Engaging students and facilitating their utilization of effective communication skills, Web 2.0 tools, and student collaboration are all components of the well-planned comprehensive assessment. The following unit of study attempts to guide the 8th grade student through a series of discussions, activities, and final project submission in discovery of the facets involved in the United States Supreme Court.
Social Studies (Grade 8)
Mrs. Sue Styren
Grade Level: 8th Grade Social Studies
Unit Title: United States Government: Judicial Branch
Lesson Title: Supreme Court Case Movie Poster
Adapted from a lesson plans published on the Internet by Kelly Tsai and iCivics.org
Content Objectives:
- Students will be able to construct a poster that displays their knowledge (basic facts and effects) regarding a famous Supreme Court case.
- Students will be able to explain how the case/Constitution affects their own lives.
Process Standards:
- Goal: use technological tools to exchange information and ideas
- Goal: identify tasks that require a coordinated effort and work with others to complete those tasks
California Common Core Standards addressed:
Reading Standards for Informational Text
- Std 7 Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of using different mediums (e.g., print or digital text, video, multimedia) to present a particular topic or idea.
- Std 8 Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is sound and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; recognize when irrelevant evidence is introduced.
Writing Standards
- Std 1 Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.
- Std 2 Write informative/explanatory texts, including career development documents (e.g., simple business letters and job applications), to examine a topic and convey ideas, concepts, and information through the selection, organization, and analysis of relevant content.
- Std 3 Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, relevant descriptive details, and well-structured event sequences.
- Std 6 Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing and present the relationships between information and ideas efficiently as well as to interact and collaborate with others.
- Std 7 Conduct short research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question), drawing on several sources and generating additional related, focused questions that allow for multiple avenues of exploration.
- Std 8 Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources, using search terms effectively; assess the credibility and accuracy of each source; and quote or paraphrase the data and conclusions of others while avoiding plagiarism and following a standard format for citation.
- Std 9 Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.
Speaking and Listening Standards
- Std 1 Engage effectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners on grade 8 topics, texts, and issues, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly.
- Std 4 Present claims and findings (e.g., argument, narrative, response to literature presentations), emphasizing salient points in a focused, coherent manner with relevant evidence, sound valid reasoning, and well-chosen details; use appropriate eye contact, adequate volume, and clear pronunciation.
- Std 5 Integrate multimedia and visual displays into presentations to clarify information, strengthen claims and evidence, and add interest.
Reading Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies
- Std 2 Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of the source distinct from prior knowledge or opinions.
Writing Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects
- Std 1 Write arguments focused on discipline-specificcontent.
- Std 2 Write informative/explanatory texts, including the narration of historical events, scientific procedures/experiments, or technical processes.
- Std 6 Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing and present the relationships between information and ideas clearly and efficiently.
- Std 7 Conduct short research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question), drawing on several sources and generating additional related, focused questions that allow for multiple avenues of exploration.
Activities in this unit:
- Students will research and discuss famous Supreme Court cases.
- Students will analyze real-life cases.
- Students will evaluate the effect of landmark cases on everyday life.
- Students will explain the importance of judicial review.
- Students will use the Internet to perform research, including Internet databases such as the Library of Congress (Guide to Law Online), SIRS, and Newsbank InfoWeb.
- Students will utilize Edmodo and Google docs to collaborate and discuss case issues as well as organize group work.
- Students will investigate technical tools to assist them in completing the final assessment.
- Students will synthesize the information into advertisements for an upcoming movie based on the case.
- Students will learn how the cases and the constitution affect their lives today.
- Students will orally share their movie posters with the class.
Formative Assessment #1:
Understanding the Role of the Supreme Court
Anticipatory Set: Students will play iCivics.org “Supreme Decision.” Students help cast the deciding vote for each case. Students will email their game reports to the instructor so you can see how they did. Students are then asked if they ever wondered how the Supreme Court really worked. Students will participate in an online discussion with their classmates on Edmodo in which they will share preconceived notions of the role of the Supreme Court. Students will receive full credit for thoughtful responses.
Here is an example of the prompt:
Respond to the following questions: Have you ever wondered how the Supreme Court really works? After playing “Supreme Decision” on iCivics.org, respond to the following question: Why do you think that the justices argued about whether political speech gets more protection than cultural speech?
Be sure to respond to at least two students and ask clarifying questions (Can you elaborate on…?) or make connecting comments (I think/agree/also…). Your response must be at least two sentences long.
The initial response is due at 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday September 11th and your two responses to classmates are due by 11:59 p.m. on Sunday September 15th.
Feedback
Feedback from the teacher will be provided by Thursday, September 12th. Peer feedback will be provided by Sunday, September 15th. Students should review and respond as necessary to the comments posted. If clarification is required please do so. Use this feedback to help guide you in communicating clearly with instructors and peers as we proceed through this course.
Formative Assessment #2:
After playing “Supreme Decision” students will compare Ben Brewer’s fictional case in “Supreme Decision” with a real-life case involving a student. They will also look at a variety of historic landmark cases to understand why precedents and judicial review are important in peoples’ everyday lives. Materials will be posted to Edmodo for student access. (See blackline masters in iCivics.org “The “Supreme” in Supreme Court” for student materials.)
In order for the students to demonstrate understanding students will complete online quiz within Edmodo based on the materials provided. The quiz is based on the Activity Sheet: “Comparing Constitutional Rights” from iCivics.org. Edmodo quiz allows for the instructor to provide not only scores but comments regarding progress on each question given. I will monitor student progress and provide grades as well as constructive comments as appropriate.
Example of Quiz Structure:
Feedback
Feedback from the teacher will be provided within the comments section of the online Edmodo quiz. Students may also comment on their quiz experience utilizing the emoticons within the testing system. Students should review comments and constructive remarks and utilize them in order to expand their learning.
Formative Assessment #3:
Students will be asked to work collaboratively in groups utilizing Google docs to discuss how judicial review affects them. Students will be graded on the accuracy of their responses and the ability to successfully collaborate with their peers.
Students will refer back to the material posted on Edmodo and iCivics.org regarding org “The “Supreme” in Supreme Court” to assist them in responding to the questions posed. It will also be included in the shared document and I will monitor student progress towards completion. I will provide guidance through the “comments” feature in Google docs.
“Even My Life? Yes!” adopted from the iCivics.org site. Complete the following exercise to see how. Read the description of each case and use what you know about the court system complete the sentences.
CASE
|
IT AFFECTS YOU!
|
Marbury v. Madison (1803).
Said the Supreme Court and other courts have the power to decide whether something is unconstitutional. Courts can strike down government actions that violate the Constitution.
|
This case protects my constitutional rights by:
|
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).
Said it was constitutional for places like schools, buses and restaurants to keep people of different races apart, as long as the services offered were “equal.” For example, it was okay to make black and white people ride on separate train cars.
|
If this case was still the law (it’s not), then the government could require me to:
|
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923).
Said it’s unconstitutional for a state to ban the teaching of foreign languages.
|
If it weren’t for this case, I might not have the choice to:
|
Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
Overruled Plessy by saying it’s unconstitutional for the government to require students of different races to go to different schools. The Court said separate schools for students of different races are not equal.
|
If it weren’t for this case, I might get a different quality of education than:
|
Wainwright (1963).
Said that people accused of a crime must be given a lawyer even if they cannot afford one. It’s unconstitutional to deny them a lawyer just because they’re poor.
|
If it weren’t for this case and I got accused of a crime, I might have a problem because:
|
Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. (1969)
Said it’s unconstitutional to deny students the right to free speech at school, unless the students’ speech disrupts school activities.
|
If it weren’t for this case, things might be different at school because:
|
New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985).
Said it’s unconstitutional for principals and teachers to search students and their belongings, unless there is a good reason (like safety and discipline) and the search doesn’t go too far.
|
If it weren’t for this case, and a teacher decided to go through everyone’s backpack without a reason, then:
|
Feedback
Feedback from the teacher will be provided within the comments section of the Google document that is collaboratively compiled by the student groups. Peer comments will also be provided within the comments section of the document. Students should review comments and constructive remarks and utilize them in order to expand their learning.
Summative Assessment:
A PowerPoint Presentation will be made available to students via Edmodo and an open discussion in which I will participate during posted office hours will follow. The PowerPoint will review concepts covered in in the Formative Assessments as well as discuss specifics with regard to the final project and provide examples of Supreme Court Cases that have affected middle school and high school students across the country.
Students will complete their project online utilizing software products or online tools of their choice and approved by the instructor. Once they have selected the Supreme Court Case that they would like to work on as a group, the students will submit their team selection to the instructor for approval.
Final project must be posted to Edmodo and/or YouTube for presentation to the class. Instructions on how to utilize Screencast-o-Matic.com in order to audio visually present the project to the class will be posted on Edmodo.
Example of Project Instructions/PowerPoint:
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
You Be the Director …
Supreme Court Justice – You Be the Director!
Lights, action, cameras … what better fodder for a film than landmark Supreme Court cases! You will be the director – assign actors and actresses, develop and design the movie poster to sell your film. Are you up for the excitement and adventure of true court drama?
Supreme Court Case Movie Poster Assignment
Final Project Due 11/6/13
Bonus Points if turned in by 10/30/13
The students will be graded according to the following criteria:
· poster is clearly & correctly headed; neat, organized, uses colors & graphics
· correctly identifies case name, issue, participants, lawyers, & locations
· time line is clear & correct
· clearly & correctly explains ruling, including short & long-term effects, & effect on students
· correct spelling, punctuation, capitalization
· job assignments are evenly distributed throughout the cooperative group
· sources are in correct form
· presentation is provided with clear explanation and posted for class observation
Task:
· Pretend that you are a member of a creative team for the KAT Advertising Agency.
· You are to design a poster promoting an upcoming movie which is based on a famous Supreme Court case.
· Your poster will be hung in movie theaters and displayed in the newspaper.
Procedure:
· You will receive the name of a Supreme Court case from the teacher (or you may submit one for approval by the teacher).
· you will research your case and develop a poster which:
o names the case, the issue involved, the primary people involved and their lawyer(s), and the location(s) of key event(s). (This information must be on the movie poster.)
· In a separate document:
o include a summary of the case (in paragraph form.)
o explain the immediate and the long term effect(s) of the ruling, and how it effects students.
o include a time line from the initial event through the lower courts to the Supreme Court.
o Find at least 5 important events related to the case and show when they occurred.
o list (in the correct form) the sources you used to gather your information.
Great Sources of Information:
· Textbook = general information
· Library books = specific information (ask me or the librarians where to find these very good sources of photographs and other information)
· Internet = specific information - the databases you will use include -
· Library of Congress (Guide to Law Online)
· SIRS
· Newsbank InfoWeb
**explore these databases by using key words relevant to your case
ex. type in "Miranda v. Arizona" and hit the "search" button
**explore these databases by using key words relevant to your case
ex. type in "Miranda v. Arizona" and hit the "search" button
Landmark Supreme Court Cases Examples
The following article was originally published in September 2007 as a two-part series in The New York Times Upfront , a news magazine for teens published by Scholastic in partnership with The New York Times.
The nation's highest court has had plenty to say about everything from free speech at school to teenagers' rights in the legal system.
For those of us on the outside, the U.S. Supreme Court can seem remote and mysterious. But the Court, whose nine Justices are appointed for life and deliberate in secret, exerts a powerful influence over the course of the nation and over the lives of Americans—including teenagers.
In a landmark 1967 case known as In re Gault ("in re" is Latin for "in reference to"), which concerned the arrest of a 15-year-old Arizona boy, the Court ruled that teenagers have distinct rights under the U.S. Constitution. (Prior to that, the law generally regarded children as the property of their parents).
In the 40 years since, the Court has weighed in on a host of issues involving people under 18—from freedom of speech and privacy at school to the rights of teenagers in the legal system.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969)
Issue: Freedom of Speech at School
Bottom Line: You Have the Right To Express Yourself—Up to a Point
Background
In December 1965, John and Mary Beth Tinker and their friend Chris Eckhardt wore black armbands to school in Des Moines, Iowa, to protest the war in Vietnam. School officials told them to remove the armbands, and when they refused, they were suspended (John, 15, from North High; Mary Beth, 13, from Warren Harding Junior High; and Chris, 16, from Roosevelt High). With their parents, they sued the school district, claiming a violation of their First Amendment right of freedom of speech.
Ruling
The Supreme Court sided with the students. Students and teachers don't "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," the Court said.
The Court did not, however, grant students an unlimited right to self-expression. It said First Amendment guarantees must be balanced against a school's need to keep order: As long as an act of expression doesn't disrupt classwork or school activities or invade the rights of others, it's acceptable. Regarding the students in this case, "their deviation consisted only in wearing on their sleeve a band of black cloth," the Court said. "They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder."
Impact
In 1986, applying the "disruption test" from the Tinker case, the Supreme Court upheld the suspension of Matthew Fraser, a 17-year-old senior at Bethel High School in Tacoma, Washington, who gave a school speech containing vulgar innuendos (Bethel School District v. Fraser). The Court said "it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse."
Lower courts have relied on Tinker in rulings on school attire, allowing nose rings and dyed hair, for example, but disallowing a T-shirt displaying a Confederate flag.
The Supreme Court weighed in on another student expression case, Frederick v. Morse, ruling that schools can limit student speech that seems to advocate illegal drug use.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
Issue: Privacy Rights at School
Bottom Line: Your Belongings Can Be Searched, But Not Arbitrarily
Background
T.L.O. (Terry), a 14-year-old freshman at Piscataway High School in New Jersey, was caught smoking in a school bathroom by a teacher. The principal questioned her and asked to see her purse. Inside was a pack of cigarettes, rolling papers, and a small amount of marijuana. The police were called and Terry admitted selling drugs at school.
Her case went to trial and she was found guilty of possession of marijuana and placed on probation. Terry appealed her conviction, claiming that the search of her purse violated her Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures."
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school. Students have "legitimate expectations of privacy," the Court said, but that must be balanced with the school's responsibility for "maintaining an environment in which learning can take place." The initial search of Terry's purse for cigarettes was reasonable, the Court said, based on the teacher's report that she'd been smoking in the bathroom. The discovery of rolling papers near the cigarettes in her purse created a reasonable suspicion that she possessed marijuana, the Court said, which justified further exploration.
Impact
T.L.O. is the landmark case on search and seizure at school. Basically, school officials may search a student's property if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that a school rule has been broken, or a student has committed or is in the process of committing a crime. These are called "suspicion-based" searches. There are also "suspicionless searches" in which everyone in a certain group is subject to a search at school. [See Vernonia v. Acton.]
Ingraham v. Wright (1977)
Issue: School Discipline
Bottom Line: Teachers Can Use Corporal Punishment, If Your Locality Allows It
Background
James Ingraham, a 14-year-old eighth-grader at Drew Junior High School in Miami, was taken to the principal's office after a teacher accused him of being rowdy in the school auditorium. The principal decided to give him five swats with a paddle, but James said that he hadn't done anything wrong and refused to be punished. He was subsequently held down while the principal gave him 20 swats.
While corporal punishment was permitted in the school district, James suffered bruises that kept him out of school for 10 days and he had to seek medical attention. James and his mother sued the principal and other school officials, claiming the paddling violated Eighth Amendment protections against "cruel and unusual punishments."
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled against James. The Court said that reasonable physical discipline at school doesn't violate the Constitution. The Eighth Amendment, the Justices said, was designed to protect convicted criminals from excessive punishment at the hands of the government—not school children who misbehave.
The Court, however, did direct teachers and principals to be cautious and use restraint when deciding whether to administer corporal punishment to students. The Justices suggested that school officials consider the seriousness of a student's offense, the student's attitude and past behavior, the age and physical condition of the student, and the availability of a less severe but equally effective means of discipline.
Impact
The Court left the question of whether to allow corporal punishment up to states and local districts, which traditionally set most education policies. Twenty-two states currently permit corporal punishment in public schools, and 28 have banned the practice.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe (2000)
Issue: School Prayer
Bottom Line: Public schools Cannot Sponsor Religious Activity
Background
A Texas school district allowed a student "chaplain," who had been elected by fellow students, to lead a prayer over the public address system before home football games. Several students and their parents anonymously sued the school district, claiming a violation of what's known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the school district's policy regarding prayer was unconstitutional. Although led by students, the prayers were still a school-sponsored activity, the Court said, and they were coercive because they placed students in the position of having to participate in a religious ceremony.
"The Constitution demands that schools not force on students the difficult choice between attending these games and avoiding personally offensive religious rituals," the Court said. The Justices added that "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day." Impact
Since the Santa Fe decision, several lower courts have held that student-initiated group prayer is protected under the First Amendment if it is not sponsored by the school. This is generally accepted to mean, for instance, that a group of student athletes could pray together before a game in the locker room, as long as the coach or other school officials are not involved.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Issue: Student Journalism and the First Amendment
Bottom Line: Schools Can Censor Student Newspapers
Background
Cathy Kuhlmeier, Leslie Smart, and Leanne Tippett, juniors at Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis, Missouri, helped write and edit the school paper, the Spectrum, as part of a journalism class. An issue of the paper was to include articles about the impact of divorce on students and teen pregnancy. The school's principal refused to publish the two stories, saying they were too sensitive for younger students and contained too many personal details. The girls went to court claiming their First Amendment right to freedom of expression had been violated.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled against the girls. A school newspaper isn't a public forum in which anyone can voice an opinion, the Court said, but rather a supervised learning experience for students interested in journalism. "Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities," the Court said, "so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate [educational] concerns."
Impact
Schools may censor newspapers and restrict other forms of student expression, including theatrical productions, yearbooks, creative writing assignments, and campaign and graduation speeches. But the Court's ruling in Hazelwood encourages schools to look closely at a student activity before imposing any restrictions and to balance the goal of maintaining high standards for student speech with students' right to free expression.
Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995)
Issue: Student Athletes and Drug Testing
Bottom Line: Schools Can Require It
Background
James Acton, a 12-year-old seventh-grader at Washington Grade School in Vernonia, Oregon, wanted to try out for the football team. His school required all student athletes to take drug tests at the beginning of the season and on a random basis during the school year. James's parents refused to let him be tested because, they said, there was no evidence that he used drugs or alcohol. The school suspended James from sports for the season. He and his parents sued the school district, arguing that mandatory drug testing without suspicion of illegal activity constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district. Schools must balance students' right to privacy against the need to make school campuses safe and keep student athletes away from drugs, the Court said. The drug-testing policy, which required students to provide a urine sample, involved only a limited invasion of privacy, according to the Justices: "Students who voluntarily participate in school athletics have reason to expect intrusions upon normal rights and privileges, including privacy."
The Court noted that all students surrender some privacy rights while at school: They must follow school rules and submit to school discipline. But student athletes have even fewer privacy rights, the Justices said, and must follow rules that don't apply to other students. Joining a team usually requires getting a physical exam, obtaining insurance coverage, and maintaining a minimum grade point average. And athletes must be willing to shower and change in locker rooms, further reducing their privacy. "School sports are not for the bashful," the Court said.
Impact
More recently, the Court has ruled in favor of school policies requiring random drug testing for all extracurricular activities (Board of Education v. Earls, 2002).
West Side Community Schools v. Mergens (1990)
Issue: Student Clubs
Bottom Line: Public Schools That Allow Student-Interest Clubs Cannot Exclude Religious or Political Ones
Background
Bridget Mergens was a senior at Westside High School in Omaha, Nebraska. She asked her homeroom teacher, who was also the school's principal, for permission to start an after-school Christian club. Westside High already had about 30 clubs, including a chess club and a scuba-diving club. The principal denied Bridget's request, telling her that a religious club would be illegal in a public school.
The year before, in 1984, Congress had addressed this issue in the Equal Access Act, which required public schools to allow religious and political clubs if they let students form other kinds of student-interest clubs. When Bridget challenged the principal's decision, her lawsuit became the Supreme Court's test case for deciding whether the Equal Access Act was constitutional under what is known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bridget. Allowing students to meet on campus to discuss religion after school did not amount to state sponsorship of religion, the Court said: "We think that secondary-school students are mature enough and are likely to understand that a school does not endorse or support student speech that it merely permits."
Impact
If a public school allows only clubs tied to the school curriculum—a French club related to French classes, for instance—it can exclude clubs that don't connect to its educational mission. But once a school allows student-interest clubs—such as a scuba-diving club, environmental club, or jazz club—it cannot exclude religious clubs, political clubs, or other groups.
If the club is religious in nature, however, the school must refrain from active involvement or sponsorship, so that it doesn't run afoul of the Establishment Clause, the Court said.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Issue: Affirmative Action in College
Bottom Line: Colleges Can Use Race as a Factor in Admissions
Background
In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter, who had a 3.8 undergraduate grade point average and good standardized test scores, sued the university over the law school's affirmative action policy, which considered race as a factor in admissions. Michigan and many other universities use affirmative action to increase the number of minority students admitted. Grutter claimed that Michigan admitted less-qualified minority applicants in violation of federal civil rights laws and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizens "equal protection" under the law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court upheld the use of affirmative action in higher education. "Student-body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions," the Court said. But the Court emphasized that the University of Michigan's policy was acceptable because the school conducted a thorough review of each applicant's qualifications and did not use a racial quota system—meaning it did not set aside a specific number of offers for minority applicants.
Impact
Affirmative action, which has its origins in a 1961 executive order issued by President John F. Kennedy, continues to be a contentious issue, with critics charging that it amounts to reverse discrimination. Since 1996, voters in three states—California, Washington, and, most recently, Michigan—have approved laws banning affirmative action in public education, in state government hiring, and the awarding of state contracts. (At Upfrontmagazine.com: a look at the Court's decision in June limiting the use of race in public school integration plans.)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services (1989)
Issue: Constitutional Rights at Home
Bottom Line: The Constitution Doesn't Protect Kids from Their Parents
Background
Four-year-old Joshua DeShaney lived with his father, who physically abused him, in Neenah, Wisconsin. At one point, the State Department of Social Services took custody of Joshua but returned him after three days. Later, Joshua was hospitalized with bruises all over his body and severe brain damage. He survived, but was permanently paralyzed and mentally disabled. His father was convicted of child abuse and sent to prison. Joshua's mother sued the Department of Social Services for returning him to his father. She argued that the department had a duty to protect her son under the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids the state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Ruling
The Court ruled against Joshua and his mother. It said essentially that the Constitution does not protect children from their parents and that therefore the government was not at fault in Joshua's abuse.
Impact
The Supreme Court has consistently respected parents' rights to discipline their children. But even though the government isn't required under the Constitution to protect children, all states assume this responsibility through child protection laws. The Supreme Court has generally deferred to state and local governments to enforce these laws and to intervene in cases of mistreatment.
Example of Student Work (contributed by Julia M. and Breanna B.)
Student Summary Document Contents:
New Jersey v. T.L.O. Timeline
| |||||||
T.L.O. and an unnamed friend, were caught smoking in the school bathroom.
|
The case is tried in a juvenile court. T.L.O. is sentenced to one year of probation.
|
The case is appealed on the basis that T.L.O. had her 4th amendment rights violated.
|
Case is tried in an appellate court and the court withholds the decision of the district court.
|
The case is appealed to the Supreme Court of the state of New Jersey.
|
The Supreme court overturns the ruling, saying that the search had violated T.L.O.'s fourth amendment right
|
The T.L.O. case is appealed to the Supreme Court.
|
The T.L.O. vs. New Jersey case got a ruling from the Supreme Court.
|
Mar-80
|
1982
|
1982
|
1982
|
1982
|
1983
|
1985
|
1985
|
Supreme Court ruling for the New Jersey v. TLO
In 1985, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 margin, ruled that New Jersey and the school had met a "reasonableness" standard for conducting such a search at school. The high court said school administrators don't need to have a search warrant or probable cause before conducting a search because students have a reduced expectation of privacy when in school.
The short and long term effects and the effect on the students
The immediate and long term effects of the Supreme Court ruling was that the court sided with New Jersey, because the school had met a reasonable search. The school doesn’t need a search warrant because students have an expectation of privacy when in school.
This can affect students by their searching rights. Even if the high court decided that its ok for the school to search, it can still affect the students on their 4th amendment right.
Works Cited
"New Jersey vs Tlo (1985)." Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2013. Website http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar24.html "
Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court." New Jersey v. T.L.O. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2013. Website http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/new_jersey_v_tlo
"Landmark Supreme Court Case: NJ v TLO." Timetoast. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2013. Website http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/landmark-supreme-court-case-nj-v-tlo
"New Jersey v. T.L.O." New Jersey v. T.L.O. N.p., 28 Mar. 1984. Web. 05 Nov. 2013. Website http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0469_0325_ZS.html
"New Jersey v. T.L.O. Podcast." USCOURTSGOV RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2013. Website http://www.uscourts.gov/multimedia/podcasts/Landmarks/NewJerseyvTLO.aspx
"New Jersey v T.L.O." Shmoop. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2013.website http://www.shmoop.com/right-to-privacy/new-jersey-v-tlo.html
Rubric for Summative Assessment
Elements
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
Poster Creativity and Organization
|
poster is clearly & correctly headed; neat, organized, uses colors & graphics
|
poster is clearly & correctly headed; fairly well organized, uses colors & graphics
|
poster is clearly & correctly headed uses colors & graphics but lacks organization
|
poster is lacks proper heading and organization
|
Case Specifics
|
correctly identifies case name, issue, participants, lawyers, & locations
|
correctly identifies 4 of the 5 required components
|
correctly identifies 3 of the 5 required components
|
correctly identifies less than 3 of the 5 required components
|
Timeline
|
time line is clear & correct providing the date of the initial incident, initial trial, Supreme Court trial date(s), and ruling
|
time line is clear & correct but lacks one of the key dates
|
time line is clear & correct but lacks two of the key dates
|
time line is unclear and lacks three of the key dates
|
Ruling and Effects
|
clearly & correctly explains ruling, including short & long-term effects, & effect on students
|
clearly & correctly explains ruling but fails to list effects on students
|
clearly & correctly explains either the short-term or the long –term effects but not both, & effect on students
|
Fails to explain ruling, including short & long-term effects, & effect on students
|
Grammar
|
correct spelling, punctuation, capitalization
|
Less than 3 errors
|
Less than 5 errors
|
More than 5 errors
|
Cooperative Group Dynamics
|
job assignments are evenly distributed throughout the cooperative group
|
job assignments are evenly however group fails to work cooperatively
|
job assignments unevenly distributed throughout the cooperative group
|
Group fails to work cooperatively
|
Works Cited
|
sources are in correct form
|
Sources are listed but not in the correct form
|
Some sources listed in the correct form
|
Some sources listed but not in the correct form
|
Presentation Dynamics
|
presentation is provided with clear explanation and posted for class observation
|
presentation is provided with clear explanation but incorrectly posted
|
presentation is provided but further explanation is required and posted for class observation
|
presentation is fraught with technical errors
|
