EASEBRAIN ACADEMY — OFFLINE MISSION PACK Lead the council https://easebrain.live/curriculum/lead-the-council CHALLENGE A fictional community centre has 100 tokens. Allocate them between water storage, study access and food-waste reduction. Explain your trade-offs, then revise the plan when the budget falls to 80. LEARNING OBJECTIVES Distinguish a stakeholder's interest from their preferred solution. Defend a fair decision when a constraint changes. LEARN & APPLY 1. Listen for interests A position states what someone wants. An interest explains why it matters. Ask what problem a request solves before negotiating over the proposed solution. Summarise the other person’s concern accurately. Practice: List three stakeholders and the interests behind their requests. 2. Compare options fairly Choose criteria before choosing a favourite option. Compare cost, access, benefit and maintenance. Use the same criteria for every proposal and label uncertain estimates. Practice: Make a two-option comparison and keep the total within 100 tokens. 3. Change the plan responsibly When a constraint changes, reopen the reasoning rather than defending the old answer. Record who is responsible for the revised plan and what concern remains unresolved. Practice: Revise for an 80-token budget and record the reason for each change. WORKED EXAMPLE Water 40 + study access 35 + food waste 25 = 100 tokens. A revised allocation of 35 + 30 + 15 = 80 fits the reduced budget. Correct totals alone do not prove fairness: explain benefits, exclusions and maintenance. YOUR PRACTICE QUESTION The most confident speaker receives most resources. What would improve the decision? Write your answer before reading the explanation below. EXPLANATION Invite quieter stakeholders, ask what evidence supports the allocation, and compare all options against the same agreed criteria. Record a dissenting view rather than pretending everyone agrees. STRETCH Change the weight given to access and maintenance. Explain whether your recommendation changes. PRACTICAL: Make a decision people can question Suggested time: 45–60 minutes Illustrated crew scenario (fictional learning example) We have 100 tokens. I propose a reading corner and a water repair. I prefer a science club. Can we compare access and maintenance before voting? PREDICT: Is the option with the most votes always the fairest use of a shared budget? STARTER: A separate council practice case (apply the same decision method): reading corner costs 40 tokens, water repair 60, science club 50. Learner A needs quiet space; learner B wants reliable water; caretaker C has only one maintenance hour a week. These are scenario inputs, not real prices. 1. Agree criteria first Choose access, benefit and upkeep. Give each a weight from 1–5 and explain it before scoring options. Hear the three stakeholder perspectives. 2. Compare and allocate Use the decision lab or paper table. Score each option 1–5, where 5 is strongest, including easiest upkeep. Select a combination costing no more than 100 tokens. 3. Respond to a constraint Reduce the budget to 80. Record your revised choice, one rejected alternative and a dissenting concern. Explain who might still be excluded. COMPARE AFTER TRYING: Reading + water costs 100, but at 80 that combination fails. A weighted score helps expose assumptions; it does not decide for people. The Strategist records the Inventor’s concern that science opportunities remain unmet and proposes a later review. SELF-CHECK Both allocations fit their budget. Weights and scores have reasons. The decision record includes an alternative and an unresolved concern. TRANSFER: One participant cannot attend the meeting. Design a way for their view to influence the decision. WORKBOOK TEMPLATE Option | Cost | Access score/reason | Benefit score/reason | Upkeep score/reason Weights: 100-token allocation: 80-token allocation: Dissenting concern: Review date or trigger: EVIDENCE CRITERIA Budget respected in both versions A fair comparison of options Evidence of listening, delegation and a justified revision Deliverable: Decision log, allocation table and individual leadership reflection SESSION PLAN (adapt with your facilitator) Recall & plan: 30 minutes Model & discuss: 45 minutes Guided practice: 75 minutes Build & test: 120 minutes Feedback & revise: 60 minutes Reflect & next step: 30 minutes RESOURCES EntreComp entrepreneurship framework — https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/scientific-activities/key-competences-lifelong-learning/entrecomp-entrepreneurship-competence-framework_en EEF: planning, monitoring and evaluating learning — https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/metacognition AI DISCLOSURE TEMPLATE Tool/version; date; task; information shared; claims checked and sources; what I changed; what I can explain myself. No AI or equipment purchase is required. Keep personal information out of project evidence.