Question

School garden supporters say that the gardens teach to the whole child. One of the strongest benefits is to social and emotional learning. Research shows that schools with a social and emotional learning program can increase test scores by 11% and positive classroom behavior by 9%.

School garden opponents say that the gardens take away from academic time. As other countries’ test scores are on the rise, America’s test scores continue to lag behind. The only true way to achieve financial success is to be well educated. Opponents say that no one wants gardens banned; they just don’t think school is the place for this type of learning.

Write a brief summary of the claims on both sides of the argument. Are these strong or weak claims? Make sure to use textual evidence to support your writing. Your answers should be between 4-6 sentences long.

Answer 1

Answer:

All though the two arguments are correct, I lean towards the 2nd argument. School gardens do not improve student's scores as they would if the student was well educated. The student will not learn from a garden. The surroundings will be better but can not help them. As it states in the second claim "America’s test scores continue to lag behind". Even if we have school gardens. But, the first argument is right in a way if the student is already well educated and knows the curriculum there surrounding may improve their learning by wanting to learn because they are more comfortable. These claims are strong because they do have facts and claims from others. They lean towards one side and are informative.

Hope this helps. : )