Writing prompt Grade 6 English Language Arts
Should Cranbeck Test Its School Fountains Every Year?
A grade 6 argument writing prompt on whether a fictional district should test every school drinking fountain yearly, with background, an organizer, exemplar, and rubric.
Objectives
- Students will state a clear claim about how often a school district should test its drinking fountains.
- Students will support the claim with two reasons, each backed by evidence drawn from the background.
- Students will end the argument with a concluding statement that restates the position in new words.
Vocabulary
- Lead (Pb)
- A soft gray metal that is poisonous, especially for children. It can get into drinking water from old pipes and plumbing, so utilities work hard to control it.
Also: claim, evidence, reason, fixture, flushing
Teacher overview
A school district with a fixed budget has to decide how often to test the water students drink, and reasonable adults land in different places on that question. This prompt gives students a fictional district with real trade-offs: testing costs money that could replace old plumbing instead, and testing is also the only way anyone finds out whether the plumbing is a problem. Sixth graders write an argument with a claim, two reasons, and evidence, without the counterclaim work that begins in grade 7.
Prompt
Background: Cranbeck School District is a fictional district with three buildings. Two of them opened long ago, in 1954 and 1968, and the third opened in 2019. Older buildings can have lead in their plumbing, because lead was once used in pipes, in solder that joined pipes, and in the metal parts inside drinking fountains. Lead can dissolve into water that sits in those parts overnight.
Lead in drinking water is measured in parts per billion. The federal action level is 15 parts per billion, and it drops to 10 parts per billion in 2027 under a federal rule. When a school finds lead above the level it has set, it must act.
Three years ago, Cranbeck tested every fountain and kitchen faucet in all three buildings. In this scenario the district tested 61 fixtures. Four of them came back above the level the district uses, and all four were in the two older buildings. The district replaced those four fixtures and added filters. It has not tested since.
Two proposals are now in front of the school board.
The first proposal is to test every fixture every year and post the results on the district website. Supporters say families cannot know the water is safe unless someone checks, that plumbing keeps aging, and that four bad fixtures turned up the last time anyone looked. In our scenario, testing all 61 fixtures costs the district about 6,000 dollars each year, plus two days of a custodian's time.
The second proposal is to skip yearly testing and spend that money replacing the old fixtures in the 1954 and 1968 buildings, about eight fixtures a year until they are all gone. Supporters say the money fixes the actual cause instead of measuring it again, and that the district can flush every fountain for two minutes each morning, which pushes out water that sat in the pipes overnight. Flushing costs almost nothing.
The district cannot fund both proposals this year.
Writing task: The Cranbeck school board has asked students for their views. Write an argument essay that states a clear claim about which proposal the district should choose. Support your claim with at least two reasons, and back each reason with evidence from the background above. End with a concluding statement that restates your position in new words.
Planning Organizer
| Category | Your notes |
|---|---|
| Claim: which proposal should Cranbeck choose? | |
| Reason 1, and the evidence from the background that supports it | |
| Reason 2, and the evidence from the background that supports it | |
| Concluding statement in new words |
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:
Cranbeck School District should test every fixture every year and post the results, rather than spending the money on replacements alone. Replacing old fixtures is worth doing, yet testing is the only way anyone finds out whether the water students are drinking today is safe.
My first reason is that the last round of testing found real problems. The background says the district tested 61 fixtures three years ago and that four of them came back above the level the district uses. Nobody would have known about those four without the test, and all four were in the older buildings that are still in use. If four turned up the last time, the district cannot assume the rest have stayed fine for three years.
My second reason is that the replacement plan is slow, so testing has to cover the years in between. The background says the district would replace about eight fixtures a year until the old ones are gone. That means students will keep drinking from old fixtures for several more years. Yearly testing tells the district which of those remaining fixtures needs attention first, so it can replace the worst ones instead of working down a list in order.
Testing costs about 6,000 dollars a year, which is real money for a district that cannot fund both plans. Still, that cost buys information the district cannot get any other way, and the results are posted where families can read them. Cranbeck should test every fixture each year while it continues replacing the old ones as money allows, because a school should know what is in its water before it decides what to fix.
Rubric:
| Criterion | Emerging | Developing | Proficient | Advanced |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claim | No clear position on the two proposals | States a position that shifts or stays vague | States one clear position and holds it throughout | States a clear position and previews the reasons that will support it |
| Evidence and reasoning | Gives opinions with no evidence from the background | Names one detail without explaining what it shows | Uses at least two details as evidence and explains how each supports the claim | Uses two or more details, explains each, and shows why they outweigh the other proposal |
| Organization | Ideas appear in no clear order | Some order, but reasons and evidence run together | Clear paragraphs moving from claim to reasons to conclusion | Clear order with each reason building on the last and a strong concluding statement |
| Conventions | Frequent errors make the meaning hard to follow | Noticeable errors, though the meaning is clear | Few errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation | Nearly error free, with varied and correct sentences |
Differentiation
Support
Provide the organizer with the two proposals already summarized in one sentence each, and give sentence frames for every row, such as "Cranbeck should ___. One reason is ___, because the background says ___." Allow students to fill the organizer with phrases and to draft from the frames.
Extension
Ask students to write a fifth paragraph proposing a compromise the board could fund this year, such as testing only the fixtures in the two older buildings, and to defend the compromise with one piece of evidence from each proposal in the background.
ELL supports
Pre-teach "claim," "evidence," "fixture," "flushing," and "action level" with simple definitions and a photograph or drawing of a drinking fountain with its parts labeled. Provide the background with the key numbers highlighted, and let students state their claim aloud to a partner before writing.
Extensions
Have students turn their essay into a two-minute statement for the school board meeting, cutting it to four sentences while keeping the claim and the strongest piece of evidence, then explain in one sentence which evidence they cut and why it was the one they could afford to lose.