Daily Learning Contract
- Topic: Entrepreneurship
- Objective: Students will define entrepreneurship, identify a plausible independent-work opportunity in the legal field, and explain how one professional association supports that career pathway.
- TEKS: d(3)(I), d(3)(H)
- Demonstration of Learning: Argument sheet (opening, 3 pieces of evidence, closing) + position statement (5-7 sentences) + Legal Entrepreneur Card (1 career, 4 fields completed).
Lesson Overview
| Time | 50 minutes |
| Objectives | Work the "Policy Showdown" legal review protocol; use a controlled evidence bank to argue for or against a hypothetical court-tool policy; identify one entrepreneurial opportunity and one professional association in the legal field |
| TEKS | d(3)(I), d(3)(H) |
| 5E Phases | Engage: Warm-Up · Explain: Legal Review Team roles and the model policy · Extend: Prepared arguments applied to AI in the courts · Explore: Legal entrepreneur research · Evaluate: Exit Ticket |
| Deliverable | Argument sheet (opening, 3 pieces of evidence, closing) + position statement (5-7 sentences) + Legal Entrepreneur Card (1 career, 4 fields completed) |
| Materials | Find Your Future workbook pp. 44-47, Legal Review Argument and Evidence Sheet, Legal Entrepreneur and Association Card with fixed career/association bank, projector |
Warm-Up (5 min)
WARM-UP: Should a computer program be allowed to decide whether someone goes to jail? Write your initial reaction in one sentence.
Take 2-3 responses without arguing the question yet. Note who says "yes" and who says "no", you will use this to assign the two lawyer roles in Activity 1.
Activity 1: Set Up the Legal Review Team (8 min)
Source: (FYF pp. 44-45: "Policy Showdown", Steps 1-2)
Open the workbook to page 44 and read the frame: before a new policy is approved, it is reviewed by legal experts who examine it from different sides. Some lawyers argue in support, others argue against, and that back-and-forth is what makes a policy clear, realistic, and effective before it takes effect. Students are joining a City Legal Review Team.
Read the workbook's own case as the model so students see what a policy looks like on paper (FYF pp. 44-45). The city problem is rising trash in public parks. The proposed rule requires reusable containers and bottles where possible and discourages single-use plastics. Point at the three parts every policy has: who it applies to (park visitors, food vendors, city-run events), key requirements (vendors offer reusable or compostable alternatives, trash and recycling stations at every main entrance, educational signs), and enforcement (warnings, then fines or loss of permits for repeat vendor violations, no fines for visitors).
Then put today's live policy in front of them, the one this class reviews:
Proposed policy: Courts in this state may use an AI tool to recommend bail amounts and to flag which cases a judge should review first. A judge may follow the recommendation or set it aside. The tool's scoring method is not released to the public.
Treat this as a hypothetical policy for classroom review. Students use the controlled evidence bank rather than making claims about a real court, tool, person, or case.
Students pair up and choose roles (FYF p. 45):
| Supporting Lawyer (in favor of the policy) | Opposing Lawyer (against the policy) |
|---|---|
| Argues why the policy should be approved | Argues why the policy should NOT be approved, or needs major changes |
| Highlights benefits and positive impacts | Identifies risks, unfair impacts, or unintended consequences |
| Defends how it helps solve the problem | Questions how realistic or effective the policy is |
Use the warm-up reactions to assign roles, giving students the side OPPOSITE their initial reaction. Arguing a side you disagree with is the skill the workbook is after.
Sentence stems (project on the board):
- "I believe AI should/should not be used in the legal system because _____."
- "One piece of evidence that supports my position is _____."
- "A real legal career affected by this would be _ because ___."
Facilitation Tip
Tell students upfront: arguing a side you disagree with is a lawyer skill. Lawyers must understand the opposing side's argument to win. This frames the review as practice, not personal opinion.
Frame the debate at the system level, not the personal level
Before the debate starts, name the lens explicitly: today's question is about the technology and system design: whether an AI tool is accurate and fair enough to be part of legal decision-making at all. It is not about any specific case, any specific person, or any student's family. Students in this class may have family members who have interacted with courts, police, or immigration enforcement; keep the debate on the tool, not on who deserves an outcome.
Activity 2: Prepare and Present Arguments (15 min)
Source: (FYF pp. 46-47: "Policy Showdown", Steps 3-4)
Step 3: Prepare Your Arguments. Each lawyer plans a 1-2 minute argument on the printed argument sheet. The workbook's spec has three parts:
- Opening statement: the main point, and whether the policy should be approved
- 3 pieces of evidence: each with a specific detail attached, not a general claim
- Closing statement: a summary and a recommendation to the judge
The workbook's guiding questions transfer directly to today's policy (FYF p. 46):
| Supporting Lawyer | Opposing Lawyer |
|---|---|
| Why does this policy improve the courts? | What problems could this policy create? |
| Who benefits from it and how? | Who could it unfairly impact? |
| What parts of the policy make it realistic and fair? | What parts make it unrealistic or unfair? |
| Why is a judge keeping the final say enough of a safeguard? | Why is a judge keeping the final say not enough of a safeguard? |
Step 4: Present Your Argument. Two pairs join up. The second pair acts as the panel of judges. The Supporting Lawyer presents, the Opposing Lawyer presents, and the judges rule: policy is approved, policy needs revision, or policy is rejected. Judges must explain which argument was most convincing and which concerns were most important. Then the two pairs swap so every student both presents and judges.
Time, Voice, Body: Voice 1 for pair preparation, Voice 3 for the lawyer presenting, Voice 0 while the judges confer. Run a visible 6 minute countdown for preparation, then 90 seconds per presenter and 1 minute per ruling, which is the short end of the workbook's 1 to 2 minute range and the only way both pairs get a turn inside the block. Judging pairs sit facing the presenters, and finished argument sheets go in the tray so the desk stays clear.
After the rulings, students write their personal position, which can match or differ from the side they argued.
DOK 3: What criteria would you use to evaluate whether an AI recommendation tool should be used in one part of the legal system? Consider transparency, accuracy, human review, and a way to challenge errors.
Activity 3: Legal Entrepreneurship Research (15 min)
Pivot to the Day 4 secondary objective: legal entrepreneurship. Many legal professionals run their own businesses, solo-practice attorneys, mediators, legal consultants, private investigators.
Students complete the Legal Entrepreneur Card (4 fields):
| Field | Example (Solo-Practice Family Lawyer) |
|---|---|
| Career name | Solo-Practice Family Lawyer |
| What the business does | Helps families with divorces, custody, adoption |
| Startup needs | Law degree, bar license, office space, malpractice insurance |
| One professional association that supports the career | State Bar of Texas or American Bar Association Family Law Section |
Each student picks ONE legal career that could include self-employment, contract work, or a small business and completes the card with its fixed career and association bank. H&L may supplement the research, but no student needs an open Google search or vendor login to complete the card.
DOK 3: What conclusions can you draw about the risks and rewards of starting your own law practice versus working for a large firm?
Exit Ticket (7 min)
EXIT TICKET (Short Constructed Response — position paper draft) · Printable PDF:
Draft your AI ethics position paper (5-7 sentences). This is a STRUCTURED short response; each numbered point must appear as at least one sentence in your draft.
-
Position: I believe AI should / should not be used in legal decisions. (Circle one.)
-
Evidence that supports my position (one piece from today's Policy Showdown or from my Day 1 career research):
- One legal career that would be affected by this choice and WHY:
- One professional association that might weigh in on this issue (from my Entrepreneur Card research):
(d(3)(I), d(3)(H))
You will polish this draft into the final submission tomorrow.
Differentiation
- Support: Pre-filled argument sheets with 2 pieces of evidence already attached per side, so the student supplies the third. Sentence stems posted on each table. Position paper template with fill-in blanks.
- Extension: Students argue BOTH sides in two separate paragraphs and identify which side has the stronger evidence. They also research a real court case where AI was used (e.g., COMPAS recidivism tool). A second option: run the workbook's own case as written (FYF pp. 44-47), the city park plastic-waste policy, with its full requirements and enforcement rules.
- ELL: Bilingual argument sentence stems and entrepreneur card. Pre-teach: Policy = Política, Evidence = Evidencia, Judge = Juez, Entrepreneur = Empresario, Association = Asociación. Pair ESL students with bilingual peers, and let the pair prepare in Spanish before presenting.