Teacher Resources: Lesson Plan
Kids Take on the Supreme Court
Overview
Children who have been involved in Supreme Court cases have, arguably, had far greater impact on the lives of American people than child celebrities, yet few people know anything about them. In this lesson, students will learn about some of these children. To begin, students will brainstorm the names of child celebrities of the present or past (from film, television, music, etc.) and then try to brainstorm the name of any child who went to the Supreme Court, for example Linda Brown of Brown v. Board of Education. Students will then investigate and write a short biography about one of the children involved in a Supreme Court case, create three clues about the child for a "Who Am I?" game, and then divide into teams to play the game using student-created clues.
National Curriculum Standards met by this lesson
For a list of standards that this unit addresses, click here.
Ties to your Curriculum
This lesson ties into Civics/U.S. Government when studying:
- The Constitution, Article III, the Judicial Branch
- The Supreme Court
- Rights and responsibilities of citizenship
Time required
The lesson will take approximately two class periods if research is done outside of class
Materials
- The U.S. Constitution and Amendments to the Constitution
- Guideposts for Thinking and Discussion: The Supreme Court and Young People and/or Essay, The Supreme Court and the Lives of Young People
The Lesson
Anticipatory Set
- Ask students to brainstorm the names of child celebrities of the present or past (from film, television, music, etc.)
- Then, ask students if they can think of any Supreme Court cases involving children. If they draw a complete blank, remind them of the civil rights movement and Linda Brown who sparked Brown v. Board of Education. Ask students to consider the impact of a Supreme Court case compared to the impact of the typical child performer. If necessary, remind students of fads of performers from three to five years ago who are no longer heard of.
- Ask students why they think we don't hear more about the children who go to the Supreme Court.
Procedures
- Explain to pupils that they will be investigating one of the children involved in a Supreme Court case. Some are featured in the Guideposts or essay on the Supreme Court and Young people, while others are in books or may be found in an Internet search; most of their circumstances are described in the opening paragraphs or footnotes of the opinion of the Supreme Court case with which they are associated. The students may select from one of the following children:
- John Dagenhart, Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
- Betty Simons, Prince v. Massachusetts (1944)
- Raymond Parpart, Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
- Dale Moore, Jr. or John Moore, Jr., Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio (1977)
- Lorelyn Miller, Miller v. Albright (1998)
- Joshua DeShaney, DeShaney v. Winnebago (1989)
- John Harvey Haley, Haley v. Ohio (1948)
- Robert Gallegos, Gallegos v. Colorado (1962)
- Morris A. Kent, Jr., Kent v. United States (1966)
- Gerald Gault, In re Gault (1968)
- Samuel Winship, In re Winship (1970)
- Gregory Martin, Schall v. Martin (1984)
- R.L.C., United States v. R.L.C. (1992)
- Christopher Simmons, Roper v. Simmons (2005)
- Dwight Lopez, Goss v. Lopez (1975)
- Amber Tatro, Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984)
- John or Mary Beth Tinker, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
- Linda Brown, Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
- Matthew Fraser, Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)
- Barbara Papish, Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri (1972)
- Cathy Kuhlmeier, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
- James Acton, Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995)
- James Ingraham, Ingraham v. Wright (1977)
- Billy Gobitas, Minersville v. Gobitis (1940)
- Frieda Yoder, Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
- Chioke Saleem Jaffree, Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)
- Roger or Donna Schempp, Abington v. Schempp (1963)
- Amy Cohen, Cohen v. Brown University (1996)
- Students should write a short description including at minimum a) the name of the child, b) the child's age when events are set in motion (if known), c) what incident the child was involved in which led to him or her going to the Supreme Court d) the year the case was decided by the Court and e) how the Court ruled. If pupils are able to get more information about the child's life or if the court decision discusses the child personally, they may incorporate that information in their summary.
- Next, each student should write three clues about the child they have researched for a "Who Am I?" game. The first clue should be difficult, the second clue should add more information, and the third clue should add enough information so the answer is obvious.
- Ask students to read their description to the class along with their three clues, and then collect their work.
- Divide students into teams to play the game using student-created clues. (Divide by row or workgroups, or otherwise into five random groups.) If any team can figure out the identity of "Who Am I?" on the first clue (the most difficult) the team will get 3 points; on the second clue (with added information) the team will get 2 points; on the third clue (the easiest) the team will get 1 point. An incorrect answer gets no points, but no penalty. The teacher may make all questions "toss-up" questions that all teams may attempt to answer. Alternatively, the teacher may give each team a chance to answer five "Who Am I?" identities, and then use unsolved identities or leftover identities for "toss-up." Also, if appropriate, the names of the "Who Am I?" children may be listed on the chalkboard or elsewhere to serve as a "name bank."
- As a culminating activity, ask each student to select the child whose case they think changed America the most and to explain why by writing a five-sentence paragraph, consisting of a topic sentence, three supporting sentences, and a concluding sentence.
Assessment
The students' paragraph may be evaluated on a twenty-point scale (which may be multiplied by five to convert to 100-point scale or for conversion to letter grades) using the following rubric:
|
Excellent (5) |
Good (4) |
Fair (3-2) |
Poor (1) |
None (0) |
|
|
Topic Sentence (5) |
Topic sentence is clear, focused, and written in an interesting manner |
Topic sentence is appropriate and focused |
Topic sentence is appropriate but lacks focus |
Unclear, unfocused topic sentence |
No topic sentence |
|
Three Supporting Sentences (5) |
Three supporting sentences; each one clearly supports the topic sentence with details |
Three supporting sentences which are appropriate |
Two supporting sentences which are appropriate |
One supporting sentence which is appropriate |
No supporting sentence which is related to the topic or has details |
|
Concluding Sentence (5) |
Clear concluding sentence which summarizes the point of the paragraph |
Adequate concluding sentence which summarizes the paragraph |
Concluding sentence poorly summarizes the paragraph |
Concluding sentence is unrelated to paragraph |
No concluding sentence |
|
Writing Mechanics (5) |
No capitalization, punctuation, or spelling errors |
One to three capitalization, punctuation, and/or spelling errors |
Four to six capitalization, punctuation, and/or spelling errors |
Seven to nine capitalization, punctuation and/or spelling errors |
Ten or more errors. |
Related Works
ABA Division for Public Education:
Online Conversation with Tinker v. Des Moines Plaintiffs from:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/tinker/qa.html
and ABA Law Day for Schools, Lessons 7-9, Juvenile Justice: The Case of Gerry Gault:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/schools/lessons/79_juvjustice.html
A Matter of Conscience, Billy Gobitas at American Treasures of the Library of Congress:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trr006.html
"Black/White and Brown", an Interview with Linda Brown:
http://brownvboard.org/video/blackwhitebrown/
First Amendment Center, Matthew Fraser speaks out on 15-year-old free-speech decision by David Hudson:
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13701
George Street Journal, "For a decade, Brown's Title IX news has followed Amy Cohen '92," by Kristin Cole, May 24, 2003:
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/George_Street_Journal/vol26/26GSJ28l.html
Irons, Peter. The Courage of Their Convictions: Sixteen Americans Who Fought Their Way to the Supreme Court. (New York: The Free Press, 1988.)
Johnson, John W. The Struggle for Student Rights: Tinker v. Des Moines and the 1960s. (Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1997.)
Peters, Shawn F. The Yoder Case: Religious Freedom, Education, and Parental Rights. (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2003.)
University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School: Due Process Rights of Public School Students::
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/dueprocesstudents.htm
Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, Debating Teenage Rights by Richard Canalori:
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1988/1/88.01.01.x.html
Interdisciplinary Links
Art: Ask students to take the story of one of the children who was involved in a Supreme Court decision and consider how they could present them as a celebrity. For example:
- create a movie poster
- create the cover of a fan magazine
- create an illustrated CD label
- create a collector's card modeled after a baseball card
- create a collector's ornament (such as the one Hallmark made for Jackie Robinson in 1997)
Language Arts: Direct pupils to use the story of one of the children who was involved in a Supreme Court decision as the basis for a creative writing project such as:
- a bio-poem or poem in the voice of the child
- a skit (which may conform to the individual or group performance standards for History Day, see:
http://nationalhistoryday.org/02_contest/02.html and:
http://nationalhistoryday.org/02_contest/frameb_02_c11.html#checklist - a diary entry written by the child
- an imaginary interview with the child
