Overview
This is a self-contained, no-technology substitute packet in which students read two
original informational texts that take different angles on the same debatable, non-partisan
question — should cities replace grass lawns on public land with native, water-wise plants?
— and synthesize across them. Working alone with a pencil, students predict the two angles,
warm up on synthesis moves, read both texts, identify each text's central claim and
strongest evidence, map where the texts agree and disagree, judge each
source's credibility, and choose the single strongest piece of evidence. They finish with a
short synthesis response that takes a position and supports it with evidence from both
texts, using a Claim–Evidence–Reasoning frame. On a block period, they also address a
counterpoint. Every text-dependent question can be answered directly from the two printed
texts.
Accessible version of the student activity
The full student activity, including both complete texts, is reproduced below in plain,
screen-reader-friendly HTML. It reflows on phones and at 200% zoom. Write your answers on the
printed packet.
Start (5 minutes) — Predict & warm up
- Text A is titled "Let the Grass Go: The Case for Native Landscaping." Text B is titled "Not
So Fast: The Hidden Costs of Ripping Out the Lawn." From the titles alone, predict how these two
texts will differ. Which one likely favors the change, and which one likely raises doubts?
- Synthesis warm-up. Match each reader's move to its name: A. summarize (restate one source),
B. synthesize (combine two or more sources into a new position), C. evaluate credibility (judge
how trustworthy a source's evidence is). Which move is each of these?
- "Text A cites a city water utility's data, while Text B cites an unnamed blog, so I trust A's numbers more." (evaluate credibility)
- "Both texts agree water use matters, but they disagree about cost, so overall a phased approach makes sense." (synthesize)
- "Text B says removal is expensive up front." (summarize)
Build (14 minutes) — Read both texts
Words to know (for synthesizing across sources)
- claim
- the central position a text is trying to establish.
- evidence
- facts, data, examples, or expert statements a text uses to support its claim.
- synthesis
- combining ideas from two or more sources to build a new, supported position — not just summarizing each one.
- credibility
- how trustworthy a source is, based on its expertise, sourcing, and freedom from obvious bias.
- counterpoint
- a reasonable objection from the other side that a strong position must address.
Text A — "Let the Grass Go: The Case for Native Landscaping" — an original informational text
Paragraph 1. Across the Southwest, cities plant thousands of acres of thirsty turf grass
along medians, parks, and office lawns — green ribbons that few people ever walk on. A growing
number of planners argue that public land like this should be replanted with native, water-wise
species that evolved to survive local heat and drought. The core case is simple: on land the
public already pays to maintain, native landscaping saves scarce water, cuts long-term cost, and
supports local wildlife.
Paragraph 2. The water savings are documented, not guessed. According to the Riverbend
Municipal Water District's 2023 usage report, ornamental turf on city property consumed about 40%
of all water the city used for landscaping, while covering less than a fifth of its green space.
In the district's pilot medians, replacing turf with native plantings cut outdoor water use on
those strips by roughly half within two years. A utility that measures its own pipes has little
reason to inflate those numbers.
Paragraph 3. Cost follows water. Native plantings need less mowing, fertilizer, and
irrigation once established, so the ongoing maintenance bill drops even though the plants cost
more to put in. Dr. Lena Ortiz, a landscape ecologist who has studied municipal conversions for
over a decade, notes that "most cities recover their conversion costs in irrigation savings within
five to eight years." Her estimate is based on tracked spending across multiple real
conversions.
Paragraph 4. There is also an ecological gain that turf cannot match: native plants feed
native bees, butterflies, and birds that a mowed lawn starves. Supporters do not claim the change
is free or instant. They argue that on public land the city already tends, the long-run savings
outweigh the up-front cost — so cities should begin converting now.
Text B — "Not So Fast: The Hidden Costs of Ripping Out the Lawn" — an original informational text
Paragraph 1. No one disputes that the Southwest is running short on water, and native
plants clearly use less of it. But some city officials and residents warn that tearing out public
lawns too quickly can backfire. Their central point is not that native landscaping is bad — it is
that a rushed, one-size-fits-all mandate ignores real costs that fall unevenly on communities, and
that cities should move carefully rather than all at once.
Paragraph 2. Start with the up-front bill. A 2023 review by the Regional Parks Coalition
found that full turf removal and native replanting cost between $4 and $8 per square foot —
meaning a single mid-sized park could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars before a
single plant is watered. Cities with tight budgets, the review notes, often defer the work,
leaving half-dead lawns that look worse than either option.
Paragraph 3. Cost is not only about money. Maria Delgado, a parks director quoted in the
same review, points out that "established native gardens need skilled weeding and pruning our crews
aren't trained for, and in the first two years they can look bare and brown to residents who
expected a green park." Neighborhoods with the least political pull, she adds, tend to wait longest
for the follow-up care that makes conversions succeed — so the burden lands unevenly.
Paragraph 4. Text B does not call for keeping every lawn. It argues that cities should
convert gradually, budget for maintenance and training first, and let each neighborhood weigh in —
rather than mandate removal everywhere at once. Done well, the writers say, the change can work;
done in a hurry, it wastes money and public trust.
- Both texts accept one fact about the region. In one sentence, state the point that Text A [1]
and Text B [1] both agree on. Answer using details from the texts.
Apply (20 minutes) — Compare & evaluate the sources
- Identify each central claim: in one sentence each, state the central claim of Text A and of
Text B — the position each text is really trying to establish.
- Find each strongest evidence: for each text, copy the single strongest piece of evidence (a
fact, figure, or sourced statement) and name its paragraph.
- Agree / disagree: name one point the two texts agree on and one point they disagree on, citing
a paragraph from each text for both.
- Evaluate credibility: both texts use a named expert (Dr. Ortiz in Text A [3]; Maria Delgado in
Text B [3]). Compare the quality of the evidence each expert offers — expertise, whether the claim
is backed by tracked data, and relevance. Which text's expert evidence is more credible, and why?
(A defensible case can be made for either.)
- Which single piece of evidence is strongest across both texts? Choose one.
- A. Text A [4]: native plants feed native bees, butterflies, and birds that a mowed lawn starves.
- B. Text A [2]: the water district's 2023 report shows turf used about 40% of landscaping water on under a fifth of the green space, and native pilots cut that use by about half.
- C. Text B [4]: done in a hurry, the change wastes money and public trust.
- D. Text B [1]: native plants clearly use less water.
Then (8b) explain in one sentence why the evidence you chose is stronger than the others.
Explain (10–15 minutes) — Synthesis response
Question 9. Synthesize. The question is: should cities replace grass lawns on public land
with native, water-wise plants? Take a position and support it with evidence from BOTH texts — not
just the one you agree with. Do not summarize each text in turn; weave them together into a single
argument. Use the Claim–Evidence–Reasoning frame and name the text and paragraph for each piece you
cite.
Sentence stems you may use: "Cities should (convert / convert gradually / not convert) public
lawns because…"; "Text A shows ___ (Text A, ___), which supports my position because…"; "Even Text
B, which raises doubts, provides ___ (Text B, ___), and this actually strengthens my view
because…"; "Putting both sources together, the best answer is…"
Question 10 (block period only). Address a counterpoint. Identify one reasonable objection
to your position, drawn from whichever text argues against you. Name the text and paragraph, state
the counterpoint fairly, and explain why your position still holds (or how it can be adjusted to
account for the objection).
Close (5 minutes) — ACE
- Articulate: in one sentence, say your own position on the question in your own words.
- Connect: name one piece of evidence from each text (A and B) that you used, and point to the paragraph.
- Extend: name one question you would still want answered before a city decides — something neither text fully settles.
Continue (optional) — Early finisher
Write a "both/and" plan: sketch a middle-ground policy that honors evidence from both texts —
where a city should convert first, how it should pay for maintenance, and how neighborhoods get a
say. Cite at least one piece of evidence from Text A and one from Text B to justify a choice in your
plan.
Turn in
Hand in the whole packet with your name, class period, and date, with questions 1–9 and the ACE
box answered. Question 10 is for block periods; include the optional plan if you did it.