# Ten daily English lessons: Days 1–10

**Daily timing:** retrieval/notice 3 minutes + explicit model 5 + guided reading/discussion 7 + learner application 7 + exit/record 3 = **25 minutes**. Use the original [source packet](aids.md), [advert SVG](fictional-notebook-ad.svg) and [assessment](assessment.md). These are **fictional examples**, not live offers or real reviews. Keep Card D sealed until Day 10. Access may include large/adjustable text, screen reader, teacher read-aloud, visual/tactile emphasis, AAC/sign discussion, keyboard or adult scribe. Record the route and content prompts; independent reading and comprehension after listening are different evidence. Codes and partial scope in [README](README.md).

## Day 1 — Who made this and for whom?

**Goal:** identify origin, purpose and audience before accepting a claim. **Materials:** Card A advert and claim/source record.

1. **Notice, 3:** Show only “BEST CHOICE FOR EVERYONE!” Ask “What does this line want a reader to think?” **Key:** prefer/choose whatever is being advertised; the line alone does not name B and is a slogan, not a measurement.
2. **Model, 5:** Reveal the fiction/source line. “This was made for our classroom. It imitates an advert. Its purpose is to persuade a potential buyer. I will check its figures and what it leaves out before deciding.”
3. **Guide, 7:** Read Card A with text/visual access. Circle creator/type, audience and exact claim. Contrast “100 sheets” with “best choice for everyone.” If a child interprets “everyone” literally, ask whose needs are missing.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner fills record fields for source, purpose/audience and claim. An adult can point/scribe only at learner direction. Peer checks exact quoted words against card.
5. **Check, 3:** “Does the headline prove B is best for every person?” **Key:** no. **Next:** if yes, contrast a person with a $7 budget and the listed $8 price later; today teach claim versus support.

## Day 2 — Objective detail and subjective judgment

**Goal:** classify a stipulated source detail, opinion and untested prediction without calling all opinions false. **Materials:** Cards A/B/C.

1. **Notice, 3:** Read “B has 100 sheets” and “B feels perfect.” **Key:** first is a stipulated card detail; second is subjective.
2. **Model, 5:** Highlight `best`, `everyone`, `prefer`, `I think`. “These words can signal judgment. The table's $8 and 100 sheets are details in this **invented** source. A stated preference can be honest without proving a product quality.”
3. **Guide, 7:** Sort six strips: “A costs $6”; “B has 100 sheets”; “Sam prefers a smaller book”; “B will last forever”; “B costs 8 cents per sheet”; “Everyone loves B.” **Keys:** first two and per-sheet price source-supported; Sam preference explicitly attributed; last two unsupported universal/future claims.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner writes one objective sentence about Card B and one labelled personal viewpoint that cites a reason. **Sample:** “A costs $6 in the table.” “I would choose A if my budget were $7.” No personal budget disclosure.
5. **Check, 3:** “Is Sam's preference false just because it is subjective?” **Key:** no; it belongs to a fictional character and is not universal. **Next:** distinguish attributed view from unsupported statement about everyone.

## Day 3 — Read the numbers without overclaiming

**Goal:** state what the neutral table supports and what it cannot. **Materials:** Card B, calculator available as access to arithmetic.

1. **Notice, 3:** Ask which listed total is lower. **Key:** A $6 versus B $8; A costs $2 less upfront.
2. **Model, 5:** Verify unit figures: $6÷60=$0.10; $8÷100=$0.08. “B is two cents cheaper per **included sheet**, assuming sheets are comparable and used. That is narrower than ‘best for everyone.’”
3. **Guide, 7:** Class tests claims: “B has lower listed unit price” supported; “A has lower upfront total” supported; “B is more durable” unknown; “B always saves money” too broad. Give division support so English reasoning remains target.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner produces two accurate conditional comparison sentences with table evidence: one for a $7 fictional budget, one for a person needing many sheets. **Keys:** A affordable at $7; B lower per-sheet price if 100 sheets useful/comparable.
5. **Check, 3:** “What detail would we need to compare durability?” **Key:** quality/use evidence absent from table. **Next:** ask child to point to the “no data” column before making a claim.

## Day 4 — What the design makes easy to notice

**Goal:** explain visual salience and omission without relying on colour. **Materials:** [SVG advert](fictional-notebook-ad.svg) or exact text/layout description.

1. **Notice, 3:** Ask which information is seen/read first. **Key:** large headline and “100 sheets”; size and placement draw attention.
2. **Model, 5:** Point to small price line. “An important detail can be accurate but harder to notice. The large slogan draws me toward a choice; it does not change the price or prove universal value.”
3. **Guide, 7:** Compare a neutral re-layout: make $8, 100 sheets and 8c/sheet equal size. Children name what changed in presentation and what did not (numbers/meaning). Discuss omitted durability and user needs.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner sketches, rearranges text blocks or describes an accessible layout showing price and unit price as clearly as sheet count. Label intended audience. Do not grade art skill; grade explanation.
5. **Check, 3:** “Can a font size make a claim true?” **Key:** no; it changes attention. **Next:** compare exact words under both layouts.

## Day 5 — Three sources, three perspectives

**Goal:** compare advert, neutral table and attributed fictional preference. **Materials:** Cards A/B/C, record grid.

1. **Notice, 3:** Retrieve each source type. **Keys:** advert persuades, table compares listed figures, Sam card voices one invented character's preference.
2. **Model, 5:** “Card A and B mention B's 100 sheets, but A foregrounds one product. Card C asks for a paper check. The sources answer different questions.”
3. **Guide, 7:** Learners fill three rows: claim, support, limit. Teacher asks whether Sam's preference can settle a choice for everyone. **Key:** no.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner summarises the strongest support for B and one reason someone could reasonably choose A, each tied to a source/criterion. **Key:** B lower per sheet; A lower upfront/smaller.
5. **Check, 3:** “Which source alone gives listed prices for both options?” **Key:** B table. **Next:** if A advert chosen, compare its one-option data with B's two-option columns.

## Day 6 — Text structure and persuasive wording

**Goal:** analyse how heading, claim, figure and missing qualification work together. **Materials:** Cards A/B and blank four-part template.

1. **Notice, 3:** Ask why the advert puts “BEST” above the small factual line. **Key:** to influence attention/choice; its position is purposeful.
2. **Model, 5:** Break Card A into headline → salient number → price/unit line → fiction/source line. Contrast B table headings/parallel rows, which support side-by-side comparison.
3. **Guide, 7:** Children reorder four cut-up advert elements and say how meaning changes if price is equally prominent. Discuss why a neutral table still has limits: it omits quality and usage.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner drafts a **fair** 2-line informational poster using Card B: one headline and one balanced line. **Sample:** “Compare two notebook options: A $6/60 sheets; B $8/100 sheets. Check what matters to you.”
5. **Check, 3:** “Which text feature helps compare both options directly?” **Key:** table columns/parallel rows. **Next:** if learner names only bold letters, trace matching columns.

## Day 7 — A conclusion needs a stated criterion

**Goal:** compare evidence under different constraints without a universal recommendation. **Materials:** Cards A/B/C, paragraph frame.

1. **Notice, 3:** Ask whether “best” can be answered without saying *best for what*. **Key:** no; criteria differ.
2. **Model, 5:** Model two defensible conditional statements: “If immediate budget is $7, A fits the listed price and B does not.” “If 100 comparable sheets will be used, B has lower listed cost per sheet.” Explicitly avoid real personal budgets.
3. **Guide, 7:** Pairs select criteria upfront cost, sheet count, portability, durability. Sort as supported (first two), character preference (portability in Sam's story), or unknown (durability). A criterion can matter even if data are missing.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner writes/dictates one criterion, evidence for two options and one unanswered question. Provide word bank and AAC choices; learner determines conclusion.
5. **Check, 3:** “Can we claim B lasts longer from these cards?” **Key:** no. **Next:** write “unknown” rather than guessing, then propose what evidence is needed.

## Day 8 — Plan a source-based response

**Goal:** plan a concise fair comparison for a defined fictional audience. **Materials:** Card B and [paragraph frame](aids.md#balanced-paragraph-frame).

1. **Notice, 3:** Identify audience as a fictional school design group comparing invented options. No child reports family purchase experiences.
2. **Model, 5:** Plan claim/question, two figures, one missing fact, conditional recommendation. “I will label ‘best for everyone’ as advert language, not adopt it as my conclusion.”
3. **Guide, 7:** Class checks a flawed plan “B is cheapest and lasts forever.” **Correction key:** A lower upfront; B lower per sheet; no durability evidence. Rebuild balanced plan.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner makes own 4-part plan in writing, AAC, spoken outline or cards. Teacher asks for precise source for each number.
5. **Check, 3:** “What condition will your recommendation name?” **Accept:** budget, usage or another clearly stated criterion supported/flagged as uncertain. **Next:** if none, add `if...` before drafting.

## Day 9 — Draft and revise without a hidden universal claim

**Goal:** create 3–4 linked sentences with source, comparison, missing information and condition. **Materials:** plan, Cards A/B/C, revision checklist.

1. **Notice, 3:** Retrieve difference between “B cheaper per sheet” and “B cheaper upfront.” **Keys:** B per sheet, A upfront.
2. **Model, 5:** Draft: “The fictional advert calls B the best choice for everyone, but the table supports a narrower claim. B is 8 cents per sheet compared with A at 10 cents, while A costs $2 less upfront. The cards give no durability data. If all 100 sheets are useful, B has the lower listed unit price.” Model citation as Card A/B labels.
3. **Guide, 7:** Children mark claim, two figures, limit and condition in the model. Correct teacher's intentional error “B has 60 sheets” using Card B.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner drafts own 3–4 sentences, then revises one for source accuracy or audience clarity. Adult transcription records child words exactly; no forced handwritten paragraph for a learner whose access route differs.
5. **Check, 3:** Ask learner to point to one checked number and one explicitly uncertain claim in own response. **Key:** source matches and limit named. **Next:** if missing, return to table before publication.

## Day 10 — Transfer to a new fictional advert

**Goal:** evaluate unseen Card D and explain a conditional decision. **Materials:** sealed Card D, [assessment](assessment.md).

1. **Notice, 3:** Review routine `creator → purpose → exact claim → source detail → limit → condition` without revealing new card.
2. **Model, 5:** Work an **unscored** Card A example: the headline is opinion; $8/100 sheets is card detail; no real-user evidence. Keep Card D unseen during model.
3. **Guide, 7:** Reveal Card D. Read independently or via documented access. Ask one common orientation question: “What two pass names appear?” **Key:** X and Y. Leave main evidence tasks for learner.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner identifies two figures, the universal claim, one omission and a conditional recommendation. Calculator provided if needed; record whether English reasoning was independent and arithmetic supported.
5. **Check, 3:** “Does $1.80 per included entry prove everyone saves with Y?” **Key:** no; use and upfront/other costs differ. Use [assessment](assessment.md) and the week's reading/writing samples to choose next teaching.

## Response to common errors

When a child treats persuasive wording as a legal violation, return to the narrower task: what the fictional source supports and what evidence is absent. When a child calls an opinion “fake”, teach attribution and reasons. When a child reads the figures correctly but reaches a universal conclusion, add criterion/condition. When read-aloud supports strong reasoning but independent reading is fragile, assess reading separately while preserving access to critical discussion. No single advert analysis proves full English attainment.

Original lessons © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, CC BY 4.0. Curriculum, ACCC source links and ACARA's separate rights in [README](README.md). Educator/EAL/D review pending.