# Ten teacher scripts · 25 minutes each

Each class uses **2 + 4 + 5 + 7 + 4 + 3 = 25 minutes**. Have [Cards A–H](SOURCE-CARDS.md), [clean student tasks](LEARNER.md), [three equivalent response routes](DAILY-CHOICES.md), [worked extra examples](DAILY-EXTRAS.md) and [print aids](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md) ready. The seven-minute response is a first draft, not a recommended full lesson length. Extend locally. After independent work consult the [separate public teacher key](teacher/ANSWER-AND-NEXT.md). All allegations and model statutes are fictional. Do not invite personal legal disclosures.

### Day 1 · When does a rule become law?

**Target:** distinguish a social/venue rule from a law and ask who makes, interprets and enforces it. **Prepare:** [Card A](SOURCE-CARDS.md#card-a--one-space-three-kinds-of-rule), [rule-or-law aid](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md).

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Show the “criminal offence” assertion on Card A. Ask which source would have to exist before it could be trusted.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Put the table rule beside the club request. Both may organise behaviour; neither card identifies valid legislation creating a criminal offence. Explain that a school may apply its own conduct process without turning the conduct into a crime.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Partners label maker, intended audience, enforcer and consequence for each instruction. Put “unknown” where the card is silent. Discuss why even a useful rule needs an identifiable authority and fair application.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Select a Day 1 route. Make a supported two-sentence decision about the volunteer's claim and name one primary source to check.
5. **Audit · 4 min.** Give a wrong draft: “All rules are laws if a security worker says so.” Learners correct source and enforcement logic, without assuming an actual Queensland by-law exists.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “What would turn an invented criminal claim into a testable legal claim?” Key: an identified jurisdiction, valid current legal instrument and relevant provision; facts must still be proven.

### Day 2 · Rule of law and effective rules

**Target:** apply public, fair and consistently enforced law criteria to a bounded situation. **Prepare:** Cards A/C and [fairness lens](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md).

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Ask whether a hidden room rule can be fairly followed, even if the venue wants quiet.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Use the PEO rule-of-law ideas: accessible, understandable rules; fair application; those with authority also obey law. Avoid saying every inconvenient private rule breaches the constitutional rule of law.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** On Card A, compare posting a clear study-room sign versus telling only some visitors. On Card C, contrast seeking evidence with naming a learner guilty from proximity alone.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Select Day 2 route. Identify an effectiveness criterion, one affected viewpoint, a consequence and a proportionate change.
5. **Audit · 4 min.** A peer says “fair means no consequence.” Learner distinguishes fair notice/process from automatic exemption and asks whose viewpoint is missing.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Name one thing a fair system checks before a consequence.” Key: a known rule, relevant evidence and a chance to respond as appropriate to the process.

### Day 3 · Where does law come from?

**Target:** distinguish statute/code, court-developed common law and unsupported hearsay. **Prepare:** Cards B/F and [source ladder](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md).

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Put “bill”, “Act”, “court judgment” and “social post” on the board. Ask which is only a proposal.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Card B's invented bill has no force. The real Queensland *Criminal Code Act 1899* is an example of statute and a code; a judgment may interpret law and contribute to common law/precedent. Do not claim the Code proves Card C's allegation.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Students order Card F sources for a question about an actual current rule, then separately mark the missing facts needed to apply it. Distinguish “find law” from “prove conduct.”
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Select Day 3 route. Build a source chain: current authorised enactment → relevant judgment if needed → independently supported facts → cautious conclusion.
5. **Audit · 4 min.** Challenge: “The newest social post overrides an old Act.” Learner corrects authority, while noting an old-titled Act may be amended and current compilation matters.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Is a bill a statute?” Key: no; a bill is a proposed law. Passage, assent and commencement must be checked.

### Day 4 · Law-making and the three arms

**Target:** describe a Queensland bill pathway and separate legislative, executive and judicial functions. **Prepare:** Cards B/D and [three arms](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md).

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Ask which institution debates Card B's proposed bill and whether the security volunteer can pass it.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Draw a Queensland-only sequence: proposal, introduction/scrutiny/debate, Legislative Assembly passage, assent, commencement. Then label parliament as legislative, government administration as executive and courts as judicial. Ministers sit in parliament, so personnel overlap.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Teams find the two unjustified jumps in Card B's poster: proposal treated as enacted; an operator-notice duty treated as a criminal offence. Neither is supplied.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Select Day 4 route. Sequence the steps and explain which arm might make, administer or interpret an actual law.
5. **Audit · 4 min.** Compare “Parliament applies penalties in each case” with courts' role. Correct it without claiming all court actions make new law.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Does assent always mean a provision operates that instant?” Key: check commencement; it may be later.

### Day 5 · Fresh public check A: Horizon skate hall

**Target:** transfer rule/law, source, rule-of-law and law-making distinctions to a [new invented file](STUDENT-CHECKS.md#day-5-check-a--horizon-skate-hall-file-j). **Prepare:** File J only, a blank source ladder and support log. The worked key is public but held until first responses are recorded.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** State that File J is invented and asks for a source-bounded conclusion, not advice to a real centre.
2. **Source access · 4 min.** Release the check, read neutral instructions and allow the learner to select a route; record read-aloud or scribe support.
3. **Independent plan · 5 min.** Learner marks one nonlegal rule, one proposed instrument, one assertion needing verification and a fairness concern.
4. **Independent response · 7 min.** Collect first reasoning through the chosen Day 5 route before giving content prompts.
5. **Self-audit · 4 min.** Learner circles any “is a crime” or “is already law” claim that lacks an enacted source.
6. **Submit · 3 min.** Retain response/support log and use the separate public teaching key for a next lesson decision; no QCAA unit grade follows.

### Day 6 · Division of powers is another question

**Target:** distinguish Commonwealth/state exclusive, concurrent and residual powers from the three arms of government. **Prepare:** Card D and [three arms](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md).

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Show “judicial = state; legislative = Commonwealth.” Ask what two classification systems that sentence wrongly mixes.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Draw two axes. Across: Parliament/executive/courts. Down: Commonwealth and states under constitutional power allocation. Give PEO examples: Commonwealth public service as exclusive; state public schooling as residual; some environmental/marriage/tax law-making as concurrent. Section 109 is about inconsistent valid laws, not every different policy.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Students classify four statements from Card D and state a caveat: a topic label alone does not decide every actual law's validity.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Select Day 6 route. Make one correct comparison on each axis and explain why an invented Harbourlight bill cannot establish Australian jurisdiction.
5. **Audit · 4 min.** Swap axes with a peer; spot an unsupported “all education law is state law” generalisation. Keep the example bounded to public-school operation.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Can the same legal issue involve Commonwealth and state authority?” Key: yes; concurrent fields exist and actual power/source require checking.

### Day 7 · Jurisdiction, hierarchy and precedent

**Target:** trace a cautious Queensland criminal court path, distinguish jurisdiction from precedent, and contrast two broad case-presentation models. **Prepare:** Cards C/E and [court path](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md).

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Ask why a bare invoice cannot decide whether Card C belongs in a particular court.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Use the Queensland Courts pages: Magistrates first level, with serious matters potentially referred to District or Supreme; the Supreme Court includes Court of Appeal. Define jurisdiction as legal authority to hear a matter. A higher court's binding legal point matters to lower courts; facts still matter.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Sort “evidence of damage”, “identified offence”, “court with jurisdiction” and “earlier judgment's legal rule” into four boxes. Briefly contrast Card E's party-led and judicial-officer-led procedure models; neither label alone proves fairness.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Select Day 7 route. Give a conditional court path and a one-sentence adversarial/inquisitorial contrast, with a “real systems vary” caveat.
5. **Audit · 4 min.** Correct “the Supreme Court hears every criminal charge first” and “precedent proves this learner made the mark.”
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “What does precedent settle?” Key: a relevant legal principle/interpretation, subject to hierarchy and facts, not a disputed person's conduct.

### Day 8 · Burden, standard and reading an Act

**Target:** contrast who must prove a criminal case with how convinced a court must be, and explain why a fictional clause needs interpretation without inventing liability. **Prepare:** Cards C/H and [fairness lens](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md).

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Ask whether “beyond reasonable doubt” names the person who proves the case or the degree of certainty required.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Onus/burden: generally the prosecution in a criminal case; standard: beyond reasonable doubt. Then Card H: meaning and purpose may be disputed; the genuine Queensland s 14A preference does not create or extend criminal liability. No offence appears in the fictional extract.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Mark the Card C evidence's limited reach. On Card H, ask for two plausible readings of “visible notice” and the missing purpose/context before choosing. An inaccessible sign is an access issue to investigate; do not pretend a real statute resolves this invented wording.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Select Day 8 route. Explain burden versus standard and state a restrained interpretation question with a primary legal source to check.
5. **Audit · 4 min.** Correct “the accused must prove innocence” and “purpose alone creates a new crime”; keep school discipline distinct from criminal proof.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Does the fictional notice clause include a supplied offence and penalty?” Key: no; a criminal conclusion is unsupported.

### Day 9 · Customary law and whose voice is missing

**Target:** analyse the limits of a historic institutional source on Aboriginal customary law and make a defensible next-source choice. **Prepare:** Card G; source ladder and [fairness lens](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md).

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Ask whether a 1986 government report can speak for every First Nations community today. Key: no.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Paraphrase Card G accurately: many distinct, living Aboriginal customary laws; uneven legal recognition; community authority in consultation. Name what the report is (historic ALRC analysis) and what it is not (a living local voice). Do not invent a cultural practice or ask students to represent a community.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Split a claim into “the report stated”, “current legal recognition to verify” and “community perspective absent”. Identify possible consequences of treating the first as if it answered all three.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Select Day 9 route. Write two viewpoints with who holds authority to speak, one consequence and a next source: contemporary community-approved material plus current legislation/judgment for a specific legal question.
5. **Audit · 4 min.** Reject both “there is one Aboriginal customary law” and “Australian courts always apply it”. Preserve nuance and date.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Who should decide whether a particular community's law may be taught in detail?” Key: the appropriate people/community with informed partnership and protocol, not this card.

### Day 10 · Fresh public check B: South Quay file

**Target:** transfer source evaluation, government roles, burden, legal uncertainty and culturally careful source limits to a [second new fictional file](STUDENT-CHECKS.md#day-10-check-b--south-quay-file-k). **Prepare:** File K only, blank fairness lens and support log.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** State that this is invented, not legal advice or a real First Nations case.
2. **Source access · 4 min.** Release File K without the worked key; allow source inspection and chosen response form.
3. **Independent plan · 5 min.** Learner marks legal versus social assertions, legislative versus judicial role, one proof question and one source limit.
4. **Independent response · 7 min.** Collect a first evidence-based response using the Day 10 route; record supports.
5. **Self-audit · 4 min.** Learner checks for unsupported “already law”, “guilty” and “one community law” wording.
6. **Submit · 3 min.** Retain response and consult the separate public key for next teaching. This is formative only and cannot stand in for school Unit 1 assessment.

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