D4.7.9-12: Assessing Options for Action with Self-Reflection and Causal Reasoning

Overview

Lesson Procedure

85-85 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction30 minutes
3. Guided Practice20 minutes
4. Independent Practice15 minutes
5. Closure10 minutes

1. Warm-Up10 minutes

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "A school tries a new rule: no phones at lunch. That month, fewer students are sent to the office. Write two other explanations for the drop, and one question you would ask before deciding that the rule worked."

   Collect explanations such as a holiday week, a new assistant principal, or a calmer month every year. Name the idea: to judge an option, you must ask what would have happened without it. Then ask whether a person's opinion of the phone rule might depend on whether that person uses a phone at lunch. Name that idea too: self-reflection. Tell students that both habits were at the center of a 1912 argument about saving a tree.

2. Direct Instruction30 minutes

   Part 1: The question and the sources. The compelling question is "In 1912, what should Pennsylvania, its neighbors and its tree owners have done about the chestnut blight?" The blight is the vehicle for the skill. Key terms: a fungus is an organism, like a mold, that feeds on living or dead material; spores are its tiny seed-like cells (conidia and ascospores are two kinds); a canker is a dead patch of bark where the fungus grows; a mycologist studies fungi and a plant pathologist studies plant diseases; an immune zone was a belt of land kept free of the disease by cutting every infected tree; stumpage is the value of standing timber; a check in an experiment is a comparison group left untreated; gypsy moth and peach yellows were other pests fought by states at the time.

   Sources 1-4 come from the stenographic report of the conference. In Source 2, F. C. Stewart answers a question others had put to him: "What then would you have us do? Stand idle while the disease destroys our chestnut forests" (his last paragraph begins with his answer). In Source 3, paragraph 1 is Dr. Mickleborough of New York State, paragraph 2 is Professor G. P. Clinton of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, and paragraph 3 is Dr. Merkel of New York. Source 5, written fourteen years later, is read after Guided Practice Step 1.

   Source Information: who spoke or wrote, when, and from what position (from the conference report and the circular's title page)

   Source	Author and position	Date	Main option or point
   1	S. B. Detwiler, executive officer of the Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Commission	February 1912	Eradicate advance infections and hold an immune zone
   2	F. C. Stewart, New York Agricultural Experiment Station	February 1912	Restrict diseased nursery stock and fund research only
   3	Three speakers from the floor: Mickleborough, Clinton, Merkel	February 1912	Cost, private owners, and duty
   4	W. Howard Rankin, Cornell University	February 1912	What was still unknown about the spread
   5	G. F. Gravatt and R. P. Marshall, U.S. Department of Agriculture	May 1926	What happened, and the options left

   1Although a determined effort to control and eradicate the chestnut bark disease was made by a number of public spirited citizens, residing in the vicinity of Philadelphia, it soon become evident that they were unable through individual efforts, to save their valuable chestnut trees from destruction. As a result, Pennsylvania took up the fight against this destructive tree disease in earnest, realizing the necessity for prompt and vigorous action on the part of the Commonwealth.

   [...]

   2The general plan adopted by the Commission is that recommended by Dr. Metcalf in his recent bulletin on the control of the chestnut bark disease. In brief, this consists in first determining the exact range of the disease, especially the advance points of the infection. The diseased trees of these spot infections are destroyed as soon as possible after being located. Ultimately, it is planned to establish a zone free from the disease which will be constantly patrolled for new infections. [...] East of the immune zone no immediate attempt will be made to eradicate the disease, partly because most of the energy will be required to fight the disease in the immune zone and westward, and also because of the poor market for chestnut products, especially cordwood, of which a large amount will be produced. It is planned, however, to place competent men in the region of general infection for the purpose of encouraging timber owners to cut their diseased trees before they deteriorate, and to assist them in finding a market for this material.

   [...]

   3Section 3. If an owner refuses to co-operate with the Commission in applying remedies or doing any act directed to be done to prevent further spread, the Commission may give him twenty days’ notice that it will proceed if he does not. At the end of the period of notice the Commission may cause trees to be destroyed and the cost of doing such work is collectible from the owner; and if the cost be not paid within sixty days, the Commission is directed to proceed by action at law. An owner may appeal from the decision of a member of the Commission or any of its agents or employes, within ten days after receiving his notice. The Commission will then direct a re-examination and accord a hearing to the person making the appeal. Proceedings in the meanwhile will stay.

   4Section 4. The Commission is given power to establish a quarantine or destroy trees not affected by blight, if so doing will result in preventing spread of the disease. Good trees so destroyed are to be paid for at current stumpage prices. In case an owner be dissatisfied with an amount allowed him for the destruction of good trees, he may appeal to a court for such remedy as he thinks he may be entitled to.

   [...]

   5Twenty-five thousand dollars is appropriated for scientific research and office expenses, and $250,000 additional for general field work.

   [...]

   6Pennsylvania’s programme may be summed up as doing all that can be done along the lines indicated to save the chestnut trees. If successful, we shall be most happy; if we fail, after an honest fight, we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that it has been money wisely spent. Even though we accomplish no more than to secure the best utilization of the blight killed material, the expenditure of money and effort is justified; and in addition, we have the educational value along forestry, conservation, and pathological lines; an object lesson to the State and Nation, of which we must not lose sight.

   1It is my opinion that we are rushing into this enormously expensive campaign against the chestnut bark disease without considering as carefully as we should the chances of success. The first question to consider is, can the disease be controlled by Metcalf’s and Collins’ method, of destroying advance infections and establishing an “immune zone?” This is a technical question of fundamental importance. It is a question to be answered by expert mycologists and plant pathologists.

   [...]

   2The chief criticism to be made of it is that there is no means of knowing what would have happened if the diseased trees had not been removed. There was no check, and experimenters are agreed that experiments without checks have little value. This is one of the first principles of experimentation. Weather conditions may have been unfavorable for the spread of the disease [...]

   [...]

   3Returning now to the main question: No such method of controlling a fungous disease has ever been attempted. Our knowledge of fungous diseases in general indicates that it is impracticable. It will be extremely difficult to locate all of the diseased trees and absolutely impossible to remove all of the fungus after the diseased trees are found. The fungus spores, which are produced quickly and in enormous numbers may be widely disseminated in several different ways, some of which cannot be prevented. The work will be exceedingly expensive and must be continued indefinitely. Taking all these things into consideration, the chances of success are much too small to warrant the expense.

   [...]

   4There is no reason for believing that the fungus is either a recent creation or a recent introduction from abroad. The only rational theory yet advanced regarding the origin of the epidemic is Dr. Clinton’s winter-and-drought-injury theory, but even this seems insufficient in some respects.

   5[...] My answer is this: It may be well to restrict the transportation of diseased nursery stock, but this is all that it is worth while to attempt at present in the line of combating the disease. It is better to attempt nothing than to waste a large amount of public money on a method of control which there is every reason to believe cannot succeed. I believe in being honest with the public and admitting frankly that we know of no way to control this disease. I favor moderate-sized appropriations for investigation of the disease, but none at all to be used in attempts to control it by any method or methods at present known. What will be the future course of the disease can only be conjectured, but it can be safely predicted that nothing which man can now do will materially alter its course. However, the situation is by no means hopeless. That the disease has already reached its zenith and will now gradually subside is quite possible. There have been other epidemics, and other kinds of trees and plants have been threatened with destruction through disease, but such a thing has never actually happened. So far as known, no plant has ever been exterminated by disease. It is unlikely that the chestnut will be exterminated.

   1We were told by the Governor that the value of the chestnut stand in this State, I think, was forty millions dollars. The Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania did not appropriate one per cent. of that which is endangered by this chestnut blight. In fact, the Governor told us the estimate was based upon fifty cents per tree. Indeed, if the statistics were carefully made, Pennsylvania has not appropriated more than about one-half of one per cent. to protect the value of a great chestnut growth.

   [...]

   2PROFESSOR CLINTON: I do not know that I made the statement that gypsy moth work in Massachausetts was not effective. I said it meant a long fight and a continuous fight. This chestnut blight, from the re-infection, would make the fight a continuous one. You could not do it up and leave it there. You would have to keep at it forever, provided the material continued. Regarding the peach yellows law, my statement was that they dropped that. The reason it was dropped was because it made so much trouble with the farmers, by going into their orchards. You would find that same difficulty with the farmers in Pennsylvania that you would in Connecticut.

   [...]

   3I am sure that the two hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars that the State of Pennsylvania has appropriated will never be missed, even if no beneficial results are obtained; but that the everlasting shame that the State of Pennsylvania would suffer if she made no attempt to save her chestnut trees, should be enough not to discourage any and all citizens from unselfish effort for their fellow men.

   1Concerning the means of spread of the fungus from one tree to another we have nothing except secondary evidence. Most writers have theorized on the different methods by which the conidia or summer spores might be carried from one tree to another and a new infection started. Reasoning by analogy with what is known of the behavior of many fungi, such agencies as borers, birds, ants and the wind, etc., have been suggested but in no wise proved to be responsible. It seems that the ascospore stage has not been considered by any writer in the dissemination of the fungus, yet this stage follows the conidia very quickly and is the more abundant fruiting stage which is formed in the red or brown pustules on the surface of the cankers. Under moist conditions the ascospores are shot forcibly out in the air where they can be caught up by the wind and carried for a considerable distance. The speaker found the ascospores being shot from mature pustules during every rainy period last summer. These spores germinate readily in rain water producing a new mycelium of considerable length in fifteen hours. The question at once arises, why could not these ascospores once shot into the air be carried long distances and owing to their abundance cause a large majority of the infection?

   [...]

   2Preliminary investigations carried on by the speaker seem to point to the fact that the susceptibility of the chestnut tree to this fungus depends upon drought conditions; that is a low water content in the tree. This requires confirmation however by further detailed experiment.

   How to cite. The "[...]" lines mark cuts and are not numbered. Source 1 has paragraphs 1-6, Source 2 has 1-5, Source 3 has 1-3, Source 4 has 1-2, and Source 5 has 1-5.

   Part 2: Model the assessment. Work through the examples, adding each option to Diagram 2 and each causal link to Diagram 1.

   • Strategy identification: why the option had to be collective (Source 1, paragraph 1)

     Detwiler says citizens near Philadelphia made "a determined effort" but "were unable through individual efforts, to save their valuable chestnut trees". What does this tell us about the options?

     Result: Individual action failed because the fungus crossed property lines, so the options worth assessing were collective: a state commission with legal power over private land (paragraphs 3-4), a quarantine, or a multi-state plan. Matrix row: Pennsylvania's programme, collective, lever = state law and money.

   • Complex causal reasoning: what would have happened anyway? (Source 2, paragraph 2)

     The plan rested on a test near Washington, D.C. Stewart objects that "there is no means of knowing what would have happened if the diseased trees had not been removed." Why does that matter?

     Result: Without a check, the disease might have stopped spreading for another reason. Stewart names one possibility in the same paragraph: weather that was unfavorable for the fungus. A good assessment asks whether the evidence separates the option's effect from everything else that changed. Diagram 1: a dashed "other causes" arrow points at the same outcome.

   • A causal chain behind one option (Source 4, paragraph 1)

     Rankin reports that "Under moist conditions the ascospores are shot forcibly out in the air where they can be caught up by the wind". Trace what this means for the immune zone.

     Result: Rain, then spores in the air, then wind, then new infections far from known trees. If that chain is real, a narrow zone can be jumped, so the zone must be wider; a wider zone means more scouting, more owners and more money. One fact about spores changes the cost of the whole option. Matrix: evidence and cost columns for the immune zone.

   • Collective action and private rights (Source 1, paragraphs 3-4)

     Under the Act, if an owner refuses to co-operate, the Commission may destroy the trees after "twenty days' notice" and collect the cost, but owners may appeal, and healthy trees destroyed "are to be paid for at current stumpage prices". Assess this design.

     Result: The Act uses a strong lever (state power over private land) and softens it with notice, appeal and payment. That raises a causal question: will safeguards win the cooperation the plan needs, or will resistance slow the work? Source 3, paragraph 2 offers one answer from Connecticut experience. Matrix: side effects column.

   • Self-reflection: how values shape an assessment (Source 3, paragraphs 1 and 3)

     Mickleborough measures the appropriation against the value of the trees; Merkel says the "everlasting shame" of making "no attempt" should decide the matter. What does each speaker assume?

     Result: Mickleborough assumes that the right test is money spent against value at risk; Merkel assumes that trying has worth even if it fails. Neither assumption is a fact about the fungus. Before ranking options, students write down which assumption their own draft ranking leans on, and ask whether the ranking would change if they owned chestnut land, paid the taxes, or studied fungi.

3. Guided Practice20 minutes

   Step 1 (5 minutes): rank before you know the ending. Each student ranks the options in Diagram 2 using only Sources 1-4 and writes one sentence on the assumption that most shaped the ranking.

   Step 2 (5 minutes): read Source 5. It was written fourteen years after the conference by two pathologists of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

   1The parasitic fungus which causes the disease of chestnut known as the blight or bark disease was brought into the United States from Asia on small nursery trees before this country had enacted plant-quarantine laws. As is often the case with introduced plant and insect pests, the chestnut-blight organism proved to be a more virulent parasite in the home of its adoption than in its native habitat. Millions of acres of chestnut, dead and dying as a result of this introduction, bear mute testimony to the need of proper plant-quarantine laws. The chestnut blight was first observed and recognized as a new disease in this country at New York City in 1904, though it must have been present for some time previous to that date. To-day the chestnut north of the Potomac River and east of the Allegheny Mountains has been laid waste by the blight fungus. The remaining American chestnut stands of the southern Appalachian Mountains face certain destruction.

   [...]

   2North of the Mason and Dixon line from 10 to 40 per cent of the value of the standing chestnut was lost through deterioration which followed blight. In the South, where the stand contains a larger proportion of chestnut, heavier loss threatens unless the rate of cutting is immediately increased. Eventual destruction of all commercial chestnut by the blight is inevitable. Consequently each owner of chestnut is forced to decide for himself what part of his timber can be salvaged at a profit. He must weigh the value of the material, the difficulty of getting it out and ready for market, its transportation to the point of sale, and the labor and equipment available for performing the task within a limited time.

   [...]

   3Sawed chestnut lumber is much in demand, but because of the blight the market tends to be glutted. [...]

   [...]

   4Since direct control of chestnut blight is impracticable, the discovery of suitable strains of chestnut resistant to the disease is highly desirable. Individual native chestnuts show differences in susceptibility to attack, but the number of trees actually surviving in regions where blight has been present longest is very small. Search for many years has disclosed only a few native specimens. Some of these trees are being propagated and further studied with the hope of developing a strain of American chestnut sufficiently resistant to attain maturity in the presence of the disease. [...]

   5A number of Japanese and Chinese species and strains of chestnut have been brought to this country in the hope of obtaining a tree which will thrive despite the chestnut blight. None of the trees so far imported and tested have proved immune, but the Japanese chestnut (Castanea japonica) and the hairy Chinese chestnut (C. mollissima) have considerable natural resistance. [...]

   Step 3 (10 minutes): evaluate the samples. Pairs read Source 6, four invented student assessments. Tell students before they read that two of the four are deliberately weak. Pairs mark each one, test it against Sources 1-5, and rewrite the weak ones.

   1Grace: I have to start by admitting what I know that the people in Harrisburg did not: by 1926 the blight had "laid waste" the chestnut north of the Potomac (Source 5). So I tried to judge each option by what was known in 1912. On that basis, Stewart's point that the Washington test had "no check" (Source 2) was a fair warning, but Detwiler also listed results that did not depend on stopping the fungus, such as using the blight-killed wood. A decision can be reasonable even if it fails.

   2Henry: Stewart was right and Pennsylvania was wrong. The blight was never stopped, so every dollar Pennsylvania spent was wasted, and the Commission should have listened to the expert.

   3Isabel: The immune zone depended on a chain of causes. To work, it needed every infected tree found and every spore removed. But Stewart says removing "all of the fungus" was "absolutely impossible" (Source 2), and Rankin says spores can be "carried for a considerable distance" by wind (Source 4). If spores can jump a zone, the zone must be wider, which raises the cost and the number of owners who must agree, and Clinton warns that such work "made so much trouble with the farmers" (Source 3).

   4Leo: The best option was for each owner to take care of his own trees. It is their property, and the government should stay out of it.

   5Teacher's note printed with the samples: two of these four assessments are deliberately weak. Decide which two, and why.

   Teacher key (discussion points). Grace (paragraph 1) is strong: she names her hindsight, judges by what was known in 1912, and separates the quality of a decision from its outcome. Henry (paragraph 2) is weak: he judges by the ending alone, ignores the results Detwiler expected even if the fungus spread, and treats one expert as automatically right. Isabel (paragraph 3) is strong: she builds a causal chain from three sources and shows how one link raises costs and the need for cooperation. Leo (paragraph 4) is weak: he gives a value without testing it against Source 1, paragraph 1, where individual efforts failed because the disease crossed property lines.

4. Independent Practice15 minutes

   Each student writes a one-page options memo to the 1912 conference, on paper. It must assess at least three options, at least one individual and one collective, each with its lever, a causal chain with one side effect, and the evidence for and against it. It must end with a recommendation, a note on what the writer would watch to tell whether the option was working, and a self-reflection sentence naming one assumption and one piece of hindsight the writer tried to set aside.

5. Closure10 minutes

   Exit ticket: "Name one option that looked better before you read Source 5 and one that looked better after. Was the change about the option or about the ending?"

   Teacher note on the sources: the conference was called by the state that had already funded the eradication plan, so the report gives its programme the most room; the report still prints Stewart's and Clinton's dissent. The sources speak of owners as "he" and quote no farmer at length; ask whose experience of the cutting is missing.

   Quiz passage. Questions 1-8, 15, 16, 19 and 20 use Source 7, an invented scenario about a lake (paragraphs 1-4).

   1Lake Tessaly is an invented 300-acre lake shared by two towns. Three summers ago, a swimmer found a thick water plant near the public boat ramp. The plant, called ribbonweed here, grows from small broken pieces as well as from roots. Biologists at the state university say it was first brought to the country for home aquariums and has since spread to lakes in many parts of the world.

   2The weed covered about 2 acres the first summer, 6 acres the second and 15 acres this summer. It grows fastest in warm, shallow water that receives fertilizer washing off lawns. Five other lakes in the county share boaters, who often launch at more than one lake in a week.

   3The lake association, a club of property owners, has listed five options. (1) Owners hand-pull the weed by their own docks. (2) The association rents a harvesting boat for $40,000 a summer; the machine cuts the plants but leaves floating pieces. (3) The towns build a boat-cleaning station at the ramp for $12,000 and pay a summer attendant. (4) The association applies to the state for a permit to treat the weed with an herbicide; one of the towns draws its drinking water from the lake. (5) The association watches and measures the weed for one more year.

   4Residents see the options differently. Dana Kowal, who runs the bait shop, fears that a cleaning station will slow traffic at the ramp and send boaters to other lakes. Victor Osei, a lakefront owner, wants the harvester at once. The water superintendent of one town says no chemical will be allowed near the intake without long testing. A high school student has begun mapping the weed each month for a science project.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which of the five options in Source 7 depends most on individual action?

   AThe towns build a boat-cleaning station BThe association rents a harvesting boat CThe association applies for a state permit DOwners hand-pull weed at their docks

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which option could make the problem worse through a side effect?

   AHand-pulling by owners BRenting the harvesting boat CMeasuring for one more year DBuilding the cleaning station

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   About what percent of the 300-acre lake does the weed cover this summer?

   A2% B5% C15% D23%

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   If the weed grows next summer by the same factor as this summer (from 6 to 15 acres), about how many acres will it cover?

   A24 acres B30 acres C37.5 acres D45 acres

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which of these is a regional lever of power in Source 7?

   AThe lake association's members BThe bait shop owner CThe state's herbicide permit DThe student's science project

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Victor Osei, a lakefront owner, wants the harvester at once (paragraph 4). Which question would best help him reflect on his own position?

   AWould I pick it if I lived far away and paid the same? BWhich of the five options costs the most money each summer? CHow many boaters launch at the ramp each week in summer? DWhen did the swimmer first find the weed near the ramp?

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   The plant "was first brought to the country for home aquariums" (Source 7, paragraph 1). Which option does this global link suggest that is not on the association's list?

   AA second boat-cleaning station on the lake BA larger harvesting boat for next summer CMore owners pulling the weed by hand DRules on selling the plant for aquariums

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Dana Kowal fears that a cleaning station will send boaters to other lakes (paragraph 4). In a causal chain, what does her concern add?

   AProof that the station would not remove pieces BA reason the weed grows in warm, shallow water CA possible effect on sales and other lakes DA cause of the weed reaching Lake Tessaly

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which reason does Stewart give for thinking the immune zone could not succeed (Source 2, paragraph 3)?

   ASome ways spores spread cannot be prevented BChestnut wood had no value to its owners CPennsylvania's Commission had no legal powers DThe blight had already begun to disappear

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Which claim in Stewart's 1912 talk does the 1926 circular (Source 5) contradict?

    AThat moderate funds for research were worth spending BThat the fungus had not come recently from abroad CThat cutting cannot remove every spore from a stump DThat an experiment without a check proves little

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Why did Pennsylvania make no immediate attempt to wipe out the disease east of its immune zone (Source 1, paragraph 2)?

    AThe disease had not yet reached the eastern counties BEastern owners had refused to let inspectors in CEffort was needed farther west; markets were poor DCongress had forbidden state work in the east

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Clinton says that with re-infection "You would have to keep at it forever" (Source 3, paragraph 2). What does this add to the assessment of the immune zone?

    AThe zone would need lasting money and effort BThe zone would finish its work in one season CThe zone would cost nothing after the first year DThe zone would make research no longer needed

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Rankin says that about how the fungus spreads "we have nothing except secondary evidence" (Source 4, paragraph 1). What does this imply for choosing among options?

    AThe immune zone was certain to work BEach causal chain had unproven links CBirds were proved to carry the spores DNo more research would be useful

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    By 1926, "each owner of chestnut is forced to decide for himself what part of his timber can be salvaged at a profit" (Source 5, paragraph 2). What kind of option is this?

    AA collective plan run by the state BA global agreement on chestnut trade CA ban on cutting dead chestnut trees DAn individual economic decision

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    Compare two options from Source 7 using causal reasoning. For each, trace a chain of at least two steps and name one side effect.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Choose two residents in Source 7 and explain how each one's position shapes how they rank the options. Then name one assumption of your own that affects your ranking.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Pennsylvania appropriated $275,000, and the Governor valued the state's chestnut trees at $40,000,000 (Source 3, paragraphs 1 and 3). What percent of that value is the appropriation, to two decimal places? At what value would it be exactly one-half of one percent, as Mickleborough suggests a careful count would show?

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Stewart predicted, "It is unlikely that the chestnut will be exterminated" (Source 2, paragraph 5). Using Source 5, assess how well this prediction held up by 1926, and explain why the answer depends on what "exterminated" means.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    Write a recommendation, on paper, for the Lake Tessaly association: a combination of at least one individual and one collective option. Support it with causal reasoning, name the lever each part needs, and name one thing the association should measure to tell whether it is working.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Pennsylvania's Act let the Commission destroy an unwilling owner's trees after notice, but allowed appeals and paid for healthy trees (Source 1, paragraphs 3-4). If the Lake Tessaly towns made boat cleaning compulsory, which of these safeguards should they copy, and how might each affect cooperation?

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D4.7.9-12: 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.