Education 432: Teaching of Social Studies in the Secondary School
Course: Eleventh/Twelfth Grade Social Studies Elective (“Law and You”)
This five-week unit examines the processes of selecting juries and applying the concept of reasonable doubt when giving a verdict in selected criminal cases. Students build a deep understanding of the concept of “innocent until proven guilty,” study how the demographic composition of the jury influences its verdicts, and analyze the concepts of a “jury of your peers,” jury nullification, peremptory challenges, reasons for requiring unanimous verdicts in criminal cases, death with dignity, and the death penalty. Students will also discuss the balance between personal and political freedoms in the context of school newspaper censorship. Students will explore these issues through many class discussions, weekly current event write-ups, and – to bring authenticity to the school censorship issue - a culminating production of a mock school newspaper. The newspaper will incorporate editorials, charts, graphs, photographs, and news features that relate to the unit and the cases, and will require the mastery of several technology tools. The OJ Simpson, 12 Angry Men, and Hazelwood trials will be featured cases.
To be responsible citizens, students must know how the legal system works, and their role within that system. In particular it is important for them to understand both the benefits and the liabilities of a system of “innocent until proven guilty,” and to understand how the jury system reflects core democratic values and how it operates in the adult world they will soon enter. For example, does the need for a unanimous verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt mitigate against potential jury bias? Is it better to let some guilty citizens go free, or to incarcerate some innocent citizens? To focus their attention on the jury system, students learn about the death penalty from the perspective of both a criminal trial and a death with dignity case (depending on the verdict, a death “sentence” could result in both instances). To be informed citizens (and this upper class elective class includes many students at or near the voting age, which qualifies them to sit on a jury), students must consider proposed reforms to our legal system (e.g., the death penalty, the jury selection process) and whether they will support them. Moreover, if students disagree with the current system – for example, the need for a unanimous verdict in criminal cases – then responsible citizenship suggests they must deliberate over better alternatives. Students define the concept of reasonable doubt and hopefully walk away with an important lifelong understanding that reasonable doubt applies to all human relationships, not just those forged in a courtroom. This unit includes one inquiry-based lesson, two value-based Socratic seminar deliberations, one simulation, a trivia challenge game, continual analysis of current events, analysis of one primary source document, discussion of pirates, witches, arson, and murder, and several small and large group discussion opportunities in which students gain experience debating public controversies while learning oral discourse skills. Among other startling revelations, students learn that the United States is the only country in the world that executes minors. Students gain additional experience in taking positions on issues through the development of a mock school newspaper where they must adopt the role of Editor-in-Chief, movie critic, book reviewer, and photographer. Substantial use of technology is required to participate in this unit, providing students with much needed skills in gathering, processing, and displaying information necessary to participate in a democratic society.
To teach this content effectively, the teacher must have a good general background in civics, and be willing to devote significant time to studying legal cases and current events. A good background in the use of technology tools is also a real plus, since modeling the desired use of Excel, Word, Publisher, web site research, email exchanges, and digital photographs is a real help to the students. Since a significant amount of class learning derives from discussion and debate, the teacher must be versed in a wide range of issues addressed in these cases in order to lead effective discussion. The focus on “innocent until proven guilty” and the jury system is rooted in the Constitution. The daily discussions are based on significant court cases – OJ Simpson, Hazelwood – as well as the many current events the students summarize and discuss in class. The landmark OJ Simpson case has been documented on videos and in many different books, which the teacher must become generally familiar with. The teacher should plan to read at least one of the OJ Simpson books (by Dershowitz, Clark, Scheck, Darden, etc.) and study the class video thoroughly in order to lead discussions about evidence and reasonable doubt in this case. Background information on race relations (featured in the OJ case), DNA evidence, and the rules of discovery would also be helpful. Analysis of the high profile OJ case provides a fascinating insight into the workings of the legal process in this country, and keeps the students struggling to refine their view of reasonable doubt and the fairness of the jury process in America. Most of the students come away from the OJ case believing that the system is far from perfect, but probably the best that can be put forward. The Hazelwood case is similarly well documented, although much more streamlined than the OJ case. And the Department of Justice provides many graphs on its web site regarding the death penalty that both inform and shock students. The majority of the resource materials for this course are found on web sites, so the teacher should be comfortable and conversant in accessing web-based information, both for background knowledge and in-class discussion.
In addition to historical content background, the teacher needs to keep up to date on current events. Students enjoy the current event discussions, and, courtesy of our sensationalist media, are able to find many connections with class topics. The teacher needs to be generally aware of cases in the news while this unit is being taught. In addition, the teacher needs to demonstrate the skills necessary to discuss and debate a public issue, since this is a significant part of this unit.
Students become very engaged in this unit. Some students will have had exposure to police in terms of traffic tickets and underage drinking. In one recent class, for example, a senior described his experience in attempting to convince a judge to overturn a traffic violation (he lost); another student sought advice about protesting a similar ticket (she won). The students are generally aware of the OJ Simpson case, although not the specific details. If the teacher has a mixed race class, debate about the OJ case, which split Americans along race lines, can provide learning beyond school in ways that a teacher can only imagine. Beyond OJ, students have watched enough television crime shows and whodunit murder/mysteries to be generally aware of the legal issues involved in jury trials. Parents of several students will have served on juries, and more than one student is likely to have been exposed to a death with dignity case in their immediate family. Although students are generally aware of the legal issues, they do not understand the mechanics of the legal process, nor have they thought about the implications of jury nullification, reasonable doubt, and unanimous verdicts when they are applied to committing somebody to death. Some students may have difficulty sorting through their values to take a position on these issues, while other students may have no difficulty taking a position, but great difficulty communicating in a focused manner by citing evidence and beliefs and other information in support of their views. The continual challenge for the teacher will be to help students develop and communicate these viewpoints in a manner befitting a responsible citizen.
innocent
until proven guilty – the governing philosophy of the United States legal
system, embedded in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, and
reflected in the core democratic principles
reasonable
doubt – the hurdle beyond which the prosecution must jump in order to convince
a jury of a defendant’s guilt, or, as endorsed by U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Ginsburg, “…proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt.”
jury
of peers – the legal concept that citizens are entitled to a jury of their
legal or social equals, theoretically members of the enfranchised community,
and the related debate whether any such entity ever existed, or can actually
exist in the present day
death
penalty – execution of individuals, by one of several methods (in the United
States, lethal injection, lethal gas, hanging, firing squad, electrocution) for
certain capital crimes, including murder and treason, and the ongoing public
debate over whether this violates the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of
the 8th Amendment
unanimous
verdict – the requirement that criminal cases, which could send an individual
to their death, be decided by twelve votes in the affirmative or twelve notes
in the negative, rather than by “majority rule”
mixed
rights of minors – the concept that minors (under 18 years of age) have less
than full citizenship rights (e.g., unable to vote, limits on personal
liberties when working on a school newspaper), yet can be prosecuted as an
adult in some states, and face the death penalty
Objective(s)
Students will:
(this corresponds with objective 5 above)
Unit
Assessment
Using Microsoft Publisher, create a mock school newspaper that incorporates headline news, editorials, charts, graphs, photos, book review, movie review, and a web site list (5).
Abstract
This task is designed to assess students’ ability to use traditional and electronic means to organize, interpret, and present information in graphs and charts, and to use a variety of electronic technologies to assist in accessing and managing the information. Students take on the role of newspaper editor. They incorporate various component parts into the mock school newspaper, such as headline news, editorials, and graphs that reflect deep understanding on the topics. Students compose a mock student newspaper using MS Publisher that connects these various topics with the use of layout design, headlines, captions for graphics, and cross-references within the news stories.
Prompt
Students are introduced to this assignment in detail approximately half-way through the unit. They are given a list of components that they will be required to incorporate into a mock newspaper, several of which they have already completed in earlier lessons. Students receive samples of their actual school newspaper to review, and participate in an interactive technology lab tutorial, where they learn to integrate the various components of the mock newspaper and contemplate overall communications design ideas.
Directions
“We have completed the first-half of this unit. We have discussed several issues about evidence, juries, and reasonable doubt, and you have completed several assignments, including graphs and charts and a book review related to these topics. You are now assigned the task of designing a mock school newspaper that will incorporate the assignments you have completed, as well as the additional writing assignments you will be doing in the second-half of the unit. We will begin this assignment with a tutorial that shows you how to use templates in MS Publisher to develop a newspaper layout, and integrate graphs, charts and digital photographs. You have one week to complete a draft layout. You can use “dummy” data as placeholders for assignments we have not yet completed, but you should integrate your actual work for assignments we have already completed. As with your other assignments, the draft layout should be submitted via email. Your final product will be receive a “Blue Ribbon” rating by your classmates; “Best-in-Class” winners will receive up to 5 extra credit points. Your mock newspaper will also be reviewed by staff members of the high school paper to ensure it meets school content requirements – you will lose up to 5 points on your final unit score if your mock paper requires censorship. If you complete your draft layout during this class period, you may start the Photo Gallery part of this assignment (digital photos of four of your classmates who are willing to respond to a later interview question) using the lab cameras.”
Procedure
Distribute the prompt and directions to the class. Review each required component, indicating those that have already been completed and those yet to do. Share the scoring rubric with the class and respond to student questions about the assignment. Demonstrate an example of a previously-designed mock newspaper that incorporates all or most of the components in the assignment, calling attention to communications details, such as the name of the paper, captions for graphics, and interview questions for the photo gallery. Begin the interactive tutorial. Approximately half-way through the tutorial, lead a group discussion on developing a rubric that will be used to judge “Blue Ribbon” winners, and invite the class to suggest different categories, with the proviso that there can only be four categories, and only one finalist and one runner up per category.
Scoring
Rubric
See Appendix A.
Lesson 1: Sorting the Evidence (45 minutes)
Students participate as witnesses in a surprise simulation of an altercation that potentially violates school policy. They discuss different interpretations of “evidence” and its relation to “reasonable doubt” by reporting on a staged dramatic event created by the teacher and an adult colleague. As part of the dramatic event, the teacher and colleague leave the classroom while another adult (preferably, the principal or assistant principle) takes over the class, and asks all students to document both their observations and their possible conjectures as to what caused the observed dramatic event, explaining that this information might be used in a disciplinary review of the teacher. The teacher returns, explains the charade, and leads a group discussion about eyewitness accounts and the value of evidence, and asks the students to identify how people who had not seen the dramatic event could sort through the conflicting viewpoints. This “authentic” event begins the discussion of defining reasonable doubt. For homework, students: (1) write a one-paragraph definition of reasonable doubt; and (2) write up current event summary #1 (a case on reasonable doubt or jury selection).
Lesson 2: Defining Reasonable Doubt (45-90 minutes)
Students participate in a concept formation lesson. They offer comments on current event cases summarized in preparation for class, and state whether they think the defendant in their current event case is innocent or guilty, and the reasons why. The teacher leads a group discussion that results in identifying attributes of reasonable doubt, and then assigns students to small groups to review an actual criminal case from a textbook. Groups present their analyses to the rest of the class. The purpose of this lesson is to create an initial definition of “reasonable doubt” that will guide students through this unit. For homework, students: (1) refine their one-paragraph definition of reasonable doubt from the previous lesson; and (2) start a MS Word chart that correlates reasonable doubt attributes with the cases discussed in class (this will be updated throughout the unit).
Lesson 3: Death with Dignity (45 minutes)
Students participate in small group and large group discussions, where they take on the role of judge and jury in a death-with-dignity case from the We the Jury textbook. The case is read out loud in class, and students form into small groups to vote on how they would rule, and identify attributes of reasonable doubt. Each group reports its findings to the class, and the teacher leads a large group discussion, connecting the concept of reasonable doubt between the Rosa case, and the cases discussed in the previous lesson. This lesson is intended to build on the core concept of reasonable doubt that grounds this unit, while introducing the students to the idea that legal decisions can be life or death decisions (in preparation for future discussions about the death penalty). For homework, students survey ten adults about their death-with-dignity views, collect demographic information about the participants, and graph the responses using MS Excel.
Lesson 4: Selecting the Jury (90 minutes)
Students participate in a jury selection simulation, as
judges, plaintiff attorneys, defense lawyers, and jury pool candidates. Each
juror candidate is assigned a specific demographic role (e.g., auto mechanic,
law school student, homemaker); student lawyers, student judges, and student
plaintiffs/defendants then select a “jury of peers.” Both a criminal and a
civil case are considered. After the simulation, the teacher leads a discussion
on how the demographic composition of a jury could influence its verdicts, the
concept of a “jury of your peers,” jury nullification, and peremptory
challenges. The teacher also draws a concept map on the board to help
illustrate the connection between these ideas. After the simulation, the
teacher also presents Socratic Seminar guidelines to the students; if time
permits, they conduct a 10-minute demonstration utilizing student volunteers
who sit in a circle in the center of the room while student peers grade their
performance. The purpose of this lesson is to introduce students to concepts
that will be examined in the case study lessons that follow. For homework,
students: (1) write up current event summary #2 (a case on reasonable
doubt or jury selection); (2) divide into eight groups of four each, with each
group member assigned the task of researching both the “agree” and “disagree”
side of one of four “Arguments For and Against” the death penalty on the
Michigan State Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) web site (Deterrence,
Retribution, Innocence, and Arbitrariness/Discrimination); and (3) answer
selected questions by reviewing the “STATE BY STATE DATA” section of the Michigan State web site.
Lesson 5: History of the Death Penalty (90 minutes)
Students participate in an inquiry-based lesson plan involving the history of the death penalty. Students review historic death penalty statistics, and create hypotheses that answer the question, What caused the spike in executions in [enter year here]? Students’ knowledge of history is tested as they hypothesize about execution spikes in the 1690’s (Salem Witchcraft Trials), 1740’s (“New York Consipiracy” or “Great Negro Plot”), 1930’s (Communist Scare), the drop in the 1970’s (Supreme Court Ruling), and the resurgence in the 2000’s. Students analyze data provided in class, discuss the logical implications of the data, and re-formulate their hypotheses, seeking more plausible answers to the question. Students are introduced to primary source documents, execution methods (hanging, gibbeting, electrocution, lethal injection), execution of minors, and other aspects of the death penalty history in the United States. The lesson is intended to stimulate both inquiry and value-based reasoning in preparation for a detailed analysis of the OJ Simpson case, the effectiveness of the United States criminal justice process, and the use of the death penalty. For homework, students: (1) create an Excel graph from data reviewed in class that reflects their examination of a hypothesis related to the history of the death penalty (for ultimate inclusion in the mock newspaper); and (2) select and begin reading one book about the OJ Simpson case.
Lesson 6 Death Penalty Socratic Seminar (90 minutes)
Students participate in a value-based Socratic seminar to consider the question, Should the Death Penalty be Abolished? To begin the lesson, students form into four jigsaw groups of eight students, and present their death penalty research findings from the DPIC web site. After all members have debriefed their small groups, the class forms into one large group for the Socratic seminar, where each individual is free to take either side of the debate. The success of the seminar is measured by several factors, including respectful conduct, logical reasoning (supported with evidence from the State of Michigan web site or information reviewed during the History of the Death Penalty lesson), comprehensive listening, and evidence of thoughtful analysis. This lesson is intended to promote the development of oral discourse skills, the examination of different social perspectives, and the taking of a position on a highly debated public policy issue. For homework, students: (1) continue reading their OJ Simpson book; and (2) write up current event summary #3 (a case on the death penalty).
Lesson 7: The OJ Simpson Case (90-120 minutes)
Students participate in a “Trivia Challenge” game. They watch the videotape, Trial of OJ Simpson: Anatomy of a Verdict, and take notes on a graphic organizer supplied by the teacher. The teacher divides the class into two teams that challenge each other on reasonable doubt, jury selection, and jury nullification details revealed in the video. After the game, the teacher asks student volunteers to update the concept map introduced in an earlier lesson. This lesson is intended to prepare students for a Socratic seminar in a future lesson. For homework, students: (1) finish reading the OJ Simpson book they selected in an earlier lesson; (2) write a maximum one-page book review for ultimate inclusion in the mock newspaper; (3) update their MS Word Reasonable Doubt chart started in an earlier lesson; and (4) prepare for the Socratic Seminar by studying the updated concept map.
Lesson 8: Using MS Publisher, Word, Excel, & Digital Photos (90 minutes)
Students participate in an interactive technology lab tutorial, where they take on the role of newspaper editor. They learn how to create a mock newspaper with MS Publisher, using their school paper as a model. They learn to integrate Excel graphs, Word tables, Word documents, and digital photographs into a Publisher document. Students integrate the Reasonable Doubt chart (from lesson #2), the Death with Dignity graph (from lesson #2), and the Death Penalty graph (from lesson #3) into their Publisher document. They create an initial layout that includes these charts and graphs, as well as dummy editorials, reviews, a photo gallery, and other placeholder components for future lessons. Students create a layout rubric that will be used to vote on “Blue Ribbon” newspaper winners at the end of the unit. If time permits, students take digital photographs of four classmates for future inclusion in the mock newspaper. The purpose of this lesson is to give students a significant start on their culminating mock newspaper assessment, and also provide a reference point for the future Hazelwood lesson. For homework, students continue reading their OJ Simpson book.
Lesson 9: OJ Simpson Socratic Seminar (90 minutes)
Students participate in a value-based Socratic seminar on the OJ Simpson case, where they consider the roles of the judge, the jury, and the legal teams. They debate the question, Did the Jury Perform its Job in the OJ Case? The teacher establishes guidelines for the seminar so that issues of reasonable doubt, jury selection, and jury nullification are debated. The success of the seminar is measured by respectful conduct, logical reasoning supported with evidence from the video and books, comprehensive listening, and evidence of thoughtful reading. This lesson is intended to promote the development of oral discourse skills, the examination of different social perspectives, and the application of legal principles (evidence, juries, reasonable doubt) learned in earlier lessons. For homework, students: (1) write a headline news story for their mock newspaper, titled Did the Jury Perform its Job in the OJ Case?; and (2) read a 2-page handout, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, in preparation for the next lesson.
Lesson 10: The Hazelwood Case (90 minutes)
Students participate in a value-based deliberation. They discuss the ethical responsibility of the media, the first amendment right to free speech, and the rights of individuals to a fair trial in both the OJ Simpson and the Hazelwood cases. Based upon a review of the landmark Supreme Court Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) case, in which the Court ruled that school administrations could censor school-sponsored publications under certain conditions, students deliberate whether their peers at Utica High School in Macomb County, Michigan, violated the spirit of the Hazelwood ruling by submitting their banned school newspaper articles to the local public daily newspaper. Students judge the conduct of their peers, of school principles, and of the media and compare this to the conduct of the prosecutor’s office, the media, and the jury pool in the 1994 OJ Simpson case. The lesson is intended to stimulate ethical reasoning by requiring students to support their discussions and judgments with elaborated reasons. For homework, students: (1) write up current event summary #4 (a case on reasonable doubt); and (2) write two editorials, one arguing that the media, lawyers or jury pool did violate ethics in the OJ Simpson case, and a second that these parties did not violate ethics.
Lesson 11: 12 Angry Men (90-120 minutes)
Students take on the role of movie critic as they review the 12 Angry Men video. The class is divided into six teams, each of which is assigned two jury members to analyze as they watch the movie. They make notes on worksheets, itemizing evidence, reasonable doubt considerations, and character traits. Small group discussions follow in which students address the questions, Would you have selected this jury member if you were each of the prosecution and the defense? Why or why not? The groups report the results of their discussion to the class. The teacher then leads a large group discussion, Should Unanimous Verdicts be Required in Criminal Trials? The lesson is intended to stimulate disciplined inquiry into the connection between reasonable doubt, jury selection, and unanimous verdicts (i.e., does the requirement for unanimity, rooted in the concept of reasonable doubt, overcome potential jury bias?). For homework, students: (1) write a maximum one-page movie review for ultimate inclusion in the mock newspaper; (2) finalize their MS Word Reasonable Doubt chart started in an earlier lesson; and (3) write an Editor’s Opinion, Should Unanimous Verdicts be Required in Criminal Trials?
Ehrenfreund, N., Treat, L., (1992) You’re the jury, New York, NY: Henry Holt & Company.
The History Channel (Producer). (1996). Trial of OJ Simpson: Anatomy of a Verdict. "20th Century" with Mike Wallace. New York: A&E Home Video
Donnelly, Terence (Producer), & Friedkin, William (Director). (1997). 12 Angry Men [Motion picture]. United States: MGM.
Online Resources
For The Hazelwood Case Lesson:
(2002). High court warns about test for reasonable doubt. ‘Lectric Law Library. Retrieved October 21, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cri09.html
(2002). Landmark supreme court cases: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988), background summary and questions. Street Law & The Supreme Court Historical Society. Retrieved November 3, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.landmarkcases.org/hazelwood/background3.html
(2002). Landmark supreme court cases: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988), key excerpts from the majority opinion. Street Law & The Supreme Court Historical Society. Retrieved November 3, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.landmarkcases.org/hazelwood/maj_opinion.html
Dean, K. & Butts, D. (2002, April 7). Fumed residents sue UCS. Macomb Daily Online Edition. Retrieved November 3, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=3774136&BRD=988&PAG=461&dept_id=141265&rfi=8
Arrow Newspaper Editorial Staff. (2002, April 7). UCS should relocate bus garage in order to protect community. Macomb Daily Online Edition. Retrieved November 3, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=3774103&BRD=988&PAG=461&dept_id=141265&rfi=8
(2002). Mich. principal censors investigative story and editorial on lawsuit facing school. 'Factual errors' cited as reason to pull story about resident's claim that school bus fumes caused cancer. Student Press Law Center Retrieved November 3, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=404
For The History of the Death Penalty Lesson:
(2001,November) Death penalty curricula for high school. Retrieved December 1, 2002, from Michigan State University Comm Tech Lab and Death Penalty Information Center Web site: http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/about/arguments/contents.htm
(n.d.). Executions in the U.S. 1608-1987: The Espy File; with recent years added by DPIC. Death Penalty Information Center. Retrieved December 1, 2002 from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ESPY.html
(2002, September) U.S. Department of Justice capital punishment statistics. United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved December 1, 2002 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm
(n.d.). Executions by Date. Death Penalty Information Center. Retrieved December 1, 2002 from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ESPYdate.pdf
(n.d.). The terrible transformation: a list of white persons taken into custody on account of the conspiracy 1741. PBS Online. Retrieved December 1, 2002 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1h302.html
Dewan, George. (n.d.). Legacy: a panicked response to the 'great negro plot'. Newsday: Long Island: Our Story. Retrieved December 1, 2002 from http://www.lihistory.com/3/hs313a.htm
(n.d.). The terrible transformation: witchhunt in New York: the 1741 rebellion. PBS Online. Retrieved December 1, 2002 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p286.html
Avery, Ron. (n.d.). Philadelphia oddities: the gibbet. Independence Hall Association. Retrieved December 1, 2002 from http://www.ushistory.org/oddities/gibbet.htm
(n.d.) Executions by state: death penalty in the United States of America. Death Penalty Information Center. Retrieved December 1, 2002 from http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executionmap.html
(2002, August). Clearinghouse of Information: Juvenile Death Penalty Reported Worldwide Executions of Juveniles Since 1990. Retrieved December 1, 2002 from American University Washington College of Law Focus on Capital Punishment Web site: http://www.wcl.american.edu/humright/deathpenalty/juvworld.html
For The Death Penalty Socratic Seminar Lesson:
(2002, September) U.S. Department
of Justice correctional populations and facilities. United States
Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved December 1,
2002 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/correct.htm#corrtyp
(2001, August) U.S.
Department of Justice Bureau of Justice statistics bulletin prisoners in 2000
(NCJ 188207). United States Department of Justice Office of Justice
Programs. Retrieved December 1, 2002 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p00.pdf
(2001, December, revised 2002, February 21) U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice statistics bulletin capital punishment 2000 (NCJ 188207). United States Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved December 1, 2002 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cp00.pdf
Appendix A: Scoring Rubric for Elaborated Assessment
Law and You: We the Jury Unit
Unit Rubric
|
*Item # |
Score |
||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
Points |
||
|
|
1.
Less than one-half of unit assignments (except current
events) are submitted via email 2.
Mock newspaper does not have a clean, engaging layout and
does not inform its audience with meaningful information 3.
Mock newspaper integrates less than one-half of assigned
elements in the unit 4.
No education-appropriate web sites are referenced in the
Mock newspaper |
1.
Most unit assignments (except current events) are
submitted via email 2.
Mock newspaper has a clean, engaging layout, but it is
unclear how it informs its audience with meaningful information 3.
Mock newspaper integrates some of assigned unit elements 4.
Mock newspaper references 1 or 2 education-appropriate web
sites used for research in this unit |
1.
All unit assignments (except current events) are submitted
via email 2.
Mock newspaper has a clean, engaging layout and clearly
informs its audience with meaningful information 3.
Mock newspaper integrates all assigned unit elements 4.
Mock newspaper references 3 or more education-appropriate
web sites used for research in this unit |
||
|
Headline News &
Editorials (10,11,13) |
1.
Only 1 or 2 articles are included 2.
3 or 4 articles are included, but only 1 or 2 address the
assigned topics 3.
Articles are poorly written, or poorly organized, or
contain many grammatical errors 4.
Articles are NOT written for school newspaper audience |
1.
Only 3 articles are included 2.
Some articles do NOT
address assigned topics 3.
Some articles are well written, organized, and error-free,
but others are NOT 4.
Some articles are NOT written for school newspaper
audience |
1.
All 4 articles are included 2.
All articles clearly address assigned topics 3.
All articles are well written, well-organized, and
error-free 4.
All articles are written for school newspaper audience |
40 |
|
|
Charts, Graphs, Photos
(2,3,5,9) |
1.
Only 1 or 2 graphic elements are included 2.
Graphic elements lack meaningful captions 3.
Only 1 graphic element is referenced in the articles 4.
Evidence of some effort on graphic organizers |
1.
Only 3 graphic elements are present 2.
Some of graphic elements have meaningful captions 3.
1 or 2 graphic element are referenced in the articles 4.
Evidence of significant effort on some graphic elements |
1.
All 4 graphic elements are present 2.
All graphic elements have meaningful captions 3.
2 or 3 graphic elements are referenced in the articles 4.
Evidence of significant effort on graphic elements |
20 |
|
|
Book & Movie Reviews
(7,14) |
1.
Neither review addresses the assigned topic 2.
Reviews are neither well-written, nor error-free 3.
Reviews are neither informative, nor address the target
audience |
1.
One review addresses the assigned topic 2.
Reviews are well-written, but not error-free 3.
Reviews are informative,
but do not address the target audience |
1.
Both reviews address the assigned topic 2.
Reviews are well-written and error-free 3.
Reviews are informative and address the school newspaper
audience |
10 |
|
|
Class Participation &
Current Events (1,4,6,12,15) |
1.
Only some current events turned in on time or well-written 2.
Student does not participate in class discussions |
1.
All current events turned in on time, some are
well-written 2.
Student participates in class discussions, but has not
prepared |
1.
All current events turned in on time and well-written 2.
Student is prepared for and participates in all class
discussions |
15 |
|
|
Extra Credit |
|
|
1.
A well-written article or other newspaper feature
addressing either death with dignity, the death penalty, or the Hazelwood
case is included in the mock newspaper |
5 |
|
|
Best-in-Class
“Blue Ribbon” Winners (5 points 1st place, 3 points runner-up) |
5 |
||||
|
Total
Points |
110 |
||||
*
Corresponds to “Item #” column on Assignment Summary Sheet
Appendix B: Assignment Summary for
Lesson descriptions.
Law and You: We the Jury Unit
Assignment Summary
|
Lesson |
|
Objective+ |
*Item # |
Graded Assignment |
Date Assigned |
Date Due |
Points |
1. Sorting the Evidence
|
Week 1 |
1 |
1 |
Current
Event Summary #1: Reasonable Doubt or Jury Selection |
|
|
2.5 |
2. Defining Reasonable Doubt |
Week 1 |
1,4,5 |
2 |
MS Word Chart:
Attributes of Reasonable Doubt |
|
|
5.0 |
|
3. Death
with Dignity |
Week 1 |
5 |
3 |
MS Excel Graph: Death with Dignity
Survey |
|
|
5.0 |
|
4.
Selecting the Jury |
Week 1 |
1 |
4 |
Current Event Summary #2: Reasonable Doubt or Jury
Selection |
|
|
2.5 |
|
5.
History of the Death Penalty |
Week 2 |
2,4,5 |
5 |
MS Excel Graph: Death Penalty Research |
|
|
5.0 |
|
6. Death
Penalty Socratic Seminar |
Week 2 |
2,4 |
6 |
Current Event Summary #3: The Death Penalty |
|
|
2.5 |
|
7. The
OJ Simpson Case |
Week 3 |
4,5 |
7 |
Book Review |
|
|
5.0 |
|
8. Using
MS Publisher, Word, Excel, & Digital Photos |
Week 3 |
5 |
8 |
Mock School Newspaper using MS Publisher (photos,
charts, graphs, editorials, news feature) |
|
|
15.0 |
|
Week 3 |
4,5 |
9 |
Photo Gallery (4 digital photos of classmates for mock
newspaper) |
|
|
5.0 |
|
|
9. OJ
Simpson Socratic Seminar |
Week 4 |
4,5 |
10 |
Headline News Story: Did the Jury Perform its Job in the
OJ Case? |
|
|
10.0 |
|
10. The
Hazelwood Case |
Week 4 |
3,5,6 |
11 |
Dueling Editorials: The Media, Lawyers, and Jury Pool
Did/Did Not Violate Ethics in the OJ Case |
|
|
20.0 |
|
Week 4 |
3 |
12 |
Current Event Summary #4: Reasonable Doubt |
|
|
2.5 |
|
|
11. 12
Angry Men |
Week 5 |
5 |
13 |
Editor’s Opinon: Should Unanimous Verdicts be Required in
Criminal Trials? |
|
|
10.0 |
|
Week 5 |
5 |
14 |
Movie Review |
|
|
5.0 |
|
|
All
Lessons |
All |
7 |
15 |
Class Participation |
|
|
5.0 |
|
TOTAL |
|
100.0 |
|||||
*
Corresponds to “Item #” column on Unit Rubric Sheet
+
Corresponds to lesson objectives in Comprehensive Unit Plan