Overview

Lesson Procedure

70-70 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction20 minutes
3. Guided Practice15 minutes
4. Independent Practice20 minutes
5. Closure5 minutes

1. Warm-Up10 minutes

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "Is it ever wise to turn down something good (money, a marriage, a move to a bigger world) to keep something you already have? Write two sentences, then name one thing that would make you unsure of your answer."

   Take a few answers and write the "unsure" reasons on the board; they are the seed of today's writing skill. Then set up Text 1. In Sarah Orne Jewett's "A White Heron" (1886), nine-year-old Sylvia lives with her grandmother on a poor farm in the woods. A young ornithologist, who shoots and stuffs birds for his collection, offers ten dollars to anyone who can show him the rare white heron's nest. At dawn Sylvia climbs a great pine and sees where the heron lives. Read the ending aloud and ask: What does Sylvia decide, and what does the narrator think of her choice?

   1“Sylvy, Sylvy!” called the busy old grandmother again and again, but nobody answered, and the small husk bed was empty, and Sylvia had disappeared.

   2The guest waked from a dream, and remembering his day’s pleasure hurried to dress himself that it might sooner begin. He was sure from the way the shy little girl looked once or twice yesterday that she had at least seen the white heron, and now she must really be persuaded to tell. Here she comes now, paler than ever, and her worn old frock is torn and tattered, and smeared with pine pitch. The grandmother and the sportsman stand in the door together and question her, and the splendid moment has come to speak of the dead hemlock-tree by the green marsh.

   3But Sylvia does not speak after all, though the old grandmother fretfully rebukes her, and the young man’s kind appealing eyes are looking straight in her own. He can make them rich with money; he has promised it, and they are poor now. He is so well worth making happy, and he waits to hear the story she can tell.

   4No, she must keep silence! What is it that suddenly forbids her and makes her dumb? Has she been nine years growing, and now, when the great world for the first time puts out a hand to her, must she thrust it aside for a bird’s sake? The murmur of the pine’s green branches is in her ears, she remembers how the white heron came flying through the golden air and how they watched the sea and the morning together, and Sylvia cannot speak; she cannot tell the heron’s secret and give its life away.

   5Dear loyalty, that suffered a sharp pang as the guest went away disappointed later in the day, that could have served and followed him and loved him as a dog loves! Many a night Sylvia heard the echo of his whistle haunting the pasture path as she came home with the loitering cow. She forgot even her sorrow at the sharp report of his gun and the piteous sight of thrushes and sparrows dropping silent to the ground, their songs hushed and their pretty feathers stained and wet with blood. Were the birds better friends than their hunter might have been,—who can tell? Whatever treasures were lost to her, woodlands and summer-time, remember! Bring your gifts and graces and tell your secrets to this lonely country child!

2. Direct Instruction20 minutes

   W.11-12.9 asks students to draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection and research, applying the grade 11-12 Reading standards. For literature (standard a), the example is RL.11-12.9: showing knowledge of foundational American works of the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including how two or more texts from the same period treat similar themes. The evidence itself must meet RL.11-12.1: strong and thorough textual evidence, including determining where the text leaves matters uncertain.

   Now read Text 2. In Mary E. Wilkins's "A New England Nun" (1891), Louisa Ellis has waited fourteen years while her fiancé, Joe Dagget, made his fortune in Australia. Over those years she has built a quiet, exact life: her sewing, her caged canary, and an old dog named Caesar, kept chained for fourteen years because he once bit a neighbor. Joe wants to let the dog loose. The night before this passage, Louisa overheard Joe and a young woman, Lily Dyer, admit they love each other, although Joe means to keep his promise to Louisa.

   A comparative paragraph at this level does more than list likenesses. It states a thesis about both texts, supports each point with quotations from both, explains a difference as well as a similarity, and says honestly where a text refuses to settle a question. Diagram 1 shows one way to build it.

   1She never mentioned Lily Dyer. She simply said that while she had no cause of complaint against him, she had lived so long in one way that she shrank from making a change.

   2"Well, I never shrank, Louisa," said Dagget. "I'm going to be honest enough to say that I think maybe it's better this way; but if you'd wanted to keep on, I'd have stuck to you till my dying day. I hope you know that."

   3"Yes, I do," said she.

   4That night she and Joe parted more tenderly than they had done for a long time. Standing in the door, holding each other's hands, a last great wave of regretful memory swept over them.

   5"Well, this ain't the way we've thought it was all going to end, is it, Louisa?" said Joe.

   6She shook her head. There was a little quiver on her placid face.

   7"You let me know if there's ever anything I can do for you," said he. "I ain't ever going to forget you, Louisa." Then he kissed her, and went down the path.

   8Louisa, all alone by herself that night, wept a little, she hardly knew why; but the next morning, on waking, she felt like a queen who, after fearing lest her domain be wrested away from her, sees it firmly insured in her possession.

   9Now the tall weeds and grasses might cluster around Cæsar's little hermit hut, the snow might fall on its roof year in and year out, but he never would go on a rampage through the unguarded village. Now the little canary might turn itself into a peaceful yellow ball night after night, and have no need to wake and flutter with wild terror against its bars. Louisa could sew linen seams, and distil roses, and dust and polish and fold away in lavender, as long as she listed. That afternoon she sat with her needle-work at the window, and felt fairly steeped in peace. Lily Dyer, tall and erect and blooming, went past; but she felt no qualm. If Louisa Ellis had sold her birthright she did not know it, the taste of the pottage was so delicious, and had been her sole satisfaction for so long. Serenity and placid narrowness had become to her as the birthright itself. She gazed ahead through a long reach of future days strung together like pearls in a rosary, every one like the others, and all smooth and flawless and innocent, and her heart went up in thankfulness. Outside was the fervid summer afternoon; the air was filled with the sounds of the busy harvest of men and birds and bees; there were halloos, metallic clatterings, sweet calls, and long hummings. Louisa sat, prayerfully numbering her days, like an uncloistered nun.

   • A shared theme, shown with evidence from both texts

     Jewett: Sylvia keeps silent because "she cannot tell the heron's secret and give its life away" (Text 1, paragraph 4). Freeman: Louisa "felt like a queen who, after fearing lest her domain be wrested away from her, sees it firmly insured in her possession" (Text 2, paragraph 8).

     Result: Both heroines protect a small world of their own against a man who would change it. Written as a point: "In both endings a woman turns down a man's larger world to keep a smaller one that is hers." One quotation from each text makes the point thorough; one from only one text would not.

   • A difference in how the theme is treated

     Jewett's narrator speaks directly to nature on Sylvia's behalf: "woodlands and summer-time, remember! Bring your gifts and graces" (Text 1, paragraph 5). Freeman's narrator describes Louisa's content in words that cut both ways: "Serenity and placid narrowness had become to her as the birthright itself" (Text 2, paragraph 9).

     Result: Jewett takes Sylvia's side; Freeman keeps a cool distance, and "narrowness" is not a word of praise. The theme is the same, but the attitude toward it differs, and a strong comparison names that difference instead of stopping at the likeness.

   • Where the text leaves matters uncertain

     Jewett asks whether the birds were "better friends than their hunter might have been" and answers, "who can tell?" (Text 1, paragraph 5). Freeman writes, "If Louisa Ellis had sold her birthright she did not know it" (Text 2, paragraph 9), an allusion to Esau, who sold his birthright for a bowl of pottage (stew) in Genesis 25.

     Result: Both authors raise the possibility that the choice was a loss and then decline to answer. An essay should not pretend they answered. It can say so directly: "Jewett poses the question and leaves it open; Freeman's "if" does the same." The uncertainty becomes evidence about each author's purpose.

   Text 5 is a model comparative paragraph. Have students label its thesis, the point of similarity, the point of difference, the sentence that acknowledges uncertainty, and the final sentence that says why the comparison matters.

   1Jewett and Freeman both end their stories with a woman guarding a small, private world against a man who offers her a larger one, but the two writers judge that choice differently. Sylvia refuses because "she cannot tell the heron's secret and give its life away" (Text 1, paragraph 4), and Louisa, once free, feels "like a queen" whose domain is "firmly insured in her possession" (Text 2, paragraph 8). The similarity ends with the narrators. Jewett's narrator takes Sylvia's side and calls on nature to repay her: "woodlands and summer-time, remember! Bring your gifts and graces" (Text 1, paragraph 5). Freeman's narrator keeps a cool distance, and her final image, Louisa "prayerfully numbering her days, like an uncloistered nun" (Text 2, paragraph 9), makes the choice look devout and a little airless at once. Yet neither writer closes the question. Jewett admits, "Were the birds better friends than their hunter might have been,—who can tell?" (paragraph 5). Read together, the stories show two New England writers of the same decade weighing, and refusing to settle, what a woman's solitude is worth.

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   For literary nonfiction (standard b), the grade 11-12 example is RI.11-12.8: delineate and evaluate the reasoning in seminal U.S. texts, including the application of constitutional principles and the use of legal reasoning in Supreme Court majority opinions and dissents. Abrams v. United States (1919) is such a case. Five Russian-born defendants were convicted under the Espionage Act, as amended in 1918, for leaflets they printed and threw from a window in New York City in August 1918. The leaflets attacked the sending of U.S. troops into Russia and urged workers in ammunition factories to strike. The Court affirmed the convictions by a vote of 7 to 2. Earlier in the opinion, the majority says the First Amendment objection had already been answered in Schenck v. United States (1919), so the excerpts turn to the evidence of intent. Justice Holmes, who had written the Court's opinion in Schenck, dissented, joined by Justice Brandeis.

   Terms to know: a verdict is the jury's decision; intent is what a person meant to bring about; surreptitious means secret. Read Text 3 (the majority) and then Text 4 (the dissent). Diagram 2 lays the two opinions side by side.

   1[...] A question of law is thus presented, which calls for an examination of the record, not for the purpose of weighing conflicting testimony, but only to determine whether there was some evidence, competent and substantial, before the jury, fairly tending to sustain the verdict.

   [...]

   2It will not do to say, as is now argued, that the only intent of these defendants was to prevent injury to the Russian cause. Men must be held to have intended, and to be accountable for, the effects which their acts were likely to produce. Even if their primary purpose and intent was to aid the cause of the Russian Revolution, the plan of action which they adopted necessarily involved, before it could be realized, defeat of the war program of the United States, for the obvious effect of this appeal, if it should become effective, as they hoped it might, would be to persuade persons of character such as those whom they regarded themselves as addressing, not to aid government loans and not to work in ammunition factories, where their work would produce "bullets, bayonets, cannon" and other munitions of war, the use of which would cause the "murder" of Germans and Russians.

   [...]

   3These excerpts sufficiently show, that while the immediate occasion for this particular outbreak of lawlessness, on the part of the defendant alien anarchists, may have been resentment caused by our Government sending troops into Russia as a strategic operation against the Germans on the eastern battle front, yet the plain purpose of their propaganda was to excite, at the supreme crisis of the war, disaffection, sedition, riots, and, as they hoped, revolution, in this country for the purpose of embarrassing and if possible defeating the military plans of the Government in Europe. [...]

   1But as against dangers peculiar to war, as against others, the principle of the right to free speech is always the same. It is only the present danger of immediate evil or an intent to bring it about that warrants Congress in setting a limit to the expression of opinion where private rights are not concerned. Congress certainly cannot forbid all effort to change the mind of the country. Now nobody can suppose that the surreptitious publishing of a silly leaflet by an unknown man, without more, would present any immediate danger that its opinions would hinder the success of the government arms or have any appreciable tendency to do so.

   [...]

   2Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole-heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. [...]

   • Delineating the majority's legal reasoning

     The majority states a rule: "Men must be held to have intended, and to be accountable for, the effects which their acts were likely to produce" (Text 3, paragraph 2).

     Result: Delineated: (1) people are presumed to intend the likely effects of their acts; (2) the likely effect of the leaflets was to keep workers from making munitions and buying war loans; (3) so the defendants intended to hinder the war, whatever their stated purpose. To evaluate, test the premise: how likely were those effects, and does "likely" say enough about a small, secret leaflet?

   • Delineating the constitutional principle in the dissent

     Holmes argues that "the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas," that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market," and he calls this "the theory of our Constitution" (Text 4, paragraph 2).

     Result: Holmes reasons from the purpose of the First Amendment: speech is protected because open competition among ideas is the best test of truth. Evaluating it means naming the premise it rests on (truth tends to win when ideas compete freely) and asking whether the rest of his argument depends on it.

   Pairs complete the comparison table below, with a short quotation in every cell. The quiz checks several rows, so leave them blank on the projected copy.

   Majority and dissent in Abrams (pairs fill in the blank cells)

   Question	Majority (Text 3)	Dissent (Text 4)
   What question is the Court deciding?
   How is intent proved?
   How much danger must speech pose?
   What role does the Constitution play in the reasoning?
   How are the leaflets and their writers described?

4. Independent Practice20 minutes

   Read Text 6, a weak first draft about Abrams. For each numbered sentence, students write the problem in a few words (for example: summary, judges tone instead of reasoning, dropped quotation, misrepresents a position, conclusion goes beyond the text, unsupported conclusion). Then they rewrite it as a paragraph of 150-200 words that evaluates the reasoning of both opinions with strong and thorough evidence and names one question the texts leave open.

   The quiz uses Texts 1-6 (Warm-Up, Direct Instruction, Guided Practice and this phase). Paragraph numbers match the numbers beside each text.

   1[1] Abrams v. United States was a Supreme Court case from 1919 about some leaflets. [2] The majority was right, because the leaflets were really offensive and said mean things about President Wilson. [3] Holmes says, "It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment." [4] Holmes believes people should be allowed to say anything at any time, even if their words cause immediate danger. [5] The majority says the defendants "must be held to have intended" the effects of their acts, which proves the defendants wanted Germany to win the war. [6] In the end, both opinions are equally convincing.

5. Closure5 minutes

   Exit ticket: (1) Write one sentence that compares Texts 1 and 2 and one that evaluates either Text 3 or Text 4, each with a quotation. (2) Reflection: which was harder today, comparing two stories or weighing two legal arguments, and why?

   Hand out the homework texts below: Emily Dickinson's poem from Poems (1890), published between the two story collections of 1886 and 1891 (Text 7), and two paragraphs of The Federalist No. 51 (Text 8).

   Teacher notes: (1) Text 3 keeps the Court's own words, including "the defendant alien anarchists" and "this particular outbreak of lawlessness." Earlier in the opinion the Court reports that all five defendants were born in Russia and had not applied for naturalization, and that three of the four who testified called themselves "anarchists" (the fourth called himself a "socialist"). The label therefore rests partly on the record, but it applies one word to all five, and like "lawlessness" it is a characterization, not evidence; students can weigh such word choices when they evaluate the majority's reasoning. The omitted pages quote the leaflets at length, including their attacks on President Wilson, which this page leaves out. (2) The Supreme Court later moved closer to Holmes's view of speech; students who research this in Activity 3 should still evaluate each 1919 opinion on its own reasoning. (3) Jewett's young man is called "the guest," "the sportsman" and "their hunter" in Text 1; the change of names is worth noticing.

   1The soul selects her own society,
   Then shuts the door;
   On her divine majority
   Obtrude no more.

   5Unmoved, she notes the chariot's pausing
   At her low gate;
   Unmoved, an emperor is kneeling
   Upon her mat.

   I've known her from an ample nation
   10Choose one;
   Then close the valves of her attention
   Like stone.

   1But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defence must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of Government. But what is Government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no Government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on Government would be necessary. In framing a Government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the Government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the People is, no doubt, the primary control on the Government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

   2This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power; where the constant aim is, to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other; that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Text 1, paragraph 3, what does Sylvia give up by keeping silent?

   AMoney her poor household needs, and the approval of a man she admires BA place at a city school the young man had offered to pay for CThe farm, which the young man had offered to buy from her grandmother DThe heron itself, which the young man had promised to keep alive

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Text 1, paragraph 4, the narrator asks whether, "when the great world for the first time puts out a hand to her," Sylvia "must thrust it aside for a bird's sake." What does "the great world" most likely stand for?

   AThe view of the sea that Sylvia saw from the top of the pine BThe wider life of money, society and notice the young man brings CHer grandmother's wish to move the family into a nearby market town DThe woods and wild animals that Sylvia has always known

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which detail in Text 1, paragraph 5, most complicates a reader's sympathy for the young man?

   A"Many a night Sylvia heard the echo of his whistle haunting the pasture path" B"could have served and followed him and loved him as a dog loves" C"the piteous sight of thrushes and sparrows dropping silent to the ground" D"as she came home with the loitering cow"

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which pair of quotations best supports the claim that both heroines keep something secret to protect what they value?

   A"Sylvia had disappeared" (Text 1) and "Then he kissed her, and went down the path." (Text 2) B"he waits to hear the story she can tell" (Text 1) and "Yes, I do," said she. (Text 2) C"the small husk bed was empty" (Text 1) and "She shook her head." (Text 2) D"No, she must keep silence!" (Text 1) and "She never mentioned Lily Dyer." (Text 2)

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Why does Louisa, according to Text 2, paragraph 1, never mention Lily Dyer to Joe?

   AShe has forgotten what she overheard the night before BShe wants Joe to believe she has no reason at all for ending it CShe lets Joe go without blaming him or revealing what she heard DShe plans to tell Lily's family about Joe instead

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Text 2, paragraph 2, Joe answers, "Well, I never shrank, Louisa." What does his reply suggest?

   AHe is angry and means to change her mind before he leaves the house BHe never cared much for Louisa and is glad the engagement is over CHe did not understand what Louisa was trying to tell him that night DHe would have kept his promise, yet he admits he is relieved

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Text 2, paragraph 8, says Louisa "wept a little, she hardly knew why" before feeling "like a queen" the next morning. What does the weeping add to the ending?

   AA brief, unexplained sense of loss before her relief BProof that she regrets her choice and will call Joe back CEvidence that Joe has treated her cruelly over the years DA sign that she is ill and could not have married anyway

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Text 2, paragraph 9, ends: "Outside was the fervid summer afternoon; the air was filled with the sounds of the busy harvest of men and birds and bees." What effect does this sentence have?

   AIt shows that Louisa has decided to join the harvest BIt sets the busy life outside against Louisa's quiet room CIt explains why Joe went to Australia fourteen years ago DIt proves that Louisa is unhappy with the choice she made

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to Text 3, paragraph 1, what does the Court say it must decide?

   AWhether the jury weighed all the conflicting testimony correctly BWhether the leaflets are protected speech under the First Amendment CWhether the defendants wanted Germany to win the war DWhether some competent, substantial evidence supported the verdict

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In Text 3, paragraph 3, how does the majority handle the defendants' anger at U.S. troops being sent to Russia?

    AIt grants that anger as the occasion but finds a different plain purpose BIt accepts the anger as proof that the defendants meant no harm to the war CIt calls the anger a story the defendants invented for their trial DIt says the leaflets never mention Russia or the troops at all

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In Text 4, paragraph 1, what does Holmes say about free speech in wartime?

    AFree speech is suspended until the war is over BCongress may punish any speech that criticizes a war CThe principle is the same in war, though war brings its own dangers DOnly citizens, and not immigrants, keep their free speech during a war

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Why does Holmes mention "the surreptitious publishing of a silly leaflet by an unknown man" (Text 4, paragraph 1)?

    ATo show that the leaflet was more dangerous than it first appeared to be BTo argue that such a leaflet posed no immediate danger to the war CTo criticize the jury for believing what the defendants said DTo prove that the defendants did not write the leaflets at all

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In Text 6, what is the main problem with sentence [4]?

    AIt misstates Holmes, who allows limits on speech posing immediate danger BIt quotes Holmes but gives no paragraph number for the quoted words CIt confuses Holmes's dissent with the majority opinion of Justice Clarke DIt is only a summary and makes no claim about Holmes at all

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In Text 6, what is the main problem with sentence [5]?

    AThe quoted words "must be held to have intended" are not found in Text 3 BIt confuses the majority opinion with the dissent written by Holmes CIt gives the majority a claim about Germany that Text 3 never makes DIt gives the wrong year for the Supreme Court's decision in this case

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    Text 2, paragraph 9, says that Caesar "never would go on a rampage through the unguarded village" and that the canary need never "flutter with wild terror against its bars." Explain two ways to read these images, and quote the text for each.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Write a thesis sentence for a comparative essay on Texts 1 and 2 that names a likeness, a difference, and something the texts leave uncertain. Then name the two quotations you would use first.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Holmes calls the Constitution's protection of free speech "an experiment, as all life is an experiment" (Text 4, paragraph 2). Explain how this comparison supports his argument, and identify one assumption it depends on.

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Which constitutional principle does each opinion rely on, and how does each apply it? Use one quotation from Text 3 and one from Text 4.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    Rewrite sentence [2] of Text 6 so that it evaluates the majority's reasoning instead of the leaflets' tone. Include one quotation from Text 3.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Research: You want to know whether Holmes changed his mind between Schenck v. United States (March 1919) and his dissent in Abrams (November 1919). Write a focused research question, name the primary source you would read first, and explain what you would compare.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to W.11-12.9: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

Standard text: Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy. © Copyright 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.