The Petition
Room 214 wants a guinea pig — and their petition shows every move Grade 6 argument writing requires: a clear claim, three organized reasons, credible support you can check (the shelter's letter, the built calendar, the $88.50), linking words that connect claims to reasons, formal style, and a conclusion that collects everything. Students map the moves, then draft their own petition for something real.
Common Core standards covered
- W.6.1Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.
- W.6.1.aIntroduce claim(s) and organize the reasons and evidence clearly.
- W.6.1.bSupport claim(s) with clear reasons and relevant evidence, using credible sources and demonstrating an understanding of the topic or text.
- W.6.1.cUse words, phrases, and clauses to clarify the relationships among claim(s) and reasons.
- W.6.1.dEstablish and maintain a formal style.
- W.6.1.eProvide a concluding statement or section that follows from the argument presented.
- W.6.4Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.
© Copyright 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.
Teacher-facing overview
Big idea: Write arguments that introduce claims and organize reasons clearly; support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence from credible sources; use words and phrases to clarify the relationships among claims and reasons; establish a formal style; and provide a concluding statement that follows from the argument — with development appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.
Student target: “I can write an argument that introduces a specific claim, organizes reasons clearly, supports them with evidence a reader could check, links ideas with clarifying words, holds a formal style, and concludes by collecting the argument into a grantable ask.”
Success criteria: I can map all five moves in the mentor with citations. · I can make my claim specific — a thing, a number, a timeframe. · I can attach checkable support to a reason — something the decider can verify. · I can write a conclusion that collects my reasons instead of adding new ones.
Essential question
Other classes asked for a pet and got denied. Room 214's petition is different — not because they want it more, but because of five moves: a specific claim, reasons the principal can CHECK, links that connect everything, a formal voice with a heartbeat, and an ending with an exit door. What makes an ask grantable?
Learning target: I can write an argument that introduces a specific claim, organizes reasons clearly, supports them with evidence a reader could check, links ideas with clarifying words, holds a formal style, and concludes by collecting the argument into a grantable ask.
Success criteria
- I can map all five moves in the mentor with citations.
- I can make my claim specific — a thing, a number, a timeframe.
- I can attach checkable support to a reason — something the decider can verify.
- I can write a conclusion that collects my reasons instead of adding new ones.
Why this matters
W.6.1's sub-parts read like a rubric, and rubric-taught arguments come out as five labeled boxes with begging inside. This mentor shows the parts as working moves: a claim made specific enough to grant, promises upgraded into attachments (the built calendar — the single most stealable move in student argument writing), linking words that tell the reader how ideas connect, an objection hunted and answered before the decider raises it, and a conclusion that collects instead of adding. W.6.4 runs underneath: every choice is tuned to a real audience who has said no before. Students then write petitions for real asks — because arguments drafted to be actually sent get revised like they matter.
Students should already be able to
- Claim and reason vocabulary.
- The backed-vs-bare distinction (from Backed or Bare, ideally — this mentor is all backing).
- A real askable issue (brainstormed).
Where this shows up outside the classroom
Assessment plan
Formative — for feedback during the lesson
- Warm-up — the after-the-yes question surfaced.
- Needle-poll — moves matched to felt effects.
- Draft circulation — upgrades and exit doors checked live.
Summative — the graded evidence: Exit ticket (moves + claim + the documents principle) plus the full petition; the principal's reply and failed twin rank as extension evidence.
The passage: “The Petition — mentor text”
An original mentor petition written for this lesson (≈480 words). Every W.6.1 sub-skill is performed in it, findably.
¶1 TO: Principal Reyes. FROM: Room 214. RE: A proposal for a classroom pet. We, the twenty-six students of Room 214, are writing to propose that our class be permitted to adopt and care for a small classroom pet — specifically, a guinea pig. We know this request has been made before by other classes, and denied. This letter explains why our proposal is different, and we ask you to read it to the end before deciding.
¶2 Our first reason is that caring for a class pet teaches responsibility in a way worksheets cannot. A feeding schedule is a real deadline; a living animal is a real consequence. We have already drafted a rotating care calendar — attached — that assigns feeding, cleaning, and weekend care to every student, with two backups per week. Because the calendar is already built, the responsibility argument is not a promise about what we would do. It is a plan you can read.
🔒 The full text — 5 numbered paragraphs, plus the photocopy-ready handout — ships in the kit. See plans →
The task students work on
The class reads the petition as the decider, maps the five moves with citations, and names the two power moves — the built-and-attached calendar (promises upgraded to documents) and the exit-door trial (risk moved off the decider's desk). Then teams or individuals draft their own petition: a real ask, a named audience, a specific claim, at least one piece of checkable support, linking words doing visible work, and a collecting conclusion. Peer review runs in role: the reader decides AS the audience.
The five-move map — mentor first, your draft second.
| Move (W.6.1.a–e) | Where the mentor does it (¶) | How it works there | Where YOUR draft does it |
|---|---|---|---|
| A — claim introduced, reasons organized | |||
| B — clear reasons, credible checkable support | |||
| C — linking words clarifying relationships | |||
| D — formal style, held | |||
| E — conclusion that follows |
Anticipated student strategies
Decider reading first — effects before names. Promise-upgrading second: it's the draft-improving move. Exit-door engineering last — it's the ask-improving move, and the one that transfers to life.
- Decider reading. The student reads as Principal Reyes, marking where their yes/no needle moves.
The intended entry — persuasion is measured in the reader. The needle-marks map onto the moves almost perfectly.
🔒 2 more anticipated strategies with select-and-sequence guidance are in the full lesson. See plans →
Lesson script
Work the ranking: begging transfers the work to the decider; everyone-else isn't a reason; the PLAN answers the adult's real question — 'what happens after I say yes?' Name the lesson: today's mentor is twenty-six kids who understood that question, and their petition is five moves you can steal for anything you'll ever ask for.
Listen for: Being stuck with the mess — the mistake they can't undo. Hold that; the mentor's best move exists exactly for it.
The petition is in the workbook and handout. Poll the needle-moves — they cluster at 'a plan you can read' (¶2), 'zero dollars' (¶3), the teacher-checked survey and the take-back guarantee (¶4), and the collecting conclusion. Build the moves map, matching needle-moves to sub-parts. Then name the two power moves explicitly: PROMISES → DOCUMENTS (the calendar exists before the ask) and THE EXIT DOOR (four weeks, reversible, shelter guarantee — the principal risks almost nothing).
- Needle-moves are the moves working — map them.
- Two power moves: attach the plan; open the exit door.
Listen for: The principal remembers them anyway — naming the history buys the right to say 'this one is different,' and the letter then has to PROVE different, which it does with documents. Honesty as strategy, at Grade 6.
Listen for: 'In other words' converts three details into the point the decider cares about — linking words don't just connect; they translate. That's W.6.1.c earning its keep.
🔒 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
- “More reasons make a stronger argument.” Three checkable reasons beat seven promises — the mentor uses exactly three, each carrying something the principal can verify. Arguments are weighed, not counted; a bare reason added is weight subtracted.
- “Formal style means sounding like a robot.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
- “The conclusion is where you make your best new point.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
- “If they say no, the letter failed.” — 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 moves map. Locate all five W.6.1 moves in the mentor 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
- Three mentor moves from memory, with ¶s.
🔒 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 the petition as Principal Reyes — would you say yes? Mark where your answer moved. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 2: Map the five moves: claim, organized reasons, credible support, linking words, the conclusion. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 3: Study the power moves: the built calendar, the attached letter, the trial with an exit door. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 4: Draft your own petition — real ask, real audience, all five moves. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
Differentiation and inclusion
Support: The checklist scaffolds structure without scripting content; extend with the objection-hunting move (¶4) and the audience-flip.
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: The mentor's five moves mapped with citations, plus a drafted petition opening: claim + first reason with checkable support.
Mastery: The student completes the task accurately and explains the strategy with limited prompting.