criterion (“prioritise workshop access”) and a counter-criterion (“prioritise reading circles”), each marked as a choice rather than an established preference. Ask what is known about who owns/controls the inputs (nothing here). Show one rechecked [dated Australian source capsule](CURRENT-SOURCE-SLOT.md) or a newer verified original source; ask what it reports and what Card A cannot establish. Never transfer Card A numbers to it.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Choose Day 9 route; compare F1/F2 with one criterion, one trade-off and one evidence request about distribution.
5. **Audit · 4 min.** Partner says “on frontier means equitable.” Learner distinguishes resource use from who benefits.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “What remains unknown before selecting the fairer option?” Key: distribution/access priorities and relevant stakeholder evidence.

### Day 10 · Public fresh check B: Creekside Mobile Library

**Target:** independently use a new PPF and criterion to explain opportunity cost, feasibility, technical efficiency and an equity limit in [File H](STUDENT-CHECKS.md#day-10-check-b--creekside-mobile-library-file-h). **Prepare:** blank frontier and decision aids; support log.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Explain the new fictional table is only a model under stated assumptions.
2. **Source access · 4 min.** Give File H alone and permit neutral reading of its coordinates.
3. **Independent plan · 5 min.** Learner marks axes, old frontier pairs, an inside point and missing distribution information.
4. **Independent response · 7 min.** Choose Day 10 route; preserve the first graph/calculation and reasoned choice before feedback.
5. **Self-audit · 4 min.** Learner checks 2→3 pop-ups forgoes three repair sets, and that no option is declared fairer without evidence.
6. **Submit · 3 min.** Collect work and log access/content support. Use public key for next learning step, not a QCAA result.

SubjectNest original teacher scripts © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).