D2.Civ.11.9-12: Evaluating Decision Procedures from City Hall to the UN Security Council

Overview

Lesson Procedure

60-85 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction15-20 minutes
3. Guided Practice20-25 minutes
4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes
5. Closure5-10 minutes

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes

   Open with a question about trade-offs.

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "A city council takes six months to approve a new bus route because it holds three public hearings and needs two votes. A city manager could approve it in a week. Which procedure is better? What would you need to know to decide?"

   Students write for three minutes, then share. List on the board the purposes they mention (speed, public input, fairness, expertise, accountability). Point out that "better" depends on which purpose is being judged and on evidence of results, and introduce the four steps of Diagram 1. Write the question for the day: How do we judge whether a decision procedure works?

2. Direct Instruction15-20 minutes

   Part 1: Terms. Define the civic purposes students will test:

   • Efficiency: getting decisions made and work done quickly and at low cost.
   • Accountability: voters can see who is responsible and can replace them.
   • Representation: decisions reflect the wishes of the people affected.
   • Deliberation: careful discussion and revision before a decision.
   • Protection of the minority: a smaller group cannot simply be outvoted on matters vital to it.

   A supermajority rule requires more than a majority, such as two-thirds. A veto lets one actor block a decision. Procedures often trade one purpose for another, so a fair evaluation names both what was gained and what was risked.

   The four procedures in this lesson

   Level	Procedure	Sources
   Local	Commission government: five elected commissioners both make and carry out city law (Galveston, 1901)	Source 1
   State	Initiative and referendum: voters propose and approve laws at the ballot box	Sources 2 and 3
   National	Treaties need the consent of two-thirds of the senators present	Sources 4, 5 and 6
   International	Each permanent member of the UN Security Council has a veto	Source 6

   Part 2: Local (Source 1). In 1900 a hurricane destroyed much of Galveston, Texas. The city then replaced its mayor and council with a commission of five. Albert M. Kales, a law professor, describes the result in 1914, quoting the reformer Richard S. Childs (paragraphs 2-4). Glosses: the electorate is the body of voters; wielded means used; machines are party organizations that control votes and offices; extra-legal unpopular government is Kales's term for rule by such bosses and machines. Read it aloud.

   1It took a flood and a hurricane which overwhelmed a prosperous city to reverse the popular convictions which lie at the basis of government in the United States. In 1900 Galveston was all but destroyed by the waters of the Gulf rising during a hurricane. Confronted with a great emergency in which quick and efficient action was imperative if the city was to be restored at all, the people abandoned the fear of kings and of centralized governmental power. The entire municipal power of government, executive and legislative, was vested in a single board of five commissioners. These were both the legislature and the executive. They made the ordinances and wielded the executive power through subordinate officers appointed by them. The governmental principle which was thus applied in the commission plan is the concentration of governmental power by the union of the legislative and executive functions of government in the hands of a few who are controlled and prevented from becoming an unpopular government because they are subject to the electorate through elections at frequent intervals. [...] The ultimate result was a real expression of the will of the electorate through the representatives chosen and full power in those representatives to enact that will into law and also enforce the law thus made. In actual operation the results of applying this principle left little to be desired in Galveston. Here are the comments of a keen observer, writing in 1911:

   2To Americans accustomed to inefficiency in public office as contrasted with private enterprise, the story of the achievements of this Commission reads like a romance. Unhampered by checks and balances and legal red-tape, the Commission reorganized the city government, restored the city property, planned and financed and built the great sea-wall that now bars out the sea, raised the ground level of the city, and, withal, reduced the tax-rate and the debt! The annual running expenses of the city were decreased one-third. The new government displayed foresight, intelligence, and dispatch. It appeared sensitive to that public clamor which the average politician considers so needless.

   3There was striking change in the attitude of the public toward the doings at City Hall. The people began to “take an interest” in their common property, to discuss the doings of the Commission on street corners, to have “civic pride” (since there was now at last something to be proud of), to criticize or applaud the work of their servants. They seemed to have actually a proprietary interest in the government! Amid this widespread discussion the influence of the politicians of the town was swamped and counted for only its true numerical strength.

   4Now every American city has its spells of good government--the reactions that follow orgies of corruption and scandal--and the fact that the new Galveston government saved money is not in itself significant. The vital difference is that these good administrators in Galveston, without building up personal “machines” or intrenching themselves in power by the usual army-like methods of political organization, were able to secure re-election again and again. They won favor by serving all the people well. They did their work in the spot-light of public scrutiny, where every citizen could see and appreciate and applaud.

   5Unless, however, the fundamental principles at the basis of government by commission are observed and applied, there can be much apparent commission form of government for cities which will not in any way militate against extra-legal unpopular government.

   • Local: purposes and evidence (Source 1)

     What purposes was Galveston's commission meant to achieve, and what evidence does Source 1 give that it achieved them?

     Result: Intended purpose: Kales says the plan concentrates power "in the hands of a few" who stay answerable because they are "subject to the electorate through elections at frequent intervals" (paragraph 1), so it aims at efficiency with accountability. Evidence: Childs reports that the commission rebuilt the city, "built the great sea-wall," and "reduced the tax-rate and the debt" (paragraph 2), results that bear on efficiency. Judging the evidence: Childs was a reformer who campaigned for this plan, and he describes one city recovering from a disaster, so a careful verdict is that the evidence on efficiency is strong for Galveston but does not yet show the plan works everywhere.

3. Guided Practice20-25 minutes

   State (Sources 2 and 3). Between 1898 and 1918, many states adopted the initiative (voters sign a petition to put a proposed law on the ballot and then pass or reject it) and the referendum (voters approve or reject a law the legislature has passed). Woodrow Wilson, then Governor of New Jersey and a candidate for President, defended them in 1912; Elihu Root, a U.S. senator and former Secretary of State, argued against them in 1913. Glosses: to supersede is to replace; the statute book is the body of a state's laws; compulsory means required; Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an eighteenth-century philosopher who favored direct rule by the people; avowed means openly stated. Pairs read one source each, then trade summaries.

   1Take another matter. Take the matter of the initiative and referendum, and the recall. There are communities, there are states in the Union, in which I am quite ready to admit that it is perhaps premature, that perhaps it will never be necessary, to discuss these measures. But I want to call your attention to the fact that they have been adopted to the general satisfaction in a number of states where the electorate had become convinced that they did not have representative government.

   2Why do you suppose that in the United States, the place in all the world where the people were invited to control their own government, we should set up such an agitation as that for the initiative and referendum and the recall. [...] because of the growing consciousness that something intervenes between the people and the government, and that there must be some arm direct enough and strong enough to thrust aside the something that comes in the way.

   3[...] Let no man be deceived by the cry that somebody is proposing to substitute direct legislation by the people, or the direct reference of laws passed in the legislature, to the vote of the people, for representative government. The advocates of these reforms have always declared, and declared in unmistakable terms, that they were intending to recover representative government, not supersede it; that the initiative and referendum would find no use in places where legislatures were really representative of the people whom they were elected to serve. The initiative is a means of seeing to it that measures which the people want shall be passed,--when legislatures defy or ignore public opinion. The referendum is a means of seeing to it that the unrepresentative measures which they do not want shall not be placed upon the statute book.

   4[...] You will of course understand that, both in the case of the initiative and referendum and in that of the recall, the very existence of these powers, the very possibilities which they imply, are half,--indeed, much more than half,--the battle. They rarely need to be actually exercised. The fact that the people may initiate keeps the members of the legislature awake to the necessity of initiating themselves; the fact that the people have the right to demand the submission of a legislative measure to popular vote renders the members of the legislature wary of bills that would not pass the people; the very possibility of being recalled puts the official on his best behavior.

   1The Initiative and Compulsory Referendum are attempts to cure the evils which have developed in our practice of representative government by means of a return to the old, unsuccessful, and discarded method of direct legislation and by rehabilitating one of the most impracticable of Rousseau's theories. Every candid student of our governmental affairs must agree that the evils to be cured have been real and that the motive which has prompted the proposal of the Initiative and Referendum is commendable. [...]

   2There is now a limited use of the Referendum upon certain comparatively simple questions. [...] Upon certain great simple questions which are susceptible of a yes or no answer it is appropriate that the people should be called upon to express their wish by a vote just as they express their choice of the persons who shall exercise the powers of government by a vote. This, however, is very different from undertaking to have the ordinary powers of legislation exercised at the ballot box.

   3In this field the weakness, both of the Initiative and of the Compulsory Referendum, is that they are based upon a radical error as to what constitutes the true difficulty of wise legislation. The difficulty is not to determine what ought to be accomplished but to determine how to accomplish it. [...] The only safeguard against such evils and the only method by which intelligent legislation can be reached is the method of full discussion, comparison of views, modification and amendment of proposed legislation in the light of discussion and the contribution and conflict of many minds. This process can be had only through the procedure of representative legislative bodies. [...] In ordinary cases the voters will not and cannot possibly bring to the consideration of proposed statutes the time, attention, and knowledge required to determine whether such statutes will accomplish what they are intended to accomplish; and the vote usually will turn upon the avowed intention of such proposals rather than upon their adequacy to give effect to the intention.

   National (Sources 4 and 5). The Constitution says the President may make treaties "provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." Alexander Hamilton defended the rule in 1788. Source 5, from the State Department's historians, tells what happened when the Senate voted on the Treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World War and included the Covenant (charter) of the League of Nations. Glosses: concur means agree; intrust is an old spelling of entrust; to embarrass the operations of government here means to hamper them; impotence means powerlessness. In paragraph 4, "a body so variable and so numerous" is the House of Representatives.

   1THE President is to have power, "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

   2[...] However proper or safe it may be in Governments, where the Executive Magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective Magistrate of four years' duration. [...] The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue, which would make it wise in a Nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a Magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.

   3[...] It must indeed be clear, to a demonstration, that the joint possession of the power in question, by the President and Senate, would afford a greater prospect of security, than the separate possession of it by either of them. [...]

   4Accurate and comprehensive knowledge of foreign politics; a steady and systematic adherence to the same views; a nice and uniform sensibility to National character; decision, secrecy, and despatch, are incompatible with the genius of a body so variable and so numerous. [...]

   5It has been shown, under the second head of our inquiries, that all provisions which require more than the majority of any body to its Resolutions, have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the Government, and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority. This consideration seems sufficient to determine our opinion, that the Convention have gone as far in the endeavor to secure the advantage of numbers in the formation of treaties, as could have been reconciled either with the activity of the public councils or with a reasonable regard to the major sense of the community. If two thirds of the whole number of members had been required, it would, in many cases, from the non-attendance of a part, amount in practice to a necessity of unanimity. And the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed, is a history of impotence, perplexity, and disorder. [...]

   1The struggle to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant in the U.S. Congress helped define the most important political division over the role of the United States in the world for a generation. A triumphant Wilson returned to the United States in February 1919 to submit the Treaty and Covenant to Congress for its consent and ratification. Unfortunately for the President, while popular support for the League was still strong, opposition within Congress and the press had begun building even before he had left for Paris. Spearheading the challenge was the Senate majority leader and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Henry Cabot Lodge.

   2Motivated by Republican concerns that the League would commit the United States to an expensive organization that would reduce the United States’ ability to defend its own interests, Lodge led the opposition to joining the League. Where Wilson and the League’s supporters saw merit in an international body that would work for peace and collective security for its members, Lodge and his supporters feared the consequences of involvement in Europe’s tangled politics, now even more complex because of the 1919 peace settlement. They adhered to a vision of the United States returning to its traditional aversion to commitments outside the Western Hemisphere. Wilson and Lodge’s personal dislike of each other poisoned any hopes for a compromise, and in March 1920, the Treaty and Covenant were defeated by a 49-35 Senate vote. Nine months later, Warren Harding was elected President on a platform opposing the League.

   3The United States never joined the League. Most historians hold that the League operated much less effectively without U.S. participation than it would have otherwise. [...]

   • State: a purpose achieved without using the power (Source 2)

     Wilson says the initiative and referendum "rarely need to be actually exercised." How would that procedure achieve its purpose, and what evidence would test his claim?

     Result: Wilson's purpose is "to recover representative government, not supersede it" (paragraph 3). The threat does the work: the chance that voters may act "keeps the members of the legislature awake" and makes them "wary of bills that would not pass the people" (paragraph 4). To test it, a student would compare how often legislators passed measures the public wanted before and after a state adopted the initiative. Wilson offers no such numbers, so his claim is an argument, not yet evidence. The same test applies to Root: his prediction that voters will judge "the avowed intention" of a measure rather than whether it works (Source 3, paragraph 3) is also an argument until someone studies how voters actually decided.

   • National: counting the 1920 vote (Sources 4 and 5)

     The Treaty and Covenant "were defeated by a 49-35 Senate vote" (Source 5, paragraph 2). Did a majority support the treaty, and what does Hamilton's warning suggest about the result?

     Result: Senators voting: 49 + 35 = 84. Yes share: 49 / 84 = 58.3%, a majority. Two-thirds of 84 is 56 votes, so the treaty fell 7 votes short. This is the case Hamilton described: a supermajority rule can "subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority" (Source 4, paragraph 5). Whether that was a failure or a success depends on the purpose judged: it protected the country against a commitment that 35 senators opposed, and it blocked a treaty most senators voting supported.

4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes

   International (Source 6). The United Nations replaced the League after the Second World War. Glosses: collective security means that member countries agree to act together against an attacker; the Big Four were the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union and China, and France became the fifth permanent member of the Security Council; bipartisan means supported by both major parties; to ratify is to give final approval to a treaty.

   1U.S., British, Soviet, and Chinese representatives met at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington in August and September 1944 to draft the charter of a postwar international organization based on the principle of collective security. They recommended a General Assembly of all member states and a Security Council consisting of the Big Four plus six members chosen by the Assembly. Voting procedures and the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council were finalized at the Yalta Conference in 1945 when Roosevelt and Stalin agreed that the veto would not prevent discussions by the Security Council. Roosevelt agreed to General Assembly membership for Ukraine and Byelorussia while reserving the right, which was never exercised, to seek two more votes for the United States.

   2Representatives of 50 nations met in San Francisco April-June 1945 to complete the Charter of the United Nations. In addition to the General Assembly of all member states and a Security Council of 5 permanent and 6 non-permanent members, the Charter provided for an 18-member Economic and Social Council, an International Court of Justice, a Trusteeship Council to oversee certain colonial territories, and a Secretariat under a Secretary General. The Roosevelt administration strove to avoid Woodrow Wilson’s mistakes in selling the League of Nations to the Senate. It sought bipartisan support and in September 1943 the Republican Party endorsed U.S. participation in a postwar international organization, after which both houses of Congress overwhelmingly endorsed participation. Roosevelt also sought to convince the public that an international organization was the best means to prevent future wars. The Senate approved the UN Charter on July 28, 1945, by a vote of 89 to 2. The United Nations came into existence on October 24, 1945, after 29 nations had ratified the Charter.

   • International: the shape of the Security Council (Source 6)

     In 1945 the Security Council had "5 permanent and 6 non-permanent members," and the permanent members had a veto. What share of the seats did the permanent members hold, and what purpose does giving each of them a veto serve?

     Result: Seats: 5 + 6 = 11, so the permanent members held 5 / 11 = 45% of the seats, but each could block a decision alone. The purpose fits the plan in Source 6: an organization "based on the principle of collective security" needed the great powers that would have to enforce peace inside it, so each was promised that the Council could not act against it. The trade-off is that one permanent member can stop the Council from acting at all, even when every other member agrees.

   Students now complete the four steps of Diagram 1 for each of the four procedures, using at least one quotation and one number for each. Then each student writes a one-paragraph verdict on one procedure: Did it achieve its purposes better than the alternative?

5. Closure5-10 minutes

   Exit ticket: "Name one procedure from today that achieved one purpose at the cost of another. Which purpose would you put first, and why?"

   Teacher note on the sources: At first, in 1901, the governor of Texas appointed three of Galveston's five commissioners; from 1903 all five were elected. Kales and Childs were reformers who campaigned for the commission and short-ballot plans, so Source 1 is the case for the plan from its supporters; many commission cities, Galveston among them, later replaced the plan with other forms such as the council-manager plan. Wilson and Root wrote as political leaders in the election-year arguments of 1912 and 1913; present both as serious positions, and score students on reasoning, not on which side they take. About half of the states (26, in the count kept by the National Conference of State Legislatures) let citizens petition for a statewide initiative or popular referendum today; in nearly every state the legislature must also send proposed constitutional amendments to the voters. The Security Council grew to 15 members, 10 of them elected, in 1965; the veto of the five permanent members is unchanged. Sources 5 and 6 are interpretations by government historians and should be read as such. Source 7 is invented.

   Homework passage. Source 7 is an invented fact sheet with data for one procedure at each level. At large means elected by the whole city rather than by districts, or wards; turnout is the share of eligible voters who vote; to leave a ballot question blank is to vote in other races but not on it.

   1Source 7 is a fact sheet about an invented state, Westmark. Every place, person and number in it is invented.

   2Local: the Port Alder commission. In 2012 the city of Port Alder (population 62,000) replaced its mayor and its 11-member council, elected by wards, with a five-member commission elected at large; each commissioner runs a group of city departments. Before the change, the city adopted its budget after the legal deadline in 6 of 10 years; since the change, it has been late in 1 of 12 years. Turnout in city elections fell from 31% before the change to 24% after it. Two neighborhoods that each had their own council member before 2012 have had no resident on the commission since.

   3State: Measure 9. After the Westmark legislature failed to vote on a water-rights proposal in four straight sessions, supporters put it on the ballot by initiative petition. The petition needed valid signatures equal to 8% of the 1,100,000 votes cast for governor in the last election; it had 96,000. Measure 9, an 11-page change to the state's water-rights law, passed with 52% of the votes cast on it. Of the voters who voted for governor that day, 18% left Measure 9 blank.

   4National: a hypothetical treaty vote. Suppose that 98 senators are present for a vote on a trade treaty, and 60 vote yes and 38 vote no.

   5International: the Lake Varn Commission. Three countries share Lake Varn. Each appoints one commissioner, and every decision must be unanimous. In ten years, the commissioners considered 14 proposals: 5 were adopted, and 9 were blocked, 7 of them by the same country, which lies upstream. Last year the other two countries proposed deciding by a two-of-three majority; the upstream country said it would leave the commission if it could be outvoted on dams.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to Kales (Source 1, paragraph 1), why did the people of Galveston accept a government that concentrated power in five commissioners?

   AThey wanted to copy the governments of European cities BThe state legislature took away their right to elect a mayor CAn emergency demanded quick and efficient action DThe old council had refused to build a seawall

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to Childs (Source 1, paragraph 4), what was the "vital difference" that made Galveston's results significant?

   AThe commission saved money during its first year BThey won re-election without building machines CEvery voter attended the commission's weekly meetings DThe state ordered other cities to copy Galveston's plan

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   What does Kales's last paragraph (Source 1, paragraph 5) add to the evaluation of the commission plan?

   AIt works only if its basic principles are applied BIt works only in cities hit by a natural disaster CIt should replace every state legislature in the country DIt always ends the influence of the political machines in a city

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which evidence in Source 1 best shows that the commission increased citizens' interest and participation in city government?

   AThe commissioners were elected at frequent intervals BThe commission built a seawall and raised the city's ground level CThe city's annual running expenses fell by one-third DPeople discussed the commission's doings on street corners

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to Wilson (Source 2, paragraph 3), what is the referendum meant to do?

   ALet voters elect the members of the state supreme court BKeep laws the people do not want off the statute book CLet the legislature ask voters for advice before it debates DReplace the governor's veto with a vote of the people

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to Wilson (Source 2, paragraph 2), what made the movement for these reforms spread?

   AReports that Switzerland had used them for many years BCourt rulings that struck down laws passed by state legislatures CA decision of Congress to require them in every new state DA sense that something stood between people and government

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   What is Root's main objection to the initiative and compulsory referendum (Source 3, paragraph 3)?

   AThe voters' goals in proposing these measures are mostly selfish BPopular votes cost the states too much money CBallot votes skip the discussion and amendment wise laws need DThe Constitution forbids states to hold any popular votes

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   On which kind of question does Root agree that a popular vote is appropriate (Source 3, paragraph 2)?

   AGreat simple questions that can be answered yes or no BAny law that the legislature has failed to pass CTreaties with foreign nations that affect the state DDetailed statutes on trade, production and social life

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   On which point do Wilson (Source 2) and Root (Source 3) agree?

   ABallot measures should replace most ordinary legislation BLegislatures had real problems representing people CVoters already have enough time to study every statute DThe recall of judges should be adopted in every state

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Why does Hamilton argue (Source 4, paragraph 2) that the President should not make treaties alone?

    AA four-year President might be tempted to betray the nation BThe President knows too little about foreign politics to negotiate CForeign countries refuse to deal with elected leaders DThe House of Representatives must approve every treaty

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Why does Hamilton (Source 4, paragraph 5) prefer two-thirds of the senators present to two-thirds of all the senators?

    AAbsent senators should count as voting no on every treaty BA smaller group of senators is harder for a President to bribe CCounting all members could, with absences, need unanimity DThe Vice President must be able to break a tie on any treaty

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Why does Hamilton argue (Source 4, paragraph 4) that the House of Representatives should not share in making treaties?

    AThe House is elected only by the state legislatures BThe House already controls all of the spending on foreign affairs CTreaties must be kept secret from the voters forever DSo large and changing a body lacks the needed secrecy and speed

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    What did Roosevelt and Stalin agree about the Security Council veto at Yalta, according to Source 6?

    AThe veto would be used only by the United States BThe veto would not prevent discussions by the Council CThe veto would expire after ten years DThe veto would require two permanent members to agree

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    According to Source 6, what did the Roosevelt administration do differently from Wilson in seeking the Senate's approval of a world organization?

    AIt asked the Senate to drop the two-thirds rule BIt sent the Charter to the House instead of the Senate CIt sought support from both parties before the vote DIt kept the Charter secret until the day of the vote

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    Childs praises Galveston's commission as "unhampered by checks and balances" (Source 1, paragraph 2). Evaluate this feature: which civic purposes did it help achieve, which did it put at risk, and how strong is the evidence?

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Using Wilson (Source 2) and Root (Source 3), evaluate whether the initiative and referendum achieve two civic purposes: representation of the people's wishes and careful deliberation. Reach a verdict.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Suppose all 96 senators of 1920 had voted on the treaty. How many yes votes would two-thirds require? Then compare the 1920 vote (Source 5) with the 1945 vote (Source 6). Did the two-thirds rule achieve Hamilton's purpose of "security" in each case? Explain.

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Evaluate the Security Council veto (Source 6) in terms of two purposes: keeping the great powers inside the organization and making it possible to act against threats to peace. Use the League (Source 5) as a comparison.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    Galveston's commission concentrated power in a few hands (Source 1), while the treaty rule spreads it and requires broad agreement (Source 4). Evaluate which design better achieves its civic purposes at its own level, and why the two levels might need different designs.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Choose one procedure from this lesson and write a full evaluation using the four steps of Diagram 1: the intended purpose, the evidence of results, the trade-offs and a verdict against an alternative.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D2.Civ.11.9-12: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

Standard text: National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). NCSS was not involved in the production of this lesson and does not endorse it.