Scoring a Seventh-Grade Argument Essay With Dialect Features
Three seventh-grade teachers score a district argument essay. One student, a speaker of African American English, writes a 420-word essay with a clear claim, two reasons, and relevant evidence. The essay includes 'they was' twice, 'She don't think' once, no apostrophe in 'students rights,' and two sentence fragments used for emphasis ('Not this time.' 'Because the evidence is clear.'). The essay otherwise has a counterclaim and transitions. One teacher wants to score 1/4 on conventions and require a full rewrite. Another wants 4/4 because the writing is 'authentic.' The rubric's conventions dimension says 'demonstrates command of standard English conventions; errors do not interfere with meaning.' The teachers have 40 minutes to norm, and the team must agree on a score, feedback, and next instruction.
1. Recommend a score on the conventions dimension and justify it using the rubric and the distinction between dialect and error.
Read the worked answer
The score should be 2 or 3, not 1 or 4. The rubric asks about command of standard English conventions and whether errors interfere with meaning. 'They was' and 'She don't think' are consistent with the student's dialect; they are not random carelessness, and in a formal argument they are register deviations rather than failures of logic. The missing apostrophe in 'students rights' is a conventional error. The two fragments are intentional and rhetorically effective, so they should not be counted as errors. Because meaning is clear and the essay is organized, 1 is too harsh; because several formal-register deviations remain, 4 overstates command. A score of 2 or 3 is defensible if the team applies the rubric consistently to all essays. The key is to separate three questions: Is the idea clear? Is the register appropriate for the task? Is the punctuation conventional? A single holistic score should not collapse them.
2. Describe a 15-minute minilesson plan that respects dialect while teaching standard conventions.
Read the worked answer
Begin by naming the issue without deficit language: 'We all shift language depending on audience; today we practice the formal academic register this essay calls for.' Use contrastive analysis with two or three sentences from the student's own essay, with permission, or anonymous examples: 'they was' versus 'they were'; 'she don't' versus 'she doesn't.' Ask students to identify the pattern, not just correct it, so they see it as a rule-governed variety. Then focus on one or two high-leverage features, such as subject-verb agreement with plural subjects and possessive apostrophes. Students edit a short paragraph and explain each change. Close with a code-switching frame: 'For this audience, I will use...' The lesson should not ask students to erase their home language; it should make the choices visible. Fifteen minutes is enough for contrast, guided edit, and one transfer sentence; save the full essay revision for workshop time.
3. How should the team respond to the colleague who wants a full rewrite?
Read the worked answer
The team should agree that a full rewrite is not the appropriate response and explain why in terms of learning and equity. A rewrite erases the student's argument and voice, turns a conventions issue into a compliance task, and does not teach the student to make register choices. It also risks communicating that the student's home language is wrong, which can reduce engagement. Instead, ask for a targeted revision: three or four sentences revised for formal register, plus the possessive apostrophe. Keep the original claim and evidence intact so the student sees that the ideas are valued. The rubric still holds high expectations; targeted revision is not lowering the bar. If the colleague worries about fairness, the team can norm on a few anchor papers and agree that intentional fragments and dialect features are treated the same way across students. The goal is a student who can code-switch deliberately, not one who is ashamed of how they speak.