Age: 11-12 years

Duration: 80 min

Objectives

• Skim opposing policy briefs and identify each side's core claim.
• Compare arguments in a debate matrix by stakeholder and impact.
• Present one side using evidence-based speaking frames.

Vocab

• policy: "A policy is an official plan or rule."
• stakeholder: "A stakeholder is anyone affected by the policy."
• proposal: "The proposal suggests a plastic-bag fee."
• impact: "We weigh the impact on cost and the environment."

Warm-up (5min)

Pose a familiar policy: "Should our school ban single-use plastic?" Quick hands: for / against / unsure. Introduce "stakeholder" — list who is affected (students, staff, cleaners, environment).

Main Activity (65min): "Critical Reading: Debating Public Policy"

"Policy Roundtable" — Round 1: skim two short briefs (pro and con, ~250 words each) and box each core claim. Round 2: debate matrix — fill a grid: stakeholder, benefit, cost, feasibility for each side. Round 3: evidence pull — each pair selects the two strongest facts from their assigned side. Round 4: structured mini-debate — teams present using frames ("Our position is ___ because the evidence shows ___"; "We understand ___ , however ___"). Round 5: reflection vote — silent ballot on the stronger case; students write one sentence explaining which evidence, not opinion, decided it.

Wrap-up (10min)

Consensus check: can the class name one point both sides agree on? Exit ticket: "The most feasible idea was ___ because ___ ."

Teacher Tips

• Assign sides randomly so students argue positions they may not hold — builds objectivity.
• Keep the timer strict on the mini-debate to fit all groups.
• Draws on G5 supply-chain ethics; feeds the essay workshop's evidence work.