Writing prompt Grade 11 English Language Arts
Who Pays for Linden Park's Lead Pipes? An Argument Prompt
A grade 11 argument prompt on whether a fictional city should use public funds to replace the private side of residents' lead service lines.
Objectives
- Students will write an argument essay that states a claim and develops a counterclaim.
- Students will support a position on lead line funding using evidence from the background material.
Vocabulary
- Service line
- A service line is the small pipe that connects the water main under the street to the plumbing inside one home or building. It is the last leg of the trip water makes to your tap.
- Action level
- A trigger number in lead and copper testing. If too many homes test above this level, the utility must take steps like improving treatment and telling the public.
Also: partial replacement, affordability
Teacher overview
Replacing a lead service line is rarely a single job with a single owner. In many cities the utility owns the pipe from the main to the property line, and the homeowner owns the rest, from the property line into the house. This prompt puts students inside that split and asks them to argue whether a city should spend public money to replace the privately owned portion too. The question is genuinely contested, balancing public health and effectiveness against the fairness of spending public funds on private property, which makes it strong ground for a college-ready argument.
Prompt
Background: In the fictional city of Linden Park, thousands of homes are still served by lead service lines, the pipes that carry water from the street main into the house. Lead is harmful even at low levels, especially for children. Nationally, EPA estimates that about 4 million lead service lines remain in water systems, and they sit disproportionately in lower-income communities. Federal rules are tightening: the lead action level, currently 15 parts per billion, is set to drop to 10 parts per billion in 2027, and utilities must replace nearly all lead service lines within about ten years.
Linden Park owns the public side of each service line, from the main to the property line, and plans to replace its portion. The private side, from the property line into the house, is owned by the homeowner. Replacing only the public side, called a partial replacement, can actually raise lead levels for a time, because disturbing the pipe knocks loose lead particles while the old private portion remains. A full replacement of both sides avoids that problem, but it means the city would spend public money on privately owned pipe. Some homeowners could pay for their own side, but many cannot, and a widely used rule of thumb, built from two EPA benchmarks, treats combined water and sewer costs above roughly 4.5 percent of household income as a high burden.
Writing task: Linden Park's council is deciding whether to use public funds to replace the private side of residents' lead service lines, so that every replacement is a full one. Write an argument essay that states a clear claim on what the city should do, develops at least one counterclaim a resident or council member might raise, and supports your position with evidence from the background material.
Planning Organizer
| Category | Your notes |
|---|---|
| Claim (should the city fund private-side replacement?) | |
| Reason 1 + evidence from background | |
| Reason 2 + evidence from background | |
| Counterclaim a resident or council member might raise | |
| Your rebuttal to the counterclaim | |
| Concluding statement |
From Water for Schools (waterforschools.org). This material is in the public domain (CC0) and may be copied, edited, and shared freely.
Exemplar & Rubric
Exemplar response:
Linden Park should use public funds to replace the private side of residents' lead service lines, because a replacement that stops at the property line can leave families worse off than before. The background makes the danger clear: lead harms people even at low levels, especially children, and the city still has thousands of these lines. A partial replacement, which disturbs the pipe while leaving the old private portion in place, can knock loose lead particles and raise lead levels for a time. If the city's goal is to protect health, paying only for the half it happens to own would undercut that goal at the exact moment the work is done.
Some council members will argue that public money should not pay for pipe on private property, and that homeowners who benefit should pay for their own side. This is a fair principle, and in a city where everyone could afford the work it might settle the matter. Linden Park is not that city. Many of its lead lines sit in lower-income neighborhoods, mirroring a national pattern, and by a widely used rule of thumb built from EPA benchmarks, combined water and sewer costs above roughly 4.5 percent of household income already count as a high burden. Asking those households to fund their own replacement would mean the families least able to pay are the ones left with lead, which turns a health program into an unequal one. Full public funding is what keeps the benefit from depending on a homeowner's bank account.
The city also faces a deadline it cannot meet halfway. Federal rules require replacing nearly all lead service lines within about ten years, and the action level is dropping from 15 to 10 parts per billion in 2027. Partial replacements that spike lead would work against both targets. Linden Park should fund full replacements, public side and private side together, because it is the only approach that actually removes the lead, protects the households most at risk, and meets the standard the city is bound to reach.
Rubric:
| Criterion | Emerging | Developing | Proficient | Advanced |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claim | No clear position stated | States a position but it shifts or is vague | States one clear, consistent position | States a clear position and previews the essay's reasoning |
| Evidence & reasoning | No evidence from background | Restates one fact without explaining its relevance | Uses at least one specific detail and explains how it supports the claim | Uses two or more specific details and explains how each supports the claim |
| Counterclaim | No counterclaim addressed | Mentions an opposing view without a rebuttal | States a counterclaim and offers a rebuttal | States a counterclaim, rebuts it specifically, and ties the rebuttal back to the claim |
| Organization & conventions | Ideas are disconnected; frequent errors interfere with meaning | Some organization; errors are noticeable but do not block meaning | Clear paragraph structure; few errors | Clear, purposeful structure with a strong conclusion; virtually error-free |
Differentiation
Support
Provide sentence starters for each Planning Organizer row ("Linden Park should / should not fund private-side replacement because ___") and let the counterclaim and rebuttal be written as a single combined sentence. Offer a shortened background with the three key facts highlighted.
Extension
Ask students to add a second counterclaim addressing whether the city could offer low-interest loans to homeowners rather than full public funding, and to argue why their original position still holds, using only the background material.
ELL supports
Pre-teach "service line," "partial replacement," and "action level" with a labeled diagram showing the public side and private side of a service line meeting at the property line. Allow the Planning Organizer to be completed in phrases before drafting.