The Disagreement
Two dueling op-eds on banning phones — one pro-pouch, one against — written to be autopsied. Students delineate both arguments claim by claim, catch the planted flaws (an irrelevant-evidence paragraph, a four-things-changed-at-once causation slip), and map exactly where the texts disagree: on facts, and on interpretation.
Common Core standards covered
- RI.8.8Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is sound and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; recognize when irrelevant evidence is introduced.
- RI.8.9Analyze a case in which two or more texts provide conflicting information on the same topic and identify where the texts disagree on matters of fact or interpretation.
© Copyright 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.
Teacher-facing overview
Big idea: Delineate and evaluate the argument and claims in a text, assessing whether reasoning is sound and evidence is relevant and sufficient; analyze two texts that provide conflicting information and identify where they disagree on fact versus interpretation.
Student target: “I can delineate an argument into claim, reasons, and evidence; evaluate whether evidence is relevant and sufficient and reasoning sound; and map where two conflicting texts disagree on fact versus interpretation.”
Success criteria: I can skeleton both arguments — claim, reasons, evidence — with citations. · I can catch irrelevant evidence and name why it doesn't bear on the claim. · I can catch unsound reasoning (four things changed at once) and state the fix. · I can classify each disagreement as factual or interpretive — and know why the difference matters.
Essential question
Two writers read the same studies and reach opposite conclusions. Where exactly does their disagreement live — in the facts, or in what the facts are for? And how do you grade an argument you agree with?
Learning target: I can delineate an argument into claim, reasons, and evidence; evaluate whether evidence is relevant and sufficient and reasoning sound; and map where two conflicting texts disagree on fact versus interpretation.
Success criteria
- I can skeleton both arguments — claim, reasons, evidence — with citations.
- I can catch irrelevant evidence and name why it doesn't bear on the claim.
- I can catch unsound reasoning (four things changed at once) and state the fix.
- I can classify each disagreement as factual or interpretive — and know why the difference matters.
Why this matters
RI.8.8 and RI.8.9 are the standards democracy runs on: grade an argument's machinery independently of your team, and locate exactly where two texts part ways. These op-eds are built as a controlled autopsy — Text A carries a planted irrelevance (the cracked screens) and a planted causation slip (the honor roll), Text B carries the corrections plus one quiet weakness of its own, and the two disagree at BOTH altitudes: on what a study found, and on what a school is for. Students who can split fact-disputes from interpretation-disputes stop having internet arguments and start having useful ones.
Students should already be able to
- Claim, reason, evidence vocabulary.
- The concession move (from In Defense of Boredom, ideally).
- Citing across two texts (A ¶4 / B ¶3).
Where this shows up outside the classroom
Assessment plan
Formative — for feedback during the lesson
- Warm-up — the two courts distinguished before reading.
- Skeleton check — A ¶4 flagged as unfilable before the audit names it.
- Autopsy circulation — categories kept separate; both texts cut.
Summative — the graded evidence: Exit ticket (flaw + filing + agreement) plus the completed map; the rebuttal repair and study design rank as extension evidence.
The passage: “Lock the Phones Up — the case for the pouch”
An original op-ed written for this lesson (≈450 words) — with two flaws planted for the autopsy.
¶1 Walk past any classroom during fifth period and count the bowed heads. Teachers at this school report confiscating more phones every year, and every teacher knows the deeper number: the glances, the half-attention, the lessons taught to the tops of skulls. It is time for Jefferson to adopt what hundreds of schools have already adopted — a phone-free school day, with devices locked in pouches from first bell to last.
¶2 The evidence is not subtle. A widely cited study of schools in England found that after strict phone bans, student test scores improved measurably — and the gains were largest for the lowest-achieving students, the very kids a school owes the most. Researchers in Norway found similar effects, including fewer visits to counselors for bullying-related issues among girls. When the phones leave, the data says, learning and well-being come back.
🔒 The full text — 6 numbered paragraphs, plus the photocopy-ready handout — ships in the kit. See plans →
The passage: “The Ban That Teaches Nothing — the case against”
The reply — written to disagree on facts AND on interpretation, and to concede what honesty requires.
🔒 This companion text — 6 numbered paragraphs — ships in the kit. See plans →
The task students work on
The class skeletons both op-eds, then runs the three-question audit on every piece of evidence — RELEVANT to the claim? SUFFICIENT for its size? Reasoning SOUND? Text A hides one irrelevance and one causation slip; Text B corrects them but carries a soft spot of its own. Then the disagreement map: every point of conflict classified as FACT (checkable) or INTERPRETATION (arguable) — because the two kinds get settled in different courts. Cite by text and ¶ throughout.
The disagreement map — where do the texts part ways, and what KIND of dispute is each?
| The collision | Text A says (¶) | Text B says (¶) | Fact or interpretation — and why |
|---|---|---|---|
| What the England study found | |||
| Why honor roll rose last year | |||
| Whether phones harm focus | |||
| What a school day is FOR |
Anticipated student strategies
Skeletons first because evaluation without delineation is vibes. The three-question audit second — it finds the planted flaws by category. Collision hunting last, turning two evaluated texts into one classified map.
- Skeleton-first reading. The student extracts claim → reasons → evidence from each text before evaluating anything.
The intended discipline: you can't audit what you haven't delineated. Share first.
🔒 2 more anticipated strategies with select-and-sequence guidance are in the full lesson. See plans →
Lesson script
Draw out the split: some disputes are checkable (did the ref miss the call? — watch the replay) and some aren't (was the loss the ref's FAULT? — that's weighing, not watching). Board the two courts: facts get settled by evidence; interpretations get settled by argument. Today's two texts disagree in both courts at once, and our job is to file each dispute in the right one.
Listen for: Yes — about what the facts mean, what matters more, what something is FOR. That's the disagreement that survives the replay.
Both op-eds are in the workbook and the handout. Board the skeletons side by side. A: claim (adopt pouches) — reasons: distraction is real (¶1, ¶3), research shows gains (¶2), our own grades prove it (¶5), plus the cost paragraph (¶4) which students should struggle to file — that struggle is the plant working. B: claim (structured practice, not bans) — reasons: the research is smaller than advertised (¶2), the local proof is confounded (¶3), bans defer rather than teach (¶5). Note B ¶4 files under NEITHER skeleton cleanly — it's a concession, and it gets its own color.
- Claim → reasons → evidence, cited, both texts.
- If a paragraph won't file under any reason — flag it, don't force it.
Listen for: The struggle is the answer: it doesn't support the learning claim. Park it — the audit will name what it is.
🔒 The remaining 4 steps — fully scripted with teacher-says lines, discourse questions, look-fors, and interventions — are in the full lesson. See plans →
Misconceptions and how to respond
- “The side with the flaw loses.” A carries two planted flaws and still owns the strongest single paragraph in either text (¶3's riptide). Arguments are graded per component; one bad paragraph discredits itself, not the claim. Verdicts by flaw-count are just team-switching with extra steps.
- “True evidence is good evidence.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
- “The texts disagree about everything — they're on opposite sides.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
- “Interpretation disputes are just opinions, so they can't be argued well or badly.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
🔒 Every misconception ships with a tested classroom response. See plans →
Scaffolded practice
The workbook follows gradual release rather than a page of blank prompts: 2 fully worked, 2 partially completed, then 4 independent.
- I doLiteral first — the skeletons. State each text's claim in one sentence, and list each text's reasons with ¶ citations.
🔒 7 more prompts across all three release tiers are in the full lesson. See plans →
Worked solutions and scaffolds for every prompt are in the downloadable kit, included with membership. See plans and pricing.
Exit ticket
- Name one planted flaw: text, ¶, category (irrelevant / insufficient / unsound), and the fix.
🔒 2 more exit-ticket questions are in the full lesson. See plans →
Worked answers, the completed answer tables, and the scoring rubric are in the downloadable kit, included with membership. See plans and pricing.
Printable handouts in the kit
All handouts are in Printable_Handouts.pdf inside the kit download.
Materials and classroom resources
Student experience
Students enter through a low-floor prompt, build or sketch a model, test a strategy, revise their thinking, collaborate, and present a final solution. The task remains accessible while allowing for sophisticated reasoning.
Detailed facilitation notes
- Step 1: Read both op-eds; skeleton each one — claim, reasons, evidence. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 2: Audit Text A: one paragraph of evidence is off-topic, and one inference jumps. Find both. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 3: Audit Text B with equal suspicion — nobody gets a free pass. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 4: Map the disagreement: which rows are about FACTS, which about INTERPRETATION? Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
Differentiation and inclusion
Support: The three audit questions (relevant? sufficient? sound?) give every reader the same scalpel; extend with the agreement-paragraph analysis (B ¶4) and the write-the-rebuttal challenge.
Language support: “I started by…”, “My model shows…”, and “I know my answer is reasonable because…”.
Extension: Require a second solution, alter a condition, or have students write a challenge for another group.
Accessibility: Manipulatives, enlarged visuals, oral response choices, partner reading, and reduced-copy student pages.
Assessment plan
Formative checks: Strategy choice, accuracy, representation, collaboration, and explanation.
End evidence: One flaw identified with its ¶ and its name (irrelevant / insufficient / unsound), and one disagreement row correctly classified fact-vs-interpretation.
Mastery: The student completes the task accurately and explains the strategy with limited prompting.