Did I EARN it? What's next for service to literacy? The Vessel, Unity Learning Communities, and 12 Kids

It seems like a lot happens around the dinner table, coffee tables, and gatherings of folks.

The summer after third grade, I sat at the formica and chrome table to watch my mom teach my brother David how to read. The harvest gold refrigerator hummed nearby. The same one under which I used to hide my HILCOA vitamins.

By fifth grade, I was assigned a first grader to help learn to read. At the antique dining room table we bought from an estate sale from down the street, Mom helped me create manipulatives, handwriting paper, and flash cards from a book called Recipe for Reading. I still have the book...tattered and faded. 

During college, I heard a sermon on Romans 1 after the Lord's Supper Table. Reprobate minds and stuff. I remember thinking about what this meant for reading and reasoning. As I pondered, all the ideas were the same ones we saw in Figure 19 many years later and all the things in the Comprehension Strand beginning in 2019. Comprehension became a lifetime obsession. 

Doneice Ray allowed me to teach a first grade class as a long term sub when I graduated in '91. Wow. What an experience. Did I really know how to teach a person how to read? Did I even know about the Guided Reading table? Nope. The next semester, I was honored to teach for her in fifth grade. I stayed long enough to have those former first graders in my fifth grade class. By that time, I was figuring out a few things. 

Thirty three years later sitting at the granite bartop next to stainless steel appliances that don't last 10 years, I'm still figuring things out and the search continues for supporting comprehension in all readers and thinkers. 

Since retirement...I've been struggling. There's this scene at the end of Saving Private Ryan that summarizes my thoughts. Have I been and done what I've been gifted and charged to be? Have I earned it? 

And then this summer... Tremaine Brown, Jacob Breeden, and I put our heads together on a project over a piece of brown butcher paper in the dining room at Shi Lee's Soul Food. You see, Tremaine tries to make The Heights a better place for his daughter and all those around him. He's fed people so their tables and tummies are full. He's made sure they have clothes. He makes sure they have school supplies. He makes sure they have fun at holidays. But how could he help them with literacy? And we all know that success in school is complicated. Lots of reasons kids and teachers struggle. With the Vessel and Unity Learning Communities, we want to tackle all the barriers to literacy. 

In January, we'll begin with 12 kids. 5th and 6th graders that struggle with reading and writing. A counselor will lead a group of four teachers - three kids per adult. And a "grandma" figure will be the mentor for all of them. The community at the Warford will partner with us. 

As students of AISD, they've had all the literacy interventions. Powerful initial instruction and remediation. But yet, there are those that still struggle and aren't qualified for services like special education or emerging bilingual support. And there are those that have struggles related to society and living life in this century. We'll dig into those issues together, solving and supporting the struggles together. 

Honestly, it's a giant experiment. The Amarillo Area Foundation has funded a portion of what we need to begin...and we are honored by their investment in our children's future. This month and the next, we are meeting with teachers and counselors to collaborate on a set of challenges, processes, and key vocabulary and theoretical underpinnings for our approach. In January, we'll begin meeting with kids...thought partners and co-creators with them to cause their own success and growth. 

Along the way, we'll all be writing and documenting the process and outcomes...telling the story of what happens around these new tables.  Won't you join us? Learn more, connect, and join us here:  https://www.beblessedbythevessel.org/home 

(AI) Machine Scoring isn't the Problem: We are ALL Writing for Bots

I've been meaning to write about this for a while. But by now, many people have seen the scores and papers on STAAR exams. Very few essays have needed rescoring. Everything is going to be ok for both content scoring and mechanics. The scoring machine isn't the problem. Instructional relevance is. 

Yes - there are many things we still don't know about the language models used and how machine scoring actually works. That IS a problem but one of transparency from the agency, not for instructional implications.  

So let's think about how we can USE scoring realities to help make the process meaningful to those we serve. Here are five points that explain why we directly teach why machine scoring is relevant to daily life:  

1. All social media works with algorithms. You want to be seen and heard? You use terms and structures that the algorithm values. The scoring machine is looking for key terms from the text and prompt. 

2. Things like Netflix and Youtube give you content based on your behaviors. What you do changes what you are presented. You want to understand how to do the same for readers - even machines? Learn how to respond to reader needs with your text. 

3. Search engines work on what is promoted and searched and clicked frequently. Want a high score? Write what the rubric promotes and seeks. Want a high score? Use what's in the source text that fits the prompt. Scoring works like a giant Family Feud. Other students have already responded to this prompt with the source text and answer. The scoring machine "surveyed" a BUNCH of student essays and knows what most writers said and how the people scored their responses. Comprehend the text and the prompt. Use the text stuff in the written response, summarize how it fits into the text, and say in original thoughts about the connection to the ideas in the prompt. 

4. Search engines use key words to scan content and then matches those terms relevant to user's search terms. Want to be "seen" by the engine? Use terms that match what people want to see. For example, I've been writing for Sirius Education Solutions about thinking and reasoning in a project called Page to Pixel. There's a guy who reads over my stuff, restructures WHERE certain terms appear in the text, adds terms throughout, and chooses special search terms to embed in the code. I have no idea how the code works, but I can see that the key stuff goes in the intro, key connections to the topic are spread in each portion of the headings and body text, and the key stuff also goes into the conclusion. Sound familiar? We trace meaning and coherence through word choice and how we connect our topics through organizational structure. So, want a high score? Use key terms from the prompt and text in the intro and conclusion. Thread those ideas through each body paragraph with text that shares the same ideas/synonyms/textual context. The guy who edits my work for this puts these terms in bold so I can see how they thread through the text. I can see the connection and repetition of concepts through the entire text. 

5. Companies use machine scoring to preview resumes, cover letters, and communications. Priorities are given to text that includes what the company is looking for in the match of personnel to the job description and company goals. Understanding machine scoring is intensely personal and relevant to all those who are seeking employment. 

Machine scoring isn't new. Digital evaluation going on in the background of almost everything we do and see. And teaching without including explicit lessons on the relevance of these scoring machines isn't in the TEKS, but we'd be remiss if we didn't address the reality directly. 

Sources...Bias...Decision Making: A Reader's International Moral Imperative

 Well. This might make some folks mad. But it's not political even though both sources come from opposite sides of the political arena. 

But it's absolutely the kind of thing we need to be paying attention to. 

The obvious: no one wants Monkey Pox. Ew. 

Here's Source One: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/08/21/w-h-o-declares-monkeypox-a-global-crisis-heres-whats-really-going-on/ 

Here's Source Two: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/health/mpox-who-emergency-africa.html

Questions to ask up front: 

1. What kinds of things does the site discuss? 
2. Who is behind or writing the article? 
3. What is their general stance on ideas? 
4. Who is sponsoring the content? How is the sponsor benefitting from the article or association with the author? 
   

And questions to ask about the format: 

1. Examine the title for loaded words and bias: Note the subtext after the colon in the title of the first article "Here's What's Really Going On." It hints at public deception at the worst and public ignorance at the least. 
2. Examine sponsorship and ad placements: The first article is sponsored by "The Wellness Company." The video story thumbnail begins with a picture of the kit the company sells. Toward the end of the article, there is a large colored ad about the kit. The last paragraphs of the article discuss how to "thwart the plan" (to make you sick?) and that you are a fool if "hope" is your "strategy." Links are then given to provide a better strategy by buying the wellness kid. And at the end, the article concludes with a linked call to action to purchase the kit. Calls to action = persuasion. Commercials. 
3. Examine citations and references: There are no citations or references to where we can find the data reported in the article. Note, there are hyperlinks that take you to a paper. And the steps for evaluating the source are critical here as well. Note that citations and references must also be validated for reliability, validity, and credibility. Note that the executive summary clipped into the article is on page 8 of the brief. But also note the end of pages 2 and 5. And note the language in the beginning of the article...it's an argumentative text - which changes how you read it. It's not purely informational. 
4. Examine how other titles are referenced and when they change. The way the text is presented, the following text seems that it came from the NYT. But the article has only copied the font and headline with the introduction to the article and followed with their own text. An honest representation would have made this a different kind of graphic feature like a picture with a caption.  The way it appears is misleading and an example of poor scholarship and attribution. 
   
5. Examine links and referenced texts. Seek the original source. Note that the NTI paper references a "fictional scenario" that "unfolded in a series of short news videos that participants reacted to," (page 10). Note who the participants were on page nine. The article is about a roundtable discussions on a fictional scenario of a monkeypox outbreak and the suggestions for dealing with such an issue. Their findings aren't necessarily bad...but the way the data is used doesn't exactly match the original purpose. 
6. Note the stuff at the bottom about how comments are used. Facebook. Algorithms driving folks to the site = more hype and more clicks for the advertiser. (I'm being biased here because I'm irritated.) 

When we look at the NYT article...it's information that has quite a different stance and information than the first source. The experts mentioned are different and have different purposes. Note that links go directly to the CDC and the WHO, but also links to other NYT articles and Reuters. 

All of the same steps for evaluating the source and genre need to be followed for the NYT article. But dang, guys...there's a lot to notice here about genre features, bias, author's purpose, rhetoric, logical fallacies...it's not just English Language Arts. Critical reading is a moral and international imperative.

Teaching from Zeros (A): When the thesis doesn't match the evidence

Kernels: Organizational Structure

Use colors to code the organizational structure and components. 

Mr. Mifflin inspired Miss McGill to go aginst the expectstions of womanhood. The first thing that got her was him convincing her to buy the van, he said things like "might comfortably inside" and "cozy looking bunk". The van made McGill consider takinga trip and so she did. 

Introduction: Answer: Mr. Mifflin inspired Miss McGill to go aginst the expectstions of womanhood. 

Body: Example: The first thing that go her was him convincing her to buy the van, (runon sentence)

Body: Text evidence: he said things like "mighty comfortably inside" and "cody looking bunk". (second half of runon sentence)

Body: Explanation: The van made McGill consider taking a trip and so she did. (runon sentence)

Conclusion: Missing

Evaluating Accuracy: Thesis: 

Is the answer correct? 

"going aginst the expectstions of womanhood" is a correct interpretation. 

Evaluating Accuracy: Evidence: 

"comfortably inside" and "cozy looking bunk." are both pieces of evidence that are significant to Miss McGill's revelations. But they are not about the same topic the writer has chosen for the thesis. The evidence is about comfort and not about going against what women are supposed to do. The generalization about the text evidence (comfort) must match the thesis (going against) - which this one doesn't. 

Evaluating Accuracy: Explanation: 

Does the explanation match the thesis, the generalization using the  evidence, the people, and the focus of the topics in the prompt? You have to evaluate the sentence for each component.

The writer says "the van" made McGill think differently. The prompt tells us that we are supposed to think about the interactions with the seller, Mr. Mifflin. The van made Mc Gill consider taking a trip and so she did. We are supposed to be talking about the impact of talking to the seller, not the impact of the qualities of the van. 

The writer says the significance of the revelation is to take a trip but is not related to how this goes against the expectations of women as stated in the thesis: The van made Mc Gill consider taking a trip and so she did. 

There is nothing in the sentence that talks about how comfort mentioned in the text evidence is related to the thesis of going against expectations. 

There is nothing in the sentence that mentions interactions with Mifflin. 

Improving the content during revision: 

Take the original text and add breaks for organizational structure and where pieces are missing or don't match. 

Mr. Mifflin inspired Miss McGill to go aginst the expectstions of womanhood. 

The first thing that got her was him convincing her to buy the van, he said things like "might comfortably inside" and "cozy looking bunk". 

The van made McGill consider taking a trip and so she did. 

Delete the stuff that is wrong. 

Mr. Mifflin inspired Miss McGill to go aginst the expectstions of womanhood. 

The first thing that got her was him convincing her to buy the van, he said things like "might comfortably inside" and "cozy looking bunk". 

The van made McGill consider taking a trip and so she did. 

Add and Replace: Make the match

The text doesn't match the thesis. But what does the text reveal about the situation that we could add? "Might comfortably" and "cozy looking bunk" are statements the seller made to make the van look attractive and comfortable. He's being a salesman. We can first add that generalization to the introduction and thesis. Then we can write a topic sentence. We can add Mr. Mifflin's name and synonyms about comfort. 

Mr. Mifflin inspired Miss McGill to think of how comfortable the van would be and to go aginst the expectstions of womanhood. 

The first thing that Mr. Mifflin said was him convincing her to buy the van because it was comforatble. He said things like "might comfortably inside" and "cozy looking bunk". 

Mr Mifflin's positive comments made McGill consider taking a relaxing trip and so she did. 

Add and Replace: Add the missing

We have a reason now in the thesis that can have its own paragraph. 

Add a new topic sentence. Since we talked about this idea second, it will be the second paragraph. It's really a strong idea, so it's also good to end with a bang. The writer can flesh out the ideas for the first and second paragraphs with more text evidence and conclude with a statement that summarizes both points. 

Mr. Mifflin inspired Miss McGill to think of how comfortable the van would be and to go aginst the expectstions of womanhood. 

The first thing that Mr. Mifflin said was him convincing her to buy the van because it was comfortable. He said things like "might comfortably inside" and "cozy looking bunk". He was pointing out the positive elements of living in a small space like a van to make her believe it would be a pleasant experience. The writer shares additional details about the space that add to it's appeal as well. The author points out the "extra room for the bookshelves" that Miss McGill states later she will enjoy reading. As a matter of fact, the author points out that "Every possible inch of space seemed to be made useful in some way, for a shelf or a hook or a hanging cupboard or something. Above the stove was a neat little row of pots and dishes and cooking usefuls." This would appeal to a woman who was used to doing all the things for herself and others. 

Mr Mifflin also encouraged Miss McGill to go against the expectations of womanhood. He says, "If you’re so afraid of your brother taking a fancy to her, why don’t you buy her yourself and go off on a lark? Make him stay home and mind the farm! . . . Tell you what I’ll do. I’ll start you on the road myself, come with you the first day and show you how it’s worked. You could have the time of your life in this thing, and give yourself a fine vacation. It would give your brother a good surprise, too. Why not?" She then realizes that she'd "been living on that farm for nearly fifteen years—yes, sir, ever since [she] was twenty-five—and hardly ever been away except for that trip to Boston once a year to go shopping with cousin Edie." This means that buying van gives her an opportunity to do what she'd never had the chance to do because she was a woman. She writes her brother a letter explaining that the "revolt of womanhood" was coming to Andrew's door because she wouldn't be there to bake his bread or do his laundry. 

Mr Mifflin's positive comments made McGill consider taking a relaxing trip and so she did. She realized that taking this trip would be her own form of revolt against womanhood and "better than going to college." 

Source: 

https://tea.texas.gov/student-assessment/testing/staar/2024-staar-english-i-scoring-guide.pdf

And thanks to Gretchen Bernabei for Kernels. 

Annotated DOC: 

https://kami.app/VCx-fdw-QkC-aX4

Getting real about ELAR TEKS: Commentary and Instructional Implications for Assessment

Some TEKS insights on a project...

I'm working on TEKS commentary for a lesson in a series on online assessment success: Page to Pixel.  I'm working on how we teach kids to have a more mature approach to consuming cold texts. In the lesson, we begin with a scan of the text and then apply knowledge of genre characteristics to set purposes for reading and annotation.

As I was working through some of these ideas, it reminded me of some things ELAR folks need to fight against and for about how our content works. 

1. After a while, people stop looking at the foundational language skills TEKS. Mistake. There's still a lot of work to do with reading words and spelling them with derivational constancy (meaning and origin.) Efforts with vocabulary and fluency never end. 

2. People are told to put objectives on the board. Like which one? Are you kidding me? At a certain point, single TEK teaching just isn't what ELAR is about. We USE ALL of that stuff to make meaning. If you are only teaching about informational text and a thesis, you've moved into identification and not analysis. It's like eating flour when you really want tres leches. 

3. People talk all the time about teaching titles. We aren't teaching BOOKS. We are teaching people to be critical consumers of text. It doesn't matter what text you use as long as you address the thinking and HOW behind making meaning of it.

4. Background knowledge matters. We do all kinds of gymnastics around preparing kids to read texts. But that's not what thinkers have to do ever or anywhere. People read cold. No prep. No background info. No powerpoint about history and context. We have to teach folks what do do when they know nothing about the text or topic. 

5. Reading is inquiry and research. You can't read a dad gum thing without applying some form of critical inquiry. At least we shouldn't. 

Here's the commentary behind the insights above: 

TEKS Commentary 

 Developing and Sustaining Foundational Language Skills: Listening, speaking, reading, writing, and thinking--fluency. Students use genre characteristics to prepare for fluent reading before they begin. During reading, the genre characteristics help readers consume key ideas fluently. After reading, fluency is needed to re-enter the text and reconsider evidence for analysis and response. 

 Developing and Sustaining Foundational Language Skills: Listening, speaking, reading, writing, and thinking--independent reading. 

These charts and organizers are not worksheets to be filled out. We really don’t care what goes in them either. The point is that students know how to use the genre characteristics to guide comprehension before, during, and after reading. We want them to use these ideas and concepts about text fluently and independently. 

 Comprehension Skills: listening, speaking, reading, writing, and thinking. The students use metacognitive skills to both develop and deepen comprehension of increasingly complex text. A-I.

 All comprehension skills apply to the concepts in the activities described. The culmination of these skills in practice and at the moment of reading acts is a synthesis of reading proficiency we want as outcomes. 

 Response Skills: listening, speaking, reading, writing, and thinking using multiple texts. The student responds to an increasingly challenging variety of sources that are read, heard, or viewed. 

While the activities and processes described here apply to all of the TEKS in this strand, E is most strongly correlated to the lessons: interact with sources in meaningful ways, such as notetaking, annotating, freewriting, or illustrating. 

 Multiple Genres: listening, speaking, reading, writing, and thinking using multiple texts--genres. The students recognizes and analyzes genre specific characteristics, structures, and purposes within and across increasingly complex traditional, contemporary, classical and diverse texts. 

Again, all the standards apply to this lesson. The reader uses the content of these TEKS to make decisions about the analysis approach needed for the tasks. And, as multiple genres are connected to this process, the writer selects the organizational structure of the genre to select the text evidence and compose the response required by the genre listed in the prompts. It’s critical that in teaching these standards, we are sharing how the genre characteristics shape our comprehension and compositional response. 

 An unpopular opinion here. STAAR will not address the cannon or full texts and novels. It’s not that we shouldn’t read these things. It’s just not possible to recreate that kind of reading in assessment. The language is too dense and concepts too involved to even use an excerpt. To Kill a Mockingbird is valid reading for ELAR. So are many of the other classic texts “taught” in our classes. Teaching core texts, however, will not prepare students for thinking and discernment tasks on standardized assessments that use cold reads of text. Teaching MUST address how we make meaning of cold reads using the genre characteristics to comprehend and respond. 

 Author’s Purpose and Craft: listening, speaking, reading, writing, and thinking using multiple texts. The student uses critical inquiry to analyze the author's choices and how they influence and communicate meaning within a variety of texts. The student analyzes and applies author’s craft purposefully in their own products and performances. A-F. 

All the student expectations apply here as well - because the student is pulling from information about this TEK content to make decisions about the text to be read and the use of one to be composed. 

 Composition - the process and genres. 

ALL are used in this lesson. Learners are fluent in the writing process and characteristics of the genre they intend to compose. Writers select meaningful components of the genre to embed useful components of the source text as support within the genre characteristics required by the prompt. 

 Inquiry and Research: listening, speaking, reading, writing, and thinking using multiple texts. The student engages in both short term and sustained recursive inquiry processes for a variety of purposes. 

Again - all of the standards apply to this lesson. Most folks don’t really think about research…delegating it to end of the year events when the library is closed and no one has technology. But really, the approach to texts on assessment is recursive inquiry. Readers are adding to their body of knowledge by interrogating the source text. And they respond by answering questions as they recursively move between the text and the question options. Or they respond by mining the text for evidence that can support a claim or thesis. Folks - we are teaching an inquiry research process with our approach and response to every text. 

Can we?

What if we upended our scope and sequence and theory of action about what we are actually teaching? Not TKM. Not Lord of the Flies. What if we taught our learners that what we really do in English class is figure out and know stuff so we can do things. 

Using the Truism Braid with Nonfiction ECR Responses

Using the Truism Braid with Nonfiction ECR Responses

Dr. Shona Rose; July 16, 2024

Truism Braids with Gretchen and Kayla

Considerations for Composing

Truism Braid with Nonfiction: 3-5 2022 STAAR Sample Scoring Guide Argumentative Response

Truism Braid: 2023 STAAR 3rd Grade Argumentative Response

Truism Braid: 2024 7th Grade Argumentative Response (Not available as of July 16, 2024)

Truism Braid: 2023 STAAR Grade 4 Informational Response

Truism Braids with Gretchen and Kayla

Truism Braid Lesson from Text Structures from Picture Books

I went to Kernel Camp last week. Gretchen and Kayla explained how to apply the truism braid in the video linked above. They are funny, interesting, and SO on point about how and why we respond to texts. As readers and writers, we use text to reveal truths about life and to make decisions that make our lives better. 

The process itself is insightful…and delightfully simple. Even for the littles. 

But how would we use this process with nonfiction? With information and argumentative response? I’ve played around with the concept to create what truism braids might look like in the ECR world.

Considerations for Composing

So…I love the QA12345 method and the Truism Braid. Here’s some things I noticed while transferring the method to our released prompts: 

• We really are wanting to see if folks understand what they read - that’s the truism for comprehension. 

• And we want to see if they understand how writers craft meaningful text - that’s the truism for Author’s Craft, Composition. 

• The structure gives us a scaffold for organizational structure (informational/argumentative) to hold the content (text evidence)  and communication of ideas (thesis/claim). 

• Text evidence isn’t just in one place in the org structure. This is why RACE is limiting. Text evidence is in the commentary and explanation as well. Paraphrase/summary/synthesis, references, context and connections to the ideas. Extensions. The thinking and reasoning. 

• By listing the truths/truisms, we are answering questions like: Who cares? Why does that matter? Essentially, these are the inferences, generalizations…the topic sentences and ahas BEHIND what we have read. The truism is the whole human point of reading. 

• Teaching this is a matter of layering. Comprehension first. Text evidence next. Then organizational structure, using the counter as the first body paragraph. Then adding in the transitions from Weinsten’s placemat. Then the editing. 

• And then there’s the whole matter of teaching what this looks like digitally. 

Truism Braid with Nonfiction: 3-5 2022 STAAR Sample Scoring Guide Argumentative Response

Q/Prompt: Explain whether you think the steamboat or clipper ship changes life in the US more. 

A/Introduction: Working Thesis: When considering change to life in the US, the steamboat had more impact than the clipper ship. 

Text Evidence: (context and details) A ship named the Clermont was a new invention. It could go “against the flow of the river” and made the trip “in a day and a half” that “normally took a day and a half.”

Commentary: This invention allowed faster travel in “shallow water” in areas that usually couldn’t hold a ship. This was because the boats had “flat bottoms.” Now, the ships could bring supplies “quicker and more cheaply than other boats.”

Truism: People love a bargain and love getting it fast more than anything. Cheaper goods made life better for the people in the towns.

Text Evidence: (reference of multiple cause and effect relationships) The steamships traveled the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers allowed travel “deeper into the interior of the country. As a result, trade along the rivers flourished.”

Commentary: Since people could get supplies into remote areas, they began to move and settle across the country.

Truism: People enjoy comfort. Having goods made it easier to move and live out West.

Conclusion: The steamships provided bargains and comfort. People could have cheaper goods more quickly. This access led to settling the interior and western parts of the nation. 

Using Counterargument: 

Q:Explain whether you think the steamboat or clipper ship changed life in the US more. 

A/Introduction: While both ships “would bring changes to the United States,” the steamship changed life in the United States more than the Clipper Ships. 

COUNTER: 

Text Evidence: (paraphrase of main ideas)The section on clipper ships focuses on the design of the ships that allowed competition in the tea races and access to the west coast to participate in The Gold Rush.

Commentary: While both types of ships caused changes, the focus and impact of clipper ships impacted a few businessmen in the tea trade and those “seeking their fortunes” in San Francisco.

Truism: The rich are few, especially those prospecting for gold.

Text Evidence: In contrast, the text references about steamships tells us that the impact “drew more people west, extending where the US population lived.”

Commentary: The steamships opened up trade, causing towns to grow in more places in the US. Many people worked and lived in new places in the United States.

Truism: Trade leads to population growth and the development of towns.

Conclusion: The clipper ships impacted fewer folks, but the steamship opened up areas where  many people could work and live beyond the Mississippi River.

Truism Braid: 2023 STAAR 3rd Grade Argumentative Response

Q/Prompt: Explain your opinion about why people should or should not be rewarded for recycling. 

Answer: Working Thesis: People should be rewarded for recycling. 

Text Evidence: People in states that use rewards “tend to recycle more than those in other states.”

Commentary: The data is clear: when people get rewards, they recycle more. More rewards causes more recycling.

Truism: Rewards are a positive reason to act.

Text Evidence: The text explains that people “should recycle because it is the right thing to do. “But the truth is, that does not always happen.”

Commentary: Sure, people should recycle. But they don’t. A reward like exchanging for food or a lower trash bill could entice people to do the right thing.

Truism: People don’t always do what is right.

Conclusion: Rewards for recycling shows promise in increasing participation in recycling because people don’t always do what is right and data shows that cities who use rewards have more folks participating in recycling. 

Truism Braid: 2024 7th Grade Argumentative Response (Not available as of July 16, 2024)

Q/Prompt: Should students be involved in deciding how money is spent in schools or communities through participatory budgeting? Why or why not? 

Truism Braid: 2023 STAAR Grade 4 Informational Response

Q/Prompt: Explain why the Edwards Aquifer is important in the article. 

Answer: Working Thesis: The Edwards Aquifer is important. 

Text Evidence: The text explains that the aquifer is a “source of drinking water for over two million people.”

Commentary: People need safe water to drink. And two million people is a lot of people.

Truism: Clean water is critical for human consumption.

Text Evidence: The text also explains that the aquifer “provides water for agriculture.”

Commentary: The water in the aquifer is also used to water plants and crops.

Truism: Society and culture thrive on quality sources of water to grow food.

Conclusion: The Edwards Aquifer is important because it provides water for drinking and for growing food. 

Proctoring Exams with the Won'ts

Soul Crushing Work Continues 

Reading Load

STAAR blueprints tell us that the reading load is 

English I: 6000 words for the base passages and 1950 for the field test

English II: same

Retests don't have field test questions as far as I know. And the word count does not include the questions. 

Hasbrook and Tindall tell us that oral reading fluency norms by 6th grade ought to be at 204 words per minute to be in the 90th percentile. This was for word accuracy and did not include comprehension. 

So...if a kid were reading aloud the 6000 words at 204 words correct per minute, they'd need 29.4117647 minutes to read all the passages. I haven't counted the number of words in the questions in a while, but it's a lot. 

MOST of the time needed for the exam is COGNITIVE rereading and reasoning. Even if they could read it all. in 29 minutes, that's not enough time for the questions or the actual work of the exam. 

Are we teaching that it takes more than 30 minutes? And why don't they have something to pace the exam like the driver's education courses or the food handler's license? "You haven't viewed the whole module. Please revisit the course material." "You haven't spent enough time on this content for mastery. Please resume the course." "You finished too quickly, please revisit the module." "Your test patterns suggest guessing, please resume the test to avoid invalidating your results." 

So why do kids who won't turn in their tests so early? Why will they probably fail again? 

Test administrators can't make them take longer. They can't make them use strategies. In one school, kids started the retest at 8:30 and only 2 of those who showed up - even the late ones - were still testing at 10:30. Most of them turned in the exam before an hour was up. And several of those turned in the exam before 30 minutes. 

They didn't read the essays. They didn't look for text evidence. They didn't do anything they had been taught. They didn't write much on the ECR/SCR, if anything. No one picked up or asked for a dictionary or paper. And they couldn't do a dad gum thing about it except watch the same train wreck again.

Y'all. This ISN'T an instructional issue. Teachers have zero control over this stuff. And you can argue with me and point to making relationships and positive classroom environments. Teachers ARE doing that. It's not enough. You can talk to me about poverty, and I'll agree with you. But anything else is a mell of a hess.