The Recess Announcement
An assistant principal announces a plan to cut recess in half — and delivers two claims with real evidence and three with none, plus a data table that doesn't quite say what she says it says. Students delineate the spoken argument (backed vs. bare, the listening edition), check the announcement against the attendance data, then hold a rules-based discussion on the proposal using talk moves — with their own claims held to the standard the announcement set.
Common Core standards covered
- SL.6.1Engage effectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners on grade 6 topics, texts, and issues, building on others' ideas and expressing their own clearly.
- SL.6.2Interpret information presented in diverse media and formats (e.g., visually, quantitatively, orally) and explain how it contributes to a topic, text, or issue under study.
- SL.6.3Delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and evidence from claims that are not.
© Copyright 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.
Teacher-facing overview
Big idea: Engage effectively in collaborative discussions with rules, preparation, and questions that elaborate; interpret information presented in diverse media and formats and explain how it contributes to the topic; delineate a speaker's argument, distinguishing claims supported by reasons and evidence from claims that are not.
Student target: “I can delineate a speaker's argument — sorting backed claims from bare ones as I listen — check spoken claims against data, and hold up my end of a rules-based discussion using talk moves.”
Success criteria: I can sort every claim in the announcement: backed (with its evidence) or bare. · I can check a spoken claim against the data table and say whether the data supports it. · I can use at least two talk moves, by name, in discussion. · I can review the key ideas the group established.
Essential question
The announcement mixes two claims with real evidence and three with none — and asks YOU to argue better than that. Can you catch the difference at listening speed, and can your own discussion meet the standard it set?
Learning target: I can delineate a speaker's argument — sorting backed claims from bare ones as I listen — check spoken claims against data, and hold up my end of a rules-based discussion using talk moves.
Success criteria
- I can sort every claim in the announcement: backed (with its evidence) or bare.
- I can check a spoken claim against the data table and say whether the data supports it.
- I can use at least two talk moves, by name, in discussion.
- I can review the key ideas the group established.
Why this matters
SL.6.3 asks students to delineate a SPOKEN argument — the same backed-vs-bare judgment they learned on written arguments, now at listening speed, where there's no re-reading and confidence does the work evidence should. The announcement is built for that practice: a candid speaker who labels her own facts and beliefs, so the sort is learnable — then a data table that complicates one of her backed claims, because SL.6.2's real skill is noticing when the evidence says slightly less than the speaker does. And SL.6.1 gets its due as the room's own standard: the discussion isn't decoration after the analysis — it's the analysis, continued out loud, with every student's claims subject to the same sort. Recess is the perfect stakes: everyone has a position, so the discipline of backing it is felt, not theoretical.
Students should already be able to
- Backed vs. bare claims from the written-argument lesson (Backed or Bare?) — this is its listening sibling.
- Basic evidence-citing habits.
- No discussion-protocol experience assumed; the talk moves are taught today.
Where this shows up outside the classroom
Assessment plan
Formative — for feedback during the lesson
- Warm-up — reaction vs. argument felt.
- Claim-sort — five claims, ear-speed then verified.
- Discussion tracking — moves tallied by name.
Summative — the graded evidence: Exit ticket (sort + table finding + move) plus the comment form; the follow-up announcement and the two-month test design rank as extension evidence.
The passage: “The Recess Announcement — transcript”
An original announcement transcript written for this lesson. Read it aloud (or have a student deliver it from the front) — the standard is about listening.
¶1 Transcript of Tuesday's morning announcement, delivered by Assistant Principal Ortega:
¶2 "Good morning, Falcons. I want to talk to you about a change we're considering for next year: shortening lunch recess from thirty minutes to fifteen, and adding that time to fourth period. I know nobody claps for an announcement like that, so let me give you our thinking."
🔒 The full text — 6 numbered paragraphs, plus the photocopy-ready handout — ships in the kit. See plans →
The task students work on
The announcement is delivered aloud (teacher or a confident student at the front — listening first, transcript second). Students sort all five claims, then check the 340-lates claim against the attendance table — where the data is real but the interpretation has a rival (fourth period follows lunch AND is the period right after the longest passing situation; the table shows other after-break periods also spike). Norms are set, positions prepared with evidence, and the discussion runs 15 minutes on talk moves, closing with the key-ideas review. Comment-form paragraphs (the announcement's own invitation) are the written product.
The claim-sort — every claim in the announcement: backed or bare?
| Claim (¶) | Backed or bare? | The evidence (if any) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Students were late to fourth period 340 times (¶3) | |||
| Teachers find fourth period too short — 41 of 52 (¶3) | |||
| A shorter recess will mean calmer, more focused students (¶4) | |||
| 'Everyone knows' free time makes it harder to settle down (¶4) | |||
| Most students spend half of recess standing around (¶4) |
Anticipated student strategies
Label-following honored then upgraded to verification. The data-check discovery staged before discussion so the strongest argument enters the room. Standard-inheriting is the discussion itself.
- Label-following. The student notices Ortega labels her own paragraphs ('the facts' / 'our reasoning') and sorts accordingly.
Reward it, then complicate it: speakers' labels are claims too. The sort must verify — ¶3's claims pass because evidence is named, not because she said 'facts.'
🔒 2 more anticipated strategies with select-and-sequence guidance are in the full lesson. See plans →
Lesson script
Collect a few ('that's so unfair,' 'they can't do that') and hold them kindly: reactions are real, and they're not arguments yet. Tease the hour: an announcement that cuts recess in half — and that dares the school to argue back properly. By the end, their reactions will have evidence attached or be retired.
Listen for: A reason someone else can check — the difference between expressing and persuading. That's the whole hour in one question.
Deliver the announcement from the front (or a confident student volunteer). First pass by ear; collect impressions. Then transcripts out; build the claim-sort as a class: ¶3's two backed claims (340 with a named source; 41-of-52 with a denominator) against ¶4's three bare ones ('we believe,' 'everyone knows,' the office window). Two teaching beats: (1) her labels helped — but labels are claims too; the sort verifies. (2) Bare isn't evil: she's candid about which is which ('I'll be honest about the rest of our reasoning') — most bare claims in the world are unexamined beliefs, not lies. Name the crowd-claim: 'everyone knows' is how the goldfish myth traveled.
- Listening first — the sort at ear-speed.
- Five claims: 2 backed, 3 bare, each cited.
- Bare ≠ lying; it means unchecked.
Listen for: It's observation without method — no count, part of the yard, whoever happens to be visible. 'I've seen it' is where evidence starts, not where it ends. To back it: count students, whole yard, several days.
🔒 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
- “She's the assistant principal, so her claims carry more weight.” Authority earns attention, not belief — her backed claims (¶3) stand because of the logs and the survey, and her bare ones (¶4) sit unbacked despite her title. The sort is role-blind; that's the point of it.
- “The 340 checks out, so her argument checks out.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
- “Winning the discussion means the other side gives in.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
- “Our side's claims don't need evidence — we're the ones defending recess.” — 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 sort. Sort ¶3's two claims and ¶4's three: backed or bare, with the evidence named where it exists.
🔒 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
- One backed and one bare claim from the announcement, 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/hear the announcement; sort every claim: backed or bare. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 2: Check the spoken claims against the data table — does the evidence say what she says? Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 3: Set discussion norms; prepare positions with evidence. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 4: Hold the discussion on talk moves; close with the key-ideas review. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
Differentiation and inclusion
Support: Talk-move sentence stems support all speakers; reluctant talkers get the recorder/reviewer role with a required summary turn. Extenders chase the data-check subtlety — the table's fourth-period lateness pattern has a rival explanation.
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 completed claim-sort with citations, the data-check finding, and observed discussion participation using at least two talk moves.
Mastery: The student completes the task accurately and explains the strategy with limited prompting.