From Criminal Idea to IDEA: The Evolution of the Treatment of Individuals with Disabilities

It was in 1749 that D. Diderot languished in a Parisian prison for almost 5 months for the crime a publishing a radical new notion. Specifically, in his publication titled, Lettre sur les aveugles á l’usage de ceux qui voient, or “Letter on the Blind for the Use of Those Who See,” the criminal act was the allegation that those French citizens without sight may in fact be able to lead normal, productive lives (Ally Bacon, 2010). It is a testament to the progress of human society in its recognition and treatment of persons with disabilities, that today their advocates are no longer deemed criminally dangerous. To the contrary, they now represent a powerful and influential component of the US education system, and serve more than 6 million children with disabilities in the US every year (NICHCY, 2012). While decades once passed between major innovations and improvements in special education, the 20^thand 21^st centuries have seen a near exponential growth and multiplication of services, laws, and integration of the disabled with the larger community (Ally Bacon, 2010).

            The cornerstone of US policy regarding special education for individuals with disabilities is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA].  Initially passed by Congress in 1975, the law revolutionized the treatment of disabled students in US public schools, and established a host of news rights, expectations, and parameters to meet their specific needs.  Prior to its implementation, US schools serviced only ~20% of students with disabilities (USOSEP).  Many others – for instance, more than 200,000 individuals as of 1967 – were housed in state institutions, “many of [which…] provided only minimal food, clothing, and shelter” (USOSEP).  This nightmarish reality was exacerbated by the fact that, by and large, such facilities existed merely accommodate and cordon off those deemed “retarded,” instead of “assess[ing], educat[ing], and rehabilitat[ing]” their charges (USOSEP).  Additionally, another 3.5 million children were ostensibly in school, but were in fact not given “adequate services” and in actuality merely “warehoused” in segregated facilities (NCD, 2000). However, with the gradually increasing public awareness of the dismal realities of these supposedly humanitarian facilities, it became more and more obvious that fundamental legal change needed to occur in order to protect this vulnerable segment of the population.  In 1972, in Mills vs. Washington D.C. Board of Education, and Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens [PARC] vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the federal courts sided with advocates for the disabled and ordered both the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia to “provide a free, appropriate education to all students with disabilities [and educate them] in the same schools as students without disabilities” (Turnbull, Turnbull, and Wehmeyer, 2010, p. 9).

            Realizing the need a national policy reflecting these rulings, in 1975 Congress passed Public Law 94-142 (then known as “The Education for All Handicapped Children Act”), stipulating that all children with disabilities were to have equal access to publically funded education, and giving those schools the resources they required to meet that end goal (Cheadle, 1987). This law extended legal protection to students age six to eighteen and, though it was a successful first step, it became apparent over the following two decades that additional protections were necessary.  As such, the law – subsequently known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] – was amended and expanded in 1990.  This amendment, known as Part B, expanded the law’s guarantees to down to children as young as three, and as old as twenty-one (Turnbull, Turnbull, and Wehmeyer, 2010, p. 9).  In a reflection of the evolving understanding of the times, the language and focus of IDEA as compared to its predecessor was far more centered on the individual rather than the disabling condition, as evidenced by its introduction of the Individualized Education Plan [IEP] (p. 42-43).

            The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [NCLB] instituted a number of new provisions and policies regarding students with disabilities and their right to quality education.  Most significantly, NCLB emphasized the importance of assessments for students with disabilities, and of providing incentives for schools to demonstrate continuing progress in meeting their individuated needs (USDoE, 2007, “No Child”).  In 2004 (rat. 2006), IDEA was reauthorized and amended with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 [IDEA 2004], with several key changes.  The provisions were once again expanded to now include preschool aged children with disabilities (0-3), and to better align with the requirements of NCLB.  These alignments included: an agreement on the necessity and definition of “highly qualified teachers,” the establishment of both goals and substantive assessments of progress toward said goals for students with disabilities, and that, while such goals/assessments may be modified by a states, they must still meet the minimum benchmarks put forth by standardized assessments (USDoE, 2007, “Alignment”).

            In current law, eligibility for special education programs as defined by IDEA hinges on a child being shown to fall into a recognized disability category.  The most common categories are: specific learning disabilities (43%), speech or language impairment (19%), intellectual disabilities (8%), and emotional or behavioral disorders (7%) (Turnbull, Turnbull, and Wehmeyer, 2010, p. 6).  Students served by special education programs must also demonstrate that their disability renders them unable to optimally learn in a normal classroom environment unassisted.  IDEA guarantees students with disabilities and their families that no student in need will be excluded (“zero reject”), that there will be an evaluation of their disability free from prejudice or discrimination, that the student will receive an appropriate education tailored to their individual needs, that said education will be conducted in as least restrictive and segregated environment as possible, and that both parents and students have the right to collaborate and influence the design and execution of their own educational process (p. 11-12). 

The U.S. and its public schools have come a long way in just a few decades, and are full committed to the idea that all students deserve and should expect a full, complete, and equal education.  As both technologies and expectations shift in the coming decades, it is very likely that the principles and requirements set forth in IDEA will need to be revised again.  But that revision process will likely be relatively minimal, as there is already a very supportive and comprehensive system in place for students with disabilities and their families.

Resources

Ally Bacon Interactive Timeline (2010). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive settings. Retrieved from http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/4549/4658915/timeline.htm on 11/04/12.

Cheadle, B. (1987). “PL-94-142: What Does it Really Say?” in Winter Reflections (Vol. 6, No. 1).  Retrieved from https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/fr/fr6/issue1/f060113.html on 11/04/12.

National Council on Disability (2000).  “Back to School on Civil Rights.”  Retrieved from http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2000/Jan252000 on 11/04/12.

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (2010).  “Children (3 to 22).”  Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/schoolage on 11/04/12.

Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., & Wehmeyer, M. (2010). Exceptional lives: Special education in today's schools (with MyEducationLab) (6th ed). Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

U.S. Department of Education (2007).  “No Child Left Behind: A Desktop Reference.”  Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/index.html on 11/04/12.

U.S. Department of Education (2007). “Topic: Alignment with the No Child Left Behind Act.” Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C3%2C on 11/04/12.

U.S. Office of Special Education Programs.  “History: 25 Years of Progress in Educating Children With Disabilities Through IDEA.”  Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/history.pdf on 11/04/12.

Master Teacher Observation and Reflection

Given my own unique situation, it was somewhat more difficult to secure an observation/mentorship with a single teacher. As such, it behooved me to not rely on just one, but several teachers to converse with, learn from, and discuss the particulars of their classes. Since beggars can rarely be choosers, I was by necessity forced to expand my “horizons” and expectations beyond the breadth of my particular field. I had the privilege of communicating, viewing, and working with several of the excellent staff of Shanghai Livingston American School as both observer/learner, and as substitute teacher. Particularly, I was able to observe and teach Ms. A’s 5th grade class. Ms. A is new to LAS, but has extensive experience in elementary education in the US. Additionally, I was in contact with and substituted for Mr. L’s elementary music and MS/HS ESL classes, and Ms. B’s middle and high school music and music history classes. Both Mr. L and Ms. B have been at LAS for several years, and are the heads of their respective departments. For even more great advice and answers, I was able to learn from and converse with high school English teacher Ms. G, who is considered to be one of the top teachers in the facility.

As previously mentioned, my observations were not uniform in their distribution or discipline. I consider this an asset, as it gave me a markedly wide array of insight, strategies, and hands-­‐on experiences with multitude of difference class make-­‐ups. More than anything, I was interested in understanding how my mentors’ planning stages fed into the execution phases. Frequently there is a significant divide between laying down a plan of action, and actually carrying it out. In the words of Robert Burns, “the best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men/ Gan aft agley [often go awry]” (Burns, 1785). What was most notable was these teachers’ simultaneous comprehensiveness of planning and flexibility in execution. Much of what I saw, read, and spoke about left the distinct impression of people who planned for every eventuality they could think of for a particular lesson, and consequentially were able to “roll with the punches” when this or that particular class took the discussion or ideas a new and intriguing direction. It was very clear that each of the teachers with whom I have interacted was versed in and believe in the precepts of Understanding by Design, or a closely related planning system (Tomlinson and McTighe, 2006). They knew the endpoints, as well as the instructional guideposts they needed to guide their classes by, and were – as much as they were able – prepared to lead their classes through that labyrinth as efficiently as possible, but still be considerate to both individual needs, and the occasional off-­‐track, or meta-­‐conversation.

I was very interested in seeing how my teachers interacted and conversed with their classes, especially as it pertained to making sure that the entire class was focused and participatory. The answers, unsurprisingly, were as varied as the individuals I interacted with. Several of the teachers, specifically Ms. B and Mr. L, tended toward a more teacher-­‐centric model of classroom management and interaction. Much of what was done during the instructional portions of the classes was front-­‐and-­‐center, eyes on the teacher note-­‐taking. And these systems were, insofar as I was able to ascertain, effective. Students were, for the most part, attentive and still felt comfortable enough to ask questions or add a piece of information from time to time. Ms. A's 5th grade class fell – to my mild surprise – somewhat short of the examples Ms. B and Mr. L had provided. Though there was plenty of teacher-­‐centered direct instruction – as it both expected and largely required to effectively interact with a class of 11-­‐12 year olds – Ms. A tended toward a far more open, collaborative and interactive style than I had anticipated seeing. Students were, though led by their teacher, broken into smaller groups and encouraged to discuss and find solutions to the questions and problems presented in their lessons.

While I was, unfortunately, ultimately unable to find a suitable time to observe Ms. G's classes, I was still able to converse with her and glean some very keep insights from her. Having asked how she fields and utilizes class discussion and posing questions to students, she offered, “I use questions as a way to review material taught. [...] I also use questions to ignite a class discussion in order to check for understanding regarding a specific unit we've been covering. It serves as an informal assessment for me. My questions are either directed at the class or specific individuals. I specifically ask students to raise their hand when I'm awarding [extra credit]. There are other times that I will randomly call on my less reluctant students to answer to ensure they understand even though they aren't volunteering to answer questions. [...] It is a much more challenging strategy to use with my Asian students, so I have to take baby steps. In the past, I've used the Socratic Circle Questioning method and it has worked wonders and the kids love it” (Ms. G, 2012). This was an extremely relatable and informative point for me, as I

have seen time and again the specific difficulties posed in getting Asian students to speak out, or answer questions to which there may not be a single definitive answer. Additionally, I had been relatively unfamiliar with the Socratic Circle method of discussion, so it was very interesting hear about it be used effectively.
I came away from observing Ms. B's music and music history classes feeling most strongly impressed by her system of in-­‐class assessments. More specifically, how they were conducted. Though there were also standard pen-­‐and-­‐ paper quizzes during my time with her class, it was her system of authentic, performance-­‐based assessment that really stood out. Students, either individually or in small groups, had prepared a musical composition from the period they were studying, and were to perform it for the rest of their class. The class’ job was to assess the person/group’s performance for themselves, based on a set rubric provided by Ms. B. After collecting and checking the student assessment sheets, they were compiled and returned to the performers. By having the students not only perform but also assess, it made the entire exercise more authentic for both parties, while also giving the students a more active and in-­‐depth understanding of both performing and critiquing. Subsequently, they were to continue working up the same piece for further performance and assessment in the following weeks.
This level of interactivity and authenticity was something I’d not seen in action before, and it seemed to be a very successful method for such practical assessments.
My observation and interaction with Ms. A's class had me reassessing my own style of class discussion and lecture. Whereas I have tended to model my behavior on the “typical” classroom teacher style of being front-­‐and-­‐center most of

the time, Ms. A operated quite differently. As she explained and went through the process of constructing The Sieve of Eratosthenes to find prime numbers, she very slowly paced the rows of the class, observing her students as they worked, even as she went through the directions. If they had a question, or she saw an error, she would pause and show them the proper way. I noticed that her students remained on task significantly better when she was doing this, than other classes I have seen and taught, being led simply from the head of the class.
The time I’ve spent with these teachers has been tremendously valuable for my own classes. Through their advice, examples, and seeing such strategies practically employed, I’ve been able to grasp many of the concepts and theories presented thus far in the NPTT curriculum much better than a mere reading of them could allow. By seeing and understanding how their strategies work for them, especially “big concepts” like implementing the backward design of Understanding by Design, and differentiation of instruction to accommodate students from a variety of backgrounds and cultural ethos, it has been much easier to either implement them in my current classes, or to at least visualize how I would implement them in the future.

Resources
A, D (2012). Observation and Communication. 
B, B (2012). Observation and Communication. 
Burns, R (1785). “To A Mouse.”
G, K. (2012). Personal Communication.

Tomlinson, C.A., & McTighe, J. (2006).

Integrating differentiated instruction and

understanding by design: Connecting content and kids.

Alexandria, Virginia:

Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. ISBN: 1-­‐4166-­‐0284-­‐4 

The Dilemma of Cyberbullying

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” 
― Benjamin Franklin

Q:            What difficulties might teachers experience when trying to identify and address problems with cyberbullying done by their students?

            The rise of the internet has unleashed a wave of unparalleled potential, knowledge, and power on the youth of today, the likes of which has never been seen in human history.  The great technological democratization of information has, to date and in no particular order, overthrown governments, helped students cheat on essays, allowed for unparalleled humanitarian campaigns, bridges cultures and continents, and allowed me to understand political tyrades in the Shanghai Daily Newspaper.  It is, on the whole, a massively powerful tool for positive change, creativity, and collaboration on a global scale.  Unfortunately, as with any tool, it can also be used for ill.  Be it hacker collectives using Distributed Denial of Service attacks to take down websites, government or private operatives sewing dissent and misinformation into controversial subjects, or bullies – both children and adults – using the unprecedented access to their victims’ lives and personal information to give their attacks greater piercing and reach, the internet can and is used on a daily basis to both personal and social ill as well as good.

            From the perspective of an educator, this presents a unique and potentially un-solvable problem.  The concept of cyberbullying has gone from a theoretical bogeyman in the nascence of the internet era, to an intractable and sometimes unbearable fact of life for as much as 30% of the nation’s youth (Burden and Byrd, 2012, p. 277).  Though it is swiftly becoming the “go-to” format for bullies both nation- and world-wide, there seems precious little that can be effectively done to combat it directly.

            One of the great strengths of the internet has been the ability of its users to maintain a level of anonymity.  While someone may be a student, teacher, or technician by day, online that same individual is able to shed that label in favor of one they have a more direct sense of control over.  In its initial phases, there was little that could go wrong with this: if your “avatar” was compromised or targeted by ne’er-do-wells, it could be quickly and easily shed in favor of a new, fresh one.  In the past decade, however, the era of the “throwaway online identity” has receded against the rise of the era of Facebook, et al exposing people’s real names, identities, and social circles to the harsh eyes on the other side of the computer screen.

            This curious – and largely ad hoc – overlay of personal information and identities on top of a system built by and for users completely disassociated from their own real world identities created a differential of knowledge that is far too easily turn against those sharing their information.  Sharing one’s personal information – critical though it now often seems to most of us using the web – still remains an entirely optional affair.  It is ludicrously easy to create use a false IP address (heck, I’m doing so right now just to access this web site, thanks China) in order to generate a false email account, which you can then use to make a fake Facebook page stocked with free “photos” taken from an image search site.  And preying on the primal human need – and especially those in the adolescent stage of life – to be accepted and have “Friends,” infiltrate any person’s or community’s network and begin, should one so choose, to wreck havoc.  Anyone can do it.  It is simple, it is fast, and it uses only the most basic tools at one’s disposal when using the internet… and there is no way to stop it, save dismantling the whole system entirely.

            So what, then, can be done?  I for one am not yet in favor of scrapping the entire world wide web and the concept of anonymity for the sake of security.  Fortunately, there are a couple of measures that can be taken.  One is significantly easier than the other, and so it’s best to begin with that.  In relies on a principle put forth by Albert Einstein: “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.”  Simply put, the vast majority of those seeking to bully others over the web are almost as reckless as their intended victims with their personal information.  As simple as it is to alter one’s identity beyond recognition, most people still do not realize that changing one’s name or email address is not enough… in the digital landscape of cyberspace, we are still tagged and bound by the IP address we virtually never see or think about.  It is the easiest thing for the simple user to forget about, and yet is as traceable and identifiable as a fingerprint.  In the digital space where anonymity reigns supreme, most people as still showing up with the nametags still attached.  Of course, this is only of limited and situation use… i.e. criminal investigations.

            The other option is quite a bit more difficult, and that entails simultaneously teaching both our students and our children to use the power at their fingertips smartly, safely, and humanely.  We cannot rely on policies, consequences, or accountability to take care of this problem, given that it is a problem which in its very nature defies all three.  Instead, we must take the harder path of teaching our children how to deal with, ignore, and work around such trolls.  The lessons that most longtime users of the web have learned through much time and struggle: do not feed the trolls, be extremely careful with your real life information, have been all but lost on the generation that has, ironically, been inborn into the web.  Those are what will keep children safe - a powerful, inner sense of identity, a caution with the worrying trend toward "oversharing" online, and a recognition that just because someone says something online does not make it valid, or worth listening to, or worth anything.  While schools, parents, and teachers are remarkably powerless once online bullying actually begins, we can all provide a potent inocculation against its worst effects, and provide a positive, and strong example in web habits and etiquette to ensure that the John Gabriel’s “GIFwT” does not remain a permanent “Law” of the web.

Resources:

 Burden, P.R., & Byrd, D.M. (2013). Methods for Effective Teaching: Meeting the Needs of All Students (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Holkins, J and Krahulik, M.  Penny Arcade.  2004.  “Green Blackboards (And Other Anomalies).”  Retrieved from: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/ on Oct 4, 2012.

Understanding by Design: Model Stage 2 for the Lead-up to the American Civil War

Understanding by Design:

Model Stage 2 for the Lead-up to the American Civil War

Chris M. Stewart

Montana State University, Northern Plains Transition to Teaching.

Moving from Stage 1 to Stage 2 of the lesson design process was a thought-provoking exercise.  By trying to think “like [an] assessor” from the beginning of the planning stage, it was pivotal to determine what and how students would be expected to demonstrate their understanding of the materials (Tomlinson and McTighe, 2006, p. 34).  Though it had been presented clearly through the texts, actually applying the concept of designing a unit backward really clarifies and shows the major benefits of this method of design.

            For a unit such as the pre-Civil War period, there are very fundamental questions and debates at the heart of the conflict.  It is important for students to not only know about them, but to experience and, in a sense, live them.  It is not enough for students to merely know that the southern slave owners wanted to protect their “curious institution,” but to understand – and even be placed in a position of arguing for – their justifications and perceived attacks on their way of life.  Now more than at almost any other point in history, the American body politic is echoing this same debate: federalism versus states’ rights.  As such, it is an issue on which at least some students will already have strongly-held opinions.  For them, and for those who may not have a strong opinion one way or that other, it is important to participate in understanding both sides of the argument.  To that end, a mirror of that longstanding disagreement could be used in the classroom through a series of debates pitting pairs of students against other pairs. 

Though the overarching theme would be the same for each debate, the specifics could be different.  For instance, a particular set of debates could be over the 1828 Nullification Crisis, with one side representing South Carolina’s argument that if a federal law were found detrimental to a state’s “sovereign interests,” it had the right to “nullify” it within its borders (US History).  The other side, in turn, would take the Federal/Jackson position that the federal government had the right to impose tariffs and taxation on states – by force, if necessary.  Similar debates could be structured around topics such as Jackson’s “War Against the Bank,” or even (potentially) defending the indefensible by needing to adopt the South’s ongoing justification of a slave-based economy.  Though a sensitive topic, it is remarkable how deep – and at times, compelling - many of the southern arguments in favor of the “status quo.”  Deep seated fears of widespread violence, economic collapse, and moral decay were paired with assertions that slaves’ living conditions were better than those of free men in the North or in Europe.  In both listening to their classmates, and conducting deep research in order to win their own debates, students would be exposed firsthand to the many issues and difficulties the North and South faced in trying to reconcile and compromise amid their vast differences.

Along a tangential vein, students would be expected to be able to discuss the reason slavery had been allowed to endure at all.  In a nation founded on the principles of equality and liberty, how had the forced servitude of millions been overlooked?  Moreover, how had many of those very men we look to as paragons of liberty and freedom – Washington, Jefferson, for instance – been lifetime slave-owners?  In researching and writing for themselves, students will be able to engage and wrestle with these difficult, paradoxical questions that would ultimately only be resolved in 1865.

Finally, students could be expected to complete a “propaganda poster” for a particular area of the conflict.  Whether for or against the institution of slavery as a whole, or for a particular “flash point” such as Bleeding Kansas or the aforementioned Nullification Crisis.  This would allow students to utilize their own strengths creatively, while delving into and understanding the material for themselves.  If a student felt best making an animation or short video, that could be accommodated as well.  All projects would, however, need to be chronologically limited to the crisis it depicted.

By trying to incorporate different elements of understanding – speaking, listening, writing, and a more open “choose your own style” propaganda piece – this unit would be able to engage students in a variety of ways, while still achieve a deep and personal understanding of the events and people.  Many of the debates waged in the early 19^th century have particular relevance today – those of states’ rights, national financial institutions, and taxation being only a few.  By framing those issue in such terms, hopefully students would be able to see such events more personally than they otherwise might.

Resources

Tomlinson, C.A., and McTighe, J. 2006. Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

U.S. History (2012). American History: From Pre-Colombian to the New Millennium. Retrieved from: http://www.ushistory.org/us/index.asp on Sunday July 7th, 2012.

Appendix

Backward Design Unit Plan Template

Stage 1 – Desired Results

Content Standard(s)/Overarching Performance Goals Topic: The Causes of the American Civil War & Secession

Understanding(s) Students will understand that… Though the question of slavery was the central component to the conflict, the Civil War was also the result of a myriad of events, societal tensions/sectionalism, and unresolved questions about the powers of government and the fundamental nature of a united federation of states.

Essential Question(s) ·      How had the drafters of the US Constitution left open the question of slavery?  Why? o   How did the societies of the North and the South differ in the early- to mid-19th century?  How would those differences affect the eventual outbreak of hostilities between the two societies? o   What were the respective arguments for and against the ideas of States’ Rights and Federalism? ·      How had the justifications for and against the continuation and expansion of slavery shifted from the 1780’s? o   How had the abolition of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade changed the conditions for slave owners in the South? o   How did the establishment of the Mason-Dixon Line and Manifest Destiny exacerbate rather than quell tension between the North and South? ·      How and why would the election of Abraham Lincoln be the final breaking point between the two societal factions, ultimately leading to civil war?

Students will know…                                   o   The questions surrounding slavery had been deliberately left unresolved by the Founding Fathers, figuring that they institution would naturally die out over time. o   The North and South differed wildly in their societies.  While the North rapidly pursued urbanism and industrialization, the South remained committed to the rural, agrarian lifestyle made possible by slave labor. o   While the proponents of federalism held that once entered into, union between states was irrevocable and perpetual, advocates of the states’ rights argued that states were sovereign and union was by its very nature voluntary and dissolvable through popular consent. o   While the question of slavery had in the 1780’s been thought – and argued – to be a temporary phase that would die out over time, by the mid-1800’s with the abolition of the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade, it had become a self-sustaining industry.  Further, popular opinion in the South had transformed from viewing slavery as a necessary evil, to viewing it as a societal good. o   In the northern states, an abolitionist movement had taken hold.  It sought to limit the expansion of the slave-based industry as the United States expanded westward. Students will be able to…

Stage 2 – Assessment Evidence

Summative Performance Task(s) & Product(s) ·      Participate in pairs in a debate between the merits of federalism vs. states rights. ·      Write a thoughtful paper explaining/exploring the Founding Fathers’ decision to allow slavery in a country that had established itself on the notion that “all Men are created equal.” Should be based on primary sources studies in class. ·      Construct a “propaganda poster” – either abolitionist or states rights - to disseminate to the other side, striving to convince them to join your “noble cause.”  Though design creativity is highly encouraged, each poster should strive to retain the actual ideas and beliefs of its given argument.

Key Criteria for use in evaluating performance/s listed above: ·      Appropriate use of context and period vocabulary. ·      Demonstration of understanding both sides of the slavery debate. ·      Geographic and chronological knowledge of major events.

Other Evidence (tests, formative and non-performance assessments) ·      Keep an ongoing weekly journal detailing the arguments and rationale of both the slave owners of the South, and the abolitionist movement in the north.  Each entry should reflect a different period of thought, and should be “dated” to reflect its intended timeframe. ·      Be able to identify the Northern and Southern states by map – including which new states & territories had been brought in as free or slave, and the border-states that would retain slavery but never secede, and be able to place the Mason-Dixon and Missouri Compromise lines.

Stage 3 – Learning Plan

Learning Activities: (utilize the WHERETO ideas)

Understanding by Design: Model Stage 1 for the Lead-up to the American Civil War

Understanding by Design:

Model Stage 1 for the Lead-up to the American Civil War

Chris M. Stewart

Montana State University, Northern Plains Transition to Teaching.

The Civil War was inarguably one of the most pivotal and defining periods in the history of the United States.  Not only did it ultimately secure the emancipation of the enslaved African population and resolve many of the dissonances that the Constitutional Convention had left unresolved, but ultimately decided the fate and direction of the Union itself.  Point in fact: we are still feeling its ramifications to this day.  In terms of a US history course, it stands as one of – if not the – most important units one can cover; explaining not only the final resolution to the questions left unanswered four score and seven years (or so) prior, but also the idea of the subsequent “solid South” voting bloc, and the enduring culture and cultural fictions of the postbellum South.  By using the Understanding by Design template (appendix), the unit could be viewed first as a thematic whole.  As such, the details and narrative sweep of the era came into sharper focus than merely viewing it lesson-to-lesson.

            While the war itself is thrilling, it is best viewed in the context of the escalating dissonance in the acrimonious decades leading up to the Fort Sumter Crisis and secession.  Processions of battles are well and good, but only begin to mean more than the textual equivalent of a summer blockbuster war film when it is understood why those battles would eventually come about.  While an overview of the war itself is also important, it is more crucial for students to understand and relate to why events in 19^th century America took that turn in the first place.

            In developing the Stage 1 iteration of the curriculum, the primary difficulty was finding the essential questions, or “bones,” of the wealth of information.  The Civil War was a massive undertaking by both sides, but its buildup even more so, and stretched out over more than half a century.  With so much data, it becomes more difficult to determine what is truly essential, and what is merely detail.  Using the layout from California’s Common Core guidelines, it became significantly easier to determine the true foci of the units and lessons, without getting “lost in the woods” of minutiae (History Blueprint, 2012).  Another question, as yet unresolved, is how to ultimately approach the material’s presentation to a class.  Many sources, justifiably, present the information chronologically from the enshrinement of “the curious institution” in the Constitution all the way through the establishment of the Confederacy (US History, 2012).  Both in presentation and thematically, this works.  However, a reverse chronology could also, perhaps, fulfill the same function, while providing an increased sense of context and gravity to the events leading up to secession.

            One could possibly begin with at the turning point of the war: the Gettysburg Address.  With President Lincoln solemn vow to honor the soldiers who had given their lives for their countr(ies) by finishing what he had started.  In hearkening back to

“four score and seven years ago,” the teacher could present this as kind of a hook, a mystery.  What could have happened in that period to lead to such bloodshed?  How had America gone from thirteen ostensibly united colonies victorious, to a greatly expanded, yet bitterly acrimonious “house divided?”  The class could then “flash back” in time and begin understanding the period leading up to the civil War.  In exploring that gap in time, students will find that the question of slavery is the central pivot around which the entire conflict will ultimately develop.  The Founding Fathers’ had needed the southern states to assent to union, and thus had allowed slavery to survive as a “necessary evil.”  The following decades, however, had turned what had been considered at the time a dying practice, into a self-sufficient and self-justifying institution around which the entire southern culture had molded itself.

            By seeing the outcome first, a bloodstained and divided nation pitting brother against brother, the details of the build toward civil war could be all the more interesting.  The causes of the Civil War are many, and there was (and still is) considerable effort to re-write the origins of the conflict in some circles.  By allowing students to “evaluate various explanations for actions or events and determine which explanation best accords with textual evidence,” deeper understanding can be achieved (Common Core State Standards, p. 61). The exploration of the question “how had it come to this?” becomes far more relevant if students are clear from the outset just what it had come to.  With such context, the exploration of the period become more than just an interlude between wars, but allows students to authentically apply the ideas and question of the time toward the “meaningful and challenging tasks and problems” of finding out exactly how things had gone so horribly wrong (Tomlinson and McTighe, 2006, p. 126).

Resources

Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & History/Social Studies. Retrieved from: http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf on July 1^st, 2012.

History Blueprint (2012). Civil War Unit.  Retrieved from: http://historyblueprint.org/site/unit/ on Sunday July 1^st, 2012.

Tomlinson, C.A., and McTighe, J. 2006. Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

U.S. History (2012). American History: From Pre-Colombian to the New Millennium. Retrieved from: http://www.ushistory.org/us/index.asp on Sunday July 1st, 2012.

Appendix

Backward Design Unit Plan Template

Stage 1 – Desired Results

Content Standard(s)/Overarching Performance Goals Topic: The Causes of the American Civil War & Secession

Understanding(s) Students will understand that… Though the question of slavery was the central component to the conflict, the Civil War was also the result of a myriad of events, societal tensions/sectionalism, and unresolved questions about the powers of government and the fundamental nature of a united federation of states.

Essential Question(s) ·      How had the drafters of the US Constitution left open the question of slavery?  Why? o   How did the societies of the North and the South differ in the early- to mid-19th century?  How would those differences affect the eventual outbreak of hostilities between the two societies? o   What were the respective arguments for and against the ideas of States’ Rights and Federalism? ·      How had the justifications for and against the continuation and expansion of slavery shifted from the 1780’s? o   How had the abolition of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade changed the conditions for slave owners in the South? o   How did the establishment of the Mason-Dixon Line and Manifest Destiny exacerbate rather than quell tension between the North and South? ·      How and why would the election of Abraham Lincoln be the final breaking point between the two societal factions, ultimately leading to civil war?

Students will know…                                   o   The questions surrounding slavery had been deliberately left unresolved by the Founding Fathers, figuring that they institution would naturally die out over time. o   The North and South differed wildly in their societies.  While the North rapidly pursued urbanism and industrialization, the South remained committed to the rural, agrarian lifestyle made possible by slave labor. o   While the proponents of federalism held that once entered into, union between states was irrevocable and perpetual, advocates of the states’ rights argued that states were sovereign and union was by its very nature voluntary and dissolvable through popular consent. o   While the question of slavery had in the 1780’s been thought – and argued – to be a temporary phase that would die out over time, by the mid-1800’s with the abolition of the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade, it had become a self-sustaining industry.  Further, popular opinion in the South had transformed from viewing slavery as a necessary evil, to viewing it as a societal good. o   In the northern states, an abolitionist movement had taken hold.  It sought to limit the expansion of the slave-based industry as the United States expanded westward. Students will be able to…

Stage 2 – Assessment Evidence

Summative Performance Task(s) & Product(s)

Key Criteria for use in evaluating performance/s listed above:

Other Evidence (tests, formative and non-performance assessments)

Stage 3 – Learning Plan

Learning Activities: (utilize the WHERETO ideas)

AD/HD & Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Look at Two Common Childhood Cognitive Disabilities

AD/HD

            Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD) is one of the most common conditions listed under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as a disability.  It affects as many as 5% of children – and three times as many boys as girls – and as such is a condition most educators will have to deal with multiple times during their tenure (AD/HD Factsheet, 2012).  Yet its commonality does not mean that coping with a child diagnosed with AD/HD is any easier.  Rather, treating the condition effectively requires sustained effort on the parts of both parents and educators.

            The symptoms of AD/HD are rarely difficult to detect.  On the contrary, much of the condition is characterized by acting our and a general lack of self-control.  The three major signs are “problems with paying attention[,] being very active (called hyperactivity), and […] acting before thinking (called impulsivity)” (AD/HD Factsheet, 2012).  These characteristics typically manifest as one of two types: the inattentive type, and the hyperactive-impulsive type.  The inattentive type of AD/HD is marked by a lack or attention to detail, often not following through “on instructions or finish[ing] school work or chores” (AD/HD Factsheet, 2012).  They are easily distracted, and often have the frustrating tendency to lose or misplace items much more frequently than their unafflicted counterparts, “such as toys, school work, and books” (APA, 2000, pp.85-86).

            The other common form is the hyperactive-inattentive type.  Much as its name would suggest, children with this version of AD/HD tend to have extreme difficulty sitting or standing still, and instead near constantly exhibit fidgeting, squirming, or frequent inappropriate running or jumping.  Another subset of this group may talk too much with seemingly little ability to stop their near-constant verbal outbursts, frequently interrupting, butting-in, or speaking out of turn (pp. 86).  Still other children exhibit a “combined type” which merges the two groups, often resulting in a child who has “problems with paying attention, with hyperactivity, and with controlling their impulses” (AD/HD Factsheet, 2012).

            It is important to note that all children exhibit these behaviors sometimes, and they are typically just normal parts of childhood.  Rather, AD/HD is likely when “these behaviors are the rule, not the exception” (AD/HD Factsheet, 2012).  These is no easy or quick “fix” for AD/HD, and it requires extensive knowledge and work by both parents and educators to construct a specialized program to assist their individual needs in the otherwise extremely challenging and rigid environment of the classroom.

PDD

            Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) is more commonly know as Autism Spectrum Disorder.  It encompasses a whole range of illnesses including Asperger syndrome, Rett syndrome, classic autism, childhood disintegrative disorder, and the blanket-term Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (Autism Factsheet, 2010).  Though this spectrum of disorders afflicts up to 1 in 110 children, its exact cause remains unknown.  Though boys are generally more than four times more likely to be diagnosed with a PDD, interestingly, Rett syndrome almost exclusively affects girls.

            In general, PDDs affect the child’s ability to “communicate, understand language, play, and relate to others” (Autism Factsheet, 2010).  Specifically, this can manifest as difficulty with the use or comprehension of language, difficulty relating to other people or events, strange play patterns with toys and objects, and repetition in both body movements and habits.  Additionally, other common symptoms can include “unusual and sometimes uncontrolled reactions to sensory information—for instance, to loud noises, bright lights, and certain textures of food or fabrics” (Autism Factsheet, 2010).  Though children with PDD consistently manifest such difficulties, they “can differ considerably with respect to their abilities, intelligence, and behavior” (Autism Factsheet, 2010).  Behavioral deviations can range from only talking or relating to a limited range of topics and having difficulty understanding abstract ideas, to its most pronounced of not communicating at all, but only using words or sounds in a repetitive, sometimes rhythmic manner (Autism Factsheet, 2010).

            A child with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder can, under the right conditions, do well in the classroom.  With both parents and teachers working together to fulfill the child’s specific needs – often with focus on building a predictable, consistent environment, increased used of visual rather than verbal presentation, and ensuring regular interaction with nondisabled peers from whom they can model behaviors – an autistic child can “grow to live, work, and participate fully in their communities” (Autism Factsheet, 2010)

Resources

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders  fourth edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR). Arlington, VA: Author.

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY).  (2012) Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Factsheet 19.  Retrieved from: http://nichcy.org/disability/specific/adhd May 5th, 2012.

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY).  (2010). Autism Factsheet 1.  Retrieved from: http://nichcy.org/disability/specific/autism May 5th, 2012.