Kelly Gallagher's Blog

Mass Shooting Unit: Day 12

Note: today was the last day of the 3rd quarter. We were on a minimum day schedule, which meant classes were only 30 minutes in length.

What the teacher did: I briefly shared some news updates with students.

Students were shown where to go to find their congressional representative: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative. I modeled the process by using the school’s address. Because they way congressional districts are drawn, not all of my students have the same representative.

What the students did: Students figured out how to contact their representatives.

What the teacher did: I asked the students to consider who might be best the audience for their letters. For example, if a student has a “pro-gun” stance, it would not make sense to send your letter to a “pro-gun” politician. Many of my students wrote “anti-gun” letters, but both congressional representatives in this area are both democrats, so sending their letters to them would not be a good idea.

For those students who did not want to write their own representatives, I showed them the following alternatives, which helped them to contact other key lawmakers:

https://www.house.gov/leadership

https://www.democraticleader.gov/contact-us/

https://kevinmccarthy.house.gov/contact/offices

https://www.flgov.com/contact-gov-scott/

What the students did: Students electronically submitted their letters to me. Some of them (see reflection below) also emailed them to lawmakers.

Some reflections on the lesson:

·      One of the criticisms I received via Twitter suggested that it was wrong for me to make it mandatory for all students to actually contact their lawmakers. After giving that some thought, I agreed with the criticism. Therefore, I made it optional. And I’m glad I did (see below).

·      After students submitted, their letters to me I asked: “How many of you decided to actually submit your letter to a lawmaker?” Surprisingly—at least to me—far fewer students than expected decided to actually send their letters. This perplexed me, as the students were engaged in the unit. (In fact, when I asked them how many are going to march in the April protest, a strong majority indicated that they were going to walk). So why would so many of them decide to march, yet at the same time decide to not mail their letters? When I asked, I was met with silence. And this is where I had an “Aha!” moment: my initial theory is that many of them may have undocumented family members and are thus reluctant to place their families on the radar screens of lawmakers. But I am not sure that is the only reason. Unfortunately, because it was a minimum day and the students were with me for only 30 minutes, I did not have time to delve deeper. The period ended. But I have decided that when they return to class, I will ask them to write me anonymously and tell me why they decided not to submit. I am really curious about this—why impoverished students are reluctant to have their voices heard. My gut feeling tells me—and I could be wrong— that students who come from more advantaged backgrounds would be much less hesitant to fire off their letters. What is it about poverty, about oppression, that silences people?  I intend to explore this in greater depth, but it will have to wait ten days. Spring Break begins tomorrow, and not a moment too soon. Whatever the answers turn out to be, I am hoping that they serve as a transition into our next unit—the reading of 1984.

Mass Shooting Unit: Day 11

What the teacher did: I briefly shared some news updates with students, e.g. Florida passed a new gun bill: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/us/florida-gun-bill.html.

Students took two revision laps through their rough draft letters:

Lap 1: Students were given a checklist and asked to self evaluate their own drafts. Here is the checklist:

_____Do you have the “proper” salutation?

_____Do you establish who you are?

_____Do you call the lawmaker to action?

_____Do you support your reasons with strong support and reasoning?

_____Do you support your reasons with outside sources?

_____Do you recognize a counter-argument?

_____Do you refute the counter-argument?

_____Do you use an outside source to refute the counter-argument?

_____Do you thank the reader?

_____Do you repeat your call to action in the conclusion?

What the students did: Students self-assessed their drafts and revised.

What the teacher did: Explained the second revision lap.

Lap 2: In this lap, students were asked to find at least two different partners to respond to their letters. Each respondent was asked to leave at lease one question and one comment. I modeled this with one student draft (displayed without the student’s name on it). I read the paper out loud, and wrote the following questions and comments:

·      “Do you have a statistic to back this claim?”

·      “I want to hear more of your thinking here.”

·      “I am wondering if your conclusion is too ‘soft.’ You don’t want the lawmaker to think about it. You want the lawmaker to do something.”

What the students did: Students responded to their peers’ papers.

What the teacher did: I circulated the room and conferred with students.

At the end of the period, I encouraged students to use the questions and comments on their papers to drive one more revision of their letters. I reminded the students that their letters are due tomorrow.

Some reflections on the lesson:

·      This checklist was not collected. It was simply a tool to encourage students to revisit key elements in their letters.; I told them ahead of time that I would not be collecting them.

·       A concern: using a very specific mentor text (and a checklist with it) carries a danger with it—many of the letters are looking the same. Any time my students’ writing acquires a sameness to it, I grow concerned.  I try to stay away from formulaic writing as possible, but these letters are feeling a little bit formulaic. Looking back, I realize that I should have given them another very different model—one steeped in story. A “Dear Lawmaker, let me share a story with you” approach may have produced letters with a very different feel to them.  On the other hand, there are specific features that are often highlighted in a letter to a lawmaker, and I do feel my students have acquired a serviceable approach to talking to power.

Mass Shooting Unit: Day 10

What the teacher did: I briefly shared some news updates with students.

Students were asked to revisit the mentor text letter to a lawmaker through the lens of ethos/pathos/logos.

What the students did: Students briefly analyzed the balance of ethos/pathos/logos in the mentor letter.

What the teacher did: The students were given the rest of the period to finish drafting their letters. The letters are due tomorrow at the beginning of class. As students worked, the teacher walked the room and conferred shoulder-to-shoulder with as many students as possible.

What the students did: Students wrote for the rest of the period. Many of them conferred 1:1 with the teacher. 

Some reflections on the lesson:

As expected, most students had little or no trouble expressing their opinions, but, not surprisingly, some had some trouble weaving in counterarguments (and their refutation of counterarguments).Students needed encouragement in weaving in sources to support their stances. They were encouraged to revisit the mentor text to see examples of this weaving.The drafting of the letters are taking much longer than anticipated, which makes me wonder why. Possible answers:This is a deep issue with many subtexts, and as such the writing of this letter requires careful sifting before and during drafting.I have a number of students reading and writing below grade level, and their fluency is not what we would hope to see in seniors.Spring break starts in two days. The students are tired. Senioritis is flaring.

Mass Shooting Unit: Day 9

What the teacher did: I briefly shared some news updates with students.

I shared this satirical video from last week’s Saturday Night Live: https://slate.com/culture/2018/03/watch-charles-barkley-fight-insect-infestations-the-nra-way-giving-semiautomatic-rifles-to-cockroaches.html

I explained that a letter to a lawmaker has distinct characteristics. I then passed out the following mentor text letter to them:

March 6, 2018

The Honorable Susan Doe

2222 Rayburn House Office Building

United States House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Cutting the education budget

Dear Representative Susan Doe:

As a teacher and a constituent, I am concerned about the potential impact of calls to cut  $1.7 billion in education. I am writing to urge you to vote “No” on this bill.

My school and many others are already struggling to cut back. My school district is expecting our enrollment to continue to increase by 4-6 percent annually over the next five years. Combined with the proposed federal budget cuts, we will likely have to make cuts to our academic, athletic, and arts programs. For teachers like me, this means money out of our own pockets as we try to keep our classroom activities up to par. If you keep squeezing teachers, more of them will leave the profession, already adding to the high percentage of teachers who quit.

Another negative effect of this bill is the complete lack of funding for public preschool programs. Studies from The Education Trust continue to show that those who attend preschool demonstrate improvement in long-term test scores and important development in language, literacy, mathematics and social skills. Low-income families and communities, in particular, benefit from these preschool programs. They provide a free, safe and education-oriented place for children to learn while their parents can work more hours.

Finally, the Title I Portability clause takes money from the school districts that need it most and transfers it to optional private and charter schools. Title I was intended to help schools with low-income students, which very often suffer from low local funding. This Portability clause leaves the public schools that are already hurting the most in a more serious financial bind. This is unconscionable.

I have heard the argument that all areas of the budget need to be cut in these difficult economic times, but cutting school budgets is short-sighted. According to the Los Angeles Times, every dollar invested in schools ends up in the long run adding almost two dollars to the economy. Yes, education is expensive, but not nearly as expensive as ignorance. An investment in schools is an investment in the future. We can pay a little bit now, or we will end up paying a lot later.

Thank you for your consideration. When this bill comes up to vote, I urge you as a concerned teacher on the ground to vote “No.” If we truly want our students be successful, we need to avoid or reduce these drastic cuts.

Sincerely,

Jane Smith

123 Main Street

Anytown, State 98887

Phone: 555-999-2222

This letter, of course, is fake, and I purposefully avoided writing about guns because I did not want my students to copy me. Students were asked to read the letter and to mark “key” characteristics. I modeled one for them (For example, when we address lawmakers, we refer to them as “The Honorable___________”).

What the students did: Students read quietly for five minutes, marking the “moves” found in this kind of writing.

What the teacher did: Asked students to share their findings with other members at their tables.

I then directed a whole-class conversation so that all students could mark their letters. Here are some of the elements they noticed:

·      The use of the colon in the salutation.

·      The introduction served two purposes: (1) it identified the letter writer and (2) it called for action on a specific issue.

·      The next three paragraphs introduced arguments in favor of the writer’s stance, along with support. This support had to be more than the thinking off the top of the writer’s head. In the mentor text for example, I refer to The Education Trust and the Los Angeles Times as sources that support my thinking.

·      We paid close attention to the transition words between paragraphs (“Another,” “Finally”) and what purpose these words served.

·      In paragraph four, we noticed how a counterargument was introduced, and how the argument was refuted. We noticed how on two different occasions the word “but” in that paragraph helped to pivot the argument.

·      We noticed that the conclusion also served two purposes: (1) to adopt the right tone by thanking the lawmaker, and (2) to revisit the call to action— one last plea to do something.

I then had the students revisit the argument notes they had already assembled. These notes, I told them, might serve as the “bones” of their letters.

What the students did: The students took out their argument notes and read them again. Then they began drafting their argument letters. 

Some reflections on the lesson:

Writing a letter to a lawmaker is a practice in economy. I was actually a congressional intern when I was in college, and I read a lot of the incoming mail. Letters that were long were often not read. With this in mind, I asked my students to try to keep their letters to a single typed page (single spaced)—like the model I gave them.I am not searching for an exact number of “big” reasons to support one’s argument. In other words, I am not looking for a 5-paragraph essay. I told the students they might support their arguments with three reasons, or two, or four.  They might only have one reason—but it is a really good reason that they can support really well. I also told them that they could ignore my mentor text and write in any way they think will persuade a politician. There is no formula.

Mass Shooting Unit: Day 8

What the teacher did: I briefly shared some news updates with students.

Today is the day we begin to prepare to write our letters to lawmakers. Each student was asked to identify at least one concrete step he/she believes needs to be made to help address the mass shooting epidemic.

What the students did: Student wrote their belief statements. Here are some example statements:

I believe AR-15s should be outlawed.

I believe every school should have an armed guard.

I believe the age of consent to buy a gun should be raised to 21.

What the teacher did: Once students had their “I believe…” statements, they were asked to complete a tri-chart graphic organizer. In the first column they had to list reasons to support their belief statements (they In the second column they had to write down anticipated counterarguments. In the third column, they had to write how they would refute the counterarguments.

What the students did: Students spent the rest of the period filling out their charts. This spurred them to revisit many of the articles/cartoons/graphics that they had previously studied.

What the teacher did: As students were working, the teacher conferred with random students to push their thinking as they built support for their arguments.

Some reflections on the lesson:

This lesson is the “grunt work” that is foundational to writing a cogent letter. I am reminded of Ernest Morrell, who says the hardest part of teaching can be that transition from inspiration to perspiration. This was a perspiration day.

 

The following was asked of me on my blog: “Although you teach seniors, I wondered if you reached out to parents prior to this unit so they would be prepared for any conversations students may have when they go home. Also, did you have to get approval by your administration? NEA's advisory states, “school safety and gun control issues may be considered 'controversial' [therefore] educators should refer to their collective bargaining agreement and district policies.”

Great questions. No, I did not reach out to my parents ahead of time to give them a heads up, nor did I get approval from my administration. Teaching controversial issues is in my state ELA standards (in this case, the Common Core). Schools are the VERY PLACE where this kind of study should be occurring. I am not simply trying to inform my students of the details of the controversy; I am also teaching my students how to have measured and reasonable discourse with those with whom they disagree. Isn’t this where school gets the most interesting—where reasonable people disagree?

I am also trying hard to make sure the unit is balanced, with student access to both sides of the issue.

Mass Shooting Unit: Day 7

Note: We spent a few more minutes at the beginning of class today watching some student-made poetry movies. Because of time limitations, I am sharing a skeletal view of the lessons. In my lesson plan book, “What the teacher did” and “What the students did” are in side-by-side columns. However, they are presented sequentially below due to the constraints of this blog platform.

What the teacher did: I briefly shared some news updates with students.

I put a political cartoon up on the document camera for all students to see. I purposefully picked a topic other than guns. The cartoon I selected was about the resignation of Al Franken, as I was aiming for something my students would not know a lot about.  The cartoon depicted a drawing of Franken. On the left side of his head, the caption read: “What he said: ‘I will resign.’” On the right side of his head the caption read, “What he should have said: ‘I will resign when Donald Trump resigns.’”

Only one student knew the Franken story. This led to a discussion on the importance prior knowledge plays in reading comprehension. My students could read the words; they just did not possess the context to understand them. We discussed what a reader would have to know before making sense of the cartoon. This also led to a pep talk on why doing the article of the week is so important.

What the students did: Students were directed to three links that led them to numerous political cartoons on the issue of mass shootings. Here are the three sites:

https://www.usnews.com/cartoons/gun-control-and-gun-rights-cartoons

https://www.cagle.com/cartoons/

http://theweek.com/cartoons?sort=publ...

They were then given 10-15 minutes of time to read and discuss various cartoons. They then selected one cartoon and wrote brief reflections.

What the teacher did: As students were surfing, I bounced around the room and helped them to understand those poems where their prior knowledge was lacking. Using the Franken cartoon, I modeled how to analyze a cartoon using the S.O.A.P.S. strategy. This is a strategy developed years ago by The College Board:

I worked through the SOAPS strategy on the Franken cartoon, thinking out loud and eliciting responses from the students.

What the students did: Students selected one cartoon they felt was good, and they completed a SOAPS chart in their notebooks. Upon completion, they shared with others at their tables.

What the teacher did: As students were working, I conferred with random students about why they chose that particular cartoon and what they were thinking.

Some reflections on the lesson:

I was struck—and a little alarmed—about some of the things not known by some of my students. For example, many of my students did not understand that the Republican party is represented by an elephant, and that the Democratic party is represented by a donkey. Some did not know what “GOP” means, or that an “Uncle Sam” hat was symbolic of our nation. They could read the words in the cartoons, but their prior knowledge is lacking.The students really enjoyed surfing the cartoons. Many times I heard one student say to another, “Hey, look at this one…” I felt good about exposing them to political cartoons, and I could feel some of them getting into them as much as I love them.

Mass Shooting Unit: Day 6

Note: My students’ digital poetry projects were due today. Three students in each period volunteered to perform their poems in class.  We shared these for the first 10-15 minutes of class.

What the teacher did: Distributed the essay “Parkland Students Demand Change” by Leonard Pitts. That essay is found here: http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/article201965719.html.

I explained to the students that this was an “anti-gun” editorial and that many of them may disagree with it. My goal in sharing this essay was not to sway anyone; the goal was to begin the process of analyzing how arguments are constructed, regardless of the piece being pro or con. Many of my students did not know the word “editorial,” or its distinction from a news story, so I explained this distinction. I then facilitated three laps through the piece:

Lap 1 - I read the editorial orally and had students highlight key points, words, sentences, and/or phrases.

What the students did: Students highlighted key points, words, sentences, and/or phrases and then shared out in small groups.

What the teacher did: Lap 2 - I asked student to re-visit the text and to identify and to mark some moves and techniques employed by Pitts that makes this good writing. I told them that this was not about agreeing with Pitts’ stance. Whether you agree with his position or not, he is a good writer. I asked kids to identify the “goodness” of his writing.

What the students did: Students marked some moves and techniques employed by Pitts. They then shared in groups, and then we shared (and marked the text) as a class. Here are some of the “moves” they noticed: intentional paragraphing for effect, intentional repetition of the student responses, the use of quotations, and the various uses of a colon.

What the teacher did: Lap 3 - Here the focus shifted from “What makes the writing good?” to “Is this an effective argument?” I introduced three ways a person may be persuaded:

Ethos is used as a means of convincing an audience via the authority or credibility of the persuader, be it a notable or experienced figure in the field or even a popular celebrity.

Example of ethos: “As a doctor, I am qualified to tell you that this course of treatment will likely generate the best results."

Pathos (appeal to emotion) is a way of convincing an audience of an argument by creating an emotional response to an impassioned plea or a convincing story.

Example of pathos: "If we don’t move soon, we’re all going to die! Can’t you see how dangerous it would be to stay?"

Logos (appeal to logic) is a way of persuading an audience with reason, using facts and figures.

Example of logos: "More than one hundred studies have been conducted over the past decade, and none of them suggests that this is an effective solution."

Students glued these definitions into their notebooks (I had printed them before school and I cut them down so they would fit). Students were then then asked to read the essay again, this time analyzing where Pitts used ethos, pathos, or logos.

What the students did: Students re-read the essay and marked “E” for where Pitts used ethos, “P” for where he used pathos, and “L” for where he used logos.  Students worked on this for the rest of the period. They did not finish, so they were asked to complete the task as homework.

Some reflections on the lesson:

The performance of the poems to start the beginning of class provided a nice respite from the heaviness of the unit—and from the heavy tone hovering above campus. The day started with a mandated faculty meeting in which we were informed of a written threat. As a safety precaution, the district office hired armed security to be on our campus today. Everybody—students and staff—are on edge. Poetry performances are exactly what we needed.When we study specific genres, I always have students pay attention to the moves and techniques used by writers in that genre.  We list these on an anchor chart in class. In a previous unit, for example, we had done this throughout a month of narrative study, and that anchor chart still hangs in the classroom. As we now begin to examine “good” argumentative writing, we notice that many of the moves work across genres. The examples listed above— intentional paragraphing for effect, intentional repetition of the student responses, the use of quotations, and the various uses of a colon—work in argument as well as in narrative. Good writing is good writing.I needed ten more minutes of class time. My intention was to have students discuss Pitts’ use of ethos, pathos, and logos before taking a stand on whether it Pitt’s essay is an effective argument or not. This may have to carry over until tomorrow, or I may return to it when they actually sit down to write their letters next week.

 

Mass Shooting Unit: Day 5

Note: Today we had a late-start day, which means our class periods were shortened to 45 minutes. Because of time limitations, I am sharing a skeletal view of the lessons. In my lesson plan book, "What the teacher did" and "What the students did" are in side-by-side columns. However, they are presented sequentially below due to the constraints of this blog platform.

What the teacher did: I began class by doing a book talk on Dave Cullen’s Columbine. I started the lesson with this bold statement to the students: “Today, we start with the most debated sentence in the United States today: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The sentence, which is the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, was posted up on the screen for all to see.

What the students did: Students copied the sentence in their notebooks.

What the teacher did: The teacher pointed out that there were many specific, single words in the 2nd Amendment that have been the subject of intense debate. Students were asked to read the sentence quietly a couple of times. They were then asked to attempt to “translate” the 2nd Amendment in their own words.

What the students did: Students wrote paraphrased versions of the 2nd Amendment into their notebooks and then shared out their interpretations in small groups.

What the teacher did: The teacher then facilitated a whole-class share out of student thinking. There was a lot of talk around the words “militia” and “well-regulated.” Once this share-out was completed, I showed them this short clip from the History channel on the history of the 2nd Amendment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TGcU0lmINk&t=28s

What the students did: Students took “bullet” notes on the video. Once the video was over, were asked, “What surprised you in the video?” Students then shared their thinking in small group discussions.

What the teacher did:I randomly chose student to share “one big idea that was discussed in your groups.” I then facilitated that sharing to the class.

I then showed them two articles we were going to study in class today (posted on our class digital page). One of the articles claims that the 2nd Amendment gives all Americans the rights to bear any arms. The second article claims the 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted.

Here is article 1: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/15/in-defense-of-the-second-amendment/

Here is article 2: https://qz.com/1214718/what-america-is-getting-wrong-about-three-important-words-in-the-second-amendment/

We began with article #1. Students were given seven minutes to read as deeply into the article as possible. Some finished; some didn’t. Upon completing the article, each student worked on a “What does it say?/What does it not say?” T-chart drawn into their notebooks. We started with “What does it say? And students brainstormed in their small groups. (Example: the text says that it is a “natural right” to own a gun). After working on this side of the chart, and after sharing out as a class, students then brainstormed again on the “What does it not say?” side of the chart. Again we shared in small groups and then as a class as a whole. (Example: The text does not say anything about whether an age limit should be put on the purchasing of guns).

We repeated this entire Say?/Doesn’t say? process again with article #2. This took us to the end of the period.

Some reflections on the lesson:

When my students are sharing in small groups, they are aware that often someone in the group is going to be asked to share “something interesting” that the group had discussed. What is important to know here is that each table’s spokesperson will be chosen randomly, which helps to ensure that everyone stays dialed into the conversation and that no one “hitchhikes.” My students sit four to a table, and the chairs they sit in come in four different colors. Often I will say something like, “Today the person sitting in the red chair is your group’s spokesperson. Take one minute, revisit the key points of the conversation your group just had, and help prep your spokesperson to represent your group well.” I am trying to build in consistent accountability.Even though I broke from the normal template of my “usual” rhythm of my class period, I still ran out of time before my students had a chance to do any quick writing about today’s articles. I really do not like it when my kids do not have time to write, but the articles took longer than anticipated. I could have assigned students to do some night writing, but their digital poetry projects are due tomorrow and I know many of them will be working on these projects late into the night (this project was assigned at the end of our poetry unit last week).Students also did not have time to do any independent reading in class today. I take some solace in that they did a lot of reading from the selected articles, but it bothers me that I could not work this in. I like today’s lesson, but any day without independent reading and without the opportunity to put more words down on the page makes me re-evaluate whether I made the best use of class time—even on a day with shortened periods.

 

Mass Shooting Unit: Day 4

Note: I was not in school today, so this lesson was taught by my student teacher. Also, my class periods are 53 minutes, every day. Because of time limitations, I am sharing a skeletal view of the lesson. In my lesson plan book, "What the teacher did" and What the students did" are in side-by-side columns. However, they are presented sequentially below due to the constraints of this blog platform.

What the teacher did: Students compared two different versions of the same data in an attempt to recognize how news sites manipulate data. The teacher shared two screen shots of charts depicting the number of people who signed up for Obamacare. Though the charts depicted the same information, the way the information was presented was vastly different between the charts (which were chosen from news sites on opposite ends of the political spectrum).

What the students did: The students studied each chart and were asked what they noticed about them. Students discussed why the graphs chose to present the same information in very different ways. This led to a discussion that culminated in emphasizing the importance of always asking two questions: (1) Who is the source? and (2) Who is the intended audience?

What the teacher did: Students were directed to this page that contains a number of charts and graphs regarding shootings: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-guns-violence-statistics-maps-charts.

What the students did: Each student surfed the charts for ten minutes, eventually focusing on one that most interested him/her. Each student selected one chart and answered the following questions; (1) What does the chart say? (2) What does the chart not say? (3) How is the chart said? (4) Who is the source? (5) Who is the intended audience?

Students then did a quick write in their notebooks, reflecting on the exercise.

Students shared their responses with “shoulder partners.” They shared (1) which chart they chose to examine closely, and (2) one big idea that emerged from their writing.

Some reflections on the lesson:

I was not in the classroom today, and because I am writing this in an airport, I have not yet had time to reflect upon how the lesson went with my student teacher.

Mass Shooting Unit: Day 3

Note: my class periods are 53 minutes, every day. Because of time limitations, I am sharing a skeletal view of the lessons. In my lesson plan book, “What the teacher did” and “What the students did” are in side-by-side columns. However, they would not load as columns onto this web page.

What the teacher did: I posted the following articles to our digital “In the News…” page:

Teachers in This Texas School are Already Armed---source LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-texas-school-armed-20180222-story.html

Cop Who Didn’t Enter School During Florida Shooting Resigns---source Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/23/police-officers-guard-home-deputy-assigned-to-florida-hs-who-never-went-in-during-shooting-report.html

Transcript: Stoneman Students Questions to Lawmakers and the NRA at the CNN Town Hall---source: CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics/cnn-town-hall-full-video-transcript/index.html

Authorities missed dozens of warning signs about the Florida shooting suspect before the massacre---source: Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/florida-shooting-police-response-criticized-911-calls-missed-nikolas-cruz-2018-2

Oregon lawmakers pass gun-control bill; first since Florida shooting---source: USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...

I am adding news stories to this page daily as they unfold. Instead of reading in their independent books today, I directed students to open up the classroom digital page and to surf and read amongst these articles for ten minutes. Students were then asked to share their thinking with a “shoulder partner” (My students sit at tables, not desks).

What the students did: Students read articles in the “In the News…” section of our digital classroom page, and then shared some thinking with a “shoulder partner.”

What the teacher did: Students were directed to the gun control page found on procon.org: https://gun-control.procon.org/.

What the students did: Students read quietly through the pros and cons for 15 minutes.

What the teacher did: I asked my students to take one argument in favor of gun control and one argument against gun control. For each of the arguments, they were asked to list (1) reasons that support the argument; (2) counterarguments the other side would give; and (3) possible rebuttals to the counterarguments. Again, they had to do these three steps on two different occasions: once for an argument in favor of gun control and once for an argument opposed to gun control. 

To help them to understand the task, I modeled two examples before they started. Because I did not want to influence their thinking—and because I didn’t want them to copy me—I modeled the task on a different controversial issue: the death penalty. I took one argument in favor of the death penalty and one argument opposed to the death penalty, and modeled reasons, counterarguments, and rebuttals to the counterarguments for each of the arguments.

As they began working on their arguments, I circulated the room to confer with as many of them as possible.

What the students did: Students zoomed in on two opposing arguments and considered the reasons, the counterarguments, and rebuttals to the counterarguments. Most students worked on this until the end of the period. (Students who finished before the end of the period were asked to take out their independent books and to read quietly).

Some reflections on the lesson:

In my first class of the day, I modeled the argument/counteragument/rebuttal chart to them before they began wading through the arguments on procon.org.  This was a mistake because students were finding two arguments fairly quickly and were beginning to write about them immediately. This in itself is not bad, but because they began writing so early they did not get to the subsequent arguments on the procon site. I adjusted 2nd period by having them read for 15 minutes first, and then after they had read, I introduced the task at hand. Even after 33 years of teaching, my first period still gets my crappiest lesson of the day.

 

I know the initial 10 minutes of reading “In the News…” is not nearly enough time for them to read all the articles I have been posting, but I am hoping it whets their appetites enough so that they will want to voluntarily go back and read more of them outside of school.

 

I want my students to have more of a visual of how this story is unfolding. In the past, I have stretched butcher paper across a wall in my classroom and then printed and posted news articles as the story unfolds—a timeline of events. I’ve done this because I want my students to see that the story has “legs,” and that they should be tracking their thinking over time. The problem? I no longer have enough wall space in my classroom to do this (too many bookshelves!). However, I have two long whiteboards. I may have to sacrifice one of them.