Introduction:

Throughout this course, I have learned many elements to improve upon my teaching
practices, and create a more culturally relevant classroom. Inspired by Labaree’s “Public Goods,
Private Goods: The American Struggle Over Educational Goals” and the prioritizing of
democratic principles in the classroom to engage students in our American democracy in the
future, in combination with Hess’s “Controversies about Controversial Issues in Democratic
Education”, I created a lesson plan to utilize an engaging lesson that promotes the sharing of
differing perspectives and influences a student’s political efficacy post-secondary school. This
lesson will incorporate AP U.S. Government and Politics disciplinary practices as well,
preparing them for the skills required to succeed on the exam in May. My lesson plan is broken
down over a 60 minute class period.

Standards (per AP U.S. Government and Politics Disciplinary Practices/Reasoning

Processes):

● Practice 2.C, SCOTUS Application: Compare the reasoning, decisions, and opinions of a
required Supreme Court case to a non-required Supreme Court case.
● Reasoning Process 4: Comparison (identify similarities and/or differences, explain the
relevance, implications, and/or significance of similarities and differences)

Essential Question: To what extent does the First Amendment of the Constitution protect
against undue government infringement on essential liberties in schools?

Big Idea: Applications of the First Amendment

Procedure:
1. 10 Minutes: In pairs, students will conduct a turn-and-talk for 3 minutes (link is
here​). After the turn-and-talk, partner groups will voluntarily share their discussion
with the class.
a. This turn-and-talk will serve as an ice breaker, creating a dialogue on how do they
as individuals feel about school rules, and how the school allows for them to
express themselves.
i. This will allow for students to have a personal connection with/ “stake” in
the content as the lesson undergoes.
 b. Through having a mini partner activity, students who tend to not want to share
their opinions with a large group will be able to have a comfortable conversation
with another individual. 1

2. 20 Minutes: Show CSPAN youtube video2 (link is ​here​) on ​Morse v Frederick.3

a. During this video, have students individually complete a SCOTUS summary and
assessment sheet which they do for every case discussed in class (link is ​here​).
i. This will be an individual observation, allowing for students to take notes
and form their own analysis on the SCOTUS Four-Square.4
3. 20 Minutes: Group reading on AP Required Case, ​Tinker v Des Moines Community
School District (​ link is ​here​)
a. During this group reading, students are to each individually complete another
SCOTUS Four-Square.
i. By having groups of four, students are able to create a discussion and
collaborate together, sharing their own personal ideas and listening to
other perspectives. This will also have students help each other through
the reading, creating an overall environment of compassion and
togetherness within my classroom. I desire for my students, AP students
especially, to have a mentality where they are “all in this together”.
ii. With each case having information organized in the same way, it will be
easier to find similarities and differences, as well as employ these
breakdowns later as review for AP exam.

1
​This applies to Labaree’s “citizenship training” (1997) on pg. 44, where he argues for us to have students have
citizenship training, ensuring they use their own minds and engage on issues. Beginning with a direct connection to
their lives, students can easily begin to draw conclusions and connections to the material and their experiences.
2
​When taking diversity into account, we must also remember that there is a diversity in learning. Through
employing relevant videos, students who are stronger listeners than readers get an equal chance in understanding. I
have many ESL students who would greatly benefit from this practice; through the power of framing in Sleeter and
Stillman’s work, “Standardizing Knowledge in a Multicultural Society” (2005), using videos, shortened texts, and
discussion help all students equally achieve in my classroom.
3
​Due to ​Morse v Frederick i​ nvolving many notable, current issues (marijuana usage, religion, and the right to the
first amendment in public schools), this will spark a very controversial discussion. According to Hess (2004),
controversial issues “enhance democratic thinking” and also expose students to different perspectives they may not
receive at home. Therefore, through exposure to more diverse thinking, my students will be able to discuss complex
policy issues with more tolerant thinking.
4
​This is the SCOTUS breakdown they use for every case analyzed in class, whether it is a required case or not. The
AP Curriculum requires 15 cases to be memorized; however, any case can be featured in the free response. To gain a
better perspective, ​here​ is an example FRQ SCOTUS prompt where ​Engel v Vitale i​ s the required case, compared to
Greece v Galloway. ​Students on the exam are to know the required case; the compared case is always a surprise,
however a blurb of info is provided to form a compare and contrast.
 4. 10 Minutes: “Open-Floor Dialogue” 5
a. Students will pass/throw around my pink football, which is the universal symbol
of being able to talk (often, raising hands easily turns into shouting out loud. I use
this football as a fun way to control the room and allow for every student to be
heard).
b. I will guide conversation through several planned questions, all aimed at inspiring
individual opinion as well as comparing and contrasting, per AP requirement:
i. What was the constitutional question for both cases?
ii. What were the similarities in the background of each case?
iii. What were the differences in the background of each case?
iv. How do you think made each ruling different?
v. Do you agree with the ruling in ​Tinker v Des Moines?
vi. Do you agree with the ruling in ​Morse v Frederick?
vii. How do these interpretations of the First Amendment in school apply to
you every day?6

At end of lesson, students will turn in both SCOTUS breakdowns for an informal comprehension
check by myself, to make sure students are not only completing the requirements of my class
period, but measure their engagement and understanding of both cases and the First Amendment.

5
​By having open-floor dialogue, I allow for students to individually share their findings and opinions comfortably in
my class. According to Hess, an “open classroom climate for discussion is a significant predictor of … participation
in political discussion and political engagement” (2004). I want my students to take the experiences of my AP
Government class and extend them far beyond high school; it is critical we engage students in our government,
instilling political efficacy and accountability in the future of our nation.
6
​This question is essential, because it circles back to using controversial issues in democratic environments.
Connection and Conclusion:

Throughout the semester, I have been inspired time and again how to best serve my
students within my classroom, and beyond. Through employing democratic ideals with
controversial issues, I create a culture of diversity through sharing; sharing of opinions,
experiences, and new findings. This lesson allows for students to understand the First
Amendment, and make meaningful connections to their personal experiences as a student.
Through partner discussions, individual observations, and group analysis, I am also allowing
different personalities to shine; extroverted students can take advantage of open-floor dialogue,
and my quieter students stand out in turn-and-talk and the collected SCOTUS Four-Square
breakdowns for an informal check of understanding. In addition to this, by presenting
information through both a video and a reading, I am allowing for differentiated learning, not
just differentiated perspectives, to thrive. This lesson encapsulates the power of teaching through
controversy and democracy, guiding learning a seemingly difficult Supreme Court case through
the lens of personal experience and diverse perspectives.
 References

Hess, Diana E. (2004). Controversies about Controversial Issues in Democratic Education​.

American Political Science Association, ​April 2004​, 2​ 57-261. Retrieved April 23, 2019, from

https://d2l.msu.edu/d2l/le/content/637347/viewContent/7353477/View?ou=637347

Labaree, D. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational Goals.

American Educational Research Journal,​ ​34(​ 1), 39-81. Retrieved January 16, 2019, from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1163342

Sleeter, C. and Stillman, J. (2005). Standardizing Knowledge in a Multicultural Society.

Curriculum Inquiry, 35 ​(1), 27-46. Retrieved April 20, 2019, from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3698526