Writing the Proposal

Overview

In Lesson 21 of 24, students move from researching Auckland’s sustainability challenges and considering different perspectives to drafting a 500–700-word evidence-based proposal for a sustainable Auckland. They will plan and write for a real audience, using clear structure, relevant evidence, and appropriate formal language.

Learning intentions

• WALT write a structured proposal that recommends action for a sustainable Auckland.
• WALT select and integrate relevant evidence from our unit research.
• WALT acknowledge different perspectives and explain why a recommendation is appropriate.
• WALT communicate ideas clearly in written or supported multimodal form.

Success criteria

• I can introduce a specific sustainability issue and explain why it matters in Auckland.
• I can use relevant evidence and identify where it comes from.
• I can acknowledge perspectives, recommend realistic action, and use convincing language.
• I can organise my ideas into clear paragraphs and conclude effectively.

Curriculum links

• Social Sciences — civic, geographic, historical, and economic knowledge to participate in communities and the wider world.
• Social Sciences — understanding how places change and how societies function and change, including New Zealand’s place in a globalised world.
• Social Sciences — analysing data and sources, making decisions, and evaluating significant challenges.
• English language learning — developing reading, writing, listening, speaking, and visual communication through the ELLPs matrix.

Lesson structure (70 minutes)

1. 0–8 min · Reconnect and hook. Teacher displays the opening Auckland sustainability image and question and asks, “What should Auckland change first to become a more sustainable home?” Students complete a quick think-pair-share, then identify the issue they intend to address.

2. 8–18 min · Deconstruct the task. Teacher models the proposal structure on the proposal structure and model paragraph slides: title, introduction, evidence-based explanation of the issue, perspectives, recommendation, implementation, and conclusion. Students annotate the model on the proposal planning and drafting worksheet, identifying where the writer introduces the issue, uses evidence, acknowledges perspectives, recommends action, and concludes.

3. 18–28 min · Language and evidence workshop. Teacher explicitly teaches useful proposal language, including “Auckland should…”, “This is significant because…”, “Some people may argue…”, “However…”, and precise modality such as “could”, “should”, and “must”. Using the evidence and persuasive language slides, the class improves a vague claim by adding a source, explanation, and cautious or strong modality. Students orally rehearse one evidence-based claim with a partner before writing it on their worksheet.

4. 28–38 min · Plan the proposal. Teacher demonstrates how to turn research notes into a logical plan, reminding students to explain how evidence supports a recommendation rather than simply listing facts. Students complete the planning grid on the proposal planning and drafting worksheet: issue and audience, two or three pieces of evidence, affected groups and perspectives, recommended action, possible counterargument, and conclusion. Students may plan orally with a partner or record ideas using speech-to-text.

5. 38–58 min · Independent drafting. Teacher sets the writing purpose and circulates for brief conferences, prioritising students who need support with organisation, sentence formation, or selecting evidence. Students draft a 500–700-word proposal or an equivalent supported multimodal script, using their plan and the paragraph frames, vocabulary bank, and model text. They should include a clear heading and, where appropriate, a labelled visual, data display, or spoken explanation.

6. 58–66 min · Peer review and revision. Teacher displays the peer-review prompts and success-criteria slides and models giving specific, respectful feedback. Students exchange drafts with a partner and identify one successful feature and one actionable improvement: evidence, perspective, recommendation, organisation, or clarity. Writers make at least one revision before submitting or saving their work.

7. 66–70 min · Exit reflection. Teacher asks students to complete a brief reflection on the worksheet: “My strongest success criterion is…”, “My next improvement is…”, and “The evidence I still need to check is…”. Invite two students to share useful drafting strategies, then explain that Lesson 22 will focus on developing and refining proposals.

Resources

• the Auckland sustainability proposal slide deck
• the proposal planning and drafting worksheet
• Students’ Auckland research notes and source material from earlier lessons
• Model evidence-based proposal
• Paragraph frames and vocabulary bank
• Devices or laptops with speech-to-text
• Highlighters or coloured pens
• Timer and board markers

Assessment

• Listen to partner rehearsals and check whether students can connect evidence to an issue or recommendation.
• Use the planning grid and teacher conferences to assess structure, source selection, understanding of perspectives, and oral language development.
• Collect or photograph drafts and exit reflections to identify students needing targeted support before Lesson 22.

Differentiation

• Provide paragraph frames, a model text, a vocabulary bank with definitions and visual examples, and a colour-coded proposal structure. Allow students to draft one paragraph at a time.
• Support ELLP writing and reading development through pre-teaching key words, reading the model aloud, chunking instructions, checking understanding, and explicitly teaching cohesive devices such as “because”, “however”, and “therefore”.
• Support listening, speaking, and visual language development through think-pair-share, oral rehearsal, collaborative planning, teacher modelling, and the option to explain a visual or recorded script.
• Offer speech-to-text, a scribe, enlarged text, additional processing time, and a quiet writing space where required. Use teacher conferences to clarify ideas without taking over authorship.
• For Pasefika and Bengali learners, invite students to consider how whānau, community, cultural values, transport needs, housing, food systems, or climate concerns shape different views of Auckland. Encourage respectful use of relevant home-language thinking during planning before translating key ideas into English.

Extension

• Include a plausible counterargument and rebut it using evidence rather than dismissing it.
• Use precise modality to distinguish certainty and urgency, such as “may”, “could”, “should”, and “must”.
• Vary sentence structures and deliberately address a specific audience, such as Auckland councillors, local residents, or younger students.