Monday, May 10 (6:00 hours logged today)

This morning, I taught my new and improved gerrymandering lesson to one of Ann’s 10th Grade History sections! I had spent the weekend preparing new elements that would extend the lesson from 40 to 90 minutes and make it more interactive for students. Here is what the Google Slides looked like after my late-night prep session the night before:

It’s quite bloated, I know. Before I began, Ann reminded me that I would be working with a group that was not as politically savvy as I was; the presentation contained too much information. I agreed—all of the maps and constitutional clauses could be confusing for a group that likely knew very little about gerrymandering. As a result, I cut the headline about New York losing a congressional seat and the map of partisan control of gerrymandering.

Before my presentation, Ann introduced the class to my Senior Project work and the importance of congressional apportionment. I was not aware that she was going to do this, and I realized my previous cuts would not be enough to compensate for lost time. However, I am very grateful for the credit that she gave to me and for giving students a primer for a very complicated subject.

As with last week’s lessons, I’m not going to walk through everything minute-by-minute. Instead, I’ll summarize some of my points of success and points for improvement:

Points of Success

• The clip from Slay the Dragon that connected the Flint Water Crisis to gerrymandering (which I raved about in last Thursday’s entry). This clip landed especially well with the students, most of whom had no idea such a connection existed. The images from the film were very emotionally charged, further showing how an issue so shrouded with secrecy and partisan trickery is still something that affects real people.
• TEDed video and Washington Post infographic on gerrymandering strategies. Students needed to understand “packing” and “cracking” to do the Jamboard activity, and I was glad that most of them caught on after seeing these two bits.
• My new article exploration activity (slide 11). Students split into four groups, with each examining the effects of gerrymandering on a different congressional district. Each group brought a variety of insights on gerrymandering—from the fact that both parties do it (to different extents) to how race is used as a factor in undermining Democratic-leaning communities. Here are some of the things that the students shared:

• Jamboard activity. This one was already a proven winner with the Minnesota students. Its hands-on nature allowed students to grasp gerrymandering in a way that no video or article could describe. Most students got cracking (here) on their maps right away, and the ones that were confused had no problem asking for clarification. Here’s what everybody came up with:

Points for Improvement

• Introduction with TX-35. My image-association exercise and maps of the congressional district all built up to this question: why would a liberal bastion such as Austin be represented by five Republicans and only one Democrat? To me, this is a fascinating question, and the outline of TX-35 is such a striking example of gerrymandering. Regardless, I don’t think this intro landed as well as it should have. Students were a bit slow to make associations with the district’s outline (which I suppose can be owed, in part, to it being the beginning of the class). I think I could have improved this part by posing the question to the class—students, why do YOU think Austin is represented in this way? Does that seem FAIR for such a Democratic-leaning city?
• Discussion periods after both activities. As I wrote above, the activities themselves were successful. However, I should have left students much more time to process the information. I was particularly disappointed that we did not have long to discuss the “how did you feel” question at the end of the Jamboard exercise because that was what the entire lesson was building towards. I think the lack of discussion was a symptom of two problems: too much of me lecturing over slides, and too many slides altogether. Here are some solutions I will consider for tomorrow:
  • Moving the Slay the Dragon clip to the very beginning of the presentation. Having students consider the “who cares” question first might draw them in better.
  • Cut the “think, pair, share” exercise from slide 5. I think it unnecessarily dragged out the beginning of the lesson. Just sharing out would work.
  • Either cut the North Carolina results slide, or make them more interactive. Eliminate the conclusion and try to encourage students to arrive at it themselves.
  • Change something with the “evidence of Michigan gerrymandering” slide. Maybe have a turn-and-talk for ~ 3 minutes for students to analyze the numbers?
  • Get rid of both of the constitutional quotes. Unless I allow more time for students to digest them, I don’t think they are essential to understanding gerrymandering. 
  • Consolidate the slides “two basic rules of redistricting” slides. Having this on two separate slides made it a bit confusing for students, and I ended up just skipping them altogether to make time for the Jamboard.

Finally, here is some of the feedback I got on my Google Form. About half of the students have responded so far:

Despite the time management issues, I am really proud of how my first 90-minute lesson went. I hear tomorrow’s group might be even tougher than today’s, so I will be sure to make some of the improvements I suggested above.

 

Tuesday, May 11 (3:42 hours logged today)

Today marked my second lesson with Ann’s 10th Grade U.S. History class, and I think this one went far better than yesterday’s! 

I implemented most of the changes I suggested in yesterday’s entry. Here’s what the slideshow looked like today:

Points of Success

• I offered many more opportunities for students to discuss and pose questions. This was especially apparent after the Jamboard activity. Students seemed much more curious and reflective, many of them pointing out how easy it was to get lost in a “game” mindset during the exercise.
• I did not get too bogged down in the technical. I am very glad that I cleaned up some of the slides during the second half of the presentation (after the “mechanics of gerrymandering” title slides) since this allowed students to focus just on the main ideas. This point is still something I struggle with, which you can read more about in my fifth critical reflection.
• This lesson was more optimistic than yesterday’s. I spent more time with the “which body gets to draw the lines?” map and explained independent redistricting commissions more in-depth. I told students about the 2018 grassroots campaign in Michigan to establish one of these commissions, and I hope this gave some the hope that even though the politicians and the Supreme Court will do nothing about gerrymandering, citizens can still make a difference by working together.
• Like yesterday, both of the hands-on activities were major highlights. Here is the Jamboard, as well as some of the students’ thoughts from the article exploration:

Points for Improvement

• I should have spent a bit more time explaining state legislatures. Students don’t need to know everything about how they function, but they at least need to know what they are. I’m not quite sure when I should have done this, though—perhaps I should have let Ann talk about state legislatures during her introduction about Congress and apportionment.
• I should have just gotten rid of the “rules of redistricting” slide. The slide came at a point where I had already been doing a lot of explaining, and it was more beneficial for students to move on to the Jamboard. Like yesterday, I ended up just skipping over it. 

Today was definitely my best lesson. I feel like I kept a great balance of introducing new information and letting students explore it for themselves. Here’s what the students had to say in my Google Form:

There’s also a great chance that it will be my second-to-last. I have one more lesson with the Minnesota Young Democrats scheduled for next Friday (I plan to present on the Electoral College). I might have the opportunity to do at least one lesson before then, but I do not currently have anything scheduled. I will update this journal when I do!

 

Thursday, May 13 (7:15 hours logged today)

* Please note that I am skipping journal entries for May 11, 13, and 15. I spent most of my time catching up on reflections, and I don’t think it would be particularly valuable to write about that work.

After spending the afternoon writing my fifth Critical Reflection, I joined several other LREI students to watch the first NYC Democratic mayoral debate. In addition to my lesson plans and activities, I want to integrate my first-time voting experience into my Voting Rights Toolkit. I already wrote about registering to vote in my May 1 entry, and I want to reflect on the debate, as well.

While I watched, I took notes on each of the candidates’ stances. I want to follow up on some of the points later on, but here they are:

Going into the debate, the only candidate whose policies I was somewhat familiar with was Andrew Yang. I sympathized with his UBI proposal during his Presidential campaign, and I thought he was one of the more forward-thinking candidates when it came to labor and automation. I also really admired how he was willing to have public conversations with controversial figures like Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro, whereas many of his Democratic colleagues shied away from such conversations.

Though Yang is currently one of the front-runners for the Democratic nominee for NYC mayor, I feel much less supportive of him now. After reading a bit about him and seeing him in the debate, here’s what I think:

• I have heard (though have not thoroughly researched) conflict of interest claims regarding his campaign’s connection to lobbyist Bradley Tusk. 
• A few days ago, Yang tweeted a statement wholeheartedly in support of Israel in its current conflict with Palestine. I thought the Tweet was insensitive to the Palestinian perspective and ignorant to the fact that far more death and destruction have been caused on their side. He has since walked back his stance, but I think there are plenty of 
• I was not impressed with Yang’s debate performance. His opening statement told me nothing of substance, his support for an “intelligence-based” approach to policing was alarming and not what I think the city needs, and he had no good excuse for his lack of voting in any previous NYC elections. Furthermore, I questioned how his essential UBI/cash relief policy would be a long-term solution to solve issues like racial disparities in education.

So Yang will probably not make my top five, but what about the other candidates? After tonight’s debate, I have some thoughts about who might and might not end up on my ballot (red = definite no, orange = maybe, green = yes):

• Maya Wiley: In my opinion, she was the definite winner of the debate and the strongest contender for my #1 vote. She outlined a progressive platform of investing in educational and mental health programs over police, using municipally-owned land to build affordable housing, and creating 100,000 jobs through a “New Deal NY” program (which I would like to read more into). I also think her experience as a civil rights lawyer and head of the CCRB would make her well-equipped to address issues of racial justice and police accountability.
• Dianne Morales: I liked some of her proposals, particularly to decriminalize sex work, invest in small businesses instead of giving tax breaks for wealthy corporations, and great green jobs. However, I don’t think she did the best at articulating the specifics of each plan—especially those last two items.
• Katharine Garcia: Garcia advertised herself as a proven “crisis manager” due to her experience as New York’s sanitation commissioner and COVID-19 “food czar.” I wish she had more time to discuss her plans. Garcia wants to only require small businesses a single permit to operate, ensure free childcare for those making less than $70,000 a year, and allow businesses to schedule their health inspections. I’m not quite sure what her stance on policing is, though. She wants to create a “culture of guardianship” between police and the people, but what would that look like?
• Scott Stringer: New York City’s comptroller sported a progressive agenda, specifically regarding education and childcare. He also has administrative experience that I think could translate well for a mayor. However, I feel uncomfortable voting for him because of the sexual harassment allegations against him. I would not want to give him a similar pass that many gave to Joe Biden when he was accused (and that some may give to Andrew Cuomo in 2022). If Stringer became mayor, that would mean I would be represented at the local, state, and federal level by men accused of sexual misconduct.
• Eric Adams: Adams comes across as a candidate who would appeal to New York liberals who are more concerned about safety than equity (not that the two are necessarily opposed). He proposed re-establishing the anti-crime police units that were disbanded in June to target guns and violent crime. In my (inadequately informed) opinion, this will only exacerbate police violence and lead to more calls to defund or abolish the police. Moreover, Adams really came off as a condescending asshole, particularly to Wiley and Morales.
• Shaun Donovan: This guy is a complete joke. He relied far too much on the “I’m the guy” refrain as HUD Secretary under President Obama. He failed to address allegations of conflict of interest with his father funding a Super PAC to support Donovan. Most of all, he seems like a federal bureaucrat that has nothing to do with New Yorkers.
• Ray McGuire: Who?

In the next few weeks, I will do some more research about the candidates.

 

Sunday, May 16 (7:41 hours logged today)

After a few days of catching up on reflections and studying the NYC Democratic mayoral candidates, I refocused my sights on Friday’s Electoral College presentation. The slideshow is fairly similar to when I last posted it on April 29, so I won’t upload it again. Instead, I’ll share the general plan I have for the lesson. Here is what I have already drafted on the slideshow:

• Begin with a Mentimeter “do now” exercise asking students what it means to be a democracy. This will stimulate students’ thoughts early on, and it will be something to circle back to later in the lesson.
• Show the world map of presidential election systems. Ask students what they notice. Ask them what system the U.S. uses, as it is the outlier among the other democratic nations.
• Ask students what they know about the Electoral College, then define it.
• Examine Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Maybe ask a student to read it.
  • Have a couple of slides about the number of electors and how many electoral votes are needed to win an election. Show examples of certain states (Minnesota and New York for Friday).

And here are some topics that I might want to discuss but still need to add/organize slides for: 

• Explain the “winner-take-all” system that 48 states employ. A2S1C2 empowers states to do this. I might touch on the fact that Maine and Nebraska appoint their electors using the congressional district method, but I don’t want to get too into the weeds.
• Introduce the concept of “swing states.” The Electoral College awards its votes to states, not people. Some states (eg. California, New York, Kansas, Kentucky) lean solidly towards one party or another—in other words, they are “safe” states. Conversely, there are some states (eg. Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania) that “swing” between parties from election to election. Because of demographic changes, some states may become more “safe” (eg. Florida) or more “swing” (eg. Texas and Georgia) over time.
• Walk through what happened in the 2016 Election. This should be an example that students are already familiar with, but may not know the details of the electoral map. See this Washington Post article for the types of things I want to present on.
  • Maybe do a similar exercise for the 2020 Election (or let students do it!). What did Biden do differently from Clinton? How could Trump have won?
• Big Discussion:
  • Ask students to hypothesize about why we have an Electoral College. Circle back to the map from the beginning—why are we the odd ones out? Perhaps bring in some quotes from Federalist 68, and maybe touch on the Electoral College’s connection to slavery.
  • What are some pros and cons of the Electoral College? Given the fact that they are the Young Democrats—two groups that have been statistically shown to oppose the Electoral College—I’m sure they will be quick to point out the cons. If I have this discussion, I should be prepared to be a “devil’s advocate” and pose some arguments in favor of the institution.
  • Circle back to the students’ Mentimeter responses from the beginning of the class. Ask them how the Electoral College fits with their understanding of “democracy.” Discuss the topics we have covered together—gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the Electoral College. What can we do about these barriers to democracy (assuming a premise here, but I already know what the students think about those first two topics)?
    • When it comes to “what can we do,” I can bring up the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact campaign. A National Popular Vote bill has passed in the Democrat-controlled Minnesota State House but is still moving through the Republican-controlled State Senate. National Popular Vote’s Minnesota page recommends several actions that I might refer to the students.

That’s about all I have planned for the lesson so far. I wish I could have a more formal debate about the Electoral College, but I only have 40 minutes on Friday. For the larger course, I will try to include the long-form debate, but that’s not as high on my priority list. 

Tomorrow, I plan to work on my sixth Critical Reflection and make as much progress on my Electoral College lesson as possible.