Ten daily English lessons: Days… | Year 4 English · T1 W1–2 · Lessons

Each day: retrieve/notice 3 minutes + explicit model 5 + guided reading/discussion 7 + learner application 7 + exit/record 3 = 25 minutes. Source texts and writing frames are here; the formative check follows. Record independent reading separately from comprehension after adult read-aloud. Support with accessible print, screen reader, audio read-aloud, word preview, signed/AAC discussion, typing or adult transcription, while retaining the child's decisions and noting prompts. Codes AC9E4LA02, AC9E4LA03, AC9E4LA04, AC9E4LA06, AC9E4LY03, AC9E4LY04, AC9E4LY05 and AC9E4LY06 are partial links (scope in README).

Day 1 — What does the source actually show?

Goal: distinguish a source-supported model detail from a claim about real life. Materials: Card A, source-to-sentence record.

Notice, 3: Say “I see a drawing of a courtyard.” Ask whether the drawing is a real observation. Key: no, an invented model. Tell children this before showing claims.
Model, 5: Read Card A aloud once, then point to “three benches”. “I can write: ‘The model shows three benches.’ The card supports that. I cannot write: ‘Our school has three benches.’ I have not checked our school.”
Guide, 7: Learners read or hear Card A and sort: “model has two paths” supported; “many people use the model courtyard every day” unsupported; “one path runs beside shelter” supported. Require the exact source line or accessible equivalent.
Try, 7: Each learner completes one source-to-sentence record with a supported detail and a limit. Choose speech, AAC, dictation or writing. Peer checks the card, not the speaker's confidence.
Check, 3: “Does Card A tell us how hot the place feels?” Key: no. If child says yes because shelter implies coolness, label that as inference needing evidence and reread the limit sentence.

Day 2 — Objective report, subjective view

Goal: identify language of factual reporting and opinion without treating opinion as false. Materials: Card A, A1 and A2.

Notice, 3: Present “The model has one shelter” and “The shelter looks wonderful.” Key: first source-supported report; second evaluation/opinion.
Model, 5: Underline A2's “I think,” “more welcoming,” and “in my view.” “These words show Kai's view. The model counts are a reason; they do not prove everyone agrees.”
Guide, 7: Read A1/A2 in short chunks. Children classify four lines: “three benches” report; “one shaded shelter” report; “could offer more choice” prediction/opinion; “another source is needed” a source-limit conclusion from A1. Ask why each fits.
Try, 7: Learner rewrites “The model is terrible” as one grounded report sentence and one clearly marked viewpoint with a reason. Sample key: “The model shows one shelter.” “I would prefer another shelter because the drawing shows only one.” No single preferred opinion.
Check, 3: “Is an opinion automatically wrong?” Key: no; it is a viewpoint and can be supported by reasons. If child says every reason proves it, contrast evidence for count versus evidence for users' needs.

Day 3 — A detail, an inference, a question

Goal: monitor when a text warrants a conclusion and when another source is needed. Materials: Card B, record card.

Notice, 3: Read Card B title and predict what a display plan may show; mark predictions as guesses.
Model, 5: Point to shelf labels. “I know shelf 3 is labelled poetry in the plan. I might wonder if poetry is popular, but the plan has no borrowing data.” Write detail → possible inference → question for another source.
Guide, 7: Sort “four shelves” (detail), “poetry is least borrowed” (unsupported inference), “Which shelf do readers visit?” (question). Discuss a neutral way to collect an answer under school consent instead of guessing preferences.
Try, 7: Learner writes/says one supported sentence and one question about Card B. For a stretch, identify what evidence could answer the question without collecting personal data today.
Check, 3: “Can the big sign in Card B prove everyone can read it?” Key: no; placement is shown, access for all users is not established. Next: reread “no reader preferences” and distinguish design intent from outcome.

Day 4 — Report and letter: purpose changes structure

Goal: identify how A1 and A2 organise ideas for different purposes. Materials: A1/A2 cut into sentence strips.

Notice, 3: Ask which text begins “Dear design team”. Key: A2 letter; audience is design team.
Model, 5: Label A1 topic/detail/limit and A2 greeting/view/reason/request/close. “Both use the same model. Their different purposes shape what they put first.”
Guide, 7: Pairs arrange mixed strips under report/letter headings, then explain one choice. Adult reads strips if needed; record that access.
Try, 7: Learner chooses a Card C fact and writes one report opening, then a possible opinion-letter opening with a marked viewpoint. Samples: “The game design has six spaces.” “Dear team, I think the route choices could make the game interesting.”
Check, 3: Ask “Which text asks for a change, and how can you tell?” Key: A2; request for another shaded seat. If learner cites only greeting, ask for a second textual clue.

Day 5 — Summarise without adding unsupported facts

Goal: summarise main idea and one supporting detail while monitoring limits. Materials: A1/A2, highlighter or tactile strips.

Notice, 3: Retrieve the model's three benches/one shelter. Ask if a summary needs every word. Key: no; main idea and key support.
Model, 5: Summarise A2: “Kai wants another shaded seat in the model design, partly because it shows three benches and one shelter.” Point to the exact original phrases. Do not write “users complained,” which has no source.
Guide, 7: Class collaboratively summarises A1 in one or two sentences. Sample key: “A1 reports courtyard model features and says the drawing cannot tell how people use it.” Remove an inserted claim about actual school use.
Try, 7: Learners independently summarise Card C in two statements: one supported design detail, one limit/question. Accept: six spaces/two stars; no real team-play record. Use a speech/AAC outline if needed.
Check, 3: Present “The game is popular.” Ask whether Card C supports it. Key: no. If child cites star spaces, explain that interesting design and actual popularity are different claims.

Day 6 — Connect ideas in time and by condition

Goal: use temporal and conditional connectives without changing source meaning. Materials: Card C, connective cards first, next, if, when.

Notice, 3: Ask what “If a team lands on a star” means in Card C. Key: a condition, not a report that any team actually landed there.
Model, 5: Point to if and underline the two linked ideas: condition “lands on a star” and possible action “may choose another route.” Say “may” matters: permission, not certainty.
Guide, 7: Children match three originals: “First, read the rule; next, choose a route” (sequence); “If a team lands on a star, it may choose” (condition); “When the design is revised, the team can check labels” (time, future). No claim of observed play.
Try, 7: Learner creates one if sentence about Card C rules and one next sentence for a proposed design procedure. Key: logical relation and correct source label, not a prescribed wording. Offer connective cards/text selection.
Check, 3: “Does the rule prove a team used the star?” Key: no. If yes, underline if and may, then ask for observed-play evidence needed.

Day 7 — One independent clause and one dependent clause

Goal: build a meaningful complex sentence for cause or time. Materials: clause cards and paragraph frame.

Notice, 3: Read “The model shows one shelter.” It stands alone. Read “because the drawing includes one shelter.” Ask if this second string gives a complete claim alone. Key: no, it depends on another clause.
Model, 5: Combine: “I can report one shelter because the drawing includes one shelter.” Identify independent clause, dependent because clause, and the causal link. Avoid a circular reasoning claim about real needs.
Guide, 7: Make two grounded sentences: “We need another source because the plan gives no use data”; “When the team checks the model, it can count the benches.” Children identify what the source actually says versus a possible action.
Try, 7: Learner joins one self-selected pair, then reads it back for meaning. Accept: “I cannot report borrowing totals because Card B gives none.” A learner can dictate and point to clause cards; don't score punctuation as clause understanding.
Check, 3: Ask which part is dependent in “We need another source because the plan gives no use data.” Key: “because the plan gives no use data.” If child chooses first, remove second clause and test which still stands as a complete statement.

Day 8 — Plan a brief source-based report

Goal: plan topic, two details and a limit for a reader. Materials: Card B or C, paragraph frame; reserve D.

Notice, 3: Ask audience: “Who will read this report, and what will they need to know?” Choose classmate/design team; audience shapes clarity, not factual status.
Model, 5: Plan about Card B: topic “library display plan”; detail 1 four shelves; detail 2 large-print sign beside shelf 4; limit no borrowing totals. Place each in the frame and cite Card B.
Guide, 7: Learners jointly plan a different Card C report, checking each chosen detail against card. Teacher deliberately proposes “most teams love the stars”; learners reject it as unsupported.
Try, 7: Each learner chooses B or C and makes own four-part plan. Use oral/AAC/text outline; adult scribes exactly and marks intervention.
Check, 3: Teacher asks for source line behind one detail. Key: exact card support. If none, replace with supported detail before drafting.

Day 9 — Draft, reread and edit

Goal: create a 3–4-sentence informative paragraph with clear source limits. Materials: yesterday's plan, frame, edit checklist.

Notice, 3: Retrieve the audience and purpose. Ask “Will we report what the card shows or what we wish it showed?” Key: what it shows, while a labelled opinion can be separate.
Model, 5: Draft an example from Card B: “The library display plan has four shelves. A large-print sign appears beside shelf 4. The plan does not show borrowing totals, so it cannot tell us which shelf readers choose most.” Read back and match each claim to card.
Guide, 7: Groups identify topic/detail/limit in model; suggest an edit for clarity, e.g. specify “plan” rather than “library” in the first clause. Do not add an invented borrowing fact.
Try, 7: Learner drafts own planned paragraph, revises one sentence for meaning and one surface feature (punctuation, reference or spelling) using chosen output format. Teacher records adult-supplied wording.
Check, 3: Learner points to two source-supported details and one honest limit in own draft. Key: distinguishable parts with Card B/C evidence. If missing, return to planning card tomorrow before publication.

Goal: apply source reading, opinion distinction and report structure to unseen Card D. Materials: sealed Card D, assessment, paper/digital format.

Notice, 3: Review routine source → detail → sentence → limit without revealing Card D. Learner can recall with visual/tactile symbols.
Model, 5: Teacher uses an unscored Card C example to model checking a claim: “two stars” supported; “all teams enjoy stars” unsupported. Ask what another source might show.
Guide, 7: Reveal Card D. Read independently or with access support, recording mode. Discuss heading/source line and identify one detail together; leave two other details for individual transfer.
Try, 7: Learner independently selects two additional Card D details, labels an opinion/unsupported claim, then writes/dictates a short report plan or paragraph. Do not show answer key. Record exact assistance.
Check, 3: Ask “Can this drawing tell us the flow rate? Why?” Key: no measurement appears; a drawing alone cannot establish it. Use the eight-item assessment over time before deciding next instruction.

Responsive teaching after any day

When a child calls all opinions false, show a valid preference with a reason and label it as a viewpoint. When a child treats model details as real-world facts, reinsert “the model shows” and source line. When a child can discuss after read-aloud but struggles with independent reading, preserve rich comprehension access while teaching word reading separately under school scope. When a child writes several details but no coherent paragraph, explicitly model topic–detail–limit and fade the frame. No single writing sample or 25-minute block warrants a full curriculum attainment claim.