Grade 10 · secular · Common Core-aligned
This is a full year of 10th grade English built around one question: how much do people get shaped by their families, their communities, their history — and how much do they push back? Your child starts with short stories and works up to a whole novel, a Shakespeare play, real speeches and essays, and finally their own research paper. By the end they're picking a claim about a book or play, defending it in writing, and then defending it out loud when someone tries to poke holes in it. It's a lot of reading and a lot of writing, and it builds — nothing here is a standalone unit you do for two weeks and forget.
The whole year, in plain English. Tap any unit to see every skill inside, nothing is hidden.
This unit isn't teaching brand-new stuff so much as checking what actually stuck from 9th grade and nailing it down with precise names: the difference between an inference and a guess, what makes a tone word justified, and a four-level way to rank how strong a piece of evidence is (explicit, strongly implied, inferred, speculative). Everything later in the year assumes this vocabulary is solid.
Given a short passage, students correctly sort five statements about it into 'explicitly stated' and 'not explicitly stated,' matching a teacher-provided answer key on at least 4 of 5.
Students distinguish an inference (conclusion built from textual detail plus reasoning) from an assumption (a belief imported from outside the text) when given six labeled reader-statements about a passage, explaining in one sentence what evidence or lack of evidence justifies each label.
Students identify the specific word or phrase that creates a given tone in a passage and explain, in a claim-evidence-explanation sentence, why that diction produces that effect rather than another.
Given two pieces of textual evidence for the same claim about a short passage, students rank them using the four-level evidence hierarchy (explicit > strongly implied > inferred > speculative) and justify the ranking in writing by naming what level each piece occupies and why.
Students construct a full claim-evidence-explanation paragraph about an unfamiliar short passage in which they select the stronger of two available pieces of evidence and explicitly justify why the piece they rejected was weaker.
When given a passage where the most immediately obvious reading and the best-evidenced reading diverge, students argue for the obvious reading first, then identify specifically which evidence-hierarchy level it relies on and why a competing reading outranks it.
Given a brand-new genre the class has not analyzed this unit (e.g., a print advertisement or a short informational blurb), students apply the evidence hierarchy to rank two pieces of evidence for a claim about that text's implied message, without teacher-provided category cues.
Students recall the four-level names of the evidence hierarchy (explicit, strongly implied, inferred, speculative) in correct order from memory, without text support, at the start of Day 11.
Now the question gets specific: how much should you believe a first-person narrator? Using stories like 'The Tell-Tale Heart' and 'The Lottery,' your child builds a case — using the evidence-ranking skill from Unit 1 — for exactly how and how much a narrator can be trusted, rather than just slapping the label 'unreliable' on anyone who seems off.
Given a definition and one modeled example of each, students classify a narrator's unreliability as naive, deceptive, mad/disturbed, or self-deceived, citing the textual signal that indicates the type.
Students explain how a specific gap between what a narrator claims and what the story's other evidence shows (a character's action, another character's reported speech, a physical detail) reveals that gap rather than merely locate a quotation.
Students rank three or more pieces of textual evidence for a claim about a narrator's reliability from strongest to weakest, justifying the order using the evidence-hierarchy criteria from Unit 1 (directness, corroboration, resistance to alternative explanation).
Students compare the narrative distance (how much the narrator's perspective is endorsed or undercut by the text) in two different short stories and explain what causes the difference in each case.
Students infer the likely reason an author chose to withhold a key piece of information from the narrator's account (a structural choice) rather than state it directly, distinguishing structural withholding from narrator unreliability.
Given a short unfamiliar first-person narrative excerpt never discussed in class, students determine the most defensible unreliability classification, produce two ranked pieces of supporting evidence, and explain why the evidence favors that classification over the strongest plausible alternative a peer might argue, within 20 minutes.
Students generate an original short first-person passage (150-250 words) in which the narrator's claims are subtly contradicted by details the writer plants, deliberately applying at least two techniques of unreliable narration studied in this unit.
Students write a multi-paragraph literary analysis essay arguing a specific type and degree of a studied narrator's unreliability, organizing at least three ranked pieces of evidence to support a single defensible claim.
During a Socratic-style discussion, students build on a peer's claim about a narrator's reliability or respectfully challenge it with a counter-example from the text, rather than restating their own prepared point.
Students recall the definitions of inference, tone, and the evidence-hierarchy criteria from Unit 1 with at least 80% accuracy on a short retrieval quiz, before applying them to new content this unit.
This is the big jump: from short stories to a full novel (Frankenstein, The Great Gatsby, or Their Eyes Were Watching God — whichever you can get copies of). The real question is whether your child can hold a judgment about a character loosely enough to actually change it as new chapters complicate the picture, instead of just defending their first impression for 300 pages.
Given two chapters read one week apart, students state their current judgment of the protagonist's central trait and identify the specific textual detail that changed or confirmed it since the last judgment.
Students identify each occurrence of an assigned motif (e.g., light/dark, cold/warmth) in an assigned chapter and record the surrounding context.
Students explain how a specific structural choice (withheld information, embedded narration, an achronological chapter) shapes what the reader is permitted to know at that point in the novel.
Students distinguish instances where the text shows a character genuinely changing (development) from instances where the text merely reveals a trait that was present all along (revelation).
Students compare social determinism and individual agency as two critical lenses and classify a given plot event as better explained by one, the other, or both.
Students construct a claim about whether the protagonist's fate is primarily a product of choice or circumstance and support it with motif evidence and at least one structural observation, in a novel-length essay.
In a Socratic seminar, students build on a peer's claim about a character's motivation or challenge it with contrary textual evidence.
Given a plot-sequence quiz item about an event from an earlier third of the novel, students recall the correct sequence of events without rereading, at least one week after finishing that section.
Students apply the choice-versus-circumstance framework to a character or scenario from a text not studied in this unit, using only the framework and no new instruction.
A full Shakespeare play (Romeo and Juliet or Macbeth are common choices), read and ideally watched or listened to performed. There's no narrator in a play — your child has to figure out what a character really thinks from soliloquies, asides, and how the verse is written, instead of being told what to believe.
Given a scene, state which character(s) know a key fact and which do not, and identify the resulting gap as dramatic irony.
Compare dramatic irony (audience/character knowledge gap in performed drama) to narrative unreliability (reader/narrator credibility gap in prose), stating what structural feature makes each possible.
Explain how a specific soliloquy reveals a gap between a character's public speech (to other characters) and private thought (to the audience alone), citing diction and verse form as evidence.
Given an unfamiliar soliloquy from the same play (a later act, not modeled in class), produce a written explanation of the public/private gap it reveals, using the same evidence categories (diction, verse form, direct address) taught earlier.
Track a chosen motif (e.g., light/dark, poison, blood) across three or more acts and explain how its recurrence marks a shift in a character's fate or society's judgment of them.
Distinguish blank verse from prose passages in the assigned play and infer what the shift in form signals about a character's social status or emotional state at that moment.
In a small group, stage and justify one interpretive choice (blocking, delivery, aside timing) for a scene, explaining how that choice changes what the audience infers about a character's interiority relative to a different staging choice.
Given a scene from an unfamiliar Shakespeare play (not the one studied), identify at least one moment of dramatic irony and one aside or soliloquy, applying the definitions learned without teacher cueing.
Plan and draft an essay arguing how one soliloquy reveals a gap between a character's public and private self, organizing evidence from diction, form, and staging into a single supported claim.
A shift from stories and plays to real persuasive writing — a classic speech paired with a modern opinion piece on a related theme. Your child learns to ask who's speaking, to whom, why, and in what situation, and then to see ethos, logos, and pathos as deliberate choices a writer makes for that specific audience, not just decorations.
Given a short unfamiliar persuasive passage, identify the speaker, audience, purpose, and occasion and state how each constrains the rhetor's choices.
Classify a given persuasive move in a text as primarily an ethos, logos, or pathos appeal and justify the classification using a textual detail.
Explain how a specific appeal functions for the stated audience of a classic speech: what work it is doing, not merely that it is present.
Compare how the classic speech and the contemporary op-ed each adapt ethos, logos, and pathos differently for their distinct audiences and occasions, on a shared theme.
Locate the concession and rebuttal in an argumentative text and explain what the placement of the concession does for the rhetor's credibility with a skeptical audience.
Rank two or three appeals used in a text by how much persuasive work each does for the specific audience, and defend the ranking against a plausible alternative ranking.
Given a persuasive text and audience never discussed in class, identify which appeal is least effective for that specific audience and generate a revised version of that appeal that would work better for them.
Evaluate whether a well-constructed argument in an unfamiliar text is nonetheless wrong, distinguishing rhetorical skill from soundness of the claim.
Recall the definitions of ethos, logos, pathos, rhetorical situation, concession, and rebuttal on demand.
Your child picks a genuinely contested question and builds a research paper using 6-8 sources — but the real work is judging those sources before citing any of them, and specifically hunting for disagreement between credible sources rather than collecting six that all say the same thing.
Given a source (article, report, or website), identify its author's likely purpose, intended audience, and use of ethos/logos/pathos appeals before deciding whether or how to cite it.
Rank a set of five sources on a contested question from strongest to weakest evidence for a given claim, and justify the ranking in writing using named criteria (primary vs. secondary status, corroboration by other sources, authorial expertise, recency, appeal-to-evidence ratio).
Locate the paraphrase-vs-quotation boundary in a research paragraph and correctly cite each in MLA in-text format.
Given two sources that directly contradict each other on a factual claim relevant to the research question, write a paragraph that states the contradiction, evaluates which source's evidence is stronger and why, and explains what a fair reader should conclude.
Independently find a genuine, source-level contradiction or point of live disagreement within their own self-chosen research topic's source set, without teacher identification of which sources conflict.
Construct a counterargument-and-rebuttal paragraph that concedes genuine strength in the opposing evidence before rebutting it, rather than restating a weakened version of the opposing view.
Explain why a claim's persuasiveness and a claim's truth are not the same property, using a specific source from their own research where a strong rhetorical appeal is paired with weak or unstated evidence.
Take a coherent, defensible position on a genuinely contested question that could reasonably be argued the other way, and organize a full essay draft so that the strongest available evidence for the counterclaim appears before it is rebutted, not omitted.
Recall the MLA Works Cited entry format for the four source types most common in their bibliography (website, news article, book, journal article accessed via database).
Short, dense poems that force your child to do everything they've learned all year in miniature: track a device, compare a speaker's claim to what the poem actually supports, and figure out where two poems on the same topic actually disagree. Three new terms show up — extended metaphor, apostrophe, and volta (the 'turn' in a poem) — but most of the heavy lifting is reusing Unit 3's motif-tracking and Unit 4's soliloquy, now compared to a dramatic monologue.
Given an unfamiliar short poem, identify where an extended metaphor is introduced, sustained, and (if applicable) abandoned or revised across the poem.
Explain how a poem's use of apostrophe (direct address to an absent, dead, or non-human addressee) changes what the speaker is able to claim compared to a poem that does not use apostrophe.
Locate the volta in a sonnet or other turn-structured poem and state what changes (in claim, tone, or address) on either side of it.
Compare a dramatic monologue's implied listener to a soliloquy's absence of an on-stage listener, and explain how that difference constrains or frees what each speaker can admit.
Track how a single image or motif (e.g., a recurring object, color, or natural image) develops or accumulates meaning across a short poem, using the same tracking logic applied to novel-length motifs in Unit 3.
Given two thematically linked poems from distinct periods/traditions, generate a 'fork' statement identifying a specific point where the two poems' claims about the shared theme diverge, rather than a statement true of both.
Given an unfamiliar third poem outside the taught set, on a shared or adjacent theme, determine independently which device(s) among extended metaphor, apostrophe, volta, or motif are present and argue what work they do in that poem's specific claim.
Given a short unseen prose passage (e.g., an op-ed excerpt or personal essay excerpt, never poetry) making a claim about a topic already explored in the unit's poetry (e.g., grief, love), decide whether the fork-sentence divergence logic developed for comparing two poems can be applied to compare this prose passage against one of the unit's poems, and justify the decision using the passage's actual argument structure rather than its genre.
Construct a comparative analysis essay arguing where two poems diverge in their claim about a shared theme, using at least one poem-scale device as evidence for each poem and integrating the Unit 3/Unit 4 comparison point as part of the argument rather than as a separate closing note.
Recall the definitions of extended metaphor, apostrophe, and volta from memory without the poetry set present, at least one week after instruction.
No new vocabulary here — this is the test of everything. Your child picks a big question, builds a claim that spans at least three texts from across the whole year, defends it in writing, and then defends it again live, answering questions from people who bring counter-evidence they didn't pick themselves.
Given a course essential question, the student selects a claim and identifies three texts from the year (spanning at least two genres studied) capable of testing it, and states, before drafting, what evidence from each text would count for and against the claim.
Using the same claim and the same two quotations the teacher ranked and explained aloud in the Day 3 worked example, the student reproduces that ranking (strongest to weakest) and states the specific criterion (specificity, or resistance to alternative explanation) the teacher used to justify it.
The student ranks a NEW set of textual evidence (not seen in the Day 3 worked example) for a given claim from strongest to weakest, explaining what makes evidence high-ranking in the hierarchy taught in Unit 6 (specificity, resistance to alternative explanation, source authority where applicable).
The student writes a cross-text argumentative essay that adjudicates between at least two pieces of conflicting or competing evidence across texts, explicitly stating why one interpretation is favored over another rather than presenting both as equally supportive.
Given their own completed argumentative essay, the student identifies which rhetorical appeal (ethos, logos, pathos) dominates their argument and evaluates whether that balance is well-suited to a skeptical academic audience, citing specific sentences as evidence.
During the Socratic seminar, the student responds to a peer's counter-evidence by either revising the claim's scope, providing rebuttal evidence, or conceding a limitation, without abandoning the claim wholesale or ignoring the counter-evidence.
The student recalls the definitions of unreliable narration, narrative distance, dramatic irony, motif, and the rhetorical appeals without reference notes, when cued only by the term.
Given a two-sentence excerpt from a text studied this year, the student classifies which of the five prior-unit analytical lenses (unreliable narration, motif, dramatic irony, rhetorical appeal, evidence-hierarchy ranking) is most relevant to analyzing it, and identifies one surface feature that could mislead a student into choosing the wrong lens.
Given a claim about a course essential question applied to a text NOT studied this year (provided by the teacher, e.g., a short unfamiliar story), the student determines whether the year's evidence-hierarchy and adjudication procedures still apply and constructs a claim following that procedure.
From the parent guide
This is a full year of 10th grade English built around one question: how much do people get shaped by their families, their communities, their history — and how much do they push back? Your child starts with short stories and works up to a whole novel, a Shakespeare play, real speeches and essays, and finally their own research paper. By the end they're picking a claim about a book or play, defending it in writing, and then defending it out loud when someone tries to poke holes in it. It's a lot of reading and a lot of writing, and it builds — nothing here is a standalone unit you do for two weeks and forget.
Unit 1 · what to expect
This unit isn't teaching brand-new stuff so much as checking what actually stuck from 9th grade and nailing it down with precise names: the difference between an inference and a guess, what makes a tone word justified, and a four-level way to rank how strong a piece of evidence is (explicit, strongly implied, inferred, speculative). Everything later in the year assumes this vocabulary is solid.
The full guide covers all 8 units: where kids get stuck, what to say, and how to tell it's working. Included with the course.
Ready when you are
Free for 30 days · then $29/mo or $290/yr for the whole family · Cancel anytime, no questions asked.
Start your family's account