Reading Standards for Informational Text > Proficient Reading and Comprehension (CCSS.RI.7.6) Practice Test

Planting season is coming, and our city must choose what to put along new streets. I maintain that we should prioritize native trees. Native oaks and maples support local insects and birds, tolerate our weather swings, and need less watering once established. While some residents argue for exotic ornamentals because they grow fast and look dramatic, I contend that short-term flash cannot outweigh long-term fit.

A landscape supplier claims imported pears and purple plums will give us instant shade. That may be partly true in the first few years. However, several of those species are brittle in storms and can spread beyond plantings. More important, native trees feed the food web. When caterpillars cannot eat the leaves, the birds that rely on them go hungry. The result is a quiet street that appears green but functions like a plastic plant.

Blockquote Parks Director Lopez: "We can't ignore budget limits."

I agree with Director Lopez that costs matter. Yet native trees often require fewer chemicals and less watering after year three, which reduces maintenance bills. Others present price tags at the nursery as the final word; I compare the whole lifespan. My purpose is to persuade the council to choose species that work with, not against, our ecosystem.

Critics claim that residents want bright colors. However, sugar maples blaze orange and red each fall, and serviceberries flower in spring then feed robins. Evidence contrasts show that natives deliver beauty plus function, whereas exotics often deliver beauty alone. If we want shady, resilient streets that hum with birdsong, the choice is clear: plant native.

Should School Lunches Go Local? This editorial claims schools should serve more locally grown produce because freshness reduces waste and teaches students where food comes from. Some district accountants argue that local items cost more per tray and strain tight budgets. While price matters, however, looking only at the sticker cost misses an important factor: what students actually eat.

In taste tests across three middle schools, students were offered the same recipes made with local and shipped produce. Staff recorded what students left on their trays. The results were modest but consistent: students ate more of the fresher versions. That difference matters because uneaten food is money in the trash.

Chart: Bars comparing "shipped apples" and "local apples" show higher cost per tray but lower waste percentage for local; similar pattern for carrots

Critics claim buying local is a trend that "sounds nice" but drains funds. I acknowledge there may be weeks when weather makes local supply thin. Yet even accountants admit waste has a price tag. When you factor in waste, the total cost narrows. In one pilot month, local apples cost a few cents more up front, but waste dropped enough to offset most of the gap.

A nutrition coach argues that fresher produce also has better texture, which encourages first bites. That small win can build new habits over time. While we should not overpromise, the likely benefits justify a careful shift. Start with one or two items each season, track both cost and waste, and adjust.

The goal is not to ignore budgets; it is to spend smarter. Compared to paying less for food students throw away, paying slightly more for food they actually eat is a better lesson and a better value.