Lesson plan Grade 10 English Language Arts
Kestrel Ridge PFAS Update: A Grade 10 Explanatory Writing Lesson
A grade 10 ELA lesson where students read a fictional utility's PFAS notice and write an explanatory brief for residents about the rule and a proposed deadline exemption.
Objectives
- Students will identify the key facts a resident needs to understand a new drinking-water rule.
- Students will write an organized explanatory brief that conveys a regulation accurately and neutrally.
Vocabulary
- PFAS
- A large family of human-made chemicals used in things like nonstick pans, waterproof fabric, and firefighting foam. They are called forever chemicals because they take a very long time to break down.
- Contaminant
- A contaminant is anything in water that should not be there, whether it is a germ, a chemical, or too much of a natural mineral, that could make the water unsafe or unpleasant to use. Treatment plants are built specifically to find and remove contaminants before water reaches the tap.
- Maximum contaminant level (MCL)
- A maximum contaminant level, or MCL, is the highest amount of a certain substance that federal rules allow in drinking water. Water systems test regularly to prove their water stays under each limit.
Also: compliance deadline, explanatory
Teacher overview
PFAS, sometimes called forever chemicals, are a family of compounds that resist breaking down in the environment, and the federal rules that limit them in drinking water are still changing. This lesson gives students a fictional public notice from the Kestrel Ridge Water District and asks them to turn its dense, technical language into a clear explanatory brief a resident could actually use. Explanatory writing is not the same as argument: the goal is to inform accurately and neutrally, without taking a side, which is a distinct and often harder skill for students who default to persuasion.
Procedure
Hook (5 min): Write the phrase "forever chemicals" on the board and ask students what they already associate with it. List responses without correcting them; the point is to surface what a general reader might assume before reading a careful explanation.
Setting the task (7 min): Explain that students will read a real-sounding but fictional utility notice and rewrite its key points as a short brief for residents. Distinguish explanatory writing, which informs, from argument, which persuades. Stress that a good brief reports what the rule says and what is still uncertain, without telling readers what to think.
Close reading (13 min): Distribute the Student Handout. Students read the fictional notice once for gist, then reread and underline the three or four facts a resident would most need: what PFAS are, what the limit is, what the utility is doing, and what part of the rule is still in motion. They answer handout questions 1 through 4.
Check for understanding (5 min): Poll the class on question 4, which asks what part of the situation is still uncertain. If fewer than three-quarters can name the proposal to give some systems more time to comply, reread that portion of the notice aloud and clarify that a proposed change is not yet final.
Drafting the brief (18 min): Students complete handout question 5, writing a brief of four to six sentences that explains the situation to a resident. Circulate and prompt students who slip into persuasion ("you should be worried") to convert those sentences into neutral information.
Closure (7 min): Pair students to trade briefs and mark one sentence that reads as opinion rather than information. Collect the briefs for review.
Student Handout
Read this fictional public notice, then answer the questions.
Public Notice, written for this lesson, from the fictional Kestrel Ridge Water District:
The Kestrel Ridge Water District is writing to inform customers about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS. These are human-made chemicals used for decades in products such as nonstick coatings and firefighting foam, and they break down very slowly in water and soil. Under a federal rule issued in April 2024, the maximum contaminant level for two of these chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, is set at 4 parts per trillion each. That is an extremely small amount, roughly a few drops in a very large volume of water. Recent testing of our source wells found PFOA below this level, but close enough that we are installing additional treatment as a precaution. Customers should also know that part of the rule may still change. Water systems must meet the limit by April 2029, and in May 2026 the Environmental Protection Agency proposed letting eligible systems apply for a two-year exemption, to April 2031. The proposal would not change the 4 parts per trillion limit, and it would not give every system more time automatically. That proposal is not yet final. The district will send a further update once the EPA decides on the proposal and our new treatment is online.
- According to the notice, what are PFAS and where did they come from?
- What is the maximum contaminant level the rule sets for PFOA and PFOS?
- What action is the Kestrel Ridge Water District taking now, and why?
- What part of the situation does the notice describe as still uncertain?
- Using only the notice, write a brief of four to six sentences that explains the situation to a resident. Report the facts neutrally, and make clear what is settled and what is still being decided.
From Water for Schools (waterforschools.org). This material is in the public domain (CC0) and may be copied, edited, and shared freely.
Answer Key
- Answer: PFAS are human-made chemicals, used for decades in products such as nonstick coatings and firefighting foam, that break down very slowly in water and soil. The notice states this in its opening sentences.
- Answer: 4 parts per trillion each for PFOA and PFOS. The notice cites the April 2024 federal rule for this figure.
- Answer: The district is installing additional treatment as a precaution, because testing found PFOA below the limit but close to it. The notice reports this directly.
- Answer: Whether some systems will get more time to comply is uncertain. The notice explains that systems must meet the limit by April 2029, that in May 2026 the EPA proposed letting eligible systems apply for a two-year exemption to April 2031, and that the proposal is not yet final. The 4 parts per trillion limit itself would not change.
- Answer: Accept any brief of four to six sentences that accurately reports what PFAS are, the 4 parts per trillion limit, the district's precautionary treatment, the April 2029 compliance date, and the not-yet-final exemption proposal, and that stays neutral. A strong response separates settled facts from the proposed exemption, makes clear it would apply only to eligible systems that apply for it, and avoids telling readers how to feel. A model opening: "The Kestrel Ridge Water District is installing new treatment at its wells for PFAS, a group of long-lasting human-made chemicals; a 2024 federal rule limits two of them, PFOA and PFOS, to 4 parts per trillion each."
Differentiation
Support
Provide a four-box organizer labeled "What PFAS are," "The limit," "What the district is doing," and "What is still uncertain" for students to fill in during the close reading, then write one sentence per box to assemble the brief.
Extension
Ask students to add a closing sentence that tells residents where they could find more information as the EPA decides on the proposal, phrased so it points readers to a source without predicting an outcome.
ELL supports
Pre-teach PFAS, contaminant, maximum contaminant level, and compliance deadline with plain-language definitions and a simple picture of a treatment filter. Allow the brief to be drafted first as a labeled list before it is written in full sentences.
Extensions
Have students compare their neutral brief with a persuasive version of the same information, then discuss when a utility would choose each style. This connects the informative-writing objective to the argument writing students practice elsewhere and clarifies why the two forms sound different.