Read the article once as a class. Optionally, for students’ first read, have them follow along as they listen to the audio read-aloud, located in the Resources tab in Teacher View and at the top of the story page in Student View. Then have students silently reread the article to themselves.
Have students fill in the “Yes/No” chart in their magazines based on the details they identified in the text. Sample responses:
YES:
National parks were created to be spaces where all people could connect with nature, but charging fees makes it hard for some people to visit them. Making parks free would allow more people to enjoy and experience them, especially those who can’t afford entrance fees.
Even if entrance fees are not high, they add to the other, often high expenses that can come along with visiting national parks, including lodging and food costs.
National parks are funded by taxes, so Americans are already paying for them.
Removing fees could motivate more people to visit parks, and connecting with nature firsthand in the parks helps inspire people to care about these places and want to protect them.
NO:
National parks need funds for maintenance. (Answer provided.)
Visitation to national parks has increased recently, and more visitors leads to more wear and tear on parks, making entrance fees more essential than ever.
Many national parks and national park sites do not charge entrance fees; it is only some that do.
There are already ways to visit parks for free, such as free days and special passes for kids under 16.
Discuss: Which supporting details do you think are the strongest? The weakest? Do you think the writer shows bias—that is, a preference for one side of the debate or the other? Explain and support your answer with text evidence.