The order in which the verbs are taught doesn’t matter, since we know from Krashen that we can’t know or predict the order in which language is absorbed by the human brain anyway.
When the wall-posted master list is completed at the end of the year, the students will know those verbs. This doesn’t happen with pacing guides and all other scope and sequence documents that are designed in traditional ways.
Therefore, if a district has properly aligned itself with comprehensible input based language instruction, it should provide its teachers with a big list of verbs/verbal structures to start the year. That should be the scope and sequence for each level, whether it is tied to novels or not.
All we can do is provide comprehensible input to our classes. That is all we can do, and we need the verb trucks to do that. There has been a growing trend in the greater TPRS/comprehensible input community to want to slice and dice and organize our instruction according to high frequency lists, presenting the verbs in some sort of order, etc.
It is good to so guide teachers who still think that we can “teach” – in the traditional sense – languages, and I applaud those efforts. However, eventually we must let go of meticulous planning and let our freak flags fly with CI. It’s just that way, in my opinion.
Trying to organize our order of delivery of instructional content just creates a lot of planning headaches and sucks up time that we could be using to relax and prepare ourselves for our classes by simply resting. The best instructional time in CI instruction is in my opinion time spent working on creating a class sequence of strategies that we will use in class.